The Challenge of Nuclear Disarmament Copyright: Sergei Plekhanov.

The Challenge of Nuclear Disarmament

Copyright: Sergei Plekhanov

US President Barack Obama: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKSn1SXjj2s

The nuclear arsenals, 2009*

23,360 nuclear weapons located at some 111 sites in 14 countries. Nearly one-half of these weapons are active or

operationally deployed. 96% of the total are in the possession of the United

States and Russia

*BAS, Nov.-Dec. 2009, p. 86-87

The nuclear arsenals, by country

Country Numbers of weapons

Russia 13,000 (est., 2,790 deployed)

USA 9,400 (2,200 deployed)

France 300

China 240 (est.)

Britain 180

Israel 80-100 (est.)

Pakistan 70-90 (est.)

India 60-80 (est.)

N. Korea ?

Total ~23,360

In addition, 5 non-nuclear NATO allies - Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Turkey –

host about 200 U.S. nuclear bombs at six air bases as part of “forward deployment” strategy. No other nuclear weapons state keeps its NWs in the

territories of other states In the Cold War – over 12,000 in 22 countries, including

Canada (till 1984)

Means of delivery: Ballistic missiles (IC, I, SR) – ground-based, sea-based SLBMs Aerial bombs Cruise missiles (air-, sea-, ground-launched) A special category: human-delivered devices

US B83 nuclear bomb, explosive yield – 1.2 megatons

A MIRV

Launch of a Minuteman III ICBM (US)

Topol-M ICBM (Russia)

Tu-95 strategic bomber (Russia)

B-52 strategic bomber (US)

”The White Swan”:Tu-160 strategic bomber (Russia)

B-2A strategic bomber (US)

Ballistic missile defence system, space-based (design)

W54 Special Atomic Demolition Munition (SADM) was produced in the United States until 1988. The W54 was a very small 0.01 or 0.02-1 kiloton suitcase nuke with the entire unit weighing in at under 163 pounds

A “suitcase bomb”

Destructive Effects Nuclear explosions produce both immediate and delayed

destructive effects. Immediate

Blast, thermal radiation, prompt ionizing radiation are produced and cause significant destruction within seconds or minutes of a nuclear detonation. Delayed

radioactive fallout and other possible environmental effects, inflict damage over an extended period ranging from hours to years Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Aug. 1945: 0.25 million lives Total destructive power of existing NWs: 150,000 times the

bombs which destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Total destructive power 2,000 times the firepower used in all of WWII

including the nuclear bombs dropped on Japan http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yu8Guoevy-U

The First Nuclear Age: 1945-1991

Trinity, history’s first nuclear explosion, Alamogordo, NM, July 16, 1945

Robert Oppenheimer, father of the atomic bomb

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8H7Jibx-c0&feature=related

World’s first nuclear weapon: The Little Boy, explosive yield 12-15 kilotons (1/100 of B83 bomb)

Hiroshima, August 6, 1945

Father of the Soviet bomb: Igor Kurchatov

Young Andrei Sakharov played a key role in the Soviet nuclear weapons program, later became a dissident

1961, Soviet Union: The biggest nuclear bomb ever built: “Tsar-bomba”, “Big Ivan”. Power – 57 megatons (40,000 more than Little Boy of 1945)

The US-Russian nuclear arms race

USAF Gen. Curtis B. LeMay, Chief of the Strategic Air Command, advocated all-out nuclear war to destroy the Soviet Union and Red China

Chinese Communist leader Mao Zedong advocated waging nuclear war on the US “to free the world from imperialism”

October 1962: the Cuban Missile Crisis, the turning point

The paradox of the nuclear arms race Nuclear weapons are unfit for warfighting They can only serve as deterrents But once deterrence becomes mutual, a new situation

emerges A powerful interest in mutual survival and security

between the opposing sides That becomes a basis for joint actions for stability,

security, disarmament On that basis, a global system of arms control has been

erected

February 1986: Mikhail Gorbachev proposes a plan for nuclear disarmament

Gorbachev and Reagan sign a treaty to ban all medium-range ballistic missiles (The INF Treaty)

Main existing arms control treaties

Partial Test Ban Treaty of 1963

INF, signed in 1987

START-I, signed in 1991

SORT, signed in 2002

CTR agreements

The Outer Space Treaty

NPT, signed in 1968, went into effect in 1970

CTBT, signed in 1996, still not fully in effect

Results of international efforts to tame the nuclear threat No nuclear weapon used since 1945 Almost no testing (with a few exceptions) The arsenals have been reduced by 2/3 Most treaties work, compliance assured Proliferation has been minimal The Cold War is over – one of the causes being the

nuclear arms race and the emergence of a sense of common interest in preventing it

And yet… The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, 2007: "We stand at the brink of a second nuclear age. Not since

the first atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki has the world faced such perilous choices. “

The four threats 1. Nuclear terrorism 2. Nuclear proliferation 3. Existing nuclear arsenals

Their size and posture The NPT linkage Policies of US and Russia in the past decade

4. Climate change linkages New interest in nuclear power generation and trade in

nuclear fuels Climate change will undermine international security Environmental impact of the use of nuclear weapons

Nuclear terrorism The threat is real, the main source is Al Qaeda

A radiological attack with or without a conventional explosion (use of chemical or biological agents also possible)

A real nuclear weapon Steal or buy Pakistan as the key state of concern

Can a government knowingly provide terrorists with a nuclear weapon? Highly unlikely: governments protect their power, a state

caught doing this will be severely punished Rogue elements, organized crime networks

Solutions: Smart anti-terrorist policies Better security of storing nuclear weapons and materials Better security to forestall and prevent terrorist acts

Nuclear proliferation 3 pillars of Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which

went into effect in 1970: 1. NON-PROLIFERATION

Commitment of non-nuclear weapons states not to acquire NWs

2. DISARMAMENT Commitment of nuclear weapons states to give up their

nuclear weapons 3. RIGHT TO PEACEFUL USE

Every state has a right to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes

How effective is the Treaty? 189 of the world’s 193 countries are parties to NPT Only 3 states acquired nuclear weapons after the treaty

was signed: India, Pakistan, North Korea Neither India nor Pakistan have signed the Treaty Israel developed nuclear weapons secretly before the

Treaty and never signed North Korea did sign, but violated and withdrew in 2003 Libya did sign, violated, but then came clean South Africa canceled its program and signed Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakhstan became de facto nuclear

weapons states by default after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, but they gave up the Soviet weapons – and signed

The problems 1. How effective is the monitoring?

Fairly effective, but can be made better 2. How to prevent weapons programs evolving from

peaceful programs? International nuclear fuel bank Fissile materials ban

3. How to remove rationales for nuclearization? Responsibility of the main nuclear powers A renewed serious push for disarmament Reform of the international order to reduce potential for

conflict No nation should have this kind of power

Threats from existing nuclear arsenals

The numbers – over 23,000? The US: the requirement for this many weapons

arises from the Nuclear Weapons Employment Policy, signed by then–defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld in 2004, which states in part:

“U.S. nuclear forces must be capable of, and be seen to be capable of, destroying those critical war-making and war-supporting assets and capabilities that a potential enemy leadership values most and that it would rely on to achieve its own objectives in a post-war world.”

Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, March/April 2009, p. 60

Arguments against reductions – the US The US needs a large arsenal to defend itself and its

interests around the globe “Extended deterrence” Dreams of first-strike capability

Main targets: Russia and China For 2,000 deployed warheads, US needs to have several

times more in reserve

Russian arguments Russia cannot defend itself without nuclear weapons Its defence spending is 1/10 of the US level, while its

security challenges are much greater than those faced by US

Operational status Dr. Bruce Blair, former Minuteman ICBM Launch Control

Officer and now President of the World Security Institute (Washington, DC):

U.S. standard operating procedures still envisage massive retaliation to a presumed strike in timeframes that allow only for rote, lightning-fast, checklist- based decision- making. Such decisions could starkly affect the survival of civilization.

“Both the United States and Russia today maintain about one-third of their total strategic arsenals on launch-ready alert. Hundreds of missiles armed with thousands of nuclear warheads-the equivalent of about 100,000 Hiroshima bombs-can be launched within a very few minutes.”

http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/legal/npt/prepcom08/ngostatements/OpStatus.pdf

Modernization of weapons Impact on strategic stability New types Small is usable? Development of missile defence systems High-accuracy conventional weapons Space weapons

Ecological impact The detonation of these weapons in conflict would likely

kill most humans from the environmental consequences of their use. Ice Age weather conditions, massive destruction of the ozone layer, huge reductions in average global precipitation, would all combine to eliminate growing seasons for a decade or longer . . . resulting in global nuclear famine. Even a "regional" nuclear conflict, which detonates the equivalent of 1% of the explosive power in the operational US-Russian arsenals, could cause up to a billion people to die from famine (see http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/RobockToonSciAmJan2010.pdf and www.nucleardarkness.org )

If India and Pakistan were to fight a nuclear war: http://www.encyclopedia.com/video/ZH6ImzZurtM-nuclear-war-between-india-pakistan.aspx

Solutions The main responsibility lies on the US and Russia Without their joint leadership, nothing can be done This is why the Obama initiative is so important

The new START treaty Reductions by 30% Verification Resumption of serious arms control based on equal

security

Nuclear Security Conference – Washington, April

NPT Review Conference – New York, May

Further steps

Deeper cuts to eliminate potential for first strike

De-alerting the weapons

Cooperative missile defence

Etc.

Can nuclear weapons be prohibited?

Yes, they can! Negotiations toward prohibition of nuclear weapons will by

necessity be protracted, but it should be remembered that the NPT was negotiated from 1959 to 1968.

Prohibition could either be negotiated through an analogous protracted international process, or it might alternatively be obtained by a covenant among the existing nuclear weapons states turning over their nuclear weapons to international management.

Obviously, this will be come possible only with fundamental changes in the international system – to reduce sources of conflict and promote peaceful ways of resolving differences

Nuclear disarmament and reform of the international system must go hand in hand

The proposal for an International Nuclear Weapons Convention, to be signed by 2020

The NWC would prohibit development, testing, production, stockpiling, transfer, use and threat of use of nuclear weapons.

States possessing nuclear weapons will be required to destroy their arsenals according to a series of phases

The Convention would prohibit the production of weapons-usable fissile material and require delivery vehicles to be destroyed or converted to make them incapable of use with nuclear weapons.

Iran The worst-case scenario The facts Is Iran trying to become a NWS?

Some attempts were made in the past, currently no credible evidence

A missile program is in progress The fatwa against NWs

But let us assume that the intention is there What are the motives? Rational or irrational?

Security Does the bomb make a country secure? We must make sure it doesn’t How do we do it? 1. The Iraq scenario

Apply sanctions Foster regime change without war Then bomb Then invade

The likely consequences It is going to be much worse than Iraq

Alternative Serious negotiations across the board Whether Obama can do it – open question But it is the only rational way At this stage, no one wants war

Iran is bargaining with its suspected program The West is bargaining with threat of sanctions and

war It is not a safe game It may result in a nuclear-armed Iran Or, it may lead to war

Addenda

Main schools of thought on nuclear weapons Abolitionists Prohibitionists Minimalists Maximalists Moderates

Arguments against Abolition Utopian No guarantee that someone would not cheat Even a small number could be used to intimidate others Nukes provide ultimate guarantee of security – this is an

imperfect world with lots of bad guys with evil designs

Prohibitionists Realistic steps we can take:

a regime of progressive constraints must be enacted, including for instance:

Major reductions in inventories encompassing all categories of nuclear weapons--not only strategic.

Improvements in the verified accounting and security arrangements governing such reductions.

Changes in the operational practices of current nuclear forces to limit their rapidity of response.

Cessation of nuclear tests through coming into force of a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

Negotiations toward prohibition of nuclear weapons will by necessity be protracted, but it should be remembered that the NPT was negotiated from 1959 to 1968.

The NPT remains the cornerstone of today's nonproliferation regime, notwithstanding the current challenges to that regime.

As outlined in another National Academy report, prohibition could either be negotiated through an analogous protracted international process, or it might alternatively be obtained by a covenant among the existing nuclear weapons states turning over their nuclear weapons to international management.

The proposal for an International Nuclear Weapons Convention, to be signed by 2020

The NWC would prohibit development, testing, production, stockpiling, transfer, use and threat of use of nuclear weapons.

States possessing nuclear weapons will be required to destroy their arsenals according to a series of phases

The Convention would prohibit the production of weapons-usable fissile material and require delivery vehicles to be destroyed or converted to make them incapable of use with nuclear weapons.

The Minimalist case: If it is unrealistic to eliminate all nukes, let us reduce their

numbers and all dangers they represent Down to 100 weapons Separate warheads from launchers

Arguments against Weapons will continue to exist – while a small and unready

arsenal undercuts deterrence so much that it may actually increase the nuclear threat by encouraging a potential aggressor to think it can disarm

The Maximalist case: The US needs a large arsenal to defend itself and its

interests around the globe “Extended deterrence” New nukes may be usable in war

Main targets: Russia and China For 2,000 deployed warheads, US needs to have several

times more in reserve Arguments against:

Too expensive, no real need See the Abolitionist case

The Moderate case: Maintain nuclear forces at a level sufficient to meet real

requirements Keep them only for strategic targets which cannot be

destroyed by conventional means Main potential adversary - Russia 500-1,000 weapons + reserve 90% of them – 10 kt 10% - 500 kt (for the hardest targets)

Arguments against: See the Abolitionist case Generates new strategies for nuclear warfighting

Blast Effects Most damage comes from the explosive blast. The shock wave of air radiates

outward, producing sudden changes in air pressure that can crush objects, and high winds that can knock objects down. In general, large buildings are destroyed by the change in air pressure, while people and objects such as trees and utility poles are destroyed by the wind.

The magnitude of the blast effect is related to the height of the burst above ground level. For any given distance from the center of the explosion, there is an optimum burst height that will produce the greatest change in air pressure, called overpressure, and the greater the distance the greater the optimum burst height. As a result, a burst on the surface produces the greatest overpressure at very close ranges, but less overpressure than an air burst at somewhat longer ranges.

When a nuclear weapon is detonated on or near Earth's surface, the blast digs out a large crater. Some of the material that used in be in the crater is deposited on the rim of the crater; the rest is carried up into the air and returns to Earth as radioactive fallout. An explosion that is farther above the Earth's surface than the radius of the fireball does not dig a crater and produces negligible immediate fallout. For the most part, a nuclear blast kills people by indirect means rather than by direct pressure.

Thermal Radiation Effects Approximately 35 percent of the energy from a nuclear explosion is an intense

burst of thermal radiation, i.e., heat. The effects are similar to the effect of a two-second flash from an enormous sunlamp. Since the thermal radiation travels at roughly the speed of light, the flash of light and heat precedes the blast wave by several seconds, just as lightning is seen before thunder is heard.

The visible light will produce "flashblindness" in people who are looking in the

direction of the explosion. Flashblindness can last for several minutes, after which recovery is total. If the flash is focused through the lens of the eye, a permanent retinal burn will result. At Hiroshima and Nagasaki, there were many cases of flashblindness, but only one case of retinal burn, among the survivors. On the other hand, anyone flashblinded while driving a car could easiIy cause permanent injury to himself and to others.

Skin burns result from higher intensities of light, and therefore take place closer to the point of explosion. First-degree, second-degree and third-degree burns can occur at distances of five miles away from the blast or more. Third-degree burns over 24 percent of the body, or second-degree burns over 30 percent of the body, will result in serious shock, and will probably prove fatal unless prompt, specialized medical care is available. The entire United States has facilities to treat 1,000 or 2,000 severe burn cases. A single nuclear weapon could produce more than 10,000.

The thermal radiation from a nuclear explosion can directly ignite kindling

materials. In general, ignitable materials outside the house, such as leaves or newspapers, are not surrounded by enough combustible material to generate a self-sustaining fire. Fires more likely to spread are those caused by thermal radiation passing through windows to ignite beds and overstuffed furniture inside houses. Another possible source of fires, which might be more damaging in urban areas, is indirect. Blast damage to Stores, water heaters, furnaces, electrical circuits or gas lines would ignite fires where fuel is plentiful.

Direct Nuclear Radiation Effects Direct radiation occurs at the time of the explosion. It can be very intense, but

its range is limited. For large nuclear weapons, the range of intense direct radiation is less than the range of lethal blast and thermal radiation effects. However, in the case of smaller weapons, direct radiation may be the lethal effect with the greatest range. Direct radiation did substantial damage to the residents of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Human response to ionizing radiation is subject to great scientific uncertainty and intense controversy. It seems likely that even small doses of radiation do some harm.

Fallout Fallout radiation is received from particles that are made radioactive by the

effects of the explosion, and subsequently distributed at varying distances from the site of the blast. While any nuclear explosion in the atmosphere produces some fallout, the fallout is far greater if the burst is on the surface, or at least low enough for the firebalI to touch the ground. The significant hazards come from particles scooped up from the ground and irradiated by the nuclear explosion. The radioactive particles that rise only a short distance (those in the "stem" of the familiar mushroom cloud) will fall back to earth within a matter of minutes, landing close to the center of the explosion. Such particles are unlikely to cause many deaths, because they will fall in areas where most people have already been killed. However, the radioactivity will complicate efforts at rescue or eventual reconstruction. The radioactive particles that rise higher will be carried some distance by the wind before returning to Earth, and hence the area and intensity of the fallout is strongly influenced by local weather conditions. Much of the material is simply blown downwind in a long plume. Rainfall also can have a significant influence on the ways in which radiation from smaller weapons is deposited, since rain will carry contaminated particles to the ground. The areas receiving such contaminated rainfall would become "hot spots," with greater radiation intensity than their surroundings.

.

Electromagnetic Pulse Electromagnetic pulse (EMP) is an electromagnetic wave similar to radio

waves, which results from secondary reactions occurring when the nuclear gamma radiation is absorbed in the air or ground. It differs from the usual radio waves in two important ways. First, it creates much higher electric field strengths. Whereas a radio signal might produce a thousandth of a volt or less in a receiving antenna, an EMP pulse might produce thousands of volts. Secondly, it is a single pulse of energy that disappears completely in a small fraction of a second. In this sense, it is rather similar to the electrical signal from lightning, but the rise in voltage is typically a hundred times faster. This means that most equipment designed to protect electrical facilities from lightning works too slowly to be effective against EMP.

An attacker might detonate a few weapons at high altitudes in an effort to destroy or damage the communications and electric power systems of the victim. There is no evidence that EMP is a physical threat to humans. However, electrical or electronic systems, particularly those connected to long wires such as power lines or antennas, can undergo damage. There could be actual physical damage to an electrical component or a temporary disruption of operation.

.

Total states 195 Total signed 182 Total ratified 151 Not signed 13 (incl. India, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia) Not ratified 44 (incl. US, China, Iran) All 44 States specifically listed in the Treaty - those with nuclear technology capabilities at the time of the final Treaty negotiations in 1996 – must sign and ratify before the

CTBT can enter into force. Of these, nine are still missing: China, DPRK, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Iran, Israel, Pakistan and

the USA. DPRK, India and Pakistan have yet to sign the CTBT. Otherwise, 182 countries have signed, of which 150

have ratified the Treaty (as of February 2009), including three of the nuclear weapon States: France, Russian Federation and

the United Kingdom.

CTBTO

Verification regime: A unique and comprehensive system. At the heart of the

verification regime is the International Monitoring System (IMS), which consists of 337 facilities located all over the world that constantly monitor the planet for signs of nuclear explosions.

Around 75% of these facilities are already sending data to the International Data Centre at the CTBTO headquarters in Vienna.

The IMS uses the following four state-of-the-art technologies:

Seismic: 50 primary and 120 auxiliary seismic stations monitor shockwaves in the Earth. The vast majority of these shockwaves – many thousands every year - are caused by earthquakes. But man-made explosions such as mine explosions or the nuclear test announced by the DPRK in 2006, are also detected.

Hydroacoustic: 11 hydrophone stations “listen” for sound waves in the oceans. Sound waves from explosions can travel extremely far underwater.

Infrasound: 60 stations on the surface can detect ultra-low frequency sound waves (inaudible to the human ear) that are emitted by large explosions.

Radionuclide: 80 stations measure the atmosphere for radioactive particles, 40 of them also pick up noble gas. Only these measurements can give a clear indication as to whether an explosion detected by the other methods was actually nuclear or not. They are supported by 16 radionuclide laboratories.

On-site-Inspection: If the data from the IMS stations indicate that a nuclear test has taken place, a Member State can

request for an on-site-inspection to be carried out to collect evidence that will allow the final assessment to be made

regarding whether a nuclear explosion – a Treaty violation - has actually taken place. This will only be possible after the

CTBT has entered into force. A large on-site inspection exercise was carried out in September 2008 in Kazakhstan.

10 reasons to ban nukes, by David Krieger

1. Fulfill Existing Obligations. The nuclear weapons states have made solemn promises to the international community to negotiate in good faith to achieve nuclear disarmament. The United States, Russia, Britain, France and China accepted this obligation when they signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), and extended their promises at the 1995 NPT Review and Extension Conference and again at the 2000 NPT Review Conference. India and Pakistan, which are not signatories of the NPT, have committed themselves to abolish their nuclear arsenals if the other nuclear weapons states agree to do so. The only nuclear weapons state that has not made this promise is Israel, and surely it could be convinced to do so if the other nuclear weapons states agreed to the elimination of their nuclear arsenals. The International Court of Justice, the world's highest court, unanimously highlighted the obligation to nuclear disarmament in its 1996 Opinion: "There exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control." This means an obligation to reduce the world's nuclear arsenals to zero.


2. Stop Nuclear Weapons Proliferation. The failure of the nuclear weapons states to act to eliminate their nuclear arsenals will likely result in the proliferation of nuclear weapons to other nations. If the nuclear weapons states continue to maintain the position that nuclear weapons preserve their security, it is only reasonable that other nations with less powerful military forces, such as North Korea, will decide that their security should also be maintained by nuclear arsenals. Without substantial progress toward nuclear disarmament, the Non-Proliferation Treaty will be in jeopardy when the parties to the treaty meet for the NPT Review Conference in the year 2005.


3. Prevent Nuclear Terrorism. The very existence of nuclear weapons and their production endanger our safety because they are susceptible to terrorist exploitation. Nuclear weapons and production sites all over the world are vulnerable to terrorist attack or to theft of weapons or weapons-grade materials. Russia, due to the breakup of the former Soviet Union, has a weakened command and control system, making their substantial arsenal especially vulnerable to terrorists. In addition, nuclear weapons are not helpful in defending against or responding to terrorism because nuclear weapons cannot target a group that is unlocatable.


4. Avoid Nuclear Accidents. The risk of accidental war through miscommunication, miscalculation or malfunction is especially dangerous given the thousands of nuclear warheads deployed and on high alert status. Given the short time periods available in which to make decisions about whether or not a state is under nuclear attack, and whether to launch a retaliatory response, the risk of miscalculation is high. In addition, the breakup of the former Soviet Union has weakened Russia's early warning system, since many parts of this system were located outside of Russia, and this increases the likelihood of a nuclear accident. Read more about nuclear accidents.


5. Cease the Immorality of Threatening Mass Murder. It is highly immoral to base the security of a nation on the threat to destroy cities and potentially murder millions of people. This immoral policy is named nuclear deterrence, and it is relied upon by all nuclear weapons states. Nuclear deterrence is a dangerous policy. Its implementation places humanity and most forms of life in jeopardy of annihilation.

6. Reverse Concentration of Power. Nuclear weapons undermine democracy by giving a few individuals the power to destroy the world as we know it. No one should have this much power. If these individuals make a mistake or misjudgment, everyone in the world will pay for it.

7. Promote Democratic Openness. Decisions about nuclear weapons have been made largely in secrecy with little involvement from the public. In the United States, for example, nuclear weapons policy is set forth in highly classified documents, which are not made available to the public and come to public attention only by leaks. On this most important of all issues facing humanity, there is no informed consent of the people.


8. Halt the Drain on Resources. Nuclear weapons have drained resources, including scientific resources, from other more productive uses. A 1998 study by the Brookings Institution found that the United States alone had spent more than $5.5 trillion on nuclear weapons programs between 1940 and 1996. The United States continues to spend some $25-$35 billion annually on research, development and maintenance of its nuclear arsenal. All of these misspent resources represent lost opportunities for improving the health, education and welfare of the people of the world.

9. Heed Warnings by Distinguished Leaders. Distinguished leaders throughout the world, including generals, admirals, heads of state and government, scientists and Nobel Peace Laureates, have warned of the dangers inherent in relying upon nuclear weapons for security. These warnings have gone unheeded by the leaders of nuclear weapons states. Read more about the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s Appeal to End the Nuclear Weapons Threat to Humanity and All Life.


10. Meet Our Responsibility. We each have a responsibility to our children, grandchildren and future generations to end the threat that nuclear weapons pose to humanity and all life. This is a responsibility unique in human history. If we do not accept responsibility to speak out and act for a world free of nuclear weapons, who will?

The Challenge of Nuclear Disarmament Copyright: Sergei Plekhanov.

Documents

Transcript of The Challenge of Nuclear Disarmament Copyright: Sergei Plekhanov.