1 00:00:00,300 --> 00:00:05,340 Welcome to the 13th Book Space Annual Conference, 2 00:00:05,340 --> 00:00:15,330 which this year explores the theme Peace in the nuclear era, threats, treaties and public understanding. 3 00:00:15,330 --> 00:00:23,340 In normal times we would have a whole day, but we will try to pack into this morning a look at the present state of nuclear 4 00:00:23,340 --> 00:00:29,370 treaties and capabilities and assessment of upcoming threats and opportunities. 5 00:00:29,370 --> 00:00:40,740 And a look at the present state of public understanding and education and thus the role of civil society in influencing the future. 6 00:00:40,740 --> 00:00:46,460 Please use the Q&A to send in your questions to speakers. 7 00:00:46,460 --> 00:01:00,060 And the conference will be recorded. The podcast will be available via the ofspace website in due course, it usually takes a few weeks to get there. 8 00:01:00,060 --> 00:01:06,990 And please just Google Workspace and you will get through quite easily to the ofspace web pages. 9 00:01:06,990 --> 00:01:13,080 I want to thank especially the three people who have put today's programme together, and that is laudable. 10 00:01:13,080 --> 00:01:18,600 Allderdice Christopher Watson and Jeremy Cunningham. 11 00:01:18,600 --> 00:01:27,690 And before I hand over to Lord Allderdice John Allderdice to chair the opening session I'd like to bring, 12 00:01:27,690 --> 00:02:04,100 we would like to bring you a short introduction to space. 13 00:02:04,100 --> 00:02:17,810 Space is a multidisciplinary network across Oxford University to promote the study of peace and of peace, making peacebuilding and peacekeeping, 14 00:02:17,810 --> 00:02:25,250 so it brings together academics, researchers, students, practitioners and policymakers from across the world. 15 00:02:25,250 --> 00:02:32,420 Literally every subject is drawn into the conversation to really connect ideas in a way that has not happened before, 16 00:02:32,420 --> 00:02:39,710 and not just to connect the ideas and have the research and the thought leadership, but also then to move from those ideas to action. 17 00:02:39,710 --> 00:02:44,480 One of the focal points during the Year for Peace is its annual conference. 18 00:02:44,480 --> 00:02:49,310 So when picking a topic, it helps develop that subject in respect to peace. 19 00:02:49,310 --> 00:02:58,720 But it also engages a broader network that then in turn helps develop new ideas and research opportunities, as well as practical action. 20 00:02:58,720 --> 00:03:05,470 The compelling vision for peace is to establish an endowed chair in perpetuity at Oxford, 21 00:03:05,470 --> 00:03:10,960 which would be transformative in terms of its intellectual reach and practical impact. 22 00:03:10,960 --> 00:03:20,410 I think Oxford has a contribution to make in terms of academic rigour and understanding that would really benefit the world of peace studies. 23 00:03:20,410 --> 00:03:28,270 But that, in turn, would benefit Oxford itself because it would bring people here who are not just activists, 24 00:03:28,270 --> 00:03:49,580 but academics and indeed senior political figures from around the world who are involved in addressing conflict issues. 25 00:03:49,580 --> 00:03:58,410 So I now hand over to the Lord Allderdice to chair the first session. 26 00:03:58,410 --> 00:04:07,680 Liz, thank you very much indeed. Thank you very much for the introduction, and I'm really delighted that Oaks Peace is addressing this issue today. 27 00:04:07,680 --> 00:04:15,750 It's a not, of course, a new one for Oxbridge, but for some time we've been preoccupied with other issues and people globally have been preoccupied, 28 00:04:15,750 --> 00:04:22,740 for example, with the question of climate change and the catastrophe that is unfolding before our eyes. 29 00:04:22,740 --> 00:04:28,560 Year by year. But one of the things that troubled me was that although it's absolutely right 30 00:04:28,560 --> 00:04:35,010 to concentrate on that from from time to time and the question of nuclear, 31 00:04:35,010 --> 00:04:39,810 if it's spun out of control, it could bring us a nuclear winter before the end of this year. 32 00:04:39,810 --> 00:04:42,960 No, not in five or 10 or 15 years time. 33 00:04:42,960 --> 00:04:53,060 And of course, even over the last few days, we've seen a violent outbreak in Israel and the Palestinian Authority, which involves a nuclear state. 34 00:04:53,060 --> 00:04:57,440 And there are many other nuclear states around the world where we have anxieties and 35 00:04:57,440 --> 00:05:02,960 concerns about the fact that they have these extraordinary weapons of mass destruction, 36 00:05:02,960 --> 00:05:07,070 which could bring not just civilisation but human life to an end on this planet. 37 00:05:07,070 --> 00:05:13,940 And yet we seem to be focussing much less on that than on that and on other issues. 38 00:05:13,940 --> 00:05:20,120 And so I'm delighted that she's excited to have this event today, and I think we all look forward to it. 39 00:05:20,120 --> 00:05:26,420 I'm particularly pleased to be kicking off the first session here with two colleagues at Lourdes Brian Ablated and Dez Bryant, 40 00:05:26,420 --> 00:05:32,660 an old friend of colleague and Dr. Nick Ritchie. So let me just introduce the two of them. 41 00:05:32,660 --> 00:05:37,130 Some of you will know one or the other, and some of you will know both of them, but not everyone will. 42 00:05:37,130 --> 00:05:39,200 So let me just briefly introduce them. 43 00:05:39,200 --> 00:05:46,810 Then I'm going to invite them, make their interventions, and then we're going to have some conversations and then I will. 44 00:05:46,810 --> 00:05:52,270 Dez Bryant became a member of the House of Lords in 2010 after a career first low 45 00:05:52,270 --> 00:05:55,990 in his native Scotland and then in the House of Commons as a member of Parliament, 46 00:05:55,990 --> 00:05:59,770 where he also served in a range of ministerial posts. 47 00:05:59,770 --> 00:06:05,440 And I first came to notice in the early 2000s when he was a minister at the Northern 48 00:06:05,440 --> 00:06:10,750 Ireland office and was involved in negotiations there with a number of of the parties. 49 00:06:10,750 --> 00:06:15,100 He went on to serve in a number of senior roles, including cabinet level roles, 50 00:06:15,100 --> 00:06:22,390 and the most relevant of those for us today was his time as Secretary of State for Defence with responsibility for the Trident programme, 51 00:06:22,390 --> 00:06:27,220 of course, between 2006 and it. Subsequently, 52 00:06:27,220 --> 00:06:35,860 he served as vice chairman of the Washington D.c.-based Nuclear Threat Initiative and his convenor of both the European Leadership Network 53 00:06:35,860 --> 00:06:44,950 and the top level group of UK parliamentarians or multilateral nuclear disarmament and Non Liberation is a signatory of Global Zero, 54 00:06:44,950 --> 00:06:50,290 a non-profit international initiative for the elimination of all nuclear weapons worldwide 55 00:06:50,290 --> 00:06:54,640 and a committed activist on the question of peace of various parts of the world. 56 00:06:54,640 --> 00:07:00,790 We are bills from find ourselves in the same bed with the support of the West on a peace issue in various parts of the world. 57 00:07:00,790 --> 00:07:05,920 But of course, the nuclear question is an important preoccupation of his. 58 00:07:05,920 --> 00:07:13,120 Dr Nick Ritchie researches and teaches in the areas of international relations and international security at the University of York, 59 00:07:13,120 --> 00:07:18,550 where he is a senior lecturer in International Security in the Department of Politics. 60 00:07:18,550 --> 00:07:27,070 His particular focus is on nuclear disarmament, proliferation and arms control and use of UK national security. 61 00:07:27,070 --> 00:07:36,550 After completing his Ph.D. thesis at the University of Bradford in 2007 on the evolution of US nuclear weapons policy after the Cold War, 62 00:07:36,550 --> 00:07:46,180 Nic spent four years researching and teaching at Bradford's very well known Department of Peace Studies before joining York in 2011. 63 00:07:46,180 --> 00:07:49,240 He previously worked for five years at the Oxford Research Group, 64 00:07:49,240 --> 00:07:56,530 an independent NGO working with policymakers and independent experts on the challenges of global security. 65 00:07:56,530 --> 00:08:01,690 I was an adviser to R.G. for some years until Sandy was done in February of this year, 66 00:08:01,690 --> 00:08:06,820 one of many victims of the financial stringency during this time of pandemic. 67 00:08:06,820 --> 00:08:09,250 But while warg may not be there. 68 00:08:09,250 --> 00:08:18,060 Nick Ritchie is very much alive and operational, and we look forward to that contribution because if I might come to you, first of all, 69 00:08:18,060 --> 00:08:23,770 for your intervention on this and I know that I just want to remind people that 70 00:08:23,770 --> 00:08:32,530 you have advised colleagues to to link to download the nuclear power in a new era, 71 00:08:32,530 --> 00:08:36,550 a document which had very recently produced so colleagues will have done that. 72 00:08:36,550 --> 00:08:41,740 But if not, you may want to look at that subsequently, but does. 73 00:08:41,740 --> 00:08:45,460 In normal times, we'd say you have the floor, but no, you have. 74 00:08:45,460 --> 00:08:53,660 You have the mic and you have the video camera, and we look forward to what you have to say. Jason, thank you very much, John. 75 00:08:53,660 --> 00:09:01,370 It's an honour to be asked to speak at this important conference, and I am an admirer of the work of SpaceX and it's a particular honour to share 76 00:09:01,370 --> 00:09:07,690 this virtual platform with you and their network to both of mine or both of you. 77 00:09:07,690 --> 00:09:15,710 I know it's you as you then made clear a relationship, but in my view, you're both admirable peacemakers. 78 00:09:15,710 --> 00:09:19,670 So thank you also for circulating Steven Miles. 79 00:09:19,670 --> 00:09:25,470 I mean, I hope some of you have taken advantage of the opportunity to read it, but will understand if you have not been able to do. 80 00:09:25,470 --> 00:09:32,660 It's not essential what you have in order to hear what I have to say, but I think it is, and it's a comprehensive, 81 00:09:32,660 --> 00:09:36,240 I think but accessible account of the history of nuclear weapons, 82 00:09:36,240 --> 00:09:42,300 nuclear weapons policy and offers an excellent foundation, I think, for your deliberations today. 83 00:09:42,300 --> 00:09:47,330 So for my part, I want to focus, you know, bidding and made who I am. 84 00:09:47,330 --> 00:09:57,110 I mean, I am a politician who has been involved in policy and how we can progress on addressing the risks posed by nuclear weapons and policy, 85 00:09:57,110 --> 00:10:00,020 and that we must and can achieve global disarmament, 86 00:10:00,020 --> 00:10:06,470 resulting in the removal of what I believe is not only a significant but perhaps an existential global threat. 87 00:10:06,470 --> 00:10:14,300 And for me, at the outset, I shall draw from my own experience, which you've already referred to John and start from 2006 when I always go back. 88 00:10:14,300 --> 00:10:21,440 To my surprise, I was made secretary of State for Defence. The appointment of a former human rights lawyer to this post was a surprise to many. 89 00:10:21,440 --> 00:10:23,510 I have to say the least to me. 90 00:10:23,510 --> 00:10:31,190 So the transition from air chief secretary to the Treasury, which had envoys to the military, had life-changing consequences for me, 91 00:10:31,190 --> 00:10:36,440 for my family, for my parliamentary and constituency office staff and my way to social circle. 92 00:10:36,440 --> 00:10:38,900 And some of this will be with me for the rest of my life. 93 00:10:38,900 --> 00:10:44,740 That was and is multifaceted, but I wanted you to concentrate on one aspect of it for a short time to. 94 00:10:44,740 --> 00:10:48,020 Couple of sentences only I was not prepared for, 95 00:10:48,020 --> 00:10:55,580 and nothing could have prepared me for assuming responsibility for the awesome, destructive power of nuclear weapons. 96 00:10:55,580 --> 00:11:01,370 I agreed to take this job on the condition. I would be allowed to pursue opportunities for disarmament. 97 00:11:01,370 --> 00:11:10,220 I was then and I am no of the strong view that disarmament is an essential element of improved human security. 98 00:11:10,220 --> 00:11:15,680 I suspect that no one who is here today will need any persuading for that. So I move on. 99 00:11:15,680 --> 00:11:21,980 So shortly after I was appointed in January 2007, an important issue appeared in The Wall Street Journal, 100 00:11:21,980 --> 00:11:30,230 authored by former American statesman George Shultz, Bill Perry, Henry Kissinger and someone who Sam Nunn, who all of whom I came to know well, 101 00:11:30,230 --> 00:11:32,480 it laid out the vision and steps, 102 00:11:32,480 --> 00:11:40,220 a series of practical actions for achieving the goal of a world free of nuclear weapons and a credible argument in a rapidly changing world, 103 00:11:40,220 --> 00:11:44,210 even even if nuclear weapons had kept the peace during the Cold War. 104 00:11:44,210 --> 00:11:50,450 It become a clear and present danger, and that was the beginning for what is now almost a university assessment that 105 00:11:50,450 --> 00:11:58,040 the probability of nuclear weapon use is increasing and in some people's views, 106 00:11:58,040 --> 00:12:01,520 more probable than ever has been in their lifetime. 107 00:12:01,520 --> 00:12:07,700 So these views immediately were endorsed by former statesmen and women across Europe and the globe. 108 00:12:07,700 --> 00:12:18,500 And in June 2007, in a speech at the Centre for Sorry at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington. 109 00:12:18,500 --> 00:12:25,100 Margaret Beckett, the then foreign secretary, embraced them, becoming the first representative of any government so to do. 110 00:12:25,100 --> 00:12:32,000 She announced that the UK would lead the world and become a disarmament laboratory, and on the 5th of February 2020, 111 00:12:32,000 --> 00:12:36,710 I became the first ever Minister of Defence to address the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva. 112 00:12:36,710 --> 00:12:40,100 I think I think I may be the only one who's ever done that, 113 00:12:40,100 --> 00:12:48,720 and in a speech entitled Laying the foundations for multilateral disarmament or being a disarmament laboratory could mean. 114 00:12:48,720 --> 00:12:56,910 My speech contained the following paragraphs, and I quote them to you as the preamble to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty makes clear, 115 00:12:56,910 --> 00:13:03,390 all states parties to the treaty should work towards the easing of international tension and the strengthening 116 00:13:03,390 --> 00:13:09,450 of trust between states in order to facilitate the cessation of the manufacture of nuclear weapons. 117 00:13:09,450 --> 00:13:18,000 The elimination of all that existing stockpiles and the elimination from national arsenals of nuclear weapons and means of delivery. 118 00:13:18,000 --> 00:13:24,090 The next steps in this short a chronology were extraordinary. 119 00:13:24,090 --> 00:13:29,670 Both candidates for US president embraced the vision and steps in 2007 and 2008, 120 00:13:29,670 --> 00:13:37,520 and President Obama made this the centrepiece of his first major major foreign policy address and prime. 121 00:13:37,520 --> 00:13:43,460 With some modesty and a little played a key role in this effort was significant. 122 00:13:43,460 --> 00:13:49,520 Amongst these last actions is Prime Minister Gordon Brown set a road map to disarmament and successive 123 00:13:49,520 --> 00:13:54,920 governments of both other parties have followed the path of incremental disarmament in the UK. 124 00:13:54,920 --> 00:14:01,200 That is until this year. In March, the government published its integrated review, 125 00:14:01,200 --> 00:14:08,670 which reversed under section of travel and ditched the previous domestic cross-party consensus on reducing the number of nuclear weapons. 126 00:14:08,670 --> 00:14:12,510 The IAEA called for increasing the cap in the UK's overall nuclear weapons 127 00:14:12,510 --> 00:14:20,820 stockpile from not more than 180 by the mid-2020s to no more than 260 warheads, 128 00:14:20,820 --> 00:14:29,340 44 percent increase from the previous target and a 15 percent increase from the current level of 225. 129 00:14:29,340 --> 00:14:37,390 Also, the government announced it would no longer publish details of its nuclear stockpile and missile numbers and expanded the potential scenarios, 130 00:14:37,390 --> 00:14:44,530 but would consider the use of nuclear weapons to include threats posed by emerging technologies. 131 00:14:44,530 --> 00:14:54,580 For more than a decade, the UK had been reducing numbers of warheads. Now apparently that are evolving threats that we do not yet understand, 132 00:14:54,580 --> 00:15:02,200 but we intend to deter with nuclear weapons and apparently we need more warheads to do the job. 133 00:15:02,200 --> 00:15:07,120 And the absence of transparency of a comprehensive explanation or justification for this 134 00:15:07,120 --> 00:15:14,140 change are able to do anything other than speculate about whether that analysis is right. 135 00:15:14,140 --> 00:15:18,070 All countries are threatened by the same emerging technologies. 136 00:15:18,070 --> 00:15:22,540 If the UK says nuclear weapons are an acceptable response, then why should not other countries, 137 00:15:22,540 --> 00:15:29,320 both nuclear and non-nuclear, follow the same line of reasoning? That logic seems to have been lost on the government. 138 00:15:29,320 --> 00:15:32,650 This decision apparently was made without consultation. 139 00:15:32,650 --> 00:15:39,430 There was no consultation with Parliament or anyone outside a very small circle of politicians, military officers and officials. 140 00:15:39,430 --> 00:15:43,330 And apparently not with the government of our strongest ally, the US. 141 00:15:43,330 --> 00:15:49,810 But President Biden is a strong proponent of reducing the role of nuclear weapons in national security policies, 142 00:15:49,810 --> 00:15:59,740 including as an advocate for sole purpose that nuclear weapons have only one rule deterring nuclear use of the threat of. 143 00:15:59,740 --> 00:16:08,630 Our position is no the antithesis of Biden's. The UK's nuclear policy is more aligned with the Trump administration's policies. 144 00:16:08,630 --> 00:16:15,530 I think perhaps there may have been consultation with the US, but it was with the Trump administration. 145 00:16:15,530 --> 00:16:19,550 The government's approach is illustrative of the secrecy surrounding these weapons, 146 00:16:19,550 --> 00:16:24,940 the propensity of governments to make decisions without serious or sometimes any consultation. 147 00:16:24,940 --> 00:16:31,230 Or indeed, explanation of the thinking or the rationale for the decision. 148 00:16:31,230 --> 00:16:35,430 We should care about this, and it's important to be clear why we should care. 149 00:16:35,430 --> 00:16:42,330 So let's be clear. Many experts are telling us that the risk of a nuclear weapon being used is increasing. 150 00:16:42,330 --> 00:16:48,920 The Doomsday Clock is now inching nearer and nearer to midnight every year and the consequences. 151 00:16:48,920 --> 00:16:58,380 Of the use of just one nuclear weapon against a major setback, London, Washington, Tokyo, Mumbai and Moscow would be widespread and devastating. 152 00:16:58,380 --> 00:17:03,150 We don't want it to explode in London, it would likely destroy the entire city. 153 00:17:03,150 --> 00:17:11,580 When little boy was dropped on Hiroshima in 1945, approximately 90 to 120000 people were killed. 154 00:17:11,580 --> 00:17:16,900 Temperatures near the explosion, but estimated to be 300 degrees Celsius. 155 00:17:16,900 --> 00:17:25,480 It was not killed by the immediate impact or the firestorm eventually and excruciating, we were killed by exposure to huge amounts of radiation. 156 00:17:25,480 --> 00:17:34,220 The warheads that bomb Japan achieved blasts significantly lower than those of today's weapons. 157 00:17:34,220 --> 00:17:42,160 Let's also remember that no government is capable of an effective humanitarian response following the use of a nuclear weapon. 158 00:17:42,160 --> 00:17:49,990 As the world continues to struggle with COVID 19, it gives us a small glimpse, a window into the horror that could and would unfold. 159 00:17:49,990 --> 00:17:53,810 Well, this could be a single nuclear weapon incident. 160 00:17:53,810 --> 00:18:00,980 Even a regional war with nuclear weapons would be a catastrophe, the likes of which we have never known. 161 00:18:00,980 --> 00:18:07,280 Since 1945, we've had an unacceptable. We've had unacceptably close encounters with nuclear war. 162 00:18:07,280 --> 00:18:12,470 And today we're entering a whole new phase of risk driven by nuclear modernisation and technological 163 00:18:12,470 --> 00:18:20,590 change and rising tensions amongst nuclear powers and the demise of Cold War era arms control agreements. 164 00:18:20,590 --> 00:18:26,410 For example, today, because of the nature of existing postures and the possibility of a hijacking, 165 00:18:26,410 --> 00:18:32,170 a technical malfunction or a misperception of an incoming attack coupled coupled with say, 166 00:18:32,170 --> 00:18:40,150 use it or lose it mentality, we run the risk of community miscommunication or miscalculation could lead to a nuclear exchange. 167 00:18:40,150 --> 00:18:47,470 With almost 2000 warheads capable of launching on relatively short notice modernisation and technological change, 168 00:18:47,470 --> 00:18:53,680 or reducing the timelines for decision makers and adding much further uncertainty to the decision making process, 169 00:18:53,680 --> 00:18:59,530 for example, the introduction of artificial intelligence and machine learning in the nuclear decision making process has 170 00:18:59,530 --> 00:19:07,360 raised concerns whether a computer system would be able to differentiate between a nuclear or conventional pill. 171 00:19:07,360 --> 00:19:11,710 This strikes with the rise of dual use dual capable missiles, 172 00:19:11,710 --> 00:19:18,580 many of which are being developed to travel at hypersonic speeds, further reducing decision times. 173 00:19:18,580 --> 00:19:24,310 The election of President Biden and exchanges in nuclear policy between the US and Russia bring hope. 174 00:19:24,310 --> 00:19:29,380 Presidents Biden and Putin agreed to extend the new Start treaty for five years, 175 00:19:29,380 --> 00:19:34,870 ensuring verifiable limits on the number of deployed strategic nuclear weapons in their arsenals. 176 00:19:34,870 --> 00:19:35,290 Apparently, 177 00:19:35,290 --> 00:19:43,750 these two governments believe that continuing transparency and numbers of warheads and delivery systems is essential to strategic stability. 178 00:19:43,750 --> 00:19:53,070 We, for our part, appear to believe the opposite. The two leaders are expected to meet after President Biden attends a G7 summit in June, 179 00:19:53,070 --> 00:19:57,660 providing essential high level dialogue between the two nuclear powers, 180 00:19:57,660 --> 00:20:02,160 a commitment to advance strategic stability and begin talks in the next phase of arms 181 00:20:02,160 --> 00:20:07,590 control would be a positive step to halting what is looking like a new arms race. 182 00:20:07,590 --> 00:20:15,010 The US is also engaging with the regime to revive the Iran deal, which would ensure Iran is not acquiring nuclear weapon. 183 00:20:15,010 --> 00:20:22,660 There's also movement in the international community, the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons entered into force in January of this year. 184 00:20:22,660 --> 00:20:26,620 This is the first legally binding treaty with the goal of eliminating nuclear weapons. 185 00:20:26,620 --> 00:20:30,430 Although the nuclear weapon states and the nation states have not signed, 186 00:20:30,430 --> 00:20:35,170 the treaty is indicative of the impatience and frustration and the lack of progress in 187 00:20:35,170 --> 00:20:41,560 nuclear disarmament and increasing nuclear risks amongst most of the countries of the world. 188 00:20:41,560 --> 00:20:48,480 These are positive signs. However, it's important to ask ourselves why it's so difficult to give up our reliance on these weapons. 189 00:20:48,480 --> 00:20:52,030 One of the students drastically from the 1980s for nuclear deterrence theory 190 00:20:52,030 --> 00:20:56,710 was developed by a small group of analysts for a different and simpler world, 191 00:20:56,710 --> 00:21:02,590 with fewer nuclear weapons and weapons and slower delivery technology. 192 00:21:02,590 --> 00:21:09,850 Nuclear weapons policies and postures have hardly changed, and yet, as societies face a different range of risks, including pandemics, climate change, 193 00:21:09,850 --> 00:21:19,330 mass migration, drug trafficking, organised crime, cyber warfare, terrorism and proliferation not only of nuclear weapons but of other weapons. 194 00:21:19,330 --> 00:21:27,370 We had an important time in history and risk to continue to rely on nuclear weapons is heavily outweighing any perceived security benefits. 195 00:21:27,370 --> 00:21:32,230 I'd like to highlight four observations of how the nuclear system operates, any the actions we can take. 196 00:21:32,230 --> 00:21:37,810 First, like pandemics and climate change, nuclear weapons and a global systemic problem. 197 00:21:37,810 --> 00:21:41,140 All countries must live under the threats posed by nuclear weapons. 198 00:21:41,140 --> 00:21:49,010 You have no real control over policies which remain in the hands of governments, the governments of the nuclear weapons possessing states only. 199 00:21:49,010 --> 00:21:55,490 Just as we have to problem, solve and take collective action to resolve global warming, the same is true for nuclear weapons. 200 00:21:55,490 --> 00:21:59,300 We must approach this as an intractable problem that we need to solve. 201 00:21:59,300 --> 00:22:04,120 So we do not, but in future generations with the costs and risks of the current system. 202 00:22:04,120 --> 00:22:09,940 Civil society organisations and the recently entered into force and W have focussed efforts 203 00:22:09,940 --> 00:22:14,620 on the impact of such weapons and try to broaden out this issue into the global movement. 204 00:22:14,620 --> 00:22:22,960 This is an important step in turning the debate from one focussed on national security to one of global empire like COVID 19. 205 00:22:22,960 --> 00:22:26,810 None of us are safe until we are all safe. 206 00:22:26,810 --> 00:22:32,300 Second, we have lost sight of the vision of a world without nuclear weapons, we are no longer talking about how we should disarm. 207 00:22:32,300 --> 00:22:36,560 Instead, the debate has reverted to whether we should disarm. 208 00:22:36,560 --> 00:22:42,410 We need to create a realistic and credible vision for a world without nuclear weapons would look like. 209 00:22:42,410 --> 00:22:50,740 What the necessary verification provisions, governance structures and controls over the fuel cycle that are credible shared vision. 210 00:22:50,740 --> 00:22:55,390 We are unlikely to have serious engagement with reluctant governments and how we get there. 211 00:22:55,390 --> 00:23:00,380 Third, states that possess nuclear weapons have so far avoided serious engagement with the 212 00:23:00,380 --> 00:23:05,480 rest of the world on the broad nuclear risks of continued reliance on these weapons. 213 00:23:05,480 --> 00:23:13,100 Even more concerning these states are not currently engaging constructively with one another on how to mitigate and manage these risks. 214 00:23:13,100 --> 00:23:19,310 Tensions have been high between the US and Russia and the US and China, and consequently dialogue has been halted. 215 00:23:19,310 --> 00:23:27,950 While risks of nuclear weapons use increase and finally, we do think about the nuclear narrative the way we talk about the nuclear weapon. 216 00:23:27,950 --> 00:23:32,660 For a long time, this subject has become increasingly accessible to the public. 217 00:23:32,660 --> 00:23:40,610 Experts and governments use technical language in a way that removes the abilities of publics to engage and by default, 218 00:23:40,610 --> 00:23:47,730 sustains an environment of secrecy. We need a real global discourse about the future of the. 219 00:23:47,730 --> 00:23:54,510 And this, in my view, sweatshops peace comes in as what facing a systemic problem, we need broader ownership. 220 00:23:54,510 --> 00:23:58,230 Nuclear weapons do not exist in isolation from the rest of the world. 221 00:23:58,230 --> 00:24:05,190 We need to think about the ways the weapons impact us and prop up the inequalities of our societies. 222 00:24:05,190 --> 00:24:11,670 If you nuclear weapon states with power to impact millions of lives, the millions of pounds spent on retaining these weapons, 223 00:24:11,670 --> 00:24:15,900 it could be applied to addressing security concerns most impacting us. 224 00:24:15,900 --> 00:24:20,160 The lack of diversity amongst those who hold decision making power and the fact that the 225 00:24:20,160 --> 00:24:27,540 decision to use such catastrophic weapons is in the house and hands of so few people. 226 00:24:27,540 --> 00:24:32,700 This is a complex, systemic problem, it needs smart people from across different fields, 227 00:24:32,700 --> 00:24:36,630 caring and thinking about how this issue intersects with different fields. 228 00:24:36,630 --> 00:24:39,960 It's a shared challenge, but also she had the opportunity to problem, solve, 229 00:24:39,960 --> 00:24:47,060 engage S. long term of a global risks and ultimately make the world a safer place for future generations. 230 00:24:47,060 --> 00:24:56,910 Also means more people should be involved and demanding an end of the cycle of inconsistency between government commitments and their actions, 231 00:24:56,910 --> 00:25:03,040 and to demand explanation for policy changes, as we have just seen in the UK. 232 00:25:03,040 --> 00:25:08,050 After this conference, I encourage you to apply your means on how to engage. 233 00:25:08,050 --> 00:25:13,700 Conferences are great, but this must be a process. Thank you. 234 00:25:13,700 --> 00:25:23,330 There's thank you very much indeed, we invited you to start us off with a keynote and introduction to the current threats and challenges. 235 00:25:23,330 --> 00:25:28,160 You have absolutely fulfilled that already with your initial intervention. 236 00:25:28,160 --> 00:25:37,580 Thank you very much indeed for. Mick, we like to come to, you know, that you have the microphone on the screen, no. 237 00:25:37,580 --> 00:25:45,650 Very many thanks and thanks to OK space and to the conference organisers for inviting me to speak to you today, 238 00:25:45,650 --> 00:25:54,200 and it's great to be on this opening panel and following Des and on with you, John, I'll draw on some of his remarks. 239 00:25:54,200 --> 00:26:05,030 But I want to talk a bit more about the problems and the possibilities for change, which, as Des has intimated, seem really difficult at the moment. 240 00:26:05,030 --> 00:26:11,840 And I want to do that by drawing on my experience of being involved in the humanitarian initiative on nuclear 241 00:26:11,840 --> 00:26:18,680 weapons that led to the negotiation of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons or the Ban Treaty, 242 00:26:18,680 --> 00:26:23,880 as it's often referred at the UN in 2017. 243 00:26:23,880 --> 00:26:33,300 I think the first thing I want to say is the rational argument will only get you so far in trying to bring about change on this issue. 244 00:26:33,300 --> 00:26:45,630 And why is that? It's because in my view, we are dealing with very deeply embedded cultures of nuclear thinking in nuclear armed states. 245 00:26:45,630 --> 00:26:55,290 And by comparison, I think about the way in which perhaps the Brexit debate seemed pretty impervious to 246 00:26:55,290 --> 00:27:00,900 rational arguments about the economic harm that would likely be caused by Brexit. 247 00:27:00,900 --> 00:27:07,730 And you start to get the idea of of the limits of engaging in rational argument. 248 00:27:07,730 --> 00:27:15,260 And back in 1991, a US psychologist called Robert Lifton working with a US political scientist, 249 00:27:15,260 --> 00:27:23,110 a legal scholar, Richard Falk, described this culture as nuclear ism. 250 00:27:23,110 --> 00:27:33,070 And you rarely come across this term. I've been involved in nuclear disarmament as an activist, NGO and and scholarly level for many years now. 251 00:27:33,070 --> 00:27:35,710 A couple of decades, in fact, and you rarely come across this term, 252 00:27:35,710 --> 00:27:41,890 but I think it's really essential to understanding the politics of nuclear weapons. 253 00:27:41,890 --> 00:27:51,190 They defined nuclear ism as follows. It is the psychological, political and military dependence on nuclear weapons. 254 00:27:51,190 --> 00:27:56,890 The embrace of weapons as a solution to a wide variety of human dilemmas. 255 00:27:56,890 --> 00:28:06,180 Most ironically, that of security. For those interested, I'll put the reference for that in the chart at the end. 256 00:28:06,180 --> 00:28:12,240 So nuclear is and then is a culture. More specifically, it's an ideology. 257 00:28:12,240 --> 00:28:24,570 And what we mean by that is the system of meanings principles that tell us what nuclear weapons mean in relation to ideas of the state of war, 258 00:28:24,570 --> 00:28:30,420 in relation to ideas of international order and to power in world politics. 259 00:28:30,420 --> 00:28:40,890 And we've seen how set of meanings about nuclear weapons gets over time conflated with the very thing itself, the nuclear weapon. 260 00:28:40,890 --> 00:28:48,930 And we've seen how a set of principles about nuclear weapons end up becoming axioms of political life. 261 00:28:48,930 --> 00:28:57,540 So, for example, the way in which the Trident system in the UK is always referred to by policy makers as the deterrent, 262 00:28:57,540 --> 00:29:02,760 as if somehow it unproblematic deters simply by existing. 263 00:29:02,760 --> 00:29:12,420 And we see the the axiomatic aim that's made that Trident simply is the ultimate insurance of our security. 264 00:29:12,420 --> 00:29:21,150 And policy makers and military leaders and the wider publics get socialised into this ideology such that it becomes a common sense, 265 00:29:21,150 --> 00:29:30,480 something that's communicated and understood through a particular language between weapons and around the state and security, 266 00:29:30,480 --> 00:29:40,020 a language that then shapes and limits how we can think about and how we can pull these weapons, something that dares also referred to. 267 00:29:40,020 --> 00:29:44,790 But this ideology of nuclear ism, something that. 268 00:29:44,790 --> 00:29:58,120 You have a different set of understandings about nuclear weapons, and we might call this anti-nuclear ism prohibit the nuclear weapons ban treaty, 269 00:29:58,120 --> 00:30:06,010 I think is perhaps the most high profile iteration of this and the ban treaty and what was what was the 270 00:30:06,010 --> 00:30:13,570 humanitarian initiative on nuclear weapons that was initiated in 2010 and led to the ban treaty negotiation. 271 00:30:13,570 --> 00:30:24,190 They were both based on delegitimizing and stigmatising nuclear weapons as honour to the months of statecraft in world politics. 272 00:30:24,190 --> 00:30:30,240 And they are rooted in a quite different set of meanings about nuclear weapons. 273 00:30:30,240 --> 00:30:36,810 So in the nuclear armed states, we see the focus of nuclear thinking of nuclear ism is the weapons themselves, 274 00:30:36,810 --> 00:30:44,380 the state military competition with other states, proliferation of the military balances of power. 275 00:30:44,380 --> 00:30:52,410 But Asari Initiative and the ban treaty focus on different things and four in particular, stand out. 276 00:30:52,410 --> 00:30:57,690 The first of these is violence, violence against people, not states or weapons, 277 00:30:57,690 --> 00:31:05,850 but people in terms of the extreme violence against human bodies and human societies that nuclear weapons inflict. 278 00:31:05,850 --> 00:31:12,740 And the illegality and illegitimacy of that violence under international humanitarian law. 279 00:31:12,740 --> 00:31:21,740 The second focus of anti-nuclear and is on postcolonial relationships and resistances, primarily across the global south. 280 00:31:21,740 --> 00:31:25,730 A set of issues that rarely enter into the debate in the UK. 281 00:31:25,730 --> 00:31:30,890 But this is about resistance to nuclear hierarchy inequality and discrimination 282 00:31:30,890 --> 00:31:36,920 in global nuclear politics that is dominated by the industrialised north. 283 00:31:36,920 --> 00:31:43,490 The third focal point is gender and gendered inequalities in the global politics of nuclear weapons. 284 00:31:43,490 --> 00:31:48,800 And this highlights the differential effects of ionising radiation on women and 285 00:31:48,800 --> 00:31:54,500 girls and associated risks of cancer and mortality from female specific cancers. 286 00:31:54,500 --> 00:32:01,490 Drawing on the experiences of those affected by the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and nuclear testing, 287 00:32:01,490 --> 00:32:09,200 it also refers to the absence of women in nuclear weapons, policymaking and in nuclear disarmament diplomacy, 288 00:32:09,200 --> 00:32:14,900 and how that affects how policy elites think about and talk about nuclear weapons, 289 00:32:14,900 --> 00:32:23,420 but also in terms of gendered language in nuclear discourse that tends to normalise nuclear weapons in very masculine eyes. 290 00:32:23,420 --> 00:32:29,180 Terms of strength, protection, reason and rationality. 291 00:32:29,180 --> 00:32:35,840 And the final focus that I want to draw out is ecological in terms of the nuclear contamination 292 00:32:35,840 --> 00:32:41,730 of the natural environment in relation to human health in the planetary ecosystem. 293 00:32:41,730 --> 00:32:47,520 And this is underpinned by research that I'm sure many of you are familiar with that 294 00:32:47,520 --> 00:32:52,530 shows how a nuclear conflict involving the use of 100 Hiroshima sized weapons in 295 00:32:52,530 --> 00:32:58,920 South Asia would have a catastrophic impact on the global climate caused by the vast 296 00:32:58,920 --> 00:33:05,110 amounts of smoke and particulates that will be released into the upper atmosphere. 297 00:33:05,110 --> 00:33:12,850 Thinking in this way about nuclear weapons and global nuclear politics is impossible within the ideology of nuclear, 298 00:33:12,850 --> 00:33:19,220 and it is a different mode of thinking with different reference and different language. 299 00:33:19,220 --> 00:33:26,870 And I highlight these differences and ideologies because the possibilities for change lie 300 00:33:26,870 --> 00:33:34,280 in the ongoing contestation between the two between nuclear wisdom and in and in many ways, 301 00:33:34,280 --> 00:33:38,210 this is what disarmament diplomacy is all about. 302 00:33:38,210 --> 00:33:49,870 In fact, Richard Falk, who I referred to earlier described the band as full frontal rejection of the geopolitical approach to nuclear ism. 303 00:33:49,870 --> 00:33:58,390 And we've seen how contestation of this type has driven change in other areas of global politics like human rights, 304 00:33:58,390 --> 00:34:07,330 colonialism and more recently, the climate crisis, as well as in related areas like chemical weapons and cluster munitions. 305 00:34:07,330 --> 00:34:14,940 And as deadset civil society has been absolutely central to these processes. 306 00:34:14,940 --> 00:34:23,970 Now, the idea of contestation and comfort confrontation between quite opposite in command positions like nuclear ism, 307 00:34:23,970 --> 00:34:32,610 an anti-nuclear ism in the end leaves little by way of middle ground, and that can be quite discomforting for some. 308 00:34:32,610 --> 00:34:42,710 But when it comes to the possibilities of nuclear violence, it is either accepted as something that is in the end, legitimate or illegitimate. 309 00:34:42,710 --> 00:34:52,040 And we must acknowledge as well that debate division contestation are vital to the processes of change, 310 00:34:52,040 --> 00:34:57,320 and they are a necessary feature of the democratisation of debate in nuclear politics, 311 00:34:57,320 --> 00:35:02,960 and this is something to which I think the ban treaty has made an important contribution. 312 00:35:02,960 --> 00:35:06,710 But it's also, I think, bigger than this too, 313 00:35:06,710 --> 00:35:14,210 because we can see how those involved in nuclear disarmament and the ban treaty have connected nuclear injustices, 314 00:35:14,210 --> 00:35:24,740 nuclear inequalities and nuclear violence in world politics, with a wider set of global hierarchies and inequalities and violent practises. 315 00:35:24,740 --> 00:35:32,510 Not least in relation to social, environmental, economic and racial justice and change. 316 00:35:32,510 --> 00:35:37,940 And in fact. The future of the nuclear disarmament movement, I think, 317 00:35:37,940 --> 00:35:46,550 arguably lies in its closer integration with multiple movements that are confronting global injustices, 318 00:35:46,550 --> 00:35:56,770 including on the issues of who gets to act besides violence over whom, by what means to what ends and on what basis. 319 00:35:56,770 --> 00:36:00,220 And when thinking about the possibilities for change, 320 00:36:00,220 --> 00:36:08,740 I think we also need to remember and acknowledge that the ban treaty and anti-nuclear ism are pushing in the right direction. 321 00:36:08,740 --> 00:36:11,620 It might not seem so at the moment, 322 00:36:11,620 --> 00:36:20,440 but here I think it's useful to understand nuclear disarmament as something that needs to be invented, invented and then sustained. 323 00:36:20,440 --> 00:36:28,080 And I think some of Dess remarks at the end of his of his comments were speaking to this as well. 324 00:36:28,080 --> 00:36:31,780 I'll say a little bit more about this before I close. 325 00:36:31,780 --> 00:36:38,350 So inventive nuclear disarmament, I think, is about building on what already exists and about inventing new norms, 326 00:36:38,350 --> 00:36:48,100 new practises, a new institutions, it requires innovation, it requires creativity and it requires lots of collective work. 327 00:36:48,100 --> 00:36:52,450 But a couple of things we can say it won't be neat and linear. 328 00:36:52,450 --> 00:36:57,670 It will be messy. It will be contingent and it will be multi causal. 329 00:36:57,670 --> 00:37:04,690 So that we we can't really know with any degree of certainty what will work and when until we get there, 330 00:37:04,690 --> 00:37:08,800 we can also say, I think with some degree of certainty that it's going to be transnational. 331 00:37:08,800 --> 00:37:14,500 It's going to be done by lots of different people in lots of different places, in lots of different roles, 332 00:37:14,500 --> 00:37:22,590 pursuing a whole range of different ideas, and it's going to be a continuous process rather than an endpoint. 333 00:37:22,590 --> 00:37:30,510 And whilst there's nothing to guarantee that nuclear disarmament can't be invented, there's also nothing to guarantee that it will. 334 00:37:30,510 --> 00:37:38,880 But I think thought of this way. It becomes clear how much has already been achieved at a very broad level. 335 00:37:38,880 --> 00:37:41,070 Nuclear disarmament as an idea. 336 00:37:41,070 --> 00:37:51,510 An idea that kind of makes sense to us that is firmly rooted in a much deeper set of ideas and institutions that are embedded in our global politics. 337 00:37:51,510 --> 00:37:59,880 So these include things like human rights, humanitarian law, the sovereign equality of states, development and justice, 338 00:37:59,880 --> 00:38:10,560 decolonisation limits to violence, environmental protection and the criminalisation of state aggression in world politics and in nuclear politics. 339 00:38:10,560 --> 00:38:15,090 Specifically, lots of important things have already been invented. 340 00:38:15,090 --> 00:38:23,730 Like the ideas in the institutions of nuclear arms, options like ending nuclear testing, verification safeguards, 341 00:38:23,730 --> 00:38:32,160 non-use non-proliferation, regional nuclear weapon free zones and the very idea of global prohibition itself. 342 00:38:32,160 --> 00:38:37,950 And none of these ideas and institutions are natural or predetermined. 343 00:38:37,950 --> 00:38:48,420 They have. They have been invented and they have been embedded, even as they've been pretty consistently contested. 344 00:38:48,420 --> 00:38:52,260 And we can see through that lens that nuclear deterrence and the ideology of nuclear 345 00:38:52,260 --> 00:38:58,950 ism are also a set of ideas and practises and institutions that have been invented. 346 00:38:58,950 --> 00:39:02,640 And just as they have been invented, they can be disrupted, 347 00:39:02,640 --> 00:39:13,110 dismantled and on invented through contestation that diminishes the power of nuclear ism and that challenges cultures of nuclear thinking. 348 00:39:13,110 --> 00:39:20,940 And I don't know if death knows this, but the timing of his speech at the Conference on Disarmament in 2008 that was originally put on 349 00:39:20,940 --> 00:39:26,370 the on the Ministry of Defence website was laying the foundations for multicultural disarmament, 350 00:39:26,370 --> 00:39:31,350 not multilateral nuclear disarmament. It was on there for a couple of days until it was changed. 351 00:39:31,350 --> 00:39:35,850 But I wonder if perhaps that was closer to the mark. 352 00:39:35,850 --> 00:39:45,030 Now, the asymmetries of power between supporters of nuclear ism and anti-nuclear ism are clearly formidable, 353 00:39:45,030 --> 00:39:49,830 and we've seen this in the pushback against the ban treaty from the nuclear armed states. 354 00:39:49,830 --> 00:39:55,080 And with that in mind, I think we have to accept that we're unlikely to change the minds of current 355 00:39:55,080 --> 00:40:01,800 policymakers that are socialised into or or really enamoured with nuclear ism. 356 00:40:01,800 --> 00:40:06,030 But I think we can't over time shape the understandings of future leaders and future 357 00:40:06,030 --> 00:40:11,760 voters about what is and isn't politically possible when it comes to nuclear weapons. 358 00:40:11,760 --> 00:40:17,730 And by doing so, by building on what exists and inventing what's needed. 359 00:40:17,730 --> 00:40:22,620 So in some ways, nothing is certain in nuclear politics. 360 00:40:22,620 --> 00:40:25,500 There are no risk free nuclear futures. 361 00:40:25,500 --> 00:40:35,640 As a good friend of mine, Wheeler, who I think in the is in the audience, has has stated, but we do have agency positive change does happen. 362 00:40:35,640 --> 00:40:39,720 The unexpected end of the Cold War being an important example. 363 00:40:39,720 --> 00:40:46,830 There are better ways in which we can organise our global nuclear politics that can involve the elimination of nuclear weapons, 364 00:40:46,830 --> 00:40:51,540 and we have come a long way towards a better nuclear world. 365 00:40:51,540 --> 00:41:00,360 And the ban treaty and what it represents, I think, is an important part of the process of inventing what we need for a world without nuclear weapons. 366 00:41:00,360 --> 00:41:08,550 Thank you. Nick, thank you very much indeed for taking further along the line. 367 00:41:08,550 --> 00:41:16,860 The comments that Desmond and thank you very much indeed for laying things out in such a way as you suggested, 368 00:41:16,860 --> 00:41:24,390 I rather suspect that pretty much all of those who are on this webinar or web conference 369 00:41:24,390 --> 00:41:32,370 would be of a similar perspective in terms of the wish to see an end to nuclear weapons. 370 00:41:32,370 --> 00:41:40,830 But I want to try to provoke something of what Nic was talking about in this debate contestation argument side of things, 371 00:41:40,830 --> 00:41:46,320 because I think he's right to say that, that that's really important. 372 00:41:46,320 --> 00:41:52,420 And so I'd like to pick up a number of things I wanted to kind of clarify and some for us, 373 00:41:52,420 --> 00:41:55,410 perhaps for us to engage in a little bit of conversation with each other. 374 00:41:55,410 --> 00:42:04,450 And then in a little while, we'll open it up to questions which have already begun to appear on the on the Q&A and chat. 375 00:42:04,450 --> 00:42:15,280 You have both outlined very clearly the increasing dangers of nuclear weapons increasing not so much, 376 00:42:15,280 --> 00:42:22,630 perhaps just because of numbers, but because of distribution. 377 00:42:22,630 --> 00:42:28,360 More states now have weapons with the possibility of weapons. 378 00:42:28,360 --> 00:42:36,670 We all felt the Cold War was a bad thing and it certainly wasn't a good thing, but at least at that time. 379 00:42:36,670 --> 00:42:42,810 Largely speaking, there were two pillars that needed to engage with each other. 380 00:42:42,810 --> 00:42:51,390 And negotiate a way of pulling back. I remember I used to work quite a lot to work to some extent with the World Federation of Scientists, 381 00:42:51,390 --> 00:42:58,440 which originally was a number of scientists, some of whom developed the bombs that we were referring to. 382 00:42:58,440 --> 00:43:06,170 Did not want their technology to be used. Their science to be used for the technology of warfare, but the technology of peace. 383 00:43:06,170 --> 00:43:11,540 And one of the pieces of work that they did were permitted to do by their paymasters in the government 384 00:43:11,540 --> 00:43:18,650 of the Ministry of Defence was to look at what would actually be the outcome if there was a nuclear war. 385 00:43:18,650 --> 00:43:24,110 How many people would die if there was a strike or a response to strike its own missile? 386 00:43:24,110 --> 00:43:28,730 And so they produced this material under the generals who were running the show. 387 00:43:28,730 --> 00:43:36,810 We're very happy for the scientists to do that, and they exchange the papers between the USSR as it was then and to. 388 00:43:36,810 --> 00:43:40,920 And the generals looked at it and they said, Oh, my goodness, 389 00:43:40,920 --> 00:43:45,630 we knew this would happen to the other side quite quick that it was going to happen to our side. 390 00:43:45,630 --> 00:43:52,230 And so they passed it back to the politicians who were the paymasters of the generals, and they had the same response. 391 00:43:52,230 --> 00:43:58,230 And the result of this and many other interventions by people like voice that was 392 00:43:58,230 --> 00:44:04,170 involved with anti-war meant that people started to think about the conflict. 393 00:44:04,170 --> 00:44:09,410 And all of us kind of hoped that the end of the Cold War would take us forward. 394 00:44:09,410 --> 00:44:17,570 But in many ways it hasn't, because what it has happened is it has fractured think so, that there are not simply two pillars anymore. 395 00:44:17,570 --> 00:44:25,280 There are lots. It's like a it's like a blob of mercury that's been whacked on the table, and it's spun off into a whole lot of other areas, 396 00:44:25,280 --> 00:44:30,170 like the so-called War on Drugs in the United States by taking out some of the kingpins. 397 00:44:30,170 --> 00:44:37,730 Lots of other lower level gangsters were able to spread the use and abuse of drugs. 398 00:44:37,730 --> 00:44:44,630 So I guess I'm keen for us to push back on teasing out not what we would wish to believe to be the case, 399 00:44:44,630 --> 00:44:53,080 but what is actually the case about the human condition to which Robert Davis and of course, many of his books, including his book of the. 400 00:44:53,080 --> 00:45:03,530 It seems to me that quite clearly the nuclear problem is an expression of violent political conflict. 401 00:45:03,530 --> 00:45:06,730 Especially of all out war, I mean, 402 00:45:06,730 --> 00:45:16,980 I think almost everybody accepts that the context in which it might be used was one in which effectively an all out war was being contemplated. 403 00:45:16,980 --> 00:45:31,540 So are we suggesting? That it is actually possible to move to a place in any foreseeable future where we can prevent violent political conflict. 404 00:45:31,540 --> 00:45:36,840 Or are we saying something else about all out war? 405 00:45:36,840 --> 00:45:44,890 That it can be conducted in some other, less harmful way or that it can actually be prevented. 406 00:45:44,890 --> 00:45:53,220 And this is not a theoretical question this past weekend when we look at what's happening in Israel, Palestine. 407 00:45:53,220 --> 00:45:58,460 So what is it? How can we if if nuclear conflict? 408 00:45:58,460 --> 00:46:03,560 Is to date perhaps the ultimate expression of violent conflict. 409 00:46:03,560 --> 00:46:13,430 Are we saying that that expression of conflict can be tamed or are we saying that violent political conflict itself is able to be contained, 410 00:46:13,430 --> 00:46:20,360 controlled, managed or prevented in some way? Would either of you like to pick up that? 411 00:46:20,360 --> 00:46:29,930 That query a question. I'm willing to do so, I mean, not make definitively if we you to do this, I mean, 412 00:46:29,930 --> 00:46:34,760 I just say this to you at the beginning, you know, I mean, we're all on journeys. 413 00:46:34,760 --> 00:46:44,540 I mean, I think probably everybody who's in this and this conference is somewhere and moving towards the same destination, 414 00:46:44,540 --> 00:46:50,290 the hope that we all share, which is a much more peaceful world. 415 00:46:50,290 --> 00:46:56,470 And you know, we are affected by our experiences and them. 416 00:46:56,470 --> 00:47:01,250 And I think also we can only make a limited contribution to this. 417 00:47:01,250 --> 00:47:07,250 In a long time ago, I gave up. And you know, the what the I do trying to tell other people how we ought to behave, 418 00:47:07,250 --> 00:47:18,470 and I spend most of my time in them and dialogue and quite a lot of tough dialogue across the Atlantic space, from Vancouver to Vladivostok. 419 00:47:18,470 --> 00:47:27,650 Talking about issues of this nature with people many of whom have, you know, have and have held a big responsibility. 420 00:47:27,650 --> 00:47:32,450 I'm much more interested in their perception of how we appear than my perception of how they appear. 421 00:47:32,450 --> 00:47:41,660 And I learnt more from that. So I mean, I'm going to I'm going to restrict my observations to try not to generalise too much about this. 422 00:47:41,660 --> 00:47:50,720 But you know, I mean, I live in a country here in the United Kingdom with a government who think they can do just what you have suggested. 423 00:47:50,720 --> 00:47:55,620 They think that we can, you know, we can move to a world without nuclear weapons. 424 00:47:55,620 --> 00:48:03,110 And and that's the assessment. You know, we have regular assessments of where the risks and threats to this country lie. 425 00:48:03,110 --> 00:48:08,390 And I kind of remember since we started to publish them, any of them seeing that we are, 426 00:48:08,390 --> 00:48:14,780 that there is there is a risk of an all out state on state conflict that we would be involved in. 427 00:48:14,780 --> 00:48:22,940 You know, I mean, we had pandemic at the top of that risk, that threat analysis for many years and didn't prepare well for a lot, as it turned out. 428 00:48:22,940 --> 00:48:26,990 But that's another discussion. And so that is their view. 429 00:48:26,990 --> 00:48:35,270 And even in this same and this integrated review and I have opened the relevant page here in my pride beside me, 430 00:48:35,270 --> 00:48:42,890 we there are two very strong paragraphs that expressed the government's commitment to the long term goal of our website nuclear weapons. 431 00:48:42,890 --> 00:48:45,110 So, so they have committed themselves to that. 432 00:48:45,110 --> 00:48:52,850 Successive governments have done that, you know, and then they spell out in the second paragraph what we will continue to do. 433 00:48:52,850 --> 00:48:57,450 The problem is that when I read that, they're not doing any of it. 434 00:48:57,450 --> 00:49:04,170 But nobody's actually asking them, you know, so, you know, every time I open my mouth in a political environment in the United Kingdom, 435 00:49:04,170 --> 00:49:09,290 I get accused of being a unilateralist, which is a kind of pejorative, right? 436 00:49:09,290 --> 00:49:15,970 And I say, no, I'm, you know, I'm interested in multilateral nuclear disarmament, but I spend almost every day trying to achieve it. 437 00:49:15,970 --> 00:49:23,430 You know what? What did you last do or ever do to achieve this ambition that you have for multilateral nuclear disarmament? 438 00:49:23,430 --> 00:49:29,460 You know, and and I think that's so, so and honestly, you know, 439 00:49:29,460 --> 00:49:35,400 if you look at the immediate history, our history is devastated by conflict and violence, 440 00:49:35,400 --> 00:49:44,070 but it is much less than it was in the 20th century and in particular in the second half of the 20th century, much, much less than it was then. 441 00:49:44,070 --> 00:49:51,090 That wasn't accounted for by the absence or presence of nuclear weapons because this conflict has changed significantly. 442 00:49:51,090 --> 00:49:55,770 It's more interstate now than it was before it's conducted in different fashions. 443 00:49:55,770 --> 00:49:58,800 These are the things that we need to be worried about for when we get rid of conflict. 444 00:49:58,800 --> 00:50:04,080 Yet we spend so much of our resources on something that just creates a threat it 445 00:50:04,080 --> 00:50:09,060 doesn't actually keep is any safer because we don't believe that we are at risk. 446 00:50:09,060 --> 00:50:18,250 You know, Nick and I both express, you know, what were the consequences of these, of the use of these weapons be and the vast majority of leaders? 447 00:50:18,250 --> 00:50:28,110 Want to avoid that as well? You know, there's no point in using a weapon system that impacts you citizens as badly or in some cases, 448 00:50:28,110 --> 00:50:32,130 worst, depending on weather systems, then it will your adversaries. 449 00:50:32,130 --> 00:50:38,910 So, you know, within a world that we shouldn't allow other people to create the environment for the way in which we discuss it, 450 00:50:38,910 --> 00:50:43,230 we should challenge them. This is what you say you want to do. 451 00:50:43,230 --> 00:50:48,360 Tell us what you are doing about it. You know, ask every everybody who's interested in AP. 452 00:50:48,360 --> 00:50:57,700 What do you know and understand about this risk and threat? And what have you done to try and achieve it because you've all signed up to this policy? 453 00:50:57,700 --> 00:51:04,330 Thanks very much. And as I said, we're reminded of dangers by the events of this last weekend, 454 00:51:04,330 --> 00:51:09,400 and I had a rather difficult discussion with some political colleagues yesterday who 455 00:51:09,400 --> 00:51:16,000 kept on both the two state solution perspective of the situation with Israel-Palestine. 456 00:51:16,000 --> 00:51:22,000 Which is something that people have been going on about for decades now, and we're not any closer to it, 457 00:51:22,000 --> 00:51:28,590 and in a sense, it's the same kind of thing that you're saying that is people keep mouthing the words. 458 00:51:28,590 --> 00:51:39,960 About what they want to see without necessarily exploring the consequences of developing what is necessary to achieve that. 459 00:51:39,960 --> 00:51:49,470 And and that's the challenge in that that's a challenge for all of us to pick up in terms of our thinking about and understand. 460 00:51:49,470 --> 00:52:01,260 Nick, would you like to pick up on that? Yeah, I if if I can come in as well, I mean, first, John, I think your your question presupposes a lot. 461 00:52:01,260 --> 00:52:05,490 Nuclear weapons is the manifestation of violent conflict. I don't think that's right. 462 00:52:05,490 --> 00:52:09,180 It's a manifestation. It's not the manifestation of it. 463 00:52:09,180 --> 00:52:16,200 So nuclear weapons is a manifestation of of of the possibility of this type of a violent conflict. 464 00:52:16,200 --> 00:52:21,990 I mean, history shows that states have acquired nuclear weapons for lots of different reasons and not not just to 465 00:52:21,990 --> 00:52:32,280 deter this specific type of conflict of of all out total war of the type experienced from 1939 to 1945. 466 00:52:32,280 --> 00:52:36,750 So it's it's part of how we understand why states acquire nuclear weapons, 467 00:52:36,750 --> 00:52:40,800 but it's certainly not the sum total of reasons states have acquired and retained 468 00:52:40,800 --> 00:52:45,270 taken decisions to retain nuclear weapons for for lots of different reasons, 469 00:52:45,270 --> 00:52:54,870 including around ideas of national identity and relationships with with significant other allies as well as adversaries. 470 00:52:54,870 --> 00:53:01,200 But I think the way you posed the question also implies that nuclear deterrence is the answer to preventing this type of this 471 00:53:01,200 --> 00:53:10,200 specific type of conflict of industrialised All-Out War between the major powers at the heart of the international system. 472 00:53:10,200 --> 00:53:16,470 But there's a real problem with with that in terms of demonstrating that that has in fact been the case. 473 00:53:16,470 --> 00:53:21,750 What we often see is is a correlation between the existence of nuclear weapons 474 00:53:21,750 --> 00:53:26,580 after 1945 and then the lack of the absence of something like World War Two. 475 00:53:26,580 --> 00:53:31,740 And we go from from correlation to causation and say that it's nuclear weapons that, of course, 476 00:53:31,740 --> 00:53:41,760 that are no doubt they are part of the part of the answer as to why there's been no no recurrence of something like World War Two. 477 00:53:41,760 --> 00:53:49,950 But people tend to to forget that there have been other massive developments since 1945 that do a good deal of the explaining. 478 00:53:49,950 --> 00:53:52,890 I mean, we've learnt from the horrors of World War Two. 479 00:53:52,890 --> 00:53:59,400 We've established the United Nations and an organised international economic and trading system. 480 00:53:59,400 --> 00:54:05,940 We've seen the process of decolonisation of the sort of hundred and fifty or so years before 481 00:54:05,940 --> 00:54:13,230 1945 continued major decolonisation up to and including the end of the Soviet Empire. 482 00:54:13,230 --> 00:54:19,480 And we've seen from the 1970s onwards really and really escalate in the post-Cold War period. 483 00:54:19,480 --> 00:54:22,760 The processes of interdependence and globalisation. 484 00:54:22,760 --> 00:54:32,270 I mean, it's dead, Set said, we live in a very different world to that that nuclear age and the thermonuclear age that emerged in the 1950s. 485 00:54:32,270 --> 00:54:36,410 And for good or ill, it has knitted states and economies and societies together. 486 00:54:36,410 --> 00:54:39,070 So I think. I think in this context, 487 00:54:39,070 --> 00:54:48,220 we we we mustn't assume that nuclear deterrence is kind of an problematically the answer to why haven't we seen something like World War Two? 488 00:54:48,220 --> 00:54:53,800 Why that nuclear deterrence assuredly explains the absence of total war? 489 00:54:53,800 --> 00:54:57,700 I think what we need to ask, which is a question my good friend of mine, 490 00:54:57,700 --> 00:55:03,790 Benmore pull up at us asks, is what can we say about the added deterrence of nuclear weapons? 491 00:55:03,790 --> 00:55:08,290 There's an awful lot of stuff, an awful lot of very, very good, 492 00:55:08,290 --> 00:55:13,690 powerful reasons as to why major powers are not going to fight something like World War Two again, 493 00:55:13,690 --> 00:55:18,730 irrespective of whether nuclear weapons are in the mix or not. It's a very good, powerful reasons. 494 00:55:18,730 --> 00:55:23,290 What the nuclear weapons add to that sort of deterrent effect. 495 00:55:23,290 --> 00:55:27,190 What is the added deterrent value? That's the question we need to be asking. 496 00:55:27,190 --> 00:55:30,070 And I think it's very difficult to make a clear, 497 00:55:30,070 --> 00:55:41,950 concise case that sustaining a system of world security based on the threat of total calamity is either necessary or legitimate today. 498 00:55:41,950 --> 00:55:49,720 I find that difficult to to accept that there is a clear case that the necessitates taking the risks 499 00:55:49,720 --> 00:55:57,850 that we know of the risks of nuclear war that are baked into the very cake of of nuclear deterrence. 500 00:55:57,850 --> 00:56:08,000 And the idea that I guess one last point. I mean, it's often taken as read that the the nuclear piece is it's as it's being called. 501 00:56:08,000 --> 00:56:15,080 From from the the end of World War Two, OK, to say certainly the end of the Cold War through that sort of 45 year period, 502 00:56:15,080 --> 00:56:22,970 that that was something anomalous in world politics and that therefore the correlation with the existence of nuclear weapons is really strong. 503 00:56:22,970 --> 00:56:31,230 But it's not. It's not anomalous. There have been plenty of periods of long peace between the major powers in world politics of similar duration. 504 00:56:31,230 --> 00:56:37,940 So I think we need to be very careful when when we're talking about nuclear weapons and nuclear deterrence that we kind 505 00:56:37,940 --> 00:56:43,610 of acknowledge the assumptions that we're making and the claims that we're making on behalf of nuclear deterrence, 506 00:56:43,610 --> 00:56:51,350 all of which are really very contested. I think one of the things that we need to be careful about is that. 507 00:56:51,350 --> 00:56:59,240 We don't pick up what someone else says and assume that we understand it because it fits in with the arguments we've been making. 508 00:56:59,240 --> 00:57:07,480 You see, I didn't say anything about states and conflict. I said an expression of confidence. 509 00:57:07,480 --> 00:57:16,540 And one of the issues that I've been working on for quite a long time is the notion that we've got to move beyond the understanding of individuals. 510 00:57:16,540 --> 00:57:23,900 And states. To the complex systems analysis of relationships. 511 00:57:23,900 --> 00:57:31,970 And that conflict is an expression of a relationship problem, whether it's to do with individuals or states. 512 00:57:31,970 --> 00:57:40,210 So to say that something is an expression of conflict does not mean that it is the reason that a state gives itself for developing a weapon. 513 00:57:40,210 --> 00:57:49,480 And certainly what I'm trying to explore is not some justification of a kind that has been given or would be given. 514 00:57:49,480 --> 00:57:56,690 I don't think anybody on this call is. But it's absolutely clear that many of the things that we thought would lead to a resolution, 515 00:57:56,690 --> 00:58:02,450 haven't you mentioned the U.N. the UN can't make a decision about anything worthwhile at the moment. 516 00:58:02,450 --> 00:58:08,780 The General Assembly is completely dominated by China. Know anything that you try to get decided just doesn't get decided in the General 517 00:58:08,780 --> 00:58:15,680 Assembly unless China agrees UN the Security Council can't make a decision on anything. 518 00:58:15,680 --> 00:58:20,270 So and when we talk about the multilateral system, it's in disarray. 519 00:58:20,270 --> 00:58:25,520 This is not a reality of 10 or 15 years ago, but it is a reality of today, 520 00:58:25,520 --> 00:58:30,350 and it seems to me that we've got to find a way of pushing our thoughts forward. 521 00:58:30,350 --> 00:58:34,370 Inevitably, of course, we're influenced by our own experience and my experience, 522 00:58:34,370 --> 00:58:38,360 and to some extent, desert is a little bit influenced by the Irish question. 523 00:58:38,360 --> 00:58:45,800 When the argument was perennially about those who wanted to remain within the United Kingdom and those who wanted an independent united Ireland, 524 00:58:45,800 --> 00:58:54,290 and we thought that was moving forward into a different argument, if at all being part of the United Europe, but that has started to fragment. 525 00:58:54,290 --> 00:59:02,210 But the key question, really in the end, is what kind of set of relationships if we simply argued back and forth? 526 00:59:02,210 --> 00:59:06,560 We may not move forward. Even good arguments become weaponized. 527 00:59:06,560 --> 00:59:12,600 So for example, one of the concerns I have about the notion of an anti-nuclear narrative. 528 00:59:12,600 --> 00:59:21,930 Is that it simply sets itself up as another struggle against against a previous argument, rather than something that provides an alternative? 529 00:59:21,930 --> 00:59:30,180 One of the successes I think of the climate debate has been the alternative ways of producing energy. 530 00:59:30,180 --> 00:59:34,380 Our proposed. And I suppose the question for me, 531 00:59:34,380 --> 00:59:43,140 the implicit question that I was putting forward is what is the alternative way of dealing with that aspect of the human condition, 532 00:59:43,140 --> 00:59:45,870 which is expressed in conflict? 533 00:59:45,870 --> 00:59:58,190 What is the alternative way of dealing with that that we are proposing as distinct from what we are opposing about a particular expression of? 534 00:59:58,190 --> 01:00:05,570 So I'm so to engage with that challenge question. 535 01:00:05,570 --> 01:00:12,560 Good. So. So let me just disaggregate this a little, Ray. 536 01:00:12,560 --> 01:00:17,360 I mean, I mean, I think I think, you know, interestingly, I think, you know, 537 01:00:17,360 --> 01:00:21,930 observing the two of you talking to each other, you both write about this. I mean, that is right. 538 01:00:21,930 --> 01:00:29,780 You know, we. And you know, I'm really struck at the beginning, Amy and his excellent contribution. 539 01:00:29,780 --> 01:00:35,750 He he drew you draw attention to why. Up until now, I've said the weapons. 540 01:00:35,750 --> 01:00:40,910 These weapons dictate the policy. But I mean, these weapons are more influential, 541 01:00:40,910 --> 01:00:48,860 their existence on the decisions that are made about their continuing dependence on them than almost anything else. 542 01:00:48,860 --> 01:00:54,560 You know, I mean, if you talk about reducing their numbers to anybody or disarming, 543 01:00:54,560 --> 01:01:04,280 the first thing we say to you is you have no and you have no right to deny future generations of security that you have enjoyed from these weapons. 544 01:01:04,280 --> 01:01:09,410 So the weapons cannot pay you in now. 545 01:01:09,410 --> 01:01:16,100 I think the point is that that's not the case in other areas, which are areas of threat and risk. 546 01:01:16,100 --> 01:01:20,270 And you yourself identified one climate change, but that's not the only one. 547 01:01:20,270 --> 01:01:29,780 So, you know, we are, for example, you know, going to convene COP26 for Goodell in Glasgow in some months to come. 548 01:01:29,780 --> 01:01:35,060 So this is a world conference which we have a common objective, you know, 549 01:01:35,060 --> 01:01:45,560 and we will seek to get the world to buy into that common objective and to agree a road map to it where we would mean open all of this. 550 01:01:45,560 --> 01:01:46,790 And that's not the only thing, you know, 551 01:01:46,790 --> 01:01:55,340 we operate across all of these bodies with countries that we feel we need to deter with nuclear weapons on other areas of terrorism. 552 01:01:55,340 --> 01:02:00,950 We've done it in relation to the pandemic risk. So we all have to do this. 553 01:02:00,950 --> 01:02:09,470 The question the question is why will we not do it for the shared objectives the official nuclear weapon states say they have, 554 01:02:09,470 --> 01:02:17,270 which is ridding the world of these nuclear weapons, and that is because of the nature of the weapons, right? 555 01:02:17,270 --> 01:02:26,220 And as much as anything else once you have them, and also because we've allowed them to elevate countries into a position of. 556 01:02:26,220 --> 01:02:32,040 Particular power and a very small number of people who are very unwilling to give that up. 557 01:02:32,040 --> 01:02:38,710 So it is, you know, is wrong to call these five nuclear weapons states to be five. 558 01:02:38,710 --> 01:02:45,410 Is not the nuclear weapons that qualify them to that, we believe, but actually just may be. 559 01:02:45,410 --> 01:02:49,200 That's why we have the and the ah, the p-, you know, so. 560 01:02:49,200 --> 01:02:58,200 And we know how to do that and it's relatively simple, which is you embark upon a dialogue of common interests. 561 01:02:58,200 --> 01:03:02,960 And we do that in many areas of international relations. 562 01:03:02,960 --> 01:03:08,480 For particular purposes, so it's not as if we can't do it and we can do it to affect, 563 01:03:08,480 --> 01:03:12,900 you know, you can you can get an American president to get, you know, 564 01:03:12,900 --> 01:03:19,610 to get the leader of China to agree in a particular area on something or to get the Russians to go off, 565 01:03:19,610 --> 01:03:25,640 to get the Brits can get other people to do it. We can even get India and Pakistan on occasions to do it with us. 566 01:03:25,640 --> 01:03:29,660 But in these weapons, they have this sort of power of their own. 567 01:03:29,660 --> 01:03:36,020 Somehow that prevents us from doing that and why we don't just do what we can do. 568 01:03:36,020 --> 01:03:42,020 You know, we come together and look for issues of common interest in terms of our security and stuff to work our way through this. 569 01:03:42,020 --> 01:03:50,300 And we we have done that. We have made the progress that Nick suggests that we have, which is really about, you know, 570 01:03:50,300 --> 01:04:01,080 all of these and all of these successes in terms of disarmament and arms control, KTB, NPT, all the rest of them. 571 01:04:01,080 --> 01:04:11,700 He he he indicated, with one or two exceptions, have involved nuclear weapons states and in some occasions of being led by nuclear weapon states. 572 01:04:11,700 --> 01:04:19,620 So it's not it's not impossible to do. We just need to be a means to it and we need to own the objectives politically. 573 01:04:19,620 --> 01:04:24,540 We see that we subscribe to in relation to these weapons systems. 574 01:04:24,540 --> 01:04:32,130 We can't do that. And Nick's analysis of this when he shared with us may be the right reasons for it. 575 01:04:32,130 --> 01:04:36,000 I'm not sure. But, you know, we just need to, you know, 576 01:04:36,000 --> 01:04:43,110 we need to mobilise people to start asking these people who make these decisions about these inconsistencies, 577 01:04:43,110 --> 01:04:48,930 explain them to me, you know, I mean, are you taking us in this? 578 01:04:48,930 --> 01:04:56,710 And the weapons not only are a determinant of the policy, but they generate this threat intermingled with these new technologies. 579 01:04:56,710 --> 01:05:04,450 They generate this, which some of these people don't even understand, we have people, you know, raising artificial intelligence and programmes. 580 01:05:04,450 --> 01:05:11,750 They do not themselves understand. And then we intermingle them with the command and control of these weapons. 581 01:05:11,750 --> 01:05:17,660 Well, of course, that's absolutely true. And we now have a situation where the artificial intelligence is writing its own 582 01:05:17,660 --> 01:05:22,080 programmes at which the people who set them up in the first place don't understand. 583 01:05:22,080 --> 01:05:25,570 So this is absolutely true, and I'm pretty terrifying. 584 01:05:25,570 --> 01:05:31,460 And there are a couple of things that have been flagged up in the trap if I could just refer to them before I come back to Nick. 585 01:05:31,460 --> 01:05:38,600 The first one is picking up on on on Beck's comments. But also referring to what you just mentioned, 586 01:05:38,600 --> 01:05:47,660 as if that is the prospect of nuclear disarmament for the UK alone would probably mean the UK losing its U.N. Security Council seat. 587 01:05:47,660 --> 01:05:54,680 I might say that whether or not that's true, there's another perhaps other question about whether or not if Scotland and Northern Ireland leave, 588 01:05:54,680 --> 01:05:59,420 whether England on its own can return retain a U.N. Security Council seat. 589 01:05:59,420 --> 01:06:06,800 But that's a whole other debate, though not one that's irrelevant to Dasa and myself given where we come from, 590 01:06:06,800 --> 01:06:11,250 those that wanted the link to that list lifting up folk book. 591 01:06:11,250 --> 01:06:18,260 Nic has kindly put it up. That's indefensible weapons published in 1991, and I think you'd be able to get it on on Amazon, 592 01:06:18,260 --> 01:06:24,110 but refer yourself there to the chart and you'll see the the reference evidence 593 01:06:24,110 --> 01:06:27,870 asked Are we allowed to reach out to the panellist via email after the event? 594 01:06:27,870 --> 01:06:33,860 I'm sure that the answer to that is yes. Does I see a thumbs up from Naga? 595 01:06:33,860 --> 01:06:38,400 You content to be contacted as? Yes, absolutely. 596 01:06:38,400 --> 01:06:43,910 So that's there's not a there's not an issue there. And. 597 01:06:43,910 --> 01:06:51,580 We're going to come shortly to some of the other questions that have been raised on me today, but I want to come back to nick about about what? 598 01:06:51,580 --> 01:06:56,930 Well, I flagged up on this question of the nuclear versus anti-nuclear narrative and whether 599 01:06:56,930 --> 01:07:03,730 or not we can't move to something that goes beyond oppositional kind of way of nick. 600 01:07:03,730 --> 01:07:16,900 I'll tell you your point, John, and yeah, apologies if I sort of misrepresented in my own mind the basis of the question that you were asking, but. 601 01:07:16,900 --> 01:07:23,800 I mean, I think this is, as I said in my remarks, I think fundamentally nuclear deterrence is an ideology that needs dismantling. 602 01:07:23,800 --> 01:07:26,800 If we if we're going to get towards a nuclear weapon free world, I mean, 603 01:07:26,800 --> 01:07:34,450 that's that just seems like a part of the definition of the process to get to a nuclear weapons free world. 604 01:07:34,450 --> 01:07:42,400 Nuclear deterrence as an ideology will need dismantling and with it, of course, the material infrastructure infrastructure of that. 605 01:07:42,400 --> 01:07:45,430 But in terms of kind of what's the alternative then? 606 01:07:45,430 --> 01:07:52,850 Well, in the nuclear field specifically, you know, we've had countless blue plausible blueprints about what we might do differently. 607 01:07:52,850 --> 01:08:00,830 And we've obviously been doing a lot of this over over the last sort of four or five decades, you know, arms control itself. 608 01:08:00,830 --> 01:08:05,530 So that doesn't undermine the logic of nuclear deterrence. It certainly constrains it. 609 01:08:05,530 --> 01:08:13,600 Non-Proliferation verification, the plans for actual nuclear disarmament that have been developed by a numerous international commissions and so on. 610 01:08:13,600 --> 01:08:18,160 The alternatives are there in the nuclear field, but I don't think that's quite what you're you're asking. 611 01:08:18,160 --> 01:08:24,510 I think you're asking more about how how can we? I don't know. 612 01:08:24,510 --> 01:08:28,660 I think I think you're asking of, correct me if I'm wrong kind of what? 613 01:08:28,660 --> 01:08:34,060 What should then give it, given that we're not going to eliminate human conflict conflict between states, 614 01:08:34,060 --> 01:08:39,610 if we assume that we're going to still be living in a state system where we're adversarial 615 01:08:39,610 --> 01:08:45,910 relations and competition and so on and and conflict isn't going to go away then is that is 616 01:08:45,910 --> 01:08:50,410 the question you're asking kind of what should then replace nuclear weapons that some something 617 01:08:50,410 --> 01:08:56,710 needs to hold in check the escalation of violent conflict up to kind of All-Out War? 618 01:08:56,710 --> 01:09:02,710 I'm not sure. I mean, if if it is, then I think a perfectly legitimate response to that, 619 01:09:02,710 --> 01:09:07,300 to the question of what could or should replace nuclear deterrence is nothing. 620 01:09:07,300 --> 01:09:15,880 I think I think that traditional foreign and defence policy approach approaches to to dealing with crisis crisis mitigation, crisis management, 621 01:09:15,880 --> 01:09:23,410 take over and prioritise the practises of conflict resolution that have developed significantly over the post-Cold War period. 622 01:09:23,410 --> 01:09:26,170 I mean, there's tons of stuff to draw on. I mean, I mean, 623 01:09:26,170 --> 01:09:38,470 a lot of the nuclear confrontations at areas in world politics where there is serious concern are around managing and resolving border disputes. 624 01:09:38,470 --> 01:09:47,920 Yeah. You know, and then there's a lot of work that has been put in in different contexts over time to resolve seemingly intractable border disputes. 625 01:09:47,920 --> 01:09:56,410 There are reconciliation processes, community level dialogues across divides, especially those developed by women and mothers, 626 01:09:56,410 --> 01:10:05,140 processes of demilitarisation, shuttle diplomacy, mediation, supporting organisations like the OSCE. 627 01:10:05,140 --> 01:10:13,510 We see things like conflict taskforces and contact groups to manage and prevent, perhaps even transform violent conflict. 628 01:10:13,510 --> 01:10:19,180 So there are lots of choices about what we can do rather than rely on nuclear deterrence, 629 01:10:19,180 --> 01:10:26,290 which is, you know, deeply a deeply problematic system to lot to rely on indefinitely. 630 01:10:26,290 --> 01:10:31,430 But but these are choices that states have to make to engage in and manage 631 01:10:31,430 --> 01:10:36,910 conflict using this range of tools as opposed to the tool of nuclear deterrence. 632 01:10:36,910 --> 01:10:50,140 And I think, as Das said, relying on nuclear deterrence in many ways, you know, the logic of the enemy ultimately deserving of nuclear annihilation, 633 01:10:50,140 --> 01:11:00,400 I think inhibits the the the turn to these other ways of a very established ways of managing and transforming violent conflict. 634 01:11:00,400 --> 01:11:04,660 Now are any of these, you know, provably going to work in every case? 635 01:11:04,660 --> 01:11:09,640 Of course not. But then is nuclear deterrence provably going to work in every case? 636 01:11:09,640 --> 01:11:16,960 Of course not. So we do come back to judgements on balances of of risk and probability. 637 01:11:16,960 --> 01:11:18,730 But I think given the the, you know, 638 01:11:18,730 --> 01:11:26,860 the seriousness of the consequences of certainly a large scale nuclear war which would put at risk 10000 years of human civilisation. 639 01:11:26,860 --> 01:11:34,660 And I think we need to be asking the questions around the necessity and the legitimacy of basing a system of world 640 01:11:34,660 --> 01:11:40,960 security on on nuclear deterrence and the threat of nuclear war is that gets more to where you are coming from, 641 01:11:40,960 --> 01:11:46,030 John or not. I think we could. 642 01:11:46,030 --> 01:11:53,080 The three of us have a really interesting and stimulating further conversation with just the three of us, 643 01:11:53,080 --> 01:11:55,840 and I really hope that we get the chance to do that, 644 01:11:55,840 --> 01:12:03,980 preferably over a glass of wine, because I do think that there are some quite fundamentally important issues here. 645 01:12:03,980 --> 01:12:12,300 And you know, there is a sense in which we are actually in the third global conflict right now in cyberspace. 646 01:12:12,300 --> 01:12:19,850 If what is going on in cyber was going on in land, sea, air or in space, it would already be regarded as a global company. 647 01:12:19,850 --> 01:12:27,920 But like some of the other things that Des was mentioning, 90 percent of the population aren't aware of what is actually happening at the moment. 648 01:12:27,920 --> 01:12:37,640 And of course, it has the crossover that you've mentioned two to nuclear with the question of the control of nuclear with artificial intelligence. 649 01:12:37,640 --> 01:12:46,490 But I would like to try to bring in some of the the questions that have been posed by other colleagues on the call. 650 01:12:46,490 --> 01:12:55,310 There are a number of what I'm going to do is pick up two or three of them and ask you what you would like to pick up on in our last moments. 651 01:12:55,310 --> 01:13:01,460 Nick, you talked about the nuclear question being addressed in a broader cultural context. 652 01:13:01,460 --> 01:13:10,220 And the question is, will the argument be most effective if we frame it explicitly in terms of the existential risks, 653 01:13:10,220 --> 01:13:17,570 including the risks of nuclear itself or in terms of this wider cultural question? 654 01:13:17,570 --> 01:13:25,640 Tony Otis, as I said, can we comment on the extent to which nuclear weapons are seen as a symbol as symbolic of national identity? 655 01:13:25,640 --> 01:13:35,720 I think that something actually that you've already some extent attracted to ask does one question, which I think really important aspect to Crossley. 656 01:13:35,720 --> 01:13:39,770 And you mentioned at the start of your intervention. You're absolutely right, Nick. 657 01:13:39,770 --> 01:13:49,250 We assume rationality, she says. But should we consider the possibility of subversion coupled with radical ideology? 658 01:13:49,250 --> 01:13:58,400 I think the broader question is really that she's referring to it, which pointed out it is that thinking that people and countries act in an entirely 659 01:13:58,400 --> 01:14:04,670 rational self-interest basis is a misunderstanding of the nature of humanity. 660 01:14:04,670 --> 01:14:12,050 We are not purely rational. So there are a few a few questions which might perhaps pick up just a minute or two. 661 01:14:12,050 --> 01:14:20,060 We're coming to the end of the session, which if you would like to, to kick off first. 662 01:14:20,060 --> 01:14:25,250 Nic, would you like to pick up for for a minute or two and then go come to desk for the last minute? 663 01:14:25,250 --> 01:14:30,740 Yeah, we'll all be done. And thanks, thanks for the questions from the audience as well. 664 01:14:30,740 --> 01:14:38,750 In terms of I mean, the rationality question is is a furrow that has been well and truly ploughed in in the akina of nuclear deterrence. 665 01:14:38,750 --> 01:14:46,670 Thinking and its rationality when it comes to nuclear weapons is a deeply problematic concept. 666 01:14:46,670 --> 01:14:54,920 But, you know, even if we just kind of just look at it as you were suggesting, John, look at how this applies to kind of human beings. 667 01:14:54,920 --> 01:14:59,750 I mean, when we look at human beings who rise to positions of authority in nuclear armed states, 668 01:14:59,750 --> 01:15:07,100 as does suggested, where you have, you know, it's it's the divine power of kings returned in the nuclear age. 669 01:15:07,100 --> 01:15:13,040 When you think of the the consolidation of the power to annihilate societies in the hands of a single individual. 670 01:15:13,040 --> 01:15:19,070 And then we know from lots of good empirical research that people in positions of 671 01:15:19,070 --> 01:15:25,190 authority are capable of extraordinary miscalculations of extraordinary fanaticism. 672 01:15:25,190 --> 01:15:32,750 And and research in psychology and political psychology shows us that, you know, we all have preferences for simplifying that. 673 01:15:32,750 --> 01:15:41,240 We're pretty averse to things that are dissonant and ambiguous and that we are not intuitively good at estimating probabilities, 674 01:15:41,240 --> 01:15:47,210 including the probability of violent conflicts escalating out of all control pretty rapidly up to nuclear war. 675 01:15:47,210 --> 01:15:54,080 And that is just profoundly concerning. I find that profoundly concerning. 676 01:15:54,080 --> 01:16:00,710 And you know, we can we can think, well, the risks of this happening are very, very low. 677 01:16:00,710 --> 01:16:04,070 But the consequences are, you know, supremely high. 678 01:16:04,070 --> 01:16:11,690 So how much of a risk do we want to take given what was understood to be at stake in the late 40s and 50s? 679 01:16:11,690 --> 01:16:21,830 And given what we understand to be at stake now, compounded by other major challenges that we're facing that require collective transnational work, 680 01:16:21,830 --> 01:16:27,530 if we're going to have any hope of dealing with them, not least the overlapping climate crises, 681 01:16:27,530 --> 01:16:39,800 then I think it becomes very problematic to put all your bets on on nuclear deterrent for now and for the long term, an on on on national identity. 682 01:16:39,800 --> 01:16:50,180 I mean, certainly in the UK of our main political parties, the Conservatives, but also Labour have routinely wrapped Trident and before it, 683 01:16:50,180 --> 01:16:55,940 Polaris in the flag and and framed the sort of state that they imagine the 684 01:16:55,940 --> 01:17:00,740 UK to be on the world stage as being quintessentially a nuclear armed state. 685 01:17:00,740 --> 01:17:06,650 And that is part of the particular culture of nuclear ism or nuclear nationalism in the UK. 686 01:17:06,650 --> 01:17:12,830 That will need to be, as I said before, kind of disrupted, destabilised and picked and separated. 687 01:17:12,830 --> 01:17:18,110 Thanks very much indeed, Tess, if we can finally come to you. Thank you, John. 688 01:17:18,110 --> 01:17:24,920 So, I mean, I think the the the integrated review actually in many ways is is explains well, 689 01:17:24,920 --> 01:17:29,330 the sort of contested environment the modern international environment is, 690 01:17:29,330 --> 01:17:39,950 and it makes the point that you make of, you know, the green zone and warranty green zone and an ability to be able to deal with alone. 691 01:17:39,950 --> 01:17:43,340 And I mean, it's another global problem that we will need to work with together. 692 01:17:43,340 --> 01:17:51,740 But it seems to me interesting that you know that that that that very rational and helpful explanation, 693 01:17:51,740 --> 01:17:58,790 which is not comprehensive, but you couldn't be comprehensive without requiring people to reach for the rest of their lives. 694 01:17:58,790 --> 01:18:06,050 And, you know, identify identifies this cybersecurity and other challenges that you mentioned. 695 01:18:06,050 --> 01:18:10,490 But but somehow seems to think that the answer lies in nuclear weapons. 696 01:18:10,490 --> 01:18:15,860 You know, when there is no evidence to suggest that those when you know, secondly, 697 01:18:15,860 --> 01:18:21,020 there is nobody you know who understands the rules that do apply to nuclear weapons. 698 01:18:21,020 --> 01:18:26,030 It thinks that that that that sort of response would be proportionate. 699 01:18:26,030 --> 01:18:28,950 And actually, there's nobody believes we would do it. 700 01:18:28,950 --> 01:18:37,830 You know, so and that sort of decision, they undermine the whole, you know, the whole policy of the canons by using, 701 01:18:37,830 --> 01:18:45,750 you know, the weapon system to declare something which it won't deter and and nobody believes it. 702 01:18:45,750 --> 01:18:51,930 You know, so. And you know, I think that's another outstandingly good example of the point that was making, 703 01:18:51,930 --> 01:18:56,190 which is the existence of these weapons creates a mindset. They have to be useful. 704 01:18:56,190 --> 01:19:06,960 You know, we have to and and the dialogue has one assessment of a clear and present danger and that it surprisingly to me, 705 01:19:06,960 --> 01:19:19,220 says expressly and one sentence that the government assesses that there will be a successful CBRE terrorist event in the United Kingdom before 2030. 706 01:19:19,220 --> 01:19:30,380 So, you know, we expect that for some of these materials, you know, the use of Western weaponry in two cases of completely banned in any other case, 707 01:19:30,380 --> 01:19:37,520 you know, is a consequence of nuclear and nuclear itself will get into the hands of a terrorist can be used now. 708 01:19:37,520 --> 01:19:45,440 The problem there is terrorism, not these weapons systems. And there's no amount of deterrence is going to stop that from happening. 709 01:19:45,440 --> 01:19:54,320 You know, so it seems to me to be an example of, you know, a very rational, I think, analysis of what the real problems are they need for some reason, 710 01:19:54,320 --> 01:19:58,910 we meet this jump into the space of nuclear deterrence for an answer to it because 711 01:19:58,910 --> 01:20:04,670 we don't have capabilities that we can see what would stop it from happening. 712 01:20:04,670 --> 01:20:12,680 So I mean, I know the broader the broader cultural context, but just bring it to a, you know, I mean, 713 01:20:12,680 --> 01:20:16,850 I agree that we should we should look at these things together because they are all interrelated. 714 01:20:16,850 --> 01:20:20,420 But Nick made a very strong argument for a justice argument about this. 715 01:20:20,420 --> 01:20:24,680 There is a justice argument that we need to get up and running and looking at the 716 01:20:24,680 --> 01:20:29,390 other questions of the really interesting question of the development deployment. 717 01:20:29,390 --> 01:20:36,860 Seventy six one is a warhead. I'm personally not convinced that that will ever be built because I'm not sure the Americans 718 01:20:36,860 --> 01:20:41,510 will do the necessary that we need for it to be built because we can't we can't develop. 719 01:20:41,510 --> 01:20:45,710 A German withdrawal is is asked from nuclear sharing. 720 01:20:45,710 --> 01:20:50,900 I mean, the Germans have been in this situation before and not been able to see this through. 721 01:20:50,900 --> 01:20:56,120 But you can still be a neutral and not be in the nuclear sharing position of and, you know, 722 01:20:56,120 --> 01:21:01,280 the country I live in Scotland and independence wants to be, you know, a non-nuclear member of NATO. 723 01:21:01,280 --> 01:21:06,630 If that is possible, I don't think it necessarily is. But but but it wants to be. 724 01:21:06,630 --> 01:21:14,720 And I mean, somebody asked the question of Kazakhstan denuclearising, I think we should look at what kind of extent it has done. 725 01:21:14,720 --> 01:21:21,830 And denuclearising Kazakhstan was to a large degree denuclearised because these weapons really belong to Russia, 726 01:21:21,830 --> 01:21:26,630 and they wanted them back and the Americans wanted to get them back there because 727 01:21:26,630 --> 01:21:30,770 Kazakhstan couldn't look after them because Eckstine is is developed this into, 728 01:21:30,770 --> 01:21:33,950 I think, an admirable position in the world. 729 01:21:33,950 --> 01:21:40,430 But that's because of the inexperience of semi-private times and the damage that testing these weapons is done to the people. 730 01:21:40,430 --> 01:21:46,370 So are know there are very strong with people that are very strong advocates for some of the 731 01:21:46,370 --> 01:21:52,340 things that we are expressing concerns about because they have suffered from them to some degree. 732 01:21:52,340 --> 01:21:56,730 Thank you very much indeed and and thank you to Nick as well. 733 01:21:56,730 --> 01:22:05,960 You've really done a tremendous job in starting off the day newly expects that we are going to solve this problem in today's conference, 734 01:22:05,960 --> 01:22:14,090 much less in the introductory panel. But I think we have succeeded in flagging up some of the important questions, 735 01:22:14,090 --> 01:22:18,740 and I'm extremely grateful to both of you for all the work of preparation and 736 01:22:18,740 --> 01:22:25,520 presentation and indeed to those who have contributed in the shop and in the Q&A. 737 01:22:25,520 --> 01:22:28,730 And hopefully we've been able to pick up some of those things. 738 01:22:28,730 --> 01:22:36,930 And you saw both Nick and Antares are happy to continue the conversation by email subsequently to today. 739 01:22:36,930 --> 01:22:40,361 Thank you very much indeed. Let me take you back to this.