Eighteen
Nation Committee
on Disarmament 1965
ÍNDICE
1. WELCOME TO MUNUR 2016
2. INTRODUCING THE COMMITTEE:
3. PROCEDURES OF THE COMMITTEE:
4. HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE
5. NUCLEAR HISTORY4
Before World War II
During World War 2
Post-WWII and the Cuban Missile Crisis5
6. POLITICAL CONTEXT AND INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY APPROACH.
The UN: Creation of the International Atomic Energy Agency
Atoms for Peace
7. PRE-TREATY
8. POSITION PAPERS
9. ENDING NOTE
10. BIBLIOGRAPHY
11. GLOSSARY
12. SUGGESTED SOURCES
Welcome To Munur 2016
Honourable delegates,
On behalf of all of the MUNUR 2016 staff, we would like to
extend to you the warmest of welcomes to the Historical
Eighteen Nation Committee on Disarmament, set in 1965. The
dais is composed of three people from across the world who
will gather in Bogotá, Colombia, for the exclusive purpose of
moderating this committee. In no particular order, they are:
Gonzalo Loza Rojas, from Lima, Peru. He is studying International Business Administration
as he looks forward to a future career in Economic Diplomacy. His Model United Nations
experience started in 2014 when he joined Peruvian Universities, a delegation with whom
he has participated in WorldMUN 2015 and HNMUN 2016. Nevertheless, his interest to
understand the complexity of the world and its different cultures started years before.
With the goal to learn from this diversity, he he has travelled to China, Turkey and Egypt,
among many countries. Despite the proximity between Peru and Colombia, this will
be his first time in the country. Therefore, MUNUR will not only be an opportunity to
discover the region, but most of all, to enjoy a remarkable debate full of creative ideas
and noteworthy negotiations.
Vanessa Farías, from Caracas, Venezuela. She is studying Geophysical Engineering at
Universidad Simón Bolívar. She became interested in MUN after 3 years of numerous
extracurricular activities, such as the Ultimate Frisbee team and Geophysics Students
Council. Since 2014, MUN has been a big part of her life, participating in the delegation
attending WorldMUN 2015 and 2016 in Seoul and Rome respectively. She is currently a
member of the delegation attending WorldMUN 2017, held in Montreal, serving as Head
Delegate. Living in the neighbouring nation, she has never had the opportunity to go to
Colombia; even if its culture and customs have been part of her life for many years.
German Andres Guberman, from Toronto, Canada. He is studying International
Development, Public Policy and Public Law and will focus his career in advising, litigating
and drafting international trade and investment law. In terms of Model United Nations,
he is the president of one of the three University of Toronto Model United Nations teams,
has attended two WorldMUNs and a myriad of conferences hosted throughout North
America. As an Argentinian who immigrated to Canada, his ties with the region are
strong, and he looks forward to visiting Colombia, a country he is certain will be a subject
matter of his legal practice. Most of all, however, he is extremely excited to get to meet
its youth and that of the region and host a vigorous and high-level debate.
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Introducing The Committee:
The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) is a landmark
international treaty designed to “prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and
weapons technology, to foster the peaceful uses of nuclear energy, and to further
the goal of disarmament” (IAEA). Largely grounded on the military doctrine of
mutually assured destruction, the notion that the use of nuclear weapons by two
or more parties to a conflict would lead to the complete annihilation of every
party involved in the conflict, the NPT has been widely considered since its entry
into force as the cornerstone of the non-proliferation regime. It has influenced
dialogue and an approach of confidence toward emerging issues regarding the
discovery of nuclear energy and military nuclearization and remains one of the
most successful fields of international law and international relations.
The treaty mandated that the five Nuclear Weapon States (NWS) “commit
to pursue general and complete disarmament and that Non-Nuclear Weapon
States (NNWS) forgo developing or acquiring nuclear weapons” (Arms Control
Association). It has the widest adherence of any arms control agreement (the
only states that are not parties to the treaty being Israel, South Sudan, India
and Pakistan), although the fact that its adherence is not a totality is cause for
concern. Despite its acknowledged success, certain countries have still sought
nuclear weapons as a defensive strategy, given that NWS have not engaged in
warfare or have de-escalated conflicts due in part to the mutual recognition of
nuclear capacity.
Its innovative international review mechanism, one of the explicit goals of the
treaty, is one of the most laudable forms of international cooperation. It enforces
the IAEA to conduct reviews on nuclear development programs, in order to ensure
that they are not intended for military purposes. It also mandates, although
often forgotten, the use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, namely for the
development of civilian nuclear energy, provided it is demonstrated that nuclear
energy is not intended for militarization. Promoting international cooperation in
this issue and sharing the potentials of nuclear energy with those most in need is
a core mandate of the NPT.
As delegates, you will recreate the committee that produced this historic
international agreement, observing critically the shortcomings that might have
been averted were the debate to be held today
Procedures Of The Committee:
MUNUR16, delegates will re-enact the 1965 Non-Proliferation Treaty
negotiations in a particular format, which is likely to be novel to most members
of the committee. Following a tradition that began in MUNUR15 which received
very positive feedback from delegates and faculty alike, the procedure of the NPT
Committee will be different, albeit simple, efficient and fair. In order to reach an
agreement and to produce a final Treaty, the procedure has been set as follows.
Regional Group Meetings
First, every morning at the very beginning of the day’s first session, delegates
will gather with the fellow members of their UN regional groups. These groups
are the African, the Asia-Pacific, the Eastern Europe, the Latin American and
Caribbean, and the Western European and Others groups. During these Regional
Group Meetings, delegations will have the opportunity to exchange and clarify
their common positions. One delegate will then be recognized to speak for each
regional group and present the common points of their group to the floor.
Time:
For the purpose of the topic and the world’s context during the time of the
elaboration of the treaty, delegates will face a fast-paced timeline: moving from
1965 to 1968 along the days of the conference. The date will be provided by the
chair and be accessible to delegates at all time
Motions:
Delegates will then be permitted to move for a motion to establish the topic
of the session.
Once the topic has been established, the possible motions will be the
following:
1. Motion to establish moderated caucus
2. Motion to establish an un-moderated caucus
3. Motion to establish an un-moderated caucus by Regional Groups
4. Motion to close the topic of the Session.
Document Elaboration and Voting Procedure
As the purpose of the committee is to present a treaty to solve the current
nuclear crisis and to be signed and ratified by all Member States, the document
elaboration’s procedure will be different. As you might guess, there will be no
Working Papers and/or Draft Resolution. Therefore to elaborate the treaty
delegates will follow these steps:
•By the end of the first day, delegates will present a Non-Paper, which will
be a general agreement based on the PRE-TREATY document (presented below)
where the division of the chapters and the initial general ideas will be written.
The documents presented will pass through a voting procedure to decide which
one of them will structure the final document. For this, we would recommend
delegates see other treaties ratified by the international community in order gain
familiarity with the format.
•From the second day forward motions to introduce amendments will be
accepted in order to elaborate the Final Document. Rules for amendments will
be the same as usual; therefore, you will be able to modify, add or eliminate
any part of the Non-Paper. The purpose of this procedure will be to work on the
specific aspects of the whole document. Nonetheless, always keep the treaty as
a whole to avoid inconsistencies.
On the very last moments of the simulation, after debate has been closed,
the Directors will read the Final Document to the committee. As the voting
procedure is launched, the Directors will look favourably to a consensus however, a minimum of two thirds majority is required for the Document to pass.
If the majority is not reached, the Committee will automatically enter in an unmoderated caucus with the objective of convening two thirds of the votes.
History Of The Committee
The history of the Eighteen-Nation Committee on Disarmament (ENCD)
can be traced back to the 1959 Big Four meeting in Berlin. At the meeting, the
United States, the United Kingdom, France and the Soviet Union decided to
establish a new international negotiation forum. This first forum was born under
the name of Ten-Nation Committee on Disarmament (TNCD) which held its first
meeting in Geneva on March 15, 1960.
A year later, the General Assembly accepted the decision to amplify the
TNCD and increase the number of nations that participated in the disarmament
talks, creating the ENCD through resolution 1722 on December 21, 1961. Even
though the original members of this UN body were only 18, the committee
maintained constant consultations with non-Member states as they attempted
to achieve full general disarmament (Singh & MacWhinney, 1989).
According to the Joint Statement of Agreed Principles for Disarmament
Negotiations, the committee had the mission to ensure: (i) that world disarmament
is achieved and that war is not an instrument to settle international disputes; (ii)
that all disarmament initiatives are accompanied with procedures to ensure safe
and peaceful settlement of disputes. In addition, this committee was a place
to negotiate: the disbanding of armed forces and military establishments, the
elimination of nuclear stockpiles, the eradication of means of delivery of weapons
of mass destruction and the reduction of military expenditures (USSR & USA,
1961).
Since its creation, this committee has continuously promoted peaceful
negotiations during armed conflicts. For instance, in 1962, during the aftermath
of the Cuban Missile Crisis, the ENDC presented a working paper titled “Measures
to Reduce the Risk of War through Accident, Miscalculation, or Failure of
Communication”. This agreement, commonly known as “The Hotline Agreement”
was ratified by the US and the Soviet Union in 1963 (Egilson, 2003).
During the session at hand the committee will face the question regarding
nuclear proliferation. Due to the relevance of this issue, the number of participants
has been increased to up to 60 countries. The purpose of this increase is to have
a more comprehensive approach when facing today’s nuclear deterrence.
Nuclear History
Before World War II
Prior to World War Two (WW2) the history and development of the atom and
nuclear energy is summarized in important and precise milestones, crafting the
path toward the first mushroom clouds. Ancient Greek philosophers, building on
Democritus’ theories, first developed the idea that matter was composed of tiny
particles, invisibles to the eyes. Those were named atomos, meaning indivisible
(U.S. Department of Energy, 2012). As history progressed, the development of
this idea became what the theory of atoms, passing through the minds of great
scientific minds, such as Dalton, Rutherford, Millikan, Heisenberg, etc. Another
important milestone was the discovery of Uranium in 1789 by Martin Klaproth,
a German chemist, who named the element after the planet Uranus (World
Nuclear Association, 2014).
Since late 19th century, this element was discovered and processed in many
nations worldwide. Starting in Cornwall, USA, the South Terras Mine near St.
Stephen opened for uranium production in 1873, and produced about 175 tons of
ore before 1900. In the 20th century, many other deposits were discovered in the
Belgian Congo, Canada, Portugal, Uzbekistan and Australia
On 1911 Ernest Rutherford and Frederick Soddy identified 2 types of radiations
which, through experimental evidence, showed that the atom consisted of a
dense and positively charged nucleus surrounded by electrons, which, when
broken down, could turn into different elements. (Agar, 2012). The expectations
of discovery of a tremendous energy source raised eyebrows among scientists
and laymen. However, as energetic sources were being pondered, so were military
uses. In 1924, Winston Churchill wrote an article questioning the destructive
possibilities that could come from what he called a “bomb no bigger than an
orange” (Kent Alkon, 2006)
During World War 2
Due to tense international relations during WWII, many nations invested
large amounts of capital in the development of modern weapons. It was in this
context that former president Roosevelt authorized a small study into uranium.
This allowed Enrico Fermi – an Italian physicist – to successfully create the first
man- made nuclear chain reaction. Building on this success, the Manhattan
project began in 1939. At its peak, it employed more than 130,000 people and
cost almost US$2 billion (equivalent to US$26 billion today) (US Department
of Energy, 2010). The purpose of the project was to even the technological
advantage between the nations involved in the conflict, as there were fears that
Nazi Germany would develop an atomic bomb first (United States Army Centre
of Military History, 1985). The first results were obtained when pursuing 2 types of
bombs simultaneously: one made with enriched uranium, and the other made
with plutonium (World Nuclear Association, 2014). The project continued covertly
inside American territory as they developed secret cities and reactors to test the
lethality of those weapons.
In 1945, at the trinity site in New Mexico, the plutonium implosion device
(similar to Fat Man) was successfully tested. This outcome gave the American
government a free pass to use the technology to end the World Conflict. The
Truman administration decided to deploy two nuclear weapons, called Little Boy
and Fat Man (a uranium and plutonium bomb, respectively) in Hiroshima and
Nagasaki, Japan on August 6th and 9th, 1945. Up to 250,000 people died due to
the impact of these two bombs, forcing japan to unconditionally surrender 6 days
later, on August 15th, 1945 (McCrary & Baumgartner, 2007).
The day following the attack, newspapers around the world spread the news
about the strength and devastation of this new technology. The New York Times
headline read: “First Atomic Bomb dropped in Japan: Missile is equal to 20,000
tons of TNT; Truman warns foe of ‘rain of ruin’” (Shallet, 1945). Nevertheless,
it took weeks and months before the international community discovered the
veritable scale of the damage and destruction in Hiroshima. Many nations had
strong responses, either supporting or condemning the US’s actions. For instance,
Australian former prisoner in Japan Hugh Clarke believed that if the bomb had
not been dropped, he would surely have been killed by the Japanese when the
Allies invaded the home islands (Campbell, 2011). Meanwhile, those actions found
little support among the people living in non-aligned Third World nations as they
witnessed the scale of US cruelty during wartime (Walters, 2015).
The nuclear attacks in Japan had reverberating impacts on military thinking
and culture, namely, due to the acknowledgement of the destructive potential of
nuclear weapons, the theory of mutually assured destruction.
Post-WWII and the Cuban Missile Crisis
After the end of the WWII, and the creation of the United Nations, the nuclear
arms race continued, even if countries had agreed on establishing a peaceful
environment in international politics. Just 6 months after the first meeting of the
United Nations General Assembly, Operation Crossroads – two US’ atomic tests
that explored the effects of airborne and underwater nuclear explosions – took
place (United States Atmospheric Nuclear Weapons Tests Nuclear Test Personnel
Review, 1946)
In 1949, The Soviet Union conducted its first nuclear test, labelled “Operation
First Lightning” – a 22 kilotons TNT bomb, similar to the US Fat Man (Bukharin,
Leonardovich Podvig, & Von Hippel, 2001). The result of the test was the design of a
more sophisticated bomb than the ones tested in previous years and the surprise
of Western Nations, as they had estimated the Soviet Union lacked productive
capacity until 1953 (Aldrich, 1998). After the success of the Soviet nuclear test and
in subsequent years, many nations began joining efforts toward building the path
to a nuclear détente. Prior to the meeting at hand (1965) other countries where
nuclear tests were reported to have taken place are, in chronological order: The
United Kingdom, France and China.
Nevertheless, NWS were just the tip of the iceberg, as the concept of Nuclear
Sharing emerged. Due to nuclear sharing, the nuclearization of an increasing
number of nations through the world accelerated at alarming rates. Initially, NATOmanaged nuclear bases, sponsored by the US government - were established in
Germany and Belgium. The deployment of missiles in Italy and Turkey, with the
capacity to strike the Soviet Union, later led to what is known as the “The Cuban
Missile Crisis”
Between October 16 and 28, 1962, the deployment of ballistic missiles in
Cuban territory by the Soviet Union led to a globally televised 13 day confrontation
that risked to transform the Cold War into a nuclear war. This period is the closest,
according to many standards, that humanity could have become extinct due to
a military conflict. It served as clear sign for the urgent need to establish a global
governance of nuclear energy. Indeed, the two parties “began to reconsider the
nuclear arms race and took the first steps in agreeing to a nuclear test ban treaty”,
making impactful strides toward international cooperation.
Political Context And The International
Community’s Approach.
The UN: Creation of the International Atomic Energy Agency
On December 8, 1953, United States President Dwight Eisenhower addressed
the United Nations General Assembly calling for the creation of an international
body to respond to “the great fears and great expectations resulting from the
discovery of nuclear energy” (IAEA 1). Those ideas were the first steps that helped
shape the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Statute.
In October, 1956, 81 state parties unanimously approved the statute. From
the beginning, it was given the mandate to work with its Member States and
multiple partners worldwide to promote safe, secure and peaceful nuclear
technologies (IAEA 1). Nonetheless, despite the quick recognition gained by the
organization, by 1958 the political context made it impossible to perform the
tasks foreseen in its statute and deter the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
Due to the Cuban Missile Crisis, the increased accessibility to nuclear
technology and the addition of two additional NWSs (France in 1960 and China
in 1964) the international approach changed drastically: there was now “growing
support for international, legally binding, commitments and comprehensive
safeguards to stop the further spread of nuclear weapons and to work towards
their eventual elimination” (IAEA 1). The importance of the IAEA is enshrined in the
NPT, as every signatory “agreed to submit to the safeguards against proliferation
established by the International Atomic Energy Agency” (US Gov).
The agency’s different safeguards have evolved since its creation. On one
hand, the NPT further increased their stringency, as they were the main foreseen
body of the treaty to ensure responsible and NPT-abiding uses of nuclear
technology. On the other hand it was altered in scope and rigour, as it had not
only the duty to promote but ensure safe uses of nuclear energy. Nevertheless,
the lack of strength of the agency did not allow to the international community
overcome situations where sovereign nations did not follow nuclear guidelines.
For this committee, the IAEA and the treaty will work in unison. However,
they need to function separately in order to reinforce each other’s achievements
on nuclear disarmament. In this committee, the IAEA will play an important albeit
not a central role, bearing in mind the responsibilities of the Eighteen Nation
Disarmament Committee: the drafting of a treaty to deter nuclear proliferation
and ensure peaceful uses of nuclear energy.
Atoms for Peace
On the same day he suggested the creation of the IAEA, President Dwight
D. Eisenhower delivered a speech titled “Atoms for Peace”, where he encouraged
countries to make efforts toward nuclear development. Later, the US launched
a program under the same name with the purpose of supplying equipment and
information to schools, hospitals and research institutions across the country and
the globe.
To this end, the first nuclear reactors research centres were created in Iran
and Israel by the American Machine and Foundry, a private corporation, making
the first step into “Nuclear Peaceful uses”. These two nuclear centres were
located in Tehran, Iran; and Soreq, Israel, although continuous negotiations had
been presented between the company and other countries to establish those
cooperation frameworks. Although major results have not been presented, the
energetic use of nuclear power have shown positive results.
Following this initiative, since the 1960s other nations followed this energy
development route. In 1960, the first boiling water reactor (BWR) was developed
by the Argonne National Laboratory; while, in Canada the first Natural Uranium
fuel-based reactor began operations in 1962.
Pre-Treaty
The Pre-treaty is another innovative aspect of the format of this committee.
Simply put, these are the aspects that the dais wishes to be discussed, addressed
by the committee and included in the final resolution paper. In decreasing order
of importance, these are:
•How can an agreement be reached: Nuclear proliferation brings each nation
one step closer to mutual destruction. While it is in the strategic interest of any
nation to possess nuclear weapon capabilities - it is indeed a safeguard against
breaches of sovereignty - it is also not in the global interest to further militarize,
especially with hazardous material which could cause global scale destruction.
Before any substantial matters can be addressed, how can a negotiation even
take place given the power struggle of two military forces and the search for
independence by third party countries?
•How to get non-nuclear powers to be involved: The issue of nuclear
proliferation impacts every nation, whether they possess the capacity to develop
nuclear weaponry or not. As a matter of fact, the bipolar context of the time
means that lesser military powers have a mandate to align with either one or
the other military force, regardless of their own ideological positions. As such, it
is not difficult to see the interest of non-nuclear states in developing their own
nuclear capabilities, in order to attain the negotiating leverage to pursue their
own foreign policy interests, to develop civilian uses of nuclear energy and to
unravel its mysteries trough investigation, creating future possibilities for scientific
advancements for their citizens.
•The peaceful uses of nuclear energy: It is well known that uranium,
plutonium and other nuclear energy sources can be used for technological and
peaceful purposes. Therefore, is vital for the success of the treaty to establish
a correct definition of peaceful purposes and what level of nuclear enrichment
would not be considered a breach of the treaty, as well as the enforcement
capacity of the international community to prevent a nuclear energy program
from being used for military purposes The voices and input of smaller nations
will be particularly crucial in this part of the negotiation, in order to permit an
equitable use of nuclear energy.
•Balance of power: rooted within the cold war context, the negotiations will
be strongly marked by the search for compromise between NATO countries and
the Warsaw Pact. Therefore, it is of great importance for non-aligned countries to
take steps to gain influence in the elaboration of a treaty that will have a universal
impact.
•Transfer and Development of nuclear technology from NWS to NNWS: as
a general prohibition of developing nuclear facilities and technologies aimed at
armament, it is essential that nuclear states refrain from cooperating with nonnuclear states by handing over their technology and knowledge or assisting them
in the creation of nuclear weaponry, even if this is done so through military pacts
like NATO.
•Disarmament Procedures: For the correct implementation of the treaty,
countries will have to decide whether there will be a universal disarmament
guideline or it will be the responsibility of each nation to have their own. However,
in case the committee decides to give each nation the opportunity to design
their own disarmament plan, how will the international community ensure its
effectiveness?
•Monitoring and the role of international organizations: The treaty will have to
deliberate if United Nations agencies will have the power to monitor that parties to
the treaty are not in breach. Through this measure, the international community
will be ensuring transparency of information regarding nuclear programs.
Position Papers
The Position Paper is a tool of great importance before and during your
participation in the Conference. In fact, it represents the culmination of your
research and preparation as you will present your country’s relationship to NonProliferation and the international context. It requires you to have already gotten
a good grasp on the thematic at stake, as you will be putting down the facts
considered decisive during negotiations and state your country’s expectations of
the Conference. In order to be most useful documents, Position Papers follow a
quite rigorous structure, divided in four main parts: an introduction, a statement
about your country’s national actions, its participation in international actions,
and recommendations.
The length of a position paper approximates 1000 words: it is concise and
direct, written in the third person as you write as a delegate.
First, you will start with an introduction, in a general yet relevant way:
mention the current state of peace and security of your country, as well as general
comments on internal and international affairs worth mentioning. This paragraph
should provide the motives and expectations of your country’s participation in
the Committee.
In the second paragraph you will want to provide the dais with facts and
information about national action undertaken by your country itself on the matter
of disarmament and non-proliferation. Any event or step taken towards nonproliferation can be of interest for this part: delegates will also learn about the
effectiveness or lack thereof of certain measures and initiatives, and to use this
knowledge during negotiations during the Conference.
The third paragraph focuses on international actions in which your country
has taken part. It is a report on the country’s participation in efforts to spread
the principle of non-proliferation internationally, be it within the UN system,
in regional, or bilateral contexts. The repercussion of these actions on the
international community can also be emphasized.
The position paper ends with the country’s recommendations on the steps
considered necessary to reach an effective agreement on non-proliferation.
The country hereby states its priorities and the points it will be forcing through
negotiations. Although you might have very precise expectations, this should not
be the main part of your position paper. Rather, focus on the presentation and
analysis of your country’s current state of affairs than on your goals, as these
will emerge in the debate and will require adjustment according to alliances and
diplomatic concessions or compromise[MD7] .
Ending Note
As Orwell said: “It [Atomic Bomb] is likelier to put an end to large-scale
wars at the cost of prolonging indefinitely a ‘peace that is no peace’” (Orwell,
1945). That is what the committee’s member nations had in mind when they
negotiated and presented the NPT. Despite its success, this treaty has not
managed to completely deter NNWS from obtaining nuclear weapons and has
even complicated action-coordination efforts between nations; as there is no
specific framework of action.
One issue that has affected us until today (2016) that could have had a
different turnout if considered in the NPT is the deterrence of NATO projects
to transfer nuclear weapons to different territories. Today, nations that have
developed nuclear technology in their territory (like India, Pakistan, North Korea
and Israel) are still considered NNWS under the regime of the NPT; as the treaty
had only recognized the P5. In addition, the situation regarding Iran’s Nuclear
Program, which had to be dealt with in a Joint Agreement/Multilateral context
instead of having a stronger response of the international community through
the IAEA.
Although events occurring subsequently to the signing of the NPT should
be taken into limited consideration, the success of the treaty (the countries that
emerged from the split of the Soviet Union ceded their weapons, and South
Africa dismantled them) and its failures (failure to prevent proliferation and equity
issues with NNWS) must be taken into account in the drafting of a new NPT. Bibliography
1.U.S. Department of Energy. (2012). The History of Nuclear Energy.
Washington, D.C., USA: U.S. Department of Energy - Office of Nuclear Energy,
Science and Technology.
2. World Nuclear Association. (March de 2014). Outline History of Nuclear
Energy. Recuperated el 6 de June de 2016, de World Nuclear Association: http://
www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/
outline-history-of-nuclear-energy.aspx
3. Shallet, S. (6 de August de 1945). Site Guide Feedback Job Opportunities
on This Day Read the full text of The Times article or other headlines from the day.
Buy a Reproduction Front Page Image First Atomic Bomb Dropped on Japan;
Missile Is Equal to 20,000 Tons of TNT; Truman Warns Foe of a ‘Rain of Ruin’.
New York Times, page. 1.
4. Campbell, E. (5 de August de 2011). The bomb: what it meant to Australians.
Recuperated el 7 de June de 2016, de Australian War Memorial: https://www.
awm.gov.au/blog/2011/08/05/the-bomb-what-it-meant-to-australians/
5. Walters, J. (6 de August de 2015). A Guide to the Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Attacks. Recuperated el 7 de June de 2016, de JACOBIN: https://www.jacobinmag.
com/2015/08/hiroshima-nagasaki-atomic-bomb-guide-unnecessary/
6.History, Détente. http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/history/
mwh/ir2/detenterev1.shtml
7.Bowker, M. Williams, P. Superpower Detente: A Reappraisal. SAGE
Publications, 1988.
8.Détente and Arms Control, 1969–1979. https://history.state.gov/
milestones/1969-1976/detente
9. Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community (EURATOM).
Access to European Union Law. 2007. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/
EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv%3Axy0024
10.Guthe, K. Ten Continuities in U.S. Nuclear Weapons Policy, Strategy,
Plans, and Forces. National institute for public policy, 2008.Page 7. http://www.
nipp.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/N-Continuities-Draft_Rev-2.11.pdf
11. Coetzee, D et. al. Philosophers of War: The Evolution of History’s Greatest
Military Thinkers, page 512.
12.AIEA History. https://www.iaea.org/about/history
13.1953–1960: Entrenchment of a Bi-Polar Foreign Policy. https://history.
state.gov/milestones/1953-1960/foreword
14.
Cold War: A Brief History.http://www.atomicarchive.com/History/
coldwar/page15.shtml
15.
Nuclear
deterrence
deterrence.
http://www.politics.co.uk/reference/nuclear-
16.Van Evera, S. THE “SPIRAL MODEL” vs. THE “DETERRENCE MODEL”.
http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/political-science/17-42-causes-and-preventionof-war-spring-2009/lecture-notes/MIT17_42S09_spiral4.pdf
17.Adede, O. The IAEA Notification and Assistance Conventions in Case of a
Nuclear Accident. 1987.
18.Walters, J. (6 de August de 2015). A Guide to the Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Attacks. Recuperated el 7 de June de 2016, de JACOBIN: https://www.jacobinmag.
com/2015/08/hiroshima-nagasaki-atomic-bomb-guide-unnecessary/
19.Egilson, H. P. (2003). The Origins, Use and Development of Hot Line
Diplomacy. Discussion Papers in Diplomacy (85), 1-26.
20. USSR, & USA. (1961). Document A/4879 - Letter from the permanent
representative of the USSR and the USA to the United Nations General Assembly
President. UN General Assembly Sixteenth Session - Agenda Item 19 (pages. 1920). New York: United Nations.
21.Singh, N., & MacWhinney, E. (1989). Nuclear weapons and contemporary
international law. Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
22. US Department of Energy. (2010). The Manhattan Project - Making the
Atomic Bomb. Washington: US Department of Energy.
23. United States Army Centre of Military History. (1985). Manhattan: The
Army and the Atomic Bomb. En V. Jones, United States Army in World War II.
Washington: Centre of Military History, U.S. Army.
24. World Nuclear Association. (March de 2014). Outline History of Nuclear
Energy. Recuperated el 01 de Agosto de 2016, de World Nuclear Association: http://
www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/
outline-history-of-nuclear-energy.aspx
25. McCrary, F., & Baumgartner, M. (2007). Casualties of War: The Short- and
Long-Term Effects of the 1945 Atomic Bomb Attacks on Japan. Recuperated el
01 de Agosto de 2016, de The Young Epidemiology Scholars Program: Casualties
of War: The Short- and Long-Term Effects of the 1945 Atomic Bomb Attacks on
Japan
26. United States Atmospheric Nuclear Weapons Tests Nuclear Test
Personnel Review. (1946). Operation Crossroads 1946. Washington: Defence
Nuclear Agency.
27. Bukharin, O., Leonardovich Podvig, P., & Von Hippel, F. (2001). Russian
Strategic Nuclear Forces. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
28. Aldrich, R. J. (Julio de 1998). British Intelligence and the Anglo-American
‘Special Relationship’ during the Cold War. Review of International Studies., 24(3),
331-351
29. Orwell, G. (1945). You and the Atomic Bomb. Tribune.
30. Agar, J. (2012). Science in the Twentieth Century and Beyond. Cambridge:
Polity Press.
31Kent Alkon, P. (2006). Winston Churchill’s Imagination. London:
Associated University Press .
Glossary
•Détente: The policy of détente refers to the time in the 1960s-1970s when
the Soviet Union and United States eased tension and tried to cooperate to avoid
conflict in the Cold War. The ongoing nuclear arms race was incredibly expensive,
and both nations faced domestic economic difficulties as a result of the diversion
of resources to military research. Fears of nuclear conflict between the two
superpowers peaked in 1962 in the wake of the Cuban Missile Crisis, paving the
way for some of the earliest agreements on nuclear arms control, including the
Limited Test Ban Treaty in 1963.
•Deterrence: Deterre, Latin: to frighten from or away. Believing that it coerced
or frightened the appeaser to offer its concessions, assumes that more threats will
elicit more concessions. Hence it makes additional demands, backed by threats.
•EURATOM: (European Atomic Energy Community) created in 1952 to
coordinate the Member States’ research programs for the peaceful use of nuclear
energy. It ensures the security of atomic energy supply within the framework of
a centralized monitoring system. For the first time, the six Member States of
this organization surrendered part of their national sovereignty, albeit in a limited
field, to the Community.
•Flexible response: strategy developed by the Kennedy administration and
pressed on the European allies, was to strengthen the ability of NATO to mount
an effective conventional defence and thereby reduce the need for nuclear
escalation to stop an advance by the larger ground forces of the Warsaw Pact.
(If NATO conventional forces did falter, the strategy called for graduated nuclear
responses, from tactical to theatre to strategic nuclear use, to coerce the Soviet
leadership into halting its attack.)
•IAEA: (International Atomic Energy Agency) was created in 1957 in response
to the deep fears and expectations resulting from the discovery of nuclear energy.
Its fortunes are uniquely geared to this controversial technology that can be used
either as a weapon or as a practical and useful tool. The Agency’s genesis was
US President Eisenhower’s Atoms for Peace address to the General Assembly of
the United Nations on 8 December 1953. These ideas helped to shape the IAEA
Statute, which 81 nations unanimously approved in October 1956
•Limited nuclear warfare: theory by British strategist B. Lidell Hart, in which
two sides restrict the goals for war to specific objectives that do not call for the
utter and complete destruction of the other. These wars are usually confined to
particular geographic regions and directed toward selected targeted areas, mainly
those with great military importance, to have minimal effect on the civilians of
both parties.
•Massive retaliation: In order to counterbalance the Soviet threat, President
Eisenhower supported a doctrine of massive retaliation, which called for the
development of technology necessary to match and even surpass Soviet nuclear
capability.
•Mutual assured destruction ‘MAD’: original idea of arms control: not
eliminating war but sustaining stable conflict. Outbreak of war then leads to MAD.
•Nuclear assistance agreement: pre-established legal framework which
could facilitate and encourage States to offer and accept assistance in the event
of a nuclear accident or a radiological emergency.
•NWS/NNWS: Nuclear Weapon State/Non-Nuclear Weapon State
•Nuclear deterrence: the concept of nuclear deterrence follows the rationale
of the ‘first user’ principle: states reserve the right to use nuclear weapons in
self-defence against an armed attack threatening their vital security interests.
Both, United States and the Soviet Union, recognized that the first requirement
of an effective deterrent was that it should survive or “ride out” a surprise
“counterforce” targeted attack without being decimated--a task made difficult
by the ever increasing numbers of accurate delivery systems, “penetration aids,”
and multiple warheads.
•Nuclear Safety: The achievement of proper operating conditions, prevention
of accidents and mitigation of accident consequences, resulting in protection of
workers, the public and the environment from undue radiation risks.
•Nuclear security: the prevention and detection of, and response to, criminal
or intentional unauthorized acts involving nuclear material, other radioactive
material, associated facilities or associated activities.
•Nuclear Sharing: Concept in NATO’s policy on nuclear deterrence allowing
NNWS the planning for the use of nuclear weapons by NATO.
SUGGESTED SOURCES
•Dimitri Bourantonis, “The Negotiation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, 1965
- 1968 - A Note”, The International History Review, Vol. 19, No. 2 (May, 1997), pp.
347-357
•Albert Wohlstetter, “Spreading the Bomb without quite breaking the Rules”,
Foreign Policy, 1976-1977
•William Epstein, “The Last Chance: Nuclear Proliferation and Arms Control”,
New York Free Press, 1976