Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Tag: disarmament

  • Nuclear Weapons Exact a Terrible Price

    In today’s world, nuclear weapons no longer create security, they threaten it. In 1996, the World Court declared the use of nuclear weapons illegal under international humanitarian law, because these weapons of mass destruction cannot distinguish between combatants and innocent civilians and create unnecessary suffering. Maintaining the current U.S. nuclear arsenal of more than 10,000 warheads is extremely expensive. This year alone, it will cost the U.S. taxpayer $6.5 billion, or $18 million per day.

    If we know that nuclear weapons pose an acute danger to our security; that their use is illegal because of their inhumane and indiscriminate power; and that maintaining them is consuming enormous resources, which could otherwise be used to improve our ailing public schools and universities or strengthen our exhausted conventional military forces, how can we tacitly accept our government’s and the National Weapons Labs’ push for the development of new generations of nuclear weapons and increased nuclear weapons spending of up to $30 billion over the next four years?

    Under the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty of 1970, the United States remains committed to the gradual reduction and eventual elimination of its nuclear arsenal. Article VI of the treaty stipulates that “Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament.” Accordingly, the United States is obliged to disengage from activities that risk fueling a new nuclear arms race, and to continuously reduce its nuclear arsenal. This has been confirmed at the last Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty Review Conference in 2000, when the United States signed on to “An unequivocal undertaking by the nuclear-weapon States to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals leading to nuclear disarmament to which all States parties [to the NPT] are committed under Article VI.”

    The nuclear weapons activities at Lawrence Livermore and Los Alamos National Laboratories are in direct violation of these international commitments.

    The ongoing research into new generations of nuclear weapons — so-called bunker busters and mini-nukes — and the related expansion of laboratory capabilities represent vertical proliferation prohibited under the treaty. In addition to providing the other eight nuclear-weapon states, including North Korea, with a powerful incentive to put the reduction of their arsenals on hold and develop similar new nuclear weapons, these activities give the 180 non-nuclear-weapon states an equally powerful incentive to break their non-proliferation commitment under the treaty and start working toward the acquisition of nuclear weapons. Recently discovered nuclear weapons programs in Iraq, Libya, North Korea, and possibly Iran underscore this logic.

    One cannot go around with a cigarette in one’s mouth, asking the rest of the world not to smoke. Yet this is precisely what the United States is doing. Only the total elimination of all nuclear weapons worldwide in compliance with legal commitments under the treaty and under the strict control of the International Atomic Energy Agency can stop nuclear proliferation. New nuclear weapons research and design programs, combined with the expansion of nuclear weapons labs, undermine the international non-proliferation regime, stimulate the spread of nuclear weapons, and enhance the risk of these horrific weapons actually being used.

    The impending expiration of its lab oversight contracts with the Department of Energy offers UC [University of California] a unique opportunity to disengage from aiding and abetting in the violation of international law and the potential commission of genocide, crimes against humanity, and violations of the laws of war. Conversely, successful bids for the continued management of Lawrence Livermore and Los Alamos National Labs could mean that UC and its weapons scientists may one day be sued under emerging international criminal law.

    *Urs Cipolat is a lecturer on Law, Ethics and Science at UC Berkeley. He serves as program director at the Global Security Institute in San Francisco.

  • The Role of the United States in Nuclear Disarmament

    An Address to the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation Symposium
    “Charting a New Course for U.S. Nuclear Policy” Santa Barbara , California

    I approach the subject of the United States’ performance in the nuclear disarmament debate with great respect for the country and a dedication to the facts of nuclear weapons.

    For eight years I lived in this great country and, in fact, three of my children were born here. I have had the opportunity in my professional life of travelling through or visiting all 50 states, and I understand well the energy and creativity of the American people in the arts and sciences, commerce, and outreach to the world. The aspirations for freedom and liberty have been a beacon for the world.

    There are many wonderful things I could say about the United States . But regrettably that is not my task tonight. I have been asked to speak on the United States and nuclear weapons. Here it is not easy to be complimentary.

    Twenty years ago, I was appointed Canada ‘s Ambassador for Disarmament, a job which brought me into close contact with my diplomatic counterparts in many countries, including, of course, a lengthy list of American officials. At various times I chaired the meetings of all Western ambassadors and the U.N. Disarmament Committee. I have written extensively on the 1995 indefinite extension of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, the 1996 Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on the general illegality of nuclear weapons, and the 2000 Review of the NPT, in which all States gave an “unequivocal undertaking” towards the total elimination of nuclear weapons through a program of 13 Practical Steps. I have attended all three meetings of the Preparatory Committee for the 2005 Review of the NPT, the last one concluding six days ago.

    It is clear to me that the Non-Proliferation Treaty, that is to say the cornerstone of the non-proliferation regime, is in crisis. To examine how the crisis came about and what to do about it, we must look at the role of the U.S. While the other declared Nuclear Weapons States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France and China are all also in contravention of their responsibilities to the NPT, it is the U.S. that sets the pace. The U.S. is the leading military power in the world by far, the lynchpin of NATO, and the dominant voice at the United Nations. With 31 members, the U.S. delegation was the largest at the recent NPT PrepComm. U.S. views deeply affect the policies of all Western nations and Russia .

    The U.S. astounded many delegations at the PrepComm by disowning its own participation in the 2000 consensus that produced the “unequivocal undertaking.” It refused to allow the 2000 Review to be used as a reference point for the 2005 Review. The result was turmoil and a collapse of the PrepComm.

    The Treaty can certainly survive one bad meeting, but that is not the point. What delegates from around the world are deeply concerned about is the U.S. attempt to change the rules of the game. At least before, there was a recognition that the NPT was obtained in 1970 through a bargain, with the Nuclear Weapons States agreeing to negotiate the elimination of their nuclear weapons in return for the non-nuclear states shunning the acquisition of nuclear weapons. Adherence to that bargain enabled the indefinite extension of the Treaty in 1995 and the 13 Practical Steps of 2000. Now the U.S. is rejecting the commitments of 2000 and premising its aggressive diplomacy on the assertion that the problem of the NPT lies not in the actions of the Nuclear Weapons States but in the lack of compliance by states such as North Korea and Iran .

    The whole international community, nuclear and non-nuclear alike, is concerned about proliferation, but the new attempt by the Nuclear Weapon States to gloss over the discriminatory aspects of the NPT, which are now becoming permanent, has caused the patience of the members of the Non-Aligned Movement to snap. They see a two-class world of nuclear haves and have-nots becoming a permanent feature of the global landscape. In such chaos, the NPT is eroding and the prospect of multiple nuclear weapons states, a fear that caused nations to produce the NPT in the first place, is looming once more.

    That is the real point of the NPT crisis today. The crisis has been building through the two previous PrepComms, in 2002 and 2003, but a weak façade of harmony was maintained. Now the fuse has blown.

    Brazil bluntly warned:

    “The fulfillment of the 13 Steps on nuclear disarmament agreed during the 2000 Review Conference have been significantly – one could even say systematically – challenged by action and omission, and various reservations and selective interpretation by Nuclear Weapon States. Disregard for the provisions of Article VI may ultimately affect the nature of the fundamental bargain on which the Treaty’s legitimacy rests.”

    But the U.S. vigorously defended its policies, giving no ground to its critics. From the opening speech by John R. Bolton, Under-Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, U.S. representatives insisted that attention not be diverted from the violations of the NPT by would-be nuclear powers “by focusing on Article VI issues that do not exist.” In fact, Assistant Secretary of State Stephen G. Rademaker stated, “there can be no doubt that the United States is in full compliance with its Article VI obligations.” Over the past 15 years, he said, the U.S. has:

    • Reduced over 10,000 deployed strategic warheads to less than 6,000 by December 5, 2001 as required by the START Treaty.
    • Eliminated nearly 90 percent of U.S. non-strategic nuclear weapons and reduced the number of types of nuclear systems in Europe from nine in 1991 to just one today.
    • Dismantled more than 13,000 nuclear weapons since 1988.
    • Not produced highly enriched uranium for nuclear weapons since 1964 and halted the production of plutonium for nuclear weapons in 1988.
    • Not conducted a nuclear explosive test since 1992.
    • Removed more than 200 tons of fissile material from the military stockpile, enough material for at least 8,000 nuclear weapons.

    These reductions notwithstanding, the U.S. has made clear that nuclear weapons will be maintained to meet “the changing circumstances” in today’s security environment. The Administration is moving ahead with plans to try to convince Congress to approve funding for the development of a new Low-Yield Warhead.

    A March 2004 Report to Congress reveals that the U.S. is employing a double standard concerning compliance with the NPT. Whereas the U.S. wants to move forward into a new generation of nuclear weaponry, it adamantly rejects the attempt of any other state to acquire any sort of nuclear weapon. The U.S. clearly wants to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons; of that there can be no doubt. But it does not want to be questioned on what it regards as its right to maintain enormous stocks (despite numerical reductions) and to keep nuclear weapons as a cornerstone of its military doctrine.

    The U.S. is widely criticized around the world for this double standard. For example, Brazil said at the PrepComm: “One cannot worship at the altar of nuclear weapons and raise heresy charges against those who want to join the sect.” The New Agenda protested imbalanced statements assailing proliferation while remaining mute on the equal responsibility for disarmament by the nuclear powers. South Africa said: “One cannot undermine one part of an agreement and hope that other parts will continue to have the same force, or that others will not in turn attempt to follow the same practice.” New Zealand scorned the present diminishment of the Treaty as a whole and urged the U.S. to at least review its opposition to a nuclear test ban treaty.

    Criticism of U.S. nuclear weapons policies also emanates from important observers within the U.S. A briefing for PrepComm delegates and NGOs was convened by the Friends Committee on National Legislation (Quakers), which stated that, as a result of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, many in Congress “are now so consumed by fear of terrorism that they support policies that would have been unfathomable five years ago.” For example, policies of preemptive nuclear strikes, new “usable” nuclear weapons, and resumption of nuclear testing are now openly discussed in Washington . “The United States finds itself at a crossroads; it stands at the point between re-nuclearization and disarmament.” Daryl Kimball, Executive Director of the Arms Control Association, told the briefing that the crisis of the NPT can be attributed to the expanding role of nuclear weapons in U.S. military policy. He said that if Congress does not rein in the Administration, present trend lines will lead to testing of new weapons and re-deployment of 2,400 strategic nuclear weapons after the Moscow Treaty expires in 2012. It was “troubling” that the U.S. contemplated the use of a nuclear weapon in response to a biological or chemical attack.

    A detailed critique of the stand taken by the U.S. at the PrepComm was published in News in Review , a daily record of the PrepComm published by “Reaching Critical Will,” of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom. Written by Andrew Lichterman and Jacqueline Cabasso of the Western States Legal Foundation, the document gave several examples to show that the U.S. is not in compliance with the NPT: more than 2,000 U.S. strategic nuclear warheads remain on hair-trigger alert, and U.S. Trident submarines continue to patrol the seas at Cold War levels, ready to fire hundreds of the most destructive and precise weapons ever conceived on 15 minutes’ notice. Answering the U.S. claim that it is not developing any new nuclear weapons, the document said:

    “Fact: The 2005 budget provides for upgrades to every nuclear weapon in the U.S. stockpile, requests $336 million to manufacture and certify new plutonium pits, the first stage in a nuclear weapon, requests $28 million for 2005 and $485 million over five years to design a “Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator,” and requests $30 million for Enhanced Test Readiness to reduce the time needed to prepare for and conduct a full-scale underground nuclear test to 18 months.”

    There is no way to reconcile this resurgence of nuclear weapons development ( Germany called it a nuclear “renaissance”) with disarmament. Even as it says it is adhering to the NPT, the U.S. is flouting it. I have come to the conclusion that only a change in attitude by the U.S. Administration can now save the Treaty.

    Many delegations indicated privately that they are waiting to see the future direction of U.S. policy inasmuch as a Presidential election will occur before the 2005 Review. The positions of John Kerry, the presumptive Democratic nominee are being examined. An analysis of his comments shows that Kerry is opposed to the Bush Administration’s plans to develop new nuclear weapons, which Kerry believes “will make America less secure by setting back our country’s longstanding efforts to lead an international non-proliferation regime. It could set off a dangerous new nuclear arms race, while seriously undermining our ability to work with the international community to address nuclear proliferation threats in places like North Korea and Iran .” Instead, Kerry believes the United States should work for the creation of “a new international accord on nuclear proliferation to make the world itself safer for human survival.”

    In terms of concrete measures to advance non-proliferation and disarmament, Kerry supports the CTBT (having opposed Bush’s decision to withdraw), and advocates greater emphasis on securing nuclear stockpiles around the world by extending ongoing American efforts in the former Soviet Union to other countries to ensure fissile materials do not fall into the hands of terrorists. Kerry recognizes the importance of international cooperation in achieving results in non-proliferation, and promotes a multilateral approach, pointing to the shared global interest in preventing terrorists from acquiring nuclear weapons. This approach should extend to U.S. Missile Defence programs, which Kerry supports, but believes should be developed in accordance with American treaty obligations, ensuring that American foreign relations are not damaged in the process.

    The election of the U.S. President is not my business. I must direct my efforts and the policies of the Middle Powers Initiative toward dealing with the governments that are in place around the world. Thus the MPI advocates the formation of a new coalition of States determined to save the NPT in 2005. A working partnership of important non-nuclear States must occupy the centre of the nuclear weapons debate and exert its strength in 2005. The beginning of such a partnership exists in the New Agenda Coalition, which was largely responsible for the success of the 2000 Review Conference. The leading non-nuclear States of NATO, such as Canada , Germany , Norway , Belgium , the Netherlands and Italy , must now work closely with the New Agenda to lead the international community toward a positive, if still modest, success in 2005.

    They must stop being cowed by the all-powerful NWS; they must speak up forcefully, in the name of humanity, to the United States , a country that has done much good for the world in other contexts but whose nuclear weapons doctrine is a threat to civilizations everywhere.

    Speaking up takes courage and leadership. The middle power States, which by and large stayed out of the U.S.-led Iraq war, are not lacking in either. They have to make prudential judgments on when to give voice to their concerns.

    It is paradoxical that just when the voice of the public is most needed to move governments on nuclear disarmament, it is most difficult to awaken the public. The public is by no means uncaring about war; they just do not see the connection between retention of nuclear weapons and the likelihood of mass destruction ahead.

    An awakening of the public is, of course, a profound concern of the NGOs, stalwart in the dedication they showed to the issue, many traveling to the PrepComm at their own expense and continually deprived of funding by foundations which have turned their attention elsewhere.

    An awakening of the public is precisely the strategy of Mayor Akiba of Hiroshima in his Emergency Campaign for Mayors For Peace. If the people in the municipalities around the world make their voices heard, the national politicians and diplomats will be quick to get the message.

    The recent comments by Mikhail Gorbachev are especially practical in this instance. Gorbachev says, referring to the panoply of human security issues besetting the world, that he is convinced the citizens of the world need a reformulated “glasnost” to invigorate, inform and inspire them to put the staggering resources of our planet and our knowledge to use for the benefit of all.

    The empowerment of peoples is needed to address the dominance of short-term interests and lack of transparency where the planet’s fate is being decided by what to do about nuclear weapons.

    Gorbachev says he has faith in humankind. “It is this faith that has allowed me to remain an active optimist.”

  • Nonproliferation Treaty Meeting Collapses Without Decisions

    A meeting of parties to the  Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty  (NPT) collapsed Friday night after the delegates failed to resolve differences on numerous political and procedural issues, notably how to refer to their own consensus decisions of 2000.

    This was the final preparatory meeting before next year’s review conference and delegates hoped that the meeting would produce recommendations for the conference, as preparatory meetings have in the past.  Hours after the meeting was supposed to have ended, the meeting was simply adjourned with a final report containing minimum details.  Breaking its own rules of procedure, the meeting did not even resume in open session to formally close it proceedings.  Most of the meetings in the last week were held behind closed doors.

    The political debate at the heart of all the procedural wrangling was the relative weight that should be given to disarmament and nonproliferation, specifically if the treaty’s priority should be disarmament by the nuclear powers or addressing proliferation threats by countries such as North Korea and Iran.

    The chairman of the meeting, Ambassador Sudjadnan Parnohadiningrat of Indonesia, issued his own summary of the meeting on Thursday night, which was an attempt to reflect all the divergent positions expressed during the two-week meeting.  As such, there are ideas in it to please and annoy everyone.  There was never a chance that all the states would accept the summary as a consensus document, but it had been expected that the paper would be annexed to the final report under the chairman’s own authority and sent to the review conference.

    But Sudjadnan’s paper was strongly criticized in an all-day closed meeting Friday by most of the nuclear weapon states, led by the United States, that insisted the paper could only be referred to in the list of documents and not annexed to the report.

    A key sticking point was whether to acknowledge the final document of the  2000 review conference.  This seemingly procedural question was a lightning rod for the political divisions among the delegates since the 2000 decision includes what has become known as “the 13 steps” – specific actions the nuclear powers agreed to as part of their disarmament commitments under the NPT.  The 13 steps include “an unequivocal undertaking by the nuclear weapon states to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals.”  That undertaking includes signing and ratifying the  Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, reduction in tactical nuclear weapons and halting the production of weapons-grade nuclear materials.  The United States now opposes many of these steps, most notably its rejection of the test ban treaty.

    Because of this stalemate, the meeting could not even agree to seemingly routine items such as an agenda for the 2005 conference.

    Ambassador Sergio Duarte of Brazil will be the president of the review conference, which will be held in New York May 2-27, 2005.

    Originally published by the UN Wire.

  • We Need You

    We Need You

    The Foundation’s overarching goal is to help create a world free of nuclear weapons. In a rational world, this should not be a difficult task. A persuasive case can be made that a nuclear war could destroy civilization and possibly put an end to the human species and most forms of life. At a minimum, the use of these weapons could obliterate cities, including our own. We know what happened to Hiroshima and Nagasaki as a result of two small nuclear weapons. Today’s weapons have on average eight times the explosive power of those used at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

    But, of course, this is not a rational world. It is a world in which fear, denial and irrationality hold high office. It is a world in which international law is trampled on and strategies of “might makes right” are employed far too frequently by national leaders. In our world, many leaders cling to old views of power, failing to realize that in the Nuclear Age, as Einstein pointed out, “everything has changed save our modes of thinking.”

    At a recent Foundation event, a woman asked, “Can an organization like the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation make a difference on the issue of eliminating nuclear weapons?” This is an important question. The honest answer is that it is a tough struggle, one in which there are no guarantees of success. In many respects, fighting for a world free of nuclear weapons is an act of faith rooted in a strong belief in a resilient human spirit.

    It is clear that the dangers of the Nuclear Age have not diminished, despite the end of the Cold War. It remains a dangerous world in which the ultimate expression of anger and frustration, a nuclear 9/11 or 3/11, must be prevented. The best way to prevent such an occurrence is to assure that nuclear weapons and materials do not proliferate any further than they already have. The best way assure this is to dramatically reduce the number of these weapons with the goal of their elimination, and to apply international safeguards to both nuclear weapons and materials.

    Achieving a nuclear weapons-free world is a colossal task,one that too many people consider unattainable and therefore not worth the effort. In fact, it is the consequences of not undertaking this effort that makes it so essential. The risks posed by nuclear weapons are far too great to leave to chance or to politicians or generals. They demand a response from the people; they demand our involvement.

    The work of the Foundation is perhaps even more necessary today than it was at
    the height of the Cold War. It is to bring critical issues related to nuclear dangers
    to people everywhere, and to provide quality information, analysis and ideas
    for advocacy. This is the work we engage in daily and the work we have engaged in
    for more than 20 years. Our only chance of success is to work with others to build a movement big enough to impact governments. To do this, we need your active support
    and involvement.

    The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation seeks to be a voice of reason at a critical juncture in human history. This election year we are launching a campaign to Chart a New
    Course in US Nuclear Policy. We need your help. Please add your voice, and help us to extend the Foundation’s reach and its ability to achieve a more rational and caring world, one that we can be proud to pass on to the next generation.

  • The Two Sides of the Nuclear Coin

    Despite George W. Bush’s repeated warnings about nuclear proliferation, he and his fellow Republicans deserve much of the blame for it. Ever since the advent of the Bush administration, it has charged that other nations are acquiring nuclear weapons. Justifying war with Iraq, the administration hammered away at that nation’s alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction. It has also assailed North Korea and Iran for their nuclear programs. On Feb. 11, in a major policy address, President Bush called for new steps to halt the spread of nuclear weapons. The world must act, he said, to “confront these dangers and to end them.”

    At the same time, the administration has virtually scrapped the longstanding U.S. policy of nuclear disarmament — exactly the policy that, over the decades, has provided the key to halting nuclear proliferation.

    In 1965, when the U.S. and Soviet governments worried about the prospect of nuclear weapons spreading to dozens of nations, they teamed up to submit nonproliferation treaties to the UN General Assembly. Non-nuclear nations immediately objected to these proposals, arguing that they would merely restrict the nuclear club to its current members (then the United States, the Soviet Union, Britain, France and China). Alva Myrdal, Sweden’s disarmament minister, insisted that “disarmament measures should be a matter of mutual renunciation.” Willy Brandt, West Germany’s foreign minister, argued that a nonproliferation treaty was justified “only if the nuclear states regard it as a step toward restrictions of their own armaments and toward disarmament.”

    Unlike the Bush administration, U.S. and Soviet leaders of the time recognized that nuclear nonproliferation and nuclear disarmament were two sides of the same coin. As a result, the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) that emerged from the United Nations was substantially broadened. Non-nuclear states pledged “not to make or acquire nuclear weapons.” And nuclear nations agreed to take “effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament.” Further, when it signed and ratified this treaty, the U.S. government pledged not to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states that had endorsed the NPT and that were not allied with a nation possessing nuclear weapons.

    With this bargain struck between the nuclear haves and have-nots, nearly all nations signed the NPT. Over the next 30 years, only one additional nation (Israel) developed nuclear weapons. To some degree, the success of this nonproliferation policy reflected citizens’ campaigns for nuclear disarmament that stigmatized nuclear weapons and encouraged the signing of nuclear arms control and disarmament treaties. But it also resulted from the mutual renunciation features of the NPT, which paired abstention from building nuclear weapons by most nations with nuclear disarmament and non-threatening behavior by the others.

    Unfortunately, the NPT began unraveling in the late 1990s. The Republican-dominated U.S. Senate refused to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, a landmark measure negotiated and signed by President Clinton. Given their control of Congress, the Republicans also managed to advance plans for a national missile defense system, a venture that contravened a key arms control measure, the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty. Meanwhile, India, pointing to the failure of the nuclear powers to divest themselves of their nuclear weapons, became a nuclear nation in 1998. This act provoked Pakistan to do the same.

    After the presidential election of 2000, U.S. policy tilted sharply against nuclear disarmament and other pledges made in the NPT. Ignoring the commitments made by his Democratic and Republican predecessors, Bush pulled the United States out of the ABM treaty, ordered the deployment of a missile defense system and rejected the test ban treaty. The administration’s Nuclear Posture Review called for sustaining and modernizing nuclear weapons for at least the next half-century. The review also included contingency plans for U.S. nuclear attacks upon non-nuclear nations, among them North Korea. In the fall of 2003, the Bush administration pushed legislation through Congress to authorize the development of new, “usable” nuclear weapons.

    Given this repudiation of NPT commitments, it’s not surprising that North Korea has pulled out of the NPT and, perhaps, has begun building nuclear weapons. Nor is it surprising that a number of other nations might be working to develop a nuclear weapons capability. If the nuclear powers cling to their nuclear weapons and threaten their use, then other nations will inevitably try to join the nuclear club.

    As Joseph Cirincione, director of the Non-Proliferation Project of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, has observed: “We all have to be moving away from nuclear weapons. It can’t be just a mandate from the United States that everybody goes in one direction while we go in another.” But this is exactly what the Bush administration — in yet another example of its go-it-alone foreign policy — is pressing for.

    Nuclear proliferation cannot be halted without nuclear disarmament. As the old song goes: “You can’t have one without the other!”
    *Mr. Wittner teaches history at the State University of New York/Albany. His latest book is Toward Nuclear Abolition: A History of the World Nuclear Disarmament Movement, 1971 to the Present (Stanford University Press). He is a writer for the History News Service.

  • Nuclear Weapons ‘Immoral,’ Say Religious, Scientific Leaders

    WASHINGTON — An international group of religious and scientific leaders Monday launched an appeal to the United States and all other nuclear states to pledge never to use nuclear weapons and re-affirm their commitments to achieving total nuclear disarmament.

    The appeal, signed by the head of the U.S. National Council of Churches (NCC) and the president of the international Catholic peace group, Pax Christi, and 74 others–including four Nobel laureates–declared such weapons to be “inherently immoral” and expressed particular concern over U.S. plans to develop of a new generation of nuclear bombs.

    ” Even so-called ‘mini-nukes’ and ‘bunker-busters’ would have disastrous effects,” the statement declared. “Threatened use of nuclear weapons in the name of deterrence is morally wrong because it holds innocent people hostage for political and military purposes.”

    ” Why do we continue to construct weapons that have the power to destroy us,” asked Rev. Robert Edgar, general secretary of the NCC, which represents some 140,000 Protestant congregations in the U.S., “rather than build systems and structures that will save lives and help all persons reach the potential for which God created them?”

    Edgar said the appeal was being made with a “sense of real urgency,” in light of new nuclear planning by the Bush administration and the failure to date of any of the declared nuclear powers to substantially reduce their stockpiles.
    More than a decade after the end of the Cold War, the United States and Russia retain a total of about 10,000 tactical and strategic nuclear weapons each. Together, they account for more than 95 percent of the world’s total arsenal.

    According to recent estimates by the Washington-based Center for Defense Information, China is next with an estimated 400 warheads, followed by France, with 350; Israel, with perhaps 200; Britain, with 185; India, with 60 or more; and Pakistan, with as many as 48. The Central Intelligence Agency says it believes North Korea has had as many as two devices for several years.

    Under the 1968 Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), nuclear countries must not only halt the spread of nuclear weapons to non-nuclear countries, but also agree to reduce their own arsenals to zero. In 1996, the International Court of justice at The Hague ruled that the NPT required eventual disarmament, a position that was formally reaffirmed in 2000 by the five permanent members of the UN Security Council.

    Sign the Moral Appeal for a Safer World without Nuclear Weapons

    This article was originally published by OneWorld.net.

  • Notes From The Road

    Recently, I spent some time in northern California. The trip was both rewarding and productive. The main reasons for the visit were to speak at the Hands Around Livermore Lab Rally and March, strategize actions for the upcoming year with fellow members of the Coalition to Demilitarize the University of California, and co-facilitate a workshop introducing the UC Nuclear Free Campaign at the University of California Student Association (UCSA) Congress.

    Livermore

    On Sunday, August 10th, Hands Around the Lab: Rally and March drew over 1,000 people to a key facility in the US nuclear weapons complex, UC-managed Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) in Livermore, California. The day’s agenda included a gathering at William Payne Park adjacent to LLNL and culminated in participants joining of hands encircling the lab. The event was one of the many organized to commemorate the anniversaries of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and mobilize citizens toward a nuclear weapons free world. KPFA’s Miguel Gavilan Molina served as master of ceremony, orchestrating a series of passionate of musicians and speakers. I used my allotted microphone time to emphasize the power of young people in the struggle to protect civil rights and work for peace. Moving from the theoretical to practical, I informed listeners of UC student efforts to get their university out of nuclear weapons business. Slightly revising the day’s schedule, I asked recent UC Santa Cruz grad, Darwin BondGraham, to share his thoughts on the subject. His comments framed the nuclear issue within the larger trend of the increasing militarization of colleges and universities. We ended by inviting people to visit our small information table and/or join us for our planning meeting the following day. There was an excellent line-up of speakers that followed. Unfortunately, I only heard bits and pieces of their comments as I talked with various people while walking through the crowd back to our information table.
    Berkeley

    The following day, members of the Coalition to Demilitarize the University of California met to brainstorm and reach consensus around actions to advance the UC Nuclear Free Campaign during the 2003-2004 school year. Undergraduate and graduate students from Berkeley, Davis, Los Angeles, and Santa Cruz contributed to the dialogue as well as representatives of Tri-Valley CAREs and Western States Legal Foundation. I spoke on behalf of the Foundation and committed myself to reporting back to UCSB students who could not attend due to prior commitments. Given its history of student and community activism, UC Berkeley was a great place to meet. If you are interested in the notes from this brainstorming session, please write me at youth@napf.org.
    Sacramento

    Prior to our workshop at the University of California Student Association (UCSA) Congress, three of us from the Coalition joined UCSA at their action opposing Proposition 54, otherwise known as The Racial Privacy Initiative. Introduced by UC Regent Ward Connerly, the misleading October ballot measure would effectively restrict efforts to resolve societal problems that have racial implications, such as hate crimes and discrimination, health care and disease treatment, and education access and achievement. The action was held at Connerly’s American Civil Rights Institute based in Sacramento. Connerly is the same Regent who the San Francisco Chronicle quoted as saying that UC will not bid to manage Los Alamos National Laboratory if the Department of Energy chose to implement an open competition, which was announced in April. Furthermore, common ground between anti-racism and anti-nuclear weapons movements is evident in that people of color suffer disproportionately from both the testing of nuclear weapons and storage of toxic waste from weapons development and nuclear energy production.
    Davis

    Later in the day, we began our workshop and dialogue, introducing about 20 undergraduate, graduate, and professional student leaders from UCLA, UCSB, UCI, UCSD, and UCR to the UC Nuclear Free Campaign. The Coalition had a strong showing of co-facilitators present, representing 3 campuses and 2 community organizations. There was a good diversity of viewpoints and experiences: one student had visited the Hiroshima Peace Museum as a high school student, another’s parents worked at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, another declared that nuclear weapons are going to be used in the near future, and another was a member of the Berkley Associated Students that passed a resolution calling for UC to get out of the nuclear weapons business. We provided participants with an overview of US nuclear weapons policy, a description of the history and future plans of our Coalition, a highly-interactive question and answer period, and hand-outs, particularly One Bomb, Two Bomb, Gold Bomb, Blue Bomb: The Scholastic Adventures of Robbie D. Bomb, written and designed by Emily Hell and Darwin BondGraham. Newcomer Coalition member, Brian Sparks came through with the question of the day: “So what are we going to do?” Ultimately, we had to bring our workshop to a close due to time constraints, and Michael Cox volunteered to explore answers to Brian’s question throughout the remaining 3 days of the Congress. We are grateful to have had the opportunity to contribute our piece to the UCSA Congress in part because UCSA is recognized by the UC Administration, UC Board of Regents, California Legislature, the California Governor’s Office and numerous state and federal agencies as the official voice of the over 180,000 UC Students, but more so as active citizens seeking alternatives and solutions to current conditions.
    However before we left UC Davis, we visited the UC Davis physics department for an impromptu weapons inspection. We were lucky to meet Professor Wendell Potter amidst the dust of summer construction and renovation. He spoke with the five of us for about 30 minutes about the integrity of university researchers, the often fine line between defense and civilian applications, and love of learning. He understood why we chose the physics department for our inspection, but cautioned us not to overlook the biology department. As you may know, UC Davis is the proposed site for a $200 million infectious disease research facility laboratory that would work with potentially lethal viruses and bacteria. The exchange with Professor Potter was an unexpected highlight of the trip.
    It was great solidifying established contacts and meeting new allies! I thank all of you whose curiosity and generosity made my week enjoyable.

  • United Nations Launches Study on Disarmament and Non-Proliferation Education

    If disarmament and non-proliferation goals are to be furthered the public must be educated about these issues on a wide scale, particularly in areas of conflict. To help bolster such education efforts the United Nations Department for Disarmament Affairs launched the U.N. Study on Disarmament and Non-Proliferation Education Wednesday October 9 after two years of work and deliberations.

    In March 2000 a group of experts from around the world were appointed to examine existing disarmament and nonproliferation education and training programs, and to give recommendations for furthering such work, particularly through the U.N. system. The resulting analysis stems largely from consultations with non-governmental, academic, research and media communities from throughout the world.

    Though the study’s 34 recommendations are varied, they include specific actions that can be taken to increase the availability and distribution of disarmament education resources; to improve collaboration between organizations currently working on disarmament education; and to take advantage of appropriate education technology.

    The study emphasizes that there must be education efforts at all levels, from young school children to military personnel, and that different methods must be used to reach the public on all levels, with particular sensitivity to cultural and language differences

    The First Committee of the United Nations will now begin discussing the document, and it is hoped that the study will lead to an increase in the available resources for effective disarmament education initiatives.

    The study calls for increased action by a number of actors, including municipal leaders; religious leaders and institutions; grassroots organizations; and a number of U.N. actors. While impact of some of its suggestions may be difficult to measure, any steps taken by the U.N. General Assembly, the Department of Disarmament and Public Information, U.N. affiliated organizations, U.N. member states, and international non-governmental organizations will be clearly visible.

    Disarmament education is a key step in moving towards a more peaceful and non-violent global environment. It is hoped that the study’s suggestions will be enthusiastically implemented.

    U.N. Undersecretary-General for Disarmament Affairs, Jayantha Dhanapala and Director of the Center for Nonproliferation Studies at the Monterey Institute of International Studies, William C. Potter, stated, in a recent International Herald Tribune article:

    “Young people live in a world ravaged by conflict and awash in arms. In an age of weapons of mass destruction, they also must contend with the fear of total annihilation. As diplomats and educators we have a responsibility to provide them with hope founded on reality. Disarmament and nonproliferation education is an important but underused tool to accomplish that end.”
    *Devon Chaffee is the Research and Advocacy Coordinator at the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

  • Nuclear Dangers Remain After Bush-Putin Agreement

    Nuclear Dangers Remain After Bush-Putin Agreement

    When major newspapers around the world trumpet headlines such as “U.S., Russia to Cut Nuclear Arms,” it should be cause for excitement, even celebration. Undoubtedly most people will greet this news with a sense of relief that we are moving in the right direction. Certainly it is better to have less nuclear weapons than more of them. But before we bring out the champagne, it would be a good idea to read the fine print and examine more closely what the treaty will and will not do.

    The treaty calls for reducing the size of the actively deployed US and Russian strategic nuclear arsenals from some 6,000 weapons on each side today to between 1,700 and 2,200 by the year 2012. This is approximately a two-thirds reduction in actively deployed long-range nuclear weapons, a move that is certainly positive.

    The treaty, however, has serious flaws. The nuclear weapons taken off active deployment will not necessarily be destroyed. It will be up to each country to determine what to do with these weapons. Many, if not most, of them will be placed in storage, ready to be rapidly redeployed if either country decides to do so.

    There is also no immediacy to moving from current levels of strategic nuclear weapons to the promised lower levels. According to the terms of the treaty, each country needs only to reduce to the agreed upon levels by the year 2012. That also happens to be the year that the treaty terminates unless extended.

    The United States has been a proponent of making the nuclear reductions reversible. The major problem with this approach is that it leads the Russians to do the same, and thereby increases the likelihood that these weapons could fall into the hands of terrorists. It would be better for both countries to permanently dismantle the nuclear weapons removed from active deployment, thereby removing the risk of theft by terrorists.

    The treaty deals only with strategic or long-range nuclear weapons. It does not seek to control or reduce tactical or short-range nuclear weapons. Each side still retains thousands of these weapons, and there is serious concern about the Russian arsenal’s vulnerability to theft or unauthorized use. The US Nuclear Posture Review, made partially public in January 2002, called for the development of so-called “bunker buster” nuclear weapons that would be far more likely to actually be used than the larger long-range nuclear weapons.

    As we evaluate this treaty, we should remember that even at the lowest level of 1,700 strategic nuclear weapons on each side, there will still be a sufficient number to destroy more than 3,000 cities. The use of far fewer nuclear weapons than this would put an end to civilization as we know it.

    President Bush claims, “This treaty will liquidate the legacy of the Cold War.” This remains to be seen. By designing a treaty that will hold so many nuclear weapons in reserve and retain so many on active “hair-trigger” alert, the two sides are not exactly demonstrating a level of trust commensurate with their current friendly relations.

    When the treaty is examined closely, it has more the feel of a public relations effort than a solid step toward reducing nuclear dangers and fulfilling the long-standing promises of the two countries to engage in good faith negotiations for nuclear disarmament. Unfortunately, even if this treaty is ratified and enters into force, we will remain in the danger zone that nuclear weapons pose to humanity and all life.

    We still need an agreement that provides for deeper, more comprehensive and irreversible cuts with a far greater sense of urgency. Mr. Bush and Mr. Putin need to return to the negotiating table.

     

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

  • A Model of Thermonuclear Extinction on Planet Mars

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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