Ban All Nuclear Weapons

johnloretz — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 18:55:08 +0000

The New York Times published this letter in its online edition on June 11 (www.nytimes.com/2008/06/11/opinion/lweb11airforce.html):
June 11, 2008

To the Editor:

Re “2 Leaders Ousted From Air Force in Atomic Errors” (front page, June 6):

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates did the right thing by holding the Air Force secretary and chief of staff accountable for failures to secure American nuclear weapons properly. While that’s reassuring, it only postpones the kind of catastrophe that is waiting to happen as long as any country, including the United States, possesses nuclear weapons.

The trail of “broken arrows” — significant accidents involving nuclear weapons — can be traced back to February 1950, when a B-36 bomber dropped a nuclear weapon into the Pacific Ocean during a training mission and then crashed in British Columbia. Since then, there have been more than 100 nuclear mishaps, major and minor, all warnings that we delay the achievement of a nuclear-weapon-free world at our peril.

We can and must be as responsible as possible with the weapons we have, but the possession of nuclear weapons is itself an extreme act of irresponsibility. The sooner the world comes together around negotiations for a nuclear weapons convention and abolishes these most abhorrent weapons of mass destruction, the safer we will all be.

John Loretz
Cambridge, Mass., June 6, 2008

The writer is program director of the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War.

ICAN Action Alert May 2008

ippnweupdate — Tue, 27 May 2008 19:47:01 +0000

Stop HEU Use in Radiopharmaceutical Production

IPPNW has launched a medical campaign, as part of ICAN, to accelerate the global conversion of radioisotope-producing reactors from highly enriched uranium (HEU) to low enriched uranium (LEU). The objective of the campaign is the passage of resolutions by medical associations around the world, in order to place irresistible pressure on those few producers who continue to use HEU needlessly.

While it may seem like a small matter compared with the task of eliminating some 25,000 nuclear weapons from the world’s arsenals, this is a proliferation problem in the medical profession’s own backyard. Health care professionals have an obligation to hasten the phase-out of medical commerce in HEU and so terminate one of the most vulnerable pathways to the much-feared “terrorist bomb.”

The International Council and the IPPNW Board supported this coordinated activity in which all IPPNW affiliates are urged to participate as an ICAN priority. We are asking all IPPNW affiliates to take the following steps, starting as soon as possible:

Go to www.ippnw.org/Programs/ICAN/HEU.htm to familiarize yourself with the issue and to download some essential resources, including a draft resolution, a briefing paper on HEU, and a powerpoint presentation that you can use to describe the HEU problem (and the solution) to your medical associations. (For your convenience, the briefing paper and draft resolution are attached.)
Contact your national medical association and/or specialty associations to find out what process they use to consider and adopt policy resolutions. In some cases, this may involve submitting the text through a resolutions committee in advance of an annual meeting. You may find, therefore, that a certain amount of follow up will be required over a period of months, so it would be a good idea to assign this project to a local ICAN coordinator.
Educate the leadership of your medical association about the use of HEU in medical isotope production. The powerpoint presentation available on IPPNW’s website has been designed for use by non-experts. If you have questions, or need additional information or advice, please contact us at director@ippnw.org.
Please keep the Central Office informed about your progress. We already know, for example, PSR members are bringing this issue to the American Public Health Association, and that Ron McCoy has brought an HEU resolution to the Malaysian Medical Association. We will keep you updated on these and other initiatives as we learn more.

Late Night Thoughts on NPT Prep Com

gunnarw — Thu, 22 May 2008 21:47:20 +0000

By Gunnar Westberg, M.D.

I will not summarize the conference; this has been done very well by John Loretz.

After a conference which has not been a big success – which a PrepCom can never be - I tend to ruminate on the question: How to do it better next time. And in this case, even more the next next time, the NPT Review Conference in New York April 26 to May 21 2010, the event when the treaty shall be re-evaluated and the direction to a world free of nuclear weapons shall be decided.

For us, I see three most important tasks up till then: To make the Nuclear Weapons Convention a centrepiece of the NPT process; to promote some of the ideas of the “Gang of Four”; to make the 13 steps from the NPT Rev in 2000 practical reality.

We should decide during the fall 2008 how to make our priorities.

NWC and the Blue Book “Securing our Survival”. We have tried to make the convention recognized with relatively little success. Few diplomats have read it, most have not even looked into it. Up until the next NPT PrepCom May 4-14 2009 in New York it should be a priority to get as many diplomats and their advisers as possible to read at least parts of the book. We shall also ask them to offer their criticism of the content and to tell us why “it won’t work”. Maybe the critics are right: The time has not come. If so, when? And why?

Probably we will find that the NWC is the right tool and the time is right. If so, we should concentrate on getting it discussed as much as possible within the U.N. and at the NPT PrepCom.

The “Gang of Four” proposals (anyone found a better name yet?). The four Grey Eminences have now received the support of a large majority of the still living former Secretaries of State, National Security Advisers and Secretaries of defense. And the support from Barack Obama. Indeed remarkable, considering they are explicitly demanding that for the security of the USA all nuclear weapons shall be abolished. They have also got an organization to work for them, the Nuclear Threat Initiative and with that the support of Ted Turner. They are spreading the message world wide. Great!

We shall be shouting our Hurrahs, but keep our fingers crossed. This idea may have arrived too late. Ten years ago Russia would probably have agreed, today this is more uncertain. Put yourself in the place of the Russian generals: “In a world without nuclear weapons the USA will reign supreme. If the US demands access to our Russian oil, gas and minerals on their conditions and at their price, how can we stop them? The Red Army is in disarray, the only weapons we can trust are nukes”. I am concerned that Russia will make heavy demands requesting both a decrease in the US non-nuclear forces and serious commitments and non-aggression treaties. Will the new US administration see how important the issue is and accept compromises?

Let’s hope, and support. Every peace group will do the same. But the basic flaw in the approach of these statesmen is obvious: They speak primarily for the security of the US. We speak for the security of the world.

The Thirteen steps from NPT Review 2000 are what the diplomats in the Non-nuclear weapon states are likely to go for. Here are many chances to build alliances and try different approaches. IPPNW should not devote too much energy to the details, that is not our strength. We should keep reminding the nuclear weapon states of their solemn pledges to work for a nuclear weapons free world. A CTBT, a Fissile material treaty is just a tool, a condition to be met, on that road.

In the fall of 2008 we should agree on our strategy for NPT Rev 2010. We should make plans to meet with Foreign Office diplomats in many countries, before both the 2009 Prep and 2010 NPT Rev, with a concise agenda and plans for follow up. We need the support from the Central Office to encourage and keep track of these activities.

Gunnar Westberg

A Treaty to Abolish Nuclear Weapons

ippnweupdate — Thu, 22 May 2008 21:47:09 +0000

By Lawrence S. Wittner

Although few people are aware of it, there has been considerable progress over the past decade toward a treaty to abolish nuclear weapons.

For many years, there had been a substantial gap between the pledges to eliminate nuclear weapons made by the signatories to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) of 1968 and the reality of their behaviour.

To remedy this situation, in 1996 the New York-based Lawyers’ Committee on Nuclear Policy - the U.S. affiliate of the International Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms - began to coordinate the drafting of a Model Nuclear Weapons Convention. Formulated along the lines of the Chemical Weapons Convention, which entered into force in 1997, this model nuclear convention was designed to serve as an international treaty that prohibits and eliminates nuclear weapons.

Although the late 1990s proved a difficult time for nuclear arms control and disarmament measures, the Lawyers’ Committee on Nuclear Policy, joined by International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War and the International Network of Engineers Against Proliferation, continued its efforts. Consequently, in 2007, these organizations released a new model treaty, revised to reflect changes in world conditions, as well as an explanatory book, Securing Our Survival.

In 1997, like its predecessor, this updated convention for nuclear abolition was circulated within the United Nations, this time at the request of Costa Rica and Malaysia. In addition, it was presented at a number of international conclaves, including a March 2008 meeting of non-nuclear governments in Dublin, sponsored by the Middle Powers Initiative and by the government of Ireland.

Although the Western nuclear weapons states and Russia have opposed a nuclear abolition treaty, the idea has begun to gain traction. The Wall Street Journal op-eds by George Shultz, William Perry, Henry Kissinger, and Sam Nunn have once again placed nuclear abolition on the political agenda. Speaking in February 2008, the U.N. High Representative for Disarmament Affairs, Sergio Duarte, condemned the great powers’ “refusal to negotiate or discuss even the outlines of a nuclear-weapons convention” as “contrary to the cause of disarmament. ” Opinion surveys have reported widespread popular support for nuclear abolition in numerous nations-including the United States, where about 70 percent of respondents back the signing of an international treaty to reduce and eliminate all nuclear weapons.

Of course, it’s only fair to ask if there really exists the political will to bring such a treaty to fruition. Although Barack Obama has endorsed the goal of nuclear abolition, neither of his current opponents for the U.S. presidency has followed his example or seems likely to do so. John McCain is a thoroughgoing hawk, while Hillary Clinton-though publicly supporting some degree of nuclear weapons reduction-has recently issued the kind of “massive retaliation” threats unheard of since the days of John Foster Dulles.

Furthermore, the American public is remarkably ignorant of nuclear realities. Writing in the Foreword to a recent book, Nuclear Disorder or Cooperative Security, published by the Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy, the Western States Legal Foundation, and the Reaching Critical Will project of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (www.wmdreport.org), Zia Mian, a Princeton physicist, points to a number of disturbing facts about contemporary U.S. public opinion. For example, more Americans (55%) mistakenly believe that Iran has nuclear weapons than know that Britain (52%), India (51%), Israel (48%), and France (38%) actually have these weapons.

Although the United States possesses over 5,700 operationally deployed nuclear warheads, more than half of U.S. respondents to an opinion survey thought that the number was 200 weapons or fewer. Thus, even though most Americans have displayed a healthy distaste for nuclear weapons and nuclear war, their ability to separate fact from fiction might well be questioned when it comes to nuclear issues.

Fortunately, there are many organisations working to better educate the public on nuclear dangers. In addition to the groups already mentioned, these include Peace Action, Physicians for Social Responsibility, the Federation of American Scientists, Faithful Security, and the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. And important knowledge can also be gleaned from that venerable source of nuclear expertise, The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.

But there remains a considerable distance to go before a treaty to abolish nuclear weapons becomes international law.

The History News Network: www.hnn.us/articles/49891.html

Dr. Wittner is Professor of History at the State University of New York/Albany. His latest book, co-edited with Glen H. Stassen, is Peace Action: Past, Present, and Future (Paradigm Publishers).

IPPNW, ICAN bring abolition message to NPT PrepCom

ippnweupdate — Thu, 22 May 2008 21:46:28 +0000

By John Loretz

When nuclear weapon states give themselves credit for dismantling aging and outdated strategic weapons, while maintaining silence about their investments in programs to build 21st century arsenals, what are non-nuclear-weapon states to think?

Do non-nuclear -weapon states have an obligation to uphold their end of the bargain under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), whether or not the nuclear-weapon states ever make good on their own commitments?

Can global expansion of the nuclear energy industry take place without jeopardizing the entire non-proliferation regime?

When will the promise of the NPT be fulfilled through the negotiation and adoption of a Nuclear Weapons Convention (NWC) to abolish the only weapons capable of destroying humanity?

These questions [see answers below], among others, were raised loudly by IPPNW and representatives of more than 60 other non-governmental organizations (NGOs) who participated in the second Preparatory Committee meeting for the 2010 NPT Review Conference in Geneva.

More than a dozen doctors, medical students, and staff guaranteed a strong IPPNW presence at the PrepCom, promoting the Convention among diplomats and other NGOs, attending ICAN workshops, organizing a “Nuclear Weapon Free – My Cuppa Tea” event, and taking part in a simulation game to negotiate an NWC. Former co-president Gunnar Westberg presented an IPPNW paper on the climate effects of regional nuclear war, during a formal NGO session in the PrepCom assembly hall.

Unlike the failed 2005 Review and the 2007 PrepCom, where procedural wrangling effectively prevented substantive discussion, many state delegations openly pressed the nuclear weapon states to make deeper, faster, and more permanent cuts in their arsenals, while insisting that the non-proliferation terms of the Treaty (Articles I and II) must go hand-in-hand with disarmament (Article VI).

The not-so-hidden agenda of nuclear energy supplier states—led most aggressively by Russia and the US—to use the Treaty as a staging ground for the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership and the development of multinational uranium enrichment centers was even more apparent at this PrepCom than it was a year ago in Vienna. The beleaguered US-India nuclear technology deal, which seriously undermines the non-proliferation goals of the NPT, became a focal point of across-the-board NGO opposition to the so-called peaceful uses of nuclear energy enshrined in Article IV.

Nevertheless, this was a PrepCom that ended without substantive decisions or official recommendations. Any hopes for a positive outcome in 2010 now hinge on the decisions made at the 2009 PrepCom in New York.

Click here to download a full PrepCom report, including the text of Dr. Westberg’s presentation

[ANSWER KEY: 1) What else can they think? The nuclear weapon states are far from compliance with Article VI. 2) Yes. But can anyone wonder why they are losing patience with the double standard? 3) No. 4) As soon as civil society demands it loudly and effectively enough.]

Perscriptions for Survival - 9/25 thru 9/27

ippnweupdate — Thu, 22 May 2008 19:33:58 +0000

How worried are you about the fate of our planet? Climate change, wars, toxins in the environment threaten our health and the health of generations to come. Nuclear weapons, the ultimate catastrophe, are still with us. This conference will help you learn about the connections between health and the environment and look for potential solutions. We will examine the health effects of human rights violations, climate change, chemical waste, war, energy and resource depletion, economic policies, the ‘built environment’ and ‘greening’ of hospitals. Many of these issues have major consequences for basic human health and even survival hence the title: “Prescriptions for Survival”.

Objectives and specific outcomes:

To offer reliable, unbiased, user-friendly information such that participants can appreciate the interconnections between major issues of environment and militarism and their effects on health.
To support medical residents/students/fellows, our future physician leaders, and give them the tools they will need to communicate this knowledge to the broader public.
To promote land-use planning and ‘built environments’ that support active, healthy lifestyles and improve community and environmental health.
To renew public outrage that nuclear weapons are not only the ultimate weapon of war, but also can cause unfathomable environmental effects. Medical students are planning a “Target X” and soup kitchen campaign to coincide with this conference as a public awareness tool.
To reconnect the larger medical community to the fact that nuclear weapons are a public health concern and hence draw attention to ways of nuclear war prevention.
To recognize that climate change, sometimes described as a ‘threat multiplier’, is also a public health concern and look at ways of mitigating and adapting to these impacts.
To produce, as a result of the conference activities, some ‘prescriptions for survival’ for future use, which will be in the form of a conference report summarizing the key learnings.
To inspire and inform doctors and medical students to be more involved in their local communities and in the global village.

Contact Information
Andrea Levy, Physicians for Global Survival (Canada) national office
208-145 Spruce St., Ottawa, ON., K1R 6P1,
Phone: (613) 233-1982 Fax (613) 233-9028 Email: pgsadmin@web.ca
Nancy Covington, Halifax
Phone: (902) 479-3953 Email: nancy.covington@ns.sympatico.ca
Conference Web Site
Physicians for Global Survival (Canada) http://www.pgs.ca/

IPPNW to Participate in UN Programme of Action

ippnweupdate — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 19:55:33 +0000

IPPNW to Participate in UN Programme of Action on Small Arms International Meeting New York City in July. We are currently planning events via our leadership with the IANSA Public Health Network to educate delegates and encourage policy changes to prevent injuries and death from gun violence.

IPPNW has applied for accreditation to participate at the United Nations Conference Third Biennial Meeting of States to Consider the Implementation of the Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects, that will take place in New York City between 14 and 18 July 2008. View meeting website.

As an international NGO with UN consultative status through both ECOSOC and the Department of Public Information, IPPNW has been a regular participant at UN-based disarmament meetings, including, in recent years, the 2001 UN Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons, the First and Second Biennial Meetings of States in July 2003, 2005, and the 2006 PrepCom. At the latter meetings IPPNW co-sponsored side events with the World Health Organization and also the IANSA Public Health Network (which we coordinate) on the public health dimensions of small arms violence. An IPPNW One Bullet Story from Kenya was shown on the giant screen to all delegates during the NGO presentation in 2005.

We are currently planning activities to educate delegates and encourage policy changes to prevent injuries from gun violence. [Support this Work]

IPPNW Presents 13 Papers on Violence Prevention

ippnweupdate — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 19:40:54 +0000

IPPNW members from 6 countries presented 13 papers and posters on violence prevention and public health at this year’s 9^th World Conference on Violence Prevention and Safety Promotion otherwise known as Safety 2008 held in March in Merida, Mexico. Attendees from the United States (including Puerto Rico), El Salvador, Nicaragua, Kenya, Nigeria and Zambia also participated in meetings organized by regional departments of the World Health Organization (WHO), the WHO Violence Prevention Alliance of which IPPNW is a member, and the International Society for Violence and Injury Prevention. We spread our message that “Guns are Bad for Health,” continued our discussions with the Small Arms Survey regarding future projects (they recently helped fund our African armed violence research project.), and released a Press Release in which IPPNW co-president Dr. Ime John called for more international donor investment in violence prevention. Seven IPPNW delegates received full scholarships from Safety 2008 to attend.

A special section of Medicine, Conflict and Survival edited by Medact’s Dr. Jack Piachaud will be developed based on several of the IPPNW papers presented at Safety 2008.

These conferences are excellent venues for networking and making important contacts for future work. Please keep our AfP network informed about other important conferences such as this where we can possibly present and advocate on our issues. [Support this Work]

IPPNW delegates to Safety 2008 in Merida Mexico with Jennifer Hazen from Small Arms Survey (third from right)

Discussing projects and posters at Safety 2008

Dr. David Meddings from WHO reviews IPPNW poster on African research project at Safety 2008

“Do not whisper when speaking truth to power”

gunnarw — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 14:23:33 +0000

On Tuesday March 11 there was a Plenary session “Dialogue with Parliamentarians and Political Leaders” during which several members of the Parliament of India spoke. My experience of this session finally led me to ask for the word during the afternoon session:

“I have been sitting here this morning, listening to one politician after another, who argue that India must have nuclear weapons in order to work for nuclear abolition. I felt anger and rage rising within me. It was difficult to identify the origin of my wrath. Then the words of Bernard Lown started to reverberate in my head: “Do not whisper when speaking truth to power”.

I was angry at myself: I had not even whispered. I had kept quiet, and applauded. The politicians spoke, and quickly went away. They probably left with the feeling that we all agree: India is working hard for a nuclear weapons free world. One speaker, one only, Dr Farooq Abdullah, admitted that India started the nuclear arms race on the subcontinent in 1974 with its so called “peaceful nuclear explosions”. But India continued to speak for nuclear abolition.

All credibility India may have had as country working for nuclear disarmament was then effectively blown away with the nuclear tests in 1998. Not one of the Indian Parliamentarians said that these tests were a horrendous mistake. The arms race increased, India had become a likely target for a nuclear attack, and India had exposed itself as just another nationalistic country.

And here we sat, trying to understand the message: If you want nuclear abolition, build nuclear weapons. Maybe the speakers were able to trick themselves into believing what they were saying. The human capacity of self-delusion is remarkable. But we should not pretend that we believed their Orwellian newspeak. We should say: You have betrayed India’s great tradition as a peace-making country. You must begin anew. The first step is to regret the nuclear tests. The second is to sign the nuclear test ban treaty, CTBT. If you do not sign you would show that you are planning to go ahead with new bombs, more bombs, “nuclear superiority” instead of “minimal deterrence”.

India’s politicians, you have a great tradition from Mahatma Gandhi and from Jawaharlal Nehru to build on. Do not squander your heritage.”

—-

The following should be added: The tests in 1998 were met with a great outburst of nationalist pride in India. One of the very few dissenting voice came from Indian Doctors for Peace and Development. The President of IDPD dr L.S. Chawla said that IDPD did regret the tests, explaining that they would accelerate the nuclear arms race in the region and decrease the security of India. The cost of nuclear weapons would make fewer resources available for health. For this Dr Chawla and his brave colleagues were called traitors.

They did not whisper. They spoke the truth loud and clear. IPPNW should be proud of our Indian affiliate.

Nuclear “Famine” Workshop

akanter — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 11:11:45 +0000

Nuclear “Famine” Workshop – Lead by Dr. Ira Helfand, PSR USA

There are two objectives for the workshop: 1) Show the draft slideshow for critique and input and 2) Present several areas for additional research.

Dr. Helfand presented the purpose of the workshop and asked that people provide feedback on the slideshow and the research agenda. The goal is to make changes to the powerpoint presentation and then make it available for affiliates to use in educating about the issue. A special point should be made that this research could be an important piece of the ICAN (International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons) campaign as the research shows that even a regional, limited nuclear exchange could kill over a billion people from agricultural disruption and essentially end life as we know it!

Regarding the research part, the climate effects of the research have been well established and are considered quite rigorous. It is important to know that the original work by Robock and Toon (and others) about Nuclear Winter was well studied in the 1980s. This new work included 2 separate models which now takes into account more levels of the atmosphere and the oceans in the models. The work presented here in the workshop was confirmed in the two different simulations. There are six other models which have yet to be run, and if anyone has access to these models, it would be good to confirm the results with them, too. The health effects of Ira’s paper are more speculative and although based on historical experience, are harder to work out. It is in this area that we hope we can further the research to strengthen the paper for eventual publication in a journal like Lancet.

Nuclear weapons obvious inflict serious harm to those directly targeted. The bomb at Hiroshima, although relatively small, killed 150,000 people. It represents only a miniscule portion of the current nuclear arsenals. The heat and explosive effects are well known, but nuclear detonations have important other effects which are distributed more widely. There are two main atmospheric consequences. The burning of cities produces a lot of smoke and this absorbs sunlight. The explosion also kicks up a lot of dust which reflects sunlight: Both of which serve to dim the light and cool the ground temperatures.

The research being presented here is based primarily on work done by Toon and Robock which simulated an exchange of 100 of Hiroshima-size nuclear weapons between India and Pakistan. This was chosen as it represents a probably scenario between two adversaries that have recently fought wars.

In the research, which also recognized the immediate deaths of hundreds of millions of Indians and Pakistan, the climate effects were dramatic. There would be an immediate drop in surface temperatures of 1.5 deg C over days and this effect would be severe for 2-3 years and continue for about a decade. This is the largest amount of cooling ever recorded. The overall warming which has occurred in the last 100 years has only been .75 deg C. The cooling projected by this scenario would bring the average temperature to a point below even the mini-ice age around 1400.

In addition to the cooling, there is a marked reduction in the effective growing season and precipitation around the planet. There are reductions in precipitation of 20-50% in many of the key growing regions of the world. The growing season would be reduced from 10-40 days in the same areas. Other effects reducing consumable agricultural production include decreased light, increased UV radiation due to ozone depletion, and increase toxins and radiation.

These effects parallel the effects of naturally occurring cooling events such as the eruption of the Laki volcano in Iceland in 1783 which caused widespread famine in China and India, and the Tambora eruption in 1815 which produced “the year without a summer” in 1816.

Both of these occurred in much less populated times and with distribution of smoke and ash which were lower in the atmosphere and which washed out more quickly than that anticipated by the limited nuclear war scenario discussed here.

The agriculture effects of these examples are widespread and lead to famine. However, this is not just due to a decrease in production but also the accessibility of food due to hoarding, prices, etc. Work by Amartya Sen, Nobel Prize winning economist, on the Great Famine of Bengal clearly outlines this issue. Increased fuel prices would also decrease the availability of fertilizer, pesticides and tractors, further reducing agricultural yields.

The world is currently very dependent on grain production. We are currently at the lowest point of grain reserves for a long time. There are 800 million people which are currently undernourished with daily intake of below 1800-2200 calories (minimum daily requirement). Another 200 million are borderline. It is not unreasonable to assume that these marginal people would not survive the drastic effects of this limited, regional nuclear war.

This would lead to massive epidemics of disease, wars over resources, etc. killing many more people.

Reaffirming the point made earlier… this means that there are many countries (not just the US and Russia) which have sufficient nuclear weapons to create a global climate catastrophe and the deaths of billions of people. This is a strong argument for complete abolition of nuclear weapons.

The discussion that followed the presentation raised several questions:

How do we get this issue into the minds of decision makers? A recommendation was the creation of a 4-6 minute DVD which can be shared. Also inclusion with ICAN materials.
Is this a realistic military scenario? Evidence from Pakistan in 1991 was that they were ready to launch all of their nuclear weapons in bombers. Do we need more evidence of the relevance of the scenario described here?
Slides are too complicated. This was especially true for the general public, but even some for the physicians. Many slides also need more titling and less smaller text or lots of numbers (e.g., the millimeters of precipitation slide).
A participant who was a medical doctor and PhD in Agriculture made some additional comments. This included that the oral presentation in the workshop did not include two other effects: decreased light and genetic effects of radiation (which would generally decrease crop production). However, most of the conclusions seemed reasonable.
What is different about these scenarios from the oil fires and volcanoes? I think this was answered above, but the main difference is the height at which the smoke and dust rise. This greatly extends the duration and scope of the effects.
Will we be considered as jumping on the climate bandwagon? Ira noted that these conclusions are similar to those widely accepted in the 80s by Sagan, et. al.
Does location of the simulation matter? Yes, particularly whether northern or southern hemisphere. This was in South Asia, but the effects quickly become global. We have an animated GIF file which can be used but involves larger number of weapons.
The medical system is already overburdened. Wouldn’t this overwhelm the system in a similar manner to the local systems described in our “bombing run” scenarios? Yes, and this is another good point to make.
Will these shocking pictures lead to further denial from our audience? Will we get caught in arguing about numbers rather than on substance of the research? This is important to be on the watch for.
Need a concise description of the results, similar to an “elevator speech” that can be used to talk to people quickly about.

Ira thanked all the participants for their contributions and promised to take their advice into account and provided an updated PowerPoint presentation with notes attached.

[Support This Work]