Call to end the nuclear arms race
Sam Carana
Have you heard any recent news on negotiations to end the nuclear arms
race? Today, more than ever, it makes sense to not only try and prevent
further proliferation of nuclear arms, but also to make renewed efforts
aimed at abolishing all nuclear weapons worldwide.
Numerous missiles with nuclear heads are pointed at cities all over the
world, programmed for launch from secret silos, submarines and
airplanes. Military strength further hinges on satellite technology and
gaining air superiority, which requires a large amount of expensive
military planes and ships from which the planes can take off and
(cruise) missiles can be launched.
The above scenario is now obsolete from a military-technical
perspective. It's now possible to put cheap cameras onto drone
airplanes to guide missiles with a relatively small amount of
conventional explosives with pin-point accuracy to military targets,
without causing further damage. Since such planes have no pilot,
there's no need for pressurized cabins, ejection seats and the many
manual controls of standard fighterplanes. As a consequence, such
drones can be very small and light, which in turn makes that they can
fly over large distances and at high altitudes (i.e. out of reach of
anti-aircraft guns). Also, they can be produced cheaply and in large
numbers, making the cost of launching missiles against each of them
prohibitive. Similarly, missiles with small loads of conventional
explosives can be produced quickly in large numbers and at low cost,
and they can be easily launched from anywhere, including from drones.
Missiles with nuclear heads, chemical and biological bombs are
militarily obsolete. Given the military alternatives, such weapons can
only function as instruments of mass terror. They are weapons of mass
murder and terrorism that hold the entire world at ransom and that come
with the risk of ending humanity at large, making it ethically and
morally unacceptable for anyone to have such weapons. Therefore, we
should convince governments to abolish all such weapons. The nuclear
arms race should be banned to history - it is part of the previous
century and is out of date and out of step with modern times.
Please copy, email and post this message widely!
The Undersigned
dismantling. There must also be more openness and public
accountibility.
Before October 1999, dismantlements were made public. That year, the
budget for fiscal 2000 projected that 120 warheads would be taken apart
in 2003. The US now keeps such information classified.
According to an article in the washington Post, the US is stepping up
disassembly of older nuclear warheads. According to the article, there
are an estimated 4,000 to 6,000 non-operational warheads in stockpile,
while in recent years fewer than 100 warheads have been dismantled each
year. The article says that the National Nuclear Security
Administration plans to increase by 50 percent the number of nuclear
warheads it dismantles next year.
That's not enough! At that rate, it could still take a lifetime to
dismantle the entire stockpile, which only relates to old nuclear
warheads that were to be retired anyway. We need to see more resolute
action than that.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/03/AR2006050302136.html
Sam Carana
Sam Carana
Prakash
year's Nobel for IAEA. As former Ambassdor to India JK Galbriath
pointed out towards the exsistance of millitary-industry complex and
exsistance of neo-liberal stance makes it difficult for internal
politics to handle all out issues outside the domain of market. To root
out asymmetry of institutions civil organisations have rightly sprouted
out. Do they really have the space to influence forthcoming decisions
for disarmament supplementing registering a healthy protest(which does
create awarness)?
Sam Carana
Prakash Krishnamoorthy
Sam Carana
A Global Treaty Banning All Nuclear Weapons
Russia and the United States just issued a joint declaration urging other countries to join their Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF). It is now almost 20 years ago that this milestone INF treaty was signed by Mikhail Gorbachev and Ronald Reagan (back in December 1987) and it has in the meantime resulted in the scrapping of 2,692 missiles.
Referring to the INF, this recent joint declaration calls on "all interested countries to discuss the possibility of imparting a global character to this important regime through the renunciation of ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with ranges between 500 and 5,500 km, leading to the destruction of any such missiles".
"We believe that renunciation of ground-launched intermediate- and shorter-range missiles and their complete elimination in the world would increase the role of the treaty as a model for strengthening international security", Russia and the US state in the declaration.
Notably missing in the declaration are longer-range nuclear missiles, as well as nuclear missiles launched from submarines, from airplanes and from space. While any efforts to reduce nuclear missiles should be applauded, it seems that there's a better chance for a global treaty to be reached, if all nuclear weapons were included.
It seems easy for the US and Russia to agree to eliminate ground-launched intermediate-range nuclear missiles. The US and Russia have no need for such missiles, as they have the naval capacity to move around the globe and launch short-range missiles from the sea. Furthermore, they also have the long-range nuclear capacity that most other countries (still) lack.
But what need does the US have for any nuclear weapons at all? Nuclear weapons are largely obsolete from a military-technical perspective. missiles with small conventional loads can be self-directed to their targets using video cameras and military-strength GPS navigation for pin-point accuracy. It's now possible to put cheap cameras onto drone airplanes to guide missiles with a relatively small amount of conventional explosives with great precision to military targets, without causing further damage to surrounding buildings or civilians.
Since such planes have no pilot, there's no need for pressurized cabins, ejection seats and the many manual controls of standard fighterplanes. Consequencently, such drones can be very small and light, which in turn makes that they can fly over large distances and at high altitudes ( i.e. out of reach of anti-aircraft guns). Also, they can be produced cheaply and in large numbers, making the cost of launching missiles against each of them prohibitive. Similarly, missiles with small loads of conventional explosives can be produced quickly in large numbers and at low cost, and they can be easily launched from anywhere, including from drones. In short, the US needs neither nuclear bombs nor missiles with nuclear loads to take out any military or other target.
Nuclear weapons are part of a Mutually-Assured Destruction (MAD) deterrent that is a relic of the past. The arms race started with the (mad) idea that more nuclear weapons would make everyone safer. Progress in GPS, video-camera, communications and computer technology has now made it possible to eliminate any target without the need for nuclear explosions. In practice, the military doesn't need nuclear weapons and prefers non-radiation type of weapons such as the BLU-82 daisy cutter that was used in Vietnam and its descendent, the MOAB. More recent developments are the Russian vacuum bomb and the "thermobaric" bomb used by US forces in campaigns against al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. Such weapons will create very high temperatures that evaporate anything alive, without contaminating the area with radiation.
Missiles with nuclear heads, chemical and biological bombs are militarily obsolete, if they ever had a military function in the first place. Given the military alternatives, such "weapons of mass destruction" can only function as instruments of mass terror. They are weapons of mass murder and terrorism that hold the entire world at ransom and that come with the risk of ending humanity at large, making it ethically and morally unacceptable for anyone to have such weapons. Therefore, we should convince governments all over the world to abolish all such weapons. The nuclear arms race should be banned to history - it is part of the previous century and is out of date and out of step with modern times.
The US should take unilateral steps to dismantle all such weapons. It can do so without having to fear that it would lack the capability to strike back. It could invite the media to witness the decommissioning process and to inspect facilities in future. By declaring its intention to ban all nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, the US could make other countries follow and join a global treaty to work out details such as verification and inspections, as well as access for the media to military facilities worldwide.
References:
- U.S. and Russia urge other states to join missile pact - Reuters, Oct 28, 2007
http://uk.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUKL2870943420071028
- (Comment to) The nuclear Delusion - by Sam Carana, Oct 18, 2007
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977131568
- Russia tests superstrength bomb, military says - Reuters, Sep 12, 2007
http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSL1155952320070912
- Call to end the nuclear arms race - by Sam Carana, May 4 2006
http://groups.google.com/group/humanities/browse_thread/thread/200b253bf211f74d