(THE ULTIMATUM)

80 years of blah, blah, blah, and not a single narrative has brought an end to our rapidly approaching self-annihilation. We seem to be destined to bid ourselves, good-bye as quickly as possible.

THE ULTIMATUM AT THE END OF THE WORLD

Only one narrative to replace all the ones we’ve tried comes to mind. It is, however, one that is at least as dangerous and risky as the narratives we now pursue. Perhaps more so. Yet, since the current policies of MAD and Non-Proliferation promise, sooner or later, we will unleash the unimaginable horror of global thermonuclear war, this proposal at least offers an escape hatch:

Suppose all of the non-holding nations agreed among themselves that the logic of non-proliferation was completely flawed, and unenforceable, for obvious reasons. Suppose they came to the conclusion that there was no justification for just a few nations claiming some right to have nuclear weapons, while saying it was dangerous to let anyone but themselves have them (which can’t be enforced, in any case.) The predicate of non-proliferation, that only a few responsible nations should have nuclear weapons, has proven untenable in a world where mentally unstable individuals ascend to positions of leadership and are in control of their country’s nuclear arsenals. To such individuals, global suicide is a conceivable option. M.A.D. is no longer a dependable means to prevent thermonuclear war.

Instead, consider that the remaining 186 countries (there are presently 9 countries known to have nuclear weapons), decide among themselves that, if there are any nuclear weapons in the world, they will no longer be left out of having them for their own security. That is, they assemble and draft the following ultimatum to the countries that have such weapons:

Preamble:

We, the nations of the world that do not possess nuclear weapons, reject the notion that a few nations (9 at present) are permitted to have such terrible devices, while everyone else is prohibited from having any. Though it is, and always has been, our fervent wish to rid the world of all nuclear weapons, every attempt to do so for the past three-quarters of a century has utterly failed. We are no closer to that goal than we were in August of 1945. Indeed, every passing year sees us only moving closer to the day that we shall deliver the horrific promise that these weapons have in store for us. We can find no other way to end the nightmare of a world held hostage to the threat of a few, and their march toward global catastrophe, than to present to those few nations which have nuclear weapons the following ultimatum:

The Ultimatum:

Either you, the nations of the world having nuclear weapons or the capability of making them, verifiably destroy all such weapons in your possession and dismantle your capabilities for making more or newer versions of such weaponry within two years from the date of this ultimatum or, We the undersigned nations of the world which possess none of these weapons nor the capability for making them, will form an alliance among ourselves to help each other make, acquire and possess our own nuclear weapons stockpiles and delivery systems until everyone of us has this capability. It is of no concern of ours how you accomplish this task. But that you do accomplish it within the next two years is a nonnegotiable ultimatum. Either you do, or we will begin irrevocably fulfilling our promise to insure that every nation has stockpiles of these weapons on hand. The clock is now ticking, and the only answer we will accept is to verify that the world is completely devoid of nuclear weapons, now and forever.”

[signatures of 186 nations which have no nuclear weapons.]

That’s it. Risky? Hell yes. Riskier than the present situation? Who can say, beyond the fact that the present course assures us of only one thing, we will eventually, by intention, misjudgment, human or technological error, or just plain bad luck accomplish our mutually assured destruction. The ultimatum really risks nothing more than that, but offers an escape clause if we wish to take it. Everything else is just blah, blah, blah.

—red slider, 2016

Update, July 2025:

["In his essay, “The Ultimatum”, Red Slider proposes that the nations which do not possess nuclear weapons present those that do with an ultimatum: either the holding nations get rid of all their nuclear weapons, or the non-holding nations will band together to insure that every one of them acquire their own nuclear arsenals. That essay was written 10 years ago. After reading The Atlantic Monthly’s articles on nuclear war in their August issue, Mr. Slider wrote the following update to ‘The Ultimatum’,]

In the decade since I first contemplated ‘The Ultimatum’ as an unthinkable, yet rational reply to threat of global thermonuclear war, the dangers of relying on the postures of M.A.D. and Non-Proliferation have intensified by some order of magnitude. The idea that a few superpowers can responsibly refrain from mutual global suicide has proven to be a worthless assumption. At this time, a certifiably deranged individual has been put in charge of the largest nuclear weapons arsenal in the world, with little assurance that any rational fear of mutual destruction will prevent him from escalating some minor insult into a global thermonuclear conflagration. The mental stability of the leaders of the other two superpowers are also questionable, but unknown. All three, have demonstrated a sociopathic degree of tolerance for cruelty and sadism on a mass scale. Holders of smaller nuclear arsenals have shown an even greater disregard for human suffering and destruction if they think there is some selfish advantage in visiting it on some real or imagined adversary. Even a small nuclear skirmish among them could rapidly escalate into the threat of global extinction

Add to the assurance that mutually assured destruction has only grown in its assurance, an additional trigger to starting a nuclear war has now been grafted onto the weapons of conventional warfare. Russia has conducted a successful test of the power of nuclear saber rattling when used in conventional warfare as a strategic and tactical weapon. One can only conclude that M.A.D. can no longer be relied upon as a restraint to prevent the employment of nuclear weapons.

‘Non-Proliferation’, an artifact of the cold war, was a doubtful containment strategy at the time I wrote 'The Ultimatum'. It has become far more so in the intervening years. The first breaches in the attempt to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of “less responsible” nations, had already rendered non-proliferation’ policies impotent to forestall real proliferation. In one of the Atlantic’s articles on the subject of nuclear war and brinksmanship, staff writer Tom Anderson relates the sentiments expressed by Hidehiko Yuzaki, the governor of the Hiroshima Prefecture,

“So long as anyone has them, there is always the risk of proliferation cascades, and no one knows where this new local one will end. The desire for these weapons is contagious, and could spread well beyond the nervous national-security types in Seoul and Tokyo.” [or any other part of the world—rs.]

To this, Mr. Anderson adds, “Indeed, the entire Non-Proliferation treaty could unravel altogether.”

I would add, that the unraveling of the so-called ‘Non-Proliferation treaty’ is not a ‘could’, it is an ongoing unraveling that can only end—by miscalculation, mistake, accident, bad luck, or certifiable madness—with exactly what it was meant to prevent, and what is most feared.

In the first of the articles describing the increasing likelihood of a nuclear war, Jeff Goldberg, editor in chief of The Atlantic, closes with a rule offered by mathematician, Martin Hellman, “The only way to survive Russian roulette is to stop playing.”

However, in the final paragraphs of the last article in the series, Tom Nichols, Atlantic staff writer, argues the only option is to keep playing. Nor do any of the other articles contain any suggestion as to how we might stop playing this dangerous game. Mr. Nichols would leave the matter of destroying the world in the hands of a single individual, the President, as the only realistic option, owing to the exceedingly short time in which such decisions must be made. Mr. Nichols argument is for the status quo on who gets to decide whether to launch the end of the world or not. He then goes on to correctly observe, that option ultimately leaves the matter in the hands of voters to insure the person given the power to make that decision is sane, rational and competent.

Unfortunately, it is an argument that utter fails under the weight of ample evidence that democracy cannot protect itself from democracy. When it comes to voting, it is quite clear that the price of eggs is far more consequential to the average voter than the price of blowing up the world.

The only difference between the ongoing, unfolding and intensifying threat of nuclear weapons, and the state of affairs described in ‘The Ultimatum’, is that our current trajectory offers no ultimatum, no escape clause. It only leads to one, very predictable conclusion. The mutually assured destruction of us all.

red slider, July 24, 2025


[a note on ‘The Ultimatum’ appeared in the October issue of The Atlantic ]

Related material:

Companion article: Remembering Hiroshima and Nagasaki — a review of the use of narratives that drive us to the abyss of self-destruction.

Begin the Conversation —Actions, articles and poems to change the narratives for the abolition of nuclear weapons.

To hell and back — Last Train From Hiroshima
Charles Pellegrino’s forensic examination of events on the
ground during the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Resurrecting Nagasaki: Reconstruction and the formation of Atomic Narratives. Chad R. Diehl’s research on the origins our atomic Narratives.