Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Blog

  • Scenarios for Nuclear Catastrophe

    In a recent article that I wrote, “British Petroleum, Imagination and Nuclear Catastrophe,” I argued we should use the occasion of the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico to imagine scenarios in which a nuclear catastrophe could take place.  The reason for imagining such scenarios should be obvious: to keep them from occurring.  

    Here is a proposition: Continued offshore oil drilling runs the risk of future offshore oil leak catastrophes that will destroy large aquatic and shoreline habitats.  Applied to nuclear weapons, the proposition could be restated in this way: Continued reliance on nuclear weapons runs the risk of future nuclear catastrophes that will destroy cities, countries and civilization.

    In my article, I proposed four of many possible scenarios that could be envisioned.  These scenarios involved a terrorist bomb on a major city somewhere in the world; an Indo-Pakistan nuclear war; an accidental nuclear launch by Russia, leading to a nuclear exchange with the US; and a nuclear attack by North Korean leader Kim Jong-Il on Japan and South Korea.  

    These scenarios elicited responses that I would like to share.  The first response, from South Korea, expressed the opinion that Kim Jong-Il would not make a preemptive nuclear attack.  The writer said, “I agree with your imagined scenarios except for the following: …Kim Jong-Il is not so irrational that he would attack Japan and South Korea for not receiving development assistance.  He and North Korean officials usually say that they would attack only in the case of being attacked….”  This may be true, but it remains difficult to predict which leaders will act rationally and which will not.  It seems certain, though, that all leaders will not act rationally at all times with regard to nuclear weapons, and that deterrence theory, at a minimum, requires rational decision makers.

    The second and third responses imagine other scenarios.  The second response focuses on Israel: “You forget one other horrible scenario: Israel decides to preemptively bomb Tehran and Isfahan, because they ‘fear for their own safety.’ Armed with nukes, and in the name of ‘Civil Defense,’ rogue Israel thumbs its nose at the world again and takes out parts of Iran….”  Would Israel initiate a nuclear attack under certain circumstances, such as a major threat from Arab countries?  The truth is that we do not know under what conditions Israel, or any other nuclear weapon state, would initiate such an attack.

    The third response, from South Africa, focuses on the possibility of a US initiated nuclear attack: “In your scenarios you do not imagine the US pressing the nuclear button.   The United States is beyond question the most aggressive nation in the world and remains among the most recalcitrant in signing peace and environmental protocols.  As a person who lives outside the United States, I feel most threatened by the US.  The US does not negotiate, at the heart of which is compromise for the greater good.   Narrow interests are pursued relentlessly – even to the detriment of US citizens.”

    The response continued, “I was appalled to receive by email photos of a US warship recently launched.   It was built from the scrap metal of the Twin Towers and named ‘Never Forget’ or some such title.   I don’t believe that honors the lives lost.  What would have honored them would be a ship custom built to deliver aid, medical services, etc. to disaster areas and developing countries.   I do believe citizens in the US, so many of whom are brought up on the myth that the US is always in the right, should recognize their own potential to be the ultimate aggressors in the use of nuclear weapons.  They use every other weapon of destruction – Agent Orange, cluster bombs, etc.  Why should they hold back on nuclear weapons?”

    Would the US initiate a nuclear attack?  The answer is the same for the US or any other nuclear weapon state: We don’t know.  What we do know is that the leaders of countries that possess nuclear weapons are essentially holding the world, including their own citizens, hostage to the potential catastrophic consequences of using these weapons.

    Deterrence can fail in many ways, some of which we cannot foresee, and it may be the unforeseeable scenarios that are most dangerous.  We don’t know what the trigger may be, only that we are playing with nuclear fire.  The Gulf of Mexico recovery from the British Petroleum oil spill may take decades.  For civilization to recover from nuclear war could take centuries and might not be possible.  The oil spill in the Gulf has provided us an opportunity to awaken to the nuclear dangers that confront us and to act.  The question remains: Will we seize this opportunity?

  • British Petroleum, Imaginación y la Catástrofe Nuclear

    Click here for the English version.


    Antes del catastrófico derrame petrolero de la British Petroleum en el Golfo de México, hubo voces de ambientalistas que advertían que las perforaciones mar adentro están llenas de riesgos – riesgos exactamente del tipo de daño ambiental que está ocurriendo. Los comentarios fueron recibidos con burla por muchos que corearon consignas como “¡Perfora, cariño, perfora”. Ahora está claro que quienes gritaban  “¡Perfora, cariño, perfora” es una  multitud necia y codiciosa. El bienestar económico de las personas en y alrededor de la costa del Golfo ha sido gravemente dañada y, para algunos, destruida por completo. La vida acuática y de los estuarios, en el Golfo y más allá, ha sido víctima de un desastre ambiental que hubiera sido previsible con un poco de visión e imaginación.


    Albert Einstein llegó a la conclusión de que “La imaginación es más importante que el conocimiento.” Él dijo que “el conocimiento se limita a todo los que hoy conocemos y entendemos, mientras que la imaginación abraza el mundo entero, y todo los que alguna vez sabremos y entenderemos.”  Intentemos aplicar nuestra imaginación a las armas nucleares y la guerra nuclear. Éstos son algunos de los escenarios:


    Escenario 1: Al Qaeda logra lo que la mayoría de los comentaristas cree que es imposible. Obtienen los materiales para varias armas nucleares y contratan a científicos para construir primitivas armas nucleares.  Estas armas son detonadas en Londres, Nueva York y París en pocas horas una tras otra. Millones yacen muertos y heridos. Los mercados bursátiles del mundo se desploman. Antes de los ataques terroristas nucleares, las personas que advirtieron de tal posibilidad fueron objeto de burlas.


    Escenario 2: La disuasión nuclear fracasa totalmente, y la India y Pakistán inician una guerra nuclear por Cachemira. El centenar de ojivas nucleares detonadas en las ciudades de India y Pakistán dejan millones de muertos y disminuye la temperatura global a tal grado que se reducen significativamente el tamaño de las zonas agrícolas en donde los alimentos se pueden cultivar. La pérdida de cosechas deja cientos de millones de personas muriendo de hambre. Antes de la guerra, la gente que advirtió de tal posibilidad fue objeto de escarnio.


    Escenario 3: Una guerra nuclear comienza con un lanzamiento accidental de un misil con armas nucleares por parte de Rusia, seguido por un ataque de represalia por los EE.UU., que ocasiona más represalias de Rusia, y por supuesto más de los EE.UU.. Antes del  lanzamiento accidental, poca gente creía que un accidente tan catastrófico y la represalia fueran posibles. En su secuela, el escenario parece demasiado factible. La gente ahora se da cuenta que los dispositivos a prueba de fallos para evitar lanzamientos accidentales fracasaron, pero los que preveían este peligro y advirtieron al respecto, fueron víctimas de  burlas sangrientas.


    Escenario 4: El líder norcoreano Kim Jong-Il lanza un ataque nuclear que destruye bases militares de EE.UU. en la isla japonesa de Okinawa. Amenaza con destruir las ciudades de Kyoto, en Japón y Seúl, Corea del Sur a menos que reciba la ayuda para el desarrollo que dice que le fue prometida por Estados Unidos. Los que denunciaban que la continua posesión de armas nucleares por los cinco miembros permanentes del Consejo de Seguridad de las Naciones Unidas daría lugar a la proliferación nuclear, y que dichas armas podrían caer en manos de dirigentes irracionales, fueron denunciados como ignorantes.


    Hay muchos escenarios posibles para el inicio de una guerra nuclear y aún quedan muchas justificaciones para su posesión. Los líderes de Estados poseedores de armas nucleares sostienen que sólo son para la disuasión nuclear, es decir, para evitar la guerra con la amenaza de una represalia. No prevén el posible fracaso de la disuasión, a pesar de que reconocen las consecuencias catastróficas de un fracaso. Ellos creen que las armas nucleares apuntalarán el prestigio de un país y le darán mayor poder en el sistema internacional. Muestran con orgullo sus armas nucleares y ponen a prueba sus sistemas de lanzamiento de misiles. Los que argumentan que la disuasión nuclear podría fallar son ignorados por completo.


    Los líderes políticos y militares no han cumplido con la proposición de que en todo sistema complejo en el que los seres humanos están involucrados, la falla del sistema es una posibilidad. Han rechazado la idea de esta falla significaría la aniquilación de la humanidad. Los científicos que denuncian esta falta de visión, no son tomados en cuenta. Los ex políticos de alto nivel que advierten acerca de estos peligros, también son objeto de burlas. Incluso algunos jefes militares que se oponen a seguir dependiendo de las armas nucleares, son ridiculizados en público.  Los supervivientes de Hiroshima y Nagasaki, que fueron testigos de primera mano de los horrores de las bombas atómicas, han contado sus historias en un intento de alertarnos sobre el peligro de las armas nucleares, pero sus voces son débiles y poca gente en las altas esferas las han escuchado.


    Organizaciones de la sociedad civil de todo el mundo han declarado su compromiso con un plan urgente para la eliminación de las armas nucleares, y también sus palabras caen en oídos sordos. Pero, al igual que los supervivientes de Hiroshima y Nagasaki, continúan denunciando porque es lo correcto. Las armas nucleares pueden terminar con la vida en la Tierra tal como la conocemos. Son capaces de destruir la civilización. Una guerra nuclear de grandes proporciones, sería el fin de la  especie humana. Incluso una guerra nuclear limitada o aún accidental, aniquilaría ciudades y países.


    Ahora que el petróleo derramado por la British Petroleum en el Golfo de México continúa destruyendo el océano y el medio ambiente circundante, tal vez sea demasiado tarde para preguntarnos si vale la pena el riesgo de seguir perforando mar adentro Es evidente que no..  Sin embargo, todavía no es demasiado tarde para plantear la cuestión de si por la continua dependencia de las armas nucleares, vale la pena arriesgar la supervivencia de las generaciones futuras.

  • US Conference of Mayors Calls for the Abolition of Nuclear Weapons

    WHEREAS, August 6 and 9, 2010 mark the 65th anniversaries of the United States atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki; and

    WHEREAS, eight nations still possess a total of nearly 23,000 nuclear warheads – 95% of them held by the U.S. and Russia; and

    WHEREAS, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) on April 10, 2010 declared: “Nuclear weapons are unique in their destructive power, in the unspeakable human suffering they cause, in the impossibility of controlling their effects in space and time, in the risks of escalation they create, and in the threat they pose to the environment, to future generations, and indeed to the survival of humanity…. In the view of the ICRC, preventing the use of nuclear weapons requires fulfillment of existing obligations to pursue negotiations aimed at prohibiting and completely eliminating such weapons through a legally binding international treaty;” and

    WHEREAS, on April 5, 2009 in Prague, President Obama acknowledged that “as the only nuclear power to have used a nuclear weapon, the United States has a moral responsibility to act” for the achievement of the “peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons”; and

    WHEREAS, the April 2010 Department of Defense Nuclear Posture Review recognized: “It is in the U.S. interest and that of all other nations that the nearly 65-year record of nuclear non-use be extended forever. As President Ronald Reagan declared, ‘, “A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought’;” and

    WHEREAS, the October 2007 Final Declaration of the 2nd World Congress of United Cities and Local Governments endorsed “the Mayors for Peace campaign, which lobbies the international community to renounce weapons of mass destruction;” and

    WHEREAS, the unprecedented membership growth of Mayors for Peace, now approaching 4000 worldwide, has sent a powerful message to world leaders that cities must be freed from the nuclear threat; and

    WHEREAS, The U.S. Conference of Mayors unanimously adopted resolutions in 2007, “calling on all nations and all world powers to prohibit the use of any weapon of mass destruction against cities;” in 2008, supporting the Mayors for Peace “Hiroshima-Nagasaki Protocol” for the global elimination of nuclear weapons by 2020; and in 2009, “call[ing] on President Obama to announce at the 2010 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference the initiation of good faith multilateral negotiations on an international agreement to abolish nuclear weapons by the year 2020;” and

    WHEREAS, on May 13, 2010, at the midpoint of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference, in connection with submission of the new START treaty to the Senate, President Obama submitted a classified report on a Congressionally-mandated plan to maintain and modernize U.S. nuclear forces for the foreseeable future. According to a White House fact sheet: “The plan includes investments of $80 billion to sustain and modernize the nuclear weapons complex….” and “well over $100 billion in nuclear delivery systems to sustain existing capabilities and modernize some strategic systems” by the year 2020. Under this plan funding for the nuclear weapons research and production programs of the National Nuclear Security Administration will increase by more than 40%, from $6.4 billion in FY 2010 to $9 billion by 2018. In turn, $9 billion is 43% above the Cold War annual average of $5.1 billion for analogous Department of Energy nuclear weapons programs; and

    WHEREAS, cities have been hard hit by the recent recession which has left them with rapidly rising unemployment and declining revenues, forcing them to make severe cuts in critical public services such as police officers, fire fighters, teachers, medical and emergency workers and bus drivers; and

    WHEREAS, on August 9, 2009, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon issued a fivepoint plan to rid the world of nuclear weapons, beginning “with a call for the NPT parties to pursue negotiations in good faith – as required by the treaty – on nuclear disarmament, either through a new convention or through a series of mutually reinforcing instruments backed by a credible system of verification.” The Secretary-General has announced that he will visit Hiroshima on August 6, 2010, the anniversary of the day the first atomic bomb was dropped, stating: “There I will say, once again, we stand for a world free of nuclear weapons;” and

    WHEREAS, on May 28, 2010, at the conclusion of the month-long NPT Review Conference, a 22-point action plan for nuclear disarmament was adopted by consensus of the states parties. By agreeing to this plan the U.S. government inter alia:

    • reaffirms the unequivocal undertaking of the nuclear weapon states to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals notes the United Nations Secretary-General’s

    Five Point Proposal for Nuclear Disarmament, which proposes consideration of negotiations on a nuclear weapons convention

    • expresses deep concern at the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of any nuclear weapons use and reaffirms the need for all states at all times to comply with international humanitarian law

    • seeks early entry-into-force of the new START treaty and the Comprehensive Test Ban

    Treaty

    • commits to working for further reductions in all types of nuclear weapons and a diminished role for nuclear weapons in its national security policy

    • commits to a principle of “irreversibility” with regard to its nuclear disarmament obligation,

    NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that The U.S. Conference of Mayors calls  on President Obama to work with the leaders of the other nuclear weapon states to implement the U.N. Secretary-General’s Five Point Proposal for Nuclear Disarmament forthwith, so that a Nuclear Weapons Convention, or a related set of mutually reinforcing legal instruments, can be agreed upon and implemented by the year 2020, as urged by Mayors for Peace; and

    BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that The U.S. Conference of Mayors calls on the U.S. Senate to ratify the new START treaty and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty without conditions and without delay; and

    BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that The U.S. Conference of Mayors calls on the U.S.

    Congress to terminate funding for modernization of the nuclear weapons complex and nuclear weapons systems, to reduce spending on nuclear weapons programs well below Cold War levels, and to redirect funds to meet the urgent needs of cities; and

    BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that The U.S. Conference of Mayors encourages President Obama, members of the Cabinet and Congress to visit Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the earliest possible date; and

    BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that The U.S. Conference of Mayors agrees to take up this matter at the June 2011 Conference of Mayors.

  • Desastre en el Golfo de México: Una nueva llamada de emergencia

    Click here for the English version.


    El derrame de petróleo crudo en el Golfo de México causado por la plataforma de la BP (British Petroleum) se considera ya como el  riesgo ambiental más grave al que se haya enfrentado nunca Estados Unidos y tal vez el mundo. Las consecuencias del continuo flujo del hidrocarburo desde el fondo del mar son incalculables.


    Jean-Michel Cousteau, presidente de Ocean Futures Society, junto con su padre, el legendario e inolvidable defensor de los mares, el capitán Jacques Cousteau, ha contribuido enormemente al conocimiento de los océanos y cuerpos de agua de nuestro


    mundo. Hace unos días,  Jean-Michel acompañado por un grupo de dedicados científicos de su organización se desplazó al sitio del accidente. Ahí están trabajando en forma voluntaria tratando de colaborar para encontrar soluciones.


    Jean-Michel ha declarado lo siguiente: “He sido testigo de sucesos como el desastre del derrame de los buque-tanques  Exxon Valdez en Alaska y Prestige en España, pero nada de eso se compara con la magnitud de lo que estamos viviendo.  Debemos encontrar respuestas inmediatas y a la vez evitar que situaciones como estas se repitan.  Estas contaminaciones de los mares del planeta son una amenaza directa para la vida en general”.


    Viendo los intentos desesperados y fallidos por sellar el pozo de petróleo, nos enfrentamos a esta agónica pregunta. ¿Qué daños se han ocasionado ya al ecosistema marino y las zonas costeras tan ricas en su diversidad animal y vegetal? En el  Golfo de México se extiende una de las más grandes barreras de arrecife del mundo , el Arrecife Mesoamericano, tan sólo superado por la Gran Barrera de Arrecife de Australia.  Es por demás conocida la enorme fragilidad de estos increíbles eco-sistemas ante las contaminaciones.  Los humedales de los Estados de Lousiana y la Florida, hábitat de cientos de miles de aves y una gran diversidad animal, están en grave peligro.


    Hace 21 años, cuando el buque-tanque de la Exxon encalló en el arrecife del estrecho de Prince William, el barco derramó 11 millones de galones de crudo los cuales contaminaron playas, rocas, aves, animales marinos y plantas. La impotencia del ser humano se vio reflejada cuando los trabajos de limpieza fueron efectuados por más de 12 mil personas usando palas y toallas de papel.


     Las consecuencias del impacto ecológico aún se siguen sintiendo en lo que fue un sitio prístino que ha cambiado negativamente para siempre.   Para hacer una comparación, se estima que cada cuatro días las aguas del Golfo de México reciben el equivalente a un cargamento entero del Exxon Valdez.  


    Algunos políticos y comentaristas de los medios, rayando en el cinismo, han dicho que este es un ‘fenómeno’ natural y que el mar se encargará de arreglarlo por sí mismo. Nada es más lejano a la verdad. El petróleo crudo es el resultado de la mezcla heterogénea de compuestos orgánicos de origen fósil, principalmente hidrocarburos, depositados hace millones de años en los distintos sedimentos terrestres. Los hidrocarburos son insolubles y por lo tanto no se mezclan con el agua del mar. Las marejadas negras llegan sin cambios a las playas, esteros y humedales de las costas, destruyendo a su paso toda la vida animal y vegetal.


    Este derrame, es mucho más intenso que los de los buque-petroleros y se localiza a enormes profundidades – más de un kilómetro y medio-  y mide ya miles de metros de espesor bajo el agua.  No hay forma de predecir qué ocurrirá, y mucho menos si el crudo sigue fluyendo durante meses y tal vez durante años, hasta que se agote el manto submarino.


    No perdamos de vista un axioma fundamental. La contaminación no conoce fronteras ni necesita pasaporte para alcanzar los sitios más lejanos del planeta. Las corrientes submarinas y la actual temporada ciclónica, llevarán sin duda alguna millones de galones de este crudo a sitios como el Ártico y la Antártida. En otras palabras, no nos sintamos ‘seguros’ sólo porque no vivamos cerca del sitio de este desastre.


    ¿Qué lecciones deberíamos aprender de algo que se ha repetido sin cesar desde hace ya más de dos décadas?  Sabiendo que el mundo es impredecible significa que nuestras tecnologías deben diseñarse con mayores márgenes de seguridad y efectuar con toda honestidad las revisiones periódicas necesarias tanto a equipos como personal.  Tal parece que este no fue el caso de la plataforma de BP.  Debemos anticiparnos a lo peor, planear para prevenir y aún así, tener otro plan en el caso de que fallen las prevenciones.  Ser sorprendidos constantemente por las catástrofes sólo indica que la arrogancia domina más nuestros actos que el sentido común.


    Jean-Michel Cousteau ha dicho a este respecto: “Algo muy triste de la especie humana es que hablamos mucho pero actuamos muy poco hasta que tenemos un nuevo desastre en nuestras manos”


    Ya no podemos cambiar lo que ha ocurrido, pero debemos aprender de esto.  Hay que enfocar en forma completamente diferente la forma como actuamos, como explotamos los recursos naturales de nuestro mundo tratando de depender siempre de las tecnologías. Hay que desarrollar una nueva filosofía para el uso apropiado de ellas y nuestra relación con la naturaleza, de la cual solo formamos parte.  Hay que aceptar el hecho de que la naturaleza es mucho más compleja de lo que creemos entender, y que la tecnología es mucho más limitada de lo que queremos creer.

  • Disaster in the Gulf of Mexico: Urgent Call for Action

    Vaya aquí para la versión española.

    The massive and ongoing oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico caused by a drilling rig explosion and eventual collapse of the Deepwater Horizon drilling platform leased by British Petroleum is already considered the worst environmental disaster in U.S. history and possibly the entire world’s. The consequences of this continued oil spill flow from the ocean’s depth is incalculable…we are truly in uncharted territory!

    Jean-Michel Cousteau, president of Ocean Futures Society, along with his late father, the legendary Captain Jacques Cousteau, have made enormous contributions to our knowledge and understanding of our planet’s oceans and diverse bodies of water. A few days ago, accompanied by a group of dedicated scientists from his organization, Jean-Michel traveled to the accident site in the Gulf of Mexico. They are voluntarily there to assess the situation and to help collaborate in finding solutions.

    Jean-Michel said this “I have been on site at the Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska and the Prestige oil spill in Spain, but they don’t compare with the magnitude of this Gulf spill. We will look for immediate solutions but may mostly find reasons why this must never happen again and what must be done for the future.”

    We are faced with a terrible question after observing the desperate and so far failed attempts to control or cap the oil gusher.

    What is the environmental impact and extent of damage to the marine ecosystems and the coastal zones, so rich in bio-diversity of both plant and animal? The Gulf of Mexico is home to one of the largest barrier reefs in the world, the Mesoamerican Reef, unique in the Western Hemisphere and second in size only to the Great Barrier Reef in Australia. An ancient natural system dating back 225 million years, the reefs function as a natural barrier to storms and hurricanes and are critical to the survival of plant and animal species. It is an important defense against coastal erosion as well. The fragility of these ecosystems is well known and is particularly susceptible to contamination threats. More than 400 species live in the islands and marshlands at risk of oil toxicity AND oxygen depletion occasioned by the oil dispersants used to break up the oil threaten fish and plankton with serious domino effects all the way up the food chain. In the states of Louisiana and Florida, hundreds of thousands of birds and other animals are already dying and in grave danger.

    When the Exxon Valdez supertanker ran aground in Prince William Sound twenty-one years ago, it spilled 11 million gallons of crude oil that contaminated all in its path – the water, the beaches, the rocks, the birds, the marine animals and plants – eventually covering 1,300 miles of coastline and 11,000 square miles of ocean with the black sludge. The limitations of our human resources to combat the disaster were underscored by visuals of a clean-up effort undertaken by 12,000 people using shovels and paper towels. After twenty-one years, the negative impact of the spill continues to be felt in this formerly pristine area with a myriad of adverse effects that has decreased the “wilderness character” of the area. To put the new disaster into perspective, it is estimated that the equivalent of the Exxon Valdez spillage now spews into the Gulf of Mexico every FOUR days. We seem to be no better prepared for such a disaster 21 years later.

    Some in the political and media communities cynically argue that this is a natural “phenomenon”, that some oil natively exists in the water and that the ocean will cleanse itself of this oil…naturally. Nothing could be further from the truth! Crude oil is the result of a heterogeneous mix of fossilized organic compounds, predominantly hydrocarbons deposited into the earth’s sedimentary strata millions of years ago. The hydrocarbons are insoluble in water and thus do not mix with the ocean’s water. The dark brown waves of sludge wash up on the beaches, marshes and wetlands intact and undiluted by the water destroying all animal and plant life in its wake.

    This oil spill, vastly larger, worse and more intense than any supertanker event, is located at a profound depth in the ocean – spewing massive amounts of oil from more than 1 and 1/2 miles deep. The origin of this environmental disaster creates a hidden menace beneath the water’s surface. A team of University of Georgia scientists has confirmed clouds, or oil plumes, containing small particulate oil matter in the depths of the ocean, a number of which are several hundred feet thick and extend for several miles. This bespeaks to the real ecological catastrophe in the Gulf. Sharks and turtles are already swimming through this toxic soup and dying. There is no way to predict what will happen if the crude oil flow cannot be sufficiently mitigated in the coming months, or worse, if it continues to spill until the well is exhausted. In any event, no argument can be made but that the negative and adverse effects are inestimable and catastrophic.

    Let us also not lose sight of another fundamental axiom…Environmental contamination knows no borders. It needs no passport to travel to the far reaches of our treasured planet. Underwater currents and anticipated seasonal cyclonic activity will no doubt carry millions of gallons to already precarious habitats in the Arctic and the Antarctic. So let us not feel secure or, worse, detached from this disaster simply because we are not in its direct causal path.

    What lessons are there to be learned from past oil spills that have been repeated without cessation for the last twenty years?  This tragedy mandates that we continue to develop technologies that are designed with better margins of safety and triple failsafe backups as a priority. We should honestly and transparently execute the periodic evaluative reviews required of both equipment and personnel in adherence with our current regulatory law. By all preliminary accounts, British Petroleum, in their rush to create a revenue generating well, did not follow the correct, established procedures on this oil rig and dismissed repeated warnings by people at the well site. We need to develop a mindset, both as a society and especially in the business culture that plans for prevention.

    As the old saying goes: Why is there never enough time to prevent a mistake but always enough time to fix one? The truly sad statement about the way we deal with these “mistakes” up until now is that we not only don’t take the correct, preventive steps, but faced with the specter of a disaster, we neither allot the correct amount of time or resources to correct it…the Exxon Valdez and Katrina standing out as stark reminders of this modus operandi. To be constantly surprised and left impotent by these man-made catastrophes speak to an arrogance that overrules common sense. If the result of failed preventive measures in this arena is too dire to contemplate, then perhaps deep sea drilling is not an option.

    Jean Michel Cousteau concurs. He has stated: “The sad side of the human species is that we talk a lot and take very little action until we have a catastrophe on our hands.”

    We cannot change what has occurred, but we must learn the lessons from this calamity. As a society, we need to refocus and change the way we act toward our environment; how we rapaciously exploit our natural resources (both flora and fauna) thinking that technology will solve all the ills created by that voracious appetite. We must adopt a new philosophy: one that has a more balanced approach to the use of the earth’s resources and to our relationship with nature…of which we are only a small part. We need to accept that nature is a lot more complex than we believe it to be and that technology is a lot more limited than we want it to be.

  • Reflections on Frank Kelly

    The following comments were made by NAPF Board members and staff in reaction to the news of Frank Kelly’s death on June 11, 2010.

    * * *

    I have sad news.  The world lost a great and indomitable soul when Frank Kelly passed away earlier this morning, just one day shy of his 96th birthday.  I had stopped in to visit him and he was resting quietly.  He was very peaceful as he passed on.  I know he had high hopes of reuniting with his beloved Barbara.

    Frank lived a long and good life, one which deserves to be celebrated, as he celebrated life itself.  He never wavered from his belief that what we were doing at the Foundation was critical for humanity’s future, and he always believed that by our efforts we would create a more secure and decent future for humanity.

    David Krieger

    * * *

    How terribly sad for us all.  We have lost a friend and a major source of inspiration.  Yet for Frank, there is now peace.

    I had looked forward to attending his birthday party tomorrow.  Instead, I’ll spend that hour thinking about how he affected me over the past 25 years.  When I think of the term, “smile,” I honestly can’t come up with a better visual than Frank’s face.  Nor can I think of a better exemplar of dedication to task.  He was single-minded without being dogmatic.  And who will ever forget his gentle reminders about what Harry Truman would have said about war and nuclear weapons.  

    Sometimes, I caught myself thinking — hey, this is not on the agenda; this is not a part of the present discussion.  But then, I’d come full circle.  Frank had noticed that, though focused on the issues of the day, we might have lost sight of the larger picture…so he was going to remind us why we were gathered around that table; he was present to help us focus on the more important issues — how to move the planet closer to a system based on peaceful conflict management and how to eliminate nuclear weapons from humanity’s collection of “helpful” gadgets.

    Frank was one of a kind.  There will be no replacing him, but perhaps he can still serve as that gentle reminder, especially when we experience a difficult moment at a Board meeting, stressing about an insignificant “this” or an absurd “that”….perhaps his spirit will, once again, remind us about why we are there.  His was the clarion call to purpose.  

    I will truly miss him though I know he will be at every meeting, smiling…and gently reminding us to stay on task.

    Peter Haslund

    * * *

    Peter, your comments are beautifully and accurately stated. You were the one at the last board meeting that affirmed Frank for reminding us of our higher purpose.  It was a perfect and familiar meeting with Frank always at the end of the table in his wheel chair.  Sometimes we thought he was sleeping or nodding off…but he never missed a beat. He was always present.  And, as you said, he never missed a chance to admonish us about the more important goal.  I mentioned to someone today, there were no idle words from Frank Kelly.  He always made meaningful statements.

    You are right.  There will never be anyone like him.  We were all so blessed to work with him for all these years.

    Anna Grotenhuis

    * * *

    This is truly very sad news.  I had just written a card to Frank late last night.  His life has made this world a better place for so many reasons.

    Frank Kelly’s life is one to celebrate in the best way we can at the foundation.  He was a founder and cared so deeply for our cause.  I still remember his admonitions at the most recent board meeting.

    We have lost our hero.

    Anna Grotenhuis

    * * *

    Frank was such a lovely man.  He thought and felt deeply about the wellbeing of all humanity.  At the same time, he was warm and funny and optimistic in his outlook.  I will miss his smiles and hugs, but I am glad he is at peace.  My heart goes out to his family.

    Lessie Nixon Schontzler

    * * *

    For too many people, joy is a rare –or at best occasional — feeling.

    For Frank, joy was a way of living.

    He always had a twinkle in his eye, an idea in his head and a song in his heart.

    Both fiercely dedicated and embracingly kind, he lived in his own circle of grace — blessing those around him even as he appreciated the blessings they brought to him.

    I miss him, but what an extraordinarily good and joyful life he led.

    To a true wager of peace and appreciator of humankind!

    All love and honor to you, Frank.

    Steven Crandell

    * * *

    I too share the sense of loss following Frank Kelly’s death.  He was a radiant spirit, blessed with a sunlit disposition, generous of spirit, and profoundly dedicated to a peaceful and feminized and denuclearized future for humanity.  We will miss his presence, but I feel that his legacy will serve us well as guidance and source of inspiration.

    Richard Falk

    * * *

    In addition to his moral leadership and vision for a more just, peaceful, and (as Richard puts it) feminized world, the quality which most endears Frank to me was his talent for making his partner in conversation, whoever that may be, feel especially intelligent, perceptive, and full of insight.  Suffice to say that a visit with Frank did no harm to one’s self-esteem.

    Rob Laney

    * * *

    Perhaps because I am here in France where the reminders of World War II are so present and the honor and glory of military victories and wars are celebrated so often with marches and holidays that I feel especially close to the days of Harry Truman and Frank Kelly and appreciate even more than I would have at home, how extraordinary a man Frank was for his time.

    I feel very privileged to have known him on the Foundation Board–look at the guidance his beliefs have given us!  I also really appreciate the gusto he has shown over these last few years.  I am especially happy that we could celebrate his 95th birthday last year in such grand style and that he enjoyed it so much–that is a wonderful memory to have.

    Laurie Harris

    * * *

    Although I am a new board member and did not have the pleasure of meeting Frank Kelly, I have had the opportunity to get to know how wonderful he was through your kind words.

    Yolanda Nunn Gorman

    * * *

    We were so looking forward to the party tomorrow.  We loved Frank so much.  He was my idol in the organization.  A truly great human being.  We will miss him very much.

    Jill Dexter

    * * *

    I am so sad to hear of the news about Frank. He was so lucid, so full of emotion and seemed so pleased to have visitors last month. I will always be grateful to have spent some of the afternoon with him during our visit to Santa Barbara. He sent us with several books including his most recent.

    It is so rare to find someone remaining true to shameless idealism to the very end! He left a wonderful legacy in NAPF, and I feel so fortunate to have been influenced by his vision. The best compliment to his exemplary life is to continue working for a more just and peaceful world ourselves.

    Leah Wells

    * * *

    Roxanne and I remember him well. He was always so kind and welcoming and keen to share stories. I am certain he will be missed by very many people. And what a tremendous legacy.

    Marc Kielburger

  • Remembering Frank King Kelly

    Click here to view our Frank K. Kelly memorial page, which includes photos, reflections and more.

    Frank King Kelly lived a long and full life.  He died peacefully just one day before his 96th birthday.  He was a fortunate man and all of us whose lives were touched by him were fortunate as well.

    Frank was married to his great love, Barbara, for 54 years.  She was his rock, his partner and his strongest booster.  She also kept his feet on the ground, or at least tried.  Frank had two sons, Terry and Stephen.  He was very proud of them and of their wives.  He took joy in their accomplishments and those of his three grandsons.  He was delighted by the recent birth of his great grandson. 

    Frank had a remarkable career.  He was a reporter for the Kansas City Star, a Nieman Fellow at Harvard University, a soldier in World War II, a speech writer for Harry Truman, assistant to the Senate Majority Leader, vice president of the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions, and a founder and senior vice president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. 

    To everything he did, Frank brought creativity and optimism.  He believed firmly that everyone deserves a seat at humanity’s table, and he worked for this goal throughout his life. 

    Frank loved to tell stories and he had many of them.  As a young boy, he would be sent in to awaken his father who had recurring nightmares after returning from World War I.  His father’s strong and lasting torment from the hand-to-hand combat he had experienced was Frank’s initiation to the trauma of war.

    As a teenager, Frank wrote science fiction stories.  He often finished 15,000 word stories at one go, with no revisions required.  The editors to whom he sent his stories thought they were publishing the work of an older man rather than that of a teenager.  In 1996, Frank would be inducted into the First Fandom Hall of Fame, an award for contributions to science fiction dating back more than 30 years.

    At the Kansas City Star Frank met Ernest Hemingway, who told him that he would have to leave Missouri if he ever hoped to be a writer.  Frank did leave, and over the course of his lifetime wrote ten books, including one only a few years before his death. 

    As a soldier and reporter in World War II, Frank interviewed many dying soldiers.  At the end of their young lives, he said, they all cried out for their mothers.  Frank was with the first group of American troops to liberate Paris.  He loved it that they were greeted with such warmth and excitement, but Frank had seen enough to have a deep loathing for war and its consequences.

    Frank was asked to write speeches for Harry Truman in his 1948 campaign.  Most of his friends thought that Truman was a sure loser and that Frank would be crazy to take the job, but Barbara encouraged him and he did take it.  Throughout his life, Frank was fiercely loyal to Truman, a man he admired greatly.  When Frank introduced his mother to Harry Truman in the Oval Office, she told Truman how wonderful she thought it was that Frank and he had won that election.

    Frank next took a position as assistant to the Senate Majority Leader and then as staff director of the Senate Majority Policy Committee.  I don’t think he enjoyed that experience of power politics, and he was happy to accept a series of new assignments.

    In 1952, Frank served as Washington director of the Harriman for President Committee.  In 1952 and 1953, Frank was the US director of the Study of World News, conducted by the International Press Institute.  In 1953 and 1954, Frank directed a national campaign against book censorship.

    In 1956, Frank became the vice president of the Fund for the Republic, a nonprofit organization funded by the Ford Foundation, which was established to “support activities directed toward the elimination of restrictions on freedom of thought, inquiry and expression in the United States….”  The fund was a staunch opponent of McCarthyism. 

    When the Fund established the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions in Santa Barbara in 1959, Frank and Barbara moved their family to Santa Barbara.  Frank worked closely at the Center with its founder and president, Robert Hutchins, for the next 17 years.  At the Center, Frank initiated two major international convocations around Pope John XXIII’s papal encyclical, “Pacem in Terris.”

    It was at the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions that I met Frank when I joined the staff there in 1972.  Later, after Robert Hutchins had died and the Center for all practical purposes had ceased to exist, Frank wrote a seminal book about it, The Court of Reason.

    Frank and I worked together in founding the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.  At first, he thought it was a farfetched idea that we could create a new organization that could make a difference in building a more peaceful world, but he believed we should try and we did.  We founded the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation in 1982, along with three other Santa Barbarans.  We had no resources to start with, but a fervent belief that peace was an imperative of the Nuclear Age and that it would be necessary for citizens to lead their leaders.  That was 28 years ago, and throughout that time Frank and I conferred on almost a daily basis.

    Frank’s wife, Barbara, was a poet and, after her death in 1995, the Foundation established the Barbara Mandigo Kelly Peace Poetry Awards in her honor.  Each year these awards are given “to encourage poets to explore and illuminate positive visions of peace and the human spirit.”  The awards are given in three categories: adult, teenage, and 12 and under.

    Frank had many wonderful characteristics that stand out.  He was unfailingly optimistic and believed that better days were ahead.  He was a staunch advocate of women, and believed that their nurturing style of leadership was needed to build a better world.  He was deeply loyal to his friends and colleagues.  He had a special sense of humor and couldn’t resist a good pun.  He was committed to ending war, abolishing nuclear weapons and building a better future for humanity. 

    In 2002, the Foundation established the Frank K. Kelly Lecture on Humanity’s Future.  These lectures are given annually by a distinguished individual “to explore the contours of humanity’s present circumstances and ways by which we can shape a more promising future for our planet and all its inhabitants.”  Frank himself gave the first lecture.  He entitled it, “Glorious Beings: What We Are and What We May Become.”  He believed that each of us is a glorious being.

    Frank lived by one of the core values of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation: shameless idealism.  He was an idealist without regret, a visionary who saw that a better future was not only necessary but possible.   He worked daily throughout his life to achieve a more decent world.

    I would sum up Frank’s life by saying that he was decent, kind and loving, and he never gave up his desire to create a better world.  His life brought dignity to being human.  He was a glorious being.

    Frank was fond of quoting this line by William Blake, “…he who kisses joy as it flies lives in eternity’s sunrise.”  Frank had a special relationship with joy, and I believe he continues to live in “eternity’s sunrise.”

  • My Once-in-a-Generation Cut? The Armed Forces. All of them.

    This article was originally published by The Guardian.

    I say cut defence. I don’t mean nibble at it or slice it. I mean cut it, all £45bn of it. George Osborne yesterday asked the nation “for once in a generation” to think the unthinkable, to offer not just percentage cuts but “whether government needs to provide certain public services at all”.

    What do we really get from the army, the navy and the air force beyond soldiers dying in distant wars and a tingle when the band marches by? Is the tingle worth £45bn, more than the total spent on schools? Why does Osborne “ringfence” defence when everyone knows its budget is a bankruptcy waiting to happen, when Labour ministers bought the wrong kit for wars that they insisted it fight?

    Osborne cannot believe the armed forces are so vital or so efficient as to be excused the star chamber’s “fundamental re-evaluation of their role”. He knows their management and procurement have long been an insult to the taxpayer. The reason for his timidity must be that, like David Cameron, he is a young man scared of old generals.

    I was content to be expensively defended against the threat of global communism. With the end of the cold war in the 1990s that threat vanished. In its place was a fantasy proposition, that some unspecified but potent “enemy” lurked in the seas and skies around Britain. Where is it?

    Each incoming government since 1990 has held so-called defence reviews “to match capabilities to policy objectives”. I helped with one in 1997, and it was rubbish from start to finish, a cosmetic attempt to justify the colossal procurements then in train, and in such a way that any cut would present Labour as “soft” on defence.

    Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and George Robertson, the then defence secretary were terrified into submission. They agreed to a parody of generals fighting the last war but one. They bought new destroyers to defeat the U-boat menace. They bought new carriers to save the British empire. They bought Eurofighters to duel with Russian air aces. Trident submarines with nuclear warheads went on cruising the deep, deterring no one, just so Blair could walk tall at conferences.

    Each weekend, the tranquillity of the Welsh countryside is shattered by inane jets screaming through the mountain valleys playing at Lord of the Rings. With modern bombs, no plane need fly that low, and the jets are said to burn more fuel in half an hour than a school in a year. Any other service wasting so much money would be laughed out of court. Yet the Treasury grovels before the exotic virility of it all.

    Labour lacked the guts to admit that it was crazy to plan for another Falklands war. It dared not admit that the procurement executive was fit for nothing but appeasing weapons manufacturers. No armies were massing on the continent poised to attack. No navies were plotting to throttle our islands and starve us into submission. No missiles were fizzing in bunkers across Asia with Birmingham or Leeds in their sights. As for the colonies, if it costs £45bn to protect the Falklands, Gibraltar and the Caymans, it must be the most ridiculous empire in history. It would be cheaper to give each colony independence and a billion a year.

    Lobbyists reply that all defence expenditure is precautionary. You cannot predict every threat and it takes time to rearm should one emerge. That argument might have held during the cold war and, strictly up to a point, today. But at the present scale it is wholly implausible.

    All spending on insurance – be it on health or the police or environmental protection – requires some assessment of risk. Otherwise spending is open-ended. After the cold war there was much talk of a peace dividend and the defence industry went into intellectual overdrive. It conjured up a new “war” jargon, as in the war on drugs, on terror, on piracy, on genocide. The navy was needed to fight drug gangs in the Caribbean, pirates off Somalia and gun-runners in the Persian Gulf. In all such “wars” performance has been dire, because each threat was defined to justify service expenditure rather than the other way round.

    Whenever I ask a defence pundit against whom he is defending me, the answer is a wink and a smile: “You never know.” The world is a messy place. Better safe than sorry. It is like demanding crash barriers along every pavement in case cars go out of control, or examining school children for diseases every day. You never know. The truth is, we are now spending £45bn on heebie-jeebies.

    For the past 20 years, Britain’s armed forces have encouraged foreign policy into one war after another, none of them remotely to do with the nation’s security. Asked why he was standing in an Afghan desert earlier this year, Brown had to claim absurdly that he was “making London’s streets safer”. Some wars, as in Iraq, have been a sickening waste of money and young lives. Others in Kosovo and Afghanistan honour a Nato commitment that had nothing to do with collective security. Like many armies in history, Nato has become an alliance in search of a purpose. Coalition ministers are citing Canada as a shining example of how to cut. Canada is wasting no more money in Afghanistan.

    Despite Blair’s politics of fear, Britain entered the 21st century safer than at any time since the Norman conquest. I am defended already, by the police, the security services and a myriad regulators and inspectors. Defence spending does not add to this. It is like winning the Olympics – a magnificent, extravagant national boast, so embedded in the British psyche that politicians (and newspapers) dare not question it. Yet Osborne asked that every public service should “once in a generation” go back to basics and ask what it really delivers for its money. Why not defence?

    There are many evils that threaten the British people at present, but I cannot think of one that absolutely demands £45bn to deter it. Soldiers, sailors and air crews are no protection against terrorists, who anyway are not that much of a threat. No country is an aggressor against the British state. No country would attack us were the government to put its troops into reserve and mothball its ships, tanks and planes. Let us get real.

    I am all for being defended, but at the present price I am entitled to ask against whom and how. Of all the public services that should justify themselves from ground zero, defence is the first.

  • US Energy Policy Creating a New Generation of Dr. Strangeloves

    This article was originally published by Foreign Policy in Focus.

    President Eisenhower is well-remembered for warning the public in his final address to the nation to “guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence . . . by the military-industrial complex.” But it is little known that Eisenhower, in that same speech further cautioned that “we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”

    In May, U.S. Secretary of Energy Steve Chu announced that 42 university-led nuclear research and development projects would receive $38 million through the Department of Energy’s “Nuclear Energy University Program” designed to help advance nuclear education and develop the next generations of nuclear technologies. “We are taking action to restart the nuclear industry as part of a broad approach to cut carbon pollution and create new clean energy jobs,” said Secretary Chu. “These projects will help us develop the nuclear technologies of the future and move our domestic nuclear industry forward.”

    At a time when the United States should be creating a new Manhattan Project for safe, clean, green energy from the sun, wind, and tides, the Obama administration is trying to recreate the old Manhattan project, training our best and brightest to continue to wreak havoc on the planet with nuclear know-how. Instead of letting the old nuclear complex rust in peace, the government is proactively taking the initiative to create a whole new generation of Dr. Strangeloves, enticing young people to study these dark arts by putting up millions of precious dollars for nuclear programs and scholarships.

    What a disappointment that Dr. Chu, a Nobel laureate scientist, appointed by Obama for “change we can believe in”, represents the old paradigm of top-down, hierarchical, secret nuclear science. It’s just so 20th century! Chu has apparently ignored the myriad studies that show that dollar-for-dollar, nuclear power is one of the most expensive ways to meet energy needs, when lifecycle costs are compared to solar, wind, geothermal, appropriate hydropower and biomass, as well as efficiency measures. This is also true for reducing carbon emissions, as expensive nuclear power would actually exacerbate catastrophic climate change since less carbon emission is prevented per dollar spent on costly nuclear technology compared to applying those funds to clean energy sources and efficiency.

    Further, countless studies, including recent reports from three communities in Germany with nuclear reactors, indicate that there are higher incidences of cancer, leukemia and birth defects in communities with toxic nuclear power plants that pollute the air, water, and soil in the course of routine operations. And a recent report from the New York Academy of Sciences, by distinguished Russian scientists, finds that deaths from the disastrous accident at Chernobyl now number over 900,000. Dr. Chu, a nuclear physicist, is well aware that the radioactive byproducts of nuclear power will remain toxic for 250,000 years and that there is no known solution to safely store this lethal brew for the eons it will threaten human health and the environment.

    Americans should oppose any further funding for this failed, dangerous technology as well as the inordinate subsidies presently planned for the nuclear industry. It’s time to invest in a clean energy future that will create millions of jobs and enable the US to earn an honest dollar by developing desirable new technology to offer to the world. Instead we will be providing a growing number of countries the wherewithal and technical know-how with which to make a nuclear bomb, while subjecting their communities to the consequences of toxic radiation.

  • British Petroleum, Imagination and Nuclear Catastrophe

    Vaya aquí para la versión española.

    Before the catastrophic British Petroleum oil gush in the Gulf of Mexico, there were environmentalists who warned that offshore drilling was fraught with risk – risk of exactly the type of environmental damage that is occurring.  They were mocked by people who chanted slogans such as “Drill, baby, drill.”  Now it is clear that the “Drill, baby, drill” crowd was foolish and greedy.  The economic wellbeing of people in and around the Gulf coast has been badly damaged and, for some, destroyed altogether.  Aquatic and estuary life, in the Gulf and beyond, has fallen victim to an environmental disaster that was foreseeable with a modicum of vision and imagination.

    Albert Einstein reached the conclusion that “Imagination is more important than knowledge.” He said that “knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.”  Let us try applying our imaginations to nuclear weapons and nuclear war.  Here are some scenarios:

    Scenario 1: Al Qaeda does what most commentators believed to be impossible.  They obtain nuclear materials for several nuclear weapons and hire scientists to construct crude nuclear weapons.  These weapons are detonated in London, New York and Paris within hours of each other.  Millions would lie dead and injured.  Around the world stock markets would freefall.  Before the terrorist nuclear attacks, the people who warned against such a possibility were mocked.

    Scenario 2: Nuclear deterrence fails dramatically, and India and Pakistan engage in a nuclear war over Kashmir.  The hundred or so nuclear warheads that detonate on Indian and Pakistani cities leave millions dead and lower global temperatures so as to significantly shrink the size of agricultural areas in which food can be grown.  Crop failures leave hundreds of millions more people to starve to death.  Before the war, the people who warned against such a possibility were mocked.  

    Scenario 3: A nuclear war begins with an accidental launch of a nuclear-armed missile by Russia, followed by a retaliatory strike by the US, which brings further retaliation from Russia, leading to still more from the US.  Before the accidental launch, few people believed that such a cataclysmic accident and its retaliatory follow up were possible.  In its aftermath, the scenario seems far too feasible.  People now realize that the failsafe devices to prevent accidental launches could fail, but those who foresaw this danger and warned about it earlier were mocked.

    Scenario 4: North Korean leader Kim Jong-Il launches a nuclear attack that destroys US military bases on the Japanese island of Okinawa.  He threatens to destroy the Japanese city of Kyoto and Seoul, South Korea unless he receives the development assistance he says was promised to him by the United States.  Those who argued throughout the Nuclear Age that continued possession of nuclear weapons by the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council would result in nuclear proliferation and the weapons falling into the hands of irrational leaders were mocked.  

    There are many scenarios possible for the onset of nuclear war and there remain many justifications for nuclear weapons.  Leaders of nuclear weapon states argue that these weapons are only for nuclear deterrence, that is, to prevent war by threatening nuclear retaliation.  They don’t foresee the potential failure of nuclear deterrence, even though they recognize the cataclysmic consequences of failure.  They believe that nuclear weapons bolster a country’s prestige and give it greater power in the international system.  They proudly display their nuclear weapons and test their missile delivery systems.  Those who argue that nuclear deterrence could fail catastrophically are mocked.

    Political and military leaders have failed to honor the proposition that in every complex system in which humans are involved, system failure is a possibility.  They have dismissed the idea of system failure leading to nuclear annihilation.  Scientists spoke out about this shortsightedness, but they were mocked.  Former high-level policymakers spoke out about the dangers, and they, too, were mocked.  Even some former military leaders spoke out against the dangers of reliance on nuclear weapons, and they were mocked.  The survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, who witnessed the horrors of the atomic bombs firsthand, have told their stories in an attempt to awaken people to the danger of nuclear weapons, but their voices are soft and few people in high places have listened to them.  

    Civil society organizations from throughout the world have called out for a commitment to an urgent plan for the elimination of nuclear weapons, and they also have been mocked.  But, like the survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, they continue to speak out because it is the right thing to do.  Nuclear weapons can end life on Earth as we know it.  They can destroy civilization.  In a major nuclear war, they could bring the human species and most complex forms of life to extinction.  Even in a smaller nuclear war or accident, they could destroy cities and countries.  

    As the oil from the British Petroleum failure in the Gulf of Mexico continues to destroy the ocean and surrounding environment, it is perhaps too late to ask ourselves whether offshore drilling is worth the risk.  Clearly it is not.  It is still not too late, however, to raise the question of whether continued reliance on nuclear weapons is worth the risk to humanity and to future generations.