Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Author: David Krieger

  • Nuclear Weapons and the University of California

    Nuclear Weapons and the University of California

    It is perhaps the least talked about and most worrying irony of our time. The United States has a massive defense budget, but spends relatively little addressing the most immediate danger to humanity.

    Global security is vital to family life, the growth of business, the wise husbanding of resources and the environment. And yet, all our hopes and plans for the future exist under the shadow of a catastrophic threat – one that could kill millions of people in a few moments and leave civilization in shambles.

    Although there are other significant threats, such as global warming and infectious diseases, it is nuclear weapons that are the greatest immediate danger confronting our species. We must stop ignoring this threat and start providing leadership to eliminate nuclear arsenals around the globe.

    Let’s look at some of the facts about nuclear weapons. They are the only weapon capable of destroying civilization and the human species. They kill indiscriminately, making them equal opportunity destroyers. In the hands of terrorists, they could destroy a country as powerful as the United States. A nuclear 9/11 could have resulted in deaths exceeding one million and the collapse of the US and world economies.

    There are currently some 27,000 nuclear weapons in the world, and 12,000 of these are deployed. Of these, 3,500 nuclear weapons are on hair-trigger alert, ready to be fired in moments.

    Nine countries currently possess nuclear weapons: the United States, Russia, UK, France, China, Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea. More than 95 percent of the nuclear weapons in the world are in the arsenals of the US and Russia. The UK, France, China and Israel are estimated to have arsenals numbering a few hundred each. India and Pakistan are thought to have arsenals under 100, and North Korea to have up to 12 nuclear weapons. As many as 35 other countries have the technological capability to become nuclear weapons states, including Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Brazil, Iran and Egypt.

    Nuclear weapons give a state sudden clout in the international system. India, Pakistan and North Korea all increased their stature in the international system after testing nuclear weapons. Recently, Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva emphasized the perceived prestige that nuclear weapons potential gives a country. He said: “Brazil could rank among those few nations in the world with a command of uranium enrichment technology, and I think we will be more highly valued as a nation — as the power we wish to be.”

    Nearly all countries in the world are parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Only three countries have not signed the treaty: Israel, India and Pakistan. A fourth country, North Korea, withdrew from the NPT in 2003. All of these countries have developed nuclear arsenals.

    The NPT obligates the nuclear weapons states that are parties to the treaty to engage in good faith negotiations for nuclear disarmament. The International Court of Justice has interpreted this to mean that negotiations must be concluded “leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects.”

    As the world’s only remaining superpower, the United States can lead the way in fulfilling this obligation. It has failed to do so. The US missile defense program has been provocative to other countries, particularly Russia and China, and has resulted in these countries improving their offensive nuclear capabilities. The US has also sought to upgrade and improve its nuclear arsenal, and has proposed replacing every thermonuclear weapon in the US arsenal with the so-called Reliable Replacement Warhead. The US has, in effect, said to the world that it intends to rely upon its nuclear arsenal indefinitely.

    In addition, the US has failed to provide legally binding security assurances that it will not use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapons states. In fact, the US indicated in its 2001 Nuclear Posture Review that it was developing contingency plans for the use of nuclear weapons against seven countries – two nuclear weapons states (Russia and China) and five non-nuclear weapons states (Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya and North Korea, which at the time was not thought to have nuclear weapons).

    US nuclear policy undermines the security of its people. The more the US relies on nuclear weapons, the more other countries will do so. Former United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan has stated: “The more that those states that already have [nuclear weapons] increase their arsenals, or insist that such weapons are essential to their national security, the more other states feel that they too must have them for their security.” Reliance on nuclear weapons will assure their proliferation.

    The more nuclear weapons in the world, the more likely they will end up in the hands of terrorist extremists incapable of being deterred. The longer nations rely on nuclear weapons for security, the more likely it is that they will be used, by accident or design.

    The US needs to work urgently for a treaty for the phased, verifiable, irreversible elimination of nuclear weapons under strict international control, just as we have already done with chemical and biological weapons. To do this requires political will, which has not been demonstrated by the current US administration. Continuing with existing US nuclear policies is a recipe for disaster. The Cold War ended more than 15 years ago, and new problems now confront humanity. It is time for a drastic change in US nuclear policy – change that will require strong and effective leadership.

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

  • The Greatest Immediate Threat to Humanity

    The Greatest Immediate Threat to Humanity

    It is perhaps the least talked about and most worrying irony of our time. The United States has a massive defense budget, but spends relatively little addressing the most immediate danger to humanity.

    Global security is vital to family life, the growth of business, the wise husbanding of resources and the environment. And yet, all our hopes and plans for the future exist under the shadow of a catastrophic threat – one that could kill millions of people in a few moments and leave civilization in shambles.

    Although there are other significant threats, such as global warming and infectious diseases, it is nuclear weapons that are the greatest immediate danger confronting our species. We must stop ignoring this threat and start providing leadership to eliminate nuclear arsenals around the globe.

    Let’s look at some of the facts about nuclear weapons. They are the only weapon capable of destroying civilization and the human species. They kill indiscriminately, making them equal opportunity destroyers. In the hands of terrorists, they could destroy a country as powerful as the United States. A nuclear 9/11 could have resulted in deaths exceeding one million and the collapse of the US and world economies.

    There are currently some 27,000 nuclear weapons in the world, and 12,000 of these are deployed. Of these, 3,500 nuclear weapons are on hair-trigger alert, ready to be fired in moments.

    Nine countries currently possess nuclear weapons: the United States, Russia, UK, France, China, Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea. More than 95 percent of the nuclear weapons in the world are in the arsenals of the US and Russia. The UK, France, China and Israel are estimated to have arsenals numbering a few hundred each. India and Pakistan are thought to have arsenals under 100, and North Korea to have up to 12 nuclear weapons. As many as 35 other countries have the technological capability to become nuclear weapons states, including Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Brazil, Iran and Egypt.

    Nuclear weapons give a state sudden clout in the international system. India, Pakistan and North Korea all increased their stature in the international system after testing nuclear weapons. Recently, Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva emphasized the perceived prestige that nuclear weapons potential gives a country. He said: “Brazil could rank among those few nations in the world with a command of uranium enrichment technology, and I think we will be more highly valued as a nation — as the power we wish to be.”

    Nearly all countries in the world are parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Only three countries have not signed the treaty: Israel, India and Pakistan. A fourth country, North Korea, withdrew from the NPT in 2003. All of these countries have developed nuclear arsenals.

    The NPT obligates the nuclear weapons states that are parties to the treaty to engage in good faith negotiations for nuclear disarmament. The International Court of Justice has interpreted this to mean that negotiations must be concluded “leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects.”

    As the world’s only remaining superpower, the United States can lead the way in fulfilling this obligation. It has failed to do so. The US missile defense program has been provocative to other countries, particularly Russia and China, and has resulted in these countries improving their offensive nuclear capabilities. The US has also sought to upgrade and improve its nuclear arsenal, and has proposed replacing every thermonuclear weapon in the US arsenal with the so-called Reliable Replacement Warhead. The US has, in effect, said to the world that it intends to rely upon its nuclear arsenal indefinitely.

    In addition, the US has failed to provide legally binding security assurances that it will not use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapons states. In fact, the US indicated in its 2001 Nuclear Posture Review that it was developing contingency plans for the use of nuclear weapons against seven countries – two nuclear weapons states (Russia and China) and five non-nuclear weapons states (Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya and North Korea, which at the time was not thought to have nuclear weapons).

    US nuclear policy undermines the security of its people. The more the US relies on nuclear weapons, the more other countries will do so. Former United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan has stated: “The more that those states that already have [nuclear weapons] increase their arsenals, or insist that such weapons are essential to their national security, the more other states feel that they too must have them for their security.” Reliance on nuclear weapons will assure their proliferation.

    The more nuclear weapons in the world, the more likely they will end up in the hands of terrorist extremists incapable of being deterred. The longer nations rely on nuclear weapons for security, the more likely it is that they will be used, by accident or design.

    The US needs to work urgently for a treaty for the phased, verifiable, irreversible elimination of nuclear weapons under strict international control, just as we have already done with chemical and biological weapons. To do this requires political will, which has not been demonstrated by the current US administration. Continuing with existing US nuclear policies is a recipe for disaster. The Cold War ended more than15 years ago, and new problems now confront humanity. It is time for a drastic change in US nuclear policy – change that will require strong and effective leadership.

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

  • Imagine

    “Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.” — Albert Einstein

    “Reality leaves a lot to the imagination.” — John Lennon

    Imagine there are still 27,000 nuclear weapons in the world, over 15 years after the end of the Cold War.

    Imagine that 12,000 of these weapons are deployed, and that 3,500 of them are on hair-trigger alert, ready to be fired in a matter of moments.

    Imagine that the use of a single nuclear weapon could destroy a city, and the use of a small number could destroy civilization.

    Imagine the horror and devastation of Hiroshima, and multiply it by every city and country on earth.

    Imagine that a nuclear war could end human life on our planet, and that the capacity to initiate a nuclear war rests in the hands of only a small number of men.

    Imagine that nuclear weapons threaten the future of humanity and all life.

    Imagine that nuclear weapons challenge as never before our capacity to control violence and live peacefully.

    Imagine that we are not helpless in the face of this threat, and that we can rise to the challenge of ending the nuclear weapons era.

    Imagine that together we can make a difference and that you are needed to create a nuclear weapons free world.

    Imagine a world without the threat of nuclear devastation, a world that you helped to create.

  • Engineers and Scientists for Global Responsibility

    Engineers and Scientists for Global Responsibility

    I have just returned from Berlin and the annual Council meeting of the International Network of Engineers and Scientists for Global Responsibility (INES). This is an organization much needed in our world, one that supports the ethical uses of science and technology for disarmament and sustainable development. The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation has helped to foster the work of this international organization since the inception of INES more than 15 years ago.

    The meeting included an important presentation by Professor Guillermo Lemarchand from the University of Buenos Aires in Argentina on the extent to which scientific efforts are driven by large military research and development budgets. Lemarchand presented information on the close relationship between research and development funding and the exponential growth of the lethality of weaponry. During the 20th century the lethality (maximum number of casualties per hour that a weapon can generate) grew from about 100 at the beginning of the century to about six billion at the end of the century. The lethality growth of weapons in the 20th century was 60 million, and now encompasses the population of the planet.

    Scientists may not be concerned with or even know the reasons why their basic research is being funded by military sources. The driving of academic research and development by military budgets is becoming pervasive at universities throughout the world, leading to the variant of the famous statement in President Eisenhower’s Farewell Address that some now find appropriate – the military-industrial-academic complex.

    The University of California is an excellent example of a university providing research and development for military purposes. It provides management and oversight to the US nuclear weapons laboratories. Its funds for doing this come through the US Department of Energy, but the work of the nuclear weapons laboratories is largely secret and military in nature. Currently the labs are working on the Reliable Replacement Warhead, a new hydrogen bomb that the Bush administration hopes will replace every nuclear weapon in the US arsenal.

    The management of the nuclear weapons laboratories by the University of California is just the tip of the iceberg of military involvement with universities around the world. According to the report by Professor Lemarchand, a physicist, the US military assigns officers to practically all areas of the world to seek out scientific researchers who may be helpful in furthering US military purposes. Too often military funding is the only source of funding available for academic researchers.

    This can create a dilemma for professors, who are often under pressure to bring in research funding. On the one hand, they can accept funding from the military, and find themselves contributing toward new means of weaponization – an outcome they may find unethical. On the other hand, they can turn down offers of funding from the military and not be able to continue their research into basic areas of science that they find important.

    There are many issues that confront scientists and engineers in today’s world. These include weapons of mass destruction, genetic engineering, biotechnology, global warming and climate change, food supplies and agricultural production, energy use and alternative energy development, and pollution and health issues. How does one approach such issues from the perspective of global responsibility?

    First, global responsibility means working for the betterment of humanity. Practically this means using one’s talents and skills for constructive rather than destructive purposes. Second, it means speaking out, individually or collectively, against dangerous and destructive uses of science and technology. Third, it means putting the welfare of humanity as a whole ahead of the considerations of any one nation.

    The Council members of the International Network of Engineers and Scientists for Global Responsibility are a dedicated group that is making its voice heard on the ethical uses of science and technology. If you would like to find out more about their work and become involved in it, visit them online at www.inesglobal.com.

    David Krieger is the President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org), and a leader in the global effort to abolish nuclear weapons.

  • Duck and Cover

    Children, this is the way you will be saved from a nuclear attack. At the sound of the bell you will scramble as fast as you can under your desk and into a kneeling position facing downward toward the floor with your head resting on your arms. You will keep your eyes squeezed tightly closed, not opening them or looking up until you hear me say “All clear.”This is the way you will be saved from shards of glass and other objects traveling at speeds of hundreds of miles per hour. And from the flash of white light that could melt your eyeballs. And from the explosion that could scramble your brains and the rest of your organs. And this is the way you will be saved from the fire that may incinerate you, leaving you all shriveled, charred and lifeless. This is not what we want for our children.

    And this is the way you will be saved from the radiation that will cause your gums to bleed, your hair to fall out, leukemia to form in your blood, and lead to either a slow and painful death or to a more rapid and painful death. Pay close attention to the directions so that you will get it right the first time.

    David Krieger is President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org). Please send comments to him at “dkrieger@napf.org”.

  • Responsibility in an Era of Consequences

    Responsibility in an Era of Consequences

    The inaugural meeting of the World Future Council was recently held in Hamburg, Germany. It brought together 50 Councilors from all continents, chosen for their diversity and pioneering commitment to building a better world. At the conclusion of the four-day meeting, the Council released the Hamburg Call to Action, a document calling for action to protect the future of all life. It began, “Today we stand at the crossroads of human history. Our actions – and our failures to act – will decide the future of life on earth for thousands of years, if not forever.”

    The Call to Action is a challenge to each of us to take responsibility for assuring a positive future for humanity and for preserving life on our planet. The document states: “Today there is no alternative to an ethics of global responsibility for we are entering an era of consequences. We must share, co-operate and innovate together in building a world worthy of our highest aspirations. The decision lies with each one of us!”

    We are challenged to consider what we are individually and collectively doing not only to radically undermine our present world through war and its preparation, resource depletion, pollution and global warming, but also the effects of what we are doing upon future generations. Those of us alive now have the responsibility to pass the world on intact to the next generation, and to assure that our actions do not foreclose the future.

    The Hamburg Call to Action is a great document and I urge you to read and reflect upon it. But I draw your attention specifically to the section on nuclear weapons: “Nuclear weapons remain humanity’s most immediate catastrophic threat. These weapons would destroy cities, countries, civilization and possibly humanity itself. The danger posed by nuclear weapons in any hands must be confronted directly and urgently through a new initiative for the elimination of these instruments of annihilation.”

    With this in mind, we should unite in demanding the abolition of these weapons – eliminating the weapons before they eliminate us. There is much to be done in this regard, most important being the negotiation of a new treaty for the phased, verifiable and irreversible elimination of all nuclear arsenals, as required by the 1970 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. While these negotiations are in progress, there is much to be done to lower the level of reliance on nuclear weapons and to safeguard nuclear materials, including taking deployed nuclear weapons off high-alert status, ceasing all nuclear weapons tests and ratifying the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and implementing strategies to bring all weapons-grade fissionable materials and the technologies to create them under strict international control.

    We must also withdraw our support from any programs that seek to maintain nuclear arsenals into the future. A prime example is the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) program now being developed at the US nuclear weapons laboratories. This is but one example of a dangerous weapons program unworthy of our humanity. Rather than continuing the nuclear arms race, largely with itself, while ignoring its obligations under international law for nuclear disarmament, the United States must take a leadership role in ending the nuclear weapons threat to humanity. This is only likely to happen if US citizens demand such action from their government.

    At the University of California, students are challenging the University’s management and supposed oversight of the US nuclear weapons laboratories. They are saying, in effect, “Enough is enough. It is time for the University to stop providing a fig leaf of respectability to nuclear weapons laboratories engaged in a dangerous continuation of the nuclear threat to humanity.” The students are a voice from the future that is with us today. It is their future, and they are demanding nuclear sanity. They deserve our support as they speak out and confront the University of California Regents, political appointees who seem content to promote any nuclear weapons program proposed by the nuclear labs.

    The Hamburg Call to Action challenges each of us to change our way of thinking, and to engage in meaningful actions to assure the future. The time for global sanity has arrived – none too soon.

    David Krieger is President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org) and a Councilor of the World Future Council (www.worldfuturecouncil.org). Please send comments to him at “dkrieger@napf.org”.

  • The Creation of a Student Oversight Committee for the US Nuclear Weapons Laboratories

    For more than five years the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, through its Youth Empowerment Initiative, has conducted a UC Nuclear Free Campaign. The purpose of the campaign is to educate and inform students at the University of California that their University has provided management and oversight to United States nuclear weapons laboratories since the beginning of the Nuclear Age, and that every weapon in the United States nuclear arsenal has been designed and developed under the auspices of the University of California. The Foundation has worked to motivate the students to examine the relationship between their University and the most devastating weapons of mass destruction ever created. We have encouraged the students to speak out for severance of the University’s relationship with the nuclear weapons laboratories.

    Over the years that we have engaged with the UC students, we have found that many students do not even know that their University provides management and oversight to the nuclear weapons laboratories. Often, when students learn of the relationship, they are surprised that their University would use its prestige to provide legitimacy to the design and development of weapons capable of destroying cities, countries and civilization. Such a relationship seems incompatible with the University’s mission of education, teaching and public service.

    Recently, a group of students at the University of California at Santa Barbara (UCSB) came up with the idea that there should be a Student Oversight Committee for the nuclear weapons laboratories. They wrote up a bill to create such a committee and presented it to the Legislative Council of the UCSB Associated Students. On April 18, 2007, the bill was heard for the first time. A number of students spoke in favor of it. I was present at the meeting and had a chance to speak to the Council and add my support for the bill. Many of the students present had been to past meetings of the UC Regents, and could report first-hand that the Regents do not seem to take seriously student input in relation to the management and oversight of the nuclear weapons laboratories.

    At the initial vote of the Legislative Council, there was a majority in favor of establishing the Student Oversight Committee, but not the two-thirds majority needed for it to pass. The students supporting the bill were disappointed but undaunted. They came back the next week in larger numbers and made their case even more powerfully. Will Parrish, the Foundation’s Youth Empowerment Initiative Director, spoke to the Council about the history of devastation caused by the US nuclear weapons program. He emphasized the effects of the 67 US tests in the Marshall Islands. The radiation released there was equivalent to the detonation of one Hiroshima bomb daily for 12 years, and continues to cause untold suffering to the islanders.

    At the April 25, 2007 meeting of the Legislative Council, the students supporting the bill brought Shigeko Sasamori, a survivor of the Hiroshima bombing, to address the Council. Ms. Sasamori told her story, and emphasized that she was speaking out so that her fate and that of her city would never be visited on other people and their cities in the future. A fourth year student, Cricket Clarke, brought Japanese paper cranes, a symbol of peace, and shared the story of Sadako, a young girl in Hiroshima who had died from leukemia caused by radiation from the atomic bomb dropped on her city. In the end, the Council voted unanimously to create the Student Oversight Committee.

    Now the students will seek to provide their own oversight of the nuclear weapons laboratories, and report to their fellow students on their findings. Under the authority of the UCSB Legislative Council, they will investigate what goes on in the laboratories and examine the ethical issues involved in the design, development, testing, manufacture, deployment and use of new nuclear weapons. Thus, the students will amplify their voices regarding what their University supports. They will be able to make recommendations on the appropriateness of supporting the nuclear weapons laboratories. If the Student Oversight Committee takes its responsibility seriously, which it certainly seems poised to do, it will be in a position to challenge the authority and complacency of the UC Regents on the oversight of these laboratories that are so central to the US nuclear weapons program.

    The Student Oversight Committee will also be in a position to speak nationally on the issue of nuclear dangers. It can be a voice for youth in the much needed debate on the future of US nuclear policy. The current generation of college students is on a collision course with potential nuclear catastrophe. Sane nuclear policies, led by the United States, could dramatically reduce the risks of future nuclear devastation. As the bill creating the Student Oversight Committee pointed out, “as a signatory of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the United States is required ‘to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to the cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament….’”

    The creation of the Student Oversight Committee is a breakthrough moment. The students are making it known to University authorities and to national authorities that they want a voice in shaping their future. Surely, they are entitled to that. Other UC campuses are taking steps to establish their own Student Oversight Committees. Student leadership in providing oversight to the nation’s nuclear weapons laboratories may help to awaken the nation to the dangers of current US nuclear policies and projects that threaten our common future.

     

    David Krieger is President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org), and a leader in the global effort to abolish nuclear weapons.

  • Ten-Point Nuclear Policy Platform For US Presidential & Congressional Candidates

    Ten-Point Nuclear Policy Platform For US Presidential & Congressional Candidates

    In a January 4, 2007 Wall Street Journal opinion piece by George Shultz, William Perry, Henry Kissinger and Sam Nunn, the four former Cold Warriors argued, “Nuclear weapons today present tremendous dangers, but also an historic opportunity. US leadership will be required to take the world to the next stage – to a solid consensus for reversing reliance on nuclear weapons globally as a vital contribution to preventing their proliferation into potentially dangerous hands, and ultimately ending them as a threat to the world.”

    Our continued reliance on nuclear weapons only incites non-nuclear countries to acquire or develop nuclear weapons of their own. These include states willing to sell their technology and know-how to terrorist organizations who make no pretense of stockpiling nuclear weapons for deterrence, and in turn cannot be deterred from using the weapons. Therefore, initiating negotiations to ensure the phased, verifiable and irreversible elimination of nuclear arsenals under strict international control is of the utmost urgency. Such negotiations, in fact, are mandated by Article VI of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and by the 1996 International Court of Justice Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Threat of Use of Nuclear Weapons. The latter states, “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.”

    In accord with assuring its own security from nuclear attack, as well as setting an example for other nations with a principled legal and moral position, the United States should then commit to leading the world away from the nuclear precipice. A number of current US nuclear policies are in need of either renewed commitment or a new direction.

    1. The US and Russia, between them, currently maintain some 3,500 nuclear weapons on high alert status. Thus, we’re in constant danger of an unintended missile launch.
    Policy recommendation: Negotiate with Russia to remove all nuclear weapons from high alert status and create additional safeguards to prevent an accident which would lead to nuclear war.
    2. The US currently maintains the option of not only using nuclear weapons first, but against non-nuclear weapons states. This is an open invitation to nuclear proliferation.
    Policy recommendation: The US should make a commitment that legally binds it from first use of nuclear weapons under any circumstances, assuring that we retain them only for deterrence. Further, the US should sign an agreement that under no conditions would it nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapons states.

    3. The US is planning to replace every nuclear weapon in its arsenal under the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) program. While ostensibly intended to increase nuclear security, the RRW program is actually costly, dangerous and unnecessary. By sending the message that the US plans to continue to base its security on nuclear weapons indefinitely, it serves only to encourage nuclear proliferation.

    Policy recommendation: Eliminate funding for and cancel the Reliable Replacement Warhead program.

    4. Contributions on the part of the US to prevent the theft of nuclear weapons and weapons-grade materials in the former USSR and other countries around the world have been far from adequate.

    Policy recommendation: Increase US funding for: programs that secure all nuclear weapons and weapons-grade fissile materials in Russia and other countries; the Global Threat Reduction Initiative and other programs for preventing nuclear proliferation; security upgrades, including anti-theft technology, for all countries in possession of nuclear weapons or weapons-grade nuclear materials. Funds freed up by canceling the RRW program might be allotted to these ends.

    5. The US has not yet ratified the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). The US was the first country to sign the CTBT in 1996, but failed to ratify it, even though 138 other states have, when it came before the Senate in 1999. Nor has the Bush administration seen fit to resubmit the treaty for ratification since.

    Policy recommendation: Submit the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty to the Senate for ratification again, and encourage the other nuclear-capable states that have not signed or ratified it to do so. Further, the US should close the Nevada Test Site.

    6. Some countries, including the US, are continuing sub-critical nuclear tests, which stop short of producing a nuclear chain-reaction explosion. Continued nuclear testing, even in the form of computer simulations, sends a message to the world that nuclear testing is necessary and encourages other countries to follow suit.

    Policy recommendation: Cease testing of nuclear weapons by any means and urge other nations to emulate us.

    7. The US currently maintains some 480 nuclear weapons in Europe and hundreds more on submarines in the oceans.

    Policy recommendation: Repatriate all US nuclear weapons from foreign soil, and negotiate with the other nuclear weapons states for the removal of all nuclear weapons from ocean-going vessels. It’s imperative that the seas retain their status as the common heritage of humankind.

    8. The US military currently espouses a policy of “full spectrum dominance” over not only land, air, and sea, but outer space.

    Policy recommendation: The US should join other countries, including Russia and China, in negotiating a treaty to keep outer space beyond the limits of earthly hostilities.

    9. The US is proceeding with a plan called the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP), which provides for reprocessing nuclear waste to render its plutonium usable in nuclear power plants. Though advertised as proliferation-resistant, GNEP only increases the odds of plutonium falling into the hands of criminals and terrorist organizations.

    Policy recommendation: Eliminate funding for the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership program, prohibit the reprocessing of nuclear wastes, and house waste from nuclear power plants where it’s generated in hardened on-site storage facilities. Require a low-density, open-frame layout for spent fuel pools, and provide protection for these pools. Mandate periodic review of these facilities.

    10. Most significantly, the US has shown virtually no leadership in fulfilling its obligation under the Non-Proliferation Treaty to pursue nuclear disarmament in all its aspects.

    Policy recommendation: Pursue negotiations without further delay on a Nuclear Weapons Convention for the phased, verifiable, transparent and irreversible elimination of all nuclear weapons globally, as required by Article VI of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. We call upon candidates seeking the presidency of the United States and current representatives and candidates seeking seats in the Congress to adopt the recommendations of this ten-point platform designed to assure compliance with US obligations under international law. Thus will a commitment be demonstrated to US leadership in ending the nuclear weapons threat that hangs over humanity.

    We call upon candidates seeking the presidency of the United States and current representatives and candidates seeking seats in the Congress to adopt the recommendations of this ten-point platform designed to assure compliance with US obligations under international law. Thus will a commitment be demonstrated to US leadership in ending the nuclear weapons threat that hangs over humanity.

    David Krieger is President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org). Please send comments to him at dkrieger@napf.org.

  • Mourning the Tragic Death of Nagasaki Mayor Iccho Itoh

    Mourning the Tragic Death of Nagasaki Mayor Iccho Itoh

    The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation mourns the death of Nagasaki Mayor Iccho Itoh, whose life was cut short by an assassin’s bullet. With this tragedy, the world has lost a great peace leader. As the three-term mayor of the last city to suffer atomic devastation, he became a leading spokesperson for a world free of nuclear weapons.

    Mayor Itoh was the vice president of Mayors for Peace and a leader of their global campaign to eliminate nuclear weapons by the year 2020. The Foundation honored Mayors for Peace and the leadership of Mayor Itoh and Hiroshima Mayor Tadatoshi Akiba with our 2004 World Citizenship Award.

    Mayor Itoh played a significant role in the three Nagasaki Global Citizens’ Assemblies held while he was mayor. The most recent of these took place in fall 2006. In his Opening Address to this Assembly, he underscored his deep commitment, and that of the people of his city, that Nagasaki “must be the last place where an atomic bomb is dropped….” He made this a major goal of his life.

    Along with many of my colleagues working for the abolition of nuclear weapons, I had the pleasure and honor of knowing Mayor Itoh. He was a man with an easy smile and open manner, but one with a firm dedication to building a lasting peace. In Nagasaki, he was a gracious host to so many of us who participated in the Nagasaki Citizens’ Assemblies.

    In tribute to Mayor Itoh, we have included a link below to a reprint of the Nagasaki Peace Declaration, which he delivered on August 9, 2006. I urge you to read it as the final testament and call to action by a great man. Let its words sink into your heart, particularly these words: “The time has come for those nations that rely on the force of nuclear armaments to respectfully heed the voices of peace-loving people, not least the atomic bomb survivors, to strive in good faith for nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation, and to advance towards the complete abolishment of all such weapons.” To achieve this goal will require an active citizenry. Citizens of the nuclear weapons states, and particularly the United States, will have to lead their political leaders.

    In closing his speech, he prayed for the undisturbed repose of those who lost their lives in the atomic bombings and proclaimed Nagasaki’s commitment “to continue to strive for the establishment of lasting world peace.” In honoring Mayor Itoh’s life and commitment to a world free of nuclear weapons, let us add our own commitment to this cause so critical to humanity’s future.

    David Krieger is President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org), and a leader in the global effort to abolish nuclear weapons.

  • Nuclear Weapons Dialogue Socrates and the President

    Nuclear Weapons Dialogue Socrates and the President

    On a pleasant spring day, Socrates ran into the President while on a stroll through Washington. After exchanging greetings, the following dialogue ensued.

    Socrates: What are nuclear weapons?

    President: They are the most destructive weapons ever invented by man. They are considered a great technological achievement.

    Socrates: What do you use them for?

    President: We use them to protect ourselves.

    Socrates: How do they protect you?

    President: We threaten to use them against anyone who would attack us.

    Socrates: And does that keep others from attacking you?

    President: I’ve always thought so.

    Socrates: How can you know that it was the nuclear weapons that kept someone from attacking you? Perhaps they wouldn’t have attacked you anyway?

    President: You have a point, but we think nuclear weapons make us safer.

    Socrates: How do they make you safer?

    President: We can destroy any country that might attack us.

    Socrates: Are there countries that might attack you?

    President: Of course, it’s a dangerous world.

    Socrates: Would you say that other countries can be divided into two groups, those that are friends and those that are enemies?

    President: Yes.

    Socrates: I suppose that you wouldn’t expect to be attacked by a friendly country, and thus wouldn’t need nuclear weapons to threaten your friends?

    President: That’s true.

    Socrates: So, it would only be your enemies that you would need to threaten with nuclear weapons?

    President: Yes.

    Socrates: Which enemies are you threatening now with nuclear weapons?

    President: Well, there’s North Korea.

    Socrates: But hasn’t North Korea offered to give up its nuclear weapons in exchange for security assurances and development assistance?

    President: Yes, it has.

    Socrates: Are there other enemies?

    President: There is Iran.

    Socrates: Does Iran have nuclear weapons?

    President: No, but they have the capacity to perhaps develop nuclear weapons in the future.

    Socrates: Shouldn’t you then negotiate with them now to prevent them from developing nuclear weapons?

    President: That would make sense, but they are hard to negotiate with.

    Socrates: Since these weapons are so dangerous, wouldn’t it be worth the effort?

    President: I suppose.

    Socrates: Isn’t it true that if some countries have nuclear weapons, other countries will desire them?

    President: Yes.

    Socrates: Isn’t it true that in the Non-Proliferation Treaty, nearly all countries in the world agreed to not develop or acquire nuclear weapons, and in exchange the countries with nuclear weapons agreed to negotiate in good faith to give them up?

    President: Yes, but the countries with nuclear weapons only said that to get the non-nuclear weapons states to join the treaty.

    Socrates: So the nuclear weapons states had no intention of fulfilling their part of the bargain?

    President: It would be irresponsible of us to give up our nuclear weapons.

    Socrates: But don’t you agree that your nuclear weapons are an incentive to other countries to develop their own nuclear weapons?

    President: That makes sense.

    Socrates: Will the world be safer if more countries develop nuclear weapons?

    President: No, it will be more dangerous.

    Socrates: Then shouldn’t the countries with nuclear weapons fulfill their obligation to negotiate the elimination of nuclear weapons?

    President: But a terrorist might develop nuclear weapons, and we need to protect ourselves against terrorism.

    Socrates: Did your nuclear weapons protect you against the terrorist attack on 9/11?

    President: No.

    Socrates: Could your nuclear weapons have protected you against a nuclear 9/11?

    President: No.

    Socrates: You still haven’t located Osama bin Laden. If terrorists attacked you with nuclear weapons, who would you retaliate against?

    President: I don’t know.

    Socrates: Wouldn’t it be less likely for terrorists to obtain a nuclear weapon if there were far less of them in the world?

    President: Yes.

    Socrates: Isn’t this a reason for nuclear disarmament?

    President: Yes. But we would need other countries to join us in nuclear disarmament.

    Socrates: How would it be possible to have other countries join you in nuclear disarmament?

    President: Someone would have to take a leadership role in convening negotiations.

    Socrates: Would it be reasonable for the most powerful country in the world to take such a leadership role?

    President: Yes, I suppose it would.

    Socrates: Wouldn’t the most powerful country in the world have everything to gain from such leadership?

    President: Yes. It could fulfill its obligations under international law, while taking the moral high ground. It could also dramatically reduce the risks of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists.

    Socrates: What are you waiting for?

    President: I must hurry back to my office. I’m eager to share these thoughts with members of Congress, and to get the negotiations started right away. Thank you, Socrates. How fortunate it was to meet you today.

    David Krieger, who unearthed this dialogue, is President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org). He is a big fan of Socrates and an advocate of serious nuclear disarmament.