> The only reason that "nuclear proliferation" is a serious issue
> is that politicians have made it so. Their argument is based solely
> on the "*WE* deserve it but *YOU* don't" illogical, irrational and
> selfish attitude that, in many ways, typifies politicians of all
> stripes.
The main force behind non-proliferation has been scientists,
and organizations like Bulletin of Atomic Scientists and Federation of American Scientists.
Scientists like Carl Sagan played a huge role due to their popularity with the public.
Their argument has NEVER been "we deserve it but you don't",
it has always been about preventing the devastation of nuclear war,
by reducing and preferably eliminating completely nuclear weapons.
Unfortunately there has been a lot of outright propaganda here on DU that nuclear weapons are safe and clean.
There was only one "clean" nuclear weapon, the neutron bomb, and *politicians* decided that neither *we* nor *you* should have it because it was so dangerous.
A more recent example: The FAS argument was not "we can have nuclear bunker-busters but others can't", it was "NOBODY should have nuclear bunker-busters". They convinced *politicians* that neither *WE* nor *YOU* should have it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federation_of_American_Scientists
The Federation of American Scientists (FAS)<1> is a non-profit organization formed in 1945 by scientists from the Manhattan Project who felt that scientists, engineers and other innovators had an ethical obligation to bring their knowledge and experience to bear on critical national decisions. Their first projects focused on controlling nuclear weapons and research on civilian nuclear power, issues that remain prominent to FAS today.
Endorsed by 68 Nobel Laureates<2> in chemistry, economics, medicine and physics, FAS now addresses a range of issues where science and technology analysis is critical. FAS members build on a long history of insisting that rational, evidence-based arguments form the basis of national policy.
<snip>
In nuclear weapons, FAS played a key role in helping a bipartisan Congressional effort block funding for the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP) or “bunker buster.”<3> Using public data, FAS was able to show that the device could not achieve its mission without creating catastrophic collateral damage. FAS inserted this analysis into the debate using printed reports, a computer animation, and numerous briefings for members of Congress and Congressional staff. The work was cited in the Congressional debate.
<snip>
In 2007, the scientists at BAS decided climate change was almost as dangerous as nuclear war:
http://www.thebulletin.org/content/about-us/purpose
History
The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists was established in 1945 by scientists, engineers, and other experts who had created the atomic bomb as part of the Manhattan Project. They knew about the horrible effects of these new weapons and devoted themselves to warning the public about the consequences of using them. Those early scientists also worried about military secrecy, fearing that leaders might draw their countries into increasingly dangerous nuclear confrontations without the full consent of their citizens.
The Doomsday Clock
In 1947, the Bulletin first displayed the Clock on its magazine cover to convey, through a simple design, the perils posed by nuclear weapons. The Clock evokes both the imagery of apocalypse (midnight) and the contemporary idiom of nuclear explosion (countdown to zero). In 1949, the Clock hand first moved to signal our assessment of world events and trends. The decision to move the minute hand is made by the Bulletin's Board of Directors in consultation with its Board of Sponsors, which includes 18 Nobel Laureates. The Clock has become a universally recognized indicator of the world's vulnerability to catastrophe from nuclear weapons, climate change, and emerging technologies in the life sciences.
Today's challenges
When we moved the hand of the Clock from 7 to 5 minutes to midnight in January 2007, the Bulletin's Board of Directors warned about two major sources of potential catastrophe: the perils of 27,000 nuclear weapons in the world, 2,000 of them ready to launch in minutes, and the destruction of human habitats from climate change.
<snip>
http://www.thebulletin.org/content/media-center/announcements/2007/01/17/doomsday-clock-moves-two-minutes-closer-to-midnight"Doomsday Clock" Moves Two Minutes Closer To Midnight
17 January 2007
On January 17, 2007, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists moved the minute hand of the Doomsday Clock two minutes closer to midnight. It is now 5 minutes to midnight. Reflecting global failures to solve the problems posed by nuclear weapons and the climate crisis, the decision by the Bulletin's Board of Directors was made in consultation with the Bulletin's Board of Sponsors, which includes 18 Nobel Laureates.
In a statement supporting the decision to move the hand of the Doomsday Clock, the Bulletin Board focused on two major sources of catastrophe: the perils of 27,000 nuclear weapons, 2,000 of them ready to launch within minutes; and the destruction of human habitats from climate change.
The Bulletin statement explains: "We stand at the brink of a second nuclear age. Not since the first atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki has the world faced such perilous choices. North Korea's recent test of a nuclear weapon, Iran's nuclear ambitions, a renewed emphasis on the military utility of nuclear weapons, the failure to adequately secure nuclear materials, and the continued presence of some 26,000 nuclear weapons in the United States and Russia are symptomatic of a failure to solve the problems posed by the most destructive technology on Earth."
It continues: "The dangers posed by climate change are nearly as dire as those posed by nuclear weapons. The effects may be less dramatic in the short term than the destruction that could be wrought by nuclear explosions, but over the next three to four decades climate change could cause irremediable harm to the habitats upon which human societies depend for survival."
Stephen Hawking, a Bulletin sponsor, professor of mathematics at the University of Cambridge, and a fellow of The Royal Society, said, "As scientists, we understand the dangers of nuclear weapons and their devastating effects, and we are learning how human activities and technologies are affecting climate systems in ways that may forever change life on Earth. As citizens of the world, we have a duty to alert the public to the unnecessary risks that we live with every day, and to the perils we foresee if governments and societies do not take action now to render nuclear weapons obsolete and to prevent further climate change."
<snip much more>
The Truman Administration wanted to eliminate the U.S. arsenal right after WWII,
it was not *WE* deserve them *YOU* don't, it was *NOBODY* deserves them:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_proliferation
History of Nuclear Proliferation
Earnest international efforts to promote nuclear non-proliferation began soon after World War II, when the Truman Administration proposed the Baruch Plan<1> of 1946, named after Bernard Baruch, America's first representative to the United Nations Atomic Energy Commission. The Baruch Plan, which drew heavily from the Acheson-Lilienthal Report of 1946, proposed the verfiable dismantlement and destruction of the U.S. nuclear arsenal (which, at that time, was the only nuclear arsenal in the world) after all governments had cooperated successfully to accomplish two things: (1) the establishment of an "international atomic development authority," which would actually own and control all military-applicable nuclear materials and activities, and (2) the creation of a system of automatic sanctions, which not even the U.N. Security Council could veto, and which would proportionately punish states attempting to acquire the capability to make nuclear weapons or fissile material.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
