[WSMDiscuss] NUCLEAR WAR TALKS - 100 seconds to midnight

Vera Vratusa vera.veritas at gmail.com
Tue Aug 31 17:53:26 CEST 2021

Does there exist the ingternet petiotion page  where the NFU proposition
can be co-signed?
Vera Vratusa

On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 11:40 AM Ariel Salleh via WSM-Discuss <
wsm-discuss at lists.openspaceforum.net> wrote:

> August 2021
> *Open Letter to the United Nations General Assembly and Delegates to
> the September 26 UN High Level Meeting on Nuclear Disarmament *
> *From People for Nuclear Disarmament, Human Survival Project and
> the Abolition 2000 Working Group on Nuclear Risk Reduction*
> *Summary:--UNGA/First Cttee Welcome reaffirmation by Presidents Putin
> and Biden of the Reagan-Gorbachev dictum that a ‘nuclear war cannot be won
> and must never be fought’.*
> *--Prioritise Nuclear Risk Reduction Measures in First Cttee and the
> Sept 26 High Level Meeting*
> *--Urge No First Use Postures and Policies in Sept 26 High Level
> Meeting and the First Committee*
> Dear Delegates to the High Level Meeting of Sept 26, and UNGA First
> Committee:
> On 11 Sept last year, a group of us wrote to you urging that the Sept
> 26th High Level Meeting, the upcoming 10th NPT Review Conference, and/or
> the UNGA General Assembly (First Committee) reaffirm the Reagan Gorbachev
> Joint Statement of Geneva 1985, according to which 'A Nuclear War Cannot be
> Won and Must Never be Fought'. This was done in a context in which nuclear
> risk reduction was (and is more than ever) of existential importance, and
> in which the adoption of postures and Policies of No First Use are becoming
> an obvious way to reduce those risks.
> Since then, Presidents Putin and Biden in Geneva, (appropriately) adopted
> a Joint Presidential Statement on Strategic Stability in which they
> reaffirmed that 'A Nuclear War Cannot be Won and Must Never be Fought'
> The UN General Assembly (First Committee) should welcome and echo
> that declaration. Ideally this should be done by a unanimous resolution.
> This declaration is so important however, because the actual risk of a
> nuclear war is as high as it has ever been. The most well – known indicator
> of nuclear risk, the hands of the Doomsday Clock, are currently at 100
> seconds to 'midnight', which is as close as they have ever been, including
> at the most perilous moments of the cold war.
> The Stockholm Initiative has prepared a working paper on nuclear risks,
> which while unfortunately not mentioning the easiest risk reduction measure
> – No First Use - contains much that is good. Above all, the working paper
> underlines the importance of risk reduction measures more broadly.
> The Stockholm Risk Reduction working paper notes that:
> “....International concern about nuclear risks has come to the forefront
> in recent years, and urgent action is needed to implement risk
> reduction measures. Various developments and trends substantiate this
> assessment, notably a deteriorated international security environment,
> great power strategic competition, stress on the nuclear arms control,
> disarmament and non- proliferation architecture, the emergence of regional
> tensions and the potentially destabilising implications of several
> technological developments....”
> and:
> As can be seen, both the Stockholm Initiative Working Paper and the
> Doomsday Clock emphasize the existential urgency of measures to reduce
> nuclear risk. The reaffirmation of Reagan-Gorbachev is merely an essential
> first step to affirming that Governments that have the physical means to
> accomplish the destruction of civilization and much else in short order,
> are not actively planning to do so, and have no immediate plans to bring
> about the destruction of each other and the rest of the world.
> Diminishing the likelihood of nuclear war taking place via madness,
> miscalculation, malfunction, or malware requires a range of common sense
> measures that include No First Use commitments, policies and postures,
> De-alerting, transparency measures such as the implementation of proposals
> for a Joint Data Exchange Centre, (JDEC), and avoidance of provocative
> military exercises close to each other’s borders with nuclear-capable
> forces. The Stockholm Initiative Working Paper outlines many of
> these. A full outline of risk reduction measures from an NGO perspective
> has been prepared by Abolition 2000.
> President Biden as Vice-President, expressed repeated support for No First
> Use. In Jan 2017, he said:
> “Given our Non-nuclear capabilities and the nature of today's threats, -
> its hard to envision a plausible scenario in which the first use of nuclear
> weapons by the United States would be necessary. Or make sense.”
> In March 2020 he wrote in Foreign Affairs that:
> “I believe that the sole purpose of the US nuclear arsenal should be
> deterring – and if necessary retaliating against – a nuclear attack. As
> President I will work to put that belief into practice in consultation with
> the US military and US allies.” The Democrat platform also supported NFU.
> In December 2020, the Abolition 2000 Risk Reduction Working Group wrote
> to president-Elect Biden, on risk reduction.
> And in advance of their June 16 Geneva Summit, 1200 distinguished
> people endorsed an Open Letter to Presidents Biden and Putin, urging them
> to adopt policies of No First Use and to reaffirm Reagan-Gorbachev (which
> latter, they did).
> No First Use policies are officially held by both India and China, and it
> is arguable that, far from being a policy that one can 'drive a truck
> through' that in China's case at least the policy is built into the
> physical structure of its nuclear forces in that they are designed for
> survivability rather than quickly initiating nuclear warfare.
> “....There now exists a broad range of research on nuclear risks.
> The humanitarian, economic, environmental and societal consequences of
> nuclear weapons detonations are better understood than before. Likewise,
> there is now greater awareness about concrete aspects of the risk of use of
> nuclear weapons – be it intentional, accidental, by miscalculation,
> misperception, or unauthorised use, including by non-state actors. This
> growing understanding only underlines the urgent need to address nuclear
> risks....”
> A No First Use policy or posture would mean that in practice, if nobody is
> willing to fire first, then no-one will fire, and nuclear war will not take
> place.
> The adoption of NFU policies would also open the door to the nuclear armed
> and allied states joining a multilateral process for the global prohibition
> and elimination of nuclear weapons. As long as these states rely on nuclear
> weapons for purposes other than deterring from nuclear attack – such as to
> respond to threats from conventional weapons or other WMD – it is very
> unlikely they will join a nuclear abolition process.
> While arguments can go to and forth amongst the theologians of nuclear
> stability or lack thereof, it remains clear that adoption of No First
> Use policies and postures by one or both sides of a strategic 'pair'
> whether it be India-Pakistan or NATO-Russia, or US-China, will considerably
> reduce nuclear risks. So too would the adoption of the broad menu of
> nuclear risk reduction measures canvassed both by the Abolition
> 2000 working group and by the Stockholm initiative, to mention but two
> amongst a number of helpful initiatives.
> Risk Reduction and NFU has become a matter of literally existential
> (life-and-death) importance, and which will immeasurably facilitate the
> elimination of nuclear weapons whether by the Treaty on the Prohibition of
> Nuclear Weapons, a Nuclear Weapons Convention, a ‘step by step’ process, or
> some hybrid process.
> Accordingly we urge delegates and governments to prioritise risk reduction
> measures broadly, and No First Use specifically, as the existential matters
> that they are, and to take appropriate action in international fora to
> further them.
> Signed:
> Prof (Emeritus) Frank Hutchinson,
> Human Survival Project, Sydney, Australia
> Marc Finaud, (Fmr Amb), Geneva,
> Co-Convenor, Abolition 2000 Working Group on Nuclear Risk Reduction
> Alyn Ware,
> World Future Council (Lond),
> Co-Convenor, Abolition 2000 Working Group on Nuclear Risk Reduction
> Aaron Tovish,
> Zona Libre,
> Sweden, Manila, Mexico, (Formerly Mayors for Peace)
> Uta Zapf,
> Fmr Bundestag Member, Berlin,
> Baroness Sue Miller, House of Lords, Lond UK,
> Carlo Trezza (Italy)
> Former EU Disarmament Ambassador,
> Jonathan Granoff,
> Global Security Institute, New York,
> John Hallam
> People for Nuclear Disarmament
> Human Survival Project
> Co-Convenor, Abolition 2000Working Group on Nuclear Risk Reduction
> johnhallam2001 at yahoo.com.au
> jhjohnhallam at gmail.com
> johnh at pnnd.org
> 61-411-854-612
> ________________________________________
> ** Inspired by the World Social Forum, WSMDiscuss – the successor to a
> list named ‘WSFDiscuss’ started in 2005 - is an open, unmoderated, and
> self-organising forum for the exchange of information and views on the
> experience, practice, and theory of social and political movement at any
> level (local, national, regional, and global), including the World Social
> Forum.  Join in ! **
> _______________________________________________
> World Social Movement Discuss mailing list
> POST to LIST : Send email to wsm-discuss at lists.openspaceforum.net
> SUBSCRIBE : Send empty email to
> wsm-discuss-subscribe at lists.openspaceforum.net
> UNSUBSCRIBE : Send empty email to
> wsm-discuss-unsubscribe at lists.openspaceforum.net
> LIST ARCHIVES : https://lists.openspaceforum.net/pipermail/wsm-discuss/
> https://lists.openspaceforum.net/mailman/listinfo/wsm-discuss
> http://openspaceforum.net/twiki/tiki-index.php?page=Mailing+List+Posting+Guidelines
> Old / previous WSFDiscuss List Archives :
> http://openspaceforum.net/pipermail/worldsocialforum-discuss_openspaceforum.net/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.openspaceforum.net/pipermail/wsm-discuss/attachments/20210831/472d5c98/attachment.htm>

More information about the WSM-Discuss mailing list