Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Category: Articles by David Krieger

  • Prospects for Denuclearization

    Prospects for Denuclearization

    [fusion_builder_container hundred_percent=”no” equal_height_columns=”no” menu_anchor=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” background_color=”” background_image=”” background_position=”center center” background_repeat=”no-repeat” fade=”no” background_parallax=”none” parallax_speed=”0.3″ video_mp4=”” video_webm=”” video_ogv=”” video_url=”” video_aspect_ratio=”16:9″ video_loop=”yes” video_mute=”yes” overlay_color=”” video_preview_image=”” border_size=”” border_color=”” border_style=”solid” padding_top=”” padding_bottom=”” padding_left=”” padding_right=””][fusion_builder_row][fusion_builder_column type=”1_1″ layout=”1_1″ background_position=”left top” background_color=”” border_size=”” border_color=”” border_style=”solid” border_position=”all” spacing=”yes” background_image=”” background_repeat=”no-repeat” padding_top=”” padding_right=”” padding_bottom=”” padding_left=”” margin_top=”0px” margin_bottom=”0px” class=”” id=”” animation_type=”” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_direction=”left” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” center_content=”no” last=”no” min_height=”” hover_type=”none” link=””][fusion_text]

    This article was originally published by Counterpunch.

    After the Singapore Summit between Kim Jong-un and Donald Trump, Trump was very upbeat about the denuclearization of North Korea. On June 12, 2018, Trump said in a CNN interview, “He’s denuking the whole place and he’s going to start very quickly. I think he’s going to start now.” Seriously?

    For this to happen, Kim would have to be either a fool or a saint. And, of course, he is neither. Rather, he is a third generation dictator who fears the overthrow of his regime, likely by the US. Kim knows that his best guarantee against that happening is his possession of nuclear weapons.

    Kim certainly knows the history of Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gadhafi. Both gave up their respective country’s nuclear programs. After doing so, each was overthrown and killed. Hussein was put on trial by the US puppet regime in Iraq and was sentenced to death by hanging. The sentence was carried out on December 30, 2006. When Libyan rebels, with help from the US, France and the UK, attacked the Gadhafi regime, Gadhafi attempted to hide and escape, but he was captured, tortured and killed.

    Given this history, why would Kim make himself vulnerable to overthrow when he doesn’t need to do so? The answer is that he won’t, which also means that he won’t completely denuclearize.  Since this is the logic of Kim’s position, we might ask: why has Trump been so effusive about Kim’s prospects of denuclearizing? Obvious explanations are that Trump is a novice at conducting international negotiations and that he thinks exceptionally highly of himself as an effective negotiator.

    For Trump to believe that Kim would bend to Trump’s will and denuclearize, Trump would have to be either a fool or an extreme narcissist. Unfortunately, he appears to be both and seems intent on proving this over and over again. Another example is his pulling out of and violating the Iran agreement negotiated with Iran by the US, UK, France, Russia, China and Germany. Fortunately, none of the other parties to the agreement has joined the US in pulling out.

    Denuclearization is a good thing, and I am all for it. The US, as the strongest military power in the world and the only nation to have actually used nuclear weapons in war, should be leading the way. Nuclear weapons do not protect the Trump regime, as they do the Kim regime. Nor, for that matter, do they protect the US. Which would be safer for the US: a world with nine nuclear-armed states, as we currently have, or a world with zero nuclear-armed states?

    The logic here is that if Trump is serious about a denuclearized North Korea, he had best play a leadership role in convening negotiations among the nine nuclear-armed states to achieve a denuclearized planet. In such negotiations, it will be necessary to deal with the concerns and fears of the leaders of each of the nuclear-armed countries, including those of Kim Jong-un. The world we live in is far from perfect, but we would all be better off if the overriding nuclear threat to humanity was lifted from our collective shoulders.

    It will require a process of good faith negotiations to get to zero nuclear weapons. That, in turn, will require political will, which has been largely lacking, even though it was agreed to by all the parties to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Article VI of this treaty obligates its parties to pursue negotiations in good faith for an end to the nuclear arms race at an early date and for complete nuclear disarmament. Fifty years after the NPT was opened for signatures in 1968, this obligation remains not only unfulfilled but untried. For the nuclear-armed parties to the NPT to take this obligation seriously would be a major turn-around in their behavior.

    Another treaty, the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, was adopted by 122 countries in July 2017 and is now opened for signatures and the deposit of ratifications. The treaty prohibits, among other things, the possession, use and threat of use of nuclear weapons. Again, the nuclear-armed countries have been largely hostile to this treaty. None of them have signed it or indicated support for it, and the US, UK and France have said they would never sign, ratify or become parties to it.

    Our common future on the planet rests on generating the support and political will to fulfill the promise of these two treaties. Putting the global nuclear dilemma into perspective, it should be clear that denuclearization of North Korea is only one piece of the puzzle, one that is unlikely to be achieved in isolation. A far greater piece lays in the failure of the US to show any substantial leadership toward attaining a nuclear zero world. Failure to achieve the goal of global denuclearization could mean the end of civilization and most life on our planet. And where is the logic in that?

    David Krieger is a founder of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org) and has served as its president since 1982.[/fusion_text][/fusion_builder_column][/fusion_builder_row][/fusion_builder_container][fusion_global id=”13042″]

  • Assessing the Trump-Kim Singapore Summit

    Assessing the Trump-Kim Singapore Summit

    The Singapore Summit was a dramatic turn-around from the adolescent name calling that Trump and Kim had engaged in only months before. Trump had labelled Kim as “Little Rocket Man,” and Kim had labelled Trump as “Dotard.” Having gotten through this, the summit was on for June 12, then it was abruptly cancelled by Trump when Mike Pence had referred to the “Libya model” for North Korean nuclear disarmament, and a North Korean official had called Pence a “political dummy.” North Korean officials were understandably sensitive to the Libya model reference. They view Gadhafi’s demise as a direct result of his giving up Libya’s nuclear program. Then, in the midst of the chaos, something happened behind the scenes and suddenly the summit was back on for June 12, as originally planned.

    It was a summit of smiles and handshakes. Little Rocket Man and Dotard seemed very happy in each other’s company.  They smiled incessantly, shook hands many times and, at one point, Trump gave a thumbs up.

    The most obvious result of the summit was the change in tone in the relationship of the two men. Whereas the tone had once been nasty and threatening, it was now warm and friendly. The two men appeared to genuinely like each other and be comfortable in each other’s company. For both, the new warmth of their relationship seemed likely to play well with important domestic constituencies. Although the summit elicited a lot of skepticism from US pundits, the optics were those of a breakthrough in a relationship once considered dangerous and a possible trigger to a nuclear conflict. Both men viewed the summit as a major achievement.

    They each committed to a rather vague Summit Statement, which said in part: “President Trump committed to provide security guarantees to the DPRK (North Korea) and Chairman Kim Jong-un reaffirmed his firm and unwavering commitment to complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.” Trump added as an unexpected sweetener that he would put a halt to the joint US-South Korean war games, which the North Koreans had long complained were highly provocative.

    Each was being promised what he most desired: security for Kim and his regime, and complete denuclearization of North Korea for Trump. They were also gaining in stature in their home countries. Prior to the summit, Trump was asked by a reporter if  he thought  he deserved the Nobel Peace Prize, to which he coyly responded, “Everyone thinks so, but I would never say it.”

    There was much, however, that didn’t emerge from the Singapore summit, and it can be summarized in a single word: “details.” The ultimate value of the summit will be found in the details that are agreed to and acted upon going forward. Will these details build or destroy trust? Will Kim truly believe that he can trust Trump (or a future American president) to give security to the Kim regime? Will Trump (or a future American president) truly believe that Kim is following up on denuclearizing? The answers to these questions will depend upon details that have yet to be agreed upon, including those related to inspections and verification.

    While the summit has relieved tensions between the two nuclear-armed countries, nuclear dangers have not gone away on the Korean Peninsula or in the rest of the world. These dangers will remain so long as any country, including the US, continues to rely upon nuclear weapons for its national security. Such reliance encourages nuclear proliferation and will likely lead to the use of these weapons over time – by malice, madness or mistake.

    We can take some time to breathe a sigh of relief that nuclear dangers have lessened on the Korean Peninsula, but then we must return to seeking the complete abolition of nuclear weapons. An important pathway to this end is support for the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, adopted by the United Nations in 2017 and now open for state signatures and deposit of ratifications.

    David Krieger is a founder of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org) and has served as its president since 1982

     

  • Singapore Summit

    Singapore Summit

    David KriegerWhen we think about what could be accomplished at the Singapore Summit, we’re not thinking big enough.

    At the Kim-Trump Summit in Singapore, the highest expectation is for a Kim pledge to denuclearize his country.  There seems to be no expectation that Trump would agree to denuclearize his country.  The world would benefit from a plan to denuclearize North Korea, but it would benefit even more from a plan to denuclearize the United States.

    Clearly, there would need to be plans set forth and agreed to for any denuclearization, but why limit such a plan only to North Korea?

    Given the potentially omnicidal devastation of nuclear weapons, the world needs a plan to abolish these weapons globally before they abolish all of us.  Why should we be content to have the smallest nuclear power agree to give up its nuclear arsenal, while allowing the most powerful nuclear-armed country to be unchallenged in maintaining its nuclear arsenal?

    In exchange for a denuclearized North Korea, Kim should bargain for an end to the Korean War by means of a Peace Treaty; the withdrawal of U.S. troops from South Korea; a pledge of No First Use of nuclear weapons by the U.S.; economic support from the U.S.; and a pledge by the U.S. to convene a meeting of all nine nuclear-armed countries to develop a plan for the total elimination of nuclear weapons.  The last point could be achieved through U.S. and North Korean leadership in signing and ratifying the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW).

  • Interview with Seikyo Shimbun

    Interview with Seikyo Shimbun

    [fusion_builder_container hundred_percent=”no” equal_height_columns=”no” menu_anchor=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” background_color=”” background_image=”” background_position=”center center” background_repeat=”no-repeat” fade=”no” background_parallax=”none” parallax_speed=”0.3″ video_mp4=”” video_webm=”” video_ogv=”” video_url=”” video_aspect_ratio=”16:9″ video_loop=”yes” video_mute=”yes” overlay_color=”” video_preview_image=”” border_size=”” border_color=”” border_style=”solid” padding_top=”” padding_bottom=”” padding_left=”” padding_right=””][fusion_builder_row][fusion_builder_column type=”1_1″ layout=”1_1″ background_position=”left top” background_color=”” border_size=”” border_color=”” border_style=”solid” border_position=”all” spacing=”yes” background_image=”” background_repeat=”no-repeat” padding_top=”” padding_right=”” padding_bottom=”” padding_left=”” margin_top=”0px” margin_bottom=”0px” class=”” id=”” animation_type=”” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_direction=”left” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” center_content=”no” last=”no” min_height=”” hover_type=”none” link=””][fusion_text] Interview with Dr. David Krieger,

    President, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation,

    by Shuichi Minami, for Seikyo Shimbun

     

    1. How do you think civil society has influenced international efforts for abolition of nuclear weapons over recent years?

    David KriegerI think civil society has been very influential in the achievement of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW). In doing so, they have worked closely with like-minded countries, those that are tired of hearing excuses from the nuclear-armed countries about why they cannot fulfill their Non-Proliferation Treaty nuclear disarmament obligations. I think that Abolition 2000, which is a network formed in 1995, has helped to pave the way for the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN). I also think that the Middle Powers Initiative, in which a small number of key civil society organizations worked closely with middle power countries, helped lay the groundwork for the civil society-governmental cooperation that ICAN used so successfully in achieving the TPNW. ICAN itself had over 450 civil society organizations in its campaign. It has been civil society, the voice of the people from throughout the world, that has kept hope alive throughout the Nuclear Age. I don’t think there are people anywhere who want to become victims of nuclear warfare. ICAN and other civil society organizations have given voice to the reasonable hopes and desires of people everywhere. The 2017 Nobel Peace Prize recognizes all who have spoken out for a world free of nuclear weapons, including importantly the survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and those who suffered the folly of the many decades of nuclear testing.

     

    1. Setsuko Thurlow said that adoption of the TPNW is a beginning of the end of nuclear weapons. And our era has been characterized as the “nuclear age” with such weapons. Can you share with us what “nuclear age” means?

    Different eras have been called by different names; for example, the Stone Age, Bronze Age and Iron Age. I believe that our time is best thought of as the Nuclear Age. It is the predominant technology of our time and the greatest threat to the human future. For me, the Nuclear Age represents a time in which our technologies have become powerful enough to destroy humankind. It requires us to achieve new and higher standards of ethics and morality. It requires us, as Einstein suggested, to change our modes of thinking or face “unparalleled catastrophe.” Our challenge now is to get out of the Nuclear Age with our world still intact.

    Setsuko Thurlow is a wise and compassionate woman. She is a recipient of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s Distinguished Peace Leadership Award and a member of our Advisory Council. I respect her tremendously, but I think it is still too soon to know if the TPNW is the beginning of the end of nuclear weapons. It may be, but it is not yet clear, and may become clear only in retrospect. The nuclear-armed countries are still fighting the Treaty, and not yet showing any real signs of sanity when it comes to nuclear weapons abolition. As an example, the US, UK and France issued a joint statement when the TPNW was adopted at the United Nations, in which they said they would not sign, ratify or ever become parties to the Treaty. Right now these nuclear-armed countries are digging in their heels and refusing to cooperate with the vast majority of the world when it comes to nuclear disarmament.

     

    1. You have said: “Hope does not just occur. It is a conscious choice, an act of will. One must choose hope in the face of all we know.” Can you expand more about hope?

    I still believe that hope is a conscious choice. Hope gives us the power to act, and our actions, in turn, reinforce our hope. Without hope, we might just fall into despair and stop trying to make the world right. I also think that Beatrice Fihn is correct when she says that we have a choice to make: the end of nuclear weapons or the end of us. That’s the stark choice that nuclear weapons present to us. It is essentially the choice presented in the Russell-Einstein Manifesto: “There lies before us, if we choose, continual progress in happiness, knowledge and wisdom. Shall we, instead, choose death, because we cannot forget our quarrels?”

    I’m not sure that we can change the minds of the leaders and politicians in the nuclear-possessing countries. If we really want to achieve the abolition of nuclear weapons, we would be better off changing out the leaders and politicians who will not recognize the abolition of nuclear weapons as an urgent goal. Current leaders in nuclear-possessing countries are locked into old ways of thinking. We need leaders who are committed to ending the nuclear weapons threat to all humanity. To bring such leaders into positions of authority will require a much stronger people’s movement. We must continue to build such a movement and never give up.

     

    1. As a Buddhist faith-based organization, SGI has been working toward the abolition of nuclear weapons from the moral and ethical perspective by raising public awareness. What do you think about the efforts made by SGI?

    I hold SGI’s work on nuclear weapons abolition in very high regard. In the early days of Abolition 2000, SGI gathered more than 13 million signatures on the Abolition 2000 petition to end the nuclear weapons threat, support a new abolition treaty and reallocate resources from nuclear weapons to meeting human needs. I was honored to present these petitions to the chair of the 2000 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference. Since then, we’ve worked closely with SGI on many other nuclear abolition issues.

    SGI brings a moral perspective to nuclear weapons, going back to Soka Gakkai’s second president, Josei Toda, who called nuclear weapons an “absolute evil.” SGI President Daisaku Ikeda has always been mindful of this and has been committed to achieving the abolition of nuclear weapons. I was particularly pleased that we could work closely with SGI in supporting the Marshall Islands’ Nuclear Zero lawsuits against the nuclear-armed countries. I also appreciate the moral perspective that SGI brings to bear on nuclear weapons issues.

     

    1. SGI launched a new campaign titled “People’s Decade Ⅱ” this year. What do you expect from SGI with regard to the campaign?

    The SGI campaign “People’s Decade II” is very much needed. The more people are engaged in the nuclear abolition movement, the more progress will be made. A decade-long campaign is enough time to make some real progress through a focus on disarmament education. For example, it should be more than enough time to achieve the 50 ratifications needed for the TPNW to enter into force. It is also enough time to make progress on empowering the people in nuclear-armed countries and their allies to stand up and speak out for a world free of nuclear weapons, and to demand both leadership and progress toward this goal from their countries.

    I would offer five brief pieces of advice. First, focus on youth, the leaders of tomorrow, helping to support them in becoming the leaders of today. Second, add some advocacy elements to the education. Help people, through education, to express their activism. Third, look into the NAPF Peace Literacy Program headed by Paul Chappell. It’s a very exciting new program which holds great promise for creating new peace leaders. Fourth, help people to understand the importance of choosing hope. Fifth, instill in the young people the importance of never giving up.[/fusion_text][/fusion_builder_column][/fusion_builder_row][/fusion_builder_container]

  • Violating the Iran Deal: Playing With Nuclear Fire

    Violating the Iran Deal: Playing With Nuclear Fire

    [fusion_builder_container hundred_percent=”no” equal_height_columns=”no” menu_anchor=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” background_color=”” background_image=”” background_position=”center center” background_repeat=”no-repeat” fade=”no” background_parallax=”none” parallax_speed=”0.3″ video_mp4=”” video_webm=”” video_ogv=”” video_url=”” video_aspect_ratio=”16:9″ video_loop=”yes” video_mute=”yes” overlay_color=”” video_preview_image=”” border_size=”” border_color=”” border_style=”solid” padding_top=”” padding_bottom=”” padding_left=”” padding_right=””][fusion_builder_row][fusion_builder_column type=”1_1″ layout=”1_1″ background_position=”left top” background_color=”” border_size=”” border_color=”” border_style=”solid” border_position=”all” spacing=”yes” background_image=”” background_repeat=”no-repeat” padding_top=”” padding_right=”” padding_bottom=”” padding_left=”” margin_top=”0px” margin_bottom=”0px” class=”” id=”” animation_type=”” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_direction=”left” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” center_content=”no” last=”no” min_height=”” hover_type=”none” link=””][fusion_text]

    David KriegerPresident Trump has demonstrated yet again why he lacks the understanding, intelligence and temperament to be president of the United States. By violating the Iran nuclear deal, he is undermining the security of the U.S., our allies and the world. There are many good reasons that the U.S. should have remained in the agreement, but Trump exploded those when he took the U.S out of the agreement.

    First, the U.S. withdrawal makes it more likely that Iran will return to pursuing a nuclear weapons program. Given Trump’s threats, this will increase the possibility of a war with Iran, which would be costly in blood and treasure.

    Second, it will be detrimental to U.S. relations with allies UK, France and Germany, all of which tried to dissuade the U.S. from withdrawing. Further, it will be detrimental to U.S. relations with Russia and China, which are also parties to the agreement. Under Trump, the U.S. is isolating itself and diminishing its leadership role in world affairs.

    Third, it demonstrates that U.S. commitments are not to be relied upon. This will make it harder for other nations to trust the U.S. to keep its word. This may be a problem for the prospects for peace on the Korean Peninsula.

    What lies behind Trump’s decision to leave the Iran deal? Again, there are different possibilities. One possibility is his seeming desire to reverse whatever Barack Obama achieved. In Trump logic, Obama’s legacy is to be reversed, regardless of the costs of doing so. Another possibility is that Trump is playing to his base, those who support U.S. arrogance in international relations regardless of the costs involved. Yet another possibility is that Trump wants to have a reason to go to war with Iran, and to use this as an excuse to solidify his power in the U.S. in the same way that Hitler did with the Reichstag fire.

    Trump is literally playing with fire – nuclear fire – whether he understands it or not. He just made a very dangerous and ill-considered move on the chessboard of international affairs. But now, instead of having General H. R. McMaster, a relatively steady and sane person at the helm of the National Security Council, he has John Bolton, a cheerleader for regime change and a man who never met a war he didn’t like. In March 2018, Bolton published an opinion piece in The New York Times with the title, “To Stop Iran’s Bomb, Bomb Iran,” monumentally dangerous advice.

    America, beware. Trump has just fired another serious warning shot across the bow of democracy, one that bodes ill for the nuclear non-proliferation regime, for peace and for the future of our democratic institutions. Once again, Trump has shown clearly that he is not fit to be president, and his impeachment should be undertaken as a matter of urgency.

    David Krieger is a founder of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation and has served as its president since 1982.

    [/fusion_text][/fusion_builder_column][/fusion_builder_row][/fusion_builder_container][fusion_global id=”13042″]

  • Five Tendencies Toward Fascism

    First, express hatred toward minorities,
    whipping up anger against them.

    Second, denigrate political opponents,
    calling them liars, lazy and criminals.

    Third, belittle the veracity of the press,
    insisting they lie repeatedly.

    Fourth, challenge the intelligence agencies,
    arguing you know better than they.

    Fifth, speak directly to one’s followers,
    bypassing the traditional media.

    Democracy is delicate and fascism
    can grow like a weed, even without water.

  • US Nuclear Posturing Has Adversaries Gearing Up, Not Standing Down

    This article was originally published on March 3, 2018, by The Hill.

    In Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis’ preface to the 2018 U.S. Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), he describes its purpose as “to ensure a safe, secure, and effective nuclear deterrent that protects the homeland, assures allies and, above all, deters adversaries.” These are worthy goals, but likely impossible to achieve so long as nuclear weapons exist.

    Of course, it is preferable that nuclear weapons be safe in the sense that they will not detonate accidentally, and that they be secure in the sense that they cannot be stolen by others or triggered by a cyber attack. These are basically physical problems which can be engineered and guarded against, although surely not perfectly.

    Despite the desire to achieve perfection, it is not possible for humans to do so, as demonstrated through the years of the Nuclear Age by many accidents, miscalculations and close calls.

    The biggest problem with a nuclear deterrent force arises from any attempt to determine its effectiveness. How can possessors of nuclear weapons assure that their nuclear weapons are effective in providing a deterrent to another nuclear-armed country? The answer is that they cannot do so in any physical sense.

    The nuclear deterrent force of a country relies instead on creating psychological barriers. If a nuclear deterrent force is effective in protecting a country and its allies, an adversary would refrain from attacking due to fear of retaliation. Since nuclear deterrence operates at the psychological level, one can never be sure it is effective. Or, it may only appear to be effective until it fails and failure could be catastrophic.

    Mattis also refers to a “credible” nuclear deterrent. Presumably, to be effective, a nuclear deterrent force would need to be credible to an adversary, but credibility is also a psychological term. It encompasses not only the size and power of a nuclear arsenal, but a belief in a particular leader’s willingness to actually use the nuclear weapons should deterrence fail.

    It is interesting that in the 2018 NPR (the Trump NPR), as with previous NPRs, there is allowance for the possible failure of nuclear deterrence. This should not be reassuring to anyone. Mattis ties the need to modernize the U.S. nuclear arsenal to the credibility of the nuclear deterrent force. He also ties credibility to “ensuring that our diplomats continue to speak from a position of strength on matters of war and peace.”

    The 2018 NPR points the finger at Russia, China, North Korea and Iran. Russia and China are accused of modernizing their nuclear arsenals, making it necessary for the U.S. to do the same. It points out that Russia, in addition to its seizure of Crimea, has military strategies reliant on nuclear escalation. It talks about China “expanding its already considerable forces,” but fails to mention that China has a policy of minimum deterrence and has made a pledge of No First Use of nuclear weapons.

    Nor does the 2018 NPR mention that both Russia and China have reacted to the U.S. placing missile defense installations strategically near their borders, or that this has only been possible due to the 2002 U.S. unilateral withdrawal from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty, which severely limited ABM deployments.

    Despite the promising interactions between North and South Korean athletes at the 2018 Winter Olympics, Trump has imposed tough sanctions on North Korea and upped his threats toward the country. Personalizing his message, Trump menacingly stated, “If the sanctions don’t work, we’ll have to go to Phase 2. Phase 2 may be a very rough thing. May be very, very unfortunate for the world.” This is the dangerous and threatening rhetoric of a madman.

    Trump has also failed to certify Iran’s compliance with the nuclear deal, leaving open the possibility of killing the deal and increasing the odds of yet another war and Iran’s return to its previous nuclear program.

    Mattis concludes his preface to the Trump NPR by acknowledging the vital role played by U.S. servicemen and civilians “in maintaining a safe, secure, and ready nuclear force.” The fact that the U.S. nuclear deterrent force is “ready” is not necessarily a blessing and should be of little comfort to Americans or anyone else. We are all part of “the world” that Trump is threatening to punish if North Korea does not submit to his will. He should be impeached now, before he does something “very, very unfortunate for the world.”

    The 2018 NPR calls for new and smaller nuclear weapons, those that would make it easier to cross the barrier into nuclear war. The NPR also chooses to keep all three legs of the nuclear triad: intercontinental ballistic missiles, bomber aircraft and submarine launched ballistic missiles.

    There can be little doubt that the U.S. nuclear posture will spur other nuclear-armed countries to do the same, thus assuring new arms races and increased nuclear dangers ahead. One has to wonder if the expensive and provocative technological modernization of the U.S. nuclear arsenal and other nuclear policies set forth in the 2018 NPR will be what takes us from the Nuclear Age back to the dark ages.

  • My Lai

    It is a name
    every American
    should know.

    Five hundred four
    Vietnamese villagers
    slaughtered

    by American troops
    that day in My Lai
    fifty years ago.

    Lt. Calley was given
    house arrest,
    then pardoned by Nixon.

    No one went to prison
    for the massacre
    of children, women, old men.

    That’s what happens
    in war, they say.
    That’s what they say.

    David Krieger
    March 2018

  • Miyoko Matsubara

    I heard from friends in Hiroshima that Miyoko Matsubara left this world on February 9th. She was a very gentle and dedicated hibakusha, who came several times for extended periods to the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation in Santa Barbara to practice her English and polish the presentation of her experience as an atomic bomb survivor. She was 13 years old when the atomic bomb destroyed her city. Like so many other survivors of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings, she was traumatized by the experience and wanted to assure that no other people or cities suffered the trauma and tragedy that she and her city had.

    Miyoko had a deep commitment to peace and to spreading the central message of the survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki: Never Again! She was particularly enthusiastic about sharing her message with young people, and spoke often in school classrooms. I can readily recall her smiling face, and I remember clearly the humility she expressed in her deep bows.

    I think that everyone who knew her was enriched by her enthusiasm, sincerity and friendship. May she rest in peace.

    Here is a poem I wrote about her many years ago:

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

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

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

    She bowed deeply.  She bowed more deeply than anyone should bow.

  • Nuclear Abolition: A Sisyphean Task?

    David KriegerNuclear weapons threaten everyone and everything we love and cherish.  Why do we accept and tolerate these intolerable weapons?  Every thinking person on the planet should stand against these omnicidal weapons and work for their elimination.

    Nine leaders in nine countries have their fingers on the nuclear button.  These leaders place the future of civilization and most complex life at risk by their misplaced faith in and reliance upon the reliability of nuclear deterrence.  They believe that with enough nuclear weapons of the right size, and by threatening to use them, they will be secure from nuclear and non-nuclear attacks.  This is not the case.  Nuclear deterrence has never guaranteed a nation’s security and has come close to failing on many occasions.  It could fail on any given day, and yet we place the very future of our species on the untested hypothesis that nuclear deterrence will not fail catastrophically.

    In the 2018 U.S. Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), the Trump administration takes full ownership of U.S. nuclear policy.  The NPR calls for spending vast resources ($1.7 trillion) over the next three decades to modernize the entire U.S. nuclear arsenal.  It also calls for creating smaller and more usable nuclear weapons, and threatening use of these weapons in a wide variety of circumstances, including as a response to a strong conventional attack or a cyber-attack.  The U.S. has also been deploying missile defenses near the Russian border, triggering a dangerous defensive-offensive cycle; in essence, a new nuclear arms race.

    Other nuclear-armed countries are also in the process of “modernizing” their nuclear deterrence posture, contributing to new nuclear arms races while putting nuclear disarmament on the proverbial shelf.  The world continues to grow ever more dangerous, and yet these nuclear dangers are often met by leaders and the public alike with widespread ignorance and apathy.

    In January, the people of Hawaii were given a serious scare when a technician with the Hawaii Emergency Management Agency sent a false warning that a ballistic missile attack was inbound to the state.  The emergency message, which was not corrected for 38 minutes, called on residents of Hawaii to seek immediate shelter, and warned, “This is not a drill.”  Many Hawaii residents took this warning seriously and called loved ones to say what they thought was a final goodbye.

    In late January, the scientists at the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists moved their Doomsday Clock to two minutes to midnight.  This is the closest the clock has been to its metaphorical midnight indicator of global catastrophe since 1953, at the height of the Cold War.

    At the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, we believe that the nuclear dangers of our time must be met with the engagement and resistance of people everywhere, demanding an end to the Nuclear Age by means of negotiating the abolition of nuclear weapons.  Actions based on such negotiations pose some risks, but not the risks of destroying civilization and ending the human species. The negotiations must be phased, verifiable, irreversible and transparent.  This approach to negotiations will allow for building confidence at each stage.

    Abolishing nuclear weapons is one of the greatest challenges of our time, but it is not impossible.  It demands “political will” by leaders of the nuclear-armed countries, which currently is sorely lacking.  To achieve this political will, the people must awaken and demand it of their leaders.  No matter how difficult and seemingly Sisyphean the task, we must never give up.  At NAPF, we will continue to accept the challenge, and to educate, advocate and organize to meet it.  We will never give up until we realize the goal of a Nuclear Zero world.