Arms Control Pros Need to Collaborate to Reduce Nuclear Risk

By JASON SIBERT

It is commonplace that the danger of nuclear weapons becomes more severe with the passing of each year.

This is reflected in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists Doomsday Clock, for which the time to midnight has declined steadily since 1996. If we keep going in the same direction, the international security situation will continue to grow even more dangerous despite the ongoing efforts of the US arms control community.

To remove ourselves from such a tragic outcome and drastically slash nuclear risk, the arms control community needs a new approach. When faced with a grand challenge, it is usual within the scientific community to develop a new vision and strategic plan—with significant positive effects in many sub-fields. Yet, such brainstorming and planning is not underway in the US nuclear arms control community, as stated by Stewart Pranger in his story “The US Nuclear Arms Control Community Needs a Strategic Plan.”

Despite its constrained resources, the community has been influential in the past. However, the current approach of a collection of arms control organizations—each with independent efforts and plans—is unlikely to lead us to a more secure future.

Now, it’s time for arms control professionals to challenge themselves by collaborating across the community to develop a plan to reduce nuclear risk. Currently, the United States is increasing the capability of its nuclear weapons through its massive modernization program to counter Russia and China’s arsenals.

The economic and political forces behind nuclear weapons are more potent than those behind arms control. Funding for nuclear weapons in the US in 2024 is approaching $70 billion. The annual congressional lobbying effort for these weapons is over $100 million. Lobbying for nuclear weapons exceeds the entire budget for all activities within the arms control community. It’s hard to beat the economic power of this powerful lobby, but it’s important to remember that the persuasive power of arms control advocates likely exceeds its relative funding.

In the arms control community’s future efforts, strategic planning is crucial at this time and must be prioritized. Pranger said: “The US arms control and disarmament community is united in the overarching goal of reducing the salience of nuclear weapons in international relations. However, the community lacks a plan for fulfilling that goal and a common statement of its grand challenge.”

Pranger suggested a goal — altering the US nuclear arsenal and posture to accomplish global arms reduction in 10 years and disarmament in 20 years. He also suggested steps: “A plan for nuclear arms control and disarmament could include various elements such as large-scale outreach to the public, upgraded interactions with Congress, strategic countering of messaging promulgated by the nuclear weapons complex in favor of nuclear weapons primacy in security, as well as more unorthodox actions...”

Further steps include uniting the arms control community with a common cause, such as being open to various strategic approaches and open to all interested, informed, and involved in arms control work—whether trained in the natural sciences, political sciences, or any other field. The effort should not be led by a particular organization, although it could be crucial that the leading arms control organizations encourage the planning process.

The role of organizational structures can be incorporated into the plan throughout the process, strengthening arms control organizations. The process will require a series of meetings, evolving from an assessment of broad goals to approaches to accomplishing the goals to more detailed plans.

Pranger also mentioned that the arms control community lives in a country that protects civil liberties, a plus. However, this is not true in many other countries that possess nuclear weapons. Still, our vibrant arms control community could eventually spread to other states, although it would help if democratic norms prevailed in those countries.

He said that arms control organizations should seek funding from philanthropists, as this is already a reality to some degree. However, once US arms control community members come to the table and engage in the creative experiment of strategic planning, Pranger said there is little doubt they will come up with fresh ideas and a new vision. If these plans can be executed, they will generate new ideas from the arms control community. Perhaps those ideas will become a reality.

Will we see a movement in the future?

Jason Sibert of St. Louis, Mo., is the Lead Writer for the Peace Economy. Email jasonsibert@hotmail.com.

From The Progressive Populist, August 15, 2024

Populist.com