Relevant Appeals against War and for

Nuclear

Disarmament from Scientific Networks

1945- 2010

Reiner Braun/ Manuel Müller/ Magdalena Polakowski

Russell-Einstein-Manifesto (1955)……………..…..1 The first Pugwash Conferenec (1957)………..……4

The Letter from to (1956)………………………………..……...6

„Göttinger 18“ (1957)…………………………..…..8

Hiroshima Appeal (1959)………………………..…9

Linus Pauling (1961)…………………………..…..10

The Call to Halt the Nuclear Arms Race (1980)………………..…..11

The Göttingen Draft Treaty to Ban Space Weapons (1984)…………………………………………….....15 Appeal by American Scientists to Ban Space

Weapons (1985)………………………………..…..16

The Hamburg Disarmament Proposals (1986)…………………………………………..…...17

Hans A. Bethe to Mr. President (1997)………..…18 Appeal from Scientists in Japan (1998)……….....20

U.S.Nobel laureates object to preventive attack on

Iraq (2003)……………………………………...….25

Appeal from the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation to end the nuclear weapons threat to humanity (2003)………………………………………..……...26

Appeal to support an International Einstein Year (2004)……………………………………………….28

Scientists for a Nuclear Weapons Free World, INES (2009)…………………………..……………31 Milan Document on

Nuclear Disarmament (2010)……………………..34

Russell-Einstein-Manifesto (1955) 1

Russell-Einstein-Manifesto (1955)

In the tragic situation which confronts humanity, we feel that scientists should assemble in conference to appraise the perils that have arisen as a result of the development of weapons of mass destruction, and to discuss a resolution in the spirit of the appended draft.

We are speaking on this occasion, not as members of this or that nation, continent, or creed, but as human beings, members of the species Man, whose continued existence is in doubt. The world is full of conflicts; and, overshadowing all minor conflicts, the titanic struggle between and anti-Communism.

Almost everybody who is politically conscious has strong feelings about one or more of these issues; but we want you, if you can, to set aside such feelings and consider yourselves only as members of a biological species which has had a remarkable history, and whose disappearance none of us can desire.

We shall try to say no single word which should appeal to one group rather than to another. All, equally, are in peril, and, if the peril is understood, there is hope that they may collectively avert it.

We have to learn to think in a new way. We have to learn to ask ourselves, not what steps can be taken to give military victory to whatever group we prefer, for there no longer are such steps; the question we have to ask ourselves is: what steps can be taken to prevent a military contest of which the issue must be disastrous to all parties?

The general public, and even many men in positions of authority, have not realized what would be involved in a war with nuclear bombs. The general public still thinks in terms of the obliteration of cities. It is understood that the new bombs are more powerful than the old, and that, while one A-bomb could obliterate Hiroshima, one H-bomb could obliterate the largest cities, such as London, New York, and Moscow.

No doubt in an H-bomb war great cities would be obliterated. But this is one of the minor disasters that would have to be faced. If everybody in London, New York, and Moscow were exterminated, the world might, in the course of a few centuries, recover from the blow. But we now know, especially since the Bikini test, that nuclear bombs can gradually spread destruction over a very much wider area than had been supposed.

It is stated on very good authority that a bomb can now be manufactured which will be 2,500 times as powerful as that which destroyed Hiroshima. Such a bomb, if exploded near the ground or under water, sends radio-active particles into the upper air. They sink gradually and reach the surface of the earth in the form of a deadly dust or rain. It was this dust which infected the Japanese fishermen and their catch of fish. No one knows how widely such lethal radio-active particles might be diffused, but the best authorities are unanimous in saying that a war with H-bombs might possibly put an end to the human race. It is feared that if many H- Russell-Einstein-Manifesto (1955) 2

bombs are used there will be universal death, sudden only for a minority, but for the majority a slow torture of disease and disintegration.

Many warnings have been uttered by eminent men of science and by authorities in military strategy. None of them will say that the worst results are certain. What they do say is that these results are possible, and no one can be sure that they will not be realized. We have not yet found that the views of experts on this question depend in any degree upon their politics or prejudices. They depend only, so far as our researches have revealed, upon the extent of the particular expert's knowledge. We have found that the men who know most are the most gloomy.

Here, then, is the problem which we present to you, stark and dreadful and inescapable: Shall we put an end to the human race; or shall mankind renounce war? People will not face this alternative because it is so difficult to abolish war.

The abolition of war will demand distasteful limitations of national sovereignty. But what perhaps impedes understanding of the situation more than anything else is that the term "mankind" feels vague and abstract. People scarcely realize in imagination that the danger is to themselves and their children and their grandchildren, and not only to a dimly apprehended humanity. They can scarcely bring themselves to grasp that they, individually, and those whom they love are in imminent danger of perishing agonizingly. And so they hope that perhaps war may be allowed to continue provided modern weapons are prohibited.

This hope is illusory. Whatever agreements not to use H-bombs had been reached in time of peace, they would no longer be considered binding in time of war, and both sides would set to work to manufacture H-bombs as soon as war broke out, for, if one side manufactured the bombs and the other did not, the side that manufactured them would inevitably be victorious.

Although an agreement to renounce nuclear weapons as part of a general reduction of armaments would not afford an ultimate solution, it would serve certain important purposes. First, any agreement between East and West is to the good in so far as it tends to diminish tension. Second, the abolition of thermo-nuclear weapons, if each side believed that the other had carried it out sincerely, would lessen the fear of a sudden attack in the style of Pearl Harbour, which at present keeps both sides in a state of nervous apprehension. We should, therefore, welcome such an agreement though only as a first step.

Most of us are not neutral in feeling, but, as human beings, we have to remember that, if the issues between East and West are to be decided in any manner that can give any possible satisfaction to anybody, whether Communist or anti-Communist, whether Asian or European or American, whether White or Black, then these issues must not be decided by war. We should wish this to be understood, both in the East and in the West.

There lies before us, if we choose, continual progress in happiness, knowledge, and wisdom. Shall we, instead, choose death, because we cannot forget our quarrels? We appeal as human beings to human beings: Remember your humanity, and forget the rest. If you can do so, the way lies open to a new Paradise; if you cannot, there lies before you the risk of universal death.

Resolution:

Russell-Einstein-Manifesto (1955) 3

We invite this Congress, and through it the scientists of the world and the general public, to subscribe to the following resolution:

"In view of the fact that in any future world war nuclear weapons will certainly be employed, and that such weapons threaten the continued existence of mankind, we urge the governments of the world to realize, and to acknowledge publicly, that their purpose cannot be furthered by a world war, and we urge them, consequently, to find peaceful means for the settlement of all matters of dispute between them."

Max Born Percy W. Bridgman Leopold Infeld Frederic Joliot-Curie Herman J. Muller Cecil F. Powell Joseph Rotblat Bertrand Russell

The first Pugwash Conferenec (1957) 4

The first Pugwash Conferenec (1957)

THE Russell-Einstein Manifesto was issued on 9th July 1955 in London at a Press Conference held in Caxton Hall.

A few days after the publication of the Russell-Einstein Manifesto Mr. Cyrus Eaton sent a letter to Bertrand Russell offering to finance the Conference of scientists which was called for in the Manifesto, and suggesting that it be held in Pugwash, Nova Scotia. This offer was not taken up because at that time it was planned to hold the Conference in India, where Prime Minister was very keen on the Conference of scientists and had offered hospitality for it.

It took about a year before the plans for the meeting in New Delhi were formulated. Russell asked the two other British signatories of the Manifesto, Cecil Powell and Joseph Rotblat, to help him in the preparation of the Conference. Eric Burhop, who collaborated with Powell in the World Federation of Scientific Workers, was also involved.

In discussions between these four, a preliminary agenda and a list of invitees, to make a total of about 20 participants, were prepared. It was agreed that the letter should be signed by Russell on behalf of the signatories of the Russell-Einstein Manifesto. The first step, therefore, was for Russell to write to the signatories to obtain their agreement to the draft of the letter of invitation; these letters were dispatched on 6th July 1956.

It took several weeks for the replies to come in. Eventually, out of the nine signatories (apart from Russell) who were alive at that time, seven agreed; the only two to decline were both Americans: Percy Bridgman and Hermann Muller (but the latter subsequently changed his mind, and came to the 1957 Conference in Pugwash).

Letters of invitation as agreed by the signatories were sent on 29 August to 27 scientists; a few weeks later a further 8 scientists were invited. The 35 invitees were as follows:

• Adrian, Haddow* and Hinshelwood (UK) • Beadle, Bronk, Compton, Oppenheimer, Rabinowitch* and Weisskopf (USA) • Peter Kapitza, Nesmeyanov*, Nuzhdin, Oparin*, Sissakian*, Skobeltzyn* and Topchiev* (USSR) • Hahn, Heisenberg and Rajewski* (FRG) • de Broglie and Lacassagne* (France) • Tomonaga* and Tsuzuki* (Japan) • Kothari* and Krishnan (India) • Amaldi (Italy) • (Denmark) • Burgess (Netherlands) • de Castro* (Brazil) • de Hevesy* (Sweden) • Hertz* (GDR) • Li-Tze-Kuang* (China) • Oliphant* (Australia) • Schweitzer (Gabon ) • Thirring* (Austria) The first Pugwash Conferenec (1957) 5

Eighteen of these (their names are asterisked) accepted. Those who refused gave as reasons previous engagements or ill-health. Only a very few doubted the of the proposed Conference.

From among the Russell-Einstein signatories, five (Infeld, Pauling, Powell, Rotblat and Yukawa) expressed willingness to participate in the Conference in New Delhi. Thus, there would have been a total of 23 scientists, roughly the number planned by the organizers.

Although in the letter of invitation, the latter half of December 1956 was given as the date for the meeting, in subsequent letters the date was fixed for 9 - 12 January 1957.

In the event, the plans for the New Delhi meeting had to be aborted. The uneasy political situation following the Suez and Hungary crises was one reason. The other was the failure to secure funds for travel expenses. Consequently, letters were sent on 22 November 1956 to all those who accepted, informing them of the cancellation of the Conference.

It was at that stage that the initial offer made by Cyrus Eaton was recalled. In an exchange of cables it was quickly agreed that the Conference could be held in July 1957 in Pugwash. Another set of letters, this time including a draft agenda, was despatched on 8 February 1957. It was addressed to those of the earlier invitees to New Delhi who had either accepted or had refused because of previous engagements. In addition, 18 new invitations were sent to the following: Massey and Waddington (UK); Bethe, Harrison-Brown, Cavers, Doty, Selove, Smyth, Szilard, Urey and Weaver (USA); Kuzin (USSR)*, BrockChisholm (Canada)*, Chou- Pei-Yuan (China); Rehberg (Denmark); Butenandt (FRG); Ogawa (Japan); and Danysz (Poland). At the request of Mr. Cyrus Eaton another Canadian, John Foster, was also invited.

Several of those who have replied in the affirmative to the invitation to Pugwash (Haddow, Hertz, Nesmeyanov and Waddington) subsequently withdrew, mainly due to ill-health. Of the Russell-Einstein signatories, Infeld and Pauling also had to withdraw.

The Letter from Bertrand Russell to Joseph Rotblat (1956) 6

The Letter from Bertrand Russell to Joseph Rotblat (1956)

July 6th, 1956.

Dear Professor Rotblat,

You will remember that in July of last year you were one of the signatories of a letter which suggested that scientists should meet in conference to appraise the perils associated with the development of weapons of mass destruction, and to discuss a resolution urging governments to find peaceful means for the settlement of all matters in dispute between them.

Nearly a year has passed since that letter was published and during this time there has been a substantial reduction in international tension; there still, however, seem to be important reasons for holding a meeting of scientists, some of which are set out in the appended letter.

The object of the enclosed draft letter is to invite a number of distinguished scientists to meet as a committee for the purpose of making an appraisal of the present dangers arising from weapons of mass destruction. I hope it will be generally agreed by all those who have been working towards this end, that, to be effective, such a committee should be drawn from scientists of the highest integrity who are widely representative of different political and other opinions. A proper balance in this respect appears to be of central importance.

It has been suggested to me that it could be both appropriate and possible for the meeting of this committee to be held in India, shortly before the Indian Science Conference which takes place in the first of January 1957, and I feel that it should be limited to about twenty scientists. I thought that invitations be sent, in the first instance, to the following scientists:

• Oliphant (Australia) • Li Tse Kuang (China) • Bohr Lacassagne (France); • Hahn, Hertz(Germany); • Hinshelwood, Haddow (Great Britain); • Kothari, Krishnan (India); • Amaldi (Italy); • Tomonaga (Japan); • Hevesy (Sweden); • Rabinowitch, Weisskopf (USA); • Topchiev, Nesmeyanov (USSR).

Doubtless not all those approached would feel able to take part, and other approaches would have to be made subsequently to such personalities as seemed desirable, in order that the prime requirement of a balanced committee should be fulfilled.

The Letter from Bertrand Russell to Joseph Rotb lat (1956) 7

I should be glad to know, at your early convenience, whether you would consent to sign the draft letter, as it stands or suitably amended: whether you would feel able to take part in the work of the committee: and whether you would care to make suggestions of the names of other scientists whom you consider it would be appropriate to invite. I should be grateful if, in considering these proposals, you would not take into consideration in the first instance, the expense of the journey to India and subsistence therein. I hope that it may be possible, by calling on a variety of resources, to make provision for a major part of the costs involved.

Yours sincerely,

Bertrand Russell

„Göttinger 18“ (1957) 8

„Göttinger 18“ (1957)

The Manifesto

The plans to arm the Bundeswehr with atomic weapons worry the signing atomic researchers very much. Some of them wrote to the responsible authorities in the last months. Today it's a question of public . The signing people feel responsible to inform the people about things that every expert but not the normal people know.

1. Tactical nuclear weapons have the same destructive effect as normal atomic bombs. "Tactical" means only, that they will be used against operating troops on the ground too, not only against civilians. Every tactical atomic bomb or granate has a similar effect as the first atomic bomb of Hiroshima. Because of their large number, tactical atomic weapons in sum will have much more destructive potential. As "smart" they are declared only in comparison to the "strategic" hydrogen bomb.

2. There is no elemental limit known for the development of the live destructing effect of strategic nuclear weapons. A tactical atomic bomb can destroy a small town, but an H bomb is able to make a countryside of an area like the Ruhr area uninhabitable for a long time. Through the diffusion of the radioactivity today it would be possible to kill the whole population of Western Germany by using H bombs. We know no technical possibility to protect a large population from this.

We know, it is very difficult to take political consequences by this facts. We, as non- politicians, will nobody attest the competence. Our profession is pure science and its application and to force young people to work in our science, but we are responsible for the consequences of our research. By this fact, we cannot keep silent to all political questions. We admit ourselves to the , like the western world defends against communism today. We do not deny that the fear of the H bomb has an important rule on peace keeping in our world and protecting freedom in a part of the world. But we do not believe that this way of peace and freedom protection works for all time, and are frightened of the killing consequences in the case of failure. We cannot give advice for the politics of the Great Powers. But we believe, for a small country like the Federal Republic of Germany the best way of peace keeping and protecting itself would be a voluntary abdication of having all kinds of nuclear weapons. None of the signatories would work on a military nuclear project. At the same time we challenge research on peaceful use of nuclear energy.

Fritz Bopp, , Rudolf Fleischmann, Walther Gerlach, , Otto Haxel, , , Max v. Laue, Heinz Maier-Leibnitz, Josef Mattauch, Friedrich-Adolf Paneth, , Wolfgang Riezler, Fritz Straßmann, Wilhelm Walcher, Carl Friedrich Frhr. v. Weizsäcker, Karl Wirtz

Hiroshima Appeal (1959) 9

Hiroshima Appeal (1959)

Linus Pauling (1961) 10

Linus Pauling (1961)

AN APPEAL TO STOP THE SPREAD OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS, 6 JANUARY 1961

To the United Nations and to all nations in the world:

We, the men and women whose names are signed below, believe that stockpiles of nuclear weapons should not be allowed to spread to any more nations or groups of nations.

The world is now in great danger. A cataclysmic nuclear war might break out as the result of some terrible accident or of an explosive deteri- oration in international relations such that even the wisest national leaders would be unable to avert the catastrophe. Universal disarmament has now become the essential basis for life and for all people.

The difficult problem of achieving universal disarmament would become far more difficult if more nations or groups of nations were to come into possession of nuclear weapons. We accordingly urge that the present nuclear powers not transfer nuclear weapons to other nations or groups of nations such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization or the Warsaw Pact group, that all nations not now possessing these weapons voluntarily refrain from obtaining or developing them, and that the United Nations and all nations increase their efforts to achieve total and universal disarmament with a system of international controls and inspection such as to insure to the greatest possible extent the safety of all nations and all people.

The Call to Halt the Nuclear Arms Race (1980) 11

The Call to Halt the Nuclear Arms Race (1980) The Call to Halt the Nuclear Arms Race is the manifesto of the Nuclear Weapons Freeze Campaign under the care of Dr. Randall Forsberg.

The Call to Halt the Nuclear Arms Race (1980) 12

The Call to Halt the Nuclear Arms Race (1980) 13

The Call to Halt the Nuclear Arms Race (1980) 14

The Göttingen Draft Treaty to Ban Space Weapons (1984) 15

The Göttingen Draft Treaty to Ban Space Weapons (1984)

Appeal by American Scientists to Ban Space Weapons (1985) 16

Appeal by American Scientists to Ban Space Weapons (1985)

Set forth by the Union of Concerned Scientists in May 1985. The Appeal was signed by more than 700 members of the National Academy of Sciences, including 57 Nobel laureates.

The development of antisatellite weapons and space-based missile defenses would increase the risk of nuclear war and stimulate a dangerous in offensive nuclear arms. An arms race in space poses a great threat to the national security of the .

Outer space must remain free of any weapons. It should be preserved as an arena for nonthreatening uses: peaceful cooperation, exploration, and scientific discovery among all nations.

We call upon the United States and the to negotiate a total ban on the testing and deployment of weapons in space. To create a constructive environment for the negotiations, both nations should join in a moratorium on further tests of antisatellite weapons. The Soviet Union should bring the Krasnoyarsk radar into conformity with the ABM Treaty, or dismantle it.

We ask the United States and the Soviet Union to reaffirm their commitment to the 1972 ABM Treaty, which prohibits the development, testing, and deployment of space-based ABM systems. We support the continuance of a program of research on ABM technologies in strict conformity with the provisions of the 1972 ABM Treaty.

The Hamburg Disarmament Proposals (1986) 17

The Hamburg Disarmament Proposals (1986)

Hans A. Bethe to Mr. President (1997) 18

Hans A. Bethe to Mr. President (1997)

Federation of American Scientists, Washington, DC April 25, 1997

President William J. Clinton, The White House, Washington, DC

My Dear Mr. President:

As the Director of the Theoretical Division at Los Alamos, I participated at the most senior level in the World War II that produced the first atomic weapons. Now, at age 90, I am one of the few remaining senior project participants. And I have followed closely, and participated in, the major issues of the nuclear arms race and disarmament during the last half century. I ask to be permitted to express a related opinion. It seems that the time has come for our Nation to declare that it is not working, in any way, to develop further weapons of mass destruction of any kind. In particular, this means not financing work looking toward the possibility of new designs for nuclear weapons. And it certainly means not working on new types of nuclear weapons, such as pure-fusion weapons.

The United States already possesses a very wide range of different designs of nuclear weapons and needs no more. Further, it is our own splendid weapons laboratories that are, by far and without any question, the most likely to succeed in such nuclear inventions. Since any new types of weapons would, in time, spread to others and present a threat to us, it is logical for us not to pioneer further in this field.

In some cases, such as pure-fusion weapons, success is unlikely. But even reports of our seeking to invent them could be, from a political point of view, very damaging to our national image and to our effort to maintain a world-wide campaign for . Do you, for example, want scientists in laboratories under your Administration trying to invent nuclear weapons so efficient, compared to conventional weapons, that someday, if an unlikely success were achieved, they would be a new option for terrorists?

This matter is sure to be raised in conjunction with the Senate's review of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, because that Treaty raises the question of what experiments are, and what experiments are not, permitted. In my judgment, the time has come to cease all physical experiments, no matter how small their yield, whose primary purpose is to design new types of nuclear weapons, as opposed to developing peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Indeed, if I were President, I would not fund computational experiments, or even creative thought designed to produce new categories of nuclear weapons. After all, the big secret about the atomic bomb was that it could be done. Why should taxpayers pay to learn new such secrets-- secrets that will eventually leak--even and especially if we do not plan, ourselves, to implement the secrets?

In effect, the President of the United States, the laboratory directors, and the atomic scientists in the laboratories should all adopt the stance of the ``Atomic Scientists' Appeal to Colleagues,'' which was promulgated two years ago, to ``cease and desist from work creating, Hans A. Bethe to Mr. President (1997) 19 developing, improving and manufacturing further nuclear weapons--and, for that matter, other weapons of potential mass destruction such as chemical and biological weapons.''

I fully support the Science-based Stockpile Stewardship program, which ensures that the existing nuclear weapons remain fully operative. This is a challenging program to fulfill in the absence of nuclear tests. But neither it nor any of the other Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Safeguards require the laboratories to engage in creative work or physical or computational experiments on the design of new types of nuclear weapons, and they should not do so.

In particular, the basic capability to resume nuclear test activities can and will be maintained, under the Stockpile Stewardship program, without attempting to design new types of nuclear weapons. And even if the Department of Energy is charged to ``maintain capability to design, fabricate and certify new warheads''--which I do not believe is necessary-- this also would not require or justify research into new types of nuclear weapons.

The underlying purpose of a complete cessation of nuclear testing mandated by the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty is to prevent new nuclear weapons from emerging and this certainly suggests doing everything we can to prevent new categories of nuclear weapons from being discovered. It is in our national and global interest to stand true to this underlying purpose.

Accordingly, I hope you will review this matter personally to satisfy yourself that no nuclear weapons design work is being done, under the cover of your Safeguards or other policies, that you would not certify as absolutely required. Perhaps, in conjunction with the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty hearings in the Senate, you might consider making a suitable pronouncement along these lines, to discipline the bureaucracy, and to reassure the world that America is vigilant in its desire to ensure that new kinds of nuclear weapons are not created.

Sincerely, Hans A.Bethe

Appeal from Scientists in Japan (1998) 20

Appeal from Scientists in Japan (1998)

An Appeal from Scientists in Japan to the Scientists and Citizens of the World: Charging Scientists with Moral Responsibility for the New Crisis in Nuclear Proliferation

We, the undersigned, are eighteen natural scientists working in various fields from Japan, a nation which itself has experienced nuclear attack. Upon learning of the nuclear tests conducted by India and Pakistan in May 1998, our reaction was one of tremendous sorrow, anger, and frustration. These tests have increased the risk of nuclear war to a new and ominous level. They have drastically lowered the barriers to the possession and testing of nuclear weapons, creating a dangerous environment in which nuclear weapons may be put to use anywhere in the world at any time. It is with an acute and unprecedented sense of crisis that we, as scientists, issue this appeal to scientists and citizens throughout the world on this, the fifty-third anniversary of the first atomic bombings.

With the end of the Cold War, a period during which the United States and the former Soviet Union threatened each other with massive stockpiles of nuclear weapons, global concern about the nuclear threat quickly diminished. People understandably assumed that nuclear disarmament would soon follow. We believe that this very slackening of the tension and vigilance forced upon the world's citizens by the Cold War has led to the present crisis. We are appalled by the dearth of protests raised against the recent nuclear tests by India and Pakistan, for it is our conviction that nuclear proliferation cannot be prevented through governance by the world's superpowers, but only by the efforts of citizens and scientists around the globe.

Despite the presence of conditions conducive to a drastic reduction of nuclear arms, the globalization of has been accompanied by intensified ethnic strife and a heightened risk of nuclear proliferation, with a growing likelihood that nuclear weapons will someday be employed in regional disputes.

Now, more than ever, it is crucial that we reexamine the true implications of nuclear armament. Developed for the purpose of indiscriminately slaughtering many people at once, these weapons are unequaled in their brutality. The atomic bombs that were dropped on two Japanese cities did not distinguish among their victims: they killed, for example, infants and the elderly, workers and schoolchildren, armed soldiers and unarmed students, Japanese and non-Japanese alike. Human beings vanished without a trace, turned in an instant to steam, charcoal, or ash. Radioactivity doomed most of the initial survivors to a lingering, painful death. Fifty years later, many of the surviving victims of those first atomic blasts still suffer. Nuclear bombs are not merely weapons of mass destruction, a logical extension of conventional arms: they are hideous, barbaric devices that must never be used again.

Modern science, ostensibly the fruit of human wisdom, is deeply implicated in the production of nuclear weaponry. We believe that scientists who have participated in nuclear arms development bear a heavy moral responsibility for their work, and are in fact nothing less than accessories to a crime against humanity. Loyalty to one's nation, race, or religion is no excuse Appeal from Scientists in Japan (1998) 21 for denying this responsibility, which all scientists everywhere must recognize and accept anew.

The people of Hiroshima and learned, at tremendous cost, that humanity cannot coexist with nuclear weapons, and they have conveyed this lesson to the rest of the world for the past fifty years. Sadly, the world at large has yet to accept the truth of their message. Today we appeal with renewed urgency to the scientists and citizens of the world to join us in resuming the battle against the culture of nuclear weaponry.

1 To the Governments of India and Pakistan:

We view the nuclear tests conducted by India as a gross betrayal of the position that India itself has taken in denouncing the hypocritical and discriminatory policies of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) regime established by the declared nuclear states.

In criticizing the special privileges enjoyed by the nuclear states while developing nuclear weapons itself and thus seeking to acquire those same privileges, India not only fails to solve the problem, but actively reinforces the same discriminatory regime. The development of nuclear weapons inevitably encourages other nations with this capability to follow suit, as India's neighbor Pakistan has now done.

The recent nuclear tests by India and Pakistan have raised the threat of nuclear war to an unprecedented level. Both governments must cease this foolish arms race and renounce the path to nuclear statehood immediately. This is the only moral choice, one that will increase the prestige of both nations, not reduce it. We are greatly encouraged by the presence in both countries of significant numbers of scientists and other citizens who oppose these nuclear tests. To them we extend a hand of friendship across national borders and affirm our solidarity with their acts of conscience.

2 To the Five Nuclear States:

We believe that the recent nuclear tests have conclusively demonstrated the hypocrisy of the five declared nuclear states and the failure of the NPT status quo. The NPT is an inherently discriminatory treaty that does not have the abolition of nuclear arms as its objective. Nor have the declared nuclear states kept their pledge to reduce nuclear arms as stipulated by the treaty. On the contrary, some of these nations are pursuing the development of such new nuclear technologies as subcritical testing, betraying not merely their lack of enthusiasm for halting nuclear weapons development, but their intention to develop even more sophisticated nuclear weapons through deceptive methods. The actions of the nuclear club thus pose a challenge to humanity at large.

With the bankruptcy of the NPT regime now more apparent than ever, it is imperative that the five nuclear states acknowledge their own hypocrisy. Our goal can no longer be the reinforcement of the nuclear status quo as maintained by the declared nuclear powers. Instead, these nations must abandon the privileged status they have enjoyed until now and embark on a systematic and comprehensive arms reduction program that aims for the complete abolition of nuclear weapons. Appeal from Scientists in Japan (1998) 22

3 The Failure of Nuclear Deterrence

We unequivocally reject the "nuclear deterrence" rationale for the possession of nuclear arms by India and Pakistan.

The logic of nuclear deterrence has been used by both India and Pakistan to justify their acquisition of nuclear arms. It is based on this logic that the leadership of Pakistan has said "We don't want to be another Hiroshima or Nagasaki." Such a defense is abhorrent and utterly false in its assumptions. It perversely exploits the suffering of the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as an argument for nuclear development and ultimately for the of the human race. We regard this comment as an unparalleled insult to the victims of nuclear war and to their unrelenting pleas for nuclear disarmament over the past half century. As a rationale for nuclear testing it is utterly unacceptable.

The invalidity of the "nuclear deterrence" approach as a means of preventing nuclear arms development is now obvious. We must not forget that nuclear deterrence is predicated on the cruel logic of holding hostage the entire populations of hypothetical enemy states. Today, any college student with a basic knowledge of modern can manufacture an atomic bomb. In these circumstances, the development or acquisition of nuclear weapons is not a deterrent to anything, but simply an act of aggression. Now is the time for all nations to renounce any attempt to acquire nuclear weapons under the pretext of nuclear deterrence.

4 Toward a Nuclear-Free Civilization

Our nuclear civilization, built on the dream of liberating and harnessing the tremendous energy of the , now seems more likely to visit a terrible calamity upon the human race and the natural environment, even if nuclear war per se is averted.

Scientific research has already established that technology capable of stopping the radioactivity produced by nuclear energy is beyond our grasp. The tragedy at Chernobyl is only one of many nuclear disasters that have created radioactivity victims all over the world. Meanwhile, nations continue to stockpile the deadly toxin plutonium, ostensibly to serve as the energy source of the future. But because plutonium can be easily converted to nuclear weapons use, such efforts have merely increased political tensions and the penchant for governmental secrecy while creating yet another threat to human survival. Nuclear technology is fundamentally violent and destructive in , a fact to which the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki bear tragic witness. Human efforts to control this technology have met only with failure, spawning nuclear victims and environmental contamination on a massive scale throughout the earth.

Civilian and military use of nuclear energy are merely two sides of a coin: the technology is the same. Humanity can ill afford any further delay in converting our nuclear civilization to a nuclear-free one. Not only must the world' s scientists immediately cease their involvement with nuclear weapons development, they must mobilize their knowledge and their consciences for the battle to free humanity from the clutches of this nuclear culture. Appeal from Scientists in Japan (1998) 23

5 Toward the Demilitarization of Science and Technology and a Global Revival of the Anti-Nuclear Movement

Until now, the proliferation of nuclear weapons has been obstructed primarily by the voluntary efforts of scientists and the vigilance of everyday citizens.

The willingness of scientists to prostitute themselves to the transient and selfish of their own particular nation or ethnic group cannot be tolerated. In their research and all other activities, scientists must adopt a rational and unwavering stance on behalf of the interests of the entire human race. They must cultivate within themselves a conscience that reflects the moral concerns of humanity. Furthermore, scientists must accept responsibility, as citizens of their community and of the world at large, for the consequences of their research and development. No other course is acceptable for those who purport to be the bearers of the wisdom of human civilization.

In retrospect it is clear that many developments in science and technology have been employed not to benefit human beings, but to kill them. Ever since Japan embarked on its systematic adoption of modern science, the scientists of our nation, too, have been culpable of active involvement in military science and technology. In issuing this statement we have no intention of ignoring our own nation's bitter legacy. Science and technology must be servants for the good of the entire human community, without regard for national boundaries. For this very reason, we must strive for the demilitarization of all science and technology.

Today we stand on the brink of a new abyss, a new crisis in nuclear proliferation. We call on the citizens of every nation to join hands with the scientific community -- and at the same time, to monitor the scientific community ? so that together we may exercise vigilance both within our respective countries and without. We must keep a watchful eye not only on our own governments, but those of the nuclear states; and we must join together in global solidarity to demilitarize science and technology and liberate ourselves from our nuclear culture.

August 6, 1998

Signed:

Ikuro Anzai (professor of Ritsumeikan University, Radiation Protection) Satoru Ikeuchi (professor of Nagoya University, Cosmophysics) Katsuhiko Ishibashi (professor of Kobe University, Seismology) Hiromichi Umebayashi (executive director of Peace Resources Cooperative, Material Science) Hiroshi Ezawa (professor of Gakushuin University, Physics) Kazuo Oike (professor of Kyoto University, Earth Science) Naoki Kachi (associate professor of Tokyo Metropolitan University, Plant Ecology) Rihito Kimura (professor of Waseda University, Bioethics) Yoichiro Kuroda (director of Tokyo Metropolitan Institute for Neuroscience, Neurobiology) Shoichiro Koide (emeritus professor of Tokyo University, ) Michiji Konuma (professor of Musashi Institute of Technology, Physics) Chikara Sasaki (professor of Tokyo University, History of Science) Humitaka Sato (professor of Kyoto University, Physics) Jinzaburo Takagi (executive director of Citizens' Nuclear Information Center, Nuclear

Appeal from Scientists in Japan (1998) 24

Chemistry) Toshiyuki Toyoda (emeritus professor of Nagoya University, Physics) Hiroyoshi Higuchi (professor of Tokyo University, Wildlife Biology) Tetsukazu Yahara (professor of Kyusyu University, Ecology) Fumiko Yonezawa (professor of Keio University, Theoretical Physics)

U.S.Nobel laureates object to preventive attack on Iraq (2003) 25

U.S.Nobel laureates object to preventive attack on Iraq (2003)

Forty-one American Nobel laureates in science and issued a declaration opposing a preventive war against Iraq without wide international support. The statement, four sentences long, argues that an American attack would ultimately hurt the security and standing of the United States, even if it succeeds .

The declaration reads:

"The undersigned oppose a preventive war against Iraq without broad international support. Military operations against Iraq may indeed lead to a relatively swift victory in the short term. But war is characterized by surprise, human loss and unintended consequences. Even with a victory, we believe that the medical, economic, environmental, moral, spiritual, political and legal consequences of an American preventive attack on Iraq would undermine, not protect, U.S. security and standing in the world."

George A. Akerlof E Roger Guillemin M Philip W. Anderson P Hebert A. Hauptman C C Alan J. Heeger C Hans A. Bethe P Louis J. Ignarro M P Eric R. Kandel M Paul D. Boyer C M P Lawrence R. Klein E Leon N. Cooper P C James W. Cronin P Leon M. Lederman P Robert F. Curl Jr. C Yuan T. Lee C Val L. Fitch P William N. Lipscomb C Robert F. Furchgott M Daniel L. McFadden E Sheldon L. Glashow P E Ferid Murad M P George E. Palade M Jospeh H. Taylor Jr. P Arno A. Penzias P Charles H. Townes P Martin L. Perl P Daniel C. Tsui P William D. Phillips P Harold E. Varmus M Norman F. Ramsey P Robert W. Wilson P Robert Schrieffer P Ahmed H. Zewail C William F. Sharpe E

Appeal to end the nuclear weapons threat to humanity (2003) 26

Appeal from the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation to end the nuclear weapons threat to humanity (2003) Appeal from David Krieger, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, 1 March 2003: We cannot hide from the threat that nuclear weapons pose to humanity and all life. These are not ordinary weapons, but instruments of mass annihilation that could destroy civilization and end most life on Earth. Nuclear weapons are morally and legally unjustifiable. They destroy indiscriminately – soldiers and civilians; men, women and children; the aged and the newly born; the healthy and the infirm. The obligation to achieve nuclear disarmament “in all its aspects,” as unanimously affirmed by the International Court of Justice, is at the heart of the Non- Proliferation Treaty. More than ten years have now passed since the end of the Cold War, and yet nuclear weapons continue to cloud humanity’s future. The only way to assure that nuclear weapons will not be used again is to abolish them. We, therefore, call upon the leaders of the nations of the world and, in particular, the leaders of the nuclear weapons states to act now for the benefit of all humanity by taking the following steps: • De-alert all nuclear weapons and de-couple all nuclear warheads from their delivery vehicles. • Ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. • Commence good faith negotiations to achieve a Nuclear Weapons Convention requiring the phased elimination of all nuclear weapons, with provisions for effective verification and enforcement. • Declare policies of No First Use of nuclear weapons against other nuclear weapons states and policies of No Use against non-nuclear weapons states. • Reallocate resources from the tens of billions of dollars currently being spent for maintaining nuclear arsenals to improving human health, education and welfare throughout the world. Hafsat Abiola • Mayor (Hiroshima) • Muhammad Ali • Isabel Allende • Oscar Arias** • Kenneth J. Arrow* • Armand Assante • Lloyd Axworthy • Rev. J. Edwin Bacon, Jr. • Nicolaas Bloembergen* • Julian Bond • Elisabeth Mann Borgese • Howard Brembeck • Ambassador Richard Butler • Rev. Joan Brown Campbell • Rodrigo Carazo Odio • Jimmy Carter** • Admiral Eugene J. Carroll, Jr. • Lenedra Carroll • Yvon Chouinard • Jean-Michel Cousteau • Alan Cranston • Walter Cronkite • Paul Crutzen* • The XIVth Dalai Lama** • Diandra Douglas • Michael Douglas • • Paul Erhlich • Richard R. Ernst* • Adolfo Perez Esquivel** • Richard Falk • Edmond H. Fischer* • Harrison Ford • John Kenneth Galbraith • Johan Galtung • Arun Gandhi • Admiral Noel Gayler • Donald A. Glaser* • Jane Goodall • ** • Nadine Gordimer* • Jonathan Granoff • Corbin Harney • Minoru Hataguchi • Alan J. Heeger* • Rev.Theodore M. Hesburgh • David H. Hubel* • • Mayor Iccho Itoh (Nagasaki) • Craig Kielburger • Coretta Scott King • Lawrence R. Klein* • F.W. de Klerk**• Walter Kohn*• David Krieger • Dennis J. Kucinich • Admiral Gene R. La Rocque • Ambassador James Leonard • Sally Lilienthal •, M.D.** • Wangari Maathai • Mairead Corrigan Maguire** • Peter Matthiessen • Rigoberta Menchú Tum**• Franco Modigliani* • Rev. James Parks Morton • Robert Muller • Kary B. Mullis* • Joseph E. Murray, M.D.* • Erwin Neher* • Paul Newman • Queen Noor of Jordan • Kenzaburo Oe* • John C. Polanyi* • Admiral L. Appeal to end the nuclear weapons threat to humanity (2003) 27

Ramdas • Jose Ramos-Horta**• Rev. George F. Regas • Frederick C. Robbins* • Richard J. Roberts* • Senator Douglas Roche • Sir Joseph Rotblat**• * • • Stanley K. Sheinbaum • Carly Simon • Jennifer Allen Simons • *• Gerry Spence • Jack Steinberger* • Meryl Streep • Barbra Streisand • Maj Britt Theorin** • E. Donnall *• Ted Turner • Archbishop Desmond Tutu** • Mordechai Vanunu • Ambassador Paul C. Warnke • Elie Wiesel**• Betty Williams** • Jody Williams** • Terry Tempest Williams • Joanne Woodward • Alla Yaroshinskaya

* Nobel Laureate ** Nobel Peace Laureate

Appeal to support an International Einstein Year (2004) 28

Appeal to support an International Einstein Year (2004)

In the year 2005, scientists throughout the world will be celebrating the centenary of the theory of special relativity and the light-quantum hypothesis, both developed by Albert Einstein in 1905. The celebrations will also honour the 50th anniversary of Einstein's death in 1955.

Einstein was not only an extraordinary scientist, but also a scientist who faced his social responsibilities, intervened in political affairs and stood up and fought for civil . For his whole life, he was committed to social justice, disarmament, and peace.

As Einstein repudiated nationalistic attitudes and meaningless social rituals, the International Einstein Year 2005 should therefore reflect his universal and cosmopolitan stance. The future of democratic societies rests on the comprehensive education and training of all its citizens. Scientific results must therefore be accessible to everyone. Education should not remain a privilege for the chosen few. The future of the citizens of all countries depends on the willingness of those who are prepared to commit themselves to a principle of solidarity whereby fair cultural and social services and economic trading, as well as an ecologically sound use of resources are indispensable. The future of mankind lies in the peaceful and tolerant cooperation between all countries and cultures. The elimination of atomic weapons and other means of mass destruction must therefore be the first and most important step in creating a world in which war as a means of solving conflicts no longer plays a role. To put it in Einstein's words:

"War cannot be humanized. It can only be abolished."

Scientists from all over the world are called upon to face up to their social responsibilities and to commit themselves to making scientific results the cultural heritage of all people. In doing so, , under-development, and ecological destruction can be counteracted in a peaceful manner. In an interview from 1929 Einstein expressed his notion of a peaceful and commercially impartial world with the following words:

"Think of what a world we could build if the power unleashed in war were applied to constructive tasks! One tenth of the energy that the various belligerents spent in the World War, a fraction of the they exploded in hand grenades and poison gas would suffice to raise the standard of living in every country and avert the economic catastrophe of world wide . We must be prepared to make the same heroic sacrifices for the cause of peace that we make ungrudgingly for the cause of war. There is no task that is more important or closer to my heart. Nothing that I can do or say will change the structure of the universe. But maybe, by raising my voice, I can help the greatest of all causes - good will among men and peace on earth."

We, the initiators of this appeal in support of the International Einstein Year 2005, aim to realize this vision of the future in the spirit of the great scientist and call on all peoples of the world for their support. Appeal to support an International Einstein Year (2004) 29

Signatories

• Prof. Dr. Marion Addy, University of Accra, Ghana • Prof. Dr. Zhores I. Alferov, Laureate in Physics 2000, Russia • Prof. Dr. Josef Altshuler, President of the Cuban Society for the History of Science and Technology, Cuba • Oscar Arias, former President of Costa Rica, Laureate 1987, Costa Rica • Prof. Dr. Fernando de Souza Barros, Pugwash Council, Brazil • Prof. Dr. Ulrike Beisiegel, Hospital of the (UKE), Chairperson of the European Atherosclerosis Society, Germany • Prof Dr. Baruj Benacerraf , Nobel Prize Laureate in Medicine, 1980,USA • Prof. Dr. , Nobel Prize Laureate in Physics 1967, USA • Prof. Dr. Jeffrey Boutwell, Executive Officer at the American Academy of Arts and Science, Executive Director of Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs, USA • Col. (ret.) Pierre Canonne, former Head of TDB at the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons in The Hague and Pugwash Council,France • Ernesto Cardinal, Writer, Nicaragua • Prof Dr. Arvid Carlsson, Nobel Prize Laureate in Medicine 2000, Sweden • Prof. Dr. Ana-Maria Cetto, Secretary- General of the International Council for Science, Mexico • Prof. Dr. Paolo Cotta-Ramusino, Pugwash Council, Secretary of USPID, Italy • Prof. Dr. Paul Crutzen, Nobel Prize Laureate in Chemistry 1995, Germany/Netherlands • Prof. Dr. Jean Dausset, Nobel Prize Laureate in Medicine 1980, France • Ambassador Jayantha Dhanapala, former UN Under-Secretary General for Disarmament, Sri Lanka • Prof. Dr. Ogunlade Davidson, scientific advisor of UNEP, South Africa • Prof. Dr. Francisco Jose Delich, Former Rector of the National University of Cordoba and Buenos Aires, Argentina • Prof. Dr. Johann Deisenhofer, Nobel Prize Laureate in Chemistry 1988, USA • Prof. Dr. Hans-Peter Dürr, MPI for Astrophysics, Alternative Nobel Laureate 1987, Germany • Prof. Dr. , Nobel Prize Laureate in Chemistry 1967, Germany • Adolfo Perez Esquivel, Nobel Peace Prize Laureate 1980, Argentina • Prof. Richard R. Ernst, Nobel Prize Laureate in Chemistry 1991, Switzerland • Prof. Dr. Dietrich Fischer, Director of the European Peace Museum, USA/Austria • Prof Dr. John Kenneth Galbraith, Economist at , USA • Prof. Dr. Johan Galtung, Alternative Nobel Laureate 1987, Norway • Prof. Dr. Vitaly Ginzburg, Nobel Prize Laureate in Physics 2003, Russia • Mikhail Gorbachev, Nobel Peace Prize Laureate 1990, Russia • Prof. Dr. Cleve W.J.Granger, Nobel Prize Laureate in Economics 2003, USA • Prof. Karen Hallberg, Pugwash Council, board of Physics Association, Argentina • Prof. Dr. Gerd Harigel, CERN, Switzerland • Prof. Dr. Herbert A. Hauptmann, Nobel Prize Laureate in Chemistry 1985, USA • Prof. Dudley R. Herschbach, Nobel Prize Laureate in Chemistry 1986, USA • Prof. Dr. Dieter B. Herrmann, Director of the Archenhold Observatory, Germany • Prof. Dr. Frank von Hippel, , Former President of the Federation of American Scientists (FAS), USA • Prof. Pervez Hoodbhoy, Pugwash Council, Pakistan • Prof. Dr. , Nobel Prize Laureate in Chemistry 1981, USA • Prof. Dr. Tim Hunt, Nobel Prize Laureate Physiology/Medicine 2001, UK • International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, (IPPNW), Nobel Peace Prize Laureate 1985 • International Peace Bureau, (IPB), Nobel Peace Prize Laureate 1910 • Prof. Dr. Gordana Jovanovic, University of Beograd, Serbia and Montenegro • Prof. Dr. , Nobel Prize Laureate in Chemistry 1985, USA • Prof. Dr. Matthias Kreck, Mathematics, University of , Germany • Prof. Dr. Walter Kohn, Nobel Prize Laureate in Chemistry 1998, USA • Prof. Dr. Masahashi Koshika, Nobel Prize Laureate in Physics 2002, Japan • Dr. David Krieger, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, Vice President of INES, USA • Prof. Dr. Paul Kurtz, President of the International Academy of , USA • His Holiness Dalai Lama, Nobel Peace Prize Laureate 1989, India Appeal to support an International Einstein Year (2004) 30

• Dr. , former Prime Minister of New Zealand, Alternative Nobel Prize Laureate 1983, New Zealand • Prof. Dr. Anne McLaren, Former Foreign Secretary of the Royal Society of the United Kingdom, Pugwash Council, UK • Prof. Dr. Jean Marie Lehn, Nobel Prize Laureate in Chemistry 1987, France • Beisel Lemke, Alternative Nobel Laureate 2000, Turkey • Prof. Dr. Rita Levi- Montalcini, Nobel Prize Laureate Medicine 1986, Italy • Prof. Dr. Jiri Matousek, advisor to the OPCW, University of Brno, Czech Republic • Prof. Dr. Claus Montonen, President of INES, Finland • Prof. Dr. Phil Morrison, (MIT) Manhattan-Project, Founder of the Federation of American Scientists (FAS), USA • Robert O. Muller, Thomas Gebauer, Co-founders of the "International Campaign to ban landmines", Nobel Peace Prize Laureate 1997, USA/Germany • Prof. Dr. Erwin Neher, Nobel Prize Laureate in Medicine/Physiology 1991, Germany • Dr. Götz Neuneck, Pugwash Council, Germany • Prof. Dr. Hitoshi Ohnishi, Pugwash Council, Vice President of Tohoku University, Japan • Prof. Dr. Luis de la Pena Averbach, former President of the Mexican National Society of Physics, Mexico • Prof. Dr. Hugo Perez, Director at the Institute of Cybernetic Mathematics and Physics, Cuba • Prof. Dr. Peter H. Plesch, Professor of Chemistry, University of Keele, UK • Prof. Dr. Jürgen Renn, Director at the Institute for the History of Science, Germany • Prof. Dr. Horst–Eberhard Richter, Director of the Sigmund-Freud-Institute, Germany • Douglas Roche, Senator, President of the Middle Power Initiative (MPI), Canada • Prof. Dr. Joseph Rotblat, Peace Prize Laureate 1995, UK • Acad. Dr. Yury Ryzhov, Pugwash Council, former member of the Presidential Council, Russia • General (ret) Mohammed Kadry Sahid, Al-Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies, Pugwash Council, Egypt • Prof. Dr. Frederick Sanger, Nobel Prize Laureate in Chemistry 1985, UK • Dr. Hermann Scheer, Alternative Nobel Laureate 1999, Germany • Prof.Dr. Jürgen Schneider, board member of German Initiative Science for Peace and Sustainability • Mycle Schneider, Alternative Nobel Prize Laureate 1997, France • Prof. Dr. Joseph Stachel, Biographer of Albert Einstein, USA • Prof. Dr. Jacques Steinberger, Nobel Prize Laureate in Physics 1988, CERN, Switzerland • Bishop Desmond Tutu, Nobel Peace Prize Laureate 1984, South Africa • Dr. Marc Byung-Moon Suh, Pugwash Council, South Korea • Prof. Dr. Joseph H. Taylor, 1993, USA • Prof. Dr. John Walker, Nobel Prize Laureate in Chemistry 1997, UK • Dr. Jakob von Uexküll, Founder of the Alternative Nobel Prize/Right Livelihood Award, Sweden/Germany • Prof. Dr. Joseph Weizenbaum, formerly Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USA/Germany • Prof. Dr. Carl-Friedrich von Weizsäcker, Germany • Prof. Dr. Manfred Wekwerth, stage director, Germany • Harry Wu (Wu Hongda), Executive Director, Laogai Research Foundation, China/USA • Prof. Dr. Herbert Wulf, former Director of the Bonn International Conversion Center, Germany • Dr. Alla Yaroshinskaja, Alternative Nobel Prize Laureate 1992, Russia • Preliminary NGO Organizing Committee "Einstein, a modern, courageous citizen": Reiner Braun (INES), Otfried Nassauer (BITS), Ekkehard Sieker & Milena Wazeck (Max Planck Institute for the History of Science), Herbert Wulf (BICC) • Preliminary Working Group "WorldViews" - Arts & Culture in the Year of Einstein: Ortrun Blase (fine arts & performance), Eva Diegritz (dramaturg & curator), Katrin Lock (artist, graphics, design and new media), Otfried Nassauer (BITS), Jürgen Neugebauer (university lecturer), Ekkehard Sieker (MPIWG), Peer Wredenhagen (fine arts/graphics & design)

Scientists for a Nuclear Weapons Free World, INES (2009) 31

Scientists for a Nuclear Weapons Free World, INES (2009) Scientists and engineers bear a heavy burden of responsibility to society for the creation of nuclear weapons.

The immense destructive power of these weapons was demonstrated on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and in over 2,000 atmospheric and underground nuclear tests on the lands of indigenous peoples.

Thermonuclear weapons are capable of destroying cities, countries and civilization. They could end intelligent life on Earth.

Humanity has been warned again and again of the perils of nuclear weapons and nuclear war.

We recall the Russell-Einstein Manifesto, issued on July 9, 1955. The Manifesto warned, “Here, then, is the problem which we present to you, stark and dreadful and inescapable: Shall we put an end to the human race; or shall mankind renounce war?”

Human fallibility and nuclear weapons are a dangerous and unacceptable mix. We rely upon human theories concerning nuclear weapons, such as the theory of nuclear deterrence, at our peril.

Since Nagasaki, humankind has been spared nuclear war far more by good fortune than by sound planning. This good fortune will not be possible to maintain indefinitely – particularly, as is foreseeable, if nuclear weapons continue to proliferate and fall into the hands of non- state extremist groups.

Nuclear weapons were created by humans, and it is our responsibility to eliminate them before they eliminate us and much of the life on our planet. The era of nuclear weapons must be brought to an end. A world without nuclear weapons is possible, realistic, necessary and urgent.

Therefore, we the undersigned scientists and engineers, call upon the leaders of the world, and particularly the leaders of the nine nuclear weapons states, to make a world free of nuclear weapons an urgent priority.

We further call on these leaders to immediately commence good faith negotiations, as required by the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the 1996 Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice, with the goal of achieving a Nuclear Weapons Convention for the phased, verifiable, irreversible and transparent elimination of nuclear weapons by the year 2020.

Finally, we call upon scientists and engineers throughout the world to cease all cooperation in the research, development, testing, production and manufacture of new nuclear weapons.

Scientists for a Nuclear Weapons Free World, INES (2009) 32

Signers:

• Prof. Dr. Peter C. Agre, Nobelpreisträger für Chemie (2003), USA • Prof. Dr. Abhay Ashtekar, Direktor des Instituts für Gravitationsphysik und Geometrie an der Pennsylvania State University, Indien / USA • Prof. Dr. Günter Blobel, Nobelpreisträger für Physiologie / Medizin (1999), USA • Reiner Braun, Geschäftsführer der International Association of Lawyers against Nuclear Arms (IALANA) und INES-Programmdirektor, Deutschland • Prof. Dr. Elias J. Corey, Nobelpreisträger für Chemie (1990), USA • Mairead Corrigan-Maguire, Friedensnobelpreisträgerin (1976), Großbritannien (Nordirland) • Prof. Dr. Paul Crutzen, Nobelpreisträger für Chemie (1995), Deutschland / Niederlande • Prof. Dr. Johann Deisenhofer, Nobelpreisträger für Chemie (1988), Deutschland / USA • Prof. Dr. Hans-Peter Dürr, Träger des Alternativen Nobelpreises (1987) und ehemaliger Präsident des Max-Planck-Instituts für Physik, Deutschland • Prof. Dr. Richard R. Ernst, Nobelpreisträger für Chemie (1991), Schweiz • Prof. Dr. , Nobelpreisträger für Chemie (2007), Deutschland • Prof. Dr. John Finney, Physikprofessor am University College London, Mitglied im Pugwash Council, Großbritannien • Prof. Dr. Johan Galtung, Gründer und Direktor von TRANSCEND International, Träger des Alternativen Nobelpreises (1987), Norwegen • Prof. Dr. Hartmut Graßl, Ehemaliger Direktor des Max-Planck-Instituts für Meteorologie, Träger des Deutschen Umweltpreises (1998), Deutschland • Prof. Dr. Paul Greengard, Nobelpreisträger für Physiologie / Medizin (2000), USA • Prof. Dr. Herbert A. Hauptman, Nobelpreisträger für Chemie (1985), USA • Prof. Dr. Alan J. Heeger, Nobelpreisträger für Chemie (2000), USA • Prof. Dr. Dudley R. Herschbach, Nobelpreisträger für Chemie (1986), USA • Dr. David Krieger, Vorsitzender von INES und Präsident der Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (NAPF), USA • Prof. Dr. , Nobelpreisträger für Physik (2000), Deutschland / USA • Prof. Dr. Sir Harold Kroto, Nobelpreisträger für Chemie (1996), Großbritannien / USA • Prof. Dr. Yuan T. Lee, Nobelpreisträger für Chemie (1986), Taiwan • Prof. Dr. Jean-Marie Lehn, Nobelpreisträger für Chemie (1987), Frankreich • Prof. Dr. Rita Levi-Montalcini, Nobelpreisträgerin für Physiologie / Medizin (1986), Senator auf Lebenszeit im italienischen Senat, Italien / USA • Prof. Wangari Maathai, Friedensnobelpreisträgerin (2004), Kenia • Dr. Ronald S. McCoy, Ehemaliger Co-Präsident der International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW), Malaysia • Prof. Dr. Erwin Neher, Nobelreisträger für Physiologie / Medizin (1991), Deutschland • Prof. Dr. Marshall Nirenberg, Nobelpreisträger für Physiologie / Medizin (1986), USA • Prof. Dr. Valery S. Petrosyan, Professor an der Lomonosov State University und der Open Ecological University, Russland • Prof. Dr. Martin L. Perl, Nobelpreisträger für Physik (1995), USA • Prof. Dr. John C. Polanyi, Nobelpreisträger für Chemie (1986), Kanada • Prof. Dr. Sir Richard J. Roberts, Nobelpreisträger für Physiologie / Medizin (1993), Großbritannien • Prof. Dr. Shoji Sawada, Representativdirektor des Japan Council against A & H Bombs, Japan Scientists for a Nuclear Weapons Free World, INES (2009) 33

• Prof. Dr. Jack Steinberger, Nobelpreisträger für Physik (1988), USA • Dr. Mark Byung-Moon Suh, Politikwissenschaftler, Mitglied des Pugwash Council, Südkorea • Dr. Jakob von Uexküll, Stifter des Right Livelihood Award (Alternativer Nobelpreis) und Initiator des World Future Council, Schweden / Deutschland • Prof. Dr. Martinus J.G. Veltman, Nobelpreisträger für Physik (1999), Niederlande • Prof. Dr. John E. Walker, Nobelpreisträger für Chemie (1997), Großbritannien • Prof. Dr. Ernst-Ulrich von Weizsäcker, Gründer und ehemaliger Präsident des Wuppertal Instituts, Mitglied des , Deutschland • Prof. Dr. Kurt Wüthrich, Nobelpreisträger für Chemie (2002), Schweiz

Milan Document on Nuclear Disarmament (2010) 34

Milan Document on Nuclear Disarmament (2010)

Milan Document on Nuclear Disarmament and Non-Proliferation, 29 January 2010

Below are some considerations coming out of a meeting in Milan organized by Pugwash and the University of Milan (Universita’ degli Studi di Milano), 29 January 2010, with an eye to the upcoming 2010 NPT Review Conference. The meeting involved more than 40 participants from 13 countries, including former defense and foreign ministers, current and former international disarmament diplomats and other scientific and policy experts.

While this document represents fairly the discussions held, it is the sole responsibility of Pugwash Secretary General Paolo Cotta-Ramusino, Professor of Physics, Universita' degli Studi di Milano and Pugwash President Jayantha Dhanapala, former UN Under-Secretary- General for Disarmament Affairs.

The upcoming Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference (May 2010, New York) will examine the treaty implementation and, in particular, the status of the three NPT basic pillars (disarmament, non proliferation and access to nuclear energy for peaceful uses by NPT members). It is an important opportunity to call the world’s attention to the serious risks associated with nuclear weapons, and the ultimate need to eliminate such weapons and to work towards a legally-binding document (such as a convention) banning the possession of such weapons. Work for such a legally binding document should begin soon and hopefully yield some concrete proposals before the 2015 NPT Review Conference.

In the upcoming 2010 NPT Review Conference it will be extremely important, in order to prevent decay and breakdown of the world-wide nuclear non-proliferation regime, to show that concrete progress is being made towards that final goal of eliminating nuclear weapons, and to reassure the world’s public opinion that such progress will be strongly sustained in the future. In particular, in order to support concrete steps in the direction of nuclear disarmament, the 13 practical steps approved by the 2000 NPT Review Conference should be restated by the 2010 NPT Review Conference with the necessary updates.

Reinforce the (political and legal) commitments to nuclear disarmament. Drastically decrease the numbers of weapons 1. The present number of intact nuclear weapons (reportedly over 23000) should be drastically reduced. The largest weapons reductions should of course be made by the two major States (US and Russia) that possess about 95% of the world’s combined nuclear arsenal. An effective ladder for scaling down the number of nuclear weapons of the most nuclear-armed nations should be clearly defined. As a first step, Russia and the US are expected to bring to successful conclusion, before the NPT Review Conference, their on-going negotiations, aimed at developing a successor treaty to their recently expired START 1 agreement .

2. Reductions of longer-range and shorter-range nuclear weapons should be vigorously pursued in nuclear negotiations. As in the past, unilateral actions can significantly contribute to this process. Decommissioned nuclear weapons should be dismantled and not only stored separately from delivery systems. Fissile material from dismantled weapons should be made

Milan Document on Nuclear Disarmament (2010) 35 accessible to the IAEA for inspection. Effective procedures for verifying weapon dismantlement should be actively pursued.

3. Active promotion of nuclear disarmament is the responsibility of all the members of NPT (in fact of all countries, even if nuclear-weapons states have a special responsibility in this regard). This implies that states with relatively smaller arsenals should do their share of the disarmament work. Also non-nuclear weapons countries hosting nuclear weapons belonging to other countries should send these weapons back to the owner and request their dismantlement. Finally all non-nuclear weapons states should pursue the elimination of nuclear weapons from their territories, not even allowing them in transit, by promoting nuclear-weapons-free zones. Extending nuclear-weapons-free zones can be seen as a complementary avenue to achieving a nuclear-weapons-free world.

Reinforce the political and legal commitments to nuclear disarmament: decrease the military role and the political influence of nuclear arsenals

4. The stated aim of nuclear weapons possession by nuclear-weapons states should be no more than to deter the use of nuclear weapons by others. There is absolutely no need to keep any nuclear weapon at a high alert status. A high alert status entails a serious risk of a nuclear launch by mistake even now, 20 years after the end of the cold war.

5. Concepts like extended deterrence (meant in various ways as nuclear defense against nonnuclear attacks or the planning of the use of nuclear weapons to compensate conventional inferiority or to protect allies against possible nuclear or even chemical or biological weapons attacks) have shown to be of very limited value during the cold war and should be phased out. They should be replaced by a generalized no-first use posture by states possessing nuclear weapons. Moreover no-first use policies should be made even more explicit by extending security guarantees to states that do not possess nuclear weapons. Pending the complete elimination of nuclear weapons, the latter should be guaranteed that they will never be attacked with nuclear weapons.

6. Extended deterrence in no way should require the stationing of nuclear weapons on other countries’ territories. An international norm should be developed, forbidding such extraterritorial deployments. European countries have a clear role to play in this respect and should take an active approach to fulfill their own responsibilities.

7. Possession of nuclear weapons is not an instrument for enhancing regional or global influence or political and economic leverage. This statement should be clearly understood and stated explicitly whenever useful. This notion, contrary to some of the past, applies specifically to the major nuclear weapons states, where the possession of nuclear weapons is manifestly not of any help in dealing with military, political or economic crises.

8. Both nuclear and non-nuclear weapon states should nevertheless exercise maximum restraint in the development of military applications of science and technology, such as ballistic missile defense, that could create potentially destabilizing situations, both in the regional and global context, thus complicating the task of reducing the reliance on nuclear weapons.

9. Nuclear-weapons states should develop internal structures, agencies, legislation, budget llocations and the like, to reduce the role of nuclear weapons in defense doctrines, and eventually to eliminate such weapons from national arsenals. “Modernization” and other Milan Document on Nuclear Disarmament (2010) 36 forms of technical mprovement and expansion of capabilities of existing arsenals should be prevented in all possible ways.

Promote nuclear disarmament: involve the states that are not parties to the NPT

10. States that are not parties to the NPT should be induced in all possible ways to eliminate their nuclear weapons and join the NPT. In the meantime they should be encouraged to support the general goals of the NPT by taking concrete steps in the direction of reducing their nuclear arsenals, preventing nuclear proliferation, opening up their nuclear facilities to IAEA inspections and monitoring, respecting nuclear weapons-free-zones, and joining all possible other treaties such as the CWC, BWC, CTBT, etc.

Promote nuclear disarmament: make progress in the establishment of a zone free of weapons of mass destruction in the (ME) and particularly of a nuclearweapons- free zone

11. The idea of establishing a zone free of weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East was an integral part of the success of the 1995 Review and Extension Conference. It has also been at various times and with various characterizations pushed forward by the main Middle Eastern states. It is important that the 2010 NPT Review Conference states unequivocally that concrete progress should be made in the creation of such a zone. Consultations should be organized involving all the Middle Eastern states aimed at defining an “agenda of progress” for a ME zone free of weapons of mass destruction. A Unsponsored international conference should be called for, to discuss the implementation of the ME zone free of weapons of mass destruction and particularly of a nuclear-weapons free zone. The UN could appoint a coordinator to help the process of establishing a zone free of weapons of mass destructions and particularly a nuclear-weapons-free zone in the Middle East.

Promote nuclear disarmament: ensure CTBT entry into force, push forward the FMCT

12. The CTBT should be signed and ratified immediately by all those states that are bound by other treaties or agreements not to test nuclear weapons or that declared that they do not intend to test in the future. To do otherwise would just be a continuation of the practice of holding arms control treaties hostage to political pressures, irrespective of their actual value and merit. If some states continue to block entry into force of the CTBT, they will have to justify that position to the international community. Permanently ending nuclear testing for all and hence impeding new nuclear weapons developments and stopping the production of fissile materials for weapons purposes are all important elements supporting the goal of global nuclear disarmament. Regardless of the timing of the entry into force of the CTBT, the CTBT Organization in Vienna, should be strengthened.

Prevent nuclear proliferation: strengthen the IAEA and the international monitoring & control regime 13. In light of the present spread of nuclear activities for civilian purposes, it is clearly in the collective interest that all such activities be properly monitored and controlled by the competent international organization, namely the IAEA. The IAEA itself should be strengthened both in its workforce and in its ability to operate. The (model) additional protocol should be considered as the new norm, in terms of the relations between the agency and the member states. All members of the NPT should be encouraged to sign and ratify the (model) additional protocol. Milan Document on Nuclear Disarmament (2010) 37

14. Work should be pursued to develop improved proliferation-resistant technologies in all stages of the production process.

15. Nuclear fuel production should be soon internationalized, without prejudice to the inalienable right recognized in Article IV of the treaty. International consortiums for enriching uranium and for the production of nuclear fuel should be encouraged and the monitoring of these international consortiums should be firmly in the hands of the IAEA. Phasing-out of reprocessing in favor of interim storage should also be encouraged 1.

16. Efforts should be made to improve the monitoring capabilities of the IAEA beyond the additional protocol. A critical analysis of the problems, gaps and shortcomings of the monitoring systems should be made in the spirit of objective and constructive criticism.

Prevent nuclear proliferation. Strengthen and harmonize national legislation to prevent illicit traffic of nuclear material and of technical devices that could be used in building nuclear weapons

17. The effectiveness of resolution 1540 should be thoroughly examined. Countries should be encouraged to include in their legislation provisions to control, intercept and punish the illicit transfer of nuclear material (particularly of fissile material). The legislation should guarantee the possibility of intercepting illicit traffic of materials and technologies that could be used to manufacture nuclear weapons or nuclear explosive devices. Dual-use materials and technologies should attract particular attention, and their transfer should be regulated by national legislation and international agreements. Because the availability of Highly (HEU) provides the most ‘easy’ avenue for manufacturing nuclear explosive devices by possible non-state actors, countries should be encouraged and helped to progressively phase out reactors using HEU and to replace them with reactors using Low Enriched Uranium (LEU) fuel. The huge existing stocks of HEU, as well as the large amounts that will be obtained from nuclear disarmament, should be down-blended as quickly and as completely as possible to LEU (to be then employed as fuel for energyproducing nuclear reactors ).

Ensure the right of all NPT member-states to develop nuclear activities for civilian purposes

18. The right of NPT parties to develop, research and use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes is recognized under the treaty and should not be subject to constraints or limitations. This right should be exercised in accordance with the obligations prescribed by the treaty. 19. Assistance to civilian nuclear programs of member states should be guaranteed to all parties to the NPT without prejudice, while enforcing all the applicable control and monitoring activities.

20. Assisting the development of national nuclear energy programs of NPT member states should include also advising member states of all the risks and problems involved with civilian nuclear programs. Reference should be made to problems related with economic sustainability, with environmental concerns (including all the serious problems related to waste disposal), with the control and the training of technicians, with the organization of

1 Currently the world is dealing inadequately with 250 tons of already separated plutonium and the 70 tons of weapon-grade plutonium that Russia and U.S. have declared excess. Reprocessing costs more than interim storage and complicates radioactive waste management. For a non-nuclear state, it can provide a civilian pretext for creating a nuclear-weapon option. Milan Document on Nuclear Disarmament (2010) 38 emergency responses in case of serious technical problems. This should happen of course without prejudice to the inalienable right guaranteed by article IV of the NPT.