On the "uselessness" of nuclear weapons

On the “uselessness” of nuclear weapons

One common view in nuclear disarmament studies is that nuclear weapons are useless because they can never be used. Colin Powell is one of many voices for disarmament who have expressed this view that they have no purpose because no one dare use them. [1] In this view, the policy of mutual assured destruction is merely an absurd trap from which the superpowers must extricate themselves. But if this were all there was to it, we would have to ask why they continue to exist. Nuclear weapons are a colossal expenditure of national wealth, lives and the natural environment, so it would be better to look for rational rather than irrational reasons for their continual existence. We have to ask what makes them so worthwhile to the nations that sacrificed so much to get them and now cling to them so stubbornly. If they really did have no advantages, surely we would have eliminated them by now. Perhaps the conventional wisdom is missing something.

In the 1991 documentary film, The Truth of Christmas Island, a high ranking officer in Britain’s nuclear program described the thinking that was behind the decision to test hydrogen bombs in the Pacific in the late 1950s:

The government had made a decision many years before in its secret committee that Britain had to be a nuclear power or otherwise we were right out of world politics. That was not to be tolerated for a moment. And then suddenly it was realized that an international ban on testing... was about to come into force in perhaps a year’s time and we would be left outside, so Britain would immediately become a second rate power. In no way were we ready to do a test in a year’s time. [2]

-Air Vice-Marshall Richard Oulton, Task Force Commander 1955-57

Similar comments can be found elsewhere in the historical records of other nuclear powers. Possession of nuclear weapons brings much more than just symbolic status. French leaders have also spoken frequently of the glory of having la force de la frappe (the power to strike). Elsewhere, when asked to make a commitment to never strike first, nuclear powers prefer to remain coy because ambiguity is key. As the old hair dye television commercial used to say, “Keep them guessing.” The value of the weapons would be diminished if a state were to announce to potential adversaries that they wouldn’t be used in certain situations. After spending so much national treasure and destroying lives and the natural environment just to make the bombs, states have no intention of lowering their strategic value. Besides, even if a state promised to never launch a first strike, the promise would be very easy to break. The world that followed would be too shattered to hold a war crimes tribunal.

In truth, planners envision many disastrous scenarios in which a first strike might be the only way to preserve national sovereignty. Tactical (battlefield) nuclear weapons, for example, are meant to be used at the discretion of field commanders in some instances, as is the case in Pakistan presently. [3]

A nation might be depleted of all means of defense, near defeat, facing imminent ruin and occupation. It might be under threat of an ambiguously worded threat of “mass destruction” which does not necessarily imply a nuclear strike. When backed into such a corner, what government would refrain from using, or threatening to use, every weapon at its disposal? The ability to threaten is useful in itself, but a nation can’t threaten to use a weapon if it doesn’t possess it or if it has promised to not use it in certain circumstance–unless of course it breaks the promise, which could be done quite easily. The term “non-explosive use of nuclear weapons” has been coined to refer to all the ways nations use nuclear weapons while they remain ostensibly unused.

The French have been very talkative on this point whenever they discuss their country’s possession of la frappe. When President Hollande was asked in February 2016, during a state visit to French Polynesia, whether the state should apologize to the victims of the fallout and admit that nuclear testing was a mistake, he balked as if the question were absurd, and bluntly said, no, that’s how we got la frappe, la dissuasion. [4] In French politics, it is beyond the pale to question the value of this achievement. They thank the French veterans and Polynesians for their sacrifice, made with uninformed consent, and have recognized that there were “effects,” but that is as far as it goes.

Two quotations by recent French presidents make it clear that deterrence does not mean only deterring an opponent from a nuclear first strike:

On the topic, President Sarkozy said: My first duty as head of state and of the military is to assure that in all circumstances France, its territory, its people, and its republican institutions, are secure. And in all circumstances, our national independence and our autonomy of decision-making must be preserved. Nuclear deterrence is the ultimate guarantee of this. Taking measure of this reality is the heavy responsibility of every president of the republic. (March 21, 2008) [5]

President Chirac declared:

It is the responsibility of the head of state to appreciate always the extent of our vital interests. The uncertainty of this limit is consubstantial with the doctrine of deterrence… It is up to the president of the republic to appreciate the profound potential consequences of an aggression, a menace or an unacceptable blackmail threatening our interests. This analysis could, in an applicable case, lead to an understanding that a threat to our vital interests exists. (January 19, 2006) [6]

North Korea has also stated a similar stance on the use of its nuclear weapons. Reuters and Russia Today translated and interpreted Kim Jong-un’s statement incorrectly as saying “the North will adhere to the principles of nuclear non-proliferation and would never attack first.” Further down in the report the policy was clarified as something a little different: “As a responsible nuclear weapons state, our Republic will not use a nuclear weapon unless its sovereignty is encroached upon by any aggressive hostile forces with nukes.” [7] In other words, their policy retains the same ambiguity as that of other nuclear powers. They will not necessarily wait to be struck by a nuclear bomb before launching their own. They will use a nuclear weapon when their “sovereignty is encroached upon.” The difference is crucial. Being the victim of a first nuclear strike would be a fact, an event which no one could dispute, but having “sovereignty encroached upon” by forces equipped with nuclear weapons would be a subjective feeling and matter of interpretation. The nuclear powers all retain the right to make this judgment for themselves and strike pre-emptively. When the promise of no first use is discussed, it can best be understood as a wishful preference, as the nuclear powers never make an unambiguous commitment to it.

In August 2016, US President Obama floated the idea of committing to “no first use,” but he received little support within his own administration and from allies that are protected by the American nuclear umbrella. President Bush’s 2002 Nuclear Posture Review stated three scenarios in which the US would respond with a first nuclear strike: when attacked by weapons of mass destruction of any type, to penetrate hardened underground targets that couldn’t be destroyed by conventional weapons, and in the event of “surprising military developments.” [8] It is plausible that all nations in possession of nuclear weapons have similar policies, whether they are explicitly stated or not. Half the motivation for wanting the weapons in the first place is to be able to wield these threats.

In Empire and Nuclear Weapons, an article written in 2007 about his new book, Joseph Gerson described how American officials have defined nuclear deterrence in a similarly broad fashion over the years. His description of the five established uses of nuclear weapons is paraphrased below:

1. Battlefield use, with the term “battlefield” meant to include the civilian populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The long-held consensus among scholars has been that these first atomic bombings were not necessary to end the war against Japan, and that they were designed to serve a second function of the U.S. nuclear arsenal…

2. Dictate the parameters of the global (dis)order by implicitly terrorizing U.S. enemies and allies.

3. Threaten opponents with first strike nuclear attacks in order to terrorize them into negotiating on terms acceptable to the United States or... to ensure that desperate governments do not defend themselves with chemical or biological weapons. Once the Soviet Union joined the nuclear club, the U.S. arsenal began to play a fourth role...

4. Complement U.S. conventional forces, to make them, in the words of former Secretary of Defense Harold Brown, “meaningful instruments of military and political power.” Implicit and explicit U.S. nuclear threats were repeatedly used to intimidate those who might consider intervening militarily to assist those we are determined to attack.

5. Deterrence, which is popularly understood to mean preventing a surprise first strike nuclear attack against the United States by guaranteeing “mutual assured destruction” (MAD). Pentagon leaders have testified that this understanding of deterrence has never been U.S. policy. In contrast, they have defined deterrence as including function number 2 above, as preventing other nations from taking “courses of action” that are inimical to U.S. interests. This could include decisions related to allocation of scarce resources like oil and water, defending access to markets, or preventing non-nuclear attacks against U.S. allies and clients. [9]

Gerson points out that these five functions did not necessarily always succeed because history provides many examples of nations and revolutionary movements that called the bluff. To cite a few examples, China was “lost” to communism in the late 1940s, the North Vietnamese held out until the Americans left in 1975, and Cuba, the USSR and Angola resisted American power in Southern Africa for a quarter century. Yet in other cases, listed in Gerson’s article, nuclear threats were implicit or explicit in America’s actions on the world stage, and they advanced the political agenda. The full spectrum of American military power, ultimately backed up by nuclear weapons, succeeded in imposing the American military, economic and political order. The usefulness of nuclear weapons is implicit and clearly understood by all nations that possess them, and, of course, by those that don’t.

Unfortunately, much of the Western discourse on nuclear disarmament has lost sight of these reasons that the most powerful nations have for refusing to give up their arsenals. Long ago in 1986, Joseph Gerson wrote, “Few disarmament and arms-control activists or leaders have understood the relationship between the nuclear arms race and the global ambitions of the U.S. Similarly, efforts to halt and restrain U.S. intervention in the third world have too often proceeded in ignorance of the nuclear ramifications of ‘conventional’ conflicts in Asia, the Middle East, Latin America, or Africa.” [10]

This misunderstanding seems just as prevalent today. Many activists think the reason might be bureaucratic inertia, entrenched financial interests of those who make and work with the bombs, or it might be that states are just trapped in an absurd game in which making a first strike is unthinkable but deterring one is essential. Many of the people who write about disarmament know everything about nuclear arsenals and disarmament agreements, but they are often somewhat oblivious to the wider context of international relations or uncritical of the way global power has been exercised over the last seventy years.

The Nuclear Security Summit hosted by US President Obama (April 2016) illustrated how the disarmament movement itself has been colonized by the Western consensus and the tropes of mainstream media punditry. Russia chose not to participate, and Western commentators unanimously chastised Russia for this absence and its recent “aggressive” behavior in Syria, Crimea and Ukraine. No effort was made to reflect more deeply on why Russia saw nothing to gain from participating. Despite America’s long and well-documented record of flouting international law in numerous CIA-managed coups and regime change operations, people who are apparently deeply committed to disarmament can now focus only on Russian aggression. Is this willful neglect or ignorance? If it is the latter, it requires considerable effort to maintain.

Russia’s actions in Ukraine and Crimea are ambiguous cases under international law, but the outrage over these actions seems to stem from the fact that this time a large power other than the United States, France, Israel or the UK decided it had vital interests to protect. Russia defended its actions in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine by pointing to the American meddling in the internal affairs Ukraine to overthrow an elected head of a sovereign nation. The 2014 revolution in Ukraine involved nationalist and fascist elements, and it drove the country into economic chaos, worsening corruption and ethnic divisions. Russia had genuine concerns about stopping the spread of the chaos toward Russian minorities in Ukraine, and preventing a flow of refugees into Russia. Thus, though their actions were legally dubious, their hand was forced, probably intentionally, by America’s illegal meddling in the Maidan revolt and overthrow of the head of state without a constitutionally required impeachment. Thus, if one is going to invoke international law when pointing to Russia’s reaction, one must note that the Ukrainian government is illegitimate and there was illegal interference by a foreign power in the Maidan revolt. As NATO did in Kosovo in 1999, Russia invoked the “right to protect” and it must be noted that in the end Russia’s actions brought stability. In contrast to the consequences of the American attempt to overthrow the government of Syria, there hasn’t been a flow of refugees from Crimea making dangerous sea journeys across the Black Sea in the hope of getting to Turkey, Bulgaria or Romania then onward to Western Europe. Nonetheless, the vilification of Russia in Western media has been out of all proportion. If we really wanted to know where the present state of international lawlessness came from, there are other places besides Russia we could look for ultimate causes.

The downside for Russia in its reaction to the Ukraine crisis was that it suffered illegally imposed economic sanctions, expulsion from the G8, and branding as a global pariah. There is also speculation that the decline in world oil prices was a deliberate manipulation to inflict economic pain on Russia. [11] The timing of the drop was certainly curious. Western and Saudi oil interests suffered for this as well, but it seems like there may have been a choice made to pay a sacrifice in order to inflict more pain on a rival. The Ukraine problem was preceded by the great game being played for Syria and pipelines through the region, but I’ll leave that topic aside. [12] These points are made here just to illustrate how absurd it would be to ignore this intense superpower conflict in discussions of nuclear disarmament.

The disarmament movement in the West, however, is showing signs that it is oblivious to international affairs. It has developed a Western bias in which it has begun to disregard the views of other nuclear powers, which means, ironically, that it has lost its impartiality and begun to work against its own stated purposes. In this isolated bubble of opinion, little consideration is given to the way nuclear weapons are folded within the deployment of conventional military and economic power.

Apparently, we should expect Russia and China to participate in disarmament talks without addressing their concerns about how their counterpart outspends all other nations on military, maintains a global empire of military bases, and arbitrarily imposes economic sanctions on other nations as if it were a law unto itself. The Americans are disingenuously stumped as to what could possibly be stopping Russia from coming to the table to discuss arms reductions. A recent editorial by the editor of The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists had some blistering critiques of the American plan to spend $1 trillion on nuclear arsenal upgrades that will upset the balance of power between the US and other nations, but the author couldn’t help casting blame on Russia for its absence from the Nuclear Security Summit and recent “bad behavior”:

Deteriorated relations between the United States and Russia make for a terribly risky world security situation. As badly as the Russians are behaving in Ukraine and Syria, Washington simply must continue to reach out. [13]

Yes, it would be such a grand, magnanimous gesture for innocent and benevolent Washington to turn the other cheek and “reach out.” The same theme reappeared in another article in The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists later in the same month. In this one, the author, Fiona Hill, from the American think tank The Brookings Institution wrote:

Russia has assets it can use, but its… modernization is still underway. So, in an “asymmetric” struggle with the United States, Putin and Russia have to be innovative, catch the West off guard, and fight dirty... Putin makes it clear that Russia will act on multiple fronts at the same time and do things that Western leaders would not contemplate–including the threat of crossing the nuclear threshold and breaking the post-World War II taboo against using a battlefield nuclear weapon... Putin wants to intimidate Western leaders and their publics, but his big mission is to get Russia a seat at the table with the West, on Russia’s terms, which he declares is on “equal” terms with the United States… The ultimate problem for the United States and the West is how to handle these demands, at a juncture when Putin has seemed set on bombing his way to that table, with interventions in Ukraine and Syria, and negotiating terms at gunpoint. Putin’s behavior is completely unacceptable to Western leaders. But they cannot simply reject the idea of dealing with Russia in international affairs. There are common crises that the West and Russia need to solve together, like planning the future of the Middle East beyond Syria, stopping the proliferation of nuclear weapons, countering transnational terrorism, adapting to climate change, and responding to pandemic disease. The best way to ensure that Putin will act as a spoiler on these and other issues is to try to isolate Russia. [14]

Fiona Hill seems to be unfamiliar with the history described above in Empire and Nuclear Weapons. All states that possess nuclear weapons have used them to implicitly or explicitly threaten to break taboos. Putin is not the first to cross this line. To possess nuclear weapons is to threaten to use them, and opponents have no way to know for sure if any taboos or thresholds exist. Fiona Hill seems to possess a crystal ball that sees into Putin’s mind, which allows her know with certainty that Russia “will do things that Western leaders would not contemplate.” She doesn’t say might or may or could. She knows somehow. Unlike the supposedly benevolent governments of other nations, Russia is described as “fighting dirty,” “intimidating,” and “threatening to cross the nuclear threshold,” as if these actions are not standard strategy for all nuclear powers. Furthermore, she states, with utmost obliviousness to the hypocrisy of the accusation coming from an American, that Russia has been “bombing their way to the table” and “negotiating terms at gunpoint.” She also seems to scoff at the idea that Russia or any other nation should expect to be treated on equal terms because it is just assumed that the global order has a hierarchy in which America is supreme.

This sort of commentary is standard and unsurprising in sources such as the Brookings Institution, but it is appalling to see it in a journal dedicated to international dialog and the goal of eliminating nuclear weapons. Has The Bulletin become just another Washington think tank and mouthpiece for the State Department? If the discourse of the disarmament movement is to be based on willful ignorance of history and international relations, we are entering a period when there will be multiple nation-based disarmament movements functioning as national echo chamber propaganda tools that cancel each other out in their pursuit of global dialog and cooperation. Disarmament activists have to start asking questions about the sources of funding and support that have gained influence over groups that were once believed to be neutral and above national biases.

Another flaw in the disarmament discourse is that there is a false understanding that nuclear deterrence is just an infrastructure, a financial interest, or a bureaucratic remnant of a bygone era, no longer relevant to the present era. On the contrary, nuclear deterrence needs to be understood for what it really is. Nuclear weapons are not useless. They are still the ultimate tool, among many, for influencing the behavior of adversaries and allies. They still confer the status of major power. The word deterrence actually conceals what is really going on: dissuasion, persuasion, environmental contamination, nuclear energy proliferation, private profit, threats, intimidation and terror, but as long as these wider meanings are not addressed, nothing will be done to deter or dissuade nuclear powers from wanting to retain their status as “first rate” powers in world politics. The allure of possessing la frappe has remained unchanged since those words spoken by the British task force commander in 1957. The prospect of being “right out of world politics” is not to be tolerated for a moment.  

A partial list of nuclear blackmail, from:

Joseph Gerson, “Empire and Nuclear Weapons,” Commondreams, December 5, 2007.

1946	Truman threatens Soviets regarding Northern Iran.
1946	Truman sends SAC bombers to intimidate Yugoslavia following the downing of U.S. aircraft over Yugoslavia.
1948	Truman threatens Soviets in response to Berlin blockade.
1950	Truman threatens Chinese when U.S. Marines were surrounded at Chosin Reservoir in Korea.
1951	Truman approves military request to attack Manchuria with nuclear weapons if significant numbers of new Chinese forces join the war.
1953	Eisenhower threatens China to force an end to Korean War on terms acceptable to the United States.
1954	Eisenhower’s Secretary of State Dulles offers French three tactical nuclear weapons to break the siege at Dienbienphu, Vietnam. Supported by Nixon’s public trial balloons.
1954	Eisenhower used nuclear armed SAC bombers to reinforce CIA-backed coup in Guatemala.
1956	Bulganin threatens London and Paris with nuclear attacks, demanding withdrawal following their invasion of Egypt.
1956	Eisenhower counters by threatening the U.S.S.R. while also demanding British and French retreat from Egypt.
1958	Eisenhower orders Joint Chiefs of Staff to prepare to use nuclear weapons against Iraq, if necessary to prevent extension of revolution into Kuwait.
1958	Eisenhower orders Joint Chiefs of Staff to prepare to use nuclear weapons against China if they invade the island of Quemoy.
1961	Kennedy threatens Soviets during Berlin Crisis.
1962	Cuban Missile Crisis.
1967	Johnson threatens Soviets during Middle East War.
1967	Johnson’s public threats against Vietnam are linked to possible use of nuclear weapons to break siege at Khe Shan.
1969	Brezhnev threatens China during border war.
1969	Nixon’s “November Ultimatum” against Vietnam.
1970	Nixon signals U.S. preparations to fight nuclear war during Black September War in Jordan.
1973	Israeli Government threatens use of nuclear weapons during the “October War.”
1973	Kissinger threatens Soviet Union during the last hours of the “October War” in the Middle East.
1973	Nixon pledges to South Vietnamese President Thieu that he will respond with nuclear attacks or the bombing of North Vietnam’s dikes if it violated the provisions of the Paris Peace Accords.
1975	Sec. of Defense Schlesinger threatens North Korea with nuclear retaliation should it attack South Korea in the wake of the U.S. defeat in Vietnam.
1980	Carter Doctrine announced.
1981	Reagan reaffirms the Carter Doctrine.
1982	British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher threatens to eliminate Buenos Aires during the Falklands War.
1990	Pakistan threatens India during confrontation over Kashmir.
1990-91	Bush threatens Iraq during the “Gulf War.”
1993	Clinton threatens North Korea.
1994	Clinton’s confrontation with North Korea.
1996	China threatens “Los Angeles” during confrontation over Taiwan. Clinton responds by sending two nuclear-capable aircraft carrier fleets through the Taiwan Strait.
1996	Clinton threatens Libya with nuclear attack to prevent completion of underground chemical weapons production complex.
1998	Clinton threatens Iraq with nuclear attack.
1999	India and Pakistan threaten and prepare nuclear threats during the Kargil War.
2001	U.S. forces placed on a DEFCON alert in the immediate aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attacks.
2001	Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld refuses to rule out using tactical nuclear weapons against Afghan caves possibly sheltering Osama Bin Laden.
2002	Bush communicates an implied threat to counter any Iraqi use of chemical weapons to defend Iraqi troops with chemical or biological weapons with a U.S. nuclear attack.
2006	French Prime Minister Chirac threatens first strike nuclear attacks against nations that practice terrorism against France.
2006 & 2007	“All options are on the table”: U.S. threats to destroy Iran’s nuclear infrastructure made by President Bush and presidential candidate Senator Hillary Clinton.

Notes

[1] Max Bergmann, “Colin Powell: ‘Nuclear Weapons Are Useless,’”
ThinkProgress, January 27, 2010, http://thinkprogress.org/security/2010/01/27/175869/colin-powell-nuclear-weapons-are-useless/ .

[2] Ross Wilson (director) Paul Murricane (producer), Dispatches: The Truth of Christmas Island, 12:48~ Scottish Television Productions, 1991
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wc3_GRMHdlU .

[3] Dilip Hiro, “The Most Dangerous Place on Earth: A Nuclear Armageddon in the Making in South Asia,” TomDispatch.com, April 3, 2016, http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/176123/tomgram%3A_dilip_hiro,_flashpoint_for_the_planet/ .

[4] Le Petit Journal, February 23, 2016, http://www.canalplus.fr/c-emissions/le-petit-journal/pid6515-le-petit-journal.html?vid=1365601 .

[5] “La dissuasion c’est moi dit l’inconnu de province,” Initiatives pour le Désarmement Nucléaire, March 23, 2016, http://www.idn-france.org/2016/03/la-dissuasion-cest-moi-dit-linconnu-de-province/ .

[6] Initiatives pour le Désarmement Nucléaire.

[7] “North Korea to ‘normalize relations with hostile states,’ won’t launch nuke strike first – Kim,” Russia Today, May 6, 2016, https://www.rt.com/news/342236-north-korea-normalize-relations-nukes/ .

[8] William M. Arkin, “Secret Plan Outlines the Unthinkable,” Los Angeles Times, March 10, 2002. http://articles.latimes.com/2002/mar/10/opinion/op-arkin .

[9] Joseph Gerson, “Empire and Nuclear Weapons,”  Commondreams, December 5, 2007, http://www.commondreams.org/views/2007/12/05/empire-and-nuclear-weapons .

[10] Joseph Gerson, “What is a Deadly Connection?” The Deadly Connection: Nuclear War and U.S. Intervention, ed. Joseph Gerson, (Philadelphia, New Society Publishers, 1986) p.9. Cited in John Steinbach, “The Bush Administration, U.S. Nuclear War-Fighting Policy & the War On Iraq,” Counterpunch, May 13, 2016, http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/05/13/the-bush-administration-u-s-nuclear-war-fighting-policy-the-war-on-iraq/ . (Although the article was published in May 2016, it does not refer to any events since the first term of G.W. Bush. It is an updated version of a talk given by John Steinbach at the Berkeley Unitarian Fellowship in 2003.)

[11] Eric Draister, “BRICS Under Attack: Western Banks, Governments Launch Full-Spectrum Assault On Russia (Part I),” Mint Press News, April 20, 2016, 
http://www.mintpressnews.com/brics-attack-western-banks-governments-launch-full-spectrum-assault-russia-part/215761/ .

[12] For an in-depth discussion of the roots causes of the Syria conflict and the renewed Cold War, see Robert F. Kennedy Jr., “Why the Arabs don’t want us in Syria,” Politico, February 23, 2016, http://www.politico.eu/article/why-the-arabs-dont-want-us-in-syria-mideast-conflict-oil-intervention/  .

[13] Rachel Bronson, “‘Command and Control,’ terrifying soon at a theater near you,” The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, April 3, 2016, http://thebulletin.org/command-and-control-terrifying-soon-theater-near-you9302 .

[14] Fiona Hill, “Putin: The one-man show the West doesn’t understand,” The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, April 13, 2016. http://tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00963402.2016.1170361?platform=hootsuite& .

  

Chernobyl, the Endless Cloud

Chernobyl, the Endless Cloud, the Graphic Novel that Accuses French Authorities of Having Knowingly Lied to the People

by Lucile Berland, Slate.fr   April 14, 2016

A translation of:

«Tchernobyl, le nuage sans fin», la BD qui accuse les autorités d’avoir sciemment menti aux Français

The French Association of Thyroid Disease Sufferers (L’Association française des malades de la thyroïde, AFMT) has published a graphic novel based on the trial records of the case it brought against the French state. The storyboard tells how the government minimized the consequences of Chernobyl on the national territory, with a disregard for the health of citizens.

The battle lasted ten years. In March 2001, the AFMT, the Commission for Independent Research and Information on Radioactivity (CriiRAD), and fifty-one patients with thyroid disease filed a criminal complaint against “X” for involuntary injury (coups et blessures involontaires). They blame the state for having minimized the impact on French territory of the radioactive fallout from the explosion at the Chernobyl power plant on April 26th, 1986, and they also blame it for having taken no precautionary measures. On September 7th, 2011, the Paris Court of Appeal pronounced a “general dismissal” (un non-lieu général), which was confirmed by the Supreme Court in November 2012. Professor Pellerin, the head of the Central Agency for Protection from Ionizing Radiation (Service central de protection contre les rayonnements ionisants, SCPRI) at the time had his name definitively cleared, at the age of 87. The next year, a last recourse was rejected at the European Court of Human Rights  (ECHR).

André Couzet, an active member of the AFMT for thirteen years, asked, “After that, what was left for us? Our frustration and several dozen boxes of documents. In the court records, we found information that shows unambiguously the role played by French authorities. We thought a graphic novel would be an original way to make people understand what really happened.” He hopes also that the work will help the sufferers to “mourn” their status as victims, which was never previously recognized. “Many people find it absurd that the nation was told that the Chernobyl cloud stopped at the French border… but few people know what really came down and what effect it had on the health of French people.”

The graphic novel entitled Chernobyl, the Endless Cloud, will be officially released on April 23, 2016. It covers close to 900 files in the court record. It required the work of ten people over a year, primarily members of the AFMT organization (Chantal L’Hoir, the founder, Marc Saint Aroman and André Crozet). The work was supported by financial help from Réseau Sortir du Nucléaire and 300 donors who provided 24,000 Euros in a crowdfunding drive.

Along with the graphic novel there is a website, www.nuagesansfin.info that will provide dozens of files from the trial. This will allow readers to have access to the sources. The sixty-four pages of illustrations were based on the most striking of the files. One can discover, for example, the sales trend for Levothyrox in pharmacies since the start of the 1980s—a document from the laboratories of pharmaceutical companies that was very hard to obtain. “Sales of this drug just took off after 1986,” says judge Bertell-Geffroy, “to the point where today one French person out of eight or ten needs thyroid hormone therapy.” A few pages later, a page compares two maps of France: the “official” one distributed in the 1990s by the the authorities showing “no notable contamination,” and the other one made by citizens during the same period.

Rather than being fantastical allegations, these measurements conform with more recent assessments which constitute a sort of admission on the part of the Institut de radioprotection et de sûreté nucléaire (IRSN, formerly the SCPRI). In 2005, the IRSN published a new map showing levels of cesium 137 up to 1,000 times higher, in the same places, than was admitted twenty years earlier. Chantal L’Hoir, founder of the AFMT, says, “This file exists due to the determined efforts of judge Bertella-Geffroy.”

Marc Saint-Aman, a volunteer for the AFMT and administrator for Réseau Sortir du Nucléaire, adds, “The court record is full of documents like this.” For over a year he sorted through thousands of pages in the record to select the ones which would be put on the internet site www.nuagesansfin.info. 

Motive for the Crime

According to the authors, in the spring of 1986, the state committed at best mistakes, at worst, denial. Professor Pellerin declared on television, two days after the catastrophe, that it “presented no threat to public health, … except perhaps in the immediate vicinity of the power plant, and still it is especially only inside the plant where the Russians have admitted that people were injured.” A few days later, on May 6th, the Minister of Agriculture, François Guillaume, confirmed, “The French territory, because it is so far away, was totally spared from the successive fallout of radionuclides coming from the power plant in Chernobyl.”

The episode of the spinach contaminated with 2,600 Bq/kg is instructive. The prefect of Haut-Rhin, Madhi Hacène, wanted to ban the distribution of spinach. Marc Saint-Aroman, a member of AFMT, said, “Ten days later, Charles Pasqua, then Minister of the Interior, reacted by saying no change in eating habits was required. He added that there was no need to follow the recommendations that the WHO announced on May 6th, and thus products were clear for export.” Alain Madelin, then Minister of Industry, also stressed that there was no health risk from the passing clouds:

“I already had the occasion to say that we could start to worry and go to the doctor, if by chance we found—but we haven’t found—in the products shipped three tons of irradiated spinach and we had the intention to not wash them and then ingest them in the coming days.”

While countries neighboring France began dumping irradiated products (meat, milk, vegetables), France did not protect its own citizens and it continued to export, putting neighboring populations equally at risk. The book explains that on May 10th, the European Commission suspended imports of meat of cattle and pork from the USSR and neighboring countries. These were simple preventive measures that would be applied throughout Europe, except in France where only one order was given: do nothing. Even in the USSR, a civil defense colonel sounded the alarm:

“Inhabitants have absorbed in one day fifty times the amount of radiation permitted in one year for nuclear workers. At this rate, a fatal dose would be reached in four days.”

The graphic novel does historical research to uncover why France acted against the grain. Marc Saint-Aroman explains ironically, “What must be understood is that in 1986 there were more than fifteen reactors still under construction in France. So this is the motive for the crime. Thirty years later, France is in second place in electricity generated by nuclear, behind the United States. France produces half of the gigawatts on the European continent.

Zone of No Rights

In spite of the evidence, the legal case went nowhere. Everyone has an explanation:

“We have to understand that under the law, one is obliged to prove a link between damage (such as thyroid cancer) and that which caused it. If the judge cannot establish a causal link that is direct and certain, it’s a case of ‘move along, nothing to see here.’”

At the office of Benoît Busson, lawyer for Réseau Sortir du nucléaire, it is understood that this type of case is difficult to deal with in the justice system. “The acts of hiding data, misinforming or underestimating are not in themselves crimes. They are better understood as political mistakes or mistakes liable to civil action. The people who had thyroid diseases could have launched a civil trial and seen better results, but first they would have had to pay for experts, which is extremely costly. Second, such trials face many delays and take up to ten years to take account of all the evidence.

The judge (juge d’instruction) Bertella-Geffroy knew all these constraints. Aware that it would be extremely difficult to establish a causal link between the passage of the cloud and the rise in thyroid pathologies, she bet on a charge of “aggravated deception” more than “injury.” Yet after multiple warrants sent to the Ministry of Health, the Interior, and Agriculture, and to the national weather agency, all the confidential documents gathered were not sufficient to establish a solid case. The precautionary principle was obvious by its absence in the case. She declares regretfully, “Health has no value in the economy.” And, actually, neither does justice have a value in the economy. The judge was abruptly taken off the case fifteen days before the closed-door session which led finally to a dismissal.

For Michèle Rivasi, Green Party representative in the European Parliament since 2009, the influence of the nuclear lobby is still very powerful today. The “lies of state” post-Chernobyl, denounced by the AFMT, could be told again if a nuclear catastrophe happened in France. She says regretfully, “Still today in the nuclear industry decisions are not made in the ministries or by commissions, but directly at the executive level. Nuclear is a domain unto itself, undemocratic, a sort of zone where there are no rights.**

The title Chernobyl, the Endless Cloud designates a fog that still lingers over this entire affair, thirty years later. It also refers to the millennial time span of the radiation that escaped from the nuclear power plant on April 26th, 1986.

Translator’s Notes

*

In France a juge d’instruction is responsible for conducting the investigative hearing that precedes a criminal trial. In order for the judge to recommend a criminal trial, he or she must find not just probable cause (as in an American grand jury trial) but sufficient evidence of guilt to warrant a criminal trial.

**

Ms. Rivasi’s comments apply equally well to any nation that possesses nuclear weapons or power plants.

The Silos of the Nuclear Disarmament Movement

The abolition of nuclear weapons might be the most elusive goal in the world, but it is the one which most easily gains approval across ideological and national divides. It is such laudable goal to support that it attracts those who seek refuge from the more divisive and dirty struggles of the world that are the root causes of the problem. People might disagree about the means to achieve nuclear disarmament, but everyone applauds everyone for saying nuclear arms should be eliminated. Even Henry Kissinger signed on to the Global Zero project. It’s the easiest way in the world to polish one’s humanitarian credentials.

This aspect of nuclear disarmament can be seen in the story told by the songwriter Pete Townshend about how he and his bandmates in The Who were at a loss for things to write about for their final album, It’s Hard (1982). He had always tried to write socially relevant music, but he carried no labels, no banner for hippies or progressives. The Who were wealthy rock musicians, and they didn’t seem to feel any need to apologize for being rich. Famous for smashing his guitar on stage, the apparent revolutionary Pete Townshend was also famous for writing rock’s greatest anti-revolution song, We Won’t Get Fooled Again (meet the new boss, same as the old boss). In 1981, after surviving the 1960s and 70s, and after coming out of a deep personal crisis and a near break-up of the band, Townshend asked them:

What do you want to sing about? Tell me, and I'll write the songs. Do you want to sing about race riots? Do you want to sing about the nuclear bomb? Do you want to sing about soya bean diets? Tell me!' And everyone kind of went, 'Uhhh.' So I said, 'Shall I tell you what I think we should be singing about?' So I told them. And it actually turned into a debate...what was it that each one of us shared, our common ground? Well, after establishing quite quickly that there was very little common ground, we did find that we all cared very deeply about the planet, the people on it, about the threat to our children from nuclear war, of the increasing instability of our own country's politics. [1]

This anecdote exemplifies how nuclear disarmament is the last refuge (of scoundrels such as Henry Kissinger sometimes, now a signatory of Global Zero), the issue everyone turns to when there is nothing else they can agree on, nothing else they can stomach fighting for. And this is exactly why the abolition movement constantly fails to achieve anything. Barbie said it about math, and The Who said it in their last album: It’s hard. The road to nuclear disarmament goes through all those sticky, intractable social and political problems that anti-nuclear activists thought they could put aside while they devoted themselves to the highest goal of all.

This fact was more obvious at the dawn of the nuclear age when WWII was recent enough to help everyone maintain the proper perspective. Another world war fought only with conventional weapons could also be enough to finish off civilization. Nuclear weapons were only a by-product of the underlying problem. In 1955, Albert Einstein and Bertrand Russell released their famous 1955 statement calling for the elimination of nuclear weapons, but it actually placed more emphasis on the abolition of war. They stated, "Although an agreement to renounce nuclear weapons as part of a general reduction of armaments would not afford an ultimate solution, it would serve certain important purposes." Later, in a footnote, they called for a "concomitant balanced reduction of all armaments." [2]

It seems that even the leadership in disarmament organizations have, ironically, now constructed silos for themselves within which they study disarmament in isolation from the underlying problems of inequality, ecological degradation, the abuse of the United Nations and international law and, especially, the deployment of conventional military power. This at least seems to be the case in what is written in English by some disarmament groups and think tanks in the US and the UK, by writers who are deeply influenced by life inside the bubble of Western groupthink on international relations.

This bias was on full display this week in an article by Rachel Bronson, executive director and publisher of The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists in which she condemned Russia for having boycotted the recent Nuclear Security Summit:

Deteriorated relations between the United States and Russia make for a terribly risky world security situation. As badly as the Russians are behaving in Ukraine and Syria, Washington simply must continue to reach out. “We have an existential stake in each other’s competency,” stated Nunn, and he’s right. The two countries with the most nuclear weapons under their control need to engage—for their sake, and for the world's. Examined in this light, Russian President Vladimir Putin’s decision to boycott the Nuclear Security Summit is more than inconvenient; it was a diplomatic travesty and an abdication of responsibility to his own people. [3]

One might have thought that people who work on nuclear disarmament are experts in peace studies and conflict resolution, always going the extra mile to understand the context, psychology and feelings of everyone involved in the problem, but in this quotation we see a stunning display of willful ignorance of the Russian point of view. There is also the moral judgment that the Russians have behaved badly in Ukraine and Syria, implying, laughably, that America and its accomplices have behaved well in those places. No effort is made to find out why the Russians boycotted the summit, even though the Russian frustration with the West has been fully explained by various Russian government representatives, Russian media, and even, most thoroughly, by American historian Stephen F. Cohen [4]. In this American perspective in The Bulletin, there is no self-criticism, and no awareness that the Russians might feel they have justified reasons for not attending. In this view, they are behaving badly, but we are inherently good, so we must take the high road and bear with those who sin against us, “we must continue to reach out,” but it is an eternal mystery to us that they fail to see our beneficence.

By this point it has been well-established that the 2014 coup in Ukraine was instigated by the US State department and that the results have been a disaster. It was a continuation of the broken American promise made to Gorbachev to not expand NATO eastward, a desperate attempt to open up a market for Western goods and weaponry in a nation that is historically, culturally, linguistically and geographically connected to Russia. It was a bridge too far for the expansion of Western power, as Russia pushed back and the coup failed to deliver on its promises. Now Ukraine has a load of IMF debt and an austerity package that forces the selloff of national assets. Meanwhile, the natural trade ties with Russia have been severed. Lawrence Wilkerson (national security adviser to the Reagan administration, chief of staff to Colin Powell during the Bush administration), said of the debacle,

…about a third, 20% I’ll say, to 30 percent of Russia’s heavy armaments industry is in Ukraine. What do they do for tanks? What do they do for their heavy armaments in their military if Ukraine goes? The idea that we could do something in Ukraine, covert or otherwise, and have Putin not respond is just laughable. [5]

Americans can debate whether Russia acted outside of international law to provide assistance to ethnic Russians in Eastern Ukraine, thereby averting a prolonged, bloody civil war, or again when they conducted a referendum in Crimea, averting a civil war there as well, but the world doesn’t have much patience left to be lectured in international law by the United States. America declared itself above international law at the start of the Cold War, and has abused it numerous times since then. The suggestion that it was the Russians who “behaved badly” in Syria is just laughable at this point, as America’s record of disastrous and illegal regime change operations in the Middle East is so well documented by this time. [6]

The main impediment to nuclear arms reduction has nothing to do with nuclear arms. Former president of the USSR, Mikhail Gorbachev, spoke of how Russia and all other nations see the problem when he asked plainly,

Can we really imagine a world without nuclear weapons if a single country amasses so many conventional weapons that its military budget nearly tops that of all other countries combined? Demilitarization should be put back on the agenda of international politics. This includes a reduction of military budgets, a moratorium on the development of new types of weapons and a prohibition on militarizing space. Many are already talking about a new cold war. Talks between both powers over important global problems have practically been put on ice. That includes the question of nuclear disarmament. Trust, the very capital we worked so hard to build, has been destroyed. [7]

Gorbachev mentioned here precisely three items that Americans did not want on the agenda of the Nuclear Security Summit: the reduction of military budgets, a moratorium on the development of new types of weapons, and a prohibition on militarizing space. Instead, the summit was mostly concerned with the sham of “securing” (always a relative term) nuclear materials and decreasing the chances of a terrorist attack on nuclear facilities. So if the Americans don’t want to talk about these things, why should the Russians, or anyone else, show up to lend legitimacy to process which consciously avoids these critical issues? Russia has been trying to get the Americans to stop militarizing space since the Reagan years, but still America persists. So Russia did the right thing by sitting this one out because doing so creates an opportunity for other nations to question the status quo and create a new one for a future security summit, hopefully one at which the agenda will not be set by the self-proclaimed “indispensable” nation in the whole process.

The really interesting question, however, is to ask why all this needs to be explained to the executive director and publisher of The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists. I’m not suggesting that America is entirely responsible for the lack of progress in nuclear disarmament, but it is disheartening to see that an institution as well respected as The Bulletin has become so blind to critical views of the exercise of American power, and such a dupe for the anti-Russia propaganda that has circulated in the Western media for the last ten years. When nuclear disarmament groups become concealed platforms for nationalist agendas, they are part of the problem, not the solution.

Notes

[1] The Hypertext Who: It's Hard. See the appendix below for a discussion of song on the album about the nuclear arms race.

[2] "The Russell Einstein Manifesto," Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs, July 9, 1955,.

[3] Rachel Bronson, "'Command and Control,' terrifying soon at a theater near you,” The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, April 3, 2016

[4] Patrick L. Smith, "Stephen F. Cohen on the U.S./Russia/Ukraine history the media won’t tell you," Salon.com, April 17, 2015.

[5] ‘This Ship is Sinking’ Says Former Bush Official, Media Roots, December 16, 2015.

[6] Unraveling the Syria War Chessboard with Vijay Prashad, Media Roots, February 2, 2016. This interview provides an expert’s analysis of the Syrian conflict.

[7] “Gorbachev calls US military might ‘insurmountable obstacle to a nuclear-free world,’” Russia Today, August 6, 2015.

Appendix: When The Who sang about the clock of The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists

Liner notes from It’s Hard for the song Why did I fall for that?

Pete Townshend: "I don't know how it is over in the States, but over here if you try to get in a conversation about arms buildup or nuclear weapons, people turn away and order another pint of Guinness, and they want to talk about bloody Arsenal! [the football club] They're going to be dead tomorrow if they don't start thinking about it... but they're embarrassed; 'It's annoying...oh, don't talk about that! We're impotent, we're neutered.' Now that is what's happened to rock 'n' roll."

The line "Four minutes to midnight on a sunny day" refers to the Clock on the front cover of The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Much publicized in the early 1980's, this clock represented by minutes to midnight how close the scientists felt the world was to nuclear war. In January 1981 the worsening political situation led them to move the hands to four minutes to midnight. The Clash made a similar reference to the Clock on their song The Call Up from Sandinista! ("It's 55 minutes past 11"). Pete on the line "It never rains under my umbrella": "we've just sat back under the nuclear umbrella and lived our lives, taken our drugs, listened to our blues. I don't want to sound like fucking Pravda or anything, but we have been a pretty impotent, unthinking [generation]."

Six months after the release of It's Hard, President Reagan would announce the SDI initiative, popularly known as "star wars"; an attempt to build a nuclear missile defense system Reagan characterized as an "umbrella" against nuclear attack.

Why did I fall for that?

by The Who (album: It’s Hard, 1982)

The streets of the future littered with remains
Of both the fools and all the so-called brains
The whole prediction is enough to kill
But only God knows if it won't or it will
Nobody knows why we fell so flat
Some silly creature said we'd never crack
Most would just survive and then bounce back
But the rest are crying "Why'd I fall for that crap?"
Why did I fall for that?

So many rash promises sincerely made
By people who believed that we were being saved
They made us all believe that we were acting white
But the truth is we've forgotten how we used to fight
Nobody knows why we fell so flat
We're impotent and neutered like whining cats
We've found the piper but we've lost the rats
But the kids are crying "Why'd I fall for that, dad?"
Why did you fall?

It never rains under my umbrella

Four minutes to midnight on a sunny day
Maybe if we smile the clock'll fade away
Maybe we can force the hands to just reverse
Maybe is a word, maybe maybe is a curse
Nobody knows why we fell so flat
We've never been taught to fight or to face up to facts
We simply believe that we'd remain intact
But history is asking why did you fall for that?
Why did you fall?

Why did I fall for that?
Why did I fall for that?
Why did I fall for that?