Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Blog

  • With Nukes Back as a Global Danger, Time to Remember Hiroshima

    With Nukes Back as a Global Danger, Time to Remember Hiroshima

    Saikoji, a small temple of the Jodo Shinshu school of Buddhism to which a majority of Hiroshima’s citizens belong, stands just across the street from the Atomic Bomb Dome. It often displays selected words of wisdom at the entrance—this month, to mark the 74th anniversary of the atomic bombing of August 6, 1945, the plaque simply read “There is no border in life. There is no difference in race. ‘Gassho’ (prayer) for all the victims.”

    So much truth about nuclear weapons, in just three short sentences.

    Cascading bad news such as the unravelling of the Iran nuclear deal, and the collapse of the checks and balances painstakingly put in place over decades to manage the nuclear Damocles Sword over our collective necks, seemed on everyone’s mind this August 6 in Hiroshima—a palpable sense if not of outright despair, then certainly of gloom. As a pelting rain swept across the Peace Memorial Park where 50,000 people had gathered, the usually calm and restrained Governor of Hiroshima, Hidehiko Yuzaki, voicing the sentiments of many, poignantly asked, ‘Why are some countries allowed to possess nuclear weapons that can inflict a trauma that remains incurable for 74 years or more? Why are they allowed to threaten other countries to use their nuclear arsenals?’ Is it really permissible to cause such a catastrophe?’

    The nuclear genie, brought out of the bottle at Alamogordo in New Mexico on July 16, 1945, has been devouring in recent years and one by one most of our collective defenses against it. As Ernest J. Moniz and Sam Nunn write chillingly in this month’s Foreign Affairs, there is a ‘deliberate and accelerating breakdown of the arms control architecture that for decades provided restraint, transparency, and predictability for each side’s conventional and nuclear forces.’ They convincingly argue that decaying agreements and mind sets, with ever more sophisticated weapons, cyber technologies and AI make our era one of the more dangerous in the planet’s history. Other global crisis, especially climate change, can but exacerbate the fragile balance.

    The International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW) has estimated that even a small-scale limited nuclear war between India and Pakistan for example, one that would involve only 0.03% of the world’s nuclear weapon capacity, could risk the starvation of almost two billion people, notably in the Indian subcontinent and China. For her part the essayist Elaine Scarry, in a lecture at the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation earlier this year, raised the mortifying thought of how just a small handful of people—to be really stark, maybe just nine—have their finger on the nuclear button, and therefore on our collective destiny. No parent can sleep peacefully after reading this.

    Time is not on our side. The 2017 Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), or the Nuclear Weapon Ban Treaty, championed by the International Coalition to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) and supported by a few enlightened states and the United Nations, is steadily building momentum, but is still only half way to entry into force—24 of the required 50 states have ratified. Unlike most other global issues, nuclear weapons remain the quasi monopoly of states (for now). This is true not just in countries with little democratic checks and balances like China, Russia or North Korea, but even in democracies like the US, UK, France, India, Pakistan and Israel. If so, then surely the case must be taken more urgently to the seemingly distracted but potentially powerful global citizenry?

    The UN, ICAN and others groups like the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) are trying. The ICRC has produced one of the shortest and most effective videos to date on the impact of a nuclear war —in just 1:51 minutes the film does more for the anti-nuclear cause than many pious declarations. More, much more is needed however. We must cease to be distracted by trivia, and refocus laser-like on humanity’s most urgent threat, mobilizing the talents of the best and the brightest—the most creative film makers and artists, scholars, inventors and business leaders around the world, from whichever ‘side’ they may be—to make the case for a nuclear-free world. We must find ways to do so as meaningfully in Beijing as in Moscow, in Washington, New Delhi or Islamabad.

    ICAN has done well too, by mobilizing the young, and by going for the jugular—i.e. tracing the money. In 2012 it had estimated that worldwide nuclear weapons cost a hefty US $300 million a day (considering how opaque most nuclear-weapon budgets are, this is most likely below the real cost). Meanwhile ICAN’s Don’t Bank on the Bomb campaign is picking momentum, pressuring corporations, banks, pension funds and the like to drop out of the bomb business. In democratic countries it is also easier to identify and expose companies benefitting from the macabre nuclear trade.The lion’s share of nuclear weapon development contracts in the United States for example is held by just a handful of corporations. Aggressive divestment campaigns, and strategies to expose and shame non-ethical companies, could put them on the defensive.

    The sheer number and power of nuclear weapons today can make the bombs that plunged Hiroshima and Nagasaki into nuclear hell 74 years ago seem almost benign. But as the Governor said even here we glimpse merely the outward expressions of grief—we will never know the reality of nuclear horror and the suffering behind the dignified exteriors of survivors. Many hibakusha dedicated their lives to remembering the calamity of that day and its aftermath, so that we may not forget. Now they watch the crumbling of all they worked for, their dreams for a non-nuclear world.

    My friend the Hiroshima architect Akio Nishikiori often describes his childhood memories of the pre-WWII Hiroshima, something of a small Venice with its many rivers and taxi-gondolas. On summer nights his family would eat at cafés along the river and stroll the bustling streets of Nakajima district, then the central shopping and entertainment center. All that vanished with the bomb when Akio was eight. His sister Hisako, who was 14, was killed and Hiroshima almost disappeared into the dark side. The erudite and humanist Akio has dedicated his life to rebuilding his city, and now almost 82, continues to fight for peace every day. But Akio and other citizens of Hiroshima and Nagasaki alone cannot save us from nuclear annihilation. We must step up, all of us, now—this is by far our most urgent mission.

  • Dear Moderators of the Presidential Debates: How About Raising the Issue of How to Avert Nuclear War?

    Dear Moderators of the Presidential Debates: How About Raising the Issue of How to Avert Nuclear War?

    You mass media folks lead busy lives, I’m sure.  But you must have heard something about nuclear weapons―those supremely destructive devices that, along with climate change, threaten the continued existence of the human race.

    Yes, thanks to popular protest and carefully-crafted arms control and disarmament agreements, there has been some progress in limiting the number of these weapons and averting a nuclear holocaust.  Even so, that progress has been rapidly unraveling in recent months, leading to a new nuclear arms race and revived talk of nuclear war.

    Do I exaggerate?  Consider the following.

    In May 2018, the Trump administration unilaterally withdrew from the laboriously-constructed Iran nuclear agreement that had closed off the possibility of that nation developing nuclear weapons.  This U.S. treaty pullout was followed by the imposition of heavy U.S. economic sanctions on Iran, as well as by thinly-veiled threats by Trump to use nuclear weapons to destroy that country.  Irate at these moves, the Iranian government recently retaliated by exceeding the limits set by the shattered agreement on its uranium stockpile and uranium enrichment.

    At the beginning of February 2019, the Trump administration announced that, in August, the U.S. government will withdraw from the Reagan era Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty―the historic agreement that had banned U.S. and Russian ground-launched cruise missiles―and would proceed to develop such weapons.  On the following day, Russian President Vladimir Putin declared that, in response, his government was suspending its observance of the treaty and would build the kinds of nuclear missiles that the INF treaty had outlawed.

    The next nuclear disarmament agreement on the chopping block appears to be the 2010 New START Treaty, which reduces U.S. and Russian deployed strategic nuclear warheads to 1,550 each, limits U.S. and Russian nuclear delivery vehicles, and provides for extensive inspection.  According to John Bolton, Trump’s national security advisor, this fundamentally flawed treaty, scheduled to expire in February 2021, is “unlikely” to be extended.  To preserve such an agreement, he argued, would amount to “malpractice.”  If the treaty is allowed to expire, it would be the first time since 1972 that there would be no nuclear arms control agreement between Russia and the United States.

    One other key international agreement, which President Clinton signed―but, thanks to Republican opposition, the U.S. Senate has never ratified―is the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT).  Adopted with great fanfare in 1996 and backed by nearly all the world’s nations, the CTBT bans nuclear weapons testing, a practice which has long served as a prerequisite for developing or upgrading nuclear arsenals.  Today, Bolton is reportedly pressing for the treaty to be removed from Senate consideration and “unsigned,” as a possible prelude to U.S. resumption of nuclear testing.

    Nor, dear moderators, does it seem likely that any new agreements will replace the old ones.  The U.S. State Department’s Office of Strategic Stability and Deterrence Affairs, which handles U.S. arms control ventures, has been whittled down during the Trump years from 14 staff members to four.  As a result, a former staffer reported, the State Department is no longer “equipped” to pursue arms control negotiations.  Coincidentally, the U.S. and Russian governments, which possess approximately 93 percent of the world’s nearly 14,000 nuclear warheads, have abandoned negotiations over controlling or eliminating them for the first time since the 1950s.

    Instead of honoring the commitment, under Article VI of the 1968 nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, to pursue negotiations for “cessation of the nuclear arms race” and for “nuclear disarmament,” all nine nuclear powers are today modernizing their nuclear weapons production facilities and adding new, improved types of nuclear weapons to their arsenals.  Over the next 30 years, this nuclear buildup will cost the United States alone an estimated $1,700,000,000,000―at least if it is not obliterated first in a nuclear holocaust.

    Will the United States and other nations survive these escalating preparations for nuclear war?  That question might seem overwrought, dear moderators, but, in fact, the U.S. government and others are increasing the role that nuclear weapons play in their “national security” policies.  Trump’s glib threats of nuclear war against North Korea and Iran are paralleled by new administration plans to develop a low-yield ballistic missile, which arms control advocates fear will lower the threshold for nuclear war.

    Confirming the new interest in nuclear warfare, the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, in June 2019, posted a planning document on the Pentagon’s website with a more upbeat appraisal of nuclear war-fighting than seen for many years.  Declaring that “using nuclear weapons could create conditions for decisive results and the restoration of strategic stability,” the document approvingly quoted Herman Kahn, the Cold War nuclear theorist who had argued for “winnable” nuclear wars and had provided an inspiration for Stanley Kubrick’s satirical film, Dr. Strangelove.

    Of course, most Americans are not pining for this kind of approach to nuclear weapons.  Indeed, a May 2019 opinion poll by the Center for International and Security Studies at the University of Maryland found that two-thirds of U.S. respondents favored remaining within the INF Treaty, 80 percent wanted to extend the New START Treaty, about 60 percent supported “phasing out” U.S. intercontinental ballistic missiles, and 75 percent backed legislation requiring congressional approval before the president could order a nuclear attack.

    Therefore, when it comes to presidential debates, dear moderators, don’t you―as stand-ins for the American people―think it might be worthwhile to ask the candidates some questions about U.S. preparations for nuclear war and how best to avert a global catastrophe of unprecedented magnitude?

    I think these issues are important.  Don’t you?

    Dr. Lawrence Wittner (https://www.lawrenceswittner.com/ ) is Professor of History Emeritus at SUNY/Albany and the author of Confronting the Bomb (Stanford University Press).

  • Kate Hudson: In Her Own Words

    Kate Hudson: In Her Own Words

    Do you think the UK can rethink its position on the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons?

    The UK will only rethink its position on the TPNW when the argument has been won to get rid of Britain’s nuclear weapons system Trident. The UK cannot sign up without putting in place a time-constrained plan for disarmament, without any conditionality on other nuclear weapons states disarming, so signing up to the TPNW is understood, in effect, to be unilateral nuclear disarmament, given that no other nuclear weapons states are planning to give up their nuclear weapons. While opinion polls over the last decade and a half generally show a majority of the population (especially, young people) in favour of scrapping Trident, this has not affected the policy of the major parties. While smaller parliamentary parties like the Scottish National Party, Plaid Cymru and the Green Party oppose nuclear weapons, the Conservative Party, Labour Party and Liberal Democrats all continue to back Trident and its replacement. The key reason for this is the view that nuclear weapons are necessary to maintain Britain’s status as a world power. While many in the Labour Party and Liberal Democrats favour nuclear disarmament, the leaderships are not willing to risk looking weak on defence by abandoning the nuclear arsenal. So even though recent governments have recognised that cyber warfare, climate change, terrorism and other contemporary factors are actually the key security threats, not nuclear weapons, there is no appetite to change the totemic status of the UK’s nuclear arsenal, in spite of its enormous cost.

    How does Brexit affect the dominant beliefs on nuclear deterrence?

    Brexit has pushed virtually all other political issues down, or off, the political agenda, so it has been very difficult to raise the issue at all through our Parliamentary CND group. One of the effects of Brexit has been to increase the role and influence of the far right, and to increase nationalism, so no doubt nuclear disarmament would be seen as weakening ‘the nation’. So in so far as it is possible to judge, I would say that Brexit will make the political climate less amenable to progress on nuclear disarmament.

    Do you think women have a specific role to play in paving the way to the abolition of nuclear weapons?

    Women are often more prominent in peace and nuclear disarmament movements than in other civil society movements and campaigns, although that may be changing these days with more women entering public life. I have tended to think that this is because some elements of our dominant culture may see peace as ‘weak’ and that warfighting is a male characteristic, along with often more aggressive posturing, whereas caring and nurturing – and protecting future generations – has tended to be the preserve of females. But I do not consider these to be innate, rather to be learned through social conventions. Equally they can be unlearned, and the path to peace and disarmament is open to all to embrace, irrespective of gender.

    Kate Hudson is a British left-wing political activist and academic. Since 2010, she has been the General Secretary of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND), having served as chair since 2003. She first became active in the peace movement in the early 1980s during the surge of activity against cruise missiles. With the end of the Cold War, like many others, Kate felt that the issue of nuclear weapons had greatly declined, so she turned to other campaigning work. One of her proudest moments was helping to Embrace the Base at Greenham Common in December 1982, along with 30,000 other women. By the mid-1990s, with the expansion of NATO and the escalation of the U.S. ‘Star Wars’ system, she came back to lead CND just as the ‘war on terror’ was beginning. She has been a key figure in the anti-war movement nationally and internationally and considers international cooperation and solidarity to be the key to the nuclear non-proliferation movement’s ultimate success.

  • Trump Administration Terminates the INF Treaty and the World Gets More Dangerous

    For Immediate release

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

    Today, the Trump administration terminated the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces agreement (INF). This treaty, signed in 1987 by Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev, required the United States and the former Soviet Union (now Russia) to eliminate all nuclear and conventional ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with ranges of between 500 and 5,500 kilometers.

    The treaty was the first agreement between Washington and Moscow that required the two nuclear superpowers to eliminated entire categories of nuclear weapons. As a result of the INF Treaty, the U.S. and the Soviet Union destroyed a total of 2,692 missiles by the treaty deadline of June 1, 1991 (1,846 Soviet missiles and 846 U.S. missiles).

    Many believe that the termination of the INF brings us to the brink of a new and dangerous arms race. Russia could move to deploy new short-range and intermediate-range cruise missiles and ballistic missiles on its territory as well as on that of its allies, such as Belarus. If the U.S. were to respond with new intermediate-range missiles of its own, they would be based either in Europe or in Japan or South Korea to reach significant targets in Russia. This would spell the beginning of a new arms race in Europe on a class of especially high-risk nuclear weapons.

    David Krieger, President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, commented, “Today the world has become immeasurably less secure with the U.S. pulling out of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, in effect, ending the bilateral nuclear arms control treaty with Russia.  The treaty was signed by two leaders who understood that ‘nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.’ Now, both the U.S. and Russia are free to deploy such nuclear-armed missiles in the foolish pursuit of nuclear advantage. This is part of a pattern of bad nuclear decisions by the Trump administration, which also includes pulling out of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) with Iran.”

    With his deeply irrational and erratic leadership style, Trump is demonstrating yet again why nuclear weapons remain an urgent and ultimate danger to us all.

     

  • Sunflower Newsletter: August 2019

    Sunflower Newsletter: August 2019

     

  • Tiempo de Transición

    Traducción de Ruben Arvizu.

    Después de servir durante 37 años como presidente fundador de la Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, estaré haciendo la transición a un nuevo rol, el de presidente emérito, a fines de 2019. Rick Wayman, con quien he trabajado estrechamente durante los últimos 12 años. años, asumirá el cargo de nuevo CEO de la Fundación. Rick aportará a la posición un conocimiento profundo sobre temas nucleares y un fuerte compromiso para abolir las armas nucleares, junto con una gran energía, habilidades de liderazgo y una conexión con la generación más joven de hoy. Estoy seguro de que dejaré la Fundación en muy buenas manos.

    Cuando fundamos la Nuclear Age Peace Foundation hace casi cuatro décadas, lo hicimos con una esperanza y un sueño. Sabíamos que la Fundación era necesaria, pero no sabíamos si podría sobrevivir en una atmósfera de ignorancia y apatía. Sin embargo, aquí estamos, aún luchando por un futuro ético y pacífico.

    Considero que la Fundación es una institución rara y muy preciosa. Como esta institución hay muy pocas, si alguna, en el mundo. Su misión es: “Educar, defender e inspirar acciones para un mundo justo y pacífico, libre de armas nucleares”. Ese es nuestro propósito: trabajar por la paz y abolir las armas más peligrosas jamás creadas por la humanidad. Si tenemos éxito, estamos dando un gran regalo al ser humano y a todas las generaciones futuras. Hasta que eso ocurra, somos, como mínimo, una voz de la razón en un mundo lleno de peligros.

    Además de Rick, el personal de la Fundación está compuesto por Paul Chappell, nuestro Director de Alfabetización para la Paz; Sandy Jones, nuestra directora de comunicaciones; Sarah Witmer, nuestra directora de desarrollo; Sharon Rossol, nuestra gerente de oficina; y Carol Warner, asistente del presidente.

    La Fundación también cuenta con el apoyo de nuestro dedicado Consejo de Administración, así como con miembros de nuestro muy respetado consejo asesor y asociados académicos. Además, la Fundación está fortalecida por nuestros voluntarios, incluida nuestra representante de la ONU, Alice Slater, y nuestro Director para América Latina, Rubén D. Arvizu. Se puede obtener más información sobre todas las personas que son instrumentales en el trabajo de la Fundación, así como información sobre nuestros programas, en nuestro sitio web www.wagingpeace.org.

    Nos complace que somos más de 80,000 miembros en la Fundación. Espero que Usted continúe apoyando el trabajo de la Fundación leyendo y compartiendo nuestro boletín electrónico mensual Sunflower; participando en nuestra Red de Alerta de Acción; y donando generosamente para ayudar a la Fundación a ser más efectiva en aumentar su alcance e influencia en todo el país y todo el mundo.

  • Volha Charnysh: In her own words

    Volha Charnysh: In her own words

    Do you believe that nationalism prevents the dismantling of nuclear arsenals?

    Nationalism is probably one of many factors preventing the dismantlement of nuclear arsenals. Research suggests that nationalism predicts endorsement of more hawkish foreign policy. Leaders who cater to nationalist electorates or espouse nationalism themselves are more likely to view nuclear capabilities as status-enhancing and will be less averse to leveraging nuclear threats to achieve their goals – foreign or domestic. For example, Russia’s President Putin often announces new missiles ahead of elections to portray himself as defending Russia’s great power status vis-à-vis the US and to rally nationalist voters.

    The perception of national (in)security, prestige and power are the most dominating factors that have driven states to acquire nuclear weapons. What other factors are at play in countries holding onto their nuclear weapons?

    A country’s decision to acquire nuclear weapons creates vested interests. A lot of people are employed to maintain existing nuclear arsenals and to conduct research, design, and development of new capabilities. Nuclear research labs, big corporations that produce deliver systems, various military and civilian agencies all benefit from holding on to existing arsenals and will lobby politicians to achieve their goals.

    What is your next project?

    My next project will explore cooperation and conflict in diverse societies. I will study how living in a culturally diverse society affects demand for state-provided public goods and willingness to invest in state capacity to provide them. I will also continue working on the legacies of conflict for long-run political development, my second research interest.

    Volha Charnysh is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. She received her PhD in Government from Harvard University in May 2017. Dr. Charnysh’s research focuses on historical political economy, legacies of violence, nation- and state-building, and ethnic politics. She is currently working on a book entitled, Migration, Diversity, and Economic Development, which examines the long- term effects of forced migration in the aftermath of World War II in Eastern Europe. Her work synthesizes several decades of micro-level data collected during a year of fieldwork in Poland, and received funding from the Social Science Research Council and Center for European Studies. Charnysh’s work has appeared in American Political Science Review, Comparative Political Studies, and the European Journal of International Relations. She has also contributed articles to Foreign Affairs, Monkey Cage at the Washington Post, National Interest, Transitions Online, Arms Control Today, Belarus Digest, among other media. Her personal website is http://www.charnysh.net/.

  • Hiroshima to Hope

    Hiroshima to Hope

    For Immediate Release

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

    Lessons from the past help build a more peaceful future

    Santa Barbara, CA – The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation will hold its 25th Annual Sadako Peace Day to remember the victims of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and all innocent victims of war.

    It will be held on Tuesday, August 6, from 6:00 to 7:00 p.m. at Westmont College, on Magnolia Lawn, 955 La Paz Road in Santa Barbara. The event is free and all are welcome.

    This year, the Foundation will honor Dr. David Krieger, its long-serving president, by reading from his body of original poetry. For many years, his poems have connected with people from all over the world on issues of peace, war and nuclear dangers. After leading the Foundation for nearly forty years, Dr. Krieger will be retiring at year’s end. The event will also include live music, reflection and a peace crane folding workshop by the Peace Crane Project.

    Sadako Peace Day is a tribute to the life of Sadako Sasaki, a child from Hiroshima who was 2 years old at the time of the atomic bombing. Ten years later, she died from radiation-induced leukemia as a result of that bombing. Japanese legend holds that one’s wish will be granted upon folding 1,000 paper cranes. While in the hospital, Sadako folded more than 1,000 paper cranes, hoping it might help her get well. Sadly, Sadako died without ever returning to health. Students in Japan were so moved by her story, they began folding paper cranes, too. The paper crane has become an international symbol of peace, and a statue of Sadako now stands in Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park.

    For more information visit wagingpeace.org/2019-sadako-peace-day/

    #   #    #

    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

  • A Conversation with David Krieger

    A Conversation with David Krieger

    A short version of this interview appears in the 2018 Annual Report

    Why did you choose to go to Hiroshima just after college? Was there any one person who touched you the most? You’ve talked about above and below the bomb. What other feelings did you have? Did you have an awareness at the time that the visit would change your life?

    David KriegerI went to Japan when I was just out of college because I was interested in learning more about Japanese culture.  I didn’t go specifically to see Hiroshima or Nagasaki.  I did, however, visit both atom-bombed cities during my stay in Japan and became more deeply aware of the destructive and inhumane power of the atomic bomb.  In school in the U.S., I learned the lesson that the creation of the atomic bomb was a great technological achievement.  In Japan, I was moved strongly by the pain, suffering and death caused by the atomic bombs.  I came to realize that the U.S. technological perspective was from above the mushroom cloud, while the Japanese perspective was a reaction from beneath the mushroom cloud and was a far more humane perspective.  Over the years, I’ve met many hibakusha, survivors of the atomic bombings, and I’ve found them to be compassionate, forgiving and committed to assuring that nuclear weapons are abolished so that no one in the future experiences the horrors that they did.

    One emotion that I experienced in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was fear – fear for the future of humanity and all life.  I also felt great empathy for the people beneath the bombs and admiration for their forgiveness of those who used the weapons on them.  In viewing the damage done in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I felt that I came face to face with evil, but I had no idea at the time that seeking the abolition of nuclear weapons would become the central focus of my life’s work.

    Tell us a little about becoming a conscientious objector. What led to that decision and how did it impact your life?

    When I left for Japan in the summer of 1963, the draft age for the military was 23 and I was 21.  When I returned from Japan about a year later, I was 22 and so was the draft age.  I was on the verge of being drafted, but managed to get into a reserve unit as an alternative.  At the time I was naïve and didn’t consider being a conscientious objector.   It was only some years later when I was called to active duty in 1968 that I realized that I could not fight, or lead others to fight, in what I saw as an illegal and immoral war based on lies by our government.  In early 1969, I filed for conscientious objector status.  My application was initially denied, and I sued the U.S. Army in federal court.  I lost in the lower court, but that decision was reversed and remanded by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.  I was one of the first officers in the Vietnam War to file for conscientious objector status. I am proud of taking that personal stand against the Vietnam War.  I was fortunate to have a wife who stood by me as I struggled against the military, and to have had a great lawyer, Brook Hart, who was dedicated to the anti-war cause.

    Tell us about your decision to found NAPF. Was your family supportive of the decision? How did you choose the name?

    Shortly before founding NAPF, I worked for a wonderful Dutch Foundation called the RIO Foundation.  RIO stood for Reshaping the International Order.  The Foundation was led by Jan Tinbergen, the first Nobel Laureate in Economics, and was a spinoff of the Club of Rome.  The RIO Foundation was dependent on the Dutch government for its funding, and when the government changed in 1981, the Foundation lost its funding.  Suddenly, I was without a job, which was extremely worrisome since we had three children still at home.  By this time, I knew that what I really wanted to do was address the issues of global peace and nuclear weapons abolition.  I prepared a pamphlet on these subjects titled “Peace Now,” and began talking with a few people about the idea of creating a new organization to address these critical issues.  One of the people I spoke with was Frank Kelly, who had been a vice president of the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions when I worked there.  Frank was interested.  Eventually we were joined by three other individuals – Wally Drew, a former executive with Revlon; Charles Jamison, a Harvard-trained lawyer; and Kent Ferguson, an innovative educator and headmaster of Santa Barbara Middle School.  We met weekly for about a year and decided to create the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.  Frank, Wally and Charles were all World War II veterans.  They had seen enough of war and recognized the dangers of the Nuclear Age.  Kent was younger, but passionate about peace and education.

    Charles Jamison did the legal work to establish the new non-profit corporation, the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.  I was the founding president.  The problem we confronted was that we had no resources to start with, so there was considerable risk that we wouldn’t survive.  To begin, I volunteered my time, as did everyone else.  I had to work at other jobs to keep food on the table at home.  For a while, I was working at two jobs, going to law school in the evenings and trying to build the Foundation.  Somehow we were able to keep the Foundation alive and moving forward.

    We began with three beliefs: first, peace is an imperative of the Nuclear Age; second, we must abolish nuclear weapons before they abolish us; and third, it will require extraordinary ordinary people to lead their leaders.  The name of the Foundation reflects the first of those beliefs.  Our principal goals were to build a thriving institution that would realize our dreams of creating a peaceful world, free of nuclear weapons, an organization that would grow and speak to people everywhere and win their trust and support.

    Were there many different phases at the Foundation?  Did you ever consider closing? Did you ever consider an office in D.C.?

    From the beginning, the Foundation has been an experiment in institution building.  We were very fortunate to have found a donor, Ethel Wells, who believed in our goals, and was generous in helping the Foundation to grow and take on new projects.

    Our work is intangible.  It is education and advocacy.  It has to do with waking people up to the dangers of the Nuclear Age and convincing them that they can play a role in achieving a more peaceful and secure future.  Our very first project was to start a Waging Peace series of booklets.  The first booklet in the series, written by Charles Jamison, was called “Can We Change Our Thinking?”  It was a reflection on Einstein’s famous quotation, “The splitting of the atom has changed everything save our modes of thinking and we thus drift toward unparalleled catastrophe.”  Soon after that publication, we had our first Evening for Peace, honoring Senator Claiborne Pell as our first Distinguished Peace Leader.  Over the years we’ve honored a stellar group of Distinguished Peace Leaders, including Desmond Tutu, the XIVth Dalai Lama, Jody Williams, Mairead Corrigan Maguire, Helen Caldicott, Jacques Cousteau, Dan Ellsberg and Noam Chomsky.  Many more projects would follow.

    We’ve never actually considered closing our doors.  We’ve been fortunate to have been able to keep them open for 37 years and I hope there will be many more years to follow.  We did have an office in Washington, D.C for a few years, but we felt it limited our vision to the politically possible rather than the necessary, and decided to close it.

    What are some of your most favorite career memories?

    David Krieger presented Noam Chomsky with the World Citizenship Award in 2014.

    High on my list of favorite career memories are the enthusiasm with which we created the Foundation; the $50,000 prize we were able to offer for the best proposal for science and peace and our role in creating the International Network of Engineers and Scientists for Global Responsibility; lobbying at the 1995 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review and Extension Conference and at many other international meetings; creating Abolition 2000; inspiring the youth of Soka Gakkai to gather more than 13 million signatures on the Abolition 2000 petition and delivering these to the president of the 2000 NPT Review Conference; engaging in a dialogue with SGI President Daisaku Ikeda, published in Japanese, English and Italian as Choose Hope: Your Role in Waging Peace in the Nuclear Age; engaging in a dialogue with Princeton professor emeritus Richard Falk, published as The Path to Zero: Dialogues on Nuclear Dangers; working with my friend and the Foreign Minister of the Marshall Islands on suing the nine nuclear-armed countries to fulfill their nuclear disarmament obligations; building a strong team of younger people to carry on the work of the Foundation.

    Tell us about some of the people who were part of your journey.

    I’ve been struck by what extraordinary people I’ve met on the path to peace.  There are too many of these to mention, but a few of the people I view as heroes include Desmond Tutu, Jacques Cousteau, Joseph Rotblat, A.N.R. Robinson, Daniel Ellsberg, Yehudi Menuhin, Mairead Corrigan Maguire and Carl Sagan.

    Who were the biggest influences on your life? Is there any one particular person who stands out as the most influential person?

    There were many people who exerted influence on my life, but three women stand out:  my mother, my wife and the woman I worked for and with at the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions.  My mother believed that I could do whatever I set my mind on doing, and she made possible my first trip to Japan.  My wife, Carolee, stood by me through the uncertainty of my refusing to participate in the Vietnam War and the uncertainty of creating and developing the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.  Elisabeth Mann Borgese showed me the possibility of following one’s dreams to create a better world.  In her case, it was the dream of peace through harmonizing the functional uses of the oceans in a much needed new law of the sea.  She saw the oceans as the “common heritage of mankind,” and believed that just as life began in the oceans and then came onto the land, a new law of the seas would spark a new international law for humankind.

    How soon after founding NAPF did you revisit Hiroshima? Can you describe the feelings you had, after you’d learned so much more about what happened there? Have you revisited Hiroshima and Nagasaki numerous times over the years? Do you still find yourself impacted by what happened there?

    We founded NAPF in 1982 and it wasn’t until 1997 that I returned to Japan at the invitation of Daisaku Ikeda, the president of Soka Gakkai International (SGI).  On that occasion I spoke to a SGI youth group about nuclear weapons abolition and told them about a new Abolition 2000 International Petition, which called for ending the nuclear threat, signing a new nuclear abolition treaty, and reallocating resources from nuclear weapons to meeting human needs.  Led by the youth of Hiroshima, the SGI young people gathered more than 13 million signatures on the petition.  It was remarkable.  The next year I was invited back to Japan to receive the petitions, which would be symbolically presented to the United Nations.  On that trip in 1998, which I called “A Journey of Hope,” I again visited Hiroshima and Nagasaki as well as Tokyo and Okinawa.  Since then I’ve revisited Hiroshima and Nagasaki many times, including being a speaker five times in Nagasaki Global Citizens’ Assemblies for the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons.  On these occasions, I have always been moved by the tragedies that occurred in these cities and the forgiveness and strong spirits of the survivors of these tragedies.

    What have you learned from the Hibakusha you’ve spoken with over the years? What is the lesson that we need to learn from them and pass on to the next generation?

    I’ve learned from the hibakusha I’ve met the power of humility, forgiveness, and deep concern for humanity’s future.  The lesson we need to learn from them and pass on to future generations is that nuclear weapons are just the opposite of the hibakusha.  Nuclear weapons reflect arrogance, are unforgiving and put humanity’s future at risk.   These weapons are also omnicidal.  Their effects cannot be restricted in time or space.  And they can destroy everything we love and cherish.

    What do you believe are the most critical issues that stand in the way of getting to nuclear zero?

    The most critical obstacles that stand in the way of getting to nuclear zero are what I call ACID: apathy, conformity, ignorance and denial.  These four obstacles stand in the way of citizens awakening to the very real dangers nuclear weapons pose to humanity, but they can be overcome by education and advocacy.  We need to move from apathy to empathy; from conformity to critical thinking; from ignorance to wisdom (knowledge isn’t enough); and from denial to recognition of the danger.  People everywhere must awaken and confront nuclear dangers as citizens of their countries and of the world.  And they must do so on behalf of their children and all future generations.

    What is the single most important information you think would motivate young people to take action to abolish nuclear weapons?

    It would motivate young people to understand that it is their very future that is at stake.  A nuclear war could occur due to mistake, miscalculation, madness, malice or manipulation (hacking).  The risks are too great and they are real.  These weapons do not provide physical protection to their possessors, only the possibility of vengeance.  It’s time to wake up to the dangers posed by nuclear weapons, even – or perhaps especially – those possessed by one’s own country.

    The U.S. was responsible for 67 nuclear weapons tests in the Marshall Islands between 1946 and 1958. This is a fact most Americans are unaware of, nor do they understand the consequences of this testing on the Marshallese people. Can you tell us what you think every American citizen should know regarding these horrific nuclear tests and how it should affect the current U.S. nuclear weapons policy?

    The 67 U.S. nuclear tests in the Marshall Islands were the equivalent power of detonating one Hiroshima bomb daily for 12 years.  Many of the people of the Marshall Islands lost their homes and their health.  All of this happened while the U.S. was the United Nations trustee for the Marshall Islands, making the nuclear testing there an act of extreme bad faith and arrogance.  To make it even worse, the U.S. treated the Marshall Islanders like human guinea pigs to study the effects of radiation on the human body.  Adequate compensation cannot give the Marshall Islanders back their homes or health, but it would be an excellent starting point.

    The U.S. has plans to spend over $1.7 trillion modernizing its nuclear arsenal over the next 30 years. Tell us why this insane amount of spending is immoral, what we could be doing with that money and what NAPF is doing about this issue.

    There are so many actual human needs not being met, starting with hunger and health care.  In addition, there is the need to protect the environment to assure clean air, clean water and a general healthy environment.  We also need to make the switch to renewable energy sources more rapidly to protect against the adverse effects of climate change.  In addition, there is the need to replace failing infrastructure.  With all these actual needs going unmet, it should be considered a crime against humanity to be throwing substantial resources at revamping our nuclear arsenal and engaging in a new nuclear arms race.  NAPF has been trying to draw attention for many years to the utter waste of throwing much-needed resources at “modernizing” our nuclear arsenal.  The U.S. should be leading the way toward achieving nuclear zero rather than continuing to bolster and make more usable its nuclear forces.

    You have written many wonderful poetry books. Tell us what drew you to writing poetry? What does writing poetry mean to you? Do you have a favorite among your poems? Do you feel it’s an effective way of teaching people about this critical and complex issue?

    I have been drawn to poetry as a means of connecting more directly with the hearts of my readers.  I felt that it was not enough to connect only through the mind and intellect, but it would be even more powerful to connect emotionally on the issues of war, peace and nuclear dangers.  I want to engage people in the work of peace, and I see poetry as a means of doing so.  Among my favorite of my own poems are: “To an Iraqi Child,” “The Deep Bow of a Hibakusha,” “August Mornings,” and “I Refuse.”  To the extent that poetry can cut through the chaff and get to the heart of an issue and is capable of reaching people on an emotional level, I do find it an effective means of teaching.  Poetry can strengthen a message and make it more memorable.

    There are other nuclear abolition organizations in the U.S. and internationally. Can you characterize how NAPF is different than others? Have you carved out a particular niche or philosophy for the Foundation that makes it unique? Is this something that has helped guide the Foundation over the years and do you see it as key to the future of the Foundation?

    We share elements in common with other organizations working for nuclear weapons abolition.  One area in which we may differ is in our perspective on U.S. policy and our willingness to challenge that policy.  We are also essentially a grassroots organization and we are trying to build support for abolition from below, that is, from common people who will lead their leaders.  We are also an organization located far from the seat of U.S.  power, and I believe that gives us a broader perspective than organizations located in or near Washington, D.C., which tend to be  pulled into the D.C. vortex.

    We are also unique in being a peace organization and recognizing the importance of peace to nuclear weapons abolition.  From the beginning we have put an emphasis on peace leadership.  We’ve honored peace leaders and tried to develop new peace leaders.  I think we have a very unique program in Peace Literacy, headed up by Paul K. Chappell, a graduate of West Point.  Our Peace Literacy Program is taking root nationally and internationally.

    Further, we have been willing to take a strong stand against nuclear power, given its relationship to nuclear proliferation and potentially to nuclear terrorism.  Finally, we pursue both education and advocacy, and in our advocacy we’ve been willing to include the arts, particularly poetry.  Because there is no clear approach that has been consistently successful, we’ve been willing to experiment with different approaches.  One of these that stands out in my mind was our consulting relationship with the Marshall Islands in their lawsuits against the nuclear-armed countries in the International Court of Justice and in U.S. federal court.

    Philosophically, what has set us apart are our willingness to be flexible, to take bold action, and to persevere in our commitment to create a more decent world for future generations.  So long as we can raise sufficient funding to support our great staff, I think these qualities will serve us well going forward.

    Anything you would have done differently? 

    Looking back, I’m reasonably satisfied with what we’ve been able to accomplish in an area that has proven to be very difficult.  Now, I just hope the Foundation will be energized by a new generation of peace leaders and will be able to build on the progress we’ve made and develop it further.

    Describe your own belief system/life philosophy – words that you live by?

    The words I try to live by are these: “Be kinder than necessary.”  I’ve not always succeeded, but I’ve tried.  I’ve also tried to persevere in the focused pursuit of peace and a nuclear free world.

    How have you taken to social media? What challenges does it present to you?  What opportunities?

    I’ve occasionally used social media, particularly Twitter, but actually I mostly find it not worth the effort.  I also find it unsettling to see how hard an organization like NAPF has to work to develop followers and how large the followings are of celebrities.

    Give us a few thoughts on our current President? How has his character (or lack thereof) and his policies effected the work of the Foundation?

    Trump is a racist, a bigot and an authoritarian, who has a very poor relationship with truth.  He frightens and disgusts me.  He certainly undermines the decency of the country.  With Trump in office, I am constantly reminded about how close we are to the precipice of nuclear war.  He has the sole authority to order the use of U.S. nuclear weapons, and one has to seriously question his rationality, prudence and sanity.

    Do you believe we are closer than ever to a nuclear war?

    So long as nuclear weapons exist and remain on hair-trigger alert we will be close to a nuclear war.  The threat is in the weapons themselves.  Trump only adds to that threat.  So does the Indian-Pakistani conflict over Kashmir. So does the U.S. withdrawal from the INF Treaty, and the new arms race between the U.S. and Russia.  There are too many factors that keep us close to the nuclear precipice, so we continue to live precariously.

    What is your view on the relationship between peace and justice?

    You cannot have peace without justice.  It is too unstable, too precarious.  If we want peace, we must work for justice.  Peace without justice is a war by other means and a true war waiting to occur.

    What new projects are you looking forward to?

    I’m looking forward to spending more time with my grandchildren, working in the garden, and doing some new writing projects.

    Finally, what gives you hope today in these dangerous times?

    There is not much on the political horizon to give me hope, but that could change abruptly.  I am a proponent of choosing hope, because it gives rise to action; and it’s circular: action also gives rise to hope.  In addition, young people give me hope.  They seem to recognize that our planet and its myriad life forms are worth saving.

  • The Technological Imperative for Ethical Evolution

    The Technological Imperative for Ethical Evolution

    As a winner of the top prize in computer science (the ACM Turing Award), Stanford Prof. Martin Hellman was invited to give an address to the annual meeting of Nobel Laureates in Lindau Germany. While his talk had the serious-sounding title of “The Technological Imperative for Ethical Evolution,” Prof. Hellman told us that it consists largely of stories in which he later realized he had behaved unethically or where he had difficulty ensuring that he did. Lessons he learned the hard way are spelled out to aid others in avoiding the same pitfalls. A link to Hellman’s full paper follows the introduction below.

    Introduction

    Almost overnight, the Manhattan Project transformed ethical decision making from a purely moral concern into one that is essential for the survival of civilization. In the words of Albert Einstein, “The unleashed power of the atom has changed everything save our modes of thinking and we thus drift toward unparalleled catastrophe.” [Nathan and Norden 1981]

    Environmental crises such as climate change, along with recent technological breakthroughs in genetic engineering, AI, and cyber-technology are adding to the technological imperative for accelerating humanity’s ethical evolution.

    This paper presents eight lessons for accelerating that process, often using examples where I either failed to behave ethically or encountered great difficulty in doing so. I hope it thereby adds, however meagerly, to humanity’s odds of avoiding Einstein’s “unparalleled catastrophe” and, instead, building a world that we can be proud to pass on to future generations. No one person can solve this problem, but if enough of us move things a little, all together we can succeed.

    To read Professor Hellman’s full paper in PDF format, click here.

    A video of Prof. Hellman’s Heidelberg Lecture is here.

    *Photo: Heidelberg Lecture delivered by Martin E. Hellman at the 69th Lindau Nobel Laureate Meeting, 03.07.2019, Lindau, Germany
    Picture/Credit: Julia Nimke/Lindau Nobel Laureate Meetings