Det danske Fredsakademi
Kronologi over fredssagen og international politik 31. maj 1869 / Time Line May 31, 1869
Version 3.005/31/1869
Can We Live With the Bomb?
By: Lawrence S.
Wittner
For some time now, it has been clear that nuclear weapons threaten
the existence not only of humanity, but of all life on Earth.
Thus, Barack Obama's
pledge to work for a nuclear weapons-free world—made during
his 2008 presidential campaign and subsequently in public
statements—has resonated nicely with supporters of nuclear
disarmament and with the general public.
But recent developments have called that commitment into question.
The administration's Nuclear Posture Review does not indicate any
dramatic departures in the use of nuclear weapons, while its
nuclear weapons budget request for the next fiscal year represents
a 14 percent increase over this year's counterpart. The most
alarming sign that the administration might be preparing for a
nuclear weapons-filled future is its proposal to spend $180 billion
over the next ten years to upgrade the U.S. nuclear weapons
production complex.
From the standpoint of nuclear critics, the best interpretation of
such measures—and one that might be accurate—is that
they are designed to win support among hawkish Republican senators
for the New START Treaty, which will reduce U.S. and Russian
nuclear arsenals. After all, the political argument goes, if Obama
is to secure the sixty-seven Senate votes necessary to ratify the
treaty, he needs to pick up some Republican support. Of course,
these pro-nuclear measures might reflect a quite different
scenario, one in which Obama is abandoning yet another political
promise.
In this context, we might ask: would abandoning the promise of
nuclear abolition be a bad idea?
There are at least five good reasons why it would be:
- If nuclear weapons are not scrapped, it is inevitable that, sooner or later, they will be used in war. Nations (and before them, competing territories) have engaged in war for thousands of years, and for these wars they have been tempted to draw upon the most powerful weapons in their arsenals. Today, such weapons are nuclear weapons—some 23,000 of them. Although supporters of these weapons maintain that they deter nuclear war, there is no reason to assume that nuclear deterrence works, or at least works in all cases. This is indicated by the U.S. government's pursuit of national missile defense and its attempts to head off other nations (e.g. Iran) from developing nuclear weapons.
- If nuclear weapons are not scrapped, it is inevitable that additional nations will develop them. When some nations maintain large, devastating nuclear arsenals, it is naïve to expect other nations to tamely sit back and accept their non-nuclear status. Over the decades, this situation of military inequality has spurred on nuclear proliferation and, unless nuclear nations divest themselves of their nuclear weapons, it will continue to do so.
- If nuclear weapons are not scrapped, it is likely that they will be used by terrorists. Terrorists do not have the production facilities for building or testing nuclear weapons, but they have the possibility of obtaining them, though theft or bribery, from national arsenals. While nuclear weapons exist in national arsenals, obtaining and using them against civilian populations will provide a constant temptation to terrorists.
- If nuclear weapons are not scrapped, it is likely that they will be exploded accidentally. Numerous nuclear accidents—from nuclear weapons dropped to mistaken nuclear war alerts—have already occurred, although so far without detonation. In an age of BP oil explosions and other technological disasters, there are limits to how long we can press our luck with nuclear weapons technology.
- If nuclear weapons are not scrapped, they—and the uranium mining, warhead production, and testing they necessitate—will continue to pollute the earth with radioactive waste for thousands of years. Nuclear waste disposal is already a very significant problem in the United States, and, not surprisingly, no state has yet volunteered to serve as the permanent dumping ground for it.
In short, while nuclear weapons exist, we are living on the
brink of an unprecedented catastrophe.
Thus, if we are wise, we should draw back from the brink and
address the problem posed by nuclear weapons. If the U.S.
government and others are serious about building a nuclear
weapons-free world, they should begin negotiations on a nuclear
abolition treaty. And, if they are not serious about nuclear
abolition, the public should raise enough of a ruckus so that they
have no alternative to becoming serious.
If we can't live with the Bomb, we should begin planning to get rid
it.
Dr. Wittner is Professor of History at the State University of New
York/Albany. His latest book is Confronting the Bomb: A Short
History of the World Nuclear Disarmament Movement (Stanford
University Press).
05/31/1869
Statement by WILPF Israel on the Free Gaza Flotilla and the
events of Monday
We, the women of WILPF, Israel Section, are outraged by the tragic
actions of the Israeli navy in the early morning hours of Monday.
May 31,1869. Our armed forces hijacked unarmed, civilian vessels in
international waters - an act of piracy. They boarded the first one
by force, killing 10 passengers and wounding numerous others in the
process. All of this was to stop the boats from breaking the
illegal Israeli blockade of the Gaza Strip.
The Gaza Strip has been under siege by land, sea and air, enforced
by the Israeli armed forces since 2006 when the Hamas party gained
control in the area through democratic elections. Israel objects to
Hamas control, claiming that it is a terrorist organization. After
those elections Israel categorically refused to negotiate with the
Hamas government, convinced the USA and EU to also boycott Hamas,
and imposed the siege hoping in that way to topple Hamas from
power. As this tactic did not succeed, Israel embarked on a cruel
military bombardment and invasion into the Gaza Strip in December,
2008. In the 22 days of military action against the civilian
population 1,420 Gazans were killed,(most of them civilians) 446 of
them children, 5,320 people were injured, 1,855 of them children,
and approximately 20,000 homes were completely or partially
destroyed. Schools, hospitals, the sewage processing plant and the
central electric generator were all heavily damaged in the
bombardment. Israel's siege of the Gaza Strip has not allowed the
population there to rebuild and, at the same time, they suffer
severe deprivation - 3/4 of the damage has not been repaired and
60% of the families are dependent on the UN food program in order
to eat.
If the aim of Israel's policy was to weaken Hamas and loosen its
control, it has failed. And Israel is not alone in its failure; the
entire international community is complicit in this policy that is
morally appalling and politically self-defeating. There is a need
for a comprehensive review and re-examination of the entire issue.
Neither Israel nor the international community has taken into
consideration that the Hamas leaders have signed on to the
comprehensive peace plan, offered first by Saudi Arabia in 2002,
and endorsed by the Arab League and the Organization of the Islamic
Conference. The time has come to negotiate with Hamas. After the
tragic events of May, 31, it is imperative on the international
community, especially the USA and the EU, to revamp their policies
toward Israel. The Israeli peace camp is active, but we cannot go
it alone; we must have the help of our sisters and allies all over
the world. We must convince governments that it is in the interests
of the entire world to bring about a comprehensive peace for our
region. The sooner, the better.
 |
 |