CANADIAN EXPERT ON NUCLEAR WEAPONS AND GLOBAL THREATS DEBUNKS MYTHS
Image source: worldacademy.org
David Harries is a renowned Canadian consultant in the fields of global security and forecasting. He is recognized as one of the world’s leading experts on civil-military relations, post-conflict, and post-disaster response.
Harries’ expertise encompasses nuclear disarmament, global threats, and international cooperation. As a military engineer, he dedicated many years to army service and work within NATO structures. He served as Director of Curriculum Planning and Coordination at the Canadian National Defence College and headed Canadian Pugwash, an association of scholars, as well as the Security and Sustainability Office.
As a specialist in heavy engineering and a participant in numerous UN missions, Harries has visited 93 countries, living and working extensively in 20 of them. Due to the unique aspects of his biography, he possesses an exceptional understanding of global processes.
In an exclusive interview, Harries shares these insights with the readers of our almanac.
VISIONARY THINKING: PREPARING FOR THE FUTURE
When I served in the army, I realized how crucial it is to look ahead. Yet even a genius can’t know exactly what the future will look like. The army taught me that life can deliver unpleasant surprises if you don’t make an effort to anticipate and foresee future events. To best prepare for the future, one must become a visionary and learn how to visualize possible scenarios for what lies ahead.
SCIENTISTS DISAGREE ON THE PROSPECTS FOR NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT
Is global nuclear disarmament achievable in the future? Members of the Pugwash movement of scientists, of which I am part, have no unified opinion on this matter.
This non-governmental scientific organization’s history began when 11 globally renowned scientists, including Einstein, Joliot-Curie, Born, Russell, and others, proposed establishing an international conference against the military use of nuclear energy.
The first such event took place in 1957 in the Canadian town of Pugwash. Since then, technology has advanced considerably, accelerating arms development accordingly. It’s no surprise that scientists vigorously debate the prospects of nuclear disarmament. From personal experience, I know how radically — sometimes even to the point of extremism — some pacifists hold their positions. They refuse to consider any arguments that contradict their views.
NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT IS NOT A GUARANTEE OF SECURITY
Let’s imagine the following scenario: suppose a situation arises in which complete global nuclear disarmament becomes mandatory. This process is not as simple as many assume.
First, all nuclear weapons must be taken off combat duty. Next, they must be deactivated and disassembled. Then, each component must be safely disposed of according to strict security regulations. Afterward, the radioactive materials will require careful monitoring and storage over many years, possibly even centuries. Not to mention the enormous cost of such a project! Few would be willing to finance it.
Advocates of complete nuclear disarmament demand something that is practically impossible. Moreover, we must not overlook the existence of weapons nearly as destructive as nuclear arms. For example, if Russia or China decided to use hypersonic weapons, the consequences could be catastrophic. Complete nuclear disarmament alone wouldn’t eliminate such threats.
NATO IS LOSING CONTROL AND TRUST
There is an English saying: «A camel is a horse designed by a committee». The same can be said about the NATO military-political bloc today. I once worked there as a design engineer, so I know what this organization is like from the inside and whether it is capable of being a guarantor of peace.
When I first started working there, NATO had only 12 members, who were constantly engaged in disputes and disagreements. However, at least back then, in the course of free discussion, every point of view could be heard and considered.
Today, the alliance has 30 members with vastly different political views, participating in various military conflicts, making substantive dialogue exceedingly difficult.
Trump’s presidency was also a serious blow to NATO. He considered America’s participation in it a waste of time, despite the fact that the U.S. is the military backbone of the alliance. Now, the Biden administration is trying to restore trust in NATO, but it remains at an all-time low.
NATO HAS NO REASON TO ATTACK RUSSIA
I am aware that there are ongoing discussions in Ukraine about joining NATO. They argue about whether this will actually pose a threat to Russia. I don’t believe that Ukraine has the opportunity to become a member of the alliance in the foreseeable future.
It is well known around the world that this is a highly corrupt country. As of 2021, Ukraine ranked 122nd out of 180 countries according to the Corruption Perceptions Index. This fact alone effectively excludes Ukraine from consideration as a serious candidate.
But let’s assume Ukraine does manage to become a full-fledged member of the alliance. Even then, it would make no sense for NATO to attack Russia — there would be no strategic logic behind it. For the simple reason that it is an excessively large country, stretching across 10 time zones. Moreover, it possesses a nuclear arsenal sufficient to destroy the entire world.
WHY DO MILITARY EXPERTS GET IT WRONG?
In the United States, there are roughly 20 major intelligence agencies that rarely communicate effectively with each other. There is fierce competition between them for funding. As a result, billions of dollars are wasted every year.
The largest ongoing war fought by the U.S. armed forces is the battle between military departments for the budget.
Every day, the army, the air force, and the marine corps are at each other’s throats, fighting for additional funding. Recently, the space industry has also become part of this confrontation.
Given that expert organizations also function on a competitive basis, it becomes clear why there were mistakes in the initial forecasts regarding the outcome of the war in Ukraine.
Furthermore, I am convinced that the people who predicted that the war between Russia and Ukraine would last only 3 days are not experts on these countries.
THE UN’S FAILED MARKETING EFFORTS
In 2015, the United Nations set 17 Sustainable Development Goals, stating that their achievement would protect our planet and ensure humanity’s safety. However, in my opinion, the marketing of this initiative has been utterly ineffective. It was expected that the new «goals» would become successors to the Millennium Development Goals program, which the UN adopted back in 2000.
We know that the United Nations sponsors and promotes this project. However, it is completely unclear who holds the leadership in the UN and who is responsible for this program. In many different countries around the world, people are practically unaware of these initiatives.
In 2022, UN Secretary-General António Guterres highlighted 13 global threats facing humanity. Among them are climate change and the war in Ukraine… But unfortunately, to this day, for most people, these are just small parts of the «15-minute news».
НЕОСВЕДОМЛЕННОСТЬ КАК ГЛОБАЛЬНАЯ ПРОБЛЕМА
In Canada, where I live, it’s difficult to find anyone who knows anything specific about the Sustainable Development Goals beyond their mere existence. This is despite critical issues such as global warming, which poses real threats.
Meanwhile, its consequences are becoming increasingly destructive and costly.
For instance, in 2021, severe consequences of climate change became evident in Canada: wildfires devastated the town of Lytton, and floods destroyed highways, effectively cutting off Vancouver from the rest of the country.
People who deny global warming do so either for selfish reasons or because they have not personally suffered from its consequences. Until a person directly encounters a wildfire or a flood of unprecedented scale, it is difficult for them to recognize global warming as an existential threat.
Moreover, those controlling media outlets are extremely selective about what issues they highlight, further exacerbating public ignorance.
For example, my American colleagues knew nothing about Lytton and Vancouver’s disasters until I personally informed them.
Interview by Leonid Shokh
