FFWD Weekly
Copyright © 2000. All Rights Reserved

Science Matters by David Suzuki The Cold War is over, but don't tell that to some of the American presidential candidates, or members of the U.S. Senate who are dedicated to "rebuilding" that country's defence – even if it means ignoring scientists and once again raising the spectre of nuclear conflict. Politicians have a responsibility to rely on the best scientific advice when making policy decisions about science-based issues. Unfortunately, paranoia, dogma and nationalism often overrule common sense. Two such cases involving nuclear weapons typify this problem. Last fall, the U.S. Senate refused to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), a promise by 150 nations to end forever all nuclear explosions. The Senate decided a test ban would be unenforceable because some countries might carry out nuclear tests in secret, and because confidence in the U.S. nuclear arsenal could diminish if the U.S. didn't carry out underground nuclear explosions. Both arguments are nonsense. First, provisions of the CTBT included creating a comprehensive monitoring system (much of which already exists) that would have been able to detect even small nuclear explosions anywhere on the planet. Physicists and seismologists the world over agreed that the system would work. A group of 32 Nobel laureates even petitioned the Senate to ratify the treaty, as did the prestigious American Geophysical Union and the Seismological Society of America. Second, from a purely technical perspective, there are more efficient and safer ways to test nuclear weapons than blowing them up. The vast majority of nuclear detonations were done during the weapons' development stages, not in subsequent years to make sure they will still explode. The U.S. still has thousands of warheads. In order to obtain a statistically relevant "confidence" figure, the U.S. would need to detonate a great number of these weapons – at tremendous financial expense and environmental damage. Further, as Kurt Gottfried of the Laboratory of Nuclear Studies notes in the January 13 issue of Nature, only one per cent of all potential defects discovered in warheads examined between 1958 and 1992 were found during underground explosions. The vast majority were discovered during standard lab tests. The American rejection of the test ban means that it is now less likely that two of the most volatile nuclear nations, Pakistan and India, will sign on. In fact, they may now continue to develop and test nuclear weapons, which could prompt other countries in the region, such as China, to do the same. The test ban rejection isn't the only case of American politicians ignoring good science in the name of "national security." Plans to develop a missile defence system are still in the works (they have been since 1968), and are supported by some current U.S. presidential candidates, in spite of the problems that have plagued such systems for three decades. Creating a way to protect the U.S. against ballistic missiles from so-called "rogue" nations may seem like a good idea at first, but a reliable defence has proven elusive. Just three of 17 tests since 1984 have actually been successful, and experts such as George Lewis of MIT say that missile defence systems will probably never work because it's too easy to develop countermeasures against them. In fact, rather than increasing safety and world security, the very existence of a missile defence system could provoke other nations into stepping up their arms development. It's a dangerous situation, especially in light of the U.S. failure to support the nuclear test ban. So while the Cold War is over, the threat posed by nuclear weapons remains, for even a minor nuclear conflict would be absolutely devastating. Actions that serve to legitimize nuclear weapons and their testing make little sense except to bolster a nation's military ego, and engage in senseless and dangerous sabre-rattling. To discuss this topic with others, visit the discussion forum at www.davidsuzuki.org. (Science Matters is a regular feature by writer, geneticist and television host David Suzuki.)

| Back To This Issue Table of Contents | Back To Main Index |