Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Blog

  • US Prepares to Confront Nuclear Ban Treaty with Smart Bombs

    This article was originally published by In Depth News.

    donald_trumpOn 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. Ambassador Whyte is President of the United Nations Conference to negotiate a legally binding instrument to prohibit nuclear weapons, leading towards their total elimination. Over 130 nations have participated in the ban treaty negotiations thus far. A final treaty text is expected by early July.

    The draft treaty would prohibit state parties from – among other things – developing, producing, manufacturing, possessing or stockpiling nuclear weapons. The United States has aggressively boycotted the treaty negotiations, and has actively sought to undermine the good faith efforts of the majority of the world’s nations to prohibit these indiscriminate and catastrophically destructive weapons.

    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.

    The draft ban treaty makes clear “that the catastrophic consequences of nuclear weapons transcend national borders, pose grave implications for human survival, the environment, socioeconomic development, the global economy, food security and for the health of future generations.”

    Whether or not the United States plans to join the majority of the world’s nations in a treaty banning nuclear weapons, its policies and programs must reflect the indisputable evidence of the catastrophic consequences of nuclear weapons use. There is simply no excuse for investing in new nuclear weapons instead of an all-out diplomatic push for true security in a world without nuclear weapons.

    A Good Faith Obligation

    Article VI of the Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) obligates all parties to negotiate in good faith for an end to the nuclear arms race at an early date. That treaty entered into force over 47 years ago.

    The draft ban treaty repeats the unanimous 1996 declaration of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which said, “There exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control.”

    Judge Christopher Weeramantry was Vice President of the ICJ when it issued its 1996 Advisory Opinion. In a paper that he wrote for the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation in 2013, he examined in detail the concept of good faith in the context of nuclear disarmament.

    He wrote, “There is no half-way house in the duty of compliance with good faith in international law.” He continued, “Disrespect for and breach of good faith grows exponentially if, far from even partial compliance, there is total non-compliance with the obligations it imposes.”

    The U.S. and numerous other nuclear-armed countries argue that they are in compliance with their obligations because the total number of nuclear weapons in their arsenals has decreased. Quantitative reductions are important, and the progress on this front has been significant over the past couple of decades. However, a nuclear arms race need not simply be quantitative. Rather, what we see now among many of the nuclear-armed nations is a qualitative nuclear arms race, with enhancements of weapons’ “effectiveness” being a key component.

    This qualitative nuclear arms race is a blatant breach of the good faith obligation and, according to Judge Weeramantry’s interpretation, likely even constitutes bad faith.

    A Ban Is Coming

    Regardless of how much money the United States and other nuclear-armed nations commit to their nuclear arsenals, the vast majority of the world’s nations plan to conclude a treaty banning nuclear weapons in July.

    Even though such a treaty will not immediately halt nuclear weapons development or diminish the threat that current nuclear weapon arsenals pose to all humanity, it is an important step in the right direction.

    The NPT and customary international law require all nations – not just those that possess nuclear weapons – to negotiate for nuclear disarmament. The ban treaty is the first of many steps needed to fulfill this obligation, and will lay a solid foundation for future multilateral action.

    Non-nuclear-armed countries must continue to enhance the effectiveness of their diplomatic arsenals to ensure the successful entry into force of a ban treaty and subsequent measures to finally achieve a world free of nuclear weapons.

    Author’s note: Generally speaking, the U.S. Department of Energy is in charge of the design, production and maintenance of nuclear warheads and bombs, while the Department of Defense deals with the delivery systems (ICBMs, submarines, and bomber aircraft) and deployment in additional multi-billion dollar budget lines not addressed in this article. For more information on the Department of Energy’s nuclear “modernization” plans, see the Alliance for Nuclear Accountability’s new report “Accountability Audit.”

  • Time to Ban the Bomb

    This article was originally published by World Beyond War.

    This week, the Chair of an exciting UN initiative formally named the “United Nations Conference to Negotiate a Legally Binding Instrument to Prohibit Nuclear Weapons, Leading Towards their Total Elimination” released a draft treaty to ban and prohibit nuclear weapons just as the world has done for biological and chemical weapons. The Ban Treaty is to be negotiated at the UN from June 15 to July 7 as a follow up to the one week of negotiations that took place this past March, attended by more than 130 governments interacting with civil society. Their input and suggestions were used by the Chair, Costa Rica’s ambassador to the UN, Elayne Whyte Gómez to prepare the draft treaty. It is expected that the world will finally come out of this meeting with a treaty to ban the bomb!

    This negotiating conference was established after a series of meetings in Norway, Mexico, and Austria with governments and civil society to examine the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of nuclear war. The meetings were inspired by the leadership and urging of the International Red Cross to look at the horror of nuclear weapons, not just through the frame of strategy and “deterrence”, but to grasp and examine the disastrous humanitarian consequences that would occur in a nuclear war.   This activity led to a series of meetings culminating in a resolution in the UN General Assembly this fall to negotiate a treaty to ban and prohibit nuclear weapons. The new draft treaty based on the proposals put forth in the March negotiations requires the states to “never under any circumstances … develop, produce, manufacture, otherwise acquire, possess, or stockpile nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices … use nuclear weapons … carry out any nuclear weapon test”. States are also required to destroy any nuclear weapons they possess and are prohibited from transferring nuclear weapons to any other recipient.

    None of the nine nuclear weapons states, US, UK, Russia, France, China, Indian, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea came to the March meeting, although during the vote last fall on whether to go forward with the negotiating resolution in the UN’s First Committee for Disarmament, where the resolution was formally introduced, while the five western nuclear states voted against it, China, India and Pakistan abstained.   And North Korea voted for the resolution to negotiate to ban the bomb! (I bet you didn’t read that in the New York Times!)

    By the time the resolution got to the General Assembly, Donald Trump had been elected and those promising votes disappeared. And at the March negotiations, the US Ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley, flanked by the Ambassadors from England and France, stood outside the closed conference room and held a press conference with a number of “umbrella states” which rely on the US nuclear ‘deterrent” to annihilate their enemies (includes NATO states as well as Australia, Japan, and South Korea) and announced that “as a mother” who couldn’t want more for her family “than a world without nuclear weapons” she had to “be realistic” and would boycott the meeting and oppose efforts to ban the bomb adding, “Is there anyone that believes that North Korea would agree to a ban on nuclear weapons?”

    The last 2015 Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) five year review conference broke up without consensus on the shoals of a deal the US was unable to deliver to Egypt to hold a Weapons of Mass Destruction Free Zone Conference in the Middle East. This promise was made in 1995 to get the required consensus vote from all the states to extend the NPT indefinitely when it was due to expire, 25 years after It entered into force.   The five nuclear weapons states in the treaty, US, UK, Russia, China, and France, promised to make “good faith efforts” for nuclear disarmament. In that agreement and all the other countries of the world promised not to get nuclear weapons, except for India, Pakistan, and Israel who never signed and went on to get their own bombs. North Korea had signed the treaty, but took advantage of the NPT’s Faustian bargain to sweeten the pot with a promise to the non-nuclear weapons states for an “inalienable right” to “peaceful” nuclear power, thus giving them the keys to the bomb factory. North Korea got its peaceful nuclear power, and walked out of the treaty to make a bomb.   At the 2015 NPT review, South Africa gave an eloquent speech expressing the state of nuclear apartheid that exists between the nuclear haves, holding the whole world hostage to their security needs and their failure to comply with their obligation to eliminate their nuclear bombs, while working overtime to prevent nuclear proliferation in other countries.

    The Ban Treaty draft provides that the Treaty will enter into effect when 40 nations sign and ratify it. Even if none of the nuclear weapons states join, the ban can be used to stigmatize and shame the “umbrella” states to withdraw from the nuclear “protection” services they are now receiving.   Japan should be an easy case.   The five NATO states in Europe who keep US nuclear weapons based on their soil–Germany, Netherlands, Belgium, Italy, and Turkey– are good prospects for breaking with the nuclear alliance. A legal ban on nuclear weapons can be used to convince banks and pension funds in a divestment campaign, once it is known the weapons are illegal.   See www.dontbankonthebomb.org

    Right now people are organizing all over the world for a Women’s March to Ban the Bomb on June 17, during the ban treaty negotiations, with a big march and rally planned in New York.   See www.womenbanthebomb.org/

    We need to get as many countries to the UN as possible this June, and pressure our parliaments and capitals to vote to join the treaty to ban the bomb.   And we need to talk it up and let people know that something great is happening now!   To get involved, check out www.icanw.org

    Alice Slater serves on the Coordinating Committee of World Beyond War

  • Message to the Vietnam Memorial Wall

    Dear Wall,

    Your polished surface deceives.

    You appear serene, yet you are bursting with anguish and lost potential.

    You are a wall of great sadness.

    You remember the young, whose lives were engulfed in the flames of war.

    They wanted to live and love, but the cruel war stopped them.

    They had lives before the lies of their leaders took them to war.

    Their mistake was to trust.

    And they never returned to their loved ones.

    Wall, their names are carved into you.

    Their hearts flutter around you.

    These young who died are sentinels, warning of danger,

    Reminding us that war is a fool’s game,

    A game in which everyone loses,

    Except for the arms merchants.

    Wall, you reflect war’s human price.

    Let the old and gray pay the price, if they must.

    But youth, be wary of war.

    Vaya aquí para la versión española.

  • North Korea Doesn’t Want War – Trump Needs to Negotiate

    This article was originally published by The Hill.

    North Korea withdrew from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 2003 and conducted its first nuclear weapon test in 2006. It has conducted four further tests since then. It is thought to be planning another nuclear weapon test in the near future, to which Donald Trump has tweeted, “It won’t happen!”

    North Korea has also tested missiles with a longer range and is thought to be working on an intercontinental ballistic missile capable of reaching Hawaii and the west coast of the United States. It is thought that North Korea has produced the fissile materials for at least eight nuclear weapons, but is unable at this point to mount them on a ballistic missile capable of reaching the United States.

    While at present it lacks the technological capacity to directly threaten the U.S., North Korea will likely achieve this capability at some point. Its current nuclear and substantial conventional arsenal threatens South Korea, Japan, and U.S. troops stationed in those countries.

    How should the Trump administration react to these threats? There are two possibilities. The first would involve military action by the U.S. against North Korea. The second would involve diplomacy and negotiations.

    An important step in analyzing the danger of North Korea’s nuclear arsenal is to consider its purpose. Given the size of its arsenal, North Korea could certainly not expect to win a nuclear war against the far more powerful U.S. military forces. What it could reasonably expect its small nuclear arsenal to provide is a deterrent against a preemptive conventional or nuclear attack by the U.S.

    Having observed the U.S. take down the Iraqi and Libyan regimes after persuading them both to give up their nuclear programs, North Korean leaders have reason for concern. Each of these cases led to the overthrow of the regime and the death of its leader.

    What else do we know about North Korea? It has a strong military of some 1 million troops. It has been ruled by a dynasty since the end of World War II. Its current leader, Kim Jong-un, is in his thirties and is the grandson of the founder of the North Korean regime. Donald Trump has described the young leader as a “smart cookie.” We also know that North Korea is a very poor country with a very bad human rights record.

    It can be reasonably concluded that North Korea does not intend aggressive war with its military and nuclear program, but it does threaten to use these forces to protect its regime and leadership from an attack by the U.S. or another country.

    For the U.S. to initiate a preemptive military attack against North Korea would be wildly dangerous and could result in a war throughout Northeast Asia, with massive death and destruction not only in North Korea, but also in South Korea and Japan, including U.S. troops in the region. What roles China and Russia would play is uncertain.

    Given the massive disadvantages of initiating a preemptive war, including the illegality and immorality of doing so, the U.S. should dial down its threatening rhetoric (“all options are on the table”) and behaviors (sending U.S. warships to the vicinity), and instead seek negotiations with the North Korean leadership on mutual security needs. In addition, as a poor country, there is much that North Korea needs for its people. Food and energy would be high on the list of bargaining chips the U.S. could offer, as well as negotiating an end to the Korean War rather than continuing with the truce set in place in 1953.

    The U.S. should actively seek China’s help in getting North Korea to the negotiating table and in participating in the negotiations. Following the path of peace and diplomacy would demonstrate an important step toward maturity for the national leaders of North Korea and the United States.

  • Draft Treaty to Ban Nuclear Weapons Released

    NUCLEAR AGE PEACE FOUNDATION

    For Immediate Release

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

    Rick Wayman
    (805) 696-5159; rwayman@napf.org

    DRAFT TREATY TO BAN NUCLEAR WEAPONS RELEASED TODAY

    In a momentous step to create a safer and more secure world, a draft treaty to ban nuclear weapons was released today by the United Nations. The document is seen as an essential milestone in the years-long effort to ban these indiscriminate weapons of mass destruction and an important step toward their eventual elimination.

    Over 130 countries participated in the first negotiation session that took place in March of this year in New York under the auspices of the United Nations. Participants shared initial positions and goals for the treaty language, focusing on the humanitarian cost of nuclear weapons use and the threat posed to every country. Most also compared a nuclear weapons ban to previous bans on chemical and biological weapons, land mines, and cluster munitions, which have had significant impact and changed international behavior.

    David Krieger, President of the Santa Barbara-based Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, commented, “This draft treaty is a historic step on the road to a nuclear weapons-free world. It provides an excellent framework for the negotiations that will resume on June 15th. The arc of the nuclear threat is bending toward prohibition and abolition. It is time for the nuclear-armed countries and their allies to join with the active non-nuclear states in putting an end to the nuclear threat to humanity for their common benefit.”

    The world now faces 21st century threats and challenges — cyber attacks, pandemic disease, climate chaos and terrorism. These threats cannot be addressed by nuclear weapons or the logic of nuclear deterrence. More ominously, the spread of nuclear weapons technology and material only increases the chances of intentional or accidental nuclear detonation by states or terrorist groups.

    Beatrice Fihn, Executive Director of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, said, “Now that we have a draft, nuclear-armed and nuclear alliance states should take the opportunity to engage productively in these discussions. Failure to participate undermines any objection they might have once the document is complete. This is a test of their commitment to a world without nuclear weapons.”

    Countries will have the opportunity to finalize the treaty at the second negotiation session, which will take place from June 15 through July 7 at the United Nations in New York .

    The draft treaty in its entirety can be found at http://www.icanw.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/BanDraft.pdf.

     

    #                                                                             #                                                             #

    If you would like to interview David Krieger, 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.

  • North Korea Doesn’t Want War – Trump Needs to Negotiate

    This article was originally published by The Hill. A segment of the article appears below. Click here to read the full article at The Hill.

    “While at present it lacks the technological capacity to directly threaten the U.S., North Korea will likely achieve this capability at some point. Its current nuclear and substantial conventional arsenal threatens South Korea, Japan, and U.S. troops stationed in those countries.

    How should the Trump administration react to these threats? There are two possibilities. The first would involve military action by the U.S. against North Korea. The second would involve diplomacy and negotiations.”

  • Sunflower Newsletter: May 2017

    Issue #238 – May 2017
    Donate Now!

    Nuclear weapons have no place in this world. Please support our work today, and make a gift in honor of a mother in your life.
    • Perspectives
      • What Is Wrong With Trump’s Attack on Syria? by David Krieger
      • Growing Nuclear Dangers: What Would Dr. King Say? by Jackie Cabasso
      • Why Is There So Little Public Protest Against Today’s Threats of Nuclear War? by Lawrence Wittner
    • U.S. Nuclear Weapons Policy
      • U.S. Tests Minuteman III ICBMs Amidst Extreme Tensions with North Korea
      • Pentagon Officially Begins Nuclear Posture Review Process
    • War and Peace
      • Women of 40 Nations Urge Trump to Seek Peace in Korea
      • North Korea Launches Missile Following UN Security Council Meeting
      • Statements Regarding Military Action in North Korea
    • Nuclear Modernization
      • U.S. Flight Tests New B61-12 Nuclear Bomb
      • B61-12 Nuclear Bomb Production Cost Now Estimated 35 Percent Higher
    • Resources
      • This Month in Nuclear Threat History
      • Prohibiting Nuclear Weapons: A Pacific Islands Priority
      • A New Map for Relationships: Creating True Love at Home & Peace on the Planet
      • 2017 NPT Briefing Book
    • Foundation Activities
      • Video Contest Winners Announced
      • NAPF to Screen “The Coming War on China”
      • Peace Literacy in Winnipeg
      • Poetry Contest Accepting Submissions
    • Quotes

     

    Perspectives

    What Is Wrong With Trump’s Attack on Syria?

    by David Krieger

    Despite the illegality and inherent dangers of his military response, Trump seems to be getting a favorable reaction from the U.S. media. Nearly all U.S. mainstream media seems to have accepted the assumption that Assad was foolish enough to have launched a chemical attack, and have not questioned Assad’s responsibility for the chemical attack. It appears that neither the U.S. government nor media have conducted a thorough investigation of responsibility for the chemical attack, which should have been done prior to a military response.

    For his violations of U.S. and international law in attacking Syria with 59 cruise missiles, it is highly likely that Trump will also be rewarded by the American people with an upward bump in his current ground-level job-approval rating. Too many Americans tend to like their presidents to be fast on the draw and follow the pattern of Ready, Fire, Aim.

    To read more, click here.

    Growing Nuclear Dangers: What Would Dr. King Say?

    by Jackie Cabasso

    April 4 was the 50th anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s remarkably prescient speech, “Beyond Vietnam: A Time to Break Silence,” in which he laid bare the relationship between US wars abroad and the racism and poverty being challenged by the civil rights movement at home. “I knew that I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today — my own government.” Tragically, Dr. King was assassinated exactly one year later.

    Progress towards a global society that is fairer, peaceful and ecologically sustainable is interdependent. We are unlikely to get far on any of these objectives without progress on all. They are not “preconditions” for disarmament, but, together with disarmament, are preconditions for human survival. In our relationships both with each other and the planet, we are now hard up against the choice Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. warned about 50 years ago: nonviolence or nonexistence.

    To read more, click here.

    Why Is There So Little Public Protest Against Today’s Threats of Nuclear War?

    by Lawrence Wittner

    What is the response of the public to these two erratic government leaders behaving in this reckless fashion and threatening war, including nuclear war? It is remarkably subdued. People read about the situation in newspapers or watch it on the television news, while comedians joke about the madness of it all.

    So why is there so little public protest today?

    One factor is certainly the public’s preoccupation with other important issues, among them climate change, immigration, terrorism, criminal justice, civil liberties, and economic inequality. Another appears to be a sense of fatalism. Many people believe that Kim and Trump are too irrational to respond to reason and too autocratic to give way to public pressure. Finally―and perhaps most significantly―people are reluctant to think about nuclear war. After all, it means death and destruction at an unbearable level of horror. Therefore, it’s much easier to simply forget about it.

    To read more, click here.

    U.S. Nuclear Weapons Policy

    U.S. Tests Minuteman III ICBMs Amidst Extreme Tensions with North Korea

    On April 26, the U.S. Air Force conducted a test of its Minuteman III Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California to the Kwajalein Atoll in the Marshall Islands. The United States deploys approximately 400 Minuteman III ICBMs armed with nuclear warheads in silos across Montana, North Dakota, Colorado and Wyoming.

    Col. Chris Moss, Vandenberg’s 30th Space Wing commander, said the test launch was “an important demonstration of our nation’s nuclear deterrent capability.”

    David Krieger, President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, said, “When it comes to missile testing, the U.S. is operating with a clear double standard: It views its own tests as justified and useful, while it views the tests of North Korea as threatening and destabilizing. What is needed is diplomacy rather than military provocations. Threats, whether in the form of tweets, nuclear-capable aircraft carrier groups, or nuclear-capable missile launches, only increase the dangers to us all.”

    The Air Force has scheduled an additional Minuteman III test for May 3.

    Veronica Rocha, “Air Force Launches Test Missile Off Central California Coast to Show Nuclear Deterrent Capability,” Los Angeles Times, April 26, 2017.

    Pentagon Officially Begins Nuclear Posture Review Process

    On April 17, the Pentagon announced the official commencement of the U.S. Nuclear Posture Review (NPR). The last NPR was completed in 2010. Pentagon spokeswoman Dana White said that a final report would be ready by the end of 2017.

    Gen. John Hyten, commander of U.S. Strategic Command, said that the NPR would examine perceived threats from countries such as Russia, China, North Korea and Iran. It will also look at the modernization plans for the U.S. nuclear triad, which consists of land-based missiles, submarine-launched missiles, and bomber aircraft.

    Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA) said, “I hope that it includes a thorough assessment of policy options that would allow us to avoid a costly and dangerous nuclear arms race; and that it properly analyzes the enormous risks inherent in lowering the threshold for using nuclear weapons.”

    Rebecca Kheel, “Pentagon Starts Review of Nuclear Posture Ordered by Trump,” The Hill, April 17, 2017.

    War and Peace

    Women of 40 Nations Urge Trump to Seek Peace in Korea

    In a letter sent to President Trump on April 26, women from 40 countries – including North and South Korea – urged him to defuse military tensions and start negotiating for peace. The letter, organized by Women Cross DMZ, urges President Trump to “initiate a peace process with North Korea, South Korea and China to replace the 1953 Armistice Agreement with a binding peace treaty to end the Korean War.”

    Choe Sang-Hun, “Fearing Korean Nuclear War, Women of 40 Nations Urge Trump to Seek Peace,” The New York Times, April 26, 2017.

    North Korea Launches Missile Following UN Security Council Meeting

    On April 29, North Korea launched a missile test. According to the South Korean military, the test ended in failure. However, other observers have claimed that North Korea purposely detonated the missile after it flew only 30 miles.

    The April 29 test came just hours after U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson led a meeting at the UN Security Council about North Korea’s missile and nuclear weapons programs. Secretary Tillerson said, “Failing to act now on the most pressing security issue in the world may bring catastrophic consequences.”

    “North Korea Test-Fires Another Ballistic Missile, Heightening Tensions With U.S.,” The New York Times, April 28, 2017.

    Statements Regarding Military Action in North Korea

    On April 27, President Trump said, “There is a chance that we could end up having a major, major conflict with North Korea. Absolutely. We’d love to solve things diplomatically but it’s very difficult.”

    On April 18, Kim In-ryong, North Korea’s deputy UN ambassador, said that “a thermonuclear war may break out at any moment” and that North Korea is “ready to react to any mode of war desired by the United States.”

    Andrew Lichterman of Western States Legal Foundation wrote, “There is no military solution to the Korea crisis. …If the government of the United States wants peace and a viable path to a nuclear-weapons-free North Korea, it should be ready to talk to North Korea’s government – immediately, directly, and without conditions.”

    Daryl Kimball, Executive Director of the Arms Control Association, wrote, “Trump and his advisers need to curb the impulse to threaten military action, which may increase the risk of catastrophic miscalculation. A saner and more effective approach is to work with China to tighten the sanctions pressure and simultaneously open a new diplomatic channel designed to defuse tensions and to halt and eventually reverse North Korea’s increasingly dangerous nuclear and missile programs.”

    Nuclear Modernization

    U.S. Flight Tests New B61-12 Nuclear Bomb

    On March 14, the U.S. conducted its first successful flight test of the new B61-12 nuclear gravity bomb on an F-16 aircraft. The test, conducted in Nevada, demonstrated the F-16’s capability to deliver the nuclear weapon and tested the functioning of the weapon’s non-nuclear components, including the arming and fire control system, radar altimeter, spin rocket motors and weapons control computer.

    The B61-12 nuclear bomb, which was “modernized” during the Obama administration, is expected to be deployed on the soil of five other nations – Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Turkey – under the auspices of NATO nuclear sharing.

    “Inert Nuclear Gravity Bomb Passes First F-16 Flight Test,” Kirtland Air Force Base, April 13, 2017.

    New B61-12 Nuclear Bomb Production Cost Now Estimated 35 Percent Higher

    The Energy Department’s Office of Cost Estimating and Program Evaluation has projected that the cost of developing and producing up to 500 B61-12 nuclear bombs will be $10 billion through fiscal year 2026. The Energy Department’s National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) estimated the program cost at $7.4 billion in last year’s federal budget. When the program was originally introduced, the full cost was projected to be $4 billion.

    The B61-12 is intended to replace four types of B61 nuclear bombs with one model containing satellite-guided kits. Production was originally scheduled to begin in 2017. NNSA now projects that production will begin in 2020, although the Office of Cost Estimating and Program Evaluation projects that it will not begin until 2022.

    John M. Donnelly, “Nuclear Bomb Program’s Budget 35 Percent Short: Report,” CQ Roll Call (paywall), April 28, 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 May, including the Kargil Conflict between India and Pakistan, both nuclear-armed, which began on May 8, 1999.

    To read Mason’s full article, click here.

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

    Prohibiting Nuclear Weapons: A Pacific Islands Priority

    The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) has published a new report entitled “Prohibiting Nuclear Weapons: A Pacific Islands Priority.” The report details the efforts of many Pacific Island nations that are at the forefront of the movement to ban nuclear weapons. It also describes the history of resistance to nuclear weapons, the timeline of nuclear weapon testing in the Pacific, and the long-term health impacts that nuclear testing has had on the people of these island nations.

    To download a copy of the report, click here.

    A New Map for Relationships: Creating True Love at Home & Peace on the Planet

    A new book by NAPF Associate, Dr. Martin Hellman, and his wife, Dorothie Hellman, is now available to download for free at https://anewmap.com. Alternatively, you can purchase a hard copy online from the NAPF Peace Store. The book addresses how to compassionately resolve conflicts in marriage and how to participate in solving conflicts at the international level.

    Recently, the Hellmans gave a “Google Talk,” which is now available on YouTube. We encourage you to view this important talk, which explains what the Hellmans are trying to achieve through their work.

    2017 NPT Briefing Book

    The first Preparatory Committee meeting of the 2020 Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) review cycle starts in Vienna on May 2. Reaching Critical Will, a project of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, has published a briefing book in preparation for the conference.

    The briefing book provides a guide to understanding the NPT, and examines issues related to the modernization of nuclear weapons, nuclear doctrines and transparency, risks and consequences of nuclear weapons and nuclear energy, the Middle East weapon of mass destruction free zone, and nuclear disarmament in relation to the prohibition of nuclear weapons.

    To download a copy of the briefing book, click here.

    Foundation Activities

    Video Contest Winners Announced

    The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation has announced the winners of the 2017 Swackhamer Disarmament Video Contest. Contestants made videos of 2 ½ minutes or less about why this is the most dangerous period in human history, and what can be done to take civilization back from the brink. The winning video was made by Jonathan Blanton of Fullerton, California.

    To watch the winning videos, click here.

    NAPF to Screen “The Coming War on China”

    The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation will host a free screening of “The Coming War on China” on May 10 in Santa Barbara. The latest film by John Pilger, the Emmy and BAFTA Award-winning director, has not yet been released in the United States.

    Pilger reveals what the media doesn’t – that the world’s greatest military power, the U.S., and the world’s second economic power, China, both nuclear-armed, are on their way to war. Pilger’s film is a warning and an inspiring story of resistance.

    For more information about the film, click here. If you are in the Santa Barbara area and would like to attend, click here for more information.

    Peace Literacy in Winnipeg

    The good news of Peace Literacy has spread through parts of the Canadian province of Manitoba during Paul K. Chappell’s week-long April tour. Chappell, the Peace Leadership Director of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, was sponsored by Rotary District 5550 World Partners and Peace Days 365, with events organized by Rotarian David G. Newman, a former president of the Winnipeg Rotary Club and a board member of the Rotarian Action Group for Peace.

    Chappell discussed Peace Literacy at the Rotary clubs of Winnipeg and Winnipeg-Charleswood, lectured at the Arthur V. Maturo Centre for Peace and Justice at the University of Manitoba, and gave a workshop on “Key Communication Tools for Peace Literacy” at the Social Planning Council of Winnipeg. He also keynoted at the Manitoba Annual UNESCO school conference, met with educators, and spoke with indigenous, immigrant, and refugee groups.

    To read more about Paul’s trip to Winnipeg, click here.

    Poetry Contest Accepting Submissions

    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

     

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

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

     

    “Weapons that risk catastrophic humanitarian consequences cannot possibly be viewed as providing people’s security. Protecting humanity requires courage, commitment and concerted action; it is time to put humanity first by prohibiting and completely eliminating nuclear weapons.”

    — Appeal issued by the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement on April 28, 2017, in Nagasaki, Japan.

     

    “From the bosom of the devastated earth, a voice goes up with our own. It says, ‘Disarm, Disarm!’.”

    — Julia Ward Howe in her Mother’s Day Proclamation in 1870.

    Editorial Team

     

    David Krieger
    Elena Nicklasson
    Carol Warner
    Rick Wayman

     

  • U.S. to Launch Another Provocative Minuteman III ICBM Test

    For Immediate Release

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

     

    U.S. to Launch Another Provocative Minuteman III ICBM Test

    Vandenberg Air Force Base – Amidst mounting tensions between the United States and North Korea, and just one week after a test launch of a U.S. unarmed intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), the U.S. has scheduled another Minuteman III ICBM missile test for Wednesday, May 3, between 12:01 a.m. and 6:01 a.m. PDT from Vandenberg Air Force Base. Like last week’s test, according to Air Force Global Strike Command, “The purpose of the ICBM test launch program is to validate and verify the effectiveness, readiness, and accuracy of the weapon system.”

    David Krieger, President of the Santa Barbara-based Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (NAPF), noted, “How does one test the effectiveness of a weapons system that is designed as a deterrent, that is, to prevent others from ever using nuclear weapons against us? Such effectiveness cannot be assumed from a missile test no matter how ready we are to fire the missile or how accurate the missile proves to be. In other words, so-called ‘effectiveness’ is a psychological concept that cannot be proven by a missile test. This is a very dangerous game we are playing.”

    Rick Wayman, Director of Programs at NAPF, commented, “It is significant to note that this nuclear-capable missile test will take place on the second day of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty conference. This treaty requires all parties to negotiate in good faith for an end to the nuclear arms race.”

    Wayman continued, “Conducting a test-launch of a missile whose sole purpose is to deliver nuclear warheads anywhere around the world is a glaring example of bad faith and violates the spirit of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. It’s exactly this kind of double standard that undermines U.S. credibility when insisting that other nations not develop nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles.”

    North Korea test-fired a ballistic missile on April 29, the day after U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson convened a special session of the U.N. Security Council, calling for new economic sanctions on North Korea and other “painful” measures over its nuclear weapons program.

    The Trump administration’s strategy of “maximum pressure and engagement” towards North Korea seems to rule out immediate military intervention, though U.S. officials have continued to say that “all options are on the table.”

    Continued ballistic missile tests by both parties can only be perceived as provocative in nature and an escalation of an already dangerous situation. Surely our political and military leaders can and must do better.

    An unarmed Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile launches during an operational test at 12:03 a.m., PDT, April 26, from Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif. (U.S. Air Force photo by Mark P. Mackey)
    An unarmed Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile launches during an operational test at 12:03 a.m., PDT, April 26, from Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif. (U.S. Air Force photo by Mark P. Mackey)

    #                             #                             #

    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.

  • May: This Month in Nuclear Threat History

    May 2-12, 2017 –The First Preparatory Committee meeting for the 2020 NPT Review Conference will be held in Vienna, Austria as we approach the 49th anniversary of one of the most seminal arms control treaties of the Nuclear Age – the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) first signed on July 1, 1968 by the U.S., U.K., the Soviet Union, and 59 other nations and entered into force on March 5, 1970.  Currently, the treaty has 191 participating nation-states.  Comments:  While the Cold War-era world didn’t have to deal with a worst-case scenario of dozens of nuclear weapons states warned about by Democratic presidential candidate John Kennedy during the third Nixon-Kennedy Debate on Oct. 13, 1960, today things have reached a crisis point again.  While the nuclear test blasts and ballistic missile tests of North Korea in the last decade and fears of future Iranian nuclear weapons development are legitimate concerns, the campaign rhetoric and recent policy responses by President Donald Trump are equally disturbing.  The 45th President’s pre-election statements promoting the idea that Japan, South Korea, and other allies should join the Nuclear Club set U.S. nuclear non-proliferation policy back decades.  But more frightening are recent U.S. military moves ordered by the President including threats to send a carrier battle group to the waters off North Korea combined with rhetoric about possible U.S.-launched regime change, along with belligerent responses by Kim Jong-un’s government.  An attack on North Korea with the intent of destroying their weapons of mass destruction and/or assassinating that nation’s political leadership could purposely or more likely inadvertently break the tripwire that triggers the first use of nuclear weapons in combat since 1945.  However, even if no nuclear weapons are discharged, a conventional war between the North and South could heighten U.S.-Russia/China nuclear tensions and result in a tremendous and catastrophic loss of human life.  And, while it is possible that North Korean WMD could be eliminated in such a war, the long-term prognosis, like that of the war to eliminate Saddam Hussein’s WMD, could be increased regional chaos and terrorism.  (Sources: Jack Mendelsohn and David Grahame, editors.  “Arms Control Chronology.”  Washington, DC: Center for Defense Information, 2002, p.1, United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs, http://disarmament.un.org/treaties/t/npt accessed April 14, 2017.)

    May 8, 1999 – The Kargil Conflict between India and Pakistan, which had fought three previous wars in 1947, 1965 and 1971, began on this date and continued until July 26.  This war occurred just one year after both countries detonated nuclear explosives, a first for Pakistan.  After two months of intense high-altitude fighting in and around mountain peaks and valleys of the Great Himalayan Range, each side suffered more than 1,000 casualties before Pakistan withdrew from contested territory and India regained those mountain posts.  While some claim nuclear forces were mobilized by each side, other experts disagree.  Nonetheless, it became known years after the war ended that Indian troops were within days of opening another front along the Kashmir Line of Conflict, an act that may have triggered a wider war that would likely have seen the deployment and possible use of nuclear weapons.  The threat of a South Asian nuclear conflict increased dramatically again during a military crisis between the two nations from December 2001 through June 2002 after India’s parliament was attacked by Islamist militants who allegedly had ties to the Pakistani government.  Yet another tripwire to nuclear war was avoided in 2008 after a terrorist attack on Mumbai, India was linked to intelligence agencies in Pakistan.  For a number of years, regular artillery exchanges have been common in the extremely volatile region of Kashmir.  India’s nuclear doctrine mandates that if its conventional forces suffer a nuclear attack, it would respond with an all-out nuclear counterstrike targeting Pakistani population centers.  Pakistan has threatened to respond in a similar fashion.  Comments:  A nuclear war in South Asia would have a devastating impact not just on the region but on the planet.  With India’s strong ties to the United States and Pakistan’s growing relationship with China, such a war could escalate to a global one.  This situation represents yet another paramount reason why global nuclear arsenals should be dramatically reduced without delay and eliminated at the earliest possible opportunity.  (Sources:  “The Growing Threat of Nuclear War and the Role of the Health Community.” World Medical Journal.  Vol. 62, No. 3, October 2016. http://lab.arstubiedriba.lv/WMJ/vol62/3-october-2016/slides/slide-8.jpg and “The Kargil Conflict.” Encyclopedia of India.  Thomson Gale Publishers, 2006. http://www.encyclopedia.com/international/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/kargil-conflict both accessed April 14, 2017.)

    May 9, 1970 – One of the most notable labor leaders, human rights advocates (and participant in Civil Rights-era protests including the March on Selma in 1965), peace activists (and opponent of the Vietnam War), and anti-nuclear spokesmen of the 20th century was silenced on this date when Walter P. Reuther, along with his wife and a number of friends and colleagues, perished in a plane crash near Pellston, Michigan.  Reuther was born in Wheeling, W.Va. on Sept. 1, 1907 and as a young man he moved to Detroit where he became an expert tool and die maker in the auto industry.  Later, he was elected president of an influential auto workers’ union local group and led several strikes in 1937 and 1940, became president of the United Auto Workers in 1946, and helped found the Americans for Democratic Action organization.  In 1952, he was elected president of the Congress of Industrial Organizations and within three years he was a key player in the merger of both unions to form the AFL-CIO.  In the 1960s, he marched with Caesar Chavez and the United Farm Workers in Delano, California and also strongly showed his support for the Civil Rights movement by participating in the August 1963 March on Washington led by Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr.  The Republican candidate for president in 1964, a staunchly conservative Barry Goldwater, once declared Reuther “a more dangerous menace than the Sputnik or anything Soviet Russia might do in America.”  In a Labor Day speech in 1966, Reuther presented a strong case for utilizing rapid technological advances not for war but for improving the human condition:  “The question that challenges the wisdom and the sense of human solidarity of the whole human family is the overriding question:  To what purpose do we commit the potential power of the 20th century technological revolution?  Do we harness the potential power to the madness of nuclear war or can we build a rational and responsible world community and harness the rising star of science and technology to man’s peaceful purposes?  The 20th century technological revolution has no ideology and it has no morality.  We must bend it to man’s peaceful purposes or we shall perish.” In another speech, Reuther proclaimed, “The people of the whole world are the prisoners of the Cold War and the insanity of the escalation of the nuclear arms race.  And that’s why I believe America has the responsibility for providing both the political and moral leadership to try to move the world out of this prison of the Cold War and the arms race towards reductions in the levels of armament because I believe that in the long run, peace is the only condition of human survival.” (Source:  The Reuther Library. “No Greater Calling: The Life of Walter P. Reuther.” Wayne State University. http://reuther100.wayne.edu accessed April 14, 2017.)

    May 17, 2015 – On this date, Wikileaks published a frightening account of a nuclear whistleblower, a sailor in the British Royal Navy, Able Seaman William McNeilly, whose formal title was Engineering Technician, Weapons Engineer, Submarines.  The 25-year old recruit from Belfast was serving onboard one of the UK’s Trident II strategic nuclear submarines, the ones equipped with the D-5 strategic weapons system carrying 16 nuclear-tipped, long-range Submarine-Launched Ballistic Missiles (SLBMs) capable of single-handedly obliterating dozens of targets with multi-megatons of nuclear devastation.  Seaman McNeilly blew the whistle on the terrifying vulnerabilities of the UK’s sea-based nuclear submarine force, revealing serious safety and security issues including the Trident force’s susceptibility to possible terrorist attack.  He revealed how easy it was to use a Samsung Galaxy II phone to actually obtain top secret information on nuclear safety and security.  Not long after these revelations were publicized, William McNeilly was dishonorably discharged from the Royal Navy.  He charged that this occurred in order to protect the public image of that military organization, “It is shocking that some people in a military force can be more concerned about public image than public safety.”  A year later in June of 2016 more problems with the Royal Navy’s Trident fleet surfaced when the The Sunday Times later revealed that a dummy, unarmed Trident II D5 missile launched from the submarine HMS Vengeance somewhere off the coast of Florida malfunctioned and, instead of heading eastward toward the mid-Atlantic Ocean, was misdirected on a trajectory toward the Florida coast.  This misfire was kept secret and not revealed by The Times until after the British Parliament voted overwhelmingly (472-117) on July 19, 2016 to approve $53 billion in funding to continue the UK’s investment in the Trident II system.  Comments:  The chances of an unintentional, unauthorized, or accidental nuclear war are disturbing enough without also factoring in the risks of nuclear terrorism.  For these reasons, the flawed assumptions of nuclear deterrence should be reevaluated, while at the same time global nuclear arsenals should be dramatically reduced. (Sources:  “Trident Whistleblowing: Nuclear ‘Disaster’ Waiting to Happen.” Wikileaks. May 17, 2015.  http://www.wikileaks.org/trident-safety/, Rob Edwards. “Trident Whistleblower William McNeilly Discharged from Royal Navy.” The Guardian. June 17, 2015. http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jun/17/trident-whistleblower-william-mcneilly-discharged-from-royal-navy and Weston Williams. “Trident Missile Misfire off Florida.” Christian Science Monitor. January 22, 2017. http://www.csmonitor.com all accessed April 14, 2017.)

    May 21, 1946 – In the early days of the Nuclear Age before automated technologies and heavy shielding made nuclear weapons assembly procedures significantly safer, a number of individuals in both the U.S. and the Soviet Union paid the ultimate price for errors in judgement or merely a slip of the hand and as a result suffered excruciatingly painful injuries and death due to mere seconds of exposure to deadly radioactive materials.  On this date, a Jewish scientist from Canada working for the U.S. government became one of these unfortunate casualties.  At a laboratory in Los Alamos, New Mexico, Louis Alexander Slotin was working with a new beryllium tamper installed around a plutonium bomb core, when he inadvertently allowed the screwdriver separating the tamper from the bomb assembly to fall and land squarely on the assembly which resulted in what is referred to as a “neutron criticality incident” or “blue flash.”  Slotin reacted quickly to jerk the tamper off the assembly and drop it instantly to the floor which saved the lives of General Lesley Groves and five other witnesses. However, Slotin received a lethal radioactive dose of 2,100 rems and experienced agonizing pain and suffering until he died nine days later.  Comments:  Seventy-plus years of nuclear accidents, tests, and experiments have injured or killed countless thousands of individuals, but our species has continued to rely on good fortune to prevent a unforeseen, catastrophic nuclear event which could trigger the deaths of millions or even billions of people (through a Nuclear Winter event after a full-scale nuclear exchange) and send humanity back into the Dark Ages or worse, result in the termination of our species.  We can’t rely forever on luck to save the human race.  We must affirmatively act now to drastically reduce and eventually eliminate these doomsday weapons before it is too late. (Source:  James Mahaffey.  “Atomic Accidents.” New York:  Pegasus Books, 2014, p. 61-66.)

    May 27, 1968 – A 3,500-ton, 252 foot-long U.S. nuclear attack submarine, the U.S.S. Scorpion (SSN-589), after leaving Rota, Spain to escort a Polaris Missile submarine to deep water, was reported lost at sea on this date after being six days overdue at Norfolk naval base and was not found until October 29th of that year lying on the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean at a depth of almost 10,000 feet about 400 miles southwest of the Azore Islands on the edge of the Sargasso Sea.  Onboard the nuclear-powered vessel (powered by a S5W reactor) were at least two Mark 45 Astor anti-submarine torpedoes equipped with W34 nuclear warheads.  Ninety-nine sailors perished in an accident of undetermined nature including possibly the malfunction and resulting explosion of a conventional Mark 37 torpedo inside the hull or possibly after being jettisoned from the craft.  Comments: This deadly incident was just one example of dozens or even hundreds of accidents involving submarines, surface ships, and aircraft involving the loss of nuclear propulsion units and/or nuclear weapons.  Some of these nuclear reactors and warheads lost at sea are leaking highly radioactive toxins affecting not only the flora and fauna of the deep but the health and well-being of millions of people.  (Sources:  William Arkin and Joshua Handler. “Neptune Papers II: Naval Nuclear Accidents at Sea.”  Greenpeace International, 1990 and Spencer Dunmore.  “Lost Subs.”  Cambridge, MA:  Da Capo Press, 2002, p. 140-145.)

     

  • Tell Your Senators: No Military Action Against North Korea

    President Trump has summoned all 100 U.S. Senators to meet at the White House tomorrow, April 26, regarding the situation in North Korea. This sounds ominous. President Trump and members of his cabinet have stated that “all options are on the table.” Preemptive military action, not sanctioned by the UN Security Council, would be illegal, immoral and unwise. It could lead to a prolonged war in the Korean peninsula, and could lead to the use of nuclear weapons.

    In addition, the U.S. has scheduled a test of its nuclear-capable Minuteman III Intercontinental Ballistic Missile for the early morning hours of April 26, just before Trump’s meeting with Senators. Continually escalating the nuclear threat level with North Korea endangers us all.

    Write your Senators today insisting upon a diplomatic – rather than a military – solution to the conflict with North Korea.