Examples of using Nuclear zero in English and their translations into Russian
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
Nuclear zero.
David Cortright, Raimo Va… yrynen. Towards Nuclear Zero.
The implementation of“nuclear zero” encounters a lot of obstacles.
The refusal by these States to commence negotiations on nuclear disarmament while making tall claims about their commitment to"nuclear zero" is baffling, to say the least.
The US interest in the issue of“nuclear zero” became apparent as far back as a few years ago.
To be meaningful,it must take into account the need to establish a new security paradigm to replace nuclear deterrence as an essential step in creating the conditions for a nuclear zero.
One condition in moving towards global nuclear zero is eliminating the imbalance in conventional armed forces.
One can assume that precisely this“thin” global ABM system under international collective command could become the guarantee against possible attempts to“stash away” nuclear weapons at the closing stage of the implementation of“nuclear zero” or to“recreate” them for nuclear blackmail of a nuclear weapons-free world.
The argument advanced by the opponents of“nuclear zero” is that in a nuclear-free world the role of conventional weapons and armed forces may be well on the increase.
It is hard to determine in which case- with preserving nuclear weapons or with“nuclear zero”- this barrier will be easier to maintain.
By all appearances, many opponents of“nuclear zero” are not in a hurry to get involved in the discussion hoping that the initiative, as in the previous cases, will die out on its own.
While some powerful nations assert that today's global environment is more favourable for progress towards nuclear disarmament andstress their own commitment to nuclear zero, they are surprisingly opposed to the Conference on Disarmament engaging in negotiations on this core issue.
Progress towards"global nuclear zero" is possible only in an environment of strengthened strategic stability and strict compliance with the principle of equal security for all.
It would seem that the plans for the first stage of the advancement towards“nuclear zero” presented by the US President are worth being taken seriously.
Any open criticism against the“nuclear zero” idea from them would mean virtual repudiation of the obligation of their countries set forth in the Treaty to advance towards general and comprehensive nuclear disarmament.
Much more later, after Barack Obama's speech in Prague,the Russian print media reported about the conference on this topic organized by the Higher School of Economics during which A. Arbatov gave his backing to the implementation of the“nuclear zero” initiative, while S. Karaganov said that“nuclear disarmament can be disastrous” and“striving for it can be dangerous”5.
The major initial stumbling block to the implementation of the“nuclear zero” concept is the skepticism and even genuine conviction that general and comprehensive disarmament is unattainable and dangerous, the two sentiments that are still prevalent among politicians, the military and experts in international relations and global security.
Instead priority is given to the plans to create an ABM zone in the territories of states and at sea, for example in Romania. And though in the Prague Treaty Russia and the USA made the provision that“current strategic defensive arms do not undermine the viability and effectiveness of the strategic offensive arms of the Parties”, the ratio between the offensive anddefense systems can become most sensitive at the“penultimate” stages towards“nuclear zero”.
Thus, the implementation of the tasks of the initial stage of the advancement towards“nuclear zero”, as described in Obama's speech in Prague, will require some actions to compensate for the“lost decade” primarily from the USA.
A goal on such a scale as reaching" nuclear zero" can not be considered separately from other international problems, including the settlement of international conflicts, ensuring the viability of key disarmament and non-proliferation instruments, the withdrawal of all nuclear weapons to the territory of possessor States, the renunciation of the unilateral deployment of global anti-ballistic missile systems, the prevention of the placement of weapons in outer space and a verifiable cessation of the development of conventional capabilities.
Given that, one can make a logical, at first glance,conclusion understandable to the general public that the“nuclear zero” idea put forward by the USA is designed to secure and strengthen the American supremacy in conventional weapons and armed forces.
In favor of the topical nature of the issue of general and total ban on nuclear weapons the supporters of“nuclear zero” advance the argument that today the most ideology-driven and“unreasonable” regimes, first of all North Korean and Iranian, seek to possess such weapons.
The role of parliamentarians Today's global security environment is so complicated that the goal of Nuclear Zero cannot be attained without the cooperation and commitment of all nuclear-weapon-possessing States and their allies, and of key non-nuclear-weapon States.
That would level the playing field by making zero nuclear weapons the norm for all States.
That would be an excellent first step towards a world of zero nuclear weapons.
The existence of zero nuclear weapons may sound utopian, but the effort is required in the name of humanity.
The most recent announcement by some nuclear Powers regarding“true zero yield” is indeed encouraging.
A case study was presented where the decline of coal-fired power generation may be accompanied by the construction of new nuclear units with zero carbon dioxide emissions.
My delegation shares the thinking of the Tokyo Forum when it states that progress towards nuclear disarmament is inextricably tied to success in non-proliferation efforts,so that without success in non-proliferation, the goal of zero nuclear weapons cannot be achieved.
Earlier, on 2 September 1992, Mr. Maurizio Zifferero, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency(IAEA) inspection team,said,"Iraq's nuclear programme stands at zero now.