Author: David Krieger

  • 2011 Sadako Peace Day

    This is a transcript of David Krieger’s speech at the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s 2011 Sadako Peace Day commemoration.


    David KriegerWelcome to the 17th annual Sadako Peace Day commemorating the tragedies of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. 


    We are very pleased to have with us today our principal speaker, Dr. Jimmy Hara, a Los Angeles medical doctor who has been a leader in the struggle for a nuclear weapons-free world.  We are also honored to have with us Shigeko Sasamori, a survivor of Hiroshima, who will accept the Foundation’s World Citizen Award on October 9th on behalf of the survivors of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings.  We will also have with us for that occasion Tadatoshi Akiba, the distinguished former mayor of Hiroshima.


    Today is the 66th anniversary of the atomic bombing of Nagasaki.  Three days ago, on August 6th, was the 66th anniversary of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima.  We have now lived under the threat of nuclear annihilation for two-thirds of a century.
     
    We come together to share in remembrance, reflection and resistance. 


    Remembrance of the tragedies that befell the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the massive death and destruction caused by these powerful new weapons. 


    Reflection on the power of our technologies for good or evil and on the only force capable of controlling our powerful weaponry and turning it to constructive ends – the human spirit.


    Resistance to the continued reliance upon these weapons of mass annihilation by a small number of states and to the unconscionable allocation of public resources to war and its preparation.


    We remember so as not to repeat the tragedy.  We reflect to place the tragedy within the context of our lives and our time.  We resist to fulfill our human responsibility to ourselves, to each other and to those who will follow us on this planet.


    We are a community committed to ending the threat of nuclear annihilation, and we are linked to other communities sharing this commitment across the globe. 


    We are linked to Sadako of the thousand cranes and to other innocent victims of war and nuclear annihilation.  Sadako wrote on the wings of a paper crane she folded, “I will write peace on your wings, and you will fly all over the world.”  Her cranes have indeed reached across oceans – to us here in Santa Barbara and to many other parts of the world.


    I’d like to read you an excerpt of the Nagasaki Peace Declaration, which was shared earlier today in that city:



    “Do we still believe that the world is safer thanks to nuclear deterrence? Do we still take it for granted that no nuclear weapons will ever be used again? Now seeing how the radiation released by an accident at just a single nuclear power station is causing such considerable confusion in society, we can clearly understand how inhumane it is to attack people with nuclear weapons.


    “We call upon all people in the world to simply imagine how terrifying it would be if a nuclear weapon hundreds of times more powerful than the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombs were to be exploded in the sky above our cities.


    “While intense heat rays would melt human beings and anything else nearby, horrific blast winds would fling buildings through the air and crush them instantly. A countless number of charred bodies would be scattered among the ruins. Some people would hover between life and death, while others would suffer from their injuries. Even if there were survivors, the intense radioactivity would prevent any rescue efforts. Radioactive substances would be carried far away by the wind to all corners of the world, resulting in widespread contamination of the earth’s environment, and in affecting people with a plague of health effects for generations to come.


    “We must never allow anyone in the future to experience such agony. Nuclear weapons are never needed. No reason can ever justify human beings possessing even one nuclear weapon.”


    We appreciate your being here and hope you will enjoy the program of music, poetry and contemplation.  We invite you to join us in working for a more peaceful world, free of nuclear weapons and nuclear threat.


    I’d like to conclude with a poem from my book, God’s Tears.  It begins with a quote by General Eisenhower.




    EISENHOWER’S VIEW


    It wasn’t necessary to hit them
    with that awful thing

    — General Dwight D. Eisenhower
     
    We hit them with it, first
    at Hiroshima and then at Nagasaki –
    the old one-two punch.


    The bombings were tests really, to see
    what those “awful things” would do.


    First, of a gun-type uranium bomb, and then
    of a plutonium implosion bomb.


    Both proved highly effective
    in the art of obliterating cities.


    It wasn’t necessary.


     

  • Remembrance, Reflection and Resistance

    David KriegerWe remember the horrors of the past so that we may learn from them and they will not be repeated in the future.  If we ignore or distort the past and fail to learn from it, we are opening the door to repetition of history’s horrors.

    In August, we remember the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which took place on August 6 and 9, 1945, respectively. Both were illegal attacks on civilian populations, violating long-standing rules of customary international humanitarian law prohibiting the use of indiscriminate weapons (as between combatants and non-combatants) and weapons that cause unnecessary suffering.

    In a just world, those who were responsible for these attacks, in violation of the laws of war, would have been held to account and punished accordingly.  They were not.  Rather, they were celebrated, as the atomic bombs themselves were celebrated, in the false belief that they brought World War II to an end.

    The historical record is clear about these facts: First, at the time Hiroshima and Nagasaki were leveled, each with a single atomic bomb, Japan had been trying to surrender. Second, the US had broken the Japanese codes and knew that Japan had been trying to surrender. Third, prior to the use of the atomic bombs, the only term of surrender offered to Japan by the US was “unconditional surrender,” a term that left the Emperor’s fate in US hands.  Fourth, the precipitating factor to Japan’s actual surrender, as indicated by Japanese wartime cabinet records, was not the US atomic bombs, but the Soviet Union’s entry into the war against them.  Fifth, when Japan did surrender, after the atomic bombings, it did so contingent upon retaining the Emperor, and the US accepted this condition.

    The US drew a self-serving causal link from the bombings, which was: we dropped the bombs and won the war.  In doing so, we reinforced the US belief that it can violate international law at times and places of its choosing and that US leaders can attack civilians with impunity.

    Following the victory in Europe, the Allied powers held the Nazi leaders to account at the Nuremberg Tribunals for crimes against peace, war crimes and crimes against humanity.  The Charter creating the Nuremberg Tribunals was signed by the US on August 8, 1945, two days after it had dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Hiroshima.  One day after signing the Charter, the US would drop a second atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki.  Both atomic bombings were war crimes that, if they had been committed by Nazi leaders, most certainly would have been universally denounced and punished at Nuremberg.

    Upon reflection, we must come to understand Hiroshima and Nagasaki as war crimes, if such crimes are not to be repeated.  We must resist the double standard that makes crimes committed by our enemies punishable under international law, while the same crimes committed by our leaders are deemed to be acceptable.  We must resist nuclear weapons themselves. They are city-destroying weapons whose possession should be considered prima facie evidence of criminal intent.

    It has been two-thirds of a century since Hiroshima and Nagasaki were destroyed by atomic bombs.  There remain over 20,000 nuclear weapons in the world.  We must resist the tendency to normalize these weapons and consign them to the background of our lives. They reflect our technological skills turned to massively destructive ends and our failed responsibility to ourselves and to future generations.

    Looking back at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, General Eisenhower said that the bombings were not necessary because Japan was already defeated; and Admiral William Leahy, Truman’s chief of staff, compared us to barbarians of the Dark Ages and said that he was not taught to make war by destroying women and children.  Einstein said that, looking forward, we must change our modes of thinking or face unparalleled catastrophe.  Changing our modes of thinking begins with remembrance, reflection and resistance.

  • The Indoctrination of Missile Launch Officers

    David KriegerThe US Air Force has a history of indoctrinating its missile launch officers to assure that these officers will have no moral qualms about following orders to use weapons of mass annihilation.  In a PowerPoint presentation used in the training, the Air Force makes absurd arguments for the morality of war and the use of nuclear weapons.  It includes numerous quotations from both the Old and New Testaments to make the case for the morality of war.  For example, “Jesus Christ is the mighty warrior.” (Revelation 19:11)

    The Air Force training acknowledges the devastation caused at Hiroshima and then raises questions for the young officers to contemplate, in seeking to assure that they are not hindered in their assignment to launch nuclear weapons if ordered to do so.  Among the questions are those below with my own response to each of them in italics.

    Can you imagine a set of circumstances that would warrant a nuclear launch from the U.S., knowing it would kill thousands of noncombatants?

    No, I can’t imagine such a circumstance, and with nuclear weapons, the number of civilians killed could reach far beyond thousands into the millions.

    Can we exercise enough faith in our decision makers, political and military, to follow through with the orders that are given to us?

    No, I can’t exercise such faith in our decision makers.  I know, for example, that in my lifetime, US leaders have not always been honest and have led us into aggressive and illegal wars on false grounds.

    Can we train physically, emotionally, and spiritually for a job we hope we never have to do?

    Why not put our efforts where our hopes and our consciences are instead of training for a job that would cause untold death and suffering?

    To accomplish deterrence, we must have the capability and the will to launch nuclear weapons.  Do we have the will now?  What about fifty years from now?

    Deterrence has many flaws.  The capability and the will to launch nuclear weapons are not sufficient to assure that nuclear deterrence will be effective.  It requires, for example, rationality and clear communications.  The will required is the will to massively slaughter innocent people.  Nuclear weapons are immoral instruments and nuclear deterrence is an immoral doctrine that could result in mass annihilation.  We profess to have the will to use nuclear weapons now, and I can only respond by continuing to work to assure that we will have moved beyond nuclear weapons and the theory of deterrence long before fifty years have passed.

    Bonus question: Are we morally safer in other career fields, leaving the key turning to someone else?

    Bonus answer: We are morally safer working to eliminate all nuclear weapons than to maintain them, assuring that no one has either the capacity or the moral indoctrination to launch these weapons of mass annihilation.

    To bolster its argument for the morality of using nuclear weapons, the Air Force training quotes former Nazi rocket scientist Wernher von Braun: “We wanted to see the world spared another conflict such as Germany had just been through, and we felt that only by surrendering such a weapon to people who are guided by the Bible could such an assurance to the world be best secured.”  It is a fine touch to turn to a former Nazi scientist for moral standards.

    Captain Charles Nicholls, Electronic Warfare Officer of the 328th Bombardment Squadron, is quoted in the PowerPoint as stating: “Each of us in the strategic nuclear deterrence force must establish a moral foundation for our service.  Our will to unhesitatingly fulfill our duty will strengthen deterrence, the morally best choice of action to assure peace and freedom.”  He calls, in essence, for a moral foundation to unhesitatingly choose the morality of massive nuclear annihilation.

    The PowerPoint presentation also includes a quote from General Omar Bradley: “Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants.  We know more about war than we know about peace, more about killing than we know about living.  We have grasped the mystery of the atom and rejected the Sermon on the Mount.”  The Air Force would do well to reflect upon General Bradley’s statement.

    The Air Force seems to have been comfortable with attempting to demonstrate its nuclear prowess in combination with its ethical infancy.  It has just announced, however, that it has taken this PowerPoint out of its curriculum “to have a good hard look at it and make sure it reflected views of modern society.”  It would be a significant step forward if it were to find that society’s views, long after the end of the Cold War, reflected the morality of a desire to urgently achieve the phased, verifiable, irreversible and transparent elimination of nuclear weapons.

  • Admiral Noel Gayler: Dispelling Nuclear Illusions

    David KriegerAdm. Noel Gayler, a World War II Navy pilot who later rose to the rank of four-star admiral and served as Commander-in-Chief of the US Pacific Command in the 1970s, died on July 14 at the age of 96. Adm. Gayler was one of the most prominent US military leaders to publicly call for the abolition of nuclear weapons and put forward a proposal to achieve this goal.


    Adm. Gayler’s proposal, published in December 2000 by the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, presents a sober assessment of the dangers that nuclear weapons pose to humanity and calls for the total elimination of these weapons.  His assessment was influenced by viewing Hiroshima from the air only six days after its devastation on August 6, 1945 by a US nuclear weapon.  He also witnessed the atmospheric testing of thermonuclear weapons in the Marshall Islands in the 1960s. 


    In his proposal, Adm. Gayler dispels some common illusions concerning the military value of nuclear weapons. These include:



    • Physical defense against nuclear weapons is possible;
    • Nuclear weapons can be used in a sensible manner;
    • Nuclear disarmament imperils our security; and
    • Nuclear deterrence is an effective defense.

    “With these illusions dispelled,” Adm. Gayler stated, “it becomes evident that nuclear disarmament works to the advantage of every power.  Only in this way can the world be made safe from unprecedented murder and destruction.”


    The central thesis of Adm. Gayler’s proposal is that US and global security would be vastly enhanced by the total elimination of nuclear weapons.  The proposal states, “An irony is that in developing and using nuclear weapons, we, the United States, have done the only thing capable of threatening our own national security.”


    Adm. Gayler’s proposal involves the delivery of all nuclear weapons to a central point, where they would be irreversibly dismantled.  Adm. Gayler’s passing provides an appropriate moment to revisit his vision and proposal to achieve a nuclear weapon-free world.


    ___________________________________________


    A Proposal for Achieving Zero Nuclear Weapons
    by Admiral Noel Gayler, US Navy (Ret.)*, December 2000


    It is conceded by all hands that we stand at some continuing risk of nuclear war. The risk is possibly not imminent, but it is basically important above all else — for survival. The Defense and Energy Departments together have made promising starts to reduce possession of nuclear weapons, but far more and much faster action is needed.


    Credible report has it that weapons are adrift, potentially available to irresponsible regimes and to terrorists. Independent development by them is not needed to establish threat. The peculiar characteristic of nuclear weaponry is that relative numbers between adversaries mean little. When a target country can be destroyed by a dozen weapons, its own possession of thousands of weapons gains no security. Defense against ballistic missiles is infeasible. What is more, it is irrelevant. Half a dozen non-technical means of delivery are available, in addition to cruise missiles and aircraft.


    The recognized and awful dangers of other weapons of mass destruction, such as chemical and biological, do not compare to nuclear, despite their vileness. On the tremendous and incredible scale of killing, the others are retail as compared to the nuclear’s wholesale; but there need not be competition since all can be — must be — addressed concurrently.


    Drafting a successor to the nuclear arms treaty is purportedly underway. If START III repeats the mistakes of the past, it may well bog down into haggling over relative numbers. More productive can be a process continuing toward total nuclear disarmament, the only way in which both we and the world may be truly secure from nuclear destruction.


    An irony is that in developing and using nuclear weapons, we, the United States, have done the only thing capable of threatening our own national security. We have comparatively weak and friendly neighbors to the north and south, control of the seas, and a powerful air and combat-tested armed forces. We are proof that this in no way diminishes the need, as the world’s single greatest power, for Army, Navy, Air, and Marines capable not only of our own defense, but of intervention abroad in the interest of peace and human rights. These forces do not come into being overnight, but need to be continually developed and supported. The argument for a nuclear component is no longer valid. The time is now for a concrete proposal that meets the problem. Process, as opposed to negotiating numbers, is the basic principle of the proposal that I suggest. It is nothing less than drastic: the continuing reduction to zero of weapons in the hands of avowed nuclear powers, plus an end to the nuclear ambitions of others.


    The proposal: Let weapons be delivered to a single point, there to be dismantled, the nuclear material returned to the donors for use or disposal, and the weapons destroyed. This process, once underway, will be nearly impossible to stop, since its obvious merits, political and substantive, will compel support. The “single point” may well be a floating platform, at sea, in international waters. A handy platform can be an aircraft carrier that has been removed from “mothballs” and disarmed, yet capable of steaming to the desired location and operating support aircraft and ships to handle heavier loads. Living quarters for personnel, ships company, and disarmament processors, would be integral, as would be major protected spaces.


    The US, of course, is the obvious source of a carrier, but there could be international manning, following the precedent of NATO. This would make the American ship politically palatable to the participants and Russia would be handled sensitively. Obvious and major advantages of security, inspection, availability, timing, and cost would ensue. Those regimes and groups not initially participating can be put under enormous pressure to join. Any remaining recalcitrant can be disarmed militarily, this time with a concert of powers. The need for persuasion and understanding of the participating powers is, of course, fundamental, and probably the most difficult requirement to meet. To meet this need of public understanding and consequent action, domestic and foreign, will require that we dispel some common illusions, such as:



    • Is physical defense against nuclear weapons possible? No. What’s more, it’s irrelevant. A half dozen non-technical means of delivery avail.
    • Can nuclear weapons be used in any sensible manner? No. This includes “tactical.”
    • Does nuclear disarmament imperil our security? No. It enhances it.
    • Is deterrence of nuclear or other attack by threat of retaliation still possible? No. The many potential aggressors are scattered — even location unknown. No targets!

    With these illusions dispelled, it becomes evident that nuclear disarmament works to the advantage of every power. Only in this way can the world be made safe from unprecedented murder and destruction. It remains to take the necessary actions. They are feasible and imperative.


    Admiral Noel Gayler (US Navy, Ret.) was a four-star admiral and served as Commander-in-Chief, Pacific Command (CINCPAC). He was responsible for nuclear attack tactical development and demonstration of nuclear attack tactics to the Chairman and Joint Chiefs.

  • A Face of War: 12 Year-Old Ali

    David KriegerWe are preparing a new poetry collection of the winning poems in the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s Barbara Mandigo Kelly Peace Poetry Awards.  Going through these poems has made me think about the many faces of war.  There are the faces of the leaders who choose to go to war.  There are the faces of the soldiers who fight in the wars.  There are the faces of loved ones left behind.  And, most powerful, there are the faces of the victims of war.  In general, the faces of the leaders are smug and certain; the faces of the soldiers are young and determined; the faces of the loved ones left behind are distracted and worried; and the faces of the victims are twisted in agony and death.

    The Foundation gives poetry awards in three categories: adults, youth (13–18) and children (12 and under).  One of the first place poems in the children’s category is about a young Iraqi boy named Ali Ismail Abbas.  Ali was 12 years old when tragedy struck his home in the form of US guided missiles, killing his father, his pregnant mother, his brother and 13 other family members.  Ali survived, after the amputation of both of his arms.  He had wanted to become a doctor.

    Daniel Amoss wrote this short poem about Ali:

    I saw his picture.
    War is a 12-year-old boy
    With no arms, brown eyes.

    His poem captures so much.  It reveals the brown eyes (soft? tearful? frightened?) of a boy whose family and whose dreams were destroyed by war.

    I remember reading about Ali in 2003 when the story of his loss was covered in the media.  It was a devastating story of the horrors of war; in this case, of the unintended horrors of war.  I wrote this poem:
    TO AN IRAQI CHILD

    for Ali Ismail Abbas

    So you wanted to be a doctor?

    It was not likely that your dreams
    would have come true anyway.

    We didn’t intend for our bombs to find you.

    They are smart bombs, but they didn’t know
    you wanted to be a doctor.

    They didn’t know anything about you
    and they know nothing of love.

    They cannot be trusted with dreams.

    They only know how to find their targets
    and explode in fulfillment.

    They are gray metal casings with violent hearts,
    doing only what they were created to do.

    It isn’t their fault that they found you.

    Perhaps you were not meant to be a doctor.
    I wrote from the skeptical perspective of the cynics who justify the unjustifiable: “They are smart bombs, but they didn’t know/ you wanted to be a doctor.”  No, our bombs are not so smart.  And those who go along with the justifications for war are not so brave.  And those who make war, who choose force over reason, are not so wise.  Most often those who lead us into war pay no price, as do their victims such as Ali Ismail Abbas.  We would do well to remember Ali’s 12-year-old face, with its brown eyes, and his shattered dreams the next time a leader tries to sell us on a war.

  • An Open Letter to Graduates

    Dear Graduates,


    David KriegerHaving received a college degree, you are among the 6.7 percent of the world’s most educated elite.  If your education has been a good one, you are likely to have more questions than answers.  If your education has been mediocre, you are likely to think you have more answers than questions. 


    Did you have a chance in college to ponder these questions: What does it mean to be human?  Why are we here on Earth?  What are the greatest goals one can pursue in life?  What are the keys to a happy and fulfilled life?  If you didn’t, it’s not too late.


    You may have taken many introductory courses during your college years, but was there a course on Global Survival 101?  If not, you may not be prepared to make a difference in ending the great dangers to humanity in the 21st century. 


    Do you know how many nuclear weapons there are in the world?  Do you know which countries possess them?  Do you know what nuclear weapons do to cities?  Do you know whether these weapons are legal or illegal under international law?  Do you know whether they could end civilization and the human species?


    Do you know about the Nuremberg Principles, those that were derived from the tribunals at Nuremberg that held the Nazi leaders to account after World War II?  Do you know that these principles apply not just to Nazi leaders, but to all leaders who commit heinous crimes under international law?  Do you know what those crimes are? 


    Have you studied the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?  Do you know to whom these rights apply?  Do you know that these rights encompass economic and social rights as well as political and civil rights?


    Do you know that we all live on a single fragile planet and that we humans are the caretakers and stewards of this planet, not only for ourselves, but for future generations yet unborn?


    Do you realize that you are about to enter a world of vast inequities, as measured in money, health and happiness?  Do you understand that throughout the world there are more than a billion people who are malnourished and go to bed hungry every night?  Can you comprehend that in our world there are still 25,000 children who die daily of starvation and preventable diseases?


    Does your education lead you to believe that money will buy happiness?  It may buy fancy material things, and even status, but it is unlikely that it will buy happiness or fulfillment in life.  Caring for others and living with compassion, commitment and courage offers a far surer path to a fulfilled and happy life.


    Graduating from college is a commencement, not an ending.  It is a commencement into responsibility for one’s society and one’s world.  Exercising this responsibility is a daily task, a necessary and never-ending task.  It is a task that will require further education, outside the college classroom, but inside the multiversity of life. 


    The world needs to change.  We cannot continue to teeter on the precipice of nuclear and ecological disasters.  We cannot continue to exist divided into those who live in abundance and those who live in scarcity.  We cannot allow the greed of the few to overwhelm the need of the many.  We cannot continue to exploit the planet’s finite resources, in effect, stealing from the future.  We cannot continue to draw lines on the planet and separate ourselves into warring factions. 


    For the world to change, new peace leaders and change makers will be needed.  The first and most important questions you must ask yourself in your new role as graduates are these: Will I be one of the peace leaders and change makers, devoting myself to building a better world?  Or, will I choose to be detached and complacent in the face of the 21st century’s social, economic, political and military threats to humanity? 


    As the little prince, in Antoine de Saint-Exupéry’s book by that name, stated so clearly, “It’s a matter of discipline….  When you’ve finished washing and dressing each morning, you must tend your planet.”  Look around.  Our beautiful planet needs a lot of tending.

  • How Many Nuclear Weapons Still Threaten Humanity?

    David KriegerThe Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) is one of the most authoritative institutes in the world on issues of war and peace. The recently-released 2011 SIPRI Yearbook provides estimates of the number of nuclear weapons in the world.  It finds that only four countries have deployed nuclear warheads, by which it means warheads placed on missiles or located on bases with operational forces. Two of these countries are the US and Russia, which have 2,150 and 2,427 deployed nuclear weapons, respectively. Under the terms of the New Start agreement, ratified in 2010, each country is required to reduce the number of deployed strategic warheads to 1,550 by the year 2017. The other two countries with deployed nuclear weapons, according to SIPRI, are the UK with 160 deployed weapons and France with 290 deployed weapons. 


    The total number of deployed nuclear weapons in the world stands at 5,027 in 2011. Of these, SIPRI estimates that some 2,000 are kept on high operational alert, ready to be fired within moments of an order to do so.


    In addition to its deployed nuclear weapons, the US has 6,350 additional weapons for a total of 8,500. Russia has 8,570 additional weapons for a total of 11,000. The UK has an additional 65 weapons for a total of 225. France has an additional 10, for a total of 300. Four other countries have only non-deployed nuclear weapons, according to SIPRI: China with 240; India with 80-100; Pakistan with 90-110; and Israel with 80. 


    SIPRI does not list North Korea among the countries having a stockpile of nuclear weapons, although relatively small nuclear devices have been tested by North Korea in 2006 and 2009. SIPRI acknowledges that there is a widespread belief that North Korea has separated enough plutonium for a small number of nuclear weapons, but indicates there is controversy over the amount of plutonium they have separated and the yield of their nuclear tests. They also point out that “doubts persist about whether North Korea has the design and engineering skills needed to manufacture a fully functional operational nuclear weapon.” It seems highly likely to me, however, that North Korea possesses a small number of nuclear weapons and is the ninth nuclear weapon state.


    Between 2010 and 2011, the US reduced its nuclear stockpile from 9,600 to 8,500. During the same period, Russia reduced its stockpile from 12,000 to 11,000. While the US and Russia were reducing their arsenals, the UK, France, China and Israel were holding steady at lower levels. India and Pakistan, on the other hand, were increasing the sizes of their arsenals: India from 60-80 to 80-110, and Pakistan from 70-90 to 90-110. Overall, the total number of nuclear weapons in the world decreased from 22,600 to 20,530. 


    The trends are these: modest reductions by the US and Russia, indicating a continuing commitment to maintaining their nuclear arsenals at a relatively high level of overkill; no reductions by the UK, France, China and Israel, indicating a continuing commitment to retaining their arsenals at current levels, at least until more substantial progress in reductions is made by the US and Russia; and increases in the arsenals of India and Pakistan, indicating a continuing nuclear arms race in South Asia. 


    The modest reductions made by the US and Russia and the further reductions agreed to by the two countries in the New START agreement are offset by their commitments to modernizing their nuclear arsenals and improving their systems of delivery. A SIPRI media statement pointed out that “both countries currently are deploying new nuclear weapon delivery systems or have announced programs to do so, and appear determined to retain their nuclear arsenals into the indefinite future.”


    Regarding India and Pakistan, the SIPRI statement pointed out that they “continue to develop new ballistic and cruise missile systems capable of delivering nuclear weapons” and that both countries “are also expanding their capacities to produce fissile material for military purposes.” Other experts have done simulations of a nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan with 100 Hiroshima-size nuclear weapons and have estimated that it could lead to a blocking of sunlight and lowering of temperatures, causing widespread drought and crop failure, resulting in some one billion deaths around the world.


    While there are some ten percent fewer nuclear weapons in the world from 2010 to 2011, it is not time to breathe a sigh of relief at what has been accomplished. The overall trend is toward fewer nuclear weapons, but weapons and delivery systems that are more highly modernized – what the US refers to for itself as a “safe, secure and effective nuclear stockpile.” In reality, the only type of stockpile that will meet the criteria of being “safe, secure and effective” will be a global stockpile of zero nuclear weapons. Any number other than zero will continue to present unacceptable risks to humanity. What is needed now is a new treaty, a Nuclear Weapons Convention, for the “safe, secure and effective” elimination of all nuclear weapons. The US and Russia, the countries with the largest nuclear arsenals, should be providing the leadership to achieve this goal. 

  • What Nuclear Weapons Teach Us About Ourselves

    David KriegerNuclear weapons are the most fearsome and destructive killing devices yet created by the human species.  They have the capacity to destroy cities, countries and civilization.  Yet, although these weapons give rise to some concern and worry, most humans on the planet are complacent about the inherent dangers of these weapons.  It is worth exploring what our seeming indifference toward these weapons of mass annihilation teaches us about ourselves, and how we might remedy our malaise.


    1. We are ill-informed.  We appear to go about our daily lives with a self-assured degree of comfort that we will not be affected by the dangers of the weapons.  We need more education about the extreme dangers and risks posed by nuclear weapons.


    2. We are tribal.  We divide ourselves into national tribes and identify with our own tribe while demonizing “the other.”  We need to be more global in our thinking.  We need to think as members of the human species, not as members of a national tribe.


    3. We are self-serving.  We see our own nuclear weapons and those of our allies as being positive and useful, while we view the nuclear weapons of our enemies as being negative and harmful.  We need to realize that nuclear weapons, as instruments of indiscriminate mass destruction, are illegal, immoral and dangerous in any hands, including our own.


    4. We are arrogant.  We seem to take perverse pride in our cleverness at having created such overwhelmingly powerful weapons.  We need to take pride in constructive uses of our science-based technologies, and recognize the inherent dangers and immorality of their destructive uses.


    5. We are pathological.  We rely for our protection upon these weapons that threaten to kill millions of innocent civilians.  We need to realize that true security cannot be based upon the threat of mass murder of innocents.


    6. We are deluded.  We believe that we will not survive threats from “the other” if we do not rely upon these weapons of mass annihilation for our security.  We need to engage “the other” in dialogue until we realize that our common humanity supersedes our differences, and our common future demands our unity.


    7. We are reckless.  We are willing to bet the human species and the human future that we can keep these weapons under control.  We need to stop playing Russian roulette with the human future.


    8. We are foolish.  We trust our leaders to act responsibly, so as to keep nuclear weapons under control.  We need to realize that this is too great a responsibility for any person and that all leaders do not act responsibly at all times.


    9. We are timid.  We do not challenge the status quo, which gives rise to such extreme dangers.  We need to confront the challenges posed by nuclear weapons and give voice to our legitimate fears of the weapons themselves.


    10. We are adolescent.  As a species, we have not matured to the point of taking responsibility for, and directly confronting, the nuclear threat to ourselves and future generations.  We need to grow up and take responsibility to assure our common future for ourselves and generations yet unborn.


    Individually and collectively, we are threatened by nuclear weapons in the arsenals of nine countries. If we fail to act expeditiously to abolish these arsenals, the consequence is likely to be nuclear weapons proliferation to other countries and eventually their use.  The question that confronts humanity is: Can we end the nuclear era and ensure our survival as a species?  To do this, we will need to change our thinking about the weapons and about ourselves.  I think this is what Albert Einstein was alluding to when he said, “The unleashed power of the atom has changed everything save our modes of thinking, and thus we drift toward unparalleled catastrophe.”  Preventing such catastrophes must begin with changing our thinking, followed by engaging in actions to end the danger.  Species-wide threats must be faced with species-wide awareness and engagement.


    The further question that awaits an answer, assuming we can change our modes of thinking, is whether we are sufficiently powerful to control and eliminate the threats posed by the weapons.  Individually we are not and nationally we are not.  But collectively and globally we have the potential to assert a constructive power for change that is far greater than the destructive power of the weapons themselves.

  • Archbishop Desmond Tutu

    David KriegerOne of the strong focuses of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation is Peace Leadership. Since the creation of the Foundation, we have encouraged leadership for peace and tried to shine a light on it. For 28 years, we have given an annual award for Distinguished Peace Leadership to some of the greatest Peace Leaders of our time. In giving these awards, our purpose has been not only to honor outstanding peace leaders, but to inspire others, particularly young people, to greater commitment in building a more peaceful and decent world. 


    In 1990, we had the great pleasure of honoring Archbishop Tutu. Actually, the honor we bestowed upon him paled in comparison to the honor he bestowed upon us by accepting. His acceptance speech upon receiving our award was entitled “God’s Dream,” and was published in the Foundation’s anthology, Waging Peace II


    In his acceptance speech, Archbishop Tutu pointed out, “A minute fraction of what nations spend on their budgets of death would be enough to ensure that children everywhere had adequate housing, a clean supply of water, adequate health facilities, and proper education. People would live with a sense of fulfillment and not labor under stressful anxiety that is caused by the uncertainties of what the future holds. Many, especially young people, ask whether life is worth living when it is lived under the shadow of the mushroom cloud.” 


    Though more than 20 years have passed since he uttered those words and since the Cold War ended, we and our children continue to live under that mushroom cloud and we continue to spend vast amounts globally on our militaries rather than on our common good. We fight unnecessary wars and develop new instruments of long-distance killing rather than building a world we can be proud to pass on to our children.


    Archbishop Tutu is one of the great men of our time. He played a leading role in the movement to end apartheid in South Africa. He then led the post-apartheid Truth and Reconciliation Commission, bringing a new process for healing to his country and to the world. The world badly needs such social innovation to keep pace with the technological innovations that have put civilization and humankind in danger of annihilation.


    For over 20 years, the Archbishop has served on the Advisory Council of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, where he has offered his advice and support. In 2002, Archbishop Tutu wrote the foreword for an anthology connected with the Foundation’s twentieth anniversary, Hope in a Dark Time. In his foreword, he wrote:


    “I have had many blessings in my life. One of the greatest of these has been to witness the power of forgiveness. In the aftermath of the apartheid regime in South Africa, we chose the path of forgiveness and reconciliation. As the Chair of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, I learned first-hand the transformative nature of forgiveness. It is a power that can cleanse the human heart and free us from hatred and bloodlust. I am convinced there is no future without forgiveness, and in forgiveness there is hope we can put an end to wars and violence.”


    Archbishop Tutu is the Archbishop emeritus of Capetown. Among his many honors, he is a Nobel Peace Laureate. He is a humble and decent man, a man who makes us proud of our common humanity and inspires us to be better and to build a better world. 

  • How Wars Are Made

    David KriegerThe first step is always to prepare for war by making weapons and teaching young people to march, turn on command to the left and to the right, and fire their weapons at pop-up enemies.


    The second step is to find a suitable enemy.  This has never been difficult.  Any country, any group can be turned into an enemy with the right approach.  It is only a matter of perspective.   


    The third step is to dehumanize the enemy, the less human the better.  Enemies should never have normal human feelings, such as love, compassion and sorrow.  They must be made to seem stripped of such capacities and turned into grotesque and mean-spirited monsters. 


    The fourth step is to inspire our young people to kill the enemy.  This is not hard and is best done with flags, parades and appeals to country and heroism.  The young should be excited to kill.  They will be killing the killers who want to kill them.


    The beauty of the system is that it is perpetual.  By sending out our young men and women to kill the enemy, we will be making new enemies, justifying our need to prepare for war.  And as the enemy sends out their young to kill ours, they will be confirming our belief in their inhumanity.