Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Blog

  • April: This Month in Nuclear Threat History

    April 3, 2016 – In an interview on this date on Fox News Sunday, Chris Wallace followed up on statements presidential candidate Donald Trump made previously when he indicated it might be a good idea for U.S. allies like Japan and South Korea to develop nuclear weapons by asking the candidate, “You want to have a nuclear arms race on the Korean peninsula?”  The future 45th president replied, “In many ways the world is changing.  Right now, you have Pakistan and you have North Korea and you have China and you have Russia and you have India and you have the United States and many other countries have nukes.  It’s not like, gee whiz, nobody has them.”  Comments:  This is just one of many uneducated, irresponsible, and reckless statements the future president made about the nuclear threat, mischaracterizing long-term U.S. and international arms control efforts to limit and prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons.  Currently, with thousands of nuclear weapons on hair-trigger alert status, the world was a dangerous enough place before the Nov. 8, 2016 election that threw an inexperienced but manipulative flim-flam man into the White House with his unstable hands on the nuclear button.  The recent moving of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists’ Doomsday Clock to 2 ½ minutes to Midnight signaled that other responsible U.S. and world leaders and, most importantly, an educated anti-nuclear global citizenry needs to step up and strengthen greatly efforts to reverse the new Cold War II and the revived nuclear arms race before it is too late. (Source:  Judd Legum. “9 Terrifying Things Donald Trump Has Publicly Said About Nuclear Weapons.”  ThinkProgress.org, Aug. 4, 2016. https://thinkprogress.org/9-terrifying-things-donald-trump-has-publicly-said-about-nuclear-weapons-99f6290bc32a#.I44ys3h17 accessed March 17, 2017.)

     

    April 4, 1949 – After a communist coup in Czechoslovakia and the Berlin Blockade-Airlift, twelve nations including Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, the U.K., and U.S. signed the North Atlantic Treaty creating a military alliance, NATO, against the Soviet Union and its communist bloc Eastern European allies.  The U.S.S.R. responded on May 14, 1955 with the creation of the eight-nation Soviet-led Warsaw Pact mutual defense agreement.  Two years after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the Velvet Revolutions that overthrew pro-Soviet communist governments in Eastern Europe, and eight months before the dissolution of the Soviet Union in December 1991, the Warsaw Pact alliance broke up on April 1, 1991.  Nevertheless, NATO expanded from its Cold War era membership of 16 nations to include the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland in July of 1997.  Senator Dale Bumpers (D-AR), a future president of the nonprofit Pentagon watchdog anti-nuclear organization, the Center for Defense Information, prophetically stated after the Senate approved this round of NATO expansion on April 30, 1998 that Russia felt (and today this is even more true) increasingly threatened by a nuclear-armed adversarial military alliance along its western borders.  Bumpers stated that, “We’re forcing them to rely more and more heavily on nuclear weapons.  And the more you rely on nuclear weapons, the lower the hair trigger for nuclear war.”  After adding more Baltic and Eastern European countries in 2004 and 2009, NATO has expanded to its current size of 28-member nations today.  Comments: More and more arms control experts and a concerned global citizenry are urging the U.S. to bring home tactical nuclear weapons from Europe, allowing NATO to move to a safer, more secure non-nuclear means of deterring Russian military adventures as occurred during the recent Crimea-Ukraine Crisis.  For example, Steve Andreasen and Isabelle Williams, two analysts with the Global Nuclear Policy Program at the Nuclear Threat Initiative organization in Washington, DC, recently noted that, “Even taking into account what some perceive to be more “usable” (nuclear) weapons (the B61-11 bomb or its follow-on B61-12), it is hard to envision the circumstances under which a U.S. President would initiate nuclear use for the first time in 70 years with a NATO dual-capable aircraft flown by non-U.S. pilots delivering a U.S. B61 nuclear bomb,” and its seems unlikely that any such mission would go forward “given the political and operational constraints involved.”  It is imperative that the U.S. and other nuclear weapon states not only drastically reduce and eliminate tactical nuclear weapons but all such doomsday devices including obviously strategic nuclear warheads and their accompanying launch platforms. (Sources: Jack Mendelsohn and David Grahame, editors.  “Arms Control Chronology.”  Washington, DC:  Center for Defense Information, 2002, pp. 117, 125, 132-33 and Steve Andreasen and Isabelle Williams. “Bring Home U.S. Tactical Nuclear Weapons from Europe.” In “Ten Big Nuclear Ideas for the Next President,” edited by Tom Z. Collina and Geoff Wilson, Ploughshares Fund, November 2016.)

     

    April 6, 1993 – A pressure buildup inside a 34 cubic meter stainless steel reaction vessel buried under a building of the radiochemical works at Tomsk-7, Siberian Chemical Enterprise plutonium and uranium processing facility, led to a powerful conventional explosion that blew a hole in the building’s roof.  The vessel contained 8,757 kilograms of uranium and 449 grams of plutonium along with a mixture of radioactive waste from a previous extraction cycle.  This serious atmospheric release of deadly radioactive contaminants affected an area of at least 120 square kilometers causing entire villages to be evacuated.  160 on-site workers, 2,000 cleanup workers, and tens of thousands of nearby inhabitants were exposed to radiation levels two and a half times the maximum allowed.  Comments:  Although the Tomsk explosion happened almost 25 years ago, it highlights a continuing, growing global nuclear problem.  Paul Brown of Ecologist.org pointed out last year that worldwide stockpiles of plutonium are on the rise with hundreds of tons of the most toxic metal ever produced in current global inventories.  A mere spec or microgram of plutonium, if inhaled, can trigger a fatal dose of cancer.  Brown points out that, “there is no commercially viable use for this toxic metal and there is increasing fear that plutonium could fall into the hands of terrorists or that governments could be tempted to use it to join the nuclear arms race,” – a prophetic statement as virtually all nine nuclear weapon states plan to spend trillions of dollars in the next 30 years to build more sophisticated and usable doomsday weapons.  Brown notes that civilian uses of plutonium, supposedly to address global warming by cutting fossil fuel energy production in favor of nuclear power in fast breeder and commercial reactors, have so far failed to keep pace with the amounts of this highly radioactive metal being produced by approximately 15 nations that run uranium-fueled nuclear power plants.  He also points out that, “the small amounts of plutonium that have been used at conventional and fast breeder reactors have produced very little electricity – at startling high costs.”  (Sources:  “Too Much of a Bad Thing?  World Awash With Waste Plutonium.”  Paul Brown. TheEcologist.org. Jan. 24, 2016. www.theecologist.org/News/news_round_up/2986959/too_much_of_a_bad_thing_world_awash_with_plutonum.htm and Timeline: Nuclear Plant Accidents.  BBC News, July 11, 2006 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2hi/science/nature/5165736.stm both accessed March 18, 2017 and other information available on the International Atomic Energy Agency’s website, https://www.iaea.org)

     

    April 11, 1862 – Henry Adams (1838-1918), a U.S. historian, journalist, and educator who was related to two former U.S. Presidents, after reading the press reports of the terrible slaughter at the Civil War battle of Shiloh, wrote a letter to his brother with this dire prediction, “I firmly believe that before many centuries more, science will be the master of man.  The engines he will have invented will be beyond his strength to control.  Someday, science will have the existence of mankind in its power and the human race commit suicide by blowing up the world.”  Comments:  155 years later, some seventy-plus years since Trinity, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki, Adams’ prophetic glimpse into the future seems unfortunately a most accurate assessment of humanity’s present and future living under a Nuclear Sword of Damocles.  The choice for Homo sapiens is pure and simple, renounce war and eliminate global nuclear arsenals now and forever or our civilization, our species, and perhaps all higher forms of life on the Earth are on an inevitable slide towards doomsday. Omnicide or nuclear abolition is humanity’s paramount decision to make. (Source: Alfred Kazin. “The Fascination of Henry Adams.”  New Republic. August 1, 1983. https://newrepublic.com/article/104616/the-fascination-henry-adams  accessed March 17, 2017.)

     

    April 18, 1959 – The radioactive threat posed by naval nuclear weapons and nuclear reactor accidents is a continuing and grave environmental and public health concern over the last seventy years.  One of many international examples of this threat is one such incident that occurred on this date when the U.S. Navy responded to a serious nuclear reactor accident by dumping a damaged sodium-cooled liquid metal reactor vessel and other reactor plant components of the submarine U.S.S. Seawolf into the 9,000 feet deep waters of the Atlantic Ocean about 120 miles off the Delaware-Maryland coastline.  Comments:  In the Atomic Age, eight nuclear submarines, six of them Soviet/Russian and the other two American, have sunk with dozens of nuclear ballistic missiles also lost at sea.  Some of the nuclear reactors and warheads in these and other military vessels or aircraft 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. (Source: William Arkin and Joshua Handler. “Neptune Papers II: Naval Nuclear Accidents at Sea.”  Greenpeace International, 1990. http://www.greenpeace.org/international/Global/International/planet-2/report/2006/2/naval-nuclear-accidents-arkin.pdf accessed March 20, 2017.)

     

    April 26, 2016 – An article by Kurt Nimmo, “U.S. Plans First Use of Nuclear Weapons Against North Korea,” was published on this date on the Infowars.com website.  It quoted Robert Einhorn, a former special advisor for nonproliferation and arms control at the U.S. Department of State, “The U.S. has said that it is prepared, if necessary, to use nuclear weapons first, whether in Europe or in East Asia, to support South Korea and Japan –this remains U.S. policy.” Unfortunately, this opinion is entirely consistent with the long history of U.S. threats to use nuclear weapons on the Korean peninsula (and elsewhere) from presidents Eisenhower to Clinton and now to include the 45th President who once during the election campaign horrified the entire planet with the query, “Why can’t we use nukes?” But was this just hypothetical nuclear saber-rattling?  Whatever it was, it has been going on for some time. Last October, even the usually diplomatically-focused Council on Foreign Relations advocated using military force to cause regime change in North Korea. More recently, President Trump’s newly confirmed Secretary of State Rex Tillerson mentioned the possible use of U.S. military force against North Korea.  In a speech in Seoul, South Korea while standing alongside South Korean Foreign Minister Yun Byung-se, Secretary Tillerson proclaimed, “The policy of strategic patience has ended.  We are exploring a new range of diplomatic, security, and economic measures.  All options (in regards to North Korea) are on the table.  If they elevate the threat of their (nuclear) weapons program to a level that we believe requires (military) action, then that option’s on the table.”  Adding fuel to this fire is that fact that the Pentagon has, over the last couple decades,  publicly discussed (albeit sometimes in a low key manner after an unauthorized leak) using tactical, low-kiloton, ground-penetrating nuclear weapons, like the B-61, to attack Quaddafi’s underground chemical weapons  factories in Libya in 1996, to strike Al Qaeda cave bunkers in the Tora Bora mountains of Afghanistan weeks after the 9-11 terrorist attack,  and to take out Saddam Hussein’s deep underground WMD and leadership bunkers in the 2003 Iraq War.  A strike against “high value” leadership and WMD targets in nuclear-armed North Korea is an even more frightening possibility because of the horrendous resulting fatalities and the tremendous health and environmental impacts on the Korean peninsula and Japan of a so-called “small-scale” nuclear conflict, not to mention the globally catastrophic precedent of breaching the nuclear threshold for the first time since 1945.  And it is not too far-fetched to believe that any such supposedly “limited” nuclear war could also precipitate or trigger a larger-scale nuclear Armageddon. (Sources:  Prof. Michel Chossudorsky.  “Remember Hiroshima: No Danger of Nuclear War?  The Pentagon’s Plan to Blow Up the Planet.”  Global Research.  Oct. 10, 2016.  http://www.globalresearch.ca/there-is-no-danger-of-nuclear-war-or-is-there/5500276 and Bill Chappell. “Tillerson Says ‘All Of The Options Are On The Table’ In Dealing With North Korea.” NPR.org. March 17, 2017. http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/03/17/520515168/tillerson-says-all-of-the-options-are-on-the-table-in-dealing-with-north-korea both accessed March 19, 2017.)

     

    April 30, 2015 – “Former U.S. Commander:  Take Nuclear Missiles Off High Alert,” an article by Robert Burns that was published in Air Force Times on this date sent some significant shock waves into the foundation of long-held nuclear deterrence theory.  This article reported that retired General James Cartwright, who served as the former commander of the U.S. Strategic Command (STRATCOM) from 2004-07 and later served as Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff before retiring in 2011, chaired a study panel that concluded that the 450 land-based Minuteman III ICBMs did not need to remain on a decades-long hair-trigger, launch-on-warning alert status.  He and his military colleagues proposed that the missiles’ command-and-control system be adjusted to require that it should take at least 24 to 72 hours to prepare the missiles to achieve launch status – thereby giving America (and Russia, if they agreed to reciprocate in this vital task) a breathing space to avoid launching an irreversible, globally catastrophic, possibly species-ending, nuclear war, especially one triggered due to accidental, unauthorized, or unintentional circumstances.

  • A Better Mousetrap?

    This article was originally published by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.

    mousetrapAlbert Einstein noted, “Mankind invented the atomic bomb, but no mouse would ever construct a mousetrap.”

    We humans have created the equivalent of a mousetrap for ourselves. And we’ve constructed tens of thousands of them over the seven decades of the Nuclear Age.

    In the mid-1980s, the world reached a high of 70,000 nuclear weapons, with more than 95 percent of them in the arsenals of the United States and Soviet Union. Since then, the number has fallen to under 15,000. While this downward trend is positive, the world’s nuclear countries possess enough nuclear weapons to destroy the human species many times over.

    In 72 years, nuclear weapons have been used only twice in warfare—at Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945. But the United States and Russia have come far too close to using them on many other occasions, including during the tense days of the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis.

    Nuclear weapons pose an extraordinary risk, one that could result in rapid human extinction. Their use could be triggered by malice or mistake. Either way, the consequences would be catastrophic.

    Nuclear weapons and human fallibility are an extremely dangerous and volatile mix. These weapons test our morality, our intelligence, and our capacity for species survival.

    Nuclear deterrence is not a shield against nuclear weapons. It is a psychological theory about human behavior. If the leaders of nuclear weapon states truly believed in nuclear deterrence, they would not need to build missile defenses for protection against a nuclear attack. And missile defense systems are far from reliable, often failing in test situations. Sometimes, the tests are cancelled because of bad weather or cloud cover. But there is no international treaty requiring nuclear attacks to be conducted only on sunny days.

    There is no physical protection against nuclear weapons. The only strategy to assure against nuclear war is to negotiate the abolition of nuclear weapons—with inspection and verification procedures to make sure existing arsenals are eliminated and never rebuilt.

    Late in March 2017, negotiations for a new treaty to ban and eliminate nuclear weapons will begin at the United Nations. Even though most—perhaps all—nuclear-armed countries will not participate in the negotiations, the talks will be extremely significant for clarifying the illegality of the weapons, and for setting new international norms against the threat or use of nuclear weapons.

    In the meantime, Donald Trump has tweeted about wanting the United States to “greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability”; he’s also told the world that, when it comes to nuclear weapons, he wants the United States to be at “the top of the pack.” In making such statements, he is demonstrating his lack of knowledge about nuclear dangers and, in fact, risking the instigation of a new nuclear arms race.

    Rather than understanding, as President Reagan and other nuclear-armed leaders discovered, that “[n]uclear war cannot be won, and must never be fought,” Trump seems intent on building a bigger and better trap for destroying the human species. His bravado is dangerous. Nuclear weapons are equal opportunity destroyers. Although humans invented the atomic bomb, they are not condemned to being caught in its trap. To avoid the trap, people must demand far more of political leaders, including Trump, insisting that they commence good-faith negotiations now for nuclear zero.

  • Testimony of a Hiroshima Survivor

    United Nations conference to negotiate a legally binding instrument to prohibit nuclear weapons, leading towards their total elimination

    New York, 27 March 2017

    Testimony by Fujimori Toshiki, Assistant Secretary General of Nihon Hidankyo (Japan Confederation of Atomic and Hydrogen Bomb Sufferers Organizations)

    President Ambassador Whyte, Distinguished Delegates,

    I would like to thank the President for giving me the opportunity to speak.

    My name is Fujimori Toshiki, and I am the Assistant Secretary General of Nihon Hidankyo, Japan Confederation of Atomic and Hydrogen Bomb Sufferers Organizations. I am one of the people who was exposed to the atomic bomb the U.S. forces dropped on Hiroshima on August 6, 1945.

    Hibakusha established Nihon Hidankyo eleven years after the bombing. Since then, we have called for “No More Hibakusha” within Japan and abroad. The treaty you will be negotiating today must reflect this call of Hibakusha in express terms so that the world makes remarkable progress towards nuclear weapons abolition.

    I was 1 year and 4 months-old when the bomb was dropped. We were a big family of twelve, consisting of my grandfather, father, mother, six elder sisters, two elder brothers, and myself. Two of my elder sisters and my two elder brothers had evacuated out of the city of Hiroshima to avoid air raids. The eight of us who stayed in Hiroshima were exposed to the bomb.

    My fourth-eldest sister was 13 years old and was in her first year of an all-girls junior high school. She was around 400m from the hypocenter when the bomb was dropped. Together with her teachers and other students, my sister was there to demolish houses to create firesafe areas against air raids. All of 676 of them including my sister were killed instantly through direct exposure to radiation, the heat, and the blast from the bomb. It is said that all together in the city of Hiroshima, 8400 students in the first and second year of junior high schools were being mobilized for similar purposes that day. The lives of 6300 of them were lost.

    I was sick that day, so my mother was heading to the hospital with me on her back when the bomb was dropped. We were 2.3 km from the hypocentre. Fortunately, a two-story house between the hypocentre and us prevented us from directly being exposed to the heat. Yet, we were thrown all the way to the edge of the river bank. My mother, with me in her arms, managed to get to the nearby mountain called Ushitayama. Our family members were in different locations at the time of the bombing, but everyone escaped to the same mountain of Ushitayama, except for my fourth-elder sister. For many days that followed, my parents and my sisters kept going back to the area near the hypocentre to look for my fourth-eldest sister, who was missing. We never found her. We never found her body either. In the meantime, I had my entire body covered with bandages, with only eyes, nose, and mouth uncovered. Everybody thought I would die over time. Yet, I survived. It is a miracle. I am here at the UN, asking for an abolition of nuclear weapons. I am convinced that this is a mission I am given as a survivor of the atomic-bomb.

    Two hundred and ten thousand people died by the end of 1945 due to the atomic bombs the U.S. forces dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Hibakusha experienced hell on earth beneath the mushroom clouds. In fact, Hibakusha have continued to suffer for the twenty six thousand one hundred sixty six days until today, March 27th , 2017.

    Nobody, in any country, deserves seeing the same hell on earth again.

    Every year, on August 6th, my mother would gather all of us children and would talk to us about her experience in tears. I once asked my mother why she would speak about it if recalling the experience makes her suffer.

    “I can’t make you go through the same experience.” That was her answer.

    Her tears were her heartfelt appeal. She called, as a mother, for a world with no more hell on earth.

    Three International Conferences on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons hosted by Norway, Mexico, and Austria, as well as the Joint Statements on the Humanitarian Consequences of Nuclear Weapons at the Preparatory Committee meetings for the NPT Review Conference and the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, repeatedly and strongly reaffirmed the following conclusions:

    That whether intended or not intended, the effects of a nuclear weapon detonation are not constrained by national borders;

    That no state or international body could address its immediate humanitarian emergency or long-term consequences;

    That in the interest of the very survival of humanity nuclear weapons must never be used again; and

    That the only assurance against the risk of a nuclear weapon detonation is the total elimination of nuclear weapons.

    Many Hibakusha received these messages with thousands of thoughts about the long journey that they had come.

    Nuclear weapon states and their allied nuclear-dependent states are against concluding a treaty to abolish nuclear weapons. Despite being the only country in the world that experienced the wartime use of nuclear weapons, the Japanese government voted against the UN resolution 71/258, which established this negotiating conference.

    As a Hibakusha, and as a Japanese, I am here today heartbroken.

    Yet, I am not discouraged.

    Government representatives who are present at this conference, international organizations, and representatives of civil society organizations are making efforts to conclude a legally binding instrument to ban and eliminate nuclear weapons.

    In April of last year, Hibakusha initiated the International Signature Campaign, which calls on all state governments to conclude a treaty to ban and eliminate nuclear weapons. We reached out to countries across the world, and last October, we delivered our first batch of five hundred sixty thousand signatures to the Chair of the First Committee of the UN General Assembly. Today, we have over one million seven hundred twenty thousand signatures. We will continue the campaign until 2020, and we aim to collect hundreds of millions of signatures.

    Let us work together to achieve the nuclear ban treaty.

    Thank you very much for listening.

  • More than 120 Nations Convene Nuclear Weapons Ban Treaty Negotiations at the United Nations

    NUCLEAR AGE PEACE FOUNDATION

    For Immediate Release

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

    More than 120 Nations Convene Nuclear Weapons Ban Treaty Negotiations at the United Nations

    New York City–Beginning on Monday, March 27, 2017, for the very first time, negotiations on a treaty to ban nuclear weapons in international law are taking place under the auspices of the United Nations. More than 120 nations have gathered to participate in the negotiations.

    A treaty banning nuclear weapons would make using, possessing, developing, and assisting with nuclear weapons illegal under international law and provide a framework for the weapons’ eventual complete elimination. Banning these weapons is the next step in a decades-long effort to ensure that the laws of war are followed and the indiscriminate destruction and unnecessary suffering caused by nuclear weapons is prevented forever.

    David Krieger, President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, said, “This is a breakthrough day and week in the Nuclear Age. For the first time ever, nations will be negotiating to ban nuclear weapons – weapons capable of destroying civilization and complex life.”

    The world now faces 21st century threats and challenges — cybersecurity, pandemic disease, 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.

    The treaty is expected to:

    • Legally bind parties from using, possessing and developing nuclear weapons, and assisting others in those activities.
    • Work in concert with the existing regime of nonproliferation and disarmament agreements.
    • Strengthen the norm against indiscriminate weapons and provide countries a method to meet disarmament obligations.

    The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation will be represented at the ban negotiations by Robert B. Laney, Chairman of the Foundation’s Board of Directors and Rick Wayman, Director of Programs. Wayman will be among the presenters in a discussion on Tuesday, March 28, from 10:00 AM ‘til noon, entitled, “US Nuclear Modernization Under President Trump: Implications for the Ban Treaty Process.”

    Wayman commented earlier on Monday, “In an epic role reversal, this morning we saw U.S. Ambassador Nikki Haley protesting outside the UN General Assembly Hall while the majority of the world’s nations, supported by NGOs from around the world, began negotiations on a treaty banning nuclear weapons. The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation will continue to support the good faith efforts of those negotiating a nuclear ban treaty and oppose the nuclear weapons states’ efforts to keep nuclear weapons in perpetuity.”

    The negotiations will take place in two sessions; this week in March and three weeks in June/July of 2017 at the United Nations. This week, representatives will meet to begin the drafting process by discussing and submitting language for the various components of the treaty. Between the two meetings, draft text will be produced for negotiation at the June/July meeting.

    With the risk of nuclear detonation higher than at any time since the end of the Cold War, this treaty is an urgent priority for all countries that believe in a future free of nuclear weapons.

    #                                                                             #                                                             #

    If you would like to interview Rick Wayman, please call (805) 696-5159 or email him at rwayman@napf.org

    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.

  • The Blood of Journalists Continues to Spill Over in Mexico

    The prestigious international organization, Committee for the Protection of Journalists (CPJ), whose mission for more than 30 years has been to defend and protect freedom of the press, informs us of the latest murder of a Mexican journalist.

    In the state of Veracruz, on the shores of the Gulf of Mexico, Ricardo Monlui Cabrera, reporter and editor of the newspaper El Político of the city of Córdoba, was cowardly murdered on March 19 of this year. Cabrera, who wrote the column “Crisol”, left a restaurant in the company of his wife and 10-year-old son after breakfast. His murderers fired three shots, killing him instantly. His wife and son were injured and taken to a hospital.
    Monlui’s death is number 20 in less than six and a half years in that violent state, setting the mark of a murder every four months. He is the second journalist killed in Mexico so far this year, and that figure since 2000 is already over 122, for the macabre average of a reporter killed every 45 days. But the true figures are even more alarming. The independent human rights organization, Article 19, whose name was taken from Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which guarantees freedom of expression, tells us that in the 2014-2015, a journalist was killed in Mexico every 26 days. In addition, the attacks on the media and reporters increased in those two years by 115%, with Mexico City being the site where those attacks were most documented.

    This situation is totally unsustainable. Statements that “Mexico is the worst place in the Americas to be a journalist” as the TeleSur information network notes, http://www.telesurtv.net/news/Mexico-el-pais-con-mas-periodistas-asesinados -en-2015-20151222-0023.html indicate nothing but a total disregard for the law by Mexican authorities.
    I share this painful reality with the members and friends of NAPF, inviting them to initiate a campaign of protests before the embassy and consulates of Mexico in the US.  The United States of America, which for so many years was a true beacon that illuminated many of the darkest moments of 20th century history in its struggle against fascist forces, at this moment seems to withdraw from its position as a democratic champion.  But many Americans with true love for Liberty and Justice will not allow that to happen.  Latin America looks to its brothers in the North expecting firm and decisive support in the defense of human rights, the environment and sacred freedom of expression.

    We will continue to expose situations like this, which unfortunately are also repeated in other places in Latin America. The brave defenders of the environment continue to fall in Latin American countries in greater numbers.
    Their voices must also be heard, their sufferings denounced and demand for them the justice they deserve.

    * (Update) Upon finishing this brief report comes the news through the Washington Post of the murder today in the state of Chihuahua, Mexico, of the journalist Miroslava Breach.  Miroslava, 54, was about to get out of the garage of her house with one of her three children.  A gunman approached and shot her eight times and ran. She was a reporter for PROCESO magazine in Mexico City and was distinguished for her research articles against corrupt governments and mafias of drug traffickers. This is the third murder of a journalist in the 23 days of the month of March alone.

    Ruben D. Arvizu is Director of Latin America for the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, Director General of Latin America for Jean-Michel Cousteau´s Ocean Futures Society and Ambassador of Global Cities Covenant on Climate.

  • Hacking Nuclear Weapons Systems

    David KriegerBruce Blair raises important questions and concerns about hacking nuclear weapons systems in his op-ed in the New York Times, “Why Our Nuclear Weapons Can Be Hacked,” on March 14, 2017.  If the U.S. and other nuclear-armed countries continue on the path they’re on, sooner or later, despite the best of intentions, hackers will succeed, leading to unauthorized missile launches, nuclear anarchy and nuclear catastrophe.

    Foolproof systems are not possible, particularly when countries are allocating increasingly significant scientific and financial resources to cyber warfare.  As Edward Teller, father of the H-bomb, pointed out, “Sooner or later a fool will prove greater than the proof, even in a foolproof system.”  The world has narrowly escaped many close calls due to accidents and false alarms of nuclear attacks.  This good fortune will not continue indefinitely.

    The possibility of cyber warfare is one of the best possible arguments for U.S. leadership to negotiate the abolition of nuclear weapons before they abolish us.  Later this month, some 130 countries will be meeting at the United Nations in New York to draft a new treaty to prohibit and eliminate nuclear weapons.  Sadly, and dangerously, the U.S. and the other P-5 nuclear weapons states have chosen not to participate in these negotiations.  They seem to prefer the false security and political advantages of possessing their nuclear arsenals to ridding the world of the dangers posed by these arsenals.  Being hacked is only one of many serious dangers.  There are also the ongoing threats of nuclear warfare initiated by accident, miscalculation, intention or insanity.

  • Marshall Islands Nuclear Zero Lawsuit Appeal To Be Heard in Ninth Circuit Court on March 15

    NUCLEAR AGE PEACE FOUNDATION

    For Immediate Release

    Contact:
    Sandy Jones 805.965.3443; sjones@napf.org
    Rick Wayman 805.696.5159; rwayman@napf.org

     

    San Francisco–On Wednesday, March 15, 2017 at 9:00 AM, the appeal of the dismissal of the Republic of the Marshall Islands’ case in the U.S. Federal District Court will be heard in the Ninth District Court of Appeals. The case, initially filed on April 24, 2014, alleges that the United States failed to uphold its legal obligation under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and customary International law to begin negotiations “in good faith” for an end to the nuclear arms race “at an early date” and for nuclear disarmament.

    The suit contends that the United States has clearly violated its legal obligations to pursue nuclear disarmament by spending large sums of money to enhance its nuclear arsenal. The U.S. plans to spend an estimated $1 trillion on nuclear weapons over the next three decades and President Trump has said he wants to build up the U.S. nuclear arsenal to ensure it is at the “top of the pack,” saying the United States has “fallen behind in its nuclear weapons capacity.”

    The case was dismissed on February 3, 2015 on the jurisdictional grounds of standing and political question doctrine without getting to the merits of the case. David Krieger, President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation and a consultant to the Marshall Islands in their lawsuit, stated, “We believe the Court of Appeals should reverse the decision of the lower court and allow the case to be heard on its merits. But, no matter the outcome of this appeal, the Marshall Islands has shown great leadership with their Nuclear Zero lawsuits. They are a small nation that has acted on behalf of all humanity.”

    Marshall Islanders suffered catastrophic and irreparable damages to their people and homeland when the U.S. conducted 67 nuclear tests on their territory between 1946 and 1958. These tests had the equivalent power of exploding 1.6 Hiroshima bombs daily for 12 years.

    The Marshall Islands does not seek compensation with this lawsuit. Rather, it seeks declaratory and injunctive relief requiring the United States to comply with its commitments under international law.

    For more information about the Nuclear Zero lawsuits, visit nuclearzero.org/in-the-courts

    Note to editor:  There will be a press conference outside the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals at approximately 12:00 PM. Laurie Ashton, lead council for the Marshall Islands; Pastor Julian Riklon of the Marshall Islands; Rick Wayman, Director of Programs and Operations at the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation; Jackie Cabasso, Executive Director, Western States Legal Foundation; Scott Yundt, Staff Attorney, Tri-Valley CAREs; and John Burroughs, Executive Director, Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy, will be available for comment.

    #                                                                      #                                                          #

    The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation was founded in1982. Its mission is to educate and advocate for peace and a world free of nuclear weapons and to empower peace leaders.

    The Foundation is a non-partisan, non-profit organization with consultative status to the United Nations and is comprised of some 80,000 individuals and groups worldwide who realize the imperative for peace in the Nuclear Age.

  • An Open Letter to Trump and Putin: The World Needs Nuclear Zero

    This Open Letter was originally published by The Hill. To add your name to the Open Letter, click here.

    putintrump

    This may be the most dangerous time in human history.

    In a dramatic recent decision, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists has moved its iconic Doomsday Clock ahead from three minutes to only two-and-a-half minutes to midnight.

    Humankind faces two existential challenges of global and potentially apocalyptic scope: nuclear weapons and climate change. Our focus here is on nuclear dangers, but we strongly encourage you, Presidents Trump and Putin, to undertake in a spirit of urgency all necessary steps to avert further global warming.

    As the leaders of the United States and Russia, the two countries with the largest nuclear arsenals, you have the grave responsibility of assuring that nuclear weapons are not used — or their use overtly threatened — during your period of leadership.

    The most certain and reliable way to fulfill this responsibility is to negotiate with each other, and the other governments of nuclear-armed states, for their total elimination.

    The U.S. and Russia are both obligated under Article VI of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to engage in such negotiations in good faith for an end to the nuclear arms race and for complete nuclear disarmament. Your success in this endeavor would make you heroes of the Nuclear Age.

    Initiating a nuclear war, any nuclear war, would be an act of insanity. Between nuclear weapons states, it would lead to the destruction of the attacking nation as well as the nation attacked. Between the U.S. and Russia, it would also destroy civilization and threaten the survival of humanity.

    There are still nearly 15,000 nuclear weapons in the world, of which the United States and Russia each possess some 7,000. Approximately 1,000 of these weapons in each country remain on hair-trigger alert — a catastrophe waiting to happen that could be prevented with the stroke of a pen.

    If nuclear weapons are not used intentionally, they could be used inadvertently by accident or miscalculation. Nuclear weapons and human fallibility are an explosive combination, which could at any moment bring dire consequences to the U.S., Russia and the rest of humanity. The world would be far safer by negotiating an end to policies of nuclear first-use, hair-trigger alert and launch-on-warning. Further, negotiations need to be commenced on the phased, verifiable and irreversible elimination of nuclear weapons.

    Nuclear deterrence presupposes an unrealistic view of human behavior if projected over time. It depends on the willingness and ability of political leaders to act with total rationality in the most extreme circumstances of stress and provocation. It provides no guarantees of sustained security or physical protection. It could fail, spectacularly and tragically, at any moment.

    The further development and modernization of nuclear weapons by the U.S., Russia and others, and the proliferation of nuclear weapons to other countries, would make for an even more dangerous world. It is important for the sake of regional peace and the avoidance of future nuclear confrontations to uphold the international agreement that places appropriate limitations on Iran’s nuclear program, an agreement that has the support of the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council plus Germany.

    Your nuclear arsenals give each of you the power to end civilization. You also have the historic opportunity, should you choose, to become the leaders of the most momentous international collaboration of all time, dedicated to ending the nuclear weapons era over the course of a decade or so. This great goal of Nuclear Zero can be achieved by negotiating, as a matter of priority, a treaty to ban and eliminate nuclear weapons.

    We, the undersigned, implore you to commence negotiations to reduce the dangers of a nuclear war, by mistake or malice, and immediately commit your respective governments to the realizable objective of a nuclear weapons-free world. It would be the greatest possible gift to the whole of humanity and to all future generations, as well as of enduring benefit to the national and human security of Russia and the United States.

    Initial Signers: David Krieger, Richard Falk, Noam Chomsky, Jody Williams, Daniel Ellsberg, Medea Benjamin, Mairead Maguire

    David Krieger is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. Richard Falk is professor emeritus of international law at Princeton University. Noam Chomsky is professor emeritus at MIT. Jody Williams is the chair of the Nobel Women’s Initiative and is a Nobel Peace Laureate. Daniel Ellsberg is a former Pentagon consultant and a well respected author. Medea Benjamin is co-founder of social justice movement CODEPINK. Mairead Maguire is co-founder of Peace People in Northern Ireland and is a Nobel Peace Laureate.

  • Sunflower Newsletter: March 2017

    Issue #236 – March 2017
    Donate Now!

    Nuclear weapons threaten everything we’re all about! Now, more than ever, we need to mobilize and we need to stand together for peace and Nuclear Zero. This takes resources. Please consider a gift today.
    • Perspectives
      • The Nuclear Weapons Threat to Our Common Future by David Krieger
      • 63rd Nuclear Victims Remembrance Day Keynote Remarks by President Hilda Heine
      • Nuclear Weapons Don’t Belong in Anyone’s Hands by Tim Wright
    • U.S. Nuclear Weapons Policy
      • Pentagon Panel Urges Trump to Expand Nuclear Options
      • U.S. Tests Land-Based and Submarine-Launched Nuclear Missiles
      • Catholic Bishop Urges U.S. Secretary of State to Pursue Nuclear Weapons Cuts
    • Nuclear Insanity
      • President Trump Calls for U.S. to be “Top of the Pack” of Nuclear-Armed States
    • Nuclear Proliferation
      • New Russian ICBMs Can “Rip Apart” U.S. Missile Defense System
      • China Bans Coal Imports from North Korea
    • War and Peace
      • U.S. Confirms It Used Depleted Uranium in Syria
      • President Trump Proposes $54 Billion Increase in Military Budget
    • Nuclear Modernization
      • Government Estimates Nuclear Modernization Cost at $400 Billion Over 10 Years
    • Resources
      • This Month in Nuclear Threat History
      • Future of Life Institute Podcast on Nuclear Ban Treaty
      • Nuclear Notebook Now Online in One Location
    • Foundation Activities
      • Video Contest: The Most Dangerous Period in Human History
      • 16th Annual Kelly Lecture Features Oliver Stone and Peter Kuznick
      • Peace Literacy at Oshkosh North High School
      • Take Action: Open Letter to Presidents Trump and Putin
    • Quotes

     

    Perspectives

    The Nuclear Weapons Threat to Our Common Future

    by David Krieger

    Nuclear weapons are an existential threat to humans and other forms of complex life. The possibility of nuclear annihilation should concern us enough to take action to abolish these weapons. The failure of large numbers of people to take such action raises vitally important questions. Have we humans given up on our own future? Are we willing to act on our own behalf and that of future generations?

    Nine countries possess nuclear weapons, and the predominant orientation toward them is that they provide protection to their citizens. They do not. Nuclear weapons provide no physical protection. While they may provide psychological “protection,” this is akin to erecting a Maginot Line in the mind – one that can be easily overcome under real world conditions, just as the French Maginot Line was circumvented in World War II, leading to the military defeat and occupation of France by German forces.

    To read more, click here.

    63rd Nuclear Victims Remembrance Day Keynote Remarks

    by President Hilda Heine

    Today is an emotional day for our national conscience as we face the reality that, after the U.S. Nuclear Weapons Testing Program first began with the moving of Bikinians from Bikini Atoll, 71 years of inconsolable grief, terror, and righteous anger followed, none of which have faded with time. This is exacerbated by the U.S. not being honest as to the extent of radiation, and the lingering effects the U.S. Nuclear Weapons Testing Program would have on our lives, ocean and land, and by the U.S. not willing to address the issue of adequate compensation as well as for the radiological cleanup of our islands.

    My Administration will follow in the footsteps of the leaders of the past and continue in this collective quest for nuclear justice. As your President, I cannot and will not accept the position of the United States government. The merits of our Changed Circumstances Petition are indeed justified when taking into account certain declassified documents that were made available, albeit redacted, many years after the Compact.

    To read more, click here.

    Nuclear Weapons Don’t Belong in Anyone’s Hands

    by Tim Wright

    Many politicians and pundits, as well as retired missile-launch officers, have questioned whether Trump has the temperament and good judgment to wield such tremendous power. During last year’s election campaign, his Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton, stoked debate on this topic, once quipping: “A man you can bait with a tweet is not a man we can trust with nuclear weapons.”

    One cannot sensibly reject nuclear weapons for Trump—or North Korea’s Kim Jong-un, Russia’s Vladimir Putin, or any other pugnacious head of state—while accepting, even embracing, them for those with friendlier faces. Democracy doesn’t afford public servants the choice to keep nuclear codes from a president whom they deem too impulsive or ruthless or irrational to have them.

    To read more, click here.

    U.S. Nuclear Weapons Policy

    Pentagon Panel Urges Trump to Expand Nuclear Options

    A blue-ribbon Pentagon panel has urged the Trump administration to make the U.S. arsenal more capable of “limited” atomic war. The Defense Science Board, in a December report, urges President Trump to consider altering existing and planned U.S. nuclear weapons to achieve a greater number of lower-yield weapons that could provide a “tailored nuclear option for limited use.”

    The Defense Science Board’s nuclear recommendation is buried inside a report titled “Seven Defense Priorities for the New Administration,” which also addresses homeland security, protecting information systems and more. It is similar to the recommendations given to previous administrations. However, the report adds volume to hawkish voices calling for a more usable nuclear arsenal.

    John Donnelly, “Pentagon Panel Urges Trump Team to Expand Nuclear Options,” Roll Call, February 2, 2017.

    U.S. Tests Land-Based and Submarine-Launched Nuclear Missiles

    On February 8, the U.S. test-fired a Minuteman III Intercontinental Ballistic Missile from Vandenberg Air Force Base to the Kwajalein Atoll in the Marshall Islands. Commenting on the test, NAPF President David Krieger said, “Test-firing these missiles while expressing criticism when other countries conduct missile tests is a clear double standard. Such hypocrisy encourages nuclear proliferation and nuclear arms races, and makes the world a more dangerous place.”

    On February 14, an Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine launched two Trident II D5 missiles off the coast of California. The U.S. has 14 such submarines, which carry nuclear weapons around the world hidden beneath the ocean. February 14 was also the 50th anniversary of the Treaty of Tlatelolco, which established a nuclear weapon-free zone in Latin America and the Caribbean.

    Janene Scully, “Minuteman Missile Test Blasts Off from Vandenberg Air Force Base,” Noozhawk, February 9, 2017.

    “Missile Test Lights Morning Sky,” Tracy Press, February 17, 2017.

    Catholic Bishop Urges U.S. Secretary of State to Pursue Nuclear Weapons Cuts

    Bishop Oscar Cantu, Chairman of the Committee on International Justice and Peace at the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, has urged Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to pursue additional reductions in the nuclear arsenals of the United States and Russia.

    The correspondence pressed Tillerson to build on the New START agreement, a pact negotiated in 2010 that calls for reducing U.S. and Russian deployed strategic nuclear weapons to 1,550 each by 2018.

    Dennis Sadowski, “Bishop Cantu Urges Administration to Pursue Deeper Nuclear Arms Cuts,” Catholic News Service, February 15, 2017.

    Nuclear Insanity

    President Trump Calls for U.S. to Be “Top of the Pack” of Nuclear-Armed States

    In an interview with Reuters, President Donald Trump said that the United States has fallen behind in its nuclear capabilities and will ensure that the U.S. nuclear arsenal is “top of the pack.”

    Trump said, “I am the first one that would like to see … nobody have nukes, but we’re never going to fall behind any country even if it’s a friendly country, we’re never going to fall behind on nuclear power. It would be wonderful, a dream would be that no country would have nukes, but if countries are going to have nukes, we’re going to be at the top of the pack.”

    In the same interview, President Trump called the New START treaty a “one-sided” and “bad” deal. New START limits the U.S. and Russia to equal numbers of deployed strategic nuclear weapons by 2018, and contains other important monitoring and verification measures.

    Steve Holland, “Trump Wants to Make Sure U.S. Nuclear Arsenal at ‘Top of the Pack’,” Reuters, February 24, 2017.

    Nuclear Proliferation

    New Russian ICBMs Can “Rip Apart” U.S. Missile Defense System

    Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin has announced the imminent deployment of technologically advanced intercontinental ballistic missiles that will “clear the United States’ missile defense both of today and of tomorrow – and even of the day after tomorrow.”

    Rogozin did not explicitly name the weapon, but he was most likely describing the RS-28 Sarmat heavy intercontinental ballistic missile, which is being introduced as part of Russia’s nuclear modernization. “We can rip their air defenses apart; at the moment [the US defense shield] poses no serious military threat to us, except for provocations,” Rogozin said.

    “Russia’s New ICBM Can ‘Rip Apart’ U.S. Anti-Missile Systems,” RT, February 20, 2017.

    China Bans Coal Imports from North Korea

    China has announced that it is suspending all imports of coal from North Korea through the end of 2017. Coal is North Korea’s biggest export, and China’s purchases have been a significant source of revenue for Kim Jong-un’s government. China says that the suspension is part of the sanctions related to last year’s UN Security Council resolution passed after North Korea’s fifth nuclear test.

    The full suspension went into effect just one day after North Korea launched an intermediate-range ballistic missile on February 12.

    Caroline Mortimer, “China Bans All Coal Imports from North Korea, Severing Major Financial Lifeline for Regime,” Independent, February 18, 2017.

    War and Peace

    U.S. Confirms It Used Depleted Uranium in Syria

    U.S. Central Command said it destroyed Islamic State targets in Syria with depleted uranium rounds despite a promise not to use the ammunition. The United States used significant amounts of depleted uranium during its military operations in Iraq. A 2014 report by the United Nations said the Iraqi government considers use of depleted uranium weapons “a danger to human beings and the environment.”

    The International Coalition to Ban Uranium Weapons said the areas contaminated by the depleted uranium in Syria “pose a risk to civilian health and must be isolated and addressed as soon as conditions allow.”

    Andrew Pestano, “U.S. Confirms Use of Depleted Uranium Munitions Against Islamic State,” UPI, February 15, 2017.

    President Trump Proposes $54 Billion Increase in Military Budget

    In February, U.S. President Donald Trump proposed a $54 billion increase in the military budget and a corresponding decrease to other programs, including the State Department and foreign aid. The U.S. already spends more on its military than the next eight nations combined. Some Democratic lawmakers have criticized this idea specifically because of the cost to education and environmental protection programs. President Trump has vowed to spare Social Security and Medicare from any cuts due to this military spending increase.

    A letter from 120 retired generals and admirals urged Trump not to reduce the money available to diplomacy and aid. They quoted Defense Secretary James Mattis, who in 2013 said, “If you don’t fully fund the State Department, then I need to buy more ammunition.” The letter also said that while the military will “lead the fight against terrorism on the battlefield,” it needs strong partners to combat issues that drive extremism, including insecurity, injustice, hopelessness and lack of opportunity.

    Dan Lamothe, “Retired Generals Cite Past Comments from Mattis While Opposing Trump’s Proposed Foreign Aid Cuts,” Washington Post, February 27, 2017.

    Nuclear Modernization

    Government Estimates Nuclear Modernization Cost at $400 Billion Over 10 Years

    The current plan to modernize U.S. nuclear weapons will cost $400 billion from 2017 to 2026, according to a new government estimate. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates nuclear programs will subsume roughly 6 percent of the overall defense budget during this 10-year period.

    The CBO report, however, does not touch on the question of what happens if the Trump administration moves to change the current plan, a legacy of the Obama administration. President Donald Trump has ordered a formal Nuclear Posture Review, to be headed by Secretary of Defense James Mattis.

    Aaron Mehta, “Nuclear Modernization Costs: $400B Over 10 Years,” Defense News, February 14, 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 March, including the March 28, 1979 partial meltdown of two nuclear reactors at the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant in Pennsylvania.

    To read Mason’s full article, click here.

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

    Future of Life Institute Podcast on Nuclear Ban Treaty

    The Future of Life Institute has published a podcast featuring Beatrice Fihn, Executive Director of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) and Susi Snyder, Nuclear Disarmament Program Manager for PAX in the Netherlands.

    In this podcast, Fihn and Snyder explain the process that has led to this month’s negotiations on a treaty prohibiting nuclear weapons and why it is needed urgently.

    To download the podcast or the full transcript, click here.

    Nuclear Notebook Now in One Location Online

    Since 1987, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists has published the Nuclear Notebook, an authoritative accounting of world nuclear arsenals compiled by top experts from the Federation of American Scientists.

    All 30 years of Nuclear Notebook entries are now available from one webpage. The entries provide important details about the nuclear arsenals of each nuclear-armed nation. Click here to view the new page.

    Foundation Activities

    Video Contest: The Most Dangerous Period in Human History

    The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s 2017 Swackhamer Disarmament Video Contest launched on February 1. This year’s contest invites people to submit videos about why this is the most dangerous period in human history, and what can be done to bring civilization back from the brink.

    The contest is free to enter and is open to people of all ages from anywhere in the world. For more information about the contest, click here.

    16th Annual Kelly Lecture Features Oliver Stone and Peter Kuznick

    The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s 16th Annual Frank K. Kelly Lecture on Humanity’s Future featured legendary Hollywood director Oliver Stone and Professor Peter Kuznick, co-authors of the internationally-acclaimed documentary The Untold History of the United States.

    The event, entitled “Untold History, Uncertain Future,” took place on February 23 at the Lobero Theatre in Santa Barbara. Photos, video and audio will be available by mid-March on wagingpeace.org.

    For more information about the Kelly Lecture series, click here.

    Peace Literacy at Oshkosh North High School

    “Peace literacy should be taught in schools. The world would not be as messy,” said Rick Leib, teacher in the Communities program and junior varsity basketball coach at Oshkosh North High School in Oshkosh, Wisconsin, after a day in which NAPF Peace Leadership Director Paul K. Chappell taught three workshops to 150 students from 9th through 12th grades. The students had spent the month of February studying the pilot program for the “waging peace” curriculum.

    To read more about Paul’s recent work at this Wisconsin high school, click here.

    Take Action: Open Letter to Presidents Trump and Putin

    On February 16, The Hill published an open letter to Presidents Trump and Putin signed by NAPF President David Krieger, along with Richard Falk, Jody Williams, Noam Chomsky, Mairead Maguire, Medea Benjamin and Daniel Ellsberg. The letter calls on the two presidents to negotiate for the total elimination of nuclear weapons.

    To add your name to the open letter, click here.

    Quotes

     

    “All it takes for evil to rule a land is for good men to remain silent.”

    — Daniel Webster (1782-1852), American politician. This quote appears in the book Speaking of Peace: Quotations to Inspire Action, which is available for purchase in the NAPF Peace Store.

     

    “There cannot be closure without full disclosure.”

    — Tony de Brum, former Foreign Minister of the Republic of the Marshall Islands, speaking about the need for the United States to come clean about the effects of the 67 nuclear weapons tests conducted in the Marshall Islands from 1946-58. His speech at the Marshall Islands’ 2017 Nuclear Victims Remembrance Day event begins at 43:00 at this link.

     

    “The use of even a single nuclear weapon, anywhere in the world, would be a global humanitarian, environmental and economic disaster. A nuclear build-up in the U.S., which would be followed by similar build-ups in other countries, only makes that nightmare scenario more likely.”

    — Bruce Blair, former nuclear missile launch officer and co-founder of Global Zero, speaking out against Donald Trump’s apparent desire to engage in a nuclear arms buildup.

    Editorial Team

     

    Cedric af Geijersstam
    David Krieger
    Carol Warner
    Rick Wayman

     

  • Why Should Trump – Or Anyone – Be Able to Launch a Nuclear War?

    This article was originally published by History News Network.

    The accession of Donald Trump to the U.S. presidency brings us face-to-face with a question that many have tried to avoid since 1945: Should anyone have the right to plunge the world into a nuclear holocaust?

    Trump, of course, is an unusually angry, vindictive, and mentally unstable American president. Therefore, given the fact that, acting totally on his own, he can launch a nuclear war, we have entered a very perilous time. The U.S. government possesses approximately 6,800 nuclear weapons, many of them on hair-trigger alert. Moreover, the United States is but one of nine nations that, in total, possess nearly 15,000 nuclear weapons. This nuclear weapons cornucopia is more than enough to destroy virtually all life on earth. Furthermore, even a small-scale nuclear war would produce a human catastrophe of unimaginable proportions. Not surprisingly, then, Trump’s loose statements about building and using nuclear weapons have horrified observers.

    In an apparent attempt to rein in America’s new, erratic White House occupant, Senator Edward Markey (D-MA) and Representative Ted Lieu (D-CA) recently introduced federal legislation to require Congress to declare war before a U.S. president could authorize nuclear weapons strikes. The only exception would be in response to a nuclear attack. Peace groups are rallying around this legislation and, in a major editorial, the New York Times endorsed it, noting that it “sends a clear message to Mr. Trump that he should not be the first since World War II to use nuclear weapons.”

    But, even in the unlikely event that the Markey-Lieu legislation is passed by the Republican Congress, it does not address the broader problem: the ability of the officials of nuclear-armed nations to launch a catastrophic nuclear war. How rational are Russia’s Vladimir Putin, or North Korea’s Kim Jong-un, or Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu, or the leaders of other nuclear powers? And how rational will the rising politicians of nuclear armed nations (including a crop of rightwing, nationalist ideologues, such as France’s Marine Le Pen) prove to be? “Nuclear deterrence,” as national security experts have known for decades, might serve to inhibit the aggressive impulses of top government officials in some cases, but surely not in all of them.

    Ultimately, then, the only long-term solution to the problem of national leaders launching a nuclear war is to get rid of the weapons.

    This was the justification for the nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) of 1968, which constituted a bargain between two groups of nations. Under its provisions, non-nuclear countries agreed not to develop nuclear weapons, while nuclear-armed countries agreed to dispose of theirs.

    Although the NPT did discourage proliferation to most non-nuclear countries and did lead the major nuclear powers to destroy a substantial portion of their nuclear arsenals, the allure of nuclear weapons remained, at least for some power-hungry nations. Israel, India, Pakistan, and North Korea developed nuclear arsenals, while the United States, Russia, and other nuclear nations gradually backed away from disarmament. Indeed, all nine nuclear powers are now engaged in a new nuclear arms race, with the U.S. government alone beginning a $1 trillion nuclear “modernization” program. These factors, including Trump’s promises of a major nuclear weapons buildup, recently led the editors of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists to move the hands of their famous “Doomsday Clock” forward to 2-1/2 minutes to midnight, the most dangerous setting since 1953.

    Angered by the collapse of progress toward a nuclear weapons-free world, civil society organizations and non-nuclear nations joined together to press for the adoption of an international treaty banning nuclear weapons, much like the treaties already in place that ban chemical weapons, landmines, and cluster bombs. If such a nuclear ban treaty were adopted, they argued, it would not itself eliminate nuclear weapons, for the nuclear powers could refuse to sign or comply with it. But it would make possession of nuclear weapons illegal under international law and, therefore, like the chemical and other weapons ban treaties, put pressure on nations to fall into line with the rest of the world community.

    This campaign came to a head in October 2016, when the member states of the United Nations voted on a proposal to begin negotiations for a treaty to ban nuclear weapons. Although the U.S. government and the governments of other nuclear powers lobbied heavily against the measure, it was adopted by an overwhelming vote: 123 countries in favor, 38 opposed, and 16 abstaining. Treaty negotiations are slated to begin in March 2017 at the United Nations and to be concluded in early July.

    Given the past performance of the nuclear powers and their eagerness to cling to their nuclear weapons, it seems unlikely that they will participate in the UN negotiations or, if a treaty is negotiated and signed, will be among the signatories. Even so, the people of their nations and of all nations would gain immensely from an international ban on nuclear weapons―a measure that, once in place, would begin the process of stripping national officials of their unwarranted authority and ability to launch a catastrophic nuclear war.