Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Author: David Krieger

  • Glenn Paige: A Prophet of Nonkilling

    [The world lost a great man when Glenn Paige passed on January 22, 2017.  What follows is an article I wrote in 2010, the year in which Glenn received the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s Distinguished Peace Leadership Award.  It is about Glenn’s great transformation in life from a successful academic to a prophet of nonkilling.  I’ve left the article in the present tense, and believe that Glenn lives on in the hearts and minds of the many people he inspired with his commitment to and leadership for a nonkilling world.]

    Glenn Paige is a man who in midlife re-created himself and his purpose on the planet.  At the age of 44, he shifted from being an academic Cold Warrior to a man dedicated to nonkilling.  He later described to me his transformation in this way: “It finally just came to me in three silent surprising words: ‘No More Killing!’  Technically it might be called the result of ‘cognitive dissonance’ when values and reality are perceived to clash.  But it was nothing rational…and was definitely related to many years of study of Korea and involvement in relations with it, South and North.  My book, The Korean Decision, justified war.  The results finally sunk in to me – neither peace nor freedom.”

    I asked Glenn to describe in a more detailed way what had happened when he experienced the words, “No More Killing.”  He replied: “The words/idea ‘No More Killing’ specifically came in an instant from the Korean experience – and was simultaneously generalized to the whole world, not just war, but all forms of killing.  The first thing I did was write a book review of my book on the Korean War….  Then I applied the same critique to the entire discipline of political science.”  Now he is applying the same critique to the world.

    I first knew of Glenn in the late-1960s.  He came to the University of Hawaii in 1967 as a professor in the department of political science as I was finishing up my Ph.D. in the department.  I would leave Hawaii in 1970, a few years before Glenn would experience his transformation in 1973.  At the time, Glenn had the reputation for being a Cold Warrior, having served as a soldier in the Korean War and then writing a book in which he justified the US involvement in the war.  I was strongly opposed to the Vietnam War, which was increasing in intensity and body counts at that time, and I had little tolerance for someone who had built his career on justifying any war.  I was neither open-minded about war, nor tolerant of those who supported it.  I felt that war was a way of misdirecting the lives of young people by propaganda and putting them in the untenable situation of having to kill or be killed.  In that regard, I have changed my views very little over the years, but Glenn changed very much.

    Glenn is a well educated Ivy Leaguer, who received a B.A. from Princeton and an M.A. from Harvard before being awarded a Ph.D. from Northwestern.  He had carved out a place for himself in academia with his study of the political decision of US leaders to enter the Korean War.  He had taught for six years at Princeton before accepting a position at the University of Hawaii.  He didn’t seem like a strong candidate for transformation, but something mysterious happened, perhaps something latent in his character asserted itself with, as he described it, “three silent surprising words: ‘No More Killing!’”

    Glenn transformed himself from an establishment academic who studied political leadership into a man who envisioned a peaceful, nonviolent world and was prepared to lead by example and personal commitment in attaining such a world.   He publicly recanted the conclusions he had earlier reached and written in justification of the Korean War, and he went on to renounce killing and to establish a Center for Global Nonkilling.

    How rare is that in academia?  It is so rare as to have an impossibly small probability of occurring.  Glenn’s initial path in academia was one that was bringing him considerable academic success.  He had been well received by the foreign policy establishment in the United States, and his studies promised a comfortable academic career.  However, his work prior to his transformation offered only the conventional “truths” that are deeply embedded in a culture of militarism.  It justified one war, which helped build a foundation for the next one.  It perpetuated the myth that wars are necessary and therefore glorious, the lies that induce new generations to submit to following orders and being willing to both kill others and sacrifice their own lives in war.  His earlier work, in short, was consistent with adding academia as a third institutional leg to the Military-Industrial Complex that Eisenhower warned against.

    Glenn’s transformation was so rare, in academia or any other profession, as to appear as a miracle, a change not easily explicable by reference to experience in our society.  There are few modern day examples of such transformation.  Glenn is walking in the path of champions of nonviolence like Thoreau, Tolstoy, Gandhi, Schweitzer and King.  Like Nobel Peace Laureate Mairead Maguire, he is a prophet of nonkilling, which in my view goes even beyond nonviolence.  It puts into tangible practice Schweitzer’s concept of reverence for life.  It holds humanity to a higher standard.  Glenn left the safety and comfort of the academic cloister to envision and help forge a better path for humanity.

    In the future, I think people who seek a better world will look back with awe on Glenn’s life and transformation.  I don’t mean to imply that Glenn is a saint.  He is far too human and grounded for that.  But I do mean to state strongly that he is a most honorable man who is deserving of great respect for his transformative shift of course and what he accomplished following that shift.  Glenn became a leader in battling against our cultural acceptance of militarism with its all-to-easy reliance upon the use of force for domination and empire.  Should we ever arrive at a day when nonkilling becomes our societal norm, Glenn will certainly be revered for his commitment, eloquence and leadership toward achieving this end.

    Glenn once wrote me a humbling note: “I can only bow in reverence for the focused, successful mobilization of action for nuclear disarmament by the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation under your leadership.  I believe it is the most effective nuclear disarmament movement in the world.”  Of course, I was more than pleased to receive such a positive affirmation.  In reflecting on Glenn’s words, I realize that making such affirmations is one of the tools of a good peace leader.  Glenn is such a leader.

    Glenn Paige has done the very best that one can do with his life.  He has stood for truth and human decency.  He has radically transformed himself from an academic proponent of conventional wisdom in a society dominated by militarism to become a powerful voice and force for compassion, decency, nonviolence and nonkilling.  He has focused on nonkilling, a goal that to some may seem so distant as to be impossible.  But to envision the impossible and to work to make it a reality is another important characteristic of a great peace leader.

    Glenn has worked to bring the future we must achieve into the present.  He gives me and, I’m sure many others, hope that a better world, a better future, is possible.  He has demonstrated to other academics that the future is far more important than footnotes.  He has lived the truths of peace and nonviolence that he discovered on his life journey, and he has shown by example that each of us can do more with our lives than may seem possible.  In leading by example, he has shown a central trait of a strong peace leader.

    Thank you, Glenn, for cutting away the tangled intellectual underbrush to forge a path toward a nonkilling political science and nonkilling societies.  Thank you for envisioning and building an institution that will work toward these ends.  Thank you for your compassionate and impassioned leadership aimed at achieving a world in which the killing of other human beings is taboo.  Thank you for being you.

  • Compassionate Convictions Mixed with a Will of Steel

    The sad news came today that Judge Christopher Weeramantry, a long-time member of the Foundation’s Advisory Council, passed away today (January 5, 2017) in Colombo, Sri Lanka.  Judge Weeramantry was a great man who made significant contributions to law and ethics.  His values set a high-water mark for jurists, and these will undoubtedly be carried forward by his writings and by his many students and colleagues.  In 1996, when  he was vice president of the International Court of Justice, he wrote a dissent to the Court’s Advisory Opinion on the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons.  In my opinion, his dissent stands as the best legal analysis ever made of the threat or use of nuclear weapons being illegal in “any circumstances whatsoever.”

    It was a privilege to have known and worked with Judge Weeramantry.  What follows is the contribution I prepared for a felicitation volume honoring Judge Weeramantry that was organized for his 90th birthday in November 2016.

    I have known Judge Weeramantry for many years; and before I had the pleasure of knowing him, I admired his work from afar.  We have worked together on issues of nuclear weapons abolition and served together as councilors on the World Future Council.  He is outwardly calm, kind and warm, while inwardly he is a unique blend of deep and compassionate convictions mixed with a will of steel.

    Judge Weeramantry was honored by the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation on March 12, 2008.
    Judge Weeramantry was honored by the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation on April 12, 2008.

    Judge Weeramantry has a keen legal mind, which he has used effectively and courageously in support of a world free of nuclear weapons.  I deeply admire Judge Weeramantry for the clarity of his thinking in combination with the compassion of his vision of a more decent world.  He has served humanity in many ways, but in no way more importantly than his insistence that nuclear weapons are illegal and must be abolished.

    During the 1980s, Judge Weeramantry prepared and published a Proposed United Nations Declaration of Scientific Responsibility in Relation to Nuclear Weapons.  The following are two far-sighted paragraphs from this document:

    Place beyond doubt the illegality of the use of nuclear weapons, having regard to its violation of the principles of proportionality, discrimination, aggravation of pain and suffering, nullification of a return to peace and inviolability or neutral states

    Aware that the use of nuclear weaponry would undoubtedly result in ecocide, genocide and, if there are any survivors, in massive intergenerational damage

    The document builds toward the conclusion that work on nuclear weapons in any form constitutes crimes under international law, and therefore “calls upon all scientists and technologists throughout the world to abide by the legal and ethical obligations outlined in this document and to desist from any activity involving the development, production, testing, possession, deployment or use of nuclear weapons.”

    During his tenure as a Judge on the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the court considered the United Nations General Assembly’s request for an Advisory Opinion “on the Legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons.”  Whereas the majority of the judges, with the President casting the deciding vote, found in their 1996 Advisory Opinion that such threat or use would be “generally illegal,” Judge Weeramantry found that the threat or use of nuclear weapons would be illegal in any circumstances whatsoever.  He was uncompromising in his stance.  No matter how extreme the circumstances, nuclear weapons could not be used without violating international humanitarian law.

    Judge Weeramantry wrote a brilliant and comprehensive dissent to the Court’s Advisory Opinion in the case.  The opening words of his dissent were these: “My considered opinion is the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons is illegal in any circumstances whatsoever.”  In the next paragraph of his dissent, he stated, “I regret that the Court has not held directly and categorically that the use or threat of use of the weapon is unlawful in all circumstances without exception.  The Court should have so stated in a vigorous and forthright manner which would have settled this legal question now and forever.”

    In reaching the end of his nearly 100-page dissent, Judge Weeramantry stated, “No issue could be fraught with deeper implications for the human future, and the pulse of the future beats strong in the body of international law.  This issue has not thus far entered the precincts of international tribunals.  Now that it has done so for the first time, it should be answered – convincingly, clearly and categorically.”

    I have always felt that Judge Weeramantry’s dissent in this case was a high-water mark for humanity in the Nuclear Age.  It is wise and insightful.  He makes clear that it is not possible for the law to allow for the threat or use of weapons capable of destroying most or all life on the planet.  I look to the day in the future when the ICJ will return to the question of the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons, and will find upon reading and studying the Weeramantry dissent that the path has already been set forth by him for an uncompromising legal opinion that makes it clear that the threat or use of nuclear weapons is illegal under all circumstances, without exception.

    In 2013, Judge Weeramantry prepared an important Briefing Paper for the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, which the Foundation distributed at the second preparatory meeting of the 2015 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference.  The Briefing Paper was titled, “Good Faith: Essential to Nuclear Disarmament and Human Survival.”  Judge Weeramantry, building on article VI of the Non-Proliferation Treaty and the ICJ Advisory Opinion discussed above, made the argument that good faith was not optional, but essential for the international system to work.  His study of good faith in relation to nuclear disarmament led to the following conclusion:

    We are left with no other conclusion than that good faith in regard to nuclear disarmament is a basic requirement of law, of morality, of humanitarianism, and of concern for the human future. It is required by international law. It is undertaken by treaties, such as the Non-Proliferation Treaty. It is prescribed by the International Court of Justice. Neither law nor religion nor morality nor civilization can permit the slightest deviation from this duty of good faith, departure from which will make the cruelties of the past pale into insignificance.

    Judge Weeramantry is a prophet who has warned humanity repeatedly of the importance of international law as applied to nuclear weapons.  He has made it clear that the legal and ethical path to the human future requires the abolition of nuclear weapons, and there are no conditions whatsoever in which the threat or use of nuclear weapons can be justified under international law.

    In 2008, I had the pleasure of presenting Judge Weeramantry with the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s Lifetime Achievement Award, an award presented to “outstanding individuals who have made significant long-term contributions to building a more peaceful world.”  He fills this description in every way.  He is a man with a keen intellect dedicated to peace and international law, and he has a heart large enough to encompass all of humanity.  I feel fortunate to be his colleague, and even more so to be his friend.

  • El Período más Peligroso de la Historia Humana

    El Período más Peligroso de la Historia Humana
    Por David Krieger
    Traducción de Ruben Arvizu

    To read the English version, click here.

    Es aterrador pensar en Donald Trump con los códigos para lanzar el arsenal nuclear estadounidense. Irónicamente, Trump mismo puede ser el mejor argumento jamás habido de por qué el mundo debería abolir las armas nucleares. La mezcla de Trump y armas nucleares es una fórmula que puede hacer de su mandato el período más peligroso de la historia humana.

    Trump lanza tuits en cadera, como un maniático. Cuando tuitea o habla,  a menudo ocasiona aguas tormentosas . Sus ayudantes pasan gran parte de su tiempo tratando de calmar los temores que plantea en su tweetin compulsivo.

    Él ha tuiteado, “Estados Unidos debe fortalecer y expandir su capacidad nuclear hasta el momento en que el mundo recupere el sentido con respecto a las armas nucleares”.  Es improbable que él sea la persona indicada para conducir al mundo a que vuelva a sus sentidos.

    En una breve entrevista en MSNBC con la periodista Mika Brzezinski, Trump reafirmó que,  “Será una carrera armamentista … los superaremos en cada paso y los sobreviviremos a todos”.

    El mundo no necesita otra carrera armamentística nuclear, provocada por las amenazas machistas de Trump.  Imaginémoslo en el lugar de John F. Kennedy durante la crisis de los misiles cubanos en 1962. Si hubiese sido Trump sin duda habría  resultado en una guerra nuclear y el fin de la civilización humana.

    Trump es errático, impulsivo, narcisista, enormemente susceptible , y generalmente ignorante en cuestiones de política exterior y nuclear. Si el mundo va a sobrevivir a su presidencia necesita restricciones en su patológica personalidad,

    ¿Qué se puede hacer para mantener los dedos de Trump lejos del botón nuclear?

    Antes de dejar el cargo, el Presidente Obama podría ordenar que todas las armas en el arsenal nuclear estadounidense sean retiradas del estado de alerta, por lo que al menos tardarían horas o días en ser lanzadas en lugar de sólo unos minutos. Esto reduciría la posibilidad de un ataque impulsivo o accidental de armas nucleares estadounidenses, manteniendo al mismo tiempo una fuerza invulnerable de disuasión nuclear por medio de submarinos .

    Además, el Presidente Obama podría ordenar que los Estados Unidos adopten una política de “no primer uso” relacionada con su arsenal nuclear. Tal política estaría en línea con los valores que la mayoría de los estadounidenses consideran ya como una política nacional.

    Estos actos del Presidente Obama mostrarían a todos que hay otro camino a seguir que es más seguro que amenazar con ataques nucleares. Muchas personas en el  mundo saben que hay una mejor manera de avanzar por la paz y que no requiere prepararse para una represalia nuclear masiva y gastar mil millones de millones  de dólares en las próximas tres décadas para modernizar el arsenal nuclear estadounidense. Esa mejor forma de avanzar es negociar la eliminación gradual, verificable, irreversible y transparente de las armas nucleares.

    El pueblo estadounidense debe sumar sus voces a ese coro universal, exigiendo que se cumplan tales políticas, así como el recuperar el liderazgo estadounidense en el cumplimiento de las obligaciones bajo el Tratado de No Proliferación Nuclear, de negociar de buena fe el fin de la carrera de armamentos nucleares y el desarme nuclear.

    El pueblo estadounidense debe dejar claro al Sr. Trump que lo apoyará en la adopción de medidas para abolir las armas nucleares y para traer la paz al planeta, pero se opondrá a los esfuerzos que él haga para fortalecer y expandir el arsenal nuclear de EE.UU y reiniciar una carrera armamentista apocalíptica.

    David Krieger es Presidente de la Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

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

  • The Most Dangerous Period in Human History

    David KriegerIt is terrifying to think of Donald Trump with the codes to launch the U.S. nuclear arsenal.  Ironically, Trump himself may be the single best argument anyone could make for why the world should abolish nuclear weapons.  The mix of Trump and nuclear weapons is a formula for making his term in office the most dangerous period in human history.

    Trump tweets from the hip, like a crazy man.  When he tweets or speaks, he often muddies the waters.   His aides spend much of their time trying to calm the fears he raises in his compulsive tweeting.

    He has tweeted, “The United States must greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability until such time as the world comes to its senses regarding nukes.”  It is not likely that he will be the person to lead the world in coming to its senses.

    He sought to clarify this tweet by telling MSNBC television host Mika Brzezinski, “Let it be an arms race…we will outmatch them at every pass and outlast them all.”

    The world does not need another nuclear arms race, triggered by macho threats from Trump.  Imagine him in John F. Kennedy’s place during the Cuban Missile Crisis.  Such a crisis under Trump could result in a civilization-ending nuclear war.

    Trump is erratic, impulsive, narcissistic, thin-skinned, and generally ignorant on nuclear and foreign policy issues.  He needs restraints on his personality pathologies, if the world is to survive his presidency.

    What can be done to keep Trump’s fingers away from the nuclear button?

    Before leaving office, President Obama could order that all weapons in the U.S. nuclear arsenal be taken off high alert status, so that it would take hours or days to launch rather than only a few minutes.  This would decrease the possibility of an impulsive or accidental launch of U.S. nuclear weapons, while still maintaining an invulnerable submarine-launched nuclear deterrent force.

    Further, President Obama could order that the U.S. adopt a “No First Use” policy related to its nuclear arsenal.  Such a policy would be in line with U.S. values, and most Americans believe that this is already U.S. policy.

    These acts by President Obama would show people in the U.S. that there is another way forward that is safer and more secure than threatening nuclear strikes.  Many people of the world outside the U.S. already know there is a better way forward that does not require preparing for massive nuclear retaliation and spending $1 trillion over the next three decades to modernize the U.S. nuclear arsenal.  That better way forward is to negotiate for the phased, verifiable, irreversible and transparent elimination of nuclear weapons.

    The American people must add their voices, calling for such policies, as well as U.S. leadership in fulfilling the obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to negotiate in good faith for an end to the nuclear arms race and for nuclear disarmament.

    The American people must make it clear to Mr. Trump that they will support him in taking steps to abolish nuclear weapons and to bring peace to the planet, but will oppose efforts on his part to strengthen and expand the U.S. nuclear arsenal and pursue a new nuclear arms race.

    Vaya aquí para la versión española.

  • The End of Everything

    A newsletter with this blaring headline
    has been on my desk for weeks, maybe months.
    I’m fascinated by its finality.

    Noam Chomsky delivers the same message
    over the radio in his calm voice of reason.  Are we
    reaching the end of all possibilities?

    No longer chaos, but an end to chaos.
    No longer love, but an end to love.
    No longer poems, but an end to poems.

    Everything is so shatteringly final.
    No longer hope or doubt or resistance.

    We must not cross that cruel line – not now,
    not ever.

     

  • The Alarm Is Sounding

    The alarm is sounding.
    The nuclear codes
    will soon be within reach
    of his small hands.

    This is no joke.
    The nuclear codes
    will soon be available
    to his small mind.

    This is deadly serious.
    Control of the nuclear codes
    demands what he lacks —
    a gracious heart.

    The alarm is sounding.
    This is no joke.
    This is deadly serious.

  • The Fierce Urgency of Nuclear Zero: Changing the Discourse – A Symposium Overview

    THE FIERCE URGENCY OF NUCLEAR ZERO: CHANGING THE DISCOURSE
    A SYMPOSIUM OVERVIEW
    By David Krieger

    From L to R: Front Row: Daniel Ellsberg, David Krieger, Noam Chomsky. Second Row: Paul K. Chappell, Rick Wayman, Elaine Scarry, Steven Starr, Richard Falk, Jackie Cabasso, Jennifer Simons, Peter Kuznick, Judith Lipton, Kimiaki Kawai. Third Row: Robert Laney, Mark Hamilton, Daniel Smith, John Mecklin, Hans Kristensen, Rich Appelbaum.
    From L to R: Front Row: Daniel Ellsberg, David Krieger, Noam Chomsky. Second Row: Paul K. Chappell, Rick Wayman, Elaine Scarry, Steven Starr, Richard Falk, Jackie Cabasso, Jennifer Simons, Peter Kuznick, Judith Lipton, Kimiaki Kawai. Third Row: Robert Laney, Mark Hamilton, Daniel Smith, John Mecklin, Hans Kristensen, Rich Appelbaum.

    The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (NAPF) hosted a symposium on October 24-25, 2016 on “The Fierce Urgency of Nuclear Zero: Changing the Discourse.”  The symposium participants, long-time experts on nuclear dangers, included Noam Chomsky, Daniel Ellsberg and Richard Falk.  For a complete list of participants, click here.   Participants voiced concerns that nuclear dangers are increasing in many parts of the world, including Europe, the Middle East, South Asia and Northeast Asia.  Particular concern was expressed over the deterioration in US-Russian relations.  Speakers stressed that a war between the U.S. and Russia is possible, even likely, under current conditions; that such a war could escalate to nuclear exchanges; and could, in that case, trigger a Nuclear Famine or a Nuclear Winter and be a war to end civilization and even cause the extinction of the human species and many other forms of life on the planet.  These concerns are not meant to be alarmist, but they are meant to sound an alarm.

    Hope to Action

    There was general agreement that nuclear war poses an existential threat to humankind and that the warning sirens are now sounding.  There is hope that such a war can be avoided, but that hope, while necessary, is not sufficient to end the nuclear threat now facing humanity and complex life on the planet.  Hope must be joined with action to end the nuclear weapons era in order to abolish nuclear weapons before they abolish us.  And the action must be preventive in nature since there is virtually no possibility of recovery from a nuclear war.  In fact, if one side only were to launch its nuclear arsenal at the other and there were no retaliatory response, the likelihood is that the initial attack would be sufficient to destroy not only the opponent but the attacking side as well.  Thus, Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) must not be reconsidered in light of Self-Assured Destruction (SAD), even for the attacking side.

    U.S.-Russia Temperatures Rise

    The U.S. and Russia must step back from the confrontations in which they have been engaged in Europe, Ukraine, Syria, the Middle East and elsewhere.  The discourse must be shifted from confrontation and military might to finding common ground through diplomacy to step back from the brink.  This is the only sensible way forward.  As many leaders, including Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev, have long realized and stated, “A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.”

    Citizens of the two countries, as well as leaders, have a role to play in assuring their common future.  It is time for citizens to enter the discourse in their own interests and those of their families and communities.  We have come too far to sacrifice the future on the dangerous shoals of nationalism, militarism and nuclearism.   As Einstein warned early in the Nuclear Age, “The unleashed power of the atom has changed everything save our modes of thinking, and thus we drift toward unparalleled catastrophe.”  We must change our modes of thinking, our discourse and our actions if we are to prevent a catastrophic nuclear war, one that could be initiated by malice or mistake, by anger or accident.

    The goal must be complete nuclear disarmament, and required negotiations to achieve a nuclear weapon-free world must commence now.  It is positive news that non-nuclear weapon states at the United Nations have voted to begin negotiations in March 2017 for a treaty to ban and eliminate nuclear weapons.  Unfortunately, all nuclear weapon states except North Korea voted against the resolution to begin negotiations or abstained, as did most of the U.S. allies who shelter under its nuclear umbrella.  Such attachment to nuclear weapons and the policies that sustain them is dangerous in the extreme and sends exactly the wrong message to the world.  It is a display of hubris when wisdom is desperately needed.  The question for the non-nuclear weapon states is: can they create a meaningful nuclear ban treaty – one with normative and moral strength – without the participation of key nuclear weapons states?  There was general agreement that the negotiations for a treaty to fill the legal gap in prohibiting and eliminating nuclear weapons is one of the most important and promising initiatives currently on the international agenda.

    Youth and the Media Must Take the Lead

    There was discussion that two groups in particular could lead the way toward ending the nuclear era: the media because of their power and influential outreach, and youth because of their larger stake in the human future.

    The media needs to get and convey the message that nuclear weapons pose far too great a risk to the human future, and nuclear war would be a catastrophe beyond our ability to imagine.  The media must awaken to the existential dangers of nuclear war and help to awaken people throughout the world to these dangers.  Just as the media has helped to propel a widespread understanding of the existential dangers of climate change, it must do the same for nuclear dangers through documentaries, feature films, news and analysis, fiction, and the use of various forms of social media.

    How to break through the ignorance and apathy of young people regarding nuclear dangers was recognized as a significant challenge.  It was noted that documentaries, like “The Untold History of the United States,” seem to hold promise for reaching this audience and that more of this educational work needs to be done.  The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists “Voices of Tomorrow” program, which involves young writers in the Bulletin’s web content, also offers hope for the next generation’s involvement.  And capturing the attention of the Bernie Sanders movement could also offer a way to mobilize young people around the need for nuclear weapons abolition.  Further, it would be valuable to expand the use of NAPF’s Peace Literacy Program in schools, places of worship and social organizations such as Rotary International.

    The Wisdom of Russell and Einstein

    The symposium concluded with reference to a key paragraph from one of the most important documents of the 20th century, the Russell-Einstein Manifesto: “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.”

    This warning is as valid today as when it was issued in 1955, but it has been largely overlooked or forgotten.  It could become the basis for a new discourse for humanity.

     

    For more information on the symposium, click here.

  • Donald Trump, the Bomb, and the Human Future

    donald_trumpDonald Trump and the Bomb are nearly the same age.  Which of them will prove to be more destructive remains to be seen, but in combination they are terrifying.

    Trump was born on June 14, 1946, less than a year after the first and, thus far, only nuclear weapons were used in war.  Given Trump’s surprising recent election as president of the United States, his fate and that of the Bomb are about to become seriously and dangerously intertwined with the fate of all humanity.

    On January 20, 2017, Trump will be sworn in as the 45th president of the United States, and he will be given the nuclear codes and the power to launch the U.S. nuclear arsenal, which is comprised of some 7,000 nuclear weapons.  A military officer will always be close to Trump, carrying the nuclear codes in a briefcase known as the “football.”  What does this portend for civilization and the future of humanity?

    The Singular Positive

    The most positive policy proposal Trump will bring to the table as president is his desire to improve and strengthen relations between the U.S. and Russia, which have deteriorated badly in recent years.  This is one hopeful sign that could lead to renewed efforts by the two countries to reduce their nuclear arsenals and reverse current plans to modernize these arsenals.

    The Numerous Negatives

    Trump’s behavior during the presidential campaign was often erratic, seemingly based on discernable personality traits, including narcissism, arrogance, impulsiveness, and a lack of predictability.  If these traits provide a fair characterization of Trump’s personality, what do they suggest for his control of the U.S. nuclear arsenal?

    Trump’s narcissism seems to be reflected in his need to be liked and treated positively.  During the primaries, if another candidate criticized him, Trump would respond with even stronger criticism toward his attacker.  On the other hand, if someone praised Trump, he would respond with praise.  This could result in creating a spiral in either a positive or negative direction.  A negative spiral could potentially get out of hand, which would be alarming with regard to anyone with a hand hovering near the nuclear button.

    His narcissism was also reflected in his need to be right.  Even though Trump is reported to not read very much and to have a limited range of experience, he is often certain that he is right and boldly asserts the correctness of his positions.  At one point, for example, he argued that he knew much more than military leaders about the pursuit and defeat of ISIS.  His assuredness of his own correctness seems also rooted in arrogance reflecting his fundamental insecurity.  This insecurity and his belief in his own rightness, when combined with his success at making money, leads him to be self-reliant in his decision-making, which could result in his taking risks with threatening or using nuclear weapons.  He said on MSNBC’s Morning Joe program, “My primary consultant is myself.”  While this may make consensus easy, the range of perspective is dangerously narrow.

    Two other personality traits could also make more likely Trump’s use of nuclear weapons: his impulsiveness and his lack of predictability.  Impulsiveness is not a trait one would choose for a person with the power to launch the U.S. nuclear arsenal.  When it comes to deciding to use the Bomb, a personality that is calm, clear and measured would seem to inspire more confidence that caution would be employed.  Predictability would also seem to inspire confidence that a President Trump would refrain from deciding to respond with overwhelming force when he is in a negative spiral and out of patience with a country or terrorist organization that is challenging the U.S., which he may interpret as mounting a challenge to himself personally.

    Where Does Trump Stand?

    On many issues, including on the use of nuclear weapons, it is not clear where Trump stands, due to his contradictory statements.  Here is what Trump said in March 2016 at a town hall event when host Chris Matthews asked him if he might use nuclear weapons:

    Trump: “I’d be the last one to use the nuclear weapons, because that’s sort of like the end of the ballgame.”

    Matthews: “So, can you take it off the table now? Can you tell the Middle East we are not using the nuclear weapon on anybody?”

    Trump: “I would never say that. I would never take any of my cards off the table.”

    Matthews: “How about Europe? We won’t use it in Europe.”

    Trump: “I’m not going to take it off the table for anybody.”

    Matthews: “You might use it in Europe?”

    Trump: “No. I don’t think so, but — I am not taking cards off the table. I’m not going to use nukes, but I’m not taking cards off the table.”

    Trump has also said that he would do away with the Iran Deal negotiated by the U.S. and five of its allies with Iran, and yet he recently backed away from vowing to scrap the Iran Deal for now.  He also said that he would encourage Japan and South Korea to develop their own nuclear arsenals to lower U.S. costs, and then has denied that he would encourage nuclear proliferation to allies (although he did say so).  He supports the modernization of the U.S. nuclear arsenal, while complaining about budget expenditures.  He presumably intends to go forward with the $1 trillion nuclear modernization plan.

    Conclusion

    Perhaps the singular positive of Trump’s desire to improve the deteriorating relations between the U.S. and Russia will lead to achieving progress toward a world free of nuclear weapons.  A lot will depend on who Trump chooses for key cabinet positions, but even more will depend on his consultations with his key advisor (himself).

    That so much power over the U.S. nuclear arsenal is placed in the hands of one man – any man – bodes ill for humanity, while completely undermining the war power granted to Congress in the U.S. constitution.  That the man in question should be Donald Trump, with all his personal flaws, challenges the United States and the world as never before in human history.

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

    Vaya aquí para la versión española.

  • Donald Trump, La Bomba y el Futuro Humano

    Por David Krieger
    Traducción de Rubén D. Arvizu

    donald_trumpDonald Trump y la Bomba atómica tienen casi la misma edad. ¿Cuál de esto resultará ser más destructivo.?  Es algo que queda por verse, pero la combinación es aterradora.

    Trump nació el 14 de junio de 1946, menos de un año después del primer y, hasta ahora, único uso de  armas nucleares en la guerra. Dada la sorprendente elección reciente de Trump como presidente de Estados Unidos, su destino y el de la bomba están a punto de entrelazarse peligrosamente con el destino de toda la humanidad.

    El 20 de enero de 2017, Trump será juramentado como el 45.o presidente de los Estados Unidos, y le serán entregados los códigos nucleares y el poder de lanzar el arsenal de  EEUU, que está compuesto de cerca de 7.000 armas nucleares. Un oficial militar siempre estará cerca de Trump, llevando los códigos nucleares en un maletín conocido como el “fútbol”. ¿Qué presagia esto para la civilización y el futuro de la humanidad?

    Lo Positivo Singular

    La propuesta de política más positiva que Trump traerá a la mesa como presidente es su deseo de mejorar y fortalecer las relaciones entre  EE.UU. y Rusia, que se han deteriorado en los últimos años. Este es un signo esperanzador que podría llevar a renovar los esfuerzos de los dos países para reducir sus arsenales nucleares y revertir los planes actuales para modernizar este armamento.

    Lo Negativo Numeroso

    El comportamiento de Trump durante la campaña presidencial fue francamente errático, aparentemente basado en discernibles rasgos de personalidad, incluyendo narcisismo, arrogancia, impulsividad, y una falta de previsibilidad.  Si estos rasgos proporcionan una caracterización justa de la personalidad de Trump, ¿qué sugieren para su control del arsenal nuclear estadounidense?

    El narcisismo de Trump parece reflejarse en su necesidad de ser aceptado y tratado positivamente.  Durante las primarias de la campaña presidencial, si otro candidato lo criticaba, Trump respondía con críticas aún más fuertes hacia su atacante. Por otro lado, si alguien alababa a Trump, él respondía con alabanza. Esto resulta en la creación de una espiral en una dirección positiva o negativa. Una espiral negativa puede salirse de control, lo que sería alarmante con respecto a cualquier persona con la mano muy cerca del botón nuclear.

    Su narcisismo también se refleja en su necesidad de tener razón. A pesar de que se dice que Trump no lee mucho y tiene un rango limitado de experiencia, siempre asegura de que tiene razón y despreocupadamente afirma que sus posiciones son correctas.  En un momento, por ejemplo, argumentó que sabía mucho más que los líderes militares acerca de la persecución y derrota de ISIS. La seguridad con la que se empecina en estar correcto parece también estar arraigada en la arrogancia que refleja su inseguridad fundamental. Esta inseguridad y su creencia en su propia rectitud, cuando se combina con su éxito en hacer dinero, le lleva a ser autosuficiente en su toma de decisiones, lo que podría resultar en que tome riesgos ante amenazas o el uso de armas nucleares.  Él lo dijo en el programa Morning Joe de MSNBC, “Mi consultor principal soy yo mismo.”  Aunque esto puede hacer que el consenso sea simple la gama de perspectivas es peligrosamente estrecha.

    Otros dos rasgos de su personalidad también podrían hacer más posible que Trump decida usar armas nucleares: su impulsividad y su falta de previsibilidad.  Impulsividad no es un rasgo que se elija para una persona con el poder de lanzar el arsenal nuclear de los EE.UU.   Cuando se trata de decidir usar la bomba, una personalidad que es tranquila, clara y razonable inspira más confianza en que la precaución sería empleada.  La falta de  previsibilidad también inspira desconfianza de que el Presidente Trump se abstendría de responder con fuerza abrumadora cuando esté en una espiral negativa y pierda la paciencia con un país o una organización terrorista que esté desafiando a Estados Unidos, lo que él podría interpretar como un reto personal.

    ¿Cuál es su posición?

    En muchos temas, incluyendo el uso de armas nucleares, no está claro cuál es la posición de Trump, debido a sus declaraciones contradictorias. Esto es lo que dijo Trump en marzo de 2016 en un evento público de preguntas y respuestas cuando el anfitrión Chris Matthews le preguntó si consideraba usar armas nucleares:

    Trump: “Yo sería el último en usar las armas nucleares, porque eso es como el final del juego de pelota”.

    Matthews: “Entonces, ¿puede sacar el tema de la mesa ahora? ¿Puede decirle al Medio Oriente que no usaremos armas nucleares contra nadie?”

    Trump: “Nunca diría eso, nunca quitaría ninguna de mis cartas de la mesa”.

    Matthews: “¿Qué dice de Europa ? no la usaremos en Europa”.

    Trump: “No retiro la posibilidad para nadie”.

    Matthews: ¿Podría usarlas en Europa?

    Trump: No. Creo que no, pero no voy a sacar las cartas de la mesa, no voy a usar armas nucleares, pero no voy a sacar las cartas de la mesa.

    Trump también dijo que acabaría con el acuerdo negociado por los Estados Unidos y cinco de sus aliados con Irán, y sin embargo recientemente pareció decir que abandonaría la idea de terminar el acuerdo de Irán por ahora.  También dijo que alentaría a Japón y Corea del Sur a desarrollar sus propios arsenales nucleares para bajar los costos para EE.UU., y luego ha negado que alentaría la proliferación nuclear a sus aliados (aunque lo dijo). Apoya la modernización del arsenal nuclear estadounidense, mientras se queja de los gastos presupuestarios. Presumiblemente, se propone seguir adelante con el plan de modernización nuclear de 1 millón de millones de dólares.

    Conclusión

    Quizás el positivo deseo singular de Trump de mejorar las relaciones deterioradas entre Estados Unidos y Rusia podría conducir hacia un mundo libre de armas nucleares.  Mucho dependerá de quién elija Trump para puestos clave del gabinete, pero aún más dependerá de sus consultas con su asesor clave (él mismo).

    El que tanto poder sobre el arsenal nuclear estadounidense se coloque en las manos de un hombre – cualquier hombre – es un mal presagio para el mundo y socava completamente el poder de guerra otorgado por el Congreso en la Constitución de los Estados Unidos.  Y si el hombre en cuestión debe ser Donald Trump, con todos sus defectos personales, eso desafía a los Estados Unidos y al mundo como nunca antes en la historia de la humanidad.

    David Krieger es Presidente de  la Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingperace.org)  Es autor y editor de

    muchas obras sobre la paz y la abolición de las armas nucleares, incluyendo “Hablando de Paz: Citas para inspirar

    acción.”

    Rubén D. Arvizu es Director para América Latina de NAPF,  Director General de Comunicaciones Internacionales de WorldArcticFund y

    Director General para América Latina de Ocean Futures Society.

    Click here for the English version.

  • Recordando al Almirante Gene La Rocque

    Por David Krieger
    Traducción de Rubén Arvizu

    Hace poco me enteré de que el almirante Gene La Rocque falleció el 31 de octubre de 2016 a la edad de 98 años. Fue sepultado en el cementerio de Arlington.  Gene tenía una larga carrera en el ejército, ascendiendo al rango de almirante. En 1971, después de su retiro del ejército, fue uno de los principales fundadores del Centro de Información de Defensa (CDI), una organización educativa sin fines de lucro y no partidista que se ocupaba del análisis de asuntos militares y particularmente abusos en gastos de defensa. El CDI fue dirigido por oficiales militares retirados, incluyendo a Gene, quien fue su primer director. La organización apoyó una defensa fuerte, pero se opuso a los gastos excesivos para las armas y también las políticas que aumentaban la probabilidad de una guerra nuclear.

    El almirante Gene La Rocque (I) y el presidente de la NAPF, David Krieger (D), en 1985 en la Noche de Paz de la Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

    En 1985, la Nuclear Age Peace Foundation otorgó a Gene el Premio al Hombre de Estado Distinguido por su “valiente liderazgo en la causa de la paz” (El nombre del premio fue luego cambiado a Premio Líder Distinguido de la Paz).  Ahí habló sobre “El papel de los militares en la era nuclear”. En su discurso al recibir el premio de la Fundación, Gene compartió algunas ideas importantes. Dijo, por ejemplo, que, basándose en su larga experiencia militar, creía que “la guerra es una manera muy tonta de resolver las diferencias entre las naciones. Y la guerra nuclear es totalmente insana. Gene siempre decía las cosas con claridad.

    También comentó esto sobre la guerra nuclear: “Si vamos a tener una guerra nuclear, no podemos ganarla. ¿Podemos sobrevivir? No lo sé. Nadie lo sabe. Esa es la tragedia – nadie lo sabe. Cualquiera que diga que esta cantidad de gente va a morir y que muchos de ellos van a sobrevivir no sabe de qué está hablando “.

    Refiriéndose a una guerra entre Estados Unidos y la Unión Soviética, dijo: “Nos estamos acercando a una guerra que no queremos, a una guerra que no podemos controlar, a una guerra en la que no podemos defendernos, a una guerra  que no podemos ganar, y una guerra que probablemente no podamos sobrevivir.

    Sustituyamos “Rusia” por “Unión Soviética “, y estas palabras son tan verdaderas hoy como lo eran en 1985.

    Gene La Rocque era un hombre sabio y humilde, que estaba de pie al lado de la justicia y la paz. Sirvió durante muchos años como miembro del Consejo Asesor de la NAPF,  y siempre podíamos contar con él con sus sabios consejos y su decencia absoluta.  Nunca se sintió importante y tenía un gran sentido del humor. Vivió una larga y muy buena vida, e hizo todo lo posible para dejar al mundo como un lugar mejor.

    Les pido a todos que sigamos el consejo de Gene de “hacer algo todos los días si quieren evitar una guerra nuclear”. Ningún consejo de un líder militar podría ser más importante o más útil para el destino de la humanidad.

    David Krieger es Presidente de  la Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingperace.org)  Es autor y editor de

    muchas obras sobre la paz y la abolición de las armas nucleares, incluyendo “Hablando de Paz: Citas para inspirar

    acción.”

    Rubén D. Arvizu es Director para América Latina de NAPF,  Director General de Comunicaciones Internacionales de WorldArcticFund y

    Director General para América Latina de Ocean Futures Society.