The insanity of nuclear deterrence | Robert Green | TEDxChristchurch

In 1968, I was 24 years old and working at Tennant, navigating attack planes from an aircraft carrier. I was among four of the best crews in my squadron and we had the honor of being a

nuclear

crew with a top secret security clearance. The rumor intensified when we were told that it was a huge responsibility that had been entrusted to us the last we are playing a role the last defense of Britain our target was a Soviet military air base on the outskirts of Leningrad formal birth summonses after we had planned how to attack it they told us not to discuss it, we obeyed and proudly celebrated the initiation into this elite within an elite after a few years I changed to anti-submarine helicopters our slow and light torpedoes could not reach the Soviet

nuclear

submarines, so they gave us a depth nuclear bomb unlike my attack.

My helicopter was too slow to escape the detonation. I realized this would be a suicide mission. Well, I complained. My leaders. My leaders assured me that we would probably never have to use it. Plus, he didn't want to interrupt a promising career. I remained silent, but doubt was planted here in 1978. My silence was rewarded as a newly promoted commander at the Ministry of Defense in London helping an admiral responsible for advising on nuclear policy as Mrs Thatcher became Prime Minister and wanted Trident, an American nuclear-armed missile system launched from huge, militarily useless submarines. My admiral warned that it was too destructive for Britain's needs and that its enormous cost would mean cuts to warships that were militarily useful.

Thatcher pushed the decision on the Trident and, sure enough, her government announced cuts to warships to pay for it, so she asked to be sacked. My application was approved a week after the 1982 Falklands War between Britain and Argentina. I had to stay until we had one and I had given up my job, which was running a forty-man intelligence team in the command bunker outside London, that the war was a close affair, some of our ships were sunk and our colleagues died, if an aircraft carrier or a troop ship had been eliminated, we could have done it.

In the face of defeat what the lady would do. Thatcher had done before the war, she was the most unpopular British Prime Minister in history, now her political career is at stake, she became the Iron Lady after I left the Navy. I was reliably informed that there had been a top secret contingency plan to move the patrols. British nuclear-armed submarine within range of Argentina that presented me with the nightmare of a desperate nuclear-armed British leader and the shameful possibility of our submariners being ordered to commit a senseless war crime after all British nuclear weapons they would not have deterred President General Galtieri of Argentina. to invade the Falkland Islands with victory in their hands what nuclear threat has even been believed let alone worked less than two years later my dear aunt and mentor Hilda Morel was murdered she was an anti-nuclear activist and the police did not investigate her strange I murdered correctly I received information from several reliable sources that agents of the British security service MI5 had been involved Outraged I felt betrayed by the corrupt government of my beloved country My support for nuclear

deterrence

collapsed with the Berlin Wall and the end of the Cold War Now I know that nuclear

deterrence

is an ineffective, illegal and completely immoral strategy to prevent nuclear war.

Let's first look at three aspects of nuclear deterrence. Does it actually prevent war? Just because World War III has not yet broken out does not mean that nuclear deterrence has prevented it. Their archrivals India and Pakistan are engaged in a nuclear arms race despite having a common border that emulates the irresponsible example of the former colonial masters. The British naively believe that this is their path to security and greatness. Blind faith in nuclear deterrence has emboldened both sides to launch provocative military actions in disputed Kashmir several times, so even though each side is armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons, the risk of war has increased.

Second, to be credible, nuclear deterrence must never fail; this requires demonstrating the capabilities, plans and determination to use nuclear weapons. weapons which brings me to number three is nuclear deterrence a rational strategy after all initiating a nuclear attack against the opponent with nuclear weapons would basically be suicidal an irrational opponent knows that nuclear retaliation will be nothing more than meaningless revenge unlike the consequences of conventional nuclear war The war will leave a vast irradiated wasteland A medical catastrophe for any survivor Climate scientists Alan Robock and Brian Tune have produced a computer model of what would happen if a nuclear war broke out in South Asia, apart of millions of dead and untreatable survivors, radioactive poisoning and apocalyptic destruction across the country.

South Asia Smoke from firestorms over cities alone would block out the sun across the northern hemisphere, causing massive crop failures and global famine. The robotic simulation involves only 100 nuclear weapons, but the United States and Russia each still have about 1,000 nuclear weapons in With 30 minutes or less notice for launch, another 5,000 nuclear weapons on each side are kept in reserve. The other seven nuclear weapons states China France Britain India Pakistan Israel and North Korea have another 1,000 nuclear weapons between them since they were first deployed in In the 1950s there have been many incidents, what is more horrifying is that Most of them have been childish due to malfunction, human error or misunderstanding.

In 1962, the Soviet Union placed nuclear-armed missiles in Cuba aimed at the United States in retaliation for American missiles placed in Turkey U.S. President Kennedy threatened the Soviets with a nuclear attack because he did not know that those Soviet missiles had nuclear weapons and that there were Soviet operators in Cuba ready to use them. I remember my anxiety at age 80 when the entire world held its breath in the face of a catastrophic nuclear war. was fortunately avoided and a secret agreement to remove missiles from Turkey and Cuba less than 30 years later Iraq invaded Kuwait 1990 speaking to 20,000 anti-war protesters in London's I district, but if Salim Hussain felt personally threatened he could attack Israel with weapons Conventionally armed scuds. missiles and become the Arab champion If a Scud attack caused too many casualties Israel's leader would be under massive pressure to respond with a nuclear strike on Baghdad a week after I spoke the Israelis learned that their nuclear deterrent had failed 39 reconnaissance attacks from Iraq caused miraculously few casualties.

The Americans deployed more defenses there against Scott Mossad and congratulated Israel for its restraint. Five years later, in 1995, a Norwegian research rocket was mistakenly identified by Russian radar as an imminent US nuclear attack. The Russian leader activated his special briefcase authorizing nuclear-armed submarines to prepare. for the launch a test catastrophe was averted within a few minutes, which brings me to the ongoing crisis in Northeast Asia, custom built to show off the nuclear deterrent, the crazy bad North Korean leader, Kim Jong-un, He is portrayed as the new Hitler, but with nuclear weapons, according to Donald Trump. that if the United States is threatened, either to itself or its allies, they will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea, which makes Trump little better than Kim.

Both have accepted the false mantra that only nuclear deterrence can guarantee the security of their country, as the United States claims. provide a nuclear umbrella that protects its allies South Korea and Japan, but if the nuclear deterrent fails, those countries become targets, while the continental United States would remain relatively intact, making the nuclear deterrent for them It's actually more like a sieve, but all is not lost. More and more people are realizing that this is an ineffective and inexcusable strategy and are starting to do something useful about it. I joined the veterans in Britain who became my friends after many of my former colleagues rejected me.

I also made friends with experienced anti-nuclear activists. whom I married here in nuclear-free New Zealand in 1997, shortly after my anti-nuclear shift was supported by a sensationally well-qualified veteran of his last job from 1992 to 1994, General Lee Butler of the US Air Force. The United States was commander in chief of the entire American nuclear war machine, but when he examined it in detail he was so horrified by the incoherent folly of nuclear deterrence planning that after he retired he spoke out against it and in 1999 I accompanied him and another reassuring convert, former US Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara. to urge the Japanese government to stop relying on US nuclear protection on July 7 of this year in New York I witnessed 122 member states of the United Nations successfully negotiate and adopt a treaty to ban nuclear weapons , based on a historical trial of more than 20 years.

Years ago the International Court of Justice answered the question: Is the threat or use of nuclear weapons permitted in any circumstances under international law? I chaired the British arm of that international campaign which persuaded the majority of UN member states to agree to ask the Court that question. In its ruling, the court confirmed that the threat, much less the use, of nuclear weapons would generally be illegal. It is not surprising that the three main guardians of the nuclear deterrent, the United States, Great Britain and France, led a boycott of such weapons. negotiations, protesting furiously that the irresponsibility and naivety of, ironically, the absence of the nine nuclear-armed states was the reason why the negotiations moved forward in a wonderful spirit of cooperation and were successful.

New Zealand was a leading negotiator as the first ally of a nuclear-armed state to reject nuclear deterrence for 30 years. There has been more good news for years, this year the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to the international campaign to abolish nuclear weapons, which played a leading role in mobilizing public and political support for that treaty, most importantly, for my successes in the Royal Navy, they have to be prepared. to do the dirty work of pressing the nuclear weapons launch button for their prostrate political leaders this treaty strengthens the stigma against nuclear deterrence the main difference between professional militaries and terrorists is that professional militaries must act within the law, that's why chemical and biological weapons Military professionals do not recognize them as weapons at all.

They are indiscriminate terrorist devices that have been banned and abolished. Nuclear weapons are much worse for all these reasons. Nuclear deterrence is nothing more than a repulsive illegal protection racket used as a counterfeit currency of power, but hugely profitable for the corporate arms industry. Power elites of nuclear-armed states deny that their game of nuclear chicken actually threatens survival. of all of us, but the tide of history is finally moving towards justice, it is time for us all to step up and end the threat to humanity on the planet from this irresponsible deception that keeps us all as hostages, thank you, you.