Opposition to Nuclear Weapons

History

UK Nuclear Weapon System – Trident

Statements against nuclear weapons

History

By the late 1950s, there was huge opposition to nuclear weapons. Initially, the protests were about the testing of these weapons and the damage that could do to the environment. But this quickly moved on to opposition to the weapons themselves. In Britain, there were calls for the government to get rid of its nuclear weapons despite what anyone else might do – this is known as ‘unilateralism’. This was partly due to the complete failure of any negotiations between countries – known as ‘multilateralism’. The US, Russia and Britain, (and later France and China), were building more and more nuclear weapons. All attempts to control, let alone reverse the process broke down repeatedly. (As an example, negotiations for a treaty to halt the spread of nuclear weapons, the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), began in 1958 but the final agreement was not reached until 1968. The terms of that treaty have still not been met).

In Britain there were annual marches to the base at Aldermaston in Berkshire where nuclear weapon research took place. There were demonstrations in London of 100,000 people as well as smaller non-violent direct action protests. These are protests of civil disobedience such as sitting down on a main road (the most famous at the time were in Whitehall), breaking through fences at bases or blocking the gates at bases. They usually involve many arrests

In the 1960s, after the signing of the Partial Test Ban Treaty and the rise of concern about the Vietnam war, protest against nuclear weapons tailed off.

Fear returns

In 1979 the decision was made to deploy American Cruise and Pershing missiles in Britain and several other Western European countries. At the same time the Soviet Union was deploying its new SS-20 missiles in Eastern Europe. There were now many nuclear missiles based in Europe, in particular close to the East-West border. The world seemed to be split more than ever. Certainly the US and Britain in the guise of President Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, seemed intent on creating what they would see as an ideological battle: ‘Good v Evil’ or ‘Capitalism v Communism’. When US Cruise missiles arrived in Britain there were huge protests. The world famous women’s peace camp was set up at Greenham Common in Berkshire, where US Cruise missiles were based in Britain.

Some in the US administration were suggesting that nuclear weapons could actually be used on a battlefield. There was anger and a belief that the US was planning to fight what they described as a ‘limited nuclear war’ in Europe. This whole atmosphere created a lot of fear among people and helped to boost the membership of peace organisations like the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND). Huge demonstrations took place worldwide with as many as 400,000 in London in 1983.

Nuclear testing returned to the headlines in 1995 when France began a series of tests, again in Mururoa. This action provoked anger and protest around the world, particularly in Australia, New Zealand and the South Pacific. Many people boycotted French goods, so much so that figures for the export sale of French wine during that period were well down on previous years. The tests also served to remind people that nuclear weapons still existed and were still a big problem.

Opposition to nuclear weapons comes in many forms. Groups such as CND (founded in 1958 and still going today) organise demonstrations, publish information leaflets and magazines, lobby politicians and many other forms of protest. Trident Ploughshares members pledge to carry out non-violent direct action against all aspects of the British Trident nuclear weapons system. This could mean blockading bases, breaking into bases and damaging equipment or stopping nuclear weapons convoys on the roads.

But opposition covers wide areas of life and is not limited to demonstrations. In 1995 the Australian Government set up the Canberra Commission to look at whether it was possible, or indeed desirable to abolish nuclear weapons. The Commission included Robert McNamara, the US Secretary of Defense during the Cuban missile crisis in 1962, General Lee Butler, former Head of US Strategic Command, and Field Marshall Lord Carver, UK Chief of Defence Staff 1973-76. They concluded that nuclear disarmament was indeed possible and desirable and should happen as soon as possible.

Statements against nuclear weapons

The military have also been involved. In 1996 General Butler was instrumental in organising a Generals and Admirals Statement signed by 60 retired military officers from 17 countries calling for nuclear disarmament.

Following on from that, in 1998, there was a Civil Leaders Statement calling for the abolition of nuclear weapons. This was signed by 117 leaders from 46 nations and included 47 past or present presidents and prime ministers. Signatories included former US President Jimmy Carter and former Soviet Union President Mikhail Gorbachev.

Today the climate is very different. The article by George P. Shultz, William J. Perry, Henry A. Kissinger and Sam Nunn, in The Wall Street Journal, January 4, 2007  created the political space where the abolition of nuclear weapons could be discussed at all levels and,  indeed, serious discussion now focused on ‘how’ abolition could be achieved rather than ‘whether’. The second article by the same four one year later in January 2008 gave this further impetus as did the election of President Obama, with the prominence in his Prague speech on 9th April 2009 of  re-committing the US to “seek peace and security in a world  without nuclear weapons”.

Many former political leaders are now speaking out across the world and those who have campaigned for many long years for the abolition of nuclear weapons find themselves in strange company.

(Add in 3/4 generals and politicians statements)

>>> Statement on Nuclear Weapons by International Generals and Admirals

>>> Statement by Heads of State and Civilian Leaders Worldwide

>>> Statement of the Canberra Commission on the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons

There are many reasons why people oppose nuclear weapons.

For many it’s simply a case of morality. How can I support something that would kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people who just happen to live in a country my government thinks of as an enemy?

The obscene waste of resources is another reason – and not just in financial terms (although the estimate for the total cost of nuclear weapons in the US from 1940-1995 is $3.5 trillion!). It’s he enormous waste of time, people and research & development.

Hypocrisy – there’s yet another one. Our own government insists on keeping nuclear weapons for what they claim is our security. Yet they object when another country wants to do the same. Surely if you believe in deterrence and think that nuclear weapons increase your security then everyone should have them?

There is always the possibility of an accident. There have been many cases over the years of accidents involving nuclear weapons on aircraft. Some of these have even happened in Britain.

Click here to find more information and for organisations working to bring an end to WMD