A Blockade on Nuclear Weapons
From the 25th to the 26th of January 2007, a group of IPPNW doctors and medical students blockaded the entrance of the only British nuclear weapons base at Faslane in Scotland. This is an interview with one of the participants in the Blockade, Alex Rosen, of Germany.
ePulse: Why is unilateral disarmament the best option? Shouldn't we only disarm when others disarm? By disarming alone don't we weaken our hand in negotiations?
Alex Rosen: The danger of nuclear weapons being used does not limit itself to the possibility of a government deciding for a first strike. Nuclear terrorists hijacking a missile, renegade military personal, a computer error, a hacker attack, an accident like the dropping of a nuclear bomb over Spain by the US - all these are real dangers and they will only by overcome if all nuclear weapons are abolished. But who makes the start?
10 years ago, there were five nuclear weapons states in the world - the US, Russia, China, France and the UK. Then India and Pakistan joined the club with their nuclear test in the late nineties. Today, we are on the verge of two more countries - North Korea and Iran also developing nuclear weapons and Israel has been a secret nuclear weapons state for years. The number of states who feel that nuclear weapons are necessary is growing. And how do all of these countries explain their nuclear ambitions?
By pointing at the existing nuclear weapons states, especially the US, and stating that as long as the US did not fulfill its promises to disarm, and continues to threaten nuclear strikes on countries like Iran and North Korea, they see the necessity to develop nuclear weapons themselves. As the closest ally of the US, Great Britain takes part in this hypocritical system of nuclear apartheid. While certain countries have the right to own nuclear weapons to protect themselves (from whom?), others are not. This double standard has to be obliterated.
If anyone should begin to disarm, it is the US with its more than 10.000 missiles, thousands of which are held in hair-trigger alert and can be fired by the push of one button by President Bush. There is no conceivable scenario more likely to compel the US into rethinking its Nuclear Posture than a decision by Britain to get rid of its Trident system. Additionally, it would create a higher level of independence for British foreign policy. Without having to buy US-made nuclear warheads and submarines, without being dependent on the US for their maintenance - Britain could prevent being dragged into another illegal war of aggression - the next one against Iran is already looming in the distance. Will Britain again stand on the side of their US ally?
A third argument for British disarmament is the idea of a Nuclear Weapons Free Zone in Europe. This concept, described in more detail on the website , wagingpeace.com requires a firm decision by France and the UK to get rid of their nukes and by countries harboring US missiles (currently Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, Italy, the UK and Turkey) also ridding their soil of these illegal WMDs. Only then could Russia be pressured into getting rid of their nuclear weapons on European soil. What a symbol such a NWFZ would be to the world if the most heavily armed continent could manage to put their Cold War scenarios behind it for good?