The Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) has just been held last March and then the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty IV (New START) in April. The review conference on the Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) is also about to be held in May. The "Nuclear abolition by Obama"has just commenced. There have been various responses to this: Derision that the reality has not been changed at all, objection that it only weakens the power of nuclear deterrents, and a sense of disappointment. 65 years have now passed since Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed with atomic devices: The world has been dominated by the fiction that nuclear weapons are an effective deterrent, a curse that is difficult to remove. However, I also think that the Obama Administration has at least taken an important step in the right direction while retaining their fundamental attitude, although they were forced to make compromises.

Reduction of role of nuclear weapons

Some public promises such as "reducing the role of nuclear weapons"are included in the "review of nuclear strategy": Nuclear attacks shall not be carried out on any of the non-nuclear powers participating in the NPT treaty that are in compliance with its conditions. Nuclear weapons shall not be used to retaliate against a chemical or biological weapon attack. The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) shall be complied with and no new nuclear weapons developed. We shall not depend on nuclear weapons as a deterrent only but combine them with conventional weapons.

North Korea has rejected a request for their "nuclear disarmament"while Iran has not ceased their nuclear enrichment program, and hence both are excluded from the new strategy. According to the new strategy; however, if North Korea were to use a nuclear weapon the U.S. would not retaliate. This then means that the general public in North Korea, who are actually innocent in terms of using a "nuclear explosion"and who suffered themselves from the dictatorship of Kim Jon Il, must assume collective responsibility for the massacre of from hundreds of thousands to millions of people. Would this type of "excessive retaliation"be tolerated by the U.S. and international society itself, both of which emphasize humanitarianism? The U.S. can easily achieve retaliation through use of powerful conventional weapons such as precision-guided missiles.

There is also a certain amount of disappointment in the Nuclear Posture Review (NPR). They could not propose either (1) a strategy that restricts the "only reason"for having nuclear programs to being a deterrent against nuclear weapons (against potential enemies) or (2) that waives the right for preemptive use of nuclear weapons (no initial use). Diplomatic and military experts such as the "Four Sages", made up of former Secretary of State Kissinger and Shultz, former Defense Secretary Perry, and former Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Nunn, universally insisted upon (1), thus raising public expectations. If the strategy had progressed from (1) to (2) the fundamental conditions for nuclear abolition would have been fulfilled.

The U.S. and the former Soviet Union had a huge amount of nuclear weapons that could have been used to destroy the earth several times over during the Cold War Era but were both justifiably frightened of the shadow of a preemptive nuclear attack. In fact, however, they were both actually prepared for a preemptive nuclear attack behind the scenes in the name of it being a "deterrence"nevertheless, there are no winners or losers in a nuclear war. The Obama Administration and Congress still include people that are still trapped in thinking that this "terror scenario"still exists and do not realize the reality of the era. The U.S – Russia relationship appears to have been "reset"by the Obama Administration, which is reflected in the new START treaty.

The U.S. and Russia agreed to reduce the number of strategic nuclear warheads to less than 1,500 within seven years. The expectation that they would be reduced to less than 1,000 was obviously too optimistic. Moreover the way nuclear warheads are counted has a loophole in it, and therefore said that in essence they would suffer little "harm from a reduction". What in reality is the difference between 1,500 and 1,000 nuclear weapons? Quite a number of military experts have stated that a reduction to the level of several hundred would not change the mutual deterrence situation. Nevertheless, the new START agreement is still more than welcome as it is a requirement for at least creating an environment for nuclear weapons to be abolished.

The Nuclear Security Summit was held at the request of President Obama of the U.S. who insists that the largest danger confronting international society is the use of nuclear weapons by terrorist organizations. Leaders or government delegates from 47 countries participated in the summit and agreed to enhance the international management system in preventing nuclear weapons and nuclear-related substances and technology that could lead to the development of nuclear weapons being available to terrorist organizations, etc.If the strategy had of progressed from (1) to (2) the fundamental conditions for nuclear abolition would have been fulfilled. The U.S. and the former Soviet Union had a huge amount of nuclear weapons that could have been used to destroy the earth several times over during the Cold War Era but were both justifiably frightened of the shadow of a preemptive nuclear attack. In fact, however, they were both actually prepared for a preemptive nuclear attack behind the scenes in the name of it being a "deterrence"nevertheless, there are no winners or losers in a nuclear war. The Obama Administration and Congress still include people that are still trapped in thinking that this "terror scenario"still exists and don't realize the reality of the era. The U.S – Russia relationship appears to have been "reset"by the Obama Administration, which is reflected in the new START treaty. The U.S. and Russia agreed to reduce the number of strategic nuclear warheads to less than 1,500 within seven years. The expectation that they would be reduced to less than 1,000 was obviously too optimistic. Moreover the way nuclear warheads are counted has a loophole in it, and therefore said that in essence they would suffer little "harm from a reduction". What in reality is the difference between 1,500 and 1,000 nuclear weapons? Quite a number of military experts have stated that a reduction to the level of several hundred would not change the mutual deterrence situation. Nevertheless, the new START agreement is still more than welcome as it is a requirement for at least creating an environment for nuclear weapons to be abolished. The Nuclear Security Summit was held at the request of President Obama of the U.S. who insists that the largest danger confronting international society is the use of nuclear weapons by terrorist organizations. Leaders or government delegates from 47 countries participated in the summit and agreed to enhance the international management system in preventing nuclear weapons and nuclear-related substances and technology that could lead to the development of nuclear weapons being available to terrorist organizations, etc. Some people have coldly commented that it was merely a "political show". However, and at least for the U.S., which would be the most probable target of nuclear terrorism, the consciousness of "enclosing nuclear terrorism"of international society was in a sense enhanced.

Trumpeting the threat of "nuclear terrorism"leads to the dissemination of the recognition that a "nuclear abolition"should not just be an ideal (dream) but a real target, and this is because it would minimize the danger of interstate nuclear war and a change in "nuclear deterrents", the meaning of which could be considered the more important.

Deterrence - justification of later added reasons

It was also clarified that the barrier to "abolishing nuclear weapons"is the curse of the "nuclear deterrents". Exactly what is a "nuclear deterrence"? The gimmick of that must be brought to light. During World War II, when the U.S. was developing the atomic bomb, some scientists and government leaders strongly insisted on the nonuse and international management of the resulting bombs as humankind and earth itself could be destroyed off if the Soviet Union caught up with the technology, thus leading to a terrible military increase in the number of nuclear weapons. President Truman and others downplayed the scientists' opinions and quickly made the in hindsight rash judgment that it would take from 10 to 20 years for the Soviet Union to catch up with the U.S.. The result was that the U.S. used atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and attempted to "win the contest"by dominating the bomb. Contrary to expectations, however, Soviet Union caught up in just four years Truman and his staff then panicked and determined on the development of hydrogen bombs. Truman then underestimated the Soviet Union again in thinking that it would not be able to develop a hydrogen bomb, despite Oppenheimer and his colleagues having warned him that they too would soon possess one.

The nuclear deterrence theory was created as the thesis that later on justified the possession and increased production of nuclear weapons. This is a good example of accumulating more failures in concealing other failures. The "nuclear deterrence"tactic has resulted in us believing that no nuclear weapons have been used since Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

At the end of the Cold War in a paper entitled "Will nuclear weapons finally end up in the trash?"P. Nitze reasoned that "the reason nuclear weapons have not been used is that U.S. leaders recognize their huge destructive power.", "The example of the Gulf War has shown nuclear deterrents to be invalid in regional conflicts", and that "The time to change to the conventional weapons being used as deterrents has arrived."Nitze is the so-called "godfather of the Cold War"and led the strategy against the Soviet Union by beating it down through menacing it with overwhelming military strength. The former General L. Butler, who has just resigned as commander of the Strategic Air Command that was the major pillar of the nuclear strategy of the U.S., stated that "The nuclear deterrence theory is a myth created to relieve the moral pain caused by the fact that nuclear weapons go against the fundamental sense of values of American society but were developed and then used twice to ensure the survival of the state,"and appealed for a departure from the nuclear deterrence strategy.

Part of the U.S. government and Congress and the military forced former presidents to use nuclear weapons in the Berlin Crisis, the Korean War, the Taiwan Strait Crisis, the Vietnam War, the Middle East Conflict, etc.; however, all those presidents eventually denied it. And why exactly is that? A series of books that verify that story with details has been published over recent years. According to them a complex set of reasons existed on each respective occasion; however, the largest overall reason was the recognition that a nuclear attack would result in far too much destruction. The destructive power of hydrogen bombs is a thousand-fold (megaton) stronger that of the atomic bombs used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki (kiloton). Use of them would also mean many general citizens that are noncombatants would be massacred too.

The U.S. was daunted by the thought of Stalin and Mao Zedong possessing nuclear weapons as it believed that they were little more than "madmen": However, contrarily the situation they feared did not ever occur (It would appear to me that the U.S. regards Kim Jon Il and Ahmedinejad in a similar fashion.) Nuclear weapons are effectively "unavailable for use as weapons"because of their massive power of destruction. They are therefore made to be "unused"and eventually "abolished": Obama's nuclear abolition, in fact.

"We should not posses or use such terrible weapons."And even with that said any country which actually used one would be retaliated and punished with the same nuclear weapon by other nuclear powers. No matter who used one first it would lead to the massacre of general citizens as well. The Obama strategy describes the maintenance of sufficient nuclear power to be enough of a deterrence until actual "abolition"occurs. This cannot be helped for a while at least; however, it is rather unacceptable if that strategy were to be the conclusion of the nuclear deterrence strategy.

Rights and obligations of NPT

The following "deterrence theory"has now become quite widespread: North Korea and China would immediately attack Japan if the U.S. Marines were to withdraw from Okinawa and the U.S. nuclear umbrella were weakened. I consider it to be a rather silly story; however, it is a fact that such "anxiety"does exist.

A review conference on the Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) that is held every five years will be held this May. In exchange for signing the treaty any member countries that have abolished nuclear weapons will be protected by other nuclear powers such as the U.S. if threatened or attacked with nuclear weapons by other nuclear powers. The rights of non-nuclear member powers and the obligations of nuclear powers are a fundamental part of the NPT. The "nuclear umbrella"which Japan depends on is not a "blessing"provided by the U.S. If Obama's nuclear abolition risks a weakening in the "nuclear umbrella"of the U.S. Japan should make its own efforts to clarifying the relevant "rights and obligations"as a leader of the non-nuclear member nations and the only victim of a nuclear attack.

Chinese / French / Japanese