Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Author: David Krieger

  • Día de la Tierra

    Traducción de Rubén D. Arvizu. Click here for the English version.

    Sigo pensando que el Día de la Tierra debe ser algo mucho más profundo que el simple reciclaje.  No es que reciclar no sea bueno. No es suficiente.  Nosotros los seres humanos estamos destruyendo nuestra Tierra: agotando su suelo vegetal, devorando sus recursos preciosos, contaminando su aire y agua, alterando su clima. Y seguimos bombardeando la casa común con nuestras tecnologías militares derrochadoras y destructivas. En resumen, nos hemos seguido comportando muy mal, ensuciando nuestro propio nido. Y lo estamos haciendo no sólo a nosotros mismos, sino a las generaciones futuras.

    El Día de la Tierra debe ser un día espiritual, un día de recapacitar y acción de gracias por la abundancia y belleza de la Tierra. Debemos asombrarnos del milagro de este planeta y sus innumerables formas de vida, incluyendo a nosotros mismos. Debemos maravillarnos ante la majestad y singularidad de nuestro mundo. Ser humildes por los dones de este planeta agua y tratarlo con el cuidado y el amor que merece, no sólo en el Día de la Tierra, sino todos los días.

    ¿Cómo es que nos convertimos en destructores de nuestro hogar planetario, en lugar de ser sus guardianes? ¿Cómo es que arruinamos su futuro, en lugar de ser sus administradores?  En parte tiene que ver con esas divisiones arbitrarias que llamamos fronteras. Lo hicimos con nuestra codicia y egoísmo, y con nuestra carencia de asombro y nuestra esperanza perdida. Lo hicimos por nuestra inextinguible sed de tener más y más, y al perder de vista la imparcialidad y la decencia. Lo hicimos al sólo tomar y no devolver. ¿Qué o quién está destruyendo la Tierra?  Somos nosotros, y sólo nosotros, colectivamente.

    Nos preocupamos más por las cosas materiales que por el prójimo. Asociamos riqueza con abundancia de cosas materiales, pobreza con la escasez de ellas. Estamos perdiendo las artes de la contemplación, la comunicación y el cuidado. Nos falta valor, compasión y compromiso. El Día de la Tierra podría ser un punto de partida en el tiempo para convertirse en lo que podríamos ser: ciudadanos vibrantes y creativos de este mundo, viviendo en la alegría y la armonía con la Tierra y entre nosotros. ¿Qué o quién puede salvar nuestro único hogar común?  Somos nosotros, y sólo nosotros, colectivamente.

    Vivimos en la era nuclear, y las armas nucleares son el símbolo máximo de nuestra conexión perdida con la Tierra, con nosotros mismos y nuestros semejantes. Hemos llegado al punto de nuestra evolución, o estancamiento, en la que estamos dispuestos a destruir el planeta para darnos la ilusión de seguridad. ¿Por qué no comprometemos este Día de la Tierra a poner fin a la amenaza de las armas nucleares para la humanidad y para toda la vida? ¿Por qué no terminamos la Era Nuclear y comenzamos una nueva era de dignidad, decencia, responsabilidad y respeto por la vida?

    David Krieger es Presidente de la Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

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

  • Earth Day

    David KriegerI keep thinking that Earth Day should be about something far more profound than recycling.  Not that recycling isn’t good.  It’s just not good enough.  We humans are destroying our earth: using up its topsoil, devouring its precious resources, polluting its air and water, altering its climate.  And we are bombing and shelling the earth and each other with our wasteful and destructive military technologies.  In short, we are behaving extremely badly and fouling our own nest.  And we are doing this not only to ourselves, but to future generations.

    Earth Day should be a spiritual day, a day of appreciation and thanksgiving for the earth’s abundance and beauty.  We should stand in awe of the miracle of the earth and its myriad forms of life, including ourselves.  We should kneel before the majesty and uniqueness of our planet.  We should be humbled by the gift of this water planet and treat it with the care and love it deserves, not only on Earth Day, but every day.

    How did we become destroyers of our planetary home, rather than its guardians?  How did we become the spoilers of the future, rather than its trustees?  We did it in part with our arbitrary lines that we call borders.  We did it with our greed and selfishness, and with our lack of wonder and our lost hope.  We did it by our unquenchable thirst for more and more, and by losing sight of fairness and decency.  We did it by taking and not giving back.  What is destroying the earth?  It is us, and only us, collectively.

    We seem to care more for material things than we do for each other.  We associate richness with an abundance of things, and poverty with a scarcity of things.  We are losing the arts of contemplation, communication, and care.  We are failing in courage, compassion and commitment.  Earth Day could be a beginning point in time for becoming who we could be: vibrant and creative citizens of earth, living in joy and harmony with the earth and each other.  What can save the earth?  It is us, and only us, collectively.

    We live in the Nuclear Age, and nuclear weapons are the ultimate symbol of our lost connection to the earth, ourselves and each other.  We have reached the point in our evolution, or devolution, at which we are willing to destroy the planet to provide ourselves with the illusion of security.  Why don’t we commit this Earth Day to ending the nuclear weapons threat to humanity and all life?  Why don’t we bring the Nuclear Age to an end and begin a new age of dignity, decency, responsibility and respect for life?

    *To read the Universal Declaration of the Rights of Mother Earth, click here.

    Vaya aquí para la versión española.

  • Nuclear Disarmament Education

    What is nuclear disarmament education?


    David KriegerThe short answer to this question is that it is education that either reports on or promotes nuclear disarmament.  Reporting on nuclear disarmament is journalistic.  It tells what has happened, is happening or is expected to happen in the nuclear disarmament field.  Reporting on nuclear disarmament is the way the subject might be handled in a college classroom or in a news article.  It provides historical perspective, but often a nationalistic one. 


    The promotion of nuclear disarmament is far more difficult and also far more important.  It involves attempting to shift mindsets and cultural frameworks.  There are many myths about nuclear weapons that must be overcome before one can effectively promote nuclear disarmament. 


    Five Myths about Nuclear Weapons
     
    1. The use of nuclear weapons ended World War II. (Their use coincided with the end of World War II, but did not cause it.  The Japanese surrendered because the Soviet Union entered the war against them.)


    2. Nuclear weapons have prevented war since their creation. (Again, causality is an issue.  Despite nuclear weapons, there have been many wars since their creation.)


    3. No country will actually use nuclear weapons. (Countries have come very close to using nuclear weapons, by accident or design, on many occasions.)


    4. Nuclear weapons make a country more secure. (Arguably, nuclear weapons make a country far less secure.  All countries with nuclear weapons are targeted by the nuclear weapons of other countries.)


    5. Nuclear weapons are effective for deterrence. (Nuclear deterrence is only a theory.  It is not proven, and it may fail catastrophically.)


    Before people will support nuclear disarmament, they must be educated to believe that nuclear disarmament is in their interest.  Some people must be moved from their support for nuclear weapons and nuclear deterrence to support for nuclear disarmament. Other people, probably a far larger category, must be moved from complacency to support nuclear disarmament.  Education must be aimed at overcoming ignorance and apathy to awaken and engage people in action for nuclear disarmament.  In this sense, education must also be advocacy. 


    Much nuclear disarmament education comes from governments and political leaders, and it is quite limited in its vision.  It seeks incremental steps in arms control rather than disarmament or abolition.  Arms control can be viewed as a way to maintain nuclear arms at somewhat lower levels.  I prefer to talk and write about reasons to oppose or abolish nuclear weapons. 


    Ten Reasons to Oppose Nuclear Weapons


    1. They are long-distance killing machines incapable of discriminating between soldiers and civilians, the aged and the newly born, or between men, women and children.   As such, they are instruments of dehumanization as well as annihilation.


    2. They threaten the destruction of cities, countries and civilization; of all that is sacred, of all that is human, of all that exists.  Nuclear war could cause deadly climate change, putting human existence at risk. 


    3. They threaten to foreclose the future, negating our common responsibility to future generations.


    4. They make cowards of their possessors, and in their use there can be no decency or honor.  This was recognized by most of the leading US military leaders of World War II, including General Dwight Eisenhower, General Hap Arnold, and Admiral William Leahy. 


    5. They divide the world’s nations into nuclear “haves” and “have-nots,” bestowing false and unwarranted prestige and privilege on those that possess them. 


    6. They are a distortion of science and technology, siphoning off our scientific and technological resources and twisting our knowledge of nature to destructive purposes.  


    7. They mock international law, displacing it with an allegiance to raw power.  The International Court of Justice has ruled that the threat or use of nuclear weapons is generally illegal and any use that violated international humanitarian law would be illegal.  It is virtually impossible to imagine a threat or use of nuclear weapons that would not violate international humanitarian law (fail to discriminate between soldiers and civilians, cause unnecessary suffering or be disproportionate to a preceding attack). 


    8. They waste our resources on the development of instruments of annihilation.  The United States alone has spent over $7.5 trillion on nuclear weapons and their delivery systems since the onset of the Nuclear Age.


    9. They concentrate power in the hands of a small group of individuals and, in doing so, undermine democracy.


    10. They are morally abhorrent, as recognized by virtually every religious organization, and their mere existence corrupts our humanity. 


    These ten reasons to abolish nuclear weapons attempt to change a person’s mindset to become receptive to seeking the abolition of these weapons.


    How can we engage in nuclear disarmament education?


    Disarmament education generally takes place in the public arena, and thus is often dominated by the narrow and self-interested views of political leaders.  In a world of nuclear “haves” and “have-nots,” it is often the nuclear “haves” that dominate the debate.  But it is the nuclear “have-nots,” along with civil society that see the dangers of nuclear weapons most clearly and who promote nuclear disarmament. 


    Let me describe some of disarmament education activities of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, an organization that I helped to found 28 years ago and where I have served as president since its founding.  Here are some of the educational activities we engage in to make the case for nuclear disarmament and the abolition of nuclear weapons:


    1. Appeals, Declarations and Petitions (our latest Declaration is the Santa Barbara Declaration – Reject Nuclear Deterrence: An Urgent Call to Action)
    2. Newspaper opinion pieces and magazine articles
    3. Books, book chapters and briefing booklets
    4. Websites (WagingPeace.org and NuclearFiles.org)
    5. A monthly e-newsletter, The Sunflower
    6. Public lectures and other events
    7. Essay and video contests
    8. Poetry contests
    9. Peace leadership awards
    10. An Action Alert Network
    11. Peace leadership trainings


    You can find out more about these educational activities and sign up for them at www.wagingpeace.org.  


    The task of nuclear disarmament education is clearly not an easy one, but it is a necessary one.  Nuclear disarmament will require an informed public, and an informed public will require education to stir them from their ignorance and apathy.  To accomplish this will continue to require a great deal of creativity, as well as insistence and persistence to move both the public and political leaders to action.  Civil society organizations are in the vanguard in this critical educational effort.

  • Somehow

    “Somehow this madness must cease.”
    –Martin Luther King, Jr.

    David KriegerSomehow, like a small stunned bird
    cupped in your hands with its heart racing,
    is a word of hope or desperation,

    carrying a moral burden, a Sisyphean burden,
    to do whatever is possible, before
    it is too late.

    Might we not somehow awaken,
    open our eyes, stand up in the face of madness
    and, even with trembling legs

    and a fluttering heart, comfort
    the small bird until it can spread its wings
    and fly away?

    It is a delicate task to set aside
    the blanket of complacency, to somehow,
    as he did, clutch courage to your breast.

    David Krieger
    March 2011

  • Daisaku Ikeda’s Perseverance and Passion for Peace

    David KriegerDaisaku Ikeda is a man with a great heart and a great vision for humanity’s future.  I admire not only his passion for peace, as expressed in his annual Peace Proposals, but also his perseverance.  He does not give up.  He has a deep well of creativity.  His words have power because he is a man of conviction and action.


    This year’s Peace Proposal is titled, “Toward a World of Dignity for All: the Triumph of the Creative Life.”  I share a passion for the world Daisaku Ikeda envisions, a world of dignity for all.  I once rewrote the US Pledge of Allegiance as a World Citizens’ Pledge.  It said, “I pledge allegiance to the Earth and to its varied life forms; one world, indivisible, with liberty, justice and dignity for all.”  We should not be satisfied until the least among us is able to live a life of dignity.


    Daisaku Ikeda has correctly highlighted the importance of the eight Millennium Development Goals.  These goals are not sufficient, but they are necessary steps on the path to “dignity for all.”  If they are to be fulfilled, we must stop spending so lavishly on the world’s military forces and transfer a reasonable percentage of these resources toward ending poverty and disease while promoting education, environmental protection and the rights of women.


    I agree strongly with Daisaku Ikeda about leadership: in the “absence of international political leadership, civil society should step in to fill the gap, providing the energy and vision needed to move the world in a new and better direction.” 


    In recent weeks, we have seen wonderful examples of tens of thousands of people in Middle East countries taking to the streets and providing the leadership to oust dictators and demand new governments capable of assuring dignity for all citizens.  These citizen leaders have inspired each other and people throughout the world with their courage, compassion and commitment.


    The goal of abolishing nuclear weapons should be high on the agenda for achieving human dignity.  These weapons, with their implicit threat of indiscriminate mass murder, devalue the human species by their very existence.  They have also taken precious financial and human resources from human development goals. 


    I agree with Daisaku Ikeda’s perspective that “it is necessary to thoroughly challenge the theory of deterrence upon which nuclear weapons possession is predicated.”  Nuclear deterrence is a theory of human behavior, and it has many flaws that could result in the catastrophic use of nuclear weapons.


    Recently, the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation held a conference on “The Dangers of Nuclear Deterrence.”  Out of that conference, we created a “Santa Barbara Declaration,” a call to action to reject nuclear deterrence.  The Declaration lists eight major problems with nuclear deterrence and states, “Nuclear deterrence is discriminatory, anti-democratic and unsustainable.  This doctrine must be discredited and replaced with an urgent commitment to achieve global nuclear disarmament.  We must change the discourse by speaking truth to power and speaking truth to each other.”


    Nuclear weapons have no place in a world that values human dignity.  My great goal in life is to see these weapons totally abolished.  This would represent a change of heart and orientation for humanity.  It would mean that we had come together in common cause to assure that these weapons could not destroy the civilizations we have so painstakingly built and maintained over many millennia. 


    I concur with Daisaku Ikeda and his mentor, Josei Toda, that nuclear weapons represent an “absolute evil,” one that cannot be tolerated if we are to fulfill our responsibility to ourselves and to future generations.  Ikeda points out that standing between our existing world and a world free of nuclear weapons are “walls of apathy.” 


    Our great challenge today is to break down these walls of apathy and replace them with gardens of creativity.  Upon such creativity can be built a shining world of “dignity for all,” one in which nuclear weapons exist only as a historical memory and powerful lesson about humanity’s capacity to overcome great threats by joining hands in common purpose.

  • The Eighth Anniversary of the Iraq War

    David KriegerOn this eighth anniversary of the Iraq War, I feel a deep sense of sadness mixed with anger, along with regret for what might have been.  We’ve had eight years of futile war in Iraq and nearly ten years of the same in Afghanistan.


    Following September 11, 2001, the world stood with the US.  We had a choice then: to respond legally, morally and with wisdom; or, like a helpless giant, to flail out with our vast arsenal of weapons.  To our shame, our leaders, then and now, have taken the latter course. 


    Before this war began, many of us marched for peace.  People all over the world marched for peace, but peace was not to be.


    Dick Cheney said, “We will be greeted as liberators.”


    Donald Rumsfeld said, in effect, that the war would pay for itself: “The bulk of the funds for Iraq’s reconstruction will come from Iraqis – from oil revenues, recovered assets, international trade, direct foreign investment….”


    George W. Bush said, we will attack “at a time of our choosing.”  He dismissed the United Nations, saying “The United Nations Security Council has not lived up to its responsibilities.  So we will rise to ours.”  He chose to attack Iraq on the evening of March 19, 2003, and he did so with shock and awe, but without legality under international law. 


    Less than two months later, Bush dressed up in a flight suit, landed on the aircraft carrier, the USS Abraham Lincoln, stood under a sign that said “Mission Accomplished,” and boasted with his usual shortsightedness, “In the Battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.”  The people of the world will have prevailed when Mr. Bush is on trial at the International Criminal Court.
     
    The result of our Global War on Terror is that we have spent more than $780 billion on the Iraq War and more than $387 billion on the Afghanistan War, a total of over $1.167 trillion.  These wars have cost California $147 billion, and have cost our 23rd Congressional District $2.6 billion.  These numbers grow by the day.  Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel Laureate in Economics, has predicted that the total cost of the war in Iraq to the Federal government and to society will conservatively exceed $3 trillion.


    It is long past time to end this drain of our resources, which might have gone instead of war and massacre to support the poorest among us, to schools, to health care, and to improve our infrastructure. 


    The Global War on Terror, along with other excesses of capitalism, including massive fraud, has resulted in some 400 families in the US having assets exceeding those of the poorest 50 percent of Americans, some 155 million people.  Four hundred families versus half our population.  And many of our political representatives have fought for tax breaks for the very rich, while seeking to end the collective bargaining rights of the unions for public employees – teachers, nurses, firefighters and policemen.  This is just plain wrong.  But it is what we have become as a nation.


    Across this nation, people still haven’t connected the dots to understand the toll war takes on our society.


    Of course, the money wasted is only a part of the outrage that has weakened our country.  More importantly, some 4,500 American soldiers have died in Iraq. Of these, 4,300 Americans died since George Bush dressed up in his flight suit and gave his victory speech on the USS Abraham Lincoln.  But the death toll of Americans is dwarfed by that of Iraqis.  By some estimates, more than a million and a half Iraqis have died in the Iraq War.  Four million have been displaced from their homes.


    In Afghanistan, 1,498 American soldiers have died and 2,361 total coalition forces have died.  In 2010 alone, 2,777 civilians died in Afghanistan.  Of these, 1,175 were children and 555 were women.


    It is tempting to say that they all died because George Bush lied.  But George Bush’s lies were only one factor.  They also died because so many good Americans were silent in the face of these wars.  They also died because, in the case of Afghanistan, Barack Obama escalated the war and made it his own.


    Let me conclude with a poem I wrote about the war, titled “Worse than the War.”



    WORSE THAN THE WAR


    Worse than the war, the endless, senseless war,
    Worse than the lies leading to the war,


    Worse than the countless deaths and injuries,
    Worse than hiding the coffins and not attending funerals,


    Worse than the flouting of international law,
    Worse than the torture at Abu Ghraib prison,


    Worse than the corruption of young soldiers,
    Worse than undermining our collective sense of decency,


    Worse than the arrogance, smugness and swagger,
    Worse than our loss of credibility in the world,
    Worse than the loss of our liberties,


    Worse than learning nothing from the past,
    Worse than destroying the future,
    Worse than the incredible stupidity of it all,


    Worse than all of these,
    As if they were not enough for one war or country or lifetime,
    Is the silence, the resounding silence of good Americans.


    When will we say that we’ve had enough?  When will America try to regain its conscience, its soul, its decency and its honor?  When will we become a force for peace in the world?  The answer is: It’s up to us!  It’s up to us to take back our country and put it on the path to peace.

  • A Final Wakeup Call?

    David KriegerOur hearts go out to the people of Japan who are suffering the devastating effects of one of the most powerful earthquakes in the past one hundred years, followed by a devastating tsunami.  Thousands are dead, injured and missing, and hundreds of thousands have been left homeless, many with limited food and water. 


    The greatest danger to the people of Japan, however, may lie ahead in the unfolding disaster of the damaged nuclear power plants at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station located 130 miles north of Tokyo.  Already, substantial radiation has been released from the fires, explosions and partial meltdowns of the radioactive fuel rods in these plants, brought about by loss of coolant in the reactor cores and the spent fuel pools.  The containment shells surrounding several of the reactors have been breached, allowing for the release of radiation into the environment.


    High radiation levels at the plants have resulted in reducing the work force trying to contain the radiation releases to skeleton crews, volunteers who are putting their own lives in jeopardy for the common good.  Keijiro Matsushima, an 82-year-old survivor of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, commented, “It’s like the third atomic bomb attack on Japan.  But this time, we made it ourselves.”


    The amount of radioactive material in the crippled reactors at Fukushima Daiichi dwarfs the amount in the Chernobyl plant, which 25 years ago had the worst nuclear power plant accident in history.  Residents have been told to evacuate from a 12-mile radius of the damaged Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plants, and told to stay indoors in a further 7-mile radius.  The United States has warned its citizens in Japan to stay beyond a 50-mile radius of the damaged power plants.  Many countries are helping their citizens to leave Japan altogether. 


    The major lessons to be drawn from the tragedy in Japan are: first, nature’s power is far beyond our ability to control; second, the nuclear industry, in Japan and elsewhere, has arrogantly pushed ahead with their dangerous technology, wrongly assuring the public there is no reason for concern; third, the reassurances of self-interested nuclear “experts” are not to be trusted; and fourth, the nuclear power plant failures in Japan are a final wake-up call to replace nuclear power with safe, sustainable and renewable forms of energy.


    There are 440 commercial nuclear reactors in the world.  Of these, the US has 104, nearly twice as many as Japan’s 55 nuclear power reactors.  Of the US reactors, 23 are of the same or similar design as those that are failing in Japan.  President Obama’s 2012 budget calls for $36 billion in loan guarantees to subsidize new nuclear power plants. 


    California, known for its propensity for earthquakes, has two nuclear power plants: one at Avila Beach, north of Santa Barbara; and one at San Onofre, between Los Angeles and San Diego.  Both plants are located near major fault lines.  The Diablo Canyon power plant at Avila Beach is situated near the San Andreas and Hosgri fault lines.  The San Onofre plant is located less than a mile from the Cristianitos fault line.  Diablo Canyon is designed to withstand a 7.5 magnitude earthquake and San Onofre to withstand a 7.0 magnitude earthquake.  Japan’s 9.0 magnitude earthquake has demonstrated, however, that the force of earthquakes can dramatically exceed expectations.


    Diablo Canyon nuclear reactors 1 and 2 made the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s list of top ten nuclear power sites with the highest risk of suffering core damage from an earthquake.  Living in Santa Barbara, downwind from those reactors, we should be worried.  The millions of people who live and work in New York City, within the evacuation range of the Indian Point 3 nuclear power plant, should also be worried because that plant is listed as number one on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s highest risk sites.


    We know that we humans cannot control earthquakes.  Nor can we control tsunamis or other natural disasters.  What we can control are our decisions about the use of technology.  We can say “No” to technologies that are catastrophically dangerous.  From my perspective, this would include any technologies that require an unattainable level of human perfection to prevent massive annihilation.  As we have seen in Japan, natural disasters and nuclear power plants are a potentially deadly mix.  The dangers grow even deadlier when human error is added to the equation. 


    In addition to their potential for catastrophic accidents, nuclear power plants are subject to deliberate attacks by terrorists or during warfare.  After more than half a century, there also remains no long-term solution for the storage of highly radioactive nuclear wastes, which will threaten future generations for many times longer than human civilization has existed.  Of critical concern as well, nuclear power plants use and create the fissile materials that can be used to make nuclear weapons.


    Mother Nature has given us a deadly warning that it is past time to end our reliance on nuclear power and invest instead in solar power, the only safe nuclear reactor that exists – 93 million miles from Earth.  The question is: Will the disaster in Japan open our eyes to the need for change, or will we be content to continue to tempt fate and simply hope that we do not become the next place on the planet where nuclear power fails catastrophically?

  • Nuclear Deterrence: Impeding Nuclear Disarmament

    David KriegerIn an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal, published on March 7, 2011, four former high-level US policy makers – George Shultz, William Perry, Henry Kissinger and Sam Nunn – focused their attention on nuclear deterrence.  They concurred that deterrence based on nuclear weapons is precarious, could destroy civilized life and raises enormous inhibitions against employing nuclear weapons.  They concluded that the US and Russia were “lucky” that nuclear weapons were not used during the Cold War, and asked: “Does the world want to continue to bet its survival on continued good fortune with a growing number of nuclear nations and adversaries globally?” 


    The four former policy makers argued that “nations should move forward together with a series of conceptual and practical steps toward deterrence that do not rely primarily on nuclear weapons or nuclear threats to maintain international peace and security.”  Their first step is to recognize that “there is a daunting new spectrum of global security threats” and that an “effective strategy to deal with these dangers must be developed.”  Their second step is to realize that reliance on nuclear weapons encourages or excuses nuclear proliferation.  Their third step is to cease the deployment of US and Russian nuclear arsenals in ways that “increase the danger of an accidental or unauthorized use of a nuclear weapon, or even a deliberate exchange based on a false warning.” 


    So far, so good.  Their fourth step, however, seems to be a non sequitur: “[A]s long as nuclear weapons exist, America must retain a safe, secure and reliable nuclear stockpile primarily to deter a nuclear attack and to reassure our allies through extended deterrence.”  The former policy makers had just reviewed the great dangers of relying upon nuclear deterrence, and then followed this by indicating the need for America to rely upon nuclear weapons for deterrence, including nuclear deterrence “extended” to US allies.  They also left unstated what uses the US nuclear stockpile might have other than deterring a nuclear attack.  It appears the former policy makers have chosen a “safe, secure and reliable” nuclear arsenal over a safe and secure citizenry.  Nuclear weapons undermine the possibility of a safe and secure citizenry.  As conceived, the modernization of US nuclear forces would also be expensive and provocative and would limit the possibilities for nuclear disarmament.  I’ve often wondered what is meant by a reliable nuclear arsenal: One with sufficient capacity to annihilate a potential enemy down to the last child?


    The four former policy makers do say that the US and Russia “must continue to lead the “build-down” and “must begin moving away from threatening force postures and deployments.”  But such leadership is needed not only for the “build-down,” but also to envision a world with zero nuclear weapons and to commit to doing what is necessary to achieve that vision. 


    In their fifth step, the group of four recognizes that “nuclear weapons may continue to appear relevant” to some nations.  They thus see the need to “redouble efforts” to resolve regional confrontations and conflicts.  Insightfully, they find, “A world without nuclear weapons will not simply be today’s world minus nuclear weapons.”  They demonstrate a lack of urgency, though, in suggesting that “over time” the US and its allies can work together to make changes to extended deterrence.


    The group of four concludes, “Moving from mutual assured destruction toward a new and more stable form of deterrence with decreasing nuclear risks and an increasing measure of assured security for all nations could prevent our worst nightmare from becoming a reality, and it could have a profoundly positive impact on the security of future generations.”


    Just a few weeks before the publication of this Wall Street Journal article on nuclear deterrence by George Shultz and his colleagues, the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation convened a conference in Santa Barbara on “The Dangers of Nuclear Deterrence.”  The conference concluded with a Santa Barbara Declaration: “Reject Nuclear Deterrence: An Urgent Call to Action.”  The Declaration states, “Nuclear deterrence is discriminatory, anti-democratic and unsustainable.  This doctrine must be discredited and replaced with an urgent commitment to achieve global nuclear disarmament.  We must change the discourse by speaking truth to power and speaking truth to each other.”  In other words, we cannot find nuclear deterrence “precarious” on the one hand, and seek to modernize America’s nuclear forces under the guise of keeping them “safe, secure and reliable” on the other hand. 


    The Santa Barbara Declaration concluded, “Before another nuclear weapon is used, nuclear deterrence must be replaced by humane, legal and moral security strategies.  We call upon people everywhere to join us in demanding that the nuclear weapon states and their allies reject nuclear deterrence and negotiate without delay a Nuclear Weapons Convention for the phased, verifiable, irreversible and transparent elimination of all nuclear weapons.”  The goal must be a world without nuclear weapons, and reliance on nuclear weapons for deterrence remains a major impediment to achieving that goal.

  • The Ultimate Weapon of Terrorism

    Nuclear weapons are the ultimate weapon of terrorism, whether in the hands of a terrorist organization or those of the leader of a country.  They are weapons of mass annihilation that kill indiscriminately – men, women and children.  Most people fear the possibility of these weapons falling into the hands of terrorist organizations, but never stop to consider that in any hands they are terrorist weapons. 


    Given the terrorist nature of nuclear weapons and their capacity to destroy civilization, what makes them acceptable to so many people?  Or, at a minimum, what makes so many people complacent in the face of nuclear threats?  These are questions I have grappled with for many decades.  


    The acceptability of nuclear weapons is rooted in the theory of nuclear deterrence, which its proponents argue has kept and will keep the peace.  This theory is based upon many assumptions concerning human behavior.  For example, it assumes the rationality of political and military leaders.  It seems quite evident that not all leaders behave rationally at all times and under all circumstances.  The theory requires clear communications and the threat to use nuclear weapons in retaliation must be believed by opposing leaders, but as we know communications are not always clear and misperceptions may inform beliefs.


    There is a “madman” theory of nuclear deterrence.  It posits that to be truly believable, the leader of a nuclear armed state must exhibit behavior that appears sufficiently insane to lead opposing leaders to believe that he would actually use the weapons.  Thus, insanity, or at least the impression of it, is built into the system.  At a systems level, can anyone doubt that the reciprocal threats of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) were truly mad, as in insane?


    Another aspect of deterrence theory is that it requires a territory against which to retaliate.  Thus, the theory is not valid in relation to a non-state terrorist organization.  If a country has no place to retaliate, there can be no nuclear deterrence.  If a terrorist organization acquires a nuclear weapon, it will not be deterred by threat of nuclear retaliation.  This places a fuse on the nuclear threat, and means that there must be zero tolerance for a non-state terrorist organization to acquire a nuclear capability.


    There should also be zero tolerance for states to possess nuclear weapons.  I am not limiting this observation to states that seek to develop nuclear arsenals.  I mean all states and, most importantly, those already in possession of nuclear weapons.  Current nuclear arsenals may be used by accident, miscalculation or intention.  And so long as some states possess nuclear weapons and base their security upon them, there will be an incentive for nuclear proliferation.


    Widespread nuclear complacency is difficult to understand.  Most people are aware of the tremendous damage that nuclear weapons can do, but perhaps feel reassured that the weapons have not been used since 1945.  The weapons are largely out of sight and out of mind.  It is also possible that people feel impotent to influence nuclear policy and thus defer to experts and policy makers.  This is unfortunate because until large numbers of people assert themselves on the need to eliminate nuclear weapons, the countries with nuclear weapons will continue to rely upon them to their peril and to the world’s peril.


    The New START agreement between the US and Russia is a modest step forward in reducing the number of deployed strategic nuclear weapons on each side to 1,550 and the number of deployed delivery vehicles to 700.  The greatest value of the treaty may be in restoring inspections of each side’s nuclear arsenal by the other side.  But these steps provide only meager progress.  At the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation we advocate the following next steps forward:



    • Reducing the total number of nuclear weapons – strategic, tactical and reserve – to under 1,000 on each side. 

    • Making a binding commitment to “No First Use” of nuclear weapons and to never using nuclear weapons under any circumstances against non-nuclear weapon states. 

    • De-alerting all nuclear weapons so that there will be no use by accident, miscalculation or in a fit of anger. 

    • Placing limits on missile defense systems and banning space weapons. 

    • Commencing multilateral negotiations for a Nuclear Weapons Convention, which would ban all nuclear weapons worldwide in a phased, verifiable, irreversible and transparent manner.

    These steps would be indications that the immorality, illegality and cowardice of threatening to use nuclear weapons were being met with a seriousness of purpose.  It is not necessary for ignorance, apathy and complacency to dominate the nuclear arena.  With due regard for the sanctity of life and for future generations, we can do better than to live with such inertia.  We can eliminate a weapon that threatens civilization and human survival; we can move to zero, the only stable number of nuclear weapons.  This is the greatest challenge of our time, a challenge that we must respond to with engagement and persistence.  It is time to replace Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) with Planetary Assured Security and Survival (PASS).

  • The Hawks Are Out Today

    The hawks are out today searching
    from the clear rain-washed air for prey.
    So, too, the drones are out searching
    for enemies of the state.


    For the hawks movement of the prey
    is enough to send them into a dive.
    For the drones, a distant operator
    is needed to make the kill.


    For the hawks the kill is an instinct
    for survival.  For the drones there is
    no instinct, only manipulation.
    Someone must decide who is to die today.


    The hawks are creatures that kill to eat. 
    The drones are tools that kill to kill,
    that in the arrogance of their masters
    bring death to many an innocent child.