Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Blog

  • Human Rights in the 21st Century

    The people of Iraq have been denied basic human rights since the Economic Sanctions were imposed in August of 1990, and the international community has done little but watch and wait. The United States and United Kingdom have bilaterally acted to deny the innocent people in Iraq clean water, electricity, materials to rebuild their devastated national infrastructure after the Gulf War, and most importantly, food. Every United Nations organization pertaining to health, agriculture and children has reported on the detrimental effects of the sanctions on the most compromised populations, the children, the sick and the elderly.

    To address the issue of human rights, the international community must take a stand on the situation in Iraq. Many countries have already violated the sanctions, like France, Russia, Ireland and Syria, showing that support for the sanctions is crumbling. The international community must show the backbone to support human rights because the concept of human rights transcends ideologies, religions, and national borders. If ever there were a case for taking a strong stand in favor of human rights, Iraq is it. How can countries investigate the egregious violations of human rights in this isolated country when travel and communications with its residents is in all cases ill-advised and in some cases illegal? How can the international community ignore the World Health Organization’s reports that over half a million children have died, and more than one million total, as a direct result of the sanctions?

    Is this the policy we choose to set as a standard for supporting human rights in the twenty-first century?

    *Leah C. Wells it the Peace Education Coordinator at the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

  • Concerned Student Writes to President Bush

    Dear President Bush,

    My Name is Nelly Martinez. I am a student at Mount San Antonio College. Right now I am researching nuclear arms. Recently, a disturbing article came out about this particular subject in the Los Angeles Times. After researching and learning about the power of our nuclear arsenal, I was shocked and amazed at why we need such disastrous weapons. Maybe someone can help explain my misconceptions.

    In my mind, I believe the issue of having the most weapons is an issue of who has the bigger toy, or the bigger muscles. What about the opinions of the ordinary American citizens who do not have knowledge about nuclear issues? What about those who decide to just ignore the subject and place this issue in the back of their heads? It was a relief to hear that there is a treaty banning the testing of nuclear weapons. If one Trident submarine has enough firepower to wipe out the Northern Hemisphere and cause devastating effects, why do we need any more of such submarines? How can anyone want to destroy the life of other innocent human beings?

    There is no doubt that my life, the life of my family (whom I love and cherish with all my heart) and the life of future generations will be affected by a nuclear war. The fact is no one would survive a nuclear war. Isn’t that enough to get through the minds of the people in charge of these weapons? In my opinion, whoever decides to make more nuclear weapons is worse than Hitler. Such actions could result in a World Holocaust and it is doubtful that mankind could survive a nuclear winter.

    Please do not forget about the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But also, do not forget about the past in general so that we can learn from our mistakes. I know that the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are nothing in comparison to the capability we have now. I also know that if another country should strike the US with a nuclear weapon, we would without a doubt retaliate. This process of striking and reciprocating a nuclear attack could continue until mankind itself would be wiped out. I do support the Constitution’s “Right to Bear Arms,” but how far must we go?

    Here is a hypothetical example: We the Americans are up against the “enemy” standing in a pool of gas, representing our world, one side has 16,000 matches ready to ignite the other side has 30,000 matches. Who will win? One match alone (The firepower in one Trident sub) will do the job.

    I am here to plea for some kind of answer to my questions because I love my life, my country, my people and other people as well. I truly want my children’s children to live after I am gone from this earth. My dream is to live until I am old and not be vaporized by a nuclear bomb. Please Mr. President, help us keep peace with other countries and obey the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. Once we violate this Treaty the United States has made with Russia, both countries will start making more unnecessary nuclear weapons.

    Sincerely,

    Nelly Martinez A Concerned Student and Citizen

  • A Nuremberg Prosecutor’s Response to Henry Kissinger

    Henry Kissinger’s essay on “The Pitfalls of Universal Jurisdiction” (Foreign Affairs July/August 2001) perceives danger in allowing international legal norms to interfere with political actions by national governments. The former U.S. Secretary of State in the administration of President Richard Nixon warns that current efforts to deter genocide and other crimes against humanity by creating an international criminal court (ICC) run the risk of becoming a “tyranny of judges” or a “dictatorship of the virtuous.” He refers to “inquisitions and even witch-hunts.” Kissinger’s focus on the past exaggerates the dangers of the present and ignores the needs of the future. If we are to have a more peaceful and humane world, international law must play a greater and not a lesser role.

    Dr. Kissinger challenges the basic concept of universal jurisdiction. He argues, incorrectly, that the notion is of recent vintage. He gives scant weight to ancient doctrines designed to curb piracy or to a plethora of international conventions following the first world war. He fails to recognize that international law is found not only in treaties but in general principles of justice and in customs which gradually obtain universal recognition. International law is not static but advances to meet the needs of a changing world.

    Over half a century ago, Robert M. Jackson, on leave from the U.S. Supreme Court to become Chief U.S. Prosecutor before the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, declared: “To pass these defendants a poisoned chalice is to put it to our own lips as well. We must summon such detachment and intellectual integrity to our task that this trial will commend itself to posterity as fulfilling humanity’s aspirations to do justice.” The learned judges reviewed the law on which the trials were based and concluded that it was “not an arbitrary exercise of power on the part of victorious nations” but “the expression of international law existing at the time of its creation…” The Nuremberg principles were affirmed by the United Nations in 1946 and became binding legal precedents for war crimes trials in Tokyo and elsewhere. Justice Jackson and Telford Taylor, his successor for a dozen subsequent trials at Nuremberg, repeatedly made plain that the law being mobilized to maintain peace in the future would apply to all nations equally.

    The United States inspired the world when it proclaimed at Nuremberg and elsewhere that aggression, genocide and other crimes against humanity were universally prohibited by international law. It was recognized that states can act only through individuals and thus those leaders responsible for the crimes could be held to account in a court of law. Crimes like aggression, genocide and similar large-scale atrocities are almost invariably committed by or with the connivance of a national government and it thus becomes imperative to have available an international tribunal that could bring them to justice. For over half a century, United Nations committees struggled in vain to reach consensus on a code of international crimes that would be punished in an international court. Cold war politics stymied all U.N. efforts to create an international criminal jurisdiction. Powerful nations remained unwilling to yield their sovereign rights to kill as they alone saw fit.

    After years of meticulous argumentation at the U.N., a breakthrough finally came in Rome in 1998 where 120 nations voted in favor of an ICC to curb the incessant murders and persecution of millions of innocent people. The U.S. was one of 7 nations that voted No. Mr. Kisssinger now argues that because of “the intimidating passion of its advocates”, the judicial procedures designed to punish and deter new crimes against humanity are being “spread with extraordinary speed and has not been subjected to systematic debate”. ” It is not the passion of its advocates that is moving nations toward the rule of law – it is the passion of those who have been victims of politics as usual.

    The tribunals set up by the Security Council of the United Nations in the 1990’s, with strong U.S. support, to punish massive war crimes committed in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, are belittled by Dr. Kissinger’s argument that “It was never thought that they would subject past and future leaders of one nation to prosecution by the national magistrates of another state where the violations had not occurred”. None of these arguments are convincing. Kissinger scorns the judgment of Great Britain’s esteemed Law Lords who confirmed the legal validity of the detention in England of Chile’s former Head of State, Augusto Pinochet, who was accused of crimes committed against Spanish nationals in Chile. He ignores, for example, the widely-hailed prosecution of Adolf Eichman by Israel, for Holocaust crimes committed in Europe at a time when the state of Israel didn’t even exist. He fails to recognize that these advances in international jurisprudence also reflect the changing needs of contemporary world society.

    In 1776, the Declaration of Independence declared that “governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.” The United Nations Charter speaks in the name of “We the Peoples…” The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1948 refers to ‘the equal and unalienable rights of all members of the human family.,.”and declares that it is essential “that human rights should be protected by the rule of law.” These and many other international human rights instruments reflect the growing realization that true sovereignty lies in the people and not the state. Today, no nation and no person can be above the law. No one should oppose the creation of new institutions being created to help realize the dreams of suffering humanity.

    Professor Kissinger is quite right to insist on due process protection and fair trials for every accused but his assumption that these rights will be flouted by the ICC is completely unfounded. Quite the contrary, the best way to be sure that law will not be abused as a weapon to settle political disputes is to create a competent international court composed of highly qualified judges from many nations bound by rules that guarantee a fair trial under internationally approved standards and scrutiny. As of July 1, 2001, 36 states , including sme of our staunchest allies, have completed the ratification process thereby confirming their unconditional acceptance of the Court. U.S. insistence upon complete immunity for all U.S. nationals is viewed by many of our friends as a repudiation of vaunted U.S. ideals and an unacceptable affront to the rule of law that must apply equally to everyone.

    The ICC seeks to usher in a new regime of increased respect for international law. The court will have no jurisdiction over crimes committed before the court comes into existence. There is no retroactivity. Only crimes of concern to the international community as a whole, such as genocide, crimes against humanity and major war crimes, can be tried. The supreme international crime – aggressive war – can only be considered later – if there is a near- unanimous amendment Furthermore, it must not be forgotten that national courts are given priority and the ICC will have jurisdiction only where the national courts are unable or unwilling to provide the accused with a fair trial. The Security Council can block prosecutions indefinitely if needed for reconciliation or peace. Administrative and budgetary controls are clearly defined. Without its own police force, the court must depend upon the Security Council to enforce its decisions. Enforcement can be vetoed by any of the five privileged Permanent Members, including the U.S. Kissinger’s reference to the “unlimited discretion” of the prosecutor is unfounded. Many safeguards are written into the statute. A court that acts arbitrarily or seeks to abuse its limited powers will soon cease to exist.

    Kissinger argues that the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia (ICTY), created at U.S. behest in 1993, had the affrontry to receive a “complaint” alleging that punishable crimes against humanity had been committed during the NATO air campaign in Kosovo in 1999. He should have stressed that in this instance the ICTY Prosecutor properly dismissed the complaint and refused to issue an indictment. The statute that governs the ICTY was approved by the United States and the United Nations for the purpose of bringing to justice those leaders responsible for crimes against humanity committed since 1991 in that particular region. It made no exceptions for U.S. nationals or others. The burden is always on the prosecutor to prove beyond doubt that the law has been violated. It must be shown that the accused knew or should have known that the deeds were criminal and that the defendant had the obligation and ability to prevent the crimes from happening. Despite initial difficulties and occasional shortcomings the ICTY has earned respect for its very fair treatment of the accused and its development of international criminal law. It is a new-born babe that must be helped and encouraged and not disparaged.

    The innocent need not fear the rule of law. Kissinger’s misperceptions about current international law lead him to the erroneous conclusion that if the U.S. dos not ratify the ICC treaty Americans will be outside its reach and hence protected from malicious accusations. He fails to notice that without the protective shield of binding international law and institutions to enforce it, the military captive is completely at the mercy of his captors. In every democratic society it is unavoidable that some unjustified complaints may be lodged for political or other nefarious purposes. It is also inevitable that some judgments may go awry and some judges may be incompetent or worse. That is no reason to abolish courts or to refuse to accept new courts where needed. Outstanding American international legal experts, including ten former Presidents of the American Society of International Law and the American Bar Association have, after careful study, concluded that it would be in the best interests of the United States and its military personnel for the United States to accept the proposed ICC as quickly as possible. The same conclusion was reached in 2000 by outstanding professors of the Harvard law School after a careful study by leading military and legal experts assembled by the venerated American Academy of Arts and Sciences.

    A politically conservative constituency in the United States argues for the protection of American sovereignty as though we were still in the Middle Ages. Senator Jesse Helms of North Carolina has been a leading opponent of the ICC. Even though the U.S. Constitution vests the President with the power to negotiate and sign treaties, the distinguished Senator did not wait for the President to submit the ICC treaty to the Senate for its needed advice and consent but intruded into Presidential prerogatives by proclaiming that it would be “dead on arrival.”. The wily Senator also introduced legislation deceptively named “The Servicemembers Protection Act” designed to abort the ICC by imposing economic and military sanctions against states that support the court. He managed to have its submission endorsed by Henry Kissinger and several other distinguished former public servants, whose signature seemed more an act of political fealty than considered legal judgment since it relied on many arguments that were demonstrably false. Opponents of the ICC refuse to recognize that in today’s interdependent world all major problems are global and require global solutions. Binding international rules have become necessary and are accepted universally to protect the common interest. The prevention of massive crimes against humanity deserves equal protection of universal law.

    Mr. Kissinger makes an argument that, when needed, additional ad hoc tribunals can be created by the Security Council. Until the ICC is fully functional ad hoc courts may prove to be unavoidable to curb some of the more outrageous cases of impunity. But a bevy of independent courts is hardly an adequate deterrent to universal crimes. Justice regarding the most serious crimes in the world can not depend upon the political whim of those who control the United Nations. The crimes must be spelled out in advance and not condemned only retroactively. Temporary courts created a la carte are very costly and lack the uniformity required by an international legal system. It is understandable that a former Secretary of State should not be eager to place national politicians under the supervision of an international judicial system. He accuses the ICTY of allowing ” prosecutorial discretion without accountability” – ignoring all the controls that exist to prevent abuse. He makes the unfounded allegation that the “definitions of the relevant crimes are vague and highly susceptible to politicized application.” His statement that “defendants will not enjoy due process as understood in the United States” is refuted by a host of prominent international lawyers, including a former Legal Adviser to both the Defense and State Departments. (See 95 American Journal of International Law (Jan. 2001) 124.)

    In concluding, Kissinger, the constant diplomat, makes three “Modest Proposals”. He suggests that the Security Council appoint a committee to monitor human rights violations and report when judicial action appears necessary. If the local government has not been democratically elected or seems incapable of sitting in fair judgment, the Council may set up additional ad hoc tribunals. But the Council must specify the scope of prosecutions and provide for due process. He fears “one sidedness” of the pursuit of universal jurisdiction which “may undermine the political will to sustain the humane norms of international behavior so necessary to temper the violent times in which we live.” He ignores the reality that other states will demand the same rights that the U.S. wishes to reserve for itself. What it boils down to in the end is that Henry Kissinger says he agrees with the goals of the international criminal court, and even gives some credit to its advocates, but he fails to recognize that the safeguards he seeks from an ICC are already in place. He remains uncomfortable with what he perceives to be the speed and vigor with which the idea of universal crimes punishable in an international court is now moving forward. His call for a public debate is fully justified. Let an informed public study the facts and then let the politicians know whether they prefer politics as usual to law.

    *Benjamin B. Ferencz, J.D. Harvard 1943, a former Nuremberg war crimes prosecutor.

  • U.S. and Russian Nuclear Defense Strategies are Fatally Flawed – They Can’t be Used Without Self-Destruction

    Nuclear Defense Strategies – The nuclear arsenals of the United States and Russia, left-over from the Cold War, present the world with its greatest danger. These two arsenals have 90 percent of the world’s nuclear weapons. The nuclear defense strategies for Russia and the U.S. are similar. Within minutes upon receiving instruction to fire, either one or both countries can launch thousands of missiles. These strategies are fatally flawed because launching thousands of nuclear weapons could destroy all countries including themselves.

     

    Global Danger – In a study made by the World Health Organization, they found that a nuclear war between the U.S. and Russia could kill one billion people outright. In addition, it could produce a Nuclear Winter that would probably kill an additional one billion people. It is possible that more than two billion people, one-third of all the humans on Earth, would be destroyed almost immediately in the aftermath of a global thermonuclear war. The rest of humanity would be reduced to prolonged agony and barbarism. These findings are from a study chaired by Sune K. Bergstrom (the 1982 Nobel laureate in Physiology and Medicine) nearly 20 years ago. (1)

     

    Subsequent studies have had similar findings. Professor Alan Robock says, “Everything from purely mathematical models to forest fire studies shows that even a small nuclear war would devastate the earth. (2)

     

    Rich Small’s work, financed by the Defense Nuclear Agency, suggests that burning cities would produce a particularly troublesome variety of smoke. The smoke of forest fires is bad enough. But the industrial targets of cities are likely to produce a rolling, black smoke, a denser shield against incoming sunlight.(3)

     

    The late Dr. Carl Sagan and his associates in their studies found that a nuclear explosive force equal to 100 million tons of dynamite could create a global nuclear winter. (4) The U.S. and Russia each have on alert a nuclear explosive power more than 10 times greater than that needed to create a nuclear winter.

     

    Nuclear explosions with temperatures of 3,000 to 4,000 degrees centigrade at ground zero could start giant flash fires leaving large cities and forests burning with no one to fight them. Nuclear explosions can also lift an enormous quantity of fine soil particles into the atmosphere, creating more than l00,000 tons of fine, dense, dust for every megaton exploded on a surface. (5) This dust would add to the darkness and cold.

     

    Explosive Power Compared – Nuclear weapons are far more powerful than is generally realized.

     

    *The terrorist bomb that was detonated outside an office building in Oklahoma City in 1995 killed 168 people. This fertilizer and fuel bomb weighted 3 and 1/2 tons. (6)

     

    * A small nuclear warhead, that one person can lift can have an explosive power equal to 40,000 tons of dynamite, or 8,000 trucks each carrying 5 tons of dynamite, or 3 Hiroshima size bombs

     

    *One average size U.S. strategic nuclear warhead has an explosive force equal to 50,000 trucks each carrying 5 tons of dynamite.

     

    *If 1,000 of the average size 0U.S. warheads were used they could produce an explosive force equal to 50 million trucks each carrying 5 tons of dynamite.

     

    *One average size Russian strategic nuclear warhead has an explosive power equal to 40,000 trucks each carrying 5 tons of dynamite. (7)

     

    Leader’s Concern – General Lee Butler (USAF), former head of the US Strategic Command, said, “… twenty nuclear weapons would suffice to destroy the twelve largest Russian cities with a total population of twenty-five million people and therefore that arsenals in the hundreds, much less in the thousands, can serve no meaningful strategic objective.” (8) Twenty nuclear warheads is less than one percent of the nuclear weapons that the U.S. has set for hair-trigger release.

     

    Robert McNamara, former Secretary of Defense under Presidents Kennedy and Johnson, says there was no long-range war plan. Neither Russia nor the U.S. wanted to get behind. Each side strove to build the greatest number of nuclear weapons. More importantly, he said, the totals far exceeded the requirements of any conceivable war plan. (9)

     

    Accidental Nuclear War – There have been at least three times in the past that the U.S. and Russia almost launched to false warnings. Each time they came within less than 10 minutes of launching before learning the warnings were false.

     

    * In l979, a U.S. training tape showing a massive attack was accidentally played.

     

    * In l983, a Soviet satellite mistakenly signaled the launch of a U.S. missile.

     

    * In 1995, Russia almost launched its missiles because a Norwegian rocket studying the northern lights was mistakenly taken as the start of a nuclear attack. (10)

     

    False warnings are a fact of life. For example, during an 18-month period in 1979-80 the U.S. had 147 false alarms in its strategic warning system. (11)

     

    Casper Weinberger, when he was President Reagan’s Defense Secretary, said that since an anti-ballistic missile defense could require decisions within seconds there would be no time for White House approval. Hitting a missile having a head start and going thousands of miles per hour does not allow much time to assess whether a warning is false or not. (12) Do we want computers determining our fate?

     

    Action – All countries with nuclear weapons need to assess what would be the consequences of their use, including possibility of self-destruction. Reporting these findings to the public could help build a better understanding of the need to rid the world of nuclear weapons.

     

    General Butler has said the world can immediately and inexpensively improve security by taking nuclear weapons off hair-trigger alert. (13)

     

    Reference and Notes

     

    1. Sagan, Carl. The Nuclear Winter, Council for a Livable World Education, Boston, MA, 1983.

     

    2. Robock, Alan. “New models confirm nuclear winter,’ Bulletin of the Atomic Scientist, September 1989, pp.32-35.. .

     

    3. Blum, Deborah, Scientists try to predict nuclear future from forest fires, The Sacramento Bee. Nov. 28, 1987.

     

    4. Sagan, Op. Cit.

     

    5. Ibid.

     

    6. Hamilton, Arnold. “McVeigh forgoes 2 final appeals,“ Contra Coast Times, June 8, 2001.

     

    7. Norris, Robert S. and Arkin, William. “U.S. Nuclear Weapons Stockpile,”’ Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, July/Aug. 96.

     

    8. Butler, Lee. Talk at the University of Pittsburgh , May13, 1999.

     

    9. McNamara, Robert. Blundering Into Disaster, Pantheon Books, New, York, 1986.

     

    10. Babst, Dean. “Preventing An Accidental Armageddon,” Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, Feb., 2000.

     

    11. Hart, Senator Gary and Goldwater, Senator Barry, Recent False Alerts from the Nation’s Missile Attack Warning System, a report to the Senate Armed Forces, 9 October, 1980, pp. 4 & 5.

     

    12. Strategic Defense and Anti-Satellite Weapons, hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, April 25, 1984, pp. 69-74.

     

    13. Schell, Jonathan, “The Gift Of Time,” The Nation, Feb. 8, 1998, p. 58.

  • Preventing an Accidental Nuclear Winter

    Nuclear Winter

    In a study made by the World Health Organization, they found that a nuclear war between the U.S. and Russia could kill one billion people outright. In addition, it could produce a Nuclear Winter that would probably kill an additional one billion people. It is possible that more than two billion people, one-third of all the humans on Earth would be destroyed almost immediately in the aftermath of a global thermonuclear war. The rest of humanity would be reduced to prolonged agony and barbarism. These findings are from a study chaired by Sune K. Bergstrom (the 1982 Nobel laureate in physiology and medicine) nearly 20 years ago. (1)

    Subsequent studies have had similar findings. Professor Alan Robock says, “Everything from purely mathematical models to forest fire studies shows that even a small nuclear war would devastate the earth.” (2)

    Rich Small’s work, financed by the Defense Nuclear Agency, suggests that burning cities would produce a particularly troublesome variety of smoke. The smoke of forest fires is bad enough. But the industrial targets of cities are likely to produce a rolling, black smoke, a denser shield against incoming sunlight. (3)

    Nuclear explosions can produce heat intensities of 3,000 to 4,000 degrees Centigrade at ground zero. Nuclear explosions can also lift an enormous quantity of fine soil particles into the atmosphere, creating more than l00,000 tons of fine, dense, radioactive dust for every megaton exploded on the surface. (4) The late Dr. Carl Sagan said the super heating of vast quantities of atmospheric dust and soot will cover both hemispheres. (5) For those who survive a nuclear attack, it would mean living on a cold, dark, chaotic, radioactive planet.

    A nuclear warhead is far more destructive than is generally realized. For example, just one average size U.S. strategic 250 Kt nuclear warhead has an explosive force equal to 250,000 tons of dynamite or 50,000 World War II type bombers each carrying 5 tons of bombs. The truck bombs that terrorists exploded at the New York World Trade Center and in Oklahoma City each had an explosive force equal to about 5 tons of dynamite. (6)

    Accidental Nuclear War

    The U.S. and Russia each have more than 2,000 strategic nuclear warheads set for hair-trigger release. If launched they could be delivered to targets around the world in 30 minutes. They would have an explosive force equal to l00,000 Hiroshima size bombs. (7) Russia and the U.S. have more than 90 percent of the nuclear weapons in the world. The more automated and shorter the decision process becomes the greater is the possibility of missiles being launched to false warnings.

    The U.S. is trying to decide whether to build an anti-missile “star wars” defense or not. In order for an anti-ballistic missile to hit another missile traveling at incredible speed that can come from many different directions, it would be necessary to have a very complex computerized system.

    President Reagan’s Defense Secretary, Casper Weinberger, said that since an anti-missile defense would require decisions within seconds, completely autonomous computer control is a foregone conclusion. There would be no time for screening out false alarms and a decision to launch would have to be automated—there would be no time for White House approval. (8)

    A highly automated defense system that has no time for determining whether a warning is false or not is highly likely to launch to a false warning. There are always false warnings. For example, during 1981, 1982 and 1983 there were 186, 218 and 255 false alarms, respectively, in the U.S. strategic warning system. (9)

    There have been at least three times in the last 20 years that the U.S. and Russia almost launched to false warnings. Fortunately there was enough time to determine that the warnings were false before decision time ran out.

    In 1979, a U.S. training tape showing a massive attack was accidentally played.

    In 1983, a Soviet satellite mistakenly signaled the launch of a U.S. missile.

    In 1995, Russia almost launched its missiles because of a Norwegian rocket studying the northern lights. (l0)

    If the U.S. builds an anti-missile defense it appears certain that missiles would be launched to false warnings because no time is available for determining whether a warning is false or not.

    Preventive Action Needed

    Plans to build an anti-missile defense need to be carefully researched as to how it could increase the danger of an accidental nuclear war. As the research progresses, the findings need to be widely discussed in the news media. The more widely and clearly the danger is made known the more concerned the public should be for agreements to greatly reduce and eventually eliminate all nuclear weapons from the world.

    As humanity’s safety becomes more and more dependent upon technology, the technological dangers need to be guarded against. Technical errors in one system may trigger errors in others. When researching missile defense dangers the following types of factors need to be included in the assessments, e.g. Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP)), “Dead Hand” control of missiles, High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP), Hazards of Electromagnetic Radiation to Ordnance (HERO). Russia’s blind spots in its satellite warning system also need to be included in this research.

    The U.S. and Russia are in a position where either can destroy humanity in a flash and yet there appears to be little recognition of this peril hanging over the world. Only 71 out of 435 U.S. congressional representatives signed a motion calling for nuclear weapons to be taken off of hair-trigger alert. (11) The U.S. Senate rejected the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty in 1999. (12)

    Queen Noor al Hussein, of Jordan, said “The sheer folly of trying to defend a nation by destroying all life on the planet must be apparent to anyone capable of rational thought.” (13) There is a need to greatly increase public awareness of the danger in order to provide broad, long-term understanding and support for arms agreements ridding the world of nuclear weapons.

    Reference and Notes

    1. Sagan, Carl. The Nuclear Winter, Council for a Livable World Education Fund, Boston, MA, 1983.

    2. Robock, Alan. “New models confirm nuclear winter,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientist, September l989, pp 32-35.

    3. Blum, Deborah. “Scientists try to predict nuclear future from forest fires,” The Sacramento Bee, November 28, 1987.

    4. Sagan, Op.Cit.

    5. Ibid

    6. Babst, Dean, Preventing An Accidental Armageddon,” Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, February 2000,

    7. Blair, Bruce. “Nuclear Dealerting: A Solution to Proliferation Problems,” The Defense Monitor, Volume XXXIX, No.3, 2000.

    8. Strategic Defense and Anti-Satellite Weapons, hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, April 25, 1984, pp. 69-74.

    9. Letter from Air Force Space Command headquarters at Peterson Air Force Base, Colorado, February 16, 1984.

    10. Babst, Op.Cit.

    11. The Sunflower, No. 31, Jan. 00, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, Santa Barbara, Calif.

    12. Gordon, Michael R. “Russia rejects call to amend ABM treaty,” Contra Costa Times, Oct. 2l, 1999.

    13. Hussein, Queen Noor al. “The Responsibilities of World Citizenship,” Waging Peace Series, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, Santa Barbara, Calif., Booklet No 40, July 2000.

    *Dean Babst is a retired government research scientist and Coordinator of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s Accidental Nuclear War Studies Program. The author acknowledges the helpful suggestions of David Krieger, President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, Bob Aldridge, who heads the Pacific Life Research Center, and Andy Baltzo, who is Founder of the Mount Diable Peace Center in northern California.

  • Some Thoughts on “Courage” Award

    News Item: “Boston, May 21, 2001 Former President Gerald R. Ford, overwhelmingly condemned in 1974 for pardoning his predecessor, Richard M. Nixon, was honored today for that act by the John F. Kennedy Library with its Profile in Courage Award.” — New York Times, May 22, 2001

    Does it really take courage to pardon a former president, alleged to have committed serious crimes, who resigns under threat of impeachment? Does it really take courage to demonstrate by the use of a pardon that high officials stand above the law? Many people think that Ford’s pardon of Nixon may have been part of the negotiations leading to Ford’s appointment as Nixon’s vice president.

    In the presentation of the award to former President Ford, Senator Edward Kennedy remarked about Ford, “His courage and dedication to our country made it possible for us to begin the process of healing and put the tragedy of Watergate behind us.”

    If Ford deserves to be honored for his “courage” in pardoning Nixon for his cover-up of the Watergate scandal and for lying to the American people, we might consider some other awardees in future years for the Kennedy Center Profile in Courage Award.

    Augusto Pinochet, the Chilean dictator, for in effect pardoning himself by arranging for his lifetime appointment to the Chilean Senate and immunity from prosecution.

    Richard Nixon himself for pardoning war criminal Lt. William Calley for the My Lai massacre in Vietnam.

    Bob Kerrey, former U.S. Senator and president of the New School, for revealing 30 years after the fact when pressed to do so by the accusations of another member of his squad that he was involved in ordering the killing of women and children in Vietnam.

    Regents of the New School for their courageous “unqualified support” of Bob Kerrey and for recognizing that “War is Hell.”

    Robert McNamara, former Secretary of Defense during the Vietnam War who devised the “Body Count” as a means of keeping score, for acknowledging years later that we did not win the war in Vietnam.

    William Jefferson Clinton for pardoning fugitive financer Marc Rich and for handling his own impeachment proceedings so gracefully.

    Norman Schwartzkoff for leading the Persian Gulf War in which we buried enemy soldiers while still alive with bulldozers.

    George H. W. Bush for honoring rather than pardoning General Schwartzkoff.

    Chief Justice Rehnquist and his Supreme Court colleagues for having the courage to override the Florida Supreme Court in order to select the current occupant of the White House, despite their often proclaimed commitment to states rights.

    Henry Kissinger, former Secretary of State, for doing such effective self-promotion that it wasn’t necessary to pardon his many Nuremberg-like crimes.

    Clearly, the Kennedy Library will not run short of potential recipients of their award — men and women who demonstrate the courage to do the wrong thing.

  • The Power of an Early Visit to the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum

    I first visited Hiroshima and its Peace Memorial Museum when I was 21 years old. The visit changed the course of my life.

     

    I was in Japan on an exchange program, and the program included a trip to Hiroshima around Hiroshima Day in 1963. I was apprehensive about going to Hiroshima. I thought the people of Hiroshima would be angry with Americans, probably hostile and perhaps even violent. After all, we Americans had dropped an atomic bomb on the city just 18 years before, killing well over 100,000 people.

     

    My fears proved to be unfounded. If the people of Hiroshima were hostile to Americans, they didn’t show it. They were kind and welcoming to young Americans, as were people throughout Japan.

     

    Here is what I had learned in high school and college about Hiroshima: The American military dropped an atomic bomb on the city, followed by the dropping of another atomic bomb on Nagasaki, and these bombings brought World War II to an end.

     

    Here is what I learned at the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum when I was 21 years old: There were people under that bomb we dropped on Hiroshima. Most were civilians. The bomb slaughtered its victims, killing men, women and children indiscriminately. I also learned that many of the people killed by the bomb were burned alive, some were incinerated. These were powerful details – details that were certainly not emphasized in the story we learned in school in the United States.

     

    One of the strongest impressions on me was the shadow on the wall that was left behind where someone had been sitting at the time the bomb was dropped. The person was incinerated and only his shadow remained.

     

    Visiting the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum had a strong influence on my views on war, and particularly nuclear war. The museum, which was filled with artifacts and photographs, powerfully demonstrated the futility of nuclear warfare. Hiroshima’s past was eloquent testimony to an intolerable future.

     

    The course of my life made a subtle shift. I was set on a course of wanting to do something to end the tragedy of war. Later, when I returned to the United States, other events would solidify the shift in my life, particularly my experience in the army and my fight in court against orders to go to Vietnam.

     

    Some 20 years later I was a founder of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, where I have served as president for almost 20 years. Hiroshima has never left my mind. I have written many poems and articles about the tragedy that occurred there and its meaning for our lives. I have worked for the abolition of nuclear weapons. I have done all that I can to further this goal. I was a founder of Abolition 2000, now a global network of over 2000 organizations working to abolish nuclear weapons. I have traveled around the world speaking out for realizing the dream of Hiroshima and the survivors of the bombing — the abolition of nuclear weapons.

     

    I believe that museums matter. They capture moments in time and freeze them for the future to examine. Of course, it is important for museums to be honest. It is possible for museums to be deceptive by overt acts or by omission. There is a museum about the first atomic bombs that I visited at Kirtland Air Force Base in Albuquerque, New Mexico. That museum celebrates only the technology. There are no photographs or displays of the people who were killed and injured in the bombings. The museum is steely and antiseptic. In visiting this museum, one would have no emotional connection with or even knowledge of the suffering and death caused by the bombings.

     

    It would be more than 35 years before I visited the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum again. When I did return in 1998, it was to give a speech at the museum. I began my speech with these words: “It is with profound appreciation and gratitude that I return to this city of peace, this sacred city of Hiroshima. This city was made sacred not by the tragedy which befell it, but by the rebirth of hope which emerged from that tragedy. From the ashes of Hiroshima, flowers of hope have blossomed, bringing forth a renewed spirit of possibility, of peace, to a world in which hope has been too often crushed for too many.”

     

    In another visit to the museum early in the year 2000, the museum director, Minoru Hataguchi, showed my wife and me through the museum. He was carrying with him a small box. At one point, he stopped and opened the box. He told us that this was the first time he had shared the contents of the box with visitors to the museum. The box contained the pocket watch and belt buckle of his father. Mr. Hataguchi had been in utero when the bomb fell. His father had been a train conductor, and had been near ground zero. The pocket watch and belt buckle were all that his mother recovered. We were very moved that he shared his father’s story and the artifacts with us.

     

    In Fall 2000, our Foundation sponsored an exhibit in Santa Barbara, California from the Hiroshima and Nagasaki Peace Memorial Museums. Mr. Hataguchi was one of the representatives of the two cities that came to Santa Barbara to open the exhibit. By bringing the exhibit to our city, we were able to share with members of our community an important perspective on Hiroshima with which many were unacquainted.

     

    In 1995, the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation commemorated the 50th anniversary of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by creating a peace garden in our community. We called it Sadako Peace Garden after Sadako Sasaki, a young girl who had been exposed to the bombing of Hiroshima at age 2 and had died at age 12 of leukemia. Sadako had been inspired by the Japanese legend that one’s wish will come true if one folds 1,000 paper cranes, and she had attempted to fold paper cranes to regain her health and to further world peace. She wrote: “I will write peace on your wings, and you will fly all over the world.” Each year on August 6th, the Foundation holds a public event at Sadako Peace Garden to commemorate the anniversary of Hiroshima with music, poetry and reflection.

     

    I am quite certain that my first visit to Hiroshima at the age of 21 left a strong enough impression on me to guide the course of my life. I am dedicated to ending the nuclear weapons era, and bringing the spirit of Hiroshima and its survivors, the hibakusha, to people everywhere.

     

    If a visit to the Peace Memorial Museums in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were a requirement of office for all leaders of nuclear weapons states, it just might change the world.

     

    *David Krieger is President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

  • To Address Gang Problem, Abandon Ageist Ideas

    Adults have no monopoly on problem solving. If policing, prison and other conventional methods aren’t working, maybe it’s time to ask young people what they think should be done and really listen to what they say.

    I began teaching classes in nonviolence theory and practice in a maximum-security juvenile facility near Washington, D.C., in 1998. The young men and women incarcerated there were being detained for myriad crimes: gang-related issues, shooting family members or violence against siblings or peers, for example. These young people had a few things in common: They were all people of color, all poor, all with low levels of literacy. Yet these qualities did not impede their ability to internalize the values and tenets of active peacemaking. As I worked with these young women and men, we all began to uncover the true meaning of nonviolence: listening to each other, validating each other’s experiences, figuring out how to make things more just, and becoming more in control of our emotions and responses to anger and violence.

    By many people’s standards, I should not have been there teaching the people whom society deems unlovable, unteachable and unreformable, and who are at the end of a heavy-handed legalistic punitive society, all victims of finger-pointers rather than problem solvers. Yet the nonviolence classes at this juvenile prison worked because of faith in the creativity and self-expressiveness of each young person. I entered the jail ready to hear their stories in their own words and to address the issues most affecting them, like physical abuse at home, substance abuse and escalating verbal conflict.

    In my estimation, violence stems from misunderstanding, which comes in comfortable positions who make decisions affectinfrom lack of communication, which comes from ignorance in the true sense of the word–and ignorance is combated only through education and dialogue. To truly get at the root of a problem, as a society we must abandon our ageist ideologies that adults have a monopoly over access to community building and problem solving. We must reincorporate young people back into the loop. This begins by listening to them and straightforwardly addressing their concerns and grievances.

    In the first presidential debate, George W. Bush labeled “at risk” kids as “kids who basically can’t learn.” This stereotype haunts kids, especially minorities, making escape from these externally imposed confines more precarious. What is it like to be heard and understood? What is it like to be an adult with stature, a stable life, a voice and clear language and thoughts to express that which pleases and displeases? What must it be like not to be discounted based on race, age, appearance, location or other transient factors? Perhaps before our communities can make progress toward more peaceful relations, we need to hear and accept the daily complications that make life perilous for kids, in their own words and language, absent judgment and malevolent suspicion.

    The recent smattering of gang-related shootings in Oxnard opens a door of potential dialogue for a long-standing and gravely important problem. First, designate a permanent means of addressing the complicated issues surrounding gang violence in Ventura County by institutionalizing classes in alternatives to violence specifically for gang members, creating a safe space for them to learn concrete methods of conflict management. Peace is not static; it is a forever-changing dynamic that requires finesse and negotiation and consistent maintenance. Peace is not the lull between explosions. To create a lasting peace, we must equip our young people with the teachable and learnable tools necessary to make competent, broad-minded decisions.

    Next, give these young people the chance to be articulate and play an active role in making their communities better places. Offer the option of intra-gang and inter-gang facilitated dialogues by an impartial third party. Gandhi provides a wonderful guideline for such an encounter: Describe all that is shared in common against the one unshared separation, claiming a different gang. Allow them to become policy-makers and set the guidelines for creating safer communities. Ask them how to begin making things as right as possible rather than handing down mandates that might not address the real issues of why the gang violence has recently escalated.

    If heavier policing, stricter sentencing and more time in juvenile hall or prison are not making a positive difference, then we ought to ask those directly involved what they think ought to be done. Their answers might just surprise us.

    * Leah C. Wells is Peace Education Coordinator for the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. She teaches a nonviolence class at St. Bonaventure High School and is director of the Southern California chapter of Nonviolence International. She is youth coordinator for Season for Nonviolence 2001.

  • Bush “Stunned” by Size of US Nuclear Arsenal

    According to an article in the June 25th edition of Newsweek, President Bush was stunned when he was told in May of the size of the US nuclear arsenal. Bush was quoted as saying, “I had no idea we had so many weapons.”

    Like Bush, most Americans might be surprised to learn that, “The U.S. nuclear arsenal today includes 5,400 warheads loaded on intercontinental ballistic missiles at land and sea; an additional 1,750 nuclear bombs and cruise missiles ready to be launched from B-2 and B-52 bombers; a further 1,670 nuclear weapons classified as “tactical.” And just in case, an additional 10,000 or so nuclear warheads held in bunkers around the United States as a “hedge” against future surprises.” (Newsweek, 6/25/01)

    Bush called for unilateral reductions in the US nuclear arsenal during his campaign and again in his May 1, 2001 speech. General Lee Butler, a former head of the US Strategic Command, has been brought back, along with Reagan Defense official Richard Perle, to advise on efforts to reduce the US nuclear arsenal. General Butler is a recipient of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation Distinguished Peace Leadership Award for his outspoken advocacy of nuclear weapons abolition.

    Perle, known during the Reagan administration as the Prince of Darkness for his hawkish policies, is quoted in the Newsweek article as saying, “I see no reason why we can’t go well below 1,000 [nuclear] warheads. I want the lowest number possible under the tightest control possible. The truth is we are never going to use them. The Russians aren’t going to use theirs either.”

    We would like Mr. Perle to know that “the lowest number possible” would be zero. At that level, the “tightest control possible” would be far less of an issue for US and global security.

  • WARNING

    A misguided trap is being set by right wing conservatives. It threatens our national security interests and endangers our military personnel. A cleverly mislabeled “Servicemembers Protection Act,” was recently passed by the House and is now pending in the Senate where it was appended as an amendment linked to the Foreign Relations Act authorizing payment of arrears to the United Nations. In the guise of protecting our military, the amendment is clearly designed to abort the creation of an International Criminal Court (ICC) now being formed at the United Nations. The Act threatens to impose economic and military sanctions against any nation that dares to support the Court.

    Republican Senator Jesse Helms of North Carolina leads the vigorous campaign that would repudiate the rule of law laid down at the Nuremberg trials after World War II – that aggression, genocide, crimes against humanity and major war crimes would never again go unpunished. Senator Helms and his supporters demand exemption and immunity for all U.S. personnel. Conservative attempts to abort the ICC defy the clear wishes of the vast majority of nations, including our leading European allies. We are seen as a bully that wants the rule of law for everyone else but not for ourselves. Without such a court, our military personnel will remain completely at the mercy of their captors, rather than under the protective shield of a fair tribunal created and supervised by the international community.

    The campaign to kill the court relies on unfounded allegations designed to frighten an uninformed public. Scholarly studies by outstanding legal experts agree that it would be in the U.S. national interest to support the International Criminal Court. See for example, the publication last year by the American Academy of Arts and Sciences , the comprehensive speech by Senator Leahy of Vermont on Dec. 15, 2000; the recommendation of the American Bar Association in Feb. 2001, the conclusion sent to Congressman Henry Hyde on Feb. 13, 2001 by ten former Presidents of the American Society of International Law, endorsing “U.S. acceptance of the Treaty without change…”; the editorial in the American Journal of International Law by Monroe Leigh, former Counsel to both the State and Defense Departments, that the United states can most effectively protect its national-security interests, as well as the individual interests of U.S. nationals, by accepting the International Criminal Court, ” — better sooner than later.” ((95 AJIL 131, Jan. 2001). None of these persuasive opinions are ever mentioned by opponents of the ICC.

    Those who believe in the rule of law that applies equally to everyone had better let their voices be heard very soon if we are to move toward a more humane and peaceful world.