Achin Vanaik is a member of the Coalition for Nuclear Disarmament and Peace (India). He is a retired professor from the University of Delhi and the author of several books.
Derek Seidman: When you look at the world today, what is worrying you the most about nuclear weapons?
Achin Vanaik: The idea with tactical nuclear weapons is that nuclear weapons could be used in battle without mass annihilation. This undermines the already irrational deterrence logic that says nuclear weapons must not be used.
The U.S. also abandoned the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty in 2002 and has moved toward a nuclear shield. This accelerates the nuclear arms race because a country with a nuclear shield can consider a first strike on its nuclear opponent. There’s also the militarization of outer space.
The danger is greatest, though, in South Asia. India and Pakistan are two nuclear powers in ongoing conflict that have had conventional wars. Pakistan, a much smaller country than India, has stated it would consider using nuclear weapons if faced with economic strangulation, which is arguably what the Indian government has done in illegally suspending the Indus Waters Treaty. The likelihood of future armed conflict creates a situation where these two countries initially say they won’t use nuclear weapons, but then progress to a situation where they very seriously consider it.
Derek Seidman: What should be the short-term and long-term aims for a progressive antinuclear politics?
Vanaik: As we push for more countries to sign onto the TPNW, we should also propose nuclear risk reduction measures. We need to set up a framework for a discussion about nuclear disarmament just like we have around climate.
The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty would ease the situation. If the U.S. ratified it Russia would follow and it would put tremendous pressure on India and Pakistan. We must also promote more nuclear weapons free zones. Most important would be a Middle East zone free of nuclear weapons and all weapons of mass destruction. The principal holdout is, of course, Israel.
Even if we don’t achieve these, we should still raise them to propagate and raise general consciousness.
Derek Seidman: We don’t want more nuclear weapons, we also don’t want imperial powers dictating what Global South nations can and can’t do. What should an anticolonial, antinuclear politics look like?
Vanaik: Nuclear elites always say that nuclear weapons offer leverage. The problem is they represent something so extreme that you can’t actually use them to bully another country. Having nuclear weapons will not protect you from attacks.
You can’t fight successfully to get rid of nuclear weapons by only focusing on nuclear weapons. We have to connect that struggle to the struggle against expanding militarism and racist nationalism.
The danger of nuclear weapons has to be addressed at the international level. Regional efforts like nuclear weapons free zones are all steps in the generation of a consciousness to move beyond the terrain of nationalism and fight the interconnected crises, from militarism to climate, that impact us all. We need to be internationalists.
Derek Seidman: The topic of nuclear weapons can feel overwhelming. What keeps you motivated in this struggle?
Vanaik: Don’t underestimate the importance of a progressive mass politics. Mass politics can lead to the overthrow of even the most intense dictatorships, and it can provide resistance against countries that are considering using nuclear weapons.
We also have no choice. The biggest problems of the world today are caused by the rich and the right. But the future is open ended. We can change it. It has changed before. We guarantee that it will only get worse if we don’t fight.