Originally published @ 11:44 pm, Tue 21st Jun 2011
Global Zero seeks the complete abolition of nuclear weapons. Derby MP Margaret Beckett is a founder member.
A film called "Countdown to Zero", a documentary shown at Cannes last year, has been produced to make the case and tonight it was shown at cinemas up and down the country as a prelude to an international conference to be held tomorrow, at which representatives of 100 countries will seek to negotiate the next steps to for the world to achieve the movement's ultimate aims.
The film set out to be the equivalent of "An Inconvenient Truth" (the movie that woke up the world on climate change). As a film, "Countdown to Zero" doesn't have quite the impact, but that maybe because we in Britain have seen "The War Game" or the even more emphatic 'A Guide to Armageddon' documentary from the BBC in 1982.
Whatever, it does bring important points to our attention, structured around a passage from a JFK speech - “Every man, woman and child lives under a nuclear sword of Damocles, hanging by the slenderest of threads, capable of being cut at any moment by accident, or miscalculation, or by madness. The weapons of war must be abolished before they abolish us.”
On madness, control over weapons grade material (Plutonium or Highly Enriched Uranium) has not been tight enough and needs to be improved, perhaps enforced via a worldwide Fissile Material Treaty. The technology to make a bomb once the material is stolen is not particularly high, although people would need to be well financed to do it. There are (or have been) groups "mad" enough to do it. Once out, tracing such material is difficult (although I think intelligence agencies may not be telling us the full story in terms of what they are capable of).
Valerie Plame Wilson, an ex CIA agent, points out just how expensive it is to monitor this risk, and how this compels her to a new answer of no nuclear fissile material at all.
Accidents can happen. One of the film's producers used to be a launch officer for USA's Minutemen missiles and he has particular concerns that Russia and the USA still have weapons on "launch alert" - i.e. giving precious little time to deal with false warnings such as Boris Yeltsin once had to make a judgement on.
The film shows Reagan and Gorbachev failing to clinch a deal at Reykjavik in 1986 (cos of Reagan sticking out for Star Wars) but doesn't tell how a false alarm in November 1983 (and its portrayal in a documentary “The Day After”) turned Reagan from such a warmonger. (See - http://www.labourblogs.com/public-blog/michaeledwards/11220/ )
There are criticisms to be made.
(1) Once again, the impact of a nuclear exchange fails to mention the nuclear winter that will follow such an exchange and hurt all the human race. (2) Using a physicist who says any risk above zero means an event will inevitably happen is not helpful and undermines the step by step approach that will inevitably be required to get rid of nuclear weapons.
And the first main target has to be the USA and Russia who hold by far the largest share of the world's 23,000 nuclear bombs (down from 60,000).
In a question and answer session, a member of the audience at the host event (at BAFTA in London) wondered about the precedent of a country being the first to give up weapons, overlooking the examples of South Africa, Brazil, Argentina, Libya, Belarus and other former USSR states, again at odds with (3) pundits in the movie suggesting that the number of nuclear states can only grow. (The film is also dated slowly by references to the threat posed by Osama bin Laden.)
On misjudgement, the big concerns are North Korea, Iran's efforts to make a weapon, and the instability of Pakistan.
Queen Noor of Jordan was on hand to point out that countries that still have weapons are looked upon as a threat by the rest of the world, so something to reflect on.
But I was also intrigued to see that the UK at 185 weapons was lower than France (300). Don't tell the Daily Mail.
Maybe it's surprising that with the cold war over, and holding nuclear weapons seemingly causing more problems than it's solving, as well as costing a lot of money, that it's not easier to moot the idea of quietly "dropping" them (as it were). But awareness of the issues is much lower than in the highly charged and highly risky era of the eighties with America and its "tactical nuclear war" doctrine.
Global Zero has all the signs of a worthy and worthwhile campaign on an issue that the world is slowly forgetting about (only 50 people from Nottingham came to see the film).
Global Zero has some impressive leaders, supporters and opinion formers and may well have the nous to start developing some key steps for the world to lift itself free of the threat of mass destruction, the heavy cost of nuclear weapons or indeed the loss of a major city to an act of terrorism.
Comments