tag:theconversation.com,2011:/au/topics/arms-control-36118/articlesArms control – The Conversation2024-03-25T15:09:17Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2262402024-03-25T15:09:17Z2024-03-25T15:09:17ZSouth Africans fighting for Israel in Gaza: what does the law say?<p><em>South Africa’s foreign minister, Naledi Pandor, said the country’s citizens fighting for the Israel Defence Forces in Gaza faced <a href="https://www.africanews.com/2024/03/14/naledi-pandor-south-africans-fighting-for-israel-will-be-arrested/">prosecution upon their return</a>. This statement followed <a href="https://theconversation.com/un-genocide-ruling-wont-change-israels-behaviour-three-reasons-why-222128">tension</a> between South Africa and Israel amid the <a href="https://www.rescue.org/topic/gaza-crisis">“humanitarian catastrophe”</a> resulting from Israel’s war against Hamas in Gaza.</em></p>
<p><em>There is a history of South African citizens of Jewish descent fighting for Israel, but the number fighting for Israel in the current war on Gaza is unknown. The Conversation Africa asked Michelle Nel, an expert in international law and military law, for her legal insights.</em></p>
<h2>Which South African law bars its citizens from fighting in foreign wars or armies?</h2>
<p>South Africa explicitly prohibits citizens from rendering any foreign military assistance without the permission of the <a href="https://www.gov.za/news/media-statements/national-conventional-arms-control-committee-ncacc-statement-south-african">National Conventional Arms Control Committee</a>. The committee is appointed by the president and controls all issues related to conventional arms. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.justice.gov.za/constitution/SAConstitution-web-eng-11.pdf">Section 198(b)</a> of the constitution precludes South African citizens from participating in any foreign armed conflict. The <a href="https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Issues/Mercenaries/WG/Law/SouthAfrica6.pdf">Regulation of Foreign Military Assistance Act, 1998</a> effectively criminalises such actions. </p>
<p>In an apparent hardening of the South African government’s position against Israel, Pandor has <a href="https://www.africanews.com/2024/03/14/naledi-pandor-south-africans-fighting-for-israel-will-be-arrested/">not only threatened</a> to have South African citizens fighting in the Israel Defence Forces prosecuted. The government also <a href="https://www.sanews.gov.za/south-africa/joining-foreign-armed-forces-could-lead-prosecution-government-warns">warned in December 2023</a> that naturalised South Africans could have their citizenship revoked for joining foreign armed forces engaged in wars the country didn’t agree with. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/un-genocide-ruling-wont-change-israels-behaviour-three-reasons-why-222128">UN genocide ruling won't change Israel's behaviour: three reasons why</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Citizenship is governed by the <a href="https://www.gov.za/sites/default/files/gcis_document/201409/act88of1995.pdf">South African Citizenship Act of 1995</a>. It can revoke South African citizenship where a citizen</p>
<blockquote>
<p>engages, under the flag of another country, in a war that the Republic does not support.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>However, section 20 of the constitution also determines that</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a href="https://www.gov.za/documents/constitution/chapter-2-bill-rights#20">No citizen may be deprived of citizenship</a>.</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>What does the law prohibit?</h2>
<p>The <a href="https://www.justice.gov.za/constitution/pdf.html">constitution</a> creates a wide framework for prohibiting participation by citizens in armed conflict. </p>
<p>South Africans <a href="https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Issues/Mercenaries/WG/Law/SouthAfrica6.pdf">are prohibited</a> from engaging in any kind of mercenary activity, or taking part in any military action on behalf of a foreign country, without the express authorisation of the National Conventional Arms Control Committee. Legal entities (such as a company), permanent residents and foreign nationals <a href="https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Issues/Mercenaries/WG/Law/SouthAfrica6.pdf">are also</a> prohibited from rendering such assistance within the borders of the country.</p>
<p>“Foreign military assistance” is widely defined. It includes not only the actual rendering of such assistance, but any attempt to render assistance, any encouragement, incitement or <a href="https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Issues/Mercenaries/WG/Law/SouthAfrica6.pdf">solicitation thereof</a>.</p>
<p>It criminalises:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>providing advice or training any personnel or operational support</p></li>
<li><p>recruitment</p></li>
<li><p>medical services</p></li>
<li><p>procurement of equipment</p></li>
<li><p>security services such as those rendered by private military companies in areas of conflict</p></li>
<li><p>assisting in coups or furthering the military interests of parties to a conflict.</p></li>
</ul>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/south-africas-genocide-case-against-israel-is-the-countrys-proudest-foreign-policy-moment-in-three-decades-221512">South Africa’s genocide case against Israel is the country's proudest foreign policy moment in three decades</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The Regulation of Foreign Military Assistance Act is set to be repealed by the Prohibition of Mercenary Activities and Regulations of Certain Activities in Country of Armed Conflict <a href="https://www.gov.za/sites/default/files/gcis_document/201409/a27-06.pdf">Act, 2006</a>, which is yet to be promulgated. This new act goes as far as prohibiting the rendering of humanitarian assistance in a country of armed conflict, unless the organisation involved is duly registered with the arms control committee.</p>
<h2>How has the law been applied in the past?</h2>
<p>In 2009, the <a href="http://www.scielo.org.za/pdf/pelj/v21n1/23.pdf">Palestinian Solidarity Alliance</a> handed a list of <a href="http://www.scielo.org.za/pdf/pelj/v21n1/23.pdf">73 South Africans</a> of Jewish descent who had fought for the Israeli military in 2008 and 2009 to the National Prosecuting Authority. <a href="https://mg.co.za/article/2014-08-07-gaza-conflict-for-some-war-is-where-the-heart-is/">The authority declined to prosecute</a>. This was followed by a case brought against another South African citizen <a href="http://www.scielo.org.za/pdf/pelj/v21n1/23.pdf">serving in the Israel military in 2014</a>. A <a href="https://sacsis.org.za/s/story.php?s=2355">docket was opened in the Western Cape</a>, but no information could be found as to whether he was in fact prosecuted.</p>
<p>In <a href="https://www.news24.com/news24/arrest-sa-mercenaries-on-boko-haram-mission-mapisa-nqakula-20150128">2015</a>, about 100 former South African soldiers reportedly left to train the Nigerian military to combat Boko Haram. The then defence minister, <a href="https://www.news24.com/news24/arrest-sa-mercenaries-on-boko-haram-mission-mapisa-nqakula-20150128">Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula, reportedly</a> said that they should be arrested upon their return to South Africa. Information on whether these arrests and prosecutions in fact took place is not readily accessible. </p>
<p>Many South Africans continue to serve in foreign <a href="http://www.scielo.org.za/pdf/pelj/v21n1/23.pdf">armed forces and private military companies</a>. Yet, the prosecuting authority has not succeeded in prosecuting any. Some cases have been settled by way of plea bargain, with <a href="https://www.saflii.org/za/journals/PER/2018/4.html">fines and suspended prison sentences</a>.</p>
<p>Ultimately the efficacy of the legislation depends on its consistent enforcement. The history of inconsistent prosecution and accountability in terms of the mercenary activities act raises questions about the prosecuting authority’s ability to successfully prosecute the South Africans fighting for Israel. </p>
<h2>Do other countries have similar laws? Why are they good to have?</h2>
<p>Very few countries have legislation prohibiting their nationals from joining foreign armed forces. The UK prohibits its citizens from joining foreign armed forces. In the US they <a href="https://foreignpolicy.com/2011/09/02/is-it-legal-for-americans-to-fight-in-another-countrys-army/">may forfeit their citizenship</a>. Joining a foreign force fighting against the US is seen as treason.</p>
<p>The Netherlands does not prohibit citizens from joining a foreign armed force as long as the country is not at war with the country concerned. Canadians are prohibited from joining any foreign armed force <a href="https://www.icct.nl/publication/foreign-fighters-foreign-volunteers-and-mercenaries-ukrainian-armed-conflict">that is at war with a friendly nation</a>. </p>
<p>There are more countries prohibiting mercenaries. They include <a href="https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/article_lc/LEGIARTI000006418746/2024-03-22">France</a>, <a href="https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stgb/__109h.html">Germany</a> and the <a href="https://warontherocks.com/2021/08/soldiers-of-fortune-why-u-s-mercenaries-should-not-be-legal/">UK</a>. South Africa is among the few that prohibit any form of engagement in the service of a foreign force.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/south-africa-and-russia-president-cyril-ramaphosas-foreign-policy-explained-198430">South Africa and Russia: President Cyril Ramaphosa's foreign policy explained</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Since the war between Russia and Ukraine <a href="https://theconversation.com/as-war-in-ukraine-enters-third-year-3-issues-could-decide-its-outcome-supplies-information-and-politics-220581">in February 2022</a>, questions have been raised about the legal status of foreigner volunteers fighting in support of Ukraine <a href="https://theconversation.com/british-troops-operating-on-the-ground-in-ukraine-what-international-law-says-224896">within the wider ambit of international law</a>. </p>
<p>Some of them have been <a href="https://www.news24.com/news24/africa/news/russia-says-it-has-killed-more-than-a-dozen-south-african-mercenaries-in-ukraine-20240315#:%7E:text=Russia%20says%20its%20invasion%20of,Africa%2C%20it%20has%20killed%20103.">killed</a>. What would happen to those captured by the enemy? </p>
<p>The treatment of these foreign nationals could complicate diplomatic relations. It is therefore in the interest of any country to control its citizens’ ability to participate in foreign conflicts.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/226240/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Nel is affiliated with the Security Institute for Governance and Leadership in Africa (SIGLA) from Stellenbosch University.</span></em></p>South Africa is among a few countries that completely prohibit the involvement of citizens in foreign armed conflict.Michelle Nel, Lecturer in Criminal and Military law and the Law of Armed Conflict at the Faculty of Military Science, Stellenbosch UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2172192023-11-08T13:50:07Z2023-11-08T13:50:07ZRussia’s decision to ditch cold war arms limitation treaty raises tensions with Nato<p>Russia has <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-formally-withdraws-key-post-cold-war-european-armed-forces-treaty-2023-11-07/#">pulled out</a> of an important cold war-era treaty which limited categories of conventional military equipment that Nato and the then-Warsaw Pact could deploy. The <a href="https://www.osce.org/library/14087">1990 Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE)</a> was intended to use the warming of relations between east and west to minimise the risk of war in Europe.</p>
<p>Announcing its intention to withdraw from the treaty, Russia’s foreign ministry said the push for enlargement of Nato had led to alliance countries “openly circumventing” the treaty’s group restrictions. It added that the admission of Finland into Nato and Sweden’s application meant the treaty was dead.</p>
<p>The CFE treaty had aimed to reduce the opportunity for either side to launch a rapid offensive against the other. It placed verifiable limits on certain types of military equipment such as tanks, aircraft and artillery pieces. These are the types of equipment that would be indispensable for a surprise attack, but also necessary to turn the attack into a larger-scale operation.</p>
<p>Nato leaders had always feared a bolt-from-the-blue attack by the Soviet Union. The advantage in numbers of the Soviets – both of personnel and equipment – could not be matched by Nato, which relied on the threat of nuclear weapons to deter any attack.</p>
<p>The Soviets – and later the Russians – viewed the treaty as undermining that superiority in numbers and availability of conventional weapons. Accusing the US of breaching the treaty, Russia suspended its participation in 2007 but kept lines of communication open with Nato. In 2015 it stopped any participation in the treaty, again citing US breaches. In its turn, the US <a href="https://www.state.gov/compliance-with-the-treaty-on-conventional-armed-forces-in-europe-condition-5-c-report-2020/">stopped actively implementing</a> the treaty in 2011.</p>
<p>So Russia’s formal withdrawal from the treaty is not perhaps as significant, on its own, as it might appear. But it does prepare the way for an increase in production and deployment of those items identified by the treaty as necessary for sudden attacks. The war in Ukraine has meant a significant increase in the production of military equipment. As Nato member states <a href="https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/opinions_211698.htm">are finding</a>, their manufacturing capacity for ammunition and weapons is well below the use and wastage involved in the Ukraine war.</p>
<p>Putin is reengaging with his view of world history which sees the fall of the Soviet Union as a “geopolitical disaster” and its reestablishment as a matter of time. Along with Russia’s withdrawal from the <a href="https://carnegieendowment.org/politika/90831">Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (NTBT)</a>, it can be seen as an attempt to present Russia’s security activities in a more positive light to its allies and to wavering non-aligned nations.</p>
<p>In fact, the US never ratified the treaty and Moscow and Washington have exchanged <a href="https://carnegieendowment.org/politika/90831">angry words</a>, each accusing the other of undermining the NTBT. This has helped nobody – activity in both the US and Russia has <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-10-19/us-nuclear-test-on-day-of-kremlin-s-treaty-abdication-fuels-doubt?leadSource=uverify%20wall">escalated tensions</a> over nuclear testing.</p>
<h2>Aggressive stance</h2>
<p>Moscow’s increasingly aggressive stance will certainly add to concerns for the Baltic states and Poland. With a significant number of ethnic Russians as part of their populations, the risks of civil unrest leading to an escalation is rather high. </p>
<p>An opportunity to distract the population of Russia from the quagmire of the war in Ukraine would be useful for Putin – and the political rhetoric from Moscow might be sufficient to begin to do that. Putin presents Nato as a hostile and menacing alliance – a perspective that has been a recurring theme in Russian political discussions since the cold war and the dissolution of the Soviet Union. </p>
<p>Certainly, Nato has its eyes fixed on the <a href="https://theconversation.com/ukraine-war-all-eyes-on-lithuania-as-sanctions-close-russian-land-access-to-kaliningrad-185720">Suwałki Gap</a>. This runs along the border between Poland and Lithuania and is a potential weak point, connecting Belarus (which is firmly under the sway of Moscow) with the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/558318/original/file-20231108-19-y2ej8c.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Map of eastern Europe highlighting the Suwalki Gap between Belarus and Kaliningrad/" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/558318/original/file-20231108-19-y2ej8c.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/558318/original/file-20231108-19-y2ej8c.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=311&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/558318/original/file-20231108-19-y2ej8c.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=311&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/558318/original/file-20231108-19-y2ej8c.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=311&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/558318/original/file-20231108-19-y2ej8c.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=391&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/558318/original/file-20231108-19-y2ej8c.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=391&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/558318/original/file-20231108-19-y2ej8c.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=391&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Suwalki Gap: a key sliver of territory that is making Nato nervous.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-vector/suwalki-gap-political-map-known-corridor-2175422211">Peter Hermes Furian/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/ukraine-war-all-eyes-on-lithuania-as-sanctions-close-russian-land-access-to-kaliningrad-185720">Ukraine war: all eyes on Lithuania as sanctions close Russian land access to Kaliningrad</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>A sudden assault here, against even a prepared Nato defence, could cut the links to the Baltic states quickly and present Nato with a fait accompli, blocking access to Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia. Nato would then have to decide on its response, risking escalation. But the Russians would need to be more competent and capable in their military adventures than they have been shown to be in Ukraine.</p>
<p>The likelihood of a Russian attack is small, but Putin likes to keep his options open. He is also an experienced propagandist and will use whatever levers he has to try and prise Nato’s members apart. A political crisis caused by elements loyal to Moscow, but plausibly deniable by Putin, in this region could provide the type of rupture in Nato’s unity that he would welcome. </p>
<p>The north Atlantic alliance is not as united in its approach to the war in Ukraine as it might be – and public attention in many member countries has dropped off as the war has dragged on. The events in Israel and Gaza have increased the distraction from the war in Ukraine and provided Russia with greater opportunities to strengthen ties to anti-western groups and countries in the Middle East.</p>
<p>Announcements such as Russia’s withdrawal from the CFE should not necessarily be a major concern – not immediately, in any case. But Putin’s activities and his goals should not be underestimated either.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/217219/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Kenton White does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Moscow has pulled the plug on yet another safety valve preventing conflict with the west.Kenton White, Lecturer in Strategic Studies and International Relations, University of ReadingLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2101152023-07-31T12:23:52Z2023-07-31T12:23:52ZHiroshima attack marks its 78th anniversary – its lessons of unnecessary mass destruction could help guide future nuclear arms talks<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/539797/original/file-20230727-15-m7op1g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Visitors to the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum in Hiroshima view a large-scale panoramic photograph of the destruction following the 1945 bombing.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/visitors-to-hiroshima-peace-memorial-museum-view-a-large-news-photo/1227916055?adppopup=true">Carl Court/Getty Images </a></span></figcaption></figure><p>It was 8:15 on a Monday morning, Aug. 6, 1945. World War II was raging in Japan.</p>
<p>An American B-29 bomber dropped the world’s first atomic bomb over <a href="https://www.ctbto.org/news-and-events/news/6-and-9-august-1945-hiroshima-nagasaki#:%7E:text=On%206%20August%201945%2C%20at,were%20confident%20it%20would%20work">Hiroshima, Japan</a> – an important military center with a civilian population close to 300,000 people. </p>
<p>The U.S. wanted to end the war, and Japan was unwilling to <a href="https://www.trumanlibrary.gov/education/presidential-inquiries/decision-drop-atomic-bomb">surrender unconditionally</a>. </p>
<p>The bomber plane was called the Enola Gay, named for Enola Gay Tibbets, <a href="https://www.osti.gov/opennet/manhattan-project-history/Events/1945/hiroshima.htm">the mother of the pilot</a>. </p>
<p>Its passenger was “Little Boy” – an atomic bomb that quickly killed <a href="https://www.icanw.org/hiroshima_and_nagasaki_bombings">80,000 people in Hiroshima</a>. Tens of thousands more would later die of the excruciating effects of radiation exposure. </p>
<p>Three days later, U.S. soldiers in a second B-29 bomber plane dropped another <a href="https://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/bombing-of-hiroshima-and-nagasaki">atomic bomb on Nagasaki</a>, killing an estimated 40,000 people. </p>
<p>It was the first – and so far, only – time atomic bombs were used against civilians. But U.S. scientists were confident it would work, because they <a href="https://www.wilsoncenter.org/event/the-manhattan-project-and-its-cold-war-legacy?gad=1&gclid=Cj0KCQjwtO-kBhDIARIsAL6LorcawhIylSgwAJ1ta5ttJ0OYLVVmSsYKK7Ti3vG9MXUHix5jhCkH_q8aAtgxEALw_wcB">had tested one just like it in New Mexico</a> a month before. This was part of the <a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-was-the-manhattan-project/">Manhattan Project</a>, a secret, federally funded science effort that produced the first nuclear weapons. </p>
<p>What might have been a single year of nuclear weapons development ushered in decades and decades of <a href="https://www.iaea.org/topics/non-proliferation-treaty">nuclear proliferation</a> – a challenge across countries and professions.</p>
<p>Having worked on nuclear weapons both as a journalist covering the Pentagon and then as a White House special assistant on the National Security Council and undersecretary of state for public diplomacy, <a href="https://fletcher.tufts.edu/people/faculty/tara-sonenshine">I understand how critical it is</a> to educate and inform citizens about the dangers of nuclear war and how to control the development of nuclear weapons. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/539641/original/file-20230726-17-h4r1mh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A black and white photo shows a massive cloud of smoke in the air." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/539641/original/file-20230726-17-h4r1mh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/539641/original/file-20230726-17-h4r1mh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=418&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/539641/original/file-20230726-17-h4r1mh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=418&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/539641/original/file-20230726-17-h4r1mh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=418&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/539641/original/file-20230726-17-h4r1mh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=526&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/539641/original/file-20230726-17-h4r1mh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=526&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/539641/original/file-20230726-17-h4r1mh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=526&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">An aerial photograph shows the mushroom cloud that ballooned after U.S. soldiers dropped the ‘Little Boy’ atomic bomb over Hiroshima in 1945.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/an-aerial-photograph-of-hiroshima-japan-shortly-after-the-news-photo/513666223?adppopup=true">Universal History Archive/UIG via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>The man who started it all</h2>
<p>Nobel Prize-winning physicist Albert Einstein warned then-President Franklin Roosevelt in 1939 that the Nazis might be <a href="https://time.com/5641891/einstein-szilard-letter/#">developing nuclear weapons</a>. Einstein urged the U.S. to stockpile uranium and begin developing an atomic bomb – a warning he would later regret.</p>
<p>Einstein <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/11/ive-created-a-monster-on-the-regrets-of-inventors/249044/">wrote a letter</a> to Newsweek, published in 1947, headlined “The Man Who Started It All.” In it, he made a confession. “Had I known that the Germans would not succeed in producing an atomic bomb, I would never have lifted a finger,” Einstein wrote. </p>
<p>Einstein repeated <a href="https://www.history.com/topics/inventions/einstein-regret-video">his regret in 1954</a>, writing that the letter to Roosevelt was his “one great mistake in life.”</p>
<p>But by then it was too late. </p>
<p>The Soviet Union began its own <a href="https://ahf.nuclearmuseum.org/ahf/history/hydrogen-bomb-1950/">bomb development program in the late 1940s</a>, partly in response to Hiroshima and Nagasaki but also as a response to the Nazi invasion of their country in the 1940s. The Soviet Union secretly conducted its first atomic <a href="https://ahf.nuclearmuseum.org/ahf/history/soviet-atomic-program-1946/">weapons test in 1949</a>.</p>
<p>The U.S. responded by <a href="https://ahf.nuclearmuseum.org/ahf/history/hydrogen-bomb-1950/">testing more advanced nuclear weapons</a> in November 1952. The result was a hydrogen bomb explosion with approximately 700 times the power of the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima. </p>
<p>A nuclear arms race had begun.</p>
<h2>Arms control</h2>
<p>The U.S. atomic bomb attacks on Japan remain the only military use of nuclear weapons.</p>
<p>But today <a href="https://www.sipri.org/media/press-release/2023/states-invest-nuclear-arsenals-geopolitical-relations-deteriorate-new-sipri-yearbook-out-now">there are nine countries</a> that have nuclear weapons – the U.S., Russia, France, China, the United Kingdom, Pakistan, India, Israel and North Korea. The U.S. and Russia jointly have about <a href="https://rb.gy/gbfq7">90% of the nuclear warheads</a> in the world. </p>
<p>There has been progress over the past few decades in <a href="https://www.brookings.edu/articles/experts-assess-the-nuclear-non-proliferation-treaty-50-years-after-it-went-into-effect/">reducing the global stockpile of nuclear weapons</a> while preventing the development of new ones. But that momentum has been uneven and oftentimes rocky. </p>
<p>The U.S. and the Soviet Union first agreed to limit their respective countries’ nuclear weapons stockpile and to prevent further development of <a href="https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/INFtreaty">new weapons in 1986</a>.</p>
<p>And in 1991 the U.S. and the Soviet Union signed on to another <a href="https://ahf.nuclearmuseum.org/ahf/history/reagan-and-gorbachev-reykjavik-summit/">legally binding international treaty</a> that required the countries to destroy 2,693 nuclear and conventional ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with ranges of about 300 to more than 3,400 miles (500-5,500 kilometers). </p>
<p>The two countries signed another well-known <a href="https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/start1">international agreement called START I</a> in 1994, not long after the fall of the Soviet Union. </p>
<p>That treaty is <a href="https://armscontrolcenter.org/strategic-arms-reduction-treaty-start-i/#:%7E:text=The%20treaty%20is%20considered%20one,eight%20years%20after%20full%20implementation.">considered by experts one of the most successful</a> arms control agreements. It resulted in the U.S. and Russia’s dismantling 80% of all the world’s <a href="https://armscontrolcenter.org/strategic-arms-reduction-treaty-start-i/">strategic nuclear weapons</a> by 2001.</p>
<p>Russia and the U.S. signed on to a new START treaty in 2011, restricting the countries to each keep 1,550 nuclear weapons.</p>
<p>START II, as it is known, will expire in February 2026. There are no <a href="https://www.state.gov/new-start/">current plans</a> for the countries to renew the deal, and it is not clear what comes next. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/539813/original/file-20230727-23-o73a1r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A black and white photo shows two men toasting each other, surrounded by other men at a table." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/539813/original/file-20230727-23-o73a1r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/539813/original/file-20230727-23-o73a1r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=324&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/539813/original/file-20230727-23-o73a1r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=324&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/539813/original/file-20230727-23-o73a1r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=324&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/539813/original/file-20230727-23-o73a1r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=408&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/539813/original/file-20230727-23-o73a1r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=408&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/539813/original/file-20230727-23-o73a1r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=408&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Former U.S. President Gerald Ford and Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev toast following nuclear nonproliferation talks in 1974.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/american-statesman-gerald-ford-the-38th-president-of-the-news-photo/3277304?adppopup=true">Keystone/CNP/Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Complicating factors</h2>
<p>Russia’s ongoing war in Ukraine – and Russian President <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/putin-nuclear-weapons-threat-real-biden-warns-rcna90114">Vladimir Putin’s repeated threats</a> to strike Ukraine and Western countries with nuclear weapons – has complicated plans to renew the new START deal. </p>
<p>Although Putin has not formally ended Russian adherence to the START II agreement, Russia has <a href="https://geneva.usmission.gov/2023/05/16/cessation-of-the-nuclear-arms-race-and-nuclear-disarmament/">stopped participating</a> in the nuclear inspection checks that the deal requires. This lack of transparency makes <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/31/politics/us-russia-nuclear-arms-control-treaty/index.html">diplomacy over the deal more difficult</a>.</p>
<p>Another complicating factor is that <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2022/02/china-russia-nuclear-weapons/622089/">China has made it clear</a> that it is not interested in an arms control agreement until it has the same number of nuclear weapons that the U.S. and Russia have. </p>
<p>Indeed, since 2019, China has increased the size, readiness, accuracy and <a href="https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2023-01/news/pentagon-chinese-nuclear-arsenal-exceeds-400-warheads#:%7E:text=The%20report%20projects%20that%20China,timeline%2C%22%20the%20report%20states">diversity of its nuclear arsenal</a>.</p>
<p>The U.S. Department of Defense reported in 2022 that <a href="https://www.brookings.edu/articles/does-the-pentagon-report-on-chinas-military-correctly-judge-the-threat/">China was on course to have 1,500 nuclear weapons</a> within the next decade – roughly matching the stockpile that the U.S. and Russia each have. In 2015, China had an estimated <a href="https://www.nti.org/analysis/articles/china-nuclear">260 nuclear warheads</a>, and by 2023 that number rose to <a href="https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2023-01/news/pentagon-chinese-nuclear-arsenal-exceeds-400-warheads#:%7E:text=The%20report%20projects%20that%20China,timeline%2C%22%20the%20report%20states">more than 400.</a> </p>
<p>At the same time, <a href="https://www.npr.org/2023/04/13/1169878514/north-korea-missile-test-solid-fuel">North Korea continues testing</a> its ballistic nuclear missiles. </p>
<p>Iran is <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/iran-enriching-uranium-weapons-grade-nuclear-iaea-rcna72753">enriching uranium</a> to near-weapons-grade levels. Some observers have voiced concern that Iran could soon reach <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/iran-enriching-uranium-weapons-grade-nuclear-iaea-rcna72753">90% enrichment levels</a>, meaning it would then just be a few months before Iran develops a nuclear bomb. </p>
<p>In a world of potential nuclear terrorism and conflicts that risk the unthinkable use of nuclear weapons, I think that the need to control proliferation and double down on arms control is a useful starting point.</p>
<p>So, what else can be done to contain the real threat of nuclear war?</p>
<h2>Diplomacy is the way forward</h2>
<p>Diplomacy matters, as was clear in the early years of U.S.-Soviet agreements. </p>
<p>In my view, a formal agreement between the U.S. and Iran to slow down its nuclear development would be valuable. Creating a better relationship between the U.S. and China might reduce the chances of a confrontation over Taiwan with the potential for a nuclear conflagration. </p>
<p>The U.S. can also use public diplomacy tools – everything from official speeches to international educational exchanges – to warn the world of the escalating dangers of unchecked nuclear weapons use. This is one way to get ordinary citizens to put pressure on their governments to work on disarmament, similar to how young activists have moved public opinion on climate change. </p>
<p>The U.S. could potentially <a href="https://press.un.org/en/2023/sc15250.doc.htm">use its global podium</a> to underscore the horrific nature of threats that come with the <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/25/politics/biden-russia-dirty-bomb/index.html">use of nuclear weapons</a> and make clear such use is inadmissible. </p>
<p>Remembering Aug. 6, 1945, is painful. But the best way to honor history is not to repeat it. </p>
<p><em>This article was updated to correct where World War II fighting continued on August 6, 1945.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/210115/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Tara Sonenshine does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The United States and Russia, the two biggest nuclear powers, have no imminent plans for talks on a nuclear deal. That should change, writes a former US diplomat.Tara Sonenshine, Edward R. Murrow Professor of Practice in Public Diplomacy, Tufts UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1823582022-05-04T13:33:23Z2022-05-04T13:33:23ZUkraine: the problem with Russia’s sanctions-busting arms industry<p>The UK government has reportedly <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/05/02/investigation-launched-british-components-russian-weapons-systems/">launched an enquiry</a> into how British-manufactured components have made their way into Russian weapons systems, despite an arms embargo being in operation since Russia annexed Crimea <a href="https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9483/">in 2014</a>. </p>
<p>Russian material captured by Ukrainian forces has revealed a significant dependence on western-made components. Multiple UK-manufactured high-frequency transistors – “dual use” electronics that can be used for both military and civilian purposes – were found inside a Russian <a href="https://www.machtres.com/lang1/borisoglebsk-2.html">Borisoglebsk-2 mobile jamming system</a>. </p>
<p>My research into <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14799855.2021.1942848">illicit procurement</a> by sanctioned states for their weapons programmes shows a long history of Soviet and Russian dependence on western technologies. It also suggests that states can be highly adaptive in finding ways around barriers to the acquisition of technology from overseas and that more than just export controls are required to prevent illicit procurement.</p>
<p>A recent report by the <a href="https://www.rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/special-resources/operation-z-death-throes-imperial-delusion">Royal United Services Institute (RUSI)</a> has suggested that the Russian arms industry uses more western-origin components in its weapons systems than previously thought. The report notes that: “Russia’s latest weapons are heavily dependent upon critical specialist components manufactured abroad.” It found that Ukraine’s scientific establishments noted “a consistent pattern” across major Russian weapons systems recovered from the battlefields.</p>
<p>Many of the western components that have found their way into Russian systems are, like the UK-made transistors, classed as “dual use”, meaning they can be used in both military and civil applications. Civil goods are subject to lesser regulation than military goods, which has been a loophole. The UK only banned the export of dual-use goods to Russia after the current invasion had begun. </p>
<p>Other evidence also suggests that Russia has benefited from access to foreign technology without government consent over the past decade. This has included weapons, from <a href="https://twitter.com/dbsalisbury/status/1258715548046811138?s=20&t=uhTR8O2ggkQNSfZ2-ebxdQ">British sniper rifles</a> used on the frontlines of the Donbas region, to goods for the country’s <a href="https://www.expressen.se/nyheter/ryska-tillverkare-av--karnvapen-koper--svensk-utrustning/">nuclear and missile complex</a>, sourced from Sweden.</p>
<p>The British government’s export licensing system is used to implement the embargoes to Russia and to prevent undesirable exports. There are no specific allegations of breaches of the controls by British companies.</p>
<p>These restrictive measures put in place by Britain – alongside those by <a href="https://www.skadden.com/insights/publications/2022/04/us-uk-and-eu-impose-new-sanctions-and-export-controls">many other states</a> – do seem to have had some potentially significant effects. Ukrainian government sources <a href="https://www.facebook.com/GeneralStaff.ua/posts/277666367879782">suggested in March</a> that Russia’s armoured vehicle plants were struggling to obtain western components. In April, <a href="https://www.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=293496349628459&id=100069042885845&m_entstream_source=timeline">Ukrainian sources also suggested</a> that similar challenges were being encountered by Russian factories producing radars and surface-to-air missiles.</p>
<h2>Long history of illicit procurement</h2>
<p>When faced with arms embargoes – or other less legally formalised barriers to acquiring arms or components – sanctioned states always look for ways to circumvent them. Russia (and its predecessor, the Soviet Union) have a long history of finding ways to access western technologies.</p>
<p><a href="https://kansaspress.ku.edu/978-0-7006-1555-1.html">From the 1920s</a>, Soviet agents sought to openly acquire manufacturing equipment from western markets, as well as covertly acquiring military secrets through espionage. During the second world war, <a href="https://www.osti.gov/opennet/manhattan-project-history/Events/1942-1945/espionage.htm">Soviet spies obtained</a> nuclear secrets from the Manhattan Project, despite extensive security measures taken to prevent such leaks.</p>
<p>There is evidence of continuing Soviet interest in western technology throughout the cold war as the Soviet Union sought to compete with the US. In 1985, as cold war high-tech competition reached its peak, <a href="https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/document/cia-rdp88b00443r000201080007-7">a CIA report</a> noted a “massive and well organised campaign” to acquire western technology illegally. The report went as far as to suggest that:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The assimilation of western technology is so broad that the United States and other western nations are thus subsidising the Soviet military buildup.</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>Closing loopholes</h2>
<p>Putin has doubled down on his war in Ukraine, despite significant troop and <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-61021388">equipment losses</a> by the Russian military. Hindering the Russian military-industrial complex’s access to international markets will help to prevent destroyed and captured equipment from being replaced, expended munitions from being replenished and damaged vehicles from being repaired.</p>
<p>Export controls can play an important role to this end. Governments, intelligence agencies and law enforcement bodies will undoubtedly increase their efforts towards preventing Russia’s illicit procurement. But, as history shows, the adaptive and deceptive nature of Russia’s illicit procurement networks is challenging to contend with. Those seeking to halt the supply will need to go further than merely putting in place the embargoes. </p>
<p>The US and allies should closely work with international partners and neutral states to counter Russia’s use of <a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/european-journal-of-international-security/article/abs/exploring-the-use-of-third-countries-in-proliferation-networks-the-case-of-malaysia/C8A766A657994027EF3B584E86FF72A4">“third-country” hubs</a> to evade controls. Fully halting the flow of components could require engaging a wide range of states with varying chances of success. Re-export risks are posed by countries like India, with whom Russia has <a href="https://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-news-india/anti-ship-version-of-brahmos-missile-successfully-test-fired-7892226/">ongoing defence equipment projects</a>, large markets like China that have long <a href="https://thebulletin.org/2013/10/engaging-china-in-proliferation-prevention-2/">been sources</a> for sanctioned programmes in the past, and even pariah <a href="https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/iran-opportunity-sell-auto-parts-russian-carmaker-84468231">states like Iran</a> that continue to face international sanctions. </p>
<p>Efforts to <a href="https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2013_0708/How-the-Private-Sector-Can-Do-More-to-Prevent-Illicit-Trade">engage and inform industry</a> at home – those who have to comply with export controls but lack intelligence on Russian evasion methods – will be key to the ability of the restrictions to bite.</p>
<p>Russia is only one of many states that have long pursued illicit procurement. The <a href="https://theconversation.com/open-source-intelligence-how-digital-sleuths-are-making-their-mark-on-the-ukraine-war-179135">open-source information, tools and approaches</a> used by researchers outside of government to understand the illicit supply chains and sanctions-busting networks of Iran, North Korea and others should be applied to shine a light on Russia’s networks.</p>
<p>Government enquiries following goods ending up in enemy hands are not uncommon in Whitehall. The most extensive, the Scott enquiry, lasted for four years in the 1990s following <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/defence-and-security-blog/2012/nov/09/arms-iraq-saddam-hussein">the “arms to Iraq” scandal</a> and led to a shake up of the British export control system. </p>
<p>One of the common takeaways from these scandals is that those inside government and those outside – industry, researchers and academics – must work together if export controls and embargoes are to be rendered effective. Only these collaborative approaches will ensure that export controls can help to undermine Putin’s war machine.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/182358/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Daniel Salisbury receives funding from the Leverhulme Trust for a project on arms embargoes. </span></em></p>Captured military equipment in Ukraine has revealed the extent to which western tech is used in Russian weapons systems.Daniel Salisbury, Senior Research Fellow at the Centre for Science and Security Studies, King's College LondonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1816132022-04-21T03:04:31Z2022-04-21T03:04:31ZAnti-satellite weapons: the US has sworn off tests, and Australia should follow suit<p>When United States Vice-President Kamala Harris was at the Vandenberg Space Force Base in California earlier this week she <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/04/18/fact-sheet-vice-president-harris-advances-national-security-norms-in-space/">said</a> the US would not conduct tests of destructive, direct ascent anti-satellite missiles.</p>
<p>This is the first time any country has made such an explicit commitment, and the US has called for other nations to do the same. </p>
<p>Australia would do well to take up the invitation, and put ourselves – and our new Space Command – on the map as responsible actors in space who demand the same of others.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/an-australian-space-command-could-be-a-force-for-good-or-a-cause-for-war-158232">An Australian 'space command' could be a force for good — or a cause for war</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Shooting down satellites</h2>
<p>Last year, <a href="https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2021-12/news/russian-asat-test-creates-massive-debris">Russia destroyed one of its own defunct satellites in orbit</a> to test an anti-satellite missile.</p>
<p>The incident was condemned internationally as irresponsible, in particular by the <a href="https://spacenews.com/u-s-space-command-again-condemns-russia-for-anti-satellite-weapon-test/">chief of space operations of US Space Force</a>, because of the amount of debris it created. </p>
<p>The path of space debris is completely uncontrollable, and in the lower orbits where most satellites are, concentrated debris can travel at <a href="https://aerospace.org/article/space-debris-101">ten times the speed of a bullet</a>.</p>
<p>A piece of debris the size of a pea can critically damage a satellite. Indeed, debris this small has <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/space-debris-hit-international-space-station-damaged-robotic-arm-2021-6">damaged the International Space Station</a>.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/why-the-russian-anti-satellite-missile-test-threatened-both-the-international-space-station-and-the-peaceful-use-of-outer-space-171955">Why the Russian anti-satellite missile test threatened both the international space station and the peaceful use of outer space</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>But Russia is not the only culprit. </p>
<p>In 2007, China was the first nation to <a href="https://swfound.org/media/9550/chinese_asat_fact_sheet_updated_2012.pdf">successfully conduct a direct-ascent anti-satellite missile test</a>. In 2008 the US demonstrated <a href="https://www.thespacereview.com/article/4198/1">the same capability</a>, though at a lower altitude and creating less debris. And in <a href="https://www.drdo.gov.in/mission-shakti">2019 India</a> surprised the world with what it proudly declared to be a successful test. </p>
<p>Debris from all these tests is still in orbit. However, the Indian and Russian tests have led to the <a href="https://thediplomat.com/2021/11/russian-asat-test-highlights-urgent-need-for-space-governance-negotiations/">greatest concern for an emerging space arms race</a>, because these nations openly declared they were testing weapons. </p>
<p>I was part of a team of experts who wrote an open letter last year, signed by space leaders around the world, <a href="http://outerspaceinstitute.ca/docs/OSI_International_Open_Letter_ASATs_PUBLIC.pdf">petitioning the United Nations to ban such destructive, debris-creating tests</a>. The risk posed by these tests is very real, and the potential for a conflict extending into space would be catastrophic for all of us. </p>
<h2>Critical civilian and military tools</h2>
<p>Satellites are integral to our day-to-day lives in ways many of us don’t realise: personal tools, such as Google Maps navigation; daily communications; critical services, such as civil aviation and weather forecasting; military tasks such as GPS weapons guidance and secure communications. All depend on satellites.</p>
<p>Many space-based services (and individual satellites) serve both civilian and military purposes. If these services or satellites were to be attacked, we would all feel the impact.</p>
<p>The risk of attack, or at least interference, is not hypothetical. </p>
<p>The military <a href="https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/geojaf18&div=8&g_sent=1&casa_token=inFJ5sYuoZYAAAAA:yxyEWGpGd5W6S7J2WHiVIpDiUXEUvzamRP8HQt-4kMvK31m5FftLjs3Yv2Ddkw_gjbqDO_FN&collection=journals">depends on space-based technologies</a> for strategic and tactical decision-making, intelligence gathering, weapons deployment, and navigation. If one party wants to compromise their adversary’s ability to see, hear and move, targeting space systems is a very effective way to do it. </p>
<p>To take one example, both <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/03/10/commercial-satellites-ukraine-russia-intelligence/">Russia and Ukraine rely on data from commercial Earth observation satellites</a> in the current conflict. The companies providing that data might become targets, which may then impact civil users.</p>
<h2>International law and treaties</h2>
<p>There is little international law to limit the weaponisation of space. <a href="https://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/outerspacetreaty.html">The 1967 Outer Space Treaty</a> bans nuclear weapons in orbit, and prohibits the future establishment of military bases on the Moon. </p>
<p>As discussed in <a href="https://global.oup.com/academic/product/war-and-peace-in-outer-space-9780197548684?cc=au&lang=en&">a book</a> I edited on the subject, the treaty also determines international law applies in space. This includes the laws of armed conflict, which impose some limits on the weaponisation of space. But further attempts at arms control in space have been stymied by consensus decision-making at the UN and by geopolitics. </p>
<p>China and Russia have for years promoted a <a href="https://www.thespacereview.com/article/2575/1">Treaty on the Prevention of the Placement of Weapons in Outer Space</a>, but the US and its allies have refused to engage in this. The US has consistently refused to be bound by any new space treaty, even <a href="https://www.nti.org/education-center/treaties-and-regimes/proposed-prevention-arms-race-space-paros-treaty/">blocking a UN proposal</a> to develop a space arms control treaty. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-us-plan-for-a-space-force-risks-escalating-a-space-arms-race-101368">The US plan for a Space Force risks escalating a 'space arms race'</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The creation of a US Space Force in 2019 was in some ways destabilising, since Russia and China saw it as a threat and have since increased their own space military programs.</p>
<p>In an attempt to establish a consensus about space security, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution in October 2020 to draw up a <a href="https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N20/354/39/PDF/N2035439.pdf?OpenElement">list of rules and principles</a> about responsible behaviours to reduce threats in space.</p>
<p>Twenty-nine countries, including Australia, submitted statements. Committing “<a href="https://front.un-arm.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Australian-Submission-to-the-report-on-Resolution-75-36-final.pdf">not to undertake activities that deliberately or foreseeably create long-lived debris</a>” was among them.</p>
<h2>An opportunity for Australia</h2>
<p>Just last month, Australia established a <a href="https://www.airforce.gov.au/our-mission/defence-space-command">Space Command</a> in our armed forces, as have Canada, France, Germany, Japan and the United Kingdom. </p>
<p>This was accompanied by Australia’s first <a href="https://view.publitas.com/jericho/australias-defence-space-strategy/page/1">Defence Space Strategy</a> and a public “<a href="https://www.airforce.gov.au/our-mission/defence-space-power-emanual">Space Power eManual</a>”, outlining the main lines of effort in advancing our defence capabilities in space. </p>
<p>We have arrived at an opportune moment for <a href="https://nsc.crawford.anu.edu.au/publication/18851/australia-space-power-combining-civil-defence-and-diplomatic-efforts">Australia to assert itself as a pro-active nation in securing space</a>, and to put our new Space Command on the map. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/what-will-australias-new-defence-space-command-do-179760">What will Australia's new Defence Space Command do?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Australia should join the US in stating we will never conduct destructive, direct ascent anti-satellite missile tests, and in encouraging other nations to make the same commitment. We have no capability to conduct such tests, nor any stake in developing them, so the statement carries no risk.</p>
<p>Such a statement would clarify some of the <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-03-22/cph-space-commander-warns-australia-lags-in-space-capabilities/100930234">less nuanced messages that have recently appeared in the media</a>. These include the suggestion we will one day need an armed Space Force, or we are developing kinetic capabilities to counter China in space. Neither suggestion is desirable, nor accurate. </p>
<p>And it is a statement that could win us international kudos, showing Space Command can be an effective diplomatic vehicle as well as a key strategic organisation within our defence forces.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/181613/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Cassandra Steer is affiliated with the Space Industry Association of Australia. She has consulted to the Australian War College, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and the Canadian and US departments of defence on issues of space law and space security. She has previously received funding from the Canadian Department of National Defence.</span></em></p>Anti-satellite weapons could fill Earth’s orbit with space junk and make it unusable for military and civilian purposesCassandra Steer, Deputy Director, Institute for Space (InSpace), Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1813392022-04-19T04:27:46Z2022-04-19T04:27:46ZChemical weapons: how will we know if they have been used in Ukraine?<p>Russia may have used chemical weapons in its invasion of Ukraine, according to unconfirmed reports from the besieged city of Mariupol last week. </p>
<p>The reports have been taken seriously, with official investigations announced and the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons <a href="https://www.opcw.org/media-centre/news/2022/04/statement-ukraine-opcw-spokesperson">monitoring the situation</a>. To date, however, there is no solid evidence to support these claims.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1513636563405713416"}"></div></p>
<p>But what are the chemical weapons that could be used in Ukraine, and how will their reported use be investigated? </p>
<p>As a chemical engineer who studies dangerous chemicals in the environment, I can help answer these questions. </p>
<h2>What are chemical weapons?</h2>
<p>Any harmful chemical substance can be used as a weapon. This includes deadly compounds designed specifically for use in battle, but also extends to many compounds used in industry that are harmful when handled improperly. </p>
<p>Because of their indiscriminate nature, the use of any chemical agent in warfare has been <a href="https://www.opcw.org/chemical-weapons-convention">internationally outlawed</a>.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/what-makes-pepper-spray-so-intense-and-is-it-a-tear-gas-a-chemical-engineer-explains-140441">What makes pepper spray so intense? And is it a tear gas? A chemical engineer explains</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>However, controlling the production and distribution of dual-use chemicals (<a href="https://www.bellingcat.com/resources/case-studies/2017/03/10/water-filtration-plants-risks-chlorine-mass-casualty-event-donetsk/">such as chlorine</a>) and riot control agents like tear gas is much harder than regulating dedicated chemical weapons such as sarin and other nerve agents.</p>
<p>It can also be difficult to demonstrate a dual-use chemical was intended for use as a weapon.</p>
<h2>An unconfirmed report</h2>
<p>On April 11, the first report of Russia using chemical weapons in the invasion of Ukraine emerged from the besieged city of Mariupol. </p>
<p>Members of the Azov Battalion, a far-right unit of the Ukrainian National Guard, <a href="https://kyivindependent.com/national/azov-says-russia-used-chemical-weapons-in-besieged-mariupol/">claimed</a> a number of its fighters had been injured by <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-04-12/russia-faces-hard-to-verify-claims-of-chemical-arms-in-mariupol">white smoke</a> emitted from a device dropped by a Russian drone.</p>
<p>Injuries from the incident, which occurred at the Azovstal steelworks, reportedly included skin and <a href="https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20220412-fears-rise-in-ukraine-of-use-of-chemical-weapons">lung damage</a> and were not life-threatening.</p>
<h2>Possible explanations</h2>
<p>This “white smoke” could be a chemical weapon, many of which attack the body’s skin and mucosa (organ linings) at openings such as the eyes, nose, and mouth. Conventionally, chemical weapons have also been delivered in munitions that disperse smoke-like aerosols or vapour. </p>
<p>Yet there are other plausible explanations. </p>
<p>The steelworks would house many industrial chemicals, which could be inadvertently released in an active battle. The reported symptoms are consistent with exposure to the fumes of a great many chemical irritants. </p>
<p>The eyewitness reports are not specific enough to discount these possibilities, or to assign the incident to any one class of chemical warfare agent.</p>
<h2>Russian disregard for convention</h2>
<p>The use of chemical weapons is <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_Weapons_Convention">banned by international convention</a>. </p>
<p>The early days of the Russian invasion of Ukraine saw <a href="https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/timeline-chemical-biological-weapons-developments-during-russias-2022-invasion-ukraine">rhetoric from all sides</a> around the use of chemical weapons, as nations started to frame their potential response to these weapons being used.</p>
<p>Russia promoted false stories about <a href="https://www.opcw.org/sites/default/files/documents/2022/Compendium%20of%20correspondence%20shared%20by%20States%20Parties%20on%20Ukraine.pdf">Ukraine’s possession of chemical and biological weapons</a>. US President Joe Biden <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2022/03/21/remarks-by-president-biden-before-business-roundtables-ceo-quarterly-meeting/">interpreted</a> these stories as a “clear sign” Russia was paving the way to use such weapons itself. </p>
<p>Russia has <a href="https://www.opcw.org/media-centre/news/2017/10/opcw-marks-completion-destruction-russian-chemical-weapons-stockpile">destroyed</a> its declared chemical weapons stockpiles. However, the use of distinctive Russian-developed Novichok nerve agents in the poisonings of <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-43604053">Sergei Skripal in 2018</a> and <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-55303703">Alexei Navalny in 2020</a> suggests Russia may still possess an active chemical weapons program. </p>
<p>These incidents, as well as the use of a <a href="https://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1029/p01s03-woeu.html">fentanyl-like anesthetic gas</a> in the Moscow Theatre hostage crisis of 2002, also demonstrate Russia’s disregard for the international fall-out from using chemical warfare agents.</p>
<h2>Chemical weapons investigations</h2>
<p>Investigating claims of chemical weapons use is often challenging. Inspectors will look to gather victim and witness reports to help establish the facts of any incident. </p>
<p>Medical records and biological samples can assist in identifying the nature of the chemical agent. Ideally, samples of these usually short-lived chemicals from the battlefield would be obtained, but with no international inspectors on the ground in Ukraine this possibility seems remote.</p>
<h2>Chemical threats</h2>
<p>Even in the absence of a chemical attack, the Russian invasion may create numerous unpredictable chemical and radiological hazards in Ukraine. As a prime example, Russian activity within the <a href="https://www.wired.com/story/chernobyl-exclusion-zone-rewilding/">Chernobyl power plant’s exclusion zone</a> has disturbed radioactive waste and set back remediation efforts at the site of the world’s worst nuclear accident.</p>
<p>Many of Ukraine’s <a href="https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2017/03/30/donbas-ticking-toxic-time-bomb/">most sensitive industrial sites</a> are situated in regions of intense fighting, where shelling has the potential to pollute the land and water for years to come, and could create toxic air pollution.</p>
<p>Uncontrolled fires in urban areas may have similar effects. This is akin to what was seen following the Iraq war, where <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-11-10/us-veterans-say-burn-pits-iraq-afghanistan-now-killing-them/100594934">fumes from burn pits</a> are now believed to have permanently disabled thousands of US veterans.</p>
<h2>Does verification matter?</h2>
<p>Ultimately, a verified chemical attack in Ukraine may not be the <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/06/inside-the-white-house-during-the-syrian-red-line-crisis/561887/">red line</a> it once was. </p>
<p>Evidence is emerging of the manifold atrocities that the Russian army have committed in Ukraine: war crimes, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/apr/03/all-wars-are-like-this-used-as-a-weapon-of-war-in-ukraine">sexual violence</a>, and slaughter of civilians on a scale that is being equated to <a href="https://www.npr.org/2022/04/18/1093206883/speaking-of-genocide-biden-escalates-the-war-of-words-over-ukraine">genocide</a>. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/its-the-right-time-to-review-the-worlds-chemical-weapons-convention-107009">It's the right time to review the world's chemical weapons convention</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Chemical warfare agents are primarily a weapon of terror, <a href="https://theconversation.com/russia-isnt-likely-to-use-chemical-weapons-in-ukraine-unless-putin-grows-desperate-180534">with limited strategic use</a>. It has been <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2022/04/18/chemical-weapons-deterrence-russia-ukraine/">argued</a> that their use in Ukraine is unlikely to substantially ratchet up the international pressure on Russia.</p>
<p>In spite of this it remains essential that accusations of chemical attacks be thoroughly investigated. If an attack does happen, a robust investigation will be necessary to bring those responsible to justice, and to maintain strong deterrents against the manufacture and use of chemical weapons.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/181339/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Gabriel da Silva does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Claims Russia has used chemical weapons in Ukraine will be difficult if not impossible to verify.Gabriel da Silva, Associate Professor of Chemical Engineering, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1785092022-03-10T13:28:15Z2022-03-10T13:28:15ZWould Putin use nuclear weapons? An arms control expert explains what has and hasn’t changed since the invasion of Ukraine<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/450533/original/file-20220307-126059-i3fty9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C4178%2C2345&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">This intercontinental ballistic missile was launched as part of Russia's test of its strategic forces in 2020.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://newsroom.ap.org/detail/RussiaNuclearDrills/b806e35f8e094dccaa4bea3e15b06463/photo">Russian Defense Ministry Press Service via AP</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The prospect of a nuclear exchange between Russia and the United States seemed, until recently, to have ended with the Cold War. <a href="https://edition.cnn.com/europe/live-news/ukraine-russia-news-02-23-22/h_d48db5391abae0b336a8217487043536">Threats</a> by Russian President Vladimir Putin to use the weapons to keep NATO out of the Ukraine conflict have revived those decades-old fears. </p>
<p>The threats come amid the fraying of nuclear arms control agreements between the two nuclear superpowers that had stabilized strategic relations for decades. </p>
<p>As an <a href="https://nonproliferation.org/experts/miles-pomper/">arms control expert</a>, I see the war in Ukraine as an added strain but not a fatal blow to the system that has helped to keep the world from nuclear devastation. That system has evolved over decades and allows U.S. and Russian officials to gauge how close the other side is to launching an attack.</p>
<h2>Keeping an eye on each other</h2>
<p>Arms control treaties rely on each of the nuclear superpowers sharing information about deployed delivery systems – missiles or bombers that could be used to deliver nuclear warheads – and to permit the other side to <a href="https://2009-2017.state.gov/t/avc/rls/139906.htm">verify these claims</a>. The treaties usually include numerical limits on weapons, and implementation of a treaty typically begins with baseline declarations by each side of numbers and locations of weapons. Numbers are updated annually. The two sides also regularly notify each other of significant changes to this baseline through what are now called <a href="https://youtu.be/JWgkp5u7Kmg">Nuclear Risk Reduction Centers</a>. </p>
<p>A key element of all arms control treaties has been the two sides’ ability to use “<a href="https://2009-2017.state.gov/t/avc/rls/139906.htm">national technical means</a>,” such as satellites, along with remote monitoring techniques such as <a href="https://technet.pnnl.gov/sensors/nuclear/products/armscontrol.stm">radiation detectors</a>, <a href="https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc1205690/">tags and seals</a>, to monitor compliance. Remote monitoring techniques are designed to distinguish individual items such as missiles that are limited by treaty and to ensure that they are not tampered with. </p>
<p>The 1987 Intermediate Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty introduced a major innovation: the use of on-site inspections. Before that treaty, the Soviets had resisted U.S. proposals to include such inspections in verification. But as Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev moved domestically to a process of <a href="http://soviethistory.msu.edu/1985-2/perestroika-and-glasnost/">glasnost</a> (openness), he embraced on-site inspections, and similar provisions have been included in subsequent treaties. They include both regular announced inspections and a certain number of annual unannounced short-term challenge inspections to guard against cheating. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/450796/original/file-20220308-13-37peez.JPEG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="a group of men look at a pair of disassembled missiles lying on the ground in a desert" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/450796/original/file-20220308-13-37peez.JPEG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/450796/original/file-20220308-13-37peez.JPEG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=412&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/450796/original/file-20220308-13-37peez.JPEG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=412&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/450796/original/file-20220308-13-37peez.JPEG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=412&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/450796/original/file-20220308-13-37peez.JPEG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=518&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/450796/original/file-20220308-13-37peez.JPEG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=518&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/450796/original/file-20220308-13-37peez.JPEG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=518&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Soviet weapons inspectors examine two disassembled Pershing II missiles in the U.S. in 1989.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:INF_inspection_of_Pershing_II_missiles_in_1989_(1).JPEG">MSGT Jose Lopez Jr./Wikimedia</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>The history of keeping nuclear arms in check</h2>
<p>National security scholars such as <a href="https://www.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/1207805/heroes-of-arms-control-tom-schelling-and-mort-halperin/">Thomas Schelling and Morton Halperin</a> developed the concept of arms control in the late 1950s and early 1960s amid an accelerating U.S.-Soviet arms race. Arms control measures were designed to increase transparency and predictability to avoid misunderstandings or false alarms that could lead to an accidental or unintended nuclear conflict. As the concept evolved, the goal of arms control measures became ensuring that defenders could respond to any nuclear attack with one of their own, which reduced incentives to engage in a nuclear war in the first place. </p>
<p>The approach gained traction after the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis when the surprise deployment of Soviet nuclear-armed missiles less than 100 miles from the U.S. brought the world to the verge of nuclear war. Initial agreements included the 1972 Strategic Arms Limitation Talks agreement (SALT 1), which put the first ceilings on U.S. and Soviet nuclear weapons. Subsequently, Gorbachev negotiated the <a href="https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2019-08-02/inf-treaty-1987-2019">INF</a> treaty and Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START I), which brought reductions in the two sides’ nuclear forces. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/450545/original/file-20220307-85965-spshus.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="two men in dark business suits sit on the same side of a table signing documents" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/450545/original/file-20220307-85965-spshus.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/450545/original/file-20220307-85965-spshus.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=370&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/450545/original/file-20220307-85965-spshus.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=370&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/450545/original/file-20220307-85965-spshus.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=370&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/450545/original/file-20220307-85965-spshus.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=465&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/450545/original/file-20220307-85965-spshus.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=465&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/450545/original/file-20220307-85965-spshus.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=465&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">President Ronald Reagan and Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev signed the INF Treaty in the East Room of the White House on Dес. 8, 1987.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.reaganlibrary.gov/public/archives/photographs/large/c44067-5.jpg">Ronald Reagan Presidential Library</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The INF treaty for the first time banned an entire class of weapons: ground-launched missiles with ranges between 500 and 5,500 kilometers (311 and 3,418 miles). This included U.S. missiles capable of hitting Russia from the territory of U.S. allies in Europe or East Asia and vice versa. START I applied to strategic nuclear weapons, such as intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) launched from one superpower’s homeland to attack the other’s territory. In 2010, President Barack Obama and then-Russian President Dmitri Medvedev signed the <a href="https://www.state.gov/new-start/">New START agreement</a>, which further reduced the two sides’ deployed strategic nuclear forces. And in 2021, President Joe Biden and Putin extended that treaty for five years. The treaties have supported dramatic cuts in the two countries’ nuclear arsenals.</p>
<h2>New challenges for an aging system</h2>
<p>Inspections under the INF treaty ended in 2001 after the last banned missiles were removed from deployment. Under the Obama and Trump administrations, the U.S. accused Russia of violating the treaty by developing, testing and deploying <a href="https://2017-2021.state.gov/russias-violation-of-the-intermediate-range-nuclear-forces-inf-treaty/index.html">cruise missiles</a> that exceeded its 500-kilometer limit, an accusation Russia rejected. Backed by NATO allies, the Trump administration withdrew from the treaty in 2019. This left long-range strategic weapons as the only nuclear weapons subject to arms control agreements.</p>
<p>Shorter-range non-strategic nuclear weapons – those with a range of less than 500 kilometers, or roughly 310 miles – have never been covered by any agreement, a sore point with Washington and NATO allies because <a href="https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RL/RL32572/46">Moscow possesses far more of them</a> than NATO does.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/450543/original/file-20220307-51485-1hga5jy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="four large military vehicles in a snow-covered field at the edge of a forest, two of the vehicles with nearly vertical cylinders attached at the rear" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/450543/original/file-20220307-51485-1hga5jy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/450543/original/file-20220307-51485-1hga5jy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=335&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/450543/original/file-20220307-51485-1hga5jy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=335&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/450543/original/file-20220307-51485-1hga5jy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=335&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/450543/original/file-20220307-51485-1hga5jy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=421&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/450543/original/file-20220307-51485-1hga5jy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=421&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/450543/original/file-20220307-51485-1hga5jy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=421&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Russia’s Iskander missile system launches short-range ballistic missiles with either nuclear or conventional warheads from mobile platforms.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://newsroom.ap.org/detail/RussiaUkraineWarWeaponsExplainer/9ab44d4bdff84b6a8cde43b237b17dbc/photo">Russian Defense Ministry Press Service via AP</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Arms control has been declining in other ways as well. Russia has embarked on an ambitious <a href="https://sgp.fas.org/crs/nuke/R45861.pdf">nuclear weapons modernization program</a>, and some of its exotic new strategic weapon systems fall outside of New START’s restrictions. Meanwhile, cyberattacks and anti-satellite weapons loom as new threats to arms control monitoring and nuclear command and control systems. </p>
<p><a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/14751798.2020.1857911">Artificial intelligence</a> and <a href="https://media.defense.gov/2019/Sep/25/2002187108/-1/-1/0/59HYPERSONICWEAPONS.PDF">hypersonic missile</a> technology could shorten the warning times for a nuclear attack. Russia has been deploying missiles that can carry both conventional and nuclear warheads, sowing confusion. And Russia worries that U.S. missile defense systems, especially in Europe, threaten strategic stability by permitting the U.S. to carry out a nuclear first strike and then prevent an effective Russian nuclear response. </p>
<p>Before the Ukraine war, Biden and Putin had launched a <a href="https://russiamatters.org/analysis/us-russia-strategic-stability-dialogue-purpose-progress-challenges-and-opportunities">Strategic Stability Dialogue</a> to tackle these issues and lay the groundwork for negotiations on a replacement for New START before it expires in 2026. But the dialogue has been suspended with the outbreak of hostilities, and it is difficult to foresee when it might resume. </p>
<h2>Putin turns up the heat – but not to a boil</h2>
<p>Putin’s recent moves have further shaken the rickety strategic security architecture. On the eve of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, <a href="https://edition.cnn.com/europe/live-news/ukraine-russia-news-02-23-22/h_d48db5391abae0b336a8217487043536">he said</a> that “anyone who tries to interfere with us … must know that Russia’s response will be immediate and will lead you to such consequences as you have never before experienced in your history” and that Russia possesses “certain advantages in a number of the latest types of weapons.” </p>
<p>With the war underway, Putin announced an “<a href="https://tass.com/defense/1413219">enhanced combat alert</a>” of the country’s nuclear forces, which is <a href="https://www.defenseone.com/threats/2022/02/what-just-happened-putins-nuclear-forces-heres-what-experts-say/362501/">not a regular alert level</a> in Russia’s system comparable to the U.S.’s <a href="https://nuke.fas.org/guide/usa/c3i/defcon.htm">DEFCON status</a>. In practice, the enhanced combat alert consisted largely of adding staff to shifts at relevant nuclear weapon sites. The announcement was <a href="https://www.defenseone.com/threats/2022/03/concern-rising-putin-could-use-nuclear-weapons/362913/">designed to discourage NATO</a> from intervening and to intimidate Ukraine.</p>
<p>Nonetheless, U.S. national security officials <a href="https://www.c-span.org/video/?518352-1/house-intel-panel-told-putin-endgame-ukraine&live=">expressed concern</a> that Russia could use tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine if NATO forces were drawn into direct conflict with Russia. Use of the weapons is consistent with Russia’s military doctrine of “<a href="https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2017/february/escalate-de-escalate">escalate to de-escalate</a>,” according to the officials.</p>
<p>Even in the face of Putin’s strategic nuclear saber rattling and concerns about Russia’s use of tactical nuclear weapons, however, the arms control framework has held sufficiently firm to preserve strategic stability. U.S. nuclear commanders have criticized Putin’s moves but <a href="https://www.armytimes.com/pentagon/2022/03/01/no-changes-coming-to-us-nuclear-posture-after-russian-threat/">have not sought to match them</a>. They do not see evidence that Putin has taken steps to escalate the situation, like placing non-strategic nuclear warheads on airplanes or ships or sending nuclear-armed submarines to sea. </p>
<p>So far, arms control has played its intended role of limiting the scope and violence in Ukraine, keeping a lid on a conflict that otherwise could become a world war. </p>
<p>[<em>The Conversation’s science, health and technology editors pick their favorite stories.</em> <a href="https://memberservices.theconversation.com/newsletters/?nl=science&source=inline-science-favorite">Weekly on Wednesdays</a>.]</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/178509/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Miles A. Pomper has led several research projects for CNS which have received funding from NATO member states, including the United States and several European allies. His research has also been supported by grants from foundations interested in arms control</span></em></p>Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and Vladimir Putin’s nuclear threats have the world on edge, but so far, long-standing arms control measures have helped keep the situation from getting out of control.Miles A. Pomper, Senior Fellow, James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies, MiddleburyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1782892022-03-02T19:10:31Z2022-03-02T19:10:31ZWhat are thermobaric weapons? And why should they be banned?<p>Russian forces in Ukraine may have <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-03-01/ukraine-ambassador-us-russia-used-vacuum-bomb-cluster-munitions/100870638">used thermobaric weapons and cluster bombs</a>, according to reports from the Ukraine government and human rights groups.</p>
<p>If true, this represents an escalation in brutality that should alarm us all.</p>
<p>While cluster munitions are banned by international convention, thermobaric munitions – also known as fuel-air explosive devices, or “vacuum bombs” – are not explicitly prohibited <em>for use against military targets</em>. </p>
<p>These devastating devices, which create an oxygen-eating fireball followed by a deadly shockwave, are far more powerful than most other conventional weapons. </p>
<h2>What are thermobaric weapons?</h2>
<p>Thermobaric weapons are generally deployed as rockets or bombs, and they work by releasing fuel and explosive charges. Different fuels can be used, including toxic powdered metals and organic matter containing oxidant.</p>
<p>The explosive charge disperses a large cloud of fuel which then ignites in contact with the oxygen in the surrounding air. This creates a high-temperature fireball and a massive shockwave that literally sucks the air out of any living being in the vicinity. </p>
<p>Thermobaric bombs are devastating and effective in urban areas or open conditions, and can penetrate bunkers and other underground locations, starving the occupants of oxygen. There is very little that can protect humans and other life forms from their blast and incendiary effects.</p>
<p>A 1990 CIA report, cited by <a href="https://www.hrw.org/news/2000/02/01/chechnya-conflict-use-vacuum-bombs-russian-forces">Human Rights Watch</a>, noted the effects of a thermobaric explosion in a confined space:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Those near the ignition point are obliterated. Those at the fringe are likely to suffer many internal, thus invisible injuries, including burst eardrums and crushed inner ear organs, severe concussions, ruptured lungs and internal organs, and possibly blindness.</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>A history of horror</h2>
<p>Crude versions of thermobaric weapons were developed by Germany during World War Two. Western states, as well as the Soviet Union and latterly Russia, have used them since the 1960s. </p>
<p>The Soviet Union is believed to have used a thermobaric weapon against China during the Sino-Soviet conflict of 1969, and in Afghanistan as part of its takeover of that country in 1979. Moscow also used them in Chechnya, and has <a href="https://www.rferl.org/a/russia-separatists-advanced-weaponry/31681767.html">reportedly</a> provided them to separatist rebels in eastern Ukraine. </p>
<p>The United States has used these weapons in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CBU-55">Vietnam</a> and <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20100112102609/http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0303-06.htm">in the mountains of Afghanistan</a>. </p>
<h2>Why some weapons are banned, even in war</h2>
<p>Although thermobaric weapons are not yet unequivocally banned, there are several points that argue against their development and use. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.icrc.org/en/war-and-law">International humanitarian law</a> stipulates what is and is not permissible during warfare. There has long been an understanding that even wars have their limits: while some weapons are considered legal, others are not, precisely because they violate key principles of humanitarian law.</p>
<p>A new <a href="https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/02/23/russia-ukraine-international-law-occupation-armed-conflict-and-human-rights">report</a> from Human Rights Watch makes it clear the Russian invasion of Ukraine is illegal. It draws on the Geneva Conventions to define the illegitimacy of Moscow’s actions, including its use or potential use of particular weapons.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/international-law-says-putins-war-against-ukraine-is-illegal-does-that-matter-177438">International law says Putin's war against Ukraine is illegal. Does that matter?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The use of weapons in indiscriminate attacks – those that cannot distinguish between combatants and civilians - is forbidden by the Geneva Conventions. </p>
<p>A thermobaric weapon might be targeted specifically at military installations and personnel, but its effects cannot be contained to one area. In all likelihood, many civilians would be killed if such bombs were used in any city.</p>
<p>Using explosive weapons in populated areas would result in indiscriminate and disproportionate attacks. Aerial bombs, even if aimed at military objectives, pose a grave threat to civilians because of their wide blast radius.</p>
<h2>Unnecessary suffering</h2>
<p>Efforts to ban these weapons <a href="https://unidir.org/files/publications/pdfs/protecting-civilians-from-the-effects-of-explosive-weapons-en-293.pdf">have not yet produced a clear prohibition</a>. The 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (commonly called the “Inhumane Weapons Convention”) addresses incendiary weapons, but states have managed to avoid an explicit ban on thermobaric bombs.</p>
<p>In addition to the impacts on civilians, thermobaric bombs would cause superfluous injury and unnecessary suffering. Under international humanitarian law, they should not be used. </p>
<p>There is a point at which – even if a war is deemed legitimate or “just” – violence must not involve weapons that are excessively cruel or inhumane. </p>
<p>If a weapon is likely to prolong the agony of soldiers (or civilians) or result in superfluous and unacceptable injuries, theoretically its use is not permitted. Thermobaric weapons clearly seem to meet this definition.</p>
<h2>Cluster bombs and nuclear weapons</h2>
<p>It is not only thermobaric weapons that cause us concern in the current war.</p>
<p>Ukraine’s government and human rights groups say Russia has also used cluster munitions. These are bombs or rockets that release a cluster of smaller “bomblets” over a wide area.</p>
<p>Cluster munitions were <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_Cluster_Munitions">banned under an international convention in 2008</a>. Russia has not signed (nor has the US, China or India), but until now it has largely respected the convention’s provisions.</p>
<p>Perhaps of greatest concern, however, is Moscow’s nuclear weapons arsenal. President Vladimir Putin has <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60513116">hinted strongly</a> that he would potentially be willing to use them, putting Russian nuclear forces on high alert and warning that countries which interfere in the invasion will face “consequences you have never seen”.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/as-putin-puts-nuclear-forces-on-high-alert-here-are-5-genuine-nuclear-dangers-for-us-all-177923">As Putin puts nuclear forces on high alert, here are 5 genuine nuclear dangers for us all</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Russia has around 6,000 nuclear weapons and an escalation of conflict <a href="https://theconversation.com/as-putin-puts-nuclear-forces-on-high-alert-here-are-5-genuine-nuclear-dangers-for-us-all-177923">could result in their use</a> – either deliberately or inadvertently during the fog of war.</p>
<p>Putin is not the only one to have made threats like this. The US holds around 5,500 nuclear weapons of its own, and its nuclear policy promises nuclear devastation to opponents.</p>
<p>Even the British and French resort to nuclear pressure, and <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-42549687">former US president Donald Trump</a>, when threatening North Korea, used similar language. But Putin’s statement goes beyond even these threats. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-nuclear-weapons-ban-treaty-is-groundbreaking-even-if-the-nuclear-powers-havent-signed-153197">The nuclear weapons ban treaty is groundbreaking, even if the nuclear powers haven't signed</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>It is these very real dangers that <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-nuclear-weapons-ban-treaty-is-groundbreaking-even-if-the-nuclear-powers-havent-signed-153197">led</a> 122 states at the United Nations to vote in favour of developing the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in 2017.</p>
<p>The war in Ukraine is the latest reminder that we must act to eliminate thermobaric, cluster, and nuclear weapons, under strict international control. The stakes are simply too high to allow these dangers to remain.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/178289/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Marianne Hanson has previously received funding from the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and the University of Queensland to conduct research on weapons and international law. In a voluntary capacity, she is currently Co-Chair of ICAN Australia (the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons). </span></em></p>Thermobaric or ‘vacuum’ bombs create an oxygen-eating fireball followed by a deadly shockwave.Marianne Hanson, Associate Professor of International Relations, The University of QueenslandLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1522502020-12-21T11:57:42Z2020-12-21T11:57:42ZNato-Russia tensions: what a Biden administration can do to lower the temperature<p>When Vladimir Putin faced the world’s media recently for his annual <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-europe-55356699">end-of-year press conference</a>, he was characteristically aggressive. </p>
<p>Asked by a BBC journalist whether, as Russia’s president for 20 years, he accepted any responsibility for the current “woeful state of relations” between his country and the west or whether the Russian authorities were “always white and fluffy” (a Russian expression for squeaky clean), he was scathing in his reply:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>About us being “white and fluffy”. In comparison with you, yes we are … We heard you promise that Nato is not going to expand to the east – but you didn’t keep your word.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Putin’s words reflect a general freeze in relations between Russia and the west that has been developing over some years. This prompted a group of former US, European and Russian diplomats, generals, researchers and political figures, supported by the <a href="https://www.europeanleadershipnetwork.org/">European Leadership Network</a> (ELN), to write a <a href="https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/russian-and-western-envoys-make-joint-plea-to-avoid-war-qqwgzrntg">letter</a> to the UK’s Times newspaper on December 8 to call for action in Moscow and for Nato to restore talks on how to impose limits on military activity in Europe. </p>
<p>This has become increasingly urgent over the past few years. If the United States and Russia don’t agree to extend <a href="https://fas.org/blogs/security/2020/10/new-start-2020_aggregate-data/">New START</a> (as the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty is known) by February 5 2021, there will be no legally binding treaty that would set verifiable limits on their nuclear weapons which make up 90% of the world’s nuclear arsenal, for the first time since the 1970s. </p>
<p>How to handle relations with Russia will be one of Biden’s top foreign policy priorities when he moves into the Oval Office after his inauguration on January 20. During the recent election campaign the president-elect <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/joe-biden-democratic-presidential-candidate-kamala-harris-60-mintues-interview-norah-odonnell-2020-10-25/">identified Russia</a> as the “biggest threat to America right now in terms of breaking up our security and our alliances”. </p>
<p>Nato-Russia relations have been in the deep freeze since 2014 when Russia <a href="https://theconversation.com/now-crimeas-in-the-bag-where-next-for-putin-and-russia-24521">annexed Crimea</a>. Russia’s provocative behaviour since has included a build-up of Russian military forces and impromptu exercises in the Baltic and Black Sea regions. </p>
<p>Nato member states, meanwhile, have continued their policies of sanctions, strengthening the alliance’s eastern defence posture and limiting diplomatic relations with Russia. The security dilemma has only worsened in Europe since the US <a href="https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2019-09/news/us-completes-inf-treaty-withdrawal">terminated</a> the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty in August 2019 due to repeated Russian violations. </p>
<h2>Positive steps</h2>
<p>The ELN experts <a href="https://www.europeanleadershipnetwork.org/group-statement/nato-russia-military-risk-reduction-in-europe/">recommend</a> a series of measures suggesting that “these steps can contribute to an atmosphere, in which resolution of those difficult political issues becomes more achievable”. </p>
<p>But this requires Nato to overcome three crucial obstacles. Nato solidarity must be repaired after four years in which criticism by the outgoing US president Donald Trump has called the transatlantic partnership into question. There needs to be renewed political will in both Washington and Moscow for restoring arms control agreements. And renewed attempts at diplomacy in the west’s relationship with Russia must address Russia’s <a href="https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/in-depth-research-reports/report/russia-in-the-world/">precarious dilemma</a>, caught in stagnation after the collapse of the Soviet Union but hungry for recognition of its great power status.</p>
<p>These steps are key if diplomacy is to have a chance. Here, Biden’s election could reverse the some of the more worrisome tendencies in US foreign policy under outgoing president Donald Trump. Under Biden, the US will follow a “<a href="https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/russia-fsu/2017-12-05/how-stand-kremlin">hang tough, but keep talking</a>” policy towards Russia, based on more international engagement and better cooperation with Nato’s European members. </p>
<p>There is hope that a more coherent US policy will increase the chances of renewing the Russia-Nato dialogue. This would provide the opportunity to cooperate with Moscow on issues such as climate change, coronavirus, counterterrorism, and Iran’s nuclear programme.</p>
<h2>More diplomacy needed</h2>
<p>Biden can also help Nato to again become an effective platform for negotiations. But this is only possible if Washington changes its rhetoric and remains interested in issues of European security as well as arms control. Trump’s <a href="https://newrepublic.com/article/157842/us-cant-win-arms-race-russia-china">confrontational rhetoric</a> needs to give way to confidence-building measures where there are <a href="https://css.ethz.ch/content/dam/ethz/special-interest/gess/cis/center-for-securities-studies/pdfs/CSSAnalyse276-EN.pdf">strong incentives</a> to reduce the risk of escalation, misperceptions and potential misunderstandings.</p>
<p>Nato could start by addressing Russia’s long-term fears dating back to the end of the <a href="https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/abmtreaty">Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty</a> in 2002. The US could reassure the Russians by allowing them to inspect Nato <a href="https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/smd/2019/08/02/adapting-nato-missile-defense-to-survive-enemy-contact/">missile defence sites</a> in Romania and Poland. </p>
<p>Discussions in 2021 for the updating of the <a href="https://www.osce.org/fsc/74528">Vienna Document</a> – the politically binding agreement that provides for the exchange and verification of information about armed forces and military activities – will also be very important to “<a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/news/osce-ministerial-council-joint-statement-on-the-vienna-document">restoring trust and increasing mutual confidence</a>”. And allies of the US must keep emphasising the importance of the Open Skies Treaty, something that <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2020/11/22/trump-administration-exits-open-skies-treaty/">Biden has said he supports</a>.</p>
<p>All of this will not be secured overnight. Patience is necessary, as well as a willingness to see common ground to make the relationship between Russia and Nato functional; but also a dose of realism, and especially transatlantic cooperation and predictability.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/152250/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Calls to keep talking are getting louder out of fear of escalation and ultimately war – but why are diplomatic relations so difficult for Nato and Russia?Amelie Theussen, Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science and Public Management, University of Southern DenmarkDominika Kunertova, Senior Researcher, Center for Security Studies, ETH Zurich, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology ZurichLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1486222020-10-28T17:26:34Z2020-10-28T17:26:34ZA Biden presidency might be better for NZ, but the big foreign policy challenges won’t disappear with Trump<p>The presidency of Donald Trump has been challenging for New Zealand’s foreign policy. Our commitment to multilateral solutions to global problems has run into a new isolationism in the United States. </p>
<p>Infamously, Trump quit both the <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52862588">World Health Organisation</a> and the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/nov/04/donald-trump-climate-crisis-exit-paris-agreement">2015 Paris Agreement</a> on climate change. During a global pandemic and with a looming environmental crisis, US leadership has been missing.</p>
<p>If Joe Biden is elected on November 3, however, some kind of realignment may be possible. New Zealand policymakers will be closely watching several key areas.</p>
<h2>Climate and Health</h2>
<p>Trump’s exit from the <a href="https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement/the-paris-agreement">Paris Agreement</a> was significant for the abandonment of the US’s emissions target, but possibly more so for the loss of leadership and <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/06/02/trump-will-stop-paying-into-the-green-climate-fund-he-has-no-idea-what-it-is/">financial support</a> needed to encourage sustainability in the developing world. </p>
<p>New Zealand has <a href="https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/117244331/national-will-support-climate-change-zero-carbon-bill">committed</a> to net zero carbon emissions by 2050. This goal is <a href="https://joebiden.com/climate-plan/">shared</a> by Biden, who would also <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/24/joe-biden-climate-change-is-number-one-issue-facing-humanity.html">recommit to the Paris Agreement</a> and the <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53332354">WHO</a>. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/who-reform-a-call-for-an-early-warning-protocol-for-infectious-diseases-148078">WHO reform: a call for an early-warning protocol for infectious diseases</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Biden has even signalled he may <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/14/biden-trade-fight-global-warming-429495">use trade agreements</a> to combat global warming. This would be a major change to US trade policy and could have implications for agricultural countries such as New Zealand with methane-rich exports.</p>
<h2>Trade agreements</h2>
<p>New Zealand is committed to free trade and a rules-based international order, but Trump seemed intent on wrecking the World Trade Organisation (WTO), especially after <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/sep/16/trump-attacks-wto-after-it-says-us-tariffs-on-china-broke-global-trade-rules">it ruled</a> his ongoing spat with China over trade was wrongful.</p>
<p>Biden may show <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/where-trump-and-biden-stand-on-trade-11601121601">more restraint</a> on the WTO, but neither he nor Trump is likely to advance a long-desired free trade agreement (FTA), despite the US being New Zealand’s third-largest trading partner. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/new-mp-ibrahim-omers-election-highlights-the-challenges-refugees-from-africa-face-in-new-zealand-148621">New MP Ibrahim Omer's election highlights the challenges refugees from Africa face in New Zealand</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Trump <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38721056">crushed</a> the previous nearest thing to an FTA, the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA). But he did sign into law a new arrangement <a href="https://nz.usembassy.gov/signing-of-the-kiwi-act/">making it easier</a> for Kiwi entrepreneurs to work in America. </p>
<p>Although Biden is <a href="https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/10/02/biden-trump-trade-wars-election-2020/">unlikely to differ</a> from Trump on some trade issues (such as with China), he may <a href="https://www.afr.com/policy/economy/he-s-no-milton-friedman-but-biden-will-back-the-trans-pacific-trade-partnership-20200825-p55oz1">revisit</a> the TPPA. </p>
<h2>Arms control</h2>
<p>The divisions between Trump, Biden and the interests of New Zealand are much greater over arms control treaties. New Zealand’s <a href="https://www.mfat.govt.nz/en/about-us/mfat75/taking-a-nuclear-free-policy-to-the-world/">nuclear-free</a> commitments run counter to the global instability caused by recent US actions.</p>
<p>Trump quit the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/21/us/politics/trump-open-skies-treaty-arms-control.html">Open Skies Agreement</a> (designed to allow transparency and verification in monitoring arms buildups), as well as the <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49198565">Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Agreement</a> (which kept European short-to-medium-range land-based nuclear missiles in check). </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/arderns-government-and-climate-policy-despite-a-zero-carbon-law-is-new-zealand-merely-a-follower-rather-than-a-leader-146402">Ardern's government and climate policy: despite a zero-carbon law, is New Zealand merely a follower rather than a leader?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The so-called New START treaty, which controls the 90% of the world’s nuclear weapons held by the US and Russia, now <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/shultz-perry-nunn-new-start-nuclear-accord-us-russia/2020/10/22/6bc052e2-1466-11eb-ad6f-36c93e6e94fb_story.html">hangs by a thread</a>, with a possible one-year stay of execution beyond its planned expiration date at the beginning of 2021. </p>
<p>Trump also quit the <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/08/trump-to-announce-he-will-withdraw-us-from-iran-nuclear-deal.html">2015 Iran nuclear accord</a>, despite the fact Iran was complying with its provisions. When the US <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-51027619">assassinated</a> Iranian general Qasem Soleimani in Iraq, Iran <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/07/world/middleeast/iran-fires-missiles-us.html">responded</a> by firing missiles at American bases. </p>
<p>Trump opted to stop and not risk bloody regional conflict, but his reckless gamble put New Zealand soldiers stationed in the Middle East at high risk. </p>
<p>Biden would be less volatile. He wants to see if the nuclear deal <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/oct/21/even-if-biden-wins-us-election-time-is-running-out-to-save-iran-nuclear-deal">can be revived</a>. He is also more likely to <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/biden-win-progressives-moderates-nuclear-weapons-disarmament-foreign-policy-election-2020-8?r=AU&IR=T">try to save</a> New START, despite misgivings about Russia.</p>
<p>Anything that prevents the international arms control architecture completely collapsing will benefit everyone. For New Zealand, it would mean the nuclear-free foreign policy was once more in step with global goals.</p>
<h2>War and peace</h2>
<p>Trump has moved three Middle East nations towards <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/11/world/middleeast/bahrain-israel-trump.html">normalising relations</a> with Israel, ended American involvement in <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/11/trumps-green-light-moment-in-syria-shook-the-world/601963/">Syria</a> and has tried to get out of the quagmire of <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/av/47861774">Afghanistan</a>. </p>
<p>He also obtained a promise of <a href="https://fr.reuters.com/article/northkorea-missiles-idUSL2N1QQ239">denuclearisation</a> from North Korea, although this is an empty <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/02/world/asia/trump-kim-jong-un-summit.html">promise</a>, more a pause than a sign of peace in an intergenerational problem. Biden may not do much better, but his approach to negotiation would probably differ, <a href="https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/politics/article/3106688/us-policy-toward-north-korea-under-biden-pageantry-out">moving away</a> from Trump’s personality-driven approach. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/climate-explained-does-a-delay-in-cop26-climate-talks-hit-our-efforts-to-reduce-carbon-emissions-146762">Climate explained: does a delay in COP26 climate talks hit our efforts to reduce carbon emissions?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Biden <a href="https://time.com/5890577/biden-middle-east-special-operations-forces/">would avoid</a> a full exit from Afghanistan and Iraq, fearing the consequences of any resulting power vacuum. He also has a record of <a href="https://joebiden.com/joe-biden-and-the-jewish-community-a-record-and-a-plan-of-friendship-support-and-action/">strong support</a> for Israel, although he is probably more sympathetic to the Palestinian cause than Trump. </p>
<p>Overall, the military and strategic differences between the two White House candidates are not vast. Neither seriously undermines New Zealand’s own foreign policy settings. If there is tension it will probably be over China.</p>
<p>Neither Trump nor Biden is likely to improve <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/oct/25/us-china-relations-trump-or-biden-election">US-China relations</a>. If anything, Biden may by more hawkish and push harder for a multilateral approach to punishing China for everything from trade infractions to human rights abuses. </p>
<p>For New Zealand — which is slow to act against China, its biggest trading partner — some of the most difficult foreign policy challenges are yet to come, whoever is in the White House next.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/148622/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Alexander Gillespie does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>A Trump election loss would suit NZ’s trade, climate and arms control foreign policies. But there will still be the problem of China.Alexander Gillespie, Professor of Law, University of WaikatoLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1269672019-11-13T17:51:48Z2019-11-13T17:51:48ZFirearm-makers may finally decide it’s in their interest to help reduce gun violence after Sandy Hook ruling<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/301585/original/file-20191113-77326-1m0rv9c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The popularity of semiautomatic rifles increases the risk that mass shootings result in multiple deaths. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Mass-Shootings-Gun-Laws/e4b7996376f9470eb184447755726777/428/0">AP Photo/Jae C. Hong</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Mass shootings have become a <a href="https://qz.com/1681373/multiple-mass-shootings-in-24-hours-is-nothing-new-in-the-us/">routine occurrence</a> in America. </p>
<p>Gun-makers have long refused to take responsibility for their role in this epidemic. That may be about to change. </p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.npr.org/2019/11/12/778487920/supreme-court-allows-sandy-hook-families-case-against-remington-to-proceed">U.S. Supreme Court on Nov. 12 refused to block</a> a lawsuit filed by the families of the Sandy Hook Elementary mass shooting victims, clearing the way for the litigation to proceed. Remington Arms, which manufactured and sold the semiautomatic rifle used in the attack, had hoped the <a href="https://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/other-laws-policies/gun-industry-immunity/">broad immunity the industry has enjoyed for years</a> would shield it from any liability. </p>
<p>The prospect of more claims from victims of mass shootings puts new pressure on the gun industry to reconsider the way it does business. </p>
<p><a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=yQUI6yEAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">My research over the past 20 years</a> on lawsuits against the gun industry examines how the threat of civil liability has the potential to promote safer gun designs, encourage more responsible marketing practice and reduce the risk of illegal retail sales. </p>
<h2>The end of immunity</h2>
<p>A 2006 law called the <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/chapter-105">Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act</a> grants gun manufacturers broad immunity from civil lawsuits that arise out of the criminal misuse of a weapon.</p>
<p>However, this immunity does not apply where a manufacturer “knowingly violated a state or federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing” of a firearm.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/CR331/331CR865.pdf">Sandy Hook families allege</a> that Remington, by marketing certain guns to civilians, engaged in “unethical” business methods in violation of the <a href="https://portal.ct.gov/DCP/Trade-Practices-Division/About-the-Connecticut-Unfair-Trade-Practices-Act-CUTPA">Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act</a>. Specifically, they argued Remington “marketed, advertised and promoted the Bushmaster XM15-E2S for civilians to use to carry out offensive, military-style combat missions against their perceived enemies.” </p>
<p>Remington asked the court to throw out the lawsuit based on the federal immunity statute, but the Connecticut Supreme Court <a href="https://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/CR331/331CR865.pdf">held that a violation of the state’s unfair trade practices law qualifies</a> as an exception to the industry’s liability shield. </p>
<p>Now that the U.S. Supreme Court has <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/111219zor_db8e.pdf">refused to hear</a> Remington’s appeal, the case will move into discovery and, potentially, trial in a Connecticut state court.</p>
<p>Since <a href="https://www.nclc.org/images/pdf/udap/analysis-state-summaries.pdf">many states</a> have unfair trade practices laws like Connecticut’s, gun violence victims are likely to bring similar claims elsewhere, effectively ending the gun industry’s federal immunity from civil lawsuits.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/301588/original/file-20191113-77291-13066b2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/301588/original/file-20191113-77291-13066b2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=409&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/301588/original/file-20191113-77291-13066b2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=409&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/301588/original/file-20191113-77291-13066b2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=409&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/301588/original/file-20191113-77291-13066b2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=514&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/301588/original/file-20191113-77291-13066b2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=514&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/301588/original/file-20191113-77291-13066b2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=514&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The father of one of the children killed at Sandy Hook speaks outside the Connecticut Supreme Court.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Newtown-Shooting-Gun-Maker/75bd46a0671942beb2c560065442dbe8/2/0">AP Photo/Dave Collins</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Reducing gun violence</h2>
<p>In other industries, the threat of civil liability has encouraged manufacturers to take steps in design, marketing and retail to reduce the risk of injuries associated with their products. Lawsuits have prompted automakers to develop <a href="https://www.robertabelllaw.com/library/Driven_to_Safety__How_Litigation_Spurred_Auto_Safety_Innovations.pdf">safer car designs</a>, vaping companies to <a href="https://www.npr.org/2019/10/17/771095245/vaping-giant-juul-settles-lawsuit-will-not-market-to-teens-and-children">end marketing aimed at teens</a> and opioid manufacturers to <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/as-lawyers-zero-in-on-drug-companies-a-reckoning-may-be-coming/2019/07/17/c634a1bc-a89a-11e9-86dd-d7f0e60391e9_story.html">take responsibility for oversupplying</a> pills to irresponsible retailers. </p>
<p>Similarly, exposing gun manufacturers to civil liability is likely to encourage them to consider reducing the <a href="https://mikethegunguy.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/measuring-gun-lethality.pdf">lethality</a> of their civilian weapons. The popularity of semiautomatic firearms <a href="https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/9/2/151">increases the risk</a> that gun violence incidents will cause multiple gunshot wounds to large numbers of victims. Companies may wish to limit their liability exposure by reducing the firepower of their products.</p>
<p>Additionally, companies may wish to reconsider <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ar-rifles-marketing-tactics-scrutiny-mass-shootings/">marketing campaigns</a> that extol the combat characteristics of weapons they sell on the civilian market. Such campaigns are likely to give rise to more lawsuits alleging that such promotional tactics increase the risk that their guns will be the weapon of choice for mass shooters.</p>
<p>Finally, lawsuits may encourage gun companies to work harder to teach retailers how to spot and prevent illegal straw purchases, in which a person buys a gun for someone else who is legally prohibited from purchasing it. The industry’s trade association – the National Shooting Sports Council – has long had a <a href="http://www.dontlie.org/">training and certification program</a> for retailers to reduce the risk of illegal straw purchases. Beefing up that effort is another way to reduce the industry’s liability exposure.</p>
<p>None of these actions would weaken the Second Amendment or undermine the commercial viability of the gun industry.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/301592/original/file-20191113-77310-1mwpp2c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/301592/original/file-20191113-77310-1mwpp2c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/301592/original/file-20191113-77310-1mwpp2c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/301592/original/file-20191113-77310-1mwpp2c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/301592/original/file-20191113-77310-1mwpp2c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/301592/original/file-20191113-77310-1mwpp2c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/301592/original/file-20191113-77310-1mwpp2c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A Sandy Hook mom marches over the Brooklyn Bridge during a rally to end gun violence.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Gun-Control-Rally/1f94c15e10504041bbe49ac58c7069c8/445/0">AP Photo/Mary Altaffer</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Only the beginning</h2>
<p>Regardless of whether the Sandy Hook families ultimately prevail, the U.S. Supreme Court’s refusal to hear an appeal in the case appears to have blown a giant hole in the gun industry’s immunity from civil litigation.</p>
<p>However, this may not be the court’s last word on the subject. The justices might have another opportunity to review the case if the Sandy Hook plaintiffs win and the case works its way back up to the high court. The Supreme Court could then decide that the exception to federal immunity applies more narrowly. </p>
<p>Moreover, there is no guarantee that other state courts will adopt the Connecticut Supreme Court’s interpretation of the immunity exception. Federal courts in <a href="https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca2/05-6942/05-6942-cv_opn-2011-03-27.html">New York</a> and <a href="https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2009/05/11/06-56872.pdf">California</a> have rejected similar lawsuits. Also, unfair trade practices laws in other states frequently limit lawsuits to product consumers, excluding claims by others injured by the products.</p>
<p>In addition, gun violence victims face other challenges in winning their claims. They must convince judges and juries that routine industry marketing strategies constitute unfair trade practices and prove that those practices played a role in enabling criminal attacks. Prior to passage of federal immunity, <a href="https://www.press.umich.edu/pdf/gun_litigation-intro.htm">no plaintiff ever won</a> a lawsuit against a gun manufacturer for an injury arising out of criminal misuse of a weapon.</p>
<p>Finally, litigation is not a panacea. Stemming the epidemic of gun violence in the U.S. will require a concerted effort by industry, government and organized citizen groups across the political spectrum. </p>
<p>Lawsuits can help jump-start this process, but they are only the beginning.</p>
<p>[ <em><a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=expertise">Expertise in your inbox. Sign up for The Conversation’s newsletter and get a digest of academic takes on today’s news, every day.</a></em> ]</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/126967/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Timothy D. Lytton has provided expert consulting services to law firms representing gun violence victims. </span></em></p>The Supreme Court’s refusal to block the Sandy Hook lawsuit may lead to a flood of litigation, which ultimately may compel the gun industry to change the way it designs, markets and sells firearms.Timothy D. Lytton, Distinguished University Professor & Professor of Law, Georgia State UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1112512019-02-06T23:26:51Z2019-02-06T23:26:51ZThe collapse of the US-Russia INF Treaty makes arms control a global priority<p><em>UPDATE: The cold war-era Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty expired today, August 2, 2019.</em></p>
<p>On October 20 2018, US President Donald <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/20/trump-us-nuclear-arms-treaty-russia">Trump announced he intends to withdraw</a> from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) – an arms control treaty with Russia that contributed to the end of the Cold War. </p>
<p>Secretary of State Mike Pompeo had <a href="https://edition.cnn.com/2019/02/01/politics/us-russia-nuclear-arms-treaty-pompeo/index.html">confirmed this decision</a>, while Trump reiterated his <a href="https://edition.cnn.com/videos/politics/2019/02/06/trump-state-of-the-union-2019-russia-inf-nuclear-treaty-sot-vpx.cnn">commitment to withdrawing</a> from the treaty in his State of the Union address. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.rt.com/news/450395-russia-suspends-inf-treaty/">Russia followed suit</a> and <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-47134028">reports say</a> it is aiming to create new land-based missiles within the next two years. Reports also say the US is allocating funds for the research and development of such missiles. </p>
<p>So, what is the INF Treaty? And will its collapse lead to an increase of global nuclear tensions that marked the Cold War?</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/B9Ck_qri4H0?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<h2>What is the INF?</h2>
<p>The INF Treaty took seven years to negotiate, contributed to the end of the Cold War and ushered in three decades of strategic stability. </p>
<p>US President Ronald Reagan and Soviet General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev signed the treaty on December 8, 1987 to give effect to their declaration that “<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1987/12/11/joint-statement-by-reagan-gorbachev/cd990a8d-87a1-4d74-88f8-704f93c80cd3/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.d53d121d75e8">a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought</a>”.</p>
<p>The treaty prohibited the development, testing and possession of ground-launched cruise and ballistic missiles with a range of 500km to 5,500km, whether armed with nuclear or conventional warheads.</p>
<p>A joint statement from Reagan and Gorbachev <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1987/12/11/joint-statement-by-reagan-gorbachev/cd990a8d-87a1-4d74-88f8-704f93c80cd3/?amp;utm_term=.d53d121d75e8&noredirect=on&utm_term=.56d20493420e">noted</a>: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>This treaty is historic both for its objective – the complete elimination of an entire class of US and Soviet nuclear arms – and for the innovative character and scope of its verification provisions. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>It entered into force on June 1 1988. By its implementation deadline of June 1 1991, <a href="https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/INFtreaty">859 US and 1,752 Soviet</a> missiles had been destroyed.</p>
<p>Reflecting the dominant Cold War architecture of nuclear arms control, the INF Treaty was bilateral. US National Security Adviser <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424053111903918104576500273389091098">John Bolton</a>, writing in 2011 as a private citizen, conceded the treaty had successfully “addressed a significant threat to US interests”. The threat was a surprise Soviet/Russian nuclear attack in Europe using missiles in the 500-5,500km range. </p>
<p>But the arms control architecture began fraying when US President George W. Bush <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/13/international/bush-pulls-out-of-abm-treaty-putin-calls-move-a-mistake.html">pulled out of</a> the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty in 2001. Signed in 1972, the ABM controlled systems designed to counter “strategic” ballistic missiles, such as intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs).</p>
<p>With the INF Treaty now dead and another arms control treaty, <a href="https://www.state.gov/t/avc/newstart/">New Start</a>, set to expire in 2021, the world will be left without any limits on the two major nuclear arsenals for the first time since 1972. </p>
<h2>What now, for Europe?</h2>
<p>Since 2014, under the Obama administration, Washington has accused Russia of deploying nuclear-capable ground-launched missiles with a 2,000km range (the SSC-8) in Europe that are <a href="https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/230108.pdf">non-compliant with INF Treaty obligations</a>.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/obamas-nobel-winning-vision-of-world-without-nuclear-weapons-is-still-distant-67566">Obama's Nobel-winning vision of 'world without nuclear weapons' is still distant</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The US decision to pull out of the treaty will deepen the strains in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO). Baltic countries insist Russia’s violations of the INF Treaty demand robust diplomatic and military counter-measures. The <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/oct/21/uk-backs-trumps-nuclear-treaty-withdrawal-blames-russia-for-breakdown">UK has lined up firmly behind Washington</a>, blaming Russia for the breakdown. </p>
<p>But Germany’s foreign minister, Heiko Maas, urged Washington to consider the consequences of withdrawal for Europe and for the <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45931231">future of nuclear disarmament</a>. And the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/22/eu-us-nuclear-arms-race-inf-treaty-bolton-moscow">EU foreign policy chief, Federica Mogherini</a>, said: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>The INF contributed to the end of the Cold War and constitutes a pillar of European security architecture.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>NATO stands to lose more from the INF Treaty collapse than Russia. Russia will be able to move ahead rapidly with the development and deployment of short and medium-range ground-launched nuclear-capable missiles. But, unlike in the 1980s, the US would face difficulty in finding allies in Europe prepared to station such missiles on their territory. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1091354782999166982"}"></div></p>
<p>Also, would the host countries have a voice or veto on launching them and in choosing targets?</p>
<h2>What about the Asia-Pacific?</h2>
<p>In addition to alleged Russian violations, the US exit is motivated by <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/19/us/politics/russia-nuclear-arms-treaty-trump-administration.html">China’s growing challenge</a> to US dominance in the Pacific. China and North Korea have been developing missile-delivery capabilities.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/north-korea-may-not-yet-have-a-long-range-missile-but-its-progress-is-worrying-73115">North Korea may not yet have a long-range missile, but its progress is worrying</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>“To reduce the threat from INF-range missiles,” Bolton <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424053111903918104576500273389091098">concluded</a> back in 2011, “we must either expand the INF Treaty’s membership or abrogate it entirely so that we can rebuild our own deterrent capabilities.” Trump has done the latter.</p>
<p>As a non-signatory, China is unconstrained by INF Treaty limits. About <a href="https://docs.house.gov/meetings/AS/AS00/20180214/106847/HHRG-115-AS00-Wstate-HarrisJrH-20180214.pdf">95% of its missiles</a> are in the prohibited range. This enables it to target US ships and bases from the mainland by relatively inexpensive conventional means. </p>
<p>Without INF restrictions, the US could develop and station ground-launched intermediate-range cruise missiles across the Asia–Pacific, which would force Beijing to divert significant military resources to defend its homeland.</p>
<p>China’s nuclear stockpile has remained relatively stable over many years despite the fluctuations in the Russian and US numbers. It is below 300, compared to nearly 7,000 and 6,500 <a href="https://fas.org/issues/nuclear-weapons/status-world-nuclear-forces/">Russian and US warheads</a>, respectively. </p>
<p>This signifies a policy of deliberate restraint in China despite substantial growth in economic and technological capability since its first nuclear test 55 years ago.</p>
<p>The collapse of the INF Treaty and deployment of China-specific US missiles could compel China to institute counter-measures – such as rapidly expanding its warhead numbers and missile-delivery systems – to protect vital security interests, including nuclear assets deep in its interior. </p>
<p>China’s response in turn may trigger re-adjustments to India’s doctrine of credible minimum deterrence and could produce matching re-adjustments by Pakistan. The <a href="https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/pakistan-has-more-nuclear-warheads-india-credible-deterrence/articleshow/64641056.cms">nuclear arsenals of both these countries</a> is presently limited to under 150 each. </p>
<p>In a worst-case scenario, China, India and Pakistan could engage in a sprint to parity with the US with a rapid expansion of warhead numbers and missile-delivery capabilities, and perhaps even move to keeping a stock of nuclear weapons on high alert just like Russia and the US. </p>
<p>However, economic and technological limitations will constrain India and Pakistan’s ability to engage in an open-ended nuclear arms race.</p>
<h2>Expanding arms control</h2>
<p>The sensible alternative would be to begin urgently multilateralising the Cold War bilateral structure of nuclear arms control regimes. This means involving more countries than just Russia and the US in arms control treaties, and in particular involving China. Chinese nuclear expert <a href="https://carnegietsinghua.org/2018/11/07/why-china-is-worried-about-end-of-inf-treaty-pub-77669?">Tong Zhao’s conclusion</a> holds for the whole world, not just China: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>… the era of relying on the US-Russia bilateral arms control structure is at its end. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Multilateralising the arms control negotiating process and resulting structure will avoid a free-for-all nuclear arms race and instead anchor strategic stability in arms control agreements.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, thanks to Donald Trump and John Bolton, we shall continue to live in interesting times.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/111251/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ramesh Thakur is affiliated with the Asia-Pacific Leadership Network for Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament (<a href="http://www.a-pln.org">www.a-pln.org</a>), a nuclear policy advocacy group of which he is the co-convenor. </span></em></p>The US has withdrawn from a major arms control treaty with Russia, and Russia followed suit. So, what was the treaty, and what happens now?Ramesh Thakur, Professor of International Relations, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/880542017-11-30T13:47:36Z2017-11-30T13:47:36ZTwo decades after they were banned, it’s time to make landmines war crimes<p>It’s been 20 years since 133 states signed the <a href="https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/ottawa">Ottawa Convention</a> banning the use of anti-personnel mines. Today, some 162 states are party to the convention. It was a huge step towards eliminating these heinous devices – but the work is far from done. </p>
<p>The two decades since the convention was signed have seen some successes. The use of landmines has declined <a href="https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Progress-Watch/2017/0927/Land-mine-casualties-show-signs-of-global-decline">worldwide</a>; the convention prohibits not only their use in times of war, but their production, export and stockpiling. It paved the way for the 2010 <a href="http://www.clusterconvention.org/">Dublin Convention</a> on banning cluster munitions, and helped create organisations that promote greater respect for the laws of war, among them <a href="https://genevacall.org/">Geneva Call</a>, which works with non-state armed groups to keep them from using landmines and child soldiers. But some battles are not yet won. </p>
<p>While most countries have signed up to the Ottawa Convention, some of the world’s biggest military powers have not. Among them are Russia, China, India and Saudi Arabia. The US has also not signed up to the Ottawa Convention over maintenance of the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/21/north-korea-south-korea-dmz-landmines">minefields in the demilitarised zone</a> on the Korean peninsula, though in recent years its military has <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-28/us-announces-cessation-of-anti-personnel-landmine-production/5556798">stopped</a> using and stockpiling anti-personnel mines.</p>
<p>Most dispiritingly and urgently of all, since 1997, landmines have killed or seriously maimed more than <a href="http://www.the-monitor.org/media/2386748/Landmine-Monitor-2016-web.pdf">100,000 civilians</a>. Clearly, further measures are needed to deter their use. Now, <a href="https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/CN/2017/CN.480.2017-Eng.pdf">Belgium</a> is proposing to add an amendment to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court that would make it an international war crime to use landmines. </p>
<p>But what does the law actually say, and how can it be tightened?</p>
<h2>Landmines as war crimes</h2>
<p>In <a href="https://blogs.qub.ac.uk/hrc/files/2017/11/Final-Report-War-Crimes.pdf">a new report</a>, my co-researchers and I explain that landmines can amount to war crimes in certain circumstances. There are <a href="https://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/icrc_002_0811.pdf">rules</a> that govern their legal use: they must be detectable, equipped with self-destruct mechanisms, deployed only in fenced-off and clearly marked areas, and they must not contain anti-handling devices. In a nutshell, this means anti-personnel mines can amount to war crimes where they are used indiscriminately or cause unnecessary suffering.</p>
<p>We also suggest that the same applies to booby-traps and other improvised explosive devices. With anti-personnel mines increasingly prohibited and controlled, these devices are proliferating in conflicts around the world as armed non-state groups manufacture their own crude but lethal devices. To take one example, in Syria in 2016, some <a href="https://aoav.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/AOAV-Explosive-Monitor-2017v9single-pages.pdf">14,301 civilians</a> were killed or seriously injured by such weapons.</p>
<p>Under the <a href="https://theconversation.com/a-guide-to-the-geneva-convention-for-beginners-dummies-and-newly-elected-world-leaders-72155">laws of war</a>, hostilities must be conducted according to certain principles meant to limit harm. Under these principles, anti-personnel mines can amount to a grave breach of international humanitarian law because they cannot distinguish between civilians and combatants. </p>
<p>This civilian-combatant distinction is a cardinal principle of international humanitarian law, intended to minimise harm to civilians by keeping violence a matter for combatants. Because anti-personnel mines explode no matter who stands on them, using them violates this principle. And after conflicts where anti-personnel mines are used, many of them remain left behind in the ground unexploded, meaning they continue to indiscriminately kill and maim civilians for decades. </p>
<p>Perhaps the most notorious case of this problem is <a href="https://www.pri.org/stories/2017-11-24/cambodia-s-female-deminers-clean-country-war-s-deadly-reminders">Cambodia</a>. Since the Khmer Rouge were <a href="http://www.cambodiatribunal.org/history/cambodian-history/khmer-rouge-history/">defeated in 1979</a>, <a href="https://apnews.com/93989bc0cbc44cb0b01c37be653e89df/cambodia-seeking-400-million-complete-demining">more than 60,000 civilians</a> have been killed or wounded after stepping on mines, and <a href="http://www.halotrust.org/where-we-work/south-asia/cambodia/">more than 25,000</a> have been left amputees.</p>
<p>Anti-personnel mines can also cause <a href="https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_rul_rule70">superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering</a>, which international humanitarian law specifically prohibits. This means they don’t just kill or injure enemy combatants for tactical purposes, but also cause harm which serves no military purpose. Landmines often explode upon contact with a person’s foot, causing fragments to be fired upwards and sidewards. These fragments carry dirt and bacteria that can cause secondary infections, meaning victims can lose an infected limb or be permanently blinded and deafened.</p>
<h2>Clearing up</h2>
<p>With the <a href="https://www.brookings.edu/blog/markaz/2017/10/19/how-the-islamic-state-will-grapple-with-defeat-in-raqqa/">territorial defeat</a> of the so-called Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, state forces and other personnel have a difficult task of clearing explosive devices left by the group in cities like Mosul and Raqqa. Briton <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/oct/24/briton-who-fought-isis-killed-in-raqqa-a-week-after-city-liberated">Jac Holmes</a> was killed doing such work in Raqqa in October this year. </p>
<p>Destroying anti-personnel mines and other explosive remnants of war isn’t just a job for states. Non-state armed groups also have a role to play. The NGO <a href="https://genevacall.org/what-we-do/landmine-ban/">Geneva Call</a> has successfully persuaded 49 such groups to stop using these devices, and even to help in cleanup efforts; as a part of the peace process in Colombia, members of <a href="https://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/Colombia-Declares-166-Municipalities-Free-of-Landmines-20170818-0009.html">FARC</a> have been working with the Colombian government and NGOs to clear the country of mines altogether.</p>
<p>These efforts prove that getting rid of landmines for good is not some impossible dream. But it’s time for the law to catch up. Explosive devices are still killing civilians years after wars have ended, and more must be done to make sure everyone can enjoy the peace safely.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/88054/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Luke Moffett receives funding from Arts and Humanities Research Council UK for research on reparations and cultural property. </span></em></p>What can international law do to help curb the use of a lethal, indiscriminate weapon?Luke Moffett, Senior Law Lecturer in international criminal justice, Queen's University BelfastLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/851672017-10-09T23:23:18Z2017-10-09T23:23:18ZHow the US government created and coddled the gun industry<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/189471/original/file-20171009-25649-1ts0kj5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">A U.S. soldier fires a Colt M16 in Vietnam in 1967.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Operation_“Cook”,_8_September_1967,_Quang_Ngai_Province,_Republic_of_Vietnam-R.C._Lafoon.PNG">U.S. Army</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>After Stephen Paddock opened fire on Las Vegas concertgoers on Oct. 1, <a href="http://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-talk-shows/354448-talk-of-gun-control-dominates-sunday-shows-after-las-vegas">many people responded</a> with calls for more gun control to help prevent <a href="https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44126.pdf">mass shootings</a> and the <a href="http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/">routine violence</a> ravaging U.S. neighborhoods. </p>
<p>But besides a <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/top-house-republicans-open-to-legislation-regulating-bump-stocks/2017/10/05/4580cb54-a9dc-11e7-b3aa-c0e2e1d41e38_story.html?utm_term=.640105e36861">rare consensus</a> on restricting the availability of <a href="https://www.thetrace.org/rounds/nra-bump-stocks-fox-news-wayne-lapierre-chris-cox/">so-called bump stocks</a>, which Paddock used to enable his dozen semi-automatic rifles to fire like machine guns, it’s unclear if <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/06/opinion/banning-bump-stocks-wont-solve-anything.html?_r=0">anything meaningful</a> will come of it. </p>
<p>If advocates for reform <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/02/opinion/gun-control-vegas-shooting.html">despair</a> after such a <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/10/02/why-congress-still-wont-do-something-about-gun-laws-after-las-vegas/">tragedy</a>, I can understand. The politics seem intractable right now. It’s easy to feel powerless. </p>
<p>But what I’ve learned from a decade of studying the history of the arms trade has convinced me that the American public has more power over the gun business than most people realize. </p>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/189449/original/file-20171009-6999-una1zf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/189449/original/file-20171009-6999-una1zf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/189449/original/file-20171009-6999-una1zf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=289&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/189449/original/file-20171009-6999-una1zf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=289&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/189449/original/file-20171009-6999-una1zf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=289&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/189449/original/file-20171009-6999-una1zf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=363&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/189449/original/file-20171009-6999-una1zf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=363&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/189449/original/file-20171009-6999-una1zf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=363&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Gun maker Simeon North made this flintlock pistol around 1813.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Balefire/Shutterstock.com</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Washington’s patronage</h2>
<p>The U.S. arms industry’s close alliance with the government is as old as the country itself, beginning with the American Revolution. </p>
<p>Forced to rely on <a href="http://americanhistory.si.edu/collections/search/object/nmah_438624">foreign weapons</a> during the war, President George Washington wanted to ensure that the new republic had its own arms industry. Inspired by European practice, he and his successors built public arsenals for the production of firearms in Springfield and Harper’s Ferry. They also began doling out lucrative arms contracts to private manufacturers such as Simeon North, the <a href="http://www.courant.com/courant-250/moments-in-history/hc-250-simeon-north-middletown-berlin-20141223-story.html">first official U.S. pistol maker</a>, and <a href="https://www.eliwhitney.org/7/museum/eli-whitney/arms-production">Eli Whitney</a>, inventor of the cotton gin.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://muse.jhu.edu/article/638798">government provided</a> crucial startup funds, steady contracts, tariffs against foreign manufactures, robust patent laws, and patterns, tools and know-how from federal arsenals. </p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.academia.edu/8058237/American_Arms_Manufacturing_and_the_Onset_of_the_War_of_1812">War of 1812</a>, perpetual conflicts with Native Americans and the U.S.-Mexican War all fed the industry’s growth. By the early 1850s, the United States was emerging as a world-class arms producer. Now-iconic American companies like those started by <a href="https://www.britannica.com/biography/Eliphalet-Remington">Eliphalet Remington</a> and <a href="https://connecticuthistory.org/the-colt-patent-fire-arms-manufacturing-company/">Samuel Colt</a> began to acquire international reputations. Even the mighty gun-making center of Great Britain started emulating the <a href="http://doi.org/10.1080/00076798900000002">American system</a> of interchangeable parts and mechanized production. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/189448/original/file-20171009-9731-kwg9r5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/189448/original/file-20171009-9731-kwg9r5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=247&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/189448/original/file-20171009-9731-kwg9r5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=247&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/189448/original/file-20171009-9731-kwg9r5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=247&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/189448/original/file-20171009-9731-kwg9r5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=311&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/189448/original/file-20171009-9731-kwg9r5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=311&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/189448/original/file-20171009-9731-kwg9r5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=311&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">This is an advertisement for a Remington rifle in the Army and Navy Journal in 1871.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Army and Navy Journal</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Profit in war and peace</h2>
<p>The Civil War supercharged America’s burgeoning gun industry.</p>
<p>The Union poured huge sums of money into arms procurement, which manufacturers then invested in new capacity and infrastructure. By 1865, for example, Remington had made nearly <a href="https://books.google.com.au/books?id=E86oBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA89&lpg=PA89&dq=remington+Union+contracts+during+the+civil+war&source=bl&ots=TNb6SfMJxE&sig=hhrPb76HA0rOyDzbvj3PbE8VzVU&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiZuZfYj-LWAhUE2LwKHWSyC7cQ6AEIPTAE#v=onepage&q=earned%20nearly%20three%20million&f=false">US$3 million</a> producing firearms for the Union. The Confederacy, with its weak industrial base, had to <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/archaeology/historians-reveal-secrets-of-uk-gun-running-which-lengthened-the-american-civil-war-by-two-years-9557937.html">import</a> the vast majority of its weapons.</p>
<p>The war’s end meant a collapse in demand and bankruptcy for several gun makers. Those that prospered afterward, such as Colt, Remington and Winchester, did so by securing <a href="https://books.google.com.au/books?id=VeeiAgToOq4C&pg=PA71&lpg=PA71&dq=remington%27s+contracts+with+the+Ottoman+Empire&source=bl&ots=KqHBeJro9w&sig=nZmi4Xp-ubj98K5FbldhZiVlav0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiKkeaYud_WAhUEHZQKHYknCecQ6AEILjAD#v=onepage&q=remington's%20contracts%20with%20the%20Ottoman%20Empire&f=false">contracts</a> from foreign governments and hitching their <a href="http://pamelahaag.com/writing-archive/connecticut-explored/">domestic marketing</a> to the brutal romance of the American West. </p>
<p>While peace deprived gun makers of government money for a time, it delivered a windfall to well capitalized dealers. That’s because within five years of Robert E. Lee’s surrender at Appomattox, the War Department had decommissioned most of its guns and <a href="https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.b2979306;view=1up;seq=52">auctioned</a> off some 1,340,000 to private arms dealers, such as <a href="https://centerofthewest.org/2016/12/09/schuyler-hartley-graham-original-gun-dealer/">Schuyler, Hartley and Graham</a>. The Western Hemisphere’s largest private arms dealer at the time, the company scooped up warehouses full of cut-rate army muskets and rifles and <a href="http://library.centerofthewest.org/cdm/search/collection/SHG/order/identi/ad/asc">made fortunes reselling them at home</a> and <a href="https://books.google.com.au/books?id=85nfz5URJZkC&pg=RA1-PA91&lpg=RA1-PA91&dq=%22schuyler,+hartley,+and+graham%22&source=bl&ots=PA3HCpk5Qm&sig=uEJuvgsen6rxocKadN7XFKeg5Zc&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22schuyler%2C%20hartley%2C%20and%20graham%22&f=false">abroad</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/189447/original/file-20171009-6990-p3yvkp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/189447/original/file-20171009-6990-p3yvkp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=443&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/189447/original/file-20171009-6990-p3yvkp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=443&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/189447/original/file-20171009-6990-p3yvkp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=443&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/189447/original/file-20171009-6990-p3yvkp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=557&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/189447/original/file-20171009-6990-p3yvkp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=557&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/189447/original/file-20171009-6990-p3yvkp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=557&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A soldier fires the Sig Sauer P320, which the Army has chosen as its new standard pistol.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">U.S. Army</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>More wars, more guns</h2>
<p>By the late 19th century, America’s increasingly aggressive role in the world insured steady business for the country’s gun makers. </p>
<p>The Spanish American War brought a new wave of contracts, as did both <a href="https://www.remingtonsociety.org/remingtons-allied-rifle-contracts-during-wwi/">World Wars</a>, Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq and the dozens of smaller conflicts that the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations">U.S. waged around the globe</a> in the 20th and early 21st century. As the U.S. built up the world’s most powerful military and <a href="http://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu/daniel-immerwahr/GUS.pdf">established bases across the globe</a>, the <a href="https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/100833931">size of the contracts soared</a>. </p>
<p>Consider <a href="https://www.sigsauer.com/usage/pro/military/">Sig Sauer</a>, the New Hampshire arms producer that made the <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2016/06/14/the-gun-the-orlando-shooter-used-was-not-an-ar-15-that-doesnt-change-much/?utm_term=.fd14defaee8e">MCX rifle</a> used in the Orlando Pulse nightclub massacre. In addition to arming <a href="http://www.monch.com/mpg/news/14-land/708-sig-sauer-takes-the-extra-mile.html">nearly a third</a> of the country’s law enforcement, it recently won the coveted <a href="https://www.wired.com/2017/01/us-army-sig-sauer-p320/">contract</a> for the Army’s new standard pistol, ultimately worth $350 million to $580 million.</p>
<p>Colt might best illustrate the importance of public money for prominent civilian arms manufacturers. Maker of scores of iconic guns for the civilian market, including the AR-15 carbine used in the 1996 massacre that prompted <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2704353/">Australia</a> to enact its famously sweeping gun restrictions, Colt has also relied heavily on government contracts since the 19th century. The Vietnam War initiated a long era of making M16s for the military, and the company continued to <a href="http://www.investopedia.com/articles/markets/071315/why-colt-went-out-business.asp">land contracts</a> as American war-making shifted from southeast Asia to the Middle East. But Colt’s reliance on government was so great that it filed for bankruptcy in 2015, in part because it had <a href="http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/06/15/why-cops-and-soldiers-fell-out-of-love-with-colt-guns/">lost the military contract</a> for the M4 rifle two years earlier.</p>
<p>Overall, gun makers relied on government contracts <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/12/19/seven-facts-about-the-u-s-gun-industry/?utm_term=.2ca2524d1816">for about 40 percent</a> of their revenues in 2012. </p>
<p>Competition for contracts spurred manufacturers to make lethal innovations, such as handguns with magazines that hold 12 or 15 rounds rather than seven. Absent regulation, these innovations show up in <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/susannahbreslin/2013/08/16/gun-magazines/#6dd3a4d2215c">gun enthusiast periodicals</a>, sporting goods stores and <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/07/how-military-guns-make-the-civilian-market/375123/">emergency rooms</a>. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/189451/original/file-20171009-6971-kzyn3e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/189451/original/file-20171009-6971-kzyn3e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/189451/original/file-20171009-6971-kzyn3e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/189451/original/file-20171009-6971-kzyn3e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/189451/original/file-20171009-6971-kzyn3e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/189451/original/file-20171009-6971-kzyn3e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/189451/original/file-20171009-6971-kzyn3e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">An activist is led away by security after protesting during a statement by NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre, left, during a news conference in response to the Connecticut school shooting in 2012.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AP Photo/Evan Vucci</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>NRA helped industry avoid regulation</h2>
<p>So how has the industry managed to avoid more significant regulation, especially given the <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/02/politics/gun-control-polling-las-vegas-shooting/index.html">public anger and calls for legislation</a> that follow horrific massacres like the one in Las Vegas? </p>
<p>Given their historic dependence on U.S. taxpayers, one might think that small arms makers would have been compelled to make meaningful concessions in such moments. But that seldom happens, thanks in large part to the National Rifle Association, a complicated yet invaluable industry partner. </p>
<p>Prior to the 1930s, meaningful firearms regulations came from <a href="http://time.com/3921663/gun-regulation-history/">state and local governments</a>. There was little significant federal regulation until 1934, when Congress – spurred by the <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/history-of-gun-control-legislation/2012/12/22/80c8d624-4ad3-11e2-9a42-d1ce6d0ed278_story.html?utm_term=.69769313c6be">bloody “Tommy gun era”</a> – debated the <a href="https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/national-firearms-act">National Firearms Act</a>. </p>
<p>The NRA, founded in 1871 as an organization focused on hunting and marksmanship, rallied its members <a href="https://books.google.com.au/books?id=0xQsDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA127&lpg=PA127&dq=NRA+and+the+1934+National+Firearms+Act&source=bl&ots=K50kyM78W0&sig=Iv19dxaW0r3LwG9L9J0AddIG6N4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjW0eCWpODWAhUJzLwKHY-bBcQ4FBDoAQguMAI#v=onepage&q=NRA%20and%20the%201934%20National%20Firearms%20Act&f=false">to defeat</a> the most important component of that bill: a tax meant to make it far more difficult to purchase handguns. Again in 1968, the NRA ensured <a href="http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=29197">Lyndon Johnson’s Gun Control Act</a> wouldn’t include <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/made-by-history/wp/2017/10/05/even-in-the-1960s-the-nra-dominated-gun-control-debates/?utm_term=.e172d93ae81a">licensing and registration</a> requirements. </p>
<p>In 1989, it <a href="https://www.thetrace.org/2016/01/nra-background-check-system-brady-bill-wayne-lapierre/">helped delay and water down</a> the <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/103rd-congress/house-bill/1025/text/rh">Brady Act</a>, which mandated background checks for arms purchased from federally licensed dealers. In 1996 the NRA engineered a virtual ban on <a href="https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/cdc-still-cant-study-causes-gun-violence-180955884/?no-ist">federal funding</a> for research into gun violence. In 2000, the group led a <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com.au/smith-and-wesson-almost-went-out-of-business-trying-to-do-the-right-thing-2013-1?r=US&IR=T">successful boycott</a> of a gun maker that cooperated with the Clinton administration on gun safety measures. And it scored another big victory in 2005, by <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/7901">limiting the industry’s liability</a> to gun-related lawsuits. </p>
<p>Most recently, the gun lobby has succeeded by promoting an ingenious <a href="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/jun/15/nra-right-obama-coming-our-guns/">illusion</a>. It has framed government as the <a href="https://www.alternet.org/tea-party-and-right/how-gun-industry-made-fortune-stoking-fears-obama-would-take-peoples-guns-ammo">enemy</a> of the gun business rather than its indispensable historic patron, convincing millions of American consumers that the state may <a href="http://thehill.com/regulation/248950-gun-production-has-doubled-under-obama">at any moment</a> stop them from buying guns or even try to confiscate them. </p>
<p>Hence the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/03/business/gun-stocks-vegas-shooting-trump.html">jump</a> in the shares of gun makers following last week’s slaughter in Las Vegas. Investors know they have little to fear from new regulation and expect sales to rise anyway.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/189452/original/file-20171009-6984-13poxmw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/189452/original/file-20171009-6984-13poxmw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/189452/original/file-20171009-6984-13poxmw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/189452/original/file-20171009-6984-13poxmw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/189452/original/file-20171009-6984-13poxmw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/189452/original/file-20171009-6984-13poxmw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/189452/original/file-20171009-6984-13poxmw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">People have been leaving memorials and tributes in honor of the victims of the Las Vegas mass shooting.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">gotpap/STAR MAX/IPx via AP Photo</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>A question worth asking</h2>
<p>So with the help of the NRA’s magic, major arms manufacturers <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-14/the-nra-racks-up-victories-the-atf-wants-to-give-them-more">have for decades thwarted regulations</a> that <a href="http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/06/22/key-takeaways-on-americans-views-of-guns-and-gun-ownership/psdt_2017-06-22-guns-00-03/">majorities of Americans support</a>. </p>
<p>Yet almost never does this <a href="https://www.citizensforethics.org/gun-companies-arm-trade-association-cash-influence-2016-elections/">political activity</a> seem to jeopardize access to lucrative government contracts. </p>
<p>Americans interested in reform might reflect on that fact. They might start asking their representatives where they get their guns. It isn’t just the military and scores of federal agencies. States, counties and local governments buy plenty of guns, too. </p>
<p>For example, Smith & Wesson is well into a <a href="http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-lapd-officers-gun-purchase-discounts-smith-wesson-20150925-story.html">five-year contract</a> to supply handguns to the Los Angeles Police Department, the second-largest in the country. In 2016 the company <a href="https://www.nssf.org/smith-wesson-tops-nssf-gunvote-chairmans-club-with-500000-contribution/">contributed $500,000</a> (more than <a href="https://www.citizensforethics.org/gun-companies-arm-trade-association-cash-influence-2016-elections/">any other company</a>) to a get-out-the-vote operation designed to defeat candidates who favor tougher gun laws. </p>
<p>Do taxpayers in L.A. – or the rest of the country – realize they are indirectly subsidizing the gun lobby’s campaign against regulation?</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/85167/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Brian DeLay receives funding from the American Council of Learned Societies and the Harry Frank Guggenheim Foundation.</span></em></p>While advocates of gun control may feel powerless in the wake of mass shootings like the one in Las Vegas, the history of government support for the industry shows Americans have more sway than they think.Brian DeLay, Associate Professor of History, University of California, BerkeleyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/752092017-03-27T19:14:07Z2017-03-27T19:14:07ZWhy we signed the open letter from scientists supporting a total ban on nuclear weapons<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162583/original/image-20170327-18974-2kt054.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The UN is debating a total ban on all nuclear weapons.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Peacekeeper_in_silo_1987.jpg">Wikimedia</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>These are dangerous times. The <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-is-the-doomsday-clock-and-why-should-we-keep-track-of-the-time-71990">Doomsday Clock</a> sits at just two and a half minutes before midnight, which represents global catastrophe.</p>
<p>The Doomsday Clock has been maintained by the <a href="http://thebulletin.org/">Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists</a> since 1947, and has only ever been closer to midnight back in 1953, when the United States and Soviet Union tested their first hydrogen bombs, and the world was locked in a very dangerous nuclear arms race. </p>
<p>A single hydrogen bomb, thousands of times more powerful than the devices used on Hiroshima or Nagasaki, would be capable of obliterating a whole city. </p>
<p>An all out war, detonating even a fraction of the roughly <a href="https://fas.org/issues/nuclear-weapons/status-world-nuclear-forces/">14,000 nuclear weapons</a> in existence today, might trigger a mini ice age. Winter would last year-round, agriculture would be destroyed, and civilisation would likely collapse. </p>
<p>The then US president Ronald Reagan put it <a href="http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=40205">simply and clearly</a>: “A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.”</p>
<p>Today we face these fears once more. Russia and China are again flexing their military might. The United States is led by President Donald Trump, who has a more hawkish take on international affairs than his predecessors. He has also said that if any country is to have nuclear weapons, then he wants the United States to be at the “<a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2017/02/25/politics/trump-nuclear-arsenal/">top of the pack</a>”.</p>
<p>There are many potential flashpoints around the world – including Syria, the Korean peninsular, the South China Sea, Iraq, and Ukraine – and many despots and terrorists looking to cause problems. </p>
<p>There is, however, reason for hope. This week’s talks at the United Nations aim to <a href="https://www.un.org/press/en/2017/dc3685.doc.htm">negotiate a total ban on nuclear weapons</a>. These talks are the first of their kind ever to take place at the UN.</p>
<p>The aim is to stigmatise nuclear weapons, as with biological and chemical weapons. The ultimate goal is a world free of these weapons of mass destruction.</p>
<p>In support of these discussions, thousands of scientists from around the world have today released <a href="https://futureoflife.org/nuclear-open-letter/">an open letter</a> urging our national governments to achieve this goal of banning nuclear weapons.</p>
<p>The letter is signed by 23 Nobel Laureates, a past US Secretary of Defense, and many well-known scientists such as Stephen Hawking, Steven Pinker, Martin Rees and Daniel Dennett. I, too, have signed the letter. </p>
<p>As scientists, we bear a special responsibility for having invented these weapons of mass destruction. And as scientists, we are also very aware of the disastrous
effects that they could have on our planet. </p>
<p>Nuclear weapons threaten not merely those who have them, but all people who walk the Earth.</p>
<p>We urge the diplomats meeting in the United Nations today to find a way to rid the world of this evil.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/75209/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>This article reflects Toby Walsh's personal opinion and does not represent the position of Data61.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Rob Brooks does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Talks begin today at the United Nations to negotiate a total ban of nuclear weapons. Over 3,600 scientists have signed an open letter supporting the ban.Toby Walsh, Professor of AI at UNSW, Research Group Leader, Data61Rob Brooks, Scientia Professor of Evolutionary Ecology; Academic Lead of UNSW's Grand Challenges Program; Director, Evolution & Ecology Research Centre, UNSW SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/733992017-02-21T15:24:10Z2017-02-21T15:24:10ZAs Trump flounders on foreign policy, Russia flexes its nuclear muscles<p>Thirty years after Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev signed a <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/december/8/newsid_3283000/3283817.stm">landmark nuclear arms treaty</a> which laid the foundations of post-Cold War relations between the West and the Soviet Union, recent developments suggest that the Kremlin has quietly restarted the nuclear arms race with the deployment of a new generation of nuclear weapons which could wind back the clock to the bad old days of superpower confrontation. </p>
<p>Of course, there have been episodes since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 that have put considerable strain on relations between the two powers – chief among them Yugoslavia, Iraq, Chechnya, Georgia, Libya and Ukraine. But the latest news from Russia suggests a more fundamental shift. According to a <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/14/world/europe/russia-cruise-missile-arms-control-treaty.html">report in the New York Times</a> US officials confirmed on February 14 that the Russians had secretly deployed new ground-launched cruise missiles known as SSC-8s with a range capability of between 500km and 5,500km in the area around Volgograd in south-west Russia. A second operational unit was deployed elsewhere, but its location is as yet undisclosed.</p>
<p>These missiles are <a href="http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/russia/ssc-8.htm">intermediate range</a> nuclear weapons that carry multiple independently targetable re-entry vehicles (MIRVs). They are not intercontinental, but the target range of the Volgograd site covers the entirety of Western Europe – including Britain. </p>
<p>This latest round of missile deployments is a <a href="http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/russia/ssc-8.htm">gross breach</a> of the <a href="https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/INFtreaty">Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty</a> signed in 1987 in Washington by Reagan and Gorbachev. It was an historic superpower agreement, the product of three years of negotiations and summits and the first ever to ban an entire category of nuclear weapons. It set a pattern for mutual arms reduction that paved the way to the <a href="https://2001-2009.state.gov/r/pa/ho/time/pcw/104210.htm">Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty</a> (START) signed in 1991 and 1993 – and updated <a href="https://www.state.gov/t/avc/newstart/">by New START in 2010</a>. In short, the INF Treaty was a crucial milestone on the road to ending the Cold War.</p>
<h2>Making Russia ‘great again’</h2>
<p>The reasons for the new deployment are obvious enough. The SSC-8s are the latest manifestation of Vladimir Putin’s reassertion of Russian power. Although he shed no tears for the failed communist experiment, he <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/4480745.stm">called the collapse of the Soviet Union</a> “the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century. Once secure in power, Putin <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26769481">set about building</a> a "strong Russian state and rebuilding the country’s damaged global position. In this he had enthusiastic support from the military and the defence industry. Russian <a href="http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/mo-budget.htm">annual military expenditure grew</a> from €46.2 billion a year in 2012 to €71 billion in 2016. Enhancing the country’s nuclear capacity across all weapon types is a central plank of the programme to achieve equal status with America.</p>
<p>In order to achieve his objectives, Putin has gradually pulled Russia out of the cooperative forums and agreements forged with the West after the Cold War. In 2007, he withdrew from the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/nov/30/russia.nato">Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE) Treaty</a> in protest at Washington’s plans for a NATO missile defence "shield” in Eastern Europe. In 2014, he <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/nov/30/russia.nato">annexed the Crimea</a> in defiance of international law and intervened militarily in the domestic tumult in Ukraine. </p>
<p>In October, he suspended an historic agreement with the US to <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37539616">dispose of surplus weapons-grade plutonium</a>, arguing that the Americans were already reprocessing their own surplus plutonium for military use. He also stationed <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/08/russia-confirms-deployment-of-nuclear-capable-missiles-to-kaliningrad">nuclear-capable short-range Iskander missiles</a> in the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad on the borders of Poland and Lithuania. This, he said, was a response to the deployment of 4,000 troops to bolster NATO’s conventional forces in the Baltic area. </p>
<p>There have also been successful Russian tests of the new <a href="http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/russia/ss-31.htm">RS-26 Rubezh</a> intercontinental ballistic missile and the first images of the <a href="http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/russia/ss-30.htm">RS-28 Sarmat</a>, a new “super-heavy” intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) of a kind that the Americans do not yet possess, were released in November 2016.</p>
<p>Russia rejected a US proposal in 2013 to <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/20/world/europe/obama-asks-russia-to-join-in-reducing-nuclear-arms.html">reduce strategic warheads</a> to 1,000 and Russia has consistently refused to engage in bilateral negotiations on non-strategic nuclear weapons reduction with Washington. The currently unfolding deployment of SSC-8s around Volgograd should therefore be seen as the latest phase of a process of escalation that threatens to spiral into a new arms race between Russia and United States.</p>
<h2>Getting back on track</h2>
<p>We have been here before, of course. In 1976, the Soviet Union deployed the first generation of Intermediate Range Nuclear Missiles, <a href="https://fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/theater/rt-21m.htm">the SS20s</a>, triggering crisis for Western Europe. The problem then, as now, was that these missiles threatened only Western Europe – not the US. Partly for that reason, the Carter administration in Washington was slow to respond. </p>
<p>It took several years for the NATO alliance, prodded by the then German chancellor, <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/b1e95cb6-1479-11e5-9bc5-00144feabdc0">Helmut Schmidt</a>, to rise to the challenge of the new threat. Fearing that his country would be the primary theatre of a future nuclear conflict in Europe, Schmidt pressed for a coordinated Euro-Atlantic response. The result was the “<a href="http://www.cvce.eu/en/obj/nato_press_communique_on_the_double_track_decision_on_theatre_nuclear_forces_brussels_12_december_1979-en-7d068b4c-63b6-4248-9167-fe9085a0032b.html">NATO dual-track decision</a>” of 1979, in which the Soviets were offered arms reduction negotiations and simultaneously threatened with Europe-based rearmament if they refused.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/157715/original/image-20170221-18646-1ibi2iu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/157715/original/image-20170221-18646-1ibi2iu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=414&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/157715/original/image-20170221-18646-1ibi2iu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=414&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/157715/original/image-20170221-18646-1ibi2iu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=414&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/157715/original/image-20170221-18646-1ibi2iu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=521&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/157715/original/image-20170221-18646-1ibi2iu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=521&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/157715/original/image-20170221-18646-1ibi2iu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=521&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev outside the 1986 Reykjavik Summit.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">White House Photo Office</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In the longer run, this tactic succeeded: in the INF Treaty of 1987 the Soviets and the Americans agreed to decommission the intermediate-range weapons on both sides. It was this treaty that framed the ban on ground-launched INFs that would remain in place until the recent deployments in Volgograd.</p>
<h2>Meanwhile, in the White House</h2>
<p>There are many parallels, then, between the current situation and the crisis that flared in the late 1970s. But there are also some important differences. The Trump White House is far more dysfunctional than Carter’s. His stated views about NATO have been contradictory – oscillating between damning the alliance as “obsolete” and pledging “100%” support.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"712969068396093440"}"></div></p>
<p>The assurances offered by his vice-president, Mike Pence, and the US secretary for defence, General James Mattis, at the recent <a href="https://www.securityconference.de/en/">Munich Security Conference</a> are not enough to dispel doubts about America’s commitment to Europe and the ability of the Trump administration to handle a crisis such as this.</p>
<p>Trump’s policy regarding Russia is difficult to read, especially in the aftermath of the sudden <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/13/us/politics/donald-trump-national-security-adviser-michael-flynn.html">exit of his national security adviser</a>, General Mike Flynn, amid speculation about the administration’s allegedly close ties with the Kremlin. To cap it all, uncertainties remain about who is really making foreign policy in today’s White House.</p>
<p>In such a climate, forging an agreement with the European allies is not going to be easy. There was much talk at the Munich Conference of “alliance solidarity”, “unwavering support” and “historical connections”, but a concerted Euro-Atlantic response is yet to emerge. As the decision-makers work their way towards a solution, it is crucial they ponder on the lessons of 1979. Like the “dual-track” policy of the early 1980s, an effective resolution of the current predicament will have to balance two objectives: to strengthen the missile defence shield and Western counterstrike capability while drawing Moscow back into arms-reduction negotiations.</p>
<p>It would be foolish to underestimate the obstacles ahead. The current Russian leadership has unpicked the fabric of the international peace woven at the end of the Cold War. And Russia’s foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov has made no secret of his contempt for the Western alliance. At the Munich Conference, <a href="http://www.dw.com/en/lavrov-calls-for-post-west-world-order-dismisses-nato-as-cold-war-relic/a-37614099">he declared</a> that NATO “remained a Cold War institution” and that his country intended to build a “post-West world order” based on the supposedly self-balancing competition among autonomous nation-states.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"811977223326625792"}"></div></p>
<p>Against this mood music, dialogue and predictability will be difficult to re-establish. And yet it remains an indispensable key to peace and security. Russia and America are currently talking past each other. Both sides indulge in megaphone diplomacy, febrile twittering and accusations of “fake news”. And – as <a href="https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=epcDDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA114&lpg=PA114&dq=helmut+schmidt+the+logic+of+military+calculations&source=bl&ots=Ww4t2ZFuAZ&sig=Zx34nZlsEXxk94kxs8UgmtI94yQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjSkZLPpaHSAhVLCMAKHa27Ci0Q6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=helmut%20schmidt%20the%20logic%20of%20military%20calculations&f=false">Helmut Schmidt knew very well</a> – it is easy when diplomacy fails, to get trapped in “the logic of military calculations” to the point where a small crisis could “escalate quickly into a direct military confrontation between the great powers”.</p>
<p>The task of conducting a genuine dialogue with Russia will fall to the US president, who must first reunite the Western alliance. Is President Trump – who sometimes has sensible things to say – capable of quitting Twitter, thinking big and acting like a statesman? It should be hoped that he is, and that the world’s leaders will relearn the habits of civility and diplomatic seriousness that enabled Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev to transcend the Cold War.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/73399/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Kristina Spohr does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Vladimir Putin’s aggressive nuclear strategy threatens to unpick decades of careful negotiation.Kristina Spohr, Associate Professor of History, London School of Economics and Political ScienceLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.