Blog

  • UK Trident Discredited by Whistleblower

    A former operator of British nuclear weapons considers the implications

    rob_greenOn 17 May, the Scottish Sunday Herald revealed that a whistleblower, 25-year-old Able Seaman William McNeilly, had released online an 18-page report containing serious allegations surrounding the safety and security of the British Trident ballistic missile-equipped submarine force, based at Faslane in Scotland.

    McNeilly listed security breaches, fires, leaks, floods, failed tests, false alarms, and defective equipment. The missile compartment was used as an exercise gym; and there were doubts about whether missiles could be launched. The young submariner had been so shocked by what he saw and heard at Faslane and on a recent patrol in a Trident submarine that he raised his concerns with his superiors. When they did not take them seriously, he felt he had to risk imprisonment to warn the public.

    Having released his report, he gave himself up to the naval authorities. Clearly embarrassed, they publicly dismissed his complaints as ‘subjective and unsubstantiated’, but announced an inquiry. This concluded that his allegations were ‘factually incorrect or the result of misunderstanding’. Since then, McNeilly has blogged that he witnessed almost all of them himself or read about them in manuals on patrol, while the rest were recounted to him by experienced submariners.

    The Scottish Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament has now issued a damning report, Substandard (http://www.banthebomb.org/images/stories/pdfs/Substandard1.pdf). It analyses McNeilly’s allegations, and places them within the context of accidents and similar problems experienced by other UK nuclear submarines. It makes disturbing reading.

    A month on from McNeilly’s bombshell, the Royal Navy confirmed he had been ‘dishonourably discharged’. He has since revealed that all charges against him were dropped; and the real reason for his discharge was the damage he had done to the Navy’s image.

    This episode has indeed delivered a severe blow to the image of the British Submarine Service. Hitherto, they were seen as the Navy’s most professional elite, second only to special forces. The problem is that Trident submarines have no fighting role, their mission being simply nuclear deterrence, for which they need to remain undetected. Yet on 4 February 2009, the British and French nuclear-armed and powered submarine on patrol in the Atlantic farcically collided. Furthermore, their role is to await a ridiculously unrealistic, and appallingly cruel, order to launch their nuclear-tipped missiles, with the real risk of being subsequently branded as no better than terrorists.

    This helps to explain the apparent lapses in motivation and professionalism. The situation has clearly been exacerbated by shortage of spare parts, and skilled personnel – because the best of both are prioritised for the attack submarine force. Underlying this is the reality that, since 1962 when the British government persuaded US President John F Kennedy to let the RN have a scaled down version of the Polaris force, the British Navy has struggled to ‘keep up with the Yanks’.

    My conclusion is that the RN is out of its depth operating the existing Trident system, starved of resources and trying to get by on the cheap. This dangerous situation – which the courageous actions of a patriotic young whistleblower have exposed – can only get worse if the UK Submarine Service has to take on whatever replacement the US is prepared to let the British have.

    Amid severe defence budget cuts, the British Army and Royal Air Force see Trident replacement as a financially vulnerable irrelevance at a time when the security focus is on the so-called ‘war on terror’. The main security threats in the 21st century include climate change, poverty, resource depletion and financial crises as well as terrorism. Nuclear deterrence prevents rather than assists the global co-operation required to solve them.

    Trident replacement was an important issue in the referendum on Scottish independence in September 2014, because British Trident submarines can only be based in Scotland. In the recent UK elections, the anti-Trident Scottish Nationalist Party won 56 out of 59 Westminster parliamentary seats in Scotland. With British public opinion divided and a significant anti-nuclear citizen movement, the final decision on Trident replacement has been delayed until 2016.

    The first anti-nuclear ‘break-out’ by one of the five permanent member states of the UN Security Council would be sensational. With the smallest nuclear arsenal deployed in just one system, the UK is the best candidate from among them to seize this unexpected new world role, which would overwhelmingly be welcomed by the international community.

    In NATO, the UK would wield unprecedented influence – with wide support from non-nuclear-armed members – in leading the drive for a non-nuclear strategy, which must happen if NATO is to maintain its cohesion. It could cause heart-searching in the former British colonies of India and Pakistan, and open the way for a possible reassessment by the US, Russia, China and France. The Royal Navy, released from a militarily useless, politically controversial and implicitly unlawful role which it is clearly struggling with, could refocus on what it does best: conventional deterrence, protection of maritime trade, and defence diplomacy.

    Among analogous precedents for such a paradigm shift, the campaign to abolish slavery is illuminating. When it began in Britain in 1785, three of the leading slaving nations were the US, UK and France, whose governments today are the leading guardians of nuclear deterrence. They were outmanoeuvred by a network of committed campaigners who for the first time brought together humanitarian outrage and the law. They mobilised public and political support for their campaign to replace slavery with more humane, lawful and effective ways to create wealth. The analogy is instructive for replacing nuclear deterrence with more humane, lawful, safer and cost-effective security strategies.

    *Robert Green served in the British Royal Navy from 1962-82. As a bombardier-navigator, he flew in Buccaneer nuclear strike aircraft with a target in Russia, and then anti-submarine helicopters equipped with nuclear depth-bombs. On promotion to Commander in 1978, he worked in the Ministry of Defence before his final appointment as Staff Officer (Intelligence) to the Commander-in-Chief Fleet during the 1982 Falklands War. Now Co-Director with his wife Dr Kate Dewes of the Disarmament & Security Centre in Christchurch, New Zealand (www.disarmsecure.org), an updated ebook version of his 2010 book Security Without Nuclear Deterrence is available from www.amazon.com/dp/B00MFTBUZS. His 2011 Frank Kelly Lecture can be viewed at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6oOdX0mnW0 .

     

     

  • Missile Defense: A Dangerous Game

    <This letter to the editor was published by the Santa Barbara News-Press on June 13, 2015.>

    Thank you for publishing the important front-page article on June 1, “Major flaws revealed in U.S. anti-missile nuclear defense.” It confirms the unreliable nature of missile defenses. Despite the fact that U.S. missile defenses are flawed and unreliable, however, we are placing them close to the Russian borders, provoking Russia to maintain and modernize its offensive missiles.

    David KriegerRussia views U.S. missile defenses as we would view their missile defenses were the situation reversed — as part of an offensive first-strike scenario, since these “defensive” missiles are capable of shooting down the remaining Russian offensive missiles that would survive a U.S. first-strike attack. The best way to understand the situation and the Russian perspective is to imagine the concerns of U.S. political and military leaders if Russia were placing missile defenses on the Canadian and Mexican borders with the U.S.

    The 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty was meant to prevent such defensive-offensive cycles of nuclear arms escalation by limiting the number of missile defense installations that could be deployed. However, the U.S. unilaterally withdrew from this treaty in 2002 under President George W. Bush. This unilateral treaty abrogation by the U.S. and our resultant continued deployment of missile defenses has undermined our legal and moral obligations to end the nuclear arms race at an early date and pursue further nuclear weapons reductions with Russia.

    We are playing a very dangerous game of nuclear roulette, with the missiles pointed at humanity’s heart. This game is based upon an illogical, faith-based reliance on nuclear deterrence — the threat of massive, omnicidal nuclear retaliation. If such a threat were effective (which it isn’t), what would be the purpose of missile defenses, other than enriching “defense” corporations?

    If you think your family is protected by nuclear deterrent threats, think again. If you think your family is protected by missile defenses, think yet again.

    David Krieger is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

  • Albert Einstein, Scientist and Pacifist

    “The unleashed power of the atom has changed everything except our ways of thinking, and thus we drift towards unparalleled catastrophes.”

    “I don’t know what will be used in the next world war, but the 4th will be fought with stones.”

    Albert Einstein (1879-1955)

    Besides being one of the greatest physicists of all time, Albert Einstein was a lifelong pacifist, and his thoughts on peace can speak eloquently to us today. We need his wisdom today, when the search for peace has become vital to our survival as a species.

    Family background

    Albert Einstein was born in Ulm, Germany, in 1879. He was the son of middle-class, irreligious Jewish parents, who sent him to a Catholic school. Einstein was slow in learning to speak, and at first his parents feared that he might be retarded; but by the time he was eight, his grandfather could say in a letter: “Dear Albert has been back in school for a week. I just love that boy, because you cannot imagine how good and intelligent he has become.”

    Remembering his boyhood, Einstein himself later wrote: “When I was 12, a little book dealing with Euclidian plane geometry came into my hands at the beginning of the school year. Here were assertions, as for example the intersection of the altitudes of a triangle in one point, which, though by no means self-evident, could nevertheless be proved with such certainty that any doubt appeared to be out of the question. The lucidity and certainty made an indescribable impression on me.”

    When Albert Einstein was in his teens, the factory owned by his father and uncle began to encounter hard times. The two Einstein families moved to Italy, leaving Albert alone and miserable in Munich, where he was supposed to finish his course at the gymnasium. Einstein’s classmates had given him the nickname “Beidermeier”, which means something like “Honest John”; and his tactlessness in criticizing authority soon got him into trouble. In Einstein’s words, what happened next was the following: “When I was in the seventh grade at the Lutpold Gymnasium, I was summoned by my home-room teacher, who expressed the wish that I leave the school. To my remark that I had done nothing wrong, he replied only, ‘Your mere presence spoils the respect of the class for me’.”

    Einstein left gymnasium without graduating, and followed his parents to Italy, where he spent a joyous and carefree year. He also decided to change his citizenship. “The over-emphasized military mentality of the German State was alien to me, even as a boy”, Einstein wrote later. “When my father moved to Italy, he took steps, at my request, to have me released from German citizenship, because I wanted to be a Swiss citizen.”

    Special and general relativity theory

    The financial circumstances of the Einstein family were now precarious, and it was clear that Albert would have to think seriously about a practical career. In 1896, he entered the famous Zürich Polytechnic Institute with the intention of becoming a teacher of mathematics and physics. However, his undisciplined and nonconformist attitudes again got him into trouble. His mathematics professor, Hermann Minkowski (1864-1909), considered Einstein to be a “lazy dog”; and his physics professor, Heinrich Weber, who originally had gone out of his way to help Einstein, said to him in anger and exasperation: “You’re a clever fellow, but you have one fault: You won’t let anyone tell you a thing! You won’t let anyone tell you a thing!”

    Einstein missed most of his classes, and read only the subjects which interested him. He was interested most of all in Maxwell’s theory of electro-magnetism, a subject which was too “modern” for Weber. There were two major examinations at the Zürich Polytechnic Institute, and Einstein would certainly have failed them had it not been for the help of his loyal friend, the mathematician Marcel Grossman.

    Grossman was an excellent and conscientious student, who attended every class and took meticulous notes. With the help of these notes, Einstein managed to pass his examinations; but because he had alienated Weber and the other professors who could have helped him, he found himself completely unable to get a job. In a letter to Professor F. Ostwald on behalf of his son, Einstein’s father wrote: “My son is profoundly unhappy because of his present joblessness; and every day the idea becomes more firmly implanted in his mind that he is a failure, and will not be able to find the way back again.”

    From this painful situation, Einstein was rescued (again!) by his friend Marcel Grossman, whose influential father obtained for Einstein a position at the Swiss Patent Office: Technical Expert (Third Class). Anchored at last in a safe, though humble, position, Einstein married one of his classmates. He learned to do his work at the Patent Office very efficiently; and he used the remainder of his time on his own calculations, hiding them guiltily in a drawer when footsteps approached.

    In 1905, this Technical Expert (Third Class) astonished the world of science with five papers, written within a few weeks of each other, and published in the Annalen der Physik. Of these five papers, three were classics: One of these was the paper in which Einstein applied Planck’s quantum hypothesis to the photoelectric effect. The second paper discussed “Brownian motion”, the zig-zag motion of small particles suspended in a liquid and hit randomly by the molecules of the liquid. This paper supplied a direct proof of the validity of atomic ideas and of Boltzmann’s kinetic theory. The third paper was destined to establish Einstein’s reputation as one of the greatest physicists of all time. It was entitled On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies, and in this paper, Albert Einstein formulated his special theory of relativity. Essentially, this theory maintained that all of the fundamental laws of nature exhibit a symmetry with respect to rotations in a 4-dimensional  space-time continuum.

    Gradually, the importance of Einstein’s work began to be realized, and he was much sought after. He was first made Assistant Professor at the University of Zürich, then full Professor in Prague, then Professor at the Zürich Polytechnic Institute; and finally, in 1913, Planck and Nernst persuaded Einstein to become Director of Scientific Research at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute in Berlin. He was at this post when the First World War broke out.

    While many other German intellectuals produced manifestos justifying Germany’s invasion of Belgium, Einstein dared to write and sign an anti-war manifesto. Einstein’s manifesto appealed for cooperation and understanding among the scholars of Europe for the sake of the future; and it proposed the eventual establishment of a League of Europeans. During the war, Einstein remained in Berlin, doing whatever he could for the cause of peace, burying himself unhappily in his work, and trying to forget the agony of Europe, whose civilization was dying in a rain of shells, machine-gun bullets, and poison gas.

    The work into which Einstein threw himself during this period was an extension of his theory of relativity. He already had modified Newton’s equations of motion so that they exhibited the space-time symmetry required by his Principle of Special Relativity. However, Newton’s law of gravitation remained a problem.

    Obviously it had to be modified, since it disagreed with his Special Theory of Relativity; but how should it be changed? What principles could Einstein use in his search for a more correct law of gravitation? Certainly whatever new law he found would have to give results very close to Newton’s law, since Newton’s theory could predict the motions of the planets with almost perfect accuracy. This was the deep problem with which he struggled.

    In 1907, Einstein had found one of the principles which was to guide him, the Principle of Equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass. After turning Newton’s theory over and over in his mind, Einstein realized that Newton had used mass in two distinct ways: His laws of motion stated that the force acting on a body is equal to the mass of the body multiplied by its acceleration; but according to Newton, the gravitational force on a body is also proportional to its mass. In Newton’s theory, gravitational mass, by a coincidence, is equal to inertial mass; and this holds for all bodies. Einstein wondered – can the equality between the two kinds of mass be a coincidence? Why not make a theory in which they necessarily have to be the same?

    He then imagined an experimenter inside a box, unable to see anything outside it. If the box is on the surface of the earth, the person inside it will feel the pull of the earth’s gravitational field. If the experimenter drops an object, it will fall to the floor with an acceleration of 32 feet per second per second. Now suppose that the box is taken out into empty space, far away from strong gravitational fields, and accelerated by exactly 32 feet per second per second. Will the enclosed experimenter be able to tell the difference between these two situations? Certainly no difference can be detected by dropping an object, since in the accelerated box, the object will fall to the floor in exactly the same way as before.

    With this “thought experiment” in mind, Einstein formulated a general Principle of Equivalence: He asserted that no experiment whatever can tell an observer enclosed in a small box whether the box is being accelerated, or whether it is in a gravitational field. According to this principle, gravitation and acceleration are locally equivalent, or, to say the same thing in different words, gravitational mass and inertial mass are equivalent.

    Einstein soon realized that his Principle of Equivalence implied that a ray of light must be bent by a gravitational field. This conclusion followed because, to an observer in an accelerated frame, a light beam which would appear straight to a stationary observer, must necessarily appear very slightly curved. If the Principle of Equivalence held, then the same slight bending of the light ray would be observed by an experimenter in a stationary frame in a gravitational field.

    Another consequence of the Principle of Equivalence was that a light wave propagating upwards in a gravitational field should be very slightly shifted to the red. This followed because in an accelerated frame, the wave crests would be slightly farther apart than they normally would be, and the same must then be true for a stationary frame in a gravitational field. It seemed to Einstein that it ought to be possible to test experimentally both the gravitational bending of a light ray and the gravitational red shift.

    This seemed promising; but how was Einstein to proceed from the Principle of Equivalence to a formulation of the law of gravitation? Perhaps the theory ought to be modeled after Maxwell’s electromagnetic theory, which was a field theory, rather than an “action at a distance” theory. Part of the trouble with Newton’s law of gravitation was that it allowed a signal to be propagated instantaneously, contrary to the Principle of Special Relativity. A field theory of gravitation might cure this defect, but how was Einstein to find such a theory? There seemed to be no way.

    From these troubles Albert Einstein was rescued (a third time!) by his staunch friend Marcel Grossman. By this time, Grossman had become a professor of mathematics in Zürich, after having written a doctoral dissertation on tensor analysis and non-Euclidian geometry, the very things that Einstein needed. The year was then 1912, and Einstein had just returned to Zürich as Professor of Physics at the Polytechnic Institute. For two years, Einstein and Grossman worked together; and by the time Einstein left for Berlin in 1914, the way was clear. With Grossman’s help, Einstein saw that the gravitational field could be expressed as a curvature of the 4-dimensional space-time continuum.

    In 1919, a British expedition, headed by Sir Arthur Eddington, sailed to a small island off the coast of West Africa. Their purpose was to test Einstein’s prediction of the bending of light in a gravitational field by observing stars close to the sun during a total eclipse. The observed bending agreed exactly with Einstein’s predictions; and as a result he became world-famous. The general public was fascinated by relativity, in spite of the abstruseness of the theory (or perhaps because of it). Einstein, the absent-minded professor, with long, uncombed hair, became a symbol of science. The world was tired of war, and wanted something else to think about.

    Einstein met President Harding, Winston Churchill and Charlie Chaplin; and he was invited to lunch by the Archbishop of Canterbury. Although adulated elsewhere, he was soon attacked in Germany. Many Germans, looking for an excuse for the defeat of their nation, blamed it on the pacifists and Jews; and Einstein was both these things.

    Einstein’s letter to Freud: Why war?

    Because of his fame, Einstein was asked to make several speeches at the Reichstag. and in all these speeches he condemned violence and nationalism, urging that these be replaced by and international cooperation and law under an effective international authority. He also wrote many letters and articles pleading for peace and for the renunciation of militarism and violence.

    Einstein believed that the production of armaments is damaging, not only economically, but also spiritually. In 1930 he signed a manifesto for world disarmament sponsored by the Womans International League for Peace and Freedom. In December of the same year, he made his famous statement in New York that if two percent of those called for military service were to refuse to fight, governments would become powerless, since they could not imprison that many people. He also argued strongly against compulsory military service and urged that conscientious objectors should be protected by the international community. He argued that peace, freedom of individuals, and security of societies could only be achieved through disarmament, the alternative being “slavery of the individual and annihilation of civilization”.

    In letters, and articles, Einstein wrote that the welfare of humanity as a whole must take precedence over the goals of individual nations, and that we cannot wait until leaders give up their preparations for war. Civil society, and especially public figures, must take the lead. He asked how decent and self-respecting people can wage war, knowing how many innocent people will be killed.

    In 1931, the International Institute for Intellectual Cooperation invited Albert Einstein to enter correspondence with a prominent person of his own choosing on a subject of importance to society. The Institute planned to publish a collection of such dialogues.  Einstein accepted at once, and decided to write to Sigmund Freud to ask his opinion about how humanity could free itself from the curse of war. A translation from German of part of the long letter that he wrote to Freud is as follows:

    “Dear Professor Freud, The proposal of the League of Nations and its International Institute of Intellectual Cooperation at Paris that I should invite a person to be chosen by myself to a frank exchange of views on any problem that I might select affords me a very welcome opportunity of conferring with you upon a question which, as things are now, seems the most important and insistent of all problems civilization has to face. This is the problem: Is there any way of delivering  mankind from the menace of war? It is common knowledge that, with the advance of modern science, this issue has come to mean a matter of life or death to civilization as we know it; nevertheless, for all the zeal displayed, every attempt at its solution has ended in a lamentable breakdown.”

    “I believe, moreover, that those whose duty it is to tackle the problem professionally and practically are growing only too aware of their impotence to deal with it, and have now a very lively desire to learn the views of men who, absorbed in the pursuit of science, can see world-problems in the perspective distance lends. As for me, the normal objective of my thoughts affords no insight into the dark places of human will and feeling. Thus in the enquiry now proposed, I can do little more than seek to clarify the question at issue and, clearing the ground of the more obvious solutions,  enable you to bring the light of your far-reaching knowledge of man’s instinctive life upon the problem..”

    “As one immune from nationalist bias, I personally see a simple way of dealing with the superficial (i.e. administrative) aspect of the problem: the setting up, by international consent, of a legislative and judicial body to settle every conflict arising between nations… But here, at the outset, I come up against a difficulty; a tribunal is a human institution which, in proportion as the power at its disposal is… prone to suffer these to be deflected by extrajudicial pressure…”

    Freud replied with a long and thoughtful letter in which he said that a tendency towards  conflict is an intrinsic part of human emotional nature, but that emotions can be overridden by rationality, and that rational behavior is the only hope for humankind. The full exchange between Einstein and Freud can be found on the following link: http://www.freud.org.uk/file-uploads/files/WHY%20WAR.pdf

    The fateful letter to Roosevelt

    Albert Einstein’s famous relativistic formula, relating energy to mass, soon yielded an understanding of the enormous amounts of energy released in radioactive decay. Marie and Pierre Curie had noticed that radium maintains itself at a temperature higher than its surroundings. Their measurements and calculations showed that a gram of radium produces roughly 100 gram-calories of heat per hour.

    This did not seem like much energy until Rutherford found that radium has a half-life of about 1,000 years. In other words, after a thousand years, a gram of radium will still be producing heat, its radioactivity only reduced to one-half its original value. During a thousand years, a gram of radium produces about a million kilocalories, an enormous amount of energy in relation to the tiny size of its source! Where did this huge amount of energy come from? Conservation of energy was one of the most basic principles of physics. Would it have to be abandoned?

    The source of the almost-unbelievable amounts of energy released in radioactive decay could be understood through Einstein’s formula equating the energy of a system to its mass multiplied by the square of the velocity of light, and through accurate measurements of atomic weights. Einstein’s formula asserted that mass and energy are equivalent. It was realized that in radioactive decay, neither mass nor energy is conserved, but only a quantity more general than both, of which mass and energy are particular forms. Scientists in several parts of the world realized that Einstein’s discovery of the relationship between mass and energy, together with the discovery of fission of the heavy element uranium meant that it might be possible to construct a uranium-fission bomb of immense power.

    Meanwhile night was falling on Europe. In 1929, an economic depression had begun in the United States and had spread to Europe. Without the influx of American capital, the postwar reconstruction of the German economy collapsed. The German middle class, which had been dealt a severe blow by the great inflation of 1923, now received a second heavy blow. The desperation produced by economic chaos drove German voters into the hands of political extremists.

    On January 30, 1933, Adolf Hitler was appointed Chancellor and leader of a coalition cabinet by President Hindenburg. Although Hitler was appointed legally to this post, he quickly consolidated his power by unconstitutional means: On May 2, Hitler’s police seized the headquarters of all trade unions, and arrested labor leaders. The Communist and Socialist parties were also banned, their assets seized and their leaders arrested. Other political parties were also smashed. Acts were passed eliminating Jews from public service; and innocent Jewish citizens were boycotted, beaten and arrested. On March 11, 1938, Nazi troops entered Austria.

    On March 16, 1939, the Italian physicist  Enrico Fermi (who by then was a refugee in America) went to Washington to inform the Office of Naval Operations that it might be possible to construct an atomic bomb; and on the same day, German troops poured into Czechoslovakia.

    A few days later, a meeting of six German atomic physicists was held in Berlin to discuss the applications of uranium fission. Otto Hahn, the discoverer of fission, was not present, since it was known that he was opposed to the Nazi regime. He was even said to have exclaimed: “I only hope that you physicists will never construct a uranium bomb! If Hitler ever gets a weapon like that, I’ll commit suicide.”

    The meeting of German atomic physicists was supposed to be secret; but one of the participants reported what had been said to Dr. S. Flügge, who wrote an article about uranium fission and about the possibility of a chain reaction. Flügge’s article appeared in the July issue of Naturwissenschaften, and a popular version of it was printed in the Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung. These articles greatly increased the alarm of American atomic scientists, who reasoned that if the Nazis permitted so much to be printed, they must be far advanced on the road to building an atomic bomb.

    In the summer of 1939, while Hitler was preparing to invade Poland, alarming news reached the physicists in the United States: A second meeting of German atomic scientists had been held in Berlin, this time under the auspices of the Research Division of the German Army Weapons Department. Furthermore, Germany had stopped the sale of uranium from mines in Czechoslovakia.

    The world’s most abundant supply of uranium, however, was not in Czechoslovakia, but in Belgian Congo. Leo Szilard, a refugee Hungarian physicist who had worked with Fermi to measure the number of neutrons produced in uranium fission, was deeply worried that the Nazis were about to construct atomic bombs; and it occurred to him that uranium from Belgian Congo should not be allowed to fall into their hands.

    Szilard knew that his former teacher, Albert Einstein, was a personal friend of Elizabeth, the Belgian Queen Mother. Einstein had met Queen Elizabeth and King Albert of Belgium at the Solvay Conferences, and mutual love of music had cemented a friendship between them. When Hitler came to power in 1933, Einstein had moved to the Institute of Advanced Studies at Princeton; and Szilard decided to visit him there. Szilard reasoned that because of Einstein’s great prestige, and because of his long-standing friendship with the Belgian Royal Family, he would be the proper person to warn the Belgians not to let their uranium fall into the hands of the Nazis. Einstein agreed to write to the Belgian king and queen.

    On August 2, 1939, Szilard again visited Einstein, accompanied by Edward Teller and Eugene Wigner, who (like Szilard) were refugee Hungarian physicists. By this time, Szilard’s plans had grown more ambitious; and he carried with him the draft of another letter, this time to the American President, Franklin D. Roosevelt. Einstein made a few corrections, and then signed the fateful letter, which reads (in part) as follows:

    “Some recent work of E. Fermi and L. Szilard, which has been communicated to me in manuscript, leads me to expect that the element uranium may be turned into an important source of energy in the immediate future. Certain aspects of the situation seem to call for watchfulness and, if necessary, quick action on the part of the Administration. I believe, therefore, that it is my duty to bring to your attention the following..”

    “It is conceivable that extremely powerful bombs of a new type may be constructed. A single bomb of this type, carried by boat and exploded  a port, might very well destroy the whole port, together with some of the surrounding territory..”

    The letter also called Roosevelt’s attention to the fact that Germany had already stopped the export of uranium from the Czech mines under German control. After making a few corrections, Einstein signed it. On October 11, 1939, three weeks after the defeat of Poland, Roosevelt’s economic adviser, Alexander Sachs, personally delivered the letter to the President. After discussing it with Sachs, the President commented,“This calls for action.” Later, when atomic bombs were dropped on civilian populations in an already virtually-defeated Japan, Einstein bitterly regretted having signed Szilard’s letter to Roosevelt. He said repeatedly that signing the letter was the greatest mistake of his life, and his remorse was extreme.

    Throughout the remainder of his life, in addition to his scientific work, Einstein worked tirelessly for peace, international understanding and nuclear disarmament. His last public act, only a few days before his death in 1955, was to sign the Russell-Einstein Manifesto, warning humankind of the catastrophic consequences that would follow from a war with nuclear weapons.

    http://www.umich.edu/~pugwash/Manifesto.html

    Here are a few more things that Einstein said about peace:

    “We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking that we used when we created them.”

    “It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity.”

    “Peace cannot be kept by force; it can only be achieved by understanding.”

    “The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don’t do anything about it.”

    “Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting to get different results.”

    “Nothing will end war unless the people themselves refuse to go to war.”

    “Past thinking and methods did not prevent world wars. Future thinking must prevent war.”

    “You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war.”

    “Never do anything against conscience, even if the state demands it.”

    “Taken as a whole, I would believe that Gandhi’s views were the most enlightened of all political men of our time.”

    “Without ethical culture, there is no salvation for humanity.”

    Albert Einstein, great physicist and lifelong pacifist, we need your voice today!

  • Peace, Power & Politics: How New Zealand Became Nuclear Free

    maire_leadbeater_bookIn a captivating and remarkably readable book, Maire Leadbeater follows the story of New Zealand’s peace movement from 1975 into the 2000s, telling the exciting story about how the people in movements can change a country. A spokesperson for Aukland CND in the 1980s, Leadbeater played a leading role in the mass movement described in the book, giving a unique, in-the-masses view of the action.

    The leading argument of the book is that New Zealand’s nuclear-free policy was made not by the politicians who have taken the credit but by a vast peoples’ movement made up of scientists and doctors, housewives and schoolchildren. This wide-ranging account describes the motivations, actions, personalities, and hopes of the people who helped to create the tremendous force of public opinion which ultimately forced the hands of the politicians. As Leadbeater says, “If the people lead, the leaders will follow.”

    Written chronologically, the author skillfully avoids any of the usual dullness or monotony one would usually find in a book such as this. The book is clearly and simply written, giving both a broad overlook of a decades-long movement while also inserting interesting and amusing details. The multitudes of forms of activism are described with life and color from polite petitions to head-on clashes of warships and kayaks. The book is worth reading for the plentiful amounts of illustrations, photographs, cartoons, and pamphlets, some of which will make you chuckle and laugh out loud.

    The book goes into detail about three major campaigns: against the visits by nuclear warships to New Zealand, against French nuclear testing, and to the World Court. Although the facts of these events are well-known to some, this books gives a broad overview of the many viewpoints, while also giving insights into the way the campaigns formed and operated. The interplay between the politicians and the activists, and the thin line between following public opinion and foreign relations, is illustrated with such skill that I was amazed at the complexities the author was able to portray.

    This book is definitely worth the time it takes to read as Leadbeater illustrates how political change can be driven by a grass-roots political movement instead of a hierarchical, formal process of working within the system. She also makes it clear that although there have been some wins, there is still much work to do, both within New Zealand and on a global scale.

  • En Busca de… / In Search of…

    En Busca de….
    por Ruben D. Arvizu

    Somos parte de esta Tierra
    Un planeta extraordinario
    De un sistema planetario
    Navegando en el espacio.

    Buscamos ya en las galaxias
    Seres o cosas vivientes
    Invertimos millonadas
    Enviando sondas y cohetes.

    Telescopios gigantescos
    Controlados por la ciencia
    Se desplazan como rayos
    Surcando espacios lejanos.

    Pero hay algo que no hacemos
    Y es buscar en uno mismo
    ¿Quiénes somos?
    ¿Qué queremos.?

    ¿Por qué no nos toleramos?
    ¿Por qué seguir imponiendo
    costumbres y religiones
    que nada más nos dividen
    en lugar de unificarnos.?

    ¿Por qué la ley del más fuerte
    es la que sigue imperando?
    ¿Por qué hacemos tanto daño?
    ¿Por qué el rugir de cañones
    es más fuerte que un : ¡TE AMO!

    Rubén D. Arvizu es Director para América Latina de la Nuclear Age Peace Foundation y Embajador del Pacto Climático Global de Ciudades

    In Search Of….
    by Ruben D. Arvizu

    We belong to this Earth
    An extraordinary planet
    In a planetary system
    Navigating in space

    We are peering into galaxies
    Seeking life or things alike
    We invest money by the tons
    Sending rockets and space probes

    Giant telescopes
    Controled by the best science
    They move like lightning rods
    Traveling to distant space

    But there is one thing we don’t do
    And it is to look at ourselves
    Who are we?
    What do we want?

    Why are we so intolerant?
    Why do we continue to impose
    customs and religions
    that does nothing but divide us
    rather than unify us?

    Why is the law of the strongest
    the one that still prevails?
    Why do we do so much damage?
    Why is the roaring of cannons
    Stronger than : I LOVE YOU!

    Rubén D. Arvizu is Director for Latin America of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation and Ambassador Global Cities Covenant on Climate.

  • Phaeton’s Folly: The Dangerous Reins of the Nuclear Chariot

    Phaeton’s Folly: The Dangerous Reins of the Nuclear Chariot

    Pictured above: A mosaic from ancient Rome with the inscription “Know Thyself” in ancient Greek.    

    Technology and arrogance are a deadly combination. Thousands of years ago, people foresaw the dangers that arise when technology is corrupted by arrogance. In Greek mythology, Icarus and his father, Daedalus, were imprisoned in a tower, but they had a way to escape. Daedalus constructed two pairs of wings out of wax and feathers. Although he warned Icarus not to fly too close to the sun, Icarus did not listen. Blinded by his arrogance, he flew higher and higher until the wax holding his wings together melted. Icarus’s wings were a technological marvel that gave him a chance at freedom, but his arrogant misuse of this technology caused him to fall into the ocean and die.

    Greek mythology also tells us of Phaëton, whose father was the sun god Helios. Phaëton wanted to drive his father’s sun chariot, but this arrogant desire led to a disaster. Helios was a mighty deity with the power to drive his sun chariot on a safe path across the sky, but Phaëton was half human and wanted to do what only a god could do. Unable to handle the reins, Phaëton lost control of the sun chariot and could not stop it from plunging toward the earth. Plato writes that “[Phaëton] burnt up all that was upon the earth, and was himself destroyed by a thunderbolt [from Zeus].”[i]

    Phaeton
    A painting by Peter Paul Rubens of Phaëton falling from the sky.

    The heat from our sun is generated by a nuclear reaction deep within its core. Our sun’s nuclear reaction is at a safe distance of 93 million miles away, but during the 1940s people began creating dangerous nuclear reactions on our planet. Just as Phaëton believed he could control the sun chariot, many believe we can control the thousands of nuclear weapons around the world. We have narrowly avoided nuclear annihilation in the past, and in the age of terrorism our grip on the nuclear reins is slipping.

    If we lose control of the nuclear chariot we will suffer the same tragedy that befell Phaëton. And if any survive they too will write about how we “burnt up all that was upon the earth.” The story of Icarus tells us that some technology, like flight, must be used responsibly or we will get ourselves killed. The tragedy of Phaëton tells us that some technology, like a nuclear weapons arsenal capable of destroying humanity, is a disaster waiting to happen in the hands of fallible human beings.[ii]

    The ancient Greeks probably could not foresee weapons as destructive as nuclear weapons, but they were well aware of human imperfection. Our fallibility as human beings is what ultimately makes nuclear weapons so dangerous. According to John F. Kennedy, nuclear holocaust can result from accident, miscalculation, or madness, which are all products of human fallibility.

    In ancient Greece, the words “Know thyself” were inscribed at the temple at Delphi. Today many people use this saying to emphasize the importance of introspection, but in ancient Greece this saying meant something different. Back then “Know thyself” meant that you should know what kind of creature you are.[iii] Know that you are not a god. Know the limitations that result from being human. Know that you are mortal and fallible. The ancient Greeks realized that human beings who don’t know themselves in this way, who believe they are god-like, are extremely dangerous.

    The only reason nuclear weapons are dangerous is because we are fallible. If we were infallible, perfect, and truly godlike, nuclear weapons would not be a problem. In fact, humanity would not have any problems.[iv]

    Humanity’s arrogance as a species is understandable. In religions throughout history, the sun has been depicted as either created by God, or the embodiment of God. Before Albert Einstein created his equation E=mc2, nobody in the world knew how the sun shined. What kind of fuel source could allow an object to burn so brightly for so many eons? It was a great mystery. Many people reasoned that the sun must be using a fuel source much more powerful than wood, oil, or coal, but what could it be? Einstein’s equation revealed that the sun’s fuel came from a nuclear reaction that converted matter into energy. By learning this secret of the sun, humanity gained an ability that seemed god-like. In religions and mythologies around the world, only gods could control solar fire. By unlocking the mystery of solar fire, humanity gained control of the nuclear chariot, and with it we gained Phaëton’s ability to annihilate ourselves and all those around us.

    The story of nuclear weapons did not begin in 1945 with the dropping of two atomic bombs on Japan. The story of nuclear weapons began ages ago, because it reflects a deeper story about the human condition. It is a story about our timeless struggle to reconcile the reality of our fallibility with our desire to be god-like. Since no human is perfect, who can be trusted with weapons capable of annihilating most life on our planet? As John F. Kennedy realized, all political leaders are vulnerable to accident, miscalculation, or madness, which are all products of human fallibility. If political leaders were not vulnerable in this way, they would not be human.

    Every religion, philosophy, and scientific school of thought recognizes that human beings are fallible and imperfect. Every technology and system we have ever created is also fallible and imperfect, just like us. There has never been a car, computer, or any human invention ever made that is perfect, invulnerable to error, and incapable of breaking. Nuclear weapons and the system that sustains them are imperfect, just like every technology and system that human beings have ever created.

    Humanity’s arrogant belief that it can control a vast nuclear weapons arsenal may lead to violence on an unprecedented scale, in the form of a nuclear holocaust. The word “hubris” was a Greek term that referred to wanton violence resulting from arrogance. In Greek mythology, the female deity Nemesis punished those guilty of hubris. If humanity loses control of the nuclear chariot, it will not just be nuclear weapons that cause our world to burn with solar fire. If the nuclear chariot wrecks our planet, it will also be because of fallibility, hubris, and the metaphorical goddess Nemesis. Nuclear weapons are a symptom of much deeper problems, such as the myth of nuclear deterrence and the confusion about what it means to be human.

     

     

    [i] Plato, Timaeus, http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/timaeus.html.

    [ii] This piece is adapted from my book Peaceful Revolution.

    [iii] Classical Mythology, Lecture 16, The Teaching Company, 2007, DVD.

    [iv] In Greek mythology not only are human beings fallible, but the Greek gods are also fallible because they can be fooled. To see oneself as god-like in a Judeo-Christian sense means seeing oneself as infallible, but unlike the Judeo-Christian God, the Greek gods are not infallible. However, they are much less fallible than human beings, because they have the gift of prophecy. The ancient Greeks considered it dangerous to see oneself as an immortal and mighty Greek god. To see oneself as infallible would mean being more than a Greek god.

  • Two New NAPF Publications

    The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation has published two new booklets on nuclear disarmament. PDF versions of the booklets are available to download free of charge by clicking the images below. To order printed copies of the booklets, please contact Rick Wayman, NAPF Director of Programs, at rwayman@napf.org or (805) 965-3443.

    15 Moral Reasons to Abolish Nuclear Weapons

    15_moral_reasons

    Nuclear Zero: Religious Leaders Speak Out

    nuclearzero_believe

  • Sunflower Newsletter: June 2015

    Issue #215 – June 2015

     

    Follow David Krieger on twitter

    Click here or on the image above to follow NAPF President David Krieger on Twitter.

    • Perspectives
      • Grand Bargain Is Not So Grand by David Krieger
      • Exclusive Interview with General Lee Butler by Robert Kazel
      • Uprising by Ray Acheson
    • Nuclear Zero Lawsuits
      • The Marshall Islands and the NPT
      • What the Nuclear Zero Lawsuits Seek to Accomplish
    • Nuclear Insanity
      • MOX Gets Golden Hammer Award for Egregious Waste
      • UK Whistleblower on Trident Submarine Dangers
    • U.S. Nuclear Weapons Policy
      • U.S. Conducts Minuteman Missile Test During NPT Review Conference
    • Peace
      • Women Cross Border Between North and South Korea
      • Transform Now Plowshares Activists Released from Prison
    • Nuclear Waste
      • Las Vegas Mayor Opposes Nuclear Waste Shipments
    • Resources
      • June’s Featured Blog
      • This Month in Nuclear Threat History
      • The Growing U.S. Nuclear Threat
    • Foundation Activities
      • Peace Poetry Awards: Deadline July 1
      • Paul Chappell Selected as CMM Institute Fellow
      • Save the Date: Sadako Peace Day is August 6
    • Quotes

     

    Perspectives

    Grand Bargain Is Not So Grand

    The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) has two major purposes and together they form a grand bargain. First, the treaty seeks to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons to other countries.  Second, the treaty seeks to level the playing field by the pursuit of negotiations in good faith to end the nuclear arms race at an early date and to achieve nuclear disarmament. The goal of the grand bargain, in other words, is a world without nuclear weapons.

    It is the disarmament side of the grand bargain, though, where things really break down. The five nuclear-armed countries that are parties to the NPT (US, Russia, UK, France and China) appear more comfortable working together to maintain and modernize their nuclear arsenals than they do to fulfilling their disarmament obligations under the treaty. Their common strategy appears to be “nuclear weapons forever.”

    To read more, click here.

    Exclusive Interview With General Lee Butler

    Today, General Lee Butler is 75, and he has never stopped believing nuclear arms to be an enormous danger and outrageously immoral. They permit imperfect leaders to play God, he says, and make it all too easy for the planet to be ruined for all future generations in a span of hours. He’s incredulous that scores of U.S. missiles are still kept on hair-trigger alert, poised to be launched in minutes. And he is more disillusioned than ever that defense strategists and politicians keep defending nuclear deterrence: a theory born in the 1950s that asserts nations can prevent nuclear war by keeping nuclear weapons ready for use in retaliation. Butler believed that once, fervently. But he now says deterrence probably never made much sense, and certainly is unbelievable in a world of unstable, unpredictable regional nuclear actors and terrorists who seek to actually use weapons of vast, destructive power.

    Now Butler has penned his life story, a project he painstakingly worked on for many years after he and his wife, Dorene, left Omaha and moved to a gated community in Laguna Beach, Calif., in 2001. The self-published memoir, which he expects to be out this summer, recounts his boyhood in Georgia as part of an Army family and his 33-year military career starting with his graduation from the Air Force Academy in 1961. It explains in depth why he ultimately called for the total elimination of nuclear weapons, and discusses his disillusionment with government officials who, he says, have allowed shortsightedness, petty politics and bellicosity to obstruct the road to world nuclear disarmament.

    In a wide-ranging interview at his house recently, Butler spoke with NAPF about the perils of nuclear weapons that arose during and just after the Cold War, and why the dangers continue. The following is an edited version of the conversation.

    To read more, click here.

    Uprising

    A certain restiveness could be felt Friday evening at the United Nations at the close of the 2015 NPT Review Conference. The draft outcome document was not adopted, though it was not this fact that seemed to bother most. The content of the final draft was unacceptably weak on disarmament, as the majority of those taking the floor lamented in their closing remarks, and the process to develop it was extremely problematic. The discontent was rather about why it had been rejected. Three states parties blocked its adoption on behalf of Israel, a non-state party possessing nuclear weapons. If the month-long review of the Treaty’s implementation and attempts to develop actions for moving forward had not already sufficiently underscored the depth of the Treaty’s discriminatory orientation privileging nuclear-armed states, the Conference’s conclusion certainly did.

    But the Conference has ended, leaving interested states now with the chance to pursue effective measures for nuclear disarmament. Instead of a text that moves backwards in some areas from previous commitments and threatened to stall progress for another five years, states parties can continue to rely on the outcomes from 1995, 2000, and 2010 to guide their actions in terms of Treaty implementation. And in the meantime, there is also space for what the Washington Post describes as “an uprising” of 107 states and civil society groups. These states are “seeking to reframe the disarmament debate as an urgent matter of safety, morality and humanitarian law,” and have pledged to fill the gap for the prohibition and elimination of nuclear weapons.

    To read more, click here.

    Nuclear Zero Lawsuits

    The Marshall Islands and the NPT

    In a recent article in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Robert Alvarez writes about the history and impact of U.S. nuclear weapons testing in the Marshall Islands. He also explores the importance of the Marshall Islands’ Nuclear Zero Lawsuits for upholding the disarmament promises of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), and the momentum of the effort to highlight the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons.

    Alvarez writes, “The humanitarian initiative and the Marshall Islands lawsuits have received a chilly, some might say hostile reception from the nuclear weapons states, for an understandable reason: The nuclear weapons countries are engaged in costly modernization efforts that all but guarantee the continued existence of nuclear weapons for decades, and perhaps beyond. The Marshall’s lawsuits and the humanitarian initiative both seek to make the nuclear states seriously negotiate toward nuclear disarmament.”

    Robert Alvarez, “The Marshall Islands and the NPT,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, May 27, 2015.

    What the Nuclear Zero Lawsuits Seek to Accomplish

    These are important lawsuits.  They have been described as a battle of David versus the nine nuclear Goliaths.  In this case, however, David (the RMI) is using the nonviolent means of the courtroom and the law rather than a slingshot and a rock.  It is worth considering what these lawsuits seek to accomplish.

    • To challenge the “good faith” of the nuclear-armed countries, for their failure to initiate negotiations for nuclear disarmament as required by the NPT and customary international law.
    • To awaken people everywhere to the magnitude of the threat posed by nuclear weapons.
    • To achieve a “conversion of hearts,” recognized by Pope Francis as necessary for effective action in changing the world on this most challenging of threats.

    These are high aspirations from a small but courageous country.  If you would like to know more about the Marshall Islands Nuclear Zero lawsuits, and how you can help support them, visit www.nuclearzero.org.

    David Krieger, “What the Nuclear Zero Lawsuits Seek to Accomplish,” Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, May 6, 2015.

    Nuclear Insanity

    MOX Gets Golden Hammer Award for Egregious Waste

     

    The Washington Times has awarded its Golden Hammer Award to South Carolina’s Mixed Oxide (MOX) fuel facility. The MOX program, which is intended to convert 34 metric tons of weapons-grade plutonium into fuel for nuclear power plants, is viewed by many as an egregious example of government waste.

    In 2004, the project was expected to cost $1.6 billion, with a completion date of 2007. Now, in 2015, over $4 billion has been spent on the project, which is only 67% completed. Congress appears likely to provide $345 million in funding for MOX in Fiscal Year 2016. At this rate, studies have shown that the lifecycle costs for MOX will reach $114 billion. The MOX plant also lost its only potential customer for the fuel, Duke Energy. No other nuclear utility has been willing to take the risk of using MOX fuel in nuclear reactors.

    Kellan Howell, “Congress Keeps Funding Overbudget Plutonium Site with No Real Customers,” Washington Times, May 7, 2015.

    UK Whistleblower on Trident Submarine Dangers

     

    The safety and security of the Royal Navy’s four Vanguard-class nuclear submarines, each carrying more than a dozen Trident nuclear missiles, was called into question when William McNeilly claimed that Britain’s nuclear weapons system was an “accident waiting to happen.” The damning 18-page report includes accusations of lax security, fire hazards, and poor quality food among other things.

    The Royal Navy has firmly dismissed these allegations, while some defense experts admitted that there could be elements of truth in some of McNeilly’s claims. Historically, the Ministry of Defense has downplayed incidents involving its submarines, stating that the “technical complexity of running a nuclear submarine is vast.”

    Jamie Merrill, “Trident Whistleblower William McNeilly Transferred to Portsmouth Naval Base as Royal Navy Disputes his Claims About the ‘Silent Service,’The Independent, May 22, 2015.

    U.S. Nuclear Weapons Policy

    U.S. Conducts Minuteman Missile Test During NPT Review Conference

     

    Three days before the end of the 2015 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference, the U.S. conducted a test of a Minuteman III Intercontinental Ballistic Missile. The Minuteman III is the United States’ land-based missile that is capable of delivering a nuclear warhead to the other side of the planet in around 30 minutes.

    The test went against the call of dozens of nations at the NPT Review Conference for the U.S. and other nuclear-armed nations to take their nuclear weapons off high-alert status and to pursue negotiations for nuclear disarmament. The Air Force Global Strike Command stated that the ICBM test launch program is to “verify the effectiveness, readiness, and accuracy of the weapons system.”

    Rick Wayman, Director of Programs and Operations at the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, commented, “Conducting a nuclear missile test, particularly at this time, sends a clear signal to the international community that the United States believes it can continue to possess nuclear weapons indefinitely and with impunity.”

    U.S. Schedules Yet Another Controversial Minuteman III Test,” Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, May 19, 2015.

    Peace

    Women Cross Border Between North and South Korea

     

    Women Cross DMZ, an international group of female peace activists led by Gloria Steinem, crossed one of the world’s most militarized borders, between North and South Korea, in order to draw attention to the need for a permanent peace treaty. This year marks the 70th anniversary of the division of the Korean peninsula. Other goals of the group were to highlight the suffering of divided families and promoting peace over war.

    Mairead Maguire and Medea Benjamin, both members of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s Advisory Council, took part in the action. Maguire, recipient of the 1976 Nobel Peace Prize, said, “We are here today because we don’t believe in war. You can get to human rights when you have a normal situation and not a country at war.”

    Gloria Steinem and Female Activists Cross Korean Demilitarized Zone,” The Guardian, May 24, 2015.

    Transform Now Plowshares Activists Released from Prison

     

    On May 8, a federal appeals court ruled that the government had overreached in charging three Transform Now Plowshares activists with sabotage, ordering the release of Sister Megan Rice and her two fellow activists. The group nonviolently broke into the grounds of the Y-12 Highly-Enriched Uranium Manufacturing Facility on July 28, 2012 and conducted a symbolic conversion of the site, spreading human blood and painting peace slogans on the walls.

    After so much time in jail, Sister Megan Rice, 85, has no intention of stopping her anti-nuclear activism and is more committed than ever. One threat is that the federal government might challenge the recent ruling and try to have her thrown back in prison. “It would be an honor,” Sister Rice said during the ride. “Good Lord, what would be better than to die in prison for the anti-nuclear cause?”

    William J. Broad, “Sister Megan Rice, freed From Prison, Is Unapologetic for Anti-Nuclear Activism,” The New York Times, May 26, 2015.

    Nuclear Waste

    Las Vegas Mayor Opposes Nuclear Waste Shipments

     

    In response to a Department of Energy announcement that it would begin shipping uranium waste from Tennessee for storage in Nevada, Las Vegas Mayor Carolyn Goodman said that she would lie down in the highway to stop the transport vehicles.

    “We know what happened in the nuclear testing days,” Goodman said. “We were told at the test site, ‘These things are harmless, go out and take your children to watch these wonderful mushroom clouds.’”

    “I know it would bring funds to Nevada,” she added. “Sometimes there’s other, better ways to find funding.”

    James Dehaven, “Vegas Mayor Will Lie Down on Highway to Block Nuke Shipments,” Las Vegas Review-Journal, May 5, 2015.

    Resources

    June’s Featured Blog

     

    This month’s featured blog is Defusing the Nuclear Threat, written by NAPF Associate Martin Hellman. Hellman is Professor Emeritus of Electrical Engineering at Stanford University and an expert in risk analysis.

    Recent articles include “Solving a Riddle Wrapped in a Mystery Inside an Enigma,” and “Saber Rattling Works, but Which Way?

    To read the blog, which is updated frequently, go to www.nuclearrisk.org.

    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 June, including the June 3, 1980 incident in which the malfunction of a 46-cent computer chip caused U.S. warning systems to falsely display that the Soviet Union had launched 2,200 nuclear missiles at the United States.

    To read Mason’s full article, click here.

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

    The Growing U.S. Nuclear Threat

     

    The Alliance for Nuclear Accountability (ANA) is a network of over 30 groups around the United States, most of which are located in areas that are part of the vast U.S. nuclear weapons complex. ANA recently released a report entitled “The Growing U.S. Nuclear Threat.” The report documents numerous nuclear weapon programs that are part of the Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration that are vastly over budget, have major oversight and management problems, and a general lack of accountability.

    Rick Wayman, NAPF Director of Programs, wrote the executive summary for this report. Wayman wrote, “The Department of Energy’s budget is set to increase this year as in years past. The increased spending will undermine efforts to make the nation more secure. New, provocative investments in weapons programs and infrastructure will undermine non-proliferation efforts and introduce uncertainties into the U.S. stockpile. At the same time, cuts to the cleanup budget and failure to hold DOE and the NNSA accountable leave health risks unaddressed, environmental damage unrepaired, and urgent waste challenges unmet.”

    To read the report, click here.

    Foundation Activities

    Peace Poetry Awards: Deadline July 1

     

    The deadline for the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s annual Barbara Mandigo Kelly Peace Poetry Awards is July 1. The contest encourages poets to explore and illuminate positive visions of peace and the human spirit. The Poetry Awards include three age categories: Adult, Youth 13-18, and Youth 12 & Under. Cash prizes of up to $1,000 will be awarded to the winners. For more information on how to enter, click here.

    Paul Chappell Selected as CMM Institute Fellow

     

    The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s Peace Leadership Director, Paul K. Chappell, has been selected as a 2015 CMM (Coordinated Management of Meaning) Institute Fellow and is one of six fellows to present at the 2015 CMM Learning Exchange and Global Integral Competence conference. This event will be held in Munich, Germany, from September 17- 20, 2015.

    Chappell’s project title is “Literacy in the Art of Living, the Art of Listening, and the Art of Waging Peace.” One of the Institute’s current priorities is to promote research and interventions on selected topics that take a “communication perspective” and contribute to the common good. Proposals for the 2015 fellowships have focused on issues of conflicts and how these may be resolved or prevented by taking a “communication perspective.”

    To read more, click here.

    Save the Date: Sadako Peace Day is August 6

     

    The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation will hold its 21st Annual Sadako Peace Day commemoration event on Thursday, August 6. This year’s event, which falls on the 70th anniversary of the U.S. atomic bombing of Hiroshima, remembers the victims of the U.S. atomic bombings and all innocent victims of war. NAPF Peace Leadership Director Paul K. Chappell will deliver this year’s keynote address.

    The event will take place at 6:00 p.m. at the Sadako Peace Garden at La Casa de Maria – 800 El Bosque Road, Montecito, California. The event is free and open to the public.

    Quotes

     

    “Some powerful people make their living with the production of arms. It’s the industry of death.”

    Pope Francis

     

    “Why is it that only the security of the five [nuclear-armed members of the NPT] requires nuclear weapons, whilst no one else needs nuclear weapons for their security? If the truth is that no one’s security needs nuclear weapons, then all of our security is enhanced by getting rid of nuclear weapons. If this is indeed the case, what makes it so different for the five that they feel that they have to be exempted from this universal truth?”

    Ambassador Abdul Minty of South Africa. To read his full statement, click here.

     

    “No one can keep a straight face and argue that sixteen thousand nuclear weapons are an appropriate threshold for global safety. We are seeing nuclear nations modernize and rebuild when they could use the opportunity to reduce. There is no right to ‘indefinite possession’ to continue to retain nuclear weapons on security grounds.”

    Tony de Brum, Foreign Minister of the Republic of the Marshall Islands. To read his full statement, click here.

     

    “Nothing could be worse than fear that one has given up too soon and left one effort unexpended which might have saved the world.”

    Jane Addams (1860-1935), American peace activist and 1931 Nobel Peace Laureate. This quote is featured in the book Speaking of Peace: Quotations to Inspire Action, available online in the NAPF Peace Store.

    Editorial Team

     

    McKenna Jacquemet
    David Krieger
    Carol Warner
    Rick Wayman

     

  • El gran acuerdo, no lo es tanto

    Traducción de Rubén Arvizu. 

    Click here for the English version.

    David KriegerEl Tratado de No Proliferación Nuclear (TNP) tiene dos propósitos principales y juntos forman un gran acuerdo. En primer lugar, el tratado busca prevenir la proliferación de armas nucleares a otros países.   En segundo lugar, el tratado busca nivelar el campo de juego por la búsqueda de negociaciones de buena fe para poner fin a la carrera de armamentos nucleares en fecha cercana y lograr el desarme nuclear. El objetivo del gran acuerdo, en otras palabras, es un mundo sin armas nucleares.

    ‪En su mayor parte los estados del tratado que no poseen armas nucleares están cumpliendo con las reglas y no desarrollan o adquieren armas nucleares. Sin embargo, una nación – Estados Unidos – ha colocado sus armas nucleares en los territorios de cinco países europeos que no poseen armamento nuclear (Bélgica, Alemania, Italia, Países Bajos y Turquía), y acordó entregar las armas a estos países en caso de guerra.  EE.UU., también ha colocado a todos los países de la OTAN, además de Australia, Japón, Corea del Sur y Taiwán bajo su “paraguas nuclear”. En conjunto, estos países son conocidos como los países comadreja, no nucleares en  nombre, pero no en la realidad.

    Además, se ha producido la proliferación nuclear fuera del TNP. Tres países que nunca se unieron al TNP desarrollaron arsenales nucleares (Israel, India y Pakistán), y Corea del Norte se retiró del tratado y ha desarrollado armas nucleares. A pesar de toda esta  multiplicación nuclear real, la atención se ha centrado principalmente en la posibilidad de que Irán desarrolle armas nucleares, a pesar de que Irán parece estar dispuesto a tomar todas las medidas necesarias, incluyendo inspecciones imprevistas, para asegurar al mundo que no busca este armamento.

    Es la otra cara del gran acuerdo, sin embargo, donde las cosas realmente se complican. Los cinco países con armas nucleares que son parte del TNP (Estados Unidos, Rusia, Reino Unido, Francia y China) parecen más cómodos trabajando juntos para mantener y modernizar sus arsenales nucleares que lo que hacen para cumplir con sus obligaciones de desarme en virtud del tratado. Su estrategia común parece ser “armas nucleares para siempre.”

    EE.UU., planea invertir $1 billón de dólares en la modernización de su arsenal nuclear en las próximas tres décadas, y también es en gran parte responsable de los programas de modernización de Rusia y China, como consecuencia de la retirada unilateral de la Anti-Misiles Balísticos (ABM) en 2002 y la colocación de defensas de misiles terrestres y marítimos cercanos a las fronteras de Rusia y China. Ya que las defensas de misiles también pueden ser parte de un plan integrado para lanzar ataques primeros, Rusia y China pueden sentirse obligados a mantener la eficacia de su fuerza de disuasión nuclear mediante la mejora de sus fuerzas ofensivas para contrarrestar las defensas antimisiles de Estados Unidos. El evitar este tipo de escaladas defensiva-ofensiva fue el propósito primario del Tratado ABM. Uno puede tener mejor idea de esto imaginando la respuesta de Estados Unidos, si las defensas de misiles rusos fueron colocadas en la frontera canadiense y misiles chinos fueron situados en la frontera con México.

    Los participantes en el TNP acaban de terminar un mes de negociaciones para su novena conferencia de cinco años de revisión. La conferencia terminó en un fracaso sin un acuerdo sobre un documento final para guiar el trabajo de las partes en los próximos cinco años.  EE.UU., el Reino Unido y Canadá se negaron a apoyar una conferencia para comenzar a negociar una zona de Oriente Medio libre de armas nucleares y otras armas de destrucción masiva que tendrá lugar el primero de marzo de 2016. Esta conferencia, prometida cuando el TNP se prorrogó indefinidamente en 1995, se ha aplazado anteriormente y ahora ha sido postergada una vez más.

    Incluso si había habido un consenso sobre un documento final de la conferencia de revisión del TNP de 2015, al final, no se obtuvo un documento decisivo o satisfactorio. Los países con armas nucleares pasaron su tiempo en las reuniones minando las disposiciones en materia de desarme a las que habían hecho previamente un “compromiso inequívoco”. Los estados con armas nucleares y los estados” comadreja”, a pesar de sus protestas, no parecen actuar seriamente en mantener sus compromisos para lograr el desarme. Cada vez más, los Estados sin armas nucleares y las organizaciones de la sociedad civil están llegando a la conclusión de que los países con armas nucleares no están actuando de buena fe y, en consecuencia, no se está cumpliendo el gran acuerdo.

    Un resultado positivo y esperanzador de la conferencia, sin embargo, es que los Estados no poseedores de armas nucleares pueden estar hartos de los países que las poseen y actuar con valentía para seguir adelante en un nuevo camino hacia el desarme nuclear. Más de 100 países han aprobado el Juramento Humanitario, iniciado por Austria, para trabajar por un nuevo instrumento jurídico para prohibir y eliminar las armas nucleares, tal como se ha hecho para las armas químicas y biológicas, las minas terrestres y las bombas de dispersión. Este instrumento legal podría tomar la forma de un nuevo Tratado de Prohibición de las Armas Nucleares.

    También en el lado positivo y esperanzador son las demandas audaces y valientes de Cero Nuclear presentadas por la República de las Islas Marshall en contra de los nueve países nucleares en la Corte Internacional de Justicia de La Haya y por separado contra EE.UU. en una corte federal. Estas demandas afirman que los Estados poseedores de armas nucleares se encuentran en violación de las disposiciones en materia de desarme del TNP y del derecho internacional consuetudinario, y buscan desagravio por mandato judicial ordenando a los países con armas nucleares iniciar y participar en negociaciones de buena fe para un desarme total. Un panel lateral muy concurrido en la conferencia de revisión del TNP presentó una actualización sobre el estado de los procesos judiciales.

    Estamos conmemorando el  año 70 en que se utilizaron armas atómicas sobre las ciudades japonesas de Hiroshima y Nagasaki. Todavía hay más de 16.000 armas nucleares en el mundo. Esto ya es demasiado. Ha llegado el momento de abolir esta amenaza antes de que causen un daño irreversible a la civilización, a la especie humana y todas las otras formas de vida. Se lo debemos a nosotros mismos y a las futuras generaciones, romper nuestras cadenas de complacencia y demostrando que el corazón humano comprometido es más poderoso inclusive que las más  mortíferas armas de destrucción masiva.

    *David Krieger es Presidente de la Nuclear Age Peace Foundation y autor de CERO: El caso de la abolición de las armas nucleares. 

    *Rubén Arvizu es Director para América Latina de la Nuclear Age Peace Foundation y Embajador del Pacto Climático Global de Ciudades.

  • Grand Bargain Is Not So Grand

    The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) has two major purposes and together they form a grand bargain. First, the treaty seeks to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons to other countries.  Second, the treaty seeks to level the playing field by the pursuit of negotiations in good faith to end the nuclear arms race at an early date and to achieve nuclear disarmament. The goal of the grand bargain, in other words, is a world without nuclear weapons.

    David KriegerFor the most part the non-nuclear weapon states parties to the treaty are playing by the rules and not developing or acquiring nuclear weapons. However, one country – the United States – has stationed its nuclear weapons on the territories of five European countries otherwise without nuclear weapons (Belgium, Germany, Italy, Netherlands and Turkey), and agreed to turn these weapons over to the host countries in a time of war. The US has also placed all NATO countries plus Australia, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan under its “nuclear umbrella.” Collectively these countries are known as the weasel countries, non-nuclear in name but not in reality.

    In addition, there has been nuclear proliferation outside the NPT. Three countries that never joined the NPT developed nuclear arsenals (Israel, India and Pakistan), and North Korea withdrew from the treaty and developed nuclear weapons. Despite all of this actual nuclear proliferation, attention seems to be primarily focused on the possibility of Iran developing nuclear weapons, even though Iran appears to be willing to take all necessary steps, including intrusive inspections, to assure the world that it is not seeking nuclear weapons.

    It is the other side of the grand bargain, though, where things really break down. The five nuclear-armed countries that are parties to the NPT (US, Russia, UK, France and China) appear more comfortable working together to maintain and modernize their nuclear arsenals than they do to fulfilling their disarmament obligations under the treaty. Their common strategy appears to be “nuclear weapons forever.”

    The US, which plans to spend $1 trillion on modernizing its nuclear arsenal over the next three decades, is also largely responsible for the modernization programs of Russia and China as a result of unilaterally withdrawing from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty in 2002 and placing land- and sea-based missile defenses close to the Russian and Chinese borders. Since missile defenses can also be part of an integrated plan to launch first-strike attacks, Russia and China may feel compelled to maintain the effectiveness of their nuclear deterrent by enhancing their offensive forces to counter US missile defenses. Avoiding such defensive-offensive escalations was the purpose of the ABM Treaty in the first place. One can get a better sense of this by imagining the US response if Russian missile defenses were placed on the Canadian border and Chinese missile defenses were placed on the Mexican border.

    The parties to the NPT just completed a month of negotiations for their ninth five-year review conference. The conference ended in failure without agreement on a final document to guide the work of the parties over the next five years. The US, UK and Canada refused to support a conference to begin negotiating a Middle East zone free of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction to take place by March 1, 2016. This conference, promised when the NPT was extended indefinitely in 1995, has been put off previously and now it has been put off yet again.

    Even if there had been consensus on a final document from the 2015 NPT review conference, however, it would not have been a strong or satisfactory document. The nuclear-armed parties to the treaty spent their time at the meetings watering down the disarmament provisions to which they had previously made an “unequivocal undertaking.” The nuclear-armed states and the weasel states, despite their protestations, don’t seem serious about keeping their commitments to achieve nuclear disarmament. Increasingly, the non-nuclear weapons states and civil society organizations are coming to the conclusion that the nuclear-armed countries are not acting in good faith and, as a result, the grand bargain is not being fulfilled.

    A positive and hopeful outcome of the conference, though, is that the non-nuclear weapon states may be sufficiently fed up with the nuclear-armed countries to act boldly to push ahead on a new path to nuclear disarmament. More than 100 countries have now endorsed the Humanitarian Pledge, initiated by Austria, to work for a new legal instrument to prohibit and eliminate nuclear weapons, just as has been done for chemical and biological weapons and for landmines and cluster munitions. This legal instrument could take the form of a new Nuclear Weapons Ban Treaty.

    Also on the positive and hopeful side are the bold and courageous Nuclear Zero lawsuits filed by the Republic of the Marshall Islands against the nine nuclear-armed countries in the International Court of Justice in The Hague and separately against the US in US federal court. These lawsuits seek declaratory relief, stating that the nuclear weapon states are in violation of the disarmament provisions of the NPT and of customary international law, and seek injunctive relief ordering the nuclear-armed countries to initiate and engage in negotiations in good faith for total nuclear disarmament. A well-attended side panel at the NPT review conference provided an update on the status of the lawsuits.

    This is the 70th year since nuclear weapons were used on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. There are still over 16,000 nuclear weapons in the world. Enough is enough. It is time to abolish these weapons before they cause irreversible damage to civilization, the human species and other forms of life. We owe it to ourselves and to future generations of life on Earth to break our chains of complacency and demonstrate that the engaged human heart is more powerful than even nuclear arms.

    David Krieger is President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation and the author of ZERO: The Case for Nuclear Weapons Abolition.

    Vaya aquí para la versión española.