Comments 15

阻止核战争的错误方式

Aug 16, 2017 Carl Bildt

斯德哥尔摩—绝大部分国家都希望消除核灾难所带来的生存威胁，理应如此。但实现无核武器的世界说起来容易做起来难，还存在好心办坏事的风险。

自冷战结束以来，全世界核库存大大减少了。俄罗斯和美国各自将核武库削减了80%，在奥巴马担任总统期间，美国还敦促俄罗斯进一步去核。在西欧，英国和法国也已经进一步减少了核武器数量。

这些国家减少核库存的理由各不相同。但作为减小核武器威胁的全球性措施的基础——1968年核不扩散条约（NPT）的签署国，它们也有义务这样做。

To continue reading, please log in or enter your email address.

Registration is quick and easy and requires only your email address. If you already have an account with us, please log in. Or subscribe now for unlimited access.

Featured

What’s Been Stopping the Left?

Apr 10, 2018 Dani Rodrik
Political Machismo

Apr 10, 2018 Ian Buruma
Will China Really Supplant US Economic Hegemony?

Apr 2, 2018 Kenneth Rogoff
Should Tech Companies Be More Tightly Regulated?

Mar 30, 2018 Simon Johnson
Liberal World Order, R.I.P.

Mar 21, 2018 Richard N. Haass

Carl Bildt

Writing for PS since 2009
51 Commentaries

Carl Bildt was Sweden’s foreign minister from 2006 to October 2014 and Prime Minister from 1991 to 1994, when he negotiated Sweden’s EU accession. A renowned international diplomat, he served as EU Special Envoy to the Former Yugoslavia, High Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina, UN Special Envoy to the Balkans, and Co-Chairman of the Dayton Peace Conference. He is Chair of the Global Commission on Internet Governance and a member of the World Economic Forum’s Global Agenda Council on Europe.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 14 in all 14 Comments on this article

Enrique Woll Battistini Aug 23, 2017

Perhaps I am wrong, and misinterpreting history, but I have the strong feeling that all strategies by developed countries with nuclear capabilities aiming to deter each other from launching a nuclear ICBM strike, or retaliate with one, and aimed at discouraging non nuclear countries from becoming nuclear states, are based on sticks, very big sticks, that is, nuclear ICBMs, and threatening language. What happened to the carrots? No carrots. The sticks are greased with Slogans, arrogance, ignorance, incompetent governance, hypocrisy, lies and undisguised hatred these days. The world is at a tipping point, on the brink of recovery or conflagration. There is no grand vision of how the world can be made a better place for all nations and peoples; how America could continue to be great and lead on the world stage; how to deal with anthropogenic climate disruption; how to end extreme poverty and reduce plain poverty; how to further freedom and create justice for all. The obvious fact that in a globalized world, the extremely rich cannot continue to squeeze the life from the extremely poor, and expect their paradise to be endlessly fueled by their victims' hell seems to be sailing past like icebergs crossing the bow of the RMS Titanic. East-West armed religious conflict is boiling in the cauldron of the Middle East threatening to spill over on Europe. Islamic terrorism is dangerously expanding. Something has to give, and history says it will. The seeds of world war III may have already been sown. Hitler seems to be rising; his venomous speeches can almost be heard. Will Mussolini, Stalin, Franco, and Mao, follow?

https://www.academia.edu/23094646/OFA_At_the_Brink_of_Recovery_or_Conflagration_The_World_at_a_Tipping_Point_2011111506

https://www.academia.edu/34269176/Facebook_-_Regarding_the_roots_of_the_national_political_controversy_about_confederate_heroes_and_statues_and_monuments_in_public_squares_unleashed_by_the_Charlottesville_confrontation_between_right_wing_extremists_and_moderates_-_2017081701

https://www.academia.edu/26966465/An_idea_set_forth_in_1992_written_up_in_1993_and_upgraded_in_1997_A_Partnership_for_Development_with_the_United_States_of_America_-_1997030103

https://www.academia.edu/15092472/Living_in_Peru_-_Peru_in_Copenhagen_Thoughts_on_The_Right_to_Pollute_-_Does_it_Exist_-_2010102701

https://www.academia.edu/18040396/Living_in_Peru_-_Uses_and_Limitations_of_Michael_Greene_s_Social_Progress_Index_SPI_for_Development_-_2015102202

https://www.academia.edu/13062623/Informal_Proof_of_Thomas_Pikettys_Thesis-2014060802

https://www.academia.edu/12823841/Mathematical_Model_and_Simulation_for_A_Partnership_for_Development_with_the_United_States_of_America_-_December_1999

https://www.academia.edu/12412727/WOLL_-_THE_ROLE_OF_INVESTMENT_PROMOTION_ORGANIZATIONS_IN_THIRD_WORLD_DEVELOPMENT_-_VI_-_2007103102
Orit Adar Aug 21, 2017

Clearly you think israel belongs with the bad guys, right? Would America, France and England give up their nukes? Israel is the only country who has no chnace of survival without nuclear deterrnec, as much as this plain fact annoys you.
You know, I know and everybody knows that even with a putative "pecae" agreement with the Palestinians Israel would never be safe in a Muslim Middle East. And, you know, I know and everybody knows that Israel will only use this in a total unequivocal trheat to its existence.
Perhaps it's time for you and for Sweden in general to accept the fact that Israel IS a Western country and lay off the pariah status you so self righteously keep boxing us in.
Kjølv Egeland Aug 21, 2017

I disagree with Mr Bildt on many points. Most importantly I think he is attacking a straw man. Nobody thinks the ban treaty will magically force the nuclear-armed states to give up their weapons in one “big bang”. Instead, the supporters of the ban are playing the long game – they are trying to create a norm against the possession of nuclear weapons that might over time induce the nuclear-armed states to negotiate stockpile reductions with greater urgency than they have thus far. The strategy he proposes – to facilitate stockpile reductions between the major nuclear powers – is precisely what the ban treaty supporters are trying to do. The point is that the NPT, as it implicitly gives five states a right to possess nuclear weapons, has not been particularly effective in delegitimising nuclear weapons. Mr Bildt seems to have strong faith in the virtues of nuclear deterrence. And fair enough, there are many clever people that do. But it seems somewhat contradictory to criticise the ban for undermining deterrence when the purpose of the NPT, which he praises, is exactly the same thing (it just hasn't been very effective at it). I agree that the US’ nuclear umbrella may in many cases promote stability and non-proliferation. But I think Bildt overstates this point quite a bit (Professor Benoît Pelopidas has written very well about this).

It is no secret that Mr Bildt and his party are strongly in favour of Sweden joining NATO. It seems to me that he is afraid that the incumbent Swedish government will join the ban treaty because it will complicate Sweden’s accession to NATO.
Barry Rosenfeld Aug 20, 2017

It would seem that if there were no nuclear weapons there would be no nuclear war. However, the absence of nuclear armed states likely would encourage the conventional wars that were the general rule before nuclear weapons became a reality. I feel better already. LoL.
Odyssios Redux Aug 20, 2017

' ... it is vital that neither country modernizes its nuclear arsenal in a way that is seen as expanding its nuclear capabilities. '

But surely the entire point of modernizing the arsenal is to extend capability - both in the sense of trying to ensure current weapons would still work, as well as giving new design options for construction - including the ability to 'dial up or down' the explosive power of asome types of weapon. This can only lower the barrier to use; it makes readily available, in the field if needed, a wide range of response without any additional logistic effort of getting lower-yield weapons into the field. The temptation to use 'just a constrained one,' under conditions of imminent tactical defeat, would become - considerable.

No nation with weapons now - including the US, FRance and UK, is about in any realisitic scenario, to give them up. Ever. But it makes perfet sense for all those who currently have them to help prevent others from joining the club!

The fact that nobody with weapons dare mentin that Israel has them, is to put it mildly unhelpful.

AS to for instance N Korea, quite clearly bullying hasn't, and won't, work. Which leaves either attack (insane) or diplomacy. It shold be a no-brainer. Unfortunately, there appear even fewer than no brains in Some Places, under current dispensations.

Agreed that the recent proposed Prohibition, as drafted, is at best useless; a pious aspiration rather than a piece of real diplomacy.
Mausam Babbar Aug 20, 2017

That's what is happening around. As long as this trend of nuclear disarmament starting with nuclear states continue, aspiring nuclear ambitious states would take this advantage to acquire the fissile material and place themselves into bigger picture. What's resulted in North Korea and Pakistan is an instance that needs to be looked at. Perhaps, if, only in the light of US and Russia disarming their arsenal, it makes the world more prone to powers of wreaking countries like China, North Korea and Pakistan.
Pedro Banderlogov Aug 18, 2017

It is well known that the only country that used nuclear weapons against civilians is the United States. It is also known that the only country interested in expanding NATO is also the United States. The US has hundreds of military bases and is an obvious threat to peace, so nuclear disarmament is impossible until the US renounces the idea of domination of the world.
Petey Bee Aug 18, 2017

There's a big difference between preventing mid-level countries from getting nuclear weapons, and preventing nuclear war.

Even in the absence of any kind of morality, the latter has been accomplished via the survival instinct, via the "MAD" principle. Completely amoral actors can work with this.

The former rests on shakier ground- claims that by forgoing nuclear development, a the security of non-nuclear countries is enhanced. This is true only if, firstly, a country is willing to submit to the protection regime of one of the major nuclear powers. But if a country is located on the fuzzy boundary between one sphere of influence and another, and has the misfortune to be chosen as a non-nuclear proxy battleground, that still fails. Secondly there is the assumption that the large powers are more likely to act rationally than mid size powers. Surely that assumption has been called into question.

As another commenter said, the real way to prevent nuclear war is to prevent war in general. It is as hopeless as trying to prevent crime in general, but it is equally valuable and necessary to make a sincere effort. We're not doing that at the moment.
Robert Bruce Aug 17, 2017

The utopian desire to limit and ultimately eliminate stockpiles of nuclear weapons is understandable. However, if we want to end the risk from all weapons of mass destruction we must think in much broader terms about the emerging technological realities.

Throughout the nuclear age strategic caluculations were simple because delivery systems for nuclear weapons could not be hidden. We would always know where ballistic missiles originated from, and therefore who fired them. In addition, the resources required to create WMD meant that only large nation states with clearly identifiable political power structures could possess them.

With the next generation of WMD this will simply not be the case. How could we know with certainty the origin of biological weapons or attacks on vital infrastructure such as poisoning of water systems, or sarin gas attacks in our city centres. Drones controlled from anywhere in the World can now delivery dirty bombs, biological weapons, or even nuclear warheads, without any evidence of who is responsible. This undermines the whole basis of mutually assured destruction, which has been the basis of peace between nuclear states ever since 1945. This all means we are now entering on perhaps the most dangerous period in all of human history.

The obvious logic test to confirm this conclusion is to ask, even after maximum efforts to limit WMD, will the potential still remain to wreak mass devastation on human populations. The answer to this question will always be yes.

The only reliable way to prevent WMDs being used is therefore to work on eliminating the root causes of conflict, not just between nation states, but also between communities. Almost without exception the remaining violent conflicts around the World today are all in regions where extreme poverty and inequality persist, at least in some parts of their territory. Yet in a World with record levels of GDP we could fully implement the UN Global Goals, including the elimination of poverty everywhere by 2030, for just 4% of Global GDP.

To do this we must learn to evolve beyond nationalist instincts of Trump and Brexit. Instead we must come to accept that in a World of increasingly Global threats we can no longer think in terms of "them and us" but need at last to realise the truth - that there is only one us.

As Martin Luther King expressed so clearly "We must learn to live together as brothers, or we will perish together as fools."

www.TheGlobalRace.net
- Kamil Bayye Aug 18, 2017
  
  Good timely comment.
P. Kamath Aug 17, 2017

"...Since the end of the Cold War, nuclear stockpiles around the world have been significantly reduced..."
Number game eh? But, nations who have nukes have learnt how to increase the destructive power of the bomb. They don't build peanut nukes in kilo ton range, but have graduated to producing megaton toys! The precision and reliability of delivery systems like missiles, aircrafts have improved a hundred fold! Nukes have been miniaturised too.
So horses have bolted from the stable. Nuke technology is not a mystery anymore!

My fond wish is that nations should worry more about "population explosion bomb" than the nuke So!
matias ilivitzky Aug 16, 2017

This is a very interesting article by Carl Bildt. We would all like to have a world free of nuclear weapons, but at the same time the MAD dilemma is still the best assurance, unfortunately, against its use and employment. The nuclear arms ban treaty is a step in the right direction, but the inclusion of the current nuclear powers is vital if the treaty is to be effective. Therefore, the NPT is still the instrument par excellence to deal with this issue.
Steve Hurst Aug 16, 2017

'Since the end of the Cold War, nuclear stockpiles around the world have been significantly reduced.'

This is meaningless because overcapacity existed and still exists
portocala mechanica Aug 16, 2017

I was child long times ago, but from that period I ask myself way was it necessary a second bomb, in Nagasaki?
If they want to finish faster the war, one bomb in Hiroshima would be enough! The enemy will understand! Way the second one? Why should few more thousand peoples should die and more others make suffering such a horrible way?
"Without such protection, Japan would be completely vulnerable to Chinese nuclear blackmail and North Korean missile attacks."
So Mr. Bild look in the mirror and ask yourself who is the most aggressive, who is blackmailing most due to his power, who is opposing through opinions like yours to the totally ban of nuclear weapons, or as a best way to prevent a nuclear war to democratization of power, each country should have few, just in case? And if they are not able to build them to receive from USA as democratic sign of mutual respect! This will be a better way to prevent nuclear war.
But, I am sorry to ask you, because you maybe do not know the answer, did the Iranians, Afghans, Syrians etc really care about the way they die? Do you think they are merciful they were not be killed by the nukes?