Related
Issues
Environment- Nuclear Issues
- Politics
- Geopolitics
- Governance
- Peace and Conflict
- Arms & Military
- Conflict
- Nuclear Arms
- Peace
- Security
- Terrorism
Places
Organizations
Events
- 07/09/2009 - 6:30pmD.C.United States
Images
In Motion Magazine
Amnesty International
Radio Netherlands Wereldomroep
McCain, Obama Told to End Nuclear Threat
August 6, 2008
DENVER, Aug 6 (OneWorld) - On the sixty-third anniversary of the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima, groups and individuals around the world are calling on the next U.S. president to take seven concrete steps to end the threat of nuclear terrorism and war.
"Nuclear weapons were created by humans, and it is our responsibility to eliminate them before they eliminate us," states an appeal led by the California-based Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (NAPF).
The Dalai Lama, Walter Cronkite, and Archbishop Desmond Tutu are among the thousands who have signed the appeal to the next U.S. president. © Nuclear Age Peace Foundation
The Dalai Lama, Walter Cronkite, and Archbishop Desmond Tutu are among the prominent international figures and thousands of Americans who have already signed the appeal, which will be delivered to the White House on January 20, 2009 when the next president is inaugurated.
NAPF stresses that the goal of a nuclear-weapons-free world is not as distant and difficult as the major U.S. presidential candidates have indicated, and that the United States, "as the world's most militarily powerful nation," is best positioned to convene world leaders to take the steps necessary to abolish the nuclear threat.
It is unclear, however, whether John McCain or Barack Obama would be willing to lead such an initiative as U.S. president.
"There is much we still don’t know about the candidates’ positions," says NAPF President David Krieger. "Both state in general terms that they favor the goal [of a nuclear-weapons-free world]. Neither of them, however, has discussed seeking to achieve a Nuclear Weapons Convention, a treaty that would set forth a roadmap for the phased, verifiable, irreversible, and transparent elimination of nuclear weapons."
McCain and Obama agree on some points, but have shown some important differences in their approaches to the nuclear issue. © McCain and Obama campaigns
"Between the two candidates, Senator McCain’s positions seem more cautious and sketchy," adds Krieger, pointing out that McCain has used language that would leave open the door to developing new nuclear weapons, and he has strongly supported missile defense programs, which could prompt Russia to backtrack on its nuclear commitments.
Krieger thinks Obama has staked out a stronger position on eliminating the threat of nuclear weapons worldwide. "[Obama] has come out in favor of removing U.S. nuclear weapons from hair-trigger alert, not developing new nuclear weapons, ratifying the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, [and] achieving a verifiable global ban on the production of new nuclear weapons material."
Those represent four of the seven steps Krieger's group is calling for in its roadmap to a nuclear-weapons-free world. The other three include committing to "No First Use" of nuclear weapons, negotiating a new treaty for the total elimination of nuclear weapons, and reallocating funds from nuclear projects to efforts to alleviate poverty, prevent and cure disease, eliminate hunger, and expand educational opportunities worldwide.
Some Agreement, Important Differences
Many foreign policy and arms control analysts agree that both McCain and Obama's positions represent a strong departure from the policies of the George W. Bush administration.
A 1951 nuclear weapons test. © Nuclear Age Peace Foundation
"We'll have major progress on nuclear issues no matter who is elected," says John Isaacs, executive director of the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation. "It debunks the common view that Obama is the most liberal Democratic senator, and it debunks the view that McCain is really the third Bush term."
Isaacs' nonprofit group researches issues of international peace and national security. In a recent analysis, the Center laid out seven points on which the two candidates agree, and six on which they disagree, on nuclear weapons.
While both candidates voted in favor of an agreement to transfer nuclear technology to India for use in its energy program, only Obama's vote included amendments making the deal conditional on India proving that it would not use the technology to create new nuclear weapons.
Obama has also opposed a plan to store nuclear waste from power plants in a facility deep below Nevada's Yucca Mountain, citing safety concerns. McCain supports the plan, explains Isaacs.
NAPF's Krieger notes that McCain has also been much more supportive of nuclear energy, which "adds significantly to the complications of controlling nuclear materials and preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons."
"[Obama also] focuses much more on securing loose, unsafe nuclear materials," adds Josh Rovenger of Citizens for Global Solutions, a Washington DC-based nonprofit that promotes cooperation among nations to solve the world's problems.
Different Worldviews
"Both McCain and...Obama represent a departure from the status quo," says Rovenger, but while Obama's view "acknowledges the unacceptable risks nuclear weapons pose merely by their existence," McCain's view is "steeped in the relics of Cold War deterrence theory."
"While both candidates appear to take nuclear proliferation seriously, the difference in their worldview is of utmost importance."
- Josh Rovenger, Citizens for Global Solutions"At the end of the day what really matters is how each one would respond to a crisis situation," says Rovenger, arguing that, while both candidates have said military force should only be used as a last resort, McCain has emphasized the importance of threats of force when handling international disputes, while Obama has prioritized diplomatic approaches.
"While both candidates appear to take nuclear proliferation seriously, the difference in their worldview is of utmost importance," concludes Rovenger.
Krieger's group would seem to agree, noting in its appeal to the next president that, in an era when non-locatable entities like Al-Qaeda pose serious threats to U.S. security, "the only sure way to prevent...nuclear terrorism...is to rid the world of nuclear weapons."
"Nuclear weapons do not and cannot protect their possessors," adds Krieger. "In the seventh decade of the Nuclear Age, there is a glimmer of hope that new leadership in the United States may pave the way forward toward a world free of nuclear weapons."
This article has been included in OneWorld.net's "Campaign '08" edition of Perspectives magazine, which examines where the major presidential candidates stand on key issues affecting all the world's people. Add your thoughts on the campaign today and get the background from experts on foreign policy, national security, foreign aid, global health, the environment, and much more.
"Nuclear weapons were created by humans, and it is our responsibility to eliminate them before they eliminate us," states an appeal led by the California-based Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (NAPF).
The Dalai Lama, Walter Cronkite, and Archbishop Desmond Tutu are among the thousands who have signed the appeal to the next U.S. president. © Nuclear Age Peace Foundation
The Dalai Lama, Walter Cronkite, and Archbishop Desmond Tutu are among the prominent international figures and thousands of Americans who have already signed the appeal, which will be delivered to the White House on January 20, 2009 when the next president is inaugurated. NAPF stresses that the goal of a nuclear-weapons-free world is not as distant and difficult as the major U.S. presidential candidates have indicated, and that the United States, "as the world's most militarily powerful nation," is best positioned to convene world leaders to take the steps necessary to abolish the nuclear threat.
It is unclear, however, whether John McCain or Barack Obama would be willing to lead such an initiative as U.S. president.
"There is much we still don’t know about the candidates’ positions," says NAPF President David Krieger. "Both state in general terms that they favor the goal [of a nuclear-weapons-free world]. Neither of them, however, has discussed seeking to achieve a Nuclear Weapons Convention, a treaty that would set forth a roadmap for the phased, verifiable, irreversible, and transparent elimination of nuclear weapons."
McCain and Obama agree on some points, but have shown some important differences in their approaches to the nuclear issue. © McCain and Obama campaigns
"Between the two candidates, Senator McCain’s positions seem more cautious and sketchy," adds Krieger, pointing out that McCain has used language that would leave open the door to developing new nuclear weapons, and he has strongly supported missile defense programs, which could prompt Russia to backtrack on its nuclear commitments.Krieger thinks Obama has staked out a stronger position on eliminating the threat of nuclear weapons worldwide. "[Obama] has come out in favor of removing U.S. nuclear weapons from hair-trigger alert, not developing new nuclear weapons, ratifying the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, [and] achieving a verifiable global ban on the production of new nuclear weapons material."
Those represent four of the seven steps Krieger's group is calling for in its roadmap to a nuclear-weapons-free world. The other three include committing to "No First Use" of nuclear weapons, negotiating a new treaty for the total elimination of nuclear weapons, and reallocating funds from nuclear projects to efforts to alleviate poverty, prevent and cure disease, eliminate hunger, and expand educational opportunities worldwide.
Some Agreement, Important Differences
Many foreign policy and arms control analysts agree that both McCain and Obama's positions represent a strong departure from the policies of the George W. Bush administration.
A 1951 nuclear weapons test. © Nuclear Age Peace Foundation
"We'll have major progress on nuclear issues no matter who is elected," says John Isaacs, executive director of the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation. "It debunks the common view that Obama is the most liberal Democratic senator, and it debunks the view that McCain is really the third Bush term."Isaacs' nonprofit group researches issues of international peace and national security. In a recent analysis, the Center laid out seven points on which the two candidates agree, and six on which they disagree, on nuclear weapons.
While both candidates voted in favor of an agreement to transfer nuclear technology to India for use in its energy program, only Obama's vote included amendments making the deal conditional on India proving that it would not use the technology to create new nuclear weapons.
Obama has also opposed a plan to store nuclear waste from power plants in a facility deep below Nevada's Yucca Mountain, citing safety concerns. McCain supports the plan, explains Isaacs.
NAPF's Krieger notes that McCain has also been much more supportive of nuclear energy, which "adds significantly to the complications of controlling nuclear materials and preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons."
"[Obama also] focuses much more on securing loose, unsafe nuclear materials," adds Josh Rovenger of Citizens for Global Solutions, a Washington DC-based nonprofit that promotes cooperation among nations to solve the world's problems.
Different Worldviews
"Both McCain and...Obama represent a departure from the status quo," says Rovenger, but while Obama's view "acknowledges the unacceptable risks nuclear weapons pose merely by their existence," McCain's view is "steeped in the relics of Cold War deterrence theory."
"While both candidates appear to take nuclear proliferation seriously, the difference in their worldview is of utmost importance."
- Josh Rovenger, Citizens for Global Solutions"At the end of the day what really matters is how each one would respond to a crisis situation," says Rovenger, arguing that, while both candidates have said military force should only be used as a last resort, McCain has emphasized the importance of threats of force when handling international disputes, while Obama has prioritized diplomatic approaches.
"While both candidates appear to take nuclear proliferation seriously, the difference in their worldview is of utmost importance," concludes Rovenger.
Krieger's group would seem to agree, noting in its appeal to the next president that, in an era when non-locatable entities like Al-Qaeda pose serious threats to U.S. security, "the only sure way to prevent...nuclear terrorism...is to rid the world of nuclear weapons."
"Nuclear weapons do not and cannot protect their possessors," adds Krieger. "In the seventh decade of the Nuclear Age, there is a glimmer of hope that new leadership in the United States may pave the way forward toward a world free of nuclear weapons."
This article has been included in OneWorld.net's "Campaign '08" edition of Perspectives magazine, which examines where the major presidential candidates stand on key issues affecting all the world's people. Add your thoughts on the campaign today and get the background from experts on foreign policy, national security, foreign aid, global health, the environment, and much more.
OneWorld Is...
an online hub publishing news on global issues and providing support to non- profits helping to create a better world. Learn more
User login
|
OneWorld on...
|
 |
Election protest © Hamed Saber (flickr)
A farmer in Kenya © World Bank Photo Collection (Flickr)
Ethiopia faces severe water scarcity © Argaw Ashine, oxfam international (flickr)
A North Korean farmer © Food First / Institute for Food and Development Policy
A woman affected by the conflict © Ned Meerdink, Advocacy Project (flickr)
Fairtrade face masks are now available © Alpharetta CVB (flickr)
Bangalore gay pride festival, 2009 © lighttripper (flickr)
Anti-mining graffiti, El Salvador © jphillipson (flickr)
AIDS activists in Washington, DC © A Look Askance (flickr)
Peruvian military and protestors clash © powless (flickr)
Comments
Nuclear Conspiracy?
Belarus suffered from approximately 70 per cent of the fallout from the Chernobyl catastrophe. There are high rates of morbidity in Belarus and the elevated cancer rates are 16 times higher than in those countries not affected by Chernobyl. Data collected from locations such as Belarus would give governments/united-nations an indication as to whether or not a deliberately planned global nuclear catastrophe was a realistic option for reducing the world human population. Are the high rates of morbidity and elevated cancer rates in Belarus only applicable to people who were living in Belarus during the fallout or who moved to Belarus within a few years of the fallout?
Has research been undertaken on animals and/or humans every few years since the Chernobyl disaster (1986) to try and determine when it is safe to reintroduce humans and/or animals into a location that has experienced heavy fallout without those humans and/or animals experiencing harmful ailments/defects/side effects or fatalities?
I live in the UK. If I went to live and work in Belarus this year, am I very likely to be harmfully affected by the remnants of fallout from the Chernobyl disaster of 1986 (22 years ago)? http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2007/gaspd381.doc.htm
Below are two edited extracts from the above (link) press release dated 29 October 2007. ANDREI METELITSA ( Belarus) said despite being the smallest country affected, Belarus had suffered from approximately 70 per cent of the fallout. He noted the lack of attention to that situation, despite the fact that many people continued to suffer from Chernobyl’s effects. He emphasized Belarus’ high rates of morbidity and the elevated cancer rates, with the latter rates 16 times higher than in those countries not affected by Chernobyl. Those facts underscored how much was still not known about the effects of atomic radiation.
MALCOLM CRICK, Secretary of the Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR), said the secretariat of the Scientific Committee was comprised of one professional staff and two general staff and the Scientific Committee’s budget had fallen dramatically over the past few years, even though the amount of work it had done had steadily increased. With only one professional in the secretariat, there was an increased risk of errors. The secretariat must often deal with issues across disciplines, such as physics and biology, which was impossible for one person to do.
If an intergovernmental conspiracy did result in a global nuclear catastrophe, then food and supplements i.e. carbohydrates, protein, fats and vitamins could be stored in packets/containers for the selected survivors living underground. Above ground - radiation would contaminate almost everything that humans could survive on - plants, animals, tinned food, packaged food etc. Radiation would be in the air, getting into every nook and cranny and it would probably also destroy harmful viruses such as HIV and bacteria such as MRSA. What a way to deal with most of the world's problems at once.
Survivors living underground could probably be fed for decades using methods such as the following (link) http://www.factoryfarming.org.uk/hens.html - Slaughtered battery hens can be processed into soups, baby foods, stock cubes, etc. Battery hens are bred to be lean, to eat little and lay a lot.)
Water from the sea could be desalinated. If most life above ground was killed off by nuclear radiation and harmful gases then genetic engineering could possibly be used to increase the number and diversity of plants, mammals and insects etc that could be release into the environment once it was safe to do so. If most life was killed off, genetic engineering could possibly be used to breed organisms such as blow flies that would be released at numerous locations to feed on carcasses. When survivors eventually came above ground to live, they would be left with more manageable skeletons to clear up.
Those chosen to survive would all be given identity cards, details of their DNA would be on a database to make crime detection easier, one set of laws would cover all continents and everyone would be taught to speak the same language. A new world order would be virtually impossible in the kind of world that we live in at present - there are too many dissenters and over six billion people with such diverse beliefs and customs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Qadeer_Khan (Known as the ‘Father of the Islamic bomb’) There was an excellent account of A.Q. Khan’s activities regarding nuclear proliferation shown on UKTV History Channel on 03 August 2008 entitled, Nuclear Secrets: Trader in Terror. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article3257725.ece The power elite (Bilderberg group?) possibly believe that they will have to act before it is too late or else the power to do anything could be taken away from them.