‘No human individual should ever be able to lay claim to the power to essentially unmake humanity.’ Photo: Coventry Cathedral, by Andrew Walker on Wikimedia Commons
Peace must be made: Lessons from a bombed city by Christopher Cocksworth
‘Coventry is a reminder to all of us that peace does not merely exist, it must be made.’
The last time I spoke of nuclear weapons I felt myself having to justify giving so much attention to a subject which many regarded as irrelevant – a non-issue. Today, the nuclear threat is staring us in the face: Russia, during the invasion of Ukraine, has escalated its nuclear readiness. For decades the west has taken the value of nuclear weapons for granted, deployed as a credible deterrent, with missiles on high alert perpetually pointed at each other. Nuclear weapons would guarantee peace, it was believed, because the fear of mutual destruction would be too great. This is our nuclear standoff, where no side has a particular strategic advantage, and where we are constantly working to counter any potential risks or escalations. We relied on ‘responsible’ nuclear weapons states led by reliable leaders.
President Putin says that any country that ‘tries to stand in our way’ would be met with consequences ‘such as you have never seen in your entire history’. We might still say that deterrence has worked – Putin’s aggressive signalling is holding us back from a confrontation with Russia in support of Ukraine, just as much as it could be holding Putin back from expanding his conflict into the NATO Baltic states – but nuclear weapons have allowed Putin to act with impunity against a smaller and more vulnerable nation. Deterrence is only succeeding to uphold peace for some – us in the west – at the expense of peace for others – Ukraine, for example. That is no peace at all. Worse, sooner or later, deterrence between nuclear powers themselves will fail. We are closer to that catastrophe today. I long for a world without nuclear weapons, without nuclear ‘deterrence’ that does not work the way we’d like it to.
Here are three observations. Firstly, the world is full of power imbalances, a world of Ukraines – and Taiwans – living in the shadow of nuclear-armed neighbours. Secondly, a nuclear deterrence that stops all-out war between great powers, we now have seen, will not last. Ward Wilson, the executive director of the disarmament organisation RealistRevolt, says: ‘Nuclear deterrence seems to have been a restraining influence on war for over seventy years. It seems this poorly understood process is generally effective. That is the good news. The bad news is that we know with certainty that nuclear deterrence is bound to fail one day.’ One day, an error of judgement, or a miscalculation, will get the better of us. Nuclear deterrence is built upon extremely shaky foundations. A catastrophic miscalculation or inadvertent escalation could lead to Russian bombs falling on Poland or Hungary.
Secondly, the link between the existence of nuclear weapons and their deployment solely as a deterrent is at risk of breaking. While the ‘responsible’ nuclear powers do their best to uphold deterrence, others are actively working to dismantle deterrence altogether. In other words, there are those who would seek to use nuclear weapons tactically in a war. Russian nuclear doctrine, it pains me to say, leaves plenty of room for this kind of ‘limited’ or ‘battlefield’ nuclear weapons use, and a desperate Putin might be tempted to pursue this. The US under Donald Trump pursued similar objectives.
My final observation is that the possession of nuclear weapons, and specifically their use as a deterrent, is morally unjust. It is immoral to threaten what it is immoral to do. In other words, there is no point making an artificial distinction between possessing nuclear weapons because you’d like to use them ‘for real’, and possessing them for use as a deterrent. Simply being prepared to use them, and being prepared to inflict an outrageous degree of suffering, is bad enough. No human individual should ever be able to lay claim to the power to essentially unmake humanity, let alone follow through on the threat. This makes a mockery of our dignity as humans, treating us as dispensable, and makes a mockery of God, the giver of life.
My experience in Coventry has informed and enriched my determination on this moral point. Coventry, in the aftermath of its destruction in the second world war, rejected revenge. The then provost of the ruined cathedral, Dick Howard, chose reconciliation instead. It’s for this reason that nuclear deterrence, which is built upon a rigid determination to retaliate – to say, if you attack us, we’ll attack you back – is repulsive to many of us in Coventry.
We endeavour, as Coventrians, and many of us as Christians, to reflect upon our shared experiences of suffering and, indeed, our shared capacity to inflict suffering upon each other. It’s no surprise that people often talk about Coventry, Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the same sentence. To do so is to reflect upon our indiscriminate potential as humans to do awful deeds to each other, especially, in the context of war. This framing of war in humanitarian terms is important. It is also instinctive. We do this for Ukrainians as we should aspire to do for any population in a state of despair: Syrians, Afghans; indeed, Russians.
Please remember, nuclear scientists have concluded that if nuclear weapons were to be used, the destruction – the blast, the fires, the environmental degradation, the radiation – would mean that there would be nothing left.
In 2013, at a conference in Oslo, 127 states and seventy non-governmental organisations pioneered what became known as the Humanitarian Initiative. They highlighted nuclear weapons as a global system problem. The humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons are much graver and more complex than previously understood.
The Humanitarian Initiative led to the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, which turned the frustration at slow progress on disarmament into a legal mechanism to bring about the abolition of nuclear weapons. This ground-breaking treaty, which commands the support of 122 countries – none of which possesses nuclear weapons – stigmatises the very possession of such weapons. These are states which, understandably, feel vulnerable in the shadow of nuclear weapons powers which are modernising, even expanding, their arsenals.
We must pursue the total elimination of nuclear weapons. One nuclear weapon is too many. Ensuring ‘non-proliferation’ is not good enough – the treaty seeks this goal with utter clarity. In the present environment, a world without nuclear weapons might seem like the most distant of possibilities, not least because it would involve Russia itself having to give up its stockpiles. The world cannot see that it may be our only hope in preventing an even darker future. Coventry is a reminder to all of us that peace does not merely exist, it must be made. Let us commit to actively building peace after Ukraine, and to decisively tackle the nuclear weapons and doctrines which would stand in our way, once and for all.
Christopher is the bishop of Coventry. Thanks to Carol Rank and David Fish for helping with the arrangements for the speech, and David in particular for editing.
Comments
I am glad that this thoughtful message has been printed in The Friend.
The threat of death and destruction as in Hiroshima will not secure peace.
Quakers can join with others working for societies in which nobody is deprived of the opportunity to live a good life.
This means supporting groups and organisations working towards a world in which we agree not to discriminate, not to lie and cheat, but to live together in the light that comes from knowing that there is God in each of us. This is the peace which we should support, not the peace sustained by fear of destruction.
Quakers should not forget their long tradition of support for prison reform, for the abolition of slavery, for proper care for those with mental health problems, and continuing support for the United Nations and its agencies, for the European Union which has brought peace and prosperity to a war-damaged continent.
By David Walker on 24th March 2022 - 12:46
dear David Walker ... thank you very much for your reaction to Christopher Cocksworth’s words about lessons from our terrible year of war in 2022. it is very good of you to take the trouble. Everybody associated with Bishop Cocksworth lecture was very grateful to The Friend for publishing this. This included a message of support from Paul Oestreicher from his home in New Zealand. Thank you to The Friend. best wishes David Fish rugby Quaker meeting
By davidfishcf@msn.com on 23rd July 2022 - 18:43
Please login to add a comment
