Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Blog

  • Nuclear Weapons: The Goal is Zero

    David KriegerNuclear weapons release vast amounts of energy.  They do this by breaking apart the bonds of the atom, but this is not all they break apart.  They also break apart the bonds of our relationships with the Earth, with other forms of life and with the future.  This is part of the nuclear fallout that occurred at Hiroshima and Nagasaki and has continued through the Nuclear Age.


    Nuclear weapons are capable of destroying cities, as was demonstrated by the US attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  We know that the destructive capacity of these weapons does not end there.  They are also capable of destroying countries and civilization as we know it.  The philosopher John Somerville coined the term “omnicide” to describe the potential destructive capacity of nuclear weapons – the death of all.  In the Nuclear Age, our destructive capacity has moved from homicide to genocide to omnicide. 


    In considering the fallout of nuclear weapons, we might ask: what have these weapons done to our psyches?  The destructive potential of our nuclear inventions transcends the death of an individual or group and shows us a glimpse of the death of all.  For those of us willing to look, this is a fearful view into the abyss, a darkened world of incineration and shadows, a world barren of life.  Although nuclear weapons bring us close to the precipice of such a world, most of us choose to avert our eyes and our minds from grasping the reality.  We gamble the human future on the judgment and human fallibility of political and military leaders.  This strikes me as a very bad bet. 


    It is argued that no weapon ever created has been discarded until another, more powerful weapon has taken its place.  But with nuclear weapons we do not have this luxury.  Nuclear weapons force us to put aside our childish and tribal ways of solving conflicts.  They push us to higher levels of maturity.  We cannot continue our old ways and survive in a nuclear-armed world. 


    Ten Reasons to Abolish Nuclear Weapons


    Let me share with you ten reasons to abolish nuclear weapons:


    1. They are long-distance killing machines incapable of discriminating between soldiers and civilians, the aged and the newly born, or between men, women and children.   As such, they are instruments of dehumanization as well as annihilation.


    2. They threaten the destruction of cities, countries and civilization; of all that is sacred, of all that is human, of all that exists.  Nuclear war could cause deadly climate change, putting human existence at risk. 


    3. They threaten to foreclose the future, negating our common responsibility to future generations.


    4. They make cowards of their possessors, and in their use there can be no decency or honor.  This was recognized by most of the leading generals and admirals of World War II, including Dwight Eisenhower, Hap Arnold, and William Leahy. 


    5. They divide the world’s nations into nuclear “haves” and “have-nots,” bestowing false and unwarranted prestige and privilege on those that possess them. 


    6. They are a distortion of science and technology, siphoning off our scientific and technological resources and twisting our knowledge of nature to destructive purposes.  


    7. They mock international law, displacing it with an allegiance to raw power.  The International Court of Justice has ruled that the threat or use of nuclear weapons is generally illegal and any use that violated international humanitarian law would be illegal.  It is virtually impossible to imagine a threat or use of nuclear weapons that would not violate international humanitarian law (fail to discriminate between soldiers and civilians, cause unnecessary suffering or be disproportionate to a preceding attack). 


    8. They waste our resources on the development of instruments of annihilation.  The United States alone has spent over $7.5 trillion on nuclear weapons and their delivery systems since the onset of the Nuclear Age.


    9. They concentrate power in the hands of a small group of individuals and, in doing so, undermine democracy.


    10. They are morally abhorrent, as recognized by virtually every religious organization, and their mere existence corrupts our humanity. 


    New START


    In December 2010, the US Senate voted 71-26 to ratify the New START agreement with Russia.  It was a struggle to obtain the requisite two-thirds majority of the Senate needed for ratification, but in the end enough Republicans joined with the Democrats to assure the treaty’s ratification.  With previous strategic arms reduction treaties, however, the votes for ratification were largely bipartisan, reflected by overwhelming majorities. 


    The New START agreement was described by Admiral Mike Mullen, the chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, as “vital to national security.”  The treaty has four important benefits. 


    First, it will reduce the number of deployed strategic nuclear weapons on each side to 1,550 by the year 2017.  This is about a one-third reduction from the 2,200 agreed to in the 2002 Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (SORT).  However, there are some accounting irregularities that were agreed to in New START, such as counting each bomber plane as having one nuclear weapon even though it could carry up to 20. 


    Second, it will reduce the number of delivery vehicles for nuclear weapons to 800 total, with an upper limit of 700 of these deployed. 


    Third, it will put inspectors back on the ground in both countries to verify compliance with the treaty.  There have been no inspections since December 2009, when the START I agreement expired. 


    Finally, it will hopefully keep the US and Russia moving forward on reducing their arsenals still further in the years to come.  A failure to ratify the New START agreement would have been disastrous for US-Russia cooperation.


    Despite the important benefits of the treaty, however, it should not be forgotten that it still leaves the US and Russia with 1,550 deployed strategic weapons each, more than enough to destroy the world many times over.  It also does not place limits on the shorter-range tactical nuclear weapons or the strategic nuclear weapons held in reserve.  These issues will be on the agenda of future US-Russia negotiations.


    There was also a heavy price pledged by President Obama for obtaining Republican votes for the treaty, approximately $185 billion over the next ten years.  About $85 billion will go to the modernization of the nuclear infrastructure in the country and the modernization of the US nuclear arsenal.  Another $100 billion will go to improving the delivery vehicles to carry the nuclear weapons.  These expensive improvements to US nuclear forces cast reasonable doubt on the seriousness of the US commitment to nuclear disarmament.


    The Republicans were also able to extract a promise from President Obama regarding missile defenses.  As a candidate for President in October 2007, Obama said, “I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems.”  In an effort to get the New START agreement ratified, President Obama wrote in December 2010 to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, “…as long as I am President, and as long as the Congress provides the necessary funding, the United States will continue to develop and deploy effective missile defenses to protect the United States, our deployed forces, and our allies and partners.”  Candidate Obama had it right that missile defense systems were “unproven.”  President Obama had it wrong that such systems are “effective.”  In recent months, two missile defense tests from Vandenberg Air Force base have been admitted failures with no intercepts, and these were simple tests without multiple attack missiles or decoys.


    New START is only what it says – a start.  The only stable number of nuclear weapons in the world is zero, and this must be our goal.  The way to get to zero is through a negotiated Nuclear Weapons Convention, a new treaty for the phased, verifiable, irreversible and transparent elimination of nuclear weapons.  A Nuclear Weapons Convention will require leadership from the US and other countries.  Leaders must be pushed from below.  In effect, the people must lead their leaders.  Achieving the goal of Zero must start with each of us.


    Implementing Change


    The path to achieving change in the Nuclear Age starts with the implementation of some traditional means for bringing about change: conscience, compassion, courage, cooperation, creativity and commitment.  


    Conscience is the voice inside that distinguishes right from wrong, and moves us to take action for what is right.  It is a capacity that is uniquely human.  We can recognize right from wrong and choose our course.  With conscience there is always choice.


    Compassion is the force of love put into action.  Along with poet John Donne, we must recognize that we are “a part of the continent, a piece of the main.”  We must care for the Earth and all its inhabitants.  Compassion does not recognize borders.  We all share a common Earth.  We are all created equal.  We are all diminished by nuclear threats or any other threats to the well-being of people anywhere. 


    It takes courage to think differently, to break away from the group-think of the tribe.  It takes courage to express compassion and to embrace the world.  It takes courage to wage peace rather than war. 


    Cooperation is needed to solve the world’s great problems.  There is no significant global problem – war, abuses of human rights, environmental degradation, climate change, nuclear threat – that can be solved by any one nation alone.  It takes not only a village, but a world to bring about the changes that are needed.


    Creativity is also essential to change.  It will take new and creative ways of thinking to prevent the ultimate catastrophe to ourselves and our fellow inhabitants of Earth.  Einstein said prophetically, “The unleashed power of the atom has changed everything save our modes of thinking, and thus we drift toward unparalleled catastrophe.”  We must change our modes of thinking, and replace the old patterns with new ones.  We must become world citizens and peace leaders.


    Commitment will keep you going when the goal seems distant and the obstacles seem overwhelming.  No great goal is easy to attain, but some goals – and I would place the abolition of nuclear weapons among these – are challenges that cannot be ignored or cast aside.  The future, which cannot speak for itself and has only our voice, deserves our commitment.

  • The Legacy of Christina Taylor Green

    Vaya aquí para la versión española.


    Ruben ArvizuWhen Jared Lee Loughner cowardly shot a group of people gathered exercising a fundamental act of democracy, his mission was to cause death, havoc and dismay.  Democratic Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, was conducting an open dialogue with her constituents outside a supermarket in Tucson, Arizona, when she was gravely wounded and remains in stable but critical condition. There were 11 other people gravely wounded.


    The list of dead includes John M. Roll, a respected federal judge, Dorwin Stoddard who shielded his wife, Mavanell, with his own body, Phyllis Schnell, a widow and great-grandmother,  Gabe Zimmerman,  Congresswoman Gifford’s assistant director of community outreach, who was 30 years old and engaged to be married,  Dorothy Morris, a lady of 76 years. And Christina Taylor Green, only nine years old.


    Christina’s passage through life was short, yet full of enormous significance, as exemplified by her optimism, her joy for life, nature, her love for family, friends and her interest in learning how to better serve her country. Christina went to the Gifford event to learn more about the political process.


    Being one of the 50 babies born on the day of the fateful 9/11/2001 featured in the book Faces of Hope: Babies Born on 9/11, she and those other babies represent a glimmer of hope after one of the most tragic events in U.S. history.  She knew the meaning of being born on a date that marked a radical change in politics and international relationships. Her desire to learn how to conduct a democratic life led her to be a member of the student council and became a leader in her school, Mesa Verde Elementary. Her parents have said she wanted to eliminate hatreds and prejudices that divide us rather than unite us. Her life, as defined by her father, John Green,  “she was vibrant,  she was the best daughter in the world, and beautiful in her nine years of existence.”


    Christina was part of the new generation born in this 21st century that could  lead us towards a path to make urgent changes we need in a society increasingly apathetic and selfish.


    We at NAPF firmly believe that being free of nuclear weapons is the primary mission to safeguard the human race, and we pay a humble tribute to this lovely little girl filled with love for her family and all who were fortunate enough to know her. Her legacy should be a positive example for all of us who live now and for future generations.

  • After New START: Where Does Nuclear Disarmament Go from Here?


    This article was originally published on the History News Network.


    Lawrence WittnerWith U.S. Senate ratification of the New START treaty on December 22, supporters of nuclear disarmament won an important victory.  Signed by President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev last April, the treaty commits the two nations to cut the number of their deployed strategic (i.e. long-range) nuclear warheads to 1,550 each—a reduction of 30 percent in the number of these weapons of mass destruction.  By providing for both a cutback in nuclear weapons and an elaborate inspection system to enforce it, New START is the most important nuclear disarmament treaty for a generation.


    Nevertheless, the difficult battle to secure Senate ratification indicates that making further progress on nuclear disarmament will not be easy.  Treaty ratification requires a positive vote by two-thirds of the Senate and, to secure the necessary Republican support, Obama promised nearly $185 billion over the next decade for “modernizing” the U.S. nuclear weapons production complex and nuclear weapons delivery vehicles.  Even with this enormous concession to nuclear enthusiasts—a hefty “bribe,” in the view of unhappy arms control and disarmament organizations—Senator Jon Kyl, the Republican point man on the issue, continued to oppose New START and ultimately voted against it.  So did most other Republican senators, including Mitch McConnell (Senate Republican leader) and John McCain (the latest Republican presidential candidate).  Leading candidates for the GOP presidential nomination in 2012, including Mitt Romney and Sarah Palin, also opposed the treaty.  As a result, New START squeaked through the Senate by a narrow margin.  With six additional Republicans entering the Senate in January, treaty ratification will become much harder.


    So where do the possibilities for progress on nuclear disarmament lie in the future?


    One obvious focus for action is ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT).  Signed by the United States and most other nations in 1996, the treaty provides for a total ban on the nuclear explosions that serve as the basis for the development of new nuclear weapons.  This ban would be enforced by an extensive international verification system.  Republican opposition blocked Senate ratification of the CTBT in 1999, and President George W. Bush—hostile to this arms control measure and others—refused to resubmit the treaty.  Nevertheless, President Obama has consistently supported ratification of the CTBT, and has promised to bring it before the Senate once again.  After the bruising battle over the START Treaty and in the context of heightened Republican strength in the new Senate, however, he might now change his mind.


    A more promising area for progress is a follow-up nuclear disarmament agreement between the United States and Russia.  As these two nations possess the vast majority of the world’s nuclear weapons, other countries have long argued that, before progress can be made in reducing the arsenals of the other nuclear powers or blocking nuclear proliferation, the two nuclear giants must cut their nuclear stockpiles substantially.  In fact, officials from both the United States and Russia have spoken of another round of START negotiations that would reduce their deployment of strategic warheads to 1,000 each.  There is also pressure to cut the number of tactical nuclear weapons they possess—especially the very large numbers still maintained by Russia.  Indeed, Republican opponents of the New START treaty seized on the tactical nuclear weapons issue to argue that the real need for a treaty lay in the tactical weapons area.  Given their rhetorical stance, it might be useful to confront them with such a treaty.


    Nevertheless, stumbling blocks remain to a new arms treaty with Russia.  Not only are the Republicans likely to use their enhanced Senate strength to block its ratification, but the Russians might refuse to accept a new agreement.  The apparent reason for Russian reluctance is U.S. government insistence upon deploying a missile defense system in Europe, on Russian borders.  Although the Obama administration does not appear enthusiastic about missile defense, it has given way before Republican demands to install it.  Conversely, if the administration bargains away missile defense in treaty negotiations with the Russians, it seems quite likely that Republicans will strongly oppose the treaty.


    Perhaps the most promising area for disarmament progress doesn’t involve treaty negotiations or ratification, but simply blocking nuclear “modernization.”  After all, Senator Kyl and most Republicans didn’t accept the “bribe” offered them, but continued to oppose the New START treaty.  Why, then, should the Obama administration follow through on providing $185 billion for refurbishing the U.S. nuclear weapons complex, especially when such a program so clearly flies in the face of his pledge to work for a nuclear weapons-free world? 


    Even if the administration sticks to its “modernization” line, however, there is no reason for other forces, inside and outside Congress, to do so.  Over the coming years, in the midst of a huge debate on budgetary priorities, there will be a fierce battle over scarce government resources.  Are angry seniors (concerned about cutbacks in Social Security and Medicare), parents, students, and teachers (concerned about cutbacks in education), the hungry, homeless, and unemployed (concerned about the collapse of the social safety net), and other groups (facing serious attacks on their living standards) going to welcome spending $185 billion for new nuclear weapons facilities?  Certainly groups with domestic spending priorities, plus peace and disarmament groups, are going to press congress to move the money from funding wars and weapons to meeting social needs.  Perhaps they will succeed.


    Thus, in the next two years, the Republicans may end up choking off the opportunities for negotiated disarmament and opening the floodgates to unilateral action. 

  • Apocalypse Never: Assuring a Future for Humanity

    Apocalypse NeverIn Apocalypse Never, Forging a Path to a Nuclear Weapon-Free World (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2010), author Tad Daley explores the dangers of the Nuclear Age, argues that the only way to prevent future nuclear catastrophes is to eliminate the weapons and provides a roadmap to achieve this goal. While it is a subject that many Americans prefer to avoid or deny, the threats of nuclear devastation are all too real. 


    When it comes to the serious perils that nuclear weapons pose to the continuation of human civilization that has developed over the past 10,000 years, and to the human future, far too many Americans remain ignorant and apathetic. Perhaps they believe that if they do not think about nuclear dangers, the dangers will disappear. That belief is dispelled by Daley’s important book.


    When the Cold War ended with the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, many people thought that the nuclear threat to humanity had ended. In fact, the thaw in US-Russian relations gave that appearance. Large numbers of nuclear weapons were eliminated from US and Russian arsenals, but not enough. There are still some 20,000 nuclear weapons in the arsenals of the two countries. There are also an increasing number of nuclear weapon states and potential nuclear weapon states. Today there are nine countries in possession of nuclear weapons and still other countries that have developed or are developing the capabilities to become nuclear weapon states.


    Apocalypse Never presents a comprehensive overview of the possibilities of nuclear terrorism, accidental nuclear war, mismanagement of a nuclear crisis, and the intentional use of nuclear weapons. One cannot read about these dangers and the close calls that have occurred in the past and remain complacent. The reality is that there must be zero tolerance for nuclear weapons proliferating to terrorist organizations, such as al Qaeda, that cannot be deterred from nuclear attack because they cannot be located. There must also be zero tolerance for accidental nuclear war or errors in crisis management that would allow a crisis to get out of control and go nuclear. 


    While zero tolerance is perhaps an unrealistically high standard, it is the only acceptable standard. Anything less could result in a nuclear catastrophe. And this standard must be maintained not only by the US, which has already had more than its share of slip-ups, but by all nuclear weapon states and all that may emerge in the future. 


    Daley points out that one of the greatest problems of the Nuclear Age is America’s nuclear hypocrisy, its double standards and its do-as-I-say-not as-I-do approach to international treaties and relations among countries. The US, for example, has one standard for its ally Israel’s nuclear arsenal (tolerance and silence) and another for countries such as Iraq and Iran (preventive war and regime change, and threat of attack, respectively). As any parent knows, double standards don’t hold up over time.   As a result, America is failing in what is perhaps its most important leadership role. It is failing to discipline its policy to a single standard for all, including itself, a standard that must be zero nuclear weapons rather than zero tolerance only for the countries disapproved of by the US.


    Roughly half of Daley’s book elucidates the dangers of continuing with the nuclear status quo. It is clear, to quote William Butler Yeats, “Things fall apart; the center cannot hold….” Either the world will spin off toward nuclear proliferation and nuclear catastrophe; or, as a far preferable alternative, we will eliminate nuclear weapons from the world. The latter alternative is the subject of the second half of Apocalypse Never. It is the alternative that common sense and rationality dictate.  It is also dictated by international law, specifically by Article VI of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which calls for the “good faith” pursuit of nuclear disarmament. This was the principal trade-off in the treaty, promised by the nuclear weapon states to the non-nuclear weapon states, the vast majority of the countries in the world that agreed not to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons. 


    As Daley rightly points out, the NPT should properly have been named the Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Elimination Treaty. Adding the word “elimination” to the title of the treaty would have made it readily understandable to the public that the treaty was not only about non-proliferation, but also about eliminating the existing weapons. The International Court of Justice, the world’s highest court, advised in 1996 that the nuclear weapon states have an obligation to complete the task of achieving nuclear disarmament in all its aspects.


    Of course, it will not be easy to eliminate all nuclear weapons in the world; it is, in fact, the great challenge that we face in the Nuclear Age. Daley makes a strong case, however, that this is a goal that can be accomplished. He assesses the dangers of a “breakout” scenario and finds that a structure could be established with sufficient disincentives so that the costs of breakout would far exceed the benefits. The path we are currently on is nearly certain to lead to future catastrophes. 


    Those who think about the future and have a role in designing it must not shy away from the conclusion, reached by the survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, that nuclear weapons and human beings cannot co-exist. The weapons are incompatible with a human future. They put all humanity on the endangered species list. We need to awaken to this reality and then, in Daley’s vision, “build the architecture of a nuclear weapon-free world.”


    Another way in which Daley conceptualizes our choices is: apocalypse soon or, as the book is titled, Apocalypse Never. When it comes to nuclear apocalypse, there is no place for neutrality or complacency. It is a life-or-death struggle between humans and the tools we have created, the long-distance devices of mass annihilation we call nuclear weapons. These weapons challenge our humanity. The mere existence of these weapons is a call to action. 


    Daley’s book provides the background and the vision for individuals to become informed and effective citizens of the Nuclear Age and to fulfill our shared responsibility to pass the world on intact to the next generation. We are the first generation in human history to run the risk of failing in that responsibility. To assure that we succeed, individuals must become agents of change.  The existential threat of nuclear weapons is not an issue for leaders alone. In fact, the issue is far too important to be left only in the hands of leaders. The people must care enough to lead their leaders.    


    Apocalypse Never takes the abolition of nuclear weapons out of the realm of utopian dream, pointing the way to a citizen-led political project. I urge you to read this book and, in the interests of all humanity, to become engaged in the great goal of ridding the world of nuclear weapons.

  • An Ottawa Process for Nukes?

    2010_12_31_ware_ottawa.pdf

  • Un Sueño Tonto?

    Click here for the English version.


    Recientemente llegó a la Nuclear Age Peace Foundation una nota que decía: “¿Están ustedes locos? El genio nuclear está fuera de la botella y no volverá a entrar.  ¡Muy pronto tendrán armas nucleares hasta simples individuos! Dejen de perder su tiempo en este sueño tonto.”  El autor de la nota, para su crédito, firmó con su nombre, y también indicó que es un ex coronel de la Fuerza Aérea de los EE.UU..
     
    El coronel se plantea una pregunta fundamental: ¿Estamos fuera de la realidad creyendo que el cambio es posible y que los humanos podrían encontrar una manera de cooperar para eliminar la amenaza existencial que las armas nucleares plantean a la humanidad -y todas las otras formas de vida?.  Tal vez así sea, pero me parece que por el futuro de la civilización, de la especie humana y de las otras formas de vida complejas vale la pena el esfuerzo. La era nuclear es distinta a los períodos que le precedieron en tener la capacidad para poner fin a la existencia de vida en el planeta. La lucha por la eliminación de las armas nucleares es también la lucha por la supervivencia humana y de los derechos de las generaciones futuras. Siempre he creído que tenemos una opción: las armas nucleares o el futuro humano. Junto con los supervivientes de Hiroshima y Nagasaki, creo que es poco probable que ambas cosas sean posibles.
     
    Luego,  el coronel afirma que “el genio nuclear está fuera de la botella y no volverá a entrar” Supongo que esto significa que el conocimiento de cómo crear armas nucleares existe y no puede ser borrado. Por supuesto, el conocimiento existe ahora. El desafío es si los países deciden eliminar las armas nucleares en su interés común, o si van a quedar paralizados por el miedo a no intentarlo. El conocimiento por sí solo no es suficiente para fabricar armas nucleares. Se necesitan también habilidades científicas y de ingeniería al igual que los materiales nucleares. Tal vez no haya un método infalible para asegurar la eliminación de las armas nucleares, pero tampoco existe ningún método infalible que asegure que las armas nucleares existentes no serán utilizadas en una guerra nuclear que podría aniquilar a  a miles de millones de personas y destruir la civilización.
     
    La pregunta es: ¿cuál es el camino más seguro para la humanidad? Por un lado, buscar la eliminación gradual, verificable e irreversible de las armas nucleares y salvaguardias internacionales efectivas sobre los materiales nucleares, o, por el contrario, continuar con el status quo de un mundo dividido en un número pequeño pero creciente de quienes “tienen” armas nucleares y un número mucho mayor que “no las tienen”?  Prefiero poner todos mis esfuerzos por la eliminación de esas armas, al igual que Albert Einstein, Bertrand Russell y Ronald Reagan. Según su esposa, Nancy, el presidente Reagan “tenía muchas esperanzas para el futuro, y ninguna más importante para Estados Unidos y para la humanidad que el esfuerzo para crear un mundo libre de armas nucleares.”
     
    Al coronel parece que le gusta las probabilidades de continuar con el status quo, a pesar de que reconoce que “hasta simples individuos tendrán armas nucleares”   Esto es probable que así sea y plantea un enorme problema para los EE.UU. y otros países con armamento nuclear, si no somos capaces de lograr que armas y materiales nucleares estén bajo un estricto y eficaz control internacional. Todas las miles de armas nucleares en el arsenal de EE.UU. no pueden disuadir a una organización terrorista en posesión de un arma similar. Es imposible amenazar con tomar represalias contra una organización o personas que ni siquiera pueden ser localizadas.


    “Dejen de perder el tiempo”, advierte el coronel, “en este sueño tonto.” Pero todos los sueños pueden parecer una tontería antes de realizarse.  Mohandas Gandhi tuvo el sueño de una India independiente. Eso debió parecerle tonto a Winston Churchill y otros líderes británicos de esa época. Martin Luther King, Jr. tuvo un sueño de igualdad racial. Tal vez pareció una tontería para muchos. Nelson Mandela soñaba con acabar con el apartheid en Sudáfrica. Durante sus 27 años en prisión, este sueño debe haber parecido una tontería a la estructura del poder blanco en Sudáfrica.
     
    Hay sueños de justicia e igualdad que deben parecer una tontería para muchos. Hay sueños de aliviar la pobreza y el hambre, y tener oportunidades educativas para todos. Hay incluso quien sueña con la eliminación de la guerra. No es una tontería luchar por un futuro mejor, y ciertamente no es tonto luchar por asegurar el futuro mismo.


    Para mí, un nuevo año es un nuevo comienzo y siempre trae esperanza. Voy a seguir eligiendo la esperanza y luchar por el sueño de la paz y la eliminación de las armas nucleares. La consecución de estos objetivos es el gran desafío de nuestro tiempo, y su éxito dependerá de la realización de todos los otros objetivos para un mundo más justo, seguro y decente.


     

  • New START and the Lingering Nuclear Cold War

    Bennett Ramberg


    This article was originally published on The Huffington Post.


    As the Senate attempts to wrap its lame duck session with the New START finale, lost in the back and forth over ratification lies one question that few senators appear willing to ask: Why, now twenty years after the Cold War, do Moscow and Washington find it acceptable to retain thousands of warheads pointed at the other with or without the treaty? Recent official strategy documents by both countries fail to address the matter convincingly leaving each country dedicated to continuing the mutual nuclear hostage relationship that ought to have been put to bed long ago.


    Today’s Russian-American arsenals remain remnants of a bygone era. During the competition between the United States and the Soviet Union, nuclear weapons became both the currency of power and the acute source of preemption anxiety born out of the surprise attack scars the two countries suffered in World War II. The result propelled the exponential growth of weapons to prevent a nuclear Pearl Harbor.


    At its height, the United States stocked 31,000 weapons, the Soviet Union over 40,000 by some estimates. Largely reflecting the Cold War’s demise, but also the legacy of earlier arms limitation treaties, Moscow and Washington have come a long way in curbing inventories. Today the United States deploys some 2000 strategic warheads and Russia 2500. Still, under New START, millions of people will remain in the cross hairs of 1550 deployed warheads.


    In February 2010, Moscow unveiled its rationale. Notwithstanding deterrent weight it now gives to a new generation of precision guided conventional weapons, the Kremlin’s continues to see the nuclear arsenal as its ultimate security blanket: “Russia reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in response to a use of nuclear or other weapons of mass destruction against her and (or) her allies, and in a case of an aggression against her with conventional weapons that would put in danger the very existence of the state.”


    In its April 2010 Nuclear Posture Review, the Obama administration took a more nuanced approach. It eliminated nuclear targeting of non nuclear weapons states that complied with NPT vows. It added, only in “a narrow range of contingencies” would it use nuclear weapons to deal with chemical, biological and conventional attack. But all other circumstances, including targeting of Russia with the bulk of the arsenal, nuclear war plans remain in tact. The presumption: the Bomb provides “stability.” “As long as nuclear weapons exist, the United States will maintain secure and effective nuclear forces” to deter, reassure allies and promote stability globally and in key regions.


    Despite the president’s pledge to seek nuclear abolition, the Review registered “very demanding” “conditions” that make more dramatic nuclear reductions practically impossible: resolution of regional disputes that motivates nuclear possession, greater nuclear transparency, better verification to detect nonproliferation violators and credible enforcement mechanisms to deter cheating. The Review concluded, “Clearly, such conditions do not exist today. But we can — and must — work actively to create those conditions.”


    New START marks a step to meet the conditions in the Russian-American sphere, but ultimately a modest one. Eighteen on site inspections, data exchanges, a consultative committee to iron out  disputes serve verification goals. But the Obama administration’s  commitment to an $85 billion ten year refurbishment of the nuclear weapons complex signals little reduction in policies that continue the nuclear hostage relationship.


    Indeed the new nuclear doctrines, budgets to boost the weapons  enterprise and congressional skepticism about New START serve as reminders of President Obama’s lament in his 2009 call for a world without nuclear weapons — “This goal will not be reached quickly — perhaps not in my lifetime.” The difficult New START debate punctuates the deeper underlying point: the nuclear Cold War has never gone away. The fact should give comfort to no one.

  • A Silly Dream?

    Vaya aquí para la versión española.


    David KriegerA note recently came to the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation that said: “Are you folks out of your minds?  The nuclear genie is out of the bottle and isn’t going back in.  Shortly even non-state actors will have nukes!  Quit wasting your time on this silly dream.”  The author of the note, to his credit, signed his name, and also indicated that he is a retired U.S. Air Force colonel. 


    The colonel poses a critical question: Are we out of our minds to believe that change is possible and that humans might find a way to cooperate to eliminate the existential threat that nuclear weapons pose to humanity (and other forms of life)?  Perhaps we are, but it seems to me that the future of civilization, the human species and other complex forms of life are worth the effort.  The Nuclear Age is distinct from the periods that preceded it in having the capacity to end most complex life, including human life, on the planet.  Fighting for the elimination of nuclear weapons is also the fight for human survival and for the rights of future generations.  I’ve always believed that we have a choice: nuclear weapons or a human future.  Along with the survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I believe it is unlikely that both are possible.


    Next, the colonel asserts that “[t]he nuclear genie is out of the bottle and isn’t going back in.”  I suppose this means that the knowledge of how to create nuclear weapons exists and cannot be erased.  Granted, the knowledge now exists.  The challenge is whether countries will choose to eliminate nuclear weapons in their common interest, or whether they will be paralyzed by fear into failing to try.  Knowledge alone is not sufficient to make nuclear weapons.  Scientific and engineering skills are also needed, as are nuclear materials.  There may not be a foolproof method to assure the elimination of nuclear weapons, but there is also no foolproof method to assure that existing nuclear weapons will not be used in a nuclear war that could kill billions of people and destroy civilization. 


    The question is: which is a safer path for humanity?  On the one hand, to seek the phased, verifiable and irreversible elimination of nuclear weapons and effective international safeguards on nuclear materials; or, on the other hand, to continue the status quo of having the world divided into a small but increasing number of nuclear “haves” and a far larger number of nuclear “have-nots”?  I would place my bet on working for the elimination of the weapons, the same path chosen by Albert Einstein, Bertrand Russell and Ronald Reagan.  According to his wife, Nancy, President Reagan “had many hopes for the future, and none were more important to America and to mankind than the effort to create a world free of nuclear weapons.” 


    The colonel seems to like the odds of continuing with the status quo, even though he recognizes that “[s]hortly even non-state actors will have nukes!”  This is most likely true and it poses an enormous problem for the US and other nuclear armed countries, if we fail to bring nuclear weapons and the materials to make them under strict and effective international control.  All of the thousands of nuclear weapons in the US arsenal can’t deter a terrorist organization in possession of a single nuclear weapon.  You can’t credibly threaten retaliation against an organization or individuals that you can’t even locate.


    “Quit wasting your time,” the colonel admonishes, “on this silly dream.”  But all dreams may seem silly before they are realized.  Mohandas Gandhi had a dream of an independent India.   It must have seemed silly to Winston Churchill and other British leaders at the time.  Martin Luther King, Jr. had a dream of racial equality.  Perhaps it seemed silly to many.  Nelson Mandela dreamed of an end to apartheid in South Africa.  During his 27 years in prison, this dream must have seemed silly to the white power structure in South Africa. 


    There are dreams of justice and equality that must seem silly to many.  There are dreams of alleviating poverty and hunger, and dreams of educational opportunity for all children.  There are even dreams of eliminating war.  It is not silly to fight for a better future, and certainly not silly to fight to assure the future itself. 


    For me, a New Year is a new beginning and always brings hope.  I will continue to choose hope and to fight for the dream of peace and the elimination of nuclear weapons.  Achieving these goals is the great challenge of our time, and on their success depend the realization of all other goals for a more just and decent world.

  • Beyond START

    Alice SlaterThe Obama Administration will pay a heavy price to ratify the modest New START treaty should it receive the required 67 Senate votes this week to enact it into law. The President originally promised the weapons labs $80 billion over ten years for building three new bomb factories in Los Alamos, Oak Ridge, and Kansas City to modernize our nuclear arsenals as well as an additional $100 billion for new delivery systems—missiles, bombers, and submarines. He then sweetened the pot with an offer of another $4 billion to the nuclear weapons establishment to buy the support of Senator Kyl. Additionally, he is assuring the Senate hawks that missile development in the US will proceed full speed ahead, even though Russia and China have proposed negotiations on a draft treaty they submitted to the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva to ban space weaponization. Every country at that conference voted in favor of preventing an arms race in outer space except the United States, still caught in the grip of the military-industrial-academic-congressional complex which President Eisenhower took great pains to warn us against in his farewell address to the nation.


    There are 23,000 nuclear weapons on the planet with 22,000 of them in the US and Russia.  The other 1,000 are in the UK, France, China, India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea. In order to honor our promise in the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to negotiate in good faith for nuclear disarmament in return for a promise by non-nuclear weapons states not to acquire nuclear weapons, it is essential that the US and Russia continue to make large reductions in their arsenals to create the conditions for the other nuclear weapons states to come to the table to negotiate a treaty to ban the bomb, just as we have banned chemical and biological weapons. 


    At the NPT conference this spring, for the first time the possibility of negotiating a nuclear weapons convention was adopted by consensus in the final document. Civil society and friendly governments are now exploring opportunities for starting an “Ottawa Process” for a nuclear weapons ban, just as was done for landmines. China, India and Pakistan have already voted on a UN Resolution to open such negotiations. Perhaps Asia will lead the way. But if the US persists in developing its nuclear infrastructure with new bomb factories while threatening Russia with proliferating missiles, it’s unlikely that this modest New START will help us down the path to peace.

  • A Seat at Humanity’s Table

    Frank Kelly“Everyone deserves a seat at humanity’s table.”  That was a favorite expression of my friend Frank Kelly, who died in 2010, one day before his 96th birthday.  Frank believed it was essential for a peaceful future that everyone be seated at that big table and everyone’s voice be heard.  I couldn’t agree more.  We need a table that has room for all of us, a table at which everyone is fed with opportunity; everyone’s human rights are upheld; and everyone has a chance for their voice to be heard. 


    Right now there aren’t enough seats at the table, and the seats that exist have been taken by the wealthy and dominant of the world.  But who should speak for humanity?  Should it be the G-8 or the G-20?  Should it be the P-5, the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, the ones who reserved for themselves the privilege of the veto power?  Should it be corporate titans?  Should it be representatives of the military-industrial complex?  These are the people who have claimed the seats at humanity’s table for themselves, and they seem quite content sitting there, hoarding resources and opportunity, and pulling the strings of the world.  But all is not well. 


    The rich and powerful may not yet recognize it, but they are sitting on a precipice, and they have a long way to fall.  The table where they are sitting is not stable.  They may believe that they can maintain their exclusive control of the table by using their wealth and power to bring in the police to cordon off the area, but this is only a temporary fix.  Unless they open the doors and expand the table, they are headed for a fall.  And with them is likely to go the table and all the resources they have sought to maintain for their exclusive use.


    To bring everyone to humanity’s table is not just the polite thing to do, it is the right thing to do.  It is also necessary.  The poor of the world know what is going on behind locked doors.  They know that their poverty and suffering are related to the greed at the restricted table.  All that those without a seat at the table are asking for is a chance to be heard and to be part of the decision making about the great problems confronting humanity, including the inequitable allocation of resources, the militarization of the planet, the destruction of the environment, the abuse of human rights, and the list goes on.  All of these great global issues can only be effectively addressed by global cooperation, and such cooperation is not possible if chairs are missing from humanity’s table. 


    It is increasingly evident that either everyone will be seated, or at least represented at the table, or the table will become increasingly irrelevant to solving the world’s problems.  The world has become too small to treat as a country club and put up “No Trespassing” signs to keep most of the world’s people away from humanity’s table.  We’ll either find a way to make room for all of us at the table, or we will fail in achieving the cooperation needed to solve the world’s most pressing problems.