War and weapons (especially nuclear)

1 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.1Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons
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.2The “Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons” is the body that can negotiate rules banning “killer robots.”

2 Links

3 Wiki

Each of the proposals above has its own page on the Project Save the World wiki. Our intention is that people will volunteer to use the wiki for an essay on how the proposal can be put into action, what changes may need to be introduced, and so on.

If you are interested in being a contributor, contact us at mspencer@web.net.

4 Papers and articles

Please contact the page administrator if you have research material (published or unpublished) which you wish to submit.

5 Responses

  1. Metta Spencer says:

    Last June there was all-party support for an extraordinary recommendation by the House of Commons Standing Committee on National Defence. It called on the Canadian Government to “take a leadership role within NATO in beginning the work necessary for achieving the NATO goal of creating the conditions for a world free of nuclear weapons.” In October, the Government responded to say it agrees with the recommendation but essentially argued that its current policies and activities already constitute such leadership. A closer look at NATO’s nuclear posture indicates there is still plenty of room for improvement.
    Here is Ernie Regehr’s article, “NATO and Nuclear Disarmament – I: NATO’s nuclear posture”


  2. admin says:

    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.

    [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.

  3. admin says:

    Submitted by Peter Hajnal:

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

    #4: any connection with R2P?

  4. Carol Wells says:

    #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.

  5. Carol Wells says:

    #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 *