Karinthy Model United Nations
NATO North Atlantic Council
Adopting preparatory measures in case of a
nuclear attack on any NATO member
Submitted by:
Botond Pap
Date of submission
28.01.2017.
The possibility of a nuclear war - after having experienced the destruction a nuclear
bomb is capable of in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, in 1945, followed by the accelerating arms
race between the two opposing sides of the emerging bipolar world order (between the United
States of America (USA) and the Soviet Union (USSR)), - became one of the cornerstones of
20th century diplomatic affairs; it casted the shadows of nuclear annihilation on Earth.
However, in the late 20th century, numerous treaties on nuclear disarmament have
significantly decreased the possible threat of a nuclear war. Unfortunately, in recent years –
due to the deterioration of NATO-Russia relationships, the rise of terror, the DPRK’s nuclear
development, et cetera - the chances of a nuclear attack on a NATO member have
significantly risen. Dealing with the issue, several measures have been taken aiming to protect
the European NATO members in case of a possible international conflict. These include the
setting up of a US Ballistic Missile Defense system in Eastern-Europe, but further action
plans are needed to be created in order to ensure that NATO member states are capable of
averting any possible nuclear threat, and limiting the casualties in case of a successful attack.
Key definitions
Nuclear deterrence - Nuclear deterrence is a strategic concept, that aims to prevent any attack
on NATO (or any other nuclear power), by maintaining the nuclear arsenal, and reserving the
right to use it as a mean of self-defence and the protection of one’s allies.
Preparatory measures - A general plan that consists of measures that are executed in advance
of a possible nuclear attack on any country, either preventative ones such as nuclear shield
systems, or preparatory ones such as the construction of nuclear shelters or the creation of
possible response plans.
1
Ballistic Missile Defence – Missile defence systems are a type of missile defence, intended to
shield a country against incoming missiles, such as intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs)
or other ballistic missiles. The United States, Russia, France, India and Israel have all
developed such systems. (See their operation in the attached picture, on Page 6.)
Nuclear umbrella – A protective status in which a nuclear state promises to use its arsenal to
defend an ally without nuclear capabilities.
Fallout shelter - A shelter, the main purpose of which is to protect from radioactive
precipitation, and the shockwaves of nuclear explosions.
Timeline:
6 and 9 August 1945: The USA drops two atomic bombs (a uranium and a plutonium) on
Hiroshima and Nagasaki killing an estimated 214 000 people within months.
16-29 October 1962: Cuban Missile Crises - A tense stand-off begins when the USA
discovers Soviet missiles in Cuba. The US blockades Cuba for 13 days. The crisis brings the
US and Soviet Union to the brink of nuclear war.
1 July 1968: Non-Proliferation Treaty1 - Under the NTP, non-nuclear-weapon states agree
never to acquire nuclear weapons, and the nuclear-weapon states make a legal undertaking to
partial disarmament.
8 December 1987: Intermediate-range missiles banned 2 - The USSR and USA sign the
Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, to eliminate all land-based missiles held by
the two states with ranges between 300 and 3,400 miles.
26 May 1972: Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty - The treaty barred Washington and Moscow from
deploying nationwide defences against strategic ballistic missiles. In the treaty preamble, the
two sides asserted that effective limits on anti-missile systems would be a "substantial factor
in curbing the race in strategic offensive arms."
24 September 1996: Comprehensive nuclear test ban is signed3 - It opens for signatures at the
United Nations. China, France, the UK, Russia and the US all sign the treaty. India says she
will not sign the treaty.
1
http://www.un.org/en/conf/npt/2005/npttreaty.html
https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/INFtreaty
3
http://www.state.gov/t/avc/c42328.htm
2
2
13 June 2002: The United States withdraws from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty - On
December 13, 2001, President George W. Bush, who argued that Washington and Moscow no
longer needed to base their relationship on their ability to destroy each other, announced that
the United States would withdraw from the ABM Treaty, claiming that it prevented U.S.
development of defences against possible terrorist or "rogue-state" ballistic missile attacks.
9 October 2006: North Korea conducts her first nuclear test - The North Korean government
announces that the DPRK has successfully conducted a nuclear test, becoming the eighth
country in the world to do so.
November 2010: 2010 Strategic Concept4 - Adopted by Allied Heads of State and
Government at the NATO Summit in Lisbon in November 2010, it sets out NATO’s core
tasks and principles, including deterrence. The Strategic Concept commits NATO to the goal
of creating the conditions for a world without nuclear weapons, but reaffirms that, as long as
there are nuclear weapons in the world, NATO will remain a nuclear alliance. The meeting
also reaches an agreement on the establishment of a missile defence shield over Europe
20 May 2012: The 2012 Deterrence and Defence Posture Review5 - They determined that the
fundamental purpose of NATO’s nuclear forces is deterrence; an essentially political function.
- The Alliance will focus on the maintenance of effective deterrence and maintain political
control of nuclear weapons under all circumstances. Nuclear planning and consultation within
the Alliance will be in accordance with political guidance.
18 October 2015: Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action6 - The P5+1 (China, France, Germany,
Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States), the European Union (EU), and Iran
adopt the JCPOA to ensure that Iran’s nuclear program remains exclusively peaceful.
July 2016: NATO Ballistic Missile Defence in operation - Members declare the Initial
Operational Capability of the NATO BMD, which offers a stronger capability to defend
Allied populations, territory, and forces across Southern European NATO countries against a
potential ballistic missile attack.
2006–2016: During this time, the DPRK has conducted a total of 5 nuclear tests, the last of
which took place on 9 September 2016.
4
http://www.nato.int/lisbon2010/strategic-concept-2010-eng.pdf
http://www.basicint.org/sites/default/files/synthesis-paris-nato2012.pdf
6
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/parametersforajointcomprehenisveplanofaction.pdf
5
3
13 Sep 2016: Readiness Action Plan7 – The RAP ensures that the Alliance is ready to respond
swiftly and firmly to new security challenges from the East and the South. Having begun at
the 2014 Wales Summit, this is the most significant reinforcement of NATO's collective
defence since the end of the Cold War. At Warsaw in 2016, Heads of State and Government
welcomed its implementation and introduced new work on NATO’s deterrence and defence
posture.
Key aspects
Although the Cold War ended with the Berlin Wall and Churchill’s Iron Curtain
falling apart, nuclear threat did not. During the previous 75 years of nuclear advancement 8
countries have acquired the technology of nuclear weaponry, and there are countries who
have knowingly tried to do so, such as Iran. In addition to the already existing nuclear powers,
some of whom have failed to sign and ratify the most important nuclear disarmament treaties;
the possibility of the requisitioning of a nuclear warhead by a terrorist organisation is also
alarming. What is more, previous years have seen a rise in the possibility of a future nuclear
attack on one of NATO’s member states. The once-again increasing tension between the
Russian Federation and the NATO, the threat imposed upon NATO’s nuclear security by the
North Korean nuclear program and the worsening relations with the People’s Republic of
China all threaten with an international nuclear conflict.
On the other hand, the commitment of some nuclear powers, such as Pakistan, in
fighting terrorist organisations appears to be controversial in many cases. US officials found
direct connections between the terrorists and the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence in case
of the 2008 bombing of the Indian Embassy in Kabul, and the same organisation has been
accused by India several times of supporting terrorist groups in India. Furthermore, many
world leaders, such as former British Prime Minister David Cameron, and US National
Security Advisor James L Jones, claimed that Pakistan has double standards in terms of
fighting terrorism. The possibility of the connection between a nuclear power and terrorist
groups further increases the security threat towards NATO member states.
In order to avoid international nuclear conflict, NATO’s main task is nuclear
deterrence through the maintenance of its nuclear umbrella over member states. This is clearly
stated in the 2010 Strategic Concept and in the 2012 Deterrence and Defence Posture Review.
It is further emphasised in the 2012 Deterrence and Defence Posture Review that “… the
7
http://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_2015_12/20151130_1512-factsheet_rap_en.pdf
4
Alliance’s nuclear force posture currently meets the criteria for an effective deterrence and
defence posture.” However, besides deterrence, other means of nuclear protection may be
considered, since regardless of the effectivity of nuclear deterrence, the possibility of an
attack cannot be ruled out, what is more, deterrence cannot protect Member States from a
terrorist attack executed through illegally acquired nuclear weapons either.
In order to further strengthen the protection of NATO countries, RAP was welcomed
in Warsaw, 2016. However, while it provided great improvements in terms of the land, sea
and air protection of the alliance, it did not focus on the issue of nuclear security. This issue
has been partially tackled in 2016, when two US Ballistic Missile Defence Bases, built in
Eastern Europe, were declared fully operational. One of them is located in Deveselu,
Romania, the other one in Poland. These two bases will work together with other European
and Turkish radar bases, providing coverage for Southern Europe. However, as the nuclear
security threat increases, the coverage of BMD systems might be considered to be extended to
the whole of NATO in light of the necessity of further preparatory measures. However, it is
important to note, that although such a shield would protect every NATO Member State, it
might generate further tension between the alliance and the Russian Federation. This
happened in the case of the Polish and Romanian bases, since such systems make Russia and
other non-NATO nuclear powers powerless against the Alliance. This way, system of mutual
nuclear deterrence might be impaired, with unforeseen consequences.
An extensive and combined version of such a system would be extremely similar to
the Strategic Defence Initiative, commonly known as Reagan’s Star Wars plan, a BDM
system positioned partially in space, with a full coverage of Earth. Although such a system in
the hand of a single state would yield almost unlimited power - since no one else would be
able to make use of one’s nuclear arsenal - it would almost eradicate the chances of a nuclear
attack. In 1987, the American Physical Society concluded that a global shield was impossible
to create at the time.
5
In case of a nuclear attack, civilian security must be ensured, and the casualties must
be limited as low as possible. A possible way to do so is to set up or reopen underground
fallout shelters in densely populated areas, although their construction would be an expansive
investment. Their effectivity is doubtful, but still the only way to provide protection for the
civilian population, in case of a nuclear attack. Another key aspect of the preparation of the
civil society for a possible nuclear attack could be the establishment and reorganisation of
civil defence programs, including education. In the 1960s, if a country wide Civil Defence
program had been operated, Civil defence education in itself could have saved 27% of the
total US population in case of a full scale nuclear attack. However, in that time, it was
considered too expansive. It is important to note, that the organisation of such could result in
general hysteria and fear.
6
Questions to consider

Should the BMD system’s coverage be extended to the whole alliance?

Should fallout shelters be constructed in densely populated areas?

Should Civil Defence programs be reorganised and civil defence education be held in
schools?

Should the Strategic Defence Initiative be reconsidered?
Bibliography
1. http://www.nato.int/
2. https://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/foreign-policy/
3. https://www.theguardian.com/world/nato
4. http://www.nytimes.com/topic/organization/north-atlantic-treaty-organization
5. http://www.icanw.org/the-facts/the-nuclear-age/
6. http://www.nti.org/analysis/articles/nuclear-disarmament-timeline/
7