Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Category: Articles by David Krieger

  • Admiral Noel Gayler: Dispelling Nuclear Illusions

    David KriegerAdm. Noel Gayler, a World War II Navy pilot who later rose to the rank of four-star admiral and served as Commander-in-Chief of the US Pacific Command in the 1970s, died on July 14 at the age of 96. Adm. Gayler was one of the most prominent US military leaders to publicly call for the abolition of nuclear weapons and put forward a proposal to achieve this goal.


    Adm. Gayler’s proposal, published in December 2000 by the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, presents a sober assessment of the dangers that nuclear weapons pose to humanity and calls for the total elimination of these weapons.  His assessment was influenced by viewing Hiroshima from the air only six days after its devastation on August 6, 1945 by a US nuclear weapon.  He also witnessed the atmospheric testing of thermonuclear weapons in the Marshall Islands in the 1960s. 


    In his proposal, Adm. Gayler dispels some common illusions concerning the military value of nuclear weapons. These include:



    • Physical defense against nuclear weapons is possible;
    • Nuclear weapons can be used in a sensible manner;
    • Nuclear disarmament imperils our security; and
    • Nuclear deterrence is an effective defense.

    “With these illusions dispelled,” Adm. Gayler stated, “it becomes evident that nuclear disarmament works to the advantage of every power.  Only in this way can the world be made safe from unprecedented murder and destruction.”


    The central thesis of Adm. Gayler’s proposal is that US and global security would be vastly enhanced by the total elimination of nuclear weapons.  The proposal states, “An irony is that in developing and using nuclear weapons, we, the United States, have done the only thing capable of threatening our own national security.”


    Adm. Gayler’s proposal involves the delivery of all nuclear weapons to a central point, where they would be irreversibly dismantled.  Adm. Gayler’s passing provides an appropriate moment to revisit his vision and proposal to achieve a nuclear weapon-free world.


    ___________________________________________


    A Proposal for Achieving Zero Nuclear Weapons
    by Admiral Noel Gayler, US Navy (Ret.)*, December 2000


    It is conceded by all hands that we stand at some continuing risk of nuclear war. The risk is possibly not imminent, but it is basically important above all else — for survival. The Defense and Energy Departments together have made promising starts to reduce possession of nuclear weapons, but far more and much faster action is needed.


    Credible report has it that weapons are adrift, potentially available to irresponsible regimes and to terrorists. Independent development by them is not needed to establish threat. The peculiar characteristic of nuclear weaponry is that relative numbers between adversaries mean little. When a target country can be destroyed by a dozen weapons, its own possession of thousands of weapons gains no security. Defense against ballistic missiles is infeasible. What is more, it is irrelevant. Half a dozen non-technical means of delivery are available, in addition to cruise missiles and aircraft.


    The recognized and awful dangers of other weapons of mass destruction, such as chemical and biological, do not compare to nuclear, despite their vileness. On the tremendous and incredible scale of killing, the others are retail as compared to the nuclear’s wholesale; but there need not be competition since all can be — must be — addressed concurrently.


    Drafting a successor to the nuclear arms treaty is purportedly underway. If START III repeats the mistakes of the past, it may well bog down into haggling over relative numbers. More productive can be a process continuing toward total nuclear disarmament, the only way in which both we and the world may be truly secure from nuclear destruction.


    An irony is that in developing and using nuclear weapons, we, the United States, have done the only thing capable of threatening our own national security. We have comparatively weak and friendly neighbors to the north and south, control of the seas, and a powerful air and combat-tested armed forces. We are proof that this in no way diminishes the need, as the world’s single greatest power, for Army, Navy, Air, and Marines capable not only of our own defense, but of intervention abroad in the interest of peace and human rights. These forces do not come into being overnight, but need to be continually developed and supported. The argument for a nuclear component is no longer valid. The time is now for a concrete proposal that meets the problem. Process, as opposed to negotiating numbers, is the basic principle of the proposal that I suggest. It is nothing less than drastic: the continuing reduction to zero of weapons in the hands of avowed nuclear powers, plus an end to the nuclear ambitions of others.


    The proposal: Let weapons be delivered to a single point, there to be dismantled, the nuclear material returned to the donors for use or disposal, and the weapons destroyed. This process, once underway, will be nearly impossible to stop, since its obvious merits, political and substantive, will compel support. The “single point” may well be a floating platform, at sea, in international waters. A handy platform can be an aircraft carrier that has been removed from “mothballs” and disarmed, yet capable of steaming to the desired location and operating support aircraft and ships to handle heavier loads. Living quarters for personnel, ships company, and disarmament processors, would be integral, as would be major protected spaces.


    The US, of course, is the obvious source of a carrier, but there could be international manning, following the precedent of NATO. This would make the American ship politically palatable to the participants and Russia would be handled sensitively. Obvious and major advantages of security, inspection, availability, timing, and cost would ensue. Those regimes and groups not initially participating can be put under enormous pressure to join. Any remaining recalcitrant can be disarmed militarily, this time with a concert of powers. The need for persuasion and understanding of the participating powers is, of course, fundamental, and probably the most difficult requirement to meet. To meet this need of public understanding and consequent action, domestic and foreign, will require that we dispel some common illusions, such as:



    • Is physical defense against nuclear weapons possible? No. What’s more, it’s irrelevant. A half dozen non-technical means of delivery avail.
    • Can nuclear weapons be used in any sensible manner? No. This includes “tactical.”
    • Does nuclear disarmament imperil our security? No. It enhances it.
    • Is deterrence of nuclear or other attack by threat of retaliation still possible? No. The many potential aggressors are scattered — even location unknown. No targets!

    With these illusions dispelled, it becomes evident that nuclear disarmament works to the advantage of every power. Only in this way can the world be made safe from unprecedented murder and destruction. It remains to take the necessary actions. They are feasible and imperative.


    Admiral Noel Gayler (US Navy, Ret.) was a four-star admiral and served as Commander-in-Chief, Pacific Command (CINCPAC). He was responsible for nuclear attack tactical development and demonstration of nuclear attack tactics to the Chairman and Joint Chiefs.

  • A Face of War: 12 Year-Old Ali

    David KriegerWe are preparing a new poetry collection of the winning poems in the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s Barbara Mandigo Kelly Peace Poetry Awards.  Going through these poems has made me think about the many faces of war.  There are the faces of the leaders who choose to go to war.  There are the faces of the soldiers who fight in the wars.  There are the faces of loved ones left behind.  And, most powerful, there are the faces of the victims of war.  In general, the faces of the leaders are smug and certain; the faces of the soldiers are young and determined; the faces of the loved ones left behind are distracted and worried; and the faces of the victims are twisted in agony and death.

    The Foundation gives poetry awards in three categories: adults, youth (13–18) and children (12 and under).  One of the first place poems in the children’s category is about a young Iraqi boy named Ali Ismail Abbas.  Ali was 12 years old when tragedy struck his home in the form of US guided missiles, killing his father, his pregnant mother, his brother and 13 other family members.  Ali survived, after the amputation of both of his arms.  He had wanted to become a doctor.

    Daniel Amoss wrote this short poem about Ali:

    I saw his picture.
    War is a 12-year-old boy
    With no arms, brown eyes.

    His poem captures so much.  It reveals the brown eyes (soft? tearful? frightened?) of a boy whose family and whose dreams were destroyed by war.

    I remember reading about Ali in 2003 when the story of his loss was covered in the media.  It was a devastating story of the horrors of war; in this case, of the unintended horrors of war.  I wrote this poem:
    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
    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.
    I wrote from the skeptical perspective of the cynics who justify the unjustifiable: “They are smart bombs, but they didn’t know/ you wanted to be a doctor.”  No, our bombs are not so smart.  And those who go along with the justifications for war are not so brave.  And those who make war, who choose force over reason, are not so wise.  Most often those who lead us into war pay no price, as do their victims such as Ali Ismail Abbas.  We would do well to remember Ali’s 12-year-old face, with its brown eyes, and his shattered dreams the next time a leader tries to sell us on a war.

  • An Open Letter to Graduates

    Dear Graduates,


    David KriegerHaving received a college degree, you are among the 6.7 percent of the world’s most educated elite.  If your education has been a good one, you are likely to have more questions than answers.  If your education has been mediocre, you are likely to think you have more answers than questions. 


    Did you have a chance in college to ponder these questions: What does it mean to be human?  Why are we here on Earth?  What are the greatest goals one can pursue in life?  What are the keys to a happy and fulfilled life?  If you didn’t, it’s not too late.


    You may have taken many introductory courses during your college years, but was there a course on Global Survival 101?  If not, you may not be prepared to make a difference in ending the great dangers to humanity in the 21st century. 


    Do you know how many nuclear weapons there are in the world?  Do you know which countries possess them?  Do you know what nuclear weapons do to cities?  Do you know whether these weapons are legal or illegal under international law?  Do you know whether they could end civilization and the human species?


    Do you know about the Nuremberg Principles, those that were derived from the tribunals at Nuremberg that held the Nazi leaders to account after World War II?  Do you know that these principles apply not just to Nazi leaders, but to all leaders who commit heinous crimes under international law?  Do you know what those crimes are? 


    Have you studied the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?  Do you know to whom these rights apply?  Do you know that these rights encompass economic and social rights as well as political and civil rights?


    Do you know that we all live on a single fragile planet and that we humans are the caretakers and stewards of this planet, not only for ourselves, but for future generations yet unborn?


    Do you realize that you are about to enter a world of vast inequities, as measured in money, health and happiness?  Do you understand that throughout the world there are more than a billion people who are malnourished and go to bed hungry every night?  Can you comprehend that in our world there are still 25,000 children who die daily of starvation and preventable diseases?


    Does your education lead you to believe that money will buy happiness?  It may buy fancy material things, and even status, but it is unlikely that it will buy happiness or fulfillment in life.  Caring for others and living with compassion, commitment and courage offers a far surer path to a fulfilled and happy life.


    Graduating from college is a commencement, not an ending.  It is a commencement into responsibility for one’s society and one’s world.  Exercising this responsibility is a daily task, a necessary and never-ending task.  It is a task that will require further education, outside the college classroom, but inside the multiversity of life. 


    The world needs to change.  We cannot continue to teeter on the precipice of nuclear and ecological disasters.  We cannot continue to exist divided into those who live in abundance and those who live in scarcity.  We cannot allow the greed of the few to overwhelm the need of the many.  We cannot continue to exploit the planet’s finite resources, in effect, stealing from the future.  We cannot continue to draw lines on the planet and separate ourselves into warring factions. 


    For the world to change, new peace leaders and change makers will be needed.  The first and most important questions you must ask yourself in your new role as graduates are these: Will I be one of the peace leaders and change makers, devoting myself to building a better world?  Or, will I choose to be detached and complacent in the face of the 21st century’s social, economic, political and military threats to humanity? 


    As the little prince, in Antoine de Saint-Exupéry’s book by that name, stated so clearly, “It’s a matter of discipline….  When you’ve finished washing and dressing each morning, you must tend your planet.”  Look around.  Our beautiful planet needs a lot of tending.

  • How Many Nuclear Weapons Still Threaten Humanity?

    David KriegerThe Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) is one of the most authoritative institutes in the world on issues of war and peace. The recently-released 2011 SIPRI Yearbook provides estimates of the number of nuclear weapons in the world.  It finds that only four countries have deployed nuclear warheads, by which it means warheads placed on missiles or located on bases with operational forces. Two of these countries are the US and Russia, which have 2,150 and 2,427 deployed nuclear weapons, respectively. Under the terms of the New Start agreement, ratified in 2010, each country is required to reduce the number of deployed strategic warheads to 1,550 by the year 2017. The other two countries with deployed nuclear weapons, according to SIPRI, are the UK with 160 deployed weapons and France with 290 deployed weapons. 


    The total number of deployed nuclear weapons in the world stands at 5,027 in 2011. Of these, SIPRI estimates that some 2,000 are kept on high operational alert, ready to be fired within moments of an order to do so.


    In addition to its deployed nuclear weapons, the US has 6,350 additional weapons for a total of 8,500. Russia has 8,570 additional weapons for a total of 11,000. The UK has an additional 65 weapons for a total of 225. France has an additional 10, for a total of 300. Four other countries have only non-deployed nuclear weapons, according to SIPRI: China with 240; India with 80-100; Pakistan with 90-110; and Israel with 80. 


    SIPRI does not list North Korea among the countries having a stockpile of nuclear weapons, although relatively small nuclear devices have been tested by North Korea in 2006 and 2009. SIPRI acknowledges that there is a widespread belief that North Korea has separated enough plutonium for a small number of nuclear weapons, but indicates there is controversy over the amount of plutonium they have separated and the yield of their nuclear tests. They also point out that “doubts persist about whether North Korea has the design and engineering skills needed to manufacture a fully functional operational nuclear weapon.” It seems highly likely to me, however, that North Korea possesses a small number of nuclear weapons and is the ninth nuclear weapon state.


    Between 2010 and 2011, the US reduced its nuclear stockpile from 9,600 to 8,500. During the same period, Russia reduced its stockpile from 12,000 to 11,000. While the US and Russia were reducing their arsenals, the UK, France, China and Israel were holding steady at lower levels. India and Pakistan, on the other hand, were increasing the sizes of their arsenals: India from 60-80 to 80-110, and Pakistan from 70-90 to 90-110. Overall, the total number of nuclear weapons in the world decreased from 22,600 to 20,530. 


    The trends are these: modest reductions by the US and Russia, indicating a continuing commitment to maintaining their nuclear arsenals at a relatively high level of overkill; no reductions by the UK, France, China and Israel, indicating a continuing commitment to retaining their arsenals at current levels, at least until more substantial progress in reductions is made by the US and Russia; and increases in the arsenals of India and Pakistan, indicating a continuing nuclear arms race in South Asia. 


    The modest reductions made by the US and Russia and the further reductions agreed to by the two countries in the New START agreement are offset by their commitments to modernizing their nuclear arsenals and improving their systems of delivery. A SIPRI media statement pointed out that “both countries currently are deploying new nuclear weapon delivery systems or have announced programs to do so, and appear determined to retain their nuclear arsenals into the indefinite future.”


    Regarding India and Pakistan, the SIPRI statement pointed out that they “continue to develop new ballistic and cruise missile systems capable of delivering nuclear weapons” and that both countries “are also expanding their capacities to produce fissile material for military purposes.” Other experts have done simulations of a nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan with 100 Hiroshima-size nuclear weapons and have estimated that it could lead to a blocking of sunlight and lowering of temperatures, causing widespread drought and crop failure, resulting in some one billion deaths around the world.


    While there are some ten percent fewer nuclear weapons in the world from 2010 to 2011, it is not time to breathe a sigh of relief at what has been accomplished. The overall trend is toward fewer nuclear weapons, but weapons and delivery systems that are more highly modernized – what the US refers to for itself as a “safe, secure and effective nuclear stockpile.” In reality, the only type of stockpile that will meet the criteria of being “safe, secure and effective” will be a global stockpile of zero nuclear weapons. Any number other than zero will continue to present unacceptable risks to humanity. What is needed now is a new treaty, a Nuclear Weapons Convention, for the “safe, secure and effective” elimination of all nuclear weapons. The US and Russia, the countries with the largest nuclear arsenals, should be providing the leadership to achieve this goal. 

  • What Nuclear Weapons Teach Us About Ourselves

    David KriegerNuclear weapons are the most fearsome and destructive killing devices yet created by the human species.  They have the capacity to destroy cities, countries and civilization.  Yet, although these weapons give rise to some concern and worry, most humans on the planet are complacent about the inherent dangers of these weapons.  It is worth exploring what our seeming indifference toward these weapons of mass annihilation teaches us about ourselves, and how we might remedy our malaise.


    1. We are ill-informed.  We appear to go about our daily lives with a self-assured degree of comfort that we will not be affected by the dangers of the weapons.  We need more education about the extreme dangers and risks posed by nuclear weapons.


    2. We are tribal.  We divide ourselves into national tribes and identify with our own tribe while demonizing “the other.”  We need to be more global in our thinking.  We need to think as members of the human species, not as members of a national tribe.


    3. We are self-serving.  We see our own nuclear weapons and those of our allies as being positive and useful, while we view the nuclear weapons of our enemies as being negative and harmful.  We need to realize that nuclear weapons, as instruments of indiscriminate mass destruction, are illegal, immoral and dangerous in any hands, including our own.


    4. We are arrogant.  We seem to take perverse pride in our cleverness at having created such overwhelmingly powerful weapons.  We need to take pride in constructive uses of our science-based technologies, and recognize the inherent dangers and immorality of their destructive uses.


    5. We are pathological.  We rely for our protection upon these weapons that threaten to kill millions of innocent civilians.  We need to realize that true security cannot be based upon the threat of mass murder of innocents.


    6. We are deluded.  We believe that we will not survive threats from “the other” if we do not rely upon these weapons of mass annihilation for our security.  We need to engage “the other” in dialogue until we realize that our common humanity supersedes our differences, and our common future demands our unity.


    7. We are reckless.  We are willing to bet the human species and the human future that we can keep these weapons under control.  We need to stop playing Russian roulette with the human future.


    8. We are foolish.  We trust our leaders to act responsibly, so as to keep nuclear weapons under control.  We need to realize that this is too great a responsibility for any person and that all leaders do not act responsibly at all times.


    9. We are timid.  We do not challenge the status quo, which gives rise to such extreme dangers.  We need to confront the challenges posed by nuclear weapons and give voice to our legitimate fears of the weapons themselves.


    10. We are adolescent.  As a species, we have not matured to the point of taking responsibility for, and directly confronting, the nuclear threat to ourselves and future generations.  We need to grow up and take responsibility to assure our common future for ourselves and generations yet unborn.


    Individually and collectively, we are threatened by nuclear weapons in the arsenals of nine countries. If we fail to act expeditiously to abolish these arsenals, the consequence is likely to be nuclear weapons proliferation to other countries and eventually their use.  The question that confronts humanity is: Can we end the nuclear era and ensure our survival as a species?  To do this, we will need to change our thinking about the weapons and about ourselves.  I think this is what Albert Einstein was alluding to when he said, “The unleashed power of the atom has changed everything save our modes of thinking, and thus we drift toward unparalleled catastrophe.”  Preventing such catastrophes must begin with changing our thinking, followed by engaging in actions to end the danger.  Species-wide threats must be faced with species-wide awareness and engagement.


    The further question that awaits an answer, assuming we can change our modes of thinking, is whether we are sufficiently powerful to control and eliminate the threats posed by the weapons.  Individually we are not and nationally we are not.  But collectively and globally we have the potential to assert a constructive power for change that is far greater than the destructive power of the weapons themselves.

  • Archbishop Desmond Tutu

    David KriegerOne of the strong focuses of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation is Peace Leadership. Since the creation of the Foundation, we have encouraged leadership for peace and tried to shine a light on it. For 28 years, we have given an annual award for Distinguished Peace Leadership to some of the greatest Peace Leaders of our time. In giving these awards, our purpose has been not only to honor outstanding peace leaders, but to inspire others, particularly young people, to greater commitment in building a more peaceful and decent world. 


    In 1990, we had the great pleasure of honoring Archbishop Tutu. Actually, the honor we bestowed upon him paled in comparison to the honor he bestowed upon us by accepting. His acceptance speech upon receiving our award was entitled “God’s Dream,” and was published in the Foundation’s anthology, Waging Peace II. 


    In his acceptance speech, Archbishop Tutu pointed out, “A minute fraction of what nations spend on their budgets of death would be enough to ensure that children everywhere had adequate housing, a clean supply of water, adequate health facilities, and proper education. People would live with a sense of fulfillment and not labor under stressful anxiety that is caused by the uncertainties of what the future holds. Many, especially young people, ask whether life is worth living when it is lived under the shadow of the mushroom cloud.” 


    Though more than 20 years have passed since he uttered those words and since the Cold War ended, we and our children continue to live under that mushroom cloud and we continue to spend vast amounts globally on our militaries rather than on our common good. We fight unnecessary wars and develop new instruments of long-distance killing rather than building a world we can be proud to pass on to our children.


    Archbishop Tutu is one of the great men of our time. He played a leading role in the movement to end apartheid in South Africa. He then led the post-apartheid Truth and Reconciliation Commission, bringing a new process for healing to his country and to the world. The world badly needs such social innovation to keep pace with the technological innovations that have put civilization and humankind in danger of annihilation.


    For over 20 years, the Archbishop has served on the Advisory Council of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, where he has offered his advice and support. In 2002, Archbishop Tutu wrote the foreword for an anthology connected with the Foundation’s twentieth anniversary, Hope in a Dark Time. In his foreword, he wrote:


    “I have had many blessings in my life. One of the greatest of these has been to witness the power of forgiveness. In the aftermath of the apartheid regime in South Africa, we chose the path of forgiveness and reconciliation. As the Chair of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, I learned first-hand the transformative nature of forgiveness. It is a power that can cleanse the human heart and free us from hatred and bloodlust. I am convinced there is no future without forgiveness, and in forgiveness there is hope we can put an end to wars and violence.”


    Archbishop Tutu is the Archbishop emeritus of Capetown. Among his many honors, he is a Nobel Peace Laureate. He is a humble and decent man, a man who makes us proud of our common humanity and inspires us to be better and to build a better world. 

  • How Wars Are Made

    David KriegerThe first step is always to prepare for war by making weapons and teaching young people to march, turn on command to the left and to the right, and fire their weapons at pop-up enemies.


    The second step is to find a suitable enemy.  This has never been difficult.  Any country, any group can be turned into an enemy with the right approach.  It is only a matter of perspective.   


    The third step is to dehumanize the enemy, the less human the better.  Enemies should never have normal human feelings, such as love, compassion and sorrow.  They must be made to seem stripped of such capacities and turned into grotesque and mean-spirited monsters. 


    The fourth step is to inspire our young people to kill the enemy.  This is not hard and is best done with flags, parades and appeals to country and heroism.  The young should be excited to kill.  They will be killing the killers who want to kill them.


    The beauty of the system is that it is perpetual.  By sending out our young men and women to kill the enemy, we will be making new enemies, justifying our need to prepare for war.  And as the enemy sends out their young to kill ours, they will be confirming our belief in their inhumanity.

  • Earth Day

    David KriegerI keep thinking that Earth Day should be about something far more profound than recycling.  Not that recycling isn’t good.  It’s just not good enough.  We humans are destroying our earth: using up its topsoil, devouring its precious resources, polluting its air and water, altering its climate.  And we are bombing and shelling the earth and each other with our wasteful and destructive military technologies.  In short, we are behaving extremely badly and fouling our own nest.  And we are doing this not only to ourselves, but to future generations.

    Earth Day should be a spiritual day, a day of appreciation and thanksgiving for the earth’s abundance and beauty.  We should stand in awe of the miracle of the earth and its myriad forms of life, including ourselves.  We should kneel before the majesty and uniqueness of our planet.  We should be humbled by the gift of this water planet and treat it with the care and love it deserves, not only on Earth Day, but every day.

    How did we become destroyers of our planetary home, rather than its guardians?  How did we become the spoilers of the future, rather than its trustees?  We did it in part with our arbitrary lines that we call borders.  We did it with our greed and selfishness, and with our lack of wonder and our lost hope.  We did it by our unquenchable thirst for more and more, and by losing sight of fairness and decency.  We did it by taking and not giving back.  What is destroying the earth?  It is us, and only us, collectively.

    We seem to care more for material things than we do for each other.  We associate richness with an abundance of things, and poverty with a scarcity of things.  We are losing the arts of contemplation, communication, and care.  We are failing in courage, compassion and commitment.  Earth Day could be a beginning point in time for becoming who we could be: vibrant and creative citizens of earth, living in joy and harmony with the earth and each other.  What can save the earth?  It is us, and only us, collectively.

    We live in the Nuclear Age, and nuclear weapons are the ultimate symbol of our lost connection to the earth, ourselves and each other.  We have reached the point in our evolution, or devolution, at which we are willing to destroy the planet to provide ourselves with the illusion of security.  Why don’t we commit this Earth Day to ending the nuclear weapons threat to humanity and all life?  Why don’t we bring the Nuclear Age to an end and begin a new age of dignity, decency, responsibility and respect for life?

    *To read the Universal Declaration of the Rights of Mother Earth, click here.

    Vaya aquí para la versión española.

  • Nuclear Disarmament Education

    What is nuclear disarmament education?


    David KriegerThe short answer to this question is that it is education that either reports on or promotes nuclear disarmament.  Reporting on nuclear disarmament is journalistic.  It tells what has happened, is happening or is expected to happen in the nuclear disarmament field.  Reporting on nuclear disarmament is the way the subject might be handled in a college classroom or in a news article.  It provides historical perspective, but often a nationalistic one. 


    The promotion of nuclear disarmament is far more difficult and also far more important.  It involves attempting to shift mindsets and cultural frameworks.  There are many myths about nuclear weapons that must be overcome before one can effectively promote nuclear disarmament. 


    Five Myths about Nuclear Weapons
     
    1. The use of nuclear weapons ended World War II. (Their use coincided with the end of World War II, but did not cause it.  The Japanese surrendered because the Soviet Union entered the war against them.)


    2. Nuclear weapons have prevented war since their creation. (Again, causality is an issue.  Despite nuclear weapons, there have been many wars since their creation.)


    3. No country will actually use nuclear weapons. (Countries have come very close to using nuclear weapons, by accident or design, on many occasions.)


    4. Nuclear weapons make a country more secure. (Arguably, nuclear weapons make a country far less secure.  All countries with nuclear weapons are targeted by the nuclear weapons of other countries.)


    5. Nuclear weapons are effective for deterrence. (Nuclear deterrence is only a theory.  It is not proven, and it may fail catastrophically.)


    Before people will support nuclear disarmament, they must be educated to believe that nuclear disarmament is in their interest.  Some people must be moved from their support for nuclear weapons and nuclear deterrence to support for nuclear disarmament. Other people, probably a far larger category, must be moved from complacency to support nuclear disarmament.  Education must be aimed at overcoming ignorance and apathy to awaken and engage people in action for nuclear disarmament.  In this sense, education must also be advocacy. 


    Much nuclear disarmament education comes from governments and political leaders, and it is quite limited in its vision.  It seeks incremental steps in arms control rather than disarmament or abolition.  Arms control can be viewed as a way to maintain nuclear arms at somewhat lower levels.  I prefer to talk and write about reasons to oppose or abolish nuclear weapons. 


    Ten Reasons to Oppose Nuclear Weapons


    1. They are long-distance killing machines incapable of discriminating between soldiers and civilians, the aged and the newly born, or between men, women and children.   As such, they are instruments of dehumanization as well as annihilation.


    2. They threaten the destruction of cities, countries and civilization; of all that is sacred, of all that is human, of all that exists.  Nuclear war could cause deadly climate change, putting human existence at risk. 


    3. They threaten to foreclose the future, negating our common responsibility to future generations.


    4. They make cowards of their possessors, and in their use there can be no decency or honor.  This was recognized by most of the leading US military leaders of World War II, including General Dwight Eisenhower, General Hap Arnold, and Admiral William Leahy. 


    5. They divide the world’s nations into nuclear “haves” and “have-nots,” bestowing false and unwarranted prestige and privilege on those that possess them. 


    6. They are a distortion of science and technology, siphoning off our scientific and technological resources and twisting our knowledge of nature to destructive purposes.  


    7. They mock international law, displacing it with an allegiance to raw power.  The International Court of Justice has ruled that the threat or use of nuclear weapons is generally illegal and any use that violated international humanitarian law would be illegal.  It is virtually impossible to imagine a threat or use of nuclear weapons that would not violate international humanitarian law (fail to discriminate between soldiers and civilians, cause unnecessary suffering or be disproportionate to a preceding attack). 


    8. They waste our resources on the development of instruments of annihilation.  The United States alone has spent over $7.5 trillion on nuclear weapons and their delivery systems since the onset of the Nuclear Age.


    9. They concentrate power in the hands of a small group of individuals and, in doing so, undermine democracy.


    10. They are morally abhorrent, as recognized by virtually every religious organization, and their mere existence corrupts our humanity. 


    These ten reasons to abolish nuclear weapons attempt to change a person’s mindset to become receptive to seeking the abolition of these weapons.


    How can we engage in nuclear disarmament education?


    Disarmament education generally takes place in the public arena, and thus is often dominated by the narrow and self-interested views of political leaders.  In a world of nuclear “haves” and “have-nots,” it is often the nuclear “haves” that dominate the debate.  But it is the nuclear “have-nots,” along with civil society that see the dangers of nuclear weapons most clearly and who promote nuclear disarmament. 


    Let me describe some of disarmament education activities of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, an organization that I helped to found 28 years ago and where I have served as president since its founding.  Here are some of the educational activities we engage in to make the case for nuclear disarmament and the abolition of nuclear weapons:


    1. Appeals, Declarations and Petitions (our latest Declaration is the Santa Barbara Declaration – Reject Nuclear Deterrence: An Urgent Call to Action)
    2. Newspaper opinion pieces and magazine articles
    3. Books, book chapters and briefing booklets
    4. Websites (WagingPeace.org and NuclearFiles.org)
    5. A monthly e-newsletter, The Sunflower
    6. Public lectures and other events
    7. Essay and video contests
    8. Poetry contests
    9. Peace leadership awards
    10. An Action Alert Network
    11. Peace leadership trainings


    You can find out more about these educational activities and sign up for them at www.wagingpeace.org.  


    The task of nuclear disarmament education is clearly not an easy one, but it is a necessary one.  Nuclear disarmament will require an informed public, and an informed public will require education to stir them from their ignorance and apathy.  To accomplish this will continue to require a great deal of creativity, as well as insistence and persistence to move both the public and political leaders to action.  Civil society organizations are in the vanguard in this critical educational effort.

  • Somehow

    “Somehow this madness must cease.”
    –Martin Luther King, Jr.

    David KriegerSomehow, like a small stunned bird
    cupped in your hands with its heart racing,
    is a word of hope or desperation,

    carrying a moral burden, a Sisyphean burden,
    to do whatever is possible, before
    it is too late.

    Might we not somehow awaken,
    open our eyes, stand up in the face of madness
    and, even with trembling legs

    and a fluttering heart, comfort
    the small bird until it can spread its wings
    and fly away?

    It is a delicate task to set aside
    the blanket of complacency, to somehow,
    as he did, clutch courage to your breast.

    David Krieger
    March 2011