War and weapons (especially nuclear)

This page is for people with expertise in, or a particular interest in, reducing war and weapons (especially nuclear).

War and Weapons links

Platform for Survival items

1. All states owning or hosting nuclear weapons shall immediately de-alert them and commit to no-first-use.
2. All states, including those in NATO, shall sign, ratify, and within 10 years comply with the TPNW.1
3. All states shall reduce their militaries and not plan war for “national security.”
4. All states shall develop a UN Emergency Peace Service to protect civilians and respond to crises.
5. All states shall ratify and fully implement the Arms Trade Treaty.
6. UN Convention on CCW and all states shall prohibit developing or deploying lethal autonomous weapons.2

4 comments

  1. Submitted by David Harries

    War and weapons: what might be called for

    #1. States’ defence doctrines will all be re-written and re-structured to try to minimize inter-state one-up-man-ship.
    #2. Detailed metrics provided immediately will make a ’10-year’ compliance deadline at least imaginable.
    #3. States will all have to re-focus security policies, infrastructure and organizations on homeland security.[1]
    #4. Detailed protocols will govern the dynamic interrelationships among UNEPS,[2] other mission-deployed forces, and host- states’ security processes and structures.
    #5. An ATT Transparency Secretariat will enable ‘public’ review of the actions of arms sellers and arms buyers.
    #6. Multi-national counter-measures organizations will respond to non-state (terrorist and criminal) deployments of LAW.

    Notes
    [1] ‘National Defence’ will rank no higher than co-equal with Homeland Security (and Public Safety).
    [2] Many ‘UNEPS’ forms, mandates, and authorities can be imagined, if one accepts a UNEPS could be established.

  2. Submitted by Peter Hajnal:

    #3: is it OK to plan war for other reasons besides national security?

    #4: any connection with R2P?

  3. #4 Why assume that it would defend the good guys? What if they fight for the bad guys? I don’t trust the Security Council to decide who deserves to be protected. The Security Council is just a particular group of countries, the most power five of which have the power to block any decisions that the others might make. That’s not my idea of security.

  4. #1 That would make them ineffective for deterrence. which is the only legitimate use for them. What are we going to do for defence if not deterrence?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *