• Nuclear Weapons are
  a Humanitarian Threat

  • A Humanitarian Atrocity

    A nuclear bomb will kill or injure
    thousands of innocent people
    
    

    Remembering Hiroshima & Nagasaki

    On August 6, 1945 an estimated 80,000 people were immediately killed in Hiroshima, and on August 9 around 40,000 people were instantly killed in Nagasaki. Then afterwards, it is estimated that over 80,000 more people died of radiation poisoning and injuries. Many also suffered blindness, deafness, and ruptured organs. Many initial survivors from the blast soon died from a lack of medical services, because most hospitals were destroyed and about 9 out of 10 doctors were killed or injured.
    
    

    In March 2013, at a Conference in Oslo, Norway, 128 governments, UN agencies, international organizations, scientists and civil-society representatives, addressed the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of any use of nuclear weapons, and all agreed that this is unacceptable.
    
    

  • Immediate Destruction of life

    Just one nuclear bomb hitting a large city could kill millions of innocent people, and millions and millions would die if nuclear weapons were launched on several cities. Then, in the months afterwards, many more people could die of hunger and sickness, because healthcare responders would be unable to safely enter the contaminated area.

    The explosion of a nuclear weapon releases intense heat, fierce blast waves, and radiation (radioactive particles) – killing or injuring massive numbers of people, obliterating homes and buildings, destroying all of the vegetation and local ecology, and poisoning the land, water and air for a very long time.

    The blast immediately kills many thousands of people, while also causing severe burns, lung injuries and internal bleeding to people further away. The extreme heat also causes a giant firestorm over the surrounding area. Even people in underground shelters face probable death, due to a lack of oxygen and carbon monoxide poisoning. Also, physicians and health workers would be unable to help people in these highly dangerous radioactive areas.

    Then, in the years to come, many more innocent people will die from nuclear radiation. Just one nuclear explosion will cause tragic long-term health problems and genetic disorders for thousands of adults and children, and through many generations. In addition, there are long-term environmental problems from nuclear-radiated soils and water, lasting for generations. This results in long-term unproductive soils and long-term health issues due to poisoned water.

    There is nothing more harmful and destructive of life. And right now, the US, Russia, and China have enough nuclear weapons ready-to-deploy to obliterate all life of Earth.
    

  • Long-term harm from radiation

    Nuclear explosions produce harmful radiation, which sickens people, causes cancer and genetic damage, and kills people after a few years, while also poisoning the land for decades. So even the survivors of a nuclear bomb will develop severe health problems and face an early death. Even nuclear testing causes serious health problems, and many scientists think that over 2 million people worldwide will have died from the effects of nuclear tests.

    Nuclear radiation also causes harmful genetic disorders in children born from parents exposed to this radiation, and just one nuclear explosion could expose thousands of innocent people to this harmful radiation. These genetic disorders result in child deformities and lifetime health problems. Any parent would be very concerned and troubled about this. In addition, the public health costs would be huge in dealing with these health problems of future generations.

    Environmentally, the use of just one percent of all nuclear weapons in the world would so severely disrupt the global climate that 2 billion people could die of starvation from a nuclear famine, and the destruction of essential ecosystems could end most of life on Earth.

  

Reasons for Eliminating Nuclear Weapons

• Nuclear Weapons are
  a Threat to Human Health

  • Nuclear Radiation is Harmful

    Radiation exposure causes central nervous system disruption, vomiting, uncontrolled bleeding, serious infections, cancer, and early death.

    Nuclear radiation also causes harmful genetic disorders in children born from parents exposed to this radiation, and just one nuclear explosion could expose thousands of innocent people to this harmful radiation. These genetic disorders result in child deformities and lifetime health problems. Any parent would be very concerned and troubled about this. In addition, the public health costs would be huge in dealing with these health problems of future generations.
    
    

    Radiation from a Nuclear Explosion

    Any use of a nuclear weapon would cause massive long-term health problems from its radiation fallout upon the land, into the water and into the air, and this harmful radiation can spread out hundreds or even thousands of miles away from the blast and continue to be a health threat for decades!

    Therefore, any use of a nuclear weapon would violate the human right-to-safely for people who are distant from the blast and innocent populations who were not even involved in the conflict that motivated this nuclear explosion. As such, even a nuclear attack directed on a military base/arsenal would spread radiation disease to innocent people far away from the blast and harmfully effect future generations. Nuclear tests are just as bad, as they spread harmful radiation into the atmosphere.
    
    

    Radiation from Testing Nuclear Bombs

    Since 1945, eight countries have conducted 2,054 nuclear test explosions in locations all around the world. 528 early tests were conducted in the atmosphere, spreading radioactive material throughout the atmosphere. Underground tests have also vented radioactive material into the atmosphere and contaminated soil.

    The Castle Bravo test in 1954, which was 1,000 times more powerful than the bombing of Hiroshima, vaporized three entire islands in the Bikini Atoll, and fallout from the bomb spread radioactive material over 11,000 sq. km from the detonation point, exposing around 665 island inhabitants to significant levels of radioactivity.

    Radiation from nuclear testing has been very detrimental to human health and the environment. Nuclear weapons testing by the US and the Soviet Union involved at least 423 atmospheric tests between 1945 and 1957 and about 1400 underground tests between 1957 and 1989. The actual harm to health from of all of these tests are still not completely known. A Japanese physicist calculated that nearly 1.5 million people were exposed to fallout from Chinese nuclear tests and nearly 200 thousand of them may have died from diseases linked to radiation from those tests. In the US it is estimated that testing in the 1950s caused thousands of deaths in areas nearby the tests; while the military monitored these effects from the nuclear radiation.

    Approximately 250,000 US military personnel have been involved in nuclear-weapons tests and thus were exposed to harmful levels of nuclear radiation. In addition, International Physicians have estimated that exposure to radioactive material from nuclear tests have caused early deaths for 2.4 million people worldwide.

    Nuclear-weapons testing has also had a significantly harmful effect on agricultural land and marine environments, because radioactive material concentrates in living organisms throughout food chain. For example, it was discovered that radioactive iodine-131 from US nuclear tests accumulated in rainfall runoff and in soils, which then entered into grasses, which was then consumed by cows, which then produced contaminated milk in the US and in other countries.
    
    

    Nuclear weapons production has also been hazardous for workers. It is estimated that over 500,000 workers in nuclear weapons production facilities during the Cold War were harmfully exposed to radioactivity and dangerous chemicals, causing lung disease and early death.
    
    

    More information on Health Hazards →

    from International Red Cross
    from ArmsControl.org
    from WA Physicians for Social Responsibility

    
    
    

  • Nuclear Waste is a Threat to Health

    Even if nuclear weapons are not detonated,
    they are still a threat to public health,
    due to the radioactive waste contamination
    from production and waste storage,
    in addition to the health dangers
    from mining and processing uranium.

    Deadly radioactive waste is a byproduct of nuclear weapons production and nuclear reactors, and this nuclear waste will be a potential health hazard for hundreds or even thousands of years. More than a quarter million metric tons of highly radioactive waste sits in storage near nuclear power plants and weapons production facilities worldwide, with over 90,000 metric tons in the US alone.

    Yet these waste storage containers are unreliable and unsafe. Even after just a few decades, many have leaked, and as more of these storage containers continue to age, more and more of them are likely to leak into our drinking water and contaminate nearby soils. There is no absolutely reliable safe storage for nuclear waste, nor is there even a safe nuclear-waste management plan, for the thousands of years that this radioactive material will exist and be a threat to future lives.
    
    

    The Problem of Nuclear-waste Storage

    Nuclear weapons production produces vast amounts of radioactive waste, which can have devastating impacts on the surrounding environment, and production sites have resulted in massive leaks of liquid radioactive material, contaminating groundwater and agricultural land.

    There are 517 nuclear weapon sites that were considered for radioactive clean up in the United States. 43 sites were found by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health to have the “potential for significant radioactive contamination”.

    For example, the Hanford Nuclear Site in Eastern Washington State is the most contaminated nuclear site in the western world. The Columbia River is just a few miles from the Hanford Site, and downstream are two dams, because the government wanted the Hanford Site to be close to dams for electricity and close to the river to cool the reactors.

    The Hanford weapons production facility began operating in 1944, and by the height of plutonium production in 1957, eight plutonium production reactors were dumping a daily average of 50,000 curies of radioactive material into the Columbia River. By comparison, only 15-24 curies of iodine-131 were released at Three Mile Island nuclear disaster.
    
    

    Storage Leakage at Hanford

    The Hanford Weapons Site had produced these tens of thousands of nuclear weapons, but without much concern about what do with the life-threatening radioactive waste. The less-contaminated liquids went into ponds, solid waste was buried, and the toxic gases were simply released into the air.

    Now, across the Hanford Site are 1600 waste sites, with over 50 million gallons of high-level radioactive chemical waste and 24 million cubic feet of solid radioactive waste buried in trenches and tunnels.

    Most concerning is the highly radioactive waste that was stored in 177 underground storage tanks, each holding between 55,000 and 100,000 gallons. The first 149 tanks were built with a single shell of steel. But by 1989, 68 of the 149 tanks were leaking, and the Hanford Management admitted that one tank was leaking nearly 300 gallons of nuclear waste every year! In total these tanks have leaked about one million gallons of nuclear waste into the ground, which then enters into the groundwater and drinking water for millions of downstream residents.

    So, after discovering that the single-shell storage tanks were leaking after only a few decades, in 1968 the Military developed 27 double-shelled storage tanks and over the next 20 years workers transferred the high-level radioactive waste into these newer tanks. But even these newer tanks could also be deteriorating and leaking. In fact, they were estimated to only last 20-50 years, and officials now admit that at least one storage tank has been actively leaking since at least 2013. This prompted a Government Report stating, “Contamination in the groundwater could eventually reach the Columbia River, which provides drinking and irrigation water for a significant portion of the Pacific Northwest, as well as a habitat and spawning area for several endangered species of salmon.” The Report also recommended that the Department of Energy develop plans to address additional double-shell tank failures. The department agreed, but said that management of the hazardous waste requires a “balanced approach” – between safety and available funding.

    In spite of the safety risk of this radioactive waste storage, the Trump administration tried to downgrade the threat levels, in order to save the needed 40 billion dollars on cleanup efforts.
    
    

    Read... 56 mil gallons of radioactive leakage
    Read... Health hazards of Hanford
    Read... Hanford unprepared for waste leaks
    Read... Nuclear waste into the Pacific Ocean

  • The Problem of long-term Storage

    About a dozen European countries are planning deep geological repositories for their nuclear waste. In the US, government officials have proposed storing the country’s waste in a repository beneath Yucca Mountain in Nevada. The Yucca Mountain site is about 300 meters below ground level and about 300 meters above the water table. But if these repositories ever crack or leak, then the ground water for millions of local residents will be radioactively contaminated.
    
    

    The Story of Yucca Mountain

    Since Nevada lacks voter clout in Congress, a plan was made for the nation’s nuclear waste to be shipped to a proposed centralized storage site in Yucca Mountain. Beyond geological concerns with the plan, local communities in Nevada near Yucca Mountain have protested the decision to move this waste into their backyard. Yucca Mountain also poses risks beyond Nevada communities. Because of its distance from the vast majority of nuclear waste in the country (which is mostly east of the Mississippi), the transportation routes for this hazardous material would impact a wide swath of the United States. While rail accidents are rare, low probability events occur over time and the risk posed from the transport of this material should concern many Americans.
    
    

    Interim Storage of Nuclear Waste

    The US Dept. of Energy has proposed an ambitious plan for 'reprocessing' nuclear waste, which is to chemical separate fissionable uranium and plutonium from irradiated nuclear fuel. But the National Academy of Sciences estimated in 1996 that reprocessing our current nuclear waste would cost taxpayers over $500 billion.

    Nuclear waste is currently being stockpiled at a number of different sites plus on-site at nuclear reactors. Hardened on-site Storage (HOSS), though not eliminating the risk with nuclear waste, is an interim practical solution that can be implemented far safer and quicker than a centralized waste facility, and this type of storage will limit the movement of hazardous nuclear material.
    

    Read more... Nuclear Waste storage
    – a challenge for multiple generations

    
    

    Health Problems from Mining Uranium

    Uranium mining poses a hazardous health risk to workers and surrounding communities, especially through exposure to radon-222, which can cause lung cancer, and waste leakage from the mining can contaminate soils and drinking water.

    Tailings, a by-product of uranium mining, contain many toxic materials and 85% of the radioactivity of the uranium ore. In Australia, one of the top uranium producing countries, mining one ton of uranium produces on average 848 tons of tailings and 1152 tons of low-grade ore and waste rock. This makes mining easily the largest point of radioactive waste production in the nuclear fuel/weapons production chain.

    Despite regulations, there have been many incidents of leaks and contamination from tailings into groundwater, waterways, and the nearby environment. For example, it was discovered after almost 10 years of operation that a tailings dam had leaked billions of liters of tailings into groundwater at the Olympic Dam in Australia.

    No closed uranium mine in the world has been successfully cleaned up, and the waste remains radioactive and harmful for tens of thousands of years.

    
    

    Also see the section →
    Environmental Problems
    from nuclear weapons

  

• Nuclear Weapons are
  a Violation of Human Rights

  • A Violation of Human Rights

    The mass killing of innocent people
    (or even the threat of this)
    is certainly a violation of human rights
    

    International Agreements on basic Human Rights are already in place to protect people from intentional harm, death, and grave dangers to their life and health. Similar to laws against genocide and mass murder, any use of a nuclear weapon would violate existing international human rights laws.

    So how can nations even consider their use as a military strategy or defense policy??

    Just their very existence and readiness-for-use is itself a violation of human rights – the human right to not be threatened by physical harm or intentional murder.
    
    

  • A Violation of Humanitarian Law

    In 1996 the International Court of Justice examined the humanitarian impact from using nuclear weapons, and it was determined that any use of a nuclear weapon would violate the rules of International Law applicable in armed conflicts.
    
    

    International Humanitarian Law prohibits weapons or methods of warfare which:

    1) fail to discriminate between civilians and military targets;

    2) inhumanely cause needless suffering, including suffering caused after the time span of the conflict;

    3) are disproportionate, with destructive effects much greater than the military acts which provoked the response;

    4) cause long-term and severe damage to the living environment;

    5) have a negative impact on surrounding neutral territory.

  

• Myths and Fallacies
  of Nuclear Deterrence

• United Nations Treaties
  (International Agreements)

  • The UN Security Council could
    put an end to Nuclear Weapons

    The Preamble to the UN Charter

    states, “We the Peoples of the United Nations, determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war… reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights… establish respect for international law and promote social progress….Have resolved to combine our efforts to achieve these aims.”

    But have the nuclear-armed nations been truly determined to eliminate the threat of nuclear war?  No.

    Why aren't they making an effort to disarm and eliminate nuclear weapons?

    The UN General Assembly (composed of all nations) have passed many proposals for nuclear disarmament, which they have the power to do as given in Article 11 of the UN Charter – “The General Assembly may consider the general principles of cooperation in the maintenance of international peace and security, including the principles governing disarmament and the regulation of armaments, and make recommendations with regard to such principles to the Members or to the Security Council or to both. ”

    But the UN Security Council has failed discuss or give any legitimacy to these proposals for nuclear disarmament. The five permanent members (those nations with the largest nuclear-weapon arsenals) refuse to reduce and disarm their nuclear weapons, and they even refuse to start any negotiations for eliminating nuclear weapons.

    
    

    Article 26 of the UN Charter

    Article 26 of the UN Charter states that the Security Council is responsible for regulating global armaments and reducing military expenditures. It states, “In order to promote the establishment and maintenance of international peace and security with the least diversion for armaments of the world’s human and economic resources, the Security Council shall be responsible for formulating, with the assistance of the Military Staff Committee referred to in Article 47, plans to be submitted to the Members of the United Nations for the establishment of a system for the regulation of armaments.”

    In essence, Article 26 requires the Security Council to create an effective plan for global nuclear disarmament and to reduce military expenditures (that divert financial resources from being used for humanitarian and peaceful purposes).

    It should also be remembered that this UN Charter was originally formulated by the U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt and the U.K. Prime Minister Winston Churchill.

    
    

    Nuclear-weaponized nations refuse
    to follow UN Charter Article 24

    Instead of negotiating and implementing an International Plan for the reduction of nuclear weapons and other military armaments, the most powerful governments in the United Nations have engaged in ever-increasing weapons production and profiteering, as they continue to perpetuate a global arms race!

    They spend many billions of dollars on their militaries and sell billions of dollars worth of weapons to other countries.

    This creates more wealth for the owners and investors of weapons companies, but this does nothing to improve people's lives, nor to make the world safer and more peaceful.

    In fact, by spending over $400 billion every year on weapons, there is that much money NOT spent on social and environmental needs!
    

    Is this just simply Capitalism at work, or is this a sign of governments being corruptly influenced by wealthy investors and corporations in the Weapons Trade?
    

    So they keep making more money on producing and selling weapons, while the rest of all humanity suffers from the consequences of their weapons and also from the everpresent threat of a nuclear bomb wiping out a city somewhere, or anywhere, either intentionally or accidentally.
    

    In short, the most powerful and wealthy States, predominately in the UN Security Council, have failed to fulfill one of the original intentions of the United Nations, as mandated in Article 26 of the UN Charter. They have failed to be responsible for regulating their armaments, reduce their military expenditures, and redirect financial and technological resources towards our safety and peace.

    Therefore, if the Security Council cannot function in a cooperative and collaborative way, in the way that the original UN intended, then it has to be revised to be more successful at fulfilling its intended function. In fact, at this point in its continual neglect of its intended duties, the Security Council needs public oversight and encouragement from the UN Assembly and citizen coalition representatives from the whole world.
    
    

    It's time for all nuclear bombs
    to be eliminated from the world.
    We don't want them.
    

    Nobody sane and caring would ever want
    nuclear weapons in the world.
    So let's get rid of them!

    We demand that the Security Council begin immediate negotiations and plans for reducing and finally eliminating nuclear weapons, and we also support all UN resolutions calling for a Nuclear Weapons Convention.

    
    

    The Security Council
    needs to fulfill its duties

    We should remember that the five major nuclear-armed nations are permanent members of the Security Council, so they are already sitting at the same table. Therefore, if they were truly sincere about global security and protecting humanity from nuclear war, then they should be negotiating plans for reducing and eliminating nuclear weapons – rather than planning to increase and improve their nuclear weapons!

    The bottom-line is that for many decades now the permanent members of the Security Council have been failing in their given responsibilities.

    Therefore, the UN General Assembly has the authority to revise the Security Council – in order to make it effective in fulfilling its originally intended responsibilities.
    

    If the Security Council cannot function in a cooperative and collaborative way, in the way that the original UN intended, then the UN must revise it to be more successful at fulfilling is intended function.
    

    The Security Council is composed of
    the most powerful militaries in the world,
    and they have the power to create
    a peaceful, secure, nuclear-free world.
    

    The United Nations Security Council should be working towards solving armed-conflicts and nuclear-armed threats. They should be helping the UN Peacekeeping system resolve armed conflicts and ensure human safety in all regions of the world. And they should be making immediate plans for reducing and finally eliminating all nuclear weapons.
    
    

    We the People of this world demand:
    the UN Security Council immediately
    negotiate a step-by-step Plan for reducing
    and finally eliminating all nuclear weapons.
    
    

    We call for:

    1) A guaranteed No-Nuclear-Use Policy from all nuclear-armed nations.

    2) An immediate reduction of nuclear-weapons budgets.

    3) Practical plans for a Nuclear-Weapon-Free World.

    
    
    

    Bi- and Tri- lateral Negotiations
    

    Bilateral Nuclear Negotiations between
    the U.S. and Russia is necessary,
    given that the US and Russia
    hold 90% of all nuclear weapons!
    

    One vitally important step in Global Nuclear Disarmament is for the U.S. and Russia to begin serious bi-lateral negotiations for an immediate reduction of nuclear warheads and to create an effective Plan for gradually eliminating all nuclear warheads, since these two nations have the most nuclear weapons.

    Then the next step is to add in China to the negotiations, since they are the third largest holder of nuclear weapons. These three nations can then tri-laterally collaborate on creating a practical and effective Plan (with definite steps and timelines) for a UN-monitored proportional reduction of nuclear weapons.

    Read... In 1986 the Soviet Leader Gorbachev proposed an end to nuclear weapons by 2000

    
    

    Unilateral Reductions

    However, even though bi and tri lateral agreements are needed, we (the U.S.) should still reduce our nuclear weapons unilaterally, because we already have so many.

    William Perry, former U.S. Secretary of Defense, pragmatically said, "our levels of nuclear forces should be determined by what we need, not by a misguided desire to match Moscow missile for missile."
    
    

    How many nuclear bombs are needed
    to ensure national defense?
    

    How many nuclear weapons do we need to blow up other nations and the global climate as well? Not too many and certainly not more than a few.

    But the U.S. already has a stockpile of 3,800 nuclear warheads, with 2,385 of these are waiting to be dismantled and disposed of in some undecided way. The U.S. has already stated in the 2019 New START declaration that 1,365 nuclear warheads are deployed on 656 ICBMs, SLBMs, and strategic bombers.

    With all of this vast amount of mass-destructive weapons, the U.S. can very easily and very safely give up 90% of these, and yet still destroy many millions of people and the whole global climate as well. Why would we need more than that?!

    So ultimately, we ourselves should unilaterally reduce nuclear weapons, independently of what Russia or China does, because this will not lower our national security at all, as if a deterrence policy requires anymore than a dozen or so of these weapons, and also because there is no rational economic reason for spending loads of money on maintaining and keeping them ready to employ. There is no safety concern for unilaterally reducing nuclear weapons, and there are economic reasons for eliminating them; therefore, what could be the reason to keep them?

    
    

    The 1991 START I Bilateral Treaty
    (The Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty)

    START I was a bilateral treaty between the US and the USSR on the reduction and limitation of strategic offensive arms, signed in 1991 and entered into force in 1994. This was the largest and most complex arms control treaty in history, and its final implementation in late 2001 resulted in the removal of about 80 percent of all strategic nuclear weapons then in existence.

    • START I – Brief Facts

    • START I – Background History

    
    

    The NEW START TREATY

    START I expired in 2009, but in 2010 the 'New START' treaty was signed by US President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev. It went in force in 2011 and set forth large reductions of American and Soviet/Russian strategic nuclear weapons.

    The NEW START Treaty calls for verifiably halving the number of strategic nuclear missile launchers, though it does not limit the thousands of operationally inactive nuclear warheads stockpiled by Russia and the United States.

    Today, the United States and Russia each deploy roughly 1,350 strategic warheads on several hundred bombers and missiles, and are modernizing their nuclear delivery systems.

    These warheads are counted using the provisions of the New START agreement, which caps each country at 1,550 strategic deployed warheads and attributes one deployed warhead per deployed heavy bomber, no matter how many warheads each bomber carries. Warheads on deployed ICBMs and SLBMs are counted by the number of re-entry vehicles on the missile, and each re-entry vehicle can carry one warhead.
    

    The United States’ total nuclear inventory is 5,800, with around 3,800 active warheads in the stockpile and another 2,000 retired warheads awaiting dismantlement. Under the 2010 New START Treaty, the United States is allowed 1,550 nuclear warheads on 800 strategic launchers.
    

    How many nuclear bombs does
    a nation need to attain national security?
    
    Is there any good reason for each nation
    to maintain and globally deploy
    this many nuclear weapons?
    
    

    Read more...

    • Improving the New START Treaty

    • Fact-sheet on the New START

    • New START Treaty Facts & Analysis

    • Details provided by the US Government

    
    

    China and a Tri-lateral Agreement

    Once this New Start Bilateral Treaty is negotiated with sincere and progressive improvements to boldly reduce nuclear weapons, then the next step is to include China in a Trilateral Treaty for nuclear disarmament. After that, France and the U.K. would certainly oblige, then other weaponized nations would gladly back away from any global competition or escalation of nuclear weapons, until finally a global consensus is achieved to gradually but quickly eliminate all nuclear weapons, so that no one evermore feels threatened by these human and environmentally mass-destructive weapons.

    Thus, the New Start Treaty can quickly expand to include China, then all others, with a expedient timeline for the proportional reduction of all global nuclear weapons. In addition, a New Trilateral Nuclear Disarmament can factor in new technologies, such as hypersonic glide vehicles and low-yield devices.

    China has a smaller arsenal (about 300 warheads), but China could double its nuclear stockpile in the coming decade unless dissuaded by the larger powers, the U.S. and Russia. A proportional agreed reduction is an economic benefit for all parties, as all parties have better uses of their national capital. Also, this would be a first step in a inspection and verification process between China and the US.
    
    

    Nuclear Weapons are being advanced
    by a few other nations

    Both Russia and China possess smaller numbers of non-strategic (aka tactical) nuclear warheads, which are not subject to any treaty limits. China, India, and Pakistan are all pursuing new ballistic missile, cruise missile, and sea-based nuclear delivery systems. In addition, Pakistan has lowered the threshold for nuclear weapons use by developing tactical nuclear weapons capabilities to counter perceived Indian conventional military threats. North Korea continues its nuclear pursuits in violation of its earlier de-nuclearization pledges.
    

    Read...
    • Global Inventories of nuclear weapons

    
    

  • Treaty on the Non-Proliferation
    of Nuclear Weapons

    The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) became international law in 1970 when it was ratified by 190 governments of the United Nations, including the five major nuclear-weapon states at that time: China, France, the United Kingdom, the United States, and the USSR.

    Read... Overview of the NPT
    Read... Actual Document of the NPT

    
    

    Yet, the number of nuclear weapons in the world peaked at over 70,000 weapons in 1986 during the Cold War between the US and the USSR. Since then, stockpiles of nuclear warheads have diminished to about 13,400, but this is still an outrageous number of mass destructive weapons, which are not only unnecessary but also extremely dangerous to global security and all of humanity.
    
    

    2020 Global Inventories of Nuclear Warheads

    

    2020 Map of Countries with Nuclear Warheads

    
    

    Article VI of the Non-Proliferation Treaty

    In the Non-Proliferation Treaty is a requirement for nuclear-weapon states to pursue effective measures for complete nuclear disarmament.

    Article VI of the Treaty states that “All Parties must pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to the cessation of the nuclear arms race and to nuclear disarmament.”

    However, the countries with nuclear weapons have not been actively pursing nuclear disarmament. Instead, they have continued to build and stockpile more weapons, thus perpetuating a nuclear arms race, and each year they fail to meet together for nuclear disarmament negotiations.

    In addition, all nine of the current nuclear-weapon states – China, France, India, Israel, Pakistan, North Korea, Russia, United Kingdom, and United States – have been developing and modernizing their nuclear weapons, warheads, missiles, bombers and submarines, as they continue spending $billions to further threaten each other and the whole planet with mass destruction.

    Therefore, the rhetoric about their commitment to nuclear disarmament is disingenuous. They are not complying with their obligations in the Non-Proliferation Treat and are thus in violation of the International Law to which they had agreed.

    
    

    Calls for a Nuclear Weapons Convention

    Each year the UN General Assembly calls for a 'Nuclear Weapons Convention' (a global Treaty) – to prohibit the threat or use of nuclear weapons and to establish a phased program for their complete elimination under strict and effective international control.

    It has been proposed that this Nuclear Weapons Convention include prohibitions on: the possession, development, testing, production, stockpiling, transfer, use and threat-of-use of nuclear weapons, along with provisions for their verified elimination.

    This Convention would be similar to existing Conventions outlawing other kinds of mass-destructive weapons, such as the Biological Weapons Convention (ratified in 1972) and the Chemical Weapons Convention (ratified in 1993).

    The vast majority of all nations have supported these UN Resolutions for nuclear-weapon states to negotiate a Nuclear Weapons Convention. Yet countries with the largest nuclear arsenals (the U.S., Russia, France, and the UK) have not supported the UN Resolutions, along with Australia, Japan, and South Korea, who are under the extended nuclear deterrence relationships of NATO. The five major nuclear-weapon countries also happen to be permanent members of the UN Security Council and they each have veto power on all Security Council resolutions.

    Read more about...
    The Nuclear Weapons Convention
    
    

    Citizens of nuclear-weapon countries need to pressure their governments to agree to a Nuclear Weapons Convention
    – to immediately reduce and eliminate nuclear weapons in gradual stages.

    
    

    The Conference on Disarmament

    The Conference on Disarmament was established for countries to negotiate Arms Control and Disarmament agreements. It meets three times a year and is currently composed of 65 formal members representing all areas of the world along with all nuclear-weapon states.

    The Conference is formally independent from the United Nations. However, the Director-General of the United Nations Office at Geneva serves as the Secretary-General of the Conference. Furthermore, while the Conference adopts its own rules of procedure and agenda, the United Nations General Assembly can pass resolutions recommending specific topics to the Conference.

    The Conference was created with the following Permanent Agenda for discussion:

    • nuclear weapons in all aspects;
    • other weapons of mass destruction;
    • conventional weapons;
    • reduction of military budgets and armed forces;
    • disarmament and international security;
    • confidence building measures;
    • effective verification methods for disarmament;
    • a comprehensive programme of disarmament leading to general and complete disarmament under effective international control.

    It is here in this Conference that negotiations for a Nuclear Weapons Convention should take place. But a major obstacle to these negotiations is the Conference's founding rule that all of its decisions must be approved by consensus – consequentially, the Conference has been unable to achieve any substantial progress in nuclear disarmament for nearly
    25 years!

    However, a consensus could be achieved
    if the five major nuclear-weapon countries would unanimously agree, within the transparency of the Conference, to negotiate a Nuclear Weapons Convention along with a defined Disarmament Plan.

    
    

    The UN's Five-Point Proposal
    for Nuclear Disarmament

    In 2010 the States Parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty agreed by consensus that all States should make special efforts to establish a Nuclear Weapons Convention (treaty) or an agreed framework for a 'nuclear weapon free world', and it was suggested that a good starting place for discussion and negotiation would be a Five-Point Proposal presented in 2008 by the UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.

    Additionally, in 2014 the Inter Parliamentary Union (comprising 164 parliaments) adopted a resolution calling on all governments to commence negotiations on a Nuclear Weapons Convention or at least a package of agreements such as the Five-Point Proposal, to prohibit and eliminate nuclear weapons.

    
    

    Summary of the Five Point Proposal:

    I. All parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, especially the nuclear-weapon States, need to fulfill their requirement to enter into negotiations on nuclear disarmament.

    II. The nuclear-weapon States need to assure non-nuclear-weapon States that they will not be the subject of the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons.

    III. Existing nuclear arrangements and agreements, such as a ban on testing, nuclear-weapon-free zones, and strengthened safeguards, need to be accepted by States and brought into force.

    IV. The Nuclear Powers need to be transparent about the size of their arsenals, stocks of fissile material, and specific disarmament achievements.

    V. Complementary measures are needed such as the elimination of other types of Weapons of Mass-Destruction (WMD); new efforts against WMD terrorism; limits on conventional arms; and new weapons bans, including of missiles and space weapons.

    Read... Full Text of the Secretary-General’s Five-Point Proposal

    
    

    Positive Steps for all
    nuclear-armed nations:

    • Honor and Support the United Nations
      and Civil Society Initiatives for Nuclear Disarmament. read more...
    • Abide by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
    • Ratify & Abide by the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons
    • Cooperate with the UN's Five-point Proposal for Nuclear Disarmament
      to eliminate Nuclear Weapons.
    • Ratify & Abide by ALL Arms Control Treaties & Agreements
    • Ratify & Abide by the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty

    
    

  • Treaty on the Prohibition
    of Nuclear Weapons

    This UN Treaty has made nuclear weapons Illegal by International Law

    The UN Security Council and the Conference on Disarmament have been failing for decades to seriously initiate negotiations for reducing and gradually eliminating nuclear weapons.

    Therefore, since there is an obvious stalemate in getting going with negotiations for global Nuclear Disarmament along with a resurgence of spending and improvements of nuclear weapons, non-governmental organizations throughout the world formed a coalition to develop a Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons – to make nuclear weapons illegal under International Law.

    International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), is a civil society coalition made of over 500 partner organisations from over 100 countries, and in 2017 it was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize "for its work to draw attention to the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of any use of nuclear weapons and for its ground-breaking efforts to achieve a treaty-based prohibition of such weapons."

    In July 2017, in the UN General Assembly First Committee on Disarmament and International Security, 122 member states, a majority of UN members, voted for the adoption of this Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), or also known as the Nuclear Weapon Ban Treaty. And since then, more governments from around the world, particularly in Latin America, Southeast Asia, the Pacific, and Africa, have signed and ratified this Prohibition Treaty.

    The Treaty is intended to be an international legally-binding agreement to comprehensively prohibit nuclear weapons and move swiftly towards their complete elimination. The Treaty stipulates that it is internationally illegal to develop, test, produce, manufacture, acquire, possess, stockpile, transfer, use or threaten to use nuclear weapons, and also illegal to assist or encourage anyone to engage in these activities. It provides for a time-bound framework for nuclear armed states to succeed in negotiations leading to the verified and irreversible elimination of their nuclear weapons.

    In order to become International Law, at least 50 countries are required to ratify/join the Treaty. This finally happened in October 2020. So now, nuclear weapons are not only immoral – they are also illegal.
    

    Nuclear Weapons are now illegal
    under International Law
    

    However, none of the nuclear-weapon states and none of the NATO members voted in favor of this Treaty. In fact, all nine nuclear-armed states boycotted the negotiations and urged their allies to do so as well. Both the Obama and Trump administrations instructed countries of NATO to not support the Treaty. Therefore, the Treaty does not directly impact the nine nuclear-armed countries, because they refuse to sign the Treaty.

    Thus, some people argue that the Treaty is irrelevant, since none of the nuclear-armed countries have joined. But many others believe that the Treaty will, nonetheless, have a pressuring influence on the nuclear-armed countries and on global financial institutions. As past social movements have taught us, a needed change rarely happens easily – it must be constantly defended, strengthened and pushed forward.

    Already, more than 1,600 elected officials in nuclear-armed countries have pledged to work to get their governments on board, as cities and towns can adopt resolutions demanding their governments to join the Treaty.
    

    Citizens can help make this Treaty a reality
    by building social and political pressure
    
    

    The TPNW bans the development
    of new nuclear weapons systems

    Article 1 of the treaty prohibits states parties from developing, testing, producing, manufacturing, transferring, possessing, stockpiling, using or threatening to use nuclear weapons, or allowing nuclear weapons to be stationed on their territory. It also prohibits them from assisting, encouraging or inducing anyone to engage in any of these activities.

    Citizens need to Demand – No More Development of Nuclear Weapons!
    
    

    The TPNW bans any assisting
    with developing nuclear weapons

    Dozens of U.S. universities are involved in the U.S. nuclear weapons complex, including through direct management and research partnerships with the laboratories that design and can produce nuclear weapons components.

    Students should demand their universities focus on research to save lives not end them
    
    

    The TPNW bans the manufacturing
    of nuclear weapons

    Even outside of nuclear-armed states, companies contribute to the development and production of nuclear weapons.

    Financial institutions should divest from
    companies that produce nuclear weapons
    
    

    The TPNW bans the hosting
    of nuclear weapons

    Article 1(g) of the TPNW explicitly prohibits allowing the stationing, installation or deployment of nuclear weapons.

    There are five countries in the world that are currently engaged in this soon to be banned behaviour: Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands, Italy, and Turkey. These five countries currently host collectively about 150 U.S. nuclear weapons at bases on their territory. Not only does the continued hosting of U.S. nuclear weapons run contrary to international law, it also flies in the face of public opinion. Less than one-third of the public in hosting states support the continued existence of weapons of mass destruction on their soil.
    

    Citizens in any country hosting
    nuclear weapons should be allowed
    to ban these weapons from their land
    
    

    The TPNW bans encouraging
    the use of nuclear weapons

    Nuclear-armed states are always ready-to-use nuclear weapons, and they regularly prepare to use nuclear weapons through joint exercises with non-nuclear-armed states.
    

    Encouraging the use of nuclear weapons
    by participating in or allowing these exercises is now internationally illegal !

    
    

    More Info on the Prohibition Treaty:

    • The Significance of the Treaty
    

    • Five Activities Prohibited by the Treaty
    

    • The Actual TPNW Document
    

    • 56 former officials of nuclear-armed nations support the Treaty

    
    
    

    Steps and Goals
    for Global Nuclear Disarmament

    • Establish a global crisis-management system – to reduce the risk of nuclear conflict.
    • Establish global institutions for peacebuilding, diplomatic dialogue, and conflict-resolution, – to assure that no nation launches a nuclear attack, 'preemptive' or retaliatory strike.
    • Take nuclear weapons off hair-trigger alert – to prevent a hasty or accidental nuclear strike.
    • Remove Nuclear Weapons from Europe, the Middle East, North East Asia, and the Arctic.
    • Reduce Nuclear Warheads.
    • Stop developing more Nuclear Warheads.
    • Stop upgrading or enhancing Nuclear-warhead delivery systems.
    • Remove Nuclear Warheads from their delivery systems, dismantle the warheads, and remove nuclear pits.
    • Place all removed fissile material under International Law and Observation.
    • Create Safe-storage for all radioactive nuclear material.
    • End Production of Highly Enriched Uranium.
    • End all research and testing of nuclear weapons of all sizes.
    • Agree to the PAROS Treaty (Prevention of an Arms Race in Space)
    • Agree to Regulations on Laser Weapons
      
      Read...
      • Directed-energy Laser Weapon Systems (LaWS)
      
      • How Laser Weapons have entered the Arms Race
      
      • About Laser Weapons from their manufacturer
      
      
    • Stop developing 'Lethal Autonomous Weapons' (killer-bots)
      
      Read...
      • The Global Threat of Killer Robots
      
      • The Dangerous Rise of Slaughterbots
      
      • How Military AI is promoted as a 'New Age in Defense'

    
    

    Ending the International Arms Trade

    Arms Sales proliferate hi-grade military weapons all around the world, thus making the world a less safer place. And yet, the Defense Department supports US Arms Sales to other nations, even dictators. How do Arms Sales help us be safer? What kind of 'Defense' is that?

    The bloated Military and Weapons Budget is promoted by the Weapons Industry. But these corporations that produce weapons also profit from international Arms Sales, which helps to fuel regional warfare and authoritarian political regimes.

    Between 2012 and 2016, US arms producers were responsible for one-third of all major global arms exports. And most of these US-made weapons go to repressive and brutal government regimes to harm and kill civilians. In fact, the U.S. supplies military and weapons training, military arms financing, and weapons transfers to 73% of the world’s dictatorships.

    Weapons manufacturers and 'Defense' Corporations also sell weapons to US domestic police. Since the 1990s, over 5 billion dollars worth of military-grade weapons and equipment have been sold to city police forces. This militarization of the police perpetuates a culture of police aggression and hostility.

    It is estimated that the US now accounts for 34% of all global arms sales, up from 30% five years ago, and are now at their highest level since the late 1990s.

    The world spends nearly $3 trillion a year on Weapons, and the United States drives the bulk of the globe’s weapons trade – about 79%, according to figures compiled by the U.S. State Department.
    
    

    
    
    

    Read more...

    • U.S. Arms Transfers Increased by 2.8% in 2020 to $175 Billion

    • Fact Sheet on the U.S. Arms Sales & Defense Trade

    – The top 100 arms companies made an estimated $398 billion worth of sales in 2017.
    
    – Sales of arms and military services by the sector’s largest 25 companies totaled US$361 billion in 2019.
    
    

    • Global military expenditures and Arms Trade

    • Killer Facts about the Global Arms Trade

    • The top-25 Companies profitting on Arms Sales

    • The Arms Trade is Big Business

    
    
    

    Military spending vs. Social spending

    The world diverts huge amounts of resources to the defense sector, leaving basic needs such as food, health, education, employment and environmental challenges greatly under-funded. The imbalance between defense and social or development aid budgets is striking in most countries. Yet despite the global economic crisis and world public opinion opposed to military spending excesses, there are few real signs that governments are ready at this point to initiate a radical shift in spending priorities.

    • Sustainable Development instead of an endless Arms Race

    
    

  

• Needed Changes in
  Military & Nuclear Policy

  • A Great Waste of our Money

    The U.S. Military Budget for Year 2021 will be about $740 billion. This is more than half of the whole Federal Budget for non-mandatory and non-interest expenses. And the U.S. Government is planning to spend over 500 billion dollars over the next 10 years on 'modernizing' nuclear weapons and missile delivery systems, in order to keep up with all the latest new technology.

    This is a Huge Amount of Money to spend on Weapons that would kill millions of people and destroy the planet's ecosystems.
    

    Instead of Wasting our Public Money on potentially destroying the world, we could
    be using this money for Real Needs.
    
    

    If we Cut Back on the huge military Budget,
    then we can re-invest in the needs
    of our society and the environment.

    
    

    Let's Spend our tax money on Real Needs
    rather than on weapons and military
    

    Instead of wasting our money on a super-expensive Military and improving our Weapons of Mass-destruction – we could be using these tax dollars for socially and environmentally beneficial projects.

    For example, we could make sure that all people have enough food, clean water, adequate shelter, needed healthcare and a high-quality education, along with assurances of elderly care and childcare, and also provide job training and community employment if needed, and provide low-interest loans to socially and environmentally beneficial businesses. And we can also make sure that all laid-off military personnel are assisted with further education and training to acquire new jobs in the private or public sector.

    We could use this money for investing in commonly needed public services and improving our national infrastructure for commerce and transportation, as well as helping local economies transition towards using low-carbon green energies, in order to avoid upheavals and disasters of an increasing climate-change.

    
    

    Wasted Opportunity Costs

    An 'opportunity cost' is the lost benefit from using a limited amount of capital on one particular investment rather than an alternative investment. That is, by using one's capital on option 'A', one has 'lost an opportunity' to use this same amount of money on option 'B' and thus have lost the potential benefits of option 'B'. This opportunity cost is not normally counted in the costs of option 'A', though it can be regarded as hidden in that choice of how to spend a limited amount of available capital, because one has not used that money for the benefits of alternative 'B'.

    
    

    Alternative Uses

    The expense of weapons and military is so huge that it boggles the mind. Globally, over the next 10 years, governments of nine nations will invest more than $1 trillion into the modernization, development, and maintenance of nuclear weapons.

    Just think of the many alternative uses to which this money could be better spent? And when we consider the better alternative uses of this money, we can see that – investing in stronger militaries and nuclear weapons is a Huge Waste of money and it is a Huge opportunity cost, because instead this vast global capital could be used to bring real-security into the world, by spending money on solving global human needs and protecting our planetary environment and climate.

    Instead of using 1,000 billion dollars on improving armed militaries and nuclear weapons, this money could be used for improving global healthcare, environmental cleanup, eco-restoration, recreation areas, education, skills-training, and small business loans.

    About half of all the money spent in the world on military and weapon expenses is spent by the U.S. government and American taxpayers. But instead, we could use this same money for investing in public services and common social needs, as well as helping our economy transition towards using low-carbon energies and fuels in order to avoid the inevitable disasters and upheavals of an increasing climate-change.

    So as a nation, we could re-direct government/public funds into better aims than the development of more and better nuclear weapons, better aims that have greater benefit to us people and towards improving our natural environment; such as, solving climate change and pollution with a stronger taxation, solving global conflicts through peace negotiations rather than with military threats.

    
    

    We could use this money on –

    • improved healthcare and health protections
    • no-interest college loans and free job skills training
    • improved public education and free childcare
    • urban improvements and small business loans
    • loans and subsidies for clean energy production
    • national infrastructure of energy, communication, and transportation
    • environmental cleanup and eco-restoration
    • creating more recreation areas and wildlife areas
      
      

    Read... Opportunity Costs of nuclear-weapons spending

    Deep Cuts needed in the Military Budget

    If the current military budget were Cut in Half, gradually 10% per year over the next 5 years, then we can use these freed up dollars for Real National Needs, such as transportation and internet infrastructure, healthcare for everyone, free childcare for working families, free education, debt-free college, a transition to clean energy and a solving of climate change.

    Here are some Big Steps (and Big Changes in Defense Policy) towards cutting wasteful Military Expenses and greatly reducing the overall Military Budget –

    1. No more looking for war, and certainly no more 'endless wars' such as Iraq and Afghanistan.

    2. Stop the expensive and unnecessary plans for modernizing nuclear weapons and missiles, and instead internationally negotiate an immediate reduction and gradual elimination of all Nuclear Weapons in the world.

    3. Close most Overseas Bases, and help employ those personnel in private or public jobs. Read... Basic Facts about Overseas Bases

    4. Stop letting the Military and Weapons Contractors influence government decisions or expect government favors from their campaign contributions.

    
    

    Then, we can use this freed-up Money to create Real National Security and World Peace.

    True security can never come without good jobs, clean energy, accessible health care and education. True international peace cannot come without international cooperation, fair trade, and world peace agreements. Moreover, true global security – physical, emotional and mental security – is reduced by the existence of nuclear and other mass-destructive weapons and by nuclear threats to other nations, and even by the doctrine of 'deterrence' – 'keeping our country safe from nuclear attack by threatening to destroy the attacker with an even larger attack'.

    
    

    Time to change our National Priorities

    It's time to move our Public Money, from unnecessary military and weapons companies into importantly needed public services and to help all Americans have a better life.

    Read... Steps for Reducing Military Spending

    
    

    
    

    

    
    
    

  • A New Defense Policy

    Minimize ► the Military and Nuclear Weapons

    Minimize ► Military and Weapons Expenditures

    Minimize ► the Military and Weapons Budget

    Minimize ► our Global Military Presence

    Minimize ► Involvement in Global-regional Wars

    
    

    Maximize ► International Diplomacy and Friendly International Relations

    Maximize ► Peaceful Mechanisms to resolve conflicts and maintain security, rather than 'threatening mechanisms'

    Maximize ► Multilateral and United Nations Agreements and Treaties

    Maximize ► Economic Cooperation and Fair Trade with other Countries

    Maximize ► Humanitarian and Economic Assistance to impoverished areas of the world

    
    

    National Defense and Global Security do not
    need to be based military & nuclear threats
    

    Instead, National Defense and Global Security can be strengthened by –

    ► International Friendship and Collaboration

    ► Diplomacy, Dialogue, Peacebuilding, and mechanisms for peaceful conflict-resolution

    ► International Peace and Security Treaties

    ► Economic Agreements and Fair Trade

    ► Global Collaborative Projects towards shared Common Goals and towards solving our common Global Problems.

    ► Respect for the sovereignty, independence, and self-determination of all nations.

    
    

    Prevent Mistakes w/ Nuclear Weapons

    • Expand the decision-making time in any nuclear crisis
    • Take nuclear weapons off hair-trigger alert
    • Eliminate the Finger on the Button
    • End the 'unchecked authority' of a President to launch a nuclear attack
    • Repeal the Authorization for Use of Military Force – which gives the President an unchecked power to commit acts of war.
    • Reject any First-use Preemptive-strike Option
    • Include Presidential, Military, and Congressional decision-making before even any thought of a nuclear launch, no matter the circumstances or emergency
      

    More to read... PreventNuclearWar.org

    
    
    

    A Defense Strategy
    without Nuclear Threats
    

    We need to break free
    of outdated Cold War Thinking
    

    Warfare or Defense, using nuclear weapons, is so harmful to people and the environment, that it cannot be regarded as a viable option in our Defense Policy.

    Nuclear Weapons are Military Threats of Terror, and any use of these weapons would result in a humanitarian and ecological disaster !

    Our National Defense Policy should not be based on Threats of mass-destruction or killing thousands of a nation's population, and it must align with International Law and UN Human Rights Agreements.

    We need to Change our National Defense Strategy from 'Nuclear Deterrence' to 'Nuclear Disarmament'.

    Our current defense strategy is to compete for nuclear advantage in a spiraling nuclear arms race. This strategy is not only absurdly insane but is also ridiculously costly.

    Instead of Nuclear Threats, we can strengthen International Security and prevent wars by building international trust and co-operation. We can address global conflicts without war, through continuous inter-national dialogue, diplomacy, and peacebuilding.

    Global Peace will be achieved through Peace Activities, not military activities. Militaries and Threats will never bring about peace and trust in the world. But Cooperative Relations and acts of Goodwill will strengthen peace and security in the world.

    
    

    A New Defense Policy:

    Re-direct Funding from military operations
    to Peace Operations
    

    Below is an introductory excerpt from the U.S. Dept of State 2004-2009 Strategic Plan –

    The foremost responsibility of government is protecting the life, liberty, and property of its citizens. Since our struggle for independence, diplomacy has been critical to our nation's security. The Department of State leads the effort to build and maintain relationships, coalitions, and alliances that help create the conditions for peace, contain or eliminate potential dangers from abroad before they can harm our citizens, and promote economic, social, and cultural cooperation.

    We recognize that our own security is best guaranteed when our friends and neighbors are secure, free, and prosperous, and when they respect human rights and the rule of law.

    USAide helps ensure the economic, social, and political stability of developing and transitional countries while combating poverty, environmental degradation, infectious disease, and other threats to security.
    

    also see...
    3 Reasons for Peace Building

    Video - Solving conflicts through dialogue & mediation

    
    
    

    Close most Overseas Military Bases

    One important money-saving change of defense policy is to close most Overseas Military Bases. The U.S. has 800 military bases in 80 countries.

    Aren't we overdoing this ?

    Must we continually be the World's Police Force? And do the citizens of other countries actually appreciate an overt U.S. military presence in their own country? Or do those citizens actually resent this and consequently dislike us?

    Instead of this unnecessary and expensive Military Presence in other countries; a better way to create peace and security in the world is to help those countries with humanitarian and economic aide, not with a 'military presence'. Or we could simply use this money for our own national needs, such as improving our economy and transportation infrastructure.

    Instead of these Ground-Bases, and much less expensive, is to rely on Air Force Tracking Intelligence to warn of any possible aggressions or conflicts in the world. The Air Force can survey all regions of the world for any arising problems to global security. Then, if there is a problematic conflict or a threat to our national defense, the Defense Dept can discuss this with congressional representatives and arrive at a plan of action, and if necessary we can quickly deploy our Air Force to deal with emergency situations.

    We should have a strong military force, always ready to deploy, but we do not need to go overboard on what is reasonably needed, and we do not need to aggressively overshadow any region.

    It's time to back down on this false belief that our overt military presence throughout the world is good strategy for national defense and world peace. This strategy is ineffective and even counter-productive, and therefore should be abandoned.
    
    
    

    Articles presenting Alternatives
    to massive military expenditures

    TheHill.com/opinion/ More security, less spending

    America is safer in spending less on the Pentagon

    75-pg Report - Sustainable Defense: More Security, Less Spending

    Alternative Options for Public Spending

    Why demilitarize?

    Trump’s Nuclear Wishlist is More Waste

    A Cold War with China is a Bad Deal

    The Need for Foreign-Lobbying Reforms
    
    

    

  • Reduce the United States Military

    The U.S. Military is over-bloated,
    over-expensive, and wasting taxpayer dollars
    
    

    The 2019 US military budget was $732 billion. For comparison, China's budget was $261 billion and Russia's military budget was $65 billion.

    According to the independent think tank, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (sipri.org), which monitors developments in military expenditure worldwide, total world military expenditure rose to $1.9 trillion in 2019.

    The five largest defense spenders in 2019 were the United States, China, India, Russia, and Saudi Arabia, and these five countries accounted for 62% of all global defense expenditures.

    The US Military Spending for 2019 was $732 billion, which accounted for 38% of all global military spending. The US spent almost as much on its military in 2019 as the next 10 highest spenders combined.

    Here is the ranking for 2019:

    1 United States $732 B

    2 China $261 B

    3 India $71 B

    4 Russia $65 B

    5 Saudi Arabia $62 B

    6 France $50 B

    7 Germany $49 B

    8 United Kingdom $49 B

    9 Japan $48 B

    10 South Korea $44 B

    see data for all countries
    
    

    

    So Why is the US Military Budget so much higher than all the other countries?

    It's almost as much as the next 10 highest spending countries combined!

    What are the reasons for this insanely ridiculous amount of money spent on the Military?
    
    

    Here are 4 problems to consider:

    (a) an over-zealous Foreign Policy and an entrenched fallacy of 'nuclear deterrence'.

    (b) campaign contributions and lobbying from the Military and their private industry contractors. Defense Contractors spend millions to influence Congress, and the Department of Defense is full of industry insiders.

    (c) congressional resistance to cuts in the military budget that will result in backlash from the military-related businesses in their state.

    (d) the military and weapons industry have successfully brainwashed voters in both major political parties that this Huge Spending and its Huge Contracts are all necessary to defend the country.

    
    

    The Need for Accountability
    in Military Spending and Contracts

    Because of its enormous influence on Congress and the Executive Branch, the Military can resist independent Audits and hide questionable contracts to private corporations. And during the long decade of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, there has been feeble transparency and accountability of how the many many billions were spent, much of which went to private contractors (corporations).
    
    

    4 Ways the Pentagon collaborates with
    weapons-military Industries

    • The Department of Defense is swarming with industry insiders.
    • Defense Contractors spend millions to influence Congress.
    • The Pentagon 'loses track' of many billions of $$.
    • The Pentagon gives millions to companies for absurdly overpriced parts, while a complete audit of all its transactions has been consistently resisted.

    Also see... Four ways the Pentagon is wasting your tax-dollars
    
    

    Congress needs to Cut Back
    on large government contracts
    to the weapons-military Industry
    
    

    The excessive U.S. Nuclear Strike Force

    The U.S Nuclear Strike Force is ridiculous, unnecessary, expensive, and dangerious to the whole world. It's time to boldly and robustly Cut it Back, in a cooperative Bilateral Treaty with Russia. The New Start Treaty with Russia is a positive step, but the Treaty needs to Cut Back much more in nuclear warheads and in the two nation's nuclear strike forces.
    

    Read...

    Details about the very excessive
    nuclear-strike force of the U.S.

    • Air:
      The U.S. Air Force operates a fleet of 20 deployed B-2 bombers and 46 deployed B-52 bombers. The B-2 bombers can carry 16 gravity bombs, while the B-52 bombers carry 20 cruise missiles, each equipped with one warhead. The F-15 and F-16 fighter aircrafts are dual-capable and can carry the B61 gravity bomb. The United States is in the process of modernizing its nuclear-capable aircraft with the F-35 and B-21 Raider.
      
      

      Sea:
      The U.S. Navy has 14 Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines, eight of which operate out of  Bangor, Washington, and six of which operate out of Kings Bay, Georgia. Each submarine can carry up to 20 Trident II D5 ballistic missiles. Each Trident missile can carry up to eight nuclear warheads, but usually carry four to five for an average of 90 warheads per submarine. The warheads are either the 90-kiloton W76-1 or the 455-kiloton W88. A small number of W76-2 low-yield warheads have also been deployed on some Ohio-class submarines.
      
      

      Land:
      The United States has 400 Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) stationed in silos in the upper Midwest and Rocky Mountain areas. Each ICBM carries one warhead, either a W87 or W78. The Minuteman III missiles underwent a multi-billion dollar modernization program in 2015, extending the service life of these missiles to 2030. The Air Force would like to replace the Minuteman IIIs with the Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD). The proposed program would cost more than $100 billion and consist of 666 missiles – 400 for deployment and 266 for test launches or as spares.

      
      

    
    
    

    Specific Reductions
    in the Military Budget

    • Reduce the Military by at least 20%. In doing so, the U.S. would still be the most powerful military on earth and would still be spending far more on the military than any other country.
    • Reduce our stockpile of ready-to-deploy Nuclear Weapons, and Reduce our strategic launchers. We now have 3,800 active nuclear warheads, with 1,550 presently on 800 strategic launchers, which is enough to easily blow up all nations, kill all humanity, and destroy the whole life ecosystem many times over.
    • Close unnecessary Military Bases. Phase-out of all military bases and installations that are not specifically functioning under a UN resolution for peacekeeping, and bring home most of the troops stationed abroad, except for troops assigned to protect U.S. Embassies.
    • Phase-out the $165 billion Overseas Contingency Operations and Reduce Peacetime Overseas Troop Deployments
    • Reduce and Restructure the Marine Corps
    • Reduce U.S. Navy Personnel and Weapons
    • Reduce U.S. Air Force Personnel and Aircraft
    • Reduce Nuclear Weapons and Missile Defense Systems
    • Roll back the $1.2 trillion plan for modernizing nuclear weapons and missiles
    • Cancel the production of more Nuclear Warheads
    • Eliminate the new Low-yield Nuclear Warhead, the new Nuclear Cruise-Missile
    • Cancel the proposed New ICBMs (a proposed 650 new ICBMs with over $200 billion in maintenance costs).
    • Phase-out all Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles
    • Cancel the UK Trident Submarine Project (the building of four more submarines armed with Trident II D-5 nuclear ballistic missiles).
    • Cancel the proposed Space Force and weapons in space.
    • Cancel the Ground-based mid-course Defense System
    • Cancel the Littoral Combat Ship
    • Reduce the F-35 fleet
    • Here is an explanation of
      Ballistic and Cruise Missiles
      
      

    One major Expense-reduction
    would be to eliminate unnecessary
    and wasteful 'back-office' jobs.

    An investigation by the Washington Post revealed that the Pentagon was spending almost a quarter of its defense budget on overhead and business operations and was paying more than 1 million contractors, civilians and uniformed personnel to fill 'back-office jobs' far from the front lines of any actual conflict.