Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Blog

  • For a lasting peace in Iraq

    Originally Published in The Jordan Times

    When elephants fight, it’s the grass that suffers. Two nations like the United States and Iraq have unlimited potential for rendering irreversible damage to each other, to the environment and to the innocent people who get trampled underfoot in the stampede of war.

    As a pacifist, I do not endorse violence.

    But let’s imagine for a moment that I went along with the idea that removing President Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq was a good idea, that this action would decrease the cycle of violence in the world, and that it were a decent and honourable thing to do.

    Imagine that we got rid of Saddam. Then what?

    There are still 23 million people living in Iraq, so long as we did not kill a significant number of them in dethroning the infamous leader of the Ba’ath party. Among the Iraqis left standing are young men and women who have grown up in a decidedly anti-American environment, who have been nutritionally deprived since conscious memory and who are living daily with the threat of future bombings which have dotted the landscape, virtually escaping Western media reports for the past eleven years.

    Are we naive to think that this same underdeveloped population that has endured hellishly hot summers, putrid water and abominable health conditions will now embrace American presence and show gratitude for our reinvigorated military effort against them?

    Imagine for a moment that we stopped finger-pointing and blaming Saddam for starving his people for the past eleven years. Imagine that we stopped blaming a recalcitrant Sanctions Committee and policy making team from the State Department. Imagine that we viewed the humanitarian crisis in Iraq simply as people in need. The unending, maddening seclusion maintained by the world community could then be addressed.

    What will we do for these civilian Iraqis with whom we have no argument, the unseen innocent survivors of an eleven-year siege?

    A lasting peace plan in Iraq would have to begin by addressing the immediate needs of the average Iraqi people — their access to potable water, their educational infrastructure, healthcare system, their agriculture and oil industries — as well as their access to interstate and international travel. Restrictions on travelling to and from Iraq must be amended so that a dialogue may begin between Iraqis and other cultures throughout the world, starting with study abroad and student exchange programmes.

    In Iraq, doctors need vaccines, syringes with needles, X-ray film and blood bags. Teachers need books and pencils. Children need shoes and a happy childhood. Nursing mothers need proper nutrition to provide a healthy start for young lives. Iraqis need a wider array of food options and nutritional intake other than the lentils and rice available under the oil-for-food programme.

    Iraq needs an infusion of currency, a way to pay its citizens who desire to work, achieve and fulfil the demands of providing for their families. Immediately, Iraq needs a plan to rebuild its infrastructure — the water and sewage treatment plants and electrical facilities so that air conditioning and ceiling fans function when the temperature is 140 degrees.

    We must accept responsibility for the life-altering consequences of our policies on people who should not have been targeted.

    The world community, led by the United Nations, must apologise formally and publicly to the families who have lost loved ones as a result of the sanctions and no-fly-zone bombing campaigns in the North and south of Iraq. We must offer our sincerest condolences for our complicity in the crimes that killed more than half a million children.

    Unless we do this, the civilian Iraqis who are not the enemy will have every justification for taking every opportunity to avenge the egregious wrongs done against them.

    Gandhi tells a story about a wise man meditating by a river. A scorpion in a tree repeatedly falls into the water, and the wise man rescues him each time. And each time, the scorpion stings him. Another man sees this drama played out several times and approaches the wise man, asking why he continues to save the scorpion and risk being stung every time? “It is his nature to sting,” says the wise man. “I am a human. It is my nature to save.”

    Iraq needs no new war, no more bombs. They need simple human-to-human outreach. That is the right thing to do.
    *Leah C. Wells serves as Peace Education Coordinator for the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation and travelled to Iraq last July with Chicago-based Voices in the Wilderness. She contributed this article to The Jordan Times.

  • End the Nuclear Terror: A Call to Action from the Abolition 2000 Global Council

    The Global Council of the Abolition 2000 Network to Eliminate Nuclear Weapons condemns the United States Nuclear Posture Review and US plans to develop new nuclear weapons that are more useable, and thus more likely to be used. The Bush Administration has directed the US military to prepare contingency plans to use nuclear weapons against at least seven countries, and to build smaller nuclear weapons for use in warfare. We condemn this policy as insane, immoral and illegal.

    These plans break promises that the US made thirty-two years ago in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) when it agreed to negotiate in good faith to eliminate its nuclear weapons. Along with other nuclear-armed countries, the US renewed that promise in 2000, when it agreed to an “unequivocal undertaking” to accomplish the “total elimination” of its nuclear arsenal, plus twelve other practical steps leading to nuclear disarmament.

    Instead of implementing these 13 practical steps, the US has reawakened the specter of nuclear horror with its plans for developing new nuclear weapons, and giving three unthinkable scenarios for using them: “against targets able to withstand nonnuclear attack; in retaliation for attack with nuclear, biological or chemical weapons; or in the event of surprising military developments.” With these steps, the US shows it will use nuclear weapons against countries that do not have them, a complete reversal of previous agreements. This policy increases nuclear danger in a world already rife with conflicts involving nuclear-armed countries (India and Pakistan in South Asia, and Israel in the Middle East), and fearful of terrorists acquiring nuclear materials.

    We, the members of the Abolition 2000 Global Council, call on all citizens of the Earth to wake up and act! At a time when the people of our planet desperately seek ways to create a safer, more secure world, the US strikes nuclear terror into all of our hearts. Stark gaps between the world’s “haves and the have-nots,” and glaring social injustice, contribute to a rising tide of violence everywhere. Yet the world’s richest and most powerful nation can only offer the threat of the ultimate violence: the use of nuclear weapons.

    The world is in grave danger. Everything and everyone we love is at risk. Now is the moment to get deadly serious about nuclear abolition, while we still have time. We urge all citizens: Make your voices heard – in the halls of government, in the media, to your friends, family and neighbors. We must act now!

    Our strength as a Global Council comes from the over 2000 citizen groups in 90+ countries who form the Abolition 2000 Global Network to Eliminate Nuclear Weapons <www.abolition2000.org/>. Since our founding in 1995 at the NPT Review and Extension Conference, our network’s many groups have demonstrated their commitment to a more sustainable world by creating ways to bring about nuclear abolition. One of our most valuable tools has been the law: the treaties our nations have signed and ratified, the International Court of Justice 1996 Advisory Opinion on the illegality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons, the model Nuclear Weapons Convention.

    Now is the time to speak together in one voice! Join us in our call for a legal end to the nuclear madness that never went away. Let us focus our efforts, exercise our citizenship muscles, and use every nonviolent means to get rid of the nuclear threat once and for all. Hiroshima and Nagasaki must never happen again! Speak Out! Take action! We cannot do it alone, but together we will succeed!!

    Yours for a sustainable and nuclear-free world,
    The Abolition 2000 Global Council

  • New US Nuclear Posture Under Fire

    Originally Published by the Inter Press Service

    A top U.N. disarmament official assailed Thursday U.S. proposals to deploy nuclear weapons against countries wielding biological and chemical weapons.

    “I don’t think it makes sense,” said Under-Secretary-General for Disarmament Affairs Jayantha Dhanapala. “If somebody uses a basic weapon against you, you do not use the maximum weapon you have in your arsenal.”

    ”We know from scientific evidence that the use of nuclear weapons can destroy not only large numbers of human beings but also the ecological system that supports human life,” and that ill-effects from radiation are prolonged, Dhanapala added.

    Last week, the New York Times reported that the administration of President George W. Bush is planning a broad overhaul of its nuclear policy.

    As part of the proposed policy, it reported, the administration is planning to develop new nuclear weapons including so-called “mini” weapons suited to striking specific targets in countries such as Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Syria, and Libya.

    All five countries have been accused by the United States of either developing or possessing weapons of mass destruction including nuclear, biological, and chemical arms.

    Arab officials have complained that the United States has remained silent, however, on Israel, which they say possesses large quantities of mass destruction weapons.

    There are five declared nuclear powers in the world: Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States, all of them veto- wielding permanent members of the U.N. Security Council.

    At least three other countries are generally considered “undeclared nuclear powers”: Israel, India and Pakistan.

    The United States is the only country to have used nuclear weapons, when it bombed the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945.

    In a report titled ‘The Nuclear Posture Review’ (NPR), the U.S. Department of Defence has said there is a need to resume nuclear testing and to develop new nuclear weapons to blow up underground bunkers where biological and chemical weapons may be in storage.

    Last week, U.S. National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice said the only choice against adversaries using weapons of mass destruction is to make it clear in advance “that it would be met with a devastating response.”

    Dhanapala said the new U.S. policy “flies in the face of Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty undertakings.” Under Article VI of the NPT, he said, states are expected to reduce nuclear weapons and ultimately eliminate them.

    “So this is to me a very serious contradiction of that, and will be a very major stumbling block, as we begin the process of preparing for the 2005 NPT Review Conference,” he said. These preparations are scheduled to begin next month.

    Dhanapala also warned that if the United States resumes nuclear testing or develops new nuclear weapons, it would encourage other countries to discard their obligations under the NPT and the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT).

    “To go back on those treaties would amount to opening the flood gates, and regressing in the development of the norms that we have had,” he added.

    John Burroughs, executive director of the Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy, told IPS the use of nuclear weapons under any circumstances, including retaliation against a nuclear, chemical or biological attack, must meet the requirements of humanitarian law. These include necessity, proportionality, and discrimination between military targets and civilians.

    “Nuclear weapons cannot meet these requirements,” he said. “As the International Court of Justice said, their radioactive effects cannot be limited in space and time. Therefore their use is barred.”

    Burroughs added that one of the “disturbing aspects” of the NPR is that it signals the possibility of U.S. nuclear use against a non- nuclear country – and not in retaliation for a chemical or biological attack, but rather to pre-empt such an attack.

    The NPR also refers to “surprising military developments” as a rationale, taking the issue out of the realm of weapons of mass destruction, he added.

    Chris Paine, a senior analyst with the Natural Resources Defence Council, said only a massive and unusually lethal chemical attack on large numbers of non-combatants could conceivably justify a nuclear response.

    Biological weapons have a much greater inherent lethality against unprotected civilian populations, and the devastating consequences of such an attack could possibly render nuclear weapons a proportionate response – “but not necessarily a rational or moral one”, he argued.

    This is particularly so, if alternative military means exist for punishing the perpetrators, who may or may not be readily targeted, or even susceptible to identification.

    The policy of pre-emptive strikes is foolish and counter- productive on several levels, he said, because it encourages other nation’s to consider whether they will be able to sustain an adequate conventional deterrent to foreign military interference or invasion, and therefore to acquire the very weapons of mass destruction that Bush claims so vigorously to oppose.

    Paine said that such a policy also deprives the United States of the moral and political standing to oppose other nation’s weapons of mass destruction programmes, leaving military coercion as the primary instrument for “dissuading” foreign countries from competing with the United States in the realm of mass destruction weaponry.

    “The Bush administration’s stance reduces a once vigorous U.S. non- proliferation posture to rubble,” he added.

     

  • Letter from the Co-Presidents of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW) to President Bush regarding the US Nuclear Posture Review

    George W. Bush
    The White House
    1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
    Washington, DC 20510

    Dear President Bush:

    As the Co-Presidents of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW), which was awarded the 1985 Nobel Peace Prize for raising global awareness of the medical and environmental consequences of nuclear war, we wish to express our deep concern that the recently completed Nuclear Posture Review represents a repudiation of US disarmament commitments under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), and thus will undermine decades of efforts to prevent the spread-and eventual use-of nuclear arms.

    The Los Angeles Times reports that the NPR names seven countries-five of which are non-nuclear states-as targets of US nuclear weapons and that the US plans to develop small, tactical nuclear weapons for use in a variety of battlefield contingencies. If accurately described, this targeting policy will make the use of nuclear weapons more, rather than less, likely and must be retracted. Such a policy is also in violation of international law according to the 1996 advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice.

    US nuclear policy as we now understand it places the world in greater jeopardy of nuclear war than at any time since the height of the Cold War. By asserting a central role for nuclear weapons well into the middle of this century, the NPR removes all incentive for the existing nuclear weapon states to disarm. Countries that joined the NPT on the condition that the nuclear weapon states, including the US, would honor their disarmament obligations under Article VI, might well reconsider their own “nuclear postures.”

    The reductions in strategic nuclear weapons that have been announced as a key element of the NPR would be welcome as an important step toward US disarmament obligations were it not for the apparent decision to retain most of them in an inactive “responsive” force, ready to be re-deployed on short notice. This shift in the operational status of US warheads does not equate to a reduction in the size of the arsenal in any legitimate sense and, in any case, is too easily reversible.

    Moreover, we cannot avoid the conclusion, from what has been published about the NPR, that the US intends to resume nuclear testing as soon as new warhead designs emerge from the DOE weapons labs, so that a new generation of nuclear weapons can be added to the arsenal even as older ones are removed. If the US “modernizes” its nuclear arsenal, other countries will do the same. A resumption of nuclear testing in the US will inevitably lead to a global breakdown of the decade-long moratorium on testing, which has been one of the most promising developments in the global campaign to prevent further nuclear proliferation.

    Your administration has already declared its intention to withdraw from the ABM Treaty in order to develop and deploy an enormously expensive system that cannot protect against the most likely means of nuclear weapons delivery by terrorists or by countries that might acquire a small number of nuclear weapons with hostile intent against the US. Missile defenses will provoke other nuclear weapons states to counter what they see as a threat to their own security by building more nuclear weapons rather than by honoring their treaty commitments.

    Finally, the NPR underscores a dangerous trend in US strategic policy in which the distinctions between nuclear and non-nuclear “missions”-and even nuclear and non-nuclear weapons- become blurred. Giving officers in the field a nuclear “capability” to destroy an underground bunker, for example, increases the likelihood that the nuclear threshold will be crossed by military decision makers who would come to think of nuclear weapons as just one option among many. This must never be allowed to happen.

    As physicians concerned with the prevention of nuclear war, our objections to US nuclear policy as articulated in the NPR take on a heightened sense of urgency given the expansion of US military activity around the world, enormous increases in military spending that cannot be justified by legitimate concerns over terrorism, and a disturbing trend toward unilateral decision making. Rather than leading the way toward a world in which our common security is assured, as much as possible, by the norms and structures of international law and by policies that address and alleviate the root causes of conflict, the United States is needlessly endangering not only American lives, but the lives of people throughout the world who, unless this policy is reversed, must continue to live under the shadow of weapons of mass destruction for generations to come.

    IPPNW and its affiliates joined the world in condemning the terrorist attacks against the US on September 11, and we mourned the loss of innocent life. We were gratified to see the huge reservoir of sympathy for the victims of those attacks, for their families, and for the rescue workers who lost their lives in the attempt to save the lives of others. We are terribly saddened, therefore, at the prospect that the US could squander the good will of the international community by adopting what amounts to a permanent state of war in which nuclear threats play an ever more intricate part.

    There is another way. The US and the other nuclear weapon states can negotiate a verifiable and enforceable Nuclear Weapons Convention that would release the world from its perpetual state of nuclear terror. As the world’s wealthiest nation, the US is also in a unique position-and has a unique responsibility-to lead the nations of the world in efforts to alleviate the conditions that give rise to terrorism and to global conflict.

    On behalf of our affiliates, comprising medical associations in 65 countries, we urge you to abandon the course set out in the Nuclear Posture Review, to honor the US commitment to eliminate its nuclear weapons, and to join the international community in productive, collaborative efforts to resolve conflicts without resort to war.

    Sincerely,
    Mary-Wynne Ashford, MD – Co-President, Canada
    Abraham Behar, MD – Co-President, France
    Sergei Grachev, MD – Co-President, Russia

  • Boycott Pictsweet Mushrooms

    Originally Published in Common Dreams

    As many people in our nation today are obsessing over Enron stock, as Northrop Grumman bids $10.8 billion to purchase TRW to make the largest defense contracting agency whose annual revenues would top $26 billion, and as the latest Arnold Schwartzenegger film “Collateral Damage” continues to gross more than $30 million dollars, the workers at the Pictsweet mushroom farm in Ventura, CA are haggling with their recalcitrant management over pennies.

    In the 1990’s, mushroom workers at Pictsweet in Ventura received a small raise every two years; in 2000 after an escalation in tension between management and labor due to stalling contract negotiations and workplace discrimination, no raise was issued. The workers, who make an average annual salary of $25,000, have relied on this raise to keep up with the rising cost of living in the United States, even though in prior years the raise was also accompanied by an increased workload meaning that the raise was really not a raise, merely a compensation for the extra work.

    But would a contract truly remedy the financial crunch that workers presently feel? The uncontracted workers at Pictsweet obviously get short shrift as compared to the contracted workers at the Monterey Mushroom farm in Watsonville, CA whose working conditions and wages are significantly more competitive and egalitarian under contract with their employer.

    Monterey Mushroom workers receive $9.18 per hour for picking Brown mushrooms, and $11.90 per hour for maintenance work. They have no annual deductible for their medical plan and pay no premiums, and they receive 80% coverage for both vision and dental expenses. The lighting in the one-story rooms with mushroom beds have overhead lighting, the air conditioning hoses are plastic and provide proper circulation, and there are two emergency exits per room.

    In contrast, workers at Pictsweet Mushroom farm are paid $7.25 per hour for picking Brown mushrooms, and $7.65 per hour for maintenance work. Their medical deductible is $150 per family member per year, and they pay a monthly premium of $58.04, and they have no vision or dental coverage. The only light in rooms with mushroom beds comes from the inadequate bulbs on their helmets, the metal air conditioning tubes condense water which leaks and contributes to slippery work conditions, and there is only one emergency exit on the first floor of two-story rooms. In a September visit to the Pictsweet plant at the invitation of the management, I verified firsthand these working conditions in an extensive tour of the facility.

    The demands of the workers at Pictsweet are not extravagant: they want a contract, they want a means of fair arbitration for legitimate complaints, they want better health benefits and they want respect on the job.

    On Thursday, February 14, an Agricultural Labor Relations Board hearing commenced in Oxnard, CA to investigate charges filed by lawyers for the United Farm Workers on behalf of the Pictsweet workers. The United Farm Workers maintain that the management at Pictsweet has engaged in unfair labor practices as defined by the Agricultural Labor Relations Act of 1975, such as laying off and reducing work hours for workers without notifying United Farm Workers, their bargaining representative. In the latest hearings, UFW lawyers questioned plant manager from the Ventura Pictsweet farm, Ruben Franco, who admitted under oath that area supervisors of the farm keep separate lists whose existence had been previously denied which list the classification and superiority of workers. These classification and seniority lists are essential to the UFW’s case in proving that new workers were hired instead of reinstating workers who had been laid off.

    Pictsweet lawyer Barbara Krieg, whose law firm Bryan Cave LLP earned $11 million in representing the Government of Kuwait in 1993 and 1994 in prosecuting the $59 billion claims for Gulf War reparations against Iraq, later questioned mushroom picker Jesus Torres. Referring to the aforementioned biennial raises, Krieg asked Torres if he believes that “if a worker thinks he deserves a raise, should the worker necessarily receive that raise?” An objection to this question by UFW lawyers was sustained by Judge Nancy C. Smith. In essence, however, Krieg’s question translates as “be quiet, be grateful for the pittance you have, and hope that we don’t take more from you in the end.” This question Krieg posed reflects the classist mentality that worker exploitation is an acceptable and necessary workplace evil in the capitalist dog-eat-dog world.

    Because the corporation which owns Pictsweet, United Foods, Inc., went private in 1999, their annual gross revenue for 2001 is unavailable. However, in fiscal year 2000 they earned $163 million and experienced a 21.2% sales growth, according to The Industry Standard. Their annual revenue per employee was $77,619.05 – more than three times what an average Pictsweet employee makes in a year!

    In September 2000, the United Farm Workers initiated a boycott of Pictsweet mushrooms which has steadily amassed a following from such retail chains as Vons, Safeway and Ralph’s. The current target of the boycott is Pizza Hut which continues to purchase Pictsweet mushrooms.

    The workers will win a contract with Pictsweet, but it will take community support for this boycott and campaign for respect. You can help support them by writing to your local Pizza Hut manager, by refusing to support Pictsweet’s exploitative business practices by not ordering Pizza Hut pizzas, and by coming out to support the workers in their struggle at the upcoming march for economic justice in honor of the labor hero Cesar Chavez in Oxnard on April 28.
    *Leah C. Wells is the Peace Education Coordinator for Nuclear Age peace Foundation. This article can also be found at: http://www.change-links.org/leahwells.htm

  • CNDP Denounces USA’s Nuclear Terror

    The Coalition for Nuclear Disarmament and Peace, India voices its outrage at the unprecedented nuclear threat to the whole world held out the militarists at the helm of the United States of America. The CNDP also expresses its indignation at the servile silence of New Delhi over the subject.

    The “contingency plans” revealed in the Nuclear Posture Review (NPR)by the Pentagon under the Bush Administration cannot be clearer in their intent. The multi billion populaces of seven countries — with Russia, China, Syria and Libya now added to the “axis of evil” comprising Iraq, Iran and Korea — have been made the potential targets of nuclear lunacy on the part of the world’s strongest ever superpower. If countries close to these targets are taken into account, the NPR (leaked to the media) is an attempt to intimidate a large swathe of humanity.

    The NPR threatens nuclear strikes against targets too tough for non-nuclear weapons, in “retaliation” against attacks by biological and chemical weapons of which the USA has the largest stockpiles, and even in case of “surprising military developments” of an undefined kind. The added threats of nuclear assaults in an Arab-Israel conflict and a Taiwan-China clash make for a truly alarming prospect. The list of targets leaves no doubt that the Bush regime is not going to be bound by treaties the US has signed including the NPT and the CTBT.

    While the madness has been denounced even by many in the West, the Government of India has yet to find its tongue. New Delhi, which has acquiesced in Washington’s space weaponization schemes and its withdrawal from the ABM Treaty, is failing thispeace-loving nation even more by its tacit support for the USA’s line of nuclear terror.
    –Achin Vanaik, Praful Bidwai, Admiral L.Ramdas (Retd.), J. Sri Raman, Prabir Purkayastha, Jayaprakash, and Christopher Fonseca

  • A Model of Thermonuclear Extinction on Planet Mars

    Since September 11, 2001 the threat of the detonation of nuclear devices is more often on the minds of the public especially. After this attack, it seems clear that there are groups who would happily extinguish many, if not all persons living on planet Earth. Simply stated, as long as these weapons of annihilation exist, so too will the temptation to use them. Although military experts speak of the “survivability” of what they deem “limited exchange,” they are speaking primarily of the very short-term continuation of our species. Well known are the many films and books devoted to elucidating the damage that would be done to civilizations by the blasts of such weapons. However, few people have explored, at least in any great detail the effects on our planets ecosystem by a nuclear blast.

    Most researchers who focus on climatic changes throughout history explain that a change in just a few degrees can and will have lasting planet wide effects-most of these effects are detrimental to life-including human life. One theory suggests that a nuclear exchange would prompt a “nuclear winter.” Dr. Carl Sagan and others introduced this idea in 1983 in the journal Science. In this theory, after the explosions of a nuclear exchange have stopped, the real lasting damage will be just beginning. The spread of ash and smoke in the atmosphere from global fires, will block sunlight, darkening the sky, which will lead to lower global wide temperatures of as much as 10-15 degrees centigrade within 5-6 months. The most conservative models show that a change in the temperature of even one degree Centigrade would unbalance the ecosystem, thus directly affecting the survival of many species on Earth, including humanity.

    These theories of the effects of all this smoke and ash in the atmosphere are more than an idle theory-a very similar event has happened several times on our planet, the last, being some 65 million years ago. In 1979, Walter Alvarez was sifting through sediments from Gubbio, Italy when he discovered a large amount of a radioactive element that is rare on Earth-but is found in meteors and asteroids. This material called iridium was found in sediments dating to the boundary between the Cretaceous and Tertiary periods, called the K-T boundary. This iridium did not have a terrestrial explanation. Alvarez’s research gave support to an already proposed asteroid theory of vast extinctions that have occurred for the past 400 million years or so. We now know that an asteroid, roughly the size of Mount Everest, slammed into what is today the Yucatan Peninsula of Mexico. About once every 30 to 60 million years, something devastating occurs on our planet. As we slowly revolve around our galaxy, our tiny solar system is brought into contact with other space debris, including comets, asteroids, and other objects, both large and small. In addition, every now and then, one of these astral bodies slams into our planet. The resulting devastation from a moderate sized impact is an almost total loss of life on our world. This has occurred about five times in Earth’s history. These mass extinctions are what led to the rise of our own species: humanity. Before the impact that led to the extinction of the dinosaurs, which had dominated Earth for more than 150 million years, mammals were small, nocturnal, and secretive. They needed to spend most of their time and energy in evading meat-eating dinosaurs. With the extinction of dinosaurs, the remaining mammals moved into habitats and ecological niches previously dominated by the dinosaurs. Over the next 65 million years, these early mammals evolved into a wide variety of species, assuming many ecological roles and rising to dominate the Earth as the dinosaurs had before them.

    The first of these Global Killers slammed into our planet around 440 million years ago in what is known as the Ordovician Period. Because of this impact, the fossil record shows that nearly 90 percent of all the species on Earth became extinct. The second event took place 370 million years ago, near the end of the Devonian Period, which resulted in the loss of over 80 percent of all species. The third and greatest mass extinction, at least so far, happened around 245 million years ago, at the end of the Permian Period. Soon after this enormous impact, nearly 96 percent of all species on Earth were lost. This devastation was so incredible, that paleontologists use this event to mark the end of the ancient, or Paleozoic Era, and the beginning of the middle, or Mesozoic Era, when many new groups of animals evolved. Just over 205 million years ago, near the end of the Triassic Period, the fourth mass extinction claimed over 75 percent of the species alive at the time, including a large number of amphibians, fish and reptile species. The fifth, most well known, and most recent major collision occurred just over 65 million years ago, and would end the Cretaceous Period. This collision with an asteroid resulted in the loss of 75 percent of all species, including the giant marine reptiles, and, the dinosaurs.

    This last impact is known to have produced a spray of debris called an ejecta sheet, which was blown from the edge of the crater. This is surmised because traces of an element, common to asteroids called Iridium, has been found over vast regions of North and South America. In fact, material from the impact’s explosion was distributed all over the Earth. Although the large amounts of ash in the geological strata suggest that most of North and South America were devastated by fire from the impact, the long-term planet-wide environmental effects were ultimately more deadly. Dust from the impact blocked sunlight from the earth’s surface for many months, while sulfur ejected from the impact site, combined with water vapor and chlorine, from the oceans that were flash boiled, and nitrogen from our air produced a worldwide downpour of intense acidic rain. The darkness and acid rain caused plant growth to cease. As a result, both the herbivorous dinosaurs, which were dependent on plants for food, as well as the carnivorous dinosaurs, which fed on the herbivores, died out. On the other hand, animals such as frogs, lizards, and small insect-eating turtles and mammals, which were dependent on organisms that fed on decaying plant material, were more likely to survive.

    When this piece of rock struck the Earth it was traveling about 30,000 miles per hour. The resulting impact caused fires on a global scale due to the enormous heat. This would explain the iridium deposits and the fires would explain a surplus of carbon that has also been discovered at the K-T boundary layer. Other researchers studying carbon deposits in sedimentary layers have documented a period in Earth’s past when ancient wildfires were widespread. Fossils in the sediments in the K-T boundary also show a strange disappearance of about 60 percent of the animals and plants in this period of time-nearly all animals weighting over a few dozen pounds were wiped out. These ancient fires may provide evidence from Earth’s past that give us an idea of how a nuclear war climate might affect the climate. It would be hard to prepare for the striking of an asteroid, however, the threat from a similar event, the detonation of several thermonuclear devices would almost certainly cause similar global destruction.

    What about a much feared “all out thermonuclear exchange” implementing tens of thousands of weapons? We strangely enough have a reasonable facsimile to such a catastrophe-the planet Mars. In 1984, a meteorite, later christened ALH84001U, was found in Antarctica. This meteorite, which originated about 4.5 billion years ago on Mars, contained what appears to be fossilized microorganisms, along with other traces of life. The ramifications of these discoveries cannot and must not be dismissed. Life on Earth first appeared about 3.8 billion years ago, at a time when it is believed the planets formed. Mars is almost exactly the same age as Earth, and most probably had the same reducing atmosphere. Observed astronomical evidence is fully consistent with the occurrence of microorganisms on a cosmic scale, in both meteorites as well as comet dust. This may seem at first, unbelievable, however the relative comparisons between the early planetary development of both Mars and the Earth were very similar. One catastrophic event ensured that no higher life would develop on the Red Planet. In the newly published book, Many Worlds, which includes many of the brightest writers and scientists in their fields, and is edited by the renown historian, scientists and author, Stephen J. Dick, there is a section by Christopher P. McKay titled “Astrobiology: The Search For Life Beyond The Earth.” On page 51 of Many Worlds, there is a small chart comparing the development of the two planets between 4.5 Billion years ago and today. At some point, about 3.3 billion years ago, some catastrophic event, most probably a huge asteroid collision, snuffed out any beginnings of life. The event would have been far greater than Earth has experienced, thus putting an end to any microbiological life that had begun. The likely candidate is the impact of an asteroid or small moon, causing the crater Hellas Planitia. This crater dwarfs any that have been found on our own planet, measuring 1,243 miles wide and nearly four miles deep. Because of this enormous impact, the process of life would have to be halted. There would be no development of organisms that give off oxygen as a waste product, as on our planet. No more atmosphere of any kind would remain, for it would have been blasted into space by the shock wave. The tremendous heat from the impact would have boiled most of the liquid water away-what remained would be frozen solid by the impending winter.

    The crater of the object that formed the KT boundry left a relatively small crater, about 112 miles in diameter, yet its impact leveled most of North and South America’s vast forests. As destructive as that rather small impact was, what should happen if an asteroid the size of the rock that formed the Hellas crater hit Earth? That answer is quite simple: there would be no life on Earth today, not even microbes. Humanity currently has in its possession, enough weapons to reproduce such an event. Bomb shelters would be useless. No shelter could withstand such blasts, and if anyone could survive the initial air bursts, radiation, acid rains, plumeting tempersatures, lack of food and drinkable water, the devastation of approximately millions of megaton detonations would destroy all life on our planet. The forests, planet wide, would be rapidly burned to dust by the blast front that would be traveling many times the speed of sound. The heat from the blast front would erase any trace of humanity. Much of the ocean would be heated to the point that oxygen maturation would be unable to support life. Massive earthquakes would contort and twist our planet; volcanic eruptions would begin simultaneously around the globe. However, no creature would be here to know. Between the heat flash, acid rains, radiation and first rising, then quickly dropping temperatures, the Earth would enter into what could be a permanent ice age. The physical planet would go right on spinning at 900 miles an hour. It would still move along with the sun and other planets at over a million miles a day around our tiny galaxy. Nevertheless, life, even the hardiest bacteria or virus, would be utterly eradicated. Some time latter, I would guess about 12-18 months, the dust would settle, and the Earth would be left an arid and cold brown ball. Certainly fossils would exist that would show some alien visitor that we were here, but little else would define planet Earth as the once home of a reasonably advanced civilization. A civilization that had chosen, rather than to put aside petty grievances, to self destruct.

  • Star Wars Steals from Our Future

    Native Americans tell the story of how the white man came to be named Wasichu, the fat-taker. “You shall know him as washi-manu, steal-all, or better by the name of fat-taker, wasichu, because he will take the fat of the land. He will eat up everything….This new man is coming, coming to live among you. He will lie, and his lie never ends. He is going to make a dark, black hoop around the world.”

    Today the fat-taker lives in the White House, the Congress, the Pentagon, and inside the aerospace industry. George W. Bush, and his team, are requesting massive increases in Pentagon spending during the coming year. Cuts will be made in education, child care, health care, social security and the like. Our future is being destroyed to fatten the weapons corporations and their rich allies.

    Star Wars research & development (R & D) will be the recipient a significant portion of this theft from our children. Everything from space-based lasers, nuclear-powered rockets, and Theatre Missile Defense (TMD) systems (that will be used to surround China) are now on-line. Hundreds of billions of dollars will be wasted on these new “21st Century weapons technologies” as Bush calls them.

    The Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space enters its 10th year of organizing in 2002. On May 10-12 the organization will hold an International Space Organizing Conference & Protest in Berkeley, California. (On May 10 a protest will be held at Lockheed Martin – Sunnyvale where work is underway on many of these key space weapons technologies.) On May 11 Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) has been invited to deliver the keynote address at the international conference. Kucinich has recently introduced HR 3616, the “Space Preservation Act”, that would ban all weapons in space.

    For the past two years the Global Network has organized in October, an international day of protest to stop the militarization of space. In 2001 there were 115 local actions held in 19 countries. In 2002, the day of protest will be expanded to an entire week of events to be called “Keep Space for Peace Week” and will be held on October 4-11. Groups will organize local events throughout the week that would include things like visits to political leaders, community teach-ins, meetings with religious leaders, visits to local schools, media work, public displays, and protests at military bases and aerospace corporation facilities.

    The U.S. Space Command predicts that because of “corporate globalization” the gap between “haves” and “have nots” will widen worldwide in coming years. With space “control and domination” in place, the Space Command will become the military arm for the multi-national corporations enabling the U.S. to suppress those who protest U.S. global dominance. The fat-takers now have a global strategy. Suppress all the people around the world. Lower the standard of living for everyone. Cut social spending and increase profits for the few who are rich. Control the people of the world by controlling space. With space domination in place the military will be able to hear everything, see everything, and target everyone on Earth.

    We are back to the days of kings, queens, lords, and castles protected by knights in shining armor. The time has come for the peasants to organize and revolt. Our children’s future depends on it.
    *Bruce K. Gagnon is Coordinator for the Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space.

     

  • Might Real Disarmament be on the Agenda?

    As a person who has believed ever since August, 1945 that nuclear disarmament was the single most important condition for the longrun survival of civlized life on earth, I was much encouraged a few days ago by several strong reactions to the contents of the US “Nuclear Posture Review” which had been leaked to the press on March 9. The “posture” includes contingency plans for the use of nuclear weapons against seven states, to which plans The New York Times replied with an editorial beginning: “If another country were planning to develop new nuclear weapons and contemplating pre-emptive strilkes against a list of non-nuclear powers, Washington would rightly label that nation a dangerous rogue state. Yet such is the course recommended” by the Pentagon planning papers. The Washington Post, while reiterating its constant support for current American military actions, concluded its editorial by saying “The Bush administration is right to focus more of its strategic planning on deterring rogue states, but developing new nuclear weapons for that threat is neither necessary nor sensible.”

    Robert S. McNamara, who was US Secretary of Defense during the first stages of the Vietnam War, immediately criticized the posture review on several grounds: that the US has scrapped the ABM treaty in order to build a new missile shield in space; that the above-mentioned contingency plans undermine the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty by targeting several non-nuclear countries with our nuclear arms; that the review “appears to set forth a forty-year plan for developing and acquiring new nuclear weapons,” and that the nuclear testing of such new weapons would “fly in the face of vital US non-proliferation commitments.” Finally, not to limit my examples to the immediate reaction against the Nuclear Posture Review, I would mention that The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation in the US has been circulating since the beginning of this year an appeal to “commence good faith negotiations to achieve a Nuclear Weapons Convention requiring the phased elimination of all nuclear weapons, with provisions for effective verification and enforcement.” This appeal carries the signatures of such widely admired world figures as Muhammad Ali, former President Jimmy Carter, the Dalai Lama, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Elie Wiesel, and Mayor Tadatoshi Akiba of Hiroshima.

    In the balance of the present article I would like to assess the possibilities for real disarmament. But first a caution: the momentum of President Bush’s “war against terror”, and the advice of all his important counselors with the partial exception of Colin Powell, is strongly in favor of new weapons, both nuclear and non-nuclear, developed hopefully with allied approval, but unilaterally if such approval is not forthcoming. The editorial reactions I have cited above do not call for disarmament of any kind. They reflect dismay at the failure of the administration even to realize how dangerous for the US itself are these rejections of international obligations and readiness to extend nuclear competition and militarize outer space as well as the long suffering earth. They thus call for a modicum of common sense restraint.

    The administration favors a certain disarmament on its own terms. In order to free up nuclear resources, plus the scientific and technical talent to create more sophisticated, precise new weapons, the US proposes a large voluntary reduction in the thousands of missiles now on alert in US and Russian bases. This is to be done without signing scraps of paper, and with the missiles kept in storage just in case some unpredictable change in the international atmosphere might require us to be able quickly to alert them again. The Russians, who have recovered their sense of humor since the demise of communism, have referred to this as a “nuclear warehouse” policy.

    A more difficult obstacle lies in the fact that American public opinion, as reflected in the behavior of the US Senate, does not like to accept international obligations. The Senate refused to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty because it would, quite obviously, limit the country’s ability to create and test new weapons. Many legislators have nothing good to say for the United Nations as such, and will have nothing to do with a proposed international tribunal for the trial of war crimes. They feel no embarrassment whatever in saying that they will not permit any American soldier to be tried by such a tribunal. Their forbears conquered the American West without having to apply any Geneva conventions to captured Indian braves, and they declare that the captured Taliban and Al Quaida fighters are not legitimate prisoners of war (another psychological throwback to their forbears’ attitude towards the Indians).

    Actually there already exists a very practical basis from which to initiate real nuclear disarmament. In 1970 the existing -and still the principal- nuclear powers (the EEUU, Russia, the UK, France, and China) sponsored a Non-Proliferation Treaty, in which they asked all the rest of the world to forego the development of nuclear weapons, in return for which the nuclear group itself undertook a solemn obligation to negotiate the reduction and eventual elimination of their own nuclear arsenals. Without any unnecessary sarcasms and finger pointings, without any reference to other treaties never ratified by the Senate, the nuclear “club” could now take the initiative to fulfill that obligation.

    There are also several practical circumstances which should make it possible for the leaders of all nations to recognize the increasing importance of nuclear disarmament for the survival of civilized life. Since 1970 (as well as before) there have been accidents at nuclear plants releasing dangerous quantities of radioactivity into the atmosphere, and eventuallly into the soil and water on which millions of people depend. There has been no way to hide these facts. Regardless of governmental secrecy, seismographs all over the world have detected every single nuclear test and every single nuclear accident in the years since 1945. There have also been at least nine very little publicized sinkings of nuclear submarines with consequent poisoning of the ocean waters. In addition, the safe disposal of radioactive wastes from well controlled civilian activities is a completely unsolved problem, of which political elites are surely aware even if they avoid public discussion of the subject. Where, and in what quantity, potentially endangering whose homes and lands, are to be buried the hundreds of tons of nuclear waste which include elements that will remain radioactive for several centuries? By what right do we deliberately endanger the health of these future generations? Without hurting anybody’s religious or ideological sensibilities, the delegates to a disarmament conference could mutually assume the obligation to reduce as far as it may still be possible, these health hazards.

    Another relevant circumstance is the fact that, in contrast to the situation in 1970, we no longer live in a bi-polar world. At that time, the EEUU and the USSR were so overwhelmingly powerful that, since the two of them could destroy each other 100 times over, and were aware of that fact, the rest of the world could relax in the assurance that such pragmatic leaders as Nixon and Brezhnev would be careful not to start a nuclear war. But today we live in a world of strongly revived religious differences, of militant nationalisms, of less ideological debate but more fear, hatred, and jealousy based on the increasing inequality between prosperous and poor societies, and the fact that this increasing inequaltiy is so obvious on the TV screens seen by almost everyone. This situation must lead all sane persons to realize that no small group of powers such as the nuclear club of the 1970’s can hope to restrict the spead of nuclear arms. In that sense I can agree that the ABM treaty is “outdated”, but not for the purpose of eliminating it so as to feel free to create all kinds of monstrous new weapons.

    Thue only sane policy is to recognize that either we get rid of nuclear weapons or their eventual use, whether by intent or by accident, will inevitably kill millions of persons and poison the living conditions of the survivors and successors. We need a world disarmament conference for as many years as it may take to negotiate comprehensive, verifiable, permanent disarmament of all the existing stocks of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons.

     

  • Background on the Non-Proliferation Treaty

    Background on the Non-Proliferation Treaty

    So long as nuclear weapons exist, the human species will remain threatened by nuclear annihilation. With nuclear weapons in the arsenals of some nations, humanity faces the possibility of future Hiroshimas and Nagasakis. The only way to assure that these tragedies are not repeated or that even worse nuclear tragedies do not occur is to move rapidly and resolutely to abolish nuclear weapons.

    The 1996 Report of the Canberra Commission on the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons, composed of distinguished individuals from throughout the world, correctly concluded: “The proposition that nuclear weapons can be retained in perpetuity and never used – accidentally or by decision – defies credibility. The only complete defence is the elimination of nuclear weapons and assurance that they will never be produced again.”

    The promise of the complete elimination of nuclear weapons is found in Article VI of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). In 1996, when the International Court of Justice issued its advisory opinion on the illegality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons, the Court clarified the obligation of Article VI of the Treaty. The Court concluded unanimously:

    There exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control.

    Time may be running out on the international community’s ability to control either the proliferation or the use of nuclear weapons, as the nuclear weapons states continue to break their NPT promises to achieve meaningful nuclear disarmament. The parties to the NPT have special responsibilities to communicate clearly to the nuclear weapons states that they are transgressing on humanity’s future by their failure to fulfill their promises.

    The Nuclear Disarmament Promise of the Non-Proliferation Treaty

    The Non-Proliferation Treaty is one of the key nuclear arms control treaties of the latter half of the 20th century. The treaty was signed at Washington, London and Moscow on July 1, 1968 and entered into force on March 5, 1970. There are currently 187 states that are parties to the NPT, nearly all countries in the world. Four important exceptions are Israel, India, Pakistan and Cuba. The first three of these possess nuclear weapons and need to be brought into the NPT regime.

    The primary purpose of the NPT is to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. In negotiating the Treaty, the non-nuclear weapons states argued that the Treaty should not create a small class of permanent nuclear weapons states and a much larger class of states that have renounced their right to possess nuclear weapons. To remedy this inequality, Article VI of the Treaty called for ending the nuclear arms race and for nuclear disarmament. This article states:

    Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.

    The promise of Article VI is a world free of nuclear weapons. The failure of the nuclear weapons states to fulfill this promise rightly continues to be a source of irritation and uneasiness to the non-nuclear weapons states parties to the Treaty.

    New Promises

    By the terms of the NPT, the parties to the Treaty held a Review and Extension Conference in 1995, twenty-five years after the Treaty entered into force. The purpose of this Conference was to determine whether the Treaty should be extended indefinitely or for a fixed period or periods. Some of the non-nuclear weapons states argued vociferously that the Treaty should be extended only for fixed periods and extensions of these periods should be tied to progress on nuclear disarmament by the nuclear weapons states. Taking the opposite position, the nuclear weapons states and their allies argued for an indefinite extension of the Treaty. In the end, with much arm-twisting and agreement to a set of new promises, the nuclear weapons states and their allies prevailed and the Treaty was extended indefinitely.

    In the Final Document of the 1995 NPT Review and Extension Conference, the parties to the Treaty set forth certain additional promises for nuclear disarmament. The nuclear weapons states reaffirmed their Article VI commitment “to pursue in good faith negotiations on effective measures relating to nuclear disarmament.” All parties to the Treaty agreed on the importance of the following measures to fulfilling the Article VI promise:

    (a) The completion by the Conference on Disarmament of the negotiations on a universal and internationally and effectively verifiable Comprehensive Nuclear-Test Ban Treaty no later than 1996. Pending the entry into force of a Comprehensive Test-Ban Treaty, the nuclear-weapon States should exercise utmost restraint;

    (b) The immediate commencement and early conclusion of negotiations on a non discriminatory and universally applicable convention banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices…

    (c) The determined pursuit by the nuclear-weapon States of systematic and progressive efforts to reduce nuclear weapons globally, with the ultimate goals of eliminating those weapons, and by all States of general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.

    In other sections of the Final Document, the parties to the Treaty called for “development of nuclear-weapon-free zones, especially in regions of tension, such as in the Middle East,” and for the nuclear weapons states to provide further security assurances to the non-nuclear weapons states against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons against them. In a special resolution, the parties to the Treaty called for a special “Middle East zone free of weapons of mass destruction, nuclear, chemical and biological, and their delivery systems….”

    Following these promises, France and China continued testing nuclear weapons for a period of time. French testing in the Pacific raised global protests that caused them to cut their planned series of tests short. A Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) was negotiated and opened for signatures in September 1996. The Treaty, which has now been signed by 165 countries, cannot by its provisions enter into force until ratified by all 44 nuclear capable countries. Thirteen of these 44 countries have yet to ratify the Treaty, including the US and China. In addition, no progress has been made on a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty; and the promise of “determined pursuit” of reducing nuclear weapons globally looks more like a major exercise in foot-dragging.

    Two new nuclear weapons free zones were created following the 1995 Review and Extension Conference, one in Southeast Asia and one in Africa. These treaties, however, have not had strong support from the nuclear weapons states. Unfortunately, in the most critical regions of the planet, where the threat of use of nuclear weapons is higher, there has not been progress toward creating either nuclear weapons free zones or zones free of all weapons of mass destruction. These regions are the Middle East, South Asia and Northeast Asia. Further, the nuclear weapons states have not offered additional security assurances to the non nuclear weapons states. In some cases, they have back away from earlier security promises.

    In 1998 the stakes of nuclear disarmament were raised when India, followed shortly by Pakistan, tested nuclear weapons and announced to the world that they were now nuclear powers. While these countries were initially sanctioned by the US for their overt proliferation of nuclear weapons, these sanctions were later removed following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks against the US.

    With little progress toward the nuclear disarmament promise of Article VI, the parties to the Non-Proliferation Treaty met again for a Review Conference in the year 2000. It was a contentious conference, but in the end the parties to the Treaty, led by a coalition of middle power states, agreed on the following thirteen practical steps to achieve nuclear disarmament.

    1. The importance and urgency of signatures and ratifications, without delay and without conditions and in accordance with constitutional processes, to achieve the early entry into force of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty.

    2. A moratorium on nuclear-weapon-test explosions or any other nuclear explosions pending entry into force of that Treaty.

    3. The necessity of negotiations in the Conference on Disarmament on a non discriminatory, multilateral and internationally and effectively verifiable treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices in accordance with the statement of the Special Coordinator in 1995 and the mandate contained therein, taking into consideration both nuclear disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation objectives. The Conference on Disarmament is urged to agree on a programme of work which includes the immediate commencement of negotiations on such a treaty with a view to their conclusion within five years.

    4. The necessity of establishing in the Conference on Disarmament an appropriate subsidiary body with a mandate to deal with nuclear disarmament. The Conference on Disarmament is urged to agree on a programme of work which includes the immediate establishment of such a body.

    5. The principle of irreversibility to apply to nuclear disarmament, nuclear and other related arms control and reduction measures.

    6. An unequivocal undertaking by the nuclear-weapon States to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals leading to nuclear disarmament, to which all States parties are committed under article VI.

    7. The early entry into force and full implementation of START II and the conclusion of START III as soon as possible while preserving and strengthening the Treaty on the Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems as a cornerstone of strategic stability and as a basis for further reductions of strategic offensive weapons, in accordance with its provisions.

    8. The completion and implementation of the Trilateral Initiative between the United States of America, the Russian Federation and the International Atomic Energy Agency.

    9. Steps by all the nuclear-weapon States leading to nuclear disarmament in a way that promotes international stability, and based on the principle of undiminished security for all:

    – Further efforts by the nuclear-weapon States to reduce their nuclear arsenals unilaterally;
    – Increased transparency by the nuclear-weapon States with regard to the nuclear weapons capabilities and the implementation of agreements pursuant to article VI and as a voluntary confidence-building measure to support further progress on nuclear disarmament;
    – The further reduction of non-strategic nuclear weapons, based on unilateral initiatives and as an integral part of the nuclear arms reduction and disarmament process;
    – Concrete agreed measures to further reduce the operational status of nuclear weapons systems;
    – A diminishing role for nuclear weapons in security policies to minimize the risk that these weapons will ever be used and to facilitate the process of their total elimination;
    – The engagement as soon as appropriate of all the nuclear-weapon States in the process leading to the total elimination of their nuclear weapons.

    10. Arrangements by all nuclear-weapon States to place, as soon as practicable, fissile material designated by each of them as no longer required for military purposes under IAEA or other relevant international verification and arrangements for the disposition of such material for peaceful purposes, to ensure that such material remains permanently outside military programmes.

    11. Reaffirmation that the ultimate objective of the efforts of States in the disarmament process is general and complete disarmament under effective international control.

    12. Regular reports, within the framework of the strengthened review process for the Non-Proliferation Treaty, by all States parties on the implementation of article VI and paragraph 4 (c) of the 1995 Decision on “Principles and Objectives for Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament”, and recalling the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice of 8 July 1996.

    13. The further development of the verification capabilities that will be required to provide assurance of compliance with nuclear disarmament agreements for the achievement and maintenance of a nuclear-weapon-free world.

    Progress by each of the declared nuclear weapons states (US, UK, France, Russia and China) and by the three de facto nuclear weapons states (Israel, India and Pakistan) on these thirteen steps, which are set forth below, will be the subject of the next section of this briefing book.