Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Blog

  • Democracy Breaks Out at the UN as 122 Nations Vote to Ban the Bomb

    This article was originally published by The Nation.

    On July 7, 2017, at a UN Conference mandated by the UN General Assembly to negotiate a treaty to prohibit nuclear weapons, the only weapons of mass destruction yet to be banned, 122 nations completed the job after three weeks, accompanied by a celebratory outburst of cheers, tears, and applause among hundreds of activists, government delegates, and experts, as well as survivors of the lethal nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and witnesses to the devastating, toxic nuclear-test explosions in the Pacific. The new treaty outlaws any prohibited activities related to nuclear weapons, including use, threat to use, development, testing, production, manufacturing, acquiring, possession, stockpiling, transferring, receiving, stationing, installation, and deployment of nuclear weapons. It also bans states from lending assistance, which includes such prohibited acts as financing for their development and manufacture, engaging in military preparations and planning, and permitting the transit of nuclear weapons through territorial water or airspace.

    We are witnessing a striking shift in the global paradigm of how the world views nuclear weapons, bringing us to this glorious moment. The change has transformed public conversation about nuclear weapons, from the same old, same old talk about national “security” and its reliance on “nuclear deterrence” to the widely publicized evidence of the catastrophic humanitarian consequences that would result from their use. A series of compelling presentations of the devastating effects of nuclear catastrophe, organized by enlightened governments and civil society’s International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, was inspired by a stunning statement from the International Committee of the Red Cross addressing the humanitarian consequences of nuclear war.

    At meetings hosted by Norway, Mexico, and Austria, overwhelming evidence demonstrated the disastrous devastation threatening humanity from nuclear weapons—their mining, milling, production, testing, and use—whether deliberately or by accident or negligence. This new knowledge, exposing the terrifying havoc that would be inflicted on our planet, gave impetus for this moment when governments and civil society fulfilled a negotiating mandate for a treaty to prohibit nuclear weapons, leading towards their total elimination.

    Perhaps the most significant addition to the treaty, after a draft treaty from an earlier week of talks in March was submitted to the states by the expert and determined president of the conference, Ambassador Elayne Whyte Gómez of Costa Rica, was amending the prohibition not to use nuclear weapons by adding the words “or threaten to use,” driving a stake through the heart of the beloved “deterrence” doctrine of the nuclear-weapons states, which are holding the whole world hostage to their perceived “security” needs, threatening the earth with nuclear annihilation in their MAD scheme for “Mutually Assured Destruction.” The ban also creates a path for nuclear states to join the treaty, requiring verifiable, time-bound, transparent elimination of all nuclear-weapons programs or irreversible conversion of all nuclear-weapons related facilities.

    The negotiations were boycotted by all nine nuclear-weapons states and US allies under its nuclear “umbrella” in NATO, Japan, South Korea, and Australia. The Netherlands was the only NATO member present, its parliament having required its attendance in response to public pressure, and was the only “no” vote against the treaty. Last summer, after a UN Working Group recommended that the General Assembly resolve to establish the ban-treaty negotiations, the United States pressured its NATO allies, arguing that “the effects of a ban could be wide-ranging and degrade enduring security relationships.” Upon the adoption of the ban treaty, the United States, United Kingdom, and France issued a statement that “We do not intend to sign, ratify or ever become party to it” as it “does not address the security concerns that continue to make nuclear deterrence necessary” and will create “even more divisions at a time…of growing threats, including those from the DPRK’s ongoing proliferation efforts.” Ironically, North Korea was the only nuclear power to vote for the ban treaty, last October, when the UN’s First Committee for Disarmament forwarded a resolution for ban-treaty negotiations to the General Assembly.

    Yet the absence of the nuclear-weapons states contributed to a more democratic process, with fruitful interchanges between experts and witnesses from civil society who were present and engaged through much of the proceedings instead of being outside locked doors, as is usual when the nuclear powers are negotiating their endless step-by-step process that has only resulted in leaner, meaner, nuclear weapons, constantly modernized, designed, refurbished. Obama, before he left office was planning to spend one trillion dollars over the next 30 years for two new bomb factories, new warheads and delivery systems. We still await Trump’s plans for the US nuclear-weapons program.

    The Ban Treaty affirms the states’ determination to realize the purpose of the Charter of the United Nations and reminds us that the very first resolution of the UN in 1946 called for the elimination of nuclear weapons. With no state holding veto power, and no hidebound rules of consensus that have stalled all progress on nuclear abolition and additional initiatives for world peace in other UN and treaty bodies, this negotiation was a gift from the UN General Assembly, which democratically requires states to be represented in negotiations with an equal vote and doesn’t require consensus to come to a decision.

    Despite the recalcitrance of the nuclear-deterrence-mongers, we know that previous treaties banning weapons have changed international norms and stigmatized the weapons leading to policy revisions even in states that never signed those treaties. The Ban Treaty requires 50 states to sign and ratify it before it enters into force, and will be open for signature September 20 when heads of state meet in New York for the UN General Assembly’s opening session. Campaigners will be working to gather the necessary ratifications and now that nuclear weapons are unlawful and banned, to shame those NATO states which keep US nuclear weapons on their territory (Belgium, Germany , Turkey, Netherlands, Italy) and pressure other alliance states which hypocritically condemn nuclear weapons but participate in nuclear-war planning. In the nuclear-weapons states, there can be divestment campaigns from institutions that support the development and manufacture of nuclear weapons now that they have been prohibited and declared unlawful. See www.dontbankonthebomb.com

    To keep the momentum going in this burgeoning movement to ban the bomb, check out www.icanw.org. For a more detailed roadmap of what lies ahead, see Zia Mian’s take on future possibilities in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.

  • U.S., UK and France Denounce Nuclear Ban Treaty

    This article was originally published by Counterpunch.

    The U.S., UK and France have never shown enthusiasm for banning and eliminating nuclear weapons. It is not surprising, therefore, that they did not participate in the United Nations negotiations leading to the recent adoption of the nuclear ban treaty, or that they joined together in expressing their outright defiance of the newly-adopted treaty.

    In a joint press statement, issued on July 7, 2017, the day the treaty was adopted, the U.S., UK and France stated, “We do not intend to sign, ratify or ever become party to it.” Seriously? Rather than supporting the countries that came together and hammered out the treaty, the three countries argued: “This initiative clearly disregards the realities of the international security environment.”  Rather than taking a leadership role in the negotiations, they protested the talks and the resulting treaty banning nuclear weapons. They chose hubris over wisdom, might over right.

    They based their opposition on their belief that the treaty is “incompatible with the policy of nuclear deterrence, which has been essential to keeping the peace in Europe and North Asia for over 70 years.” Others would take issue with their conclusion, arguing that, in addition to overlooking the Korean War and other smaller wars, the peace in Europe and North Asia has been kept not because of nuclear deterrence but in spite of it.

    The occasions on which nuclear deterrence has come close to failure, including during the Cuban missile crisis, are well known. The absolute belief of the U.S., UK and France in nuclear deterrence seems more theological than practical.

    The three countries point out, “This treaty offers no solution to the grave threat posed by North Korea’s nuclear program, nor does it address other security challenges that make nuclear deterrence necessary.” But for the countries that adopted the nuclear ban treaty, North Korea is only one of nine countries that are undermining international security by basing their national security on nuclear weapons. For countries so committed to nuclear weapons and nuclear deterrence, is it not surprising and hypocritical that they view North Korea’s nuclear arsenal not in the light of deterrence, but rather, as an aggressive force?

    The three countries reiterate their commitment to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), but do not mention their own obligation under that treaty to pursue negotiations in good faith for an end to the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament. The negotiations for the new nuclear ban treaty are based on fulfilling those obligations. The three countries chose not to participate in these negotiations, in defiance of their NPT obligations, making their joint statement appear self-serving and based upon magical thinking.

    If the U.S., UK and France were truly interested in promoting “international peace, stability and security” as they claim, they would be seeking all available avenues to eliminate nuclear weapons from the world, rather than planning to modernize and enhance their own nuclear arsenals over the coming decades.

    These three nuclear-armed countries, as well as the other six nuclear-armed countries, continue to rely upon the false idol of nuclear weapons, justified by nuclear deterrence. In doing so, they continue to run the risk of destroying civilization, or worse. The 122 nations that adopted the nuclear ban treaty, on the other hand, acted on behalf of every citizen of the world who values the future of humanity and our planet, and should be commended for what they have accomplished.

    The new treaty will open for signatures in September 2017, and will enter into force when 50 countries have acceded to it. It provides an alternative vision for the human future, one in which nuclear weapons are seen for the threat they pose to all humanity, one in which nuclear possessors will be stigmatized for the threats they pose to all life. Despite the resistance of the U.S., UK and France, the nuclear ban treaty marks the beginning of the end of the nuclear age.

  • Treaty to Ban Nuclear Weapons Adopted

    NUCLEAR AGE PEACE FOUNDATION

    For Immediate Release                                                      

    Contact:

    Sandy Jones: (805) 965-3443; sjones@napf.org
    Rick Wayman: (805) 696-5159; rwayman@napf.org

     

    Treaty to Ban Nuclear Weapons Adopted

    Negotiations conclude at United Nations. Treaty will open for signature in September.

    New York–More than 120 countries gathered at the United Nations and today formally adopted the “Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons,” a treaty that categorically prohibits the possession, use, and threat of use of nuclear weapons. Non-governmental organizations played a key role in the negotiations leading up to the nuclear ban treaty.

    Considered an historic step toward creating a safer and more secure world, the treaty expresses in its preamble deep concern “about the catastrophic humanitarian consequences that would result from any use of nuclear weapons.” It further recognizes “the consequent need to completely eliminate such weapons, which remains the only way to guarantee that nuclear weapons are never used again under any circumstances.”

    The treaty is a clear indication that the majority of the world’s countries no longer accept nuclear weapons and do not consider them legitimate. It demonstrates that the indiscriminate mass killing of civilians is unacceptable and that it is not possible to use nuclear weapons consistent with the laws of war.

    David Krieger, President of the Santa Barbara-based Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (NAPF), commented, “This is an exciting day for those of us who have worked for a world free of nuclear weapons and an important day for the world. The majority of the world’s nations have agreed upon a treaty prohibiting nuclear weapons and will open this new treaty for signatures in September. What this represents is humanity finally standing up for sanity and its own survival 72 years into the Nuclear Age.”

    While the United States chose to boycott the negotiations, their repeated objections demonstrate that this treaty has the potential to significantly impact U.S. behavior regarding nuclear weapons issues. Previous weapon prohibition treaties, including the Chemical Weapons Convention and the Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention, have demonstrated that changing international norms leads to concrete changes in policies and behaviors, even in states not party to the treaty.

    The treaty also creates obligations to support the victims of nuclear weapons use and testing and to remediate the environmental damage caused by nuclear weapons.

    This effort to ban nuclear weapons has been led by the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, which is made up of over 400 non-governmental organizations from 100 countries. The movement has benefitted from the broad support of international humanitarian, environmental, nonproliferation, and disarmament organizations that have joined forces throughout the world. Significant political and grassroots organizing has taken place, and many thousands have signed petitions, joined protests, contacted representatives, and pressured governments.

    Rick Wayman, Director of Programs at NAPF, said, “This treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons is truly a joint effort between the majority of the world’s countries and many dedicated non-governmental organizations, including the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.”

    Wayman presented a final statement and a working paper on behalf of the Foundation at the United Nations during the treaty negotiations. He continued, “It was an honor to participate in this historic process, which focused on the unacceptable humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons, leading inevitably to their international prohibition. Today – because of this treaty – the world is a safer place, though there remains much work to be done.”

    The treaty was adopted today by a vote of 122 to 1 with 1 abstention. It will open for signatures by states at the United Nations in New York on September 20, 2017. The treaty will enter into force 90 days after the fiftieth instrument of ratification is deposited with the United Nations. The treaty can be read in its entirety at http://www.undocs.org/en/a/conf.229/2017/L.3

    #     #     #

    If you would like to interview David Krieger or Rick Wayman, please call 1.805.965.3443.

    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 www.wagingpeace.org.

    Rick Wayman delivering a statement on behalf of NAPF at the United Nations on June 16, 2017.

  • Nuclear Deterrence: A Profitable Protection Racket?

    These remarks were delivered by Robert Green at a side event at the United Nations during the UN Conference to negotiate a legally binding instrument to prohibit nuclear weapons, leading towards their total elimination.

    As a former operator of British nuclear weapons, next year will mark a significant anniversary for me: it will be fifty years since my indoctrination into the dogma of nuclear deterrence.

    In 1968 I was a 24-year-old Lieutenant bombardier-navigator in Buccaneer strike jets deployed aboard a Royal Navy aircraft-carrier, when my pilot and I were told we had been chosen as a nuclear crew. The process of being given a top secret security clearance was followed by indoctrination regarding the huge responsibility of this honour, and details of the 10-kiloton WE177 freefall bomb we would use. We then had to plan how to attack our assigned target: a Soviet military air base on the outskirts of Leningrad.

    Thirty years later, as I landed at St Petersburg airport for an anti-nuclear conference, I was shocked to realise it had been my target.

    When I told our Russian hosts, they put me on local TV with an interpreter. I apologised for having obeyed orders which would have resulted in massive civilian casualties and collateral damage to their ancient capital. Then I told them I had learned that nuclear weapons would not save me, or them.

    My breakout from pro-nuclear brainwashing was slow and gradual, inhibited by tribal loyalty, peer pressure, initial unquestioning trust in my leaders, and deference to their mindset linked to ambition to succeed in my chosen career. Breakout began in 1972 after I switched from navigating nuclear strike jets to anti-submarine helicopters. Because our lightweight torpedoes were too slow to catch Soviet nuclear submarines, we were given a nuclear depth-bomb. The problem was that, unlike a strike jet, our helicopter was too slow to escape the detonation; so this would be a suicide mission. When I complained, my leaders assured me we probably would never have to use it; besides, I didn’t want to cut short a glittering career, did I? So I fell silent; but the first doubts set in.

    In 1979, I was a newly promoted Commander in the Ministry of Defence in London, looking after an Admiral whose responsibilities included recommending how best to replace the UK Polaris nuclear-armed submarine force. Mrs Thatcher had just come to power; and she wanted Trident. I watched as the Naval Staff warned that this would exceed the Polaris system’s capability, and its huge cost would mean cuts in useful warships.

    Thatcher drove the Trident decision through.

    Then, sure enough, in 1981 the government announced a major defence review in order to pay for Trident. With my prospects of further promotion receding, on top of concern that I couldn’t justify Trident, I applied for redundancy.

    My application was approved one week into the 1982 Falklands War. I had to stay until after we won, and I had handed over my job as Staff Intelligence Officer to the Commander in Chief Fleet, who ran the war from the command bunker on the outskirts of London. I was in charge of the 40-strong team providing round the clock intelligence support to the one Polaris submarine on so-called deterrent patrol, as well as the rest of the Fleet.

    The Falklands War was a close-run thing. The French had sold the Argentine Navy sea-skimming Exocet missiles, which we had no answer to for a while; several of our ships were sunk, and colleagues killed. If one of our aircraft carriers or troopships had been taken out, we could have risked defeat. What would Thatcher have done? Before the war she had been the most unpopular British Prime Minister in history; now her political career was on the line – and she had nuclear weapons.

    After leaving the Navy, I heard rumours of an extremely secret contingency plan – understandably not shared with the Navy – to move the patrolling Polaris submarine south within range of Buenos Aires. It wasn’t needed; however, in 2006 it was revealed that Thatcher had phoned French President Mitterrand after the first British ships were sunk, threatening to nuke Argentina if he didn’t give her the secret frequency of the Exocet guidance system to jam it.

    Convinced that she was serious, he did so; and soon after, we began to neutralise Exocet.

    This raised for me the nightmare of a desperate British leader having the option of using nuclear weapons, and the ignominy of our submariners being ordered to commit such a war crime. British possession of nuclear weapons had not deterred Argentine President General Galtieri from invading. Had Thatcher threatened to use nuclear weapons, probably Galtieri would have called her bluff very publicly, and relished watching US President Reagan try to rein her in. If he had failed, a nuclear strike would have compounded the ignominy of defeat, the British case for retaining the Falkland Islands lost in international outrage over such a war crime.

    Seven years later, my justification for supporting nuclear deterrence collapsed with the Berlin Wall, and subsequent dismantling of the Warsaw Pact. However, it took Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990 to make me speak out. When President Bush senior doubled the number of ground troops to evict Iraq, my intelligence training warned me that this would be a punitive expedition. If Saddam Hussein was personally threatened, he could attack Israel with Scud missiles, possibly with chemical warheads, in order to split the US-led coalition and become the Arabs’ champion. If a chemical-headed Scud attack caused heavy casualties, Israel’s leader Shamir would come under massive pressure to respond with a nuclear strike on Baghdad. The Arab nations would erupt in fury, Israel’s security would be destroyed forever, and Russia would be sucked in.

    In January 1991, I joined the growing British anti-war movement by speaking to a crowd of 20,000 in Trafalgar Square – not the best move or place for an ex-Commander. A week later, following the launch of the allied blitzkrieg, the first Iraqi Scud attack hit Tel Aviv. For the first time, the second city of a de facto nuclear weapon state had been attacked and its capital threatened. Worse still for nuclear deterrence, the attacker did not have nuclear weapons. Israelis, cowering in gas masks in basements, learned that their nuclear deterrent had failed. 38 more Scud attacks followed, fortunately with no chemical warheads and miraculously causing few casualties. Bush rushed to offer Shamir Patriot missiles and other military aid, and congratulated Israel on its restraint.

    Interestingly, in both this case and the one I described in the Falklands War, nuclear weapon possession had been used to coerce a fellow nuclear-armed state.

    Meanwhile, in London the Irish Republican Army just missed wiping out the entire British War Cabinet meeting in 10 Downing Street with a mortar bomb launched through the roof of a van. A more direct threat to the government could barely be imagined; and Polaris was exposed as an impotent irrelevance.

    Belatedly forced to research the history of nuclear weapons, I learned that the UK bore considerable responsibility for initiating and spreading the nuclear arms race. Having joined in the Manhattan project, Britain became the first medium-sized power with delusions of grandeur to threaten nuclear terrorism. Here in the US, in denial over its atrocities in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the mantra of nuclear deterrence was used to play on people’s fears, and justify sustaining the unaccountable, highly profitable scientific and military monster bequeathed by the Manhattan project. Successive British governments, desperate to keep their seat at the top table of world powers, seized upon this confidence trick, endlessly repeating its bogus claims – uncritically propagated by experts and mainstream media – to the point that it echoed the fable of the emperor with no clothes.

    Feeling much like the child who pointed this out – as I described in my 2010 book Security Without Nuclear Deterrence – my experience taught me that nuclear deterrence, far from providing security, promotes insecurity through stimulating hostility, mistrust, nuclear arms racing and proliferation. What is more, because of these realities and its insoluble credibility problem, it is highly vulnerable to failure. As for extended nuclear deterrence, far from providing a so-called ‘nuclear umbrella’ to non-nuclear US allied states, it acts as a ‘lightning rod’ attracting insecurity to them, because any use of nuclear weapons by the US on their behalf would inevitably escalate to all-out nuclear war. The truth is that the US uses extended deterrence to control its allies for its own purposes. Prime Minister David Lange, who led New Zealand’s breakout thirty years ago, correctly called it ‘fool’s gold’. Similarly, the US uses its nuclear sharing arrangement with certain European states to sustain subservience to NATO, and block progress to a nuclear weapon-free world.

    Let me close by honouring two controversial, courageous US Generals – both called Butler. Like me, they broke free from acceptance of their government’s and peer group’s mindset and indoctrination. On retirement in 1935, US Marine General Smedley Butler wrote a searing critique of his military experience, entitled War is a Racket.

    Seventy years later, US Air Force General Lee Butler, after running the entire US strategic nuclear war machine, came out against nuclear deterrence. A year ago, he published his memoirs entitled Uncommon Cause, in Volume II of which he recounts the powerful, poignant story of his breakout. I must speak bluntly: stripped of jargon, what he confirms in effect is that nuclear deterrence is a vast protection racket by a US-led organised crime syndicate, who use it as a counterfeit currency of power, and whose principal beneficiary is the military-industrial complex. His findings should be required reading for the syndicate members, for all those who have fallen victim to their scam, and those of us who are leading the struggle to face them down and bring them to justice.

    This is why the ban treaty must prohibit threat of use, and include language explaining what that means. It is not enough to assume that use encompasses threat. The fact that the currently deployed UK Trident submarine is described as on ‘deterrent patrol’, despite being at days’ notice to fire with no assigned target, confirms this need. Thank you.

  • Sunflower Newsletter: July 2017

    Issue #240 – July 2017
    Donate Now!

    Please join our Peace Literacy Movement and support the free curriculum that we helped develop to spread Peace Literacy in schools and communities. When you sign up for our Monthly Giving Circle (monthly donation program) we will send you a Peace Literacy tote bag, which you can take anywhere to spread the message of peace.
    • Perspectives
      • Probability of Nuclear War by David Krieger
      • Russell-Einstein Manifesto
      • Nuclear Diplomacy with North Korea: The Real Story by Martin Hellman
    • U.S. Nuclear Weapons Policy
      • Los Alamos Lab Under Scrutiny After Numerous Safety Violations
      • U.S. Conference of Mayors Supports Nuclear Disarmament
    • Nuclear Disarmament
      • Hibakusha Push for Nuclear Weapon Ban Treaty
    • Missile Defense
      • Missile Defense Test Fails
    • War and Peace
      • Nuclear Crisis Group Issues Recommendations
      • North Korea Offers to Halt Tests if U.S. and South Korea Stop Military Exercises
    • Nuclear Modernization
      • U.S. General Wants “Modernization” Efforts Accelerated
    • Nuclear Energy and Waste
      • U.S. Sailors Can Sue Japan and TEPCO in U.S. Court
    • Resources
      • This Month in Nuclear Threat History
      • Understanding Nuclear Weapon Risks
      • Nuclear Ban Daily
    • Foundation Activities
      • NAPF Statement and Working Paper at the Nuclear Ban Treaty Negotiations
      • 23rd Annual Sadako Peace Day
      • Building Peace Literacy Curriculum
      • Evening for Peace: A Prescription for a Nuclear-Free World
    • Take Action
      • Cards for Humanity: Earth to Nikki Haley
    • Quotes

     

    Perspectives

    Probability of Nuclear War

    by David Krieger

    Most people go about their lives giving minimal thought to the consequences or probability of nuclear war.  The consequences are generally understood to be catastrophic and, as a result, the probability of nuclear war is thought to be extremely low.  But is this actually the case?  Should people feel safe from nuclear war on the basis of a perceived low probability of occurrence?

    Since the consequences of nuclear war could be as high as human extinction, the probability of such an outcome would preferably be zero, but this is clearly not the case.  Nuclear weapons have been used twice in the past 72 years, at a time when only one country possessed these weapons.  Today, nine countries possess nuclear weapons, and there are nearly 15,000 of them in the world.

    To read more, click here.

    Russell-Einstein Manifesto

    Introductory remarks by David Krieger: The Russell-Einstein Manifesto, issued in London on July 9, 1955, is one of the greatest documents of the 20th century. It remains a critical warning to humanity in the 21st century. As we approach the 62nd anniversary of the Manifesto, it is worthwhile to read it again (or for the first time) and reflect on its message to humanity.  It addresses the choices before us: “continual progress in happiness, knowledge and wisdom” or “the risk of universal death.” It was the last public statement Einstein signed before his death. Of its 9 signers in addition to Russell and Einstein, two were members of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s Advisory Council, Linus Pauling and Sir Joseph Rotblat. Pauling was a great scientist and two-time Nobel Laureate. Rotblat was the only scientist to leave the Manhattan Project as a matter of conscience. He was a founder of the Pugwash Conferences and received the Nobel Peace Prize 50 years after the tragic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. At NAPF, we carry on the commitment of the Russell-Einstein Manifesto to achieve a world free of nuclear weapons. We accept its advice: “Remember your humanity, and forget the rest.”

    To read the Russell-Einstein Manifesto, click here.

    Nuclear Diplomacy with North Korea: The Real Story

    by Martin Hellman

    The media tell us that nuclear diplomacy with North Korea is a waste of time, as do most high officials from every recent U.S. administration. But easily verifiable facts show otherwise. The most important data point: North Korea did not do its first nuclear test until four years after President Bush tore up our nuclear agreement with the North, known as the 1994 Agreed Framework.

    Our tearing up the Agreed Framework played a major role in North Korea becoming the nuclear-armed menace it is today. That history lesson is very applicable to current calls to tear up our nuclear deal with Iran. Why do we think this time would be different?

    To read more, click here.

    U.S. Nuclear Weapons Policy

    Los Alamos Lab Under Scrutiny After Numerous Safety Violations

    The Center for Public Integrity (CPI) has published the results of a year-long investigation into Los Alamos National Lab’s reported “climate of impunity” around nuclear safety violations. The investigation was spurred by a 2011 incident involving the careless placement of plutonium rods too close together — a mistake that could have caused a deadly criticality incident.

    CPI’s report reveals many instances of a lax safety culture leading to accidents that put workers and the public at risk. Click here to read a summary by NAPF Summer Intern Megan Cox.

    Peter Cary, Patrick Malone, and R. Jeffrey Smith, “These Workers’ Lives Are Endangered While Contractors Running Nuclear Weapons Plants Make Millions,” USA Today, June 26, 2017.

    U.S. Conference of Mayors Supports Nuclear Disarmament

    In late June, mayors from across the United States assembled in Miami for the U.S. Conference of Mayors’ 85th Annual Meeting. Many resolutions were passed during this time, including one that extensively addressed United States nuclear policy.

    The resolution called upon President Trump to lower nuclear tensions by engaging in “intense diplomatic efforts” with nuclear-armed states and their allies. The mayors also commended the nuclear ban treaty negotiations at the UN, and expressed strong disapproval of U.S. refusal to participate in the talks.

    It was also noted that the U.S. government should move forward with the proposed Restricting First Use Of Nuclear Weapons Act of 2017, a bill that NAPF and many other organizations have passionately pushed forward while lobbying on Capitol Hill. If passed, it would prevent the president from conducting a nuclear first-strike without the approval of Congress.

    Lastly, the resolution requested that the U.S. “reverse its federal spending priorities” by transferring nuclear weapons funds to causes more intimately related to the public’s well-being. Examples of such concerns include the restoration of funding for Community Block Development Grants and the Environmental Protection Agency.

    Andrea Germanos, “U.S. Mayors: Instead of War, Spend Big on ‘Human and Environmental Needs’,” Common Dreams, June 26, 2017.

    Nuclear Disarmament

    Hibakusha Push for Nuclear Weapon Ban Treaty

    During the negotiations for the first-ever treaty banning nuclear weapons in June, two Nagasaki atomic bomb survivors, Masao Tomonaga and Masako Wada, pressed the countries participating to help achieve their dream of seeing the treaty text adopted in July. The survivors, called hibakusha in Japanese, aim to rid the world of nuclear weapons.

    As representatives of non-governmental organizations, Tomonaga and Wada delivered remarks at the UN conference. Tomonaga believes that a “nuclear ban treaty is essential in order to further strengthen the will of mankind.” Masako Wada said, “The nuclear weapon is created by humans, used by humans, and therefore has to be abolished by humans.”

    The second draft of the nuclear ban treaty contains a preambular paragraph highlighting the role of hibakusha: “Mindful of the unacceptable suffering of and harm caused to the victims of the use of nuclear weapons (Hibakusha) as well as of those affected by the testing of nuclear weapons.”

    “A-Bomb Survivors Press for Weapon Ban, to Make Nagasaki Nuclear Bombing World’s Last,” Kyodo, June 32, 2017.

    Missile Defense

    Missile Defense Test Fails

    In a test exercise on June 21, the U.S. launched a medium-range ballistic missile (MRBM) from the Pacific Missile Range Facility in Kauai, Hawai’i. The U.S.S. John Paul Jones, armed with a SM-3 guided missile, tracked the MRBM and fired the guided missile for interception and destruction. Though designed to take down medium- and intermediate-range ballistic missiles (IRBMs), the SM-3 missed the target. This was the fourth flight test of the SM-3 and the second intercept test; the first intercept test in February was claimed to be a success.

    The U.S. and Japan have collaborated on the development of missile defense system technology as North Korea continues to test missiles and nuclear warheads. Meanwhile, North Korea claims that its continued nuclear weapons development is provoked by U.S. military presence in Japan and South Korea. Japan and South Korea could be targeted by MRBMs and IRBMS, falling within the defensive range of the recently tested SM-3 missile.

    Courtney Kube, “U.S. Fails to Shoot Down Ballistic Missile in Test,” NBC News, June 22, 2017.

    War and Peace

    Nuclear Crisis Group Issues Recommendations

    On June 28, a group of former military officials and experts known as the Nuclear Crisis Group published a series of recommendations for avoiding nuclear war, in a report commissioned by Global Zero. The group, composed of leaders from the U.S., Russia, China, India, and Pakistan, advised the Trump administration to establish direct talks with North Korea, emphasized the need for the U.S., Russia, and NATO to enable direct communication between their militaries, and urged India and Pakistan to set up a nuclear hotline.

    The group’s advice on North Korea coincided with a bipartisan letter sent to Trump the same day by former top U.S. officials—including former Secretaries of State, Defense, and Energy—also advising him to initiate direct talks with Kim Jong-un. As the Nuclear Crisis Group concludes in its report, “The risk of nuclear weapons use, intended or otherwise, is unacceptably high.”

    Bryan Bender, “Ex-nuke Commanders: Talk to North Korea, Open NATO-Russia Dialogue,” Politico, June 28, 2017.

    North Korea Offers to Halt Tests if U.S. and South Korea Stop Military Exercises

    North Korea’s ambassador to India, Kye Chun Yong, stated in an interview on June 21 that his country would consider “temporarily” halting nuclear and missile tests if the U.S. and South Korea halt their joint military exercises near the Korean Peninsula.  Kye’s comments about a “moratorium” came days after an advisor to newly-elected South Korean President Moon Jae-in unexpectedly suggested a similar compromise in a speech from Washington.

    Some argue North Korea is “intent on driving a wedge” in the U.S.-South Korea relationship, and offered this compromise as a means of aggravating policy disagreements between the Trump administration and the new South Korean administration, which has expressed support of “inter-Korean dialogue” over military demonstrations. Kye asserted that Kim Jong-un is open to meeting with Moon and conversing with the U.S., while also insisting that “possessing nuclear weapons is inevitable.”

    Yuji Kuronuma, “North Korean Diplomat Offers Compromise to Halt Nuclear Tests,” Nikkei, June 23, 2017.

    Nuclear Modernization

    U.S. General Wants “Modernization” Efforts Accelerated

    Gen. John Hyten, head of U.S. Strategic Command, believes that the United States should be moving faster in its efforts to build new nuclear warheads and delivery systems. Gen. Hyten said that the schedules for designing and producing new bomber aircraft, nuclear-armed submarines, and land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles are too drawn out.

    Many of the so-called “modernization” programs are scheduled to take place simultaneously in the 2020s, leading to many unanswered questions about the government’s ability to fund the new nuclear arsenal.

    Pat Host, “U.S. Gen. Hyten Wants Pentagon Nuclear Modernization Efforts Accelerated,” IHS Jane’s Defence Weekly, June 21, 2017.

    Nuclear Energy and Waste

    U.S. Sailors Can Sue Japan and TEPCO in U.S. Court

    A federal appeals court ruled on June 22 that members of the U.S. Navy can sue Tokyo Electric Power Co. (TEPCO) and the Japanese government from U.S. courts rather than Japanese courts for radiation exposure following the March 11, 2011 Fukushima nuclear power plant disaster. Naval forces were stationed off the coast of Fukushima to provide humanitarian aid in the wake of the 9.0 magnitude earthquake and ensuing tsunami.

    The plaintiffs assert that TEPCO and the Japanese government conspired to keep the extent of the radiation leak and exposure risks a secret.

    “U.S. Court: Sailors Can Sue in U.S. Over Japanese Nuclear Disaster,” The Mainichi, June 23, 2017.

     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 July, including the July 16, 1945 Trinity nuclear bomb test, the world’s first-ever nuclear weapon explosion.

    To read Mason’s full article, click here.

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

    Understanding Nuclear Weapon Risks

    A recent study by the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR) examines the many factors that increase the risk of a nuclear detonation. According to the authors, “The lack of nuclear weapons use since Hiroshima and Nagasaki cannot on its own be interpreted as evidence that the likelihood of a detonation event is minimal.”

    The authors continue, “The lack of in-depth information concerning the precise nature of nuclear risk is especially problematic in the contemporary global environment. Rising tensions involving nuclear-armed and other States, lower thresholds in nuclear use driven by technological developments, growing automation in command and control and weapons systems, and new threats in terms of both actors and crises are prominent features of the current international security situation. Detailing the overall risk “picture” is a critical first step to any mitigation effort.”

    To download a copy of UNIDIR’s “Understanding Nuclear Weapon Risks” report, click here.

    Nuclear Ban Daily

    As the majority of the world’s nations near the conclusion of negotiations at the United Nations on a treaty prohibiting nuclear weapons, new developments are happening every day. Reaching Critical Will, a project of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, publishes a daily summary of the negotiations, along with opinion and analysis from some of the world’s top advocates for nuclear disarmament.

    Nuclear Ban Daily is distributed to all delegations attending the negotiations, and is available to read online here.

    Foundation Activities

    NAPF Statement and Working Paper at the Nuclear Ban Treaty Negotiations

    The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation submitted a Working Paper to the UN conference to negotiate a legally binding instrument to prohibit nuclear weapons, leading to their total elimination. The paper, entitled “The Dangers of Nuclear Deterrence, and the Threat of Use of Nuclear Weapons: Important Elements to Include in a Legally Binding Instrument,” lays out the Foundation’s views on the importance of delegitimizing the concept of nuclear deterrence.

    NAPF’s Director of Programs, Rick Wayman, delivered a statement at the June 16 negotiating session about nuclear deterrence and the threat of use of nuclear weapons. A transcript and video of the statement is here.

    23rd Annual Sadako Peace Day

    The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation will host the 23rd Annual Sadako Peace Day on August 9 at La Casa de Maria in Santa Barbara, California. The event will feature music, poetry and reflection to remember the victims of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombings, and all innocent victims of war.

    For more information on the Foundation’s annual Sadako Peace Day event, click here.

    Building Peace Literacy Curriculum

    “A Year of Peace Literacy” began with NAPF Peace Leadership Director Paul K. Chappell’s talk at the Whiteside Theatre in Corvallis, Oregon last November at the invitation of an alum of Chappell’s summer workshop in 2013, Professor Linda Richards from Oregon State University (OSU). It built momentum with a quick return visit in March that saw OSU Professor Shari Clough and high school principal Eric Wright added to the team, and continued this June with “Building Peace Literacy Curriculum,” Chappell’s workshop for public school teachers and administrators held at Crescent Valley High School in Corvallis. Participants included more than 18 teachers, from every grade level at schools from Corvallis, Eugene, and Salem, as well as vice principals and principals.

    Professor Clough said, “There are already a number of amazing educators around the US and Canada working on incorporating Chappell’s Peace Literacy curriculum in the classroom. The goal is for OSU to become an organizational hub that can provide resources for educators in Peace Literacy. This is more than a selection of new lesson plans. Peace Literacy is the start of an international movement.”

    To read more about the extensive efforts in Corvallis, Oregon, click here.

    Evening for Peace: A Prescription for a Nuclear-Free World

    The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s 34th Annual Evening for Peace will take place on Sunday, October 22, in Santa Barbara, California. The theme of this year’s event is “A Prescription for a Nuclear-Free World.” The Foundation will honor Dr. Ira Helfand and the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War with the Distinguished Peace Leadership Award.

    For more information, including sponsorship opportunities and tickets, click here.

    Take Action

    Cards for Humanity: Earth to Nikki Haley

    More than 130 countries have participated in negotiations on a treaty banning nuclear weapons. The United States government has actively boycotted the negotiations. Just as negotiations began in March, United States Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley staged a protest right outside the door. “There is nothing I want more for my family than a world with no nuclear weapons,” she stated. “But we have to be realistic.”

    At the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, we believe that a nuclear-free world is not only realistic — it’s essential. We want to send a message to Ambassador Haley, and we need your help. Buy a $1 postcard in our online store and we’ll mail it directly to Ambassador Haley’s office. This is part of a new campaign, Cards for Humanity: Earth to Nikki Haley, focused on educating our communities and empowering our actions for nuclear disarmament.

    Click on this link to send a postcard to Ambassador Haley.

    Quotes

     

    “In the middle of difficulty lies opportunity.”

    — Albert Einstein. This quote appears in the book Speaking of Peace: Quotations to Inspire Action. The revised 4th edition of this book will be released in the next few weeks. Pre-order copies today in the NAPF Peace Store at a 25% discount.

     

    “The abolition of nuclear weapons will not be possible so long as nuclear deterrence holds sway as an alleged means of defense and ensuring peace and security.”

    — John Burroughs, Executive Director of Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy, in an op-ed for Reaching Critical Will’s Nuclear Ban Daily.

     

    “Young women and men are the future, and trust me…we’ve got this.”

    — Leah Murphy, a 23-year-old from Ireland, in an article about her recent work with the Amplify Youth Network advocating for a nuclear weapons ban treaty at the United Nations.

    Editorial Team

     

    Megan Cox
    David Krieger
    Vaishanavi Mirapurkar
    Kristian Rolland
    Carol Warner
    Rick Wayman
    Sarah Witmer

     

  • Nuclear Lab Under Investigation After Safety Violations

    Federal regulators are launching an investigation into reports of an inappropriate shipment of “special nuclear material” from the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) that took place two weeks ago. The shipment, most likely containing isotopes used for nuclear explosions, was sent via commercial air cargo services to Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California and the Savannah River National Laboratory in South Carolina. A National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) official, Lt. Gen. Frank Klotz, charged that it was “unacceptable” to ship such material by air because of the dangers caused by pressure changes, the explosive result of which some scientists have likened to flying with a ball-point pen.

    This security scandal is just the latest in a long history of safety missteps by the Lab, which has motivated the Center for Public Integrity (CPI) to launch a year-long investigation into its reported “climate of impunity” on plutonium pit production (you can read the Washington Post’s series reporting on the issue). The investigation was spurred by a 2011 incident involving the careless placement of plutonium rods too close together — a mistake that could have sparked the release of criticality-produced radiation, which has previously caused the death of three scientists at LANL alone. Luckily, catastrophe avoided the facility in 2011, though serious consequences followed. The acting head of NNSA at the time, Neile Miller, immediately shut down the PF-4 building at LANL (the site of the incident) and almost every safety supervisor at the facility left their post in resigned exasperation. CPI’s investigation has uncovered the previously shuttered culture of negligence systemic in LANL’s operations, a finding surprising to many when considering the sensitive material the Lab handles.

    A relic from the Manhattan Project, LANL is the only U.S. lab that produces plutonium pits (fissile cores of nuclear weapons that, when imploded, initiate thermonuclear detonations). Though the Lab regularly handles plutonium and inspects the U.S. nuclear arsenal, LANL managers have consistently struggled to meet even basic safety standards. James McConnell, the top NNSA safety official, commented on the Lab and its managers at a public hearing in Santa Fe on June 7, stating that “they’re not where we need them yet.” Even former president of the American Nuclear Society Michaele Brady Raap candidly remarked that “there are a lot of things there [at LANL] that are examples of what not to do.” If these safety oversights are so glaringly obvious to even the most senior nuclear safety officials, what has allowed this system to persist? Like many factory operations involving contractors, the answer lays in the profits.

    LANL is operated by a consortium of contractors — most notably by the firm AECON, which bought the previous contractor URS in 2014. Needless to say, CPI’s report confirms the contractors’ prioritization of profit over safety when it comes to plutonium pit production at the Lab. Congress has placed a large burden on the shoulders of LANL’s scientists through the 2015 National Defense Authorization Act, which mandates the production of 80 pits per year by 2027. To achieve this incredible rate, managers have imposed lax penalties for worker safety risks and have encouraged technicians to cut safety corners. Accidents have been, until now, largely unpublicized. In addition, the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) where LANL stores its nuclear waste experienced an underground barrel rupture, initiating a three-year shutdown and leading to questions on where LANL’s waste will go. To top it off, the Laboratory sits on an active seismic zone that is a few thousand years overdue for a considerable earthquake. Such a shock could bring materials in the Lab to critical status, dispersing lethal particles to nearby communities.

    These disturbing conditions are hardly setbacks for the Lab’s contractors, who field earnings despite major safety breaches: after the 2011 crisis, the government paid contractors $50 million of taxpayer money. And the profits don’t plateau there. Congressional legislation requires that LANL continue to produce plutonium pits even though there is no technical need in the stockpile (15,000 plutonium pits — each lasting about a century — are currently stored near Amarillo, Texas). This quantity is well beyond U.S. warhead maintenance needs; in fact, future plutonium pits are tentatively intended for use in an “interoperable warhead,” an undeveloped weapon that could theoretically act as both a land-based ICBM and a submarine-launched nuclear warhead. The warhead would cost an estimated $13 billion, plus the cost for plutonium core production of $100 million. Those spell large sums for contractors setting their sights high, even on weapons that the military doesn’t want and that can’t be tested due to international nonproliferation consequences. Contractors not only manage the overall business machine for plutonium pit development, but they are also the lab directors overseeing day-to-day operations. This inarguable conflict of interest is what divides security priorities and production quotas. Lab safety has been thrown to the desert wind as contractors seek out profits by continuing the demand for plutonium pit production despite the exorbitant costs to our national budget and the blatant lack of actual need. This discrepancy forms the root of the systematic safety protocol violations at LANL.

    In the wake of the CPI investigation, both the NNSA and LANL management have issued statements announcing the renewal of the Criticality Safety Program: Lab manager Craig Leasure ended a LANL internal memo by asserting, “safety is our top priority and as a result our plutonium facility is safe, even if that impacts programmatic timelines.” Though the shutdown of the PF-4 facility in 2011 completely halted nuclear weapons testing and plutonium pit production for 4 years, some functionality has returned recently. Management predicts a return to 100% functionality of the PF-4 facility by the end of this year. Plutonium pit production will continue to strive for the outlandish goals set by Congress, propelled forward by contractors striving to meet those quotas at any cost. The $2.2 billion contract to manage LANL ends in 2018 and the NNSA has just begun the competition to find the next firm — some see this as a real opportunity to enact effective changes at the troubled lab. Though the realignment of safety priorities at LANL is a promising response to the recent spotlight, it is difficult to foresee the implementation of any real change in a system already plagued by a culture of mercenariness.

  • July: This Month in Nuclear Threat History

    July 1, 1998 – A New York Times article by Matthew L. Wald, “U.S. Nuclear Arms Costs Put At $5.48 Trillion,” published on this date summarized the conclusions of a new book by nuclear analyst Stephen Schwartz, who then worked as the director of the U.S. Nuclear Weapons Cost Study Project at the Brookings Institution in Washington, DC.  The book “Atomic Audit,” itemized in great detail the cost to U.S. taxpayers in 1996 dollars, for the period from 1940-96, of the research, development, storage, upkeep, maintenance, deployment, and dismantling of more than 70,000 nuclear weapons,. including the partial cleanup of huge volumes of the resulting radioactive and toxic wastes generated in this expensive, hazardous, and dangerous U.S. enterprise in the first six decades of the nuclear arms race.  Comments:  Trillions more have been spent and may be spent in future decades by the nine nuclear weapons states to accomplish what mainstream advocates of deterrence claim is war prevention by threatening to murder hundreds of millions of denizens of this Pale Blue Dot.  However, an increasing number of nuclear strategists, global politicians, scientists, soldiers, philosophers, medical professionals, and ordinary citizens are questioning the saneness of this irrational mindset.  The risks of failure of deterrence are far too great to rely on this flawed equation indefinitely.  The extinction of the human species or at least global civilization is likely unless we drastically reduce nuclear armaments with the goal to eliminate these doomsday weapons by 2025.  In doing so, we not only end the horrendous waste of our precious global wealth and treasure, but make great strides in preserving our species and redirecting military expenditures to mitigate and reduce global warming, eliminate poverty, educate our youth, and cure disease and ignorance.

    July 8-9, 2016 – At the NATO Summit in Warsaw, Poland, President Barack Obama expressed an “unwavering commitment to the defense of Europe.”  He also chided his European allies for not spending a higher percentage of GDP (two percent or more) on military defenses against Russia.  The 44th President also encouraged NATO member states to purchase U.S. arms and trade only with U.S. dollar allies and not Russia.  In response, former Soviet General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev warned, “The world has never been closer to nuclear war than it is at present.”  German politicians including Social Democrats and Christian Democrats accused NATO of “war mongering.”  Even more conservative voices such as former U.S. Secretary of Defense William Perry declared that, “NATO is threatening and trying to provoke nuclear war in Europe by putting bombers and nuclear missiles on the border with Russia.”  Comments:  Except for a plethora of terrifying comments about accelerating the nuclear arms race and promoting the proliferation of nuclear weapons to allies like Japan and South Korea, President Trump’s relations with Russia (including possibly illegal pre-election collusion with Russian officials to influence U.S. election results) could be interpreted by some as less aggressive than the policies of his predecessor.  However, that assessment is highly debatable for it seems that, taken as a whole, the 45th President’s first 20 weeks in office have evidenced a clearly higher risk of expanding the failed Global War on Terrorism as well as accelerating the risk of nuclear Armageddon. (Source:  Jessica Desvarieux Interview with Professor Michael Hudson. “U.S.-NATO Border Confrontation with Russia Risks Nuclear War and Loss of European Partners.”  The Real News Network.  July 17, 2016 http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&ltemid=74&jumival=16755 accessed June 19, 2017.)

    July 15, 1962 – The nonviolent, peace organization, Women Strike for Peace, founded in 1961 by lawyer, social activist, and future Congressional representative (20th District of New York, 1973-77) Bella Abzug (1920-1998) and illustrator of children’s books Dagmar Wilson (1916-2011), conducted a two-hour peace march to Camp Mercury, New York to protest nuclear testing.  Eight months prior to this action, on November 1, 1961, the organization helped guide another nuclear protest that counted 50,000 women participating in sixty global cities (including a crowd of 1,500 at the Washington Monument) under the slogan “End the Arms Race, Not the Human Race.”  Organizers of the march received support letters from First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy and the wife of Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev.  Later, United Nations Secretary-General U Thant and President Kennedy acknowledged that the group was a factor in the adoption of the Limited Test Ban Treaty of 1963.  Representatives of Women Strike for Peace were among the first Americans to oppose the Vietnam War.  On June 12, 1982, they helped organize one million people who marched in Central Park to call for an end to the nuclear arms race.  In 1991, they protested the first Persian Gulf War.  Comments:  Many women, and their spouses, friends, family members, supporters, and colleagues are continuing the tradition of antiwar and antinuclear protests as evidenced by last month’s Women’s March to Ban the Bomb held in downtown Manhattan on June 17, 2017.  (Sources:  Amy Swerdlow.  “Women Strike for Peace:  Traditional Motherhood and Radical Politics in the 1960s.” University of Chicago Press, 1993 and Elaine Woo.  “Dagmar Wilson Dies at 94; Organizer of Women’s Disarmament Protesters.”  Los Angeles Times.  Jan. 30, 2011 http://www.latimes.com/local/obituaries/la-me-dagmar-wilson-20110130-story.html  accessed June 16, 2017.)

    July 16, 1945 – In the first-ever test of what Manhattan Project scientists referred to as the “Gadget”, a fission bomb designed as a plutonium implosion device, was detonated before dawn at the Alamogordo Bombing and Gunnery Range, 230 miles south of the town of Los Alamos, New Mexico in a remote area of the Jornada Desert.  The code name of the test, Trinity, was created by the Director of the Los Alamos Laboratory, J. Robert Oppenheimer – it was a reference to a poem by John Donne.  President Truman’s personal journal of July 25 recorded that, “We have discovered the most terrible bomb in the history of the world…An experiment in the New Mexico desert…caused the complete disintegration of a steel tower 60 feet high, created a crater six feet deep and 1,200 feet in diameter, knocked down a steel tower half a mile away and knocked down men 10,000 yards away.  The explosion was visible for more than 200 miles and audible for 40 miles and more.”  Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson’s report to the president noted that, “I estimate that the energy generated to be in excess of the equivalent of 15,000 to 20,000 tons of TNT…there were tremendous blast effects…there was a lighting effect within a radius of 20 miles equal to several suns in midday; a huge ball of fire was formed which lasted for several seconds.  This ball mushroomed and rose to a height of over 10,000 feet.”   Physicist Ernest O. Lawrence, an eyewitness to the blast, described his experience of a, “gigantic ball of fire rising rapidly from the earth…The grand, indeed almost cataclysmic proportion of the explosion produced a kind of solemnity in everyone’s behavior immediately afterwards.  There was a restrained applause, but more a hushed murmuring bordering on reverence in manner as the event was commented upon…”  The “Gadget,” which exploded with an estimated force of 15-20 kilotons, slightly more than the Hiroshima bomb, was a rehearsal for the August 6-9 atomic bombings of two Japanese cities and it represented the first of 1,030 nuclear tests conducted by the United States and one of over 2,000 such tests conducted by the nine Nuclear Weapons Club members in the last 72 years.   Before the blast, a wager was made by Manhattan Project scientist Enrico Fermi that the explosion would ignite the atmosphere and devastate New Mexico and possibly the whole of the planet’s biosphere.  Thankfully, Fermi lost his wager.  But that vision of deadly apocalypse came true for hundreds of thousands of people in the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on August 6th and 9th who were vaporized, burned to death, blown into objects and buildings at horrific speed, lacerated, mutilated, and irradiated.  They suffered and some continue to suffer today from the unconscionable use of fission weapons on civilian noncombatants.  Comments:  While many U.S. military and scientific observers celebrated the beginning of the Nuclear Age, others realized that this event may have represented the beginning of the end of the human species.  (Sources:  Jack Mendelsohn and David Grahame, editors.  “Arms Control Chronology.”  Washington, DC:  Center for Defense Information, 2002, pp. 5, 24. and Gar Alperovitz.  “The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb: And the Architecture of An American Myth.”  New York:  Alfred A. Knopf, 1995, pp. 250-251 and “Trinity Test – 1945.” Atomic Heritage Foundation.  June 18, 2014.  http://www.atomicheritage.org/history/Trinity-Test-1945 accessed June 20, 2017.)

    July 25, 1980 – Despite Jimmy Carter’s pre-election and inauguration rhetoric about the need to eliminate nuclear weapons, the 39th President was convinced by Secretary of Defense Harold Brown and his hawkish National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski to sign Presidential Directive (PD) – 59 on this date.  Referred to as “The Countervailing Strategy,” this directive placed renewed emphasis on counterforce “limited” nuclear war targeting (attacking military formations and defenses, particularly nuclear weapons sites rather than countervalue targets, i.e., populated areas) against Soviet-led Warsaw Pact military forces.  It also reinforced the ability to launch U.S. nuclear weapons on warning rather than waiting until Soviet nuclear warheads impacted U.S. military assets or population centers.  The new directive supposedly increased the flexibility and survivability of the U.S. nuclear deterrent by pushing the development of the mobile MX missile (later ironically renamed the “Peacekeeper”), the Pershing II medium-range ballistic missile (which was already being sent to NATO forces in Europe), the B-2 bomber, the Trident submarine, and the Tomahawk cruise missile for possible first use “against a broad spectrum of targets,” during a theoretical, protracted nuclear war that somehow avoided escalation to an all-out conflict.  Comments:  PD-59, when combined with the more extreme anti-Soviet rhetoric and much larger military buildup of the next administration, that of President Ronald Reagan, led to the second most dangerous period of Cold War tensions and near-nuclear war in human history (next to the Cuban Missile Crisis of October 1962) in the early to mid-1980s.  Today, unfortunately, we may be living in another similar high-risk period as evidenced by a commitment by all nine nuclear weapon states to modernize and upgrade their nuclear arsenals over the next thirty years or so.  Humanity has been fortunate to avoid a thermonuclear doomsday before, but our luck won’t hold out forever.  That is why it is imperative that nuclear weapons be drastically reduced in the short-term and eliminated entirely in the next decade or so.

    July 29, 1993 – In one of the twenty known incidents of the attempted illicit sale of Russian bomb-grade fissile materials in the last 25 years, especially since the 1991 breakup of the Soviet Union, local police arrested several suspects in Andreeva Guba, Russia on this date for the attempted transfer of 1,800 grams of highly enriched uranium to a group of buyers who were in actuality undercover policemen.  In April 2015, the National Nuclear Security Administration’s Deputy Director Anne Harrington testified at a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee on Strategic Forces that, “Of the roughly 20 documented seizures of nuclear explosive materials since 1992, all have come out of the former Soviet Union.” Another area of concern is the fact that in 2015-16, President Putin began cutting back his nation’s overall nuclear security cooperation with Washington as part of the long-standing Nunn-Lugar nuclear reduction partnership program, also known as the Soviet Nuclear Threat Reduction Act, on the grounds that it no longer needed U.S. financial or technical assistance to safeguard its fissile material stockpile.  However, in June 2015, Kirill Komarov, the first deputy director of Rosatom, the state-owned corporation that runs Russia’s nuclear energy and weapons plants, countered that, “You know very well that a very operational system of controlling nuclear materials has been established worldwide, none of them are out of control.  Their movements are always strictly controlled.”  Nevertheless, the Center for Public Integrity’s November 2015 investigative report concluded that, “In fact, some 99 percent of the world’s weapons-grade materials have been secured.  But one percent or more is still out there, and it amounts to several thousand pounds that could be acquired by any one of several terrorist organizations.” Comments:  Although some significant progress in securing and protecting nuclear materials from  theft or diversion has been allegedly confirmed by Russia and other Nuclear Club nations at the four biennial nuclear security summits (2010-16), much more needs to be accomplished in the U.N. and other international fora to prevent the use of fissile materials in dirty bombs or primitive small-yield fission weapons whether the materials diverted come from civilian nuclear plants or military nuclear weapon facilities.  In addition to concerns about the resulting mass casualties and short- and long-term radioactive contamination from such a catastrophe, there is also the frightening possibility that in times of crisis, such an attack might inadvertently trigger nuclear retaliation or even precipitate a nuclear exchange.  (Source:  Douglas Birch and R. Jeffrey Smith.  “The Fuel for a Nuclear Bomb is in the Hands of an Unknown Black Marketeer from Russia, U.S. Officials Say.” Center for Public Integrity, Nov. 12, 2015 reprinted in Courier: The Stanley Foundation Newsletter, Number 86, Spring 2016, pp. 7-14.)

  • Building Peace Literacy Curriculum

    “A Year of Peace Literacy” began with NAPF Peace Leadership Director Paul K. Chappell’s talk at the Whiteside Theatre in Corvallis, Oregon last November at the invitation of an alum of Chappell’s summer workshop in 2013, Professor Linda Richards from Oregon State University (OSU). It built momentum with a quick return visit in March that saw OSU Professor Shari Clough and high school principal Eric Wright added to the team, and continued this June with “Building Peace Literacy Curriculum,” Chappell’s workshop for public school teachers and administrators held at Crescent Valley High School in Corvallis. Participants included more than 18 teachers, from every grade level at schools from Corvallis, Eugene, and Salem, as well as vice principals and principals.

    The event was organized by Professors Clough and Richards, co-Directors of Phronesis Lab: Experiments in Engaged Ethics, in the School of History, Philosophy, and Religion at OSU, along with a new team mate, Professor Mike O’Malley from the OSU College of Education.

    Workshop participants all received sample lesson plans on nine peace literacy skills which focused on three main areas: Understanding and healing aggression, resolving conflicts, and recognizing and applying the power of respect. After a presentation by Chappell, particpants broke into groups to discuss ways to incorporate the lessons into existing curriculum and to shape new curricula. Clough said, “The presentation and workshop were transformative. Thinking of our students’ peace literacy needs in terms of their psychological development was particularly helpful for me.”

    Chappell‘s presentation was titled “A New Peace Paradigm: Our Human Needs and the Tangles of Trauma.” He explained, “This is a new foundation for understanding our human problems and on this foundation we can use peace literacy skills to heal these problems.”

    Comments from educators ranged from “Paul’s insights were truly new, unique, and pragmatic” to “This is such important work and with endless rewards.”

    Clough reported, “We now have a solid team dedicated to future planning around Peace Literacy in our curricula at the primary, secondary, and post-secondary levels.”

    “A Year of Peace Literacy” will continue into September, when Chappell is scheduled to return to give several workshops in Corvallis at the university level. Clough added, “There are already a number of amazing educators around the US and Canada working on incorporating Chappell’s Peace Literacy in the classroom. The goal is for OSU to become an organizational hub that can provide resources for educators in Peace Literacy. This is more than a selection of new lesson plans. Peace Literacy is the start of an international movement.”

  • The Russell-Einstein Manifesto

    The Russell-Einstein Manifesto

    Introduction written by NAPF President David Krieger on June 28, 2017:

    The Russell-Einstein Manifesto, issued in London on July 9, 1955, is one of the greatest documents of the 20th century.  It remains a critical warning to humanity in the 21st century.  As we approach the 62nd anniversary of the Manifesto, it is worthwhile to read it again (or for the first time) and reflect on its message to humanity.  It addresses the choices before us:  “continual progress in happiness, knowledge and wisdom” or “the risk of universal death.”  It was the last public statement Einstein signed before his death.  Of its 9 signers in addition to Russell and Einstein, two were members of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s Advisory Council, Linus Pauling and Sir Joseph Rotblat.  Pauling was a great scientist and two-time Nobel Laureate.  Rotblat was the only scientist to leave the Manhattan Project as a matter of conscience.  He was a founder of the Pugwash Conferences and received the Nobel Peace Prize 50 years after the tragic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  At NAPF, we carry on the commitment of the Russell-Einstein Manifesto to achieve a world free of nuclear weapons.  We accept its advice: “Remember your humanity, and forget the rest.”

    by Bassano, vintage print, 1936

    In the tragic situation which confronts humanity, we feel that scientists should assemble in conference to appraise the perils that have arisen as a result of the development of weapons of mass destruction, and to discuss a resolution in the spirit of the appended draft.

    We are speaking on this occasion, not as members of this or that nation, continent, or creed, but as human beings, members of the species Man, whose continued existence is in doubt. The world is full of conflicts; and, overshadowing all minor conflicts, the titanic struggle between Communism and anti- Communism.

    Almost everybody who is politically conscious has strong feelings about one or more of these issues; but we want you, if you can, to set aside such feelings and consider yourselves only as members of a biological species which has had a remarkable history, and whose disappearance none of us can desire.

    We shall try to say no single word which should appeal to one group rather than to another. All, equally, are in peril, and, if the peril is understood, there is hope that they may collectively avert it.

    We have to learn to think in a new way. We have to learn to ask ourselves, not what steps can be taken to give military victory to whatever group we prefer, for there no longer are such steps; the question we have to ask ourselves is: what steps can be taken to prevent a military contest of which the issue must be disastrous to all parties?

    The general public, and even many men in positions of authority, have not realized what would be involved in a war with nuclear bombs. The general public still thinks in terms of the obliteration of cities. It is understood that the new bombs are more powerful than the old, and that, while one A-bomb could obliterate Hiroshima, one H-bomb could obliterate the largest cities, such as London, New York, and Moscow.

    No doubt in an H-bomb war great cities would be obliterated. But this is one of the minor disasters that would have to be faced. If everybody in London, New York, and Moscow were exterminated, the world might, in the course of a few centuries, recover from the blow. But we now know, especially since the Bikini test, that nuclear bombs can gradually spread destruction over a very much wider area than had been supposed.

    It is stated on very good authority that a bomb can now be manufactured which will be 2,500 times as powerful as that which destroyed Hiroshima. Such a bomb, if exploded near the ground or under water, sends radio-active particles into the upper air. They sink gradually and reach the surface of the earth in the form of a deadly dust or rain. It was this dust which infected the Japanese fishermen and their catch of fish.

    No one knows how widely such lethal radioactive particles might be diffused, but the best authorities are unanimous in saying that a war with H-bombs might possibly put an end to the human race. It is feared that if many H-bombs are used there will be universal death, sudden only for a minority, but for the majority a slow torture of disease and disintegration.

    Many warnings have been uttered by eminent men of science and by authorities in military strategy. None of them will say that the worst results are certain. What they do say is that these results are possible, and no one can be sure that they will not be realized. We have not yet found that the views of experts on this question depend in any degree upon their politics or prejudices. They depend only, so far as our researches have revealed, upon the extent of the particular expert’s knowledge. We have found that the men who know most are the most gloomy.

    Here, then, is the problem which we present to you, stark and dreadful and inescapable: Shall we put an end to the human race; or shall mankind renounce war? People will not face this alternative because it is so difficult to abolish war.

    The abolition of war will demand distasteful limitations of national sovereignty. But what perhaps impedes understanding of the situation more than anything else is that the term “mankind” feels vague and abstract. People scarcely realize in imagination that the danger is to themselves and their children and their grandchildren, and not only to a dimly apprehended humanity. They can scarcely bring themselves to grasp that they, individually, and those whom they love are in imminent danger of perishing agonizingly. And so they hope that perhaps war may be allowed to continue provided modern weapons are prohibited.

    This hope is illusory. Whatever agreements not to use H-bombs had been reached in time of peace, they would no longer be considered binding in time of war, and both sides would set to work to manufacture H-bombs as soon as war broke out, for, if one side manufactured the bombs and the other did not, the side that manufactured them would inevitably be victorious.

    Although an agreement to renounce nuclear weapons as part of a general reduction of armaments would not afford an ultimate solution, it would serve certain important purposes. First: any agreement between East and West is to the good in so far as it tends to diminish tension. Second: the abolition of thermo-nuclear weapons, if each side believed that the other had carried it out sincerely, would lessen the fear of a sudden attack in the style of Pearl Harbour, which at present keeps both sides in a state of nervous apprehension. We should, therefore, welcome such an agreement though only as a first step. Most of us are not neutral in feeling, but, as human beings, we have to remember that, if the issues between East and West are to be decided in any manner that can give any possible satisfaction to anybody, whether Communist or anti-Communist, whether Asian or European or American, whether White or Black, then these issues must not be decided by war. We should wish this to be understood, both in the East andin the West. There lies before us, if we choose, continual progress in happiness, knowledge, and wisdom. Shall we, instead, choose death, because we cannot forget our quarrels? We appeal, as human beings, to human beings: Remember your humanity, and forget the rest. If you can do so, the way lies open to a new Paradise; if you cannot, there lies before you the risk of universal death.

    Resolution

    We invite this Congress, and through it the scientists of the world and the general public, to subscribe to the following resolution:
    “In view of the fact that in any future world war nuclear weapons will certainly be employed, and that such weapons threaten the continued existence of mankind, we urge the Governments of the world to realize, and to acknowledge publicly, that their purpose cannot be furthered by a world war, and we urge them, consequently, to find peaceful means for the settlement of all matters of dispute between them.”

    Max Born
    Perry W. Bridgman
    Albert Einstein
    Leopold Infeld
    Frederic Joliot-Curie
    Herman J. Muller
    Linus Pauling
    Cecil F. Powell
    Joseph Rotblat
    Bertrand Russell
    Hideki Yukawa

  • 2017 Sadako Peace Day: August 9th

    The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation invites you to attend the 23rd annual Sadako Peace Day. It will take place on Wednesday, August 9, from 6:00-7:00 p.m. at La Casa de Maria (800 El Bosque Road, Montecito, CA 93108). There will be music, poetry, and reflection to remember the victims of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and all innocent victims of war. The event is free and open to the public. Click here to RSVP to the event on Facebook.

    For more information about Sadako Peace Day, including photos from previous years’ events, click here.

    Sadako Peace Day 2017