Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Blog

  • The Endless Arms Race

    Lawrence WittnerIt’s heartening to see that an agreement has been reached to ensure that Iran honors its commitment, made when it signed the 1970 nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), to forgo developing nuclear weapons.

    But what about the other key part of the NPT, Article VI, which commits nuclear-armed nations to “cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament,” as well as to “a treaty on general and complete disarmament”? Here we find that, 44 years after the NPT went into force, the United States and other nuclear powers continue to pursue their nuclear weapons buildups, with no end in sight.

    On January 8, 2014, U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel announced what Reuters termed “ambitious plans to upgrade [U.S.] nuclear weapons systems by modernizing weapons and building new submarines, missiles and bombers to deliver them.” The Pentagon intends to build a dozen new ballistic missile submarines, a new fleet of long-range nuclear bombers, and new intercontinental ballistic missiles. The Congressional Budget Office estimated in late December that implementing the plans would cost $355 billion over the next decade, while an analysis by the independent Center for Nonproliferation Studies reported that this upgrade of U.S. nuclear forces would cost $1 trillion over the next 30 years. If the higher estimate proves correct, the submarines alone would cost over $29 billion each.

    Of course, the United States already has a massive nuclear weapons capability — approximately 7,700 nuclear weapons, with more than enough explosive power to destroy the world. Together with Russia, it possesses about 95 percent of the more than 17,000 nuclear weapons that comprise the global nuclear arsenal.

    Nor is the United States the only nation with grand nuclear ambitions. Although China currently has only about 250 nuclear weapons, including 75 intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), it recently flight-tested a hypersonic nuclear missile delivery vehicle capable of penetrating any existing defense system. The weapon, dubbed the Wu-14 by U.S. officials, was detected flying at ten times the speed of sound during a test flight over China during early January 2014. According to Chinese scientists, their government had put an “enormous investment” into the project, with more than a hundred teams from leading research institutes and universities working on it. Professor Wang Yuhui, a researcher on hypersonic flight control at Nanjing University, stated that “many more tests will be carried out” to solve the remaining technical problems. “It’s just the beginning.” Ni Lexiong, a Shanghai-based naval expert, commented approvingly that “missiles will play a dominant role in warfare, and China has a very clear idea of what is important.”

    Other nations are engaged in this arms race, as well. Russia, the other dominant nuclear power, seems determined to keep pace with the United States through modernization of its nuclear forces. The development of new, updated Russian ICBMs is proceeding rapidly, while new nuclear submarines are already being produced. Also, the Russian government has started work on a new strategic bomber, known as the PAK DA, which reportedly will become operational in 2025. Both Russia and India are known to be working on their own versions of a hypersonic nuclear missile carrier. But, thus far, these two nuclear nations lag behind the United States and China in its development. Israel is also proceeding with modernization of its nuclear weapons, and apparently played the key role in scuttling the proposed U.N. conference on a nuclear weapons-free zone in the Middle East in 2012.

    This nuclear weapons buildup certainly contradicts the official rhetoric. On April 5, 2009, in his first major foreign policy address, President Barack Obama proclaimed “America’s commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons.” That fall, the UN Security Council — including Russia, China, Britain, France, and the United States, all of them nuclear powers — unanimously passed Resolution 1887, which reiterated the point that the NPT required the “disarmament of countries currently possessing nuclear weapons.” But rhetoric, it seems, is one thing and action quite another.

    Thus, although the Iranian government’s willingness to forgo the development of nuclear weapons is cause for encouragement, the failure of the nuclear nations to fulfill their own NPT obligations is appalling. Given these nations’ enhanced preparations for nuclear war — a war that would be nothing short of catastrophic — their evasion of responsibility should be condemned by everyone seeking a safer, saner world.

    This article was originally published by the History News Network.

    Lawrence S. Wittner (lawrenceswittner.com) is Professor of History emeritus at SUNY/Albany. His latest book is a satirical novel about university corporatization, What’s Going On at UAardvark?

  • Rejecting the Rule of Law

    The most important lesson one can acquire about US foreign policy is the understanding that our leaders do not mean well. They do not have any noble goals of democracy and freedom and all that jazz. They aim to dominate the world by any means necessary. And as long as an American believes that the intentions are noble and honorable, it’s very difficult to penetrate that wall. That wall surrounds the thinking and blocks any attempt to make them realize the harm being done by US foreign policy.
    — William Blum, former member of the US State Department, author of Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions since World War II

    alice_slaterMore than 5,000 satellites have been launched into orbit since the space age began. Today, eleven countries have space launch capability, with over sixty countries operating about 1,100 active satellites orbiting the earth providing a constant stream of data and information relied upon for critical civilian communications as well as for military operations by some. As we grow ever more dependent on the ability of these satellites to perform their essential functions without interruption, there are growing concerns that this useful technology is giving rise to a new battleground in space for the purpose of sabotaging or destroying the vital services our space-based communications now provide.

    The US and Russia have been testing anti-satellite technology (ASAT) since the space age began, and have even contemplated using  nuclear tipped ballistic missiles to destroy space assets. In 1967, the US and Russia  realized it would be in their interest to support the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, which banned the placement of nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction in space, although they failed to ban the use of conventional weapons in space. And in 1972 they agreed to sign the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM) to slow down the space race and the ability to harm each other’s assets in space. Unfortunately, George Bush walked out of the ABM treaty in 2002, and the race to weaponize space was on once again in full force. China is getting into the act too, having launched, in 2007, a device which destroyed one of its aging weather satellites orbiting in space. The US followed suit in 2008, destroying a non-functioning satellite, while both nations denied any military mission for their acts, claiming they were merely trying to destroy outdated satellites that no longer functioned.

    With the proliferation of military spacecraft such as imaging and communications satellites and ballistic missile and anti-missile systems which often pass through outer space, there have been numerous efforts in the UN Committee on Disarmament (CD) to outlaw the weaponization of space through a legally binding treaty. But the United States is having none of it. In the CD, which requires consensus to take action, the US has been the only nation to block every vote to begin negotiations on such a treaty, with Israel generally abstaining in support. Russia and China actually prepared a draft treaty to ban weapons in space in 2008, but the US blocked the proposal, voting against it each year thereafter when it was reintroduced for consideration, saying the proposal was “a diplomatic ploy by the two nations to gain a military advantage”.

    While continuing to block a legally binding treaty to ban weapons in space, the US has recently begun to work with a group of nations in a new initiative that began in the European Union in 2008, proposing a “Code of Conduct  for Outer Space Activities“  which would lay out a non-binding set of rules of the road for a safer and more responsible environment in space. Some of its key objectives are to mitigate damage to satellites that could be caused by space debris orbiting the earth, to avoid the potential of destructive collisions, and to manage the crowding of satellites and the saturation of the radio-frequency spectrum, as well as to address direct threats of hostility to assets in space. At first, the US rejected any support for the Code, but has now agreed to participate in drafting a new version based on the third iteration from the European Union. Obama’s Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, Rose Gottemoeller, acknowledged in 2012 the necessity for a Code to deal with orbital debris and “other irresponsible actions in space”, while at the same time, noting that:

    It is important to clarify several points with respect to the code. It is still under development, we would not subscribe to any code unless it protects and enhances our national security, and the code would not be legally binding.

    In addition, the US is insisting on a provision in this third version of the Code of Conduct that, while making a voluntary promise to “refrain from any action which brings about, directly or indirectly, damage, or destruction, of space objects”, qualifies that directive with the language “unless such action is justified”. One justification given for destructive action is “the Charter of the United Nations including the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense”, thus lending legitimacy and codifying the possibility for warfare in space as part of the Code’s established norm. And while the Charter of the United Nations prohibits aggressive action by any nation without Security Council approval unless a nation acts in self-defense, we know there have been numerous occasions where nations have by-passed the Security Council to take aggressive action, often protesting they were acting in self-defense. Instead of banning ASAT development and warfare, this Code justifies such warfare as long as it’s done, individually and collectively, under the guise of “self-defense”. Thus despite lacking the force of law that would be established with a legally binding treaty, this new US version of the Code creates, as the norm it is proposing, a possibility for space warfare. Our world deserves better!

    Alice Slater is NAPF’s New York representative and serves on the Council of the Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space

  • An Open Letter to College and University Presidents

    David KriegerYou are in a unique position of leadership to influence today’s youth to achieve a better tomorrow for America and the world.  I am writing to enlist your help in educating young people to understand the survival challenges that face humanity in the 21st century.

    Education is driven by values.  Young people must learn to live with reverence for life, as did Albert Schweitzer, and to support equitable and nonviolent solutions to social problems, as did Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr.  Young people must be imbued with compassion, commitment and courage.  They must learn to use their imaginations to find creative and cooperative solutions to the great issues of our time.  And they must find joy in the process and take time to celebrate the miracle of living on the only planet we know of in the universe that supports life.

    Since the onset of the Nuclear Age our powerful technologies, developed by human ingenuity, have put our societies and humanity itself at grave risk.

    Albert Einstein observed, “The unleashed power of the atom has changed everything save our modes of thinking and thus we drift toward unparalleled catastrophe.”  We need all elements of society, and especially college and university students who are inheriting our world and the responsibility for its stewardship, to take steps to avert such catastrophe.

    Today, we are confronted not only by the ongoing peril of nuclear devastation, but also by the threats posed by climate change, pollution of the oceans and atmosphere, poverty, hunger, homelessness, war and other forms of violence, often senseless violence.  All of these threats are caused by human behavior and are subject to human solutions.

    Some young people are largely ignorant of these threats.  Others are apathetic.  Still others are despairing and alienated.  In this sense, they reflect the larger society.

    Young people need to be better educated on the critical survival issues that confront humanity.  They need to realize that, with social action, change is possible and there is hope for a more decent future.  With action comes hope, and with hope comes action.  It is a reinforcing cycle of change.

    We cannot wait for young people to become the leaders of tomorrow.  They must step up and fill the leadership vacuum that currently exists in solving the urgent threats of our time.  This will require education in the humanities, focused training for putting positive values into practice, and for developing the skills needed to influence the course of events in our interconnected world.

    They must come to understand that all great global threats can only be solved globally.  No single country, no matter how powerful, can diffuse these threats acting alone.  Thus, young people must form bonds across borders.

    Today’s young people have far worthier challenges than to become cogs in corporate machines.  They have the opportunity and the choice to change the world to make it more just and peaceful, a world in which all people can live with dignity and recognition of the basic human rights set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.  This must be complemented with a Universal Declaration of Human Responsibilities.

    Your leadership as a college or university president can influence today’s students to walk the path toward a far more decent tomorrow.  I urge you to add this to your list of responsibilities and to make your college or university a part of the solution to humanity’s most challenging problems.

    One way to begin the process would be to institute a required class for all students on “Global Survival 101,” which would cover all the great issues that confront humanity in the 21st century.  It would raise the following questions: What are the great threats that currently confront humanity?  What can be done about them?  How will each student make a difference in creating a better tomorrow?

    We also have a Peace Leadership Program at the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, which provides peace leadership trainings.  A curriculum has been developed and tested at the University of San Diego and other college campuses.  You can find out more about this program at www.wagingpeace.org.

    If there are ways in which you are already addressing the issues I’ve raised in this letter or plan to do so going forward, I would be very happy to know of such initiatives.

    Thank you for caring.

    ***This article was originally published by Truthout.

  • When Will They Ever Learn? The American People and Support for War

    When it comes to war, the American public is remarkably fickle.

    Lawrence WittnerThe responses of Americans to the Iraq and Afghanistan wars provide telling examples.  In 2003, according to opinion polls, 72 percent of Americans thought going to war in Iraq was the right decision.  By early 2013, support for that decision had declined to 41 percent.  Similarly, in October 2001, when U.S. military action began in Afghanistan, it was backed by 90 percent of the American public.  By December 2013, public approval of the Afghanistan war had dropped to only 17 percent.

    In fact, this collapse of public support for once-popular wars is a long-term phenomenon.  Although World War I preceded public opinion polling, observers reported considerable enthusiasm for U.S. entry into that conflict in April 1917.  But, after the war, the enthusiasm melted away.  In 1937, when pollsters asked Americans whether the United States should participate in another war like the World War, 95 percent of the respondents said “No.”

    And so it went.  When President Truman dispatched U.S. troops to Korea in June 1950, 78 percent of Americans polled expressed their approval.  By February 1952, according to polls, 50 percent of Americans believed that U.S. entry into the Korean War had been a mistake.  The same phenomenon occurred in connection with the Vietnam War.  In August 1965, when Americans were asked if the U.S. government had made “a mistake in sending troops to fight in Vietnam,” 61 percent of them said “No.”  But by August 1968, support for the war had fallen to 35 percent, and by May 1971 it had dropped to 28 percent.

    Of all America’s wars over the past century, only World War II has retained mass public approval.  And this was a very unusual war – one involving a devastating military attack upon American soil, fiendish foes determined to conquer and enslave the world, and a clear-cut, total victory.

    In almost all cases, though, Americans turned against wars they once supported.  How should one explain this pattern of disillusionment?

    The major reason appears to be the immense cost of war — in lives and resources.  During the Korean and Vietnam wars, as the body bags and crippled veterans began coming back to the United States in large numbers, public support for the wars dwindled considerably.  Although the Afghanistan and Iraq wars produced fewer American casualties, the economic costs have been immense.  Two recent scholarly studies have estimated that these two wars will ultimately cost American taxpayers from $4 trillion to $6 trillion.  As a result, most of the U.S. government’s spending no longer goes for education, health care, parks, and infrastructure, but to cover the costs of war.  It is hardly surprising that many Americans have turned sour on these conflicts.

    But if the heavy burden of wars has disillusioned many Americans, why are they so easily suckered into supporting new ones?

    A key reason seems to be that that powerful, opinion-molding institutions – the mass communications media, government, political parties, and even education – are controlled, more or less, by what President Eisenhower called “the military-industrial complex.”  And, at the outset of a conflict, these institutions are usually capable of getting flags waving, bands playing, and crowds cheering for war.

    But it is also true that much of the American public is very gullible and, at least initially, quite ready to rally ‘round the flag.  Certainly, many Americans are very nationalistic and resonate to super-patriotic appeals.  A mainstay of U.S. political rhetoric is the sacrosanct claim that America is “the greatest nation in the world” – a very useful motivator of U.S. military action against other countries.  And this heady brew is topped off with considerable reverence for guns and U.S. soldiers.  (“Let’s hear the applause for Our Heroes!”)

    Of course, there is also an important American peace constituency, which has formed long-term peace organizations, including Peace Action, Physicians for Social Responsibility, the Fellowship of Reconciliation, the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, and other antiwar groups.  This peace constituency, often driven by moral and political ideals, provides the key force behind the opposition to U.S. wars in their early stages.  But it is counterbalanced by staunch military enthusiasts, ready to applaud wars to the last surviving American.  The shifting force in U.S. public opinion is the large number of people who rally ‘round the flag at the beginning of a war and, then, gradually, become fed up with the conflict.

    And so a cyclical process ensues.  Benjamin Franklin recognized it as early as the eighteenth century, when he penned a short poem for  A Pocket Almanack For the Year 1744:

    War begets Poverty,
    Poverty Peace;
    Peace makes Riches flow,
    (Fate ne’er doth cease.)
    Riches produce Pride,
    Pride is War’s Ground;
    War begets Poverty &c.
    The World goes round.

    There would certainly be less disillusionment, as well as a great savings in lives and resources, if more Americans recognized the terrible costs of war before they rushed to embrace it.  But a clearer understanding of war and its consequences will probably be necessary to convince Americans to break out of the cycle in which they seem trapped.

  • Sunflower Newsletter January 2014

    Issue #198 – January 2014
    Facebook Twitter More...

    The Sunflower is a monthly e-newsletter providing educational information on nuclear weapons abolition and other issues relating to global security. Help us spread the word and forward this to a friend.

    Please donate to help sustain this valuable resource.

    Subscribe to the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s Sunflower newsletter and Action Alert Network.
    • Perspectives
      • Missile Launching in the Dark by David Krieger
      • The Doublespeak of Nuclear Disarmament by Kate Hudson
    • US Nuclear Weapons Policy
      • Nuclear Weapon Protestors Face Decades in Prison
      • Budget Soars for U.S. Nuclear Weapons Modernization
    • Nuclear Disarmament
      • South Africa, the Nation that Gave Up Its Nuclear Weapons
    • Nuclear Proliferation
      • Russia Plans to Revive Rail-Mobile Nuclear Missiles
    • Nuclear Insanity
      • Congressman Supports Use of Nuclear Weapons Against Iran
      • Israeli Nuclear Whistleblower Still Held in Israel
    • Resources
      • Nuclear Famine: Two Billion People at Risk
      • The Morning of August 6
    • Foundation Activities
      • NAPF to Welcome Noam Chomsky to Santa Barbara
      • Peace Leadership in Canada
    • Quotes

     

    Perspectives

    Missile Launching in the Dark

    by David Krieger

     

    In the early morning hours of December 17, under cover of darkness, the Air Force launched a Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile from Vandenberg Air Force Base. It was a test of a nuclear-capable missile. Despite the claims of the Air Force, such tests do not make us safer or more secure- only more terrifying to others, and when it comes to nuclear weapons we should be terrifying ourselves. These are weapons that could destroy civilization, and yet we have the hubris to play Russian roulette with them and continue to do so more than 20 years after the end of the Cold War.

    The Air Force seems excessively proud of its ability to have “successfully launched” the nuclear-capable Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile. Is it pride in their ability to obey orders and carry out a mission fully capable of ending civilization should they be called upon to launch nuclear-armed Minuteman III missiles? The Air Force views its test launches as providing “data to ensure a safe, secure and effective nuclear deterrent.” But neither the Air Force nor anyone in authority can assure that nuclear deterrence will be safe, secure or effective.

    To read more, click here.

    The Doublespeak of Nuclear Disarmament

    by Kate Hudson

     

    It’s easy to say you want a world without nuclear weapons. Nearly everyone does: even David Cameron. It’s like saying there should be no global poverty: the hard part is taking action to do something about it.

    Imagine if David Cameron returned from his recent trade-boosting visit to China and had to concede, shamefaced, that he hadn’t mentioned trade with the UK. Worse still: what if he returned and boasted of the fact that he hadn’t mentioned trade with the UK? Well this is precisely what the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has just done following a UN meeting on nuclear disarmament.

    To read more, click here.

    US Nuclear Weapons Policy

    Nuclear Weapon Protestors Face Decades in Prison

     

    On January 28, three nonviolent protesters against nuclear weapons, Sr. Megan Rice, 83, Michael Walli, 63, and Gregory Boertje-Obed, 57, are scheduled to be sentenced in U.S. District Court in Knoxville, Tennessee, for the supposed crime of sabotage. They face decades in prison for their moral and courageous acts of protest..

    Roots Action has launched a campaign to encourage the judge, Amul R. Thapar, to show leniency in the sentencing of the protestors. Roots Action’s message reads in part, “The action taken by Megan, Michael and Greg was done from a commitment to nonviolence and from an allegiance to the future for our children and our planet, trying to insure that life will not be terminated by a nuclear war.”

    To send a letter to Judge Thapar, click here.

    Budget Soars for U.S. Nuclear Weapons Modernization

     

    The Government Accountability Office (GAO) reports that just in the past year, the projected budget for modernizing existing nuclear programs has increased by roughly $19 billion. The GAO report compared National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) budgets from 2012 to the current projections to arrive at the $19 billion figure. This huge increase also leaves out several other areas of significant cost for which NNSA has not provided figures.

    Notably missing are the figures for the construction of the Uranium Processing Facility in Tennessee and the Chemistry and the Metallurgy Research Replacement-Nuclear Facility in New Mexico. It’s not clear how much additional funding will be needed for these projects, but there’s no question that the existing budgets are underestimated significantly.

    A report released December 20 by the Congressional Budget Office estimates the cost of the Obama administration’s plans for the U.S. nuclear arsenal from 2014 to 2023 to total $355 billion.

    Frank Munger, “GAO: NNSA’s Modernization Costs Jump $19B, but the Budget Numbers Don’t Mesh with Plans,” Atomic City Underground, December 13, 2013.

    Nuclear Disarmament

    South Africa, the Nation that Gave Up Its Nuclear Weapons

     

    Former South African President F.W. de Klerk wrote an op-ed published in the Los Angeles Times detailing his thinking behind the decision to get rid of South Africa’s nuclear weapons in 1989.

    De Klerk wrote, “Nuclear weapons had no value in the kind of border wars we were fighting, and the prospect of using them against neighboring countries was too appalling to be contemplated.”

    He continued, “The international community must take concrete steps to control, and finally eliminate, nuclear weapons as a thinkable option. This will require greater support for the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and more rapid movement by existing nuclear weapons states toward the reduction and dismantling of their stockpiles. The world should realize that real security does not lie in increasing our power to destroy others; it lies in our ability to live with others on the basis of peace and justice.”

    F.W. de Klerk, “South Africa, the Nation that Gave Up Its Nukes,” Los Angeles Times, December 22, 2013.

    Nuclear Proliferation

    Russia Plans to Revive Rail-Mobile Nuclear Missiles

     

    Gen. Sergei Karakayev, commander of Russian strategic rocket forces, has indicated that Russia intends to revive its rail-based Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) capability in response to U.S. plans to develop a conventional long-range strike capacity. Russia considers missiles that can be moved around by train to be easier to protect from elimination by an adversary than traditional silo-based missiles.

    Russia has not had a rail-based ICBM capability since retiring its final Soviet-era system eight years ago.

    “Russia May Revive Rail-Mobile ICBMs to Counter U.S. Prompt-Strike Arms,” Global Security Newswire, December 18, 2013.

    Nuclear Insanity

    Congressman Supports Use of Nuclear Weapons Against Iran

     

    In a statement on C-Span, Republican congressman Duncan Hunter of California said that if the U.S. had to hit Iran, “you don’t do it with boots on the ground, you do it with tactical nuclear devices.” This remark goes a step further than those made by GOP donor Sheldon Adelson in October, who said that a nuclear device should be detonated in the desert of Iran to send a warning. Hunter said that his opinion is formed by his own service spent in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    Hunter’s statement had no lack of opponents. Kingston Reif of the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation responded, “The first use of nuclear weapons against Iran would guarantee a mad Iranian dash to acquire nuclear weapons to deter future such US attacks.”

    Ben Armbruster, “Congressman Says U.S. Should Use Nuclear Weapons if it Attacks Iran,” ThinkProgress, December 4, 2013.

    Israeli Nuclear Whistleblower Still Held in Israel

     

    Mordechai Vanunu, an ex-technician at Israel’s Dimona nuclear plant who leaked information about Israel’s nuclear weapons program in 1986, continues to have significant restrictions placed on his life after having served 18 years in prison. Vanunu is still restricted from talking to the media and foreigners, and is not allowed to leave Israel.

    Vanunu recently asked the Israeli High Court to allow him to leave Israel. However, the Israeli government claims that expert reports and secret information, presented to the court in a closed-door hearing, prove that Vanunu’s information is still relevant and its revelation would endanger state security. The court is not expected to rule on the matter in the near future.

    Yonah Jeremy Bob, “Vanunu Pleads with High Court to Allow Him to Leave Israel,” Jerusalem Post, December 25, 2013.

    Resources

    Nuclear Famine: Two Billion People at Risk

     

    International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW) and its U.S. affiliate, Physicians for Social Responsibility, have released a new report concluding that more than two billion people – a quarter of the world’s population – would be at risk of starvation in the event of a limited nuclear exchange, such as one that could occur between India and Pakistan, or by the use of even a small number of the nuclear weapons held by the U.S. and Russia.

    “A nuclear war using only a fraction of existing arsenals would produce massive casualties on a global scale – far more than we had previously believed,” said the report’s author, IPPNW co-president Ira Helfand.

    To download a free copy of the report, click here.

    The Morning of August 6

     

    Tadashi Hasegawa was a Hiroshima atomic bomb survivor who spent his life speaking out against nuclear weapons. He recently wrote a book about his experiences and had it published in Japan. Before he died last year, his family promised him to translate his book into English. The book is entitled “The Morning of August 6, I Was 14 Years Old.”

    Click here for a free download of the book and to see video of an interview with Tadashi.

    Foundation Activities

    NAPF to Welcome Noam Chomsky to Santa Barbara

     

    The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation will welcome Professor Noam Chomsky to Santa Barbara to deliver the 13th Annual Frank K. Kelly Lecture on Humanity’s Future on February 28, 2014.

    Professor Chomsky, a long-time critic of nuclear weapons and U.S. nuclear policy, will speak at 7:30 p.m. at the Lobero Theatre in downtown Santa Barbara.

    For more information and to purchase tickets, click here.

    Peace Leadership in Canada

     

    NAPF Peace Leadership Director Paul Chappell spoke in December 2013 in New Brunswick, Canada on the principles of nonviolence at the workshop on Building Non-Violent Indigenous Rights Movements. Held at the Wabanaki Resource Center at St. Thomas University and sponsored by the Wabanaki Confederacy and The Land Peace Foundation, the first part of this workshop focused on how nonviolence training could be applied to the current struggle against fracking as Indigenous tribes resist the Government of New Brunswick’s appropriation of tribal lands for shale gas exploration.

    Chappell discussed both the philosophy of nonviolence and the actions of Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. He also explored the history of different kinds of nonviolent protests.

    “I was inspired to learn how Gandhi stood up for himself, with strength and nonviolence and was able to move so many people to action,” said Juisen Bartibogue, Mi’kmaq Nation, 19, of Burnt Church, New Brunswick. “I saw how nonviolence is the only way for us to be able to achieve our goals and to make a lasting peace.”

    Attorney Sherri Mitchell, a graduate of the summer 2013 NAPF Peace Leadership training, spoke during the second half of the workshop on strategy building for unified movements. A member of the Penobscot Tribe and executive director of the Land Peace Foundation, Mitchell has been an advocate for indigenous rights for over two decades, working to protect the rights of her own tribe and those of Indigenous people across the Americas.

    Mitchell said, “The battle over dwindling resources has caused aggressive attacks on Indigenous rights and these workshops will provide the practical skills to create strong and effective opposition to these attacks.”

    To see a picture from this event, click here.

    Quotes

     

    “We must ask the question, which might sound naïve to those who have elaborated sophisticated arguments to justify their refusal to eliminate these terrible and terrifying weapons of mass destruction — why do they need them anyway?”

    — Nelson Mandela speaking at the United Nations General Assembly in 1998.

     

    “We are obliged by our consciences to act when we know, and we are free to do so. … As long as one nuclear bomb or energy facility exists, all of life remains its potential victim.”

    — Sister Megan Rice, in an email interview from prison with Global Security Newswire.

     

    “Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.”

    — Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. This quote appears in the book Speaking of Peace: Quotations to Inspire Action, edited by NAPF President David Krieger.

    Editorial Team

    Scott Berzon David Krieger Carol Warner Rick Wayman

     

  • Mandela and Gandhi

    Nelson Rohihlahla Mandela (1918-2013) and Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948) were two of human history’s greatest leaders in the struggle against governmental oppression. They are also remembered as great ethical teachers. Their lives had many similarities; but there were also differences.

    Similarities:

    Both Mandela and Gandhi were born into politically influential families. Gandhi’s father, and also his grandfather, were Dewans (prime ministers) of the Indian state of Porbandar. Mandela’s great-grandfather was the ruler of the Thembu peoples in the Eastern Cape Province of South Africa. When Mandela’s father died, his mother brought the young boy to the palace of the Thembu people’s Regent, Chief Jogintaba Dalindyebo, who became the boy’s guardian. He treated Mandela as a son and gave him an outstanding education.

    Both Mandela and Gandhi studied law. Both were astute political tacticians, and both struggled against governmental injustice in South Africa. Both were completely fearless. Both had iron wills and amazing stubbornness. Both spent long periods in prison as a consequence of their opposition to injustice.

    Both Mandela and Gandhi are remembered for their strong belief in truth and fairness, and for their efforts to achieve unity and harmony among conflicting factions. Both treated their political opponents with kindness and politeness.

    When Gandhi began to practice law South Africa, in his first case, he was able to solve a conflict by proposing a compromise that satisfied both parties. Of this result he said, ”My joy was boundless. I had learnt the true practice of law. I had learnt to find out the better side of human nature and to enter men’s hearts. I realized that the true function of a lawyer was to unite parties riven asunder.”

    Mandela is also remembered as a great champion of reconciliation. Wikipedia describes his period as President of South Africa in the following words:

    “Presiding over the transition from apartheid minority rule to a multicultural democracy, Mandela saw national reconciliation as the primary task of his presidency. Having seen other post-colonial African economies damaged by the departure of white elites, Mandela worked to reassure South Africa’s white population that they were protected and represented in “The Rainbow Nation”. Mandela attempted to create the broadest possible coalition in his cabinet, with de Klerk as first Deputy President while other National Party officials became ministers for Agriculture, Energy, Environment, and Minerals and Energy, and Buthelezi was named Minister for Home Affairs…” Mandela also introduced, and presided over, a Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

    Both Gandhi and Mandela believed strongly in the power of truth. Gandhi called this principle “Satyagraha”, and he called his autobiography “The Story of My Experiments With Truth”.

    Mandela’s realization of the power of truth came during the Rivonia Trial (1963-1964), where he was accused of plotting to overthrow the government of South Africa by violence, and his life was at stake. Remembering this event, Mandela wrote: “In a way I had never quite comprehended before, I realized the role I could play in court and the possibilities before me as a defendant. I was the symbol of justice in the court of the oppressor, the representative of the great ideals of freedom, fairness and democracy in a society that dishonored those virtues. I realized then and there that I could carry on the fight even in the fortress of the enemy.”

    During his defense statement, Mandela said: “I have fought against white domination and I have fought against black domination. I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons will live together with equal opportunities. It is an ideal which I hope to live for and see realized. But my Lord, if it needs to be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die.”

    Although the prosecutor demanded the death penalty, Mandela was sentenced to lifelong imprisonment. His defense statement became widely known throughout the world, and he became the era’s most famous prisoner of conscience. The South African apartheid regime was universally condemned by the international community, and while still in prison, Mandela was given numerous honors, including an honorary doctorate in Lesotho, the Jawaharlal Nehru Award for International Understanding and Freedom of the City of Glasgow. “Free Mandela” concerts were held in England and the UN Security Council demanded his release.

    Finally, as it became increasingly clear that the South African apartheid regime was untenable, Mandela was released in February 1990. He spoke to an enormous and wild cheering crowd of supporters, who had waited four hours to hear him. Four years later, he was elected President of South Africa. He was awarded 250 major honors, including the Nobel Peace Prize, which he shared with de Klerk.

    Both Mandela and Gandhi are considered to be the fathers of their countries. Gandhi is called “Mahatma”, which means “Great Soul”, but he was also known by the affectionate name “Bapu”, which means “father”. Mandela was affectionately called “Tata”, which also means “father”.

    Differences:

    The greatest difference between Mandela and Gandhi concerns non-violence. While Mandela believed that violent protest could sometimes be necessary in the face of governmental violence, Gandhi firmly rejected this idea. He did so partly because of his experience as a lawyer. In carrying out non-violent protests against governmental injustice, Gandhi was making a case before the jury of international public opinion. He thought that he had a better chance of succeeding if he was very clearly in the right.

    Furthermore, to the insidious argument that “the end justifies the means”, Gandhi answered firmly: ”They say that ‘means are after all means’. I would say that ‘means are after all everything’. As the means, so the end. Indeed, the Creator has given us limited power over means, none over end… The means may be likened to a seed, and the end to a tree; and there is the same inviolable connection between the means and the end as there is between the seed and the tree. Means and end are convertible terms in my philosophy of life.”

    What can we learn from Mandela and Gandhi?

    Today, as never before, governmental injustice, crime and folly are threatening the future of humankind. If our children and grandchildren are to have a future, each of us must work with dedication for truly democratic government, for a just and effective system of international law, for abolition of the institution of war, for abolition of nuclear weapons, for the reform of our economic system, for stabilization of the global population, and for protection of the global environment against climate change and other dangers. This is not the responsibility of a few people. It is everyone’s responsibility. The courage, wisdom and dedication of Mandela and Gandhi can give us inspiration as we approach the great tasks that history has given to our generation.

    Links:

    http://www.fredsakademiet.dk/library/getImg.pdf

    https://archive.org/details/LongWalkToFreedomNelsonMandela.pdf

  • Wake Up!

    David KriegerThe alarm is sounding.
    Can you hear it?

    Can you hear the bells
    of Nagasaki
    ringing out for peace?

    Can you feel the heartbeat
    of Hiroshima
    pulsing out for life?

    The survivors of Hiroshima
    and Nagasaki
    are growing older.

    Their message is clear:
    Never again!

    Wake up!
    Now, before the feathered arrow
    is placed into the bow.

    Now, before the string
    of the bow is pulled taut,
    the arrow poised for flight.

    Now, before the arrow is let loose,
    before it flies across oceans
    and continents.

    Now, before we are engulfed in flames,
    while there is still time, while we still can,
    Wake up!

  • Peace Leadership in Canada

    Peace Leadership in Canada

    joann_deckNAPF Peace Leadership Director Paul Chappell spoke in December 2013 in Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada on the principles of nonviolence at the workshop on Building Non-Violent Indigenous Rights Movements. Held at the Wabanaki Resource Center at St. Thomas University and sponsored by the Wabanaki Confederacy and The Land Peace Foundation, the first part of this workshop focused on how nonviolence training could be applied to the current struggle against fracking as Indigenous tribes resist the Government of New Brunswick’s appropriation of tribal lands for shale gas exploration.

    Chappell discussed both the philosophy of nonviolence and the actions of Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. He also explored the history of different kinds of nonviolent protests.

    “I was inspired to learn how Gandhi stood up for himself, with strength and nonviolence and was able to move so many people to action,” said Juisen Bartibogue, Mi’kmaq Nation, 19, of Burnt Church, New Brunswick. “I saw how nonviolence is the only way for us to be able to achieve our goals and to make a lasting peace.”

    Attorney Sherri Mitchell, a graduate of the summer 2013 NAPF Peace Leadership training, spoke during the second half of the workshop on strategy building for unified movements. A member of the Penobscot Tribe and executive director of the Land Peace Foundation, Mitchell has been an advocate for indigenous rights for over two decades, working to protect the rights of her own tribe and those of Indigenous people across the Americas.

    Mitchell said, “The battle over dwindling resources has caused aggressive attacks on Indigenous rights and these workshops will provide the practical skills to create strong and effective opposition to these attacks.”

  • Nuclear Warfare as Genocide

    Sixty-five years ago, on December 9, 1948, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a convention prohibiting genocide. It seems appropriate to discuss nuclear warfare against the background of this important standard of international law.

    Article II of the 1948 convention defines genocide as “any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.”

    Cannot nuclear warfare be seen as an example of genocide? It is capable of killing entire populations, including babies, young children, adults in their prime and old people, without any regard for guilt or innocence. The retention of nuclear weapons, with the intent to use them under some circumstances, must be seen as the intent to commit genocide. Is it not morally degrading to see our leaders announce their intention to commit the “crime of crimes” in our names?

    The use of nuclear weapons potentially involves not only genocide, but also omnicide, the death of all, since a large-scale thermonuclear war would destroy human civilization and much of the biosphere.

    If humanity is to survive in an era of all-destroying nuclear weapons, we must develop an advanced ethic to match our advanced technology. We must regard all humans as our brothers and sisters, More than that, we must actively feel our kinship with all living things, and accept and act upon our duty to protect both animate and inanimate nature.

    Modern science has, for the first time in history, offered humankind the possibility of a life of comfort, free from hunger and cold, and free from the constant threat of death through infectious disease. At the same time, science has given humans the power to obliterate civilization with nuclear weapons, or to make the earth uninhabitable through overpopulation and pollution. The question of which of these paths we choose is literally a matter of life or death for ourselves and our children.

    Will we use the discoveries of modern science constructively, and thus choose the path leading towards life? Or will we use science to produce more and more lethal weapons, which sooner or later, through a technical or human failure, may result in a catastrophic nuclear war? Will we thoughtlessly destroy our beautiful planet through unlimited growth of population and industry? The choice among these alternatives is ours to make. We live at a critical moment of history – a moment of crisis for civilization.
    No one living today asked to be born at such a moment, But history has given our generation an enormous responsibility, and two daunting tasks: We must stabilize global population, and, more importantly, we must abolish both nuclear weapons and the institution of war.

    The human brain has shown itself to be capable of solving even the most profound and complex problems. The mind that has seen into the heart of the atom must not fail when confronted with paradoxes of the human heart.

    The problem of building a stable, just, and war-free world is difficult, but it is not impossible. The large regions of our present-day world within which war has been eliminated can serve as models. There are a number of large countries with heterogeneous populations within which it has been possible to achieve internal peace and social cohesion, and if this is possible within such extremely large regions, it must also be possible globally. We must replace the old world of international anarchy, chronic war and institutionalized injustice, by a new world of law.

    The Nobel laureate biochemist Albert Szent-Györgyi once wrote: “…Modern science has abolished time and distance as factors separating nations. On our shrunken globe today, there is room for one group only: the family of man.”

  • Missile Launching in the Dark

    This article was originally published by Truthout.

    David KriegerIn the early morning hours of December 17, under cover of darkness, the Air Force launched a Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile from Vandenberg Air Force Base. It was a test of a nuclear-capable missile. Despite the claims of the Air Force, such tests do not make us safer or more secure — only more terrifying to others, and when it comes to nuclear weapons we should be terrifying ourselves. These are weapons that could destroy civilization, and yet we have the hubris to play Russian roulette with them and continue to do so more than 20 years after the end of the Cold War.

    As General Lee Butler, former commander of the US Strategic Command, said, “Nuclear deterrence was and remains a slippery intellectual construct that translates very poorly into the real world of spontaneous crises, inexplicable motivations, incomplete intelligence and fragile human relationships.” We would do well to pay attention to General Butler and get on with the hard and urgent work of negotiating to achieve Nuclear Zero globally, as we are required to do under international law.

    Following the test launch, Lt. Colonel Thomas Vance said, “The test launch is one demonstration of the professionalism and pride all members of Team Malmstrom take in executing our mission.”

    The Air Force seems excessively proud of its ability to have “successfully launched” the nuclear-capable Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile. Is it pride in their ability to obey orders and carry out a mission fully capable of ending civilization should they be called upon to launch nuclear-armed Minuteman III missiles? The Air Force views its test launches as providing “data to ensure a safe, secure and effective nuclear deterrent.” But neither the Air Force nor anyone in authority can assure that nuclear deterrence will be safe, secure or effective.

    Nuclear deterrence itself only provides a hypothesis about human behavior, the hypothesis being that if one threatens to totally destroy another, the other country will refrain from attacking. This hypothesis requires, at a minimum, rational political leaders, and not all political leaders behave rationally at all times and under all circumstances.

    Test launches of ICBMs do not make nuclear weapons safe, secure or effective. The capability to conduct murderous retaliation does not make us safe, should not make us feel secure, and is not effective in protecting us. Rather than protecting Americans, the Air Force is conducting test launches that are provocative, encourage nuclear proliferation and call into question the seriousness of the United States to fulfill its obligation to pursue negotiations in good faith to achieve nuclear disarmament in all its aspects.