EXACTLY after a decade, the Nobel Peace Prize has found a
recepienty campaigning directly against atomic weapons. In1985,it had been awarded to the International Physicians for
the Prevention of Nuclear War. The crusade of this year's
awardees, Joseph Rotblat and the Conference on Science and
World Affairs - drily called the Pugwash Conferences after
the site of the first one in 1957 - is even older and probably
much more influential.
Yet, the belated recognition is not the celebration of any
great triumph. Influenced by the blithe testing of nuclear
bombs this year by China and France, it is more a stately
acknowledgement that opposition to nuclear weaponry continues to be the handiwork of a few heroes of peace.
The award also focusses attention on the fact that research,
Posting production and deployment of nuclear weapons continues to be one of the biggest potential threats to international
owder and global peace. Substance to this is provided, above
by the stupendous stockpile of nuclear weapons already in
wenion of the five nuclear-haves. Together, these nuclear
mm held 26,700 active nuclear warheads in mid-1993,
equal 9,700 million tOnneS Of TNT, roughly 1,600 times
rde5tructive force of all the firepower used in World War u.
At the turn of the century, future nuclear stocks - keeping
in mind planned reductions - are expected to contain
AW20,000 warheads. Even the lesser figure
mM be sufficient to destroy the entire
human race and large sections of the world as
we know it several times over.
Proponents of nuclear weapons and
Kilear utilisation tactics and strategies
uml) always dismiss such dire prognosis as
odly unrealistic. Indeed, the presence of such
weapons is believed by the former group as the
key factor in the non-occurence of global con
since 1945.
puations
The argument, however, constitutes an absolute and deliberate
we underestimation of the threat of nuclear weapons. After
r demo e of its erstwhile enemy, the former Soviet Union,
r us has justified the retention of nuclear weapons in order
police other nations from becoming similar threats. Many
dowse threats are expected to materialize from allegedly irresponsible
countries of the South. Russia uses similar arguments
against the smaller states which succeeded the USSR.
However, the danger of use of nuclear weapons is strong
m in the North. After all, it produced the most vicious war
mgering government of the century in Nazi Germany;
Bosnia shows the latency of war even in the so called devel
ed world. None of the nuclear arms reduction agreements
we been endorsed by France and the UK. More significantly,
the nuclear powers who are participating in the ongoing
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) negotiations, have
already drawn up plans to continue with nuclear weapons
research nonetheless.
This reality promotes a powerful case for support and further strengthening of all Northern anti-nuclear opinion, quarters and movements. It must be recognised that the enlightenment of these dissidents has flickered in phases instead of
being a constantly illuminating beacon. The most productive
years of the Pugwash Conferences were the late '50s and early
'60s, when their anti-nuclear drive attracted participation
from even behind the Iron Curtain. By the '70s, they had
lapsed into oblivion.
These traditions must be built upon by the participation of
much larger numbers of laypersons as well as concerned
experts, before a serious challenge can be mounted on
the nuclear vagrancy of the North. And as Rotblat and
other knowledgeable persons have maintained, not a few
of these numbers will have to be scientists. This is imperative
because significant sections of the most notable scientific
effort in the North is directly linked to the development
of nuclear weapons. The sophistication that has followed
the crude technological innovation since the Manhattan
Project - which directly resulted in the bombing of
Hiroshima and Nagasaki - is the outcome of frontier
advances in computers and semiconductors,
liquid and solid fuels, advanced radio and
inertial navigation technologies, electro-servomechanisms and other areas of scientific
research.
The effort is reflected in bare figures as
well. According to the us Congressional
Budget Committee, that country would have
spent us $98 billion Of R&D related to the
development of nuclear weapons between
1985-2000. The Stockholm International
Peace Research Institute has estimated similar
expenditure to the tune of nearly us $30 billion for France and
Britain. Of more immediate concern are figures which show
that in 1993, while overall expediture on inilitary-related
R&D was nearly us $40 billion in the us, it could find only
us $1.4 billion to spend on R&D in the environmental and
natural resource sectors.
Many leading lights of the scientific community are
inclined to think that this is in the nature of jobs. A pity.
one of the most proclaimed sources of inspiration to them,
Albert Einstein, often said that concern for humans and their
destiny must always be the chief interest of all technical
effort. He is also acknowledged as a guru by Rotblat and his
compatriots. This year's Nobel is surely a reminder of that
humane responsibility.
We are a voice to you; you have been a support to us. Together we build journalism that is independent, credible and fearless. You can further help us by making a donation. This will mean a lot for our ability to bring you news, perspectives and analysis from the ground so that we can make change together.
Comments are moderated and will be published only after the site moderator’s approval. Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name. Selected comments may also be used in the ‘Letters’ section of the Down To Earth print edition.