Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Category: Articles by David Krieger

  • Chemical Weapons, Then Nuclear Weapons

    David KriegerEveryone can agree that chemical weapons are terrible weapons.  When used, they kill indiscriminately and cause their victims to suffer and die horrible deaths.  The use of chemical weapons in Syria resulted in US threats to strike the Syrian regime with cruise missiles.  Fortunately, this response to the use of chemical weapons was averted, as it might well have caused even more death, injury and displacement for the Syrian people.  With pressure from their ally, Russia, the Syrian government agreed to sign the Chemical Weapons Convention and turn over its stock of chemical weapons for destruction.

    Chemical weapons are dangerous and deadly weapons, but they are not the worst weapons created by humans.  By any measure, the worst weapons are nuclear weapons.  They kill by blast, fire and radiation, and they are capable of causing a nuclear winter and sending the globe into an ice age.  Even the two relatively small nuclear weapons (by today’s standards) used at Hiroshima and Nagasaki each thoroughly destroyed a city.  The nuclear weapon dropped on Hiroshima killed some 90,000 people immediately and 145,000 by the end of 1945.  The nuclear weapon dropped on Nagasaki killed some 40,000 people immediately and 75,000 by the end of 1945.

    People are continuing to die from the effects of the use of nuclear weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and also from the radiation released by the atmospheric and underground testing of far more powerful nuclear weapons subsequently.  The effects of nuclear weapons cannot be contained in either time or space.  They are weapons that cause stillborn births and birth defects in succeeding generations, as well as genetic mutations.  Like chemical weapons, they are weapons that violate international humanitarian law, the law of warfare, because they cannot discriminate between soldiers and civilians and they cause unnecessary suffering.

    So, with last-minute collaboration by the US and Russia, the unexpected outcome was that Syria agreed to give up its chemical weapons.  This demonstrates the power of the US and Russia working cooperatively on solving global problems.  Of course, there are many more such problems to work through, including pollution of the oceans and atmosphere, climate change, human rights abuses, starvation, epidemic diseases and the list goes on.  There is not a single serious global problem that can be solved by any one nation alone, no matter the strength of its military power.

    Further, the unexpected success in Syria opens the door to moving from chemical weapons to nuclear weapons.  There is an obstacle, though, with nuclear weapons, and that is that the foxes are guarding the nuclear hen houses.  The five permanent members of the UN Security Council (US, UK, Russia, France and China) are the initial five states to develop nuclear arsenals, to test these weapons and to threaten their use.  They are also the five nuclear weapon states designated in the Non-Proliferation Treaty that have agreed to negotiate in good faith for a cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament.

    Understanding that the US and Russia aren’t pursuing their own nuclear disarmament obligations with the same vigor that they are pursuing Syria to give up its chemical weapons, it makes sense that they need pressure from below, from their citizens as well as from people throughout the world, to take the lead in ending the nuclear weapons threat to humanity.  Join us at the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation in putting pressure on the US and Russia to lead the world in negotiating in good faith for a Nuclear Weapons Convention (similar to the Chemical Weapons Convention) to ban nuclear weapons and set forth a plan for the phased, verifiable, irreversible and transparent elimination of all nuclear weapons.

    On the way to that goal, and as a follow-up to their success with Syria, it would be a large step forward for the US and Russia to throw their weight behind a Middle East Weapons of Mass Destruction Free Zone, long a goal of the parties to the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

    The possibilities for US-Russian cooperation for a more decent world order are exciting.  We owe it to ourselves and to future generations to fan these sparks of hope.

    This article was originally published by Truthout.

  • Learning from World War I

    David KriegerWe are approaching the 100th anniversary of the onset of World War I.  One of the lessons of that horrendous war was that chemical weapons cause inhumane suffering and death and that they are not reliable weapons.  Their effectiveness depends on which way the wind is blowing, a situation subject to change.  After the war, the use of chemical and biological weapons in warfare was banned by the Geneva Protocol of 1925.   More recently, the Chemical Weapons Convention entered into force in 1997, and today 189 countries are parties to this treaty.

    But the deadliness and unreliability of chemical weapons were not the only lessons of World War I.  A far more important lesson is that a war can take on a life of its own.  No one expected that the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria Hungary would lead to a world war, but that is the way it worked out.  The assassination set in motion a chain of events leading to all-out war, in which national leaders felt bound to their allies and were unwilling to back down.  It was a war that no one wanted, but one that took four years to halt and resulted in 37 million casualties, including 16 million deaths.

    The Syrian civil war has been going on since spring 2011, but suddenly it has taken on new potential for morphing into a regional or global conflagration.  President Obama said that the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government would be the crossing of a red line.  When leaders of superpower countries say such things, they are to be taken as warnings to less powerful states to behave accordingly or face serious consequences.  Someone in Syria appears to have used chemical weapons, and the US government is expressing certainty that it was the Syrian government.  Thus, for US leaders, the red line has been crossed.

    What does this mean?  It means, if true, that a tacit code of international behavior has been violated.  A weaker state, rather than accepting the warning of the superpower state, committed a prohibited act.  From the perspective of the superpower state, someone must be punished or the superpower’s credibility will be destroyed.  The crossing of red lines must be punished by military means, or so goes the argument of President Obama and his administration.  Are they right?

    There are serious problems with this argument.

    First, it is not confirmed that the offending party that used the chemical weapons was the government of Syria.  The Russian government has suggested that the chemical warfare agents were used by Syrian opposition forces.  President Obama was initially rushing to a US military attack and not taking the necessary time and caution to assure that the offending party was the party it warned.

    Second, if the US were to attack Syria with missiles, as President Obama initially intended to do, it would not be in accord with international law and would thus be illegal.  All countries have a responsibility under the United Nations Charter to act in accord with international law.  The Charter prohibits the use of force, such as missile strikes, except in self-defense against an actual attack, or unless authorized by the UN Security Council.  The proposed US missile attack against the Syrian government fits neither of these criteria.

    Third, it puts the perceived credibility of a superpower leader, no matter how ill-advised, ahead of the importance of maintaining peace or, as the UN Charter states, “ending the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind….”

    Fourth, US missile strikes against Syria are unlikely to improve conditions for the Syrian people and are likely to cause them serious harm.

    Fifth, there are other means of punishing the Assad regime for the use of chemical weapons (if this is proven) that do not require the use of military force.  One such means would be organizing an international boycott on the sale or transfer of military equipment to the government of Syria.  Another means would be to refer the evidence on the use of chemical weapons to the International Criminal Court, an institution that can impose criminal liability on national leaders for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide.

    Once acts of war are commenced, all promises become subject to being broken.  US leaders are promising “no boots on the ground,” but can they keep that promise or will they if things start to go very wrong?  What if a US attack on Syria results in a Syrian attack on US warships or US embassies in the region?  What if it results in a Syrian or Iranian attack on Israel?  What if it brings Russia into the war on the side of Syria, and pits the US and Russia, both nuclear-armed giants, against each other?

    Is it possible that attempting to assure the credibility of President Obama, a Nobel Peace Laureate, through military strikes, could lead to stumbling into a new world war?  No one knows what may happen.  The Middle East is a tinder box.  Throwing a lighted match or a missile strike into that incendiary environment for reasons of credibility is an act of hubris, which could have fiery and tragic consequences that no one wants and none of our experts or political leaders can foresee, just as was the case when Archduke Franz Ferdinand was stuck down by assassination in 1914.

    For now, we must consider it most fortunate that Secretary of State Kerry made a seemingly offhand remark to a reporter’s question about what could lead the US to refrain from a military attack.  Kerry responded that a US military attack could be avoided if Syria were to turn over its stocks of chemical weapons for disposal.  Russian leaders quickly pursued this course of action and convinced Syrian President Assad to commit to turning over his chemical weapons stocks.  Thus, diplomacy may have averted the far more dangerous and deadly resort to acts of war by the US and, at the same time, reinforced international law and prevented the possibility of future chemical weapons use by the Syrian government.  Such a path makes the march to an unintended world war far less likely.

    This article was originally published by Truthout.

  • Another War Is Not the Answer

    The actions leading toward US involvement in the civil war in Syria have been moving at a rapid pace. US officials, starting with President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry, have been strong advocates of a limited attack on Syria to punish the Assad regime for an alleged chemical attack on its own citizens. It is unlikely, though, that a limited US military attack on the Syrian regime will result in a positive outcome.  More likely, it will cause additional death and untold sorrow to Syrian civilians, make Syrian President Assad a hero in the region, increase the possibilities of a broader regional war, increase tensions between the US and Russia, further undermine respect for international law, and diminish rather than uphold US credibility in the region and beyond.

    Below is a sketch of the sequence of events leading to where we are now; important choice points for the Congress with implications for the president and the American people; and some conclusions and recommendations.

    Sequence of Events

    1. The president threatens to take military action if Syria uses chemical weapons. This was a deterrent threat — a threat meant to prevent the Syrian government from using chemical weapons.
    2. The deterrent threat apparently fails when chemical weapons are used in the Syrian civil war, although it is not known with certainty what party to the conflict actually used them.
    3. US leaders accuse the Syrian government of being the perpetrator of the chemical attack, which is believed by US leaders to have killed over 1,400 people, including over 400 children.
    4. The president indicates his intention to punish the Syrian government by initiating a missile attack on Syrian government forces. Other administration officials, including the secretary of state, publically support the president.
    5. Some commentators argue that a US attack is necessary to maintain US credibility in the world, despite the fact that in this case it will pit the US against Russia, with each country still maintaining some 1,000 nuclear warheads on hair-trigger alert. That is, when the president makes a threat, even an ill-advised and dangerous one, it must be carried out so that US threats will be credible in the future.
    6. Other commentators point out that a US military attack on Syria would be illegal under international law since it is neither a military action made in self-defense nor one authorized by the United Nations Security Council. They also point out that US law requires Congress to authorize such an act of war.
    7. The president responds by ignoring concerns about the planned attack being a breach of international law, but says he will send the matter to Congress for consideration when Congress reconvenes, even though he believes that Congressional approval is not necessary for him to act as commander-in-chief.

    Congressional Choice

    1. Congress will have to make a choice to approve or not approve the president’s plan to initiate a US military attack on Syria.
    2. Even if Congress approves US military action, a likely possibility, a US attack on Syria will not be legal under international law.  Nor will such an attack be moral, in that it would likely kill large numbers of innocent Syrians and bring more suffering to the people of Syria. Nor would such an attack be prudent, with its potential to bog the US down in yet another war in the Middle East, at the expense of the people of Syria and US citizens at home.
    3. If Congress votes against approval of US military action, an unlikely possibility, the president will have to decide whether he bends to the will of Congress and backs down, or initiates the attack on his own authority with the potential to trigger a constitutional crisis in addition to all the other negative consequences of initiating an illegal war.

    Conclusions and Recommendations

    1. The American people should speak out against US military action that could involve the US in yet another war with unknown consequences and of unknown duration.
    2. Congress should say No to authorization of the president’s proposed military action against Syria.
    3. The president should back down on his threat to attack Syria. Following through on every presidential threat with military action is a dangerous game for the US, as well as for the world, particularly on threats that violate and undermine international law.
    4. The US should work with the United Nations, and specifically with Russia, on finding a peaceful settlement of the civil war in Syria and, in general, on resolving the ongoing conflicts in the Middle East that are poisoning the well of international relations.
    5. Those responsible for the chemical attack in Syria should be referred to the International Criminal Court for prosecution under international law. The US should also sign and ratify the treaty establishing the International Criminal Court and become a member of the Court.

    This article was originally published by Truthout.

  • The Story of Sadako

    Sadako was two years old when the atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima. She was two kilometers away from where the bomb exploded. Most of Sadako’s neighbors died, but Sadako wasn’t injured at all, at least not in any way people could see.

    Up until the time Sadako was in the seventh grade (1955) she was a normal, happy girl. However, one day after an important relay race that she helped her team win, she felt extremely tired and dizzy. After a while the dizziness went away leaving Sadako to think that it was only the exertion from running the race that made her tired and dizzy. But her tranquillity did not last. Soon after her first encounter with extreme fatigue and dizziness, she experienced more incidents of the same.

    One day Sadako became so dizzy that she fell down and couldn’t get up. Her school-mates informed the teacher. Later Sadako’s parents took her to the Red Cross Hospital to see what was wrong with her. Sadako found out that she had leukemia, a kind of blood cancer. Nobody could believe it.

    At that time they called leukemia the “A-bomb disease”. Almost everyone who got this disease died, and Sadako was very scared. She wanted to go back to school, but she had to stay in the hospital where she cried and cried.

    Shortly thereafter, her best friend, Chizuko, came to visit her. Chizuko brought some origami (folding paper). She told Sadako of a legend. She explained that the crane, a sacred bird in Japan, lives for a hundred years, and if a sick person folds 1,000 paper cranes, then that person would soon get well. After hearing the legend, Sadako decided to fold 1,000 cranes in the hope that she would get well again.

    Sadako’s family worried about her a lot. They often came to visit her in hospital to talk to her and to help her fold cranes. After she folded 500 cranes she felt better and the doctors said she could go home for a short time, but by the end of the first week back home the dizziness and fatigue returned and she had to go back to the hospital.

    Sadako kept folding cranes even though she was in great pain. Even during these times of great pain she tried to be cheerful and hopeful. Not long afterwards, with her family standing by her bed, Sadako went to sleep peacefully, never to wake up again. She had folded a total of 644 paper cranes.

    Everyone was very sad. Thirty-nine of Sadako’s classmates felt saddened by the loss of their close friend and decided to form a paper crane club to honor her. Word spread quickly. Students from 3,100 schools and from 9 foreign countries gave money to the cause. On May 5, 1958, almost 3 years after Sadako had died, enough money was collected to build a monument in her honor. It is now known as the Children’s Peace Monument, and is located in the center of Hiroshima Peace Park, close to the spot where the atomic bomb was dropped.

    Many of the children who helped make the Children’s monument a reality participated in the ceremony. Three students, including Sadako’s younger brother Eiji Sasaki pulled the red and white tape off the statue to symbolize its completion, while Beethoven’s Seventh Symphony was played. The little bell, contributed by Dr. Yukawa, inscribed with “A Thousand Paper Cranes” on the front and “Peace on Earth and in Heaven” on the back, rang out and the sound carried as far as the A-bomb Dome and the Memorial Cenotaph.

    Children from all over the world still send folded paper cranes to be placed beneath Sadako’s statue. In so doing, they make the same wish which is engraved on the base of the statue:

    “This is our cry, This is our prayer, Peace in the world.”

  • Nukes Are Nuts

    When asked by a reporter why nuclear weapons are useless, Colin Powell, former US secretary of state and four-star general said: “Because they’re such horrible weapons. And so no sane leader would ever want to cross that line to using nuclear weapons. And, if you are not going to cross that line, then these things are basically useless.” In other words, one could say, nukes are nuts.

    There are innumerable global security issues that need to be addressed, some of which are poverty, terrorism, the climate crisis, pollution of the oceans, loss of biodiversity and forest depletion. Not one of these issues can be addressed with nuclear weapons. In fact, nuclear weapons draw much-needed resources away from solving these global problems. Nukes are nuts.

    Nuclear weapons are justified by their possessors for nuclear deterrence, but nuclear deterrence is only a hypothesis about human behavior. While “no sane leader would ever want to cross that line,” even the best of political and military leaders can be less than rational at times, particularly when they are under stress. Nuclear deterrence is only as sound as the craziest political or military leader with a finger on the nuclear button. Does the name Kim Jong-un raise any concerns? Nukes are nuts.

    Nuclear weapons are weapons of vast overkill. They are equal-opportunity destroyers of men, women and children. The radioactive effects of these weapons cannot be contained in time or space. They affect not only the living, but generations yet to be born. Their radioactive material will affect countless future generations. Even a small regional nuclear war could result in a global nuclear famine, killing a billion people. Nukes are nuts.

    Nuclear weapons can destroy everything we hold dear and love most. They can destroy every special thing, every sacred thing that has ever been created. Nuclear weapons are anti-human weapons: they threaten us all, even their possessors, and place all of humanity at risk of annihilation. But they also place all of complex life at risk of destruction. The possession of these weapons makes us irresponsible stewards of our environment and of all the creatures dependent upon our stewardship. Nukes are nuts.

    Nuclear weapons are extremely costly, with anticipated global expenditures for the next decade at over $1 trillion. The US plans to modernize its B61 bombs, which it deploys in five European countries, at a cost that is more than two times that of building them out of solid gold. Nuclear weapons take away resources from the education of the world’s children, medical treatment from the world’s sick and infirm and food from the world’s hungry. Nukes are nuts.

    Nuclear weapons divide us when we need to unite to find cooperative, diplomatic and nonviolent solutions to the great global issues of the 21st century. Only nine countries have nuclear weapons and, of these, only two countries, the US and Russia, possess more than 90 percent of the more than 17,000 nuclear weapons in the world. Nukes are not useful, nor are they status symbols. Nukes are nuts.

    Every man, woman and child on the planet can understand that nukes are nuts. So, if we understand that, what are we going to do about it? My answer is to wage all-out peace with a sense of urgency until the last nuclear weapon is eliminated from the planet. We would be nuts to settle for anything less.

    This article was originally published on Truthout.

  • 2013 Sadako Peace Day

    Welcome to Sadako Peace Garden.  On this day, August 6, we remember Hiroshima, Sadako of the 1,000 paper cranes, and all innocent victims of war.

    Today we commemorate the 68th anniversary of the first use of an atomic weapon.  The weapon was created by the United States and was dropped on the Japanese city of Hiroshima.  It killed some 90,000 people that day and some 145,000 by the end of 1945.  Three days later another atomic weapon was dropped on the Japanese city of Nagasaki, taking another 70,000 lives.

    The creation and use of these weapons, said Albert Einstein, “has changed everything save our modes of thinking, and thus we drift toward unparalleled catastrophe.”  The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation exists to change those modes of thinking and assure a human future.

    The 68 years of the Nuclear Age is but a blip in geological time or even in the human record on Earth, but it is a critical period of time because within it we have achieved the technological capacity to destroy ourselves and most complex life.  It is a peril that confronts humanity daily, constantly present, whether we choose to recognize it or not.

    Many leaders of nuclear-armed states believe that security can be built on the threat to annihilate other countries.  This is a highly dangerous and unreliable approach to security.  Nuclear policies, like other policies based upon high technologies, are subject to human fallibility and system failures.  That there are not foolproof humans, nor human systems, should be clear to any observer.

    The good news is that the number of nuclear weapons in the world has been reduced by over 53,000 weapons, from over 70,000 in 1986 to about 17,000 now.  This is cause for gratitude, as is the fact that nuclear weapons have not been used in warfare since Nagasaki, but the job of ending the nuclear weapons threat to humanity remains unfinished.

    There is the only one safe number of nuclear weapons in the world, and that is zero.  Zero must be our goal.  Not a distant goal, as some leaders of nuclear-armed states would have it, but an urgent goal.  No country – not the US, not any country – has the right to hold the world hostage with nuclear weapons.

    As the first country to create nuclear weapons, the first country to use them, and the country with the most sophisticated nuclear arsenal, the US should be the country to lead the way out of the Nuclear Age.  To accomplish this, the people will need to lead their leaders.  That is why the role of each of us is so important.

    Today, at the close of our ceremony, we will plant a tree for peace, a sapling from a survivor Ginkgo biloba tree from Hiroshima.  Thank you to Nassrine Azimi, a founder of Green Legacy Hiroshima, for bringing this remarkable sapling to us for planting in Sadako Peace Garden.

    Thank you to each of you for taking this time to reflect upon the meaning of nuclear weapons for our world and our common future.  Close your eyes for a moment and imagine the immense and terrible power of a nuclear blast.

    Now imagine the power of people everywhere coming together and saying a resounding No to these weapons until we have succeeded in eliminating them from the planet.

    This is not just an exercise.  It is a possibility that we can choose to make happen.  We who are here on our planet now have the opportunity to contribute to ending the nuclear era, preserving our humanity and exercising responsible stewardship of the only planet we know of in the universe capable of supporting and nurturing life.

    David Krieger is President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

  • In Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park

    David KriegerThe heat of summer is oppressive.

    Children pass by in groups, chattering.
    They wear school outfits –
    black pants or skirts and white shirts.

    Some groups are wearing yellow caps.
    They stop at Sadako’s statue and,
    in lilting voices, sing songs with words
    I cannot understand.

    When they finish their songs, they bow,
    paying tribute to one of their own, Sadako,
    forever young, a child of the bomb.

    Though nearly seven decades have passed,
    I feel guilty for what my country did here.

    To whom can I apologize?  To whom must
    I apologize?  It doesn’t matter.
    They have already forgiven, long ago.

    David Krieger is President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

  • 1914-2014: Lessons Learned for Peace

    This article was originally published by Truthout. Vaya aquí para la versión española.

    The wars of the last century have offered important lessons for peace.  Among these are:

    Wars begin in the minds of men (and women) and are often based on the lies of leaders.

    Wars can occur when they are not at all expected.

    Politicians and generals send the young to fight and die.

    Wars can consume entire generations of youth.

    Wars are not heroic; they are bloody and terrifying.

    Wars now kill more civilians than combatants.

    Long-distance killing and drones make wars far less personal.

    Any war today carries the risk of a nuclear conflagration and omnicide (the death of all).

    The terms of peace after a war can plant seeds of peace or the seeds of the next war.

    The best ways to prevent illegal war are nonviolent struggle and holding leaders accountable for the Nuremberg crimes: crimes against peace (aggressive war); war crimes; and crimes against humanity.

    Lessons offered unfortunately do not necessarily translate into lessons learned.  Philosophers have warned that we must learn the lessons of the past if we are going to apply them to the present and change the future. In a nuclear-armed world, the challenge is made all the more urgent.  As Einstein warned, “The unleashed power of the atom has changed everything save our modes of thinking and thus we drift toward unparalleled catastrophe.”  Today, learning these lessons for peace and changing our modes of thinking to put them into practice are necessary to assure that there is a future.

    David Krieger is President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

  • Continuing the Struggle

    David KriegerI have been working for a world free of nuclear weapons for over four decades. On occasion I am asked, “Why do you continue this struggle when change seems to come so slowly?” Here is my response.

    Nuclear weapons threaten the existence of civilization and the human species. We humans cannot continue to be complacent in the face of the nuclear dangers that confront us. Too many people are complacent and too many are ignorant of the threat posed by these weapons.

    Albert Einstein warned: “The unleashed power of the atom has changed everything save our modes of thinking and thus we drift toward unparalleled catastrophe.” The nature of the catastrophe was demonstrated first at Hiroshima and then at Nagasaki. We continue to face the possibility of a global Hiroshima.

    If even a few nuclear weapons were used today, the humanitarian consequences would be beyond our capacity to cope. There would not be enough surviving medical personnel available to aid the suffering of the victims. There would not be enough hospitals or burn wards. Water supplies would be contaminated. Infrastructure would be destroyed. The damage would not be containable in either time or space.

    Atmospheric scientists have modeled the effects of the use of nuclear weapons. They find that the use of only one hundred Hiroshima-size nuclear weapons in a regional war between India and Pakistan would trigger a nuclear famine that would lead to the deaths by starvation of some one billion people globally. That would be the result of a small nuclear war. How would this happen?  The weapons would destroy cities, putting massive amounts of soot into the stratosphere, blocking warming sunlight, shortening growing seasons, causing crop failures and food shortages.

    A large-scale nuclear war between the US and Russia would, of course, be far worse, lowering temperatures on Earth to Ice Age levels. There would be few survivors.

    All this is to say that perhaps I know too much. I cannot stop struggling to end the nuclear weapons era. I am challenged to fight against ignorance and indifference. I know that this is not a problem that can be set aside with the expectation that it will take care of itself.

    There has been progress. By 1986, the number of nuclear weapons in the world had ballooned to 70,000. Today, the number is around 17,000. Over 50,000 nuclear weapons have been eliminated. That is worth celebrating, but not for too long. It hasn’t changed the fundamental proposition that nuclear war could destroy most complex life on the planet, and this planet remains the only place we know of in the universe where life exists. As Carl Sagan used to remind us, we live on a “pale blue dot,” our planetary home, one which is infinitesimally small in relation to the universe, but infinitely precious.

    President Obama, in a recent speech in Berlin, stated, “Peace with justice means pursuing the security of a world without nuclear weapons – no matter how distant that dream may be.” Yes, we – all of us – need the security of a world without nuclear weapons, but why must the dream be distant? Why must we think of the dream as being distant? Why must President Obama frame it in this way? Is he not demonstrating a deficit of leadership in doing so? Whose interests are being served – those of corporate weapons makers or those of the people of the world?

    Nuclear deterrence does not protect us. If it did, there would be no need for missile defenses. Nor would we object to other countries developing nuclear deterrent forces. And, of course, nuclear deterrence does not even apply to terrorist organizations, which have no territory to retaliate against and may be suicidal.

    Nuclear weapons are actually suicidal weapons. Use them, and they will be used against you. Use them, and run the risk of nuclear famine or nuclear winter. They may also be omnicidal weapons, their use leading to the death of all.

    If we want to end the insecurity of a world with nuclear weapons, we must continue the struggle for a world without them. And we must realize that the nature of the weapons require that the struggle be approached with a sense of urgency and boldness.

    So, I continue the struggle – in the hope that you may join with me and many others to make the abolition of nuclear weapons an urgent – rather than distant – dream.

    David Krieger is President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

  • Visiting Hiroshima

    David KriegerI recently visited Hiroshima to give a speech. It is a city that I have visited many times in the past, and I am always amazed by its resilience. The city represents for me the human power of recovery and forgiveness.

    The first thing one is likely to notice about Hiroshima is that it is a beautiful city. It has rivers running through it and many trees and areas of green space. Without the reminders that have been left in place, one would not know that it is a city that was completely destroyed and flattened in 1945 by the first atomic bomb used in warfare.

    I was the guest of the Hiroshima Peace Media Center of the Chugoku Shimbun, the largest newspaper in the region with a circulation of some 600,000. Walking from my hotel to the newspaper headquarters, I entered the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park and passed the famous Atomic Bomb Dome, one of the few buildings that survived the bombing. The Dome was designated a UNESCO World Heritage Site in 1996.

    In the Peace Memorial Park there is a Children’s Peace Monument, a statue dedicated to Sadako Sasaki and the thousands of child victims of the bombing. Sadako, who was two years old when the bomb was dropped, lived a normal life until she came down with radiation-induced leukemia at the age of twelve and was hospitalized. Sadako folded paper cranes, which Japanese legend says will give one health and longevity if one folds 1,000 of them. On one of her paper cranes Sadako wrote: “I will write peace on your wings, and you will fly all over the world.”

    Unfortunately, Sadako died without recovering her health, but her cranes have indeed flown all over the world. In Santa Barbara, for example, the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation and La Casa de Maria Retreat Center have created a beautiful Sadako Peace Garden, where each year on August 6th, the anniversary of the day Hiroshima was bombed, a commemoration is held comprised of music, poetry and reflections.

    In the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park, groups of students visit the Children’s Peace Monument. I watched several groups of students pause in front of the statue to sing and pay their respects to the memory of Sadako and other child victims. All around the statue were brightly-colored strands of paper cranes, brought in honor of Sadako and other innocent children.

    The Peace Memorial Cenotaph in the park contains a listing of all the people known to have died as a result of the bombing. Inscribed on the cenotaph are these words: “Let all souls here rest in peace for we shall not repeat the evil.” Many people come to the cenotaph, bow and pray for those who died as a result of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima. Through the cenotaph one can see a Peace Flame first lit in 1964. When all nuclear weapons are abolished, the flame will be extinguished.

    On the grounds of the Peace Memorial Park is a museum, which tells the story of the bombing of Hiroshima from the perspective of the victims – those who were under the bomb, the people of the city. With the city rebuilt and beautiful, the museum is an important reminder of the tragedy of the bombing, which caused some 70,000 deaths immediately and some 140,000 by the end of 1945.

    The most impressive part of the experience of being in Hiroshima, though, is not the statues, the cenotaph, the peace flame or the museum exhibits. It is the survivors of the bombing with their remarkable spirit of forgiveness. Many of the survivors have mastered English and other languages so as to be able to travel the world and share their memories of the bombing. They do so in order to prevent their past from becoming someone else’s future. Though the survivors are growing elderly, their good will and their concern for the future is evident. They deserve our respect and our commitment to creating a world without nuclear weapons.

    David Krieger is President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.