Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Category: Articles by David Krieger

  • Progress Toward Nuclear Weapons Abolition

    David Krieger

    The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation has been working to end the nuclear weapons threat to humanity and all life for 35 years.  We were one of many nuclear disarmament organizations created in the early 1980s, in our case in 1982.  Some of these organizations have endured; some have not.

    We were founded on the belief that peace is an imperative of the Nuclear Age, that nuclear weapons must be abolished, and that the people of the world must lead their leaders to achieve these goals.  As a founder of the organization, and as its president since its founding, it now seems an appropriate time to look back and reflect on the changes that have occurred over the past 35 years.

    1. War and Peace. Although there has not been an all-out world war since World War II, international terrorism may be viewed as a world war taking place in slow motion, and points to the continuing need to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of terrorists.  From a different perspective, those countries in possession of nuclear weapons may themselves be viewed as terrorists for their implicit, and sometimes explicit, threats to use nuclear weapons against their adversaries.  Also, there have been many proxy wars between the U.S. and Russia (formerly Soviet Union).
    2. Dramatic reductions. While nuclear weapons have not been abolished, there have been dramatic reductions in their numbers.  By the mid-1980s, there were some 70,000 nuclear weapons in the world.  Now the number is under 15,000, a reduction of 55,000.  This is positive movement, but there are still more than enough nuclear weapons in today’s nuclear arsenals to destroy civilization many times over and to send the planet spiraling into a new Ice Age.
    3. People leading. There are some signs that the people are leading their leaders on issues of peace and disarmament.  One of these is the July 2017 adoption of the new United Nations Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.  This treaty was spearheaded by non-nuclear weapon states in cooperation with the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), a campaign composed of more than 450 civil society organizations, including the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.  ICAN was recognized for this achievement with the 2017 Nobel Peace Prize.
    4. Proliferation. In the early 1980s, there were six nuclear-armed countries: the U.S., Soviet Union (now Russia), UK, France, China and Israel.  Now there are nine nuclear-armed countries, adding to the first six India, Pakistan and North Korea.  The proliferation of nuclear weapons, although limited, raises the odds of nuclear weapons use.  In addition to these nine nuclear-armed countries, the U.S. still keeps approximately 180 nuclear weapons on the soil of five European countries: Belgium, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, and Turkey.
    5. Curtailing nuclear testing. In the early 1980s, there was widespread nuclear testing, but today nuclear testing is almost nonexistent.  North Korea is the only country still conducting physical nuclear tests, although some countries, including the U.S., continue to conduct subcritical nuclear tests and computer simulation tests.
    6. Cold War. The Cold War ended in 1991, causing many people to think the dangers of nuclear weapons had ended, but this is far from the reality of the Nuclear Age, in which nuclear detonations could occur by accident or miscalculation, as well as by intention, at any time.
    7. Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). In 1995, the NPT was indefinitely extended, despite the failure of the parties to the treaty, particularly the five original nuclear-armed countries, to fulfill their Article VI obligations to negotiate in good faith for an end to the nuclear arms race at an early date and for nuclear disarmament.
    8. Ignorance. Many people alive today know little to nothing about the dangers of nuclear weapons, not having lived through the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the frequent atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons, the duck and cover drills that were conducted in schools, or civil defense drills.  Many younger people do not recognize the seriousness of the continuing nuclear threat, or else believe that the threat is limited to countries such as North Korea or Iran.
    9. Thermonuclear monarchy. In the 1980s and still today, we live in a world in which very few people in each nuclear-armed country are authorized to order the use of nuclear weapons.  Thus, these individuals hold the keys to the human future in their hands.  This has been described by Harvard professor Elaine Scarry as “Thermonuclear Monarchy.”
    10. Survivors. The survivors of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, known as hibakusha, have grown older and fewer in number.  Their average age is now above 80 years.  They are the true ambassadors of the Nuclear Age, and their testimony remains critical to awakening people to the nuclear threat to all humanity, and to achieving a world free of nuclear weapons.

    Over the past 35 years, there have been significant reductions in nuclear weapons and nuclear testing, but there are more nuclear-armed countries now than then.  There is still widespread ignorance and apathy about nuclear dangers.  Despite this, civil society organizations, including the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, are making progress by working with non-nuclear weapons states.  The most recent example of this is the adoption by the United Nations of the new Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.  The civil society organizations working in the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons will be instrumental in encouraging countries to sign and ratify the treaty for its early entry into force, which will occur 90 days after the fiftieth ratification of the treaty is deposited with the United Nations.

    Despite having gone more than seven decades without a nuclear war since the first atomic weapons were used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, there are no guarantees that these horrendous weapons will not again be used, by accident or design, on any given day. The nuclear-armed countries continue to rely upon the human-created theory of nuclear deterrence to avert a nuclear war.  This is a shaky foundation on which to base the future of civilization and of the human species.  Although some progress has been made toward eliminating nuclear weapons, it is not sufficient.  Far more people need to awaken to the dangers posed by nuclear weapons and to demand an end to the nuclear era.  We would be wise to listen to the hibakusha and abolish nuclear weapons before they abolish us.

    David Krieger is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org).  His most recent book is Portraits: Peacemakers, Warmongers and People Between.           

  • With Nuclear Weapons, Evacuation Is Not an Option

    This article was originally published by The Hill.

    My wife and I and other members of our family have been living through the nightmarish disaster that struck our community of Montecito. First came the fire and then came the floods.

    The fire, named the Thomas Fire, turned out to be the biggest in California history. At one point, it reached the top of the road where we live, and the firefighters, with some help from the shifting direction of the winds, were able to hold the line. The firefighters were heroic.

    The Thomas Fire burned in the hills above Montecito, CA in December 2017. Photo copyright by Rick Carter.

    We were under mandatory evacuation from our home for 12 days, and then were evacuated from the place we were staying as the evacuation zone was expanded. The fire roared on in the backcountry, continuing to spew ash from the dry brush and trees it was consuming.

    Throughout the area, people were wearing masks to keep from breathing in the ash. The sky was a sickening yellow-gray. It looked and felt like we were survivors of a nuclear attack. We were living with apprehension day to day, glued to the news, except when the electricity went out.

    The fire was finally brought under greater control, and we were allowed to return to our homes. But a few weeks later, the expectation of heavy rains and possible flooding caused us to again be put under mandatory evacuation. We left our home again, thinking this would be a short and easy evacuation and we would soon be able to return. This was not the case.

    The floods overwhelmed our community, causing treacherous debris flows, at least 21 deaths, and hundreds of destroyed homes. Our community looked like a war zone. Trees were uprooted and, along with huge boulders, had been swept down from the fire-denuded mountains and fallen upon our quiet community of Montecito. The rescue workers were again heroic.

    Now we wait for the teams of utility workers to get the various utilities up and running. For the time being, electricity, gas and water are all turned off. The disaster of it all looms large in my mind. The results were not predictable. Lives and homes were lost in both the mandatory and voluntary evacuation zones. Death and destruction did not discriminate. Nature only did what nature does. It was mostly beyond our control.

    I have thought so many times during this double disaster of the song lyrics, “there but for fortune go you or go I.” So many close calls for so many people. So many fateful decisions. For some, so much pain and grief, and for others so much relief.

    While still evacuated and feeling the pain of our community’s disaster, news came that on Jan. 13 a worker at the Hawaii Emergency Management Agency accidentally released an Emergency Alert warning that a ballistic missile was inbound to the state and that the people should seek immediate shelter. The alert emphasized, “THIS IS NOT A DRILL.” It was all too believable.

    People scurried to be with loved ones or to call them to tell them they loved them and to say goodbye. The threat seemed very real, but the solution offered by the authorities was ridiculous. Shelter does not protect against thermonuclear weapons.

    Nothing protects against thermonuclear weapons: not shelter, not nuclear deterrence, not missile defenses.

    Thirty-eight minutes later came the message that the warning had been a “false alarm.” This is yet another reminder that accidents happen and humans are fallible, even in the best designed systems.

    In our community, we have been living through radical uncertainty from forces of nature. But we also live daily with the radical uncertainty of nuclear survival, which is not a force of nature, but rather a man-made threat. It is a threat entirely of our own making, and it can be remedied by facing it and doing something about it, namely convening the nuclear-armed countries to negotiate the phased, verifiable, irreversible and transparent elimination of these weapons. And, as a step prior to this, or simultaneously, to sign and ratify the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, which includes prohibitions on the development, deployment, use and threat of use of nuclear weapons.

    Also, during the period of evacuation and devastation of our community, a copy of the newly drafted U.S. Nuclear Posture Review was leaked. The review calls for a “safe, secure and effective” nuclear deterrent force. But nuclear weapons are not safe or secure by their nature, and it doesn’t really matter how safe and secure the U.S. nuclear forces are, if another country’s nuclear arsenal is not.

    The greatest issue, though, arises with “effective” nuclear deterrent force. This falls into the category of radical uncertainty. No one can claim a deterrent force is effective, because it is always subject to failure. If it were clearly effective, missile defenses would not be needed. Neither would civil defense drills and warnings.

    In addition, the draft Nuclear Posture Review calls for modernizing the entire U.S. nuclear arsenal at great cost; for the development of new, smaller, more usable nuclear weapons; and for using nuclear weapons against a wide range of non-nuclear attacks against the U.S. and its allies. These steps will provoke other nuclear-armed countries, as well as potential proliferators, to follow our lead.

    I would hate to see the catastrophe experienced by our community played out on a global nuclear battlefield, but that is the direction in which the world is heading. The time ending the nuclear weapons threat to humanity is now, before it is too late. The draft Nuclear Posture Review should be scrapped and replaced with the commitment to take nuclear weapons off high alert status; to implement pledges of No First Use; and to commit to negotiate to achieve the only number that makes sense in a nuclear context: Zero.

    With nuclear weapons, evacuation is not an option.

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

  • Ten Nuclear Wishes for the New Year

    This article was originally published by Counterpunch.

    1) That Hiroshima and Nagasaki’s past will not become any other city’s future.

    2) That the new UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons will get at least 50 ratifications and enter into force.

    3) That there will be no further proliferation of nuclear weapons to other countries.

    4) That no insane leader will initiate a nuclear war and leaders of nuclear-armed countries will stop taunting each other.

    5) That nuclear deterrence will be recognized for the fraud that it is.

    6) That there will be no accidents or miscalculations leading to nuclear catastrophe.

    7) That the parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty will engage in good faith negotiations, as the treaty requires, for an end to the nuclear arms race and for nuclear disarmament.

    8) That there will be no cyber-attacks on nuclear weapons systems, leading to the launch of nuclear weapons.

    9) That the nuclear weapons states will halt their plans to spend hundreds of billions, even trillions, of dollars to modernize their nuclear arsenals.

    10) That people everywhere will realize the necessity for peace in the Nuclear Age and will demand that their governments seek peace and the abolition of nuclear weapons.

  • Decoding Donald

    This article was originally published by Counterpunch.

    The future of the world and of humanity is at the mercy of a lunatic.  His name is Donald Trump, and he alone has access to the U.S. nuclear codes.  Before he does something rash and irreversible with those codes, it is imperative to decode Donald, taking the necessary steps to remove this power from him.

    Trump tweeted on December 16, 2016: “The United States must greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability until such time as the world comes to its senses regarding nukes.”

    What good would a greatly strengthened and expanded nuclear capability do for the U.S.?  We can already end civilization and most life on the planet with the use of our nuclear arsenal.  The U.S. has nearly 7,000 nuclear weapons, with more than 1,500 of them deployed and ready for use.  By comparison, North Korea and its leader, Kim Jong-un, the subject of much of Trump’s venom, have only 10 to 15 nuclear weapons.  But those have Trump worried enough to go to the United Nations and threaten to totally destroy North Korea should that country threaten the U.S.

    How many more nuclear weapons does Trump think are needed to keep Kim Jong-un at bay?  The truth is that the U.S. already has more than enough nuclear weapons to deter North Korea, assuming they need to be deterred at all.  What North Korea actually appears to want is a small nuclear arsenal capable of deterring the U.S. from invading its country, overthrowing its regime, and killing its leaders.  Since North Korean leaders believe they face an existential threat from the U.S., a greatly expanded U.S. nuclear arsenal won’t change the current equation.

    Nor will more and strengthened nuclear weapons change the equation between the U.S. and Russia, China, or any other nuclear-armed country.  It will just start a new nuclear arms race, which will benefit only the arms merchants while making the world far more dangerous.  Trump doesn’t seem to understand this.  His ignorance about foreign and nuclear policy is appalling and frightening.

    Further, the world won’t come to its senses about nuclear weapons on its own and without leadership.  Earlier this year, in July, 122 non-nuclear weapons countries adopted a new Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.  It was a great step forward.  But, unfortunately, none of the nine nuclear-armed countries participated, and the U.S., UK and France issued a joint statement saying they would never sign, ratify or ever become parties to the treaty.  Such is Trump’s leadership, moving the world toward doomsday. These countries, led by the U.S., appear to love their nuclear weapons and treat them as a security blanket, despite the fact that these weapons provide no security to their possessors.  In fact, nuclear weapons paint a bull’s eye target on the citizens of countries possessing nuclear weapons.

    Trump is exactly the type of person who should not be anywhere near the nuclear codes.  He is not calm, thoughtful, deliberate, cautious, or well-informed.  Rather, he is erratic, thin-skinned, narcissistic and self-absorbed.  He takes slights personally and likes to punch back hard.  He could be insulted and backed into a corner, and decide that nuclear weapons are the solution to what he takes to be taunting behavior.  He could be awakened at 3:00 a.m., and make a hasty decision to launch the U.S. nuclear arsenal instead of a tweet.

    The world’s best hope is that the military men surrounding Trump, particularly Secretary of Defense Mattis, would recognize any order from Trump to launch nuclear weapons as an illegal order and refuse to carry it out.  In addition, it should be recognized by Congress that Trump is mentally unstable and unfit for office, and that they must take the necessary steps to remove him from the presidency before it is too late.  Impeachment would be the best way to decode Donald.

  • Veterans Day Again

    David Krieger“The one thing I never want to see again
    is a military parade.”  — Ulysses S. Grant

    We’ve seen far too many military parades
    with their missiles, marching bands
    and mechanized young men.

    We’ve witnessed enough high-stepping
    soldiers in their polished black boots
    marching to the sounds of brass.

    Spare us the old men dressed in uniforms
    with their sorrowful hats and sewn-on patches.
    Spare us the slippery words of politicians.

    Let’s return to basics: On Armistice Day
    the soldiers laid down their arms on the 11th hour
    of the 11th day of the 11th month.

    The survivors had had enough of war.
    The 11th hour is here again, the sky clear blue.

  • Nobel Peace Prize for ICAN’s Nuclear Weapon Ban Is Spot On

    This article was originally published by The Hill.

    The 2017 Nobel Peace Prize does not go to a politician or political leader. In fact, it does not single out any individual. Rather, it goes to a campaign, the International Campaign to Ban Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), composed of more than 450 civil society organizations in some 100 countries around the globe. It goes to a broad base of civil society organizations working in coalition to ban and eliminate nuclear weapons.

    In this sense, the award goes to the extraordinary people (“We, the People…”) throughout the world who have stepped up to end the threat to all humanity posed by the nearly 15,000 nuclear weapons still remaining on the planet.

    In announcing the award to ICAN, the Norwegian Nobel Committee stated, “The organization is receiving the award for its work to draw attention to the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of any use of nuclear weapons and for its ground-breaking efforts to achieve a treaty-based prohibition of such weapons.”

    ICAN was launched in 2007. It worked with many of the world’s countries in organizing three conferences on the humanitarian consequences of nuclear war. These meetings took place in Oslo, Norway (2013), in Nayarit, Mexico (2014) and in Vienna, Austria (2014). At the Vienna conference, Austria offered a pledge to the countries and civil society representatives in attendance. When it was opened for signatures to other countries, it became known as the “Humanitarian Pledge.” The pledge has now been formally endorsed by 127 countries.

    After laying out the threats and dangers of nuclear weapons in the Humanitarian Pledge, the pledge concluded: “We pledge to cooperate with all relevant stakeholders, States, international organizations, the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movements, parliamentarians and civil society, in efforts to stigmatize, prohibit and eliminate nuclear weapons in light of their unacceptable humanitarian consequences and associated risks.”

    In 2016, the United Nations General Assembly agreed to an ICAN-supported resolution to negotiate a treaty outlawing nuclear weapons. These negotiations took place in March, June and July of 2017 at the United Nations in New York. On July 7, 2017, 122 countries adopted the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. This treaty banning nuclear weapons was opened for signatures on September 20, 2017. So far, 53 countries have signed the treaty and three have ratified it. It will enter into force 90 days after the 50th country deposits its ratification of the treaty with the United Nations.

    ICAN has accomplished a great deal in moving the world forward toward banning and eliminating nuclear weapons. It has helped states articulate the dreadful humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons use. In doing so, it has worked with survivors of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings and also with countries that suffered from nuclear testing, such as the Marshall Islands.

    ICAN also spearheaded the drafting and adoption of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, and is currently working on getting countries to sign and ratify the treaty so that it can enter into force.

    ICAN stands in stark contrast with those national leaders and their allies who possess nuclear weapons and have been unwilling to give up their claim on them for their own perceived national security. But ICAN is on the right side of history, because those with nuclear weapons threaten the future of civilization, including their own populations.

    ICAN well deserves the Nobel Peace prize. The campaign is effective. It is youthful. It is hopeful. It is necessary. May the Nobel Peace Prize propel it to even greater accomplishments. And may it awaken people everywhere to the threat posed by nuclear weapons, and the need to ban and eliminate them.

    David Krieger is a founder and president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. The Foundation has been a partner organization of ICAN since 2007.

  • International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons Receives 2017 Nobel Peace Prize

    The world’s most prestigious prize for peace, the Nobel Peace Prize, has been awarded to the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN).  This award will help shine a light on the passion and commitment of this worldwide movement to abolish nuclear weapons.  It will also draw attention to the goals ICAN has enthusiastically sought to achieve.  First, a public awakening of concern for the dangers to humankind and to all that each of us loves and treasures posed by nuclear weapons.  Second, the entry into force of the new Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.  Third, the abolition of nuclear weapons.

    ICAN has brought considerable youthful energy to the issue of nuclear disarmament.  It also operates as a global campaign involving some 400 civil society organizations from more than 100 countries.  The campaign began ten years ago, and the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (NAPF) was one of its initial members.  We’ve been a part of the campaign from the beginning.  We are proud to stand with the other civil society groups throughout the world in working with ICAN to achieve its goals, which are also our goals.

    The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons was drafted by states with the participation of civil society.  On July 7, 2017 it was adopted by 122 countries.  The treaty bans, among other things, the possession, use and threat of use of nuclear weapons.  NAPF lobbied for the treaty to include “threat of use” as well as “use” of the weapons.  Rick Wayman, our Director of Programs, delivered a speech at the United Nations treaty drafting meeting arguing this point, and it was adopted in the final text.  On September 20, 2017, the treaty was opened for signature at the United Nations.  Fifty countries signed the first day and subsequently three more countries have signed the treaty.

    The treaty will enter into force 90 days after the fiftieth country ratifies it.  So far, there are three ratifications.  ICAN will be working to see that the treaty gets more signatures and ratifications, including the support of the nine nuclear-armed countries, which boycotted the treaty negotiations.  On the day the treaty was adopted, the U.S., UK and France issued a joint statement in which they said, “We do not intend to sign, ratify or ever become a party to it.”  ICAN represents the will of the people to pass the planet on  intact to new generations, while the nuclear-armed countries reflect an outdated concept of security in which they are willing to threaten the future of civilization for their own misguided concepts of security.

    In the mid-1980s, there were 70,000 nuclear weapons in the world.  Today there are just under 15,000.  ICAN’s goal and NAPF’s goal is a world with zero nuclear weapons. This must also become the goal of all humanity. The great hope in the Nobel Peace Prize going to ICAN is that it will help draw global attention and concern to the ongoing threats posed by nuclear weapons and tip the scales toward ending the nuclear weapons era with its abundant dangers to all humanity.

    David Krieger is a founder and president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org).

  • The Reality of the Nuclear Age: U.S. Must Negotiate with North Korea

    David KriegerAnyone with a modicum of sense does not want to see the US teeter at the brink of war with North Korea and certainly not inadvertently stumble over that brink, or intentionally jump.  The first Korean War in the 1950s was costly in terms of lives and treasure.  A second Korean War, with the possibility of nuclear weapons use, would be far more costly to both sides, and could lead to global nuclear conflagration.

    Neither North Korea nor South Korea want a new war, but US leadership in Washington is threatening war, with remarks such as “talking is not the answer”; North Korean threats “will be met with fire and fury like the world has never seen”; “military solutions are now in place, locked and loaded”; and “all options are on the table.”  Such posturing has only elicited more nuclear and missile tests from North Korea.

    It is clear, though, that threats of attack are not a responsible way of going forward.  This may be difficult for Trump to grasp, since he has built his business and political reputation on threats and bullying behavior.  Like all bullies, he backs down when confronted.  But confrontation with a bully is still risky, particularly this bully, who is also thin-skinned, erratic, impulsive and has the full power of the US military at his disposal.

    The US does not need another war, not with North Korea or any country.  We need, instead, to extract ourselves from the ongoing wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria. Nor should we turn our backs on the well-negotiated agreement with Iran to halt their nuclear weapons program.  In fact, this agreement should serve as a model for the type of agreement needed with North Korea.

    What needs to be done?

    The US should agree to negotiate with North Korea and do so without preconditions.  It has been suggested by North Korea, as well as by China and Russia, that North Korea would freeze its nuclear and missile programs in exchange for the US and South Korea ceasing to conduct war games at North Korea’s border.  The US has foolishly, arrogantly and repeatedly ignored or rejected this proposal to get to the negotiating table. It seems that the US would prefer to continue its war gaming on the Korean peninsula than to negotiate with the North Koreans to find a solution to control their nuclear arsenal.

    It would appear that North Korea wants to assure that its regime is not vulnerable to a US attack and occupation, such as occurred in Iraq and Libya.  In each of these countries the leaders were captured and killed.

    Rather than seeking to tighten the economic sanctions on North Korea, which primarily hurt their people, the US should try a different approach, one offering positive rewards for freezing the North Korean nuclear and missile programs and allowing inspections.  Such positive rewards could include food, health care, energy, and infrastructure development.  North Korea has responded positively to such offers of help in the past, and would be likely to do so again.  Kim Jong-un is not, as the US ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, has said, “begging for war.”

    In addition, there has never been a formal end to the Korean War, and it is past time to reach a peace agreement and formally bring the war to an end.  This would be a major step forward and one greatly desired by North Korea.

    The Trump administration needs to engage with its allies, South Korea and Japan, in these negotiations.  It should also bring other interested parties in Northeast Asia into the negotiations.  This would include China and Russia.  All of these countries appear to be ready to talk.  The US just needs to put aside its arrogance and begin the task of negotiating rather than continuing the unworkable approach of trying to force its will on North Korea or any other country by means of threats or bullying.  That is the reality of the Nuclear Age.

  • The President Is Unfit for Office

    With each passing day it becomes increasingly apparent that Donald Trump is unfit to carry out the duties of President of the United States, particularly those of commander in chief. He is erratic, impulsive, thin-skinned and narcissistic. These are dangerous qualities in someone with control over a nuclear arsenal that, if used, could lead to the destruction of civilization and human extinction. Trump is not trustworthy to have such power at his fingertips and should be removed from office.

    To achieve peace with North Korea, the U.S. must be engaged in negotiations with their leadership. It seems simple enough, but the Trump administration appears unwilling. The talks must begin immediately, and the U.S. must do so without preconditions.

    Rather than pursuing this path, however, the Trump administration seems intent on tightening economic sanctions on North Korea, a strategy bound to fail. Trump recently said that the U.S. is considering stopping trade with any country that trades with North Korea. This is a non-starter unless we want to stop trading with China, leading to a serious deterioration in U.S.-China relations and possibly a worldwide recession.

    The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation has recently released an Open Letter to Members of Congress. It calls upon Congress to impeach Trump, or, at a minimum, pass legislation that would require a declaration of war and specific authorization of Congress before the president could engage in a first-strike nuclear attack. The Open Letter follows below. If you would like to sign the letter, click here.

    OPEN LETTER TO MEMBERS OF THE U.S. CONGRESS: ACT TO PREVENT NUCLEAR CATASTROPHE

    This may be the most dangerous time in human history. The Roman emperor Nero is remembered for having fiddled while Rome burned. We may be witnessing the far more dangerous Nuclear Age equivalent to Nero’s fiddling in the form of the nuclear threat exchanges between Donald Trump and North Korea’s Kim Jong-un.

    The U.S. has elected a man to its highest office who is erratic, impulsive, thin-skinned and generally imprudent and insufficiently informed on nuclear and foreign policy issues. As president, he possesses unrestricted authority to threaten and use the weapons of the U.S. nuclear arsenal, which could lead not only to the destruction of our country but to dire consequences for the entire world.

    The president has already caused widespread national and global alarm by his behavior in office, including his participation in a dangerous and irrational escalation of threats directed at the erratic leader of nuclear-armed North Korea, which if executed would produce a monstrous catastrophe of untold consequences. James Clapper, former Director of National Intelligence, a normally cautious civil servant, has described the president’s behavior as “downright scary and disturbing.”

    There are currently no restraints on the president’s ability to use the insanely powerful weapons in the U.S. nuclear arsenal, including using them in a first-strike attack rationalized as preventive war. To allow this set of conditions to persist would be a perilous, perhaps fatal, abdication of Congressional responsibility, posing severe dangers to the peace and security of the country and world.

    What can be done?

    Having shown himself to be unfit for office, the president should be impeached and removed from office by the Congress as a matter of most urgent priority, or possibly removed from the presidency by recourse to procedures under the 25th amendment.

    Congress should also independently act to put unconditional restraints on any president’s ability to threaten or order a nuclear first-strike. One approach would be enactment of the “Restricting First Use of Nuclear Weapons Act,” introduced by Senator Ed Markey and Representative Ted Lieu, which would prohibit the president from initiating a first-strike nuclear attack without a Congressional declaration of war expressly authorizing such strike. We would urge even stronger legislation that would make illegal any U.S. nuclear first strike and threats to do so.

    We do not suggest that the Markey-Lieu legislation would cure a nuclear first-strike of its essential immorality and illegality under international law. This legislation would, however, broaden the long-standing, dangerously centralized U.S. decision-making authority over a nuclear first-strike and could lead to a U.S. commitment never again to use nuclear weapons except in retaliation against a nuclear attack.

    While this proposed legislative initiative on first-strikes is a responsible effort to limit presidential authority with respect to nuclear weapons under present conditions, we urge a parallel framework of restraint with respect to any contemplated threat or use of nuclear weapons by a U.S. president. Additional legislation to this end needs to be proposed and enacted by Congress after appropriate vetting through hearings and public discussion as a matter of supreme national interest and for the benefit of global security.

    Furthermore, we would hope that in due course the United States would join with the majority of countries in the world in supporting the recently negotiated UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.

    Click here to sign the Open Letter.

  • 2017 Message to Viennese Peace Movement

    Dear friends on the path of Peace,

    Warm greetings from California!

    We are approaching the 72nd anniversaries of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  We do so with hope in our hearts because the majority of the world’s countries have adopted a Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (Ban Treaty).  It is a gift to the world of enormous proportions.  Among other prohibitions, it bans the possession, use and threat of use of nuclear weapons.  It is a treaty that validates the call to abolish nuclear weapons by the survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, by many civil society organizations and individuals, and by most of the non-nuclear nations in the world.

    The negotiations leading to the adoption of the Ban Treaty on July 7, 2017 took place through the United Nations conference to negotiate a legally binding instrument to prohibit nuclear weapons, leading towards their total elimination.  The treaty’s preamble expresses deep concern “about the catastrophic humanitarian consequences that would result from any use of nuclear weapons,” and recognizes “the consequent need to completely eliminate such weapons, which remains the only way to guarantee that nuclear weapons are never used again under any circumstance….”

    Sadako’s paper cranes continue to fly all over the world, but, unfortunately, they still have not landed in the governments of the nine nuclear-armed countries, none of which participated in the negotiations for the Ban Treaty.  The US, UK and France actually went so far as to issue a joint statement on the treaty in which they asserted, “We do not intend to sign, ratify or ever become party to it.”  What can one say in the face of such overwhelming arrogance concerning one of the greatest threats to the human future?

    It is clear that our work is far from finished.  There is still much to do to rid the world of nuclear weapons.  But an important step forward has been taken.  I hope you will take heart from the progress that has been made, and always hold hope in your hearts.  Always remember that hope gives rise to action, and action gives rise to hope.

    David Krieger
    President
    Nuclear Age Peace Foundation
    (www.wagingpeace.org)