Ending nuclear weapons, before they end us.

During the 2000 presidential election, in that time before the September 11th terrorist attacks, the stump speeches of George W. Bush and his Democratic opponent, Al Gore, focused on protecting Social Security, saving American education, expanding Medicare, raising or lowering taxes, and readying the military. If science was mentioned at all, it was usually in the context of missile defense, global warming, or Gore’s role in creating the internet. With the exception of the debate over stem-cell research, science remains a background topic in the current campaign. Democratic candidate John Kerry has occasionally highlighted US science policy and used it against President Bush, charging that the administration has put politics and ideology ahead of science. “Let scientists do science again,” a headline on the Kerry election website says.Bush has responded, primarily through his science adviser, John Marburger, by pointing to the 44% increase in federal R&D since fiscal year 2001 and the record $132 billion in the administration’s FY 2005 R&D budget. “Kerry ignores President Bush’s record science investments,” reads a headline on the Bush reelection website.Kerry answers by noting that most of the R&D money is going for weapons systems and defense spending related to the war in Iraq, not basic science programs. Marburger and other administration officials point to several R&D initiatives, including new nanotechnology centers, the Moon/Mars space initiative, and the program to develop hydrogen fuel technology. In an effort to get the candidates to specifically address questions of interest to the science community, Physics Today has continued a tradition begun in 1976; it asked Bush and Kerry nine questions covering a range of science topics. Their answers, sometimes direct and sometimes vague, show fundamental differences on several key issues.On missile defense, Bush says his request of $10 billion in FY 2005 for development and deployment of such a system fulfills a pledge he made to the American people. Kerry says we should not be “falsely comforted by an untested and unproven defense system.”On global warming, Kerry talks of both near- and long-term programs to deal with the problem. Bush promotes his “comprehensive climate change strategy.” The candidates also address a host of other issues ranging from space exploration to energy policy. During the 2000 presidential election, in that time before the September 11th terrorist attacks, the stump speeches of George W. Bush and his Democratic opponent, Al Gore, focused on protecting Social Security, saving American education, expanding Medicare, raising or lowering taxes, and readying the military. If science was mentioned at all, it was usually in the context of missile defense, global warming, or Gore’s role in creating the internet. With the exception of the debate over stem-cell research, science remains a background topic in the current campaign. Democratic candidate John Kerry has occasionally highlighted US science policy and used it against President Bush, charging that the administration has put politics and ideology ahead of science. “Let scientists do science again,” a headline on the Kerry election website says.Bush has responded, primarily through his science adviser, John Marburger, by pointing to the 44% increase in federal R&D since fiscal year 2001 and the record $132 billion in the administration’s FY 2005 R&D budget. “Kerry ignores President Bush’s record science investments,” reads a headline on the Bush reelection website.Kerry answers by noting that most of the R&D money is going for weapons systems and defense spending related to the war in Iraq, not basic science programs. Marburger and other administration officials point to several R&D initiatives, including new nanotechnology centers, the Moon/Mars space initiative, and the program to develop hydrogen fuel technology. In an effort to get the candidates to specifically address questions of interest to the science community, Physics Today has continued a tradition begun in 1976; it asked Bush and Kerry nine questions covering a range of science topics. Their answers, sometimes direct and sometimes vague, show fundamental differences on several key issues.On missile defense, Bush says his request of $10 billion in FY 2005 for development and deployment of such a system fulfills a pledge he made to the American people. Kerry says we should not be “falsely comforted by an untested and unproven defense system.”On global warming, Kerry talks of both near- and long-term programs to deal with the problem. Bush promotes his “comprehensive climate change strategy.” The candidates also address a host of other issues ranging from space exploration to energy policy. 1Section:ChooseTop of page1 <<BushKerry2BushKerry3BushKerry4BushKerry5BushKerry6BushKerry7BushKerry8BushKerry9BushKerry Missile defense: The present administration is requesting more than $10 billion this year for development and deployment of a missile defense system. Many scientists say the system, given current and foreseeable technology, cannot be effective. What proof of effectiveness should be required before the system is fully deployed? Given the low-tech nature of terrorist attacks and the limited missile capabilities of North Korea and other hostile nations, does missile defense continue to be a wise investment? BushSection:ChooseTop of page1Bush <<Kerry2BushKerry3BushKerry4BushKerry5BushKerry6BushKerry7BushKerry8BushKerry9BushKerryOur policy is to develop and deploy, at the earliest possible date, a weapons system that would defend the United States homeland against nuclear attack, including ballistic missile defenses drawing on the best technologies available. Early in my administration, I called for the examination of the full range of available technologies and basing modes for missile defenses that could protect the United States, our deployed forces, and our friends and allies.The FY 2005 Defense Appropriations Act provides $10 billion that I requested for systems to defend against the threat from ballistic missiles. Later this year, the first components of America’s missile defense system will become operational, and we are on schedule for the next stages of the project. My administration will develop and deploy the technologies necessary to protect our people, fulfilling a pledge I made to the American people more than four years ago.KerrySection:ChooseTop of page1BushKerry <<2BushKerry3BushKerry4BushKerry5BushKerry6BushKerry7BushKerry8BushKerry9BushKerryA missile defense that works is a wise investment, but one that pours money into defenses at the expense of other immediate national security needs is not. And that’s what this administration has done. Missile defense should be one element of a comprehensive national security strategy. But a single-minded focus on this technology and the threat it is designed to meet ignores the very real danger of terrorism and our greatest danger—terrorists with weapons of mass destruction.John Edwards and I will be committed to developing a missile defense system that works, is fully tested, and geared to the threats we face. But I will refocus our efforts on preventing the spread of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons and dramatically accelerating the security of nuclear weapons and material in Russia and around the world. We will not sit by, falsely comforted by an untested and unproven defense system, while these threats continue to fester.2Section:ChooseTop of page1BushKerry2 <<BushKerry3BushKerry4BushKerry5BushKerry6BushKerry7BushKerry8BushKerry9BushKerry Climate change: Virtually all reputable research in recent years has reinforced the scientific conclusion that global warming is a real and growing crisis caused, at least in part, by the burning of fossil fuels. Do you accept that scientific consensus? Under what circumstances would you regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions? BushSection:ChooseTop of page1BushKerry2Bush <<Kerry3BushKerry4BushKerry5BushKerry6BushKerry7BushKerry8BushKerry9BushKerryGlobal climate change is a serious long-term issue. In 2001, I asked the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to provide the most up-to-date information about the science of climate change. The academy found that considerable uncertainty remains about the effect of natural fluctuations on climate and the future effects climate change will have on our environment.My administration is now well along in implementing a comprehensive climate change strategy to advance the science, expand the use of transformational energy and carbon sequestration technologies, and mitigate the growth of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States and in partnership with other nations. I created the new US Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) to refocus the federal government’s climate research programs, for which my 2005 budget seeks nearly $2 billion to fund research across the federal government. The NAS endorsed the CCSP strategic plan, noting that it “articulates a guiding vision, is appropriately ambitious, and is broad in scope.”I also committed the nation to a goal of reducing American greenhouse gas intensity by 18% over the next 10 years, which would prevent more than 500 million tons of carbon emissions through 2012. To help achieve this goal, I created the Climate Vision program in 2003 to reduce the growth of greenhouse gas emissions by energy-intensive industrial sectors. Participants in the Climate Vision program account for between 40 and 45% of US greenhouse gas emissions. I have strongly supported over $4 billion in tax incentives for renewable and energy-efficient technologies, including wind and solar energy and hybrid and fuel-cell vehicles. Also, in April 2003, my administration raised the fuel economy standards for light trucks and SUVs [sport utility vehicles] for the first time since 1996, saving 3.6 billion gallons of gasoline. And in my 2003 State of the Union [address], I announced a $1.7 billion hydrogen fuel initiative to accelerate research that could lead to hydrogen-powered, no-emission vehicles within a generation.Additionally, my administration is participating in robust international partnerships to promote clean, renewable, commercially available fusion energy and to construct the $1 billion FutureGen project, which will test the latest technologies to generate electricity, produce hydrogen, and sequester greenhouse gas emissions from coal. KerrySection:ChooseTop of page1BushKerry2BushKerry <<3BushKerry4BushKerry5BushKerry6BushKerry7BushKerry8BushKerry9BushKerryI recognize the risk of climate change, and I have outlined a balanced set of programs that will have impact both in the near term and over the long term. My plan will also provide balanced support for technology that can increase the efficiency and cut greenhouse emissions in transportation systems, buildings, and industry that are attractive to consumers and US producers. Our programs will encourage the use of renewable fuels such as ethanol and renewable electric generation that produce little or no net greenhouse gases. I will expand the production tax credit for wind and biomass energy to cover the full array of renewable energy sources and increase Department of Energy (DOE) research into renewable energy sources and their applications. And I will propose an aggressive program of research, standards, and incentives to accelerate electric generation from renewable energy. Clean coal technology can play a critical role, given technology to cut carbon dioxide emissions.My plan would encourage energy efficiency with programs such as updated fuel efficiency standards, new tax incentives for automakers to build the new, more efficient automobiles of the future, and tax incentives for families to purchase more energy-efficient cars, trucks, and SUVs.3Section:ChooseTop of page1BushKerry2BushKerry3 <<BushKerry4BushKerry5BushKerry6BushKerry7BushKerry8BushKerry9BushKerry Science investment: There is concern in the science and economic communities that the US is losing its world leadership in the sciences, which they say bodes ill for future economic growth and global competitive-ness. To address that concern, should the US increase funding for basic science, and should the administration fully fund the 2001 bill, signed by the president, to double NSF’s budget? How would you reinvigorate science education for US-born students? What is the role of foreign scientists and students in the US scientific enterprise? BushSection:ChooseTop of page1BushKerry2BushKerry3Bush <<Kerry4BushKerry5BushKerry6BushKerry7BushKerry8BushKerry9BushKerryIncluding my FY 2005 budget request, total federal R&D investment during the first term will have increased 44% to a record $132 billion in 2005. My FY 2005 budget request commits 13.5% of total discretionary outlays to R&D, the highest level in 37 years. In the context of the overall economy, federal R&D spending in the FY 2005 budget is the greatest share of GDP [gross domestic product] in over 10 years. Funding for basic research, the fuel for future technology development, is at an all-time high of $26.8 billion in FY 2005, a 26% increase over FY 2001. Funding for NSF during the four years of my administration has increased 30% over FY 2001 to $5.7 billion in FY 2005. NSF’s broad support for basic research, particularly at US academic institutions, provides not only a central source for discovery in many fields but also encourages and supports development of the next generation of scientists and engineers. Moreover, in fulfilling its mission, NSF has used its funding efficiently and effectively.As for the American scientific enterprise, it is important in this information and technological age that our students receive a first-rate science education, just as they receive quality instruction in reading, writing, and math. The federal government has no control over local curricula, and it is not my job to tell states and local boards of education what they should teach in the classroom. Nevertheless, the No Child Left Behind Act, one of my proudest legislative achievements this term, is improving our schools and, consequently, the teaching of science. NCLB requires, for the first time, assessments in science to give us better information about how our students are performing and how to improve instruction in science. I have also proposed creating the Presidential Math and Science Scholars Fund to provide $100 million in grants to low-income students who study math or science. This will ensure that America’s graduates have the training they need to compete for the best jobs of the 21st century.I also value the contributions that foreign scientists and students make to our nation’s scientific enterprise, while recognizing the importance of safeguarding our security. We will continue to welcome international students and scientists while implementing balanced measures to end abuses of the student visa system. My administration has already achieved several notable successes in reducing delays now being experienced by some visa seekers. We have increased security while speeding up the clearance process; approximately 1000 back-logged applications have already been cleared out.KerrySection:ChooseTop of page1BushKerry2BushKerry3BushKerry <<4BushKerry5BushKerry6BushKerry7BushKerry8BushKerry9BushKerryFor three years, the Bush administration has squandered America’s leadership in the world, putting politics before science and doing nothing to create jobs while our workers fall further behind. The administration has proposed cuts for scientific research and grossly distorted and politicized science on issues from mercury pollution to stem-cell research. This approach not only limits the research that our scientists are doing today, it undermines important discoveries of tomorrow and threatens America’s critical edge in innovation. I will reverse this course by restoring America’s scientific leadership, helping find new cures, moderating healthcare costs, and developing new technologies that will create good jobs. I will boost support for the physical sciences and engineering by increasing research investments in agencies such as NSF, the National Institutes of Health, DOE, NIST, and NASA. This funding will help with the broad areas of science and technology that will provide the foundations for economic growth and prosperity in the 21st century.4Section:ChooseTop of page1BushKerry2BushKerry3BushKerry4 <<BushKerry5BushKerry6BushKerry7BushKerry8BushKerry9BushKerry Nuclear weapons: Does the US need to develop a new class of nuclear weapons to deal with the changing threats of the 21st century? Is there any circumstance in which you would support the resumption of nuclear testing? BushSection:ChooseTop of page1BushKerry2BushKerry3BushKerry4Bush <<Kerry5BushKerry6BushKerry7BushKerry8BushKerry9BushKerryThe Nuclear Posture Review, released by my administration in January 2002, noted that the nation’s nuclear infrastructure had atrophied since the end of the cold war and that the evolving security environment requires a flexible and responsive weapons complex infrastructure. To that end, my FY 2005 budget reflects an increase over the 2004 enacted level in the weapons activities account, which encompasses the stockpile stewardship programs. There is no current need for testing due to the sophistication of computer modeling and other new technologies, but we must maintain the capability to test in case such testing becomes necessary in the future to ensure the safety and reliability of our defensive arsenal. We have not identified any need for developing new nuclear weapons. KerrySection:ChooseTop of page1BushKerry2BushKerry3BushKerry4BushKerry <<5BushKerry6BushKerry7BushKerry8BushKerry9BushKerryNo, and a Kerry–Edwards administration will stop this administration’s program to develop a new class of nuclear weapons. This is a weapon we don’t need, and it undermines our ability to persuade other nations to forego development of these weapons.5Section:ChooseTop of page1BushKerry2BushKerry3BushKerry4BushKerry5 Nuclear There is serious concern many that could or a nuclear in a US Do you the US is doing to and control of nuclear weapons and material both in the US and BushSection:ChooseTop of administration in has more to and control nuclear weapons and material than US weapons and are and both the Department of Defense and are to make more My administration has increased funding to weapons and material in the Union and has by years the schedule the administration for security in We are with Russia to end the production of and to weapons for of weapons. the my administration the to or and material We have already weapons material from several our in its for nuclear weapons. To against we the international in a global effort to account and of sources that could be used in such We activities in over 40 on this as well as with international the Energy the the and the of Defense we have dramatically our ability to that could be a threat to us and to our friends and my administration the billion initiative to support and nuclear safety in the This of the international is to a more of nation’s highest must be preventing from to nuclear weapons and the material to make We must in a global partnership with other nations to prevent the spread of these weapons. the Bush administration’s have in the have the we need to advance our security. September they have not nearly to and on the while the nuclear from and North Korea have Our security requires an immediate change of I have proposed a comprehensive strategy to of weapons and including an of programs to all nuclear weapons and within the and at research in the within four production of new material for nuclear weapons by a global on production of new of nuclear weapons and by development of the new generation of nuclear accelerating in US and nuclear and reducing of in nuclear weapons programs in hostile including by with North Korea to ensure the and of its nuclear weapons program and a global effort to prevent from the necessary to build nuclear weapons. international efforts to by and and as well as improving the security a presidential to prevent nuclear terrorism who will focus on a effort to all nuclear weapons and around the world and prevent a nuclear terrorist of Energy than of and have not in a comprehensive US energy policy. years into the future, what do you the US energy should How would you the US in that BushSection:ChooseTop of and energy is critical to America’s and homeland security. We will be more and more we are on foreign sources of energy. The of a comprehensive and balanced national energy policy has been one of my During my first in I proposed a national energy policy that would our energy production and systems, reduce our on foreign promote efficiency and increase domestic production from all of energy including renewable energy and continue to our economy and create new jobs. We will continue to with on the energy to the administration has nearly all of the more than in the comprehensive national energy policy that not as increasing reliability R&D to help prevent and the to its of million to provide energy security in case of of have proposed an program of research, and standards that would increase the efficiency of energy use and use of new energy sources that can ensure a and while reducing the risk of climate change. The program would be supported in by a billion energy security and from federal and gas the in by I have to around the and a of that can meet US needs both in the term and for in the Given the long time required to over energy investments such as of and trucks, industrial and we must a broad set of new technologies as as possible we have any of US energy use in the near term, many of the most control systems, and other technologies to improve the energy of buildings, and industrial that the US to reduce its on from the and I will set for fuels such as I will support research and incentives that will dramatically increase use of from wind and other renewable And I will encourage development of technology and nuclear generation with high standards for stewardship and of Nuclear recent by that nuclear is the best energy source to meet the US while protecting the renewable energy can be deployed on a Do you increasing the use of nuclear If what would you do with the BushSection:ChooseTop of support the further development of nuclear technologies as a clean, and to meet this nation’s future energy Nuclear for of our This which no pollution or greenhouse gas can play an expanding role in our energy future while the we with energy national energy policy several to encourage increased use of nuclear and to the that through the Nuclear my administration is with industry to the for an of a new US nuclear within the next years. through the the United States is with around the to develop a next generation of more and more nuclear that can also produce hydrogen and my administration has made a to the nuclear and the of a long-term at We are ahead with the of a to the Nuclear at the end of this administration is also committed to and in new technologies that will change the we generate I committed the United States to the international fusion energy as in is a important to test the of nuclear fusion as a source of and the of a nearly source of energy the that long-term of Nuclear can play an role in energy while reducing the risk of climate key such as nuclear nuclear and security must be John Edwards and I will ensure safety and science We George Bush’s plan to over the of a Kerry–Edwards administration will on science. John Edwards and I do not support as a nuclear and will that nuclear and transportation only on the of science and that to and the John Edwards and I will George Bush and to from a for an NAS study to is the as to long-term and or some other technology. an international to scientific for nuclear and nuclear from terrorist John Edwards and I will improve and security at nuclear In we will nuclear to to improve including measures to reduce to the an of National National Nuclear the national weapons continue to be with security spending and What would you to improve at the Does the current plan of the to the risk of the in the of the war on BushSection:ChooseTop of national are doing to deal with the threats of the 21st are a in our efforts to improve homeland are the source of technological and are helping the war on With their at the highest level in years, National National and National are also on the edge of defense research, protecting the nation’s infrastructure from terrorist attacks, and developing a that the of a nuclear This is we billion on weapons research and production in FY 2004 and I for billion for We must and security My administration has made effort to improve the the weapons do and one of efforts is that in all areas of central to the war on we can use our more and focus on his or of national play a critical role in our nuclear weapons stockpile and that our nation’s nuclear weapons are and The national also have an important role in preventing the spread of weapons of mass and in science for our nation’s have a of our nation’s but this record has been by and security at the has been John Edwards and I are committed to and and restoring the at these critical national of is being to the long-term of to the and Many scientists the will money from science How do you the importance of science exploration What is the funding between the BushSection:ChooseTop of I announced my for the future of America’s space exploration this will the of both and science will as to the and other vehicles continue to their and of to we have systems on and around a system and one on its to the for cannot be by the most or the most We need to and and for And only are of to the by space we our on the we are developing a new exploration to our This will be by and its first no than will to the as as and no than and use it as a for the We will with to the and for future will with the goal of and there for of Edwards and I will continue America’s long tradition of leadership in and space exploration as of a program to broad for this will not to programs such as the Bush administration’s Program that from in the with no or will in new programs to set by scientific in and other Our administration will on the of the scientific to the most for research and the most for these the of or are most to the 2004 American of

Despite widespread use of the term “weapons of mass destruction” to encompass nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons, nuclear weapons remain the only genuine instruments of mass destruction in the international system. The attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945 demonstrated with appalling clarity that nuclear weapons are capable of wreaking a level of devastation that is simply beyond comparison to the damage wrought by other weapons systems. Only nuclear weapons can cause the instantaneous destruction of life and the physical and ecological infrastructure critical to sustaining life. This inescapable fact was recognized remarkably early on in the post-1945 era when the United States proposed under the 1946 Baruch Plan to devolve control over all international atomic energy to the United Nations and to eliminate all nuclear weapons under international controls. Soviet opposition to the Baruch Plan meant that it never attracted the international support necessary to succeed, but the very fact that the United States had proposed it when it still enjoyed a monopoly over the possession of nuclear weapons underscored the degree to which Washington believed that all policy makers had a special responsibility to manage a weapon with a unique set of destructive characteristics.’ Nuclear weapons remain in a singular class. And, despite the best efforts of disarmament advocates, after six decades of the nuclear age, they have established a highly conspicuous presence on the global strategic landscape.KeywordsNuclear WeaponRegional SecurityNuclear ProliferationNuclear DisarmamentNuclear Weapon StateThese keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

The environment is very important in the aspects of peace because when we destroy our resources and our resources become scarce, we fight over that.I am working to make sure we don't only protect the environment, we also improve governance.

This research is concerned with the use of nuclear weapons against combatants in an armed conflict and whether such a use violates or would violate the principle of unnecessary suffering as codified in St. Petersburg Declaration of 1868 and the Hague Conventions. In order to analyze what constitutes unnecessary suffering the method chosen for this research is comparison of the effects of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons on the human body. The reason for choosing this method is the abhorrence and distaste amongst international society towards chemical and biological weapons. These “inhumane” weapons are also already prohibited in international law mainly on the basis of violating the principle of unnecessary suffering. \n\nThe paper deals with the physical and legal consequences of using nuclear weapons in an armed conflict. The main argument is that late effects even as a byproduct of nuclear explosion may cause “unnecessary” suffering of combatants. Even after a conflict ends these late effects continue to damage their organisms and thus prolong the suffering. On the other hand, not all nuclear weapons are the same. While a strategic use of a high-yield weapon would definitely be illegal, a tactical use of a low-yield nuclear weapon in remote areas, as anti-materiel or on high seas could limit the number of casualties and thus possibly be in compliance with the rules of international humanitarian law.

Reducing the risks of nuclear war to humanity

In January 2023, the Science and Security Board of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists moved the hands of the Doomsday Clock forward to 90 s before midnight, reflecting the growing risk of nuclear war [1]. In August 2022, UN Secretary-General António Guterres warned that the world is now in ‘a time of nuclear danger not seen since the height of the Cold War’ [2]. The danger has been underlined by growing tensions between many nuclear-armed states [1, 3]. As editors of health and medical journals worldwide, we call on health professionals to alert the public and our leaders to this major danger to public health and the essential life support systems of the planet, and we urge action to prevent it. Current nuclear arms control and non-proliferation efforts are inadequate to protect the world's population against the threat of nuclear war by design, error or miscalculation. The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) commits each of the 190 participating nations to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to the cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control [4]. Progress has been disappointingly slow, and the most recent NPT review conference in 2022 ended without an agreed statement [5]. Many examples of near disasters have exposed the risks of depending on nuclear deterrence for the indefinite future [6]. Modernisation of nuclear arsenals could increase risks: for example, hypersonic missiles decrease the time available to distinguish between an attack and a false alarm, increasing the likelihood of rapid escalation. Any use of nuclear weapons would be catastrophic for humanity. Even a ‘limited’ nuclear war involving only 250 of the 13,000 nuclear weapons in the world could kill 120 million people outright and cause global climate disruption leading to a nuclear famine, putting two billion people at risk [7, 8]. A large-scale nuclear war between the USA and Russia could kill 200 million people or more in the near term and potentially cause a global ‘nuclear winter’ that could kill five to six billion people, threatening the survival of humanity [7, 8]. Once a nuclear weapon is detonated, escalation to all-out nuclear war could occur rapidly. The prevention of any use of nuclear weapons is therefore an urgent public health priority, and fundamental steps must also be taken to address the root cause of the problem – by abolishing nuclear weapons. The health community has played a crucial role in efforts to reduce the risk of nuclear war and must continue to do so in the future [9]. In the 1980s, the efforts of health professionals, led by International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW), helped to end the Cold War arms race by educating policy makers and the public on both sides of the Iron Curtain about the medical consequences of nuclear war. This was recognised when the 1985 Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to IPPNW [10] (http://www.ippnw.org). In 2007, IPPNW launched the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, which grew into a global civil society campaign with hundreds of partner organisations. A pathway to nuclear abolition was created with the adoption of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in 2017, for which the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons was awarded the 2017 Nobel Peace Prize. International medical organisations, including the International Committee of the Red Cross, IPPNW, the World Medical Association, the World Federation of Public Health Associations, and the International Council of Nurses, played key roles in the process leading up to the negotiations and in the negotiations themselves, presenting the scientific evidence on the catastrophic health and environmental consequences of nuclear weapons and nuclear war. They continued this important collaboration during the First Meeting of the States Parties to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, which currently has 92 signatories, including 68 member states [11]. We now call on health professional associations to inform their members worldwide about the threat to human survival and to join with IPPNW to support efforts to reduce the near-term risks of nuclear war, including three immediate steps on the part of nuclear-armed states and their allies: first, adopt a no first-use policy [12]; second, take their nuclear weapons off hair-trigger alert; and, third, urge all states involved in current conflicts to pledge publicly and unequivocally that they will not use nuclear weapons in these conflicts. We further ask them to work towards a definitive end to the nuclear threat by supporting the urgent commencement of negotiations among the nuclear-armed states for a verifiable, time-bound agreement to eliminate their nuclear weapons in accordance with commitments in the NPT, opening the way for all nations to join the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. The danger is great and growing. The nuclear-armed states must eliminate their nuclear arsenals before they eliminate us. The health community played a decisive part during the Cold War and more recently in the development of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. We must take up this challenge again as an urgent priority, working with renewed energy to reduce the risks of nuclear war and to eliminate nuclear weapons. The respective authors were paid by their employers. CZ's time was funded by International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War. IH and AH developed the idea of the editorial and led drafting, along with CZ. All other coauthors contributed significantly to the editorial content.

This article concerns the partially overlapping, but analytically discrete, options facing American leaders (and, indirectly, their allies) regarding the role of nu- clear weapons in strategy. Recent discussions of threat scenarios, in particular threats posed by environmental crisis or collapse, suggest that such fears are already shaping the grand strategy debate in the west - especially with respect to the issue of nuclear weapons retention. Accelerating environmental and economic crises will continue to narrow the grand strategy options avail- able to western governments. The Bush team's grand strategy of primacy is unlikely to outlast the administration. Grand strategy reform appears destined to result in either a defensively expansionist framework for cooperative im- perial liberalism or a possibly sudden retrenchment into siege mentality neo- isolationism following a major attack on the US or a close ally with weapons of mass destruction.1 Continued societal vulnerability coupled with increasing environmental and geostrategic instability suggests that strategic disengagement should be an American national security imperative, at least until an effective American system of perimeter defence screening and internal security detection of WMDs is developed.Selective engagement and off-shore balancing, while of perennial interest to advocates of classical realism, have too many defects and blowback liabilities. A grand strategy built mostly on selective engagement and off-shore balancing, with the risk of overseas interventions, might lead to ill feeling toward Americans and still feed the fires of nuclear or biological weapon terrorism or, worse still, the professional prepositioning of nuclear warheads.2 Were fears of WMD terrorism to spike because of some significant incident involving nuclear materials, neo-isolationism advocacy in the US might well become policy - but that is the only scenario currently conceivable for its ascendancy. Neo-isolationism simply lacks effective public or elite support. Ideological and foreign policy doctrinal orthodoxy suggests an evolved imperial order is more likely until such time as a catastrophic surprise occurs.3Cooperative security, while having enjoyed a brief period of advocacy in the first Clinton administration, remains the least promising option because of its exceptionally ambitious and costly approach to WMD proliferation. Justified American skepticism about the willingness of either leading allies or major powers to provide the required verification and enforcement capability for a robust arms control and disarmament system also undercut its appeal.4 Some cooperative security advocates would like to banish nuclear (and biological) arms to the extreme margins of international society through a detailed system of indirect deterrence based on disassembled virtual nuclear arsenals that would require lengthy times for reconstitution and use or, better still, permanently latent industrial production potential for nuclear and biological weapons.5 But despite recent public enthusiasm for rapid steps towards de-alerting and denuclearization, longstanding practical difficulties remain. The United Nation's impediments to security council reform, likely to be exacerbated by rising levels of environmental and geopolitical tension, are a further obstacle to any cooperative security regime for disarmament and collective security enforcement.Cooperative security will likely be written off as politically impractical and dangerous, and primacy will be jettisoned for having both alienated allies' opinions ofthe US and worsened the terrorist threat globally. As such, cooperative imperial liberalism - representing a possible hybrid version of primacy and cooperative security - may emerge as an interim winner in future US administrations trying to grapple with intractable nuclear and biological weapons proliferation amidst steadily worsening global environmental conditions. …

From 2003 to 2009, China, Japan, North Korea, Russia, South Korea, and the United States engaged in a series of multilateral negotiations to address North Korea’s nuclear program. On September 19, 2005, the six participants achieved a “gold standard” agreement on denuclearization. North Korea agreed to relinquish all nuclear weapons, abstain from deploying nuclear weapons, and rejoin the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), as well as adhere to International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards. The United States affirmed its lack of nuclear weapons on the Korean Peninsula and expressed no intention of attacking or invading the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) with nuclear or conventional weapons. China, Japan, Russia, South Korea, and the United States concurred to provide energy assistance to the DPRK. Furthermore, the agreement established the principle of “commitment for commitment, action for action,” which holds significance for the spirit of future engagement. The prevailing impasse in resolving the nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula prompts the inquiry of a possible negotiation model. This paper uses the Harvard negotiation method to examine a zone of possible agreement (ZOPA) between China, North Korea, Russia, and the United States, which culminated in the September 19, 2005 Six Party Talks agreement addressing the nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula. The first section of the article is devoted to scrutinizing the Zone of Possible Agreement (ZOPA), which facilitated the 2005 agreement. Based on the acquired insights, the second section assesses the prospects for implementing the 2005 Joint Statement in the current context. This section also concentrates on identifying a ZOPA under current conditions, taking into account past experiences and lessons learned from past negotiations.

This chapter traces the evolution of international law related to the weaponization of nuclear and other radioactive materials, focusing in particular on the law pertaining to preventing acts of nuclear terrorism. International efforts to control atomic energy have evolved substantially since the only use of nuclear weapons, against Japan, in 1945. Unlike for chemical and biological weapons, whose legal regimes are centred on total bans of such weapons, the legal regime for nuclear weapons founded in the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons codifies a situation in which certain States retain weapons, pledging to negotiate toward disarmament, while others forego them and submit to a system of verification to ensure no diversion of nuclear energy from peaceful uses to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices. The recognition that physical protection of nuclear material and nuclear facilities from acts such as theft and sabotage was also highly important to both non-proliferation and radiation safety, but was not provided for under the safeguards system set up to detect and deter diversion by States of nuclear material to non-peaceful purposes, precipitated the nuclear security framework, starting with physical protection recommendations developed under the auspices of the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material. Subsequent developments related to nuclear security have been driven primarily by two issues: first, concerns regarding vulnerability of a significant amount of nuclear and other radioactive material, not necessarily part of weapons programmes, particularly following the end of the Cold War; and second, the threat that terrorists would obtain and use such materials. The latter issue came to the fore in the wake of the terrorist attacks on 11 September 2001, displaying a new strain of mass-casualty international terrorism. These attacks were a transformative event for the area of nuclear security, leading to a number of actions aimed at strengthening the international legal framework. However, from the beginning, nuclear security has been formulated as fundamentally a national responsibility of States pursuant, where applicable, to certain international obligations. National sensitivities continue to affect the extent to which States are willing to enter into legally binding agreements. With that in mind, the present chapter looks at methods by which the law evolves and considers how they have been put into practice with respect to nuclear security in light of said national sensitivities and in response to perceived threats.

Religion is understudied as a variable in nuclear-proliferation and nuclear-deterrence policies. This article issues a call to scholars, activists, and practitioners to improve knowledge and strategic intelligence about the connection between religion and nuclear weapons. Such a research program is necessary to fill gaps in the scholarly literature on nuclear norms and nuclear decision making. It is also policy relevant. This is especially true in the Middle East, where all states profess to want a nuclear-weapon-free region and where religion is often used to legitimize political authority and decision making. Efforts to create in the Middle East a zone free of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction (a Middle East Zone) are currently hamstrung by conventional diplomatic concerns over sequencing, monitoring, and the security dilemma. This article posits that interfaith dialogue—one possible manifestation of a reinvigorated research program on religion and nuclear weapons—could both enhance our knowledge of how religious belief influences nuclear decision making and stimulate progress on achieving a Middle East Zone by reframing discourse on such a zone in terms of Abrahamic identity. The proposition is deductive and rooted in constructivist theories of change. It is not idealistic: a constructivist approach and a role for religion does not necessarily indicate pacifism, nor does it require unanimous buy-in for a religious normative order to prevail.

Conclusions * Nuclear weapons will continue indefinitely to play an indispensable role in U.S. national security policy: as a hedge against uncertainties, to deter potential aggressors who are both more diverse and less predictable than in the past, and to allow the United States to construct a more stable security environment. Recent tests by India and Pakistan make it clear that weapons remain part of the security setting. The aggressive pursuit of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons by states such as Iran and North Korea underscores the role of deterrence as a central component of U.S. security strategy. * The United States requires a credible deterrent posture, broadly defined to include forces-in-being; capabilities for weapon system design and production; and the ability to assure the safety and reliable performance of the stockpile--a fundamental challenge in the absence of underground testing. Because this posture must be both adaptable and responsive to new threats, the national deterrent infrastructure must be treated as a strategic resource. The posture must also incorporate a greater role for defenses in future deterrence calculations. All of this requires trained and motivated people, as well as new ways of thinking and considerable agility and foresightedness on the part of U.S. leaders. * A force that is not backed by the perceived ability and willingness to maintain and, when necessary, reconstitute important elements will increasingly be seen as hollow. The decisions and actions that the United States takes concerning the total force posture in the years ahead will influence decisively how both allies and adversaries perceive the credibility of the U.S. deterrent. In turn, this holds important implications for the overall capacity of the United States to shape the security setting at the outset of the new millennium and to provide for the nation's defense in a world of change and turbulence. Setting a New Paradigm Recognizing the need for a fresh, long-term look at national security strategy and requirements, and specifically at U.S. policy in the 21st Century, the Center for Counterproliferation Research at the National Defense University and the Center for Global Security Research at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory brought together a group of experts with extensive experience in security policy and military affairs. The participants examined the broad trends in the international environment and considered how the United States could both shape and respond to them. A forward-looking paradigm for the dimension of U.S. security policy emerged that builds on the lessons of the past while addressing the opportunities and challenges of the future. The paradigm is based on five elements: 1. Sweeping positive changes have occurred. The bilateral nuclear balance that occupied center stage in the past no longer dominates the strategic calculations of the United States or Russia. Yet, there remains a continuing need for deterrence and for the retention of weapons as an essential component of U.S. national security strategy. 2. Nuclear weapons will remain part of the global security setting. The knowledge to build them will continue to exist; they cannot be disinvented. Even if the United States were to divest itself of its arsenal, other nations would be unlikely to follow suit. To the contrary, some states would gain incentives to retain or acquire weapons against a conventionally superior but nuclear-free United States. If weapons were somehow eliminated, a serious deterioration of the international environment could engender strong incentives for rearmament. A rapid and competitive race to rebuild arsenals could increase prospects for a devastating war. 3. In the changing security setting, the weapons infrastructure--broadly defined to include both the operational forces and the development and production capabilities that can bring new forces into being when needed--takes on a heightened strategic prominence. …

Unfortunately, nowadays the general public and the world at large are going through high level of risk and dangerous due to a terrible threat of nuclear weapons as well as weapons of mass destruction. Here, the point is the pretending nuclear wars do not limit between only two parties or states, but goes far, might go to every single country which leads to the third world war, existence of humanity is under annihilation. In past decades societies in general thought only terrorists do terrorism, besides some countries which support radical groups and use them in secret, but now the situation is changed, the recognized states and countries announce frankly to use nuclear or mass destruction weapons, not just that but, becomes a title of their bulletin news which is in fact a dangerous precedent on the ground. The current situation is in the highest alarm and only a simple start with a spark by a conflict or non-conflict parties on the ground which goes under control and the whole world suffers from it. The world community has already had the bitterness and mass destroying of using nuclear weapon, but unfortunately it shows that not all states took the seriousness of humanitarian catastrophe after using nuclear weapon yet. It means any using of the mass destruction weapons will almost the end of living on the earth as the experts imagine and analyze how the case goes worse and worse day after day, even the international relationship in all aspects of diplomatic, economic, trade and other fields are deteriorated and not as before because of having desire by some states to occupy and takeover of other territories or free states under different names and non-logic reasons and that’s why almost all states try to rebuild its army and expense more and more money on its army and weapons. This threat is like a plague thus, if we do not have a medicine and solution it wipes out an entire population without any exception among countries whether the country is superpower or non-superpower including the permanent members of Security Council of United Notion. Hence, the article is based on said statements issued by high rank officials and other facts research.

The slogans of the "walkers for peace " in the Uniled Slates of America anti in Western Europe (and also in South Africa) against the proliferation of nuclear weapons and nuclear technology as well as the growing probability of a nuclear war in the light of president Reagan's rearmament plan, arc born of the numerous failures of nuclear disarmament and arms control. The ever- increasing danger that goes along with nuclear proliferation in the sense of weapon production and the handling of radioactive waste urges us to look more seriously than ever at nuclear technology. The article deals with some of the efforts to control the proliferation process as well as efforts to limit or reduce nuclear arms. Some essential factors that negatively influence the discussions are pointed out and finally it is concluded that because of the sin-induced brokenness of man’s heart, control over nuclear arms proliferation has just partial success. The abolition of weapon production and total disarm­ ament are ideals that will, in this era that precedes the second coming of Christ, not be fulfilled. Thus, the nuclear arms race will inevitably continue.

A close look at the literature on Pakistan's nuclear weapons doctrine reveals the ambiguity in Pakistan's nuclear-use options. Pakistani officials and commentators leave open the possibility that Pakistan would use its nuclear weapon first, but it is not clear when, where, or how it would. Others conclude that Islamabad would use its nuclear weapon only as a last resort, but that condition too remains vague. This article examines the puzzle of Pakistan's nuclear weapons use, demonstrating that ambiguity plays a central role in Pakistan's nuclear weapons policy, much as nuclear ambiguity exists in each nuclear weapons state's policy. This article departs from previous research and commentary on Pakistan's nuclear doctrine by introducing the thesis that Pakistan's nuclear ambiguity is real, but far from internationally unique. Pakistan, like the USA at the onset of the nuclear era, relies on nuclear weapons for survival. The development of Pakistan's forces, including tactical nuclear weapons, suggests an emphasis on counterforce targeting. The role of domestic political processes, the civil–military dilemma and its impact on strategic policy in Pakistan, have received considerable attention, but still require untangling. Progress towards no first use probably requires changes to the conventional balance in South Asia, and stronger democratic, civilian rule in Pakistan, free of direct intervention from the army. Finally, global dynamics shaping the salience of nuclear weapons globally cannot be disregarded in any assessment of South Asian and Pakistani dynamics.

Are nuclear weapons useful for coercive diplomacy? Since 1945, most strategic thinking about nuclear weapons has focused on deterrence - using nuclear threats to prevent attacks against the nation's territory and interests. But an often overlooked question is whether nuclear threats can also coerce adversaries to relinquish possessions or change their behavior. Can nuclear weapons be used to blackmail other countries? The prevailing wisdom is that nuclear weapons are useful for coercion, but this book shows that this view is badly misguided. Nuclear weapons are useful mainly for deterrence and self-defense, not for coercion. The authors evaluate the role of nuclear weapons in several foreign policy contexts and present a trove of new quantitative and historical evidence that nuclear weapons do not help countries achieve better results in coercive diplomacy. The evidence is clear: the benefits of possessing nuclear weapons are almost exclusively defensive, not offensive.