Home Page: Will the Human Race Survive the 21st Century?
Could the "Nuclear Question" be mankind's next great (or even ultimate) challenge? The ISPNW is an international organization working to find new solutions to the single greatest threat to the the survival of our human race; rampant and uncontrolled nuclear proliferation, and to work towards the implementation of the most viable solutions to this critical question. The ISPNW explores the possibility of working to strengthen the UN, to "unify the system of controls over mankind's nuclear arsenal", and also explores other various nuclear non-proliferation proposals.
Historical 'Close Calls': Since the close of World War II, the human race has had at least two near brushes with its own near self extinction, and yet we are fortunately still here today to tell the story.
- The first was in late October of 1962 when the well known Cuban Missile Crisis spun nearly out of control. During the intense negotiations, an American Air Force jet was shot down over Cuba and a nuclear armed Soviet submarine was attacked by American forces with mini-depth-charges and forced to the surface, also in the vicinity of Cuba.1
- The second was on Sept. 6, 1983 during the less well known American military operation “Able Archer” in Europe. Here during the height of an intimidating US military exercise in Central Europe, a malfunctioning Soviet alarm system alerted a Soviet colonel that the Soviet Union was supposedly under attack by multiple US ballistic missiles. Fortunately the colonel had a ‘hunch’ that his alarm system was malfunctioning, and reported it as such. Many believe that the colonel’s quick and correct decision on how to respond may have averted a global nuclear Armageddon. 2
Several other alarm system malfunctions since then, on both sides, have led to top level false-alarms. Presidents, premiers, and generals have been woken up in the middle of the night to deliberate whether or not their alarm systems were malfunctioning, or if in fact it might be the sanity of the leaders of a rival nation across the oceans that had somehow begun to malfunction, and thus to usher in a new age of Armageddon. During each episode they had to decide, “Must we now reciprocate in kind?”3
With the end of the Cold-War, other new nuclear threats have arisen. More than one terrorist organization has recently vowed to “take the bomb back to where it came from.” More than one dictator in a developing nation has hinted that using nuclear weaponry to support whatever ideological cause of the day they might claim, is something they might seriously consider.
The sentiment amongst the majority seems to be that the use of nuclear arms under almost any circumstances would be immoral and probably even criminal. Still, the reality of the situation seems to be quite different. Bearing all things in mind, the reality of the situation seems to be that at sometime, somewhere in the coming years, the nuclear power that was first carefully aimed at what was then the 'aggressor nation', Japan, may next be aimed at any country anywhere in the world, including the United States, targeting for more trivial reasons, and with less care.
Effectiveness of Non-Proliferation Work to Date: The offices of the UN, and many others have worked long and hard over the last 65 years attempting to forestall this terrible day. Some have worked in the hope of first convincing all world governments to completely abandon their nuclear weaponry. Others have worked for more gradual changes, using traditional channels of diplomacy. The aims of the ISPNW differ somewhat from these two approaches, yet our aims fall somewhere in between these two ends of the spectrum. Regarding the work done to date by others, one thing is for certain; none of the earlier approaches have yet succeeded in bringing about a long term solution to this problem. None of them have yet been able to create a solid footing of true global security or safety. And so the march of time and history would seem to indicate that unless we can find a new and more successful approach in which to work for "nuclear sanity," that the current approach(es) now being taken, no matter how well intended, have not yet stopped the human race from drifting and meandering seemingly aimlessly, ever closer to the edge of the proverbial cliff of self-extinction.
At this point we seem to be in the position of the 'clever' sorcerer's apprentice in Disney's Fantasia, who first unleashed the wizard's power, but then soon found himself surrounded by a whole forest of unruly water-bearing brooms. For the apprentice, it was only the return of the sorcerer himself that saved him. We on the other hand have no sorcerer to save us. Only we can save ourselves. Is there really any other option?
Non-Proliferation Views of Albert Einstein: The first person to recognize the theoretical possibility of unlocking the power of the atom as described in his famous formula: 
was Dr. Albert Einstein. He also supported the later development of the nuclear bomb through a series of letters to president Franklin Roosevelt during the course of WWII. After the close of WWII, Einstein became increasingly concerned with the potential for rampant nuclear proliferation, and then the possibility of the self-extinction of the human race. He then wrote or spoke often about these concerns. He said that there is, “An unspeakable disaster they (governments) are certain to provoke, unless they change their attitudes towards each other.”4 He has also said that, “A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. Past thinking and methods did not prevent world wars. Future thinking must prevent wars.”5 As a further hint at the direction in which Einstein felt it essential that the world must go after World War II, he said, “As long as nations demand unrestricted sovereignty, we shall undoubtedly be faced with still bigger wars, fought with bigger and technologically more advanced weapons.” 6
What Einstein felt was the alternative to restricting state sovereignty can be summed up in his answer to the question: What types of weapons do you think we will fight the Third World War with?
To this he replied, “I don't know, but I can tell you what they’ll use in the Fourth.... rocks!” 7
Specifically in support of the UN, Einstein said, "There is no compromise possible between preparation for war, on the one hand, and preparation of a world society based on law and order on the other... Every citizen.. (must realize) that the only guarantee for security and peace in this atomic age is the constant development of a supra-national government, .. (and) do everything in his power to strengthen the United Nations." 8
Non-Proliferation Views of an American President: Another widely respected and world renowned figure from the profession of politics once laid it out like this: "Disarmament.. (should) take place as rapidly as possible until it is completed in (a program of three) stages containing balanced, phased and safeguarded measures, with each measure and stage to be carried out in an agreed period of time.
- "As states.. (would relinquish) their arms, the United Nations.. (would) be progressively strengthened in order to improve its capacity to assure international security and the peaceful settlement of differences as well as to facilitate the development of international cooperation in common tasks for the benefit of mankind.
- "By the time Stage II has been completed, the confidence produced through a verified disarmament program, the acceptance of rules of peaceful international behavior, and the development of strengthened international peace-keeping processes within the framework of the U.N. should have reached a point where the states of the world can move forward to Stage III.
- "In Stage III progressive controlled disarmament and continuously developing principles and procedures of international law would proceed to a point where no state would have the military power to challenge the progressively strengthened U.N. Peace Force and all international disputes would be settled according to the agreed principles of international conduct.”
This peace proposal was made in 1961 in a speech before the General Assembly of the United Nations. The proposal was made by none other than the President of the United States at that time, John F. Kennedy.9 Since Kennedy made that bold proposal of working towards the direct control over the world’s nuclear arsenal by the United Nations, no other world leader of a major power has since taken up that gauntlet.
In the text of this speech, it is clear that Kennedy recognized the need for the further development of International law before our arsenals could yet be fully signed over to the UN. Still, he dared to hope and work towards this. One can only wonder how far the world might have gone in this very new direction if Kennedy had not been slain only two years later in 1963. One can only ask, were Einstein and Kennedy right in their hopes that the direct control over the world's nuclear arsenal might be handed over to the UN, or could there be some other way to better protect us from the power that we have unleashed, but that we have not yet learned to fully control? What other realistic means are available in the face of the current nuclear threats the world is now facing? And finally, will the human race be able to solve this riddle before it is too late?
The International Society for the Prevention of Nuclear War asks these hard but essential questions. We feel that these questions need to be both asked and answered, and soon. If you might ask some of these same questions too, please read on...
|