Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Blog

  • Glenn Paige: A Prophet of Nonkilling

    [The world lost a great man when Glenn Paige passed on January 22, 2017.  What follows is an article I wrote in 2010, the year in which Glenn received the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s Distinguished Peace Leadership Award.  It is about Glenn’s great transformation in life from a successful academic to a prophet of nonkilling.  I’ve left the article in the present tense, and believe that Glenn lives on in the hearts and minds of the many people he inspired with his commitment to and leadership for a nonkilling world.]

    Glenn Paige is a man who in midlife re-created himself and his purpose on the planet.  At the age of 44, he shifted from being an academic Cold Warrior to a man dedicated to nonkilling.  He later described to me his transformation in this way: “It finally just came to me in three silent surprising words: ‘No More Killing!’  Technically it might be called the result of ‘cognitive dissonance’ when values and reality are perceived to clash.  But it was nothing rational…and was definitely related to many years of study of Korea and involvement in relations with it, South and North.  My book, The Korean Decision, justified war.  The results finally sunk in to me – neither peace nor freedom.”

    I asked Glenn to describe in a more detailed way what had happened when he experienced the words, “No More Killing.”  He replied: “The words/idea ‘No More Killing’ specifically came in an instant from the Korean experience – and was simultaneously generalized to the whole world, not just war, but all forms of killing.  The first thing I did was write a book review of my book on the Korean War….  Then I applied the same critique to the entire discipline of political science.”  Now he is applying the same critique to the world.

    I first knew of Glenn in the late-1960s.  He came to the University of Hawaii in 1967 as a professor in the department of political science as I was finishing up my Ph.D. in the department.  I would leave Hawaii in 1970, a few years before Glenn would experience his transformation in 1973.  At the time, Glenn had the reputation for being a Cold Warrior, having served as a soldier in the Korean War and then writing a book in which he justified the US involvement in the war.  I was strongly opposed to the Vietnam War, which was increasing in intensity and body counts at that time, and I had little tolerance for someone who had built his career on justifying any war.  I was neither open-minded about war, nor tolerant of those who supported it.  I felt that war was a way of misdirecting the lives of young people by propaganda and putting them in the untenable situation of having to kill or be killed.  In that regard, I have changed my views very little over the years, but Glenn changed very much.

    Glenn is a well educated Ivy Leaguer, who received a B.A. from Princeton and an M.A. from Harvard before being awarded a Ph.D. from Northwestern.  He had carved out a place for himself in academia with his study of the political decision of US leaders to enter the Korean War.  He had taught for six years at Princeton before accepting a position at the University of Hawaii.  He didn’t seem like a strong candidate for transformation, but something mysterious happened, perhaps something latent in his character asserted itself with, as he described it, “three silent surprising words: ‘No More Killing!’”

    Glenn transformed himself from an establishment academic who studied political leadership into a man who envisioned a peaceful, nonviolent world and was prepared to lead by example and personal commitment in attaining such a world.   He publicly recanted the conclusions he had earlier reached and written in justification of the Korean War, and he went on to renounce killing and to establish a Center for Global Nonkilling.

    How rare is that in academia?  It is so rare as to have an impossibly small probability of occurring.  Glenn’s initial path in academia was one that was bringing him considerable academic success.  He had been well received by the foreign policy establishment in the United States, and his studies promised a comfortable academic career.  However, his work prior to his transformation offered only the conventional “truths” that are deeply embedded in a culture of militarism.  It justified one war, which helped build a foundation for the next one.  It perpetuated the myth that wars are necessary and therefore glorious, the lies that induce new generations to submit to following orders and being willing to both kill others and sacrifice their own lives in war.  His earlier work, in short, was consistent with adding academia as a third institutional leg to the Military-Industrial Complex that Eisenhower warned against.

    Glenn’s transformation was so rare, in academia or any other profession, as to appear as a miracle, a change not easily explicable by reference to experience in our society.  There are few modern day examples of such transformation.  Glenn is walking in the path of champions of nonviolence like Thoreau, Tolstoy, Gandhi, Schweitzer and King.  Like Nobel Peace Laureate Mairead Maguire, he is a prophet of nonkilling, which in my view goes even beyond nonviolence.  It puts into tangible practice Schweitzer’s concept of reverence for life.  It holds humanity to a higher standard.  Glenn left the safety and comfort of the academic cloister to envision and help forge a better path for humanity.

    In the future, I think people who seek a better world will look back with awe on Glenn’s life and transformation.  I don’t mean to imply that Glenn is a saint.  He is far too human and grounded for that.  But I do mean to state strongly that he is a most honorable man who is deserving of great respect for his transformative shift of course and what he accomplished following that shift.  Glenn became a leader in battling against our cultural acceptance of militarism with its all-to-easy reliance upon the use of force for domination and empire.  Should we ever arrive at a day when nonkilling becomes our societal norm, Glenn will certainly be revered for his commitment, eloquence and leadership toward achieving this end.

    Glenn once wrote me a humbling note: “I can only bow in reverence for the focused, successful mobilization of action for nuclear disarmament by the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation under your leadership.  I believe it is the most effective nuclear disarmament movement in the world.”  Of course, I was more than pleased to receive such a positive affirmation.  In reflecting on Glenn’s words, I realize that making such affirmations is one of the tools of a good peace leader.  Glenn is such a leader.

    Glenn Paige has done the very best that one can do with his life.  He has stood for truth and human decency.  He has radically transformed himself from an academic proponent of conventional wisdom in a society dominated by militarism to become a powerful voice and force for compassion, decency, nonviolence and nonkilling.  He has focused on nonkilling, a goal that to some may seem so distant as to be impossible.  But to envision the impossible and to work to make it a reality is another important characteristic of a great peace leader.

    Glenn has worked to bring the future we must achieve into the present.  He gives me and, I’m sure many others, hope that a better world, a better future, is possible.  He has demonstrated to other academics that the future is far more important than footnotes.  He has lived the truths of peace and nonviolence that he discovered on his life journey, and he has shown by example that each of us can do more with our lives than may seem possible.  In leading by example, he has shown a central trait of a strong peace leader.

    Thank you, Glenn, for cutting away the tangled intellectual underbrush to forge a path toward a nonkilling political science and nonkilling societies.  Thank you for envisioning and building an institution that will work toward these ends.  Thank you for your compassionate and impassioned leadership aimed at achieving a world in which the killing of other human beings is taboo.  Thank you for being you.

  • The Fierce Urgency of Nuclear Zero: Final Symposium Statement

    THE FIERCE URGENCY OF NUCLEAR ZERO*

    [This document reflects the discussions at the symposium “The Fierce Urgency of Nuclear Zero: Changing the Discourse,” held in Santa Barbara, California, on October 24-25, 2016, and also takes into account the changed political landscape in the U.S. following the election of Donald Trump, which occurred two weeks after the symposium. The symposium was sponsored and organized by the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.]

    Humanity and the planet face two existential threats: environmental catastrophe and nuclear annihilation. While climate change is the subject of increasing public awareness and concern, the same cannot be said about growing nuclear dangers arising from worsening international circumstances. It’s time again to sound the alarm and mobilize public opinion on a massive scale. Our lives may depend on it.

    More than a quarter of a century since the end of the Cold War, some 14,900 nuclear weapons, most an order of magnitude more powerful than the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs, 93% held by the U.S. and Russia, continue to pose an intolerable and increasing threat to humanity and the biosphere. Recent studies by atmospheric scientists show that a nuclear war between India and Pakistan involving 100 Hiroshima-size atomic bombs dropped on cities could produce climate change unprecedented in recorded human history. A drop in average surface temperatures, depletion of the ozone layer, and shortened agricultural growing seasons would lead to massive famine and starvation resulting in as many as two billion deaths over the following decade. A full-scale nuclear war between the U.S. and Russia would result in a “Nuclear Winter,” triggering a new Ice Age and ending most complex life on the planet.

    The danger of wars among nuclear-armed states is growing. There is hope that such wars can be avoided, but that hope, while the essential basis of action, is not sufficient to end the nuclear threat facing humanity and complex life on this planet. Hope must give rise to action.

    The United States is poised to spend one trillion dollars over the next 30 years to modernize its nuclear bombs and warheads, the submarines, missiles and bombers to deliver them, and the infrastructure to sustain the nuclear enterprise indefinitely. The other nuclear-armed countries – Russia, the United Kingdom, France, China, Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea – are modernizing their nuclear arsenals as well.

    RISING TENSIONS

    Tensions between the United States/NATO and Russia have risen to levels not seen since the Cold War, with the two nuclear giants confronting each other in Ukraine, Eastern Europe, and Syria, and an accelerated tempo of military exercises and war games, both conventional and nuclear, on both sides.

    The U.S., the only nation with nuclear weapons deployed on foreign soil, is estimated to have 180 nuclear weapons stationed at six NATO bases in Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Turkey. In June 2016, the largest NATO war games in decades were conducted in Poland. The exercises came weeks after activating a U.S. missile defense system in Romania and ground breaking for another missile defense system in Poland. Russian President Vladimir Putin warned that there would be “action in response to guarantee our security.”

    In October 2016, Russia moved nuclear-capable Iskander missiles into the Kaliningrad territory bordering Poland and Lithuania, signaling its response to NATO, while claiming it was a routine exercise. Russian officials have previously described the role that the 500 km-range Iskander system would play in targeting U.S. missile defense installations in Poland.

    In mid-December 2016, the Obama administration announced plans to deploy troops in Poland, the Baltic states and Romania. According to the U.S. Commander, this would send “the very powerful signal” that “the United States, along with the rest of NATO, is committed to deterrence.”

    In Syria, with perhaps the most complex war in history raging, the U.S., Russia and France are bombing side-by-side and sometimes on opposing sides.

    Adding to the conflicts among nuclear-armed states, the U.S., with its “pivot” to the Pacific, is facing off against China in seas where other Asian nations are contesting Chinese territorial claims. India and Pakistan remain locked in a nuclear arms race amid mounting diplomatic tensions, border clashes and rising military budgets. And North Korea, refusing to heed strong international condemnation, continues to conduct nuclear weapons tests. It has even announced an intention to test an intercontinental ballistic missile capable of reaching the United States.

    These potential nuclear flashpoints are ripe for escalation. An accidental or intentional military incident could send the world spiraling into a disastrous nuclear confrontation. A great danger is that the rulers of one nuclear-armed state will miscalculate the interests and fears of another, pushing some geopolitical gambit to the point where economic pressures, covert actions, low-intensity warfare and displays of high-tech force escalate into regional or general war. This vulnerability to unintended consequences is reminiscent of the circumstances that led to World War I, but made more dangerous by U.S. and Russian policies of nuclear first-use, keeping nuclear weapons on hair-trigger alert, and launch-on-warning.

    THE TRUMP PRESIDENCY

    During the Presidential campaign, Donald Trump’s nuclear weapons rhetoric was cavalier, suggesting deep ignorance. No one knows what he’ll do in office, but U.S. national security policy has been remarkably consistent in the post-World War II and post-Cold War eras, despite dramatically changed geopolitical conditions and very different presidential styles. The threatened use of nuclear weapons as the “cornerstone” of U.S. national security policy has been reaffirmed by every President, Republican or Democrat, since 1945, when President Harry Truman, a Democrat, oversaw the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

    According to the Trump transition website: “Mr. Trump will ensure our strategic nuclear triad is modernized to ensure it continues to be an effective deterrent….” This is essentially a continuation of the Obama administration’s policy. Trump’s ominous December 22, 2016 tweet – “The United States must greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability until such time as the world comes to its senses regarding nukes” – seemed to indicate an intention to increase the level of reliance on the nuclear threat.

    While Trump’s conciliatory tone towards Russia offers a glimmer of hope for lowering tensions between the two nuclear-armed giants, the firestorm raging around U.S. government assertions that Russia manipulated the U.S. election to help Trump win has immeasurably compounded the difficulties in predicting what will happen next. Trump’s stated aim to tear up the Iran nuclear deal reveals his deficient understanding of international relations, indicating a lack of awareness that this is a multilateral agreement involving all five permanent members of the Security Council plus Germany, and that Russia and Iran are engaged in cooperative military operations, including against ISIS. Trump’s belligerent attitude toward China, a strategic ally of Russia, and his threat to upend the decades-long U.S. “one China” policy, is another cause for serious concern.

    In his farewell address to the nation in 1961, President Dwight Eisenhower warned: “In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.” An earlier version of his warning referred to the “military-industrial-congressional complex.”

    We now face the likelihood of a far more military-industrial Presidential cabinet. The specter of a Trump presidency with a right-wing Republican House and Senate, as well as a compliant Supreme Court, is chilling to an unprecedented degree. Trump’s appointments and nominations of reactionary, hardliner ex-generals, billionaire heads of corporations, and climate-change deniers are cause for grave concern in both the domestic and foreign policy arenas.

    The Cold War concept of “strategic stability” among great powers, although itself never an adequate basis for genuine international security, is foundering. The Cold War and post-Cold War managerial approach to arms control must be challenged. Addressing nuclear dangers must take place in a much broader framework, taking into account the interface between nuclear and non-nuclear weapons and militarism in general, the humanitarian and long-term environmental consequences of nuclear war, and the fundamental incompatibility of nuclear weapons with democracy, the rule of law, and human well-being.

    GROWING CRISES

    In 2009, former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev warned, “Military superiority would be an insurmountable obstacle to ridding the world of nuclear weapons. Unless we discuss demilitarization of international politics, the reduction of military budgets, preventing militarization of outer space, talking about a nuclear-free world will be just rhetorical.”

    Nuclear arms control has ground to a halt and the world is backsliding. The growing crises among nuclear-armed states must be defused and disarmament efforts put back on track. Nothing is more important now than to counter the notion that collaborative security with Russia is to be regarded as treasonous or somehow more dangerous than confrontational geopolitics. Peace is an imperative of the Nuclear Age. Starting with the U.S. and Russia, the nuclear-armed states must sit down at the negotiating table and begin to address Gorbachev’s agenda.

    It is essential at this time to assert the credibility and the necessity of a transformational approach to nuclear disarmament. We should do our utmost to marshal public discourse to counter the militarization of governments’ imaginations. The use of military force should always be the last option, not just in rhetoric, but in diplomatic practice.

    There has never been a greater need for imaginative diplomacy. The cycle of provocation and response must be halted. Nuclear threats must cease. Nuclear weapons modernization programs must be terminated. Military exercises and war games must be curtailed and conducted with great sensitivity to geopolitical conditions. The U.S. should withdraw its nuclear weapons from NATO bases and, at a minimum, stop NATO expansion and provocative deployments. Policies of nuclear first-use, hair-trigger alert, and launch-on-warning must be ended.

    In the longer term, military alliances should be dismantled and replaced by a new collective security paradigm. All nations, first and foremost the U.S., by far the largest weapons exporter, should stop the sale and supply of arms to conflict regions.

    CHANGING THE DISCOURSE

    Changing the discourse involves both language and processes. We need to take seriously our human role as stewards of the earth and talk about nuclear dangers in terms of potential omnicide. Nuclear weapons are incompatible with democracy. They place vast unaccountable power in a few leaders’ hands, unchecked by the millions of voices that true democracy depends on. We must reject notions of U.S. exceptionalism that exempt this country from respect for the rule of law and the authority of the United Nations. Further, we must revitalize the U.S. Constitution by reintroducing checks and balances into decision-making about war and peace.

    Indeed, much of the world does seem to be coming to its senses regarding nuclear weapons. Deeply frustrated by the lack of progress on nuclear disarmament, in December 2016 the United Nations General Assembly voted by a large majority to hold negotiations in 2017 on a treaty prohibiting nuclear weapons, leading to their elimination. The vote represents an historic global repudiation of the nuclear weapons status quo among the vast majority of non-nuclear weapons states. None of the nine nuclear-armed nations supported the resolution, and it is unlikely that any nuclear-armed states will participate in the negotiations.

    To realize the full value of a “ban” treaty, we must demand that the nuclear-armed states recognize the existing illegality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons under international law protecting civilians and the environment from the effects of warfare. The governments of these states must finally act to meet their disarmament obligations under Article VI of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and customary international law, and participate in good faith in the negotiations as unanimously mandated by the International Court of Justice in its 1996 Advisory Opinion.

    The media have narrowed the boundaries of debate, and the public has virtually no feasible means to engage decision-makers on disarmament imperatives. Yet the need for such discourse has never been more urgent. We reject the apocalyptic narrative and summon the imaginations of people everywhere to envision a vastly different future. There is no inevitability to the course of history, and a mobilized citizenry can redirect it toward a positive future.

    AN ETHICAL IMPERATIVE

    There exists an ethical imperative to work for the elimination of nuclear weapons. The survival of the human species and other forms of complex life requires acting upon this imperative. We will need to successfully reach out to constituencies and organizations outside the peace and disarmament sphere to inspire and engage millions, if not tens of millions, of people. Education and engagement of both media and youth will be critical for success. Hope must be joined with action if we are to abolish nuclear weapons before they abolish us. The alarm is sounding.

    *Initial endorsers of this statement include: Rich Appelbaum, Jackie Cabasso, Paul K. Chappell, Noam Chomsky, Daniel Ellsberg, Richard Falk, Mark Hamilton, Kimiaki Kawai, David Krieger, Peter Kuznick, Robert Laney, Judith Lipton, Elaine Scarry, Jennifer Simons, Daniel U. Smith, Steven Starr, and Rick Wayman. A full list of symposium participants, along with videos, audio and transcripts of presentations, are available at www.wagingpeace.org/symposium-fierce-urgency. The Spanish version of this statement is here.

    From L to R: Front Row: Daniel Ellsberg, David Krieger, Noam Chomsky. Second Row: Paul K. Chappell, Rick Wayman, Elaine Scarry, Steven Starr, Richard Falk, Jackie Cabasso, Jennifer Simons, Peter Kuznick, Judith Lipton, Kimiaki Kawai. Third Row: Robert Laney, Mark Hamilton, Daniel Smith, John Mecklin, Hans Kristensen, Rich Appelbaum.
    From L to R: Front Row: Daniel Ellsberg, David Krieger, Noam Chomsky. Second Row: Paul K. Chappell, Rick Wayman, Elaine Scarry, Steven Starr, Richard Falk, Jackie Cabasso, Jennifer Simons, Peter Kuznick, Judith Lipton, Kimiaki Kawai. Third Row: Robert Laney, Mark Hamilton, Daniel Smith, John Mecklin, Hans Kristensen, Rich Appelbaum.

  • La Urgente Fuerza del Cero Nuclear

    Traducción de Rubén D. Arvizu. Click here for the English version.

    La humanidad y el planeta enfrentan dos amenazas existenciales: la catástrofe ambiental y la aniquilación nuclear.  Si bien el cambio climático es objeto de una creciente concienciación y preocupación del público, no se puede decir lo mismo de los peligros nucleares crecientes derivados del empeoramiento de las circunstancias internacionales.  Es hora de volver a hacer sonar la alarma y movilizar a la opinión pública a gran escala.  Nuestras vidas pueden depender de ello.

    Ha pasado más de un cuarto de siglo desde el final de la Guerra Fría, sin embargo 14,900 armas nucleares, el 93% en manos de EE.UU. y Rusia, la mayoría de una magnitud más poderosa que las bombas de Hiroshima y Nagasaki, continúan planteando una intolerable y creciente amenaza para la humanidad y el planeta entero.

    Estudios recientes hechos por científicos atmosféricos muestran que una guerra nuclear entre la India y Pakistán involucrando 100 bombas atómicas lanzadas sobre sus ciudades como la que destruyó Hiroshima, podría producir un cambio climático sin precedentes en la historia humana.

    Una disminución de las temperaturas medias, el agotamiento de la capa de ozono y la reducción de las temporadas de cultivo agrícola conducirían a hambrunas masivas, resultando en dos mil millones de muertes durante la próxima década. Una guerra nuclear a gran escala entre los Estados Unidos y Rusia daría lugar a un “Invierno Nuclear”, desencadenando una nueva Era de Hielo y acabando con la vida más compleja del planeta.

    El peligro de las guerras entre los estados con armas nucleares está creciendo.  Hay esperanza de que esas guerras puedan ser evitadas, pero esa esperanza, mientras que la base esencial de la acción, no es suficiente para poner fin a la amenaza nuclear que enfrenta la humanidad y la vida compleja en este planeta.  La esperanza debe dar origen a la acción.

    Estados Unidos está dispuesto a gastar mil millón de millones de dólares en los próximos 30 años para modernizar sus bombas nucleares, submarinos, misiles y bombarderos para lanzarlas, y la infraestructura para sostener indefinidamente su fuerza nuclear.  Los otros países con armas nucleares – Rusia, Inglaterra, Francia, China, Israel, India, Pakistán y Corea del Norte – están también modernizando sus arsenales nucleares.

    TENSIONES CRECIENTES

    Las tensiones entre Estados Unidos / OTAN y Rusia han aumentado a niveles no vistos desde la Guerra Fría, con los dos gigantes nucleares enfrentándose entre sí en Ucrania, Europa del Este y Siria, y un ritmo acelerado de ejercicios militares y juegos de guerra, tanto convencionales como nucleares, en ambos lados.

    Se estima que los Estados Unidos, la única nación con armas nucleares desplegadas en suelo extranjero, tiene 180 armas nucleares estacionadas en seis bases de la OTAN en Bélgica, Alemania, Italia, Holanda y Turquía.  En junio de 2016,  se llevaron a cabo en Polonia los mayores juegos de guerra de la OTAN en décadas.  Los ejercicios se produjeron semanas después de activar un sistema de defensa antimisiles de Estados Unidos en Rumania y preparar el terreno para otro sistema de defensa antimisiles en Polonia.  El presidente ruso, Vladimir Putin, advirtió que habría “medidas para garantizar nuestra seguridad”.

    En octubre de 2016, Rusia envió misiles Iskander con capacidad nuclear al territorio de Kaliningrado que limita con Polonia y Lituania, dando así su respuesta a la OTAN, mientras afirmaba que era un ejercicio rutinario. Funcionarios rusos han indicado previamente que el sistema Iskander con un alcance de 500 kilómetros aniquilaría las instalaciones de defensa antimisiles estadounidenses en Polonia.

    A mediados de diciembre de 2016, el gobierno de Obama anunció planes para desplegar tropas en Polonia, los países bálticos y Rumania.  Según el Comando estadounidense, esto enviaría “una señal muy poderosa” de que “Estados Unidos, junto con el resto de la OTAN, está comprometido con la disuasión”.

    En Siria, quizás una de las guerras más compleja de la historia, Estados Unidos, Rusia y Francia efectúan bombardeos casi simultáneos a veces en lados opuestos.

    Agregando a los conflictos entre los estados armados nucleares, los EE.UU., con su “mira” hacia el Pacífico, se enfrenta a China en los mares donde otras naciones asiáticas están impugnando reivindicaciones territoriales chinas.  India y Pakistán permanecen empecinados en una carrera de armamentos nucleares en medio de crecientes tensiones diplomáticas, enfrentamientos fronterizos y aumento de presupuestos militares.  Corea del Norte, negándose a escuchar una fuerte condena internacional, continúa realizando pruebas de armas nucleares.  Incluso ha anunciado la intención de probar un misil balístico intercontinental capaz de llegar a los Estados Unidos.

    Estos posibles puntos de confrontación nuclear están madurando para una escalada.  Un error militar accidental o intencional podría enviar al mundo a la espiral de un devastador conflicto nuclear.  Un gran peligro es que los gobernantes de un estado con armas nucleares calculen mal los intereses y los temores de otro, empujando algún mecanismo geopolítico hasta el punto en que las presiones económicas, las acciones encubiertas, la guerra de baja intensidad y las exhibiciones de fuerza de alta tecnología se conviertan en una guerra regional o mundial.  Esta vulnerabilidad a las consecuencias imprevistas es una reminiscencia de las circunstancias que condujeron a la Primera Guerra Mundial, pero se hacen más peligrosas por la política estadounidense y rusa del uso primero nuclear, manteniendo esas armas en estado de alerta de lanzamiento y disparo.

    LA PRESIDENCIA DE TRUMP

    Durante la campaña presidencial, la retórica de las armas nucleares de Donald Trump fue arrogante, demostrando una profunda ignorancia.  Nadie sabe lo que hará en su cargo, pero la política de seguridad nacional de los Estados Unidos ha sido notablemente consistente en épocas posteriores a la Segunda Guerra Mundial y después de la Guerra Fría, a pesar de las dramáticas condiciones geopolíticas y estilos presidenciales muy diferentes.  Desde 1945, cuando el presidente Harry Truman, un demócrata, dio la orden de lanzar los ataques atómicos de Hiroshima y Nagasaki, todos los presidentes, republicanos o demócratas han reafirmado la amenaza de las armas nucleares como “piedra angular” de la política de seguridad nacional.

    De acuerdo al sitio web Trump transition: “El Sr. Trump garantizará que nuestra fuerza nuclear estratégica se modernice para asegurar que continúe siendo un efectivo elemento de disuasión…”  Esto es esencialmente una continuación de la política del gobierno de Obama.  El 22 de diciembre de 2016, Trump escribió el siguiente ominoso tuit. “Los Estados Unidos deben fortalecer y expandir en gran medida su capacidad nuclear hasta el momento en que el mundo llegue a sus sentidos con respecto a las armas nucleares” – esto parece indicar una intención de aumentar el nivel de dependencia de la amenaza nuclear.

    Mientras que el tono conciliador de Trump hacia Rusia ofrece un leve rayo de esperanza para reducir las tensiones entre los dos gigantes con armas nucleares, pero la tormenta en torno a las afirmaciones del gobierno estadounidense de que Rusia manipuló las elecciones para ayudar a Trump a ganarlas han complicado enormemente las situación para predecir lo que sucederá.   El objetivo declarado de Trump de romper el acuerdo nuclear de Irán revela su deficiente comprensión de las relaciones internacionales, lo que indica una falta de conciencia de que se trata de un acuerdo multilateral que involucra a los cinco miembros permanentes del Consejo de Seguridad además de Alemania y que Rusia e Irán participan en operaciones militares combinadas, incluso contra ISIS.  La actitud belicosa de Trump hacia China, un aliado estratégico de Rusia, y su amenaza de hacer retroceder la política de “una China” respetada por décadas por Estados Unidos, es otra causa de gran preocupación.

    En su discurso de despedida a la nación en 1961, el presidente Dwight Eisenhower advirtió: “En los consejos de gobierno, debemos protegernos contra la adquisición de una influencia injustificada, ya sea buscada o no, por el complejo industrial militar. El potencial para el desastroso aumento de ese poder existe y persistirá.” Una versión anterior de su advertencia se refería al “complejo militar-industrial-y del congreso.”

    Ahora nos enfrentamos a la probabilidad de un gabinete presidencial mucho más militar-industrial.  El espectro de una presidencia de Trump con una Cámara Republicana derechista y el Senado, así como una Corte Suprema similar, es escalofriante a un grado sin precedentes.  Los nombramientos de Trump y las nominaciones de ex-generales reaccionarios belicosos, jefes multimillonarios de corporaciones y que niegan el cambio climático son causa de gran preocupación tanto en el ámbito de la política interna como en la política exterior.

    El concepto de “estabilidad estratégica” de la Gran Guerra Fría entre las grandes potencias, aunque nunca constituye una base adecuada para una auténtica seguridad internacional, se está hundiendo.  La guerra fría y el enfoque de la pos guerra fría para el control de armas deben ser desafiados.  La lucha contra los peligros nucleares debe tener lugar en un marco mucho más amplio, teniendo en cuenta la inter relación entre armas nucleares y no nucleares y el militarismo en general, las consecuencias humanitarias y ambientales a largo plazo de la guerra nuclear y la incompatibilidad fundamental de las armas nucleares con la democracia, el estado de derecho y el bienestar humano.

    CRISIS EN AUMENTO

    En 2009, el ex presidente soviético Mikhail Gorbachev advirtió: “La superioridad militar será un obstáculo insuperable para librar al mundo de las armas nucleares.  A menos que discutamos la desmilitarización de la política internacional, la reducción de los presupuestos militares y la prevención de la militarización del espacio extraterrestre, hablar sobre un mundo libre de armas nucleares será simplemente retórica “.

    El control de armas nucleares se ha detenido y el mundo está retrocediendo.  Las crisis cada vez mayores entre los estados armados nucleares deben ser neutralizadas y puestos de nuevo en marcha los esfuerzos de desarme.  Ahora nada es más importante que contrarrestar la idea de que colaborar en temas de seguridad con Rusia debe ser considerada como traición o de alguna manera más peligrosa que la geopolítica de confrontación.  La paz es un imperativo de la era nuclear.  Junto con los Estados Unidos y Rusia, los estados con armas nucleares deben sentarse en la mesa de negociaciones y comenzar a abordar la agenda de Gorbachov.

    Es esencial en este momento afirmar la credibilidad y la necesidad de un enfoque transformacional del desarme nuclear.  Debemos hacer todo lo posible para contrarrestar la militarización en la mente de los gobiernos.  El uso de la fuerza militar debe ser siempre la última opción, no sólo en la retórica, sino en la práctica diplomática.

    Nunca ha habido una mayor necesidad de una diplomacia audaz e imaginativa.  El ciclo de provocación y respuesta debe ser detenido.  Las amenazas nucleares deben cesar. Los programas de modernización de armas nucleares deben terminar.  Los ejercicios militares y los juegos de guerra deben ser restringidos y conducidos con gran sensibilidad tomando en consideración las condiciones geopolíticas. Estados Unidos debe retirar sus armas nucleares de las bases de la OTAN y, como mínimo, detener la expansión de la OTAN y los despliegues provocadores, al mismo tiempo que Rusia haga otro tanto.  Las políticas de uso nuclear primero, y la alerta de activación y lanzamiento deben darse por terminadas.

    A largo plazo, las alianzas militares deben ser desmanteladas y reemplazadas por un nuevo paradigma de seguridad colectiva. Todas las naciones, en primer lugar los Estados Unidos, el mayor exportador de armas, deberán detener la venta y el suministro de armas a las regiones en conflicto.

    CAMBIANDO EL DISCURSO

    Cambiar el discurso implica tanto el lenguaje como los procesos.  Tenemos que tomar en serio nuestro papel humano como administradores de la Tierra y hablar de los peligros nucleares en términos de la aniquilación de la especie humana.  Las armas nucleares son incompatible con la democracia.  Colocan un vasto poder irresponsable en manos de unos cuantos líderes, sin tomar en cuenta a las millones de voces de las que depende la verdadera democracia.  Debemos rechazar las nociones de excepción de los Estados Unidos que eximen a este país del respeto al imperio de la ley y la autoridad de las Naciones Unidas. Además, debe revitalizarse la Constitución de los Estados Unidos reintroduciendo controles y equilibrios en la toma de decisiones sobre la guerra y la paz.

    De hecho, gran parte del mundo parece estar recuperando los sentidos con respecto a las armas nucleares.  En diciembre de 2016 la Asamblea General de las Naciones Unidas profundamente frustrada por la falta de progreso en el desarme nuclear, votó por una amplia mayoría para celebrar negociaciones en 2017 sobre un tratado que prohíba las armas nucleares y que conduzca a su eliminación.  La votación representa un repudio mundial histórico del statu quo de las armas nucleares entre la gran mayoría de los estados no nucleares.  Ninguna de las nueve naciones con armas nucleares apoyó la resolución, y es improbable que algún estado con armas nucleares participe en las negociaciones.

    Para lograr el pleno valor de un tratado de “prohibición”, debemos exigir que los Estados nucleares reconozcan la ilegalidad existente de la amenaza o el uso de armas nucleares bajo la ley internacional que protege a los civiles y al medio ambiente de los efectos de esa guerra.  Los gobiernos de estos Estados deben finalmente actuar para cumplir con sus obligaciones de desarme en virtud del artículo VI del Tratado de No Proliferación de Armas Nucleares y el derecho internacional consuetudinario y participar de buena fe en las negociaciones como lo ordenó unánimemente la Corte Internacional de Justicia en su Opinión Consultiva de 1996 .

    Los medios de comunicación han reducido las fronteras del debate, y el público prácticamente no tiene forma para comprometer a los que toman decisiones sobre los imperativos del desarme.  Sin embargo, la necesidad de tal diálogo nunca ha sido más urgente.  Rechazamos la visión apocalíptica y convocamos a la imaginación de las personas en todas partes para lograr un futuro muy diferente.  No hay inevitabilidad para el curso de la historia, y una ciudadanía movilizada puede redirigirla hacia un futuro positivo.

    UN IMPERATIVO ÉTICO

    Existe un imperativo ético de trabajar por la eliminación de las armas nucleares.   La supervivencia de la especie humana y otras formas de vida compleja requiere actuar sobre este imperativo.  Necesitaremos llegar con éxito a los grupos y organizaciones fuera de la esfera de la paz y el desarme para inspirar y comprometer no solo a millones, sino cientos de millones, de personas.  La educación y la participación de los medios de comunicación y la juventud serán fundamentales para el éxito.  La esperanza debe unirse a la acción si queremos abolir las armas nucleares antes de que ellas nos aniquilen.   La alarma está resonando.

    * Este documento refleja las discusiones en el simposio “La  Fuerte Urgencia del Cero Nuclear: Cambiando el Discurso”, celebrado en Santa Bárbara, California, los días 24-25 de octubre de 2016, y también toma en cuenta el cambiante panorama político en los EE.UU, siguiendo la elección de Donald Trump, que ocurrió dos semanas después del simposio. firmantes de esta declaración incluyen: Rich Appelbaum, Jackie Cabasso, Paul K. Chappell, Noam Chomsky, Daniel Ellsberg, Richard Falk, Mark Hamilton, Kimiaki Kawai, David Krieger, Peter Kuznick, Robert Laney, Judith Lipton, Daniel U. Smith, Steven Starr y Rick Wayman. El simposio fue patrocinado y organizado por la Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. Una lista completa de los participantes del simposio, junto con videos, audio y transcripciones de las presentaciones, están disponibles en www.wagingpeace.org/symposium-fierce-urgency.

    From L to R: Front Row: Daniel Ellsberg, David Krieger, Noam Chomsky. Second Row: Paul K. Chappell, Rick Wayman, Elaine Scarry, Steven Starr, Richard Falk, Jackie Cabasso, Jennifer Simons, Peter Kuznick, Judith Lipton, Kimiaki Kawai. Third Row: Robert Laney, Mark Hamilton, Daniel Smith, John Mecklin, Hans Kristensen, Rich Appelbaum.
    From L to R: Front Row: Daniel Ellsberg, David Krieger, Noam Chomsky. Second Row: Paul K. Chappell, Rick Wayman, Elaine Scarry, Steven Starr, Richard Falk, Jackie Cabasso, Jennifer Simons, Peter Kuznick, Judith Lipton, Kimiaki Kawai. Third Row: Robert Laney, Mark Hamilton, Daniel Smith, John Mecklin, Hans Kristensen, Rich Appelbaum.

  • A Peace Agenda for the New Administration

    The looming advent of the Trump administration in Washington threatens to worsen an already deeply troubling international situation.  Bitter wars are raging, tens of millions of refugees have taken flight, relations among the great powers are deteriorating, and a new nuclear arms race is underway.  Resources that could be used to fight unemployment, poverty, and climate change are being lavished on the military might of nations around the world―$1.7 trillion in 2015 alone.  The United States accounts for 36 percent of that global total.

    Given this grim reality, let us consider an alternative agenda for the new administration―an agenda for peace.

    One key ingredient is improving U.S. relations with Russia and China.  This is not an easy task, for these countries are governed by brutal regimes that seem to believe (much like many politicians in the United States) that a display of military force remains a useful way to deal with other nations.  Even so, the U.S. government has managed to work out live-and-let-live relationships with their Soviet and Chinese predecessors―some of which were considerably more bellicose―and should be able to do so again.  After all, the three countries have a good deal to gain by improving their relations.  This includes not only avoiding a catastrophic nuclear war, but reducing their spending on useless, vastly expensive weapons systems and cooperating on issues in which they have a common interest:  countering terrorism; halting the international drug trade; and battling climate change.

    It is not hard to imagine compromise settlements of their recent conflicts.  Behind the hard line Russia has taken in Ukraine, including the annexation of Crimea and military meddling in what’s left of that country, lies NATO’s expansion eastward to Russia’s borders.  Why not show a willingness to halt that expansion in exchange for a Russian agreement to respect the sovereignty of Ukraine and other nations in Russia’s vicinity?  Similarly, when dealing with the issue of war-torn Syria, why not abandon the U.S. government’s demand for the ouster of Assad and back a UN-negotiated peace settlement for that country?  The U.S. government’s growing dispute with China over the future of islands in the South China Sea also seems soluble, perhaps within a regional security framework.

    The three nations could avoid a very dangerous arms race and, at the same time, cut their military costs substantially by agreeing to reduce their military expenditures by a fixed percentage (for example, 10 percent) per year for a fixed period.  This “peace race” would allow them to retain their current military balance and devote the savings to more useful items in their budgets.

    A second key ingredient in a peace agenda is moving forward with nuclear arms control and disarmament.   With over 15,000 nuclear weapons in the arsenals of nine nations, including 7,300 held by Russia and 7,100 by the United States, the world is living on the edge of nuclear annihilation.

    Although the Kremlin does not seem interested right now in signing further nuclear disarmament agreements, progress could be made in other ways.  The President could use his executive authority to halt the current $1 trillion nuclear “modernization” program, take U.S. nuclear weapons off alert, declare a “no first use” policy for U.S. nuclear weapons, and make significant reductions in the U.S. nuclear arsenal.  An estimated 2,000 U.S. nuclear warheads are currently deployed and ready for action around the world, but the Joint Chiefs of Staff have concluded that only 1,000 are necessary.  Why not cut back to that level?

    The new administration could even engage in international negotiations for a treaty banning nuclear weapons.  Peace and disarmament organizations have pushed for the opening of such treaty negotiations for years and, this October, the UN General Assembly rewarded their efforts by passing a resolution to begin negotiations in 2017.  Why not participate in them?

    A third key ingredient in a peace agenda is drawing upon the United Nations to handle international conflicts.  The United Nations was founded in 1945 in the hope of ending the practice of powerful countries using their military might to bludgeon other countries into accepting what the powerful regarded as their national interests.  National security was to be replaced by international security, thereby reducing aggression and military intervention by individual nations.  Critics of the United Nations have argued that it is weak and ineffectual along these lines and, therefore, should be abandoned―except, perhaps, for its humanitarian programs.  But, instead of abandoning the United Nations, how about strengthening it?

    There are numerous ways to accomplish this.  These include eliminating the veto in the Security Council, establishing a weighted voting system in the General Assembly, and giving General Assembly decisions the force of international law.  Two other mechanisms, often discussed but not yet implemented, are creating an independent funding mechanism (such as an international financial transactions tax) for UN operations and establishing a permanent, all-volunteer UN rapid deployment force under UN jurisdiction that could act to prevent crimes against humanity.

    Of course, at the moment, little, if any, of this peace agenda seems likely to become U.S. government policy.  Donald Trump has promised a substantial increase in U.S. military spending, and his new administration will be heavily stocked with officials who take a hardline approach to world affairs.

    Even so, when it comes to peace, the American public has sometimes been remarkably active―and effective.  In January 1981, when the Reagan administration arrived in Washington, it championed an ultra-hawkish agenda, highlighted by a major nuclear weapons buildup and loose talk of waging and winning a nuclear war.  Ultimately, though, an upsurge of popular opposition forced a complete turnabout in administration policy, with Reagan joining the march toward a nuclear-free world and an end to the Cold War.  Change is always possible―if enough people demand it.

    [Dr. Lawrence Wittner (http://www.lawrenceswittner.com) is Professor of History emeritus at SUNY/Albany and the author of Confronting the Bomb (Stanford University Press).  A different version of this article appeared recently in the magazine Democratic Left.]

  • We Must Not Demonize and Threaten Russia

    Eisenhower’s warning

    In his famous farewell address, US President Dwight Eisenhower eloquently described the terrible effects of an overgrown military-industrial complex. Here are his words:

    “We have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions…. This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence, economic, political, even spiritual, is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government…[and] we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

    “In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.”

    In another speech, he said: “Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.”

    The devil’s dynamo

    The military-industrial complex involves a circular flow of money. The cash flows like the electrical current in a dynamo, driving a diabolical machine. Money from immensely rich corporate oligarchs buys the votes of politicians and the propaganda of the mainstream media. Numbed by the propaganda, citizens allow the politicians to vote for obscenely bloated military budgets, which further enrich the corporate oligarchs, and the circular flow continues.

    Today the world spends more than 1.7 trillion dollars ( $1,700,000,000,000) every year on armaments. This vast river of money, almost too large to be imagined, is the “devil’s dynamo” driving the institution of war. Politicians notoriously can be bought with a tiny fraction of this enormous amount; hence the decay of democracy. It is also plain that if the almost unbelievable sums now wasted on armaments were used constructively, most of the pressing problems now facing humanity could be solved.

    Because the world spends almost two thousand billion dollars each year on armaments, it follows that very many people make their living from war. This is the reason why it is correct to speak of war as an institution, and why war persists, although we know that it is the cause of much of the suffering that inflicts humanity.

    We know that war is madness, but it persists. We know that it threatens the survival of civilization, but it persists, entrenched in the attitudes of historians, newspaper editors and television producers, entrenched in the methods by which politicians finance their campaigns, and entrenched in the financial power of arms manufacturers, entrenched also in the ponderous and costly hardware of war, the fleets of warships, bombers, tanks, nuclear missiles and so on.

    The military-industrial complex needs enemies

    The military-industrial complex needs enemies. Without them it would wither. Thus at the end of the Second World War, this vast power complex was faced with a crisis. It was saved by the discovery of a new enemy: Communism.

    This new enemy saved the military-industrial complex for a long time, but at the end of the Cold War, there was another crisis: the threat that arms profits would be converted into a  “peace dividend.” Would this be the end of unlimited corporate greed? Heaven forbid! There was a desperate search for a new enemy. What about Islam? The Crusades could be revived, and all would be well. This seemed, for a long time to be a good solution.

    But recently, with the Middle East in flames, Islam no longer seemed to be a sufficiently strong enemy justify the colossal budgets of armaments industries. A new enemy was urgently needed. One  look at our mass media tells us the solution that our military-industrial complex has come up with: Revival of the Cold War!

    Nuclear war by accident or miscalculation

    As a consequence of our oligarchy’s decision to revive the Cold War, we are witnessing increasing demonization of Russia as well as flagrant provocations, such as the recent massive NATO maneuvers on Russia’s borders.

    With unbelievable hubris and irresponsibility, western politicians are risking the destruction of human civilization and much of the biosphere through a thermonuclear war. Such a cataclysmic war could occur through technical or human error, or through escalation. This possibility is made greater by the fact that despite the end of the Cold War, thousands of missiles carrying nuclear warheads are still kept on a “hair-trigger” state of alert with a quasi-automatic reaction time measured in minutes.

    A number of prominent political and military figures (many of whom have ample knowledge of the system of deterrence, having been part of it) have expressed concern about the danger of accidental nuclear war.

    Colin S. Grey, Chairman of the US Institute for Public Policy, expressed this concern as follows: “The problem, indeed the enduring problem, is that we are resting our future upon a nuclear deterrence system concerning which we cannot tolerate even a single malfunction.”

    General Curtis E. LeMay has written, “In my opinion a general war will grow through a series of political miscalculations and accidents rather than through any deliberate attack by either side.”

    Bruce G. Blair  of the Brookings Institute has remarked that “It is obvious that the rushed nature of the process, from warning to decision to action, risks causing a catastrophic mistake.”… “This system is an accident waiting to happen.”

    The duty of civil society

    Civil society must make its will felt. A thermonuclear war today would be not only genocidal but also omnicidal. It would kill people of all ages, babies, children, young people, mothers, fathers and grandparents, without any regard whatever for guilt or innocence. Such a war would be the ultimate ecological catastrophe, destroying not only human civilization but also much of the biosphere. Each of us has a duty to work with courage and dedication to prevent it.

    Some suggestions for further reading:

    Europe Must Not Be Forced Into a Nuclear War with Russia

    http://www.countercurrents.org/avery170715.htm

    https://act.rootsaction.org/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=12514

    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article44904.htm

    Caring for the Future of Our Children

    http://www.truth-out.org/buzzflash/commentary/feed-the-people-before-building-fighter-planes

    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/46211.htm

    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/46209.htm

    Trump, the Banks and the Bomb

    Donald Trump’s New Nuclear Instability

  • The Government of the Marshall Islands and Former Foreign Minister Tony de Brum Voted “2016 Arms Control Persons of the Year”

    NUCLEAR AGE PEACE FOUNDATION

    For Immediate Release

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

    January 9, 2017 (Washington, D.C.)—The Republic of the Marshall Islands and its former Foreign Minister, Tony de Brum, were just awarded the “2016 Arms Control Person of the Year.” Over 1,850 individuals from 63 countries participated in the selection.

    Ten individuals and groups were nominated by the staff of the Arms Control Association for their leadership in advancing effective arms control, nonproliferation, and disarmament solutions or for raising awareness of the threats posed by mass casualty weapons during the past year.

    The government of the Marshall Islands and Ambassador de Brum were nominated for pursuing a legal case at the International Court of Justice in The Hague against the world’s nuclear-armed nations for their failure to initiate nuclear disarmament negotiations in violation of Article VI of the 1968 nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) and customary international law.

    “The nomination of the Marshall Islands and Ambassador de Brum and the many votes they received reflects the concern and frustration expressed by many non-nuclear weapon states about the unacceptable consequences of nuclear weapons use, the slow pace of nuclear disarmament, and the growing risks of renewed global nuclear competition,” noted Kingston Reif, director of disarmament and threat reduction at the Arms Control Association.

    The people of the Marshall Islands were subjected to 67 U.S. atmospheric nuclear test explosions from 1946 to 1958. The largest of these tests was 1,000 times stronger than the nuclear bomb dropped on Hiroshima in 1945 and resulted in immeasurable suffering and emotional and physical trauma to the islanders. Tony de Brum, just nine years old at the time of the testing, said: “After seeing what mere testing of these terrible weapons of mass destruction can do to human beings, it makes sense for the Marshallese people to have implored the nuclear weapon states to begin the hard task of disarmament. All we ask is that this terrible threat be removed from our world.”

    In October, the 16-member court issued their rulings which upheld the arguments of the nuclear states that the Court lacked jurisdiction in two 9-7 votes in the cases of India and Pakistan and in an 8-8 vote in the case of the UK. India, Pakistan, and the UK were the only states to participate

    in the lawsuits because the other nuclear-armed states do not recognize the court’s compulsory jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes between states. Despite the court decisions, the cases brought the frustratingly slow pace of disarmament negotiations to the world’s attention.

    David Krieger, President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, a consultant to the Republic of the Marshall Islands in their lawsuits, commented: “We are proud and excited that Tony de Brum and the government of the Marshall Islands have received this important recognition for their courageous actions. They have demonstrated that when it comes to international security, small countries can make a big difference.”  He continued, “I’ve known Tony de Brum for nearly fifty years and he has been persevering in the pursuit of peace and planetary well-being. He has been a passionate advocate for his people and the people of the world. He and the government of the Marshall Islands are most deserving of this award.”

    The runner-up in the vote for the 2016 Arms Control Persons of the Year were the foreign ministers of Austria, Brazil, Ireland, Mexico, Nigeria, and South Africa. They had jointly secured adoption of UN Security Council resolution L.41 “to convene in 2017 a United Nations conference to negotiate a legally binding instrument to prohibit nuclear weapons, leading towards their total elimination.”

    The second runner up was former U.S. Secretary of Defense William J. Perry for his continuing efforts to draw attention to the risk of renewed nuclear weapons competition and calling for restraint. Secretary Perry launched in 2016 a new online course on nuclear weapons and authored a new book, My Journey at the Nuclear Brink. A list of all 2016 nominees is available at https://armscontrol.org/acpoy/2016

    Previous winners of the “Arms Control Person of the Year” include include: Setsuko Thurlow and the Hibakusha of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, (2015); Austria’s Director for Arms Control, Nonproliferation, and Disarmament, Ambassador Alexander Kmentt (2014), Executive-Secretary of the CTBTO Lassina Zerbo (2013); Gen. James Cartwright (2012); reporter and activist Kathi Lynn Austin (2011); Kazakhstan’s Deputy Foreign Minister Kairat Umarov and Thomas D’Agostino, U.S. National Nuclear Security Administration Administrator (2010);Senator Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) (2009); Norway’s Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Støre and his ministry’s Director-General for Security Policy and the High North Steffen Kongstad (2008); and U.S. Congressmen Peter Visclosky (D-Ind.) and David Hobson (R-Ohio) (2007).

    #                             #                             #

    If you would like to interview David Krieger, President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, please contact Sandy Jones at sjones@napf.org or (805) 965-3443.

    Founded in 1982, 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.  The Foundation is a non-partisan, non-profit organization with consultative status to the United Nations and is comprised of individuals and groups worldwide who realize the imperative for peace in the Nuclear Age.  For more information, visit www.wagingpeace.org.

    acpoy

    The Marshall Islands and Ambassador de Brum were nominated for pursuing a formal legal case against the world’s nuclear-armed states for failing to meet their obligations under the NPT.

  • Compassionate Convictions Mixed with a Will of Steel

    The sad news came today that Judge Christopher Weeramantry, a long-time member of the Foundation’s Advisory Council, passed away today (January 5, 2017) in Colombo, Sri Lanka.  Judge Weeramantry was a great man who made significant contributions to law and ethics.  His values set a high-water mark for jurists, and these will undoubtedly be carried forward by his writings and by his many students and colleagues.  In 1996, when  he was vice president of the International Court of Justice, he wrote a dissent to the Court’s Advisory Opinion on the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons.  In my opinion, his dissent stands as the best legal analysis ever made of the threat or use of nuclear weapons being illegal in “any circumstances whatsoever.”

    It was a privilege to have known and worked with Judge Weeramantry.  What follows is the contribution I prepared for a felicitation volume honoring Judge Weeramantry that was organized for his 90th birthday in November 2016.

    I have known Judge Weeramantry for many years; and before I had the pleasure of knowing him, I admired his work from afar.  We have worked together on issues of nuclear weapons abolition and served together as councilors on the World Future Council.  He is outwardly calm, kind and warm, while inwardly he is a unique blend of deep and compassionate convictions mixed with a will of steel.

    Judge Weeramantry was honored by the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation on March 12, 2008.
    Judge Weeramantry was honored by the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation on April 12, 2008.

    Judge Weeramantry has a keen legal mind, which he has used effectively and courageously in support of a world free of nuclear weapons.  I deeply admire Judge Weeramantry for the clarity of his thinking in combination with the compassion of his vision of a more decent world.  He has served humanity in many ways, but in no way more importantly than his insistence that nuclear weapons are illegal and must be abolished.

    During the 1980s, Judge Weeramantry prepared and published a Proposed United Nations Declaration of Scientific Responsibility in Relation to Nuclear Weapons.  The following are two far-sighted paragraphs from this document:

    Place beyond doubt the illegality of the use of nuclear weapons, having regard to its violation of the principles of proportionality, discrimination, aggravation of pain and suffering, nullification of a return to peace and inviolability or neutral states

    Aware that the use of nuclear weaponry would undoubtedly result in ecocide, genocide and, if there are any survivors, in massive intergenerational damage

    The document builds toward the conclusion that work on nuclear weapons in any form constitutes crimes under international law, and therefore “calls upon all scientists and technologists throughout the world to abide by the legal and ethical obligations outlined in this document and to desist from any activity involving the development, production, testing, possession, deployment or use of nuclear weapons.”

    During his tenure as a Judge on the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the court considered the United Nations General Assembly’s request for an Advisory Opinion “on the Legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons.”  Whereas the majority of the judges, with the President casting the deciding vote, found in their 1996 Advisory Opinion that such threat or use would be “generally illegal,” Judge Weeramantry found that the threat or use of nuclear weapons would be illegal in any circumstances whatsoever.  He was uncompromising in his stance.  No matter how extreme the circumstances, nuclear weapons could not be used without violating international humanitarian law.

    Judge Weeramantry wrote a brilliant and comprehensive dissent to the Court’s Advisory Opinion in the case.  The opening words of his dissent were these: “My considered opinion is the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons is illegal in any circumstances whatsoever.”  In the next paragraph of his dissent, he stated, “I regret that the Court has not held directly and categorically that the use or threat of use of the weapon is unlawful in all circumstances without exception.  The Court should have so stated in a vigorous and forthright manner which would have settled this legal question now and forever.”

    In reaching the end of his nearly 100-page dissent, Judge Weeramantry stated, “No issue could be fraught with deeper implications for the human future, and the pulse of the future beats strong in the body of international law.  This issue has not thus far entered the precincts of international tribunals.  Now that it has done so for the first time, it should be answered – convincingly, clearly and categorically.”

    I have always felt that Judge Weeramantry’s dissent in this case was a high-water mark for humanity in the Nuclear Age.  It is wise and insightful.  He makes clear that it is not possible for the law to allow for the threat or use of weapons capable of destroying most or all life on the planet.  I look to the day in the future when the ICJ will return to the question of the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons, and will find upon reading and studying the Weeramantry dissent that the path has already been set forth by him for an uncompromising legal opinion that makes it clear that the threat or use of nuclear weapons is illegal under all circumstances, without exception.

    In 2013, Judge Weeramantry prepared an important Briefing Paper for the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, which the Foundation distributed at the second preparatory meeting of the 2015 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference.  The Briefing Paper was titled, “Good Faith: Essential to Nuclear Disarmament and Human Survival.”  Judge Weeramantry, building on article VI of the Non-Proliferation Treaty and the ICJ Advisory Opinion discussed above, made the argument that good faith was not optional, but essential for the international system to work.  His study of good faith in relation to nuclear disarmament led to the following conclusion:

    We are left with no other conclusion than that good faith in regard to nuclear disarmament is a basic requirement of law, of morality, of humanitarianism, and of concern for the human future. It is required by international law. It is undertaken by treaties, such as the Non-Proliferation Treaty. It is prescribed by the International Court of Justice. Neither law nor religion nor morality nor civilization can permit the slightest deviation from this duty of good faith, departure from which will make the cruelties of the past pale into insignificance.

    Judge Weeramantry is a prophet who has warned humanity repeatedly of the importance of international law as applied to nuclear weapons.  He has made it clear that the legal and ethical path to the human future requires the abolition of nuclear weapons, and there are no conditions whatsoever in which the threat or use of nuclear weapons can be justified under international law.

    In 2008, I had the pleasure of presenting Judge Weeramantry with the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s Lifetime Achievement Award, an award presented to “outstanding individuals who have made significant long-term contributions to building a more peaceful world.”  He fills this description in every way.  He is a man with a keen intellect dedicated to peace and international law, and he has a heart large enough to encompass all of humanity.  I feel fortunate to be his colleague, and even more so to be his friend.

  • Sunflower Newsletter: January 2017

    Issue #234 – January 2017
    Donate Now!

    Become a monthly supporter! With a monthly gift you will join a circle of advocates for a more peaceful tomorrow free of nuclear weapons.
    • Perspectives
      • The Most Dangeorus Period in Human History by David Krieger
      • I Lost Family in Hiroshima. Mr. Trump, Nuclear Weapons Are No Game. by George Takei
    • U.S. Nuclear Weapons Policy
      • Top Scientists Urge Trump to Abide By Iran Nuclear Deal
    • Nuclear Insanity
      • Pakistani Defense Minister Threatens Nuclear War Over Fake News Story
      • Threat of Hacking at Nuclear Plants Is Growing
    • Nuclear Proliferation
      • North Korea Claims It Will Test Intercontinental Ballistic Missile
    • Missile Defense
      • U.S. Missile Defense Funding Continues to Grow, Despite Flaws
    • Nuclear Energy and Waste
      • Cost for Cleanup at Hanford Rises Yet Again
    • Nuclear Modernization
      • Trump Administration May Face Pressure to Resume Nuclear Testing
    • Resources
      • This Month in Nuclear Threat History
      • Don’t Bank on the Bomb
      • Nuclear Ban Treaty Negotiations in 2017
      • Command and Control on PBS January 10
    • Foundation Activities
      • 16th Annual Kelly Lecture Features Oliver Stone and Peter Kuznick
      • Open Letter to President-elect Trump: Negotiate Nuclear Zero
      • Peace Leadership: 2016 Year In Review
    • Quotes

     

    Perspectives

    The Most Dangerous Period in Human History

    by David Krieger

    It is terrifying to think of Donald Trump with the codes to launch the U.S. nuclear arsenal. Ironically, Trump himself may be the single best argument anyone could make for why the world should abolish nuclear weapons. The mix of Trump and nuclear weapons is a formula for making his term in office the most dangerous period in human history.

    Trump tweets from the hip, like a crazy man. When he tweets or speaks, he often muddies the waters. His aides spend much of their time trying to calm the fears he raises in his compulsive tweeting.

    To read more, click here.

    I Lost Family in Hiroshima. Mr. Trump, Nuclear Weapons Are No Game.

    by George Takei

    I can’t help but feel Mr. Trump treats brinksmanship as some game. It’s hard to believe he needs reminding, but nuclear weapons are not toys, nor are they chips to be wagered in some kind of high stakes poker match. I am among a dwindling number still around who remember the first time atomic weapons were used—at that time to end a terrible world war. I had family in Hiroshima when the Enola Gay dropped its deadly payload, obliterating the entire city in an instant.

    So it is with ever-increasing alarm that we must acknowledge that a man, who apparently lacks the self-control to keep his fingers from tweeting, now literally has those same fingers on the nuclear button. But beyond the question of temperament, I must ask: Does Donald Trump understand the true horror of what he can unleash in an instant?

    To read more, click here.

    U.S. Nuclear Weapons Policy

    Top Scientists Urge Trump to Abide By Iran Nuclear Deal

    Dozens of top U.S. scientists sent a letter to President-elect Donald Trump urging him not to dismantle the Iran nuclear deal when he takes office. The letter was organized by Richard Garwin, a physicist who was involved in designing the world’s first hydrogen bomb. The letter says that the Iran deal “has dramatically reduced the risk that Iran could suddenly produce significant quantities” of nuclear weapon materials and has “lowered the pressure felt by Iran’s neighbors to develop their own nuclear weapons options.”

    Among the 37 signatories to the letter is NAPF Associate Martin Hellman, who wrote about the issue in a recent blog post.

    William Broad, “Top Scientists Urge Trump to Abide by Iran Nuclear Deal,” The New York Times, January 2, 2017.

    Nuclear Insanity

    Pakistani Defense Minister Threatens Nuclear War Over Fake News Story

    On December 23, Pakistani Defense Minister Khawaja Asif wrote on his official Twitter account, “Israeli (defense minister) threatens nuclear retaliation presuming (Pakistan) role in Syria against Daesh. Israel forgets Pakistan is a Nuclear State too.”

    Asif was responding to an article published by AWDNews, which quoted former Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Yaalon as threatening Pakistan with nuclear weapons if Pakistan sent troops to Syria. However, Yaalon is not the current Israeli Defense Minister, and there is no evidence that Yaalon ever said such a thing.

    Ben Westcott, “Duped By Fake News Story, Pakistani Minister Threatens Nuclear War With Israel,” CNN, December 26, 2016.

    Threat of Hacking at Nuclear Plants Is Growing

    United Nations Deputy Secretary-General Jan Eliasson told a meeting of the UN Security Council that “vicious non-state groups” are actively seeking weapons of mass destruction, and that such groups can already create mass disruption using cyber technologies. Eliasson called the hacking of a nuclear plant a “nightmare scenario.”

    The Security Council meeting focused on ways to halt the proliferation of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons by extremist groups and criminals.

    Edith Lederer, “UN: Threat of a Hacking Attack on Nuclear Plants Is Growing,” Associated Press, December 16, 2016.

    Nuclear Proliferation

    North Korea Claims It Will Test Intercontinental Ballistic Missile

    North Korean leader Kim Jong-un has claimed that his country is in the final stages of preparing for a test launch of an intercontinental ballistic missile. He stated that North Korea has “achieved the status of a nuclear power, a military giant in the East which no enemy, however formidable, would dare to provoke.”

    Multiple United Nations Security Council resolutions prohibit such launches by North Korea, and its missile program has been the cause of economic sanctions in the past. Meanwhile, other nuclear-armed states, including the United States, continue to test and develop intercontinental ballistic missiles with no sanctions or Security Council resolutions.

    Louise Moon, “Pentagon Rebukes North Korea Over Claim It Will Test Missile that Could Reach U.S.,” The Telegraph, January 2, 2017.

    Missile Defense

    U.S. Missile Defense Funding Continues to Grow, Despite Flaws

    The Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system, first deployed in 2004, is poised to grow despite a poor testing record. The GMD system is designed to defend the United States against a surprise missile attack from a country like Iran or North Korea. However, the system has failed to intercept mock enemy warheads about half of the time.

    Despite this dismal failure rate, the U.S. is searching for new locations to deploy additional GMD interceptors. Numerous locations around the United States are vying for the opportunity, primarily because of the economic stimulus that could come with the $4 billion construction cost. Currently, four GMD interceptors are deployed in California and 30 are deployed in Alaska. A new site would add around 20 more interceptors, with a capacity for up to 60.

    A report by the Government Accountability Office said that GMD’s test record has been “insufficient to demonstrate that an operationally useful defense capability exists.” A report by the Union of Concerned Scientists stated that the GMD system is “simply unable to protect the U.S. public.”

    David Willman, “The Nation’s Missile Defense System has Serious Flaws. So Why Is the Pentagon Moving to Expand It?” Los Angeles Times, December 13, 2016.

    Nuclear Energy and Waste

    Cost for Cleanup at Hanford Rises Yet Again

    The U.S. Department of Energy has reported that the projected cost to clean up highly radioactive sludge at the Hanford Site in Washington State has risen another $4.5 billion to a current projected total of $16.8 billion. The Waste Treatment Plant is now over four times its original budget and more than a decade behind schedule.

    Over 56 million gallons of radioactive sludge, currently stored in leaking underground tanks, await the opening of the proposed facility, which will turn the waste into glass. The facility has been under a stop-work order for three years because of serious technical doubts.

    Ralph Vartabedian, “The Price Tag for Cleaning Up Nuclear Waste at Hanford Site Just Went Up Another $4.5 Billion,” Los Angeles Times, December 16, 2016.

    Nuclear Modernization

    Trump Administration May Face Pressure to Resume Nuclear Testing

    With President-elect Donald Trump’s nomination of former Texas governor Rick Perry to head the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), observers are worried that the agency will face pressure to resume full-scale explosive nuclear testing. The U.S. has maintained a moratorium on full-scale nuclear test explosions since 1992, while continuing to conduct computer simulations and “sub-critical” tests.

    Many conservative think tanks are calling for a resumption of tests because of fears that the nuclear stockpile is no longer reliable. While the past two Energy Secretaries – Stephen Chu and Ernest Moniz – have significant backgrounds in science and physics, Rick Perry is a politician who famously championed eliminating the DOE during the 2012 presidential campaign.

    As the “modernization” of the U.S. nuclear arsenal, begun under President Obama, continues, it is likely that pressure will continue to mount from the right to test the new weapons being produced.

    James Glanz, “Rick Perry, as Energy Secretary, May Be Pressed to Resume Nuclear Tests,” The New York Times, December 27, 2016.

     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 most serious threats that have taken place in the month of January, including the January 21, 1968 crash of a U.S. Air Force B-52 bomber carrying four 1.1 megaton Mark 28 nuclear bombs.

    To read Mason’s full article, click here.

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

    Don’t Bank on the Bomb

    PAX has published an update of its report “Don’t Bank on the Bomb.” The report outlines the companies around the world that produce nuclear weapons, as well as the many institutions that finance the nuclear weapon producers. The report also highlights numerous financial institutions in its “Hall of Fame” for their policies explicitly prohibiting financing nuclear weapon producers.

    Read the report at dontbankonthebomb.com to find out if your bank is involved in financing the production of nuclear weapons.

    Nuclear Ban Treaty Negotiations in 2017

    The United Nations will convene negotiations in 2017 on “a legally binding instrument to prohibit nuclear weapons, leading towards their total elimination.” This new international agreement will place nuclear weapons on the same legal footing as other weapons of mass destruction, which have long been outlawed.

    The negotiations will take place at UN headquarters in New York from March 27-31 and June 15 – July 7, with the participation of governments, international organizations and civil society representatives.

    The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons has published a webpage with more information about the negotiations and frequently-asked questions about the ban treaty process. Click here to view the page.

    Command and Control on PBS January 10

    Command and Control, the powerful documentary based on the book by Eric Schlosser, is scheduled to air on PBS stations around the United States on Tuesday, January 10.

    The documentary recounts a chilling nuclear nightmare that played out at a Titan II missile complex in Arkansas in September, 1980. A worker accidentally dropped a socket, puncturing the fuel tank of an intercontinental ballistic missile carrying the most powerful nuclear warhead in the U.S. arsenal, an incident which ignited a series of feverish efforts to avoid a deadly disaster.

    Foundation Activities

    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 will feature legendary Hollywood director Oliver Stone and Professor Peter Kuznick, co-authors of the internationally-acclaimed documentary The Untold History of the United States.

    The lecture, entitled “Untold History, Uncertain Future,” will take place on February 23, 2017 at 7:00 p.m. at the Lobero Theatre in Santa Barbara. Tickets start at $10 and are available here.

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

    Open Letter to President-elect Trump: Negotiate Nuclear Zero

    The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation has sent an open letter to President-elect Donald Trump, reminding him that, as President of the United States, he will soon have “the grave responsibility of assuring that nuclear weapons are not overtly threatened or used during [his] term of office.”

    The Open Letter advises Trump of the U.S. obligation under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to negotiate in good faith for an end to the nuclear arms race and for nuclear disarmament. It explains that nuclear deterrence is based upon on the willingness of political leaders to act rationally under all circumstances, even those of extreme stress. It goes on to say that nuclear proliferation and a renewed nuclear arms race would both make for a far more dangerous world.

    Among the signers to the Open Letter are many advisors, board members and staff of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation and others, including Helen Caldicott, Noam Chomsky, Daniel Ellsberg, Richard Falk, Oliver Stone and Setsuko Thurlow, to mention just a few.

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

    Peace Leadership: 2016 Year In Review

    In 2016, NAPF Peace Leadership Director Paul K. Chappell reached 5,180 people directly, including 200 college-level educators and 2,550 middle and high school students, through a total of 54 lectures and 16 workshops.

    Chappell gave a lecture in August 2016 at the Chautauqua Institution in upstate New York. He was the final speaker of their week-long “The Ethical Realities of War” series. The lecture was presented to an audience of 1,200 at the United States’ oldest summer lecture series; the video of this talk is now being used as a teaching tool.

    To read more about the accomplishments of the NAPF Peace Leadership Program in 2016, click here.

    Quotes

     

    “If we do not speak for Earth, who will? If we are not committed to our own survival, who will be?”

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

     

    “Violence is not the cure for our broken world. Countering violence with violence leads at best to forced migrations and enormous suffering, because vast amounts of resources are diverted to military ends and away from the everyday needs of young people, families experiencing hardship, the elderly, the infirm and the great majority of people in our world. At worst, it can lead to the death, physical and spiritual, of many people, if not of all.”

    — Pope Francis, in a message for the 50th World Day of Peace on January 1, 2017.

     

    “Congress must not allow the Tweeter in Chief to unleash a dangerous and costly nuclear arms race.”

    — Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), in a December 23 post to Twitter.

    Editorial Team

     

    David Krieger
    Carol Warner
    Rick Wayman

     

  • Press Release: Open Letter to President-elect Trump

    For Immediate Release

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

    Open Letter to President-Elect Trump

     Santa Barbara–As the inauguration of President-elect Trump approaches, the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation is reaching out to him in an Open Letter, reminding him that, as President of the United States, he will soon have “the grave responsibility of assuring that nuclear weapons are not overtly threatened or used during [his] term of office.”

    The Open Letter advises Trump of the U.S. obligation under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to negotiate in good faith for an end to the nuclear arms race and for nuclear disarmament. It explains that nuclear deterrence is based upon on the willingness of political leaders to act rationally under all circumstances, even those of extreme stress. It goes on to say that nuclear proliferation and a renewed nuclear arms race would both make for a far more dangerous world.

    David Krieger, President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, commented, “Mr. Trump does not seem to have a well-grounded understanding regarding threats to use the U.S. nuclear arsenal. This poses a dramatic danger to the whole world, including U.S. citizens. His presidency may constitute and the most dangerous period in human history.”

    The letter urges Mr. Trump “to choose the course of negotiations for a nuclear weapons-free world,” stating that to do so, “would be a great gift to all humanity and all future generations.”

    Among the signers to the Open Letter are many advisors, board members and staff of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation and others, including Helen Caldicott, Noam Chomsky, Daniel Ellsberg, Richard Falk, Oliver Stone and Setsuko Thurlow, to mention just a few.

    The Open Letter is online at https://wagingpeace.davidmolinaojeda.com/open-letter-trump/

    #                             #                             #

    If you would like to interview David Krieger, President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, please contact Sandy Jones at sjones@napf.org or (805) 965-3443.

    Founded in 1982, 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.  The Foundation is a non-partisan, non-profit organization with consultative status to the United Nations and is comprised of individuals and groups worldwide who realize the imperative for peace in the Nuclear Age.  For more information, visit www.wagingpeace.org.

  • Open Letter to President-elect Trump: Negotiate Nuclear Zero

    Open Letter to President-elect Trump: Negotiate Nuclear Zero

    As president of the United States, you will have the grave responsibility of assuring that nuclear weapons are not overtly threatened or used during your term of office.

    The most certain way to fulfill this responsibility is to negotiate with the other possessors of nuclear weapons for their total elimination.  The U.S. is 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 nuclear disarmament.

    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 attacked.  Between the U.S. and Russia, it would threaten the survival of humanity.

    There are still more than 15,000 nuclear weapons in the world, of which the United States possesses approximately 7,000.  Some 1,000 of these remain on hair-trigger alert.  A similar number remain on hair-trigger alert in Russia.  This is a catastrophe waiting to happen.

    Even if nuclear weapons are not used intentionally, they could be used inadvertently by accident or miscalculation.  Nuclear weapons and human fallibility are a dangerous mix.

    Nuclear deterrence presupposes a certain view of human behavior.  It depends on the willingness of political leaders to act rationally under all circumstances, even those of extreme stress.  It provides no guarantees or physical protection.  It could fail spectacularly and tragically.

    You have suggested that more nations – such as Japan, South Korea and even Saudi Arabia – may need to develop their own nuclear arsenals because the U.S. spends too much money protecting other countries.  This nuclear proliferation would make for a far more dangerous world.  It is also worrisome that you have spoken of dismantling or reinterpreting the international agreement that places appropriate limitations on Iran’s nuclear program and has the support of all five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council plus Germany.

    As other presidents have had, you will have at your disposal the power to end civilization as we know it.  You will also have the opportunity, should you choose, to lead in ending the nuclear weapons era and achieving nuclear zero through negotiations on a treaty for the phased, verifiable, irreversible and transparent elimination of nuclear weapons.

    We, the undersigned, urge you to choose the course of negotiations for a nuclear weapons-free world.  It would be a great gift to all humanity and all future generations.

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

    Initial signers:

    David Krieger
    President, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

    Richard Falk
    Senior Vice President, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

    Daniel Ellsberg
    Distinguished Fellow, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

    Noam Chomsky
    Professor Emeritus, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

    Oliver Stone
    Film director

    Setsuko Thurlow
    Hiroshima Atomic Bomb Survivor

    Anders Wijkman
    Co-President, Club of Rome

    Helen Caldicott
    Founding President, Physicians for Social Responsibility

    Ben Ferencz
    Former Nuremberg war crimes prosecutor

    Robert Jay Lifton
    Columbia University

    Hon. Douglas Roche, O.C.
    Former Canadian Ambassador for Disarmament

    Robert Laney
    Chair, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

    Rick Wayman
    Director of Programs, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

    Ruben Arvizu
    Latin America Representative, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

    Jonathan Granoff
    President, Global Security Institute

    Medea Benjamin
    Co-Founder, Code Pink

    Peter Kuznick
    Professor of History and Director of the Nuclear Studies Institute, American University

    Barry Ladendorf
    President, Veterans for Peace

    Dr. Hafsat Abiola-Costello
    Founder and President, Kudirat Initiative for Democracy

    Marie Dennis
    Co-President, Pax Christi International

    Elaine Scarry
    Professor, Harvard University

    Alice Slater
    New York Representative, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

    Richard Appelbaum
    Board of Directors, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

    Sandy Jones
    Director of Communications, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

    Joni Arends
    Executive Director, Concerned Citizens for Nuclear Safety

    Sergio Grosjean
    Instituto Mexicano de Ecologia Ciencia y Cultura

    John Avery
    Associate, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

    Leonard Eiger
    Ground Zero Center for Nonviolent Action

    April Brown
    Marshallese Educational Initiative

    Jill Dexter
    Board of Directors, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

    Robert Aldridge
    Associate, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

    Charles Genuardi
    Board of Directors, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

    Bill Wickersham
    Associate, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

    John Hallam
    People for Nuclear Disarmament

    Mark Hamilton
    Board of Directors, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

    Mary Becker
    Former Board member, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

    Frank Bognar
    Board of Directors, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

    Judith Lipton, M.D.
    Security Committee, Physicians for Social Responsibility

    Sue Hawes
    Board of Directors, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

    Sherry Melchiorre
    Board of Directors, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

    Elena Nicklasson
    Director of Development, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

    Daniel Smith
    Appellate Lawyer

    Nancy Andon
    Board of Directors, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

    Lawrence Markworth
    Board of Directors, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

    Cletus Stein
    The Peace Farm

    Mario Fuentes
    Sector Salud

    Jim Knowlton
    Blue Ocean Productions

    Peter Low
    Adjunct Senior Lecturer, University of Canterbury

    Jenny Maxwell
    Hereford Peace Council

    Rodrigo Navarro
    Comunicar para Conservar

    Sergio Rimola
    National Hispanic Medical Association

    Julian Rodriguez
    #Revolucionando