For 55 years, the
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists' "
Doomsday Clock" has been "the world's more recognizable symbol of nuclear danger". The last time the clock was
moved was in 2002:
Today, the Board of Directors of the
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists moves the minute hand of the "Doomsday Clock," the symbol of nuclear danger, from nine to seven minutes to midnight, the same setting at which the clock debuted 55 years ago. Since the end of the Cold War in 1991, this is the third time the hand has moved forward.
We move the hands taking into account both negative and positive developments. The negative developments include too little progress on global nuclear disarmament; growing concerns about the security of nuclear weapons materials worldwide; the continuing U.S. preference for unilateral action rather than cooperative international diplomacy; U.S. abandonment of the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty and U.S. efforts to thwart the enactment of international agreements designed to constrain proliferation of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons; the crisis between India and Pakistan; terrorist efforts to acquire and use nuclear and biological weapons; and the growing inequality between rich and poor around the world that increases the potential for violence and war. If it were not for the positive changes highlighted later in this statement, the hands of the clock might have moved closer still.
The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, founded by a group of World War II-era Manhattan Project scientists, has warned the world of nuclear dangers since 1945. The September 11 attacks, and the subsequent and probably unrelated use of the mail to deliver deadly anthrax spores, breached previous boundaries for terrorist acts and should have been a global wake-up call. Moving the clock's hands at this time reflects our growing concern that the international community has hit the "snooze" button rather than respond to the alarm.
(All emphases are mine)
Today, representatives from over 180 countries are meeting at the UN headquarters in New York to discuss the 35-year-old Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Continued below the fold...
The
Guardian reports:
The global spread of nuclear weapons is at stake today as delegates from 190 countries convene in an attempt to salvage the 1970 non-proliferation treaty, but the chances of success look dim.
The rift between nuclear and non-nuclear states, and between the US and Iran in particular, is so serious that a final agenda had still not been agreed on the eve of the month-long conference in New York, despite frantic shuttle diplomacy by its Brazilian chairman, Sergio de Queiroz Duarte.
"If we could get out of this conference without a major blow-up we would be doing well," said Matt Martin, a deputy director of the British American Security Information Council, a transatlantic thinktank.
Both sides agree the NPT is outdated, but they differ sharply on how it could be strengthened. The US, with support from Britain and France, wants stricter controls on the transfer of nuclear technology.
The non-nuclear states, which met separately in Mexico City last week to agree a common position, argue more emphasis should be put on banning the development of new weapons by the existing nuclear powers.
And there is disagreement on the NPT's third pillar: the clauses guaranteeing non-nuclear states access to "peaceful" nuclear power technology if they forgo nuclear arsenals.
"The politics of the conference make it clear the treaty cannot continue and cannot be strengthened unless all three legs of the bargain can be preserved," said Daryl Kimball, head of the independent Arms Control Association.
Iran believes the NPT's nuclear power clauses give it the right to enrich its own uranium or produce plutonium as long as it is - as Tehran insists - intended for peaceful use.
But what about North Korea? As you know, they launched a missile into the Sea of Japan yesterday. The White House denounced the test, but seems to be focusing mostly on Iran as a potential nuclear threat, despite an ominous warning from the head of the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency that North Korea has the ability to arm a missile with a nuclear device.
Obviously, the situation is complex. Is the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty outdated? Will the U.S. actually deal with the North Korea problem?
Just remember what Bush said at his press conference the other night:
I mean, we've got partners. This is a six-party talk: five of us on the side of convincing Kim Jong Il to get rid of his nuclear weapons and, obviously, Kim Jong Il believes he ought to have some.
And my point was that that it is best -- if you have a group of people trying to achieve the same objective, it's best to work with those people. It's best to consult.
His question was: Are you going to -- you know, when are you going to -- when will there be consequences? And what we want to do is to work with our allies on this issue and develop a consensus, a common approach, to the consequences of Kim Jong Il.
I mean, it seems counterproductive to have five of us working together and then all of a sudden one of us say, Well, we're not going to work together.
Again, I repeat to you, our aim is to solve this problem diplomatically.
Thanks, George. I'm convinced. Not.