Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Author: David Krieger

  • Lessons from Einstein for Scientists Today

    Lessons from Einstein for Scientists Today

    Albert Einstein is widely recognized as the greatest scientist of his time.  In 2005, physics societies throughout the world celebrated the 100th anniversary year of Einstein’s “miracle year,” in which he produced five papers that would change humanity’s view of the universe.  The year 2005 also marked the 50th anniversary of Einstein’s death and of the issuing of his last public appeal, the Russell-Einstein Manifesto.  It is an appropriate time to consider what lessons we might draw from Einstein’s life that would benefit those engaged in scientific activities today.

    Lesson 1: Think for Yourself

    Einstein was a scientist who challenged prevailing assumptions, both in science and in society.  He was an innovative thinker, a man who thought for himself.  He never just went along with prevailing attitudes or structures.  He asked startlingly fresh questions, reached his own conclusions, and stood by them no matter what orthodoxies or power structures they challenged.

    Lesson 2: Reflect upon the Social Implications of Science and Technology

    Einstein was extremely thoughtful about the implications of science and technology.  He understood the potential power of science and technology for both constructive and destructive purposes.  Fearing destructive uses of atomic power by Germany, he signed a letter to President Roosevelt in 1939, warning the US of the potential for a German atomic bomb and encouraging the US to undertake research on such a bomb in order to deter a German bomb.

    Later, when the US used its own atomic bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, after the Germans had already been defeated, Einstein called his letter to Roosevelt the greatest mistake of his life.  For the remaining years of his life, Einstein worked with other scientists to end the nuclear weapons threat to humanity, and was an outspoken advocate of this cause.

    Lesson 3: Engage with Society

    Einstein spoke out regularly on issues of social importance.  He opposed militarism and war, and warned society of the new dangers of the Nuclear Age.  “The splitting of the atom,” he said, “has changed everything save our modes of thinking, and thus we drift toward unparalleled catastrophe.”  Einstein was never reluctant to lend his name or express his thoughts in support of issues he considered to be of social importance.

    Lesson 4: Be Responsive to Civil Society

    Einstein not only spoke out on issues he considered to have social relevance.  He was also responsive to those who asked for his opinions on key social issues, such as war and peace, weaponry and world government.  He took time to respond to individuals from all walks of life, including youth.  He also engaged in important public intellectual exchanges with other leading figures of his time, including psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud and poet Rabindranath Tagore.

    Lesson 5: Be a World Citizen

    Einstein viewed himself as a citizen of the world, and believed that world government, at least as it pertained to security, was necessary to control war and nuclear weaponry.  Einstein identified with humanity as a whole more than with any one country, and he was critical of any country, including his own by birth or choice, that promoted militarism.

    Lesson 6: Challenge Authority

    Einstein was not a servant of authority.  He was willing to stand toe to toe with power.  When Einstein had a highly respected professorship in Germany in his early career, and nearly all the scientific community signed onto a statement supportive of German militarism, Einstein was one of only a handful of vocal opponents to this statement who signed a counter-statement.  He was unwilling to give his name in support of what he did not agree with.  He was his own person, and quite willing to stand up to and challenge authority.

    Lesson 7: Let Your Conscience Be Your Guide

    Einstein believed in letting one’s conscience be his guide, and lived this way throughout his life.  He was a strong supporter of conscientious objection to war.  He stated, “I believe that a refusal on conscientious grounds to serve in the army when called up, if carried out by 50,000 men at the same moment, would be irresistible.”

    Lesson 8: Remember Your Humanity

    The Russell-Einstein Manifesto, which was the final public appeal that Einstein signed before his death, may be thought of as his final testament.  In this appeal, the signors posed two starkly different potential futures: one characterized as a paradise on earth and the other characterized by universal death.  The key to a positive future, as expressed in the Manifesto, was to “Remember your humanity, and forget the rest.”  Einstein himself never lost touch with his own humanity.  He always stood at the cutting edge of the arc of justice and, with the exception of advocating the defeat of the Nazi regime in World War II, was an unwavering pacifist and proponent of peace.

    Conclusion

    Were Einstein able to view the world of today, more than fifty years following his death, I think he would be deeply disappointed by the manner in which most of the world’s scientists have failed to take responsibility for the consequences of their work.  Einstein’s example for scientists was first and foremost to be compassionate human beings who care about the world around them and other human beings, regardless of their nationality or ethnicity.  He did not view science and technology as neutral.  He wanted its destructive purposes to be controlled, and he called for a world government capable of preventing war and eliminating weapons of mass destruction.

    I believe that Einstein would have been proud of the scientists who have followed in his footsteps.  Certainly he would have been extremely pleased by Joseph Rotblat, the youngest signer of the Russell-Einstein Manifesto, who went on to organize and lead the Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs.  He would have applauded Professor Rotblat and Pugwash receiving the 1995 Nobel Peace Prize for their efforts to cross the Cold War divide and reduce the nuclear threat to humanity.

    I’m sure Einstein would also have been proud of the scientists and engineers who created and have participated in the International Network of Engineers and Scientists for Global Responsibility (INES) for the bold steps they have taken to promote nuclear disarmament, prevent nuclear proliferation, pursue sustainable development, and support scientific whistle-blowing and higher ethical standards for scientists and engineers.

    Einstein was a most remarkable human being, a man who changed our view of the universe, and who also demonstrated a great moral imagination and a high level of commitment to a more just and peaceful world.  Scientists today would do well to learn from Einstein’s life the lessons that made him both a responsible scientist and a great human being.  While it is highly unlikely that scientists today will reach Einstein’s pinnacle of brilliant achievement, all have the possibility to follow his example of personal integrity, moral leadership, public outreach and commitment to restricting scientific endeavor to constructive purposes.

    David Krieger is a founder and president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org). He served as chair of the International Network of Engineers and Scientists for Global Responsibility.

  • Tiempo de Transición

    Traducción de Ruben Arvizu.

    Después de servir durante 37 años como presidente fundador de la Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, estaré haciendo la transición a un nuevo rol, el de presidente emérito, a fines de 2019. Rick Wayman, con quien he trabajado estrechamente durante los últimos 12 años. años, asumirá el cargo de nuevo CEO de la Fundación. Rick aportará a la posición un conocimiento profundo sobre temas nucleares y un fuerte compromiso para abolir las armas nucleares, junto con una gran energía, habilidades de liderazgo y una conexión con la generación más joven de hoy. Estoy seguro de que dejaré la Fundación en muy buenas manos.

    Cuando fundamos la Nuclear Age Peace Foundation hace casi cuatro décadas, lo hicimos con una esperanza y un sueño. Sabíamos que la Fundación era necesaria, pero no sabíamos si podría sobrevivir en una atmósfera de ignorancia y apatía. Sin embargo, aquí estamos, aún luchando por un futuro ético y pacífico.

    Considero que la Fundación es una institución rara y muy preciosa. Como esta institución hay muy pocas, si alguna, en el mundo. Su misión es: “Educar, defender e inspirar acciones para un mundo justo y pacífico, libre de armas nucleares”. Ese es nuestro propósito: trabajar por la paz y abolir las armas más peligrosas jamás creadas por la humanidad. Si tenemos éxito, estamos dando un gran regalo al ser humano y a todas las generaciones futuras. Hasta que eso ocurra, somos, como mínimo, una voz de la razón en un mundo lleno de peligros.

    Además de Rick, el personal de la Fundación está compuesto por Paul Chappell, nuestro Director de Alfabetización para la Paz; Sandy Jones, nuestra directora de comunicaciones; Sarah Witmer, nuestra directora de desarrollo; Sharon Rossol, nuestra gerente de oficina; y Carol Warner, asistente del presidente.

    La Fundación también cuenta con el apoyo de nuestro dedicado Consejo de Administración, así como con miembros de nuestro muy respetado consejo asesor y asociados académicos. Además, la Fundación está fortalecida por nuestros voluntarios, incluida nuestra representante de la ONU, Alice Slater, y nuestro Director para América Latina, Rubén D. Arvizu. Se puede obtener más información sobre todas las personas que son instrumentales en el trabajo de la Fundación, así como información sobre nuestros programas, en nuestro sitio web www.wagingpeace.org.

    Nos complace que somos más de 80,000 miembros en la Fundación. Espero que Usted continúe apoyando el trabajo de la Fundación leyendo y compartiendo nuestro boletín electrónico mensual Sunflower; participando en nuestra Red de Alerta de Acción; y donando generosamente para ayudar a la Fundación a ser más efectiva en aumentar su alcance e influencia en todo el país y todo el mundo.

  • New Modes of Thinking

    New Modes of Thinking

    “The unleashed power of the atom has changed everything save our modes of thinking, and we thus drift toward unparalleled catastrophe.” ~Albert Einstein

    This is a prescient warning to humanity from the greatest scientist of the 20th century, the individual who conceived of the enormous power that could be released from the atom.

    What did Einstein mean?

    It may seem like a simple statement, but it is an extraordinarily formidable challenge.

    Nuclear weapons require us to awaken to the possibility of human extinction.

    They require us to put away our old ways of thinking, rooted in selfishness, greed, injustice, nationalism and violence.

    They require us to see everyone as a member of the human family, and to treat them accordingly.

    They require us to value life and to refuse to kill.

    They require us to consign war to the dustbin of history.

    They require us to seek justice and human rights for all.

    They require us to recognize we share one rare and precious planet, the only one we know of in the universe that supports life.

    They require us to place humanity above country or tribe.

    They require us to stretch for higher moral purpose and values to deal effectively with our technological prowess, not only as it applies to nuclear technologies, but also to artificial intelligence, climate chaos and other forms of environmental degradation.

    They require us to politically engage on behalf of humanity and our children’s future.

    They require us, as difficult as it may be, to put the nuclear genie back in the bottle and to keep it there.

  • Imagination and Nuclear Weapons

    Imagination and Nuclear Weapons

    Einstein believed that knowledge is limited, but imagination is infinite.

    Imagine the soul-crushing reality of a nuclear war, with billions of humans dead; in essence, a global Hiroshima, with soot from the destruction of cities blocking warming sunlight. There would be darkness everywhere, temperatures falling into a new ice age, with crop failures and mass starvation.

    With nuclear weapons poised on hair-trigger alert and justified by the ever-shaky hypothesis that nuclear deterrence will be effective indefinitely, this should not be difficult to imagine.

    In this sense, our imaginations can be great engines for change.

    In our current world, bristling with nuclear weapons and continuous nuclear threat, we stand at the brink of the nuclear precipice. The best case scenario from the precipice, short of beginning a process of abolishing nuclear arms, is that we have the great good fortune to avoid crossing the line into nuclear war and blindly continue to pour obscene amounts of money into modernizing nuclear arsenals, while failing to meet the basic human needs of a large portion of the world’s population.

    The only way out of this dilemma is for the leaders of the world to come to their senses and agree that nuclear weapons must be abolished in order to assure that these weapons will never again be used. Given the state of the world we live in, this is more difficult to imagine.

    What steps would need to be taken to realize the goal of nuclear abolition?

    First, we would need a treaty to ban nuclear weapons. Such a treaty was agreed to in 2017 by a majority of countries in the United Nations, the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW). The treaty is now in the process of being ratified and will enter into force when ratified by 50 countries. Unfortunately and predictably, none of the nine nuclear-armed countries have supported the TPNW, and many have been overtly hostile to the treaty.

    Second, negotiations would need to commence on nuclear disarmament by the nations of the world, including all nine of the nuclear-armed countries. The nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) already obliges its parties to undertake such negotiations in good faith. Specifically, it calls for negotiations to end the nuclear arms race at an early date and to achieve complete nuclear disarmament. The nuclear-armed states parties to the NPT have failed to fulfill these obligations since 1970 when the treaty entered into force.

    Third, the negotiations would need to be expanded to encompass issues of general and complete disarmament, in order not to allow nuclear abolition to lead to conventional arms races and wars. Again, the states parties to the NPT are obligated to undertake such negotiations in good faith, but have not even begun to fulfill this obligation.

    If we can use our imaginations to foresee the horrors of nuclear war, we should be able to take the necessary steps to assure that such a tragedy doesn’t occur. Those steps have been set forth in the two treaties mentioned above.

    What remains missing is the political will to implement the treaties. Without this political will, our imaginations notwithstanding, we will stay stuck in this place of potential nuclear catastrophe, where nuclear war can ensue due to malice, madness, miscalculation, mistake or manipulation (hacking). Imagination is necessary, but not sufficient, to overcome political will. Even treaties are not sufficient unless there is the political will to assure their provisions are implemented. To do this, imagination must be linked to action to demand a change in political will.

    The time is short, the task is great, and terrible consequences are foreseeable if we continue to be stuck at the nuclear precipice.

    To do nothing is simply unimaginable.

    This article was originally published by Counterpunch.

    David Krieger is a founder and president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org).  His most recent book is In the Shadow of the Bomb.

  • Blase Bonpane ¡Presente!

    Blase Bonpane ¡Presente!

    Traducción y anotación por Rubén D. Arvizu*

    Quiero tomarme un momento para recordar a un gran hombre, Blase Bonpane, quien falleció el 8 de abril de 2019. A pesar de sus casi 90 años en el planeta, nos dejó demasiado pronto. Sin embargo, su presencia es todavía palpable.

    Vivió una vida con sentido y decencia. No podía soportar la injusticia en ninguna parte. Donde había injusticia, él estaba allí para protestar. Siempre estuvo del lado  de los pobres y oprimidos, usando su voz poderosa para decirlo, a través de sus escritos, su programa de radio, su organización (Oficina de las Américas)*, sus discursos y su presencia.

    En 2006, la Nuclear Age Peace Foundation  premió a Blase como  Lider Distinguido de la Paz. En realidad, él nos honró con su presencia. Desde ese momento en adelante, nos honró aún más al formar parte del Consejo Asesor de la Fundación.

    Aquí están algunas de sus muchas y maravillosas citas:

    Guerra: “Debe ser abolida si el planeta quiere tener un futuro”.

    Paz: “Los niños son el mayor argumento para la paz”.

    Armas nucleares: “Cualquier individuo, grupo o nación involucrado en la conspiración, planificación o conspiración para llevar a cabo una guerra nuclear debe ser declarado enemigo de la vida en este planeta”.

    Lecciones de la historia: “El imperio no aprende; simplemente se autodestruye “.

    Gracias, Blase, por ser un ejemplo para todos nosotros, por tus muchos esfuerzos por una humanidad mejor, más decente y justa.

    David Krieger es Presidente de la Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

    Ruben D. Arvizu es Director para América Latina de Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

     

    *Bonpane fundó en 1983 en Los Ángeles,  California junto con su esposa, Theresa, la Oficina de las Américas  (Office of the Americas) una organización sin fines de lucro dedicada a promover la causa de la justicia internacional y la paz a través de amplios programas educativos. Su meta principal es terminar con la larga cultura internacional de militarismo. Los amplios conocimientos de los Bonpane del idioma español y su relación con países de América Latina, por medio de trabajos misioneros de Blase en América Central y de Theresa en Chile como directora del centro educativo Instituto Comercial, les dio una importante fuente de documentación y análisis de eventos internacionales actuales con un enfoque en la política exterior de los Estados Unidos.  (Nota del traductor)

    Click here for the English version

  • Blase Bonpane Presente!

    Blase Bonpane Presente!

    I wish to take a moment to remember a great man, Blase Bonpane, who passed on April 8, 2019.  Despite his nearly 90 years on the planet, he left us too soon.  Yet his presence is still palpable.

    He lived a life of meaning and decency.  He couldn’t abide injustice anywhere.  Where there was injustice, he was there to protest.  He always stood with the poor and downtrodden, using his powerful voice on their behalf, through his writing, his radio show, his organization (Office of the Americas), his speeches and his presence.

    In 2006, the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation honored Blase with its Distinguished Peace Leadership Award.  In reality, he honored us by his presence.  From that time forward, he honored us further by serving on the Foundation’s Advisory Council.

    Here are a few of his many powerful insights:

    War: “It must be abolished if the planet is to have a future.”

    Peace: “Children are the greatest argument for peace.”

    Nuclear weapons: “Any individuals, groups or nations involved in plotting, planning or conspiring to conduct nuclear war must be declared the enemy of life on this planet.”

    Lessons of history: “Empire does not learn; it just self-destructs.”

    Thank you, Blase, for being an example for us all by your many efforts for a better, more decent and just humanity.

    Vaya aquí para la versión española.

  • Participation in the 1995 NPT Review and Extension Conference

    Participation in the 1995 NPT Review and Extension Conference

    The Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) was opened for signatures in 1968 and entered into force in 1970.[i]  Despite its name, the NPT sought not only to prevent nuclear weapons proliferation, but also, in Article VI, called for good faith negotiations for an end to the nuclear arms race at an early date, for nuclear disarmament, and for general and complete disarmament.  The treaty also had provisions for review conferences to be held at five-year intervals and for an extension conference to be held 25 years after the treaty entered into force.  The purpose of the extension conference was for the parties to the treaty to decide by a majority vote whether the treaty should be extended indefinitely, for a period or periods of time, or not at all.

    The decision on extending the NPT was an important one.  As the 1995 NPT Review and Extension Conference approached in the spring of 1995, there was considerable discussion and lobbying with regard to the best course of action for the future of the treaty.  The nuclear-armed states parties to the treaty (US, Russia, UK, France and China) wanted an indefinite extension of the treaty, which would preserve their favored (but still highly dangerous) position under the treaty as nuclear weapons states to possess nuclear arms while prohibiting other states from doing so.  Some civil society groups, particularly those that favored arms control measures over disarmament, supported the position of the nuclear weapons states for indefinite extension of the treaty.

    On the other hand, the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, as well as dozens of other civil society groups working on nuclear disarmament, took note of the general lack of effort and progress by the nuclear-armed parties to the treaty in fulfilling their Article VI nuclear disarmament obligations for good faith negotiations for ending the nuclear arms race and for nuclear disarmament.  Given this, these organizations favored some version of an extension for periods of time, and for the periodic extensions to be contingent upon clear progress toward nuclear disarmament made by the nuclear-armed parties to the treaty.  We saw this as a unique opportunity to put pressure on the nuclear weapons states to fulfill their nuclear disarmament obligations under the treaty, rather than continuing indefinitely to ignore those obligations, as they had done for the first 25 years of the treaty’s existence.

    I represented the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation at the 1995 NPT Review and Extension Conference, which was held at the United Nations Headquarters in New York.  Along with other NGO representatives, we lobbied the non-nuclear weapons countries not to go along with the indefinite extension of the treaty being argued for by the nuclear weapons states and their allies.  I remember that Canada took a leadership role in promoting an indefinite extension of the treaty, seemingly as a relatively benign cover for the position of the nuclear weapons states, particularly the United States.

    Together with Bas Bruyne from the Netherlands, I prepared a lobbying paper calling for limited extensions of the NPT, which we distributed at the conference.  Here is a portion of the argument that we made:

    The end of the Cold War has brought us to a crossroads in human history. An important choice will be presented by the NPT Extension Conference in April-May 1995. The world community has the choice to continue on the path of the present two-tier structure of states which possess nuclear weapons and states which do not, or to take a different path.

    The declared nuclear-weapons-states seem intent upon perpetuating the two-tier structure of nuclear weapons “haves” and “have nots.” These states are lobbying for an indefinite extension of the NPT. If they are successful in their efforts to gain a majority of parties to the NPT to support an indefinite extension, they will assure a continuation into the indefinite future of the two-tier structure of states. They will also assure that their special privileges and powers in the world community will be undergirded by their continued ability to possess nuclear arsenals.

    The likely result of such a world order is that more and more states will aspire to and eventually attain the status of nuclear-weapon-states. Non-nuclear-weapons-states will find many compelling rationales for providing their own national security in the same manner as the nuclear-weapons-states, that is, with nuclear weapons as instruments of policy and warfare.

    As we approach the 21st century, the needs of global security stand in stark contrast to Cold War conceptions of national security. Throughout the Cold War, a small number of states justified the possession and threat of use of nuclear weapons by treating such weapons as essential to their security. With the Cold War ended, an imperative has arisen to place national security interests within the framework of common security interests. The pursuit of national security by nuclear deterrence is increasingly unable to guarantee that the collectivity of people’s needs are met on national, regional, or global levels.

    The policies that underlie the principle of nuclear deterrence are part of the analytical framework that puts national security above global security. Nuclear weapons, which seemingly provide security for the nations that possess them, in fact threaten the security of all nations, including those that possess them. The security of the whole must not be undermined by such dangerous and outmoded policies. There is no logic to do so, for if the security of the whole is breached, so is the security of the part. If global security is threatened, so is the security of all nations.

    If the goal of the international community in the 21st century is common security, then the goal of abolition of nuclear weapons must be taken seriously. At no time since the beginning of the Nuclear Age have conditions in the world been more suitable for developing and implementing a realistic plan for the abolition of nuclear weapons.

    No possible justification exists for providing some nations of the world with special privileges and not others. In practice, the NPT has provided for such special privileges by holding declared nuclear-weapons-states and non-nuclear-weapons-states to different standards. Nuclear-weapons-states have been allowed to possess and further develop their nuclear arsenals, while non-nuclear-states are prohibited from developing and possessing nuclear weapons.

    The NPT makes sense only as an interim agreement, and not as an agreement that extends indefinitely into the future assuring the two-tier structure of states. In fact, if Article VI of the NPT is to be taken seriously, then the Treaty by its own terms is of limited duration, lasting only until the “good faith” negotiations of the declared nuclear-weapons-states are successful in achieving nuclear disarmament. Thus, there is no possible condition which would justify an indefinite extension of the NPT.

    Since the declared nuclear-weapons-states have already gone on record as seeking an indefinite extension of the NPT (which could be interpreted to mean that they are satisfied with the status quo and do not intend to fulfill their Article VI promise to negotiate nuclear disarmament), it is up to the non-nuclear-weapons-states party to the NPT to oppose an indefinite extension and support a limited extension contingent upon the declared nuclear-weapons-states’ fulfilling their obligations under Article VI.[ii]

    As the days of the conference wore on, it became more and more evident that the indefinite extension was likely to prevail.  A few of us from civil society groups favoring  limited extensions began drafting an Abolition 2000 Statement, which became the founding document for the Abolition 2000 Global Network.  Key drafters included Jackie Cabasso, Alice Slater, John Burroughs and me.  The statement called for the completion of negotiations on a Nuclear Weapons Convention by the year 2000.  Some 60 civil society groups, disappointed by the way the NPT extension conference was developing and fearing the indefinite extension would prevail, met in the United Nations cafeteria and adopted the statement calling for nuclear weapons abolition and establishing the Abolition 2000 Global Network.

    I continue to think it is one of the best such statements ever produced.  Its opening paragraphs state:

    A secure and livable world for our children and grandchildren and all future generations requires that we achieve a world free of nuclear weapons and redress the environmental degradation and human suffering that is the legacy of fifty years of nuclear weapons testing and production. Further, the inextricable link between the “peaceful” and warlike uses of nuclear technologies and the threat to future generations inherent in creation and use of long-lived radioactive materials must be recognized. We must move toward reliance on clean, safe, renewable forms of energy production that do not provide the materials for weapons of mass destruction and do not poison the environment for thousands of centuries. The true “inalienable” right is not to nuclear energy, but to life, liberty and security of person in a world free of nuclear weapons.

    We recognize that a nuclear weapons free world must be achieved carefully and in a step by step manner. We are convinced of its technological feasibility. Lack of political will, especially on the part of the nuclear weapons states, is the only true barrier. As chemical and biological weapons are prohibited, so must nuclear weapons be prohibited.[iii]

    In the end, the delegates to the NPT Review and Extension Conference adopted an indefinite extension by consensus.  There was not even a vote on the matter.  The US and the other nuclear-armed countries were ecstatic.  They would be able to maintain the status quo without having checks on their progress in negotiating in good faith for an end to the nuclear arms race and for nuclear disarmament.  Another outcome of the conference was a resolution drafted by the US, UK and Russia calling for a Middle East Zone free of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction.  In nearly a quarter century since then, nothing has come of this resolution but frustration for the Arab states, and Israel remains the only country in the Middle East with a nuclear arsenal.

    I have participated in many NPT Review Conferences and their Preparatory Committee meetings since the 1995 Review and Extension Conference, but I’ve never experienced as much lost opportunity as occurred at that particular crossroads of the NPT in the aftermath of the Cold War, when there was a real opening to put continuing pressure on the nuclear-armed states party to the treaty to fulfill their nuclear disarmament obligations.

    The latest breakthrough on nuclear weapons abolition occurred in 2017 when 122 members of the United Nations General Assembly voted to adopt the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW).[iv]  Once again, civil society organizations were in the forefront of the lobbying efforts, in the form of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN),[v] which received the 2017 Nobel Peace Prize for attaining support by UN member states for the creation of the TPNW and for the new treaty’s adoption.  Unfortunately, the nuclear-armed countries, led by the US, have made it clear that they do not and will not support this new treaty.  The treaty, which is now gathering signatures and ratifications, will enter into force 90 days after its 50th ratification or accession is deposited with the United Nations.  It is moving steadily toward this goal with the continuing support of ICAN and its more than 500 civil society partner organizations.

    [i] United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs: https://www.un.org/disarmament/wmd/nuclear/npt/text/

    [ii] Krieger, David and Bas Bruyne, “Preventing Proliferation by Nuclear Weapons Abolition: Supporting a Limited Extension of the NPT.”  Nuclear Proliferation and the Legality of Nuclear Weapons.  Eds. William M. Evan and Ved P. Nanda.  New York: University Press of America, Inc., 1995.

    [iii] Abolition 2000 Global Network to Eliminate Nuclear Weapons: http://www.abolition2000.org/en/about/founding-statement/

    [iv] United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs: https://www.un.org/disarmament/wmd/nuclear/tpnw/

    [v] International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons: https://www.icanw.org/

  • Humanity Is Flirting with Extinction

    Humanity Is Flirting with Extinction

    The most stunning and frightening truth about the nuclear age is this: Nuclear weapons are capable of destroying civilization and most complex life on the planet, yet next to nothing is being done about it. Humanity is flirting with extinction and is experiencing the “frog’s malaise.” It is as though the human species has been placed into a pot of tepid water — metaphorically with regard to nuclear dangers and literally with regard to climate change — and appears to be calmly treading water while the temperature rises toward the boiling point. In this piece, I focus on the metaphorical pot of heating water, heading toward a boil, representing the increasing nuclear dangers confronting all humanity.

    Disconcertingly, there is virtually no political will on the part of nations in possession of nuclear arsenals to alter this dangerous situation; and, despite legal obligations to negotiate in good faith for an end to the nuclear arms race and for nuclear disarmament, there is no major effort among the nuclear-armed and umbrella countries to achieve nuclear zero. While the non-nuclear-armed countries have negotiated a Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) and are working to bring this treaty into force, those countries that possess the weapons and those sheltering under their nuclear umbrella have not supported the new treaty.

    All nine nuclear-armed countries boycotted international negotiations on banning and eliminating nuclear weapons. In addition, each of these countries is in the process of modernizing its nuclear arsenal, thereby wasting valuable resources on weapons that must never be used, and doing so while basic human needs for billions of people globally go unmet and unattended. Despite this unjust and deplorable situation, most of the 7 billion people on the planet are complacent about nuclear weapons. This only adds fuel to the fire under the frogs.

    In the nuclear age, humanity is challenged as never before. Our technology, and particularly our nuclear weapons, can destroy us and all that we hold dear. But before we can respond to the profound dangers, we must first awaken to these dangers. Complacency is rooted in apathy, conformity, ignorance and denial — a recipe for disaster. If we want to prevail over our technologies, we must move from apathy to empathy; from conformity to critical thinking; from ignorance to wisdom; and from denial to recognition of the danger. But how are we to do this?

    The key is education — education that promotes engagement; education that forces individuals and nations to face the truth about the dangers of the nuclear age. We need education that leads to action that will allow humanity to get out of the metaphorical pot of heating water before it is too late.

    Education can take many forms, but it must begin with solid analysis of current dangers and critiques of the lack of progress in stemming the dangers of the nuclear age. We need education that is rooted in the common good. We need education that provides a platform for the voices of the survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We need education that makes clear the instability and dangerous nature of nuclear deterrence. We need education that challenges the extreme hubris of leaders who believe the global nuclear status quo can survive indefinitely in the face of human fallibility and malevolence.

    We need education that can break through the bonds of nuclear insanity and move the world to action. We need the public to speak out and demand far more of their leaders if we are to leap from the pot of heating water, avert disaster and reach the safe haven of nuclear zero.

    This article was originally published by The Hill on March 5, 2019.

    David Krieger is a founder of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, and has served as its president since 1982. He is the author and editor of many books on nuclear dangers, including “ZERO: The Case for Nuclear Weapons Abolition.”

  • 10 Lessons You Should Learn About Nuclear Weapons

    10 Lessons You Should Learn About Nuclear Weapons

    Here are 10 lessons that I learned about nuclear weapons in the process of working for their abolition for the past four decades. I wish I could share these lessons with every citizen of the planet, all of whom are endangered by these weapons.

    The effects of nuclear weapons cannot be contained in space or time. Radiation from a nuclear detonation is carried by the wind and cannot be stopped at national borders, with or without border checkpoints. Radioactive materials also have long lives. Plutonium-239, for example, has a half-life of 24,000 years and will remain deadly if inhaled for the next 240,000 years.

    1. The effects of nuclear weapons cannot be contained in space or time. Radiation from a nuclear detonation is carried by the wind and cannot be stopped at national borders, with or without border checkpoints. Radioactive materials also have long lives. Plutonium-239, for example, has a half-life of 24,000 years and will remain deadly if inhaled for the next 240,000 years.
    2. Nuclear weapons have made possible omnicide, the death of all. Omnicide is a 20th-century concept created by philosopher John Somerville. It is the logical extension of suicide, homicide, genocide. Although it is a concept too final to even imagine, it must be taken seriously.
    3. The survivors of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are the ambassadors of the nuclear age, having witnessed first-hand the horror of nuclear weapons use and not wanting their past to become anyone else’s future.  Many survivors, known as hibakusha, have made it their life’s work to speak out to educate others and to rid the world of nuclear weapons.
    4. Nuclear deterrence does not provide physical protection against nuclear weapons — it provides only a false sense of security and the possibility of retaliation and vengeance. Reliance on nuclear deterrence opens the door to omnicide.
    5. Nine countries with nuclear weapons are playing Nuclear roulette with the human future. Nuclear weapons are like having grenades pointed at the heart of humanity, putting everything we love and treasure at risk. With Nuclear roulette the odds are not with humanity.
    6. Einstein warned: “The unleashed power of the atom has changed everything save our modes of thinking, and we thus drift toward unparalleled catastrophe.” For ourselves, our countries and our planet, we must change our modes of thinking and end the widespread ignorance and apathy surrounding nuclear weapons. We must rid the world of nuclear weapons before they rid the world of us.
    7. Nuclear weapons are an absolute and ultimate evil. Their only purpose is to kill indiscriminately — women, men and children, as well as other forms of complex life.
    8. There are many ways a nuclear war could begin: by malice, madness, mistake, miscalculation or manipulation (hacking). That we have not yet had a nuclear war is more from good fortune than good planning. We have come chillingly close on numerous occasions.
    9. Nuclear weapons make us all reliant for our lives and futures on the sanity and wisdom of a small number of national leaders. It is far too much power to put in the hands of any leader. We must speak out, join together and demand that these weapons be abolished before they abolish us.
    10. The choice between two memes of the 20th century will determine whether humankind survives the 21st: the image of the mushroom cloud, and the image of the earth from outer space. The first is an image of death and destruction, while the second is an image of the fragility of our planetary home, the only place we know of in the universe where life exists. The choice should be clear, and it calls out to us to choose peace, not war; survival, not devastation; hope, not despair; and engagement to save our planet and the precious gift of life it harbors.

    This article was originally published by The Hill on February 15, 2019.

  • I Am Skeptical

    I Am Skeptical

    I am skeptical about the degree of optimism some people are expressing about nuclear weapons.  To take just one example: Between the mid-1980s and the present, the number of nuclear weapons has been reduced from over 70,000 to approximately 14,500. This is a reduction of more than 55,000 nuclear weapons in the world. Some analysts see this as a sign that the world is out of nuclear danger. However, while the number of nuclear weapons has come way down, one nuclear war with only a tiny percentage of the nuclear weapons that still exist could end civilization and possibly the human species. Reductions in the size of nuclear arsenals are a positive sign, but they do not indicate that humanity is secure from nuclear threat.

    At the same time that these reductions in arsenals have taken place, nuclear weapons have proliferated to three new countries (India, Pakistan and North Korea), in addition to the six initial nuclear weapons states (US, Russia, UK, France, China and Israel). The more nuclear weapon states, the greater the nuclear danger. In addition, nuclear-armed states have withdrawn from existing arms control agreements, such as the US unilaterally withdrawing from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty in 2002, Trump withdrawing from the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (Iran Nuclear Agreement) in 2018 and his administration’s recent announcement of suspension of obligations and intention to withdraw from the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty in February 2019. These unilateral steps on the part of the US are undermining nuclear stability and leading to new qualitative nuclear arms races.

    With Trump as the US president, the world remains in a precarious situation, close to the ultimate brink, and even with a more truthful and rational president, we would still be close to the brink. That is the reason that I see peace as an imperative of the nuclear age, and why I think the only reasonable number of nuclear weapons in the world is zero. Instead of negotiating to achieve that goal, the nuclear weapon states are all planning to modernize and improve their nuclear arsenals. This is occurring in an environment in which leaders of the nuclear weapon states and their allies are giving magical and unrealistic powers and efficacy to nuclear deterrence. In part, we learned far too little from the Cuban Missile Crisis, and we may not be so fortunate on the next nuclear standoff, which could occur at any time. The large reduction in nuclear arsenals that has taken place in recent decades is not sufficient to assure human survival, and we should not be celebrating our success until the world is out of danger of nuclear holocaust.

    I would prefer to be more optimistic about our nuclear-armed world, but I am concerned that optimism can breed inaction and a lack of engagement on the issue. What we need now is healthy skepticism about nuclear weapons and the policies which guide their use, and strong citizen engagement in pressuring the nuclear-armed countries to participate in good faith negotiations for total nuclear disarmament, as they are obligated to do under international law.

    Nuclear deterrence can fail and does not provide protection, especially to citizens of nuclear-armed countries. Rather, it paints a target on their backs. Arms reductions, which still leave all of us vulnerable, are not enough. What we need is commitment to nuclear abolition and widespread citizen engagement, leading their leaders, to rid the world of nuclear weapons. Thus, I remain skeptical about nuclear security, but hopeful that humanity will awaken to the challenge.

    This article was originally published by The Hill under the title “Yes, there are fewer nuclear weapons – but they can still wipe us out.”

    David Krieger is a founder of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org), and has served as its president since 1982. His latest book is In the Shadow of the Bomb: Poems of Survival.