Blog

  • Sunflower Newsletter: April 2016

    Issue #225 – April 2016

    Donate Now!

    Check out our online store for inspiring Mother’s Day gift ideas.

    • Perspectives
      • NAPF: A Voice for Peace by David Krieger
      • The Trillion Dollar Question by Lawrence Wittner
      • Remarks on Bravo Day by Tony de Brum
    • Nuclear Proliferation
      • Nuclear Security Summit Fails to Address Existing Nuclear Weapons
      • UK Admits Frequent Transport of Nuclear Materials by Air
      • North Korea Claims Progress on Rocket Technology
    • U.S. Nuclear Weapons Policy
      • President Obama Outlines His Nuclear Legacy
      • Hiroshima Survivor Urges President Obama to Visit the City
    • Nuclear Insanity
      • More Problems with the U.S. Nuclear Missile Corps
      • Donald Trump Suggests Japan and South Korea Should Develop Nuclear Weapons
    • Nuclear Waste
      • South Carolina Governor Urges Diversion of Plutonium from Japan
    • Nuclear Modernization
      • Lawmakers Raise Concern Over Costly Nuclear Modernization Plans
      • U.S. Plans for Mobile ICBMs
    • Nuclear Zero Lawsuits
      • International Court of Justice Concludes Hearings in Preliminary Phase of Historic Nuclear Disarmament Cases
      • Summary of Press Articles for March 2016
    • Resources
      • April’s Featured Blog
      • This Month in Nuclear Threat History
      • U.S. Nuclear Arsenal: Costs and Constraints
      • Books and Articles on Peace by John Avery
    • Foundation Activities
      • NAPF Poetry Contest Ends on April 30
      • Peace Leadership for Teenagers
      • Video, Audio and Photos of the 2016 Frank K. Kelly Lecture Now Online
    • Quotes

     

    Perspectives

    NAPF: A Voice for Peace

    When we created the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation in 1982 we believed that peace is an imperative of the Nuclear Age.  That is, peace is no longer just desirable; in a nuclear-armed world, it is essential.  An important part of our work at the Foundation is to awaken people to the extraordinary dangers of living in the Nuclear Age.  We are always seeking new ways to break through the complacency of our time through education and advocacy.

    I believe that complacency has four principal elements: apathy, conformity, ignorance and denial.  Together these four elements form the acronym ACID, and they are corrosive to a decent human future, or to any future at all.  We must transform apathy to empathy; conformity to critical thinking; ignorance to wisdom; and denial to recognition of the threats that nuclear weapons pose to our common future.

    To read more, click here.

    The Trillion Dollar Question

    Isn’t it rather odd that America’s largest single public expenditure scheduled for the coming decades has received no attention in the 2015-2016 presidential debates?

    The expenditure is for a thirty-year program to “modernize” the U.S. nuclear arsenal and production facilities.  Although President Obama began his administration with a dramatic public commitment to build a nuclear weapons-free world, that commitment has long ago dwindled and died.  It has been replaced by an administration plan to build a new generation of U.S. nuclear weapons and nuclear production facilities to last the nation well into the second half of the twenty-first century.  This plan, which has received almost no attention by the mass media, includes redesigned nuclear warheads, as well as new nuclear bombers, submarines, land-based missiles, weapons labs, and production plants.  The estimated cost?  $1,000,000,000,000.00—or, for those readers unfamiliar with such lofty figures, $1 trillion.

    To read more, click here.

    Remarks on Bravo Day

    While our experience with nuclear arms cannot even come close to matching that of our Japanese brothers and sisters, it has taught us lessons of everlasting value not just for ourselves but all of mankind. From the deliberate exposure of human beings to radiation to systematic cover up of critical health impacts, from human experimentation to premature resettlement of exposed populations, from denial of claims to withholding of information critical to basic understanding of the extent of damage, the nuclear history of the Marshall Islands has been nothing short of a testament to human beings being abused, mistreated and marginalized by more powerful, more ambitious neighbors.

    The most important of these lessons can only be that nuclear weapons of any kind are immoral and illegal and cannot be allowed to exist amongst civilized human beings. Nuclear weapons cannot be justified for any reason whatsoever, including those we continue to hear from countries claiming that these arms are required to preserve peace and security for the world.

    To read more, click here.

    Nuclear Proliferation

    Nuclear Security Summit Fails to Address Existing Nuclear Weapons

    The United States hosted the fourth, and possibly final, Nuclear Security Summit in Washington, DC on March 31 and April 1, 2016. The summit brought together high-level leaders from over 50 nations, including seven of the nine countries that possess nuclear weapons. Russia and North Korea did not attend the Summit.

    The Summit focused on securing highly-enriched uranium (HEU) in the civilian sector and similar steps to prevent terrorist groups from acquiring material to build nuclear weapons. John Burroughs, Executive Director of Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy, criticized the narrow focus of the Summit. He said, “It was a strange spectacle indeed to have so much political capital invested in limited measures.”

    Burroughs went on to point out that the Summit did not address “the estimated 15,000-plus nuclear weapons in the possession of states which say they are prepared to use them,” “the large stocks of HEU and plutonium in military programs, the large stocks of reactor-grade but weapons-usable plutonium, and ongoing production of HEU and plutonium and construction of new reprocessing plants to yield plutonium.”

    John Burroughs, “Strange Spectacle: Nuclear Security Summit 2016,” Inter Press Service, April 4, 2016.

    UK Admits Frequent Transport of Nuclear Materials by Air

    The United Kingdom’s Ministry of Defense (MoD) has admitted to 23 flights transporting materials used in nuclear weapons between the UK and the U.S. in the last five years. Experts say that the UK and the U.S. regularly exchange tritium, plutonium, and enriched uranium under a mutual defense agreement and that the MoD’s air shipments would not comply with U.S. or international safety regulations for civil nuclear transports.

    These flights have what advocates call “disturbing” implications for the world’s attempt to reduce the proliferation of nuclear weapons. These flights transporting high-risk nuclear materials fly over large urban areas such as Bristol, Cardiff and Swansea. While the MoD maintains that all the air transports were safe, the discrepancies surrounding the MoD’s compliance with international safety regulations suggest otherwise.

    Rob Edwards, “MoD Admits Flying Nuclear Materials Between UK and U.S.,” The Guardian, March 1, 2016.

    North Korea Claims Progress on Rocket Technology

    According to North Korean state media, the country has successfully tested a solid-fuel engine that could boost the power of its ballistic rockets. Such a claim indicates that North Korea continues to develop its Intercontinental Ballistic Missile technology despite UN sanctions. The country also claimed that it will soon test ballistic missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads.

    South Korean President Park Geun-hye ordered the South Korean military on standby to “respond actively to reckless provocations by the North.”

    Jack Kim, “North Korea Claims Rocket Engine Success; South on High Alert,” Reuters, March 24, 2016.

    U.S. Nuclear Weapons Policy

    President Obama Outlines His Nuclear Legacy

    In a lengthy op-ed in the Washington Post published on the first day of the 2016 Nuclear Security Summit, President Obama summarized what he sees as his accomplishments in advancing his “Prague Agenda” over his two terms in office. He highlighted the New START treaty with Russia, which would reduce each country’s deployed strategic nuclear weapons to 1,550 each by 2018. He discussed the process of reaching an agreement with Iran over its nuclear program over the course of many years of sanctions and negotiations.

    President Obama also claimed that the U.S. has reduced the role of nuclear weapons in U.S. national security strategy. In addition, he said that he has ruled out building new nuclear warheads. In reality, the Obama administration has fully endorsed a plan to spend $1 trillion over the next 30 years to modernize its nuclear arsenal, including the warheads, delivery vehicles and production infrastructure. Many of the “modernized” nuclear weapons will have new military capabilities, including the new B61-12 nuclear bomb, which is currently in final stages of modernization.

    President Barack Obama, “How We Can Make Our Vision of a World Without Nuclear Weapons a Reality,” Washington Post, March 31 2016.

    Hiroshima Survivor Urges President Obama to Visit the City

    Keiko Oguro, who was an 8-year-old schoolgirl when the U.S. dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima in 1945, is urging President Obama to visit Hiroshima when he is in Japan for the G7 summit in May 2016. No sitting U.S. president has visited Hiroshima since the U.S., under President Harry Truman, levelled the city with the world’s second nuclear weapon ever created.

    Ms. Ogura said, “President Obama should come here 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 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.”

    Justin McCurry, “Hiroshima Survivor Urges Obama to Visit Site of World’s First Atomic Bombing,” The Guardian, March 23 2016.

    Nuclear Insanity

    More Problems with the U.S. Nuclear Missile Corps

    Fourteen airmen responsible for guarding nuclear missiles in Wyoming, Colorado and Nebraska are under investigation for possible illegal drug activity, involving cases of cocaine use, according to defense officials. The nuclear missile corps is responsible for the entire fleet of 450 Minutemen-III nuclear missiles and in recent years has been under intense scrutiny for problems regarding personal conduct.

    Officials report that the 14 airmen are members of the security group at F.E. Warren that is responsible for securing the missile fields and convoys that move nuclear weapons. The men are accused of off-duty drug activity, and officials report that the allegations are credible. In an effort to provide better security, those accused have been removed from duty while the Air Force Office of Special Investigations looks into the cases, and yet another “broad investigation” of problems inside the Air Force nuclear missile corps has been ordered.

    This story follows other stories of exam cheating and drug use among missileers in the past couple of years. Click here to read a new poem by NAPF President David Krieger entitled “Missileers.”

    Robert Burns, “Fourteen at Nuke Base Probed for Illegal Drug Activity,” Associated Press, March 18, 2016.

    Donald Trump Suggests Japan and South Korea Should Develop Nuclear Weapons

    Current U.S. presidential candidate Donald Trump has suggested that Japan and South Korea should develop nuclear weapons. During a recent town hall televised on CNN, journalist Anderson Cooper said that it has been long-standing U.S. policy to prevent any other countries, including Japan and South Korea, from developing nuclear weapons. In response, Mr. Trump said, “Can I be honest with you? Maybe it’s going to have to be time to change [policy], because so many people, you have Pakistan has it, you have China has it. You have so many other countries are now having it.”

    Nine countries in the world currently possess nuclear weapons: the United States, Russia, United Kingdom, France, China, Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea.

    Zack Beauchamp, “Donald Trump: Make America Great Again by Letting More Countries Have Nukes,” Vox, March 30, 2016.

    Nuclear Waste

    South Carolina Governor Urges Diversion of Plutonium from Japan

    On March 23, South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley wrote to U.S. Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz urging the U.S. to divert a shipment of weapons-grade plutonium en route to her state from Japan. The plutonium in question was originally supplied to Japan by the United States, Britain, and France for the Japan Atomic Energy Agency’s Fast Critical Assembly research project. The agreement to transfer the material to the United States was reached in March 2014 at a non-proliferation summit.

    In her letter, Gov. Haley warned that the shipment “puts South Carolina at risk for becoming a permanent dumping ground for nuclear materials.” Environmental advocacy organization SRS Watch accused the government of doing a poor job explaining why this material is being brought to the United States.

    Aaron Sheldrick and Megan Cassella, “South Carolina Governor Urges U.S. to Divert Plutonium from Japan,” Reuters, March 24, 2016.

    Nuclear Modernization

    Lawmakers Raise Concern Over Costly Nuclear Modernization Plans

    Members of the House Armed Services Committee questioned leaders from the Air Force and Navy about the proposed overhaul of America’s nuclear triad—a three-pronged system consisting of strategic bombers, intercontinental ballistic missiles and submarine-launched ballistic missiles.

    The program to modernize the U.S. arsenal, for which the U.S. is predicted to spend one trillion dollars over the next 30 years, raised questions regarding both costs and the necessity of the plans. In response to these concerns, Air Force and Navy officials claimed that the nuclear triad has “kept the peace” since nuclear weapons were introduced and has “sustained the test of time.”

    Matthew Cox, “Pentagon Leaders Defend Nuclear Triad Overhaul,” Military.com, March 16, 2016.

    U.S. Plans for Mobile ICBMs

    The U.S. Air Force is planning to design a new generation of intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) with mobile capability. According to Arms Control Today, such a function would require approximately $400 million in development funding and would cost around $80 billion more than silo-based missiles over their expected service life. More important than the cost, however, is that such a move would represent a serious step backward in U.S. nuclear weapons policy.

    The U.S. explored mobile ICBM options twice during the Cold War, but both times the projects were halted before becoming operational.

    Kingston Reif, “Air Force Seeks Mobile ICBM Option,” Arms Control Today, April 2016.

    Nuclear Zero Lawsuits

    International Court of Justice Concludes Hearings in Preliminary Phase of Historic Nuclear Disarmament Cases

    The International Court of Justice (ICJ) heard oral arguments in the preliminary phase of the nuclear disarmament cases brought by the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI) against India, Pakistan and the United Kingdom. The hearings, which took place at the ICJ from March 7-16, were the first contentious cases on nuclear disarmament ever heard at the Court. This set of hearings addressed the respondent nations’ objections to the cases relating to questions of jurisdiction and admissibility.

    The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s Director of Programs, Rick Wayman, attended all seven days of the hearings and reported on them in a series of nine articles for the Pressenza international news agency. Click here to read Rick’s articles.

    International Court of Justice Concludes Hearings in Preliminary Phase of Historic Nuclear Disarmament Cases,” Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, March 16, 2016.

    Summary of Press Articles for March 2016

    The Marshall Islands’ nuclear disarmament cases received a significant boost in media coverage in March 2016 as the International Court of Justice held its preliminary oral hearings in the cases against the United Kingdom, India and Pakistan. Major media outlets covered or commented on the hearings, including The New York Times, Associated Press, Reuters, BBC, NPR, the Guardian, and Al Jazeera.

    Click here for a full summary of English-language press coverage of the ICJ hearings.

     Resources

    April’s Featured Blog

    This month’s featured blog is “Nuclear Reaction” by Greenpeace International. On March 18, the blog featured an article about the Marshall Islands’ nuclear disarmament cases at the International Court of Justice. In addition to nuclear disarmament, they frequently publish articles about nuclear waste and nuclear energy.

    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 April, including the April 10, 1963 sinking of the U.S.S. Thresher, a U.S. nuclear-powered submarine.

    To read Mason’s full article, click here.

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

    U.S. Nuclear Arsenal: Costs and Constraints

    The Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation has published a new fact sheet outlining the Obama administration’s extensive plans to modernize the U.S. nuclear arsenal.

    Plans to maintain and update the U.S. nuclear arsenal are expected to cost the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) $9.2 billion in 2017 alone. This money is specifically geared for weapons activities, including modifications and life extension programs for nuclear warheads. The Pentagon also requested more than $3 billion to strengthen the triad’s delivery systems, including warplanes and submarines.

    Deputy Secretary of Defense Robert Work has asserted that it will cost about $18 billion a year between 2021 and 2035 to maintain and modernize the nuclear arsenal. Based on standard Pentagon estimates, these numbers do not account for cost overruns and are likely too low. Many analysts expect the full price of nuclear modernization and maintenance to near $700 billion by 2039 and total up to $1 trillion over 30 years.

    To read the fact sheet, click here.

    Books and Articles on Peace by John Avery

    John Scales Avery, an Associate of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, has published many books and articles on peace. His latest book is The Need for a New Economic System. Avery has posted a list of numerous books and articles, with links, that he has written over the past few years. Topics include nuclear disarmament, peace, economics, history and human rights.

    To see the full list of Avery’s articles and books, click here.

    Foundation Activities

    NAPF Poetry Contest Ends on April 30

    April is National Poetry Month. Each year, the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation holds the Barbara Mandigo Kelly Peace Poetry Awards to encourage poets to explore and illuminate positive visions of peace and the human spirit. For the 2016 contest, entries must be postmarked or emailed by April 30, 2016.

    There are three age categories for the awards: adult; youth (13-18); and youth (12 and under).

    More information, including submission instructions, for the contest is available online at www.peacecontests.org.

    Peace Leadership for Teenagers

    When NAPF Peace Leadership Director Paul K. Chappell visits high schools, he broadens his talk about waging peace and ending war to often include growing up in a violent household, bullying problems, the three elements of universal respect, how positive change happens, and why we should have hope.

    Paul directly reaches thousands of students each year through lectures and workshops delivered around the United States and throughout the world.

    Click here to read some comments from students and teachers following Paul’s recent speaking tour in Maryland.

    Video, Audio and Photos of the 2016 Frank K. Kelly Lecture Now Online

    The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s 15th Annual Frank K. Kelly Lecture on Humanity’s Future took place on February 18, 2016. Robert Scheer, a distinguished journalist and Editor-in-Chief of Truthdig.org, delivered a lecture on “War, Peace, Truth and the Media.”

    A video of Mr. Scheer’s full lecture, along with a MP3 audio recording and still photos, are available for free download on the NAPF website.

    Quotes

     

    “Nuclear conflict is a declaration of war on the conditions that sustain human life.”

    Norman Cousins (1915-1990), American author and peace activist. This quote appears in the book Speaking of Peace: Quotations to Inspire Action, which is available for purchase in the NAPF Peace Store.

     

    “We believe that Australia should cease its reliance on weapons whose use would almost certainly violate international law, given the uncontrollability of their blast, heat and radiological effects.”

    50 international law academics, in an open letter sent to Australian defense minister Marise Payne encouraging Australia to end its support for and reliance on U.S. nuclear weapons.

     

    “As the resolution that we have adopted today underscores, virtually all of the DPRK’s resources are channeled into its reckless and relentless pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. The North Korean government would rather grow its nuclear weapons program than grow its own children. That is the reality that we are facing.”

    Samantha Power, U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations, speaking at the UN Security Council on March 2, 2016. The U.S. spends more money than nearly every other country in the world combined on its military.

    Editorial Team

     

    Lindsay Apperson
    David Krieger
    Carol Warner
    Rick Wayman

  • Strange Spectacle: Nuclear Security Summit 2016

    At the invitation of President Obama, on April 1 more than 50 leaders of countries, including all states possessing nuclear arsenals except Russia and North Korea, gathered in Washington for the fourth Nuclear Security Summit. The focus was on securing civilian highly enriched uranium (HEU) and similar modest and voluntary steps aimed at preventing terrorists from acquiring nuclear and radiological weapons. HEU intended for use in civilian nuclear reactors is a small fraction of the total amount of weapons-usable HEU and plutonium in the world.

    It was a strange spectacle indeed to have so much political capital invested in limited measures which do not address:

    • the estimated 15,000-plus nuclear weapons in the possession of states which say they are prepared to use them; there are no safe hands, state or non-state, for these horrific devices
    • the large stocks of HEU and plutonium in military programs
    • the large stocks of reactor-grade but weapons-usable plutonium
    • ongoing production of HEU and plutonium and construction of new reprocessing plants to yield plutonium

    The contrast is stark with the global negotiations on prevention of climate change that culminated in the Paris Agreement last December. While that agreement is only a start, at least those negotiations acknowledged the reality of climate change and sought to address the entire threat.

    Also remarkable and deplorable is that the United States and the other nuclear-armed states are boycotting the United Nations Open-ended Working Group on Taking Forward Multilateral Negotiations on Nuclear Disarmament. Established by the General Assembly with the support of 138 countries, the Working Group is charged with discussing legal measures and norms needed to attain and maintain a world without nuclear weapons.

    The United States and five other nuclear-armed states (France, Russia, China, Israel, North Korea) have additionally refused the Marshall Islands’ invitation to appear in the International Court of Justice to defend their compliance with the obligation, under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and customary international law, to pursue in good faith negotiations on the elimination of nuclear arsenals. Only the nuclear-armed states which have accepted the general jurisdiction of the Court, the United Kingdom, India, and Pakistan, are defending their records before the Court in cases brought by the Marshall Islands.

    The world would have been far safer if this had been the fourth Nuclear Abolition Summit. It is past time for the United States, Russia, and other states to embrace and urgently implement a broader agenda to achieve without delay a world free of nuclear weapons.

  • Winning Videos: 2016 Swackhamer Disarmament Video Contest

    Congratulations to everyone who entered the 2016 Swackhamer Disarmament Video Contest. After much deliberation, the judges have decided on the following awards:

    FIRST PRIZE
    #HumanizeNotModernize by Konane Gurfield

    SECOND PRIZE
    Dear 9 Nuclear Armed Nations. From: Teenagers by Elias Reta

    THIRD PRIZE
    What Will We Leave Behind? by David Kirk West

    HONORABLE MENTIONS
    #HumanizeNotModernize by Jady Chan
    A Trillion Reasons by Nathan Stein
    Humanize Not Modernize by Celine Nguyen

    For more information about the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s Swackhamer Disarmament Video Contest, visit www.peacecontests.org.

  • April: This Month in Nuclear Threat History

    April 1, 2016 – A two-day meeting in Washington of 52 nations (but not Russia which two years ago announced it would not attend), the United Nations, and four international organizations (the International Atomic Energy Agency [IAEA], Interpol, The Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism [GICNT], and the Global Partnership Against the Spread of Weapons and Materials of Mass Destruction) wraps up on this date ending the fourth and final biennial Summit on Nuclear Security first hosted by President Barack Obama in April of 2010. Comments: Although these summits have resulted in the number of countries with weapons-usable nuclear material dropping from 32 to 24 in the last six years (including Uzbekistan which surrendered its remaining stockpile of highly enriched uranium last September due to the combined efforts of Russia, the U.S. National Nuclear Security Administration, and the IAEA), many observers are concerned that the momentum of the nuclear security agenda will fade after the summit process terminates. Other experts have criticized the six-year old regime for not focusing more intensely on reducing civilian stockpiles of separated plutonium as well as large stockpiles of nuclear materials categorized for military uses. This latter fissile arsenal makes up more than eighty percent of the dangerous global stockpile of weapons-usable material. Yet another concern as expressed by an anonymous German government official in a February 18th email is the critically important need “to build up sustainable and robust protection against cyberattacks for civilian nuclear reactors and other nuclear installations.” (Source: “Nuclear Summit Seeks Sustainable Results.” Arms Control Today. March 2016. http://www.armscontrol.org/ACT2016_03/News/Nuclear-Summit-Seeks-Sustainable-Resul… accessed March 11, 2016.)

    April 6, 2010 – President Barack Obama’s Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), released on this date, assured non-nuclear weapons states that the U.S. would not attack them with nuclear arms as long as those nations complied with their nuclear nonproliferation obligations. The NPR also removed from the U.S. arsenal an entire class of nuclear-armed Tomahawk sea-launched land attack cruise missiles, called for deeper bilateral Russian-American arms reductions, and promised that the U.S. would only use nuclear weapons in response to nuclear attacks against the U.S. or its allies. The short-term results of the NPR were overwhelmingly positive with Russia downgrading its strategic doctrine to include nuclear options only in response to attacks that threaten Russia’s “very existence.” Another impact of the review was an increasing tendency for NATO allies like Germany, Norway and Belgium to push for the removal of tactical nuclear weapons remaining on U.S. bases in NATO territories. It also seemed likely that the NPR would halt the accelerating erosion of the viability of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). When the President and then Russian President Dmitry Medvedev signed the New START treaty that same month, limiting each side to no more than 1,550 deployed strategic warheads and no more than 700 deployed ICBMs, SLBMs, and heavy nuclear-capable bombers, it seemed that the future looked fairly bright. There was also significant hope for accelerated progress on eliminating all nuclear weapons within a decade or so.   Comments: However, in the last few years almost all these trends have not only stopped but been reversed to a very large degree. Despite President Obama’s continued but increasingly hollow commitment to eliminate nuclear weapons made in his April 5, 2009 Prague speech, the nuclear reduction regime has been hugely sidetracked. U.S.-Russian tensions over the 2014-15 Crimea-Ukraine Crisis, an increasingly partisan growingly hawkish Republican-controlled Congress, and other negative global trends (Chinese and Russian nuclear modernization responses to increased U.S. nuclear weapons spending, the rise of ISIS, continued North Korean nuclear and ballistic missile testing and saber-rattling war rhetoric) have not only scuttled anti-nuclear progress, but lead to revisited Cold War-era nuclear arms racing.   Under extreme and unrelenting pressure from the military-industrial-Congressional-nuclear weapons laboratories complex, the President has appeased the Nuclear Hawks with an overly expensive, unnecessary $1 trillion nuclear modernization program to be implemented over the next 30 years. The U.S. nuclear triad will be “enhanced” by the inclusion of 1,000 new strategic missiles with adjustable nuclear capacity (including a new generation of nuclear-capable cruise missiles), 100 new long-range bombers, and a new fleet of nuclear-armed submarines. Even moderates like former Defense Secretary William Perry (who was quoted as saying, “if the plan becomes real, disputes among nations will be more likely to erupt in nuclear conflict than during the Cold War.”) and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen (who noted that, “we’re spending ourselves into oblivion. Our skyrocketing national debt represents the most significant threat to our national security.”) oppose the plan. The incoming 45th President of the United States must recognize that the only viable global nuclear posture that ensures humanity’s survival in the 21st century is Global Zero! (Sources: Scott Sagan. “After the Nuclear Posture Review: Obama’s Disarming Influence.” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. April 19, 2011. http://thebulletin.org/after-nuclear-posture-review-Obama’s-disarming-influence, Steven Pifer. “Obama’s Faltering Nuclear Legacy: The 3R’s.” The Washington Quarterly. Summer 2015. https://twq.elliott.gwu.edu/sites/twq.elliott.gwu.edu/files/downloads/Pifer_Summer%202015.pdf, and Stephen Kinzer. “Rearming for the Apocalypse.” The Boston Globe. January 24, 2016. https://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2016/01/24/beware-obama-nuclear-weapons-plan/IJP9E48w3cjLPITqMhZdFL/st accessed March 11, 2016.)

    April 7, 1978 – After the U.S. Congress voted on October 11, 1977 to pass HR 11686 – Public Law 95-509 to authorize the production of a new generation of tactical nuclear weapons including the “neutron bomb” – a nuclear warhead to be used on the U.S. Army 60-mile range Lance missile and its 8 inch and 155 mm howitzer artillery pieces to attack large massed Soviet tank formations in a hypothetical large-scale invasion of western Europe – on this date President Jimmy Carter announced he would defer production of the neutron bomb while, at the same time, continuing with the modernization of the U.S. stockpile of tactical nuclear weapons approved by Congress in the Fiscal Year 1979 budget. The neutron warhead would have produced the same surge of lethal radiation as other nuclear weapons but it would have only one-tenth the explosive power limiting blast and fire damage to a few hundred yards while creating a lethal radioactive kill zone of more than a half mile wide. Comments: During the Cold War, both the Soviet Union and the U.S. developed and deployed tens of thousands of shorter-range “tactical” as well as longer-range “strategic” nuclear weapons which unwittingly brought the world closer to global thermonuclear war. Unfortunately, today in the U.S., Russia, China, and other nuclear weapons states there has been a renewed push for smaller “more usable” nuclear weapons including President Obama’s Fiscal Year 2017 budget proposal released in February 2016 which called for the development of hundreds of new nuclear-tipped cruise missiles and modernization of the B61 tactical “bunker buster” nuclear warhead that many War Hawks envision as a weapon that could “take out” deep underground nuclear facilities in North Korea or Iran.   Using tactical or even very small nuclear warheads would nevertheless breach the nuclear threshold and bring the world much closer to global nuclear Armageddon. (Sources: Contemporary mainstream and alternative news media reports and “Neutron Bomb Sparks Controversy Regarding Next Generation Nuclear Weapons.” CQ Almanac. 1978. https://library.cqpress.com/cqalmanac/document.php?id=cqal78-1238840 accessed March 11, 2016.)

    April 10, 1963 – The nuclear submarine U.S.S. Thresher, the first submarine in its class, sank during deep-diving trials after flooding, loss of propulsion, and an attempt to blow the emergency ballast tanks failed. The disabled ship, which would not have been carrying nuclear weapons, ultimately descended to crush depth and imploded about 190 nautical miles east of Cape Cod, Massachusetts killing all 129 men onboard the vessel and most probably exposing some radioactive components of the ship’s reactor core to the waters of the Atlantic Ocean. Comments: In the past, eight nuclear submarines, six of them Soviet/Russian and the other two, including the Thresher, American, have sunk with dozen of nuclear ballistic missiles also lost at sea. Some of the nuclear reactors and warheads in these and other military vessels or aircraft lost at sea are leaking highly radioactive toxins affecting not only the flora and fauna of the deep, but the health and well-being of millions of people. (Source: “Major Sub Disasters: Thresher: Going Quietly.” NationalGeographic.com. 1996. http://www.nationalgeographic.com/k19/disasters_detail2.html accessed March 11, 2016.)

    April 16, 1953 – Although the 34th U.S. President Dwight David Eisenhower threatened to use nuclear weapons against North Korea in 1953 and endorsed Secretary of State John Foster Dulles’ buildup of huge stockpiles of hydrogen bombs as part of the “Massive Retaliation” strategic doctrine to ensure that the U.S. had “more bang for the buck,” the Denison, Texas-born Supreme Allied Commander in Europe and hero of the Second World War realized that peace and diplomatic approaches were a much wiser course of action. For instance, at the 1945 Potsdam Conference then General Eisenhower expressed the view that dropping atomic bombs on Japan was an unnecessary, inhumane decision. On this date before the American Society of Newspaper Editors, the President gave his famous “Cross of Iron” speech in which he said, “Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, and the hopes of its children…This is not a way of life, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.” Comments: President Eisenhower’s speech is as starkly accurate today as it was more than sixty years ago. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), world military expenditures, including nuclear weapons spending, in 2014 was 1.776 trillion dollars. The opportunity cost of not only maintaining, upgrading, and modernizing tens of thousands of tactical, strategic, standby and reserve nuclear weapons, while also spending hundreds of billions of dollars on an incredibly wasteful array of conventional weaponry is unconscionable. If just nuclear weapons alone were dramatically reduced or even eliminated, money would be freed up for cancer and chronic disease R&D, addressing Global Warming climate impacts as well as regional environmental disasters, phasing out and cleaning up hundreds of dangerous civilian nuclear power plants while also mitigating and sequestering a huge volume of toxic radioactive waste from a plethora of global civilian and military sites, educating  and employing millions of people all over the planet and particularly in the Third World, rebuilding and innovating more energy-efficient and productive transportation networks, medical facilities, agricultural projects, and other crumbling global civilian infrastructures, and solving other worldwide societal problems. (Sources: “Cross of Iron Speech: Address by President Dwight D. Eisenhower.” Information Clearing House. April 16, 1953. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article9743.htm and “Military Spending and Armaments, 2015.” Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. http://www.sipri.org/research/armaments/milex both accessed March 11, 2016.)

    April 26, 1986 – A fire in the core of the No. 4 unit and a resulting explosion that blew the roof off the reactor building of the Chernobyl Nuclear Complex located about 130 kilometers (80 miles) north of Kiev, capital of the then Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic of the U.S.S.R., resulted in the largest ever release of radioactive material from a civilian reactor, with the possible exception of the Fukushima Dai-chi accident of March 11, 2011 in northeast Japan. Two were killed and 200 others hospitalized, but the Soviet government did not release specific details of the nuclear meltdown until two days later when Sweden, Finland, Denmark, and other European neighbors detected abnormally high levels of radioactivity. 8,000 died and 435,000 people were evacuated from the region in the ensuring days, weeks, months, and years. Although West Germany, Sweden, and other nations provided assistance to the Soviet Union to deal with the deadly, widespread radioactive fallout from the accident, some argue today that the U.S, China, Russia, France, Japan, and other nations should establish a permanent, multilateral civilian-military-humanitarian response force to quickly address such serious nuclear and natural disasters in a time-urgent, nonpartisan manner. Thirty years later, a sarcophagus encloses the deadliest radioactive site on the planet which contains approximately 200 tons of radioactive corium, 30 tons of contaminated dust, and a very large indeterminate amount of uranium and plutonium. Radiation levels inside the sarcophagus still run as high as 5,000 to 10,000 roentgens per hour. A 2016 report by Greenpeace on the local and regional impacts of the disaster found that in many cases, in grain stocks for instance, radiation levels in the contaminated area, where about five million people live today, are still surprisingly high. According to scientific testing conducted by Greenpeace consultants and experts, overall contamination from key isotopes such as cesium-137 and strontium-90 have fallen somewhat, but continue to linger at prohibitive levels especially in forested areas of the contaminated zone. Comments: In addition to the dangerous risk of nuclear power plant accidents like Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Fukushima and others too numerous to list here, the tremendously out-of-control civilian and military nuclear waste sequestration, remediation, and permanent storage conundrum as well as the terrorist targeting potential, the economic unsustainability of civilian nuclear power, and the potential for nuclear proliferation points logically to an accelerated phase-out of global civilian nuclear power plants over the next decade. (Sources: “Nuclear Scars: The Lasting Legacies of Chernobyl and Fukushima.” Greenpeace. March-April 2016. http://greenpeace.org/france/PageFiles/266171/Nuclear_Scars_report_WEB_final_version_20160403.pdf and Gleb Garanich. “30 Years After Chernobyl, Locals Are Still Eating Radioactive Food” Reuters (also published on Newsweek website). March 9, 2016. http://www.newsweek.com/30-years-after-chernobyl-locals-are-still-eating-radioactive-food-435253 both accessed March 11, 2016.)

  • Peace, Memory and the Power of Poetry

    If we choose to create a world at peace, how we remember events of the past matters.  Societies often attempt to envelop important past events in shrouds of secrecy or in mythic forms.  Nations and despotic leaders are adept at painting themselves as heroic.  To learn the important lessons of the past so that we may avoid repeating them in the present or future, we must push away myths and cover-ups, bring down the walls of denial, and expose the truth.  We must not allow horrific events of the past, including wars and human rights abuses, to be justified with specious, patriotic arguments.

    To create a more decent and peaceful future, we must directly confront the lies and brutality of past wars.  This requires an honest appraisal of the past.  For this reason, museums are created that introduce new generations to what happened in the Holocaust; and about the US use of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

    The arts can engage our hearts and shake us from our complacency.  They can awaken and enlighten us.  They can move us to action.  They can help us to remember, to make connections and to see the world in a new light.  Literature, painting and poetry have the power to ignite the human spirit, but to do so must be rooted in truth and compassion.

    The arts can provide the means of understanding the horrors of war.  There are many great books that tell and retell stories of war and peace.  Some of are Leo Tolstoy’s War and Peace, Erich-Maria Remarque’s All Quiet on the Western Front, Kurt Vonnegut’s Slaughterhouse Five, and Ernest Hemingway’s A Farewell to Arms.  A powerful artistic movie that depicts the insanity of war and dispels the myth that war is glorious is The King of Hearts.  A well-known painting by Pablo Picasso, Guernica, powerfully depicts the brutality and suffering of war.

    Poetry can be an artistic form for understanding the past in a truthful light.  I will refer to five of my own poems and provide brief commentary on their meanings.  The poems may raise more questions about past events than provide ready answers.  They may open our eyes to view the world from new perspectives.

    An Irony of History

    Here is a simple poem about the atomic bombing of Japan.  It tells a very short story of proximity in time.  The atomic bombings did not happen in a vacuum.  Other events were taking place.  The poem opens the door a crack.  Perhaps it can also open our minds.

    A SHORT HISTORY LESSON:  1945

    August 6th:
    Dropped atomic bomb
    On civilians
    At Hiroshima.

    August 8th:
    Agreed to hold
    War crimes trials
    For Nazis.

    August 9th:
    Dropped atomic bomb
    On civilians
    At Nagasaki.

    The events in the poem happened within the space of three days: the US bombed civilians in Hiroshima (a war crime), agreed to hold war crimes trials for Nazis, and then bombed civilians at Nagasaki (a war crime).  It is a war crime to bomb civilians.  How ironic that the US committed war crimes in the days immediately surrounding its entering into an international treaty with other Allied Powers to hold the Nazis to account for their war crimes.  The poem leaves a question in our minds about US hypocrisy in its actions.

    Remembering My Lai

    This poem remembers the Vietnam War and the massacre of civilians that happened at the hands of US soldiers at My Lai.  Many young people may not have heard of the atrocities committed at My Lai, nor of the name of Lieutenant Calley, who was convicted of ordering the My Lai massacre, and who was soon pardoned by President Nixon.  If we don’t remember the atrocities of war, especially those we commit, we are likely to repeat them.  Thus, little changes from My Lai in the Vietnam War to Abu Ghraib in the Iraq War.

    LITTLE CHANGES

    Our brave young soldiers
    shot babies at My Lai –
    few remember.

    Lt. Calley
    sentenced to house arrest
    until pardoned by Nixon.

    Then it was gooks.
    Now it is hajjis
    little changes.

    Abu Ghraib.
    The buck stops nowhere.
    It still hasn’t stopped.

    From My Lai
    to Abu Ghraib –
    the terrible silence.

    How does My Lai compare with atrocities in more recent wars?  What happened at Abu Ghraib?  Where does the buck stop?  Why is there such disinterest and apathy among the American people?  Why the terrible silence?  What are our values?  Where is our sense of decency and our shame?

    Who Was Norman Morrison?

    Norman Morrison was a real person, an American Quaker.  He had a family.  He immolated himself in front of the Pentagon in protest against the Vietnam War.

    NORMAN MORRISON
    November 2, 1965

    Sitting calmly before the Pentagon, like a Buddhist monk,
    he doused himself in kerosene, lit a match and went up in flame.

    I imagine McNamara, stiff and unflinching, as he watched
    from above.

    To his wife, Morrison wrote, “Know that I love thee,
    but I must go to help the children of the priest’s village.”

    When it happened, the wife of the YMCA director said,
    “I can understand a heathen doing that, but not a Christian.”

    Few Americans remember his name, but in Vietnam
    children still sing songs about his courage.

    Norman Morrison’s troubling death by public suicide raises many disquieting questions: Why would he do this to himself?  Why is he remembered in Vietnam, but hardly remembered in America?  Why did he choose to immolate himself under Robert McNamara’s window at the Pentagon?  Who was Robert McNamara?  Was he a war criminal?

    What Was Zaid’s Misfortune?

    Like Norman Morrison and Robert McNamara, Zaid was a real person, an 11-year-old Iraqi child whose parents, both physicians, were killed in front of their medical clinic.  He became a victim of war, an orphan of war.  War creates misfortune.  In war there are no winners.  To be macho about war is foolish.

    ZAID’S MISFORTUNE

    Zaid had the misfortune
    of being born in Iraq, a country
    rich with oil.

    Iraq had the misfortune
    of being invaded by a country
    greedy for oil.

    The country greedy for oil
    had the misfortune of being led
    by a man too eager for war.

    Zaid’s misfortune multiplied
    when his parents were shot down
    in front of their medical clinic.

    Being eleven and haunted
    by the deaths of one’s parents
    is a great misfortune.

    In Zaid’s misfortune
    a distant silence engulfs
    the sounds of war.

    War kills children and makes orphans of them.  Why do so few people in America care about Zaid’s misfortune?  He is but one victim among many, but shouldn’t we care about the pain, suffering and cruelty initiated and carried out in our names?  Why are we so silent about war?  Why do we think war is an acceptable means of resolving conflicts?  Why is Zaid’s misfortune also our misfortune?

    Yet Another Hiroshima Day

    Each year there is an opportunity to remember what happened at Hiroshima on August 6th, the anniversary of the bombing.  It is an opportunity to consider the importance of the day, not only for what happened, but more importantly, for what could happen in the future.  The life of every person on the planet is threatened by nuclear war.

    ANOTHER HIROSHIMA DAY HAS PASSED

    And there are still nuclear weapons in the world.

    They are still on hair-trigger alert, weapons
    with no concern for you or me or anyone.

    They are weapons with steel hearts.
    There is no bargaining with them.

    They have nothing to say or perhaps
    they speak in another language.
    They do not speak our language.

    They have only one battle plan
    and that is utter destruction.

    They have no respect for the laws of war
    or any laws, even those of nature.

    Another Hiroshima Day has passed
    and the shadow of the bomb still darkens
    the forests of our dreams.

    Hiroshima and Nagasaki were nightmares for those beneath the bombs and for humanity.  If we don’t recognize that, we won’t awaken from our too comfortable complacency before it is too late.  Nuclear weapons cannot control themselves.  We humans must control them.  But can we really do that?  We thought we could control nuclear power, but then there was Chernobyl and then Fukushima.  Do we really believe that we humans are capable of controlling nuclear weapons?  Is this illusion of control not really a form of hubris, one that could lead to the demise of humanity?  With each Hiroshima Day that passes are we not continuing to play Nuclear Roulette with the human future?

    The Arts Matter

    We are fortunate to live in a time in which we have the possibility to transition from cruelty to kindness, from selfishness to community, from nation to world, from war to peace, from nuclear threat to nuclear zero, and from killing to nonkilling.  May the arts, including the poetry of peace, help to open our eyes and hearts, sharpen our senses, and put us in touch with the truth, beauty and responsibilities of our common humanity, so that we may become a part of the solution so desperately needed to our global malaise.  In short, may the arts restore and deepen our humanity and make us worthy of the sacred gift of life.

  • Nuclear Zero Lawsuits: Press Summary for March 2016

    The Marshall Islands’ nuclear disarmament cases received a significant boost in media coverage in March 2016 as the International Court of Justice held its preliminary oral hearings in the cases against the United Kingdom, India and Pakistan. Below is a summary of English-language press coverage.

    3 March Pressenza (press release)

    4 March Reuters

    5 March Agence France Presse

    6 March RT (Russia Today)

    6 March Pressenza

    7 March Associated Press

    7 March Agence France Presse

    7 March Reuters

    7 March Associated Press

    7 March Pressenza

    7 March First Post (India)

    7 March Press Trust of India

    8 March BBC

    8 March Agence France Presse

    8 March National Public Radio

    8 March Catch News (India)

    8 March Pressenza

    8 March Al Jazeera

    8 March The Diplomat

    8 March Reuters

    8 March Radio New Zealand

    8 March Press TV

    8 March One India

    9 March The Hindu

    9 March Australian Broadcasting Corporation

    9 March Niewsuur (TV – mostly in Dutch)

    9 March Pressenza

    10 March The Guardian

    10 March The News International (Pakistan)

    10 March Marshall Islands Journal

    10 March Pakistan Today

    10 March Associated Press

    10 March Associated Press of Pakistan

    10 March Tasnim News Agency (Iran)

    10 March Pressenza

    11 March Gulf Times (Qatar)

    11 March City A.M. (UK)

    11 March Marshall Islands Journal

    13 March The Express Tribune (Pakistan)

    15 March Pressenza

    16 March Daily Times (Pakistan)

    16 March Pressenza

    17 March Eurasia Review

    17 March Pressenza

    17 March InDepth News

    18 March Radio New Zealand

    18 March The Herald (Scotland)

    18 March Greenpeace International

    22 March Radio New Zealand

    25 March Marshall Islands Journal

    27 March The New York Times

    29 March The Ecologist

  • Peace Leadership for Teenagers

    Peace Leadership for Teenagers

    When NAPF Peace Leadership Director Paul K. Chappell visits high schools, he broadens his talk about waging peace and ending war to often include growing up in a violent household, bullying problems, the three elements of universal respect, how positive change happens, and why we should have hope.

    Students at Mercy High School in Baltimore. Maryland recently wrote:

    “Mr. Paul’s words were greatly wise and will stay with me for a long time.”

    “What Mr. Paul spoke about really opened my eyes and I am very thankful he came to talk to us.”

    “We have the ability to change the world.”

    “I want to help and stop nuclear weapons. I want to try and work my life around trying to end war.”

    “I loved listening to his talk and perspective on life and it opened my eyes more to the aspects of life and how I see life itself.”

    “I took away that you should respect everyone.”

    “One takeaway I have from the guest speaker is the great importance of my actions that have been influenced by the past and can greatly affect the future.”

    “The thing that stood out to me the most was his belief that the world is generally a good place and it is getting better. Before his speech I generally thought things were getting worse. I did not have a lot of hope for the world. However, he brought up a lot of valid points that made me think otherwise.”

    Comments from Bethesda-Chevy Chase High School in Bethesda, Maryland included:

    “I especially enjoyed when you said how fighting often starts because of a lack of respect because I have seen that in my own life but never realized it until now.”

    “You are an inspiration to others going through hard times.”

    The practical nature of Paul’s talks for teenagers continues to find a welcoming audience.

    “Thank you so much for coming to talk to us about peace. You made some really great points that were very eye-opening and talked about big issues in a way that all people could understand. It is very hard to get a class of teenagers to get interested in some subjects, and I am very impressed that you did!”

  • April 14: Political Responsibility in the Nuclear Age

    Please join us on April 14 as leaders of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation discuss political responsibility in the Nuclear Age, how nuclear weapons affect Santa Barbara and the implications of the U.S. plan to spend $1 trillion modernizing its nuclear arsenal over the next three decades.
    calendar_4.14.2016

    The event will take place at the Faulkner Gallery at the Santa Barbara Public Library, 40 E. Anapamu Street, Santa Barbara, from 7:00-8:30 pm on Thursday, April 14. The event is free and open to the public.

    Richard Falk is a Professor of International Law and Practice Emeritus at Princeton, where he was a member of the faculty for 40 years. He was Special Rapporteur for the UN on Human Rights in the Palestinian territories from 2008-14. He is the author and editor of numerous books, including Legality and Legitimacy in Global Affairs.

    David Krieger is a founder of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, and has served as President of the Foundation since 1982. Among other leadership positions, he is one of 50 Councilors from around the world on the World Future Council. He is the author and editor of numerous books and articles related to achieving peace in the Nuclear Age.

    Robert B. Laney is the Board Chair of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. In his early career Rob served as an officer in the U.S. Navy and as a Judge Advocate in the U.S. Marine Corps. He is a strong and vocal advocate of the rule of law and achieving a world free of nuclear weapons as required by international law.

    Click here for a flyer.

  • The Trillion Dollar Question

    [Dr. Lawrence Wittner (http://www.lawrenceswittner.com) is Professor of History emeritus at SUNY/Albany.  His latest book is a satirical novel about university corporatization and rebellion, What’s Going On at UAardvark?]

    Isn’t it rather odd that America’s largest single public expenditure scheduled for the coming decades has received no attention in the 2015-2016 presidential debates?

    The expenditure is for a thirty-year program to “modernize” the U.S. nuclear arsenal and production facilities.  Although President Obama began his administration with a dramatic public commitment to build a nuclear weapons-free world, that commitment has long ago dwindled and died.  It has been replaced by an administration plan to build a new generation of U.S. nuclear weapons and nuclear production facilities to last the nation well into the second half of the twenty-first century.  This plan, which has received almost no attention by the mass media, includes redesigned nuclear warheads, as well as new nuclear bombers, submarines, land-based missiles, weapons labs, and production plants.  The estimated cost?  $1,000,000,000,000.00—or, for those readers unfamiliar with such lofty figures, $1 trillion.

    Critics charge that the expenditure of this staggering sum will either bankrupt the country or, at the least, require massive cutbacks in funding for other federal government programs.  “We’re . . . wondering how the heck we’re going to pay for it,” admitted Brian McKeon, an undersecretary of defense.  And we’re “probably thanking our stars we won’t be here to have to have to answer the question,” he added with a chuckle.

    Of course, this nuclear “modernization” plan violates the terms of the 1968 nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which requires the nuclear powers to engage in nuclear disarmament.  The plan is also moving forward despite the fact that the U.S. government already possesses roughly 7,000 nuclear weapons that can easily destroy the world.  Although climate change might end up accomplishing much the same thing, a nuclear war does have the advantage of terminating life on earth more rapidly.

    This trillion dollar nuclear weapons buildup has yet to inspire any questions about it by the moderators during the numerous presidential debates.  Even so, in the course of the campaign, the presidential candidates have begun to reveal their attitudes toward it.

    On the Republican side, the candidates—despite their professed distaste for federal expenditures and “big government”—have been enthusiastic supporters of this great leap forward in the nuclear arms race.  Donald Trump, the frontrunner, contended in his presidential announcement speech that “our nuclear arsenal doesn’t work,” insisting that it is out of date.  Although he didn’t mention the $1 trillion price tag for “modernization,” the program is clearly something he favors, especially given his campaign’s focus on building a U.S. military machine “so big, powerful, and strong that no one will mess with us.”

    His Republican rivals have adopted a similar approach.  When a peace activist questioned Ted Cruz on the campaign trail about whether he agreed with Ronald Reagan on the need to eliminate nuclear weapons, the Texas senator replied:  “I think we’re a long way from that and, in the meantime, we need to be prepared to defend ourselves.  The best way to avoid war is to be strong enough that no one wants to mess with the United States.”  Apparently, Republican candidates are particularly worried about being “messed with.”

    On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton has been more ambiguous about her stance toward a dramatic expansion of the U.S. nuclear arsenal.  Asked by a peace activist about the trillion dollar nuclear plan, she replied that she would “look into that,” adding:  “It doesn’t make sense to me.”  Even so, like other issues that the former secretary of state has promised to “look into,” this one remains unresolved.  Moreover, the “National Security” section of her campaign website promises that she will maintain the “strongest military the world has ever known”—not a propitious sign for critics of nuclear weapons.

    Only Bernie Sanders has adopted a position of outright rejection.  In May 2015, shortly after declaring his candidacy, Sanders was asked at a public meeting about the trillion dollar nuclear weapons program.  He replied:  “What all of this is about is our national priorities.  Who are we as a people?  Does Congress listen to the military-industrial complex” that “has never seen a war that they didn’t like?  Or do we listen to the people of this country who are hurting?”  In fact, Sanders is one of only three U.S. Senators who support the SANE Act, legislation that would significantly reduce U.S. government spending on nuclear weapons.  In addition, on the campaign trail, Sanders has not only called for cuts in spending on nuclear weapons, but has affirmed his support for their total abolition.

    Nevertheless, given the failure of the presidential debate moderators to raise the issue of nuclear weapons “modernization,” the American people have been left largely uninformed about the candidates’ opinions on this subject.  So, if Americans would like more light shed on their future president’s response to this enormously expensive surge in the nuclear arms race, it looks like they are the ones who are going to have to ask the candidates the trillion dollar question.

  • Bulldozers

    In Desert Storm, an American War,
    the U.S. military put bulldozer blades on its tanks
    and buried Iraqi soldiers alive in desert sands.
    This deserves more than a footnote in the annals
    of human cruelty.

    Rachel Corrie, a young American, stood
    before an Israeli bulldozer that threatened the home
    of a Palestinian family. She refused to give way.
    This deserves more than a footnote in the annals
    of human courage.