Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Tag: CTBT

  • Statement on North Korea

    The Middle Powers Initiative (MPI) deplores the nuclear test by North Korea and urges all parties to exercise restraint and place their faith in diplomacy rather than ratcheting up bellicosity. MPI is dedicated to the promotion of nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation through diplomacy and the rule of law. We deplore the proliferation of nuclear weapons as well as the failure of the nuclear weapons states to demonstrate adequate leadership in fulfilling their legal duty to work for and obtain the universal elimination of nuclear weapons.

    MPI agrees with Secretary General Kofi Annan that North Korea’s action “aggravates regional tensions . and jeopardizes security both in the region and beyond.” We support Mr. Annan’s view that “serious negotiations be renewed urgently in the framework of the six-party talks.” We are encouraged that UN Secretary-General-elect Ban Ki-moon has indicated his willingness to visit the region to assist in the development of a diplomatic solution to this crisis.

    It is also useful to recall the European Union’s strategy against WMD proliferation, adopted in 2003, which states, “The more secure countries feel, the more likely they are to abandon [WMD] programs: disarmament measures can lead to a virtuous circle just as weapons programs can lead to an arms race.”

    We welcome the unanimity of the Security Council in adopting Resolution 1718 in response to the North Korean test. The challenge to and responsibility of the Security Council – and all nations – now is to ensure the diplomatic aspects of the resolution – in particular, the call for the resumption of the Six Parties talks – are favored over the punitive aspects.

    Further steps towards increased militarization and nuclearization on the Korean Peninsula cannot result in anything but a disaster. Only diplomacy anchored to the bedrock principles of international law can offer an effective solution. We applaud Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Aso’s statement last week that, “The government of Japan has no position at all to consider going nuclear. There is no need to arm ourselves with nuclear weapons, either.” In a similar vein, South Korea’s emphasis on negotiations over confrontation is extremely satisfying. China – which stands to lose much in terms of economic development and military security in the event any of its neighbors “go nuclear” – has a special role in solidifying the diplomatic track.

    We encourage the Government of North Korea to return to the Six-Party Talks, along with the governments of China, Japan, Russia, South Korea and the United States. We note that the North Korean government has reaffirmed its support for the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula and for the September 19, 2005, “statement of principles” on negotiations over the crisis. We call on the parties to refrain from any further provocative actions that could derail the renewal of these talks, including further nuclear tests or any threats to use force against any of the parties. The six parties should also explore the possibility for a nuclear-weapon-free zone in North East Asia.

    MPI believes the Government of the United States must take a leadership role in advancing diplomatic solutions and finally engage North Korea in one-to-one talks leading to a full integration of North Korea into the world community as a non-nuclear weapon state with appropriate security assurances that give it confidence that such weapons have no value. Such a course – long overdue – would help diffuse tensions and create the necessary political space. The United States must remain conscious of its singular capacity to strengthen or weaken the international order based on the rule of law. Whether one supports or rejects the political system of North Korea, it remains a sovereign state and thus has a right to peace and security. However, its pursuit of nuclear weapons degrades its standing among nations and must be changed. Only by offering integration into the international community will peaceful change be possible and only by ending North Korea’s pursuit of nuclear weapons will its integration be possible.

    The actions by North Korea clearly demonstrate the folly of rejecting arms control treaties in the belief that treaties undermine national sovereignty. The record demonstrates consistent improved national and international security through arms control treaty law. Specifically these actions demonstrate the need for the full entry-into-force of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) and of its monitoring agency. This throws into sharp relief the lack of wisdom exhibited by powerful counties such as the United States, India and China in failing to ratify the CTBT. A CTBT, coupled with a fully-respected nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, would establish a vital international norm against testing and any further dangerous developments of nuclear weapons. In fact, a vital CTBT would lower the currency of nuclear weapons, establish measures to ensure compliance with a ban on nuclear testing and lead us all to a much safer world.

    Founded in 1998, MPI (www.middlepowers.org) is dedicated to the worldwide reduction and elimination of nuclear weapons, in a series of well-defined stages, working primarily with “middle power” governments. MPI is a program of the Global Security Institute (www.gsinstitute.org).

  • Break the Nuclear Deadlock

    UNITED NATIONS, New York
    Regrettably, there are times when multilateral forums tend merely to reflect, rather than mend, deep rifts over how to confront the threats we face. The review conference of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which ended on Friday with no substantive agreement, was one of these.
    For 35 years, the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, or NPT, has been a cornerstone of our global security. With near universal membership, the treaty has firmly entrenched a norm against nuclear proliferation and helped confound predictions that today there would be 25 or more countries with nuclear weapons.
    But today, the treaty faces a dual crisis of compliance and confidence. Delegates at the month-long conference, which is held once every five years, could not furnish the world with any solutions to the grave nuclear threats we all face. And while arriving at an agreement can be more challenging in a climate of crisis, it is also at such times that it is all the more imperative to do so.
    Let me be clear: Failure of a review conference to come to any agreement will not break the NPT-based regime. The vast majority of countries that are parties to the treaty recognize its enduring benefits. But there are cracks in each of the treaty’s pillars – nonproliferation, disarmament and peaceful uses of nuclear technology – and each of these cracks requires urgent repair.
    Since the review conference last met, in 2000, North Korea has announced its withdrawal from the treaty and declared itself in possession of nuclear weapons. Libya has admitted that it worked for years on a clandestine nuclear weapons program. And the International Atomic Energy Agency has found undeclared uranium enrichment activity in Iran. Clearly, the NPT-based regime has not kept pace with the march of technology and globalization. Whereas proliferation among countries was once considered the sole concern of the treaty, revelations that the Pakistani nuclear scientist A.Q. Khan and others were extensively trafficking in nuclear technology and know-how exposed the vulnerability of the nonproliferation regime to non-state actors.
    The treaty’s framers could hardly have imagined that we would have to work tirelessly to prevent terrorists from acquiring and using nuclear weapons and related materials. And while progress toward disarmament has taken place, there are still 27,000 nuclear weapons in the world, many of which remain on hair-trigger alert. At the same time, the intergovernmental bodies designed to address these challenges are paralyzed.
    In Geneva, the Conference on Disarmament has been unable to agree on a program of work for eight years. The UN Disarmament Commission has become increasingly marginal, producing no real agreement since 2000. And at the NPT review conference, nearlytwo-thirds of the proceedings were consumed by debate about agenda and logistics, instead of substantive discussions on how to strengthen the nonproliferation regime.
    In my opening address to the conference, I argued that success would depend on coming to terms with all the nuclear dangers that threaten humanity. I warned that the conference would stall if some delegates focused on some threats instead of addressing them all. Some countries underscored proliferation as a grave danger, while others argued that existing nuclear arsenals imperil us. Some insisted that the spread of nuclear fuel-cycle technology posed an unacceptable proliferation threat, while others countered that access to peaceful uses of nuclear technology must not be compromised.
    In the end, delegations regrettably missed the opportunity to endorse the merits of all of these arguments. As a result, they were unable to advance security against any of the dangers we face. How, then, can we overcome this paralysis? When multilateral forums falter, leaders must lead. This September, more than 170 heads of state and government will convene in New York to adopt a wide-ranging agenda to advance development, security and human rights for all countries and all peoples. I challenge them to break the deadlock on the most pressing challenges in the field of nuclear nonproliferation and disarmament. If they fail to do so, their peoples will ask how, in today’s world, they could not find common ground in the cause of diminishing the existential threat of nuclear weapons.
    To revitalize the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, action will be required on many fronts. To strengthen verification and increase confidence in the regime, leaders must agree to make the International Atomic Energy Agency’s Additional Protocol the new standard for verifying compliance with nonproliferation commitments.
    Leaders must find ways to reconcile the right to peaceful uses of nuclear energy with the imperative of nonproliferation. The regime will not be sustainable if scores more countries develop the most sensitive phases of the fuel cycle, and are equipped with the technology to produce nuclear weapons on short notice.
    A first step would be to create incentives for countries to voluntarily forgo the development of fuel-cycle facilities. I commend the nuclear agency and its director general, Mohamed ElBaradei, for working to advance consensus on this vital question, and I urge leaders to join him in that mission. Leaders must also move beyond rhetoric in addressing the question of disarmament.
    Prompt negotiation of a fissile material cutoff treaty for all countries is indispensable. All countries also should affirm their commitment to a moratorium on testing, and to early entry into force of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty. And I hope leaders will think seriously about what more can be done to reduce – irreversibly – the number and role of nuclear weapons in the world.
    Bold commitments at the September meeting would breathe new life into all forums dealing with disarmament and nonproliferation. They would reduce all the risks we face – of nuclear accidents, of trafficking, of terrorist use and of use by countries themselves. It is an ambitious agenda, and probably daunting to some. But the consequences of failure are far more daunting. Solutions are within are reach; we must grasp them.
    Kofi A. Annan is Secretary General of the United Nations. Herald Tribune All rights reserved

  • A New Bridge to Nuclear Disarmament

    A bridge on the long road to nuclear disarmament was built when eight NATO States supported a New Agenda Coalition resolution at the United Nations calling for more speed in implementing commitments to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

    The bridge gained extra strength when Japan and South Korea joined with the NATO 8 – Belgium, Canada, Germany, Lithuania, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Norway and Turkey.

    These States, along with the New Agenda countries – Brazil, Egypt, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand, South Africa and Sweden – now form an impressive and perhaps formidable center in the nuclear weapons debate and can play a determining role in the outcome of the 2005 NPT Review Conference.

    The bridge they have formed links the nuclear weapons States, which are entrenching nuclear weapons in their military doctrines, and the Non-Aligned Movement, which wants immediate negotiations on a time-bound program for nuclear disarmament.

    It is hard to know what to call this new collection of important States in the center. It is certainly not an entity. To be called a working partnership, it will at least have to pursue a common goal. And it is by no means certain that the tensions within the center can be contained. Nonetheless, the strategy adopted by the New Agenda Coalition to make its annual resolution at the U.N. First Committee more attractive particularly to the NATO and like-minded States – and thus shore up the moderate middle in the nuclear weapons debate – is working.

    Although the bridge needs strengthening, it is firm enough for the centrist States to exert leverage on the nuclear weapons States to take minimum steps to save the NPT in 2005.

    These steps are spelled out in the New Agenda resolution. It starts out by expressing “grave concern” at the danger to humanity posed by the possible use of nuclear weapons, and reminds nuclear weapons States of their 2000 “unequivocal undertaking” to the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals. It then calls on “all States” to fully comply with their nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation commitments and “not to act in any way that may be detrimental to nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation or that may lead to a new nuclear arms race.”

    The resolution identifies priorities for action: universal adherence to the NPT and the early entry-into-force of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty; reduction of non-strategic nuclear weapons and non-development of new types of nuclear weapons; negotiation of an effectively verifiable fissile material cut-off treaty; establishment of a subsidiary body to deal with nuclear disarmament at the Conference on Disarmament; and compliance with principles of irreversibility and transparency and verification capability.

    The resolution was adopted by a vote of 135 States in favour, 5 against and 25 abstentions. This was a considerable gain over the 121-6-38 vote for the New Agenda’s much more extensive resolution last year.

    China voted for the resolution and Russia abstained. The three Western nuclear weapons States, the U.S., the U.K. and France, all voted no, along with Israel and Latvia. Not able to object to what was in the resolution, the Western NWS said their “no” was based on what was not in it, namely recognition that the Moscow Treaty “commits the United States and Russia to reduce their nuclear arsenals by several thousand warheads over the next decade.” Nonetheless, the Western NWS looked forward to “ongoing dialogue” at the NPT 2005 Conference.

    The U.S. took an aggressive stance against the resolution, both in meetings at the U.N. and in demarches in capitals. Some NATO States were obviously intimidated, but the presumed NATO solidarity was cracked when seven NATO States joined with Canada, which for two years had stood alone in NATO in supporting the New Agenda resolution. The fact that such important NATO players as Germany, Norway, The Netherlands and Belgium have also now taken a pro-active stance indicates that they wanted to send a message to the U.S. to take more significant steps to fulfilling commitments already made to the NPT.

    Japan, which annually offers its own resolution, “A Path to the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons,” suddenly decided to support the New Agenda resolution, in order, as the government explained, to engender a “favourable atmosphere for nuclear disarmament.” This was a statesmanlike step, especially since the New Agenda countries failed to reciprocate when they abstained on Japan’s resolution. To parse the minute differences between the New Agenda’s and Japan’s resolutions is to engage in the technical games that experts play that result in diplomatic paralysis and public apathy.

    The situation the NPT finds itself in is so serious and the threat of nuclear terrorism so real that governments need to put aside their quarrels and power plays and take meaningful steps to ensure that the NPT will not be lost to the world through erosion.

    The centrist States have shown that they can cooperate in at least a basic manner to vote together on a program of meaningful action. They will now have to find ways of effectively negotiating with the NWS at the 2005 conference. They can do this provided they retain a confidence that the bridge they have built can hold and trust one another in the forthcoming NPT deliberations.

    Here the role of civil society should be noted. Like the States within the NPT, civil society is itself composed of groups with different viewpoints about how to achieve elimination. Some groups, understandably impatient, want fast action. But the resistance of the Western NWS, particularly the U.S., is so strong that demands for immediate comprehensive negotiations run up against a brick wall.

    Intermediate gains, such as the steps outlined in the New Agenda resolution, would go a long way in moving the international community down the path to nuclear disarmament. The New Agenda strategy of building up the center for moderate, realistic achievements deserves the full-fledged support of civil society.

    Senator emeritus Douglas Roche, O.C. of Canada is Chairman of the Middle Powers Initiative and author of “The Human Right to Peace.”

  • Nuclear Non-Proliferation: Examining the Policies of Bush and Kerry

    Nuclear Non-Proliferation: Examining the Policies of Bush and Kerry

    President Bush and Senator Kerry agree that nuclear proliferation is the top national security threat facing the United States . Given this agreement, it is worth examining the solutions each candidate is offering to solve the problem.

    The issue of Russian “loose nukes” has been at the forefront of the non-proliferation agenda since the end of the Cold War. A January 2001 Report Card on the Department of Energy’s Nonproliferation Programs with Russia concluded: “The most urgent, unmet national security threat to the United States today is the danger that weapons of mass destruction of weapons-usable material in Russia could be stolen and sold to terrorists or hostile nation states and used against American troops abroad or citizens at home.” This bipartisan report called for the US to develop and implement a ten-year $30 billion plan to bring Russian nuclear weapons and materials under control. The Bush administration has been spending at a rate of less than half this amount and has made little progress. Senator Kerry calls for completing the task in a four-year period.

    In Northeast Asia, North Korea has withdrawn from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and claims to have nuclear weapons. Under the Bush administration, the US has been engaged in periodic six-party talks on security issues with North Korea , South Korea , Japan , China and Russia . These talks have made little progress. By initiating its war against Iraq on the basis of purported weapons of mass destruction, the Bush administration has provided incentive to countries such as North Korea to develop nuclear deterrent forces against US attack. Adding to this, Bush has labeled North Korea as part of his “axis of evil” and referred to its leader as a “pygmy.” Senator Kerry has indicated that he would intensify the process of stopping North Korean nuclear proliferation by engaging in bilateral talks, as well as six-party talks, with the leaders of North Korea on the full range of issues of concern.

    In the Middle East, the Bush administration has enraged Arab populations by initiating its war against Iraq on false pretenses. Further, President Bush branded both Iraq and Iran as part of his “axis of evil.” The administration has put pressure on Iran to cease its uranium enrichment, which Iran claims is for peaceful purposes, but thus far with little effect. The US is widely viewed in the region as hypocritical for failing to apply equal pressure on Israel to dismantle its nuclear arsenal. Senator Kerry has set forth a plan to create a consortium to supply Iran with the fuel it needs for peaceful purposes with the agreement that Iran would return the spent fuel to the consortium, thus eliminating the threat that this material would be converted to use for weapons.

    In South Asia, both India and Pakistan have developed nuclear weapons capabilities. Following the nuclear tests by both countries in 1998, the US placed sanctions on them. However, in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the Bush administration has largely removed the sanctions and has developed close ties with Pakistan . President Bush claims to have “busted” the network of A. Q. Khan that was supplying nuclear materials and technology around the world. In fact, Khan was pardoned by Pakistani President Musharraf and has never been questioned by US intelligence agents. Senator Kerry has promised to work multinationally to toughen export controls and strengthen law enforcement and intelligence sharing to prevent such non-proliferation breaches in the future. Further, he has called for working through the United Nations to make trade in nuclear and other technologies of mass destruction an international crime.

    The United States has itself been engaged in a program to create new and more usable nuclear weapons, weapons for specific purposes such as “bunker busting,” and smaller nuclear weapons that are about one-third the size of the Hiroshima bomb. The Bush administration has supported this program, while Senator Kerry has said that he would end it because seeking to create new nuclear weapons sets the wrong example when we are trying to convince other nations not to develop nuclear arsenals.

    Both candidates recognize the dangers of nuclear proliferation and of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists. The Bush administration has set up the Proliferation Security Initiative that allows for boarding ships at sea to inspect for nuclear materials. Senator Kerry has pointed out that this initiative allows for inspecting on short notice only 15 percent of the 50,000 large cargo ships at sea and has less than 20 full participants. He plans a comprehensive approach that would not rely only on “coalitions of the willing,” but would create a broad international framework for preventing nuclear proliferation. Senator Kerry would also appoint a Presidential Coordinator to Prevent Nuclear Terrorism and make the issue a cabinet-level priority.

    In evaluating the candidates in regard to their willingness and ability to deal with the threats of nuclear proliferation, we should consider also the commitments made in 2000 by the parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, including the US , to achieving 13 Practical Steps for Nuclear Disarmament. These steps include ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the strengthening of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, the creation of a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty, making nuclear disarmament irreversible, and an unequivocal undertaking to achieve the total elimination of nuclear arsenals. These steps are important not only because they are international obligations, but because the future of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the non-proliferation regime in general rests upon the nuclear weapons states as well as the non-nuclear weapons states fulfilling their obligations.

    In nearly all respects President Bush has failed to meet these obligations. He has opposed ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, withdrawn from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, opposed verification of a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty, made nuclear disarmament entirely reversible under the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty and, rather than demonstrating leadership toward the elimination of nuclear arsenals, has sought to create new nuclear weapons.

    It is difficult to imagine any US president achieving so dismal a record on so critical an issue. It is time for presidential leadership that will restore US credibility in the world and not betray the national security interests of the American people.

    David Krieger is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation and co-author of Nuclear Weapons and the World Court.

  • Who Will Make Us Safer from the Biggest Threat Facing the US?

    If you watched or heard about the first Presidential debate on September 30th, then you probably already know that one thing both presidential candidates agree upon is that nuclear proliferation poses the biggest threat to the US. What you might not know is which candidate will actually make Americans far safer and more secure. Understanding how the presidential candidates will deal with nuclear proliferation is essential in allowing US citizens to make an informed decision on who is best suited to lead this great country.

    One thing President Bush failed to mention is that, despite calls from past Presidents, nuclear weapons have assumed a far more central role in US security policy. The new, more “usable” role that the US government has assigned to nuclear weapons and its doctrine of pre-emptive warfare can encourage other nations to obtain nuclear weapons (and other weapons of mass destruction) in pursuit of their own security needs. These policies diminish US national security and attempts to control the spread of weapons of mass destruction, increasing the risk that other countries and terrorists will obtain and use nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction against the US.

    So, let’s take a moment to examine exactly where President Bush and Senator Kerry stand on just four key policies that would protect Americans and their families.

    Oppose creating dangerous new nuclear weapons that will lead others to follow our example.

    President George W. Bush requested some $36.6 million in the 2005 Budget for research on dangerous new nuclear weapons, including the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator or “bunker-buster” and “mini-nukes.”

    John Kerry has stated, “As president, I will stop this administration’s program to develop a whole new generation of bunker-busting nuclear bombs. This is a weapon we don’t need. And it undermines our credibility in persuading other nations. What kind of message does it send when we’re asking other countries not to develop nuclear weapons but developing new ones ourselves?”

    Ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and continue the current moratorium on nuclear testing, which are essential elements to promoting the international non-proliferation regime and protecting American security.

    President Bush opposes ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, already ratified by 115 countries, and has proposed $30 million in the 2005 Budget for reducing the time to resume nuclear testing from 24 months to 18 months.

    Senator Kerry supports ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and has emphasized its importance in promoting the international non-proliferation regime.

    Cancel funding for and plans to deploy offensive missile “defense” systems that could ignite a dangerous nuclear arms race and offer no security against terrorist weapons of mass destruction.

    In 2001, President Bush unilaterally withdrew the US from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty with the former Soviet Union in order to deploy a missile “defenses.” He is seeking to deploy an inadequately tested missile defense system this year, and has requested a budget of more than $10 billion for this unproven system in 2005.

    Senator Kerry has stated that he believes in further missile defense research, but he does “not believe in rapid deployment of a system that hasn’t been adequately tested.” He has stated that “to abandon [the ABM Treaty] altogether is to welcome an arms race that will make us more vulnerable, not less.”

    Work with Russia to reduce the nuclear arsenals of both countries and ensure that nuclear weapons and materials stay out of the hands of terrorists or countries seeking to acquire nuclear capabilities.

    President Bush signed a treaty with the Russians that calls for bringing down the number of deployed strategic weapons to between 2,200 and 1,700 by the year 2012. The treaty, however, does not provide for verification and does not make the reductions irreversible. The treaty also terminates in the year 2012. Since weapons taken off active deployment will be kept on the shelf in reserve, they will be a tempting target for terrorists. President Bush has also called for reductions of more than nine percent in the funding for the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Program to secure nuclear weapons and materials in the former Soviet Union.

    Senator Kerry has stated that the treaty that President Bush entered into “runs the risk of increasing nuclear theft by stockpiling thousands of warheads.” He further stated that “if we are to make America safer, and we must, it will take more than cosmetic treaties that leave Russia’s nuclear arsenal in place.” Kerry has called for increased joint efforts with the Russians to dispose of stocks of existing nuclear materials. He has stated that he will make securing nuclear weapons and materials in the former Soviet Union a priority in relations between the US and Russia and work with our allies to establish global standards for the safekeeping of nuclear materials.

    It is up to us voters to elect a President who will make us safer from the biggest threat facing the US. If you want to see the US implement more responsible nuclear policies, then visit www.chartinganewcourse.org to learn more and take action today.

    Carah Ong is the Development and Communications Director of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

  • Summer Days, Presidential Campaigns and Hiroshima

    This past Friday, the world quietly observed the 59th anniversary of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and the dawn of the first Nuclear Age.

    On this quiet late summer day in a presidential election season, not a word was noted in most of the communities across our land.

    In a local barbershop, a conversation was heard that there was hardly a difference in the candidates for this year’s presidential election. As I pondered this statement, I realized how remarkable it was in this season of remembrance and reflection. Currently, the world stands at the brink of entering a renewed second nuclear arms race dependent upon U.S. policy.

    Members of Congress, at home during their summer recess, will return to debate the president’s request for additional funding for new nuclear weapons systems, including the huge “Bunker Buster” and “Usable” mini-nukes. This reflects a mind-set that nuclear weapons are necessary and usable and that nuclear arms treaties constrict us and interfere with our ability to develop these new weapons systems.

    These ideas are reflected in the administration’s “Nuclear Posture Review,” released in March 2002. Remarkably, it also proposes that the United States alone could unleash a pre-emptive nuclear attack on a nation for the suspicion of threat. If no other issue were to be debated this season, this alone stands as the most critical for our future and that of future generations.

    Regarding the issues of nuclear security, we need to ask where the candidates stand. We must then decide and vote accordingly. Let’s look at three specific areas.

    1. Creation of new nuclear weapons and delivery systems.
    2. Moratorium on nuclear testing and ratifying the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.
    3. The problem of former Soviet nuclear weapons.

    The CIA and intelligence communities advise that one of the most significant threats to U.S. security is attack by some terrorist organization using a weapon obtained from former Soviet stockpiles. These weapons are potentially more readily available following the Strategic Offensive Reduction Treaty, signed by President Bush and Russia’s President Vladimir Putin, which aims to store rather than destroy nuclear stockpiles.

    On these questions, Bush is pressing Congress for funds to develop new nuclear weapons systems while Sen. John Kerry states he will “stop this administration’s program to develop new nuclear weapons. These are systems we don’t need.” He then questions what the message is that this sends to other countries.

    On nuclear testing, the president has asked for funding to prepare the Nevada test site for accelerated testing readiness and has spoken against the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, while Kerry is an outspoken proponent of arms control and nonproliferation. He supports ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.

    Third, on former Soviet nukes, the president has negotiated the SORT treaty, which, as stated, plans to store nuclear stockpiles. Kerry states that SORT “runs the risk of increasing the danger of nuclear theft by stockpiling thousands of warheads.” He states that when he is president, he will make securing weapons and materials from the former Soviet Union a priority in relations between the United States and Russia.

    Finally, we must ask how other nations of the world and our adversaries will respond to our lip service of ridding the world of weapons of mass destruction, yet unilaterally pursuing the development and potential use of them.

    The answers to these questions will determine how we are viewed by the world community and the hope our future will hold.

    This 59th anniversary of Hiroshima, we are reminded of the famous Albert Einstein quote at the beginning of the first arms race: “With the unleashed power of the atom, we thus drift towards unparalleled catastrophe unless we change the way we think.”

    On these lazy days of summer, when politics seems so insignificant and remote, the choice is ours. There really are differences. We must decide. The world is watching.

    Robert Dodge, M.D., of Ventura, is co-chairman of Citizens for Peaceful Resolutions and president of Physicians for Social Responsibility, Ventura County.

    Originally published by the Ventura County Star.

  • Groups Urge Countries to Oppose Bush’s Nuclear Plans

    Originally Published on OneWorld US

    As country representatives enter the second week of discussions on a treaty aimed at limiting the spread of nuclear arms around the world, peace groups are urging them to oppose a possible United States policy shift that could mean a new role for nuclear weapons as part of the “war against terrorism.”

    International delegates, who are currently meeting in New York to prepare the ground for a 2005 review of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), are under pressure from lobby groups to take a stand against controversial U.S. nuclear defense proposals which have been publicized in recent months.

    David Krieger, president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, which has a representative at the NPT meeting, says the U.S. is in danger of violating international law if it goes ahead with proposals to make nuclear weapons a legitimate part of the country’s portfolio of defense options.

    “That the U.S. is making contingency plans and preparations to use nuclear weapons is revealed in its secret Nuclear Posture Review,” said Krieger, referring to a confidential policy report, partially declassified in January, which outlined the case for the weapons in the post-September 11 security climate.

    “Just as planning and preparation for aggressive war was held to be a crime at Nuremberg, U.S. planning and preparation to use nuclear weapons constitutes…a crime under international law,” said Krieger, noting a 1996 International Court of Justice ruling that the threat or use of nuclear weapons would be illegal.

    Leaks to the media last month revealed that the Posture Review named seven states–Iran, Iraq, Libya, Syria, North Korea (news – web sites), Russia, and China–against which nuclear weapons could be used. Of those states, only Russia and China are known to possess nuclear weapons.

    Since the second bomb was dropped by the U.S. on Nagasaki, Japan, in 1945, nuclear weapons have not been used. However, the Review raises the prospect of the development of smaller and more functional nuclear weapons that could be more easily deployed, according to media reports.

    Jan Øberg, director of the Sweden-based Transnational Foundation for Peace and Future Research, believes that the new U.S. posture signals a change in how nuclear weapons will be perceived in the future.

    “Morally and politically nuclear weapons are not something you just throw around, but now there is the prospect they could be used against a government we don’t like, and in particular, a list of countries that don’t have the capacity to invade or who don’t have nuclear weapons at all,” Øberg explained.

    The posture is consistent with the lack of enthusiasm demonstrated by the administration of George W. Bush for multilateral efforts to controls arms, said John Isaacs, head of Council for a Livable World, pointing to the U.S. government’s reluctance to support the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention.

    “We hope the rest of world does not do the same thing because the more the U.S. goes against world opinion, the more likely it will weaken treaties, leading other countries to withdraw and to begin to develop nuclear capabilities,” said Isaacs.

    The preparatory committee session, which began Monday, is scheduled to end April 19. The NPT itself, which includes 187 member states, has led international initiatives on non-proliferation, nuclear disarmament, and other nuclear treaties, such as the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, since 1970.

  • Let Us Choose Life; Let Us End The Nuclear Weapons Threat Now

    As a member of the human family, as a person who feels a deep kinship with all life, as a war veteran who supported President Truman’s decision to use atom bombs to end the war in the Pacific in 1945, I call upon the leaders of my country to act now to end the nuclear weapons threat to humanity’s future.

    Mr. Truman told me that he made his horrifying decision when our nation and other nations were in hell. “War is hell,” he said. “We were burning up thousands of Japanese men, women, and children with fire bombs, night after night. I wanted to end that slaughter.” In a speech he made in 1948, he said: ” I decided that the bomb should be used in order to end the war quickly and save countless lives – Japanese as well as American.”

    I was a soldier in Jefferson Barracks in St. Louis when he took that action. With thousands of other soldiers there and elsewhere, I knew that I might be sent to Japan, to take part in an invasion that might cost my life and the lives of many thousands of people. When the bombs were dropped and the Japanese Emperor surrendered quickly, I took part in a celebration. The hellish time of torment was ended. The joy of release from war uplifted us all.

    As a science fiction writer in the 1930’s, I assumed that the release of nuclear energy would occur. I knew it would cause great dangers, but I thought it could be harnessed for peaceful purposes. I thought that the unlocking of nuclear knowledge might be part of the Creator’s plan for the high development of civilization. With unlimited power available, prosperity might be available for everyone. Poverty would be abolished. Humanity would enter a new age of fulfillment.

    But now I know that nuclear weapons are monstrous instruments that threaten to obliterate life on our beautiful planet. My country, as the nation that used these weapons in a war, has a special obligation to take the lead in getting rid of them.

    As a taxpayer, I helped to finance the construction and proliferation of these terrible weapons. When I worked as a speechwriter for President Truman and for members of the U.S. Senate, I supported the idea of “deterrence” – the belief that such weapons would keep heavily armed nations from going to war. I realized that President Ronald Reagan was right when he said: “A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.” But I did not fully understand that the very existence of such weapons constituted an unbearable peril. Now I do.

    Now I completely endorse the statements in the recent appeal issued by the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. The signers of the appeal declared:

    “We call upon the leaders of the nations of the world and, in particular, the leaders of the nuclear weapons states to act now for the benefit of all humanity and all life by taking the following steps:

    • De-alert all nuclear weapons and de-couple all nuclear warheads from their delivery vehicles.
    • Reaffirm commitments to the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.
    • 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.
    • Declare policies of No First Use of nuclear weapons against other weapons states and policies of No Use against non-nuclear weapons states.
    • Reallocate resources from the tens of billions of dollars currently spent for maintaining nuclear arsenals to improving human health, education, and welfare throughout the world.”

    That appeal has been signed by former President Jimmy Carter; Mikhail Gorbachev, former President of the Soviet Union; Archbishop Desmond Tutu; Elie Wiesel, and many other Nobel prize winners.

    I believe it is an appeal that could be signed by millions of human beings like myself, who have become aware that nuclear weapons endanger all of us and may destroy the whole earth.

    I ask for the forgiveness of my fellow citizens and people everywhere for the part I had in supporting the nuclear arms race when I worked in Washington as a special assistant to the Senate Majority Leader from 1949 to 1952; for the belligerent speeches I wrote for Senators, and the statements I made to friends.

    I still believe that Harry Truman was principally motivated by a desire to save lives when he authorized the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The destruction of those two cities, depicted on film and viewed later by millions of people, had profound effects on the leaders of nations in the subsequent years. It is possible that those bombings prevented a third world war.

    But now it is folly to risk the survival of life on earth by permitting nuclear weapons to exist. Let us choose life; let us get rid of them as fast as we can. I can no longer support their existence. I urge everyone to call for their abolition, as I do now.
    *Frank K. Kelly is senior vice president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

  • Failure of the US Senate to Ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty

    In voting down the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), the U.S. Senate acted with irresponsible disregard for the security of the American people and the people of the world. It is an act unbecoming of a great nation. The Senate sent a message to the more than 185 countries that have signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty that the United States is not prepared to lead the global effort for non-proliferation nor to keep its promises to the international community. I urge the American people to send a strong message of disapproval to the Senators who voted against this treaty, and demand that the United States resume a leadership role in supporting the CTBT and preventing further nuclear tests by any country at any time and at any place.

    The American people should take heart that the Treaty is not dead, and this setback should be viewed as temporary — until they have made their voices reverberate in the halls of the Senate.

    List of Senators and How They Voted on the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty October 13, 1999 (Rollcall Vote No. 325 Ex.)

    YEAS–48 * Akaka (D-HI) * Baucus (D-MT) * Bayh (D-IN) * Biden (D-DE) * Bingaman (D-NM) * Boxer (D-CA) * Breaux (D-LA) * Bryan (D-NV) * Chafee (R-RI) * Cleland (D-GA) * Conrad (D-ND) * Daschle (D-SD) * Dodd (D-CT) * Dorgan (D-ND) * Durbin (D-IL) * Edwards (D-NC) * Feingold (D-WI) * Feinstein (D-CA) * Graham (D-FL) * Harkin (D-IA) * Hollings (D-SC) * Inouye (D-HI) * Jeffords (R-VT) * Johnson (D-SD) * Kennedy (D-MA) * Kerrey (D-NE) * Kerry (D-MA) * Kohl (D-WI) * Landrieu (D-LA) * Lautenberg (D-NJ) * Leahy (D-VT) * Levin (D-MI) * Lieberman (D-CT) * Lincoln (D-AR) * Mikulski (D-MD) * Moynihan (D-NY) * Murray (D-WA) * Reed (D-RI) * Reid (D-NV) * Robb (D-VA) * Rockefeller (D-WV) * Sarbanes (D-MD) * Schumer (D-NY) * Smith (R-OR) * Specter (R-PA) * Torricelli (D-NJ) * Wellstone (D-MN) * Wyden (D-OR)

    NAYS–51 * Abraham (R-MI) * Allard (R-CO) * Ashcroft (R-MO) * Bennett (R-UT) * Bond (R-MO) * Brownback (R-KS) * Bunning (R-KY) * Burns (R-MT) * Campbell (R-CO) * Cochran (R-MS) * Collins (R-ME) * Coverdell (R-GA) * Craig (R-ID) * Crapo (R-ID) * DeWine (R-OH) * Domenici (R-NM) * Enzi (R-WY) * Fitzgerald (R-IL) * Frist (R-TN) * Gorton (R-WA) * Gramm (R-TX) * Grams (R-MN) * Grassley (R-IA) * Gregg (R-NH) * Hagel (R-NE) * Hatch (R-UT) * Helms (R-NC) * Hutchinson (R-TX) * Hutchison (R-AR) * Inhofe (R-OK) * Kyl (R-AZ) * Lott (R-MS) * Lugar (R-IN) * Mack (R-FL) * McCain (R-AZ) * McConnell (R-KY) * Murkowski (R-AK) * Nickles (R-OK) * Roberts (R-KS) * Roth (R-DE) * Santorum (R-PA) * Sessions (R-AL) * Shelby (R-AL) * Smith (D-NH) * Snowe (R-ME) * Stevens (R-AK) * Thomas (R-WY) * Thompson (R-TN) * Thurmond (R-SC) * Voinovich (R-OH) * Warner (R-VA)

    ANSWERED `PRESENT’–1 * Byrd (D-WV)

     

    ——————————————————————————–

    PRESS RELEASE – THE WHITE HOUSE

    Office of the Press Secretary

    For Immediate Release October 13, 1999

    STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT

    Outside Oval Office

    8:37 P.M. EDT

    THE PRESIDENT: Good evening. I am very disappointed that the United States Senate voted not to ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. This agreement is critical to protecting the American people from the dangers of nuclear war. It is, therefore, well worth fighting for. And I assure you, the fight is far from over.

    I want to say to our citizens, and to people all around the world, that the United States will stay true to our tradition of global leadership against the spread of weapons of mass destruction.

    The Senate has taken us on a detour. But America eventually always returns to the main road, and we will do so again. When all is said and done, the United States will ratify the test ban treaty.

    Opponents of the treaty have offered no alternative, no other means of keeping countries around the world from developing nuclear arsenals and threatening our security. So we have to press on and do the right thing for our children’s future. We will press on to strengthen the worldwide consensus in favor of the treaty.

    The United States will continue, under my presidency, the policy we have observed since 1992 of not conducting nuclear tests. Russia, China, Britain and France have joined us in this moratorium. Britain and France have done the sensible thing and ratified this treaty. I hope not only they, but also Russia, China, will all, along with other countries, continue to refrain from nuclear testing.

    I also encourage strongly countries that have not yet signed or ratified this treaty to do so. And I will continue to press the case that this treaty is in the interest of the American people.

    The test ban treaty will restrict the development of nuclear weapons worldwide at a time when America has an overwhelming military and technological advantage. It will give us the tools to strengthen our security, including the global network of sensors to detect nuclear tests, the opportunity to demand on-site inspections, and the means to mobilize the world against potential violators. All these things, the Republican majority in the Senate would gladly give away.

    The senators who voted against the treaty did more than disregard these benefits. They turned aside the best advice — let me say this again — they turned aside the best advice of our top military leaders, including the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and four of his predecessors. They ignored the conclusion of 32 Nobel Prize winners in physics, and many other leading scientists, including the heads of our nuclear laboratories, that we can maintain a strong nuclear force without testing.

    They clearly disregarded the views of the American people who have consistently and strongly supported this treaty ever since it was first pursued by Presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy. The American people do not want to see unnecessary nuclear tests here or anywhere around the world.

    I know that some Senate Republicans favored this treaty. I know others had honest questions, but simply didn’t have enough time for thorough answers. I know that many would have supported this treaty had they been free to vote their conscience, and if they had been able to do what we always do with such treaties, which is to add certain safeguards, certain understandings that protect America’s interest and make clear the meaning of the words.

    Unfortunately, the Senate majority made sure that no such safeguards could be appended. Many who had questions about the treaty worked hard to postpone the vote because they knew a defeat would be damaging to America’s interest and to our role in leading the world away from nonproliferation. But for others, we all know that foreign policy, national security policy has become just like every domestic issue — politics, pure and simple.

    For two years, the opponents of this treaty in the Senate refused to hold a single hearing. Then they offered a take-or-leave-it deal: to decide this crucial security issue in a week, with just three days of hearings and 24 hours of debate. They rejected my request to delay the vote and permit a serious process so that all the questions could be evaluated. Even worse, many Republican senators apparently committed to oppose this treaty before there was an agreement to bring it up, before they ever heard a single witness or understood the issues.

    Never before has a serious treaty involving nuclear weapons been handled in such a reckless and ultimately partisan way.

    The Senate has a solemn responsibility under our Constitution to advise and consent in matters involving treaties. The Senate has simply not fulfilled that responsibility here. This issue should be beyond politics, because the stakes are so high. We have a fundamental responsibility to do everything we can to limit the spread of nuclear weapons and the chance of nuclear war. We must decide whether we’re going to meet it.

    Will we ratify an agreement that can keep Russia and China from testing and developing new, more sophisticated advanced weapons? An agreement that could help constrain nuclear weapons programs in India, Pakistan, and elsewhere, at a time of tremendous volatility, especially on the Indian sub-continent? For now, the Senate has said, no.

    But I am sending a different message. We want to limit the nuclear threat. We want to bring the test ban treaty into force.

    I am profoundly grateful to the Senate proponents of this treaty, including the brave Republicans who stood with us, for their determination and their leadership. I am grateful to all those advocates for arms control and national security, and all the religious leaders who have joined us in this struggle.

    The test ban treaty is strongly in America’s interest. It is still on the Senate calendar. It will not go away. It must not go away. I believe that if we have a fair and thorough hearing process, the overwhelming majority of the American people will still agree with us that this treaty is in our interest. I believe in the wisdom of the American people, and I am confident that in the end, it will prevail.

    Q Mr. President, when you say the fight is far from over, sir, do you mean that you expect this treaty to be brought up again during your term in office?

    THE PRESIDENT: I mean, I think that — we could have had a regular hearing process in which the serious issues that need to be discussed would have been discussed, and in which, as the Senate leaders both agreed yesterday when they thought there was an agreement and they shook hands on an agreement, would have resulted in next year being devoted to considering the treaty, dealing with its merits, and then, barring extraordinary circumstances, would have put off a vote until the following year.

    By their actions today the Republican majority has said they want us to continue to discuss and debate this. They weren’t interested in the safeguards; they weren’t interested in a serious debate; they weren’t interested in a serious process. So they could have put this on a track to be considered in an appropriate way, which I strongly supported. They decided otherwise.

    And we, therefore, have to make it clear — those of us who agree — that it is crazy for America to walk away from Britain and France, 11 of our NATO allies, the heads of our nuclear labs, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 32 Nobel laureates, and the whole world, having depended on us for all these decades, to lead the fight for nonproliferation. Therefore, we have to keep this issue alive and continue to argue it in the strongest and most forceful terms.

    I wish we could have had a responsible alternative. I worked until the 11th hour to achieve it. This was a political deal. And I hope it will get the treatment from the American people it richly deserves.

    Thank you.

    END 8:47 P.M. EDT

    And one last word from a contemporary Peace Hero:

    “Hope is the engine that drives human endeavor. It generates the energy needed to achieve the difficult goals that lie ahead. Never lose faith that the dreams of today for a more lawful world can become the reality of tomorrow. Never stop trying to make this a more humane universe.”- Benjamin Ferencz

  • Senate Vote Leaves the World a More Dangerous Place

    In failing to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the US Senate played partisan politics with an issue of utmost importance to the security of the US and the world. In observing the debates in the Senate on this issue, I was once again left with the impression that our Senators do not fully understand and do not particularly care that the rest of the world pays attention to what they say and do. Much of the world looks to the United States for leadership, but there is little to be found these days in the highest offices of our government.

    In 1995 I attended the Review and Extension Conference of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). It was and remains clearly in the interests of the United States and all other countries in the world to prevent further proliferation of nuclear weapons. At that Treaty Conference the US was fighting for the indefinite extension of the Treaty. Many other countries were questioning, however, whether the Treaty should be extended indefinitely since the US and other nuclear weapons states had not kept their promise for good faith negotiations on nuclear disarmament during the first 25 years of the Treaty’s existence.

    In the end, the NPT was extended indefinitely. To achieve this result the US and the other nuclear weapons states agreed to a set of Principles and Objectives that included “a universal and internationally and effectively verifiable Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty no later than 1996.” This Treaty was, in fact, negotiated and opened for signatures in September 1996. The first country to sign was the United States.

    The Comprehensive Test Ban is a treaty that is very much in our interests. After all, we have already conducted some 1,050 atmospheric and underground nuclear test explosions, more than any other nation. The Treaty allows conducting laboratory tests by computer simulation. The US has also been conducting sub-critical nuclear tests at the Nevada Test Site, although these violate the spirit if not the letter of the treaty. We are currently spending some $4.5 billion annually on our Stockpile Stewardship and Management Program to maintain our nuclear arsenal.

    When the Senate defeated the ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty we were saying to the world that we have little interest in providing leadership toward a nuclear weapons free world. Rather, we want to hold open the option of further testing of our nuclear weapons. This means, of course, that other nations may well decide to do the same.

    Prior to the Senate vote, leaders of our key allies in Europe –President Jacques Chirac of France, Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain, and Chancellor Gerhard Schroder of Germany, wrote: “Rejection of the treaty in the Senate would remove the pressure from other states still hesitating about whether to ratify it. Rejection would give great encouragement to proliferators. Rejection would also expose a fundamental divergence within NATO.”

    But the Senate was not to be swayed by either friends or logic. They chose instead to place their bets on continued reliance on nuclear weapons. They have also, along with the Members of the House of Representatives, voted to deploy a National Missile Defense System “as soon as technologically feasible.” This would mean undermining the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, an arms control measure that came into force under the Nixon administration. Despite assurances by the Defense Department that the planned missile defense system is aimed at so-called “rogue” nations and not at the Russians, the Russians have indicated that such a system could mean the end of further reductions in nuclear armaments and possibly the beginning of a new offensive nuclear arms race.

    Neither we nor the Russians want to return to the days of the Cold War. We know the price that was extracted in terms of risk to humanity and in terms of resources (more than $5.5 trillion spent by the U.S. alone). We live in a dangerous world. But, as many top US military leaders have pointed out, there is no problem that nuclear weapons would not make worse.

    Lest we forget, here is what nuclear weapons can do. One nuclear weapon could destroy a city. Two small nuclear weapons destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Ten nuclear weapons could destroy a country. Imagine the US with New York, Washington, DC, Chicago, Boston, Philadelphia, Atlanta, Dallas, San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Seattle destroyed by nuclear blasts.

    One hundred nuclear weapons could destroy civilization. One thousand nuclear weapons could destroy the human species and most life on Earth. And yet, there remain some 35,000 nuclear weapons in the world. Some 5,000 of these are on hair-trigger alert despite the fact that the Cold War ended ten years ago.

    The Congress is displaying an ostrich-like mentality, believing that we can threaten others with our nuclear weapons while putting up a “shield” to protect ourselves. What is most disturbing about this worldview is that while we keep our collective heads in the sand, we are missing the opportunity to show real leadership in moving toward a world free of nuclear weapons. This opportunity may not come again.

    In April 1999 the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation presented its Distinguished Peace Leadership Award to General Lee Butler, a former Commander in Chief of the United States Strategic Command. General Butler was once in charge of all US strategic nuclear weapons. He was the man responsible for advising the President of the United States on whether or not to use nuclear weapons in a crisis situation. While he held this position, General Butler could never be more than three rings from his telephone. He is now an ardent advocate of abolishing all nuclear weapons.

    While with us in Santa Barbara, General Butler recalled: “When I retired in 1994, I was persuaded that we were on a path that was miraculous, that was irreversible, and that gave us the opportunity to actually pursue a set of initiatives, acquire a new mindset, and re-embrace a set of principles having to do with the sanctity of life and the miracle of existence that would take us on the path to zero. I was dismayed, mortified, and ultimately radicalized by the fact that within a period of a year that momentum again was slowed. A process that I have called the creeping re-rationalization of nuclear weapons was introduced….”

    The Senate vote on the CTBT is reflective of this “creeping re-rationalization of nuclear weapons.” It will undoubtedly be a major subject of concern when the Review Conference for the Non-Proliferation Treaty is held in the year 2000. Representatives of many countries will note that the US and other nuclear weapons states have not ratified the CTBT, and they will wonder why. They will wonder whether they should not hold open their own options for developing nuclear arsenals. They will ask: “If the world’s most powerful nation chooses to base its security on nuclear weapons and keeps open its options to continue testing these weapons, shouldn’t we consider doing so as well?”

    In the end, the Senate’s vote was arrogant and shortsighted. It leaves the world a more dangerous place, and the future in greater doubt.

    * David Krieger is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.