Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Author: David Krieger

  • ICAN ha ganado el Premio Nobel de la Paz

    Mensaje de David Krieger, Presidente de Nuclear Age Peace Foundation
    Traducción de Rubén D. Arvizu- Director para América Latina de Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

    El día de hoy, octubre 6 de 2017,  se ha otorgado el Premio Nobel de la Paz a la Campaña Internacional para la Abolición de las Armas Nucleares (ICAN). Este premio ayudará a poner de relieve la pasión y el compromiso de este movimiento mundial para abolir las armas nucleares. También llamará la atención sobre los objetivos que ICAN ha buscado con entusiasmo. En primer lugar, un despertar público de la preocupación por los peligros para la humanidad debido a las armas nucleares. de todo lo que cada uno de nosotros ama y atesora  En segundo lugar, la entrada en vigor del nuevo Tratado sobre la prohibición de las armas nucleares. Tercero, la abolición de las armas nucleares.

    ICAN ha aportado considerable energía juvenil a la cuestión del desarme nuclear. También funciona como una campaña mundial que involucra a unas 400 organizaciones de la sociedad civil de más de 100 países. La campaña comenzó hace diez años, y la Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (NAPF) (Fundación para la Paz en la Era Nuclear) fue uno de sus miembros iniciales. Hemos sido parte de la campaña desde el principio. Estamos orgullosos de estar con los otros grupos de la sociedad civil en todo el mundo trabajando con ICAN para alcanzar sus metas, que también son las nuestras.

    El Tratado sobre la prohibición de las armas nucleares fue elaborado por los Estados con la participación de la sociedad civil. El 7 de julio de 2017 fue adoptado por 122 países. El tratado prohíbe, entre otras cosas, la posesión, uso y amenaza del uso de armas nucleares. La NAPF presionó para que el tratado incluyera “amenaza de uso” así como “uso” de las armas. Rick Wayman, nuestro Director de Programas, pronunció un discurso en la reunión de redacción de tratados de las Naciones Unidas argumentando este punto, y fue adoptado en el texto final. El 20 de septiembre de 2017, el tratado se abrió a la firma en las Naciones Unidas. Cincuenta países firmaron el primer día y posteriormente otros tres países firmaron el tratado.

    El tratado entrará en vigor 90 días después de que el quincuagésimo país lo ratifique. Hasta el momento, hay tres ratificaciones. ICAN trabajará para que el tratado obtenga más firmas y ratificaciones, incluido el apoyo de los nueve países con armas nucleares, que boicotearon las negociaciones del tratado. El día en que se adoptó el tratado, los Estados Unidos, el Reino Unido y Francia emitieron una declaración conjunta en la que decían: “No tenemos la intención de firmar, ratificar ni llegar a ser parte en él”. ICAN representa la voluntad del pueblo de pasar el planeta intacto a las nuevas generaciones, mientras que los países con armas nucleares reflejan un concepto anticuado de seguridad en el que están dispuestos a amenazar el futuro de la civilización con sus propios conceptos equivocados de seguridad.

    A mediados de la década de 1980, había 70.000 armas nucleares en el mundo. Hoy en día hay poco menos de 15.000, suficientes para desaparecer por completo a la raza humana . El objetivo de ICAN y el objetivo de NAPF es un mundo con cero armas nucleares. Esto también debe convertirse en el objetivo de toda la humanidad. La gran esperanza en el Premio Nobel de la Paz para ICAN es que ayudará a llamar la atención global y la preocupación por las amenazas actuales planteadas por las armas nucleares e inclinar la balanza hacia el final de la era de armas nucleares con sus innegables peligros para toda la humanidad y el Planeta en general.

  • International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons Receives 2017 Nobel Peace Prize

    The world’s most prestigious prize for peace, the Nobel Peace Prize, has been awarded to the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN).  This award will help shine a light on the passion and commitment of this worldwide movement to abolish nuclear weapons.  It will also draw attention to the goals ICAN has enthusiastically sought to achieve.  First, a public awakening of concern for the dangers to humankind and to all that each of us loves and treasures posed by nuclear weapons.  Second, the entry into force of the new Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.  Third, the abolition of nuclear weapons.

    ICAN has brought considerable youthful energy to the issue of nuclear disarmament.  It also operates as a global campaign involving some 400 civil society organizations from more than 100 countries.  The campaign began ten years ago, and the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (NAPF) was one of its initial members.  We’ve been a part of the campaign from the beginning.  We are proud to stand with the other civil society groups throughout the world in working with ICAN to achieve its goals, which are also our goals.

    The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons was drafted by states with the participation of civil society.  On July 7, 2017 it was adopted by 122 countries.  The treaty bans, among other things, the possession, use and threat of use of nuclear weapons.  NAPF lobbied for the treaty to include “threat of use” as well as “use” of the weapons.  Rick Wayman, our Director of Programs, delivered a speech at the United Nations treaty drafting meeting arguing this point, and it was adopted in the final text.  On September 20, 2017, the treaty was opened for signature at the United Nations.  Fifty countries signed the first day and subsequently three more countries have signed the treaty.

    The treaty will enter into force 90 days after the fiftieth country ratifies it.  So far, there are three ratifications.  ICAN will be working to see that the treaty gets more signatures and ratifications, including the support of the nine nuclear-armed countries, which boycotted the treaty negotiations.  On the day the treaty was adopted, the U.S., UK and France issued a joint statement in which they said, “We do not intend to sign, ratify or ever become a party to it.”  ICAN represents the will of the people to pass the planet on  intact to new generations, while the nuclear-armed countries reflect an outdated concept of security in which they are willing to threaten the future of civilization for their own misguided concepts of security.

    In the mid-1980s, there were 70,000 nuclear weapons in the world.  Today there are just under 15,000.  ICAN’s goal and NAPF’s goal is a world with zero nuclear weapons. This must also become the goal of all humanity. The great hope in the Nobel Peace Prize going to ICAN is that it will help draw global attention and concern to the ongoing threats posed by nuclear weapons and tip the scales toward ending the nuclear weapons era with its abundant dangers to all humanity.

    David Krieger is a founder and president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org).

  • The Reality of the Nuclear Age: U.S. Must Negotiate with North Korea

    David KriegerAnyone with a modicum of sense does not want to see the US teeter at the brink of war with North Korea and certainly not inadvertently stumble over that brink, or intentionally jump.  The first Korean War in the 1950s was costly in terms of lives and treasure.  A second Korean War, with the possibility of nuclear weapons use, would be far more costly to both sides, and could lead to global nuclear conflagration.

    Neither North Korea nor South Korea want a new war, but US leadership in Washington is threatening war, with remarks such as “talking is not the answer”; North Korean threats “will be met with fire and fury like the world has never seen”; “military solutions are now in place, locked and loaded”; and “all options are on the table.”  Such posturing has only elicited more nuclear and missile tests from North Korea.

    It is clear, though, that threats of attack are not a responsible way of going forward.  This may be difficult for Trump to grasp, since he has built his business and political reputation on threats and bullying behavior.  Like all bullies, he backs down when confronted.  But confrontation with a bully is still risky, particularly this bully, who is also thin-skinned, erratic, impulsive and has the full power of the US military at his disposal.

    The US does not need another war, not with North Korea or any country.  We need, instead, to extract ourselves from the ongoing wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria. Nor should we turn our backs on the well-negotiated agreement with Iran to halt their nuclear weapons program.  In fact, this agreement should serve as a model for the type of agreement needed with North Korea.

    What needs to be done?

    The US should agree to negotiate with North Korea and do so without preconditions.  It has been suggested by North Korea, as well as by China and Russia, that North Korea would freeze its nuclear and missile programs in exchange for the US and South Korea ceasing to conduct war games at North Korea’s border.  The US has foolishly, arrogantly and repeatedly ignored or rejected this proposal to get to the negotiating table. It seems that the US would prefer to continue its war gaming on the Korean peninsula than to negotiate with the North Koreans to find a solution to control their nuclear arsenal.

    It would appear that North Korea wants to assure that its regime is not vulnerable to a US attack and occupation, such as occurred in Iraq and Libya.  In each of these countries the leaders were captured and killed.

    Rather than seeking to tighten the economic sanctions on North Korea, which primarily hurt their people, the US should try a different approach, one offering positive rewards for freezing the North Korean nuclear and missile programs and allowing inspections.  Such positive rewards could include food, health care, energy, and infrastructure development.  North Korea has responded positively to such offers of help in the past, and would be likely to do so again.  Kim Jong-un is not, as the US ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, has said, “begging for war.”

    In addition, there has never been a formal end to the Korean War, and it is past time to reach a peace agreement and formally bring the war to an end.  This would be a major step forward and one greatly desired by North Korea.

    The Trump administration needs to engage with its allies, South Korea and Japan, in these negotiations.  It should also bring other interested parties in Northeast Asia into the negotiations.  This would include China and Russia.  All of these countries appear to be ready to talk.  The US just needs to put aside its arrogance and begin the task of negotiating rather than continuing the unworkable approach of trying to force its will on North Korea or any other country by means of threats or bullying.  That is the reality of the Nuclear Age.

  • The President Is Unfit for Office

    With each passing day it becomes increasingly apparent that Donald Trump is unfit to carry out the duties of President of the United States, particularly those of commander in chief. He is erratic, impulsive, thin-skinned and narcissistic. These are dangerous qualities in someone with control over a nuclear arsenal that, if used, could lead to the destruction of civilization and human extinction. Trump is not trustworthy to have such power at his fingertips and should be removed from office.

    To achieve peace with North Korea, the U.S. must be engaged in negotiations with their leadership. It seems simple enough, but the Trump administration appears unwilling. The talks must begin immediately, and the U.S. must do so without preconditions.

    Rather than pursuing this path, however, the Trump administration seems intent on tightening economic sanctions on North Korea, a strategy bound to fail. Trump recently said that the U.S. is considering stopping trade with any country that trades with North Korea. This is a non-starter unless we want to stop trading with China, leading to a serious deterioration in U.S.-China relations and possibly a worldwide recession.

    The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation has recently released an Open Letter to Members of Congress. It calls upon Congress to impeach Trump, or, at a minimum, pass legislation that would require a declaration of war and specific authorization of Congress before the president could engage in a first-strike nuclear attack. The Open Letter follows below. If you would like to sign the letter, click here.

    OPEN LETTER TO MEMBERS OF THE U.S. CONGRESS: ACT TO PREVENT NUCLEAR CATASTROPHE

    This may be the most dangerous time in human history. The Roman emperor Nero is remembered for having fiddled while Rome burned. We may be witnessing the far more dangerous Nuclear Age equivalent to Nero’s fiddling in the form of the nuclear threat exchanges between Donald Trump and North Korea’s Kim Jong-un.

    The U.S. has elected a man to its highest office who is erratic, impulsive, thin-skinned and generally imprudent and insufficiently informed on nuclear and foreign policy issues. As president, he possesses unrestricted authority to threaten and use the weapons of the U.S. nuclear arsenal, which could lead not only to the destruction of our country but to dire consequences for the entire world.

    The president has already caused widespread national and global alarm by his behavior in office, including his participation in a dangerous and irrational escalation of threats directed at the erratic leader of nuclear-armed North Korea, which if executed would produce a monstrous catastrophe of untold consequences. James Clapper, former Director of National Intelligence, a normally cautious civil servant, has described the president’s behavior as “downright scary and disturbing.”

    There are currently no restraints on the president’s ability to use the insanely powerful weapons in the U.S. nuclear arsenal, including using them in a first-strike attack rationalized as preventive war. To allow this set of conditions to persist would be a perilous, perhaps fatal, abdication of Congressional responsibility, posing severe dangers to the peace and security of the country and world.

    What can be done?

    Having shown himself to be unfit for office, the president should be impeached and removed from office by the Congress as a matter of most urgent priority, or possibly removed from the presidency by recourse to procedures under the 25th amendment.

    Congress should also independently act to put unconditional restraints on any president’s ability to threaten or order a nuclear first-strike. One approach would be enactment of the “Restricting First Use of Nuclear Weapons Act,” introduced by Senator Ed Markey and Representative Ted Lieu, which would prohibit the president from initiating a first-strike nuclear attack without a Congressional declaration of war expressly authorizing such strike. We would urge even stronger legislation that would make illegal any U.S. nuclear first strike and threats to do so.

    We do not suggest that the Markey-Lieu legislation would cure a nuclear first-strike of its essential immorality and illegality under international law. This legislation would, however, broaden the long-standing, dangerously centralized U.S. decision-making authority over a nuclear first-strike and could lead to a U.S. commitment never again to use nuclear weapons except in retaliation against a nuclear attack.

    While this proposed legislative initiative on first-strikes is a responsible effort to limit presidential authority with respect to nuclear weapons under present conditions, we urge a parallel framework of restraint with respect to any contemplated threat or use of nuclear weapons by a U.S. president. Additional legislation to this end needs to be proposed and enacted by Congress after appropriate vetting through hearings and public discussion as a matter of supreme national interest and for the benefit of global security.

    Furthermore, we would hope that in due course the United States would join with the majority of countries in the world in supporting the recently negotiated UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.

    Click here to sign the Open Letter.

  • Open Letter to Members of the U.S. Congress: Act to Prevent Nuclear Catastrophe

    To add your name to this Open Letter, click here.

    This may be the most dangerous time in human history.  The Roman emperor Nero is remembered for having fiddled while Rome burned.  We may be witnessing the far more dangerous Nuclear Age equivalent to Nero’s fiddling in the form of the nuclear threat exchanges between Donald Trump and North Korea’s Kim Jong-un.

    The U.S. has elected a man to its highest office who is erratic, impulsive, thin-skinned and generally imprudent and insufficiently informed on nuclear and foreign policy issues.  As president, he possesses unrestricted authority to threaten and use the weapons of the U.S. nuclear arsenal, which could lead not only to the destruction of our country but to dire consequences for the entire world.

    The president has already caused widespread national and global alarm by his behavior in office, including his participation in a dangerous and irrational escalation of threats directed at the erratic leader of nuclear-armed North Korea, which if executed would produce a monstrous catastrophe of untold consequences.  James Clapper, former Director of National Intelligence, a normally cautious civil servant, has described the president’s behavior as “downright scary and disturbing.”

    There are currently no restraints on the president’s ability to use the insanely powerful weapons in the U.S. nuclear arsenal, including using them in a first-strike attack rationalized as preventive war.  To allow this set of conditions to persist would be a perilous, perhaps fatal, abdication of Congressional responsibility, posing severe dangers to the peace and security of the country and world.

    What can be done?

    Having shown himself to be unfit for office, the president should be impeached and removed from office by the Congress as a matter of most urgent priority, or possibly removed from the presidency by recourse to procedures under the 25th amendment.

    Congress should also independently act to put unconditional restraints on any president’s ability to threaten or order a nuclear first-strike.  One approach would be enactment of the “Restricting First Use of Nuclear Weapons Act,” introduced by Senator Ed Markey and Representative Ted Lieu, which would prohibit the president from initiating a first-strike nuclear attack without a Congressional declaration of war expressly authorizing such strike.  We would urge even stronger legislation that would make illegal any U.S. nuclear first strike and threats to do so.

    We do not suggest that the Markey-Lieu legislation would cure a nuclear first-strike of its essential immorality and illegality under international law.  This legislation would, however, broaden the long-standing, dangerously centralized U.S. decision-making authority over a nuclear first-strike and could lead to a U.S. commitment never again to use nuclear weapons except in retaliation against a nuclear attack.

    While this proposed legislative initiative on first-strikes is a responsible effort to limit  presidential authority with respect to nuclear weapons under present conditions, we urge a parallel framework of restraint with respect to any contemplated threat or use of nuclear weapons by a U.S. president.  Additional legislation to this end needs to be proposed and enacted by Congress after appropriate vetting through hearings and public discussion as a matter of supreme national interest and for the benefit of global security.

    Furthermore, we would hope that in due course the United States would join with the majority of countries in the world in supporting the recently negotiated UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.

  • 2017 Message to Viennese Peace Movement

    Dear friends on the path of Peace,

    Warm greetings from California!

    We are approaching the 72nd anniversaries of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  We do so with hope in our hearts because the majority of the world’s countries have adopted a Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (Ban Treaty).  It is a gift to the world of enormous proportions.  Among other prohibitions, it bans the possession, use and threat of use of nuclear weapons.  It is a treaty that validates the call to abolish nuclear weapons by the survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, by many civil society organizations and individuals, and by most of the non-nuclear nations in the world.

    The negotiations leading to the adoption of the Ban Treaty on July 7, 2017 took place through the United Nations conference to negotiate a legally binding instrument to prohibit nuclear weapons, leading towards their total elimination.  The treaty’s preamble expresses deep concern “about the catastrophic humanitarian consequences that would result from any use of nuclear weapons,” and recognizes “the consequent need to completely eliminate such weapons, which remains the only way to guarantee that nuclear weapons are never used again under any circumstance….”

    Sadako’s paper cranes continue to fly all over the world, but, unfortunately, they still have not landed in the governments of the nine nuclear-armed countries, none of which participated in the negotiations for the Ban Treaty.  The US, UK and France actually went so far as to issue a joint statement on the treaty in which they asserted, “We do not intend to sign, ratify or ever become party to it.”  What can one say in the face of such overwhelming arrogance concerning one of the greatest threats to the human future?

    It is clear that our work is far from finished.  There is still much to do to rid the world of nuclear weapons.  But an important step forward has been taken.  I hope you will take heart from the progress that has been made, and always hold hope in your hearts.  Always remember that hope gives rise to action, and action gives rise to hope.

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

  • What Factors Make Nuclear War More Likely?

    This article was originally published by The Hill.

    We know that the risk of nuclear war is not zero. Humans are not capable of creating foolproof systems. Nuclear weapons systems are particularly problematic since the possession of nuclear weapons carries an implicit threat of use under certain circumstances. In accord with nuclear deterrence theory, a country threatens to use nuclear weapons, believing that it will prevent the use of nuclear weapons against it.

    Nearly 15,000 nuclear weapons are currently under the control of nine countries. Each has a complex system of command and control with many possibilities for error, accident or intentional use.

    Error could be the result of human or technological factors, or some combination of human and technological interaction. During the more than seven decades of the Nuclear Age, there have been many accidents and close calls that could have resulted in nuclear disaster. The world narrowly escaped a nuclear war between the United States and Soviet Union during the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis.

    Human factors include miscommunications, misinterpretations and psychological issues. Some leaders believe that threatening behavior makes nuclear deterrence more effective, but it could also result in a preventive first-strike launch by the side being threatened. Psychological pathologies among those in control of nuclear weapons could also play a role. Hubris, or extreme arrogance, is another factor of concern.

    Technological factors include computer errors that wrongfully show a country is under nuclear attack. Such false warnings have occurred on numerous occasions but, fortunately, human interactions (often against policy and/or orders) have so far kept a false warning from resulting in a mistaken “retaliatory” attack. In times of severe tensions, a technological error could compound the risks, and human actors might decide to initiate a first strike.

    There are many other factors that affect the risk of nuclear war. These include an increase in the number of countries possessing nuclear weapons and a greater number of nuclear weapons in each country’s nuclear arsenal. Both of these factors increase complexity and make the risk greater. Additionally, the higher the alert status of a country’s nuclear arsenal, the shorter the decision time to launch and the greater the risk of nuclear war. The risks are compounded when tension levels increase between nuclear-armed countries, increasing the likelihood of false assumptions and precipitous action.

    Nuclear policies of the nuclear-armed countries can also raise the risk level of nuclear war. Policies of first use of nuclear weapons may make an opponent more likely to initiate a first strike and thus make a nuclear war more likely. First use is generally a default policy, if a country does not specifically pledge a policy of no first use, as have China and India. Policies of launch-on-warning cut into decision time for leaders to decide whether or not to launch a “retaliatory” strike to what may be a false warning The deployment of land-based missiles also raises the risk level due to the “use them or lose them” nature of these stationary targets.

    In addition to identifiable risks of nuclear war, there are also unknown risks — those that cannot be identified in advance. Unknown risks include little-understood possibilities for cyber-attacks on nuclear weapons systems, attacks that could potentially either activate or deactivate nuclear-armed missile launches.

    Given the catastrophic consequences of nuclear war, including destruction of civilization and human extinction, identifying and eliminating the factors making nuclear war likely or even possible is imperative. There are simply too many possibilities for failure in such a complex system of interactions.

    This leads to the conclusion that the risks are untenable, and all nations should move rapidly to negotiate the elimination of all nuclear arms. While doing so, nations would be well served to adopt and declare policies of no first use and no launch-on-warning, and to eliminate vulnerable land-based missiles from their arsenals.

  • U.S., UK and France Denounce Nuclear Ban Treaty

    This article was originally published by Counterpunch.

    The U.S., UK and France have never shown enthusiasm for banning and eliminating nuclear weapons. It is not surprising, therefore, that they did not participate in the United Nations negotiations leading to the recent adoption of the nuclear ban treaty, or that they joined together in expressing their outright defiance of the newly-adopted treaty.

    In a joint press statement, issued on July 7, 2017, the day the treaty was adopted, the U.S., UK and France stated, “We do not intend to sign, ratify or ever become party to it.” Seriously? Rather than supporting the countries that came together and hammered out the treaty, the three countries argued: “This initiative clearly disregards the realities of the international security environment.”  Rather than taking a leadership role in the negotiations, they protested the talks and the resulting treaty banning nuclear weapons. They chose hubris over wisdom, might over right.

    They based their opposition on their belief that the treaty is “incompatible with the policy of nuclear deterrence, which has been essential to keeping the peace in Europe and North Asia for over 70 years.” Others would take issue with their conclusion, arguing that, in addition to overlooking the Korean War and other smaller wars, the peace in Europe and North Asia has been kept not because of nuclear deterrence but in spite of it.

    The occasions on which nuclear deterrence has come close to failure, including during the Cuban missile crisis, are well known. The absolute belief of the U.S., UK and France in nuclear deterrence seems more theological than practical.

    The three countries point out, “This treaty offers no solution to the grave threat posed by North Korea’s nuclear program, nor does it address other security challenges that make nuclear deterrence necessary.” But for the countries that adopted the nuclear ban treaty, North Korea is only one of nine countries that are undermining international security by basing their national security on nuclear weapons. For countries so committed to nuclear weapons and nuclear deterrence, is it not surprising and hypocritical that they view North Korea’s nuclear arsenal not in the light of deterrence, but rather, as an aggressive force?

    The three countries reiterate their commitment to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), but do not mention their own obligation under that treaty to pursue negotiations in good faith for an end to the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament. The negotiations for the new nuclear ban treaty are based on fulfilling those obligations. The three countries chose not to participate in these negotiations, in defiance of their NPT obligations, making their joint statement appear self-serving and based upon magical thinking.

    If the U.S., UK and France were truly interested in promoting “international peace, stability and security” as they claim, they would be seeking all available avenues to eliminate nuclear weapons from the world, rather than planning to modernize and enhance their own nuclear arsenals over the coming decades.

    These three nuclear-armed countries, as well as the other six nuclear-armed countries, continue to rely upon the false idol of nuclear weapons, justified by nuclear deterrence. In doing so, they continue to run the risk of destroying civilization, or worse. The 122 nations that adopted the nuclear ban treaty, on the other hand, acted on behalf of every citizen of the world who values the future of humanity and our planet, and should be commended for what they have accomplished.

    The new treaty will open for signatures in September 2017, and will enter into force when 50 countries have acceded to it. It provides an alternative vision for the human future, one in which nuclear weapons are seen for the threat they pose to all humanity, one in which nuclear possessors will be stigmatized for the threats they pose to all life. Despite the resistance of the U.S., UK and France, the nuclear ban treaty marks the beginning of the end of the nuclear age.

  • The Russell-Einstein Manifesto

    The Russell-Einstein Manifesto

    Introduction written by NAPF President David Krieger on June 28, 2017:

    The Russell-Einstein Manifesto, issued in London on July 9, 1955, is one of the greatest documents of the 20th century.  It remains a critical warning to humanity in the 21st century.  As we approach the 62nd anniversary of the Manifesto, it is worthwhile to read it again (or for the first time) and reflect on its message to humanity.  It addresses the choices before us:  “continual progress in happiness, knowledge and wisdom” or “the risk of universal death.”  It was the last public statement Einstein signed before his death.  Of its 9 signers in addition to Russell and Einstein, two were members of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s Advisory Council, Linus Pauling and Sir Joseph Rotblat.  Pauling was a great scientist and two-time Nobel Laureate.  Rotblat was the only scientist to leave the Manhattan Project as a matter of conscience.  He was a founder of the Pugwash Conferences and received the Nobel Peace Prize 50 years after the tragic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  At NAPF, we carry on the commitment of the Russell-Einstein Manifesto to achieve a world free of nuclear weapons.  We accept its advice: “Remember your humanity, and forget the rest.”

    by Bassano, vintage print, 1936

    In the tragic situation which confronts humanity, we feel that scientists should assemble in conference to appraise the perils that have arisen as a result of the development of weapons of mass destruction, and to discuss a resolution in the spirit of the appended draft.

    We are speaking on this occasion, not as members of this or that nation, continent, or creed, but as human beings, members of the species Man, whose continued existence is in doubt. The world is full of conflicts; and, overshadowing all minor conflicts, the titanic struggle between Communism and anti- Communism.

    Almost everybody who is politically conscious has strong feelings about one or more of these issues; but we want you, if you can, to set aside such feelings and consider yourselves only as members of a biological species which has had a remarkable history, and whose disappearance none of us can desire.

    We shall try to say no single word which should appeal to one group rather than to another. All, equally, are in peril, and, if the peril is understood, there is hope that they may collectively avert it.

    We have to learn to think in a new way. We have to learn to ask ourselves, not what steps can be taken to give military victory to whatever group we prefer, for there no longer are such steps; the question we have to ask ourselves is: what steps can be taken to prevent a military contest of which the issue must be disastrous to all parties?

    The general public, and even many men in positions of authority, have not realized what would be involved in a war with nuclear bombs. The general public still thinks in terms of the obliteration of cities. It is understood that the new bombs are more powerful than the old, and that, while one A-bomb could obliterate Hiroshima, one H-bomb could obliterate the largest cities, such as London, New York, and Moscow.

    No doubt in an H-bomb war great cities would be obliterated. But this is one of the minor disasters that would have to be faced. If everybody in London, New York, and Moscow were exterminated, the world might, in the course of a few centuries, recover from the blow. But we now know, especially since the Bikini test, that nuclear bombs can gradually spread destruction over a very much wider area than had been supposed.

    It is stated on very good authority that a bomb can now be manufactured which will be 2,500 times as powerful as that which destroyed Hiroshima. Such a bomb, if exploded near the ground or under water, sends radio-active particles into the upper air. They sink gradually and reach the surface of the earth in the form of a deadly dust or rain. It was this dust which infected the Japanese fishermen and their catch of fish.

    No one knows how widely such lethal radioactive particles might be diffused, but the best authorities are unanimous in saying that a war with H-bombs might possibly put an end to the human race. It is feared that if many H-bombs are used there will be universal death, sudden only for a minority, but for the majority a slow torture of disease and disintegration.

    Many warnings have been uttered by eminent men of science and by authorities in military strategy. None of them will say that the worst results are certain. What they do say is that these results are possible, and no one can be sure that they will not be realized. We have not yet found that the views of experts on this question depend in any degree upon their politics or prejudices. They depend only, so far as our researches have revealed, upon the extent of the particular expert’s knowledge. We have found that the men who know most are the most gloomy.

    Here, then, is the problem which we present to you, stark and dreadful and inescapable: Shall we put an end to the human race; or shall mankind renounce war? People will not face this alternative because it is so difficult to abolish war.

    The abolition of war will demand distasteful limitations of national sovereignty. But what perhaps impedes understanding of the situation more than anything else is that the term “mankind” feels vague and abstract. People scarcely realize in imagination that the danger is to themselves and their children and their grandchildren, and not only to a dimly apprehended humanity. They can scarcely bring themselves to grasp that they, individually, and those whom they love are in imminent danger of perishing agonizingly. And so they hope that perhaps war may be allowed to continue provided modern weapons are prohibited.

    This hope is illusory. Whatever agreements not to use H-bombs had been reached in time of peace, they would no longer be considered binding in time of war, and both sides would set to work to manufacture H-bombs as soon as war broke out, for, if one side manufactured the bombs and the other did not, the side that manufactured them would inevitably be victorious.

    Although an agreement to renounce nuclear weapons as part of a general reduction of armaments would not afford an ultimate solution, it would serve certain important purposes. First: any agreement between East and West is to the good in so far as it tends to diminish tension. Second: the abolition of thermo-nuclear weapons, if each side believed that the other had carried it out sincerely, would lessen the fear of a sudden attack in the style of Pearl Harbour, which at present keeps both sides in a state of nervous apprehension. We should, therefore, welcome such an agreement though only as a first step. Most of us are not neutral in feeling, but, as human beings, we have to remember that, if the issues between East and West are to be decided in any manner that can give any possible satisfaction to anybody, whether Communist or anti-Communist, whether Asian or European or American, whether White or Black, then these issues must not be decided by war. We should wish this to be understood, both in the East andin the West. There lies before us, if we choose, continual progress in happiness, knowledge, and wisdom. Shall we, instead, choose death, because we cannot forget our quarrels? We appeal, as human beings, to human beings: Remember your humanity, and forget the rest. If you can do so, the way lies open to a new Paradise; if you cannot, there lies before you the risk of universal death.

    Resolution

    We invite this Congress, and through it the scientists of the world and the general public, to subscribe to the following resolution:
    “In view of the fact that in any future world war nuclear weapons will certainly be employed, and that such weapons threaten the continued existence of mankind, we urge the Governments of the world to realize, and to acknowledge publicly, that their purpose cannot be furthered by a world war, and we urge them, consequently, to find peaceful means for the settlement of all matters of dispute between them.”

    Max Born
    Perry W. Bridgman
    Albert Einstein
    Leopold Infeld
    Frederic Joliot-Curie
    Herman J. Muller
    Linus Pauling
    Cecil F. Powell
    Joseph Rotblat
    Bertrand Russell
    Hideki Yukawa

  • Probabilidad de la Guerra Nuclear

    Traducción de Ruben Arvizu.

    Click here for the English version.

    La mayoría de la gente vive pensando en forma mínima las consecuencias o probabilidad de una guerra nuclear.  Las consecuencias se entienden generalmente como catastróficas. Tal vez por ello se tiende a creer que la probabilidad de una guerra nuclear es extremadamente baja. Pero, ¿es esto realmente el caso? ¿Debe la gente sentirse a salvo de una guerra nuclear basándose sólo en la percepción de que es improbable que ocurra?

    Puesto que las consecuencias de la guerra nuclear podrían ser tan enormes  como la extinción de la humanidad, la probabilidad de tal resultado preferimos que sea cero, pero este no es el caso. Las armas nucleares se han utilizado dos veces en los últimos 72 años, en un momento en que sólo un país las poseía. Hoy en día, nueve países tienen armas nucleares, y hay cerca de 15.000 ojivas nucleares en el mundo.

    La disuasión nuclear, basada en la amenaza de represalias nucleares, es la justificación para la posesión de estas armas. Sin embargo, es una pobre justificación, no es ética, es ilegal y sujeta a un fracaso catastrófico. A lo largo de los 72 años de la era nuclear, la disuasión nuclear ha estado cerca de fracasar en muchas ocasiones, demostrando debilidades en la hipótesis de que la amenaza de represalias nos protegerá indefinidamente contra la hecatombe nuclear.

    Le pregunté a varias personas que trabajaban por el desarme nuclear, todos ellas asociados de la Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (Fundación Para la Paz en la Era Nuclear), sus opiniones sobre la probabilidad de una guerra nuclear.

    Martin Hellman, profesor emérito de ingeniería eléctrica en Stanford, dijo lo siguiente: “Incluso si se pudiera esperar que la disuasión nuclear funcionara durante 500 años antes de que fallara y destruyera la civilización -un período de tiempo que parece muy optimista para la mayoría de la gente- es como jugar a la ruleta rusa con la vida de un niño nacido hoy. Eso es porque la vida esperada de ese niño es aproximadamente un sexto de 500 años. Y, si ese “horizonte nuclear” es de sólo 100 años, ese niño tendría peores probabilidades de vivir su vida natural. No conocer el nivel de riesgo es una falla enorme en nuestra estrategia de seguridad nacional. Entonces, ¿por qué la sociedad se comporta como si la disuasión nuclear estuviera esencialmente libre de riesgos? “

    A continuación, pregunté a John Avery, profesor asociado de química cuántica en la Universidad de Copenhague, por su visión de la probabilidad de una guerra nuclear a finales del siglo XXI. El respondió:

    “Hay 83 años restantes en este siglo.  Se puede calcular la probabilidad de que lleguemos al final del siglo sin una guerra nuclear bajo varios supuestos de riesgo anual. Aquí hay una tabla que lo demuestra:

    Riesgo anual                                            Posibilidad de supervivencia

    1%                                                        43,4%
    2%                                                        18,7%
    3%                                                          7,9%
    4%                                                          3,4%
    5%                                                          1,4%

    “Hay que concluir que, a largo plazo, la supervivencia de la civilización humana y gran parte de la biosfera exige la completa eliminación de las armas nucleares”.

    Finalmente, le pregunté a Steven Starr, un científico de la Universidad de Missouri, quien respondió de esta manera:

    “No estoy seguro si puedo proporcionar cualquier tipo de valor numérico o cálculo para estimar el riesgo de guerra nuclear en un período de tiempo dado.  Pero ciertamente diría que a menos que los seres humanos logren eliminar los arsenales nucleares, y probablemente la institución misma de la guerra, creo que es inevitable que las armas nucleares se utilicen mucho antes de que finalice el siglo. Hay demasiadas armas en demasiados lugares / países. . . Creo que hay cerca de 15.000 armas nucleares, ¿verdad? . . . Y hay demasiados conflictos e injusticias y personas con hambre de poder que tienen acceso y control sobre estas armas. Hay demasiadas posibilidades de error de cálculo, fallas tecnológicas y simplemente comportamiento irracional para imaginar que podemos continuar indefinidamente evitando el uso de armas nucleares en un conflicto.

    “Así que estoy muy feliz de ver que un tratado para prohibir las armas nucleares está siendo negociado en la ONU. Esto me demuestra que hay un gran número de personas y naciones que tienen plena consciencia del peligro nuclear y están tomando medidas para detenerlo “.

    Conclusiones

    Las probabilidades de evitar una catástrofe nuclear no son reconfortantes.

    Estamos jugando una Ruleta Nuclear con el futuro de nuestros hijos y nietos.

    La única forma de asegurar que la probabilidad de una guerra nuclear sea cero es eliminar todas las armas nucleares.

    Una forma de apoyar el objetivo del cero nuclear es apoyar el Tratado de Prohibición Nuclear actualmente en negociación en las Naciones Unidas.

    David Krieger es presidente de la Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org).

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