Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Category: Articles by David Krieger

Nuclear Disarmament: Letter in the New York Times

This letter to the editor was printed in the November 15, 2012, edition of The New York Times.

To the Editor:

We share with your editorial (“The Foreign Policy Agenda,” Nov. 12) the view that one of President Obama’s “singular contributions has been his vision of a world without nuclear weapons.” We would go further and suggest that realizing this vision would ensure Mr. Obama a legacy of honor, not only for America, but also for the world.

Your editorial adds a caveat that nuclear disarmament “is a lofty goal that won’t be achieved in his second term, or maybe for years after that.” We dissent from this bit of conventional wisdom that almost always accompanies the affirmation of the goal, nearly taking back what was so grandly proposed.

In our view, there has rarely been a better time to initiate a negotiated process of phased nuclear disarmament, and there is no reason that such a process should be stretched out over a long period. We are at one of those few times in international history with no acute conflict between major states.

In our view, the United States should prepare proposals for nuclear disarmament and convene an international conference of the nine nuclear-weapon states. Nothing could do more to restore America’s claim to world leadership. At the very least, President Obama would belatedly show that his 2009 Nobel Peace Prize was not wrongly awarded.

RICHARD FALK
DAVID KRIEGER
Santa Barbara, Calif.

The writers are senior vice president and president, respectively, of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

November 14, 2012
We All Have a Role to Play

Vaya aquí para la versión española.

Nuclear weapons are game-changing devices. They are more than weapons. They are annihilators, capable of causing catastrophic damage to cities and countries. They have the destructive power to bring civilization to its knees. They could cause the extinction of most or all complex life on the planet.

One of the great moral leaders of our time, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, wrote: “Nuclear weapons are an obscenity. They are the very antithesis of humanity, of goodness in this world. What security do they help establish? What kind of world community are we actually seeking to build when nations possess and threaten to use arms that can wipe all of humankind off the globe in an instant?”

Nuclear weapons threaten the very future of humankind. They are immoral and illegal. They cause indiscriminate harm and unnecessary suffering. Their damage cannot be contained in either time or space. Their existence demands a response from us. We must unite, as never before, to protect against this overriding technological threat of our own making or face the consequences.

But, you may ask, what can you do?

First, you can take the threat seriously and recognize that your own involvement can make a difference. This is not an issue that can be left to political leaders alone. They have dealt with it for over two-thirds of a century, and the danger persists.

Second, join with others in working for a more peaceful and nuclear weapon-free world. The voices of citizens can make a difference, and the aggregation of those voices an even greater difference. Citizens must stand up and speak out as if the very future depends upon what they say and do, because it does.

The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation provides many ways to amplify the voices of citizens. We believe that a path to a world free of nuclear weapons lies through US leadership, and the path to US leadership lies through an active and involved citizenry. You can keep up to date with our monthly Sunflower e-newsletter and you can participate in pressing for change through our Action Alert Network.

Third, become a peace leader, one who holds hope and wages peace. Never lose hope, and actively work to build a more peaceful world. Live with compassion, commitment, courage and creativity. Do your part to build a world you can be proud to pass on to your children and grandchildren and all children of the future, a beautiful planet free of the threat of nuclear annihilation.

If you are a painter, paint. If you are a writer, write. If you are a singer, sing. If you are a citizen, participate. Find a way to give your talents to building a better world in which the threat of war and nuclear devastation does not hang over our common future – a world in which poverty and hunger are alleviated, children are educated, human rights are upheld, and the environment is protected. These are the great challenges of our time and each of us has an important role to play.

November 12, 2012
Todos tenemos un papel que desempeñar

Click here for the English version.

Las armas nucleares son dispositivos que cambian el juego. Son más que armas. Son artefactos aniquiladores, capaces de causar daños catastróficos a ciudades y países. Ellas tienen el poder destructivo de llevar la civilización al borde del desastre. Podrían causar la extinción de la mayor parte o toda la vida compleja en el planeta.

Uno de los grandes líderes morales de nuestro tiempo, el arzobispo Desmond Tutu, escribió: “Las armas nucleares son una obscenidad. Son la antítesis misma de la humanidad, de la bondad en este mundo. ¿Cuál es la seguridad que ayudan a establecer? ¿Qué tipo de comunidad mundial estamos realmente tratando de construir cuando hay naciones que poseen y amenazan con usar armas que pueden aniquilar a toda la humanidad en un instante? “

Las armas nucleares amagan el futuro mismo de la humanidad. Ellas son inmorales e ilegales. Causan daño indiscriminado y sufrimiento innecesario. Sus efectos no pueden contenerse ni en el tiempo ni el espacio. Su existencia exige una inmediata respuesta de nuestra parte. Tenemos que unirnos, como nunca antes, para protegernos contra esta amenaza tecnológica de nuestra propia fabricación o enfrentar las terribles consecuencias.

Sin embargo, usted puede preguntar, ¿qué puedo hacer?

En primer lugar, tomar en serio la amenaza y reconocer que su propia participación puede hacer la diferencia. Esto no es un tema que se puede dejar sólo a los líderes políticos. Después de lidiar con ello durante más de dos tercios de siglo, el peligro sigue latente.

En segundo lugar, unirse con otros en el trabajo por un mundo más pacífico y libre de armas nucleares. Las voces de los ciudadanos pueden hacer la diferencia, y agregarse a esas voces significa una diferencia aún mayor. Los ciudadanos tienen que ponerse de pie y hablar como si el futuro dependiera de lo que dicen y hacen, porque así es.

La Nuclear Age Peace Foundation ofrece muchas formas de amplificar las voces de los ciudadanos. Creemos que el camino hacia un mundo libre de armas nucleares se encuentra a través del liderazgo de Estados Unidos y el camino hacia ese liderazgo es a través de una ciudadanía activa y participativa. Usted puede estar al día con nuestro boletín electrónico mensual Sunflower y puede participar haciendo presión para el cambio a través de nuestra Red de Alerta de Acción.

En tercer lugar, convirtiéndose en un líder de paz, en alguien que tiene esperanza y cree en la paz. Nunca perder la esperanza, y trabajar activamente para construir un mundo más pacífico. Vivir con compasión, compromiso, valor y creatividad. Haciendo su parte para construir un mundo que podamos estar orgullosos de heredar a nuestros hijos y nietos y a todos los niños del futuro, un hermoso planeta libre de la amenaza de la aniquilación nuclear.

Si usted es un pintor, pinte. Si es un escritor, escriba Si usted es un cantante, cante. Si usted es un simple ciudadano, participe. Encuentre una manera de dar sus talentos para edificar un mundo mejor en el que la amenaza de la guerra y la devastación nuclear no penda sobre nuestro futuro común – un mundo en el que se alivien la pobreza y el hambre, los niños sean educados, los derechos humanos respetados, y el medioambiente esté protegido. Estos son los grandes desafíos de nuestro tiempo y cada uno de nosotros tiene un papel importante que desempeñar.

November 12, 2012
Standing Together for Our Common Future
David Krieger delivered these remarks at the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s 29th Annual Evening for Peace on October 21, 2012.

I want to begin with a poem. I wrote this poem for the International Day of Peace, but I think it works well for our Evening for Peace.

On this day, like any other,
soldiers are killing and dying,
arms merchants are selling their wares,
missiles are aimed at your heart,
and peace is a distant dream.

Not just for today, but for each day,
let’s sheathe our swords, save the sky
for clouds, the oceans for mystery
and the earth for joy.

Let’s stop honoring the war makers
and start giving medals for peace.

On this day, like any other,
there are infinite possibilities to change
our ways.

Peace is an apple tree heavy with fruit,
a new way of loving the world.

Our theme tonight is “Standing Together for Our Common Future.” We all share in the responsibility for our common future. Our challenge is to stand together to assure the best possible future for our children and grandchildren. This is a global challenge; and it should be a universal desire.

The Nuclear Age is just 67 years old. During this short time, we humans have created, by our technological prowess, some serious obstacles to assuring our common future. Climate change, pollution of the oceans and atmosphere, modern warfare and its preparations, and nuclear dangers are at the top of any list of critical global problems. None of these dangers can be solved by any one country alone. It no longer takes just a village. It takes a world. And within that world it takes, if not each of us, certainly far more of us.

Let me share with you how Archbishop Tutu, a Foundation Advisor and one of the great moral leaders of our time, describes nuclear weapons. He says, “Nuclear weapons are an obscenity. They are the very antithesis of humanity, of goodness in this world. What security do they help establish? What kind of world community are we actually seeking to build when nations possess and threaten to use arms that can wipe all of humankind off the globe in an instant?”

At the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, we work to abolish nuclear weapons – insanely destructive weapons that cannot be used, or even possessed, without violating the most basic legal and moral precepts. Nuclear weapons threaten civilization and our very survival as a species. And yet, 50 years after the Cuban Missile Crisis, and more than 20 years after the end of the Cold War, the US and Russia still keep some 2,000 of these weapons on high-alert, ready to be fired in moments of an order to do so.

The weapons have not gone away, nor have the dangers they pose to humanity. There are still 19,000 of them in the world. Ninety-five percent of these weapons are in the arsenals of the US and Russia. The remaining five percent are in the arsenals of seven more nuclear weapon states.

Nuclear weapons do not protect us. Nuclear weapons are not a defense; they are only good for threatening retaliation or committing senseless acts of vengeance.

The use of nuclear weapons is beyond the control of any country. Let me illustrate this by telling you about Nuclear Famine. Scientists modeled a relatively small nuclear war in which India and Pakistan were to use 50 nuclear weapons each on the other side’s cities. The result of this war would be to put enough soot from burning cities into the upper stratosphere to reduce warming sunlight to the point that we would experience the lowest temperatures on Earth in 1,000 years. This would result in shortened growing seasons and crop failures, leading to starvation and Nuclear Famine killing hundreds of millions of people, perhaps a billion, throughout the world.

Let me emphasize that this would be the consequence of a small nuclear war using less than half of one percent of the world’s nuclear explosive power. And, it would be a regional nuclear war, over which the US could not exert any control. It would nonetheless be a war with global consequences for all of us.

All of this is serious and sobering. But, you may ask, what can we do about it?

At the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, we are focusing on collective action and collective impact, in which the whole – each of us standing together – is greater than the sum of its parts.

We are also pursuing legal action related to breaches of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty by the US and other nuclear weapon states parties to the treaty. The treaty calls for the pursuit of negotiations in good faith for effective measures related to a cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date, to nuclear disarmament and for a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.

Since the Treaty entered into force in 1970, it would be hard to argue 42 years later that there has been a cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date. Nor has there been serious nuclear disarmament or a treaty on general and complete disarmament.

Our current education and advocacy work reaches and mobilizes our 57,000 members who join in taking action for our common future. We plan to expand this number exponentially across the world. We hope that you will all join us in this mission to assure the human future.

Tonight we stand together with the people of the Marshall Islands, a country that was part of the Trust Territory of the United States after World War II. The Marshall Islanders are easygoing and friendly people. They put their trust in the United States, but we abused that trust by testing nuclear weapons on their territory. We began that atmospheric nuclear testing in 1946, when we were the only country in the world with nuclear weapons, and we continued testing there for 12 years until 1958.

We tested 67 times in the Marshall Islands, using powerful nuclear and thermonuclear weapons – the equivalent explosive power of having tested 1.7 Hiroshima bombs each day for 12 years. On March 1, 1954, we tested our largest nuclear bomb ever, code-named Bravo, which had the power of 15 million tons of TNT.

We irradiated many of the people of the Marshall Islands, causing them death, injury and untold sorrow. Many had to leave their home islands and live elsewhere. Many have suffered cancers and leukemia, and the illness and death has carried over into the children of new generations of Marshall Islanders.

These are the tragic effects of a world that maintains, tests and relies upon nuclear weapons. In this world, our human rights are threatened and abused by nuclear weapons, as the Marshallese have experienced first-hand.

As a traditional island nation, the Marshallese enjoyed a self-sufficient sustainable way of life before nuclear weapons testing. Now, they struggle to uphold basic human rights:
- to adequate health and life.
- to adequate food and nutrition.
- to safe drinking water and adequate sanitation.
- to enjoyment of a safe, clean and healthy sustainable environment.
In September of this year, the Foundation’s representative in Geneva spoke to the UN Human Rights Council on behalf of the Marshall Islanders. He stated: “NAPF aligns itself with the UN Special Rapporteur’s suggestion that the international community, the United States, and the Government of the Marshall Islands must develop long-term strategic measures to address the effects of the nuclear testing program and specific challenges in each atoll. As such, it is imperative that the U.S. government and the international community implement human rights measures to provide adequate redress to the citizens of the Marshall Islands.”

In other words, it is the responsibility of the United States and other nuclear weapon states to clean up the radioactive trail of dangerous debris and redress the suffering and human rights abuses they have left behind in their pursuit of ever more powerful and efficient nuclear arms.

The man we honor tonight, Senator Tony de Brum, was a child when the US nuclear testing was taking place in his islands. Born in 1945, he personally witnessed most of the detonations that took place, and was nine years old when the most powerful of those explosions, the Bravo test, took place.

He went on to become one of the first Marshall Islanders to graduate from college and focused on helping his people to extricate themselves from the legacy of US nuclear testing in his island country. He has dedicated his life to helping his people and to working to assure they are fairly compensated for the wrongs done to them by nuclear testing. He has served his people in many ways – as a parliamentarian and former Minister of Foreign Affairs and Minister for Health and the Environment. He currently represents Kwajalein in the Parliament and is the Minister in Assistance to the President.

Like others who have suffered and witnessed the suffering caused by nuclear weapons, he has a larger vision: that what happened to his people should not happen again to any other people or country. I’ve known Tony de Brum for many years. He is an untiring leader of his people, deeply engaged in seeking justice. He is a man with a vision of creating a more decent and peaceful future for all humanity.

Senator Tony de Brum is a dedicated Peace Leader, and tonight we are pleased to stand with him and the people of the Marshall Islands as we honor him with the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s 2012 Distinguished Peace Leadership Award.
October 21, 2012
Opening Statement

(The Vandenberg 15 – which includes Daniel Ellsberg, Cindy Sheehan, Father Louis Vitale, John Amidon and me – protested the launching of a Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile from Vandenberg Air Force Base in the early morning hours of February 25, 2012. As we sought to deliver a message to the Base Commander calling for a cancellation of the test missile launch, we were arrested for trespass. All 15 defendants pleaded innocent to the charge. We had gone to Vandenberg Air Force Base to exercise our first amendment rights to protest an illegal act on the part of the government. The prosecution sought to limit the trial to the narrow issue of trespass, while we sought to put nuclear weapons and US nuclear weapons policy on trial. On the opening morning of the trial, the government moved to dismiss all charges and the Court granted the government’s motion. The case against the Vandenberg 15 was dismissed. It was a small but significant victory for the people. The real victory will come when nuclear weapons are abolished, which will happen when the people awaken to the threat posed by these insane weapons and demand of their leaders to lead the way to a world free of nuclear weapons. This is the statement I had planned to give as my Opening Statement.)

Your honor, the protest that occurred at Vandenberg Air Force Base on February 25, 2012 was legal. There was no crime of trespass.

Right and Duty of Citizens to Report a Crime or Suspected Crime

There is a right to speak out in the performance of our duties as citizens. For example, one has a right and a duty to speak out against voter fraud. Or, if one sees a policeman commit a crime or learns that a policeman is about to commit a crime, there is a right and a duty to inform his superior at the police department. If one were arrested for trespass at the county elections office or at the police station when trying to report a crime or suspected crime, one’s right to free speech – protected by the first amendment to our Constitution – would be violated.

Such a violation of first amendment rights would have a chilling effect on other citizens seeking to exercise their rights as citizens under the first amendment.

One of the great gifts given to us by our forefathers is the right to speak out in protest of governmental acts and to petition our government for redress of grievances. In fact, it is both a right and a non-delegable duty. For example, a citizen is not required to go to the city council before reporting a crime to the chief of police.

Your honor, I am not speaking about the defense of necessity, but about the rights, as well as responsibilities, of citizens under the first amendment to the United States Constitution.

Legitimate Business

The government alleges that it read a “Declaration Advisement Prior to Removal to Non-Barred Persons.” It is a Declaration that I never heard at Vandenberg Air Force Base, nor is it to be heard on all the hours of DVDs that were provided by the government. In this Declaration Advisement are the words, “Individuals without legitimate business on Vandenberg Air Force Base will not be permitted to enter or remain within the geographical confines of this installation.” But those of us who walked toward the kiosk at Vandenberg on the evening of February 25, 2012 did have legitimate business – we were exercising our first amendment rights to report a suspected crime to the Base Commander and to petition the Base Commander to cancel the planned test of an intercontinental ballistic missile.

In my own case, I was trying to deliver to the Base Commander, or her subordinate, a booklet written by General George Lee Butler, a former commander-in-chief of the United States Strategic Command. General Butler, who was once in charge of all US strategic nuclear weapons, stated, “Nuclear weapons are the enemy of humanity. Indeed, they’re not weapons at all. They’re some species of biological time bombs whose effects transcend time and space, poisoning the earth and its inhabitants for generations to come.”

This is an important statement for several reasons. First, it was made by a former commander-in-chief of the US Strategic Command. Second, it implies what should be obvious to all – that nuclear weapons are biological time bombs, and thus illegal. Third, it makes clear that nuclear weapons affect not only present generations, but future generations as well – in other words, our children and grandchildren and their children and grandchildren and so on.

Regarding nuclear deterrence theory, General Butler stated, “Nuclear deterrence was and remains a slippery intellectual construct that translates very poorly into the real world of spontaneous crises, inexplicable motivations, incomplete intelligence and fragile human relationships.” He was saying, in effect, “don’t rely upon nuclear deterrence for protection – it is only a ‘slippery intellectual construct.’”

I hold the same belief that General Butler expressed. I thought that the Base Commander would be more likely to believe this relevant information from General Butler than from me. In fact, on the evening we were arrested at Vandenberg, I handed the booklet to the young airman who handcuffed me without seeking to ascertain the legitimacy of my business at Vandenberg. Despite my telling the airman that I brought the booklet for the Base Commander, he returned it to one of the other members of the public who was there that evening but was not arrested.

Your honor, before my arrest, no one asked me why I was there. No one at Vandenberg sought to ascertain whether my business there was legitimate or not. This was the case for all the individuals arrested that evening at Vandenberg. So, how could Vandenberg personnel have lawfully arrested us when they never sought to inquire about the legitimacy of our business there?

The Government’s Breaches of the Non-Proliferation Treaty

According to the US Constitution, treaties are the supreme law of the land. Article VI, Section 2 of the Constitution states: “This constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.” (Emphasis added.)
The United States signed and ratified the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). The treaty entered into force in 1970. Therefore, it is part of the “supreme law of the land.” Under Article VI of this treaty, “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.”

Your honor, the United States is in breach of its obligations under Article VI of the NPT. It has not pursued negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the arms race at an early date. It has not pursued negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to nuclear disarmament. And it has not pursued negotiations in good faith on a Treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.

The test launching of Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) from Vandenberg only underlines our government’s failures to live up to our obligations under the NPT, its breaches of the treaty, and its lack of good faith. Each of the 450 Minuteman III missiles deployed by the US carries a powerful thermonuclear weapon – many times more powerful than the atomic bombs that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki. These missiles are kept on high alert 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. They are highly accurate, but also easy to target. In a time of crisis, there is incentive to “use them or lose them.” They are first-strike weapons that could be launched in response to a false warning of attack.

Your honor, all of this is important information for the Base Commander at Vandenberg to understand and for the American people to understand.

Criminal Activity

Is the launching of a Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile from Vandenberg a criminal act? These missiles carry thermonuclear weapons when they are in their silos on high alert. The test launching of these missiles is a threat to other countries – a reminder that we can attack them with nuclear weapons. Just as murder is a crime, the threat to murder someone is also a crime. In the case of nuclear-armed missiles, the threat is to kill millions of people, perhaps hundreds of millions of people. A US nuclear attack against another country would almost certainly result in a counter-attack against the American people.

Self-Defense

The US government is engaging in conduct that bit by bit will lead to nuclear proliferation, nuclear terrorism, nuclear war and to the destruction of the human race. As a member of the human race, I have a right to defend myself and my family. Do I and my fellow defendants have a right to believe that Minuteman III tests, such as the test launch from Vandenberg on February 25, 2012, put us, our families and our fellow Americans in danger? Or perhaps the question can be put this way: Would a reasonable person, knowing that nuclear weapons are capable of destroying civilization and most complex life, believe there was danger from the continued muscle-flexing behavior of testing nuclear-capable Minuteman III missiles? And further, would a reasonable person take steps to nonviolently alert proper authorities to the risks this conduct creates?

There Was No Trespass

The place of protest must have a reasonable physical proximity to where the protest can be heard. Vandenberg designated a protest area where protesters can only be seen by people in vehicles passing by rapidly.

It is easily observable that the public can access the property that Vandenberg deems to be its exclusive jurisdiction. Members of the public walk and drive on that property routinely, going to the Vandenberg Visitor Center and to the kiosk where cars are stopped.

We went to Vandenberg to peacefully exercise our first amendment rights, speak to the Base Commander or transmit information to her, and warn our fellow citizens of the dangers of such launches of missiles that are ordinarily armed with thermonuclear weapons.

In walking toward the kiosk, seeking to exercise our first amendment rights, we were doing no more than members of the public do every day at Vandenberg.

There was no barrier to our walking on this road toward the kiosk until Air Force personnel formed a human barrier in front of us. If there was a line on the road, it was not clear and it was not a barrier. We stopped when we were told to stop. Then, rather than being asked if we had legitimate business at Vandenberg, we were immediately apprehended and arrested.

Your honor, the Commander and personnel at Vandenberg sought to make us criminals where there was no crime. In fact, if there was a crime, it was a crime on the part of those who would threaten others with the massive annihilation of which nuclear-armed missiles are capable. The defendants had legitimate business at Vandenberg. We were exercising our rights, as well as our responsibilities, as citizens under the first amendment of the United States Constitution.

We were saying to our government that nuclear weapons and their delivery systems are tools of annihilation. We cannot continue treating them as business as usual. We must stop this recklessness and madness before we and those who follow us on this planet, suffer – by accident or design – the terrible consequences of nuclear war.

October 17, 2012
Reflections on the Cuban Missile Crisis at Fifty

Fifty years ago this month, the world teetered on the precipice of a nuclear war between the US and Soviet Union during the 13-day Cuban Missile Crisis. We were fortunate to have survived that crisis, thanks largely to the restraint shown by President Kennedy and Premier Khrushchev.

Now, fifty years later, there is no immediate crisis such as that in 1962 over Soviet nuclear-armed missiles being placed in Cuba. There are, however, still some 19,000 nuclear weapons in the arsenals of nine nuclear-armed nations: the US, Russia, UK, France, China, Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea. Approximately 95 percent of these weapons are in the arsenals of the US and Russia. Some 2,000 of them are kept in a state of high alert, ready to be immediately launched upon an order to do so at any moment of any day or night.

Although the Cold War ended more than 20 years ago, the possibilities for crisis are still with us. NATO has expanded to the Russian borders, despite US promises not to do so, and has begun placing missile defense installations near the Russian borders. Despite US and NATO assurances to Russia that these installations are to protect against an Iranian missile launch, Russian leaders view these installations as undermining their strategic deterrent force by making them vulnerable to a first-strike attack. They have said that they will target these US missile defense installations.

In another US-Russian confrontation over Georgia, such as occurred in 2008, or some other regional dispute, it is possible that tensions could rise to the point of nuclear crisis between US and Russian military forces. Of course, this would be crazy, but it is far from impossible. What would make the world safer? What might we expect from national leaders who should have learned from how close the world came to nuclear catastrophe during the Cuban Missile Crisis?

First, for the US and NATO to make Russia a partner in any missile defense plans focused on Iranian missiles. Second, for the US to remove its approximately 180 remaining tactical nuclear weapons located in five European countries (Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey). Third, for the US and Russia to take seriously their legal obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty to pursue negotiations in good faith for an end to the nuclear arms race at an early date, for nuclear disarmament in all its aspects and for a treaty on general and complete disarmament.

We know now that a regional nuclear war would have global consequences. Atmospheric scientists have modeled a nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan in which each side used 50 Hiroshima-size nuclear weapons on the other side’s cities. Such a war would put enough soot from burning cities into the upper stratosphere to reduce warming sunlight for a decade, lowering surface temperatures on earth to the lowest levels in 1,000 years. This would result in shortened growing seasons, crop failures and famine that would kill hundreds of millions of people, perhaps a billion, throughout the world.

The scientific modeling showed that there would be a Nuclear Famine, and it would be triggered by using less than half of one percent of the world’s nuclear explosive power. Such a famine could be initiated not only by India and Pakistan, two countries that have been to war over Kashmir on several occasions, but by any of the Nuclear Nine. The US and Russia could each trigger a far more devastating Nuclear Famine by a nuclear attack on the other side’s cities, an attack which would be suicidal even if the other side did not respond in kind.

When thinking about nuclear weapons and their dangers, we would do well to remember the words of General George Lee Butler, former commander-in-chief of the United States Strategic Command, responsible for all US strategic nuclear weapons: “Nuclear weapons give no quarter. Their effects transcend time and space, poisoning the Earth and deforming its inhabitants for generation upon generation. They leave us wholly without defense, expunge all hope for survival. They hold in their sway not just the fate of nations but of civilization.”

Nuclear weapons do not protect us. Rather, they make us vulnerable to annihilation. It is relatively easy to put them out of our minds, but to do so is to evade our responsibility as citizens of the world and of nuclear-armed countries. Nuclear weapons imperil our common future – they imperil our children and their children and all children of the future. They imperil all we hold dear. We must speak out for a world without nuclear weapons. It is a moral and legal imperative and we would be well advised to act now before we are confronted with the equivalent of another Cuban Missile Crisis.

October 1, 2012
PSR Peacemaker Award to Bob Dodge

David Krieger delivered this speech at an event sponsored by Physicians for Social Responsibility – Los Angeles on September 9, 2012.

It’s great to be in a room filled with health care professionals who take seriously the challenge of healing their patients, their country and their planet.

Before I present the Peacemaker Award to Bob Dodge on behalf of Physicians for Social Responsibility, I’ve been asked to make a few remarks about the continuing dangers of nuclear weapons.

The most important thing I can tell you is this: Nuclear weapons haven’t gone away. They still threaten the very foundations of civilization. There are still over 19,000 of them in the world. The only acceptable number is zero.

Even a small nuclear war between regional powers would have global consequences. Scientists have modeled a nuclear war between India and Pakistan in which each country used 50 Hiroshima-size nuclear weapons on the other side’s cities. Using less than half of one percent of the nuclear weapons on the planet would lead to putting enough soot into the stratosphere to reduce warming sunlight, lower the surface temperatures on the planet to the lowest in 1,000 years, shorten growing seasons, cause crop failures, and bring on a global famine that would kill hundreds of millions of people, perhaps a billion people, throughout the world.

This would be a nuclear war totally beyond our control.

It is only one of the risks we run every day that we rely upon nuclear weapons to protect us. Incidentally, these weapons cannot and do not protect us. Deterrence is not defense and it is not protection. All that can be done with nuclear weapons is to threaten retaliation. And if there were a nuclear war between the US and Russia, we’re talking about an extinction event for most or all complex life on the planet.

Fifty years ago, we had the Cuban Missile Crisis and, in that crisis, we came far too close to nuclear war.

Today, we are tempting fate by moving NATO membership to the Russian borders and placing US/NATO missile defenses near the Russian borders. When Russia tells us this undermines their deterrent capability and worries them, we tell them, in essence, “Don’t worry, be happy.” This is needless provocation.

What is needed is to work together with Russia as partners to help solve the world’s great problems: climate change, environmental degradation, poverty, terrorism, human rights abuses and, of course, the abolition of nuclear weapons and deep reductions in military budgets.

No matter how powerful a country is, no one country can solve these problems alone. We need to come together as a world to solve these problems.

I could go on talking about nuclear problems with Iran, North Korea and terrorist organizations. But I won’t. I just want to leave you with the thought that nuclear weapons still have the potential to do what Physicians for Social Responsibility recognized early on – to cause “The Last Epidemic.”

Now, I want to talk about Bob Dodge. What a fantastic human being you’ve chosen for your Peacemaker Award. He is a Peacemaker with every fiber of his being.

Growing up, his father helped him to recognize that war simply does not work. The birth of his son, David, crystallized in him a passion to work for peace. He considers this work both a responsibility and an opportunity.

As far back as high school, he stood up against the Vietnam War and he has never stopped standing up and speaking out against war.

Many outstanding leaders in the anti-nuclear movement inspired him and instilled in him a sense of urgency to work for a world without nuclear weapons.

He practices family medicine in Ventura. The people of Ventura know him not only as a great family doctor. They know him, as you do, as a Peacemaker.

Every year, he informs his community how much taxpayers in Ventura are paying for nuclear weapons while basic needs for many go unmet.

Bob has been a leader in the Ventura chapter of PSR since 1985. He is a leader in Beyond War. He is a founder and leader of Citizens for Peaceful Resolutions.

He is a man of firm character and boundless enthusiasm. He is also tenacious. He doesn’t give up. He demonstrates in his life the values I most admire – compassion, commitment and courage.

I think Bob Dodge must be an amazing physician. I know from my experiences working with him over many years for a world without nuclear weapons that he is an extraordinary Peacemaker.

It’s a great pleasure to join you in honoring him tonight.

September 9, 2012
Putting U.S. Nuclear Weapons Policies on Trial in the Court of Public Opinion

The International Court of Justice, the highest and most authoritative court in the world, has stated that the use of nuclear weapons would be illegal if such use violated international humanitarian law. Failing to distinguish between civilians and combatants would be illegal, as would any use resulting in unnecessary suffering. Additionally, the Court found that any threat of such use would also be illegal. It is virtually impossible to imagine any use or threat of use that would not violate international humanitarian law.

US nuclear weapons policy fails to meet the standards of international humanitarian law and to live up to its treaty obligations in the 1970 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Until the issue of US nuclear weapons policy can be properly litigated in in a US domestic court, US policies related to the threat or use of nuclear weapons need to be put on trial in the most important court in the world, the court of public opinion. It is US citizens who may well determine the fate of the world, by their action or inaction on this most critical of all issues confronting humanity.

The Charges

1. The US has failed to fulfill its obligation to engage in good faith negotiations for nuclear disarmament.

The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty obligates the parties not only to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons to other countries, but also obligates good faith negotiations to achieve nuclear disarmament by the five nuclear weapons states parties to the treaty: the US, Russia, UK, France and China. In interpreting this part of the treaty, the International Court of Justice stated in a 1996 Advisory Opinion, “There exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control.” It has not been the policy of the United States to pursue such negotiations despite the passage of more than 40 years since this treaty entered into force and more than 20 years since the Cold War came to an end.

2. The US has failed to fulfill its obligation to engage in good faith negotiations to achieve a cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date.

The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty also obligates parties to the treaty to engage in good faith negotiations for a cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date. But rather than negotiating to bring an end to the nuclear arms race, the US has continued to modernize its nuclear weapons, their delivery systems and the infrastructure that keeps the arms race alive. Doing so has been costly, provocative and illegal under international law.

3. The US threatens the mass annihilation of the human species (omnicide).

The consequence of a large-scale nuclear war could be the extinction of most or all of the human species, along with other forms of complex life. This would be a most egregious violation of international humanitarian law. In fact, it would undermine the very foundation of the law, which is the protection of innocent individuals from harm. The indiscriminate nature of nuclear weapons and policies that threaten their use, such as nuclear deterrence policy, cannot be made to conform to the law, since any use of these weapons would cause a humanitarian disaster beyond our capacity to respond to the ensuing suffering and death.

4. The US is recklessly endangering life.

Certain policies of the United States may be viewed as recklessly endangering life on the planet. These policies include reliance on its land-based missile force, maintaining nuclear weapons on high-alert status, launch-on-warning and first use of nuclear weapons. Land-based missiles are attractive targets for attack in a time of tension between nuclear powers. Maintaining the weapons on high alert and a policy of launch-on-warning could result in a launch in response to a false warning, with all attendant consequences of retaliation and nuclear war. Although not well known to US citizens, their government has always maintained a policy of possible first use of nuclear weapons, rather than a policy of no first use.

5. The US is committing crimes against the environment (ecocide).

The effects of nuclear war and its preparations cannot be contained in either time or space. Radiation knows no boundaries and will affect countless future generations by poisoning the environment that sustains life. The effects of nuclear war on the environment would be severe and long lasting and would include – in addition to blast, fire and radiation – global nuclear famine, even from a regional nuclear war.

6. The US is committing crimes against future generations.

The future itself is put at risk by nuclear weapons policies that could lead to nuclear war, and where there are nuclear weapons the possibility of nuclear war cannot be dismissed. A nuclear war would, at best, deprive new generations of the opportunity for a flourishing and sustainable life on the planet. At worst, such a war would end civilization and foreclose the possibility of human life on Earth.

7. The US has contaminated indigenous lands.

Nuclear weapons production, testing and the storage of long-lived nuclear waste have largely taken place on the lands of indigenous peoples. The Hanford Nuclear Reservation, located on the reservation of the Yakama Indian Nation, is where the US produced the plutonium for some 60,000 nuclear weapons. It is one of the most environmentally contaminated sites on the planet and the Yakama Indians, who were granted hunting and fishing rights in perpetuity in an 1855 treaty, have suffered disproportionately. The US has also contaminated the lands of the Western Shoshone Nation and the Marshall Islands with nuclear and thermonuclear weapons tests.

8. The US has breached the trust of the international community.

The Marshall Islands were the Trust Territory of the United States from the end of World War II until they gained their independence in 1986. Between 1946 and 1958, the US tested 67 nuclear and thermonuclear weapons in the Marshall Islands with the equivalent explosive power of one-and-a-half Hiroshima-size nuclear weapons every day for 12 years. The people of the Marshall Islands who endured these tests and their offspring have suffered grave injuries, premature deaths, and displacement from their island homes, which can only be construed as a most serious breach of trusteeship of these islands. The US continues to test nuclear-capable intercontinental ballistic missiles from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California, which is on the land of the Chumash Indians, and targets most of these missiles at the Ronald Reagan Missile Defense Test Range in the Marshall Islands.

9. The US has conspicuously wasted public funds.

The public funds used to develop, manufacture, test, deploy and maintain the US nuclear arsenal and its delivery systems have been estimated to exceed $7.5 trillion. Even now, more than 20 years after the end of the Cold War, the government continues to spend $60 to $70 billion annually and plans to maintain this level for the next decade. These funds have been taken from the resources that could have been used to feed the hungry, house the homeless, provide education for our children and help restore our infrastructure and our economic well-being.

10. The US has conspired to commit international crimes and to cover them up by silence.

US nuclear weapons policy threatens each of the three major Nuremberg Tribunal crimes: crimes against peace, war crimes and crimes against humanity. The US government and major US media have conspired to prevent a full and open public discussion of nuclear weapons crimes. Why are the US government and US mainstream media silent about these crimes? Why is the mainstream media so accepting of US nuclear weapons policy, which threatens the destruction of civilization? This conspiracy of silence has helped to assure the complacency of the American people.

Conclusion

Current US nuclear weapons policy is illegal, immoral and runs a high risk of resulting in nuclear catastrophe. We cannot wait until there is a nuclear war before we act to rid the world of these weapons of mass annihilation. The US should be the leader in this effort, rather than an obstacle to its realization. It is up to the court of public opinion to assure that the US asserts this leadership. The time to act is now.

August 31, 2012
2012 Sadako Peace Day Message

Today marks the 67th anniversary of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima. It is the anniversary of a bombing that targeted school children, pre-school children and infants, as well as women and the elderly.

When you think of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, think of innocent children.

Sadako was such a child, only two years old when the bomb exploded over Hiroshima. As she grew older, she became a bright student and a fast runner, but ten years after the bombing she was hospitalized with radiation-induced leukemia.

Japanese legend has it that one’s wish will be granted by folding 1,000 paper cranes. Sadako folded these paper cranes in the hope of fulfilling her wish to regain her health and achieve a peaceful world. She wrote this poem, “I will write peace on your wings and you will fly all over the world.”

Sadako’s life was cut short by the bomb, but her dream of peace has lived on. She did not live to become a wife, mother and grandmother. She did not live to fulfill her dreams. But her memory has lived on in the hearts of children around the globe. Today there is a statue of Sadako in Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park, and throughout the world people express their wish for peace by folding paper cranes.

Today we gather in this beautiful peace garden named for Sadako and commemorate the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki with our 18th annual Sadako Peace Day. We remember Sadako and the countless innocent victims of war and renew our commitment to abolishing nuclear weapons and ending war as a human institution.

This may seem utopian, but it is also necessary. It is our common responsibility and it is the daily work of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

The Secretary-General of the United Nations sent this message to Hiroshima today:

“The elimination of nuclear weapons is not just a visionary goal, but the most reliable way to prevent their future use.

“People understand that nuclear weapons cannot be used without indiscriminate effects on civilian populations….

“Such weapons have no legitimate place in our world. Their elimination is both morally right and a practical necessity in protecting humanity.

“The more countries view nuclear weapons as unacceptable and illegitimate, the easier it will be to solve related problems such as proliferation or their acquisition and use by terrorists….

“In remembering those lost, in recognizing the hibakusha, and in considering the legacy we will leave to future generations, I urge all here today to continue your noble work for a nuclear-weapon-free world.”

We are honored to have present today a survivor of the Hiroshima bombing, Kikuko Otake, who will share with us her memories of what she experienced as a young child. We also have wonderful poets and musicians and a beautiful, quiet garden for reflection.

Thank you for being with us today and for your compassion for those who have been the victims of war, your commitment to building a more peaceful world free of nuclear weapons, and your courage to take action to change the world.

August 6, 2012
Were the Atomic Bombings Necessary?

On August 14, 1945, Japan surrendered and World War II was over. American policy makers have argued that the atomic bombs were the precipitating cause of the surrender. Historical studies of the Japanese decision, however, reveal that what the Japanese were most concerned with was the Soviet Union’s entry into the war. Japan surrendered with the understanding that the emperor system would be retained. The US agreed to do what Truman had been advised to do before the bombings: it signaled to the Japanese that they would be allowed to retain the emperor. This has left historians to speculate that the war could have ended without either the use of the two atomic weapons on Japanese cities or an Allied invasion of Japan.

The US Strategic Bombing Survey concluded that, even without the use of the atomic bombs, without the Soviet Union entering the war and without an Allied invasion of Japan, the war would have ended before December 31, 1945 and, in all likelihood, before November 1, 1945. Prior to the use of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the US was destroying Japanese cities at will with conventional bombs. The Japanese were offering virtually no resistance. The US dropped atomic bombs on a nation that had been largely defeated and some of whose leaders were seeking terms of surrender.

Despite strong evidence that the atomic bombings were not responsible for ending the war with Japan, most Americans, particularly those who lived through World War II, believe that they were. Many World War II era servicemen who were in the Pacific or anticipated being shipped there believed that the bombs saved them from fighting hard battles on the shores of Japan, as had been fought on the islands of Iwo Jima and Okinawa. What they did not take into account was that the Japanese were trying to surrender, that the US had broken the Japanese codes and knew they were trying to surrender, and that, had the US accepted their offer, the war could have ended without the use of the atomic bombs.

Most high ranking Allied military leaders were appalled by the use of the atomic bombs. General Eisenhower, the Supreme Commander of Allied Forces Europe, recognized that Japan was ready to surrender and said, “It wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.” General Hap Arnold, commander of the US Army Air Corps pointed out, “Atomic bomb or no atomic bomb, the Japanese were already on the verge of collapse.”

Admiral William Leahy, Truman’s chief of staff, put it this way: “The use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender. In being the first to use it, we adopted an ethical standard common to barbarians of the Dark Ages. Wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.”

What Truman had described as “the greatest thing in history” was actually, according to his own military leaders, an act of unparalleled cowardice, the mass annihilation of men, women and children. The use of the atomic bombs was the culmination of an air war fought against civilians in Germany and Japan, an air war that showed increasing contempt for the lives of civilians and for the laws of war.

The end of the war was a great relief to those who had fought for so long. There were nuclear scientists, though, who now regretted what they had created and how their creations had been used. One of these was Leo Szilard, the Hungarian émigré physicist who had warned Einstein of the possibility of the Germans creating an atomic weapon first and of the need for the US to begin a bomb project. Szilard had convinced Einstein to send a letter of warning to Roosevelt, which led at first to a small project to explore the potential of uranium to sustain a chain reaction and then to the Manhattan Project that resulted in the creation of the first atomic weapons.

Szilard did his utmost to prevent the bomb from being used against Japanese civilians. He wanted to meet with President Franklin Roosevelt, but Roosevelt died on April 12, 1945. He next tried to meet with the new president, Harry Truman, but Truman sent him to Spartanburg, South Carolina to talk with his mentor in the Senate, Jimmy Byrnes, who was dismissive of Szilard. Szilard then tried to organize the scientists in the Manhattan Project to appeal for a demonstration of the bomb rather than immediately using it on a Japanese city. The appeal was stalled by General Leslie Groves, the head of the Manhattan Project, and did not reach President Truman until after the atomic bombs were used.

The use of the bomb caused many other scientists to despair as well. Albert Einstein deeply regretted that he had written to President Roosevelt. He did not work on the Manhattan Project, but he had used his influence to encourage the start of the American bomb project. Einstein, like Szilard, believed that the purpose of the U.S. bomb project was to deter the use of a German bomb. He was shocked that, once created, the bomb was used offensively against the Japanese. Einstein would spend the remaining ten years of his life speaking out against the bomb and seeking its elimination. He famously said, “The unleashed power of the atom has changed everything except our modes of thinking, and thus we drift toward unparalleled catastrophe.”

July 30, 2012