Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Category: Humanize Not Modernize

  • Modernizing the Opportunities for Nuclear War

    Lawrence WittnerA fight now underway over newly-designed U.S. nuclear weapons highlights how far the Obama administration has strayed from its commitment to build a nuclear-free world.

    The fight, as a recent New York Times article indicates, concerns a variety of nuclear weapons that the U.S. military is currently in the process of developing or, as the administration likes to say, “modernizing.”  Last year, the Pentagon flight-tested a mock version of the most advanced among them, the B61 Model 12.  This redesigned nuclear weapon is the country’s first precision-guided atomic bomb, with a computer brain and maneuverable fins that enable it to more accurately target sites for destruction.  It also has a “dial-a-yield” feature that allows its handlers to adjust the level of its explosive power.

    Supporters of this revamped weapon of mass destruction argue that, by ensuring greater precision in bombing “enemy” targets, reducing the yield of a nuclear blast, and making a nuclear attack more “thinkable,” the B61 Model 12 is actually a more humanitarian and credible weapon than older, bigger versions.  Arguing that this device would reduce risks for civilians near foreign military targets, James Miller, who developed the nuclear weapons modernization plan while undersecretary of defense, stated in a recent interview that “minimizing civilian casualties if deterrence fails is both a more credible and a more ethical approach.”

    Other specialists were far more critical.  The Federation of Atomic Scientists pointed out that the high accuracy of the weapon and its lower settings for destructiveness might tempt military commanders to call for its use in a future conflict.

    General James E. Cartright, a former head of the U.S. Strategic Command and a retired vice chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, conceded that possessing a smaller nuclear device did make its employment “more thinkable.”  But he supported developing the weapon because of its presumed ability to enhance nuclear deterrence.  Using a gun as a metaphor, he stated:  “It makes the trigger easier to pull but makes the need to pull the trigger less likely.”

    Another weapon undergoing U.S. government “modernization” is the cruise missile.  Designed for launching by U.S. bombers, the weapon—charged William Perry, a former secretary of defense—raised the possibilities of a “limited nuclear war.”  Furthermore, because cruise missiles can be produced in nuclear and non-nuclear versions, an enemy under attack, uncertain which was being used, might choose to retaliate with nuclear weapons.

    Overall, the Obama administration’s nuclear “modernization” program—including not only redesigned nuclear weapons, but new nuclear bombers, submarines, land-based missiles, weapons labs, and production plants—is estimated to cost as much as $1 trillion over the next thirty years.  Andrew C. Weber, a former assistant secretary of defense and former director of the interagency body that oversees America’s nuclear arsenal, has criticized it as “unaffordable and unneeded.”  After all, the U.S. government already has an estimated 7,200 nuclear weapons.

    The nuclear weapons modernization program is particularly startling when set against President Obama’s April 2009 pledge to build a nuclear weapons-free world.  Although this public commitment played a large part in his receipt of the Nobel Peace Prize that year, in succeeding years the administration’s action on this front declined precipitously.  It did manage to secure a strategic arms reduction treaty (New START) with Russia in 2010 and issue a pledge that same year that the U.S. government would “not develop new nuclear warheads.”  But, despite promises to bring the 1996 Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty to the Senate for ratification and to secure further nuclear arms agreements with Russia, nuclear disarmament efforts ground to a halt.  Instead, plans for “nuclear modernization” began.  The president’s 2016 State of the Union address contained not a word about nuclear disarmament, much less a nuclear weapons-free world.

    What happened?

    Two formidable obstacles derailed the administration’s nuclear disarmament policy.  At home, powerful forces moved decisively to perpetuate the U.S. nuclear weapons program:  military contractors, the weapons labs, top military officers, and, especially, the Republican Party.  Republican support for disarmament treaties was crucial, for a two-thirds vote of the U.S. Senate was required to ratify them.  Thus, when the Republicans abandoned the nuclear arms control and disarmament approach of past GOP presidents and ferociously attacked the Obama administration for “weakness” or worse, the administration beat an ignominious retreat.  To attract the backing of Republicans for the New START Treaty, it promised an upgraded U.S. nuclear weapons program.

    Russia’s lack of interest in further nuclear disarmament agreements with the United States provided another key obstacle.  With 93 percent of the world’s nuclear weapons in the arsenals of these two nations, a significant reduction in nuclear weapons hinged on Russia’s support for it.  But, angered by the sharp decline of its power in world affairs, including NATO’s advance to its borders, the Russian government engaged in its own nuclear buildup and spurned U.S. disarmament proposals.

    Despite these roadblocks, the Obama administration could renew the nuclear disarmament process.  Developing better relations with Russia, for example by scrapping NATO’s provocative expansion plan, could smooth the path toward a Russian-American nuclear disarmament agreement.  And this, in turn, would soften the objections of the lesser nuclear powers to reducing their own nuclear arsenals.  If Republican opposition threatened ratification of a disarmament treaty, it could be bypassed through an informal U.S.-Russian agreement for parallel weapons reductions.  Moreover, even without a bilateral agreement, the U.S. government could simply scrap large portions of its nuclear arsenal, as well as plans for modernization.  Does a country really need thousands of nuclear weapons to deter a nuclear attack?  Britain possesses only 215.  And the vast majority of the world’s nations don’t possess any.

    Given the terrible dangers and costs posed by nuclear weapons, isn’t it time to get back on the disarmament track?

  • Political Responsibility in the Nuclear Age: An Open Letter to the American People

    This article was originally published by The Nation.

    Dear fellow citizens:

    By their purported test of a hydrogen bomb early in 2016, North Korea reminded the world that nuclear dangers are not an abstraction, but a continuing menace that the governments and peoples of the world ignore at their peril.  Even if the test were not of a hydrogen bomb but of a smaller atomic weapon, as many experts suggest, we are still reminded that we live in the Nuclear Age, an age in which accident, miscalculation, insanity or intention could lead to devastating nuclear catastrophe.

    What is most notable about the Nuclear Age is that we humans, by our scientific and technological ingenuity, have created the means of our own demise.  The world currently is confronted by many threats to human wellbeing, and even civilizational survival, but we focus here on the particular grave dangers posed by nuclear weapons and nuclear war.

    Even a relatively small nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan, with each country using 50 Hiroshima-size nuclear weapons on the other side’s cities, could result in a nuclear famine killing some two billion of the most vulnerable people on the planet. A nuclear war between the U.S. and Russia could destroy civilization in a single afternoon and send temperatures on Earth plummeting into a new ice age.  Such a war could destroy most complex life on the planet.  Despite the gravity of such threats, they are being ignored, which is morally reprehensible and politically irresponsible.

    The White HouseWe in the United States are in the midst of hotly contested campaigns to determine the candidates of both major political parties in the 2016 presidential faceoff, and yet none of the frontrunners for the nominations have even voiced concern about the nuclear war dangers we face.  This is an appalling oversight.  It reflects the underlying situation of denial and complacency that disconnects the American people as a whole from the risks of use of nuclear weapons in the years ahead.  This menacing disconnect is reinforced by the media, which has failed to challenge the candidates on their approach to this apocalyptic weaponry during the debates and has ignored the issue in their television and print coverage, even to the extent of excluding voices that express concern from their opinion pages.  We regard it as a matter of urgency to put these issues back on the radar screen of public awareness.

    We are appalled that none of the candidates running for the highest office in the land has yet put forward any plans or strategy to end current threats of nuclear annihilation, none has challenged the planned expenditure of $1 trillion to modernize the U.S. nuclear arsenal, and none has made a point of the U.S. being in breach of its nuclear disarmament obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.  In the presidential debates it has been a non-issue, which scandalizes the candidates for not raising the issue in their many public speeches and the media for not challenging them for failing to do so.  As a society, we are out of touch with the most frightening, yet after decades still dangerously mishandled, challenge to the future of humanity.

    There are nine countries that currently possess nuclear weapons.  Five of these nuclear-armed countries are parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (U.S., Russia, UK, France and China), and are obligated by that treaty to negotiate in good faith for a cessation of the nuclear arms race and for nuclear disarmament.  The other four nuclear-armed countries (Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea) are subject to the same obligations under customary international law.  None of the nine nuclear-armed countries has engaged in such negotiations, a reality that should be met with anger and frustration, and not, as is now the case, with indifference.  It is not only the United States that is responsible for the current state of denial and indifference.  Throughout the world there is a false confidence that, because the Cold War is over and no nuclear weapons have been used since 1945, the nuclear dangers that once frightened and concerned people can now be ignored.

    Rather than fulfill their obligations for negotiated nuclear disarmament, the nine nuclear-armed countries all rely upon nuclear deterrence and are engaged in modernization programs that will keep their nuclear arsenals active through the 21st century and perhaps beyond.  Unfortunately, nuclear deterrence does not actually provide security to countries with nuclear arsenals.  Rather, it is a hypothesis about human behavior, which is unlikely to hold up over time.  Nuclear deterrence has come close to failing on numerous occasions and would clearly be totally ineffective, or worse, against a terrorist group in possession of one or more nuclear weapons, which has no fear of retaliation and may actually welcome it.  Further, as the world is now embarking on a renewed nuclear arms race, disturbingly reminiscent of the Cold War, rising risks of confrontations and crises between major states possessing nuclear weapons increase the possibility of use.

    As citizens of a nuclear-armed country, we are also targets of nuclear weapons.  John F. Kennedy saw clearly that “Every man, woman and child lives under a nuclear sword of Damocles, hanging by the slenderest of threads, capable of being cut at any moment by accident, or miscalculation, or by madness.  The weapons of war must be abolished before they abolish us.”  What President Kennedy vividly expressed more than 50 years ago remains true today, and even more so as the weapons proliferate and as political extremist groups come closer to acquiring these terrible weapons.

    hiroshimaThose with power and control over nuclear weapons could turn this planet, unique in all the universe in supporting life, into the charred remains of a Global Hiroshima.  Should any political leader or government hold so much power?  Should we be content to allow such power to rest in any hands at all?

    It is time to end the nuclear weapons era.  We are living on borrowed time.  The U.S., as the world’s most powerful country, must play a leadership role in convening negotiations.  For the U.S. to be effective in leading to achieve Nuclear Zero, U.S. citizens must awaken to the need to act and must press our government to act and encourage others elsewhere, especially in the other eight nuclear-armed countries, to press their governments to act as well.  It is not enough to be apathetic, conformist, ignorant or in denial.  We all must take action if we want to save humanity and other forms of life from nuclear catastrophe.  In this spirit, we are at a stage where we need a robust global solidarity movement that is dedicated to raising awareness of the growing nuclear menace, and the urgent need to act nationally, regionally and globally to reverse the strong militarist currents that are pushing the world ever closer to the nuclear precipice.

    Nuclear weapons are the most immediate threat to humanity, but they are not the only technology that could play and is playing havoc with the future of life.  The scale of our technological impact on the environment (primarily fossil fuel extraction and use) is also resulting in global warming and climate chaos, with predicted rises in ocean levels and many other threats – ocean acidification, extreme weather, climate refugees and strife from drought – that will cause massive death and displacement of human and animal populations.

    In addition to the technological threats to the human future, many people on the planet now suffer from hunger, disease, lack of shelter and lack of education.  Every person on the planet has a right to adequate nutrition, health care, housing and education.  It is deeply unjust to allow the rich to grow richer while the vast majority of humanity sinks into deeper poverty.  It is immoral to spend our resources on modernizing weapons of mass annihilation while large numbers of people continue to suffer from the ravages of poverty.

    Doing all we can to move the world to Nuclear Zero, while remaining responsive to other pressing dangers, is our best chance to ensure a benevolent future for our species and its natural surroundings.  We can start by changing apathy to empathy, conformity to critical thinking, ignorance to wisdom, denial to recognition, and thought to action in responding to the threats posed by nuclear weapons and the technologies associated with global warming, as well as to the need to address present human suffering arising from war and poverty.

    The richer countries are challenged by migrant flows of desperate people that number in the millions and by the realization that as many as a billion people on the planet are chronically hungry and another two billion are malnourished, resulting in widespread growth stunting among children and other maladies.  While ridding the world of nuclear weaponry is our primary goal, we are mindful that the institution of war is responsible for chaos and massive casualties, and that we must also challenge the militarist mentality if we are ever to enjoy enduring peace and security on our planet.

    The fate of our species is now being tested as never before.  The question before us is whether humankind has the foresight and discipline necessary to forego some superfluous desires, mainly curtailing propensities for material luxuries and for domination of our fellow beings, thereby enabling all of us and succeeding generations to live lives worth living.  Whether our species will rise to this challenge is uncertain, with current evidence not reassuring.

    The time is short and what is at risk is civilization and every small and great thing that each of us loves and treasures on our planet.

    The authors are affiliated with the Santa Barbara based Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

    Vaya aquí para la versión española.

  • We Are Living at the Edge of a Nuclear Precipice

    With nuclear weapons, what could possibly go wrong? The short answer is: Everything.

    Nuclear weapons could be launched by accident or miscalculation. There have already been several close calls related to false warnings nearly leading to actual launches, which would most likely have led to retaliatory responses. These false warnings are all the more dangerous for the US and Russia knowing that each side keeps hundreds of nuclear weapons on high alert, ready to be launched in moments of an order to do so.

    David KriegerThe mere possession of nuclear weapons and the prestige in the international community associated with such possession is an inducement to nuclear proliferation. There are currently nine nuclear-armed countries. How much more dangerous would the world become if there were 19, 29 or 99?

    Nuclear weapons are justified by a hypothesis about human behavior known as nuclear deterrence. It posits that a nation (with or without nuclear weapons) will not attack a nation that threatens nuclear retaliation. But nuclear deterrence is not foolproof and it does not provide physical protection. The security it provides is entirely psychological. It fails if one side does not believe that the other side would really engage in nuclear retaliation. It fails if one side is not rational. It fails in the case of a terrorist group in possession of nuclear weapons that does not have territory to retaliate against and additionally may be suicidal.

    Nuclear deterrence may provide some weak, uncertain and unreliable protection against other states, but it provides no protection against terrorists. Thus, terrorists in possession of nuclear weapons are any state’s worst nightmare, including nuclear-armed states. In light of such dangers, it would make sense to seek to reduce nuclear arsenals to the lowest possible number of weapons (on the way to zero) so that any that remained could be more effectively guarded and kept from the hands of terrorist groups.

    It is also true that the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) requires the 190 parties to the treaty to negotiate in good faith for effective measures to end the nuclear arms race at an early date and to achieve complete nuclear disarmament. The obligation to negotiate in good faith for nuclear disarmament also applies to the four nuclear-armed countries that are not parties to the NPT (Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea) through customary international law.

    Since it is clear that much could go wrong with nuclear weapons, including some weapons falling into the hands of terrorists, it is surprising that there is so much complacency around the issue. This complacency is fuelled by apathy, conformity, ignorance and denial. Without citizen engagement, pushing on political leaders to act, it is likely that the world will witness nightmarish nuclear terror, either of the state variety or that actually brought about by terrorists in possession of nuclear weapons. Apathy and denial have the potential to corrode and dissolve our common future.

    For the present, the nine nuclear-armed countries all have plans to modernize their nuclear arsenals, despite the immorality, illegality and waste of resources involved in doing so. The US alone is planning to spend $1 trillion on modernizing its nuclear arsenal over the next three decades. Where is the humanity in seeking to devote resources to improving nuclear weaponry and delivery systems when there are so many human needs that are going unfulfilled?

    Nuclear weapons are not a solution to any human problem, and they raise the specter of the devastation of civilization and the doom of the human species. What could possibly go wrong? Shouldn’t good citizens just ignore nuclear dangers and leave them in the hands of whoever happens to be leading the nuclear-armed countries? That would actually be a continuation of the status quo and would be no solution at all.

    We must recognize that we are living at the edge of a nuclear precipice with the ever-present dangers of nuclear proliferation, nuclear accidents and miscalculations, nuclear terrorism and nuclear war. Instead of relying on nuclear deterrence and pursuing the modernization of nuclear arsenals, we need to press our political leaders to fulfill our moral and legal obligations to negotiate in good faith for the prohibition and elimination of nuclear weapons. That is, we need to break free of our acidic complacency and commit ourselves to achieving a nuclear zero world.

    This article was originally published by truthout.

    Click here for the Spanish version.

  • Pope Francis Calls for Complete Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons

    When Pope Francis came to the United States he brought with him not only his spirituality, but his courage, compassion and commitment to creating a more decent world.  He urged the people of the US and their representatives to live by the Golden Rule and to respect nature that sustains us all.  Despite a full schedule, he found time to share a meal with the homeless, dialogue with prisoners, and bless those in need.  He commented that the children are the most important among us.  He taught us with his smiles, his warmth, his words and his deeds.

    pope_ungaThe Pope did so much during his six-day visit that many Americans may have missed his remarks at the United Nations on September 25th on the “urgent need to work for a world free of nuclear weapons, in full application of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, in letter and spirit, with the goal of a complete prohibition of these weapons.”  The Pope asks us not only to desire such a world, but admonishes us “to work” for it.  In order to achieve this world, one must work to replace apathy with empathy, conformity with critical thinking, ignorance with wisdom, and denial with recognition of the threat these weapons pose to humankind and the human future.

    Pope Francis calls upon us to recognize that there is an “urgent need” for such work.  It is not work for a distant day, or work that can be put off to another time.  The matter is urgent, the need is great.  He also calls for the “full application of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, in letter and spirit.”  The Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which entered into force in 1970, requires the parties in Article VI of the treaty “to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to the cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament….”

    The five nuclear-armed countries that are parties to the NPT (US, Russia, UK, France and China) are not at present following either the letter or spirit of the treaty.  Rather than ending the nuclear arms race, they are engaged in costly and dangerous “modernizing” of their nuclear arsenals, while ignoring their obligations to negotiate in good faith for nuclear disarmament.  The four nuclear-armed countries that are not parties to the treaty (Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea) are bound by customary international law to these provisions of the NPT, and are also ignoring their obligations under international law.

    Pope Francis is clear that the goal to be achieved is the “complete prohibition” of nuclear weapons.  Partial measures are not enough.  As the spiritual leader that he is, he must be keenly aware that all of Creation, including humankind, is placed at risk by the more than 15,000 nuclear weapons still on our planet.  The Pope effectively dismisses nuclear deterrence as a justification for nuclear weapons.  He states, “An ethics and a law based on the threat of mutual destruction – and possibly the destruction of all mankind – are self-contradictory and an affront to the entire framework of the United Nations, which would end up as ‘nations united by fear and distrust.’”

    As someone who has worked for the abolition of nuclear weapons for more than three decades, I am greatly encouraged by the Pope’s resounding call for “complete prohibition.”  He did not mince his words.  He was clear and direct and spoke of the urgency that is necessary to accomplish the task.  Many others throughout the world seeking a world free of nuclear weapons must also be elated by Pope Francis’ call for nuclear weapons abolition, including the 117 countries that have signed the “Humanitarian Pledge,” initiated by Austria, to fill the legal gap that currently exists regarding possession of these weapons.  The tiny Republic of the Marshall Islands must be particularly encouraged by the Pope’s call for abolition as it is in the process of suing the nine nuclear-armed countries in the International Court of Justice and in US federal court for their failure to fulfill their obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty and customary international law.

    Pope Francis is a wise and decent man.  His words of support for a “complete prohibition” of nuclear weapons should give heart to all who seek a world free of nuclear weapons, a goal that those of us now alive owe to our children and grandchildren and all generations that will follow us on the planet.

    Vaya aquí para la versión española.

  • Humanizar, no modernizar

    Traducción de Rubén Arvizu.

    Click here for the English version.

    La Nuclear Age Peace Foundation celebra ahora 33 años de trabajar por la paz y por un mundo libre de armas nucleares. Buscamos estas metas para la gente de hoy, así como también para las del futuro. Para que todos podamos tener un planeta sano para vivir y disfrutar.

    La ciencia y tecnología han traído grandes beneficios a la humanidad en la forma de mejorar la salud, las comunicaciones, el transporte y muchas otras áreas de nuestras vidas. Una persona promedio en la actualidad tiene una vida mejor y más larga que la de reyes y nobles de épocas anteriores. Sin embargo, la ciencia y la tecnología no siempre han sido universalmente positivas. También nos han dado armas capaces de destruir la civilización y la vida más compleja en el planeta, incluyendo a nuestra propia especie.

    En la Era Nuclear, nuestra capacidad tecnológica para la destrucción ha superado nuestra capacidad espiritual y moral para controlar estas tecnologías destructivas. Nuestra Fundación es una voz para todos aquellos comprometidos con el ejercicio de la conciencia y la elección de un futuro decente para toda la humanidad.

    NAPF continúa en su papel de consultor de la República de las Islas Marshall (RIM) en sus valientes demandas de Cero nuclear contra los nueve Goliats que poseen ese armamento.  Los isleños de las Marshall, que han sido víctimas de las pruebas nucleares de Estados Unidos, conocen muy bien el dolor y el sufrimiento causado por esas pruebas. Sus demandas no buscan compensación monetaria, sino asegurar que los países con armas nucleares cumplan con sus obligaciones en virtud del derecho internacional del Tratado de No Proliferación Nuclear y las  negociaciones internacionales de buena fe para poner fin a las armas nucleares en una fecha próxima y así lograr el desarme nuclear en todos sus aspectos. Estamos orgullosos de apoyar a la RIM en estas demandas justas y necesarias.

    No existe forma de humanizar las armas que son inhumanas, inmorales e ilegales. Ellas deben ser abolidas, no modernizadas. Y, sin embargo, los nueve países con armas nucleares están involucrados en la modernización de sus arsenales nucleares.  EE.UU. está a la cabeza, y planea  gastar más de 1 billón de dólares en la mejora de este arsenal en los próximos tres decenios. Con este paso, está haciendo  que el mundo sea más peligroso y menos seguro.

    EE.UU. podría ser líder en la humanización en lugar de  la modernización mediante la reasignación de sus vastos recursos para alimentar a los hambrientos, los sin techo, proporcionando agua potable, asegurando una educación para los pobres, así como la limpieza del medio ambiente, el cambio a fuentes de energía renovables y reparando la infraestructura deteriorada.

    Únete a nosotros para hacer el cambio de en lugar de modernizar los arsenales nucleares, humanizar el planeta.

    David Krieger es Presidente de la Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

    Rubén Arvizu es Director para América Latina de la Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

  • Humanize, Not Modernize

    The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation is now in its 33rd year of working for peace and a world free of nuclear weapons.  We seek these goals for the people of today, and also for those of the future, so that they may have a healthy planet to live on and enjoy.

    Science and technology have brought great benefits to humanity in the form of health care, communications, transportation and many other areas of our lives.  An average person alive today lives a better and longer life than did kings and nobles of earlier times.  Yet, science and technology have not been universally positive.  They have also given us weapons capable of destroying civilization and most complex life on the planet, including that of our own species.

    In the Nuclear Age, our technological capacity for destruction has outpaced our spiritual and moral capacity to control these destructive technologies.  The Foundation is a voice for those committed to exercising conscience and choosing a decent future for all humanity.

    childrennature3The Foundation continues in its role as consultant to the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI) in its courageous Nuclear Zero lawsuits against the nine nuclear-armed Goliaths.  The Marshall Islanders, who have been victims of US nuclear testing, know the pain and suffering caused by these weapons.  Their lawsuits seek not compensation, but to assure that the nuclear-armed countries fulfill their obligations under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and customary international law to negotiate in good faith to end the nuclear arms at an early date and to achieve nuclear disarmament in all its aspects.  We are proud to stand with the RMI in these lawsuits that seek an end to the nuclear weapons era.

    There is no way to humanize weapons that are inhumane, immoral and illegal. These weapons must be abolished, not modernized.  And yet, all nine nuclear-armed countries are engaged in modernizing their nuclear arsenals.  The US is leading the way, planning to spend more than $1 trillion on upgrading its nuclear arsenal over the next three decades.  In doing so, it is making the world more dangerous and less secure.  The US could lead in humanizing rather than modernizing by reallocating its vast resources to feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless, providing safe drinking water, assuring an education for the poor, as well as cleaning up the environment, shifting to renewable energy sources and repairing deteriorating infrastructure.

    Join us in making the shift from modernizing nuclear arsenals to humanizing the planet.

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

    Vaya aquí para la versión española.