Stocks and News
Home | Week in Review Process | Terms of Use | About UsContact Us
   Articles Go Fund Me All-Species List Hot Spots Go Fund Me
Week in Review   |  Bar Chat    |  Hot Spots    |   Dr. Bortrum    |   Wall St. History
Stock and News: Hot Spots
  Search Our Archives: 
 

 

Hot Spots

https://www.gofundme.com/s3h2w8

AddThis Feed Button
   

06/28/2007

The Nuclear Threat

The Nuclear Threat Initiative [nti.org] is dedicated to reducing
the threat from nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. Co-
chaired by Ted Turner and former Senator Sam Nunn, it’s an
organization worth supporting.

Sam Nunn gave a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations,
June 14, 2007, that takes a look back and then addresses the
latest developments on this front.

---

Sen. Nunn

I. The nuclear age – the first 60 years

On Veterans Day in 1948 – at the dawn of the nuclear age after
the devastation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki – General Omar
Bradley said in a speech:

“The world has achieved brilliance without wisdom, power
without conscience. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical
infants. We know more about war than we know about peace,
more about killing than we know about living.”

It might surprise General Bradley, if he were alive today, to
know that we have made it sixty years without a nuclear
catastrophe. Thousands of men and women thought deeply and
worked diligently on both sides of the Iron Curtain to prevent
nuclear war, to avoid overreacting to false warnings and to
provide safety mechanisms and joint understanding to reduce
risk.

We were good, we were diligent, but we were also very lucky.
We had more than a few close calls, including: the Cuban
Missile Crisis of 1962; the 1979 scare when a technician at
Omaha accidentally loaded a simulated attack into our warning
system; the 1983 Soviet warning glitch which falsely showed 5
nuclear missiles launched against it by the U.S. India and
Pakistan have already had more than one close call – and their
nuclear age has just begun.

II. The nuclear age today – the tipping point

Making it through 60 years without a nuclear attack should not
make us complacent. In the future, it won’t be enough to be
lucky once or twice. If we’re to avoid a catastrophe, all nuclear
powers will have to be highly capable, careful, competent,
rational, and lucky – every single time.

We do have important preventive efforts underway and some
successes – including the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat
Reduction program, the Global Threat Reduction Initiative, the
Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism, the Proliferation
Security Initiative, the rollback of Libya’s nuclear program and
UN Resolution 1540.

These all mark progress and potential, but from my perspective,
the risk of a nuclear weapon being used today is growing, not
receding. The storm clouds are gathering:

--Terrorists are seeking nuclear weapons and there can be little
doubt that if they acquire a weapon they will use it.

--There are nuclear weapons materials in more than 40 countries,
some secured by nothing more than a chain link fence, and, at the
current pace, it will be several decades before this material is
adequately secured or eliminated globally.

--The know-how and expertise to build nuclear weapons is far
more available today because of an explosion of information and
commerce throughout the world.

--The number of nuclear weapons states is increasing. Iran and
North Korea’s nuclear programs threaten to spark a nuclear arms
race in the Middle East and Asia.

--A world with 12 or 20 nuclear weapons states will be
immeasurably more dangerous than today’s world and make it
more likely that weapons or materials to make them will fall into
the hands of terrorists.

--Our worst nightmare – the spread of nuclear capability to
terrorist groups, with no return address and little way of being
deterred – will become more likely.

--With the growing interest in nuclear energy, a number of
countries are considering developing the capacity to enrich
uranium ostensibly to use as fuel for nuclear energy, but this
would also give them the capacity to move quickly to a nuclear
weapons program if they chose to do so. The New York Times
recently reported that roughly a dozen states in the Middle East
have turned to the IAEA for help in starting their own nuclear
programs.

--Meanwhile, the nuclear giants, the United States and Russia,
continue to deploy thousands of nuclear weapons on ballistic
missiles that can hit their targets in less than 30 minutes – a short
warning time, prompt launch capability that carries with it an
increasingly unacceptable risk of an accidental, mistaken or
unauthorized launch.

The bottom line: the accelerating spread of nuclear weapons,
nuclear know-how and nuclear material has brought us to a
nuclear tipping point. The world is heading in a very dangerous
direction.

III. The need for a new direction

The greatest dangers of the Cold War we addressed primarily by
confrontation with Moscow. The greatest threats we face today:
catastrophic terrorism, a rise in the number of nuclear weapons
states, increasing danger of mistaken, accidental or unauthorized
nuclear launch – we can prevent only in cooperation with
Moscow, Beijing and many other capitals.

We must change direction. The good news is that I believe the
security and economic interests of the great powers – the U.S.,
Russia, China, Europe, Japan, India – have never been more
aligned. As Henry Kissinger says – “the great powers have
nothing to gain by military conflict with each other. They are all
dependent on the global economic system.” Old rivalries should
not keep us from seeing common interests.

Both leaders and citizens here and abroad must reflect on what is
at stake.

If Al Qaeda had hit the trade towers with a small crude nuclear
weapon instead of two airplanes, a fireball would have vaporized
everything in the vicinity. Lower Manhattan and the financial
district would be ash and rubble. Tens of thousands of people
would have been killed instantly. Those who survived would
have been left with no shelter, no clean water, no safe food, no
medical attention. Telecommunications, utilities, transportation,
and rescue services would be thrown into chaos.

That would have been just the physical impact. If you were
trying to draw a circle to mark the overall impact of the blast – in
social, economic, and security terms – the circle would be the
equator itself. No part of the planet would escape the impact.
People everywhere would fear another blast. Travel,
international trade, capital flows, commerce would initially stop,
and many freedoms we have come to take for granted would
quickly be eroded in the name of security. The confidence of
America and the world would be shaken to the core.

From my perspective, we are in a race between cooperation and
catastrophe.

[Nunn then discusses moves that need to be made in terms of
cooperation between the nuclear powers, before closing with .]

A Parable of Hope

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, when the United States
began funding Russia’s work to dismantle Soviet nuclear
missiles and warheads, our countries struck a deal called the U.S.
– Russian Highly Enriched Uranium Agreement.

Under this agreement which was signed in 1993, 500 tons of
highly enriched uranium from former Soviet nuclear weapons is
being blended down to low enriched uranium, and then used as
fuel for nuclear power plants in the United States. Shipments
began in 1995 and will continue through 2013. When you
calculate that 20% of all electricity in the U.S. comes from
nuclear power plants, and 50% of the nuclear fuel used in the
U.S. comes from Russia through the HEU Agreement – you have
an interesting fact: roughly speaking – one out of every ten light
bulbs in America today is powered by material that was in Soviet
nuclear warheads pointed at us a few years ago.

From swords to ploughshares. Who would have thought this
possible in the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, or 1980s? It would have
certainly been seen as a mountain too high to climb.

Nearly 20 years ago, President Reagan asked his audience to
imagine that “all of us discovered that we were threatened by a
power from outer space – from another planet.” The President
then asked: “Wouldn’t we come together to fight that particular
threat?” After letting that image sink in for a moment, President
Reagan came to his point: “We now have a weapon that can
destroy the world – why don’t we recognize that threat more
clearly and then come together with one aim in mind: How
safely, sanely, and quickly can we rid the world of this threat to
our civilization and our existence.”

If we want our children and grandchildren to ever see the
mountaintop, our generation must begin to answer this question.

---

Hott Spotts will return July 12. Have a good holiday.

Brian Trumbore



AddThis Feed Button

 

-06/28/2007-      
Web Epoch NJ Web Design  |  (c) Copyright 2016 StocksandNews.com, LLC.

Hot Spots

06/28/2007

The Nuclear Threat

The Nuclear Threat Initiative [nti.org] is dedicated to reducing
the threat from nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. Co-
chaired by Ted Turner and former Senator Sam Nunn, it’s an
organization worth supporting.

Sam Nunn gave a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations,
June 14, 2007, that takes a look back and then addresses the
latest developments on this front.

---

Sen. Nunn

I. The nuclear age – the first 60 years

On Veterans Day in 1948 – at the dawn of the nuclear age after
the devastation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki – General Omar
Bradley said in a speech:

“The world has achieved brilliance without wisdom, power
without conscience. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical
infants. We know more about war than we know about peace,
more about killing than we know about living.”

It might surprise General Bradley, if he were alive today, to
know that we have made it sixty years without a nuclear
catastrophe. Thousands of men and women thought deeply and
worked diligently on both sides of the Iron Curtain to prevent
nuclear war, to avoid overreacting to false warnings and to
provide safety mechanisms and joint understanding to reduce
risk.

We were good, we were diligent, but we were also very lucky.
We had more than a few close calls, including: the Cuban
Missile Crisis of 1962; the 1979 scare when a technician at
Omaha accidentally loaded a simulated attack into our warning
system; the 1983 Soviet warning glitch which falsely showed 5
nuclear missiles launched against it by the U.S. India and
Pakistan have already had more than one close call – and their
nuclear age has just begun.

II. The nuclear age today – the tipping point

Making it through 60 years without a nuclear attack should not
make us complacent. In the future, it won’t be enough to be
lucky once or twice. If we’re to avoid a catastrophe, all nuclear
powers will have to be highly capable, careful, competent,
rational, and lucky – every single time.

We do have important preventive efforts underway and some
successes – including the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat
Reduction program, the Global Threat Reduction Initiative, the
Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism, the Proliferation
Security Initiative, the rollback of Libya’s nuclear program and
UN Resolution 1540.

These all mark progress and potential, but from my perspective,
the risk of a nuclear weapon being used today is growing, not
receding. The storm clouds are gathering:

--Terrorists are seeking nuclear weapons and there can be little
doubt that if they acquire a weapon they will use it.

--There are nuclear weapons materials in more than 40 countries,
some secured by nothing more than a chain link fence, and, at the
current pace, it will be several decades before this material is
adequately secured or eliminated globally.

--The know-how and expertise to build nuclear weapons is far
more available today because of an explosion of information and
commerce throughout the world.

--The number of nuclear weapons states is increasing. Iran and
North Korea’s nuclear programs threaten to spark a nuclear arms
race in the Middle East and Asia.

--A world with 12 or 20 nuclear weapons states will be
immeasurably more dangerous than today’s world and make it
more likely that weapons or materials to make them will fall into
the hands of terrorists.

--Our worst nightmare – the spread of nuclear capability to
terrorist groups, with no return address and little way of being
deterred – will become more likely.

--With the growing interest in nuclear energy, a number of
countries are considering developing the capacity to enrich
uranium ostensibly to use as fuel for nuclear energy, but this
would also give them the capacity to move quickly to a nuclear
weapons program if they chose to do so. The New York Times
recently reported that roughly a dozen states in the Middle East
have turned to the IAEA for help in starting their own nuclear
programs.

--Meanwhile, the nuclear giants, the United States and Russia,
continue to deploy thousands of nuclear weapons on ballistic
missiles that can hit their targets in less than 30 minutes – a short
warning time, prompt launch capability that carries with it an
increasingly unacceptable risk of an accidental, mistaken or
unauthorized launch.

The bottom line: the accelerating spread of nuclear weapons,
nuclear know-how and nuclear material has brought us to a
nuclear tipping point. The world is heading in a very dangerous
direction.

III. The need for a new direction

The greatest dangers of the Cold War we addressed primarily by
confrontation with Moscow. The greatest threats we face today:
catastrophic terrorism, a rise in the number of nuclear weapons
states, increasing danger of mistaken, accidental or unauthorized
nuclear launch – we can prevent only in cooperation with
Moscow, Beijing and many other capitals.

We must change direction. The good news is that I believe the
security and economic interests of the great powers – the U.S.,
Russia, China, Europe, Japan, India – have never been more
aligned. As Henry Kissinger says – “the great powers have
nothing to gain by military conflict with each other. They are all
dependent on the global economic system.” Old rivalries should
not keep us from seeing common interests.

Both leaders and citizens here and abroad must reflect on what is
at stake.

If Al Qaeda had hit the trade towers with a small crude nuclear
weapon instead of two airplanes, a fireball would have vaporized
everything in the vicinity. Lower Manhattan and the financial
district would be ash and rubble. Tens of thousands of people
would have been killed instantly. Those who survived would
have been left with no shelter, no clean water, no safe food, no
medical attention. Telecommunications, utilities, transportation,
and rescue services would be thrown into chaos.

That would have been just the physical impact. If you were
trying to draw a circle to mark the overall impact of the blast – in
social, economic, and security terms – the circle would be the
equator itself. No part of the planet would escape the impact.
People everywhere would fear another blast. Travel,
international trade, capital flows, commerce would initially stop,
and many freedoms we have come to take for granted would
quickly be eroded in the name of security. The confidence of
America and the world would be shaken to the core.

From my perspective, we are in a race between cooperation and
catastrophe.

[Nunn then discusses moves that need to be made in terms of
cooperation between the nuclear powers, before closing with .]

A Parable of Hope

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, when the United States
began funding Russia’s work to dismantle Soviet nuclear
missiles and warheads, our countries struck a deal called the U.S.
– Russian Highly Enriched Uranium Agreement.

Under this agreement which was signed in 1993, 500 tons of
highly enriched uranium from former Soviet nuclear weapons is
being blended down to low enriched uranium, and then used as
fuel for nuclear power plants in the United States. Shipments
began in 1995 and will continue through 2013. When you
calculate that 20% of all electricity in the U.S. comes from
nuclear power plants, and 50% of the nuclear fuel used in the
U.S. comes from Russia through the HEU Agreement – you have
an interesting fact: roughly speaking – one out of every ten light
bulbs in America today is powered by material that was in Soviet
nuclear warheads pointed at us a few years ago.

From swords to ploughshares. Who would have thought this
possible in the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, or 1980s? It would have
certainly been seen as a mountain too high to climb.

Nearly 20 years ago, President Reagan asked his audience to
imagine that “all of us discovered that we were threatened by a
power from outer space – from another planet.” The President
then asked: “Wouldn’t we come together to fight that particular
threat?” After letting that image sink in for a moment, President
Reagan came to his point: “We now have a weapon that can
destroy the world – why don’t we recognize that threat more
clearly and then come together with one aim in mind: How
safely, sanely, and quickly can we rid the world of this threat to
our civilization and our existence.”

If we want our children and grandchildren to ever see the
mountaintop, our generation must begin to answer this question.

---

Hott Spotts will return July 12. Have a good holiday.

Brian Trumbore