A World Free of Nuclear Weapons
By GEORGE P. SHULTZ, WILLIAM J. PERRY, HENRY A. KISSINGER and SAM NUNN
January 4, 2007

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.

Nuclear weapons were essential to maintaining international security during the Cold
War because they were a means of deterrence. The end of the Cold War made the
doctrine of mutual Soviet-American deterrence obsolete. Deterrence continues to be a
relevant consideration for many states with regard to threats from other states. But
reliance on nuclear weapons for this purpose is becoming increasingly hazardous and
decreasingly effective.

North Korea's recent nuclear test and Iran's refusal to stop its program to enrich uranium -
- potentially to weapons grade -- highlight the fact that the world is now on the precipice
of a new and dangerous nuclear era. Most alarmingly, the likelihood that non-state
terrorists will get their hands on nuclear weaponry is increasing. In today's war waged on
world order by terrorists, nuclear weapons are the ultimate means of mass devastation.
And non-state terrorist groups with nuclear weapons are conceptually outside the bounds
of a deterrent strategy and present difficult new security challenges.

Apart from the terrorist threat, unless urgent new actions are taken, the U.S. soon will be
compelled to enter a new nuclear era that will be more precarious, psychologically
disorienting, and economically even more costly than was Cold War deterrence. It is far
from certain that we can successfully replicate the old Soviet-American "mutually
assured destruction" with an increasing number of potential nuclear enemies world-wide
without dramatically increasing the risk that nuclear weapons will be used. New nuclear
states do not have the benefit of years of step-by-step safeguards put in effect during the
Cold War to prevent nuclear accidents, misjudgments or unauthorized launches. The
United States and the Soviet Union learned from mistakes that were less than fatal. Both
countries were diligent to ensure that no nuclear weapon was used during the Cold War
by design or by accident. Will new nuclear nations and the world be as fortunate in the
next 50 years as we were during the Cold War?

Leaders addressed this issue in earlier times. In his "Atoms for Peace" address to the
United Nations in 1953, Dwight D. Eisenhower pledged America's "determination to help
solve the fearful atomic dilemma -- to devote its entire heart and mind to find the way by
which the miraculous inventiveness of man shall not be dedicated to his death, but
consecrated to his life." John F. Kennedy, seeking to break the logjam on nuclear
disarmament, said, "The world was not meant to be a prison in which man awaits his
execution."

Rajiv Gandhi, addressing the U.N. General Assembly on June 9, 1988, appealed,
"Nuclear war will not mean the death of a hundred million people. Or even a thousand
million. It will mean the extinction of four thousand million: the end of life as we know it
on our planet earth. We come to the United Nations to seek your support. We seek your
support to put a stop to this madness."

Ronald Reagan called for the abolishment of "all nuclear weapons," which he considered
to be "totally irrational, totally inhumane, good for nothing but killing, possibly
destructive of life on earth and civilization." Mikhail Gorbachev shared this vision, which
had also been expressed by previous American presidents.

Although Reagan and Mr. Gorbachev failed at Reykjavik to achieve the goal of an
agreement to get rid of all nuclear weapons, they did succeed in turning the arms race on
its head. They initiated steps leading to significant reductions in deployed long- and
intermediate-range nuclear forces, including the elimination of an entire class of
threatening missiles.

What will it take to rekindle the vision shared by Reagan and Mr. Gorbachev? Can a
world-wide consensus be forged that defines a series of practical steps leading to major
reductions in the nuclear danger? There is an urgent need to address the challenge posed
by these two questions.

Rest of article (http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:0KWgoXRhUpYJ:www.psaonline.org/article.php%3Fid%3D129&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=8)

A World Free of Nuclear Weapons
By GEORGE P. SHULTZ, WILLIAM J. PERRY, HENRY A. KISSINGER and SAM NUNN
January 4, 2007

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

Rest of article (http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:0KWgoXRhUpYJ:www.psaonline.org/article.php%3Fid%3D129&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=8)

So nuclear weapons aren't in 'dangerous hands' already? Dangerous hands like the Bush cabal, Tony Blair and the Zionists of Israel who have shown such a callous disregard for human life. Nuclear weapons are already in the hands of terrorists! It's worth noting the article only expresses concern about nuclear weaponry getting into the hands of 'non-state
terrorists' - carefully chosen words there! So nukes in the hands of state terrorists are Ok then?
And why do we need 'U.S. leadership' to take us to 'the next stage'? Look where the US has led us so far!
And to top it all the article was co-written by the criminal Henry Kissinger.

Well I know the US still has around 20,000 warheads still laying around the country, Russia has even more.

Those warheads were the only thing that kept us from totally annihilating eachother (kinda ironic in itself) But yeah, I find the proposition of Iran or North Korea with nuclear weapons to be scary. Iran more so than NK, if NK decided to nuke someone, the retribution would be swift from all sides. And with their political position in the world today, them just having one isnt going to get them much other than more isolation. But with Iran its different. With the current state of affairs in the world today, and with whats on Irans agenda, they could use their possesion of a nuclear weapon to do a lot of business for lack of a better term. If the United States and Israel let them get that far remains to be seen, what exactly were going to do about it (and something will be) should be interesting.

Its not like the cold war days when it was just US vs USSR. There are so many more factors to consider these days.

So nuclear weapons aren't in 'dangerous hands' already? Dangerous hands like the Bush cabal, Tony Blair and the Zionists of Israel who have shown such a callous disregard for human life. Nuclear weapons are already in the hands of terrorists! It's worth noting the article only expresses concern about nuclear weaponry getting into the hands of 'non-state
terrorists' - carefully chosen words there! So nukes in the hands of state terrorists are Ok then?
And why do we need 'U.S. leadership' to take us to 'the next stage'? Look where the US has led us so far!
And to top it all the article was co-written by the criminal Henry Kissinger.

One big difference, the US nor UK would use a nuclear weapon against anyone whom they deem to not worship the correct god. Islamic terrorists would.

One big difference, the US nor UK would use a nuclear weapon against anyone whom they deem to not worship the correct god. Islamic terrorists would.

The US probably wouldn't use a nuclear weapon against a country for religious reasons (unless of course the US was governed by some kind of extreme Christian fundamentalist sect) but they have used them, killing an estimated 200,000+ in Hiroshima and Nagasaki - surely the worst acts of terrorism the world has ever seen?

If they were to use them again it would most likely be by proxy i.e. Israel -
'Israel plans nuclear strike on Iran'
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2535310,00.html

One big difference, the US nor UK would use a nuclear weapon against anyone whom they deem to not worship the correct god. Islamic terrorists would.

Tell that to Japan, and US just loves testing all their new (and old) weapons in all these new wars they get into... (created by Uncle Sam).
You still think, US are the good guys, don't ya?

Tell that to Japan, and US just loves testing all their new (and old) weapons in all these new wars they get into... (created by Uncle Sam).



Well said!



WAR IS TERRORISM WITH A BIGGER BUDGET

have used them, killing an estimated 200,000+ in Hiroshima and Nagasaki - surely the worst acts of terrorism the world has ever seen?


say what you want, but did the Atomic Bomb not end WWII?

that was it's goal, and it worked as advertised.

You still think, US are the good guys, don't ya?
if we're not, who is?

The US probably wouldn't use a nuclear weapon against a country for religious reasons (unless of course the US was governed by some kind of extreme Christian fundamentalist sect) but they have used them, killing an estimated 200,000+ in Hiroshima and Nagasaki - surely the worst acts of terrorism the world has ever seen?

Taking an act out of context I see...

First, we were bombed by Japan when we had done nothing. They gave our soldiers no warning. I don't care if they were civilians or the navy. They were innocent people who were killed.

Second, Germany was bombing the hell out of cities where there were many, many innocent people. In that war, civilians were targets as well.

We invented the bomb, told Japan about it and told them what it was capable of. They didn't listen, so we littered the cities with flyers, warning that we were going to use our nukes on the cities and we told the people to leave. Then we nuked them.

At the time, and in the context of the situation, it was not such a horrible act. And it was not terrorism; the intent of terrorism is to spread terror. That was not what we intended to do, and that is not what we did.

Tell that to Japan, and US just loves testing all their new (and old) weapons in all these new wars they get into... (created by Uncle Sam).
You still think, US are the good guys, don't ya?

Tell Japan what? That we wouldn't use our nukes because of religion? Are you trying to say that we used our nukes on Japan because of religion?

Get your facts straight.

Like Mike and Wind were saying above, we used the A-Bomb in Japan to keep us from having to invade the mainland. Can you imagine what kinda bloodbath it would have been if we had to do that. Millions dead no doubt. Using the bomb was actually beneficial in that context.

We could get rid of everything except the knowledge of how to make them.

Thats right - and that is exactly why they will never be removed. As long as the knowledge is there, someone can make a bomb. And if someone can make a bomb, it's better to be packing yourself - so a nuke free world = not possible.

If anyone nukes us, I hope we end the world.

And if someone can make a bomb, it's better to be packing yourself - so a nuke free world = not possible.

I think it's possible in theory, but everyone would need to commit to extensive satellite surveillance and immediate military action against any country that so much as builds a fin for a nuclear bomb.

So nuclear weapons aren't in 'dangerous hands' already? Dangerous hands like the Bush cabal, Tony Blair and the Zionists of Israel who have shown such a callous disregard for human life.

Excellent point.

Nuclear weapons are already in the hands of terrorists!

As noted above.