The 2000 NPT Review Conference (RevCon)
14 April - 19 May 2000, New York

Presentations By Non-Governmental 
Organizations (NGOs)

Nuclear Weapons Can and Must Be Banned: The View from Russia
Speaker: Dr. Lev Feoktistov

Throughout nearly the entire history of nuclear weapons development, the Soviet Union (Russia) has been a proponent of their reduction, up to a complete universal elimination. Apart from the humane considerations, the question has always remained as to where, when, and in what specific circumstances should one use nuclear weapons without breaking the commonly accepted concepts of decency, logic, and advisability. The Americans lost the war in Vietnam, the Soviet Union lost a long, exhausting, high-toll war in Afghanistan, but neither one employed nuclear weapons, or even considered that possibility. The USA came to Kuwait’s rescue, carried out military operations against Iraq, backed by the international community, with its own air and naval power, but did not use nuclear weapons.

NATO, led by the United States, clearly in violation of its authority and the UN Charter, unleashed the war in Yugoslavia, bombing Belgrade and other cities. The Russian people are utterly indignant and express their complete sympathy with their Slavic brothers. The potential of an alliance between Yugoslavia and Russia, akin to that with Belorussia, was quite seriously discussed. The only thing lacking was concrete military help, or even a most general hint at the fact that Russia, by the way, possesses nuclear capabilities.

We have attempted to come up with hypothetical examples that would illustrate what conceivable life circumstances would force one to use nuclear weapons, would justify the tremendous concentration of destructive power, of radioactivity, capable of turning the Earth instantaneously into hell. We did not find such examples, for the simple reason: the main function of nuclear weapons does not lie in the solution of a military task on the battlefield, but in the destruction of cities, industry, in mass annihilation of people, which, in turn, is in profound contradiction with the morals and the very essence of the purpose of human existence.

An indirect argument of this universal truth is the inability up to now of any nuclear strategist to clearly delineate the distinct quantitative prospects for the future: how many warheads do we need to maintain in permanent arsenals to ensure world stability: 1, 10, 100, 1000, or more? What we are dealing with is a failure to come up with a substantiated range of the value. In physics it would signify complete failure, lack of a valid idea. Time-wise, the situation is the same: a sluggish beginning (START-2, 3) and a far-from-defined end. Nevertheless, statements, such as, "Russia will perish without nuclear weapons, from the hand of the United States, China, etc.," persist. By all indications, the sentiment is symmetrical in the United States. "One can deal with Russians, as well as the Chinese, Iraqis, and other Asians, only from the position of strength, with a nuclear baton in hand."

Basic common sense gets lost in the emotional nuances of such statements. The question is, why does the United States, even if it intends to conquer Russia, need a land devastated by nuclear fire, with demolished cities and industry, angry and sick people?

We are told, there are no weapons which, once born, will ever die. First of all, it is not true: Chemical weapons have been banned; secondly, nuclear weapons possess attributes of the absolute, which is something that did not exist before. Their unrestrained use could cause all life on Earth to cease. Today we painfully lament the hundreds of lives lost over the months of the Chechen war. In the event of any more or less sizable nuclear war, the numbers would run into millions in a matter of an hour.

In the final analysis, we never found a reasonable argument which could define the place of nuclear weapons, apart from emotional, psychological and philosophical motives, which are widespread and have to be reckoned with. We must confront them with rational reasoning.

And I challenge anyone to suggest the global idea, or purpose, for the sake of which it would be acceptable to sacrifice just one city, say, New York, to just one hydrogen bomb.

Very recent and memorable is the time when the work of a state leader was evaluated not only for economic achievements but also for successes in the realm of foreign policy. The anti-military and, first and foremost, anti-nuclear achievements were particularly prestigious. They were met with enthusiasm by the people, being in tune with their frame of mind and memories of the victims and the role of the European liberator in the 1941-1945 war. We have talked from high podiums, at length and with gusto, about disarmament, nuclear reductions, test bans, and done precisely the opposite. In the attempt to catch up with the United States, we have accumulated over 40,000 tons of chemical weapons, 80,000 tanks - more than is owned by the rest of the world’s nations. We have millions of artillery shells and mines which are way past their shelf life, and over 40,000 nuclear and hydrogen bombs. In the heat of the competition, few ever gave a thought to why we need so much. At that time, very popular was a song by Vladimir Vysotskiy, "And as for us, we are making rockets, we are damming the Yenisei," and, as the ballad goes, "we are ahead of the entire planet." Tons of money has been spent on all these armaments, and over 70% of the industrial resources of the USSR.

Only with the advent of the new ideology, new leaders, and M.S. Gorbachev’s perestroika did we begin to understand the absurdity of the situation which had emerged, and were horrified at the estimates which showed that in order to eliminate this massive pile of armaments, we would need at least as much as had been invested in their creation, i.e. dozens of billions of dollars.

M.S. Gorbachev took a decisive stand on the nuclear disarmament issue. In 1985, he proposed and, more importantly, began to implement the program of complete nuclear weapons elimination by the year 2000. It was a phased-in program, strictly tied to a time schedule. Unfortunately, in early 1990s, the program vanished just like the Soviet Union itself. It is no longer even remembered.

Let me remind you that not so long ago our government used to promote the slogan of "no first use of nuclear weapons." At the beginning of 2000, the new "Russian Federation National Security Concept" was adopted, in accordance with which the army is instructed to use nuclear weapons "in the event of repelling an act of armed aggression, should all other means of resolving the crisis be exhausted and prove ineffective." As we see, the formula is vague and does not permit an unambiguous interpretation. This leads us to a question, "Does the protracted war in Chechnya, with the bandit-like attempts to penetrate into Dagestan, give cause for us to use nuclear weapons if we were to formally follow the ‘Concept’?"

A new, justifying philosophy is emerging as well. There was a time when Stalin was still in power when we proposed a ban on nuclear weapons. The great minds, such as Einstein and Russell, fervently advocated against nuclear war, warning everyone of a global demise.

What answer did we receive? "No. You have a strong army, we will not be able to deal with it without nuclear weapons." Today it looks like the roles have been reversed, and now it is us saying that Russia can protect its independence only with the help of nuclear weapons.

Russia faces a decisive turning point: it will either choose to strengthen and build up its armed forces, or it will follow the route of integration and friendship with the rest of the world. An important role in this decision will be played by public opinion in the European countries and in the United States.

It is very hard to understand why America, with its strong naval and airforce capabilities, state-of-the-art missiles, separated from the rest of the world by two oceans, is not taking decisive steps towards complete nuclear disarmament. The only conceivable (in principle) real threat to the American people that could come from other countries lies in missiles with nuclear warheads. The START-2 and START-3 treaties help make progress toward disarmament, but they lack the necessary degree of completion.

The barrier between nuclear and non-nuclear nations is precarious, as evidenced by the transformation of India and Pakistan from non-nuclear into nuclear nations that took place right before our eyes. Article VI of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty pertaining to complete nuclear disarmament, which would eliminate the distinction between nuclear and non-nuclear states, is not being observed. We worry when other countries obtain nuclear capabilities, but there is nothing we can do about it, because we understand their concern with their own safety.

The United States would fulfill its historic mission if it were to pronounce the elimination of nuclear weapons, complete global nuclear disarmament, and not in general terms, but by a specific date, say, 2010. The world community would benefit tremendously from such an action. Russia would no longer need to support its strategic forces, which eat up a significant portion of its military budget. What need would we have for intercontinental missiles, both ground-launched and sea-launched, which are so complex and expensive, if they are not equipped with nuclear warheads and as such will not affect the outcome of a war?

The need for ballistic missile defenses, on which the United States so ardently insists, and which therefore contributes a factor of agitation in their interaction with Russia, would naturally disappear. It is clear to us that no ABM system possesses the required high degree of reliability. It can be overpowered by a build-up of standard offensive means, which is much cheaper to do. At the same time, U.S. intentions to build an ABM system, and even its talk about it, is pushing Russia to augment its military potential.

The talk about National Missile Defense being created not against Russia but to ward off terrorists and maniacal dictators is not being treated seriously. Indeed, isn’t it a little too expensive to create a national missile defense system, which is meant to prevent a highly improbable event? It is easier for a terrorist to smuggle into the United States a nuclear mini-bomb in a "sack of sugar" than to build a long-range missile, and as for a maniac leader with a disturbed psyche, he will think a hundred times before launching a single missile only to receive a thousand-fold retaliation back on his own head.

Under any circumstance, the emergence of unforeseen circumstances involving the use of nuclear weapons is less probable in a nuclear-free world, with global monitoring in place to prevent the emergence of nuclear weapons which is strict and equally obligatory for both former nuclear and non-nuclear states. International controls can be effective only if there are no exceptions and if the rules are the same for everyone.

Thus nuclear weapons have outlived their historic mission. The sphere of application of nuclear and hydrogen bombs is unclear. National security as ensured by nuclear weapons is illusory, because the only function inherent in such a system is instilling fear.

Once Albert Einstein was asked, "Will there be a World War III?" He answered, "I can not tell you with complete certainty whether there will be a third world war, but there will be no fourth world war – that I can tell you for sure." Let us follow the precepts of the wise men: "The mission of science is to make the impossible possible, to make the possible a reality, and to make the reality reasonable."

Nuclear weapons can and must be eliminated in the foreseeable future. They are immoral in essence because they are primarily directed against the civilian population and carry an inherent threat to life on Earth.

The overall current situation in Russia is such that it is not conducive to peace-promoting tendencies. Most likely, it is the opposite: a new arms build-up cycle can emerge, which will encompass, among other things, nuclear weapons.

Only international forces, and first and foremost, the United Nations, are capable of combating militarism. As for the United States, having emerged as a world leader, it must play a primary role in the peace process, in the process of disarmament.