Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Category: Key Issues

This will display on the homepage under “Key Issues”

  • Our Nuclear Future

    Our Nuclear Future

    Secretary of Defense Robert Gates recently delivered a speech to the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in which he addressed the future of nuclear weapons. He noted that some past US presidents that he had worked for during the Cold War – Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush – all expressed publicly their desire to eliminate nuclear weapons. But these presidents, he points out, along with other leading policymakers expressing a similar desire, “have come up against the reality that as long as others have nuclear weapons, we must maintain some level of these weapons ourselves: to deter potential adversaries and to reassure over two dozen allies and partners who rely on our nuclear umbrella for their security – making it unnecessary for them to develop their own.”

    This is the succinct argument he offers for maintaining an arsenal of nuclear weapons. It is based on two pillars: deterrence and assurance. I might note that two pillars provide a highly unstable platform. If we are to succeed in eliminating nuclear weapons globally, Gates’ argument needs to be carefully examined. I will begin with the argument he makes for deterrence. There are currently nine countries with nuclear weapons, but Gates refers to only three of these, plus a non-nuclear weapon state, as being candidates for deterrence. These are Russia, China, North Korea and Iran (which has no nuclear weapons).

    North Korea has very few nuclear weapons and thus it would take relatively few nuclear weapons to deter them. More important, North Korea has been willing to negotiate the elimination of its nuclear program in exchange for development assistance and security guarantees. So, in the case of North Korea, it seems reasonable to assume that they could be deterred with a very small arsenal of nuclear weapons, and there is a high probability that with the proper incentives and security guarantees they would eliminate their nuclear arsenal. If one accepts that the theory of deterrence is valid, the deterrent force would not need to exceed 10 nuclear weapons.

    Iran currently has no nuclear weapons. It has the capacity to enrich uranium, which could lead to a program to create nuclear weapons. Since an Iranian nuclear capacity would be destabilizing and dangerous, this potential could also require a small nuclear deterrent force on the order of 10 nuclear weapons. The current situation with Iran’s uranium enrichment program raises the question of double standards. While the US has turned a blind eye to the fissile material programs of, for example, India and Israel, it has sought to shut down Iran’s uranium enrichment. There is a need for applying a universal standard to programs generating weapons usable fissile materials. All such programs in all states are potentially dangerous and require strict and effective international control.

    The other two nuclear weapons states that Gates refers to are Russia and China. He notes that both countries are pursuing “strategic modernization programs,” but neglects to mention that they have been pushed in this direction by US missile defense programs, which both Russia and China view as giving the US a potential first-strike capability against them. From their perspective, they are strengthening their deterrent capacity in response to a US threat. Both Russia and China have been very vocal in expressing their concerns about the US missile defense program, but the US has waved aside their concerns.

    Gates is careful to point out that “we do not consider Russia or China as adversaries.” Given the opportunity this provides, the US should seek agreement with both countries to move the size of all nuclear arsenals to much lower levels and to take other steps that will reduce the likelihood of nuclear weapons being used by accident or design. Russia has in the past expressed a desire to move to lower levels of nuclear weapons than were agreed to in the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (SORT), but thus far the US has put a floor at 1,700 to 2,200 deployed strategic weapons with the ability to keep more weapons in reserve. The US should seek immediate negotiations with Russia to move the number far lower, say to 1,000 each (in total) by the end of 2010, and to add verification provisions to the SORT agreement.

    China’s arsenal of nuclear weapons is below 500 at present, and they and India are the only countries to publicly proclaim a No First Use policy, meaning that they will not use nuclear weapons first under any circumstance. Further, China does not keep its nuclear arsenal on high alert status, as do the US and Russia. China currently has only about 20 long-range missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons to US territory. The US should seek an agreement with Russia and China in which all three states commit to a policy of No First Use of nuclear weapons. The US and Russia should further agree to remove their nuclear arsenals from high alert status.

    The second pillar of Gates’ argument is assurance to allies and partners that they can feel secure under the US “nuclear umbrella” and do not need to develop their own nuclear arsenals. But if the US led the way in seeking the elimination of nuclear weapons, this would not be an issue. Ronald Reagan argued in relation to the US and Russia, “A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought. The only value in our two nations possessing nuclear weapons is to make sure they will never be used. But then would it not be better to do away with them entirely?” The same, it would seem, would hold true for the world. A world without nuclear weapons would be safer for all countries, including our allies and partners. Many of these allies, including Japan, have been active in building consensus in the United Nations for the total elimination of nuclear weapons.

    Secretary Gates goes on in his speech to throw in a few more arguments for maintaining the US nuclear arsenal. “Our nuclear arsenal,” he says, “helps deter enemies from using chemical and biological weapons.” Assuming this is correct and that nuclear weapons could be needed for this purpose, the number of weapons would not exceed the 10 or so needed to deter North Korea or Iran. Gates finds our nuclear arsenal to be “vital” for one further reason: “We simply cannot predict the future.” But this argument cuts both ways. If the US continues to rely upon its nuclear arsenal, other countries are likely to pursue nuclear arsenals as well, making it more likely that these weapons will fall into the hands of terrorist organizations and creating an even more dangerous future.

    Secretary Gates acknowledges the errors in security that have occurred with the US nuclear arsenal and argues that these problems are being addressed by new strengthened command structures. He leaves to our imaginations, though, what security problems may be going unattended in the nuclear arsenals of other countries. Gates worries about the “credibility” of our nuclear arsenal, based upon the “safety, security and reliability of our weapons.” He makes an interesting but common inversion in placing greater concern on the safety and security of the weapons than that of the people they are intended to protect. In fact, nuclear weapons cannot provide security to their possessors; they can only be used to threaten or massively destroy an opponent. It also seems unlikely that a potential adversary of the US would believe it could attack the US with impunity because it estimated that the US arsenal was something less than 100 percent reliable.

    In the end, Gates believes the US must rely upon a “credible deterrent,” as opposed to providing leadership to achieve a world free of nuclear weapons. “To be blunt,” he says, “there is absolutely no way we can maintain a credible deterrent and reduce the number of weapons in our stockpile without either resorting to testing our stockpile or pursuing a modernization program.” He seeks a modernization program that would include the revitalization of the US nuclear weapons infrastructure and the development of a new nuclear warhead, the Reliable Replacement Warhead, which the Congress has turned down on several occasions. To follow the Gates plan would be to send a message to the rest of the world that the US, although the world’s most powerful state, finds nuclear weapons useful and will rely upon them for the foreseeable future. Rather than contributing to US security, this is a formula for promoting nuclear proliferation, which in the end will be harmful to US and global security.

    Gates summarizes his position in this way: “Try as we might, and hope as we will, the power of nuclear weapons and their strategic impact is a genie that cannot be put back in the bottle – at least for a very long time. While we have a long-term goal of abolishing nuclear weapons once and for all, given the world in which we live, we have to be realistic about that proposition.” It seems clear that Gates’ position is a self-fulfilling prophecy. In our current world, only the US, due to its enormous military might, can provide the necessary leadership to achieve the elimination of nuclear weapons. If US policymakers believe it cannot be done, that the “genie cannot be put back in the bottle,” it will not happen. On the other hand, if US policymakers adopted a different approach, one in which the US sought to end its reliance on nuclear weapons and pressed the other nuclear states to come along, the prospect of a world with zero nuclear weapons would become realistic.

    This does not mean unilateral US nuclear disarmament. It means a negotiated agreement for the phased, verifiable, irreversible and transparent elimination of nuclear weapons. It would not be easy, but the alternative is to continue with the status quo and drift toward nuclear catastrophe. Nuclear weapons do not and cannot protect their possessors. Retaliation is not protection. All countries, including the US, would be more secure in a world without nuclear weapons. We can move cautiously, but we must move determinedly toward that goal. Only the US can lead the way.

    David Krieger is President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org) and a councilor on the World Future Council.
  • Creating a World Without Nuclear Weapons

    Creating a World Without Nuclear Weapons

    We are in the seventh decade of the Nuclear Age and there remain more than 25,000 nuclear weapons in the arsenals of nine nuclear weapons states. The list of countries possessing nuclear weapons is headed by the US and Russia, which between them have more than 95 percent of the total on the planet. These two countries still maintain a few thousand nuclear weapons on hair-trigger alert, ready to be fired within moments of an order to do so. The other countries with nuclear weapons are the UK, France, China, Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea.

    An important question that every concerned individual should ask is: Do these weapons make a country and its citizens more secure? The answer to this question is that they do not; nuclear weapons provide no physical protection against a nuclear attack. They do not and cannot provide physical protection against other nuclear weapons.

    The Limits of Deterrence

    These weapons of mass annihilation can only be used to threaten retaliation against an attacker. But the threat of retaliation, known as nuclear deterrence, is not foolproof. Deterrence relies upon beliefs and effective communications. For deterrence to work, a country’s leaders must believe in the intent as well as the capacity of an opponent to retaliate. Such a threat may be doubted since it implies a willingness to slaughter millions, perhaps hundreds of millions, of innocent people.

    Another issue with deterrence is that of rationality: whether an opponent will always act rationally, even in times of severe crisis. The evidence does not support the proposition that all political leaders are rational at all times. Another problem with deterrence is that the threat of retaliation is essentially meaningless when it comes to terrorist groups, since they are often suicidal and cannot be located to retaliate against.

    Weapons of the Weak

    There are many good reasons to doubt that nuclear deterrence makes a country more secure. One perceived exception to this may be that nuclear weapons provide added security for a weaker country in relation to a stronger one. For example, George W. Bush, early in his presidency, branded Iraq, Iran and North Korea as an “axis of evil.” He then proceeded to attack Iraq on the false charge that it had a nuclear weapons program, overthrow its leadership and occupy the country. With North Korea, a country suspected of having a small arsenal of nuclear weapons, Bush was much more cautious and engaged in negotiations. This has sent a message to Iran that it would be more secure with a nuclear arsenal. This is surely not the message that the US wishes to send to the world, nor to countries such as Iran.

    For weaker countries, nuclear weapons may be thought of as “military equalizers.” They may make a stronger country think twice about attacking. But this is a dangerous game of Russian roulette. The greater the number of countries with nuclear weapons, the greater the danger that these weapons will be used by accident, miscalculation or design.

    Because of the perceived power that nuclear weapons bestow upon their possessors, they may seem to some to be desirable, but in fact possessors of nuclear weapons are also targets of nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons can destroy cities, countries, civilization, the human species and most life on our planet. As Mikhail Gorbachev has pointed out, they are weapons of “infinite and uncontrollable fury,” far too dangerous to be “held in the hands of any mere mortal ever again, for any reason.” Nuclear weapons could cause irreversible damage, not to the planet which is capable of recovery despite the worst we can do to it, but to humanity and to the human future.

    The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty

    The 1970 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty requires the countries that were then in possession of nuclear weapons (US, Soviet Union, UK, France and China) to engage in good faith negotiations for nuclear disarmament in return for other countries agreeing not to acquire nuclear weapons. This agreement on the part of the nuclear weapons states has not been kept and unfortunately the country that has been the principal obstacle to nuclear disarmament has been the United States.

    Another aspect of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is that it refers to the peaceful uses of nuclear energy as an “inalienable right.” For many reasons, this moves the world in the wrong direction. The most important of these reasons is that nuclear energy provides a pretext for the creation of fissile materials for nuclear weapons through uranium enrichment and plutonium separation technologies. Once commerce is established in such bomb materials, the prospects of nuclear proliferation, even to terrorists, increase dramatically.

    Changing Our Thinking

    Nuclear weapons pose a unique existential challenge to humanity. If global warming is an “inconvenient truth,” nuclear weapons are an even greater and more acute problem for humanity. We need to shift our thinking if we are to confront the serious dangers to the human future posed by nuclear weapons. As Albert Einstein warned early in the Nuclear Age, “The splitting of the atom has changed everything save our modes of thinking and thus we drift toward unparalleled catastrophe.” The needed change in thinking will require a major shift in our orientation toward nuclear arms.

    These weapons must be viewed as the immoral and illegal weapons that they are, as opposed to just another, albeit more powerful, weapon of war. The International Court of Justice considered the issue of the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons and unanimously concluded: “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.” People everywhere must understand that the weapons themselves are the enemy and must be committed to their elimination.

    The Need for US Leadership

    The United States, as the world’s most powerful country, must lead in achieving a world free of nuclear weapons. The US, however, seems unmindful of this responsibility and continues to send exactly the wrong message by its reliance on nuclear weapons. Two distinguished former US diplomats, Thomas Graham Jr. and Max Kampelman, have called US leadership “essential”: “The road from the world of today, with thousands of nuclear weapons in national arsenals to a world free of this threat, will not be an easy one to take, but it is clear that US leadership is essential to the journey and there is growing worldwide support for that civilized call to zero.” US leaders must understand that for the country’s own security and for global security, nuclear weapons abolition is necessary, but won’t be possible without US leadership.

    The Role of Citizens

    The people of the US and other nuclear weapons states must put pressure on their governments to act on ridding the world of nuclear weapons. Pressure must come from below to change the thinking and the actions of political leaders. Among the steps that individuals can take to make a difference on this issue are the following:

    1. Learn more. Visit the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s website at www.wagingpeace.org.
    2. Keep abreast of the issues. At www.wagingpeace.org you can sign up for The Sunflower, a free monthly e-newsletter on current nuclear weapons issues.
    3. Share your knowledge. Tell your family and friends about the importance of current nuclear weapons issues and encourage their involvement.
    4. Communicate with the media. Follow the news and write letters to your local newspaper.
    5. Write your representatives in Congress. Sign up for the Turn the Tide Action Alerts at www.wagingpeace.org, and we’ll make it easy for you to communicate with your Congressional representatives.
    6. Support and build nuclear abolition organizations. It may take a village to raise a child, but it will take strong, committed and enduring organizations to assure we achieve the goal of a world free of nuclear weapons for all the children of the world.
    7. Never give up. It will take extraordinary perseverance to achieve the goal. No one should give up because the task is difficult.

    Each generation has a responsibility to pass the world on intact to the next generation. Those of us alive today are challenged as never before to accomplish this. Technological achievement does not necessarily make us stronger. It may simply make us more vulnerable, and our old ways of thinking may seal our fate. The alternative to waiting for a nuclear catastrophe to occur is to join others who are committed to preserving a future of the human species, and act to rid the world of this most terrible of all human inventions.

    David Krieger is a founder of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org) and has served as its president since 1982. He is a leader in the global effort to abolish nuclear weapons.
  • The US-India Deal: When Geopolitics Meets Principle

    The US-India Deal: When Geopolitics Meets Principle

    When geopolitics comes up against principle in the US Congress, it is generally principle that is forced to give way. In the case of the US-India nuclear deal, originally proposed by President Bush and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in 2005, the deal would involve transferring nuclear technology and material from the US to India. Geopolitically, it would strengthen the relationship between the two countries, but it would do so at the expense of the principle of preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

    India is not a party to the 1970 nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. It never joined because its leaders believed that the Non-Proliferation Treaty promoted nuclear apartheid with its two classes of states: nuclear “haves” and “have-nots.” By not signing the treaty, India, like Pakistan and Israel, held open the possibility of developing nuclear weapons. In 1974, India tested its first nuclear device, what it called a “peaceful nuclear device.” In 1998, India conducted multiple tests of nuclear weapons, and was followed almost immediately by a series of Pakistani nuclear tests.

    The United States, unlike India, is a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Like all other parties to the treaty, it promised in Article I of the treaty “not in any way to assist, encourage, or induce any non-nuclear-weapon State to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, or control over such weapons or explosive devices.” India is a “non-nuclear-weapon State” by the treaty’s definition. By providing nuclear materials and technology to India, the US will be assisting India to develop a larger nuclear arsenal than it already has developed. Thus, the US will be in violation of its treaty obligations.

    India has agreed to allow its civilian nuclear reactors to be inspected by the International Atomic Energy Agency, but not its military reactors. By supplying nuclear material and technology to India, it will allow India to use all of the uranium and plutonium from its military reactors, which are not subject to inspection, to be used for increasing the size of its nuclear weapons arsenal. This will, in turn, promote nuclear arms races with Pakistan and China.

    Earlier this month, the US applied pressure to the 45 member states of the Nuclear Suppliers Group to waive their rules and allow nuclear material and technology transfers to India. Many of the members of the Nuclear Suppliers Group were as eager as the United States at the opportunity for their big corporations to cash in on selling nuclear reactors to India.

    With the Nuclear Suppliers Group having signed off on the deal, it left only the US Congress to reconsider the matter before giving the green light to the deal. The first step in getting the deal through Congress was gaining the approval of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. In this Committee, Senator Russ Feingold introduced an amendment to the bill calling on the administration to reach an agreement with the Nuclear Suppliers Group that there will be no transfers of uranium enrichment or plutonium separation technologies to a country that is not party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

    Since India is not party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, the Feingold amendment would have prohibited transfers of these technologies for producing weapons-grade nuclear materials to India. It is an amendment that upholds the principle that transfers of nuclear technology should not assist in the development of nuclear weapons. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee, in its eagerness to see the US reap perceived geopolitical and financial advantages, threw principle to the wayside and voted 15 to 4 against the amendment. The four principled Senators voting for the amendment were Feingold, along with Barbara Boxer, Robert Casey and Jim Webb.

    Following the defeat of the amendment, the Committee, in its embarrassing rush to line up behind a Bush policy that substantially undermines the current nuclear non-proliferation regime, voted 19 to 2 in favor of the deal. The only two Senators on the Committee to stand on principle and vote against the deal were Russ Feingold and Barbara Boxer.

    If the House Foreign Affairs Committee follows its colleagues in the Senate, it is almost assured that the Congress of the United States will vote in favor of this ill-conceived deal, and the prospects of preventing further proliferation of nuclear weapons will have been dealt a near fatal blow. The US will have demonstrated that perceived short-term geopolitical gain, with an unhealthy dose of potential financial profit thrown in, is more than enough to defeat even the most important of security-related principles. The Bush administration will have succeeded in making the Congress complicit in blowing a hole the size of a nuclear explosion through the principle of safeguarding the country and the world against the spread of nuclear weapons.

    David Krieger is President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org) and a councilor of the World Future Council.

  • Comparing the Positions of Senators Obama and McCain on Nuclear Disarmament

    David KriegerNuclear weapons do not and cannot protect their possessors. They can only be used to threaten or carry out massive retaliation. Retaliation does not constitute protection. It constitutes retribution of the worst sort, killing large numbers of innocent people. Further, when powerful states continue to rely upon nuclear arsenals for their security, they create an incentive to nuclear proliferation. When nuclear weapons proliferate to other countries, the chances are increased that they will end up in the hands of terrorist organizations that are suicidal, not locatable, and thus not subject to being deterred.

    A major goal of the next president of the United States should be to achieve a clear path to the elimination of all nuclear weapons. This will require making a commitment to the goal of a nuclear weapons-free world; bringing US policy in line with this commitment; and convening negotiations with the other nuclear weapon states to achieve this goal.

    Both leading presidential candidates have articulated a commitment to a world free of nuclear weapons. Senator Obama has said, “A world without nuclear weapons is profoundly in America’s interest and the world’s interest. It is our responsibility to make the commitment, and to do the hard work to make this vision a reality. That’s what I’ve done as a Senator and a candidate, and that’s what I’ll do as President.”

    On another occasion, Senator Obama stated, “Here’s what I’ll say as President: America seeks a world in which there are no nuclear weapons. We will not pursue unilateral disarmament. As long as nuclear weapons exist, we’ll retain a strong nuclear deterrent. But we’ll keep our commitment under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty on the long road towards eliminating nuclear weapons.” For the United States to keep its commitment under the Non-Proliferation Treaty would mean that it would enter into “good faith” negotiations to achieve nuclear disarmament. Senator Obama asserts that this will be a “long road,” but with the requisite leadership and political will, it need not be so long a road as he now perceives.

    Senator Obama elaborated, “We’ll work with Russia to take US and Russian ballistic missiles off hair-trigger alert, and to dramatically reduce the stockpiles of our nuclear weapons and material. We’ll start by seeking a global ban on the production of fissile material for weapons. And we’ll set a goal to expand the US-Russian ban on intermediate-range missiles so that the agreement is global.”

    Senator McCain has said, “A quarter of a century ago, President Ronald Reagan declared, ‘our dream is to see the day when nuclear weapons will be banished from the face of the Earth.’ That is my dream, too.” Having said this, however, Senator McCain made it clear that the goal was not close at hand. He referred to it as “a distant and difficult goal,” one that “we must proceed toward it prudently and pragmatically, and with a focused concern for our security and the security of allies who depend on us.” Again, the requisite leadership and political will would make this a far less “distant and difficult goal.”

    Senator McCain continued, “But the Cold War ended almost twenty years ago, and the time has come to take further measures to reduce dramatically the number of nuclear weapons in the world’s arsenals. It is time for the United States to show the kind of leadership the world expects from us, in the tradition of American presidents who worked to reduce the nuclear threat to mankind. […] I believe we should reduce our nuclear forces to the lowest level we judge necessary, and we should be prepared to enter into a new arms control agreement with Russia reflecting the nuclear reductions I will seek.” Senator McCain’s goal is ambiguous when he talks about “the lowest level we judge necessary….” One might ask: Who is the “we” that judges and what is the criteria for “necessary”?

    Bringing US policy into line with the commitment to obtain a nuclear weapons-free world requires a number of steps to dramatically reduce nuclear risks as well as the size of nuclear arsenals. The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation has proposed seven steps to achieve the elimination of nuclear weapons. These will be discussed below, along with the positions of the two major party candidates for US president on each of these steps.

    • De-alert. Remove all nuclear weapons from high-alert status, separating warheads from delivery vehicles. There remain some 3,000 nuclear weapons on hair-trigger alert in the arsenals of the US and Russia, elevating the risks of accidental launches.

    Senator Obama states on his campaign website that he would “work with Russia to take US and Russian ballistic missiles off hair-trigger alert.” He has also said, “If we want the world to deemphasize the role of nuclear weapons, the United States and Russia must lead by example. President Bush once said, ‘The United States should remove as many weapons as possible from high-alert, hair-trigger status – another unnecessary vestige of Cold War confrontation.’ Six years later, President Bush has not acted on this promise. I will. We cannot and should not accept the threat of accidental or unauthorized nuclear launch.”

    Senator McCain has not stated his position on de-alerting nuclear arsenals.

    • No First Use. Make legally binding commitments to No First Use of nuclear weapons and establish nuclear policies consistent with this commitment. Among the nuclear weapons states, only China and India currently have policies of No First Use. The other states, including the US, maintain the option of using nuclear weapons preemptively.

    Neither candidate has taken a position specifically on No First Use of nuclear weapons. Senator Obama, however, has said that the US should lead an effort to deemphasize the role of nuclear weapons.

    Senator McCain has said, “It’s naïve to say that we will never use nuclear weapons.” If he believes it is naïve to say that nuclear weapons will never be used, it seems unlikely that he would be willing to rule out their first use.

    • No New Nuclear Weapons. Initiate a moratorium on the research and development of new nuclear weapons, such as the Reliable Replacement Warhead. The Bush administration has been pushing for new nuclear weapons, but Congress has wisely resisted this path.

    Senator Obama has said, “We can maintain a strong nuclear deterrent to protect our security without rushing to produce a new generation of warheads. I do not support a premature decision to produce the RRW [Reliable Replacement Warhead].” He has also stated, “We can maintain a strong nuclear deterrent to protect our security without rushing to produce a new generation of warheads.”

    Senator McCain has said, “I would only support the development of any new type of nuclear weapon that is absolutely essential for the viability of our deterrent that results in making possible further decreases in the size of our nuclear arsenal, and furthers our global nuclear security goals. I would cancel all further work on the so-called Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator, a weapon that does not make strategic or political sense.” McCain’s statement leaves a loophole by using language similar to that used by the proponents of the Reliable Replacement Warhead, that is, that the RRW is essential for the viability of the US deterrent and will make possible a decrease in the US nuclear arsenal.

    • Ban Nuclear Testing Forever. Ratify and bring into force the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. In 1999, the Senate with a Republican majority voted along party lines against ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and the Bush administration has not resubmitted the treaty for further Senate consideration.

    Senator Obama has stated, “I will make it my priority to build bipartisan consensus behind ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.”

    Senator McCain was among the Senators voting against ratification of the Treaty in 1999. He has indicated that he would reconsider his earlier decision, stating that he would take another look “to see what can be done to overcome the shortcomings that prevented it from entering into force.”

    • Control Nuclear Material. Create a verifiable Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty with provisions to bring all weapons-grade nuclear material and the technologies to create such material under strict and effective international control. In a world with few or no nuclear weapons, it is essential to have strong international controls of nuclear materials that could be used for developing nuclear weapons.

    Senator Obama has said, “I will work to negotiate a verifiable global ban on the production of new nuclear weapons material.” He has further stated, “I will secure all loose nuclear materials around the world in my first term.”

    Senator McCain has stated that the US “should move quickly with other nations to negotiate a Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty to end production of the most dangerous nuclear materials.”

    • Nuclear Weapons Convention. The Non-Proliferation Treaty requires “good faith” negotiations to achieve nuclear disarmament. Such good faith negotiations should be applied to reaching a multilateral international treaty, a Nuclear Weapons Convention, for the phased, verifiable, irreversible and transparent elimination of nuclear weapons. This treaty would set forth a confidence-building roadmap to a world free of nuclear weapons.

    Neither candidate has spoken about negotiating a new treaty for the total elimination of nuclear weapons, although both have talked about the goal of a world without nuclear weapons. Both candidates have called for reductions in nuclear arsenals. While reductions can be taken unilaterally or bilaterally with the Russians, the critically important step of a Nuclear Weapons Convention will require multilateral negotiations with all of the world’s states.

    Senator Obama’s website states that he will “seek dramatic reductions in US and Russian stockpiles of nuclear weapons and material.” He has also promised to “seek deep cuts in global nuclear arsenals.”

    Senator McCain has said, “I believe we should reduce our nuclear forces to the lowest level we judge necessary, and we should be prepared to enter into a new arms control agreement with Russia reflecting the nuclear reductions I will seek.”

    • 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. Plans should be made for reallocating the large sums of money currently used to maintain and improve nuclear arsenals.

    Senator Obama has said that he will “cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending,” giving as an example that he will “cut investments in unproven missile defense systems.”

    Senator McCain has not stated his position on reallocating resources from the defense budget in general or nuclear weapons programs in particular to meeting human needs.

    The Candidates’ Positions on Other Key Issues Affecting Nuclear Disarmament

    An important issue affecting the US ability to achieve a world free of nuclear weapons is the tension created between the US and Russia over US implementation of missile defenses, particularly in Eastern Europe. The US missile defense program has been viewed as a threat by Russia since the US unilaterally abrogated the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002. The Russians have viewed US missile defenses as threatening their deterrent capability despite US assurances to the contrary, and if this issue is not resolved it could be a deal breaker for further progress on nuclear disarmament. An important step in clearing the path with Russia for major reductions in nuclear weapons would be for the US to reverse course on deployment of missile defenses and open negotiations with the Russians to reinstate the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.

    Senator Obama has said, “I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems.”

    Senator McCain voted Yes on deploying National Missile Defense in 1999, and more recently stated, “The first thing I would do is make sure that we have a missile defense system in place in Czechoslovakia (sic) and Poland, and I don’t care what his [Putin’s] objections are to it.”

    Another potential stumbling block is space weaponization. Russians and the Chinese have both promoted a draft treaty to reserve outer space for peaceful purposes, including a ban on space weaponization. The US has not been willing to even discuss such a ban, and was the only country in the United Nations to vote against such a ban in the 2007 UN General Assembly. The US should join with the other countries of the world in assuring that space is reserved for peaceful purposes only.

    Senator Obama has said flatly, “I will not weaponize space.”

    Senator McCain has stated, “Weapons in space are a bad idea. A treaty that increases space security is a good idea, but it is likely to take a long time to negotiate. There is a simpler and quicker way to go: a Code of Conduct for responsible space-faring nations. One key element of that Code must include a prohibition against harmful interference against satellites.”

    Another concern in bringing US policy in line with a commitment to a nuclear weapons-free world is the control of the spread of nuclear power. While the promotion of nuclear power is a tenet of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, it adds significantly to the complications of controlling nuclear materials and preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Nuclear power and research reactors, as Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea have demonstrated, are a pathway to nuclear weapons, and the US should shift its policy of promoting these nuclear materials factories. Even more dangerous are facilities to enrich uranium or separate plutonium, which could be used in weapons programs.

    Senator McCain has sponsored legislation that would provide subsidies for the nuclear power industry. McCain has said that “nuclear power, for all kinds of reasons, needs to be part of the solution.” In a speech on the environment, Senator McCain referred to nuclear energy as “a proven energy source that requires zero emissions.” After referencing the plans of China, Russia and India to build new nuclear reactors, he asked, “And if they have the vision to set and carry out great goals in energy policy, then why don’t we?” McCain is calling for the construction of 45 new nuclear reactors in the US by the year 2030.

    Senator Obama has adopted a far more cautious approach to nuclear energy. In his energy plan on his website, it states, “Nuclear power represents more than 70 percent of our non-carbon generated electricity. It is unlikely that we can meet our aggressive climate goals if we eliminate nuclear power from the table. However, there is no future for nuclear without first addressing four key issues: public right-to-know, security of nuclear fuel and waste, waste storage, and proliferation.” Although Senator Obama does not seem to have directly said so himself, Senator McCain has said that Senator Obama “doesn’t support new nuclear plants.” Possibly Senator McCain was extrapolating from the difficulty of the nuclear power industry providing satisfactory solutions to the four key issues that Senator Obama raised.

    Analysis

    On the issue, so critical to humanity’s future, of achieving a world free of nuclear weapons, there is much we still don’t know about the candidates’ positions. Both state in general terms that they favor the goal. Neither of them, however, has discussed seeking to achieve a Nuclear Weapons Convention, a treaty that would set forth a roadmap for the phased, verifiable, irreversible and transparent elimination of nuclear weapons.

    Between the two candidates, Senator McCain’s positions seem more cautious. He has defined the goal as “distant.” He has also used language that could leave open the door to developing new nuclear weapons, if they meet certain criteria. A most serious obstacle to Senator McCain achieving progress is his strong support for missile defenses, which have led the Russians to consider backtracking on nuclear disarmament by, for example, bolstering its offensive nuclear capabilities and pulling out of the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty. Further, McCain has stated that it is “naïve to say that we will never use nuclear weapons,” which seems to suggest that he would not support ruling out First Use of nuclear weapons.

    Senator Obama has articulated a more detailed position on achieving the goal of a nuclear weapons free world than has Senator McCain. Senator Obama has said that he wants to be the President that leads the way to a nuclear weapons-free world, although he, too, sees it as a “long road.” He has come out in favor of removing US nuclear weapons from hair-trigger alert, not developing new nuclear weapons, ratifying the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, achieving a verifiable global ban on the production of new nuclear weapons material and making deep cuts in global nuclear arsenals. He is also more cautious about nuclear energy, seeks to cut funds from unproven missile defense systems, and opposes the weaponization of space.

    The World Set Free

    In the seventh decade of the Nuclear Age, there is a glimmer of hope that new leadership in the United States may pave the way forward toward a world free of nuclear weapons. Such leadership would be a great gift to the people of the United States and to the world. If humans together can rid the world of its greatest human-created threat, we can also join together to accomplish other great feats – eliminating poverty, hunger and disease, protecting the environment and averting the potential disasters arising from climate change, and opening new channels of creativity and communication that can bind us all closer together in peace, justice and human dignity.

    ***This article is for educational purposes. The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation is a non-partisan organization and does not support particular candidates or political parties.

    David Krieger is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org) and a councilor of the World Future Council.
  • Nuclear Weapons and Future Justice

    Nuclear Weapons and Future Justice

    Future justice requires that the inhabitants of the future be treated justly and equitably. This implies that our current social, economic and political relations, both nationally and internationally, become more just and equitable. It also adds an explicit focus on the longer term consequences of these relations. The decisions taken in the present must be made with a view to their effect upon future generations.

    Many indigenous peoples lived with an ethic of considering present impacts on the “seventh generation.” Modern societies have been far less respectful of those who will follow us on the planet, as the expanding population of the planet combined with our greed for natural resources and the power of our technologies has exponentially increased the human impact upon the Earth and upon future generations.

    We need an ethic that expands our concept of justice to generations yet unborn. We need to recognize and appreciate the extent to which our decisions and acts in the present have serious, potentially irreversible, consequences for the future. In the 1990s, The Cousteau Society, led by respected ocean explorer Jacques Cousteau, developed and promoted a Bill of Rights for Future Generations. Its five articles are:

    Article 1. Future generations have a right to an uncontaminated and undamaged Earth and to its enjoyment as the ground of human history, of culture, and of the social bonds that make each generation and individual a member of one human family.
    Article 2. Each generation, sharing in the estate and heritage of the Earth, has a duty as trustee for future generations to prevent irreversible and irreparable harm to life on Earth and to human freedom and dignity.
    Article 3. It is, therefore, the paramount responsibility of each generation to maintain a constantly vigilant and prudential assessment of technological disturbances and modifications adversely affecting life on Earth, the balance of nature, and the evolution of mankind in order to protect the rights of future generations.
    Article 4. All appropriate measures, including education, research, and legislation, shall be taken to guarantee these rights and to ensure that they not be sacrificed for present expediencies and conveniences.
    Article 5. Governments, non-governmental organizations, and individuals are urged, therefore, imaginatively to implement these principles, as if in the very presence of those future generations whose rights we seek to establish and perpetuate.

    To enforce such a set of rights for future generations, we need to create a criminal conceptualization that designates the worst offenses against these rights as crimes against future generations, the worst crimes being those that would foreclose the future altogether or that would make life on the planet untenable. Two areas of human activity that would clearly fit into this category of foreclosing the future are nuclear war and climate change. Both have the potential to destroy human life on our planet, along with much other life.

    Responsibilities towards Future Generations

    Rights cannot exist in a vacuum. Along with rights, there must be concomitant responsibilities, including responsibilities to assure the rights of future generations. On November 12, 1997, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) solemnly proclaimed the UNESCO Declaration on the Responsibilities of Current Generations towards Future Generations. The Declaration was composed of 12 Articles covering a full range of responsibilities towards future generations. The two Articles most closely related to preserving a human future and a future for life on the planet are Articles 3 and 4.

    Article 3 – Maintenance and perpetuation of humankind – The present generations should strive to ensure the maintenance and perpetuation of humankind with due respect for the dignity of the human person. Consequently, the nature and form of human life must not be undermined in any way whatsoever.

    Article 4 – Preservation of life on Earth – The present generations have the responsibility to bequeath to future generations an Earth which will not one day be irreversibly damaged by human activity. Each generation inheriting the Earth temporarily should take care to use natural resources reasonably and ensure that life is not prejudiced by harmful modifications of the ecosystems and that scientific and technological progress in all fields does not harm life on Earth.

    The Declaration calls for “intergenerational solidarity.” Such solidarity with future generations requires that current generations take responsibility for assuring that the policies of those in power today will not lead to foreclosing the future for generations yet to be born. Thus, the importance of conceptualizing crimes against future generations cannot be evaded by the people of the present. A strong example of such crimes can be found in the example of policies promoting the possession, threat or use of nuclear weapons. Such policies constitute assaults upon future generations, as well as upon present life on the planet.

    Nuclear Weapons and International Law

    In the record of human history, survival chances have been enhanced by affiliation with the tribe and later with the nation-state. Such affiliations have provided a defense against the aggression of other groups. Violent conflicts between tribes and later nations have given rise to the pattern of warfare that has characterized human behavior from its earliest history. Technological innovations in warfare, such as the stirrup, crossbow, machinegun, airplane and submarine have given advantage to one side or another.

    What characterizes the Nuclear Age is the innovation of a form of weaponry that makes possible the destruction of the species. Nuclear weapons, which are weapons of indiscriminate mass destruction, have the capacity to foreclose the future of human life on the planet. The philosopher John Somerville coined a new term for the potential of nuclear weapons – omnicide, meaning the death of all. He reasoned that humans had moved from suicide, to genocide, to the potential of omnicide. The threat or use of nuclear weapons constitutes the ultimate crime against the future, the crime of omnicide, including the destruction of the human species.

    In 1996, the International Court of Justice issued an Advisory Opinion on the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons. The Court found, “The destructive power of nuclear weapons cannot be contained in either space or time. They have the potential to destroy all civilization and the entire ecosystem of the planet.” It further found that “the use of nuclear weapons would be a serious danger to future generations.” Even setting aside the blast effects of nuclear weapons, the Court found, “Ionizing radiation has the potential to damage the future environment, food and marine ecosystem, and to cause genetic defects and illness in future generations.”

    The Court unanimously concluded that any threat or use of nuclear weapons that violated international humanitarian law would be illegal. This meant that there could be no legal threat or use of nuclear weapons that was indiscriminate as between civilians and combatants, that caused unnecessary suffering, or that was disproportionate to a prior attack. Despite the fact that there could be virtually no threat or use of nuclear weapons that did not violate international humanitarian law, the Court also found on a split vote that “in view of the current state of international law, and of the elements of fact at its disposal, the Court cannot conclude definitively whether the threat or use of nuclear weapons would be lawful or unlawful in an extreme circumstance of self-defense, in which the very survival of a State would be at stake.”

    In light of the above conclusions, the Court found 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.” Thus, the Court was clear in reaffirming the obligation to nuclear disarmament in Article VI of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Although this aspect of the Court’s opinion does not specifically refer to the rights of future generations, adherence by the nuclear weapons states to “nuclear disarmament in all its aspects” would eliminate the possibility of nuclear weapons foreclosing the future by eliminating the weapons. Unfortunately, the political leaders of the nuclear weapons states have not fulfilled their obligations under international law.

    Nuclear Weapons Possession as Criminal Behavior

    Today there are nine states in the world that possess nuclear weapons: the US, Russia, UK, France, China, Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea. If we know that nuclear war could foreclose the future and would be a crime against future generations, does that make the possession of nuclear weapons by these states a crime against the future? Arguably, possession alone, without use or threat of use, is not a crime. But to take the inquiry one step deeper, is it possible that there can be possession without at least the implicit threat of use? In order to eliminate the possibility of threat or use of nuclear weapons, a state at a minimum would need to have a policy of “No First Use,” and would have to separate its warheads from delivery vehicles so that there could not be an inadvertent use of the weapons. While this would be better nuclear policy than one that left open the possibility of first use, it would not eliminate the possibility of a second use of the weapons, which would escalate a nuclear war, kill great numbers of innocent civilians, impact the health of children of the victims and even place the future of humanity at risk. Thus, the conclusion seems inescapable that the possessionof nuclear weapons by a state undermines future justice and constitutes a continuing crime against future generations.

    Individual Accountability for Criminal Acts

    The possession of nuclear weapons can be viewed as a crime of state, and this crime would apply to the nine states in possession of nuclear weapons. But beyond state criminal activity, there should also be culpability for the crime against the future by the leading state and military officials that support and promote nuclear weapons possession, as well as policies that make nuclear war more likely and total nuclear disarmament less likely. In addition, corporations, corporate executives and scientists who contribute to the maintenance and improvement of nuclear weapons should also be considered culpable for committing a crime against future generations.

    It is fundamental to criminal law that individuals have culpability for crimes, and that individual accountability not be covered over by state or corporate culpability. At the Nuremburg Tribunals following World War II, the principle was upheld that all individuals who commit crimes under international law are responsible for such acts, and this is true even if they are high government officials and domestic law does not hold such acts to be crimes. Along with responsibility goes individual accountability for crimes against future generations.

    The Need for a Taboo against Nuclear Arms

    In the present global environment, the possession of nuclear weapons is not viewed as a crime against future generations or even broadly as a crime against the present, but rather as a normative behavior of powerful states. There is a strong need to change this general orientation toward nuclear weapons through education about their dangers and their capacity to foreclose the future. One of the best reasons to eliminate nuclear weapons is that they have the potential to eliminate the human species, now or in the future. So long as nuclear weapons exist and are held in the arsenals of some countries, the danger of the use of these weapons under some conditions, by accident or design, cannot be entirely excluded. In addition, the existence of these weapons in the arsenals of some states creates pressures for other states to acquire such weaponry.

    It is essential to establish a norm that the possession of nuclear weapons is a crime against future generations, a crime that can only be prevented by the total elimination of these weapons. A taboo must be established that puts nuclear weapons in the same category of unacceptable behaviors as cannibalism, incest, slavery and torture, a taboo that ostracizes those who contribute to maintaining these weapons and who set up obstacles to their elimination.

    Signs of Hope

    1. The vast majority of states in the world support a world free of nuclear weapons.
    2. The vast majority of US and Russian citizens support a world free of nuclear weapons.
    3. More than 2100 mayors in some 125 countries throughout the world support the Mayors for Peace 2020 Campaign to Ban Nuclear Weapons by the year 2020.
    4. More than half the world, virtually the entire southern hemisphere, is covered by nuclear weapons-free zones.
    5. Former high-level US policy makers, including former Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger and George Shultz, former Secretary of Defense William Perry and former chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee Sam Nunn, have spoken out in favor a world free of nuclear weapons.
    6. Norway’s government pension fund has set a powerful example by divesting from companies providing components for nuclear weapons.
    7. Legal measures to return to the International Court of Justice are being taken to challenge the lack of progress on nuclear disarmament obligations.
    8. University students are showing increased concern for university involvement in nuclear weapons research and development.
    9. Leading scientists, including the late Nobel Laureates Hans Bethe and Joseph Rotblat, are calling upon scientists in all countries to cease working on nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction.
    10. UK Minister of Defense Des Browne has proposed a conference of the five principal nuclear weapons states to address the technical challenges of verifying nuclear disarmament.

    Providing Hope with Teeth

    While these signs of hope hold promise, far more needs to be done to establish a taboo against the possession, threat and use of nuclear weapons that will result in a world free of nuclear weapons. Organizations such as the World Future Council need to take a leadership role in promoting the concept of future justice and crimes against future generations, identifying those particular crimes, such as nuclear war and the antecedent possession, threat or use of nuclear weapons, which are capable of foreclosing the future.

    Those of us alive on the planet now are the trustees for future generations. We have the responsibility to assist in passing the world on intact to the next generation. We must act in intergenerational solidarity with those who are not yet present. In the words of the Cousteau Society’s Bill of Right for Future Generations, we must act “as if in the very presence of those future generations whose rights we seek to establish and perpetuate.”

    Among the tools needed to succeed in passing the world on intact to future generations is the identification of crimes against future generations to underpin the establishment of taboos against such crimes. Also needed is a system of accountability to ostracize and otherwise punish individuals, regardless of their office, who are engaged in the preparation or commission of such crimes. The possession, threat or use of nuclear weapons is unquestionably among the most serious of these crimes. Future justice is not a possibility in a world without a future.

    David Krieger is President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org) and a Councilor of the World Future Council (www.worldfuturecouncil.org).

  • The Non-Proliferation Treaty and Human Survival

    The Non-Proliferation Treaty and Human Survival

    In the vastness of the universe there is only one place we know of where life exists. That place, of course, is our planet, our Earth. Our planet has been hospitable to the evolution of life, resulting in the development of complex life forms, including homo sapiens, the “knowing” ones. We are “knowing” because we have the capacity to perceive and reflect upon our surroundings, our vision reaching to the far ends of the universe itself.

    We humans are nature’s mirror. We were created by the conditions of the universe, but in a sense it is also true that, by our perceptions and reflections, we create the universe. A well-known philosophical riddle asks whether a tree falling in the forest would make a sound if there were no one there to hear it. In the same way, but on a larger scale, we might ask if the universe itself would exist if there were no creatures like ourselves capable of perceiving and reflecting upon it.

    All of this is to say that human beings are special. In the long span of universe time, the appearance of humans is just a few short ticks on the cosmic clock. Yet, in that short span of time we have achieved remarkable intellectual, spiritual and artistic heights. We have also created tools capable of destroying much of life, including ourselves. By our cleverness in creating nuclear weapons, we have placed our own future on the planet in danger.

    With the existence of the future of our species in jeopardy, we are faced with a choice. We can confront this existential threat with ignorance, apathy and denial, or we can join together to end this threat of our own making. Choosing the latter route would mean accepting responsibility for our common future and acting to assure it.

    The diplomats from many nations of the world who negotiated the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) had a solution to the nuclear weapons threat to humanity. They sought to stop the spread of nuclear weapons to other states, and they also sought to eliminate the nuclear weapons already in the arsenals of those states that possessed them. Their efforts resulted in Article VI of the Treaty, in which the nuclear weapons states were required to engage in “good faith” negotiations for nuclear disarmament.

    The NPT was opened for signatures in 1968, and we are still waiting for those “good faith” negotiations for complete nuclear disarmament. In 1995, an NPT Review and Extension Conference was held on the 25th anniversary of the Treaty entering into force. Many civil society organizations argued at this conference that the NPT should not be extended indefinitely, since it would give the equivalent of a blank check to the nuclear weapons states who had so badly failed in fulfilling their Treaty obligations for its first quarter century.

    But the United States, along with the UK and France, argued for an indefinite extension. They twisted arms and, in the end, prevailed. And the warnings that they would approach their obligations for “good faith” negotiations with the same disdain or indifference with which they had approached them in the past have proven true.

    At the five-year NPT Review Conferences and the Preparatory Committee (PrepCom) meetings in between, the United States and its allies have fought against recognition of their obligations under Article VI of the Treaty. They distribute slick public relations brochures that gloss over the lack of progress in complying with Article VI. They resist accepting even the responsibility to engage in the good faith negotiations to which they have committed themselves. Their goal seems to be to deflect criticism, while actually doing virtually nothing to promote a world free of nuclear weapons.

    At the NPT Review Conferences and PrepComs, civil society organizations come to plead on behalf of humanity. They are given a few hours on the program to make their impassioned pleas, but often find that the official delegates to the conference are unwilling even to come to hear what they have to say. Over the years, the expectations that the delegates to the NPT will achieve any substantial progress have continued to diminish.

    I am no longer interested in the charades that are played by the delegates to the NPT representing the governments of the nuclear weapons states. I want to see some meaningful action on their part. We have a right to expect and demand such action.

    At stake is the future of our species. It is time for countries to stop playing cynical games that seek to avoid existing NPT obligations to eliminate nuclear weapons. Mutually Assured Destruction is unacceptable, whether it be between the US and Russia or India and Pakistan. Mutually Assured Delusions are also unacceptable. It is time for the UK and France to stop relying upon nuclear weapons because these weapons make them feel like they are still important world powers. Israel needs to end its nuclear weapons program before other Middle East countries follow its example. Other countries, for example those in NATO, need to step out from under the US nuclear umbrella and stop being enablers of the nuclear addiction of a small number of states.

    The only way out of our nuclear dilemma is for the countries of the world to demand that the Article VI obligation for “good faith” negotiations for nuclear disarmament be fulfilled. The US will have to provide leadership or it is unlikely that substantial progress will be possible. If the US doesn’t act, it is unlikely that Russia will do so, and without Russian participation, it is unlikely that significant progress will be possible with the UK, France and China.

    The NPT, with its membership of nearly all the world’s countries, provides an appropriate forum for the countries of the world to negotiate a new treaty, a Nuclear Weapons Convention, for the phased, verifiable, irreversible and transparent elimination of nuclear weapons. Once negotiations are planned, the non-NPT states (Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea) should be invited to join. Alternatively, the United States, as the world’s most militarily powerful country, could under new leadership use its convening capacity to initiate negotiations among the nine nuclear weapons states, leading to a Nuclear Weapons Convention with universal participation.

    Civil society has already prepared a draft Nuclear Weapons Convention. It has been introduced to the United Nations by the Republic of Costa Rica and Malaysia. The draft treaty is feasible. It is desirable. It could be accomplished relatively quickly. All that is required is the political will of the nuclear weapons states. Without this political will, the human future remains in peril. It is the 21st century equivalent of fiddling while Rome burns, but with far graver potential consequences for our common future.

    David Krieger is President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org). He is a councilor of the World Future Council.

  • Science, Peace, and Sustainability

    Science, Peace, and Sustainability

    Speech delivered to INES Conference in Mexico City on March 1, 2008

    We are meeting to explore relevant issues of Science, Peace, and Sustainability. The relationship between science, peace, and sustainability affects the lives of all of the planet’s inhabitants as well as the lives of future generations yet unborn. The International Network of Engineers and Scientists for Global Responsibility (INES) takes seriously issues of global responsibility, and we believe that engineers and scientists, because of their training, knowledge and privileged place in society, have a special role to play in improving the human condition and assuring a better future for humanity.

    INES has worked since 1991 in three principal areas: Peace and Disarmament, Sustainability, and Ethics in Science. INES is an international network of some 70 organizations in 34 countries. It also has individual members throughout the world. INES has held major conferences in Berlin, Amsterdam and Stockholm; and smaller meetings in many places in the world, including Buenos Aires, Argentina and most recently Nagpur, India. We are very pleased to be having our first meeting in Mexico. It is our hope that from this meeting will emerge many important and innovative ideas that will help strengthen the ties between science, peace and sustainability.

    Many years ago, in the early 1980s, I had the pleasure of working on a Reshaping the International Order (RIO) Foundation project on Disarmament, Development and the Environment with the great Mexican diplomat and Nobel Peace Laureate Alfonso Garcia Robles. He skillfully negotiated the world’s first Nuclear Weapon-Free Zone in an inhabited region, that of Latin America and the Caribbean. Last year that treaty celebrated the 40th year of its existence. It has been one of the significant success stories in the area of preventing nuclear proliferation.

    Many other regions of the world have followed in the footsteps of Latin America and the Caribbean, and we have Nuclear Weapon-Free Zones now in the South Pacific, Southeast Asia, Africa, Antarctica and Central Asia. Virtually the entire Southern hemisphere has become a series of Nuclear Weapon-Free Zones. Now countries in the North need to learn from the South, and cease their hypocritical and dangerous posturing and brandishing of nuclear arms.

    Around the same time that the Treaty of Tlatelolco, establishing the Latin American and Caribbean Nuclear Weapon-Free Zone, was being agreed to, another treaty was being negotiated to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons. That treaty, known as the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), was signed in 1968 and entered into force in 1970. It contains a major trade-off. In exchange for the non-nuclear weapons states agreeing not to acquire nuclear weapons, the nuclear weapons states agreed in Article VI to “good faith” negotiations for nuclear disarmament. The International Court of Justice advised in 1996 that this meant bringing to a conclusion “negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control.”

    What I wish to emphasize is the abysmal lack of “good faith” on the part of the nuclear weapons states and, in particular, the United States. In UN General Assembly voting on nuclear disarmament matters in 2007, the United States had the distinction of voting against every one of the 15 measures put before the UN. France voted against 10 measures, the UK against 9 and Israel against 8.

    In 1982, I helped found an organization, the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, which believes that peace is an imperative of the Nuclear Age. This belief was earlier pronounced by Albert Einstein and Bertrand Russell in the Russell-Einstein Manifesto issued on July 9, 1955. The Manifesto concluded, “There lies before us, if we choose, continual progress in happiness, knowledge, and wisdom. Shall we, instead, choose death, because we cannot forget our quarrels? We appeal as human beings to human beings: Remember your humanity, and forget the rest. If you can do so, the way lies open to a new Paradise; if you cannot, there lies before you the risk of universal death.”

    This is the power that scientists and engineers have placed in the hands of humanity: the power to create a new Paradise on Earth, and the power to foreclose the future by means of technologies capable of causing “universal death.” What shall we do? Which path shall we take? Which power shall we exercise? Science has contributed abundantly to war and continues to do so. Can science and scientists play a role in tipping the balance toward peace?

    And what about sustainability? Shall we go on using up the world’s resources because rich countries consider them to be inexpensive? Nothing irreplaceable can be considered inexpensive. This is another way of foreclosing the future. As an alternative course, scientists can contribute to protecting the world’s resources and developing sustainable forms of energy that do not place heavy burdens on future generations. To succeed in sustainable development, we will also need sustainable disarmament. They are inextricably linked.

    Resource depletion is a cause of war. So is greed. So is crushing poverty. If we want peace, we must protect our environment, conserve our resources, and have global standards of human dignity. We must also control and eliminate the weaponry we have created that could destroy human life on the planet, as well as most other forms of life.

    If we want peace, we must reverse the Roman dictum and prepare for peace. That means that we must use sustainable technologies and conserve our resources. It also means that scientists must work for constructive rather than destructive ends. They must also set appropriate professional standards that delegitimize destructive uses of science and technology. And they must speak out against such destructive uses and those scientists and engineers who succumb to such projects. We need a Hippocratic Oath for Scientists and Engineers based upon the commitment to “do no harm.”

    At our conference over the next few days, we will be exploring some critical issues:

    1. science, education and social responsibility;
    2. militarization and the spread of nuclear weapons;
    3. climate change and other serious environmental issues; and
    4. the paradigm of sustainability.

    All of this will be infused with the perspectives of Latin America.

    Time is not on our side, but perhaps in our deliberations we can make progress on deflecting the course of history that has divided humanity in the past, been conducive to wars, generated human rights abuses, tolerated environmental degradation, and set humanity on a collision course with catastrophe. Let us use our human capacities to choose hope and set a new course for the future, one rooted in peace, sustainability and the constructive uses of science and technology.

    I will conclude with a poem that is part of my first poetry book, Today Is Not a Good Day for War. The poem is about the hibakusha, the survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, those who are victims, but also the ambassadors, of the Nuclear Age. It is called Hibakusha Do Not Just Happen.

    HIBAKUSHA DO NOT JUST HAPPEN

    For every hibakusha there is a pilot

    for every hibakusha there is a planner

    for every hibakusha there is a bombardier

    for every hibakusha there is a bomb designer

    for every hibakusha there is a missile maker

    for every hibakusha there is a missileer

    for every hibakusha there is a targeter

    for every hibakusha there is a commander

    for every hibakusha there is a button pusher

    for every hibakusha many must contribute

    for every hibakusha many must obey

    for every hibakusha many must be silent

    Of course this is not just about hibakusha. It is about us as well. It is about our responsibility and also our silence. In today’s world, we all are at risk of becoming hibakusha. We must choose peace, sustainability and human decency, while outspokenly refusing to allow the gifts of our human talents and skills to be used to improve warfare and its capacity for slaughter.

    We must break the silence and be leaders for peace and sustainability. We must each play our part in reversing the militarization of our planet and moving it toward a peaceful and sustainable future, the Paradise that Russell and Einstein believed was within our grasp.

    David Krieger is President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

  • UN Voting on Nuclear Disarmament Shows Abysmal US Record

    UN Voting on Nuclear Disarmament Shows Abysmal US Record

    Each year the United Nations considers resolutions that seek to limit, control or eliminate the dangers that nuclear weapons pose to the inhabitants of the planet. In general, these resolutions can be described as nuclear disarmament measures.*

    In 2007, in the 62nd General Assembly of the United Nations, 20 resolutions on nuclear disarmament were considered. Of these, five were not voted upon. Of the 15 resolutions that were voted upon by the UN General Assembly in 2007, only one country in the world, the United States, had a record of opposing all of them. It is an abysmal voting record, and the people of the United States should be aware of the dangerous and obstructionist role their government is playing in opposing a serious agenda for nuclear disarmament.

    The votes of the nine nuclear weapon states are listed in the chart below. Countries were given one point for each Yes vote, zero points for each abstention, and a point was taken away for each No vote:

    China Pakistan N. Korea India Russia UK Israel France US
    Yes (+1) 11 10 11 8 5 3 1 2 0
    No (-1) 0 0 2 3 1 9 8 10 15
    Abstain (0) 4 5 0 4 8 3 6 3 0
    Vote Tally 11 10 9 5 4 -6 -7 -8 -15

    United States

    In three of the votes, the United States was the only country in the world to vote against the resolutions. The resolutions called for:

    1. Giving security assurances to non-nuclear weapons states that nuclear weapons would not be used against them;
    2. Supporting the Treaty on the South-East Asia Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone;
    3. Supporting the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, to permanently end all nuclear weapons testing.

    Four other resolutions had only three votes against, and in each case the US was one of the three. These resolutions called for:

    1. Supporting a nuclear-weapon-free southern hemisphere (US, France, UK opposed);
    2. Decreasing the operational readiness of nuclear weapons systems (US, France, UK opposed);
    3. A UN conference on eliminating nuclear dangers (US, France, UK opposed);
    4. Supporting renewed determination toward the elimination of nuclear weapons (US, India, North Korea opposed).

    France & United Kingdom

    The other nuclear weapons states had more positive voting records, although in the case of the UK and France, only slightly more so. Both France and the UK voted Yes on a resolution highlighting the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East and on supporting for the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. The UK’s other Yes vote was on renewed determination towards elimination of nuclear weapons.

    Russia & China

    Russia’s sole No vote was on supporting the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the illegality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons. Of the five principal nuclear weapons states, China had by far the best voting record, casting no negative votes.

    Israel, India, Pakistan & North Korea

    The other nuclear weapons states, those outside the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, are Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea. Israel cast only one Yes vote, on support of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. India, Pakistan and North Korea were more supportive of nuclear disarmament resolutions, voting Yes a majority of the time. North Korea did not vote on two resolutions.

    Weapons in Space

    One other aspect of UN voting on disarmament measures deserves comment, that of disarmament aspects of outer space. On the two measures on this subject, the countries of the world voted overwhelmingly in favor of keeping outer space free of weapons. The first vote was on prevention of an arms race in outer space. Out of 180 countries voting on this resolution, 179 voted in favor. Only the United States voted against and Israel abstained. On the second measure on transparency and confidence building in outer space, 181 countries voted. Again, only the US voted against the measure, and only Israel abstained.

    In the area of nuclear disarmament, as well as in keeping outer space free of weapons, the US has shown itself to be an obstacle to progress. In a time when the world badly needs leadership toward a saner and safer future, the US has chosen to oppose progress on nuclear disarmament in many ways, including its votes in the UN General Assembly.

    In many respects the US government has demonstrated by its votes in the UN General Assembly its disdain for the deep concerns of the vast majority of the rest of the international community as well as of the American people. Such behavior leaves the US and the world a more dangerous place and undoubtedly contributes to the extremely low level of respect in which the US is held throughout most of the world.

    * The voting records of countries on these resolutions can be found in the Winter 2007 issue of Disarmament Times, a publication of the NGO Committee on Disarmament, Peace and Security.

    David Krieger is President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

  • The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation Needs You

    The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation Needs You

    The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (NAPF) is a civil society organization, made up of and supported by individuals who care about its goals. Like thousands of other civil society organizations throughout the world, the Foundation tries to accomplish goals that will make the world a better place.

    The principal goal of NAPF is to abolish nuclear weapons. This is a goal that it cannot accomplish directly. It is a goal, for example, that differs from the direct assistance of providing food or medical supplies to disaster victims or people living in extreme poverty. To achieve its goal of abolishing nuclear weapons, NAPF must exert influence on public policy, leading to creating a world free of nuclear weapons. The Foundation works by educating and advocating. For its work, the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation has been recognized by the United Nations as a Peace Messenger organization.

    Since the goal of creating a world free of nuclear weapons requires a broad international effort and the Foundation has limited resources, it must be strategic in fulfilling its mission. Thus, NAPF has concluded that it is best to direct its efforts for change by working with international networks of like-minded civil society organizations and by focusing specifically on changing US nuclear policy.

    In its networking, NAPF helped found the Abolition 2000 Global Network for the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons, a network now linking over 2,000 organizations and municipalities worldwide. It was also a founding member of the Middle Powers Initiative, a coalition of international organizations that works with middle power governments to apply pressure to the nuclear weapons states for nuclear disarmament. NAPF helped found the International Network of Engineers and Scientists for Global Responsibility. The Foundation also maintains an office in Washington, DC where it networks with US arms control and disarmament organizations on nuclear policy issues coming before the Congress. The Foundation continues to be active in all of these networks, providing leadership where it can.

    The Foundation is a US-based organization, and it has concluded that US leadership is necessary in order to make significant progress in eliminating nuclear weapons. Thus, NAPF puts special emphasis on educating the US public on issues of nuclear weapons dangers and the need to abolish these weapons. It also seeks to influence US policy makers to assert greater leadership in this policy area.

    More than 60 years into the Nuclear Age, there is today not one US Senator that champions the abolition of nuclear weapons as one of his or her principal legislative goals. Nor has such leadership been exerted by any US President, although many have noted the importance of this issue.

    The Foundation has concentrated on building its base by educating the public on the need to abolish nuclear weapons and by advocating positions that the public can press for with their elected representatives. The Foundation believes that public pressure is needed to move policy makers to take stronger positions on the elimination of nuclear weapons.

    There are many obstacles to achieving change in the area of US nuclear policy. First, the mainstream media are not highly receptive to the Foundation’s message. Second, psychological factors of fear, denial and apathy make this a difficult issue for attracting widespread public involvement. Third, the public most likely also feels that their voices do not count on this issue and that policy makers do not pay attention to them. Fourth, there are corporate interests with profit motivations exerting a strong counterinfluence on the US government.

    Despite these obstacles, public opinion polls show that over 70 percent of Americans favor nuclear disarmament. It is significant that there is a major disconnect between the majority of people in the US and their government on the issue of eliminating nuclear arsenals. The US government, for reasons having more to do with power and profit than security, finds it preferable to continue to rely upon nuclear weapons, even in light of the dangers of these weapons falling into the hands of terrorists who could not be deterred from using them.

    A number of former high-level US policy makers – including Henry Kissinger, George Shultz, William Perry and Sam Nunn – have concluded that the world is at a nuclear “tipping point,” and that it is strongly in the US interest to provide leadership for a world free of nuclear weapons. This is the position that the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation reached 25 years ago.

    The Foundation has been a voice of conscience and sanity on the nuclear threat confronting humanity for 25 years. It has also been a voice largely in the wilderness. NAPF has been right, but it has been ignored. It is time for new leadership in America. The Foundation’s vision of a world free of nuclear weapons and US leadership to obtain this goal should be at the forefront of a new direction for the country.

    Without US leadership, the goal of a nuclear weapons-free world is not a possibility. With US leadership, the US can take important steps to assure its own future security, as well as that of humanity, and can free up resources for constructive pursuits.

    The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s work is more critical than ever. But to succeed as a civil society organization, the Foundation needs greater personal and financial support from civil society. Those who give low priority to abolishing nuclear weapons are rolling the dice on the future of their children, grandchildren and all generations to follow. Abolishing nuclear weapons is the Foundation’s mission; it is also a responsibility of all of us alive on the planet today.

    David Krieger is President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

  • The Case for US Leadership for a Nuclear Weapons-Free World

    The Case for US Leadership for a Nuclear Weapons-Free World

    1. Continued reliance on nuclear weapons by powerful countries will lead to nuclear proliferation and increase the possibility of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorist groups.
      1. Terrorists cannot be deterred from using nuclear weapons. Terrorist groups do not have a fixed territory, and it isn’t credible to threaten retaliation against a group that you cannot locate.
    3. A terrorist use of nuclear weapons against a powerful country could destroy cities and have many other detrimental effects on the social, political and economic fabric of the state.
    4. Graham Allison, an expert at Harvard’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, thinks there is a 50 percent chance of terrorists using nuclear weapons over the next ten years.
    5. The only way to assure that terrorists do not obtain and use nuclear weapons is to dramatically reduce the number of nuclear weapons in the world and bring all nuclear weapons and the material to make them under strict international control.
    6. To achieve this goal will require US leadership. If the US does not lead, there is no incentive for Russia to substantially reduce its arsenal, and consequently other states will not join in.
    7. US leadership for a nuclear weapons free world is very much in its own interest – to assure that terrorists do not obtain the only weapons that could inflict major damage on the US population, and to assure that major nuclear states do not use nuclear weapons by accident or design.
    8. A further reason that the US should provide leadership for a nuclear weapons-free world is that the US was the first country to develop nuclear weapons and to use them.
    9. An even more important reason for US leadership for a nuclear weapons-free world is to move toward creating a safe and sustainable world of opportunities for our children, grandchildren and generations to follow.
    10. Already some US leaders have seen the need for US leadership for a nuclear weapons free world and attempted to exercise such leadership. Ronald Reagan did so at a summit with Mikhail Gorbachev in Reykjavik, Iceland in 1986. Former high-level US officials Henry Kissinger, George Shultz, William Perry and Sam Nunn are calling now for such leadership.

    David Krieger is President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.