Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Blog

  • The Modern Successor to the Slave Trade

    For many years, I’ve been involved in the peace business, doing what I can to help people overcome their differences. In doing so, I’ve also learnt a lot about the business of war: the arms trade. In my opinion it is the modern slave trade. It is an industry out of control: every day more than 1,000 people are killed by conventional weapons. The vast majority of those people are innocent men, women and children.

    There have been international treaties to control the spread of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons for decades. Yet, despite the mounting death toll, there is still no treaty governing sales of all conventional weapons from handguns to attack helicopters. As a result, weapons fall into the wrong hands all too easily, fuelling human rights abuses, prolonging wars and digging countries deeper into poverty.

    This is allowed to continue because of the complicity of governments, especially rich countries’ governments, which turn a blind eye to the appalling human suffering associated with the proliferation of weapons.

    Every year, small arms alone kill more people than the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki put together. Many more people are injured, terrorised or driven from their homes by armed violence. Even as you read this, one of these human tragedies is unfolding somewhere on the planet.

    Take the Democratic Republic of Congo, where armed violence recently flared up again, and millions have died during almost a decade of conflict. Despite a UN arms embargo against armed groups in the country, weapons have continued to flood in from all over the world.

    Arms found during weapons collections include those made in Germany, France, Israel, USA and Russia. The only common denominator is that nearly all these weapons were manufactured outside Africa. Five rich countries manufacture the vast majority of the world’s weapons. In 2005, Russia, the United States, France, Germany and the UK accounted for an estimated 82 per cent of the global arms market. And it’s big business: the amount rich countries spend on fighting HIV/Aids every year represents just 18 days’ global spending on arms.

    But while the profits flow back to the developed world, the effects of the arms trade are predominantly felt in developing countries. More than two-thirds of the value of all arms are sold to Africa, Asia, the Middle East and Latin America.

    In addition to the deaths, injuries and rapes perpetrated with these weapons, the cost of conflict goes deeper still, destroying health and education systems.

    For example, in northern Uganda, which has been devastated by 20 years of armed conflict, it has been estimated that 250,000 children do not attend school. The war in northern Uganda, which may be finally coming to an end, has been fuelled by supplies of foreign-made weapons. And, as with so many wars, the heaviest toll has been on the region’s children. Children under five are always the most vulnerable to disease, and in a war zone adequate medical care is often not available.

    The world could eradicate poverty in a few generations were only a fraction of the expenditure on the war business to be spent on peace. An average of $22bn is spent on arms by countries in Asia, the Middle East, Latin America and Africa every year, according to estimates for the US Congress. This sum would have enabled those countries to put every child in school and to reduce child mortality by two-thirds by 2015, fulfilling two of the Millennium Development Goals.

    This year, the world has the chance to finally say no to the continuing scandal of the unregulated weapons trade. In October, governments will vote on a resolution at the UN General Assembly to start working towards an Arms Trade Treaty. That Treaty would be based on a simple principle: no weapons for violations of international law. In other words, a ban on selling weapons if there is a clear risk they will be used to abuse human rights or fuel conflict. The UN resolution has been put forward by the governments of Australia, Argentina, Costa Rica, Finland, Japan, Kenya, and the UK. These governments believe the idea of an Arms Trade Treaty is one whose time has come.

    I agree. We must end impunity for governments who authorise the supply of weapons when they know there’s a great danger those weapons will be used for gross human rights abuses. Great strides are being made towards ending impunity for war criminals. It cannot be acceptable that their arms suppliers continue to escape punishment. No longer should the peace business be undermined by the arms business. I call on all governments to put the control of the international arms trade at the top of their agenda.

  • The Middle East and the World Five Years After 9/11

    This is an excellent moment to evaluate what has happened since September 11, 2001. Five years have passed since the dramatic attacks on the highly symbolic American targets, the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. The US Government has launched wars against Afghanistan and Iraq. A third war, with likely graver consequences, is threatened in the months ahead against Iran. In a speech given in Atlanta, Georgia in early September, President Bush declared that “America is safer” than it was five years ago, “and America is winning the war on terror.” Bush also insisted that this is not only a war against Islamic extremism, but is also “the decisive ideological struggle of the 21st century,” a struggle that “threatens all civilized nations.” The American president claimed that “today the civilized world stands together to defend our freedom..to defeat the terrorists” and thereby “secure the peace for generations to come.” A sober appraisal of the facts do not support the American president on any of these contentions.

    Much of the world, including the peoples of the Middle East and countries long allied do not share such a self-congratulatory interpretation of the American role in the post-9/11 world. According to independent polls taken in a variety of countries the Bush approach to world order is not popular elsewhere. When asked if they approved of the American ‘global war on terror,’84% in Egypt, 77% in Turkey, and 74% in Jordan responded ‘No.’ Similar results were found among America’s traditional allies. 76% of those polled in Spain and 57% in France expressed their overall disapproval of the American response to September 11th. A reliable survey of world opinion also found that in recent years that far more people fear the role of the United States in the world than that of al Qaeda.

    What has troubled thoughtful observers more than anything else has been the stubborn American insistence that the only viable response to the 9/11 attacks was to declare ‘war’ on a violent adversary such as al Qaeda, a shadowy transnational network without either a distinct territorial base or allegiance to any specific state. This mistake was further compounded by extending the orbit of the war far beyond al Qaeda to encompass all forms of non-state violence within the operative definition of the ‘terrorist’ threat. Such an extension of the conflict by the US Government encouraged such countries as Israel, Russia, and China to treat self-determination movements within and near their borders as belonging to the war against terror. Both the futility and injustice of treating the Palestinians, the Chechens, and the people of Xingiang as part of the same struggle as that unleashed by the 9/11 attacks was to distort and deflect a more genuine and focused pursuit of security for the United States, as well as give governments around the world an unconditional mandate to engage in uncontrolled violence and oppression against non-state movements seeking human rights and self-determination.

    Additionally, two closely linked counter-terrorist policies were enunciated by President Bush that further escalated and spread the war zone: states that ‘harbored’ terrorists within their borders would be held as responsible as the terrorists, and would be regarded as legitimate targets for attack; and if a state does not join the US in the counter-terrorist war, then it will be viewed as an enemy (“You are either with us or you are with the terrorists). This logic was initially applied, with some plausibility, to justify attacking Afghanistan, and overthrowing its Taliban government. This seemed reasonable to many moderate oberservers at the time, although stretching the limits of international law, because Afghanistan did seem to provide a safe haven for the leadership of al Qaeda, as well as providing the site for extensive terrorist training facilities that led more or less directly to the 9/11 attacks. It did seem necessary at the time to destroy this al Qaeda base of operations to lessen the prospect of future attacks. Waging war against Afghanistan as a whole was always more problematic, especially if considered a precedent for future wars. It is true that the Kabul government had few friends among governments, and the Taliban regime had surely committed some severe Crimes Against Humanity that shocked the world. The American claim that it was rescuing the people of the country from oppression and famine seems much shakier after five years than it did at first. The latest reports indicate the highest ever production rates of narcotic drugs, a revival of the Taliban and armed struggle, and much evidence of corruption and warlordism arising from the American-led occupation. Beyond this, the main rationale for the war was the opportunity to capture the al Qaeda leadership so that it could not plan and carry out further terrorist attacks, a mission pursued so incompetently as to ensure failure. Five years later al Qaeda is still a potent force, although its operational base has mutated in some respects, relying on likeminded extremist groups around the world, and Osama Bin Laden and Ayman Zawahiri are still at large.

    But worse than Afghanistan, in many respects, was Iraq. The invasion of Iraq was undertaken despite the absence of a connection with the perpetrators of 9/11, a conclusion now even acknowledged by US governmental investigations. The argument that Iraq under Saddam Hussein posed an intolerable threat because of its alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction never convinced either the UN Security Council, world public opinion, or most of America’s most trusted allies, and yet the invasion of this country went ahead. The attack on Iraq was widely regarded as illegal, immoral, and imprudent in the extreme. This impression was reinforced by the subsequent failure of the invaders to find any weapons of mass destruction, despite pre-invasions claims of hard evidence that such arsenals existed. Criticism of the Iraq undertaking also mounted as the brutality and incompetence of the occupation became unmistakably clear. Instead of liberation, what ensued under the American-led occupation seemed crudely abusive of the Iraqi people and their culture. Rather than diminish 9/11 kinds of activities, the Iraq experience has significantly strengthened anti-American violent extremism in the region. Three years after the invasion, Iraq remains ravaged and war torn, caught in an escalating spiral of violence that threatens to spill over its borders, dangerously agitating relations throughout the region between Sunnis and Shi’ias. In going forward with its Iraq policy, and refusing to acknowledge the failure of the occupation, the United States has damaged its credibility as a global leader, as well as weakened the authority of the United Nations and of international law generally. The precedent of recourse to war in a situation other than self-defense fundamentally rewrites the Charter restrictions on aggressive war that were such a central aspect of the laudable effort to construct a world order after 1945 that was less prone to war. This resolve to prevent future wars was led by American diplomacy after World War II, which also featured the punishment of surviving German leaders at Nuremberg for their role in planning and waging aggressive war.

    Most regrettable is the missed opportunity to react in a constructive fashion to the 9/11 attacks. Immediately after these attacks there was a world display of solidarity with the United States, including even demonstrations of support in Tehran and the Palestinian Territories. Had the United States taken advantage of this climate of opinion it could have pursued those charged with violent acts, including those of 9/11 by reliance on greatly enhanced law enforcement, sustained by much improved transnational framework of police and paramilitary cooperation. Looking back on the five years, most of the success in weakening al Qaeda, and preventing further terrorist attacks, has resulted from police and intelligence efforts. In contrast, the war paradigm has proved dysfunctional, wasting enormous resources and lives, undermining the legitimacy of the struggle, and inducing many young persons to opt for political extremism.

    The recently concluded Lebanon War gives added weight to this set of conclusions. Israel launched an aggressive war against Lebanon, implicitly relying on the American doctrine that a territorial state will henceforth be held fully responsible and punished for the acts of non-state actors that operate within its borders. The real adversary of Israel was supposedly Hezbollah, which was historically a resistance movement dedicated to the removal of the Israeli presence from Lebanese territory. It should be recalled that Hezbollah was formed in response to Israel’s invasion of Lebanon in 1982, and its refusal to withdraw from the southern part of the country. As the 2006 war demonstrated anew, military superiority often cannot be translated into political outcomes when the adversary, as was the case with Hezbollah, was a well-entrenched, indigenous political movement, with a strong base of popular support. Israel managed to cause much destruction and suffering, but in the end Hezbollah was not defeated. It emerged stronger, and Israel’s military credibility was weakened. American support for Israel’s war, and its role in neutralizing efforts to obtain an early ceasefire in the UNSC added a vivid new justification to those forces opposing the post-9/11 tactics adopted by the United States, and now imitated by Israel with American backing.

    The tactics relied upon in Lebanon represent more than practical failures. They represent a long step backward with respect to international law and morality. What Israel claimed it was entitled to do was to launch a full-scale war against a relatively defenseless state on the basis of a routine border incident. Because of the difficulty of using war as an instrument against armed resistance forces, the Israel/American policy relies on disproportionate and indiscriminate force to intimidate an adversary, inflicting massive doses of collective punishment on civilian societies. This is essentially a terrorist logic: inflicting so much suffering on the government and people of Lebanon that it will be compelled to decide on the basis of its self-interest that it must surrender to Israeli demands with respect to Hezbollah. But the logic backfired, and the political leverage of Hezbollah within Lebanon is probably greater than it was before the war began.

    My main argument is that war and excessive force have been ineffective in achieving their goals and dangerously destructive of world order. The United States and Israel have persisted with such an approach in the Middle East since 9/11 despite this record of unsuccess. There are three main explanations. The first explanation has to do with the outlook of political leaders. Major states are governed by individuals with a military mentality who are not sensitive to the limits of power when dealing with the sorts of conflicts that exist in the contemporary world. Because of this constricted imagination, the more military efforts prove unable to reach their anticipated goals, the more ardent will be their pursuit. Instead of adjusting to the failure, and switching to more effective political means and police efforts, the tendency as in Iraq, Lebanon, and Gaza is to intensify the military approach, and expand the war zone.

    The second explanation is the unwillingness of the leadership in Washington to address the legitimate grievances that give rise to political extremism. Far more expedient than attacking countries, would be exerting pressure on Israel to reach a fair outcome of the conflict with the Palestinian people. Ending the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, as agreed unanimously in the Security Council almost forty years ago, would diminish the appeal of extremism in the region, and greatly reduce the resentment of the American role that is so widely felt by the people of the Islamic world.

    The third explanation is the most important, yet difficult to document. The response to 9/11 established a political climate that allowed the neoconservative foreign policy advisors of President Bush to implement their long advocated grand strategy in the Middle East in conjunction with the conduct of the global war on terror. This grand strategy pre-existed 9/11, and focused on the shift from Europe to the Middle East as the main strategic battleground to shape the future of the world. This outlook led to giving the highest foreign policy priority to gaining hegemonic authority in the region to safeguard control over its energy resources, to guide its ideological evolution, and to prevent anti-Western political behavior by its leading governments. Neoconservatives, in collaboration with right-wing Israelis, had believed for many years that their long-term interests in the region could only be protected by achieving ‘regime change’ through military intervention in a series of countries they regarded as problematic including Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and most of all, Iran. 9/11 created the political mandate that had been previously lacking. Among the problems with this approach was an over-estimation on the role of military superiority, and the tension between a successful counter-terrorist policy and the grand strategy objective of controlling the region. But despite the setbacks in Iraq and Lebanon, this policy has not been abandoned by the Bush administration, and underlies the intensifying confrontation with Iran over its nuclear program.

    From these perspectives, there never should have been a global war on terror, and there certainly should not have been an American/Israeli partnership to reconfigure by force of arms the internal political governing arrangements in a series of countries perceived as hostile. Unfortunately, the region and the world are more dangerous than five years ago, and future prospects are not encouraging. Whether internal political change in the United States can generate a more constructive approach will determine whether the decline in global security of the past five years can be reversed in the next five.

     

    Richard Falk is the Board Chair of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation and a Distinguished Visiting Professor at the University of California at Santa Barbara.

  • Troubling Questions About Missile Defense

    Troubling Questions About Missile Defense

    On September 1, 2006, the US held a missile defense test, which has been widely heralded by the government as a “success.” The $80 million test involved a dummy warhead launched from Kodiak Island in Alaska, which was intercepted and destroyed by an interceptor missile launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California.

    Lt. General Henry Obering III, the director of the Missile Defense Agency, was rhapsodic in his praise for the test: “I don’t want to ask the North Koreans to launch against us – that would be a realistic end-to-end test. Short of that, this is about as good as it gets.”

    For the defense contractors profiting from the missile defense system, such as Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and Raytheon, this must be about as good as it gets. But the rest of the American public, who might end up as victims of a nuclear attack and who have already paid over $100 billion for the development of missile defenses, are entitled to a lot more clarity on just how realistic such a test is. While the interceptor missile did destroy the dummy warhead, there are many questions worth asking.

    First, if the system works so well, why did it have to be postponed due to bad weather the previous day? Will the system work only in good weather? Will cloud cover make the system ineffective?

    Second, did the Missile Defense Agency include a homing device in the dummy warhead, as it has frequently done in the past, to help guide the interceptor missile to its target? Homing devices in the target dummy warheads have made the missile defense tests seem a lot more successful than they really are, and it is highly unlikely that a potential enemy would want to help our missile defense system by placing homing devices in their warheads.

    Third, would the system be able to work against a sophisticated attacking missile that was able to take evasive action or against an attack by multiple missiles? There is also the question of whether the system would be able to find the real warheads hidden in a volley of decoys.

    After the recent test, General Obering commented, “I feel a lot safer and sleep a lot better at night.” While the general may feel safer, I doubt that the American people should feel safer until these questions are answered to their satisfaction.

    If the rest of us want to join General Obering in feeling safer and sleeping better at night, perhaps we should encourage our government leaders to try diplomacy aimed at building friendships and partnerships with potential enemies, rather than continuing to base our security and our future on a costly and ineffectual missile defense system that is likely to fail under real world conditions. Another cost effective way of improving our security would be to encourage our top officials to show some actual leadership in achieving the obligations for nuclear disarmament that are set forth in the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

    David Krieger is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org). He is a leader in the global effort for a world free of nuclear weapons.

  • Preventing a Nuclear 9/11

    Preventing a Nuclear 9/11

    In the September/October 2006 issue of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Harvard University professor Graham Allison discusses a “nuclear 9/11” and concludes that “a nuclear terrorist attack on the United States is more likely than not in the decade ahead.” Allison underlines this assessment by pointing out that former US Defense Secretary William Perry thinks that he (Allison) underestimates the risk, and that former Senator Sam Nunn, currently chair of the Nuclear Threat Initiative, thinks that the risk of a nuclear detonation by terrorists on US soil is higher today than the risk of nuclear war at the height of the Cold War. It is the failure by the majority of US policymakers to recognize and adequately respond to this threat that Allison refers to in the title of his article, “The ongoing failure of imagination.”

    Allison then argues that all is not lost because this “ultimate catastrophe” is preventable by what he calls the “Doctrine of Three Nos.” These are: No loose Nukes; No new nascent nukes; and No new nuclear weapons states. The first requires securing all nuclear weapons and weapons-usable nuclear material throughout the world. The second requires no new domestic capabilities to enrich uranium or reprocess plutonium. And the third requires holding the line at the current eight nuclear weapons states (he describes North Korea as being only “three-quarters of the way across that line”).

    To win the war against nuclear terrorism, Allison calls for the creation of a new Global Alliance Against Nuclear Terrorism with five common goals. First, members of the alliance would give personal assurances that nuclear weapons and materials on their territory are adequately secured from terrorists or thieves. Second, the creation of a global consensus on the Three Nos described above. Third, the establishment of a more robust non-proliferation regime to control nuclear materials and technology transfers. Fourth, development of an infrastructure to apply “lessons learned” in the fight against nuclear terrorism. Fifth and finally, Allison calls for the alliance being “not just a signed document but a living institution committed to its mission.”

    Allison’s prescription is good as far as it goes, but it does not go far enough. In certain respects Allison, like those he criticizes, also suffers from a failure of imagination. He fails to imagine the necessity and possibility of a world without nuclear weapons as the key to foreclosing the prospects of nuclear terrorism. In general, Allison, like many others in the US nuclear policy field, seems committed to trying to prevent nuclear terrorism while maintaining the two-tier structure of nuclear weapons “haves” and “have-nots.” He wants to hold the line at eight nuclear weapons states, and to assure that there are no new domestic capabilities to enrich uranium or reprocess plutonium. He makes no mention of the failure of the nuclear weapons states to fulfill their Non-Proliferation Treaty obligations for good faith negotiations for nuclear disarmament, or of the benefits that such efforts would have on reducing the risks of nuclear terrorism.

    By continuing to rely upon nuclear weapons for their own security, the current nuclear weapons states demonstrate the usefulness of these weapons for other states. The more states that have these weapons and the more nuclear weapons there are in the world, the more likely it is that the weapons will end up in the hands of terrorists. If the current nuclear weapons states want to prevent nuclear terrorism, they must do more than try to effectively guard their own weapons and weapons-grade materials and to convince others to do the same. They must become serious about their obligations for nuclear disarmament, commence good faith negotiations toward this end, and move as rapidly as possible to reduce their nuclear arsenals and bring remaining stocks of weapons, weapons-grade materials and the technologies to create such materials under strict and effective international control.

    In my view, the greatest failure of imagination on the part of leaders in the nuclear weapons states is their belief that they can continue with nuclear business as usual, brandishing their own nuclear weapons, while expecting that these weapons will not eventually end up in the hands of terrorists. In fact, it is a failure of imagination for policymakers in the nuclear weapons states not to view their own possession of nuclear weapons as a form of nuclear terrorism. In the end, the only way to assure against the threat of nuclear terrorism is to eliminate nuclear weapons. Anything short of that is only a partial measure, leaving the door open to nuclear terrorism.

    David Krieger is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org). He is a leader in the global effort for a world free of nuclear weapons.
  • The Challenge of Abolishing Nuclear Weapons

    The Challenge of Abolishing Nuclear Weapons

    There are many serious problems confronting humanity, but none looms larger than the continuing dangers of nuclear weapons. We have entered the seventh decade since nuclear weapons were created and used on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. During this period, the world has witnessed an insane nuclear arms race, in which the human species was threatened with annihilation. Despite the end of the Cold War more than 15 years ago, the threat has not gone away. The future of civilization, even the human species, hangs in the balance, and yet very little attention is paid to ending this threat. We are challenged, individually and collectively, to end this ultimate danger to humanity.

    Warnings

    Nuclear weapons unleash the power inside the atom. The creation of these weapons demonstrated significant scientific achievement, but left humankind faced with the challenge of what to do with them. Albert Einstein, whose theoretical understanding of the relationship of energy and mass paved the way for nuclear weapons, was deeply troubled by their creation. “The unleashed power of the atom,” he prophesied, “has changed everything save our modes of thinking, and thus we drift toward unparalleled catastrophe.”

    By 1955, ten years after the first use of nuclear weapons, both the US and USSR had developed thermonuclear weapons, thousands of times more powerful than the weapons that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and they had begun testing these weapons on the lands of indigenous peoples. Einstein continued his dire warnings. Along with philosopher Bertrand Russell, an appeal to humanity was issued called the Russell-Einstein Manifesto, signed also by nine other prominent scientists. They wrote: “There lies before us, if we choose, continual progress in happiness, knowledge, and wisdom. Shall we, instead, choose death, because we cannot forget our quarrels? We appeal as human beings to human beings: Remember your humanity, and forget the rest. If you can do so, the way lies open to a new Paradise; if you cannot, there lies before you the risk of universal death.”

    Other warnings from highly credible sources throughout the Nuclear Age sought to put the world on notice of the peril nuclear weapons posed to humanity. The most recent warning came from the Commission on Weapons of Mass Destruction, also known as the Blix Commission after its chairman, former chief weapons inspector in Iraq, Hans Blix. Referring to weapons of mass destruction, the 2006 report stated: “So long as any state has such weapons – especially nuclear arms – others will want them. So long as any such weapons remain in any state’s arsenal, there is a high risk that they will one day be used, by design or accident. Any such use would be catastrophic.”

    With the serious dangers that nuclear weapons pose to the human future, it is curious that so many warnings, over so long a period of time, have gone unheeded. There are still some 27,000 nuclear weapons in the world. Some 97 percent of these are in the arsenals of the United States and Russia. Seven other countries also have nuclear weapons: the UK, France, China, Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea. There are also countries such as Japan that are virtual nuclear powers, possessing the technology and nuclear materials to develop nuclear arsenals in days or weeks.

    What will it take to awaken humanity, and change its course? Many people think that this will not happen until there is another catastrophic use of nuclear weapons, but this would be an immense tragedy and a great failure of imagination. If we can imagine that another nuclear catastrophe is possible, shouldn’t we act now to prevent it?

    Nuclear weapons are often justified as providing security for their possessors. But it is clear that nuclear weapons themselves cannot provide protection in the sense of physical security. At best, they can provide psychological security if one believes that they provide a deterrent against attack. The United States is currently spending tens of billions of dollars to develop a missile defense system. The only reasonable interpretation of this expenditure is that US defense planners understand that deterrence is not foolproof and that it can fail. Of course, missile defenses are far from foolproof as well and can also easily fail. In fact, most scientists not being paid by the missile defense program believe that missile defenses will fail.

    The Shortcomings of Deterrence

    Deterrence has many shortcomings. For it to be effective, the threat must be accurately communicated and it must be believed. In addition, the opponent must care about the threat enough to alter its behavior. Deterrence won’t work when the threat is unbelievable, or when the opponent is suicidal or not locatable.

    If nuclear weapons cannot provide protection for a population, what other advantages do they offer? One possible answer to this question is prestige. Since the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council all developed nuclear weapons, it may seem to other states that nuclear weapons would contribute to their prestige in the world. This thought was given credence by the large-scale celebrations in the streets of India and Pakistan when these two countries tested nuclear devices in 1998.

    Whatever prestige nuclear weapons may confer comes with a heavy price. Nuclear weapons are costly and possessing them will almost certainly make a country the target of nuclear weapons.

    It seems reasonable to conclude that nuclear weapons serve the interests of the weak more than they do the powerful. In the hands of a relatively weak nation, nuclear weapons can serve as an equalizer. One has only to look at the difference in the way the US has treated the three countries that Mr. Bush incorrectly labelled as being part of an axis of evil: Iraq, Iran and North Korea. The US invaded Iraq on the false charge of having a nuclear weapons program, is threatening Iran for enriching uranium, but has done little but bluster about North Korea, which is thought to have a small arsenal of nuclear weapons and recently tested long-range missiles, adding to the anxiety of many of its potential enemies.

    From the perspective of a powerful state, the worst nightmare would be for nuclear weapons to fall into the hands of non-state terrorist organizations, whose members were both suicidal and not locatable. This could create the ideal conditions for these weapons to be used against a major nuclear power or another state. The US, for example, would be relatively helpless against a nuclear-armed al Qaeda. The US would not be able to deter al Qaeda. Its only hope would be to prevent it from obtaining a nuclear weapon or the materials to create one.

    Why Abolish Nuclear Weapons?

    Nuclear weapons undermine security. Under current circumstances, with so many nuclear weapons in the world and such an abundance of fissile materials for constructing nuclear weapons, the likelihood is that nuclear weapons will eventually end up in the hands of non-state terrorist organizations. This would be a disastrous scenario for the world’s most powerful counties, opening the door to possible nuclear 9/11s.

    In addition, nuclear weapons are anti-democratic. They concentrate power in the hands of single individuals. The president of the United States, for example, could send the world spiraling into nuclear holocaust with just one order to unleash the US nuclear arsenal. The undemocratic nature of nuclear weapons should be of great concern to those who value democracy and the participation of citizens in decisions that affect their lives.

    Nuclear weapons should also be viewed in terms of their consequences. They are long-range weapons of indiscriminate mass destruction. They destroy equally civilians and combatants, infants and the infirm, men and women. Viewed from this perspective, these weapons must be viewed as among the most cowardly ever created. By their possession, with the implicit threat of use that possession implies, nuclear weapons also destroy the souls of those who rely upon them.

    They are a coward’s weapon and their possession, threat and use is dishonorable. This was the conclusion of virtually all of the top military leaders of World War II, most of whom were morally devastated that the US used these weapons against Japan. Truman’s Chief of Staff William Leahy, for example, wrote about the use of atomic weapons on Japan: “I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.”

    Humanity still has a choice, in fact, it is the same choice posed in the Russell-Einstein Manifesto. We can choose to eliminate nuclear weapons or risk the elimination of the human species. A continuation of the status quo, of reliance by some states on nuclear arsenals, is likely to result in the proliferation of nuclear weapons to others states and to terrorist organizations. The alternative is the elimination of nuclear weapons.

    What Would It Take?

    What would it take to achieve the elimination of nuclear weapons? On the one hand, the answer to this question is “very little.” On the other hand, because of the resistance, complacency and myopia of the leaders of the nuclear weapons states, the answer may be a “great amount.”

    To move forward with the elimination of nuclear weapons would require compliance with existing international law. The International Court of Justice concluded in 1996: “There exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control.” In the decade since the Court announced its opinion, there has been little evidence of “good faith” negotiations by the nuclear weapons states moving toward any reasonable conclusion.

    The negotiations that the Court describes as an obligation of the nuclear weapons states would need to move toward the end a Nuclear Weapons Convention, a treaty setting forth a program for the phased elimination of nuclear weapons with appropriate measures of verification. With the political will to pursue these required negotiations, a treaty would not be a difficult task to achieve. What is lacking is the requisite political will on the part of the nuclear weapons states.

    A Special Responsibility, A Tragic Failure

    The United States, as the world’s most powerful country and the only country to use nuclear weapons in warfare, has a special responsibility to lead in fulfilling its obligations under international law. In fact, without US leadership, it is unlikely that progress will be possible toward nuclear disarmament. But rather than lead in this direction, the United States under the Bush administration has been the major obstacle to nuclear disarmament. It has failed to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, has withdrawn from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty to pursue dreams of “star wars,” has opposed a verifiable Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty, and in general has acted as an obstacle to progress on all matters of nuclear disarmament.

    The US has also pursued a double standard with regard to nuclear weapons. It has been silent on Israeli nuclear weapons, and now seeks to change its own non-proliferation laws to enable it to provide nuclear technology and materials to India, a country that has not joined the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and has developed a nuclear arsenal. At the same time, the US has developed contingency plans to use nuclear weapons against seven countries, five of which are non-nuclear weapons states, despite giving assurances that it would not use nuclear weapons against such states.

    What is tragic is that the American people don’t seem to grasp the seriousness of their government’s failure. They are lacking in education that would lead to an understanding of the situation. Their attention has been diverted to Iraq, Iran and North Korea, and they fail to see what is closest to home: the failure of their own government to lead in a constructive and lawful manner to achieve the elimination of nuclear weapons. “And thus,” in Einstein’s words, “we drift toward unparalleled catastrophe.”

    To bring about real change in nuclear policy, people must begin with a vision of a world free of nuclear weapons, and then they must speak out as if their lives and the lives of their children depended on their actions. It is unlikely that governments will give up powerful weapons on their own accord. They must be pushed by their citizenry – citizens unwilling to continue to run the risk of nuclear holocaust.

    A New Story

    We need a new story for considering nuclear dangers, a story that begins with the long struggle of humans over some three million years to arrive at our present state of society. That state is far from perfect, but few would suggest that it should be sacrificed on the altar of weapons of mass annihilation capable of reducing civilization to rubble.

    The first humans lived short and brutal lives. They were both predators and preyed upon. They survived by their nimbleness, more of body than mind, doing well if they lived into their twenties. Enough early humans were able to protect and nurture their infants in their hazardous environments that some of the children of each generation could survive to an age when they could themselves reproduce and repeat the cycle.

    Without these amazingly capable early ancestors, and those that followed who met the distinct challenges of their times and environments for many hundreds of thousands of generations, we would not be here. Each of our ancestors needed to survive the perils of birth, infancy, childhood and at least early maturity in order for each of us to have made it into the world.

    On the basis of the pure physical capacity to survive, we owe a debt to our ancestors, but with this debt comes something more. We each have a responsibility for helping to assure the chain of human survival that passes the world on intact to the next generation. In addition to this, we share an obligation to preserve the accumulated wisdom and beauty created by those who have walked the earth before us – the ideas of the great storytellers and philosophers, the great music, literature and art, the artifacts of humankind’s collective genius in its varied forms.

    All of the manifestations of human genius and triumph are placed in jeopardy by nuclear weapons and the threat of their use. Why do we tolerate this threat? Why are we docile in the face of policies that could end not only humanity, but life itself?

    Those of us alive today are the gatekeepers to the future, but the assumption of power by the state has left us vulnerable to the continuing threat of nuclear annihilation. The only way to be free of this threat is to be free of nuclear weapons. This is the greatest challenge of our time. It will require education so that people can learn to think about nuclear weapons and war in a new way. We will need organizational modes of collective action to bring pressure to bear on governments to achieve nuclear disarmament. Ordinary people must lead from below.

    The Role of Citizens

    Organizations working for nuclear disarmament – such as the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, Abolition 2000, the Middle Powers Initiative and the Mayors for Peace – can help give shape to efforts to put pressure on governments. But the change that is needed cannot be the sole responsibility of interest groups. Without the intervention of large numbers of people, we will go on with business as usual, a course that seems likely to lead to nuclear proliferation and further catastrophic uses of nuclear weapons. This is not a distant problem, nor one that can be shunted aside and left to governments.

    We who have entered the 21st century are not exempt from responsibility for assuring a human future. Japanese Buddhist leader Josei Toda called for young people to take the lead in pursuing nuclear disarmament. His proposal has great merit given the fact that it is their future and the future of their children that is imperiled by these weapons.

    Change occurs one person at a time. Each of us must take responsibility for creating a world free of nuclear threat. Noted anthropologist Margaret Mead offered this hopeful advice: “Never doubt that a small group of people can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.”

    In the end, the necessary changes cannot be left to governments alone. It is up to each of us. What can we do? I have five suggestions. First, become better informed. You can do this by visiting the website of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation at www.wagingpeace.org. Second, speak out, wherever you are. Talk to your family, friends, and other people around you. Third, join an organization working to abolish nuclear weapons, and help it to become successful. Fourth, use your unique talents. Each of us has special talents that can help make a difference. Use them. Fifth, be persistent. This is a tough job requiring strength and persistence.

    In working for peace and a world free of nuclear weapons, you can be a force for saving the world. Being a nuclear weapons abolitionist will require all the courage and commitment of those who worked in the 19th century for the abolition of slavery. Abolishing slavery was the challenge of that time; abolishing nuclear weapons is the even more consequential challenge of our time

    David Krieger is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org). He is a leader in the global effort for a world free of nuclear weapons.
  • Why are There Still Nuclear Weapons?

    Why are There Still Nuclear Weapons?

    I recently received a letter from long-time nuclear disarmament activist from Sweden, which he began by quoting something that I had said earlier this year: “A powerful state, such as the US, has everything to lose and very little to gain from the possession of nuclear weapons.” He indicated his wholehearted agreement, and then posed these questions that he has wrestled with: “Why are there still nuclear weapons? Or, more philosophically: To what need in society, in citizens and in leaders are nuclear weapons the answer?” I think that these are important questions, for which there are no easy answers, but they are certainly questions worthy of our time and thought.

    I would begin by arguing that there are still nuclear weapons because US elites are not enthusiastic about nuclear disarmament and have not provided necessary leadership to achieve it. Of course, this leads to the question: Why hasn’t this leadership from US elites been forthcoming? To this question I would offer the following reflections:

    1. US elites remain caught up in old patterns of thinking, such as, “The more powerful the weapon, the greater the security it provides.”
    2. US elites continue to think and act as though nuclear weapons provide security as well as leverage in the international system. Nuclear weapons may be viewed by elites primarily as weapons of last resort. But they may also be viewed by elites as weapons easy to pull out for more mundane threats, and the very fact of their existence is likely perceived as sufficient in most circumstances to keep another country in line.
    3. US elites are caught up in the false notions that there is prestige in possessing these weapons and that they contribute to the national image of “the superpower” state.
    4. US elites may be influenced by the concept that technology is non-reversible; once created it cannot be “uncreated.” Or, as it is sometimes put, “The genie cannot be put back in the bottle.”
    5. US elites may not understand or believe in leadership that is not based on force, threat of force or economic manipulation.
    6. These elites may also be distrustful of nuclear disarmament efforts due to concerns with potential cheating by other states. They currently seem to be distrustful in general of verification measures.
    7. Certain corporations and individuals continue to profit from maintaining the US nuclear arsenal.
    8. There remains no substantial public or outside pressure on these elites to change US nuclear policy, even policies that threaten preemption or prevention. Consequently, there is little impetus to change.

    One psychological concept that may be worth further consideration is that nuclear weapons are seen by elites as a tool of dominance between countries. Much like a master-slave relationship, nuclear weapons are tools of absolute power. They may represent the whip once held by the master. The whip, once its use has been demonstrated, need only be threatened to assure obedience from the slave population. Of course, slavery in general and the whip in particular breeds anger, resentment and rebellion in the oppressed population.

    In a time of terrorism, as we have seen repeatedly, this anger may take the form of attacks against vulnerable elements of the population. There is also a psychological tendency in the oppressed (for example, the abused child) to adopt the methods of the oppressor and thus terrorist groups seek to obtain nuclear weapons.

    The worst nightmare of US elites would be an attack or potential attack with nuclear weapons by a suicidal, unlocatable terrorist organization, against which US nuclear weapons would have no deterrent value. Perhaps a blind spot in the psyches of US elites and citizens results in an inability to understand that reliance on nuclear weapons and failure to provide leadership for nuclear disarmament is moving the world in the direction of nuclear proliferation, nuclear terrorism and nuclear disaster.

     

    David Krieger is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org). He is a leader in the global effort for a world free of nuclear weapons.

  • Assessing the United Nations After the Lebanon War of 2006

    Of course, we all breathe a bit easier with the news of a ceasefire in Lebanon even if its prospects for stemming the violence altogether are not favorable at this time. And after dithering for 34 days while the bombs dropped and the rockets flew we need to acknowledge that the United Nations, for all of its weaknesses, plays indispensable roles in a wide array of international conflict situations. It is notable in this instance that despite Israel’s discomfort with UN authority, and the reluctance of the United States to accept any UN interference with its foreign policy priorities, as in Iraq, both countries were forced to turn to the UN when Israel’s war against Lebanon ran up against the unexpectedly strong Hezbollah resistance. At the same time this is certainly not a moment to celebrate the UN for fulfilling its intended role as dedicated to war-prevention and the defense of states victimized by aggression. Perhaps, it is an occasion to take stock of what to expect from the UN in the early part of the twenty-first century, concluding that the Organization can be regarded neither as a failure nor as a success, but something inbetween that is complicated and puzzling.

    After World War II a mood of relief that the war was over was mingled with satisfaction (that the German and Italian fascism and Japanese militarism were defeated) and worry (that a future major war might well be fought with nuclear weapons, and even if not, that military technology was making wars more and more devastating for civilian society). One hopeful response was the establishment of the United Nations on the basis of a core agreement that recourse to force by a state, except in cases of strict self-defense was unconditionally prohibited. This norm was supposed to be supplemented by machinery for collective security intended to protect victims of aggression, but this undertaking although written into the UN Charter has never been implemented.

    The victorious countries in World War II plus China were designated as Permanent Members of the UN Security Council and given the right to veto any decision. The intention here was to acknowledge that the UN could not hope to ensure compliance with international law by these dominant states, and to avoid raising expectations too high it was better to acknowledge this deference of ‘law’ to ‘power’ restricted the role of the UN. But what was not anticipated in 1945, and has now again damaged the reputation of the UN, was the realization that the Organization could serve as an instrument for geopolitics in such a way as to override the most basic restraints on war making built into the UN Charter, but this is exactly what happened in the context of Israel’s war on Lebanon.

    The UNSC stood by in silence in the face of Israel’s decision to use the pretext of the July 12th border incitement by Hezbollah, involving only a small number of Israeli military personnel, to launch all out war on an essentially defenseless Lebanon. A month of mercilesxs Israeli air attacks on Lebanese villages and cities has taken place, while the UN refused even to demand an immediate and total ceasefire to the obvious dismay of the UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan. And even this benchmark is indicative of just how low expectations have fallen with respect to UNSC action when there exists any serious friction between the UN Charter and the policy priorities of the United States as the controlling member of the Organization. It should be recalled that it was the US Government that declared the UN ‘irrelevant’ in 2003 when the Security Council at least stood firm, and refused to authorize an unlawful invasion of Iraq. With Iraq, too, the experience, more than anything else, underscored the fallen expectations associated with the UNSC. It was then applauded for not mandating aggression against Iraq, but when the invasion went ahead anyway in March 2003, the UNSC was complicit with aggression by way of silence, and went even further later on, acting as a junior partner in the American-led occupation of Iraq. The point being stressed is that the UN is unable to prevent its Permanent Members from violating the Charter, but worse, it collaborates with such violations in support of its most powerful member. The UN has become in these situations, sadly, more of a geopolitical instrument than an instrument for the enforcement of international law. This regression betrays the vision that guided the architects of the UN back in 1945, chief among whom were American diplomats.

    It should be also recalled that when German and Japanese surviving leaders were criminally punished after World War II for waging aggressive war at the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials the prosecutors promised that the principles of law applied to judge the defendants associated with the defeated countries would in the future we applicable to assess the behavior of the victorious power then sitting in judgment. This Nuremberg Promise has been long since forgotten by governments, but it should not be ignored by public opinion and citizens of conscience everywhere.

    Nothing illustrates this fallen condition of the UN better than the one-sided UNSC Res. 1701 ceasefire resolution finally approved by unanimous vote on Aug. 11th. This resolution, although in some respects a compromise that reflects the inconclusive battlefield outcome, is tilted in many of its particulars to favor the country that both wrongfully escalated the border incident and carried out massive combat operations against civilian targets in flagrant violation of the law of war: Res. 1701 blames Hezbollah for starting the conflict; it refrains from making any critical comment on Israeli bombing and artillery campaign directed at the entire country of Lebanon; it imposes an obligation to disarm Hezbollah without placing any restrictions on Israeli military capabilities or policies; it places peacekeeping forces only on Lebanese territory, and is vague about requiring the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces; it still fails to censure Israel for expanding the scope of its ground presence in Lebanon by 300% to beat the ceasefire deadline, and it calls for the prohibition of ‘all’ attacks by Hezbollah while requiring Israel only to stop ‘offensive military operations,’ leaving the definition of what is offensive in the hands of policymakers in Tel Aviv and Washington.

    We learn some important things about the United Nations from this experience. First, it is incapable of protecting any state, whatever the circumstances, that is the victim of an aggressive war initiated by the United States or its close allies. This incapacity extends even to proposing resolutions of censure. Secondly, the UNSC, while not actually supporting such claims of aggressive war, will collaborate with the aggressor in the post-conflict situation to ratify the effects of the aggression. This combination means effectively that the Charter prohibition directed at non-defensive wars applies only to enemies of the United States. Any legal order that achieves respect treats equals equally. The UN is guilty of treating equals unequally, and thus constantly undermines its own authority.

    There is another disturbing element that concerns the manner in which states aligned with the United States are using force against non-state actors. Such states, of which Israel is a leading example, engage in what a law commentator, Ali Khan, has called ‘punitive self-defense.’ UN Charter Article 51 deliberately tried to restrict this option to claim self-defense by requiring ‘a prior armed attack,’ which was definitely understood, as being of a much more sustained and severe initiation of violent conflict than an incident of violence due to an isolated attack or a border skirmish. More concretely, the events on the borders of Gaza and Lebanon that gave rise to sustained Israeli war making did not give Israel the legal right to act in self-defense, although it did authorize Israel to defend itself by retaliating in a proportionate manner. This distinction is crucial to the Charter conception of legitimate uses of international force.

    What punitive self-defense means is a deliberate policy of over-reaction such that there is created a gross disproportion between the violence inflicted by the non-state actor, in the Lebanese instance, Hezbollah, and the response of the state actor Israel. It also means, contrary to the UN Charter and international law, that every violent provocation by a non-state actor can be treated as an occasion for claiming a right to wage a full war based on ‘self-defense.’ This punitive approach to non-state adversaries completely negates a cardinal principle of both international law and the just war tradition by validating disproportionate uses of retaliatory force.

    This discouraging interpretation of what to expect from the United Nations in war/peace situations should not lead to a cynical dismissal of the Organization. We need the UN to step in, as in Lebanon, when the arbiters of geopolitics give the signal, and help with the post-conflict process of recovery and reconstruction. But we should be under no illusions that this role adequately carries out the vision of the UN contained in its own Charter or upholds the most basic norms of international law.

    How can this situation be improved? There are three areas of effort that are worthy of attention:

    –perhaps, most important, is the recognition by major states that war is almost always a dysfunctional means of pursuing their security interests, especially with respecte to addressing challenges posed by non-state actors; in this regard, odd as it may seem, adherence to the limits imposed by international law may serve national interests better than relying on military superiority to override the restrictions on force associated with the UN Charter; note that the United States would have avoided the worst foreign policy disasters in its history if it had not ignored these restrictions in the Vietnam War and the Iraq War; in their essence, limiting war to true instances of self-defense is a practical restriction on state sovereignty agreed upon by experienced political leaders;

    –of secondary importance is for the members of the United Nations to take more seriously their own obligations to uphold the Charter; it may be appropriate in this spirit to revive attention to the so-called Uniting for Peace Resolution 337A that confers a residual responsibility on the General Assembly to act when the Security Council fails to do so; this 1950 resolution was drafted in the setting of the cold war, with an intention to circumvent a Soviet veto, but its use was suspended by the West in the wake of decolonization, which was perceived as making the General Assembly less supportive of Western interests than had been the case in the early years of the UN; in present circumstances, the General Assembly could be reempowered to supplement the efforts of the Security Council where an urgent crisis involving peace and security is not being addressed in a manner consistent with the UN Charter; along similar lines, would be an increased reliance on seeking legal guidance from the International Court of Justice when issues of the sort raised by the Israeli escalation occurred;

    –and finally, given these disappointments associated with the preeminence of geopolitics within the UN, it is important for individuals and citizen organizations to act with vigilance. The World Tribunal on Iraq, taking place in Istanbul in June 2005, passed ‘legal’ judgment on the Iraq War and those responsible for its initiation and conduct. It made the sort of legal case that the UN was unable to make because of geopolitical considerations. It provided a comprehensive examination of the policies and their effects, and issues a judgment with recommendations drafted by a jury of conscience presided over by the renowned Indian writer and activist, Arundhati Roy. Such pronouncements by representatives of civil society cannot obviously stop the Iraq War, but they do have two positive effects: first, they provide media and public with a comprehensive analysis of the relevance of international law and the UN Charter to a controversial ongoing war; secondly, by doing so, they highlight the shortcomings of official institutions, including the United Nations in protecting the wellbeing of the peoples of the world.

    Richard Falk is chair of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation board and Professor Emeritus of International Law and Practice at Princeton University and Distinguished Visiting Professor at the University of California at Santa Barbara

  • The Modern Nuclear Threat

    In Washington, DC, A 10 kiloton nuclear weapon, half the size of the one used in Nagasaki, has just been detonated next to the US Capitol. In less than a second, the Capitol Building, the congressional offices and everything within a quarter mile is enveloped in a fireball measuring at 7,000 degrees centigrade. The blast from the bomb travels in one direction across Massachusetts Avenue towards Union Station demolishing everything in its path. In the other direction it goes towards the Washington Monument. The area between Union Station and the Washington Monument is blanketed in fire. Fifteen thousand people are killed instantly. Soon, 15,000 severely wounded will overwhelm the local hospitals. In the coming months, many of those who did not perish in the initial bombing will succumb to the effects of radiation poisoning.

    Good Morning. Thank you for asking me to speak today. My name is Nickolas Roth. I am the Director of Research and Advocacy for the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. What you just heard is the scenario that experts have developed if one of the smallest nuclear weapons available today is detonated in Washington, DC.

    The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are a tragic chapter in the history of the human race. These bombings not only demonstrate the cruelty that humanity can inflict upon itself, but they also foreshadow a terrifying future if we do not halt nuclear proliferation and embrace nuclear disarmament. It has been 61 years since nuclear weapons were first used in war. I wish I could say that the world has learned the lesson that the survivors, the hibakusha, have been trying to teach us since then: The lesson that humans and nuclear weapons cannot coexist.

    Unfortunately, all evidence points to the contrary. The world is a far more dangerous place than it was 61 years ago. The world is a far more dangerous place than it was 10 or even 5 years ago. The likelihood that countries will seek nuclear weapons and the likelihood that countries will use nuclear weapons has increased.

    Today, I would like to give a very brief overview of the nuclear threat that we currently face. I will start by describing what would happen if a nuclear missile were detonated over Washington, DC. Then, I will explain how recent policy changes by the United States are putting a strain on arms control efforts. Finally, I will suggest ways the US can help minimize the probability of nuclear weapons use.

    To begin, nuclear weapons have become far more lethal since 1945. The 21 kiloton bomb used at Nagasaki is considered miniscule by modern standards. Today, there are thousands of missiles tipped with nuclear warheads hundreds of times more powerful. A full nuclear war would likely bring about the end of the human race. But, even the amount of suffering and destruction that would result from the detonation of just one of these nuclear weapons over a populated area is unprecedented. A book published in 2004, titled Whole World on Fire by Lynn Eden, details the heat and blast effects of a moderate-sized 300 kiloton weapon detonated over the Pentagon.

    It would create a fireball more than a mile in diameter producing temperatures of more than 200 million degrees Fahrenheit-about four to five times the temperature at the center of the sun.

    In Pentagon City, asphalt and metal would melt, paint would burn. Offices and cars would explode into flames. The blast wave would create 750 mile per hour winds tossing burning cars into the air.

    On the edge of the Potomac the fireball would be 5,000 times brighter than a desert sun at noon. It would melt the marble at the Lincoln and Jefferson memorials. Four seconds after detonation, these structures would collapse from the blast wave that followed.

    On Capitol Hill, the House and Senate office buildings would burn. The blast would shatter exterior windows and level surrounding buildings.

    Within tens of minutes, everything within approximately three-and-a-half to four-and-a-half miles of the Pentagon would be engulfed in a massive fire. The fire would extinguish all life and destroy almost everything else.

    For decades, the international community has tried to prevent countries from causing this level of destruction. The cornerstone of these efforts has always been international agreements that encourage arms control. The most important of these is the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The NPT has three key provisions. It guarantees countries the right to use nuclear energy for peaceful means. It prohibits the passing of nuclear weapons technology to, and the development of nuclear weapons by, non-nuclear weapons states. Most important, it requires countries with nuclear weapons to negotiate nuclear disarmament. The treaty establishes an effective framework discouraging more countries from developing nuclear weapons. When the treaty was signed in 1968, there were five nuclear weapons states. The NPT has not been perfect and currently there are nine, but without it there would likely be more.

    Today, the international anti-nuclear framework set forth in the NPT is unraveling. There are countries such as Israel, India and Pakistan that have never signed the treat, and developed large-scale programs. North Korea has broken away from the NPT in order to develop nuclear weapons. Iran may be in the early stages of a weapons program. These countries are endangering themselves and their neighbors, as are the original five nuclear weapons states.

    One of the most dangerous recent developments is in Russia. Russia is currently building up its own nuclear arsenal, in significant part, in response to a US missile shield. Recent articles in the Nation and Foreign Policy magazines have argued that, given the state of Russia’s infrastructure, such a build-up is extremely dangerous. The Russian government is not investing in proper safety mechanisms to prevent catastrophes such as accidental launches. There has already been a near miss. In 1995, the world came within minutes of nuclear Armageddon when the Russian early warning systems confused the launch of a Norwegian weather rocket with a preemptive nuclear attack by the United States. Boris Yeltsin had nuclear launch codes in front of him and would have retaliated had the mistake not been caught at the last minute. Russia’s early warning system has only further deteriorated since then. There are massive holes in its detection capabilities. Russian commanders rely on antiquated radar rather than satellite technology to detect possible launches.

    Together, the United States and Russia have 26,300 nuclear weapons. They possess the ability to carry out precision nuclear strikes anywhere in the world. They have hundreds of nuclear missiles on hair-trigger alert, pointed at each other, that could be fired in a matter of minutes. An accidental nuclear launch by Russia and the retaliatory response by the United States would result in the deaths of millions of people.

    But let’s not forget the biggest nuclear player and the destabilizing effect it has on non-proliferation regimes. In 2002, the United States placed increased emphasis on the role that nuclear weapons play in its foreign policy. The Bush administration’s Nuclear Posture Review states:

    1. Nuclear weapons play a critical role in the defense capabilities of the United States, its allies, and friends.
    2. Nuclear weapons can be used to achieve political or strategic goals.
    3. US policy now supports preemptive attacks, possibly nuclear, on countries with Weapons of Mass Destruction or hardened targets.

    The United States is relying now, more than ever before, on nuclear weapons. It also has lowered the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons. In the past five years, the Bush administration has ignored many important international arms control treaties. It has failed to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which prohibits all forms of nuclear testing. It has withdrawn from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. It has invested billions of dollars into a missile shield program; an action seen by many other countries as an aggressive gesture.

    In violation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, it has attempted to develop nuclear weapons that can be used more readily in combat, such as the “bunker buster.” It has also attempted to upgrade the US nuclear arsenal with the implementation of the Reliable Replacement Warhead Program. Most recently, it has negotiated a “deal” with India that allows the exchange of nuclear technology.

    By steering around international treaties that encourage arms control, attempting to build new weapons and then seeking to use them for political or strategic goals, the United States is encouraging other countries to do the same. As more countries go down this road, the likelihood of nuclear weapons use will only increase.

    Although the only way to ensure that nuclear weapons are never used again is through total disarmament, there are ways to stop proliferation and minimize the risk of nuclear weapons use. In order to be effective, these efforts must have the support of the United States. As the world’s most powerful nation in possession of thousands of nuclear weapons, and as the only country that has used nuclear weapons as an instrument of war, the United States is ethically obligated to pursue non-proliferation, arms control and disarmament. This effort must begin with the following three steps:

    1. Altering US current nuclear policy. The US must de-legitimize the idea that nuclear weapons are an effective way to achieve political or strategic goals by declaring that it will never be the first to use nuclear weapons in war.
    2. Ratifying and complying with the provisions set forth in international treaties such as the Non Proliferation Treaty, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaties, and the Strategic Arms Limitations Treaties that promote non-proliferation and disarmament.
    3. Abandoning our policy of preemptive attacks, which further emboldens countries like Iran to pursue nuclear weapons.

    Despite the dangers that we now face and despite all that needs to be done to make the world a safer place, I am hopeful. I am hopeful because historically, anti-nuclear activism in the United States has been incredibly effective. Anti-nuclear activism was a significant factor in bringing an end to nuclear testing in the US and around the world. Activism was influential in slowing the nuclear arms build up in the 1980s. History has shown that our government listens to the public about nuclear weapons. If the people of the United States work together to tell our government that the creation and use of nuclear weapons is not acceptable, we can actually change nuclear policy to make the world safer. I strongly encourage you to find a way to get involved in anti-nuclear work.

    Nuclear weapons are the most significant threat to the future of the human race. As long as they exist, no human being is safe. Today, more and more countries are adopting dangerous nuclear policies. It is imperative that we pressure our government to bring the world back from potential nuclear anarchy. Only then, can we prevent proliferation and prevent future Hiroshimas and Nagasakis.

    Nick Roth is Director of the Washington, DC Office of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation
  • Reliance on Nuclear Weapons in Naively Unrealistic

    Reliance on Nuclear Weapons in Naively Unrealistic

    For many years the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation has advocated the global elimination of nuclear weapons. This advocacy is consistent with the moral position adopted by nearly all major religions as well as with the dictates of international law. It is also consistent with the security interests of all states, including the current nuclear weapons states. Nonetheless, many Americans cling tenaciously to the idea that the US is more secure with nuclear weapons than it would be without them.

    In response to an article that I wrote recently on “Global Hiroshima,” a letter to the editor took the position, “The proposal to eliminate nuclear weapons is idealistic, but it is naively unrealistic, unless a creditable concept for protecting the US from other nations’ nuclear weapons is available.” The writer concluded his letter by stating, “Our nuclear weapons are not to use, but to prevent other nations from using theirs.”

    This is, unfortunately, a falsely reassuring and illusory viewpoint. Nuclear deterrence – the threat of nuclear retaliation – could fail for many reasons, including accidental launches, miscalculations, poor decisions in time of crisis, or the inability to credibly threaten extremist organizations that cannot be located and therefore retaliated against. A threat to retaliate against an opponent that you cannot locate, such as al Qaeda, is futile.

    The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation has never called for the US to unilaterally disarm its nuclear arsenal. What we do advocate is for the US to take a leadership role in negotiating nuclear disarmament among all nations. This is a role that only the US can assume, due to its enormous military and economic power.

    By taking on this role, the US would be acting in accord with a unanimous 1996 ruling of the International Court of Justice, the world’s highest court, which concluded: “There exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control.”

    Our position at the Foundation is that the US should take this obligation under international law seriously, both because the US has a responsibility to follow the dictates of international law and because doing so will enhance our national security. This is not a prescription for immediate or unilateral nuclear disarmament. It is a prescription for demonstrating the political will to move judiciously but urgently toward a world free of nuclear weapons.

    The first step in following this path would be for the US to convene the other nuclear weapons states and set forth a negotiating agenda. An important confidence building measure would be a legal commitment by all nuclear weapons states to No First Use of nuclear weapons. This would demonstrate that nuclear weapons had no other purpose than deterring another country from using theirs. Other confidence building steps would include the de-alerting of existing nuclear weapons and ratification by all nuclear capable states of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

    The goal of the negotiations would be the phased elimination of nuclear arsenals under strict and effective international controls. Countries would phase out their nuclear arsenals gradually and in a verifiable manner. Processes would be established to assure that nuclear weapons and materials were not being diverted into secret stores outside the purview of international inspectors.

    The plan is simple. It begins with good faith negotiations convened by the US. It ends with a world free of nuclear weapons. In between, there is much to be worked out to assure the security of all states. One thing is certain, however: This is not a “naively unrealistic” plan. It is the only approach that will assure that cities, countries and civilization remain safe from nuclear devastation and that humankind is secure from future Hiroshimas and Nagasakis.

    David Krieger is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org). He is a
    leader in the global effort for a world free of nuclear weapons.

  • Nagasaki Peace Declaration

    “What can people possibly be thinking?”

    At the close of the 61st year following the atomic bombings, voices of anger and frustration are echoing throughout the city of Nagasaki.

    At 11:02 a.m. on August 9, 1945, a single atomic bomb destroyed our city, instantly claiming the lives of 74,000 people and injuring 75,000 more. People were burned by the intense heat rays and flung through the air by the horrific blast winds. Their bodies bathed in mordant radiation, many of the survivors continue to suffer from the after-effects even today. How can we ever forget the anguished cries of those whose lives and dreams were so cruelly taken from them?

    And yet, some 30,000 nuclear weapons stand ready nonetheless to annihilate humanity.

    A decade ago, the International Court of Justice stated that the threat or use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to the rules of international law, strongly encouraging international society to strive for the elimination of nuclear armaments. Six years ago at the United Nations, the nuclear weapon states committed themselves not merely to prevent proliferation, but to an unequivocal undertaking to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals.

    Nuclear weapons are instruments of indiscriminate genocide, and their elimination is a task that mankind must realize without fail.

    Last year, the 2005 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, to which 189 countries are signatories, ended without result, and no progress has been observed since.

    The nuclear weapon states have not demonstrated sincerity in their efforts at disarmament; the United States of America in particular has issued tacit approval of nuclear weapons development by India, and is moving forward with the construction of cooperative arrangements for nuclear technology. At the same time, nuclear weapon declarant North Korea is threatening the peace and security of Japan and the world as a whole. In fact, the very structure of non-proliferation is facing a crisis due to nuclear ambitions by various nations including Pakistan, which has announced its possession of nuclear arms; Israel, which is widely considered to possess them; and Iran.

    The time has come for those nations that rely on the force of nuclear armaments to respectfully heed the voices of peace-loving people, not least the atomic bomb survivors, to strive in good faith for nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation, and to advance towards the complete abolishment of all such weapons.

    It must also be said that nuclear weapons cannot be developed without the cooperation of scientists. We would urge scientists to realize their responsibility for the destiny of all mankind, not just for their own particular countries, and to abandon the development of nuclear arms.

    Once again we call upon the Japanese government, representing as it does a nation that has experienced nuclear devastation firsthand, to ground itself in reflection upon history, uphold the peaceful intentions of the constitution, enact into the law the three non-nuclear principles, and work for establishment of a Northeast Asian Nuclear Weapon-Free Zone, that the tragedy of war may not occur again. We also urge the Japanese government to provide greater assistance to aging atomic bomb survivors, both within Japan and overseas.

    For 61 years, the hibakusha atomic bomb survivors have recounted their tragic experiences to succeeding generations. Many have chosen not to hide the keloid scars on their skin, continuing to tell of things that they might rather not remember. Their efforts are indeed a starting point for peace. Their voices reverberate around the world, calling for the deepest compassion of those who are working to ensure that Nagasaki is the last place on our planet to have suffered nuclear destruction.

    The 3rd Nagasaki Global Citizens’ Assembly for the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons will be held in October of this year. We invite people working for peace to span generations and national boundaries, and gather together to communicate. Let us firmly join hands and foster an even stronger network for nuclear abolition and peace, extending from Nagasaki throughout the world.

    We remain confident that the empathy and solidarity of all those who inherit the hopes of the hibakusha atomic bomb survivors will become an even more potent force, one that will surely serve to realize a peaceful world free of nuclear weapons.

    In closing, we pray for the undisturbed repose of the souls of those who lost their lives in such misery, we resolve that 2006 should be a new year of departure, and we proclaim our commitment to continue to strive for the establishment of lasting world peace.

    Iccho Itoh was the mayor of Nagaski. [He died in April 2007]