Proposition One



There is a common misconception that most people (here and abroad) support nuclear weapons due to national security considerations. The fact is that they do not. In fact, the primary reason for apparent support for nuclear weapons lies in economics -- fear that disarmament will mean joblessness, homelessness, hunger, and destabilization of the economy. This fear is addressed by Proposition One.

An important effect of nuclear disarmament through economic conversion will be the immediate diversion of multi-billions of dollars of resources from destructive ends, channeling those resources into addressing human needs.

The domestic and international implications are staggering.

Rural communities whose primary employer has been a nuclear weapons plant, such as Hanford, Washington and Savannah River, South Carolina, and larger communities grown dependent on military bases and industries, such as much of California, have already been hard hit by reductions in military spending.

We have a moral obligation to help these communities heal from environmental devastation, medical experimentation, and continuing secrecy and lies. HR-827 could pave the way. As Delegate Norton has said, if enough people unite behind this idea, it could become a global reality.

The profiteers of war and the operators of the war machine needn't be tarred and feathered or hanged. What they need is to be convinced. Proposition One offers a way out for defense contractors: a super-duper fund (the billions saved each year when nuclear weapons are eliminated) earmarked for converting the weapons industries into socially useful peacetime industries.

Scientists estimate it will take several generations to clean up the irresponsible industrialization of our society. Here would be a good expenditure of our tax dollars.

A new world order is looming. It seems nothing can stop it. Our most significant choice lies in determining what the values of the new world order will be.


For years, Americans have been told that we can have both guns and butter. We have been taught that military spending is good for the economy.

According to the Joint Economic Committee of Congress, military spending creates 6,400 fewer jobs per $1 billion than would spending our tax dollars for bridge repair, education, or health programs. If 35 billion dollars were transferred from the Pentagon to domestic programs, an additional 262,000 full-time jobs would be created. For the cost of one F-15 jet fighter 1600 teachers could be hired at $25,000 a year.

The truth is that we cannot have it both ways. During the past five decades huge amounts of income tax dollars have been spent on military programs. At the same time basic industries have declined, and domestic programs have been cut drastically.

The Washington Times reports that the national debt is about $5 trillion. The Pentagon isn't saying exactly how much its nuclear arsenal cost, but some Pentagon officials last year "conservatively" estimated that the government has spent $5 trillion on nuclear weapons since 1945.

While we are able to produce the world's most technologically advanced arms, civilian industries are losing their ability to compete because of outdated and inefficient factories.

Our international competitors, on the other hand, commit the bulk of their R & D money to civilian industries. While U.S. industrial workers are losing their jobs, Japan, West Germany and other trade competitors are cornering the market in steel, automobiles, textiles, and electronics. Our choice is between investing more sophisticated weapons for the Pentagon, or investing in a future which creates better and more productive lives for people.


Proposition One will mandate both Governments to invest in converting their state-of-the-art weapons facilities to state-of-the-art industries that will benefit us all. Proposition One will also make it the law that the money formerly spent on weapons systems must now be spent on human needs.

The Conversion Project