Issue #222 – January 2016 |
|
Click here or on the image above to follow NAPF President David Krieger on Twitter. |
PerspectivesWe Are Living at the Edge of a Nuclear PrecipiceWith nuclear weapons, what could possibly go wrong? The short answer is: Everything. We must recognize that we are living at the edge of a nuclear precipice with the ever-present dangers of nuclear proliferation, nuclear accidents and miscalculations, nuclear terrorism and nuclear war. Instead of relying on nuclear deterrence and pursuing the modernization of nuclear arsenals, we need to press our political leaders to fulfill our moral and legal obligations to negotiate in good faith for the prohibition and elimination of nuclear weapons. That is, we need to break free of our acidic complacency and commit ourselves to achieving a nuclear zero world. To read more, click here. Date from Hell: Can Nuclear War Be Fun and Games?A scenario: You’re nearing the end of a blind date, waiting for the waiter to bring out the ice cream. Both of you are still trying to come up with fodder for conversation. Just then, your date declares with a smile, “So how about nuclear weapons? Wouldn’t using them be…well, sort of fun? The collapse of modern society, or at least the end of the comforts we know? Imagine the thousands of immediate deaths, the damage to the Earth’s atmosphere and ecosystem. The famines. Oh, and I forgot the years of skyrocketing cancer cases!” After you’ve finished staring, and blinking, after you’ve caught the waiter’s eye for the check, you might still be waiting for the punchline. No one could actually be so flip, so grotesquely cavalier about a grave danger to civilization — indeed, the gravest possible danger. Could they? Particularly with a new acquaintance they’re purportedly trying to woo? But I recently discovered this very discussion happening in reality, in the singularly strange world of “cyberdating.” To read more, click here. The New Nuclear Arms RaceThe United States and Russia are acting with increasing belligerence toward each other while actively pursuing monstrous weapons. As Joe Cirincione described in the Huffington Post, the Pentagon plans to spend $1 trillion over 30 years on “an entire new generation of nuclear bombs, bombers, missiles and submarines,” including a dozen submarines carrying more than 1,000 warheads, capable of decimating any country anywhere. In the meantime, President Obama has ordered 200 new nuclear bombs deployed in Europe. Russia has been at least as aggressive. As Cirincione described, Russian state media recently revealed plans for a new kind of a weapon — a hydrogen bomb torpedo — that can traverse 6,000 miles of ocean just as a missile would in the sky. On impact, the bomb would create a “radioactive tsunami,” designed to kill millions along a country’s coast. This escalation has been a long time coming, and the U.S. owns much of the blame for the way it has accelerated. To read this full op-ed in the Washington Post, click here. How Our Naive Understanding of Violence Helps ISISAt West Point I learned that technology forces warfare to evolve. The reason soldiers today no longer ride horses into battle, use bows and arrows, and wield spears, is because of the gun. The reason people no longer fight in trenches, as they did during World War I, is because the tank and airplane were greatly improved and mass-produced. But there is a technological innovation that has changed warfare more than the gun, tank, or airplane. That technological innovation is mass media. Today most people’s understanding of violence is naive, because they do not realize how much the Internet and social media, the newest incarnations of mass media, have changed warfare. The most powerful weapon that ISIS has is the Internet with social media, which has allowed ISIS to recruit people from all over the world. To read more, click here. Nuclear ProliferationIAEA Closes Iran Nuclear Bomb ProbeThe Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has ended its decade-long investigation of allegations that Iran worked to develop nuclear weapons. The IAEA resolution stated that the investigation was “implemented in accordance with the agreed schedule” and that this “closes the board’s consideration of the matter.” The IAEA investigation concluded that although Iran conducted “a range of activities relevant to the development” of nuclear weapons before the end of 2003, the activities “did not advance beyond feasibility and scientific studies.” This move by the IAEA clears the way for the deal reached in July between Iran and the P5+1 (United States, Russia, United Kingdom, France, China and Germany) to move forward toward full implementation. “IAEA ‘Closes’ Iran Nuclear Bomb Probe,” Agence France-Presse, December 15, 2015. Experts Say India Is Building a New City to Produce Thermonuclear WeaponsLocal farmers and council members in the southern Indian state of Karnataka were alarmed in 2012 when changes began happening to limit their access to land, roads and trails. The secretive project began construction later that year. It now seems clear to some experts that India is building a massive military-run complex of nuclear centrifuges, nuclear research laboratories and weapons testing facilities. As a military facility, it would not be open to international inspection. Such a development would likely spur proliferation among India’s chief nuclear-armed rivals, Pakistan and China. Adrian Levy, “India Is Building a Top-Secret Nuclear City to Produce Thermonuclear Weapons, Experts Say,” Foreign Policy, December 16, 2015. Nuclear InsanityU.S. Declassifies Nuclear Target List from 1950sThe National Security Archive, a research group at George Washington University, has obtained a list of U.S. nuclear targets through the Mandatory Declassification Review process. The list makes clear that Soviet airfields were the highest-priority target, followed by Soviet industrial infrastructure. However, many airfields and industrial areas were located around population centers, which would have led to massive civilian casualties. In addition, one entry in the target list is called “Population.” Scott Shane, “1950s U.S. Nuclear Target List Offers Chilling Insight,” The New York Times, December 22, 2015. War and PeaceIndia and Pakistan Restart Peace TalksIn December, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi made a surprise visit to Pakistan to meet with Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif. This was the first visit to Pakistan by an Indian Prime Minister since 2004. The two leaders pledged to accelerate peace talks and decided to have their foreign secretaries meet soon in Islamabad. Tensions between India and Pakistan, both of which are nuclear-armed countries, remain high over issues including the disputed territory of Kashmir. Anindya Upadhyay and Faseeh Mangi, “India, Pakistan to Speed Up Talks After Modi’s Surprise Visit,” Bloomberg, December 25, 2015. Nuclear ModernizationU.S. Senators Urge President Obama to Cancel New Nuclear Cruise MissileSenator Edward Markey (D-MA) led a group of eight Senators in a letter urging President Obama to cancel the new nuclear air-launched cruise missile. Recent reports indicate that the administration plans to develop 1,000 to 1,100 new nuclear cruise missiles, which are projected to cost between $20 to $30 billion to build. In the letter, the Senators noted that this new nuclear weapon does not reflect our current national security needs, is redundant with existing nuclear and conventional options, and could lead to dramatic escalation and potential devastating miscalculations with other nuclear-armed states. “Outdated and unnecessary nuclear weapons are relics of the past,” wrote the Senators in the letter to President Obama. “Your administration should instead focus on capabilities that keep our economy and defense strong while reducing the role of nuclear weapons.” The other Senators who signed the letter are Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Bernard Sanders (I-VT), Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Al Franken (D-MN), Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Barbara Boxer (D-CA). “Sen. Markey Leads Call to Cut Wasteful Nuclear Expenditures, Cancel New Nuclear Air-Launched Missile,” Office of Senator Edward Markey, December 15, 2015. U.S. Nuclear Weapons Production Has Sickened and Killed ThousandsOver the past year, journalists from McClatchy conducted over 100 interviews and examined 70 million records in a federal database relating to American workers who were exposed to radiation and other toxic substances while producing nuclear weapons. At least 107,394 Americans have been diagnosed with cancers and other diseases after building the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile over the last 70 years. The massive number of illnesses and deaths revealed in this study has increased concerns that the United States’ current plan to spend $1 trillion over the next 30 years to modernize its nuclear arsenal will lead to yet another generation of workers being exposed. Rob Hotakainen, Lindsay Wise, Frank Matt and Samantha Ehlinger, “Irradiated: The Hidden Legacy of 70 Years of Atomic Weaponry,” McClatchy DC, December 11, 2015. Nuclear Zero LawsuitsMarshall Islands Fights Back in Nuclear LawsuitOn December 15, 2015, the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI) filed a Reply Brief in the Nuclear Zero Lawsuit now pending before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. In the Brief, the RMI says that U.S. government lawyers have broadly misstated the law surrounding treaty disputes. The RMI argues that U.S. courts do have the power to oversee disputes over international treaties, and that no law elevates the President’s authority above the judiciary’s power to decide disputes. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is expected to appoint a three-judge panel to consider the briefs. All court documents are available at www.nuclearzero.org/in-the-courts. “Marshall Islands Fights Back in Nuclear Lawsuit,” Radio New Zealand, December 21, 2015. ResourcesJanuary’s Featured BlogThis month’s featured blog is Nukes of Hazard, a project of the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation. Recent titles on the blog include “The 2016 Presidential Candidates on Nuclear Issues,” “Pentagon Profligacy: Five Egregious Examples of Wasteful Pentagon Programs,” and “GOP Candidates on the Pentagon Budget.” To read these, and many other, articles, click here. This Month in Nuclear Threat HistoryHistory chronicles many instances when humans have been threatened by nuclear weapons. In this article, Jeffrey Mason outlines some of the most serious threats that have taken place in the month of January, including the January 17, 1966, incident in Palomares, Spain, in which a U.S. B-52 strategic bomber carrying four Mark-28 hydrogen bombs collided in mid-air with a KC-135 tanker aircraft. Plutonium was spread over a large area. To read Mason’s full article, click here. For more information on the history of the Nuclear Age, visit NAPF’s Nuclear Files website. Vote for the Arms Control Person of the YearThe Arms Control Association is holding an online voting process for the Arms Control Person of the Year. Voting closes on January 5, 2016, at 11:59 pm. One nominee is Setsuko Thurlow and the Hibakusha of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, nominated “for their unyielding dedication to sharing first hand accounts of the catastrophic and inhumane effects of nuclear weapons, which serves to reinforce the taboo against the further use of nuclear weapons and spur action toward a world without nuclear weapons.” Setsuko Thurlow recently received the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s Distinguished Peace Leadership Award, and is a committed and effective campaigner for the abolition of nuclear weapons. To vote for the Arms Control Person of the Year, click here. When you vote, please enter the password ACPOY2015. World Nuclear Victims ForumThe World Nuclear Victims Forum was held in Hiroshima on November 21-23, 2015, along with several related events in Osaka and Tokyo. Participants from around the world gathered to understand the reality of the damages caused in all stages of the nuclear chain, the situations of Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Fukushima, and the lessons to be learned from such situations. It was also an opportunity for people from affected communities in various countries to strengthen their cooperation and network, to work together to prevent such suffering from happening again. The final declaration maps out draft elements for a charter of world nuclear victims’ rights and calls for the abolition of the entire nuclear chain and the urgent conclusion of a legally binding international instrument which prohibits and provides for the elimination of nuclear weapons. Foundation ActivitiesRobert Scheer to Deliver the 15th Annual Frank K. Kelly Lecture on Humanity’s FutureThe Nuclear Age Peace Foundation is pleased to welcome Robert Scheer, one of the nation’s most outspoken and progressive journalists, Professor of Communications at the University of Southern California, and Editor-In-Chief of Truthdig.com, to deliver the 15th Annual Frank K. Kelly Lecture on Humanity’s Future. Scheer’s lecture, entitled “War, Peace, Truth and the Media,” will take place on Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 7:00 p.m. at the Faulkner Gallery, 40 E. Anapamu Street, Santa Barbara, California. The event is free and open to the public. For more information, click here. NAPF is Hiring a Director of DevelopmentThe Nuclear Age Peace Foundation is hiring a Director of Development at its Santa Barbara, California, headquarters. As a non-profit organization, successful fundraising is vital to the ability of NAPF to plan and implement its programs to abolish nuclear weapons and empower peace leaders. Click here to view the job description. Please share with your networks. Join Us in Working for a World Free of Nuclear Weapons2015 has been a strong and eventful year for the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. We have:
With your help we can make 2016 an even stronger and more eventful year. We have a great team in place for 2016. Please be a part of that team, working for peace and a world free of nuclear weapons. Stand up! Speak out! Join in! Together we can build a more peaceful world and end the nuclear weapons threat to all humanity. Peace Leadership: A Year in ReviewThe Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s Peace Leadership Program had a very successful year in 2015. Led by Paul K. Chappell, the program reached nearly 6,000 people in 11 U.S. states, the District of Columbia, Mexico, Germany and the Netherlands. Over the year, Paul delivered 53 lectures and 13 workshops, introducing people to the concept of peace leadership and giving them the skills to implement these ideas in their daily lives. To read more about the NAPF Peace Leadership Program’s accomplishments in 2015 and a preview of 2016 activities, click here. Paul’s fifth book, The Cosmic Ocean, was also published in 2015. Click here to read more about the book and purchase a copy. Quotes
“We must encourage all people of good will to join the work of abolishing war and weapons — not out of fear of dying, but out of the joy of living.” — Mairead Maguire, Nobel Peace Laureate and member of the NAPF Advisory Council. This quote is featured in the book Speaking of Peace: Quotations to Inspire Action, available for purchase in the NAPF Peace Store.
“Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world.” — Nelson Mandela
“I want to believe that there is no madman on Earth who would decide to use nuclear weapons.” — Russian President Vladimir Putin. Editorial Team
David Krieger |
Author: Mike Ryan
-
Sunflower Newsletter: January 2016
-
Sunflower Newsletter: December 2015
Issue #221 – December 2015
Click here or on the image above to follow NAPF President David Krieger on Twitter.
- Perspectives
- Paris: War Is Not the Answer by David Krieger
- Former U.S. Defense Secretary Warns of Nuclear War, Nuclear Terror by Robert Kazel
- Acceptance Speech at NAPF’s 2015 Evening for Peace by Setsuko Thurlow
- Nuclear Disarmament
- UN General Assembly to Vote on Nuclear Disarmament Resolutions
- Nuclear Insanity
- Russia Says Leak of Secret Nuclear Weapon Design Was an Accident
- U.S. Launches Nuclear Missile off California Coast, Causing UFO Scare
- War and Peace
- Turkey Shoots Down Russian Fighter Jet
- Nuclear Modernization
- Does Your Bank Finance Nuclear Weapons Production?
- Huge Acquisition Costs Threaten Nuclear Modernization Plans
- Nuclear Zero Lawsuits
- Tony de Brum and People of the Marshall Islands Win Right Livelihood Award
- A Ground Zero Forgotten
- Resources
- December’s Featured Blog
- This Month in Nuclear Threat History
- The Climate-Nuclear Nexus
- We Are Many
- Foundation Activities
- The Art of Waging Peace Documentary
- Give the Gift of Peace from the NAPF Peace Store
- Humanize Not Modernize Tote Bags Now Available
- Evening for Peace Video Now Available
- Quotes
Perspectives
Paris: War Is Not the Answer
The attacks on innocents in Paris on November 13, 2015 were horrifying crimes, filling the city with grief and uniting people throughout the world in solidarity with the victims and with France. These attacks were cold-blooded murders of innocent people, clearly crimes deserving punishment. But when crimes are used as the impetus for war, the crimes and grief are multiplied and the toll of innocents increases to become the norm. Surely, we must cry havoc, but we must also be wary of letting loose the dogs of war.
The attacks in New York on September 11, 2001 were also unspeakable crimes. These attacks also stirred the sympathy and solidarity of the world, in this case for the United States, until the U.S. answered the attacks by letting loose the snarling dogs of war, first against Afghanistan and then against Iraq, a country having nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. The leaders who perpetrated these wars also caused untold sorrow and death of innocents. While perpetrators of the attacks in New York, including Osama bin Laden, have been tracked down and captured or killed, those U.S. leaders who committed the worst of the Nuremberg crimes, crimes against peace, particularly in Iraq, have never been brought to justice.
To read more, click here.
Former U.S. Defense Secretary Warns of Nuclear War, Nuclear Terror
Although peace activists know it well, the average American is “blissfully unaware” that the likelihood of a nuclear attack inside U.S. borders has markedly increased for two reasons: serious deterioration in relations between American officials and their Russian counterparts and potential development by terrorists of improvised nuclear technology.
That was the warning delivered in November by William Perry, former U.S. secretary of defense, who told attendees in Chicago at the annual Clock Symposium sponsored by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists that intensified public information campaigns will be essential to enlighten a citizenry that’s become complacent and ignorant about the rising threat of catastrophe.
To read more, click here.
Acceptance Speech at NAPF’s 2015 Evening for Peace
I am delighted to be here tonight, and meet all of you, working hard for a peaceful and just world free of nuclear weapons. I am honored and humbled to receive your Award tonight. I am truly grateful. Thank you from the bottom of my heart.
Tonight I would like to share with you my personal testimony of surviving the atomic bombing as a child victim, and then living in North America advocating for the abolition of nuclear weapons. For the 70th anniversary of the bombings, it is appropriate to reflect upon and ponder the meaning of living in the nuclear age.
To read more, click here.
Nuclear Disarmament
UN General Assembly to Vote on Nuclear Disarmament Resolutions
The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) is urging countries to vote in favor of numerous nuclear disarmament-related resolutions on December 7. ICAN is calling on governments to support resolutions in support of an open-ended working group on nuclear disarmament, the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons, the Humanitarian Pledge, and the ethical imperatives of a nuclear weapons-free world.
These four resolutions were adopted in the First Committee by a significant majority. Since the First Committee voted in November, nuclear-armed countries have pressured non-nuclear countries to abstain or vote against the resolutions.
To read the ICAN action alert and see how you can help, click here.
Nuclear Insanity
Russia Says Leak of Secret Nuclear Weapon Design Was an Accident
A Russian television station has broadcast a report that seemed to inadvertently reveal the design for a nuclear-armed drone submarine that could attack coastlines. The submarine has not yet been produced, and the Kremlin insists that the revelation was accidental.
The document said that the submarine would “defeat important economic objects of an enemy in coastal zones, bringing guaranteed and unacceptable losses on the country’s territory by forming a wide area of radioactive contamination incompatible with conducting military, economic or any other activities there for a long period of time.”
Many analysts believe that this information was leaked purposely as part of the heightened nuclear saber-rattling between Russia and the United States.
Andrew E. Kramer, “Russia Says Leak of Secret Nuclear Weapon Design Was an Accident,” The New York Times, November 12, 2015.
U.S. Launches Nuclear Missile off California Coast, Causing UFO Scare
On November 7, the U.S. Navy launched an unarmed Trident II D5 missile from a submarine off the coast of California just after dark. The resulting streak of light across the sky, which could be seen as far away as Arizona, caused many people to think they were seeing a UFO or a meteor.
The Navy does not announce tests of its nuclear-capable missiles in advance. The missile, which can carry nuclear warheads many times more powerful than the atomic bomb that destroyed the city of Hiroshima, landed at a target in the Kwajalein Atoll in the Marshall Islands. The Navy later stated that the test was part of “a scheduled, ongoing system evaluation test.”
Emma Henderson, “‘UFO Over Los Angeles on Saturday Night Revealed to be Trident Missile Launched by U.S. Navy,” The Independent, November 11, 2015.
War and Peace
Turkey Shoots Down Russian Fighter Jet
On November 24, Turkey shot down a Russian fighter jet that it claims was violating its airspace after repeated warnings went unheeded. Russia, on the other hand, claims that the aircraft was in Syria when it was shot down. Regardless of the exact location of the Russian jet, this military action has significantly raised the levels of tension between nuclear-armed rivals. Also, when the tables were turned and one of his own jets was shot down by Syria in 2012 over an air space violation, then Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan (now its president) complained: “Even if the plane was in their airspace for a few seconds, that is no excuse to attack.”
Russia possesses approximately 4,500 nuclear weapons, while Turkey is part of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which is a nuclear-armed alliance. The United States stores approximately 60 nuclear weapons on Turkish territory under the auspices of NATO nuclear sharing.
Martin Hellman, who writes regularly about nuclear risk, wrote of this situation, “If we keep ignoring [nuclear] risk, eventually one of these provocative incidents will blow up in our faces. The time to recognize that danger and to start work on reducing the risk is now, not once a crisis exists.” You can read Hellman’s three-article series by clicking the link below.
Martin Hellman, “Turkey Shoots Down Russian Jet: What Happens Next?,” Defusing the Nuclear Threat, November 24, 2015.
Nuclear Modernization
Does Your Bank Finance Nuclear Weapons Production?
Pax, a peace organization based in the Netherlands, has published a revised edition of the report “Don’t Bank on the Bomb.” The report examines in detail the records of companies involved in the production of nuclear weapons, as well as financial institutions that finance them.
While the majority of nuclear weapons funding comes from taxpayers in nuclear-armed countries, private sector investors also provide financing that enables the production, maintenance and modernization of nuclear arsenals.
The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation recently issued an action alert targeting State Farm, one of the many institutions that finance companies that produce nuclear weapons. Click here to take action by encouraging State Farm to stop financing nuclear weapons producers.
Huge Acquisition Costs Threaten Nuclear Modernization Plans
Michael McCord, Pentagon Comptroller, has said that the massive future costs of acquiring new nuclear weapon delivery systems will be one of the biggest challenges facing the next U.S. President. McCord estimates that by the year 2021, the U.S. will need to come up with at least $10 billion per year through 2035 in order to fulfill current plans to modernize its nuclear weapons, delivery systems and production facilities.
The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation has published a new booklet entitled “Humanize Not Modernize” that outlines just some of the things that could benefit society instead of the $1 trillion that the U.S. intends to spend on nuclear modernization over the next 30 years. To read the booklet, click here.
Jordana Mishory, “McCord: Nuclear Modernization Bow Wave Is Biggest Acquisition Problem,” Inside Defense, November 13, 2015.
Nuclear Zero Lawsuits
Tony de Brum and People of the Marshall Islands Win the Right Livelihood Award
On November 30, Tony de Brum, Foreign Minister of the Marshall Islands, received the Right Livelihood Award in a ceremony at the Swedish Parliament. De Brum and the people of the Marshall Islands were given the award, commonly called the Alternative Nobel Prize, “in recognition of their vision and courage to take legal action against the nuclear powers for failing to honor their disarmament obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and customary international law.”
To watch a video of de Brum’s award acceptance speech, click here.
To read more about the Nuclear Zero Lawsuits, click here.
A Ground Zero Forgotten
Over the past 70 years, the Marshall Islands have faced numerous challenges. The United States tested 67 nuclear weapons in the Marshall Islands between 1946 and 1958, resulting in incalculable damage to people and the environment that continues to this day. Lately, the realities of global climate change have been manifesting dangerously on the low-lying islands, with rising sea levels threatening their continued existence.
The Marshall Islands has not taken these challenges lightly. They are a leading voice in the movement to combat climate change, including at the international negotiations currently taking place in Paris. They are also proactively working to eliminate the nuclear weapons threat through the Nuclear Zero Lawsuits, which they filed in 2014 against all nine nuclear-armed nations.
Dan Zak, “A Ground Zero Forgotten,” Washington Post, November 29, 2015.
Resources
December’s Featured Blog
This month’s featured blog is the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Their website, www.thebulletin.org, contains many distinct blogs, including Nuclear Notebook, Development and Disarmament Roundtable, Voices of Tomorrow, and many more.
To go to the site, click here.
This Month in Nuclear Threat History
History chronicles many instances when humans have been threatened by nuclear weapons. In this article, Jeffrey Mason outlines some of the most serious threats that have taken place in the month of December, including the December 5, 1965 incident in which a U.S. 4E Skyhawk fighter jet armed with a Mark 43 hydrogen bomb rolled off an aircraft carrier and fell into the Pacific Ocean. The hydrogen bomb was lost.
To read Mason’s full article, click here.
For more information on the history of the Nuclear Age, visit NAPF’s Nuclear Files website.
The Climate-Nuclear Nexus
Just in time for the global climate meetings in Paris, the World Future Council has published a new report entitled “The Climate-Nuclear Nexus.” The report, principally authored by Jurgen Scheffran of the University of Hamburg, considers how nuclear weapons and climate change have grave implications for global and human security, and how the two interact with each other.
For a rising number of people, the effects of these two threats are not a theoretical, future issue of concern. Behind the facts and figures are stories of real suffering from climate change and nuclear weapons programs. The people of the Marshall Islands, who are threatened by rising sea levels and are still heavily impacted by U.S. nuclear weapon testing from 1946-58, are a clear example.
To read the full report, click here.
We Are Many
A new documentary film entitled “We Are Many” will be screened in the coming weeks in New York and Los Angeles. The film, by Amir Amirani, chronicles the 2003 worldwide protests against the invasion of Iraq that were the largest global protests ever. On February 15, 2003, over 15 million people marched to protest the invasion of Iraq in over 800 cities around the world. The film unveils the drama, emotion, magnitude and stories of this historic day. To view a trailer of the film, click here.
The film will screen numerous times each day in New York from December 4-10, and in Los Angeles from December 11-17. For information and tickets to the New York screenings, click here. For information and tickets to the Los Angeles screenings, click here.
Foundation Activities
The Art of Waging Peace Documentary
NAPF Peace Leadership Director Paul K. Chappell may soon have a new teaching tool available for the classroom and for non-violence activists everywhere: a documentary on The Art of Waging Peace.
Filmmaker Kent Forbes first heard about Paul when he gave a lecture at the University of Maine in 2012. “His talk really stuck with me,” said Forbes. “I was very intrigued by his original approach to the problem of war and by his unique qualifications.”
To read more about the documentary and to watch a teaser, click here.
Give the Gift of Peace from the NAPF Peace Store
The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s online peace store has many great gifts for your peace-loving family and friends. From books to t-shirts, from sunflower “seeds of peace” to tote bags, you’re sure to find some meaningful and lasting gifts.
Order today and you’ll receive your items in time for the holidays.
Humanize Not Modernize Tote Bags Now Available
The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s new campaign, “Humanize Not Modernize,” has just been launched. Over the next year, we will be letting you know specifically what could be done with the $1 trillion that the United States plans to spend modernizing its nuclear weapons, delivery systems and production infrastructure over the next three decades.
As part of this campaign, we have produced a limited number of “Humanize Not Modernize” reusable tote bags. They can be a great conversation starter about this important issue wherever you go. The bags are available for purchase in the NAPF Peace Store.
In addition, through December 31, if you donate $25 to the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, we will send you a tote bag as a token of our thanks. If you donate $50 or more by December 31, we will send you two tote bags – one for yourself and one to give away.
Evening for Peace Video Now Available
The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation has published a video of our 2015 Evening for Peace, honoring Setsuko Thurlow, a survivor of the U.S. atomic bombing of Hiroshima and a dedicated campaigner for the abolition of nuclear weapons.
Ms. Thurlow’s acceptance speech is also available as a written transcript here.
Quotes
“We condemn the billions of dollars that several nuclear weapons states are committing to spending to modernize their arsenals as well as the arms race such actions are stimulating.”
— Statement from the 15th World Summit of Nobel Peace Laureates, which took place in Barcelona November 13-15, 2015.
“What shall remain in the wake of this war, in the midst of which we are living now? What shall remain? Ruins, thousands of children without education, so many innocent victims, and lots of money in the pockets of arms dealers.”
— Pope Francis
“The hope of humankind is that compassion and compromise may replace the cruel and senseless violence of armed conflicts.”
— Benjamin Ferencz, American attorney and prosecutor at the Nuremburg Tribunal. This quote appears in Speaking of Peace: Quotations to Inspire Action, available for purchase in the NAPF Peace Store.
Editorial Team
David Krieger
Carol Warner
Rick Wayman - Perspectives
-
Sunflower Newsletter: November 2015
Issue #220 – November 2015
Click here or on the image above to follow NAPF President David Krieger on Twitter.
- Perspectives
- 2015 Evening for Peace Introduction by David Krieger
- Time for Nuclear Sharing to End by Xanthe Hall
- Legal Gap or Compliance Gap? by John Burroughs and Peter Weiss
- Nuclear Disarmament
- Russia: Global Strike Concept Impedes Nuclear Disarmament
- Nuclear Waste
- Two Fires at Nuclear Waste Dumps
- U.S. to Clean Up Site of 1966 Nuclear Accident in Spain
- War and Peace
- Doctors Without Borders Hospitals Bombed in Afghanistan and Yemen
- Nuclear Modernization
- U.S. Awards Huge Contract to Northrup Grumman for New Stealth Nuclear Bomber
- UK Trident Replacement to Cost at Least $256 Billion
- Nuclear Zero Lawsuits
- U.S. Government Files Response Brief at Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
- Marshall Islands Foreign Minister Interviewed on Russian Television
- Resources
- November’s Featured Blog
- This Month in Nuclear Threat History
- Waging Peace: Global Adventures of a Lifelong Activist
- Project Censored
- Foundation Activities
- Open Letter to President Obama
- The Path to a World Free of Nuclear Weapons
- Evening for Peace Honoring Setsuko Thurlow
- Respect and Peace Leadership in Maine
- Quotes
Perspectives
2015 Evening for Peace Introduction
Tonight we shine a light on courageous Peace Leadership. This is the 32nd time we have presented our Distinguished Peace Leadership Award. It has gone to some of the great Peace Leaders of our time, including the XIVth Dalai Lama, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Carl Sagan, Yehudi Menuhin, Jody Williams, Jacques Cousteau, Helen Caldicott and Medea Benjamin.
We are honored to be presenting our 2015 award to an exceptional woman, who is a hibakusha and child victim of war. She was just 13 years old when the US dropped an atomic bomb on her city of Hiroshima. She lost consciousness and awakened to find herself pinned beneath a collapsed building.
She thought she would die, but she survived and has made it her life’s work to end the nuclear weapons era and to assure that her past does not become someone else’s future. She is a global leader in the fight to prevent a Global Hiroshima and assure that Nagasaki remains the last city to suffer a nuclear attack. Our honoree is a Peace Ambassador of the United Nations University of Peace in Costa Rica, a Peace Ambassador of the city of Hiroshima, and was a nominee for this year’s Nobel Peace Prize.
To read more, click here.
Time for Nuclear Sharing to End
It is a little known fact: Germany (and four other European countries) host nuclear weapons as part of NATO “nuclear sharing.” This means that in a nuclear attack the US can load its bombs onto German (or Belgian, Italian, Turkish and Dutch) aircraft and the pilots of those countries will drop them on an enemy target. This arrangement pre-dates the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which explicitly disallows any transfer of nuclear weapons from a nuclear weapon state to a non-nuclear weapon state, thus undermining the spirit of the treaty.
This new nuclear bomb – the B61-12 – is intended to replace all its older versions and be able to destroy more targets than previous models. It is touted by the nuclear laboratories as an “all-in-one” bomb, a “smart” bomb, that does not simply get tossed out of an aircraft, but can be guided and hit its target with great precision using exactly the right amount of explosive strength to only destroy what needs to be destroyed.
To read more, click here.
Legal Gap or Compliance Gap?
If the use of nuclear weapons already is unlawful, how should the concept of a “legal gap” be understood? The deficiency should be seen as a compliance gap, the failure to eliminate nuclear weapons in accordance with Article VI of the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT). That article requires the pursuit of negotiations in good faith of “effective measures…relating to nuclear disarmament.”
The concept of a legal gap should not be understood as in any way signaling that the use of nuclear weapons is currently legally permissible. Nuclear weapons simply cannot be used in compliance with fundamental principles of international law protecting civilians from the effects of warfare, protecting combatants from unnecessary suffering, and protecting the natural environment.
To read more, click here.
Nuclear Disarmament
Russia: Global Strike Concept Impedes Nuclear Disarmament
Speaking at the First Committee at the United Nations General Assembly, the Director of the Russian Foreign Ministry’s department for non-proliferation and arms control, Mikhail Ulyanov, said, “This policy [of Prompt Global Strike] can be an insurmountable obstacle on the way of implementing further steps for the reduction of nuclear arsenals.”
Prompt Global Strike is a program of the U.S. military to deliver a precision-guided conventional weapon anywhere in the world within one hour. Critics of Prompt Global Strike argue that it is impossible for a target country, such as Russia, to know for sure whether an incoming missile would contain a conventional or nuclear warhead. This would significantly increase the dangers of an accidental nuclear war.
“Foreign Ministry: U.S. Prompt Global Strike Concept Impedes Nuclear Disarmament,” Russia Beyond the Headlines, October 12, 2015.
Nuclear Waste
Two Fires at Nuclear Waste Dumps
A state-owned radioactive waste dump caught fire in Nevada on October 18. The pit is thought to store low-level nuclear waste, such as contaminated laboratory gear. Fire Marshal Chief Peter Mulvihill said, “We don’t know exactly what caught fire. We’re not exactly sure what was burning in that pit.”
In St. Louis, an underground fire has been smoldering for five years beneath a landfill. The fire is now less than a quarter-mile from a large deposit of nuclear waste. The nuclear waste originated in 1942 when Mallinckrodt Chemical Works processed uranium for the Manhattan Project. The Environmental Protection Agency is trying to figure out exactly where all of the radioactive material is located and is considering ideas for how to place a barrier between the fire and the nuclear waste.
Keith Rogers, “Fire that Shut Down US 95 Called Hot, Powerful,” Las Vegas Review-Journal, October 20, 2015.
Matt Pearce, “Officials Squabble as Underground Fire Burns Near Radioactive Waste Dump in St. Louis Area,” Los Angeles Times, October 20, 2015.
U.S. to Clean Up Site of 1966 Nuclear Accident in Spain
After nearly 50 years, the United States has announced that it will clean up radioactive contamination caused by a plane crash in 1966. A U.S. B-52 bomber carrying four nuclear weapons collided with a KC-135 tanker plane over southeast Spain. Two of the hydrogen bombs were recovered intact from the sea, but the other two landed in the countryside, spewing 3 kilograms of plutonium 239 around the town of Palomares. At least 50,000 cubic meters of earth are still contaminated.
According to The Guardian, “The Palomares clean-up deal is seen by many as a sweetener in exchange for Spain agreeing to Washington ramping up its military presence in the country.”
Stephen Burgen, “US to Clean Up Spanish Radioactive Site 49 Years After Plane Crash,” The Guardian, October 19, 2015.
War and Peace
Doctors Without Borders Hospitals Bombed in Afghanistan and Yemen
Two hospitals operated by Doctors Without Borders (MSF), an international non-governmental organization dedicated to providing medical care and supplies to people in conflict and disaster zones, were bombed during the month of October. In the first incident, U.S. planes dropped bombs on a MSF hospital in Kunduz, killing 22 MSF staff and patients.
In Yemen, the U.S.-backed, Saudi-led coalition bombed the MSF hospital multiple times over a two-hour period on October 26. The hospital’s roof was marked with the Doctors Without Borders logo, and the GPS coordinates had been shared multiple times with the Saudi-led coalition.
Click here to read a poem about the Afghanistan hospital bombing entitled “War Crime Blues.”
Sune Engel Rasmussen, “Kunduz Hospital Attack: How a US Military ‘Mistake’ Left 22 Dead,” The Guardian, October 21, 2015.
“Yemen: US-Backed Coalition Bombs Doctors Without Borders Hospital,” Democracy Now, October 28, 2015.
Nuclear Modernization
U.S. Awards Huge Contract to Northrup Grumman for New Stealth Nuclear Bomber
The U.S. government has awarded a contract worth up to $80 billion to Northrup Grumman to develop a new stealth bomber capable of delivering nuclear weapons. This massive program is just one part of the Pentagon’s plan to spend $1 trillion over the next 30 years to “modernize” U.S. nuclear weapons, delivery vehicles and production infrastructure.
Over the past five years, Northrup Grumman’s political action committees and its employees have contributed $4.6 million to the campaigns and PACs of 224 lawmakers on the House and Senate Armed Services and Appropriations Committees. Northrup Grumman also spent $85.4 million during that time to lobby Congress, the Department of Defense and other agencies.
Alexander Cohen, “New Strategic Bomber Contract Awarded After Millions of Dollars Worth of Lobbying,” Huffington Post, October 28, 2015.
Robert Burns, “Air Force Picks Northrup Grumman to Build Next Big Bomber,” Associated Press, October 27, 2015.
UK Trident Replacement to Cost at Least $256 Billion
The United Kingdom’s plan to replace its four nuclear-armed Trident submarines will cost at least $256 billion, according to new figures released by Crispin Blunt, a Conservative Member of Parliament. Blunt said, “The successor Trident program is going to consume more than double the proportion of the defense budget of its predecessor…. The price required, both from the UK taxpayer and our conventional forces, is now too high to be rational or sensible.”
Stewart Hosie, deputy leader of the Scottish National Party, said, “This is truly an unthinkable and indefensible sum of money to spend on the renewal of an unwanted and unusable nuclear weapons system.”
Elizabeth Piper, “Exclusive: UK Nuclear Deterrent to Cost 167 Billion Pounds, Far More than Expected,” Reuters, October 25, 2015.
Nuclear Zero Lawsuits
U.S. Government Files Response Brief at Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
On October 28, the United States government filed a Response Brief in the Nuclear Zero Lawsuit that is currently pending at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Laurie Ashton, Counsel for the Marshall Islands in the case, commented on the U.S. response: “Anyone studying the United States Response Brief can see the disconnect between the parties’ positions. Under the United States’ position, the President is above the law. But, while the United States claims a constitutional textual commitment of this case to the President, it cites no actual constitutional text, nor does it respond to the constitutional text cited by the Marshall Islands. It also is disappointing to see the United States continue to rely on inapplicable case law concluding that when diplomacy fails in a treaty dispute, peaceful judicial resolution is not an option, but War is. We look forward to filing our Reply Brief in early December.”
Click here to access all of the court documents from the Nuclear Zero Lawsuits, including the case in U.S. Federal Court and the cases in the International Court of Justice.
Marshall Islands Foreign Minister Interviewed on Russian Television
RT recently interviewed Marshall Islands Foreign Minister Tony de Brum about the legacy of U.S. nuclear weapons testing in the Marshall Islands (RMI) and the current efforts by the RMI to abolish nuclear weapons and stop climate change.
Minister de Brum was an eyewitness to many U.S. nuclear weapon tests in the RMI, including the 1954 Castle Bravo test, the largest nuclear test ever conducted by the United States. From 1946 to 1958, the U.S. conducted 67 nuclear weapon tests in the RMI, with the equivalent explosive yield of 1.6 Hiroshima-sized bombs daily over the 12-year period.
De Brum also discussed the RMI’s current efforts to hold nuclear-armed nations accountable for upholding international law relating to ending the nuclear arms race and negotiating for nuclear disarmament. De Brum will also be a key figure at the upcoming climate negotiations in Paris in early December.
Oksana Boyko, “Nuclear (a)toll? Ft. Tony de Brum, the Foreign Minister of the Marshall Islands,” RT, October 18, 2015.
Resources
November’s Featured Blog
This month’s featured blog is the Nuclear Secrecy Blog by Alex Wellerstein. Wellerstein is a historian of science at the Stevens Institute of Technology and is well known for his interactive NUKEMAP software.
Recent titles on the blog include, “The Plot Against Leo Szilard,” “Neglected Niigata,” and “Did Lawrence Doubt the Bomb?”
To read the blog, click here.
This Month in Nuclear Threat History
History chronicles many instances when humans have been threatened by nuclear weapons. In this article, Jeffrey Mason outlines some of the most serious threats that have taken place in the month of November, including the November 26, 1958 incident at Chennault Air Force Base in Louisiana, in which a nuclear-armed B-47 bomber caught fire. The nuclear weapon’s high explosive charges detonated, spreading radioactive materials over a large area.
To read Mason’s full article, click here.
For more information on the history of the Nuclear Age, visit NAPF’s Nuclear Files website.
Waging Peace: Global Adventures of a Lifelong Activist
NAPF President David Krieger recently wrote a review of the book Waging Peace: Global Adventures of a Lifelong Activist by David Hartsough. An excerpt of the review is below:
“I recently read this impressive autobiography by nonviolent activist David Hartsough, which I recommend highly. David was born in 1940 and has been a lifelong participant and leader in actions seeking a more decent world through nonviolent means. His guiding stars have been peace, justice, nonviolence and human dignity. He has been a foe of all U.S. wars during his lifetime, and a conscientious objector to the Vietnam War. He has lived his nonviolence and made it an adventure in seeking truth, as Gandhi did. I will not try to recount the many adventures that he writes about, but they include civil rights sit-ins, blockading weapons bound for Vietnam, accompanying at-risk individuals in the wars in Central America and creating, with a colleague, a Nonviolent Peaceforce.
“David Hartsough’s life is inspiring, and the lessons he draws from his experiences are valuable in paving the way to a world without war. I encourage you to read his book on his lifelong efforts at Waging Peace.”
To read the full book review, click here.
Project Censored
Adam Horowitz, Director of the documentary Nuclear Savage: The Islands of Secret Project 4.1, has written a chapter in the 2016 edition of Project Censored, which is available to purchase online now. Project Censored highlights the top censored stories and media analysis from 2014-15. Adam’s chapter focuses on the efforts of PBS to prevent Nuclear Savage from being shown on the air in the United States.
The film tells the story of American Cold War nuclear testing in the Marshall Islands, and how U.S. government scientists deliberately exposed populations of local islanders to massive radiation fallout. It is a shocking tale of U.S. government-sanctioned human rights abuse.
To purchase a copy of the 2016 Project Censored publication, click here. To learn more about Nuclear Savage, click here.
Foundation Activities
Open Letter to President Obama
On April 5, 2009, President Obama declared in Prague the United States’ dedication to “seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons.” Recently, NAPF President David Krieger sent an open letter to President Obama, encouraging him to take decisive action in his last year in office to facilitate the achievement of this goal.
Click here to read David Krieger’s letter to President Obama. To take action by adding your name and comments in a letter to President Obama, click here.
The Path to a World Free of Nuclear Weapons
NAPF President David Krieger has been selected to guest-edit an upcoming issue of the journal Peace Review: A Journal of Social Justice on the topic of “The Path to a World Free of Nuclear Weapons.”
Is a world without nuclear weapons attainable and, if so, what will be required to create such a world? What obstacles will need to be overcome? This theme can be explored from a variety of perspectives – legal, moral, organizational, political, economic, as well as from the perspectives of psychology, sociology, anthropology, and various forms of security (national, international, global, and human security).
Essays of 2,500 to 3,500 words (with no footnotes or endnotes) along with a 1-2 line biography must be received by April 1, 2016 no later than 5 p.m. PST for publication in mid-August. Please include a short recommended readings list. Details are available on the Submission Guidelines page. Eight to ten essays will be selected for publication.
Please direct content-based questions or concerns to NAPF at wagingpeace@napf.org.
Evening for Peace Honoring Setsuko Thurlow
On October 25, the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation hosted its 32nd Annual Evening for Peace in Santa Barbara, California. The Foundation honored Setsuko Thurlow, a survivor of the U.S. atomic bombing of Hiroshima, with its Distinguished Peace Leadership Award for her lifetime of work to abolish nuclear weapons.
Over 75 local high school and college students were able to attend the event thanks to the sponsorship of the Santa Barbara Foundation and other generous donors. We extend our heartfelt gratitude to the event’s lead sponsor, Sherry Melchiorre, and all of the sponsors for making such a memorable evening possible.
To read more about the event, view photos, and see the full list of sponsors, click here.
Respect and Peace Leadership in Maine
At Fryeburg Academy’s annual United Nations Flag Processional in October, each flag-bearer was introduced and asked to say one word in their native language: respect. This event, held in Fryeburg, Maine, was highlighted by NAPF Peace Leadership Director Paul K. Chappell, who delivered a powerful message of how to avoid conflict through respect.
“Most human conflict,” said Chappell, “is a result of people feeling disrespected. Universally, every culture finds these three things respectful: Being able to listen, being able to recognize someone’s worth and potential, and leading by example.”
To read more about Paul’s recent trip to Maine, click here.
Quotes
“If the nuclear-armed states refuse to participate in the negotiating process, we must accept that. We cannot compel them to engage. But we must not feel powerless to act without their endorsement. It is time for the nuclear-free majority to assert itself more confidently.”
— H.E. Dr. Caleb Otto, Permanent Representative of Palau to the United Nations, in a speech at the First Committee of the United Nations General Assembly on October 21, 2015.
“I have not assumed that you or any other sane man would, in this nuclear age, deliberately plunge the world into war which it is crystal clear no country could win and which could only result in catastrophic consequences to the whole world, including the aggressor.”
— John F. Kennedy, in a phone call to Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev on October 22, 1962, during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
“Remember always…people are more important than countries.”
— Mairead Maguire. This quote appears in Speaking of Peace: Quotations to Inspire Action, available for purchase in the NAPF Peace Store.
Editorial Team
David Krieger
Grant Stanton
Carol Warner
Rick Wayman - Perspectives
-
November: This Month in Nuclear Threat History
November 1, 2014 – William Broad’s New York Times article, “Which President Cut the Most Nukes?” noted that father and son presidents George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush were responsible, through years of hard-fought bilateral negotiations with the Soviet Union/Russia (which of course also cut their nuclear weapons stockpiles dramatically) and thanks to Congressionally ratified and Russian Duma-supported START treaties, for the greatest reduction in the U.S. nuclear arsenal. Combined, both presidents cut nearly 15,000 nuclear weapons from the U.S. nuclear triad. Not mentioned in the article is that both Bush administrations were responsible for precipitating two major wars in Iraq and the resulting regional instability that is still with us today and in the indefinite future as a result of those wars. The George W. Bush Administration, in responding to the 9-11 attacks, also with the support of Congress (though not unanimous support), triggered the longest war in American history, the 14-year long Global War on Terrorism (GWOT) (a war that has been continued and expanded by the current Obama Administration) which U.S. military and political leaders, including former Vice President Dick Cheney, have acknowledged as “a war which may never end (in our lifetimes).” In reference to U.S., Russian, Chinese, British, and other members of the Nuclear Club’s recently announced plans to modernize, improve, and increase their current nuclear arsenals and infrastructure, to the tune of $1 trillion over the next 30 years just by the United States, the article quotes a sampling of a large number of prominent global nonprofit organizations that have criticized this unnecessary buildup. The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation and the Alliance for Nuclear Accountability condemned President Obama’s nuclear modernization program as “the largest expansion of funding of nuclear weapons since the fall of the Soviet Union (in 1991).” Comments: In recent years, the risk of nuclear war has clearly increased. Unless a global paradigm shift occurs and reverses these trends culminating in a Global Zero ethic, a nuclear war will probably occur sometime in the 21st century. (Source: www.nytimes.com/2014/11/02/sunday-review/which-president-cut-the-most-nukes.html?_r=0 accessed on October 21, 2015.)
November 2, 1984 – On this date, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued the first license for the Diablo Canyon nuclear plants (two units) located on 750 acres of land adjacent to the Pacific Ocean at Avila Beach, 12 miles south of San Luis Obisbo, California. The power plants, which began operating in 1985 and 1986, were located within proximity to approximately two million residences. An additional concern is that in the last few decades it has been determined that these dual reactors are located near a series of offshore seismic faults. After the permanent shutdown of the San Onofre nuclear power station in 2013, it is the only nuclear power plant still operating in the state of California. Many Californians oppose the plant’s operations but the NRC has stood by PG&E in noting that Diablo Canyon’s license does not expire until 2024-25. According to news media reports in July of 2015 (see Sources below), Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) started applying to the NRC for a 20-year license extension in 2009. Despite lessons learned from the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster which was triggered by seismic action and a tsunami, PG&E remains confident that the plant can safety withstand any natural disaster. Its September 2014 seismic study concluded that the facility was “designed to withstand and perform its safety function during and after a major seismic event.” Environmental experts in government, academia, and in nonprofit organizations have cast doubt on these findings. Comments: In addition to the dangerous risks of nuclear power plant accidents due to a plethora of causes, to include human error, mechanical breakdown, unexpected fires, earthquakes, tsunamis, tornadoes, hurricanes, and other unpredictable incidents as seen in places like Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Fukushima, and many other global sites, the tremendously out-of-control civilian and military nuclear waste sequestration, remediation, and permanent storage conundrum, as well as the terrorist targeting potential, the economic unsustainability of civilian nuclear power, and the potential for nuclear proliferation points logically to an accelerated phase-out of global civilian nuclear power plants over the next decade. (Sources: www.nrc.gov/info-finder/reactor/diab1.html and www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/NRC-to-Consider-Relicensing-Diablo-Canyon-Nuclear-Plant-Through-2045 accessed on October 21, 2015.)
November 6, 2013 – Mark Urban of BBC Newsnight ran a story titled, “Saudi Nuclear Weapons on Order From Pakistan,” which admittedly used mainly circumstantial evidence to conclude that Saudi Arabia may have been planning to secretly acquire nuclear weapons from Pakistan or even establish its own covert nuclear weapons program with Pakistan’s scientific/technical assistance. The report acknowledged that it has been more credibly proven that the government of Saudi Arabia has, in fact, provided financial support to aid Pakistan’s nuclear program and that the Saudis did indeed purchase nuclear-capable ballistic missiles from China in the 1980s. Comments: These facts, combined with proven long-term Saudi support for anti-Western extremist Wahhabism and terrorism (15 of the 19 9-11 attack hijackers were Saudi nationals), lead to the conclusion that a nation trumpeted by mainstream news media and the U.S. government as a strong U.S. ally may actually be on the verge of joining the Nuclear Club or more frightening still it may be secretly aiding or even promulgating a future nuclear terror attack on the U.S., Israel, or Western Europe. The best way to address the dual issues of climate change and the nuclear proliferation threat is by reducing dramatically the use of fossil fuels like Saudi oil, while at the same time announcing a global phase-out of civilian nuclear power over the next decade. If ninety some percent of global nuclear power and research reactors, both civilian and military, are eliminated, the nuclear weapon threat would be drastically diminished. (Source: www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-24823846 accessed on October 21, 2015.
November 13, 1963 – A huge conventional explosion of approximately 61.5 tons of nonnuclear highly explosive materials removed from obsolete nuclear weapons being disassembled at an Atomic Energy Commission (AEC, the forerunner of NRC) storage facility at Medina Base (now referred to as Lackland Training Annex) near San Antonio, Texas injured three AEC employees and a number of other workers at the site. Allegedly none of the radioactive materials stored elsewhere in the building were affected but in the chaotic hours after the large explosion it is possible that radiation monitoring was not performed in a comprehensive manner. Nuclear weapons disassembly and other time urgent modification work was subsequently transferred to the Pantex, Texas facility. Comments: Hundreds of nuclear incidents including Broken Arrow accidents have occurred over the decades despite some innovative safety measures pushed on the Pentagon by U.S. nuclear weapons laboratories and nongovernmental experts. Nevertheless, the safest long-term solution to preventing an accidental or unintentional nuclear war is the total or near-total global elimination of these weapons of mass destruction. (Sources: Eric Schlosser. “Command and Control: Nuclear Weapons, the Damascus Incident, and the Illusion of Safety.” New York: Penguin Press, 2013 and http://ww.city-data.com/forum/san-antonio/27062-gone-but-not-forgotten-san-antonio-555.html accessed on October 21, 2015.)
November 16, 1994 – After receiving formal promises of security assurances from the leaders of the U.S., Russia, and Britain, President Leonid Kuchma recommended to his parliamentary representatives that the nation of Ukraine formally accede to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) as a nonnuclear weapons state and agree to transfer its stockpile of strategic nuclear warheads to Russia, which was accomplished on June 1, 1996. Comments: Removing strategic nuclear weapons from former Soviet republics after the collapse of the Soviet Union in December 1991 was an important step toward reducing the risks of nuclear war. The events surrounding the Crimea-Ukraine Crisis of 2014-15 reinforces the wisdom of these steps. However, the global eradication of these doomsday weapons will serve humanity to a much greater degree in this century rather than continuing the flawed conflict-driven rhetoric of the current international policy of nuclear deterrence and nonproliferation which validates and reinforces the belief that it is legitimate for select members of the Nuclear Club to maintain and even increase and modernize their nuclear arsenals while allowing other nations, such as Israel, a free pass to flaunt the NPT regime entirely. (Source: Jack Mendelsohn and David Grahame, editors. “Arms Control Chronology.” Washington, DC: Center for Defense Information, 2002, pp. 39-40.)
November 22-23, 1983 – The West German parliament approved U.S. Pershing II nuclear missile deployments on November 22nd and the first squadron of these U.S. intermediate-range nuclear weapons arrived in Europe the next day causing the Soviet delegation to walk out of the Intermediate Nuclear Forces (INF) negotiations in Geneva. The talks did not resume for nearly a year and a half until March 12, 1985. This period of time represented the height of U.S.-Soviet nuclear tensions. Some other contributing factors included: the September 1, 1983 Soviet shootdown of Korean Airlines Flight 007 near Sakhalin Island; a September 26, 1983 Soviet false nuclear alert; the November 1983 NATO Able Archer military exercise that Soviet leadership widely misinterpreted as a warmup for an eventual U.S. First Strike nuclear attack; and the August 11, 1984 off-the-cuff sound check gaffe by President Ronald Reagan (“We begin bombing Russia in five minutes.”) (Sources: Eric Schlosser. “Command and Control: Nuclear Weapons, the Damascus Incident, and the Illusion of Safety.” New York: Penguin Press, 2013, Oliver Stone and Peter Kuznick. “The Untold History of the United States.” New York: Gallery Books, 2012, and Jack Mendelsohn and David Grahame, editors. “Arms Control Chronology.” Washington, DC: Center for Defense Information, 2002, p. 47.)
November 26, 1958 – At Chennault Air Force Base, Louisiana, a grounded U.S. Air Force B-47 bomber with a nuclear weapon onboard experienced a fire which engulfed the nuclear bomb. Thankfully failsafe protections prevented a nuclear explosion, but the weapon’s high explosive charges detonated spreading radioactive materials over a large area. Comments: Over the last 70 years, humanity has been extremely fortunate that any one of hundreds of nuclear incidents has not resulted in an accidental discharge of a nuclear device which could have triggered an inadvertent, accidental, or unintentional nuclear conflict. (Source: Rebecca Grant. “The Perils of Chrome Dome.” Air Force Magazine. Vol. 94, No. 8, August 2011, http://www.airforcemag.com/magazinearchive/pages/2011/august%202011/0811dome.aspx accessed on October 21, 2015.)
November 29, 1998 – America’s Defense Monitor, a half-hour documentary PBS-TV series that premiered in 1987, released a new film, “Military Nuclear Mess: Out of Sight, Out of Mind?” produced by the Center for Defense Information, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization and independent monitor of the Pentagon, founded in 1972, whose board of directors and staff included retired military officers (Rear Admiral Eugene Carroll, Jr.), former U.S. government officials (Philip Coyle, who served as assistant secretary of defense), and civilian experts (Dr. Bruce Blair, a former U.S. Air Force nuclear missile launch control officer). The press release for the program noted that, “For the past 50 years, the U.S. government has produced hundreds of thousands of cubic meters of nuclear waste. The Department of Energy has created an underground disposal facility, the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP), to permanently store military-generated waste that contains among other deadly toxins, plutonium. Whether this facility will safely store the nuclear materials for the 24,000 year half-life of plutonium, is greatly debated.” Comments: Huge amounts of dangerously radioactive military and civilian generated nuclear waste remain a growing global environmental and public health conundrum. It represents yet another paramount reason why nuclear weapons and nuclear power must be eliminated at the earliest possible opportunity.
-
2015 Evening for Peace
The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s 32nd Annual Evening for Peace took place on October 25 in Santa Barbara, California. The Foundation presented its Distinguished Peace Leadership Award to Setsuko Thurlow, a survivor of the U.S. atomic bombing of Hiroshima and an outspoken advocate for the abolition of nuclear weapons.
Resources
Introductory remarks by NAPF President David Krieger
Acceptance speech by Setsuko Thurlow
Interview with Ms. Thurlow on KCLU radio
Interview with Ms. Thurlow in the Santa Barbara Independent
Article in CASA Magazine (on page 4)
Setsuko Thurlow
Setsuko was thirteen years old the day the United States dropped an atomic bomb on her hometown, Hiroshima.“How do you describe a Hell on Earth?” she asks. “Within that single flash of light, my beloved Hiroshima became a place of desolation, with heaps of rubble, skeletons and blackened corpses everywhere.”
She has chosen to make it her life’s mission to tell the story of what happened that day so that “…no human being should ever have to repeat our experience of the inhumane, immoral and cruel atomic bombing.”
Click here to learn more about NAPF’s 2015 Distinguished Peace Leader, Setsuko Thurlow.
Evening for Peace Sponsors
NAPF is very grateful to the following people who made the 2015 Evening for Peace possible.
Architect of Peace
Sherry MelchiorrePatrons of Peace
Adelaide Gomer
Jamal and Saida HamdaniAdvocate for Peace
Lessie Nixon Schontzler
Ted TurnerStudent Sponsors
Santa Barbara Foundation
Diandra de Morrell Douglas
Brook Hart
Sue Hawes
Maryan Schall
Dan Smith and Lucinda Lee
Mr. and Mrs. Roland Bryan
Santa Barbara City College
Ann and Jeff FrankFriends of Peace
Julius and Linda Bernet
Jill and Ron Dexter
Carole and Ron Fox
Dr. and Mrs. Jimmy Hara
Leonard and Patricia Rubinstein
Joan TravisDinner Committee
Jill Dexter, Chair
Adrianne Davis
Suzan Garner
Sherry Melchiorre
Anne SchowePartners in Peace
Janna and Chuck Abraham
Alma Rosa Winery & Vineyards
Gary Atkins Sound Systems
Boone Printing & Graphics
Four Seasons Resort The Biltmore
Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson
Bob Noysui Sedivy -
Sunflower Newsletter: October 2015
Issue #219 – October 2015
Click here or on the image above to follow NAPF President David Krieger on Twitter.
- Perspectives
- Reason Is Not Enough by David Krieger
- Will the Nuclear Powers Also Play by the Rules? by Lawrence Wittner
- The UN: Are Development and Peace Empty Words? by Rebecca Johnson and Ray Acheson
- Nuclear Disarmament
- Pope Francis Speaks Out for Nuclear Disarmament
- Anti-Nuclear Parliamentarian Elected as Leader of UK Labour Party
- Nuclear Proliferation
- U.S. and Iranian Presidents Speak About Nuclear Agreement at UN
- North Korea Says It Is Bolstering Its Nuclear Arsenal
- Peace
- Japanese Government Reinterprets Peace Article in Constitution
- Nuclear Modernization
- Russia Threatens Countermeasures if U.S. Deploys Modernized Nuclear Bomb in Germany
- U.S. Uranium Processing Facility Likely to Cost Over $10 Billion
- Nuclear Zero Lawsuits
- Tony de Brum and People of the Marshall Islands Win the Right Livelihood Award
- Scottish Parliament Debates the Nuclear Zero Lawsuits
- Amicus Letters of Support to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
- Resources
- October’s Featured Blog
- This Month in Nuclear Threat History
- Toxic Remnants of War Network
- I Was Her Age
- Foundation Activities
- Peace Poetry Contest Winners Announced
- Evening for Peace Honoring Setsuko Thurlow
- Peace Leadership in Europe
- Quotes
Perspectives
Reason Is Not Enough
Reason is not enough to halt the nuclear juggernaut that rumbles unsteadily toward catastrophe, toward omnicide.
The broken heart of humanity must find a way to enter the debate. The heart must find common cause with imagination. We cannot wait until the missiles are in the air with the sand falling through the hourglass. We must use our imaginations. We must listen to the sad stories of those who survived Hiroshima and Nagasaki and imagine the force of the winds, the firestorms rushing through our cities, the mushroom clouds rising, the invisible radiation spreading. If we can’t imagine the death and destruction, we cannot combat it and we will never stop it.
To read more, click here.
Will the Nuclear Powers Also Play by the Rules?
When all is said and done, what the recently-approved Iran nuclear agreement is all about is ensuring that Iran honors its commitment under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) not to develop nuclear weapons.
But the NPT—which was ratified in 1968 and which went into force in 1970—has two kinds of provisions. The first is that non-nuclear powers forswear developing a nuclear weapons capability. The second is that nuclear-armed nations divest themselves of their own nuclear weapons. Article VI of the treaty is quite explicit on this second point, stating: “Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.”
What has been the record of the nuclear powers when it comes to compliance with the NPT?
To read more, click here.
The UN: Are Development and Peace Empty Words?
Relentless militarism, underpinned by patriarchal capitalist structures and institutions, are at the root of today’s major security crises, from nuclear threats to the millions of refugees fleeing armed gangs and Syria’s bombed-out cities. As the UN General Assembly convenes in New York, governments need to take more responsibility for tackling the weapons, arms trade and conflicts that their policies have created and exacerbated.
The 2030 Agenda commits governments “to foster peaceful, just and inclusive societies which are free from fear and violence.” It declares: “There can be no sustainable development without peace and no peace without sustainable development.” Yet despite this emphasis on peace and freedom from violence, the Agenda only includes one goal related to weapons – to significantly reduce illicit arms flows by 2030 (goal 16.4).
To read more, click here.
Nuclear Disarmament
Pope Francis Speaks Out for Nuclear Disarmament
Pope Francis spoke out strongly in favor of peace and nuclear disarmament during his speech to the United Nations on September 25. In his highly-anticipated remarks, Pope Francis said, “There is urgent need to work for a world free of nuclear weapons, in full application of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, in letter and spirit, with the goal of a complete prohibition of these weapons.”
He also spoke about the nuclear agreement between Iran and the P5+1. He said, “The recent agreement reached on the nuclear question in a sensitive region of Asia and the Middle East is proof of the potential of political good will and of law, exercised with sincerity, patience and constancy. I express my hope that this agreement will be lasting and efficacious, and bring forth the desired fruits with the cooperation of all the parties involved.”
“Video: Pope Francis Speaks at the UN on Nuclear Weapons,” Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, September 25, 2015.
Anti-Nuclear Parliamentarian Elected as Leader of UK Labour Party
Jeremy Corbyn, a long-time member of the UK Parliament, was elected as leader of the Labour Party in September 2015. Corbyn has a distinguished history of working for the global abolition of nuclear weapons, primarily with the UK-based Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.
Speaking recently at the Labour Party Conference, Corbyn said, “I don’t believe £100 billion on a new generation of nuclear weapons taking up a quarter of our defense budget is the right way forward. I believe Britain should honor our obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty and lead in making progress on international nuclear disarmament.”
Speaking to the BBC, Corbyn said, “I am opposed to the use of nuclear weapons. I am opposed to the holding of nuclear weapons. I want to see a nuclear-free world. I believe it is possible.”
“Speech by Jeremy Corbyn to Labour Party Annual Conference 2015,” Labour Press, September 29, 2015.
Nuclear Proliferation
U.S. and Iranian Presidents Speak About Nuclear Agreement at UN
U.S. President Barack Obama and Iranian President Hassan Rouhani both spoke about the recent nuclear agreement in their remarks to the United Nations General Assembly on September 28. President Obama said, “For two years, the United States and our partners – including Russia, including China – stuck together in complex negotiations. The result is a lasting, comprehensive deal…. And if this deal is fully implemented, the prohibition on nuclear weapons is strengthened, a potential war is averted, our world is safer. That is the strength of the international system when it works the way it should.”
Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said, “Today, a new chapter has started in Iran’s relations with the world. From the standpoint of international law, this instrument [the nuclear agreement] sets a strong precedent where, for the first time, two sides rather than negotiating peace after war, engaged in dialogue and understanding before the eruption of conflict.”
Click the links to read the full remarks of President Obama and President Rouhani.
North Korea Says It Is Bolstering Its Nuclear Arsenal
North Korea has announced that it is improving the quality and quantity of its nuclear arsenal in response to the “reckless hostile policy” of the United States and its allies.
North Korea has also announced plans to launch a satellite into orbit for scientific purposes. Many opponents of the North Korean regime view such satellite launches as a thinly-veiled attempt to develop an intercontinental ballistic missile capable of delivering a nuclear warhead.
Choe Sang-Hun, “North Korea Says It Is Bolstering Its Nuclear Arsenal,” The New York Times, September 15, 2015.
Peace
Japanese Government Reinterprets Peace Article in Constitution
Despite significant protest both in Japan and abroad, the Japanese legislature voted to reinterpret Article 9 of the constitution, which declares that the Japanese people “forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation.” The Article also pledges that “land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained” and that “the right of belligerency will not be recognized.”
The reinterpretation of Article 9 will allow for “collective self-defense” in conjunction with allied nations. Gensuikyo, the Japan Council Against A and H Bombs, has vociferously opposed the reinterpretation of Article 9. After the recent vote by the legislature, Gensuikyo said in a statement, “We are firmly determined to do our utmost to get the war laws repealed.”
Matt Ford, “Japan Curtails Its Pacifist Stance,” The Atlantic, September 19, 2015.
Nuclear Modernization
Russia Threatens Countermeasures if U.S. Deploys Modernized Nuclear Bomb in Germany
Dmitry Peskov, a spokesperson for Russian President Vladimir Putin, has said that Russia will be forced to take countermeasures if the United States deploys the modernized B61-12 nuclear bomb in Germany. According to recent German news reports, such deployment of U.S. nuclear bombs could take place as soon as the end of 2015.
Peskov stated, “This could alter the balance of power in Europe. And without doubt it would demand that Russia take necessary counter measures to restore the strategic balance and parity.”
The United States already deploys approximately 180 nuclear bombs in five NATO countries: Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey.
Masha Tsvetkova and Katya Golubkova, “Russia Pledges Counter Measures if U.S. Upgrades Nuclear Arms in Germany,” Reuters, September 23, 2015.
U.S. Uranium Processing Facility Likely to Cost Over $10 Billion
The Oak Ridge Environmental Peace Alliance (OREPA), a watchdog group located near the Y-12 nuclear facility in Tennessee, has estimated that the planned Uranium Processing Facility (UPF) will cost at least $10 billion, despite government promises that it will not exceed $6.5 billion.
The Uranium Processing Facility has been plagued by mismanagement, runaway cost projections, and schedules that recede toward infinity. It continues, year after year, to be listed on the Government Accountability Office’s “High Risk Projects” list. Despite the problems, the UPF continues to receive hundreds of millions of dollars in the federal budget.
The proposed UPF would produce new secondaries for thermonuclear weapons, which greatly increase the explosive yield of nuclear weapons.
“Oak Ridge Bomb Plant Cost Soaring Toward $10 Billion,” Oak Ridge Environmental Peace Alliance, September 8, 2015.
Nuclear Zero Lawsuits
Tony de Brum and People of the Marshall Islands Win the Right Livelihood Award
Foreign Minister Tony de Brum and the people of the Marshall Islands will receive the 2015 Right Livelihood Award “in recognition of their vision and courage to take legal action against the nuclear powers for failing to honor their disarmament obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.”
De Brum is co-agent of the Marshall Islands in the Nuclear Zero Lawsuits against the world’s nine nuclear-armed nations at the International Court of Justice. The Marshall Islands also filed a lawsuit against the United States in U.S. Federal Court. De Brum is also a leading voice in international climate negotiations, and will play an important role at the upcoming climate summit in Paris in December.
Commenting on the award, NAPF President David Krieger said, “Tony de Brum is one of the truly outstanding political leaders of our time. He is relentless in his pursuit of peace and justice. He and the people of the Marshall Islands have played an oversized role in the fight to end the nuclear weapons era – by going to court to hold the nuclear-armed countries to their nuclear disarmament obligations under international law. They have also played a major role in the fight to halt climate change. Minister de Brum and the people of the Marshall Islands are most worthy of the Right Livelihood Award and of the recognition being bestowed upon them.”
“Foreign Minister Tony de Brum and the People of the Marshall Islands Receive Right Livelihood Award,” Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, October 1, 2015.
Scottish Parliament Debates the Nuclear Zero Lawsuits
On September 23, the Scottish Parliament held a debate about the Marshall Islands’ Nuclear Zero Lawsuits against the world’s nine nuclear-armed nations. The debate, initiated by Bill Kidd, a member of Scottish Parliament and Co-President of Parliamentarians for Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament, included contributions from members of numerous political parties.
Summing up the debate, Keith Brown, the Cabinet Secretary for Infrastructure, Investment and Cities, said, “Although the case that the Republic of the Marshall Islands is bringing against the UK Government is a matter for the International Court of Justice, the Scottish Government can certainly sympathize with the Marshall Islands on the issue of nuclear weapons. Our history of nuclear weapons is of course different from that of the Marshall Islanders, as we have heard, but we share a common belief that there should be no place for nuclear weapons in our world today, and that there is an obligation on each and every nation to do all that it can to realize that vision.”
“Scottish Parliament Debates Nuclear Zero Lawsuits,” Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, September 23, 2015.
Amicus Letters of Support to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
Two amicus letters of support have been submitted to the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in support of the Marshall Islands’ position in their Nuclear Zero Lawsuit against the United States.
Three Nobel Peace Laureates – Mairead Maguire, Jody Williams and Shirin Ebadi – submitted a letter, along with the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, a UK-based organization.
The letters of support, along with all of the documents related to the Nuclear Zero Lawsuits, can be accessed at http://nuclearzero.org/in-the-courts.
Resources
October’s Featured Blog
This month’s featured blog is from the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) in the United Kingdom. CND General Secretary Kate Hudson writes on issues of nuclear disarmament, peace and justice.
Recent titles on the blog include, “Jeremy Corbyn and the Future of Trident,” and “Why the Atom Bomb was Dropped on Japan.” To read the blog, click here.
This Month in Nuclear Threat History
History chronicles many instances when humans have been threatened by nuclear weapons. In this article, Jeffrey Mason outlines some of the most serious threats that have taken place in the month of October, including the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, which nearly led to nuclear war between the United States and the Soviet Union.
To read Mason’s full article, click here.
For more information on the history of the Nuclear Age, visit NAPF’s Nuclear Files website.
Toxic Remnants of War Network
The Toxic Remnants of War Network is a new civil society network working to reduce the humanitarian and environmental impact of pollution from conflict and military activities. The network connects NGOs, countries, institutions and independent experts engaged in work on the environment, humanitarian disarmament, public health and human rights.
To learn more about this new network, click here.
I Was Her Age
A new documentary by British filmmaker Emma Baggott follows a delegation of eight Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bomb survivors who accompanied youth on a journey around the world to share the horrors of nuclear weapons and appeal for their prohibition and eradication. Created in collaboration with Peace Boat and Mayors for Peace, this film is freely available for educational use by citizens around the world.
To view the 33-minute film, click here.
Foundation Activities
Peace Poetry Contest Winners Announced
The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation has announced the winners of the 2015 Barbara Mandigo Kelly Peace Poetry Awards. A panel of poets read through the many hundreds of submissions to declare winners in three age categories: Adult, Youth (13-18) and Youth (12 and under).
To read this year’s winning poems, click here. For more information about the 2016 poetry contest, click here.
Evening for Peace Honoring Setsuko Thurlow
The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s Annual Evening for Peace will take place on October 25, 2015 in Santa Barbara, California. The Foundation will present its Distinguished Peace Leadership Award to Setsuko Thurlow, a survivor of the U.S. atomic bombing of Hiroshima and an outspoken advocate for the abolition of nuclear weapons. She is the recipient of the Order of Canada Medal, the highest honor for Canadian civilians, and is a Hiroshima Peace Ambassador. She is also a nominee for the Nobel Peace Prize.
Click here for more information about the Evening for Peace, including sponsorship opportunities, ticket information and details about this year’s honoree.
Peace Leadership in Europe
From a conference of international scholars to a group of international nine and ten year-olds, the work of the NAPF Peace Leadership Program moves into an ever-expanding world.
NAPF Peace Leadership Director Paul K. Chappell gave the keynote address at the 2015 CMM Learning Exchange at the University of the Armed Forces in Munich, Germany. Paul Chappell shared from his CMM project: Literacy in the Art of Living, the Art of Listening, and the Art of Waging Peace. “To survive as a species in the twenty-first century and beyond, we must promote literacy in these often neglected arts. We must also promote literacy in our shared humanity. This is how we will evolve as a civilization, or we will perish. That is our only choice.”
Following the conference, Paul Chappell spent September 21, the International Day of Peace, speaking at United World College in Maastricht, in the Netherlands, an international school with more than 800 students from ages 2 to 18.
To read more about Paul’s recent trip to Europe, click here.
Quotes
“There can be no safe hands for nuclear weapons. The humanitarian consequences of a possible detonation of a nuclear weapon, whether intentionally or accidentally, will be catastrophic for humanity.”
— Jacob Zuma, President of South Africa, speaking on the opening day of the United Nations General Assembly.
“Spending on nuclear weapons squanders the wealth of nations. To prioritize such spending is a mistake and a misallocation of resources which would be far better invested in the areas of integral human development, education, health and the fight against extreme poverty. When these resources are squandered, the poor and the weak living on the margins of society pay the price.”
— Pope Francis
“Keep your face to the sunshine and you cannot see your shadow. It’s what sunflowers do.”
— Helen Keller. This quote appears in Speaking of Peace: Quotations to Inspire Action, available for purchase in the NAPF Peace Store.
Editorial Team
Alex Hale
David Krieger
Carol Warner
Rick Wayman - Perspectives
-
2015 Poetry Contest Winners
The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation is pleased to announce the winners of the 2015 Barbara Mandigo Kelly Peace Poetry Awards. Below are the winning poems. For more information on the 2016 contest, visit www.peacecontests.org.
Goka O Mita*, The Tour Guide Gives an Interpretative Account
by Patricia Sheppard
Adult Category, First PlaceFrom the one river, seven rivers flow
to the Inland Sea. There were many bridges,
big and small over the rivers.
The city hung upside downin the seven rivers like the spirit
of Mokuren’s dead mother when he saw her
in a dream. Distended at high tide,
the day started with no hope of clouds.Monday morning.
An air raid alarm earlier when a B-san
flew over. Then, back to normal.
People were on the streets, on the bridges,catching the trolleys into town,
schoolchildren, businessmen, visitors
to the city. It was the season of Obon
of feeding the hungry spirits of the dead.A pink and blue light flickered
and the sun exploded.
Rising dragon vortex,
no music, only wind rushing.I ran with the others toward the rivers.
We were like birds buffeted by the wind.
I tasted blood in my mouth.
The fire was catching up.Under the bridge, bodies clogged the rivers.
No one is writing this down. No one
is feeding the dead in Hiroshima,
white flower of ash.*The translation of the Japanese phrase is “unforgettable fire.” In the poem, some images and phrasing are taken from Unforgettable Fire, Pictures Drawn by Atomic Bomb Survivors, Edited by NHK, Nippon Hoso Shuppan Kyokai, [Japan Broadcasting Corporation] (Tokyo 1977).
Peace
by William A. Carpenter
Adult Category, Honorable MentionMy fist opens
in a blossom of fingers
palm exposed
its five petals
no longer a hammer
or a club
but a cup
or a bowl
or if joined
with another
a link
in a chain
of connectedness
that the fist
only wishes
it could break.Discovery
by Kristin Van Tassel
Adult Category, Honorable MentionMy son holds a machine gun,
the body black plastic, handle orange, excavated
from the lower strata of a waiting room toy box.“What’s this, Mama?” he asks, his round belly
a reminder of his still recent toddlerhood. Here,
between Good Houskeeping and the artificialbanana plant, rising cobra-like, a rhetorical challenge:
and how might I serve the taxonomy of weapons
technology, of killing made ever-more convenient?“What do you think?” I ask, finally. He frowns,
rotating his find, feeling its molded parts, pausing
with the orange handle on top, barrel pointed down.“Toucan,” he pronounces, with a scholar’s confidence.
And there it is. Not the phoenix or ethereal dove,
but a wild bird, alive with tropical color, its neonbeak almost touching my son’s juicy, sun-ripened cheek.
Instructions for How to Prepare My Corpse
by Eli Adams
Youth Category (13-18), First PlaceWhen I die, fold my hands together
The way children fold their hands behind their necks,
Playing dead beside bloody boots
Until bombs stop dropping.When I die, don’t tell anyone my name.
Reduce me to a decimal, a dot in a numerical
reduction you can deliver straight-faced through television screens.
Add mine to a stack of unnamed bodies
With clipped wings and gags between our canines
Because your western tongue twists when trying to pronounce my name.
Peel away my humanity so your conscience can carry on.When I die, send my corpse to Congress
With a note that says, “You took too long,”
Signed by all six-hundred-thousand of us.When I die, be sure to say it was my fault
Loud and clear.
Treat me like a criminal, an undeserving animal,
Tattoo slurs across my skin
With a needle sharpened sloppily by the dog teeth of intolerance,
Mix your inky black beast in with my innocent blood
To turn it dark purple and paint me like I’m poison.When I die, put me in your pocket,
Wear me like a blanket,
Tuck my name between the creases of your hands
Lift my ghost up when you raise two fingers or one fist,
When you salute the tender touch of peace
Use me as your excuse.When I die leave my eyes open
So I can watch you all march.Mango Tree
by Emily Sun
Youth Category (13-18), Honorable Mention“Mr. Lal found his daughter, 12, close to dawn. She and her cousin…were hanging by their scarves from a mango tree…Relatives insisted that the bodies hang there for 12 hours because they wanted outsiders to see how the girls had been found.” ~New York Times, June 2014
the day you and eddy saw
two girls hanging limp from my branches
eddy staring at a river of hair
you wanting to cut a piece
mam plunged your hands in rice
to stop the shivering
gloved her hands like birds
you and eddy once named after stars
and buried in the wellsomeone must grieve for them, mam says,
cracks my spine in halfby night,
you, mam, eddy a pile
splashing blue tv light on your cheeks
windows wide open sweet mango pit air
mam saying turn it off when I fall
asleep you pretending to snore
she pinching your ear would you want to
die like this
with the tv onmorning you wipe the ring of sap
from her eyesDo You Know How They Catch Monkeys in Africa?
by Caroline Waring
Youth Category (13-18), Honorable MentionThe tips of his shoes dug into the rubble
Body twisting through the adobe maze
A mouse trapped by walls on all sides
The stings of rubber bullets pellet flesh
Intricate bruises cloak the body like paint.It’s one-two: breathe in, breathe out
Right foot forward, left foot higher
Playing parkour in the Gaza Strip.Where boys find themselves reduced to
Throwing rocks, an exercise in desperation
Clad in Keffiyehs, and rough fingertips.Where armored soldiers gather at every corner
A threat in constancy, a restriction of movement
A boy tied to a jeep windshield like a buffer.Where at the very least one may receive
A phone call before a life is ended
or a neighborhood burned to the ground.“Hello, I’m Yosef, an officer with the IDF
In five minutes we will blow up your home.”
“How did you get this number?”There flies feathered doves, coupled
Over graffiti-laden walls and mangled fences,
strung in wire, as blockades, those guardians of poverty.He leaves footprints in the dirt, perpetually fleeing
He stretches muddied, clipped fingernails
Against the clear blue sky, swimming in clouds
because this crowded, crumbling, clay prison
Is his home.Sweet Memories
by Rachel Liu
Youth Category (12 and Under), First PlaceI still remember that dark, gloomy day.
The creamy, white envelope from the government,
Seemed so harmless at first,
But when my mother started sobbing out my brother’s name,
My blood ran cold, and I knew.Now, as I stand here, dressed in a formal gown,
Black as the midnight sky, and so tight that I can barely breathe,
I recall those sweet memories, of my big brother.The time when he taught me to ride a bicycle,
But I teetered and tottered, and tumbled to the ground.
It hurt, but I shed no tears that day,
Because my big brother was there.The time when he brought me to Mitch’s house,
And his snake reared up, and hissed straight at me,
Glaring and glowering in furious anger,
I couldn’t help letting out a terrified squeal.
It was horribly frightening, but the snake calmed down,
And I was no longer scared,
Because my big brother was there.The time when my soccer team lost an important final,
And I cried and cried, utterly crushed.
But I still got up in perseverance,
Because my big brother was there.Questions swirl through my thoughts.
Why can’t people just live in peace?
Why does this world have to be so violent?Those sweet memories, of my big brother,
When he was still here, are only faraway dreams,
Ones that will never come true.
Even so, I wish that my big brother were here. -
Scottish Parliament Debates Nuclear Zero Lawsuits
This is a transcript of a debate held in the Scottish Parliament on September 23, 2015, about the Marshall Islands’ Nuclear Zero Lawsuits. The original transcript was published on the website of the Scottish Parliament.
The Deputy Presiding Officer (Elaine Smith):
The final item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S4M-13558, in the name of Bill Kidd, on the non-proliferation treaty, the Marshall Islands, and the United Kingdom Government’s failure to meet its obligations. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.Motion debated,
That the Parliament notes that the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation on Nuclear Weapons (NPT) Review Conference met again at the United Nations in New York in April/May 2015; understands that the UK signed up to and ratified the NPT in 1968, including Article VI, which creates an obligation in good faith of cessation of the nuclear arms race and achievement of nuclear disarmament; commends the government of the Marshall Islands, whose people have, it understands, suffered grievous genetic injuries through nuclear weapons testing on their territory, for its courageous legal action against the UK Government on 24 April 2014 in the International Court of Justice for the failure of the UK Government to meet its duties under the NPT; recognises the spirit of the Marshall Islanders’ actions under international law and the NPT Article VI, and notes calls for the complete removal of the Trident nuclear weapons system at Faslane from Scotland and for it not be relocated anywhere else in these islands in order to comply fully with the 1968 NPT obligations.
Bill Kidd (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP):
With your indulgence, Presiding Officer, I welcome the honourable Alexander Kmentt, Austrian disarmament ambassador and arms control person of the year 2014, to the gallery. We are all very grateful for his efforts over the years to reduce the threat to the world of nuclear weapons—including last year, when he won the award.
I also wish to thank all the MSPs who signed my motion on the non-proliferation treaty on nuclear weapons, the Marshall Islands, and the United Kingdom Government’s failure to meet its international treaty obligations. The NPT review conference met again at the United Nations in the spring of this year. I say “again” because it meets every five years and has done so since 1970, so obviously it has not yet achieved its aims, which were set out in 1968.
The group was set up in 1968 to get countries to sign up to and ratify, as the UK did, the articles of the NPT. Article VI of the treaty creates an obligation to pursue “in good faith” the “cessation of the nuclear arms race” and the achievement of “nuclear disarmament”. We have been waiting 47 years for that good faith to come to pass.
Where does the Republic of the Marshall Islands fit into the long-term future of the international obligations of those NPT signatories that still maintain nuclear weapons arsenals? The Marshall Islands is a small Pacific nation that, after the second world war, was placed under trust status by the United Nations for protection and development by the USA. I have to say that, when I hear the name “trust” attached to something, I do not have great hopes for it. Although the idea of trust might be taken for granted by most of us, it is not delivered by nations around the world when it becomes a matter of their own best interests and, tragically, the Marshall Islands and its occupants were between 1946 and 1958 used by the US as a nuclear weapon testing ground.
During those 12 years, a total of 67 nuclear tests were carried out in the Marshall Islands, notably at Bikini and Enewetak. The total explosive yield of those tests averages out at an incomprehensible equivalent of 1.6 Hiroshima-sized bombs every day for 12 years. As a result of the testing of those weapons, the people of the Marshall Islands have suffered catastrophic and irreparable damage, including genetic damage. However, the Government of the Marshall Islands does not seek financial compensation as reparation for the devastation wreaked upon its land and population. How could the problems that have been caused possibly be sorted out with money? That is too much the idea of western societies.
Instead, the Marshall Islands Government has filed nine separate applications at the International Court of Justice, one for each of the nine nuclear-armed states, as well as another lawsuit against the USA in the US Federal District Court for its actions during the trust status period. The lawsuits are intended to highlight breaches of existing international law—both article VI of the NPT and customary international law, which call for compliance with good-faith negotiations, an end to the nuclear arms race at an early date and nuclear disarmament after that. Three of the nine nuclear-armed nations—the UK, India and Pakistan—accept the ICJ’s compulsory jurisdiction, and oral arguments are due to proceed in the court in March 2016.
I believe that, in the spirit of those courageous actions by the Marshall Islanders under the auspices of international law—and mindful of the duties placed on the UK Government as a result of signing and ratifying the 1968 NPT obligations, in particular the provisions of article VI—all parties must follow the example of the great majority of the world’s Governments and pursue a non-nuclear weapons strategy of co-operation. That would include the UK Government halting the planned preparatory work for upgrading and replacing the Trident nuclear system at Faslane and Coulport on the Clyde, prior to its dismantling and removal, and—crucially—ensuring that Trident is not relocated to anywhere else on these islands. By doing so, the UK Government would comply fully with the UK’s obligations under the NPT.
I thank the foreign minister of the Republic of the Marshall Islands, the Hon Tony de Brum, for his friendship and support in providing an understanding of the background to this internationally important case. I express my sincere thanks for the support of the Government of the Republic of the Marshall Islands in welcoming this debate in the Scottish Parliament and—this is really what it is all about—I thank the people of the Marshall Islands for their vow to fight so that no one else on earth will ever again experience the atrocities that have been perpetrated on their territory and people.
The Deputy Presiding Officer:
We are tight for time this evening and a number of members wish to speak in the debate, so I am minded to accept a motion from Bill Kidd, under rule 8.14.3, that the debate be extended by up to 30 minutes. Mr Kidd?
Bill Kidd:
I am sorry. I was being congratulated because I was so good, and I—
The Deputy Presiding Officer:
Would you care to move a motion that the debate be extended, Mr Kidd?
Bill Kidd:
Yes, I would. Thank you.
Motion moved,
That, under Rule 8.14.3, the debate be extended by up to 30 minutes.—[Bill Kidd.]
Motion agreed to.
The Deputy Presiding Officer:
I still ask members to keep to time, please. Several members have to leave early to go to other parliamentary events. I will try to accommodate them as best I can.
17:16
David Torrance (Kirkcaldy) (SNP):
Presiding Officer, I give you and Bill Kidd my apologies, as I will not be able to stay until the end of the debate.
I congratulate Bill Kidd on lodging the motion and allowing us to debate a highly relevant issue. As a member of the Scottish Parliament, I strongly welcome the Scottish Government’s stance on global nuclear disarmament. However, I would like to focus on two points. First, I want to speak about the disastrous effects of nuclear weapons testing. Secondly, I want to follow the motion’s call for “the complete removal of the Trident nuclear weapons system … from Scotland”.
In launching a lawsuit at the International Court of Justice against the nine nuclear weapons states on 24 April 2014, the Republic of the Marshall Islands took an unprecedented but audacious step that marks a crucial step towards the abolition of nuclear weapons. If it is successful in its claim, the Government of the Marshall Islands will demand not financial compensation but the abolition of the nuclear arsenals of the countries in question.
In light of the history of the Marshall Islands, that is a commendable decision. The Pacific island state has been the site of 67 nuclear tests. On Bikini Atoll alone, 23 nuclear bombs were tested between 1946 and 1955. That includes the first launch of a hydrogen bomb in 1952 and corresponds to 7,000 times the force of the bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima.
To remember the nuclear tests that were conducted on Bikini Atoll, the island was declared a United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization world heritage site in 2010. In its decision, UNESCO highlighted the importance of remembering “the displacement of inhabitants, and the human irradiation and contamination caused by radionuclides produced by the tests.”
Recalling the fate of the Marshallese is paramount, as it displays to us the destructive power of nuclear weapons. Death, ill-health effects, environmental damage and resettlement issues remain matters of great concern. As an example, Bikini Atoll’s indigenous population, which was shipped out in 1946, has still not been able to resettle on its island.
I take this chance to recall once again the effects on British servicemen of nuclear weapons testing at Christmas Island in the Pacific Ocean. More than 20,000 soldiers were exposed to radiation. Later on, they suffered from severe ill health and early deaths. In fact, of the 2,500 British ex-servicemen who were surveyed by the British Nuclear Test Veterans Association in 1999, 30 per cent have since died. A majority passed away in their early 50s having suffered from cancer. Additionally, the veterans association has observed higher rates of miscarriages among veterans’ wives, and veterans’ children had a 10-times higher risk of experiencing defects at birth.
Veterans in my constituency of Kirkcaldy who were part of the nuclear testing programme have experienced the effects that I have mentioned. With their families and affected ex-servicemen across the country, they are fighting the Ministry of Defence in its negligence to take responsibility for the lasting health damages that they have endured. We need to actively question the Ministry of Defence’s actions. It is about time that it started to fully support veterans’ families. It is predicted that they will face severe health problems for many generations to come.
The motion calls for the complete removal of the UK’s nuclear weapons base at Faslane. Around half of all Scots have expressed their opposition to Trident. Trident’s renewal will consume 20 to 30 per cent of the Ministry of Defence’s budget, which will put it under significant constraints.
We simply cannot ignore the fact that the UK, as a signatory to the non-proliferation treaty, has an obligation to adhere to article VI. As the Scottish Government has acknowledged, international opinion is distancing itself more and more from the proliferation of nuclear weapons. There is also increasing interest in the truth about nuclear testing operations. We need to ask why the Ministry of Defence is reluctant to admit its past polices, while it insists on renewing Trident.
It is our responsibility in this chamber to put pressure on the UK Government with regards to its disarmament obligations and to press for uncovering the truth regarding nuclear testing operations, whether they have affected our own servicemen or the citizens of the Marshall Islands.
17:20
Claire Baker (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab):I recognise Bill Kidd’s efforts in bringing the debate to the chamber, and I recognise his tale of nuclear testing’s horrific legacy. Unfortunately I must apologise to the chamber and the cabinet secretary, as I must leave the debate early because of a commitment in Fife.
The debate on Trident’s replacement is complex, and I am glad that we can explore some of the issues. I understand those who make a clear commitment against renewal, which I know comes from a deep-seated desire to see the end of nuclear weapons and a belief that not renewing Trident is a step toward that. All of us in the chamber share the desire to see the end of nuclear weapons, but often the question is how best to achieve that. Although there will be disagreements among members during these debates, we must remember that we are all striving to reach the same goal.
It would seem counterintuitive to say that Trident’s renewal would help to deliver fewer weapons, but there is an argument that the UK’s international role and influence has contributed towards de-escalation of weapons, and that the UK’s influence is partly dependent on maintaining Trident. The majority of members in the chamber are of the view that the UK and Scotland should remain in NATO and—although members may challenge this—it is argued that the UK’s nuclear capacity is central to its membership.
There is the question of compliance with the NPT obligations. There is an argument that the replacement of Trident is a like-for-like replacement and so does not breach the treaty, but it could be said that it is not in the spirit of the treaty.
No one would deny that Britain and Scotland need defence forces, but is Trident part of our future? There is a strong argument that the world has changed dramatically since the cold war. The proposition is that the threat comes no longer from big nation states having a stand-off but from terrorism, which is more targeted and hidden. What does a country’s nuclear capacity mean to a group that is attacking with no government, country or army behind it? That is the threat of the future on which our defence and intelligence community need to focus.
We are challenged to see into the future. The argument is made that work on a Trident replacement cannot be delayed, because the submarines alone could take up to 17 years to develop. We can prepare for our future defence needs only based our understanding and predictions—there are no certainties. However, others see the opportunity to reduce our nuclear capacity as one that should not be missed.
In government, Labour reduced nuclear weapons and played an international role. The United Kingdom Government has signed up to gradual disarmament, negotiated in line with other nuclear nations. We would all like to see that achieved quickly, but if we are going to be fair during the debate we should recognise the steps that have been taken. The position that we are in now is quite different from that of 10 or 20 years ago. Since 1998, all of the UK’s air-delivered nuclear weapons have been withdrawn and dismantled, and our nuclear forces have been reduced by more than 50 per cent since their cold-war peak. That is to be welcomed.
There are a range of views on Trident across the Labour Party. Kezia Dugdale and Jeremy Corbyn have both said that the party will have a debate before taking a conclusive position.
I grew up in the 1970s and 1980s. Campaigning against nuclear weapons was not my first political experience. I went to Communist Party jumble sales and I even appeared on the front page of the Morning Star with Arthur Scargill—I did grow up in Fife, after all.
When I was 12, I went on my first visit to London, to take part in a Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament rally of more than 300,000 people, which ended in Hyde Park. The decision to go on the rally was my first real political act. I was the youngest person on an overnight bus that was full of Labour Party members, including Alex Falconer, who was our MEP at the time; Communist Party members; political activists; and my family.
That day, there was a huge show of public rejection of the nuclear arms race, and that public movement is important to making a change in the UK and globally. I welcome the debate that Trident is generating on the choices that the UK faces.
17:25
Jamie McGrigor (Highlands and Islands) (Con):I congratulate Bill Kidd on securing time for this debate.
Ever since the dawn of the atomic age, nuclear weapons have been a dividing issue, and the spread of different weapons of mass destruction has, by and large, defined power politics for the past seven decades. The non-proliferation treaty is a cornerstone in the attempt to create a global regime to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and, by extension, a nuclear war.
The Marshall Islands were the testing ground for US nuclear weapons. Testing stopped in 1962, but the radioactive fall-out was significant and there has been an increase in cancer cases among the population, mainly involving cancer of the thyroid. The US subsequently paid significant sums of money in compensation to the people of the Marshall Islands. As the radiation from the tests dissipates, the dangers that are posed by the radioactive isotopes decreases. However, research shows that one of the main health concerns stems from the forceful displacement of the population and the uprooting of their culture. That has had a significant negative effect on the population, as has similarly been seen among the citizens of Pripyat, who were forcefully evacuated after the Chernobyl incident.
Last year, the Marshall Islands sued the UK and all other nuclear weapons powers for breaching their obligations—stipulated in article VI of the non-proliferation treaty—to “in good faith” negotiate an end to the nuclear arms race and engage in negotiations to reduce the number of nuclear weapons in the world. The UK Government announced a few years ago that it is continuing to cut down on warheads by another 45, thus slowly disarming according to the treaty. The case is continuing at the International Court of Justice and the outcome is uncertain. Any speculation regarding a ruling would be unwise, but the case yet again brings forward the debate about the existence of nuclear weapons.
The SNP has argued for a long time in favour of the UK unilaterally disarming itself by removing our strategic nuclear deterrent. Such a policy would not just be futile, it would also be dangerous. The common argument for unilateral disarmament, which was so often heard during the referendum campaign, is that if the UK shows the way other states will follow as they will feel less threatened and thus more inclined to disarm as well. There is no evidence for that, and no evidence that Russia or China would embark on a quest of disarmament just because we decided to do that.
There are dangers lurking in the shadows due to disarmament policies. For the duration of the cold war, the doctrine of mutually assured destruction prevented a cataclysmic war between the free world and the eastern bloc. Our nuclear arsenal ensures that Scotland is kept safe in an increasingly turbulent and dangerous world. Some might argue that the enemies of today are terrorist groups such as Islamic State and that having nuclear weapons either way does not provide any protection from that. That is probably true, but the world is constantly shifting and new threats emerge continuously. We should not and must not remove our deterrent.
It is important that we note the effects of nuclear testing not only on the Marshall Islands but around the world. Since joining the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty in the 1990s, the UK has not tested any nuclear weapons and we have gradually decreased the size of the stockpile. The fact remains, however, that we live in an unstable world where nuclear weapons are providing safety for the people of the United Kingdom, and it would be folly to give them up.
I note that the motion calls for “the complete removal of the Trident nuclear weapons” that are stored at Faslane. That would also be detrimental to employment in Argyll and Bute, as Faslane sustains 7,000 jobs in the area, which is already threatened by depopulation.
17:29
Malcolm Chisholm (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (Lab):I congratulate Bill Kidd on lodging the motion, and I pay tribute to the courage and endurance of the people of the Marshall Islands after everything they have been through.
I apologise to Bill Kidd and the minister, because I must leave to chair the cross-party group on cancer, which is supposed to start now.
The motion considers Trident renewal from the point of view of the non-proliferation treaty. The non-proliferation treaty was a bargain: the nations without nuclear weapons promised not to develop them, and in exchange, nuclear weapons states promised to pursue negotiations towards nuclear disarmament. In the words of article VI, parties undertook to: “pursue negotiations in good faith on … cessation of the nuclear arms race … and … nuclear disarmament”.
It is on that basis that the people of the Marshall Islands have brought their case to the International Court of Justice. They say that the nuclear weapons states have failed to meet their obligations and are therefore in breach of international law.
Lord Murray, a former Lord Advocate as well as a former MP for Leith, has said: “It is not obvious that the UK can offer a stateable defence”.
Lord Bramall, a former chief of the defence staff, said in a debate in the House of Lords on 24 January 2007: “it is difficult to see how the United Kingdom can exert any leadership and influence on the implementation of the non-proliferation treaty … if we insist on a successor to Trident”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 24 January 2007; Vol 688, c 1137.]
We all know the moral objections to Trident, although not every member of this Parliament shares them. Trident would deliver death and destruction on an unprecedented and unimaginable scale. That is the core moral objection. We know, too, that money is diverted from more worthwhile causes to pay for Trident.
The motion highlights something else: the legal objections to Trident. There is a clear statement on the breach of the non-proliferation treaty. There was also a ruling of the International Court of Justice in 1996 that any use of nuclear weapons is of doubtful legality. My predecessor in Leith, Lord Murray, has argued strongly that that is also a central legal objection—indeed, a more fundamental legal objection to having nuclear weapons at all.
Those of us who want to build the case against Trident should emphasise all the dimensions of the matter—the moral arguments, the legal arguments and, increasingly, the arguments that relate to the strategic and security objectives. I quoted a former chief of the defence staff. Many people in the military object to Trident—although perhaps not all of them speak out—because they realise that there are far more useful ways to defend this country through conventional means.
Not just military people but people with a deep knowledge of the military object to Trident. Given the previous speaker, the main person to mention in that regard is the former Conservative defence secretary, Michael Portillo, who has made a strong and cogent strategic argument against the renewal of Trident.
I hope that we will have a great debate on Trident over the next few months, not just in the Labour Party but in the country, because we have never really had a meaningful debate about the issue and I think that most people still hold the views that they held 30 or 35 years ago—I am pleased to say that I do. The issues should be brought into the open, and I hope that as that happens we will see a strong coalition against Trident, which can put forward the moral arguments, the legal arguments, which the motion highlights and, fundamental to persuading the majority of people, the security and strategic arguments against Trident.
17:34
Kevin Stewart (Aberdeen Central) (SNP):I commend Bill Kidd for lodging the motion, and I commend the people of the Marshall Islands for bringing their case to the International Court of Justice.
The accused are: the United States, Russia, China, France, India, Pakistan, Israel, North Korea and the UK. The plucky Marshall Islands, with a population of 70,000 people, are taking on the major military, political and economic powers. Some people have described what they are doing as a near-Quixotic venture. In my opinion, it is a brave attempt to safeguard all our futures and should never be compared to tilting at windmills.
The Marshall Islands know all about nuclear testing. As has been said, they suffered 67 United States nuclear tests in the 1940s and 1950s. The bomb that was exploded in one of those tests was 1,000 times greater than the Little Boy bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima. They know the consequences of nuclear testing.
The Marshall islanders deserve our respect and support for bringing their case to the international court in The Hague. Beyond that, the case should give every one of the Governments that I have mentioned time to think about what they are currently doing on nuclear weapons. In particular, the UK Government should think about what it is about to embark on. Spending £100 billion on new nuclear weapons in a time of austerity is abhorrent. Spending money on nuclear weapons at any time is abhorrent, but it is particularly so when money is being cut left, right and centre and when the poorest in our society are suffering greatly.
The might of the accused—the United States, China, India, Israel, Russia, France, Pakistan, North Korea and the UK—is being tackled by a small nation of 70,000 people. Their courage is absolutely immense. I hope that the courage and determination of the Marshall Islanders will prove that nuclear weapons are a complete and utter folly and that we begin to see disarmament on this small planet of ours. Hats off to the Marshall Islanders!
17:37
Neil Findlay (Lothian) (Lab):I thank Bill Kidd for bringing the motion to the chamber.
I understand that the non-proliferation treaty represents the only binding multilateral treaty with the goal of disarmament that has been signed by the nuclear weapons states. Malcolm Chisholm read from it—it is quite a document, as we would all agree. The reality is that the treaty did not stop the arms race. We know that the major powers accumulated more and more nuclear hardware. However, it set in train the process of co-operation between nuclear and non-nuclear states to prevent proliferation, which was a huge step forward that we should be thankful for. Given the dangers that we see across the globe at the moment and the instability that we have seen since the treaty was signed—the border disputes, territorial disputes, religious wars, civil wars and regional conflicts—we must all be thankful that proliferation on a mass scale, bringing in new states, did not materialise. If it materialised, we would now be in an even more perilous position. The world is a dangerous enough place without a nuclear arms race and nuclear expansionism across a range of new states and within states.
Like many members, I have always been opposed to nuclear weapons. I am opposed to the renewal of Trident and I am glad that more and more people are coming to that point of view. I do not want to see Trident sail from the Clyde to the Thames, the Mersey, the Tyne, the Barrow or anywhere else in the UK. I want the UK to be free of nuclear weapons; I want the world to be free of nuclear weapons. I want a world of peace and justice. Many share that goal—not only among those who are in the chamber but among those who are not here.
Jamie McGrigor:
Will the member take an intervention?
Neil Findlay:
I know that Mr McGrigor does not share that goal, but I will take an intervention.
Jamie McGrigor:
I share the member’s desire for a nuclear-free world, but unilateral disarmament, when there are nuclear weapons elsewhere, is a foolish policy.
Neil Findlay:
I am glad that Mr McGrigor has put that on the record. We can disagree on the tactics, but how we rid the world of nuclear weapons should be part of the debate. It is good that we start from the same position—I am pleased about that.
The Marshall Islands is a state that knows more than most. It can tell the world a lot about the impact of radiation, having been the site of the most powerful hydrogen bomb tests ever undertaken, as many members have mentioned. Given all the dreadful consequences for the people and the environment there, they have a lot to teach the world. I understand and support the Marshall Islanders’ desire to see the end of nuclear proliferation. That desire is shared by many.
I again thank Bill Kidd for securing the debate. I also thank him for the motion that he lodged yesterday in tribute to Dr Alan Mackinnon, who was a friend to many people in the peace movement, in the Communist Party and across the broad left of politics. He was a fantastic human being and his death is a great loss to progressive politics. It is up to us to keep up his work for a fair, just and more humane society that is free of nuclear weapons.
17:42
George Adam (Paisley) (SNP):I thank Bill Kidd for bringing this important debate to the chamber. The Marshall islanders are to be commended for their strength of will and vision on the issue.
Bill Kidd mentioned that the Marshall Islands were put under trust status by the United Nations. That brought up an important word: trust. It is probably one of the most important words that we will hear in the debate. Where is the trust? Do we trust ourselves to live in a world without nuclear weapons? Do we trust our fellow nations to look to a future without nuclear weapons?
Malcolm Chisholm summed it up when he said that many of us have held the ideal of a nuclear-free world for 30-plus years. Like it did for Claire Baker, the debate started for me in the 1980s. We believed that, because of the cold war, ours would be the generation to end in nuclear Armageddon. That seems the distant past now, but teenagers had that fear in the 1980s. It was one of the reasons why I was attracted to the SNP. At the time, there was an argument over Polaris and Trident, and we are having the same debate now: should we go for the next generation of Trident? As Kevin Stewart said, it would be absolutely disgusting to spend £100 billion on such weapons when people are struggling in our nation.
I like to talk about people, because I believe that politics is about people. Today, I will talk about a man who is not from Paisley but who comes from Johnstone, which is next door. Ken McGinley was a soldier who went over to Christmas Island when Britain did its nuclear testing in the Pacific. He went across as a young man of 19—he had not been around the world before. He has become a close friend and someone whose opinion I respect. Ken told me that, when he went out there, he had never heard of the hydrogen bomb or the atomic bomb and was only vaguely aware of what had happened at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. He was there when Grapple Y, Britain’s biggest ever nuclear test, took place. It involved the dropping of a 3 megaton monster. As the day of the test got closer, he knew that there were soldiers who were braver than he was who were starting to have doubts. As he sat on the beach on the day of the test, he became increasingly worried about all the “crazy thoughts”—those are his words, not mine—that were going through his mind. Ken has told me exactly how he felt on that day when the bomb was tested. He wore a white overall—that was all the protection that the soldiers were given—over khaki shorts. He said: “Suddenly, before I could have any more misgivings, a voice came through the tannoy: ‘This could be a live run,’ it said dramatically. ‘Five … Four … Three … Two … One … Zero’”.
Then it happened. He was told to cover his eyes as a 3 megaton bomb was unleashed in the vicinity. At that point, he put his hands over his eyes and he could see every part of the innards of his hands. He said that when the heat came, it was not as if someone had put on an electric fire behind him; it was as if 1,000 electric fires had gone right through him.
Like many others who found themselves in his position, Ken McGinley has not had his troubles to seek. He has had many health problems. When he came back to the UK, he had an undiagnosed ulcer that burst and he collapsed. He later discovered that he was infertile, and he has had skin complaints, cysts and other conditions. That has happened to many people who were there just doing their national service. The big thing for 19-year-old Ken was a stop-off in Hawaii on the way to Christmas Island.
The nations of the world must take responsibility when they are dealing with nuclear weapons. They must admit that they were wrong to do the tests in the Pacific islands. They must learn that we need to trust one another and work together to ensure that nothing like that ever happens again and that we can have a world that no longer has nuclear weapons.
17:47
John Finnie (Highlands and Islands) (Ind):I join others in congratulating Bill Kidd on his motion. I also congratulate him on all the work that he does in the nuclear field, for which he is rightly respected around the world, and of which tonight’s debate is just the latest manifestation.
The motion refers to “an obligation in good faith”.
I suggest that successive UK Governments have found such a course of conduct very challenging when it comes to military and, especially, nuclear matters.
The motion also talks about the “cessation of the nuclear arms race”.
We know that, following the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s recent visit, that is not going to happen. Money is no object if the objects in question are weapons of widespread and indiscriminate civilian slaughter, as Trident is. Trident must be decommissioned, and it is good to hear voices in support of that around the chamber.
Nuclear testing is responsible for vile impacts well short of slaughter, which we know have been visited on the Marshall Islands in particular. The islands were colonised in the second millennium BC by Micronesian colonists, who gradually settled there. Like many other parts of the world, the islands were exploited successively by the Spanish, the English, the Germans, the Japanese and by the great improvers—because every island needs nuclear testing—the Americans. As we have heard, in an obscene course of behaviour the US tested 67 nuclear weapons, the largest of which was Castle Bravo.
I respect the Marshall Islanders for taking legal action—that is worthy of the term “bravo”. We know that by 1956 the US Atomic Energy Commission regarded the Marshall Islands as “by far the most contaminated place in the world”.
We know that claims are on-going. We also know that the health effects linger. We know, too, about project 4.1, which was a medical study by the US of the residents of Bikini Atoll who were exposed to the radioactive fallout. As we have seen elsewhere on the planet, the pernicious effects of the arms trade are often visited on the undeserving—not that there would ever be deserving recipients of that.
The relationships in question are about power and respect. The so-called developed countries have shown little respect to places such as the Republic of the Marshall Islands, which is worthy of our utmost respect, not least for its filing of an application for action at the International Court of Justice in 2014. The International Court of Justice is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations and its role is “to settle, in accordance with international law, legal disputes submitted to it by States.”
I will not rehearse the names of the nine countries of shame, but I will say that they contribute little to the cause of humanity by their course of action.
Kevin Stewart:
I think that we should name the accused nine as often as we can, so that people know about the perpetrators who used those weapons of mass destruction.
John Finnie:
I take Kevin Stewart’s point—he is right that we should name them. The debate is time limited; nonetheless, I confirm that the nine countries are the United States, the United Kingdom—not in my name—and France, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea.
The court cases are founded on the unanimous conclusion of the International Court of Justice in 1996, in which it stated: “There exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control.”
It is important to say that the legal action is about ensuring that the opinion is not allowed to lie dormant or be ignored. It covers breaches such as refusing to commence multilateral negotiations; implementing policies that are contrary to the objective of nuclear disarmament, which—as we have heard—includes the likely replacement of Trident; and breaching the obligation “to pursue negotiations in good faith” relating to “cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date.”
I cannot stress strongly enough the influence of the arms trade in that regard.
Our planet faces many challenges, not least climate change, which will require collaboration among nations if we are to tackle it. To my mind, it is the Republic of the Marshall Islands, rather than any one of the nine nuclear states, that demonstrably cares about humanity. I applaud the islanders’ actions and wish them every success, and I wish them well in making the world a better place.
17:51
Chic Brodie (South Scotland) (SNP):I also thank Bill Kidd for bringing to the chamber a debate on the UK’s obligations under the non-proliferation treaty and on the plight of the Marshall Islands.
Conferences to review the NPT take place every five years. At the most recent conference in 2010, the five major nuclear powers reaffirmed “their unequivocal undertaking to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals leading to nuclear disarmament”.
They also committed to undertake “further efforts to reduce and ultimately eliminate all types of nuclear weapons.”
Of course, progress since 2010 has been sporadic, to say the least.
There has been a growing focus on, and concern about, the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons from many non-nuclear states, the UN and other non-governmental organisations throughout the world. The on-going refugee crises throughout Europe and in many other parts of the world underline the importance of bringing peace and stability to many areas of the world. Our energies and strategies and our international economic drivers should be guided towards creating political and socioeconomic landscapes that allow countries to thrive and their peoples to live in peace. Foreign policy mistakes over the years have created refugee situations in many parts of the world.
The 2013 UN conference, which was organised around the topic of the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons, was used by non-nuclear countries to push for development of a nuclear-weapons convention that would outlaw possession of such weapons as a first step towards their total elimination. That brings into the spotlight the UK’s position on its Trident successor programme, which will, if it is approved, replace the UK’s nuclear deterrent from 2018. The UK’s nuclear deterrent is thought to consist of approximately 225 nuclear warheads; the US has approximately 5,000 and Russia is believed to have the same amount.
The 2015 NPT conference gave the UK an opportunity to make a commitment regarding the undertaking that was made in 2010, which was—I repeat—an “unequivocal undertaking to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals leading to nuclear disarmament”.
At Faslane in Scotland, we are—as we have heard today—hosts to the UK’s nuclear deterrent. It is only 25 miles from our biggest city, which has a population of 600,000. Only weeks ago, a 20-vehicle military convoy travelled across Scotland using specially built vehicles to transport nuclear weapons. John Ainslie, the co-ordinator of Scottish CND, referred to that convoy, noting that “70 years ago Hiroshima was destroyed by an atomic bomb.”
What brought me to a belief in total nuclear disarmament was a book about Hiroshima by John Hersey. He wrote: “There was no sound of planes. The morning was still; the place was cool and pleasant. Then a tremendous flash of light cut across the sky.”
Mr Tanimoto, the pastor of the Hiroshima Methodist church, said that “It seemed a sheet of sun” and that “he lived a dozen lives and saw more death than he ever thought he would see.”
One hundred thousand people were killed. That is why it is right that we support the people of the Marshall Islands in suing the nine countries at The Hague. It is, as they state, a “flagrant denial of human justice”.
When we consider that only one bomb, the Castle Bravo shot, was a 15 megaton bomb and was equivalent to 1,000 Hiroshima blasts, and if we then apply the figures from Hiroshima exponentially, we find that it would result in 100 million deaths, which is 20 times the population of Scotland.
We support the people of the Marshall Islands and wish them success. The people of Scotland do not want nuclear weapons. It is time that the UK took its obligation to the NPT seriously. Trident renewal will cost the UK £100 billion and Scotland might have to pay its share. Let Scotland confront that and let it be a beacon to the rest of the world as a country that wholly rejects nuclear weapons and takes its obligation to the NPT seriously.
17:56
The Cabinet Secretary for Infrastructure, Investment and Cities (Keith Brown):I thank Bill Kidd for securing the debate. As John Finnie did, I acknowledge the wider work that Bill Kidd has done for a number of years in pursuit of the abolition of nuclear weapons. As has been mentioned, he has a growing international reputation for that. In my view, the Parliament is lucky to have him.
Bill Kidd’s debate has provided an opportunity for members from across the chamber to make clear their position on whether they believe that the UK Government is committed to nuclear disarmament and is doing all that it can to make it a reality. The Scottish Government has been consistent and steadfast in its opposition to the possession and the threat of nuclear weapons. We have called on the UK Government to lead by example on disarmament and, in light of the location and impact of Trident in Scotland, to work with us on its safe and complete withdrawal.
However, as George Osborne’s announcement of 31 August demonstrates, the UK Government continues to prepare the way for a new generation of Trident-carrying submarines operating from HM Naval Base Clyde into the second half of this century and potentially beyond. It is difficult for me, and I think for many others, to reconcile that stance with a genuine commitment towards nuclear disarmament.
Although the case that the Republic of the Marshall Islands is bringing against the UK Government is a matter for the International Court of Justice, the Scottish Government can certainly sympathise with the Marshall Islands on the issue of nuclear weapons. Our history of nuclear weapons is of course different from that of the Marshall Islanders, as we have heard, but we share a common belief that there should be no place for nuclear weapons in our world today, and that there is an obligation on each and every nation to do all that it can to realise that vision.
We therefore recognise the frustration of the Marshall Islanders and the frustration of many nations, organisations and individuals, including some in the chamber and in the public gallery today, at the apparent lack of progress in the pursuit of nuclear disarmament. Although some members have mentioned the reduction in the number of warheads, there has been no mention of the increase in the capacity of those warheads that has occurred at the same time.
I would like to respond to the arguments that have been put forward in support of nuclear weapons, although they have been fairly rare tonight. We have heard a great deal of talk about the role of nuclear weapons in national and international security. I, and I think many members who are in the chamber, do not accept the suggestion that they are a necessary evil. Nuclear weapons do not make us more secure. As the UK and other states have unfortunately seen, the possession of nuclear weapons has not deterred terrorist acts. In fact, if we think about it for a second, the very presence of terrorist acts should make us more concerned about possession of nuclear weapons in the first place.
We had a kind of Orwellian use of language from Jamie McGrigor, when he said or implied that it is more dangerous not to have nuclear weapons than it is to have them. That is the kind of argument that we were led into during the nuclear arms race, and we should reject it.
As Malcolm Chisholm and others have said, some very high-level military and political figures have spoken out. Michael Portillo said that Trident has “completely passed its sell-by date”.
He went on to say that it is a “waste of money” and is no deterrent to the Taliban.
Malcolm Chalmers, who is well known in defence circles, has said: “Even if the MoD manages to secure the continuing 1% annual growth in total equipment spending to which this government has committed itself, sharp increases in spending on Trident renewal in the early 2020s seem set to mean further years of austerity for conventional equipment plans.”
It is worth bearing in mind that the cost of Trident is equivalent to a third of the capital budgets of all three armed services. I can tell members from my experience that many people in the services believe that it is a far worse deal to invest £100 billion in Trident than it is to invest in the soldiers who have received P45s while serving on the front line or in conventional defence, in which there have been massive cuts.
Toby Fenwick, from CentreForum, has said: “Replacing Trident is nonsensical. There is no current or medium term threat to the UK which justifies the huge costs involved.”
Even to get to a position of trying to justify Trident on security grounds, anyone who supports the purchase of Trident must have a moral case for it and accept that there must be circumstances in which it would be legitimate to use nuclear weapons. I think that most members in the chamber would reject that argument. There is no circumstance—none that I can think of—in which it would be justifiable to use nuclear weapons. The other side of the argument is that nobody can support having nuclear weapons if they do not at the same time support the view that there are circumstances in which it would be possible and acceptable to use them. However, unlike most conventional defences, Trident is utterly indiscriminate; it would destroy civilian populations, who may have played no part in the beginnings of a war but who would suffer hugely. The majority of casualties will be civilian casualties when any nuclear weapon is used.
As for the argument that nuclear weapons provide a security blanket against some unspecified future threat, what role do they have in responding to the real, long-term issues that we face, such as climate change, which was mentioned by John Finnie and others, sustainable economic development and mass migration? It is the Scottish Government’s view that the UK’s nuclear weapons are maintained, and would be renewed, at the expense of conventional defence equipment and personnel, which are capabilities that have far more utility in responding to current and future threats. It is therefore our position that HMNB Clyde has a valuable role to play as a conventional naval base. There is a range of political and economic reasons why the nuclear weapons states would not to go to war with each other today or in the future. I, for one, do not believe that we can credibly argue that nuclear weapons are necessary for our security.
There have been many good speeches in the debate, such as Kevin Stewart’s on the nature of the fight that is being undertaken by the Marshall Islanders, who have been supported by most members who have spoken. I very much appreciated Malcolm Chisholm’s welcome for the debate because that has not always been the response that we have had when we have raised the issue of Trident in the chamber. As a number of members have mentioned, it is vitally important for Scotland that we have a debate on Trident.
As recent history has shown, so long as any country has nuclear weapons, other countries will want them. It is as well to point out the dilemma in trying to say to other countries, “No, you can’t have them. You’re not responsible but we are. We can have them because we are more responsible than you.” There is no moral force behind that argument. The consequences of a nuclear exchange, whether by accident or design—of course, there is always the potential for accidents or misunderstandings—would be unspeakable human suffering. We heard from Chic Brodie about the strength of some of the bombs that have been tested in the Marshall Islands, so we can imagine the level of human suffering that they would cause as well as the huge environmental damage, like what has been suffered in the Marshall Islands.
As we debated in the Parliament on 20 March 2013, the Scottish Government supports UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon’s five-point plan on nuclear disarmament as a framework for the UK and other nuclear weapons states to take serious and significant steps towards nuclear disarmament. We therefore call again on the UK Government to cancel plans to renew its Trident submarine fleet and to lead the way in both negotiations and actions towards nuclear disarmament.
A quote from the International Committee of the Red Cross puts into focus the threat of nuclear weapons and the responsibility that we share in pursuing their withdrawal:
“Nuclear weapons are unique in their destructive power, in the unspeakable human suffering they cause, in the impossibility of controlling their effects in space and time, and in the threat they pose to the environment, to future generations, and indeed to the survival of humanity.”
Some mention was made in the debate of how long we have held such views. I remember proposing a motion exactly on these lines to the first committee on disarmament in a model United Nations debate in the United Nations building in New York in 1986, which was passed. I would very much hope to see further success for that kind of motion and point of view at the United Nations in New York. The Scottish Government supports the aims of Bill Kidd’s motion.
Meeting closed at 18:04.
-
Sunflower Newsletter: September 2015
Issue #218 – September 2015
Click here or on the image above to follow NAPF President David Krieger on Twitter.
- Perspectives
- Humanize, Not Modernize by David Krieger
- 70 Years After Hiroshima, It’s Time to Confront the Past by Setsuko Thurlow
- Youth Pledge for Nuclear Abolition
- After the Iran Deal: How to Make the Most of the Next 15 Years by Alice Slater
- Nuclear Zero Lawsuits
- Nuclear Weapons Experts File Amicus Brief in Support of Marshall Islands Lawsuit
- Marshall Islands Foreign Minister to Receive Nuclear-Free Future Award
- U.S. Nuclear Weapons Policy
- Whistleblower Receives $4.1 Million Settlement
- Nuclear Proliferation
- Congress to Conclude Deliberations on Iran Deal in mid-September
- Gorbachev Warns of New Nuclear Arms Race
- Nuclear Testing
- China Tests New Type of Nuclear Missile
- U.S. Conducts Another Test of its Minuteman III Intercontinental Ballistic Missile
- Resources
- September’s Featured Blog
- This Month in Nuclear Threat History
- Revolution in You
- Foundation Activities
- Evening for Peace Honoring Setsuko Thurlow
- International Youth Summit for Nuclear Abolition
- Paul Chappell Named International Spokesperson for Peace Heroes Walk Around the World
- Quotes
Perspectives
Humanize, Not Modernize
The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation is now in its 33rd year of working for peace and a world free of nuclear weapons. We seek these goals for the people of today, and also for those of the future, so that they may have a healthy planet to live on and enjoy.
Science and technology have brought great benefits to humanity in the form of health care, communications, transportation and many other areas of our lives. An average person alive today lives a better and longer life than did kings and nobles of earlier times. Yet, science and technology have not been universally positive. They have also given us weapons capable of destroying civilization and most complex life on the planet, including that of our own species.
To read more, click here.
70 Years After Hiroshima, It’s Time to Confront the Past
In the United States, a repugnant remembrance is soon to be unveiled. The National Park Service and the Department of Energy will establish the Manhattan Project National Historical Park. Unlike the memorials at Auschwitz and Treblinka, the United States seeks to preserve the history of the once top-secret sites at Los Alamos, Oak Ridge, and Hanford, where international scientists developed the world’s first nuclear bomb, as a sort of celebration of that technological ‘achievement’. Among the first so-called ‘successes’ of this endeavor was creating hell on earth in my beloved Hiroshima.
Former German President Richard von Weizeker once said, “We must look truth straight in the eye – without embellishment and without distortion.” The truth is, we all live with the daily threat of nuclear weapons. In every silo, on every submarine, in the bomb bays of airplanes, every second of every day, nuclear weapons, thousands on high alert, are poised for deployment threatening everyone we love and everything we hold dear.
How much longer can we allow the nuclear weapon states to wield this threat to all life on earth? Let us make the 70th anniversary of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki the appropriate milestone to achieve our goal: to abolish nuclear weapons, and safeguard the future of our one shared planet earth.
To read more, click here.
Youth Pledge for Nuclear Abolition
Nuclear weapons are a symbol of a bygone age; a symbol that poses eminent threat to our present reality and has no place in the future we are creating.
Seventy years have passed since the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and yet the existence of nuclear weapons continues to threaten every single person with the prospect of a cruel and inhumane death. For 70 years speeches have been made, statements issued and endorsed saying “never again,” and yet we are still held hostage by nuclear weapons. We, youth around the world, are mustering the courage to stand up and fulfill these decades-old promises of abolition. We need to eliminate this threat to our shared future and we urge you to join us, the Generation of Change.
It is time to take action.
To read the full pledge and to add your name, click here.
After the Iran Deal: How to Make the Most of the Next 15 Years
A major sticking point for universal support for the Iran deal is the worry expressed repeatedly by doubters and supporters alike, in the plethora of mainstream media coverage, that in 15 years Iran may have the capacity to break out and produce a nuclear bomb only one year after the deal expires. David Petraeus and Dennis Ross, Obama’s former Special Assistant on the Middle East, have actually suggested, in The Washington Post, that we should “put teeth” into the deal by threatening now that “if Iran dashes toward a weapon especially after year 15, that it will trigger the use of force.”
How much better would the public be served if the extensive reporting on the deal also provided the information we need on how we could beat Iran to the punch and honor our own obligations under the 1970 Non-Proliferation Treaty to negotiate for the elimination of nuclear weapons?
To read more, click here.
Nuclear Zero Lawsuits
Nuclear Weapons Experts File Amicus Brief in Support of Marshall Islands Lawsuit
Four nuclear weapons experts have filed an amicus curiae brief in support of a lawsuit filed by the Republic of the Marshall Islands to compel the United States to meet its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The basic bargain of the NPT is that non-weapons states agreed to never acquire nuclear weapons, in exchange for which nuclear weapons states promised to enter into good faith negotiations for nuclear disarmament. Ratification of the treaty by the U.S. Senate in 1970 made its provisions the law of the land under the U.S. Constitution.
The experts filing the brief are: Hans Kristensen, Director of the Nuclear Information Project at the Federation of American Scientists; Dr. James Doyle, a nuclear nonproliferation expert fired by the Los Alamos national lab after publishing a study arguing for nuclear weapons abolition; Robert Alvarez, a former Senior Policy Advisor to the Secretary of Energy, now at the Institute for Policy Studies; and Jay Coghlan, director of Nuclear Watch New Mexico.
This amicus curiae brief, along with other briefs, can be found online at www.nuclearzero.org/in-the-courts.
“Nuclear Weapons Experts File Amicus Brief in Support of Marshall Islands Lawsuit,” Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, August 12, 2015.
Marshall Islands Foreign Minister to Receive Nuclear-Free Future Award
Tony de Brum, Foreign Minister of the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI), will receive the Nuclear-Free Future Award in the category of “Solutions.” De Brum has led efforts by RMI to get the nine nuclear-armed nations to fulfill their duties under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), including serving as a co-agent in groundbreaking lawsuits against them at the International Court of Justice. The Marshall Islands were the site of 67 U.S. atomic tests from 1946-58 that left the region contaminated with deadly radioactivity, forced the evacuation of entire islands, and caused long-lasting deadly health effects among the people of the RMI. Minister de Brum personally experienced the atomic detonations as a young boy including the massive 1954 Castle Bravo shot at Bikini Atoll, the largest of over 1,000 nuclear detonations by the United States. De Brum has been a resolute voice in calling for the complete abolition of nuclear weapons.
The awards ceremony will take place in Washington, D.C. on October 28, 2015. For more information about the Nuclear-Free Future Award, click here.
U.S. Nuclear Weapons Policy
Whistleblower Receives $4.1 Million Settlement
Justice has finally been served for Walter Tamosaitis, one of many Americans throughout the country who has been unfairly treated merely for doing their duty and for adhering to common dictates of morality. Fired after 44 years of exceptional service, Tamosaitis has finally found remuneration, after 5 years of waiting, in one of the largest known legal damages paid out to a nuclear whistle-blower. After the verdict, he said, “Hopefully, I have sent a message to young engineers to keep their honesty, integrity and courage intact.”
Although maintaining that it “strongly disagrees that it retaliated against him in any manner,” the Los Angeles-based AECOM’s plant design and construction failed to meet federal safety standards after Tamosaitis alerted federal officials. Now at the end of his nightmare tangling with the nuclear-powers-that-be, Tamosaitis said he will “wake up tomorrow morning and pinch myself to see if it is really over.”
Ralph Vartabedian, “Hanford Nuclear Weapons Site Whistleblower Wins $4.1 Million Settlement,” Los Angeles Times, August 13, 2015.
Nuclear Proliferation
Congress to Conclude Deliberations on Iran Deal in mid-September
The 60-day period for Congress to review the nuclear deal, agreed to by Iran and the P5+1 in July, is coming to a close. The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s Action Alert Network provides U.S. residents the opportunity to send messages to their members of Congress to make their opinions heard on this important issue.
We encourage you to take action today and encourage your Senators and Representative to vote in favor of the Iran nuclear deal. To take action, click here.
Gorbachev Warns of New Nuclear Arms Race
Former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev has warned of a new global nuclear arms race in an interview with Der Spiegel. Gorbachev said, “If five or 10 countries are allowed to have nuclear weapons, then why can’t 20 or 30? Today, a few dozen countries have the technical prerequisites to build nuclear weapons. The alternative is clear: Either we move towards a nuclear-free world or we have to accept that nuclear weapons will continue to spread, step-by-step, across the globe. And can we really imagine a world without nuclear weapons if a single country amasses so many conventional weapons that its military budget nearly tops that of all other countries combined? This country [the U.S.] would enjoy total military supremacy if nuclear weapons were abolished.”
Ishaan Tharoor, “Gorbachev Warns of New Arms Race,” New Zealand Herald, August 8, 2015.
Nuclear Testing
China Tests New Type of Nuclear Missile
After conducting a flight test of its new intercontinental ballistic missile, China appears to be approaching deployment capability for its DF-41 road-mobile missile, which likely holds multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles (MIRV).
Along with being less vulnerable to anti-ballistic missile systems, a single missile could annihilate multiple targets simultaneously and would enable use of cross-targeting techniques, which utilize more weapons for greater kill probability. India may already be responding to this threat, which means that Pakistan likewise will follow.
Zachary Keck, “China Tests Its Most Dangerous Nuclear Weapon of All Time,” The National Interest, August 19, 2015.
U.S. Conducts Another Test of its Minuteman III Intercontinental Ballistic Missile
On August 19, the United States conducted a test launch of its Minuteman III Intercontinental Ballistic Missile from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California to the Kwajalein Atoll in the Marshall Islands. Gen. Robin Rand, commander of Air Force Global Strike Command, cynically commented, “When I think of the value these types of tests have played over the years, I think of the messages we send to our allies who seek protection from aggression and to adversaries who threaten peace. I also think about the American people we’ve sworn an oath to protect; people like my grandchildren who count on us to get this right. We can’t let them down.”
David Krieger, President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, criticized the United States’ ongoing tests of Minuteman III missiles. He said, “While the U.S. continues to develop and test launch its nuclear-capable missiles, the Marshall Islands is seeking a judgment against the U.S. and the other nuclear-armed nations for failure to fulfill their nuclear disarmament obligations under international law.”
Capt. Christopher Mesnard, “Minot Conducts ICBM Test Launch on 45 Year Minuteman III Anniversary,” Air Force Global Strike Command, August 19, 2015.
Resources
September’s Featured Blog
This month’s featured blog is “Global Justice in the 21st Century,” by Richard Falk. Falk is Senior Vice President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation and Professor Emeritus of International Law and Practice at Princeton University.
Recent titles on the blog include, “The Nuclear Challenge: 70 Years After Hiroshima and Nagasaki,” and “Alliance Blackmail: Israel’s Opposition to the Iran Nuclear Agreement.” To read the blog, click here.
This Month in Nuclear Threat History
History chronicles many instances when humans have been threatened by nuclear weapons. In this article, Jeffrey Mason outlines some of the most serious threats that have taken place in the month of September, including the September 11, 1957 fire that broke out in a plutonium processing facility at Rocky Flats near Denver, Colorado.
To read Mason’s full article, click here.
For more information on the history of the Nuclear Age, visit NAPF’s Nuclear Files website.
Revolution in You
Soka Gakkai International’s U.S. branch (SGI-USA) has produced a new music video entitled “Revolution in You.” The five-minute video showcases the talents of some of SGI-USA’s members in an inspiring format.
The video was played at the introduction of the International Youth Summit for Nuclear Abolition in Hiroshima on August 30, and is available to watch on YouTube at this link.
Foundation Activities
Evening for Peace Honoring Setsuko Thurlow
The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s Annual Evening for Peace will take place on October 25, 2015 in Santa Barbara, California. The Foundation will present its Distinguished Peace Leadership Award to Setsuko Thurlow, a survivor of the U.S. atomic bombing of Hiroshima and an outspoken advocate for the abolition of nuclear weapons.
Click here for more information about the Evening for Peace, including sponsorship opportunities, ticket information and details about this year’s honoree.
International Youth Summit for Nuclear Abolition
Rick Wayman, NAPF’s Director of Programs, co-chaired the International Youth Summit for Nuclear Abolition in Hiroshima, Japan, from August 28-30. The Summit included two days of intensive learning, planning and networking with 30 young leaders from 23 countries. Those two days were followed by a conference in which hundreds of young people from around the world gathered to learn more about the urgent need to abolish nuclear weapons and to collectively make a “youth pledge” to commit to working for nuclear abolition.
Click here for more information about the summit, including the youth pledge and video of the event.
Paul Chappell Named International Spokesperson for Peace Heroes Walk Around the World
NAPF Peace Leadership Director Paul Chappell has been named international spokesperson for Peace Heroes Walk Around the World, an educational initiative developed by the Dayton International Peace Museum (DIPM) in Dayton, Ohio. The Museum, which facilitated a community-changing Peace Heroes Walk in Dayton last May, now plans to promote Peace Heroes Walk Around the World to cities across the United States and throughout other nations.
To read more, click here.
Quotes
“The Chancellor is making a choice to essentially prioritize investment in nuclear weapons over the protection of the most vulnerable citizens of our country.”
— John Swinney, Deputy First Minister of Scotland, criticizing UK Chancellor George Osborne for authorizing GBP 500 million of extra spending at the UK’s Faslane nuclear weapons base.
“Let’s be the generation that makes peace possible. This youth summit is sending a strong message to the world, that the youth are for peace and for a nuclear-free-world, and the world must listen.”
— Ahmad Alhendawi, United Nations Secretary-General’s Envoy on Youth, speaking at the International Youth Summit for Nuclear Abolition on August 30, 2015.
“You can’t talk about the overall security environment in the Middle East unless you address the reality of Israel’s own nuclear status.”
— Avner Cohen, professor of nonproliferation studies at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies.
“Establishing lasting peace is the work of education; all politics can do is keep us out of war.”
— Maria Montessori (1870-1952), Italian educator. This quote appears in Speaking of Peace: Quotations to Inspire Action, available for purchase in the NAPF Peace Store.
Editorial Team
David Krieger
Grant Stanton
Carol Warner
Rick Wayman - Perspectives
-
Nuclear Weapons Experts File Amicus Brief in Support of Marshall Islands Lawsuit
For immediate release August 12, 2015 (to use email addresses please insert @)
Contacts: Jay Coghlan, NWNM, 505.470.3154, jay[at]nukewatch.org
Hans Kristensen, FAS, 202.454.4695, hkristensen[at]fas.org
Robert Alvarez, IPS, 301.585.7672, kitbob[at]rcn.com
Dr. James Doyle, nonproliferation expert, 505.470.3154, jimdoyle6[at]msn.comNuclear Weapons Experts File Amicus Brief to Support
Marshall Islands Lawsuit to Require Nuclear Disarmament Negotiations
Under U.S. NonProliferation Treaty Commitments
Washington, DC and Santa Fe, NM – Four nuclear weapons experts have filed an amicus (“friend of the court”) brief in support of a lawsuit filed by the Republic of the Marshall Islands to compel the United States to meet its requirements under the Nuclear NonProliferation Treaty (NPT). The basic bargain of the NPT is that non-weapons states agreed to never acquire nuclear weapons, in exchange for which nuclear weapons states promised to enter into good faith disarmament negotiations. Ratification of the treaty by the Senate in 1970 made its provisions the law of the land under the U.S. Constitution.The experts filing the brief are: Hans Kristensen, Director of the Nuclear Information Project at the Federation of American Scientists; Dr. James Doyle, a nuclear nonproliferation expert fired by the Los Alamos national lab after publishing a study arguing for nuclear weapons abolition; Robert Alvarez, a former Senior Policy Advisor to the Secretary of Energy, now at the Institute for Policy Studies; and Jay Coghlan, director of Nuclear Watch New Mexico.
Hans Kristensen explained, “The United States, as one of the five original nuclear weapons states under the NPT, has a clear legal obligation to pursue negotiations toward nuclear disarmament. Yet despite progress on reducing overall nuclear arsenals, forty-five years later there are and have been no negotiations on their elimination. Instead, all nuclear weapon powers are pursuing broad and expensive modernization programs to retain and improve nuclear weapons indefinitely.”
The Marshall Islands’ lawsuit, which was filed in federal court in San Francisco, asserts that the U.S. has failed to fulfill its treaty duties. The case was initially dismissed in February 2015 by a federal judge after the U.S. government argued in part that enforcement of the NPT’s requirement for nuclear disarmament negotiations was not in the public interest. This is now being appealed. As the Marshall Islands’ original complaint notes, “While cessation of the nuclear arms race and nuclear disarmament are vitally important objectives to the entire international community, the Marshall Islands has a particular awareness of the dire consequences of nuclear weapons.” While still a U.S. protectorate after World War II, the American nuclear weapons complex used the Marshall Islands for more than a hundred atmospheric nuclear weapons tests that included newly developed H-bombs, and the displaced Marshallese have suffered severe health and contamination effects to this day. However, the Marshall Islands’ lawsuit is not asking for compensation, but instead seeks to hold the nuclear weapons powers accountable to the NPT’s requirement for good faith nuclear disarmament negotiations.
Andrea St. Julian, an attorney based in San Diego who specializes in federal appellate proceedings, filed the 94-page amicus brief. She observed, “The level of expertise and understanding the amici bring to this appeal is remarkable. Their arguments show how profoundly mistaken the district court was in its misapplication of the law. If the Court of Appeals takes adequate note of the briefing, it will have no alternative but to reverse the dismissal of the Marshall Islands’ suit. If not, we expect the Marshall Islands to take its case to the U.S. Supreme Court, and we will strongly support it there.”
Dr. James Doyle commented, “It’s not possible to eliminate the knowledge to build nuclear weapons, but it’s possible to make them illegal and remove them from all military arsenals, as existing treaties on chemical and biological weapons have already substantially done. The Marshall Islands’ case is an important step on the path to the elimination of nuclear weapons and deserves a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court.”
Robert Alvarez added, “The Republic of the Marshall Islands has exposed the abuse of the good faith and trust of the non-weapons states that signed the NonProliferation Treaty on the understanding that the nuclear weapons states would begin disarmament negotiations. By seeking a binding legal requirement to actually begin negotiations, the Marshall Islands is simply trying to get the United States to honor the promises and commitments it made to the world 45 years ago.”
Jay Coghlan noted that the recently concluded 2015 NPT Review Conference ended in failure, in large part because nuclear weapons nations are modernizing their arsenals. He observed, “The U.S. government is getting ready to spend a trillion dollars on new production facilities for nuclear weapons and new bombers, missiles and submarines to deliver them. Because of that, we are keen to help the Marshall Islands hold the U.S. and other nuclear weapons powers accountable to their end of the NPT bargain, which is to enter into disarmament negotiations.”
# # #
The amicus brief is available at http://nukewatch.org/importantdocs/resources/Dkt-38-Amicus-Brief.pdf
Bios of the four amici are available in the amicus brief, beginning page 1.
Complete 9th circuit court proceedings in the Republic of Marshall Islands’ lawsuit are available at www.nuclearzero.org/in-the-courts
