Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Category: Articles by David Krieger

Hiroshima: City of Hope

David Krieger delivered this speech on May 25, 2013 in Hiroshima, Japan.

I am honored to be back in Hiroshima with you for this occasion, and I congratulate the Chugoku Shimbun on the fifth anniversary of its Hiroshima Peace Media Center. I am a strong supporter of this Center, and of other efforts to use the media to awaken people to the necessity of achieving a durable peace in the Nuclear Age.

I extend a special greeting to former Mayor Tadatoshi Akiba, who did such important work in building the Mayors for Peace into a global organization of more than 5,000 members. He currently serves as the chair of the Middle Powers Initiative, a coalition of eight international civil society organizations that work with middle power countries in seeking to apply pressure for the abolition of nuclear weapons.

The room we are in today is called “Himawari,” which means sunflower. This is an appropriate place to meet, since sunflowers are the symbol of a world free of nuclear weapons. What could stand in starker contrast than natural, beautiful, brightly-colored sunflowers, which, bursting with life, grow toward the sun, and the metallic, manmade instruments of massive murder that are nuclear weapons and their delivery systems?

Hiroshima is a place made sacred by pain, suffering, forgiveness and perseverance in the cause of peace of its hibakusha (survivors of the atomic bombing). I would like to say to the hibakusha at the symposium that your efforts and your messages matter, that your words and deeds have touched people’s hearts throughout the world, including my own, and continue to do so. You have the power of truth and compassion on your side.

To the young people at the symposium, I want to stress how important it is to have hope and to carry on working for peace and a world free of nuclear weapons in the spirit of the hibakusha. I would like to impress upon you that Hiroshima is a city of hope and it is, at least in part, your responsibility to carry forward that hope. Without hope, our way would be lost and our future bleak.

Hiroshima

The bombing of Hiroshima was the kind of atrocity that can only be created in the cauldron of war, a human institution that has become totally dysfunctional. The destruction of Hiroshima split the 20th century nearly in half and, more importantly, provided a dividing line in human history. Before Hiroshima, nearly all of human experience and history unfolded. Much of it was creative and beautiful – the beauty of song, art, literature, friendship and love – but there were certainly grave atrocities and vivid examples of man’s inhumanity to man.

After the bombing of Hiroshima, man’s inhumanity to his fellow man took on a deeper and darker meaning, as it became possible to destroy everything. With the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, genocide gave way to the potential for omnicide, the death of all. Genocide – the destruction of a people based upon race, religion or ethnicity – was bad enough, but omnicide made possible the end of human and other complex life on the planet. We humans must rapidly increase our capacity for learning, tolerance and love, or face the dire and devastating consequences of nuclear war.

Hiroshima is both a city and a symbol. It is a modern city and one that is quite beautiful. But it is also a city recognized throughout the world as a universal symbol of the strength of humans to overcome adversity. The hibakusha of Hiroshima have said clearly: “Nuclear weapons and human beings cannot co-exist.” This is a deep insight that we need to collectively internalize. Those of us alive on the planet today must decide whether we continue to tolerate nuclear weapons and those who promote them, or whether we draw the line at the potential for human extinction and work to abolish these weapons.

I have had the opportunity in my life to meet many of the hibakusha of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I have found that their lives are filled with purpose, that is, to assure that their past does not become someone else’s future. The hibakusha have been to the depths of Hell and survived to reflect upon and share what they experienced on the fateful day of the bombing of Hiroshima and during the days, weeks, months and years of suffering that followed the bombing. They returned from that place of horror with hope in their hearts. By their willingness to forgive and by their constant efforts to end the nuclear weapons era, they have nurtured hope and kept it alive for all these years.

Poems

Over the years, I have written a number of poems and reflections about Hiroshima and the hibakusha. These have been published in Japan by Coal Sack Publishers in a book in Japanese and English entitled God’s Tears, Reflections on the Atomic Bombs Dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I would like to share two of these poems with you. I share them because I want to reach your hearts. Logic is not enough. The heart must be engaged to save our world. The first poem is dedicated to Miyoko Matsubara, a very committed hibakusha of Hiroshima who came to Santa Barbara and worked with us at the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation in developing her presentation skills in English.

THE DEEP BOW OF A HIBAKUSHA
for Miyoko Matsubara

She bowed deeply. She bowed deeper than the oceans. She bowed from the top of Mt. Fuji to the bottom of the ocean. She bowed so deeply and so often that the winds blew hard.

The winds blew her whispered apologies and prayers across all the continents. But the winds whistled too loudly, and made it impossible to hear her apologies and prayers. The winds made the oceans crazy. The water in the oceans rose up in a wild molecular dance. The oceans threw themselves against the continents. The people were frightened. They ran screaming from the shores. They feared the white water and the whistling wind. They huddled together in dark places. They strained to hear the words in the wind.

In some places there were some people who thought they heard an apology. In other places there were people who thought they heard a prayer.

She bowed deeply. She bowed more deeply than anyone should bow.
GOD RESPONDED WITH TEARS

The plane flew over Hiroshima and dropped the bomb
after the all clear warning had sounded.

The bomb dropped far slower than the speed of light.
It dropped at the speed of bombs.

From the ground it was a tiny silver speck
that separated from the silver plane.

After 43 seconds, the slow falling bomb exploded
into mass at the speed of light squared.

Einstein called it energy. Everything lit up.
For a split-second people could see their own bones.

The pilot always believed he had done the right thing.
The President, too, never wavered from his belief.

He thanked God for the bomb. Others did, too.
God responded with tears that fell far slower

than the speed of bombs.
They still have not reached Earth.

The Nuclear Dilemma

Nuclear weapons create a dilemma. If some countries continue to rely upon nuclear weapons for their perceived security, sooner or later these weapons will be used again. The use of nuclear weapons could result in the extinction of the human species and other forms of complex life. Nuclear weapons place humans on the Endangered Species list.

And yet, although we humans should be mobilizing against the threat posed by these weapons of mass annihilation, we remain remarkably indifferent to them. This suggests one of four possibilities or some combination of them:

1. we are ignorant of the destructive power of nuclear weapons;
2. we don’t believe that the weapons will actually be used;
3. we have fear fatigue;
4. we believe that there is little that can be done by individuals to influence nuclear policy.

It is unlikely that many of us are actually ignorant of the destructive power of nuclear weapons. Most people on the planet know what happened at Hiroshima and Nagasaki with the relatively small nuclear weapons of the time. In each case, one bomb destroyed one city. The terrible destructive power of these bombs has been vividly conveyed by the hibakusha.

It is possible that, having lived with nuclear weapons for more than two-thirds of a century, many individuals believe they will not be used again. But this is a denial of possibilities. So long as the weapons exist in the arsenals of some nations, neither their use nor their proliferation can be ruled out. Martin Hellman, a professor emeritus of electrical engineering at Stanford University, finds there is a one-in-six chance of a child born today dying of nuclear war during his or her 80-year lifespan. This is the equivalent of playing Nuclear Roulette with the life of that child – and all children. Psychologically, it may be more comfortable to live in denial, but it is not more secure.

When one is fearful for a long period of time, fatigue sets in. A person may be viewed as a prophet at a later time for having given warnings about survival threats in his or her own time, but in one’s own time one may be seen as crazy for continuing to shout warnings about such threats. For most people, fear fatigue sets in and they move on to take care of other areas of life. Thankfully, this isn’t the case for the hibakusha and for many abolitionists who continue to fight for a world free of nuclear weapons.

There are few people who can influence the course of human events by themselves, but collectively we can wield considerable influence. To assure that nuclear weapons are not used again, they must be abolished. We must join with others to achieve this goal – in the largest coalitions possible. I am deeply grateful to the hibakusha for their leadership in this effort.

Nuclear weapons are a technological triumph of the worst possible sort. We humans must triumph over our destructive technologies. We have created ever more powerful tools and these tools exert power over us. Our tools must be designed to aid us constructively rather than to threaten our very existence.

We must regain power over our tools if humankind is to survive. We can only do this collectively. We must unite rather than divide. We must cross borders in our minds and in our hearts. We must care for each other, and we must begin by eliminating the overriding threat of nuclear annihilation. The solution is not technological; it is human. It requires us to think about what really matters to us and to act accordingly.

We Must Change our Thinking

Albert Einstein was one of the greatest scientists of the 20th century. He changed the way we look at the universe. His theories described the relationship between energy and matter that led to releasing the power of the atom. Einstein was not only intelligent; he was wise. Early in the Nuclear Age, he pointed out, “The splitting of the atom has changed everything save our modes of thinking and thus we drift toward unparalleled catastrophe.” He saw clearly that the Nuclear Age had opened a new era in human history, an era in which the destructive power of nuclear weapons made peace an imperative.

The opening curtain of the Nuclear Age, which occurred here at Hiroshima, started the clock ticking on a race between finding new ways to forge friendships across borders and succumbing to the old patterns of war, but now with weapons incapable of being controlled in time or space. Bertrand Russell, Albert Einstein and 9 other prominent scientists issued the Russell-Einstein Manifesto on July 9, 1955. It is one of the most important documents of the 20th century and now for the 21st century. It states, “Here, then, is the problem which we present to you, stark and dreadful and inescapable: Shall we put an end to the human race; or shall mankind renounce war? People will not face this alternative because it is so difficult to abolish war.”

Yes, it is difficult to abolish war, but it is made necessary by the terrible devastation that occurred here in Hiroshima on August 6th, 1945, and that occurred again at Nagasaki three days later. Nuclear weapons have made possible the extinction of the human race and other forms of complex life. In this sense, they have made us one world, a global Hiroshima, uniting us in danger and in the opportunity to change.

The Russell-Einstein Manifesto concluded: “There lies before us, if we choose, continual progress in happiness, knowledge, and wisdom. Shall we, instead choose death because we cannot forget our quarrels? We appeal as human beings to human beings: Remember your humanity, and forget the rest. If you can do so, the way lies open to a new Paradise; if you cannot, there lies before you the risk of universal death.”

Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

The organization that I founded and where I have served as president for the past 30 years is called the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. The name means that peace is an imperative of the Nuclear Age. I hope that we are carrying on in the tradition of Russell and Einstein. Our mission is “to educate and advocate for peace and a world free of nuclear weapons and to empower peace leaders.”

We are motivated in our efforts by the spirit of Hiroshima and its hibakusha. In Santa Barbara, we have created a peace garden named for Sadako Sasaki. Each year on or around Hiroshima Day we hold a ceremony of remembrance with music, poetry and reflections in this beautiful and tranquil garden. Sadako’s paper cranes have indeed flown all over the world.

Each year we give a Distinguished Peace Leadership Award to an outstanding peace leader. Recipients have included the Dalai Lama, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Mairead Maguire, Jody Williams and Dr. Helen Caldicott. Two years ago, our award was presented to Mayor Akiba and, at the same time, we presented a World Citizen Award to Shigeko Sasamori on behalf of all hibakusha of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty

Article VI of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) requires the parties to the treaty to pursue negotiations in good faith for a cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date, for nuclear disarmament, and for a treaty on general and complete disarmament. Such negotiations have not taken place. The International Court of Justice in interpreting the treaty 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.” This obligation has existed since the NPT entered into force in 1970. For 43 years, this obligation has been largely ignored by the five nuclear weapon states that are parties to the treaty (US, Russia, UK, France and China). In addition, the negotiations have been ignored by three states not parties to the treaty that have developed nuclear arsenals (Israel, India and Pakistan), and by North Korea, which withdrew from the Non-Proliferation Treaty and also developed and tested nuclear weapons.

Each day the nuclear weapon states act illegally under international law by failing to fulfill their obligations to engage in good faith negotiations for nuclear disarmament and to bring these negotiations to a conclusion. In addition to acting illegally, they are behaving in a way that threatens the human future. Their inaction is intolerable and unworthy of the responsibility they have accepted.

I was recently in Geneva at the Second Preparatory Meeting of the parties for the 2015 NPT Review Conference. I found the conference to be notable for five reasons:

First, there was virtually no progress on the nuclear disarmament goal of the treaty.

Second, there was enthusiasm among the non-nuclear weapons states that carried over from the Oslo conference on the humanitarian consequences of nuclear war. In relation to this, 80 countries signed on to a Joint Statement introduced by South Africa to underline the severe humanitarian consequences of nuclear war and to call for a ban on nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, Japan was not one of these 80 countries. This statement said in part, “The only way to guarantee that nuclear weapons will never be used again is through their total elimination.” I think this is a statement that would resonate with the hibakusha of Hiroshima. Nonetheless, the Japanese government continues to support US nuclear policy rather than the reasonable aspirations of the hibakusha for significant progress toward a world without nuclear weapons. The Japanese government needs to bring its policies in line with the spirit of the hibakusha.

Third, the failure to hold a conference, as promised, on the establishment of a Weapons of Mass Destruction-Free Zone in the Middle East became a point of serious contention. The Egyptian Ambassador to Geneva, Hisham Badr, walked out of the conference expressing disappointment with the failure of the parties to the Non-Proliferation Treaty to convene the conference, which had been scheduled to be held in Finland in December 2012. He stated, “Egypt and many Arab countries have joined the NPT with the understanding that this would lead to a Middle East completely free of nuclear weapons. However, more than 30 years later one country in the Middle East, namely Israel, remains outside the NPT.” The Secretary-General of the Agency for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean (OPANAL), described the postponement of the conference, along with the lack of progress on nuclear disarmament, as “alarming factors.” She called for replacing “nuclear deterrence doctrines with more effective measures, with truly safe measures for humanity as a whole.”

Fourth, the US and Russia were busy patting themselves on their respective backs for their 2010 New START agreement to reduce the number of their deployed strategic nuclear weapons to 1,550 on each side by 2018. However, when asked whether their new relationship made possible a pledge of No First Use of nuclear weapons, both countries had little to say.

Fifth, despite claims to the contrary, all of the NPT nuclear weapon states continue to be engaged in modernizing their respective nuclear forces. The US, for example, said in its Working Paper for the conference, “On modernization, the 2010 Nuclear Posture Review made clear that the United States will not develop new nuclear warheads nor will its Life Extension Programs support new military missions or provide new military capabilities.” However, the US is planning to spend upwards of $10 billion for upgrading its B61 gravity bombs that are now stockpiled in Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany, Italy and Turkey and giving them new tailfins that will turn them into guided weapons.

East Asia

The situation in East Asia remains dangerous. North Korea joined the nuclear weapons “club” in 2006. Other nuclear weapon states active in the region are the US, Russia and China. Japan, although not a nuclear weapon state, has enough reprocessed plutonium to become a nuclear-armed state within months and to make a few thousand nuclear weapons in a relatively short time. While Japan has consistently said that it will not do this, it must be viewed as a virtual nuclear weapon state. At the same time, Japan has placed itself under the nuclear umbrella of the United States and has tended to support US nuclear policy in international forums. Japan’s dependence upon the US for nuclear deterrence seems likely to be the reason that Japan has been supportive of US nuclear policy and has not been more supportive of the position of the hibakusha of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Most Americans are not attentive to the position of the Japanese government on nuclear issues. However, US leaders view Japan as an important element in its security plan for East Asia. Because Japan is a close ally of the US, Japan could potentially assert an influence over US nuclear policy if Japan were to support the position of the hibakusha, take a strong stand for nuclear weapons abolition, and step out from under the US nuclear umbrella. It would have to do so while at the same time assuring the world that it would continue its policy of renouncing war and not itself developing a nuclear arsenal. Japan would be the most appropriate country to lead the world, including the US, toward good faith negotiations for nuclear disarmament. In doing so, it would be keeping faith with international law as well as with the hibakusha.

A Time for Boldness

The nuclear weapon states have put off their obligations to negotiate in good faith for nuclear disarmament for too long. They have proven that they are not serious about fulfilling their obligations under international law. The non-nuclear weapon states have warned of the dangers of continuing with the status quo, but to no avail. Meek warnings have not been sufficient and are no longer acceptable. It is a time for boldness and an assertion of hope that change is possible.

There have been no good faith negotiations for nuclear disarmament – only excuses. Enough is enough. It is time for action to end the nuclear weapons threat to humanity – action reflecting that nuclear deterrence is a hypothesis about human behavior rather than a reliable defense. It is not a defense at all.

Action is needed that ends the two-tier structure of nuclear haves and have-nots. The Non-Proliferation Treaty calls for leveling the playing field by eliminating all existing nuclear weapons. If the nuclear weapon states fail to fulfill their obligations, the playing field may well be leveled in the wrong direction by the widespread proliferation of nuclear weapons.

Examples of Bold

One possibility would be a boycott of the 2015 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference if the nuclear weapon states have not yet begun to fulfill their obligations for good faith negotiations for nuclear disarmament called for in Article VI of the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Another possibility would be for countries to set a deadline for withdrawal from the Non-Proliferation Treaty if sufficient progress toward nuclear disarmament obligations is not achieved.

Still another bold move would be for non-nuclear weapon states to begin negotiating among themselves for a Nuclear Weapons Convention for the phased, verifiable, irreversible and transparent elimination of nuclear weapons – and call upon the nuclear weapons states to join them. This is the call of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), and I strongly endorse it.

Hope

Despair is a recipe for giving up, while hope keeps us energized to achieve what may seem like impossible goals. Hope is a choice. It keeps us going to achieve what is necessary. Nuclear weapons have had their day, and it has been a dangerous and destructive day. That day is over, both because these weapons are inequitable and because they are cruel and indiscriminating as between civilians and combatants. They are 20th century dinosaurs.

Hope is related to boldness. It gives us the power to think in a new way, to speak truth to power, and to act resolutely, as the circumstances require.

Conclusion

Over the years, the US and Russia relied upon a strategy of Mutual Assured Destruction with the acronym MAD (meaning crazy). Now, it has become clear that with the use of nuclear arsenals there is also the possibility of Self-Assured Destruction with the acronym SAD. It is Self-Assured Destruction because the attacking side, even without retaliation from the other side, may destroy its own side due to nuclear famine and nuclear winter. But SAD has another meaning as well. It can also stand for Stupid Arrogant Denial. This may be said of leaders and countries that do not take seriously their obligations for nuclear abolition.

Our greatest challenge now is to move from MAD and SAD (in both its meanings) to PASS, which stands for Planetary Assured Security and Survival. This is the path that the hibakusha have walked and they have led the way in making Hiroshima a city of hope. Now, it is up to us to join the hibakusha in carrying forward the torch of truth that will end the nuclear weapons era. Our task is to assure human survival and that of other creatures on the only planet we know of in our vast universe that supports the miracle of life. This remains the greatest challenge of our time.

It is a noble challenge and an urgent one. It demands our best efforts. We must act as though the very future depended upon our compassion, commitment and courage. It does. Let us follow the path of the hibakusha. I will end with a final poem.

Hibakusha Do Not Just Happen
For every hibakusha
there is a pilot
for every hibakusha
there is a planner
for every hibakusha
there is a bombardier
for every hibakusha
there is a bomb designer
for every hibakusha
there is a missile maker
for every hibakusha
there is a missileer
for every hibakusha
there is a targeter
for every hibakusha
there is a commander
for every hibakusha
there is a button pusher
for every hibakusha
many must contribute
for every hibakusha
many must obey
for every hibakusha
many must be silent

We must respect and honor the existing hibakusha with our voices and our acts of peace. The best way we can do this is by assuring that no new hibakusha are created. The best way we can do this is by achieving a world free of nuclear weapons.

David Krieger is President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

May 25, 2013
Two Perspectives on Nuclear Weapons

There are two basic and quite disparate ways in which nuclear weapons are viewed. The first is that these weapons provide security and power to their possessors. I would call this the view of the Nuclear Nine – the nine countries that possess nuclear weapons – and their allies. The second is that nuclear weapons undermine the security of their possessors and must be abolished. I would call this the humane view of the hibakusha (survivors of the atomic bombings).

The perspective of the Nuclear Nine and their allies is based upon nuclear deterrence, which is a hypothesis about human communications and behavior. Nuclear deterrence is the threat to retaliate with nuclear weapons if another country commits a prohibited act. Such an act might be a nuclear attack, but it could encompass a much broader range of prohibited acts. One major problem with nuclear deterrence is that it is unproven to work under all circumstances. It requires rational leaders, and not all leaders are rational at all times. Further, it requires a territory to retaliate against, thus making it inapplicable to terrorist organizations. The bottom line with nuclear deterrence is that it might or might not work. There are no guarantees, and it could fail spectacularly.

Nations rely upon nuclear deterrence at their peril. It is a concept that is intellectually bankrupt. I would equate nuclear deterrence to the French Maginot Line. Prior to World War II, the Maginot Line was highly praised for its high-tech defensive capabilities. However, when the Germans chose to invade and occupy France, they simply went around the Maginot Line and it provided no defense to France. Nuclear weapons are a Maginot Line in the Mind; that is, they provide a false sense of security based on a belief in the effectiveness of threatening mass murder. I fear this will not be understood by political and military leaders until nuclear deterrence fails and that line in the mind proves useless for defense, as surely it will if the status quo continues.

The hibakusha perspective, on the other hand, is based upon the immorality and illegality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons as well as the uncertainty and unreliability of nuclear deterrence. Can there be any doubt that weapons that cannot differentiate between civilians and combatants and that cause suffering to generations yet unborn are immoral and illegal? Further, if nuclear deterrence were to fail, as it has come close to doing on numerous occasions, there would be catastrophic humanitarian consequences.

At the relatively mild end of the spectrum (but, of course, not mild at all), cities and countries would be destroyed, as happened at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. At the most severe end of the spectrum, nuclear war could be an extinction event for human beings and other forms of complex life. To describe the destructive potential of nuclear weapons, philosopher John Somerville coined the word omnicide, meaning the death of all. In between these degrees of nuclear annihilation, there is the possibility of global nuclear famine, which atmospheric scientists predict would result from a relatively “small” nuclear war using only 100 Hiroshima-size weapons that could lead to a billion deaths by starvation.

Which is the better perspective? The perspective of the Nuclear Nine and their allies is not sustainable. It may provide a false security for some countries, but it provides insecurity for the vast majority of countries as well as for all humans, including those living in Nuclear Nine countries and their allies. This perspective encourages nuclear proliferation, nuclear brinkmanship, nuclear terrorism and nuclear war. The perspective of the hibakusha, on the other hand, would level the playing field and fulfill the obligation for nuclear disarmament, which is an important element in the Non-Proliferation Treaty. It is a far more sensible, decent, humane and prudent perspective.

David Krieger is President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

May 20, 2013
Lessons from the U.S.-Korea Nuclear Crisis

The high-profile nuclear crisis on the Korean Peninsula, pitting the reigning heavyweight nuclear champion, the United States, against the bantamweight nuclear contender, North Korea, is not finished and is deadly serious. The posturing and exchanges that the world has been witnessing are capable of spiraling out of control and resulting in nuclear war. Like the Cuban Missile Crisis more than half a century ago, this crisis demonstrates that nuclear dangers continue to lurk in dark shadows across the globe.

This crisis, for which the fault is shared by both sides, must be taken seriously and viewed as a warning that nuclear stability is an unrealistic goal. The elimination of nuclear weapons, an obligation set forth in the Non-Proliferation Treaty and confirmed by the International Court of Justice, must be a more urgent goal of the international community. The continued evasion of this obligation by the nuclear weapon states makes possible repeated nuclear crises, nuclear proliferation, nuclear terrorism and nuclear war.

Lessons can be drawn from this most recent crisis about the dangerous reliance by nuclear-armed states on nuclear deterrence and the unrealistic quest for security through nuclear deterrence and nuclear crisis management. Here are ten lessons:

1. Nuclear deterrence encourages threatening words and actions that can escalate into a full-blown crisis. For nuclear deterrence to be effective between nuclear-armed countries, each country must believe that the other is prepared to actually use nuclear weapons against it in retaliation for behavior considered prohibited (and this may not be clear). Thus, the leader of each country must convince the other side that he is irrational enough to retaliate against it with nuclear weapons, knowing that the other will then retaliate in kind. For each side to convince the other, threatening words and actions are employed.

2. Nuclear deterrence requires leaders to act rationally, but also makes it rational to behave irrationally. This is a conundrum inherent in nuclear deterrence. A leader of a nuclear-armed country must be sufficiently rational to be deterred by a threat of nuclear retaliation; but he also must behave sufficiently irrationally to make the other side believe he is actually prepared to use nuclear weapons in retaliation against it.

3. While deterrence theory requires that leaders be perceived as irrational enough to retaliate with nuclear weapons, they cannot be perceived as so irrational that they would mount a first-strike attack with nuclear weapons. Should leaders of Country A be perceived by Country B as being ready to launch a preventive nuclear attack, it could lead to an earlier preventive attack by Country B.

4. “War games” by Country B, held near Country A’s borders, are not-so-subtle threats, particularly when they involve nuclear capable delivery systems. The US and South Korea conducted joint war games near the border of North Korea. North Korean leaders became angry and threatening, escalating the crisis. If a country conducted “war games” near the US border, one can only imagine the response. To demonstrate how little countries appear to learn from such crises, the US cancelled a Minuteman III missile test in April at the height of the crisis, but has now rescheduled the provocative test for a date in May.

5. When a nuclear crisis escalates, it can spin out of control. In an environment of escalating threats, one side may believe its best option is to launch a preventive attack, thus setting in motion a nuclear war.

6. Nuclear weapons are military equalizers; they provide greater benefit to the militarily weaker country. A relatively small and weak country, such as North Korea, can hold a much more powerful country, such as the US, at bay with the threat to use nuclear weapons against it, its troops, and/or its allies. On the other hand, when countries such as Iraq and Libya gave up their nuclear weapons programs, they were attacked by the US and its allies, their regimes were overthrown and their leaders killed.

7. Nuclear power plants are attractive targets, since they can be turned into radiological weapons. South Korea has 23 nuclear reactors within striking range of North Korea. These plants could be intentionally or accidentally destroyed, leading to reactor and spent-fuel meltdowns, and the spread of radiation throughout the Korean Peninsula and beyond.

8. The value of nuclear weapons, to the extent they have value, lies only in the bluff to use them. If the nuclear bluff is called, it may lead to catastrophic results – “Game Over.” That dangerous potential is always present in the bluff to use nuclear weapons.

9. Cutting off communications increases the risks of misinterpreting an act or intention of the other side. The two sides stopped speaking to each other except in the language of threat. North Korea shut down the Crisis Hot Line, a communications device set up to prevent misunderstandings and misinterpretations of the acts of the two Koreas.

10. Leaders in a nuclear crisis situation need to talk to each other and demonstrate rationality to reverse the escalation. Leaders on both sides of the crisis should be making overtures to talk through their differences and resolve them rather than continuing to posture in threatening ways at a distance.

One final lesson that applies to all nuclear crises is that the only way to assure that nuclear weapons are not used again is to abolish them.

David Krieger is President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

May 6, 2013
Nuclear Roulette Has No Winners

This article was originally published by Truthout.

The United States and North Korea are playing a dangerous game of Nuclear Roulette. The US is taking actions that threaten North Korea, such as conducting war games with US ally South Korea, including practice bombing runs that send nuclear-capable B-2 bombers from Missouri to the Korean Peninsula. The North Koreans, in turn, are blustering, declaring they are in a state of war with South Korea, which technically is true since a truce and not a peace agreement ended the Korean War in 1953. North Korean leaders have also cancelled the “hot line” with Seoul and are threatening nuclear attacks on the US, its troops and its allies.

North Korea withdrew from the Non-Proliferation Treaty in 2003 and has since tested nuclear devices on three occasions (2006, 2009 and earlier this year). It has also tested medium- and long-range missiles and is developing capabilities to threaten the US and its allies with nuclear weapons. The US has responded to the North Korean tests by holding talks with other countries in Northeast Asia and putting increasingly stringent sanctions on North Korea. The US also continues to regularly test its long-range, nuclear-capable missiles from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California. Tensions in Northeast Asia continue to rise.

Nuclear threats are an integral part of nuclear deterrence. For nuclear deterrence to work effectively, it is necessary for an opponent to believe a nuclear threat is real. When the US joins South Korea in playing war games with nuclear-capable aircraft on the Korean Peninsula, the message of threat is clear to the North Korean leaders. Equally clear is the message from North Korea to the US with its nuclear tests and bluster: North Korea has a nuclear capability that could cause unacceptable harm to the US, its troops and its allies.

From an objective perspective, each country has the capability to cause the other (or its troops or allies) horrific damage. While they are pounding on their chests and demonstrating that they are in fact crazy enough to use nuclear weapons, they are engaged in a drama that hopes to dissuade the other side from actually doing so. Both countries should take note of this.

The dangerous game of Nuclear Roulette is built into the nuclear deterrence paradigm. Each time the hammer of the gun is cocked and the gun is pointed at the other side’s head, the barrel of the opponent’s gun is also pointed at one’s own head. An accident or miscalculation during a time of tension could trigger a nuclear holocaust.

Yes, of course the United States is the stronger of the two countries and would fare better, perhaps far better, in a nuclear war, but that isn’t good enough. Yes, North Korea could be destroyed as a functioning country, but at what cost? In addition to the terrible cost in lives of North Koreans, the US and its allies would also pay a heavy price: first, in the deaths of US troops stationed in the Northeast Asian region; second, in the deaths and devastation of US allies, South Korea and Japan, and possibly of the US itself; and third, in the loss of stature and credibility of the US for having engaged in nuclear warfare that destroyed the lives of potentially millions of innocent North Koreans.

Nuclear Roulette has no winners. It is a game that no country should be playing. But the leaders of countries with nuclear weapons tend to believe these weapons make their own country more secure. They do not. They risk everything we hold dear, all we love, and they undermine our collective sense of decency. The only way out of the Nuclear Roulette dilemma is to unload the gun and assure that it cannot be used again by any side.

We can do far better than we are doing. For the short term, the US should stop conducting provocative war games in the region and instead offer some diplomatic carrots rather than sticks. The US would go far to defuse a dangerous situation by again offering to support North Korea in providing food and energy for its people. For the longer term, the US should lead the way forward by using its convening power to commence negotiations for a new treaty, a global Nuclear Weapons Convention, to achieve the phased, verifiable, irreversible and transparent elimination of nuclear weapons.

David Krieger is President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

April 3, 2013
The Most Important Lessons Life Taught Me

As a young man, faced with the Vietnam War, I learned to follow my conscience, rather than the path of least resistance. I learned that the US government, or any government, can lie a country into war, but that it cannot prosecute that war without willing soldiers and a willing populace. I learned that a government can order a young person to kill on its behalf, but it can’t force a young person to do so. I learned that a single committed person, young or old, can stand against the US government and prevail. I learned that war is a terrible and often senseless tragedy, and that there are no good wars. I learned that wars are a foolish way to settle conflicts, and that nuclear weapons have made the potential destruction of war far more devastating. I learned that peace is not the space between wars, but rather a dynamic social process in which change occurs nonviolently. I learned that peace is not only an end but a means. I learned that peace requires perseverance, as does any great goal worth struggling for. I learned that we are all connected, with each other, with the past and with the future. I learned that each of us has a responsibility to act for the common good and for generations yet to come, and that none of us has a right to give up on achieving a more peaceful and decent world.

David Krieger is President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

April 1, 2013
The Iraq War: Ten Years, Five Poems of Remembrance

It has been ten years since the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq spearheaded by the George W. Bush administration. It is an occasion for remembrance, reflection and deep regret. It was a war built on lies that harmed everything it touched. Most of all, it has harmed the children of Iraq and their families, and it continues to harm them even though the United States and its allies have officially left Iraq.

The war has also done deep and possibly irreparable damage to the credibility and decency of the United States, the country that led in choosing war over peace. It is an ongoing disgrace to America that we do not hold those who initiated aggressive warfare to account for their individual crimes, as the Allies did at Nuremberg following World War II. Short of public international criminal trials, the best we can do now is commit ourselves to never again allowing an aggressive war to be committed in our names, build a world at peace, and be a force for peace in our personal and communal lives.

The five poems that follow were written over an eight-year period, nearly the length of the nine-year war. The first poem, “The Children of Iraq Have Names,” was written in the lead-up to the war and was read at many hopeful peace marches in late 2002 and early 2003, when many people throughout the world took to the streets seeking to prevent the war from occurring. The second poem, “Worse Than the War,” was written in June 2004, a little over a year into the war. In it, I give my thoughts on what could be worse than the war.

The third poem, “To an Iraqi Child,” was written nearly a year later, in April 2005. It is about a 12-year-old boy, Ali Ismail Abbas, who lost his mother, father, brother and 11 other relatives when a US missile struck his home. The boy lost both of his arms in the attack. He had wanted to be a doctor.

The fourth poem, “Greeting Bush in Baghdad,” was written in December 2008, near the end of the war and is based upon an incident that occurred when George W. Bush visited Iraq and spoke to the press there. The fifth and final poem, “Zaid’s Misfortune,” was written in July 2010, and is a poem about another Iraqi child.

The children of Iraq paid the price for a war that should not have happened. So did the people of Iraq. So did the young Americans that the government sent to fight and die there. So did those Americans who fought in Iraq and came home injured and traumatized. So did America itself and its allies pay the price of military failure, the loss of credibility and the trillions of dollars wasted on the war. So did we all pay the price of being implicated in an unnecessary and immeasurably futile war. When will we ever learn?

The Children of Iraq Have Names

The children of Iraq have names.
They are not the nameless ones.

The children of Iraq have faces.
They are not the faceless ones.

The children of Iraq do not wear Saddam’s face.
They each have their own face.

The children of Iraq have names.
They are not all called Saddam Hussein.

The children of Iraq have hearts.
They are not the heartless ones.

The children of Iraq have dreams.
They are not the dreamless ones.

The children of Iraq have hearts that pound.
They are not meant to be statistics of war.

The children of Iraq have smiles.
They are not the sullen ones.

The children of Iraq have twinkling eyes.
They are quick and lively with their laughter.

The children of Iraq have hopes.
They are not the hopeless ones.

The children of Iraq have fears.
They are not the fearless ones.

The children of Iraq have names.
Their names are not collateral damage.

What do you call the children of Iraq?
Call them Omar, Mohamed, Fahad.

Call them Marwa and Tiba.
Call them by their names.

Worse Than the War

Worse than the war, the endless, senseless war,
Worse than the lies leading to the war,

Worse than the countless deaths and injuries,
Worse than hiding the coffins and not attending funerals,

Worse than the flouting of international law,
Worse than the torture at Abu Ghraib prison,

Worse than the corruption of young soldiers,
Worse than undermining our collective sense of decency,

Worse than the arrogance, smugness and swagger,
Worse than our loss of credibility in the world,
Worse than the loss of our liberties,

Worse than learning nothing from the past,
Worse than destroying the future,
Worse than the incredible stupidity of it all,

Worse than all of these,
As if they were not enough for one war or country or lifetime,
Is the silence, the resounding silence of good Americans.

To an Iraqi Child

for Ali Ismail Abbas

So you wanted to be a doctor?

It was not likely that your dreams
would have come true anyway.

We didn’t intend for our bombs to find you.

They are smart bombs, but they didn’t know
that you wanted to be a doctor.

They didn’t know anything about you
and they know nothing of love.

They cannot be trusted with dreams.

They only know how to find their targets
and explode in fulfillment.

They are gray metal casings with violent hearts,
doing only what they were created to do.

It isn’t their fault that they found you.

Perhaps you were not meant to be a doctor.

Greeting Bush in Baghdad

“This is a farewell kiss, you dog.”
— Muntader al-Zaidi

You are a guest in my country, unwanted
surely, but still a guest.

You stand before us waiting for praise,
but how can we praise you?

You come after your planes have rained
death on our cities.

Your soldiers broke down our doors,
humiliated our men, disgraced our women.

We are not a frontier town and you are not
our marshal.

You are a torturer. We know you force water
down the throats of our prisoners.

We have seen the pictures of our naked prisoners
threatened by your snarling dogs.

You are a maker of widows and orphans,
a most unwelcome guest.

I have only this for you, my left shoe that I hurl
at your lost and smirking face,

and my right shoe that I throw at your face
of no remorse.

Zaid’s Misfortune

Zaid had the misfortune
of being born in Iraq, a country
rich with oil.

Iraq had the misfortune
of being invaded by a country
greedy for oil.

The country greedy for oil
had the misfortune of being led
by a man too eager for war.

Zaid’s misfortune multiplied
when his parents were shot down
in front of their medical clinic.

Being eleven and haunted
by the deaths of one’s parents
is a great misfortune.

In Zaid’s misfortune
a distant silence engulfs
the sounds of war.

David Krieger is President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

March 18, 2013
Reflections on Omnicide, Nuclear Deterrence and a Maginot Line in the Mind

This article was originally published by Truthout.

I offer a few reflections in an effort to separate fact from fiction with regard to nuclear weapons, their capacity for devastation and our ability to assure global security by preventing their use.

First, today’s nuclear arsenals are capable of omnicide, the death of all. In that sense, nuclear weapons are not really weapons but instruments of annihilation. They place all complex life at risk of extinction.

Omnicide is possible because of the unique capacity of nuclear weapons to cause a “nuclear winter” and to trigger “nuclear famine.” In addition to the ordinary ways that nuclear weapons destroy – blast, fire and radiation – they have the capacity to block sunlight from reaching the earth, shorten growing seasons, and lead to the destruction of crops, resulting in global nuclear famine.

Second, nuclear weapons are justified by their possessors by their belief in the effectiveness of nuclear deterrence.

We must always keep in mind that nuclear deterrence is not a fact; it is a hypothesis about human behavior. It is a hypothesis that posits rational leaders; and it is, in fact, highly irrational to believe that humans will behave rationally at all times under all conditions. How many national leaders are you aware of who always act rationally, regardless of the circumstances?

It is also true that humans are fallible and prone to error, even when they construct elaborate safeguards. Examples of human fallibility are found in the nuclear power plant accidents at Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima, and in numerous accidents with nuclear weapons in transport, such as the refueling accident over Palomares, Spain.

As Ban Ki-moon said earlier this year in a speech at the Monterey Institute of International Studies: “Nuclear deterrence is not a solution to international peace and stability. It is an obstacle.”

Third, I urge you to remember the Maginot Line. It was a high-tech wall that French leaders believed would prevent another invasion of their country, as had occurred in World War I. The Maginot Line was highly regarded right up to the time that it failed, catastrophically for France, when the German attackers simply marched around it.

I view nuclear deterrence theory as a Maginot Line in the mind. It is likely to be relied upon right up until the moment it fails, and when it fails it will be catastrophic, far more so than in the French case. Like the original Maginot Line, it will seem clear after the fact that it was destined to fail.

What is missing from the discourse on nuclear armaments among national leaders is political will for nuclear weapons abolition, a sense of urgency and the courage to lead. Mr. Obama spoke in his 2013 State of the Union Address about the US “leading the global effort to secure nuclear materials that could fall into the wrong hands.” The problem with the president’s perspective is that all hands are the wrong hands.

Who will make this clear to Mr. Obama and to the leaders of the other nuclear weapons states? This is a role for the citizens of the nuclear weapon states and for the leaders of middle-power countries. It is necessary if we are to preserve our world and pass it on intact to new generations.

Mr. Obama also said that “our ability to influence others depends on our willingness to lead.” Who will step up and lead on this mostcritical of all issues for humanity’s future?

Strategies for nuclear weapons, based on nuclear deterrence, have been MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction). MAD has given way to SAD (Self-Assured Destruction), as today’s arsenals of thermonuclear weapons have the capacity to trigger Ice Age conditions (leading to nuclear famine) that would assure the destruction of the attacking nation, even without retaliation.

We must have the courage to move past MAD and SAD to PASS (Planetary Assured Security and Survival). This will require moving rapidly but surely to the total abolition of nuclear weapons, as required by the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

I urge national leaders and security specialists, as well as the public, to base their strategic thinking, leadership and action regarding nuclear weapons on three basic understandings that separate fact from fiction, truth from hypothesis. First, nuclear weapons are capable of omnicide. Second, nuclear deterrence is only a hypothesis about human behavior, not a fact that can be relied upon for the indefinite future. Third, the Maginot Line was fancy and high-tech and was thought to be foolproof by most security experts, but it failed to provide a defense when it mattered, and its failure was devastating for France.

Nuclear deterrence is a Maginot Line in the mind, and its failure would be devastating, not only to nuclear armed countries, but to people everywhere, as well as to the future of complex life on the planet.

David Krieger is President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

March 14, 2013
2013 Kelly Lecture Introduction

This is a transcript of remarks delivered by David Krieger in advance of the 2013 Frank K. Kelly Lecture on Humanity’s Future.

Welcome to the 12th Annual Frank K. Kelly Lecture on Humanity’s Future. This lecture series has brought many great thinkers and visionaries to Santa Barbara and tonight is no exception.

The lecture series is a program of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. The mission of the Foundation is to educate and advocate for peace and a world free of nuclear weapons, and to empower peace leaders. We have 60,000 members around the country and the world. If you are not already a member of the Foundation, we invite you to join us in becoming a force for peace that cannot be stopped. You can learn more about the Foundation at our information table outside or join us online at www.wagingpeace.org.

This lecture series is named for Frank Kelly, a man whose life spanned most of the 20th century. Frank was an outstanding science fiction writer as a teenager, a citizen-soldier during World War II, a newspaper reporter, a speechwriter for President Truman, Assistant to the Senate Majority Leader, vice president of the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions, and a founder and senior vice president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

Frank had a deep faith that humanity’s future would be bright. He believed that everyone deserves a seat at humanity’s table and that everyone’s voice matters. This lecture series honors Frank’s commitment to creating a more decent, peaceful and participatory future for humanity.

Our lecturer tonight is Dennis Kucinich, a visionary leader in Congress for the past 16 years. He has been a principled, passionate and persevering leader for peace and disarmament in an institution often characterized by its lack of thoughtful deliberations and its mob-like enthusiasm for military solutions to conflict. He has stood and struggled for peace as a beacon of hope during dark days of war, days that continue still. He is the author of legislation to create a United States Department of Peace, with Assistant Secretaries of Peace represented in every other major department of the US government.

I know that Dennis believes in the “power of now,” that it is what we do now that makes all the difference for our common future. He writes, “War is never inevitable. Peace is inevitable if we desire to call it forward…. But if we call peace forward from the unseen we must name it, we must give it structure, we must prepare for it a place to exist – a space to breathe, to be nurtured, to flower – so that it can be appreciated as an expression of that divine spark of creation.”

Dennis Kucinich may be for the moment out of the Congress of the United States – and that body seems to me to be far the less without him – but he is not out of public life. Tonight he speaks on “Restoring Hope for America’s Future through Developing a Culture of Peace.”

David Krieger is President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

February 8, 2013
Outlawing Nuclear Weapons: Time for a New International Treaty?
Is it time for a new international treaty that would outlaw nuclear weapons? The short answer to this question is, Yes, it is time. Actually, it is past time. The critical question, however, is not whether we need a new international treaty. We do. The critical question is: How do we achieve the political will among the nuclear weapon states to begin negotiations for a new international treaty to outlaw and eliminate all nuclear weapons?

The Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Is Failing

The NPT has reciprocal obligations. The nuclear weapon states seek to hold the line against proliferation of nuclear weapons to other countries. In return, the non-nuclear weapon states rely upon Article VI of the NPT to level the playing field. Article VI contains three obligations:

“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 at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.”

None of these obligations have been fulfilled. Negotiations in good faith have not been pursued on any of the three obligations.

It has been 42 years since the treaty entered into force, and the nuclear arms race continues. All of the NPT nuclear weapon states are modernizing their arsenals. They have not negotiated in good faith to end the nuclear arms race at an early date.

Nor have the NPT nuclear weapon states negotiated in good faith to achieve nuclear disarmament. They have not acted with a sense of urgency to achieve the goal of nuclear disarmament in all its aspects. They have not made a commitment to zero nuclear weapons.

Finally, the NPT nuclear weapon states have not negotiated in good faith on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control. Since the NPT entered into force in 1970, there have been no negotiations on general and complete disarmament.

The NPT nuclear weapon states seem perfectly comfortable with their failure to fulfill their obligations under Article VI of the NPT. Given this lack of political will to achieve any of the three Article VI obligations, the prospects for a new international treaty are dim if states continue with business as usual. That is why the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation called for bold action by the non-nuclear weapon states in its Briefing Paper for the 2012 Preparatory Committee Meeting for the 2015 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference. The Briefing Paper concluded:

“It is necessary to ensure that nuclear weapons will not be used again as instruments of war, risking the destruction of civilization, nuclear famine and the extinction of most or all humans and other forms of complex life. Exposing the dangers of launch-on-warning nuclear policies and the dysfunctional and counterproductive nature of nuclear deterrence theory is essential for awaking policy makers and the public to the imperative goal of achieving a world free of nuclear weapons. It is a goal that demands boldness by all who seek a sustainable future for humanity and the planet. The non-nuclear weapon states that are parties to the Non-Proliferation Treaty have both the right and the responsibility to assert leadership in assuring that the nuclear weapon states fulfill their obligations for good faith negotiations for complete nuclear disarmament.”

The Premises of Bold Action

Bold action by the non-nuclear weapon states would be based upon the following premises:
1. There needs to be a sense of urgency to eliminate the risks posed by nuclear weapons, nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism.
What Would Constitute Bold Action?

The non-nuclear weapon states need to demonstrate to the nuclear weapon states that they are serious about the need for a new international treaty, which would be the means to fulfill the NPT Article VI obligations. UN General Assembly Resolutions are not getting the job done. They are not being taken seriously by the nuclear weapon states; nor are exhortations by the UN Secretary-General and other world leaders. Bold action by non-nuclear weapon states, in descending order of severity, could include these options:
1. Declaring the NPT null and void as a result of the failure of the nuclear weapon states to act in good faith in fulfilling their Article VI obligations.
Conclusion

At the outset, I posed this question: How do we achieve the political will among the nuclear weapon states to begin negotiations for a new international treaty to outlaw and eliminate all nuclear weapons? The answer is that the non-nuclear weapon states must unite and pressure the nuclear weapon states by bold action.

Fifty years after the Cuban Missile Crisis and more than 20 years after the end of the Cold War, we are approaching a critical time in the Nuclear Age. Our technological genius threatens our human future. Too much time has passed and too little has been accomplished toward achieving a world free of nuclear weapons.

Bold action is needed to move the nuclear weapon states to fulfill their obligations under Article VI of the NPT. I favor the first two actions listed above: a boycott and legal action. I fear that, unless such actions are taken soon by non-nuclear weapon states to pressure the nuclear weapon states to act in good faith, the likelihood is that business as usual will continue, and states will end up choosing the more extreme remedies of the third and fourth actions listed above: withdrawal from the NPT or deeming it null and void. Should this be the case, we will lose the only existing treaty that obligates its members to nuclear disarmament and also the likelihood of achieving a new international treaty to ban and eliminate nuclear weapons.
November 26, 2012
Message to First Annual Student Movement for Nuclear Disarmament Conference

This message was delivered to the First Annual Student Movement for Nuclear Disarmament Conference at Soka University of America on November 17, 2012.

I want to congratulate you for organizing this conference and for bringing together students to form a movement for nuclear disarmament. It is a much needed effort. As someone who has worked for nuclear weapons abolition for most of my adult life, I believe firmly that the involvement of students is necessary for achieving the goal of a nuclear weapons-free world.

You did not create nuclear weapons, but you have inherited them, and they will remain a threat to your future for so long as they exist. Thus, your awareness, your engagement and your voices are critical to your own future as well as to the future of your children and grandchildren.

Nuclear weapons are illegal, immoral and costly. They do not make their possessors safer or more secure; they only assure that their possessors are targets of some other country’s nuclear weapons.

If the most powerful counties in the world behave as though nuclear weapons are useful to them, as they do, they assure that other countries will seek nuclear weapons for themselves. Thus, the possession of nuclear weapons encourages the proliferation of nuclear weapons to other countries.

The more nuclear weapons proliferate, the greater the chances are that they will end up in the hands of terrorist organizations. In truth, though, any country that relies upon nuclear deterrence for its security is threatening the use of nuclear weapons against innocent people, and thus behaving as a terrorist nation itself.

We must recognize nuclear weapons for what they are. Some, like Archbishop Desmond Tutu, see them as an “obscenity.” Others, like Josei Toda, view them as an “absolute evil.” I see them as a human-designed threat to the future of civilization and perhaps to all complex life on earth. By our technological cleverness, we humans have created the means of our own demise. We cannot allow this to continue.

Our great challenge is to abolish nuclear weapons before they abolish us. It is not an easy goal to achieve, but it is not an impossible one. It is a necessary goal, and it gives me hope that your conference is taking place and that each of you is involved and joining in the effort to create a world free of nuclear threat.

The only number of nuclear weapons that will assure a human future is zero. No significant goal, such as the abolition of nuclear weapons, can be accomplished without awareness, boldness, creativity and hard work. I hope that you will never lose sight of the need to achieve a world with zero nuclear weapons and that you will always choose hope as an impetus for building a better world. Be persistent, persevere and never give up.

November 17, 2012