WHY
BAN NUCLEAR WEAPONS: ABOLISH THEM!
To roll back the rising waves of military
nuclearization (nuclear weaponization) and nuclear proliferation, five nuclear-weapon-free
zones (NWFZs) have been established:
(1) The Treaty of Tlatelolco, also known as the Treaty for
the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean,
effective since 22 April 1968, for blocking military nuclearization in the
region and binding all 33 nations in the world’s fourth largest continent.
(2) The Treaty of Rarotonga for the South Pacific NWFZ,
effective from 11 December 1986, for 13 states (not all) in Australasia,
including Australia, Cook Islands, Fiji, Kiribati, Nauru, New Zealand, Niue,
Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, and Vanuatu.
(3) The Treaty of Bangkok for the Southeast Asia NWFZ,
in force since 28 March 1997, for the 10 ASEAN countries.
(4) The Treaty on a
Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone (NWFZ) in Central Asia (CANWFZ), effective on 21 March 2009
for five states, including Kazakhstan once in possession of a formidable
nuclear arsenal.
(5) The Pelindaba Treaty for
Africa NWFZ,
in force since 15 July 2009, for all the 53 African nations in the world’s
second largest continent after Asia.
Of great significance for global nuclear disarmament,
military denuclearization (destruction of nuclear weapons) has so far been
completed in four countries: South Africa in 1990, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and
Belarus following the dissolution of the Soviet Union at the end of 1991.
Marking the closure of the Cold War, South Africa’s
President Frederick Willem de Klerk ordered in February 1990 the dismantling of
the country’s incipient nuclear arsenal, and destruction of its handful of
small atomic bombs.
In 1991 Ukraine had the world’s third largest nuclear
arsenal, with 176 intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and 1,240 nuclear
warheads.
In 1991 Kazakhstan had the world’s fourth largest
nuclear arsenal, which was equivalent to the combined nuclear forces of
Britain, France, and China. Kazakhstan had 104 of the world’s most powerful
ICBM, known as the SS-18 (Satan), each of which armed with 10 x 550 kiloton
nuclear warheads.
Way back in 1978 (when there were more than 50,000
nuclear warheads in the world, three times the number of nukes in 2018), the
United Nations stated at the first special session of the UN General Assembly
on disarmament:
“... Mankind today is confronted with an unprecedented
threat of self-extinction arising from the massive and competitive accumulation
of the most destructive weapons ever produced… we must halt the arms race and
proceed to disarmament or face annihilation.”
On 3 March 2016 the five Pacific island states of
Fiji, Nauru, Palau, Samoa, and Tuvalu submitted a working paper “Elements for a treaty banning nuclear
weapons”, for consideration by the UN General Assembly.
The High-5 stated in Introduction: “Nuclear weapons
pose a unique existential threat to all humanity. No nation is
invulnerable to their catastrophic, far-reaching and long-lasting effects.
Thus, every nation, whether nuclear-free or nuclear-armed, small or large, has
a direct interest in realizing a world without these indiscriminate, inhumane
weapons…”
They concluded: “… As States in a region that has
suffered greatly from devastating humanitarian consequences of nuclear testing
(some 300 nuclear test explosions from 1946 to 1996), we are firmly committed
to a global ban on nuclear weapons.”
Led by the nine vanguard
nations of Austria, Brazil, Indonesia, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand, Nigeria,
South Africa, and Thailand, 122 nations (63%, or nearly two-thirds, of the UN
membership) voted on 7 July 2017 for the landmark Treaty on the Prohibition
of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) aka the Nuclear Weapon Ban Treaty. Only the
Netherlands voted against, and Singapore abstained.
The TPNW is the first
legally binding international agreement to comprehensively prohibit nuclear
weapons and to eventually eliminate all of them. 50 signatory nations have to
ratify it into force.
As many as 51 states signed
the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons on 20 September 2017,
the first day of signing at the 72nd UN General Assembly in New
York.
When Malaysia’s Foreign
Minister Datuk Seri Anifah Aman signed the treaty, Wisma Putra in Kuala Lumpur
issued a statement, saying: “… It is hoped that the political and legal import
of this treaty will provide the much needed direction for further initiatives
aimed at the elimination of nuclear weapons and the maintenance of a world free
of nuclear weapons.”
So far 57 states have signed
the TPNW, the latest being Kazakhstan on 2 March 2018.
Seven signatories have
ratified the treaty: Guyana (South America), the Holy See, and Thailand on the
very first day of signing on 20 September 2017, Mexico (16 January 2018), Cuba
(30 January 2018), Palestine (22 March 2018), and Venezuela (27 March 2018).
Of the signatory countries in
the designated NWFZs, 17 (with 3 ratifications) are from Latin America and the
Caribbean, 16 from Africa, 7 Pacific, 6 ASEAN (including 1 ratification), and 1
Central Asia.
Five from Europe: the Holy See
(ratified on the first day of signing), Austria, Ireland, Liechlenstein, and
San Marino.
About half of the signatories
have small populations, particularly those in the Pacific, Central America and
the Caribbean, and a sprinkling over Africa. Small but spunky states, with a
strong passion for total nuclear disarmament.
Banning all nuclear weapons must, moreover, lead to
their complete abolition and destruction -- essentially to fully denuclearize
the world’s militaries as well as to free humanity and civilization from the
threat of nuclear annihilation.
(1) NUCLEAR ZERO:
TOWARDS
A WORLD WITHOUT NUCLEAR WEAPONS
The
Champions and Heroes
in
the Global Military Denuclearization Drive
(A) The Champions and Heroes
“The best authorities are unanimous in saying that a
war with H-bombs might possibly put an end to the human race. It is feared that
if many H-bombs are used there will be universal death, suddenly for a
minority, but for the majority a slow torture of disease and disintegration.
“Many warnings have been
uttered by eminent men of science and by authorities in military strategy. None
of them will say that the worst results are certain. What they do say is that
these results are possible, and no one can be sure that they will not be
realized. We have not found that the views of experts on this question depend
in any degree upon their politics or prejudices. They depend only, so far as
our researchers have revealed, upon the extent of the particular expert’s
knowledge. We have found that the men who know most are the most gloomy…
“We appeal as human beings to human beings: Remember
your humanity, and forget the rest. If you can do so, the way lies
open to a new Paradise; if you cannot, there lies before you the risk of
universal death…”
-- The Russel-Einstein Manifesto (1955) (1)
J.
B. Priestley wrote on 2 November 1957:
“… In plain words: now that Britain has told the world
she has the H-bomb she should announce as early as possible that she has done
with it, that she proposes to reject, in all circumstances, nuclear warfare…”
(2)
Many letters of support for the article led to the
launching of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) on 17 February
1958. The CND’s current strategic objectives include: The elimination of
British nuclear weapons (including canceling the Trident program) and global
abolition of nuclear weapons.
According to The Joint
Soviet-United States Statement on the Summit Meeting between Ronald Reagan
and Mikhail Gorbachev in Geneva on 19-21 November 1985, the first of 13
items has clearly, definitely, and strongly stated:
“The (two) sides, having discussed key security
issues, and conscious of the special responsibility of the USSR and the U.S.
for maintaining peace, have agreed that a nuclear war cannot be won and must
never be fought.
“Recognizing that any conflict
between the USSR and the U.S. could have catastrophic consequences, they
emphasized the importance of preventing any war between them, whether nuclear
or conventional.
“They will not seek military superiority.”
(3)
A supremely rational objective splendidly expressed,
but blatantly contradicted in permanent major power competition.
02.10.2023
20:45
“Long before the terrifying potential of the (nuclear)
arms race was recognized, there was a widespread instinctive abhorrence of
nuclear weapons, and a strong desire to get rid of them.
“Indeed, the very first resolution of the General
Assembly of the United Nations -- adopted unanimously (24 January1946) --
called for the elimination of nuclear w eapons. But the world was then
polarized by the bitter ideological struggle between East and West. There was
no chance to meet this call,” Joseph Rotblat recalled in his landmark
1995 Nobel Prize Lecture.
“I have to
bring to your notice a terrifying reality: with the development of nuclear
weapons, Man has acquired, for the first time in history, the technical means
to destroy the whole of civilization in a single act…”
Rotblat’s
message: “To prevent this disaster -- for the sake of humanity -- we must
get rid of all nuclear weapons…
“We have the technical means to create
a nuclear-weapon-free (NWF) world in about a decade…” (4)
According to the UK multi-faith statement
issued in 2015 on nuclear weapons:
“Nuclear weapons are by their nature indiscriminate in
their effect. Any use of nuclear weapons would have devastating humanitarian
consequences, be incompatible with international Humanitarian Law and violate
the principle of dignity for every human being that is common to each of our
faith traditions…
“We urge these (nuclear weapons) states and the
international community to develop a robust plan of action that will lead us to
a world free of nuclear weapons.” (5)
Pope Francis in his address to the United Nations on 25 September
2015:
“... There is urgent need to work for a
world free of nuclear weapons in full application of the Non-Proliferation
(of Nuclear Weapons) Treaty (in force since 1 July 1968, and extended
indefinitely on 11 May 1995), in letter and spirit, with the goal of a complete
prohibition of these weapons…” (6)
At the Nobel Peace Prize presentation ceremony in
Oslo, Norway, on 10 December 2017, ICAN Executive Director Beatrice Fihn spoke
in her Nobel lecture:
“Nuclear weapons, like chemical weapons, biological
weapons, cluster munitions and land mines before them, are now illegal
(in the light of the September 2017 Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear
Weapons). Their existence is immoral. Their abolishment is in our hands…
“We are campaigners from 468 organizations who are
working to safeguard the future, and we are representative of the moral
majority: the millions of people who choose life over death, who together
will see the end of nuclear weapons.” (7)
Setsuko Thurlow, 85-year-old survivor of 1945 atomic bombing of
Hiroshima, made a momentous, poignant and primal plea in her 2017 Nobel
lecture:
“To every president and prime minister of every nation
of the world, I beseech you: Join this treaty (2017 Treaty on the Prohibition
of Nuclear Weapons); forever eradicate the threat of nuclear annihilation…” 17.02.2020 18:52 20.02.2020 13:15
Mikhail Gorbachev told the BBC and the world on 4
November 2019, in answer to Steve Rosenberg’s question of how dangerous is the
current confrontation between Russia and the West:
“As long as weapons of mass destruction exist,
primarily nuclear weapons, the danger is colossal.
“All nations should declare, all nations, that nuclear
weapons must be destroyed.
“This is to save ourselves and our planet…”
Gorbachev (then presiding over the world’s largest nuclear
arsenal with over 50,000 nuclear warheads) had once come breathtakingly close
to an agreement with Ronald Reagan to get rid of all nuclear weapons, on the
late Sunday afternoon of 12 October 1986 at their summit meeting in Reykjavik,
Iceland.
(2) A Narrative of the Nuclear Age
As recounted by Dr Matthew Bolton (8), New York City
started the nuclear age as a key node in the Manhattan Project, which developed
the world’s first atomic bombs, two of which were dropped on Hiroshima (6
August 1945) and Nagasaki (9 August 1945), destroying both Japanese cities and
killing more than 200,000 people in 1945.
The early bomb development was supervised by
the US Army Manhattan Engineer District, drawing on a research program at
Columbia University and participation of private companies at 30 sites
throughout the City.
Starting in 1954, nuclear missiles were
stationed at 19 sites in and around the City.
New Yorkers subsequently pushed back against
the military nuclearization of their City. Civil defense drills, imposed at the
start of the Cold War, became unpopular and activists like Dorothy Day
asserted that they merely served as propaganda to prepare people for the
eventuality of nuclear war. The only way to survive the nuclear age, they
correctly and cogently argued, was to abolish and eliminate nuclear weapons.
As a result of the 1972 Anti-Ballistic
Missile (ABM) Treaty, nuclear missiles were removed from the City in 1974; a
Staten Island nuclear-capable Navy base was subsequently shuttered in 1994;
nuclear weapons were removed from Naval Weapons Station Earle, New Jersey by
1997.
Major nuclear disarmament marches in the
1970s led to one of America’s largest ever in New York City on 11 June 1982
when a million people took part in Central Park and midtown Manhattan.
On 26 April 1983, the City Council passed
and adopted Resolution (364), prohibiting nuclear weapons within the
territorial limits of the City, and proclaiming and designating the City of New
York as a Nuclear Weapons Free Zone (NWFZ).
NYC has thus shown its exemplary path to
nuclear disarmament and redemption.
On 24 January 2017, Edward John Markey,
US Democratic Senator from Massachusetts, introduced in the Senate a bill to
prohibit the conduct of a first-use nuclear strike absent a declaration of war
by Congress.
Markey’s proposals include item (4):
“Nuclear weapons are uniquely powerful
weapons that have the capability to instantly kill millions of people, create
long-term health and environmental consequences throughout the world, directly
undermine global peace, and put the United States at existential risk from
retaliatory strikes.”
Item (5):
“By any definition of war, a first-use
nuclear strike from the United States would constitute a major act of war.” (9)
“Under the current nuclear strike protocol,
(President Donald Trump) can consult any and all -- or none -- of his national
security advisers, and no one can legally countermand his order,” wrote Bruce
Blair, a former missile launch officer, now a research scholar in Princeton
University’s Program on Science and Global Security, and a founder of Global
Zero, a movement campaigning for the elimination of nuclear weapons.
“If he gave the green light using his nuclear codes, a
launch order the length of a tweet would be transmitted and carried out within
a few minutes.
“I could fire my missiles (50 missiles in each
squadron) 60 seconds after receiving an order. There would be no recalling
missiles fired from (underground) silos and submarines.” (10)
On 17 January 2019, Ted
Lieu, US Representative for California’s 33rd congressional
district, introduced a bill similar to Markey’s in the House of Representatives
to prohibit the conduct of a first-use nuclear strike absent a declaration of
war by Congress. (11)
“Nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought
(quoting Reagan and Gorbachev in their historic October 1986 joint
statement). Therefore, to prevent war we must be ready for war,” General John
Hyten, Commander US Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM), stated before the Senate
Committee on Armed Services, 26 February 2019. (Nuclear war can only be
prevented in a world without nuclear weapons.)
“We must maintain today’s triad of nuclear forces
(12), while simultaneously building the triad of tomorrow.
“We must integrate all domains and capabilities
together to effectively deter in the 21st century.
“If we are successful, we will continue to live up to
our motto, coined over 60 years ago. Peace is our Profession…”
Peace is ironically professed by the world’s most
powerful nuclear military which has the capability to blow up much of an
adversary’s country within minutes. But if it should attack another major
nuclear-armed power like Russia, it could invite its own destruction. 18.02.2020 19:15
l
Contrary to the military doctrine of nuclear deterrence, nations with
nuclear weapons can militarily denuclearize and get rid of all their nuclear
weapons, instead of continuing to modernize and upgrade their nuclear weapons .
There will be no nuclear war in a world without nuclear weapons. 20.02.2020 14:09 21.03.2020 17:27
“If the militarily most powerful -- and least
threatened -- states need nuclear weapons for their security, how can one deny
such security to countries that are truly insecure?” asked Joseph Rotblat
in his 1995 Nobel Lecture, on behalf of the great majority of the world’s
nations.
“The present nuclear policy is a recipe for
proliferation. It is a policy for disaster…”
Mohamed ElBaradei, Director-General of the International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA), wrote in 2003: “The very existence of nuclear weapons
gives rise to the pursuit of them. They are seen as a source of global
influence, and are valued for their perceived deterrent effect. And as long as
some countries possess them … and others do not, this asymmetry breeds chronic
global insecurity...”
ElBaradei was
quoted in the March 2004 Memorandum by Quaker Peace & Social Witness
on the UK Defence White Paper.
To quote Quakers: “The replacement of Trident
(by the UK) or the advent of new nuclear weapons would risk leading the world
to nuclear tragedy. Quakers would unequivocally oppose this and passionately
support moves by the UK to renew negotiations toward disarmament and abandon
the nuclear doctrine. This would entail a courageous act of political
leadership in a break with US policy on this issue.
“The White Paper reaffirms “… the continuing role of
nuclear weapons as the ultimate guarantor of the UK’s national security.”
(3.11, p9). A guarantor of security is a false idol and an illusory goal. The
Paper also states: “We do not believe the world community should accept the
acquisition of nuclear weapons by further states.” (2.7, p4) These two
statements are obviously inconsistent.
“The continued nuclear commitment is incompatible with
the legal obligation upon the UK, contained in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty (NPT), to negotiate nuclear disarmament. This obligation was
clarified and strengthened by the International Court of Justice in 1996 and by
the NPT Review Conference in 2000, yet is omitted in the White Paper…
“The question of whether to replace Trident provides
an opportunity for Britain to broker international negotiations on the global
abolition of nuclear weapons, in the first instance between other nuclear
weapons states (NWS)…”
In a joint statement issued on 10 March 2020 the 50th
anniversary of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT),
with its sacred call for the world’s nuclear disarmament and the eventual
complete military denuclearization, the foreign ministers of China, France,
Russia, the UK, and the US declared: “We support the ultimate goal of a
world without nuclear weapons with undiminished security for all…” 11.03.2020
15:19
Their support must lead to their close cooperation in
eliminating all the weapons of mass destruction in their nuclear arsenals. The
other nuclear-armed states including Israel, India, Pakistan, and North Korea
must also denuclearize completely.
On 30 September 2020, Malaysia became the 46th
country to ratify the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW).
50 ratifications are required to activate the TPNW.
“The ratification of TPNW reaffirms Malaysia’s
unswerving commitment and support towards the total elimination of nuclear
weapons,” said Malaysia’s Foreign Minister Datuk Seri Hishamuddin Hussein,
who signed the instrument of ratification.
“The TPNW further reinforces the norm that
nuclear weapons are unacceptable, should not be used, should not be threatened
to be used and need to be discarded and destroyed as soon as possible…”
Tweet Sep 30 by ICAN:
… Only 4 ratifications left for the #nuclearban treaty to trigger
entry into force.
On 12 October 2020 Tuvalu became the 47th
country to ratify. A truly independent state of 9 islands (formerly known as
Ellice Islands) in the South Pacific, Tuvalu has a population of only about
12,000. Bravo!
Following further crucial ratifications by Jamaica and
Nauru on 23 October 2020, Hondurus made history on 24 October 2020 by becoming
the 50th state to ratify and consummate the TPNW which will come
into force in 90 days, on 22 January 2021.
With this treaty’s 50th ratfication on the
75th anniversary of the UN Charter (celebrated as UN Day) and 75
years after the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, United Nations
Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said, through UN spokesman Stephane
Dujarric, that the treaty will enter into force on 22 January 2021, culminating
a worldwide movement “to draw attention to the catastrophic humanitarian
consequences of any use of nuclear weapons”.
Describing it as a tribute to the survivors of nuclear
explosions and tests, many of whom advocated for this treaty, Guterres said it
“represents a meaningful commitment towards the total elimination of nuclear
weapons, which remains the highest disarmament priority of the United Nations…”
(AP/Flipboard 25 October 2020)
The UN head commended the 50 states for their
ratifications, and saluted “the instrumental work” of civil society in
facilitating negotiations and pushing for ratifications.
“This treaty is the U.N. at its best -- working
closely with civil society to bring democracy to disarmament,” said Beatrice
Fihn, executive director of International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons
(ICAN).
Peter Maurer, president of the International Committee
of the Red Cross, said in a statement: “Today is a victory for humanity, and
a promise of a safer future…” (The Guardian with AFP/AP Sun
25 Oct 2020 05:52 GMT)
Beatrice Fihn declared: “Decades of activism have
achieved what many said was impossible: nuclear weapons are banned.”
Setsuko Thurlow, a world-renowned and famously admired
survivor of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, said in a statement (thejapantimes
AP 25 October 2020):
“When I learned that we reached our 50th
ratfication, I was not able to stand. I remained in my chair and put my head in
my hands and I cried tears of joy.
“I have committed my life to the abolition of
nuclear weapons. I have nothing but gratitude to all who have worked
for the success of our treaty.”
25.10.2020 17:17
Of 86 signatories, 52 are parties as of 22
January 2021, fully committed to the TPNW to save humankind from the global
catastrophe of a nuclear war (in chronological order):
(1) Guyana (20 Sep 2017), (2) Holy
See (20 Sep 2017), (3) Thailand (20 Sep 2017), (4) Mexico (16 Jan 2018), (5)
Cuba 30 Jan 2018), (6) State of Palestine (22 March 2018), (7) Bolivarian
Republic of Venezuela (27 March 2018), (8) Palau (3 May 2018),
(9)
Viet Nam (17 May 2018), (10) Costa Rica (5 July 2018), (11) Nicaragua (19 July
2018), (12) Uruguay (25 July 2018), (13) New Zealand (31 July 2018), (14) Cook
Islands (4 Sep 2018), (15) Gambia (26 Sep 2018), (16) Samao (26 Sep 2018), (17)
San Marino (26 Sep 2018), (18) Vanuatu (26 Sep 2018), (19) St Lucia (23 Jan
2019), (20) El Salvador (30 Jan 2019), (21) South Africa (25 Feb 2019), (22)
Panama (11 Apr 2019), (23) Austria (8 May 2019), (24) St Vincent and the
Grenadines (31 Jul 2019), (25) Bolivia (6 Aug 2019), (26) Kazakhstan (29 Aug
2019)), (27) Ecuador (25 Sep 2019), (28) Bangladesh (26 Sep 2019), (29)
Kiribati (26 Sep 2019), (30) Lao People’s Democratic Republic (26 Sep 2019),
(31) Maldives (26 Sep 2019), (32) Trinidad and Tobago (26 Sep 2019), (33)
Dominica (18 Oct 2019), (34) Antigua and Barbuda (25 Nov 2019), 26.01.2021 19:46 (35) Paraguay (23 Jan 2020), (36) Namibia (20
March 2020), (37) Belize (19 May 2020), (38) Lesotho 6 Jun 2020),(39) Fiji (7
July 2020), (40) Botswana (15 July 2020), (41) Ireland (6 Aug 2020), (42)
Nigeria (6 Aug 2020), (43) Niue (6 Aug 2020), (44) St. Kitts and Nevis (9 Aug
2020), (45) Malta (21 Sep 2020), (46) Malaysia (30 Sep 2020), (47) Tuvalu (12
Oct 2020), (48) Jamaica (23 Oct 2020), (49) Nauru (23 Oct 2020), (50) Honduras
(24 Oct 2020), (51) Benin (11 Dec 2020), (52) Cambodia (22 Jan 2021). 27.01.2021 19:38 28.01.20211 19:15 29.01.2021
17:44
Twits (tweeter.com)
Antonio Guterres Jan
22 2021
Today, the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear
Weapons enters into force.
This is a major step toward a world free of nuclear
weapons.
I call on all countries to work together to realize
this vision, for our common security and collective safety.
Beatrice Fihn
GOOD MORNING WORLD!
Today, nuclear weapons are banned. There’s no going
back from this point, the #nuclearban will only grow stronger from now
on.
The ban is the future.
Letter from Soka Gakkai Malaysia (SGM) published
online by malaysiakini 22.01.2021:
Soka Gakkai Malaysia (SGM) wholeheartedly welcomes the
entry into force of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons today, 90
days after the treaty reached its 50th ratification.
The entry into force of the TPNW establishes the norm
that nuclear weapons are immoral and illegal. This is a momentous day that
humanity has been longing for -- a day that marks the beginning of the end of
nuclear weapons…
SGM is fully committed to continuing our efforts in
spreading awareness and building solidarity towards the realization of a world
free from nuclear weapons.
Scottish CND Jan 22 2021
It’s here at last. Today’s the day the #NuclearBan
treaty enters into force. Today is the beginning of the end for nuclear
weapons.
Thank you so much to everyone who has worked
tirelessly to bring us this far.
United Nations @UN-16h
“The elimination of nuclear weapons remains the
highest disarmament priority of the United Nations.” 24.01.2021
18:09
The long-standing existential
threat of nuclear conflict, of much greater immediacy and urgency than that of
climate change, will no longer prevail in a world without nuclear weapons.
Notes. The Champions and Heroes
1. The Russel-Einstein Manifesto
was issued in London on 9 July 1955 by Bertrand Russel and signed by 11
prominent intellectuals and scientists, including physicists Albert Einstein
and Joseph Rotblat.
Russel (1872-1970) was a British
philosopher, logician, mathematician, historian, writer, essayist, social
critic, political activist, and Nobel Laureate in Literature (1950).
Einstein (1879-1955) was a theoretical
physicist, philosopher, and Nobel Laureate in Physics (1921).
Rotblat (1908-2005), a Polish physicist,
was the youngest signatory of the 1955 Manifesto, and served as
secretary-general of the Pugwash Conferences on Science and Worldly Affairs
since their founding by Rotblat and Russel in 1957, until 1973.
The 1995 Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to
Rotblat and the Pugwash Conferences “for their efforts to diminish the part
played by nuclear weapons in international politics and in the longer run, to
eliminate such arms…”
2. J.B. Priestley (1894-1984),
OM, was an English novelist, playwright, screenwriter, broadcaster, and social
commentator.
His article Britain and the Nuclear
Bomb was published in New Statesman 2 November 1957.
Britain became the world’s third
thermonuclear power on November 1957, after the US (March 1954) and the Soviet
Union (November 1955)
.
3. The American Presidency
Project presidency.ucsb.edu
4. nobelprize.org
The historic though hitherto
unfulfilled UN General Assembly Resolution of 24 January 1946 has called for
control of atomic energy and its use only for peaceful purposes, and the
elimination of atomic weapons and all other major weapons of mass destruction. 17.02.2020 17:00
At the Reykjavit Summit
meeting October 11-12, 1986, US President Ronald Reagan proposed eliminating
all ballistic missiles within 10 years, and his Soviet counterpart CPSU General
Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev then suggested eliminating all nuclear weapons
within a decade. The Soviet leader had thought of destroying all nuclear
weapons by 1996.
02.10.2023
21:33
5. nuclearweapons.org.uk
6. With Guyana and Thailand, the
Holy See was among the first three signatories to ratify the 2017 Treaty on the
Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) which was signed in New York on 20
September 2017.
The 2017 TPNW has 135 supporters in
two-thirds of the world’s countries, including 80 signatories and 35 ratified
parties (50 required to activate the treaty) as of January 2020.
7. ICAN (International Campaign
to Abolish Nuclear Weapons) is a global civil society coalition promoting
adherence to and full implementation of the Treaty on the Prohibition of
Nuclear Weapons. Campaign spearheaded by ICAN helped to bring about the treaty.
Based at Geneva, ICAN has 541 partner
organizations in 103 countries as of 2019.
ICAN was awarded the 2017 Nobel Peace
Prize on 6 October 2017 “for its work to draw attention to the catastrophic
humanitarian consequences of any use of nuclear weapons and for its
ground-breaking efforts to achieve a treaty-based prohibition on such weapons…”
A Swedish lawyer born in November 1982,
Beatrice Fihn has served as ICAN Executive Director since 1 July 2014.
8. New York City’s Policy and
Practice on Nuclear Weapons International Disarmament Institute Paper, Pace
University. Version 12 December 2019
Matthew Bolton, MSc, PhD, LHD (hc) mbolton@pace.edu
9. First use bill.pdf ARM 17076
10. Julian Borger in Washington
23:17 Wed 23 August 2017 The Guardian
11. Rep. Ted Lieu had 42 others
with him when he introduced the bill, which was referred to the Committee on
Foreign Affairs.
12. Hyten’s statement briefly
explains the significance in the US doctrine of strategic nuclear deterrence of
the role of the US nuclear triad of (1) Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles
(ICBMs), (2) strategic bombers, and (3) nuclear-powered submarines with
nuclear-armed ballistic missiles (SSBNs):
“… A modernized triad provides both unique and
complementary capabilities to address current threats and future uncertainty.
“Alert and always ready to
respond, the ICBM force ensures no adversary, regardless of size, can be
confident in the success of a preemptive attack. Our ICBMs create enormous
targeting problems for our adversaries, requiring a massive raid that would be
impossible to hide and would guarantee their own demise. With its range,
payload, accuracy, and speed (over Mach 20) the ICBM is critical to our
nation’s deterrent strategy.
“Our strategic bombers provide the President the most visible,
flexible, adaptable, and recallable options to provide strategic deterrence.
Should an emerging crisis arise, we can rapidly deploy our bombers to clearly
communicate our resolve and commitment to our global security partners. With
the ability to provide a conventional or nuclear strike capability, the bomber
force plays an indispensable role in our overall strategy.
“Nuclear-powered submarines
with nuclear-armed ballistic missiles (SSBNs) patrol the seas and provide a
survivable response capable of holding targets at risk within hours (if not
within minutes). Their assured, survivable second-strike capability means that
regardless of any attack, our adversaries will always face the possibility of a
devastating response. The most survivable leg of the triad, it is also critical
to our nation’s strategic deterrent…”
USSTRATCOM is also pursuing a conventional
prompt global strike (PGS) capability. It’s strategic goal is also to maintain
EMS (Electromagnetic Spectrum) superiority.
(3) POSTSCRIPT
Contemplating
October 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis
In a reflective piece in The New York
Times Oct. 13, 2020
titled
Coming Close to Nuclear Holocaust, Talmage Boston (attorney, historian
& author) has written on the lessons from the October 1962 Cuban missile
crisis as presented in Martin J. Sherwin’s book GAMBLING WITH ARMAGEDON
Nuclear Roulette From Hiroshima to the Cuban Missile Crisis, 1945-1962.
On 6 August 1945, after Hiroshima was
destroyed, President Harry Truman described the atomic bomb as “the greatest
thing in history.”
On 21 October 1962 President John Kennedy
confided to a friend, “The world really is impossible to manage as long
as we have nuclear weapons…”
Sherwin has three themes. First, history
proves that the disadvantages of nuclear weapons outweigh their advantages.
According to Sherwin, the real lesson of
the Cuban missile crisis: “nuclear armaments create the perils they are
deployed to prevent, but are of little use in resolving them…”
If the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) had
had their way, the Cuban confrontation would have escalated into infinity.
Fortunately, Kennedy also rejected the hawkish advice of his brother
Attorney-General Robert Kennedy and Defense Secretary Robert McNamara.
As recounted by Talmage Boston, the
book’s final lesson is the unsettling one that regardless of how many wise
decisions get made by prudent leaders, good luck is critical.
We
would add that divine intervention is of its essence.
On 27 October 1962 at the height of the
Cuban missile crisis, the timely intervention by the overall commander of a
flotilla of four Soviet submarines prevented a horrendously explosive climax.
Commodore Vasily Arkhipov overruled in time the instruction of his subordinates
for firing nuclear torpedoes against American warships. (Finian Cunningham
28.10.2020 sputniknews)
“It was the most dangerous moment in
history,” remarked American historian Arthur M. Schlesinger.
In 2002 Thomas Blanton, director of US
National Archive, described Arkhipov as “the man who saved the world”.
Subsequently, Stanislav Petrov, a
lieutenant colonel of the Soviet Air Defence Forces, also saved the world from
a possible nuclear war starting in Europe in 1983.
The moral of these cautionary tales of
the huge existential threat of nuclear conflict: ban, banish and destroy all
the world’s existing nuclear weapons!
(5) Nuclear Deterrence Or Nuclear Devastation
“Long before the terrifying potential of the (nuclear)
arms race was recognized, there was a widespread instinctive abhorrence of
nuclear weapons, and a strong desire to get rid of them, Indeed, the very
first resolution of the General Assembly of the United Nations -- adopted
unanimously (24 January 1946) -- called for the elimination of nuclear
weapons. But the world was then (shortly after) polarized by the bitter
ideological struggle between East and West. There was no chance to meet this
call. The chief task was to stop the arms race before it brought utter
disaster. However, after the collapse of communism and the disintegration of
the Soviet Union (by the end of 1991), any rationale for having nuclear weapons
disappeared, The quest for their total elimination could be resumed. But the
nuclear powers still cling tenaciously to their weapons,” Joseph Rotblat said
in his highly-resonant 1995 Nobel Peace Prize Lecture. (nobelprize.org)
“The present nuclear policy (of nuclear deterrence for
national security) is a recipe for proliferation.
“It is a policy for disaster.
“To prevent this disaster -- for the sake of humanity
-- we must get rid of all nuclear weapons…”
One of the most distinguished scientists and peace
campaigners in the post-Second World War (WW2) period, Roblat then made three
great appeals in his highly significant. remarkable and memorable Remember
Your Humanity address in Oslo:
(1) to the nuclear powers: “I
appeal to them to bear in mind the long-term threat that nuclear weapons pose
to humankind and to begin action towards their elimination. Remember
your duty to humanity.”
(2) to fellow scientists with the
1995 statement by Hans Bethe (1906-2005), German-American nuclear
physicist, a Nobel laureate (1967) and the most senior member of the surviving
members of the Manhattan Project (as head of the Theoretical Division of the
secret Los Alamos Laboratory) , statement made on the 50th
anniversary of Hiroshima: “I call on all scientists in all countries to cease
and desist from work creating, developing, improving and manufacturing further
nuclear weapons (and other weapons of potential mass destruction).” JR: “I
appeal to my fellow scientists to remember their responsibility to humanity...”
(3) to fellow citizens in all
countries to abolish nuclear weapons and to abolish war, to eliminate the
ultimate catastrophe in a nuclear conflict that “could destroy the whole of
civilization in a single act -- as well as to develop loyalty to the
whole of the human race for the protection, survival and well-being of all
members of the human family.”
For the major powers like Russia and the US, nuclear
deterrence is synonymous with so-called “mutually assured destruction” (MAD).
For the vast majority of nations, it’s the message of devastation.
“Different States assess nuclear weapons and
deterrence differently. There are those who believe that nuclear deterrence has
played an important role in preventing the outbreak of a world conflict and
that nuclear deterrence will continue to be a prerequisite for international
stability and world security for the foreseeable future,” the Secretary-General
of the Department for Disarmament Affairs, United Nations, reported in 1991 Nuclear
Weapons: A Comprehensive Study.
“Others consider that the risks of a failure of
deterrence are too high to be worth taking, since nuclear war could cause
intolerable destruction in any part of the globe, no matter how distant from
the centre of conflict. They believe that nuclear weapons should be banned
and abolished and that viable security alternatives must be considered on
the basis of broad multilateral co-operation rather than on a permanent
adversarial relationship… (p 41 para 178)
“The critics of nuclear deterrence point out that
nuclear weapons are weapons of mass destruction (WMD) radically different from
any other weapons mankind has previously known. They are weapons that defy
traditional concepts of strategy.
“Any nuclear weapon State that relies on nuclear
deterrence, they believe, must ultimately be prepared to employ its weapons.
They contend that military response, according to international law, must not
be out of proportion with an armed attack. The use of nuclear weapons in
response to a conventional attack would be, however, inherently a
disproportionate response.
“Furthermore, their use would entail a risk of
escalation to an all-out nuclear war, which would mean not only the total
destruction of combatants, but also a threat to the survival of
non-nuclear-weapon States and, in the end, of all mankind. The order of damage
likely in a nuclear conflict would be beyond all historical experience. (p 52
para 230)
“The overwhelming majority of non-nuclear-weapon
States have rejected nuclear weapons and related doctrines as a means for their
security…
“Other criticisms include the issue of rationality.
Critics contend that misrepresentation of the other side’s motives,
miscalculation or even accidental launch of weapons could remove weapons from
rational control…” (232)
(4) JFK’s ever-resounding message
The 35th president of the US, John F.
Kennedy (May 25, 1917-November 22, 1963) could have contributed considerably
more towards the envisioned total elimination of nuclear weapons.
Addressing the UN General Assembly 25 September 1961
(slightly over a year before the Cuban missile crisis), President Kennedy made
his bold and far-sighted proposal to halt the nuclear arms race and a six-step
program for nuclear disarmament: from a test ban to gradually destroying
existing nuclear weapons and finally halting the unlimited testing and
production of strategic nuclear delivery vehicles, and gradually destroying
them as well. (jfklibrary.org)
“Today, every inhabitant of this planet must
contemplate the day when this planet may no longer be habitable,” young but
visionary Kennedy said.
“Every man, woman and child lives under a nuclear
sword of Damocles, hanging by the slenderest of threads, capable of being
cut at any moment by accident or miscalculation or by madness.
“The weapons of war must be abolished before
they abolish us…”
This existential threat to humanity remains.
“A war today or tomorrow, if it led to nuclear war,
would not be like any war in history,” President Kennedy warned in a televised
address 26 July 1963 on the Limited Test Ban Treaty (LTBT), prohibiting
atmospheric nuclear tests.
“A full-scale nuclear exchange, lasting less than 60
minutes, with the weapons now in existence, could wipe out more than 300
million Americans, Europeans, and Russians, as well as untold numbers
elsewhere. And the survivors, as Chairman Khrushchev warned the Communist
Chinese, “the survivors would envy the dead”. For they would inherit a world so
devastated by explosions and poison and fire that today we cannot even conceive
of its horrors. So let us try to turn the world away from war… and to check the
world’s slide toward final annihilation…”
Kennedy then said: “If only one thermonuclear bomb
were to be dropped on any American, Russian, or any other city, whether it was
launched by accident or design, by a madman or by an enemy, by a large nation
or by a small, from any corner of the world, that one bomb could release more
destructive power on the inhabitants of that one helpless city than all the
bombs dropped in the Second World War (1939-1945)…”
(7) International Day for the Total Elimination of
Nuclear Weapons
26 September
as declared by the United
Nations General Assembly (UNGA) December 2003 resolution 68/32
To quote UN:
Achieving global nuclear
disarmament is the highest disarmament priority of the United Nations.
It was the subject of the General Assembly’s first resolution in 1946 (January
24), which established the Atomic Energy Commission (then dissolved in 1952),
with a mandate to make specific proposals for the control of nuclear energy and
the elimination of atomic weapons and all other major weapons adaptable to mass
destruction.
The United Nations has been at
the forefront of many major diplomatic efforts to advance nuclear disarmament
since. In 1959, the General Assembly endorsed the objective of general and
complete disarmament. In 1978, the first Special Session of the General
Assembly Devoted to Disarmament further recognized that nuclear disarmament
should be the priority objective in the field of disarmament. Every United
Nations Secretary-General has actively promoted this goal.
Frustration has been growing
amongst Member States regarding what is perceived as the slow pace of nuclear
disarmament. This humanitarian frustration has been put into sharper focus with
growing concerns about the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of the use of
even a single nuclear weapon, let alone a regional or global nuclear war (with
existing global stock of around 12,512 nuclear weapons,in 2023, of which 2,000
nuclear bombs can reportedly be launched within minutes of receiving an order).
The General Assembly
commemorates 26 September as the International Day for the Total Elimination of
Nuclear Weapons. This Day provides an occasion for the world community to
reaffirm its commitment to global nuclear disarmament as a priority. It provides
an opportunity to educate the public -- and their leaders -- about the real
benefits of eliminating nuclear weapons, and the social and economic costs of
perpetuating them (essentially their universal existential threat to humanity).
Commemorating this Day at the
United Nations is especially important, given its universal membership and its
long experience in grappling with nuclear disarmament issues. It is the right
place to address one of humanity’s greatest challenges: achieving the peace and
security of a world without nuclear weapons.
