According
to the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, the world is currently six
minutes away fom a nuclear catastrophe. What may seem as an alarming
concept to most people who do not view nuclear weapons as an immediate
threat to their personal safety, is actually a relief to most peopl who
are familiar with the status quo of the nuclear arms in the world -
until this year, the scientists judged the world to be much closer to
"midnight" - five minutes on their doomsday clock. This clock,
which is meant to represent the current danger of nuclear weapons
actually being used by one of the major nuclear weapon states has been
on this status of high alert ever since 2007, when the devastating
policies of the former US administration under George W. Bush regarding
the development of new nuclear weapons met with the nuclear
weapons test in North Korea, the redeployment of nuclear-weapons armed
submarines on the high seas by Russia and the escalating conflict in
the MIddle East, where Israel already posses nuclear capabilities and
Iran is in the process of acquiring them. So what has led the Atomic
Scientists to decrease their state of alert now in 2010? For one, the
election of Barak Obama as new US president has certainly ushered in a
new era of hope for serious nuclear disarmament talks to begin.
Additionally, several European states have expressed their desire to
have US nuclear missiles removed from their soil - Germany with its
remaining nuclear weapons base in Büchel amongst them.
Jayantha Dhanapala,
President of the Pugwash Movement of Scientists and Board member of the
Bulletin of Atomic Scientists stated that with more than 23.000 nuclear
weapons still in deployment around the world, 8.000 of which are still
in a state of high alert, the danger for a nuclear weapon actually
being used are still very real. Muhamad Al Baradei, President of the
International Atomic Energy Association and recipient of the Nobel
Peace Prize for this stance on nuclear disarmement recently stated that
the use of the nuclear weapon has not been as high as it is today ever
since the end of the Cold War.
The arguments for
comprehensive nuclear disarmament are easily summed up: apart from the
danger of one of these weapons being launched by accident (a computer
virus or a severe technical defects, human failure, a rogue general or
a terrorist group hijacking a weapon, etc.) the unilateral use of a
nuclear bomb as a means of waging war, for example in the Middle East,
the Indian
subcontinent or the Korean peninsula, there are the detrimental
environmental effects of uranium mining, nuclear testing and of course
the use of a nuclear weapon with the potential of a nuclear winter,
and, last but not least, the extreme costs associated with nuclear
weapons. The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists calculate that approximately
90 billion dollars are currently being spent on nuclear weaons
programmes. As a comparison: only about half of this figure would be
needed to
fulfill all Millenium Development goals until 2015.
Which countries have nuclear weapons?
Nine countries are currently considered to have nuclear
capabilities: the so-called "official" nuclear weapon states are the
five which have had these weapons at the time of the signing of the
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1968: the United States, Russia,
China, the United Kingdom and France. Then there are three
countries which have openly declared themselves to be nuclearized and
have tested their nuclear warheads: India, Pakistan and North Korea,
although there is considerable debate as to the actual capabilities of
their weapons, especially in the case of North Korea. Finally, there is
Israel, which has developed nuclear weapons but has neve officially
admitted to it, stating that Israel will not be the first country to
"introduce" nuclear weapons in the Middle East. In addition to these
nuclear weapon states, there are five countries with US nuclear weapons
on their soil and trained fighter pilots who would deliver them under
the principle of "nuclear sharing"- Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands,
Italy and Turkey. All other countries are considered non-nuclear weapon
states, which certain regions or whole continents like Australia,
Africa or Latin America calling themselves Nuclear Weapon Free Zones
(NWFZ). Beside the
nuclear weapons states, terror
networks like Al Quaida are also on the lookout for weapon grade
plutonium - a
mission that, according to security experts, they will most likely be
able to accomplish sooner or later.
Source: Wikipedia
The numbers
If
all nuclear warheads are counted: operational warheads, spares, those
in both active and inactive storage, and intact warheads scheduled for
dismantlement—the United States, the Russian Federation, the United
Kingdom, France, China, India, Pakistan and Israel together possess a
total of more than 23 300 nuclear warheads. Nearly 8400 of these are
currently deployed operational warheads (see table below). Nearly 2000
of these nuclear weapons are kept at astate of high operational alert.
| Country |
Year
of first nuclear test
|
Strategic
warheads
|
Tactical
warheads
|
Total
deployed warheads
|
United
States
|
1945
|
2,202
|
500
|
2,702b
|
Russia
|
1949
|
2,787
|
2,047
|
4,834c
|
United
Kingdom
|
1952
|
180d
|
-
|
(180)
|
France
|
1960
|
300
|
-
|
(300)
|
China
|
1964
|
(240)
|
...e
|
(240)
|
India
|
1974
|
-
|
-
|
(70-90)f
|
Pakistan
|
1998
|
-
|
-
|
(60-80)f
|
Israel
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
(80-100)f
|
North Koreaa
|
2006
|
-
|
-
|
...
|
Total
|
|
|
|
(8,392)
|
() = uncertain figure
a North
Korea conducted a nuclear test explosion in 2006 but there is no public
information to verify that it has operational nuclear weapons
b
The total US inventory is ca. 9,400 warheads, of which ca. 5,200 are in
reserve or awaiting dismantlement.
c
The total Russian inventory contains ca. 13,000 warheads, of which ca.
8,166 are in reserve or awaiting dismantlement.
d Some
warheads on British strategic subariens have sub-strategic missions
reviously convered by tactical weapons.
e The existence of
operational Chinese non-strategic warheads is uncertain.
f The stockpiles of India, Pakistan and Israel
are thought to be only artly deployed.
Nuclear Weapons in Europe
With
the two German states reunited, Poland and other former Warsaw Pact
countries having become NATO and EU-partners and the Iron Curtain which
divided Europe and the world long gone, one would think that the
strategic need for nuclear weapons in Europe would have dissipated. But twenty
years after the end of the Cold War, Russian missiles are still aimed
at North America and Western Europe, while NATO still has its
weapons targeting Moscow or St. Petersburg.
France and the UK have
nuclear stockpiles of their own, while the US is maintaining six
nuclear weapons
bases in Europe. At its
peak, the US nuclear arsenal in Europe consisted of 7300 warheads
(1971). Today, there are still approximately 150-240 nuclear warheads stationed in Europe: 10-20 in
Germany, 70-90 in Italy, 50-90 in Turkey, 10-20 in Belgium
and 10-20 in The Netherlands. There were around 110 more bombs in
Lakenheath, UK and about 130 more in Ramstein, Germany, which have been
removed recently. The
aircraft of these five non-nuclear weapon NATO countries are assigned
to deliver a nuclear strike with the US weapons if so ordered. At its
Nuclear Planning Group meeting on June 5th, 2007, NATO confirmed its commitment to deploying
nuclear weapons in Europe to maintain the "minimum level sufficient to
preserve peace and stability." This
"nuclear sharing", which undermindes the principles of
non-proliferation set out in the NPT is more than a mere anachronism.
It is a moral and political failure of the countries involved. The old
target coordinates have remained the
same, with NATO manoeuvres still training the bombardment of
Russian cities and vice versa. The non-strategic gravity B61
warheads which the US is maintaing in Europe have a maximum yield of
170 Kt. That's about 10 times the explosive capacity of a Hiroshima
bomb. 60 years after the
destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we as doctors still need to
convince politicians and the public that nuclear weapons have to be
abolished.
Source: NTI
Nuclear Weapons in Germany
Until the
1990's, the United States had several secret tactical nuclear weapons
bases stationd in West Germany in order to deter the Warsaw Pact
countries from using their nuclear weapons against Western Europe or
the US. A nuclear stand-off during the times of the cold war would have
mainly been fought in Central Europe, with the two German states, the
Benelux countries, Poland and Chechoslovakia sharing the high burden of
a full-blown nuclear war. This reconstructed 1979 map of the Soviet
bloc's vision of a seven-day atomic
holocaust
between Nato and Warsaw Pact forces was released by the Polish defence
ministry in 2005.
Source: The
Daily Telegraph
The map
illustrates why the Germans would have an acute awareness of the
dangers of nuclear weapons actually being used and why there was such a
relatively strong public movement against nuclear deployments in
Europe. After reunification, the US withdrew a vats amount of its armed
forces from West Germany, including many of its mid-ranged nuclear
missiles. Two air bases, however, were left with nuclear bombs:
Büchel and Ramstein. In 2005, all B61 bombs
were apparently withdrawn
from Ramstein Air Force Base Germany, but there are still an
approximate number of bombs kept in Büchel. While this may seem
like a small number compared to the thousands of strategic und tactical
weapons in deployment around the world, on submarines, stealth fighters
and mobile launch pads within the US itself, it is a highly symbolic
relict of the Cold War and of an era where mutual assured destrucion
rather than peaceful negotiation was the modus vivendi of international
politics. There have been calls for a removal of these last American
nuclear bombs from German soil and from all of Europe, most recently in
the coalition agreement of the otherwise very US-friendly
christian-liberal government. It reads:
"We
strongly support the proposals made by US President Obama regarding
comprehensive new
disarmament initiatives – including the goal of a world free of
nuclear weapons. We do not consider disarmament and arms
control to mean a loss of security, rather, they are a central
element of a future global security architecture. We want to seize
the chance to reverse the global trend towards rearmament and return
to a period of substantial progress in the areas of disarmament and
arms control. We are convinced that interim steps in the achieving a
world free of nuclear weapons could mean significant gains in security.
We
must prevent new
nuclear powers from emerging, new arms races from being triggered,
conventional arms being considered an alternative to renouncing
nuclear potential and the technology needed for building weapons of
mass destruction and fissile materials landing in the hands of
terrorists. We are concerned about the erosion of
international disarmament and arms control agreements. We are
convinced that follow-up treaties to expired agreements must be
negotiated and the nuclear test ban treaty or the amended
Treaty on conventional armed forces in Europe ratified.
We
are committed to supporting new
disarmament and arms control agreements internationally. We want to
use the review conference on the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty in
2010 to provide new impetus for contract-based regulations. In this
context, as well as in the
course of the drafting of a strategic concept for NATO, we will
advocate within the Alliance and with our American allies the removal
of the remaining nuclear weapons from Germany." (English
translation of the 2009 coalition agreement between CDU, CSU and FDP)
On
our bike tour through Germany, we will meet up with German politicians
and remind them of these committments. Also, we plan to visit the
Büchel Nuclear Airbase on our way down the Rhine. We will also
distribute postcards addressed to the German foreign minister, which
people can sign if they want nuclear weapons to be withdrawn from
Germany.
Nuclear Weapons in France
As our tour will also be
taking us through France, an official nuclear weapon state, we will
also speak with French politicians about their nuclear inheritance.
According to the SIPRI Yearbook 2009, France’s nuclear forces consist
of four nuclear submarines carrying 240 nuclear warheads with a range
of about 6000 km and a yield of about 400-600 kt each and 84 aircraft,
carrying 60 warheads with a range of 650-2750 km and a yield of 300 kt
each. (Source: SIPRI Yearbook 2009) In June of 2008, the
French President
Nicolas Sarkozy stated in a so-called White Paper on defence and
national security that France will continue to rely on the "principle
of strict suiciency" (corresponding to the "minimum deterrence" policy)
as a guarantor of its security, and that the "operational credibility"
of the deterrent relies on "permanent submarine patrols and air-borne
capability". The White Paper states that France will continue to
sustain its nuclear weapon complex, in particular the relevant research
and development capabilities.
The physics:
There
are two basic types of nuclear weapon. The first type is a normal
nuclear bomb, atomic bomb, or simply A-bomb. It produces its explosive
energy through nuclear fission, the splitting of an atomic nucleus. Most
nuclear bombs consist of a core of Plutonium-239 and Uranium-235.
Around this core is a mass of conventional TNT, whose explosion causes
the sub-critical
radioactive material in the core to be compressed and reach a
supercritical mass. This in turn starts a nuclear chain reaction. While
the
number of nuclear fissions is low at first, they multiply exponentially
and
become uncontrollable as more and more radioactive atoms are split.
The amount of energy released by fission bombs can range
between one and 500,000 tons of TNT-equivalent.
The
second basic type of nuclear weapon produces a large amount of its
energy through nuclear fusion reactions. Such fusion weapons are
generally referred to as thermonuclear bombs, hydrogen bombs or
simply H-bombs. They rely on fusion reactions between isotopes of
hydrogen: deuterium and tritum. Hydrogen bombs use the energy of a conventional
fission bomb in order to compress and heat the Deuterium and Tritium,
which can then fuse into Helium, a process that
gives off a vast amount of energy in presure, heat and radiation - many
million tons of TNT-equivalent can thus be let loose.
Medical effects
of nuclear weapons:
The
WHO describes nuclear weapons as the single most dangerous
threat to world health, mainly due to their incredible detonating force (around
1,000,000,000
times the power of a regular bomb of equal size), their indiscriminate
destruction of entire cities and the long term effects caused by
radioactive pollution. They are usually designed to be dropped from airplanes or
delivered
by missiles. In order to maximize civilian casualties, they are
exploded several hundred feet above ground level. So called suitcase
bombs, “dirty bombs” (conventional explosives containing
radioactive material) or power-plant bombs (causing a Chernobyl-like
melt-down) would behave differently. Through constant
development, the first 10-20 kiloton bombs that were dropped over
Hiroshima and Nagasaki have long been outdated, with average bombs
having ten to a hundred times more power.
In
general, there are three pathogenic factors:
-
The heat
wave of up to 300,000 °C - hot enough for all paper within
a 14 km radius to begin burning and all objects in the immediate drop
site to evaporate
-
The
pressure wave equalling 2,000,000
tons of TNT, causing destruction through its momentum and giant fire
storms in its wake
-
Radiation,
which can be divided into two categories: the acute radiation
of a-, b-, g- and neutron
radiation emitting from the exposive centre and lasting about one
minute and the radioactive fallout, which
continues to rain down with lethal doses for days after the blast. It
usually takes a week for radiation levels to decrease below lethal
doses in the affected areas.
The
effects vary according to
the distance from the drop site. The following figures represent the
effects of a 10-15 kT bomb, such as the one used in Hiroshima. The
effects of a modern nuclear weapon would most likely be ten to a
hundred times as strong.
All
life is annihilated in a matter of milliseconds.
A
large
fireball is created through the burning
atmospheric
gases,
which destroys all life and most structures within seconds. 100%
mortality
Buildings
collapse due to the pressure wave and living creatures are burned
alive, leaving only the ashes as a sort of „nuclear shadow“ which
remains
on roads or walls. The five kilometers are covered by the shock wave in
abou 12 seconds. 100% mortality
Third
degree burns are the result of the extreme heat. The firestorm
around the drop site draws all oxygen into its center, causing all
living creatures in this zone to die of suffocation. 100%
mortality.
Second
to third degree burns lead to the deadly systemic inflammatory response
syndrome (SIRS) and flying rubble by the shock wave causes a mortality
of 5-50% in this
zone, depending on the level of construction. People in this zone
receive a high dose of electromagnetic radiation.
Depending
on wind direction, construction, the type of bomb and the weather,
radiation and radioactive debris can spread far beyond the limits of
the
city, causing the lethal radiatio sickness
(uncontrollable bleeding from skin and soft tissue, agranulocytosis and
deadly infections.
The injuries of a nuclear attack would include tens
of thousands of burns, particularly third degree burns. These would
occur on top of thousands more second degree burns and crush injuries
due to collapsed buildings, ruptured organs
(particularly lungs), penetrating traumas (due to the objects that were
turned into missiles), fractured skulls and compound fractures,
deafness due to ruptured eardrums, blindness due to retinal burning and
the effects of acute radiation disease: central nervous system
dysfunction, gastrointestinal damage, uncontrolled internal bleeding,
life-threatening infections and bleeding from gums or within the skin. Another
factor leading to a rise in mortality is
the
destruction of vital infrastructure, hospitals and public life so that
a lack of supplies, physicians and first aid causing tens of thousands
of deaths that could otherwise be prevented. There are only about 1.500
"burn beds" in Western Europe - the incredible number of casualties
involved in a nuclear explosion can simply not be dealt with by any
state or health system, no matter how prepared.
Hiroshima after the bombing on August 6th, 1945
Nagasaki after the bombing on August 9th,
1945
The
human costs:
Nuclear
weapons kill three times:
-
Even
without being used, nuclear weapons cause considerable harm. More
than 2,400 nuclear tests have been carried out so far, with India and
Pakistan being the last two countries
to conduct underground testing in 1998. That's one test every nine days
- for 50 years straight! The Comprehensive Test Ban
Treaty (CTBT) has been signed by 160 states and ratified by 93. In
order to come into effect, the 44 states with nuclear technology have
to ratify it. 11 of these still haven’t done so, amongst others the
US and China. Three (India, North Korea and Pakistan) have not even
signed the treaty. How many cases of cancer have these tests caused
so far? According to scientific calculations, it could be as many as
430,000…
Also, the
extreme costs that go into the development, maintenance and security
of nuclear arms has to be diverted from other parts of the national
budget. Health expenditure, development aid, social welfare and true
security loose out. The fact that poor states like India rather spend
money on the development of nuclear arms than on the struggle against
social injustice is appalling. The US have so far spent 5.5 trillion
Dollars on their nuclear arsenal – not countin the expenses of
development, research, production of weapons-grade plutonium, testing,
maintenance and storage! As a comparison: The UN has calculated the
costs of eradicating hunger, ensuring global health coverage, offering
every human being access to drinkable water, combating illiteracy,
switiching completely to regenerative energies, removing all landmines
and relieving the developing countries of all foreign debt to about 260
billion dollars each year for a period of 10 years, which would still
be half of the US-expenditure on nuclear arms!
-
The actual deaths through a
nuclear attack occur due to heat, pressure, radiation and the
destruction of infrastructure and could go into the millions if a
modern bomb was to be dropped on a metropolis.
-
The
long-term effects of a nuclear attack through radiation, destruction of
infrastructure, consequent military conflicts and refugees have to be considered
as well.
A blind boy who survived
the nuclear blast
Who
could use nuclear weapons?
-
Nuclear weapons states could…
…see
their government toppled by a coup d’etat, which would give the
leader of this coup control over the country’s nuclear weapons
(Pakistan?)
…use
their nuclear weapons in tactical maneuvers. The US is currently
developing so called “bunker busters“ or “mini nukes”, which
it intends to use in conventional combat. Other countries like France
have openly threatened the use of nuclear weapons even against
non-nuclear weapon states like Iran.
…fire
a strategic missile if it sees no other option in a war (Israel, North
Korea, India or
Pakistan)
…use
„dirty munition“ containing depleted uranium. NATO and the US
army have used this type of munition in the Gulf War and the Kosovo,
leading to rising numbers of childhood leukemia cases as children
play on the deserted battlefields and come into contact to the
radioactive material.
…buy
or steal weapons-grade plutonium in Russia or Pakistan. Some
tons of this raw material for nuclear weapons is reported missing
since the end of the Cold War and is being sold on the black market
…build
their own nuclear weapons (the father of the Pakistani nulcear bomb
has made millions selling his technology to North Korea, Iran and
other states)
…use
a so called „dirty bomb“, a regular explosive device containing
radioactive material (as if a regular nuclear bomb could be
considered clean!
…sabotage
or attack a nuclear research facility, launch site or power plant,
causing a melt-down
Source: I.
Helfand, L. Forrow & J. Tiwari: Nuclear Terrorism, BMJ, Vol 324, p.
356-358
There
is a real danger of a nuclear exchange on the Indian subcontinent
The
danger of an accidental launch:
False
alarms of antiquated early warning systems dating back
to the days of the Cuban missile crisis, computer viruses, hacker
attacks or technical bugs could kick off a chain reaction leading to
the inadvertent launch of nuclear weapons and a consequent rapid
response from the other side. The American and the Russian president
have exactly four to eight minutes in order to react to the dreaded
notification of their security advisers that the other side has
launched a nuclear attack on their country. Not enough time for a fair
judgement or a rational reaction. Nuclear missiles need to be taken off
of hair-trigger alert. This process of de-alerting alone could
already prevent an accidental nuclear war. Why isn’t it being done?
All
existing nuclear weapons are susceptible
to accidents, not even counting mutinies on nuclear subs (as happened
with some frequency on Russian subs in the nineties), theft or
attack. Human error due to boredom, drug or alcohol abuse, stress or
misinterpretation of data has already led to countless accidents
within the army. How soon before something goes wrong with a nuclear
sub or a launch site? According to a study by the US army, 41% of the
personal discharged from the nuclear forces between 1975 and 1990 had
alcohol or drug related problems and another 20% serious
psychological disorders. In another study, the US airforce admitted
that 73% of all plane accidents were due to human error.
Anecdotes
form the world of nuclear weapons:
-
In January
of 1995, the launch of a scientific satellite from Norwegian waters
caused a nuclear crisis in the Kremlin. Although the US had followed
standard operation procedures and had notified Russian authorities of
the launch well in advance, this note seems to have gotten lost. The
Russians, which spotte a US missile flying towards them called an
emergency meeting of the national security council, opening the
„nuclear football“ for the first time in history. 4 minutes before the
deadline for releasing all Russian nuclear weapons pointed at NATO, the
notification reached the Kremlin that the missile had stayed in orbit
and was not aimed at Russian soil.
- On
January 17th
of 1996 a US B-52 bomber carrying four nuclear missiles lost control
during in-flight refuelling and crashed near the Spanish town of
Palomares. Although the missiles didn’t explode, radioactive
material was spread out over a huge area and had to be cleansed for a
whopping 182 Million US Dollars.
- During the
Cuba Crisis in the beginning of the 60’s, a soldier shot at a presumed
intruder in a US Airbase. This triggered an intruder
alarm. Through a technical error, this intruder alarm was
instead relayed as a nuclear alarm and only in the last minute were US
generals in Washington able to stop the war planes, which had already
begun to commence take off. The presumed intruder turned out to be a
bear.
Sources:
Lloyd J. Dumas, Why Mistakes
happen even when stakes are high, Medicine & Global Survival, April
2001, Vol. 7, No. 1
L.
Forrow et. Al, Accidental Nuclear War, The New England Journal of
Medicine, 1998, 338: 1326-1331
Alan
F. Phillips, 20 Mishaps That Might Have Started Accidental Nuclear War
Explosion
of a thermonuclear bomb
The Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)
When
it was signed in 1968,
the NPT was meant to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons
technology and force the existing stockpiles to be abolished. The
nuclear weapons states agreed to disarm, while the other signatories
(all countries except India, Pakistan and Israel) agreed to refrain
form developing nuclear weapons themselves. Except for North Korea
and Iran, all non-nuclear states seem to be holding up their side of
the bargain, while the nuclear weapons states are holding on to their
arsenals and are ridiculing the treaty. The NPT is the only treaty
containing a commitment to disarm and needs to be strengthened and
not watered down, as the US delegation tried to do during the recent
NPT-Review conference in May of 2005.
Tadatoshi
Akiba, Mayor of Hiroshima, holding a speech at the NPT-Review Conference
Looking
ahead:
„Dealerting“
describes the attempt to prevent accidental launches by removing
weapons from the dangerous „hair-trigger alert“. This could be
done by installing artificial barriers or storing missiles and war
heads separately so that a few minutes are needed before launch. This
would not go against the principal of mutual assured destruction
(MAD), because the long transcontinental flight time would still
ensure enough time for the other side to launch its missiles, thereby
guaranteeing annihilation for both sides. Only accidental launches
could be prevented through dealerting – still, just to contain this
danger it would be worth it.
Existing
treaties like the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) or
the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) have to be enforced and
not watered down. The NPT Review Conference in New York in 2005 showed
that the US, North Korea and Iran do not think much of this
treaty and would it rather see it fail. This posture of the US
administration is an interesting paradox, since the US has to fear
nuclear proliferation more than any other country. Current policy
seems to be based more on ideological foundations than on rational
strategic arguments. Listening to Pentagon generals in this matter
would actually lead to a more adequate posture.
The
concept of human security has to be redefined. Instead
of thinking in terms like MAD, missile shields or other Cold War
categories, we have to make the switch in public and international
communication to mutual disarmament, even playing fields,
sustainability and a sense of responsibility for the nuclear
inheritance that we’re leaving to future generations.
Existing
Organisations like the UN have to be strengthened in their mandate in
order to work for peace on an international level instead of allowing
unilateral policy from countries like India ,the US, China, Russia,
Israel, North Korea, Iran or Pakistan govern world politics.
Partnerships between states and NGOs already exist, such as the New
Agenda Coalition (with members like Brazil, Sweden, South Africa and
Ireland) that are working towards nuclear disarmament. At the same
time organizations like Mayors for Peace are working against nuclear
weapons on a local level – if their heads of state aren’t able to
do it…
A
public debate is needed. The
critical mass that is necessary to convince our leaders of the
importance to disarm has to be reached. What can you do? Inform
yourself through the websites you find on the back of this flyer.
Discuss this in your community and write your representatives. We,
the world population, need to start a grass roots movement similar to
the one that pushed through the abolition of landmines. Every person
that joins us is a step towards a world free of nuclear weapons…
The majority of the world population is on or side. Here are some
opinion polls on nuclear weapons from 1997 to 1998:
Protesters at the 2005
NPT Review Conference forming a peace sign
More
information can be found on the following websites:
- An
introduction to Nuclear Weapons on the Swedish IPPNW page: http://www.learnaboutnukes.org/
- The very useful
Website of the IPPNW International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons:
http://www.icanw.org
- Bulletin of the Atomic
Scientists: http://www.thebulletin.org/
- The ultimate read:
Stockholm International Peace Research Institute Yearbook 2009:
http://www.sipri.org/yearbook/2009/files/SIPRIYB0908.pdf
