Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Blog

  • September: This Month in Nuclear Threat History

    September 4, 1978 – War Resisters League (WRL) members and their supporters demonstrated against nuclear weapons and civilian nuclear power plants simultaneously in Red Square near the Kremlin in Moscow and on the White House front lawn in Washington, DC. WRL’s antinuclear protests, marches, and demonstrations such as the one above helped the organization become one of the leaders of the June 12, 1982 Mobilization for Survival U.N./Central Park peace demonstration that drew approximately one million participants. That protest was followed two days later by simultaneous civil disobedience actions at the U.N. missions of the five admitted nuclear powers.   Founded in 1923, WRL is just one of many global organizations that are working for the elimination of the nuclear threat.  (Source:  War Resisters League History, https://www.warresisters.org/wrl-history accessed August 10, 2015.)

    September 5, 1995 – Three months after French President Jacques Chirac announced a resumption of nuclear testing in the South Pacific and after worldwide protests forced the French to scale back those tests, a 20-kiloton test explosion was conducted at the Moruroa Atoll. Further international condemnation forced France’s hand. Five days after that nation’s last test explosion was conducted on January 27, 1996, President Chirac announced that his nation had finished testing “once and for all.” In September 1996, France became one of 70 nations, including the U.S., China, and Russia, to sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), which it later ratified on April 6, 1998.  In all, France conducted 210 nuclear tests from 1960-1996 which inflicted extremely harmful short- and long-term health impacts to populations in an immense region of the South Pacific.  Increased cancer rates, groundwater contamination, and other detrimental health and environmental impacts still plague global populations decades after over 2,000 nuclear bombs were exploded below ground or in the atmosphere by members of the Nuclear Club.  (Source:  Jack Mendelsohn and David Grahame, editors.  “Arms Control Chronology.”  Washington, DC:  Center for Defense Information, 2002, pp. 17, 18, 24.)

    September 11, 1957 – A fire in a plutonium processing building broke out at the Rocky Flats nuclear weapons plant, a sprawling facility with about 800 buildings spread out over 6,500 acres, located 17 miles from Denver, Colorado.  Due to the failure of various safety systems, the fire spread through a ventilation system and reached a cache of highly radioactive plutonium.  Contamination spread throughout the plant.  Due to an official cover-up of the extent of the catastrophe by the Dow Chemical Company, and the Atomic Energy Commission, knowledge of the specific damage and contamination caused by the accident was kept from the public for years.  Another fire in 1969 sent toxic smoke over Denver.  Thirteen years after the 1957 accident, an independent group of scientists found much more extensive radioactive contamination than previously believed – of a magnitude 400-1,500 times higher than normal background radiation as far away as 30 miles from the plant.  On June 6, 1989, FBI agents and representatives of the EPA raided the plant to uncover suspected environmental crimes resulting in the closure of a facility that had been part of the U.S. nuclear bomb-making complex since 1952.   Many of the 40,000 people who worked at the plant became Cold War casualties as cancers and other diseases were tied to excessive exposure to chemicals and radioactive toxins.   Rockwell International Corporation, DOE’s contractor at the site, pleaded guilty in 1992 to ten environmental crimes and paid an $18.5 million fine.   Federal government-controlled clean-up of the site began with large amounts of contaminated soil and concrete entombed in the Central Operable Unit.   While the U.S. government claims it has been providing monetary compensation since around 2001 to former Rocky Flat employees, it is reported that only a small number of those claims have been adequately paid due to the unreasonably strict burden of proof imposed on those nuclear workers.  (Sources:  Andrew Cohen.  “A September 11th Catastrophe You’ve Probably Never Heard About.”  The Atlantic. September 10, 2012, www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/09/a-september-11th-catastrophe-youve-probably-never-heard-about/261959/ and Electra Draper.  “Feds Raided Rocky Flats 25 Years Ago.”  Denver Post.  June 1, 2014, www.denverpost.com/news/ci_25874064/feds-raided-rocky-flats-25-years-ago-signaling, both accessed August 10, 2015.)

    September 11, 2001 – Nineteen hijackers, 15 of whom were Saudi nationals, crashed four commercial aircraft onto U.S. territory destroying the World Trade Center in New York City and partially damaging the Pentagon in Washington, DC in an attack that killed nearly 3,000 people.  If the 9-11 attack had been conducted using a nuclear weapon, the impact would have been incredibly worse.  For instance, if Manhattan Island was struck by a 150 kiloton terrorist-fabricated nuclear fission bomb (although experts think it more likely the yield would be significantly smaller) exploded in the heart of downtown during daytime hours, the results would be devastating.  Estimated fatalities would be over 800,000 people with at least another 900,000-plus injuries not including those caused by later post-blast firestorms.  The bombing would result in 20 square miles of property damage not to mention catastrophic impacts on global financial markets if Wall Street was located in or near ground zero.   Comments:  While over a decade of nuclear threat reduction and similar multilateral and bilateral agreements and intergovernmental actions of sequestering and removing vulnerable nuclear materials and weapons from the former Soviet Union and other areas of the world has been overwhelmingly successful in circumventing nuclear terrorism, more must be done to prevent the criminal use of nuclear weapons by non-state actors.   World citizenry must push the U.S., the United Nations, NATO, the other members of the Nuclear Club, and other global entities to find a viable, comprehensive negotiated end to the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT) as well as a renewed Cold War II.   Otherwise, the risks of another Hiroshima, Nagasaki, or a significantly deadlier nuclear Armageddon increases every day!  (Source:  Carrie Rossenfeld, Chris Griffith, et al., “New York City Example.”  Nuclear Pathways Project, National Science Foundation’s National Science Digital Library.  See www.atomicarchive.com/Example/Example1  accessed August 10, 2105.)

    September 14, 1961 – Within months after first being authorized by President Dwight Eisenhower’s December 2, 1960 signature, the first U.S. SIOP (Single Integrated Operational Plan) nuclear targeting plan went into effect around April 1.   Months later on this date, President John F. Kennedy was given his first expanded, comprehensive, “top secret” briefing on the SIOP which featured 3,720 targets grouped into more than 1,000 ground zeros that would be struck by 3,423 nuclear weapons aimed at the Soviet Union, China, North Korea, and Eastern Europe, resulting in the deaths of hundreds of millions of people.  After the briefing, the President commented to Secretary of State Dean Rusk, “And we call ourselves the human race!”  (Sources:   Oliver Stone and Peter Kuznick.  “The Untold History of the United States.”  New York:  Gallery Books, 2012, p. 287 and Eric Schlosser.  “Command and Control:  Nuclear Weapons, the Damascus Incident, and the Illusion of Safety.”  New York:  Penguin Press, 2013.)

    September 17, 1987 – U.S. Secretary of State George Schultz and Soviet Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze announced in a joint statement that in addition to concluding the INF (Intermediate Nuclear Forces) Treaty for the Elimination of the Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Nuclear Missiles (later signed by President Ronald Reagan and General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev on December 8, 1989), both nations signed an agreement to establish Nuclear Risk Reduction Centers (NRRCs) in Washington and Moscow to reduce the risk of conflict between the U.S. and Soviet Union that might result from accidents, miscalculations, or misinterpretations.   The 24-hour, seven-days-a-week centers, which formally opened on April 1, 1988, featured a new dedicated communication link and included information exchange and a provision for military exercise and test launch notifications in addition to supporting the follow-through and verification requirements of a number of bilateral arms control treaties between the two sides.  Today, the U.S. NRRC, which is staffed by the Bureau of Arms Control, Verification, and Compliance within the U.S. Department of State, is located in the Harry S. Truman Building in Washington, DC.   The State Department’s website notes that, “The U.S. NRRC exchanges an average of 7,000 notifications annually with its international partners.   The U.S. and Russian NRRCs have exchanged nearly 5,000 New START Treaty notifications since entry into force in 2011.”   In 1998, Presidents Bill Clinton and Boris Yeltsin announced plans to build a Joint U.S.-Russian Data Exchange Center (JDEC) to further reduce the risks of unintentional nuclear war and specifically address Russia’s faulty radar warning system that almost triggered World War III during the January 1995 Black Brant Incident (whereby a U.S.-Norwegian scientific sounding rocket launch was misinterpreted by Russian military radar officers as a possible U.S.-NATO nuclear first strike decapitation attack on Moscow).   But before the center could be completed, NATO’s war in Kosovo in 1999 and the Pentagon’s insistence that radar data be filtered first through the U.S. Strategic Command before going to Moscow created a climate of bilateral tension that doomed further progress in the matter.  This led to an unfinished facility sitting unused in a Moscow residential neighborhood.   The JDEC languished further during the remainder of the Clinton Administration and for all of the years of the George W. Bush presidency as well.   The Obama Administration tried to revive the JDEC initiative in the form of a “Data Fusion Center” but that proposal went nowhere.  Comments:   However, the risks of nuclear conflict remain intolerably high as seen in the recent Crimea-Ukraine Crisis of 2014.   Despite what some envision as the beginnings of a Cold War II, politicians, military leaders, nuclear experts, activists, and a large number of nonprofit peace and antinuclear organizations continue to push for more concrete ways to reduce and eventually eliminate the risks of a nuclear Armageddon including reviving and strengthening a robust JDEC, and the priority de-alerting of U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals at the earliest possible opportunity.   (Sources:  Jack Mendelsohn and David Grahame, editors.  “Arms Control Chronology.”  Washington, DC:  Center for Defense Information, 2002, p. 50 and “U.S. Nuclear Risk Reduction Center” U.S. Department of State website:  www.state.gov/t/avc/nrrc and Alexander Zaitchik.  “Old Nukes Don’t Die, They Just Sit Around and Wait To Be Launched.”  February 20, 2004, Rense.com website, www.rense.com/general49/wewi.htm accessed August 10, 2015.)

    September 19, 1953 – A New York Times article published on this date quoted U.S. Secretary of State John Foster Dulles who warned that, “The central problem now is to save the human race from extinction.”  By 1953, both the U.S. and the Soviet Union had successfully tested a hydrogen bomb for the first time, the U.S. had contemplated using nuclear weapons in the recent Korean Conflict, and nuclear force levels were climbing steadily.   The Chicago-based Bulletin of Atomic Scientists’ Doomsday Clock (1947-2015) was set at two minutes until midnight, meaning two minutes before a global thermonuclear war.  The 1953 press release by the Bulletin read, “Only a few more swings of the pendulum and, from Moscow to Chicago, atomic explosions will strike midnight for Western Civilization.”   This dire time was the closest the world would come to doomsday in the last 68 years since the clock was started.   The next two most dangerous time periods, when the clock’s hands were set at three minutes to midnight, were in 1984 and 2015.   Comments:  Despite a vast proliferation of major and alternative (including social) media sources of information on the nuclear threat over the last few decades, most Americans are either unaware or unconcerned about a threat they believe virtually ended with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the termination of the Cold War in 1991.   In reality, seventy years after Hiroshima, nuclear risks to global civilization and the human species are as frighteningly dangerous as ever.   The time for action is now.  Drastic reductions and a time-urgent elimination of all nuclear weaponry and nuclear power is a firm, unalterable requirement for human survival in the 21st century!  (Sources:  Louis Rene Beres.  “Apocalypse:  Nuclear Catastrophe in World Politics.”  Chicago:  University of Chicago Press, 1980 and Bulletin of Atomic Scientists.  “Doomsday Clock Timeline.”  www.thebulletin.org/timeline accessed on August 10, 2015.)

    September 25, 1990 – The U.S. Senate ratified the Threshold Test Ban Treaty (TTBT) signed by the U.S. and Soviet Union on July 3, 1974, which banned underground nuclear tests that exceeded 150 kilotons and obligated the parties to continue negotiations for a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) and also ratified the so-called “Peaceful” Nuclear Explosions Treaty (PNET) signed by both nations on May 28, 1976.   Importantly the PNET, which reinforced the 150 kiloton TTBT test limit, also provided for verification by national technical means, information exchange, and access to test sites.  The Supreme Soviet ratified the two treaties on October 9, 1990.   The leadership of past presidents and then President George Bush was important but even more critical was the push for peace by General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev, who was announced as that year’s Nobel Peace Prize winner in October of 1990.  Comments:  While today it is recognized that any nuclear tests, no matter how small the yield or magnitude of the blast, have an overwhelmingly negative impact on public health and safety, environmental protection, and on world public perception of the testing nation(s), these treaties were nevertheless valuable in promoting continued negotiations toward a CTBT which was signed by President Bill Clinton on September 24, 1996 and by representatives of 70 other nations including the U.K., China, France, and Russia by September 26th.  Despite broad international consensus among the scientific and arms control community that seismic monitoring and other national technical means of verification were becoming more and more foolproof in detecting test cheaters, the U.S. Senate rejected the CTBT on October 13, 1999 and hasn’t reversed course on this unreasonable stance even with the ratification of the treaty by an overwhelming vote of 298-74 on April 21, 2000 by the Russian Duma.  In 2015 there is no longer any legitimate excuse for the U.S. Senate not to proceed with ratification.  Encouraging Congress to ratify the CTBT and the recent Iran nuclear deal, as well as having that body direct the Pentagon to de-alert hair-trigger U.S. strategic nuclear missiles and begin the accelerated phase-out of the U.S. nuclear triad (all through bilateral negotiations with Russia) ought to be top priority issues in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.  (Source:  Jack Mendelsohn and David Grahame, editors.  “Arms Control Chronology.”  Washington, DC:  Center for Defense Information, 2002, pp. 11, 14, 22.)

  • Message to the International Youth Summit for Nuclear Abolition

    Greetings to all participants in the International Youth Summit for Nuclear Abolition.

    You are engaged in the most critical task of our time, seeking a way out of the Nuclear Age, a very brief period in human history, but an incredibly dangerous one. Human civilization, so painstakingly created over thousands of years, could be destroyed in an afternoon of nuclear exchange, which could occur by accident, miscalculation or design. There would be no winners of that exchange, only losers, and the greatest losers would be the people of the future, including the youth of today. It is clear that nuclear weapons threaten all we love and treasure.

    International Youth Summit for Nuclear AbolitionNuclear weapons should never have been created, but they were. They should never have been used on cities, but they were. There should never have been widespread nuclear testing, but there was. Nor, should there ever have been an insane arms race, but there was. Today, we have far fewer nuclear weapons than at the height of the nuclear arms race in the mid-1980s, but those that remain still endanger us all.

    There is only one power strong enough to abolish nuclear weapons, and that is the power of the people acting with engaged hearts. Nuclear weapons are powerful devices. They can kill, maim, and cause massive destruction. But they are no match for the human heart, which has the power of love, compassion, understanding, empathy and cooperation. The human heart is an instrument even more powerful than nuclear bombs, warheads, and intercontinental ballistic missiles.

    To the power of the human heart can be added the power of the human mind to have a vision and strategies and tactics to reach agreed upon goals. Your task is to awaken your generation to the challenges posed by nuclear weapons and to engage their hearts, as well as their minds, in ending the nuclear weapons threat to humanity and all life.

    I have great faith in you, and I wish you all success in your important gathering. You are leaders for the common good on this most important of all issues. I encourage you to do your utmost and to never give up.

    David Krieger
    President
    Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

    This message was sent to the participants in the International Youth Summit for Nuclear Abolition, which took place on August 30, 2015.

  • Golden Rule Peace Boat Arrives in Santa Barbara

    For Immediate Release

    Contact: Gerry Condon:  206.499.1220
                  Sandy Jones:      805.965.3443

    Golden Rule Peace Boat Arrives in Santa Barbara
    Sailing for a Nuclear-Free World

    SANTA BARBARA, Calif. – The historic Golden Rule peace boat, restored by Veterans For Peace, will dock in Santa Barbara late Wednesday afternoon on September 2, during her voyage from San Diego en route to her homeport, Eureka, on California’s northern coast. There will be a press conference covering the arrival on Thursday, September 3 at 2:00 p.m. on the steps of the Maritime Museum at the boat harbor (113 Harbor Way).

    In 1958, the 30-foot ketch and its Quaker crew helped to ignite an international movement to stop atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons when they attempted to sail into a nuclear test zone in the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI). The Golden Rule is now sailing again to promote a nuclear-free world. Over the next ten years, she will carry her message of peace around the United States and possibly throughout the world.

    The Marshall Islands suffered catastrophic and irreparable damages when the U.S. conducted 67 nuclear tests on their territory between 1946 and 1958. These tests had the equivalent power of exploding 1.6 Hiroshima bombs daily for 12 years. The devastating impact of these nuclear detonations to the health and well-being of the Marshall Islanders and their land continues to this day. Last year, the RMI initiated the Nuclear Zero Lawsuits, seeking to hold the nuclear-armed nations to their obligations under international law to negotiate in good faith for nuclear disarmament.

    “Nuclear weapons are still with us and the threat of nuclear war is very real,” said the Golden Rule’s Captain Ron Kohl of San Diego. “We are dismayed that the U.S. government plans to invest $1 trillion over the next 30 years upgrading its nuclear arsenal, instead of reducing and eliminating nuclear weapons, as called for in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.”

    David Krieger, President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation and consultant to the Marshall Islands in their lawsuits, said, “The Golden Rule and her first crews have historical significance in courageously sailing into nuclear test sites in the Pacific. Today, the Golden Rule sails for a nuclear-free world under the leadership of Veterans for Peace and deserves the support of people everywhere.”

    The Golden Rule will be welcomed by the Santa Barbara Chapter of Veterans For Peace and members of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. The ship will arrive in Santa Barbara in the late afternoon on Wednesday, September 2 and stay several days. She will be available for public viewing and possible sails, as well. There will be a press conference covering the arrival on Thursday, September 3 at 2:00 p.m. on the steps of the Maritime Museum at the boat harbor (113 Harbor Way).

    “We appreciate that many Santa Barbara friends and supporters are offering assistance,” said Captain Ron Kohl.  “There is a real magic to this boat that brings all kinds of people together.

    #                                              #                                              #

    For more information, or to interview the crew, please contact Gerry Conlon at 206.499.1220.

    You can follow the progress of the Golden Rule and make donations at www.vfpgoldenruleproject.org

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

  • Sunflowers: The Symbol of a World Free of Nuclear Weapons

    Sunflowers are a simple miracle. They grow from a seed. They rise from the earth. They are natural. They are bright and beautiful. They bring a smile to one’s face. They produce seeds that are nutritious, and from these seeds oil is produced. Native Americans once used parts of the sunflower plant to treat rattlesnake bites, and sunflower meal to make bread. Sunflowers were even used near Chernobyl to extract radionuclides cesium 137 and strontium 90 from contaminated ponds following the catastrophic nuclear reactor accident there.

    Now sunflowers carry new meaning. They have become the symbol of a world free of nuclear weapons. This came about after an extraordinary celebration of Ukraine achieving the status of a nuclear free state. On June 1, 1996, Ukraine transferred to Russia for dismantlement the last of the 1,900 nuclear warheads it had inherited from the former Soviet Union. Celebrating the occasion a few days later, the Defense Ministers of Ukraine, Russia, and the United States met at a former nuclear missile base in the Ukraine that once housed 80 SS-19 missiles aimed at the United States.

    The three Defense Ministers planted sunflowers and scattered sunflower seeds. Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma said, “With the completion of our task, Ukraine has demonstrated its support of a nuclear weapons free world.” He called on other nations to follow in Ukraine’s path and “to do everything to wipe nuclear weapons from the face of the Earth as soon as possible.” U.S. Secretary of Defense William Perry said, “Sunflowers instead of missiles in the soil would ensure peace for future generations.”

    This dramatic sunflower ceremony at Pervomaisk military base showed the world the possibility of a nation giving up nuclear weapons as a means of achieving security. It is an important example, featuring the sunflower as a symbol of hope. The comparison between sunflowers and nuclear missiles is stark—sunflowers representing life, growth, beauty and nature, and nuclear armed missiles representing death and destruction on a massive, unspeakable scale. Sunflowers represent light instead of darkness, transparency instead of secrecy, security instead of threat, and joy instead of fear.

    The Defense Ministers were not the first to use sunflowers. In the 1980s a group of brave and committed resisters known as “The Missouri Peace Planters” entered onto nuclear silos in Missouri and planted sunflowers as a symbol of nuclear disarmament. On August 15, 1988, fourteen peace activists simultaneously entered ten of Missouri’s 150 nuclear missile silos, and planted sunflowers. They issued a statement that said, “We reclaim this land for ourselves, the beasts of the land upon which we depend, and our children. We interpose our bodies, if just for a moment, between these weapons and their intended victims.”

    Which shall we choose for our Earth? Shall we choose life or shall we choose death? Shall we choose sunflowers, or shall we choose nuclear armed missiles? All but a small number of nations would choose life. But the handful of nations that choose to base their security on these weapons of omnicide threaten us all with massive uncontrollable slaughter.

    In the aftermath of the Cold War, many people believe that the nuclear threat has ended, but this is not the case. In fact, there are still more than 15,000 nuclear weapons in the arsenals of the nine nuclear-armed countries. These countries have given their solemn promise in the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which entered into force in 1970, to negotiate in good faith to achieve nuclear disarmament, but they have not acted in good faith. It is likely that until the people of the world demand the total elimination of nuclear weapons, the nuclear weapons states will find ways to retain their special status as nuclear “haves.” Only one power on Earth is greater than the power of nuclear weapons, and that is the power of the People once engaged.

    This article was originally published on March 12, 1998. This version was revised on August 21, 2015.

  • Humanize, Not Modernize

    The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation is now in its 33rd year of working for peace and a world free of nuclear weapons.  We seek these goals for the people of today, and also for those of the future, so that they may have a healthy planet to live on and enjoy.

    Science and technology have brought great benefits to humanity in the form of health care, communications, transportation and many other areas of our lives.  An average person alive today lives a better and longer life than did kings and nobles of earlier times.  Yet, science and technology have not been universally positive.  They have also given us weapons capable of destroying civilization and most complex life on the planet, including that of our own species.

    In the Nuclear Age, our technological capacity for destruction has outpaced our spiritual and moral capacity to control these destructive technologies.  The Foundation is a voice for those committed to exercising conscience and choosing a decent future for all humanity.

    childrennature3The Foundation continues in its role as consultant to the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI) in its courageous Nuclear Zero lawsuits against the nine nuclear-armed Goliaths.  The Marshall Islanders, who have been victims of US nuclear testing, know the pain and suffering caused by these weapons.  Their lawsuits seek not compensation, but to assure that the nuclear-armed countries fulfill their obligations under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and customary international law to negotiate in good faith to end the nuclear arms at an early date and to achieve nuclear disarmament in all its aspects.  We are proud to stand with the RMI in these lawsuits that seek an end to the nuclear weapons era.

    There is no way to humanize weapons that are inhumane, immoral and illegal. These weapons must be abolished, not modernized.  And yet, all nine nuclear-armed countries are engaged in modernizing their nuclear arsenals.  The US is leading the way, planning to spend more than $1 trillion on upgrading its nuclear arsenal over the next three decades.  In doing so, it is making the world more dangerous and less secure.  The US could lead in humanizing rather than modernizing by reallocating its vast resources to feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless, providing safe drinking water, assuring an education for the poor, as well as cleaning up the environment, shifting to renewable energy sources and repairing deteriorating infrastructure.

    Join us in making the shift from modernizing nuclear arsenals to humanizing the planet.

    David Krieger is President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org).

    Vaya aquí para la versión española.

  • Vandenberg to Launch Nuclear-Capable Missile Test

    Santa Barbara, CA – Tomorrow, August 19, 2015, the United States plans to launch a Minuteman III Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California to a target in the Kwajalein Atoll in the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI).

    The test comes just two weeks after the 70th anniversary of the U.S. atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki – just two weeks after the world honored the 200,000-plus victims who died as a result of those bombs.

    It also comes in the midst of the Marshall Islands’ Nuclear Zero Lawsuits. David Krieger, President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, and a consultant to the Marshall Islands in the cases, stated, “ While the U.S. continues to develop and test launch its nuclear-capable missiles, the Marshall Islands is seeking a judgment against the U.S. and the other nuclear-armed nations for failure to fulfill their nuclear disarmament obligations under international law.”

    Regularly testing its nuclear warhead delivery vehicles – in this case, the Minuteman III ICBM – is an example of U.S. failure to comply with its obligation under Article VI of the Non-Proliferation Treaty to “pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms rate at an early date.” This planned test on August 19 continues the provocative behavior by the U.S. that led the RMI to file its lawsuits in the first place.

    The lawsuit was dismissed on February 3, 2015 by the U.S. Federal District Court for the Northern District of California. The RMI filed its Appeal Brief on July 13, 2015 and now awaits a response from the U.S. Department of Justice. For more information on the Nuclear Zero Lawsuits, visit nuclearzero.org.

    Marshall Islanders suffered catastrophic and irreparable damages to their people and homeland when the U.S. conducted 67 nuclear tests on their territory between 1946 and 1958. These tests had the equivalent power of exploding 1.6 Hiroshima bombs daily for 12 years. The devastating impact of these nuclear detonations to the health and well-being of the Marshall Islanders and to their land continues to this day.

    Krieger also stated, “How can it be fine for the U.S. to test-fire these missiles time and again, while expressing criticism when other countries conduct missile tests? It is a clear example of U.S. double standards. Such double standards encourage nuclear proliferation and nuclear arms races and make the world a more dangerous place.”

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

    #                      #                      #

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

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

  • Hiroshima and Nagasaki: What Now?

    This article was originally published by the Santa Fe New Mexican.

    The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki 70 years ago marked a turning point in U.S. history from which this country never recovered.

    Many wartime leaders had warned against using the bomb, and after the war the Air Force Strategic Bombing Survey found it was of no material aid in ending the war.

    But despite or because of the horror and repressed guilt, we clung to it. We embraced a policy of threatened annihilation as a core principle of policy. Had we rejected the bomb, as many prestigious voices argued, postwar U.S. development would have been quite different. With the bomb in our pocket, we did not become a people of justice and equality, or a social democracy.

    Chris Hedges quotes D.H. Lawrence: “The essential American soul is hard, isolate, stoic, and a killer. It has never melted.”

    I would like to tell Hiroshima survivors that we have changed, but we have not. America is as brutal and violent as ever, at home and abroad. Recently, President Barack Obama bragged about bombing seven countries.

    E.L. Doctorow described our postwar devolution: “The bomb first was our weapon. Then it became our diplomacy. Next it became our economy.
    Now it’s become our culture. We’ve become the people of the bomb.”

    When Ivan quit we became even more of an empire. There was nothing holding us back — or so it seemed. We became the Unipower, the Indispensable Nation. Just ask us.

    In 1945 as today, we sought and still seek to control as much of the world’s resources as possible, not just to feed our grotesque consumerism but also to satisfy our controlling oligarchs, while denying those declining resources to others.

    The 1992 Wolfowitz doctrine spells it out: “Our first objective is to … prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would … be sufficient to generate global power.” Since the Russian Federation is such a region all by itself, this is a formula for destabilization and war, both of which are ongoing projects. They are not going well.

    Despite, or because of, all our material and moral sacrifices, the only “victory” in 70 years for America’s vast, self-serving nuclear-military complex has been the destruction of our own democracy. As a result, our children’s prospects are nothing short of abysmal.

    Obama has budgeted a trillion dollars to operate and upgrade each and every warhead, bomb and delivery system we have, a vast expense that is itself dwarfed by the rest of our gargantuan military. But there is no plan to wean the U.S. from oil and gas, no plan to address inequality and poverty, no serious plan to forestall climate change.

    And no disarmament. Seventy years on from Hiroshima, there are far more nuclear weapons in the world than when the peace movement started in earnest in the aftermath of the disastrous 1954 Castle Bravo test in the Marshall Islands.

    Today’s U.S. stockpile of 7,100 warheads range in yield up to 80 times the Hiroshima bomb, with most in a middle range of 100 to 400 kilotons, sufficient to incinerate a large city. Peer-reviewed studies have concluded that detonation of just 2 percent of U.S. warheads alone over cities would result in global nuclear darkness and famine, civilizational collapse and the extinction of many higher life-forms and quite possibly humanity itself.

    Movements for nuclear disarmament have not been successful. Why?
    Generally citizens, on every issue, want to believe they can change history with a few hours of activist entertainment. We need instead the opposite: full-time committed organizers and revolutionaries, supported by local communities. We are well past the point where mere reform can save the country, the climate or the planet. This is the path of maturity and fulfillment today. Accept no substitutes.

    Greg Mello is the executive director of the Los Alamos Study Group, a nonprofit policy think-tank and lobbying organization. His formal education is in engineering, environmental sciences and regional planning.

  • Nuclear Weapons Experts File Amicus Brief in Support of Marshall Islands Lawsuit

    For immediate release August 12, 2015 (to use email addresses please insert @)
    Contacts:     Jay Coghlan, NWNM, 505.470.3154, jay[at]nukewatch.org
    Hans Kristensen, FAS, 202.454.4695, hkristensen[at]fas.org
    Robert Alvarez, IPS, 301.585.7672, kitbob[at]rcn.com
    Dr. James Doyle, nonproliferation expert, 505.470.3154, jimdoyle6[at]msn.com

    Nuclear Weapons Experts File Amicus Brief to Support
    Marshall Islands Lawsuit to Require Nuclear Disarmament Negotiations
    Under U.S. NonProliferation Treaty Commitments

    Nuclear Zero LawsuitsWashington, DC and Santa Fe, NM – Four nuclear weapons experts have filed an amicus (“friend of the court”) brief in support of a lawsuit filed by the Republic of the Marshall Islands to compel the United States to meet its requirements under the Nuclear NonProliferation Treaty (NPT). The basic bargain of the NPT is that non-weapons states agreed to never acquire nuclear weapons, in exchange for which nuclear weapons states promised to enter into good faith disarmament negotiations. Ratification of the treaty by the Senate in 1970 made its provisions the law of the land under the U.S. Constitution.

    The experts filing the brief are: Hans Kristensen, Director of the Nuclear Information Project at the Federation of American Scientists; Dr. James Doyle, a nuclear nonproliferation expert fired by the Los Alamos national lab after publishing a study arguing for nuclear weapons abolition; Robert Alvarez, a former Senior Policy Advisor to the Secretary of Energy, now at the Institute for Policy Studies; and Jay Coghlan, director of Nuclear Watch New Mexico.

    Hans Kristensen explained, “The United States, as one of the five original nuclear weapons states under the NPT, has a clear legal obligation to pursue negotiations toward nuclear disarmament. Yet despite progress on reducing overall nuclear arsenals, forty-five years later there are and have been no negotiations on their elimination. Instead, all nuclear weapon powers are pursuing broad and expensive modernization programs to retain and improve nuclear weapons indefinitely.”

    The Marshall Islands’ lawsuit, which was filed in federal court in San Francisco, asserts that the U.S. has failed to fulfill its treaty duties. The case was initially dismissed in February 2015 by a federal judge after the U.S. government argued in part that enforcement of the NPT’s requirement for nuclear disarmament negotiations was not in the public interest. This is now being appealed. As the Marshall Islands’ original complaint notes, “While cessation of the nuclear arms race and nuclear disarmament are vitally important objectives to the entire international community, the Marshall Islands has a particular awareness of the dire consequences of nuclear weapons.” While still a U.S. protectorate after World War II, the American nuclear weapons complex used the Marshall Islands for more than a hundred atmospheric nuclear weapons tests that included newly developed H-bombs, and the displaced Marshallese have suffered severe health and contamination effects to this day. However, the Marshall Islands’ lawsuit is not asking for compensation, but instead seeks to hold the nuclear weapons powers accountable to the NPT’s requirement for good faith nuclear disarmament negotiations.

    Andrea St. Julian, an attorney based in San Diego who specializes in federal appellate proceedings, filed the 94-page amicus brief. She observed, “The level of expertise and understanding the amici bring to this appeal is remarkable. Their arguments show how profoundly mistaken the district court was in its misapplication of the law. If the Court of Appeals takes adequate note of the briefing, it will have no alternative but to reverse the dismissal of the Marshall Islands’ suit. If not, we expect the Marshall Islands to take its case to the U.S. Supreme Court, and we will strongly support it there.”

    Dr. James Doyle commented, “It’s not possible to eliminate the knowledge to build nuclear weapons, but it’s possible to make them illegal and remove them from all military arsenals, as existing treaties on chemical and biological weapons have already substantially done. The Marshall Islands’ case is an important step on the path to the elimination of nuclear weapons and deserves a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court.”

    Robert Alvarez added, “The Republic of the Marshall Islands has exposed the abuse of the good faith and trust of the non-weapons states that signed the NonProliferation Treaty on the understanding that the nuclear weapons states would begin disarmament negotiations. By seeking a binding legal requirement to actually begin negotiations, the Marshall Islands is simply trying to get the United States to honor the promises and commitments it made to the world 45 years ago.”

    Jay Coghlan noted that the recently concluded 2015 NPT Review Conference ended in failure, in large part because nuclear weapons nations are modernizing their arsenals. He observed, “The U.S. government is getting ready to spend a trillion dollars on new production facilities for nuclear weapons and new bombers, missiles and submarines to deliver them. Because of that, we are keen to help the Marshall Islands hold the U.S. and other nuclear weapons powers accountable to their end of the NPT bargain, which is to enter into disarmament negotiations.”

    # # #

    The amicus brief is available at http://nukewatch.org/importantdocs/resources/Dkt-38-Amicus-Brief.pdf

    Bios of the four amici are available in the amicus brief, beginning page 1.

    Complete 9th circuit court proceedings in the Republic of Marshall Islands’ lawsuit are available at www.nuclearzero.org/in-the-courts

  • Nuclear Zero Lawsuit by Marshall Islands Appealed to Higher Court

    This article was originally published by Reader Supported News.

    An interview with David Krieger, President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (Santa Barbara, California), and Consultant to the Marshall Islands

    Q: The “Nuclear Zero” lawsuit filed by the Republic of Marshall Islands (RMI) against the nine nuclear nations to adhere to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) was denied in February by Judge Jeffrey White in U.S. Federal District Court (SF). RMI Foreign Minister Tony de Blum wants the U.S. and other nuclear nations to negotiate in good faith for nuclear disarmament, so why did this lawsuit get denied, and is the Appeal brief filed on July 13th an indication of ‘no backing down’ by the Marshall Islands?

    Krieger: The lawsuit against the United States in U.S. Federal District Court was denied on jurisdictional grounds, having to do with standing and the political question doctrine. The Marshall Islands and its legal team believe the judgment was in error, and the ruling was appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (SF) on July 13th.

    Q: Judge Jeffrey White’s decision noted that the Non-Proliferation Treaty’s fundamental purpose is to slow the spread of nuclear weapons, and to bar the non-nuclear countries from acquiring nuclear weapons. However, the Marshall Islands lawsuit focuses on the continuing breach of the treaty’s nuclear disarmament obligations. Do you think the judge’s decision to dismiss this case was based on a fundamental difference in the interpretation of the NPT’s core purpose? Do you think the number of groups filing Amicus Briefs with the Appeal [in support of the Marshall Islands] indicates that total nuclear disarmament should be seriously addressed, instead of just modernizing the arsenals?

    Krieger: The judge was not correct in focusing only on the treaty’s provisions for preventing the spread of nuclear weapons. A critical element of the Non-Proliferation Treaty is Article VI, which calls for negotiating an end to the nuclear arms race at an early date, and achieving nuclear disarmament through good faith negotiations. The judge omitted from his decision reference to the importance of the nuclear disarmament provisions of the NPT. Many parties to the NPT consider the nuclear disarmament obligations to be the most important obligations of the treaty, and certainly a tradeoff for preventing proliferation to other nations. The goal of the treaty is to obtain a world with zero nuclear weapons – no proliferation of nuclear weapons, and good faith negotiations for nuclear disarmament by the countries that already have nuclear weapons.

    Q: The Nuclear Zero lawsuit’s Appeal Brief was officially filed on July 13, in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (SF). Secretary of State John Kerry was also trying to wrap up a nuclear agreement with Iran on that day. What do you think of the U.S. establishing a new nuclear agreement with Iran, when the Marshall Islands Nuclear Zero lawsuits assert they [and other nuclear nations] haven’t lived up to the former international treaty agreements of the Non-Proliferation Treaty?

    Krieger: It is a coincidence that the Marshall Islands filed their Appeal Brief in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on the day on which Secretary of State Kerry was trying to finalize the agreement with Iran. The U.S. and the other countries in the P5+1 have worked hard trying to obtain a meaningful agreement with Iran to keep it from becoming a nuclear-armed country. The U.S. and other members of the P5 are all working on modernizing their nuclear arsenals, however, and this is a violation of Article VI of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. They must also be held to account for the breaches of their obligations, and this is what the courageous Marshall Islands seeks to do with its lawsuits. South African Nobel Peace laureate Desmond Tutu stated “The United States’ breach of the NPT Article VI has serious consequences for humankind and the Marshall Islands appeal is of critical importance.”

    Q: The Nuclear Zero lawsuits by the Marshall Islands were also filed at the International Court of Justice (ICJ). However, the U.S. has rejected the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ, and considers any judgments of that court to not be binding on the U.S. Considering this dilemma, what would a victory at this international court bring in the long run?

    Krieger: The Marshall Islands also brought the Nuclear Zero lawsuits against all nine nuclear-armed nations to the International Court of Justice. However, the way the ICJ works is that only the countries who accept the compulsory jurisdiction of the court can be held into the lawsuits. Among the nine nuclear armed countries, only India, Pakistan, and the United Kingdom accept the court’s compulsory jurisdiction. The other six countries, including the U.S., do not accept the court’s compulsory jurisdiction, and can only be invited to join the case. None of these six have joined thus far. The legal system at the international level is equivalent to a situation where someone is injured by corporate misconduct, and the injured party would have to invite the defendant to court, rather than there being compulsory jurisdiction to assure the defendant does not have a choice about showing up in court.

    That is an important reason why a separate case was initially brought against the U.S. in U.S. Federal District Court (SF). If the U.S. can’t be held to account for its treaty obligations at the International Court of Justice, and it also can’t be held to account in its own federal courts, then how can any country have confidence in entering into treaty obligations with the U.S.?

    The Marshall Islands can still prevail in their cases at ICJ against India, Pakistan, and the U.K., since these three countries have compulsory jurisdiction. Should the Marshall Islands win its case against the U.K., it would have important implications for the other four nuclear-armed countries that are parties to the NPT. If the international court declares that the U.K. is not in accord with its obligations under the treaty, then that would reflect on the similar obligations owed by the U.S., Russia, France, and China.

    But a victory in these cases will be won not only in the courtroom, but in the court of public opinion. People everywhere need to understand that the nine nuclear-armed countries are not fulfilling their obligations to end the nuclear arms race, and to achieve nuclear disarmament. Quite the opposite, they are engaged in modernizing and improving their nuclear arsenals. The people of the world have to say to their leaders, “Enough is enough.” If we want to have a human future, we need to stop playing nuclear roulette.

    Q: The recent Obama administration proposal for approximately $1.1 trillion for modernizing the U.S. nuclear arsenal (weapons, submarines, bombers, ICBMs, and the infrastructure of the nuclear weapons complex) does not align with compliance with the Non-Proliferation Treaty, even with the reductions in the number of nuclear weapons under the New START Treaty. Do you think the world is more at risk of a nuclear war with nuclear nations modernizing their arsenals, even with fewer weapons overall?

    Krieger: Modernizing nuclear arsenals does not align at all with international legal obligations under the NPT and customary international law. It demonstrates that the most powerful countries in the world are continuing to rely on their nuclear arsenals, and to improve them despite their obligations under international law. This is a recipe for further nuclear proliferation, and puts the world at greater risk of nuclear accidents, nuclear miscalculations, and nuclear war.

    A great danger of modernization is that the weapons will be perceived by their possessors as being more accurate, and therefore, more usable. They want to reduce the numbers but increase the usability of the weapons. Because the world previously went to the insane number of 70,000 nuclear weapons doesn’t mean that having only 16,000 in the world now makes us substantially safer. We’re playing a very dangerous game with nuclear weapons, and the use of even a dozen or so nuclear weapons could destroy the U.S. as a functioning country. The use of only a few hundred nuclear weapons could leave civilization in shambles.

    I consider the current approach of the U.S. and the other nuclear weapon states to modernizing their nuclear arsenals to being akin to playing nuclear roulette. It is like metaphorically loading nuclear weapons into the chambers of a six-shooter, and pointing the gun at humanity’s head.

    Q: The Non-Proliferation Treaty was signed in 1968 and entered into force in 1970, and yet there have been no multilateral negotiations to eliminate all nuclear weapons in the 45-year history of that treaty. The Marshall Islands’ lawsuits highlight that there are over 16,000 nuclear weapons still remaining in the world, with approximately 2000 nuclear weapons on high alert status. The lawsuits assert that immediate negotiations for disarmament are required, and that the nuclear nations have failed in these obligations. What do you think about issues of terrorism, national security, and foreign affairs affecting U.S. decisions about nuclear disarmament?

    Krieger: The legal obligation of the parties to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, including the U.S., is to engage in good faith negotiations for an end to the nuclear arms race and for nuclear disarmament. If the U.S. were doing this and achieving success in eliminating nuclear weapons, the threat of nuclear terrorism would be substantially reduced, if not eliminated. Further, it is in the national security interest of the U.S. to achieve the global elimination of nuclear weapons, because it is the one type of weapon that no country, including the U.S., can protect itself against. In terms of U.S. foreign relations, the U.S. should adhere to its legal obligations, including its nuclear disarmament obligations under the NPT.

    Q: President Obama signed the New START Treaty with Russia in 2010 (it entered into force on February 5, 2011), and soon after the President was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his stance on nuclear disarmament. Critics argue that it was only a treaty on strategic arms reductions, and the New START Treaty did not engage in negotiating disarmament of the nuclear arsenals. Do you think the New START Treaty is an example of NPT’s mandate for nuclear nations to “negotiate in good faith?”

    Krieger: The New START Treaty is a step in the right direction, if it is followed by other significant steps. However, the Non-Proliferation Treaty calls for nuclear disarmament rather than arms reduction only. The New START Treaty is an arms reduction treaty, not a nuclear arms elimination treaty. The U.S. seems to believe in a step by step approach to nuclear disarmament, but many see this as a means of putting off nuclear disarmament indefinitely.

    At the end of April 2015, the parties to the NPT met at the U.N. for their ninth 5-year review conference of the treaty. It seems clear from previous international meetings in Oslo, Norway (2013), in Nayarit, Mexico (2104), and recently in Austria at the Vienna Conference on the Humanitarian Impacts of Nuclear Weapons, that most countries in the world are not satisfied with the progress that has been made toward nuclear disarmament, especially given the terrible humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons use. These countries pay close attention to whether the U.S. and the other nuclear weapons states who are parties to the NPT are taking their nuclear disarmament obligations under the NPT seriously.

    Q: Marshall Island foreign minister Tony De Blum has argued that he is taking international action because his population of 70,000 islanders has greatly suffered from the effects of 67 major nuclear tests by the U.S. in the past, and now the atolls are also threatened by rising sea levels. The lawsuits don’t seek redress for their suffering. Instead, they emphasize their radioactive contamination to prevent future suffering in the world, to remove this threat from the world. Is the debate of climate change tied to nuclear issues a legitimate concern for the survival of humanity?

    Krieger: Nuclear devastation and climate change are the two most significant global survival issues confronting humanity. The Marshall Islands are at the forefront of seeking solutions to both issues. It is a small but bold and courageous country. We should all be thankful to the Marshall Islands for being willing to speak out on these issues and take the legal actions that it has. Climate change is predicated on global warming taking place, and even a relatively small nuclear war could send the world plummeting into a new Ice Age. In a war between India and Pakistan, if each country used 50 Hiroshima-size nuclear warheads on the other side’s cities, it could result in crop failures leading to the deaths of approximately 2 billion people due to nuclear famine.

    Q: The U.S. Conference of Mayors also adopted a major resolution backing the Marshall Islands in their Nuclear Zero lawsuit, and several of the mayors also filed an Amicus Brief to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in support of the appeal. The mayors’ resolution states that the U.S. and eight other nuclear nations are “investing an estimated $100 billion annually to maintain and modernize their nuclear arsenals while actively planning to deploy nuclear weapons for the foreseeable future.” The mayors are calling on the President and Congress to “reduce nuclear weaponry spending to the minimum necessary to assure safety and security of the existing weapons as they await dismantlement.” Do you think this is a bold move by the mayors of our nation to want Congress to redirect military spending to domestic needs?

    Krieger: It is actually a very smart and sensible move by the U.S. Conference of Mayors. Our cities need resources for infrastructure and the wellbeing of our citizens. It makes great sense to redirect the planned trillion dollar expenditure on nuclear weapons to improving our infrastructure and helping improve our housing, our healthcare system, and the education of our children. The federal government would do well to listen to the demands of the mayors of our cities, rather than waste our resources on unusable weapons of mass annihilation. It was extraordinary that the mayors stood up for the Marshall Islands lawsuit and backed them in their Resolution.

    It is extremely reaffirming that the U.S. Conference of Mayors supports these lawsuits. Their resolution reflects an understanding that every city in the world is a potential target for the devastation that would be wrought by the use of nuclear weapons.

    Q: What other support have the Marshall Islanders received tied to these lawsuits?

    Krieger: It has been heartening to see how much support the Marshall Islands have received. In addition to the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the Marshall Islands lawsuits have been supported by major civil organizations, including Greenpeace International, the International Physicians for Prevention of Nuclear War (including Dr. Helen Caldicott), the World Council of Churches, the International Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms, and the Nobel Women’s organization. It has also received the support of many individual leaders, including Nobel Peace Laureates Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Mairead Maguire, Oscar Arias, Jody Williams, and Shirin Ebadi. More than five million people have also signed a petition in support of the Nuclear Zero lawsuits filed by the Marshall Islands.

    For more information, go to www.NuclearZero.org, or www.wagingpeace.org.

     

    Jane Ayers is Director of Jane Ayers Media, and has conducted interviews with world figures for the Los Angeles Times Interview page, and for USA Today Editorial Page, and is a regular contributor to Reader Supported News. She can be reached at JaneAyersMedia@gmail.com

  • 2015 Nagasaki Peace Declaration

    At 11:02am, on the 9th August 1945, a single atomic bomb instantly reduced Nagasaki to a ruin.

    A vast amount of radiation passed through people’s bodies, and the city was struck by heat rays and a blast that defy imagination. 74,000 of the city’s population of 240,000 people were killed. A further 75,000 individuals sustained injuries. It was said that vegetation would not grow for at least 70 years. However, today, 70 years on, this hill in Urakami, which was once a ruin, is now enveloped in greenery. Nevertheless, those hibakusha, atomic bomb survivors, whose bodies were eaten away by radiation, and who continue to suffer from the aftereffects, can never forget that day.

    The atomic bomb was born of war, and was used in war. The conviction that nuclear weapons must not exist, and that we must never go to war again, was deeply and powerfully engraved upon the hearts of the hibakusha, who know firsthand the fearsome destructive force of atomic bombs. The peaceful ideology of the Constitution of Japan was born from these painful and harsh experiences, and from reflection upon the war. Since the war, our country has walked the path of a peaceful nation. For the sake of Nagasaki, and for the sake of all of Japan, we must never change the peaceful principle that we renounce war.

    Most of our population is now made up of the post-war generation. The memories of war are fast fading from our society. We must not forget the atomic bomb experiences of those in Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Neither should we forget the air raids which destroyed Tokyo and many other cities, the Battle of Okinawa, nor the many people of Asia who suffered because of this tragic war. Now, 70 years on, it is vital that we continue to pass on those memories.

    I ask that those of you who experienced the atomic bomb and the war in Japan and across the globe speak of your experiences, and not allow those memories to fade.

    To the young generation, I ask that you do not push wartime experiences aside saying that they are stories of the past. Understand that the wartime generation tell you their stories because what they speak of could, in the future, happen to you as well. Therefore, please inherit their wish for peace. Please imagine what you would do in such circumstances, and ask yourself “What can I do for the sake of peace?” You, the young generation, have the power to transcend national borders and create new relationships.

    The greatest power to realize a world without war and without nuclear weapons lies inside each and every one of us. Listen to stories of the war, sign petitions for nuclear abolition, and visit atomic bomb exhibitions. Together, these individual actions can create a much larger power. In Nagasaki, the younger generation, which includes second and third generation hibakusha, are inheriting the wish for peace and are taking action. Our individual strengths are the greatest power in realizing a world without war and without nuclear weapons. The power of civil society is the power to move governments, and to move the world.

    In May of this year, the “Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT)” ended without the adoption of a Final Document. However, the efforts of those countries which are attempting to ban nuclear weapons made possible a draft Final Document which incorporated steps towards nuclear disarmament.

    I ask the following of the heads of the NPT member states. Please do not let this Review Conference have been a waste. Please continue your efforts to debate a legal framework, such as a “Nuclear Weapons Convention (NWC)”, at every opportunity, including at the General Assembly of the United Nations.

    Many countries at the Review Conference were in agreement that it is important to visit the atomic-bombed cities of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Once again, I make a call from Nagasaki. I address President Obama, heads of state, including the heads of the nuclear weapon states, and all the people of the world. Please come to Nagasaki and Hiroshima, and see for yourself exactly what happened under those mushroom clouds 70 years ago. Please understand and accept the message of the hibakusha, who are still doing their best to pass on their experiences, not simply as “victims”, but as “members of the human race”.

    I appeal to the Government of Japan. Please explore national security measures which do not rely on nuclear deterrence. The establishment of a “Northeast Asia Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone (NEA-NWFZ)”, as advocated by researchers in America, Japan, Korea, China, and many other countries, would make this possible. Fix your sights on the future, and please consider a conversion from a “nuclear umbrella” to a “non-nuclear umbrella”.

    This summer, Nagasaki held the “International Youth Peace Forum”, where young people from 128 different countries and regions considered and discussed peace.

    In November, Nagasaki will host the “Pugwash International Conference” for the first time. At this Conference, which was inspired by Albert Einstein, who understood the terror of nuclear weapons, scientists from all over the world will gather, discuss the problem of nuclear weapons, and convey a message of peace from Nagasaki to the world.

    “Peace from Nagasaki”. We shall continue to sow the seeds of peace as we treasure these words.

    Furthermore, 4 years on from the Great East Japan Earthquake, Nagasaki continues to support the people of Fukushima who are suffering due to the accident at the nuclear power plant.

    The Diet is currently deliberating a bill which will determine how our country guarantees its security. There is widespread unease and concern that the oath which was engraved onto our hearts 70 years ago and the peaceful ideology of the Constitution of Japan are now wavering. I urge the Government and the Diet to listen to these voices of unease and concern, concentrate their wisdom, and conduct careful and sincere deliberations.

    This year, the average age of the hibakusha has now passed 80. I strongly request that the Government of Japan fulfill its responsibility of providing substantial care that conforms to the actual needs of the hibakusha, and increase the extent of the area acknowledged as being exposed to the atomic bomb while those who were there are still alive.

    We, the people of Nagasaki, offer our most heartfelt condolences to those who lost their lives to the atomic bomb. We hereby declare that together with the citizens of Hiroshima, we shall continue to use all our strength to achieve a world without nuclear weapons, and the realization of peace.

    Tomihisa Taue
    Mayor of Nagasaki
    August 9, 2015