Issue Position: Eliminating Weapons of Mass Annihilation
Issue Position
The Reverend Theodore Hesburgh put it plainly and directly in speaking of the danger we are in from our nuclear weapons: "All other moral questions pale into insignificance when compared to this one. If this problem is not solved, we can forget about the others, because there will not be human beings around to have problems."
And the jeopardy we are in, not just from nuclear bombs, but from all our human weapons of mass annihilation, is great. We now face dangers that were hardly recognized and spoken of just fifteen years ago. Even into the middle 1980s the worry we would destroy ourselves with our nuclear bombs was confined almost exclusively to fearing there would be a nuclear exchange between the "East" and "West" blocs. The focus was on the relationship between the United States and the Soviet Union, on arms control and arms reductions between the two "superpowers," on making sure nuclear-armed missiles were not launched by accident or miscalculation, and so forth..
Now we know our peril is far more than "just" the one that nations possessing nuclear bombs might attack each other. A terrorist use of a nuclear weapon has become -- and it should -- of ever increasing concern. The cover story of the August 29, 1994 edition of Time Magazine was entitled "Nuclear Terror For Sale" with the caption "Once we feared thugs like Carlos the Jackal. Now no one knows who might buy smuggled plutonium -- and hold the world hostage." Bernard Lown, cofounder of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War and a Nobel Peace Prize winner, wrote after the bombing of the Federal Building in Oklahoma City in April, 1995: "The horror in Oklahoma City must force us to consider the prospect, indeed the seeming inevitability, that one day terrorism will go nuclear." Senator Richard Lugar, in his unsuccessful bid for the Republican Presidential nomination in 1996, ran campaign ads about terrorists threatening an American city with a nuclear bomb.
But nuclear devices are not our only weapon of mass annihilation.
Poison gas was spread throughout Tokyo subway stations by a fanatical religious group in 1995.
Firestorms caused by conventional, incendiary bombing burned and suffocated hundreds of thousands of residents of Hamburg, Dresden, Tokyo and other cities during World War II.
Meanwhile, biological and chemical weapons have become the "poor man's atom bomb." A Time magazine article in November, 1997 reported that virulent biological and chemical agents -- germs such as ricin, botulinum, and anthrax and nerve gases like sarin, mustard gas, and VX -- are easy and inexpensive to manufacture and unleash. The article gave this example of potential germ warfare: "A gram of anthrax culture contains a trillion spores, theoretically enough for 100 million fatal doses. The stuff can be spread into the air with backpack sprayers or even perfume atomizers. The U. N.'s specialists say that 100 lbs. of anthrax bacteria sprayed around a city of 1 million could kill 36,000 people within a week."
Manuals on how to make chemical and biological weapons are offered for sale on the Internet. These weapons, unfortunately, are quite available not only to governments but also to independent terrorist groups and even "ordinary" mass murderers and extortionists. "Every Man A Superpower" was the title Jonathan Alter gave to an essay in the November 24, 1997 issue of Newsweek in which he discussed how "individuals with access to weapons of mass destruction (WMD) have as much power to kill as most nations."
In an emergency drill in New York City in November, 1997, six hundred police, firefighters, and FBI agents were confronted with the scenario of a clandestine VX nerve gas attack on the city.
This novel had as its subject the way a "rogue" state might engage in nuclear terrorism.
In short:
Our human-made weapons of annihilation are many: nuclear, biological, chemical, concentrated conventional bombs, firestorm, and who knows what in the future -- laser? genetic? ecological? computer viruses and cyber warfare?
The possession of these weapons cannot be contained. They are ever more widely held throughout the world; "non-proliferation" efforts are of limited effect. Control over weapons of mass destruction will not be restricted to just those people any of us might trust or like.
The dangers we face from our weapons of annihilation arise not just from the potential that one nation will "openly" attack another, but also from their possible clandestine, irrational, accidental, mistaken, unauthorized, criminal, or threatened or actual terrorist use.
Do we want to have to trust -- forever -- that deadly germs or nuclear bombs or other weapons of mass annihilation won't fall into the hands of terrorists or madmen? That a lethal virus won't escape from a military laboratory, or be illicitly released by a distressed or deranged worker? That a government won't secretly smuggle a nuclear bomb into an "enemy" country and detonate it? That threats won't be made that poison gas will be released throughout a city unless a huge ransom is paid? That "fail-safe" protections against the accidental or mistaken use of nuclear weapons will, indeed, never fail?
President John F. Kennedy, in an address at the United Nations in 1961, said to the people of the world, "Today, every inhabitant of this planet must contemplate the day when this planet may no longer be habitable. Every man, woman and child lives under a nuclear sword of Damocles, hanging by the slenderest of threads, capable of being cut at any moment by accident or miscalculation or by madness. The weapons of war must be abolished before they abolish us."
Whether from panic, hatred, retaliation against or punishment of the presumed attacker, self-destructive compulsion, insanity, a "pre-emptive" strike to prevent a possible further attack, fear, a lashing out against all perceived enemies, self-defense, emulation, or any other rational or irrational reason, the most likely reaction to a future use of a weapon of mass annihilation will be further and further resort to such arms. Any use of a weapon of mass annihilation increases the chances that yet another will be set off.
Speaking of "the potential destructiveness of modern weapons of war," Martin Luther King succinctly warned: "The choice today is no longer between violence and nonviolence. It is either nonviolence or nonexistence."
The weapons of genocide we have made are aimed at ourselves. We human beings will have a common fate.
We should be terrified of the peril we have placed ourselves in.
The purpose of this Afterword, however, is not to frighten, although we wouldn't be human if we weren't frightened, but to express genuine optimism that we can end the threat to our existence, and to the existence of all life on Earth, from our weapons of annihilation -- and to spur us to take specific actions to do so.
The reason we can be optimistic is that not only can we envision, we are in fact building the kind of global human community that will neither want nor need the weapons of war.
The large, but seemingly largely-unrecognized, truth about us human beings is that we have and want to live by the same values: liberty, democracy, tolerance, equality, caring, justice, and mutual respect. These values are not just "Western" ideals, as many in the West seem to believe; they are universal human values. They are shared by people all over the world. The human rights movement is everywhere on the offensive. People around the globe are working and fighting to construct societies that are free, democratic, tolerant, and compassionate because these are the kinds of communities the vast majority of us human beings do and will desire. We citizens of the world have a common goal, a goal that is clearly and increasingly being realized.
Of course, totalitarian governments still exist; elemental freedoms are denied to many; grinding, deadly poverty plagues much of the world; individuals remain imprisoned and even tortured for speaking out for human rights; wars still occur. It hardly needs to be said that the struggle for true, all-encompassing free, just, and caring societies is not yet won. Courageous individuals fighting to advance human rights are not always victorious. But who would want to wager that those engaged in the struggle who, today, seem defeated -- such as the students of Tianeman Square, and Aung San Suu Kyi and the people of Burma -- won't ultimately be triumphant? The historical trend toward a world that lives by the humane principles we universally share is unmistakable. There is, indeed, nothing more powerful than an idea whose time has come.
Meanwhile we can celebrate our recent far-flung victories: by the people of the Phillipines who overthrew the dictatorship of Ferdinand Marcos, by Nelson Mandela and Bishop Tutu and the people of South Africa, by the intrepid souls who led the Solidarity movement in Poland, by Martin Luther King and the civil rights activists in the United States. The changes in the world in the last few decades -- thinking further of the democratization of governments throughout Latin America and the overthrow of communism in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union -- have been truly breathtaking.
It becomes easier and easier to see that dictatorial, authoritarian regimes are anachronistic relics whose years, if not days, are numbered. Significantly, even many a repressive government feels the need to pronounce itself a "democracy."
On December 10, 1948, without a single dissenting vote, the member states of the United Nations adopted the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights," a comprehensive, thirty article statement of the "fundamental human rights" of "all members of the human family." Proclaimed to be "a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations" these "rights for everyone" include:
"The right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion"
"The right to freedom of opinion and expression"
"The right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association"
"The right to take part in the government of his country directly or through freely chosen representatives"
Clause 3 of Article 21 of the Declaration specifically sets forth: "The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or equivalent voting procedures."
Almost every nation on Earth has accepted the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. What government dares to profess to its own citizens, or to anyone else, that it opposes the "fundamental human rights" of "everyone"? Certainly, the standards of the Declaration have not become the reality for "all members of the human family"; but, just as certainly, relentless political pressure by "everyone" will see that they do.
At the same time we know we are human. Nowhere has the perfect societal implementation of our universal values been achieved. And although we should always strive for, we should not expect, perfection. There will even be honest disagreements among us over just what is a "free" and "democratic" and "just" and "compassionate" society. But we will see that that debate itself is a healthy development in forging a global civilization that embodies, as best we humanly can, these values.
It must be acknowledged that creating such a civilization will not by itself solve, or provide the answers to, all the world's problems. Life holds countless challenges for us. Among the many difficult social and political issues we face today are:
How to structure our local and global economies;
How to meet every human being's basic needs for food, clothing, shelter, health care, and education;
How to preserve our life-giving environment;
How to fairly distribute our material wealth;
How in so many other ways to make real in our everyday lives our aspirations for liberty, democracy, equality, justice, tolerance, compassion, and opportunity for self-fulfillment.
These and other pressing issues cannot be ignored. They must be addressed in their own right, and they must also be successfully resolved lest a failure to do so lead to the belief that a peaceful solution to them is not attainable.
Thus, providing a full measure of food, clothing, shelter, health care, and education to every human being is a requirement for a just and peaceful world. Likewise, we must devise and construct the economic and social systems that will provide the material goods we need, fulfilling jobs for all workers, and a fair distribution of wealth, all while extending human rights into the workplace. Can heavily-regulated international capitalism do all this? Meanwhile, whatever our economic system, we must produce the goods we want without damaging our environment.
The solution to these and myriad other challenges is not so obvious. Our best chance of finding and implementing solutions will come from honestly working with each other in good faith. And in doing so we will know that where human beings are striving to build and improve societies based on our shared values it will be less and less the case that violence will be seen or tolerated as the way to resolve disputes. For in a world where we do accept the inherent worth and dignity of every human being; where we respect our affinities and differences and equality; where we govern ourselves democratically; where we treat each of us with care and compassion; and where we want to meet the basic needs of all persons and deal resolutely with the other social problems we face, we will neither need nor want the weapons of war.
While I believe we have every reason to be optimistic that in the long run we can, and will want to, abolish our weapons of mass annihilation, we do have to get to the long run. But knowing there is a promising future should buoy us to take the actions, now and tomorrow, to prevent our self-destruction.
I would suggest to all of you the following actions that immediately, in the near future, and in the long-term can reduce and finally eliminate the danger we face from our weapons of mass annihilation:
That each of our governments immediately, unilaterally, and unconditionally:
Publish the types and numbers of weapons it possesses and the kinds of new weapons it is developing or researching;
Reduce the number of its nuclear warheads to no more than three hundred;
Reduce its stocks of poison gas, chemical, germ, nuclear and other weapons of mass death or incapacitation by at least 75%;
Where a signatory nation, honor existing international conventions and treaties restricting or controlling the development, possession, distribution or use of military arms and technologies; and, where not a signatory nation, work toward being able to agree to all such international accords;
Commit to the goal of a worldwide elimination of the weapons of annihilation by the year 2010;
Commit to making every reasonable effort to resolve international disputes peacefully;
Commit to the building of a global human community in which we can live together in genuine peace.
That we human beings and our governments enter into discourse with each other as to
expeditious ways to further reduce and eliminate weapons of annihilation,
how to prevent the clandestine, irrational, accidental, mistaken, unauthorized, or terrorist use of such weapons until they are eliminated, and
expanding and improving the ways by which we can peacefully resolve disputes and disagreements.
That we, the people of Earth, and our agencies and governments, build a global human community that will enable us to live together in genuine peace and trust and without the weapons of war -- and that is, therefore, an all-encompassing human society that:
Respects the freedoms, rights and equality of individuals.
Provides for the basic needs of all persons for food, clothing, shelter, health care, and education.
Guarantees all individuals the opportunity of self-fulfillment.
Governs itself democratically and by the rule of law -- locally, nationally, and internationally.
Has trusted mechanisms to resolve conflicts peacefully.
Maintains a strong government of and for all humankind that embodies, advocates, and secures the foregoing conditions necessary for a just and peaceful world.
That the United Nations convene a permanent conference, meeting annually, on the question "How Can Weapons of Mass Annihilation Be Abolished?" until such conference is no longer needed; and, that the day before the beginning of each annual session be a worldwide holiday for reflection and discussion on the means to achieve international peace and rid ourselves of the weapons of war.
Among the actions with immediate effect called for by this Plan are that each of our governments immediately, unilaterally and unconditionally reduce its stocks of armaments of mass death or incapacitation by at least 75%; reduce the number of its nuclear warheads to no more than three hundred; disclose the types and numbers of weapons it possesses and the kinds of new weapons it is developing or researching; and commit to the goal of completely eliminating weapons of annihilation throughout the world by the year 2010.
The Plan also urges the United Nations to convene a permanent conference, meeting annually, on the question "How Can Weapons of Mass Annihilation Be Abolished?" with the day before the start of each year's session being observed as an "International Peace Holiday."
And, of course, every nation must commit both to making every reasonable effort to resolve international disputes peacefully and to building a global human community in which we can live together in genuine peace.
These "immediate, unilateral, and unconditional" steps, far from being "drastic" or "unrealistic" as some may think, are among the most sensible and sane actions we can undertake -- certainly far more sane and sensible than continuing our present suicidal course.
Thus, many, such as McGeorge Bundy, Andrei Sakharov, Melvin Laird, Adam Yarmolinsky, Noel Gayler, Robert McNamara, and Bernard Lown, have recognized that nuclear weapons no longer have any military value other than to prevent your enemy from using theirs against you. The only "use" for weapons of mass annihilation is as a "deterrent."
But how many nuclear bombs does it take to "deter" an opponent? If three hundred will not do so, certainly neither will three thousand. If the possible release of one lethal virus or biological agent is not enough to convince others that war is no longer a viable option, the threat to disperse four times the amount of that agent won't do so either. Having a greater stock of weapons than is necessary to deter is, among other things, a foolish, and very dangerous, waste of money. And just imagine the incalculably positive impact if Russia or the United States were to announce that, to promote the prospects for world peace and the survival of life on Earth, it was "immediately, unilaterally, and unconditionally" cutting its nuclear arsenal to three hundred warheads, or less and challenging all other nations to make similar reductions in their military arms.
Nations that have been asked not to develop an atomic bomb have, with some force, objected to being told not to have even one nuclear explosive while the established nuclear powers maintain hundreds and thousands of such devices. Substantial progress toward disarmament has been demanded by some "have-not" nations as the price for "nonproliferation." An "instant" cut by the present nuclear powers of 75% in their stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, and to no more than 300 nuclear bombs each, will speak much louder to the world than any moralizing, cajoling, or threats -- and go a long way toward the total disarmament that must be our goal.
As to the call in the Plan for each of our governments to publish the types and numbers of weapons it possesses and the kinds of new weapons it is developing or researching, it is apparent we all must know the dimensions of our dilemma. Would "national security" really be jeopardized by any country's disclosure of its arsenal of weapons? Edward Teller, the principal architect of the U. S. hydrogen bomb, has advised: "The most urgent need of our time is to establish peace. . . . Many thoroughly feasible, rational solutions are present. My first proposal is to eliminate long-term secrecy, at least as it relates to ideas, rather than details or blueprints. Our present policy of exaggerated secrecy helps to create hopeless and helpless confusion in our democracy."
And we need a permanent international conference, under the auspices of the United Nations, to consider "how we abolish weapons of mass annihilation," because it is only if human beings talk about and deal with this issue that we will be able to accomplish the objective. It is the only way a road to peace will ultimately be found. It will certainly promote and further the process if the day before the commencement of each annual session is designated an "International Peace Holiday" -- the first genuine international holiday with people all around the Earth considering and discussing, and perhaps even celebrating, how we can produce a world that can exist in peace and without the weapons of war.
The good and powerful effect of having nations committed to eliminating weapons of mass destruction by the year 2010, a permanent United Nations Conference on abolishing weapons of mass annihilation, and an annual holiday for peace should not be underestimated.
While undertaking the foregoing steps to immediately lessen our threat to ourselves from our weapons of annihilation, we must, concurrently and just as purposefully, advance the "longer-term" actions that will further reduce and finally eliminate our jeopardy.
We can't ignore the danger that at any time, for any number of reasons, a weapon of mass destruction could be detonated or unleashed upon the world. We must work with each other to see that existing international treaties restricting or controlling the development, possession, distribution or use of military arms and technologies are extended to and honored by all nations. We must also find and implement additional ways to reduce and eliminate weapons of annihilation; prevent the clandestine, irrational, accidental, mistaken, unauthorized, criminal, or terrorist use of such weapons; and peacefully resolve disputes and disagreements.
And, most importantly, we must build the global human community based on the universal, inalienable rights of all human beings where we can live together in genuine peace and trust and without the weapons of war. A just and peaceful future is foreseeable and achievable.
It is within our power to produce a world that will not want the weapons of war. Doing so is the only way we can truly be safe and secure. The unrealistic "dreamers" are those who think we can continue to build ever-larger numbers of increasingly insidious and devastating weapons of genocide and not produce a catastrophic end. Neither vast stockpiles of arms nor elaborate military defenses will save us from our weapons of mass annihilation. As columnist James Carroll wrote after India and Pakistan detonated nuclear bombs in May 1998: "Peace is the only realism."
It is truly unbelievable that we human beings should be threatening to cause our own extinction. Knowing how much we have in common -- knowing we have the same aspirations -- and that we can be optimistic about our future should make us all the more determined to avoid such an unthinkable fate.
George Kennan, speaking about the possibility of nuclear war, urged each of us to "neglect nothing -- no effort, no unpleasantness, no controversy, no sacrifice -- which could conceivably help to preserve us from committing this supreme and final folly." It is the solemn duty of all human beings who value life and who wish a future for themselves, their children, and all succeeding generations, indeed for all life on this beautiful blue planet, to take action to eliminate our weapons of mass annihilation.
"The weapons of war must be abolished before they abolish us."
Source