Home Articles Flashpoints Nobels, Parliamentarians, NGOs, in appeal on Missile Defence/Nuclear Disarmament

Nobels, Parliamentarians, NGOs, in appeal on Missile Defence/Nuclear Disarmament

E-mail Print PDF
 

3FEB
- EMBARGOED TO 5 FEB

SYDNEY
AUST, SANTA-BARBARA USA, MOSCOW RUSSIA  

NOBEL
PRIZEWINNERS, PARLIAMENTARIANS, NGOS, IN APPEAL  ON NUCLEAR
DISARMAMENT/MISSILE DEFENCE TO OBAMA, MEDVEDEV.



5
FEB-1ST ANIVERSARY OF NEW START ENTRY INTO FORCE

On
the first anniversary of the Entry-into-Force of New START, 85
prominent individuals (including 4 nobel prizewinners and one nobel
prizewinning organisation) and major nongovernmental organisations
have sent an appeal to Presidents Obama and Medvedev, Senate and Duma
Committees, and key policy–makers, urging that US and NATO plans
for missile defence must not be allowed to de-rail progress to
nuclear disarmament and abolition.

The
letter was written and organised by  David Krieger of the Nuclear Age
Peace Foundation, Steven Starr of Physicians for Social
Responsibility, former Soviet missile forces Colonel Valery Yarynich,
IPPNW Co-President Sergei Kolesnikov, and John Hallam of People for
Nuclear Disarmament.  

It
arose from deep alarm generated when (after repeated warnings)
Russian President Medvedev announced that Russian missile forces have
been ordered to target NATO missile defence installations, and made
it clear that further steps toward a NATO missile defence capability
on Russia's borders could prompt Russia to pull out of future nuclear
arms reduction talks and even out of the recently negotiated New
START agreement, on whose first anniversary of Entry-into-force (5
Feb) the letter is being released.

The
first anniversary of New START should not be also its last. Rather,
New START must become the basis from which rapid progress to zero
nuclear weapons takes place.

According
to the letter, withdrawal from START would result in a re-creation of
the perilous nuclear postures of the cold war, and an uncontrolled
US-Russia nuclear arms race.

This
comes just weeks after the highly respected Bulletin of the Atomic
Scientists has moved the hands of its 'doomsday clock' from six to
five, minutes to midnight.

The
letter emphasises that a major US-Russia nuclear exchange, probably
caused by accident or miscalculation,  would, even now,  destroy what
we call 'civilisation', and make the planet uninhabitable for more
than a decade for all complex living things.  

To
this day, the US and Russia maintain some 1700 warheads each in a
status in which they can be launched in less than two minutes, in
spite of repeated calls by the UN to take them off high alert.

Getting
rid of nuclear weapons, the letter emphasises, is a priority for
human (and other species) survival, a priority that must trump even
the key security interests of major world powers. Failure to do that
places a question – mark over our future as a species.

Contact:
John
Hallam, PND,Sydney,  61-2-9810-2598 0416-500-793 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it ,  
David
Krieger, NAPF, Santa Barbara, + 1 (805)
965-3443
Col
Valery Yarynich(30yrs Soviet Missile forces-Ret) Moscow, This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it ,  
Sergei
Kolesnikov (CO-PRESIDENT IPPNW, PNND) This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it ,  
+7-985-7672990,
7-495-6985787
Steven
Starr, PSR,  +1-(573) 884 1847  



OPEN
LETTER ON NATO MISSILE DEFENSE PLANS AND NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT

PRESIDENT
BARACK OBAMA
PRESIDENT
DMITRY MEDVEDEV
cc
Duma
and Senate Committees on Foreign Affairs and Defence
US
Secretaries of Defence and Foreign Affairs
Russian
Ministers of Defence and Foreign Affairs
All
Key Defence and Foreign Affairs decisionmakers

To
President Barack Obama and President Dmitry Medvedev:


Recent
U.S. decisions to deploy an integrated missile defense system in
Western, Eastern and Southeastern Europe, coupled with the continued
expansion of NATO and its military activities, have created
increasingly sharp divisions and distrust between the Russian
Federation and the United States.[i] This process now threatens to
destroy the New START agreement and reverse previous progress toward
the elimination of nuclear weapons. Further deterioration of
U.S.-Russian relations could result in a return to the perilous
nuclear postures of the Cold War.
Although
the “Phased Adaptive Approach” missile defense system is being
installed under the auspices of NATO, it is perceived by Russia to be
“a U.S. system on European soil.”[ii] This system is regarded
with apprehension by Russia, particularly since later phases include
plans to deploy very advanced-stage Standard Missile-3 land-based
interceptors, which have the potential to effectively target Russian
strategic nuclear missiles. Russia consequently regards the proposed
and ongoing deployments as no more than “an interim step toward
building a full-scale missile defense system to provide guaranteed
protection of U.S. territory against any missile attack.”[iii]
 

The
official U.S. political rationale for these deployments is that they
are necessary to defend against yet-to-be-developed Iranian
long-range ballistic missiles. Yet American scientists have stated
that forward-based European radar systems give the U.S. the ability
to track Russian ICBMs very early after a launch and to guide
interceptors against them.[iv] Russian leaders have expressed
specific concerns that the U.S./NATO missile defense system could be
used for such a purpose and continue to question at whom the system
is directed.
 
Fundamental mutual distrust stems from the
fact that both the U.S. and Russia still maintain strategic war plans
that include large nuclear strike options, with hundreds of
preplanned targets that clearly include cities in each other’s
nation.[v] Both nations keep a total of at least 1,700 strategic
nuclear weapons mounted on launch-ready ballistic missiles, which can
carry out these strike options with only a few minutes’ warning.
 

Thus,
many in Russia believe the final stages of deployment of the
U.S./NATO missile defense system are designed to have the capability
of greatly reducing or eliminating Russia’s strategic nuclear
deterrent.  
Continued
technological advances in hypersonic missiles,[vi] which would
greatly enhance interceptor missile capabilities, combined with the
possibility that nuclear warheads could be installed in missile
interceptors, will only serve to exacerbate Russian fears about
U.S./NATO European missile defense.[vii]
Mutual
suspicion has prevented true cooperation in joint missile defense,
just as it has with the still defunct U.S.-Russian Joint Data
Exchange Center, which was supposed to share information about U.S.
and Russian missile launches.[viii] The failure to include Russia in
a joint missile defense also reflects the fact that NATO has not made
Russia a full partner in the alliance, despite the end of the Cold
War.
 
It is only natural that Russia should consider NATO a
potential threat, particularly since NATO has greatly expanded
eastward, has actively recruited and included former members of the
Warsaw Pact and has engaged in extensive military campaigns in
Europe, Africa and South Asia.  The combination of NATO
expansion with the deployment of a massive missile defense system
that surrounds Russia has triggered a strong political reaction in
Russia.   
From
a Russian perspective, a U.S./NATO missile defense system in Europe
undermines their perceived nuclear deterrent, decreases U.S.
vulnerability and increases Russian vulnerability to a U.S. nuclear
first-strike attack.
 

In
November, President Medvedev made his most forceful political
statement against the U.S. and NATO to date.[ix] 
Included
in the speech was a specific warning that Russia would withdraw from
the New START agreement should the U.S./NATO missile defense system
continue to move forward.   
This
is not new information—the Russian Federation issued an unambiguous
statement in April 2010 when New START was signed, making clear that
both quantitative and qualitative limitations on the U.S. missile
defense program were so essential that Russia would be prepared to
withdraw from the treaty if these limitations were not honored.[x]

A
Russian withdrawal from New START would likely precipitate a
fully-renewed nuclear arms race and thus completely reverse movement
toward a world without nuclear weapons. Many of the signatories of
the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) would also regard the collapse of
the New START process as an explicit violation of the NPT; this could
lead to the collapse of the NPT and extensive nuclear proliferation.

In
his November speech, President Medvedev also issued a number of
explicit instructions to his military forces that essentially
amounted to military threats against the U.S. and NATO.  He
stated, “I have instructed the Armed Forces to draw up measures for
disabling missile defense system data and guidance systems, if need
be ….  [I]f the above measures prove insufficient, the Russian
Federation System will employ modern, offensive weapon systems in the
west and south of the country, ensuring our ability to take out any
part of the missile defense system in Europe.”[xi]
 

Although
many political analysts in the West have discounted this warning as
merely a way to put pressure on the U.S. and NATO to change course,
this statement by President Medvedev must be taken seriously. Russia
will certainly carry out the directives of its President. 
 

The
leaders of the U.S., NATO and Russia must seriously consider the
possibility that the current course of political events is pushing
them towards an eventual military confrontation and conflict.   
Further
expansion of NATO, its “nuclear umbrella” and missile defense
system to the very borders of Russia increase the odds that any
conventional military confrontation would quickly escalate into
nuclear war.
If
Russia decided “to take out any part of the missile defense system
in Europe,” as threatened by President Medvedev, would not such an
action be likely to lead to nuclear conflict between the U.S. and
Russia?   
According
to recent peer-reviewed studies, the detonation of the launch-ready
U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals could leave the Earth virtually
uninhabitable for more than a decade.[xii]  Such a war would
lead to global famine and starvation of most of the human race.[xiii]
We
suggest the following steps, both as a way out of the immediate
crisis and to advance the goal of a nuclear-weapons-free-world. These
are not the only steps that could be helpful, but we are hopeful that
leaders on both sides might be willing to act upon them:
There
should be a freeze on U.S./NATO deployment of missile defenses in
Europe pending an open, joint U.S.-Russian quantitative assessment of
the threats that missile defense is supposed to counter, and of the
threats posed by U.S. and Russian tactical and strategic nuclear
forces.[xiv] The threats posed by missile defense and its
effectiveness should be studied and integrated into the
previously-mentioned assessment. It is essential that this analysis
include a thorough scientific evaluation of the long-term effects of
nuclear conflict upon the global environment, climate and human
agriculture.[xv]

It
is essential, not only for the creation of a peaceful and secure
Europe but for the continuation of civilization and the human species
itself, that launch-ready nuclear arsenals be immediately stood-down,
that nuclear war be avoided, and that nuclear arsenals be eliminated.
This is a priority that must trump all other priorities, including
what are seen as the most pressing security priorities of major world
powers.

We
reiterate strongly that differences of opinion over missile defense
must not be allowed to de-rail progress to zero nuclear weapons, or
worse, to put that progress into reverse and instead reinstate Cold
War security postures, as would be precipitated by the collapse of
New START.

In
pursuing a solution, it is vital that both sides feel their concerns
are being respected and that their security interests have been
properly taken into account. An outcome that advantages one side
only, or that is perceived as doing so, is no solution at all.

The
elimination of nuclear weapons must take place not in some far-off
utopian future, but at an early date, as demanded by the vast
majority of the world’s governments in resolution after resolution
at the United Nations.   

It is
quite clear that the ordinary citizens of every nation no longer wish
to live under the shadow of imminent nuclear destruction and see no
reason why massive nuclear arsenals should continue to exist when
they clearly represent a self-destruct mechanism for the human race.

Signed:

Organizations

Action
des Citoyens pour le Désarmement Nucléaire (France)
Artistes pour
la Paix (Canada)
Australian Anti-Bases Campaign Coalition
(Australia)
Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (UK)
Canadian
Pugwash Group (Canada)
Daisy Alliance (USA)
Footprints for Peace
(Australia)
Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in
Space (USA)
International Association of Peace Messenger
Cities
International Network of Engineers and Scientists for Global
Responsibility
International Physicians for the Prevention of
Nuclear War
International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear
War - Kenya (Kenya)
Just Peace Queensland (Australia)
Los Alamos
Study Group (USA)
Medact (UK)
Medical Association for Prevention
of War (Australia)
No2nuclearweapons (Canada)
Nuclear Age Peace
Foundation (USA)
Pax Christi Metro New York (USA)
Pax Christi
Montreal (Canada)
People for Nuclear Disarmament NSW
(Australia)
People for Nuclear Disarmament WA
(Australia)
Physicians for Global Survival (Canada)
Physicians
for Social Responsibility (USA)
Project Ploughshares
(Canada)
Réseau Sortir du Nucléaire (France)
Science for Peace
(Canada)
Scientists for Global Responsibility (UK)
Swedish Peace
Council (Sweden)
Tri-Valley CAREs (USA)
US Peace Council
(USA)
Veterans Against Nuclear Arms (Canada)
West Midlands
Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (UK)
Women's International League
for Peace and Freedom - U.S. Section (USA)
Women's International
League for Peace and Freedom - Vancouver (Canada)


Individuals
(Organizational affiliation for identification purposes only)

Lynn
Adamson(Co-Chair, Canadian Voice of Women for Peace, Canada)

JanisAlton(Co-Chair, Canadian Voice of Women for Peace, Canada)

Marcus
Atkinson(International Coordinator, Footprints for Peace, Australia)

Amanda
Bresnan(Member, Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly,
Australia)

Adele
Buckley(Executive Committee, Canadian Pugwash Group, Canada)

Yousaf
Butt(Federation of American Scientists, USA)

Helen
Caldicott(Co-Founder, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Australia)

Lisa
Clark(Beati i Costruttori di Pace, Italy)

Gill
Cox(West Midlands Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, UK)

Phyllis
Creighton(Veterans Against Nuclear Arms, Canada)
Wilfred
Dcosta(Indian Social Action Forum, India)

Roberto
Della Seta(Member, Senate of the Republic, Italy)

Dale
Dewar(Executive Director, Physicians for Global Survival, Canada)

Kate
Dewes(Disarmament & Security Centre, New Zealand)
Jayantha
Dhanapala(Former United Nations Under-Secretary-General for Disarmament,
1998-2003, Sri Lanka)

Gabriele
Dietrich(National Alliance of People’s Movements, India)

Dennis
Doherty(Australian Anti-Bases Campaign Coalition, Australia)

George
Farebrother(Secretary, World Court Project, UK)
Gregor
Gable(Shundahai Network, USA)

Bruce
K. Gagnon(Coordinator, Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in
Space, USA)

Joseph
Gerson(American Friends Service Committee, USA)

Bob
Gould(President, Physicians for Social Responsibility - San Francisco,
USA)

Jonathan
Granoff(President, Global Security Institute, USA)
Ulla
Grant(Hall Green Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, UK)
Commander
Robert Green(Royal Navy, ret., New Zealand)
Jenny
Grounds(President, Medical Association for Prevention of War, Australia)

Mark
Gubrud(University of North Carolina, USA)

Luis
Gutierrez-Esparza(Latin American Circle of International Studies, Mexico)

Regina
Hagen(Darmstädter Friedensforum, Germany)

John
Hallam(People for Nuclear Disarmament, Australia)

David
Hartsough(PEACEWORKERS, USA)

John
Hinchcliff (President,
Peace Foundation, New Zealand)
Herbert
J. Hoffman(Vice President, Maine Veterans for Peace Chapter 001, USA)

Inge
Höger(Member of Parliament, Germany)

Kate
Hudson(General Secretary, Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, UK)

Cesar
Jaramillo(Program Officer, Project Ploughshares, Canada)
Pierre
Jasmin(President, Artistes pour la Paix, Canada)

Birgitta
Jónsdóttir(Member of Icelandic Parliament and the NATO Parliamentary Assembly,
Iceland)

Martin
Kalinowski(Chairman, Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker Centre for Science and
Peace Research, Germany)

Sergei
Kolesnikov(Member of Russian Parliament and President of the Russian affiliate
of IPPNW, Russia)

David
Krieger(President, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, USA)
Harry
Kroto(Nobel Laureate in Chemistry, USA)

Steve
Leeper(Chairman, Hiroshima Peace Culture Foundation, Japan)

Mairead
Maguire(Nobel Peace Laureate, Peace People, N. Ireland)

Ak
Malten(Pro Peaceful Energy Use, Netherlands)

Willem
Malten(Director, Los Alamos Study Group, USA)

Alfred
Marder(International Association of Peace Messenger Cities, USA)

Bronwyn
Marks(Hiroshima Day Committee, Australia)

Jean-Marie
Matagne(President, Action des Citoyens pour le Désarmement Nucléaire,
France)

Ibrahim
Matola(Member of Parliament, Malawi)

Lisle
Merriman(Palestine-Israel Network, USA)

Natalia
Mironova(President, Movement for Nuclear Safety, Russia)

Sophie
Morel(Board member, Réseau Sortir du Nucleaire, France)

Peter
Murphy(Coordinator, SEARCH Foundation, Australia)
Abdul
Nayyar(President, Pakistan Peace Coalition, Pakistan)
David
Norris (Senator,
Ireland)

Rosemarie
Pace(Director, Pax Christi Metro New York, USA)
Sergei
Plekhanov(Professor, York University, Canada)

Pavel
Podvig(Russian Nuclear Forces Project, Russia)

John
Polanyi(Nobel Laureate in Chemistry, USA)

Barney
Richards(New Zealand Peace Council, New Zealand)
Bob
Rigg(Former Chair, New Zealand National Consultative Committee on Peace
and Disarmament, New Zealand)

Bruce
A. Roth(Daisy Alliance, USA)

Joan
Russow(Global Compliance Research Project, Canada)
Kathy
Wanpovi Sanchez(Tewa Women United, USA)

Mamadou
Falilou Sarr(African Center for Global Peace and Development, Senegal)

Wolfgang
Schlupp-Hauck(Chairman, Friedenswerkstatt Mutlangen, Germany)

Jürgen
Schneider(Professor, Universität Göttingen, Germany)
Sukla
Sen(Committee for Communal Amity, India)

Steven
Starr(Senior Scientist, Physicians for Social Responsibility and
Associate, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, USA)

Kathleen
Sullivan(Program Director, Hibakusha Stories, USA)

P
K Sundaram(DiaNuke.org, India)

Terumi
Tanaka(Secretary General, Japan Confederation of A- and H-Bomb Sufferers
Organizations, Japan)

Desmond
Tutu(Nobel Peace Laureate, Archbishop Emeritus of Cape Town, South
Africa)

Hiro
Umebayashi(Special Advisor, Peace Depot, Japan)

Jo
Vallentine(Chairperson, Anti-Nuclear Alliance of Western Australia, Australia)

Dirk
Van der Maelen(Member of Parliament, Belgium)

Achin
Vanaik(University of Delhi, India)

Alyn
Ware(International Representative, Peace Foundation, New Zealand)

Elizabeth
Waterston(International Councilor, Medact, UK)

Rick
Wayman(Director of Programs, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, USA)

Dave
Webb(Chair, Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, UK)
Tim
Wright(Director, International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons,
Australia)

Col.
Valery Yarynich(Soviet Missile Forces – ret., Russia)

Uta
Zapf(Member of the Bundestag, Germany)


Endnotes:
[i]
To date, Spain, Romania, the Netherlands, Poland and the Czech
Republic have agreed to participate in this deployment. Patriot
missiles have been deployed in Poland on the border of the Russian
enclave in Kaliningrad and X-band radar is also likely to be deployed
in Turkey. Medium- and intermediate-range interceptor missiles are
scheduled to be deployed on U.S. warships in the Mediterranean and
Baltic Seas.
[ii]
Tom Collina, “NATO Set to Back Expanded Missile Defense,” Arms
Control Today, retrieved from http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2010_11/NATOMissileDefense.

[iii]
Rusian Pukhov, “Medvedev’s Missile Threats are only his Plan B,”
The Moscow Times, December 1, 2011, retrieved from http://www.themoscowtimes.com/opinion/article/medvedevs-missile-threats-are-his-plan-b/448992.html.

[iv]
Yousaf Butt and Theodore Postol, “Upsetting the Reset: The
Technical Basis of Russian Concern over NATO Missile Defense”
(2011), FAS Special Report No. 1, Federation of American Scientists,
September 2011, retrieved from http://www.fas.org/pubs/_docs/2011%20Missile%20Defense%20Report.pdf.

[v]
U.S. strategic targets include Russian military forces, war
supporting and WMD infrastructure, and both military and national
leadership. Hans Kristensen, “Obama and the Nuclear War Plan,”
Federation of the American Scientists Brief, February 2010, retrieved
from http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/nukes/publications1/WarPlanIssueBrief2010.pdf.

[vi]
The U.S. has successfully tested non-ballistic missiles which have
traveled at speeds up to mach-20 (16,700 mph or 27,000 km per hour).
See http://www.examiner.com/military-technology-in-washington-dc/the-usaf-x51-a-and-the-u-s-army-ahw-both-test-november-2011.

[vii]
“Hypersonic missile: who is the target?” Voice of Russia,
November 28, 2011, retrieved from http://english.ruvr.ru/2011/11/28/61168605.html.

[viii]
JDEC was agreed on and ratified by both the U.S. and Russia, with the
purpose of preventing accidental nuclear war between them as a result
of a false warning of attack. See http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/jdec/text/000604-warn-wh3.htm.
However, neither side appeared willing to share the “raw” or
unfiltered data from their early warning systems because of concerns
it would reveal too much to the other side about its warning system
capabilities. Thus, the facility was never opened; an empty building
in Moscow where the center was supposed to be stands as a testament
to the continued failure to cooperate.

[ix]
Text of Medvedev’s November 23, 2011 speech translated from the
Russian version, retrieved from http://eng.kremlin.ru/transcripts/3115:
    
First,
I am instructing the Defence Ministry to immediately put the missile
attack early warning station in Kaliningrad on combat alert.
    
Second,
protective cover of Russia's strategic nuclear weapons will be
reinforced as a priority measure under the programme to develop our
air and space defences.
    
Third,
the new strategic missiles commissioned by the Strategic Missile
Forces and the Navy will be equipped with advance missile penetration
systems and new highly-effective warheads.
   Fourth, I
have instructed the Armed Forces to draw up measures for disabling
missile defence system data and guidance systems, if need be.
    
These
measures will be adequate, effective, and low-cost.
    
Fifth,
if the above measures prove insufficient, the Russian Federation
System will employ modern, offensive weapon systems in the west and
south of the country, ensuring our ability to take out any part of
the missile defence system in Europe.
    
One
step in this process will be to deploy Iskander missiles in the
Kaliningrad region.
    
Other
measures to counter the European missile defence system will be drawn
up and implemented as necessary.
    
Furthermore,
if the situation continues to develop not to Russia's favor, we
reserve the right to discontinue further disarmament and arms control
measures.
Besides, given the intrinsic link between strategic
offensive and defensive arms, conditions for the withdrawal from the
New START Treaty could also arise, and this option is enshrined in
the treaty.
    
But
let me stress this point, we are not closing the door on continued
dialogue with the USA and NATO on missile defence, and on practical
cooperation in this area. We are ready for that.  However, this
can only be achieved by establishing a clear, legal basis for
cooperation that would guarantee our legitimate interests and
concerns are taken into account.  We are open to dialogue and
hope for a reasonable and constructive approach from our Western
partners.

[x]
Missile defense is explicitly discussed in the preamble and in
Article 5 of New START. The preamble recognizes the "relationship
between strategic offensive arms and strategic defensive arms"
and stipulates that "current strategic defensive arms do not
undermine the viability and effectiveness of strategic offensive arms
of the Parties." Thus, the ongoing deployment of U.S./NATO
missile defense systems is, in the eyes of Russia, at least a
violation of the spirit of New START.

[xi]
Ibid.

[xii]
Steven Starr, “Catastrophic Climatic Consequences of Nuclear
Conflict,” The International Commission on Nuclear
Non-Proliferation and Disarmament, December 2009, retrieved from http://www.icnnd.org/Documents/Starr_Nuclear_Winter_Oct_09.pdf.

[xiii]
Steven Starr, “U.S .and Russian Launch-Ready Nuclear Weapons: A
Threat to All Peoples and Nations,” Nuclear Age Peace Foundation,
October 2011, retrieved from http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/pdfs/2011_06_24_starr.pdf.

[xiv]
Specific proposals for such assessments have already been published
by Foreign Affairs and the Federation of American Scientists. See B.
Blair, V. Esin, M. McKinzie, V. Yarynich and P. Zolotarev, “Smaller
and Safer: A New Plan for Nuclear Postures,” Foreign Affairs,
Sept/Oct 2010, Vol. 89, No. 5, p. 10, retrieved from http://carnegieendowment.org/static/npp/pdf/Smaller_and_Safer.pdf
and  
Hans
Kristensen, R. Norris, and I. Oelrich, “From Counterforce to
Minimal Deterrence: A New Nuclear Policy on the Path Toward
Eliminating Nuclear Weapons,” Federation of American Scientists &
The Natural Resources Defense Council, Occasional Paper, April 2009,
p. 15, retrieved from http://www.fas.org/pubs/_docs/OccasionalPaper7.pdf.

[xv]One
Hundred Nuclear Wars: Stable Deterrence between the United States and
Russia at Reduced Nuclear Force Levels Off Alert in the Presence of
Limited Missile Defenses». Bruce Blair, Victor Esin, Matthew
McKinzie, Valery Yarynich, Pavel Zolotarev. Science & Global
Security, Volume
19, Issue
3,
2011, pages 167-194.
[xvi]
O. B. Toon and A. Robock, “Local nuclear war, global suffering.”
Scientific American, 302, 74-81 (2010), retrieved from http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/RobockToonSciAmJan2010.pdf.  

Last Updated on Sunday, 08 February 2015 22:25