Login/Sign up

World Association of International Studies

PAX, LUX ET VERITAS SINCE 1965
Post Ridding the World of Nuclear Weapons: A Challenge for David Krieger
Created by John Eipper on 02/03/18 9:58 AM

Previous posts in this discussion:

Post

Ridding the World of Nuclear Weapons: A Challenge for David Krieger (Istvan Simon, USA, 02/03/18 9:58 am)

I would like to extend to David Krieger my heartfelt relief that he and his family are safe back in their home, with only minor damage after a terrifying evacuation.

Second, I'd like to thank him for his thoughtful response (February 1st) to my post.

David calls me a dreamer. Well, perhaps. Still, I'd like to insist on my points.

Let me start by saying that I'd like nothing more than for David to convince me that I am wrong. So here is a challenge for you David: Convert me to your point of view.

David replaces my first question "Is it possible?" by a question that of course no sane person would not answer the way he wants it answered. Are we willing to gamble destroying life on earth, David asks, for the uncertain security of a few nations? Well, of course my answer to this question is exactly what he wants: no. I'm not insane, and so of course my answer is no. Yet let's just follow his next thought, after he calls me a dreamer. He says:

I favor negotiations for the phased verifiable (emphasis added by me) , irreversible, and transparent elimination of nuclear weapons.

I favor this too. But the trouble is that as far as I know (please convince me I'm wrong), there exists no method to verify with 100% certainty that countries complied with such a hypothetical agreement. As far as I know, David's goal which both of us favor is technically impossible at the present time.

JE comments:  David?  The former Soviet republics (other than Russia itself) voluntarily gave up their nuclear weapons.  And to my knowledge, no one has suspected Ukraine of cheating.  Is there a useful model here?


SHARE:
Rate this post
Informational value 
Insight 
Fairness 
Reader Ratings (0)
0%
Informational value0%
Insight0%
Fairness0%

Visits: 143

Comments/Replies

Please login/register to reply or comment: Login/Sign up

  • Ukraine's Renunciation of Nuclear Weapons, 1994 (Boris Volodarsky, Austria 02/04/18 4:12 AM)
    JE commented on Istvan Simon's post of 3 February: "The former Soviet republics (other than Russia itself) voluntarily gave up their nuclear weapons. And to my knowledge, no one has suspected Ukraine of cheating."



    Absolutely correct, but Ukraine has regretted it so many times in the past few years. I am not only mentioning the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances of 1994. The Memorandum signed by the United States, Great Britain and Russia included security assurances against threats or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine and two other former Soviet republics.

    It makes no sense to remind WAISers what happened with the Ukrainian territory of Crimea in 2014 and what is still going on today in Donbass. The document signed by three states who claim they play a certain role in world politics is not worth the toilet paper in the Budapest public WCs.



    Now about the discussion on whether it is possible or not to get rid of nuclear weapons. Easy! There are much more powerful and dangerous weapons already tested and ready for use that the great powers, including Russia (which is not a great power but still rather well armed and dangerous), have in their arsenals. The effects of Hiroshima pale in comparison to the potential effects of the new generation of weapons. In the next 8 to 10 years all existing military nuclear devices as we know them will simply become obsolete.


    So what's the sense of keeping the old scrap? Today the question is who has made better progress in developing those new weapons. Here I am not sure who is leading.


    JE comments: Boris, do the Ukrainians believe that Putin would have left them alone, had they kept their nukes?


    A second question:  What can be more powerful and dangerous than the nuclear weapons we already have? Bigger nukes?  More tactically nefarious ones?

    Please login/register to reply or comment:

    • Psychotronic and Electromagnetic Weapons (Boris Volodarsky, Austria 02/05/18 4:33 AM)
      Briefly answering JE's questions of 4 February:



      (a) "Do the Ukrainians believe that Putin would have left them alone, had they kept their nukes?"



      No, the Ukrainians believe the United States and Britain would not have left them alone had they kept their nuclear arsenal.

      (b) "What can be more powerful and dangerous than the nuclear weapons we already have? Bigger nukes? More tactically nefarious ones?"


      The answer is psychotronic and electromagnetic (EM) weapons. One report, allegedly referring to a secret KGB file, that, of course, cannot be independently verified, stated, "The principle of remote exposure of humans to a psychotronic generator is based on the resonance of frequency characteristics of human organs--the heart, kidneys, liver, and brain. Each human organ has its own frequency characteristic. And if the same frequency is beamed at it by means of electromagnetic radiation, the organ enters into resonance, and the result is either acute cardiac insufficiency, or renal insufficiency, or a person starts to behave inadequately."


      Plans to introduce the super-weapons were announced quietly in March 2012 by the then Russian defence minister Anatoly Serdyukov, fulfilling a little-noticed election campaign pledge by president-elect Putin.


      Mr Serdyukov said: "The development of weaponry based on new physics principles--direct-energy weapons, geophysical weapons, wave-energy weapons, genetic weapons, psychotronic weapons, and so on--is part of the state arms procurement programme for 2011-2020.'


      JE comments: Sheesh.  These weapons are the rayguns of Buck Rogers fame, but scarier.  What about the "delivery" of Remote Organ Failure?  I cannot see how you can protect your own while zapping others.  Perhaps this is what Russia's mad scientists are working on now.


      Please login/register to reply or comment:


    • Post-Nuclear Superweapons: Biological Agents (John Heelan, -UK 02/05/18 4:48 AM)
      JE asked on February 4th: "What can be more powerful and dangerous than the nuclear weapons we already have? Bigger nukes? More tactically nefarious ones?"

      Biological weapons based on disease-producing agents, such as bacteria, viruses, rickettsiae, fungi, toxins, or other biological agents. They can be used as weapons against humans, animals, or plants. They are cheaper to develop (e.g. Genetic Modification) and easier to deliver by using the target population itself.


      JE comments:  Don't we already have these?  Biological weapons go back at least to Cortés and Tenochtitlan.  Cortés delivered a smallpox-infested blanket to his Aztec enemies.  The result was far deadlier than any blade or projectile.

      Please login/register to reply or comment:



  • Ridding the World of Nuclear Weapons: Trust, but Verify (David Krieger, USA 02/07/18 3:24 AM)
    I appreciate Istvan Simon's kind words (February 3rd) about returning to our home after the fire and floods in our community. It has been not only tragic, but also traumatic for many of us here.

    Istvan challenges me to convert him to my point of view regarding nuclear weapons abolition. He seems to agree with me that a nuclear weapon-free world is desirable, but he questions its feasibility, primarily based upon the verifiability of a negotiated agreement to abolish nuclear weapons. Ronald Reagan, who ended up supporting the abolition of nuclear weapons, said, "Trust, but verify." So, if you find negotiated nuclear weapons abolition desirable, how do you develop confidence in verification?


    First, negotiations must be phased. Countries can go as far as trust allows in each phase, building confidence along the way. On-site challenge inspections would be one means of verifying. Technical means using satellites would be another. The US and Russia have developed such means of verification that have allowed them to dismantle tens of thousands of nuclear weapons. Countries don't need to go immediately to zero; they need to be negotiating with each other, and then with the other nuclear weapons states to move as far as they can in any given phase. As parties to the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, they are required under Article VI of the treaty to engage in good-faith negotiations to end the nuclear arms race at an early date and to achieve complete nuclear disarmament. The problem is they are not fulfilling their obligations to negotiate and are, in fact, bolstering and "modernizing" their nuclear arsenals. As a consequence, they not making any progress at present. The recently released Trump Nuclear Posture Review makes nuclear war more likely by calling for development and deployment of new, smaller nuclear weapons that would be more likely to be used.


    I would say to Istvan that, if he truly favors a world free of nuclear weapons, he should be joining me in pushing for negotiations toward that end. It is only through the process of negotiations that progress toward verifiability will be achieved. No side is obligated to go further in moving toward zero than their trust in verification allows at any given time. But there should be pressure on political leaders to be continually pursuing this end, rather than developing even stronger nuclear arsenals than those that already place the human future in serious danger. In addition, any threat or use of nuclear weapons would be illegal and immoral. Even the preparations for nuclear war are exceedingly costly.


    Istvan, I hope you will join me and others throughout the world in calling for a nuclear weapons-free future, and help to stop the drift toward nuclear war--by accident, miscalculation or design. What is needed is the "political will" to end the nuclear weapons threat to humanity, including reliable systems of verification. Lacking this, we will continue to drift toward nuclear disaster.


    JE comments:  If one nation "modernizes" its nukes, the others in the Club will be compelled to follow suit.  Trust indeed builds trust, but among nations it is forever in short supply.  (Trust within nations hasn't been doing so well, either.)


    David, could you walk us through the concept of "challenge inspections"?  Does this mean other nations have the right to inspect at will, with no prior warning?


    (Newer WAISers may not know that David Krieger is President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.  Visit the NAPF here:  https://www.wagingpeace.org .  Keep up the good fight, David!)

    Please login/register to reply or comment:


Trending Now



All Forums with Published Content (44645 posts)

- Unassigned

Culture & Language

American Indians Art Awards Bestiary of Insults Books Conspiracy Theories Culture Ethics Film Food Futurology Gender Issues Humor Intellectuals Jews Language Literature Media Coverage Movies Music Newspapers Numismatics Philosophy Plagiarism Prisons Racial Issues Sports Tattoos Western Civilization World Communications

Economics

Capitalism Economics International Finance World Bank World Economy

Education

Education Hoover Institution Journal Publications Libraries Universities World Bibliography Series

History

Biographies Conspiracies Crime Decline of West German Holocaust Historical Figures History Holocausts Individuals Japanese Holocaust Leaders Learning Biographies Learning History Russian Holocaust Turkish Holocaust

Nations

Afghanistan Africa Albania Algeria Argentina Asia Australia Austria Bangladesh Belgium Belize Bolivia Brazil Canada Central America Chechnya Chile China Colombia Costa Rica Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark East Europe East Timor Ecuador Egypt El Salvador England Estonia Ethiopia Europe European Union Finland France French Guiana Germany Greece Guatemala Haiti Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran (Persia) Iraq Ireland Israel/Palestine Italy Japan Jordan Kenya Korea Kosovo Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Latin America Liberia Libya Mali Mexico Middle East Mongolia Morocco Namibia Nations Compared Netherlands New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria North America Norway Pacific Islands Pakistan Palestine Paraguay Peru Philippines Poland Polombia Portugal Romania Saudi Arabia Scandinavia Scotland Serbia Singapore Slovakia South Africa South America Southeast Asia Spain Sudan Sweden Switzerland Syria Thailand The Pacific Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan UK (United Kingdom) Ukraine USA (America) USSR/Russia Uzbekistan Venezuela Vietnam West Europe Yemen Yugoslavia Zaire

Politics

Balkanization Communism Constitutions Democracy Dictators Diplomacy Floism Global Issues Hegemony Homeland Security Human Rights Immigration International Events Law Nationalism NATO Organizations Peace Politics Terrorism United Nations US Elections 2008 US Elections 2012 US Elections 2016 US Elections 2020 Violence War War Crimes Within the US

Religion

Christianity Hinduism Islam Judaism Liberation Theology Religion

Science & Technology

Alcohol Anthropology Automotives Biological Weapons Design and Architecture Drugs Energy Environment Internet Landmines Mathematics Medicine Natural Disasters Psychology Recycling Research Science and Humanities Sexuality Space Technology World Wide Web (Internet)

Travel

Geography Maps Tourism Transportation

WAIS

1-TRIBUTES TO PROFESSOR HILTON 2001 Conference on Globalizations Academic WAR Forums Ask WAIS Experts Benefactors Chairman General News Member Information Member Nomination PAIS Research News Ronald Hilton Quotes Seasonal Messages Tributes to Prof. Hilton Varia Various Topics WAIS WAIS 2006 Conference WAIS Board Members WAIS History WAIS Interviews WAIS NEWS waisworld.org launch WAR Forums on Media & Research Who's Who