“The bomb is a spiritual disease.”
—E.L. Doctorow

“A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.”
—Martin L. King Jr.
Current Problem
20,000+ nuclear weapons in the world; unknown number of chemical and biological weapons
Preferred State/ What the World Wants
Nuclear, chemical and biological weapon free world for 100% of humanity
“Weapons of mass destruction” is a polite euphemism for genocide. Genocide is the systematic mass murder of a racial, political, or cultural group.  The willingness of a species to entertain thoughts of suicide is not a strong endorsement of its mental health. Having the actual means at hand to carry out such an activity is cause for alarm.
There were 30,000 nuclear weapons in the world in 2003.[1]  28,800 of these belong to the U.S. and Russia.[2]  The U.S. has approximately 7,000 operational nuclear weapons and another 3,000 in stockpile.[3]  Russia has 8,400 operational nuclear weapons.[4] By 2007, the number of nuclear weapons in the world was getting closer to 20,000.[4A]
Each one of the nuclear weapons has the capacity of leveling a city, not just a building, as conventional Oklahoma City type of terrorist bombs can and have.  Thousands, even hundreds of thousands of people can be murdered with one device.  Some nuclear weapons can be carried in a backpack; all will fit in a truck. 
The exact or even rough estimate numbers of biological and chemical weapons are currently unknown.
Such instruments of terror and genocide have no place in a moral, humane or even semi-intelligent world.  Their presence compromises all human progress and makes a mockery of all religious, ethical and cultural codes and standards of behavior.  There is no moral or economic argument for their existence.  There are no valid “limited” or specific military targets for instruments of total or mass destruction.  In a world where already 90% of the casualties in wars are civilians,[5] the use of nuclear weapons is genocide.[6]
Nuclear Weapons Map[6A]

•  Official nuclear-weapon states High-risk countries
North Korea and Iran are under strong suspicion of having tried to develop nuclear weapons during the past years.
Countries that have recently given up attempts to acquire nuclear weapons
Several of the countries in this category had or were suspected of having an active nuclear weapon programme during the 1980's, but have recently given up all such activities, opening all their facilities for international inspection and entering into the Non-Proliferation Treaty. After the Soviet Union was disbanded, Belorussia, Kazakhstan and Ukraine joined the NPT and cooperated in transporting all the remaining nuclear weapons to Russia. Iraq gave up its nuclear weapons activities in the 1990's. Libya abandoned its nuclear technology program in 2003.
Countries outside the Non-Proliferation Treaty
These countries (India, Israel and Pakistan) have not signed the NPT but have secretly developed nuclear weapons.
Countries abstaining from nuclear weapons
These industrial countries have the technology needed, but so far no wish, to develop nuclear weapons. A number of them have facilities under international inspection, since these could be used to produce nuclear material for military purposes.

Eliminating Genocide Weapons Strategy 1: Dismantling/Eliminating Nuclear Weapons Program
It is technologically possible to eliminate the functionality of all the world’s nuclear weapons in a few days.  For example, given the official approval and access, teams of technicians (preferably American teams working on Russian nuclear stockpiles and Russian teams working on U.S. stockpiles) could cut all the triggering and detonation wires and disassemble major nuclear weapon components in hours.
Such a move does not free the world of the nuclear menace, it merely reduces the chances of present nuclear bombs being used—as does in a limited way the tediously slow dismantling of 2,000 nuclear weapons per year that the START Treaty has the U.S. and Russia doing currently.  A more lasting solution is needed.
The following set of strategies are intended to meet this challenge and to induce the actions by the two largest nuclear powers in the world to dismantle their inventories of genocide weapons.
Eliminating Genocide Weapons Strategy 2:Clean Energy from Dirty Bombs
Stopping all testing of nuclear weapons by all countries, stopping the production of bomb materials, having open inspections of all nuclear power plants and facilities, and establishing a credible global security system is needed to insure that the elimination of nuclear (and other genocide) weapons becomes a lasting part of the world.  In addition, the hundreds of tons of plutonium and thousands of tons of highly enriched uranium that these bombs use as their explosive power need to be disposed of.  One mechanism is to use a special nuclear power reactor that will consume this fuel, transforming it in the process to a form of uranium that cannot be used for weapons—as well as producing electric power at the same time. A series of these power plants could produce electricity that would be used to produce hydrogen through electrolysis of water into hydrogen and oxygen.  This hydrogen would be used to jump start the hydrogen economy and as fuel for government motor vehicle fleets.
The cost of the Dismantling/Eliminating Nuclear Weapons Program that would dismantle all nuclear weapons, secure the fissile materials and safely transport them to sites for reprocessing to safer, non-weapons grade materials would be $4 billion per year for ten years.
The cost of the Clean Energy from Dirty Bombs Program would cost $2 billion per year for ten years.
“If you kill one person you go to jail.  If you kill 20 people you go to an insane asylum.  If you kill 20,000 people you are invited to a peace conference.” —Anonymous

Eliminating Genocidal Weapons Strategy 3: Eradication of Pariahs

Biological and chemical weapons should be treated in a similar way as nuclear weapons.  Their status as outlawed methods of warfare should be reinvigorated and their elimination from the planet dealt with as quickly as possible.  Effective global sanctions would be used against any country that possessed, manufactured, or conducted research on developing chemical or biological weapons. “Effective” global sanctions would include the total boycott of a country’s goods and services, and the shutting or blockading of ports and major highways into and out of the country. It would also involve the cessation of air traffic between the country and the rest of the world, along with radio, television, Internet and print communications directed to the citizens of the boycotted country explaining why the actions are being taken and what is needed to end the actions.  Such drastic actions would only be taken after the International Court of Justice came to the conclusion that a specific country was involved with genocidal weapons.

Eliminating Genocidal Weapons Strategy 4: Genocide Weapons Education Program and Referendum

In order to make such a strategy work, a massive global educational campaign that dealt with the dangers and realities of genocidal weapons and their direct threat to civilians would be conducted. Radio, television, Internet, print, school curriculum materials, and other means would be used to communicate to the general population about genocide weapons.  A Global Referendum would follow this educational campaign that would ask the people of the world what they wanted done with genocide weapons. (See Chapter 16, Democracy and Justice, for a further explanation of the Global Referendum and how it would work.)
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.”
—John F. Kennedy
“All I needed was three battalions.”
—General Romero Dallaire, head of UN peacekeeping force in Rwanda, weeping tears of rage in court, unable to forget that his repeated pleas for more troops and for authority to step in were ignored. 800,000 innocent Rwandans were slaughtered in 2 months in 1994.
“If governments abuse the authority entrusted to them and citizens have no opportunity to correct such abuses, outside interference is justified...   the rulers of a sovereign state have a responsibility to protect the state’s citizens. When they fail to do so, the responsibility is transferred to the international community.”
— George Soros[7]
Eliminating Genocidal Weapons Strategy 5: Global PeaceKeepers
Even with these genocidal threats to human well-being removed from the planet, a more lasting solution to genocide, war, armed conflict and terrorism is needed.
The greatest continuing threats to world security are from terrorism and the potential of regional wars to escalate.[8]  In 2002 there were 45 wars and armed conflicts in the world.[9]  An estimated 7 million people, mostly civilians, have died in these wars so far and the combatants have spent an appalling $250 billion on them.[10]  The violence from these disrupts international commerce, unleashes massive flows of refugees, creates resource shortages, engulfs surrounding states and wrecks havoc on all the efforts to provide the basic human needs and rights of the world’s population.  Ethnic and religious conflicts, border disputes, civil wars, nationalist struggles and resource disputes need to be contained and abated.  International arms sales need to be brought to a halt, peacekeeping institutions strengthened, and social and economic development and regeneration of the environment—all the programs outlined in this book— need to be implemented for peace to have a sustainable chance.  But an additional element is needed where the fires of armed conflict or terrorism break out and innocent civilians are being murdered.
An empowered, well-funded, quick-response UN PeaceKeepers force composed of well-trained peace keepers who know how to both “win battles” and to keep the peace in a hostile territory would be developed. Such a force would be an order of magnitude larger than present day UN peacekeeping forces and would enter potentially hostile areas with “over-whelming force.”  It would be deployed in regions where civil strife and war was harming civilians (such as the war in the Congo, where by the end of 2002 an estimated 3 million people have been killed by warring sides[11]), to insure the delivery of food and medical supplies to civilians in famine relief efforts (see Chapter 5, Feeding Humanity for how such a force would be used in famine relief), and to insure safe, fair and democratic elections.
One strategy for accomplishing the above would be an expansion and renaming of NATO.  Renamed the “Alliance foe Peace” and expanded to include countries from around the world, members would field a Peace Army that would be under the control of an expanded and revamped UN Security Council.[12]
“We estimate that between 20,000 and 40,000 more children will die worldwide and some 10 million people will be condemned to live below the poverty line of $1.00 a day because of the terrorist attacks.”
—James Wolfensohn, President, World Bank (referring to the September 11, 2001 attacks on the U.S.)
For five centuries only a nation could destroy another nation. Now, well-educated and even better armed individuals and organizations have the capacity to wreck unprecedented harm against nations and masses of people. A branch of the PeaceKeepers force would be directed at defusing this threat to global society.  Its primary approach would be information gathering and rapprochement with terrorist and so –called terrorist groups.
This portion of the PeaceKeepers force would coordinate global efforts to combat terrorism wherever it is found.  Working with other UN and law enforcement agencies it would gather data on funding sources, training sites, personnel, and weapons sales.  It would also, as an “impartial” and reputable outsider, seek to contact warring parties, negotiate ceasefires, and the end of acts of terrorism
One theory of terrorism postulates that the terrorist has no other options of changing the system of which he or she is a part, and about which the terrorist cares passionately.  The Peacekeepers would allow the “terrorist” to be a part of the global community, giving voice to grievances and standing to the disenfranchised.  At the same time, the goal of the PeaceKeepers would be to judiciously weed out the psychopathic and self-promoting demagogues from those who claim the moral high ground in conflicts with the status quo.
“I am not one of those who believe that a great army is the means of maintaining peace, because if you build up a great profession those who form parts of it want to exercise their profession.”
—Woodrow Wilson
Enough is Enough Situations
Any armed hostilities that were going on for more than 5 years would be met with a UN led “Enough is Enough” declaration and conflict-ending actions.[13] Global sanctions against the warring parties and an enforced peace that protected civilians led by a Global Peacekeeper force would be implemented. In addition, a new UN resolution is needed to plug an appalling gap in international law.  Currently, there is no inherent legal right of armed humanitarian intervention to stop genocide. Article 51 of the UN charter sanctions the use of force in self-defense, but not to stop genocide. National sovereignty seems always to trump humanitarian issues, including genocide.  With a new resolution, intervention to stop genocide would be both legal and expected by the international community.

A key component of the Global PeaceKeepers, analogous to the elite forces such as Army Rangers, Green Berets, and Navy SEALS, would be the Global PeaceKeeper forces known as the PeaceMakers.  This force would train civilian populations in non-violent social action and the basics of democratic governance. Following in the tradition of Gandhi, Ruskin, King and other non-violent change agents, the PeaceMakers would train large numbers of people in effective ways of using non-violent mass demonstration force to compel governments to follow the will of their citizens. (For more on the PeaceMakers, see Chapter 16, Building Democracy, Diversity and Justice)
The average Army private risking his or her life in Iraq in 2003 was paid $19,585—just about the national poverty rate.  The average defense contractor CEO made $11,297,548 —or 577 times as much.

Costs/Benefits—Eliminating Genocidal Weapons
The costs of implementing the above programs— the Dismantling/Eliminating Nuclear Weapons, the Clean Energy from Dirty Bombs, the Eradication of Pariahs, the Global Education and Referendum and the PeaceKeepers Force would cost a total of $10 billion per year. 
The Dismantling/Eliminating Nuclear Weapons would cost $4 billion per year for ten years. The Clean Energy from Dirty Bombs would cost $2 billion per year for ten years, the Eradication of Pariahs, ($500 million) Global Education and Referendum ($500 million) and the PeaceKeepers Force would cost another $3 billion per year.  The $10 billion per year total is 37% of what the U.S spends per year preparing to fight a nuclear war.[14]  It is also less than half the amount the Pentagon has spent over the last decade that cannot be accounted for at all—literally. (According to the U.S. General Accounting Office, the Pentagon does not know where this money went.[15])  The amount is also about the production and lifecycle costs of two B-2 bombers (Congress has authorized 21 of them), about 1.1% of the world’s current military expenditures, or 35% of the $28 billion spent each year in the “security industry” of private security guards, weapons and explosives detectors, video surveillance monitors, x-ray equipment and the like.
Benefits would include a world free of the environmental, economical, social, psychological and spiritual horror of a thermonuclear, chemical, or biological Armageddon or terrorist threat or attack.  Given the economic damage that genocidal weapons of mass destruction can inflict on the world, as the attacks of September 11, 2001 made tragically clear, eliminating such weapons from the world will be orders of magnitude cheaper than cleaning up the remains after one of these weapons has been used.
Meeting basic human needs for food, water, shelter, health, education, and energy— as well as leveling the economic playing field by removing severe debt loads and opening access to credit, and stabilizing the world’s population— increase the world’s wealth in measurable and immeasurable ways. Bringing peace and security to this same world both magnifies and solidifies this wealth. But what about how we govern ourselves? What of our political freedoms and capacities for solving our problems?  The next chapter looks at this through the lens of democracy and the world’s needs.
“After the final no there comes a yes
And on that yes the future of the world depends.”

—Wallace Stevens

 [1] Center for Defense Information, Nuclear Facts at a Glance, (CDI, Washington, DC February 4, 2003).
[2] ibid
[3] ibid.
[4] ibid.
[4A] Mark Fischetti, "The Nuclear Threat" (Scientific American, Nov. 2007).
[5] UNHCR, Refugees, Volume 1, Number 122, p. 7; also R. L. Sivard, World Military and Social Expenditures 1993,  (Washington DC, World Priorities, 1993)
[6] Genocide, as well as the preparation for genocide, is something that the international community of nations has agreed upon as a war crime.  Because a nuclear weapon is a weapon of mass indiscriminate destruction that kills civilians, it is an instrument of genocide, its use an act of genocide, and its users guilty of committing genocide.  By the same token, anyone building and stockpiling nuclear weapons is guilty of preparing for genocide and should be prosecuted for such.  At Nuremberg, a similar logic was used to convict the builders of the gas chambers at Nazi death camps during World War II.  If the bomb, or gas chamber, is used, it is for genocide.  Building such a device then is an act of preparing for genocide.  Could one use this logic to bring current world leaders and their predecessors to trial for genocide?
[6A] http://www.slmk.org/larom/laromeng/karnvapenkarta/index.html
[7] George Soros, “The People’s Sovereignty,” (Foreign Policy, January/February, p. 66, 2004).
[8] M. Klare, Rogue States and Nuclear Outlaws: America’s Search for a New Foreign Policy, (Hill and Wang,) 1995.
[9] Vital Signs 2003, (Washington DC, Worldwatch Institute, 2003,, p. 74).
[10] Ibid.
[11] “Africa’s great war,” (The Economist July 6, 2002, p. 43).
[12] Robert Harvey, Global Disorder: How to Avoid a Forth World War, (New York, Carroll & Graf, December 2003).
[13] Robert Muller, 5000 Ideas & Dreams For A Better World, http://www.robertmuller.org
[14] Center for Defense Information, Nuclear Facts at a Glance, (CDI, Washington, DC February 4, 2003). The U.S  spends $27 billion/year to prepare to fight a nuclear war.
[15] “Defense Spending 1: The morning after high noon”, The Economist, August 10, 1996, p.20.

Back to Price of Peace