Denuclearization
of the Oceans:
Linking Our Common Heritage with Our Common Future
by David Krieger**, March 1996
Introduction
The oceans were nuclearized shortly after the
era of nuclear weapons began in 1945. On July 1, 1946, while still
negotiating the internationalization of atomic energy at the United
Nations, the United States began testing nuclear weapons at Bikini
Atoll in the Pacific. Nuclear weapons testing in the Pacific continued
through January 1996, when French President Jacques Chirac announced
an end to French testing in the region.
In the 1950s, the United States again led the
way in nuclearizing the oceans with the launching of a nuclear
powered submarine, the Nautilus. The Nautilus and other nuclear
submarines could stay submerged for long periods of time without
refueling and cruise throughout the world. During the Cold War
the U.S., former USSR, UK, France, and China developed nuclear
submarine fleets carrying ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads.
Some of these nuclear powered submarines with their multiple-independently-targeted
nuclear warheads were and remain capable of single-handedly attacking
and destroying more than one hundred major cities. These shadowy
creatures of mankind's darkest inventiveness remain silently on
alert in the depths of the world's oceans, presumably ready and
capable, upon command, of destroying the Earth.
Our oceans are a precious resource to be shared
by all humanity and preserved for future generations. It carries
the concept of "freedom of the seas" to absurd lengths
to allow those nations with the technological capacity to destroy
the Earth to use the world's oceans in so callous a manner.
Accidents aboard nuclear submarines have caused
a number of them to sink with long-term adverse environmental
consequences for the oceans. In addition to accidents, many countries
have purposefully dumped radioactive wastes in the oceans.
With regard to proper stewardship of the planet,
it is time to raise the issue of denuclearizing the world's oceans.
To fail to raise the issue and to achieve the denuclearization
of the oceans is to abdicate our responsibility for the health
and well-being of the oceans and the planet.
Nuclearization of the Oceans
Nuclearization of the oceans has taken a variety
of forms. The primary ones are:
1. the oceans have served as a medium for hiding
nuclear deterrent forces located on submarines;
2. nuclear reactors have been used to power ships,
primarily submarines, some of which have gone down at sea with
their nuclear fuel and nuclear weapons aboard;
3. increasing use is being made of the oceans for
the transportation of nuclear wastes and reprocessed nuclear fuels;
4. the oceans have been used as a dumping ground
for nuclear wastes;
5. atmospheric nuclear weapons testing, particularly
in the Pacific, has been a source of nuclear pollution to the
oceans as well as the land; and
6. underground nuclear weapons testing, such as
that conducted by France in the South Pacific, has endangered
fragile Pacific atolls and caused actual nuclear contamination
to the oceans as well as risking a much greater contamination
should the atolls crack due to testing or future geological activity.
The problems arising from nuclearization of the
oceans can be viewed from several perspectives.
From an environmental perspective, issues arise
with regard to nuclear contamination in the oceans working its
way up through the food chain. The biological resources of the
oceans will eventually affect human populations which are reliant
upon these resources.
The threat of nuclear contamination has diminished
with regard to nuclear testing, which has not taken place in the
atmosphere since 1980. Moreover, the nuclear weapons states have
committed themselves to a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which
they have promised to conclude by 1996. This treaty, if concluded,
will end all underground nuclear testing.
The dumping of high-level radioactive waste material
was curtailed by the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution
by the Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter, which entered into
force in 1975. A later amendment to this Convention prohibited
ocean dumping of all radioactive wastes or other radioactive matter.
However, exemptions authorized by the International Atomic Energy
Agency and non-compliance remain a concern. Problems can be anticipated
in the future when radioactive contaminants already dumped in
canisters or contained in fuel or weapons aboard sunken submarines
breach their containment.
Increased use of the oceans to transport nuclear
wastes and reprocessed nuclear fuel (between Japan and France,
for example) has substantially increased the risk of contamination.
Coastal and island states that are on the route of the transportation
of nuclear materials stand high risks of contamination in the
event of an accident at sea. International law regarding the transportation
of hazardous material must be strengthened and strictly enforced
by the international community to prevent catastrophic accidents
in the future.
From a human rights perspective, inhabitants of
island states in the Pacific have suffered serious health effects
and dislocation as a result of atmospheric and underground nuclear
weapons testing. In response to assurances by France that their
underground testing in the South Pacific is entirely safe, the
islanders in Polynesia and throughout the Pacific have retorted:
If it is so safe, why isn't it being done in France itself? The
response of the French government has been that French Polynesia
is French territory, highlighting the arrogance and abuse that
accompanies colonialism.
Human rights issues also arise with regard to maintaining
a nuclear deterrent force that threatens the annihilation of much
of humanity. The Human Rights Committee stated in November 1984
in their general comments on Article 6 of the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights, i.e., the right to life, that "the
production, testing, possession, deployment and use of nuclear
weapons should be prohibited and recognized as crimes against
humanity." The deployment of nuclear weapons on submarines,
therefore, arguably constitutes a crime against humanity, and
thus a violation of the most fundamental human right, the right
to life.
From a security perspective, the nuclear weapons
states argue that having a submarine-based deterrent force assures
their security. Thus, to varying degrees, each of the nuclear
weapons states maintains strategic submarines capable of causing
unthinkable destruction if their missiles were ever launched.
(See Appendix.) Viewed from the self-interests of nearly all the
world's population-except the nuclear weapons states whose leaders
appear addicted to maintaining their nuclear arsenals -the continued
reliance on nuclear deterrence, at sea or on land, poses a frightening
threat to continued human existence.
In 1972 the Seabed Agreement prohibited the emplacement
of nuclear weapons on the seabed, ocean floor, or subsoil thereof.
This agreement prohibited what was already deemed unnecessary
by the nuclear weapons states; placing nuclear weapons on submarines
made them less vulnerable to detection and destruction than placing
them on or beneath the seabed or ocean floor. The oceans continue
to be used by the nuclear weapons states as an underwater shadow
world for their missile carrying submarines.
The United States alone currently has 16 Trident
submarines, each carrying some 100 independently targeted nuclear
warheads. Each Trident submarine has a total explosive force greater
than all the explosive force used in World War II, including at
Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Britain, with the help of the United States,
is replacing its older class of Polaris SSBNs with a fleet of
four Trident submarines. France currently has five strategic missile
submarines with four more of a superior class to be commissioned
by 2005. Russia has over 35 strategic missile submarines with
an estimated capacity of 2,350 nuclear warheads. China has two
modern ballistic missile submarines. Its Xia class submarine carries
twelve 200 kiloton nuclear warheads.
The total destructive force that day and night
lurks beneath the oceans is a chilling reminder of our technological
capacity to destroy ourselves. That this threat was created and
is maintained in the name of national security suggests a collective
madness that must be opposed and overcome if, for no other reason,
we are to fulfill our obligation to posterity to preserve human
life.
An ongoing responsibility resides with the nuclear
weapons states to fulfill the obligations set forth in Article
VI of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), "to pursue negotiations
in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the
nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament,
and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict
and effective international control." At the NPT Review and
Extension Conference in April and May 1995, the treaty was extended
indefinitely after extensive lobbying by the nuclear weapons states.
At the same time the nuclear weapons states promised to enter
into a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty by 1996, and to engage in
a "determined pursuit" of the ultimate elimination of
their nuclear arsenals.
Protecting the Common Heritage
The Law of the Sea Treaty enshrines the concept
of the oceans as the common heritage of [hu]mankind. Maintaining
the oceans as a common heritage demands that the oceans be protected
from contamination by nuclear pollutants; that they not be used
in a manner to undermine basic human rights, particularly the
rights to life and to a healthy environment; and that the oceans
not be allowed to serve as a public preserve for those states
that believe their own security interests demand the endangerment
of global human survival.
It is unreasonable to allow our common heritage
to be used to threaten our common future. Deterrence is an unproven
and unstable concept that is being tested on humanity by a small
number of powerful and arrogant states that have turned nuclear
technology to its ultimate destructive end. In order to link the
common heritage with our common future, the large majority of
the world's nations advocating an end to the threat of nuclear
annihilation should seek to achieve a Nuclear Weapons Convention
by the year 2000 that eliminates all nuclear weapons in a time-bound
framework. The prohibition and conversion of strategic ballistic
missile submarines must be part of this accord. Perhaps this will
be the final step in achieving a nuclear weapons free world.
Life began in the oceans and eventually migrated
to land. We must not allow the oceans to continue to provide a
secure hiding place for nuclear forces capable of causing irreparable
damage to all life. This is an inescapable responsibility of accepting
the proposition that life itself, like the oceans, is a common
heritage that must be protected for future generations.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APPENDIX: NUCLEAR POWER AT SEA*
A. Nuclear Weapons
UNITED STATES
Strategic Missile Submarines (SSBN)
Active: 16 Building: 2
Trident: 16 + 2
There are presently 16 Trident submarines in operation,
eight at Sub-Base Bangor and eight at Sub-Base Kings Bay. The
schedule is to complete one submarine per year for a total of
18 with the final one becoming operational in 1997.
In September 1994 it was announced in the Pentagon's
"Nuclear Posture Review" that the Trident force would
be cut from 18 to 14. The submarines to be retired are still under
review but are believed to be the four oldest in the fleet. They
will be preserved, however, in mothballs until the Strategic Arms
Reduction Talks (START) II Treaty is fully implemented in 2003.
These submarines carry 24 missiles each. The submarines
are armed with Trident-1 missiles (C-4) and the Trident-2 (D-5).
In 1991 all strategic cruise missiles (Tomahawks) were removed
from surface ships and submarines.
The C-4 can carry up to eight 100 kiloton Mark-4/W-76
Multiple Independently-targeted Reentry Vehicles (MIRV). There
are currently 192 Trident-1 missiles deployed in eight Trident
submarines based at Bangor, Washington with a total of 1,152 Mk-4
warheads. Four of these submarines are to be deactivated and the
remaining four are to be converted to carry Trident-2 missiles.
Plans are to then base seven of the 14 submarines on each coast.
The D-4 can carry up to 12 MIRV with Mark-4/W-76
100-kT warheads, or Mark-5/W-88 300-475-kT warheads each. Under
START counting rules, a limit of 8 reentry vehicles (RV) was set,
but this may be further reduced to four or five if START II is
implemented. About 400 Mk-5/W-88 warheads for the Trident-2 missiles
were produced before they were canceled because of production
and safety reasons. Two new Trident subs fitted with D-4 missiles
will be delivered by 1997.
Under the START Treaties, warheads that are reduced
do not have to be destroyed. According to the Nuclear Posture
Review the current plan is to remove three or four warheads per
missile from Trident Submarine Launched Ballistic Missiles (SLBMs)
to meet the START II ceiling of 1,750 SLBM warheads. Plans are
to reduce the C-4 to 1,280 warheads and the D-4 to 400. These
warheads will be kept in storage and if it is determined that
the SLBMs need to be uploaded, the Pentagon can reuse them.
RUSSIA
Strategic Missile Submarines (SSBN)
Active: 39 Building: 0
The Russian navy is divided into four fleets: the
Baltic, Northern, Black Sea and the Pacific. In the Northern and
the Pacific fleets, the primary issue is of what to do with the
estimated 85 retired nuclear submarines. Since the breakup of
the Soviet Union, it is believed that over half of their nuclear-powered
ballistic missile submarine fleet has been withdrawn from operational
service. These ships are currently moored at various bases with
their reactors still on board. The number is growing faster than
the money available to remove and store the fuel elements and
decontaminate the reactor compartments. Since 1991, there has
been a lack of funds to operate the fleet. Consequently, few of
the submarines listed as active have actually been at sea.
In response to President Bush's September 27, 1991
decision to remove tactical nuclear missiles from ships, President
Gorbachev announced that six SSBNs with 92 SLBMs (presumably five
Yankee Is and a single Yankee II) were to be removed from operational
forces. Russian Fleet Commander Adm. Oleg Yerofeev reports that
as of October 20, 1991 all tactical nuclear weapons were removed
from the Northern and Pacific fleet ships and submarines.
The January-February, 1993 issue of the Bulletin
of Atomic Scientists reports that Russia intends to stop building
submarines in its Pacific yards within the next two to three years.
Russian President Boris Yeltsin made this announcement during
a November 1992 visit to South Korea.
The Russian (CIS) SLBM stockpile is estimated to
be at: 224 SS-N-18 Stingray armed with three warheads at 500-kT,
120 SS-N-20 Sturgeon with ten 200-kT warheads, and 112 SS-N-23
Skiff missiles with four 100-kT warheads. Total warheads are believed
to be about 2320.
According to Pentagon officials, Russia has already
reduced its patrols to a single ballistic missile submarine. In
contrast, the U.S. Navy continues to patrol with a dozen or so
submarines at a time.
NATO names are used in this listing. Russian names
are given in parentheses.
Typhoon (Akula) Class: 6
The Typhoon carries 20 SS-N-20 Sturgeon missiles,
with six to nine MIRV 200-kT nuclear warheads. The Typhoon can
hit strategic targets from anywhere in the world. There are plans
to modernize the Typhoons to carry an SS-N-20 follow-on missile
which would have improved accuracy. All the Typhoons are stationed
in the Northern Fleet at Nerpichya. One was damaged by fire during
a missile loading accident in 1992, but has since been repaired.
Delta IV (Delfin) Class: 7
The Delta IV carries 16 SS-N-23 Skiff missiles,
with four to ten MIRV 100-kT nuclear warheads. These ships are
based in the Northern Fleet at Olenya.
Delta III (Kalmar) Class: 14
The Delta III is armed with 16 SS-N-18 Stingray
missiles. There are three possible modifications for the Stingray.
(1) three MIRV at 200-kT, (2) a single 450-kT, (3) seven MIRV
at 100-kT. Nine ships are in the Northern Fleet and five are in
the Pacific Fleet.
Delta II (Murena-M) Class: 4
The Delta II has 16 SS-N8 Sawfly missiles with
two possible modifications. The first is with a single 1.2 MT
nuclear warhead, the other is with two MIRV at 800-kT. This class
of submarine is no longer in production. All four are stationed
in the Northern fleet at Yagelnaya and are believed to have been
taken off active duty.
Delta I (Murena) Class: 8
The Delta I carries 12 SS-N-8 Sawfly missiles,
armed with either a single 1.2 MT nuclear warhead or two MIRV
800-kT. Three ships are stationed in the North and the other five
are in the Pacific. One of these ships may be converted into a
rescue submarine. As with the Delta II's, all of these ships are
believed to have been taken off active duty.
UNITED KINGDOM
Strategic Missile Submarines (SSBN)
Active: 4 Building: 2
Vanguard Class: 2 + 2
The Vanguard-class is modeled on the United States
Trident submarine. It carries 16 Trident II (D-5) missiles with
up to eight MIRV of 100-120-kT nuclear warheads. The D-5 can carry
up to 12 MIRV but under plans announced in November 1993 each
submarine will carry a maximum of 96 warheads. The U.K. has stated
that it has no plans to refit their Tridents with conventional
warheads, insisting on the nuclear deterrent.
Resolution Class: 2
The Resolution-class was initially fitted with
16 Polaris A3 missiles with three multiple reentry vehicles of
200-kT each. Beginning in 1982, the warheads were replaced under
the "Chevaline Program." The Chevaline is a similar
warhead, but contains a variety of anti-ballistic missile defenses.
The two remaining submarines in this class are both scheduled
for decommission.
CHINA
Strategic Missile Submarines (SSBN)
Active: 1 Projected: 1
Intelligence on Chinese nuclear submarines is extremely
limited. Experts disagree on whether there is one or two SSBNs
in the Chinese fleet. A new class of SSBN is expected to begin
construction in 1996 or 1997.
Xia Class: 1 or 2
The Xia carries 12 Julang or "Giant Wave"
CSS-N-3 missiles armed with a single 200-300-kT nuclear warhead.
Approximately 24 of these missiles have been deployed. An improved
version of this missile is currently being developed.
Golf Class (SSB): 1
Although the Golf is not nuclear driven, it is
armed with ballistic missiles. The submarine is outfitted with
two Julang missiles.
FRANCE
Strategic Missile Submarines (SSBN)
Active: 5 Building: 3 Projected: 1
In 1992 France announced that it would cut the
number of new Triomphant-class SSBNs under construction from 6
to 4. Robert Norris and William Arkin of the Natural Resource
Defense Council estimate that France will produce 288 warheads
for the fleet of four submarines, but with only enough missiles
and warheads to fully arm three boats. It is estimated that France
has 64 SLBMs with 384 warheads.
Triomphant Class: 0 + 3(1)
The first submarine of its class, Le Triomphant,
recently began conducting trials in the sea and is scheduled to
depart on its first patrol in March 1996. The other ships are
expected to be operational by 2005. The Triomphant-class is armed
with 16 M45 missiles with 6 multiple reentry vehicles (MRV) at
150-kT. There are plans to later refit the submarines with the
more powerful M5 with 10-12 MRV around 2010. Testing for these
new missiles were recently conducted at the Moruroa and Fangataufa
atolls.
L'Inflexible Class: 5
L'Inflexible is armed with 16 Aerospatiale M4B
missiles with six MRV at 150-kT. The French navy has 80 SLBMs
deployed on its five submarines. This class of ships is based
at Brest and commanded from Houilles. They patrol in the Atlantic
Ocean and the Norwegian and Mediterranean Seas. The minimum number
of submarines always at sea has been reduced from three to two.
B. OTHER NUCLEAR POWERED
SHIPS
UNITED STATES
Attack Submarines (SSN)
Active: 86 Building: 4 Projected: 1
Permit Class: 1
Benjamin Franklin Class: 2
Narwhal Class: 1
Los Angeles Class: 57 + 2
Sturgeon Class: 25
Seawolf Class: 0 + 2(1)
The Seawolf was launched in July 1995, and is scheduled
to be commissioned in May 1996.
Aircraft Carriers (CVN )
Active: 6 Building: 3
Nimitz Class: 6 + 3
Guided Missile Cruisers (CGN)
Active: 5
Virginia Class: 2
California Class: 2
Brainbridge Class: 1
RUSSIA
Cruise Missile Submarines (SSGN)
Active: 19 Building: 1 Projected: 1
Echo II Class (Type 675M): 3
Oscar I (Granit) Classes: 2
Oscar II (Antyey): 10 + 1(1)
Charlie II (Skat M) Class: 3
Yankee Sidecar (Andromeda) Class: 1
Attack Submarines (SSN)
Active: 51 Building: 6 Projected: 1
Severodvinsk Class: 0 + 3(1)
Sierra II (Baracuda) Class: 2
Akula I (Bars) Class: 4
Akula II (Bars) Class: 8 + 3
Sierra I (Baracuda I) Class: 2
Alfa (Alpha) Class: 1
Victor III (Shuka) Class: 26
Victor II (Kefal II) Class: 3
Victor I (Kefal I) Class: 2
Yankee Notch (Grosha) Class: 3
Battle Cruisers (CGN)
Active: 4
Kirov Class: 4
UNITED KINGDOM
Attack Submarines (SSN)
Active: 12 Projected: 5
Trafalgar Class: 7 + (5)
Swiftsure Class: 5
CHINA
Attack Submarines (SSN)
Active: 5 Building: 1
Han Class: 5
Nuclear attack submarines are believed to be a
high priority for the Chinese, but due to high internal radiation
levels, production has been suspended.
FRANCE
Attack Submarines (SSN)
Active: 6 Projected: 1
Rubis Class: 6 + (1)
The nuclear attack submarine Rubis collided with
a tanker on July 17, 1993 and has had to undergo extensive repairs.
On March 30, 1994 the Emeraude had a bad steam leak which caused
casualties amongst the crew.
Aircraft Carriers (CVN)
Active: 0 Building: 1 Projected: 1
The nuclear powered aircraft carrier Charles de
Gaulle was launched in 1994, it is expected to be commissioned
in July 1999.
* An earlier version of this paper was prepared for Pacem in Maribus
XXIII, an annual conference of the International Ocean Institute
held December 1995 in Puntarenas, Costa Rica. The author would
like to thank Craig Johnson for compiling the information in the
Appendix on submarine-based nuclear weapons.
**David Krieger is president
of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.
|
