Author: David Krieger

  • Remembering Admiral Gene La Rocque

    I recently learned that Admiral Gene La Rocque died on October 31, 2016 at the age of 98.  He is buried at Arlington Cemetery.  Gene had a long career in the military, rising to the rank of rear admiral. In 1971, after his retirement from the military, he was one of the principal founders of the Center for Defense Information (CDI), a non-profit, non-partisan educational organization concerned with analysis of military matters and particularly abuses in defense expenditures.  CDI was led by retired military officers, including Gene, who was its first director.  The organization supported a strong defense, but opposed excessive expenditures for weapons and also policies that increased the likelihood of nuclear war.

    Admiral Gene La Rocque (L) and NAPF President David Krieger (R) at the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation's 1985 Evening for Peace.
    Admiral Gene La Rocque (L) and NAPF President David Krieger (R) at the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s 1985 Evening for Peace.

    In 1985, the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation gave its Distinguished Statesman Award to Gene for “courageous leadership in the cause of peace.”  (The name of the award was later changed to Distinguished Peace Leadership Award.)  Gene came to Santa Barbara to receive the award and spoke on “The Role of the Military in the Nuclear Age.”  In his speech upon receiving the Foundation’s award, Gene shared some important insights.  He said, for example, that, based upon his long military experience, he believed “that war is a very dumb way to settle differences between nations.  And nuclear war is utterly insane.”  Gene was always a straight talker.

    He also had this to say about nuclear war: “If we are to have a nuclear war, we can’t win it.  Can we survive it?  I don’t know.  Nobody knows.  That’s the tragedy of it – nobody knows.  Anybody that tells you that this many people are going to be killed and this many are going to survive doesn’t know what he’s talking about.”

    Referring to a war between the U.S. and Soviet Union, he said, “We’re getting closer to a war we don’t want, a war we can’t control, a war in which we can’t defend ourselves, a war we can’t win, and a war we probably can’t survive.”  Substitute “Russia” for “Soviet Union,” and these words are as true today as they were in 1985.

    Gene La Rocque was a wise and humble man, who stood squarely on the side of justice and peace.  He served for many years as a member of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s Advisory Council, when we could always count on him for his good advice and his abiding decency.  He was self-deprecating and had a great sense of humor.  He lived a long life and a good life, and he did his utmost to leave the world a better place.

    I urge you to follow Gene’s advice “to do something every day if you want to avert a nuclear war.”  No advice from a military leader could be more important or more useful to the fate of humanity.

    To read Admiral La Rocque’s 1985 speech on “The Role of the Military in the Nuclear Age,” click here.

  • 2016 Evening for Peace Introduction

    When we founded the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation in 1982, we did so in the belief that peace is an imperative of the Nuclear Age.  That is, in our time, peace is not only desirable; it is essential for human survival.

    For the past 33 years, among our many projects and programs, we’ve honored some of the great Peace Leaders of our time, including the XIVth Dalai Lama; Archbishop Desmond Tutu; Carl Sagan; Helen Caldicott; Jacques Cousteau; Mairead Maguire; Queen Noor and Daniel Ellsberg.

    We have honored Peace Leaders from all walks of life and from all parts of the world.  It is a diverse group of individuals tied together by their compassion, commitment and courage in pursuit of a more peaceful and decent world.

    Each of these individuals recognizes the existential dangers of the Nuclear Age and the moral, legal and logical failings of reliance on nuclear weapons for security.

    Each of them reminds us of how desperately our world needs Peace Leaders; and that each of us – if we apply our energy and will – can become a Peace Leader as well.

    *****

    krieger_chomsky
    NAPF President David Krieger, right, presented Noam Chomsky with the Distinguished Peace Leadership Award on October 23, 2016.

    Tonight we honor Noam Chomsky.

    By training and profession, he is one of the world’s leading linguists.

    By choice and commitment, he is one of the world’s leading advocates of peace with justice.

    His ongoing analysis of the global dangers confronting humanity is unsurpassed.

    He is a man who unreservedly speaks truth to power, as well as to the People.

    Like Socrates, he is a gentle gadfly who does not refrain from challenging authority and authoritarian mindsets.

    He is a man who punctures hubris with wisdom.

    He confronts conformity with critical thinking.

    He has lectured throughout the world and written more than 100 books, the latest of which is Who Rules the World?

    He is a dedicated peace educator and his classroom is the world.

    The Boston Globe calls him “America’s most useful citizen.”

    It is an honor to have him with us tonight, and it is my great pleasure, on behalf of the Directors and members of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, to present Noam Chomsky with the Foundation’s 2016 Distinguished Peace Leadership Award.

  • The Fierce Urgency of Nuclear Zero: Changing the Discourse

    David Krieger delivered these remarks at the opening session of the symposium “The Fierce Urgency of Nuclear Zero: Changing the Discourse,” held on October 24-25, 2016 in Santa Barbara, California.

     

    Thank you all for taking time to join us to participate in the symposium.

    Each of you was invited to participate because we believe in your work and value your insights.

    I think that everyone participating feels the urgency of getting to zero, or at least on the path to zero.  Perhaps you are also feeling, as I do, the frustration and pain of putting in so much effort over so many decades, and having witnessed so relatively little progress toward a world free of nuclear weapons.  The world seems stuck, or regressing, on this issue of such great importance to humanity’s future.

    We’ve organized this symposium in an effort to achieve a breakthrough in thinking and discourse on the path to zero nuclear weapons.  Our great hope for the symposium is that we may, by brainstorming and common concern, find some creative ways to move the world closer to the goal of Nuclear Zero.  Given the track record of the nuclear-armed states of nuclear entrenchment, reliance on nuclear arsenals for deterrence, and their plans to modernize their nuclear arsenals, I recognize that we are setting the bar high.  The state of the world with its existential nuclear threats, however, is calling out for setting high goals and aiming to achieve them with a sense of urgency.

    Let me provide a brief overview of where we stand, by contrasting some positive perspectives with some negative counterpoints:

    1. Positive: Since the mid-1980s, the number of nuclear weapons in the world has been reduced by 55,000.

    Negative: There remain more than 15,000 nuclear weapons in the world.  The use of only a small percentage of these could destroy civilization and much of complex life.

    1. Positive: Nuclear weapons have not been used in warfare since 1945, when two were used to destroy the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

    Negative: Since 1945, there have been many close calls related to nuclear detonations due to accidents, false alarms, miscalculations and intentional confrontations.

    1. Positive: We have not yet destroyed civilization or complex life with nuclear weapons.

    Negative: The odds of a child born today dying in a nuclear war during his or her expected 80-year lifespan are estimated at one in six.  These are not acceptable odds.  It is like playing Nuclear Roulette with nuclear weapons pointed at humanity’s head.

    1. Positive: The nuclear-armed states are committed under international law to negotiate in good faith to end the nuclear arms race at an early date.

    Negative: It is already long past “an early date,” and rather than negotiating in good faith, the nuclear-armed states are all engaged in modernizing their nuclear arsenals.

    1. Positive: The nuclear-armed states are committed under international law to negotiate in good faith for nuclear disarmament.

    Negative: No such negotiations are taking place and there doesn’t seem to be either the political will to initiate them, or the judicial will to enforce such good faith negotiations..

    1. Positive: At this point, there are only nine countries in possession of nuclear weapons.

    Negative: Nine countries is nine too many.  Also, the U.S. keeps its nuclear weapons on the territory of five countries in Europe and provides a “nuclear umbrella” to more than 30 allied countries, including 28 NATO members.

    1. Positive: The Cold War between the U.S. and Soviet Union ended without a major world war and without any war going nuclear.

    Negative: Relations between the U.S. and Russia are growing chilly and many analysts believe we are entering a new Cold War between the two nuclear-armed powers.

    1. Positive: Young people could take the lead in changing the discourse on nuclear weapons.

    Negative: Young people, by and large, are not well educated on the issue and give priority to other issues.

    1. Positive: It is not too late to change our thinking, our discourse and our actions with regard to nuclear dangers.

    Negative: There are few signs that political leaders of nuclear-armed states are ready to engage in this issue with the commitment and political will necessary to achieve Nuclear Zero.

    It is a formidable task to overcome the many obstacles on the path to Nuclear Zero.  These include:

    • the lack of political will by the leaders of nuclear-armed countries and their allies;
    • a managerial policy orientation (arms control rather than disarmament);
    • an inadequately agreed-upon global ethic;
    • the extreme arrogance of nuclear possessors, including belief in their infallibility;
    • the strong belief in the efficacy of nuclear deterrence (a Maginot Line in the Mind);
    • the widespread ignorance and complacency on the part of the public and elites;
    • the mistaken belief that nuclear weapons provide protection to their possessors;
    • the tyranny of experts (that is, “national security” elites);
    • the conformity of political leaders;
    • an insufficient global structure to support and enforce Nuclear Zero;
    • the inability to make progress in changing our modes of thinking, as Einstein warned we must; and
    • a failure of imagination.

    I hope that these and other obstacles to the goal of a world free of nuclear weapons will be touched upon in the course of our discussions.  I am also hopeful that we will each grow in understanding by our sharing of insights in dialogue with one another.  Finally, I hope that we may develop and agree upon a Final Statement that will be a message to people everywhere that will help move the world closer to the goal of Nuclear Zero.

  • The Fierce Urgency of Nuclear Zero

    The Nuclear Age began with the utter destruction of the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  Survivors of these bombings have borne witness to the death, devastation, pain and suffering that resulted from the use of nuclear weapons.  They have given ample testimony to the horrors they experienced.  Their most powerful and persistent insight is: “We must abolish nuclear weapons before they abolish us.”  The “we” in that statement is “humanity” and the “us” is “all of us.”

    The weapons used at Hiroshima and Nagasaki were small compared to the thermonuclear weapons subsequently developed, including those in today’s nuclear arsenals.

    Planet Earth from outer spaceThe use of only one or two percent of the more than 15,000 nuclear weapons in modern nuclear arsenals would likely destroy civilization and could destroy much of life on Earth.  Rather than engaging in serious nuclear disarmament efforts, however, all nine nuclear-armed countries are in the process of modernizing and upgrading their nuclear arsenals.

    It is clear, but not widely considered, that today’s nuclear arsenals threaten all we love and treasure, make humans an endangered species, and undermine our stewardship of the planet.

    A quarter century after the end of the Cold War, some 1,800 nuclear weapons in the arsenals of the United States and Russia remain on hair-trigger alert, ready to be fired within moments of an order to do so.  This is literally a disaster waiting to happen.

    Nuclear trouble spots are intensifying across the globe, but particularly in relations between former Cold War adversaries, U.S. and Russia, leading some analysts to describe the situation as a new cold war.

    Expanding NATO membership to Russia’s borders, in spite of promises not to do so, has been among the major factors causing deterioration in U.S.-Russian relations.

    The U.S. has deployed missile defense installations on military bases of NATO members close to the Russian border.  The Russians view missile defenses as dangerous dual-purpose technology (with offensive as well as defensive capabilities), and these installations are heightening tensions between Russia and the West.

    Similar tensions are developing in East Asia as a result of the deployment of U.S. missile defense installations in that region, viewed by China as undermining its minimum deterrent force and helping to drive the modernization of the Chinese nuclear arsenal.  Tensions also remain high in South Asia and the Middle East.

    Against this backdrop of danger and uncertainty, the nuclear disarmament obligations of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) are not being fulfilled by the nuclear weapon states that are parties to the treaty, thus breaching the treaty and violating the bargain of the treaty.  In a bold action, the tiny Pacific Island state, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, brought lawsuits in 2014 against the nine nuclear-armed countries for breaching their obligations under the NPT and/or customary international law to negotiate in good faith for an end to the nuclear arms race and for nuclear disarmament.

    Among the nine nuclear-armed countries and those countries under the “nuclear umbrella” of the United States (the 28 NATO countries and Australia, Japan, Republic of Korea and Taiwan), there appears to be little political will for nuclear disarmament and the public in these countries seems to be largely complacent.

    The Doomsday Clock of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists stands at three minutes to midnight, close to doomsday.  And yet, humanity is experiencing the “frog’s malaise.”  It is as though the human species has been placed into a pot of tepid water and is content to calmly stay there treading water while the temperature rises to the fatal boiling point.

    As Noam Chomsky analyzes the situation, “Nuclear weapons pose a constant danger of instant destruction, but at least we know in principle how to alleviate the threat, even to eliminate it, an obligation undertaken (and disregarded) by the nuclear powers that have signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty.”

    Humanity stands at the edge of a nuclear precipice.  Our choices are to do nothing or to back away from the precipice and change course.  We can remain complacent, and thus unengaged, in the face of the threat, or we can become engaged and demand the elimination of nuclear weapons before they are used again by mistake, miscalculation or malice.  There is no meaningful middle ground.

    How is humanity to shoulder the moral burden for species survival that is our collective responsibility in the Nuclear Age?

    We must change the discourse on nuclear dangers and the actions that follow from it. 

    We must awaken, create and build a movement that is powerful enough to achieve the political will to end the nuclear era.

    The movement must have one simple demand that resonates across the globe – a world free of nuclear weapons.  This must be conveyed to political leaders as an urgent and essential goal for assuring the future of humanity.  Once the goal is widely accepted, steps along the way must be agreed upon.  Meaningful steps would include:

    • Reinstating the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and the removal of U.S. missile defense installations from near the Russian border.
    • Convening negotiations for a Nuclear Ban Treaty to prohibit and eliminate nuclear weapons on Earth and in outer space.
    • De-alerting nuclear arsenals; declaring policies of No First Use and No Launch-on-Warning; removing all U.S. nuclear weapons from foreign soil; ratifying the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty; and negotiating a treaty banning weapons in space.
    • Zeroing out funding for “modernizing” nuclear arsenals and directing these funds instead to meeting human needs and protecting the environment.

    The Nuclear Age is a time of great challenge.  We must raise the level of our moral and political engagement to assure that globally we are able to control the power of our destructive technologies.  Youth must lead the way in creating a new human epoch that is characterized by the seven C’s: compassion, commitment, courage, conscience, creativity, cooperation and celebration.

  • The Simple Act of Pushing a Button

    “Since the appearance of visible life on Earth, 380 million years had to elapse in order for a butterfly to learn how to fly, 180 million years to create a rose with no other commitment than to be beautiful, and four geological eras in order for us human beings to be able to sing better than birds, and to be able to die from love. It is not honorable for the human talent, in the golden age of science, to have conceived the way for such an ancient and colossal process to return to the nothingness from which it came through the simple act of pushing a button.”

    I recently came across this quotation by the great Colombian novelist Gabriel Garcia Marquez, the author of One Hundred Years of Solitude and recipient of the 1982 Nobel Prize for Literature.  The quotation is from a 1986 speech by Garcia Marquez entitled “The Cataclysm of Damocles.”  In the short quotation, he captures what needs to be said about nuclear weapons succinctly, poetically and beautifully.  With a few deft literary brushstrokes, he shows that the journey of life from nothingness to now could be ended with no more than “the simple act of pushing a button.”

    The button is a metaphor for setting in motion a nuclear war, which could happen by miscalculation, mistake or malice.  Of course, it matters whose finger is on the button, but it matters even more that anyone’s finger is on the button.  There are not good fingers and bad fingers resting on the button.  No one is stable enough, rational enough, sane enough, or wise enough to trust with deciding to push the nuclear button.  It is madness to leave the door open to the possibility of “a return to nothingness.”

    On one side of the ledger is everything natural and extraordinary about life with its long evolution bringing us to the present and poised to carry its processes forward into the future.  On the other side of the ledger is “the button,” capable of bringing most life on the planet to a screeching halt.  Also on this side of the ledger are those people who remain ignorant or apathetic to the nuclear dangers confronting humanity.

    We all need to recognize what is at stake and choose a side.  Put simply, do you stand with life and the processes of nature that have brought such beauty and diversity to our world, or do you stand with the destructive products of science that have brought us to the precipice of annihilation?  We must each make a choice.

    I fear too many of us are not awakened to the seriousness and risks of the unfolding situation.  We are taken in by the techno-talk that amplifies the messages of national security linked to the button.  Nuclear deterrence is no more than a hypothesis about human psychology and behavior.  It does not protect people from a nuclear attack.  It is unproven and unprovable.  Nuclear deterrence may or may not work, but we know that it cannot provide physical protection against a nuclear attack.  Those who believe in it, do so at their own peril and at our common peril.

    The possibility of “a return to nothingness” is too great a risk to take.  We must put down the nuclear-armed gun.  We must dismantle the button and the potential annihilation it represents.  We must listen to our hearts and end the nuclear insanity by ending the nuclear weapons era.  If we fail to act with engaged hearts, we will continue to stand at the precipice of annihilation – the precipice of a world without butterflies or beautiful roses, without birds or humans.  The golden age of science will come to an end as a triumph of cataclysmic devastation, which will be humanity’s most enduring failure.

    Reading, discussing and understanding the meaning of Gabriel Garcia Marquez’s short quotation should be required of every schoolchild, every citizen, and every leader of every country.


    Vaya aquí para la versión española.

    David Krieger is President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org).  He is the author and editor of many books on peace and nuclear weapons abolition, including Speaking of Peace: Quotations to Inspire Action.

     

  • El simple hecho de oprimir un botón

    Por David Krieger
    Traducción de Ruben Arvizu

    “Desde la aparición de la vida visible en la Tierra debieron transcurrir 380 millones de años para que una mariposa aprendiera a volar, otros 180 millones de años para fabricar una rosa sin otro compromiso que el de ser hermosa, y cuatro eras geológicas para que los seres humanos a diferencia del bisabuelo pitecántropo, fueran capaces de cantar mejor que los pájaros y de morirse de amor. No es nada honroso para el talento humano, en la edad de oro de la ciencia, haber concebido el modo de que un proceso milenario tan dispendioso y colosal, pueda regresar a la nada de donde vino por el arte simple de oprimir un botón.”

    Recientemente me re-encontré con esta cita del gran novelista colombiano Gabriel García Márquez, el autor de Cien años de soledad y galardonado con el Premio Nobel de Literatura 1982.  La cita es de un discurso de García Márquez que en 1986 pronunció en Ixtapa, México en el 41 Aniversario del ataque atómico a Hiroshima, titulado “El cataclismo de Damocles”. Esta cita corta, capta lo que hay que decir acerca de las armas nucleares de manera sucinta, poética y muy bella. Con unas cuantas magistrales pinceladas literarias, muestra que el viaje de la vida de la nada al ahora podría terminar con  “el simple hecho de oprimir un botón.”

    El botón es una metáfora de poner en marcha una guerra nuclear, que podría ocurrir por un mal cálculo, error o malicia. Por supuesto, es importante el dedo que está en el botón, pero es aún más importante que el dedo de alguien esté en el botón. No hay buenos o malos dedos sobre el botón. Nadie es lo suficientemente estable, racional, sensato, o prudente para confiar en su decisión de oprimir el botón nuclear. Es una locura dejar la puerta abierta a la posibilidad de “un regresar a la nada.”

    Por un lado de la balanza, es natural y extraordinario que la vida siga su larga evolución hasta el presente y continúe para realizar sus procesos hacia el futuro. Por otro lado de la balanza es “el botón,”  el capaz de que la vida en el planeta llegue a un punto final. También en este lado de la balanza se encuentran aquellas personas que permanecen ignorantes o apáticas a los peligros nucleares que enfrenta la humanidad.

    Todos tenemos que reconocer lo que está en juego y elegir un lado. En pocas palabras, ¿usted está del lado de la vida y los procesos de la naturaleza que han traído la belleza y diversidad de nuestro mundo, o de los productos destructivos de la ciencia que nos han llevado al precipicio de la aniquilación? Cada uno debe hacer su elección.

    Me temo que muchos de nosotros no se den cuenta de la gravedad y los riesgos de la situación a la que nos enfrentamos. Nos dejamos llevar por la tecno-charla que amplifica los mensajes de seguridad nacional vinculado al botón. La disuasión nuclear no es más que una hipótesis acerca de la psicología y el comportamiento humano. No protege a las personas de un ataque nuclear. No es probada ni demostrable. La disuasión nuclear puede o no puede funcionar, pero sabemos que no puede proporcionar una protección física contra un ataque nuclear. Los que creen en ella, lo hacen bajo su propio riesgo y además del nuestro.

    La posibilidad de “un regresar a la nada” es un riesgo demasiado grande que tomar. Hay que librarnos de las armas nucleares. Hay que desmantelar el botón y la aniquilación potencial que representa. Debemos escuchar a nuestros corazones y poner fin a la locura nuclear, a la era de las armas de destrucción total. Si no somos capaces de actuar con corazones comprometidos, seguiremos caminando hacia el precipicio de la aniquilación – el precipicio de un mundo sin mariposas o hermosas rosas, sin aves o seres humanos. La edad de oro de la ciencia llegará a su fin como un triunfo de la devastación catastrófica, y será el fracaso más grande de la humanidad.

    La lectura, discusión y comprensión del significado de la cita de Gabriel García Márquez debería promoverse entre las escuelas, entre los ciudadanos, y los líderes de todos los países.


    Click here for the English version.

    David Krieger es Presidente de la Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org) Autor y editor de numerosos libros sobre la abolición de las armas nucleares, incluyendo Hablando de paz: Citas para inspirar acción.

    Rubén D. Arvizu es Director para América Latina de la Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, Director General para América Latina de Ocean Futures Society de Jean-Michel Cousteau y Embajador del Pacto Climático Global de Ciudades.

  • The Power of Imagination

    David KriegerAlbert Einstein, the great 20th century scientist and humanitarian, wrote, “Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.”  Let us exercise our imaginations.

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

    Imagine that a nuclear war could end human life on our planet, and that the capacity to initiate a nuclear war rests in the hands of only a few individuals in each nuclear-armed state.

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

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

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

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

    There is an Indian proverb which states, “All of the flowers of all the tomorrows are in the seeds of today.”  We must nurture, with all our human capacities, the seeds of peace and human dignity which have been so poorly tended for so long.

    The time has come for renewed energy and leadership to end the nuclear weapons threat to humanity, to restore and maintain peace, to live up to the highest standards of human rights, and to pursue a non-killing world.  Change is coming, if we will use our imaginations, raise our voices, stand firm and persist in demanding it.

  • Presidential Visit

    The President went to Hiroshima,
    the place of the first atomic attack.
    He carried his heart in an old knapsack.

    He went where no sitting president
    ever ventured before, journeyed
    through time to a long ago war.

    He stood at the very place where death
    fell from the sky, where the mushroom cloud
    sucked up the earth, rose higher than high.

    His words poured forth like a passionate poem,
    a poem filled with power, as he placed
    a white wreath on a sea of white foam.

    He bowed before the city’s eternal flame,
    cried out for a world deeply in pain,
    swore we must not let it happen again.

    We must choose our vantage point well,
    above the bomb or beneath,  On one side
    is hubris, on the other is grief.

  • 2016 Message to Vienna Peace Movement

    Dear Friends of Peace in Vienna,

    David KriegerI applaud your continuing to commemorate August 6th, the day in 1945 on which the first atomic bomb was used in warfare, dropped by the United States on the Japanese city of Hiroshima. The use of that bomb took 70,000 lives immediately and 140,000 lives by the end of 1945.  It was a bomb that vaporized people, leaving behind, for some, only shadows and elemental particles.  The use of atomic weapons was a war crime and crime against humanity.  Three days later these crimes were repeated on the Japanese city of Nagasaki, killing 40,000 people immediately and 70,000 by the end of 1945.

    When these atrocities were committed in August 1945, there were no additional nuclear weapons in the world.  Today there are more than 15,000 nuclear weapons, most far more powerful than those that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  And most of the world is complacent in the face of these terrible devices of mass annihilation.  In our world today, nuclear weapons bestow prestige rather than disgrace.  We are like small children playing with fire.  In our hubris, we believe that we can possess these weapons and threaten their use without adverse consequences.  But this isn’t so.  If countries continue to rely upon nuclear weapons for their security, eventually they will be used again – because we humans are fallible creatures and nuclear deterrence is a dangerous and unproven hypothesis.

    Some 180 U.S. nuclear weapons are deployed in Europe, including in Turkey, where there was a recent attempted coup d’état that involved high-ranking military officers from Incirlik Air Force Base, the very base where the U.S. stores its nuclear weapons.  Mass killings occur almost daily.  The world is filled with terrorists and unstable individuals, who desire to do harm to innocent people.  This is bad enough, but the ultimate evil would be to again use nuclear weapons.  So long as they are relied upon for security, so long as they are possessed, there remains a not insignificant chance they will be used again by mistake or malice.  We must abolish these weapons before they abolish us.

    Nuclear weapons must be abolished so that we can get on with the task of building a more decent world.  To achieve that more decent world we must move from apathy to empathy; from conformity to critical thinking; from ignorance to wisdom; and from denial to recognition of the dangers to all humanity posed by nuclear weapons.

    On behalf of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation and our 75,000 members, I send you our greetings, our good wishes and our appreciation for your reflections on this anniversary day of such significant consequence to all humanity.

    Sincerely,

    David Krieger
    President
    Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

  • Ten Lessons from Chernobyl and Fukushima

    George Santayana famously said, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”  The same may be said of those who fail to understand the past or to learn from it. If we failed to learn the lessons from the nuclear power plant accident at Chernobyl more than three decades ago or to understand its meaning for our future, perhaps the more recent accident at Fukushima will serve to underline those lessons. Here are ten lessons drawn from the Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters.

    1. Nuclear power is a highly complex, expensive and dangerous way to boil water. Nuclear power does nothing more than provide a high-tech and extremely dangerous way to boil water to create steam to turn turbines.
    1. Accidents happen and the worst-case scenario often turns out to be worse than imagined or planned for. Although the nuclear industry continues to assure the public that nuclear power plants are safe, the plants continue to have accidents, some of which exceed worst-case projections.
    1. The nuclear industry and its experts cannot plan for every contingency or prevent every disaster. Although it was known that Fukushima is subject to earthquakes and tsunamis, the nuclear industry and its experts did not plan for the combination of a 9.0 earthquake and the larger-than-expected tsunami that followed.
    1. Governments do not effectively regulate the nuclear industry to assure the safety of the public. Government regulators of nuclear industry often come from the nuclear industry and tend to be too close to the industry to regulate it effectively.
    1. Hubris, complacency and high-level radiation are a deadly mix. Hubris on the part of the nuclear industry and its government regulators, along with complacency on the part of the public, have led to the creation of vast amounts of high-level radiation that must be guarded from release to the environment for tens of thousands of years, far longer than civilization has existed.
    1. Nuclear power plants can catastrophically fail, causing vast human and environmental damage. The corporations that run the power plants, however, are protected from catastrophic economic failure by government limits on liability, which shift the economic burden to the public. If the corporations that own nuclear power plants had to bear the burden of potential financial losses in the event of a catastrophic accident, they would not build the plants because they know the risks are unacceptable. It is government liability limits, such as the Price-Anderson Act in the US, that make nuclear power plants possible, leaving the taxpayers responsible for the overwhelming monetary costs of nuclear industry failures. No other private industry is given such liability protection.
    1. Radiation releases from nuclear accidents cannot be contained in space and will not stop at national borders. The wind will carry long-lived radioactive materials around the world and affect the people and environment of many countries and regions. The radiation will also affect the oceans of the world, which are the common heritage of humankind.
    1. Radiation releases from nuclear accidents cannot be contained in time and will adversely affect countless future generations. The radioactive materials from nuclear power plant accidents, as well as from radioactive wastes, are a legacy we are bequeathing to future generations of humans and other forms of life on the planet.
    1. Nuclear energy, as well as nuclear weapons, and human beings cannot co-exist without the risk of future catastrophes. The survivors of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki have long known that nuclear weapons and human beings cannot co-exist. The Fukushima accident, like that at Chernobyl before it, makes clear that human beings and nuclear power plants also cannot co-exist without courting future disasters.
    1. The accidents at Fukushima and Chernobyl are a wake-up call to phase out nuclear energy and replace it with energy conservation and more human- and environmentally-friendly forms of renewable energy. For decades it has been clear that various forms of renewable energy are needed to replace both nuclear and fossil fuel energy sources. Now it is clearer than ever. The choice is not between nuclear and fossil fuels. The solution is to disavow both of these forms of energy and to move as rapidly as possible to a global energy plan based upon various forms of renewable energy: solar cells, wind, geothermal, ocean thermal, currents, tides, etc.

    The nuclear power plant accident at Chernobyl was repeated, albeit with a different set of circumstances, at Fukushima. Have our societies yet learned any lessons from Chernobyl and Fukushima that will prevent the people of the future from experiencing such devastation? As poet Maya Angelou points out, “History, despite its wrenching pain, cannot be unlived, but if faced with courage doesn’t need to be lived again.” We need the courage to phase out nuclear power globally and replace it with energy conservation and renewable energy sources. In doing so, we will not only be acting responsibly with regard to nuclear power, but will also reduce the risks of nuclear weapons proliferation and strengthen the global foundations for the abolition of these weapons.