For more on the positions of the Presidential candidates, see Obama vs. McCain: A Side-By-Side Comparison on Arms Control, produced by the Center for Arms Control and Nonproliferation.
Download both the Center for Arms Control's Side-By-Side Comparison of Obama and McCain on Arms Control and the Center's Memorandum to McCain and Obama outlining a new Arms Control and Non-Proliferation Agenda.
Senator and Presidential candidate Barack Obama declared support for a nuclear weapons free world in his foreign policy speech in Berlin, July 24. “This is the moment when we must renew the goal of a world without nuclear weapons. . . . It is time to secure all loose nuclear materials; to stop the spread of nuclear weapons; and to reduce the arsenals from another era. This is the moment to begin the work of seeking the peace of a world without nuclear weapons."
Download the full transcript of Obama's Speech in Berlin below as reported in the New York Times.
Senator and Presidential candidate John McCain outlined his positions regarding nuclear weapons on May 27 in a speech at the University of Denver, including this: "A quarter of a century ago, President Ronald Reagan declared, 'our dream is to see the day when nuclear weapons will be banished from the face of the Earth.' That is my dream, too."
Download full transcript Of McCain's remarks below as reported in the Washington Post.
Nearly 60 years ago, Americans learned of the first case of nuclear proliferation. The Soviet Union, thought to be years away from acquiring its own atomic bomb, set off a successful test explosion in August 1959. The nuclear-weapons arms race had begun.
Last month's anniversary was a grim reminder of the threat we still face from the spread of nuclear weapons. Certainly, the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11 only emphasized the danger. More than one person mused the next day: What if they had had The Bomb?
This very question remained on the minds of hardened veterans of the Cold War. The doctrine of "mutual assured destruction" carried us through the Cold War, they believed, but 21st-century enemies are no longer deterred in the conventional sense. Our nuclear nightmares, which were once about "nuclear winter," now include "dirty bombs" that could destroy a U.S. city, and we might never know who was responsible.
Two prominent conservatives have arrived at a surprising solution to the threat of the rapidly expanding proliferation of nuclear weapons. Former Republican secretaries of state Henry Kissinger and George Shultz now believe that we have to set our sights on freeing the entire world of nuclear weapons. They see the direct link between proliferation prevention and disarmament.
Last year, the two co-authored - with former Secretary of Defense William Perry and former Sen. Sam Nunn, two defense-oriented Democrats - an essay published in the Wall Street Journal that spelled out their vision. They called on the nuclear powers, led by the United States, to publicly commit to the goal of a world without nuclear weapons, to be achieved through a series of mutually verifiable steps.
The steps include taking deployed nuclear weapons off hair-trigger alert in order to avoid accidental launches; halting the production of fissile material, such as plutonium, needed to make a nuclear weapon; improving security for existing stocks of weapons and fissile materials; ratifying a ban on nuclear-weapons tests; and negotiating deeper cuts in existing arsenals.
The piece set jaws dropping. No one expected this plan from these former Cold Warriors.
But it had the desired effect: Freeing the world from nuclear weapons is, to the mind of policy and political elites, no longer the dream of naïve activists. It is practical. It is doable. It is necessary.
Like so many ideas that at first seem heretical, the goal of a nuclear-weapons-free world achieved through a series of verifiable steps already enjoys the support of a sizable majority of Americans, according to comprehensive polling last year by WorldPublicOpinion.org.
And a new survey out last month by Harris Interactive and sponsored by the Campaign for a Nuclear Weapons Free World found that almost seven of 10 Americans believe possession of nuclear weapons by some countries encourages others to develop their own nuclear arsenals.
The presidential candidates are taking notice as well. Sen. Barack Obama explicitly endorsed the vision and plan outlined by Kissinger, Shultz, Perry and Nunn in a speech last fall at DePaul University. Sen. John McCain also endorses the goal, articulated in his speech at the University of Denver in May. This is the first time in history that the Republican and Democratic presidential candidates both publicly support charting a course to create a nuclear-weapons-free world.
We are witnessing the rarest of things with this growing support across ideological and political lines. Come January 2009, the new president can do what is both right and popular by providing the U.S. leadership that is needed to create a world free of nuclear weapons.
Despite the pressures of campaign season, it will be important for John McCain and Barack Obama to stay united on one theme -- reducing and eventually eliminating the world's stockpile of nuclear weapons. Both have said they support that goal.
This is especially critical at a time of increased tension with Russia, upheaval in Pakistan and concerns about the nuclear aspirations of North Korea and Iran. While the Cold War is over, the world is perhaps a more dangerous place than ever, thanks to the profusion of states and nonstate actors who would like to acquire nuclear capabilities.
The United States and Russia have about 95 percent of the world's nuclear weapons and have committed to whittling down those stockpiles. But the United Kingdom, France, China, Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea also have nuclear weapons, which makes it a more difficult matter to achieve global consensus. Yet it's important to apply concerted diplomatic pressure toward this goal.
More than two-thirds of the respondents to a poll released last week by the Campaign for a Nuclear Weapons-Free World said they believe that the possession of nuclear weapons by some countries encourages other countries to acquire their own. This seems a reasonable conclusion, based on a nation's natural instinct to protect itself against perceived threats. Nations must act in their own self-interests in matters of military strength, trade and regulatory policy.
But the nuclear threat is of an entirely different order. Consider that the atomic bombs that fell on Japan are believed to have killed about 340,000 within five years of their detonation. And consider that subsequent bombs developed by the United States and the Soviet Union were believed to be more than 1,000 times as powerful as the ones used in World War II. And while the United States and the USSR built enormous arsenals and pointed them at each other, each recognized that a nuclear war would devastate both nations. Their mutual fear kept the Cold War from turning hot.
Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev came together to strike a deal to reduce the number of nuclear weapons, which signaled a turning point in the way the world had come to regard them. They were no longer, as Gorbachev said, a tool for national security.
Yet the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty is due to expire late next year. And the reductions agreed to in the Moscow Treaty on Strategic Offensive Reductions haven't been completed. Meanwhile, some startling episodes, such as last year's temporary misplacement of six nuclear missiles by the U.S. Air Force, show that the nuclear threat remains latent and lethal.
Obama and McCain have each spoken forcefully about the need to stop the spread of nuclear weapons and to reduce the inventory that exists. They should continue to insist that the job of the next president should include doing exactly that.
As we head into the presidential nomination conventions this week, there's one important subject that has gotten only scant attention from candidates Barack Obama and John McCain: our global nuclear weapons crisis. Both candidates claim to have a vision for a world free of nuclear weapons, but does either of them know what it will really take to get there?
This month marks both the anniversary of the first use of a nuclear weapon - 63 years ago, when the United States bombed Hiroshima - and the anniversary of nuclear weapons' spread to other nations - 59 years ago, when the Soviet Union conducted its first nuclear test. After the Cold War, it was widely believed that nuclear proliferation would slow, if not cease altogether, but the opposite has proved to be true. Bombs are bigger than ever.
As those who have recently embraced the bomb - Iran, India, Pakistan and North Korea - have shown us, nuclear weapons have grown to represent national pride, identity and security in ways that are disturbing and dangerous.
Still, the idea of a "nuclear weapons-free" world isn't as naive or utopian as it sounds. Well-known realists such as Henry Kissinger and George Shultz are advocates of the idea, believing that the United States should take the lead in building a consensus for reducing, and ultimately disarming, global stocks of nuclear weapons. Over the last two years, they have been working with former U.S. officials in the past six administrations to develop steps for achieving nuclear disarmament. While many of their steps focus on what the United States and Russia should do to secure and reduce their nuclear stocks - fitting, because these two countries account for close to 95 percent of the world's nuclear warheads - the real task for the next U.S. president will lie in persuading the rest of the world that a nuclear-free vision is not only practical, but also desirable.
This will mean working with international organizations, a task that has not been the United State's strong suit in recent years. It will also mean persuading the American people - grown used to our own international dominance and belligerence - that for our own security, the future will require collaboration, patience and compromise.
These are tall orders, and perhaps that's why we haven't been hearing much about them from either McCain or Obama. And yet it would seem that the American people would welcome such a discussion, especially in a scary world increasingly unwilling to listen to us. The fact that a bipartisan consensus of some of our most respected former leaders has already signed on would immunize it from the usual charge of partisan politics.
These anniversaries represent an unusual opportunity for the United States and the world to address not just our nuclear past, but what we want for our future. If we want peace and security, a new global arms race won't provide it. Maybe it's time to talk about letting go of our nukes instead.
This article appeared on page G - 10 of the San Francisco Chronicle.
Susan Gordon
Director, Alliance for Nuclear Accountability (ANA) In January 1995, Susan Gordon became the director of the one of the nation’s oldest and most effective networks of local and national grassroots anti-nuclear and environmental organizations. She is responsible for facilitating communications within the ANA network and for fundraising. Since 2002, she has served on the leadership team for the Peace and Security Initiative which is a collaborative effort bringing the foundation and NGO communities together to develop strategies to impact nuclear weapons, arms control and peace issues.
Stephen Young
Senior Analyst, Union of Concerned Scientists Stephen Young is Senior Analyst and Washington Representative in the Global Security Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists. He represents UCS before Congress on a wide range of arms control and international security issues, including national missile defense and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. He also works with scientists from across the country to bring the voice of the scientific community to bear on critical national security policies. Before joining UCS, Young was Deputy Director of the Coalition to Reduce Nuclear Dangers, a national alliance of 17 major nuclear disarmament organizations. He previously served as a senior analyst at the British-American Security Information Council, legislative and field director for 20/20 Vision, and senior information specialist at ACCESS, a security information clearinghouse. He was also a fellow in the Bureau of Human Rights at the Department of State. Young is the author of numerous articles and publications on nuclear weapons policy and arms control, including Pushing the Limits: The Decision on National Missile Defense. He is a frequent spokesman on global security issues in news outlets like the Washington Post, CNN, and the NBC Nightly News. He has a Masters Degree in International Affairs from Columbia University and a BA from Carleton College.
Martin Fleck
Coordinator, Campaign for a Nuclear Weapons-Free World Martin served as Executive Director of the Washington State chapter of Physicians for Social Responsibility from 1991 to 2007, serving also as the Facilitator of the Northwest Disarmament Coalition. Prior to his work at WPSR, Fleck spent seven years with the Nuclear Weapons Freeze Campaign and Puget Sound SANE. Fleck organized and traveled with WPSR delegations to Chelyabinsk, Russia in 1992 and 1995 to assist Russian physicians coping with health effects of the Mayak nuclear weapons plant. He also staffed the WPSR delegation to Israel, the West Bank and Gaza Strip in 1993. His work at WPSR included organizing conferences such as Plutonium Roundtable in 1995 and Beyond Oil in 2005 and 2006.
The Union of Concerned Scientists (a CNWFW coalition partner) stirred up a hornet's nest in August with billboards in airport concourses in Minneapolis and Denver urging Senators McCain and Obama to reduce nuclear dangers. Northwest Airlines, the official airline of the Republican National Convention, pressured Clear Channel Outdoors to take the Minneapolis airport billboard back down, saying the sign was “scary” and “anti-McCain." Less than a week later, Clear Channel also removed the Denver sign.
See the billboards and read all about this struggle, at the Union of Concerned Scientists website and in the August 21 New York Time.
Download a visual of the billboard ads below.
“Nuclear Weapons are the Elephant in the Room” -- is the headline for ads by The Campaign for a Nuclear Weapons Free World, teamed up with the Peace Education Fund, which ran in Nevada and North Dakota newspapers on Monday, August 4. Click the document link below to download the ad, which encourages readers (and you!) to “Tell our Presidential candidates to lead us away from the biggest threat facing the U.S. and the world.” The nearly-full-page ads appeared in the Las Vegas Review-Journal and the Fargo Forum.
WASHINGTON DC -- Possession of nuclear weapons by some countries encourages others to develop their own nuclear arsenals, according to more than two-thirds of U.S. adults in a new opinion survey, conducted between August 12 and August 14, 2008.
The findings, released one day prior to the anniversary of nuclear proliferation, when the Soviet Union successfully tested its first atomic bomb nearly 60 years ago, suggest the world needs a broader approach for preventing the spread of nuclear weapons. The first Soviet test was August 29, 1949.
“Americans understand that ‘Do as I say, not as I do’ is advice that is falling on deaf ears,” said Susan Gordon, director of the nonprofit Alliance for Nuclear Accountability. “By clinging to thousands of these weapons, the nuclear nations of the world send the wrong message and make us all less secure.
“It’s up to the next president to lead the world toward a nuclear weapons-free world, as part of his strategy to stop the spread of nuclear weapons,” she said.
Gordon added that a growing number of conservatives such as former secretaries of state Henry Kissinger and George Schultz are now advocates of this approach. Both U.S. presidential candidates, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), endorse the goal of a nuclear weapons-free world.
Of those surveyed, 68 percent of U.S. adults believe possession of nuclear weapons by the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France, China, Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea encourages countries without nuclear weapons to develop them.
Twenty-two percent of adults said it had no impact, and 11 percent said it discouraged development.
The survey was sponsored by the Campaign for a Nuclear Weapons-Free World and written and conducted by Harris Interactive®. Survey respondents answered this question:
Nine (9) countries - the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France, China, Israel, India, Pakistan, and North Korea - currently have nuclear weapons. The major nuclear powers have attempted to persuade other nations to not develop nuclear weapons. What impact do you think the possession of nuclear weapons by these countries has on other countries that do not currently possess nuclear weapons - do you think it discourages them from developing nuclear weapons, encourages them to develop nuclear weapons, or has no impact on their developing nuclear weapons?
The Campaign for a Nuclear Weapons-Free World is a consortium of more than 80 organizations promoting practical steps today to free the world from nuclear weapons tomorrow.
** A NOTE ABOUT THE POLL METHODOLOGY FROM HARRIS INTERACTIVE
This survey was conducted online within the United States by Harris Interactive on behalf of the Campaign for a Nuclear Weapons Free World between August 12 and August 14, 2008 among 2,345 adults ages 18+.
Results were weighted as needed on the basis of region, age within gender, education, household income, and race/ethnicity. Propensity score weighting was also used to adjust for respondents’ propensity to be online.
All sample surveys and polls, whether or not they use probability sampling, are subject to multiple sources of error which are most often not possible to quantify or estimate, including sampling error, coverage error, error associated with nonresponse, error associated with question wording and response options, and post-survey weighting and adjustments. Therefore, Harris Interactive avoids the words “margin of error” as they are misleading. All that can be calculated are different possible sampling errors with different probabilities for pure, unweighted, random samples with 100% response rates. These are only theoretical because no published polls come close to this ideal.
Respondents for this survey were selected from among those who have agreed to participate in Harris Interactive surveys.
The data have been weighted to reflect the composition of the U.S. adult population.
Because the sample is based on those who agreed to be invited to participate in the Harris Interactive online research panel, no estimates of theoretical sampling error can be calculated.
# # #