Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Blog

  • Letter to Pablo Picasso

    (Translated by Ruben D. Arvizu)

    Mexico City – 1957

    To Mr. Pablo Picasso, and to all the artists and men of culture in the world.

    Very dear sir and my very admired teacher and friend.

    I turn to you to ask that your voice – authorized by its just reputation – reinforces the clamor to demand, in the name of everything that in the world means culture, well-being, beauty, joy and peace, the immediate suspension of testing Atomic thermonuclear bombs, since the continuation of them can only lead to a certain end: the general atomic war with the consequent human mass destruction.

    Only the superior knowledge has given the human being the possibility to learn  the nuclear structure of matter and the power to manipulate and manage the immense energy that accumulates, and that discovery has been applied to prepare instruments destined for mass destruction.

    The threat continues, followed by a worse one, and has produced in the whole world a tremendous anguish and a frightful collective hysteria, which are leading to an imbalance of all order that depletes everything and leads society to a very rapid degeneration, visible and with complete evidence.

    All that means art, culture and superior life is already in imminent danger and we are obliged to defend it immediately.

    It seems that intelligence is not enough for man to make him understand that he is preparing his own destruction in every way. Raising, therefore, the voice of sensitivity and love to awaken that intelligence of its lethargy,  2000 American scientists have pronounced for the suspension of the tests to reach the possibility of banning atomic weapons.  Sadly, some scientists of my neighboring country of the United States, have publicly said that mankind has nothing to fear from these bomb tests, “only the final use of these in the war would be terrible.”

    But, are the test bombs made of different material than the bombs that will definitely be used in a war?  The entire world can ask the Japanese seamen and fishermen, victims of atomic rain from a US bomb test in the Pacific, and the ones poisoned by eating contaminated fish as a result of the blast.

    Perhaps scientists who do not look at atomic bomb tests as a threat to humanity, consider that the Japanese people are not part of that humanity.  Against some opinions, experience shows that in the nuclear arms race of the great powers, the citizens of small nations, who have as much right to live as the great powers, will be infinitely more, in the case of atomic war, the helpless victims of the clash of the power of the great nations.

    If the men of science, by the thousands, have raised their voice against this enormous atrocity, this voice so far does not seem to have been heard by all, since there are even scientists able to help to mute the alarm bells of their colleagues, favoring with that the producers of bombs.

    Why has not that voice been heard more clearly by the millions of mothers whose children are threatened with death, preventing them from joining, organizing themselves around the world to stop the hand that makes the tools of destruction that will murder the children they gave life to?

    Why has not that voice been actively supported by the millions of humans eager to live by building within peace and joy and not preparing the general annihilation within anguish and despair?

    Why do not the women and men of the whole world already form an immense peace organization to forever stop the wickedness of war?  What is the reason for this unexplained deafness in the face of the dreaded danger?

    That is why I raise as high as I can my insignificant voice, to call all those who live by love and human sensitivity, building beauty that is the indispensable food of the higher life, to cry, to demand the immediate suspension of atomic bomb tests for at least the three years that have been proposed. We will thus give men time to recover their lost reasoning and reach a total ban, by agreement of the whole world, to stop the manufacture and use of thermonuclear utensils of mass destruction of mankind.

    In the name of human solidarity, your attentive servant.

    Diego Rivera.

  • Statement at the United Nations Conference to Negotiate a Legally Binding Instrument to Prohibit Nuclear Weapons

    Rick Wayman, NAPF’s Director of Programs and Operations, delivered this statement to the United Nations Conference to negotiate a legally binding instrument to prohibit nuclear weapons, leading towards their total elimination, on June 16, 2017. The text of the final treaty, adopted on July 7, 2017, is here.

    wayman_un

    Thank you Madame President,

    Nuclear deterrence, the logic it professes, and the practices it justifies, are reckless, costly, and completely counterproductive to the aims of global security. We agree with Indonesia, which has highlighted the need to delegitimize nuclear deterrence as a concept.

    I refer you to our Working Paper 39, which presents reasons why nuclear deterrence is inadequate and flawed as a means of providing security, and is antithetical to the goal of comprehensive nuclear disarmament.

    Relying on the constant threat of nuclear weapons use, nuclear deterrence in any form cannot coexist with the pursuit of comprehensive nuclear disarmament.

    Therefore, we encourage the inclusion of a clause in the preamble of the treaty to the effect of:

    “Understanding that nuclear deterrence is only an unproven hypothesis regarding human behavior — one that does not provide physical protection and could fail catastrophically.”

    In addition, since nuclear deterrence constitutes an ongoing threat of nuclear weapons use, we support proposals outlined by South Africa and Iran, and backed by numerous states, to include the threat of use of nuclear weapons in the preamble.

    Thank you, Madame President.

    Video of NAPF’s statement begins at 24:20.

     

  • Overcoming Nuclear Crises

    This article was originally published in The Hill under the title “Averting the Ticking Time Bomb of Nukes in North Korea” on May 30, 2017.

    Alarmingly, tensions between the United States and North Korea have again reached crisis proportions. The United States wants North Korea to curtail any further development of its nuclear weapons program, as well as to stop testing its missiles. North Korea evidently seeks to bolster its security by acquiring a sufficiently robust deterrent capability to discourage an attack by the United States. The unpredictable leaders of both countries are pursuing extremely provocative and destabilizing patterns of behavior. Where such dangerous interactions lead no one can now foresee. The risk of this tense situation spiraling out of control should not be minimized.

    It is urgent that all governments concerned make a sober reassessment in a timely manner. The following questions need to be addressed: What can be done to defuse this escalating crisis? What should be done to prevent further crises in the future? What could be learned from recurrent crises involving nuclear weapons states?

    It is discouraging that the White House continues to rely mainly on threat diplomacy. It has not worked in responding to North Korea’s nuclear ambitions for the past few decades, and it is crucial to try a different approach. Currently, there are mixed signals that such a shift may be underway. President Trump has turned to China, imploring that it use its leverage to induce Kim Jong Un to back down, and has even mentioned the possibility of inviting Kim for crisis-resolving talks. Also relevant and hopeful is the election of Moon Jae-in as the new president of South Korea, and his insistent calls for improved relations with the North.

    In the end, no reasonable person would opt for another war on the Korean Peninsula. The only rational alternative is diplomacy. But what kind of diplomacy? American reliance on threat and punitive diplomacy has never succeeded in the past and is almost certain to fail now. We assuredly need diplomacy, but of a different character.

    It is time to abandon coercive diplomacy and develop an approach that can be described as restorative diplomacy. Coercive diplomacy relies on a zero/sum calculus consisting of military threats, sanctions, and a variety of punitive measures. Restorative diplomacy adopts a win/win approach that seeks to find mutual benefits for both sides, restructuring the relationship so as to provide security for the weaker side and stability for the stronger side. The challenge to the political imagination is to find the formula for translating this abstract goal into viable policy options.

    The basic shift is a mental recognition that in the context of the Korean Peninsula any military encounter, whether nuclear or non-nuclear, is a recipe for catastrophe. It is not a win or lose situation. It is lose/lose in terms of human suffering, devastation, and likely political outcome. If nuclear weapons are used by either or both sides, millions of casualties could occur in an unprecedented disaster.

    While there have been suggestions from the Trump administration that the time for talk with North Korea is over, actually the opposite is true. A solution to the present Korean crisis would involve an immediate return to the negotiating table with positive inducements made by the U.S. in exchange for North Korea halting its development of nuclear weapons and missile testing.

    Such incentives could include, first and foremost, bilateral and regional security guarantees to the North Korean government, ensuring that the country would not be attacked and that its sovereignty would be respected. This could be coupled with confidence-building measures. The U.S. and South Korea should halt their joint annual military exercises in the vicinity of North Korea, as well as forego provocative weapons deployments. In addition, the U.S. and possibly Japan could offer North Korea additional benefits: food, medicine and clean energy technology. China could play a positive role by hosting the negotiations, including possibly inviting the new leader of South Korea to participate.

    Beyond resolving the current crisis is the deeper challenge to prevent recurrent crises that pit nuclear weapon states against one another. There is no way to achieve this result so long as some countries retain, develop, and deploy nuclear weapons, and other countries are prohibited from acquiring such weaponry even if their security is under threat. Iraq and Libya arguably suffered the consequences of not having nuclear weapons to deter attacks against them.

    The only way out of this trap is to recognize that the nuclear nonproliferation regime has failed. The treaty provisions calling for nuclear as well as general and complete disarmament negotiations have been neglected for nearly half a century. Outside the terms of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the United States has acted as an enforcer of a nuclear nonproliferation regime. Such a role motivated the U.S. attack on Iraq in 2003 with its disastrous impacts on the country and the entire Middle East. It also underlies the current crisis pitting Washington’s demands against Pyongyang’s provocations. Hard power approaches to such dangerous developments have a dismal record and pose unacceptable risks of regional and global havoc.

    To prohibit and eliminate nuclear weapons epitomizes prudence in the Nuclear Age. It is the only way to prevent a crisis between nuclear-armed opponents turning into a nuclear catastrophe. Such behavior would constitute an act of sanity for humanity and its future given the extreme dangers of nuclear weapons, the periodic crises that erupt among nuclear-armed countries, and the growing odds of nuclear weapons being used at some point. Yet for smaller, weaker nuclear weapons states to go along with this approach, the United Nations Charter and international law must be respected to the point that regime-changing geopolitical interventions by dominant states are convincingly rejected as a reasonable policy option.

    Any use of nuclear weapons would be catastrophic. Depending upon the extent of the nuclear exchange, cities, countries, civilization, and even all complex life, including the human species, would be at risk. Experts anticipate that a nuclear war between India and Pakistan in which 100 Hiroshima-size nuclear weapons were used against cities would likely cause a nuclear famine taking two billion lives globally. An all-out nuclear war could be an extinction event for complex life, including humanity.

    Nine countries currently possess nuclear weapons (United States, Russia, United Kingdom, France, China, Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea). Nine leaders could initiate nuclear war by mistake, miscalculation or malice. The future rests precariously in the hands of this small number of individuals. Such an unprecedented concentration of power and authority undermines democracy, as well as being extremely reckless and irresponsible.

    It is essential to maintain our focus on the challenges posed by the development of North Korean nuclear capabilities. At the same time, while struggling to defuse this crisis endangering the Korean Peninsula, we should not lose sight of its connection with the questionable wider structure of reliance on nuclear weapons. Until this structure of nuclearism is itself overcome, crises will almost certainly continue to occur. It is foolhardy to suppose that nuclear catastrophes can be indefinitely averted without addressing these deeper challenges that have existed ever since the original atomic attack on Hiroshima.

    Richard Falk is senior vice president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation and Albert G. Milbank Professor of International Law Emeritus, Princeton University. David Krieger is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

  • National Illusions and Global Realities

    This article was originally published by Huffington Post.

    For as long as they have existed, nations have clung to the illusion that their military strength guarantees their security.

    The problem with this kind of thinking is that the military power that one nation considers vital to its security fosters other nations’ sense of insecurity.  In this climate of suspicion, an arms race ensues, often culminating in military conflict.  Also, sometimes the very military strength that a nation intended for protection ends up emboldening it to engage in reckless, aggressive behavior, leading to war.

    By the twentieth century, the devastation caused by wars among nations had grown so great that the general public and even many government officials began to recognize that a world left to the mercies of national military power was a dangerous world, indeed.   As a result, after the mass slaughter of World War I, they organized the League of Nations to foster international security.  When this proved insufficient to stop the march of nations toward World War II and its even greater devastation, they organized a new and stronger global entity: the United Nations.

    Unfortunately, however, bad habits die hard, and relying on military force to solve problems is one of the oldest and most destructive habits in human history.  Therefore, even as they paid lip service to the United Nations and its attempts to create international security, many nations slipped back into the familiar pattern of building up their armed forces and weaponry.  This included nuclear weapons, the most effective instruments of mass slaughter yet devised.

    Not surprisingly, then, although the leaders of highly militarized nations talked about building “peace through strength,” their countries often underwent many years of war.  Indeed, the United States, the most heavily-armed nation since 1945, has been at war with other countries most of that time.  Other nations whose post-World War II military might has helped embroil them in wars include Russia, Britain, France, China, India, Israel, Egypt, Iraq, and Iran.

    Given this sorry record, it is alarming to find that the nine nuclear-armed nations (the United States, Russia, Britain, France, China, India, Israel, Pakistan, and North Korea) have ignored the obligation under the 1968 nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to divest themselves of nuclear weapons and, instead, recently embarked on a new round in the nuclear arms race.  The U.S. government, for example, has begun a massive, 30-year program to build a new generation of U.S. nuclear weapons and nuclear production facilities to last the United States well into the second half of the twenty-first century.  This program, slated to cost $1 trillion, includes redesigned nuclear warheads, as well as new nuclear bombers, submarines, land-based missiles, weapons labs, and production plants.

    However, as the nuclear powers renew their race to catastrophe, the non-nuclear powers are beginning to revolt.  Constituting most nations of the world, they have considerable clout in the UN General Assembly.  In late 2016, they brought to this body a resolution to launch negotiations on a treaty prohibiting nuclear weapons.  Critics of the resolution maintained that such a treaty was ridiculous, for, ultimately, only the nine nuclear powers could negotiate their disarmament―not an assembly of other nations.  But supporters of the resolution argued that, if the overwhelming majority of nations voted to ban nuclear weapons―that is, make them illegal under international law―this would put substantial pressure on the nuclear powers to comply with the world community by acting to eliminate their nuclear arsenals.

    To avoid this embarrassment, the nuclear powers and their allies fought back vigorously against passage of this UN resolution.  But, on December 23, 2016, the resolution sailed through the UN General Assembly by an overwhelming vote:  113 nations in favor and 35 opposed, with 13 abstentions.

    And so, on March 27, 2017, a diplomatic conference convened, at the UN headquarters in New York City, with the goal of crafting what the UN called a “legally binding instrument to prohibit nuclear weapons, leading towards their total elimination.”  Some 130 countries participated in the first round of these negotiations that included discussions with leaders of peace and disarmament groups and a range of experts on nuclear weapons.  But the nuclear powers and most of their allies boycotted the gathering.  In fact, at a press conference conducted as the conclave began, Nikki Haley, the U.S. representative to the United Nations, and representatives of other nuclear powers denounced the proceedings.

    Perhaps because of the boycott by the nuclear powers, the UN negotiations went forward smoothly.  On May 22, Ambassador Elayne Whyte of Costa Rica, president of the conference, released a first draft of the UN treaty, which would prohibit nations from developing, producing, manufacturing, possessing, or stockpiling nuclear weapons.  The UN conferees plan to adopt necessary revisions and, then, produce a final treaty for a vote in early July.

    To publicize and support the treaty, peace and disarmament groups have organized a June 17 march in New York City.  Although dubbed a Women’s Ban the Bomb March, it is open to people of different genders, ages, races, nationalities, and faiths.  It will assemble in midtown Manhattan, at Bryant Park, at noon, after which the marchers will head for Dag Hammarskjold Plaza, near the UN headquarters, for a rally.

    As this treaty directly challenges the long-time faith in the value of national military power, typified by the scramble for nuclear weapons, it might not get very far.  But who really knows?  Facing the unprecedented danger of nuclear war, the world community might finally be ready to dispense with this national illusion.

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

  • Probabilidad de la Guerra Nuclear

    Traducción de Ruben Arvizu.

    Click here for the English version.

    La mayoría de la gente vive pensando en forma mínima las consecuencias o probabilidad de una guerra nuclear.  Las consecuencias se entienden generalmente como catastróficas. Tal vez por ello se tiende a creer que la probabilidad de una guerra nuclear es extremadamente baja. Pero, ¿es esto realmente el caso? ¿Debe la gente sentirse a salvo de una guerra nuclear basándose sólo en la percepción de que es improbable que ocurra?

    Puesto que las consecuencias de la guerra nuclear podrían ser tan enormes  como la extinción de la humanidad, la probabilidad de tal resultado preferimos que sea cero, pero este no es el caso. Las armas nucleares se han utilizado dos veces en los últimos 72 años, en un momento en que sólo un país las poseía. Hoy en día, nueve países tienen armas nucleares, y hay cerca de 15.000 ojivas nucleares en el mundo.

    La disuasión nuclear, basada en la amenaza de represalias nucleares, es la justificación para la posesión de estas armas. Sin embargo, es una pobre justificación, no es ética, es ilegal y sujeta a un fracaso catastrófico. A lo largo de los 72 años de la era nuclear, la disuasión nuclear ha estado cerca de fracasar en muchas ocasiones, demostrando debilidades en la hipótesis de que la amenaza de represalias nos protegerá indefinidamente contra la hecatombe nuclear.

    Le pregunté a varias personas que trabajaban por el desarme nuclear, todos ellas asociados de la Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (Fundación Para la Paz en la Era Nuclear), sus opiniones sobre la probabilidad de una guerra nuclear.

    Martin Hellman, profesor emérito de ingeniería eléctrica en Stanford, dijo lo siguiente: “Incluso si se pudiera esperar que la disuasión nuclear funcionara durante 500 años antes de que fallara y destruyera la civilización -un período de tiempo que parece muy optimista para la mayoría de la gente- es como jugar a la ruleta rusa con la vida de un niño nacido hoy. Eso es porque la vida esperada de ese niño es aproximadamente un sexto de 500 años. Y, si ese “horizonte nuclear” es de sólo 100 años, ese niño tendría peores probabilidades de vivir su vida natural. No conocer el nivel de riesgo es una falla enorme en nuestra estrategia de seguridad nacional. Entonces, ¿por qué la sociedad se comporta como si la disuasión nuclear estuviera esencialmente libre de riesgos? “

    A continuación, pregunté a John Avery, profesor asociado de química cuántica en la Universidad de Copenhague, por su visión de la probabilidad de una guerra nuclear a finales del siglo XXI. El respondió:

    “Hay 83 años restantes en este siglo.  Se puede calcular la probabilidad de que lleguemos al final del siglo sin una guerra nuclear bajo varios supuestos de riesgo anual. Aquí hay una tabla que lo demuestra:

    Riesgo anual                                            Posibilidad de supervivencia

    1%                                                        43,4%
    2%                                                        18,7%
    3%                                                          7,9%
    4%                                                          3,4%
    5%                                                          1,4%

    “Hay que concluir que, a largo plazo, la supervivencia de la civilización humana y gran parte de la biosfera exige la completa eliminación de las armas nucleares”.

    Finalmente, le pregunté a Steven Starr, un científico de la Universidad de Missouri, quien respondió de esta manera:

    “No estoy seguro si puedo proporcionar cualquier tipo de valor numérico o cálculo para estimar el riesgo de guerra nuclear en un período de tiempo dado.  Pero ciertamente diría que a menos que los seres humanos logren eliminar los arsenales nucleares, y probablemente la institución misma de la guerra, creo que es inevitable que las armas nucleares se utilicen mucho antes de que finalice el siglo. Hay demasiadas armas en demasiados lugares / países. . . Creo que hay cerca de 15.000 armas nucleares, ¿verdad? . . . Y hay demasiados conflictos e injusticias y personas con hambre de poder que tienen acceso y control sobre estas armas. Hay demasiadas posibilidades de error de cálculo, fallas tecnológicas y simplemente comportamiento irracional para imaginar que podemos continuar indefinidamente evitando el uso de armas nucleares en un conflicto.

    “Así que estoy muy feliz de ver que un tratado para prohibir las armas nucleares está siendo negociado en la ONU. Esto me demuestra que hay un gran número de personas y naciones que tienen plena consciencia del peligro nuclear y están tomando medidas para detenerlo “.

    Conclusiones

    Las probabilidades de evitar una catástrofe nuclear no son reconfortantes.

    Estamos jugando una Ruleta Nuclear con el futuro de nuestros hijos y nietos.

    La única forma de asegurar que la probabilidad de una guerra nuclear sea cero es eliminar todas las armas nucleares.

    Una forma de apoyar el objetivo del cero nuclear es apoyar el Tratado de Prohibición Nuclear actualmente en negociación en las Naciones Unidas.

    David Krieger es presidente de la Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org).

    Ruben D. Arvizu es Director para América Latina de la Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

  • Probability of Nuclear War

    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.

    Nuclear deterrence, based upon the threat of nuclear retaliation, is the justification for possession of these weapons. It is, however, a poor justification, being unethical, illegal, and subject to catastrophic failure.  Over the 72 years of the nuclear era, nuclear deterrence has come close to failing on many occasions, demonstrating weaknesses in the hypothesis that threat of retaliation will protect indefinitely against nuclear war.

    I asked several individuals working for nuclear disarmament, all Associates of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, about their views on the probability of nuclear war.

    Martin Hellman, a professor emeritus of electrical engineering at Stanford, had this to say: “Even if nuclear deterrence could be expected to work for 500 years before it failed and destroyed civilization – a time period that sounds highly optimistic to most people – that would be like playing Russian roulette with the life of a child born today. That’s because that child’s expected lifetime is roughly one-sixth of 500 years. And, if that ‘nuclear time horizon’ is more like 100 years, that child would have worse than even odds of living out his or her natural life. Not knowing the level of risk is a gaping hole in our national security strategy. So why does society behave as if nuclear deterrence were essentially risk free?”

    I next asked John Avery, an associate professor of quantum chemistry at the University of Copenhagen, for his view of the probability of nuclear war by end of the 21st century.  He responded:

    “There are 83 remaining years in this century. One can calculate the probability that we will reach the end of the century without a nuclear war under various assumptions of yearly risk. Here is a table:

    Yearly risk           Chance of survival
    1%                             43.4%
    2%                             18.7%
    3%                              7.9%
    4%                              3.4%
    5%                              1.4%

    “One has to conclude that in the long run, the survival of human civilization and much of the biosphere requires the complete elimination of nuclear weapons.”

    Finally, I asked Steven Starr, a scientist at the University of Missouri, who responded in this way:

    “I’m not sure if I can provide any sort of numerical value or calculation to estimate the risk of nuclear war in a given time period. However, I certainly would say that unless humans manage to eliminate nuclear arsenals, and probably the institution of war itself, then I think it is very likely that nuclear weapons will be used well before the end of the century.

    “But I certainly would say that unless humans manage to eliminate nuclear arsenals, and probably the institution of war itself, then I think it is inevitable that nuclear weapons will be used well before the end of the century.  There are just too many weapons in too many places/countries . . . something close to 15,000 nuclear weapons, right? . . .  and there are too many conflicts and injustices and power-hungry people who have access to and control over these weapons. There are just too many possibilities for miscalculation, failures of technology, and simply irrational behavior, to imagine that we can continue to indefinitely avoid the use of nuclear weapons in conflict.

    “Thus I am very happy to see that a treaty to ban nuclear weapons is now being negotiated at the UN. This proves to me that there are a great many people and nations that are fully aware of the nuclear danger and are taking action to stop it.”

    Conclusions

    The odds of averting a nuclear catastrophe are not comforting.

    We are playing Nuclear Roulette with the futures of our children and grandchildren.

    The only way to assure that the probability of nuclear war goes to zero is to eliminate all nuclear weapons.

    One way to support the goal of nuclear zero is to support the Nuclear Ban Treaty currently being negotiated at the United Nations.

    Vaya aquí para la versión española.

  • A New UN Nuclear Convention Is In the Making

    This article was originally published by In Depth News.

    sergio_duarte

    The timely release of the draft Convention on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons by President Elayne Whyte-Gómez well in advance of the start of the second part of the negotiations will permit delegations from Member States and participating non-governmental organizations as well as interested institutions and individuals to study the text and come to the United Nations on June 15 fully prepared to contribute to the finalization of the Convention.

    A first look at the draft brings to mind the importance of the humanitarian considerations that lie at the basis of the movement to achieve an international legal norm against nuclear weapons. The first five preambular paragraphs clearly recognize the catastrophic consequences and implications of any use of nuclear weapons and the suffering of victims of such use and of those affected by nuclear weapon tests and go on to reaffirm the rules applying to armed conflict.

    Most importantly, the Preamble declares that any such use is contrary to the rules of international law, in particular the principles and rules of humanitarian law, which derive from established custom, from the principles of humanity and from the dictates of public conscience.

    The subsequent preambular paragraphs express the determination of the States Parties to the Convention to contribute to the realization of the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and to act toward the achievement of further effective measures of nuclear disarmament in order to facilitate the elimination from national arsenals of nuclear weapons and the means of their delivery.

    They also stress the existence of an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament, as contained in the unanimous ICJ Advisory Opinion of July 8 1996. The crucial importance of the Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), of the Comprehensive Test-ban Treaty (CTBT) and of the instruments establishing nuclear-weapon-free zones toward the strengthening of the non-proliferation regime and realizing the objective of nuclear disarmament is duly reaffirmed.

    These expressions make abundantly clear that the draft in no way aims at disrupting the existing non-proliferation regime or undermining its legal basis, but rather at its strengthening in order to realize longstanding objectives of the international community as a whole.

    The first two operative paragraphs are clearly formulated and spell out the basic obligations to be undertaken by the Parties with regard to nuclear weapons as well as the steps to be followed in the fulfillment of such obligations. Prohibitions contained in Article 1. (a) to (g) encompass, among other activities, the development, production, manufacture of nuclear weapons and other nuclear explosive devices as well as their possession and stockpiling. The transfer of such weapons or devices and their stationing, installation or deployment anywhere is likewise outlawed. Article 1.2.(a) reinforces the provisions of the CTBT by prohibiting any nuclear test explosion or any other nuclear explosion.

    Drawing on the example set by the Chemical Weapons Convention each Party to this new Convention is required to submit a declaration on whether it has manufactured, possessed or otherwise acquired nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices after a certain date. This provision does not, however, require the destruction of the declared weapons or devices.

    Article 3 deals with the obligation to accept safeguards to prevent diversion of nuclear energy from peaceful uses to nuclear weapons or other explosive devices, as provided for in the Annex of the Convention. It is important to ensure that the application of such safeguards is performed in full accordance with the Statutes of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

    The interesting and innovative provisions contained in articles 4 and 5 seem to need further clarification. According to Article 4, States Party that have eliminated, prior to the entry into force of the Convention for it, nuclear weapons manufactured, possessed or otherwise acquired after that date undertake to cooperate with the IAEA for the purpose of verification of the completeness of its inventory of nuclear materials and installations.

    This presupposes that the process of elimination of nuclear weapons must precede the entry into force of the Convention for each State accepting that obligation. Such process, however, is not subject to independent verification.

    Article 5 then becomes very relevant, since it deals with proposals for further effective measures of nuclear disarmament, including the verified and irreversible elimination of any remaining nuclear weapons programmes, especially through Protocols to be considered by the Parties to the Convention. States that become Parties to the Convention and which possess nuclear weapons manufactured or otherwise acquired before December 5, 2001 can avail themselves of the possibility of proposing further effective measures relating to their nuclear disarmament to be considered by the States Parties at their Meetings as provided for in Article 9 and adopted by the Convention.

    In this way, the Convention remains permanently open to the inclusion of new Parties that decide to eliminate their own nuclear arsenals according to the provisions of the Convention and then accede to it at a time of their own choosing. Significant segments of public opinion in States that do not possess nuclear weapons themselves, but which have nuclear hosting or nuclear sharing arrangements with nuclear weapon States could be attracted to this possibility and help bring about changes in the current attitudes of their governments.

    The remaining draft provisions are quite clear and should not raise much controversy. Article 6 is in line with the humanitarian inspiration of the Convention. Article 9 makes possible for States not Party to attend the Meetings and Review Conferences as observers. Article 13 is innovative inasmuch as it fosters adherence to the Convention by calling upon on States party to “encourage” non-Parties to ratify, accept, approve or accede to it. Explicit mention is made in Article 19 to the fact that the Convention does not affect the rights and obligations of Parties to the Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.

    The text presented by President Whyte-Gómez avoids the establishment of different categories among the Parties to the future Convention and keeps open future accession by States that possess or host nuclear weapons as described above.

    States that possess nuclear weapons and some of their allies have repeatedly voiced opposition to the prohibition treaty, while non-nuclear-weapon States have become increasingly critical of what they regard as lack of political will on the part of the possessor States to honor their nuclear disarmament obligations under Article VI of the NPT.

    The success of the Convention and its ability to evolve over time into a universal instrument codifying the repudiation of nuclear weapons will depend on the response of public and specialized opinion worldwide, particularly in States that remain initially outside its purview. States that become Parties to the Convention, as well as civil society organizations supporting it have a special responsibility to work toward its universalization.

    There is great expectation on the part of the 132 States and the many non-governmental organizations that participated in the first part of the Conference last May for the continuation of the work on the elaboration of the new Convention. It must be kept simple and clear and at the same time be inclusive and open to universal participation.

    72 years since the start of the proliferation of nuclear weapons and 47 years since the entry into force of the NPT, the continued existence of nuclear weapons and the frightening prospect of their use still haunt mankind. The opportunity to establish an international legal norm prohibiting such weapons must not be squandered.

    * Sergio Duarte was the UN High Representative for Disarmament Affairs with the United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs (2007-2012). He was the President of the 2005 Seventh Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. A career diplomat, he served the Brazilian Foreign Service for 48 years. He was the Ambassador of Brazil in a number of countries, including Austria, Croatia, Slovakia and Slovenia concurrently, China, Canada and Nicaragua. He also served in Switzerland, the United States, Argentina and Rome.

  • Sunflower Newsletter: June 2017

    Issue #239 – June 2017
    Donate Now!

    Help us sustain the movement for peace and Nuclear Zero. Shop at our online store, choose NAPF as your charity of choice when checking out at smile.amazon.com, or ask your employer whether they can match your tax-deductible donation to NAPF. Please make a meaningful donation today and honor someone special in your life.

    Facebook Twitter Addthis
    • Perspectives
      • Averting the Ticking Time Bomb of Nukes in North Korea by Richard Falk and David Krieger
      • U.S. Prepares to Confront Nuclear Ban Treaty with Smart Bombs by Rick Wayman
    • U.S. Nuclear Weapons Policy
      • Fire at Plutonium Facility Puts Future of Nuclear Weapons Lab in Question
      • North Korea Accuses U.S. and South Korea of Nuclear Bomb-Dropping Drill
    • Nuclear Disarmament
      • Draft Ban Treaty Released Ahead of Second Round of Negotiations
    • Missile Defense
      • Highly Scripted Missile Defense Test Called a “Success”
    • War and Peace
      • Americans Who Can Find North Korea on a Map Are More Likely to Prefer Diplomacy
      • North Korea Test Fired Three Missiles in May
    • Nuclear Modernization
      • New ICBM Estimated to Cost $85 Billion and Climbing
      • Radioactive Waste Tunnel Collapses While U.S. Spends Billions on New Nuclear Weapons
    • Resources
      • This Month in Nuclear Threat History
      • Accountability Audit
      • We’re Edging Closer to Nuclear War
    • Foundation Activities
      • NAPF Representatives Lobby Congress
      • Final Negotiations for a Nuclear Ban Treaty
      • Poetry Contest Deadline Is July 1
    • Quotes

     

    Perspectives

    Avoiding the Ticking Time Bomb of Nukes in North Korea

    by Richard Falk and David Krieger

    Alarmingly, tensions between the United States and North Korea have again reached crisis proportions. The unpredictable leaders of both countries are pursuing extremely provocative and destabilizing patterns of behavior. Where such dangerous interactions lead no one can now foresee. The risk of this tense situation spiraling out of control should not be minimized.

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

    U.S. Prepares to Confront Nuclear Ban Treaty with Smart Bombs

    by Rick Wayman

    On May 23, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) issued a press release celebrating President Trump’s proposed 2018 budget. DOE specifically lauded the proposed “$10.2 billion for Weapons Activities to maintain and enhance the safety, security, and effectiveness of our nuclear weapons enterprise.”

    Less than 24 hours earlier, Ambassador Elayne Whyte of Costa Rica released a draft of a treaty banning nuclear weapons. Over 130 nations have participated in the ban treaty negotiations thus far. A final treaty text is expected by early July.

    No one is surprised at President Trump’s proposed funding for nuclear weapons activities; in fact, it is largely a continuation of the U.S. nuclear “modernization” program that began under President Obama. What is alarming, however, is the tacit admission by the Department of Energy that it is not simply maintaining current U.S. nuclear warheads until such time as they are eliminated. Rather, it is enhancing the “effectiveness” of nuclear weapons by incorporating new military capabilities into new weapons expected to be active through the final decades of the 21st century.

    To read more, click here.

    U.S. Nuclear Weapons Policy

    Fire at Plutonium Facility Puts Future of Nuclear Weapons Lab in Question

    The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board will hold a hearing on June 7 to discuss the future of the Los Alamos National Laboratory, one of the United States’ main nuclear weapons facilities. A fire broke out at a Los Alamos plutonium facility in mid-April. The Board is unsure whether Los Alamos is competent to continue to operate and handle increasing quantities of plutonium in the coming years.

    Jay Coghlan, Executive Director of Nuclear Watch New Mexico, said, “Fattening up our already bloated nuclear weapons stockpile is not going to improve our national security. New Mexicans desperately need better funded schools and health care, not expanded plutonium pit production that will cause more pollution and threaten our scarce water resources.”

    “Fire Raises Questions About Los Alamos National Laboratory’s Safety,” Associated Press, May 27, 2017.

    North Korea Accuses U.S. and South Korea of Nuclear Bomb-Dropping Drill

    North Korea lashed out at the U.S. and South Korea for conducting what it calls a “nuclear bomb-dropping drill” with B-1B strategic bombers on May 29. North Korea claimed the B-1B bombers, which are currently deployed to Guam, flew over South Korea and approached an area 80 km east of Gangneung, an eastern city near the Military Demarcation Line that serves as the border between the two Koreas.

    Contrary to North Korea’s claim, the B-1B bombers no longer carry nuclear weapons, though they were nuclear-capable for a time. According to the U.S. Air Force, the conversion to an all-conventional mission for B-1 aircraft was completed in March 2011.

    A report by the state-run Korean Central News Agency said, “Such military provocation of the U.S. imperialists is a dangerous reckless racket for bringing the situation on the Korean Peninsula to the brink of a war.”

    Jesse Johnson, “North Korea Blasts South for ‘Nuclear Bomb-Dropping’ Drill with U.S. B-1B Strategic Bomber,” Japan Times, May 30, 2017.

    Nuclear Disarmament

    Draft Ban Treaty Released Ahead of Second Round of Negotiations

    On May 22, a United Nations disarmament panel released the first draft of a treaty prohibiting nuclear weapons. Negotiations among 130+ nations at the United Nations will resume on June 15 in New York. The agenda currently calls for a final treaty to be prepared by July 7. The United States and the world’s eight other nuclear-armed nations have thus far boycotted the negotiations.

    The draft treaty would commit signers to “never use nuclear weapons” and never “develop, produce, manufacture, otherwise acquire, possess or stockpile nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.”

    Representatives of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation will be actively participating in the negotiations at the UN in the coming weeks.

    Rick Gladstone, “UN Panel Releases Draft of Treaty to Ban Nuclear Arms,” The New York Times, May 22, 2017.

    Missile Defense

    Highly Scripted Missile Defense Test Called a “Success”

    On May 30, the United States conducted a test of its Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system. A mock enemy missile was launched from Kwajalein Atoll in the Marshall Islands, and an interceptor missile was launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California. The test, which cost $244 million, was hailed as a “success” by missile defense proponents because the interceptor missile destroyed the mock incoming missile.

    However, the GMD system is far from having proven itself as a viable system that can work under real-world conditions. Operators knew the date and time of the “enemy” launch, as well as the exact location from which the enemy missile would be fired. They also knew the exact specs of the enemy missile, enabling them to better anticipate its trajectory. The weather was clear, and the test took place during daylight hours. Few, if any, of these conditions are likely to be present in a real-world scenario. This makes any claim of this test being a “success” an exaggeration at best.

    David Willman, “Pentagon Successfully Tests Missile Defense System Amid Rising Concerns About North Korea,” Los Angeles Times, May 30, 2017.

    War and Peace

    Americans Who Can Find North Korea on a Map Are More Likely to Prefer Diplomacy

    A new experiment conducted in April reveals some surprising correlations between one’s political preferences and geographical literacy.

    Those who were able to identify North Korea on a map tended to favor nonviolent, diplomatic approaches towards the country. Not surprisingly, they were also more likely to disapprove of direct military engagement in the region. These results tell us that in order to achieve peace, we must encourage younger generations to look outward rather than inward.

    Kevin Quealy, “If Americans Can Find North Korea on a Map, They’re More Likely to Prefer Diplomacy,” The New York Times, May 14, 2017.

    North Korea Test Fired Three Missiles in May

    North Korea conducted three missile tests in the month of May. They were all short- or medium-range ballistic missiles. While North Korea does not yet possess a missile capable of reaching the United States, its missiles do pose a threat to U.S. troops in the region and U.S. allies such as South Korea and Japan.

    Experts widely believe that North Korea is seeking the capability to strike the U.S. with a nuclear weapon as a deterrent to regime change. North Korea has cited the examples of Saddam Hussein in Iraq and Moammar Gadaffi in Libya as two leaders who gave up their nuclear weapons programs and were taken down by the U.S.

    Joshua Berlinger, “North Korea’s Missile Tests: By the Numbers,” CNN, May 29, 2017.

    Nuclear Modernization

    New ICBM Estimated to Cost $85 Billion and Climbing

    The latest cost estimates for the United States to field a new intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) system is up to $85 billion, with the estimated price tag likely to rise even further as the program progresses. Former U.S. Secretary of Defense William Perry has called for the elimination of the ICBM leg of the nuclear triad. Perry said, “The ICBM system is outdated, risky and unnecessary. Basically, it can bring about the end of civilization with a false alarm. It’s a liability because we can easily achieve deterrence without it.”

    W.J. Hennigan and Ralph Vartabedian, “Upgrading U.S. Nuclear Missiles, as Russia and China Modernize, Would Cost $85 Billion. Is it Time to Quit the ICBM Race?” Los Angeles Times, May 30, 2017.

    Radioactive Waste Tunnel Collapses While U.S. Spends Billions on New Nuclear Weapons

    On May 9, a tunnel in which radioactive waste is stored collapsed at the Hanford Nuclear Site in Washington State. This latest accident is a stark reminder of the ongoing risks presented by nuclear facilities within the United States. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has estimated that it will cost $32 billion to completely decontaminate and demolish DOE’s old, unused nuclear weapons facilities.

    Meanwhile, in the budget proposal published by the Trump Administration on May 23, DOE’s National Nuclear Security Administration saw a $1 billion increase over last year, up to $10.2 billion. Instead of focusing on dealing with the myriad messes already created in the process of producing nuclear weapons, the U.S. is choosing to create additional weapons, which will inevitably lead to more waste and more environmental issues.

    Robert Alvarez, a senior scholar at the Institute for Policy Studies, said, “The longer you wait to deal with this problem, the more dangerous it becomes.”

    Tom James, “Hanford Nuclear Site Accident Puts Focus on Aging U.S. Facilities,” Reuters, May 12, 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 June, including the start of the Korean War on June 25, 1950. The U.S. threatened to use nuclear weapons during the Korean War. The war ended with an armistice agreement, and no peace treaty was ever signed.

    To read Mason’s full article, click here.

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

    Accountability Audit

    The Alliance for Nuclear Accountability (ANA) has published a new report entitled “Accountability Audit.” The report examines the extraordinary spending at Department of Energy nuclear facilities and examines ways to reduce risks and save billions of dollars across the U.S. nuclear weapons complex.

    To download a copy of the report, click here.

    We’re Edging Closer to Nuclear War

    What’s the probability of nuclear war? According to experts, it may be higher than you think. A panel of experts assembled by the popular website Five Thirty Eight seeks to answer some of the toughest questions about nuclear weapons.

    Click here to read the full story.

    Foundation Activities

    NAPF Representatives Lobby Congress

    Five representatives of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation traveled to Washington, DC in late May to take part in the Alliance for Nuclear Accountability’s 29th annual DC Days event. Director of Programs Rick Wayman, interns Kristian Rolland and Sarah Dolan, and Board members Robert Laney and Mark Hamilton together conducted 43 meetings with Congressional and Administration offices.

    In Washington, NAPF was advocating for reductions in the nuclear weapons budget, a halt to specific nuclear weapon modernization programs, Congressional co-sponsorship of a bill restricting the first use of nuclear weapons, and an increased commitment to environmental cleanup of contaminated nuclear weapon production sites.

    Final Negotiations for a Nuclear Ban Treaty

    NAPF Director of Programs Rick Wayman and Board Chair Robert Laney will travel to New York in June to participate in the final round of negotiations on a treaty banning nuclear weapons. The negotiations will take place at the United Nations from June 15 to July 7.

    NAPF is also a partner of the Women’s March to Ban the Bomb, which will take place in New York City on Saturday, June 17.

    Poetry Contest Deadline is July 1

    The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation invites people of all ages from around the world to submit poems to the Barbara Mandigo Kelly Peace Poetry contest. This annual series of awards encourages poets to explore and illuminate positive visions of peace and the human spirit. The Poetry Awards include three age categories: Adult, Youth 13-18, and Youth 12 & Under. The deadline for entries is July 1, 2017. The winner of the adult category will receive a $1,000 prize, while the winners in the two youth categories will receive $200 prizes.

    For more information and to read previous years’ winning poems, click here.

    Quotes

     

    “When you can make people believe absurdities, you can make them commit atrocities.”

    — Voltaire, French Enlightenment philosopher. This quote appears in the book Speaking of Peace: Quotations to Inspire Action, which is available for purchase in the NAPF Peace Store.

     

    “A conflict in North Korea…would be probably the worst kind of fighting in most people’s lifetimes…. The bottom line is it would be a catastrophic war if this turns into a combat if we’re not able to resolve this situation through diplomatic means.”

    — U.S. Defense Secretary James Mattis, speaking about the conflict between the United States and North Korea.

     

    “It’s an extraordinary question when you think about it – would you order the indiscriminate killing of millions of people? Would you risk such extensive contamination of the planet that no life could exist across large parts of the world? If circumstances arose where that was a real option, it would represent complete and cataclysmic failure. It would mean world leaders had already triggered a spiral of catastrophe for humankind.”

    — Jeremy Corbyn, leader of the UK Labour Party, responding to a question about whether, if Prime Minister, he would be willing to use nuclear weapons.

    Editorial Team

     

    David Krieger
    Kristian Rolland
    Carol Warner
    Rick Wayman

     

  • June: This Month in Nuclear Threat History

    June 1, 1952 – “George,” the seventh of eight atmospheric nuclear test blasts in a series conducted from April 1 to June 5, 1952 designated Operation TUMBLER-SNAPPER took place at the Nevada Test Site under the auspices of the Los Alamos National Laboratory. The nuclear device exploded on top of a 300-foot high tower yielded a blast of approximately 15 kilotons – equivalent roughly to the August 6, 1945 Hiroshima atomic bomb.  Phase One, the TUMBLER blasts provided U.S. nuclear weapons makers with a more comprehensive description of nuclear blast phenomena and provided vital information about the dust “sponge” effects and the relationship of dust to radiation.  The purpose of the Phase Two SNAPPER tests, which included “George,” was to test potential warhead designs for inclusion in the nuclear stockpile and to study techniques to be used in future nuclear test series.  Comments:  The testing of over 2,050 nuclear devices over the last seven decades by the nine nuclear weapons states has inflicted extremely harmful short- and long-term health impacts to global populations especially native peoples and veterans (over 10,000 U.S. soldiers participated in this test series).  Increased cancer rates, groundwater contamination, destruction of land and ocean ecosystems, and other detrimental health and environmental impacts still plague large numbers of people today due to nuclear testing. (Source:  Thomas B. Cochran, William M. Arkin, Robert S. Norris, and Milton M. Hoenig. “Nuclear Weapons Databook, Volume II, Appendix B.”  National Resources Defense Council, Inc.  Cambridge, MA:  Ballinger Publishing Co., 1987, pp. 152-153.)

    June 8, 2016 – An article by Edward Kee, the CEO of the Nuclear Economics Consulting Group, in the online World Nuclear News, “Carbon Pricing Not Enough to Help Nuclear Power,” was published on this date.  The article is written from the nuclear industrial complex perspective that mistakenly believes that nuclear energy is “zero carbon electricity,” that there are no significant global warming impacts from nuclear power generation.  This is technically true during the thirty years or longer that a nuclear plant is operating, but patently wrong when we assess the huge carbon signature of nuclear power plants during their entire life cycle.  Significant greenhouse emissions are the result of mining, transporting, processing, and mitigating harmful environmental impacts before uranium fuel is loaded into a reactor.  Then there are the emissions resulting from the construction and maintenance of large nuclear complexes including waste removal, sequestration, and very long term storage (potentially requiring thousands or even tens of thousands of years), not to mention decommissioning, decontaminating, and restoring a nuclear site to the public commons.  The nuclear industrial complex also fails to factor into the equation the long-term environmental and public health costs as well as the terrorist attack or blackmail threat and the dangerous risk of nuclear proliferation when considering the creation, operation, and decommissioning of a nuclear power plant.  CEO Kee argues that a tax on carbon is not likely to provide long-term revenue to support existing or new nuclear power plants and argues that other subsidies or investments are needed to “drive investments in new nuclear power plants.”  A May 2, 2017 article in the same publication points out that even the drill-drill-drill-forget about climate change-oriented American Petroleum Institute is lobbying in some states to “reject legislation that would subsidize nuclear power.”  Comments:  It is clear that both the nuclear and fossil fuel industries have focused on optimizing huge profits in current and future dirty energy generation projects rather than working toward reversing climate change or preventing inevitable nuclear power plant accidents and meltdowns like Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima.  Decades of judicial, legislative, and executive decisions, on all levels, have unfortunately reinforced the corporate mindset that environmental damage and public health impacts are mere externalities that only governments or charities are charged with mitigating and resolving.  This has to change and change quickly if our species is to survive and prosper on this fragile Pale Blue Dot.  The nuclear threat and the climate change crisis must be addressed in a New Paradigm that over the next decade or so accelerates the phase-out of these catastrophically harmful energy extraction technologies and substitutes community-based and large-scale government-subsidized green renewables on a global scale even at the risk of running large spending deficits.  Global corporate, military, and profit-making entities should be forced to convert to greener alternatives before it is too late. (Sources: Edward Kee. “Carbon Pricing Not Enough to Help Nuclear Power.” World Nuclear News. June 8, 2016      http:/www.world-nuclear-news.org/V-Carbon-pricing-not-enough-to-help-nuclear-power-10061601.html and “Gloves Are Off in Fossil Fuel Fight Against Nuclear.”  World Nuclear News. May 2, 2017 http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/V-Gloves-are-off-in-fossil-fuel-fight-against-nuclear-0205171.html both accessed May 15, 2017.)

    June 15, 2017 – After decades of pressure by activists, citizens, politicians, religious authorities, and scientists and in accordance with U.N. General Assembly Resolution A/RES/71/258 initiated by a core group of six nations (Austria, Brazil, Ireland, Mexico, Nigeria, and South Africa) and adopted by 113 nations on December 23, 2016, an international conference, with the participation and contributions of not only government leaders but also international organizations and civil society representatives, will meet at U.N. Headquarters in New York City from this date through July 7th to negotiate “a legally binding instrument to prohibit nuclear weapons, leading towards their total elimination.”  This conference will build on earlier negotiations that took place March 27-31 of this year which saw more than 2,000 scientists, including many Americans, sign an open letter endorsing these U.N. talks.  Also in that same month, Pope Francis expressed support for this global effort to eliminate nuclear arsenals. In addition, over the last few decades countless individuals and organizations in wide-ranging fields including academia, government, the military, and the nonprofit world have supported the effort.  One of many examples is the International Red Cross which stated at the third humanitarian conference on the impact of nuclear conflict in 2014, “Nuclear weapons can only bring us a catastrophic and irreversible scenario that no one wishes and to which no one can respond in any meaningful way.”  The nuclear weapons ban is an initiative to prohibit the use, possession, development, testing, deployment, and transfer of nuclear weapons under international law just as other weapons of mass destruction have been banned by treaty such as biological and chemical weapons as well as other unconscionable weapons such as anti-personnel landmines and cluster munitions.  Nine nations possess an estimated 14,900 nuclear weapons led by Russia with 7,000 and the United States with 6,800.  Unfortunately none of these nine nation-states are participating in this conference.  However, since this potential treaty is not subject to approval by the U.N. Security Council, no veto by any or all of the five nuclear-armed permanent members of this council can block the agreement.  The legal construct and rationale for such a nuclear ban rests on these two concrete foundations:  First, as a consequence of their destructive power and radioactive fallout, nuclear weapons inherently violate several articles of the Geneva Conventions meant to protect the victims of international conflicts.  Second, many non-nuclear countries and disarmament proponents believe that nations possessing nuclear weapons have been unwilling to pursue good faith disarmament negotiations mandated by Article VI of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).  Comments:  Success in these negotiations could prove the beginning of the end of the nuclear threat.  Failure is clearly not an option. (Sources:  International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons. “Nuclear Ban Treaty Negotiations.” March 2017 http://www.icanw.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/ican-2017.pdf and The Nuclear Threat Initiative. “Proposed Nuclear Weapons Ban Treaty.” http://www.nti.org/learn/treaties-and-regimes/proposal-nuclear-weapons-ban-treaty/ both accessed May 15, 2017.)

    June 16, 1976 – After decades of leaked information revealed numerous U.S. nuclear weapons accidents, the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) begrudgingly issued a press release on this date quoting Lieutenant General William Young Smith, an assistant to the Chairman of the JCS, which stated that, “There has been a total of 33 accidents involving nuclear weapons throughout the period that the U.S. has had these weapons although none has resulted in a nuclear detonation.”  Comments:  Over the last forty years, a plethora of Freedom of Information Act requests by journalists, anti-nuclear activists, and nonprofit organizations, along with more leaks by retired U.S. military personnel, have revealed dozens of other nuclear accidents until the total of Broken Arrows and related nuclear incidents now number in the hundreds.  And that total is just for the U.S. nuclear arsenal.  Journalistic accounts and other authorized and unauthorized releases of information about military nuclear accidents in the other eight nations that possess nuclear weapons are also quite numerous.  Accidents have happened, are happening and will continue to happen and relying on luck to avoid a nuclear catastrophe has its limits.  This represents an additional reason why global nuclear arsenals should be drastically reduced in the short-term and eliminated completely by 2025. (Sources:  Louis Rene Beres. “Apocalypse: Nuclear Catastrophe in World Politics.” Chicago:  The University of Chicago Press, 1980 and Eric Schlosser.  “Command and Control:  Nuclear Weapons, the Damascus Incident, and the Illusion of Safety.” New York:  Penguin Press, 2013.)

    June 20, 1963 – Learning the shockingly frightening lessons of near-nuclear war after the October 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, one of which was how antiquated the high-level U.S.-Soviet communication links were (during the standoff, official diplomatic messages between Washington and Moscow typically took six or more hours to deliver), the U.S. and Soviet Union negotiated, signed, and entered into force a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in Geneva to establish a direct communications link or “hot line” between the two governments for use in the event of crisis.  The “Hot Line Agreement” was updated in 1971, again in 1984, and made into a modern secure computer link in 2008 in which messages are exchanged by email.  Similar hot lines have been set up between the U.S. and China (1998), India and Pakistan (2004), South Korea and China (2008), and China and India (2010).  Comments:  It is hoped that increased communication in times of crisis will help circumvent genocidal conflicts and prevent unauthorized, accidental, or unintentional nuclear war.  An additional essential step for lessening the odds of a nuclear Armageddon is the de-alerting of U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals, as well as the nuclear forces of other nations.  The 45th President of the U.S. ought to publicly announce the de-alerting on one squadron of land-based ICBMs and encourage Russia to reciprocate and de-alert more squadrons in concert with the U.S. Air Force’s Strategic Command.  After several days or a week or so, both nations’ entire hair-trigger arsenals will be removed from alert status, giving each side at least 72 hours to think about it before being able to launch World War III.  This is just one of several steps (including the President recommending that the Senate ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty [CTBT]) necessary to reduce the global risk of nuclear war. (Sources:  Jack Mendelsohn and David Grahame, editors. “Arms Control Chronology.” Washington, DC:  Center for Defense Information, 2002, pp. 28-29 and “Memorandum of Understanding Between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics Regarding the Establishment of a Direct Communications Link.” U.S. Department of State.  http://www.state.gov/isn/4785.htm and “Hot Line Agreements.”  Arms Control Association. https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Hotlines both accessed May 15, 2017.)

    June 25, 1950 – The Korean War began when a force of approximately 75,000 soldiers of the Soviet-backed Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, North Korea, invaded the U.S.-backed Republic of Korea, South Korea, by crossing the 38th Parallel.  By July, soldiers sent from the U.S. occupation force in Japan entered the war on behalf of South Korea.  Other Western allies joined the fighting as part of a U.N. military force.  Chinese leader Mao Zedong (1893-1976) warned the U.N. forces, commanded by World War II hero U.S. General Douglas MacArthur, not to approach China’s border with North Korea but an allied counteroffensive did reach that border at the Yalu River, which triggered a massive attack by Chinese forces invading southward.  After direct Chinese involvement, General MacArthur appealed to President Harry Truman to use nuclear weapons against China but Truman refused and fired MacArthur.  Later in the war, after the election of President Dwight Eisenhower in 1952, nuclear threats by the newly sworn-in president were seen by some experts as one of the major reasons why the North Koreans, Chinese, and Soviets relented on several sticking points holding up the armistice agreement.  It should be noted that the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff pre-planned the deployment of nuclear weapons for use against China if it sent troops or bombers into Korea or against the Soviet Union if they came to the aid of the North Koreans, although America’s European allies opposed such escalation fearing that the Soviets would retaliate by invading Western Europe.  The fighting lasted over three years until the July 27, 1953 Korean Armistice Agreement was signed by both sides.  Five million people died in the conflict, over half of which were civilians.  Almost 40,000 Americans were killed and more than 100,000 wounded.  Comments:  Today, the Korean War is technically still being fought as the armistice does not represent a permanent peace treaty ending the conflict.  Negotiating such a treaty should be one of the top priorities of the 45th President and 115th Congress but this isn’t even considered a talking point by mainstream news media, the Pentagon, and State Department. The growing risk of a nuclear war on the Korean Peninsula makes ending the war an imperative priority not only for the U.S. and both Koreas but also for the global community of nations.  (Sources:  “Korean War.”  History.com. http://www.history.com/topics/korean-war, “Korean War 1950-53.” Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/event/Korean-War, and David W. Brown.  “10 Facts About the Korean War.” MentalFloss.com. http://mentalfloss.com/article/4972/10-things-you-might-not-know-about-korean-war all accessed on May 15, 2017.)

    June 29, 1918 – One of the founders of the nongovernmental, nonprofit organization the Center for Defense Information, Admiral Gene Robert La Rocque (pronounced la-ROCK), was born on this date in Kankakee, Illinois.  After attending the University of Illinois, he joined the U.S. Navy, survived the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, and fought in over a dozen battles in the Pacific winning the Bronze Star and many other citations during his distinguished 32-year naval career which included serving as one of the top strategic planners for the Joint Chiefs of Staff.  In the early 1950s, La Rocque refused to sign a loyalty oath during the height of McCarthyism. When he was teaching at the Naval War College, he insisted that his students read not only the American Constitution but also The Communist Manifesto.  After a 1968 visit to Vietnam, he filed a report critical of the U.S. mission in Indochina.  In a 1986 profile in The New Yorker, he explained that, “Fundamentally, I couldn’t find anyone to tell me why the United States was in Vietnam and what it was we were trying to accomplish.”  Passed over for promotion because of rocking the boat, he retired and joined other like-minded retired military officers like Rear Admiral Eugene J. Carroll, Jr. (1923-2003) and navy captain Arthur D. Berliss, Jr. (1914-2010) in establishing the Center for Defense Information (CDI), an arm of the Fund for Peace in April of 1972.  CDI’s early thrust was to avert a nuclear war with the Soviet Union, end the Vietnam War, and monitor-critique the military-industrial-congressional complex.  Over the three-plus decades of the organization’s existence, until it operated under the umbrella of Dr. Bruce Blair’s World Security Institute and then merged with the Project on Government Oversight in 2012, its mission statement expanded accordingly, “The Center for Defense Information believes that strong social, economic, political, and military components and a healthy environment contribute equally to the nation’s security.  CDI opposes excessive expenditures for weapons and policies that increase the dangers of war.”  During the Cold War, Admiral La Rocque and his senior aides, CDI’s staff of a few dozen academics, retired soldiers, and former Congressional aides, joined by tens of thousands of supporters, embraced strong opposition to the threat of nuclear annihilation, opposed excessive global deployment of U.S. forces, and advocated the dissolution of not only the Soviet Warsaw Pact but the western NATO Alliance as well.  He told The New Yorker, “There are unfortunately some in the United States who believe that the Soviets are the enemy that we must defeat by war.  I think the enemy is nuclear war.”  His intelligent, well-reasoned rhetoric was at odds with mainstream military and political views that such a war could be won.  “If we are to have a nuclear war, we can’t win it.  Can we survive it?  I don’t know.  Nobody knows.  That’s the tragedy of it – nobody knows.  Anybody that tells you that this many people are going to be killed and this many are going to survive doesn’t know what he’s talking about.”  Admiral La Rocque passed away at the age of 98 on October 31, 2016.  (Sources:  Miles D. Wolpin. “Alternative Security and Military Dissent.”  San Francisco: Austin & Winfield Publishers, 1994, pp. 130-145 and Anita Gates.  “Gene La Rocque, Decorated Veteran Who Condemned Waste of War, Dies at 98.”  New York Times. November 4, 2016.  https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/05/gene-la-rocque-decorated-veteran-who-condemned-waste-of-war-dies-at-98.html?_r=0 accessed May 16, 2017.)

  • U.S. Plans Missile Defense Test From Vandenberg, Aiming at Intercept, Tuesday, May 30

    For Immediate Release

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

    Santa Barbara–The U.S. Missile Defense Agency is planning a test of its Ground-based Mid-Course Interceptor Missile from Vandenberg Air Force Base on May 30, 2016.

    The targeted intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) will lift off from Kwajalein Atoll in the Marshall Islands. The ground-based interceptor will launch out of an underground silo from Vandenberg between noon and 4:14 P.M. in an attempt to intercept the targeted ICBM.

    According to the Missile Defense Agency, “This will be the first time a ground-based missile interceptor launched from California attempts to smash into a ‘threat-representative’ intercontinental ballistic missile in its mid-course over the Pacific.”

    The U.S. has already spent at least $41 billion on the Ground Missile Defense System. According to Rick Wayman, Programs Director at the Santa Barbara-based Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, “The Ground Missile Defense System is a boondoggle of the highest order. The U.S. continues to shovel billions of dollars into a system that simply will never work reliably. It’s long past time to stop throwing good money after bad and end this misguided missile system.”

    The U.S. Department of Energy recently submitted their 2018 budget request in which they proposed “$10.2 billion for Weapons Activities to maintain and enhance the safety, security, and effectiveness of our nuclear weapons enterprise.” This particular test alone will have a price tag upwards of $244 million.

    It should be noted that the test comes on the heels of negotiations on a treaty to ban nuclear weapons in international law. These negotiations took place under the auspices of the United Nations and more than 130 nations participated. A draft treaty has been released and is expected to be finalized by early July.

    David Krieger, President of the Foundation, stated, “The U.S. ground-based missile defense system has only a 53 percent success rate in 17 tests. It will not be able to protect Americans or anyone else. It is simply an efficient and cynical way to funnel funds to defense corporations.” He continued, “There is simply no good prospect for this kind of weapons testing, especially with rising tensions on the Korean Peninsula. What is needed is an all-out diplomatic push for true security to achieve a world without nuclear weapons.”

    #                             #                             #

    If you would like to interview David Krieger, President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation or Rick Wayman, Director of Programs, 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.