Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Category: Articles by David Krieger

  • Hacking Nuclear Weapons Systems

    David KriegerBruce Blair raises important questions and concerns about hacking nuclear weapons systems in his op-ed in the New York Times, “Why Our Nuclear Weapons Can Be Hacked,” on March 14, 2017.  If the U.S. and other nuclear-armed countries continue on the path they’re on, sooner or later, despite the best of intentions, hackers will succeed, leading to unauthorized missile launches, nuclear anarchy and nuclear catastrophe.

    Foolproof systems are not possible, particularly when countries are allocating increasingly significant scientific and financial resources to cyber warfare.  As Edward Teller, father of the H-bomb, pointed out, “Sooner or later a fool will prove greater than the proof, even in a foolproof system.”  The world has narrowly escaped many close calls due to accidents and false alarms of nuclear attacks.  This good fortune will not continue indefinitely.

    The possibility of cyber warfare is one of the best possible arguments for U.S. leadership to negotiate the abolition of nuclear weapons before they abolish us.  Later this month, some 130 countries will be meeting at the United Nations in New York to draft a new treaty to prohibit and eliminate nuclear weapons.  Sadly, and dangerously, the U.S. and the other P-5 nuclear weapons states have chosen not to participate in these negotiations.  They seem to prefer the false security and political advantages of possessing their nuclear arsenals to ridding the world of the dangers posed by these arsenals.  Being hacked is only one of many serious dangers.  There are also the ongoing threats of nuclear warfare initiated by accident, miscalculation, intention or insanity.

  • The Nuclear Weapons Threat to Our Common Future

    David KriegerNuclear weapons are an existential threat to humans and other forms of complex life.  The possibility of nuclear annihilation should concern us enough to take action to abolish these weapons.  The failure of large numbers of people to take such action raises vitally important questions.  Have we humans given up on our own future?  Are we willing to act on our own behalf and that of future generations?

    Nine countries possess nuclear weapons, and the predominant orientation toward them is that they provide protection to their citizens.  They do not.  Nuclear weapons provide no physical protection.  While they may provide psychological “protection,” this is akin to erecting a Maginot Line in the mind – one that can be easily overcome under real world conditions, just as the French Maginot Line was circumvented in World War II, leading to the military defeat and occupation of France by German forces.

    Following a recent test of a nuclear-capable Minuteman III missile from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California, Colonel Craig Ramsey, the flight test squadron commander, commented that “efforts like these make nuclear deterrence effective.”  Perhaps they do so in Colonel Ramsey’s mind, but no one knows what effects such tests have on the minds of potential nuclear adversaries.  We can say with certainty that such tests would not deter terrorists in possession of nuclear weapons, since the terrorists would have no territory to retaliate against.  It should be noted as well that U.S. leaders are generally highly critical of similar missile tests by other nations, and do not view these tests as providing an effective deterrent force for them.

    We know from the damage that was caused by the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki that these weapons kill indiscriminately and cause unnecessary suffering, both crimes under international humanitarian law. Any threat or use of these weapons would be immoral as well as illegal.  Nuclear weapons are also extremely costly and draw scientific and financial resources away from meeting human needs.  As long-distance killing devices, they are also cowardly in the extreme.

    Are those of us living in the most powerful nuclear weapon state sleepwalking toward Armageddon?  Are we lemmings heading toward a cliff?  Are we unable to awaken from a nuclear nightmare?  We must wake up and demand the good faith negotiations for nuclear zero promised in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

    The Doomsday Clock of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists has moved 30 seconds ahead and now stands at 2.5 minutes to midnight.  We have been warned many times and in many ways.  Yet, we remain stuck at the brink of nuclear catastrophe.  The people need to step back from the brink and insist that their leaders follow them in moving away.

    U.S. nuclear policy puts the future of humanity in the hands of a single leader with the codes to initiate a nuclear war.  Should that leader be unstable, unbalanced, erratic or insane, he or she could initiate a nuclear war that would leave the world in shambles, destroying everyone and everything that each of us loves and holds dear.

    The stakes are very high and the challenge is one we ignore at our peril.  I encourage you to join us at the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation in working to achieve a world free of nuclear weapons, a world we can be proud to pass on intact to our children, grandchildren and all children.

  • Glenn Paige: A Prophet of Nonkilling

    [The world lost a great man when Glenn Paige passed on January 22, 2017.  What follows is an article I wrote in 2010, the year in which Glenn received the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s Distinguished Peace Leadership Award.  It is about Glenn’s great transformation in life from a successful academic to a prophet of nonkilling.  I’ve left the article in the present tense, and believe that Glenn lives on in the hearts and minds of the many people he inspired with his commitment to and leadership for a nonkilling world.]

    Glenn Paige is a man who in midlife re-created himself and his purpose on the planet.  At the age of 44, he shifted from being an academic Cold Warrior to a man dedicated to nonkilling.  He later described to me his transformation in this way: “It finally just came to me in three silent surprising words: ‘No More Killing!’  Technically it might be called the result of ‘cognitive dissonance’ when values and reality are perceived to clash.  But it was nothing rational…and was definitely related to many years of study of Korea and involvement in relations with it, South and North.  My book, The Korean Decision, justified war.  The results finally sunk in to me – neither peace nor freedom.”

    I asked Glenn to describe in a more detailed way what had happened when he experienced the words, “No More Killing.”  He replied: “The words/idea ‘No More Killing’ specifically came in an instant from the Korean experience – and was simultaneously generalized to the whole world, not just war, but all forms of killing.  The first thing I did was write a book review of my book on the Korean War….  Then I applied the same critique to the entire discipline of political science.”  Now he is applying the same critique to the world.

    I first knew of Glenn in the late-1960s.  He came to the University of Hawaii in 1967 as a professor in the department of political science as I was finishing up my Ph.D. in the department.  I would leave Hawaii in 1970, a few years before Glenn would experience his transformation in 1973.  At the time, Glenn had the reputation for being a Cold Warrior, having served as a soldier in the Korean War and then writing a book in which he justified the US involvement in the war.  I was strongly opposed to the Vietnam War, which was increasing in intensity and body counts at that time, and I had little tolerance for someone who had built his career on justifying any war.  I was neither open-minded about war, nor tolerant of those who supported it.  I felt that war was a way of misdirecting the lives of young people by propaganda and putting them in the untenable situation of having to kill or be killed.  In that regard, I have changed my views very little over the years, but Glenn changed very much.

    Glenn is a well educated Ivy Leaguer, who received a B.A. from Princeton and an M.A. from Harvard before being awarded a Ph.D. from Northwestern.  He had carved out a place for himself in academia with his study of the political decision of US leaders to enter the Korean War.  He had taught for six years at Princeton before accepting a position at the University of Hawaii.  He didn’t seem like a strong candidate for transformation, but something mysterious happened, perhaps something latent in his character asserted itself with, as he described it, “three silent surprising words: ‘No More Killing!’”

    Glenn transformed himself from an establishment academic who studied political leadership into a man who envisioned a peaceful, nonviolent world and was prepared to lead by example and personal commitment in attaining such a world.   He publicly recanted the conclusions he had earlier reached and written in justification of the Korean War, and he went on to renounce killing and to establish a Center for Global Nonkilling.

    How rare is that in academia?  It is so rare as to have an impossibly small probability of occurring.  Glenn’s initial path in academia was one that was bringing him considerable academic success.  He had been well received by the foreign policy establishment in the United States, and his studies promised a comfortable academic career.  However, his work prior to his transformation offered only the conventional “truths” that are deeply embedded in a culture of militarism.  It justified one war, which helped build a foundation for the next one.  It perpetuated the myth that wars are necessary and therefore glorious, the lies that induce new generations to submit to following orders and being willing to both kill others and sacrifice their own lives in war.  His earlier work, in short, was consistent with adding academia as a third institutional leg to the Military-Industrial Complex that Eisenhower warned against.

    Glenn’s transformation was so rare, in academia or any other profession, as to appear as a miracle, a change not easily explicable by reference to experience in our society.  There are few modern day examples of such transformation.  Glenn is walking in the path of champions of nonviolence like Thoreau, Tolstoy, Gandhi, Schweitzer and King.  Like Nobel Peace Laureate Mairead Maguire, he is a prophet of nonkilling, which in my view goes even beyond nonviolence.  It puts into tangible practice Schweitzer’s concept of reverence for life.  It holds humanity to a higher standard.  Glenn left the safety and comfort of the academic cloister to envision and help forge a better path for humanity.

    In the future, I think people who seek a better world will look back with awe on Glenn’s life and transformation.  I don’t mean to imply that Glenn is a saint.  He is far too human and grounded for that.  But I do mean to state strongly that he is a most honorable man who is deserving of great respect for his transformative shift of course and what he accomplished following that shift.  Glenn became a leader in battling against our cultural acceptance of militarism with its all-to-easy reliance upon the use of force for domination and empire.  Should we ever arrive at a day when nonkilling becomes our societal norm, Glenn will certainly be revered for his commitment, eloquence and leadership toward achieving this end.

    Glenn once wrote me a humbling note: “I can only bow in reverence for the focused, successful mobilization of action for nuclear disarmament by the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation under your leadership.  I believe it is the most effective nuclear disarmament movement in the world.”  Of course, I was more than pleased to receive such a positive affirmation.  In reflecting on Glenn’s words, I realize that making such affirmations is one of the tools of a good peace leader.  Glenn is such a leader.

    Glenn Paige has done the very best that one can do with his life.  He has stood for truth and human decency.  He has radically transformed himself from an academic proponent of conventional wisdom in a society dominated by militarism to become a powerful voice and force for compassion, decency, nonviolence and nonkilling.  He has focused on nonkilling, a goal that to some may seem so distant as to be impossible.  But to envision the impossible and to work to make it a reality is another important characteristic of a great peace leader.

    Glenn has worked to bring the future we must achieve into the present.  He gives me and, I’m sure many others, hope that a better world, a better future, is possible.  He has demonstrated to other academics that the future is far more important than footnotes.  He has lived the truths of peace and nonviolence that he discovered on his life journey, and he has shown by example that each of us can do more with our lives than may seem possible.  In leading by example, he has shown a central trait of a strong peace leader.

    Thank you, Glenn, for cutting away the tangled intellectual underbrush to forge a path toward a nonkilling political science and nonkilling societies.  Thank you for envisioning and building an institution that will work toward these ends.  Thank you for your compassionate and impassioned leadership aimed at achieving a world in which the killing of other human beings is taboo.  Thank you for being you.

  • Compassionate Convictions Mixed with a Will of Steel

    The sad news came today that Judge Christopher Weeramantry, a long-time member of the Foundation’s Advisory Council, passed away today (January 5, 2017) in Colombo, Sri Lanka.  Judge Weeramantry was a great man who made significant contributions to law and ethics.  His values set a high-water mark for jurists, and these will undoubtedly be carried forward by his writings and by his many students and colleagues.  In 1996, when  he was vice president of the International Court of Justice, he wrote a dissent to the Court’s Advisory Opinion on the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons.  In my opinion, his dissent stands as the best legal analysis ever made of the threat or use of nuclear weapons being illegal in “any circumstances whatsoever.”

    It was a privilege to have known and worked with Judge Weeramantry.  What follows is the contribution I prepared for a felicitation volume honoring Judge Weeramantry that was organized for his 90th birthday in November 2016.

    I have known Judge Weeramantry for many years; and before I had the pleasure of knowing him, I admired his work from afar.  We have worked together on issues of nuclear weapons abolition and served together as councilors on the World Future Council.  He is outwardly calm, kind and warm, while inwardly he is a unique blend of deep and compassionate convictions mixed with a will of steel.

    Judge Weeramantry was honored by the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation on March 12, 2008.
    Judge Weeramantry was honored by the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation on April 12, 2008.

    Judge Weeramantry has a keen legal mind, which he has used effectively and courageously in support of a world free of nuclear weapons.  I deeply admire Judge Weeramantry for the clarity of his thinking in combination with the compassion of his vision of a more decent world.  He has served humanity in many ways, but in no way more importantly than his insistence that nuclear weapons are illegal and must be abolished.

    During the 1980s, Judge Weeramantry prepared and published a Proposed United Nations Declaration of Scientific Responsibility in Relation to Nuclear Weapons.  The following are two far-sighted paragraphs from this document:

    Place beyond doubt the illegality of the use of nuclear weapons, having regard to its violation of the principles of proportionality, discrimination, aggravation of pain and suffering, nullification of a return to peace and inviolability or neutral states

    Aware that the use of nuclear weaponry would undoubtedly result in ecocide, genocide and, if there are any survivors, in massive intergenerational damage

    The document builds toward the conclusion that work on nuclear weapons in any form constitutes crimes under international law, and therefore “calls upon all scientists and technologists throughout the world to abide by the legal and ethical obligations outlined in this document and to desist from any activity involving the development, production, testing, possession, deployment or use of nuclear weapons.”

    During his tenure as a Judge on the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the court considered the United Nations General Assembly’s request for an Advisory Opinion “on the Legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons.”  Whereas the majority of the judges, with the President casting the deciding vote, found in their 1996 Advisory Opinion that such threat or use would be “generally illegal,” Judge Weeramantry found that the threat or use of nuclear weapons would be illegal in any circumstances whatsoever.  He was uncompromising in his stance.  No matter how extreme the circumstances, nuclear weapons could not be used without violating international humanitarian law.

    Judge Weeramantry wrote a brilliant and comprehensive dissent to the Court’s Advisory Opinion in the case.  The opening words of his dissent were these: “My considered opinion is the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons is illegal in any circumstances whatsoever.”  In the next paragraph of his dissent, he stated, “I regret that the Court has not held directly and categorically that the use or threat of use of the weapon is unlawful in all circumstances without exception.  The Court should have so stated in a vigorous and forthright manner which would have settled this legal question now and forever.”

    In reaching the end of his nearly 100-page dissent, Judge Weeramantry stated, “No issue could be fraught with deeper implications for the human future, and the pulse of the future beats strong in the body of international law.  This issue has not thus far entered the precincts of international tribunals.  Now that it has done so for the first time, it should be answered – convincingly, clearly and categorically.”

    I have always felt that Judge Weeramantry’s dissent in this case was a high-water mark for humanity in the Nuclear Age.  It is wise and insightful.  He makes clear that it is not possible for the law to allow for the threat or use of weapons capable of destroying most or all life on the planet.  I look to the day in the future when the ICJ will return to the question of the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons, and will find upon reading and studying the Weeramantry dissent that the path has already been set forth by him for an uncompromising legal opinion that makes it clear that the threat or use of nuclear weapons is illegal under all circumstances, without exception.

    In 2013, Judge Weeramantry prepared an important Briefing Paper for the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, which the Foundation distributed at the second preparatory meeting of the 2015 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference.  The Briefing Paper was titled, “Good Faith: Essential to Nuclear Disarmament and Human Survival.”  Judge Weeramantry, building on article VI of the Non-Proliferation Treaty and the ICJ Advisory Opinion discussed above, made the argument that good faith was not optional, but essential for the international system to work.  His study of good faith in relation to nuclear disarmament led to the following conclusion:

    We are left with no other conclusion than that good faith in regard to nuclear disarmament is a basic requirement of law, of morality, of humanitarianism, and of concern for the human future. It is required by international law. It is undertaken by treaties, such as the Non-Proliferation Treaty. It is prescribed by the International Court of Justice. Neither law nor religion nor morality nor civilization can permit the slightest deviation from this duty of good faith, departure from which will make the cruelties of the past pale into insignificance.

    Judge Weeramantry is a prophet who has warned humanity repeatedly of the importance of international law as applied to nuclear weapons.  He has made it clear that the legal and ethical path to the human future requires the abolition of nuclear weapons, and there are no conditions whatsoever in which the threat or use of nuclear weapons can be justified under international law.

    In 2008, I had the pleasure of presenting Judge Weeramantry with the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s Lifetime Achievement Award, an award presented to “outstanding individuals who have made significant long-term contributions to building a more peaceful world.”  He fills this description in every way.  He is a man with a keen intellect dedicated to peace and international law, and he has a heart large enough to encompass all of humanity.  I feel fortunate to be his colleague, and even more so to be his friend.

  • The Most Dangerous Period in Human History

    David KriegerIt is terrifying to think of Donald Trump with the codes to launch the U.S. nuclear arsenal.  Ironically, Trump himself may be the single best argument anyone could make for why the world should abolish nuclear weapons.  The mix of Trump and nuclear weapons is a formula for making his term in office the most dangerous period in human history.

    Trump tweets from the hip, like a crazy man.  When he tweets or speaks, he often muddies the waters.   His aides spend much of their time trying to calm the fears he raises in his compulsive tweeting.

    He has tweeted, “The United States must greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability until such time as the world comes to its senses regarding nukes.”  It is not likely that he will be the person to lead the world in coming to its senses.

    He sought to clarify this tweet by telling MSNBC television host Mika Brzezinski, “Let it be an arms race…we will outmatch them at every pass and outlast them all.”

    The world does not need another nuclear arms race, triggered by macho threats from Trump.  Imagine him in John F. Kennedy’s place during the Cuban Missile Crisis.  Such a crisis under Trump could result in a civilization-ending nuclear war.

    Trump is erratic, impulsive, narcissistic, thin-skinned, and generally ignorant on nuclear and foreign policy issues.  He needs restraints on his personality pathologies, if the world is to survive his presidency.

    What can be done to keep Trump’s fingers away from the nuclear button?

    Before leaving office, President Obama could order that all weapons in the U.S. nuclear arsenal be taken off high alert status, so that it would take hours or days to launch rather than only a few minutes.  This would decrease the possibility of an impulsive or accidental launch of U.S. nuclear weapons, while still maintaining an invulnerable submarine-launched nuclear deterrent force.

    Further, President Obama could order that the U.S. adopt a “No First Use” policy related to its nuclear arsenal.  Such a policy would be in line with U.S. values, and most Americans believe that this is already U.S. policy.

    These acts by President Obama would show people in the U.S. that there is another way forward that is safer and more secure than threatening nuclear strikes.  Many people of the world outside the U.S. already know there is a better way forward that does not require preparing for massive nuclear retaliation and spending $1 trillion over the next three decades to modernize the U.S. nuclear arsenal.  That better way forward is to negotiate for the phased, verifiable, irreversible and transparent elimination of nuclear weapons.

    The American people must add their voices, calling for such policies, as well as U.S. leadership in fulfilling the obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to negotiate in good faith for an end to the nuclear arms race and for nuclear disarmament.

    The American people must make it clear to Mr. Trump that they will support him in taking steps to abolish nuclear weapons and to bring peace to the planet, but will oppose efforts on his part to strengthen and expand the U.S. nuclear arsenal and pursue a new nuclear arms race.

    Vaya aquí para la versión española.

  • The End of Everything

    A newsletter with this blaring headline
    has been on my desk for weeks, maybe months.
    I’m fascinated by its finality.

    Noam Chomsky delivers the same message
    over the radio in his calm voice of reason.  Are we
    reaching the end of all possibilities?

    No longer chaos, but an end to chaos.
    No longer love, but an end to love.
    No longer poems, but an end to poems.

    Everything is so shatteringly final.
    No longer hope or doubt or resistance.

    We must not cross that cruel line – not now,
    not ever.

     

  • The Alarm Is Sounding

    The alarm is sounding.
    The nuclear codes
    will soon be within reach
    of his small hands.

    This is no joke.
    The nuclear codes
    will soon be available
    to his small mind.

    This is deadly serious.
    Control of the nuclear codes
    demands what he lacks —
    a gracious heart.

    The alarm is sounding.
    This is no joke.
    This is deadly serious.

  • Donald Trump, the Bomb, and the Human Future

    donald_trumpDonald Trump and the Bomb are nearly the same age.  Which of them will prove to be more destructive remains to be seen, but in combination they are terrifying.

    Trump was born on June 14, 1946, less than a year after the first and, thus far, only nuclear weapons were used in war.  Given Trump’s surprising recent election as president of the United States, his fate and that of the Bomb are about to become seriously and dangerously intertwined with the fate of all humanity.

    On January 20, 2017, Trump will be sworn in as the 45th president of the United States, and he will be given the nuclear codes and the power to launch the U.S. nuclear arsenal, which is comprised of some 7,000 nuclear weapons.  A military officer will always be close to Trump, carrying the nuclear codes in a briefcase known as the “football.”  What does this portend for civilization and the future of humanity?

    The Singular Positive

    The most positive policy proposal Trump will bring to the table as president is his desire to improve and strengthen relations between the U.S. and Russia, which have deteriorated badly in recent years.  This is one hopeful sign that could lead to renewed efforts by the two countries to reduce their nuclear arsenals and reverse current plans to modernize these arsenals.

    The Numerous Negatives

    Trump’s behavior during the presidential campaign was often erratic, seemingly based on discernable personality traits, including narcissism, arrogance, impulsiveness, and a lack of predictability.  If these traits provide a fair characterization of Trump’s personality, what do they suggest for his control of the U.S. nuclear arsenal?

    Trump’s narcissism seems to be reflected in his need to be liked and treated positively.  During the primaries, if another candidate criticized him, Trump would respond with even stronger criticism toward his attacker.  On the other hand, if someone praised Trump, he would respond with praise.  This could result in creating a spiral in either a positive or negative direction.  A negative spiral could potentially get out of hand, which would be alarming with regard to anyone with a hand hovering near the nuclear button.

    His narcissism was also reflected in his need to be right.  Even though Trump is reported to not read very much and to have a limited range of experience, he is often certain that he is right and boldly asserts the correctness of his positions.  At one point, for example, he argued that he knew much more than military leaders about the pursuit and defeat of ISIS.  His assuredness of his own correctness seems also rooted in arrogance reflecting his fundamental insecurity.  This insecurity and his belief in his own rightness, when combined with his success at making money, leads him to be self-reliant in his decision-making, which could result in his taking risks with threatening or using nuclear weapons.  He said on MSNBC’s Morning Joe program, “My primary consultant is myself.”  While this may make consensus easy, the range of perspective is dangerously narrow.

    Two other personality traits could also make more likely Trump’s use of nuclear weapons: his impulsiveness and his lack of predictability.  Impulsiveness is not a trait one would choose for a person with the power to launch the U.S. nuclear arsenal.  When it comes to deciding to use the Bomb, a personality that is calm, clear and measured would seem to inspire more confidence that caution would be employed.  Predictability would also seem to inspire confidence that a President Trump would refrain from deciding to respond with overwhelming force when he is in a negative spiral and out of patience with a country or terrorist organization that is challenging the U.S., which he may interpret as mounting a challenge to himself personally.

    Where Does Trump Stand?

    On many issues, including on the use of nuclear weapons, it is not clear where Trump stands, due to his contradictory statements.  Here is what Trump said in March 2016 at a town hall event when host Chris Matthews asked him if he might use nuclear weapons:

    Trump: “I’d be the last one to use the nuclear weapons, because that’s sort of like the end of the ballgame.”

    Matthews: “So, can you take it off the table now? Can you tell the Middle East we are not using the nuclear weapon on anybody?”

    Trump: “I would never say that. I would never take any of my cards off the table.”

    Matthews: “How about Europe? We won’t use it in Europe.”

    Trump: “I’m not going to take it off the table for anybody.”

    Matthews: “You might use it in Europe?”

    Trump: “No. I don’t think so, but — I am not taking cards off the table. I’m not going to use nukes, but I’m not taking cards off the table.”

    Trump has also said that he would do away with the Iran Deal negotiated by the U.S. and five of its allies with Iran, and yet he recently backed away from vowing to scrap the Iran Deal for now.  He also said that he would encourage Japan and South Korea to develop their own nuclear arsenals to lower U.S. costs, and then has denied that he would encourage nuclear proliferation to allies (although he did say so).  He supports the modernization of the U.S. nuclear arsenal, while complaining about budget expenditures.  He presumably intends to go forward with the $1 trillion nuclear modernization plan.

    Conclusion

    Perhaps the singular positive of Trump’s desire to improve the deteriorating relations between the U.S. and Russia will lead to achieving progress toward a world free of nuclear weapons.  A lot will depend on who Trump chooses for key cabinet positions, but even more will depend on his consultations with his key advisor (himself).

    That so much power over the U.S. nuclear arsenal is placed in the hands of one man – any man – bodes ill for humanity, while completely undermining the war power granted to Congress in the U.S. constitution.  That the man in question should be Donald Trump, with all his personal flaws, challenges the United States and the world as never before in human history.

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

    Vaya aquí para la versión española.

  • Remembering Admiral Gene La Rocque

    I recently learned that Admiral Gene La Rocque died on October 31, 2016 at the age of 98.  He is buried at Arlington Cemetery.  Gene had a long career in the military, rising to the rank of rear admiral. In 1971, after his retirement from the military, he was one of the principal founders of the Center for Defense Information (CDI), a non-profit, non-partisan educational organization concerned with analysis of military matters and particularly abuses in defense expenditures.  CDI was led by retired military officers, including Gene, who was its first director.  The organization supported a strong defense, but opposed excessive expenditures for weapons and also policies that increased the likelihood of nuclear war.

    Admiral Gene La Rocque (L) and NAPF President David Krieger (R) at the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation's 1985 Evening for Peace.
    Admiral Gene La Rocque (L) and NAPF President David Krieger (R) at the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s 1985 Evening for Peace.

    In 1985, the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation gave its Distinguished Statesman Award to Gene for “courageous leadership in the cause of peace.”  (The name of the award was later changed to Distinguished Peace Leadership Award.)  Gene came to Santa Barbara to receive the award and spoke on “The Role of the Military in the Nuclear Age.”  In his speech upon receiving the Foundation’s award, Gene shared some important insights.  He said, for example, that, based upon his long military experience, he believed “that war is a very dumb way to settle differences between nations.  And nuclear war is utterly insane.”  Gene was always a straight talker.

    He also had this to say about nuclear war: “If we are to have a nuclear war, we can’t win it.  Can we survive it?  I don’t know.  Nobody knows.  That’s the tragedy of it – nobody knows.  Anybody that tells you that this many people are going to be killed and this many are going to survive doesn’t know what he’s talking about.”

    Referring to a war between the U.S. and Soviet Union, he said, “We’re getting closer to a war we don’t want, a war we can’t control, a war in which we can’t defend ourselves, a war we can’t win, and a war we probably can’t survive.”  Substitute “Russia” for “Soviet Union,” and these words are as true today as they were in 1985.

    Gene La Rocque was a wise and humble man, who stood squarely on the side of justice and peace.  He served for many years as a member of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s Advisory Council, when we could always count on him for his good advice and his abiding decency.  He was self-deprecating and had a great sense of humor.  He lived a long life and a good life, and he did his utmost to leave the world a better place.

    I urge you to follow Gene’s advice “to do something every day if you want to avert a nuclear war.”  No advice from a military leader could be more important or more useful to the fate of humanity.

    To read Admiral La Rocque’s 1985 speech on “The Role of the Military in the Nuclear Age,” click here.

  • 2016 Evening for Peace Introduction

    When we founded the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation in 1982, we did so in the belief that peace is an imperative of the Nuclear Age.  That is, in our time, peace is not only desirable; it is essential for human survival.

    For the past 33 years, among our many projects and programs, we’ve honored some of the great Peace Leaders of our time, including the XIVth Dalai Lama; Archbishop Desmond Tutu; Carl Sagan; Helen Caldicott; Jacques Cousteau; Mairead Maguire; Queen Noor and Daniel Ellsberg.

    We have honored Peace Leaders from all walks of life and from all parts of the world.  It is a diverse group of individuals tied together by their compassion, commitment and courage in pursuit of a more peaceful and decent world.

    Each of these individuals recognizes the existential dangers of the Nuclear Age and the moral, legal and logical failings of reliance on nuclear weapons for security.

    Each of them reminds us of how desperately our world needs Peace Leaders; and that each of us – if we apply our energy and will – can become a Peace Leader as well.

    *****

    krieger_chomsky
    NAPF President David Krieger, right, presented Noam Chomsky with the Distinguished Peace Leadership Award on October 23, 2016.

    Tonight we honor Noam Chomsky.

    By training and profession, he is one of the world’s leading linguists.

    By choice and commitment, he is one of the world’s leading advocates of peace with justice.

    His ongoing analysis of the global dangers confronting humanity is unsurpassed.

    He is a man who unreservedly speaks truth to power, as well as to the People.

    Like Socrates, he is a gentle gadfly who does not refrain from challenging authority and authoritarian mindsets.

    He is a man who punctures hubris with wisdom.

    He confronts conformity with critical thinking.

    He has lectured throughout the world and written more than 100 books, the latest of which is Who Rules the World?

    He is a dedicated peace educator and his classroom is the world.

    The Boston Globe calls him “America’s most useful citizen.”

    It is an honor to have him with us tonight, and it is my great pleasure, on behalf of the Directors and members of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, to present Noam Chomsky with the Foundation’s 2016 Distinguished Peace Leadership Award.