"Question 46," Revisited

[James (yaakov)]

Date: 12/28/2008 5:11:44 PM



http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2008/12/question-46-revisited....

Thursday, December 18, 2008

"Question 46," Revisited

"Hey, Will - we just got a letter from a Marine saying that he was part of a
project dealing with civilian arms confiscation by the military. Are you
interested?"

It had been a fairly slow morning up until the point Dave Bohon, at the time
the managing editor at The New American, came down to the research
department with the aforementioned letter clutched in his hands and a
Puzzled expression inscribed in his aquiline
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/aquiline>; features.
Practically leaping out of my chair, I grabbed the proffered letter, a
Handwritten missive attached to a multi-page document called a "Combat Arms
Survey http://www.ronpaulforum.com; "
(scroll down). I read both the letter and the questionnaire with a sense of
mingled dread and excitement.
As students of the federalization and militarization of law enforcement, my
associates and I knew things of this sort had to be happening, but proving
it was somewhat difficult. Here was a letter that seemed to provide the
dreadful confirmation. While it would be useful to see our suspicions
confirmed, we couldn't exactly take pleasure in the knowledge that one of
our worst fears appeared to be taking tangible form.
The letter's return address was Twentynine Palms Marine Base in California
http://www.29palms.usmc.mil/>; , and the author - a Marine Lance Corporal -
had provided contact information. After reading the letter three or four
times, I called the phone number and contacted the Marine. We spoke for
about a half hour, during which time he described the incident in greater
detail. Of particular interest was the final question in the survey, which
-- as we will see anon -- did indeed ask about the willingness of Marines to
seize firearms from Americans, using lethal force to do so if necessary.
In that pre-Blogosphere era, we had to wait several weeks for the story to
see print, but within hours of the first copies of the July 11 issue
reaching subscribers our research department was dispatching fax copies of
the letter and the survey - of which we had the sole original copies -- to
curious and outraged people across the nation. Many of them had exactly the
same reaction we did: A joyless sense of dreadful, unwelcome vindication.
The Marine was one of several hundred who had combat experience in recent
deployments abroad. The conversation took place in late May 1994;
accordingly, the pool of combat veterans included those who had served in
Panama, the first Gulf War, and Somalia. They were assembled in a mess hall
and given a 46-question survey composed by Navy Lt. Commander Ernest "Guy"
Cunningham, who was working on a Master's Thesis dealing with the deployment
of US military units under foreign command as part of UN-supervised missions
abroad.
While there was much in the survey that a Constitutionalist would find
objectionable - for instance, Marines were asked about their willingness to
swear an oath of allegiance to the United Nations - the final question was
positively thermonuclear:
"The US government declares a ban on the possession, sale, transportation,
and transfer of all non-sporting firearms. A thirty (30) day amnesty period
is permitted for these firearms to be turned over to the local authorities.
At the end of this period, a number of citizen groups refuse to turn over
their firearms. Consider the following statement: I would fire upon US
citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of firearms banned by the US
government."

As it happens, Lt. Cmndr. Cunningham was not promoting civilian disarmament,
or the cession of the US military to UN control. He was using his survey to
determine the extent to which such policy choices would have the support of
military personnel who had served in combat abroad.
When Cunningham released his findings it was revealed that more than 61
percent of the Marines who took the survey responded that they wouldn't
carry out such an order under any circumstances. Many of them took the time
to expand upon their answers through comments in the margin of the survey,
often written in language that would bring a maidenly blush to the gnarled
Cheeks of Deadwood'
http://www.usatoday.com/life/television/news/2004-05-02-deadwood-cu....
htm> s Al Swearengen http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Swearengen>; .

Paving the road to serfdom with the remains of destroyed civilian firearms:
A US soldier presides over the destruction of confiscated guns in Bosnia.
(Comeandtakeit.com.)
Of course, it was gratifying as it is to know that most of the combat
veterans surveyed by Cunningham emphatically rejected the concept of
domestic civilian disarmament by the military. However, the study did
suggest the existence of a sizable pool of military personnel willing to
carry out that mission.
In that particular group, 79 Marines - a little more than a quarter of those
surveyed -- replied to Question 46 in the affirmative, a response Cunningham
said "showed an alarming ignorance of the Posse Comitatus Act ... and of how
to treat an unlawful order."

Now, roughly fifteen years later, it's hardly clear that the order to gun
down American civilians defending their innate right to armed self-defense
Would be considered unlawful, at least in a positivist
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_positivism>; sense, by a majority of
service personnel.
In September 2006, on the same day the Bush Regime effectively dismantled
the habeas corpus guarantee it inflicted what may be lethal injury to the
Posse Comitatus Act as well by providing the president with the means to
make the National Guard units of all 50 states into his personal army, to be
deployed domestically in any way he sees fit. At least three combat brigades
are now assigned to domestic duty as a homeland security force under
Northern Command.
Those troops would supposedly be used for the sole purpose of dealing with
Catastrophic events
http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2008/09/rubicon-in-rear-view-p...
erpetual.html> , such as terrorism involving the use of non-conventional
Weapons; however, the initial report
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/09/army_homeland_090708w/>; indicated
that these combat veterans, during their domestic deployment, would be
equipped and train to deal with crowd control and other population
management tasks. This is why the unit would be outfitted with "non-lethal"
weaponry, in addition to the conventional variety.
As I've noted
http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2008/09/rubicon-in-rear-view-p...
Ml> in previous
http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2008/09/rubicon-in-rear-view-p...
erpetual.html> reports, active-duty military personnel were deeply involved
in hands-on law enforcement (including the use of satellite and other
surveillance technology) during the 2008 political conventions in Denver and
St. Paul. Last Friday (December 12)
http://freespeech.vo.llnwd.net/o25/pub/images/chp01.png>; brought another
ominous expansion of the role of active-duty military personnel in routine
law enforcement when elements of the California Highway Patrol conducted a
joint "sobriety/driver's license checkpoint" alongside the San Bernadino
County Sheriff's Office and a contingent of Military Police from the US
Marine Corps.


Of particular interest to me is the fact that this troubling venture
involves the Twentynine Palms Air Ground Combat Center
http://www.kesq.com/global/story.asp?s=9534627&ClientType=Print...; . This
may be completely insignificant. But it is an odd and unsettling
coincidence, at the very least.

"We Are the World": John Richter, center right, is a participant in the UN's
International Police Task Force in Bosnia. Originally from Illinois, he is
seen here taking part in a multinational mission with several British
officers and a Nepalese soldier. (Comeandtakeit.com )


Sobriety checkpoints are a perfectly mundane (but by no means harmless) law
enforcement function; they don't involve catastrophic circumstances, either
natural or man-made.


Most importantly, highway checkpoints are a martial law exercise, since they
involve temporary detention and scrutiny of an entire population by armed
Enforcement personnel.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/12/3/4344/25585/406/668782>; Last
Summer, police in Washington, D.C. used checkpoints to restrict movement
into and out of entire city blocks; this initiative was modeled on security
practices used by occupation forces in Iraq. Integrating military personnel
into a sobriety checkpoint is a different but even more troubling refinement
of this martial law tactic.

Attorney Lawrence Taylor,
http://freespeech.vo.llnwd.net/o25/pub/images/chp01.png>; whose specialized
practice deals entirely with those caught in the Constitution-free zone of
DUI enforcement (a form of plunder disguised as a public safety exercise
that is itself sufficiently outrageous to justify widescale insurrection)
reports that his inquiries with a local USMC public affairs sergeant
"resulted in assurances that the Marines would be there `as observers.'"

"Hmmmm.... military observers," mused Taylor. "Isn't that how it all
starts?"

Indeed it is, and if the Regime ruling us wants to get serious about
civilian disarmament, the process will at some point involve the deployment
of military personnel at checkpoints and roadblocks.
Furthermore, as anybody who recently has endured the indignity of a traffic
stop can attest, police in most jurisdictions routinely inquire as to
whether there are weapons in the car. (In my most recent traffic stop, the
officer asked, "Are there any weapons in your car I need to know about?"
"No, none that you need to know about," was my immediate response.)

With the police increasingly taking on the aspect of a fully-realized
military occupation force, it may seem redundant for the regular military to
assume a more active role in "homeland security." The fact that such efforts
are not only underway, but accelerating, is highly suggestive of very bad
intentions on the part of those who presume to rule us.
As the depression deepens into the economic equivalent of a quantum
singularity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_singularity; , and fear is
finally transmuted into public outrage over the redistribution of wealth to
protect the Swindler Class, a spark will be struck somewhere, and a
population center of some size is going to go up in flames. In fact, it
wouldn't surprise me if the Regime's huge population of informants and
provocateurs include people eagerly spraying accelerant
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/16/palin-church-fire-acceler_...
..html> of some kind wherever promising examples of social friction can be
found.
When the fire erupts - whether through spontaneous combustion or through the
ministrations of the Regime's paid incendiaries - the script will call for
the government to deploy occupation troops, on the assumption that the best
way to battle a social conflagration would be to suffocate liberty, rather
than extinguishing the source of the fire.
The possibility of full-scale domestic military mobilization to suppress
insurrection is one of several scenarios limned in the recent, widely
publicized US Army War College paper "Known Unknowns: Unconventional
`Strategic Shocks' in Defense Strategy Development
http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB890.pdf; ."

The report examines several ongoing and potential sources of "strategic
dislocation" for the empire (an entirely appropriate term not used in the
report, even though it should have been) both abroad and at home. The Iraqi
insurgency was cited as a key example of an unforeseen "shock" that set back
the course of the empire; this despite the fact that any reasonably
intelligent person with a particle of human understanding could have
predicted that Iraqis would organize to resist foreign occupation.
There are at least two kinds of "strategic shocks"
http://phoenix.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2008/12/15/daily34.html;
described in the report. One is the "Natural Endpoint" of a given
trend-line; another is referred to as a "Dangerous Waypoint" or a
"Discontinuous Break" that interrupts an otherwise positive trend-line.
Curiously - or perhaps not, given that this was a paper produced by an arm
of the Regime - no thought is given to the possibility that ongoing
difficulties both at home and abroad are auguries of the "Natural Endpoint"
of the imperial trend-line that began - well, let's say with the closing of
the Western Frontier (and the related massacre of Lakota at Wounded Knee) in
1890.
Acknowledging and welcoming the end of the American Empire would be a
singularly healthy development; it would bring about a legitimate revolution
in military affairs, and could foreclose the possibility of martial law in
the immediate future. But once again, such possibilities simply don't exist,
as far as the author of this War College study is concerned.
Accordingly, beginning on page 31 of that document we find a brief and
remarkably candid (and, curiously, completely un-sourced) discussion of
possible "Violent, Strategic Dislocation Inside the United States."

In the event that "organized violence against local, state and national
authorities" were to materialize - that is, if the long-suffering productive
people finally have a surfeit of armed parasites and start fighting back -
it might "exceed the capacity of the former two [that is, local and state
governments] to restore public order and protect vulnerable populations."
(The "vulnerable" in this case being the soft-handed tax feeders who cower
behind the armed people wearing State-issued costumes.)
In such circumstances, the military "might be forced ... to put its broad
resources at the disposal of civil authorities to contain and reverse
violent threats to domestic tranquility," the report continues. "Widespread
civil violence inside the United States would force the defense
establishment to reorient priorities in extremis to defend basic domestic
order and human security." (Emphasis added.)
Now, I have no way of knowing if the author of this report is aware of the
fact that the phrase "human security," as used by the exalted beings
employed by the United Nations, refers to a condition in which disarmed
populations depend entirely on government for their protection.
It was the objective of "human security" that was being pursued in Rwanda in
1993 through a peace treaty that required the disarmament of everybody but
the government's armed enforcement personnel. This made it quite simple for
the Rwandan "Hutu Power" Junta to slaughter roughly 1.1 million Tutsis (and
moderate Hutus) during the 103-day orgy of genocide that began in April
1994.*

Civilian disarmament is integral to any military occupation, whether it's
carried out in the service of "peacekeeping," colonialism, or genocide (and
those categories do tend to blend at the margins). Since 1994, the US
military has been involved in a series of occupation missions - in Haiti,
Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, and elsewhere. Nearly all of
them involve some large-scale disarmament initiative. Recently in Iraq, US
military personnel have been confiscating toy guns from Iraqi children.
Many of those military personnel are Guardsmen and Reservists who will
return to jobs in "civilian" law enforcement well-versed in the logic of
civilian disarmament as a necessity for "force protection." Others are
military personnel who will be fast-tracked into law enforcement careers
once they come home and look for work in an exceptionally bad labor market.
Still others will serve "dwell-time" missions stateside as part of Northern
Command's homeland security force.
It would be immensely useful - and probably quite horrifying - to have those
personnel take Guy Cunningham's "Combat Arms Survey," and examine their
responses to the notorious Question 46. How many of them would be willing to
shoot Americans in order to confiscate their guns if ordered to do so?
Obviously, I can't provide an answer to that question that is anything other
than speculation. I do recall an incident in late 2001, during a speaking
tour in support of a book dealing with the subject of civilian disarmament.

The tour took me to Memphis, Tennessee, where I addressed a large audience
who had gathered in a very well-appointed hotel.
Just down the hall from our meeting, a ballroom had been rented for a formal event involving recruiters for the various branches of the military.
The hallways were full of young officers and non-coms in formal military
attire.
At one point I spied two of them - one of them a Marine - examining
a poster advertising the subject of my speech, "Civilian Disarmament." The
Marine turned to his buddy and, with what appeared to be an approving smirk,
commented: "Sounds like a good idea."
---
*For those interested in a more detailed account of how the UN's lethal
doctrine of "human security"played out in the Rwandan Genocide, please see
chapter five of my book Global Gun Grab, particularly pages 70-75. Anyone
interested in getting a copy directly from me can send $6.00 (which includes
postage and handling) to 1318 3rd Avenue South, Payette, ID 83661.


"Liberty in Eclipse" On sale now!
http://www.amazon.com/Liberty-Eclipse-William-Norman-Grigg/dp/09799...;
Dum spiro, pugno!
* * * * * * *
"The state is the great fiction by which everybody seeks to
live at the expense of everybody else." - Frederic Bastiat

Http://ShekinahLife.com

[James (yaakov)]

Subject: "Question 46," Revisited PART TWO


N.B. Freedom From War: THE UNITED STATES PROGRAM FOR GENERAL AND COMPLETE
DISARMAMENT IN A PEACEFUL WORLD: DEPARTMENT OF STATE PUBLICATION 7277 (1961);
http://www.mikenew.com/pub7277.html

FREEDOM

FROM

WAR



THE UNITED STATES PROGRAM
FOR GENERAL AND COMPLETE
DISARMAMENT IN A PEACEFUL
WORLD




DEPARTMENT OF STATE



DEPARTMENT OF STATE PUBLICATION 7277
Disarmament Series 5
Released September 1961

Office of Public Services
BUREAU OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Washington 25, D.C. - Price 15 cents.



Introduction

The revolutionary development of modern weapons within a world divided by serious ideological differences has produced a crisis in human history. In order to overcome the danger of nuclear war now confronting mankind, the United States has introduced at the Sixteenth General Assembly of the United Nations a Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World.
This new program provides for the progressive reduction of the war-making capabilities of nations and the simultaneous strengthening of international institutions to settle disputes and maintain the peace. It sets forth a series of comprehensive measures which can and should he taken in order to bring about a world in which there will be freedom from war and security for all states. It is based on three principles deemed essential to the achievement of practical progress in the disarmament field:

First, there must be immediate disarmament action:

A strenuous and uninterrupted effort must be made toward the goal of general and complete disarmament; at the same time, it is important that specific measures be put into effect as soon as possible.


1



Second, all disarmament obligations must be subject
to effective international controls:

The control organization must have the manpower, facilities, and effectiveness to assure that limitations or reductions take place as agreed. It must also be able to certify to all states that retained forces and armaments do not exceed those permitted at any stage of the disarmament process.

Third, adequate peace-keeping machinery must be established:

There is an inseparable relationship between the scaling down of national armaments on the one hand and the building up of international peace-keeping machinery and institutions on the other. Nations are unlikely to shed their means of self-protection in the absence of alternative ways to safeguard their legitimate interests. This can only be achieved through the progressive strengthening of international institutions under the United Nations and by creating a United Nations Peace Force to enforce the peace as the disarmament process proceeds.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There follows a summary of the principal provisions of the United States Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World.The full text of the program is contained in an appendix to this pamphlet.


2




FREEDOM FROM WAR
THE UNITED STATES PROGRAM FOR
GENERAL AND COMPLETE DISARM-
AMENT IN A PEACEFUL WORLD


Summary

DISARMAMENT GOAL AND OBJECTIVES

The over-all goal of the United States is a free, secure, and peaceful world of independent states adhering to common standards of justice and international conduct and subjecting the use of force to the rule of law; a world which has achieved general and complete disarmament under effective international control; and a world in which adjustment to change takes place in accordance with the principles of the United Nations.
In order to make possible the achievement of that goal, the program sets forth the following specific objectives toward which nations should direct their efforts:

The disbanding of all national armed forces and the prohibition of their reestablishment in any form whatsoever other than those required to preserve internal order and for contributions to a United Nations Peace Force;


The elimination from national arsenals of all armaments, including all weapons of mass destruction and


3


the means for their delivery, other than those required for a United Nations Peace Force and for maintaining internal order;


The institution of effective means for the enforcement of international agreements, for the settlement of disputes, and for the maintenance of peace in accordance with the principles of the United Nations;


The establishment and effective operation of an International Disarmament Organization within the framework of the United Nations to insure compliance at all times with all disarmament obligations.


TASK OF NEGOTIATING STATES

The negotiating states are called upon to develop the program into a detailed plan for general and complete disarmament and to continue their efforts without interruption until the whole program has been achieved. To this end, they are to seek the widest possible area of agreement at the earliest possible date. At the same time, and without prejudice to progress on the disarmament program, they are to seek agreement on those immediate measures that would contribute to the common security of nations and that could facilitate and form part of the total program.

GOVERNING PRINCIPLES

The program sets forth a series of general principles to guide the negotiating states in their work. These make clear that:


4



As states relinquish their arms, the United Nations must be progressively strengthened in order to improve its capacity to assure international security and the peaceful settlement of disputes;


Disarmament must proceed as rapidly as possible, until it is completed, in stages containing balanced, phased, and safeguarded measures;


Each measure and stage should be carried out in an agreed period of time, with transition from one stage to the next to take place as soon as all measures in the preceding stage have been carried out and verified and as soon as necessary arrangements for verification of the next stage have been made;


Inspection and verification must establish both that nations carry out scheduled limitations or reductions and that they do not retain armed forces and armaments in excess of those permitted at any stage of the disarmament process; and


Disarmament must take place in a manner that will not affect adversely the security of any state.


DISARMAMENT STAGES

The program provides for progressive disarmament steps to take place in three stages and for the simultaneous strengthening of international institutions.


FIRST STAGE

The first stage contains measures which would significantly reduce the capabilities of nations to wage


5



aggressive war. Implementation of this stage would mean that:

The nuclear threat would be reduced:


All states would have adhered to a treaty effectively prohibiting tile testing of nuclear weapons.
The production of fissionable materials for use in weapons would be stopped and quantities of such materials from past production would be converted to non-weapons uses.
States owning nuclear weapons would not relinquish control of such weapons to any nation not owning them and would not transmit to any such nation information or material necessary for their manufacture.
States not owning nuclear weapons would no~ manufacture them or attempt to obtain control of such weapons belonging to other states.
A Commission of Experts would be established to report on the feasibility and means for the verified reduction and eventual elimination of nuclear weapons stockpiles.
Strategic delivery vehicles would he reduced:


Strategic nuclear weapons delivery vehicles of specified categories and weapons designed to counter such vehicles would be reduced to agreed levels by equitable and balanced steps; their production would be discontinued or limited; their testing would be limited or halted.


6



Arms and armed forces would be reduced:

The armed forces of the United States and the Soviet Union would be limited to 2.1 million men each (with appropriate levels not exceeding that amount for other militarily significant states); levels of armaments would be correspondingly reduced and their production would be limited.
An Experts Commission would be established to examine and report on the feasibility and means of accomplishing verifiable reduction and eventual elimination of all chemical, biological and radiological weapons.


Peaceful use of outer space would be promoted:


The placing in orbit or stationing in outer space of weapons capable of producing mass destruction would be prohibited.
States would give advance notification of space vehicle and missile launchings.


U.N. peace-keeping powers would be strengthened:


Measures would be taken to develop and strengthen United Nations arrangements for arbitration, for the development of international law, and for the establishment in Stage II of a permanent U.N. Peace Force.



An International Disarmament Organization would be established for
effective verification of the disarmament program:


Its functions would be expanded progressively as disarmament proceeds.


7



It would certify to all states that agreed reductions have taken place and that retained forces and armaments do not exceed permitted levels.
It would determine the transition from one stage to the next.


States would he committed to other measures to reduce international tension and to protect against the chance of war by accident, miscalculation, or surprise attack:


States would be committed to refrain from the threat or use of any type of armed force contrary to the principles of the U.N. Charter and to refrain from indirect aggression and subversion against any country.
A U.N. peace observation group would be available to investigate any situation which might constitute a threat to or breach of the peace.
States would be committed to give advance notice of major military movements which might cause alarm; observation posts would be established to report on concentrations and movements of military forces.


SECOND STAGE


The second stage contains a series of measures which would bring within sight a world in which there would be freedom from war. Implementation of all measures in the second stage would mean:
Further substantial reductions in the armed forces, armaments, and military establishments of states, including strategic nuclear weapons delivery vehicles and countering weapons;


8



Further development of methods for the peaceful settlement of disputes under the United Nations;


Establishment of a permanent international peace force within the United Nations;

Depending on the findings of an Experts Commission, a halt in the production of chemical, bacteriological, and radiological weapons and a reduction of existing stocks or their conversion to peaceful uses;


On the basis of the findings of an Experts Commission, a reduction of stocks of nuclear weapons;


The dismantling or the conversion to peaceful uses of certain military bases and facilities wherever located; and


The strengthening and enlargement of the International Disarmament Organization to enable it to verify the steps taken in Stage II and to determine the transition to Stage III.



THIRD STAGE


During the third stage of the program, the states of the world, building on the experience and confidence gained in successfully implementing the measures of the first two stages, would take final steps toward the goal of a world in which:
States would retain only those forces, non-nuclear armaments, and establishments required for the purpose of maintaining internal order; they would also support and provide agreed manpower for a U.N. Peace Force.


9



The U.N. Peace Force, equipped with agreed types and quantities of armaments, would be fully functioning.


The manufacture of armaments would be prohibited except for those of agreed types and quantities to be used by the U.N. Peace Force and those required to maintain internal order. All other armaments would be destroyed or converted to peaceful purposes.


The peace-keeping capabilities of the United Nations would be sufficiently strong and the obligations of all states under such arrangements sufficiently far reaching as to assure peace and tile just settlement of differences in a disarmed world.




10




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Appendix

DECLARATION ON DISARMAMENT

THE UNITED STATES PROGRAM FOR
GENERAL AND COMPLETE DISARMA-
MENT IN A PEACEFUL WORLD



The Nations of the world,
Conscious of the crisis in human history produced by the revolutionary development of modern weapons within a world divided by serious ideological differences;
Determined to save present and succeeding generations from the scourge of war and the dangers and burdens of the arms race and to create conditions in which all peoples can strive freely and peacefully to fulfill their basic aspirations;
Declare their goal to be: A free, secure, and peaceful world of independent states adhering to common standards of justice and international conduct and subjecting the use of force to the rule of law; a world where adjustment to change takes place in accordance with the principles of the United Nations; a world where there shall be a permanent state of general and complete disarmament under effective international control and where the resources of nations shall be devoted to man's material, cultural, and spiritual advance;
Set forth as the objectives of a program of general and complete disarmament in a peaceful world:
(a) The disbanding of all national armed forces and the prohibition of their reestablishment in any form whatsoever other than those required to preserve internal order and for contributions to a United Nations Peace Force;


11


(b) The elimination from national arsenals of all armaments, including all weapons of mass destruction and the means for their delivery, other than those required for a United Nations Peace Force and for maintaining internal order;
(c) The establishment and effective operation of an International Disarmament Organization within the framework of the United Nations to ensure compliance at all times with all disarmament obligations;
(d) The institution of effective means for the enforcement of international agreements, for the settlement of disputes, and for the maintenance of peace in accordance with the principles of the United Nations.
Call on the negotiating states:
(a) To develop the outline program set forth below into an agreed plan for general and complete disarmament and to continue their efforts without interruption until the whole program has been achieved;
(b) To this end to seek to attain the widest possible area of agreement at the earliest possible date;
(c) Also to seek -- without prejudice to progress on the disarmament program -- agreement on those immediate measures that would contribute to the common security of nations and that could facilitate and form a part of that program.
Affirm that disarmament negotiations should be guided by the following principles:
(a) Disarmament shall take place as rapidly as possible until it is completed in stages containing balanced, phased and safeguarded measures, with each measure and stage to be carried out in an agreed period of time.
(b) Compliance with all disarmament obligations shall be effectively verified from their entry into force. Verification arrangements shall be instituted progressively and in such a manner as to verify not only that agreed limitations or reductions take place but also that retained armed forces and armaments do not exceed agreed levels at any stage.
(c) Disarmament shall take place in a manner that will not


12


affect adversely the security of any state, whether or not a party to an international agreement or treaty.
(d) As states relinquish their arms, the United Nations shall he progressively strengthened in order to improve its capacity to assure international security and the peaceful settlement of differences as well as to facilitate the development of international cooperation in common tasks for the benefit of mankind.
(e) Transition from one stage of disarmament to the next shall take place as soon as all the measures in the preceding stage have been carried out and effective verification is continuing and as soon as the arrangements that have been agreed to be necessary for the next stage have been instituted.
Agree upon the following outline program for achieving general and complete disarmament:



STAGE I

A. To Establish an International Disarmament Organization:
(a) An International Disarmament Organization (IDO) shall he established within the framework of the United Nations upon entry into force of the agreement. Its functions shall be expanded progressively as required for the effective verification of the disarmament program.
(b) The IDO shall have: (1) a General Conference of all the parties; (2) a Commission consisting of representatives of all the major powers as permanent members and certain other states on a rotating basis; and (3) an Administrator who will administer the Organization subject to the direction of the Commission and who will have the authority, staff, and finances adequate to assure effective impartial implementation of the functions of the Organization.
(c) The IDO shall: (1) ensure compliance with the obligations undertaken by verifying the execution of measures agreed upon; (2) assist the states in developing the details of agreed further verification and disarmament measures; (3) provide for the estab-


13


lishment of such bodies as may be necessary for working out the details of further measures provided for in the program and for such other expert study groups as may be required to give continuous study to the problems of disarmament; (4) receive reports on the progress of disarmament and verification arrangements and determine the transition from one stage to the next.

B. To Reduce Armed Forces and Armaments:
(a) Force levels shall be limited to 2.1 million each for the U.S. and U.S.S.R. and to appropriate levels not exceeding 2.1 million each for all other militarily significant states. Reductions to the agreed levels will proceed by equitable, proportionate, and verified steps.
(b) Levels of armaments of prescribed types shall be reduced by equitable and balanced steps. The reductions shall be accomplished by transfers of armaments to depots supervised by the IDO. When, at specified periods during the Stage I reduction process, the states party to the agreement have agreed that the armaments and armed forces are at prescribed levels, the armaments in depots shall be destroyed or converted to peaceful uses.
(c) The production of agreed types of armaments shall be limited.
(d) a Chemical, Biological, Radiological (CBR) Experts Commission shall be established within the IDO for the purpose of examining and reporting on the feasibility and means for accomplishing the verifiable reduction and eventual elimination of CBR weapons stockpiles and the halting of their production.

C. To Contain and Reduce the Nuclear Threat:
(a) States that have not acceded to a treaty effectively prohibiting the testing of nuclear weapons shall do so.
(b) The production of fissionable materials for use in weapons shall be stopped.
(c) Upon the cessation of production of fissionable materials for use in weapons, agreed initial quantities of fissionable materials from past production shall be transferred to non-weapons purposes.


14


(d) Any fissionable materials transferred between countries for peaceful uses of nuclear energy shall be subject to appropriate safeguards to be developed in agreement with the IAEA.
(e) States owning nuclear weapons shall not relinquish control of such weapons to any nation not owning them and shall not transmit to any such nation information or material necessary for their manufacture. States not owning nuclear weapons shall not manufacture such weapons, attempt to obtain control of such weapons belonging to other states, or seek or receive information or materials necessary for their manufacture.
(f) A Nuclear Experts Commission consisting of representatives of the nuclear states shall be established within the IDO for the purpose of examining and reporting on the feasibility and means for accomplishing the verified reduction and eventual elimination of nuclear weapons stockpiles.

D.To Reduce Strategic Nuclear Weapons Delivery Vehicles:
(a) Strategic nuclear weapons delivery vehicles in specified categories and agreed types of weapons designed to counter such vehicles shall be reduced to agreed levels by equitable and balanced steps. The reduction shall be accomplished in each step by transfers to depots supervised by the IDO of vehicles that are in excess of levels agreed upon for each step. At specified periods during the Stage I reduction process, the vehicles that have been placed under supervision of the IDO shall be destroyed or converted to peaceful uses.
(b) Production of agreed categories of strategic nuclear weapons delivery vehicles and agreed types of weapons designed to counter such vehicles shall be discontinued or limited.
(c) Testing of agreed categories of strategic nuclear weapons delivery vehicles and agreed types of weapons designed to counter such vehicles shall be limited or halted.

E. To Promote the Peaceful Use Of Outer Space:
(a) The placing into orbit or stationing in outer space of weapons capable of producing mass destruction shall be prohibited.


15


(b) States shall give advance notification to participating states and to the IDO of launchings of space vehicles and missiles, together with the track of the vehicle.

F. To Reduce the Risks of War by Accident, Miscalculation, and Surprise Attack:
(a) States shall give advance notification to the participating states and to the IDO of major military movements and maneuvers, on a scale as may be agreed, which might give rise to misinterpretation or cause alarm and induce countermeasures. The notification shall include the geographic areas to be used and the nature, scale and time span of the event.
(b) There shall be established observation posts at such locations as major ports, railway centers, motor highways, and air bases to report on concentrations and movements of military forces.
(c) There shall also be established such additional inspection arrangements to reduce the danger of surprise attack as may be agreed.
(d) An international commission shall be established immediately within the IDO to examine and make recommendations on the possibility of further measures to reduce the risks of nuclear war by accident, miscalculation, or failure of communication.

G. To Keep the Peace:
(a)States shall reaffirm their obligations under the U.N. Charter to refrain from the threat or use of any type of armed force-including nuclear, conventional, or CBR--contrary to the principles of the U.N. Charter.
(b) States shall agree to refrain from indirect aggression and subversion against any country.
(c) States shall use all appropriate processes for the peaceful settlement of disputes and shall seek within the United Nations further arrangements for the peaceful settlement of international disputes and for the codification and progressive development of international law.


16


(d) States shall develop arrangements in Stage I for the establishment in Stage II of a U.N. Peace Force.
(e) A U.N. peace observation group shall be staffed with a standing cadre of observers who could be dispatched to investigate any situation which might constitute a threat to or breach of the peace.



STAGE II

A. International Disarmament Organization:
The powers and responsibilities of the IDO shall be progressively enlarged in order to give it the capabilities to verify the measures undertaken in Stage II.

B. To Further Reduce Armed Forces and Armaments:
(a) Levels of forces for the U.S., U.S.S.R., and other militarily significant states shall be further reduced by substantial amounts to agreed levels in equitable and balanced steps.
(b) Levels of armaments of prescribed types shall be further reduced by equitable and balanced steps. The reduction shall be accomplished by transfers of armaments to depots supervised by the IDO. When, at specified periods during the Stage II reduction process, the parties have agreed that the armaments and armed forces are at prescribed levels, the armaments in depots shall be destroyed or converted to peaceful uses.
(c) There shall he further agreed restrictions on the production of armaments.
(d) Agreed military bases and facilities wherever they are located shall he dismantled or converted to peaceful uses.
(e) Depending upon the findings of the Experts Commission on CBR weapons, the production of CBR weapons shall be halted, existing stocks progressively reduced, and the resulting excess quantities destroyed or converted to peaceful uses.

C. To Further Reduce the Nuclear Threat:
Stocks of nuclear weapons shall be progressively reduced to the minimum levels which can be agreed upon as a result of the find-


17


ings of the Nuclear Experts Commission; the resulting excess of fissionable material shall be transferred to peaceful purposes.

D. To Further Reduce Strategic Nuclear Weapons Delivery Vehicles:
Further reductions in the stocks of strategic nuclear weapons delivery vehicles and agreed types of weapons designed to counter such vehicles shall be carried out in accordance with the procedure outlined in Stage I.

E. To Keep the Peace:
During Stage II, states shall develop further the peace-keeping processes of the United Nations1 to the end that the United Nations can effectively in Stage III deter or suppress any threat or use of force in violation of the purposes and principles of the United Nations:

(a) States shall agree upon strengthening the structure, authority, and operation of the United Nations so as to assure that the United Nations will be able effectively to protect states against threats to or breaches of the peace.
(b) The U.N. Peace Force shall be established and progressively strengthened.
(c) States shall also agree upon further improvements and developments in rules of international conduct and in processes for peaceful settlement of disputes and differences.



STAGE III


By the time Stage II has been completed, the confidence produced through a verified disarmament program, the acceptance of rules of peaceful international behavior, and the development of strengthened international peace-keeping processes within the framework of the U.N. should have reached a point where the states of the world can move forward to Stage III. In Stage III progressive controlled disarmament and continuously developing principles and procedures of international law would proceed to


18


a point where no state would have the military power to challenge the progressively strengthened U.N. Peace Force and all international disputes would be settled according to the agreed principles of international conduct.
The progressive steps to be taken during the final phase of the disarmament program would be directed toward the attainment of a world in which:
(a) States would retain only those forces, non-nuclear armaments, and establishments required for the purpose of maintaining internal order; they would also support and provide agreed manpower for a U.N Peace Force.
(b) The U.N. Peace Force, equipped with agreed types and quantities of armaments, would be fully functioning.
(c) The manufacture of armaments would be prohibited except for those of agreed types and quantities to be used by the U.N. Peace Force and those required to maintain internal order. All other armaments would be destroyed or converted to peaceful
purposes.
(d) The peace-keeping capabilities of the United Nations would be sufficiently strong and the obligations of all states under such arrangements sufficiently far-reaching as to assure peace and the just settlement of differences in a disarmed world.





19
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1961 O---609147