Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Blog

  • Panmunjeom Declaration for Peace, Prosperity and Unification of the Korean Peninsula

    The Panmunjeom Declaration was issued by North and South Korea on April 27, 2018, following an historic summit between Kim Jong-un and Moon Jae-in.

    During this momentous period of historical transformation on the Korean Peninsula, reflecting the enduring aspiration of the Korean people for peace, prosperity and unification, President Moon Jae In of the Republic of Korea and Chairman Kim Jong Un of the State Affairs Commission of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea held an Inter-Korean Summit Meeting at the ‘Peace House’ at Panmunjom on April 27, 2018.

    The two leaders solemnly declared before the 80 million Korean people and the whole world that there will be no more war on the Korean Peninsula and thus a new era of peace has begun.

    The two leaders, sharing the firm commitment to bring a swift end to the Cold War relic of long-standing division and confrontation, to boldly approach a new era of national reconciliation, peace and prosperity, and to improve and cultivate inter-Korean relations in a more active manner, declared at this historic site of Panmunjom as follows:

    1. South and North Korea will reconnect the blood relations of the people and bring forward the future of co-prosperity and unification led by Koreans by facilitating comprehensive and groundbreaking advancement in inter-Korean relations.

    Improving and cultivating inter-Korean relations is the prevalent desire of the whole nation and the urgent calling of the times that cannot be held back any further.

    1) South and North Korea affirmed the principle of determining the destiny of the Korean nation on their own accord and agreed to bring forth the watershed moment for the improvement of inter-Korean relations by fully implementing all existing agreements and declarations adopted between the two sides thus far.

    2) South and North Korea agreed to hold dialogue and negotiations in various fields including at high level, and to take active measures for the implementation of the agreements reached at the summit.

    3) South and North Korea agreed to establish a joint liaison office with resident representatives of both sides in the Gaeseong region in order to facilitate close consultation between the authorities as well as smooth exchanges and cooperation between the peoples.

    4) South and North Korea agreed to encourage more active cooperation, exchanges, visits and contacts at all levels in order to rejuvenate the sense of national reconciliation and unity.

    Between South and North, the two sides will encourage the atmosphere of amity and cooperation by actively staging various joint events on the dates that hold special meaning for both South and North Korea, such as June 15, in which participants from all levels, including central and local governments, parliaments, political parties, and civil organisations, will be involved.

    On the international front, the two sides agreed to demonstrate their collective wisdom, talents, and solidarity by jointly participating in international sports events such as the 2018 Asian Games.

    5) South and North Korea agreed to endeavour to swiftly resolve the humanitarian issues that resulted from the division of the nation, and to convene the Inter-Korean Red Cross Meeting to discuss and solve various issues, including the reunion of separated families.

    In this vein, South and North Korea agreed to proceed with reunion programmes for the separated families on the occasion of the National Liberation Day of Aug 15 this year.

    6) South and North Korea agreed to actively implement the projects previously agreed in the 2007 October 4 Declaration, in order to promote balanced economic growth and co-prosperity of the nation.

    As a first step, the two sides agreed to adopt practical steps towards the connection and modernisation of the railways and roads on the eastern transportation corridor as well as between Seoul and Sinuiju for their utilisation.

    2. South and North Korea will make joint efforts to alleviate the acute military tension and practically eliminate the danger of war on the Korean Peninsula.

    1) South and North Korea agreed to completely cease all hostile acts against each other in every domain, including land, air and sea, that are the source of military tension and conflict.

    In this vein, the two sides agreed to transform the demilitarised zone into a peace zone in a genuine sense by ceasing as of May 2 this year all hostile acts and eliminating their means, including broadcasting through loudspeakers and distribution of leaflets, in the areas along the Military Demarcation Line.

    2) South and North Korea agreed to devise a practical scheme to turn the areas around the Northern Limit Line in the West Sea into a maritime peace zone in order to prevent accidental military clashes and guarantee safe fishing activities.

    3) South and North Korea agreed to take various military measures to ensure active mutual cooperation, exchanges, visits and contacts. The two sides agreed to hold frequent meetings between military authorities, including the defence ministers meeting, in order to immediately discuss and solve military issues that arise between them.

    In this regard, the two sides agreed to first convene military talks at the rank of general in May.

    3. South and North Korea will actively cooperate to establish a permanent and solid peace regime on the Korean Peninsula. Bringing an end to the current unnatural state of armistice and establishing a robust peace regime on the Korean Peninsula is a historical mission that must not be delayed any further.

    1) South and North Korea reaffirmed the Non-Aggression Agreement that precludes the use of force in any form against each other, and agreed to strictly adhere to this agreement.

    2) South and North Korea agreed to carry out disarmament in a phased manner, as military tension is alleviated and substantial progress is made in military confidence-building.

    3) During this year that marks the 65th anniversary of the Armistice, South and North Korea agreed to actively pursue trilateral meetings involving the two Koreas and the United States, or quadrilateral meetings involving the two Koreas, the United States and China, with a view to declaring an end to the war and establishing a permanent and solid peace regime.

    4) South and North Korea confirmed the common goal of realising, through complete denuclearisation, a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula.

    South and North Korea shared the view that the measures being initiated by North Korea are very meaningful and crucial for the denuclearisation of the Korean peninsula and agreed to carry out their respective roles and responsibilities in this regard.

    South and North Korea agreed to actively seek the support and cooperation of the international community for the denuclearisation of the Korean Peninsula.

    The two leaders agreed, through regular meetings and direct telephone conversations, to hold frequent and candid discussions on issues vital to the nation, to strengthen mutual trust and to jointly endeavour to strengthen the positive momentum towards continuous advancement of inter-Korean relations as well as peace, prosperity and unification of the Korean Peninsula.

    In this context, President Moon Jae In agreed to visit Pyongyang this fall.

    April 27, 2018

    Done in Panmunjom

    Moon Jae In
    President
    Republic of Korea

    Kim Jong Un
    Chairman
    State Affairs Commission
    Democratic People’s Republic of Korea

  • Charm Offensive Takes Center Stage at the NPT

    This article was originally published in Reaching Critical Will’s News In Review, which is distributed to delegates and civil society representatives at the Non-Proliferation Treaty Preparatory Committee in Geneva.

    In February, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) was widely and, I would say, unfairly criticized by the U.S. media, politicians, and even diplomats for its participation in the PyeongChang 2018 Olympic Winter Games. By sending high-level, suave officials to the Olympics, the narrative went, the DPRK was engaged in a “charm offensive” to win over the world and make us forget about its serious human rights violations.

    This week at the NPT PrepCom, the United States launched a charm offensive of its own, holding a well-attended side event during Wednesday’s lunchtime session. Friendly faces from the Department of State and Department of Defense told attendees that there is nothing to worry about in the Trump administration’s Nuclear Posture Review (NPR); there is continuity with past U.S. nuclear policy, and their actions to modernize their nuclear arsenal and build new types of nuclear weapons are being done benevolently for the security of the world.

    The substance of the side event did not differ much from the content of the written Nuclear Posture Review, but it was presented with a smile and an assurance that everything would be ok – definitely not the prevailing mood of the written document.

    Presenters applauded themselves for modeling transparency, saying that they hope other nuclear-armed states will publish Nuclear Posture Reviews and talk about them at future NPT conferences. It’s true – other nuclear-armed states, both inside and outside of the NPT, have been less transparent than the United States.

    A darker view of the Nuclear Posture Review was presented on Tuesday at a side event organized by the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. Speakers from a range of NGOs discussed the implications of the U.S. Nuclear Posture Review for the NPT and for humanity.

    Hans Kristensen of the Federation of American Scientists criticized the U.S. nuclear weapons complex as a “self-licking ice cream cone.” Many of the modernization programs and proposed new nuclear weapons systems are being undertaken in order to simply maintain nuclear weapons production capacity and know-how at extraordinary financial cost. The real costs, however, lie in the additional decades of nuclear weapons deployment and the human and environmental toll that is inevitable if the weapons are ever used.

    Jackie Cabasso of Western States Legal Foundation predicted the following day’s U.S. charm offensive when she called the Nuclear Posture Review a sales pitch. Ms. Cabasso also believes the NPR was issued as a threat. The threats to use nuclear weapons are explicit throughout the document, but even the issuing of the Executive Summary in Russian, Chinese, and Korean can be viewed as a not-so-veiled threat to nations that the United States currently views as adversaries.

    At the end of Wednesday’s side event, Christopher Ford, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for International Security and Nonproliferation, said, “This is how responsible nuclear weapon states should behave.” Self-congratulation and charm offensives will not hide the only purpose of nuclear weapons: to indiscriminately slaughter millions of human beings.

    There is no such thing as a responsible nuclear weapon state. The only responsible action a nuclear weapon state can take is to tirelessly work to eliminate all nuclear weapons worldwide. Not later, not some mythical future date “when the conditions are right.” Right now.

  • Minuteman III Missile Test Launched from Vandenberg: Poor timing and lack of transparency send wrong message

    Santa Barbara – The United States launched a Minuteman III Ballistic Missile this morning at approximately 5:26 a.m. from Vandenberg Air Force Base. There was little prior notice from military officials regarding this latest test. Civilians and residents living near the base, who regularly receive ample notice of missile tests, were left in the dark this morning as the missile raced through the early morning sky.

    The U.S typically conducts three or four ICBM tests each year. These are the same class of missiles for which the U.S. has been highly critical of the North Koreans for developing and testing. David Krieger, President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, upon hearing of the launch stated, “When it comes to missile testing, the U.S. operates on a clear double standard. If the U.S. wants other countries to stop their missile tests, it should lead by example.”

    This test is particularly disappointing because it was conducted just over a day in advance of the planned summit of the leaders of North and South Korea. This summit will be the third inter-Korean summit and the first of its kind in eleven years. Rick Wayman, Director of Programs and Operations at the Foundation, commented, “It’s very disappointing that the United States chose to test an ICBM today, just days before the long-awaited summit between Kim Jong-un and Moon Jae-in. If we expect North Korea to cease developing and testing ICBMs, the least the U.S. could do is cease testing it’s own ICBMs while these delicate negotiations proceed.”

    This latest missile test demonstrated uncharacteristic secrecy by the U.S. Air Force in that it gave little advance notice of the test. There are many good reasons to notify residents in the area of the launch and also to notify other nuclear-armed nations to assure them that it is a test launch and not an actual attack.

    Krieger further commented, “In addition to checking the reliability of the hardware and training missile crews to launch it, missile launches also send messages. In this case, the message is, ‘We are powerful enough and arrogant enough to use these missiles if you don’t do what we wish.’ If we want to create a peaceful world, that’s entirely the wrong kind of message to send.”

    #   #   #

    If you would like to interview David Krieger, President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation or Rick Wayman, Director of Programs and Operations, please call the Foundation at (805) 965-3443.

    The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s mission is to educate and advocate for peace and a world free of nuclear weapons and to empower peace leaders. 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.

  • Looking Reality in the Eye

    Rick Wayman delivered this talk at the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s side event at the United Nations in Geneva on April 24, 2018 entitled “The Trump Nuclear Policy: The Nuclear Posture Review’s Threats to the NPT and Humanity.”

    I have a lot to say about the Nuclear Posture Review and the other statements, documents, and tweets that together comprise U.S. nuclear weapons policy under President Trump. We have a limited amount of time, though, so I’ll focus on three concepts that come through in the U.S. document.

    In the introduction to the NPR, and repeated later in the body of the document – and subsequently repeated in official statements the US has made – the authors write, “We must look reality in the eye and see the world as it is, not as we wish it to be.”

    The glasses they are looking through are very, very dark. Because what they propose over and over in this document is a readiness and a willingness to use nuclear weapons, including to use nuclear weapons first. They unashamedly say that they are ready to resume nuclear testing in response to “geopolitical challenges.”

    I dedicated my life to achieving the abolition of nuclear weapons after hearing two survivors of the U.S. atomic bombing of Hiroshima speak when I was 23, just before my two countries of citizenship – the U.S. and UK – invaded Iraq under the false pretenses of weapons of mass destruction.

    Tony de BrumTo this day, some of the people I admire most in the world are hibakusha from Hiroshima and Nagasaki, who openly share the unimaginable suffering imposed upon them when nuclear weapons were used on their cities. One of my personal and professional role models was Mr. Tony de Brum, who passed away last August from cancer, a fate that has befallen so many of his fellow Marshall Islanders following 12 years of brutal atmospheric nuclear testing by the U.S. I’ve spoken with nuclear testing survivors from many countries around the world, and their stories are real.

    That is reality. To see the world as it is, we must look into their eyes.

    ***

    In the NPR, the U.S. accuses Russia and China of arms racing. The U.S. does not explicitly admit in the document that it is also a part of this nuclear arms race. But last month, President Trump said in the context of U.S.-Russian relations, “Being in an arms race is not a great thing.” He also identified the U.S.-Russia arms race as “getting out of control.”

    I think he’s right. There is a new nuclear arms race, and it is out of control. Nuclear weapon designers at the United States’ Los Alamos National Laboratory have welcomed what they are calling the “second nuclear age.”

     If we allow it to continue along this path, we will inevitably create new generations of victims. There is, of course, the risk of nuclear weapons being used. But lasting damage to humanity is caused at every level of nuclear weapons production. From uranium mining, to the production of plutonium, to the precarious storage of highly radioactive waste for tens of thousands of years, innocent victims are created by the arms racers.

    When I was little, I used to watch the local news with my parents in the evening. Starting when I was five years old, Fernald was often the lead story. All I knew then was that people were really sick, and it was a scandal. It was only as an adult that I learned that, just a short drive from my family’s home, there was a uranium processing facility called the Fernald Feed Materials Production Center. They made materials for nuclear weapons. They contaminated the drinking water of local residents with uranium, and at one point released 300 pounds of enriched uranium oxide into the environment.

    That was just one site in one country that was part of the Cold War nuclear arms race. Are we really doing this all over again? Will my 8 year-old daughter hear about radioactive contamination on the radio as I’m driving her to school?

    At this rate, I’m afraid the answer might be yes.

    ***

    In the NPR, the authors write, “For decades, the United States led the world in efforts to reduce the role and number of nuclear weapons.” Notice the use of past tense. They didn’t say that the United States “has led,” “is leading,” “will always lead” – they said that it “led” – meaning that that era has come to an end.

    Two months ago, President Trump talked about the brand new nuclear force that the U.S. is creating. He said, “We have to do it because others are doing it. If they stop, we’ll stop. But they’re not stopping. So, if they’re not gonna stop, we’re gonna be so far ahead of everybody else in nuclear like you’ve never seen before. And I hope they stop. And if they do, we’ll stop in two minutes. And frankly, I’d like to get rid of a lot of ’em. And if they want to do that, we’ll go along with them. We won’t lead the way, we’ll go along with them… But we will always be number one in that category, certainly as long as I’m president. We’re going to be far, far in excess of anybody else.”

    There’s a lot to unpack in that quote. But let’s stick with the concept of leadership, and Trump’s idea that the U.S. is not going to be a leader – it is going to be a follower, no matter where it is being led.

    It’s hard to argue with President Obama, who said that “as the only nation ever to use nuclear weapons, the United States has a moral obligation to continue to lead the way in eliminating them.” Yet here we are, unilaterally surrendering our leadership.

    ***

    Speaking of morality, I had the honor of meeting Pope Francis last November at the Vatican, when he stated categorically about nuclear weapons that “the threat of their use, as well as their very possession, is to be firmly condemned.” A bold moral statement, and one that I agree with.

    The Nuclear Posture Review drips with the threat of use of nuclear weapons. It seeks to justify, rationalize, and shift blame for the United States’ continued possession and development of new nuclear weapons.

    There is no excuse. The language in Article VI of the NPT is not perfectly objective, but even the most liberal interpretation of “at an early date” could not conclude that multiple generations is an acceptable timetable. Every state party to the NPT has a legal obligation to negotiate in good faith to stop this madness.

    Many states have begun to fulfill this obligation through their participation in the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. For the others, it’s still not too late to change direction.

  • Attacking Syria Again

    At this stage it seems reasonable to wonder whether Syria was attacked because it didn’t use chemical weapons rather than because it did. That may seem strange until we remember rather weighty suspicions surrounding the main accusers, especially the White Helmets with their long standing links to the U.S. Government.

    A second irreverent puzzle is whether the dominant motive for the attack was not really about what was happening in Syria, but rather what was not happening in the domestic politics of the attacking countries. Every student of world politics knows that when the leadership of strong states feel stressed and at a loss, they look outside their borders for enemies to slay, counting on transcendent feelings of national pride and patriotic unity associated with international displays of military prowess to distract the discontented folks at home, at least for awhile. All three leaders of the attacking coalition were beset by such domestic discontent in rather severe forms, seizing the occasion for a cheap shot at Syria at the expense of international law and the UN, just to strike a responsive populist chord with their own citizenry—above all, to show the world that the West remains willing and able to strike violently at Islamic countries without fearing retaliation.

    Of course, this last point requires clarification, and some qualification to explain the strictly limited nature of the military strike. Although the attackers wanted to claim the high moral ground as defenders of civilized behavior in war, itself an oxymoron, they wanted to avoid any escalation with its risks of a dangerous military encounter with Russia. As Syrian pro-interventionists have angrily pointed out, the attack was more a gesture than a credible effort to influence the future behavior of the Bashar al-Assad government. As such, it strengthens the position of those who interpret the attack as more about domestic crises of legitimacy unfolding in the now illiberal democracies of United States, UK, and France than about any reshaping of the Syrian ordeal.  

    And if that is not enough to ponder, consider that Iraq was savagely attacked in 2003 by a U.S./UK coalition under similar circumstances, that is, without either an international law justification or authorization by the UN Security Council, the only two ways that international force can be lawfully employed, and even then only as a last resort after sanctions and diplomatic means have been tried and failed. It turned out that the political rationale for recourse to aggressive war against Iraq, its alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction was totally false, either elaborately fabricated evidence or more generously, a hugely embarrassing intelligence lapse.

    To be fair, this Syrian military caper could have turned out far worse. The entire attack lasted only 3 minutes, no civilian casualties have been reported, and thankfully, there was no challenge posed to the Russian and Iranian military presence in Syria, or to the Syrian government, thus avoiding the rightly feared retaliation and escalation cycle. More than at any time since the end of the Cold War there was sober concern abounded that a clash of political wills or an accidental targeting mistake could cause geopolitical stumbles culminating in World War III.

    Historically minded observers saw alarming parallels with the confusions and exaggerated responses that led directly to the prolonged horror of World War I. The relevant restraint of the April 14th missile attacks seems to be the work of the Pentagon, certainly not the White House. Military planners designed the attack to minimize risks of escalation, and possibly an undisclosed negotiated understanding with the Russians. In effect, Trump’s red line on chemical weapons was supposedly defended, and redrawn at the UN as a warning to Damascus.

    Yet can we be sure at this stage that at least the factual basis of this aggressive move accurately portrayed Syria as having launched a lethal chlorine attack on the people of Douma? Certainly not now. We have been fooled too often in the past by the confident claims of the intelligence services working for the same countries that sent missiles to Syria. There is a feeling of a rush to judgment amid some strident, yet credible, voices of doubt, including from UN sources. The most cynical are suggesting that the real purpose of the attack, other than Trump’s red line, is to destroy evidence that would incriminate others than the Syrian government. Further suspicions are fueled by its timing, which seem hastened to make sure that the respected UN Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), about to start its fact finding mission, would have nothing to find.

    To allay reactions that these are ideologically driven worries it is notable that the Wall Street Journal, never a voice for peace and moderation, put forward its view that it was not “clear who carried out the attack” on Douma, a view shared by several mainstream media outlets including the Associated Press. Blaming Syria, much less attacking it, is clearly premature, and quite possibly altogether false, undermining the factual basis of the coalition claim without even reaching the piles of doubts associated with unlawfulness and illegitimacy.

    Less noticed, but starkly relevant, is the intriguing reality that the identity of the three states responsible for this aggressive act share strong colonialist credentials that expose the deep roots of the turmoil afflicting in different ways the entire Middle East. It is relevant to recall that it was British and French colonial ambitions in 1917 that carved up the collapsed Ottoman Empire, imposing artificial political communities with borders reflecting European priorities not natural affinities, and taking no account of the preferences of the resident population. This colonial plot foiled Woodrow Wilson’s more positive proposal to implement self-determination based on the affinities of ethnicity, tradition, and religion of those formerly living under Ottoman rule. The United States openly supplanted this colonial duopoly rather late, as the Europeans faltered in the 1956 Suez Crisis, but made a heavy footprint throughout the region with an updated imperial agenda of Soviet containment, oil geopolitics, and untethered support for Islam These priorities were later supplemented by worries over the spread of Islam and nuclear weaponry falling into the wrong political hands. As a result of a century of exploitation and betrayal by the West, it should come as no surprise that anti-Western extremist movements emerged throughout the Arab World in response.

    It is also helpful to recall the Kosovo War (1999) and the Libyan War (2011), both managed as NATO operations carried out in defiance of international law and the UN Charter. Because of an anticipated Russian veto, NATO, with strong regional backing launched a punishing air attack that drove Serbia out of Kosovo. Despite a strong case for humanitarian intervention it set a dangerous precedent, which Iraq hawks found convenient a few years later. In effect the U.S. was absurdly insisting that the veto should be respected only when the West uses it as when protecting Israel from much more trivial, yet justifiable, assaults on its sovereignty than what a missile attack on Syria signifies.

    The Libyan precedent is also relevant to the marginalization of the UN and international law to which this latest Syrian action is a grim addition. Because the people of the Libyan city of Benghazi truly faced an imminent humanitarian emergency the UN case for lending protection seemed strong. Russia and China, permanent members of the UNSC, temporarily suspended their suspicions about Western motives and abstained from a resolution authorizing a No Fly Zone. It didn’t take long to disabuse them. They were quickly shocked into the realization that real NATO’s mission in Libya was regime change, not humanitarian relief. In other words, these Western powers who are currently claiming at the UN that international law is on their side with regard to Syria, have themselves a terrible record of flouting UN authority when convenient and insisting on their full panoply of obstructive rights under the Charter when Israel’s wrongdoing is under review.

    Ambassador Nikki Haley, the Trump flamethrower at the UN, arrogantly reminded members of the Security Council that the U.S. would carry out a military strike against Syria whether or not permitted by the Organization. In effect, even the veto as a shield is not sufficient to quench Washington’s geopolitical thirst. It also claims the disruptive option of a sword to circumvent the veto when blocked by the veto of an adversary. Such a pattern puts the world back on square one when it comes to restraining the international use of force. Imagine the indignation that the U.S. would muster if Russia or China proposed at the Security Council a long overdue peacekeeping (R2P) mission to protect the multiply abused population of Gaza. And if these countries then had the geopolitical gall to act outside the UN, the world would almost certainly experience the bitter taste of apocalyptic warfare.

    The Charter framework makes as much sense, or more, than when crafted in 1945. Recourse to force is only permissible as an act of self-defense against a prior armed attack, and then only until the Security Council has time to act. In non-defensive situations, such as the Syrian case, the Charter makes clear beyond reasonable doubt that the Security Council alone possesses the authority to mandate the use of force, including in response to an ongoing humanitarian emergency. The breakthrough idea in the Charter is to limit as much as language can, discretion by states to decide on their own when to make war. Syria is the latest indication that this hopeful idea has been crudely cast in the geopolitical wastebasket.

    It will be up to the multitudes to challenge these developments, and use their mobilized influence to reverse the decline of international law and the authority of the UN. The members of the UN are themselves to beholden to the realist premises of the system to do more than squawk from time to time. Ending Trump’s boastful tweet with the words ‘mission accomplished’ unwittingly

    reminds us of the time in 2003 when the same phrase was on a banner behind George W. Bush as he spoke of victory in Iraq from the deck of an aircraft carrier with the sun setting behind him. Those words soon came back to haunt Bush, and if Trump were capable of irony, he might have realized that he is likely to endure an even more humbling fate. 

  • Five Tendencies Toward Fascism

    First, express hatred toward minorities,
    whipping up anger against them.

    Second, denigrate political opponents,
    calling them liars, lazy and criminals.

    Third, belittle the veracity of the press,
    insisting they lie repeatedly.

    Fourth, challenge the intelligence agencies,
    arguing you know better than they.

    Fifth, speak directly to one’s followers,
    bypassing the traditional media.

    Democracy is delicate and fascism
    can grow like a weed, even without water.

  • Sunflower Newsletter: April 2018

    Issue #249 – April 2018
    Become a monthly supporter! With a monthly gift, you will join a circle of advocates committed to a peaceful tomorrow, free of nuclear weapons.

    Donate now

    Facebook Twitter Addthis
    • Perspectives
      • U.S. Nuclear Posturing Has Adversaries Gearing Up, Not Standing Down by David Krieger
      • The Dirty Secret of American Nuclear Arms in Korea by Walter Pincus
      • Preventing War: Crisis and Opportunity with North Korea by Christine Ahn
      • The U.S. and Russia Must Stop the Race to Nuclear War by Mikhail Gorbachev
    • U.S. Nuclear Weapons Policy
      • U.S. Officials Call for Production of New Plutonium Pits
    • Nuclear Disarmament
      • Palestine and Venezuela Ratify the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons
      • Maryland City Declares Compliance with Nuclear Ban Treaty
    • War and Peace
      • North and South Korean Leaders Will Meet on April 27
      • Jimmy Carter Calls John Bolton “A Disaster for Our Country”
    • Nuclear “Modernization”
      • U.S. to Begin Construction of New Nuclear Bomb Plant
      • Navy Secretary Calls Cost of New Nuclear Submarines “Eye Watering”
    • Nuclear Insanity
      • Saudi Crown Prince Threatens to Develop Nuclear Weapons
      • Los Alamos Museum Refuses to Show Hiroshima Exhibit
    • Resources
      • This Month in Nuclear Threat History
      • U.S. Nuclear Forces in 2018
      • Don’t Bank on the Bomb
      • Summer Program: Hiroshima and Peace
    • Foundation Activities
      • Women Waging Peace
      • Pax Christi and Peace Literacy
      • April Is National Poetry Month
    • Take Action
      • Tell Your Senators to Oppose Trump’s War Cabinet
    • Quotes

     

    Perspectives

    U.S. Nuclear Posturing Has Adversaries Gearing Up, Not Standing Down

    by David Krieger

    The biggest problem with a nuclear deterrent force arises from any attempt to determine its effectiveness. How can possessors of nuclear weapons assure that their nuclear weapons are effective in being a deterrent to another nuclear-armed country? The answer is that they cannot do so in any physical sense.

    The nuclear deterrent force of a country relies instead on creating psychological barriers. If a nuclear deterrent force is effective in protecting a country and its allies, an adversary would refrain from attacking due to fear of retaliation. Since nuclear deterrence operates at the psychological level, one can never be sure it is effective. Or, it may only appear to be effective until it fails, and failure could be catastrophic.

    There can be little doubt that the U.S. nuclear posture will spur other nuclear-armed countries to do the same, thus assuring new arms races and increased nuclear dangers ahead. One has to wonder if the expensive and provocative technological modernization of the U.S. nuclear arsenal and other nuclear policies set forth in the 2018 NPR will be what takes us from the Nuclear Age back to the dark ages.

    To read David Krieger’s full article at The Hill, click here.

    The Dirty Secret of American Nuclear Arms in Korea

    by Walter Pincus

    As President Trump prepares for a possible meeting with Kim Jong-un, the North Korean leader, many Americans are raising warnings that North Korea has walked away from previous arms agreements. But those skeptics should remember that it was the United States, in 1958, that broke the 1953 Korean Armistice Agreement, when the Eisenhower administration sent the first atomic weapons into South Korea.

    The presence of those American weapons probably motivated the North Koreans to accelerate development of their own nuclear weapons. Although all the tactical United States nuclear weapons were removed from South Korea in 1991, the Seoul government still remains under the American nuclear umbrella — and the impetus for Kim Jong-un to have his own remains, as it did for his father and grandfather.

    To read more, click here.

    Preventing War: Crisis and Opportunity with North Korea

    by Christine Ahn

    In this moment of the Me Too Movement and the women’s marches, we must push for women’s voices in shaping foreign policy. We know that women’s peace movements must be involved in any peace process. In 40 of the cases that were studied, 39 led to a peace agreement when women were involved. When women are involved in helping to draft a peace treaty, it’s more durable.

    We have to lead this country away from the militarized national security towards genuine security, genuine human security, ecological security. We must dare to be bold and audacious to demand what might seem impossible. Women’s peace movements have the power to transform fear, vulnerability and cynicism, I believe, into bold visions that advance a just, sustainable and peaceful world.

    To access Christine Ahn’s full speech, which was the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s 17th Annual Frank K. Kelly Lecture on Humanity’s Future, click here.

    The U.S. and Russia Must Stop Racing to Nuclear War

    by Mikhail Gorbachev

    There is no doubt in my mind that the vast majority of people both in Russia and in the United States will agree that war cannot be a solution to problems. Can weapons solve the problems of the environment, terrorism or poverty? Can they solve domestic economic problems?

    However dismal the current situation, however depressing and hopeless the atmosphere may seem, we must act to prevent the ultimate catastrophe. What we need is not the race to the abyss but a common victory over the demons of war.

    To read more, click here.

    U.S. Nuclear Weapons Policy

    U.S. Officials Call for Production of New Plutonium Pits

    Gen. John Hyten, head of U.S. Strategic Command, told a Senate committee that U.S. nuclear weapons will be useless unless new plutonium pits are produced. Plutonium pits were produced at Rocky Flats in Colorado until the FBI raided the plant in 1989, shutting it down because of widespread environmental pollution.

    The Pentagon has said that it requires 80 new plutonium pits to be produced each year, but it has not produced any evidence that the thousands of plutonium pits currently stockpiled are degrading. Los Alamos National Laboratory would likely be the site for new plutonium pit production, but their ability to handle plutonium was cast in doubt after several high-profile mishaps.

    David Brennan, “U.S. Nukes Will Be Useless Without More Plutonium, Military Warns,” Newsweek, March 22, 2018.

    Nuclear Disarmament

    Palestine and Venezuela Ratify Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons

    Palestine and Venezuela have become the sixth and seventh nations to ratify the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. So far, 57 countries have signed the treaty, and many more have indicated that they will do so soon.

    The treaty requires 50 ratifications before it can enter into force. Tim Wright, Treaty Coordinator at the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, wrote, “With every new ratification of the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, we move closer to the goal of total nuclear disarmament.”

    “Ban Treaty Attracts New Adherents,” International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, March 26, 2018.

    Maryland City Declares Compliance with Nuclear Ban Treaty

    Takoma Park, Maryland, a suburb of Washington, DC, unanimously passed a resolution affirming the city’s support for the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. The United States is not expected to sign the treaty in the near future. However, as with the Paris Climate Agreement, that does not stop cities, states, businesses, colleges and faith communities from complying with the treaty.

    Tim Wallis, “Takoma Park Becomes First U.S. City to Declare Its Compliance with Nuclear Ban Treaty,” NuclearBan.US, March 15, 2018.

    War and Peace

    North and South Korean Leaders Will Meet on April 27

    Kim Jong-un and Moon Jae-in have set April 27 as the date for their first face-to-face meeting. It will take place in Peace House, a South Korean building inside Panmunjom, on the border of North and South Korea. This will be the third-ever meeting between leaders of the two countries.

    South Korean Unification Minister Cho Myoung-gyon said, “The South and North agreed on efforts to make the summit successful, sharing its historic significance in denuclearizing the Korean Peninsula, settling peace there and improving inter-Korean relations.”

    Choe Sang-hun, “North and South Korea Set a Date for Summit Meeting at Border,” The New York Times, March 29, 2018.

    Jimmy Carter Calls John Bolton “A Disaster for Our Country”

    Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter strongly criticized President Trump for naming John Bolton as National Security Advisor. Carter said, “Maybe one of the worst mistakes that President Trump has made since he’s been in office is his employment of John Bolton, who has been advocating a war with North Korea for a long time and even an attack on Iran, and who has been one of the leading figures on orchestrating the decision to invade Iraq.”

    Susan Page, “Jimmy Carter: Trump’s Decision to Hire John Bolton Is ‘A Disaster for Our Country’,” USA Today, March 28, 2018.

    Nuclear “Modernization”

    U.S. to Begin Construction of New Nuclear Bomb Plant

    The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) has authorized the start of construction of the Uranium Processing Facility (UPF) in Tennessee. The UPF has been delayed for years because of budgetary concerns, contractor incompetence, and lack of clarity on why the facility is needed. While these issues have not been dealt with, NNSA has decided to proceed anyway.

    Ralph Hutchison, coordinator of the Oak Ridge Environmental Peace Alliance, criticized the project for its implications for global nuclear proliferation. He said, “It undermines US efforts to discourage nuclear proliferation around the world. How can we oppose the nuclear ambitions of other countries when we are building a bomb plant here to manufacture 80 thermonuclear cores for warheads every year?”

    “United States To Begin Construction Of New Nuclear Bomb Plant,” Nuclear Watch New Mexico, March 26, 2018.

    Navy Secretary Calls Cost of New Nuclear Submarines “Eye Watering”

    Richard Spencer, Secretary of the Navy, admitted that the cost for a new class of nuclear-armed submarines is extraordinary. Speaking at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Spencer said, “All of sudden you’re talking about the submarines and there is a number that will make your eyes water. Columbia will be a $100 billion program for its lifetime. We have to do it. I think we have to have big discussions about it.”

    Travis J. Tritten, “Cost of New Nuclear Subs Is ‘Eye Watering,’ Navy Secretary Says,” Washington Examiner, March 12, 2018.

    Nuclear Insanity

    Saudi Crown Prince Threatens to Develop Nuclear Weapons

    Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman told a reporter from CBS News that Saudi Arabia would develop nuclear weapons if Iran does. Despite these remarks, the Trump administration is eagerly seeking to gain permission for U.S. companies to sell nuclear reactors to Saudi Arabia, bringing them a step closer to a bomb.

    The Crown Prince has also played a major role in the U.S.-backed, Saudi-led war in Yemen that has killed thousands of civilians and led to a widespread cholera outbreak.

    “Saudi Crown Prince Says Will Develop Nuclear Bomb if Iran Does: CBS TV,” Reuters, March 15, 2018.

    Los Alamos Museum Refuses to Show Hiroshima Exhibit

    The Los Alamos Historical Museum has refused to show an exhibit sponsored by the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum and the Nagasaki Atomic Bomb Museum. Heather McClenahan, Executive Director of the Los Alamos Historical Museum said, “It is the exhibit’s call for the abolition of nuclear weapons that raised concerns.”

    Los Alamos, New Mexico is the location of the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), where the first atomic bombs were developed, including those that devastated the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. LANL continues to this day to be deeply involved in the design, production, and maintenance of U.S. nuclear weapons.

    “Los Alamos Museum Refuses to Host A-bomb Exhibit, Citing Stance on Nuclear Abolition,” Kyodo, March 31, 2018.

     Resources

    This Month in Nuclear Threat History

    History chronicles many instances when humans have been threatened by nuclear weapons. In this article, Jeffrey Mason outlines some of the threats that have taken place in the month of April, including the April 30, 1998 vote in the U.S. Senate to approve the eastward expansion of NATO.

    To read Mason’s full article, click here.

    For more information on the history of the Nuclear Age, visit NAPF’s Nuclear Files website.

    U.S. Nuclear Forces in 2018

    Hans Kristensen and Robert Norris have published a detailed report on the United States’ nuclear forces. The U.S. has approximately 6,550 nuclear warheads, of which over 2,500 are awaiting dismantlement.

    The report examines implementation of the New START Treaty, the new Nuclear Posture Review, nuclear weapons exercises, and details of each leg of the U.S. nuclear triad.

    To read the full report, click here.

    Don’t Bank on the Bomb

    PAX and the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons have published an updated version of “Don’t Bank on the Bomb.” This report details the deep financial relationships that keep the nuclear weapons business alive. It also highlights financial institutions that have proactively divested from companies involved in nuclear weapons production.

    Beatrice Fihn, Executive Director of ICAN, said, “By divesting from nuclear weapon producers, we can make it harder for those that profit from weapons of mass destruction and encourage them to cut the production of nuclear weapons from their business strategies. Producing, possessing and modernizing nuclear weapons is not something to be proud of and ‘Don’t Bank on the Bomb’ names those that are still okay with trying to make a profit from producing nuclear weapons. Our job is to shame them.”

    To read the full report, click here.

    Summer Program: Hiroshima and Peace

    Hiroshima City University is offering an intensive summer program called “Hiroshima and Peace” for students from abroad and in Japan. The course aims to share the recent findings of peace studies and to underline the importance of world peace in our age. The program provides participants with an opportunity to think seriously about the importance of peacemaking in the world. It consists of a series of lectures by specialists in different fields related to peace studies, discussions, and several featured programs.

    For more information, click here.

    Foundation Activities

    Women Waging Peace

    On March 7, the eve of International Women’s Day, the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation hosted a free webinar featuring our 2018 Kelly Lecturer, Christine Ahn, and NAPF Advisor Medea Benjamin. These outstanding peace leaders joined us live to talk about the indispensable role of women in building peace in Korea and around the world.

    Moderated by NAPF Director of Development Sarah Witmer, the webinar explored the two panelists’ vast experiences in building peace, and took questions from our worldwide audience.

    To watch a video recording of the webinar, click here.

    Pax Christi and Peace Literacy

    Paul K. Chappell, NAPF’s Peace Literacy Director, brought the Peace Literacy Initiative to an interfaith group of more than 70 committed activists at the Pax Christi Texas 2018 State Conference in Houston on March 24. Chappell was invited by long-time Pax Christi member Catherine Foley, who is also a lifetime “affiliate member” of Veterans for Peace. Foley heard Chappell speak at the 2017 Veterans for Peace conference and was struck by the intersection of Pax Christi’s active nonviolence initiative and Chappell’s positive focus on promoting nonviolent practices and strategies.

    To read more about Paul’s visit with Pax Christi in Texas, click here.

    April Is National Poetry Month

    In the United States, April is recognized as National Poetry Month. This is the perfect time to enter NAPF’s annual Barbara Mandigo Kelly Peace Poetry contest. The contest has three age groups, and encourages poets to explore and illuminate positive visions of peace and the human spirit.

    The deadline for entries is July 1, 2018. For more information on the contest and to read last year’s winning poems, click here.

    Take Action

    Tell Your Senators to Oppose Trump’s War Cabinet

    Two dangerous new appointments by President Trump have added even more urgency to the effort to take away the president’s ability to use nuclear weapons first.

    John Bolton is an extreme hawk, and is set to become National Security Advisor on April 9. He has advocated military action against North Korea and Iran. Trump also nominated Mike Pompeo to become the new U.S. Secretary of State. Pompeo is a staunch opponent of the nuclear deal that was negotiated among the U.S., Iran, Russia, UK, France, China, and Germany. In July 2017, Pompeo spoke in favor of regime change in North Korea. He said, “I am hopeful we will find a way to separate the [North Korean] regime from this [nuclear weapons] system… The North Korean people, I’m sure, are lovely people and would love to see him go.” A regime change war in North Korea would put the lives of millions of people across Northeast Asia, including U.S. soldiers and civilians, at risk.

    Please take a moment to contact your senators and urge them to vote “no” to Mike Pompeo as U.S. Secretary of State, and let them know that you support Sen. Ed Markey’s bill to restrict the president’s first use of nuclear weapons.

    Quotes

     

    “Fear is not just unpleasant: It can be our greatest enemy; it is being deliberately used to keep us from our own common sense, our own deepest truths.”

    — Frances Moore Lappé. This quote appears in the book Speaking of Peace: Quotations to Inspire Action, which is available to purchase in the NAPF Peace Store.

     

    “That we were able to create this opportunity is not because of a coincidence but because this is the right path and the entire world wants peace, not war; a diplomatic solution, not a military one… I sincerely plead you to help unify the power of our nation by transcending ideologies and setting aside partisan differences..”

    — Moon Jae-in, President of South Korea.

     

    “Mr. Bolton’s position is dangerous nonsense. He would have us drive a final nail in the coffin of international law—and quite possibly in the coffin of civilization.”

    — Andrew Lichterman and John Burroughs, in a letter to the editor of the Wall Street Journal. They were responding to an op-ed by John Bolton in which he attempted to make a legal case for attacking North Korea.

     

    “The Trump administration’s Nuclear Posture Review ends decades of bipartisan consensus around nuclear arms reductions and reignites a global arms race. Instead of bringing us closer to peace, it funnels billions to build new, unnecessary nuclear weapons. Congress must step in to protect the global progress towards disarmament before it’s too late. American families shouldn’t have to live under the threat of nuclear war.”

    — Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA), commenting after signing an open letter critical of Trump’s Nuclear Posture Review.

    Editorial Team

    David Krieger
    Carol Warner
    Rick Wayman

  • April: This Month in Nuclear Threat History

    April 7, 1954 – An article in the New York Times by William Lawrence titled, “Cobalt Bomb Can Be Built,” was published on this date.  The article quoted Albert Einstein and Manhattan Project scientist Leo Szilard who both expressed concern that 400 one-ton deuterium-cobalt bombs could release enough radiation to end all life on Earth.  About ten months after this article appeared, German nuclear scientist Otto Hahn publicly noted that only ten very large cobalt bombs could also trigger global catastrophe.  Comments:  Over the past seven-plus decades of the Nuclear Age, there have been many real and imagined ways for humanity to commit omnicide.  However, as Daniel Ellsberg’s 2017 book, “The Doomsday Machine:  Confessions of a Nuclear War Planner,” points out that due to the discovery in the early 1980s of the nuclear winter scenario by Carl Sagan and his colleagues and subsequent reinforcing studies by Rutgers Professor Alan Robock and other scholars, we can realize today that such exotic doomsday devices like those envisioned in the Fifties aren’t required to extinguish the human race, or at least destroy global civilization.  Because we now know that only a small fraction, perhaps 200 or so warheads, of the existing stocks of global nuclear arsenals (which now number over 10,000 devices) can do the trick.  So, even in a so-called “limited” nuclear exchange between say India and Pakistan, dozens of warheads exploding in a period of a few hours or a day could inject millions of tons or more of smoke and debris into the upper atmosphere, cooling the Earth significantly and triggering the subsequent collapse of global agriculture and the ensuing starvation of billions of people.  Unfortunately, this critical information largely has not been conveyed to the general public, especially the American people, by the mainstream news media.   Instead, American cable news networks and an array of mainstream newspapers has conveyed to the public a warped fascination with the spy vs. spy and tit-for-tat cyber warfare “games” played by both America and Russia, Trump and Putin.  As for doomsday scares, the American media loves to stoke fear and anger toward Russia every chance it gets.  For instance, recently a plethora of media sources pointed out that the Pentagon revealed that Russia is developing a “ultra-deep, stealthy nuclear-armed undersea, autonomous torpedo,” which it plans to deploy off the eastern coast of the United States.  Mainstream media viewers are told that the torpedo carries a highly radioactive cobalt warhead that could contaminate large areas of the East Coast making the region unsuitable for military, economic, or other activity for a long period of time.  While, of course, this is a frightening threat, the 800-pound gorilla in the room, that both America and Russia as well as most of the other nuclear weapons states can trigger global nuclear winter and thereby extinguish 99 percent of our species without resort to exploding one alleged doomsday weapons system, is at the same time ignored or downplayed.  However, a growing movement of global citizenry and an increasing number of scientists, politicians, and military leaders are performing a public service by describing the unvarnished truth about the nuclear threat while also arguing for drastic reductions and the eventual elimination of extremely dangerous global nuclear arsenals.

    (Sources:  Jeffrey Lewis. “Putin’s Doomsday Machine.”  Foreign Policy.  Nov. 12, 2015 http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/11/12/putins-doomsday-machine-nuclear-weapon-us-russia/ and Lucy Pasha-Robinson. “U.S. Says Russia Developing ‘Doomsday’ Autonomous Nuclear Torpedo as Trump Administration Announces More Aggressive Stance to Moscow.”  The Independent.  http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/russia-doomsday-nuclear -armed-undersea-torpedo-pentagon-defense-department-nuclear-posture-review-a8192541.html both accessed March 16, 2018.)

    April 10, 1945 – Three months before the first-ever test of an atomic bomb at Alamogordo, New Mexico on July 16th, the medical staff of the U.S. Manhattan (Project) Engineering District in Oak Ridge, Tennessee secretly injected highly radioactive plutonium into the bodies of victims of an automobile accident without their consent.  It was the first of over a dozen other injections of unknowing human subjects over the next two years in order to gather vital information for U.S. military and civilian scientists on how much exposure to the deadly substance would cause harm.  Over a period of 40 years and perhaps longer, the U.S. Department of Energy catalogued over 48 different radiation experiments conducted not only on adults but also on children including racial and ethnic minorities, the indigent, as well as the mentally ill, pregnant women and their fetuses, all in the name of national security.  Comments:  Such experiments represent only the tip of the iceberg in terms of countless purposeful experiments, tests, and radioactive exposures inflicted on civilians and soldiers by representatives of the nine nuclear weapons states and possibly other nations that considered or are today considering acquiring nuclear weapons and/or fissile materials.  It is also extremely possible that these secret experiments may still be occurring through perhaps more subtle or hidden methodologies.  This is yet another paramount reason why nuclear weapons and nuclear power should be dramatically reduced and eliminated entirely (except for legitimate medicinal uses or every limited internationally-sanctioned civilian nuclear fusion reactor research) by 2030.

    (Sources:  U.S. Department of Energy.  “Human Radiation Experiments:  The Department of Energy Roadmap to the Story and Records.” Document Number DOE/EH-0445, February 1995 and Eileen Welsome. “The Plutonium Files:  America’s Secret Medical Experiments in the Cold War.”  New York:  Dial Press, 1999.)

    April 12, 2018 – The Project on Nuclear Issues (PONI) 2018 Capstone Conference, the final conference of the 2017-2018 PONI Conference Series, now in its 14th year, sponsored by the U.S. Strategic Command (STRATCOM) and the Center for Strategic and International Studies of Washington, DC, will be held at the Offutt Inn at Offutt Air Force Base, Nebraska.  “The conference will feature presentations from emerging nuclear experts covering topics such as nuclear strategies, rising threats in the East, arms control and proliferation challenges, and threats to alliances and institutions.  The PONI Conference series, which is unique in its emphasis on featuring rising experts and young professionals in the nuclear field, draws emerging thought leaders from across the nuclear enterprise and provides them a visible platform for sharing their new thinking on a range of nuclear issues.”  Comments:  One of the key cogs of the Congressional-military-industrial-corporate-think tank complex are academic-sounding conferences like this meeting held annually at one of the most secure U.S. military bases in the world, where anti-nuclear activists would not have direct access (although of course, protest actions are still possible outside the main gates of the base).  The list of speakers and the agenda are not provided and STRATCOM’s website notes that, “Conference presentations and keynote speakers are off-the-record.”  However, the site does mention that the keynote address will be given by General John E. Hyten, current commander of U.S. STRATCOM.  But the media and the public does have access to the 2016 PONI Capstone Conference comments of a former commander of STRATCOM, Admiral Cecil D. Haney who remarked that, “…we must be thoughtful going forward, because deterring in today’s multi-polar world requires us to view threats across the “spectrum of conflict,” where escalation may occur with more than one adversary, and will be transregional, multi-domain and multifunctional…Strategic deterrence is a complex subject that is foundational to our nation’s security.  Deterrence depends on the situation and one size never fits all, yet it is bounded in the understanding that adversaries will not gain the benefit they seek…Adversaries cannot escalate their way out of a failed conflict…the U.S. will respond in a time, place, and domain of our choosing.”  Admiral Haney also noted that, “Our strategic capabilities are routinely demonstrated or exercised,” and referred to B-2 bomber threats against North Korea (which he specifically mentioned as “B-2 deployment to U.S. Pacific Command”) and remarked that, “we flight-tested two ICBMs from Minot Air Force Base, North Dakota” (which most of the world’s population sees no differently than such tests staged irregularly by China, Russia, or North Korea, as rehearsals for a nuclear Armageddon).  Of course, no speech by STRATCOM’s commander would be complete without a pitch to Congress for more doomsday weaponry as the Admiral added that, “We must not jeopardize strategic stability by failing to sustain, to modernize, and, in some cases, expand our deterrent forces.  In the 2020s to 2030s recapitalization (a euphemism for a new generation of nuclear bomb-making with more sophisticated and thus actually more globally destabilizing weapons and nuclear platforms) will grow to between six and seven percent (of the annual bloated U.S. military budget), a modest price to pay to deter Russia and North Korea.”  The only other speaker mentioned on the website for this year’s conference is of course a representative of the “corporate” or “think-tank” sponsor of the 2018 PONI Capstone Conference – The Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), whose trustees include top Cold Warriors from past presidential administrations such as Dr. Henry Kissinger, Richard Armitage, and Brent Scowcroft.  The conference speaker for CSIS is Rebecca Hersman, a former assistant secretary of defense and Congressional staffer for the House Armed Services Committee, whose body of work includes papers that support “Building a Compelling Rationale for the Role and Value of U.S. Nuclear Weapons” (2016), and an article on the February 2018 Trump Administration’s nuclear posture review (NPR), which she characterizes as, “the retention and modernization of the current nuclear triad largely proposed and supported by the Obama Administration.”  Professor Edward Herman’s 1989 work “The Terrorism Industry” and many more recent academic and journalistic accounts have proven that think-tanks like CSIS have extensive direct ties to U.S. weapons contractors as well as the U.S. intelligence community.  It is clear that such conferences reinforce and justify, in terms of public perceptions, that “American exceptionalism” and U.S. global nuclear hegemony go hand-in-hand and will continue indefinitely (as its adherents fervently hope) as did other “enlightened” hegemons in history like the Roman and British empires.  However, as disastrous as it was for the world when those past empires fell, the growing likelihood of nuclear Armageddon today threatens the very existence of our species and countless others on the planet.  Thankfully, a growing consensus of world leaders and global citizenry are committed to preventing that from happening.  When the majority of U.S. leaders join the movement to rid the world of nuclear weapons and if, in fact, that goal is someday reached thanks largely to American leadership, then perhaps on that day one can really embrace the rhetoric of “American exceptionalism.”

    (Sources:  “Nuclear Calendar” Natural Resources Defense Council. http://www2.fcnl.org/NuclearCalendarindex.php, “PONI 2018 Capstone Conference.” https://www.CSIS.org/events/poni-2018-capstone-conference, “Project on Nuclear Issues Capstone Conference, April 13, 2016. http://www.stratcom.mil/Media/Speeches/Article/986478/project-on-nuclear-issues-capstone-conference/(2016)back all of which were accessed March 16, 2018.)

    April 19, 2015 – On this date, two former Cold War adversaries published an op-ed in the New York Times titled, “How to Avert a Nuclear War.”  U.S. Marine Corps General James E. Cartwright, the former head of the U.S. Strategic Command, and Major General Vladimir Dvorkin, a former director of the research institute of Russia’s Strategic Rocket Forces, both of whom then worked on the Global Zero Commission on Nuclear Risk Reduction, argued that, “Russia and the United States are still living with the nuclear strike doctrine of the Cold War which dictated three strategic options:  first strike, launch-on-warning, and post-attack retaliation.”  The two Cold Warriors noted particularly that, “For either side, the decision to launch-on-warning…after an alert of an apparent attack must be made in minutes.  This is therefore the riskiest scenario, since provocations or malfunctions can trigger a global catastrophe.  Since computer-based information systems have been in place, the likelihood of such errors has been minimized.  But, the emergence of cyber warfare threats has increased the potential for false alerts in early warning systems.  The possibility of an error cannot be ruled out.”  These military experts also point to another related concern that due to the loss of all of Russia’s early warning satellites, that nation’s haphazard system of prefabricated border radars allow even less time to react to false warning of a potential U.S. nuclear first strike.  Generals Cartwright and Dvorkin concluded that, “Launch-on-warning puts enormous strain on the nuclear chains of command in both countries…the risk, however small, of cataclysmic error remains…This risk should motivate the presidents of Russia and the United States to decide in tandem to eliminate the launch-on-warning concept from their nuclear strategies, (for it) is a relic of Cold War strategy whose risk today far exceeds its value…Our leaders…need…(to) agree to scrap this obsolete protocol before a devastating error occurs.”  Comments:  Over the last few years, other military and civilian leaders in the U.S. and other nuclear weapons states have shocked the Congressional-military-industrial complex by pushing for the elimination of all land-based ICBMs, the establishment of a no-first use policy, and other restrictions limiting any use of nuclear weapons including post-attack retaliation, low threshold bunker-busting bombs, or other smaller yield nuclear devices that some have proposed using to attack Iranian or North Korean underground nuclear facilities.  But the Nuclear Genie’s minions continue their solitary focus on continuing past risky behavior as “defense” contractors, their CEOs, and other institutions continue to profit despite their flawed perception that the chance of accidental or unintentional nuclear war is so infinitesimally small that they are justified in supporting “the maintenance of robust deterrence.”  And unfortunately today, three years after Cartwright and Dvorkin’s op-ed, the presidents of Russia and the United States both take every opportunity to rattle their nuclear sabers and err on the side of pushing for more nukes, more options for their use, and more strategic instability to counterintuitively ‘make Russia and America great again.’

    (Source:  Numerous mainstream and alternative news media sources and http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/20/opinion/how-to-avert-a-nuclear-war-html?_r=0 accessed March 16, 2018.)

    April 26, 1986 – At the Chernobyl Nuclear Complex located about 130 kilometers (80 miles) north of Kiev, capital of the then Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic of the U.S.S.R., a fire developed in the core of the number four reactor unit which triggered an explosion that blew the roof off the building resulting in the largest ever release of radioactive material from a civilian reactor, with the possible exception of the Fukushima Dai-chi accident on March 11, 2011 in northeast Japan.  Two were killed and 200 others hospitalized, but the Soviet government did not release specific details of the nuclear meltdown until two days later when Sweden, Finland, Denmark, and other European neighbors detected abnormally high levels of radioactivity.  8,000 died and 435,000 people were evacuated from the region in the ensuing days, weeks, months, and years.  Although West Germany, Sweden, and other nations provided assistance to the Soviet Union to deal with the deadly, widespread radioactive fallout from the accident, some argue today that the U.S., China, Russia, France, Japan, and other nations should establish a permanent, multilateral civilian-military-humanitarian response force to quickly address such serious nuclear and natural disasters in a time-urgent, nonpartisan manner.  In November of 2016, a massive shelter, costing 1.5 billion euros and measuring 843 feet wide and 354 feet tall, which was constructed by 10,000 workers, was sealed shut over the number four reactor unit at Chernobyl.  Inside the deadliest radioactive structure on the planet is approximately 200 tons of radioactive corium, 30 tons of contaminated dust, and a very large indeterminate amount of uranium and plutonium.  Radiation levels inside the shelter still run as high as 5,000 to 10,000 roentgens per hour.  A 2016 report by Greenpeace on the local and regional impacts of the disaster found that in many cases, in grain stocks for instance, radiation levels in the contaminated zone surrounding the shelter where about five million people live today, are still surprisingly high.  According to scientific testing conducted by Greenpeace consultants and experts, overall contamination from key isotopes such as cesium-137 and strontium-90 may have fallen somewhat, but continue to linger at prohibitive levels especially in forested areas of the contaminated zone.  Comments:  In addition to the dangerous risk of nuclear power plant accidents like Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Fukushima, and others too numerous to list here, the tremendously out-of-control civilian and military nuclear waste sequestration, remediation, and permanent storage conundrum as well as terrorist targeting potential, the economic unsustainability of civilian nuclear power, and the potential for nuclear proliferation points logically to an accelerated phase-out of global civilian nuclear power plants over the next decade as well as an absolute halt to massive plans by most of the nuclear weapons states to accelerate production of fissile materials in order to build a new, unneeded generation of destabilizing nuclear weaponry, while polluting our fragile ecosphere with more radioactivity.

    (Sources:  “Nuclear Scars: The Lasting Legacy of Chernobyl and Fukushima.” Greenpeace.  March-April 2016. http://greenpeace.org/france/PageFiles/266171/Nuclear_Scars_report_WEB_final_version_20160403.pdf and Gleb Garanich. “30 Years After Chernobyl, Locals Still Eating Radioactive Food.” Reuters (also published on Newsweek website). March 9, 2016. http://www.newsweek.com/30-years-after-chernobyl-locals-still-eating-radioactive-food-435253 and “Chernobyl Arch Moved into Place in Historic Engineering Feat.”  World Nuclear News. Nov. 14, 2016. http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/WR-Chernobyl-arch-moved-into-place-in-historic-engineering-feat-14111602.html all of which were accessed March 16, 2018.)

    April 30, 1998 – The U.S. Senate, by a vote of 80-19, approved NATO’s eastern expansion to the former Soviet Warsaw Pact military alliance countries of the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland, the 17th, 18th and 19th members of the Alliance, a move that was later formalized at a ceremony at NATO headquarters in Brussels on March 16, 1999.  Nevertheless, there were and still are dissenting opinions about how unchecked NATO expansion is interpreted as a threat to Moscow.  Senator Dale Bumpers (D-AR), who after retiring from Congress became the director of the Center for Defense Information, noted that, “We are forcing them to rely more and more heavily on nuclear weapons (to make up for the advantage over Russia in conventional arms deployed on or near Russia’s western borders by larger and larger numbers of NATO countries).  And the more you rely on nuclear weapons, the lower the hair trigger for nuclear war.”  As the years passed several other European nations, most of them also former Warsaw Pact countries, joined NATO which has now increased its membership to 29 nations.  NATO expansion, which has correlated with increasing tensions between the Alliance and Russia as illustrated in the recent Crimea-Ukraine Crisis and renewed episodes, over the last several years, of close aerial and naval encounters between NATO and Russian craft, has proven Bumpers and many other observers correct as nuclear war risks have escalated leading scholars to refer to contemporary times as “a second Cold War.”  Comments:  Tensions are still on the rise as seen by the comments in 2016-17 of many observers including former Soviet General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev who warned, “The world has never been closer to nuclear war than it is at present.”  At the same time, German politicians including Social Democrats and Christian Democrats accused NATO of “war mongering.”  Even a former U.S. Secretary of Defense, William Perry, joined the chorus of voices against Alliance threats, “NATO is threatening and trying to provoke a nuclear war in Europe by putting bombers and nuclear missiles on the border with Russia.”  Although tensions seemed to have relaxed a bit after President Trump took office due to his complimentary rhetoric about Russian President Vladimir Putin, more recently relations have sunk much deeper with revelations of Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, the poisoning of a Russian émigré Sergei Skripal and his daughter in Britain, stepped up U.S. economic sanctions, British expulsions of Russian diplomats, counter responses by Russia, and renewed nuclear threats by Trump and Putin as both leaders announced further qualitative and quantitative increases in long-term nuclear weapons modernization programs.

    (Sources:  Jack Mendelsohn and David Grahame, editors.  “Arms Control Chronology.” Washington, DC:  Center for Defense Information, 2002, pp, 133-134 and numerous articles from mainstream and alternative news media websites.)

  • US Nuclear Posturing Has Adversaries Gearing Up, Not Standing Down

    This article was originally published on March 3, 2018, by The Hill.

    In Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis’ preface to the 2018 U.S. Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), he describes its purpose as “to ensure a safe, secure, and effective nuclear deterrent that protects the homeland, assures allies and, above all, deters adversaries.” These are worthy goals, but likely impossible to achieve so long as nuclear weapons exist.

    Of course, it is preferable that nuclear weapons be safe in the sense that they will not detonate accidentally, and that they be secure in the sense that they cannot be stolen by others or triggered by a cyber attack. These are basically physical problems which can be engineered and guarded against, although surely not perfectly.

    Despite the desire to achieve perfection, it is not possible for humans to do so, as demonstrated through the years of the Nuclear Age by many accidents, miscalculations and close calls.

    The biggest problem with a nuclear deterrent force arises from any attempt to determine its effectiveness. How can possessors of nuclear weapons assure that their nuclear weapons are effective in providing a deterrent to another nuclear-armed country? The answer is that they cannot do so in any physical sense.

    The nuclear deterrent force of a country relies instead on creating psychological barriers. If a nuclear deterrent force is effective in protecting a country and its allies, an adversary would refrain from attacking due to fear of retaliation. Since nuclear deterrence operates at the psychological level, one can never be sure it is effective. Or, it may only appear to be effective until it fails and failure could be catastrophic.

    Mattis also refers to a “credible” nuclear deterrent. Presumably, to be effective, a nuclear deterrent force would need to be credible to an adversary, but credibility is also a psychological term. It encompasses not only the size and power of a nuclear arsenal, but a belief in a particular leader’s willingness to actually use the nuclear weapons should deterrence fail.

    It is interesting that in the 2018 NPR (the Trump NPR), as with previous NPRs, there is allowance for the possible failure of nuclear deterrence. This should not be reassuring to anyone. Mattis ties the need to modernize the U.S. nuclear arsenal to the credibility of the nuclear deterrent force. He also ties credibility to “ensuring that our diplomats continue to speak from a position of strength on matters of war and peace.”

    The 2018 NPR points the finger at Russia, China, North Korea and Iran. Russia and China are accused of modernizing their nuclear arsenals, making it necessary for the U.S. to do the same. It points out that Russia, in addition to its seizure of Crimea, has military strategies reliant on nuclear escalation. It talks about China “expanding its already considerable forces,” but fails to mention that China has a policy of minimum deterrence and has made a pledge of No First Use of nuclear weapons.

    Nor does the 2018 NPR mention that both Russia and China have reacted to the U.S. placing missile defense installations strategically near their borders, or that this has only been possible due to the 2002 U.S. unilateral withdrawal from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty, which severely limited ABM deployments.

    Despite the promising interactions between North and South Korean athletes at the 2018 Winter Olympics, Trump has imposed tough sanctions on North Korea and upped his threats toward the country. Personalizing his message, Trump menacingly stated, “If the sanctions don’t work, we’ll have to go to Phase 2. Phase 2 may be a very rough thing. May be very, very unfortunate for the world.” This is the dangerous and threatening rhetoric of a madman.

    Trump has also failed to certify Iran’s compliance with the nuclear deal, leaving open the possibility of killing the deal and increasing the odds of yet another war and Iran’s return to its previous nuclear program.

    Mattis concludes his preface to the Trump NPR by acknowledging the vital role played by U.S. servicemen and civilians “in maintaining a safe, secure, and ready nuclear force.” The fact that the U.S. nuclear deterrent force is “ready” is not necessarily a blessing and should be of little comfort to Americans or anyone else. We are all part of “the world” that Trump is threatening to punish if North Korea does not submit to his will. He should be impeached now, before he does something “very, very unfortunate for the world.”

    The 2018 NPR calls for new and smaller nuclear weapons, those that would make it easier to cross the barrier into nuclear war. The NPR also chooses to keep all three legs of the nuclear triad: intercontinental ballistic missiles, bomber aircraft and submarine launched ballistic missiles.

    There can be little doubt that the U.S. nuclear posture will spur other nuclear-armed countries to do the same, thus assuring new arms races and increased nuclear dangers ahead. One has to wonder if the expensive and provocative technological modernization of the U.S. nuclear arsenal and other nuclear policies set forth in the 2018 NPR will be what takes us from the Nuclear Age back to the dark ages.

  • My Lai

    It is a name
    every American
    should know.

    Five hundred four
    Vietnamese villagers
    slaughtered

    by American troops
    that day in My Lai
    fifty years ago.

    Lt. Calley was given
    house arrest,
    then pardoned by Nixon.

    No one went to prison
    for the massacre
    of children, women, old men.

    That’s what happens
    in war, they say.
    That’s what they say.

    David Krieger
    March 2018