The Marshall Islands, Nuclear Testing, and the NPT

Lasrick writes: Robert Alvarez, a senior scholar at the Institute for Policy Studies and a former senior policy adviser to the Energy Department's secretary and deputy assistant secretary for national security and the environment, details the horrific consequences of nuclear weapons testing in the Marshall Islands and explains the lawsuits the Marshallese have filed against the nuclear weapons states. The lawsuits hope to close the huge loophole those states carved for themselves with the vague wording of Article VI of the NPT (Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty), wording that allows those states to delay, seemingly indefinitely, implementing the disarmament they agreed to when they signed the treaty.

Comments

Wishful Thinking

[Fire_Wraith]

As horrible as nuclear weapons are, and as ideal as a world without them would be, this is wishful thinking at its best. The level of trust and cooperation required for everyone to give up nuclear weapons is in large part simply impossible given the current state of human and world affairs. We've certainly not managed to eliminate war or armed conflict. All we've done is limit its scope and size.

And speaking of that, it's in large part due to nuclear weapons that there have been no major wars in the past 70 years. The most we've seen were proxy wars that were limited in scope, and while many of those were horrible, they pale in comparison to the two World Wars, or really any of the major power conflicts that preceded them. The world with nuclear-armed major powers is paradoxically MORE peaceful than the world before it was. Prior to the nuclear age, it's difficult to go more than 20-30 years without two or more major powers going to war. The presence of nuclear weapons was the final thing that made "Total War" too costly a concept for rational actors to even consider it.

Reduce their number and scope? Sure, by all means. Get rid of them entirely? That's quite a different thing.

Re:Wishful Thinking

[edxwelch]

You realise we came close to a full scale nuclear war at least three times during the cold war? (Twice during the Cuban crisis and one false alarm by a Soviet early warning system)
They may appeared to make things safer, but it was just blind luck that we avoided nuclear Armageddon.

Re:Wishful Thinking

[Charliemopps]

As horrible as nuclear weapons are, and as ideal as a world without them would be, this is wishful thinking at its best. The level of trust and cooperation required for everyone to give up nuclear weapons is in large part simply impossible given the current state of human and world affairs. We've certainly not managed to eliminate war or armed conflict. All we've done is limit its scope and size.

And speaking of that, it's in large part due to nuclear weapons that there have been no major wars in the past 70 years. The most we've seen were proxy wars that were limited in scope, and while many of those were horrible, they pale in comparison to the two World Wars, or really any of the major power conflicts that preceded them. The world with nuclear-armed major powers is paradoxically MORE peaceful than the world before it was. Prior to the nuclear age, it's difficult to go more than 20-30 years without two or more major powers going to war. The presence of nuclear weapons was the final thing that made "Total War" too costly a concept for rational actors to even consider it.

Reduce their number and scope? Sure, by all means. Get rid of them entirely? That's quite a different thing.

No major wars in the past 70 years? Wtf have you been smoking? We've been in a proxy war with Russia since basically the end of WWII. We've invaded practically every country in the middle east, South America and most of Asia. Millions of people are dead. Basically the entire middle east is at war with us in one way or another as we speak. The only difference between now and WWII is the iron grip our leaders now have on the message our media feeds us. We are in the middle of a world war right now, and have been this entire time.

After memorial day I read an article about how Obama was celebrating the first memorial day without "boots on the ground" in 7 years or something. Meanwhile we've got special forces in every country in the middle east, bombers flying daily missions, drones bombing weddings. Just how gullible are we?!?!

Re:I'd prefer they stay armed, TYVM

[sideslash]

The ethics of nations maintaining nuclear arsenals is a debate not likely to be resolved soon. However, the nasty things our defense research scientists did to the people living on the Marshall Islands is hopefully something everyone could agree is not OK.

Re:I'd prefer they stay armed, TYVM

[Ol Olsoc]

There hasn't been another world war since major states nuked up, so I'd prefer everyone stayed armed, thank you very much.

So we've entered the endless small war phase. BFD.

Legal failure; politically misguided.

[mpoulton]

This lawsuit is a legal mess, destined to fail. In fact, it already did fail and they're just trying futilely to revive it. All applicable statutes of limitations passed years ago. You can't wait decades to file a lawsuit. Equally as importantly, "The Marshall Islands" as a political subdivision does not have standing to sue for injuries that occurred to specific people and property there. Those people and property owners would have to sue, not their regional government. Finally, the decisions which were made and the actions taken were political decisions made by the United States in exercise of its sovereign authority - and you can't sue for that. It seems that the plaintiffs know this, which is why they are now trying to frame the lawsuit as a claim to enforce the NPT. The problem with that is, yet again, a lack of standing on several levels, and an inaccurate interpretation of the treaty itself. First, there is no cause of action through which any individual or entity can force the government to comply with or enforce a treaty. International relations are solely the sovereign domain of the federal government, and they can decide to abide by (or disregard) treaties as our elected officials see fit. Second, the treaty is not being violated. It does not require disarmament, nor is there a mandatory timeline for any particular disarmament-related activity. It says the signatories will negotiate towards an agreement regarding disarmament. That's not an enforceable mandate in any meaningful sense. Why? Because the signatories never actually had any intention of disarming, so they made an agreement that didn't require them to disarm. A third party can't come in and force them to abide by a deal they didn't make in the first place. Look, the Marshallese got screwed. There was a discriminatory component to that. It wouldn't happen the same way today. But the bottom line is that we needed a place to test weapons of mass destruction, and the Marshall Islands were the best choice available. So the US did what they had to do to make the program work. They should have provided market-based compensation for the taking of land, and they should have relocated everyone out of the zone of danger, turning the entire area into a restricted military installation before blowing it up repeatedly. There should have been no injuries and no uncompensated loss of property. But the reasonable conclusion to take away from those events is not that nuclear weapons should be eliminated, or that the tests shouldn't have been conducted at that location. They served a critical purpose for national security, and anyone who says otherwise is a revisionist with an agenda.