Earlier this week, I was excited to be in Washington, DC with Jeff Skoll, founder of Participant Media and the leaders of Global Zero, to screen our new film, Countdown to Zero, for a high-level DC group. The film is an edge of the seat wake up call about the global nuclear threat. We scheduled the screening for the lead up to President Obama's global nuclear security summit, which is taking place today, convening almost 50 heads of state in Washington. We wanted to ensure that the conversation about the movie helps to create a sense of urgency at the summit. Adding to the momentousness of the past few days, the screening actually ended up taking place on the eve of the historic signing of the new START treaty -- the bilateral agreement between the U.S. and Russia, which, if ratified, will bring about the largest reduction in strategic nuclear arms in a generation.
Because of this fortuitous timing, I found myself on MSNBC's Daily Rundown, CBS News's Washington Unplugged, the BBC World News Tonight, and other shows talking about the film and how it can support the new international momentum toward global zero -- the total elimination of nuclear weapons. It reminded me of my experience several years ago, when I worked with Participant Media to make An Inconvenient Truth, and saw firsthand how a movie can motivate people to take action that leads to real policy change on a major global issue. When AIT came out, we had an administration that was not talking about global warming seriously, to put it mildly; but despite this, the film raised the issue in the public debate and had a major impact on the public's awareness and attitude towards the issue. It made a difference. Now, as we prepare to release Countdown to Zero this summer, we have a president who is serious about reducing and eliminating nuclear weapons. He talked about the issue as far back as the presidential primaries, and last September he presided over a historic meeting of the United Nations Security Council, where the Council unanimously endorsed the goal of a world without nuclear weapons. And at the Nuclear Security Summit today, he is meeting with the leaders of almost 50 other countries to develop a plan of action to secure nuclear materials worldwide to prevent nuclear terrorism. President Obama is demonstrating bold leadership on the most urgent security threat facing the world today. What we need now is major public involvement.
My hope is that Countdown to Zero will not only make people aware of the scope of this threat, but will also help create the political will necessary to ensure that the Senate ratifies the New START treaty without delay or partisan bickering. In the aftermath of the health care debate, the mood in the Senate isn't particularly harmonious, but I hope and expect that this Senate will continue the long-standing tradition of bipartisan support for arms control treaties which so clearly strengthen the security of our country. And with strong Republican leaders like Richard Lugar in the Senate, I think it's possible.
With Participant Media and Global Zero, we are in the process of putting together a coalition of NGOs, religious groups, policy experts and internet gurus to create a massive grassroots movement around Countdown to Zero. After seeing the film and hearing terrifying stories about terrorists trying to acquire nuclear weapons and the all-too-real risk of an accidental nuclear attack -- as well as getting an overview of the key steps governments can take to end the nuclear threat and eliminate all nuclear weapons -- people will be motivated to act. We will be giving them the information and tools they need to take action, first by urging their Senators to ratify the New START treaty and then to take the steps that must follow in order to reach the ultimate goal: a world without nuclear weapons.
To get involved in the growing movement, go to www.takepart.com/zero and sign the declaration.
So........while the big boys talk and move toward the treaty rules and tearing out of deadly weapons, those who did not sign it rouge nations or groups would be looking for weapons they could get.
In the USA the movement of this type of weapon is as safe as we can make anything moving on our highways. Now, Europe could be the same but once into Russia and the lands to the east it gets dangerous. If I have to point this out on how or why you may be brain dead.
So, the threat to use a weapon on an American or European city would be real if.... The real outcome would not be America shaking in the streets it would be total war as seen in WW2 against every group that had threatened the USA and all those who supported them. You may want to think about that because we would not have to use many if any Atomic weapons to destroy everything if we were not worried about civilian targets, there would not be any such targets and the enemy knows that.
How many nukes do we Need?
India, Pakistan, Israel, non-superpower countries, seem to want about 100 bombs. and missiles to deliver them.
Super powers, Russia and the USA, and China seem to want about 1000 nukes and delivery systems.
Would we feel safe with say, 10 nukes on missiles?
with about 200 countries in the world, half will want nukes? 1000 nukes world wide. A lot better than the 20k we have now.
So each Nuclear secured Sovereign state could kill about 10 million people on a moments notice.
It limits the likely damage, but nearly guarantee we will have a nuclear exchange. States will fail, governments fall, eventual nut jobs will control 10 nukes, and they will use them.
Of course, the present situation is worse. When one of the nuclear club fall to crazies, 100's to 1000's if nukes will be unleashed.
He makes some persuasive arguments that the zero goal might be attainable, and certainly that it is desirable.
We need to get these materials off the planet to the extent we possibly can. Weapons grade materials can be transformed to less volatile and dangerous forms.
Schell's "The Fate of the Earth" written in the 80s at the height of Sov-US Nuke threatening madness arguably provided some of the catalyst for the beginning of the effort to wind down (Reagan and Gorbachev) and leading to the current effort.
The man makes good sense then, and now.
I think 2-10 is more likely, but I am lately more hopeful that fewer states will have ANY nukes bombs, perhaps only a dozen. and 10 nukes each?
Think about having a couple nukes left. I just can't imagine a leader not keeping a couple hidden away, in parts at least. as a last resort.
As for the threat, ok, how big, really?
I'll catch your movie, for sure.
Other nations, if a danger are from fanatics who would knowingly launch, not from accidental launches.
Israel, is for Iran, a sideshow and not the main event. For Iran, its their fellow muslims who are the most likely to receive nuclear strikes. Sunni vs. Shia generates more hatred than any perceived hatred for jews.
And, yes, Mohammed did order the slaughter of innocent women and children. I suggest you read history a bit more.
Complete misinformation. The fact remains that Israel is the ONLY nation in West Asia, Middle East and North African regions with a nuclear arsenal -- and one that was acquired illegally, with certainly no IAEA or UN oversight.
The aires of Zionist supremacy - evidenced in scores of literature ranging from the Talmud through documents founding the Israeli state - should be cause for more concern than any poorly cited Islamic "history"...especially with regard to the nuclear armaments issue.
No one abroad buys your brand of psy-op lies.
This is a tired argument that serves no ends...
It does not make any point about the present or future. It is akin to Japan, "the only modern nation state where the military ate the livers of the enemy ..."
We can talk about Russia and gulags..
We can talk about China and purges..
History is important things to remember but picking one item out of the past and saying therefore make no sense.
The United States was the first country to use the bomb, twice -- FACT
The United States began what became the nuclear arms race -- FACT
And you think facts make for a tired argument? The discussion is about nuclear weapons, nuclear technology --- who has it, who decides who should have it, and why they should be in a position to make such choices.
“The atomic bomb made the prospect of future war unendurable. It has led us up those last few steps to the mountain pass; and beyond there is a different country.”
- J. Robert Oppenheimer, The Father of the Atomic Bomb
Hopefully this summit bears fruit more tangible than lip service.
Has never been proven to work and probably never will, however, it exists because of the perceived threat of a nuclear missile attack. The sad reality is that more than a few companies have a vested interest in keeping nukes around as it is very good for business.
Better yet, why not run it by Netanyahu, his Knesset, and the godfather of Israel's not-so-clandestine nuclear arsenal, Shimon Peres, and see what THEY think first?!?
If the US gets rid of our nukes, then we will just be a sitting duck whilst the rest of the world keeps their stockpile, despite promises to do otherwise.
It is very ignorant and naive to belive otherwise.
However, the idea of a nuclear free world serves as inspiration. it also serves as a model from which liberals can ask what technologies can help bring about a safer world, closer to the idealized model.
It is the pinnacle of foolishness to classify a belief as ignorant or naive without first actually knowing what that belief actually is.
It's "ignorant or naive"
Rainbows and unicorns to you too.......
Of course the right wants to take credit for pressuring the soviets with Star Wars.
Both arguments are laughable. I applaud all those who participated the protests, even respect the effort.
But there were massive issues going on, like the breakdown of the soviet economy to sustain this type of insane arms race. No one in the Kremlin said, look at those American protesters we should rethink this as look they have really neat signs that make a point I never considered.
how about the pressure of the polish workers resistance /polish pope who created nearby problems for the soviets causing them to Gorby to reassess the structure of the soviets and the rest of world. How about other brave souls in eastern Europe protesting for human rights?
The arms reductions resulted from a change in course of how Russia engaged the world as a consequence of facing up to an unsustainable path on which they were headed.
Arms reductions did not change the soviets.