Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Doomsday Clock May Finally Stop Ticking
UNITED NATIONS - The Barack Obama administration's apparent resolve to take U.S. foreign policy in a new direction is creating ripples of hope for an enhanced U.N. agenda on nuclear nonproliferation and disarmament.
Observers and diplomats who are due to take part in a major meeting to discuss progress on the implementation of the 1970 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) told IPS they had never before so optimistic about the U.N.-led negotiation process.
An anti-war activist holds a placard with an image of U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during a rally demanding a dialogue between the U.S. and North Korea in front of the U.S. embassy in Seoul February 17, 2009. The placard reads, "(Yes!) Conclusion of a peace agreement on the Korean Peninsula and normalization of the U.S.-North Korea diplomatic relations!" (R) and "(No!) Participation of MD and PSI programmes, South Korea-U.S. joint military exercise and a dispatch of troops to Afghanistan!" REUTERS/Jo Yong-Hak (SOUTH KOREA) "I think he [Obama] is sincere about what he is saying," said David Krieger, president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, an advocacy group that works closely with the U.N. "I think he is willing to stand up against the vested interests."
Many peace activists, like Krieger, believe that the threat of a possible nuclear catastrophe is not going to go away so long as the major nuclear powers remain reluctant to take drastic steps towards dismantling their nuclear arsenals.
Countries that rolled back their weapons programs, as well as those that never produced such arms, have long been calling for the elimination of nuclear weapons, but the response they received from the major nuclear powers has always been disappointing. In addition to actions against the spread of nuclear weapons, the NPT requires the five declared nuclear states - the United States, Russia, Britain, France, and China - to engage in "good faith" negotiations for disarmament. Until now that task has remained elusive.
The United States and Russia are the world's largest nuclear weapon states. They possess no less than 93 percent of the total number of nuclear weapons in the world, according to Sipri, a Sweden-based think tank that tracks weapon production and export worldwide.
Among others, China has 400 warheads, France 348, and Israel and Britain about 200 each. India is believed to have more than 80 and Pakistan about 40 nuclear weapons.
Critics see the United States as the most irresponsible member of the nuclear club, for it not only failed to meet the NPT obligations, but also contributed, at great length, to block, and even derail, the international discourse on nuclear disarmament.
The Ronald Reagan administration, for example, looked the other way when Pakistan was developing its illegal nuclear program in the 1980s. Similarly, the George W. Bush administration decided to make a nuclear trade deal with India that remains outside the fold of the NPT.
The Bush administration is held responsible by many for sabotaging the U.N. agenda on disarmament by its decision to abrogate the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and to install controversial missile defenses in countries located next to Russia's borders.
During the past eight years, the former U.S. administration also refused to endorse the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), which is considered by experts an integral part of the international framework to achieve the goal of disarmament.
"We have been through the dark ages," Krieger told IPS. "It was a death plan for humanity."
During his two terms, Bush never spoke of nuclear disarmament. He rather fully supported the move to generate new kinds of nuclear weapons. In March 2007, his administration declared plans to make new kinds of nukes, a move considered as controversial by many.
Bush argued that the existing warheads had become obsolete, but many experts saw his line of reasoning as out of step with reality because in their conclusion, the U.S. stockpile was already 'safe and reliable' for at least 50 years.
At the time, many independent think tanks in Washington warned that such a move would prove provocative and counter-productive because countries like Iran and North Korea would use it as justification to possess nuclear weapons.
In contrast to the Bush administration, however, the message from the new administration in Washington appears to be radically different.
"A world without nuclear weapons is profoundly in America's interest and the world's interest," said the new U.S. president in a recent statement. "It is our responsibility to make the commitment, and to do the hard work to make this vision a reality."
Currently, a coalition of peace advocacy groups is running a nationwide signature campaign to press Obama to take immediate, effective, and practical measures for the elimination of nuclear weapons.
"Nuclear weapons could destroy civilization and end intelligent life on the planet," said the campaign in a letter to Obama. "The only sure way to prevent nuclear proliferation, nuclear terrorism and nuclear war is to rid the world of nuclear weapons."
Krieger told IPS that so far over 50,000 people, including some Noble laureates, have signed the letter. He expects that by next month when the letter is due to be delivered to the White House, at least one million people would have endorsed it.
An international group, known as "Global Zero," is proposing deep cuts in U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals, a verification and enforcement system, and phased reduction leading to the elimination of all stockpiles.
Supporters of the Global Zero campaign includes many distinguished international figures and former statesmen, such as former U.S. President Jimmy Carter; former Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger; former Defense Secretary Frank Carlucci; former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev; and Shaharyar Khan, a former Pakistani foreign minister.
The launching in Paris follows 18 months of consultations among diplomats and military leaders and in effect established Global Zero as a participant in mobilizing efforts to eliminate nuclear weapons.
Last July Obama said, "as long as nuclear weapons exist we will retain a strong deterrent," but added in the same breath:" We will make the goal of eliminating all nuclear weapons a central element in our nuclear policy."
According to unconfirmed reports, the Obama administration is already engaged in negotiations on the proposal to reduce the number of nuclear weapons to 1,000 in the first phase and that it is possible that the reaction from Moscow is likely to be positive.
However, in Krieger's view, that would happen only if the Obama administration takes a different position on the deployment of the U.S. missile defense systems in Eastern Europe, which Russia perceives to be a threat to its sovereignty.
Building the missile defense systems has cost U.S. taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars, although it's still not clear that it would be especially effective.
"The defense contractors in the United States will continue to put pressure," he told IPS. "But he [Obama] has to understand that this system is not going to work."
While Krieger and many others seem satisfied with the gradual and phased reduction of nuclear weapons on both sides, some nuclear abolitionists remain skeptical about the outcome of such measures and would rather like to see dramatic results in a short span of time.
"Cutting down to 1,000 nuclear weapons each? 1,000 are too many. It's the same kind of slow process as it was during the cold war," said Zia Mian, a nuclear physicist and peace activist at Princeton University. "It's about restoring the process, not breaking away from the process."
Mian, who plans to attend the upcoming NPT preparatory meeting in May, added: "If Obama wants a real change, he must say: We are going to negotiate a treaty now to eliminate the nuclear weapons."
35 Comments so far
Show All"During the past eight years, the former U.S. administration also refused to endorse the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT)"
Another BS article by a know-nothing, "English is my fourth language" journalist. The US Administration (under Clinton) has already signed the CTBT; it is Congress that refuses to ratify the treaty.
It would be really good if CD editors READ and chose the articles they post, lest we readers have to wade through low-brow, low-information, high-misinformation "News of the World" articles.
Further, the proposal outlined in this article is inconsistent with O'Bomber's desire to put the National Labs under DoD control.
I'm not holding my breath.
Never criticize a man until you've walked a mile in their moccasins - Native American proverb.
Never criticize a president until you've flown a mile in his Air Force One - A not-so-American proverb
In a time of economic peril one never hears a call for the reduction of the budget of the Pentagon from within government. When our entire social safety net is imperiled we hear no discussion of the number and type of weapons programs sopping up money like the desert soaks up water. In an era of limited wars we still see expensive weapons systems suited to a world war being advanced. When every child knows that anti missles do not work we see plans to put exactly that in eastern Europe, exacerbating the new cold war with Russia.
Do we really need enough nuclear weapons to destroy our planet five times over? Would it not help disarmament if we first volunteered to reduce our own stockpile? Would it not further the cause of peace if we pursued peaceful means of resolving conflict? Will we hear from our President on this subject? Will we see, in his stated goal of reduction of our national debt, a reduction of military expenditures?
"Most people would sooner die than think, in fact they do so." Bertrand Russell
Obama is characterized as a practical rational person and the reduction of nuclear bombs was important to Obama when he first got to Congress - so this would be a success for him to accomplish at a time when the Russians are also broke because the oil prices went down - so maybe it will actually happen!
Also a relief if there is not another arms race with bombs getting set up in Poland--
It only makes sense at a time of economic crisis.
Depends on how you like your doom?
Slow or fast/
It's the environment. . . stupid!
The elite corporatists can survive global warming as the entire planet will not become uninhabitable, and they plan on controlling the most habitable parts. They might not survive nuclear war.
The Democrats are generally the more careful, risk-averse corporatists, while the Republicans are the impatient, reckless, irresponsible corporatists who want total domination and want it now and will risk everything to get it.
Last week, I used the word 'corporatists'. I do not imagine that I am the only one to think of it. Such a word was inevitable. I see the word this way: corporatist - one who is at the upper echelon of the corporate hierarcy or one who worships such an entity religosly.
It appears that corporatism is the only place that bipartisanship seems to be working.
I suppose that as long as the masses of asses can't see that corporatism is the real enemy, nothing is going to change.
Naomi Klein has been using the term "corporatists" for some time as have some other progressive writers. I do not know who coined it or when.
Agree with you about the importance of identifying the corporatists as the enemy.
Find and read "Unequal Protection" by Thom Hartmann. It's an eye opener.
Also, works by Korten, Chomsky, Chalmers Johnson, Palast.
Also, put aside some canned goods and camping equipment...
Good luck.
How much does one bomb cost? How many farm implements will it purchase? How much would it cost in bombs and other weapons to irrigate Darfur and make it farmable? How much would it cost in drones and missiles to change the Afghani cash crop from opium to edibles? How much is it worth clean the tarnish from the name of America? Our defense budget is unconscionable. How can this country continue to stand for this travesty in the face of our economic meltdown. Granted, there are many jobs to be lost if the arms factories were to be shut down, but in the second world war many civilian factories were retooled to help in the war effort,perhaps the same could be done in reverse; the arms industry could be retooled to help in peace and enviornmental improvement. Unfortunately, there are many people here in the U.S. that believe we will be overrun by evildoers if we don't have this juggernaut of a military to protect us. We have this right to keep and bear arms(?) can't the fearful protect themselves?
Exactly, johntwodogs.
Joe
The master of "shuck 'n jive" strikes again. Obama speaks with glorious obscurities, and the "hopers" go wild.
The bottom line is very simple. If Obama doesn't focus on the nuclear hypocrisy of Israel, he is disingenuous, at the very least.
Since nukes are a useless battlefield weapon, they should be reduced to a small number for strategic purposes.
I would propose reducing the number of "bombs" to two hundred with maybe 800 disassembled. And a reduction in the number of strategic delivery vehicles say to 400.
This would give the USA a credible deterrent, yet make offensive use for "first strike" impossible.
You make no sense. If it is a credible deterrent, than it is also a weapon -particularly against the weak which the US wishes to dominate.
Nothing but complete abolition makes any sense.
---USAn---
Along with the scrubbing of every word having to do with "nuclear," and mind wipes to get rid of the technology.
Sarcasm noted.
It is also nonsense. We ban lots of things, such as slavery, toxic chemicals and yes, successfully, certain types of weapons, without having to wipe any minds clean of how to make them.
---USAn---
Is there a better sign of doom than the clock breaking down when we finally need it?
Please read JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters, or people will remain thinking that the Presidents Chosen by Wolf Blitzer will change everything, and we-- as a species will devlove into quivering lime Jello, and not even cold quiverin
You're all shills for the imperial oligarchy. America is BOMBING its nuclear-armed ally, Pakistan. A government held together by spit, duct tape, and American bribe money and governed by the idiot husband of a martyred buffoon. Move that clock forward ten seconds under Obama.
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of
patriots and tyrants. ....Thomas Jefferson
Once again, the opiate of hope is being distributed like candy and the "children" are eating it up. What fools we all be!
i'm certainly not an obamatard, and have very little hope for substantive, not-simply-cosmetic, action on this, but isn't the rhetoric of the prez of some value? scepticism is certainly in order when obama won't address israel's nuke program, and a good first step would be totally eliminating the "star wars" boondoggle.
the problem with nuke (or any weapons) elimination programs is that current global economics and nation-state rivalries make any and all advanced weapons programs very attractive. nukes, as horrible as they are, are still symptoms of more fundamental problems.
As I peer through the smoke and mirrors, trying to discern some truth, I notice that the above article lists the nuclear arsenals of every nation but Israel. Israel is known to have from 70 to 400 nuclear warheads with delivery systems.
Israel is signatory to no treaties, allows no inspections, receives about $3.1 billion tribute from the US every year. Israeli government officials, in addition to advocating nuking Iran have spoken of using the Sampson Option, i.e., to take the rest of the world with them if they face defeat.
Yet, nobody lists them amongst the nuclear powers. Am I missing something here?
Well, you make good points, but Israel is in fact mentioned with Britain: "...and Israel and Britain about 200 each."
You are right and I stand corrected. I guess I didn't catch the two lumped together. However, my major points are correct, I believe.
My wife just suggested that I listen to Obama, who is addressing Congress at the moment. She said it is the usual. I guess we will destroy anyone who supports (the probably mythical) Al Quaeda stalking horse, including countless Afghan and Pakistani peasants and, I imagine the various Presidential Orders of the last eight years will be used to stifle dissent in this country. Those who protest this insanity will all become "enemy combatants" who have forfeited their civil rights, bank accounts and citizenship.
It is always the same. Only the names are changed, to protect the truly guilty.
What if we figure out how many nukes it would take to destroy the world and limit their totals to that number. Then each country gets a fraction of that number of nukes according to population size.
Mutual Assured Destruction is the only thing that has prevented WWIII so far. If all countries have a nuke, they won't get invaded.
Define "destroy the world".
- Turn it to dust? Probably a billion thermonukes.
- Eliminate all life, including bacteria? Probably a million thermonukes.
- Make extinct 50% of species on the planet? Probably 10,000 thermonukes.
- Warm the planet so that the elites have to adjust their air conditioning thermostat? About 1,000 thermonukes.
- Destroy the internet and the NYT? 10 well-placed thermonukes.
Never criticize a man until you've walked a mile in their moccasins - Native American proverb.
How about just people?
People are resilient, just like cockroaches and ants. I estimate 2,000-3,000 thermonukes to eliminate all people including those living in survival habitats.
Never criticize a man until you've walked a mile in their moccasins - Native American proverb.
The abbreviation for "Mutual Assured Destruction is "MAD".
The adjective "Mad" describes any country which eagerly embraces such a stupid idea, as well as any individual who believes it will actually prevent millions of deaths instead of causing them.
Don't worry. Someone will wind it up again.
How about a global warming/climate change doomsday clock?
I note that we are now only a little over 3 years from the date of the Mayan prophecy for the end of the Fifth World.
Looking right on schedule, too.
I would not bet one skinny dime that the doomsday clock will stop ticking.
If we cut down 99% of our 20,000 nuclear weapons, that will only leave us with enough to cause one enormous nuclear holocaust, causing death on a scale that even the Nazis could never have imagined.
I don't think President Obama wants to cut down quite that much, so it's ok.
Senator Barack Obama stated:
"As president, I will set a new direction in nuclear weapons policy and show the world that America believes in its existing commitment under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to work to ultimately eliminate all nuclear weapons. I fully support reaffirming this goal, as called for by George Shultz, Henry Kissinger, William Perry, and Sam Nunn, as well as the specific steps they propose to move us in that direction.".
Obama made that promise to ACT/Arms Control Today, a leading journal devoted to nonproliferation and global security issues. ACT questioned Obama [and other presidential candidates] regarding arms control and nonproliferation; from Russia to Iran and about U.S. policy on cluster munitions and regarding a nuclear-armed India and Pakistan.
The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, created in 1968, maintains that nuclear weapons proliferation can only be curtailed if nuclear countries make moves toward disarmament and the rest of the world is allowed to access civilian nuclear technology.
If the media in America were a sanctuary for dissent every candidate for Congress and Presidential office, would be grilled on America's record regarding the NPT; and held to the fire for their silence about Israel's still un-inspected underground WMD facility and refusal to sign onto the NPT.
If we the people in the USA are suppose to be the government we must be informed and vigilant for American taxpayers provide Israel with $7-10 million per day that is consumed by the Occupation of Palestine and BTW, Israel is the ONLY Mid East state with nukes!
THE TREATY ON THE NON-PROLIFERATION OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS:
http://www.un.org/events/npt2005/npttreaty.html
Eileen Fleming, Author, Founder WAWA:
http://www.wearewideawake.org/
Producer "30 Minutes With Vanunu" and "13 Minutes with Vanunu"
t_g
I think all kinds of clocks are ticking: environmental, population, extinction of species - and nuclear is just one of them. If not the one, than the other will destroy us.
I don't think that this US Administration is going to change the equation that much. How are they tackling the environmental issues? How much time do they need to undo the damage, let alone reverse it? Population explosion? Anyone beside me is worried about that?
And of course the biggest one: nuclear proliferation. So far the Obama administration has not really started to undo the Bush damage. I know that there are obstacles: Congress, big industrial interests, jobs losses, etc. etc. But maybe the lessening of the nuclear threat would be worth to tackle the problems. In the long run we would be better off without threatening each other with elimination. Yes, mutual, but for example in Israel, does anybody realize there, that the distances between countries are relatively small, so the winds would blow around all the fallout and it would certainly get back to the sender. Even if the bombed nation has nothing but slingshots, the Israelis would do damage to themselves.
"Sampson Option"... Just like everywhere in the world, Israel also has a lot of religious and ideological fanatics. This is their option. The population is just about as normal and would like to live in normalcy, like every other people on the planet.
I do believe, that out of these economic problems the big nations will come out leaner and more selective with their spending. I'm not suggesting that we'll go back to fighting with daggers and lances, but I'm sure they'll scrap some very expensive weapons programs, which will inevitably include nuclear ones. However, I'm not sure when is it going to happen. Let's hope that Obama can swing the Congress. That'd be a good start.
"I think he is willing to stand up against the vested interests."
We progressives declare all "vested interests" null and void. There will be no more zero-sum games and other such nonsense. This means that if something is controversial, e.g. nuclear weapons, then it never gets airborne, period. Only those enterprises that serve the BETTER interests of the society get airborne. We're imposing the hippocratic oath on all actors.
We're getting rid of all the nuclear weapons, conventional weapons, nuclear and fossil power, all economic/political power concentrations, and the elite establishment. 90% of all problems on this planet are caused by the elites and their toys. So we're getting rid of their toys. Did we make some progress today in this direction? Sure we did!
Toad Goddess, you are not alone in worrying about the other doomsday clocks. The human proliferation clock is ticking along at 70 million additional people added every year and no plan in sight to stabilize and reduce overpopulation. Guess we will have to rely on nature to take care of this one even though it is an ugly resolution that is coming our way.