Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Blog

  • The Eighth Anniversary of the Iraq War

    David KriegerOn this eighth anniversary of the Iraq War, I feel a deep sense of sadness mixed with anger, along with regret for what might have been.  We’ve had eight years of futile war in Iraq and nearly ten years of the same in Afghanistan.


    Following September 11, 2001, the world stood with the US.  We had a choice then: to respond legally, morally and with wisdom; or, like a helpless giant, to flail out with our vast arsenal of weapons.  To our shame, our leaders, then and now, have taken the latter course. 


    Before this war began, many of us marched for peace.  People all over the world marched for peace, but peace was not to be.


    Dick Cheney said, “We will be greeted as liberators.”


    Donald Rumsfeld said, in effect, that the war would pay for itself: “The bulk of the funds for Iraq’s reconstruction will come from Iraqis – from oil revenues, recovered assets, international trade, direct foreign investment….”


    George W. Bush said, we will attack “at a time of our choosing.”  He dismissed the United Nations, saying “The United Nations Security Council has not lived up to its responsibilities.  So we will rise to ours.”  He chose to attack Iraq on the evening of March 19, 2003, and he did so with shock and awe, but without legality under international law. 


    Less than two months later, Bush dressed up in a flight suit, landed on the aircraft carrier, the USS Abraham Lincoln, stood under a sign that said “Mission Accomplished,” and boasted with his usual shortsightedness, “In the Battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.”  The people of the world will have prevailed when Mr. Bush is on trial at the International Criminal Court.
     
    The result of our Global War on Terror is that we have spent more than $780 billion on the Iraq War and more than $387 billion on the Afghanistan War, a total of over $1.167 trillion.  These wars have cost California $147 billion, and have cost our 23rd Congressional District $2.6 billion.  These numbers grow by the day.  Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel Laureate in Economics, has predicted that the total cost of the war in Iraq to the Federal government and to society will conservatively exceed $3 trillion.


    It is long past time to end this drain of our resources, which might have gone instead of war and massacre to support the poorest among us, to schools, to health care, and to improve our infrastructure. 


    The Global War on Terror, along with other excesses of capitalism, including massive fraud, has resulted in some 400 families in the US having assets exceeding those of the poorest 50 percent of Americans, some 155 million people.  Four hundred families versus half our population.  And many of our political representatives have fought for tax breaks for the very rich, while seeking to end the collective bargaining rights of the unions for public employees – teachers, nurses, firefighters and policemen.  This is just plain wrong.  But it is what we have become as a nation.


    Across this nation, people still haven’t connected the dots to understand the toll war takes on our society.


    Of course, the money wasted is only a part of the outrage that has weakened our country.  More importantly, some 4,500 American soldiers have died in Iraq. Of these, 4,300 Americans died since George Bush dressed up in his flight suit and gave his victory speech on the USS Abraham Lincoln.  But the death toll of Americans is dwarfed by that of Iraqis.  By some estimates, more than a million and a half Iraqis have died in the Iraq War.  Four million have been displaced from their homes.


    In Afghanistan, 1,498 American soldiers have died and 2,361 total coalition forces have died.  In 2010 alone, 2,777 civilians died in Afghanistan.  Of these, 1,175 were children and 555 were women.


    It is tempting to say that they all died because George Bush lied.  But George Bush’s lies were only one factor.  They also died because so many good Americans were silent in the face of these wars.  They also died because, in the case of Afghanistan, Barack Obama escalated the war and made it his own.


    Let me conclude with a poem I wrote about the war, titled “Worse than the War.”



    WORSE THAN THE WAR


    Worse than the war, the endless, senseless war,
    Worse than the lies leading to the war,


    Worse than the countless deaths and injuries,
    Worse than hiding the coffins and not attending funerals,


    Worse than the flouting of international law,
    Worse than the torture at Abu Ghraib prison,


    Worse than the corruption of young soldiers,
    Worse than undermining our collective sense of decency,


    Worse than the arrogance, smugness and swagger,
    Worse than our loss of credibility in the world,
    Worse than the loss of our liberties,


    Worse than learning nothing from the past,
    Worse than destroying the future,
    Worse than the incredible stupidity of it all,


    Worse than all of these,
    As if they were not enough for one war or country or lifetime,
    Is the silence, the resounding silence of good Americans.


    When will we say that we’ve had enough?  When will America try to regain its conscience, its soul, its decency and its honor?  When will we become a force for peace in the world?  The answer is: It’s up to us!  It’s up to us to take back our country and put it on the path to peace.

  • How Japan Learned About Nuclear Safety

    This article was originally published on the History News Network.


    Lawrence WittnerAlthough people can be educated in a variety of ways, experience is a particularly effective teacher.  Consider the Japanese, who today are certainly learning how dangerous nuclear power can be.


    Of course, the Japanese people also have had a disastrous experience with nuclear weapons—not only in 1945, when the U.S. government destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki with atomic bombs, but in 1954, when a U.S. government H-bomb test showered a Japanese fishing boat, the Lucky Dragon, with deadly radioactive fallout, and a vast nuclear disarmament movement began.


    The Lucky Dragon incident occurred in the context of the first U.S. H-bomb test, conducted by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) in March 1954.  The AEC had staked out a danger zone of some 50,000 square miles (an area roughly the size of New England) around Bikini atoll, the test site in the Marshall Islands, which the United States governed as a UN “trust territory.”  But the blast proved more than twice as powerful as expected, and sent vast quantities of radioactive debris aloft into the atmosphere.  When large doses of this nuclear fallout descended on four inhabited islands in the Marshall chain (all outside the official danger zone), the U.S. government evacuated U.S. weather station personnel and, days later, hundreds of Marshall Islanders.  The islanders quickly developed low blood counts, skin lesions, hemorrhages under the skin, and loss of hair.  Eventually, many came down with radiation-linked illnesses, including thyroid cancer and leukemia.


    Meanwhile, about 85 miles from the test site—and also outside the danger zone—radioactive ash from the H-bomb test fell on a small Japanese fishing boat, the Lucky Dragon.  Two weeks later, when the vessel had reached its home port of Yaizu, the crew members had become seriously ill, with skin irritations, burns, nausea, loss of hair, and other radiation-linked afflictions.  In short order, the Japanese government hospitalized the stricken fishermen and destroyed their radioactive cargo.  Although most of the fishermen survived, the Lucky Dragon’s radio operator, Aikichi Kuboyama, died during hospital treatment.


    As the news of the Lucky Dragon incident spread throughout Japan, a panic gripped the nation, as well as a fierce determination to end the victimization of people, in Japan and the world, through nuclear weapons.  Nuclear fallout—or, as the Japanese referred to it, “the ashes of death”—became a household term.  A poll found that only two percent of the population approved of nuclear testing unconditionally.  In May 1954, a group of middle class housewives in the Suginami ward in Tokyo began a petition campaign to ban H-bombs.  Carried in their shopping baskets, this “Suginami Appeal” grew into a nationwide movement and, by 1955, had attracted the signatures of 32 million people—about a third of the Japanese population.  Japan’s nuclear disarmament campaign blossomed into the largest, most powerful social movement in that nation’s history.  Polls showed overwhelming popular support for it.


    Naturally, this upsurge of “ban the bomb” sentiment shocked U.S. government officials, who—with their nuclear weapons program at stake—engaged in a systematic policy of denial.  The chair of the AEC, Lewis Strauss, publicly declared that the Marshall Islanders were “well and happy.”  The Japanese fishermen, he conceded, had experienced a few minor problems; but, in any case, he stated falsely, they “must have been well within the danger area.”  Privately, he was more caustic.  The Lucky Dragon, he told the White House press secretary, was really a “Red spy outfit,” a component of a “Russian espionage system.”  At the request of Strauss, the CIA investigated this possibility and categorically denied it.  Nonetheless, Strauss continued to maintain that the irradiation of the Lucky Dragon “was no accident,” for the captain of the vessel must have been “in the employ of the Russians.”  He also told authors to ignore the contention of the “propagandists” that a crew member of the vessel had died of radiation exposure.


    Other American officials, too, saw no justification for the Japanese response to the Lucky Dragon incident.  From Japan, the U.S. ambassador lamented that nation’s “uncontrolled masochism.”  He reported that Japan, “aided by [an] unscrupulous press, seemed to revel in [its] fancied martyrdom.”  According to Secretary of State John Foster Dulles, President Dwight Eisenhower found this message “of great interest and value from [the] standpoint of policy formulation.”  Like Strauss, Eisenhower insisted in his memoirs that the fishermen were within the danger zone.  Commenting on the effects of the Lucky Dragon incident, the acting secretary of state added his own warnings about public attitudes in Japan.  “The Japanese are pathologically sensitive about nuclear weapons,” he told Eisenhower.  “They feel they are the chosen victims.”


    In reality, most Japanese had learned from the tragic events of 1954 that, when it came to nuclear arms, everyone was a potential victim.  Or, to put it another way, there are no safe nuclear weapons.  But many Japanese continued to cling to a belief in safe nuclear energy—at least until this month, when their crippled nuclear reactors began spewing out radioactivity and heading toward a meltdown.


    Plenty of people in other countries, including the United States, remain in denial about the safety of nuclear weapons and nuclear power.  What kind of experience will it take to convince them to rid the world of these monstrous things?  More to the point, is it really necessary to wait for that experience to occur?

  • The Japanese Disaster – Nuclear Tragedy – Lessons for India

    2011_03_16_ramdas_india.pdf

  • Nuclear Reactor Catastrophe in Japan

    2011_03_16_weeramantry.pdf

  • Learning from History? After Sendai

    Richard FalkAfter atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki there was in the West, especially the United States, a short triumphal moment, crediting American science and military prowess with bringing victory over Japan and the avoidance of what was anticipated at the time to be a long and bloody conquest of the Japanese homeland. This official narrative of the devastating attacks on these Japanese cities has been contested by numerous reputable historians who argued that Japan had conveyed its readiness to surrender well before the bombs had been dropped, that the U.S. Government needed to launch the attacks to demonstrate to the Soviet Union that it had this super-weapon at its disposal, and that the attacks would help establish American supremacy in the Pacific without any need to share power with Moscow. But whatever historical interpretation is believed, the horror and indecency of the attacks is beyond controversy.  This use of atomic bombs against defenseless densely populated cities remains the greatest single act of state terror in human history, and had it been committed by the losers in World War II surely the perpetrators would have been held criminally accountable and the weaponry forever prohibited. But history gives the winners in big wars considerable latitude to shape the future according to their own wishes, sometimes for the better, often for the worse.


    Not only were these two cities of little military significance devastated beyond recognition, but additionally, inhabitants in a wide surrounding area were exposed to lethal doses of radioactivity causing for decades death, disease, acute anxiety, and birth defects. Beyond this, it was clear that such a technology would change the face of war and power, and would either be eliminated from the planet or others than the United States would insist on possession of the weaponry, and in fact, the five permanent member of the UN Security Council became the first five states to develop and possess nuclear weapons, and in later years, Israel, India, Pakistan, and North Korea have developed nuclear warheads of their own. As well, the technology was constantly improved at great cost, allowing long-distance delivery of nuclear warheads by guided missiles and payloads hundreds times greater than those primitive bombs used against Japan.


    After Hiroshima and Nagasaki there were widespread expressions of concern about the future issued by political leaders and an array of moral authority figures.  Statesmen in the West talked about the necessity of nuclear disarmament as the only alternative to a future war that would destroy industrial civilization. Scientists and others in society spoke in apocalyptic terms about the future. It was a mood of ‘utopia or else,’ a sense that unless a new form of governance emerged rapidly there would be no way to avoid a catastrophic future for the human species and for the earth itself.


    But what happened? The bellicose realists prevailed, warning of the distrust of ‘the other,’ insisting that it would be ‘better to be dead than red,’ and that, as in the past, only a balance of power could prevent war and catastrophe. The new balance of the nuclear age was called ‘deterrence,’ and it evolved into a dangerous semi-cooperative security posture known as ‘mutual assured destruction,’ or more sanely described by its acronym, MAD.  The main form of learning that took place after the disasters of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was to normalize the weaponry, banish the memories, and hope for the best. The same realists, perhaps most prominently, John Mearsheimer, even go so far as to celebrate nuclear weaponry as ‘keepers of the peace,’ for them the best explanation for why the Soviet Union-United States rivalry did not result in World War III.  Such nuclear complacency was again in evidence when in the 1990s after the Soviet Union collapsed, there was a refusal to propose at that time the elimination of nuclear weaponry, and there were reliable reports that the U.S. Government actually used its diplomatic leverage to discourage any Russian disarmament initiatives that might expose the embarrassing extent of this post-deterrence, post-Cold War American attachment to nuclearism. This attachment has persisted, is bipartisan in character, is shared with the leadership and citizenry of the other nuclear weapons states to varying degrees, and is joined to an anti-proliferation regime that hypocritically treats most states (Israel was a notable exception) that aspire to have nuclear weapons of their own as criminal outlaws subject to military intervention.


    Here is the lesson that applies to present: the shock of the atomic attacks wears off, is superseded by a restoration of normalcy, which means creating the conditions for repetition at greater magnitudes of death and destruction. Such a pattern is accentuated, as here, if the subject-matter of disaster is clouded by the politics of the day that obscured the gross immorality and criminality of the acts, that ignored the fact that there are governmental forces associated with the military establishment that seek maximal hard power, and that these professional militarists are reinforced by paid cadres of scientists, defense intellectuals, and bureaucrats who build careers around the weaponry, and that this structure is reinforced in various ways by private sector profit-making opportunities. These conditions apply across the board to the business of arms sales.


    And then we must take account of the incredible ‘Faustian Bargain’ sold to the non-nuclear world: give up a nuclear weapons option and in exchange get an unlimited ‘pass’ to the ‘benefits’ of nuclear energy, and besides, the nuclear weapons states, winking to one another when negotiating the notorious Nonproliferation Treaty (1963) promised in good faith to pursue nuclear disarmament, and indeed general and complete disarmament. Of course, the bad half of the bargain has been fulfilled, even in the face of the dire experiences of Three Mile Island (1979) and Chernobyl (1986), while the good half of the bargain (getting rid of the weaponry) never gave rise to even halfhearted proposals and negotiations (and instead the world settled irresponsibly for managerial fixes from time to time, known as ‘arms control’ measures that were designed to stabilize the nuclear rivalry of the U.S. and Soviet Union (now Russia). Such a contention is confirmed by the presidential commitment to devote an additional $80 billion for the development of nuclear weapons before the Senate could be persuaded to ratify the New START Treaty in late 2010, the latest arms control ruse that was falsely promoted as a step toward disarmament and denuclearization. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with arms control, it may reduce risks and costs, but it is not disarmament, and should not presented as if it is.


    It is with this background in mind that the unfolding Japanese mega-tragedy must be understood and its effects on future policy discussed in a preliminary manner. This extraordinary disaster originated in a natural event beyond human reckoning and control. An earthquake of unimaginable fury, measuring an unprecedented 9.0 on the Richter Scale, unleashing a deadly tsunami that reached a height of 30 feet, and swept inland in the Sendai area of northern Japan to an incredible distance up to 6 kilometers. It is still too early to count the dead, the injured, the property damage, and the overall human costs, but we know enough by now to realize that the impact is colossal, that this is a terrible happening that will be permanently seared into the collective imagination of humanity, perhaps the more so, because it is the most visually recorded epic occurrence in all of history, with real time video recordings of its catastrophic  ‘moments of truth.’


    But this natural disaster that has been responsible for massive human suffering has been compounded by its nuclear and societal dimensions, the full measure of which remains uncertain at this point, although generating a deepening foreboding that is perhaps magnified by calming reassurances by the corporate managers of nuclear power in Japan  who have past blemishes on their safety record, as well as by political leaders, including the Naoto Kan who understandably wants to avoid causing the Japanese public to shift from its current posture of traumatized witnessing to one of outright panic. There is also a lack of credibility based, especially, on a long record of false reassurances and cover ups by the Japanese nuclear industry, hiding and minimizing the effects of a 2007 earthquake in Japan, and actually lying about the extent of damage to a reactor at that time and on other occasions. What we need to understand is that the vulnerabilities of modern industrial society accentuate vulnerabilities that arise from extreme events in nature, as well as from the determined efforts of industrial lobbyists to cut corners at public expense. There is no doubt that the huge earthquake/tsunami constellation of forces was responsible for great damage and societal distress, but its overall impact has been geometrically increased by this buying into the Faustian Bargain of nuclear energy, whose risks, if objectively assessed, were widely known for many years. These risks were accentuated in this instance by situating this reactor complex in an earthquake zone and near to the ocean, tempting known natural forces to inflict an unmanageable blow to human wellbeing. It is the greedy profit-seekers, who minimize these risks, whether in the Gulf of Mexico or Fukushima or on Wall Street, and then scurry madly even in the midst of disaster to shift responsibilities to the victims that make me tremble as I contemplate the human future. These predatory forces are made more formidable because they have cajoled most politicians into complicity and have many corporatized allies in the media that overwhelm the publics of the world with steady doses of misinformation delivered as if the search for truth was their only motivation.


    The awesome reality of current nuclear dangers in Japan are far stronger than these words of reassurance that claim the risks to health are minimal because the radioactivity are being contained to avoid dangerous levels of contamination. A more trustworthy measure of the perceived rising dangers can be gathered from the continual official expansions of the evacuation zone around the six Fukushima Daiichi reactors from 3 km to 10 km, and more recently to 18 km, coupled with the instructions to everyone caught in the region to stay indoors indefinitely, with windows and doors sealed. We can hope and pray that the four explosions that have so far taken place in the Fukushima Daiichi complex of reactors will not lead to further explosions and a full meltdown in one or more of the reactors. Even without a meltdown the near certain venting of highly toxic radioactive steam to prevent unmanageable pressure from building up due to the boiling water in the reactor cores and spent fuel rods is likely to spread risks and bad effects.  It is a policy dilemma that has assumed the form of a living nightmare: either allow the heat to rise and confront the high probability of reactor meltdowns or vent the steam and subject large numbers of persons in the vicinity and beyond to radioactivity, especially should the wind shift southwards carrying the steam toward Tokyo or westward toward northern Japan or Korea.  In reactors 1, 2, and 3 are at risk of meltdowns, while with the shutdown reactors 4,5, and 6 pose the threat of fire releasing radioactive steam from the spent fuel rods.


    We know that throughout Asia alone some 3,000 new reactors are either being built or have been planned and approved. We know that nuclear power has been touted in the last several years as a major source of energy to deal with future energy requirements, a way of overcoming the challenge of ‘peak oil’ and of combating global warming by some decrease in carbon emissions. We know that the nuclear industry will contend that it knows how to build safe reactors in the future that will withstand even such ‘impossible’ events that have wrought such havoc in the Sendai region of Japan, while at the same time lobbying for insurance schemes to avoid such risks. Some critics of nuclear energy facilities in Japan and elsewhere had warned that these Fukushima reactors sme built more than 40 years ago had become accident-prone and should no longer have been kept operational. And we know that governments will be under great pressure to renew the Faustian Bargain despite what should have been clear from the moment the bombs fell in 1945: This technology is far too unforgiving and lethal to be managed safely over time by human institutions, even if they were operated responsibly, which they are not. It is folly to persist, but it is foolhardy to expect the elites of the world to change course, despite this dramatic delivery of vivid reminders of human fallibility and culpability. We cannot hope to control the savageries of nature, although even these are being intensified by our refusal to take responsible steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but we can, if the will existed, learn to live within prudent limits even if this comes to mean a less materially abundant and an altered life style. The failure to take seriously the precautionary principle as a guide to social planning is a gathering dark cloud menacing all of our futures.


    Let us fervently hope that this Sendai disaster will not take further turns for the worse, but that the warnings already embedded in such happenings, will awaken enough people to the dangers on this path of hyper-modernity so that a politics of limits can arise to challenge the prevailing politics of limitless growth. Such a challenge must include the repudiation of a neoliberal worldview, insisting without compromise on an economics based on needs and people rather than on profit margins and capital efficiency. Advocacy of such a course is admittedly a long shot, but so is the deadly utopian realism of staying on the nuclear course, whether it be with weapons or reactors. This is what Sendai should teach all of us!  But will it?

  • A Final Wakeup Call?

    David KriegerOur hearts go out to the people of Japan who are suffering the devastating effects of one of the most powerful earthquakes in the past one hundred years, followed by a devastating tsunami.  Thousands are dead, injured and missing, and hundreds of thousands have been left homeless, many with limited food and water. 


    The greatest danger to the people of Japan, however, may lie ahead in the unfolding disaster of the damaged nuclear power plants at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station located 130 miles north of Tokyo.  Already, substantial radiation has been released from the fires, explosions and partial meltdowns of the radioactive fuel rods in these plants, brought about by loss of coolant in the reactor cores and the spent fuel pools.  The containment shells surrounding several of the reactors have been breached, allowing for the release of radiation into the environment.


    High radiation levels at the plants have resulted in reducing the work force trying to contain the radiation releases to skeleton crews, volunteers who are putting their own lives in jeopardy for the common good.  Keijiro Matsushima, an 82-year-old survivor of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, commented, “It’s like the third atomic bomb attack on Japan.  But this time, we made it ourselves.”


    The amount of radioactive material in the crippled reactors at Fukushima Daiichi dwarfs the amount in the Chernobyl plant, which 25 years ago had the worst nuclear power plant accident in history.  Residents have been told to evacuate from a 12-mile radius of the damaged Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plants, and told to stay indoors in a further 7-mile radius.  The United States has warned its citizens in Japan to stay beyond a 50-mile radius of the damaged power plants.  Many countries are helping their citizens to leave Japan altogether. 


    The major lessons to be drawn from the tragedy in Japan are: first, nature’s power is far beyond our ability to control; second, the nuclear industry, in Japan and elsewhere, has arrogantly pushed ahead with their dangerous technology, wrongly assuring the public there is no reason for concern; third, the reassurances of self-interested nuclear “experts” are not to be trusted; and fourth, the nuclear power plant failures in Japan are a final wake-up call to replace nuclear power with safe, sustainable and renewable forms of energy.


    There are 440 commercial nuclear reactors in the world.  Of these, the US has 104, nearly twice as many as Japan’s 55 nuclear power reactors.  Of the US reactors, 23 are of the same or similar design as those that are failing in Japan.  President Obama’s 2012 budget calls for $36 billion in loan guarantees to subsidize new nuclear power plants. 


    California, known for its propensity for earthquakes, has two nuclear power plants: one at Avila Beach, north of Santa Barbara; and one at San Onofre, between Los Angeles and San Diego.  Both plants are located near major fault lines.  The Diablo Canyon power plant at Avila Beach is situated near the San Andreas and Hosgri fault lines.  The San Onofre plant is located less than a mile from the Cristianitos fault line.  Diablo Canyon is designed to withstand a 7.5 magnitude earthquake and San Onofre to withstand a 7.0 magnitude earthquake.  Japan’s 9.0 magnitude earthquake has demonstrated, however, that the force of earthquakes can dramatically exceed expectations.


    Diablo Canyon nuclear reactors 1 and 2 made the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s list of top ten nuclear power sites with the highest risk of suffering core damage from an earthquake.  Living in Santa Barbara, downwind from those reactors, we should be worried.  The millions of people who live and work in New York City, within the evacuation range of the Indian Point 3 nuclear power plant, should also be worried because that plant is listed as number one on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s highest risk sites.


    We know that we humans cannot control earthquakes.  Nor can we control tsunamis or other natural disasters.  What we can control are our decisions about the use of technology.  We can say “No” to technologies that are catastrophically dangerous.  From my perspective, this would include any technologies that require an unattainable level of human perfection to prevent massive annihilation.  As we have seen in Japan, natural disasters and nuclear power plants are a potentially deadly mix.  The dangers grow even deadlier when human error is added to the equation. 


    In addition to their potential for catastrophic accidents, nuclear power plants are subject to deliberate attacks by terrorists or during warfare.  After more than half a century, there also remains no long-term solution for the storage of highly radioactive nuclear wastes, which will threaten future generations for many times longer than human civilization has existed.  Of critical concern as well, nuclear power plants use and create the fissile materials that can be used to make nuclear weapons.


    Mother Nature has given us a deadly warning that it is past time to end our reliance on nuclear power and invest instead in solar power, the only safe nuclear reactor that exists – 93 million miles from Earth.  The question is: Will the disaster in Japan open our eyes to the need for change, or will we be content to continue to tempt fate and simply hope that we do not become the next place on the planet where nuclear power fails catastrophically?

  • Nuclear Deterrence: Impeding Nuclear Disarmament

    David KriegerIn an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal, published on March 7, 2011, four former high-level US policy makers – George Shultz, William Perry, Henry Kissinger and Sam Nunn – focused their attention on nuclear deterrence.  They concurred that deterrence based on nuclear weapons is precarious, could destroy civilized life and raises enormous inhibitions against employing nuclear weapons.  They concluded that the US and Russia were “lucky” that nuclear weapons were not used during the Cold War, and asked: “Does the world want to continue to bet its survival on continued good fortune with a growing number of nuclear nations and adversaries globally?” 


    The four former policy makers argued that “nations should move forward together with a series of conceptual and practical steps toward deterrence that do not rely primarily on nuclear weapons or nuclear threats to maintain international peace and security.”  Their first step is to recognize that “there is a daunting new spectrum of global security threats” and that an “effective strategy to deal with these dangers must be developed.”  Their second step is to realize that reliance on nuclear weapons encourages or excuses nuclear proliferation.  Their third step is to cease the deployment of US and Russian nuclear arsenals in ways that “increase the danger of an accidental or unauthorized use of a nuclear weapon, or even a deliberate exchange based on a false warning.” 


    So far, so good.  Their fourth step, however, seems to be a non sequitur: “[A]s long as nuclear weapons exist, America must retain a safe, secure and reliable nuclear stockpile primarily to deter a nuclear attack and to reassure our allies through extended deterrence.”  The former policy makers had just reviewed the great dangers of relying upon nuclear deterrence, and then followed this by indicating the need for America to rely upon nuclear weapons for deterrence, including nuclear deterrence “extended” to US allies.  They also left unstated what uses the US nuclear stockpile might have other than deterring a nuclear attack.  It appears the former policy makers have chosen a “safe, secure and reliable” nuclear arsenal over a safe and secure citizenry.  Nuclear weapons undermine the possibility of a safe and secure citizenry.  As conceived, the modernization of US nuclear forces would also be expensive and provocative and would limit the possibilities for nuclear disarmament.  I’ve often wondered what is meant by a reliable nuclear arsenal: One with sufficient capacity to annihilate a potential enemy down to the last child?


    The four former policy makers do say that the US and Russia “must continue to lead the “build-down” and “must begin moving away from threatening force postures and deployments.”  But such leadership is needed not only for the “build-down,” but also to envision a world with zero nuclear weapons and to commit to doing what is necessary to achieve that vision. 


    In their fifth step, the group of four recognizes that “nuclear weapons may continue to appear relevant” to some nations.  They thus see the need to “redouble efforts” to resolve regional confrontations and conflicts.  Insightfully, they find, “A world without nuclear weapons will not simply be today’s world minus nuclear weapons.”  They demonstrate a lack of urgency, though, in suggesting that “over time” the US and its allies can work together to make changes to extended deterrence.


    The group of four concludes, “Moving from mutual assured destruction toward a new and more stable form of deterrence with decreasing nuclear risks and an increasing measure of assured security for all nations could prevent our worst nightmare from becoming a reality, and it could have a profoundly positive impact on the security of future generations.”


    Just a few weeks before the publication of this Wall Street Journal article on nuclear deterrence by George Shultz and his colleagues, the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation convened a conference in Santa Barbara on “The Dangers of Nuclear Deterrence.”  The conference concluded with a Santa Barbara Declaration: “Reject Nuclear Deterrence: An Urgent Call to Action.”  The Declaration states, “Nuclear deterrence is discriminatory, anti-democratic and unsustainable.  This doctrine must be discredited and replaced with an urgent commitment to achieve global nuclear disarmament.  We must change the discourse by speaking truth to power and speaking truth to each other.”  In other words, we cannot find nuclear deterrence “precarious” on the one hand, and seek to modernize America’s nuclear forces under the guise of keeping them “safe, secure and reliable” on the other hand. 


    The Santa Barbara Declaration concluded, “Before another nuclear weapon is used, nuclear deterrence must be replaced by humane, legal and moral security strategies.  We call upon people everywhere to join us in demanding that the nuclear weapon states and their allies reject nuclear deterrence and negotiate without delay a Nuclear Weapons Convention for the phased, verifiable, irreversible and transparent elimination of all nuclear weapons.”  The goal must be a world without nuclear weapons, and reliance on nuclear weapons for deterrence remains a major impediment to achieving that goal.

  • The Case for a Group Nobel Peace Prize for Hiroshima and Nagasaki’s Global Survivors

    This article was originally published on the blog of Akio Matsumura.


    The survivors of the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki–a group that represents not just Japan but many nations–carry memories invaluable to bridging the gap between violence and peace.  Their stories as the sole witnesses and survivors of nuclear weapons used as an act of war are the most powerful deterrent to future nuclear war.  There is not much time to carry their message forward; the bombings were many decades ago. The group and its message are fading.


    Historically, the Nobel Peace Prize has only been awarded to an institution or an individual, precluding groups from winning the Peace Prize. The Nobel Peace Committee should adjust its policies and bring renewed attention to the atrocities of nuclear weapons by awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to Hiroshima and Nagasaki’s global survivors.    


    The Grave Issue of Nuclear Security


    You wouldn’t have to be a betting man to say that nuclear security has been synonymous with international security for the past seven decades.  Today, other pressing concerns have crowded the top of the agenda, but nuclear security holds its weight among them.  The US Congress just passed the New START agreement to reduce nuclear stockpiles.  The international community is concerned with developments of programs and testing in several countries, including Iran and North Korea.  And the threat of proliferation among terrorists, especially in Pakistan, has the United States and other governments in panic.  Much of the world’s violent conflict directly relates to the perception of nuclear instability in South Asia and the Middle East.  While there are many safeguards in place to reduce the threat of nuclear proliferation or attack, such an important issue deserves to be viewed from several perspectives.


    I am Japanese, and the two atomic bombs the United States dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki—on August 6 and 9, 1945—have played a special role in my life.  I have spent much time investigating the horrific disaster, from watching documentary films of survivor stories and political movements against the atomic bomb to talking with survivors, politicians, and religious figures.


    Piecing the Puzzle Together


    Such a polarizing global event has many facets, and to gain a full perspective one must be able to see them all.  Because I worked at the UN and other international organizations for three decades, I was able to hear another side—the perspectives of those who suffered Japanese military aggression in China, Korea, the Philippines, and Dutch-Indonesians.


    Just as important a perspective came from the Americans who believe that dropping the atom bombs, while tragic, ended the war early and saved hundreds of thousands of lives.


    To be sure, the American use of the atom bomb in 1945 against the Japanese was terrible. Tens of thousands died instantly upon explosion, and many more died from radiation in the ensuing years.  The cities were razed.  But the memory has taken an enormous toll on the survivors, both the victims and the assailants.  How does one rebuild a country and life after such devastation?


    What about those who were in Hiroshima or Nagasaki in early August 1945 and managed to survive the explosions? Surely those who had lived through such carnage were unforgiving and resentful.  Understandably, many are.   But I was convinced that there was a different story.  I asked Mr. Tadayuki Takeda, a Hiroshima native and a friend from university, to help me find a new story: was there a victim who could transform that violent act into a promotion of peace?


    A Fresh Perspective


    In December 2006 I flew to Hiroshima to meet with Mr. Yuuki Yoshida, a victim of the Hiroshima atomic bomb. His story is incredible, but his outlook is more so.  Mr. Yoshida’s duty as a survivor, in his words, is to share his story and instill the great fear that nuclear weapons deserve.  His goal is to make sure the disaster of August 1945, the use of atomic or nuclear weapons, never occurs again. His message, along with those of the other remaining survivors, is invaluable for this purpose.
    Mr. Yoshida, who is 79 years old and has been crippled by Polio since birth, miraculously escaped death when the atomic bomb exploded over the city of Hiroshima.  His younger brother died two weeks later, and his eldest sister narrowly survived after undergoing more than a dozen operations.  She gave birth to a son after fifteen years despite strong worries about radiation.  (Her son, Mr. Kazufumi Yamashita, studied in Berlin under the guidance of the famous conductor Mr. Herbert von Karajan and has become one of the most popular conductors in Japan.)


    Mr. Yoshida and his family are Japanese but have a surprising background.  Mr. Yoshida’s mother was American.  Born in Hawaii, she moved to Hiroshima before World War II and gave birth to her children there.  In 2008 Mr. Yoshida moved to Luzon, Philippines, to honor those who died there at the hands of the Japanese military.


    Hiroshima and Nagasaki’s Global Survivors


    It had always been my impression that the victims of the atomic bombs were Japanese. But, after hearing of Mr. Yoshida’s American mother, I have since learned that the United States didn’t just bomb the Japanese in August 1945, but also citizens of China, Korea, the United States, the Philippines, the Netherlands, and Brazil—perhaps even many other countries.  There were survivors from all of these nations as well.  I had completely missed this perspective.  Survivors from all countries are carrying forth their story to deter future nuclear disasters.  This global memory is a bridge from suffering to peace that we cannot lose.


    When I learned of the survivors from across the world, I thought perhaps there were other nuclear cases I should consider.  Were there other atomic weapons survivors to be included this message? How do victims of the 1986 Chernobyl accident, and other nuclear energy accidents, fit in with the Hiroshima and Nagasaki victims?  What about the victims of nuclear bomb tests in Nevada, the Pacific Islands, and other countries?


    In 2007 I visited Moscow to attend a conference chaired by my old friend, Dr. Evgeny Velikhov, former vice president of the Soviet Academy of Sciences and oversaw the cleanup of the Chernobyl disaster.


    He made it very clear to me that Chernobyl was caused by human error.  An accident from the use of nuclear energy is tragic, but very different from the malicious and purposeful destruction of two cities.  He also told me that, although there were many victims of the bomb tests—especially many indigenous people in Nevada—they were not killed in an act of war, so their situation is not directly comparable to that of the survivors in Japan.


    Carrying Their Message Forward with the Nobel Peace Prize


    All survivors from so many nations have suffered so much and yet have demonstrated to society that we should provide a peaceful life for our children without hateful attitudes. The survivors are getting old and we could not have learned the valuable lessons they share if they had not continued to live or if they did not make such extraordinary efforts to live longer in order to pass their message on to us. I fear that they have little time left with us to continue sharing their message, and that we should work now to make sure it is known as widely as possible.


    How can we recognize their lofty mission and express our gratitude for their efforts to bridge hatred and create a peace that has its foundation in the non-use of nuclear weapons?


    Time Magazine named “YOU” as 2006’s Person of the Year.  What a powerful message. We each have the power to shape world.   If all of the atomic bomb survivors were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize as a group, the impact of their message would reach new heights and the Committee would establish a new precedent in who—a group, not just an individual or institution—could receive the prize. And what better way to honor Hiroshima and Nagasaki’s global survivors’ great push for peace while bringing a powerful but fading message to the forefront of public consciousness?


    A copy of Nobel Peace Prize award and its citation would be presented to each survivor by governors or mayors in countries of Japan, America, China, Korea, Philippines, Netherlands, Brazil and any other countries with survivors. I have no doubt that such an occasion would promote a position that is against nuclear weapons in a non-political manner and do much for reducing violence and the serious nuclear threat we face.


    The epitaph carved into the stone coffin at the Hiroshima City Peace Memorial reads:


            “Let all souls here rest in peace, for we shall not repeat the evils.”


    We the world have a moral obligation to pass the torch of positive force on to the next generations so that they may partake in our wisdom, not just our mistakes.  The survivors and victims of the atomic bombs have sacrificed much to pass on this torch.  By awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to all of the atomic bombs’ survivors–a group from many nations–the Nobel Peace Committee would honor a generation devoted to creating peace rather than resenting harm, as well as underscore its commitment to stopping these evils from reoccurring.


    Response from Bill Wickersham


    I have recently read your very compelling article “The Powerful and Fading Message of Hiroshima and Nagasaki’s Global Survivors:  The Case for a Group Nobel Prize.” As a long time professor of peace studies, and one who has promoted nuclear disarmament for almost 50 years, I think your blog and Nobel Peace Prize campaign are very critical elements for the promotion of a worldwide movement for the abolition of nuclear weapons from Planet Earth.


    Over the years, my sub-specialty in educational psychology and peace studies has been the problem of social and psychological obstacles which hinder personal, group, national and international efforts to mobilize public demand for the elimination of the omnicidal threat.  Unfortunately, those obstacles, including ignorance, denial and apathy, have blocked most such mobilization, with the possible exception of the worldwide ” Nuclear Freeze ” movement of the 1980s, which was aimed more at arms control than truly deep cuts and abolition of nuclear weapons.


    Historically, hundreds of fine non-governmental organizations have provided excellent research, information and program/action recommendations aimed at citizen involvement on behalf of nuclear disarmament.  In so doing, the NGOs have provided essential data for the “head” but, in large measure, have failed to truly reach the “heart”  of their audiences in a way that strongly moves people to action.


    One major exception to this failing was the project initiated by my former boss, noted editor and peace advocate, the late Norman Cousins, who in 1955, brought 25 young female Japanese A-bomb survivors to the United States for plastic surgery, other medical treatment, and meetings with prominent U.S. leaders and other U.S. citizens.  The medical care was donated by New York’s Mount Sinai Hospital, and involved 125 operations on the women, rebuilding lips, noses, hands, and eyelids, thus allowing them a promising future. Other expenses were covered by the Quakers and other donors.  This project was important for two reasons.  It was a fine example of human reconciliation, and it also helped many Americans to concretely FEEL and understand the real human price of nuclear war.  The problem was no longer an abstraction for the Americans who met with, and interacted with the young Japanese women.  Philosopher Jean Paul Sartre has noted that the biggest crime of our time is to make that which is concrete into something that is abstract. And, of course, this is a major roadblock of the whole issue of nuclear extinction without representation.  It is the ultimate abstraction for many people.  Norman’s project overcame this obstacle, and for a brief period, his project stimulated several U.S. NGOs to step up their organizing efforts for nuclear disarmament.  It is unfortunate that he did not have a blog such as yours to reach the hearts of people everywhere.


    In the past few years, our Missouri University Nuclear Disarmament Education Team (MUNDET), other elements of our peace studies program and our Mid-Missouri chapter of Veterans for Peace, have used films and photographic exhibits of the nuclear devastation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to reach the emotional core of our students, civic and faith groups, and other audiences.  We have found this approach to be very effective in terms of attitude change on the part of most participants.  We, like you, have steered clear of the U.S assailant/Japanese victim theme and “blame game” approach, and have instead stressed the incredible danger and insanity of the nuclear deterrence myth.


    Children and adults around the world are frequently taught that we must learn the lessons of history so we will not repeat the repeat the mistakes of the past.  This is precisely the approach you are so skillfully offering with your very attractive website, blog and carefully crafted campaign for the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to the Hiroshima and Nagasaki survivors, including several from countries other than Japan who were residents in those cities at the time of the atomic bombings. Their history and voices of reconciliation are truly the most important messages required by the human species if it is to survive the nuclear madness. Consequently, that history and their voices must not be allowed to fade away.


    It is my sincere hope that the Nobel Peace Prize Committee will accept your proposal for a group prize arrangement for the A-bomb survivors.  I believe such an arrangement could be a triggering mechanism for widespread mobilization of citizens everywhere on behalf of nuclear weapons abolition.  If there is any way that I and our MUNDET team may be of assistance in your campaign,  please let me know.

  • University Students Create Peace Leadership Chapter

    The Nova Southeastern University chapter of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s Peace Leadership Program has successfully completed its first cycle! The cycle lasted a total of 8 sessions with each session focusing on the application of specific leadership skills in promoting peace at the interpersonal, intergroup and international level. Although the program was marketed to various disciplines in the undergraduate school, the majority of participants were currently enrolled in the Conflict Analysis and Resolution graduate program at NSU. Each session included a skill building training, participation in a related activity, a lively discussion on a current domestic or international conflict and a presentation made by one of the participants. The format of the sessions encouraged participants to learn leadership skills, brainstorm peaceful resolutions to current conflicts, and practice leadership through presenting on a topic they felt passionately about.



    Back row from left to right: Safeer Bhatti (USA), Lauren Marx (USA), Farouk Raheemson (Nigeria), Grace Okoye (Nigeria), Keyvan Aarabi (Iran/USA), NWANNE DORIS ELEKWACHI (Nigeria), Stacy-Ann Palmer (Jamaica/USA).


    Front row from left to right: Bobby Huen (China/USA), Athena Passera (Trinidad/USA), Ian Dozier (USA), Roxan A Anderson (USA)


    The participants in cycle 1 hailed from Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Iran and the U.S and typically had a variety of academic and professional backgrounds. The diversity of the group provided a spectrum of cultural and intellectual perspectives that produced a remarkably high quality of social and political discourse during the sessions. One of the most powerful experiences throughout the cycle occurred during session 5 when the students participated in an international negotiation simulation. The simulation divided the participants into two groups with one group representing Israeli interests and the other Palestinian interests in a dispute over water resources in the West Bank. During the simulation students were asked to perform as leaders, navigating diverging goals, emotional flare-ups, and deep seated feelings of mistrust to reach a peaceful resolution. The final resolution reflected hours of negotiation and brainstorming. This activity helped students understand the complexities in international conflicts, the often incompatible interests of leaders and the power of creativity in brokering a peaceful resolution.   


    As the founder and lead facilitator of the NSU chapter of the NAPF Peace Leadership Program I had a the opportunity to promote the message of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation while given the freedom to find creative mediums to educate and motivate future peace leaders. Paul Chappell provided me with the mentorship and support I needed to successfully promote, conduct and complete this cycle. My experience helped me to build upon my own skills as a public speaker, teacher and leader for peace. In addition to imparting knowledge, I also learned an incredible amount of information from the participants. In the first session the group watched the NAPF video titled The Myth of Nuclear Deterrence. Following the video, I asked each student, if they were the leader of their respective country, to state the position they would take on nuclear arms. The answers varied, and I learned the challenges of changing the dominant role that deterrence plays in nuclear discourse. Listening to the rationale behind each student’s position helped me to learn the impact that prevailing social dogma and acculturation has on the formation of opinions on nuclear weapons.


    The first cycle of the NSU Chapter has been successfully completed with a total of 10 students graduating and the group is currently working on doing philanthropy work by donating their time to helping those in our community. A wonderful product of this cycle was the creation of a cohesive group that is unified by the shared goal for peace. One aspect that made my role easier was having the support of all of the group members and, in particular, having Lauren Marx as a co-facilitator and co-developer. The second cycle is about to begin with a new group of students and a new set of perspectives through which to understand and develop leadership for peace. I will learn from this experience and work towards making each new cycle a better version of the first. The NAPF Peace Leadership program has just begun its impact in South Florida. I am committed to pushing ahead by beginning the second cycle at NSU and actively working toward starting new chapters at other universities here in South Florida. I am eternally grateful for this opportunity to work with the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, including Paul Chappell, Rick Wayman and Dr. David Krieger, to help promote their mission toward a more peaceful nuclear free world.  

  • The Ultimate Weapon of Terrorism

    Nuclear weapons are the ultimate weapon of terrorism, whether in the hands of a terrorist organization or those of the leader of a country.  They are weapons of mass annihilation that kill indiscriminately – men, women and children.  Most people fear the possibility of these weapons falling into the hands of terrorist organizations, but never stop to consider that in any hands they are terrorist weapons. 


    Given the terrorist nature of nuclear weapons and their capacity to destroy civilization, what makes them acceptable to so many people?  Or, at a minimum, what makes so many people complacent in the face of nuclear threats?  These are questions I have grappled with for many decades.  


    The acceptability of nuclear weapons is rooted in the theory of nuclear deterrence, which its proponents argue has kept and will keep the peace.  This theory is based upon many assumptions concerning human behavior.  For example, it assumes the rationality of political and military leaders.  It seems quite evident that not all leaders behave rationally at all times and under all circumstances.  The theory requires clear communications and the threat to use nuclear weapons in retaliation must be believed by opposing leaders, but as we know communications are not always clear and misperceptions may inform beliefs.


    There is a “madman” theory of nuclear deterrence.  It posits that to be truly believable, the leader of a nuclear armed state must exhibit behavior that appears sufficiently insane to lead opposing leaders to believe that he would actually use the weapons.  Thus, insanity, or at least the impression of it, is built into the system.  At a systems level, can anyone doubt that the reciprocal threats of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) were truly mad, as in insane?


    Another aspect of deterrence theory is that it requires a territory against which to retaliate.  Thus, the theory is not valid in relation to a non-state terrorist organization.  If a country has no place to retaliate, there can be no nuclear deterrence.  If a terrorist organization acquires a nuclear weapon, it will not be deterred by threat of nuclear retaliation.  This places a fuse on the nuclear threat, and means that there must be zero tolerance for a non-state terrorist organization to acquire a nuclear capability.


    There should also be zero tolerance for states to possess nuclear weapons.  I am not limiting this observation to states that seek to develop nuclear arsenals.  I mean all states and, most importantly, those already in possession of nuclear weapons.  Current nuclear arsenals may be used by accident, miscalculation or intention.  And so long as some states possess nuclear weapons and base their security upon them, there will be an incentive for nuclear proliferation.


    Widespread nuclear complacency is difficult to understand.  Most people are aware of the tremendous damage that nuclear weapons can do, but perhaps feel reassured that the weapons have not been used since 1945.  The weapons are largely out of sight and out of mind.  It is also possible that people feel impotent to influence nuclear policy and thus defer to experts and policy makers.  This is unfortunate because until large numbers of people assert themselves on the need to eliminate nuclear weapons, the countries with nuclear weapons will continue to rely upon them to their peril and to the world’s peril.


    The New START agreement between the US and Russia is a modest step forward in reducing the number of deployed strategic nuclear weapons on each side to 1,550 and the number of deployed delivery vehicles to 700.  The greatest value of the treaty may be in restoring inspections of each side’s nuclear arsenal by the other side.  But these steps provide only meager progress.  At the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation we advocate the following next steps forward:



    • Reducing the total number of nuclear weapons – strategic, tactical and reserve – to under 1,000 on each side. 

    • Making a binding commitment to “No First Use” of nuclear weapons and to never using nuclear weapons under any circumstances against non-nuclear weapon states. 

    • De-alerting all nuclear weapons so that there will be no use by accident, miscalculation or in a fit of anger. 

    • Placing limits on missile defense systems and banning space weapons. 

    • Commencing multilateral negotiations for a Nuclear Weapons Convention, which would ban all nuclear weapons worldwide in a phased, verifiable, irreversible and transparent manner.

    These steps would be indications that the immorality, illegality and cowardice of threatening to use nuclear weapons were being met with a seriousness of purpose.  It is not necessary for ignorance, apathy and complacency to dominate the nuclear arena.  With due regard for the sanctity of life and for future generations, we can do better than to live with such inertia.  We can eliminate a weapon that threatens civilization and human survival; we can move to zero, the only stable number of nuclear weapons.  This is the greatest challenge of our time, a challenge that we must respond to with engagement and persistence.  It is time to replace Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) with Planetary Assured Security and Survival (PASS).