Statement of William Perry, former Secretary of Defense for the United States, on the risks of the conflict about North Korea's nuclear weapons programme (via "The Hill").
18 organizations of the US peace movement started to collect signatures under the appeal to the members of the US Congress, to support the law amendment introduced by Rep. Ted Lieu and Sen. Ed Markey to change the launch procedures for nuclear weapons in order to prohibit the president of the USA from unilaterally ordering a nuclear first strike without a US Congress decision. By 15 April 2017 the petitition received 188,087 signatures -- To all U.S. Senators and Representatives: We call on you to take action to ensure that no president can unilaterally launch a nuclear war. U.S. nuclear launch procedures have been designed for speed, not for democratic decisions. The president (or his designee) is the only person who can order the use of nuclear weapons and there are no checks or balances on that authority. As President Richard Nixon observed in 1974, “I can go back into my office and pick up the telephone and in 25 minutes 70 million people will be dead.” While it should be inconceivable that any American president would conduct a nuclear first strike, President Trump’s past statements and erratic behavior make it imperative that we put checks and balances on nuclear launch authority. Only Congress can declare war, and that authority should apply to a nuclear first strike as well. Please co-sponsor H.R. 669/S. 200 to make America and the world safer by prohibiting the president from unilaterally starting a nuclear war.
An innovation in US nuclear forces triples “the overall killing power of existing US ballistic missile forces.” The combination of a lack of Russian
In January 2017 SIPRI presented a new publication:
Reintroducing Disarmament and Cooperative Security to the Toolbox of 21st Century Leaders
edited by Dan Plesch, Kevin Miletic and Tariq Rauf
… To the vast majority of people, ‘disarmament’ may sound like an ancient practice developed by cold war rivals to maintain the balance of power. The concept itself has fallen into abeyance as it has
I am pleased individually to encourage you in what seems to me to be a significant, reasonable effort to cause both the United States and Germany to understand that our interests are unacceptably endangered without a cooperative,
In the case of New START, it was conventional hawkish boilerplate back in 2009-2010 that Russia benefited more from the treaty, but this wasn’t true. It represented the continuation of a mutually beneficial arms reduction process, and it ensured that reductions by both sides would be verified by inspections....