So the crucial point is whether China and the United States could reach a similar agreement. People might consider I am too naïve to believe that the United States would do that. But I don’t think I’m naive if I give you a lesson from history. India and Pakistan conducted nuclear tests in 1998. Very soon，China and the United States came to something which was so rare，that is， they quickly agreed to show solidarity between two nuclear powers，that is，to de-target their nuclear weapons at each other. In two years’ time，all the P5 countries have agreed on non-targeting in 2000.

The strong point of this agreement is that it is a good sign of the goodwill of the nuclear weapons states towards world nuclear disarmament. Even if non-targeting is not that significant，at least it's symbolic. The problem of non-targeting is it is not verifiable. How do you know if I’m targeting Russia or the United States or not? But I believe no first use is the natural step forward. Listen to this，non-targeting of nuclear weapons，what is the next step? Of course no-first use of nuclear weapons. I don't think no first use of nuclear weapons is lip service. Some people say China’s promotion of no first use is a kind of diplomatic ploy.

But then let me exaggerate to say，how about all of us join this “diplomatic poly”? Because this would become morally binding. Non-targeting is not verifiable，but no-first use is verifiable if you use nukes! No first use is good for the whole world. Finally，since all P-5 countries have agreed that a nuclear war cannot be won，why can't we pledge no-first use? Let me stop here and try my best to answer some of your questions. Thank you.

Comments: I agree very strongly no first use is a sort of logical step forward. But I doubt the United States will be willing to go along with this step by step process for the following reason.

It's already becoming clear in Europe. In my opinion，a public opinion is moving in favor of supporting negotiations to end the war whilst European political leaders are moving in the opposite direction.

Just to give one example，if I may. It was the European parliament resolution recently，which was passed，which called for，and I'm gonna quote， “support in every way possible for Ukraine's victory”. That's a sort of horrible blood curdling cry for a continuation of war，in my opinion.

So do you think the United States has an interest in maintaining the war in Ukraine. And I think that would be for two reasons. One is to prevent a bloc between China，Europe and Russia， which would make it considerably stronger than the United States，that's in the longer term.

And also，for that same end to foster bad relations between Germany and Russia and to encourage bad relations between Russia and China.

Zhou Bo:Thank you. I do understand that there are two kinds of people in supporting or opposing your views.

For example，Paul Krugerman，columnist of The New York Times，has actually said that supporting Ukraine would not cost much，but there are other people arguing the other way around. I believe right now，the United States is really struggling to find a solution，because it is actually involved in two wars. It believes that China is a “ pacing threat”，so they want to be focused on China. These two wars would definitely distract its attention.

So I don't think they want the war to continue，but as I said before，nobody knows how to end this war.

Sergey Batsanov( director of Pugwash，Geneva): It's an extremely interesting debate which has just started. I am a long-time enthusiast of no first use objective. I understand that there are many difficulties on the way to this idea. Obama tried to change the US policy from this particular aspect，just in the several last months before his departure from the White House. The common story is that he failed because the US allies objected to that.

Now，my analysis was even before that happened，that it was US military who arranged rejection of this Obama’s idea by the closest or some of the closest allies.

I think that we need to take into account a variety of factors，including new factors in order to prepare a solid or a more reliable base for making progress for no first use，including what you mentioned，when you discussed elements，important elements of strategic stability or sharing strategic stability between China and the US -- artificial intelligence，space and so on.

I would very strongly note that the new functions，new capabilities，or non-nuclear models，non nuclear forces，are becoming stronger and stronger factors that need to be addressed.

Now，one thing I need to correct. The debate in Russia about using nuclear weapons in Ukraine is a wrong description. Nobody is talking about using nuclear weapons in Ukraine，basically， except for some idiots，also high-level idiots. The question is about how to deter direct NATO involvement. To sum everything up，I think we need to move forward with the no first use; the idea I want to move，we need to start discussing seriously those ideas --how they work，starting with Track-II process，because Track-I has important limitations. I'm not saying it's impossible，but you have the limitations. And there is a need to clarify interests，preoccupations，objectives，steps，obstacles，and so on so forth. Thank you.

Zhou Bo:Thank you for your long comment. Since there are no questions，I wish not to respond.

Comments: Thanks very much. I've got two questions from Timothy Wright. He asked will a proposed no first use treaty encompasses change to a signatory’s respective force posture. If countries continue to have a launch on warning posture，for instance，nuclear war can still happen through miscalculation or accident. So he's asking if you think that political statement is sufficient，and secondly，China says it won't enter a nuclear arms race but it is expanding the number of the platforms and delivery vehicles. So he's arguing that all the signs are that China will continue to expand its capacities，and how does this align with Beijing’s position?

Zhou Bo: Let me come to the second question first. I think China's increase of nuclear weapons，if it really happens，would not be on a huge margin，therefore it would not be considered a nuclear arms race. Having more nuclear weapons，this is what I said，also means that China needs to modernize its nuclear forces because China would like to modernize all its military services，Rocket Force is also one of them. Now let me come to the first question. If all countries promise no first use，actually，you put yourself in the hands of the people around the world. People will see if you really honor your promise or not. If all nuclear weapons states say I won’t be the first to use，then this is a consensus that would be encouraging for non-nuclear weapons states. Just think of this，why should we need to use nuclear weapons first，especially for the United States which is the strongest nation on earth?

If an alliance is among a group of small，poor countries for self-defence，I understand it. But if this kind of alliance is among the strongest nations on earth，then I do not understand. If you are the strongest nation，people know the consequence if they attack you，you certainly have more than enough capabilities in retaliation. So why can't you promise no-first-use because it would not reduce your capabilities in retaliation. I know how difficult it is actually now for countries to adopt no first use. But I believe there could be a moment when political conditions are ripe. When we talk about non-targeting of nuclear weapons before 2000，there was also a voice in the United States which said，how can this be realistic? What I'm thinking about you is about your capability，not your gesture. But the Indo-Pakistan nuclear tests provide such a chance that the nuclear powers have to show a kind of solidarity. And nuclear powers have to show their opposition because their opposition is in line with NPT.

Comments: We have a few more questions. So one from Andrew，what would happen if a terrorist organization developed a nuclear weapon and threatened any of the world powers? How would no first use policy work then? David asks what assurances do you think China could or should give to US allies in East Asia about its intentions?

Zhou Bo：Well，about terrorists. First of all，do they have nuclear weapons? Or would they will use nuclear weapons first? Because if they use nuclear weapon first，if you retaliate，you are fully entitled to retaliate，right? So the genuine question actually is，how could you retaliate with nuclear weapons against a group of terrorists who could easily hide themselves somewhere? That is difficult to detect.

Let's talk about East Asia. Let's talk about China. Why in any circumstances would China launch a nuclear attack first on any countries? China claims large part of South China Sea，but so far， China has made no threats of using force at all toward any country in Southeast Asia. China is even negotiating a South China Sea code of conduct with ASEAN. Likewise，why would China want to use nuclear weapons against Japan which has no nuclear weapons? You can hardly give an example to say China has intention to use nuclear weapons against any country in East Asia.

The only example I gave just now is about DPRK which would make crazy remarks from time to time. But in reality，any launch of nuclear weapons，even small tactical nuclear bombs，is suicidal because the Korean Peninsula is too small. They，in spite of rhetoric，can hardly make this decision unless they want to commit suicide with someone. Then the question is why would they want to commit suicide? The answer is: unless they believe they could no longer live，so they want to die with you.

Comments: Thank you. Can you have a general comment on the relations between you and North Korea.

Zhou Bo：You see，there are so many debates about whether the North Korean leadership is rational or not. But if you look at what happened in the last 20 years，I think it is correct to say they have walked so fine on brinksmanship. Right? Brinksmanship requires a lot of the calculations，a lot of rationality-not something easily to be done，this is walking on a tight rope. So I would assume the leadership of DPRK is rational.

Comments: Thank you. I'm concerned，in a conflict over Taiwan，whether the conflict pressure would exceed this threshold，and we could still have nuclear war，and specifically in the context of non strategic nuclear weapons.

Zhou Bo：In China，there are some intermediate range missiles that are nuclear capable. That is true. But still，China has promised not to use nuclear weapons first against anyone.

We describe Taiwan people as our own compatriots. How can you imagine that we would use nuclear weapons against people whom we call “our compatriots in Taiwan”? It's totally unimaginable. I don't believe there is such a scenario，but what is dangerous is what I said just now. Some Americans including a former deputy assistant secretary of defense，and some think tanks openly ask the United States to use nuclear weapons in Taiwan Strait.

Now you can just google that very easily. Historically，they（ in the US）talked about using nuclear weapons against China. So I have to compare: when the West talked about Russia， they're just afraid Russia would use nuclear weapons. But when they talk about China，it seems that they are not afraid of China's smaller nuclear arsenal. Instead，they talk about using nukes first against the Chinese. So the simple logic for Chinese is that we have to increase our nuclear arsenal. And for us，as I mentioned before，it's just a political decision. Right? We are economically strong. We have technical know-how. We are the strongest industrial nation on earth. So I would say that the western countries should really congratulate themselves for China being so restraint until now.

Comments: let’s assume we did agree on a global no first use policy or even one bilaterally between the US and China. What do you see as the next step to build on that after a no first use policy has been agreed by all nuclear states?

Secondly，what about negative security assurances for non-nuclear weapons states? How does that play into this?

In spite of my proposal，I believe this is really the light at the end of the tunnel. It is dim light，it is not bright light. Yeah，it's difficult for us to do it，although I believe it is the right thing to do，and it is affordable for all nuclear weapon states.

Then I believe we have to discuss about the ways forward because in NPT，total nuclear disarmament is the goal of mankind.

Let me give you another example. I just briefly mentioned about our competition in outer space. China and Russia said no placement of any weapons in outer space. I think this makes a lot of sense. Don't we already have enough weapons on earth? Why should you place weapons in orbits? And which human folly is more monumental than places something in outer space to strike back on earth，our planet，our only homeland? But the United States and western countries just believe it is impossible not to place weapons in orbits.

They believe we can deploy them，but we need to discuss about responsible behaviors. But I still believe no placement of weapons in space is possible，because no West countries so far have described what they have deployed in space as a weapon.

So it would be much more relaxed if ordinary people think we do not have any weapons in outer space，because China and Russia's proposal comes from the Moon Treaty，but it is a step forward from Moon Treaty，which prohibits any placement of weapons in moon. If you don't place any weapons in moon，why would you place any weapon anywhere in orbit? If it is not for America’s desire for absolute supremacy，what is impeding Americans from doing so?

Comments: It strikes me that what worries China's neighbors is not so much its nuclear weapons，but its huge economic power. It's massive army，and it's what I would say is a kind of expansionist attitude in wanting to take over the South China Sea. It prevents the US from declaring no first use policy. Because it wants to preserve the right to prevent or deter China， say，from taking over the US allies. How do you feel about that?

Zhou Bo:First，I think it’s really a good thing for Chinese economy to become booming，for any Chinese like me. China's military is really growing. That is no doubt. But if you talk about the South China Sea，China is not impeding with any ships’ freedom of navigation in the South China Sea. There are 100,000 ships transiting through the South China Sea every year. Have you ever heard any complaint from the ships that China is impeding freedom of navigation? Yes，China has some territorial disputes with some ASEAN countries，but people forget one thing. These claimants have overlapping claims themselves. So it's not only between China and ASEAN countries. The problem is that China looks much bigger than these countries. Big is beautiful and small is adorable. People love things small，including baby cucumber，baby tomato. That is human instinct，not rationality. That is the only reason I can give.

本文系观察者网独家稿件，文章内容纯属作者个人观点，不代表平台观点，未经授权，不得转载，否则将追究法律责任。关注观察者网微信guanchacn，每日阅读趣味文章。