Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Blog

  • Lurching Toward Catastrophe: The Trump Administration and Nuclear Weapons

    Lurching Toward Catastrophe: The Trump Administration and Nuclear Weapons

    In July 2017, by a vote of 122 to 1, with one abstention, nations from around the world attending a United Nations-sponsored conference in New York City voted to approve a treaty to ban nuclear weapons.  Although this Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons received little coverage in the mass media, its passage was a momentous event, capping decades of international nuclear arms control and disarmament agreements that, together, have reduced the world’s nuclear weapons arsenals by approximately 80 percent and have limited the danger of a catastrophic nuclear war.  The treaty prohibited all ratifying countries from developing, testing, producing, acquiring, possessing, stockpiling, using, or threatening to use nuclear weapons.

    Curiously, though, despite official support for the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons by almost two-thirds of the world’s nations, the Trump administration―like its counterparts in other nuclear-armed countries―regarded this historic measure as if it were being signed in a parallel, hostile universe.  As a result, the United States and the eight other nuclear powers boycotted the treaty negotiations, as well as the final vote.  Moreover, after the treaty was approved amid the tears, cheers, and applause of the UN delegates and observers, a joint statement issued by the UN ambassadors of the United States, Britain, and France declared that their countries would never become party to the international agreement.

    One clear indication that the nuclear powers have no intention of dispensing with their nuclear arsenals is the nuclear weapons buildup that all of them are now engaged in, with the U.S. government in the lead.  Although the Trump administration inherited its nuclear weapons “modernization” program from its predecessor, that program―designed to provide new weapons for nuclear warfare, accompanied by upgraded or new facilities for their production―is constantly increasing in scope and cost.  In October 2017, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reported that the cost for the planned “modernization” of the U.S. nuclear weapons complex over the next three decades had reached a staggering $1.2 trillion.  Thanks to the Trump administration’s plan to upgrade the three legs of the U.S. nuclear triad and build new cruise and ballistic missiles, the estimated cost of the U.S. nuclear buildup rose in February 2018 to $2 trillion.

    In this context, the Trump administration has no interest in pursuing the nuclear arms control and disarmament agreements, discussed or signed, that have characterized the administrations of all Democratic and Republican administrations since the dawn of the nuclear era.  Not only are no such agreements currently being negotiated, but in October 2018 the Trump administration, charging Russian violations of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, announced a unilateral U.S. withdrawal from it.  Signed in 1987 by U.S. President Ronald Reagan and Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev, the treaty removed all medium range nuclear missiles from Europe, established a cooperative relationship between the two nations that led to the end of the Cold War, and served subsequently as the cornerstone of U.S.-Russian nuclear arms controls.

    Although some Allied leaders joined Trump in questioning Russian compliance with the treaty, most criticized the U.S. pullout, claiming that treaty problems could be solved through U.S.-Russian negotiations.  Assailing the U.S. action, which portended a nuclear weapons buildup by both nations, a spokesperson for the European Union declared:  “The world doesn’t need a new arms race that would benefit no one and on the contrary would bring even more instability.”  Nevertheless, Trump, in his usual insouciant style, immediately announced that the U.S. government planned to increase its nuclear arsenal until other nations “come to their senses.”

    Of course, as Daniel Ellsberg has noted in his book, The Doomsday Machine, nuclear weapons are meant to be used―either to bully other nations into submission or to wage a nuclear war.  Certainly, that is President Trump’s view of them, as indicated by his startling nuclear threats.  In August 2017, angered by North Korea’s nuclear missile progress and the belligerent statements of its leaders, Trump warned that “North Korea best not make any more threats to the United States” or “they will be met with fire and fury like the world has never seen.”  In January 2018, referring to North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong-un, Trump boasted provocatively that “I too have a Nuclear Button, but it is a much bigger and more powerful one than his.”  Fortunately, largely thanks to the skillful diplomatic maneuvers of South Korean President Moon Jae-in―Trump’s threats of nuclear war against North Korea have recently ground to a halt, at least temporarily.

    But they are now being redirected against Iran.  In May 2018, Trump unilaterally withdrew the United States from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, an agreement with Iran that had been negotiated by the governments of the United States and other major nations.  Designed to ensure that Iran did not develop nuclear weapons, the agreement, as UN inspectors reported, had been strictly complied with by that nation.  Even so, Trump, angered by other actions of the Iranian regime, pulled out of the agreement and, in its place, instituted punitive economic sanctions on Iran, accompanied by calls to overthrow its government.  When, in July, the Iranian president cautioned Trump about pursing policies hostile to his nation, the U.S. president tweeted, in bold capitals:  “NEVER, EVER THREATEN THE UNITED STATES AGAIN OR YOU WILL SUFFER CONSEQUENCES THE LIKES OF WHICH FEW THROUGHOUT HISTORY HAVE EVER SUFFERED BEFORE.”  Just in case Iranians missed the implications of this extraordinary statement, Trump’s hawkish national security advisor, John Bolton, followed up by declaring:  “President Trump told me that if Iran does anything at all to the negative, they will pay a price like few countries have ever paid.”

    This obsession of the Trump administration with building nuclear weapons and threatening nuclear war underscores its unwillingness to join other governments in developing a sane nuclear policy.  Indeed, it seems determined to continue lurching toward unparalleled catastrophe.

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

  • Withdrawing from the INF Treaty: A Massive Mistake

    Withdrawing from the INF Treaty: A Massive Mistake

    This article was originally published by The Hill.

    It would be a mistake of significant proportions for the U.S. to unilaterally withdraw from the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty. It would end an important arms limitation treaty, one that eliminated a whole category of nuclear-armed missiles with a range from 500 km to 5,500 km.

    The treaty eliminated 846 U.S. nuclear missiles and 1,846 Soviet nuclear missiles, for a combined total of 2,692 nuclear missiles. President Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev signed the treaty in 1987. It was an agreement that followed their realization, “A nuclear war cannot be won, and must never be fought.”

    Fast forward to President Trump and his national security advisor, John Bolton announcing their intention to jettison the treaty that ended the Cold War; took Europe out of the cross-hairs of nuclear war; and allowed for major reductions in nuclear arms.

    After the signing of the INF Treaty, the two countries moved steadily downward from a high of 70,000 nuclear weapons in the world to less than 15,000 today. While this is still far too many, it was at least movement in the right direction.

    The withdrawal of the U.S. from the INF Treaty will reverse the progress made by the treaty over the past 30 years. It could restart the Cold War between Russia and the U.S.; reinstate a nuclear arms race; further endanger Europe; and make nuclear war more likely.

    Why would Trump do this? He claims that Russia has cheated on the agreement, but that is far from clear, and U.S. withdrawal from the treaty would leave Russia and the U.S. free to develop and deploy intermediate-range nuclear missiles without any constraints. Surely, that would be a far worse option for the U.S. and the world. Instead of withdrawal, the U.S. and Russia should resume negotiations to resolve any concerns on either side.

    This is the latest important international agreement that Trump has unwisely sought to disavow. Other agreements that he has pulled out of include the Paris accords on climate change and the Iran nuclear deal (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action).

    A recent Los Angeles Times editorial concluded: “On too many occasions this administration has acted impulsively on the world stage and scrambled to contain the damage later. Trashing the INF Treaty would be another such blunder. The president should pull back from the precipice.”

    However, since Trump operates in his own egocentric universe, it is doubtful that he even recognizes that his actions are moving the world closer to the nuclear precipice. With his deeply irrational and erratic leadership style, he is demonstrating yet again why nuclear weapons remain an urgent and ultimate danger to us all. He inadvertently continues to make the case for delegitimizing and banning these instruments of mass annihilation.

  • 2018 Evening for Peace Acceptance Speech

    2018 Evening for Peace Acceptance Speech

    I’m really humbled by this award and grateful for the opportunity to celebrate this evening with you. I want to start first by thanking David Krieger, President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, and of course the board and the staff of the foundation for their long-term commitment to the abolition of nuclear weapons and their work as one of the original organizations to join ICAN. I also want to give a special thanks to Jill Dexter and Diane Meyer Simon, the co-chairs of the honorary committee that put together this wonderful event tonight. It has really been a remarkable evening and it’s not over yet. I also would like to take a moment to recognize Kikuko Otake, a survivor of Hiroshima (hibakusha), for being here. It is the survivors of nuclear weapons who remind us why we’re doing this. Their human stories make us understand why this is an imperative issue. I would also like to thank California State Assemblymember Monique Limón for being here. She was responsible for the great resolution that shows that California, is supporting the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. Yay!

    Asm. Monique Limón with ICAN Executive Director Beatrice Fihn.

    So working in nuclear disarmament for the last few years, means constantly finding yourself in a state of either complete terror or inspiring hope. In that sense too it’s a little bit like being a parent. But instead of young children like the two ones that I have in my home giving us near nervous breakdowns constantly it’s the two most powerful men in the world acting like children. Threats to wipe out an entire nation on Twitter: terror. A majority of states in the world, over 120, agreeing to prohibit nuclear weapons rooted in humanitarian reality and law: hope. North Korea testing a missile that could reach us in this room: terror. The treaty opening for signature a year ago and already been signed by 69 states, ratified by 19, at a record pace: hope. Over one million Americans waking up one morning to a text message saying “ballistic threat inbound to Hawaii, seek immediate shelter. This is not a drill”: absolute sheer terror. And people are beginning to wake up to the reality that we are still living under the threat of these weapons every single day.

    They are starting to experience the terror of the Cold War, and it’s our job to give them hope. Following the end of the Cold War, we were promised a world where reasonable men and democratic states would slowly reduce their nuclear arsenals in an orderly fashion, until there were none left: from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty under California’s own Ronald Reagan; to START under George Bush; to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty under Bill Clinton; to the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty under George W. Bush, when he said, “This treaty liquidates the Cold War legacy of nuclear hostility between our countries”; and Obama’s soaring Prague speech calling for the end of nuclear weapons era and his support of New START as the latest treaty. But the weapons weren’t liquidated. The threat remains. The Nuclear Test Ban Treaty was never ratified by the Senate, and just yesterday Donald Trump confirmed plans of the United States pulling out of the INF Treaty. You know, in honesty, it would be all too easy to just blame Donald Trump as a rogue, but the truth is that a system that one impulsive or unpredictable person can uproot is not an appropriate security system in the first place. Maybe the problem is not the man, maybe it is the weapon.

    Since the end of the Cold War, India, Pakistan, North Korea have become nuclear-armed states. You know, we might see Iran join them, and Saudi Arabia has said that if Iran can develop nuclear capability, they will too. The old plan has not been working. So what went wrong? Why are all these weapons still here threatening us all almost three decades on from the fall of the Berlin Wall?

    It’s not the treaties. Each one has value and must be fought for, including the INF right now, but it is a fact that we forgot to actually outright reject nuclear weapons – to ban them.

    Thanks to the leadership of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, one of the first organizations to join ICAN, we are seeing monumental progress in a time of great danger – hope and opportunity in this time of terror and fear. The past approach was centered around abstract concepts of security, realism about geopolitics, but they really ignore the reality that keeping these weapons around forever means that they will eventually be used again. They ignore the reality that if you say nuclear weapons are instruments of power, and they keep you safe, other nations will want to follow you. Then they ignore the reality that nuclear weapons cause humanitarian catastrophes and violate the laws of war. The mission of ICAN and our many partner organizations, including the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, was to bring those realities into the conversation about nuclear weapons.

    We highlighted the humanitarian reality of these weapons. Relief organizations would not be able to send help into nuclear blast zones. As the International Committee of the Red Cross stated, “There will be no effective means to provide aid to the dying and wounded.” People will essentially be on their own. Our recent climate modeling shows a relatively limited nuclear exchange involving about a hundred nuclear weapons between India and Pakistan could result in a nuclear winter lasting two to three years. Beyond the unacceptable immediate deaths from the blast and fires, billions more around the world would die from the resulting famine. Our food system would collapse and our societies would likely follow.

    We told these stories where they needed to be heard. And most importantly we brought democracy to disarmament. For decades, the non-nuclear armed states have been told that they have no say in this issue. They were told that they have no right to speak up and create laws even though many bore the burden of these weapons when they were tested, and they will all bear the burden if they’re used again. Through working with those states and negotiating the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, we help those nations exercise their rights on the international stage and fulfill their obligation to protect their citizens.

    The treaty was adopted by 122 states at the UN last year, bringing credible pressure to the nuclear-armed states and countries living under the nuclear umbrella. It will create even more pressure once it legally enters into force when fifty states have ratified it.

    NAPF Deputy Director Rick Wayman spoke at the negotiations for the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in June 2017.

    But it’s not just nation states. Local communities and individuals play a really important role.

    So do we have any University of California graduates here? Gauchos? Banana Slugs? Bruins? Bears? I really have to admit I had no idea what those things meant before, but all of you UC alumni and in fact every single taxpaying California resident has a unique opportunity to effect change.

    The atomic weapons dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were designed at a lab run by University of California. Every U.S. nuclear weapon ever tested was designed by a UC lab. Every American warhead currently deployed around the world was designed in one of those labs now co-managed by the University of California. These labs are now developing Trump’s new generation of nuclear weapons. And their current task? Make nuclear weapons that are more likely to be used, what they call more usable.

    Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in the East Bay will receive nearly $1.5 billion in 2019 from the U.S. government. Eighty-eight percent of that will be going to nuclear weapons. While they have their grants, we have our plans.

    We’re targeting cities and states, businesses like right here in Santa Barbara, banks like Wells Fargo, universities, like the University of California, and we will succeed. And how do I know that?

    Well, first, we have the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. We aren’t just guessing this, we know this approach works because we’ve seen it happen with other weapons: biological weapons, chemical weapons, landmines and cluster munitions. Treaties, prohibition treaties, they have an impact. We know that shifting norms and changing law have a concrete impact.

    We can look at examples like Textron, for example, a U.S. company that actually stopped producing cluster bombs in 2016, even though the U.S. did not participate in the negotiations for the ban of cluster bombs or have any intention of signing or ratifying it. But because the rest of the world had banned them, it suddenly became bad business.

    Second, because we have partners like the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, working in this state and across the country, and have allies like all of you here. The ICAN movement has grown to over 500 organizations in over 100 countries working across generations to finally end the threat of nuclear weapons.

    And third, because we’re already having historic success even without the nuclear-armed states’ administrations on board. Take California for example. In a true expression of representative democracy, the California state legislature has said that it is their role to tell their federal counterparts how to represent California on the world stage, and we are telling them to embrace the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. They passed Assembly Joint Resolution 33 to do just that and to make nuclear disarmament the centerpiece of our national security policy and spearhead a global effort to prevent nuclear war. And even more local, the L.A. City Council recently passed a similar resolution, and a Santa Barbara resolution to make Santa Barbara a nuclear free city is in the works, and the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation has been working to make that happen.

    The California State Legislature adopted a resolution in August 2018 calling on the U.S. government to embrace the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.

    This state and those cities will join a host of major cities around the world who are speaking up on the rational side of nuclear disarmament through the treaty. ICAN will soon be launching a new campaign for a groundswell of local action: cities, regions, businesses, all joining our cause. What happens in these communities, in these cities, in California, matters around the world. I know this because I’ve heard it directly from global decision makers.

    Just a few weeks ago during the leader’s week at the United Nations in New York, people from as far away as Africa were talking about California embracing the treaty. It has motivated and inspired diplomats and leaders everywhere else in the world and your work is changing attitudes about what is possible and having a direct impact on building a nuclear weapons free world. This is really what momentum looks like, and this is democracy, and this is the impact that partner organizations of ICAN like the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation are having right now.

    I know many of you here have long cared about this issue and to you I say, never sink to the unimaginable level of those who tell you that nuclear disarmament is a pipe dream, that the U.S. will never give up their nuclear weapons.Prove them wrong. And some of you, many young people and students in the crowd, never knew the duck and cover drills of the Cold War and the constant fear of nuclear attack, and to you I say we need a new generation of leaders to take up the mantle of peace so that you will never have to know those fears. You inherited a problem not of your own making. But by the same token, you can better imagine a new international security not based on the risk of nuclear weapons, because many others can’t. Don’t buy into their terror, and join us on the side of hope.

    We’ve had a lot of very powerful opponents in this work, and they told us that we would never be taken seriously; we were. They told us that we would never ban nuclear weapons; we have. They told us the people would never feel secure without nuclear weapons, but the opposite is true.

    Now when they tell you it is not worth trying, that the U.S. will never give up its nuclear weapons, what will you choose? To continue to live in terror, or to join us on the side of hope? You are here tonight and you are part of this Evening for Peace and you support the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, so I know your answers pretty much already. And my question for you all is then, who will you bring with you on this journey and what will you do tonight, and tomorrow, and the next day, to assure that hope will win the day? This movement really needs your passion, your talent, and your commitment.

    And with that, and with partners like the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, we will end nuclear weapons before they end us.

    Thank you.

  • The Importance of Alternative Media

    The superficiality of today’s television

    Social critic Neil Postman contrasted the futures predicted in Nineteen Eighty-Four and Brave New World in the foreword of his 1985 book “Amusing Ourselves to Death”. He wrote:

    “What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egotism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance.”

    Niel Postman’s book, “Amusing Ourselves To Death; or Public Discourse in an Age of Show Business” (1985), had its origins at the Frankfurt Book Fair, where Postman was invited to join a panel discussing George Orwell’s “Nineteen Eighty-Four”. Postman said that our present situation was better predicted by Huxley’s “Brave New World”. Today, he maintained it is not fear that bars us from truth. Instead, truth is drowned in distractions and the pursuit of pleasure, by the public’s addiction to amusement.

    Postman sees television as the modern equivalent of Huxley’s pleasure-inducing drug, soma, and he maintains that that television, as a medium, is intrinsically superficial and unable to discuss serious issues. Looking at television as it is today, one must agree with him.

    The wealth and power of the establishment

    The media are a battleground where reformers struggle for attention, but are defeated with great regularity by the wealth and power of the establishment. This is a tragedy because today there is an urgent need to make public opinion aware of the serious problems facing civilization, and the steps that are needed to solve these problems. The mass media could potentially be a great force for public education, but in general their role is not only unhelpful – it is often negative. War and conflict are blatantly advertised by television and newspapers.

    Newspapers and war

    There is a true story about the powerful newspaper owner William Randolph Hearst that illustrates the relationship between the mass media and the institution of war: When an explosion sank the American warship USS Maine in the harbor of Havana, Hearst anticipated (and desired) that the incident would lead to war between the United States and Spain. He therefore sent his best illustrator, Fredrick Remington, to Havana to produce drawings of the scene. After a few days in Havana, Remington cabled to Hearst, “All’s quiet here. There will be no war.” Hearst cabled back, “You supply the pictures. I’ll supply the war.” Hearst was true to his words. His newspapers inflamed American public opinion to such an extent that the Spanish-American War became inevitable. During the course of the war, Hearst sold many newspapers, and Remington many drawings. From this story one might almost conclude that newspapers thrive on war, while war thrives on newspapers.

    Before the advent of widely-read newspapers, European wars tended to be fought by mercenary soldiers, recruited from the lowest ranks of society, and motivated by financial considerations. The emotions of the population were not aroused by such limited and decorous wars. However, the French Revolution and the power of newspapers changed this situation, and war became a total phenomenon that involved emotions. The media were able to mobilize on a huge scale the communal defense mechanism that Konrad Lorenz called “militant enthusiasm” – self-sacrifice for the defense of the tribe. It did not escape the notice of politicians that control of the media is the key to political power in the modern world. For example, Hitler was extremely conscious of the force of propaganda, and it became one of his favorite instruments for exerting power.

    With the advent of radio and television, the influence of the mass media became still greater. Today, state-controlled or money-controlled newspapers, radio and television are widely used by the power elite to manipulate public opinion. This is true in most countries of the world, even in those that pride themselves on allowing freedom of speech. For example, during the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, the official version of events was broadcast by CNN, and criticism of the invasion was almost absent from their transmissions.

    The mass media and our present crisis

    Today we are faced with the task of creating a new global ethic in which loyalty to family, religion and nation will be supplemented by a higher loyalty to humanity as a whole. In case of conflicts, loyalty to humanity as a whole must take precedence. In addition, our present culture of violence must be replaced by a culture of peace. To achieve these essential goals, we urgently need the cooperation of the mass media.

    The predicament of humanity today has been called “a race between education and catastrophe”: Human emotions have not changed much during the last 40,000 years. Human nature still contains an element of tribalism to which nationalistic politicians successfully appeal. The completely sovereign nation-state is still the basis of our global political system. The danger in this situation is due to the fact that modern science has given the human race incredibly destructive weapons. Because of these weapons, the tribal tendencies in human nature and the politically fragmented structure of our world have both become dangerous anachronisms.

    After the tragedies of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Albert Einstein said, “The unleashed power of the atom has changed everything except our way of thinking, and thus we drift towards unparalleled catastrophes.” We have to learn to think in a new way. Will we learn this in time to prevent disaster? When we consider the almost miraculous power of our modern electronic media, we can be optimistic. Cannot our marvelous global communication network be used to change anachronistic ways of thought and anachronistic social and political institutions in time, so that the system will not self-destruct as science and technology revolutionize our world? If they were properly used, our instantaneous global communications could give us hope.

    The success of our species is built on cultural evolution, the central element of which is cooperation. Thus human nature has two sides, tribal emotions are present, but they are balanced by the human genius for cooperation. The case of Scandinavia – once war-torn, now cooperative – shows that education is able to bring out either the kind and cooperative side of human nature, or the xenophobic and violent side. Which of these shall it be? It is up to our educational systems to decide, and the mass media are an extremely important part of education. Hence the great responsibility that is now in the hands of the media.

    How do the mass media fulfill this life-or-death responsibility? Do they give us insight? No, they give us pop music. Do they give us an understanding of the sweep of evolution and history? No, they give us sport. Do they give us an understanding of need for strengthening the United Nations, and the ways that it could be strengthened? No, they give us sit-coms and soap operas. Do they give us unbiased news? No, they give us news that has been edited to conform with the interests of the military-industrial complex and other powerful lobbys. Do they present us with the need for a just system of international law that acts on individuals? On the whole, the subject is neglected. Do they tell of of the essentially genocidal nature of nuclear weapons, and the urgent need for their complete abolition? No, they give us programs about gardening and making food.

    A consumer who subscribes to the “package” of broadcasts sold by a cable company can often search through all 100 or so channels without finding a single program that offers insight into the various problems that are facing the world today. What the viewer finds instead is a mixture of pro-establishment propaganda and entertainment. Meanwhile the neglected global problems are becoming progressively more severe. In general, the mass media behave as though their role is to prevent the peoples of the world from joining hands and working to change the world and to save it from thermonuclear and environmental catastrophes. The television viewer sits slumped in a chair, passive, isolated, disempowered and stupefied. The future of the world hangs in the balance, the fate of children and grandchildren hang in the balance, but the television viewer feels no impulse to work actively to change the world or to save it. The Roman emperors gave their people bread and circuses to numb them into political inactivity. The modern mass media seem to be playing a similar role.

    Our duty to future generations

    The future of human civilization is endangered both by the threat of themonuclear war and by the threat of catastrophic climate change. It is not only humans that are threatened, but also the other organisms with which we share the gift of life. We must also consider the threat of a global famine of extremely large proportions, when the end of the fossil fuel era, combined with the effects of climate change, reduce our ability to support a growing global population.

    We live at a critical moment of history. Our duty to future generations is clear: We must achieve a steady-state economic system. We must restore democracy in our own countries when it has been replaced by oligarchy. We must decrease economic inequality both between nations and within nations. We must break the power of corporate greed. We must leave fossil fuels in the ground. We must stabilize and ultimately reduce the global population. We must eliminate the institution of war; and we must develop new ethics to match our advanced technology, ethics in which narrow selfishness, short-sightedness and nationalism will be replaced by loyalty to humanity as a whole, combined with respect for nature.

    Inaction is not an option. We have to act with courage and dedication, even if the odds are against success, because the stakes are so high.

    The mass media could mobilize us to action, but they have failed in their duty.

    Our educational systems could also wake us up and make us act, but they too has failed us. The battle to save the earth from human greed and folly has to be fought in the alternative media.

    The alternative media, and all who work with them deserve both our gratitude and our financial support. They alone, can correct the distorted and incomplete picture of the world that we obtain from the mass media. They alone can show us the path to a future in which our children, grandchildren, and all future generations can survive.

    A book discussing the importance of alternative media can be freely downloaded and circulated from this address:

    http://eacpe.org/app/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Searching-for-truth-by-John-Scales-Avery.pdf

    More freely downloadable books and articles on  other global problems can be found on the following link:

    http://eacpe.org/about-john-scales-avery/

  • Sunflower Newsletter: November 2018

    Sunflower Newsletter: November 2018

    Perspectives

    • Hacking Nuclear Weapons Is a Global Threat by David Krieger
    • California Is Complicit in the Buildup of Nuclear Weapons by Beatrice Fihn
    • A New Nuclear Arms Race Has Begun by Mikhail Gorbachev

    U.S. Nuclear Weapons Policy

    • U.S. to Resume Prosecuting Protestors at Nevada Test Site

    Nuclear Disarmament

    • Ireland Played Key Role in Non-Proliferation Treaty and Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons
    • 122 Nations Reiterate Support for Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons

    War and Peace

    • North and South Korea Move to De-Escalate Border Tensions

    Nuclear Insanity

    • Trump Says U.S. Will Build Up Nuclear Arsenal
    • Pence Leaves Open Possibility of Nuclear Weapons in Space
    • P5 Nations Unite to Maintain Their Nuclear Weapons

    Resources

    • Nuclear Weapons Ban Monitor
    • Foreign Affairs Issue on Nuclear Weapons

    Foundation Activities

    • Evening for Peace Honors Beatrice Fihn and ICAN
    • Women Waging Peace
    • Ugandan Rotary Peace Fellow Training in Peace Literacy at NAPF

    Take Action

    • Stop a New “Low-Yield” Nuclear Weapon

    Quotes

    Perspectives

    Hacking Nuclear Weapons Is a Global Threat

    by David Krieger

    There are many ways a nuclear attack could be initiated. These include the four “m’s” of malice, madness, mistake and miscalculation. Of these ways of initiating a nuclear attack, only malice could possibly be inhibited by nuclear deterrence (fear of nuclear retaliation).

    A new, and possibly even greater, concern is coming over the horizon. That concern, related to cyberattacks on an enemy’s nuclear systems, could be labelled as “manipulation.” It is emerging due to the growing sophistication of hackers penetrating cyber-security walls in general. It would be disastrous if hackers were able to penetrate the walls protecting nuclear arsenals.

    To read the full article in The Hill, click here.

    California Is Complicit in the Buildup of Nuclear Weapons

    by Beatrice Fihn

    A new nuclear arms race is underway, with California at the center, though it’s not clear its citizens realize it.

    The new nuclear arms race is bringing in a flood of cash to laboratories run by the University of California, where scientists, engineers and technicians have had a hand in designing every single nuclear weapon the U.S. has ever built. And yet the state Legislature and the Los Angeles City Council have resolved that America should support the U.N.’s 2017 Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. California is complicit in the arms race, and if nuclear weapons were ever launched, it would be one of the prime attack targets. Its citizens need to speak up to safeguard their future and end the state’s participation in the weapons industry.

    To read the full article in the Los Angeles Times, click here.

    A New Nuclear Arms Race Has Begun

    by Mikhail Gorbachev

    A new arms race has been announced. The INF Treaty is not the first victim of the militarization of world affairs. In 2002, the United States withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty; this year, from the Iran nuclear deal. Military expenditures have soared to astronomical levels and keep rising.

    Is it too late to return to dialogue and negotiations? I don’t want to lose hope. I hope that Russia will take a firm but balanced stand. I hope that America’s allies will, upon sober reflection, refuse to be launchpads for new American missiles. I hope the United Nations, and particularly members of its Security Council, vested by the United Nations Charter with primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security, will take responsible action.

    Faced with this dire threat to peace, we are not helpless. We must not resign, we must not surrender.

    To read the full article in The New York Times, click here.

    U.S. Nuclear Weapons Policy

    U.S. to Resume Prosecuting Protestors at Nevada Test Site

    For the first time since 1987, the U.S. government will prosecute a protestor for trespassing at the Nevada National Security Site, formerly known as the Nevada Test Site. The U.S. seized a vast area of land from the Western Shoshone after World War II and used it to test over 1,000 nuclear bombs between 1951 and 1992.

    In 1987, facing hundreds of potential prosecutions for protests at the test site, the District Attorney announced that Nye County would continue to issue citations for crossing the line onto the test site, but would not prosecute those cases.

    On October 8, Marc Page-Collogne, along with two others, crossed the line onto the test site. Page-Collogne was taken to jail and was subsequently released pending trial on December 3.

    Jack Cohen-Joppa, “After Three Decades, Trespass Prosecutions Resume at Nevada Nuclear Test Site,” The Nuclear Resister, October 29, 2018.

    Nuclear Disarmament

    Ireland Played Key Role in Non-Proliferation Treaty and Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons

    Newly declassified documents show Ireland’s important role in stopping the spread of nuclear weapons in the 1960s. The documents detail the strong opposition of U.S. diplomats to the efforts of Frank Aiken, Ireland’s Minister of External Affairs, to negotiate what would become the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The NPT is now nearly universally viewed as an indispensable tool to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons.

    U.S. diplomats have also strongly opposed the efforts of Ireland and other like-minded nations that have led the effort to achieve the 2017 Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. Ray Acheson, Director of Reaching Critical Will, highlighted that the declassified documents show “how relentless pursuit of a principled approach to nuclear disarmament, as from Ireland and others, is how change gets made.”

    Cormac McQuinn, “How Ireland Helped Avoid Nuclear War,” The Irish Independent, October 31, 2018.

    122 Nations Reiterate Support for Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons

    At the First Committee of the United Nations General Assembly, 122 nations voted in favor of a resolution that welcomes last year’s adoption of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW).

    North Korea abstained from the vote, while the other eight nuclear-armed nations (United States, Russia, United Kingdom, France, China, Israel, India, and Pakistan) voted against it. Joining the nuclear-armed nations in opposing the resolution were numerous nations that rely on U.S. or NATO nuclear weapons, including Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Turkey, Australia, and Canada.

    War and Peace

    North and South Korea Move to De-Escalate Border Tensions

    North and South Korea agreed to work together to de-escalate potential border tensions by implementing a no-fly zone and a ban on military drills near the border.

    The measures, which went into effect on November 1, were agreed to at the inter-Korean summit in Pyongyang in September.

    Hyonhee Shin, “No-Fly Zone, Military Drill Ban Near Korea Border Take Effect,” Reuters, October 31, 2018.

    Nuclear Insanity

    Trump Says U.S. Will Build Up Nuclear Arsenal

    After announcing that the U.S. will unilaterally withdraw from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty, President Trump stated that he plans on building up the U.S. nuclear arsenal even more as a “threat” to China, Russia, and “anybody else that wants to play that game.”

    Trump said that the U.S. would continue this behavior “until people come to their senses.”

    “Donald Trump: US Will Build Up Nuclear Arsenal,” BBC News, October 22, 2018.

    Pence Leaves Open Possibility of Nuclear Weapons in Space

    U.S. Vice President Mike Pence refused to rule out placing nuclear weapons in space, despite a 50-year-old treaty prohibiting such actions. The 1967 Outer Space Treaty outlawed weapons of mass destruction in space.

    Pence said, “What we need to do is make sure that we provide for the common defense of the people of the United States of America, and that’s the president’s determination here.” He continued, “What we want to do is continue to advance the principle that peace comes through strength.”

    Robert Costa, “Pence Leaves Open the Possibility of Nuclear Weapons in Space,” Washington Post, October 23, 2018.

    P5 Nations Unite to Maintain Their Nuclear Weapons

    The five permanent members of the UN Security Council (P5) – United
    States, Russia, United Kingdom, France, and China – issued a joint
    statement at the UN General Assembly’s First Committee. The five
    nuclear-armed nations opened the statement by claiming a commitment to
    the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which has been in effect for nearly 50
    years.

    The P5 devotes multiple paragraphs to criticizing the
    Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), which was adopted
    last year at the UN by 122 nations. The P5 wrote, “We will not support,
    sign or ratify this Treaty. The TPNW will not be
    binding on our countries, and we do not accept any claim that it
    contributes to the development of customary international law; nor does
    it set any new standards or norms. We call on all countries that are
    considering supporting the TPNW to reflect seriously on its implications
    for international peace and security.”

    The TPNW prohibits the use, threat of use, production, and deployment of nuclear weapons.

    “P5 Joint Statement on the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons,” Gov.uk, October 24, 2018.

    Resources

    Nuclear Weapons Ban Monitor

    On October 29, Norwegian People’s Aid and the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons launched the Nuclear Weapons Ban Monitor, the first report of a newly established watchdog for the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW).

    The Nuclear Weapons Ban Monitor measures progress related to signature, adherence, entry into force, and universalization of the TPNW. It also evaluates the extent to which the policies and practices of all states comply with the core obligations in the Treaty. The term compliance is used in a broad sense, to refer to the compatibility of each state’s behavior with the prohibitions of the TPNW, regardless of whether the state in question has adhered to the Treaty or not. A key purpose of the report is to highlight specific activities that will need to be discontinued if the international community is to achieve its goal of creating a world without nuclear weapons.

    To read the first issue of the Nuclear Weapons Ban Monitor, click here.

    Foreign Affairs Issue on Nuclear Weapons

    The magazine Foreign Affairs published numerous articles on nuclear weapons in its latest edition. Titles include: “Do Nuclear Weapons Matter?”; “If You Want Peace, Prepare for Nuclear War”; and “What Is Russia’s Nuclear Stockpile Really For?”

    The articles can be accessed on the Foreign Affairs website.

    Foundation Activities

    Evening for Peace Honors Beatrice Fihn and ICAN

    On October 21, the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation presented Beatrice Fihn and the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons with the Foundation’s Distinguished Peace Leadership Award. Over 200 people, including 50 students, attended the event.

    To see photos of the event and to download an audio version of Beatrice Fihn’s acceptance speech, click here.

    Women Waging Peace

    The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s online campaign Women Waging Peace highlights the outstanding work of women for peace and nuclear disarmament. Though progress is made every day, women’s voices are still often ignored, their efforts stonewalled and their wisdom overlooked regarding issues of peace and security, national defense, and nuclear disarmament.

    Our third profile features Makoma Lekalakalai, a South African activist who spearheaded a women-led effort to challenge government corruption and nuclear energy policy.

    Click here to read our interview with Makoma Lekalakalai.

    Ugandan Rotary Peace Fellow Training in Peace Literacy at NAPF

    In March 2014, Paul K. Chappell, Peace Literacy Director of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, gave a four-day workshop on Peace Leadership in Gulu, Uganda. One of the participants was Emily Nabakooza, who was working in peace and development programs at both the strategic and operational levels, with a focus on peace initiatives and youth.

    Several years later she applied to become a Rotary Peace Fellow, winning a place at the Rotary Peace Center at the University of Queensland in Brisbane, Australia. For her applied field experience for Fall 2018, Emily Nabakooza has chosen to work with NAPF to practice her learning in peacebuilding and to be trained in Peace Literacy.

    Emily Nabakooza brings more than seventeen years of practical experience in global peace and development. To get to know her better, we’ve asked her a few questions about her background, her goals, and her interest in Peace Literacy.

    To read more, click here.

    Take Action

    Stop a New “Low-Yield” Nuclear Weapon

    A new bill in the U.S. House of Representatives, H.R. 6840, seeks to stop the U.S. from developing a dangerous and destabilizing new low-yield nuclear warhead to be carried on U.S. submarine-launched ballistic missiles.

    The “Hold the Low-Yield Nuclear Explosive (Hold the LYNE) Act” was introduced by Rep. Ted Lieu and already has a number of co-sponsors. A new “low-yield” nuclear weapon risks dangerously lowering the threshold for nuclear use by adding emphasis on low-yield options and increases the risk of miscalculation in a crisis.

    Click here to ask your representative to co-sponsor this important new bill.

    Quotes

     

    “The love of country is a splendid thing. But why should love stop at the border?”

    — Pablo Casals, Catalan cellist and conductor. This quote appears in the book Speaking of Peace: Quotations to Inspire Action, which is available to purchase in the NAPF Peace Store.

     

    “What are we doing to change the human condition that is at the core of global instability and needless conflict? War is neither a human condition nor imperative. We can change things. We can end war and turn weapons into ploughshares. Let us start with the man and the woman in the mirror!”

    — H.E. Mr. Lazarous Kapambwe, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of the Republic of Zambia to the United Nations, speaking at the United Nations.

     

    “I actually think the chance of a terrible miscalculation involving nuclear weapons is greater today than 10 or 20 years ago, and possibly even worse than during the height of the Cold War.”

    — Sam Nunn, former U.S. senator and co-chair of the Nuclear Threat Initiative.

    Editorial Team

     

    David Krieger
    Louisa Kwon
    Carol Warner
    Rick Wayman
  • Makoma Lekalakala | In Her Own Words

    Makoma Lekalakala | In Her Own Words

    Tell me a little bit about your journey as an activist and how you landed on environmental activism.

    It was not just a personal journey but rather a journey of a collective. From its inception, Earthlife Africa, the environmental justice organization I work for, has been an anti-nuclear organization. When the government started looking at nuclear energy, we tried talking with them. Our talks were not very fruitful until a Russian partner organization notified us of an intergovernmental agreement South Africa had signed with an energy company, ‘Rosatom’. In the agreement, if things didn’t go right with the nuclear reactors, Rosatom would not be held responsible – it would be South Africa’s responsibility.

    We started talking to more and more organizations. Liz McDaid, “Eco-Justice Lead” for the Southern African Faith Communities’ Environment Institute, and I, filed the founding affidavit for the case and she provided a supporting affidavit on behalf of her organization. Our case was grounded in South Africa’s Bill of Rights that states, “everyone has a right to a safe environment.”

    Ultimately, we decided to take the issue to court because the doors were closed no matter how much we knocked. Our campaign brought various organizations together on this one issue, as energy issues intersect in nearly all other interests. I think the pressure that people exerted on the government is actually the key that brought us to where we are today and partially why we were awarded the Goldman Environmental Prize. We’ve been saying that the prize is not my prize, it’s not her prize, it’s our prize, as South Africans. We’re all in this together.

    One of the concerns of this campaign was how the government of South Africa did not allow transparency or citizen engagement on this issue. Is changing that dynamic a lasting legacy of this campaign in South Africa?

    We hope that in the future, the government will be much more transparent and allow people to become part of decision-making processes. The lack of transparency and prevalence of corruption were issues that were addressed in the court ruling. The government had acted unconstitutionally and unlawfully with respect to the peoples’ right to information, and their rights to express themselves. They had also violated policies that deal with procurement issues in South Africa. These rights are enshrined into the Constitution. These types of processes are supposed to be public, and we hope that from the court ruling, things will be done differently.

    Part of your work is aimed at encouraging the engagement of women, specifically women of color, in environmental fights. What are the key barriers to that engagement now, and how are you working to mitigate those barriers?

    That’s ongoing work. It is more about how to expand those efforts. In South Africa, ordinary women who are impacted negatively by policies have never been part of decision making processes. Often, information is presented in very scientific, academic and economic language. This is not the language that ordinary people speak. That’s one of the barriers we can change. We can demystify information. There are more women in the world than men, so it’s women who should be at the forefront of these issues and in decision-making roles.

    Within this campaign, women were much more active than any other group. So, this victory was a victory for women. It’s quite important however for us to make sure that the activism continues and doesn’t end here.

    Much of my future work is to ensure that we get more women involved because women are much closer to issues. They bear the burden of injustices, whether environmental, social or economic. As people in the world, there should not be any discrimination, whether it’s against men or women. It’s up to women to take up this issue in order to play a role and have a say in decisions that impact their futures.

    What concerns you most about nuclear developments and how has your work as an environmental activist and women’s rights activist informed your work on nuclear issues?

    Nuclear is painted as the energy for the future and we are told nuclear energy is climate neutral. Nuclear energy is not climate neutral. The nuclear fuel chain is carbon intensive, and the construction of nuclear reactors takes a very long time. The country cannot afford to build nuclear reactors, so that means that we have to borrow money. The cost overruns are going to make this kind of electricity very expensive. A lot of South Africans would not be able to access it in their lifetimes because it takes so long to deliver. They’ll be living in everlasting debt for generations to come. The other concern is the waste. The high-level waste is stored next to the plants themselves. Low-level waste is stored about 600 kilometers away from the plant. There, the soil is poisoned and the vegetation is dying, impacting people who live nearby with dangerously high levels of radioactivity.

    Another key issue is around water. Nuclear energy requires a lot of water, and in the Southern African countries we are water scarce. We need a ‘least cost’ energy option which does not have collateral costs that would come from the nuclear fuel dangers. When people have access to electricity, it should be electricity that is not harmful to them.

    What unique intersections do you see women specifically being affected by nuclear issues?

    The direct link I see is around energy poverty. It will benefit women because billions, even trillions of Rands won’t be spent in order to have a decentralized electric system. Women are also the caretakers in society. With the effects of radioactivity, it is women who often take care of those who are sick, those who develop cancers, or children born with various types of defects. It’s women who would be caring for them continuously.

    How do you think this campaign was impacted because of the fact that it was led by women? As you said, the campaign was fueled and dominated by women – staying loud and present in the streets.

    The campaign, though we were mainly women, still had men who participated, and we complemented each other very well. We didn’t even realize that there were more women in the campaign until one journalist raised that point. For us, it was the norm. In other organizations, there are men and women, some led by women, others led by men. It was a combination of the two stepping up and taking up the initiative together.

    You and Liz McDaid were up against some incredibly powerful forces and you’ve mentioned some threats of violence in previous interviews. How did power play out in the campaign and how you were able to overcome any discrepancies?

    Mostly what we experienced, and this is normal in any society, is that when you find yourself with different views held by other people, your situation depends on how you react to those different views. We live in a country of complexities, so even if somebody differs with you or says things that are negative or threatening, that is something one must expect in any situation where you differ with others.

    Both myself and Liz [McDaid] come from the [Apartheid] liberation struggle. We’ve been through a lot. As an activist from that age and time you say, ‘this is what I want to see happening’ and you expect to encounter the negatives from that. What is important is maintaining clarity of purpose.

    Lastly, what are you focused on now?

    I have three focuses. The first is monitoring what is coming from the government. Last October, we had to take the government to court again because there were still pronouncements saying that nuclear was intended to be part of the energy mix. The second focus is to build upon the momentum we’ve established in order to get more women continually involved in this campaign. We need women to understand the legislation and policy around the issue and to put a human face to energy policy in this country. Thirdly, we are aware that Rosatom has signed various intergovernmental agreements for cooperation with other African countries. We are now stepping into civil society within different countries to build a pan-African anti-nuclear movement.
    Just to add a quick note – my work is not only focused on anti-nuclear struggles; my work is also focused on coal struggles. What I would say is that we’re working on ‘energy democracy’ – making sure that there is energy democracy and energy justice in South Africa.

    Makoma Lekalakala grew up in the Soweto township of Johannesburg, a hub for resistance during South Africa’s Apartheid. She became a young activist at her church, engaged in a range of issues that included women’s rights, social, economic and environmental justice.

    Today, Lekalakala is the director at Earthlife Africa Johannesburg, a group designed  “to encourage women to become more involved in energy and climate policy-making.” Through her work at Earthlife Africa, Lekalakala recently teamed up with fellow environmental activist Liz McDaid of the Southern African Faith Communities’ Environment Institute (SAFCEI). Together, after learning about a secret agreement between South Africa and Russia, she and McDaid spearheaded a women-led effort to challenge government corruption and nuclear energy policy.

    Recognized for their tiresome and often highly dangerous efforts, Lekalakala and McDaid were awarded the Goldman Environmental Prize in 2018.

  • Hacking Nuclear Weapons Is a Global Threat

    Hacking Nuclear Weapons Is a Global Threat

    [Originally published by The Hill]

    There are many ways a nuclear attack could be initiated. These include the four “m’s” of malice, madness, mistake and miscalculation. Of these ways of initiating a nuclear attack, only malice could possibly be inhibited by nuclear deterrence (fear of nuclear retaliation).

    For example, if a leader doesn’t believe that nuclear retaliation will occur, he or she may not be inhibited from attacking and nuclear deterrence will not be effective.

    Madness, mistake and miscalculation all operate independently of nuclear deterrence. These pose great concern for the human future. An insane or suicidal leader could launch his or her nuclear arsenal without concern for retaliation. A mistake could also lead to the launch of a nuclear arsenal without concern for retaliation. Likewise, miscalculation of the intent of a nuclear-armed country could lead to a nuclear launch without concern for retaliation.

    A new, and possibly even greater, concern is coming over the horizon. That concern, related to cyberattacks on an enemy’s nuclear systems, could be labelled as “manipulation.” It is emerging due to the growing sophistication of hackers penetrating cyber-security walls in general. It would be disastrous if hackers were able to penetrate the walls protecting nuclear arsenals.

    Imagine a cyberattack on a nuclear weapons system that allowed an outside party to launch a country’s nuclear arsenal or a portion of it at another country. This could occur by an outside party, working with or independently of a state, hacking into and activating the launch codes for a country’s nuclear arsenal. Can we be sure that this could not happen to any of the nine current nuclear-armed countries? It would pose a particular danger to those nuclear-armed countries that keep their nuclear arsenals on high-alert status, ready to be fired on extremely short notice, often within minutes of a launch order.

    The Royal Institute of International Affairs in the UK, issued a research paper recently noted, “As an example of what is possible, the US is reported to have infiltrated parts of North Korea’s missile systems and caused test failures. Recent cases of cyber-attacks indicate that nuclear weapons systems could also be subject to interference, hacking, and sabotage through the use of malware or viruses, which could infect digital components of a system at any time. Minuteman silos, for example, are believed to be particularly vulnerable to cyber-attacks.”

    Even if eight of the nine nuclear-armed countries had adequate cybersecurity, the weakest link could potentially have vulnerabilities that would allow for a cyberattack. It is also probable that new means of penetrating cybersecurity will be developed in the future. It is within the realm of imagination that terrorist groups could have skillsets that would allow them to breach the cybersecurity of one or more nuclear-armed countries, and set in motion a nuclear attack with highly threatening and dangerous consequences.

    The gaps in nuclear deterrence theory cannot be filled by throwing money at them, or with more new missiles with larger or smaller warheads. The problem with nuclear deterrence is that it cannot be made effective, and the potential for breaching the cybersecurity of nuclear arsenals only adds to the vulnerabilities and dangers.

    The only meaningful response to nuclear weapons is to stigmatize, delegitimize, and ban them. This is exactly what the new Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons seeks to accomplish. This treaty deserves the full support of the world community. As of now, however, it is only receiving the support of the countries without nuclear arms, and is being opposed by the countries possessing nuclear arms and those sheltering under the U.S. nuclear umbrella. This must change, for the benefit of all the world’s people and especially the citizens of the nuclear-armed countries who would likely be the first victims of a nuclear attack.

  • 2018 Peace Poetry Award Winners Announced

    2018 Peace Poetry Award Winners Announced

    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

    CONTACT:
    Carol Warner, Poetry Award Coordinator
    (805) 965-3443
    cwarner@napf.org

    Santa Barbara, CA (October 20, 2018) – The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation is pleased to announce the winners of the 2018 Barbara Mandigo Kelly Peace Poetry Awards. Since 1995, the Foundation has held an annual contest to encourage poets to explore and illuminate positive visions of peace and the human spirit. The poetry awards are given in three categories: Adult; Ages 13 through 18; and Ages 12 and under.

    In the Adult category, Carla S. Schick was awarded First Place for her poem “When Birds Migrate, They Follow Nature.” A retired public school teacher, Ms. Schick is a queer social justice activist and poet living in the San Francisco Bay Area. She works in her community in solidarity with the Palestinian struggle for self-determination. Ms. Schick has been published in the Berkeley Times, Sinister Wisdom, The Peralta Press, Suisun Valley Review and Word Is Bond.

    An Honorable Mention in the Adult category was awarded to Madison Trice for her poem “Their Family Wore White.” Ms. Trice is a sophomore at Harvard University, studying Government and Near Eastern Studies. She is the Political Action Chair for the Association of Black Harvard Women. In her spare time, she enjoys singing, acting, knitting, reading, and hip-hop.

    First Place in the 13 through 18 category was awarded to Stephanie Anujarerat for her poem “Sleeping, Over.” Ms. Anujarerat lives in Cerritos and is a senior at Whitney High School. Besides writing, she enjoys reading and discussing books. She loves learning about science and how it can be used to improve the world and is an active member of her school’s ecology club.

    An Honorable Mention in the 13 through 18 category was awarded to Emily Cho, who lives in Wilmette, Illinois, for her poem “The 38th.” Emily enjoys writing, especially poetry and fiction. She performs in musicals and plays and is also a member of her school’s tennis team. Emily co-founded her school’s Louder Than a Bomb Club.

    First Place in the 12 and under category was awarded to Milla Greek for her poem, “The Silence.” Milla attends the International School of Los Angeles, where she is on the debate team. She studies guitar and greatly enjoys reading literature.

    Barbara Mandigo Kelly, for whom the Peace poetry Awards are named, was a poet, pianist and peace advocate. To read the First Place and Honorable Mention poems, and for more information, please visit peacecontests.org or contact the Foundation at (805) 965-3443.

    # # #

    The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation is a non-profit, non-partisan international organization with consultative status to the United Nations Economic and Social Council. The Foundation’s mission is to educate, advocate and inspire action for a just and peaceful world, free of nuclear weapons. For more information about the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, visit www.wagingpeace.org. For more information on the Barbara Mandigo Kelly Peace Poetry Awards, and to read the poems of current and past winners, visit peacecontests.org.

  • NGO Leaders Write in Support of H.R. 6840

    NGO Leaders Write in Support of H.R. 6840

    October 3, 2018

    The Honorable Paul Ryan
    U.S. House of Representatives
    Washington DC 20515

    Dear Representative Ryan,

    We call on you to cosponsor H.R.6840, the Hold the LYNE—or Low-Yield Nuclear Explosive—Act, which would prohibit funding for the Trump administration’s proposed “low- yield” warhead. This new weapon is unnecessary and would increase the risk of miscalculation and wider nuclear use.

    The Hold the LYNE Act was introduced by Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA), Rep. Ted Lieu (D-CA), Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) and Rep. John Garamendi (D-CA). A companion bill was introduced by Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA).

    A substantial portion of the House has—sensibly—already voted to oppose the low-yield warhead. On the FY19 National Defense Authorization Act, 188 House members supported an  amendment by Rep. Blumenauer and Rep. Garamendi to withhold 50% of the funding for the program until Secretary of Defense Mattis submits a report assessing the program’s impacts on strategic stability and options to reduce the risk of miscalculation. More pointedly, 177 House members supported an amendment by Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) that would have eliminated all funding for the weapon from the FY2019 Energy & Water Development Appropriations Act.

    By cosponsoring this bill, you will demonstrate that you oppose the development and deployment of this dangerous and unneeded weapon, and will fight to stop it from going ahead. You will be heeding the advice of former Secretary of Defense Bill Perry, former Secretary of

    State George Shultz, former Vice Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff James Cartwright, and more than 30 other former senior officials who wrote to Congress to oppose the low-yield warhead:

    These so-called “low-yield” weapons are a gateway to nuclear catastrophe and should not be pursued. . .

    The proposed “low-yield” Trident warhead is dangerous, unjustified, and redundant. Congress has the power to stop the administration from starting down this slippery slope to nuclear war. We call on Congress to exercise that authority without delay.

    Please cosponsor H.R.6840, the Hold the LYNE Act, to stop this dangerous new weapon.

    Sincerely,

    Martha Dina Argüello, Executive Director, Physicians for Social Responsibility-Los Angeles

    Joni Arends, Executive Director, Concerned Citizens for Nuclear Safety

    Beatrice Brailsford, Nuclear Program Director, Snake River Alliance

    Glen Carroll, Coordinator, Nuclear Watch South

    Jay Coghlan, Executive Director, Nuclear Watch New Mexico

    Vina Colley, President, Portsmouth/Piketon Residents for Environmental Safety and Security

    Tom Z. Collina, Director of Policy, Ploughshares Fund

    Karen A D’Andrea, Executive Director, Physicians for Social Responsibility Maine Chapter

    Bonnie Graham-Reed, Founder, Rocky Flats Right to Know

    Lisbeth Gronlund, Senior Scientist & Co-Director, Global Security Program, Union of Concerned Scientists

    Odile Hugonot Haber, Chair, Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, Middle East Committee

    Don Hancock, Nuclear Waste Safety Program Director Southwest Research and Information Center

    Mary Hanson Harrison, President, Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, U.S. Section

    Ralph Huchison, Coordinator, Oak Ridge Environmental Peace Alliance

    Derek Johnson, Executive Director, Global Zero

    Kevin Kamps, Radioactive Waste Specialist, Beyond Nuclear

    Marylia Kelly, Executive Director, Tri-Valley CAREs

    Daryl Kimball, Executive Director, Arms Control Association

    Hans Kristensen, Director, Nuclear Information Project, Federation of American Scientists

    Paul Kawika Martin, Senior Director, Policy and Political Affairs, Peace Action (formerly SANE/Freeze)

    Stephen Miles, Director, Win Without War

    Judith Mohling, Coordinator, Rocky Mountain Peace and Justice Center

    Nancy Parrish, Executive Director, Women’s Action for New Directions

    Pamela Richard, Manager, Peace Action Wisconsin

    Laura Skelton, Executive Director, Washington Physicians for Social Responsibility

    Jerry Stein, Convener, The Peace Farm

    Ann Suellentrop, M.S.R.N., Project Manager, Physicians for Social Responsibility-Kansas City

    Ellen Thomas, Chair, Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, Disarm-End Wars Committee

    Cecili Thompson Williams, Director, Beyond the Bomb

    John Tierney, Executive Director, Council for a Livable World, Former member, U.S. House of Representatives

    Barbara Ulmer, Co-Director, Our Developing World

    Bobby Vaughn Jr., Journalist, A Call to Actions

    Rick Wayman, Deputy Director, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

    Anthony Wier, Legislative Secretary, Friends Committee on National Legislation

    Jon Wolfsthal, Director, Nuclear Crisis Group, Former Senior Director on the National Security Council

  • Sunflower Newsletter: October 2018

    Sunflower Newsletter: October 2018

    Issue #255 – October 2018
    Make a world of difference for as little as $5 a month. Become a monthly supporter.

    Donate now

     
    Perspectives

    • An Exchange on Nuclear Abolition by David Krieger
    • Under (Maximum) Pressure by Christine Ahn
    • ICAN Statement to UN High Level Meeting by Ray Acheson

    U.S. Nuclear Weapons Policy

    • U.S. Completes Final Design Review of New Nuclear Bomb

    Nuclear Disarmament

    • Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons Takes Leap Forward

    Nuclear Waste

    • Radioactivity Found in Communities Around Nuclear Weapons Sites

    War and Peace

    • North and South Korea Begin Removing Mines from Demilitarized Zone

    Nuclear Insanity

    • Japan Has Enough Material for Large Nuclear Arsenal
    • Obama Considered Attacking North Korea in 2016

    Resources

    • Alternative Nuclear Posture Review
    • The Future of the Iran Nuclear Deal

    Foundation Activities

    • Evening for Peace to Honor Current Nobel Peace Laureate
    • Women Waging Peace
    • Nukes Are Nuts Stickers
    • In the Shadow of the Bomb: Poems of Survival

    Take Action

    • Take a Moment to Say Thank You

    Quotes

    Perspectives

    An Exchange on Nuclear Abolition

    by David Krieger

    I want to thank the many commenters on my essay, “Nuclear Abolition: The Road from Armageddon to Transformation.” The comments were thoughtful, intelligent and sometimes passionate. Taken together, they give me hope that change is possible and humanity may somehow find a way through the current threat that nuclear weapons pose not only to human life but all complex life on our planet.

    It is only by our commitment and acts of will that we may be able to keep hope alive, protect our world, and pass it on intact to future generations. We may not finish the task, but we must accept the challenge and engage in it with passion if we are to create the awareness, trust, cooperation and institutional framework to achieve the goal of nuclear zero.

    To read more, click here.

    Under (Maximum) Pressure

    by Christine Ahn

    “Maximum pressure” or its predecessor “strategic patience” has failed to lead to North Korean denuclearization. What has worked to move North Korea, as this latest series of summits has demonstrated, is meeting, face-to-face, and building trust. After almost two years in the White House, President Trump has tried both “fire and fury” and meeting Kim in Singapore. And the outcomes are clear. Diplomacy and engagement has proven far more effective in moving North Korea toward denuclearization than military posturing and punishing sanctions. A resumption of maximum pressure, on the other hand, could lead to an escalation of the conflict, alienation of our South Korean allies, and even war.

    To read more, click here.

    ICAN Statement to UN High Level Meeting

    by Ray Acheson

    We’re speaking here today as a voice of passion and persistence in the quest to make our world more secure, more just, and more equitable. For us, abolishing nuclear weapons is about preventing violence and promoting peace.

    Some say this is a dream, that we live in a time of uncertainty and change, that we can’t or shouldn’t try to eliminate nuclear weapons now. But when is there not uncertainty and change? It is the only constant in our world.

    What is true is that we live in a time where we spend more money developing new ways to kill each other than we do on saving each other from crises of health, housing, food security, and environmental degradation.

    To read more, click here.

    U.S. Nuclear Weapons Policy

    U.S. Completes Final Design Review of New Nuclear Bomb

    The National Nuclear Security Administration has announced the completion of the final design review of the United States’ new nuclear gravity bomb, the B61-12. The current timeline states that the first new bomb will come off the assembly line in March 2020.

    The United States currently deploys approximately 150 B61 nuclear bombs in Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Turkey. It is likely that the new B61-12 nuclear bombs will replace those currently stationed in those nations.

    Aaron Mehta, “America’s Newest Nuclear Gravity Bomb Completes Design Review,” Defense News, October 1, 2018.

    Nuclear Disarmament

    Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons Takes Leap Forward

    The United Nations Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) took a big step forward in the month of September, with nine nations signing the treaty and five depositing their instruments of ratification.

    Angola, Antigua & Barbuda, Benin, Brunei, Guinea-Bissau, Myanmar, St. Lucia, Seychelles, and Timor-Leste all signed the treaty last month. Cook Islands, Gambia, Samoa, San Marino, and Vanuatu ratified or acceded to the treaty. This brings the total to 69 signatures and 19 ratifications. The TPNW will enter into force 90 days after the 50th nation deposits its ratification with the UN.

    To stay up to date on the TPNW’s process, click here.

    Nuclear Waste

    Radioactivity Found in Communities Around Nuclear Weapon Sites

    Studies by Marco Kaltofen, a nuclear forensics expert and a professor at Worcester Polytechnic Institute, show that invisible radioactive particles of plutonium, thorium and uranium are showing up in household dust, automotive air cleaners and along hiking trails outside the factories and laboratories that for half a century contributed to the United States’ stockpile of nuclear weapons.

    Kaltofen collected samples from communities outside three nuclear sites across the nation and found a wide variation of particle sizes. He said they could deliver lifelong doses that exceed allowable federal standards if inhaled.

    Ralph Vartabedian, “Hidden Danger: Radioactive Dust Is Found in Communities Around Nuclear Weapons Sites,” Los Angeles Times, September 28, 2018.

    War and Peace

    North and South Korea Begin Removing Mines from Demilitarized Zone

    On October 1, troops from North and South Korea began removing mines from the demilitarized zone (DMZ). The activities are related to a recent agreement between the two nations when South Korean President Moon Jae-in visited Pyongyang last month. President Moon said that the military deals agreed to in Pyongyang will “end all hostile acts on land, sea and sky between South and North Korea.”

    Hyung-Jin Kim, “2 Koreas Begin Removing DMZ Mines to Ease Military Tensions,” Associated Press, October 1, 2018.

    Nuclear Insanity

    Japan Has Enough Material for Large Nuclear Arsenal

    Thirty years ago, Japan began a project to build a nuclear “recycling” plant in Rokkasho that would turn nuclear waste into nuclear fuel. Today, $27 billion later, the plant is still not functional. Moreover, the Fukushima disaster in 2011 has significantly lessened Japan’s use of nuclear energy; only nine of the nation’s 35 nuclear reactors are currently operating. Of these nine, only four are capable of using the new type of fuel.

    Over the past 30 years, Japan has amassed a stockpile of 47 metric tons of plutonium. Japan’s neighbors, particularly China and North Korea, are suspicious of Japan’s motives in possessing this quantity of plutonium, which is enough to make about 6,000 nuclear weapons. Japan claims that the plutonium is in a form that makes it difficult to convert to weapons.

    Motoko Rich, “Japan Has Enough Nuclear Material to Build an Arsenal. Its Plan: Recycle,” The New York Times, September 22, 2018.

    Obama Considered Attacking North Korea in 2016

    According to Bob Woodward’s new book Fear: Trump in the White House, President Obama considered a pre-emptive attack on North Korea in 2016 following that country’s fifth nuclear weapon test.

    “Even with his intense desire to avoid a war, Obama decided the time had come to consider whether the North Korean nuclear threat could be eliminated in a surgical military strike,” Woodward wrote. He continued, “The Pentagon reported that the only way ‘to locate and destroy — with complete certainty — all components of North Korea’s nuclear program’ was through a ground invasion. A ground invasion would trigger a North Korean response, likely with a nuclear weapon.”

    Jesse Johnson, “Obama Weighed Pre-Emptive Strike Against North Korea,” Japan Times, September 12, 2018.

    Resources

    Alternative Nuclear Posture Review

    Global Zero has published a new report that argues that the United States should adopt a deterrence-only approach to nuclear weapons, and phase out the land-based leg of the nuclear triad.

    To read Global Zero’s new report, click here.

    The Future of the Iran Nuclear Deal

    On September 12, NAPF Deputy Director Rick Wayman gave a talk at the University of Utah’s Hinckley Institute of Politics entitled “The Future of the Iran Nuclear Deal.”

    Wayman looks at the deal’s history and the broader foreign policy implications of the Trump administration’s decision to withdraw the United States from the deal — violating the agreement between the United States, China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, Germany, the European Union and Iran.

    An audio file of the talk is available from Salt Lake City radio station KCPW.

    Foundation Activities

    Evening for Peace to Honor Current Nobel Peace Laureate

    On October 21, 2018, the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation will honor the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) and Beatrice Fihn, ICAN’s Executive Director, at the Foundation’s 35th Annual Evening for Peace.

    ICAN was awarded the 2017 Nobel Peace Prize for its efforts to bring about the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, which was adopted at the United Nations in July of last year. NAPF has worked closely with ICAN as a Partner Organization since ICAN’s inception in 2007.

    The event will take place in Santa Barbara, California. For more information about tickets and sponsorship opportunities, click here or call the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation at +1 805-965-3443.

    Women Waging Peace

    The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation has launched a new online campaign highlighting the outstanding work of women for peace and nuclear disarmament. Though progress is made every day, women’s voices are still often ignored, their efforts stonewalled and their wisdom overlooked regarding issues of peace and security, national defense, and nuclear disarmament.

    Our second profile features Cynthia Lazaroff, a U.S.-Russian relations expert and an award-winning documentary filmmaker.

    Click here to read our interview with Cynthia.

    Nukes Are Nuts Stickers

    We just got some new stickers in stock and are eager to share them with you! These 3″x3″ vinyl stickers are perfect for laptops, water bottles, or wherever you want to get across the message that nukes are nuts.

    For a limited time, we’re offering up to 15 free stickers per person, including free postage within the United States. Click here to place your order. Be sure to check out our books, t-shirts, and tote bags while you’re at our online store!

    For larger quantities, or if you are located outside the United States, please email rwayman@napf.org.

    In the Shadow of the Bomb: Poems of Survival

    NAPF President David Krieger has published a new book of poetry entitled In the Shadow of the Bomb: Poems of Survival. In his introduction to the book, Krieger writes, “Of what value are poems in the face of weapons of annihilation? Poetry can penetrate our hearts, bring beauty into our lives, awaken our passion, and present us with flashes of truth. Weapons of annihilation can only destroy — our hearts, beauty, passion, and truth.”

    Click here to order your copy from the NAPF Peace Store.

    Take Action

    Take a Moment to Say Thank You

    In August, the California State Legislature passed an historic resolution calling on the United States to embrace the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, to make nuclear disarmament the centerpiece of our national security policy, and to spearhead a global effort to prevent nuclear war.

    Will you take a moment today to sign our note of thanks to California State Assemblymember Monique Limón, the author of this outstanding resolution? By introducing the resolution, which passed overwhelmingly, she has set a noble standard for other state legislators around the United States.

    Click here to add your name to the thank-you note to Asm. Limón.

    Quotes

     

    “If I have to recapitulate in a few words what I feel is the most important commandment for our generation, it is to fight indifference. Whatever happened, happened not only because the killer killed, but because the world was indifferent.”

    — Elie Wiesel, the 1986 Nobel Peace Laureate. This quote appears in the book Speaking of Peace: Quotations to Inspire Action, which is available to purchase in the NAPF Peace Store.

     

    “He wrote me beautiful letters. And they are great letters. We fell in love.”

    — U.S. President Donald Trump, speaking at a rally about his relationship with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un.

     

    “Investments in nuclear weapons are irresponsible. BNP Paribas is fueling the arms race by using its customers’ money to finance their potential death. That has to stop.”

    — Martin Hinrichs of ICAN Germany, speaking about the billions of dollars in financing that the bank BNP Paribas provides to companies that produce nuclear weapons.

    Editorial Team

     

    Katie Conover
    David Krieger
    Carol Warner
    Rick Wayman