ABSTRACT
The question about the future of nuclear weapons plagues a growing set of people who worry about the future of the world. And so it should. Nuclear weapons are qualitatively different in their effect to all other weapons that have been invented, deployed and used. And, although they have been reduced in numbers since the end of the Cold War, they still play a central role in the security postures of the possessor of nuclear weapons. Those in nuclear alliances with the United States (NATO allies, Japan, Australia and South Korea, for example) likewise place US nuclear forces in a central role in their defence planning. Unless we prise open the emotional attachment to nuclear weapons, rethink nuclear deterrence and understand the fears that nuclear disarmament would bring – and put in place measures to reduce the risks those fears portray – we are doomed to be in their thrall until they are used again. The energy that is released in breaking and forming nuclear bonds are millions of times greater than the energy associated with molecular reactions in conventional explosives. The energy contained in a nuclear explosion has blast and heat effects orders of magnitude greater than conventional explosives, with the addition of a massive release of highly damaging prompt radiation and long-term deposits of radioactive isotopes that could spread far and wide (fallout). Depending on where and how many nuclear weapons explode, there is also a significant risk of long-term impact on global agriculture and food production due to soot particulates in the atmosphere blocking out sunlight. The numbers of people who would be killed, be maimed and suffer as a result of the use of nuclear weapons in populated areas far surpass those of conventional explosions in terms of numbers and degree of inhumane suffering. Indeed, one of the questions implicit in Andreas Persbo’s paper is: will our era be known as the nuclear age, as our ancestors’ are now described by the terms stone, bronze and iron? One thing is certain; the effects of nuclear weapons are so devastating, so inhumane, that to use them again would be against the dictates of the public conscience. As Harald Müller strongly articulates, the framing of the nuclear weapons problem as a humanitarian issue makes complete sense. Chemical weapons and biological weapons have been banned on grounds of their inhumane, uncivilized effects; surely the case for banning nuclear weapons on the same basis is obvious. Many weapons systems and human behaviours have been
banned as a result of their inhumane and devastating long-term impact on individuals and societies. Anti-personnel landmines and cluster munitions have been banned through treaties that have their roots in international humanitarian law (IHL). 2015 marked the centenary of the first massive use of chemical weapons on the battlefield of Ypres in World War I, which led to the 1925 Geneva Protocol that banned the use of chemical and biological weapons in conflict, which in turn led to the 1972 (biological) and 1993 (chemical) weapons conventions. Indeed, IHL is a barometer of the taboo effect. A taboo, as discussed by Harald Müller, is (1) something forbidden because of what are believed to be dangerous supernatural powers; (2) banned on grounds of morality or distaste; and (3) banned as constituting a risk. There are a number of behaviours that can be considered taboo across cultures: incest, cannibalism, torture, murder and so on. But, however strongly held, taboos are broken. People commit heinous crimes even though such behaviours are strictly forbidden in their societies. So, although the use of nuclear weapons is often described as a taboo, such castigation may not be sufficient to prevent a future detonation and also may not hold in each nuclear weapon-possessing country. Within IHL, the concept of taboo is expressed as the public conscience in the Martens clause in the preamble to the 1899 Convention (II) with Respect to the Laws and Customs of War on Land (ICRC 1899):
Until a more complete code of the laws of war is issued, the High Contracting Parties think it right to declare that in cases not included in the Regulations adopted by them, populations and belligerents remain under the protection and empire of the principles of international law, as they result from the usages established between civilized nations, from the laws of humanity, and the requirements of the public conscience.
