A Safer World: Treating Britain’s harmful dependence on nuclear weapons 1 A Safer World: Treating Britain’s harmful dependence on nuclear weapons

Contents Foreword  2 Chapter 1 Can we afford a nuclear war? 3 Effects of nuclear weapons 5 The state of nuclear weapons 7 Is the possession and threatened use of nuclear weapons justifiable? 8

Chapter 2 Deterrence: a strategy destined to fail? 9 Living on a knife edge 10 Effective missile defence is unrealistic 14

Chapter 3 The economic folly of Trident 17 The high price of a nuclear deterrent 18 The most expensive jobs ever created 18 How else could we spend the Trident budget? 19

Chapter 4 Why a Ban Treaty 21 Preventing proliferation; promoting disarmament 21 A new approach is needed 23 The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons 24 What next for Britain and its Legal and Moral Duties? 25 Multilateral disarmament is feasible 27

Chapter 5 What can be done by health professionals 29 The mandate and duty of health professionals 29 Health professionals making a difference 30

Practical actions 32 Endnotes 33

Acknowledgements Report Authors: David McCoy, Frank Boulton, Feryal Awan

Contributors: Andy Haines, Paul Ingram, Judith Macdonald, Elizabeth Waterston, John Loretz and Michael Orgel.

Thanks to Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust and Polden Puckham Foundation for financial support

Medact A Safer World: Treating Britain’s harmful dependence on nuclear weapons 2

Foreword Although Britain continues down the path of keeping and modernizing its nuclear weapons at huge cost, the world now has an international treaty banning them. On July 7th 2017, the UN General Assembly adopted, by a vote of 122 to 1, the text of a legally binding ‘instrument’ that makes it illegal for ratifying states to use, possess or produce any nuclear weapons at all. This landmark treaty signals a growing international desire to  re-invigorate efforts to protect the world from the horrors of  a nuclear war.

In this report, we expand on some of the treaty’s implications, and in doing so, argue that Britain should now abandon its possession of nuclear weapons. We explain that the dangers attached to the policy of nuclear deterrence have grown and describe why the high-risk gamble of nuclear weapon states deploying thousands of active nuclear warheads will eventually fail.

Critically, a growing body of research shows how even a limited regional nuclear war would result in environmental effects that could trigger major declines in crop yield, putting an estimated 2 billion people at risk of serious food insecurity and starvation. A large-scale nuclear war would threaten the very survival of humanity.

We also describe how nuclear deterrence is an increasingly ineffective means of protecting our national security. While nuclear weapons give us a terrifying military might, they do not prevent or counter new forms of warfare and non-state terrorism; nor can they be used to fight , extreme weather, , , antimicrobial resistance and rising levels of inequality.

Many of the biggest threats to national security are global in nature, and can only be addressed collectively through the cooperation of states and peoples. Continued possession of nuclear weapons, however, only encourages other nations to seek their own weapons, while undermining the level of international cooperation required to address many of the biggest threats to human security.

There are better ways to achieve peace and national security than through the possession of nuclear weapons. Even former policy makers from America’s cold war history such as Henry Kissinger, Sam Nunn, George Shultz and Bill Perry have declared that the nuclear weapons possessed by the US are no longer keeping the world safe and now pose an immense danger to humanity.

This is not to suggest that multilateral disarmament would be easy. It would require a great deal of hard work, skillful diplomacy and some courage. But it can be done; and it must be done. This is our simple message as doctors and health professionals.

By abandoning our reliance on an increasingly redundant and dangerous approach to national security, Britain can unleash its diplomatic prowess and soft power to take a lead on multilateral disarmament and make the world safer.

David McCoy Frank Boulton Director, Medact Trustee, Medact

Medact 3 A Safer World: Treating Britain’s harmful dependence on nuclear weapons

Chapter 1 Can we afford a nuclear war?

Nuclear war may feel like a distant threat, a relic from the Cold War. Today we’re more likely to be kept awake by fears of terrorists using improvised weapons or home-made bombs. But nuclear weapons are never far from the headlines.

US nuclear weapons test at Bikini in 1946

Medact A Safer World: Treating Britain’s harmful dependence on nuclear weapons 4

Effects of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima.

While North Korea strives on a pre-emptive first Nuclear weapons, and the to build functioning nuclear strike prompted Frants threat of their use, either weapons and the missiles to Klintsevich, of Russia’s intentionally or accidentally, carry them across continents, defence committee, to are a real and growing threat the world watches nervously; express disapproval of the to humanity. This chapter some debate whether to carefree way Fallon made describes the effects of strike first. his comment. He went on nuclear weapons and why to state that “If Britain were we cannot afford to risk a In Britain, Defence Secretary foolish enough to attack a nuclear war. Michael Fallon’s statement nuclear power, it would be in May 2017 that the wiped off the Earth by a government would consider retaliatory strike.” 1 using nuclear weapons

Medact 5 A Safer World: Treating Britain’s harmful dependence on nuclear weapons

After the US dropped their nuclear weapons on Japan in 1945, all that was left of people near the epicentres were their shadows, scorched into nearby walls. Many of today’s nuclear weapons are five to fifty times more powerful than those first weapons.

Effects of nuclear Immediate effects weapons At the heart of a nuclear The blast force and detonation, there is an incinerating heat will instantaneous flash of destroy buildings and cause radiation from the exploding widespread fires. Super- nuclear materials, and a hurricane force winds fireball of extremely hot gas cause further immense and highly radioactive debris damage. Separate fires will rises to form the mushroom combine into a firestorm Researchers cloud. Temperatures on the as all oxygen is consumed, ground reach several million killing even those sheltering estimate that degrees centigrade and all underground. more than 1 billion human tissue is vaporised. Further away from the blast people could die After the US dropped their site, any survivors of the of starvation in the nuclear weapons on Japan immediate blast will likely die in 1945, all that was left from burns, internal bleeding years following of people closest to the and injuries caused by flying even a ‘limited’ bombs were their shadows, debris and shards of glass. nuclear war. scorched into nearby walls. Many more will be trapped Most of today’s nuclear under collapsed buildings. weapons are five to fifty times more powerful than Survivors who are exposed those dropped on Hiroshima to the flash will suffer from and Nagasaki in 1945. acute radiation syndrome with nausea, mental disorientation, internal bleeding, diarrhoea, vomiting and fever. There is no specific remedy.

A silhouetted B-52H Stratofortress taxis down the runway during Prairie Vigilance 16-1 at Minot Air Force Base, N.D., Sept. 16, 2016.

Medact A Safer World: Treating Britain’s harmful dependence on nuclear weapons 6

1.5% of the world’s nuclear weapons would be enough to send huge quantities of soot into the upper atmosphere and dim the sunlight for months or years, shortening growing seasons and reducing global food production. Food would become very scarce and result in a worldwide .

Victims exposed to high This comes from the spread Nuclear famine doses die in hours; those of radioactive material across less exposed may respond a large area, depending on the Nuclear famine refers to initially to modern supportive size of the bomb, how much the impact of the huge treatment including blood of the fireball hits the ground, amount of dust and soot transfusions, but long-term and prevailing wind speed and that is thrown up into the survivors are more likely to direction. Heavier radioactive atmosphere following a 3 suffer from cancer later. particles fall in the immediate nuclear detonation. This area downwind, while finer is caused not just by the particles may be blown many immediate blast, but by the Using just 1.5% of miles before falling to the ensuing fires that will blaze the world’s nuclear ground as radioactive rain. across a large area when Very fine particles ascend bombs are detonated over weapons could  to the upper atmosphere a populated area. to spread radiation around dim the sunlight A nuclear war between India the world. and cause a  and Pakistan, involving about . If particles are inhaled or 1.5% of the world’s total swallowed, internal radiation stockpile, would dim the to the body can cause harm sunlight for months or years, Emergency service response and even death, principally shorten growing seasons from cancers but also from and reduce global food Following a nuclear attack, cardiovascular disease. production. Food would any immediate response Radiation is also known to become scarce and result would be mostly futile cause harmful long-term in famine across the world. because of the complete genetic changes. It has been estimated that devastation caused to roads, over a billion people would buildings and electricity Other long-term effects die of starvation in the supplies. Even if some may be psychological. years following such medics could treat those not Even after 50 years, a regional conflict. killed instantly by the searing survivors of Hiroshima and heat and immense force of Nagasaki had significant A full-scale nuclear war the blast, they would lack post-traumatic distress between the USA and Russia the resources to provide disorders; and some also would result in temperatures meaningful care. suffered from the effects of plummeting to levels not forced migration and social seen since the last . Long-term effects stigmatisation. Agriculture would cease, ecosystems would fail, Radioactive fall-out from the and the human race would bomb produces more long- struggle to survive. term threats to human life.2

Medact 7 A Safer World: Treating Britain’s harmful dependence on nuclear weapons

The state of nuclear weapons

Nuclear bombs are held incorporate nuclear Most worryingly nearly by nine nations: Russia, weapons into their national 1,800 warheads are on alert United States, France, China, defence policies. These and ready for use at short Britain, Israel, Pakistan, India include the countries of notice, raising the spectre and North Korea. A further NATO, Australia and South of a nuclear war caused by 32 countries are nuclear- Korea. Over 4,000 weapons accident or misinformation. dependent states who are currently deployed.

Table 1: World Nuclear Weapons, 2017

TOTAL (~9,420) Deployed a (Total 4,110)

1,910 In Reserve  (Total ~5,310)

Retired,  awaiting 2,800 dismantling b (Total 5,500) 2,390 Russia 4,300

2,200 2,700 4,000 United States

20 95 80

270

10-20

110-120 120-130

1,800

280 120

N Korea India Pakistan Israel

110-120

China France 80

c

10-20

270 120-130 300

(in development)

United Kingdom

215 (Modified from the Federation of American Scientists, April 2017 4)

a Deployment refers to nuclear warheads that are mounted on missiles or at bomber bases, and prepared for firing. These include Russian and US ‘tactical’ weapons which are smaller and designed for ‘battlefield’ operations. The US has 150 tactical warheads deployed under NATO command in Europe. b The US and Russia have a large number of retired nuclear warheads awaiting dismantling. These too pose a risk in terms of their radioactivity and potential for plutonium to be used to construct a ‘dirty bomb’. Several hundred tons of weapons-grade plutonium are held in various stockpiles around the world, including over 120 tons are at Sellafield, enough for 24,000 Nagasaki-type bombs. c North Korea has no nuclear weapons deployed as it is still developing its delivery system.

Medact A Safer World: Treating Britain’s harmful dependence on nuclear weapons 8

Is the possession and threatened use of nuclear weapons justifiable?

Given the immense human using nuclear weapons: mass Proponents argue that and environmental cost of a casualties; indiscriminate nuclear deterrence works nuclear conflict, it is difficult murder; contamination of and can help keep the to conceive of any situation the environment; and threat peace and protect national that would warrant the use of famine. security. Are these valid of nuclear weapons. Even in arguments? We consider the gravest circumstances, However, support for the them in the next chapter. we would have to consider possession of nuclear the dire consequences of weapons is strong in Britain.

Key Points

● Nuclear weapons are indiscriminate killers. They are weapons of mass destruction that kill people, destroy infrastructure and contaminate the environment – potentially for generations.

● Any medical response to a nuclear attack would be extremely limited and largely ineffective.

● Using only 1.5% of the world’s nuclear arsenal would trigger pronounced falls in crop yields and put around 2 billion people at risk of starvation.

● There are thousands of nuclear weapons held in a state of readiness, creating an unacceptable level of risk of accidental firing.

● Over 4000 nuclear weapons are currently deployed worldwide, with another 5000 held ‘in reserve’. A further 5000 are retired and await dismantling.

● Britain has 120 ready-to-fire nuclear warheads in deployment; with a further 95 in reserve.

Additional Readings

ICRC, 2013. Climate effects of Nuclear war and implications for global food production https://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/ files/2013/4132-2-nuclear-weapons-global-food-production-2013.pdf IPPNW. The Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons. http://ippnw.org/catastrophic-consequences.html ICAN. Nuclear arsenals. http://www.icanw.org/the-facts/nuclear-arsenals/ Arms Control Association. Nuclear Weapons: Who Has What at a Glance. https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/ Nuclearweaponswhohaswhat Helfand, I, 2013. Nuclear Famine: Two Billion People at Risk—Global Impacts of Limited Nuclear War on Agriculture, Food Supplies, and Human Nutrition. Somerville, MA: IPPNW. Available from: www.ippnw.org/pdf/nuclear-famine-two-billion-at-risk-2013.pdf Robock A and Toon OB, 2010: Local nuclear war, global suffering. Scientific American, 302, 74-81. http://climate.envsci.rutgers. edu/pdf/RobockToonSciAmJan2010.pdf ICRC, 2013. Humanitarian Assistance in Response to the Use of Nuclear Weapons. https://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/ files/2013/4132-3-nuclear-weapons-humanitarian-assistance-2013.pdf Scientists for Global Responsibility, 2017. Chapter 3: A nuclear attack: the immediate effects. http://www.sgr.org.uk/resources/ nuclear-weapons-beginner-s-guide-threats#S3 International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, World Medical Association, World Federation of Public Health Associations and International Council of Nurses, 2017. The Health and Humanitarian Case for Banning and Eliminating Nuclear Weapons. https://www.un.org/disarmament/ptnw/pdf/A%20CONF.229%202017%20NGO%20WP.11.pdf Helfand I, Haines A et al 2016. The Growing Threat of Nuclear War and the Role of the Health Community. World Medical Journal, 63: 86-95.

Medact 9 A Safer World: Treating Britain’s harmful dependence on nuclear weapons

Chapter 2 Deterrence: a strategy destined to fail?

Many supporters of nuclear weapons argue that they are not so much a military means to wage war as political instruments to prevent war and keep the peace.

Image of HMS Vengeance They claim that the submarines can patrol returning to HMNB balance of nuclear the seas undetected, and Clyde, after completing weapons capability and retaliate against any attack, Operational Sea Training. The trials were conducted in fear of ‘mutually assured even if an opponent has Scottish exercise areas. destruction’ have restrained struck all our land bases. HMS Vengeance is the the major powers from going fourth and final Vanguard- to war with each other. Russia, China, North Korea, class submarine of the Royal Pakistan, India and Israel Navy. Vengeance carries the Some point to the absence Trident ballistic missile, the of a ‘world war’ since 1945 also justify their nuclear UK’s nuclear deterrent. as evidence of this. weapons on the grounds that they are defensive. Possession of nuclear weapons is also justified In this chapter, we explain on the grounds that they the flawed case for nuclear are defensive, and act only deterrence and why it will to deter other nations ultimately fail. from attacking. In the case of Britain, Trident-armed

Medact A Safer World: Treating Britain’s harmful dependence on nuclear weapons 10

If the US and Russia waged a war using their nuclear arsenals, the resulting dust and soot would cause temperatures to plummet to levels not seen at the peak of the last ice age.

Living on a knife edge

At the heart of nuclear We don’t think so. The risk outgun each other. For deterrence is an apocalyptic of nuclear war has grown; example, during the Cold promise. If you attack me, and as with all gambles, it War, in response to the US I will destroy you: mutually will eventually fail if allowed and British development assured destruction. Even to continue indefinitely. of the Trident system, the if you think about attacking Soviets countered with me, I may destroy you. Deterrence provokes ‘’ – a programme aggression and  that would launch a counter- With nearly two thousand counter-aggression attack automatically if the ready-to-launch nuclear Soviet leadership were weapons deployed, such destroyed.5 In retaliation, the Although nuclear weapon an approach to maintaining US spent billions of dollars states and their dependents world peace is a high-risk on ‘Star Wars’ – a defence argue that they are merely gamble. There are many system against any Soviet defending their national potential points of failure: nuclear attack. unstable leaders, infiltration security, the deployment of weapons of mass by enemy agents, accidents, Even if an arms race results destruction is ultimately cyber-attack, or human in a perpetual balance an act of aggression that error. Whilst it is impossible of power, it is always creates tension between to estimate the probability accompanied by a state nuclear states and provokes of failure with any precision, of tension that can always retaliatory action. In the case even a low probability is escalate and turn a cold of NATO and Russia, several unacceptable, given the war into a hot war. And it thousand warheads are magnitude of the threat persistently diminishes the deployed and ready to fire to civilisation. opportunity for countries at short notice. to support alternative So a key question is: should approaches to peace and we continue with this high One outcome is an arms collective security. risk gamble? race, where nations try and

Medact 11 A Safer World: Treating Britain’s harmful dependence on nuclear weapons

Defence Secretary Michael Fallon’s (far right) statement earlier this year that the UK would consider using nuclear weapons as a pre-emptive first strike prompted Frants Klintsevich (right), of Russia’s defence committee, to express disgust and state , that “If Britain were foolish enough to attack a nuclear power it would be wiped off the Earth by a retaliatory strike.”

Preventing disarmament defence systems despite overwhelming conventional a conventional crisis, risking and encouraging their populations being military attack. But in a dangerous escalation in proliferation blighted by poverty. reality, neither of these two any conflict. scenarios is considered likely. Most nuclear weapon Looking to the future, They don’t even appear Although Britain says it will states, including Britain, a 2014 UK Ministry of in the government’s 2015 not use its nuclear weapons have clung to the misguided Defence strategic review National Security Strategy against non-nuclear states, view that they can promote stated that a growth in and Strategic Defence and it reserves the right to do so multilateral disarmament the number of NW states Security Review.9 if the non-nuclear state is despite retaining and could be expected over the allied to an attacking NWS. upgrading their own nuclear coming decades, especially Instead, the expressed But by giving a political weapons capability. if the use of nuclear readiness to strike first salience to nuclear weapons, energy grows.6 with weapons of mass this stance only makes them It is also argued that destruction increases the more attractive to other possession of nuclear Such proliferation would level of international tension states and undermines the weapons (and the implicit inevitably increase the risk and the likelihood of British prospect for multilateral threat to use them) of a nuclear catastrophe. submarines being attacked in disarmament. discourages other states As noted by the Trident from developing their own Commission, a world “awash nuclear weapons. This with nuclear weapons in the argument is, however, of hands of a larger number of doubtful validity and the states is a highly dangerous converse can be argued. one, a more volatile international environment As long as some states in which the use of nuclear Deterrence, as a strategy, possess nuclear weapons, weapons would become there will always be a much more likely”.7 encourages every justification for other nation to outgun their countries to develop their A willingness to strike first own nuclear weapons. After makes things worse opponents. There is an all, the possession of nuclear in-built incentive to have weapons by the US, Russia, Britain refuses to rule out Britain, France and China did the first use of nuclear one more warhead, one not prevent North Korea, weapons on the basis more technology, one Israel, Pakistan and India that this strengthens the from becoming NW states. deterrent effect.8 Adopting more failsafe to protect In the case of in North this position means being against potential threats. Korea, India and Pakistan, prepared to use nuclear billions of dollars are spent weapons to pre-empt a on weapons and missile nuclear attack or deter an

Medact A Safer World: Treating Britain’s harmful dependence on nuclear weapons 12

In 2014, some parts of America’s nuclear force was found to have an ingrained culture of cheating. Half of the 183 officers at a nuclear base in Montana were involved in the cheating scandal.

Rational and sane destruction fuels antagonism In April 2011, Royal Navy behaviour cannot be and fear, thereby increasing Commander Ian Molyneux guaranteed the risk of dangerous was shot dead by Able behavior. Seaman Ryan Donovan after Nuclear deterrence is a being refused shore leave strategy that depends on Ready-to-fire nuclear during a publicity visit of the actors on all sides being weapons are accidents submarine HMS Astute. The responsible, rational and of waiting to happen investigating civil detective sound mind. It is assumed was “highly alarmed” by the that even a dictatorial and Even if those in charge high alcohol consumption paranoid leader would of nuclear weapons are allowed to the crew.11 not be so reckless as to responsible and rational, invite mutually assured accidents can happen. In May 2015, William destruction. Safety measures designed McNeilly, a Royal Navy to prevent the accidental or engineering technician, But responsibility and mistaken launch of nuclear blew the whistle on rationality cannot be weapons are not a hundred security and safety flaws guaranteed. It is a weak link percent failsafe. in Britain’s nuclear-armed in the arguments used to submarines, describing the support nuclear deterrence. Accidents may happen with HMS Vanguard as a ‘disaster Ultimately, the best way to the best trained and most waiting to happen’ and avoid a reckless, irrational, well-disciplined personnel; questioning its ability to impulsive or mistaken use but are more likely when successfully fire its battery of nuclear weapons is to military personnel are of missiles on command.12 remove the risk altogether. ill-disciplined, stressed, or McNeilly was dishonourably living in the sub-optimal discharged but never faced It is true that multilateral conditions of a submarine. court martial or further disarmament also requires Having nuclear weapons punishment for his actions. a level of responsibility ready to fire at short and rationality, as well as notice also creates a In the US, half of the 183 willingness to build trust state of military readiness officers at a nuclear base and robust mechanisms for which increases the risk in Montana were found in effective verification. But of accidents. 2014 to have cheated in responsible and rational a test about how officers behavior is encouraged There are a number of should handle emergency by seeking to de-escalate documented examples of war orders, including when tension and aggression. By sub-standard behaviour to launch a nuclear-tipped contrast, holding onto the amongst military personnel missile. The scandal resulted capacity to destroy countries who operate nuclear in all the missile officers with weapons of mass weapons systems in having to retake the test Britain and elsewhere.10 (of which 22 failed).13

Medact 13 A Safer World: Treating Britain’s harmful dependence on nuclear weapons

The world has also come incorrectly loaded onto a live and security monitoring of nuclear deterrence as a close to catastrophe on defence system. A similar capabilities over 50 nuclear national security strategy. several occasions due to scenario occurred in 1983 missiles for 45 minutes. Although the control accidents and mistakes. when the Soviet Union systems are said to be ‘air- These have been researched registered an incoming US Such incidents demonstrate gapped’ (i.e. not connected and documented by Eric missile strike. Duty officer that we cannot assume directly to the internet or Schlosser in Command and Stanislav Petrov - whose job that the thousands of to any other computers Control: Nuclear Weapons, that are connected to the the Damascus Accident and internet), ballistic missile the Illusion of Safety (2013)14 submarines are susceptible and by Chatham House in In 2010, US forces lost to cyber-attack.16 Too Close for Comfort: Cases of Near Nuclear Use and control, command and In addition, emerging Options for Policy (2014).15 security monitoring technologies are set to remove one of the supposed At the height of the Cuba capabilities over 50 nuclear strengths of Britain’s nuclear Missile Crisis in 1962, missiles, for 45 minutes. deterrence: the ability of for example, the captain Trident submarines to be of a Russian submarine undetected underwater. This gave the order to launch a ability is being eroded by the 10-kiloton nuclear torpedo it was to register apparent nuclear weapons deployed development of autonomous at the American fleet. But enemy missile launches across the world are being maritime drones that can the commander of the – doubted the computer maintained and protected operate in the air and sub-flotilla persuaded the readings and decided it was with complete safety. under the sea to track captain to wait for further a false alarm. His decision is Further proliferation, submarines.17 Their sensors orders. A diplomatic solution credited with having possibly combined with risks posed and processing capabilities was eventually reached; ‘saved the world’. by cyber-warfare, will only are rapidly improving and but not before coming increase the chance of an will mean that submarines extraordinarily close to In another incident, Boris accidental or unintended can be detected and tracked a nuclear war erupting. Yeltsin activated Russian nuclear weapon launch. even in large areas of ocean. missiles after a threat from In 1979, the US detected Norway was detected in New technologies and the 2,200 missiles incoming 1995. The threat turned visibility of submarines from the Soviet Union out to be a research missile and prepared to respond. studying the Northern Drone technology and cyber Luckily, it was discovered to Lights. And more recently, warfare are technological be a false alarm in time: a an incident in 2010 saw the advancements that further training scenario had been US losing control, command challenge the credibility

Even if some medics could treat those not killed instantly by the searing heat and immense force of the blast, they would lack the resources to provide meaningful care to the injured.

Medact A Safer World: Treating Britain’s harmful dependence on nuclear weapons 14

Effective missile defence is unrealistic

The US has invested system can ever be 100% years has been achieved hundreds of billions of reliable or effective. more through global dollars in missile systems economic development and designed to knock out Furthermore, a missile international diplomacy, than nuclear weapons before defence system could by nuclear deterrence. they can detonate over encourage an opponent to strike first in any However, the world has confrontation or conflict, been blighted by many in the belief that this might smaller conflicts across the Our nuclear be the best chance for it world, including proxy wars deterrent doesn’t to overcome the defence between NATO and the system. Thus defence Soviet Union/Russia. Thus, stop terrorists. systems end up being part of for hundreds of millions an arms race that escalates of people, the balance of tension and risk. power between opposing American soil. The claim that nuclear alliances has not a missile defence system Nuclear weapons do not been associated with peace. stop wars could protect the US from NW states have also a limited nuclear attack (and The view that the nuclear experienced conflict. thereby make a nuclear war bombing of Hiroshima Argentina invaded the ‘winnable’) was made by and Nagasaki helped end Falklands, defying any risk US Army General Graham WW2 and prevent a greater of nuclear retaliation. Russia, to gain funding for the loss of life is widely held. in spite of their nuclear ‘Star Wars’ programme More recent historical arsenal, has been in armed in the 1980s. analysis, however, agrees conflict with the Ukraine However, these claims with General Dwight and Georgia. Wars in Korea, are unconvincing. Missile Eisenhower’s comment in Vietnam and Afghanistan defence systems are 1963 that “the Japanese continued in spite of the constantly susceptible were ready to surrender and threat of nuclear strikes to improvements in it wasn’t necessary to hit by the US. And despite its delivery systems. For them with that awful thing”.18 ferocious nuclear capability, example, investment in the US spends hundreds of Although a major world hypersonic glide vehicles billions of dollars on around war has been avoided are designed to overcome 800 military bases in over 70 since 1945, the relative 19 existing defence systems. countries across the world. peace of the last seventy Fundamentally, no defence

Nuclear weapons don’t stop terrorists, or help defend us from .

Medact 15 A Safer World: Treating Britain’s harmful dependence on nuclear weapons

An abandoned American missile base in southern Boiotia (Greece), probably for the nuclear Nike missile systems

Although President Truman’s and inevitable arms races a new battleground where as a species become more threat in 1950 to use “any raise the risk of accidental or neither nuclear weapons nor apparent, so does the means necessary” (implying mistaken nuclear detonation. conventional military force irrationality of nuclear nuclear weapons) to halt are of much use. Similarly, weapons become the advance of communists A false sense of security we cannot fight sea level more obvious. in Korea is believed to have rise, extreme weather, ocean contributed to the eventual While nuclear weapons acidification or biodiversity The case for nuclear armistice in 1953, the fact project a ferocious military loss with military power; nor weapons and deterrence might, they are useless that conflict and aggression can we fight antimicrobial is crumbling continues on the Korean when it comes to preventing resistance and lethal peninsula suggests that or countering new forms with military By dismantling our weapons Truman’s threat did not of warfare or non-state power. of mass destruction, Britain produce a lasting peace. In terrorism, including the could redirect billions of fact the targeting of North dollars towards a better Korea with nuclear warheads strategy for securing our by the US from 1959 until future safety and wellbeing. 1991 may have encouraged Nuclear weapons may deter Britain is a small country North Korea’s pursuit of a full-scale war; but they also with a big influence. It is nuclear weapons capability. heighten tension between one of the five permanent We also have the experience members (P5) of the of India and Pakistan going countries in a way that can UN Security Council. It to war in 1999 despite easily escalate beyond a is a member of the both being nuclear weapon point of no return. Commonwealth, the G7, states. In fact the possession the G20 and the OECD. It of nuclear weapons on wields significant power on both sides illustrates what the world stage, without has been called a ‘stability- detonation of a ‘dirty Rising levels of inequality even taking into account instability paradox’ – on the bomb’ (a bomb packed with and forced migration that the soft power expressed one hand, nuclear weapons radioactive material that is threaten to destabilize social through the reach of the may deter full-scale war; but detonated conventionally relations, within and across English language and culture. they also heighten tension and which then spreads national borders, also cannot There is no reason to between countries in a way highly toxic radioactive be prevented or managed think that our power and that can easily escalate material). with military might. international standing would beyond a point of no return. They are also ineffective Many of these new threats be diminished if Britain While past conventional against many new threats to cannot be mitigated by signaled its intention to give wars have not spilled over national and global security. nation states on their own – up its nuclear weapons. If into a nuclear war, there is Our reliance on globalised they need the cooperation anything, our moral standing no guarantee this will always systems of information and of states and peoples. Thus, on the international stage be the case. Furthermore, communication, for example, as the fragility of the planet would grow. the postures of aggression has turned cyber-space into and our inter-dependency

Medact A Medact Report A Safer World:Safer Treating World – Britain’s Treating harmful Britain’s dependence harmful dependence on nuclear on weapons nuclear weapons 162

Key Points

● The belief that nuclear deterrence works is seductive and has underpinned foreign and defence policy in Britain since the Cold War.

● Even if deterrence may have contributed to preventing war in the past, the risks and costs have grown while the potential benefits have shrunk.

● At some point, deterrence will fail. There are many ways that a first strike could be triggered by accident, oversight, or through software failure or a cyber-attack. It thus brings an unacceptable level of risk and a heightening – rather than a diminishing – of tension between nation states.

● Other risks associated with deterrence are the weakening of diplomatic efforts to reduce nuclear weapons proliferation and the technological improvements in weaponry and defence systems which undermine deterrence.

● As long as nations have nuclear arsenals deployed and ready to fire, a single intentional or accidental incident could provoke a catastrophe. And the longer we maintain vast stockpiles of nuclear weapons, the greater the risk of these weapons falling the hands of terrorists.

● Meanwhile, other risks to people and ecosystems are growing and increasing the opportunity costs associated with the renewal and maintenance of nuclear weapons.

● The treaty to ban nuclear weapons provides a new opportunity to re-energize efforts for multilateral nuclear disarmament to which Britain could contribute.

Additional Readings

Eric Schlosser, 2013: Command and Control: Nuclear Weapons, the Damascus Accident and the Illusion of Safety. New York: Penguin Books.

Barnett L, Birch M and Waterston E, 2013. The delusional thinking behind a policy of ‘nuclear deterrence’. London: Medact. https://www.medact.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/report-delusionalthinking-2013.pdf

Loretz, J, 2010. The case against deterrence doctrine. https://peaceandhealthblog.com/2010/05/07/the-case-against-deterrence- doctrine/

Lewis P, Aghlani S and Pelopidas B, 2014. Too Close for Comfort: Cases of Near Nuclear Use and Options for Policy, London: Chatham House.

Abaimov S and Ingram P, 2017. Hacking UK Trident: A Growing Threat. London: British American Security Information Council. http://www.basicint.org/publications/stanislav-abaimov-paul-ingram-executive-director/2017/hacking-uk-trident-growing-threat

Union of Concerned Scientists, 2015. Taking Nuclear Missiles Off Hair-Trigger Alert. http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/ attach/2015/05/Hair-Trigger-Alert-Policy-Brief.pdf

Medact 17 A Safer World: Treating Britain’s harmful dependence on nuclear weapons

Chapter 3 The economic folly of Trident

Some proponents of Trident argue that it is economically beneficial. The GMB union, for example, supports Trident renewal because it will bring jobs and economic growth. This argument holds zero credibility if nuclear weapons are dangerous and redundant. But even if they aren’t, the argument that Trident is economically beneficial is highly questionable.

A Trident II (D-5) missile is launched from Pad 46A during the Navy’s fifteenth developmental test flight.

Medact A Safer World: Treating Britain’s harmful dependence on nuclear weapons 18

The high price of a nuclear deterrent

Nuclear weapons are submarines, leasing the is £2.9b in 2012 figures. expensive to build, maintain missiles, managing and This annualised figure is and decommission. But maintaining the new equivalent to about 9.4% calculating the price tag fleet and weapons, and of the defence budget. for replacing Trident is not decommissioning the However, because costs straightforward - there are retired fleet. are higher during the initial many different costs, and construction phase, in the these need to be spread The Trident Commission, early years of that period, over a 30 to 40-year period. an independent, cross- the cost could be as much as party enquiry into Britain’s 20% of the defence budget. The Campaign for Nuclear nuclear policy, estimated The estimated total (£133.4 Disarmament (CND) used that the average annual billion) is less than CND’s government figures to cost of constructing and estimates.21 estimate a total lifetime deploying four submarines cost of £205b.20 This with missiles and warheads includes the cost of building between 2016 and 2062

The most expensive jobs ever created

Trident renewal will create weapons programme. If so, this expensive job creation jobs. People are needed to at a total cost of £205b, scheme are un-usable and design, build and manage Trident renewal would dangerous weapons of submarines, their systems, create, on average, one job mass destruction. engines and nuclear at the cost of about £18m warheads. Thousands of over a 30 - 40 year period. But cancelling Trident would people are involved in These would be expensive not result in a sudden loss creating, maintaining and jobs. Further devaluation of of jobs. Many jobs would decommissioning these sterling would increase the continue to exist for a nuclear systems. However, cost of this job creation period of time because these jobs are amongst even more. workers would be needed the most expensive to first maintain and then ever created. While investment in decommission the existing Trident will be economically Trident system. It is believed that the beneficial for some – renewal of Trident would including a number of maintain the 11,500 or so banks and multinational jobs that are currently spread corporations - for society as across Britain’s nuclear a whole, what we get from

Medact 19 A Safer World: Treating Britain’s harmful dependence on nuclear weapons

Britain’s third £1 billion Astute Class nuclear submarine, Artful, being lowered into the water at Barrow-in-Furness.

How else could we spend the Trident budget?

Defence is an unavoidable safe insulation to reduce fuel support public investment Nuclear decommissioning cost. But there are more costs and greenhouse gas projects that could be effective ways to protect our emissions, while improving economically beneficial Successive governments national security; and there health and energy security. for the country. have failed to deal with the are better ways to create legacy of waste produced by jobs and prosperity. the Trident system. Nuclear decommissioning actually ground to a halt in 2002 Tackle poverty and invest The UK has no facility after the Office of Nuclear in the future for decommissioning Regulation told the MoD Barrow-in-Furness, where nuclear submarines. 19 that their facilities were not Britain’s nuclear submarines up to standard. As a result, are built, is one of the most nuclear submarines are retired submarines sit in the deprived communities in currently sitting in the water, laden with nuclear England. Why don’t we fuel, while the government spend money redeveloping water in Devonport and looks for somewhere to towns like Barrow by Rosyth in Scotland permanently store tonnes of creating high-skill and high- radioactive material. Dealing wage jobs that people can with the existing load of civil rely on for generations? and military nuclear waste Invest in public services Invest in conventional is another better use of the While the nuclear industry armed forces Trident budget. receives a big payday from The impact of the 2008 Trident renewal, this takes global financial crisis and Finally, even if all the money cash away from other more subsequent public bailout earmarked for Trident were productive and useful of the banking sector has kept for military spending, industries. Instead of resulted in years of austerity. it would be better spent on nuclear weapons, the British Rather than renew and strengthening the country’s government could invest in service a dangerous nuclear conventional armed security research and development weapons system, money services, in the light of aimed at the renewable could be diverted to finance the threat of national and energy sector, or retrofitting any number of more socially international terrorism. Britain’s housing stock with useful public services or

Medact A Safer World: Treating Britain’s harmful dependence on nuclear weapons 20

Key Points

● Renewing Trident could cost as much as £205 billion over its lifetime (forty years or so). This is a lot of money that could be better used in many other ways.

● Spending billions on Trident is not an effective way to create work in Britain. The jobs it creates are extremely expensive.

● Money could be spent and jobs created in ways that are more economically productive and socially useful.

Additional Readings

Trident Commission, 2014. Concluding Report: An independent, cross-party inquiry to examine UK nuclear weapons policy. London: British American Security Information Council. https://www.files.ethz.ch/isn/181759/trident_commission_finalreport.pdf

CND, 2016. The costs of replacing Trident. http://www.cnduk.org/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=2447&Itemid=26

CND, 2016. Trident and jobs. http://www.cnduk.org/images/stories/trident_and_jobs.pdf

Morris J, 2014. Decommissioning nuclear subs. Plymouth: BBC. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-28157707

Medact 21 A Safer World: Treating Britain’s harmful dependence on nuclear weapons

Chapter 4 Why a Ban Treaty

Preventing proliferation; promoting disarmament

For example, the Nuclear However, the risk of a Non-Proliferation Treaty nuclear war and further (NPT), enacted in 1970, proliferation remains high requires states without and is getting bigger. There nuclear weapons to agree are now several potential not to acquire them, nuclear flashpoints in and those with nuclear different parts of the world, weapons to agree to share notably in Eastern Europe, the benefits of peaceful the Indian sub-continent nuclear technology, while and around the South and also progressing ‘in good East China Seas. faith’ towards nuclear disarmament. However, There are also worries about there are mixed views a new Cold War emerging about whether the NPT between the West and Russia. The reductions Ban The Bomb has been effective. in nuclear arsenals and One view is that more states alert status seen through would have acquired nuclear the 1990s, slowed in the weapons had it not been 2000s, partly due to Russian for the effectiveness of objections to the proposed For decades, the world the NPT. But from another US Missile Defence Shield. was gripped with fear over perspective, the NPT failed The latest bilateral US/ a nuclear confrontation to prevent India, Pakistan, Russia START (Strategic between the West and North Korea and Israel from Arms Reduction Treaties) the Soviet Union. Various becoming nuclear weapon will expire in 2021. Instead bilateral treaties between states; nor did it dissuade of pushing for further the US and Soviet Union, several other countries from reductions in nuclear and the subsequent end of supporting nuclear weapons weapons, NW states are the Cold War in the early by joining alliances such as modernising their nuclear 1990s, helped de-escalate NATO. Finally, the NPT did forces at a worldwide confrontational postures not prevent China, France, cost of one trillion dollars and reduce the risk of a Russia, Britain and US from per decade.22 nuclear war. Various other continuing to modernize treaties may have also and upgrade their nuclear helped prevent nuclear weapons systems. war and proliferation to a limited degree.

Medact A Safer World: Treating Britain’s harmful dependence on nuclear weapons 22

Nuclear weapon states are modernising their nuclear forces at a worldwide cost of one trillion dollars per decade.

Former US Defense the existing nuclear non- stability. There is a rising Secretary William Perry proliferation regime is tide of nationalism. Global claims that the risks of a fraying, tensions are high, warming and climate nuclear exchange are greater goals are misaligned, and change are contributing today than during the Cold dialogue is irregular”.24 to resource scarcity. War.23 And according to the British American Security Meanwhile, other forces are Information Council (BASIC), creating new tensions and “trust and confidence in threatening international

Medact 23 A Safer World: Treating Britain’s harmful dependence on nuclear weapons

A new approach is needed

For some years now, International meetings to a number of civil society advance the humanitarian organisations and case for global nuclear enlightened governments disarmament were held in have felt that a new Norway, Mexico and Austria, approach is needed to and eventually led to the achieve multilateral establishment of a UN ‘Open nuclear disarmament Ended Working Group’ in and global security. 2016 to pursue negotiations for a ‘Ban Treaty’. A round In 2010, at the Review of negotiations in March Conference for the NPT 2017, attended by delegates held in New York, several from 130 countries, led to governments called for the drafting of a legally- Negotiations in March new commitments towards binding ban treaty for 2017... led to the nuclear disarmament, safety nuclear weapons which was and security, including finalised in a second round drafting of a legally- taking steps towards a treaty of negotiations and adopted binding ban treaty  to prohibit and eliminate by 122 votes to 1 on nuclear weapons. July 7th 2017. for nuclear weapons which was finalised  in a second round  of negotiations  and adopted by  122 votes to 1

Legal Instruments - a time line

March 5, September 24, April 24-May 19, May 2- 27, March, June, July 7, 1970 1996 2000 2005 2010 2017 2017 2017

The Nuclear The CTBT is The Sixth The 2005 The governments First round Second round Treaty banning Non- opened for Review Nonproliferation of Norway, of Ban Treaty of discussions nuclear weapons Proliferation signature in Conference Review Mexico, Ireland negotiations approved at UN Treaty enters New York. for the states Conference and Austria put into force. parties to the is held at UN nuclear weapons NPT, held Headquarters in on the UN in New York New York and agenda adopts a fully ends without negotiated final having achieved document. significant progress on a wide range of arms control issues.

Medact A Safer World: Treating Britain’s harmful dependence on nuclear weapons 24

The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons

The core purpose of the technical, verification and gender-related aspects of treaty is to prohibit states institutional requirements nuclear programmes and the from “developing, testing, for its implementation to disproportionate harm nuclear producing, manufacturing, be worked out over time by weapons and testing have acquiring, possessing, acceding governments, as caused to indigenous people. stockpiling, transferring, well as organisations such deploying, stationing, as the International Atomic The treaty will be open for using or threatening to use Energy Agency (IAEA) signature on 19 September nuclear weapons, under and the Comprehensive at a signing conference any circumstances”.25 It also Test Ban Treaty Organisation in New York. Fifty states makes it illegal to ‘assist, (CTBTO). The IAEA are are required to ratify the encourage or induce, in any especially important for treaty for it to enter into way, anyone to engage in any preventing the diversion force. At a national level, activity prohibited to a state of any civil nuclear the process of ratification party under this treaty’ and technologies and materials varies but usually requires extends the prohibitions toward military use. parliamentary approval to non-state actors. Other and the development of provisions lay out the Nuclear weapons states like national legislation to turn principles and pathways for Britain will be permitted to prohibitions into national how states that currently join while still in possession legislation. This process possess nuclear weapons of nuclear weapons, so is also an opportunity (or that engage in nuclear long as they undertake to to elaborate additional deterrence alliances, policies decommission and destroy measures, such as prohibiting and practices) can join and them under a well-guarded the financing of nuclear implement the treaty. and secure checking weapons. The first Meeting procedure. of States Parties will then The treaty is pragmatic take place within a year after and recognises that The treaty also establishes the entry into force of the evolving technical and obligations on victim Convention. political conditions make assistance and environmental it better for the precise remediation, and recognises

The president of the UN conference on The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Nuclear Weapons, Elayne Whyte Gómez, Weapons, the first multilateral legally-binding announces the Treaty on the Prohibition of instrument for nuclear disarmament to have been Nuclear Weapons in July 2017. negotiated in 20 years. It was adopted by a vote of 122 in favour to one against (Netherlands), with one abstention (Singapore).

Medact 25 A Safer World: Treating Britain’s harmful dependence on nuclear weapons

Former UN Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon urges nations to make nuclear disarmament targets a Reality.

The British government However, it will reinvigorate The Geneva Conventions, What next for boycotted the Ban Treaty multilateral disarmament which prohibit the use of Britain and its  negotiations and did not efforts, and deserves much any weapons that cannot even attend the discussions more support from nuclear discriminate between Legal and that preceded the final weapon states and their civilians and enemy Moral Duties? negotiations, together with dependents. combatants, also suggests the other NW states and that the threat or use many nuclear-dependent In addition to the strategic of nuclear weapons is states. It opposed the Ban and technical arguments unlawful,26 although some Treaty claiming that it would made earlier in this report, judges from the International undermine the NPT and other Britain should also consider Court of Justice (ICJ) argued efforts to prevent nuclear war. the legal and moral reasons in 1996 that it might be legal for nuclear disarmament. to use nuclear weapons if a The non-participation of According to some, by NW state felt existentially these states is clearly a threatened and if civilian problem. It means that planning to renew Trident, Britain is already in breach lives and neutral countries the Ban Treaty will not were not affected.27 immediately be followed by of the NPT which commits steps to decommission and NW states to work towards remove the existing stock of disarmament. nuclear weapons.

Medact A Safer World: Treating Britain’s harmful dependence on nuclear weapons 26

Britain should make better use of resources for the benefit and security for all people.

This view has been used by battlefield. Such a scenario, The Ban Treaty makes British officials to claim that however, is patently it even more difficult it is legally permissible to implausible. for Britain to defend use nuclear weapons, even its possession of as a first strike, if Britain Others have also noted nuclear weapons, whilst is threatened and if the that under the Genocide simultaneously claiming to impact of low-yield, tactical Convention, states uphold the rule of law and nuclear warheads are limited threatening to use nuclear founding principles of the to enemy combatants in a weapons are “conspiring,” United Nations. “inciting,” and being “complicit” in planning for We should get rid of Trident. what could and would It’s the right thing to do. It’s Because Nuclear likely be a genocidal war.28 the safe thing to do. And it Because Nuclear weapons will allow us to make better weapons are intended are intended to kill millions of use of our resources for to kill millions of civilians they are also a gross the benefit and security violation of International of all people. civilians they are Humanitarian Law. also a gross violation of International Humanitarian Law.

Medact 27 A Safer World: Treating Britain’s harmful dependence on nuclear weapons

Multilateral disarmament is feasible

Multilateral disarmament is Britain could lead a renewed Effective multilateral not straightforward. States process of multilateral disarmament is not a with nuclear weapons disarmament that builds pipedream of utopian will find it difficult to give on the momentum created idealists. More and more up their nuclear weapons by the Ban Treaty. In mainstream politicians, without high confidence that parallel, alternative security military leaders and academic they will all disarm in good arrangements could be strategists have begun to faith, and that non-nuclear developed for Britain to discuss the viability of such states will not acquire them. transition towards a more a goal.30 If anything, it is Disarmament by the major sustainable form of national those who urge the indefinite powers could even make security that is not reliant on retention of NWs who are the acquirement of nuclear nuclear weapons. unrealistic, naively believing weapons by smaller countries that they will never be used. more attractive by increasing Such an expressed their relative value. commitment by Britain would have a powerful However, there are bigger impact. Instead of keeping risks associated with not the world stuck in a doctrine disarming and many potential that is no longer fit for benefits that will be foregone purpose, our intellectual, if nuclear weapons states cultural, diplomatic and do give up their weapons of economic resources could be mass destruction and adopt deployed to advance a more a more enlightened approach enlightened and sustainable to security.29 approach to global security.

By declaring a readiness to Thoughtful and skillful international diplomacy will be give up Trident, adopting important. Here too, Britain an explicit ‘no first use’ Issuing firm and could play a significant role. policy, and issuing firm and We have many well regarded unconditional unconditional assurances diplomats, scholars and that it will not use nuclear assurances that it experts within our academic weapons against any state institutions, government will not use nuclear without nuclear weapons, departments and think tanks. weapons against any state without nuclear weapons, Britain could lead a renewed process of multilateral disarmament that builds on the momentum created by the Ban Treaty.

Medact A Safer World: Treating Britain’s harmful dependence on nuclear weapons 28

Key Points

● Some people argue that international efforts to reduce the threat of nuclear war have been relatively successful. However, the current number of potential nuclear flashpoints, coupled with other threats to international security, have pointed to the need for a reinvigorated commitment to multilateral nuclear disarmament.

● An international ban treaty which prohibits nuclear weapons and leads towards their total elimination has now been negotiated and adopted at the UN.

● Non-ratifying states will be under extra legal and moral pressure to consider the advantages of a properly negotiated multilateral treaty.

● Although multilateral disarmament is not straightforward, it can be done. It is not a pipedream; it is more strongly rooted in reality and rationality than the idea that the indefinite retention of NWs increases our national security.

● Britain could play a really important role by declaring a readiness to give up Trident, adopting an explicit ‘no first use’ policy, and issuing firm and unconditional assurances that it will not use nuclear weapons against any state without nuclear weapons.

● In parallel, it could deploy its diplomatic, intellectual and economic resources to support a process of more enlightened diplomacy and international relations that would also enhance our global standing.

Additional Readings

Ammerdown Group, 2016. Rethinking Security: A discussion paper http://www.c-r.org/downloads/Rethinking_Security_full_report.pdf

Johnson R, 2017. A giant step towards a nuclear free world is in reach – but will it be sabotaged at the last minute?  https://www.opendemocracy.net/uk/rebecca-johnson/giant-step-towards-nuclear-free-world-is-in-reach-but-will-it-be-sabotaged-at-las

Nuclear Information Service, 2017. The UK and the nuclear ban treaty. http://www.nuclearinfo.org/sites/default/files/NIS%20 Briefing%20on%20the%20UK%20and%20the%20nuclear%20ban%20treaty.pdf

Medact 29 A Safer World: Treating Britain’s harmful dependence on nuclear weapons

Chapter 5 What can be done by health professionals

The opaque machinations of nuclear politics may seem beyond the reach of ordinary health professionals. But in fact, the potential for the health community to shape public opinion and international policy is great. Here we summarise the important role played by the health community in the past, and describe what health professionals can do now.

The mandate and duty of health professionals

Health professionals, and In the case of nuclear There is a duty for health doctors and nurses in weapons, it is clear professionals to warn particular, have a unique that there is no level of the general public of place in society. They are acceptable use, no option the hopelessness in the professionally mandated and that would not cause harm. aftermath of massive nuclear trusted to protect society As indiscriminate weapons destruction and correct from harm. They are trained of mass destruction, they misunderstanding within in science and evidence, and are catastrophic for human the general public and ethically bound to speak health. Even the smallest mainstream media about the with truth and honesty. They nuclear weapon would risks associated with nuclear are rooted in International cause devastating and weapons and the viability of Humanitarian Law and the indiscriminate harm. multilateral disarmament and principles of impartiality, nuclear weapons abolition. neutrality and independence.

Medact Medacts ‘die-in’ protest against Trident renewal

Health professionals making a difference

The award of the Nobel Soviet Union and the West. the world. Its education of Peace Prize to the health professionals and International Physicians for In doing so, IPPNW debunked political leaders led it to the Prevention of Nuclear much of the ineffective being awarded the UNESCO War (IPPNW) in 1985 and impractical advice Peace Education Prize in demonstrates the influence on measures to protect 1984. In the words of former that health professionals can societies from the effects of New Zealand Prime Minister have in global politics. nuclear war that were being David Lange, “IPPNW made propagated by governments. medical reality a part of IPPNW was founded in Such advice included the political reality”.31 1980 at a time when the preparation of home-made world was on the brink shelters for protection from Since then, IPPNW, which of nuclear annihilation. a nuclear blast. is now a non-partisan Recognising the danger, federation of national a group of doctors over- The doctors sounded a affiliate groups from 64 rode their national and medical warning: nuclear war countries, has continued political differences to jointly would be the final epidemic. to research and publish research and publicise the There would be no cure authoritative research full health effects of the and no meaningful medical papers, books and articles in bombings of Hiroshima and response. the dangers associated with Nagasaki, and to extrapolate IPPNW’s message reached the production, testing, and the potential effects of a millions of people around use of nuclear weapons. nuclear war between the

Medact 31 A Safer World: Treating Britain’s harmful dependence on nuclear weapons

The Health Through Peace movement resists militarisation as a driver of ill-health and works to promote peace as an essential prerequisite to a healthier world.

In addition, it has organized ICAN now consists of more the International Council make in foreign affairs, citizens in nation states than 420 partner NGOs of Nurses, and the World most notably in seminal across the world to actively from over 100 countries. Federation of Public Health work conducted to predict campaign for the prevention Associations. the full impact of the 2003 of war and abolition Since 2010, ICAN, war against Iraq. of nuclear weapons. IPPNW and other health Medact is the British-based Physician activists were organisations have been affiliate of IPPNW and has The current progress instrumental in campaigns working with various been engaged in public and towards banning nuclear to ban atmospheric and governments and UN professional education about weapons provides an underground nuclear test agencies to frame the the health effects of nuclear unparalleled opportunity for explosions and to shut debate on nuclear weapons weapons for decades. a new phase of activities in down nuclear weapons around the catastrophic and Britain aimed at removing persistent effects of nuclear It exists to provide a Trident and replacing it testing sites and platform for British health production facilities. weapons on our health, with a more effective and societies and environment. professionals to address the safer approach to national In 2007, IPPNW launched This came to be known as underlying determinants security. the International Campaign the Humanitarian Initiative. of war and other threats to Abolish Nuclear Weapons to global health, including (ICAN), the aim of which Of particular note was climate change and poverty. was to ban and delegitimize the involvement of the Medact, IPPNW and ICAN nuclear weapons as a International Red Cross and have demonstrated the step towards their Red Crescent movement, the important contribution that eventual elimination. World Medical Association, health professionals can

Medact A Safer World: Treating Britain’s harmful dependence on nuclear weapons 32

Practical actions

Learn, follow the debate and share your knowledge and concerns This report provides some information and evidence about nuclear weapons, as well as an outline of the arguments used on both sides of the debate. If you feel concerned about the threat of nuclear weapons, you can share this report with friends and colleagues. This is a small act that can help to raise the profile of this important issue. We have also pointed to other readings if you want to learn more.

Write to your MP Does your MP know how you feel about nuclear weapons? If you agree with our analysis, you can share your concerns by using the Write to Them service.

https://www.writetothem.com/

We’ve also compiled a list of points that you can cut and paste into an email. ● On 7 July 2017, the UN adopted a landmark agreement to ban nuclear weapons. Known officially as the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, it prohibits nuclear weapons, in line with present international laws banning landmines, chemical weapons and . ● The use of nuclear weapons, many of which are vastly bigger and more damaging than the Hiroshima bomb, will have a devastating health impact. The ability to respond to anyone who survives the immediate effects of a nuclear detonation will also be limited by the destruction and crippling of medical facilities. ● Well-validated scientific studies have also shown that a limited exchange of nuclear weapons would create a massive amount of atmospheric debris, which would damage food supplies across the whole globe. Such a Nuclear Winter scenario would result in mass starvation, potentially affecting as many as 2 billion people. ● Nuclear weapons possession leaves Britain more vulnerable to harm and attack, and fails to address the real threats facing national and human security. ● Deterrence is a policy that will ultimately fail to prevent a catastrophic nuclear event, if only as a result of misunderstanding or error. ● The “first use policy” increases the level of risk of nuclear war.

Join Medact

Medact is a British-based health organization with a dedicated campaign to protect humanity from the existential threat posed by nuclear weapons. We exist to harness and amplify the voice of health professionals. Add your voice to our chorus. Be part of a progressive health community. Help us financially by becoming a member or giving a donation.

Support other groups and campaigns

International Campaign to Abolish Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament Nuclear Weapons Peace Action International Physicians for the Prevention Article 36 of Nuclear Weapons Global Zero Acronym Institute for Disarmament Diplomacy Don’t Bank on the Bomb International Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms

Medact 33 A Safer World: Treating Britain’s harmful dependence on nuclear weapons

1 O’Connor T, 2017 Russian Senator: UK will be ‘wiped off the face of the earth’ if it uses nuclear Endnotes weapons. Newsweek, 25/4/17. http://www.newsweek.com/russia-nuclear-attack-uk-wipe-nation-face- earth-589794 2 ICRC, 2015. Long-term Health Consequences of Nuclear Weapons- 70 Years on Red Cross Hospitals still treat Thousands of Atomic Bomb Survivors. http://www.icanw.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/ Hiroshima-and_Nagasaki-ICRC-Info-Note-final.pdf 3 Helfand, I, 2013. Nuclear Famine: Two Billion People at Risk—Global Impacts of Limited Nuclear War on Agriculture, Food Supplies, and Human Nutrition. Somerville, MA: IPPNW. Available from: www.ippnw.org/pdf/nuclear-famine-two-billion-at-risk-2013.pdf 4 Kristensen HM and Norris RS, 2017. Status of World Nuclear Forces. Federation of American Scientists https://fas.org/issues/nuclear-weapons/status-world-nuclear-forces/ 5 Hoffman, David, 2009. The Dead Hand: The Untold Story of the Cold War Arms Race and its Dangerous Legacy. USA: Anchor Books. 6 UK Ministry of Defence, 2014. Global Strategic Trends 5th report. https://www.gov.uk/government/ uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/348164/20140821_DCDC_GST_5_Web_Secured.pdf 7 Trident Commission, 2014. Concluding Report: An independent, cross-party inquiry to examine UK nuclear weapons policy. London: British American Security Information Council. https://www.files.ethz. ch/isn/181759/trident_commission_finalreport.pdf 8 Merrick R, 2017. Theresa May would fire UK’s nuclear weapons as a ‘first strike’, says Defense Secretary Michael Fallon. The Independent. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may- nuclear-weapons-first-strike-michael-fallon-general-election-jeremy-corbyn-trident-a7698621.html 9 UK Government, 2016. National Security Strategy and Strategic Defence and Security Review. First Annual Report 2016. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/ file/575378/national_security_strategy_strategic_defence_security_review_annual_report_2016.pdf 10 Altogether, Britain’s nuclear weapons programme has had 110 accidents, near misses, and dangerous occurrences according to the Nuclear Information Service (2017). SeePlaying With Fire: Nuclear Weapons Incidents and Accidents in the United Kingdom. http://nuclearinfo.org/sites/default/files/ Playing%20With%20Fire%20Report-Web.pdf 11 Nuclear Information Service, 2013. Police investigating fatal shooting shocked by binge drinking on nuclear submarine HMS Astute. http://www.nuclearinfo.org/article/safety-uk-fleet/police-investigating- fatal-shooting-shocked-binge-drinking-nuclear-submarine 12 Nuclear Information Service, 2015. Trident whistleblower William McNeilly ‘sacked to save the Navy’s image’ http://nuclearinfo.org/article/uk-trident/trident-whistleblower-william-mcneilly-sacked-save- navys-image 13 Associated Press, 2015. US navy second military branch struck by exam cheating scandal this year. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/05/us-navy-military-struck-exam-cheating-scandal-year 14 Eric Schlosser, 2013: Command and Control: Nuclear Weapons, the Damascus Accident and the Illusion of Safety. New York: Penguin Books. 15 Lewis P, Aghlani S and Pelopidas B, 2014. Too Close for Comfort: Cases of Near Nuclear Use and Options for Policy, London: Chatham House. https://www.chathamhouse.org/publications/papers/ view/199200#sthash.k7C1RdHx.dpuf 16 Abaimov S and Ingram P, 2017. Hacking UK Trident: A Growing Threat. London: British American Security Information Council. http://www.basicint.org/publications/stanislav-abaimov-paul-ingram-executive- director/2017/hacking-uk-trident-growing-threat 17 Hambling D, 2016. The Inescapable Net: Unmanned Systems in Anti-Submarine Warfare. London: British American Security Information Council http://www.basicint.org/publications/david-hambling/2016/ inescapable-net-unmanned-systems-anti-submarine-warfare http://www.basicint.org/sites/default/files/ Pugwash_TransparentOceans_update_nov2016_v1%281%29.pdf 18 See: http://old.seattletimes.com/special/trinity/supplement/quotes.html 19 Vine D, 2015. Base Nation: How US Military Bases Abroad Harm America and the World. New York: Metropolitan Books. 20 CND, 2016. The costs of replacing Trident. http://www.cnduk.org/index.php?option=com_ k2&view=item&id=2447&Itemid=26

Medact A Safer World: Treating Britain’s harmful dependence on nuclear weapons 34

21 Trident Commission, 2014. Concluding Report: An independent, cross-party inquiry to examine UK nuclear weapons policy. London: British American Security Information Council. https://www.files.ethz. ch/isn/181759/trident_commission_finalreport.pdf

22 Blair B, 2011. World Nuke Spending to Top $1 Trillion Per Decade. TIME, 4 June 2011: http://ti.me/2pSsHVc

23 Perry W, 2015. William J Perry on nuclear war and . Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 8 December 2015: http://bit.ly/1Q8YW9P

24 Brixey-Williams S, Ingram P, Pedersen NS, 2017. Meaningful multilateralism: 30 Nuclear Disarmament Proposals for the Next UK Government. http://www.basicint.org/publications/sebastian- brixey-williams-project-leader-paul-ingram-executive-director-nina-sofie

25 See here: https://www.un.org/disarmament/ptnw/index.html

26 See here: https://www.icrc.org/en/war-and-law/treaties-customary-law/geneva-conventions

27 ICJ, 1996. The Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons. https://www.law.umich.edu/ facultyhome/drwcasebook/Documents/Documents/Advisory%20Opinion,%201996%20I.C.J.%20226.pdf

28 See here: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/ihl/INTRO/357?OpenDocument

29 Ammerdown Group. (2016). Rethinking Security: A discussion paper. https://rethinkingsecurityorguk. files.wordpress.com/2016/10/rethinking-security-executive-summary.pdf

30 The growing appeal of zero http://www.economist.com/node/18836134

31 IPPNW: A Brief History. http://www.ippnw.org/history.html

Image  Cover: International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons via Visualhunt.com / CC BY-NC Page 3: International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons via Visualhunt.com / CC BY-NC References Page 4: By US government, Post-Work: User:W.wolny [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons Page 5 - Top: Shadow via flickr Page 5 - Bottom: By U.S. Department of Defense Current Photos Airman 1st Class Justin Armstrong/5th Bomb Wing Public Affairs (160916-F-CG053-0009) [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons Page 6: Poor harvest vineyards, via Picfair Page 9: FlarePhot via Visual Hunt / CC BY-NC-SA Page 10: Official U.S. Air Force via VisualHunt.com Page 11 - Left: council.gov.ru [CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)], via Wikimedia Commons Page 11 - Right: By Chatham House, London [CC BY 2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons Page 12: Public Domain via Flickr, Photographer: US Army Europe Page 13: Shannon O’Toole via flickr Page 14 - Left: i-capture via Visualhunt / CC BY-NC-ND Page 14 - Right: CC0 1.0 Universal (CC0 1.0) Public Domain Dedication Page 15: Orientalizing via Flickr Page 17: Public Domain via Flickr, Photographer: National Museum of the US Navy Page 19: Crown Copyright via Flickr, Photographer: BAE Systems Page 21: Medact Page 22: Defence Images via VisualHunt / CC BY-SA Page 24 - Left: Lucas Wirl via Visualhunt.com / CC BY-NC-SA Page 24 - Right: Lucas Wirl via Visual Hunt / CC BY-NC-SA Page 25: United Nations Photo via VisualHunt.com / CC BY-NC-ND Page 26: woodleywonderworks via Visualhunt.com / CC BY Page 30: Medact Page 31: Medact

Medact The Grayston Centre 28 Charles Square London N1 6HT United Kingdom

T +44 (0)20 7324 4739 F +44 (0)20 7324 4734 E [email protected]

Registered charity 1081097 Company reg no 2267125

www.medact.org