Blog

  • May: This Month in Nuclear Threat History

    May 1974 – An attempt at nuclear extortion occurred sometime this month when an individual identified only as “Captain Midnight” forwarded a letter to the FBI claiming he would detonate an improvised nuclear device in the city of Boston unless he was paid $200,000.  In response to the threat, William Chambers, a physicist with the Los Alamos National Laboratory, was tasked to organize a special team composed of scientific personnel from Los Alamos, Livermore, and Sandia national laboratories along with several other experts to determine if the threat was a credible one.  After a preliminary investigation, it was determined that the incident was a hoax. The Boston incident led to the creation of the U.S. Nuclear Emergency Search Team (NEST), which was activated in November 1975 to deal with another nuclear terrorism threat in Spokane, Washington.  Managed by the U.S. Department of Energy’s Nevada Operations Office, NEST personnel worked in a number of areas including threat weapon design, diagnostics, and health physics and they often participated in exercises as well as actual threat deployments.  Today, NEST is just one of many “assets” for emergency response mentioned on the DOE’s NNSA (National Nuclear Security Administration) website.  Comments:  The world has been lucky that there have been relatively few instances of WMD attack such as the Aum Shinrikyo doomsday cult Tokyo subway nerve gas attack, the 9-11 attack, numerous truck and car bombings that have killed hundreds at a time, and other incidents.  Due to catastrophic property damage as well as extensive human health impacts caused by nuclear weapons or the potential harm of other weapons of mass destruction such as “dirty bombs” (conventional explosives jacketed with radiological material) as well as natural disasters such as the 2011 Japanese tsunami and Fukushima nuclear accident, a large and permanently staffed nonpartisan International Crisis Response Force ought to be established.  Funded by proportional donations mandated by the U.N. General Assembly, the multinational military division-sized organization would consist of key experts with military, medical, scientific, humanitarian, first-response, and nuclear-chemical-biological WMD development experience and scaled-up NEST capabilities.  (Sources:  Richard A. Falkenrath, Robert D. Newman, and Bradley A. Thayer.  “America’s Achilles Heel: Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical Terrorism and Covert Attack.”  Cambridge, MA:  The MIT Press, 1998; Jeffrey T. Richelson, ed., The Nuclear Emergency Search Teams, 1974-96.  “The Nuclear Vault:  Resources from the National Security Archives’ Nuclear Documentation Project.”  The National Security Archives, George Washington University, Washington, DC.  http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb267/ and “Responding to Emergencies.”  NNSA, DOE, http://nnsa.energy.gov/aboutus/ourprograms/emergencyoperationscounterterrroism/respondingtoemergencies both accessed April 14, 2016.)

    May 1, 1962 – On this date, a nuclear test code-named Beryl was conducted in French-occupied Algeria at an underground site inside Ekker Mountain in the Sahara Desert located 100 miles north of Tamanrasset and 1,250 miles south of the Algerian capital, one of 17 such tests conducted by France at this and another site in the Reggane region of the Algerian desert over a period of several years.  However, due to improper sealing of the underground shaft, a spectacular mushroom cloud burst through the concrete cap venting highly radioactive dust and gas into the atmosphere.  The plume reportedly climbed to 8,500 feet high and radiation was detected hundreds of miles away.  Approximately 100 soldiers and officials including two government ministers were irradiated along with an indeterminate number of desert-dwelling Algerians, who later reported seeing the test blast.  As recently as 2010, Algerian government scientists detected radiation levels twenty times normal near the test sites.  Comments:  This was just one of 210 nuclear weapons tests conducted by the French government in north Africa and the Pacific region in the period from 1960-96.  The resulting short- and long-term radioactive fallout from these tests and the aggregate total of over 2,000 nuclear weapons test explosions conducted by the nine nuclear weapons-states over the last seventy years has negatively impacted large numbers of the global population.  (Source:  Jack Mendelsohn and David Grahame, editors.  “Arms Control Chronology.”  Washington, DC:  Center for Defense Information, Washington, DC. and Lamine Chikhi. “French Nuclear Tests in Algeria Leave Toxic Legacy.”  Reuters News Service.  May 4, 2010.  http://in.reuters.com/article/idNIndia-46657120100304 accessed April 14, 2016.)

    May 11, 1979 – Lord Louis Mountbatten, Earl of Burma, an admiral of the British Fleet, and the former Supreme Allied Commander of South Asia Command during the Second World War, gave an address on the occasion of the awarding of the Louise Weiss Foundation Prize to the Stockholm Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) in Strasbourg, France.  Lord Mountbatten proclaimed, “The nuclear arms race has no military purpose.  Wars cannot be fought with nuclear weapons.  Their existence only adds to our perils…In the event of nuclear war, there will be no chances.  There will be no survivors – all will be obliterated.”  Killed by an Irish Republican Army bomb placed on his fishing boat on August 27, 1979, Admiral Mountbatten’s last speech discredited the doctrine of robust nuclear deterrence with these words, “There are powerful voices around the world who still give credence to the old Roman precept – if you desire peace, prepare for war.  This is absolute nuclear nonsense.”  (Source:  Gwyn Prins., editor, “The Nuclear Crisis Reader.” New York:  Vintage Books, 1984, pp. 5, 27.)

    May 14, 1948 – The nation-state of Israel was founded on this date and has survived today despite four large-scale wars with neighboring Arab nations in 1948, 1956, 1967, and 1973.  Although the September 17, 1978 Camp David Accords finally put an end to conflict between Egypt and Israel, neighboring Muslim nations and nonstate actors have continued to threaten Israel’s existence.  The Jewish state, with the support of decades-long U.S. arms sales and extensive military assistance, has continued to conduct military operations in Lebanon, Gaza, and in the region despite widespread international opposition.  Despite Israeli foreign minister Shimon Peres’ assurance to President Kennedy in 1963 that Israel “would not introduce nuclear weapons into the region,” the Israelis did indeed develop nuclear weapons as an insurance policy in order to survive a region dominated by adversaries.  Their nuclear program apparently began at the Dimona reactor site in the 1950s and 1960s and is rumored to have obtained fissile weapons-grade materials through theft or illicit covert sale of U.S. or allied plutonium and/or highly enriched uranium.  A non-signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the Israelis have considered long-standing United Nations’ calls for their country to join the NPT and/or participate in a Middle East nuclear-free-zone as unacceptably “flawed and hypocritical proposals.”  The estimate for Israel’s nuclear arsenal today extends from a low of 65-85 warheads cited in a recent Rand Corporation study to President Carter’s estimate of 150-300+ bombs and includes a probably biased figure of 400 warheads as guesstimated by Iranian foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif during the 2014-2015 P5 + 1 Iran nuclear talks.  Some analysts fear that Israel may be the most likely nation to break the seventy year prohibition against the use of nuclear weapons.  Ron Rosenbaum’s 2011 book “How the End Begins” points out that since its founding, Israel has endeavored to prevent a second Holocaust using whatever means may be necessary.  His dire prediction is that, “sooner or later Israel will unleash nuclear weapons (possibly to destroy hypothetical Iranian underground nuclear weapons production or warhead storage facilities) and risk the inauguration of World War III to prevent what they perceive as an impending nuclear strike” on their Jewish state.  He continues, “They will not wait for the world to step in.  They may not even wait to be sure their intelligence on the strike that they wish to preempt is rock solid certain.  They feel they can’t afford to take that chance.”  More chillingly Rosenbaum presents credible evidence that, “even if Israel has been obliterated, its (German-made) Dolphin-class nuclear missile subs hiding stealthily in the Red Sea, Indian Ocean, and Persian Gulf will carry out genocidal-scale retaliation.”  Comments:  While the Iran nuclear agreement of July 2015 may have stabilized Mideast nuclear instability for the short-term, much more needs to be done diplomatically and politically to ensure that the Mideast is permanently denuclearized including, at the very least, Israel being persuaded or cajoled by its American ally to confirm its arsenal, sign the NPT, and open its facilities to International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspections.  This represents yet another reason why Global Zero has a long and arduous pathway to reach fruition.  (Sources:  Julian Borger. “The Truth About Israel’s Secret Nuclear Arsenal.”  Guardian.com, January 15, 2014.  http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/15/truth-israels-secret-nuclear-arsenal and Daniel R. DePetris.  “Welcome to Israeli Nuclear Weapons 101.”  Nationalinterest.org, September 20, 2015  http://nationalinterest.org/feature/welcome-israeli-nuclear-weapons-101-13882  both accessed April 14, 2016.)

    May 17, 2014 – A serious U.S. Air Force nuclear accident characterized by the code phrase “Bent Spear” occurred on this date at the Juliet-07 Minuteman III ICBM silo nine miles west of Peetz, Colorado by three airmen of the 320th Missile Squadron of the 90th Missile Wing based at F.E. Warren Air Force Base, Cheyenne, Wyoming.  While troubleshooting the nuclear-tipped missile, the three airmen, who it was later determined failed to follow technical safety protocols, inadvertently caused $1.8 million in damages to the intercontinental ballistic missile.  But more disturbing was the fact that this incident (and possibly others) was purposely omitted from a three month-long safety review of U.S. nuclear forces completed on June 2, 2015 by an independent Accident Investigations Board due to Air Force secrecy restrictions.  Hans Kristensen, director of the Nuclear Information Project at the Federation of American Scientists noted that when this fact was inadvertently revealed to the public in January 2016 that, “By keeping the details of the accident secret and providing only vague responses (to subsequent Freedom of Information Act requests by news media and organizations like FAS), the Air Force behaves as if it has something to hide and this undermines public confidence in the safety of the ICBM mission.”  Comments:  Cold War secrecy and non-transparency on nuclear weapons accidents, Bent Spears, Broken Arrows, and other incidents continue not only for alleged reasons of “protecting national security” but to prevent public scrutiny on tremendously expensive, globally destabilizing, dangerous, and completely unnecessary and unusable nuclear arsenals by the U.S. and other members of the Nuclear Club. (Source: Robert Burns.  “Air Force Withheld Nuclear Mishap From Pentagon Review Team.” Bigstory.org. January 23, 2016.  http://bigstory.ap.org/article/e9367f645d894bd1b743cccb79592478/report-says-errors-air… accessed April 14, 2016.)

    May 22, 1957 – The crew of a U.S. Air Force B-36 bomber ferrying a nuclear weapon, a Mark 17 ten megaton hydrogen bomb weighing 42,000 pounds, from Biggs Air Force Base to Kirtland Air Force Base near Albuquerque, New Mexico, experienced a serious Broken Arrow accident on this date.  As the aircraft dropped to 1,700 feet altitude and lined up to approach the landing strip, a crew member tasked to manually remove the locking pin designed to prevent the in-flight release of the bomb (a standard operating procedure at the time) was jostled suddenly by unexpected air turbulence causing him to accidentally depress a lever releasing the H-bomb.  The nuclear weapon struck the ground 4.5 miles south of Kirtland control tower and a third of a mile west of the Sandia Base reservation and about sixty miles southeast of Los Alamos.  The weapon was completely destroyed by the detonation of its high explosive charges creating a crater 25 feet in diameter and 12 feet deep.  While no one was injured in the incident, an extensive clean-up of radioactively contaminated material in and around the crater ensued.  The incident was not publicly revealed until the Air Force complied with a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request and provided information on the nuclear accident almost thirty years later in 1986.  Comments:  Many of the hundreds if not thousands of nuclear accidents involving all nine nuclear weapon states still remain partially or completely classified and hidden from public scrutiny.  These near-nuclear catastrophes provide an additional justification for reducing dramatically and eventually eliminating global nuclear weapons arsenals.  (Sources:  “Accident Revealed After 29 Years:  H-Bomb Fell Near Albuquerque in 1957.”  Los Angeles Times. August 27, 1986.  http://articles.latimes.com/1986-08-27news/mn-14421_1_hydrogen-bomb and Les Adler.  “A Hydrogen Bomb Was Accidentally Dropped From A Plane Just South of Kirtland AFB in 1957.”  Albuquerque Tribune. January 20, 1994.  http://www.hkhinc.com/newmexico/albuquerque/doomsday/ both accessed April 14, 2016.)

    May 26-27, 2016 – Meeting in Tokyo, the Group of Seven (G-7) economic summit of world leaders, including U.S. President Barack Obama, will address their usual “steady as she goes” western-dominated economic and political agenda amidst public concerns that all nine nuclear weapons states plan on increasing funding for the research, design, development, production, and deployment of new nuclear weapons and their accompanying production infrastructure including new or expanded nuclear arsenal laboratories at a time when these trillions of dollars could have instead gone to addressing global warming, educating large numbers of young people, improving crumbling infrastructure of roads, bridges, and urban residences, and other critical global needs.  Comments:  The peoples of the world would be better served if not only this forum but other international fora such as the U.N. Security Council approved a major denuclearization of the planet including easily verified substantial reductions and eventually an elimination of not only deployed but inactive and stored tactical and strategic nuclear weapons as well as all fissile materials (with a small internationally verified exception for radioactive medical isotopes).  At the very least, the U.S. president should comply with a symbolically important request from a Japanese A-bomb survivor, Kiko Oguro, an eight-year old victim of the August 6, 1945 U.S. atomic attack on Hiroshima, who recently noted that, “President Obama should come here (to Hiroshima) and see for himself.  He and other leaders would realize that nuclear weapons are not about making allies and enemies, but about joining hands and fighting this evil together.  We don’t want to tell the world leaders what to think, or make them apologize. They should just view it as an opportunity to lead the world in the right direction, because only they have the power to do that.”  (Source:  Justin McCurry.  “Hiroshima Survivor Urges Obama to Visit Site of World’s First Atomic Bombing.”  The Guardian.  March 23, 2016.)

  • What Is the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation?

    A voice of conscience in the Nuclear AgeThe Foundation views peace as an imperative of the Nuclear Age, believing that any war fought today has the potential to become a nuclear war of mass annihilation.

    LOGO BUG PAGESAn advocate for peace, international law and a world without nuclear weapons.  The Foundation not only educates but is a nonpartisan advocate of achieving peace, strengthening international law, and ending the nuclear weapons threat to humanity.

    A force for challenging reliance on nuclear weapons.  The Foundation challenges the rationale of countries that justify reliance upon nuclear weapons for deterrence (see our video “The Myth of Nuclear Deterrence” and our “Santa Barbara Declaration: Reject Nuclear Deterrence, an Urgent Call to Action”).

    An advocate of renewable energy sources and of eliminating nuclear power.
    Shifting to renewable energy sources is necessary to dramatically reduce polluting the planet and to halt climate change.  Nuclear power must be eliminated due to its proven potential for the proliferation of nuclear weapons, its attractiveness to terrorists seeking to obtain and disburse radioactive materials, and for other reasons, including its potential for accidents and the lack of a solution to long-term radioactive waste storage.

    A source of inspiration to the next generation that a better world is possible.  The Foundation empowers young people through contests, internships and peace leadership trainings, seeking to raise their level of awareness and engagement in issues of peace, nuclear disarmament and global security.

    A pioneer in Peace Leadership and Peace Literacy training.  The Foundation is pioneering peace leadership and peace literacy trainings and workshops for people throughout the country.  The program is led by Paul K. Chappell, a West Point graduate and author of five books on ending war and waging peace.

    A catalyst for engaging the arts in peace.  The Foundation encourages peace in the arts through its annual Barbara Mandigo Kelly Peace Poetry Awards and and its annual Swackhamer Disarmament Video Contest.

    A forum for reexamining national and global priorities.  The Foundation organizes forums and lectures, including its annual Frank K. Kelly Lecture on Humanity’s Future, on key issues confronting humanity.

    A storehouse of memory and source of analysis concerning key nuclear issues.  The Foundation has created NuclearFiles.org as an on-going source  of key information about the Nuclear Age.  It also maintains extensive archives of articles on its WagingPeace.org website.

    An organization that seeks to move nations to act for humanity.  The Foundation participates in major international meetings, such as the Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conferences, and seeks to influence national positions to achieve safer and saner policies, including support for a Nuclear Weapons Convention for the phased, verifiable, irreversible and transparent elimination of nuclear weapons.  The Foundation consults with the Marshall Islands in their courageous Nuclear Zero lawsuits against the nine nuclear-armed countries in the International Court of Justice and, separately, against the U.S. in U.S. Federal Court.

    A community of committed global citizens.  The Foundation is composed of individuals from all walks of life and all parts of the globe who seek to end the nuclear weapons threat to humanity and to build a more just and peaceful world.

    Click here to download this as a one-page PDF.

  • Obama at Hiroshima

    President ObamaThere are mounting hopes that Barack Obama will use the occasion of the Group of 7 meeting in Japan next month to visit Hiroshima, and become the first American president to do so. It is remarkable that it required a wait of over 70 years until John Kerry became the first high American official to make such a visit, which he termed ‘gut-wrenching,’ while at the same time purposely refraining from offering any kind of apology to the Japanese people for one of the worse acts of state terror against a defenseless population in all of human history. Let’s hope that Obama goes, and displays more remorse than Kerry who at least deserves some credit for paving the way. The contrast between the many pilgrimages of homage by Western leaders, including those of Germany, to Auschwitz and other notorious death camps, and the absence of comparable pilgrimages to Hiroshima and Nagasaki underscores the difference between winning and losing a major war. This contrast cannot be properly accounted for by insisting on a hierarchy of evils that the Holocaust dominates.

    The United States, in particular, has a more generalized aversion to revisiting its darker hours, although recent events have illuminated some of the shadows cast by the racist legacies of slavery. The decimation of native Americans has yet to be properly addressed at official levels, and recent reports of soaring suicide rates suggests that the native American narrative continues to unfold tragically.

    The New York Times in an unsigned editorial on April 12 urged President Obama to make this symbolic visit to Hiroshima, and in their words “to make it count” by doing more than making a ritual appearance. Recalling accurately that Obama “won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009 largely because of his nuclear agenda” the editorial persuasively criticized Obama for failing to follow through on his Prague vision of working toward a world free of nuclear weapons. A visit to Hiroshima is, in effect, a second chance, perhaps a last chance, to satisfy the expectation created early in his presidency.

    When it came to specifics as to what Obama might do the Times offered a typical arms control set of recommendations of what it called “small but doable advances”: canceling the new air-launched, nuclear-armed cruise missile and ensuring greater compliance with the prohibition on nuclear testing by its endorsement coupled with a recommendation that future compliance be monitored by the UN Security Council. The Times leaves readers with the widely shared false impression that such measures can be considered incremental steps that will lead the world over time to a nuclear-free world. Such a view is unconvincing, and diversionary. In opposition, I believe these moves serve to stabilize the nuclear status quo and have a negative effect on disarmament prospects. By making existing realities somewhat less prone to accidents and irresponsibly provocative weapons innovations, the posture of living with nuclear weapons gains credibility and the arguments for nuclear disarmament are weakened even to the extent of being irrelevant. I believe that it is a dangerous fallacy to suppose that arms control measures, even if beneficial in themselves, can be thought of as moving the world closer to nuclear disarmament.

    Instead, what such measures do, and have been doing for decades, is to reinforce nuclear complacency by making nuclear disarmament either seem unnecessary or  utopian, and to some extent even undesirably destabilizing. In other words, contrary to conventional wisdom, moving down the arms control path is a sure way to make certain that disarmament will never occur!

    As mentioned, many arms control moves are inherently worthwhile. It is only natural to favor initiatives that cancel the development of provocative weapons systems, disallow weapons testing, and cut costs. Without such measures there would occur a dangerous erosion of the de facto taboo that has prevented (so far) any use of nuclear weaponry since 1945. At the same time it is vital to understand that the taboo and the arms control regime of managing the nuclear weapons environment does not lead to the realization of disarmament and the vision of a world without nuclear weapons.

    Let me put it this way, if arms control is affirmed for its own sake or as the best way to put the world on a path of incremental steps that will lead over time to disarmament, then such an approach is nurturing the false consciousness that has unfortunately prevailed in public discourse ever since the Nonproliferation Treaty came into force in 1970. The point can be expressed in more folksy language: we have been acting for decades as if the horse of disarmament is being pulled by the cart of arms control. In fact, it is the horse of disarmament that should be pulling the cart of arms control, which would make arms control measures welcome as place holders while the primary quest for nuclear disarmament was being toward implementation. There is no reason to delay putting the horse in front of the cart, and Obama’s failure to do so at Prague was the central flaw of his otherwise justly applauded speech.

    Where Obama went off the tracks in my view was when he consigned nuclear disarmament to the remote future, and proposed in the interim reliance on the deterrent capability of the nuclear weapons arsenal and this alleged forward momentum of incremental arms control steps. What is worse, Obama uncritically endorsed the nonproliferation treaty regime, lamenting only that it is being weakened by breakout countries, especially North Korea, and this partly explains why he felt it necessary back in 2009 to consider nuclear disarmament as a practical alternative to a continued reliance on nonproliferation, although posited disarmament more as a goal beyond reach and not as a serious present political option. He expressed this futuristic outlook in these words: “I am not naïve. This goal will not be reached quickly—perhaps not in my lifetime.” He never clarifies why such a goal is not attainable within the term of his presidency, or at least its explicit pursuit.

    In this regard, and with respect to Obama’s legacy, the visit to Hiroshima provides an overdue opportunity to disentangle nuclear disarmament from arms control. In Prague, Obama significantly noted that “..as the only nuclear power to have used a nuclear weapon, the United States has a moral responsibility to act.” [emphasis added] In the 1996 Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons, the judges unanimously concluded that there was a legal responsibility to seek nuclear disarmament with due diligence. The language of the 14-0 ICJ finding is authoritative: “There exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all aspects under strict and effective international control.” In other words, there is a legal as well as a moral responsibility to eliminate nuclear weapons, and this could have made the Prague call for a world without nuclear weapons more relevant to present governmental behavior. The Prague speech while lauding the NPT never affirmed the existence of a legal responsibility to pursue  nuclear disarmament. In this respect an official visit to Hiroshima offers Obama a golden opportunity to reinvigorate his vision of a world without nuclear weapons by bringing it down to earth.

    Why is this? By acknowledging the legal obligation, as embedded in Article VI of the Nonproliferation Treaty, as reinforcing the moral responsibility, there arises a clear imperative to move toward implementation. There is no excuse for delay or need for preconditions. The United States Government could at this time convene a multinational commission to plan a global conference on nuclear disarmament, somewhat resembling the Paris conference that recently produced the much heralded climate change agreement. The goal of the nuclear disarmament conference could be the vetting of proposals for a nuclear disarmament process with the view toward establishing a three year deadline for the development of an agreed treaty text whose preparation was entrusted to a high level working group operating under the auspices of the United Nations, with a mandate to report to the Secretary General. After that the states of the world could gather to negotiate an agreed treaty text that would set forth a disarming process and its monitoring and compliance procedures.

    The United States, along with other nuclear weapons states, opposed in the 1990s recourse to the ICJ by the General Assembly to seek a legal interpretation on issues of legality, and then disregarded the results of its legal findings. It would a great contribution to a more sustainable and humane world order if President Obama were to take the occasion of his historic visit to Hiroshima to call respectful attention to this ICJ Advisory Opinion and go on to accept the attendant legal responsibility on behalf of the United States. This could be declared to be a partial fulfillment of the moral responsibility that was accepted at Prague. It could even be presented as the completion of the vision of Prague, and would be consistent with Obama’s frequent appeals to the governments of the world to show respect for international law, and his insistence that during his presidency U.S. foreign policy was so configured.

    Above all, there is every reason for all governments to seek nuclear disarmament without further delay. There now exists no geopolitical climate of intense rivalry, and the common endeavor of freeing the world from the dangers posed by nuclear weapons would work against the current hawkish drift in the U.S. and parts of Europe toward a second cold war and overcome the despair that now has for so long paralyzed efforts to protect the human interest. As the global approach to nuclear weapons, climate change, and neoliberal globalization should make clear, we are not likely to survive as a species very much longer if we continue to base world order on a blend of state-centric national interests and dominant actor geopolitics. Obama has this rare opportunity to choose the road not often traveled upon, and there is no better place to start such a voyage than at Hiroshima. We in civil society would then with conviction promote his nuclear legacy as ‘From Prague to Hiroshima,’ and feel comfortable that this president has finally earned the honor of the Nobel Peace Prize prematurely bestowed.

  • We Stand With the Marshall Islands

    cropped-nuclear_zero_lawsuits.jpgYesterday marked two years since the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI) took a courageous stand against the world’s nine nuclear-armed nations. On April 24, 2014, the RMI filed nine groundbreaking lawsuits at the International Court of Justice and another lawsuit, separately, against the United States in U.S. Federal Court.

    The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation is proud to stand with the Marshall Islands in support of this initiative. NAPF has served as a consultant to the RMI from day one, and will continue to do so as the cases move forward. At this time, we are focused on growing public awareness of the cases through traditional and social media, as well as coordinating a consortium of over 100 non-governmental organizations around the world that have signed on in support of the campaign.

    Last month, the International Court of Justice in The Hague heard two weeks of oral arguments in the RMI’s cases against the United Kingdom, India and Pakistan. These were the first contentious nuclear disarmament cases ever brought before the world’s highest court.

    We were in The Hague to support the legal team and report on the proceedings for the Pressenza international press agency. You can see a summary of our articles here. If you are interested in reviewing the many articles written in the media about the ICJ cases during the month of March, including from Associated Press, Reuters, NPR and BBC, click here.

    The RMI’s case against the United States is currently pending in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

    More information about all of the cases is available at www.nuclearzero.org. While you’re there, if you have not yet signed the petition in support of the Marshall Islands’ action, you can join the 5 million-plus who have already done so.

    Please consider making a financial contribution to allow us to continue providing support for the Marshall Islands’ critical efforts in the courts.

  • NAPF Letter to the Editor of the Washington Post

    Rick Wayman, NAPF’s Director of Programs, had a letter to the editor published in the Washington Post on April 19, 2016. The letter appears below:

    http://bit.ly/wapoletter

    The meaning of Hiroshima, 70 years later

    Regarding the April 16 editorial “The lessons and legacy of Hiroshima”:

    The leaders of every nation possessing nuclear weapons should be required to visit Hiroshima. This, of course, includes President Obama and whoever is elected as his successor in November. Abstract theories of national security and nuclear deterrence have been stubbornly followed for more than 70 years while willfully turning a blind eye to the very real catastrophic human consequences of nuclear weapons.

    The Post’s call for further reductions in nuclear arsenals is important, but quantitative reductions lose their meaning when the remaining hundreds or thousands of nuclear weapons are made more “usable” and equipped with new military capabilities.

    The United States is in the midst of a $1 trillion, 30-year program to modernize all aspects of its nuclear arsenal: the warheads, delivery systems, production facilities and command-and-control system. The other eight nuclear-armed nations are also engaged in modernization efforts. A visit to Hiroshima would underline the moral and humanitarian imperatives to abolish nuclear weapons. This, taken together with the existing legal obligations to pursue in good faith — and bring to a conclusion — negotiations on nuclear disarmament, makes it clear that continuing with business as usual is unacceptable.

    Rick Wayman, Santa Barbara

    The writer is director of programs for
    the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

  • From Flint’s Children to Nuclear Weapons, Funding Our Nation’s Priorities

    This article was originally published on Common Dreams.

    This week our nation funds our national priorities on tax day. In this era of growing discussion about participatory democracy and citizens engaging in the decisions of how their community tax dollars should be allocated it is important for each of us to identify what our priorities are.

    The priorities we set provide a moral mirror of our humanity and are the fabric of our nation. From social security to Medicare, education, rebuilding our nation’s infrastructure, environmental protection to defense and yes the funding of nuclear weapons programs this is the time we fund each of these priorities. Yet what role does the latter, nuclear weapons really play in our humanity. We now recognize that their use in any way is unacceptable and would forever change our world. Even a “tiny” nuclear war using ½ of 1% of the global nuclear arsenals or approximately 100 Hiroshima size bombs could kill 2 billion people from the climate change that would follow. Any use therefore would be the ultimate “reset” button in this crazy game we play ending life as we know it on the planet.  Yet we continue to gamble allowing luck to be the overriding determinant. Luck is not a security policy!

    The myth of nuclear deterrence has been one of the greatest driving forces of the nuclear arms race. Because if your country has 1 weapon then I must have 2 and so on and so on. Currently there are 15,375 nuclear weapons in the world’s arsenals.

    For this 2015 tax year, the U.S. will spend ~$55.9 billion on all nuclear weapons programs.  This expenditure effects every single community from the very poorest to wealthiest robbing these communities of vital resources that could provide for their basic needs.  The children of Flint, Michigan who have unwittingly become the mine canaries of a society that chose cost savings over clean drinking water will see their city pay $8,781,398.10 for nuclear weapons programs. These weapons due nothing but add to the uncertain future of these children. My community ofVentura County north of Los Angeles, California with a population of 850,536 and per capita average income of $33,308 will spend $155,321,482.10 as our share of these nuclear weapons programs. Our wealthiest American’s from the Zuckerberg’s to the Buffett’s and Gates with their generous philanthropathy will contribute in excess of $6.09 million for every billion dollars income last year. How does this help the world they envision? Is this really the best use of these precious dollars?

    Nuclear weapons programs have been allowed to take on a life of their own seemingly without end. We are planning to embark on a $1 trillion dollar nuclear modernization program over the next 30 years.

    While the danger of a nuclear disaster is as high as or higher than during the height of the cold war, it is an unexamined assumption that this is what must be.  There is much that is happening as peoples, leaders and nations are awakening to the realities of our nuclear world. There is an ever growing awareness of the potential impact and ultimate costs of nuclear weapons and war. The winds of change are blowing.

    To date, 127 Nations have formally endorsed the Humanitarian Pledge – a commitment by nations to fill the unacceptable “legal gap” that allows nuclear weapons to remain the only weapons of mass destruction not yet explicitly prohibited under international law. It is time to change the rules!

    In June 2015, the American Medical Association passed a resolution urging the U.S. and all national governments to continue to work to ban and eliminate nuclear weapons and has committed to collaborate with relevant stakeholders to increase public awareness and education on the topic of the medical and environmental consequences of nuclear war – what could be called the final epidemic.

    On April 24, 2014, the tiny Republic of the Marshall Islands filed landmark lawsuits against the nine nuclear-armed nations for failing to comply with their obligations under international law to pursue negotiations for the worldwide elimination of nuclear weapons. This David vs. Goliath effort continues to work through the International Court of Justice.

    Rotary programs around the world are now hearing presentations on the humanitarian impacts of nuclear war and more importantly get it and are figuring out how best to deal with this international health risk for which there is no cure.

    Pope Francis has also spoken out and called for the elimination of nuclear weapons when he said “A world without nuclear weapons is essential for the future and survival of the human family … we must ensure that it becomes a reality” on 12/7/14.

    There is much that is happening and the choice is ours. The time is now! Silence implies consent. It is time to let our voices be heard and let our representatives know what our priorities are.  We can and must do better.

    Robert Dodge is a family physician practicing full time in Ventura, California. He serves on the board of Physicians for Social Responsibility Los Angeles serving as a Peace and Security Ambassador and at the national level where he sits on the security committee. He also serves on the board of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation and Citizens for Peaceful Resolutions. He writes for PeaceVoice.

  • Open Letter to President Obama

    Mr. President,

    Visit Hiroshima.

    It is a beautiful, bustling city.

    It will change your view of the world.

    You will realize viscerally what nuclear weapons do to people.

    John Kerry called it “gut-wrenching.”

    It is that and more.

    It is a city of warning and Hope.

    It teaches lessons that can’t be learned in a classroom.

    Civilization is at risk.  Humanity is at risk.

    All we love and treasure is at risk.

    Nuclear weapons must be abolished before they abolish us.

    Visit Hiroshima with Peace in your heart.

    The people of Hiroshima have already forgiven us.

    Visit Hiroshima with determination to end the nuclear weapons era.

    Be bold.  Take action.  Realize your dreams.

    This is your chance.  Seize it.  Yes, you can.

    Visit Hiroshima with Hope in your heart.

    Let your Hope meet that of Hiroshima.

    Open the eyes of the world.

    Be the leader we have been waiting for.

    Reveal your plan for Nuclear Zero.

    Take the first step.

    Visit Hiroshima.

  • Dramatic Hearings at the International Court of Justice

    This article was originally published by Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy.

    ICJ Judges
    ICJ Judges on the opening day of the hearings. Copyright: UN Photo/ICJ-CIJ/Frank van Beek. Courtesy of the ICJ. All rights reserved.

    From March 7 to 16, seven days of dramatic, intensely argued hearings were held in The Hague before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on preliminary issues in the nuclear disarmament cases brought by the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI) against India, Pakistan, and the United Kingdom. The Marshall Islands’ legal team, led by former RMI foreign minister Tony deBrum and Amsterdam lawyer and longtime IALANA member Phon van den Biesen, performed brilliantly.

    On the first day of the hearings, Tony deBrum riveted the courtroom with his explanation of why his small Pacific nation chose to resort to the Court. As a nine-year old child out fishing with his grandfather in March 1954, he saw the entire sky turn “blood red” as a result of the 15-megaton Bravo nuclear test explosion 200 miles away. Marshallese suffered dislocation and damage to their health and environment effects as a result of the 67 nuclear tests conducted by the United States from 1946 to 1958. He said: “While these experiences give us a unique perspective that we never requested, they are not the basis of this dispute. But they do explain why a country of our size and limited resources would risk bringing a case such as this regarding an enormous, nuclear-armed State such as India.”

    On March 11, Phon van den Biesen told the Court that in law school he was taught de minimis non curat praetor – a court does not concern itself with trifles. The United Kingdom, he went on, was trying to introduce the opposite concept, de maximus non curat praetor. He commented that “such a concept does not exist and would be entirely incompatible with a world society that is based on the rule of law.” He added that the ICJ is capable of deciding cases that fall in the category maximus, having dealt with issues of genocide, violations of humanitarian law, use of force, and self-determination.

    The Marshall Islands filed applications in the International Court of Justice against the nine nuclear-armed states in April 2014, claiming they are in violation of obligations under Article VI of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and/or customary international law to pursue in good faith negotiations on cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and the elimination of nuclear weapons. The RMI asked the Court to declare that each state is failing to comply with its obligations and to order that it come into compliance within one year.

    The initiative builds upon the ICJ’s 1996 Advisory Opinion. Referring to Article VI and to the long history of UN General Assembly resolutions on nuclear disarmament, the Court unanimously concluded: “There exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control.” The Marshall Islands contends that this obligation applies universally, binding those few states outside the NPT, India, Israel, North Korea, and Pakistan.

    Three of the nuclear-armed states, India, Pakistan, and the United Kingdom, have accepted the jurisdiction of the ICJ as to disputes involving states, including the Marshall Islands, which have done likewise. Those cases have proceeded. The other six states (China, France, Israel, North Korea, Russia, United States) refused the Marshall Islands’ request, under a normal procedure, that they accept the Court’s jurisdiction in this matter.

    The recent hearings concerned the preliminary objections of India, Pakistan, and the United Kingdom to the Court deciding the cases on the merits. Pakistan withdrew from participation in the oral pleadings at the last minute, saying it had nothing to add to its written submission. Accordingly, the only hearing in that case, on March 8, was devoted to RMI’s response to Pakistan’s written arguments.

    The United Kingdom claimed that it has a strong record of support for nuclear disarmament; consequently, it argued, there is no dispute for the Court to adjudicate. The RMI replied that actions speak louder than words, citing the UK’s consistent record of voting against resolutions in the General Assembly calling for commencement of multilateral negotiations on elimination of nuclear arms and its plans to replace its Trident nuclear weapons system.

    India made a similar argument, referring to its decades-long history of calling for nuclear disarmament and its restraint in developing and deploying nuclear weapons. In reply, the RMI pointed to India’s current programs for expansion, improvement and diversification of its nuclear arsenal. In a dramatic moment, on March 14 Phon van den Biesen cited press reports that India had conducted a test of a submarine-launched ballistic missile on the first day of the hearings, and that India is poised to deploy a submarine carrying such missiles.

    The UK and India also each argued that no bilateral dispute existed with the RMI prior to the filing of the cases; that the cases cannot proceed without other states possessing nuclear arms being before the Court; that the relief requested would be ineffective; and that various exceptions to their declarations accepting the jurisdiction of the Court apply, including India’s exclusion of disputes involving a multilateral treaty, here the NPT.

    The RMI’s lawyers made strong counterarguments, with ample reference to precedent of the Court. They emphasized that India and the UK each can be judged as to its own conduct, regardless of the positions and actions of other nuclear-armed states. With regard to the NPT, on March 14 Professor Christine Chinkin explained that the RMI seeks the application of a customary international law obligation arising out of a dynamic process involving not only NPT Article VI but also developments including General Assembly and Security Council resolutions and the Court’s Advisory Opinion itself.

    The Court is expected to issue its rulings on preliminary issues in three to six months. If the Court rules for the Marshall Islands, the cases will proceed to the merits; if the Court rules against the Marshall Islands in any case, that case will be over.

    In addition to Tony deBrum, Phon van den Biesen, and Christine Chinkin, members of the legal team who argued before the Court were Professor Roger Clark, member of the LCNP Consultative Council, LCNP Executive Director John Burroughs, Professor Luigi Condorelli, Professor Paolo Palchetti, Laurie Ashton of Keller Rohrback, and Professor Nicholas Grief.

  • The Silence of the Candidates

    Perhaps the single most important responsibility of U.S. Presidents, and for what we should most closely hold them to account, is nuclear weapons. To those of us aware of the dangers of nuclear weapons, of the costs in both dollars and lives that they represent, the silence of our presidential candidates in this time, when national dialogue on nuclear weapons may be more important than ever, is troubling to say the least. A quick overview of the five remaining major party candidates reveals a disturbing trend of their having little to say on the matter and little of substance in what they do say.

    Candidate Clinton has been cagey on her nuclear stance and has neither fully condoned nor sanctioned nuclear deterrence theory. Nor has she been clear with what restraint or in what contexts she would ever use a nuclear weapon. Likewise, although characterizing the particular proposed nuclear modernization plan as not “[making] sense,” she has not explained if she’s for modernization generally; nor has she spoken further on what she meant. That being said, she has stated that she is committed to peace and “a world without nuclear weapons,” and she has promised to build on nuclear reduction efforts with Russia and China and would seek to resolve the Iranian and North Korean nuclear dilemmas. In particular, she has supported reducing Russian and American stockpiles to 1,000 nuclear warheads – down from approximately 8,000 and 7,000 respectively.

    Candidate Cruz also hasn’t said much with regards to nuclear weapons but he has emphasized that he strongly supports defense spending and otherwise strengthening U.S. military clout – although he does also believe in Reagan’s dream of “a world where there are no more nuclear weapons.” Nevertheless he clearly supports modernization of some sort, though it is unclear if he supports the current trillion-dollar triad modernization policy, saying, “I’m certainly committed, to ensuring that we provide the funding that is needed . . . for readiness that has been severely degraded under sequestration.”

    Candidate Kasich has had the least to say about nuclear weapons of all the candidates. Declaring the nuclear modernization program “vital” to the nation’s defense and its nuclear program, candidate Kasich has clearly aligned himself with the rest of the Republican candidates in taking a hardline stance on nuclear weapons and militarism. That being said, he has offered little other insight into what the implications of this stance are beyond bringing more pressure to bear on North Korea and Iran for their nuclear programs and otherwise “restoring” our Navy and Army. In conjunction with these stances, the nonpartisan political website “On the Issues” reports Kasich believes that there is a “need to promote Western values to win the war of ideas,” which does not bode well for a policy of peace or cooperation.

    Candidate Sanders, although saying very little on the subject, is the only mainstream candidate rhetorically committed to supporting nuclear abolition and the only one fully opposing modernization, saying “the goal is to move to get rid of nuclear weapons, not to get into an arms race. We have other, more important things to spend our money on.” In his terms, “we must heed what President Obama has called our ‘moral responsibility’ to lead the way toward reducing, and eventually eliminating, nuclear weapons.” Similarly, he promotes peace and diplomacy as general guideline policies for any presidential candidate, though he does still maintain force and war as last resorts and he has no clear policy on how he would reduce nuclear weapons. Nevertheless in a step hopefully towards greater commitment and articulation of his nuclear stance, Senator Sanders has recently added Joe Cirincione of the anti-nuclear Ploughshares Fund as an advisor. According to Cirincione – although debatable it may unfortunately be true – as it stands Mr. Sanders has “the most complete nuclear policy,” out of all the candidates.

    Candidate Trump, unfortunately the most vociferous on the issue, has gone so far as to entertain the possibility of using nuclear weapons against ISIS or in Europe, going so far as to question Chris Matthews of MSNBC “Somebody hits us within ISIS, you wouldn’t fight back with a nuke?” Beyond proposing using our current weapons, however, he has also steadfastly maintained that the US must strengthen its current nuclear stockpile. Although he has said it is “very unlikely” he would ever use the bomb, he has also been one of the most outspoken candidates on nuclear weapons (although that’s not saying much) and has characterized himself as “the most militaristic person,” according to CBS. Indeed, this militarism extends beyond America’s borders and the candidate has even gone so far as to suggest a resurgence of nuclear proliferation internationally, starting with South Korea and Japan. He sums up this position by mildly commenting, according to The New York Times, that “we may very well be better off.

    Observing each of the candidates’ positions, it is utterly discouraging that by and large they barely even have positions on nuclear weapons. Even less encouraging, though, is the amount of time it takes to find out what their positions are. Indeed it is downright shocking to see how little thought they have put into one of the greatest responsibilities they would have as president. The threat of nuclear war is still with us nearly 25 years after the end of the Cold War but you wouldn’t know this by listening to our presidential candidates – even when the threat of nuclear proliferation is at its highest since 1991. None of the candidates even question where else that trillion dollars might be spent, and it is up to the American people to hold them responsible for these failings.

    Beyond the relative silence of our candidates, though, the responsibility falls most heavily on the media. They are the supposed bastion of what is newsworthy and of importance. Yet listening to any mainstream news station, one could easily wonder if nuclear weapons, arguably the single most important issue when discussing presidential candidates, are a priority at all or indeed if they even exist anymore! In order to have meaningful dialogue on nuclear weapons and policy, our leaders, the media, and the American people need to bring prominence and sanity to this critical issue once more.


    Grant Stanton is a Junior Fellow at the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

  • The Pale Blue Dot – The Sagan Series

    The Pale Blue Dot – The Sagan Series

    As the spacecraft Voyager 1 on February 14, 1990 left our planetary neighborhood for the fringes of the solar system, engineers turned it around for one last look at its home planet. Voyager 1 was about 4 billion miles away.

    Carl Sagan received the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s Distinguished Peace Leadership Award in 1993 for his outspoken advocacy of peace and nuclear disarmament.

    Look again at that dot. That’s here. That’s home. That’s us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every “superstar,” every “supreme leader,” every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there–on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.

    The Earth is a very small stage in a vast cosmic arena. Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that, in glory and triumph, they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot. Think of the endless cruelties visited by the inhabitants of one corner of this pixel on the scarcely distinguishable inhabitants of some other corner, how frequent their misunderstandings, how eager they are to kill one another, how fervent their hatreds.

    Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the Universe, are challenged by this point of pale light. Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves.

    The Earth is the only world known so far to harbor life. There is nowhere else, at least in the near future, to which our species could migrate. Visit, yes. Settle, not yet. Like it or not, for the moment the Earth is where we make our stand.

    It has been said that astronomy is a humbling and character-building experience. There is perhaps no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world. To me, it underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another, and to preserve and cherish the pale blue dot, the only home we’ve ever known.

    — Carl Sagan, Pale Blue Dot, 1994