Somewhere in the catacombs of the Pentagon, a staff of military planners is working on a scheme to perpetuate the military primacy of the United States. The richest country on earth, the leader in military technology, with 900 military bases in 140 countries, has no military rival. The competition has faded, or been defeated in battle, or lacks the resources to compete.
The military supremacy of United States is unprecedented. The unexpended energy encompasses the entire globe seeking more worlds to conquer and militarize. Popular support is overwhelming and the money is available for virtually any weapon or adventure. American Exceptionalism, once based on the religion of the Pilgrim Fathers, is now assigned to American military forces.
We do not always win our small wars against “the barbarians” but we crush the serious competititors for world-wide hegemony making them allies or vassals. Our force of nuclear weapons is the largest (with Russia), certainly the most accurate and reliable. While nine nations have nukes, we are the only nation that has used them in battle and on human beings. All nations factor Hiroshima and Nagasaki in their attitudes about us.
For more than a decade, the United States has been negotiating with North Korea and Iran to persuade or bribe them to eliminate their programs to make nuclear weapons. With all our military power, with all of our financial assets, with all of our allies, we have not been able to persuade by blandishment or threat. Are we trying hard enough? Do their nukes somehow fit into our strategy to minimize potential competition from the only nations capable of challenging the United States?
The US is building an advanced system of missile defense in Poland and the Czech Republic to counter Iran’s possible nuclear weapons. The Russians say that the system is operative against their missiles and would give the US an important advantage in a crisis or a war. Basing them so close to the Russian border, would save flight time and perhaps furnish the capacity to strike first.
The US has positioned nukes in South Korea close to the Chinese border and always has nuclear-armed ships in the South China Sea. That deployment gives the US an advantage in a nuclear war where a first strike is an overwhelming advantage.
US policy in North Korea and Iran have failed in their stated objectives to prevent nuclear deployment. But these failures leave American bases on the actual borders of China and Russia that could threaten their security. Does this situation remind the world community of the 1963 Cuban missile crisis when Soviet missiles were placed 20 miles from the US but were forced out under threat of nuclear war ?
Showing posts with label nuclear weapons. Show all posts
Showing posts with label nuclear weapons. Show all posts
Friday, February 24, 2012
Thursday, December 2, 2010
The Nuclear Weapons Debate
The atomic destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki changed my life. I dedicated myself to the elimination of atomic and nuclear arms to preserve planet Earth, to save the human species. Total elimination of the weapons and responsible international controls are the only political solutions. After I failed with ten presidents, I welcomed the Obama initiative and the New Start Treaty with great enthusiasm. I still do. But they are only a beginning. There will be serious problems along the way. This analysis points to some of them.
A world with fewer nuclear weapons, or a world with no nuclear weapons, would enhance the military power of the United States. As the only superpower, the US spends as much on its military as all other nations combined. It has more than 1000 bases in 140 countries, and the capacity to deliver significant numbers of troops and equipment anywhere on Earth within 24 hours. No other nation can come close to matching such immediate power and those who might are not building a counterforce.
Instead, actual or potential rivals seek protection from the US colossus by arming themselves with nuclear weapons to deter a potential conventional, non-nuclear, attack by the American juggernaut. A world without nuclear weapons would increase the power of the US to intimidate or destroy its rivals without fear of nuclear retaliation.
That is one of the reasons why virtually all American military leaders, past and present, as well as experienced diplomats, support President Barack Obama's treaty with Russia that reduces the number of long-range nuclear weapons and provides for mutual inspection of arsenals. This agreement will make it easier to enforce the Non-Proliferation Treaty that discourages all nations and forbids other signatory nations from building their own nuclear weapons. These are important first steps toward a world without any nuclear weapons, steps that also affect the current balance of power between nations. It won't be easy to reach the goal of elimination, but humanity does have a plan, a plan approved by the military, the diplomats, and the moralist, a rare combination.
However, the endgame of no nuclear weapons will put the military control of the planet in the grasp of the US, a nation with only 5% of the human population obtaining military dominance over the other 95%. The only way this could be justified is to link it with the survival of the human species. It may be a choice all nations will have to accept. How long would US military dominance survive? If history is a guide, the other nations will unite to overcome US superpower. To prevent loss of hegemony, one would expect the US to resist the coalition of opponents before they unite.
There is another argument against the Obama scenario. There has not been a major war since 1945, perhaps because the major powers have nuclear weapons and the result would be mutual annihilation. If nuclear weapons were to be effectively outlawed and dropped from all arsenals, would the likelihood of non-nuclear war be increased? Would the absence of the nuclear weapons of mass destruction lead us back to our former habits, to the awful pattern of mass armies killing with pre-nuclear types of weapons? Would rejection of nuclear weapons require a total rejection of the use of force?
Is the human species capable of such a radical change in defying thousands of years of human history, misery and warfare? Don't be so quick to say no. The pace of human adaptation to change has quickened remarkably as more prompt adjustments are made to match changes in the environment and human understanding.
A world with fewer nuclear weapons, or a world with no nuclear weapons, would enhance the military power of the United States. As the only superpower, the US spends as much on its military as all other nations combined. It has more than 1000 bases in 140 countries, and the capacity to deliver significant numbers of troops and equipment anywhere on Earth within 24 hours. No other nation can come close to matching such immediate power and those who might are not building a counterforce.
Instead, actual or potential rivals seek protection from the US colossus by arming themselves with nuclear weapons to deter a potential conventional, non-nuclear, attack by the American juggernaut. A world without nuclear weapons would increase the power of the US to intimidate or destroy its rivals without fear of nuclear retaliation.
That is one of the reasons why virtually all American military leaders, past and present, as well as experienced diplomats, support President Barack Obama's treaty with Russia that reduces the number of long-range nuclear weapons and provides for mutual inspection of arsenals. This agreement will make it easier to enforce the Non-Proliferation Treaty that discourages all nations and forbids other signatory nations from building their own nuclear weapons. These are important first steps toward a world without any nuclear weapons, steps that also affect the current balance of power between nations. It won't be easy to reach the goal of elimination, but humanity does have a plan, a plan approved by the military, the diplomats, and the moralist, a rare combination.
However, the endgame of no nuclear weapons will put the military control of the planet in the grasp of the US, a nation with only 5% of the human population obtaining military dominance over the other 95%. The only way this could be justified is to link it with the survival of the human species. It may be a choice all nations will have to accept. How long would US military dominance survive? If history is a guide, the other nations will unite to overcome US superpower. To prevent loss of hegemony, one would expect the US to resist the coalition of opponents before they unite.
There is another argument against the Obama scenario. There has not been a major war since 1945, perhaps because the major powers have nuclear weapons and the result would be mutual annihilation. If nuclear weapons were to be effectively outlawed and dropped from all arsenals, would the likelihood of non-nuclear war be increased? Would the absence of the nuclear weapons of mass destruction lead us back to our former habits, to the awful pattern of mass armies killing with pre-nuclear types of weapons? Would rejection of nuclear weapons require a total rejection of the use of force?
Is the human species capable of such a radical change in defying thousands of years of human history, misery and warfare? Don't be so quick to say no. The pace of human adaptation to change has quickened remarkably as more prompt adjustments are made to match changes in the environment and human understanding.
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
The Expansion of Presidential Power
Presidential power is one of the mysteries of the American political system, certainly not justified or suggested in the United States Constitution. The last thing the framers of the Constitution wanted was a king, an American George III, with the power to tax, to levy armies, to initiate wars. Yet that is our current system and presidential power is growing as the democratic spirit weakens under the pressures of maintaining world-wide hegemony.
The ultimate presidential power: only the president can order the use of a nuclear weapon against an enemy he identifies, at a moment he chooses, for reasons he alone finds adequate. To give it practical effect the president is always accompanied by an aide carrying a briefcase containing the authorization codes to fire one or all of America's nuclear weapons. The president is not required to consult anyone. Given the strength of America's nuclear arsenal, the president can destroy the entire human species and end all life on planet Earth. This enormous personal power has belonged to all presidents since 1945.
Now President Obama seeks to expand his solitary power to the domestic economic and financial sphere, seeking control of the money supply for his unilateral use and control.
This month President Obama plans to ask Congress to give him and future presidents the power to delete individual items from appropriation bills. Many previous presidents have sought to seize the power of the purse. Here is where it now resides. The U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 7, “All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives…..” subject to amendment by the Senate, the right of the president to veto, and the right of the Congress to override the veto.
That is why the Supreme Court in 1998 ruled a line-item veto unconstitutional. The constitutional responsibility of the president is to execute the laws passed by the people's representatives, the Congress of the United States. Now Obama wants the Congress to surrender part of its primary responsibility.
This constitutional change is most often put forward by Republican presidents. The attempt by this Democratic president to increase his vast presidential power tends to prove Lord Acton's famous maxim that “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely”.
Weakening our division of powers may result in greater efficiency, but would clearly diminish the plan of the founding fathers to guard against the usurpation of authority by any one of the three branches of the federal government. Take away the power of the purse from Congress and it would become little more than a club for debate, the direct representatives of the people would be shorn of any significant power. And who can guarantee that the White House will not make appropriations based in part on political pressures and electoral calculations as the Congress does now.
In fact, for many years, the executive branch has found ways to modify the intent of congressional appropriations. Sometimes the president and his minions failed to spend the money, sometimes they chose the contractors, sometimes they speed or slow the rate of expenditure, sometimes they modify the project in ways that transform it and leave it to the undermanned Congress to discover the discrepancies.
Finally, giving any president increased power over appropriations might increase the growing number of presidential wars. A Library of Congress study identified 234 military actions between 1798 and 1993 of these by US Armed Forces abroad. Only five of these wars were declared by Congress as required by the U.S. Constitution. The Library of Congress calls those not declared by Congress presidential wars. Three are being fought right now in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. If presidents had appropriating power to finance more wars, we might be fighting in more of the 147 countries in which we have military bases.
The ultimate presidential power: only the president can order the use of a nuclear weapon against an enemy he identifies, at a moment he chooses, for reasons he alone finds adequate. To give it practical effect the president is always accompanied by an aide carrying a briefcase containing the authorization codes to fire one or all of America's nuclear weapons. The president is not required to consult anyone. Given the strength of America's nuclear arsenal, the president can destroy the entire human species and end all life on planet Earth. This enormous personal power has belonged to all presidents since 1945.
Now President Obama seeks to expand his solitary power to the domestic economic and financial sphere, seeking control of the money supply for his unilateral use and control.
This month President Obama plans to ask Congress to give him and future presidents the power to delete individual items from appropriation bills. Many previous presidents have sought to seize the power of the purse. Here is where it now resides. The U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 7, “All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives…..” subject to amendment by the Senate, the right of the president to veto, and the right of the Congress to override the veto.
That is why the Supreme Court in 1998 ruled a line-item veto unconstitutional. The constitutional responsibility of the president is to execute the laws passed by the people's representatives, the Congress of the United States. Now Obama wants the Congress to surrender part of its primary responsibility.
This constitutional change is most often put forward by Republican presidents. The attempt by this Democratic president to increase his vast presidential power tends to prove Lord Acton's famous maxim that “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely”.
Weakening our division of powers may result in greater efficiency, but would clearly diminish the plan of the founding fathers to guard against the usurpation of authority by any one of the three branches of the federal government. Take away the power of the purse from Congress and it would become little more than a club for debate, the direct representatives of the people would be shorn of any significant power. And who can guarantee that the White House will not make appropriations based in part on political pressures and electoral calculations as the Congress does now.
In fact, for many years, the executive branch has found ways to modify the intent of congressional appropriations. Sometimes the president and his minions failed to spend the money, sometimes they chose the contractors, sometimes they speed or slow the rate of expenditure, sometimes they modify the project in ways that transform it and leave it to the undermanned Congress to discover the discrepancies.
Finally, giving any president increased power over appropriations might increase the growing number of presidential wars. A Library of Congress study identified 234 military actions between 1798 and 1993 of these by US Armed Forces abroad. Only five of these wars were declared by Congress as required by the U.S. Constitution. The Library of Congress calls those not declared by Congress presidential wars. Three are being fought right now in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. If presidents had appropriating power to finance more wars, we might be fighting in more of the 147 countries in which we have military bases.
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Averting Nuclear Annihilation
President Barack Obama has called for a major change in world policy on nuclear weapons, leading to eventual elimination. His initiative is supported by a powerful group of conservative and military allies led by former Republican Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger and George Schultz and Democrats former Secretary of Defense William Perry and Sam Nunn longtime Chair of Senate Armed Services Committee.
These leaders recognize that nuclear weapons are the most inhumane and dangerous ever conceived, that kill and maim without discrimination, the only weapons ever invented that could destroy all life on planet Earth. That must not happen. Disarmament is the only answer: If any country has nuclear weapons, others will want them. Then, some day they will be used by accident, mistake, or design - the ultimate catastrophe.
In The Wall Street Journal and other venues, these conservative leaders argue for their dramatic reforms.
1. No first use of nuclear weapons
2. Immediate reduction of all nuclear arsenals
3. Immediate elimination of short-range nukes
4. Eventual elimination of long-range nukes
5. Guarding nukes and nuclear materials
6. Phasing out production of highly enriched uranium
7. Enhanced verification and enforcement procedures
8. Bringing into force the universal Comprehensive Test-ban Treaty to monitor and discourage cheating
Additional points about nuclear weapons
a. The US does not need to test nukes to maintain its current arsenal
b. The US and Russia own 95% of the world’s nukes and are cooperating in guarding inventories
c. The US and Russia have reduced their ICBM nukes to 2000 and are now negotiating further reductions to about 1600.
d. The US has not tested nukes since September 23, 1992, when Bush senior was president
e. For the CTBT treaty to go into effect, 44 specified countries with nuclear capacity must ratify. Of those countries, the following have not ratified: China, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Israel, North Korea, Pakistan, and USA.
During President Clinton’s administration, the CTBT was sent to the US Senate for approval. It failed to reach the 67 votes necessary for ratification, but did attain a majority, 51- 49. In 2010, there will be another attempt to reach 67, hopefully by persuading seven Republicans to join 60 Democrats. Henry Kissinger et al should be helpful in this effort.
Some conservatives and military leaders believe that a worldwide policy of no nukes would be the most advantageous policy for the US, enhancing and protecting its status as the only military superpower with the capability to deploy overwhelming non-nuclear forces anywhere on earth in a matter of hours. It would legitimize US action against alleged rogue states and tighten control over the nuclear black market. It would support present US hegemony by eliminating the so-called suicide defense prepared by North Korea and Iran. Giving up nuclear weapons and accepting US hegemony may be the price that humanity must pay to avert the threat of total annihilation.
Several countries including Libya, Ukraine, Belarus, have given up their nukes as not worth the high cost of development and maintenance. Others have found the prestige of having nukes to be over-rated. And others have found themselves under an informal US nuclear umbrella: Japan, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Israel, and others. And finally, nations that find US hegemony onerous and oppressive, with or without nuclear weapons, could ally themselves for resistance.
These leaders recognize that nuclear weapons are the most inhumane and dangerous ever conceived, that kill and maim without discrimination, the only weapons ever invented that could destroy all life on planet Earth. That must not happen. Disarmament is the only answer: If any country has nuclear weapons, others will want them. Then, some day they will be used by accident, mistake, or design - the ultimate catastrophe.
In The Wall Street Journal and other venues, these conservative leaders argue for their dramatic reforms.
1. No first use of nuclear weapons
2. Immediate reduction of all nuclear arsenals
3. Immediate elimination of short-range nukes
4. Eventual elimination of long-range nukes
5. Guarding nukes and nuclear materials
6. Phasing out production of highly enriched uranium
7. Enhanced verification and enforcement procedures
8. Bringing into force the universal Comprehensive Test-ban Treaty to monitor and discourage cheating
Additional points about nuclear weapons
a. The US does not need to test nukes to maintain its current arsenal
b. The US and Russia own 95% of the world’s nukes and are cooperating in guarding inventories
c. The US and Russia have reduced their ICBM nukes to 2000 and are now negotiating further reductions to about 1600.
d. The US has not tested nukes since September 23, 1992, when Bush senior was president
e. For the CTBT treaty to go into effect, 44 specified countries with nuclear capacity must ratify. Of those countries, the following have not ratified: China, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Israel, North Korea, Pakistan, and USA.
During President Clinton’s administration, the CTBT was sent to the US Senate for approval. It failed to reach the 67 votes necessary for ratification, but did attain a majority, 51- 49. In 2010, there will be another attempt to reach 67, hopefully by persuading seven Republicans to join 60 Democrats. Henry Kissinger et al should be helpful in this effort.
Some conservatives and military leaders believe that a worldwide policy of no nukes would be the most advantageous policy for the US, enhancing and protecting its status as the only military superpower with the capability to deploy overwhelming non-nuclear forces anywhere on earth in a matter of hours. It would legitimize US action against alleged rogue states and tighten control over the nuclear black market. It would support present US hegemony by eliminating the so-called suicide defense prepared by North Korea and Iran. Giving up nuclear weapons and accepting US hegemony may be the price that humanity must pay to avert the threat of total annihilation.
Several countries including Libya, Ukraine, Belarus, have given up their nukes as not worth the high cost of development and maintenance. Others have found the prestige of having nukes to be over-rated. And others have found themselves under an informal US nuclear umbrella: Japan, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Israel, and others. And finally, nations that find US hegemony onerous and oppressive, with or without nuclear weapons, could ally themselves for resistance.
Friday, October 9, 2009
Obama Plays Hardball with the Russians
Obama Plays Hardball with the Russians
By Jerome Grossman
In 1981, at the height of the Cold War, Ronald Reagan was inaugurated president of the United States. He immediately heightened tensions using belligerent rhetoric attacking the Soviet Union as "The Evil Empire" while authorizing an enormous military buildup against "the focus of evil in the modern world."
A significant number of Americans were worried about the harsh negatives of the Reagan initiatives. One manifestation was the Nuclear Freeze Movement that sought to decrease tensions as well as the nuclear buildup by limiting all nuclear arsenals at current levels as a first step toward their eventual elimination.
Reagan showed his annoyance criticizing "the placard carriers", giving little credence to the groundswell of support for the freeze campaign that swept America in 1981 – 82. This grass-roots uprising was a major factor behind Reagan's March 1983 speech that initiated the missile defense program (SDI) that continues to waste billions of dollars in the military budget.
Among the protesters supporting the Freeze was Columbia University senior Barack Obama, who in 1983 published a plea in a campus newsmagazine for "a nuclear free world" opposing SDI and military industrial interests “with their billion-dollar erector sets."
Reagan's attachment to the concept of missile defense started a very expensive research program that has produced meager results while leading to continued wrangling with non-communist Russia over their installation in Eastern Europe. Reagan's SDI simply will not defend against a sophisticated missile equipped with decoys.
Obama recently announced that he was cancelling the missile defense shield installations in Poland and Czech Republic. He has been severely and incorrectly criticized by military hawks for this “unilateral” concession, but it wasn’t unilateral and it was a deal, not a concession The SDI system was always a bargaining chip and Obama was the first president who knew how to use it.
He eliminated the ineffective shield in Eastern Europe in exchange for much more valuable Russian concessions and cooperation on a variety of issues. Here are some of the particulars
1. Russia allows U.S. military flights over its territory, planes carrying soldiers and equipment to Afghanistan.
2. Russia allows Kyrgyzstan to give the U.S. an important military base on the Russian border.
3. Russia acquiesces to the U. S. training local troops in the state of Georgia with which Russia is at odds
4. Russia promises that it will not help Iran develop an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) capable of reaching the U.S.
5. Russia agrees to support the U.S. position on North Korea
6. Russia acquiesces in the expansion of U.S. influence in the Ukraine.
These are the Russian concessions we know about. There may be more. The media has failed to make the connection and to evaluate their importance in the continuing U. S. wars in Southeast Asia. At the same time, this change in U.S. policy gives a significant political victory to Russian leaders Putin and Medvedev, strengthening their positions at home and around the world.
When will Obama take political advantage of his coup? Probably during his 2012 reelection campaign when his record will be before the electorate and he will boast of his accomplishments on health-care and obtaining Russian cooperation. At the same time, Obama has fulfilled the promise he made at Columbia in 1983 to change policy on missile defense and to work for a world without nuclear weapons. Obama has proven that he knows how to play political hardball-at least with the Russians.
By Jerome Grossman
In 1981, at the height of the Cold War, Ronald Reagan was inaugurated president of the United States. He immediately heightened tensions using belligerent rhetoric attacking the Soviet Union as "The Evil Empire" while authorizing an enormous military buildup against "the focus of evil in the modern world."
A significant number of Americans were worried about the harsh negatives of the Reagan initiatives. One manifestation was the Nuclear Freeze Movement that sought to decrease tensions as well as the nuclear buildup by limiting all nuclear arsenals at current levels as a first step toward their eventual elimination.
Reagan showed his annoyance criticizing "the placard carriers", giving little credence to the groundswell of support for the freeze campaign that swept America in 1981 – 82. This grass-roots uprising was a major factor behind Reagan's March 1983 speech that initiated the missile defense program (SDI) that continues to waste billions of dollars in the military budget.
Among the protesters supporting the Freeze was Columbia University senior Barack Obama, who in 1983 published a plea in a campus newsmagazine for "a nuclear free world" opposing SDI and military industrial interests “with their billion-dollar erector sets."
Reagan's attachment to the concept of missile defense started a very expensive research program that has produced meager results while leading to continued wrangling with non-communist Russia over their installation in Eastern Europe. Reagan's SDI simply will not defend against a sophisticated missile equipped with decoys.
Obama recently announced that he was cancelling the missile defense shield installations in Poland and Czech Republic. He has been severely and incorrectly criticized by military hawks for this “unilateral” concession, but it wasn’t unilateral and it was a deal, not a concession The SDI system was always a bargaining chip and Obama was the first president who knew how to use it.
He eliminated the ineffective shield in Eastern Europe in exchange for much more valuable Russian concessions and cooperation on a variety of issues. Here are some of the particulars
1. Russia allows U.S. military flights over its territory, planes carrying soldiers and equipment to Afghanistan.
2. Russia allows Kyrgyzstan to give the U.S. an important military base on the Russian border.
3. Russia acquiesces to the U. S. training local troops in the state of Georgia with which Russia is at odds
4. Russia promises that it will not help Iran develop an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) capable of reaching the U.S.
5. Russia agrees to support the U.S. position on North Korea
6. Russia acquiesces in the expansion of U.S. influence in the Ukraine.
These are the Russian concessions we know about. There may be more. The media has failed to make the connection and to evaluate their importance in the continuing U. S. wars in Southeast Asia. At the same time, this change in U.S. policy gives a significant political victory to Russian leaders Putin and Medvedev, strengthening their positions at home and around the world.
When will Obama take political advantage of his coup? Probably during his 2012 reelection campaign when his record will be before the electorate and he will boast of his accomplishments on health-care and obtaining Russian cooperation. At the same time, Obama has fulfilled the promise he made at Columbia in 1983 to change policy on missile defense and to work for a world without nuclear weapons. Obama has proven that he knows how to play political hardball-at least with the Russians.
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Take the Nuclear Option Off the Table
Take the Nuclear Option Off the Table
By Jerome Grossman
On January 13 and 14, Hillary Rodham Clinton testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in the confirmation process for her nomination to be Secretary of State. She was approved by the committee 16 -1 and is sure to win confirmation in the Senate.
While the office has undergone many changes since it was established in 1789, for several generations the State Department has concentrated on diplomacy in all aspects of foreign-policy. However, in her testimony before the committee, Clinton said she would use “smart power” including “diplomatic, economic, military, political, legal and cultural.” To some, the inclusion of “military power” as though it were within her authority, was a surprise. Further, she went on to specify that “military force will sometimes be necessary, and we will rely on it to protect our people and our interests when and where needed as a last resort.”
Clinton's “last resort” became clear when she discussed relations with Iran saying “We are not taking any option off the table at all.” That is breathtaking and frightening. For more than a year, the US has been openly threatening to bomb Iran and one of the options is the use of nuclear weapons. “All options are on the table”, said President George W. Bush, Vice President Richard Cheney, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and most of the candidates in the 2008 presidential race.
Such threats are irresponsible and dangerous. Eight other countries have nuclear weapons and they all have real or perceived potential enemies. The weapons are on hair trigger alert as the controlling military scan potential enemies for indications of a possible nuclear strike. Threats, direct or indirect, as in “all weapons are on the table”, set up unstable situations that might lead to their use through error or faulty intelligence. Take them off the table.
All nations should publicly pledge not to be the first to use nuclear weapons-or threaten to use them. United Nations Charter, Article 2, Section 4, states that “All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.” When the US Congress ratified the Charter and the President signed it, the Charter became United States law. Any threat violates American law.
President Obama: tell your appointees to stop saying “All options are on the table.” The world knows this threatens the use of nuclear weapons, weapons of mass destruction that would unleash a hell on earth that might destroy civilization. Please stop it now: Yes. you can
By Jerome Grossman
On January 13 and 14, Hillary Rodham Clinton testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in the confirmation process for her nomination to be Secretary of State. She was approved by the committee 16 -1 and is sure to win confirmation in the Senate.
While the office has undergone many changes since it was established in 1789, for several generations the State Department has concentrated on diplomacy in all aspects of foreign-policy. However, in her testimony before the committee, Clinton said she would use “smart power” including “diplomatic, economic, military, political, legal and cultural.” To some, the inclusion of “military power” as though it were within her authority, was a surprise. Further, she went on to specify that “military force will sometimes be necessary, and we will rely on it to protect our people and our interests when and where needed as a last resort.”
Clinton's “last resort” became clear when she discussed relations with Iran saying “We are not taking any option off the table at all.” That is breathtaking and frightening. For more than a year, the US has been openly threatening to bomb Iran and one of the options is the use of nuclear weapons. “All options are on the table”, said President George W. Bush, Vice President Richard Cheney, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and most of the candidates in the 2008 presidential race.
Such threats are irresponsible and dangerous. Eight other countries have nuclear weapons and they all have real or perceived potential enemies. The weapons are on hair trigger alert as the controlling military scan potential enemies for indications of a possible nuclear strike. Threats, direct or indirect, as in “all weapons are on the table”, set up unstable situations that might lead to their use through error or faulty intelligence. Take them off the table.
All nations should publicly pledge not to be the first to use nuclear weapons-or threaten to use them. United Nations Charter, Article 2, Section 4, states that “All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.” When the US Congress ratified the Charter and the President signed it, the Charter became United States law. Any threat violates American law.
President Obama: tell your appointees to stop saying “All options are on the table.” The world knows this threatens the use of nuclear weapons, weapons of mass destruction that would unleash a hell on earth that might destroy civilization. Please stop it now: Yes. you can
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
The Rockets From Gaza
The Rockets From Gaza
By Jerome Grossman
There are valid fears in Israel, in the rest of the Middle East, and in Western Europe that Iran could develop nuclear weapons. In fact, nuclear weapons in the possession of any nation constitute an existential threat to all humanity. Nine nations possess nuclear weapons: The United States, United Kingdom, China, India, Pakistan…..and Israel. Israel neither confirms nor denies possession, has never tested, but is believed to have between 100 and 200 nukes
However, there is a more immediate nuclear danger to Israel and the entire region: the possibility that the enemies of Israel could use non-nuclear rockets to bomb Israel's plutonium-production reactor at Dimona. The City of Dimona is situated in the Negev Desert and is the seat of Israel’s Negev Nuclear Research Center. This danger is highlighted by the hundreds of rockets now being fired at targets in Israel from Gaza, some fired by Hamas, some fired by others in Gaza in homemade style.
Israel's fears are justified by recent history. As reported by the Arms Control Association, in 1980 Iranian aircraft attempted to destroy Iraq's Osirak reactor, in 1981 Israel finished the job; in the 1980s Iraqi aircraft attacked Iran's reactors; in 1991 the US bombed an Iraqi reactor; in 1991 Iraq launched SCUD-B rockets toward Dimona but missed.
In no case did these raids on nuclear facilities cause radiological consequences. The outcome of a successful strike on Israel's reactor at the Dimona could be catastrophic, releasing the radioactive contents of the plant causing radiological damage to all life in the area.
Should Israel close Dimona, a place of symbolic significance as well as one of the nation's most valued assets, in order to avoid the radiological consequences of a military strike on Israel's plutonium-production reactor? Or should Israel rely on its capability to retaliate against an attacker if that attacker is a nation-state? But what if the attacker is an individual or small group acting on their own?
Multiple factors may drive Israel's adversaries to hit the plant: it's centrality to Israel's nuclear weapons program, revenge for Israel's strikes on neighboring states, and most dangerously, an attack to intentionally release radioactivity as a weapon of terrorism.
Buried in the protective mantle of secrecy, Israel must have already made its decision. Let us hope it is the correct one. The problem is another illustration of the greatest dilemma of our time: How to bring nuclear weapons programs under control and then to eliminate them entirely.
By Jerome Grossman
There are valid fears in Israel, in the rest of the Middle East, and in Western Europe that Iran could develop nuclear weapons. In fact, nuclear weapons in the possession of any nation constitute an existential threat to all humanity. Nine nations possess nuclear weapons: The United States, United Kingdom, China, India, Pakistan…..and Israel. Israel neither confirms nor denies possession, has never tested, but is believed to have between 100 and 200 nukes
However, there is a more immediate nuclear danger to Israel and the entire region: the possibility that the enemies of Israel could use non-nuclear rockets to bomb Israel's plutonium-production reactor at Dimona. The City of Dimona is situated in the Negev Desert and is the seat of Israel’s Negev Nuclear Research Center. This danger is highlighted by the hundreds of rockets now being fired at targets in Israel from Gaza, some fired by Hamas, some fired by others in Gaza in homemade style.
Israel's fears are justified by recent history. As reported by the Arms Control Association, in 1980 Iranian aircraft attempted to destroy Iraq's Osirak reactor, in 1981 Israel finished the job; in the 1980s Iraqi aircraft attacked Iran's reactors; in 1991 the US bombed an Iraqi reactor; in 1991 Iraq launched SCUD-B rockets toward Dimona but missed.
In no case did these raids on nuclear facilities cause radiological consequences. The outcome of a successful strike on Israel's reactor at the Dimona could be catastrophic, releasing the radioactive contents of the plant causing radiological damage to all life in the area.
Should Israel close Dimona, a place of symbolic significance as well as one of the nation's most valued assets, in order to avoid the radiological consequences of a military strike on Israel's plutonium-production reactor? Or should Israel rely on its capability to retaliate against an attacker if that attacker is a nation-state? But what if the attacker is an individual or small group acting on their own?
Multiple factors may drive Israel's adversaries to hit the plant: it's centrality to Israel's nuclear weapons program, revenge for Israel's strikes on neighboring states, and most dangerously, an attack to intentionally release radioactivity as a weapon of terrorism.
Buried in the protective mantle of secrecy, Israel must have already made its decision. Let us hope it is the correct one. The problem is another illustration of the greatest dilemma of our time: How to bring nuclear weapons programs under control and then to eliminate them entirely.
Sunday, December 28, 2008
Eliminating Nuclear Weapons
Eliminating Nuclear Weapons
By Jerome Grossman
In August 1945, the United States dropped two atomic bombs on Japan, bringing death to 300,000 human beings, creating pain and endless suffering in the lives of countless others. Now nine countries have nuclear bombs; many more have the capacity to make them.
Today, there are, in combat readiness, enough bombs to kill the world population many times over….. And there is no defense. Nuclear war could happen any day - by accident, by design, by miscalculation, by terrorism, by madness. The weapons are still on hair-trigger alert, in this country and abroad.
The current review conference of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty proved that two groups of nations are in collision. The possessors of nuclear weapons want to stop the proliferators and proliferators demand that the nuclear powers reduce and eventually get rid of their own nuclear arsenals in accordance with their treaty commitments.
The United States needs to re-examine its policies that envision an active role for nuclear weapons in future wars and building a new generation of nuclear weapons. The American case against the nuclear weapons plans of Iran and North Korea would be greatly strengthened if the United States were to cut drastically its own stockpiles of nuclear weapons, abandon plans to build new nuclear weapons and approve the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.
What happens in nuclear war?
1. Blast - creates enormous pressure, topples buildings and trees. Kills people by shock wave over pressure and wind, by flying debris, by throwing people against fixed objects and by crushing them in collapsing buildings.
2. Fireball - temperatures up to millions of degrees ignite raging fires and kill by flash-burn. People can be burned at great distances. Causes blindness
3. Prompt radiation - kills people close to the explosion by large dose. Smaller doses can cause acute delayed radiation sickness and possibly death. Affects future generations genetically.
4. Fallout radiation - spreads out to large distances, sometimes killing people hundreds of miles from explosion. Causes leukemia and other forms of cancer everywhere on Earth for decades. Increase incidences of stillbirth, tumors, congenital malformations and cataracts.
5. Environment - pollutes water, earth and air. Destroys forests and agriculture by heat and blast. Death by radiation of animals and birds, while radiation resistant bacteria, fungi, viruses and insects flourish.
6. Social disorganization – disruption of medical facilities and energy production, breakdown of government, authority and disaster relief, spreading of disease and epidemics. Fighting for scarce food supplies, despair at the enormous task of reconstruction - with the possibility of another nuclear war in the offing.
On the December 21, on the Fox Television News Sunday hosted by Chris Wallace, Vice President Richard Cheney, made the following stunning statement:
"The president of United States now for 50 years is followed at all times, 24 hours a day, by a military aide carrying a football that contains the nuclear codes that he would use and be authorized to use in the event of a nuclear attack on the United States. He could launch a kind of devastating attack the world's never seen. He doesn't have to check with anybody. He doesn't have to call the Congress. He doesn't have to check with the courts. He has that authority because of the nature of the world we live in."
By Jerome Grossman
In August 1945, the United States dropped two atomic bombs on Japan, bringing death to 300,000 human beings, creating pain and endless suffering in the lives of countless others. Now nine countries have nuclear bombs; many more have the capacity to make them.
Today, there are, in combat readiness, enough bombs to kill the world population many times over….. And there is no defense. Nuclear war could happen any day - by accident, by design, by miscalculation, by terrorism, by madness. The weapons are still on hair-trigger alert, in this country and abroad.
The current review conference of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty proved that two groups of nations are in collision. The possessors of nuclear weapons want to stop the proliferators and proliferators demand that the nuclear powers reduce and eventually get rid of their own nuclear arsenals in accordance with their treaty commitments.
The United States needs to re-examine its policies that envision an active role for nuclear weapons in future wars and building a new generation of nuclear weapons. The American case against the nuclear weapons plans of Iran and North Korea would be greatly strengthened if the United States were to cut drastically its own stockpiles of nuclear weapons, abandon plans to build new nuclear weapons and approve the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.
What happens in nuclear war?
1. Blast - creates enormous pressure, topples buildings and trees. Kills people by shock wave over pressure and wind, by flying debris, by throwing people against fixed objects and by crushing them in collapsing buildings.
2. Fireball - temperatures up to millions of degrees ignite raging fires and kill by flash-burn. People can be burned at great distances. Causes blindness
3. Prompt radiation - kills people close to the explosion by large dose. Smaller doses can cause acute delayed radiation sickness and possibly death. Affects future generations genetically.
4. Fallout radiation - spreads out to large distances, sometimes killing people hundreds of miles from explosion. Causes leukemia and other forms of cancer everywhere on Earth for decades. Increase incidences of stillbirth, tumors, congenital malformations and cataracts.
5. Environment - pollutes water, earth and air. Destroys forests and agriculture by heat and blast. Death by radiation of animals and birds, while radiation resistant bacteria, fungi, viruses and insects flourish.
6. Social disorganization – disruption of medical facilities and energy production, breakdown of government, authority and disaster relief, spreading of disease and epidemics. Fighting for scarce food supplies, despair at the enormous task of reconstruction - with the possibility of another nuclear war in the offing.
On the December 21, on the Fox Television News Sunday hosted by Chris Wallace, Vice President Richard Cheney, made the following stunning statement:
"The president of United States now for 50 years is followed at all times, 24 hours a day, by a military aide carrying a football that contains the nuclear codes that he would use and be authorized to use in the event of a nuclear attack on the United States. He could launch a kind of devastating attack the world's never seen. He doesn't have to check with anybody. He doesn't have to call the Congress. He doesn't have to check with the courts. He has that authority because of the nature of the world we live in."
Sunday, July 20, 2008
The U.S. and Israel on Iran
The U.S. and Israel on Iran
By Jerome Grossman
The United States of America and the State of Israel are the closest of allies, sharing intelligence, weapons, military research, among many other joint ventures. They support each other's policies at the United Nations and other international venues with only rare exceptions.
Policy on Iran may be one of those rare exceptions. Responsible Israeli officials have made their positions clear: Iran must not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons and Iranian protestations that their development of nuclear power is only for civilian electricity is not to be believed. Furthermore, that Iranian President Ahmedinejad's threat "to wipe Israel off the map" represents Iranian policy.
Some Israeli leaders want to launch a preemptive attack. Israeli official Shaul Mofaz said recently, "If Iran continues its program to develop nuclear weapons, we will attack it."
In a New York Times op-ed, July 18, 2008, Benny Morris, an influential moderate and former Israeli official warned, "Israel will almost surely attack Iran's nuclear sites in the next four to seven months."
Recently, the Israeli Air Force conducted a massive war game over the Mediterranean that was interpreted as a demonstration of Israeli ability to mount a serious and effective attack on Iranian installations.
However, US policy now seems to be headed in another direction. In the past, American policy placed Iran in the Axis of Evil, condemned it as a terrorist regime, passed a resolution in the U.S. Senate demanding regime change, appropriated money for Iranian dissidents, and refused to establish any diplomatic contact with the Iranian government.
Now, US Defense Secretary Robert Gates says, “We are not planning for a war with Iran,” Admiral Mike Mullen Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff supports him. Accusations of Iranian interference in Iraq have diminished. Most importantly, the Bush administration is planning to establish an American diplomatic presence in Iran for the first time since Iranian extremists seized American hostages and occupied the US Embassy in Tehran in 1979.
Is the US sending a message to Israel not to attack Iran? Is the US sending a message to Middle East nations disassociating itself from an Israeli attack? Has US intelligence decided that the Israelis are serious in their threats?
The effects of an Israeli - Iran war would be world wide. The Muslim world would explode and attack western interests everywhere they could. Rulers of Muslim nations friendly to the west and clients of the US might be overthrown. The price of oil would probably reach $400 per barrel assuming that any oil at all would be shipped to the west. Worldwide energy shortages and commercial disruption would likely cause a financial collapse.
The stakes could not be higher, considering that Barack Obama told the US Israeli lobby AIPAC on June 4, "My goal will be to eliminate the threat (to Israel) posed by Iran. I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. (Pause) Everything. The pause is scary.
By Jerome Grossman
The United States of America and the State of Israel are the closest of allies, sharing intelligence, weapons, military research, among many other joint ventures. They support each other's policies at the United Nations and other international venues with only rare exceptions.
Policy on Iran may be one of those rare exceptions. Responsible Israeli officials have made their positions clear: Iran must not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons and Iranian protestations that their development of nuclear power is only for civilian electricity is not to be believed. Furthermore, that Iranian President Ahmedinejad's threat "to wipe Israel off the map" represents Iranian policy.
Some Israeli leaders want to launch a preemptive attack. Israeli official Shaul Mofaz said recently, "If Iran continues its program to develop nuclear weapons, we will attack it."
In a New York Times op-ed, July 18, 2008, Benny Morris, an influential moderate and former Israeli official warned, "Israel will almost surely attack Iran's nuclear sites in the next four to seven months."
Recently, the Israeli Air Force conducted a massive war game over the Mediterranean that was interpreted as a demonstration of Israeli ability to mount a serious and effective attack on Iranian installations.
However, US policy now seems to be headed in another direction. In the past, American policy placed Iran in the Axis of Evil, condemned it as a terrorist regime, passed a resolution in the U.S. Senate demanding regime change, appropriated money for Iranian dissidents, and refused to establish any diplomatic contact with the Iranian government.
Now, US Defense Secretary Robert Gates says, “We are not planning for a war with Iran,” Admiral Mike Mullen Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff supports him. Accusations of Iranian interference in Iraq have diminished. Most importantly, the Bush administration is planning to establish an American diplomatic presence in Iran for the first time since Iranian extremists seized American hostages and occupied the US Embassy in Tehran in 1979.
Is the US sending a message to Israel not to attack Iran? Is the US sending a message to Middle East nations disassociating itself from an Israeli attack? Has US intelligence decided that the Israelis are serious in their threats?
The effects of an Israeli - Iran war would be world wide. The Muslim world would explode and attack western interests everywhere they could. Rulers of Muslim nations friendly to the west and clients of the US might be overthrown. The price of oil would probably reach $400 per barrel assuming that any oil at all would be shipped to the west. Worldwide energy shortages and commercial disruption would likely cause a financial collapse.
The stakes could not be higher, considering that Barack Obama told the US Israeli lobby AIPAC on June 4, "My goal will be to eliminate the threat (to Israel) posed by Iran. I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. (Pause) Everything. The pause is scary.
Monday, June 23, 2008
A Message from Council for A Livable World
A Message from Council for A Livable World
The older generation has an important political and moral responsibility to educate the younger generation about the dangers of nuclear weapons and how these dangers can be defused.
Freed from a constant nuclear standoff as a dominant fact of international life, the younger generations have never experienced a face off with another nuclear superpower that could have exploded in mere moments into a nuclear holocaust.
Nor did these newer generations hide under their desks in elementary school as a practice exercise for nuclear war or contemplate civil defense shelters in which to survive for weeks or months.
With the median age in America now about 36; fifty percent of the nation has little memory of events before the 1980’s. Hiroshima and Nagasaki don’t carry the same emotional and moral impact.
In 2007, White House Press Secretary Dana Perino, born in 1972, confessed her mystification when a reporter mentioned the Cuban Missile crisis. “Wasn’t that like the Bay of Pigs thing?” she later asked her husband.
Now is a good time to remind all six billion humans and especially the younger generations that the global nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) had its 40th anniversary on July 1. The NPT, with its rules for nuclear weapons and nuclear power, makes it more difficult for states without nuclear weapons to obtain or build them.
The treaty has not worked perfectly, but has helped sustain a near-miracle that only four additional countries beyond the original five possessors have nuclear weapons. Equally important, Article VI of the treaty commits the United States, Russia, China, Britain and France to achieve nuclear disarmament.
The anniversary of the non-proliferation treaty should be celebrated - mainly by strengthening it and pursuing the vision of a world free of nuclear weapons. Popular education and political support for these efforts must be expanded; the older generation has the memories and the fears to lead the way
Jerome Grossman is Chairman Emeritus of Council for A Livable World
The older generation has an important political and moral responsibility to educate the younger generation about the dangers of nuclear weapons and how these dangers can be defused.
Freed from a constant nuclear standoff as a dominant fact of international life, the younger generations have never experienced a face off with another nuclear superpower that could have exploded in mere moments into a nuclear holocaust.
Nor did these newer generations hide under their desks in elementary school as a practice exercise for nuclear war or contemplate civil defense shelters in which to survive for weeks or months.
With the median age in America now about 36; fifty percent of the nation has little memory of events before the 1980’s. Hiroshima and Nagasaki don’t carry the same emotional and moral impact.
In 2007, White House Press Secretary Dana Perino, born in 1972, confessed her mystification when a reporter mentioned the Cuban Missile crisis. “Wasn’t that like the Bay of Pigs thing?” she later asked her husband.
Now is a good time to remind all six billion humans and especially the younger generations that the global nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) had its 40th anniversary on July 1. The NPT, with its rules for nuclear weapons and nuclear power, makes it more difficult for states without nuclear weapons to obtain or build them.
The treaty has not worked perfectly, but has helped sustain a near-miracle that only four additional countries beyond the original five possessors have nuclear weapons. Equally important, Article VI of the treaty commits the United States, Russia, China, Britain and France to achieve nuclear disarmament.
The anniversary of the non-proliferation treaty should be celebrated - mainly by strengthening it and pursuing the vision of a world free of nuclear weapons. Popular education and political support for these efforts must be expanded; the older generation has the memories and the fears to lead the way
Jerome Grossman is Chairman Emeritus of Council for A Livable World
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
Yes, We Can Abolish Nuclear Weapons
Yes, We Can Abolish Nuclear Weapons
By Jerome Grossman
A major disappointment in the presidential race has been the failure of the three surviving candidates to address nuclear weapons, the greatest existential threat to planet Earth, to the human race itself, and of course, by extension to the United States of America.
The failure is extraordinary because the abolition of nuclear weapons has been raised recently and repeatedly by some of the most respected and powerful personages in the U.S. military, the federal government, and corporate America. How could a serious election virtually ignore this powerful initiative?
A January 2007 op-ed in the Wall Street Journal by former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, former Secretary of State George Shultz, former Senator Sam Nunn and former Secretary of Defense William Perry called for a “world free of nuclear weapons” and urged the United States to lead an international effort to reduce nuclear weapons stockpiles. They argued for a multilateral verifiable plan with strong enforcement mechanisms. They stated: “Nuclear weapons today present tremendous dangers, but also an historic opportunity. U.S. leadership will be required to take the world to the next stage -- to a solid consensus for reversing reliance on nuclear weapons globally as a vital contribution to preventing their proliferation into potentially dangerous hands, and ultimately ending them as a threat to the world.”
Last month, in response to a question about her reaction to Iran attacking Israel with nuclear weapons, Hillary Clinton said that she would “obliterate” Iran in that eventuality. In a later interview she again threatened “massive retaliation.”
Her remarks were unwise and destabilizing, echoing the irresponsible statements of President Ahmadinejad of Iran who has threatened to “wipe Israel off the map” and then tried to modify the statement. Hillary knows not to answer a hypothetical question, particularly when Iran does not have nuclear weapons according to the U.S. National Intelligence Estimate that stated that Iran ended its unsuccessful program to build them in 2003. Clinton should have used the question to rally support for stopping the proliferation of nuclear weapons and the reduction of nuclear arsenals that exist in eight countries. She might have pointed out that such an attack was unlikely because Israel deters other countries with its own nukes, some of them on submarines constantly patrolling the Mediterranean.
Overt threats like those by Ahmadinejad and Clinton to use nuclear weapons are dangerous because they initiate a process that might become uncontrollable. Nuclear war must never happen and even to contemplate it weakens international inhibitions of their use.
Most importantly, Clinton wasted an opportunity to rally support behind the well-documented and responsible proposal to reduce and eventually eliminate all nuclear weapons. That is the crucial issue for the survival of America. Will the next president accept the challenge?
By Jerome Grossman
A major disappointment in the presidential race has been the failure of the three surviving candidates to address nuclear weapons, the greatest existential threat to planet Earth, to the human race itself, and of course, by extension to the United States of America.
The failure is extraordinary because the abolition of nuclear weapons has been raised recently and repeatedly by some of the most respected and powerful personages in the U.S. military, the federal government, and corporate America. How could a serious election virtually ignore this powerful initiative?
A January 2007 op-ed in the Wall Street Journal by former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, former Secretary of State George Shultz, former Senator Sam Nunn and former Secretary of Defense William Perry called for a “world free of nuclear weapons” and urged the United States to lead an international effort to reduce nuclear weapons stockpiles. They argued for a multilateral verifiable plan with strong enforcement mechanisms. They stated: “Nuclear weapons today present tremendous dangers, but also an historic opportunity. U.S. leadership will be required to take the world to the next stage -- to a solid consensus for reversing reliance on nuclear weapons globally as a vital contribution to preventing their proliferation into potentially dangerous hands, and ultimately ending them as a threat to the world.”
Last month, in response to a question about her reaction to Iran attacking Israel with nuclear weapons, Hillary Clinton said that she would “obliterate” Iran in that eventuality. In a later interview she again threatened “massive retaliation.”
Her remarks were unwise and destabilizing, echoing the irresponsible statements of President Ahmadinejad of Iran who has threatened to “wipe Israel off the map” and then tried to modify the statement. Hillary knows not to answer a hypothetical question, particularly when Iran does not have nuclear weapons according to the U.S. National Intelligence Estimate that stated that Iran ended its unsuccessful program to build them in 2003. Clinton should have used the question to rally support for stopping the proliferation of nuclear weapons and the reduction of nuclear arsenals that exist in eight countries. She might have pointed out that such an attack was unlikely because Israel deters other countries with its own nukes, some of them on submarines constantly patrolling the Mediterranean.
Overt threats like those by Ahmadinejad and Clinton to use nuclear weapons are dangerous because they initiate a process that might become uncontrollable. Nuclear war must never happen and even to contemplate it weakens international inhibitions of their use.
Most importantly, Clinton wasted an opportunity to rally support behind the well-documented and responsible proposal to reduce and eventually eliminate all nuclear weapons. That is the crucial issue for the survival of America. Will the next president accept the challenge?
Monday, December 24, 2007
The Most Important Issue
The Most Important Issue
By Jerome Grossman
President Ronald Reagan said that nuclear weapons are “totally irrational, totally inhumane, good for nothing but killing, possibly destructive of life on earth and civilization.” On March 23, 1983, President Reagan's proposed to “eliminate the weapons themselves.” In 1985, at their Geneva Summit Conference, President Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev made their joint statement that “a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.”
In January 2007, a conference on nuclear weapons was held at the very conservative Hoover Institution at Stanford University. Four of the participants produced an article “A world free of nuclear weapons” that appeared in the Wall Street Journal: Henry Kissinger, Secretary of State under President Nixon, George Shultz, Secretary of State under President Reagan, William Perry, Secretary of Defense under President Clinton, and former Senator Sam Nunn of Georgia. All were conservatives; two were Republicans, two Democrats. All knew a lot about nuclear weapons. They quoted Reagan and spoke from experience, urging implementation of the neglected goal of worldwide nuclear arsenal reductions, negotiated in full embrace of the ideal of abolition.
The four conservative gurus had a political plan-to insert into the presidentential campaign a serious discussion of the most important issue facing the United States and the world. Their conservative backgrounds would allow their ideas about nuclear security to be accepted as a framework for a national colloquy, bypassing the prejudice against liberals and peaceniks in imperial America.
However, it did not happen. The Republican candidates simply ignored the issue. The Democrats acknowledged the dangers, but chose to focus their campaigns on Iraq, healthcare, immigration, personality and electability. For the media and the organizers of the repetitious and boring debates, nuclear weapons abolition was ignored.
But the real failure must be assigned to the voters who have not demanded answers from the candidates. They know that the arsenals of the U.S. and Russia are powerful enough to irradiate the entire planet, to threaten the existence of the human species, to destroy civilization. They must realize that if North Korea, Iran and Pakistan can manufacture nuclear weapons, that capability is within the range of dozens of other countries, that nuclear weapons are the great equalizers reducing the great powers’ ability to use conventional force. And nuclear terrorism may be just around the corner.
It is only a few minutes before midnight on the atomic clock. Time for a wakeup and time to prepare for abolition by adopting:
A declaration of no first use of nuclear weapons
A universal policy of taking all nukes off hair trigger alert
An international plan to secure all nuclear materials
A ban on building new nukes
A ban on all nukes in space
Ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty
Reductions in the size of nuclear forces in all states that possess them
Voters of America: ask your favorite candidates for President, Senate, and House of Representatives what they are doing to save the world from nuclear annihilation -- the most important issue of our time.
By Jerome Grossman
President Ronald Reagan said that nuclear weapons are “totally irrational, totally inhumane, good for nothing but killing, possibly destructive of life on earth and civilization.” On March 23, 1983, President Reagan's proposed to “eliminate the weapons themselves.” In 1985, at their Geneva Summit Conference, President Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev made their joint statement that “a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.”
In January 2007, a conference on nuclear weapons was held at the very conservative Hoover Institution at Stanford University. Four of the participants produced an article “A world free of nuclear weapons” that appeared in the Wall Street Journal: Henry Kissinger, Secretary of State under President Nixon, George Shultz, Secretary of State under President Reagan, William Perry, Secretary of Defense under President Clinton, and former Senator Sam Nunn of Georgia. All were conservatives; two were Republicans, two Democrats. All knew a lot about nuclear weapons. They quoted Reagan and spoke from experience, urging implementation of the neglected goal of worldwide nuclear arsenal reductions, negotiated in full embrace of the ideal of abolition.
The four conservative gurus had a political plan-to insert into the presidentential campaign a serious discussion of the most important issue facing the United States and the world. Their conservative backgrounds would allow their ideas about nuclear security to be accepted as a framework for a national colloquy, bypassing the prejudice against liberals and peaceniks in imperial America.
However, it did not happen. The Republican candidates simply ignored the issue. The Democrats acknowledged the dangers, but chose to focus their campaigns on Iraq, healthcare, immigration, personality and electability. For the media and the organizers of the repetitious and boring debates, nuclear weapons abolition was ignored.
But the real failure must be assigned to the voters who have not demanded answers from the candidates. They know that the arsenals of the U.S. and Russia are powerful enough to irradiate the entire planet, to threaten the existence of the human species, to destroy civilization. They must realize that if North Korea, Iran and Pakistan can manufacture nuclear weapons, that capability is within the range of dozens of other countries, that nuclear weapons are the great equalizers reducing the great powers’ ability to use conventional force. And nuclear terrorism may be just around the corner.
It is only a few minutes before midnight on the atomic clock. Time for a wakeup and time to prepare for abolition by adopting:
A declaration of no first use of nuclear weapons
A universal policy of taking all nukes off hair trigger alert
An international plan to secure all nuclear materials
A ban on building new nukes
A ban on all nukes in space
Ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty
Reductions in the size of nuclear forces in all states that possess them
Voters of America: ask your favorite candidates for President, Senate, and House of Representatives what they are doing to save the world from nuclear annihilation -- the most important issue of our time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
