The Beginning of the End of Nuclear Weapons

It was my privilege to witness the United Nations Security Council Summit yesterday unanimously adopt a resolution calling for the elimination of all nuclear weapons. It was the first Security Council Summit ever dedicated to nuclear proliferation and disarmament and the first chaired by a U.S. President.

In addressing the Security Council members, President Obama declared: "The historic resolution we just adopted enshrines our shared commitment to the goal of a world without nuclear weapons."

Building on the extraordinary leadership of Presidents Obama and Medvedev, who in April committed to work together to eliminate all nuclear weapons, this resolution is a significant step toward an international consensus on this goal and a stirring moment for so many who have worked on this issue for so long. World leaders are recognizing that whatever stability nuclear arsenals may have provided during the Cold War is now outweighed by the growing risks of proliferation and nuclear terrorism, and the only way to eliminate the nuclear threat is to eliminate all nuclear weapons. They have resolved to work together in the interests of our common security to achieve this goal.

As a leader of Global Zero -- an international movement for the elimination of nuclear weapons, as a citizen of one of the most dangerous regions in the world, and as a deeply concerned parent, I believe that yesterday's action by the Security Council comes at a critical moment as the world approaches a nuclear tipping point when nuclear weapons spread beyond the capacity of any effort to rein them in. This resolution helps to set the course toward the only responsible path -- the path to global zero.

To help turn this vision into a practical goal, Global Zero has developed a step-by-step four-phased plan for the elimination of nuclear weapons over 20 years. Since the Cold War ended 20 years ago, the total number of nuclear weapons worldwide has been reduced by nearly 40,000 -- from approximately 60,000 to the 23,000 in existence today. Could we not aim over the next 20 years to eliminate the remaining 23,000 warheads and leave to our children and grandchildren a world without nuclear weapons?

What happened yesterday at the Security Council was an historic step -- but we still have a long way to go. Governments must take action, beginning with deep bilateral reductions in U.S. and Russian arsenals -- following the current negotiations on the START replacement accord -- as well as serious multilateral discussions about the phased elimination of all nuclear weapons, the establishment of a comprehensive verification and enforcement system, and strengthened safeguards on the civilian nuclear fuel cycle.

And the message to every country must be clear: the international community is resolved to join together in the interests of our common security to eliminate all nuclear weapons worldwide, and all nations must join in this pursuit with no exception.

Eliminating all nuclear weapons will require people from around the world to get involved. In fact, last night college students launched "Global Zero" chapters on dozens of campuses- a trend I hope we will see develop in every nuclear state. To join me and the citizens from every country around the world who are already part of this movement, go to globalzero.org and sign the declaration.

If yesterday's resolution is not followed up by action in the months and years ahead, it will fade into the history books as words on a piece of paper and nothing more. If, on the other hand, leaders and citizens seize this historic moment and act with determination and resolve, perhaps our children and grandchildren will look back on yesterday as the beginning of the end of nuclear weapons.

 

Comments

[WarSkeptic]

Obama moves to increase the US's nuclear stockpile
http://www.globalsecuritynewswire.org/gsn/nw_20090818_1478.php

[mvb101]

slight misrepresentation of the article, no?

[eyepatch]

Thank you Queen Noor I believe your
cause is a noble one, and regardless
of what the naysayers say, this is something
we must do along with addressing the problems
caused by Global Climate Change.

Why arewe producing weapons we can never use?....
it's pure insanity, I fully support a end to nuclear weapons.

I will sign the pettition.

[Niet]

I would love to live in a world without nuclear weapons. But with all do respect to Your Highness, you are either terribly naive or you think we are. The genie of nuclear weapons is out of the bottle and not going back in. Even if all nations which currently have them are miraculously persuaded to actually dispose of their stockpiles without secretly keeping some, the knowledge is out there, any nation or very wealthy individual with the resources can build new ones. The best we can hope for is to keep them under control and from ever being used.

[Elbrando]

If nuclear weapons were the only way a country had power, than Russia would still be the Soviet Union. Nuclear weapons don't make us the most powerful country on earth. Our Economy does more on that front than nuclear weapons.

If we join together with other countries to ban these weapons than only outlaw nations will have them. They will be ostrasized and implode on their own economies, like the Soviet Union. Queen Noor has shown real leadership on this goal. While many may notice her beauty on the outside, it is this commitment to a nuclear weapon free world that shows the real beauty a queen can have.

[Ramkshrestha]

Dear Queen Noor,
Thanks a lot. Let's be optimistic in this regard.

[Glocksf21]

your kidding right, The end of Nukes?

[overd0g1]

Thank heavens. We're taking the first steps towards making North Korea the ruler of the world.

[Elbrando]

North Korea has to beg for gas, I think it would be a stretch that they ever become ruler of the world.

[WorldofTomorrow420]

When nukes are outlawed, only outlaws will have nukes.

[eileenflemingWAWA]

If THAT DAY, we call 9/11 taught us anything, it should be that America's nuclear arsenal cannot defeat 'terrorism' or provide security from the actions of a few violent mad men who target and murder innocent ones.

America has a nuclear arsenal of over 10,000 weapons and nearly 2,000 remain on hair-trigger alert ever since the end of the Cold War.

An estimated 150 – 240 tactical nuclear weapons remain based in 5 NATO countries and the United States is the only country with nuclear weapons deployed on foreign soil.

American taxpayers provide over $54 billion annually to maintain WMD's, which is but a drop in the bucket of the overall U.S. military spending.

"We live in an insecure, uncertain world; it is also a time of opportunity. It is a time to put aside many of the old ways and with creativity and imagination, develop new thinking, ideas, institutions, etc.

"Young people and women will help this process; they know that Nuclear weapons belong to the cold war thinking, and can never be used. To do so, would be immoral, illogical and destroy the Environment.

"They know our real problems, are...

http://www.wearewideawake.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1354&Itemid=222

[Rog49Thomas]

Like Twain's reported death, the end of nuclear weapons is about as likely as kleptocratic elites refraining from stealing from their people.

[MrsFonebone]

This is SUCH a waste of time and energy. You cannot unlearn technology, or, to use the cliche, you cannot put the geni back in the bottle. And they know in their hearts they are never going to trust that some rogue nation isn't going to have such a weapon. How about addressing the 10,000 things that can be helped and are causing suffering right now?

[Bogstomper]

"...a critical moment as the world approaches a nuclear tipping point when nuclear weapons spread beyond the capacity of any effort to rein them in."

If nuclear weapons proliferate enough, the problem will solve itself. At that point, I'm betting on squirrels becoming the next dominant species on this planet. A solution that involves human survival would be preferable in many ways.

I doubt there's any way to control the technology itself. Remember David Hahn and his backyard nuclear reactor? From basic nuclear physics to applied nuclear physics is not a long stroll for a dedicated tinkerer. It seems like the best solution is to control all the fissionable material in the world. No fissionables, no boom.

If fissionable material is to be controlled, that could have a big impact on our energy plans. Nuclear power plants that use or produce fissionable material might be more problem than they're worth.

[rjmiller]

1) David Hahn was entirely unsuccessful at everything but poisoning himself.

2) There is a big difference in having the knowledge to build a technology and having the resources to build it. Making a nuclear bomb takes a huge amount of resources, and putting it on a viable missile is just as difficult.

3) Fissionable material is everywhere. It's a lot easier to stop a missile program than a mining operation. Intercontinental ballistic missiles are always weapons and impossible to hide, mines are just a hole in the ground.

[Bogstomper]

"1) David Hahn was entirely unsuccessful at everything but poisoning himself."

He built a makeshift reactor powerful enough to turn his parents' backyard into a Superfund cleanup site. Maybe that's not a success in a Chamber of Commerce sort of way, but it's certainly a technical success.

"2) There is a big difference in having the knowledge to build a technology and having the resources to build it."

It depends on what you're willing to settle for. I doubt you have the materials, tools, or knowledge to craft a precision semiautomatic pistol, but you could probably whip up a zip gun with stuff from around your house. Building a high-yield, reliable, and deliverable atomic bomb to military specs is a major technical challenge. Putting together one that will get the job done is a lot easier, as long as you can get enough fissionable material.

It seems to me that's the proper choke point.

"3) Fissionable material is everywhere."

No, it's not.

[jrjones529]

Mrs Noor of Jordan, pardon me for not using Queen, but the title has negative connotations to me and I don't bow down to anyone (unless Queen is the same as any modern title, like President, in such case I'll be happy to use Queen).... I hate to break it to ya, cuz I'm on your side, and would love to see a world without nuclear weapons, but unfortunate, it ain't gonna happen. the human race will most likely (but not certainly) destroy itself sometime in the next several X years.

[ThermoChemist]

A speech at the UN about the elimination of ALL nuclear weapons. Now, where have I heard that before.?

"As of today, I'm not a visitor anymore, because the Earth is my home too. I can't stand idly by ... and watch us stumble into the madness of possible nuclear destruction. And so I've come to a decision. I'm going to do what our governments have been unwilling or unable to do. Effective immediately, I'm going to rid our planet of all nuclear weapons."
-- Superman ("Superman IV: The Quest for Peace")

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82TzfWMWJJ0

[kells1001]

It's difficult to suggest the end of something where only knowledge presumes its existence. The current stockpiles of weapons in submarines and silos in fact will become irrelevant after say twenty -thirty years, unless of course they are used. The likelihood of highly enriched uranium being passed from some corporation or disgruntled manipulating government official to someone in the middle east or asia is increasing. The US or Russia is totally capable of using military weapons and is highly unlikely to dismantle them all for real as they still pose the greatest deterent to rogue nations that could possibly decide to use them. We are for instance very concerned about IRAN just as we were concerned about IRAQ for possibly possessing the ability to complete just one nuclear weapon. How is it that we will magically end or trust others to get rid of all this knowledge by signing a piece of paper.