Toward a World George P. Shultz without William J. Perry Henry A. Kissinger Nuclear Weapons Sam Nunn The groundbreaking Wall Street Journal op-ed series A About the Nuclear Security Project FOUR U.S. SENIOR STATESMEN with deep national security credentials joined together in 2007 to work toward the long-term goal of a world without nuclear weapons. The men, who helped navigate the United States through the Cold War, form a powerful, nonpartisan alliance: two Republicans and two Democrats taking on the threats of a new era to reduce nuclear dangers for future generations. George P. Shultz, William J. Perry, Henry A. Kissinger and Sam Nunn laid out their vision and the urgent, practical steps to get there in a groundbreaking series of co- authored Wall Street Journal op-eds published since 2007. To engage the worldwide attention garnered by the op-eds, the four leaders created the Nuclear Security Project (www.NuclearSecurityProject.org). Today, working with partners around the world, the NSP seeks to galvanize global action to reduce urgent nuclear dangers and build support for reducing reliance on nuclear weapons, ultimately ending them as a threat to the world. The Nuclear Security Project is coordinated by the Nuclear Threat Initiative, in cooperation with Stanford University’s Hoover Institution. 2 GEORGE P. SHULTZ, a distinguished fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, was Secretary of State under President Ronald Reagan from 1982 to 1989. WILLIAM J. PERRY, a senior fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies at Stanford University, was Secretary of Defense under President Bill Clinton from 1994 to 1997. HENRY A. KISSINGER, chairman of Kissinger Associates, was Secretary of State under President Richard Nixon from 1973 to 1977. SAM NUNN, co-chairman and chief executive officer of the Nuclear Threat Initiative, was a Democratic Senator from Georgia from 1974 to 1997 and served as Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. B CONTENTS “A World Free of Nuclear Weapons” The Wall Street Journal | January 4, 2007 PAGE 1 “Toward a Nuclear-Free World” The Wall Street Journal | January 15, 2008 PAGE 5 “How to Protect Our Nuclear Deterrent” The Wall Street Journal | January 20, 2010 PAGE 10 “Deterrence in the Age of Nuclear Proliferation” The Wall Street Journal | March 7, 2011 PAGE 13 The four Nuclear Security Project principals meet with President Obama in the Oval Office, May 2009 A World Free of Nuclear Weapons BY GEORGE P. SHULTZ, WILLIAM J. PERRY, HENRY A. KIssINGER, AND SAM NUNN The Wall Street Journal | January 4, 2007 uclear weapons today present tre- terrorists will get their hands on nuclear mendous dangers, but also an historic weaponry is increasing. In today’s war waged Nopportunity. U.S. leadership will be on world order by terrorists, nuclear weapons required to take the world to the next stage — are the ultimate means of mass devastation. to a solid consensus for reversing reliance on And non-state terrorist groups with nuclear nuclear weapons globally as a vital contribution weapons are conceptually outside the bounds to preventing their proliferation into poten- of a deterrent strategy and present difficult new tially dangerous hands, and ultimately ending security challenges. them as a threat to the world. Apart from the terrorist threat, unless Nuclear weapons were essential to main- urgent new actions are taken, the U.S. soon taining international security during the Cold will be compelled to enter a new nuclear era War because they were a means of deterrence. that will be more precarious, psychologically The end of the Cold War made the doctrine of disorienting, and economically even more mutual Soviet-American deterrence obsolete. costly than was Cold War deterrence. It is far Deterrence continues to be a relevant consid- from certain that we can successfully replicate eration for many states with regard to threats the old Soviet-American “mutually assured from other states. But reliance on nuclear destruction” with an increasing number of weapons for this purpose is becoming increas- potential nuclear enemies world-wide without ingly hazardous and decreasingly effective. dramatically increasing the risk that nuclear North Korea’s recent nuclear test and weapons will be used. New nuclear states do Iran’s refusal to stop its program to enrich not have the benefit of years of step-by-step uranium — potentially to weapons grade — safeguards put in effect during the Cold War highlight the fact that the world is now on the to prevent nuclear accidents, misjudgments precipice of a new and dangerous nuclear era. or unauthorized launches. The United States Most alarmingly, the likelihood that non-state and the Soviet Union learned from mistakes 1 that were less than fatal. Both countries were Although Reagan and Mr. Gorbachev failed diligent to ensure that no nuclear weapon was at Reykjavik to achieve the goal of an agree- used during the Cold War by design or by acci- ment to get rid of all nuclear weapons, they dent. Will new nuclear nations and the world did succeed in turning the arms race on its be as fortunate in the next 50 years as we were head. They initiated steps leading to significant The United States during the Cold War? reductions in deployed long- and intermediate- and the Soviet range nuclear forces, including the elimination Union . were 2 of an entire class of threatening missiles. What will it take to rekindle the vision diligent to ensure Leaders addressed this issue in earlier times. shared by Reagan and Mr. Gorbachev? Can a that no nuclear In his “Atoms for Peace” address to the United world-wide consensus be forged that defines a series of practical steps leading to major reduc- weapon was used Nations in 1953, Dwight D. Eisenhower pledged America’s “determination to help solve tions in the nuclear danger? There is an urgent during the Cold the fearful atomic dilemma — to devote its need to address the challenge posed by these War by design entire heart and mind to find the way by which two questions. the miraculous inventiveness of man shall not The Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) or by accident. be dedicated to his death, but consecrated to envisioned the end of all nuclear weapons. It Will new nuclear his life.” John F. Kennedy, seeking to peak the provides (a) that states that did not possess nations and logjam on nuclear disarmament, said, “The nuclear weapons as of 1967 agree not to obtain world was not meant to be a prison in which them and (b) that states that do possess them the world be as man awaits his execution.” agree to divest themselves of these weapons fortunate in the Rajiv Gandhi, addressing the U.N. General over time. Every president of both parties since Assembly on June 9, 1988, appealed, “Nuclear Richard Nixon has reaffirmed these treaty obli- next 50 years as war will not mean the death of a hundred mil- gations, but non-nuclear weapon states have we were during lion people. Or even a thousand million. It will grown increasingly skeptical of the sincerity of the Cold War? mean the extinction of four thousand million: the nuclear powers. the end of life as we know it on our planet Strong non-proliferation efforts are under earth. We come to the United Nations to seek way. The Cooperative Threat Reduction pro- your support. We seek your support to put a gram, the Global Threat Reduction Initiative, stop to this madness.” the Proliferation Security Initiative and the Ronald Reagan called for the abolishment of Additional Protocols are innovative approaches “all nuclear weapons,” which he considered to that provide powerful new tools for detecting be “totally irrational, totally inhumane, good for activities that violate the NPT and endanger nothing but killing, possibly destructive of life world security. They deserve full implemen- on earth and civilization.” Mikhail Gorbachev tation. The negotiations on proliferation of shared this vision, which had also been expressed nuclear weapons by North Korea and Iran, by previous American presidents. involving all the permanent members of the 2 Security Council plus Germany and Japan, are groundwork for a world free of the nuclear crucially important. They must be energetically threat. Steps would include: pursued. Changing the Cold War posture of deployed But by themselves, none of these steps are nuclear weapons to increase warning adequate to the danger. Reagan and General time and thereby reduce the danger of Secretary Gorbachev aspired to accomplish an accidental or unauthorized use of a more at their meeting in Reykjavik 20 years nuclear weapon. ago — the elimination of nuclear weapons altogether. Their vision shocked experts in the Continuing to reduce substantially the doctrine of nuclear deterrence, but galvanized size of nuclear forces in all states that the hopes of people around the world. The possess them. leaders of the two countries with the largest Eliminating short-range nuclear weapons arsenals of nuclear weapons discussed the aboli- designed to be forward-deployed. tion of their most powerful weapons. What should be done? Can the promise of Initiating a bipartisan process with the the NPT and the possibilities envisioned at Senate including understandings to increase Reykjavik be brought to fruition? We believe confidence and provide for periodic review that a major effort should be launched by the to achieve ratification of the Comprehensive United States to produce a positive answer Test Ban Treaty, taking advantage of recent through concrete stages. technical advances and working to secure ratification by other key states. 2 Providing the highest possible standards of security for all stocks of weapons, weapons- First and foremost is intensive work with lead- usable plutonium, and highly enriched ers of the countries in possession of nuclear uranium everywhere in the world.