The Report of the Tokyo Forum for Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament

PART FOUR:
ACHIEVING NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT

1. The use of nuclear weapons has disastrous and long-lasting consequences. No other cities must be put through the agony of recovery from their devastating effects endured by Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The abolition of these weapons of mass destruction is a long-cherished goal of the international community. Since the release of the Canberra Commission report in 1996, prospects for abolition have been weakened by many developments. The international community has reached a crossroads at which it must choose between the assured dangers of proliferation and challenges of disarmament. There can be no standing still.
2. Progress toward nuclear disarmament is inextricably tied to success in non-proliferation efforts. Without movement toward nuclear disarmament, the norm of non-proliferation is weakened. Without success in non-proliferation, the goal of zero nuclear weapons is unlikely to be achieved. The central compact in the NPT between nuclear-weapon states and non-nuclear-weapon states must be strengthened. The alternative is further proliferation and the continued revaluation of nuclear weapons in the 21st century.
3. The nuclear-weapon states have a solemn treaty obligation to succeed in progressively reducing and eliminating their nuclear arsenals. At the same time the non-nuclear-weapon states must also become stronger stakeholders in the NPT. They can demonstrate their strengthened commitment to the Treaty by taking steps to accelerate the entry into force of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, by moving promptly to conclude the Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty, and by implementing enhanced IAEA safeguards. In this way, the Tokyo Forum calls on all States Parties to rededicate themselves to the NPT's fundamental bargain.
4. A core question in the nuclear disarmament debate is whether nuclear deterrence or the abolition of nuclear weapons offers more national, regional, and global security. States possessing nuclear weapons continue to claim that they enhance their national security. But their actions may also have led rivals to acquire weapons of mass destruction, leading to diminished security for both these states and their non-nuclear neighbours. National, regional and global security have not been enhanced by the possession of nuclear weapons.
5. Some advocates of retaining nuclear weapons claim that these weapons enhance security by deterring nuclear attack, the use of chemical and biological weapons, and large-scale conventional aggression. Until they are abolished, the Tokyo Forum believes that the only function of nuclear weapons is to deter the use of other nuclear weapons. This core function is provisional, however, and must be accompanied by efforts to "pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament" as unanimously affirmed by the International Court of Justice.

Revitalising US-Russian Nuclear Arms Reductions

6. The Tokyo Forum notes with dismay that since 1993, there have been no formal US-Russian nuclear arms reduction negotiations, and that less formal discussions on these matters have been limited and episodic. It calls on the United States and Russia to initiate a new round of regular, comprehensive talks on international security, arms control, and disarmament. These discussions should include strategic and all other types of nuclear arms, missile defences, and other steps that should be taken to reduce nuclear dangers still not in force.
7. Formal US-Russian negotiations on a follow-on START III agreement have yet to begin, although the outlines of an ambitious set of negotiating objectives has been sketched, treaty ratification and implementation has become too weighed down by conditions, complications, and political partisanship. Even if the Duma consents to ratify START II, Russian implementation might be conditional on the US Senate's reaffirmation of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, which is by no means assured.
8. The more time that passes without ratification of START II, the less relevant this treaty becomes. Over the next 10 to 15 years, deployed warheads on Russian strategic nuclear forces are widely estimated to fall, not just below START II levels but perhaps to half of projected START III levels. Russian nuclear forces produced in large numbers in the 1980s face block obsolescence, and Russia does not have the funds to keep this large force in the field. Waiting for ratification and entry-into-force of treaties requiring reductions well short of those caused by aging, is an inappropriate response to increased nuclear dangers.
9. The United States and Russia might now usefully consider combining START II and START III, and making START III's reductions more ambitious. While awaiting formal ratification of these treaties, the Tokyo Forum urges the leaders of the United States and Russia to begin immediate reductions by dismantling deployed nuclear forces through parallel steps. It proposes that both countries pledge to use this process to reduce down to 1,000 deployed warheads on strategic nuclear delivery vehicles. The formal treaty process can reaffirm such pledges. Treaties that retard much-needed progress in reducing nuclear dangers are part of the problem, not part of the solution. The procedure the Forum proposes would remove existing treaty ratification barriers to deeper cuts.

Ending Hair-trigger Alert

10. Much of the doctrinal support for nuclear weapons is outdated and needlessly worsens nuclear dangers. Despite the end of the Cold War, it is striking that the targeting doctrines and alert status of US and Russian nuclear forces have changed so little. Both countries keep hundreds if not thousands of nuclear weapons on high states of launch readiness, and maintain massive nuclear attack options against a wide range of targets. These targeting requirements and this alert status defy satisfactory explanation, even under the doctrines of nuclear deterrence and extended deterrence, and are of great concern to the international community.
11. The need for a review of alert status is especially pressing, not only because of the sheer number of weapons involved, but also because of the likelihood that, due to domestic difficulties, command and control procedures in Russia will come under even greater strains in the coming years. Given the interconnectedness of US and Russian alert levels, cooperative approaches to adopting safer nuclear postures are needed. The Tokyo Forum calls on the United States to renew its offer to help Russia with early warning systems, and calls on Russia to accept this assistance. It also calls on both countries to work closely together to reduce dramatically the alert levels of their nuclear forces.
12. Zero nuclear weapons at immediate readiness for use is an essential step towards the goal of their complete elimination. Some progress to this end has been made in the past decade. The United States has taken all bombers off alert, and the United Kingdom and France each maintain only one ballistic missile-carrying submarine at sea, at launch readiness measured in days. China is believed to maintain its nuclear forces at a somewhat lower level. But much more can be done.
13. The United States and Russia have signed START II which would eliminate land-based missiles with multiple warheads. The Tokyo Forum calls on the leaders of both countries to consider and implement ways to stand down these forces as soon as possible while awaiting this Treaty's entry into force. As such a stand-down based on START II would fall disproportionately on Russia, the Tokyo Forum calls on the two countries to complement it by reducing alert levels for sea-based forces, a measure that would fall disproportionately on the United States. Verification arrangements for these stand-downs should be discussed and implemented.
14. To eliminate the terrifying consequences of accidental nuclear launches caused by Year 2000 (Y2K) computer problems, the Forum calls urgently for the removal of all nuclear weapons from alert for the period in which there are any potential risks from this source to the reliability of command, control and warning systems.

No First Use

15. Pledges of No First Use of nuclear weapons can be useful if they reduce the salience of such weapons, and do not lower the threshold for the use of other weapons of mass destruction. Negotiating such pledges is complicated by the alliance relationships of the United States and by Russia's military difficulties, especially as long as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and Russia keep First Use options in their military doctrines. Moreover, in the past some pledges of No First Use were not credible. Without changes in doctrine, reinforced by greater transparency and verifiability to affirm reduced launch readiness, pledges alone will continue to lack credibility. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization has just put in place a mechanism to review its First Use options, and in-depth discussion and further efforts will be needed to bring to fruition an effective NATO No First Use commitment. The Tokyo Forum commends such efforts.

Other Nuclear Weapons

16. The United Kingdom and France do not maintain stockpiles of non-deployed nuclear weapons, and information on Chinese stockpiles of non-deployed nuclear weapons is not available. They exist in the United States and Russia, however, in large numbers. Washington explains this vast, parallel arsenal as a "hedge" against a resurgent and adversarial Russia; Moscow explains its enormous holdings of tactical nuclear weapons as an insurance policy for conventional force weaknesses and against a resurgent NATO. This maintenance of huge arsenals complementing deployed forces is a relic of the Cold War. The resulting numbers of nuclear weapons defy coherent, rational explanation. Even if US-Russian relations were to plummet to the depths of a new Cold War, how could the two countries expect to use these many thousands of warheads? The Tokyo Forum calls on the United States and Russia to begin discussions as soon as possible to progressively reduce and eliminate in verifiable ways their mutual "hedge" arsenals of non-deployed weapons.
17. The long-neglected issue of tactical nuclear weapons has begun to receive more attention. At the May 1999 NPT PrepCom, a number of states spoke out about the compelling need to address tactical nuclear weapons disarmament. This move rightly suggests that tactical nuclear weapons are a matter of increased concern. They have been revalued in Russian military doctrine, as reflected in a number of recent activities, including the decisions taken at the Russian Security Council meeting of April 29 1999 and the Russian military exercise known as West 99. China's declaration in July 1999 on its acquisition of a neutron bomb capability is also noted. The unilateral and parallel reductions announced by Russia and the United States in October 1991 and confirmed in January 1992 should be implemented in a transparent and irreversible manner. Further information on Chinese tactical nuclear weapons would be welcomed. More generally, verifiable reductions and elimination should now be extended to tactical nuclear weapons as soon as possible.
18. The terrorism and proliferation risks associated with tactical nuclear weapons are high. They are relatively vulnerable to theft and older models have less stringent precautions against unauthorised use. More than half the current global nuclear arms stockpile may consist of tactical nuclear weapons. The process of reducing these stockpiles has begun with the substantial, but unverified, reductions of US and Russian tactical weapons. France has also reduced its holdings of tactical nuclear weapons, and the United Kingdom has decided to eliminate them. The Tokyo Forum believes that urgent steps should be taken to ensure that the reduction and abolition of tactical nuclear weapons can and should proceed in parallel with that of strategic weapons.

Multilateralising Nuclear Disarmament

19. Phased, irreversible reductions in US and Russian strategic nuclear forces to 1,000 deployed warheads will take a decade, perhaps longer. The elimination of non-deployed nuclear arsenals will lengthen this process. While the United States and Russia should accelerate their bilateral reductions, what responsibilities should fall to other states? The Tokyo Forum calls on the NNWS parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons to continue to respect their obligations not to acquire nuclear weapons and to take initiatives to shore up the non-proliferation regime. The three other nuclear-weapon states recognised by the NPT also have important obligations to "pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament". As a first step, the Tokyo Forum calls on China, France and the United Kingdom not to increase their nuclear arsenals while the United States and Russia are reducing theirs. Israel, India and Pakistan are not recognised as nuclear-weapon states under the NPT, but they, too, have important obligations to the international community not to make the phased reduction and elimination of nuclear weapons even harder by building up their nuclear capabilities.
20. The United Kingdom and France have moved to cut the numbers and reduce the alert status of their nuclear forces. Transparency measures by both counties have provided reassurance that announced reductions to their deployed forces have taken place. According to published sources, these two states have the lowest number of nuclear weapons of the nuclear-weapon states. China is the least transparent of the nuclear-weapon states, and most information on the status of its nuclear forces comes from Western sources. The Tokyo Forum calls on China, as well as the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom and France, to make transparent their nuclear weapon policies and doctrines and the size of their arsenals.
21. Many important disarmament studies in recent years have advocated a phased reduction of nuclear arsenals that moves from a bilateral to a multilateral process at a point when 1,000 deployed warheads each remain in the US and Russian arsenals. Just as it will take a great deal of work and resources to build up to the nuclear arsenals, so it will take similar efforts, and in particular a change in approach to the role of nuclear weapons, to achieve their final elimination. A high level of political cooperation among the five recognised nuclear-weapon states will clearly be essential for deep nuclear arms reductions of all kinds. One way to proceed could be for the five to negotiate a treaty based on the principle of simultaneously halving, or otherwise proportionately reducing, their numbers of weapons in each step. This principle would be fair in that the process would not fundamentally alter the relative capability of each party, while all five would retain a residual arsenal until the last simultaneous step to zero. Another way would be to agree on a minimum number of warheads below which a nuclear force would be regarded as technically non-viable, and reduce down to this level before all states moved to zero. A process of verifiable, phased reductions by all nuclear-armed states to one step short of zero is a goal on which advocates of abolition and deterrence might find common ground and from which all states would reap shared security gains.

Revitalising Disarmament Efforts

22. The Tokyo Forum calls on all states that have not yet done so to sign and ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty as a matter of urgency. States whose ratifications are needed for its entry into force, such as the United States, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea, have a special obligation to do so quickly. The moratorium on nuclear testing cannot be presumed to hold until entry into force is secured. New testing by one state could lead to cascading tests by other states, greatly increasing nuclear dangers. All states must respect a moratorium on nuclear testing. Pending entry into force of the treaty, the Tokyo Forum calls on all states to fully fund and implement its monitoring arrangements.
23. The Tokyo Forum notes concerns over whether subcritical experiments undermine the objectives and purposes of the CTBT. Means should be sought to alleviate these concerns. One possible interim measure might be the introduction of practical monitoring and transparency mechanisms to confirm whether subcritical experiments are consistent with the treaty's objectives and purposes. This might be achieved through mutual monitoring among states conducting such tests.
24. A Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty has been on the nuclear negotiating agenda since the 1950s. Some have questioned the utility of this treaty, believing it to be insufficient for disarmament and immaterial for non-proliferation. The Tokyo Forum does not share this scepticism. Progress in nuclear negotiations has always been achieved in a step-by-step process, and the FMCT is an essential step in dealing with the dangers posed by fissile materials, as well as one of the basic building blocks for a fissile-material led disarmament process. Other, follow-up steps will also be needed to facilitate the progressive reduction and elimination of fissile material for weapons purposes. Therefore, the Tokyo Forum strongly urges the prompt conclusion of the Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty, as mandated by the 1995 NPT Review and Extension Conference.
25. There could also be roles for the international community in the development of transparency measures for nuclear arsenals and fissile material removed from warheads. One measure that has been proposed in this context is a verifiable nuclear arms register. An experts group might be mandated to decide what should be contained in the register, such as the number and types of nuclear weapons, whether on delivery vehicles or in inventories. Tactical nuclear weapons and warheads held in reserve might also be included. The register would establish a baseline against which further reductions could be counted. As with the UN Conventional Arms Register, the contributing states might usefully declare annual changes. The Tokyo Forum calls on the UN General Assembly to empower the Secretary-General to undertake a feasibility study of such a measure.
26. The Tokyo Forum also believes it is essential to develop a verifiable register of all nuclear material produced for both civil and military purposes. We urge that all weapons grade plutonium and uranium from dismantled nuclear warheads be placed under IAEA safeguards. Effective long-term monitoring of fissile materials is feasible only if states possessing nuclear weapon capabilities are prepared to declare their stocks. Effective controls also require that the International Atomic Energy Agency be empowered to carry out thorough inspections to detect systematic and clandestine violations.
27. With the deterioration of US-Russia and US-China relations, new strains in the NPT, and the ineffectiveness of the Conference on Disarmament since the conclusion of the CTBT, it is essential for all states to work harder to revitalise non-proliferation and disarmament efforts. The Tokyo Forum notes with appreciation recent efforts by the New Agenda Coalition to provide new impetus to multilateral fora that are mired in competing theologies of nuclear deterrence and time-bound frameworks for nuclear disarmament. The Tokyo Forum also notes with appreciation the efforts of non-governmental organisations to promote non-proliferation and disarmament. Creative coalitions between "middle powers" and non-governmental organisations might help provide leadership that is currently lacking elsewhere.
28. Non-proliferation and disarmament efforts could benefit greatly from revitalised multilateral bodies, notably the Conference on Disarmament (CD). The Conference on Disarmament should suspend its operations unless it can revise its procedures, update its work program, and carry out purposeful work. It adheres to an agenda that has long been outdated but cannot be changed for lack of a consensus to do so. The consensus rule, even on minor procedural matters, is now causing perpetual deadlock. Consensus among CD members should not be necessary to begin or, indeed, conclude a multilateral convention. If a country does not like a treaty, it does not have to sign it. The structure of the CD's groupings of states, based on outdated Cold War alignments, also needs to be changed to better reflect the contemporary world.
29. The Tokyo Forum notes the importance some have placed on the immediate negotiation of a convention pledging the elimination of nuclear weapons. The utility of such a convention would depend whether the pledges it contained to carry out nuclear disarmament would accelerate movement in this direction. The NPT contains a pledge of nuclear disarmament, but progress to fulfil it has been uneven and, in recent years, unsatisfactory. At a time of increasing nuclear dangers, the Tokyo Forum believes that actions are far more important than words and pledges. Thus the Forum would place primary emphasis at this time on concrete steps to progressively reduce and eliminate nuclear dangers.

Missile Defences

30. Prospective developments of missile defences have important implications for nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament. The prospect of missile defences in the United States is complicating a number of international relationships and arms control efforts. China and Russia have reacted negatively to prospective missile defences. The United Kingdom and France view with concern defences that devalue their nuclear deterrent forces. Indeed, while proliferation may increase the perceived need for missile defences, and the absence of defences may also lend impetus to proliferation, missile defences could further increase the risk of proliferation.
31. The Tokyo Forum believes that any future missile defences should be sensitive to these complications. At the same time, no country with the capacity to use weapons of mass destruction can be given a veto over another state's inherent right of self-defence. Moreover, states that have contributed to missile proliferation have diminished standing to argue against missile defences. There may be times when missile defences can play useful roles in countering coercion and strengthening alliance cohesion. At the same time, the development and possible deployment of missile defences are best pursued in concert with strategies to progressively reduce the salience of nuclear weapons.
32. The Tokyo Forum is fully aware that unilateral measures cannot reduce the full range of nuclear dangers. A unilateral approach to missile defences in the United States could convey a "Fortress America" approach, weakening alliance ties. Missile defences should not be seen as an alternative to the norm of nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament. Therefore, cooperative threat reduction efforts should always be pursued vigorously. Successful cooperative threat reduction efforts can progressively reduce the impetus to develop and deploy offensive missiles and missile defences of all kinds. Tighter export controls and restraint in missile flight testing and missile deployments could diminish the perceived need for national missile defences.
33. The dismantling of the North Korean missile programs and cessation of its missile exports would have salutary effects. Furthermore, insofar as prospective missile defences are intended to address accidental or unauthorised launches, reduced alert rates and increased assurance over the command and control of Russian nuclear forces are not only important in their own right, but would also decrease the perceived need for national missile defences in the United States.
34. If cooperative threat reduction efforts do not succeed, and if weapons of mass destruction carried by ballistic missiles continue to threaten states, missile defences can remain an option. The deployment of missile defences, if it occurs in these circumstances, should proceed in a highly cautious fashion, along with other initiatives to reduce nuclear dangers. Nations would be wise to leave open the possibility that defensive deployments could be scaled back, or even eliminated, if the sources of concern were reduced or removed.

Verification

35. An effective nuclear arms reduction process will require cradle-to-grave monitoring and transparency for all nuclear weapons. While the United States and Russia have made significant progress in reducing nuclear arsenals, they have hardly started down the necessary path of transparency needed for irreversible reductions. The Tokyo Forum calls on all states possessing nuclear weapon capabilities to be more open to monitoring arrangements, transparency and confidence-building measures. States will not agree to deep reductions in their nuclear forces if they deem their security at risk from other states' undetected violations of nuclear arms constraints. This would be even more true in the final phase of an arrangement for the elimination of nuclear weapons.
36. The highly secret nature of many aspects of nuclear weapons programs makes it very difficult to verify declarations of the size and destruction of arsenals. An effective verification system must take into account this secrecy as well as the uncertainties about total amounts of nuclear materials produced for weapons purposes. Taken together, security concerns, secrecy, and uncertainties mean that the precision of verification of nuclear reductions and disarmament is a matter of the utmost seriousness.
37. A verification system with a single or narrow focus is not enough. A comprehensive verification system is required to provide early warning of breakouts or to detect cheating. The most effective verification system would be one that: combined a variety of techniques; coordinated in a synergistic way the contributions of international institutions, national technical means, and transparency and confidence-building measures; and extended to warheads, delivery systems and fissile materials.
38. While the development of detection and surveillance techniques is improving monitoring systems, political factors threaten to weaken stringent verification, as is now evident in relation to the United Nations Special Commission on Iraq or the Organization of the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). Some implementation decisions by the United States and other OPCW states parties have weakened the implementation provisions of the Chemical Weapons Convention, and this is a matter of concern for future global disarmament agreements. Strengthened verification of the Chemical Weapons Convention, and of the Biological Weapons Convention, is essential for global efforts to eliminate all weapons of mass destruction. To detect cheating, and so permit the progressive reduction and elimination of nuclear dangers, monitoring assets must be harnessed in tandem with political will. Both must be applied in a coherent way, involving coordination between governments and international institutions.
39. Bilateral nuclear arms reduction or limitation treaties between the United States and Russia, and their verification, hold valuable lessons for future verification of nuclear disarmament. They have shown that credible verification arrangements covering large numbers of deployed nuclear weapons are feasible, but require considerable political and technical efforts and resources. These arrangements, however, have focused on delivery systems rather than nuclear warheads.
40. The verification and monitoring arrangements for deployed nuclear weapons must be extended to controls on nuclear warheads. Nuclear weapons are discrete items of the highest military and political sensitivity, and it would seem natural to expect governments to keep a close account of their warhead inventories. There should thus be no technical obstacles to governments declaring the location and status of all their nuclear warheads. Nor should there be any insurmountable technical barrier to verifying such declarations. The only fundamental problems are political.
41. Provision for inspections is vital to the verification of any arms control or disarmament agreement. Compliance with a disarmament treaty may stem from the political will that motivated its signing. But trust alone is not enough. Any major disarmament agreement requires solid and credible verification arrangements. The US-Russian nuclear weapons treaties have been verified in a system of bilateral arrangements making heavy use of on-site inspections. Inspection provisions are crucial to the credibility of the CWC, and are of central concern in negotiations to strengthen the BWC with a verification protocol. Governments must learn to tolerate inspections, including surprise or short-notice inspections, for multilateral disarmament to have a future.
42. The continued improvement of detection and surveillance techniques make it possible to raise the quality and capabilities of verification and monitoring systems to levels unimaginable in the past. With modern technology, such possible signs of a weapons program as suspicious construction projects, bank transactions, import and export patterns, transport and production are more transparent than ever. Air, soil and water sampling has been refined and can yield important information. Satellite photography - government and commercial - is making it harder to hide nuclear weapons programs. Computer based data-handling can improve the analysis of declarations and other data obtained in the verification process. All these techniques should be employed to verify nuclear disarmament.
43. National technical means are indispensable supporting tools for verification of nuclear reductions and disarmament. The nature of national technical means is such, however, that their usefulness can be limited, especially in a multilateral context. To maximise the chances of detecting cheating, monitoring assets must be applied in a way that coordinates the efforts of governments and multilateral institutions. A synergistic approach is needed involving: the work of international institutions, such as the International Atomic Energy Agency and Comprehensive Test-Ban-Treaty Organization; national technical means; and transparency and confidence-building measures by states. The relevant international institutions should be shaped to increase the scope for a synergistic approach to verification.
44. If non-compliance with nuclear arms treaties is to be deterred, states must know not only that cheaters will be caught but that, when this happens, they will face serious consequences. The international community must be united and unequivocal in its intended response to would-be violators based on a broad consensus as to means and ends, including recourse to Chapter VII of the UN Charter. A strengthened and revitalized United Nations with a reformed and authoritative Security Council is essential to building and maintaining the support of the international community for the effective enforcement of compliance. The Tokyo Forum calls on all states seeking to promote nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament to actively support the development of such arrangements.

---

Back to Index