Resources
Nuclear Weapons on Hair-Trigger: Timeline to Catastrophe[1]
RUSSIA Minutes
Amount of time Russian military has to decide that 3
U.S. missiles are headed for Russia
Amount of time Russian President has to make the 3
decision to order a missile attack against U.S.
TOTAL TIME elapsed for making the decision to launch missiles 6
Amount of time it takes to launch Russian nuclear missiles 4
Amount of time it takes missiles to hit U.S 25
U.S.
Amount of time Pentagon has to decide that Russian 14
missiles are headed for the U.S.
Amount of time U.S. President has to make the 8
decision to order a missile attack against Russia
TOTAL TIME elapsed for making the decision to launch missiles 22
Amount of time it takes to launch U.S. nuclear missiles 3
Amount of time it takes missiles to hit Russia 10
The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation provides two handouts called Ten Facts and Ten Myths About Nuclear Weapons; a copy can be retrieved at http://www.wagingpeace.org. These handouts work very well with NAPF's video "Nuclear Weapons and the Human Future," and with other presentations.
TEN FACTS ABOUT NUCLEAR WEAPONS
1. There are still some 26,000 nuclear warheads in the world, enough to destroy civilization many times over and destroy most life on earth. Nuclear weapons make humans an endangered species.
2. More than 95% of all nuclear weapons are in the arsenals of the U.S. and Russia.
3. The average nuclear weapon in the U.S. arsenal is approximately eight times more powerful than the nuclear bombs that destroyed Hiroshima, immediately killing some 90,000 people.
4. There are currently nine countries with nuclear weapons (U.S., Russia, UK, France, China, Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea.)
5. The 1970 Non-Proliferation Treaty, ratified by nearly every country in the world, requires the nuclear weapons states to engage in good faith negotiations for nuclear disarmament.
6. The Unites States unilaterally withdrew for the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002, in order to pursue missile defenses and space weaponization. U.S. withdrawal from the treaty has caused both Russian and China to improve their offensive nuclear capabilities.
7. There are up to 2,000,000 kilograms of Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU) in global stockpiles, and it takes just 15-24 kilograms for a nuclear weapon. There are 28 countries with a least one bomb's worth of HEU and 12 countries with at least 20 bombs' worth.
8. Plutonium created in nuclear power reactors is another source of bomb material. It takes as little as three to five kilograms of plutonium to create a nuclear weapon. There are now some 500,000 kilograms of separated plutonium in global stockpiles. Plutonium stocks continue to increase due to civilian 'spent' fuel reprocessing.
9. The 2001 U.S. Nuclear Posture Review provides for developing contingency plans for nuclear weapons use against seven countries: Iraq, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Russia, and China.
10. The Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (SORT) between the U.S. and Russia requires the two countries to reduce their deployed strategic warheads to between 1,700 and 2,200 by December 31, 2012. On the following day the treaty terminates, and each side can redeploy as many nuclear warheads as it chooses. Many of the nuclear warheads taken off deployed status are not being dismantled, but rather placed in storage, where they might be stolen by criminal or terrorist groups.
TEN MYTHS ABOUT NUCLEAR WEAPONS
1. Nuclear weapons were needed to defeat Japan in World War II. This is not the opinion of many leading U.S. military figures in the war. General Dwight Eisenhower, the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe during World War II and later president, wrote, "I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'..."
2. Nuclear weapons prevented a war between the U.S. and the Soviet Union. There were many deadly conflicts and "proxy" wars carried out by the superpowers in Asia, Africa and Latin America. The Vietnam War, which took several million lives, is a prominent example. These wars made the supposed nuclear peace very bloody and deadly.
3. Nuclear threats have gone away since the end of the Cold War. In the aftermath of the Cold War, a variety of new nuclear threats have emerged. Among these are the following dangers:
§ Increased chances of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists willing to use them
§ Policies of the U.S. government to make nuclear weapons smaller and more usable
§ Use of nuclear weapons by accident, particularly because of decaying Russian infrastructure
§ Spread of nuclear weapons to other states that may perceive them to be an "equalizer" against a more powerful state.
4. The U.S. needs nuclear weapons for national security. U.S. national security would be far improved if the U.S. took a leadership role in seeking to eliminate nuclear weapons throughout the world. Nuclear weapons are the only weapons that could actually destroy the U.S., and their existence and proliferation threaten U.S. security.
5. Nuclear weapons make a country safer. By threatening massive retaliation, the argument goes, nuclear weapons prevent an attacker from starting a war. There are many ways, though, in which deterrence could fail, including misunderstandings, faulty communications, irrational leaders, miscalculation and accidents.
6. No leader would be crazy enough to actually use nuclear weapons. U.S. leaders, considered by some to be highly rational, have used nuclear weapons in war against Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Threats of nuclear attack by India and Pakistan are an example of nuclear brinkmanship that could turn into a nuclear war. Globally and historically, leaders have done their best to prove that they would use nuclear weapons.
7. Nuclear weapons are a cost-effective method of national defense. The cost of U.S. nuclear weapons research, development, testing, deployment and maintenance has exceeded $7.5 trillion.
8. Nuclear weapons are well protected and there is little chance that terrorists could get their hands on one. In the aftermath of the Cold War, the ability of the Russians to protect their nuclear forces has declined precipitously. In addition, a coup in a country with nuclear weapons, such as Pakistan, could lead to a government coming to power that was willing to provide nuclear weapons to terrorists.
9. The U.S. is working to fulfill its nuclear disarmament obligations. The U.S. has failed for nearly four decades to fulfill obligations under Article VI of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, requiring good faith negotiations to achieve nuclear disarmament. The U.S. has failed to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and has withdrawn from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.
10. Nuclear weapons are needed to combat threats from terrorists and "rogue states". The threat of nuclear force cannot act as a deterrent against terrorists because they do not have a territory to retaliate against. If the leaders of a rogue state do not use a rational calculus regarding their losses from retaliation, deterrence can fail.
SAMPLE LETTERS TO THE EDITOR:
Open Column
Columbia Daily Tribune
Columbia, Missouri
June 6, 2007
The National Nuclear Security Administration recently announced that it will replace Honeywell Corporation's old Kansas City plant with a half-billion dollar facility. The new facility is part of Complex 2030, a $150 billion plan of the Bush Administration to rebuild the Cold War nuclear weapons complex and replace the old stockpile with new weapons.
In protest of this effort, I submit the following renunciation of nuclear weapons:
Mindful of the extreme dangers and costs that nuclear weapons bring to the world and to those who rely on them, and mindful of America's practical, moral and spiritual need to serve life rather than build instruments of death, I Bill Wickersham, a citizen of the United States of America, renounce, withdraw my citizen's consent for, and oppose any design, production, testing, planning for use, or use of nuclear weapons by the United States, against any nation, group, persons or person, at any time, and under any circumstances. I declare to my elected representatives and to all agencies of the United States government that if I die in an act of mass murder against the United States, I do not want further acts of mass murder committed in my name. I make this declaration in my own name and in the name of my mentor, the late Dr. Theo. F. Lentz, and all the children of the future.
For additional information on " A Citizen's Renunciation of Nuclear Weapons" see: www.nonnukes.org[2]
Open Column
Columbia Daily Tribune
Columbia, MO
Dec. 27, 2007
Many thanks to Bill Clark for his well-written article concerning the history of U.S nuclear weapons testing in the state of Nevada, and his own experience as a guinea pig for the 23-kiloton "Badger" test in 1953.
As Bill notes, U.S. atmospheric testing officially ended in 1963, which was in keeping with the signing and ratification of the U.S./Soviet Limited Test Ban Treaty which prohibited atmospheric testing, but did not outlaw underground tests by either country.
In 1996, President Bill Clinton signed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which would have prevented further underground testing by both countries, and would have been a very positive step toward the elimination of nuclear weapons from Planet Earth. Unfortunately, the Republican majority in the U.S. Senate failed to ratify the Treaty.
Today, many former top ranking nuclear weapons warriors, such as U.S. Air Force Generals Eugene Habiger and George Lee Butler (both were commanders of the U.S. Strategic Command), along with civilian leaders, such as former Senator Sam Nunn of Georgia, and former Secretaries of State George Shultz and Henry Kissinger, are calling for an end to all nuclear testing and the total abolition of nuclear weapons.
In line with that advice, one of the first orders of business of a new U.S. President and Senate must be the signing and ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. This will be a major step in ending the nuclear weapons madness.
THE SCROLL
Phi Delta Theta Educational Foundation
2 South Campus Avenue
Oxford, Ohio 45056
Editor:
Thanks for the article on Senator Sam Nunn and his Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI). You could not have addressed a more important issue. Sadly, in recent years, the threat of nuclear war has been seriously neglected by most politicians, citizens and academics. NTI's DVD docudrama "The Last Best Chance," starring former U.S. Senator Fred Dalton Thompson, is one of the best tools available for helping us all confront the distinct possibility of a terrorist attack with weapons of mass destruction.
In the Scroll article, Sen. Nunn calls for a verifiable international treaty that would halt the production of additional fissile material for bomb purposes. As Brother Nunn knows very well, the signing and ratification of that treaty will face many political obstacles which will require a great deal of political education and action on the part of U.S. citizens, and those of other countries. Widespread dissemination of "The Last Best Chance" can markedly contribute to such education and action. The DVD can be secured at no cost, by calling 1-800-336-0035. I highly recommend that every chapter of Phi Delta Theta obtain a copy of the film for showing to their brothers. They, in turn, can do much to educate their fellow students on this crucial problem, which truly threatens life on our Planet.
Bill Wickersham, Missouri Alpha 1955, Adjunct Professor of Peace Studies,
University of Missouri - Columbia.
SAMPLE OP-ED
written on September 29, 1998 to a Columbia, Missouri newspaper.
Nuclear Ban Will Help U.S.
Sept. 24 marked the 35th anniversary of the U.S. Senate's 80-14 vote ratification of the Partial Test Ban Treaty, which prohibits the testing of nuclear weapons in the atmosphere, in outer space and under water. The larger goal of the treaty, also known as the Limited Test Ban (LTB), was to put "... an end to the contamination of man's environment by radio-active substances."
The document was the product of many non-governmental organizations and citizen groups who convinced key politicians that nuclear fallout would eventually make our beautiful planet unlivable.
Among those who took the lead in the research, education and political activities, which facilitated the LTB's successful development and confirmation, were several Missourians.
One of the most prominent researchers to address the fallout problem was Barry Commoner, noted molecular biologist at Washington University in St. Louis. He and fellow St. Louisans formed the Committee for Nuclear Information (CNI) which conducted research on radioactive fallout and disseminated information on its effects.
CNI's research on the baby teeth of St. Louis area grade school children produced clear evidence of the link between above ground-worldwide nuclear explosions, including those in Nevada, and the presence of strontium 90, a product of nuclear detonations, in children's bones and teeth.
The nuclear explosion-strontium 90 deposit cycle occurred in the following sequence:
§ An above-ground nuclear explosion occurred in Nevada;
§ Strontium 90 from the mushroom cloud was deposited in Nevada clouds;
§ Nevada clouds moved eastward to St. Louis County to become St. Louis clouds;
§ St. Louis clouds then produced rain that fell on the local grass;
§ St. Louis County cows ate the strontium 90 contaminated grass;
§ Those cows produced milk;
§ St. Louis mothers-to-be drank the milk;
§ The mothers transmitted the strontium 90 to their unborn babies so that it was deposited in their bones and teeth;
§ As the children's baby teeth "came out", they were given to CNI for research purposes.
With this evidence, and with encouragement by scientists such as Nobel Laureate Linus Pauling, the mothers of America, members of Columbia's Committee for Informed Opinion on Nuclear Arms and others, demanded an end to the nuclear testing.
The result was the LTB. Upon ratification of the treaty, protests subsided in the U.S., and both superpowers continued underground testing, which resulted in the development and deployment of thousands of new nuclear weapons by both sides.
Despite the upward escalation, a global halt to all nuclear weapons test explosions has been a stated objective of the United States since it was first put forth by President Dwight Eisenhower in 1958.
After 40 years of bipartisan effort, President Bill Clinton in 1996, became the first world leader to sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, calling it "the longest-sought, hardest-fought prize in the history of arms control."
The CTBT, which will outlaw all nuclear test explosions, will strengthen U.S. security by helping stop the spread of nuclear weapons to other nations and will help prevent the renewal of a superpower nuclear arms race. But, our nation and others cannot enjoy the treaty's full scale benefits until it is ratified by a two-thirds vote of the U.S. Senate.
According to the Washington-based Coalition to Reduce Nuclear Dangers, the CTBT is supported by the Department of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 70 percent of Americans and 140 nations, including Russia, China, Great Britain and France.
But, the treaty has been stalled in the U.S. Senate's Committee on Foreign Relations. For the U.S. to be able to continue its leadership in reducing the threat of nuclear weapons and controlling the spread of those weapons worldwide, it is imperative that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee approve and submit the CTBT to the full Senate.
Consequently, it is urgent that Missourians contact Sens. John Ashcroft and Kit Bond to seek their support in encouraging Sen. Jesse Helms to bring the treaty to the floor of the Senate.[3]
The address for both Missouri senators is: United States Senate, Washington, D.C., 20510.
Bill Wickersham is a former MU Professor of Extension Education, and served as Executive Director of the World Federalist Association in Washington, D.C.
SAMPLE SPEECH
Nuclear Disarmament Now
A Paper Presented to a Symposium on Nuclear Disarmament, Nuclear Energy and Weapons of Mass Destruction at the 2009 Meeting of the Federation of Analytical Chemistry and Spectroscopy Societies:
Our topic today is "Nuclear Disarmament Now." In speaking on that subject, I will address four key points, the first being a discussion of some of the main reasons why nuclear disarmament is urgently needed. The second point will focus on an action plan developed by the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation of Santa Barbara, California for advancing President Obama's nuclear disarmament agenda. (Incidentally, for the remainder of this presentation I shall refer to the organization as the Foundation). Thirdly, we will discuss U.S. plans for the weaponization of space as an obstacle to global nuclear disarmament; and finally, I will discuss the campaign for a nuclear-free world which was recently launched by the International Network of Engineers and Scientists for Global Security, and what you can do to help with that effort.
At the outset, lets take a look at some of the critical issues that surround nuclear weapons and why they need to be eliminated from Planet Earth. First, they are extremely dangerous, and literally threaten to make human beings an endangered species. The exact number of nuclear weapons in possession of each of the nine nuclear weapons states is a closely held national secret. Nevertheless, publicly available information and occasional leaks make it possible to obtain best estimates about the size and composition of the national nuclear weapon stockpiles. More than a decade and a half after the Cold War ended, the world's combined stockpile remains at a very high level, i.e., more than 23,300 warheads.
According to Hans Kristensen of the Federation of American Scientists more than 8,109 of these warheads are considered operational, of which approximately 2,200 U.S. and 2,200 Russian weapons are on high alert, ready for use on short notice.
In case of a nuclear weapons alert, the Russian President has three minutes to decide whether or not to launch an attack on the U.S. The U.S. president has 8 minutes to decide if he receives such an alert. Launch to landing time for Russian missiles is about 25 minutes. Launch to landing time for U.S. missiles is approximately 10 minutes.
During the past 64 years, there have been dozens of incidents, accidents and errors with nuclear weapons, including several near misses. One of those near misses occurred in early September, 1983, when tension between the Soviet Union and the United States was very high. Not only had the Soviet military downed a Korean passenger plane, but the United States was also conducting exercises in Europe that focused on the use of tactical nuclear weapons against the Soviets - a situation that led some Soviet leaders to worry that the West was planning a nuclear attack. To make matters worse, an unanticipated variable was thrown into the mix. On September 26, 1983, the alarms in a Soviet early warning bunker, just South of Moscow sounded as computer screens indicated that the United States had launched a nuclear strike against the Soviet Union. The officer in charge of the bunker and its 200 officers and enlisted personnel was Lt. Colonel Stanislav Petrov. It was his job to monitor incoming satellite signals and to report directly to the Russian early warning headquarters if indicators revealed that a U.S. missile attack was underway. Years later, Col. Petrov said: " I felt as if I had been punched in my nervous system. There was a huge map of the States with a U.S. base lit up, showing that the missiles had been launched."
"For several minutes Petrov held a phone in one hand and an intercom in the other as alarms continued blaring, red lights blinking, and computers reporting that U.S. missiles were on their way. In the midst of this horrific chaos and terror, with the prospect of the end of civilization itself, Petrov made a historic decision not to alert higher authorities, believing in his gut and hoping with all that is sacred, that contrary to what all the sophisticated equipment was reporting, this alarm was an error... As agonizing minutes passed, Petrov's decision proved correct. It was a computer error that signaled a U.S. attack."
"Had Petrov obeyed standard operating procedures by reporting the erroneous attack, Soviet missiles could have devastated all major U.S. cities and the Pentagon would have retaliated. In reviewing the incident, Petrov concluded that a nuclear war could have broken out and the whole world could have been destroyed. On Dateline NBC, November 12, 2000, Bruce Blair, president of the Center for Defense Information, and himself a former U.S. Minuteman missile launch officer said: " I think this is the closest we've come to accidental nuclear war."
On January 25, 1995, another potentially disastrous early warning error occurred when a Russian radar mistook a U.S. weather research rocket launched from Norway as an incoming nuclear strike from a U.S. Trident submarine. Even though the United States had notified Russia it would launch a non-military weather research rocket, those in control of Russia's strategic nuclear weapons did not receive the message. Fortunately, Russian President Boris Yeltsin, a man with a drinking problem, who had three minutes to order a retaliatory strike, elected to "ride out" the crisis and did not launch the thousands of nuclear tipped missiles available on his command. As previously mentioned, there have been many serious mishaps since the beginning of the nuclear age. For a comprehensive list by date, see: www.nuclearfiles.org.
In addition to the dangers posed by the nuclear threat systems, there are other basic reasons for abolishing them. Not only are they extremely dangerous, they are also illegal, immoral, environmentally destructive and very expensive. They kill men, women and children indiscriminately and are virtually unlimited in their effects.
In addressing the illegality of nuclear deterrence, University of Illinois Professor of International Law, Frank Boyle quotes the 1996 World Court Advisory Opinion on Nuclear weapons which says: " States must never make civilians the object of attack, and must consequently never use weapons that are incapable of distinguishing between civilian and military targets." He goes on to say: "... U.S. strategic nuclear weapons systems do indeed make civilians the direct object of attack, and because of their incredible explosive power are also incapable of distinguishing between civilian and military targets."
In analyzing the immorality of nuclear weapons, the General Conference of the United Methodist Church has developed a resolution titled "Nuclear Disarmament The Zero Option", which states: " Now is the time to exercise the zero option to eliminate all nuclear weapons throughout the globe." In keeping with that pronouncement, the Conference approved the following statement of commitment and action which says: " We affirm the finding that nuclear weapons, whether used or threatened, are grossly evil and morally wrong. As an instrument of mass destruction, nuclear weapons slaughter the innocent and ravage the environment. When used as instruments of deterrence, nuclear weapons hold innocent people hostage to political and military purposes. Therefore, the doctrine of nuclear deterrence is morally corrupt and spiritually bankrupt. Therefore, we affirm the goal of total abolition of all nuclear weapons throughout Earth and Space." I don't think there is a better way to say it. Nuclear weapons and nuclear deterrence are unquestionably morally corrupt and spiritually bankrupt.
In 1983, Cornell University Professor Carl Sagan and four other NASA scientists conducted an in-depth study of the possible atmospheric consequences of nuclear war. The study concluded that the gigantic fires caused by nuclear detonation in cities and industrial areas would cause millions of tons of smoke to rise into the Earth's atmosphere. There the smoke would block most sunlight, causing average temperatures on Earth's surface to rapidly cool to Ice Age levels.
The 1983 study was repeated by Professor R.P. Turco of UCLA and Professor O.B. Toon of the University of Colorado, and others. The new research modeled a range of nuclear conflicts beginning with a "regional" nuclear war between India and Pakistan, then a "moderate" nuclear war which used about one third of the current global nuclear arsenals (equivalent to the nuclear weapons now kept on launch-ready, high alert status by the U.S. and Russia), and lastly, a full scale nuclear conflict using the entire global arsenal. The new research substantiated the original 1983 findings, and found that smoke could actually remain in the stratosphere for at least a decade. A large nuclear conflict would cause crop-killing nightly frosts for more than a year in the world's large agricultural regions, destroy massive amounts of the protective ozone layer, and lead to the collapse of many ecosystems and starvation among most people.
Recently, my University of Missouri colleague, Steven Starr published a summary of the 2006 studies in the Bulletin of the International Network of Engineers and Scientists Against Proliferation. In that article, Steve states: " U.S. researchers have confirmed the scientific validity of "nuclear winter" and have demonstrated that any conflict which targets even a tiny fraction of the nuclear arsenal against large urban centers will cause disruption of the global climate." To view that summary, simply Google www.nucleardarkness.org.
A final reason for abolishing nuclear weapons is the high cost of nuclear security spending. According to Stephen Schwartz and Deepti Choubey " nuclear security spending is the amount of money the United States spends to operate, maintain and upgrade its nuclear arsenal; defend against nuclear attack; prevent the further spread of nuclear weapons, weapons materials, technology, and expertise;
manage and clean up radioactive and toxic waste left over from decades of nuclear production, and compensate victims of past productive and testing activities; and prepare for the consequences of a nuclear or radiological attack."
"Total appropriations for nuclear weapons and related programs in fiscal year 2008 were at least 52.4 billion dollars. That's not counting related costs for classified programs, air defense, anti-submarine warfare, and most nuclear weapons-related intelligence programs, of which only 5.2 billion dollars is spent on preventing the spread of nuclear weapons, weapons materials, technology and expertise" (9) Since the dawn of the nuclear age, the cost of U.S. nuclear weapons research, development, testing, deployment and maintenance has exceeded 7.5 TRILLION dollars. Clearly the abolition of nuclear weapons will free up billions of dollars for health, education and other human development programs.
So, what is needed to rid the world of these deadly, obscene devices? In June, 2009, the Board of Directors of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation adopted a five-point action plan to guide the Foundation's work through the end of 2010. The preface to the plan states: " The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation seeks a world free of nuclear weapons. We believe that nuclear arms reductions and the stabilization of nuclear dangers are not ends in themselves, but must be viewed in the context of achieving the total elimination of nuclear weapons. This is a matter that affects the future well-being , even survival, of the human race." In this light the foundation is pursing the following five-point action program:
First, " we support a meaningful replacement treaty for the Strategic Arms Reductions Treaty between the United States and Russia. This treaty expires on December 2009. Under President Obama's leadership, the U.S. and Russia have embarked upon negotiations for a replacement treaty. The Foundation will press for a replacement treaty that has deep and verifiable reductions in the number of nuclear weapons on each side; one that reduces the high-alert status of the weapons on each side, and one that includes a legally binding commitment to NO
FIRST USE of nuclear weapons. To this end, we will seek to form a coalition of like-minded organizations to put forward recommendations for a new treaty, to educate the public on the importance of such a treaty, and to lobby the Senate for the treaty's ratification."
"Second, we hope to secure a NO FIRST USE commitment from the United States. President Obama has called for reducing reliance on nuclear weapons, but he has not referred to the possibility of making a legally binding commitment to NO FIRST USE of nuclear weapons. We believe that such a commitment would be an essential step in downplaying the role of nuclear weapons in military strategy. We will educate the public and lobby the Obama Administration to make a legally binding commitment to NO FIRST USE of nuclear weapons and seek such commitments from other nuclear weapons states" as well.
Third, " We seek U.S. ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). The U.S. has signed but not ratified the CTBT. President Obama has said, 'To achieve a global ban on nuclear testing, my administration will immediately and aggressively pursue U.S. ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.' The Foundation will work with other national organizations to achieve Senate ratification of the treaty."
Fourth, " We will promote a broad agenda for President Obama's proposed Global Summit on Nuclear Security. "President Obama has pledged to hold a Global Summit on Nuclear Security within the next year. He has called for this Global Summit in the context of preventing nuclear terrorism. We will seek to broaden the agenda of the Summit to include a full range of nuclear security issues beyond only the issue of nuclear terrorism. This would include consideration of the security risks of the current nuclear arsenals and the need to open negotiations on a treaty banning all nuclear weapons. The Foundation will engage in public education, including interviews and op-eds, and networking with other organizations to lobby the Obama administration."
The fifth and final point of the 2009-10 Action Plan calls for a highly strengthened Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) by assuring a successful NPT Review Conference in 20l0. " The NPT is at the heart of efforts to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons. The treaty also requires the nuclear weapons states to engage in good faith negotiations to achieve nuclear disarmament in all its aspects. We believe that the key to achieving the goals of the NPT rests upon the commitment of the nuclear weapons states to take meaningful actions to achieve their Article VI nuclear disarmament obligations. Following the 2009 Preparatory Committee meeting for the 2010 NPT Review Conference, the five nuclear weapons states (who are parties to the treaty, i.e., the U.S., Russia, UK, France and China), also known as the P5, issued a joint statement in which they said: ' Our delegations reiterate our enduring and unequivocal commitment to work towards nuclear disarmament, an obligation shared by all NPT states parties.' These P5 states expressed their commitment to a new U.S.-Russian agreement to replace the Strategic Arms Reductions Treaty and to the entry into force of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), as well as negotiations for a Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty. We believe that their case for strengthening the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) will be far more persuasive if they also join in assuring a broad agenda for a Global Summit on Nuclear Security and join in making legally binding commitments to NO FIRST USE of nuclear weapons. Thus, these prospects for a successful NPT Review Conference in 2010 will be considerably enhanced if the first four points of the Foundation's Action Plan are successful."
Clearly the Foundation's Action Plan will require strong support by U.S. scientists and many other citizens if it is to have any chance for implementation. The good news is that most Americans are in favor of seriously addressing the various issues related to nuclear disarmament. A 2004 poll by the Program on International Policy Attitudes found Americans to be highly concerned about nuclear weapons. Clear majorities favored reducing their role and ultimately eliminating them under provisions of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Eighty-four percent said that doing so was a "good idea". An even higher 86 percent wanted the United States "... to do more to work with other nations toward eliminating their nuclear weapons. In each case, more that 70 percent of Republicans and 80 percent of Democrats and independents favored working toward elimination."
The bad news is that some Americans, including several key Members of Congress are still victims of Cold War-era fear based thinking which argues that getting rid of nuclear weapons - even with open inspection and verification - would make us vulnerable. Additionally, there is another potential roadblock to genuine nuclear disarmament which centers on U.S. plans to deploy offensive weapons, including lasers, particle beams and rockets in outer space. The U.S. Air Force's long term proposal known as " Vision for 2020" is a plan for the U.S. to weaponize outer space for military and commercial purposes and to deny access to outer space to other states. The provisions of the plan clearly show missile defenses for what they truly are: an early phase of militarization of space and, as such, part of an unprecedented, global offensive system masquerading as defense. If the United States insists on the deployment of offensive weapons in outer space, it will be nearly impossible to convince Russia, China, and others to agree to the zero nuclear weapons option.
On the U.S. domestic front there have also been a number of nuclear deterrence advocates and military analysts who have been highly critical of disarmament measures such as those outlined in the Foundation's Action Plan, and of any efforts to halt the U.S. weapons in space program. The critics, including corporate producers of nuclear weapons, and other members of the military-industrial-academic-congressional complex, want absolutely no reduction in the tens of billions of dollars spent annually on nuclear weapons. According to the Natural Resources Defense Council: " Hundreds of companies, large and small, are involved in nuclear weapons research, development, production and support. Each Department of Energy (DOE) facility is managed and operated by a corporate contractor. And, nuclear weapons components and delivery systems are manufactured by hundreds of prime and subcontractors". Thus, lobbyists for giant companies such as Lockheed Martin, TRW, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon and dozens of others will do everything in their power to prevent significant efforts for the elimination of nuclear weapons worldwide. Consequently, a highly mobilized citizen movement will be needed to counter those vested interests.
Therefore, we must speak out now to protect our nation, other nations, and our entire planet. We must challenge those who believe that ANYONE has a right to genocidal weapons. We must also challenge those who want to build a new generation of nuclear weapons and offensive killing devices in outer space. In doing so, we must vigorously seek support for the provisions of the Foundation's Action Plan with its emphasis on ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, full implementation of Article VI of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and the elimination of all nuclear weapons from our Planet.
In addressing challenges to the zero option, we must emphasize the fact that such thinking is no longer the sole possession of the historic nuclear disarmament organizations, nor those only on the political left. Neither is it a Utopian dream. To date, several retired U.S. generals, including Eugene Habiger and George Lee Butler, both former chiefs of the U.S. Strategic Command, have voiced support for measures such as those outlined in the Foundation's Action Plan. Other well known political figures of both major political parties are also making the case for nuclear weapons abolition. For example, in a January 8, 2007 Wall Street Journal commentary titled " A World Free of Nuclear Weapons", former Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger and George Schultz, with former Secretary of Defense William Perry and former U.S. Senator Sam Nunn of Georgia wrote: " Nuclear weapons today present tremendous dangers, but also historic opportunity. U.S. leadership will be required to take the world to the next stage - to a solid consensus for reversing reliance on nuclear weapons globally as a vital contribution to preventing this proliferation into potentially dangerous hands, and ultimately ending them as a threat to the world... "
"Reassertion of the vision of a world free of nuclear weapons and practical measures toward achieving that goal would be, and would be perceived as, a bold initiative consistent with America's moral heritage. The effect could have a profoundly positive impact on the security of future generations. Without the actions, the vision will not be perceived as realistic or possible. We endorse setting the goal of a world free of nuclear weapons and working energetically on the actions required to achieve that goal."
In my opinion, it is critical that scientists and engineers lead the way in achieving nuclear weapons abolition as suggested by Kissinger, Schultz, Perry, and Nunn. In 1995, when Joseph Rotblat received the Nobel Peace Prize, he appealed to his fellow scientists with the following statement: " At a time when science plays such a powerful role in the life of society, when the destiny of the whole of mankind may hinge on the results of scientific research, it is incumbent on all scientists to be fully conscious of that role, and conduct themselves accordingly. I appeal to my fellow scientists to remember their responsibility to humanity .... The quest for a war-free world has a basic purpose: survival. But if in the process we learn to combine the essential with the enjoyable, the expedient with the benevolent, the practical with the beautiful, this will be an extra incentive to embark on this great task. Above all, remember you humanity."
On August 6, 2009 the International Network of Engineers and Scientists for Global Responsibility (INES) launched a campaign in support of that zero option. The first act of the campaign was the signing of an appeal titled "Scientists for a Nuclear Free World" by forty individuals, 28 of whom are Nobel Laureates. The goal of the campaign is to increase scientific as well as public awareness of nuclear weapons issues, and to add weight to calls for an international Nuclear Weapons Convention which obligates all states to achieve complete nuclear disarmament by 2020. The last four paragraphs of the appeal state:
"Nuclear weapons were created by humans, and it is our responsibility to eliminate them before they eliminate us and much of the life on our planet. The era of nuclear weapons must be brought to an end. A world without nuclear weapons is possible, realistic, necessary and urgent."
"Therefore, we the undersigned scientists and engineers, call upon the leaders of the world, and particularly the leaders of the nine nuclear weapons states, to make a world free of nuclear weapons an urgent priority."
"We further call on these leaders to immediately commence good faith negotiations as required by the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the 1996 Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice, with the goal of achieving a Nuclear Weapons Convention for the phased, verifiable, irreversible and transparent elimination of nuclear weapons by the year 2020."
"Finally we call upon scientists and engineers throughout the world to cease all cooperation in the research, development, testing, production and manufacture of new nuclear weapons."
For those who wish to participate in the INES campaign, there are several things you can do:
§ Sign the appeal individually or as an organization;
§ Publish the appeal on your website, or in your newsletter, and forward it to members of organizations to which you belong;
§ Collect as many signatures as possible within your network;
§ Promote the appeal through your organizations; and
§ Issue your own statement in support of our common cause.
For those of you who wish to sign the petition immediately, please see me following this symposium. I will have copies for your reading, signing and distribution. I will also have copies of Nuclear Age Peace Foundation materials which suggest other nuclear disarmament eduction activities, including information on our newly produced DVD which is titled: "U.S. Leadership for a Nuclear Weapons-Free World".
In closing, I want to quote my colleague, Rick Wayman, who is the Foundation's Director of Programs: " Now is the time to create a new equilibrium in the thinking of Americans. Public support is essential for strong U.S. leadership on the issue of nuclear weapons abolition. U.S. leadership is essential if progress is going to be made on the world stage. So the answer is simple. To change the reality of nuclear weapons, to reduce and then eliminate them, we must change thinking and grow the movement to support a new approach. Such a massive change in the public's thinking is a major undertaking. But it is necessary. Otherwise, fear will carry the day. And the nuclear hawks will play on American insecurity to stymie progress and enshrine the status quo of thousands upon thousands of nuclear weapons. True security will come only from global cooperation. We must be proactive. We must pioneer a new way of thinking in society. The goal of zero nuclear weapons must be accepted as the starting point of all discussions. To achieve this, we must rally the public"
I sincerely hope you will join this effort.
MODEL PETITION [4]
U.S. LEADERSHIP FOR A NUCLEAR WEAPONS-FREE WORLD
An Appeal to the Next President of the United States
Nuclear weapons could destroy civilization and end intelligent life on the planet.
The only sure way to prevent nuclear proliferation, nuclear terrorism and nuclear war—before the next blinding flash—is to rid the world of nuclear weapons.
The era of nuclear weapons must be brought to an end. This can be done. It will require leadership and commitment. Nuclear weapons were created by humans, and it is our responsibility to eliminate them before they eliminate us.
The United States, as the world's most militarily powerful nation, must take the initiative in convening and leading the nations of the world in urgently take the following steps:
§ De-alert. Remove all nuclear weapons from high-alert status, separating warheads from delivery vehicles;
§ No First Use. Make legally binding commitments to No First Use of nuclear weapons and establish nuclear policies consistent with this commitment;
§ No New Nuclear Weapons. Initiate a moratorium on the research and development of new nuclear weapons, such as the Reliable Replacement Warhead;
§ Ban Nuclear Testing Forever. Ratify and bring in to force the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty;
§ Control Nuclear Materiel. Create a verifiable Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty with provisions to bring all weapons-grade material and the technologies to create such material under strict and effective international control;
§ Nuclear Weapons Convention. Commence good faith negotiations, as required by the Non-proliferation Treaty, to achieve a Nuclear Weapons Convention for the phased, verifiable and irreversible elimination of nuclear weapons;
§ Resources for Peace. Reallocate resources from the tens of billions currently spent on nuclear arms to alleviating poverty, preventing and curing disease, eliminating hunger and expanding educational opportunities throughout the world.
We call upon the President of the United States to make a world free of nuclear weapons an urgent priority and to assure US leadership to realize this goal.
Name: ______________________
Signature ____________________
E-mail: ______________________
City, State and Zip Code: ___________________________
To sign this petition online go to:
http//:www.wagingpeace.org/appeal
Notes:
[1] Blair, B.G., Feiveson, H., & von Hippel, F.N. (1997, November). Taking nuclear weapons off hair-trigger alert. Scientific American, pp. 74-81.
[2] The Columbia Daily Tribune published the letter above, as did the Kansas City Star (with a slight modification)
[3] Obviously, this op-ed. was not successful in persuading Sens. Bond, Ashcroft and Helms to work on behalf of the CTBT, but it did provide the kind of information that local citizens need to get the problem of nuclear war back on the political agenda.
[4] This petition can also be found at www.wagingpeace.com
