There are no breaking news at the moment

Nuclear-war

To:
Hon Mr Mr. Lars Løkke Rasmussen, Prime Minister
Hon Mr Anders Samuelsen, Minister of Foreign Affairs
Hon Mr Mr. Ib Petersen, Ambassador of Denmark to the United Nations
Hon Mr Carsten Staur, Ambassador of Denmark to the UN in Geneva

CC: Danish members of Parliamentarians for Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament and other friends in the Danish Parliament

Dear friends,

The Non-Aligned Movement has submitted a draft resolution to the United Nations General Assembly laying out the general mandate and dates for the 2018 United Nations High-Level Conference for Nuclear Disarmament. The vote at the United Nations will take place between Oct 26 and Nov 2.  I urge you to support the resolution.

Until now, Denmark has been slow to support the recently-adopted Treaty on the Prohibition of   Nuclear Weapons. I respectfully urge you to support the Treaty and the proposed 2018 nuclear summit meeting for the following reasons:

THE THREAT OF A NUCLEAR CATASTROPHE

As bad as conventional arms and conventional weapons may be, it is the possibility of a catastrophic nuclear war that poses the greatest threat to humanity. There are today roughly 16,000 nuclear warheads in the world. The total explosive power of the warheads that exist or that could be made on short notice is approximately equal to 500,000 Hiroshima bombs.

To multiply the tragedy of Hiroshima by a factor of half a million makes an enormous difference, not only quantitatively, but also qualitatively. Those who have studied the question believe that a nuclear catastrophe today would inflict irreversible damage on our civilization, genetic pool and environment.

Thermonuclear weapons consist of an inner core where the fission of uranium-235 or plutonium takes place. The fission reaction in the core is able to start a fusion reaction in the next layer, which contains isotopes of hydrogen. It is possible to add a casing of ordinary uranium outside the hydrogen layer, and under the extreme conditions produced by the fusion reaction, this ordinary uranium can undergo fission. In this way, a fission-fusion-fission bomb of almost limitless power can be produced.

For a victim of severe radiation exposure, the symptoms during the first week are nausea, vomiting, fever, apathy, delirium, diarrhoea, oropharyngeal lesions and leukopenia. Death occurs during the first or second week.

We can perhaps be helped to imagine what a nuclear catastrophe means in human terms by reading the words of a young university professor, who was 2,500 meters from the hypocenter at the time of the bombing of Hiroshima: “Everything I saw made a deep impression: a park nearby covered with dead bodies… very badly injured people evacuated in my direction… Perhaps most impressive were girls, very young girls, not only with their clothes torn off, but their skin peeled off as well. … My immediate thought was that this was like the hell I had always read about. … I had never seen anything which resembled it before, but I thought that should there be a hell, this was it.”

One argument that has been used in favor of nuclear weapons is that no sane political leader would employ them. However, the concept of deterrence ignores the possibility of war by accident or miscalculation, a danger that has been increased by nuclear proliferation and by the use of computers with very quick reaction times to control weapons systems. The present North Korean crisis casts severe doubt on the assumption that political leaders always have good judgement, especially in a crisis situation when they are provoked by a war of words.

Recent nuclear power plant accidents remind us that accidents frequently happen through human and technical failure, even for systems which are considered to be very “safe.” We must also remember the time scale of the problem. To assure the future of humanity, nuclear catastrophe must be avoided year after year and decade after decade. In the long run, the safety of civilization cannot be achieved except by the abolition of nuclear weapons, and ultimately the abolition of the institution of war.

Here are links to some articles  that I have written on flaws in the concept of nuclear deterrence, the advantages of a Nuclear Weapons Convention, and the need for Europe to be independent:

http://cadmusjournal.org/article/issue-4/flaws-concept-nuclear-deterrance

http://cadmusjournal.org/article/issue-6/arms-trade-treaty-opens-new-possibilities-un

http://www.countercurrents.org/avery090414.htm

http://lankanewsweb.net/featured/item/3059-the-danger-of-fascism-in-the-united-states-john-scales-avery

In 1985, International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War received the Nobel Peace Prize. IPPNW had been founded in 1980 by six physicians, three from the Soviet Union and three from the United States. Today, the organization has wide membership among the world’s physicians.

Professor Bernard Lowen of the Harvard School of Public Health, one of the founders of IPPNW, said in a recent speech:

“…No public health hazard ever faced by humankind equals the threat of nuclear war. Never before has man possessed the destructive resources to make this planet uninhabitable… Modern medicine has nothing to offer, not even a token benefit, in the event of nuclear war…

“We are but transient passengers on this planet Earth. It does not belong to us. We are not free to doom generations yet unborn. We are not at liberty to erase humanity’s past or dim its future. Social systems do not endure for eternity. Only life can lay claim to uninterrupted continuity. This continuity is sacred.”

The 2017 Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), in recognition of the organization’s contributions to the adoption of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons by a massive majority in the UN General Assembly.

http://www.icanw.org/the-treaty/

The 2017 award to ICAN was also motivated by the fact the danger of  a nuclear catastrophe is higher today than it has been at any time since the Cuban Missile Crisis.

The danger of a catastrophic nuclear war casts a dark shadow over the future of our species. It also casts a very black shadow over the future of the global environment. The environmental consequences of a massive exchange of nuclear weapons have been treated in a number of studies by meteorologists and other experts from both East and West. They predict that a large-scale use of nuclear weapons would result in fire storms with very high winds and high temperatures, which would burn a large proportion of the wild land fuels in the affected nations. The resulting smoke and dust would block out sunlight for a period of many months, at first only in the northern hemisphere but later also in the southern hemisphere.

Temperatures in many places would fall far below freezing, and much of the earth’s plant life would be
killed. Animals and humans would then die of starvation. The nuclear winter effect was first discovered as a result of the Mariner 9 spacecraft exploration of Mars in 1971. The spacecraft arrived in the middle of an enormous dust-storm on Mars, and measured a large temperature drop at the surface of the planet, accompanied by a heating of the upper atmosphere. These measurements allowed scientists to check their theoretical models for predicting the effect of dust and other pollutants distributed in planetary atmospheres.

Using experience gained from the studies of Mars, R.P. Turco, O.B. Toon, T. Ackerman, J.B. Pollack and C. Sagan made a computer study of the climatic effects of the smoke and dust that would result from a large-scale nuclear war. This early research project is sometimes called the TTAPS Study, after the initials of the authors.

In April 1983, a special meeting was held in Cambridge, Massachusetts, where the results of the TTAPS Study and other independent studies of the nuclear winter effect were discussed by more than 100 experts. Their conclusions were presented at a forum in Washington, D.C., the following December, under the chairmanship of U.S. Senators Kennedy and Hatfield. The numerous independent studies of the nuclear winter effect all agreed of the following main predictions:

High-yield nuclear weapons exploded near the earth’s surface would put large amounts of dust into the upper atmosphere. Nuclear weapons exploded over cities, forests, oilfields and refineries would produce fire storms of the type experienced in Dresden and Hamburg after incendiary bombings during the Second World War. The combination of high-altitude dust and lower altitude soot would prevent sunlight from reaching the earth’s surface, and the degree of obscuration would be extremely high for a wide range of scenarios.

A baseline scenario used by the TTAPS study assumes a 5,000-megaton nuclear exchange, but the threshold for triggering the nuclear winter effect is believed to be much lower than that. After such an exchange, the screening effect of pollutants in the atmosphere might be so great that, in the northern and middle latitudes, the sunlight reaching the earth would be only 1$\%$ of ordinary sunlight on a clear day, and this effect would persist for many months. As a result, the upper layers in the atmosphere might rise in temperature by as much as 100 degrees C, while the surface temperatures would fall,
perhaps by as much a 50 degrees C.

The temperature inversion produced in this way would lead to superstability, a condition in which the normal mixing of atmospheric layers is suppressed. The hydrological cycle (which normally takes moist air from the oceans to a higher and cooler level, where the moisture condenses as rain) would be strongly suppressed. Severe droughts would thus take place over continental land masses. The normal cleansing action of rain would be absent in the atmosphere, an effect which would prolong the nuclear winter.

In the northern hemisphere, forests would die because of lack of sunlight, extreme cold, and drought. Although the temperature drop in the southern hemisphere would be less severe, it might still be sufficient to kill a large portion of the tropical forests, which normally help to renew the earth’s oxygen.

The oxygen content of the atmosphere would then fall dangerously, while the concentration of carbon dioxide and oxides of nitrogen produced by firestorms would remain high. The oxides of nitrogen would ultimately diffuse to the upper atmosphere, where they would destroy the ozone layer.

Thus, even when the sunlight returned after an absence of many months, it would be sunlight containing a large proportion of the ultraviolet frequencies which are normally absorbed by the ozone in the stratosphere, and therefore a type of light dangerous to life. Finally, after being so severely disturbed, there is no guarantee that the global climate would return to its normal equilibrium.

Even a nuclear war below the threshold of nuclear winter might have climatic effects very damaging to human life. Professor Paul Ehrlich, of Stanford University, has expressed this in the following words:

“…A smaller war, which set off fewer fires and put less dust into the atmosphere, could easily depress temperatures enough to essentially cancel grain production in the northern hemisphere. That in itself would be the greatest catastrophe ever delivered upon Homo Sapiens, just that one thing, not worrying about prompt effects. Thus even below the threshold, one cannot think of survival of a nuclear war as just being able to stand up after the bomb has gone off.”

War was always madness, always immoral, always the cause of unspeakable suffering, economic waste and widespread destruction, and always a source of poverty, hate, barbarism and endless cycles of revenge and counter-revenge. It has always been a crime for soldiers to kill people, just as it is a crime for murderers in civil society to kill people. No flag has ever been wide enough to cover up atrocities.

But today, the development of all-destroying modern weapons has put war completely beyond the bounds of sanity and elementary humanity.

Today, war is not only insane, but also a violation of international law. Both the United Nations Charter and the Nuremberg Principles make it a crime to launch an aggressive war. According to the Nuremberg Principles, every soldier is responsible for the crimes that he or she commits, even while acting under the orders of a superior officer.

Nuclear weapons are not only insane, immoral and potentially omnicidal, but also criminal under international law. In response to questions put to it by WHO and the UN General Assembly, the International Court of Justice ruled in 1996 that “the threat and use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, and particularly the principles and rules of humanitarian law.” The only possible exception to this general rule might be “an extreme circumstance of self-defense, in which the very survival of a state would be at stake”. But the Court refused to say that even in this extreme circumstance the threat or use of nuclear weapons would be legal. It left the exceptional case undecided. In addition, the Court added unanimously that “there exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control.”

This is a moment of crisis for human civilization and the biosphere. Can we not rid ourselves of both nuclear weapons and the institution of war itself? We must act quickly and resolutely before everything that we love in our beautiful world is reduced to radioactive ashes.

Yours respectfully,

John Scales Avery, Ph.D.
Associate Professor Emeritus
University of Copenhagen
Chairman, Danish National Group
Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs

John Avery received a B.Sc. in theoretical physics from MIT and an M.Sc. from the University of Chicago. He later studied theoretical chemistry at the University of London, and was awarded a Ph.D. there in 1965. He is now Lektor Emeritus, Associate Professor, at the Department of Chemistry, University of Copenhagen. Fellowships, memberships in societies: Since 1990 he has been the Contact Person in Denmark for Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs.  In 1995, this group received the Nobel Peace Prize for their efforts. He was the Member of the Danish Peace Commission of 1998. Technical Advisor, World Health Organization, Regional Office for Europe (1988- 1997). Chairman of the Danish Peace Academy, April 2004. http://www.fredsakademiet.dk/ordbog/aord/a220.htm.  He can be reached at avery.john.s@gmail.com

One Comment

  1. Sally Dugman says:

    I can tell you with absolute surety, and I mean absolute, that there is nothing in magnitude in terms of shaping one’s life starting young than seeing the outcome of atomic devastation. It will change you totally unless you are a dolt (i.e., very stupid) or insensitive. Indeed all of a sudden, your prior world is wiped away and you are left in a state of horror wondering about what next to do, especially if you are young, powerless and inept due to your age.

    I know such a place from aged five. I know it because I was there as was my sister at age six. … Here it is. See that which we saw with eyes widely open: the result of atomic hell. It is described here: What Version Of The Future Do We Want? – Countercurrents

    We both saw a comparable vision again and again impact our lives, such as our having read Nevil Shute’s On the Beach (novel) Wikipedia at aged eleven for me and ten for her, and two years after which our parents were asking us during a family meeting while we lived in Florida during the Cuban Missile Crisis whether we should move to New Zealand. It was because our building a bomb shelter wouldn’t help since radiation damage to the Earth lasts ever so long and we’d run out of food and water underground in our bunker were we to construct one.

    At present, my sister and I do whatever we can to support peace effort. We work really hard at it.

    However, we know that we have little influence on the “big picture” unless lots more join us to stop nuclear madness. Can we find them? That’s the big question.

    Here’s another overview related to where my sister and I stand:

    Ben Cohen BB Demo – YouTube
    Video for ben cohen bb
    ▶ 1:45
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bJsGJhpZd8
    Jan 29, 2007 – Uploaded by ccvtee
    Ben Cohen, Co-Founder of Ben & Jerry’s, demonstrates our nuclear arsenal using bb’s. … even if

    Ben Cohen Explains the Federal Budget – YouTube
    Video for ben cohen oreo cookie video
    ▶ 8:00
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sOIe5Ql0v8
    Aug 23, 2007 – Uploaded by ccvtee
    Ben Cohen, Co-Founder of Ben and Jerry’s, explains the federal budget … @falltwoep He said that fact ……