Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiEnd Nuclear Threat, Next President Told
DENVER - On the sixty-third anniversary of the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima, groups and individuals around the world are calling on the next U.S. president to take seven concrete steps to end the threat of nuclear terrorism and war.
"Nuclear weapons were created by humans, and it is our responsibility to eliminate them before they eliminate us," states an appeal led by the California-based Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (NAPF).
The Dalai Lama, Walter Cronkite, and Archbishop Desmond Tutu are among the prominent international figures and thousands of Americans who have already signed the appeal, which will be delivered to the White House on January 20, 2009 when the next president is inaugurated.
NAPF stresses that the goal of a nuclear-weapons-free world is not as distant and difficult as the major U.S. presidential candidates have indicated, and that the United States, "as the world's most militarily powerful nation," is best positioned to convene world leaders to take the steps necessary to abolish the nuclear threat.
It is unclear, however, whether John McCain or Barack Obama would be willing to lead such an initiative as U.S. president.
"There is much we still don't know about the candidates' positions," says NAPF President David Krieger. "Both state in general terms that they favor the goal [of a nuclear-weapons-free world]. Neither of them, however, has discussed seeking to achieve a Nuclear Weapons Convention, a treaty that would set forth a roadmap for the phased, verifiable, irreversible, and transparent elimination of nuclear weapons."
"Between the two candidates, Senator McCain's positions seem more cautious and sketchy," adds Krieger, pointing out that McCain has used language that would leave open the door to developing new nuclear weapons, and he has strongly supported missile defense programs, which could prompt Russia to backtrack on its nuclear commitments.
Krieger thinks Obama has staked out a stronger position on eliminating the threat of nuclear weapons worldwide. "[Obama] has come out in favor of removing U.S. nuclear weapons from hair-trigger alert, not developing new nuclear weapons, ratifying the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, [and] achieving a verifiable global ban on the production of new nuclear weapons material."
Those represent four of the seven steps Krieger's group is calling for in its roadmap to a nuclear-weapons-free world. The other three include committing to "No First Use" of nuclear weapons, negotiating a new treaty for the total elimination of nuclear weapons, and reallocating funds from nuclear projects to efforts to alleviate poverty, prevent and cure disease, eliminate hunger, and expand educational opportunities worldwide.
Some Agreement, Important Differences
Many foreign policy and arms control analysts agree that both McCain and Obama's positions represent a strong departure from the policies of the George W. Bush administration.
"We'll have major progress on nuclear issues no matter who is elected," says John Isaacs, executive director of the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation. "It debunks the common view that Obama is the most liberal Democratic senator, and it debunks the view that McCain is really the third Bush term."
Isaacs' nonprofit group researches issues of international peace and national security. In a recent analysis, the Center laid out seven points on which the two candidates agree, and six on which they disagree, on nuclear weapons.
While both candidates voted in favor of an agreement to transfer nuclear technology to India for use in its energy program, only Obama's vote included amendments making the deal conditional on India proving that it would not use the technology to create new nuclear weapons.
Obama has also opposed a plan to store nuclear waste from power plants in a facility deep below Nevada's Yucca Mountain, citing safety concerns. McCain supports the plan, explains Isaacs.
NAPF's Krieger notes that McCain has also been much more supportive of nuclear energy, which "adds significantly to the complications of controlling nuclear materials and preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons."
"[Obama also] focuses much more on securing loose, unsafe nuclear materials," adds Josh Rovenger of Citizens for Global Solutions, a Washington DC-based nonprofit that promotes cooperation among nations to solve the world's problems.
Different Worldviews
"Both McCain and...Obama represent a departure from the status quo," says Rovenger, but while Obama's view "acknowledges the unacceptable risks nuclear weapons pose merely by their existence," McCain's view is "steeped in the relics of Cold War deterrence theory."
"At the end of the day what really matters is how each one would respond to a crisis situation," says Rovenger, arguing that, while both candidates have said military force should only be used as a last resort, McCain has emphasized the importance of threats of force when handling international disputes, while Obama has prioritized diplomatic approaches.
"While both candidates appear to take nuclear proliferation seriously, the difference in their worldview is of utmost importance," concludes Rovenger.
Krieger's group would seem to agree, noting in its appeal to the next president that, in an era when non-locatable entities like like Al-Qaeda pose serious threats to U.S. security, "the only sure way to prevent...nuclear terrorism...is to rid the world of nuclear weapons."
"Nuclear weapons do not and cannot protect their possessors," adds Krieger. "In the seventh decade of the Nuclear Age, there is a glimmer of hope that new leadership in the United States may pave the way forward toward a world free of nuclear weapons."
This article has been included in OneWorld.net's "Campaign '08" edition of Perspectives magazine, which examines where the major presidential candidates stand on key issues affecting all the world's people. Add your thoughts on the campaign today and get the background from experts on foreign policy, national security, foreign aid, global health, the environment, and much more.
© 2008 One World
42 Comments so far
Show AllDid somebody here say something about 'free market capitalism' - is that like Blackwater making big campaign contributions and then getting a war in return for the investment?
SnowWolf : August 8th, 2008 10:36 am
"I have done a real assessment…and even with its warts and flaws, free market capitalism has the power to cure all ills…its governemt regulation and partisan politics that stands in the way of progress "
Partisan politics has emerged in every Western Capitalist society. It is endemnic of the beast.
If Capitalism can cure all of it's ills, then why is the US not #1 in standard of living? (It isn't even in the top 10) Why do the Scandanavian countries top that list? Why is poverty lower in those countries? Why is there less crime? Why is there higher literacy and education?
Yes, you clearly did a complete ASSessment.
hmmm, i forgot Ayn Rand, she is a big ideologist in the free market ideology of concentration of trillions in the upper-classes, and zoloft and prozac in the majority
American poor people who keep voting for Democrats and Republicans have a built-in mental virus which says: "Thank you Bilderbergs, Wall Street, Exxon, The Privatized Federal Reserve, Adam Smith, David Ricardo, Luwig Von Mises and the Free Market System for concentrating billions in the Heritage Clubs of this country while i am so tired, depressed and poor"
All i know is that the only solution for USA is socialism. I don't really see another solution
Nukes? Unfortunately they are here to stay. No known weapons system has ever been eliminated, only exchanged for newer ways of killing people. Capitalism is communisms opposite and as such just as destructive to society and the environment. The best way to control nukes is to remind the wealthy powers of the fact that they will also loose. They can build and hide in bunkers but what will they come out to. A fried world? Want to controll the use of nukes? Give one to any nation thats wants one and preach MAD, mutually assured destruction. Finally lets get real folks, there are only two possibilities for our next president, Obama or McCain. Once again it will be the vote for the lesser of evils(amoung the thinking folk anyway). The average American will end up voting for the candidate which the media has scared them with the least. Call me a cynic but as Ambose Bierce so eloquently put it the cynic sees things as they are not as they aught to be.
The nature of the atom is that it contains enormous amounts of energy.
If you can render the atom incapable of releasing such energy then you can stop nuclear weapons. (I'm being facetious here) Or equally implausible, you could change human nature, and stop nuclear weapons.
Because it is possible to make weapons, someone will make them. If most countries rid themselves of nuclear weapons, it would only present an opportunity for other countries to change the balance of power.
This article is impossibly naive.
I have done a real assessment...and even with its warts and flaws, free market capitalism has the power to cure all ills...its governemt regulation and partisan politics that stands in the way of progress (Ex; Minimum wage is increased....unemployment rises...cause and effect?)
but I suppose thats just the "brakes"
"If you took all the money away from the rich people and gave it to the poor people…first, that would just cause massive inflation and second, within 5 years the rich would have it back and the poor would be broke again
"
Hate to brake it to you, but massive inflation and collapse of the dollar are things that have already begun...and this is all under your current Capitalist "Democracy".
In any case, there is some truth to your last statement...but there are many solutions to this, and your statement also still assumes that you stay under the same Capitalist system. For example, you can create equity without merely handing out cash...the Scandanavian countries are prime examples of working Socialist concepts.
Free education, free health care, social safety nets, healthy standards of living...with those in place then the amount of "wealth" you have becomes less relevant. In essence, when the basics are all guaranteed, the wealth generated only dictates the amount of toys you have.
I think these Socialist Democracies are the best social systems that we have come up with so far, and are far more in line with the principles of Democracy than are the Capitalist Democracies.
MacCarthyism is alive and well...it is time for it to die. People parrot these principles only because they were drilled into their heads for so long. Look around, do a real assessment...you might be surprised.
Jaguara
but I'm a big fan of Marx and Lennon (Groucho and John)
If you took all the money away from the rich people and gave it to the poor people...first, that would just cause massive inflation and second, within 5 years the rich would have it back and the poor would be broke again
The greatest cause of why we are the way we are is the concentration of wealth in the top 20% of America, we need to de-centralize wealth and $$, to expropiate the wealth of millionaires in order to trickle down that wealth to the majority
Socialism is Communisms' Fugly sister...yuck
I propose a Grand United Socialist Party, which would unite: Ralph Nader, Cynthia Mcckiney, Dennis Kucinich, even Ron Paul, Bob Barr, a grand united front to beat the dictatorship of Republicans and Democrats.
This wouldn't be a socialist system but at least would be a transitional stage, a regulated socialist-capitalist system until we can evolve into 21st Century Socialism. with massive nationalization of key industries (No concessions for millionares), workers-control, workers-cooperatives and a participative-US constitution.
There are not just two candidates for president. What about Ralph Nader (Independent)? What about Cindy McKinney (Green Party)? We must stop saying BOTH and THE "candidates", referring to McCain and Obama
INDEED !!
WHAT THE HECK IS THE MENTALITY OF MOST AMERICAN VOTERS THINKING THAT WE ONLY HAVE 2 PARTIES ???!??!??
X
America is a lonely, hopeless, alienated place without social mobility. After a while people get tired of America but because moving to another country is so expensive, people have to accept this ugly reality of having to live in this damn country, so then depression, frustration and pessimism sets in, then comes drug addiction, alcoholism and even suicide. so most people in America feel lonely, debilitated and violated, as last option people go to Borders bookstore to buy books on personal-investment like "Rich Dad, Poor Dad" etc. but we all know that those economics self-help books are bullshit, they don't offer people anyway out of this frustrating existance. so finally after people are emotionally and physiologically exhausted they run to daddy-government to beg for food-stamps instead of revolting against the fascist government. I think the answer is: what Marx said: Workers of the world: UNITE !!
The real solution for America is a United Socialist Party composed of depressed and frustrated folks of democrats, republicans and the capitalist corporatist system of the status quo.
There are not just two candidates for president. What about Ralph Nader (Independent)? What about Cindy McKinney (Green Party)? We must stop saying BOTH and THE "candidates", referring to McCain and Obama.
Those in control of the world first need to be removed.
Advanced weaponry won't be banned if those in control of the world have advanced weaponry.
Those in control of the world first need to be removed.
America is an evil nation, with an evil government and an evil population. There is literally no hope to end nuclear weapons in America. The gigantic politico-military-industrial zionist complex have literally takenover this country. US Imperialism a new kind of imperialism is ruled not by Americans but by Israel. It's an odd kind of imperialism because it is an empire ruled by a foreign nation (Israel). I don't really know how can we overthrow this *suis generis* type of empire (ruled by Israel)
Happy Days...
Whatever you're Smoking...um...do you have any more?
Stop arming, stop breeding, stop consuming excessively,stop killing the planet, stop believing third party candidates will win elections.
Old commie,you are wrong with this one," With no nuclear weapons to be afraid of, the overwhelming conventional military power of the United States would more easily be able to take over the world and set up a fascist capitalist world order".Massive force had been used in Iraq for 5 yrs
forget the surge,what had calm things a bit,was the massive bribing of the sheiks of the awakening whatever.
"There is much we still don't know about the candidates' positions"
We know the people's position is to eliminate nukes. So if the capitalist candidates do not support the people's position then the capitalist candidates must be up to NO GOOD.
You all have to be kidding,giving up nuclear weapons?
With what then the world will be blackmail?
True is,our days as species are numbered,not matter what.
If not for nuclear weapons, we would have fought major wars with the Soviet Union and China and WW II would have looked like a walk in the park by way of comparisons.
Our elite love big wars, just so long as they are not at risk. The possibility of being nuked frightens them to death, so they will not fight any war with any nation having nukes. At least, they have not done so for 63 years. Nukes have been a good thing. The only problem is those nations trying to get them to protect themsleves from being invaded by us, get invaded by us before they can get them.
Keep the nukes.
Right now, two more nuclear powered aircraft carriers, armed with nuclear weapons, are on their way to join two other carriers already stationed in the Persian Gulf.
August 15 fast approacheth...
The Global Network has been organizing against nuclear weapons and the militarization of space for decades. Check it out, get involved, organize!
http://www.space4peace.org/
"We live in an insecure, uncertain world; it is also a time of opportunity. It is a time to put aside many of the old ways and with creativity and imagination, develop new thinking, ideas, institutions, etc. Young people and women will help this process; they know that Nuclear weapons belong to the cold war thinking, and can never be used. To do so, would be immoral, illogical and destroy the Environment. They know our real problems, are:
Poverty, Environment, unethical globalization, abuse of Human Rights and International Laws, gender inequality, ethnical/political conflict, State and paramilitary acts of terror.
…They know that spending trillions on weapons that can never be used, while each day over 30,000 children die of preventable disease, is immoral and unacceptable.
"We are all aware that we are living in an increasing Culture of violence, and if we are to survive we need to build a Culture of Non-violence. Choosing not to kill another human being is the greatest contribution each of us can make to peace. This is not a hard choice when through prayer, meditation, morality, or logic, we come to realize that our lives are sacred as is the life of all our brothers and sisters, and there are always alternatives to violence which work. Human beings are evolving and there is a new consciousness that we must choose non-violence and build strong relationships and community." Mairead Maguire, Nobel Peace Prize Laureate, in Hiroshima on May 2008.
http://www.wearewideawake.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=989&Itemid=203
pourmusick,
Speaking of Einstein, keep in mind something else the great man said about trying to solve problems with worn-out ideas.
Albert Einstein:
"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them."
Complete nuclear disarmament is desirable because it would eliminate the danger of a nuclear war, but don't have any illusions that it would lead to a more peaceful world. With no nuclear weapons to be afraid of, the overwhelming conventional military power of the United States would more easily be able to take over the world and set up a fascist capitalist world order.
Back in the '60s, when we were poised on the brink, as we are now with Iran, the media did what they were meant to do, and everyone knew what we were up against. Now, it's as if the whole country is blind because of the non-media media, and only a handful of the millions have any inkling.
BAN NUCLEAR WEAPONS NOW!!! THERE IS NO EXCUSE. DON'T PUT YOUR CHILDREN IN DANGER ANY LONGER.
And Stop Missile Defence. It is leading to another arms race and violates the disarmement progress made over the past 50 years. They're will be no peace while we continue to hold countries under threat of obliteration.
Only mad men obsessed with power would think of producing such a weapon that would kill tens of thousands of people -- including and especially civilians -- and contaminate the earth. It's no badge of honor for a country to have such weapons of mass destruction. Regular bombs weren't enough for the psychos.
Why can't anyone seem to remember one of Albert Einstein's most famous statements?:
"With the splitting of the atom, everything has changed except our way of thinking."
What a profound observation, and it doesn't seem to have ever sunken in. In the eighties, people in general were far more fearful...and the situation was a lot more stable than it is now. Apparently,
the most accurate prediction about the future and nuclear war does not involve "if" but rather
"WHEN?"
Good luck, world...
Yes We Can, Yes We Can, Yes We Can, Yes We Can.
There should be a global ban on ALL guns and weapons, besides knives maybe. Sounds "impossible" I'm sure to a lot of people but anything is possible really. No more war no more guns at all, anywhere for anyone including governments and police. Ban the production and possession of all major weapons and humans can evolve to a new level and new era of peace and true progress. It is possible.
"We'll have major progress on nuclear issues no matter who is elected," says John Isaacs, executive director of the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation. "It debunks the common view that Obama is the most liberal Democratic senator, and it debunks the view that McCain is really the third Bush term."
I agree that McCain and Obama are similar and both probably would do better than Bush. Unfortunately, once again, there is no sign in this article of the other choices. Are you telling me that McKinney's position on disarmament and other issues is not far more distant to the corporate candidates, than McCain's is from Obama's? It must have occurred to some of us here that her place in the polls might go up, if progressive alternative media gave her even a fraction of the attention they give to the two corporate candidates.
There seems to be an illusionary mental wall that has gone up between the corporate candidates and the progressive candidates. Are they not running for the same jobs in congress and the white house? How can you say that it doesn't matter who is elected, without even mentioning the parties and candidates that are more in tune with many CommonDreams readers than McCain/Obama?
I'll throw it out there, perhaps nuclear weapons are too serious an issue for McKinney? She should only be considered when talking about women's issues? African American issues? Environmental issues? But when we get down to "serious" foreign policy, us progressives will go with the tried and true Republicans/Democrats. We all seem to agree that they have screwed up everything so far, so instead of giving someone else a shot, what? next time's the charm?
Bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran
Bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Paris
Bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb McCain
(http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hYXNxmjlnpC2aHwsOdPmg6u7f3PAD92BFBH00)
Even if due to a post-nuclear war conditions people will grow tails and have three eyes instead of one and the entire life condition on Earth will be different and disgusting for whatever that matter, in_genius money-lover war-monger idiots will still be ruling the world and the few likely survivors will still be paying taxes (to be spent on future wars) no matter what!
As I said elsewhere:
The use of nuclear fission or fusion as a weapon is the absolute realization of obscenity.
The active entertaining of that use is definitive and sufficient cause for a diagnosis of insanity.
Period.
I second the motion. Some of you may remember the nuclear freeze movement of the 1980s that was de-fused by Reagan's Star Wars program. Nuclear freeze would be an improvement of the world situation. It seems we end up spending all our available energy just trying to minimize the damage caused by the current administration.