Common Sense on Weapons of Mass Destruction

by Thomas Graham Jr.

In our post-9/11 world of shoe bombers and cyberterrorism, a crude nuclear device no larger than a baseball could devastate a major city. As we live in fear of attacks of unknown proportion, why do people remain confused and complacent in the face of potential disaster?

Ambassador Thomas Graham Jr. believes that a tide of misinformation has led to the public’s lack of understanding of the vital issues. Here, in a straightforward and comprehensible style, Graham concisely provides the background necessary to understand the news and opinions surrounding WMDs. Common Sense on Weapons of Mass Destruction presents accessible, up-to-date facts

-nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism

-chemical and biological weapons

-land mines and small arms

-missile defense and WMDs in outer space

-WMDs in the Middle East and Asia

216 pages, Paperback

First published October 25, 2004

Reviews

[Nicole · Rating 4 out of 5]

In “Commonsense on Weapons of Mass Destruction,” Thomas Graham Jr. illustrates how the future of nuclear weapons is an either/or situation: either every nation will have the right to make and keep nuclear weapons (making the NPT a policy of the past) or no one (or very few in a very, very limited supply) will have nuclear weapons. Ultimately, Graham makes the case for the importance of the nuclear proliferation treaty (NPT) and the eventual elimination of all nuclear arsenals.

Although the majority of nations (excluding Israel, North Korea, India, and Pakistan) have signed the NPT, which is supposedly an indefinite treaty, the lack of commitment from the nuclear weapon states to uphold their end of the deal has brought severe criticism to the NPT. As Graham points out, the NPT has “not yet failed” (57) but its continued success requires true leadership from the United States and other nuclear weapons states to follow through. In this regard, Graham offers a number of policy suggestions, from ratifying and working towards implementation of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) to promoting the development of proliferation-resistant nuclear energy technologies and pursuing “truly deep cuts in strategic nuclear arsenals” (59).

In the current situation, nuclear weapons capabilities are seen as a prerequisite for influence and power. Graham notes the “historical accident” that the five NPT nuclear weapons states are the five permanent members of the Security Council of the United Nations (referred to as the P-5) and arguably the world’s five most influential nations (64). However, in order to eliminate nuclear weapons and keep other states from wanting to obtain them (which is entirely possible in light of their aging technology), nuclear weapons cannot continue to be perceived as attractive political assets and a symbol of influence. There must be no “nuclear apartheid,” as termed by a former Indian foreign minister (64). Thus, following Graham’s line of thinking, I believe that it is essential to our world’s long-term security to 1) de-emphasize the political significance of nuclear weapons and 2) follow Graham’s policy suggestions to drastically reduce our nuclear arsenals.

As he points out, nuclear weapons were never intended for use, rather they have always been seen, especially by their creators, as tools for deterrence. Yet with the rise of unstable countries and terrorist organizations in response to economic, environmental, and social threats this policy of deterrence seems increasingly dangerous: we do not want nuclear weapon stockpiles falling into catastrophic hands (53).