STOPPING THE NEW NUCLEAR ARMS RACE.

If terrorism is the threat to injure or kill the innocent, then nuclear weapons are the ultimate instruments of terrorism. They are held on constant alert, ready to destroy whole cities, whole populations. They corrupt by their very presence in society. They contribute to a culture of secrecy while undermining democracy, respect for life, human dignity, and even our human spirit.

Nuclear weapons aren't really weapons; they are devices of unimaginable destruction that draw no boundaries between soldiers and civilians, men and women, the old and the young. They have no true military purpose since their use would cause utter devastation. The stories of the hibakusha--the survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki--attest to the hell inflicted by the dropping of atomic bombs during World War II. Yet despite this knowledge, some countries continue to rely upon such weapons for what they call national security.

The survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki remind us that human beings and nuclear weapons cannot coexist indefinitely. The relationship is bound to end in future tragedies, if for no other reason than we humans are fallible creatures and cannot indefinitely maintain infallible systems. It's therefore clear that nuclear weapons pose a species-wide threat that demands a species-wide response.

This is why peace is not the province of governments; it is the province of the people. It is a responsibility that rests upon all of our shoulders. The people know far more about achieving and maintaining peace and human dignity than the so-called experts--political, military, or academic--will ever know. Therefore we must act now as if our very lives depend on it--because they do.

If we turn over the responsibility for peace to the governments of the world, we can expect wars and military solutions to conflicts will continue. One program now being advanced by the Bush administration that could undermine peace and stop progress on nuclear disarmament is ballistic missile defense. On the surface, missile defense might sound like a good idea. Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could just make those nasty nuclear weapons harmless? That is, theirs not ours. We don't worry much about the threat posed by our own arsenal; after all, the missiles aren't aimed at us. And if we believe our leaders, they're actually aimed at the oceans. They can, however, be reprogrammed on a moment's notice to strike anywhere.

Nuclear weapons pose a domestic security problem because relying on them for security means that other countries will do the same, resulting in all of them being targeted by someone. Ballistic missile defense, if we are to believe its proponents, offers a technological solution. It is, however, unproven and improbable and comes at a high price, both monetarily and in terms of security.

Ballistic missile defense was pushed in the United States by the Reagan administration. In that early incarnation, it was derided as "Star Wars." Since then, it has gone through many more incarnations, the latest of which is a land-based National Missile Defense (NMD) system that is intended to defend against an attack by relatively small and technologically unsophisticated countries like North Korea, Iran, Iraq, or Libya. None of these countries, however, currently has ballistic missiles capable of reaching the United States. No matter, we are told by NMD's proponents; it's better to be prepared for any eventuality. The Rumsfeld Commission unanimously concluded in 1998: "Concerted efforts by a number of overtly or potentially hostile nations to acquire ballistic missiles with biological or nuclear payloads pose a growing threat to the United States, its deployed forces and its friends and allies."

Despite repeated assurances by U.S. officials that an NMD wouldn't be designed to protect the United States against a Russian attack, the Russians aren't convinced. From their perspective, an NMD would undermine their deterrence capability. Even though the NMD would have only 100 to 200 interceptor missiles and the Russians would have more missiles than this aimed at the United States, the Russians are concerned on two grounds. First, it would create the possibility that the United States could initiate a first-strike nuclear attack against Russia and use the NMD simply to deal with the presumably small remaining number of Russian missiles that survived the attack. This scenario may sound far-fetched to U.S. citizens, since they don't envision such a thing ever occurring. The Russians, however, cannot dismiss this scenario since they, like us, base their nuclear strategy on just such worst-case scenarios. The second reason for Russian concern about U.S. deployment of an NMD system is that, although initially the system might have only 100 to 200 interceptor missiles, more could be added.

Russian officials have made it clear that, if the United States goes forward in deploying an NMD system, this could spell the end of arms control with the Russians. Implementation of an NMD system would require the United States to abrogate or violate the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty that was entered into by the United States and Russia in 1972. The purpose of that treaty was to prevent a defensive arms race that could lead to a renewed offensive nuclear arms race. The ABM Treaty has been at the heart of arms control efforts between the two countries for most of the past three decades and is considered to be a foundation of strategic stability in allowing the possibility of continued major reductions in nuclear armaments. If the treaty fails due to U.S. plans to deploy NMD--a goal that the new Bush administration has specifically advocated--the Russians have said they will withdraw from the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty; will pull out of the START II agreements, in which the two countries have agreed to lower the number of deployed strategic nuclear warheads on each side to less than 3,500; and will refuse to negotiate further nuclear reductions under proposed START III agreements.

Under proposed START III agreements, the Russians have put forward a proposal for further reducing nuclear arsenals to 1,500 or less on each side. Under the Clinton administration, the United States responded by saying it would only be willing to reduce its arsenal to around 2,000. Bush has since advocated the "lowest possible number consistent with our national security" but has yet to provide firm specifics.

The stakes of NMD deployment in our relationship with Russia are very high. They are no less so in our relations with China. Currently China has some twenty nuclear weapons capable of reaching U.S. territory. If the United States deploys an NMD with 100 to 200 inceptor missiles, Chinese officials have indicated that they will proceed with building and deploying more nuclear-armed missiles capable of overcoming the U.S. system and reaching the U.S. mainland.

You might ask why Russia or China would take such steps since it is highly unlikely that a U.S. NMD system would be effective. The answer is that the Russian and Chinese governments must project that such a system would work in order to responsibly address their own security issues. Thus, whether or not a U.S. NMD system would work, it would be viewed by both Russia and China as provocative and would most likely lead to new arms races.

And these arms races wouldn't be limited to the three countries in question. If China increases its strategic nuclear arsenal, India (which views China as a potential threat) would probably follow suit. There has also been talk of theater missile defense in North Asia, which could have similar effects throughout Asia, and theater missile defense in the Middle East, which would underline the nuclear imbalance in the region.

So will the deployment of an NMD system make the United States more secure? It's doubtful; it's likely to have the opposite effect. It merely provides a welfare program for the military-industrial complex in the aftermath of the Cold War at a cost of billions of dollars to U.S. taxpayers.

And could such a system even work? Anything is possible theoretically, but up to the present all tests of defensive missiles have failed to consistently and reliably shoot down incoming missiles, even when there is only one to destroy and its place of origin is known. Many experts have argued that it would be far easier for offensive missile attacks to overcome defensive systems by using decoys to trick the defensive missiles.

Rather than pursuing an NMD, the United States would be better able to provide security for its citizens through other courses of action. First, we should take a leadership role in developing an effective ballistic missile control regime to prevent the spread of this technology. This would require concessions by the current nuclear states to dismantle their arsenals of ballistic missiles. And it would require the development of cooperative agreements between the United States and these "rogue nations" or "states of concern." Negotiations with North Korea have already yielded positive results. Negotiations with other states of concern can begin by simply opening discussions on problem areas. Mediation by neutral states or the United Nations may expedite the process.

The United States should fulfill its obligations as a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty and take a leadership role in good faith negotiations toward achieving nuclear disarmament. The International Court of Justice has stated that the threat or use of nuclear weapons is generally illegal and that all nuclear weapons states are obligated to achieve nuclear disarmament "in all its aspects." We cannot expect other nations to risk their own security while continuing our own stature as a threat.

As far back as 1968, when the Non-Proliferation Treaty was signed by the United States, the United Kingdom, and the Soviet Union, these nations promised good-faith negotiations to achieve nuclear disarmament. Although the treaty was enacted in 1970, these nuclear weapons states made virtually no effort to act upon their obligation. Twenty-five years later at the NPT Review and Extension Conference in 1995, nuclear weapons states again promised the "determined pursuit ... of systematic and progressive efforts to reduce nuclear weapons globally." Five years later at the 2000 NPT review conference, promises were made to "accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals" and to preserve and strengthen the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty "as a cornerstone of strategic stability and as a basis for further reductions of strategic offensive weapons."

So far, all they have done is play with words and promises. They have shown no sincerity in keeping their word or fulfilling their obligations. U.S. plans to deploy an NMD system, either nationally or regionally, are at odds with these promises and threaten its credibility throughout the world.

The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (NAPF), of which I am president, is committed to waging peace. We believe in a proactive approach--that peace must be pursued vigorously. Peace doesn't just happen; we must make it happen. We must build effective global institutions of peace, such as the International Criminal Court, and we must strengthen existing institutions like the United Nations and its International Court of Justice so that they can better fulfill their mandates. We cannot continue to turn over decisions on war and peace to national governments. That is what led to World War I, World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and countless others.

The NAPF is a founding member of the Abolition 2000 Global Network and has served in recent years as its international contact. The network has now grown to more than 2,000 organizations and municipalities in ninety-five countries. It's one of the world's largest civil society networks and connects nuclear abolitionists across the globe. Its principle aim is to achieve a treaty for the elimination of all nuclear weapons; developing a strategy to achieve this is the network's most important task.

We need to focus our attention on a global campaign to awaken a dormant humanity. I propose that this campaign include the following elements:

First, establish an easily recognizable symbol to promote our message of peace. We already have this: the sunflower. But we must make better use of it--make it recognizable to people everywhere. Sunflowers should be sent regularly to all government leaders--particularly those of nuclear weapons states--along with substantive messages calling for abolition of nuclear arms and for fulfilling our treaty obligations.

Second, we need clear, simple messages that can reach people's hearts and move them to action. For example: "Destroy the bomb, not the children"; "End the nuclear threat to humanity"; "No security in weapons of mass murder"; "Sunflowers instead of missiles"; "A nuclear war can have no winners"; "In nuclear war, humanity loses."

Third, we must spread these messages through all forms of communication--word of mouth, the media, and particularly the Internet. Basic information on the need for nuclear weapons abolition and ideas for what individuals can do can be found on NAPF's website at wagingpeace.org.

Fourth, we must enlist major public figures in the campaign. We must use public service announcements, as well as paid advertisements. We have already succeeded in obtaining the endorsements of many leading world figures and celebrities to an "Appeal to End the Nuclear Weapons Threat to Humanity." This appeal states clearly that "nuclear weapons are morally and legally unjustifiable" and calls for de-alerting all nuclear weapons and for "good faith negotiations to achieve a Nuclear Weapons Convention requiring the phased elimination of all nuclear weapons." Signatories so far include Mayor Itoh of Nagasaki and Mayor Akiba of Hiroshima, Japan; former U.S. President Jimmy Carter; celebrities Harrison Ford, Michael Douglas, Muhammad Ali, and Barbra Streisand; and thirty-six Nobel laureates, including fourteen Nobel peace laureates.

Fifth, we must target certain key groups in society: youth organizations, women's groups, and religious groups. We must work especially to motivate youths to become active in assuring their future; to inform women's groups of the threats nuclear policies pose to their families; and to alert religious organizations to the moral imperative of nuclear weapons abolition.

Sixth, we must help such groups prepare an action plan. For example, each group could select key decision makers at the local level (a member of Congress or parliamentarian) and at the national level or international level (president, prime minister, foreign minister, defense minister, and the like) to whom they would send sunflowers and monthly letters in an effort to persuade that individual to take more proactive action for nuclear abolition.

Seventh, successful strategies should be shared, especially through the Internet.

We all have a choice. We can end the nuclear weapons era or we can run the risk that nuclear weapons will end the human era. The choice shouldn't be difficult. The vast majority of humanity would choose to eliminate nuclear weapons. That leaves a small number of individuals in a limited number of countries holding humanity hostage to a nuclear holocaust. To change this situation and assure a future free of nuclear threat, people everywhere must exercise their right to life and make their voices heard. They must speak out and act before it's too late. They must demand an end to the nuclear weapons era.

Our dream is not an impossible one. It's something that we can accomplish in our lifetimes. Slavery was abolished. The Berlin Wall fell. Apartheid ended in South Africa. We need to bring the spirit of the hibakusha to bear on nuclear weapons. Our goal of a world free of nuclear weapons will be achieved by individual commitment and discipline and by collective effort.

Achieving this goal will be a victory for all humanity, for all future generations. The cause is right. The time is now. We will prevail because we must prevail.

David Krieger is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. This essay is a compilation of a prepared analysis of a national missile defense system and a keynote address delivered to the Nagasaki Global Citizens'Assembly for the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons. The author can be contacted at [e-mail].