DOCSLIB.ORG

The Nuclear Legacy of the Former Soviet Union: Implications for Security and Ecology Edited by Gerd Busmann, Oliver Meier, and Otfried Nassauer

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Nuclear Legacy of the Former Soviet Union: Implications for Security and Ecology Edited by Gerd Busmann, Oliver Meier, and Otfried Nassauer BITS Research Report 97.1 November 1997 The Nuclear Legacy of the Former Soviet Union: Implications for Security and Ecology edited by Gerd Busmann, Oliver Meier, and Otfried Nassauer Berliner Informationszentrum für Transatlantische Sicherheit (BITS) in cooperation with Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung The Nuclear Legacy of the Former Soviet Union : Implications for Security and Ecology Gerd Busmann and Otfried Nassauer, Directors, Berlin Information-centre for Transatlantic Security (BITS) Oliver Meier, Senior Analyst, Berlin Information-centre for Transatlantic Security (BITS) The Berlin Information-centre for Transatlantic Security (BITS) is an independent research organization analyzing international security issues. The BITS-Foerderverein e.V. is a tax exempt non-profit organization under German laws. BITS Rykestr. 13 10405 Berlin Germany phone +49 - 30 - 441 02 20 Fax +49 - 30 - 441 02 21 e-mail [email protected] [email protected] BITS Research Report 97.1 November 1997 The Nuclear Legacy of the Former Soviet Union: Implications for Security and Ecology edited by Gerd Busmann, Oliver Meier, and Otfried Nassauer Berliner Informationszentrum für Transatlantische Sicherheit (BITS) in cooperation with Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung © 1997 by BITS Foerderverein e.V., Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung, Berlin, and the authors. Published by the Berlin Information-centre for Transatlantic Security. All rights reserved. No part of this paper may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the copyright holder(s). The views expressed by the authors in this report do not necessarily represent those held by the Berlin Information-centre for Transatlantic Security (BITS). The Nuclear Legacy of the Former Soviet Union: Implications for Security and Ecology In 1991, for the first time ever, a nuclear-weapons state dissolved. Four new nuclear powers emerged on the territory of the Former Soviet Union (FSU). As a result, unique and unprecedented security and environmental problems appeared. Even though today Russia is the only nuclear weapon state on the territory of the FSU, the Soviet nuclear legacy retains a high priority on the European security agenda. Compared to the size of the challenges resulting from the nuclear heritage, comparatively little public and political attention has been devoted to these problems, especially in Germany. Political discussions about these matters have been mainly a bilateral US-Russian affair. Still, many problems persist. Questions are raised on the security and safety of Russian nuclear weapons, and the efficiency of Russia's nuclear command and control system is doubtful. Politicians and military experts alike reiterate the threat of theft of nuclear weapons materials or even nuclear warheads. The migration of nuclear weapons experts to threshold countries and environmental problems are considered other substantial risks that result from the huge civil and military nuclear complexes on the territory of the FSU. Downsizing these complexes and safely handling their legacy, namely the immense amounts of nuclear waste, will remain of paramount importance. The workshop "The Nuclear Legacy of the Former Soviet Union: Implications for Security and Ecology" was organized by the Berlin Information-center for Transatlantic Security and the Heinrich-Böll-Foundation in order to raise public awareness on these problems and to start a dialogue among independent experts. Participants - international experts from politics, academia, and the media - looked at existing problems regarding security and ecology in the FSU, and proceeded to analyze the issues from a Russian as well as from an international perspective. The workshop assessed the political environment for the future role of nuclear weapons in Russian security policy. Participants discussed current military planning and the possible impact of further arms-control measures. Finally, the performance of approaches that to-date deal with the nuclear legacy of the FSU were discussed, and proposals to solve remaining problems were developed. The workshop had the goal of asking prominent international experts about their opinion on the situation in the Former Soviet Union. Where do they see the urgent problems? What are relevant developments in security policies? What is the situation with regard to nuclear disarmament? In the first two panels, experts and insiders from the US and Russia assessed the current situation with regard to environmental and security problems. It became clear, that the situation in Russia cannot be described in simple terms. Parallel, and partly contradict for developments are characteristic for the political development in Russia during the last couple of years. It however became clear, that some of the problems demand immediate action. This is especially true for some of the environmental problems. The situation in the Russian naval nuclear complex for example is worsening so fast that in some cases there is even no time left for in- depth analyses of possible approaches to solve these matters. Matters are more complicated with regard to current trends in Russian security policy. The views of participants differed on where Russian nuclear weapons policies are headed. While some argued that policy is still driven by political demands, others maintained that not all aspects of Russian military policy are still under central control. How are these problems seen from within Russia and other CIS states? What is the situation in Russia? Are the existing international programs able to deal with the existing problems? What are the interests of the West? Where have international programs been successful, where have they failed? Some speakers emphasized that the Russian domestic political process cannot be analyzed in terms of Western categories. The current political situation is complicated by the fact that very few well-established mechanisms for dealing with the nuclear heritage exist. This is one of the reasons why international risk reduction programs often miss their target. In addition, there is frequently a mismatch between the demand and supply side of international assistance. International programs appear to have been most effective where there has been close cooperation with partners in the affected country and region. What then are sensible next steps towards reducing the dangers of the nuclear heritage of the Soviet Union? Which course should the nuclear disarmament process take? Have existing approaches succeeded in the past? And most important: What lessons can be drawn from past experiences? With regard to nuclear disarmament there was disagreement whether it is more sensible to design a comprehensive approach, linking different issues or whether the best way to achieve progress is to separately negotiate different steps. Even though there was agreement that de-alerting in principle is a sensible step to take, some participants disputed that there is a real danger of an accidental launch of a nuclear weapon. The workshop showed that a lot needs to be done to be able to deal with only the most pressing problems. The existing approaches are clearly insufficient to cope with the threats coming from the nuclear heritage. Strategies however, must change not only quantitatively but also qualitatively. Several participants emphasized that the workshop was an important first step to a better coordination of security and environmental aspects of threat reduction programs. Discussions clearly showed that environmental aspects and consequences of disarmament and arms control have to be taken better into account. Risk reduction programs also have to be tailored more closely to the needs of the affected institutions. Finally, it became clear that a future dialogue on nuclear disarmament and ecology has to be broadened to include representatives of the Southern countries as well as from civil society. Nuclear arms control and its implication for ecology can no longer be an exclusive affair of government officials from the developed world. We hope you enjoy reading the papers of the speakers and participants as much as we did listening to the presentations and discussions during the conference. Berlin, November 1997 Gerd Busmann, Oliver Meier, Otfried Nassauer The Nuclear Legacy of the Former Soviet Union: Implications for Security and Ecology Contents page Introduction Workshop agenda I. Where are we today? Pitfalls of Operational Arms Control and Environmental Security 11 by Kay van der Horst Nuclear Waste Storage In Andreeva Bay 17 by Thomas Nilsen The Russian Naval Nuclear Complex 19 by Joshua Handler Where from the START? Zigzags of Nuclear Disarmament 33 by Alexander I. Nikitin Fissile Material Security and Nuclear Non-Proliferation 41 by Douglas Shaw II. Domestic and International Politics The Nuclear Legacy and Russian Politics 49 by Vitaly Shelest Russian Nuclear Politics - A view from the West 53 by Ulrich Albrecht Nuclear and Convential Arms Race and Disarmament in 57 Relations Between Russian and NATO by Alexander I. Nikitin Russian Public Opinion and the Russian Nuclear Legacy 67 by Phil Rogers The US Response to the Russian Nuclear Legacy 73 by Jo L. Husbands European Assistance Programmes to Russia and the Newly Independent States 79 by Annette Schaper The Nuclear Legacy and the International Community: Ukraine 87 by Viktor Zaborsky III. Next Steps The Future of Nuclear Disarmament 93 by Thomas
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Otfried Nassauer * 20
    Wir nehmen Abschied von unserem Freund, Kollegen und Mitstreiter Otfried Nassauer * 20. August 1956 † 1. Oktober 2020 Otfried Nassauer war seit 1991 Leiter des Berliner Informationszentrums für Transatlantische Sicherheit (BITS) und hat über viele Ländergrenzen hinweg tragfähige friedenspolitische Netzwerke aufgebaut. Als Experte für strategische Fragen, Waffensysteme und Rüstungskontrolle war er mit seinem fundierten Wissen ein äußerst gefragter Ratgeber der Friedensbewegung, der Medien, der Kirchen und der Politik, aber auch ein sehr respektierter Gesprächspartner von Vertretern der Bundeswehr. Großzügig stellte er sein umfassendes Wissen, seine Recherche-Ergebnisse und seine Artikel zur Verfügung, wenn es darum ging, in der Öffentlichkeit den Argumenten für Abrüstung und gegen weitere Aufrüstung und Krieg breiteres Gehör zu verschaffen. Sein profundes Detailwissen war immer hilfreich, aber auch herausfordernd und zum Weiterdenken anregend. Seine Erkenntnisse sind jahrzehntelang in unzählige fachwissenschaftliche und publizistische Beiträge eingeflossen. Für die Friedensbewegung war seine © Wolfang Borrs Arbeit von herausragender Bedeutung. Aus Otfrieds Studien und Untersuchungen ergaben sich oftmals konkrete friedenspolitische Forderungen und Aktionen. Das Ziel einer friedlicheren Welt spornte ihn in seinem Engagement an. Eine Johannes Ahlefeldt, Referent der SPD-Bundestagsfraktion, Berlin; Birgit und Michael Ahlmann, ex. BR-V, Blu- menschliche Welt ohne Krieg und Gewalt war für diesen herzensguten und wahr- menthal; Roland Appel,
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear Proliferation: a Civilian and a Military Dilemma Nuclear Proliferation: a C Ivilian and a Military D Ilemma
    ilemma D NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION: ivilian and a Military A CIVILIAN AND A MILITARY DILEMMA C A Nuclear Proliferation: The danger of nuclear proliferation is growing in proportion to weapons stockpiles, reversing Pyongyang’s nuclear buildup, and the number of new nuclear power stations all over the world. stopping Iran’s nuclear weapons-related activities. The hope There is no insurmountable division between the civil and mili- is that each of these efforts will be mutually reinforcing and tary use of this technology in spite of the efforts on the part of that progress in reducing existing nuclear weapons will per- the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to regulate suade the world’s nonnuclear weapons states to do more to stay this. The most recent example is Iran. At the end of the day clear of dangerous civilian nuclear fuel-making activities. This anyone who does not want to be regulated cannot be forced to set of nuclear hopes, however, is unlikely to be fully realised. do so. With the expansion of nuclear energy there is a grow- Barring regime change in either North Korea or Iran, neither ing necessity to build reprocessing plants and fast breeders in Pyongyang’s renunciation of its nuclear arsenal nor Iran’s ces- order to produce nuclear fuel. Both give rise to the circulation sation of nuclear weapons-related activities is all that probable. of plutonium leading in turn to the creation of huge amounts of Meanwhile, the odds of China, India, Pakistan, North Korea, fissile material capable of making bombs – a horror scenario! and Israel agreeing to nuclear warhead reductions seem even With the run-up to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) more remote.
    [Show full text]
  • Die Nukleare Zukunft Der NATO
    Otfried Nassauer Die nukleare Zukunft der NATO Nach der Sommerpause hat der Endspurt begonnen. Die NATO erarbeitet ein neues Strategisches Konzept.1 Im November soll es im Konsens verabschiedet werden. Darauf hat man sich anlässlich des Straßburger NATO-Gipfels zum 60. Geburtstag der Allianz geeinigt. Eines der zentralen Themen, bei dem die nunmehr 28 Mitglie- dern der Allianz zu einer gemeinsamen Sichtweise kommen müssen, ist die künftige Nuklear- und Abschreckungspolitik der Allianz. Die Debatte darüber eröffnete U.S.- Präsident Obama bereits einen Tag nach dem NATO-Gipfel 2009 in Prag, als er die Vision einer atomwaffenfreien Welt wiederbelebte und versprach, die Rolle nuklearer Waffen in der Strategie der USA zu reduzieren und sich verstärkt für atomare Abrüs- tung und nukleare Nichtverbreitung einzusetzen.2 Ein Jahr später, am 6. April 2010, veröffentlichte die U.S.-Regierung den „Nuclear Posture Review 2010“ (NPR 2010), ein perspektivisches Dokument zur Zukunft der U.S.-Nuklearpolitik.3 Das Papier ist gleichzeitig Blaupause für die nationale Nuklear- politik der USA und Vorlage der Führungsmacht der NATO für die Diskussion der Nuklearstrategie im Bündnis. Denn auch die NATO muss entscheiden, wie sie die Rolle nuklearer Waffen, der nuklearen Abschreckung und der nuklearen Abrüstung in ihrem neuen strategischen Konzept beschreiben und an die Veränderungen in der Nuklearpolitik Washingtons anpassen will. Das wird kein leichtes Unterfangen und der Ausgang ist ungewiss. Die Interessen und Positionen der 28 NATO-Mitgliedstaaten sind sehr unterschiedlich, teilweise so- gar gegensätzlich. Ein Teil der NATO-Mitglieder hofft, dass die Rolle nuklearer Waf- fen weiter reduziert und künftig auf in Europa stationierte substrategische4 Nuklear- waffen verzichtet wird.
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear Futures: Western European Options for Nuclear Risk Reduction
    Nuclear futures: Western European options for nuclear risk reduction Martin Butcher, Otfried Nassauer & Stephen Young British American Security Information Council and the Berlin Information-center for Transatlantic Security (BITS), December 1998 Contents Acronyms and Abbreviations Executive Summary Chapter One: Nuclear Weapons and Nuclear Policy in Western Europe Chapter Two: The United Kingdom Chapter Three: France Chapter Four: Nuclear Co-operation Chapter Five: NATO Europe Chapter Six: Nuclear Risk Reduction in Western Europe Endnotes About the authors Martin Butcher is the Director of the Centre for European Security and Disarmament (CESD), a Brussels-based non-governmental organization. Currently, he is a Visiting Fellow at BASIC’s Washington office. Otfried Nassauer is the Director of the Berlin Information-center for Transatlantic Security (BITS). Stephen Young is a Senior Analyst as BASIC. Previously, he worked for 20/20 Vision and for ACCESS: A Security Information Service. He has a Masters in International Affairs from Columbia University, and a BA from Carleton College. Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank the many people who pro-vided help of various kinds during the writing of this report. They include: Nicola Butler, for her inestimable assistance; Ambassador James Leonard, for his helpful comments on the report’s recommendations; Professors Paul Rogers and Patricia Chilton, for their comments on early drafts; Daniel Plesch, for his comments on the entire report; and Camille Grand, for his guidance and support in compiling the section on France. Special thanks to Lucy Amis and Tanya Padberg for excellent proofing and copy-editing work, and to Christine Kucia and Kate Joseph for advice and assistance on the layout and design of the report.
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear Energy and Proliferation Nuclear Issues Paper No
    NO. 4⏐ DEC 2005⏐ ENGLISH VERSION Nuclear Energy and Proliferation Nuclear Issues Paper No. 4 BY OTFRIED NASSAUER Contents 3 Introduction 5 Civilian nuclear installations 8 Proliferation risks 17 Instruments to control and contain proliferation 25 A world in search of energy 27 Additional information The Author Otfried Nassauer was born in 1956. He studied theology and founded the Berlin Infor- mation Center for Transatlantic Security (BITS), which he has directed since 1991. For over 20 years he has worked as an independent journalist in the fields of military and in- ternational security, writing about nuclear weapons, NATO policy, European security, military technology, weapons monitoring, arms trade, land mines, small arms and Ger- man security policy. He also provides commentary and expert opinion on security pol- icy and weapons monitoring for a number of television and radio stations. He has au- thored and edited numerous books. For more information on his publications, see www.bits.de. Nuclear Issues Papers, No. 4: Nuclear Energy and Proliferation By Otfried Nassauer © Heinrich Böll Foundation 2005 All rights reserved Co-published by The following paper does not necessarily represent the views of the Heinrich Böll Foundation. A publication of the Heinrich Böll Foundation Regional Office for Southern Africa, in co-operation with the Heinrich Böll Foundation headquarter. Contact: Heinrich Böll Foundation Regional Office for Southern Africa, PO Box 2472; Saxonwold, 2132; South Africa. Phone: +27-11-447 8500. Fax: +27-11-447 4418. [email protected] Heinrich Böll Foundation, Rosenthaler Str. 40/41, 10178 Berlin, Germany. Tel.: ++49 30 285 340; Fax: ++49 30 285 34 109; [email protected]; www.boell.de/nuclear Introduction Any civilian nuclear fuel cycle and especially some of the elements thereof confront the world with certain security-related risks.
    [Show full text]
  • Small Arms in the Hands of Children
    Christopher Steinmetz (BITS) German Arms Exports and Child Soldiers Small Arms in the Hands of Children Cooperation partner Editor German Coalition to Stop the Use of Child Soldiers Help for Children in Need Christopher Steinmetz (BITS) German Arms Exports and Child Soldiers Small Arms in the Hands of Children 2 Imprint Author Christopher Steinmetz, research associate, Berlin Information-center for Transatlantic security – BITS Cooperation Otfried Nassauer (BITS) Coordination and Editor Ralf Willinger/terre des hommes Design kippconcept gmbh, Bonn Published by and on behalf Brot für die Welt Kindernothilfe e.V. terre des hommes e.V. World Vision Deutschland e.V Supported by Deutsches Komitee für UNICEF e.V. Deutsche Friedensgesellschaft – DFG-VK e.V. Pax Christi – Deutsche Sektion Ohne Rüstung Leben e.V. Photos The publishing organisations Kindernothilfe and Cover photo: Child soldier with German G3-rifle, terre des hommes are members of the German Coalition photographer unknown to Stop the Use of Child Soldiers. page 9: Sebastian Bolesch www.kindersoldaten.info page 11: Guillaume Briquet / AFP / GettyImages page 13: Hans-Martin Grosse-Oetringhaus / terre des hommes The publishing organisations Brot für die Welt and page 26 – 27: Jacob_Wire / dpa_Picture Alliance terre des hommes are members of the coalition page 31: Hans-Martin Grosse-Oetringhaus / terre des hommes „Aktion Aufschrei – Stoppt den Waffenhandel“. page 48: David Longstreath / AP Photo / dpa_Picture Alliance www.aufschrei-waffenhandel.de page 55: Jacob_Wire / dpa_Picture Alliance page 64: Sebastian Bolesch The views expressed in this publication are those page 69: William Martínez / Fundación Dos Mundos of the author, not necessarily those of the supporting organizations.
    [Show full text]
  • NATO's Future in an Unprecedented World
    NATO TALK around the BRANDENBURGER TOR BERLIN NATO’S FUTURE 2017 NATO’s Future in an Unprecedented World Berlin, November 11-12, 2017 Content Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 2 More than words? The Future of EU-NATO Cooperation ...................................................... 4 Panelists ............................................................................................................................ 4 Introduction and Moderation .............................................................................................. 5 Young Leaders .................................................................................................................. 6 Troubled Waters? Security in the Black Sea .........................................................................24 Panelists ...........................................................................................................................24 Introduction and Moderation .............................................................................................25 Young Leaders .................................................................................................................26 Towards the Renaissance of MAD and the Disintegration of the NPT? Nuclear Diplomacy in the Early 21st Century ..........................................................................................................42 Panelists ...........................................................................................................................42
    [Show full text]
  • The Cold War
    Konrad H. Jarausch, Christian F. Ostermann, Andreas Etges (Eds.) The Cold War The Cold War Historiography, Memory, Representation Edited by Konrad H. Jarausch, Christian F. Ostermann, and Andreas Etges An electronic version of this book is freely available, thanks to the support of libra- ries working with Knowledge Unlatched. KU is a collaborative initiative designed to make high quality books Open Access. More information about the initiative can be found at www.knowledgeunlatched.org This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 License, as of February 23, 2017. For details go to http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/. ISBN 978-3-11-049522-5 e-ISBN (PDF) 978-3-11-049617-8 e-ISBN (EPUB) 978-3-11-049267-5 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A CIP catalog record for this book has been applied for at the Library of Congress. Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliographie; detailed bibliographic data are available in the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2017 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston Cover Image: BlackBox Cold War – Exhibition at Checkpoint Charlie, Berlin. Typesetting: Dr. Rainer Ostermann, München Printing: CPI books GmbH, Leck ♾ Printed on acid free paper Printed in Germany www.degruyter.com Acknowledgements This volume grew out of an international conference on the history, memory and representation of the Cold War in Berlin. The editors would like to thank the following co-sponsors: the Berlin city government, the European Academy Berlin, the German Historical Institutes in Moscow, London, and Washington, the Centre for Contemporary History in Potsdam, the Military History Research Institute in Potsdam, the Allied Museum in Berlin, the German-Russian Museum Berlin-Karlshorst, the Berlin Wall Foundation, the Airlift Gratitude Foundation (Stiftung Luftbrückendank) in Berlin, and the John F.
    [Show full text]
  • Versöhnung 4/2020
    Internationaler Versöhnungsbund seit 1914 gewaltfrei aktiv gegen Unrecht und Krieg Versöhnung Rundbrief 4/2020 „MACHT FRIEDEN. Zivile Lösungen für Syrien“ – Kampag- ne offiziell beendet, aber die Arbeit daran geht weiter. Außerdem: • Warum Europa der Friedensnobelpreis entzo- gen werden sollte • Hurra, der Atomwaffen-Verbotsvertrag kommt! • Mitgliederversammlung 2020 Einzelheft 2€ Inhaltsverzeichnis Impressum Editorial .................................................................. 3 Versöhnung. Rundbrief 4/2020 Warum Europa der Friedensnobelpreis Herausgeber: Versöhnungsbund e.V. entzogen werden sollte. ........................................ 4 Schwarzer Weg 8, 32423 Minden Von der Gewaltkultur zur Friedenskultur............... 7 T 0571-850875 Das Erstarken des Militarismus in F 0571-8292387 Deutschland überwinden ...................................... 10 E [email protected] Im Namen des Islam und im Namen I www.versoehnungsbund.de des Propheten: keine Gewalt! .............................. 13 Roland-Vogt-Friedenspreis der Kampagne Verantwortlich für diese Ausgabe: Stopp Air Base Ramstein an Konni Schmidt Rudolf Mehl, Maxi Matzanke, Berthold Keun- verliehen ............................................................... 14 ecke, Clemens Holz, Dagmar Schulte, Dietlinde Jülicher Kreissynode beschließt Appell an Haug EKD zur grundlegenden Veränderung Für den Inhalt der Artikel sind ausschließlich die der Militärseelsorge ............................................. 14 jeweiligen Autor*innen verantwortlich. „MACHT FRIEDEN. Zivile
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear Futures: Western European Options for Nuclear Risk Reduction
    ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ NUCLEAR FUTURES: WESTERN EUROPEAN OPTIONS FOR NUCLEAR RISK REDUCTION MARTIN BUTCHER OTFRIED NASSAUER STEPHEN YOUNG ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ ...............................................................................................................................BRITISH AMERICAN SECURITY INFORMATION COUNCIL................. BASIC RESEARCH REPORT 98.5 ..................................................................................................................BRITISH AMERICAN SECURITY INFORMATION COUNCIL The British American Security Information Council (BASIC) is an independent research organization that analyzes international security issues. BASIC works to promote public awareness of defense, disarmament, military strategy, and nuclear poli- cies in order to foster informed debate on these issues. BASIC facilitates the exchange of informa- tion and analysis on both sides of the Atlantic. This is the third of a series of BASIC Research Reports looking at the future of Nuclear Weapons Policy. BASIC in the UK is a registered charity no. 1001081. BASIC in the US is a not-for-profit organization constituted under section 501(c)(3) of the US Internal Revenue Service Code. London Washington Carrara House 1900 L Street, NW 20 Embankment Place Suite 401 London, WC2N 6NN Washington D.C. 20036 Tel: +44 171 925 0862 Tel: +1 202 785 1266 Fax: +44 171 925 0861 Fax: +1 202 387 6298 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Website: http://www.basicint.org Nuclear Futures: About the authors Western European Options for Martin Butcher is the Director of the Centre for European Nuclear Risk Reduction Security and Disarmament (CESD), a Brussels-based non- governmental organization. Currently, he is a Visiting Fellow at BASICs Washington office. By Martin Butcher, Otfried Nassauer, and Stephen Young Otfried Nassauer is the Director of the Berlin Information- center for Transatlantic Securtiy (BITS). Published by the Stephen Young is a Senior Analyst as BASIC.
    [Show full text]
  • Case 01: German Arms Exports for Genocide: Mauser Rifles and Krupp Cannons Used in the Genocide of Armenians by Ottoman Armed Forces (1895-1916)
    Case 01: German arms exports for genocide: Mauser rifles and Krupp cannons used in the genocide of Armenians by Ottoman armed forces (1895-1916) by Wolfgang Landgraeber with contributions by Otfried Nassauer, Bernhard Trauvetter, and Helmut Lohrer Translation from German: Ruth Rohde Table of Contents 1. Summary 2. Arms Suppliers 3. Arms Manufactures 3.1. Brief company profile: The Mauser Works, Oberndorf (now Rheinmetall Defence/Rheinmetall AG) 3.2. Brief company profile: Rheinmetall AG, Düsseldorf - by Otfried Nassauer 3.3. Brief company profile: The Krupp Works and Thyssenkrupp AG, Essen - by Wolfgang Landgraeber and Bernhard Trautvetter 4. Types of weapons that were supplied and used 4.1. Recipients of the arms 4.2. Sequence of events 4.3. Violations of the human rights of Armenians 5. Perpetrators and Victims 5.1. Brief profiles of the perpetrators on the German side 5.2. Perpetrators on the Turkish side 5.3. Victims 6. Present-day use of German weapons of war against Kurds in Turkey and Syria - by Helmut Lohrer 7. Brief Details about the Authors 7.1. Author of GN-STAT Case 01 on the genocide of Armenians 7.2. Brief details on the authors of the supplementary texts 8. Contacts www.gn-stat.org 2 1. Summary In almost all the actions of the systematic genocide of more than a million Armenians that began in 1915, Turkish regular troops and gendarmes – and sometimes their German comrades-in-arms – were involved. German officers serving in the Turkish Ottoman general staffs participated actively in some of the killings. Most of the attackers were armed with Mauser long rifles or carbines, and the officers with Mauser pistols, produced in the Mauser factories in Oberndorf on the Neckar.
    [Show full text]
  • Berliner Informationszentrum Für Transatlantische Sicherheit (BITS)
    Berliner Informationszentrum für Transatlantische Sicherheit (BITS) Berlin Information-center for Transatlantic Security (BITS) BITS Policy Note 05.3 ISSN 1434-3274 May 2005 Nuclear Disarmament, Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty and Nuclear Sharing Should Germany end U.S. 'nuclear outsourcing'? Otfried Nassauer Fifty years after the arrival of the first nu- And therefore I support the endeavour to clear weapons on German soil a - perhaps achieve a withdrawal of these weapons in decisive - debate on their future has begun. concert with NATO”.3 Public demands to withdraw the remaining Presently, the Federal Government plans to nuclear weapons from Germany are becom- arrange for consultations with Belgium, Italy ing more numerous.1 Furthermore, relevant and the Netherlands, since these countries - decision-makers have recently joined the like Germany - stockpile American nuclear chorus being either in favour of a with- weapons on their territory as part of their drawal or at least regarding such a demand nd nuclear sharing agreements in NATO. In a worthy of consideration. On May 2 For- second step it is planned to approach the eign Minister Joschka Fischer referred to U.S. and NATO on this issue. A meeting of this demand as a “reasonable initiative”, the Nuclear Planning Group (NPG), sched- which the government will "seriously" take uled for June 9th and 10th in Brussels, would into consideration.2 Defence Minister Peter th offer an opportunity for this. It will be the Struck announced on May 6 “that we will first meeting of this NATO body after an 18 mention this issue in the relevant NATO month long break.
    [Show full text]