Why vote for nuclear disarmament?

[Alpha1]

Why vote for nuclear disarmament?
Kennette Benedict




Most efforts to achieve a world free of nuclear weapons happen at the highest levels of government and international organizations. But while heads of state appear to have the power to reduce nuclear arsenals, they need help. In democracies, such help comes from citizens who express their preferences at the polls. High-level meetings and treaties are important, but to bring about irreversible reductions in nuclear stockpiles will also require a politics that brings ordinary voters on board.

They and their legislators need lots of reasons to choose nuclear disarmament. Here are three to get started.

Disarmament will prevent catastrophic accidents. Nuclear weapons are very dangerous whether or not they are actually used in war. In the November/December issue of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Nate Jones describes how a routine NATO military exercise in 1983 led the Soviets to place their nuclear arsenals on high alert because they believed the United States was about to attack. Knowledge of the misperceptions, accidents, and near-misses that he andwriters like Eric Schlosser describe—incidents that could have resulted in nuclear exchanges of devastating proportions—would be enough to make any sensible person understand that the risks posed by these weapons far outweigh any purported benefits in an era of relative peace among major powers.

Disarmament will save money.At a time of fiscal restraint, the savings from reducing US arsenals would be significant, even when taking into account the costs of dismantlement. The United States spends $30 to $35 billion per year to maintain its current deployed nuclear force of some 1,500 weapons, and only about $6 billion per year for dismantling and cleanup under the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with Russia. If Washington continues to reduce nuclear arsenals, the net savings would add up to real money over time.

If the United States does achieve major savings through weapons cuts, there will of course be congressional debate about where the funds should go. The trick will be to ensure that the money used to build and maintain the nuclear weapons complex in the past is used to build civilian public infrastructure in the future. Such expenditures could mean more efficient transportation systems; repairs to buildings, roads, and schools; and funding for research and development of civilian technologies that contribute to durable economic growth. Confidence that the savings will be sensibly redirected will encourage skilled workers, businesses, and local governments to sign on to nuclear disarmament.

Disarmament will make the US economy stronger. One problem with the cost-saving argument is that weapons programs, whether nuclear or conventional, have in the past been sold as jobs programs. Unions and contractors in nearly every congressional district press to keep the employment and industrial base that weapons production provides. In the short run, and especially at times of high unemployment, it is true that government spending on weapons and military personnel provides jobs. After the Depression in the 1930s, World War II spending contributed to an economic recovery.

At times of low unemployment, though, as during the Vietnam War years, military spending draws money away from the civilian sector. The diversion of investment into military production leaves a society with fewer resources for housing, agriculture, and education. It also hampers production of the myriad goods and services that change hands in a thriving economy. Public sector investment, as well as production in the civilian economy, are engines of long-term growth.

Weapons of war, on the other hand, demolish wealth. They are made only to be destroyed, while at the same time destroying another country’s population, industrial infrastructure, and agricultural capacity.

Spending on nuclear weapons, especially in light of the end of the Cold War, is particularly self-defeating. One of the greatest military threats that we face today—from extremists with no organized armed forces—cannot be deterred with nuclear weapons. That’s why former US military commanders recommend a drastic reduction in arsenals. If the United States continues to spend on nuclear weapons that can’t be used and the military does not want, it will be doing so at the expense of a healthy civilian economy. As we now know, a similar course of action in the Soviet Union resulted in an upheaval that brought down the Berlin Wall and led to a revolt against the government of Mikhail Gorbachev. In the United States it could lead to a lower standard of living for Americans, slow growth, and widespread public discontent. In a paradox that may not be easy to grasp at first, spending on nuclear weapons leads to weakness, not strength.

The truth is that the nuclear weapons complex—including research and design; bomb making; manufacturing delivery vehicles; situating and maintaining missiles; and storage and clean-up of toxic materials—is so integrated into the fabric of the US economy that nuclear weapons have become normalized as a fact of life. Yet to make the world more secure, democracies stronger, and economies more prosperous, citizens of the United States and Russia will want to disentangle their societies from nuclear weapons. They have plenty of reasons to embrace disarmament—even beyond the terrible possibility of nuclear war.


Why vote for nuclear disarmament? | Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

 

[Peaceful Civilian]

Everybody should disable nuclear weapon. Civil societies , human right organizations should immediately start campaign for nuclear free world.

 

[PeaceGen]

I respecfully disagree. Nukes prevent conventional wars. Sad, but true.

 

[raptor22]

I respecfully disagree. Nukes prevent conventional wars. Sad, but true.

What would happen if in a fragile situation one country accidentally set off its nuclear arsenal? having fire in your home won't make it safe, it could even cause spread of flames to other houses, then whole the globe.

Consequences of a large nuclear war

Following a large U.S.-Russian nuclear war, enormous fires created by nuclear explosions in cities and industrial areas cause 150 million tons of smoke to be lofted high into the stratosphere. The smoke is quickly spread around the world and forms a dense smoke layer around both Hemispheres; the smoke will remain in the stratosphere for many years and act to block sunlight from reaching the surface of the Earth. New studies predict this level of stratospheric smoke deposition will still be possible even after planned reductions in U.S.-Russian nuclear arsenals are completed under the SORT Treaty in 2012.
Summary of consequences: U.S.-Russian war producing 150 million tons of smoke

• 2600 U.S. and Russian strategic nuclear weapons on high-alert are launched (in 2 to 3 minutes) at targets in the U.S., Europe and Russia (and perhaps at other targets which are considered to have strategic value).
• Some fraction of the remaining 7600 deployed and operational U.S. and Russian strategic nuclear warheads/weapons are also launched and detonated in retaliation for the initial attacks.
• Hundreds of large cities in the U.S., Europe and Russia are engulfed in massive firestorms which burn urban areas of tens or hundreds of thousands of square miles/kilometers.
• 150 million tons of smoke from nuclear fires rises above cloud level, into the stratosphere, where it quickly spreads around the world and forms a dense stratospheric cloud layer. The smoke will remain there for many years to block and absorb sunlight.
• The smoke blocks up to 70% of the sunlight from reaching the Earth's surface in the Northern Hemisphere, and up to 35% of the sunlight is also blocked in the Southern Hemisphere.
• In the absence of warming sunlight, surface temperatures on Earth become as cold or colder than they were 18,000 years ago at the height of the last Ice Age
• There would be rapid cooling of more than 20°C over large areas of North America and of more than 30°C over much of Eurasia, including all agricultural regions
• 150 million tons of smoke in the stratosphere would cause minimum daily temperatures in the largest agricultural regions of the Northern Hemisphere to drop below freezing for 1 to 3 years. Nightly killing frosts would occur and prevent food from being grown.
• Average global precipitation would be reduced by 45% due to the prolonged cold.
• Growing seasons would be virtually eliminated for many years.
• Massive destruction of the protective ozone layer would also occur, allowing intense levels of dangerous UV light to penetrate the atmosphere and reach the surface of the Earth.
• Massive amounts of radioactive fallout would be generated and spread both locally and globally. The targeting of nuclear reactors would significantly increase fallout of long-lived isotopes.
• Gigantic ground-hugging clouds of toxic smoke would be released from the fires; enormous quantities of industrial chemicals would also enter the environment.
• It would be impossible for many living things to survive the extreme rapidity and degree of changes in temperature and precipitation, combined with drastic increases in UV light, massive radioactive fallout, and massive releases of toxins and industrial chemicals.
• Already stressed land and marine ecosystems would collapse.
• Unable to grow food, most humans would starve to death.
• A mass extinction event would occur, similar to what happened 65 million years ago, when the dinosaurs were wiped out following a large asteroid impact with Earth (70% of species became extinct, including all animals greater than 25 kilograms in weight).
• Even humans living in shelters equipped with many years worth of food, water, energy, and medical supplies would probably not survive in the hostile post-war environment.

 

[Indian-Lion]

Everybody should disable nuclear weapon. Civil societies , human right organizations should immediately start campaign for nuclear free world.

Coming from a Pakistani lolzz


"Kashmir is India"

 

[Peaceful Civilian]

What would happen if in a fragile situation one country accidentally set off its nuclear arsenal? having fire in your home won't make it safe, it could even cause spread of flames to other houses, then whole the globe.

Consequences of a large nuclear war

Following a large U.S.-Russian nuclear war, enormous fires created by nuclear explosions in cities and industrial areas cause 150 million tons of smoke to be lofted high into the stratosphere. The smoke is quickly spread around the world and forms a dense smoke layer around both Hemispheres; the smoke will remain in the stratosphere for many years and act to block sunlight from reaching the surface of the Earth. New studies predict this level of stratospheric smoke deposition will still be possible even after planned reductions in U.S.-Russian nuclear arsenals are completed under the SORT Treaty in 2012.
Summary of consequences: U.S.-Russian war producing 150 million tons of smoke

• 2600 U.S. and Russian strategic nuclear weapons on high-alert are launched (in 2 to 3 minutes) at targets in the U.S., Europe and Russia (and perhaps at other targets which are considered to have strategic value).
• Some fraction of the remaining 7600 deployed and operational U.S. and Russian strategic nuclear warheads/weapons are also launched and detonated in retaliation for the initial attacks.
• Hundreds of large cities in the U.S., Europe and Russia are engulfed in massive firestorms which burn urban areas of tens or hundreds of thousands of square miles/kilometers.
• 150 million tons of smoke from nuclear fires rises above cloud level, into the stratosphere, where it quickly spreads around the world and forms a dense stratospheric cloud layer. The smoke will remain there for many years to block and absorb sunlight.
• The smoke blocks up to 70% of the sunlight from reaching the Earth's surface in the Northern Hemisphere, and up to 35% of the sunlight is also blocked in the Southern Hemisphere.
• In the absence of warming sunlight, surface temperatures on Earth become as cold or colder than they were 18,000 years ago at the height of the last Ice Age
• There would be rapid cooling of more than 20°C over large areas of North America and of more than 30°C over much of Eurasia, including all agricultural regions
• 150 million tons of smoke in the stratosphere would cause minimum daily temperatures in the largest agricultural regions of the Northern Hemisphere to drop below freezing for 1 to 3 years. Nightly killing frosts would occur and prevent food from being grown.
• Average global precipitation would be reduced by 45% due to the prolonged cold.
• Growing seasons would be virtually eliminated for many years.
• Massive destruction of the protective ozone layer would also occur, allowing intense levels of dangerous UV light to penetrate the atmosphere and reach the surface of the Earth.
• Massive amounts of radioactive fallout would be generated and spread both locally and globally. The targeting of nuclear reactors would significantly increase fallout of long-lived isotopes.
• Gigantic ground-hugging clouds of toxic smoke would be released from the fires; enormous quantities of industrial chemicals would also enter the environment.
• It would be impossible for many living things to survive the extreme rapidity and degree of changes in temperature and precipitation, combined with drastic increases in UV light, massive radioactive fallout, and massive releases of toxins and industrial chemicals.
• Already stressed land and marine ecosystems would collapse.
• Unable to grow food, most humans would starve to death.
• A mass extinction event would occur, similar to what happened 65 million years ago, when the dinosaurs were wiped out following a large asteroid impact with Earth (70% of species became extinct, including all animals greater than 25 kilograms in weight).
• Even humans living in shelters equipped with many years worth of food, water, energy, and medical supplies would probably not survive in the hostile post-war environment.

Yeah this is very dangerous and alarming situation...

 

[Alpha1]

What would happen if in a fragile situation one country accidentally set off its nuclear arsenal? having fire in your home won't make it safe, it could even cause spread of flames to other houses, then whole the globe.

Consequences of a large nuclear war

Following a large U.S.-Russian nuclear war, enormous fires created by nuclear explosions in cities and industrial areas cause 150 million tons of smoke to be lofted high into the stratosphere. The smoke is quickly spread around the world and forms a dense smoke layer around both Hemispheres; the smoke will remain in the stratosphere for many years and act to block sunlight from reaching the surface of the Earth. New studies predict this level of stratospheric smoke deposition will still be possible even after planned reductions in U.S.-Russian nuclear arsenals are completed under the SORT Treaty in 2012.
Summary of consequences: U.S.-Russian war producing 150 million tons of smoke

• 2600 U.S. and Russian strategic nuclear weapons on high-alert are launched (in 2 to 3 minutes) at targets in the U.S., Europe and Russia (and perhaps at other targets which are considered to have strategic value).
• Some fraction of the remaining 7600 deployed and operational U.S. and Russian strategic nuclear warheads/weapons are also launched and detonated in retaliation for the initial attacks.
• Hundreds of large cities in the U.S., Europe and Russia are engulfed in massive firestorms which burn urban areas of tens or hundreds of thousands of square miles/kilometers.
• 150 million tons of smoke from nuclear fires rises above cloud level, into the stratosphere, where it quickly spreads around the world and forms a dense stratospheric cloud layer. The smoke will remain there for many years to block and absorb sunlight.
• The smoke blocks up to 70% of the sunlight from reaching the Earth's surface in the Northern Hemisphere, and up to 35% of the sunlight is also blocked in the Southern Hemisphere.
• In the absence of warming sunlight, surface temperatures on Earth become as cold or colder than they were 18,000 years ago at the height of the last Ice Age
• There would be rapid cooling of more than 20°C over large areas of North America and of more than 30°C over much of Eurasia, including all agricultural regions
• 150 million tons of smoke in the stratosphere would cause minimum daily temperatures in the largest agricultural regions of the Northern Hemisphere to drop below freezing for 1 to 3 years. Nightly killing frosts would occur and prevent food from being grown.
• Average global precipitation would be reduced by 45% due to the prolonged cold.
• Growing seasons would be virtually eliminated for many years.
• Massive destruction of the protective ozone layer would also occur, allowing intense levels of dangerous UV light to penetrate the atmosphere and reach the surface of the Earth.
• Massive amounts of radioactive fallout would be generated and spread both locally and globally. The targeting of nuclear reactors would significantly increase fallout of long-lived isotopes.
• Gigantic ground-hugging clouds of toxic smoke would be released from the fires; enormous quantities of industrial chemicals would also enter the environment.
• It would be impossible for many living things to survive the extreme rapidity and degree of changes in temperature and precipitation, combined with drastic increases in UV light, massive radioactive fallout, and massive releases of toxins and industrial chemicals.
• Already stressed land and marine ecosystems would collapse.
• Unable to grow food, most humans would starve to death.
• A mass extinction event would occur, similar to what happened 65 million years ago, when the dinosaurs were wiped out following a large asteroid impact with Earth (70% of species became extinct, including all animals greater than 25 kilograms in weight).
• Even humans living in shelters equipped with many years worth of food, water, energy, and medical supplies would probably not survive in the hostile post-war environment.

I will have to look into the details of the detonations, And see if it's correct or not. Looks exagerrated but Nuclear detonations in such large numbers will have it's effect on the environment

 

[Alpha1]

I respecfully disagree. Nukes prevent conventional wars. Sad, but true.

Yes that is true but there is a chance regardless how slight it may be of a large scale nuclear exchange.
And if that happens it will be far more devestating than all the possible conventional wars combined.

 

[Falcon29]

We take nukes away, if any conventional war erupts all wives and girlfriends of this world commit to not have any psychical contact with their spouses until man go crazy and commit to cease fire.

There, I knew I had the solution. Thank me later.