December 23rd, 2009
Support the Nuclear Nonproliferation and Disarmament Movement
Here are a just a few facts to consider:
- If the United States and Russia launched just half of 1% of their activated stockpiles, all humans would perish, either from the initial blasts, the drop in the earth’s temperature to a point that no food could be grown, or both. The survivors would either starve or freeze to death.
- The United States is spending over $50 billion a year on its nuclear budget, over a third of which is going to develop new weapons. This is more than the entire military budgets of all but five nations. There was $1.2 billion in the initial stimulus package to develop more weapons. Fortunately it was removed after pressure from a number of concerned groups.
- Environmental hazards associated with all phases of nuclear weapons development continue to be an issue of concern, with $8.3 billion going to clean up wastes/accidents and compensate victims of such.
The next year is a crucial one in the nuclear nonproliferation and disarmament movement. Three significant treaties - START, NPT and CTBT – are under review, and the direction of both these treaties and U.S. nuclear policy will influence the future of nuclear weapons. In May, the five-year review conference of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) at United Nations headquarters will be the focal point of a number of major events in New York City. This conference is widely seen as a tipping point for the long-term viability of the nuclear non-proliferation regime. Non-nuclear weapon states are rightly expecting the nuclear weapon states to finally make good on their Article VI obligation, in force since 1970, which requires them to negotiate disarmament in good faith.
Many prominent groups and individuals (conservatives and liberals) are putting their energies into this cause, including Henry Kissinger, George Schultz, Sam Nunn, William Perry and Ted Turner. The Mayors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are organizing a bid for the 2020 Summer Olympics with the theme of world peace as its goal. They hope to celebrate the end of nuclear weapons on this planet that year, the 75th anniversary of the US atomic bombings of their cities.
Many U.S. citizens are unaware of the all the negatives connected with the development and use of nuclear weapons or the important efforts being made to abolish them. We have an opportunity to make some real progress in this movement, but many fear if significant strides are not made in the next few months, it will be difficult to achieve positive results in the near future.
Sign the petitions-
A delegation of international peace activists will present millions of signatures on petitions calling for immediate negotiations to eliminate nuclear weapons at the NPT Review Conference in May 2010. To sign the international petition, go to the petition link at the web site, www.mayorsforpeace.org. To sign the U.S. petition to President Obama, go to the petition link on the web site, www.unitedforpeace.org. A paper version can be downloaded that you can circulate for more signatures.
Spread the word - Email your friends to make them aware of this cause and urge their support, or host a gathering.
* Edited version of a letter written by Harvey Zendt, Mayors for Peace.
December 29th, 2009 at 12:10 am
While I have worked hard to promote the reduction and elimination of nuclear weapons, the notion that if 1% of the nuclear weapons are used will wipe out all of humanity is pure uneducated crap! Please keep up the good work, but please print more reliable information. Thankyou.
December 29th, 2009 at 2:34 am
Kenneth,
Fortnately, that claim has not been tested, and hopefully, it won’t be. However, as the post states, it is an edited version of a letter written by Harvey Zendt, Mayors for Peace. He uses it to develop a network of supporters in the USA.
Perhaps it would have been safer to state “could endanger the survival of our species” rather than “all humans would perish.”
Bruce
January 4th, 2010 at 8:01 pm
I appreciate the challenge to my facts and have gone back to the source of it for confirmation. I heard it from a reputable source but upon further investigation, I think it is too strong a statement. I refer any interested people to www.nucleardarkness.org for more information on the consequences of a nuclear war. The information on the site is quite profound. I am going to revise this piece to read something along the lines of Bruce’s suggestion.
Again I thank Kenneth for his response. We obviously have the same goals and if we can help each other do a better job of achieving them, so much the better.
January 6th, 2010 at 7:20 pm
The 1% figure was derived from several peer-reviewed studies done at Rutgers, UCLA and the University of Colorado.
Scientists used NASA computer models to predict the environmental consequences of a nuclear war between India and Pakistan which detonated 100 Hiroshima-size weapons (15 kiloton weapons) in the cities of these nations. The immense firestorms created by these weapons would cause about 5 million tons of smoke to rise into the stratosphere and form a global stratospheric smoke layer, which would block 7-10% of sunlight from reaching the surface of the Earth. This would create the coldest temperatures on Earth in the last 1000 years; growing seasons would be seriously shortened and the grain exporting nations would have no exports for at least three to five years. The resulting nuclear famine would kill up to one billion people; those already living on the edge of starvation (800 million) along with populations that rely upon more than 50% of their diets from imported grain.
100 Hiroshima-size weapons have about half of 1% of the combined explosive power in the 7500 deployed and operational strategic nuclear weapons of the United States and Russia (strategic weapons are all about 8 to 90 times more powerful that the Hiroshima-size weapons). If any significant fraction of these strategic weapons are detonated in conflict (there are almost 1000 missiles armed with more than 2000 strategic nuclear warheads which can be launched with only a few minutes warning), the firestorms produced by the detonation of these weapons would put up to 180 million tons of smoke into the stratosphere. This would block 70% of sunlight in the stratosphere and create temperatures on Earth colder than they were 18,000 years ago at the height of the last Ice Age. Minimum daily temperatures would be below freezing for several years in the largest agricultural areas of the Northern Hemisphere; growing seasons would be completely eliminated for more than a decade. Most humans and large animal populations would starve to death.
This what Harvey was trying to paraphrase. Perhaps the half of one percent figure was an overstatement, but not by a whole lot. Half of one percent could be enough to kill up to a billion people from nuclear famine . . . but what would the consequences of that be? Could we avoid World War in a time when hundreds of millions of people were starving to death?
Nuclear weapons threaten human survival. This is what the message should be when discussing nuclear abolition.
For more detailed information on this subject, please visit my website at www.nucleardarkness.org
Steven Starr
January 7th, 2010 at 7:48 am
Thanks for that clarification, Steven. You are absolutely right to focus on the big picture message rather than on spurious detail.
Bruce
January 13th, 2010 at 5:49 pm
I would like to say a large “thankyou” to all the individuals that are adding comments since many such websites tend to be inactive. We are aware of the great dangers nuclear weapons pose to our families, our country, and all of humanity, however, our governments are not listening. It is easy to be complacent and hold the status quo… In the year 2010 our media is likely to focus itself on healthcare, Republicans and Democrats fighting, terrorists at airports, and global warming. I have seen very little if any news reports on President Obama’s work towards nuclear reductions. I have viewed more websites concerned with saving the “whales”! Yes, it is not the eighties when we were focused on all things nuclear, but it is “all” of our responsibility to inform others of the dangers. Of the many dangers in our world nuclear weapons once again need to take center stage. So what can we do—-Make your own website to inform, call your state’s governor (they will actually talk to you), write letters to those that have influence, email whitehouse.gov every morning and voice your concerns, and much more. President Obama may be our only advocate when it comes to nuclear reductions. Keep up the writing and my own website should be up and running soon.