Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Author: David Krieger

  • 2008 NAPF Evening for Peace

    2008 NAPF Evening for Peace

    Remarks delivered at the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s 25th Annual Evening for Peace on November 22, 2008 in Santa Barbara, California.

    Tonight marks a quarter century that the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation has been holding this annual Evening for Peace. We are gathering at this 25th anniversary event at a time of renewed hope for peace.

    We are honoring two extraordinary individuals – Reverend George Regas and Stanley Sheinbaum – who have together spent over a century, often behind the scenes, working for a more just and peaceful world. This evening we shine a light on their acts of peace and world citizenship, and it is our hope that their lives will inspire all of us, and particularly the young people who are here, to lives of greater compassion, courage and commitment.

    Renewed hope is necessary, but it is not sufficient.

    We still live in a world in which conflicts are too often settled by force rather than law, in which we spend far too much of our precious resources, human and economic, on war and its preparations.

    The world’s nations are spending some $1.3 trillion annually on military preparations and war, with the United States is spending roughly half this amount. Since the beginning of the Nuclear Age, our country has spent some $7.5 trillion on nuclear weapons and their delivery systems. We are still spending some $50 billion annually on nuclear arms.

    We need change in our world and, dare I say, change is coming.

    One thing is absolutely certain: Nuclear weapons do not and cannot protect their possessors. They can be used to commit monstrous acts of mass murder, by a first strike or in retaliation for a preceding attack, but they cannot protect their possessors.

    The only way we can be sure that we are safe from a nuclear attack is by abolishing these weapons.

    This is what President-elect Obama has said: “A world without nuclear weapons is profoundly in America’s interest and the world’s interest. It is our responsibility to make the commitment, and to do the hard work to make this vision a reality.”

    When he says “our responsibility to make the commitment,” I think he means all of us. I think that Barack Obama and America need this commitment from all of us. But it is up to him and to all of us to fulfill this commitment with our actions.

    At the Foundation, we have developed a Nuclear Disarmament Agenda for President Obama during his first 100 days in office. We ask that he take three steps:

    First, make a public commitment for US leadership for a world free of nuclear weapons in a major foreign policy address.

    Second, open bilateral negotiations with Russia on a range of nuclear policy issues. We need Russia as a partner in this journey to sanity.

    Third, initiate global action to convene a meeting of all nine nuclear weapons states to negotiate a new treaty for the phased, verifiable, irreversible and transparent elimination of nuclear weapons by the year 2020.

    The proposed agenda has some additional details that can be found in your programs.

    The main point I’d like to leave you with is that a world free of nuclear weapons is not an impossible dream. The genie can be put back in the bottle. The process may begin with a dream, but it continues with a politics of peace and justice. If it also increases our security, as it surely will, we are far the better for it.

    I would ask you to also take three actions:

    First, send the “First Hundred Day Agenda” to President-elect Obama, along with an encouraging note from you about why you want a world with zero nuclear weapons.

    Second, sign the Foundation’s Appeal to the Next President for US Leadership for a Nuclear Weapons-Free World and gather another 15 or 50 or 500 signatures and send them to the Foundation by early January.

    Third, watch the Foundation’s DVD, “Nuclear Weapons and the Human Future,” and arrange a showing to a group you organize or that you belong to.

    Let me conclude with some thoughts by General Lee Butler, a former commander in chief of the United States Strategic Command – in charge of all US nuclear weapons. General Butler became an ardent abolitionist after retiring from the military and is one of our past awardees. Referring to the dangers posed by nuclear weapons, he said, “We cannot at once keep sacred the miracle of existence and hold sacrosanct the capacity to destroy it. It is time to reassert the primacy of individual conscience, the voice of reason and the rightful interests of humanity.”

    I believe that the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation and each of us have an important role to play in the transformation to a peaceful and nuclear weapons-free world. Your hope, commitment, involvement and support are making and will continue to make all the difference.

    Thank you for being with us; thank you for caring.

    David Krieger is President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org) and a councilor on the World Future Council.
  • Our Nuclear Future

    Our Nuclear Future

    Secretary of Defense Robert Gates recently delivered a speech to the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in which he addressed the future of nuclear weapons. He noted that some past US presidents that he had worked for during the Cold War – Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush – all expressed publicly their desire to eliminate nuclear weapons. But these presidents, he points out, along with other leading policymakers expressing a similar desire, “have come up against the reality that as long as others have nuclear weapons, we must maintain some level of these weapons ourselves: to deter potential adversaries and to reassure over two dozen allies and partners who rely on our nuclear umbrella for their security – making it unnecessary for them to develop their own.”

    This is the succinct argument he offers for maintaining an arsenal of nuclear weapons. It is based on two pillars: deterrence and assurance. I might note that two pillars provide a highly unstable platform. If we are to succeed in eliminating nuclear weapons globally, Gates’ argument needs to be carefully examined. I will begin with the argument he makes for deterrence. There are currently nine countries with nuclear weapons, but Gates refers to only three of these, plus a non-nuclear weapon state, as being candidates for deterrence. These are Russia, China, North Korea and Iran (which has no nuclear weapons).

    North Korea has very few nuclear weapons and thus it would take relatively few nuclear weapons to deter them. More important, North Korea has been willing to negotiate the elimination of its nuclear program in exchange for development assistance and security guarantees. So, in the case of North Korea, it seems reasonable to assume that they could be deterred with a very small arsenal of nuclear weapons, and there is a high probability that with the proper incentives and security guarantees they would eliminate their nuclear arsenal. If one accepts that the theory of deterrence is valid, the deterrent force would not need to exceed 10 nuclear weapons.

    Iran currently has no nuclear weapons. It has the capacity to enrich uranium, which could lead to a program to create nuclear weapons. Since an Iranian nuclear capacity would be destabilizing and dangerous, this potential could also require a small nuclear deterrent force on the order of 10 nuclear weapons. The current situation with Iran’s uranium enrichment program raises the question of double standards. While the US has turned a blind eye to the fissile material programs of, for example, India and Israel, it has sought to shut down Iran’s uranium enrichment. There is a need for applying a universal standard to programs generating weapons usable fissile materials. All such programs in all states are potentially dangerous and require strict and effective international control.

    The other two nuclear weapons states that Gates refers to are Russia and China. He notes that both countries are pursuing “strategic modernization programs,” but neglects to mention that they have been pushed in this direction by US missile defense programs, which both Russia and China view as giving the US a potential first-strike capability against them. From their perspective, they are strengthening their deterrent capacity in response to a US threat. Both Russia and China have been very vocal in expressing their concerns about the US missile defense program, but the US has waved aside their concerns.

    Gates is careful to point out that “we do not consider Russia or China as adversaries.” Given the opportunity this provides, the US should seek agreement with both countries to move the size of all nuclear arsenals to much lower levels and to take other steps that will reduce the likelihood of nuclear weapons being used by accident or design. Russia has in the past expressed a desire to move to lower levels of nuclear weapons than were agreed to in the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (SORT), but thus far the US has put a floor at 1,700 to 2,200 deployed strategic weapons with the ability to keep more weapons in reserve. The US should seek immediate negotiations with Russia to move the number far lower, say to 1,000 each (in total) by the end of 2010, and to add verification provisions to the SORT agreement.

    China’s arsenal of nuclear weapons is below 500 at present, and they and India are the only countries to publicly proclaim a No First Use policy, meaning that they will not use nuclear weapons first under any circumstance. Further, China does not keep its nuclear arsenal on high alert status, as do the US and Russia. China currently has only about 20 long-range missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons to US territory. The US should seek an agreement with Russia and China in which all three states commit to a policy of No First Use of nuclear weapons. The US and Russia should further agree to remove their nuclear arsenals from high alert status.

    The second pillar of Gates’ argument is assurance to allies and partners that they can feel secure under the US “nuclear umbrella” and do not need to develop their own nuclear arsenals. But if the US led the way in seeking the elimination of nuclear weapons, this would not be an issue. Ronald Reagan argued in relation to the US and Russia, “A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought. The only value in our two nations possessing nuclear weapons is to make sure they will never be used. But then would it not be better to do away with them entirely?” The same, it would seem, would hold true for the world. A world without nuclear weapons would be safer for all countries, including our allies and partners. Many of these allies, including Japan, have been active in building consensus in the United Nations for the total elimination of nuclear weapons.

    Secretary Gates goes on in his speech to throw in a few more arguments for maintaining the US nuclear arsenal. “Our nuclear arsenal,” he says, “helps deter enemies from using chemical and biological weapons.” Assuming this is correct and that nuclear weapons could be needed for this purpose, the number of weapons would not exceed the 10 or so needed to deter North Korea or Iran. Gates finds our nuclear arsenal to be “vital” for one further reason: “We simply cannot predict the future.” But this argument cuts both ways. If the US continues to rely upon its nuclear arsenal, other countries are likely to pursue nuclear arsenals as well, making it more likely that these weapons will fall into the hands of terrorist organizations and creating an even more dangerous future.

    Secretary Gates acknowledges the errors in security that have occurred with the US nuclear arsenal and argues that these problems are being addressed by new strengthened command structures. He leaves to our imaginations, though, what security problems may be going unattended in the nuclear arsenals of other countries. Gates worries about the “credibility” of our nuclear arsenal, based upon the “safety, security and reliability of our weapons.” He makes an interesting but common inversion in placing greater concern on the safety and security of the weapons than that of the people they are intended to protect. In fact, nuclear weapons cannot provide security to their possessors; they can only be used to threaten or massively destroy an opponent. It also seems unlikely that a potential adversary of the US would believe it could attack the US with impunity because it estimated that the US arsenal was something less than 100 percent reliable.

    In the end, Gates believes the US must rely upon a “credible deterrent,” as opposed to providing leadership to achieve a world free of nuclear weapons. “To be blunt,” he says, “there is absolutely no way we can maintain a credible deterrent and reduce the number of weapons in our stockpile without either resorting to testing our stockpile or pursuing a modernization program.” He seeks a modernization program that would include the revitalization of the US nuclear weapons infrastructure and the development of a new nuclear warhead, the Reliable Replacement Warhead, which the Congress has turned down on several occasions. To follow the Gates plan would be to send a message to the rest of the world that the US, although the world’s most powerful state, finds nuclear weapons useful and will rely upon them for the foreseeable future. Rather than contributing to US security, this is a formula for promoting nuclear proliferation, which in the end will be harmful to US and global security.

    Gates summarizes his position in this way: “Try as we might, and hope as we will, the power of nuclear weapons and their strategic impact is a genie that cannot be put back in the bottle – at least for a very long time. While we have a long-term goal of abolishing nuclear weapons once and for all, given the world in which we live, we have to be realistic about that proposition.” It seems clear that Gates’ position is a self-fulfilling prophecy. In our current world, only the US, due to its enormous military might, can provide the necessary leadership to achieve the elimination of nuclear weapons. If US policymakers believe it cannot be done, that the “genie cannot be put back in the bottle,” it will not happen. On the other hand, if US policymakers adopted a different approach, one in which the US sought to end its reliance on nuclear weapons and pressed the other nuclear states to come along, the prospect of a world with zero nuclear weapons would become realistic.

    This does not mean unilateral US nuclear disarmament. It means a negotiated agreement for the phased, verifiable, irreversible and transparent elimination of nuclear weapons. It would not be easy, but the alternative is to continue with the status quo and drift toward nuclear catastrophe. Nuclear weapons do not and cannot protect their possessors. Retaliation is not protection. All countries, including the US, would be more secure in a world without nuclear weapons. We can move cautiously, but we must move determinedly toward that goal. Only the US can lead the way.

    David Krieger is President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org) and a councilor on the World Future Council.
  • President-elect Obama and a World Free of Nuclear Weapons

    President-elect Obama and a World Free of Nuclear Weapons

    The election of Barack Obama as President of the United States is a great moment for America and the world – a time of celebration and tears. The American people have chosen hope over fear, unity over division. In doing so, we have repudiated policies of violence, lawlessness and closed-door rule. We have restored hope and made possible the restoration of America’s credibility in the world.

    President-elect Obama has already made many statements about US nuclear policy during his long campaign for the presidency. The one I like best is: “A world without nuclear weapons is profoundly in America’s interest and the world’s interest. It is our responsibility to make the commitment, and to do the hard work to make this vision a reality. That’s what I’ve done as a Senator and a candidate, and that’s what I’ll do as President.”

    He has also said, “I will make the goal of eliminating nuclear weapons worldwide a central element of US nuclear policy.” He has also wisely stated that “if we want the world to deemphasize the role of nuclear weapons, the United States and Russia must lead by example.” He has made clear that he does not seek unilateral disarmament, but that America must lead in achieving the global elimination of nuclear weapons.

    Among the specific steps for US leadership that the newly elected President emphasized in his campaign are the following:

    • lead an international effort to deemphasize the role of nuclear weapons around the world;
    • strengthen the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty;
    • lock down the loose nuclear weapons that are out there right now;
    • secure all loose nuclear materials within four years;
    • immediately stand down all nuclear forces to be reduced under the Moscow Treaty and urge Russia to do the same;
    • seek Russia’s agreement to extend essential monitoring and verification provisions of the START I [Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty] before it expires in December 2009;
    • work with Russia to take US and Russian ballistic missiles off hair-trigger alert;
    • work with other nuclear powers to reduce global nuclear weapons stockpiles dramatically by the end of his presidency;
    • stop the development of new nuclear weapons;
    • seek dramatic reductions in US and Russian stockpiles of nuclear weapons and material;
    • set a goal to expand the US-Russian ban on intermediate-range missiles so that the agreement is global;
    • build a bipartisan consensus for ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty;
    • cut investments in unproven missile defense systems; and
    • not weaponize space.

    President-elect Obama has proven himself a man of vision and integrity. For the first time since Presidents Reagan and Gorbachev met at the Reykjavik, Iceland Summit in 1986 and came close to reaching an agreement on abolishing nuclear weapons, the vision of a world free of nuclear weapons appears to be within the realm of possibility. This will require presidential leadership, and the President-elect will need support and encouragement from the American people and from people throughout the world.

    David Krieger is President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org).
  • Remembering Joseph Rotblat, Remembering Our Humanity

    Remembering Joseph Rotblat, Remembering Our Humanity

    Joseph Rotblat was one of the great men of our time. As a young physicist from Poland, Rotblat realized that it might be possible to create an atomic weapon and worried that the Germans might succeed in developing such a weapon before the Allied powers. Due to this realization and his belief that the Allied powers needed a deterrent to a possible Nazi bomb, Rotblat agreed to work during World War II on the British bomb project and then on the US Manhattan Project.

    When it became clear to him in late 1944 that the Germans would not succeed in creating an atomic weapon, Rotblat resigned from the Manhattan Project and returned to London. He was the only Allied scientist to resign from the bomb project as a matter of conscience. The following August, he read with shock that the American atomic weapons had been used on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. He decided to devote the rest of his life to seeking the abolition of these terrible weapons. He would never again work on a weapon project. Instead, he found work as a nuclear physicist at St. Bartholomew’s Hospital in London.

    Joseph Rotblat was the youngest signer of the Russell-Einstein Manifesto in 1955. Most of his colleagues who signed the document were already Nobel laureates, and Bertrand Russell told Rotblat the he was sure that Rotblat would someday receive the prize. Rotblat was a founder and leader of the Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs, which began in 1957 to bring together scientists from East and West. In these conferences, Rotblat carried forward the spirit of the Russell-Einstein Manifesto: “Remember your humanity and forget the rest.”

    Rotblat did indeed receive the Nobel Peace Prize in 1995 for his years of dedicated effort in seeking a world free of nuclear weapons. He was 87 years old at the time. He continued to speak out and be a powerful voice for abolishing nuclear weapons until his death in 2005 at the age of 96.

    I had the pleasure to know Joseph Rotblat and work closely with him. He was a man of enormous optimism. He believed in humanity and trusted that we would live up to our potential. He said on many occasions that his short-term goal was to abolish nuclear weapons, and his long-term goal was to abolish war. He believed that a world free of nuclear weapons was both desirable and feasible, and he patiently explained to all who would listen why this was so.

    November 4, 2008 marks the centennial of his birth. It is a good opportunity to pause and remember a man of great compassion and humanity. Above all, Joseph was kind and decent and was unwavering in his commitment to create a better world – a world in which humanity’s future was not threatened by the nuclear weapons that he had helped to create.

    David Krieger is President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org) and a Councilor on the World Future Council (www.worldfuturecouncil.org).
  • Opening Remarks to World Future Council Meeting

    Opening Remarks to World Future Council Meeting

    On behalf of the World Future Council (WFC), I extend a warm greeting to each of you. I want to tell you a little about the World Future Council. I will then focus my remarks to nuclear weapons, nuclear power, and the relationship between them – an issue on which all Americans need to awaken and focus.

    The WFC is a relatively new organization. It seeks to be a voice for future generations. I remember seeing a book many years ago entitled, Who Speaks for Earth? This is what the World Future Council is attempting to do for future generations – to be their voice in the decisions that will affect them.

    The Council is composed of 50 Councilors from throughout the world, all of whom have dedicated their lives to pursuing a better future for humanity. The vision and achievements of these Councilors are quite remarkable. I am honored to be among them.

    The founder of the WFC is Jakob von Uexküll, who also founded the Right Livelihood Awards, which are known as the Alternative Nobel Prizes. These prizes, presented in the Swedish Parliament the day before the Nobels, honor those who work for peace, justice, human rights and a healthy environment. The chair of the Council is Bianca Jagger, a tireless campaigner for human rights, the environment and future generations.

    Two principal projects of the WFC are one on Climate and Sustainability and one on Future Justice. Of course, these are interrelated. You cannot have future justice without a sustainable planet, and issues of energy supply and its consequences will affect both of these areas.

    My work on the WFC has been primarily in the area of Future Justice. Our concern is not only how to create a more just future that embodies principles of intergenerational equity, but also how to assure that there is a future. Our actions today that could foreclose the future need to be reframed as crimes against future generations.

    What could foreclose the future? One area is certainly radical change in the earth’s climate, making the earth uninhabitable for humans. The other major area is nuclear war. Nuclear weapons continue to threaten the future of humanity, despite the fact that many, perhaps most, people on the planet think the problem went away with the end of the Cold War. Most of us in this country are ignorant and apathetic about nuclear weapons. Those who are aware of the serious threats posed by these weapons, often feel impotent to influence policy. I want to emphasize that the problem has not gone away, and humankind remains threatened by the devastating power of these weapons.

    There are still more than 25,000 nuclear weapons in the arsenals of nine countries, with 95 percent of these in the arsenals of just two countries: the United States and Russia. There remain some 3,000 nuclear weapons on hair-trigger alert, ready to be fired in moments of an order to do so. It would take just one nuclear weapon to destroy a city and a relatively small number of nuclear weapons to destroy a country. Nuclear weapons place the future of civilization and the human species in jeopardy of annihilation.

    It is for these reasons that 26 years ago I was a founder of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, a non-profit and non-partisan civil society organization. This name is meant to imply that peace is an imperative of the Nuclear Age. As most of the original atomic scientists understood, in the Nuclear Age we have to abolish not only nuclear weapons but war itself.

    Let me share with you three ideas that are contained in a recent article I wrote in the form of a Briefing for the New President on US leadership for a world free of nuclear weapons. The briefing is called A Return to Sanity and this is the way it begins:

    The most important thing to understand about nuclear weapons is this: these weapons do not and cannot provide physical protection to their possessors. Please let this thought sink in.

    The second most important thing to understand about these weapons is that they are weapons of genocide writ large or, as the philosopher John Somerville has labeled them, weapons of omnicide, capable of the destruction of all. These weapons put at risk the future of humankind and most life on earth. Please also let this thought sink in.

    The third most important thing to understand about nuclear weapons is that they are in the hands of human beings with all their frailties and fallibilities, and, as such, these weapons are disasters waiting to occur. Please let this thought sink in as well.

    There are many reasons to oppose nuclear weapons. They are immoral, illegal and cowardly; they waste our scientific and monetary resources; and they undermine democracy by concentrating power in the hands of a few individuals. The most important reason, however, is pragmatic. These weapons threaten the human future, just as climate change does. And they undermine the future of powerful states, including the US, as well as of those that are not so powerful.

    There is only one way out of the nuclear dilemma, and that requires US leadership. Without US leadership, we will drift toward nuclear annihilation. We are likely to witness the further proliferation of nuclear weapons to states and terrorist groups. One thing we know with certainty is that terrorists cannot be deterred. Therefore, there is zero room for error in preventing terrorists from obtaining these weapons.

    For nearly every country that has developed nuclear weapons, the path has been through civilian nuclear reactors for research or energy. That is the best argument I know of, although there are many more, as to why nuclear energy is the wrong path to a sustainable energy future. Nuclear power is a pathway to nuclear proliferation. In addition, it generates waste that will burden thousands of future generations. Despite trying for the past sixty years, no one has a good answer about how to store the tremendously dangerous waste from nuclear power plants. Nuclear energy also requires large societal subsidies, such as assured low limits on liability for accidents that may occur and the decommissioning of the nuclear plants no longer generating power. Nuclear power plants are also attractive targets for terrorists.

    These large, expensive, dangerous and heavily subsidized plants are not the answer to our energy problems. They cannot provide the truly safe and clean energy that can be found in the sun, the winds, the tides and other forms of renewable energy.

    At the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation we are calling upon the next president of the United States to make a world free of nuclear weapons an urgent priority and to take seven critical steps:

    • De-alert. Remove all nuclear weapons from high-alert status, separating warheads from delivery vehicles;
    • No First Use. Make legally binding commitments to No First Use of nuclear weapons and establish nuclear policies consistent with this commitment;
    • No New Nuclear Weapons. Initiate a moratorium on the research and development of new nuclear weapons, such as the Reliable Replacement Warhead;
    • Ban Nuclear Testing Forever. Ratify and bring into force the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty;
    • Control Nuclear Material. Create a verifiable Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty with provisions to bring all weapons-grade nuclear material and the technologies to create such material under strict and effective international control;
    • Nuclear Weapons Convention. Commence good faith negotiations, as required by the Non-Proliferation Treaty, to achieve a Nuclear Weapons Convention for the phased, verifiable and irreversible elimination of nuclear weapons;
    • Resources for Peace. Reallocate resources from the tens of billions currently spent on nuclear arms to alleviating poverty, preventing and curing disease, eliminating hunger and expanding educational opportunities throughout the world.

    Let me end here with a quote from The Little Prince: “‘It’s a matter of discipline,’ the Little Prince told me. ‘When you’ve finished washing and dressing each morning, you must tend your planet.’”

    I wish you a very productive meeting and great success in tending to our planet.

    David Krieger is a member of the Executive Committee of the World Future Council, and a founder and president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org)
  • Creating a World Without Nuclear Weapons

    Creating a World Without Nuclear Weapons

    We are in the seventh decade of the Nuclear Age and there remain more than 25,000 nuclear weapons in the arsenals of nine nuclear weapons states. The list of countries possessing nuclear weapons is headed by the US and Russia, which between them have more than 95 percent of the total on the planet. These two countries still maintain a few thousand nuclear weapons on hair-trigger alert, ready to be fired within moments of an order to do so. The other countries with nuclear weapons are the UK, France, China, Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea.

    An important question that every concerned individual should ask is: Do these weapons make a country and its citizens more secure? The answer to this question is that they do not; nuclear weapons provide no physical protection against a nuclear attack. They do not and cannot provide physical protection against other nuclear weapons.

    The Limits of Deterrence

    These weapons of mass annihilation can only be used to threaten retaliation against an attacker. But the threat of retaliation, known as nuclear deterrence, is not foolproof. Deterrence relies upon beliefs and effective communications. For deterrence to work, a country’s leaders must believe in the intent as well as the capacity of an opponent to retaliate. Such a threat may be doubted since it implies a willingness to slaughter millions, perhaps hundreds of millions, of innocent people.

    Another issue with deterrence is that of rationality: whether an opponent will always act rationally, even in times of severe crisis. The evidence does not support the proposition that all political leaders are rational at all times. Another problem with deterrence is that the threat of retaliation is essentially meaningless when it comes to terrorist groups, since they are often suicidal and cannot be located to retaliate against.

    Weapons of the Weak

    There are many good reasons to doubt that nuclear deterrence makes a country more secure. One perceived exception to this may be that nuclear weapons provide added security for a weaker country in relation to a stronger one. For example, George W. Bush, early in his presidency, branded Iraq, Iran and North Korea as an “axis of evil.” He then proceeded to attack Iraq on the false charge that it had a nuclear weapons program, overthrow its leadership and occupy the country. With North Korea, a country suspected of having a small arsenal of nuclear weapons, Bush was much more cautious and engaged in negotiations. This has sent a message to Iran that it would be more secure with a nuclear arsenal. This is surely not the message that the US wishes to send to the world, nor to countries such as Iran.

    For weaker countries, nuclear weapons may be thought of as “military equalizers.” They may make a stronger country think twice about attacking. But this is a dangerous game of Russian roulette. The greater the number of countries with nuclear weapons, the greater the danger that these weapons will be used by accident, miscalculation or design.

    Because of the perceived power that nuclear weapons bestow upon their possessors, they may seem to some to be desirable, but in fact possessors of nuclear weapons are also targets of nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons can destroy cities, countries, civilization, the human species and most life on our planet. As Mikhail Gorbachev has pointed out, they are weapons of “infinite and uncontrollable fury,” far too dangerous to be “held in the hands of any mere mortal ever again, for any reason.” Nuclear weapons could cause irreversible damage, not to the planet which is capable of recovery despite the worst we can do to it, but to humanity and to the human future.

    The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty

    The 1970 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty requires the countries that were then in possession of nuclear weapons (US, Soviet Union, UK, France and China) to engage in good faith negotiations for nuclear disarmament in return for other countries agreeing not to acquire nuclear weapons. This agreement on the part of the nuclear weapons states has not been kept and unfortunately the country that has been the principal obstacle to nuclear disarmament has been the United States.

    Another aspect of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is that it refers to the peaceful uses of nuclear energy as an “inalienable right.” For many reasons, this moves the world in the wrong direction. The most important of these reasons is that nuclear energy provides a pretext for the creation of fissile materials for nuclear weapons through uranium enrichment and plutonium separation technologies. Once commerce is established in such bomb materials, the prospects of nuclear proliferation, even to terrorists, increase dramatically.

    Changing Our Thinking

    Nuclear weapons pose a unique existential challenge to humanity. If global warming is an “inconvenient truth,” nuclear weapons are an even greater and more acute problem for humanity. We need to shift our thinking if we are to confront the serious dangers to the human future posed by nuclear weapons. As Albert Einstein warned early in the Nuclear Age, “The splitting of the atom has changed everything save our modes of thinking and thus we drift toward unparalleled catastrophe.” The needed change in thinking will require a major shift in our orientation toward nuclear arms.

    These weapons must be viewed as the immoral and illegal weapons that they are, as opposed to just another, albeit more powerful, weapon of war. The International Court of Justice considered the issue of the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons and unanimously concluded: “There exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control.” People everywhere must understand that the weapons themselves are the enemy and must be committed to their elimination.

    The Need for US Leadership

    The United States, as the world’s most powerful country, must lead in achieving a world free of nuclear weapons. The US, however, seems unmindful of this responsibility and continues to send exactly the wrong message by its reliance on nuclear weapons. Two distinguished former US diplomats, Thomas Graham Jr. and Max Kampelman, have called US leadership “essential”: “The road from the world of today, with thousands of nuclear weapons in national arsenals to a world free of this threat, will not be an easy one to take, but it is clear that US leadership is essential to the journey and there is growing worldwide support for that civilized call to zero.” US leaders must understand that for the country’s own security and for global security, nuclear weapons abolition is necessary, but won’t be possible without US leadership.

    The Role of Citizens

    The people of the US and other nuclear weapons states must put pressure on their governments to act on ridding the world of nuclear weapons. Pressure must come from below to change the thinking and the actions of political leaders. Among the steps that individuals can take to make a difference on this issue are the following:

    1. Learn more. Visit the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s website at www.wagingpeace.org.
    2. Keep abreast of the issues. At www.wagingpeace.org you can sign up for The Sunflower, a free monthly e-newsletter on current nuclear weapons issues.
    3. Share your knowledge. Tell your family and friends about the importance of current nuclear weapons issues and encourage their involvement.
    4. Communicate with the media. Follow the news and write letters to your local newspaper.
    5. Write your representatives in Congress. Sign up for the Turn the Tide Action Alerts at www.wagingpeace.org, and we’ll make it easy for you to communicate with your Congressional representatives.
    6. Support and build nuclear abolition organizations. It may take a village to raise a child, but it will take strong, committed and enduring organizations to assure we achieve the goal of a world free of nuclear weapons for all the children of the world.
    7. Never give up. It will take extraordinary perseverance to achieve the goal. No one should give up because the task is difficult.

    Each generation has a responsibility to pass the world on intact to the next generation. Those of us alive today are challenged as never before to accomplish this. Technological achievement does not necessarily make us stronger. It may simply make us more vulnerable, and our old ways of thinking may seal our fate. The alternative to waiting for a nuclear catastrophe to occur is to join others who are committed to preserving a future of the human species, and act to rid the world of this most terrible of all human inventions.

    David Krieger is a founder of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org) and has served as its president since 1982. He is a leader in the global effort to abolish nuclear weapons.
  • The US-India Deal: When Geopolitics Meets Principle

    The US-India Deal: When Geopolitics Meets Principle

    When geopolitics comes up against principle in the US Congress, it is generally principle that is forced to give way. In the case of the US-India nuclear deal, originally proposed by President Bush and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in 2005, the deal would involve transferring nuclear technology and material from the US to India. Geopolitically, it would strengthen the relationship between the two countries, but it would do so at the expense of the principle of preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

    India is not a party to the 1970 nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. It never joined because its leaders believed that the Non-Proliferation Treaty promoted nuclear apartheid with its two classes of states: nuclear “haves” and “have-nots.” By not signing the treaty, India, like Pakistan and Israel, held open the possibility of developing nuclear weapons. In 1974, India tested its first nuclear device, what it called a “peaceful nuclear device.” In 1998, India conducted multiple tests of nuclear weapons, and was followed almost immediately by a series of Pakistani nuclear tests.

    The United States, unlike India, is a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Like all other parties to the treaty, it promised in Article I of the treaty “not in any way to assist, encourage, or induce any non-nuclear-weapon State to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, or control over such weapons or explosive devices.” India is a “non-nuclear-weapon State” by the treaty’s definition. By providing nuclear materials and technology to India, the US will be assisting India to develop a larger nuclear arsenal than it already has developed. Thus, the US will be in violation of its treaty obligations.

    India has agreed to allow its civilian nuclear reactors to be inspected by the International Atomic Energy Agency, but not its military reactors. By supplying nuclear material and technology to India, it will allow India to use all of the uranium and plutonium from its military reactors, which are not subject to inspection, to be used for increasing the size of its nuclear weapons arsenal. This will, in turn, promote nuclear arms races with Pakistan and China.

    Earlier this month, the US applied pressure to the 45 member states of the Nuclear Suppliers Group to waive their rules and allow nuclear material and technology transfers to India. Many of the members of the Nuclear Suppliers Group were as eager as the United States at the opportunity for their big corporations to cash in on selling nuclear reactors to India.

    With the Nuclear Suppliers Group having signed off on the deal, it left only the US Congress to reconsider the matter before giving the green light to the deal. The first step in getting the deal through Congress was gaining the approval of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. In this Committee, Senator Russ Feingold introduced an amendment to the bill calling on the administration to reach an agreement with the Nuclear Suppliers Group that there will be no transfers of uranium enrichment or plutonium separation technologies to a country that is not party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

    Since India is not party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, the Feingold amendment would have prohibited transfers of these technologies for producing weapons-grade nuclear materials to India. It is an amendment that upholds the principle that transfers of nuclear technology should not assist in the development of nuclear weapons. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee, in its eagerness to see the US reap perceived geopolitical and financial advantages, threw principle to the wayside and voted 15 to 4 against the amendment. The four principled Senators voting for the amendment were Feingold, along with Barbara Boxer, Robert Casey and Jim Webb.

    Following the defeat of the amendment, the Committee, in its embarrassing rush to line up behind a Bush policy that substantially undermines the current nuclear non-proliferation regime, voted 19 to 2 in favor of the deal. The only two Senators on the Committee to stand on principle and vote against the deal were Russ Feingold and Barbara Boxer.

    If the House Foreign Affairs Committee follows its colleagues in the Senate, it is almost assured that the Congress of the United States will vote in favor of this ill-conceived deal, and the prospects of preventing further proliferation of nuclear weapons will have been dealt a near fatal blow. The US will have demonstrated that perceived short-term geopolitical gain, with an unhealthy dose of potential financial profit thrown in, is more than enough to defeat even the most important of security-related principles. The Bush administration will have succeeded in making the Congress complicit in blowing a hole the size of a nuclear explosion through the principle of safeguarding the country and the world against the spread of nuclear weapons.

    David Krieger is President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org) and a councilor of the World Future Council.
  • Ambassadors of the Nuclear Age

    Ambassadors of the Nuclear Age

    At the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, we have recently been host to two hibakusha, survivors of the atomic bombings. Both of these hibakusha are women, and both are survivors of the US atomic bombing of Hiroshima in 1945. Junko Kayashige, the younger of the two women, was 6 years old when the bomb fell on her city. Miyako Yano was 14 years old when the bomb fell.

    The two hibakusha who visited us, and all atomic bomb survivors, are ambassadors of the Nuclear Age. Their goals are to rid the world of nuclear weapons and help humanity to move past its age-old penchant for solving conflicts by resorting to war, understanding from personal experience that war in the Nuclear Age is a catalyst for nuclear annihilation.

    The women traveled from Hiroshima to the United States to tell their stories. They did so in the hope that their past will not become our future. They wish that no one else will suffer the fate of the victims at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Junko Kayashige stated, “There is not much time left for us hibakusha. We must find ways to not create even one more hibakusha.” Thus, they speak out and share their sad and painful recollections.

    The two women spoke to students at a local college and to assemblies at two high schools. The students paid rapt attention to the personal stories of these witnesses to history. Throughout their lives both women carried the fear that they would be stricken with cancer, leukemia or other radiation related diseases, the fate of so many victims of the atomic bombings. They also worried that radiation disease would effect their children or grandchildren.

    Miyako Yano, the older of the two women, was a second year student in a girl’s high school when the bomb was dropped. Her class had been assigned the task of helping to clean up the rubble in the city, near to what would become the epicenter of the bombing. On the day of the bombing she was ill and stayed home. By this chance occurrence, her life was saved. If the bombing had occurred the day before, she would have met certain death while working just 500 meters from the epicenter, as was the fate of her classmates the next day. Living four kilometers from the epicenter of the detonation, her family helped take care of the injured, many of whom died of radiation poisoning. As a 14-year-old girl, Miyako was given the task of incinerating the dead.

    Junko Kayashige shared a photograph of her family taken just before the bombing. It was a somber picture of a family gathered in wartime. Her older brother was about to go off to war, and the family thought it was the last photograph that would be taken of them all together. It was, in fact, the last photograph of them all together, but for a different reason. Hiroshima suffered the atomic bombings and two of her sisters were victims. Her father was able to find one of his daughters whose back was badly burned, with maggots crawling in the raw wounds. The family tried to help her, but she died ten days later, most likely from radiation poisoning. The other sister, who had gone out on an errand, was not found. The family never knew how she perished.

    Most Americans have an uncomplicated but at best incomplete understanding of the atomic bombings, based on a perspective of the bombings from above; that is, from the perspective of the bombers, rather than from the perspective of the victims. The absence of the victims in the perspective of the victors leaves a large hole that can be filled by the accounts of the survivors of bombed cities. This is important not only for a fuller understanding of the past, but for creating a more secure future.

    If the world continues upon the path it is on, with a small number of countries relying upon nuclear weapons for their “security,” eventually these weapons will be used again, by accident or design. Yesterday’s victors may become tomorrow’s victims. The United States, the country with the greatest military power the world has ever witnessed, could be brought to its knees by a terrorist group in possession of nuclear weapons.

    There is only one way to end this threat, and that is to abolish these weapons. The hibakusha are clear that nuclear weapons and human beings cannot coexist. The world is not large enough for both. Either nuclear weapons must be eliminated or human beings face the threat of extinction by weapons of their own creation.

    The hibakusha continue to warn us of the perils nuclear weapons pose to the human future. They have long ago forgiven their attackers and speak only from hearts of kindness. Miyako Yano stated, “I believe the A-bombs were dropped not on Hiroshima and Nagasaki alone, but on the entire humanity. We have no choice but to abolish nuclear weapons.”

    The aging hibakusha challenge each of us to act upon their warnings. Their voices are soft but clear. They summon us to achieve the political will to rid the world of this overriding threat.

    David Krieger is President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org) and a councilor of the World Future Council.
  • Building a Local Nuclear Disarmament Coalition with Global Aims

    Building a Local Nuclear Disarmament Coalition with Global Aims

    The most important question that I have about nuclear weapons is this: Why are most people so disinterested in policies concerning these weapons that have the capacity to destroy the human species and much of life on the planet?

    It seems to me that there are two principal answers to this question: ignorance and apathy. Many people are ignorant about the threats posed by nuclear weapons. Among those who are concerned, many may believe there is little they can do to change the policies of the nuclear weapons states.

    Nuclear weapons can be used in only a few ways.

    First, to initiate a preemptive or preventive attack on an enemy in a most cowardly, immoral and illegal fashion, killing hundreds of thousands or millions of innocent people.

    Second, to threaten to attack an enemy in order to have it bend to one’s will.

    Third, to threaten retaliation against an enemy that would initiate an attack against one’s country. This is called nuclear deterrence. It’s a theory about human behavior; it’s not a foolproof means of protection. For example, it is not possible to retaliate against an enemy, like al Qaeda, that cannot be located.

    A very important truth about nuclear weapons is that they do not and cannot provide physical protection to their possessors. They can make you believe you are safe, but this is of very little value in the event deterrence would fail – for any reason.

    Another important truth about nuclear weapons is that they are the only weapons that could destroy the United States. If you love the United States, as so many of our politicians are piously pronouncing these days, you should be working for a nuclear weapons-free world.

    It’s also true that you should be working for a nuclear weapons-free world if you love your children, your grandchildren and your fellow human beings – those who are alive today and those who will follow us on this earth.

    Another truth – one that may not be so obvious – is that only the United States can lead the way to a nuclear weapons-free world. Without US leadership it won’t be possible. If the US continues to rely upon its nuclear arsenal for security, the Russians and the other nuclear weapons states will not disarm. The likely consequence is nuclear proliferation and greater nuclear danger.

    During the past two administrations there has been very little political will to lead on nuclear disarmament. The Bush administration has made the US an obstacle to nuclear disarmament rather than a leader. In 2007, the US voted against all 15 nuclear disarmament measures to come before the UN. And the Clinton administration missed one of the great opportunities ever set before an American president to lead on nuclear disarmament.

    But now we are in a time of transformational possibilities. We will soon have a new administration. Both major party presidential candidates say that they favor a world without nuclear weapons, but not even a dedicated new president can change US nuclear policy alone. The new president will need broad public support, and Congress will have to be pushed on nuclear policy issues. This is where a coalition of local organizations could play a major role.

    We need to wake up America – before it is too late. There have been an incredible number of warnings from scientists, military leaders, clergy, Nobel laureates and other distinguished individuals that have not done the job. A Los Angeles coalition could set a great example for other cities across our nation and across the globe.

    This is a world problem, but it is particularly an American problem. We led the way into the Nuclear Age by developing nuclear weapons, we used the first nuclear weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we tested more nuclear weapons than any other nation – and we must also lead the way out of the Nuclear Age.

    What is needed is commitment, creativity, courage and coalition. It will also require persistence. This is a challenge at least as great, perhaps greater than that of global warming. So, rise up LA and help lead the nation.

    At the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation we have some tools that can be helpful.

    First, we have an Appeal to the Next President for US leadership for a world free of nuclear weapons. It is a straight forward Appeal that educates while it advocates. It calls on the President to take seven steps: take nuclear weapons off hair-trigger alert; make legally binding commitments to No First Use of nuclear weapons; initiate a moratorium on research, development and production of new nuclear weapons; ratify and bring into force the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty; create a verifiable treaty to control nuclear materials throughout the world; commence good faith negotiations on a treaty for the phased, verifiable and irreversible elimination of nuclear weapons; and reallocate resources from the tens of billions currently spent on nuclear arms to meeting human needs throughout the world.

    Second, we have a DVD called “Nuclear Weapons and the Human Future.” It is a great educational tool that can be used groups of all sizes.

    Third, we have a monthly e-newsletter, The Sunflower, which provides regular updates on key nuclear policy issues.

    We are in a time of transformational possibilities. If we seize the moment, we will have fulfilled our responsibilities to humanity and to the future. If we fail, the consequences will be graver than we can imagine.

    David Krieger is President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org).
  • Congress Has the Last Chance to Say No to the US-India Nuclear Proliferation Deal

    Congress Has the Last Chance to Say No to the US-India Nuclear Proliferation Deal

    India never joined the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Instead, it developed and tested nuclear weapons. It is a known nuclear proliferator. India is now thought to have an arsenal of some 60 nuclear weapons, and India’s first nuclear test in 1974 led Pakistan to also develop and later test nuclear weapons. India’s 1974 nuclear test also led to the formation of a Nuclear Suppliers Group, a group of 45 countries that agreed to ban nuclear technology transfers that would make nuclear proliferation more likely, particularly to countries such as India and Pakistan that were outside the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

    Despite the obvious implications for nuclear proliferation, George W. Bush put forward a plan in 2005 to transfer nuclear technology and materials to India. For this plan, which is best characterized as the US-India Nuclear Proliferation Deal, a special waiver was needed from the Nuclear Suppliers Group, requiring the consent of all members. This deal ran into trouble when Austria, Ireland and New Zealand initially sought to uphold the obligations of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and held out for tighter proliferation controls, at a minimum a commitment by India that it would conduct no further nuclear tests. Although India would not make this commitment – only going so far as to say it would engage in a voluntary moratorium on testing – arm-twisting diplomatic pressure from the US caused these last hold-outs against proliferation to capitulate. The only barrier remaining to this Nuclear Proliferation Deal going through is the US Congress.

    The Bush administration has given three justifications for pursuing this deal with India. First, it will forge a strategic partnership with the world’s largest democracy. Second, it will help India meet its increasing energy demand in an “environmentally friendly” way. Third, it will open a market for the sale of billions of dollars of nuclear technology to India.

    Forging a strategic partnership with India is fine, but why do it on a foundation of nuclear weapons proliferation? Surely, other countries will be looking at this Nuclear Proliferation Deal as a model that will serve their own interests as well. If the US can do it with India, why not China with Pakistan? Or Russia with Iran? Or Pakistan with Syria? The possibilities for nuclear proliferation are endless, and this deal makes them more likely.

    It is also fine for the US to help India to meet its growing energy demand in an environmentally friendly way, but it is absolute hypocrisy to classify nuclear energy “environmentally friendly.” No one knows what to do with the long-lived radioactive wastes from nuclear power plants – not the US, not anyone. And these wastes are truly long-lived. In the case of the highly toxic and leukemia causing by-product of nuclear power production, plutonium 239, the wastes will gradually decline in danger over a period of 240,000 years. Not the best gift to bestow on future generations.

    There are other reasons as well to be skeptical of nuclear power plants. They are capital intensive, subject to accidents and tempting targets for terrorists. They also require large societal subsidies, such as the underwriting of liability insurance. The uranium used in these plants, if highly enriched, not a technologically difficult feat, provides the basic ingredients for nuclear weapons. The plutonium generated in these plants, if reprocessed, also not difficult technologically, provides another fissionable material for nuclear weapons. Why not support India to produce truly environmentally friendly energy sources, such as wind or solar energy?

    The third reason for the US-India Nuclear Proliferation Deal sounds to me like the real one – that it will open a market to sell billions of dollars of nuclear technology to India. There will be a small number of corporations and their chief executives that will profit big-time from this deal, but they will be doing so at a heavy cost to the people of the world. This Nuclear Proliferation Deal has “double standards” written all over it. Can you imagine the US pushing the same deal with Iran, Iraq or North Korea? Of course not! This deal puts a hole the size of a nuclear explosion through the heart of the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

    Very soon the US-India Nuclear Proliferation Deal will be back before the US Congress for a final vote. If the Congress approves the deal as it stands, it goes through. If Congress votes it down, it doesn’t go through. This deal, initiated and promoted heavily by the Bush administration, will undermine the security of the American people and people everywhere, if Congress allows it to go through.

    The Bush administration was able to pressure the members of the Nuclear Suppliers Group, but the American people should not allow Mr. Bush to proceed with this final cynical act to enrich the few at the expense of national and global security. If you care about the dangers of nuclear weapons proliferation, it’s time for action. Let your representative in Washington know that you expect a No vote on the US-India Nuclear Proliferation Deal.

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