Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Author: David Krieger

Spencer Abraham, Poster Boy for Yucca Mountain

In a recent opinion piece in the Washington Post (March 26, 2002), Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham argues for moving radioactive wastes from throughout the country to Yucca Mountain in Nevada, something the people of Nevada are fighting tooth and nail. So confident is the Energy Secretary that he promises: “Someone living 11 miles away from the site 10,000 years from now would be less exposed to radiation than he would be on a normal plane flight from Las Vegas to New York.” Of course, neither Secretary Abraham nor any of proponents of this storage site will be around 10,000 years from now to see if their prediction is correct. They just ask for our trust on behalf of the next 400 generations of humans on this planet.

Secretary Abraham also appeals to our sense of patriotism when he argues that the “project is critical for national security.” Why? Because we’re going to have to get rid of the spent fuel from nuclear powered aircraft carriers and submarines if we’re going to keep using them. And that’s not all. Burying the wastes in Nevada is also critical to our “energy security” because nuclear power “emits no airborne pollution or greenhouse gasses and now gives us one of the cheapest forms of power generation we have.” First of all, hasn’t this administration been telling us that greenhouse gasses are not something to be worried about and we should just forget the Kyoto Accords that the rest of the world supports? Second, this cheap form of power is actually highly subsidized by the taxpayers in the form of the research and development, liability limits set by Congress, and perpetual taxpayer care of the wastes.

Mr. Abraham leaves out of his discussion the 50 million Americans who will be subject to the effects of nuclear accidents when these large amounts of nuclear wastes start hitting our highways and railways. One study predicted that property damage alone could be over $9 billion per square mile when radiation is released after a truck or train accident carrying these high-level nuclear wastes. A far better solution to the nuclear waste problem is to convert it into dry cask storage and keep it on site at nuclear power plants until a solution can be found that won’t place large numbers of Americans at risk of exposure to high-level nuclear wastes.

Mr. Abraham says the science is sound, but this includes reports of seismic activities in the region. There are also more than 250 scientific studies that remain to be completed. The critics of the proposed Yucca Mountain repository do not oppose single site storage as Abraham suggests. Rather, they oppose a premature and irreversible decision that will affect future generations for thousands of years.

Secretary Abraham was right about one thing. Nuclear wastes are a problem that won’t just go away and “it’s our responsibility to solve it.” We might have thought more about that responsibility before we began our mad effort to build nuclear bombs and power plants. Now, we had better think about future generations before we follow the advice of Mr. Abraham and commit ourselves to a “solution” that may be not only wrong but irreversible.

If nuclear waste storage is as safe as Mr. Abraham believes it is, it is strange that no one, including him, has suggested burying it under the Congress, the White House, or the Energy Department.
*David Krieger is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

March 1, 2002
Interview with David Krieger: Japan, U.S. must work together on nuke threat

The Asahi Shimbun, February 2002

David Krieger, president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, a California-based organization which has initiated many global grass-root projects for abolishing nuclear weapons, says not everybody in the United States supports the military retaliation for the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

In a recent interview with Asahi Shimbun reporter Masato Tainaka, Krieger voiced the hope that Japan, as a true friend, would “not to let the United States drive drunk.” He said U.S. policy could result in nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists in an increasing cycle of violence. Excerpts follow:

Q: How do you view the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks?

A: The attacks taught us that even the most powerful nation in the world is vulnerable to terrorists. The strongest military in the world with its bloated nuclear arsenal could not protect against a small band of terrorists, propelled by hatred and committed to violence. Military force is largely impotent against those who hate and are willing to die in acts of violence. Current nuclear weapons policies of the nuclear weapons states make it likely that terrorists will be able to buy, steal or make nuclear weapons.

Q: How do you evaluate Japanese contribution by dispatching the Self-Defense Forces to assist the U.S. military campaign in Afghanistan?

A: I think it’s dangerous because it’s maybe changing the line of Article 9 of the Constitution. It’s creating a precedent for Japan to go further in joining a military effort. A question I would ask, “Is Japan’s participation really self-defense?” Japan must maintain Article 9 of its Constitution. This article, which prohibits “aggressive war,” makes Japan unique among nations and gives Japan special responsibility for furthering the cause of peace. There has been some talk of trying to amend or remove this article from the Japanese Constitution. This would be a grave mistake.

Q: What do you think about the U.S.-Japan relationship?

A: I think Japan should be a true friend of the United States. This means that Japan must be willing to criticize the United States if it believes U.S. policies are misguided. True friends do not just go along with their friends. They tell them the truth. In the United States, we have a saying, “Friends don’t let friends drive drunk.” You can’t go along with everything that is contrary to your fundamental beliefs. Maybe in a sense, terrorism is a global problem that Japan should join in an attempt to eradicate terrorism. But I think Japan has to think independently. Every developed country is vulnerable to terrorism. The question is-is the problem of terrorism likely to be made better or worse by using military force? With regard to the terrorist attacks, we should be more legal and thoughtful in not taking innocent lives and in not increasing the circle of violence. There have been, as far as I can tell, quite a number of innocent people who have died as a result of the U.S. action in Afghanistan.

Q: How about the public opinion in the United States? Do they know many innocent Afghans have been killed by the U.S. bombings? Or do they think it was inevitable?

A: I think the United States has to take responsibility for its actions. And if we were killing innocent people, that falls into the category of terrorism as well. However, most Americans don’t seem to have a problem with it. The support rate with the war is at a really high level, around 80 percent.

Q: Am I right in thinking it must be difficult for you to find much of an audience for your views in the United States?

A: One of the biggest problems is that it’s very difficult for people who share my views to get a chance to speak on national media. On Sept. 20, just after the terrorist attacks, I was invited to speak on a TV program “CNN Hotline.” I spoke in opposition to using military force. I emphasized the points-more legal and thoughtful. While I was on the air, two hostile callers called in with somewhat hostile questions, saying, “so many Americans were killed and we need to use military force, why is he opposing it?” After that program, I received about 80 e-mails.

Q: Hate mail?

A: On the contrary, except for five or six, all the rest were from people saying, “That’s exactly what I’ve been thinking. But I haven’t heard anybody talking about it in the media.” There are a lot of Americans who are not represented on the national programs. But basically my frustration is how hard it is to change people’s minds. Now I am going to focus more on trying to reach people through the national media. But it is very difficult task.

Q: You mentioned a legal solution. But the United States has not agreed to set up an international criminal court. Instead the Bush administration intends to judge Osama bin Laden under U.S. military law, isn’t that right?

A: The United States not supporting an international criminal court is very unfortunate because the United States should be a leader in that effort. I don’t think people in large parts of the world will accept a military trial or even a civilian trial of Osama bin Laden in the United States as fair. I don’t believe myself that it would be possible for Osama bin Laden to get a fair trial in the United States. Therefore, the international community including the United States should set up a special tribunal for terrorists, similar to the tribunal for former Yugoslavia and Rwanda.

Q: Once the Afghan campaign ends, the Bush administration reportedly is considering military campaigns against terrorists in other countries. What do you think about that?

A: I don’t think there would be much support in the international community for attacking other countries. I have been surprised at how relatively easily the United States seems to be winning this Afghan war. I didn’t think the Taliban would collapse so quickly. But it’s one thing to destroy the Taliban, it’s another thing to end terrorism. I don’t think we know whether there has been any effective reduction of terrorist capabilities. We don’t know what they planned, we don’t know what their larger plans are. My feeling is that nuclear policies that we have now do make it quite possible terrorists will get nuclear weapons.

Q: As for nuclear weapons, the United States and Russia agreed in November to reduce their arsenals to between 2,200 and 1,700 warheads in the next 10 years. Was this a breakthrough for nuclear disarmament?

A: First of all, I think the agreement is more public relations than serious disarmament. It sounds to me like they still want to rely upon nuclear weapons. I don’t believe they are serious about their promises under the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty.

Under the treaty, nuclear weapon states have an obligation to sincerely negotiate for nuclear abolition. But the United States is not likely, particularly under the Bush administration, to show that leadership without some pressure from other countries. Japan should be the leader of those countries.

Q: What is needed for Japan to be a leader?

A: Again, “Friends don’t let friends drive drunk” is a critical idea. If Japan thinks the U.S. policy could result in nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists, it would be terribly irresponsible not to question U.S. policy. To prevent nuclear weapons from falling into the hands of terrorists, it is absolutely necessary to get the numbers down to numbers that can be controlled with certainty.

Q: How many?

A: The numbers may be 100 or 200 nuclear weapons. If a country really believes that nuclear weapons only have the purpose of deterrence, it certainly doesn’t need more than that for deterrence.

You need more than that if you have the idea of some potential offensive use of nuclear weapons. But right now with none of the major powers in conflict, we really could go down. Rather, the threat with nuclear weapons will come from terrorists. It was a crucial lesson from Sept. 11.

So we haven’t fully lost our opportunity to reduce nuclear arsenals down to 100 or 200 on the way to zero. Having experienced nuclear devastation first hand, Japan is well positioned to lead the world, including the United States, to achieve nuclear disarmament. Japan should be a leader for a nuclear weapons and terrorism-free world.
*David Krieger, 59, is a founder and a member of the Coordinating Committee of Abolition 2000, a global network of over 2000 organizations and municipalities committed to the elimination of nuclear weapons. The Ozaki Yukio Memorial Foundation in Tokyo recently honored him as a person who has devoted his life to creating world peace.

February 1, 2002
Elisabeth Mann Borgese: First Lady of the Oceans

Humanity and the oceans lost a great friend and champion when Elisabeth Mann Borgese died on February 8th. Elisabeth, the youngest daughter of Thomas Mann, was a true citizen of the world. She inspired me and many others with her vision of the oceans as the “common heritage of humankind” and her ceaseless efforts to make this vision a reality.

Elisabeth believed that, just as life had emerged from the oceans onto land, a new form of human and environmentally friendly world order could emerge from the oceans to the land. She saw that the borderless oceans required a new form of cooperative governance to protect and preserve the ocean’s precious resources for future generations. She believed fervently that finding a new non-territorial way to govern the oceans was necessary and would teach humankind important lessons for governing our shared planet.

I first heard Elisabeth speak of these ideas when I was a young assistant professor of international relations at San Francisco State University. I thought she had a vision that was worth fighting for. For me, she was like a pied piper. I immediately asked her if there was a way I could help her to achieve her goal. That led to working with Elisabeth for two years at the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions in Santa Barbara.

I learned from Elisabeth that the problems of our world were far more than academic — one should accept nothing less than changing a world so badly in need of change. Words were never enough; they must be translated into action.

Elisabeth held annual Pacem in Maribus (Peace in the Oceans) conferences, bringing together the best minds she could find from throughout the world to work on the multifaceted problems of creating a new law of the seas. In a book we edited together, The Tides of Change, based on one of these conferences held in Malta, Elisabeth wrote, “If the oceans are indeed man’s last frontier on this old earth of scarcity and competition to which we have reduced our common heritage, the law of the seas is the advance post on the long march toward a new world of science and technology, of abundance and cooperation which we have set out to achieve.”

Elisabeth also created the International Ocean Institute with branches throughout the world that trains individuals from developing countries to better use their ocean resources. She was a tireless campaigner for using the resources of the oceans to benefit those who needed it most rather than only those most technologically advanced.

After leaving the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions, Elisabeth moved to Halifax, Nova Scotia. I saw her only occasionally, but I noticed that her spirit never waivered and her commitment never waned. On the last few occasions that I saw her she had some difficulty walking and had physically slowed down, but she still traveled the world giving lectures and spreading her vision with the enthusiasm of a young girl.

Elisabeth was a great world citizen and a citizen of the future world that must be created if humanity is to survive. She was a treasure, and her life becomes part of the common heritage of humankind.
*David Krieger is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

February 1, 2002
Nuclear Terrorism and US Nuclear Policy

As bad as September 11th may have been, it could have been far worse. Had terrorists attacked with nuclear weapons, the death toll could have risen into the millions. It is likely that even one crude nuclear weapon would have left Manhattan utterly destroyed, and with it the financial and communications centers of the country. Were terrorists to obtain one or more nuclear weapons and use them on New York, Washington or other cities, the United States could cease to exist as a functioning country. The stakes are very high, and yet the US is creating new nuclear policies that increase the likelihood that terrorists will obtain nuclear weapons.

A bipartisan commission, headed by Howard Baker and Lloyd Cutler, concluded that the United States should be spending some $3 billion per year over the next ten years to help Russia control its nuclear weapons and weapon-grade nuclear materials. Rather than spend less than one percent of the current defense budget on dramatically curtailing the potential spread of nuclear weapons and materials to terrorists or unfriendly regimes, the Bush administration is trying to save money in this area. It is spending only one-third of the proposed amount to help Russia safeguard its nuclear weapons and materials and find alternative work for nuclear physicists a woefully inadequate amount if we are truly attempting to quell nuclear proliferation.

The administration’s frugality with regard to protecting potential “loose nukes” in Russia should be compared with its generosity for defense spending in general and for missile defenses in particular. The president has recently asked for another $48 billion for defense for fiscal 2003, following an increase of $33.5 billion this year. This year’s budget for ballistic missile defense is $8.3 billion. Since the likelihood of a terrorist using a missile to launch a nuclear attack against the United States or any other country is virtually zero, it would appear that the administration’s budget priorities are way out of line in terms of providing real security and protecting the US and other countries from the threat of nuclear terrorism.

The administration’s approach to nuclear disarmament with the Russians is to place warheads taken off active deployment onto the shelf so that they can later be reactivated should our current president or a future president decide to do so. While the Russians have made it clear that they would prefer to destroy the weapons and make nuclear disarmament irreversible, they will certainly follow the US lead in also shelving their deactivated warheads. This will, of course, create even greater security concerns in Russia and make it more likely that these weapons will find their way into terrorist hands.

So what is to be done? The United States must change its nuclear policies and make good on its promise to the other 186 parties to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to accomplish the total elimination of nuclear weapons in the world. This goal can only be achieved with US leadership, and it is a goal that is absolutely in the interests of the people of the United States. When the parties to the NPT meet again this April, the US is sure to come under heavy criticism for its notice of withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, its failure to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, its new strategy to make nuclear disarmament reversible, and its recent announcement that it is rescinding its security assurances to non-nuclear weapons states.

In the end, the country that faces the greatest threat from nuclear terrorism is the United States, and it is a threat that cannot be counteracted by missile defenses or threats of retaliation. Terrorists, who cannot be easily located and who may be suicidal anyway, will simply not be deterred by nuclear threat.

If the Bush administration truly wants to reduce the possibility of nuclear terrorism against US cities and abroad, it must reverse its current policy of systematically dismantling the arms control agreements established over the past four decades. It must instead become a leader in the global effort to urgently and dramatically reduce the level of nuclear weapons throughout the world and bring the remaining small arsenals of nuclear weapons and nuclear materials under effective international controls.
*David Krieger is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

February 1, 2002
On Becoming Human

To be human is to recognize the cultural perspectives that bind us to tribe, sect, religion, or nation, and to rise above them. It is to feel the pain of the dispossessed, the downtrodden, the refugee, the starving child, the slave, the victim.

To be human is to break the ties of cultural conformity and group-think, and to use one’s own mind. It is to recognize good and evil, and to choose good. It is to consider with the heart. It is to act with conscience.

To be human is to be courageous. It is to choose the path of compassion. It is to sacrifice for what is just. It is to break the silence. It is to be an unrelenting advocate of human decency and human dignity.

To be human is to breathe with the rhythm of life, and to recognize our kinship with all forms of life. It is to appreciate every drop of water. It is to feel the warmth of the sun, and to marvel at the beauty and expanse of the night sky. It is to stand in awe of who we are and where we live. It is to see the Earth with the eyes of an astronaut.

To be human is to be aware of our dependence upon the whole of the universe, and of the miracle that we are. It is to open our eyes to the simple and extraordinary beauty that is all about us. It is to live with deep respect for the sacred gift of life. It is to love.

To be human is to seek to find ourselves behind our names. It is to explore the depths and boundaries of our existence. It is to learn from those that have preceded us, and act with due concern for those who will follow us.

To be human is to plant the seeds of peace, and nurture them. It is to find peace and make peace. It is to help mend the web of life. It is to be a healer of the planet.

To be human is to say an unconditional No to warfare, and particularly to all weapons of mass destruction. It is to take a firm stand against all who profit from warfare and its preparation.

To be human is not always to succeed, but it is always to learn. It is to move forward despite the obstacles.

We are all born with the potential to become human. How we choose to live will be the measure of our humanness. Civilization does not assure our civility. Nor does being born into the human species assure our humanity. We must find our own path to becoming human.
-David Krieger

February 1, 2002
Overcoming Hardships in Working for Peace

When you work for peace or any other aspect of social change, there are often hardships to overcome. You must believe deeply that what you are doing is right, or else you may become discouraged and give up. I have found that there are no easy solutions to problems involving social change. When you commit yourself to creating a better world, you are most likely committing yourself to a lifetime of effort.

To succeed, you must be willing to persevere in your efforts and you must keep a positive, hopeful attitude. In this work, it is often unclear who you are reaching or whether change is occurring. Thus, you must trust that your work for a better world matters. Sometimes change is occurring under the surface as a result of many individual actions, and suddenly the results become clear as in the cases of the fall of the Berlin Wall, the break-up of the former Soviet Union and the end of apartheid in South Africa.

The most rewarding life is one in which there is a major element of serving others. Many people find a way to do this in their lives. Of course, there are many ways in which an individual can be of service to others. Some of the biggest problems at the global level, though, go largely unaddressed by most of us, and I think this is an area where young people can make important contributions.

We have many global problems, but we are lacking global institutions powerful enough to effectively address such problems as global terrorism, human rights abuses, global warming, the ozone layer, pollution of the oceans and rivers, arms trade, child soldiers, war, the weaponization of space, and nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction. Finding a way to participate in solving these and other global problems is one of the great challenges of our time.

Global problems require global solutions. They also require World Citizens who identify with and give their loyalty to humanity and the web of life. Patriotism takes on new dimensions and becomes Humatriotism, loyalty to humankind. To change the world requires a new kind of thinking and new loyalties that transcend the nation-state. These viewpoints may put one at odds with some segments of society, but if some individuals do not have the vision and the courage to venture beyond the borders of conformity then change will never occur.

When I resisted the Vietnam War and refused to fight in that war, it created a rift with my wife’s parents, who thought I was being unpatriotic. It was a difficult conflict within our family, but it was essential for my integrity to do what I believed was right. I believed that in matters of war, the highest guide must be one’s conscience. I followed my conscience and have never regretted it. I realized that the state did not have power over me to decide if I should participate in war. It was up to me to choose, although I had to be ready to pay the price. Years later, my wife’s parents and some of their friends, who had so strongly opposed what I had done, told me that they understood that what I did was right and they were wrong about US involvement in Vietnam.

The lesson that I learned from this was the importance of acting on principle rather than expediency, the importance of following my conscience and doing what I knew in my heart was right. There have been many other times in my life when I have faced hardships while working for peace. I’ve always taken solace in the understanding that I was doing what I believed in deeply. I have also been helped tremendously on my journey and in facing hardships by a loving a supporting wife.

If you can follow the path of conscience and embrace the world, you can help create a future built on human dignity for all. We all have a choice. I hope that you will choose conscience, and act with compassion, courage and commitment to create a better world.
*David Krieger is a founder of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, and has served as president of the Foundation since 1982.

February 1, 2002
Nuclear Weapons: What Is Our Responsibility?

1. Responsibility to recognize we have a responsibility. (Why is it that US citizens are for the most part so indifferent to this responsibility?)

2. Responsibility to understand the moral implications of complacency and silence. (Perhaps it would be easier to understand this responsibility if the question was: Gas Chambers: What is Our Responsibility? Mob Lynchings: What is Our Responsibility? Slavery: What is Our Responsibility? Global Hiroshima: What is Our Responsibility?) Martin Luther King, Jr. said, “A time comes when silence is betrayal.” We are past that time.

3. Responsibility to imagine the results of inaction. If terrorists destroyed just one city with one nuclear weapon, it would change our country and our world, perhaps irreparably. Current US policies make it likely that this will happen.

4. Responsibility to care enough to act to preserve and protect humanity, future generations and life itself.

5. Responsibility to take risks on behalf of humanity.

6. Responsibility to learn and to educate. (A good starting point for this is the Foundation’s www.wagingpeace.org web site.)

7. Responsibility to say No, to protest and to demand an end to the nuclear threat.

8. Responsibility to organize and lead.

9. Responsibility to persevere.

10. Responsibility to succeed.
*David Krieger is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

February 1, 2002
Shaping the Future

What kind of future do you want? The vision of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation is a world at peace, free of the threat of war and free of weapons of mass destruction. It is worth contemplating this vision. Is it a vision worth striving for? Is it an impossible dream or is it something that can be achieved?

Since no one can predict the future with certainty, those who say this vision is an impossible dream are helping to determine our reality and the future of our children and grandchildren. None of the pundits or intelligence agencies could foresee the fall of the Berlin Wall, the break-up of the Soviet Union, or the end of apartheid in South Africa. It was people who believed the future could be something more and better than the present that brought about these remarkable changes.

One thing is certain. The future will be shaped by what we do today. If we do nothing, we leave it to others to shape the future. If we continue to do what we have done in the past, the future is likely to resemble the past. When Nelson Mandela became president of South Africa, which itself was something impossible to predict, he had to make a decision on how the crimes of the apartheid period would be handled. Rather than harsh retribution, he chose amnesty for all who came before a Truth and Reconciliation Commission and admitted to their crimes. This choice helped shaped a new future for South Africa and perhaps for the world.

If we are to shape a new future for a safer and saner world we need to have bold visions of what that world could be. We need to dream great dreams, but we need to do more than this. We need to act to make our dreams a reality, even if those acts appear to be facing enormous obstacles.

It is hard to imagine an abuse of power that has ended of its own accord. Abuses end because people stand up to them and say No. The world changes because people can imagine a better way to treat the earth and each other and say YES to change.

If we want a world without war, we need to be serious about finding alternative means to resolve disputes non-violently and to provide justice and uphold dignity for all people. This requires an institutional framework at the global level: a stronger United Nations, an effective International Court of Justice, and a new International Criminal Court to hold all leaders accountable for crimes under international law.

If we do not begin to redistribute resources so that everyone’s basic needs can be met, the richer parts of the world will face a future of hostility and terrorism. The only way to prevent such a future is by turning tomorrow’s enemies into today’s friends. Creating a better future requires acting now for a more equitable present.

The future of life on the planet is endangered by weapons of mass destruction, particularly nuclear weapons. We are committed to eliminating these weapons, but we won’t succeed unless we are joined in this effort by far more people. That’s where you come in. Be a force for a future free of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction by being a force for change.

One of our supporters, Tony Ke, a high-powered Canadian web designer, recently created a new web site called End of Existence (www.endofexistence.org). I encourage you to visit it for an exciting new look at why we must abolish nuclear weapons before they abolish us. I also encourage you to join some of the world’s great leaders in signing our Appeal to End the Nuclear Weapons Threat to Humanity athttps://wagingpeace.davidmolinaojeda.com/secure/signtheappeal.asp

Let’s not let the future be shaped by our complacency and inaction. We have the power, the privilege and the responsibility to shape a better world, a world free of war and free of weapons of mass destruction. The Foundation works each day to achieve this vision. You can find out more about what we are doing and how you can play a part by exploring our web site:https://wagingpeace.davidmolinaojeda.com. We invite you to be part of the solution.

February 1, 2002
Why Fight for a World Free of Nuclear Weapons?

There are many reasons to fight for a world free of nuclear weapons. Here are some of the most important.

Nuclear weapons are not really weapons at all, but instruments of mass annihilation, of genocide, and possibly even of omnicide, the destruction of all.

They are city destroying weapons that target the innocent, killing and maiming indiscriminately. Their threat and use is immoral by any moral standard, and illegal under any reasonable interpretation of international law.

These weapons place the human future and most of life in jeopardy.

Nuclear weapons are inhumane and undermine our humanity by their very existence.

To threaten or use these weapons is a cowardly act, unbefitting of a brave and decent people.

Nuclear weapons are profoundly undemocratic, concentrating the power to destroy in the hands of the few.

These weapons divide the world into nuclear haves and have-nots, creating a world of nuclear apartheid.

The current policies of the nuclear weapons states will result in nuclear weapons or weapons-grade materials falling into the hands of terrorists and criminals, and the countries likely to suffer the greatest damage as a result are the nuclear weapons states themselves.

The possession of nuclear weapons by any nation is an impetus to other nations to develop their own nuclear arsenals and thus multiplies the danger.

If we do not succeed we may not be able to pass the world on intact to the next generation.

Ending the nuclear weapons threat to humanity and other forms of life is the greatest challenge of our time. It wouldn’t be so difficult if the governments of the nuclear weapons states accepted their share of responsibility and took leadership of the effort. Since these governments have failed to do so, it is left to the people of the world to take responsibility and fight for a world free of nuclear weapons. It is a fight for a human and humane future.
*David Krieger is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

February 1, 2002
The US Nuclear Posture Review: Putting the Promise of Disarmament on the Shelf

The Bush administration has conducted the first Nuclear Posture Review since 1994, and has released a classified version of the report to Congress. The report, which has not been made public, provides an updated strategic nuclear plan for the United States. It helps to clarify Bush’s promise to President Putin to reduce the deployed US strategic nuclear arsenal by two-thirds to between 2,200 and 1,700 over a ten-year period.

The Bush nuclear posture stands on three legs. First, deactivated nuclear weapons will be kept in storage rather than destroyed. Second, the nuclear weapons that are deactivated will be replaced by powerful and accurate conventional weapons. Third, missile defenses will be deployed ostensibly to protect the US from attack by a rogue state or terrorist.

Despite the planned reductions in the nuclear arsenal, the Bush administration intends to retain a flexible responsive capability by putting a portion (perhaps most) of the deactivated warheads into storage, making them available for future use. The problem with this approach is that it will encourage the Russians to follow the same path and to also keep deactivated nuclear warheads in storage. This means that the promised disarmament will not be disarmament at all. It will not lead to the destruction of the nuclear warheads, nor will it be irreversible, as called for by the parties to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. It will be subject to reversal at any time for any reason, by the Russians as well as the US.

In essence, the Bush administration is hedging its bets, and simply putting nuclear weapons on the inactive reserve list, ready to be activated should they decide circumstances warrant doing so. It is sending a message to the Russians that we do not trust them and that we do not intend to any longer follow the path of irreversible reductions in the nuclear arsenals of the two countries set forth in verifiable treaties. The Russians will likely follow our lead and also put deactivated nuclear weapons into reserve stocks, where they will be subject to diversion by terrorists. This would be highly unfortunate since the Russians would prefer to make the nuclear reductions permanent and irreversible.

The new nuclear posture also calls for cutting down the time necessary to reinstate a full-scale US nuclear testing program should the administration decide to do so. This also fits the pattern of flexible response. According to Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, “Recognizing that the world can change in dangerous and unpredictable ways, we are putting more emphasis than we have in the last 10 or 15 years on that underlying infrastructure that allows you, including in the nuclear area, to rebuild capabilities or build new ones if the world changes.”

A second factor driving the Bush administration’s nuclear posture is its belief that conventional weapons now have the capability to replace nuclear weapons in deterring an enemy from attacking. Again, according to Mr. Wolfowitz, “We’re looking at a transformation of our deterrence posture from an almost exclusive emphasis on offensive nuclear forces to a force that includes defenses as well as offenses, that includes conventional strike capabilities as well as nuclear strike capability.” It is anticipated that many of the nuclear warheads being placed in storage will be replaced, particularly on the submarine force, by highly accurate, precision-guided conventional warheads, capable of doing enormous damage.

A third factor figuring prominently in the Bush administration’s nuclear posture is its plan to deploy missile defenses. Over the continuing objections of Russia, China and many US allies, President Bush has made clear that he intends to move forward with deployment of ballistic missile defenses that will violate the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty. In December, President Bush gave formal notice to the Russians that the US will withdraw from this treaty in six months.

The Bush administration argues that withdrawal from the ABM Treaty and deployment of ballistic missile defenses will make the US safer, but this is a very unlikely proposition. Instead, it makes the Russians nervous about US intentions, and this nervousness must be increased by the Nuclear Posture Review’s emphasis on retaining the deactivated US nuclear warheads in storage. US deployment of ballistic missile defenses will also force the Chinese to expand their nuclear deterrent force with increased targeting of the US. Increases in the Chinese nuclear arsenal may also touch off a new nuclear arms race in Asia.

The bottom line of the new US nuclear posture is that it is built on smoke and mirrors. It will reduce the number of deployed nuclear weapons, but it will put them on the shelf ready to be reinstated on short notice. It will also retain enough nuclear weapons to destroy any country and annihilate its people. Recent computer-based estimates generated by the Natural Resources Defense Council indicate that eliminating Russia as a country would take 51 nuclear weapons and China would require 368 due to its large population. On the other hand, the US could be destroyed as a country with 124 nuclear weapons and all NATO countries, including the US, could be destroyed with approximately 300 nuclear warheads.

The recent Nuclear Posture Review tells us that US policymakers are still thinking that nuclear weapons make us safer, when, in fact, they remain weapons capable of destroying us. Their desire to retain flexibility is in reality a recipe for ending four decades of arms control. Their push for ballistic missile defenses is a formula for assuring that US taxpayers enrich defense contractors while diverting defense expenditures from protecting against very real terrorist threats. The Bush promise of nuclear weapons reductions turns out to be a policy for missing the real opportunities of the post Cold War period to not only shelve these weapons but eliminate them forever.
*David Krieger is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

January 1, 2002