Friday, October 12, 2012

Say 'NO' to Nuke: If Your Human?

Nuke bomb if you want complete details about visit Japan (Hiroshima and Nagasaki.). American Barbarian's most massive human right's violation in the history of man kind. To take away name of Stalin and Soviet Union in victory of World War II, bloody American dropped two anti-humanity bomb over Japan. Even today we pose around 20,000 nuclear arsenal enough to destroy entire human race from earth. We wan't that bloody think to happen in world, if not then say NO to Nuke to your countries which pose such bomb. I am rising this voice as one of the nation posing nuke.     

The first Nuclear weapon

In the 1930s there was enormous progress in nuclear research, and when scientists solved the mystery of uranium fission, concern grew in the United States that Hitler’s Germany would create the first nuclear weapon. In US laboratories, scientists worked around the clock to be the first to finish a fissile weapon.

After Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941, the US Congress poured money into military research, and above all research on fissile materials. On July 16, 1945, the so-called Manhattan project had managed to produce enough plutonium to perform a first nuclear test, code-named “Trinity”. The detonation was equivalent to the explosion of around 20 kilotons of TNT and is usually considered as the beginning of the Atomic Age.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki

World War II continued to rage. US President Harry Truman wanted a quick end to the war and a Japanese capitulation. He ordered a nuclear attack on Japan. At the same time, he wished to show Soviet leader Joseph Stalin what capacity the US arsenal held — despite the fact that the Soviet Union was an ally at the time.

On August 6, 1945, a specially constructed bomber was loaded with an atomic bomb to be dropped over the Japanese city of Hiroshima. The attack with the so far almost untried weapon was as much a test as an attack. But it did not fail. Two-thirds of Hiroshima was destroyed and more than 140 000 people killed. Three days later another atomic bomb was dropped on the city of Nagasaki, killing more than 80 000.        

The number of deaths in the bombings of Hiroshima varies depending on the source. An estimated 70 000 people were killed immediately. Within minutes nine out of 10 people half a mile or less from ground zero were dead. By the end of 1945, the death toll was estimated at 140 000 as a result of bad burns and radiation related injuries, which grew worse due to the lack of health care.

Proliferation of nuclear weapons

The Soviet Union had already started its nuclear research program in the 1930s, but it would take until 1949 before the first Soviet atomic bomb was tested. It sparked a heated debate in the United States: if the Soviet Union, the home of communism and the foremost opponent to the United States, had nuclear weapons, did it mean the United States had to get larger nuclear weapons?

The 1950s was a decade of aggressive nuclear weapons investments. The United States fired its first hydrogen bomb in 1951. In 1953 the Soviet Union fired its first hydrogen bomb. The United Kingdom declared itself a nuclear-weapon state in 1952 and fired its first hydrogen bomb five years later. In 1958, the United States and Soviet Union agreed on a temporary moratorium on nuclear testing. It seemed like a possibility to negotiate a treaty banning nuclear testing.

Political and military developments, however, made the moratorium a short one. In 1960, France declared itself the fourth nuclear power and in 1961 the Soviet Union broke the moratorium and detonated 30 bombs within a short period, including one bomb of 58 megatons (that is, 58 000 kilotons, compared to the Hiroshima bomb of 20 kilotons). The United States resumed its nuclear testing in the Pacific.

Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev and US President John F. Kennedy brought the world closer than ever to a nuclear war through the Cuban missile crisis in 1962. Two years later, the People’s Republic of China detonated its first atomic bomb. Nuclear testing by these five original nuclear-weapon states would continue into the 1960s, 70s, 80s and 90s.

In 1998, India and Pakistan joined the nuclear club by developing and testing their own nuclear weapons. India had actually conducted a so-called “peaceful” nuclear test as early as 1974. North Korea conducted a nuclear test in 2006 and again in 2009. Israel, known to possess nuclear weapons, has never conducted a nuclear test.

The Cold War arms race

Between the 1960s and 1980s, an intensive arms race took place between the United States and Soviet Union. In 1986 the arms race reached its peak. At that time the two superpowers together had 70 500 nuclear weapons in their arsenals. The total explosive power of these weapons would have been enough to annihilate the world and all its living creatures approximately 25 times.

The United States and Soviet Union kept a close eye on each other’s nuclear arsenals. Each time one was suspected of having increased its arsenal or acquiring a new kind of nuclear weapon, the other state would soon follow. This led to a mad arms race that neither the United States nor the Soviet Union could stop. There would always be the risk that the enemy would have a larger, stronger and more advanced nuclear arsenal.

Both states had their nuclear weapons targeted directly at each other’s territories, ready to be launched within minutes. The nuclear-weapon states applied a military doctrine called “mutually assured destruction”, or “MAD”. The doctrine assumed that both sides had enough nuclear weapons in their arsenals to annihilate the other in the event of a hostile nuclear attack.

The expected scenario was, for example, that the United States would attack the Soviet Union with a relatively small nuclear weapon. The Soviet Union would immediately respond with a larger attack, which would result in an even larger counterattack by the United States. The result would be mutually assured destruction. In fact, a large-scale nuclear war between the United States and Soviet Union would not have been limited to assured destruction of the two superpowers, but of the entire world.

Initiatives for disarmament

At the same time as the arms race between the United States and Soviet Union reached perilous heights, the states were challenged and questioned — both nationally and internationally. Already in the 1970s the first treaties were signed between the two states to limit their strategic nuclear arsenals: SALT I and II (Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty). The United States and Soviet Union — later replaced with Russia — entered negotiations on which weapons could be eliminated.

The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty was achieved in 1987 and seeks to eliminate the US and Russian land-based intermediate- and shorter-range missiles. The first Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty between the United States and Soviet Union, signed in 1991, limits the number of heavy bombers, inter-continental ballistic missiles and submarine-launched ballistic missiles, and also limits launchers and warheads. It prohibits both states from deploying more than 6000 nuclear warheads on a total of 1600 delivery systems.

The second Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty between the United States and Russia, signed in 1995, limits their strategic arsenals to between 3000 and 3500 warheads on delivery systems (tactical weapons and spares are not included in the counts). It also prohibits multiple re-entry vehicles on inter-continental ballistic missiles, and limits the number of warheads deployable on submarine-launched ballistic missiles to between 1700 and 1750.

This treaty, however, has not entered into force: when the United States withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002, Russia declared START null and void the following day. It was replaced by the Strategy Offensive Reductions Treaty in 2002. Also known as the Moscow Treaty, SORT limits the nuclear arsenal of both the United States and Russia to between 1700 and 2200 warheads each. It does not specify which warheads are to be reduced or how reductions should be made, nor does it include any verification provisions. It came into force on June 1, 2003, and is set to expire on December 31, 2012.

Demands for nuclear disarmament and a world free of nuclear weapons are constantly heard from certain organizations, states and individuals. In 1995 Canberra Commission on the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons demanded immediate and firm measures to abolish nuclear weapons and proposed measures for a gradual elimination of nuclear arsenals. In 1996 some 50 military officers from nuclear-weapon states presented an appeal, pointing to the fact that nuclear weapons can never create security — nationally or internationally.

The 1998 New Agenda Coalition (NAC) was an initiative where seven states agreed on a declaration demanding prompt and complete elimination of nuclear weapons. In 2003 Sweden appointed an independent Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission, whose report in 2006 presented 60 substantial recommendations on how to rid the world of weapons of mass destruction. In January 2007 former US foreign and defence secretaries George Schultz, William Perry, Henry Kissinger and Sam Nunn published two surprising articles on a world free from nuclear weapons.

There are also examples of states that have had nuclear-weapon programs but eliminated them. South Africa is the only state to possess nuclear weapons and then voluntarily give up the nuclear weapons option to join the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) as a non-nuclear-weapon state. After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, nuclear weapons were deployed in four new independent states — Belarus, Ukraine, Russia and Kazhakstan. All former Soviet nuclear weapons were transported to Russia, while Belarus, Ukraine and Kazakhstan chose to join the NPT as non-nuclear-weapon states.
Since the development of nuclear weapons in the 1940s, there has been strong opposition throughout the world to these weapons which can annihilate the entire world and its living creatures. States have made demands in negotiations. Organizations and engaged activists everywhere have marched, rallied, protested and demanded the right to live in a world free from nuclear weapons.

Nuclear arsenals today

The precise number of nuclear weapons in the world’s arsenals is not known. More than 128 000 nuclear warheads have been produced since 1945. Of these, the United States has produced roughly 55 percent and the Soviet Union/Russia roughly 43 percent. In 1986, towards the end of the Cold War, there were an estimated 70 500 nuclear warheads in the world’s arsenals.

The five official nuclear-weapon states — the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France and China — appear to have no plans for ridding themselves of their nuclear weapons in the near future. They still consider it necessary to maintain a nuclear deterrent. Today close to 97 per cent of all nuclear weapons are found in the United States and Russia. Approximately 12 500 of the nuclear weapons in the US and Russia are operational, while the rest are placed in reserves or awaiting dismantlement.

The total world arsenals — including deployed weapons and reserves — was estimated by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute in 2009 at 23 300. That equals about 2000 times the total firepower used during World War II — hence a capacity to destroy the world and all its living creatures many times over, despite the reductions already made.

The continued development and upgrading of nuclear weapons by nuclear-weapon states sends a
dangerous signal to non-nuclear-weapon states. The solution is for the nuclear-weapon states, in particular the United States and Russia with the largest arsenals, to admit that nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation are two sides of the same coin. The existence of nuclear weapons fuels proliferation. Complete nuclear disarmament would show that nuclear weapons are not an attractive option.
United States — 9400
Russia — 13,000
United Kingdom — 160
France — 300
China — 186
India — 60–70
Pakistan — 60
Israel — 80
North Korea — 1–10
Total — 23,330

NATO nuclear weapons

Under the NATO nuclear-sharing programme, the United States today has about 350 nuclear weapons deployed in six European NATO member states. One of them, the United Kingdom, is itself a nuclear-weapon state, while the other five — Belgium, Italy, the Netherlands, Germany and Turkey — are non-nuclear-weapon states. The NATO nuclear doctrine has hardly changed, despite the shift in the security–political situation since the end of the Cold War. NATO recently conducted a review of its nuclear policy and concluded that the deployed nuclear weapons in Europe still are absolutely necessary to protect Europe.

NATO’s non-nuclear members are to differing extents involved in the nuclear policy of the military alliance. Some states do not allow the placement of nuclear weapons on their territory in time of peace, while others have US nuclear weapons deployed on their territory to be used if needed by the United States and/or its own air force. All NATO member states participate in the NATO Nuclear Planning Group, where the implementation of the nuclear policy and organization of exercises are discussed. France is an exception, after pulling out of the NATO military structure in 1966.

NATO’s nuclear cooperation has been criticized for violating the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, or at least being against the spirit of the treaty. Article I of the NPT prohibits the five official nuclear-weapon states — the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France and China — are not allowed to transfer nuclear weapons to “any recipient whatsoever”. According to Article II of the treaty, non-nuclear-weapon states are not allowed to produce or in any other way acquire nuclear weapons.

Nuclear terrorism

In recent years, the issue of nuclear terrorism has gained a lot of attention in the international nuclear weapons and disarmament debate, especially after the September 11 attacks. The risk of terrorist groups acquiring a large enough amount of fissile material to produce a smaller nuclear weapon cannot be ruled out. After the fall of the Soviet Union, fissile material may have disappeared, and still today complete control over the world’s stockpiles of uranium, plutonium and dismantled nuclear weapons is lacking. Efforts are made, particularly with the help of the United States, to gain total control over these stockpiles.

Terrorists wishing to produce a nuclear weapon need to get hold of highly enriched uranium (HEU). Approximately 20kg of HEU would be enough to produce a weapon. The easiest way to acquire it involves stealing HEU from a stockpile of excess material or from a research reactor. There are at least a hundred such reactors in the world, often with a serious lack of security arrangements. On the other hand, it would be difficult for terrorists to produce a plutonium bomb, as this requires more advanced technology and competence. There is also the possibility of a nuclear-weapon state transferring a functioning nuclear device to a terrorist group.

Nuclear terrorism could also mean terrorist acts aimed at a nuclear power plant. If the terrorists manoeuvring the planes to hit the World Trade Center on September 11 had instead hit the nearby nuclear power plants on Three Mile Island or a nuclear fuel waste storage facility, large quantities of radioactive particles would have been released, and with the explosion radioactive fallout would have been transported far from the epicentre. The consequences would have been both deaths and acute radiation sickness, and large areas contaminated with radioactive fallout for a long time.

New nuclear doctrines

Partly as a consequence of a changing political and social climate in the world over the last decade, a number of nuclear-weapon states have renewed their nuclear doctrines. For years, it has been considered imperative to keep the threshold for nuclear weapons use very high. In principle, use of nuclear weapons was, during the Cold War, not considered in any other case than retaliating against a nuclear attack. Many nuclear-weapon states issued so-called “no first use” policies, meaning the state would never be the first to use its nuclear weapons against any other actor.

Today this is no longer the case. In March 2005, the US Department of Defense posted and then cancelled a controversial draft revision of its doctrine for nuclear weapons operations on its website. The draft used unusually clear language regarding policies on the use of nuclear weapons in a wide variety of circumstances other than retaliation for nuclear weapons use by another state. In 2006 France launched a new nuclear doctrine, announcing that French nuclear weapons could be used against power centres in states that in any way sponsor terrorist acts aimed at French interests.
Russia, too, has revised its nuclear doctrine to lower the threshold for nuclear weapons use. In January 2008, a radical manifesto was presented by five senior military officials about a new NATO. The suggested manifesto underlines preventive nuclear attack as a necessary alternative for the Western world to stop proliferation of nuclear weapons. The changing attitude to nuclear weapons use can also be seen in the development of smaller, tactical nuclear weapons for battlefield use.

Blix Commission report

The threat of continued proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, or the use of existing weapons by states and non-state actors, is today highly topical. At the same time, the development in recent years indicates a renewed rearmament, rather than steps to terminate states’ possession of weapons of mass destruction. To this background, on the initiative of the United Nations and the Foreign Minister of Sweden Anna Lind, an independent international commission was appointed: the Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission.

Hans Blix was asked by the Swedish government to chair the commission and to appoint other commissioners. On October 16, 2003, he presented a group of 14 commissioners from all over the world, with a thorough political, military and diplomatic experience of peace and disarmament work. The commission began its task in January 2004.

It launched its final report Weapons of Terror: Freeing the World of Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Arms on June 1, 2006. The report describes the international system of non-proliferation, disarmament and arms control and includes 60 recommendations as to what the international community — governments, civil society and the business world — can and should do to meet the global challenge posed by weapons of mass destruction. The report and its recommendations have called for great attention all over the world.

Radiation and human health

We exist in a naturally radioactive environment: the sun, the rocks and mountains produce a “background” level of radioactivity.
Average exposure to background ionizing radiation worldwide is measured at approximately 2.4 millisievert (mSv) a year, but this varies from place to place. About half of this is from radon gas and its decay products.

However, human activities from 1945 onwards have increased our exposure to ionizing radiation, through atomic weapons development, testing and use, and through nuclear power generation, including uranium mining. It is estimated that the atmospheric fallout alone that was taken up by humanity until the year 2000 from the nuclear weapons testing in the 50's and 60's will cause 430,000 fatal cancers worldwide.

There is no level of radiation exposure below which we are at zero risk: even very low-level medical exposures such as chest X-rays (0.04mSv per test) carry a quantifiable risk of harm, such as cancer promotion.

Ionizing radiation also causes damage to DNA: the genetic material in living cells. A cell can repair certain levels of damage in its chromosomal DNA, especially at low levels of damage. However, faulty repairs can occur and may lead to proliferation of abnormal cells, which then form a cancer. Such cancers will generally take many cell generations to develop, and it may be several decades before the cancer is detected.

At higher levels of radiation exposure, cell death results. In parts of the body where cell turnover is normally high, such as the gastrointestinal tract and bone marrow, cells may not be replaced quickly enough, and tissues fail to function. This can be fatal. Because rapidly proliferating and differentiating tissues are very sensitive to radiation damage, the foetus is particularly vulnerable.
Exposure of the foetus to radiation has been shown to increase the risk of childhood cancer. In addition, rates of microcephaly (inadequate brain development) were increased in individuals who were exposed in the womb to the radiation of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. Long-term genetic effects are also possible if the damage to the DNA occurs in a reproductive cell (egg or sperm), whereby the error may be passed on to future generations.

Estimating the risk

Radiation health authorities use scientific modelling to calculate and set “permissible limits” for ionizing radiation exposure. As our understanding has increased, the recommended exposures for both the public and for workers in the nuclear industry the workforce have steadily been reduced. Levels once regarded as “safe” are now known to be associated with health risks.

The most widely use recommended dose limits for radiation exposure are those set by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). Current recommended exposure limits are 20 mSv / year for workers in the nuclear industry, and 1 mSv / year for the general public. These recommendations were set in 1991, and are significantly lower than levels previously thought “safe”.

In June 2005, the US National Academy of Sciences Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR VII) affirmed the “linear no threshold” model of estimating risk from radiation exposure, that is, the risk of cancer proceeds in a linear pattern at low doses and even the smallest dose has the potential to cause a small increase in risk to humans. The BEIR report estimated that a cumulative dose of 100mSv over a lifetime would cause 1 in 100 people to develop cancer.

It should be noted that these are risks averaged over the whole population, and the risks in vulnerable groups is higher. Women have a higher risk of solid cancer induction than men, and children (especially girls) are particularly vulnerable.

Health effects of a nuclear attack

In Hiroshima approximately 80,000 of its one quarter of a million population died immediately from the atomic bombing on August 6, 1945.
By the end of 1945 the death toll was an estimated 140,000 people.
In Nagasaki, the immediate death toll was approximately 40,000 people, and the toll by the end of the year was 70,000.

Stills from footage of a US nuclear bomb test
The effects of these two bombs are continuing. They have led to significantly increased rates of cancer among the bomb survivors and, because of the delay between radiation damage and onset of its effects, the numbers of cancers have not yet reached their peak. According to Mayor Tadatoshi Akiba, Mayor of Hiroshima, the total death toll from the Hiroshima bomb alone, as at August 6, 2004, was 237,062.

There are about 270,000 Hibakusha, "bomb affected people," still living in Japan.
At the hypocentre of a nuclear bomb explosion, everything is immediately vaporised by the high temperatures. At Hiroshima ground temperatures reached 11,000 degrees F. and ceramic tiles within 600 metres of ground zero melted.

Outward from the hypocentre deaths and injuries include burns, multiple fractures and other injuries from flying debris from collapsed buildings, other blast and shock wave effects, blindness and radiation sickness due to acute exposure to high radiation.

Radiation sickness symptoms include haemorrhaging, nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea, mouth and other gastrointestinal ulceration, bleeding gums and bruising, fatigue, and loss of hair. Loss of white blood cells leads to the onset of fever and life-threatening infections. These effects will develop within hours, days or weeks, depending on the size of the dose.

In the longer-term, radiation in the form of “fallout” occurs downwind of a nuclear explosion. The fallout may then be inhaled by people and animals or ingested through contaminated food and water. In Hiroshima, a mild westerly wind was blowing at the time of the explosion, and a “black rain” (rain with fallout) fell from the north to the east of ground zero. The black rain was sticky, and people at that time thought that oil had been dropped.

The long-term effects of radiation include a large number of malignancies: both solid cancers (such as breast, thyroid and lung cancers) and leukemia.
Leukemia risk is greatest for those exposed at a young age and the peak of leukemia onset is about 7 to 8 years after exposure.

For solid cancers the latent period (time to develop) is generally much longer – often many decades after the exposure. In addition, children exposed as foetuses to the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs had a significantly increased rate of microcephaly and intellectual disability.


please place ur suggestion here.............

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...