A World Free of Nuclear Weapons 1/4/2007 By George P. Shultz, William…

A World Free of Nuclear Weapons
1/4/2007
By George P. Shultz, William J. Perry, Henry A. Kissinger and Sam Nunn.
The Wall Street Journal
January 4, 2007; Page A15

Nuclear weapons today present tremendous dangers, but also an historic opportunity.
U.S. leadership will be required to take the world to the next stage -- to a solid consensus
for reversing reliance on nuclear weapons globally as a vital contribution to preventing
their proliferation into potentially dangerous hands, and ultimately ending them as a
threat to the world.

Nuclear weapons were essential to maintaining international security during the Cold
War because they were a means of deterrence. The end of the Cold War made the
doctrine of mutual Soviet-American deterrence obsolete. Deterrence continues to be a
relevant consideration for many states with regard to threats from other states. But
reliance on nuclear weapons for this purpose is becoming increasingly hazardous and
decreasingly effective.

North Korea's recent nuclear test and Iran's refusal to stop its program to enrich uranium -
- potentially to weapons grade -- highlight the fact that the world is now on the precipice
of a new and dangerous nuclear era. Most alarmingly, the likelihood that non-state
terrorists will get their hands on nuclear weaponry is increasing. In today's war waged on
world order by terrorists, nuclear weapons are the ultimate means of mass devastation.
And non-state terrorist groups with nuclear weapons are conceptually outside the bounds
of a deterrent strategy and present difficult new security challenges.

Apart from the terrorist threat, unless urgent new actions are taken, the U.S. soon will be
compelled to enter a new nuclear era that will be more precarious, psychologically
disorienting, and economically even more costly than was Cold War deterrence. It is far
from certain that we can successfully replicate the old Soviet-American "mutually
assured destruction" with an increasing number of potential nuclear enemies world-wide
without dramatically increasing the risk that nuclear weapons will be used. New nuclear
states do not have the benefit of years of step-by-step safeguards put in effect during the
Cold War to prevent nuclear accidents, misjudgments or unauthorized launches. The
United States and the Soviet Union learned from mistakes that were less than fatal. Both
countries were diligent to ensure that no nuclear weapon was used during the Cold War
by design or by accident. Will new nuclear nations and the world be as fortunate in the
next 50 years as we were during the Cold War?

***
Leaders addressed this issue in earlier times. In his "Atoms for Peace" address to the
United Nations in 1953, Dwight D. Eisenhower pledged America's "determination to help
solve the fearful atomic dilemma -- to devote its entire heart and mind to find the way by
which the miraculous inventiveness of man shall not be dedicated to his death, but
consecrated to his life." John F. Kennedy, seeking to break the logjam on nuclear
disarmament, said, "The world was not meant to be a prison in which man awaits his
execution."

Rajiv Gandhi, addressing the U.N. General Assembly on June 9, 1988, appealed,
"Nuclear war will not mean the death of a hundred million people. Or even a thousand
million. It will mean the extinction of four thousand million: the end of life as we know it
on our planet earth. We come to the United Nations to seek your support. We seek your
support to put a stop to this madness."

Ronald Reagan called for the abolishment of "all nuclear weapons," which he considered
to be "totally irrational, totally inhumane, good for nothing but killing, possibly
destructive of life on earth and civilization." Mikhail Gorbachev shared this vision, which
had also been expressed by previous American presidents.

Although Reagan and Mr. Gorbachev failed at Reykjavik to achieve the goal of an
agreement to get rid of all nuclear weapons, they did succeed in turning the arms race on
its head. They initiated steps leading to significant reductions in deployed long- and
intermediate-range nuclear forces, including the elimination of an entire class of
threatening missiles.

What will it take to rekindle the vision shared by Reagan and Mr. Gorbachev? Can a
world-wide consensus be forged that defines a series of practical steps leading to major
reductions in the nuclear danger? There is an urgent need to address the challenge posed
by these two questions.

The Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) envisioned the end of all nuclear weapons. It
provides (a) that states that did not possess nuclear weapons as of 1967 agree not to
obtain them, and (b) that states that do possess them agree to divest themselves of these
weapons over time. Every president of both parties since Richard Nixon has reaffirmed
these treaty obligations, but non-nuclear weapon states have grown increasingly skeptical
of the sincerity of the nuclear powers.

Strong non-proliferation efforts are under way. The Cooperative Threat Reduction
program, the Global Threat Reduction Initiative, the Proliferation Security Initiative and
the Additional Protocols are innovative approaches that provide powerful new tools for
detecting activities that violate the NPT and endanger world security. They deserve full
implementation. The negotiations on proliferation of nuclear weapons by North Korea
and Iran, involving all the permanent members of the Security Council plus Germany and
Japan, are crucially important. They must be energetically pursued.

But by themselves, none of these steps are adequate to the danger. Reagan and General
Secretary Gorbachev aspired to accomplish more at their meeting in Reykjavik 20 years
ago -- the elimination of nuclear weapons altogether. Their vision shocked experts in the
doctrine of nuclear deterrence, but galvanized the hopes of people around the world. The
leaders of the two countries with the largest arsenals of nuclear weapons discussed the
abolition of their most powerful weapons.
***
What should be done? Can the promise of the NPT and the possibilities envisioned at
Reykjavik be brought to fruition? We believe that a major effort should be launched by
the United States to produce a positive answer through concrete stages.

First and foremost is intensive work with leaders of the countries in possession of nuclear
weapons to turn the goal of a world without nuclear weapons into a joint enterprise. Such
a joint enterprise, by involving changes in the disposition of the states possessing nuclear
weapons, would lend additional weight to efforts already under way to avoid the
emergence of a nuclear-armed North Korea and Iran.

The program on which agreements should be sought would constitute a series of agreed
and urgent steps that would lay the groundwork for a world free of the nuclear threat.
Steps would include:

   ·   Changing the Cold War posture of deployed nuclear weapons to increase warning
       time and thereby reduce the danger of an accidental or unauthorized use of a
       nuclear weapon.

   ·   Continuing to reduce substantially the size of nuclear forces in all states that
       possess them.

   ·   Eliminating short-range nuclear weapons designed to be forward-deployed.

   ·   Initiating a bipartisan process with the Senate, including understandings to
       increase confidence and provide for periodic review, to achieve ratification of the
       Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, taking advantage of recent technical advances,
       and working to secure ratification by other key states.

   ·   Providing the highest possible standards of security for all stocks of weapons,
       weapons-usable plutonium, and highly enriched uranium everywhere in the
       world.

   ·   Getting control of the uranium enrichment process, combined with the guarantee
       that uranium for nuclear power reactors could be obtained at a reasonable price,
       first from the Nuclear Suppliers Group and then from the International Atomic
       Energy Agency (IAEA) or other controlled international reserves. It will also be
       necessary to deal with proliferation issues presented by spent fuel from reactors
       producing electricity.

   ·   Halting the production of fissile material for weapons globally; phasing out the
       use of highly enriched uranium in civil commerce and removing weapons-usable
       uranium from research facilities around the world and rendering the materials
       safe.
   ·   Redoubling our efforts to resolve regional confrontations and conflicts that give
       rise to new nuclear powers.

Achieving the goal of a world free of nuclear weapons will also require effective
measures to impede or counter any nuclear-related conduct that is potentially threatening
to the security of any state or peoples.

Reassertion of the vision of a world free of nuclear weapons and practical measures
toward achieving that goal would be, and would be perceived as, a bold initiative
consistent with America's moral heritage. The effort could have a profoundly positive
impact on the security of future generations. Without the bold vision, the actions will not
be perceived as fair or urgent. Without the actions, the vision will not be perceived as
realistic or possible.

We endorse setting the goal of a world free of nuclear weapons and working energetically
on the actions required to achieve that goal, beginning with the measures outlined above.

Mr. Shultz, a distinguished fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford, was secretary of
state from 1982 to 1989. Mr. Perry was secretary of defense from 1994 to 1997. Mr.
Kissinger, chairman of Kissinger Associates, was secretary of state from 1973 to 1977.
Mr. Nunn is former chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

A conference organized by Mr. Shultz and Sidney D. Drell was held at Hoover to
reconsider the vision that Reagan and Mr. Gorbachev brought to Reykjavik. In addition
to Messrs. Shultz and Drell, the following participants also endorse the view in this
statement: Martin Anderson, Steve Andreasen, Michael Armacost, William Crowe, James
Goodby, Thomas Graham Jr., Thomas Henriksen, David Holloway, Max Kampelman,
Jack Matlock, John McLaughlin, Don Oberdorfer, Rozanne Ridgway, Henry Rowen,
Roald Sagdeev and Abraham Sofaer.