WSJ: Let's Commit to a Nuclear-Free World By Dianne Feinstein

[bananas]

http://antiatom.ru/en/node/681

WSJ: Let's Commit to a Nuclear-Free World

By Dianne Feinstein (Wall Street Journal, January 3, 2009) - When Barack Obama becomes America's 44th president on Jan. 20, he should embrace the vision of a predecessor who declared: "We seek the total elimination one day of nuclear weapons from the face of the Earth."

That president was Ronald Reagan, and he expressed this ambitious vision in his second inaugural address on Jan. 21, 1985. It was a remarkable statement from a president who had deployed tactical nuclear missiles in Europe to counter the Soviet Union's fearsome SS-20 missile fleet.

<snip>

Unfortunately, for eight years the Bush administration moved in another direction, pushing aggressive policies and new weapons programs, threatening to reopen the nuclear door and spark the very proliferation we seek to prevent.

<snip>

Here's how President-elect Obama can change course. By law he must set forth his views on nuclear weapons in U.S. national security strategy, in his Nuclear Posture Review, by 2010. In it, he should commit the U.S. to working with Russia to lower each nation's arsenal of deployed nuclear warheads below the 1,700-2,200 the Moscow Treaty already calls for by 2013.

<snip>

I was 12 when atomic bombs flattened Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing more than 200,000 people. The horrific images that went around the world have stayed with me all my life.

Today, there are enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world hundreds of times. And we now face the chilling prospect of nuclear terrorism.

The bottom line: We must recognize nuclear weapons for what they are -- not a deterrent, but a grave and gathering threat to humanity. As president, Barack Obama should dedicate himself to their world-wide elimination.

Mrs. Feinstein, a Democratic senator from California, will chair the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence in the 111th Congress.

[babylonsister]

1. What a peach. I recall John Kerry and Obama saying the very same thing. I'm

glad she's 'on board'.

[Idealism]

2. The only use for nuclear weapons is mutual-assured destruction

It prevented us and the USSR from going into outright war for decades, and I hope it will prevent Pakistan and India from going into theirs. It will keep Israel out of war with Iran, as well, barring something terribly drastic occurring.

Nuclear weapons only do good when they are not to be used, but in failing states (such as Pakistan) it is a major concern that they have the bomb. If a government is stable and they sign all the needed accords, then I don't truly have a problem with them having a small stockpile for the MAD principal. If Gaza had nuclear weapons, Israel wouldn't be invading. But, along those same lines, Gaza under Hamas would not be considered stable enough to have one.

[bananas]

6. Eventually, MAD will fail.

MAD almost happened by accident a few times between the US and USSR.
Given enough time, it will happen, either by accident, or by miscalculation.
Please read the Martin Hellman article I linked to below in post #5.

[opihimoimoi]

3. We should ensure all nuke crap, old and new, be rendered safe and strored for 2 million years plus

We do not wish to have any nukes anywhere, weapons or otherwise unless used in small amounts for health and research reasons....inclu treatment.

Energy usage is not good because of accidental release odds...if it can....it will....therefore.....it is bad idea to have nuke facilities.

What can possibly go wrong with nuke electric plants....releasing tons of bad crap into environment...?

Answer:

Mega Event:

1., astroid hit;

2., mega volcanic Event;

3., Human sabotage.

Making it kinda rough for any Human survivors in the given area affected...

[David Ricardo]

4. Feinstein should take a game theory survey course

[bananas]

5. She should read Martin Hellman's call for a risk analysis of deterrence failure

I posted some excerpts in the Science forum,
here's the bottom line:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=228x47500

<snip>

On an annual basis, that makes relying on nuclear weapons a 99% safe maneuver. As with 99.9% safe maneuvers in soaring, that is not as safe as it sounds and is no cause for complacency. If we continue to rely on a strategy with a one percent failure rate per year, that adds up to about 10% in a decade and almost certain destruction within my grandchildren's lifetimes. Because the estimate was only accurate to an order of magnitude, the actual risk could be as much as three times greater or smaller. But even 1/3% per year adds up to roughly a 25% fatality rate for a child born today, and 3% per year would, with high probability, consign that child to an early, nuclear death.

Given the catastrophic consequences of a failure of nuclear deterrence, the usual standards for industrial safety would require the time horizon for a failure to be well over a million years before the risk might be acceptable. Even a 100,000 year time horizon would entail as much risk as a skydiving jump every year, but with the whole world in the parachute harness. And a 100 year time horizon is equivalent to making three parachute jumps a day, every day, with the whole world at risk.

While my preliminary analysis and the above described intuitive approach provide significant evidence that business as usual entails far too much risk, in-depth risk analyses are needed to correct or confirm those indications. A statement endorsed by the following notable individuals:

- Prof. Kenneth Arrow, Stanford University, 1972 Nobel Laureate in Economics
- Mr. D. James Bidzos, Chairman of the Board and Interim CEO, VeriSign Inc.
- Dr. Richard Garwin, IBM Fellow Emeritus, former member President's Science Advisory Committee and Defense Science Board
- Adm. Bobby R. Inman, USN (Ret.), University of Texas at Austin, former Director National Security Agency and Deputy Director CIA
- Prof. William Kays, former Dean of Engineering, Stanford University
- Prof. Donald Kennedy, President Emeritus of Stanford University, former head of FDA
- Prof. Martin Perl, Stanford University, 1995 Nobel Laureate in Physics

therefore "urgently petitions the international scientific community to undertake in-depth risk analyses of nuclear deterrence and, if the results so indicate, to raise an alarm alerting society to the unacceptable risk it faces as well as initiating a second phase effort to identify potential solutions." (Hellman 2008)

<snip>

[Joanne98]

7. She just wants to bomb Iran