Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Blog

  • 2019 Winning Poems

    2019 Winning Poems

    These are the winning poems of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s 2019 Barbara Mandigo Kelly Peace Poetry Awards. For more information on the peace poetry contest, and to read the winning poems from previous years, click here.

    Adult Category, First Place
    Devreaux Baker

    Counting Moons

    I am counting moons until the memory of the bombing
    of your sister’s village folds up its tents and finds
    a home in someone else’s heart. Ten moons after
    and I am still dreaming of winter in the mouth of spring,

    still feeling the hooves of loss stampeding
    the bones inside my body, wondering where
    the dead journey when they walk out
    of the houses of the living.

    This is the way we learn how to make sense
    in a senseless world, count moons that cross the sky
    and roll bone dice in the backwater alleys of our souls
    until all our questions of right and wrong learn lessons

    from the shape-shifter and fly out of our doors as birds;
    crows or ravens. I wander the hallways like a lost ghost
    and ask why did she want a wedding in a world made of war?

    Why did she want a dress stitched with the dreams
    of our people? Why did she believe in the possibility
    of love in a time of hate? I wake to the smell
    of cumin and turmeric, marjoram and coriander.

    I find you in the kitchen releasing the aroma of spices
    for a good life into the mouth of a world famished for peace,
    causing me to feel as hungry as all migrant tongues
    anxious to be fed words of hope we can eat as bread

    or drink as coffee. I wake with the call to prayer
    that signals forgiveness and a new beginning
    for all of us. I whisper names of the dead and cradle them
    in my hands. This is the way things fall apart and
    this is the way they are mended once again.

     

    Adult Category, Honorable Mention
    Colin D. Halloran

    ABU OMAR1
    Aleppo, Syria
    March 2017

    He gives us hope, or recollection of what it was.
    What it was to live, what it is to be present.

    He sits in slippered feet, smoking pipe perched thoughtfully
    as he exudes an academic air, his chin is slightly tilted,
    eyes turned not toward chunks of rubble on the floor
    or the bed stand, now more tilted than his chin.

    He does not seem to notice the places where the roof caved in,
    the shutters barely dangling, the windows long-since shattered.

    His Aleppo is not the background smoldering buildings,
    bloodied streets and smoke filled skies.

    No, he packs his city contentedly into his pipe
    and slowly cranks his gramophone.

    He is the wizard of Aleppo, white beard and all,
    creating the magic of memory, the faintest smoke rings of hope,
    belief that things could be as they once were.

    “It’s my home,” he says, as though it’s obvious why he hasn’t left
    this war torn structure
    this city of rubble
    this place that records his loss.

    Because for Abu Omar this place is home
    this place is hope
    that one day his grandchildren
    will once more fill the shattered space with joy.

    But for now, he first fills his pipe
    then fills the wall-less room with strained notes that move from vinyl
    into the streets, like so many revolutionaries did before.

    Because this is his city.
    This is his home.
    And this is his hope.

    ____________________

    1 In March of 2017 a photograph by Andrew Katz went viral. The photo featured Mohammed Mohiedin Anis, known as Abu Omar, sitting on the bed in his destroyed Aleppo apartment, smoking a pipe and listening to his favorite record.

     

    Youth Category (13-18), First Place
    Cindy Xin

    Golden Gates

    i.
    Dried blue tongue. Winter bite. Your mother is twelve when she
    learns violence is more than a pistol pressed to her father’s forehead:
    It’s her mother silent, crouching over one small sac. It’s a creaky
    deck that screams against footsteps as they board the ship, eyes
    forward while her father’s corpse is left sinking in motherland soil.

    Steam engine burr. Impossible shore. Each day sunken with a
    new grief—children who hear bullets whenever night falls.
    Mothers reaching for shadows, each crowned with a deadman’s
    name. Al silence if not for the bombs, re-swallowed as secrets
    in the ocean’s many mouths.

    ii.
    Months later, San Francisco slides in with teeth. Every night,
    Your mother can still hear her father’s voice, sharp till drowned
    out with blood. Still, life goes on. Quick cuts on the roasted
    pork belly. Dishes clanking in the sink. Her mother dying
    and the sounds of it: water leaks and strapping silence.

    Sometimes, she remembers again. Her father picking tulips
    in the valley. The sun’s glare not a battle cry, but a beginning.
    She presses her forehead where the soldier pressed her father’s.
    Oceans and decades away, she can still hear his cries.

    Still, life goes on.

    iii.
    A duck’s brief song outside the window. Sunlight slanting
    from a hole in the ceiling. Everything hospital white.
    Your face meeting hers for the first time. Your mother
    grazes your forehead, names you forgiveness.
    Outside the tulips are blooming
    even an ocean away.

     

    Youth Category (13-18), Honorable Mention
    Isabella Cho

    Post-War Topography

    these are the mountains, i’m told,
    where boys with guns weaved through trees

    and prayed for rain. where camphor caught red
    silt between roots and the spirits of tigers stirred

    in faceless boughs, silver bombers gliding
    through canopy. at night, the mountains grow

    like stains, lean into the automobiles strewn
    over asphalt. in the sky, a commercial plane,

    red wound on a pockmarked face. gravel rasps under
    my rubber soles. i paw at it; an animal, maw wet

    with what’s to come. there’s no truck hulking bovine
    in the dark, no moonlit wheel to throw

    my gaze at. instead, my hands, oiled from heat,
    rushing down for dust: an arc of rubble thrown

    into sky. it suspends, luminous, then clatters
    to stillness. eight years ago i would’ve believed

    that the mist pouring from the mountain’s jaw
    was my grandmother. now, just pearl air killing

    the blue rhythm of stars. crickets weep
    and add a skin to silence. above mountains

    light cycles through its blistering histories—

    i too, a fist of dust in transit.

     

    Youth Category (12 and Under), First Place
    Alex Fiszer

    Peaceful Melodies

    He stood up for peace
    When he refused to plan
    He sat down for peace
    Even when money was thrown at him
    “Just play!”

    He stood up for peace
    No matter who it was
    He sat down for peace
    And played his
    “Song of the birds”

    Dear Pablo Casals
    Thank you for your peaceful
    Melodies

     

    Youth Category (12 and Under), Honorable Mention
    Memphis Coots

    War Poem

    War of gods.
    War of princesses.
    War of nature.
    War of wars.
    There will never
    Ever Ever
    Be a cure
    To this war.

    In this war, boys are raised to be men.
    Brave they start,
    Fearful they end.
    This war will go on.
    It will never end.
    People will no longer be friends.

    Make it end.

    Make it end.

    Make this horrible war end.

  • Nobel Laureates’ Statement on the Urgent Need to Prevent Nuclear War

    Nobel Laureates’ Statement on the Urgent Need to Prevent Nuclear War

    Since August 1945, when the US detonated the first atomic bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Nobel Peace Prize has been awarded eight times to individuals and organizations for their work to prevent nuclear war and to rid the world of the scourge of nuclear weapons.

    Yet in 2019—almost 75 years after this dire warning that nuclear weapons threaten our very existence—nuclear-armed states are engaging in expensive and aggressive arms races unlike anything we’ve seen since the Cold War between the US and the former Soviet Union. For the past two years, the Doomsday Clock has been set at two minutes to midnight—the closest it has been during the entire nuclear age.

    Just within the past several months, the US has withdrawn from the multinational agreement that prevents an Iranian nuclear weapons program; both the US and Russia have walked away from the 1987 Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF); five Russian scientists were killed and radiation was released in an explosion during a test of a new hypersonic cruise missile designed to evade US missile defenses; the US began development of a new low-yield warhead and a nuclear-armed, sea-launched cruise missile; and North Korea has conducted several missile tests which the government has called a direct response to “double-dealing” by South Korea and the US.

    Direct and indirect threats to use nuclear weapons have multiplied, even as the nuclear-armed states spend billions of dollars to make nuclear weapons that are more accurate and more usable.

    As Nobel Peace Laureates, we have repeatedly warned about the catastrophic consequences of nuclear war, and we are compelled to do so again.

    A large scale nuclear war between the United States and Russia, , in which thousands of warheads were detonated, would kill hundreds of millions and would produce a nuclear winter, which would kill the vast majority of the human population and which might lead to our extinction as a species.

    A war in South Asia would also be a catastrophe for the entire planet.  New studies, which will be published in coming weeks, show that a nuclear war between India and Pakistan could kill more than 75 million people directly and cause worldwide climate disruption dropping temperatures across the planet an average of 4o C.  The resulting declines in agricultural output would trigger a famine that could put more than two billion people at risk of starvation.

    We urgently call on the leaders of India and Pakistan to resolve their differences and forswear any use of nuclear weapons, and we call on the entire international community to lend its good offices to the efforts to avoid a nuclear disaster in South Asia.

    Looking beyond the immediate crisis, we call on world leaders to take decisive action to eliminate the danger of nuclear war. The entry into force of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, negotiated more than 20 years ago, is urgently needed.  In July 2017, the United Nations adopted a landmark Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons by a vote of 122-1. The TPNW, in a long-overdue step, finally places the world’s worst weapons on the same legal footing as chemical and biological weapons, antipersonnel landmines and cluster munitions, declaring them illegal on the grounds of their unacceptable humanitarian consequences.

    The TPNW has passed the halfway point toward the 50 ratifications needed to bring it into force. The Treaty itself is only a first step. The States Parties to the treaty must make full use of its legal, political, and moral norms to bring the nuclear-armed states into compliance, despite their current reticence. We support efforts, such as the Back from the Brink campaign in the United States, to bring about fundamental policy change in the nuclear armed state. We commend the States that have already signed and ratified the TPNW, and we urge all other states—including the nuclear-armed states—to do so as soon as possible, and to get on with the urgent task of eliminating nuclear weapons once and for all.

  • Nuclear Abolition: Q&A with Dr. David Krieger

    Nuclear Abolition: Q&A with Dr. David Krieger

    *The following is a special dialogue held at Nuclear Age Peace Foundation in Santa Barbara during our overseas fieldwork on February 1, 2019. This session was held between 13 Kansai Soka High School students and Dr. David Krieger, President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

    Dr. Krieger: In the discussion, you said that the reason for nuclear deterrence is that it protects a country against assault and possible assault. However, if you really think about it, deterrence cannot protect, not in the sense of physical protection, and that is the confusion about deterrence in most people’s minds. They think that nuclear deterrence actually protects, but deterrence is only a psychological concept, not a physical barrier. I think of deterrence as something like the Maginot Line in World War II. France built a strong wall and thought that it would protect them from Germans invading again. However, the Germans just went around the wall, attacked and occupied France. I think deterrence is misunderstood, and I don’t really think you can have a compromise between the people who support nuclear deterrence and those who do not.

    Emi Kuroda: Why do you think nuclear deterrence supporters cannot compromise with people who don’t support deterrence?

    Dr. Krieger: I think deterrence is a false premise. I don’t think deterrence can provide any protection. You mentioned in your slideshow that deterrence cannot provide 100% protection. I would say that deterrence cannot provide 50% protection or even 1% protection. Over time, deterrence will fail. If you do a statistical study and the level of chance where it can fail is 1%, you will have a failure over time. That is true. So I think you are right to come down on the side of abolition. I think you are right to look to ICAN, which we have supported from the beginning, as a partner organization. I think you are right to support the new treaty, which is a departure from deterrence, as it implicitly recognizes that deterrence cannot work over time. I think people who support deterrence actually have another agenda, and the other agenda is to give themselves an advantage over other countries and threaten them with the offensive use of nuclear weapons. So I would say that your presentation is very good, but I would be careful about thinking of nuclear deterrence as a way to add to the disarmament of nuclear weapons. Many countries believe in deterrence, but I believe it’s a magical fallacy.

    Rei Hagihara: I would like to ask a question. We think that we should find a common ground between the two sides (nuclear deterrence supporters & nuclear abolition supporters). Do you think we should find a common ground? If you do, what do you think is the common ground?

    Dr. Krieger: I’m very skeptical that you can find a common ground, because I think deterrence is based on a false assumption, which is that nuclear weapons can protect you. But the reality is they can’t protect you. I think people who have accepted the premise that deterrence can protect you believe in that. I don’t see them moving away from that to a common ground. I don’t know what the common ground would be. I think having a common ground is a nice idea, but I don’t see it working in the case of people who support nuclear deterrence.

    The second president of Soka Gakkai, Josei Toda, said nuclear weapons are an absolute evil. So how do you compromise with an absolute evil? Well, actually I have one idea of compromise. Sixty-six million years ago, a meteor hit the earth and caused mass extinction of most complex life at the time. It wiped out the dinosaurs, for example. It actually made it possible for our human ancestors to survive because they were so small. But possibly, if we eliminate the nuclear weapons down to one, two or three, and they are kept in international storage just in case the earth is threatened by a meteor, that is a kind of compromise. Although not really a compromise for deterrence, it is a compromise for those saying you might go to a very low number—on the way to zero—and decide that a meteor is a sufficient threat to maintain a couple of nuclear weapons under international control. But tell me how you think compromise is possible.

    Emi Kuroda: We think that a possible common ground is human rights because nuclear abolition supporters think that human rights of all human beings should be protected, but nuclear deterrence supporters think that human rights of their own country is a priority. But we don’t think we can make nuclear deterrence supporters compromise by using human rights.

    Dr. Krieger: Well, human rights include the right to life. That’s in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I think nuclear weapons pose a threat not only to individual lives but also a threat of mass extinction to humans and other complex life. So I agree with you that human rights is an important element—because of the right to life. I think the people who advocate for nuclear deterrence ironically think that protecting their country is more important than human lives and human rights.

    Let me say one more thing. There is such a widespread belief in nuclear deterrence that a lot needs to be done to challenge the logic of nuclear deterrence. That is a very important element. We had a symposium here on nuclear deterrence and created the Santa Barbara Declaration, which you might want to take a look at when thinking about nuclear deterrence. We also have a 4-minute video called “The Myth of Nuclear Deterrence.”

    Emi Kuroda: We gathered the opinions of nuclear deterrence supporters, and we originally thought that those opinions would help us understand the reality. But we struggled with how to deal with those opinions. What do you think the role of the opinions of nuclear deterrence supporters is? How do we use those opinions to promote nuclear abolition?

    Dr. Krieger: I think you need to educate people, starting with young people—and put a lot of emphasis on educating young people—because nuclear deterrence is a very common myth that nuclear weapons can protect a country. I just don’t think that is reality. I think you have to counter those opinions, and that’s why in the presentation we gave, we talked about malice, madness, mistake, miscalculation, and manipulation (hacking). So I think a dangerous aspect of nuclear weapons, going forward, is that skilled computer hackers will break into nuclear weapon systems. What if the systems are not that sophisticated? You only need to break into the weakest country’s system. What if a hacker could, for example, break into North Korea’s nuclear weapons? Probably North Korea doesn’t have the warheads connected to missiles right now, but it will eventually. What about Pakistan? What if a skilled hacker could break in and trigger the use of nuclear weapons by Pakistan against India? And India, instead of trying to figure it out, attacks Pakistan, and they will go back and forth. Experts in climatology predict that if 100 nuclear weapons are used, with 50 on each side between Pakistan and India, it could result in a cut in food supplies, leading to 2 billion deaths globally. So, how good is deterrence against a hacker? It’s not at all. How good is deterrence against madness? What if you have a leader who is crazy, mad? We may have one now, in the US. What if there is a mistake? There have been many mistakes in interpreting nuclear launches. Russians, thinking nuclear weapons were launched against them, found out that actually it was just geese reflected against the cloud cover. Nuclear deterrence has no value against mistakes, miscalculation, madness or hacking. Maybe deterrence could dissuade a country from using nuclear weapons out of malice, but that is only a possibility. There is no assurance that it would work.

    Emi Kuroda: Yesterday, during our presentation in Los Angeles, we said that deterrence doesn’t work because terrorists can use nuclear weapons. But yesterday we heard that it is really difficult for terrorists to have nuclear weapons. Is it true that it is almost impossible for terrorists to get nuclear weapons?

    Dr. Krieger: A Christian nun and two anti-nuclear activists went to a nuclear weapons site in Oakridge, Tennessee. I think it was called the Y-12 National Security Complex. They cut through the outer fence, they hiked a quarter mile to the place where nuclear weapons were kept. They painted on the bunkers where the nuclear weapons were stored. The nun was 82 years old. So can terrorists get nuclear weapons? I don’t know, but I wouldn’t rule it out. And that’s in the United States, which supposedly has a good system of protection. What if there is a coup d’état in Turkey, where the US keeps 50 nuclear weapons? What if there’s a coup d’état in Pakistan?

    Over time, I think the chances are more likely that terrorists can get nuclear weapons; the probability is not zero. We don’t know what the probability is, but over time, terrorists are a worry. That’s why it’s so important to be all in for abolition. That’s why it’s important to understand that abolition is the answer. It has got to be a negotiated abolition, a phased abolition and a verified abolition. It will take time, but the starting point is negotiations. Maybe that is a common ground—starting negotiations. People who don’t believe in deterrence could invite people who do believe in deterrence, to try to educate them on the importance of moving from deterrence to abolition. Terrorism could take the form of hacking.

    Hiromi Hashide: I’d like to ask how you developed your sense of poetry. I have read the dialogue between yourself and Dr. Ikeda, and I was able to understand the importance of a sense of poetry. I think those who understand the importance of poetry can also understand the dignity of life, and I’d like more people to have a sense of poetry, including myself.

    Dr. Krieger: Thank you. That’s a really good question. The more I work in the area of nuclear weapons abolition and peace and war, the more I think that the most important things in life are truth, beauty, love, family, and nature; those are all subjects of poetry. Maybe poets pay more attention to those concepts than ordinary people. I think when you study nuclear weapons and work for their abolition, it can be a very dark place, thinking about the devastation that is possible. So, for myself, I tend to rely on reason and logic, and I realized that reason and logic may not be enough to change people’s minds, so I began writing poetry as a way of reaching out more directly to a person’s heart. We have the faculties of our mind and faculties of our heart. I think that a mind, no matter how reasonable and logical one is, cannot really tackle fully issues like the danger of nuclear weapons, the danger of climate change, or the danger of destroying the environment. So, for me, poetry is a means of sharing my heart, which I hope has more effectiveness than my logic. Does that answer your question? Do you have another question?

    Hiromi Hashide: Yes. How did you develop your poetry skills?

    Dr. Krieger: By writing poetry. And also by reading poetry.

    Kaz: Do you have a favorite poet?

    Dr. Krieger: I have some favorite poets, whom I mentioned at the time when I was writing a book with Dr. Ikeda. I like Pablo Neruda. He was an Ambassador of Chile, and Chile has a nice tradition of inviting poets to be ambassadors. I like Denise Levertov, and I like Lawrence Ferlinghetti, who turned 100 this year. Actually, there are a number of poets I like, but I especially like poets who pay attention to peace, and I try, in my poetry, to pay attention to peace. My advice to you, if you want to be a poet, is to sit down and write poems, and read a wide variety of poets and find your style because there are so many different styles of poetry; so experiment with styles that you are interested in.

    Kaz Iguchi: Any other questions?

    Ayumi Otsuji: Thank you for this wonderful opportunity. When I imagine a “peaceful world,” I imagine that everyone is smiling. If you imagine a peaceful world that you want to achieve, what would you imagine?

    Dr. Krieger: I would not imagine everybody smiling. I would imagine that, in a peaceful world, you would still have conflicts, but the conflicts would be resolved peacefully, non-violently. Everyone would accept the idea that life is sacred, and nobody would try to injure or destroy. But it wouldn’t be a world where people didn’t have disagreements. Having disagreements, I think, is a valuable part of life. I mean, you learn from disagreements, you grow from disagreements, but you don’t try to settle disagreements with your fists or with guns. You start with respect for other human beings and you then have a sense of belonging. I think, in a peaceful world, your sense of belonging to the world and to humanity has to be greater than your sense of belonging to one nation or one group. You can still belong to different groups; you can be Japanese, I can be American, but we should not fight and destroy each other because our common humanity is greater than our individual sense of identity. That’s what I think.

    Ayumi Otsuji: Thank you so much.

    Dr. Krieger: But smiles are good. Everybody should smile more. You can experiment, walking down the street, just smile. And I think other people who see you will smile too.

    Yuichi Matsuna: Thank you very much. I read Choose Hope, and I was impressed with the idea that “recovery of imagination” is important for nuclear abolition. Why should people have an imagination for the abolition of nuclear weapons?

    Dr. Krieger: Why should people use their imaginations for the abolition of nuclear weapons? Well, there is a lot of ignorance and apathy around nuclear weapons. In your school, perhaps, if you say to someone that we should abolish nuclear weapons, maybe they will say “well, that’s a good idea, but I haven’t thought about it,” or “I’m too busy,” or something like that—expressing different kinds of reasons not to be involved. I think imagination is limitless, knowledge has boundaries. We don’t know certain very important things: we don’t know where we come from, or why we were born; we don’t know where we go when we die; we don’t know what is in the rest of the universe, or even in our own galaxy. But imagination can take you anywhere, and it’s an opportunity to try to figure out some puzzles. Einstein was a big advocate of imagination, and I think he was correct in thinking that “imagination is a great gift.” So how do you apply imagination to nuclear weapons’ abolition? Think outside the bomb, come up with new ideas. Peace Literacy is a new movement. I encourage you to look into the Peace Literacy idea. As Sarah said, Paul Chappell, who went to the US military academy, and was trained as an officer in a military, is now trying to apply the same principles of waging war to waging peace. I think that’s a great application of imagination, to take the principles of waging war and turn them to waging peace. Do you have anything to add, Sarah?

    Sarah:  Thank you for asking. On Paul, I think something that is very significant about what he argues is that we have spent so much time and effort thinking about how to wage war; so as Dr. Krieger was saying, Why haven’t we spent as much time and effort—or have as many people—thinking about how to build peace instead? And so I think that’s a part of where Paul’s mind-set came from. Instead of spending all the time and effort to figure out how to better wage war, let’s figure out how to better wage peace. That’s using imagination.

    Ryoma Masutani: Thank you very much. I’d like to ask about nuclear abolition. I think, even if all nuclear weapons are abolished, the knowledge or technique of creating nuclear weapons will still remain. So what is true nuclear abolition? And how can we achieve this?

    Dr. Krieger: I think you are right. We can’t get rid of the knowledge of how to make nuclear weapons, and probably the materials too. But I think abolition is when we have no nuclear weapons. I think we have to understand that even with no nuclear weapons, they could come back because people understand now the physics of making nuclear weapons. And I think the way to deal with that is through verification. So, first of all, abolition will be negotiated; secondly, it would be done in phases, increments, and with each increment, you will build support, and build confidence that the system is working. Verifications could be spot inspections. So if the United States says that it was down to 500 nuclear weapons, and Russia says “we want to verify that,” the United States, as part of the agreement, will have to let Russian inspectors go wherever they want to, and whenever they want, to check whether the United States is doing what it claims, and vice versa. I think negotiations, verification, inspections, phased reductions to build confidence—all those things will help in going to zero nuclear weapons, trusting that it will lead to zero nuclear weapons. You have to trust. Ronald Reagan, one of our most conservative US presidents, said “trust, but verify.” Verification is extremely important. Okay?

    Ryoma Masutani: Yes.

    Dr. Krieger: Do you have another question?

    Takuma Furukawa: Thank you. Many countries have nuclear weapons, and one of them is North Korea. The United Nations decided to give North Korea an economic penalty, but I think the situation in North Korea will become worse. The people in North Korea will suffer more because of it. Could you please share your opinions about how developed countries should deal with North Korea?

    Dr. Krieger: There have been times when there have been agreements with North Korea to end sanctions. I think about 20 or 25 years ago, we were close to an agreement with North Korea to give them nuclear power plants, and give them something in exchange for them doing away with developing nuclear weapons. But the US never followed through, and it has tried to deal with North Korea with sanctions; and now maybe it is too late to change North Korea’s nuclear power with sanctions. Really, I’m not sure if there are any more reasons for North Korea to disarm its nuclear arsenal. I mean, if any country that has nuclear weapons can argue that deterrence works, I would say the country would be North Korea. But I don’t believe in deterrence, as I said, so I’m not supporting that. But I do think we should use our imaginations and try to get all countries to abolish nuclear weapons, not just North Korea, which is in a very precarious situation from which to go for abolition. I don’t know what the practical argument is for North Korea to abolish its nuclear weapons, while the United States, Russia and other countries that have them shouldn’t also do so. If they want North Korea to abolish its nuclear weapons, the rest of the world has to be ready to abolish their nuclear weapons. That’s my belief. Does it make sense to you?

    Takuma Furukawa: Yes, thank you.

    Takuto Yoshii: Thank you for giving us this opportunity to talk to you. My name is Takuto Yoshii. My question is, as you said, each country will try to protect itself. As I have read in Choose Hope, each country has to be altruistic to realize a sustainable and peaceful world, and I learned that people need to change their hearts, and have thoughtfulness towards others. I think it is very difficult for people to think that way. So how do you think people can learn how to think altruistically? What kind of education do you think is necessary?

    Dr. Krieger: That is a great question. Altruism is very important. I think we have to learn it. This may sound silly, but I think we have to learn to love each other. I think the way we practice that is by smiling, by acts of kindness, by empathy, where you feel for other people’s difficult situations. I think that question requires a lot of imagination. How do you put altruism, kindness, and empathy into the learning that you do in school, for example? Most religions make a claim to teach those things, but I’m not sure if they really do. I’m not sure if schools are really prepared to teach altruism, kindness, and empathy. One way they could do so would be to teach about the lives of great peace leaders, such as the life of Gandhi, the life of Martin Luther King, Junior, the life of Nelson Mandela, and many more. There are so many lessons to be learned in those lives which are dedicated to peace and nonviolence. We give an award every year for distinguished peace leadership, and we have given an award for world citizenship from time to time. I am happy to say we gave the world citizenship award to Dr. Ikeda one year. He is one of our distinguished awardees. I think SGI does something similar, where it gives awards. So, that’s another way you can learn about altruism and empathy—through people who have lived distinguished lives, in which they have given and sacrificed in the pursuit of peace and world citizenship. From there, I think you can use your imaginations to think of other ways to instill altruism.

    One other way that I can think of right now, and it has already been done, but it can be done even more, is to videotape the thoughts of such people, including the Hibakusha. So many Hibakusha have impressed me by the suffering that they’ve gone through, and the kindness in the lives that they have led. One of the poems that I wrote is called “The Deep Bow of a Hibakusha,” and it is about a particular Hibakusha whose name is Miyoko Matsubara. She came here to Santa Barbara to study English so that she could share her experience with young people in the United States. I think that’s very altruistic. Most of the Hibakusha that I have met don’t have any feelings of hostility, or revenge; they are all kind. And what they want to say is, “don’t let what happened to me happen to anybody else.” So that’s another thought: meeting with and interviewing Hibakusha. But you can interview many other people, and you might choose to interview somebody who you think is very altruistic, like a parent, an uncle or aunt, or a grandparent, someone not widely known to the world. Those are my thoughts on altruism. It is a fertile area to continue to develop and think about and practice. Small acts of kindness take you so far. There’s a movie called “Pay it Forward,” about doing something kind for somebody, and not expecting to get paid back, but rather expecting the recipient of the kindness to do something kind for another person. It’s a good movie. I recommend it.

    Atsushi Saitou: I think everyone understands the danger of nuclear weapons, but maybe that is not enough to make people really understand that we don’t need nuclear weapons. So rather than just saying nuclear weapons are bad, because everybody understands that, is there another more powerful way to reach out to people to stop nuclear weapons?

    Dr. Krieger: I don’t agree with the assumption that people know that nuclear weapons are bad. It’s not enough to spread the knowledge of the dangers. I think it is only when enough people understand and take seriously the dangers of nuclear weapons, will it make a difference. Nuclear weapons have got to go. Right now, we are educating people about these dangers, but they have to be taken seriously enough to become a political project. Here in the United States, virtually no one who is running for the presidency talks about doing something about nuclear weapons. Most are believers in nuclear deterrence. Nuclear weapons are a danger, and understanding that they are a danger is a starting point, but it’s not enough. We have to keep using our imaginations and building the number of people who think that nuclear weapons are a serious danger. We have to do that to the point that it makes a difference politically. Right now, people’s priority here and in most other places—probably in Japan as well—puts greater emphasis on the economy, the environment, social issues, and education. Those are all important, and I don’t disagree that they are important. But nuclear weapons could end civilization in an afternoon, and I think that’s something that should make an impact in people’s minds. In a certain way, working for nuclear abolition is an act of faith, because we don’t see the results immediately, so we have to believe that enough people will catch on before nuclear weapons are used—not after—to make a difference. A lot of movies are about post-apocalyptic societies, and I think it would be a great failure of imagination if we end up in a post-apocalyptic world because we can’t use our imaginations to see that such a world is a real possibility if we don’t act. So it is as an act of faith and an act of hope that we do this work, and we do this work on behalf of not only schools and organizations, but on behalf of all humanity. Humanity has been at risk from nuclear weapons for almost 75 years. That is not a very long time. We haven’t had a nuclear war for almost 74 years, which is good, but it shouldn’t give us confidence that a nuclear war, nuclear accident, or nuclear terrorism couldn’t begin anytime.

    Emi Kuroda: How can we encourage people around us to have confidence that they have the power to achieve nuclear abolition?

    Dr. Krieger: I think we have to recognize the power that each of us has. Any person on this planet has power. I would like to talk about the power of one. One person can make quite a difference in the world, and we’ve seen that in the lives of many people, including Dr. Daisaku Ikeda. I think, though, with nuclear weapons, it’s not going to be the power of one, it’s going to be the power of many, or many ones. When we build a movement that’s strong enough, that movement can take many shapes: it can take the form of petitioning, it can take the form of educating, or it can take the form of protesting. It can take a lot of different shapes. But I don’t think we can convince people that they have that power. We can only say that unless you join us, and add your power, it is unlikely that we will ever build a movement large enough and strong enough to abolish nuclear weapons. By not participating, by not joining such a movement, you are actually creating a self-fulfilling prophecy, because we need a big movement, and we need people to care. Abolishing nuclear weapons may sound negative because it’s getting rid of something, but it’s really very positive because we are getting rid of something that is evil, something that could destroy us. So I would tell people that nuclear weapons are the ultimate human rights issue. Nuclear weapons are the ultimate environmental issue. Nuclear weapons are the ultimate altruism issue. And we need you. If each of you would join us and use your imagination, we will be one person closer to a nuclear weapons free world. That’s what I think.

    Sarah: Do you know about this old Japanese saying that goes, “if all of us cross the street in front of the red light, it isn’t scary”? Are you familiar with this saying?

    Dr. Krieger: I’m not familiar with that saying. I thought you were going to say the Japanese proverb, “if you fall down seven times get up eight.” I think that is good advice. “Seven times down, eight times up.” It’s not going to be easy to abolish nuclear weapons. Nothing important is going to be done just like that. You are going to be challenged if you work for any great goal.

    Sometimes I think of the medieval people who built cathedrals in Europe. When you build a cathedral, it is usually not done in one lifetime. It has to go through many generations. I don’t know if we have that capacity to last through generations on nuclear weapons, but I do think that each generation should do its part, and I know the kind of education all of you have had makes you prime prospects for doing something really worthwhile in the world. And I hope that you will make working towards the abolition of nuclear weapons one of those goals that you seek to achieve, no matter how difficult. Join with others. Join with the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. Join with ICAN. SGI is already doing a lot. So, I think you have great opportunities. Don’t be disheartened. Choose hope, and get up that last time, even if you get knocked down. Get up and come up, struggling altruistically, non-violently.

    Students: Thank you.

    Dr. Krieger: All right, you had great questions. I’m very impressed.

    Kaz Iguchi: Lastly, would you like to give a message to those students in Japan, as well as Dr. Ikeda, that we can bring back home?

    Dr. Krieger: In my message for the students, I would say this: Your fellow students have represented Kansai Soka High School very well. I’m impressed by the students who came here. I hope that they will share with you the questions and answers, and what we talked about in Santa Barbara. I hope all of you will do something great in your lives. Please use your imaginations to set your goals high and then do what’s in your power to create a better world and never give up, never give up.

    And to Dr. Daisaku Ikeda, I would say:  You are an amazing leader, and I’m so proud to know you and to be your friend. I know you have just celebrated your 91st birthday, and yet your ideals are as high and strong as ever. I know your message of peace focuses again on young people, and I share very much your desire to see young people pick up the baton from all of us older people and finish the job that we have worked so hard on. I admire you greatly for your courage, your compassion, and your commitment to creating a world free of nuclear weapons and at peace.

  • Principles for Global Sustainability

    Principles for Global Sustainability

    1. Responsibility to allocate resources so that greed of the few does not eclipse need of the many. (Survival Principle; Democracy Principle)
    2. Responsibility to preserve the planet and its resources for future generations. (Intergenerational Equity Principle)
    3. Responsibility to do no irreparable harm to the planet and its inhabitants. (Precautionary Principle)
    4. Responsibility to foster diversity of species and ideas. (Anti-Monopoly Principle)
    5. Responsibility to make war a last resort, not a first resort of the powerful. (Nonviolence Priority Principle)
    6. Responsibility to hold accountable the perpetrators of crimes against peace, war crimes, and crimes against humanity, including genocide. (Nuremberg Principles; International Criminal Court)
    7. Responsibility to guarantee basic human rights for all individuals. (Human Rights Principle: Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Torture Convention, etc.)
    8. Responsibility to cooperate across national borders to achieve these ends. (State Cooperation Principle: Global problems are incapable of solution by any single state, no matter how powerful.)
    9. Responsibility to choose hope over despair. (Hope Principle; Perseverance Principle)
    10. Responsibility to leave the planet a better place than you found it. (Individual Action Principle; Horace Mann Principle: “Be ashamed to die until you have won some victory for humanity.”)
    11. Responsibility to educate for global sustainability. (Education Principle; Critical Thinking Principle)

    In sum, I would encourage you to seek to advance global sustainability by adopting a planetary perspective, doing no harm, engaging in doing good for the planet and its present and future inhabitants, choosing hope, and persevering. If we accept these responsibilities as individuals and work to implement them in our national and international policies, we can turn Earth Day into a year-round commitment to creating a planet we can be proud to pass on to future generations.

  • 2019 Sadako Peace Day

    2019 Sadako Peace Day

    The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s 2019 Sadako Peace Day took place on August 6, 2019.

    Click here for images from the event.

    Click here for audio of the event.

  • Defying the Nuclear Sword

    Defying the Nuclear Sword

    This article was originally published by Common Dreams, and is re-posted under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License.

    “. . . and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore.”

    These lost words — Isaiah 2:4 — are nearly 3,000 years old. Did they ever have political traction? To believe them today, and act on them, is to wind up facing 25 years in prison. This is how far we haven’t come over the course of what is called “civilization.”

    Meet the Kings Bay Plowshares 7: Liz McAlister, Steve Kelly, Martha Hennessy, Patrick O’Neill, Clare Grady, Carmen Trotta and Mark Colville. These seven men and women, Catholic peace activists ranging in age from their mid-50s to late 70s, cut open the future, you might say, with a pair of bolt cutters a year and a half ago—actually they cut open a wire fence—and, oh my God, entered the Kings Bay Naval Base, in St. Mary’s, Ga., without permission.

    The Kings Bay Naval base, Atlantic home port of the country’s Trident nuclear missile-carrying submarines, is the largest nuclear submarine base in the world.

    Photo courtesy of Kings Bay Plowshares 7 (www.kingsbayplowshares7.org)

    The seven committed their act of symbolic disarmament on April 4, 2018, the fiftieth anniversary of the assassination of Martin Luther King. Here’s what they did, according to the Plowshares 7 website: “Carrying hammers and baby bottles of their own blood,” they went to three sites on the base—the administration building, a monument to the D5 Trident nuclear missile and the nuclear weapons storage bunkers—cordoned off the bunkers with crime scene tape, poured their blood on the ground and hung banners, one of which contained an MLK quote: “The ultimate logic of racism is genocide.” Another banner read: “The ultimate logic of Trident is omnicide.”

    They also spray-painted some slogans (such as “May love disarm us all”), left behind a copy of Daniel Ellsberg’s book, The Doomsday Machine: Confessions of a Nuclear War Planner, and, oh yeah, issued an indictment of the U.S. military for violating the 1968 U.N. Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, signed by 190 countries (including the United States).

    Article VI of the treaty reads: “Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.”

    Then they waited to be arrested.

    The plowshares movement has been taking actions like this since 1980. The Kings Bay action was approximately the hundredth.

    Three of the seven have been in prison ever since, and the other four, who were able to make bail, have had to wear ankle bracelets, limiting and monitoring their movement. In early August—indeed, between the anniversaries of the nuclear destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki—the seven testified at a U.S. District Court hearing in Brunswick, Ga. The charges were not dismissed and their trial date is set for Oct. 21.

    What will happen, of course, is anyone’s guess. One of the defendants, Martha Hennessy (granddaughter of Catholic Worker co-founder Dorothy Day), put the question this way: “Will we be allowed to speak?”

    That is to say, will the judge give the defendants and their legal team a chance to open the case to the size of humanity’s future—the omnicidal danger represented by the nuclear weapons in U.S. possession — or will she insist on limiting the case to the matter of trespassing and damaging (or belittling) government property?

    “We took these actions to say the violence stops here, the perpetual war stops here—at Kings Bay, and all the despair it represents,” said defendant Clare Grady. “We took these actions grounded in faith and the belief that Jesus meant what He said when He said, ‘Love your enemies,’ and in so doing offers us our only option for hope.”

    In other words, will this trial truly be equal to the “crime” that it’s about? The crime is the possibility of nuclear annihilation, the death of hundreds of millions of people — and the fact that there is no way to hold a nation accountable . . . at least not this nation . . . for its arrogant possession and ongoing development of weapons of mass destruction.

    Just for a moment, try to imagine national policy based on “love your enemies.”

    The mind stops, crying out: Are you kidding me? What could possibly seem more absurd? What could possibly ignite more cynicism? Hitler, Munich, blah blah blah. National policy, especially for the world’s dominant superpower, is based on the threat of unrelenting force. O Kings Bay Plowshares 7, what were you thinking? Globally speaking, nothing but force is possible, or imaginable without a dismissive snort.

    But then a pause sets in: “and they shall beat their swords into plowshares.”

    This concept, bigger than any specific religion, has failed (so far) to alter history. Preparing for and waging war has dominated human collective action throughout recorded history, and for nearly three-quarters of a century now, the human race (or a fragment of it), has been in possession of weapons of mass destruction, and some of the guardians continually plan to use them.

    Here, for instance, is a single sentence from the Nuclear Operations Handbook, which was mistakenly uploaded by the Pentagon last June, then quickly removed from public access, but not  before the Federation of American Scientists got ahold of it and reposted it: “Nuclear forces must be prepared to achieve the strategic objectives defined by the President.”

    Strategic objectives? Our current president, the guy with access to the button, recently suggested nuking hurricanes, a preposterous idea that would essentially use their winds to spread radiation. “Usable nukes” are being developed, and the United States is a country married to endless war, not to mention gerrymandering, voter suppression and a commitment to making certain that peace remains politically marginalized and beyond the reach of public opinion — thus guaranteeing that there is no way to bring political accountability to our insane nuclear stockpile.

    Enter the Kings Bay Plowshares 7, trespassing in defiance of this crime against the future. Ordinary citizens have begun to hold the nation, and its military, accountable.

    For more information about the Kings Bay Plowshares 7, click here.

  • Sunflower Newsletter: September 2019

    Sunflower Newsletter: September 2019

     

  • First Missile Test in a “Post-INF Treaty World”

    First Missile Test in a “Post-INF Treaty World”

    Contact: Sandy Jones  (805) 965-3443; sjones@napf.org

    Rick Wayman  (805) 696-5159; rwayman@napf.org

     

    For immediate release – In what the Pentagon is calling a “post-INF treaty world” on Sunday, August 18, 2019, at 2:30 pm., without prior notice, the Department of Defense conducted a test of a land-based cruise missile off the California coast at San Nicolas Island.

    This missile test would have been banned under the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) treaty which the Trump administration terminated just over 2 weeks ago.

    There are many who believe that the termination of the INF brings us to the brink of a dangerous new arms race between the U.S. and Russia.

    Rick Wayman, Deputy Director of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, a non-profit based in Santa Barbara, CA dedicated to sustaining a peaceful and just world, free of nuclear weapons, commented, “Yesterday, I spent a peaceful, beautiful afternoon at the beach in Santa Barbara, celebrating a friend’s birthday. The only defense we needed was some sunscreen and a beach umbrella. I was appalled to learn that, just miles from our family’s tranquil celebration, the U.S. took a dangerous and ill-advised leap forward in its arms race with Russia. Testing and deploying such missiles is dangerous and unnecessary, and raises the risk of armed conflict. There was good reason why these weapons were banned for 32 years, and should have remained banned forever.”

    Having ended the INF treaty, both the U.S. and Russia are able to deploy nuclear-armed missiles in the foolish pursuit of a nuclear advantage. This is part of a pattern of bad decisions by the Trump administration, which also includes pulling out of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) with Iran.

    #             #             #

    If you would like to interview Rick Wayman, NAPF’s Deputy Director, please call the Foundation at (805) 965-3443 or (805) 696-5159.

    The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s mission is to educate, advocate and inspire action for a peaceful world, free of nuclear weapons. Founded in 1982, the Foundation is comprised of individuals and organizations worldwide who realize the imperative for peace in the Nuclear Age. The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation is a non-partisan, non-profit organization with consultative status to the United Nations. For more information, visit wagingpeace.org.

    *photo by Scott Howe / U.S. Department of Defense

  • Lessons from Einstein for Scientists Today

    Lessons from Einstein for Scientists Today

    Albert Einstein is widely recognized as the greatest scientist of his time.  In 2005, physics societies throughout the world celebrated the 100th anniversary year of Einstein’s “miracle year,” in which he produced five papers that would change humanity’s view of the universe.  The year 2005 also marked the 50th anniversary of Einstein’s death and of the issuing of his last public appeal, the Russell-Einstein Manifesto.  It is an appropriate time to consider what lessons we might draw from Einstein’s life that would benefit those engaged in scientific activities today.

    Lesson 1: Think for Yourself

    Einstein was a scientist who challenged prevailing assumptions, both in science and in society.  He was an innovative thinker, a man who thought for himself.  He never just went along with prevailing attitudes or structures.  He asked startlingly fresh questions, reached his own conclusions, and stood by them no matter what orthodoxies or power structures they challenged.

    Lesson 2: Reflect upon the Social Implications of Science and Technology

    Einstein was extremely thoughtful about the implications of science and technology.  He understood the potential power of science and technology for both constructive and destructive purposes.  Fearing destructive uses of atomic power by Germany, he signed a letter to President Roosevelt in 1939, warning the US of the potential for a German atomic bomb and encouraging the US to undertake research on such a bomb in order to deter a German bomb.

    Later, when the US used its own atomic bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, after the Germans had already been defeated, Einstein called his letter to Roosevelt the greatest mistake of his life.  For the remaining years of his life, Einstein worked with other scientists to end the nuclear weapons threat to humanity, and was an outspoken advocate of this cause.

    Lesson 3: Engage with Society

    Einstein spoke out regularly on issues of social importance.  He opposed militarism and war, and warned society of the new dangers of the Nuclear Age.  “The splitting of the atom,” he said, “has changed everything save our modes of thinking, and thus we drift toward unparalleled catastrophe.”  Einstein was never reluctant to lend his name or express his thoughts in support of issues he considered to be of social importance.

    Lesson 4: Be Responsive to Civil Society

    Einstein not only spoke out on issues he considered to have social relevance.  He was also responsive to those who asked for his opinions on key social issues, such as war and peace, weaponry and world government.  He took time to respond to individuals from all walks of life, including youth.  He also engaged in important public intellectual exchanges with other leading figures of his time, including psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud and poet Rabindranath Tagore.

    Lesson 5: Be a World Citizen

    Einstein viewed himself as a citizen of the world, and believed that world government, at least as it pertained to security, was necessary to control war and nuclear weaponry.  Einstein identified with humanity as a whole more than with any one country, and he was critical of any country, including his own by birth or choice, that promoted militarism.

    Lesson 6: Challenge Authority

    Einstein was not a servant of authority.  He was willing to stand toe to toe with power.  When Einstein had a highly respected professorship in Germany in his early career, and nearly all the scientific community signed onto a statement supportive of German militarism, Einstein was one of only a handful of vocal opponents to this statement who signed a counter-statement.  He was unwilling to give his name in support of what he did not agree with.  He was his own person, and quite willing to stand up to and challenge authority.

    Lesson 7: Let Your Conscience Be Your Guide

    Einstein believed in letting one’s conscience be his guide, and lived this way throughout his life.  He was a strong supporter of conscientious objection to war.  He stated, “I believe that a refusal on conscientious grounds to serve in the army when called up, if carried out by 50,000 men at the same moment, would be irresistible.”

    Lesson 8: Remember Your Humanity

    The Russell-Einstein Manifesto, which was the final public appeal that Einstein signed before his death, may be thought of as his final testament.  In this appeal, the signors posed two starkly different potential futures: one characterized as a paradise on earth and the other characterized by universal death.  The key to a positive future, as expressed in the Manifesto, was to “Remember your humanity, and forget the rest.”  Einstein himself never lost touch with his own humanity.  He always stood at the cutting edge of the arc of justice and, with the exception of advocating the defeat of the Nazi regime in World War II, was an unwavering pacifist and proponent of peace.

    Conclusion

    Were Einstein able to view the world of today, more than fifty years following his death, I think he would be deeply disappointed by the manner in which most of the world’s scientists have failed to take responsibility for the consequences of their work.  Einstein’s example for scientists was first and foremost to be compassionate human beings who care about the world around them and other human beings, regardless of their nationality or ethnicity.  He did not view science and technology as neutral.  He wanted its destructive purposes to be controlled, and he called for a world government capable of preventing war and eliminating weapons of mass destruction.

    I believe that Einstein would have been proud of the scientists who have followed in his footsteps.  Certainly he would have been extremely pleased by Joseph Rotblat, the youngest signer of the Russell-Einstein Manifesto, who went on to organize and lead the Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs.  He would have applauded Professor Rotblat and Pugwash receiving the 1995 Nobel Peace Prize for their efforts to cross the Cold War divide and reduce the nuclear threat to humanity.

    I’m sure Einstein would also have been proud of the scientists and engineers who created and have participated in the International Network of Engineers and Scientists for Global Responsibility (INES) for the bold steps they have taken to promote nuclear disarmament, prevent nuclear proliferation, pursue sustainable development, and support scientific whistle-blowing and higher ethical standards for scientists and engineers.

    Einstein was a most remarkable human being, a man who changed our view of the universe, and who also demonstrated a great moral imagination and a high level of commitment to a more just and peaceful world.  Scientists today would do well to learn from Einstein’s life the lessons that made him both a responsible scientist and a great human being.  While it is highly unlikely that scientists today will reach Einstein’s pinnacle of brilliant achievement, all have the possibility to follow his example of personal integrity, moral leadership, public outreach and commitment to restricting scientific endeavor to constructive purposes.

    David Krieger is a founder and president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org). He served as chair of the International Network of Engineers and Scientists for Global Responsibility.

  • Hiroshima Unlearned: Time to Tell the Truth About US-Russia Relations and Finally Ban the Bomb

    Hiroshima Unlearned: Time to Tell the Truth About US-Russia Relations and Finally Ban the Bomb

    This article was originally published by InDepth News.

    August 6 and 9 mark 74 years since the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, where only one nuclear bomb dropped on each city caused the deaths of up to 146,000 people in Hiroshima and 80,000 people in Nagasaki. Today, with the U.S. decision to walk away from the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Force (INF) negotiated with the Soviet Union, we are once again staring into the abyss of one of the most perilous nuclear challenges since the height of the Cold War.

    With its careful verification and inspections, the INF Treaty eliminated a whole class of missiles that threatened peace and stability in Europe. Now the U.S. is leaving the Treaty on the grounds that Moscow is developing and deploying a missile with a range prohibited by the Treaty. Russia denies the charges and accuses the U.S. of violating the Treaty. The U.S. rejected repeated Russian requests to work out the differences in order to preserve the Treaty.

    The US withdrawal should be seen in the context of the historical provocations visited upon the Soviet Union and now Russia by the United States and the nations under the US nuclear “umbrella” in NATO and the Pacific. The US has been driving the nuclear arms race with Russia from the dawn of the nuclear age:

    — In 1946 Truman rejected Stalin’s offer to turn the bomb over to the newly formed UN under international supervision, after which the Russians made their own bomb;

    — Reagan rejected Gorbachev’s offer to give up Star Wars as a condition for both countries to eliminate all their nuclear weapons when the wall came down and Gorbachev released all of Eastern Europe from Soviet occupation, miraculously, without a shot;

    — The US pushed NATO right up to Russia’s borders, despite promises when the wall fell that NATO would not expand it one inch eastward of a unified Germany;

    — Clinton bombed Kosovo, bypassing Russia’s veto in the UN Security Council and violating the UN Treaty we signed never to commit a war of aggression against another nation unless under imminent threat of attack;

    — Clinton refused Putin’s offer of cutting massive nuclear arsenals to 1000 bombs each and call all the others to the table to negotiate for their elimination, provided we stopped developing missile sites in Romania;

    — Bush walked out of the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and put the new missile base in Romania with another to open shortly under Trump in Poland, right in Russia’s backyard;

    — Bush and Obama blocked any discussion in 2008 and 2014 on Russian and Chinese proposals for a space weapons ban in the consensus-bound Committee for Disarmament in Geneva;

    — Obama’s rejected Putin’s offer to negotiate a Treaty to ban cyber war;

    — Trump now walked out of the INF Treaty;

    — From Clinton through Trump, the US never ratified the 1992 Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) as Russia has, and has performed more than 20 underground sub-critical tests on the Western Shoshone’s sanctified land at the Nevada test site. Since plutonium is blown up with chemicals that don’t cause a chain reaction, the US claims these tests don’t violate the Treaty;

    — Obama, and now Trump, pledged over one trillion dollars for the next 30 years for two new nuclear bomb factories in Oak Ridge and Kansas City, as well as new submarines, missiles, airplanes, and warheads!

    What has Russia had to say about these US affronts to international security and negotiated treaties? Putin at his State of the Nation address in March 2018 said:

    I will speak about the newest systems of Russian strategic weapons that we are creating in response to the unilateral withdrawal of the United States of America from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and the practical deployment of their missile defence systems both in the US and beyond their national borders.

    I would like to make a short journey into the recent past. Back in 2000, the US announced its withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM)Treaty. Russia was categorically against this. We saw the Soviet-US ABM Treaty signed in 1972 as the cornerstone of the international security system.

    Under this Treaty, the parties had the right to deploy ballistic missile defence systems only in one of its regions. Russia deployed these systems around Moscow, and the US around its Grand Forks land-based ICBM base.

    Together with the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, the ABM Treaty not only created an atmosphere of trust but also prevented either party from recklessly using nuclear weapons, which would have endangered humankind, because the limited number of ballistic missile defence systems made the potential aggressor vulnerable to a response strike.

    We did our best to dissuade the Americans from withdrawing from the Treaty.  

    All in vain. The US pulled out of the Treaty in 2002. Even after that we tried to develop constructive dialogue with the Americans. We proposed working together in this area to ease concerns and maintain the atmosphere of trust.

    At one point, I thought that a compromise was possible, but this was not to be. All our proposals, absolutely all of them, were rejected. And then we said that we would have to improve our modern strike systems to protect our security. 

    Despite promises made in the 1970 Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) that the five nuclear weapons states – US, UK, Russia, France, China – would eliminate their nuclear weapons while all the other nations of the world promised not to get them (except for India, Pakistan, and Israel, which also acquired nuclear weapons), there are still nearly 15,000 nuclear bombs on the planet. All but 1,000 of them are in the US and Russia, while the seven other countries, including North Korea, have about 1000 bombs between them.

    If the US and Russia can’t settle their differences and honor their promise in the NPT to eliminate their nuclear weapons, the whole world will continue to live under what President Kennedy described as a nuclear Sword of Damocles, threatened with unimaginable catastrophic humanitarian suffering and destruction.

    To prevent a nuclear catastrophe, in 2017, 122 nations adopted a new Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW). It calls for a ban on nuclear weapons just as the world had banned chemical and biological weapons. The ban Treaty provides a pathway for nuclear weapons states to join and dismantle their arsenals under strict and effective verification.

    The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), which received the Nobel Peace Prize for its efforts, is working for the Treaty to enter into force by enrolling 50 nations to ratify the Treaty. As of today, 70 nations have signed the Treaty and 24 have ratified it, although none of them are nuclear weapons states or the US alliance states under the nuclear umbrella.

    With this new opportunity to finally ban the bomb and end the nuclear terror, let us tell the truth about what happened between the US and Russia that brought us to this perilous moment and put the responsibility where it belongs to open up a path for true peace and reconciliation so that never again will anyone on our  planet ever be threatened with the terrible consequences of nuclear war.

    Here are some actions you can take to ban the bomb:

    – Support the ICAN Cities Appeal to take a stand in favor of the ban Treaty

    – Ask your member of Congress to sign the ICAN Parliamentary Pledge

    – Ask the US Presidential Candidates to pledge support for the Ban Treaty and cut Pentagon spending

    – Support the Don’t Bank on the Bomb Campaign for nuclear divestment

    – Support the Code Pink Divest From the War Machine Campaign 

    – Distribute Warheads To Windmills, How to Pay for the Green New Deal, a new study addressing the need to prevent the two greatest dangers facing our planet: nuclear annihilation and climate destruction.

    – Sign the World Beyond War pledge and add your name to this critical new campaign to make the end of war on our planet an idea whose time has come!