Georgetown University’s Newspaper of Record since 1920

The Hoya

Georgetown University’s Newspaper of Record since 1920

The Hoya

Georgetown University’s Newspaper of Record since 1920

The Hoya

Global Zero Leader Discusses Nuclear Weapons

On Monday, September 13, 2010, the Center for Peace and Security Studies hosted a discussion on the START Treaty. One of the two people invited was Richard Burt, the U.S. Chair of Global Zero, a group dedicated to reducing the number of nuclear weapons to zero. The very first person to ask a question to the panel was Dane Shikman (SFS ’13), the executive director of the Georgetown University branch of Global Zero. After the discussion, Shikman agreed to an interview with The Hoya.

What motivated the foundation of the Global Zero chapter at Georgetown University?

Global Zero movement has been gaining steam with North Korea testing their nuclear weapons and with Iran testing their nuclear capabilities, and that has given us the momentum to step up to the plate and to face these proliferation issues in a new way, saying that deterrence is the only way to combat nuclear proliferation, and that the only truly safe world is one in which nuclear weapons do not exist, or if they’re heavily monitored. On a national level, the Global Zero leaders decided that they wanted to form a grass-roots organization, rather than everything coming from the top down.

Why should people be motivated to fight for non-proliferation in this time-period, in the post-Cold War era?

The risk of nuclear weapons is vague. None of us can see it, New York or Washington D.C. being destroyed. We can’t envision it, and we don’t want to envision it. We have a habit of thinking that it’s not real. But if you talk to generals, they will tell you that there are terrorists that are hell bent to deliver nuclear weapons to New York City.

The threat is real. You have North Korea, which is continuing to defy the world, and Iran, which may develop a nuclear weapon in the next couple years, or even months. You have this new security environment, different from what existed in the Cold War. In this one, you can’t have huge numbers of nuclear weapons that can be easily accessed. The risk of nuclear catastrophe outweighs any of the benefits that used to exist during the Cold War.

Nuclear weapons are considered the ultimate deterrence. Why would the United States surrender the “ultimate weapon”?

The United States is the nation that needs nuclear weapons the least, because we have the strongest conventional armed forces in the world. We have extremely precise warheads that are not nuclear. Therefore, the issue of defense lies not with the United States, but with smaller states, which believe that nuclear weapons would be a deterrent. Nuclear deterrence, though, has been partially debunked, because if you look at multiple situations, you’ll see that nukes did not deter attacks, such as with Israel in the 1973 war, or the coalition forces during the First Gulf War. They knew that those nations had nuclear weapons, and that debunks the idea that nukes will prevent any form of attack against a nation.

How realistic do you think a world with no nukes is?

It will require international cooperation that we’ve never seen before, at an unprecedented level, that they’ve never been forced to do before. It will be very difficult, requiring the resolution of regional conflicts such as in Korea, or between Pakistan and India, and making sure that nations like Israel feel safe, so it’s going to be very hard, but we’ve done hard things, things we thought were impossible, like the United Nations. Therefore, us telling ourselves that it’s impossible is making that idea true. The more we say it’s futile, the less energy [we] put into making it a reality. The framework is there, with the International Atomic Energy Agency, which would just need extended powers to be a strong inspection force to be very effective. It’s about changing the paradigm of nations [to] one of trust.

Would there be a point of compromise that would be acceptable to your group?

If you have more nuclear weapons, then there’s more availability, and less safety. There’s a negative correlation between the number of weapons and the safety of the world. Optimally, we would have zero. However, I would prefer a world with fewer nuclear weapons than the world we have currently, but only in a world with no nuclear weapons would there be total safety.

Some politicians are making the START Treaty a political issue, accusing senators who vote for ratification of being soft on national security. Is this message affecting the public, and how do you plan on responding?

The political climate is very different from when the first START Treaty was signed. The Republican senators opposed to the treaty are not trying to make Americans safer, they’re trying to oppose President Obama. They’re focused on beating Obama, which creates significant problems with trying to ratify the treaty. It will have to involve grass-roots movements. It’s about convincing people that having large amounts of nuclear weapons is not the best, nor safest option for peace, and even after this bill, we’re still going to have 1,550 nuclear warheads. Even the most warlike of people will have to acknowledge that we still have a lot of nuclear weapons.

Is the non-proliferation movement also an anti-war movement?

Global Zero has nothing to do with conventional military strength. Many times, we actually refer to nation’s conventional forces to argue that they will have enough power to repel attacks, and that wars that are going to be fought should only be fought with conventional weapons. We are not primarily an anti-war group.

What are Global Zero’s plans to remove all nuclear arms from the world?

Global Zero has a step-by-step action plan that would ensure a timeframe. The START Treaty is a big step in that. The next step would be to bring Russia back to the table and make even more drastic cuts to nuclear arms levels. If we cut those all down to 1,000, we can encourage the rest of the world to enter the conversation.

How likely is it that a nuclear bomb will go off during our lifetimes?

I think it’s likely. Realistically speaking, I think it may take a nuclear explosion for the world to realize how serious of a problem nuclear proliferation is. If it happens, either here or in Europe, it might be an explosion that would galvanize everyone to make true steps to cut down on nuclear weapons.

Leave a Comment
Donate to The Hoya

Your donation will support the student journalists of Georgetown University. Your contribution will allow us to purchase equipment and cover our annual website hosting costs.

More to Discover
Donate to The Hoya

Comments (0)

All The Hoya Picks Reader Picks Sort: Newest

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *