Almost 500 physicists in the US have signed a petition protesting a proposed change in government policy that would allow the US to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear countries. The proposed change in policy was reported in the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal.
The petition's instigators, both professors of physics at The University of California, San Diego, said that they felt an obligation to take a stand because of the role physics played in developing the weapons in the first place.
The change in policy would undermine the long-standing nuclear non-proliferation treaty, professors Jorge Hirsch and Kim Griest argue in the petition.
They write:
The underlying principle of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) is that in exchange for other countries forgoing the development of nuclear weapons, the nuclear weapon states will pursue nuclear disarmament. Instead, this new U.S. policy conveys a clear message to the 182 non-nuclear weapon states that the United States is moving strongly away from disarmament, and is in fact prepared to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear adversaries.
The professors go on to suggest that if the change in policy is adopted, it could lead to many countries abandoning the NPT and beginning nuclear weapons programmes of their own.
In a statement on the university's website, Hirsch said: "While it has long been a US policy to use nuclear weapons in order to respond to a nuclear attack, the new policy allows the U.S. to use nuclear weapons against states that do not have nuclear weapons and for a host of new reasons."
This would include rapid termination of a conflict on US terms, to ensure success of the US forces, or to demonstrate US intent and capability to use nuclear weapons as a deterrent, he added.
"This new US policy dramatically increases the risk of nuclear proliferation and, ultimately, the risk that regional conflicts will explode into all-out nuclear war, with the potential to destroy our civilization," Hirsch concludes.
Over 470 physicists have already signed up, including seven Nobel winners and two past presidents of the American Physical Society (APS).
Hirsch and Griest say they hope more people will sign ahead of a meeting of the executive board of the APS on 18 November and a meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency on 24 November. ®
....Do they want nuclear war?
Why do I get a feeling Bush was the genesis for this change?
The whole thing is pretty worrying, but this bi in particular, if true, seems kinda crazy to me:
to demonstrate US intent and capability to use nuclear weapons as a deterrent
I'm not sure how the US intends to convince other states that they don't need nuclear weapons if this policy change is true.
Up til now the deterant has worked in two ways (a) nuclear states won't use them as they wil get nuked back (b) non nuclear states don't need them as they won't get nuked.
Now surely this means every state is going to rush to get nukes, cos the safest way to ensure they don't get invaded or nuked by the US will be to ensure they have some nukes of their own. Or am i reading it wrong...?
Why do I get a feeling Bush was the genesis for this change?
I consider him more of a figure-head. This smells like Cheney, Wolfowitz, and Rumsfeld, especially the latter one.
(b) non nuclear states don't need them as they won't get nuked.
Except if they do get one, they're safer from other non-nuclear nations. There's that.
Remember when some people were predicting the world would end come the Millenium? Maybe they weren't that far out.
And they worry so much about Iran developing a few nukes of their own... Sheesh, I'm more concerned by the fact that the US already has 25000
[QUOTE=Dagobahn Eagle]I consider him more of a figure-head. This smells like Cheney, Wolfowitz, and Rumsfeld, especially the latter one.QUOTE]
It's all Dick's fault...!
Nastrodamus, although predicting the earth would end in 2000, also said it would in 2010, 2007 and 2012, so shall we start the bets then?
I consider him more of a figure-head. This smells like Cheney, Wolfowitz, and Rumsfeld, especially the latter one.
Wanna start a pool on it? My Ђ1 says Wolfowitz. He seems to me to be the most divorced from reality.
Crap... I'll never get MGS4 now. {(EDIT -Hah, after I re-read my post I realised how relavent that is.... what with the nuclear equiped walking tank and all... not to mention at the end they mention the 25000 nukes the US has, and how the president wanted MGRex... probably to nuke some place...... ummm yeah, nvm./edit)}
Its just like I said from the start- the USA wants to force everyone else to trash their nukes, but the US doesn't want to trash any of its own.
I don't see why everyone doesn't just sign treaties to destroy ALL nuclear weapons.
The way I see it is, if the US nukes someone, another nuclear empowered country will nuke us, and then we will nuke them... and so on and so forth, untill we all die.
Nastrodamus, although predicting the earth would end in 2000, also said it would in 2010, 2007 and 2012, so shall we start the bets then?
But why these numbers?
EDIT: Toms- where did you read this article?
The Register.
best sarcastic anti-government geek news website out there. ;)
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/10/26/boffins_against_the_bomb/)
Destroying ALL weapons is risky, as it might be ok for all those that signed the deal, but it wouldn't be a deterrant for others to ignore the deal and try and get their own.
But really once you have enough nuclear weapons to do significant damage to anyone who might attack you it becoems pointless to keep preducing them... its kind of overkill. Plus the more nukes there are floating around the more risk of them falling into the wrong hands.
But nukes really only work as a policy of deterance, once they start being used to threaten or once you acutally lauch them then everyone loses.
Based on recent US actions and statements, if I was one of the small states who wasn;t in their best books I'd be rushing to get nukes right now... and based on recent actions by korea and iran I think they have come to the same conclusion...
Based on recent US actions and statements, if I was one of the small states who wasn;t in their best books I'd be rushing to get nukes right now... and based on recent actions by korea and iran I think they have come to the same conclusion...
That's kinda what I thought too. Which makes it a doubly stupid policy.
I think it's more of a scare tactic. When I was a kid I was told by my Biology Teacher that big guns detour wars, while small guns promote wars. It makes since if you think about it, but in my opinion all nuclear weapons are a abomination, and should be destroyed. They will be the destruction of our civilization. If a hurricane (Katrina) can cripple us like it did, just imagine a nuclear bomb. I shutter just thinking about it. I watched a documentary on the Hiroshima bomb, real accounts and video footage from the survivors along with dramatizations. It was very disturbing to say the least. And to think WMDs nowadays a way more powerful than the Hiroshima bomb.
But the thing about nukes is - if one person has them they are a big danger. If lots of people have them then they are unlikely to be used. As long as people believe that no-one will launch first. If someone warns that they WILL use them first... it becomes in everyones interests to get weapons as soon as possible so that they won't have the guts to do so.
If lots of people have them then they are unlikely to be used.
Except if people like - say - W or Comrade Osama get their hands on them...