NET BENEFIT: WE MUST ABOLISH, NOT REDUCE
WE CANNOT ACCEPT PARTIAL MEASURES IF WE ARE TO ACHIEVE NUCLEAR ABOLITION
David Krieger, President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. 11.28.2000 A Victory for All Humanityhttp://www.peacenet.org/disarm/ //VT2002acsln
We must not give up until we have achieved our goal, and we must not settle for the partial measures offered by the nuclear weapons states that continue a two-tier system of nuclear "haves" and "have-nots."
WE MUST ABOLISH NOT JUST REDUCE NUCLEAR WEAPONS IF WE ARE TO AVOID NUCLEAR WAR
Robert Moore, Executive Director, Coalition for Peace Action, August 1996 Nuclear Disarmament Campaignhttp://www.webcom.com/peaceact/abolition2000.html //VT2002acsln
Why abolish, rather than just reduce nuclear weapons?
The possession of nuclear weapons by any state is a constant stimulus to other states to acquire them -- for security, deterrence, status, etc. This is precisely why Article VI of the Non-Proliferation Treaty includes a commitment to abolition--albeit without a timeline. A process of reductions has begun, but some 36,000 warheads with the explosive equivalent of 650,000 Hiroshimas remained at the end of 19951. The U.S. government has thus far refused to even discuss going below 8,500 warheads, still immense overkill. So long as some nuclear weapons are allowed to exist, it is highly likely that they will spread and eventually be used again.
THERE IS NO ACCEPTABLE LEVEL OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS OTHER THAN ZERO
HOWARD BREMBECK, Fourth Freedom Foundation, 2000; IN SEARCH OF THE FOURTH FREEDOM // VT2002 acs p. 21-2
For those concerned about the survival of civilization, a threat of such magnitude ought to be totally unacceptable. indeed, there is no such thing as an acceptable level of nuclear or any other weapons of mass destruction. As long as there is a single nuclear weapon or a single canister of biological or chemical poison, there is no guarantee that it will not be detonated or activated with appalling consequences. Whether there are two or 2,000 nuclear weapons, ten or 10,000 bombs packed with biological toxins or chemical contaminants, we have two choices. We can tolerate the situation and accept continued danger or we can move in new and productive ways to end the threat once and for all.
EVEN A 95% REDUCTION IN NUCLEAR ARMS WOULD LEAVE THE WORLD STILL AT THE MERCY OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS
HOWARD BREMBECK Fourth Freedom Foundation, 2000; IN SEARCH OF THE FOURTH FREEDOM // VT2002 acs p. 21
If nuclear arsenals were reduced by 50 percent, and I fervently wish this would happen immediately, there would still be enough weapons to kill every person on earth several times over. If the reduction reached 95 percent, the United States and the Russian Federation, the two principal members of the nuclear club, would continue to each possess hundreds of thermonuclear devices, every one of them many times more powerful than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima.
With a 95 percent reduction in the nuclear arsenals of the U.S. and Russia - a decrease not foreseen by even the most optimistic observers of the arms reduction process-the world still would be faced with a threat far beyond that which existed when the nuclear age dawned. And this does not include the nuclear weapons stockpiled by Britain, France, China and the other acknowledged or clandestine nuclear powers.