Reconsidering UK Disarmament, or: Lady Ashton's Your Woman

Henry Kissinger once asked, "Who do I call if I want to call Europe?"

It seems the answer to that question has a new face: On November 19, the European Union appointed Catherine Ashton to the post of High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. As the European equivalent of US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the Right Honourable Lady Ashton will become, upon European Parliament confirmation, the chief diplomat of the EU and will help shape the foreign and security policy positions of the Union, thus contributing to a unification of the coalition.

Considering Lady Ashton's relatively unknown position in international politics, her new role as the European Union's top diplomat is an interesting choice. I wonder how effective she will be in her High Rep position. Undoubtedly, she will face a steep uphill climb during her first year in office, as she works to build her base of supporters and earns buy-in from both politicians in the UK and in the wider European community.

At the same time, her background presents what I think is a unique opportunity in moving us forward towards a world free of nuclear weapons. Doing a quick search on Lady Ashton reveals that for at least two years, she was involved with the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, a British organization formed in 1958 that continues to be a loud and adamant voice opposed to the existence and proliferation of nuclear weapons. During her time there, Lady Ashton rose to the position of vice-chair, and undoubtedly her experience with CND has influenced her political work since.

Now that she has become the High Rep, Lady Ashton is in a unique position to leverage her CND experience in shaping the European Union's foreign policy. But she first must start at home: the United Kingdom continues to maintain its Trident submarine missile system, and as recently as three days ago, Admiral Mark Stanhope of the British Royal Navy concluded that no less than four Trident submarines are needed at all times to sustain the British nuclear deterrent. The United Kingdom is in the paradoxical situation of being one of the few recognized nuclear weapons powers in the world, while at the same time being the birthplace of the nuclear disarmament movement. Lady Ashton's position, therefore, puts her in the epicenter of the paradox and endows her with a potential heretofore unprecedented for any member of the European Union.

On a side note, and to understand just how influential the British nuclear disarmament movement has been on world politics and culture, consider the following symbol:


People all over the world recognize it as the peace symbol. But its origins are directly from CND: in 1958, an artist created the sign from the letters N and D, as represented in semaphore:

The letter N

The letter D

N is for Nuclear; D is for Disarmament. Overlaying the semaphore representations of the two letters yields the cross with arms we so quickly associate with peace. CND created this symbol over 50 years ago and adopted it as the visual manifestation of everything their movement represents. Lady Ashton was once a part of this organization.

One major step that can be taken in eliminating nuclear weapons worldwide is if all nuclear weapons states adhere to Article VI of the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The UK can take a very large step in the right direction by reducing, and then altogether eliminating, its Trident missiles. And perhaps the right person to do the job is Lady Ashton.

Well, Mr Kissinger. If you want to call Europe, call Lady Ashton. She's your woman.

Reconsidering Dismantled Nukes, or: Megatons to Megawatts

I just read a fascinating article from the New York Times yesterday on the use of dismantled nuclear weapons as an energy source. Here's the most salient point:

In the last two decades, nuclear disarmament has become an integral part of the electricity industry, little known to most Americans. Salvaged bomb material now generates about 10 percent of electricity in the United States — by comparison, hydropower generates about 6 percent and solar, biomass, wind and geothermal together account for 3 percent. Utilities have been loath to publicize [this fact] for fear of spooking consumers: the fuel from missiles that may have once been aimed at your home may now be lighting it.

It's important to note that this bomb material is coming from both Russian and American weapons that have been dismantled over the course of the past twenty years. Through a series of limitations and reductions treaties -- the most recent of which is the Obama-Medvedev START negotiations -- nuclear weapons have been taken offline; the actual warheads have been separated from the missiles themselves; and then the warheads have been dismantled. However, these treaties don't address the core itself -- the billet of uranium or plutonium that makes a nuclear bomb the terrifyingly powerful weapon it is.

Let's do some math to understand the potential benefits of using dismantled nukes to generate electricity:

The amount of uranium or plutonium that can sustain a nuclear chain reaction, which is needed to create a nuclear bomb, is called the weapon's critical mass. Let's take uranium as an example: the critical mass for uranium-235 is about 56 kilograms, or roughly 123 pounds.

The United States currently has about 2,200 nuclear warheads and the Russians 2,800. Over the summer, Presidents Obama and Medvedev just agreed to reduce their warheads to as low as 1,500 each. So that means that after reductions, the US would give up about 700 nukes and Russia about 1,300. Altogether that's 2,000 nuclear warheads that could now be used to generate electricity. Assuming all 2,000 have uranium cores, and at a minimum of 56 kilograms per warhead, there would be a total of 112 tonnes of highly-enriched uranium (HEU) available for use in nuclear power plants.

112 tonnes. That's 112,000 kilograms of uranium. According to the New York Times article, 34 tonnes can generate enough electricity to power 1 million American homes for 50 years.

112 divided by 34 equals 3.29. So that means powering 3 million American homes for 50 years.

One more time. 2,000 dismantled nukes can provide enough electricity to power 3 million American homes for 50 years.

Now you can see how beneficial these warheads can be as an energy source. So it's no wonder that for a while now, energy companies have advocated for a steady stream of highly-enriched uranium from dismantled nuclear weapons: they can buy that material at market price, downblend (or de-enrich) the volatile stuff to a level appropriate for use in a civilian nuclear power plant, and generate electricity from it. This program is known as the Megatons to Megawatts program. The energy industry sees huge benefits to acquiring as much uranium as possible for use in nuclear reactors, so naturally, they would advocate for nuclear disarmament. The higher the number of nuclear weapons that come off the grid, the more material available for power generation.

With the energy industry being such an influential lobbying group on Capitol Hill, it would seem advantageous to have Big Energy on the side of those who advocate for global nuclear disarmament. But something like this can never be such a simple win-win solution, so what's the catch? Emissions aren't really a problem, since nuclear power plants don't emit the same level of greenhouse gases that come out of coal-powered plants, which provide the overwhelming majority of electricity in the US.

However, there are serious drawbacks to nuclear power. For a comprehensive list, click through to Time For Change, but here are the relevant ones: first, startup costs. Building a nuclear power plant can take decades, so any return on investment doesn't manifest itself for quite some time.

Second, radioactivity. Who can forget Chernobyl? The possibility that a reactor in the US might melt down and kill or poison scores of people is one of the biggest drivers in keeping total American dependence on nuclear energy to less than 20 per cent.

Third, and perhaps most importantly, the radioactive material that is a natural byproduct of the nuclear power cycle can potentially be used to create low-grade nuclear weapons or dirty bombs. This would render the entire Megatons to Megawatts idea completely counter-intuitive -- the point there is to diminish the number of nuclear weapons worldwide, not create more.

So what's the bottom line? On the one hand, those of us advocating for nuclear disarmament now know we have a large ally in Big Energy, and we could leverage our shared goal to pressure government leaders worldwide to take significant and verifiable steps towards complete nuclear weapons abolition. On the other hand, the long-term benefits of relying more on civilian nuclear power don't seem to add up to much, and perhaps we as a nation should continue to keep our dependence on nuclear-generated electricity to less than 20%.

As long as we don't increase the number of nuclear reactors in the US, and as long as we continue to search for a more sustainable and renewable method to generate electricity, continuing the Megatons to Megawatts program seems, in the short term, like an all-around good idea.

Sign the Global Zero Declaration!

I should have done this sooner, but I just became a signatory to Global Zero, an international movement for the elimination of nuclear weapons. Recently, the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution endorsing the goal of a world free of nuclear weapons; at the same time, the Nobel Committee awarded President Barack Obama the Nobel Peace Prize, especially citing "his vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons."

We must build an unprecedented global movement to support world leaders who have promised to work towards global zero. To join me and the hundreds of thousands of people in every country in the world who believe in zero, click here.

We must now choose between two very different futures:

1. Nuclear weapons continue to spread, increasing the chances that a country or terrorists use them, with catastrophic consequences. OR
2. All nuclear weapons are eliminated according to a comprehensive global agreement for phased and verified reductions.

Zero is not only desirable, it is also achievable -- with political will. With momentum already building in favor of Zero, a major show of support from people around the world could tip the balance.

When it comes to nuclear weapons, one is one too many. Join today by clicking the link above.

The vision of a world free of nuclear weapons can come to be, but we must get involved to make it happen. So please, sign and ask your friends to do so as well. Make your voice count.