"Nuclear Arms, Doctrines and Disarmament"

13. It would be an intolerably evil contradiction of the Sixth Assembly's theme, "Jesus Christ -- the Life of the World", to support the nuclear weapons and doctrines which threaten the survival of the world. We now affirm, as a declaration of this Assembly, the conviction expressed by the 1981 Amsterdam Public Hearing on Nuclear Weapons and Disarmament and commended to WCC member churches by the Central Committee in 1982:
    
    

    We believe that the time has come when the churches must unequivocally declare that the production and deployment as well as the use of nuclear weapons are a crime against humanity and that such activities must be condemned on ethnical and theological grounds.

    
    Furthermore, we appeal for the institution of a universal covenant to this effect so that nuclear weapons and warfare are delegitimized and condemned as violations of international law.
    
    
14. Nuclear deterrence, as the strategic doctrine which has justified nuclear weapons in the name of security and war prevention, must now be categorically rejected as contrary to our faith in Jesus Christ who is our life and peace. Nuclear deterrence is morally unacceptable because it relies on the credibility of the intention to use nuclear weapons: we believe that any intention to use weapons of mass destruction is an utterly inhuman violation of the mind and spirit of Christ which should be in us. We know that may Christians and others sincerely believe that deterrence provides an interim assurance of peace and stability on the way to disarmament. We must work together with those advocates of interim deterrence who are earnestly committed to arms reduction. But the increasing probabilities of nuclear war and the spectre of an arms race totally out of control have exposed the cruel illusions of such faith in deterrence.
    
    
15. Nuclear deterrence can never provide the foundation of genuine peace. It is the antithesis of an ultimate faith in that love which casts our fear. It escalates the arms race in a vain pursuit of stability. It ignores the economic, social and psychological dimensions of security, and frustrates justice by maintaining the status quo in world politics. It destroys the reality of self-determination for most nations in matters of their own safety and survival, and diverts resources from basic human needs. It is the contradiction of disarmament because it exalts the threat of force, rationalizes the development of new weapons of mass destruction, and acts as a spur to nuclear proliferation by persistently breaking the "good faith" pledge of disarmament in the Non-Proliferation Treaty, thus tempting other governments to become nuclear-weapon states. It is increasingly discredited by first-strike and war-fighting strategies which betray the doubts about its reliability.
    
    
16. We urge our member communions to educate their members in the urgency of delegitimizing nuclear weapons and demythologizing deterrence.
    
    
17. In the meantime we affirm our support for the following specific measures:

Reiterates its deep and long-standing concern at the continued risk of Creation posed by the existences of nuclear weapons.

Welcomes the Final Document [linkage to another page on this web site] of the 2000 NPT Review Conference, which established a new global agenda for nuclear disarmament.

Calls upon the member states of NATO and NATO itself to ensure that their nuclear weapon policies conform to the obligations undertaken by states in the Non-Proliferation Treaty and are consistent with pursuit of the global nuclear disarmament agenda.

Prepared by:
Dwain C. Epps, Coordinator, International Relations
World Council of Churches, Geneva

The question of atomic, hydrogen and nuclear weapons has been at the heart of concerns of the World Council of Churches since its first Assembly in 1948. It was a logical focus of an ecumenical movement whose roots were in Christian peace movements going back to the late 19th century. The Amsterdam statement laid the foundations for ecumenical concern in the second half of the 20th century:

War as a method of settling disputes is incompatible with the teaching and example of our Lord Jesus Christ. The part which war plays in our present international life is a sin against God and a degradation of man. We recognise that the problem of war raises especially acute issues for Christians today. Warfare has greatly changed. War is now total and every man and woman is called for mobilisation in war service. Moreover, the immense use of air forces and the discovery of atomic and other new weapons render widespread and indiscriminate destruction inherent in the whole conduct of modern war in a sense never experienced in past conflicts...

The churches must also attack the causes of war by promoting peaceful change and the pursuit of justice. They must stand for the maintenance of good faith and the honouring of the pledged word, resist the pretensions of imperialist power, promote the multilateral reduction of armaments, and combat indifference and despair in the face of the futility of war...

Report of Section IV, "The Church and the International Disorder," Official Report of the First Assembly, Amsterdam, 1948, WCC, Geneva. p 89.

The II. Assembly responded to developments beyond the atomic bomb:

The development of nuclear weapons makes this an age of fear. True peace cannot rest on fear. It is vain to think that the hydrogen bomb or its development has guaranteed peace because men will be afraid to go to war, nor can fear provide an effective restraint against the temptation to use a decisive weapon either in hope of total victory or in the desperation of total defeat.

The thought of all-out nuclear warfare is indeed horrifying. Such warfare introduces a new moral challenge. It has served to quicken public concern, and has intensified awareness of the urgency of finding means of prevention....

An international order of truth and peace would require:

a) under effective international inspection and control and in such a way that no state would have cause to fear that its security was endangered, the elimination and prohibition of atomic, hydrogen and all other weapons of mass destruction, as well as the reduction of all armaments to a minimum...

We must also see that experimental tests of hydrogen bombs have raised issues of human rights, caused suffering and imposed an additional strain on human relations between nations. Among safeguards against the aggravation of these international tensions is the insistence that nations carry on tests only within their respective territories, or if elsewhere, only be international clearance and agreement.

Report of Section IV, "International Affairs: Christians in the Struggle for World Community," Official Report of the Second Assembly, Evanston, 1954, WCC, Geneva, pp 131-134. The resolutions on International Affairs adopted by the Assembly did not include specific reference to nuclear weapons or disarmament.

Between 1954 and 1961, the WCC's Commission of the Churches on International Affairs (CCIA) spoke and worked intensively on the need for an international instrument to control nuclear testing. The III. Assembly further underscored the dangers of nuclear weapons developments, and for the first time officially expressed concerns about the use of outer space.

The most serious problem facing the world today is that of disarmament. General and complete disarmament is widely recognized to be the desired goal...

The recent violations of the moratorium on nuclear bomb testing have shocked the nations into a new realization of the acute danger and horror of modern warfare. Churches must protest against the accelerating arms race and the mounting terror which it portends. The First Assembly...clearly recognized that war is contrary to the will of God. War in its newer forms is understood not only by Christians but the general conscience of the nations as an offense against both the world of nature and the race of man, threatening annihilation and laying on mankind an unbearable burden of cost and terror. The use of indiscriminate weapons must now be condemned by the churches as an affront to the Creator and a denial of the very purposes of the Creation. Christians must refuse to place their ultimate trust in war and nuclear weapons. In this situation the churches must never cease warning governments of the dangers, and they must repudiate absolutely the growing conviction in some quarters that the use of mass destruction weapons has become inevitable. Christians must press most urgently upon their governments, as a first step towards the elimination of nuclear weapons, never to get themselves into a position in which they contemplate the first use of nuclear weapons. Christians must also maintain that the use of nuclear weapons, or other forms of major violence, against centers of population is in no circumstances reconcilable with the demands of the Christian Gospel.

Total disarmament is the goal, but it is a complex and long-term process in which the churches must not underestimate the importance of first steps. There may be possibilities of experimenting with limited geographical areas of controlled and inspected disarmament, of neutralizing certain zones, of devising security against surprise attack which would reduce tension, of controlling the use of outer space....

New Delhi Speaks, Third WCC Assembly, New Delhi, 1961, Association Press, New York, 1962, pp 79ff.

The landmark 1966 Church and Society Conference in Geneva is most often recalled as having brought Third World perspectives and theologies of liberation onto the stage of the global ecumenical movement. However it too devoted particular attention to nuclear war, based again on the Amsterdam affirmation.

...(The) First Assembly...declared, 'War is contrary to the will of God'... We now say to all governments and peoples that nuclear war is against God's will and the greatest of evils. Therefore we affirm that it is the first duty of governments and their officials to prevent nuclear war. ...

The real problem is how the supreme task, to avoid nuclear war can be carried out... (here there is) an increasing role for the smaller powers in depolarizing international affairs....

The churches should add that they have (a) common...duty to preserve the life of the peoples of this world, and to work for a world order which will transcend the present uneasy peace of the equilibrium of power. It is intolerable for the peace of the world to depend on a precarious nuclear balance...

Official Report, World Conference on Church and Society, WCC, Geneva 1966, pp 123ff.

That Conference deeply influenced the agenda of the IV. Assembly held two years later. That agenda was heavily devoted to the timely issues of racism and economic development and others stimulated by the global revolutionary fervor of the year 1968. But it too spoke out on the question of nuclear weapons, beginning once more with the Amsterdam declaration.

The WCC reaffirms its declaration at the (First Assembly): "War as a method of settling disputes is incompatible with the teachings and example of our Lord Jesus Christ." Of all forms of war, nuclear war presents the gravest affront to the conscience of man. The avoidance of atomic, biological or chemical war has become a conditions of human survival...The churches must insist that it is the first duty of governments to prevent such a war: to halt the present arms race, agree never to initiate the use of nuclear weapons, stop experiments concerned with and the production of weapons of mass human destruction by chemical and biological means a move away from the balance of terror towards disarmament. ...

The concentration of nuclear weapons in the hands of a few nations presents the world with serious problems: a) how to guarantee the security of the non-nuclear nations; b) how to enable these nations to play their part in preventing war, and; c) how to prevent the nuclear powers from freezing the exiting order at the expense of changes needed for social and political justice....

Uppsala Speaks, Fourth WCC Assembly, Uppsala, 1998, Geneva, 1968, pp 62 ff.

The V. Assembly in Nairobi was marked especially by the global concern for human rights and East-West tensions. In its Section on "Structures of Injustice and Struggles for Liberation," to survival, it shifted the nature of Christian responsibly very significantly based on ideas provided by the Federation of Churches in the German Democratic Republic:

Christians must resist the temptation to resign themselves to a false sense of impotence or security, The churches should emphasize their readiness to live without the protection of armaments, and take a significant initiative in pressing for effective disarmament. Churches, individual Christians, and members of the public in all countries should press their governments to ensure national security without resorting to the use of weapons of mass destruction...

We appeal to Christians to think, work and pray for a disarmed world.

Breaking Barriers, The Official Report of the Fifth Assembly of the WCC, Nairobi, 1995, WCC, Geneva, p 182.

The nuclear arms race accelerated rapidly in the late 1970s, and the CCIA was asked by the Central Committee to organize a consultation to consider it and the proliferation of conventional weapons of mass destruction. Its 1978 report noted:

We are living in the shadow of an arms race more intense, more costly, more widespread and more dangerous than the world has ever known. Never before has the arms race been as close as it is now to total self-destruction. Today's arms race is an unparalleled waste of human and material resources; it aids repression and violates human rights; it promotes violence and insecurity in place of the security in whose name it is undertaken; it frustrates humanity's aspirations for justice and peace; it has no part in God's design for His world; it is demonic.... To hope in Christ is neither to be complacent about survival nor powerless in the fear of annihilation by the forces of evil but to open our eyes to the transcendent reality of Christ in history.

"Report of the WCC Consultation on Disarmament," Glion, Switzerland, 1978, in The Churches in International Affairs 1974-1978, WCC, Geneva 1979, p 72

That same year, Dr. Philip Potter, WCC General Secretary brought the concerns highlighted in the consultation to the attention of the United Nations in a plenary address to the General Assembly in which he addressed several of the underlying causes of the global arms race:

We must challenge the idol of a distorted concept of national security which is direct to encouraging fear and mistrust resulting in greater insecurity. The only security worthy of its name lies in enabling people to participate fully in the life of their nations and to establish relations of trust between peoples of different nations. It is only when there is a real dialogue -- a sharing of life with life in mutual trust and respect -- that there can be true security.

Address of Dr. Philip Potter, WCC General Secretary, to the First Special Session of the UN General Assembly devoted to Disarmament, NY, 1978. op. cit. p 70f

This concern for national security arose not only as a causal factor in the super-power nuclear arms race, but as a justification for massive violations of human rights, especially by military dictatorships around the world. The Central Committee linked these concerns at its meeting in 1979:

...given the need not only to denounce militarism and the arms race, but to develop positive alternatives to the present destructive system...and as a matter of highest priority for the WCC...(the Central Committee establishes the) Program for Disarmament and against Militarism and the Arms Race.

Minutes of the WCC Central Committee, Kingston, Jamaica, 1979; also contained in The Churches in International Affairs, 1970-82, WCC, Geneva, 1983, p 35.

The WCC Sub-Unit on Church and Society organized in 1979 a major world Conference on Faith, Science and the Future in Boston, Massachusetts. It adopted the following declaration which was subsequently endorsed by the Executive Committee and commended to the churches:

We, scientists, engineers, theologians and members of Christian churches from all parts of the world, participants in the WCC Conference on Faith, Science and the Future, now meeting at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (USA), acknowledge with penitence the part played by science in the development of weapons of mass destruction and the failure of the churches to oppose it, and now plead with the nations of the world for the reduction and eventual abolition of such weapons.

WHEREAS:
- the arsenals of tens of thousands of nuclear weapons already constitute a grave peril to humankind:
- sharp changes by the super-powers towards a counterforce strategy are so destabilizing that sober scientists estimate a nuclear holocaust is probable before the end of the century;
- there is widespread ignorance of the horrible experience of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the even greater implications of limited or global nuclear war with current and projected nuclear weapons;
- we are profoundly disturbed by the willingness of some scientists, engineers and corporations, with the backing of governments, to pursue profit and prestige in weapons development at the risk of an unparalleled destruction of human life;
- the waste of the increasingly scarce materials and energy resources of the world on the instruments of war means further deprivation of the poor whom we are commanded to serve;
- we grieve that so many of the most able scientists, especially the young ones, are seduced away from the nobler aspirations of science into the unwitting service of mutual destruction;
- in a time of radical readjustment of the world economy the intolerable burden of the nuclear arms race creates worldwide economic problems;

AND BECAUSE WE BELIEVE:
- that God made us and all creation;
- that He requires us to seek peace, justice and freedom, creating a world where none need fear and every life is sacred;
- that with His grace no work of faith, hope and love need seem too hard for those who trust him;

WE NOW CALL UPON:
- all member communions of the WCC and all sister churches sending official observers, and through them each individual church and congregation;
- our fellow religionists and believers in other cultures, whether Hindu, Jewish, Buddhist or Muslim, and our Marxist colleagues;
- the science and engineering community, especially those engaged in research and development, together with professional scientific associations and trade unions;
- the governments of all nations and especially the nuclear powers;
- all concerned citizens of the world;

TO EMBARK IMMEDIATELY ON THE FOLLOWING TASKS:
- to support and implement the WCC Program on Disarmament and against Militarism and the Arms Race, and give special emphasis to issues related to military technology and its conversion to peaceful uses;
...
- to stop the development and production of new forms and systems of nuclear weapons...
- to educate and raise the consciousness of every constituency to the realities of nuclear war in such a way that people cease to avoid it as an issue too big to handle;
...
- to prepare local and national programs for the conversion to civilian use of laboratories and factories related to military research and production, and to provide for the retraining and re-employment of those who work on them;
- to resolve never again to allow science and technology to threaten the destruction of human life, and to accept the God-given task of using SCIENCE FOR PEACE.

Minutes of the WCC Executive Committee, Bossey, Switzerland, 1979, op. cit. p 40ff.

That year, 1979, marked a major turning point in the mobilization of world public opinion about the nuclear arms race. The announcement by the USA of its intention to produce a neutron bomb and radically to escalate the number and quality of its nuclear arms based in Europe created a massive public outcry. The Central Committee echoed the demands of the anti-nuclear movement the following year:

The Central Committee urges all nuclear powers to:

a) freeze immediately all further testing, production and deployment of nuclear weapons and of missiles and new aircraft designed primarily to deliver nuclear weapons;
b) start immediately discussions with a view to making agreements not to enhance the existing nuclear potentials and progressively reducing the overall number of nuclear weapons and a speedy conclusion of a comprehensive test ban treaty.

Minutes of the WCC Central Committee, Geneva, 1980, in op. cit. pp 43f

The following year, in Dresden (GDR), it received a report from the Program for Disarmament and against Militarism and the Arms Race, and said:

The Central Committee...calls upon the churches now to:
1) challenge the military and militaristic policies that lead to disastrous distortions of foreign policy sapping the capacity of the nations of the world to deal with pressing economic and social priorities which have become a paramount political issue of our times;
2) counter the trend to characterize those of other nations and ideologies as the "enemy" through the promotion of hatred and prejudice;
3) assist in de-mythologizing current doctrines of national security and elaborate new concepts of security based on justice and the rights of peoples;...

Commends the work of a large number of peace and disarmament groups and movements, old and new, around the world, in several of which large numbers of Christians actively participate in obedience to the demands of the Gospel...

Urges the churches, in the context of the preparations for the
Sixth Assembly, whose theme is "Jesus Christ, the Life of the World," to make commitment to peace-making a special concern and to give emphasis to studies on issues related to pee, paying special attention to the underlying theological issues.

Minutes of the WCC Central Committee, Dresden, 1981, in op. cit. pp 45ff.

In November 1981, the WCC convened an International Public Hearing on Nuclear Weapons and Disarmament at the Free University in Amsterdam. A hearing panel of 17 church leaders, theologians and ethicists from all the world's region heard testimony from 38 expert witnesses, including former US national security advisors, USSR foreign policy experts, senior diplomats in the field of disarmament, political leaders including Swedish Prime Minister Olof Palme, leading nuclear scientists and leaders of anti-nuclear peace movements in several parts of the world. Its extensive report was submitted to the WCC Central Committee and widely distributed. It contained, inter alia, the following affirmations:

We believe the time has come when the churches must unequivocally declare that the production and deployment as well as the use of nuclear weapons are a crime against humanity and that such activities must be condemned on ethical and theological grounds. ... We recognize that nuclear weapons will not disappear because of such and affirmation by the churches. But it will involve the churches and their members in a fundamental examination of their own implicit or explicit support of policies which, implicitly or explicitly, are based on the possession and use of those weapons.

Before It's Too Late: The Challenge of Nuclear Disarmament, WCC, Geneva, 1983, pp 3ff.

Dr. Philip Potter took these affirmations and the rising concern of the ecumenical movement back to the United Nations the following year when he addressed the plenary session of the Second Special Session of the General Assembly devoted to Disarmament.

...Compared with the public mood in 1978 when you last met, the growing massive strength of movements of people of every walk of life and ideological position gives us hope that the political will to take concrete steps to disarmament will emerge, and that governments will respect and act on this will. ...

During the last four years after the First Special Session on Disarmament the economic crisis has worsened throughout the world with grave consequences for the poor nations resulting in tensions within and among nations. The continuing stalemate in the North-South discussions on global issues has been accompanied by policies of confrontation and an attempt to divide the South. The present global military order is inextricably ties up with the economic and social system and therefore the quest for disarmament can in no way be isolated from the struggle for justice and human dignity. Consequently, there is deep distrust among the peoples of the Third World about the postures of the nuclear weapon states on deterrence and non-proliferation. Their struggles for social and political change are often distorted by the security considerations and economic interests of the major powers. ...

"Choose Life!" (Deut.30:15,19) Choose what is good, that is, what expresses our inner being as made in God's image to be shared with others. Choose the blessing, that is, what communicates our vitality to others, what enables us to put what we are and have at the disposal of others that they might become their true selves and share their lives also with others. That is God's purpose revealed in creation and in men and women made in his image to participate in his life and communicate that life to one another according to his commandments and promises of good. That is life. That is true security and peace.

Statement by WCC General Secretary Philip Potter to the Second Special Session of the UN General Assembly devoted to Disarmament, NY, June 1982, in The Churches in International Affairs 1979-82, pp 49ff.

At this same meeting of the UN General Assembly, Patriarch Pimen of the Russian Orthodox Church presented the report of the World Conference of Religious Workers for Saving the Sacred Gift of Life from Nuclear Catastrophe he convened in Moscow in May 1982.

The Central Committee in July 1982 commended the report of the International Public Hearings, highlighting its recommendations and calling upon the churches to take clear positions on them. It also issued a statement lamenting the lack of progress at the UN Special Session and renewed its call to the churches and governments to promote peace and disarmament.

In this same period, two volumes were published by the CCIA in the context of the Program for Disarmament and against Militarism and the Arms Race, entitled The Security Trap I and II (WCC, Geneva, and IDOC, Rome, 1979 and 1982), that provided in-depth analysis and theological perspectives on militarism and the nuclear arms race. Peace and Disarmament, A compendium of major documents of the WCC and the Roman Catholic Church, was also published jointly by the CCIA and the Pontifical Commission "Justitia et Pax" (Rome and Geneva, 1982).

The Sixth WCC Assembly in Vancouver, 1983, was held at a time when massive public protests were being held around the world against the nuclear arms race, many of them inspired or led by the churches. This Assembly was particularly marked by this concern. It said:

Humanity is now living in the dark shadow of an arms race more intense, and of systems of injustice more widespread, more dangerous and more costly than the world has ever known. Never before has the human race been as close as it is now to total self-destruction. Never before have so many lived in the grip of deprivation and oppression.

Under that shadow we have gathered here...to proclaim our common faith in Jesus Christ, the Life of the Word, and to say to the world:
- fear not, for Christ has overcome the forces of evil; in him are all things made new;
- fear not; for the love of God, rise up for justice and for peace;
- trust in the power of Christ who reigns over all; give witness to him in word and in deed, regardless of the cost...

The churches today are called to confess anew their faith, and to repent for the times when Christians have remained silent in the face of injustice or threats to peace. The biblical vision of peace with justice for all, of wholeness, of unity for all God's people is not one of several options for the followers of Christ. It is an imperative in our time...

We call upon the churches, especially those in Europe, both East and West, and in North America, to redouble their efforts to convince their governments to reach a negotiated settlement and to turn away now, before it is too late, from plans to deploy additional or new nuclear weapons in Europe, and to begin immediately to reduce and then eliminate altogether present nuclear forces.

We urge the churches as well to intensify their efforts to stop the rapidly growing deployment of nuclear weapons and support systems in the Indian and Pacific Oceans, and to press their governments to withdraw from or refuse to base or service ships or airplanes bearing nuclear weapons in their regions...

...(I)n the spirit of the Fifth Assembly's appeal to the churches "to emphasize their readiness to live without the protection of armaments," we believe that Christians should give witness to their unwillingness to participate in any conflict involving weapons of mass destruction or indiscriminate effect.

Gathered for Life, Official Report of the VI. Assembly of the WCC, Vancouver, 1983, WCC, Geneva, pp 131ff.

The Vancouver Assembly also called on the churches to engage in a "conciliar process of mutual commitment (covenant) to justice, peace and the integrity of all creation" and to make this a priority for all WCC programs.

The period following the Vancouver Assembly provided no new policy statements on nuclear weapons, but was one in which the WCC encouraged a number of international disarmament initiatives and pressed on the major nuclear powers their responsibilities to disarm. WCC General Secretaries encouraged the initiatives of the "Middle Power Coalition," the signatories of the Delhi Declaration, the Groupe Bellerive and others. Letters were written to President Reagan and General Secretary Gorbachev on the occasions of their summit meetings in Geneva and Iceland, encouraging them to take more rapid steps toward nuclear disarmament. On the eve of the meeting of the same leaders in Geneva in January 1987, the Central Committee welcomed the resumption of the earlier talks and appealed to the two nations:

- to declare a moratorium on nuclear tests as a provisional measure that would enable negotiations towards a comprehensive test ban treaty;
- to negotiate agreements on substantial reduction of strategic weapons and elimination of medium range missiles, with a definite time-table;
- to take all necessary steps to present the development of space weapons and to strengthen the terms of the Anti-Ballistic Missiles Treaty.

The WCC specially appeals to the US government to respond positively to the initiatives of the USSR on moratorium on nuclear testing, to review its decision to exceed the SALT II ceilings and to reconsider its Strategic Defense Initiative. The WCC also appeals to the USSR government to reinstate and continue the moratorium on nuclear testing.

The Central Committee renews its appeal to the French government to stop forthwith nuclear weapon testing in Polynesia…
We urge the churches in the context of the call to strengthen their commitment to justice, peace and the integrity of creation:

- to intensify their engagement in efforts for peace by specifically working for an end to nuclear testing as an immediate priority;
- to engage in bilateral and multilateral discussions among churches with a view to promoting common understandings and developing common strategies;
- to join other forces of peace for public education and efforts to influence policies of governments and inter-governmental bodies;
- to support the Six Nations Initiative and that of the South Pacific Forum.

Minutes of the Central Committee, Geneva, January 1987, in The Churches in International Affairs, 1987-1990, WCC, Geneva, 1990, pp 44ff.

Later that year, the WCC Officers welcomed the conclusion of the agreements at the USA-USSR Summit in Washington DC, saying that

The agreement to eliminate intermediate nuclear forces and thus an entire class of nuclear weapons is a significant achievement especially with the elaborate system of verification which augurs well for further steps in nuclear disarmament. The initiative already taken for making proposals for reducing strategic nuclear weapons is reassuring.

WCC Officers' Statement on the Washington Summit, 14 December 1987, op. cit., p 47.

In a statement presented by Dr. Lamar Gibble, a CCIA Commissioner, the WCC told the Third Session of the UN General Assembly devoted to Disarmament (1988):

In the limited time given for this testimony, among many concerns, we choose the following for emphasis. Firstly, even in the aura of a historic agreement to reduce intermediate range nuclear weapons the awful risk of nuclear war remains. We are painfully aware that this agreement can only reduce the nuclear arsenal by 3%. We would, therefore, urge the pursuit of every possible effort to further reduce and ultimately eliminate these weapons of mass destruction. We reiterate the declaration of our most recent Assembly that "the production and deployment of nuclear weapons as well as their use constitute a crime against humanity, and therefore there3 should be a complete halt in the production of nuclear weapons and in weapons research and development in all nations, to be expeditiously enforced through a treaty…" Only if such a comprehensive approach is taken to nuclear disarmament and complemented and reinforced by mutually accepted verification procedures and by the new technology available for verification can the possibility of nuclear holocaust be significantly reduced. We w2ould encourage this session to establish a multilateral mechanism under the auspices of the United Nations to perform such verification functions for our global community.

Secondly, while we recognize the possibility of significant steps in the reduction of nuclear weapons, we cannot overlook the significant new dynamics in the arms race. We view with alarm the development of "star wars" technology, chemical weapons, and the ever more deadly capacity of conventional weapons which blur the distinction between conventional and nuclear, and defensive and offensive weapons. Only through multilateral agreements banning the research, development and testing of these new weapons can we effectively end this process….

op. cit. pp 48ff

The WCC addressed a letter in 1987 to President Bush and General Secretary Gorbachev on the occasion of their summit meeting in Malta, reiterating appeals addressed earlier. But this was the last initiative on nuclear weapons before the VII. Assembly in Canberra (1991).

In Canberra the agenda was radically shifted in the direction of post Cold War armed interventions and internal conflicts. That assembly, meeting as the Gulf War was raging, gave strong clues that this would be a period of divided views and sometimes contentious relationships among the churches as they wrestled with new challenges. The VII. Assembly adopted a major policy statement on the implications of the use of armed force by the Gulf Coalition led by the USA, and another on internal conflicts. The attention of the Central Committee was fixed for most of the ensuing decade on the implications of such challenges and by renewed debates and efforts to address the churches' positions on violence.

The war in Bosnia/Herzegovina again led to contentious debates in the Central Committee on the old tension between the Christian traditions of pacifism and the just war. In 1994, on the basis of a background document, "Overcoming the Spirit, Logic and Practice of War," the Central Committee created the Program to Overcome Violence. In the course of the international campaign, "Peace to the City," carried out in the context of the POV, the focus turned especially to the issue of small arms and light weapons, and this has continued as a part of the new ecumenical Decade to Overcome Violence established by the VIII. Assembly in Harare (1998).

The disarmament agenda shifted more to the area of conventional arms, following the line traced earlier in consultations on militarism and disarmament. The CCIA Commission held a consultation in 1993 on the conventional arms trade (cf. The Arms Trade Today, CCIA Background Information, 1993/1, WCC, Geneva, 1993) and adopted a statement on the subject.

Soon after the Harare Assembly, the following document was issued, and it was the last major policy statement devoted particularly to nuclear weapons to date.

Nuclear weapons, whether used or threatened, are grossly evil and therefore morally wrong. As an instrument of mass destruction, nuclear weapons slaughter the innocent and ravage the environment...

(Therefore) we ask the delegates to call resolutely upon the nuclear weapons states to embark upon a series of steps along the road leading to nuclear abolition. There is broad consensus...on what these steps should be. They include:
- declare a policy of no first use among themselves and non-use in relation to non-nuclear weapons states;
- cease all research, development, production, and deployment of new nuclear weapons;
- refrain from modernizing the existing nuclear arsenal and increasing the number of deployed nuclear weapons;
- take all nuclear forces off alert and remove warheads from delivery vehicles;
- achieve faster and deeper bilateral reduction of nuclear weapons by the United States and Russia.

...We ask the delegates to take the lead in commencing the process of developing a nuclear weapons convention to outlaw and abolish all nuclear weapons...We appeal to the delegates...to consider what is best for the whole Earth and its in habitants when they vote on issues of nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament. Loyalty to all humankind exceeds that of loyalty within political blocs of nations. We urge delegates to act now, decisively and courageously for the benefit of all the peoples of the earth.

Joint statement of WCC General Secretary Konrad Raiser and Cardinal Daneels, President of Pax Christi International to the NPT Review Conference Preparatory Committee, Geneva, April 1998.

At its first meeting (Morges, Switzerland, January 2000), the newly elected Commission of the Churches on International Affairs adopted guidelines for programmatic work in the field of disarmament which stressed the need for the WCC and its member churches to turn their attention back the continuing threat of nuclear weapons. So, concern about nuclear weapons has not disappeared from the WCC agenda. However, it has been dropped to the lowest levels of priority of many churches, including those in nuclear weapons states. There is an urgent need for the ecumenical movement to remember its history and to reassert leadership at what is in fact a very critical moment of new challenges to the international disarmament regime and the ever more dangerous legacy of the decaying products of the decades-long US-USSR nuclear arms race. Statements alone will not be enough. The statements reviewed here were often backed by movements in the churches working to bring official church assemblies with them in action and conviction. If we are to be effective again, attention will have to be paid during the forthcoming ecumenical Decade to Overcome Violence to the strengthening, regeneration re-connection of such movements.

Geneva, 4 October 2000

During a February 2004 meeting the Executive Committee, World Council of Churches adopted a Statement on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, NPT that expresses a grave concern that certain policies and practices of nuclear weapon states undermine international progress toward nuclear disarmament. The Statement urges all states to reinvigorate nuclear disarmament efforts and lays out a series of bold measures on the path to the final elimination of nuclear
weapons.

Nuclear weapons do not, cannot, deliver security -- they deliver only insecurity and peril through their promise to annihilate that which is most precious, life itself and the global ecosystem upon which all life depends. Nuclear weapons have no moral legitimacy, they lack military utility, and, in light of the recent judgment of the World Court, their legality is in serious question.

Canada should adhere to and courageously promote its long-held goal of global nuclear disarmament. . . .We need to say very clearly to our neighbours that Canada opposes any widening of the role of nuclear weapons, in any country or in any alliance.

Advocate measures to remove nuclear weapons from alert status, to support de-mating (separating warheads form delivery systems), and in the case of tactical weapons to keep them out of the control of operating units.

Indicate strong support for the concerns of non-aligned parties to the NPT and back their demand for unequivocal negative security assurances from all nuclear weapon states. [That is, pledge never to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear countries that are party to the NPT.]

Letter to President George W. Bush on National Missile Defense
March 5, 2001

The Honorable George W. Bush
The White House
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President:

We the undersigned representatives of faith-based organizations share with you the desire to keep God's people, including those in the U.S. homeland, safe from nuclear attack. However, we are deeply concerned about the haste to make a commitment to deploy unproven technology for national missile defense.

First, the real and present danger for nuclear attack on the United States comes from the several thousand Russian missiles now on hair trigger alert and thousands of Russian nuclear weapons in reserve with inadequate security. The best remedies are mutual de-alerting, strategic arms reduction, and stable control of fissile material. These opportunities could be jeopardized if the United States withdraws from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty to erect a national missile defense. Russia might then withdraw from other arms control treaties and retain multi-warhead missiles now scheduled for elimination under START II. Also, China might increase its nuclear arsenal. This would pose far greater danger to U.S. homeland security than the remote threat of a few missiles a small nation might develop years from now.

Second, heavy emphasis on unproven anti-missile technology to counter a speculative future threat from a few small nations neglects other elements of a comprehensive non-proliferation strategy. More promising methods include international monitoring of nuclear test explosions, rigorous fissile material control, stringent missile technology control, diplomacy, financial assistance to nations cooperating in nuclear non-proliferation, and countering social, economic, and political instability that provides the breeding ground for terrorist groups

Third, we are seriously concerned about budgetary implications. Since 1983 the United States has spent $69 billion on national missile defense, enriching major defense contractors but producing no effective system. President Clinton's plan, which you have criticized as inadequate, would cost $60 billion. Indications are that the layered approach you favor could cost more than $100 billion. A budgetary commitment of this magnitude along with the tax cut you are promoting would preclude achieving the goal of "Leave No Child Behind" and dealing with other urgent domestic needs.

For these reasons we urge you to pull back from the dangerous rush to a premature decision on national missile defense and withdrawal from the ABM Treaty.

Respectfully yours,

Sincerely yours,

Signers:

Letter to U.S. Senators and Representatives on National Missile Defense
July 23, 2001

Dear Senator/Representative:

In the defense authorization bill for the 2002 fiscal year, President Bush is asking for $8.3 billion for national missile defense, a 57 percent increase over the current fiscal year. We the undersigned representatives of faith-based organizations ask you to consider this request not only as a budgetary issue but also as a matter of justice and peace.

Over the centuries prophets of religion have posed the question: what does justice require? In this instance, one of the clearest answers comes from a five-star general who rose to the highest civilian office of the land, President Dwight D. Eisenhower. In an address before the American Society of Newspaper Editors on April 16, 1953 he stated: "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed." This statement is so important to the Eisenhower legacy that these words are engraved on the walls by his tomb in Abilene, Kansas.

The vast spending increase now proposed for national missile constitutes a theft of this nature. Since 1983 the United States has spent $63 billion on this endeavor without technological success. Pouring more funds into this venture would in effect steal money from efforts to "Leave No Child Behind", to provide adequate health care for millions of America, to deal with the global HIV/AIDS crisis, and to meet other urgent social needs. This is clearly wrong and immoral.

It is doubly wrong because there is no credible threat to the American homeland from long-range missiles. Only Russia, China, the United Kingdom, and France have missiles of that range, but they are not on the danger list offered by missile defense proponents. Of the so-called "rogue" states that are said to be a threat, only North Korea has tried to develop a long-range missile. Flight testing is now suspended, and the program could be permanently terminated through diplomacy and selective financial assistance. Moreover, it is not credible that North Korea would attack the United States because of the assurance of massive retaliation. No other potentially hostile state has an effective missile program that would endanger the United States. There are numerous nonproliferation measures that can prevent them from developing one.

The beneficiaries of the national missile defense program are not the American people but rather large defense contractors. They are spending millions every year in political campaign contributions and lobbying operations to promote missile defense. This calls to mind President Eisenhower's warning in his farewell address to the American people: "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex." You who serve on the House Armed Services Committee should be our guardians.

For these reasons, we ask you to cut back on authorization for national missile defense and to redirect these resources to programs that meet important human and community needs.

Sincerely yours,

Signers:

Letter to President George W. Bush on Nuclear Weapons and Terrorism
October 23, 2001

The Honorable George W. Bush
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20500

Dear Mr. President:

The campaign against terrorism is raising new and important questions about the role and future of nuclear weapons in the global security framework of the 21st century. We would like to share with you our thinking on this matter.

First, we note that some of your advisors inside and outside of government favor using nuclear weapons against terrorist enclaves and against states that possess no nuclear weapons. Some advocate use of nuclear weapons in response to attacks by chemical and biological weapons. This would reverse the long-standing U.S. policy of using nuclear weapons primarily as a tool to deter other nuclear-weapon states. We believe that the policy of the United States should be no first use of nuclear weapons against any state, nuclear or non-nuclear, or against any other adversary at any time under any circumstance. We believe that such first use would be immoral and would constitute a crime against humanity. We also believe that nuclear weapons should never be used in response to an attack by biological and chemical weapons.

Second, we note that in January 2001 the Russia Task Force chaired by Howard Baker and Lloyd Cutler stated: "The most urgent unmet national security threat to the United States today is the danger that weapons of mass destruction or weapons-usable material in Russia could be stolen and sold to terrorists or hostile nation states and used against American troops or citizens at home." The September 11 terrorist attacks on the United States emphasize the importance of this finding. Therefore, we believe that a substantial portion of anti-terrorist funds should go for full implementation of the Baker-Cutler report. In terms of relative priority, we suggest that funds be transferred from the missile defense budget to this and other urgent non-proliferation initiatives.

Third, we believe that the improved relationship between the United States and Russia because of mutual concern over terrorism should be treated as an opportunity to make substantial progress in improving the security of deployed nuclear weapons and dismantling the nuclear arsenals still in place more than a decade after the Cold War ended. Specifically we ask you to implement your campaign promise to work with Russia to de-alert and stand down the respective nuclear arsenals and to achieve deep cuts in strategic nuclear weapons. Not only will this enhance the security of the United States and Russia by lowering the possibility of accidental launch, it will also reduce the danger that a renegade group could gain control of nuclear weapon delivery vehicles and use them for terrorist attack on the United States.

We urge you to carry out these recommendations as a means of achieving a safer and more peaceful world in the 21st century.

Sincerely yours,

Signers:

Letter to President George W. Bush on Nuclear Posture Review
March 15, 2002

The Honorable George W. Bush
The White House
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President:

We the undersigned representatives of religious organizations were encouraged by the meetings you and Russian President Vladimir Putin held last November in Washington and Texas. Together you told the world that the United States and Russia are now friends rather than military rivals. You each promised to make substantial reductions in strategic nuclear weapons. This follows through on your desire to move beyond the Cold War and its doctrine of mutual assured destruction (MAD). We look forward to your signing a specific agreement on strategic arms reductions when you meet in Moscow in May.

This gives us hope that substantial progress can be made toward the global elimination of nuclear weapons. This is the desire of numerous religious leaders and religious organizations in the United States and elsewhere. For example, 21 top religious leaders in the United States, joined by 18 military professionals, in a statement issued at the Washington National Cathedral in June 2000, proclaimed: "We deeply believe that the long-term reliance on nuclear weapons in the arsenals of the nuclear powers, and the ever-present danger of their acquisition by others, is morally untenable and militarily unjustifiable....National security imperatives and ethical demands have converged to bring us to the necessity of outlawing and prohibiting nuclear weapons worldwide."

From this perspective we are discouraged by what Pentagon planners have produced in the Nuclear Posture Review (NPR). We have several concerns we would like to share with you.

(1) Reductions. We commend the NPR commitment to reduce strategic nuclear weapons to 1,700 to 2,200 warheads along with the Russia commitment to reduce theirs to 1,500. This is a positive step in the right direction. Yet, we wonder why it should take ten years to accomplish. We ask that standing down of these warheads and their delivery vehicles be completed by 2004.

(2) Warhead reserve and the terrorist threat. The reduction in strategic weapons is compromised by the NPR plan to keep an estimated 1,500 warheads in an active reserve with their delivery systems intact for uploading. If the United States keeps so many warheads in reserve, Russia is likely to do the same. The more warheads that Russia has in reserve the greater the risk of some of them falling into the hands of terrorist organizations. The United States would be much better off to forgo a large warhead reserve and instead enter into a binding, verifiable agreement with Russia that requires elimination of both delivery vehicles and nuclear warheads taken out of service. This would follow the example of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, signed by President Ronald Reagan, and START I, signed by your father, President George H.W. Bush, both of which provided for the destruction of the delivery vehicles taken out of service.

(3) Mutual assured destruction. We are especially disappointed that the doctrine of mutual assured destruction remains intact in the Pentagon's Nuclear Posture Review. The NPR specifies that "preplanning is essential for immediate and potential contingencies". It indicates that "a contingency involving Russia, while plausible, is not expected." Nevertheless, the approximately 3,500 strategic warheads in active deployment and reserve are of sufficient magnitude to cover hundreds of targets in Russia, as they now do under the single integrated operational plan (SIOP). Thus, in actuality the MAD doctrine prevails.

(4) De-alerting. Not only is MAD continuing but also the practice of keeping large numbers of missiles on hair-trigger alert. During the presidential campaign you rightly told the American people that "for two nations at peace, keeping so many weapons on high alert may create unacceptable risks of accidental or unauthorized launch." You stated, "the United States should remove as many weapons as possible from high-alert, hair-trigger status -- another unnecessary vestige of Cold War confrontation." Yet, the Pentagon planners have made no provision for de-alerting in the Nuclear Posture Review. True friends do not keep nuclear weapons on hair-trigger alert targeted at each other. Therefore, we call for zero alert.

(5) Expanded role. The Pentagon plan expands the role of nuclear weapons beyond the primary role of deterring nuclear-weapon states from attacking the United States and its allies.
The Nuclear Posture Review speaks of flexibility for a range of contingencies. This includes immediate, potential, or unexpected contingencies involving North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Syria, and Libya. The NPR indicates that nuclear weapons could be employed against targets able to withstand non-nuclear attack or in retaliation for use of biological or chemical weapons. In contrast, previous U.S. policy specified no first use of nuclear weapons against any non-nuclear-weapons state not allied with a nuclear-weapon state. We are greatly disturbed that your administration wants to expand rather than contract the role of nuclear weapons in the 21st century.

(6) Testing. Our concern is reinforced by the approach to nuclear testing revealed in the Nuclear Posture Review. While we welcome reaffirmation of your commitment to a moratorium on nuclear weapons testing, we are bothered by the NPR's call for the Department of Energy to reduce the time it would take to resume testing. This goes with your opposition to ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), a treaty we support. This is compounded by the NPR's indication that the current nuclear force is projected to remain until 2020 and that in the meantime the Department of Defense will "study alternatives for follow-ons" for nuclear delivery systems. Preparation to resume testing appears to be part of this scheme. This sounds like a commitment to nuclear weapons forever. We find this objectionable.

Therefore, Mr. President, we ask you to send the Nuclear Posture Review back to the drawing boards and have the Pentagon planners come up with a plan that will truly end the MAD doctrine and will steadily reduce the role of nuclear weapons in U.S. military and foreign policy. We propose that nuclear disarmament objectives be incorporated into the Nuclear Posture Review in accordance to the U.S. obligation under Article VI of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), signed originally by President Richard Nixon. As a point of departure, we call your attention to the practical steps contained in the Final Document of the 2000 NPT Review Conference. Among other things these practical steps set forth the principle of irreversibility and call for "an unequivocal undertaking by the nuclear-weapon States to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals".

A revised Nuclear Posture Review along these lines would more nearly fulfill your goal of ending Cold War confrontation and achieving true friendship between the United States and Russia. We urge you to exercise your presidential leadership in the direction of diminishing the role of nuclear weapons and eventually eliminating them from Earth. As you do, we will do what we can to help build support with the American people.

With best regards,

Signers:

Letter to President George W. Bush on Use of Weapons of Mass Destruction
December 20, 2002

The Honorable George W. Bush
The White House
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President:

We the undersigned representatives of religious organizations note the release of "National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction." We share the premise of the report that the potential use of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) is a grave concern to citizens of the United States, indeed to all people on Earth.

Therefore, we favor a strong nonproliferation program that emphasizes diplomacy, reliance on multilateral regimes, controls on nuclear materials, and cooperative nuclear threat reduction, such as the Nunn-Lugar program. However, we strongly disagree with elements of the National Strategy related to counter-proliferation. In particular we have two major concerns.

First, we are greatly disturbed by the idea of unilateral preemption by U.S. military forces. Many of us have articulated this concern in relationship to Iraq. We believe that unilateral military intervention is a dangerous precedent which could have disastrous effects if pursued by other nations in diverse situations. Rather we favor strict observance of international law and collective security through the United Nations and multilateral regional organizations.

Second, we strongly oppose threatened and actual use of nuclear weapons in dealing with chemical and biological weapons. Such a policy is immoral because it would be disproportionate, would harm innocent civilians, and would have negative environmental effects. Further, this approach extends the role of nuclear weapons at a time when the world should be working for their elimination. It is contrary to previous policy of not threatening first use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapon states. It adds to the appearance that the use of nuclear weapons is legitimate, thus encouraging other nations to develop their own nuclear arsenals. We note the disastrous effects in South Asia as India and Pakistan have copied the superpowers in believing that nuclear weapons have utility for deterrence and war-fighting.

Therefore, we urge you to reconsider the policies of unilateral preemption and first use of nuclear weapons.

Sincerely yours,

Signers:

Archbishop Michael
Metropolitan Bishop
Greek Orthodox Church in Austria
President, Ecumenical Council of
Churches in Austria

Superintendent Helmut Nausner
United Methodist Church in Austria
Secretary, Ecumenical Council of Churches

Christine Gleixner
Mother Superior of the Order, Sisters of Bethany, and Vice Chair, Ecumenical Council of Churches in Austria

Rev. Ivan Petkin
Bulgarian Orthodox Church in Austria

Rev. Johannes El Baramousy
Koptic Orthodox Church in Austria

Bishop Mag. Herwig Sturm
Lutheran Church in Austria

Bishop Bernhard Heitz
Old Catholic Church, Austria

Bishop Dr. Heinrich Fasching
Roman Catholic Church
President, "Justitia et Pax" in Austria

Metropolit Archbishop Ireneji
Russian Orthodox Church in Austria

The Most Rev. J. Barry Curtis
President, Canadian Council of Churches

The Rev. Arie G. Van Eek
Council of Christian Reformed Churches
in Canada

The Rev. Telmor Sartison, Bishop
Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada
Marvin Frey
Executive Director
Mennonite Central Committee Canada

The Rev. John D. Congram
Moderator
The Presbyterian Church in Canada

Gale Wills
Religious Society of Friends (Quakers)
in Canada

Commissioner Donald V. Kerr
Territorial Commander
The Salvation Army, Canada

The Very Rev. Bill Phipps
Moderator
United Church of Canada

Rev. Dr. Lothar Engel
Deputy General, Association of Protestant Churches and Missions in Germany

Bishop Dr. Walter F. Klaiber
United Methodist Church in Germany

President, Canadian Council of Churches

Archbishop Michael G. Peers
Primate of the Anglican Church of Canada

Rev. John Reardon
General Secretary
Council of Churches for Britain and Ireland

D. Dr. Béla Harmati
Bishop of the Lutheran Church
President, Ecumenical Council
of Churches in Hungary

Dr. Zoltán Bóna
General Secretary, Ecumenical Council
of Churches in Hungary

Rev. Domenico Tomasetto
President, Federation of Protestant
Churches in Italy

Rev. Kenichi Otsu
General Secretary,
National Christian Council in Japan

Rev. Samuel I. Koshiishi
Acting General Secretary
Nippon Sei Ko Kai
(Anglican/ Episcopal Church)

Rev. Junichiro Naito
Executive Secretary
Japan Baptist Convention

Rev. Masakazu Asami
President
Japan Evangelical Lutheran Church

Rev. Satoru Gohada
President
Japan Free Methodist Church

Rev. Sadao Ozawa
General Secretary
United Church of Christ in Japan

William V. Robinson
President, CCANZ (Conference of Churches in Aotearoa New Zealand)

Rev. Jennifer Dawson
President, CCANZ

Rev. Max Reid
President, CCANZ

Mrs. Jan Cornack
General Secretary, CCANZ

Rev. Billy Taranger
President, Christian Council of Norway

Rev. Ingrid Vad Nilsen
General Secretary
Christian Council of Norway

Bishop Nifon of Slobozia and Calarasi
President, Ecumenical Association
of Churches in Romania

Bishop Christoph Klein
Evangelical AC Church in Romania
Vice President, Ecumenical Association
of Churches in Romania

Bishop Kalman Csiha
Reformed Church of Transsylvania
Member, Administrative Council
Ecumenical Association of Churches
in Romania

Christian Teodoresu
General Secretary, Ecumenical Association
of Churches in Romania

Rev. Thord-OveThordson
General Secretary
Christian Council of Sweden

Rev. Tord Ström
General Secretary
Free Church of Sweden

Rev. Krister Andersson
President and General Secretary
Mission Covenant Church of Sweden

• The threat and use of nuclear weapons is incompatible with civilized norms, standards of morality and humanitarian law which prohibit the use of inhumane weapons and those with indiscriminate effects.
• We say that a peace based on terror, a peace based upon threats of inflicting annihilation and genocide upon whole populations, is a peace that is morally corrupting.

Highlights of the 2000 statement include:

We deeply believe that the long-term reliance on nuclear weapons in the arsenals of the nuclear powers, and the ever-present danger of their acquisition by others, is morally untenable and militarily unjustifiable. They constitute a threat to the security of our nation, a peril to world peace, a danger to the whole human family.

Historically, military and religious leaders have not always been in agreement on these issues, but now a consensus is emerging. National security imperatives and ethical demands have converged to bring us to the necessity of outlawing and prohibiting nuclear weapons worldwide.

We also believe that reliance on a nuclear deterrent in the long run calls into question our
stewardship of God's creation.

And so it is that we now come together to bear witness anew: it is past time for a great national and international discussion and examination of the true and full implications of reliance on nuclear weapons, to be followed by action leading to the international prohibition of these weapons.

Nuclear weapons are weapons of indiscriminate effect and terror. The threat of their use represents an abhorrent condition we seek to eliminate cooperatively. Nuclear weapons "constitute a threat to the security of our nation, a peril to world peace, [and] a danger to the whole human family." We believe that verifiable arms control and non-proliferation efforts must become a top priority in order to safeguard nuclear facilities everywhere, to prevent the export of related materials and technologies, to persuade states to turn away from nuclear weapons, and to prevent terrorists from obtaining them.

Accordingly, we should not seize upon the events of September 11 as a justification for use of nuclear weapons. Domestic and international security cannot be obtained by answering terror with even greater terror. Strengthening international cooperation in bringing unlawful conduct to justice, in addressing the root causes of terrorism, and working through the rule of law to eliminate nuclear weapons is a path toward greater security consistent with international requirements and our basic American values.

Indeed there is an "axis of evil." But it is hardly Iran, Iraq, and North Korea. A more likely and far more dangerous trio would be environmental degradation, pandemic poverty, and a world awash with weapons.

The three are closely linked. Governmental priorities that feed militarism starve the poor, while a nuclear war could transform the planet and all its inhabitants into a dreary waste of ash and cinder, silenced by death.

A nuclear war can happen, which is why nuclear weapons are the subject of this appeal. To people of faith God alone has the authority to end all life on earth. All we human beings have is the power. As such power is clearly not authorized, the mere possession of nuclear weapons must, in the sight of God, be an abomination. Further, to entrust the use of such destructive power to a handful of people, all of whom are fallible and some malicious, is reckless, to say the least.

During the Cold War it could be argued that nuclear weapons were for deterrence. But no longer. Today thoughtful people agree that nuclear proliferation is more an invitation than a deterrent to catastrophic conflict.

Nothing is served by minimizing the difficulties of disarmament. But we are persuaded that unless nuclear weapons are soon buried in history alongside of slavery, colonialism and apartheid, the human race is likely to go the way of the dinosaurs.

Religious leaders have more than once expressed their moral outrage at nuclear weapons. Likewise generals and admirals of many nations, our own included, such as General George Lee Butler, former commander of the U.S. Strategic Air Command and Admiral Andrew Goodpaster, former supreme allied commander of Europe, have called for the worldwide abolition of nuclear weapons under the most stringent possible inspection. Experience has told them that the possession of nuclear weapons by some states is the strongest stimulant for others to acquire them. Therefore these military leaders view the multi-lateral, verifiable abolition of nuclear weapons as the world's best chance to prevent further nuclear proliferation.

The International Court of Justice unanimously called for completing a treaty on nuclear elimination. Two years ago, pursuant to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, the nuclear weapons states, including the United States, pledged an "unequivocal undertaking to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals."

But the Bush administration has changed course-drastically. Far from furthering disarmament, the recently signed treaty with Russia calls only for the storing, not for the dismantling of nuclear weapons. Newspapers report plans to develop "usable" nuclear weapons for unilateral "pre-emptive action" against "evil states," a policy that would be in blatant violation of international law, one certain to alienate allies and create more terrorists. Finally, the Administration is bent on spending now, of all times, billions of dollars building a missile shield when the enemy is less a rogue state than a band of stateless rogues, more apt to come to harm us by boat, bus, or small plane than by an intercontinental ballistic missile.

We therefore ask you, fellow believers, to give prayerful thought to the myriad liabilities and potential catastrophes of nuclear weapons. Our faith frequently compels us to see what we would rather ignore, and God surely would not have us wish for peace without working for it heart, soul, and mind.

We have no illusions. It will not be tomorrow or the next day that our government will be persuaded to accept a time-bound framework in which all nuclear weapons will be abolished. But if today, with a quickened sense of conscience, religious people speak out, joining with others in writing, lobbying, and demonstrating, then slowly, surely, the promise of a nuclear-free world will defeat the peril of a nuclear war.

We are blessed to live in a democracy. In a democracy dissent is not disloyal; what is unpatriotic is subservience. Apathy in the face of evil is morally unacceptable. Consequently, the sobering, demanding question is not "why abolish nuclear weapons?" but rather "why not?"