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 





host about 200 U.S. nuclear bombs at six air bases as
part of “forward deployment” strategy.


Belgium,
Germany,
Italy,
the Netherlands,
Turkey –
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)
A “suitcase bomb”
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
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



Can a government knowingly provide terrorists with a
nuclear weapon?



Steal or buy
Pakistan as the key state of concern
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


2. DISARMAMENT


Commitment of non-nuclear weapons states not to
acquire NWs
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?


2. How to prevent weapons programs evolving from
peaceful programs?



Fairly effective, but can be made better
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 postwar 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/ngostateme
nts/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/RobockToonSciAm
Jan2010.pdf and www.nucleardarkness.org )

If India and Pakistan were to fight a
nuclear war:
http://www.encyclopedia.com/video/ZH6I
mzZurtM-nuclear-war-between-indiapakistan.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 weaponsusable 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 weaponsusable 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




Main targets: Russia and China
For 2,000 deployed warheads, US needs to have several
times more in reserve



“Extended deterrence”
New nukes may be usable in war
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. Thirddegree 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 manmade 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 NonProliferation 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.
10 reasons to ban nukes, by David Krieger

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.
10 reasons to ban nukes, by David Krieger

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 weaponsgrade 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.
10 reasons to ban nukes, by David Krieger

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.
10 reasons to ban nukes, by David Krieger



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.
10 reasons to ban nukes, by David Krieger


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 reasons to ban nukes, by David Krieger

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?