Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Blog

  • Spencer Abraham, Poster Boy for Yucca Mountain

    Spencer Abraham, Poster Boy for Yucca Mountain

    In a recent opinion piece in the Washington Post (March 26, 2002), Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham argues for moving radioactive wastes from throughout the country to Yucca Mountain in Nevada, something the people of Nevada are fighting tooth and nail. So confident is the Energy Secretary that he promises: “Someone living 11 miles away from the site 10,000 years from now would be less exposed to radiation than he would be on a normal plane flight from Las Vegas to New York.” Of course, neither Secretary Abraham nor any of proponents of this storage site will be around 10,000 years from now to see if their prediction is correct. They just ask for our trust on behalf of the next 400 generations of humans on this planet.

    Secretary Abraham also appeals to our sense of patriotism when he argues that the “project is critical for national security.” Why? Because we’re going to have to get rid of the spent fuel from nuclear powered aircraft carriers and submarines if we’re going to keep using them. And that’s not all. Burying the wastes in Nevada is also critical to our “energy security” because nuclear power “emits no airborne pollution or greenhouse gasses and now gives us one of the cheapest forms of power generation we have.” First of all, hasn’t this administration been telling us that greenhouse gasses are not something to be worried about and we should just forget the Kyoto Accords that the rest of the world supports? Second, this cheap form of power is actually highly subsidized by the taxpayers in the form of the research and development, liability limits set by Congress, and perpetual taxpayer care of the wastes.

    Mr. Abraham leaves out of his discussion the 50 million Americans who will be subject to the effects of nuclear accidents when these large amounts of nuclear wastes start hitting our highways and railways. One study predicted that property damage alone could be over $9 billion per square mile when radiation is released after a truck or train accident carrying these high-level nuclear wastes. A far better solution to the nuclear waste problem is to convert it into dry cask storage and keep it on site at nuclear power plants until a solution can be found that won’t place large numbers of Americans at risk of exposure to high-level nuclear wastes.

    Mr. Abraham says the science is sound, but this includes reports of seismic activities in the region. There are also more than 250 scientific studies that remain to be completed. The critics of the proposed Yucca Mountain repository do not oppose single site storage as Abraham suggests. Rather, they oppose a premature and irreversible decision that will affect future generations for thousands of years.

    Secretary Abraham was right about one thing. Nuclear wastes are a problem that won’t just go away and “it’s our responsibility to solve it.” We might have thought more about that responsibility before we began our mad effort to build nuclear bombs and power plants. Now, we had better think about future generations before we follow the advice of Mr. Abraham and commit ourselves to a “solution” that may be not only wrong but irreversible.

    If nuclear waste storage is as safe as Mr. Abraham believes it is, it is strange that no one, including him, has suggested burying it under the Congress, the White House, or the Energy Department.
    *David Krieger is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

  • Preventing An Accidental Armageddon

    Overview

    “There is no doubt that, if the people of the world were more fully aware of the inherent danger of nuclear weapons and the consequences of their use, they would reject them.” This conclusion appeared in the 1996 report of the Canberra Commission on the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons.

    Although international relations have changed drastically since the end of the Cold War, both Russia and the U.S. continue to keep the bulk of their nuclear missiles on high-level alert. The U.S. and Russia remain ready to fire a total of more than 5,000 nuclear weapons at each other within half an hour. These warheads, if used, could destroy humanity including those firing the missiles. A defense that destroys the defender makes no sense. Why then do Russia, the U.S., and other countries spend vast sums each year to maintain such defenses? Since 400 average size strategic nuclear weapons could destroy humanity, most of the 5,000 nuclear weapons that Russia and the U.S. have set for hair-trigger release, present the world with its greatest danger — an enormous overkill, the potential for an accidental Armageddon.

    Consequences Never Considered

    When General Lee Butler became head of the US Strategic Air Command (SAC), he went to the SAC Headquarters in Omaha, Nebraska to inspect the 12,000 targets. He was shocked to find dozens of warheads aimed at Moscow (as the Soviets once targeted Washington). The US planners had no grasp of the explosions, firestorms and radiation from such overkill. “We were totally out of touch with reality,” Butler said. “The war plan, its calculations and consequences never took into account anything but cost and damage. Radiation was never considered.”

    No Long-Range Plan

    Robert McNamara, former Secretary of Defense under Presidents Kennedy and Johnson, says there was no long-range war plan. The arms race was mainly a race of numbers. Neither Russia or the U.S. wanted to get behind. Each side strove to build the greatest number. “The total far exceeded the requirements of any conceivable war plan,” according to McNamara.

    Since Russia and the U.S. have each built enormous nuclear weapon overkills with little thought as to the consequence of their use, it is imperative to assess what would happen if these weapons were used. Humanity’s fate could depend upon it.

    It is proposed that a Conference on the Consequence of Nuclear Weapons Use be held soon. Conference news reports could increase public awareness of the dangers. It is also hoped that such a conference could help create a Consequence Assessment Center within the United Nations. By working together, many countries would have confidence in the accuracy of the assessments. The cost of consequence studies could be relatively small and could be done fairly quickly.

    A Preliminary Assessment of the Consequences

    A preliminary assessment of the consequences of nuclear weapons use in relation to the number of nuclear weapons used show them to be far more destructive than most people realize. Let’s examine the effects of one nuclear weapon, hundreds of nuclear weapons and, as the SAC had planned and targeted for use, thousands of nuclear weapons.

    One Nuclear Weapon

    One average size U.S. strategic nuclear warhead can be carried in an average size truck. Such a nuclear warhead has an explosive power equal to 20 Hiroshima size nuclear bombs, or to 250,000 tons of dynamite or 25,000 trucks each carrying 10 tons of dynamite. An average size Russian strategic nuclear warhead has an explosive power equal to 32 Hiroshima size bombs, or 40,000 trucks bombs each carrying 10 tons of dynamite. By comparison, the terrorists’ truck bombs exploded at the World Trade Center in New York and the federal building in Oklahoma City each had an explosive force equal to about 10 tons of dynamite.

    If one average size Russian strategic nuclear warhead was detonated over Washington, D.C., it could vaporize Congress, the White House, the Pentagon, and headquarters for many national programs. One U.S. nuclear warhead detonated over Moscow could be similarly devastating. Is it any wonder that General Butler was shocked to find dozens of warheads aimed at Moscow?

    If one nuclear bomb were exploded over New York City it could vaporize the United Nations headquarters, communication centers for NBC, CBS, ABC, Fox, etc., the New York Stock Exchange, world bank centers, international transportation centers and other centers for international trade and investments where billions of dollars are being exchanged daily. A nuclear explosion would also leave the areas hit highly radioactive and unusable for a long time. Where the radioactive fallout from the mushroom cloud would land in the world would depend upon the direction of the wind and rain conditions at the time of the explosion.

    Hundreds Of Nuclear Weapons

    The late Dr. Carl Sagan and his associates, in their extensive studies, found that a nuclear explosive force equal to 100 million tons of dynamite (100 megatons) could produce enough smoke and fine dust to create a Nuclear Winter over the world leaving few survivors. A nuclear bomb blast can produce heat intensities of 3,000 to 4,000 degrees Centigrade at ground zero which, in turn, could start giant flash fires leaving large cities and forests burning with no one to fight them. Also, nuclear explosions can lift an enormous quantity of fine soil particles into the atmosphere, more than 100,000 tons of fine dust for every megaton exploded in a surface burst.

    Since an average size U.S. strategic nuclear warhead has an explosive power equal to 250,000 tons of dynamite it would take 400 warheads to have an explosive power equal to 100 megatons or enough to destroy the world. It would take less Russian strategic nuclear warheads to destroy the world since they are more powerful. Any survivors in the world would have to contend with radioactive fallout, toxic gases such as carbon monoxide, cyanides, dioxins, furans, etc. from burning cities, and increased ozone burnout.

    Thousands of Nuclear Weapons

    Russia and the U.S. have more than 90 percent of the nuclear weapons in the world. Many of their nuclear missiles are set on high-level alert so that within half an hour of receiving a warning of an attack more than 5,000 nuclear weapons could be launched. While the U.S. and Russia no longer have their nuclear weapons aimed at each other, they can re-target each other within minutes.

    Analyzing Overkill

    The consequence of nuclear weapons use needs to be widely publicized to help efforts to rid the world of nuclear weapons for the following reasons:

    Overkill Doesn’t Deter. Being able to destroy another country more than once serves no purpose for deterrence. How many times can one country destroy another?

    Overkill Is Self-Destructive. The larger the number of nuclear weapons used to carry out a “first strike” or a “launch-on warning” defense, the greater the certainty of self-destruction.

    Overkill Increases Danger Of Accidental War. The more nuclear weapons there are in the world, the greater is the probability of their accidental use.

    Overkill Encourages Nuclear Proliferation By Example.

    Overkill Wastes Money. Spending billions of dollars per year to maintain an ability to destroy the world is the worst possible waste of money.

    Accidental Nuclear Wars

    The Canberra Commission stated “… that nuclear weapons can be retained in perpetuity and never used, accidentally or by decision, defies credibility. The only complete defense is the elimination of nuclear weapons and assurance that they will never be produced again.” The Ministers for Foreign Affairs of Brazil, Egypt, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand, Slovenia, South Africa and Sweden, when formulating the New Agenda Coalition, agreed with the Canberra Commission statement.

    If any one of the following three near-accidental nuclear wars had occurred it could have been the end of humanity.

  • A Peacemaker These Days

    Originally Published in Common Dreams

    What makes a peacemaker these days? Apparently with the nomination of President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair for the Nobel Peace Prize, being a peacemaker means that you can drop bombs on civilians, offer few options for reconciliation to your enemies and reduce spending on social services in favor of funding an already disproportionate military budget.

    I try to explain to my students who take “Solutions to Violence,” a semester-long course on peacemaking for high schools that pacifism works and offer evidence to that fact. Nominating Bush and Blair for the Nobel Peace Prize undermines this effort significantly. So as their teacher, I have tried to note a few characteristics of peacemakers which might help to clarify the quandary we as a global community face when people who fit more in the category of war criminals are heralded as peace heroes.

    Someone seeking to be a peacemaker uses violence only as a last resort. Violence has a very simple dynamic: might makes right. Nonviolence on the other hand uses creativity with unlimited possibilities to resolve problems and seeks to evoke the human spirit in their enemies, that undeniable conscience which ought never be shelved. Alexander Solzhenitsyn speaks of the futility of separating the evil people from the good people and destroying them – the same language George W. Bush is using to delineate the evildoers from the benevolent – only Solzhenitsyn truly knows that the line between good and evil runs through each human heart. When we desire to kill evil, we commit to killing a piece of ourselves.

    I continue to remind my students of Gandhi’s message that the goal is not to bring our enemies to their knees but to their senses. To do this, we must offer ways for them to save face, rather than give them ultimatums which back them into a corner and force them to lash out in frustration of lack of options. To grant our enemies the dignity they are due as human beings is to take a step toward reconciliation. We can love the evildoer while hating the evil act.

    Many religious leaders have blessed many wars throughout the years, and just last week I heard a Catholic priest at an interfaith dialogue making excuses for the “Just War Theory.” My students sitting near me beckoned for my response. On a sheet of scrap paper I asked them if Jesus embodied “Just War Theory” – if his actions represented justifications for hatred and retaliation, or if his message called us to a greater level of understanding. Walking with our enemies. Loving them because they are difficult to love. Showing compassion and mercy. Where is this dialogue happening nowadays in our war frenzy? Dare we speak out for moderation – or are even clergy being swept away in this flood of madness and hatred? Certainly the voices of peace and justice have been drowned in the swiftly moving tide.

    A peacemaker these days would not continue to bomb Iraq while calling for an end to terrorism and violence. In the past two weeks, the United States has bombed Iraq four times, while calling on the United Nations to keep their negotiations with Iraq “short”. Talk is cheap, I suppose, when we have bombing to maintain! A peacemaker would allocate more than enough resources so that housing, health care and education never went needy. Dr. King said that any nation spending more on its military than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death. We are already there.

    It’s quite handy for our government to do this, though. We cut funding for social spending and overwhelm the Pentagon’s budget. This way, our students who are prone to fall through the cracks anyway will realize that there is no future for them in school, or in the workforce, and then believe that they have no other choice than to join the military. We’re eliminating options and free will under the guise of national security, underhandedly denying educations and futures to young people who deserve them. We are killing the dreams of many young people who want to create better lives for themselves and their families.

    The most important quality of a peacemaker these days, I believe, can be summed up in a line from the Manifesto by Wendell Berry on the Mad Farmer Liberation Front: Be joyful even though you have considered all the facts. A peacemaker knows the obstacles ahead. A peacemaker cries with the families of those killed and labeled ‘collateral damage’. A peacemaker lives the spirit of peacemaking and is not afraid to take risks in the name of justice. A peacemaker these days aligns with the unpopular causes, speaks up for the people we’d rather hate, and questions the authority which condones cultural genocide, mass murder and rampant militarism.

    This is what my students deserve to know about peacemaking.
    *Leah C. Wells teaches high school classes on nonviolence and serves as Peace Education Coordinator for the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. She traveled last July and August with Voices in the Wilderness to Iraq and condemns the economic sanctions as genocidal.

  • A High School Student’s Passion for Humanity

    Dear David Krieger,

    My name is Amber Herman and I am a senior in high school in Davenport, Iowa.

    My friends do not understand why I would rather read books on social justice issues and peace instead of attending the basketball game. They don’t understand why I am outraged that the United States has not signed the UN Convention’s Rights of the Child. They don’t understand why Craig Kielburger and you are my heroes when they praise Michael Jordan as a star. They don’t understand that we, the youth, are called to be the leaders of TODAY when they feel so powerless.

    They do understand that I have a passion for humanity. They hear the words I speak against violence. Although they do not understand. . . they are curious. They wonder what fuels my spirit to bring an end to war and poverty.

    All I ask of my peers is to simply contemplate the question: What If they could change the world? That is the question that Craig Kielburger and my Social Justice teacher asked me. I realized how big a world there was outside my high school, my community, and my country. I still dared to believe I could make a positive difference.

    Your speech “Hope in the Face of Darkness” was amazing! Tears were streaming down my face as I read about your passion for humanity and your words about hope. Everything I believe about Youth Empowerment you so beautifully described.

    I am only one person but I have the power to light the fire of peace within others. I am only one person but I have knowledge, faith and more importantly I have HOPE! At National Catholic Youth Conference this past December, a teenager who lost her father on September 11th stood before 24,000 youth from around the country stating: “I came here looking for hope. You all are my hope.”

    I plan to attend Iowa State University and study Dairy Science and International Agriculture. I hope to join researchers in third-world countries to teach the people better agriculture techniques. I also look forward to a career as a public speaker for human rights, especially children. I have already started speaking to youth groups in my area.

    I hope to someday attend a conference on social justice/peace issues. I am currently trying to save money for college and financially cannot afford to attend a summer conference. Until I can, I will continue to educate myself and others.

    You dared to believe peace was possible. Because of you, thousands of youth across the world dare to believe too. Thank you. God bless.

    Sincerely,

    Amber Herman

  • Eight Steps to a Sound Policy on High Level Waste

    Originally published on the Healing Ourselves and Mother Earth website (http://www.h-o-m-e.org)

    A windmill on every high tension tower could supply all of America’s electricity. What’s the worst thing that could happen on a wind farm?

    Humans have recorded their history for only 300 generations. Each nuclear reactor supplies electricity for a couple of generations, and High Level Nuclear Waste (HLW) that threatens 1200 generations. Surely we can do better than that. The health and safety of our families is our right- it supersedes corporate profits—and it is not negotiable.

    1. Take Back America’s Future- Stop Making High Level Nuclear Waste.

    After fifty years of the best scientific research in the world, there is no solution to HLW in sight. Moving some HLW to contaminate a new site will not eliminate the problem. Nuclear reactors and their fuel pools are just as dangerous as the waste they generate, both as daily threats to public health and as terrorist targets.

    2. Nuclear Waste Is Safer Sitting Still Than Going 60-90 MPH.

    Keep it off our roads and rails for at least 100-150 years, and decrease the danger to the public exponentially. In most cases, moving HLW poses a much greater danger to the public than responsible on-site storage. Avoid repetitive doses along transportation routes or severe doses due to traffic accidents.

    3. No Illegal Dump Proposals Based on Environmental Racism.

    Both sites being studied for HLW storage, Yucca Mountain and the Skull Valley Goshute Reservation in Utah, are on Native lands– an obvious violation of environmental justice. For the future, let’s set policies that respect all Americans.

    4. New Risk Assessments For All Nuclear Facilities.

    Reactors are the only form of energy production that require an evacuation plan. 74% of past incidents at nuclear reactors have involved human error. The events of September 11th and more recent threats make it clear that we need revised evaluations. They must consider the full picture: human error, earthquakes and terrorism, with conversion to on-site waste storage and renewable forms of energy production.

    5. Responsible On-Site Monitored Retrievable Storage (MRS) for Waste

    As reactors are shut down, containment vessels should be modified to isolate MRS casks from the environment.

    Currently there is only minimal external cask monitoring. Casks must be monitored internally for radiation levels, pressure, and temperature so technicians can safely re-open them in the future.

    Assured storage, including above or in-ground monitored leachate collection systems, should be used.

    Other protective measures include earthen berms around outdoor casks, and bunkers, like nuclear weapons facilities.

    The Nuclear Waste Fund is projected to have approximately $35 billion, and can easily pay for MRS.

    Annual reporting of inventory to public Oversight and Safety Committees for each facility.

    6. Public Oversight of Waste is Mandatory at Every Level

    It is clear after twenty years of industry-biased Dept. of Energy research that a new credible approach is required. A public non-profit corporation should be created to study the problem of high level waste disposal, including members of the industry, the public, and independent scientists. This approach would get away from the culture of fear and nuclear denial, and foster new ideas. Oversight and Safety Committees (using European models) should be in place for each facility, and include local community members.

    7. Renewable Energy- Convert Reactor Sites to Solar & Wind Energy Production

    The 20% of our nation’s electricity provided by nuclear reactors could be readily replaced by conservation, efficiency, and renewable sources. Conversion of reactor sites would provide a just transition for workers to the healthier field of renewable energy production, utilizing comparable job skills and minimizing retraining. Additional jobs should be created through the implementation of efficiency standards and conservation programs, further reducing America’s dependence on foreign oil and deadly nuclear fuel. For example, the electricity generated by Diablo Canyon nuclear facility on the seismically active coast of Southern California could be readily replaced by 500 large wind turbines located on the 1200 acre site and/or off shore.

    8. National Health Care For Those Already Exposed to Radiation From Reactors and Weapons

  • Interview with David Krieger: Japan, U.S. must work together on nuke threat

    Interview with David Krieger: Japan, U.S. must work together on nuke threat

    The Asahi Shimbun, February 2002

    David Krieger, president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, a California-based organization which has initiated many global grass-root projects for abolishing nuclear weapons, says not everybody in the United States supports the military retaliation for the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

    In a recent interview with Asahi Shimbun reporter Masato Tainaka, Krieger voiced the hope that Japan, as a true friend, would “not to let the United States drive drunk.” He said U.S. policy could result in nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists in an increasing cycle of violence. Excerpts follow:

    Q: How do you view the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks?

    A: The attacks taught us that even the most powerful nation in the world is vulnerable to terrorists. The strongest military in the world with its bloated nuclear arsenal could not protect against a small band of terrorists, propelled by hatred and committed to violence. Military force is largely impotent against those who hate and are willing to die in acts of violence. Current nuclear weapons policies of the nuclear weapons states make it likely that terrorists will be able to buy, steal or make nuclear weapons.

    Q: How do you evaluate Japanese contribution by dispatching the Self-Defense Forces to assist the U.S. military campaign in Afghanistan?

    A: I think it’s dangerous because it’s maybe changing the line of Article 9 of the Constitution. It’s creating a precedent for Japan to go further in joining a military effort. A question I would ask, “Is Japan’s participation really self-defense?” Japan must maintain Article 9 of its Constitution. This article, which prohibits “aggressive war,” makes Japan unique among nations and gives Japan special responsibility for furthering the cause of peace. There has been some talk of trying to amend or remove this article from the Japanese Constitution. This would be a grave mistake.

    Q: What do you think about the U.S.-Japan relationship?

    A: I think Japan should be a true friend of the United States. This means that Japan must be willing to criticize the United States if it believes U.S. policies are misguided. True friends do not just go along with their friends. They tell them the truth. In the United States, we have a saying, “Friends don’t let friends drive drunk.” You can’t go along with everything that is contrary to your fundamental beliefs. Maybe in a sense, terrorism is a global problem that Japan should join in an attempt to eradicate terrorism. But I think Japan has to think independently. Every developed country is vulnerable to terrorism. The question is-is the problem of terrorism likely to be made better or worse by using military force? With regard to the terrorist attacks, we should be more legal and thoughtful in not taking innocent lives and in not increasing the circle of violence. There have been, as far as I can tell, quite a number of innocent people who have died as a result of the U.S. action in Afghanistan.

    Q: How about the public opinion in the United States? Do they know many innocent Afghans have been killed by the U.S. bombings? Or do they think it was inevitable?

    A: I think the United States has to take responsibility for its actions. And if we were killing innocent people, that falls into the category of terrorism as well. However, most Americans don’t seem to have a problem with it. The support rate with the war is at a really high level, around 80 percent.

    Q: Am I right in thinking it must be difficult for you to find much of an audience for your views in the United States?

    A: One of the biggest problems is that it’s very difficult for people who share my views to get a chance to speak on national media. On Sept. 20, just after the terrorist attacks, I was invited to speak on a TV program “CNN Hotline.” I spoke in opposition to using military force. I emphasized the points-more legal and thoughtful. While I was on the air, two hostile callers called in with somewhat hostile questions, saying, “so many Americans were killed and we need to use military force, why is he opposing it?” After that program, I received about 80 e-mails.

    Q: Hate mail?

    A: On the contrary, except for five or six, all the rest were from people saying, “That’s exactly what I’ve been thinking. But I haven’t heard anybody talking about it in the media.” There are a lot of Americans who are not represented on the national programs. But basically my frustration is how hard it is to change people’s minds. Now I am going to focus more on trying to reach people through the national media. But it is very difficult task.

    Q: You mentioned a legal solution. But the United States has not agreed to set up an international criminal court. Instead the Bush administration intends to judge Osama bin Laden under U.S. military law, isn’t that right?

    A: The United States not supporting an international criminal court is very unfortunate because the United States should be a leader in that effort. I don’t think people in large parts of the world will accept a military trial or even a civilian trial of Osama bin Laden in the United States as fair. I don’t believe myself that it would be possible for Osama bin Laden to get a fair trial in the United States. Therefore, the international community including the United States should set up a special tribunal for terrorists, similar to the tribunal for former Yugoslavia and Rwanda.

    Q: Once the Afghan campaign ends, the Bush administration reportedly is considering military campaigns against terrorists in other countries. What do you think about that?

    A: I don’t think there would be much support in the international community for attacking other countries. I have been surprised at how relatively easily the United States seems to be winning this Afghan war. I didn’t think the Taliban would collapse so quickly. But it’s one thing to destroy the Taliban, it’s another thing to end terrorism. I don’t think we know whether there has been any effective reduction of terrorist capabilities. We don’t know what they planned, we don’t know what their larger plans are. My feeling is that nuclear policies that we have now do make it quite possible terrorists will get nuclear weapons.

    Q: As for nuclear weapons, the United States and Russia agreed in November to reduce their arsenals to between 2,200 and 1,700 warheads in the next 10 years. Was this a breakthrough for nuclear disarmament?

    A: First of all, I think the agreement is more public relations than serious disarmament. It sounds to me like they still want to rely upon nuclear weapons. I don’t believe they are serious about their promises under the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty.

    Under the treaty, nuclear weapon states have an obligation to sincerely negotiate for nuclear abolition. But the United States is not likely, particularly under the Bush administration, to show that leadership without some pressure from other countries. Japan should be the leader of those countries.

    Q: What is needed for Japan to be a leader?

    A: Again, “Friends don’t let friends drive drunk” is a critical idea. If Japan thinks the U.S. policy could result in nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists, it would be terribly irresponsible not to question U.S. policy. To prevent nuclear weapons from falling into the hands of terrorists, it is absolutely necessary to get the numbers down to numbers that can be controlled with certainty.

    Q: How many?

    A: The numbers may be 100 or 200 nuclear weapons. If a country really believes that nuclear weapons only have the purpose of deterrence, it certainly doesn’t need more than that for deterrence.

    You need more than that if you have the idea of some potential offensive use of nuclear weapons. But right now with none of the major powers in conflict, we really could go down. Rather, the threat with nuclear weapons will come from terrorists. It was a crucial lesson from Sept. 11.

    So we haven’t fully lost our opportunity to reduce nuclear arsenals down to 100 or 200 on the way to zero. Having experienced nuclear devastation first hand, Japan is well positioned to lead the world, including the United States, to achieve nuclear disarmament. Japan should be a leader for a nuclear weapons and terrorism-free world.
    *David Krieger, 59, is a founder and a member of the Coordinating Committee of Abolition 2000, a global network of over 2000 organizations and municipalities committed to the elimination of nuclear weapons. The Ozaki Yukio Memorial Foundation in Tokyo recently honored him as a person who has devoted his life to creating world peace.

  • Elisabeth Mann Borgese: First Lady of the Oceans

    Elisabeth Mann Borgese: First Lady of the Oceans

    Humanity and the oceans lost a great friend and champion when Elisabeth Mann Borgese died on February 8th. Elisabeth, the youngest daughter of Thomas Mann, was a true citizen of the world. She inspired me and many others with her vision of the oceans as the “common heritage of humankind” and her ceaseless efforts to make this vision a reality.

    Elisabeth believed that, just as life had emerged from the oceans onto land, a new form of human and environmentally friendly world order could emerge from the oceans to the land. She saw that the borderless oceans required a new form of cooperative governance to protect and preserve the ocean’s precious resources for future generations. She believed fervently that finding a new non-territorial way to govern the oceans was necessary and would teach humankind important lessons for governing our shared planet.

    I first heard Elisabeth speak of these ideas when I was a young assistant professor of international relations at San Francisco State University. I thought she had a vision that was worth fighting for. For me, she was like a pied piper. I immediately asked her if there was a way I could help her to achieve her goal. That led to working with Elisabeth for two years at the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions in Santa Barbara.

    I learned from Elisabeth that the problems of our world were far more than academic — one should accept nothing less than changing a world so badly in need of change. Words were never enough; they must be translated into action.

    Elisabeth held annual Pacem in Maribus (Peace in the Oceans) conferences, bringing together the best minds she could find from throughout the world to work on the multifaceted problems of creating a new law of the seas. In a book we edited together, The Tides of Change, based on one of these conferences held in Malta, Elisabeth wrote, “If the oceans are indeed man’s last frontier on this old earth of scarcity and competition to which we have reduced our common heritage, the law of the seas is the advance post on the long march toward a new world of science and technology, of abundance and cooperation which we have set out to achieve.”

    Elisabeth also created the International Ocean Institute with branches throughout the world that trains individuals from developing countries to better use their ocean resources. She was a tireless campaigner for using the resources of the oceans to benefit those who needed it most rather than only those most technologically advanced.

    After leaving the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions, Elisabeth moved to Halifax, Nova Scotia. I saw her only occasionally, but I noticed that her spirit never waivered and her commitment never waned. On the last few occasions that I saw her she had some difficulty walking and had physically slowed down, but she still traveled the world giving lectures and spreading her vision with the enthusiasm of a young girl.

    Elisabeth was a great world citizen and a citizen of the future world that must be created if humanity is to survive. She was a treasure, and her life becomes part of the common heritage of humankind.
    *David Krieger is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

  • Nuclear Terrorism and US Nuclear Policy

    Nuclear Terrorism and US Nuclear Policy

    As bad as September 11th may have been, it could have been far worse. Had terrorists attacked with nuclear weapons, the death toll could have risen into the millions. It is likely that even one crude nuclear weapon would have left Manhattan utterly destroyed, and with it the financial and communications centers of the country. Were terrorists to obtain one or more nuclear weapons and use them on New York, Washington or other cities, the United States could cease to exist as a functioning country. The stakes are very high, and yet the US is creating new nuclear policies that increase the likelihood that terrorists will obtain nuclear weapons.

    A bipartisan commission, headed by Howard Baker and Lloyd Cutler, concluded that the United States should be spending some $3 billion per year over the next ten years to help Russia control its nuclear weapons and weapon-grade nuclear materials. Rather than spend less than one percent of the current defense budget on dramatically curtailing the potential spread of nuclear weapons and materials to terrorists or unfriendly regimes, the Bush administration is trying to save money in this area. It is spending only one-third of the proposed amount to help Russia safeguard its nuclear weapons and materials and find alternative work for nuclear physicists a woefully inadequate amount if we are truly attempting to quell nuclear proliferation.

    The administration’s frugality with regard to protecting potential “loose nukes” in Russia should be compared with its generosity for defense spending in general and for missile defenses in particular. The president has recently asked for another $48 billion for defense for fiscal 2003, following an increase of $33.5 billion this year. This year’s budget for ballistic missile defense is $8.3 billion. Since the likelihood of a terrorist using a missile to launch a nuclear attack against the United States or any other country is virtually zero, it would appear that the administration’s budget priorities are way out of line in terms of providing real security and protecting the US and other countries from the threat of nuclear terrorism.

    The administration’s approach to nuclear disarmament with the Russians is to place warheads taken off active deployment onto the shelf so that they can later be reactivated should our current president or a future president decide to do so. While the Russians have made it clear that they would prefer to destroy the weapons and make nuclear disarmament irreversible, they will certainly follow the US lead in also shelving their deactivated warheads. This will, of course, create even greater security concerns in Russia and make it more likely that these weapons will find their way into terrorist hands.

    So what is to be done? The United States must change its nuclear policies and make good on its promise to the other 186 parties to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to accomplish the total elimination of nuclear weapons in the world. This goal can only be achieved with US leadership, and it is a goal that is absolutely in the interests of the people of the United States. When the parties to the NPT meet again this April, the US is sure to come under heavy criticism for its notice of withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, its failure to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, its new strategy to make nuclear disarmament reversible, and its recent announcement that it is rescinding its security assurances to non-nuclear weapons states.

    In the end, the country that faces the greatest threat from nuclear terrorism is the United States, and it is a threat that cannot be counteracted by missile defenses or threats of retaliation. Terrorists, who cannot be easily located and who may be suicidal anyway, will simply not be deterred by nuclear threat.

    If the Bush administration truly wants to reduce the possibility of nuclear terrorism against US cities and abroad, it must reverse its current policy of systematically dismantling the arms control agreements established over the past four decades. It must instead become a leader in the global effort to urgently and dramatically reduce the level of nuclear weapons throughout the world and bring the remaining small arsenals of nuclear weapons and nuclear materials under effective international controls.
    *David Krieger is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

  • On Becoming Human

    On Becoming Human

    To be human is to recognize the cultural perspectives that bind us to tribe, sect, religion, or nation, and to rise above them. It is to feel the pain of the dispossessed, the downtrodden, the refugee, the starving child, the slave, the victim.

    To be human is to break the ties of cultural conformity and group-think, and to use one’s own mind. It is to recognize good and evil, and to choose good. It is to consider with the heart. It is to act with conscience.

    To be human is to be courageous. It is to choose the path of compassion. It is to sacrifice for what is just. It is to break the silence. It is to be an unrelenting advocate of human decency and human dignity.

    To be human is to breathe with the rhythm of life, and to recognize our kinship with all forms of life. It is to appreciate every drop of water. It is to feel the warmth of the sun, and to marvel at the beauty and expanse of the night sky. It is to stand in awe of who we are and where we live. It is to see the Earth with the eyes of an astronaut.

    To be human is to be aware of our dependence upon the whole of the universe, and of the miracle that we are. It is to open our eyes to the simple and extraordinary beauty that is all about us. It is to live with deep respect for the sacred gift of life. It is to love.

    To be human is to seek to find ourselves behind our names. It is to explore the depths and boundaries of our existence. It is to learn from those that have preceded us, and act with due concern for those who will follow us.

    To be human is to plant the seeds of peace, and nurture them. It is to find peace and make peace. It is to help mend the web of life. It is to be a healer of the planet.

    To be human is to say an unconditional No to warfare, and particularly to all weapons of mass destruction. It is to take a firm stand against all who profit from warfare and its preparation.

    To be human is not always to succeed, but it is always to learn. It is to move forward despite the obstacles.

    We are all born with the potential to become human. How we choose to live will be the measure of our humanness. Civilization does not assure our civility. Nor does being born into the human species assure our humanity. We must find our own path to becoming human.
    -David Krieger

  • Overcoming Hardships in Working for Peace

    Overcoming Hardships in Working for Peace

    When you work for peace or any other aspect of social change, there are often hardships to overcome. You must believe deeply that what you are doing is right, or else you may become discouraged and give up. I have found that there are no easy solutions to problems involving social change. When you commit yourself to creating a better world, you are most likely committing yourself to a lifetime of effort.

    To succeed, you must be willing to persevere in your efforts and you must keep a positive, hopeful attitude. In this work, it is often unclear who you are reaching or whether change is occurring. Thus, you must trust that your work for a better world matters. Sometimes change is occurring under the surface as a result of many individual actions, and suddenly the results become clear as in the cases of the fall of the Berlin Wall, the break-up of the former Soviet Union and the end of apartheid in South Africa.

    The most rewarding life is one in which there is a major element of serving others. Many people find a way to do this in their lives. Of course, there are many ways in which an individual can be of service to others. Some of the biggest problems at the global level, though, go largely unaddressed by most of us, and I think this is an area where young people can make important contributions.

    We have many global problems, but we are lacking global institutions powerful enough to effectively address such problems as global terrorism, human rights abuses, global warming, the ozone layer, pollution of the oceans and rivers, arms trade, child soldiers, war, the weaponization of space, and nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction. Finding a way to participate in solving these and other global problems is one of the great challenges of our time.

    Global problems require global solutions. They also require World Citizens who identify with and give their loyalty to humanity and the web of life. Patriotism takes on new dimensions and becomes Humatriotism, loyalty to humankind. To change the world requires a new kind of thinking and new loyalties that transcend the nation-state. These viewpoints may put one at odds with some segments of society, but if some individuals do not have the vision and the courage to venture beyond the borders of conformity then change will never occur.

    When I resisted the Vietnam War and refused to fight in that war, it created a rift with my wife’s parents, who thought I was being unpatriotic. It was a difficult conflict within our family, but it was essential for my integrity to do what I believed was right. I believed that in matters of war, the highest guide must be one’s conscience. I followed my conscience and have never regretted it. I realized that the state did not have power over me to decide if I should participate in war. It was up to me to choose, although I had to be ready to pay the price. Years later, my wife’s parents and some of their friends, who had so strongly opposed what I had done, told me that they understood that what I did was right and they were wrong about US involvement in Vietnam.

    The lesson that I learned from this was the importance of acting on principle rather than expediency, the importance of following my conscience and doing what I knew in my heart was right. There have been many other times in my life when I have faced hardships while working for peace. I’ve always taken solace in the understanding that I was doing what I believed in deeply. I have also been helped tremendously on my journey and in facing hardships by a loving a supporting wife.

    If you can follow the path of conscience and embrace the world, you can help create a future built on human dignity for all. We all have a choice. I hope that you will choose conscience, and act with compassion, courage and commitment to create a better world.
    *David Krieger is a founder of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, and has served as president of the Foundation since 1982.