Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Blog

  • Isn’t It Time to Ban the Bomb?

    This article was originally published by History News Network.

    Although the mass media failed to report it, a landmark event occurred recently in connection with resolving the long-discussed problem of what to do about nuclear weapons.  On August 19, 2016, a UN committee, the innocuously-named Open-Ended Working Group, voted to recommend to the UN General Assembly that it mandate the opening of negotiations in 2017 on a treaty to ban them.

    For most people, this recommendation makes a lot of sense.  Nuclear weapons are the most destructive devices ever created.  If they are used―as two of them were used in 1945 to annihilate the populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki―the more than 15,000 nuclear weapons currently in existence would destroy the world.  Given their enormous blast, fire, and radioactivity, their explosion would bring an end to virtually all life on earth.  The few human survivors would be left to wander, slowly and painfully, in a charred, radioactive wasteland.  Even the explosion of a small number of nuclear weapons through war, terrorism, or accident would constitute a catastrophe of unprecedented magnitude.

    Every President of the United States since 1945, from Harry Truman to Barack Obama, has warned the world of the horrors of nuclear war.  Even Ronald Reagan―perhaps the most military-minded among them―declared again and again:  “A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.”

    Fortunately, there is no technical problem in disposing of nuclear weapons.  Through negotiated treaties and unilateral action, nuclear disarmament, with verification, has already taken place quite successfully, eliminating roughly 55,000 nuclear weapons of the 70,000 in existence at the height of the Cold War.

    Also, the world’s other agents of mass destruction, biological and chemical weapons, have already been banned by international agreements.

    Naturally, then, most people think that creating a nuclear weapons-free world is a good idea.  A 2008 poll in 21 nations around the globe found that 76 percent of respondents favored an international agreement for the elimination of all nuclear weapons and only 16 percent opposed it.  This included 77 percent of the respondents in the United States.

    But government officials from the nine nuclear-armed nations are inclined to view nuclear weapons―or at least their nuclear weapons―quite differently.  For centuries, competing nations have leaned heavily upon military might to secure what they consider their “national interests.”  Not surprisingly, then, national leaders have gravitated toward developing powerful military forces, armed with the most powerful weaponry.  The fact that, with the advent of nuclear weapons, this traditional behavior has become counter-productive has only begun to penetrate their consciousness, usually helped along on such occasions by massive public pressure.

    Consequently, officials of the superpowers and assorted wannabes, while paying lip service to nuclear disarmament, continue to regard it as a risky project.  They are much more comfortable with maintaining nuclear arsenals and preparing for nuclear war.  Thus, by signing the nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty of 1968, officials from the nuclear powers pledged to “pursue negotiations in good faith on . . . a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.”  And today, nearly a half-century later, they have yet to begin negotiations on such a treaty.  Instead, they are currently launching yet another round in the nuclear arms race.  The U.S. government alone is planning to spend $1 trillion over the next 30 years to refurbish its entire nuclear weapons production complex, as well as to build new air-, sea-, and ground-launched nuclear weapons.

    Of course, this enormous expenditure―plus the ongoing danger of nuclear disaster―could provide statesmen with a powerful incentive to end 71 years of playing with their doomsday weapons and, instead, get down to the business of finally ending the grim prospect of nuclear annihilation.  In short, they could follow the lead of the UN committee and actually negotiate a ban on nuclear weapons as the first step toward abolishing them.

    But, to judge from what happened in the UN Open-Ended Working Group, a negotiated nuclear weapons ban is not likely to occur.  Uneasy about what might emerge from the committee’s deliberations, the nuclear powers pointedly boycotted them.  Moreover, the final vote in that committee on pursuing negotiations for a ban was 68 in favor and 22 opposed, with 13 abstentions.  The strong majority in favor of negotiations was comprised of African, Latin American, Caribbean, Southeast Asian, and Pacific nations, with several European nations joining them.  The minority came primarily from nations under the nuclear umbrellas of the superpowers.  Consequently, the same split seems likely to occur in the UN General Assembly, where the nuclear powers will do everything possible to head off UN action.

    Overall, then, there is a growing division between the nuclear powers and their dependent allies, on the one hand, and a larger group of nations, fed up with the repeated evasions of the nuclear powers in dealing with the nuclear disaster that threatens to engulf the world.  In this contest, the nuclear powers have the advantage, for, when all is said and done, they have the option of clinging to their nuclear weapons, even if that means ignoring a treaty adopted by a clear majority of nations around the world.  Only an unusually firm stand by the non-nuclear nations, coupled with an uprising by an aroused public, seems likely to awaken the officials of the nuclear powers from their long sleepwalk toward catastrophe.

  • North Korea’s Nuclear Test

    This article was first published by A New Map.

    hellman_bookEarlier today, North Korea conducted its fifth and most successful nuclear test, with an estimated yield close to that of the bomb that destroyed Hiroshima. This dangerous and deplorable situation was predictable—and probably preventable—as noted on page 197 of my wife’s and my book, A New Map for Relationships: Creating True Love at Home & Peace on the Planet:

    If we continue to engage in regime change around the world and encourage it in North Korea via crippling sanctions, that nation’s leaders will maintain or increase their nuclear arsenal in order to deter such efforts. It’s a matter of self-preservation for them. Regime change probably would result in their being killed.

    I have included a longer book excerpt immediately following my signature line. If you agree it’s time we got smart about ending nuclear proliferation, order a copy of the book—it’s now available from Amazon, Barnes & Noble, and many other booksellers—and then follow the suggestions in the section “A Call to Action,” which starts on page 271. Actions you can take right now include signing up for updates and alerts, and encouraging friends to read A New Map through Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, and other social media. One more thing: We need more reviews posted on Amazon. Thanks very much for any help you can provide.

    Martin Hellman

    EXCERPT FROM THE BOOK’S SECTION ON NORTH KOREA

    By the end of this section, you’ll have seen how our failing to take in the bigger picture—failing to think holistically—played a role in North Korea building its nuclear weapons and is unintentionally encouraging that nation to expand its arsenal. …

    As always, I’ll focus on places where our nation has power to improve what appears to be an impossible relationship—in other words, I’ll focus on mistakes our nation has made and therefore can correct. But my focus on our mistakes is not to excuse the many despicable acts committed by the rulers of North Korea. Rather, that focus recognizes that we do not have direct control over their actions, and scolding them tends to make them dig in their heels. I see it as a hopeful sign that we have options for improving relations even with a regime as abhorrent as North Korea’s. The sad part is that, thus far, we have squandered those options by allowing repugnance to override our national interests. …

    My Stanford colleague and former Director of Los Alamos National Laboratory, Dr. Siegfried Hecker, has visited North Korea seven times on unofficial missions sanctioned by our government. In a 2010 paper, he gave his perspective on how the deal fell apart (emphasis added):

    The Agreed Framework was opposed immediately by many in Congress who believed that it rewarded bad behavior. Congress failed to appropriate funds for key provisions of the pact, causing the United States to fall behind in its commitments almost from the beginning. … [In 2002,] the Bush administration killed the Agreed Framework for domestic political reasons and because it suspected Pyongyang of cheating by covertly pursuing uranium enrichment. Doing so traded a potential threat that would have taken years to turn into bombs for one that took months, dramatically changing the diplomatic landscape in Pyongyang’s favor. … We found that Pyongyang was willing to slow its drive for nuclear weapons only when it believed the fundamental relationship with the United States was improving, but not when the regime was threatened.

    Hecker’s last sentence provides the key to defusing the Korean crisis. If we continue to engage in regime change around the world and encourage it in North Korea via crippling sanctions, that nation’s leaders will maintain or increase their nuclear arsenal in order to deter such efforts. It’s a matter of self-preservation for them. Regime change probably would result in their being killed.

    Holistic thinking would require us to take in the perspective of North Korea’s leaders. We don’t have to like them, but we do have to understand them. If we were to consider their perspective, we would recognize that, as distasteful as the North Korean government is, encouraging regime change is not in our best interests, because it will lead to the North maintaining, and probably increasing, its nuclear arsenal. If we were to think things through more rationally, new possibilities would open up.

    … in January 2015, North Korea offered to suspend nuclear testing in return for cancellation of the joint US-South Korean military exercises. Those war games started a month later, and North Korea conducted a nuclear test in January 2016. We don’t know if suspending our war games would have prevented that test. Only if we had taken North Korea up on its offer would we have useful information on whether or not the country’s leaders had been serious.

  • NAPF Strongly Condemns North Korean Nuclear Test; Urges Broader Perspective

    NUCLEAR AGE PEACE FOUNDATION

    For Immediate Release
    Contact:
    Rick Wayman
    (805) 696-5159 / (805) 965-3443
    rwayman@napf.org

    NAPF Strongly Condemns North Korean Nuclear Test; Urges Broader Perspective

    The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (NAPF) deplores the continued testing of nuclear weapons and the provocative statements by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK). Today’s nuclear test – the fifth by North Korea – makes apparent the growing nuclear dangers in the Northeast Asian region, and generally throughout the world.

    The world’s other eight nuclear-armed nations have tested a great deal. Over 2,000 nuclear tests have been conducted worldwide, and the United States alone has conducted over 1,000 nuclear tests.

    The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), which has been open for signature for over 20 years, has still not entered into force. Forty-four key nations, known as “Annex 2 States,” must sign and ratify the CTBT before it can enter into effect. Of these, North Korea, India and Pakistan have neither signed nor ratified the treaty. China, Egypt, Iran, Israel and the United States have signed the treaty, but have not ratified it.

    While all nations other than North Korea have been observing a moratorium on explosive nuclear tests, many nuclear-armed nations, including the United States, have continued conducting sub-critical tests and computer simulations. NAPF believes that all nuclear testing must stop. This includes North Korea’s provocative yield-producing explosions, as well as the sub-critical tests and computer simulations that other nuclear-armed nations engage in.

    Tests of nuclear weapon delivery vehicles, such as last Monday’s launch of a Minuteman III Intercontinental Ballistic Missile by the U.S. Air Force, are also dangerous and destabilizing. The modernization of nuclear arsenals and production infrastructure by all nine nuclear-armed nations is driving a perilous nuclear arms race.

    The Korean War has never officially come to an end. North Korea has asked numerous times to bring the war footing to an end, and has been rejected each time. The U.S. still keeps around 28,000 troops in South Korea and conducts annual war games targeting North Korea. All parties must negotiate an end to the hostilities, instead of relying on a 63 year-old Armistice Agreement.

    Finally, NAPF urges all nine nuclear-armed nations to fulfill their obligations under existing international law. Nuclear-armed countries have an obligation to convene negotiations in good faith for an end to the nuclear arms race and for nuclear disarmament, as required by Article VI of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and customary international law. As North Korea’s continued nuclear testing shows, the only way to ensure that nuclear weapons are never used is to negotiate their complete abolition.

    #                              #                                  #

    For further information, contact Rick Wayman at rwayman@napf.org or (805) 696-5159.

    The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation – NAPF’s mission is to educate and advocate for peace and a world free of nuclear weapons and to empower peace leaders.  Founded in 1982, the Foundation is comprised of individuals and organizations worldwide who realize the imperative for peace in the Nuclear Age. The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation is a non-partisan, non-profit organization with consultative status to the United Nations.

  • The Simple Act of Pushing a Button

    “Since the appearance of visible life on Earth, 380 million years had to elapse in order for a butterfly to learn how to fly, 180 million years to create a rose with no other commitment than to be beautiful, and four geological eras in order for us human beings to be able to sing better than birds, and to be able to die from love. It is not honorable for the human talent, in the golden age of science, to have conceived the way for such an ancient and colossal process to return to the nothingness from which it came through the simple act of pushing a button.”

    I recently came across this quotation by the great Colombian novelist Gabriel Garcia Marquez, the author of One Hundred Years of Solitude and recipient of the 1982 Nobel Prize for Literature.  The quotation is from a 1986 speech by Garcia Marquez entitled “The Cataclysm of Damocles.”  In the short quotation, he captures what needs to be said about nuclear weapons succinctly, poetically and beautifully.  With a few deft literary brushstrokes, he shows that the journey of life from nothingness to now could be ended with no more than “the simple act of pushing a button.”

    The button is a metaphor for setting in motion a nuclear war, which could happen by miscalculation, mistake or malice.  Of course, it matters whose finger is on the button, but it matters even more that anyone’s finger is on the button.  There are not good fingers and bad fingers resting on the button.  No one is stable enough, rational enough, sane enough, or wise enough to trust with deciding to push the nuclear button.  It is madness to leave the door open to the possibility of “a return to nothingness.”

    On one side of the ledger is everything natural and extraordinary about life with its long evolution bringing us to the present and poised to carry its processes forward into the future.  On the other side of the ledger is “the button,” capable of bringing most life on the planet to a screeching halt.  Also on this side of the ledger are those people who remain ignorant or apathetic to the nuclear dangers confronting humanity.

    We all need to recognize what is at stake and choose a side.  Put simply, do you stand with life and the processes of nature that have brought such beauty and diversity to our world, or do you stand with the destructive products of science that have brought us to the precipice of annihilation?  We must each make a choice.

    I fear too many of us are not awakened to the seriousness and risks of the unfolding situation.  We are taken in by the techno-talk that amplifies the messages of national security linked to the button.  Nuclear deterrence is no more than a hypothesis about human psychology and behavior.  It does not protect people from a nuclear attack.  It is unproven and unprovable.  Nuclear deterrence may or may not work, but we know that it cannot provide physical protection against a nuclear attack.  Those who believe in it, do so at their own peril and at our common peril.

    The possibility of “a return to nothingness” is too great a risk to take.  We must put down the nuclear-armed gun.  We must dismantle the button and the potential annihilation it represents.  We must listen to our hearts and end the nuclear insanity by ending the nuclear weapons era.  If we fail to act with engaged hearts, we will continue to stand at the precipice of annihilation – the precipice of a world without butterflies or beautiful roses, without birds or humans.  The golden age of science will come to an end as a triumph of cataclysmic devastation, which will be humanity’s most enduring failure.

    Reading, discussing and understanding the meaning of Gabriel Garcia Marquez’s short quotation should be required of every schoolchild, every citizen, and every leader of every country.

    Vaya aquí para la versión española.

    David Krieger is President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org).  He is the author and editor of many books on peace and nuclear weapons abolition, including Speaking of Peace: Quotations to Inspire Action.

     

  • El simple hecho de oprimir un botón

    Por David Krieger
    Traducción de Ruben Arvizu

    “Desde la aparición de la vida visible en la Tierra debieron transcurrir 380 millones de años para que una mariposa aprendiera a volar, otros 180 millones de años para fabricar una rosa sin otro compromiso que el de ser hermosa, y cuatro eras geológicas para que los seres humanos a diferencia del bisabuelo pitecántropo, fueran capaces de cantar mejor que los pájaros y de morirse de amor. No es nada honroso para el talento humano, en la edad de oro de la ciencia, haber concebido el modo de que un proceso milenario tan dispendioso y colosal, pueda regresar a la nada de donde vino por el arte simple de oprimir un botón.”

    Recientemente me re-encontré con esta cita del gran novelista colombiano Gabriel García Márquez, el autor de Cien años de soledad y galardonado con el Premio Nobel de Literatura 1982.  La cita es de un discurso de García Márquez que en 1986 pronunció en Ixtapa, México en el 41 Aniversario del ataque atómico a Hiroshima, titulado “El cataclismo de Damocles”. Esta cita corta, capta lo que hay que decir acerca de las armas nucleares de manera sucinta, poética y muy bella. Con unas cuantas magistrales pinceladas literarias, muestra que el viaje de la vida de la nada al ahora podría terminar con  “el simple hecho de oprimir un botón.”

    El botón es una metáfora de poner en marcha una guerra nuclear, que podría ocurrir por un mal cálculo, error o malicia. Por supuesto, es importante el dedo que está en el botón, pero es aún más importante que el dedo de alguien esté en el botón. No hay buenos o malos dedos sobre el botón. Nadie es lo suficientemente estable, racional, sensato, o prudente para confiar en su decisión de oprimir el botón nuclear. Es una locura dejar la puerta abierta a la posibilidad de “un regresar a la nada.”

    Por un lado de la balanza, es natural y extraordinario que la vida siga su larga evolución hasta el presente y continúe para realizar sus procesos hacia el futuro. Por otro lado de la balanza es “el botón,”  el capaz de que la vida en el planeta llegue a un punto final. También en este lado de la balanza se encuentran aquellas personas que permanecen ignorantes o apáticas a los peligros nucleares que enfrenta la humanidad.

    Todos tenemos que reconocer lo que está en juego y elegir un lado. En pocas palabras, ¿usted está del lado de la vida y los procesos de la naturaleza que han traído la belleza y diversidad de nuestro mundo, o de los productos destructivos de la ciencia que nos han llevado al precipicio de la aniquilación? Cada uno debe hacer su elección.

    Me temo que muchos de nosotros no se den cuenta de la gravedad y los riesgos de la situación a la que nos enfrentamos. Nos dejamos llevar por la tecno-charla que amplifica los mensajes de seguridad nacional vinculado al botón. La disuasión nuclear no es más que una hipótesis acerca de la psicología y el comportamiento humano. No protege a las personas de un ataque nuclear. No es probada ni demostrable. La disuasión nuclear puede o no puede funcionar, pero sabemos que no puede proporcionar una protección física contra un ataque nuclear. Los que creen en ella, lo hacen bajo su propio riesgo y además del nuestro.

    La posibilidad de “un regresar a la nada” es un riesgo demasiado grande que tomar. Hay que librarnos de las armas nucleares. Hay que desmantelar el botón y la aniquilación potencial que representa. Debemos escuchar a nuestros corazones y poner fin a la locura nuclear, a la era de las armas de destrucción total. Si no somos capaces de actuar con corazones comprometidos, seguiremos caminando hacia el precipicio de la aniquilación – el precipicio de un mundo sin mariposas o hermosas rosas, sin aves o seres humanos. La edad de oro de la ciencia llegará a su fin como un triunfo de la devastación catastrófica, y será el fracaso más grande de la humanidad.

    La lectura, discusión y comprensión del significado de la cita de Gabriel García Márquez debería promoverse entre las escuelas, entre los ciudadanos, y los líderes de todos los países.

    Click here for the English version.

    David Krieger es Presidente de la Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org) Autor y editor de numerosos libros sobre la abolición de las armas nucleares, incluyendo Hablando de paz: Citas para inspirar acción.

    Rubén D. Arvizu es Director para América Latina de la Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, Director General para América Latina de Ocean Futures Society de Jean-Michel Cousteau y Embajador del Pacto Climático Global de Ciudades.

  • Press Release: Vandenberg to Launch Minuteman III Missile Test

    For Immediate Release

    Contact:

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

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

    minuteman_launchSanta Barbara, CA – A Minuteman III ICBM missile test is scheduled for launch early on Sunday morning, September 4, from Vandenberg AFB. The launch window extends from 00:01 to 06:01 PDT.

    This comes just six days after August 29th, a date designated by the United Nations as the International Day against Nuclear Tests. While this Minuteman III missile will not be carrying an armed nuclear warhead, the sole purpose of the United States’ 450 land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles is to deliver powerful nuclear warheads to any target on Earth in under an hour.

    Bunny McDiarmid, Executive Director of Greenpeace International, said, “Nuclear weapons were designed and tested to be the ultimate doomsday weapon, setting a legacy of fear and destruction. No other human invention had as much impact on the story of humanity in recent decades.” To read more, click here.

    David Krieger, President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, stated, “Regularly testing its nuclear warhead delivery vehicles – in this case, the Minuteman III ICBM – stands in stark contrast to its obligation under Article VI of the Non-Proliferation Treaty to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms rate at an early date. This planned test on September 4th continues the provocative behavior by the U.S.”

    Krieger went on to say, “Test-firing these missiles while expressing criticism when other countries conduct missile tests is a clear example of U.S. double standards. Such double standards encourage nuclear proliferation and nuclear arms races and make the world a more dangerous place.”

    The U.S. Air Force’s proposal for the development of a new generation of Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs) has in fact stalled over questions surrounding the program’s cost estimates. The Air Force estimates that research, development and production of 400 new missiles would cost $62.3 billion. However, because ICBMs have not been produced by the U.S. for many years, some believe the cost would end up being much higher.

    Former defense secretary William Perry has said unequivocally that his experiences have made him believe the U.S. should remove ICBMs from its nuclear triad, which also includes strategic bombers and submarine-launched ballistic missiles.

    With each missile test, the U.S. sends a clear and expensive message that it continues to be reliant on nuclear weapons. Each test costs tens of millions of dollars and contributes to the U.S. plans to spend $1 trillion modernizing its nuclear arsenal over the next thirty years.

    #                             #                             #

    If you would like to interview David Krieger, please call the Foundation at (805) 965-3443.

    The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s mission is to educate and advocate for peace and a world free of nuclear weapons and to empower peace leaders.  Founded in 1982, the Foundation is comprised of individuals and organizations worldwide who realize the imperative for peace in the Nuclear Age. The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation is a non-partisan, non-profit organization with consultative status to the United Nations.  For more information, visit www.wagingpeace.org.

  • September: This Month in Nuclear Threat History

    September 2, 1981 – On this date, Dr. Alice Stewart (1906-2002), a distinguished epidemiologist who possessed recognized expertise on radioactivity in the environment which resulted in her winning the Right Livelihood Award in 1986, was interviewed in Birmingham, England by Robert Del Tredici (or one of his representatives or assistants), author of the 1987 book “At Work in the Fields of the Bomb.”  In the interview, Dr. Stewart expressed very serious concerns about not only the long-term health and environmental impacts of nuclear bomb tests (over 2,000 of which were conducted between 1945 and the mid-1990s) but also of the continued use of civilian nuclear power plants, “…the (nuclear) bomb tests have had a measurable effect because you can measure it in your own bones.  And if we allow every nation in this world to become dependent on nuclear energy for its electricity – you’re literally going to set the clock back.  It could come to a point where biosphere development, which has taken millennia to produce human beings, will be put slowly into reverse, and humans won’t be the first to go…(the) amoebae and the things that feed on them, then the next, and the next, and the next…and then us.”  Her warnings about the frightful impact of contamination from nuclear weapons production, storage, deployment, and accidents as well as from utilizing nuclear energy in today’s 400 global nuclear power plants is as relevant in 2016 and beyond as it was at the time of this interview 35 years ago, “Radioactive waste is bound to increase not only the population load of cancers, but more importantly the population load of congenital defects of future generations of the human race…studies of low-dose effects…(including) a study of nuclear workers in America…show(ed) the effects of age on the risk, the effects of latency on the risk, and the effects of dose level on the risk.  The key finding here is that the lower the dose, which in practice means the slower the delivery of radiation to the public, the more cancer risk there is per unit dose.  In other words, it doesn’t make it safer to deliver the radiation slowly; it in fact makes it more dangerous…By relying on the technology of (nuclear) fission, we’re going against the very processes that make life possible.”

    September 11, 1974 – At a Congressional hearing, former CIA director and then Secretary of Defense James R. Schlesinger testified on the safeguards and protections afforded to Americans in the event of a counterforce attack (aimed only at U.S. military facilities not civilian population centers) to minimize the impact of a nuclear strike on the United States.  Much of the information presented was at least partially classified with specific details denied to the American public.  But the reply by Secretary Schlesinger or one of his assistants to a question inquiring about the effect on our nation’s medical infrastructure of such a nuclear attack as “slight,” triggered a news media backlash.  Comments:  Numerous studies by global medical experts and those with first-hand knowledge of the impact of exposure to a nuclear explosion (studied extensively at Hiroshima and Nagasaki and elsewhere by the 1950 Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission, other U.S. bodies, and subsequent independent, nongovernmental scientific and medical entities) have concluded that even one very limited nuclear attack on the wealthiest country on the planet, the U.S., would have devastatingly horrendous impacts on our medical response.  Burns, radiation and related casualties numbering at least in the hundreds of thousands would dramatically overtax the capabilities of our nation’s extensive medical infrastructure. This represents yet another critical reason why global nuclear weapons arsenals should be substantially reduced and eliminated as soon as possible.  (Sources:  Louis Rene Beres.  “Apocalypse: Nuclear Catastrophe in World Politics.”  Chicago:  University of Chicago Press, 1980, p. 162; Ira Helfand, MD; Lachlan Forrow, MD; Michael McCally, MD, PhD: and Robert K. Musil, MPH, PhD, Physicians for Social Responsibility, “Projected U.S. Casualties and Destruction of U.S. Medical Services From Attacks by Russian Nuclear Forces.”  Medicine and Global Survival. Vol. 7, No. 2, February 2002, http://psr.org/resources/projected-us-casualties-and-destruction.html, and Solomon F. Marston, editor, “The Medical Implications of Nuclear War.”  Washington, DC:  National Academies (U.S.) Press, 1986, http://www.ncbi.nih.gov/books/NBK219165/ both accessed August 16, 2016.)

    September 17, 1966 – After years of Cold War-fueled bluff and bluster (that began in the late 1950s and continued in 1964 with statements by then Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev boasting of a “fantastic new weapon” and “a monstrous new terrible weapons,” respectively), it was determined later that on this date, the Soviet Union had, in fact, begun a series of nearly a dozen tests on the Fractional Orbital Bombardment System (FOBS) which continued through late 1967.  The FOBS was a nuclear-armed, de-orbital satellite that would be undetectable by early warning radars built in Canada and facing northward.  Because of their low orbits, there would be less time to detect the orbiting H-Bombs as they came in from a southern trajectory as compared to nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles that had to travel thousands of miles over the Arctic Circle to reach U.S. targets.  This threat convinced nuclear strategists and scientists to consider countering Soviet FOBS with similar U.S. orbital H-Bombs.  Thankfully, it was determined that orbiting systems didn’t have the payload capacity or accuracy of weapons launched in a ballistic trajectory.  And the 1967 Outer Space Treaty prohibited Cold War nuclear arms racing in outer space or on celestial bodies such as the Moon.  Comments:  Unfortunately with renewed Cold War II tensions apparent today, FOBS may be just one area of nuclear weapons development that may be considered in the future, despite their illegality in international law.  More likely is the threat of FOBS development by a rogue nation such as North Korea.  Another related threat has recently been uncovered by the news media.  Both the U.S. and Russia are planning to develop hypersonic nuclear weapons platforms that could strike earthbound targets from above the atmosphere.  A few weeks ago, Colonel General Sergei Karakayev, Russian Commander of the Strategic Missile Forces (SMF), confirmed statements made earlier by Lt. Col. Aleksei Solodovinikov to the Russian news media that the SMF Academy is developing a hypersonic strategic bomber capable of striking with nuclear weapons from outer space.  This state of affairs represents yet another reason why these doomsday weapons should be sharply reduced immediately and eliminated completely as soon as possible.  (Sources:  John Pike, Eric Stambler, Christopher Bolckom, Lora Lumpe, David C. Wright, and Lisabeth Gronlund.  “Chicken Little and Darth Vader:  Is the Sky Really Falling?”  Federation of American Scientists, Oct. 1, 1991, pp. 6-7 and “New Russian Bomber to be Able to Launch Nuclear Attacks From Outer Space.”  Sputnik News.  July 13, 2016, http://sputniknews.com/military/20160713/1042888473/russia-space-bomber-engine.html accessed August 16, 2016.)

    September 19, 2004 – On this date, the Washington Post published an op-ed by Dr. Bruce Blair, a former Minuteman nuclear missile launch control officer, Brookings Institution nuclear policy analyst, and president of the Center for Defense Information/World Security Institute in Washington, DC.   Titled, “The Wrong Deterrence:  The Threat of Loose Nukes is One of Our Own Making,” the piece noted that, “Even the U.S. nuclear control apparatus is far from fool-proof.  For example, a Pentagon investigation of nuclear safeguards conducted several years ago made a startling discovery – terrorist hackers might be able to gain back-door electronic access to the U.S. naval communications network, seize control of radio towers such as the one in Cutler, Maine, and illicitly transmit a launch order to U.S. Trident ballistic missile submarines armed with 200 nuclear weapons apiece.  This exposure was deemed so serious that Trident launch crews had to be given new instructions for confirming the validity of any launch order they receive.  They would now reject certain types of firing orders that previously would have been carried out immediately.  Both countries (the U.S. and Russia) are running terrorist risks of this sort for the sake of an obsolete deterrent strategy.  The notion that either the U.S. or Russia would deliberately attack the other with nuclear weapons is ludicrous, while the danger that terrorists are plotting to get their hands on these arsenals is real.  We need to kick our old habits and stand down our hair-trigger forces.”  Comments:  Dr. Blair’s point is still valid today twelve years after he wrote this op-ed although U.S.-Russian relations have worsened due to the Crimea-Ukraine Crisis, NATO expansion, and the deployment of military forces, including nuclear weapons, by both sides along their common borders in Europe.  In fact, it is even more valid in an era when cyberattacks have increased exponentially by all the major nuclear powers and by non-state actors, and terrorist groups.   Andrew Fuller’s recent Arms Control Today article points out that, “Top military and defense officials in the U.S. are currently contemplating plans to use cyberattack capabilities against enemy missile and command-and-control systems as part of a new push for full-spectrum missile defense.”  There is clearly a growing danger that leaked documents including procedures or methodologies regarding cyberattack successes may serve as a road map for terrorists to facilitate their hacking into nuclear launch systems.   Another concern is that messing around with other nuclear powers’ command-and-control systems might inadvertently trigger an accidental, unintentional, or inadvertent nuclear missile attack, especially if that power perceives that their early warning system is being interfered with or shutdown by a nation that may be about to launch a first strike.  All these issues speak to the importance of not only working toward global zero nuclear forces but to immediately instituting global de-alerting of all nuclear arsenals.  (Source:  Andrew Fuller.  “The Danger of Using Cyberattacks to Counter Nuclear Threats.”  Arms Control Today.  July/August 2016, http://www.armscontrol.org/ACT/2016_07/Features/The-Dangers-of-Using-Cyberattacks-to-Counter-Nuclear-Threats accessed August 16, 2016.)

    September 25, 1959 – A U.S. Navy P-5M antisubmarine aircraft carrying an unarmed nuclear depth charge developed mechanical problems but was unable to reach land to make an emergency landing and crashed into the Puget Sound near Whidbey Island, Washington.  The nuclear weapon was never recovered despite an extensive search.  Comments:  While it is very unlikely that a long-lost and probably corroded nuclear warhead would detonate, there remains deadly serious concerns about the very long-term radioactive contamination from this incident and hundreds of other similar Broken Arrows.  These nuclear threats can impact human and other species virtually forever unless such devices are found and disposed of properly.  After all, the radioactive isotopes found in nuclear weapons or in the reactor cores of naval surface ships, submarines, and in the payload bays of aircraft lost at sea since 1945 possess an extremely long half-life of decay – 713 million years for uranium-235 and 4.5 billion years for uranium-238!  (Source:  Richard Halloran.  “U.S. Discloses Accidents Involving Nuclear Weapons.”  New York Times.  May 26, 1981.)

    September 29-30, 2015 – After Jeremy Corbyn won a landslide leadership vote to head the British Labour Party, he stated publicly his opposition to spending over 100 billion pounds to replace Britain’s current Trident force with a new generation of nuclear submarines.  Not only that, he won the renewed support of countless numbers of global antinuclear politicians, activists, and citizenry by going further, “187 countries don’t feel the need to have a nuclear weapon to protect their security, why should those five (U.S., Russia, Great Britain, France, and China) need it themselves?”  He also noted that, “nuclear weapons didn’t do the U.S.A. much good on 9/11,” and even more impressively he shocked some of his own party members by saying on BBC Radio on September 30th that if he was elected prime minister, he would never press the nuclear button.  Corbyn concluded that interview by saying, “I am opposed to the use of nuclear weapons.  I want to see a nuclear-free world.  I believe it is possible…I think we should be promoting an international nuclear weapons convention which would lead to a nuclear-free world.”  Comments:  Unfortunately the ultra-powerful, entrenched British Military-Industrial-Parliamentary Complex viciously responded to Corbyn’s optimistic views on ending the nuclear arms race with personal attacks and appeals to the so-called logic and reasonableness of seventy flawed years of nuclear deterrence theory.  Even a Labour Party MP John Woodcock fueled the firestorm of attacks by hypocritically claiming that, “Mr. Corbyn’s position would make the grotesque horror of a nuclear holocaust more likely.” As the weeks and months passed since Corbyn’s brave pronouncements, more and more British MPs and other spokesmen and women of the status quo fell into line and last month on July 18, 2016 members of the House of Commons including the entire ruling Conservative Party and a majority of opposition Labour Party members cast their vote (472-117) to spend at least the equivalent of up to 250 billion U.S. dollars by 2036 to build new strategic nuclear submarines.  New Conservative Party Prime Minister Theresa May was wholeheartedly behind heightening Britain’s participation in a renewed global nuclear arms race by adding she would be willing and able to order a nuclear attack anytime it was necessary.  The only ray of light was the bloc voting support of the Scottish National Party MPs who voted with the minority against upgrading the British nuclear arsenal.  (Sources:  “Jeremy Corbyn Row After ‘I’d Not Fire Nuclear Weapons’ Comment.” BBC.  Sept. 30, 2015, http://www.bbc.com/new/uk-politics-34399565 and Dan De Luce.  “British Parliament Votes to Spend Big on Nukes.” Foreign Policy. July 18, 2016, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/2016/07/18/british-parliament-votes-to-spend-big-on-nukes/ both accessed on August 16, 2016.)

  • Sunflower Newsletter: September 2016

    Issue #230 – September 2016
    Donate Now!

    Please join our Peace Literacy Movement and help us offer a free curriculum that people can use to spread peace literacy in their schools and communities.
    • Perspectives
      • The Power of Imagination by David Krieger
      • Nuclear Testing Is Not a Path to Security and Peace by Bunny McDiarmid
      • 2016 Nagasaki Peace Declaration by Tomihisa Taue
      • From Hope to Action by Setsuko Thurlow
    • Nuclear Disarmament
      • Open Ended Working Group Calls for Negotiations on Treaty Banning Nuclear Weapons
      • People’s Tribunal Rules on Illegality of Nuclear Weapons
    • U.S. Nuclear Weapons Policy
      • U.S. Nuclear Accident Among the Costliest in History
      • U.S. Sued Over Aid to Nuclear-Armed Israel
    • Nuclear Proliferation
      • North Korea Test-Fires Missile from Submarine
    • Nuclear Energy
      • Fukushima Ice Wall Coming Online
    • Nuclear Insanity
      • Solar Flare Almost Led to 1967 Nuclear War
    • Nuclear Modernization
      • New U.S. Ballistic Missile Stalled Over High Cost
    • Resources
      • September’s Featured Blog
      • This Month in Nuclear Threat History
      • The Human Cost of Nuclear Weapons
      • New YouGov Poll Examines U.S. Opinions on Nuclear Weapons
    • Foundation Activities
      • At Chautauqua: Hope and Peace Literacy
      • Noam Chomsky to Receive NAPF Distinguished Peace Leadership Award
      • Remembering Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and All Innocent Victims of War
      • Report of the UN Secretary-General on Disarmament and Non-Proliferation Education
    • Quotes

     

    Perspectives

    The Power of Imagination

    by David Krieger

    Albert Einstein, the great 20th century scientist and humanitarian, wrote, “Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.”  Let us exercise our imaginations.

    Change is coming, if we will use our imaginations, raise our voices, stand firm and persist in demanding it.

    To read more, click here.

    Nuclear Testing Is Not a Path to Security and Peace

    by Bunny McDiarmid

    August 29 marked the International Day against Nuclear Tests. Since 1945, more than 2,000 nuclear tests have been carried out at more than 60 locations around the globe. Nuclear weapons were designed and tested to be the ultimate doomsday weapon, setting a legacy of fear and destruction. No other human invention had as much impact on the story of humanity in recent decades.

    I am inspired by the stories of those whose lives have been irreversibly impacted and have turned their tragedy into a struggle, for the sake of the greater good. The Republic of the Marshall Islands, where Rongelap is, has now taken legal action against the nine nuclear states for their failure to disarm. In Japan, the Hibakusha, surviving victims of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, lead a campaign against nuclear weapons. We must not let them stand alone.

    To read more, click here.

    2016 Nagasaki Peace Declaration

    by Tomihisa Taue

    I appeal to the leaders of states which possess nuclear weapons and other countries, and to the people of the world: please come and visit Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Find out for yourselves what happened to human beings beneath the mushroom cloud. Knowing the facts becomes the starting point for thinking about a future free of nuclear weapons.

    Now is the time for all of you to bring together as much of your collective wisdom as you possibly can, and act so that we do not destroy the future of mankind.

    To read more, click here.

    From Hope to Action

    by Setsuko Thurlow

    In the many years of my work for nuclear disarmament I have never felt as hopeful and as encouraged as I do now. I have witnessed how the Humanitarian Initiative movement has mobilized people around the world to overcome the resistance by the nuclear weapon states and to move towards prohibition and elimination of nuclear weapons. We are on the verge of a breakthrough for a path for this most significant chance in our lifetime for nuclear disarmament. We must seize this opportunity.

    To read more, click here.

    Nuclear Disarmament

    Open Ended Working Group Calls for Negotiations on Treaty Banning Nuclear Weapons

    A clear majority of countries participating in the Open Ended Working Group (OEWG) in Geneva adopted a report recommending negotiations in 2017 on a legally-binding instrument to ban nuclear weapons. In its closing statement to the OEWG, Mexico called this development the “most significant contribution to nuclear disarmament in two decades.”

    All African, Latin American, Caribbean, Southeast Asian, and Pacific states, along with some European countries, have united behind this proposal for the UN General Assembly to convene a negotiating conference in 2017. Numerous countries – most notably Australia – attempted to play a spoiler role at the OEWG, attempting in vain to prevent the ban treaty recommendation from being adopted. All nine nuclear-armed nations boycotted the OEWG.

    Ray Acheson, “OEWG Recommends the General Assembly Ban Nuclear Weapons in 2017,” Reaching Critical Will, August 19, 2016.

    People’s Tribunal Rules on Illegality of Nuclear Weapons

    The International People’s Tribunal on Nuclear Weapons and the Destruction of Human Civilization took place in Sydney, Australia in July 2016. The Tribunal determined that any use or threat of use of nuclear weapons is illegal and found the leaders of the nine nuclear-armed states guilty of crimes against humanity. The guilty verdict also included Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull for complicity. Australia holds an extended nuclear deterrence relationship with the U.S., and the Tribunal found that Turnbull has contributed to the planning for use of nuclear weapons.

    The judges, Hon. Matt Robson of New Zealand and Dr. Keith Suter of Australia, condemned any use of nuclear weapons as a violation of international humanitarian law since the weapons’ impact cannot be contained in either time or space. Furthermore, citing previous trials such as Nuremberg and Tokyo, this tribunal affirmed that leaders of the nuclear-armed states and allied states have personal responsibility for the illegal practices of the government.

    “People’s Tribunal on Nuclear Weapons Convicts Leaders – Tribute to Tribunal Visionary,” UNFOLD ZERO, August 17, 2016.

    U.S. Nuclear Weapons Policy

    Nuclear Accident Among the Costliest in History

    The United States is currently dealing with challenges associated with a nuclear waste accident at New Mexico’s Waste Isolation Pilot Plant. The accident occurred more than two years ago when a radioactive waste drum exploded, contaminating 35 percent of the underground site. Although early federal statements gave no mention that the site’s operational capacity would be diminished in the long term, current government projections are less optimistic. As of now officials are pushing to reopen the site by the end of 2016 with limited capacity, and to resume full operations by 2021. This significant delay has caused nuclear waste to be backed up in several states, creating a myriad of challenges and costs.

    Some sources estimate that the costs associated with the cleanup could reach $2 billion, which would make it one of the most expensive nuclear accidents in history.

    Ralph Vartabedian, “Nuclear Accident in New Mexico Ranks Among the Costliest in U.S. History,” Los Angeles Times, August 22, 2016.

    U.S. Sued Over Aid to Nuclear-Armed Israel

    A lawsuit filed in U.S. district court claims that U.S. aid to Israel is illegal under U.S. law, which prohibits aid to nuclear-armed nations that have not signed the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Since Congress passed the International Security Assistance and Arms Export Control Act in 1976, the U.S. has given Israel about $234 billion in aid. Israel is one of four countries that has not signed the NPT. While Israel has an official policy of neither confirming nor denying its possession of nuclear weapons, it is well known that it has had nuclear weapons for decades.

    “Lawsuit Claims U.S. Aid to Israel Violates Nuclear Pact,” Jewish Telegraphic Agency, August 12, 2016.

    Nuclear Proliferation

    North Korea Test Fires Missile from Submarine

    North Korea test fired a submarine-based ballistic missile from Sinpo, South Hamgyong Province on August 24. The missile landed in the Sea of Japan, about 300 miles off the North Korean coast.

    The launch came as the U.S. and South Korea began their annual joint military exercise, which includes 25,000 U.S. troops stationed mostly in Korea. In response to this two-week drill, a North Korean military representative was quoted as threatening to retaliate with nuclear arms if the exercise “shows the slightest sign of aggression.”

    Azadeh Ansari and K.J. Kwon, “North Korea Test Fires Ballistic Missile from Submarine,” CNN, August 24, 2016.

    Nuclear Energy

    Fukushima Ice Wall Coming Online

    Officials working to try to contain the ongoing environmental catastrophe at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station in Japan will soon begin operating a $320 million “ice wall” intended to stop the relentless flow of groundwater into the damaged reactor buildings. Nearly 40,000 gallons of water flood into the highly radioactive buildings daily, as the power plant was built in the path of groundwater flowing to the Pacific Ocean.

    While some highly radioactive water has inevitably flowed into the Pacific, Tepco has built over 1,000 tanks that now hold over 800,000 tons of radioactive water. Critics argue that the ice wall is unlikely to work, and even proponents admit that it is only intended to work for a maximum of five years.

    Martin Fackler, “Japan’s $320 Million Gamble at Fukushima: An Underground Ice Wall,” The New York Times, August 29, 2016.

    Nuclear Insanity

    Solar Flare Almost Led to 1967 Nuclear War

    A new military history paper highlights just how close the U.S. came to instigating a nuclear catastrophe. On May 23, 1967, a series of abnormally powerful solar flares caused U.S. military radar systems to malfunction. As these particular systems were created to detect Soviet missiles, U.S. officials interpreted the technological fluke as an intentional act of war. Consequently, members of the U.S. Air Force hurriedly prepared for the deployment of a nuclear missile-laden aircraft. Military officials eventually attributed the cause of the radar malfunction to solar flares with just moments to spare, and the deployment was called off.

    Maddie Stone, “A Solar Flare Almost Sparked a Nuclear War in 1967,” Gizmodo, August 9, 2016.

    Nuclear Modernization

    New U.S. Ballistic Missile Stalled Over High Cost

    The U.S. Air Force’s proposal for the development of a new generation of Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs) has stalled over questions surrounding the program’s cost estimates. The Air Force has estimated that research, development and production of 400 new missiles would cost $62.3 billion. However, because ICBMs have not been produced by the U.S. for many years, some believe the cost would end up being much higher.

    The Pentagon has mandated a separate cost assessment with the hopes that it can avoid a situation in which the project is started with insufficient funds, which then would require an additional appropriation later.

    Anthony Capaccio, “Air Force Ballistic Missile Upgrade Said to Be Stalled Over Cost,” Bloomberg, August 16, 2016.

     Resources

    September’s Featured Blog

    This month’s featured blog is Nuclear Reaction by Greenpeace International. In addition to Greenpeace International Executive Director Bunny McDiarmid’s recent piece on nuclear testing (see Perspectives, above), titles include “Survivors of Nuclear Warfare in Japan Are Calling for an End to Nuclear Weapons” and “Chernobyl’s Children of Hope.”

    To read the blog, click here.

    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 September, including a September 25, 1959 incident in which a U.S. Navy P-5M antisubmarine aircraft crashed in Puget Sound. Its nuclear depth charge was lost and has never been recovered.

    To read Mason’s full article, click here.

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

    The Human Cost of Nuclear Weapons

    The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has published a new periodical entitled “The Human Cost of Nuclear Weapons.” Issue No. 899 of the International Review of the Red Cross looks at nuclear weapons from the perspective of survivors, journalists, writers, lawyers, humanitarian practitioners and other experts to examine the human cost.

    To read more and download the full issue, click here.

    New YouGov Poll Examines U.S. Opinions on Nuclear Weapons

    A new poll conducted by HuffPost and YouGov looks at the opinions of 1,000 people in the U.S. regarding nuclear weapons. The survey found that 45% support the U.S. cutting the number of nuclear weapons it has, while 40% oppose such cuts. The poll also shows that 67% believe that the U.S. should adopt a “No First Use” policy for its nuclear arsenal.

    Respondents also stated whether they would trust Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump “to make the right decisions about nuclear weapons.” 38% of respondents said that they would trust Hillary Clinton, and 27% of respondents said that they would trust Donald Trump.

    To see the full poll results, click here.

    Foundation Activities

    At Chautauqua: Hope and Peace Literacy

    “Unexpected and so fundamentally hopeful.”

    This is how Tom Casey of Pax Christi described NAPF Peace Leadership Director Paul K. Chappell’s lecture on August 19, 2016 at the Chautauqua Institution. It was the final lecture of the week-long summer series on “The Ethical Realities of War.” Casey joined about 1,200 other attendees in the open-air Hall of Philosophy, built to resemble the Parthenon.

    To read more about Paul’s visit to Chautauqua, click here.

    Noam Chomsky to Receive NAPF Distinguished Peace Leadership Award

    Noam Chomsky, one of the greatest minds of our time, will be honored with NAPF’s Distinguished Peace Leadership Award at this year’s Evening for Peace on Sunday, October 23, in Santa Barbara, California.

    We’re calling the evening NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH because that’s what Chomsky is about– truth. He believes humanity faces two major challenges: the continued threat of nuclear war and the crisis of ecological catastrophe. To hear him on these issues will be highly memorable. Importantly, he offers a way forward to a more hopeful and just world. We are pleased to honor him with our award.

    The annual Evening for Peace includes a festive reception, live entertainment, dinner and an award presentation. It is attended by many Santa Barbara leaders and includes a large contingent of sponsored students.

    For more information and tickets, click here.

    Remembering Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and All Innocent Victims of War

    On August 9, the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation hosted its 22nd Annual Sadako Peace Day commemoration at the Sadako Peace Garden on the grounds of La Casa de Maria in Montecito, California. Over 100 community members gathered for the event, which featured music, poetry and a keynote address by Bishop Edward Crowther.

    Photos and audio of the event are available here.

    Report of the UN Secretary-General on Disarmament and Non-Proliferation Education

    UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon submitted a biennial report to the UN General Assembly on global disarmament and non-proliferation educational initiatives. A copy of the report is here, which includes a summary of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s activities on page 23.

    To read NAPF’s full report on its disarmament and non-proliferation education activities over the last two years, click here.

    Quotes

     

    “We all have a stake in the security of the 21st century, and we must all work together to eliminate the dangers posed by weapons of mass destruction as we strive to free our world from the fear of the catastrophe of war.”

    — Helen Clark, former Prime Minister of New Zealand and candidate to be the next UN Secretary-General. This quote appears in the book Speaking of Peace: Quotations to Inspire Action, which is available for purchase in the NAPF Peace Store.

     

    “Mr. Dion openly admits that Canada won’t support new [nuclear disarmament] efforts because of ‘obligations’ to NATO. Well, what about our obligations to the United Nations, to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, to safeguard humanity from a nuclear catastrophe?”

    — Douglas Roche, a member of the Order of Canada and the NAPF Advisory Council, in an op-ed in The Hill Times.

     

    “Instead of arguing which country’s politicians can be trusted to have their finger on the nuclear button, the people of the world should be demanding total nuclear abolition. No one should have the means or the power to unleash a destructive force which could end all life.”

    — Former U.S. Congressman Dennis Kucinich.

    “I call on all States to focus on one overriding truth: the only sure way to prevent the human, environmental and existential destruction these weapons can cause, is by eradicating them once and for all.”

    — Ban Ki-moon, Secretary-General of the United Nations, speaking at the UN Security Council on August 23, 2016.

    Editorial Team

     

    Erika Ito
    David Krieger
    Kristian Rolland
    Carol Warner
    Rick Wayman

     

  • At Chautauqua: Hope and Peace Literacy

    Paul K. Chappell speaking at the Chautauqua Institution in August 2016.

    Paul K. Chappell speaking at the Chautauqua Institution in August 2016.

    “Unexpected and so fundamentally hopeful.”

    This is how Tom Casey of Pax Christi described Paul K. Chappell’s talk given on August 19, 2016 at the Chautauqua Institution as the final lecture for the week-long summer series on “The Ethical Realities of War.” Casey joined about 1,200 other attendees in the open-air Hall of Philosophy, built to resemble the Parthenon.

    Activist and writer Susan Dixon, who is working on a book project about the Vietnam War, confirmed the talk’s emotional uplift. “Paul K. Chappell envisions a world without war and lays out a path toward that world based on history, mythology, psychology, and a deep respect for human nature. Those that lead the way will have the strength, discipline, and courage of a warrior to build a world of peace. Paul makes peace seem not only possible in theory but attainable in practice.”

    Educator Barbara Mallin referred to one of Paul’s foundational themes: “Paul gives me hope in our shared humanity because he believes the man is not violent by nature.  If violence is a learned behavior, change is possible…..peace is possible.”

    She also found hope in the new NAPF initiative on Peace Literacy. “Paul cites numerous examples of how humans have made progress in a variety of areas over the past years. It is Paul’s belief that we can also continue to make progress in ending war and waging peace. To do this we must take the time and put forth the effort needed to become peace literate. Just as math, reading, and science literacy are important, so is peace literacy, which educates us on solving the root causes of violence rather than just the symptoms.”

    Tom Casey looked into the future and added, “As I listened to Paul, I realized it is people with his military experience, deep insights into human nature, intensely realistic grasp of the world as it is, and commitment to a better world whom we need writing peace curriculums, and teaching our adults and children on how to achieve a more peaceful world.”

    Paul K. Chappell’s complete Chautauqua talk (54 minutes with 20 minutes for answers and questions) can be viewed at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4VpJcYLcTS8

    For more information on the NAPF initiative on Peace Literacy, visit peaceliteracy.org.

  • The Power of Imagination

    David KriegerAlbert Einstein, the great 20th century scientist and humanitarian, wrote, “Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.”  Let us exercise our imaginations.

    Imagine the horror and devastation of Hiroshima, and multiply it by every city and country on earth.

    Imagine that a nuclear war could end human life on our planet, and that the capacity to initiate a nuclear war rests in the hands of only a few individuals in each nuclear-armed state.

    Imagine that nuclear weapons threaten the future of humanity and all life.

    Imagine that we are not helpless in the face of this threat, and that we can rise to the challenge of ending the nuclear weapons era.

    Imagine that together we can make a difference and that you are needed to create a nuclear weapons-free world.

    Imagine a world without the threat of nuclear devastation, a world that you helped to create.

    There is an Indian proverb which states, “All of the flowers of all the tomorrows are in the seeds of today.”  We must nurture, with all our human capacities, the seeds of peace and human dignity which have been so poorly tended for so long.

    The time has come for renewed energy and leadership to end the nuclear weapons threat to humanity, to restore and maintain peace, to live up to the highest standards of human rights, and to pursue a non-killing world.  Change is coming, if we will use our imaginations, raise our voices, stand firm and persist in demanding it.