Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Category: International Issues

  • Memories of the Trinity Bomb, Reflections of the 7th Annual Sadako Peace Day

    Fifty-six years ago the United States dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima and the world was changed. Humankind lives the legacy of the events of the summer of 1945 in countless ways, great and small, personal and political. The end of the Cold War did not halt the fierce global race for more powerful armaments. And today, as citizens of the United States, as members of the world community, we face many great and grave decisions about the future, concerning missile defense, arms control and test ban treaties, the international proliferation of nuclear weapons and the development of, and trade in, weapons material, nuclear, biological and chemical. It is difficult not to despair of the overwhelming amount of work to be done.

    However, this afternoon, in a garden dedicated to children and to peace, I would like to put aside these daunting challenges and look to the sacredness of the small and the power of place to transform our lives. I am reminded of Mother Theresa’s statement, “We can do no great things, only small things with great love.”

    This is the seventh ceremony to be held in this garden, on these benches, dedicated to Sadako Sasaki, one of the millions of children we lost to the twentieth century’s brutal wars. This garden has come to have personal significance for me, and for many like me, who have found moments of inner quietude in the shelter of the Tree of Faith. My husband, Joseph, and I have come to the Immaculate Heart Center on retreat over the last six years, and I have learned many things from the Tree of Faith. Several years ago, I was looking at the very top, at the fragile new leaves opening there. And I realized that those leaves, growing from the majesty of this sturdy trunk and these strong branches, were as young, as fresh, as the smallest seedling growing in the brush. This was a lesson to me about history, about aging, about the past giving birth to the future. This regal tree delicately recreating itself through time- God’s grace at work in small things.

    So, this afternoon, let us renew ourselves, and rededicate our lives to peace.

    Several years ago, I realized that in order for me to deepen my understanding of what it might mean to invent a peace that has never existed in humankind’s history, I had first to deepen my understanding of the legacy of war in my own life. Thus, an explanation of the title of my comments is in order. Memories of the Trinity Bomb is the name of a Japanese documentary film about me and my search for the moral legacy of the atomic bomb, as the daughter of Manhattan Project scientists. Last fall, a Japanese documentary maker, Yoshihiko Muraki, read portions of my book, Atomic Fragments: A Daughter’s Questions, and was inspired to tell Japanese people the story of my quest in search of the personal meaning of the bomb in the lives of the scientists who created it.

    Mr. Muraki told me that there is a great gap between Japanese and American understandings of the atomic bomb. Japanese people, he said, see themselves as victims of the bomb, Americans see the bomb as having ended a brutal war. My words spoke to him across that gap, and he hopes that his film, which premiered last night on Japanese television, will be a step toward bridging understandings between our peoples-another small thing.

    This past spring, I spent more than thirty days with the Japanese film crew, traveling to Manhattan Project sites around the country, and to other places of personal and historical significance. The first place we visited together was the Trinity site in New Mexico, where the atomic bomb was first tested in July 1945. The last place we visited together was this garden.

    Although I was born four years after the end of the war, I do have very real “memories of the Trinity bomb.” I grew up with pictures of the Trinity test. My mother, with an undergraduate degree in physics, was an optics expert, and a member of the Los Alamos team that developed the photographic equipment for the test. I have a vivid childhood memory of studying the photographs of that test, famous pictures that many of you have no doubt seen, of the silvery bubble that was the deadly fire ball, expanding into the towering mushroom cloud.

    Then, three years ago, while doing research for my book, I visited Trinity. The site is only open to the public twice a year, and thousands of people came. I was alone among the crowds. At the obelisk marking ground zero, I witnessed a young Japanese woman weeping.

    As I wrote in Atomic Fragments, I was struck by the sacredness of the place, somehow representing not only the lives and deaths of the bomb’s victims, but the lives and deaths of all victims of war. I silently walked the great circle around ground zero, wondering if my prayers had the power to relieve past suffering.

    After Trinity, I drove up to Santa Fe. The next day was Sunday, and I walked to the cathedral, where mass was being said. Listening to the message of Christian loving kindness, I felt a lonely, deep despair. I could not imagine how, with all of our differences, it would ever be possible for the planet’s peoples to understand each other. How would the world ever be free of war? But following on that, I was graced with the smallest sense of hope. And at that moment, a nascent feeling, the conviction that there is something in our humanity that binds us together, was the only thing I was sure of.

    I never expected to visit Trinity again. However, when the Japanese film makers read my description of ground zero, they asked me to return there with them. There were eight of us at the Trinity site last April, along, with our military escort. There were no crowds, just eight of us, dwarfed by the desolate enormity of the stormy New Mexican wilderness and the memories imprinted on its landscape. I became aware that I was embarking, with them, on a new spiritual journey. They asked what I remembered, and what I felt. Again, I walked the circumference of ground zero, but I was no longer alone. I was accompanied, being observed, interpreted, and listened to.

    Our understandings of the place and time were very different. We were sometimes surprised by each other’s questions and observations, careful about each other’s feelings, judgmental of each other’s actions, and vulnerable to each other’s judgments. But in being there, in experiencing that place together, in examining the fearsome history that joins us, we consented to learn from each other, and in each others’ presence. Our understandings were filtered through our cultures, but by assenting to experience Trinity together, we were united in ITS space and time.

    The last place we visited together was this garden. I had written about attending the dedication on August 6, 1995, and Mr. Muraki wanted to film me here. So, in June, Joseph and I brought our Japanese colleagues, that they might experience its gentle refuge-a space so far from Trinity site. A tiny oasis capable of holding an infinity of prayers. I told them about the dedication of the benches on the fiftieth anniversary of Hiroshima, about Stella Matsuda’s Dance of a Thousand Cranes-Up From Ashes, which she performed in the chapel. I told them about returning here over the years, and even recited a poem I had composed one night under a full moon.

    And so we came to the end of our journey-thirty days together over a three month period. I do not know if, as Mr. Muraki hoped, the story of the daughter of Manhattan Project scientists will speak, in human terms, to the Japanese general public. But I am certain that during our difficult and gratifying time together we took steps toward each other.

    After filming here, we went to my home in Oak View. I motioned to Mr. Muraki that I wished to show him a little garden, sheltered by an old oak tree, where I love to sit. Mr. Muraki speaks some English, but I speak no Japanese. There were two chairs in different sections of the lawn. After some few moments of trying to communicate, I understood that he was asking me in which chair I liked to sit. I showed him. He sat down, and looked out at the mountains in silence.

    There he stayed for many minutes-longer than I had anticipated he would. He was making a gentle gesture, discovering a window into my life, and opening for me, a window into his. A small moment of peace.

    I would like to close by relating my earliest memory of A Thousand Cranes. But first, some background: At Los Alamos, my father worked on the electronics of the bomb’s trigger mechanism. During the war, he advocated a demonstration of the bomb to compel the Japanese surrender. After the war, he never again worked on weapons and dedicated himself to peaceful scientific pursuits, to political and social action, and to building relationships with scientists worldwide, particularly in Japan.

    In the early 1960s, he hosted a young Japanese postdoctoral fellow at Brookhaven National Laboratory. Dr. Wakuta stayed in the United States for one year, and every day of that year, at home in Japan, his wife and young daughter folded three origami cranes as a prayer for his safe return. At the end of a year, they had made one thousand cranes, and once back home, Dr. Wakuta sent the cranes to my parents. Although I did not discuss it with my mother and father at the time, I now wonder if the gift of a Thousand Cranes was not an allusion to the bomb, a gesture of reconciliation, a prayer of forgiveness.

    It is a gift I remember even today-a small thing. One thousand fragile folded cellophane birds of blue, yellow, red, purple, green, suspended in long strands from a flat woven disk.

    Sadako’s cranes had flown around the world. And they continue their flight today, recreated now and into the future, by our hands and our hearts, as we bind ourselves to Sadako’s dream of peace, her small act of great love.

    Mary Palevsky, Ph.D. marypalevsky@cs.com

    Atomic Fragments: A Daughter’s Questions University of California Press, 2000 http://www.ucpress.edu/books/pages/8743.html

  • Ventura Activist Sets Off on Mission to Iraq

    Ventura resident Leah Wells was one of five Americans who flew to Baghdad on Thursday, hoping to focus attention on the effects of an economic embargo on Iraqis and ultimately to change U.S. foreign policy.

    “The purpose of the trip is to try and put pressure on our government to lift the sanctions,” Wells said Thursday from Chicago before leaving the country. “People can make a difference.”

    Iraq has been under United Nations sanctions since it invaded Kuwait in 1990 and was defeated by forces led by the United States seven months later.

    Wells, 25, is part of a delegation representing the Chicago-based U.S. Voices in the Wilderness, a human rights group that has led dozens of missions into Iraq to deliver medical equipment and gather information.

    “The World Health Organization has reported that over a half-million children and 1 million people overall have died since 1990 as a result of the sanctions,” Wells said. “Women are too malnourished to breast-feed. Children are dying of malnutrition.”

    Wells said many Americans are unaware of the effect the U.N. embargo has had on Iraqis.

    “The humanitarian crisis in Iraq is virtually unreported,” Wells said. “The air strikes were in the news, but the day-to-day suffering of the Iraqi people isn’t well-known.”

    Although this is her first trip to Iraq, Wells said other people who have made the journey have described vast residential tracts with open sewage lines, no electricity, and schools without textbooks.

    The delegation was carrying two duffel bags stuffed with medical journals and supplies, which she said would be invaluable to medical professionals starved for up-to-date information.

    “It’s not just an economic embargo,” she said. “It’s an intellectual embargo as well.”

    A peace activist and a teacher at St. Bonaventure High School in Ventura, Wells teaches a class on nonviolence that covers the situation in Iraq. She said many of her students support her venture.

    “Once the students find out what’s going on, I don’t have to convince them,” she said. “They see it.”

    Wells said she isn’t concerned about repercussions from the trip, which violates the embargo against Iraq.

    “We risk up to 12 years in prison and over $1 million in fines for each delegation we send,” she said. “This is the 38th delegation we’ve sent over and it hasn’t happened yet.”

    * Email Andrea Cavanaugh

  • Update on Mordechai Vanunu

    Mordechai Vanunu, a former nuclear technician, is serving an 18-year sentence at Ashkelon Prison for informing the public about Israel’s secret nuclear weapons program. After revealing information about Israel’s nuclear weapons program to a British newspaper, Vanunu was lured from the UK to Rome, where Israeli agents apprehended him. Vanunu was kept in solitary confinement for more than 11 years, from September 30, 1986 until March 12, 1998. Vanunu’s story published on October 5, 1986, confirmed to the world for the first time that Israel had become a nuclear weapons state and had enough fissile material for as many as 200 advanced nuclear warheads.

    The following is the most recent letter* written by Mordechai Vanunu to David Krieger. The letter was written on December 4th, 2000 and received on June 14th, 2001 by air mail. Portions of the letter were literally cut out to censor Vanunu’s words relating to Israel’s nuclear policies which exemplifies the country’s resolve to continue its “secret” nuclear weapons program without being subjected to international accountability. The censored portions of this letter are marked with brackets [ ].

    Vanunu needs your support. You can write to him at Ashkelon Prison to encourage him. Mail from supporters sustains his hope.

    Mordechai Vanunu Ashkelon Prison Ashkelon, Israel December 4th, 2000

    Dear Mr. David Krieger,

    Thank you very much for your letter of November 13th. I am very glad to know that you are ready to do more for my release and for the abolition of all nuclear weapons [censored] – I’ll continue to write to you as I am writing to others. As you requested in your letter, I will respond on the issue of the nuclear weapons threat to the entire world. As to the names of people, you can ask Sam Day. He knows all the names. I am writing to Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, Hans Bethe and others to request they send copies of their letters of support to Sam Day.

    In regards to nuclear weapons, although we are seeing reductions in nuclear weapons by the states who produce and possess them, the vision of abolishing nuclear weapons has not become a reality despite the many large campaigns, ranging from all societies and including retired Admirals and Generals. On the other hand, all those who are supporting nuclear weapons have suffered a huge setback since the end of the Cold War when nuclear weapons lost their justification. For nuclear weapons, lost enemies, lost conflicts and not future justification will happen. Those who are against nuclear weapons must continue to put pressure toward a total ban, abolishing all nuclear weapons in all states which possess them. Economically, nuclear weapons are redundant and states will spend more to continue maintaining them even though they have no future use. That we are moving in the path of abolishing all nuclear weapons is a positive optimist view.

    The second problem is how to deal with small states that have nuclear weapons [censored] which superpowers like the US are now using as a reason to keep nuclear weapons and even justify the development of missile defenses. My example was the best way to deal with [censored] nuclear weapons secrets by revealing to the media world-wide. But it was not enough. As we have witnessed, Israel yet continues to deny and ignore this information and continues to lie in public. This is why the superpowers are not ready to use that information to demand that Israel end its nuclear weapons program. In my view, all anti-nuclear campaigners should use that information to fight Israel’s secret policies, force Israel to open Dimona reactor and sign the NPT with all the consequences [censored] then other small states who also engage in nuclear weapons secrets will follow [censored] and sign the NPT. This is the way to deal wth this phenomena of an unbalanced world of states who have nuclear weapons and states who do not have nuclear weapons. The world would be in a more balanced reality; that is all small states should be free from nuclear weapons. Then all small states, which would be the world’s majority, will put pressure on the superpowers to abolish nuclear weapons. This step is not currently succeeding because of one small state, Israel, is breaking the unity among the world majority to force the superpowers to abolish all nuclear weapons.

    The next interesting point is that all anti-nuclear weapons campaigners do not understand the “Israel effect” on nuclear weapons abolition. Another interesting point is the connection between nuclear weapons and the economy. The post-Cold War era has been an age of economic growth and development. More and more states are realizing the deficit in possessing nuclear weapons and that nuclear weapons do not promote economic development in most of the undeveloped states. These countries are ready to back and support any initiative that will bring the end of nuclear weapons in the entire world. They know that the abolition of nuclear weapons in Europe, the US and the entire world will only bring help and encouragement to global economic activities, including globalization. So anti-nuclear activists should work in this new field to use economic reasons and alliances to defeat nuclear weapons. This could be done especially at economic summits like the G-8 and WTO meetings where decisions or declarations could be issued to abolish nuclear weapons. Rather than fighting the WTO like anarchist environmentalists, we can recreate the WTO and G-8 to begin working toward zero nuclear weapons.

    As to my release, no date for parole or release has been set. My official date of release is April 2004. I support any initiative you and others can do for my release.

    Hope to be free and to meet you and others in Santa Barbara. Thank you.

    Yours Sincerely,

    [signed] Mordechai Vanunu

    *This letter was edited for publishing.

  • The United Nations Conference on the Illicit Trad in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects

    United Nations Headquarters, New York

     

    The indiscriminate proliferation and sale of millions of illegal small arms and light weapons, including handguns, machine guns, rifles, hand grenades and other light weapons have caused havoc, misery and death annually to over half a million people in developing and industrial countries. An estimated 500 million such weapons are manufactured in many countries and eventually sold to drug dealers, terrorists and other violent groups causing economic and social collapse in many regions, especially Africa, Asia and Latin America, closing schools, businesses and destroying infrastructure. There are an estimated 350 million small arms in the U. S. alone. Governments, businesses, civil society and NGOs are attempting partnerships to address and combat this illicit criminal trade.

     

    The United Nations Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons In All Its Aspects was convened at United Nations Headquarters, New York, July 9 -20, 2001. Louise Frechette, Deputy Secretary General, opening the conference, noted that the enormous proliferation of small arms is creating a culture of violence and crime in mny countries and regions. Camilo Reyes Rodriguez of Colombia, President of the Conference, said the international community is addressing one of the most urgent problems of world peace and security at this time.

     

    During the Plenary the majority of governments and groups of governments, such as the European Union, EU, the Organization of American States OAS, the African Union, AU, the Association of South East Asian Nations, ASEAN, the Economic Community of West African States, ECOWAS, the Southern African Development Community, the East African Community, as well as many individual nations support the UN Convention on Transnational Organised Crime draft Protocol Against the Illicit Manufacturing and Trafficking in Firearms.

     

    There is also general support for the 1996 UN Disarmament Commission guidelines on international arms transfers. Among the regional initiatives were the InterAmerican Convention Against the Illicit Manufacturing and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives and Related Matter. The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, OSCE, document on Small Arms was approved in November 2000. The AU urged support for the Bamako Declaration that could create effective control of small arms in Africa. MERCOSUR, the Southern Common Market of Latin America, is also making an effort to combat the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons. The U.S. supported the Program of Action with the exception of the prevention of civilian possession of small arms for self defense and sport.

     

    The conference agenda addressed the issues of marking, tracing, regulation of arms brokers and shipping agents, controls on the manufacture and regulations for exports and imports, restraint and responsibility of governments, legal transfers, security of stockpiles, disposal and destruction of weapons, and transparency of military data. Many current initiatives are underway by individual states (Sierra Leone, Ghana, Thailand, Indonesia, the UK, Spain, Bulgaria, and others) that are supporting disarmament, demobilization and reintegration (DDR) of combatants into the economy.

     

    The Program of Action, adopted without a vote, includes national, regional and global initiatives. National legislation, regulations and administrative procedures, for the production, export, import, transit or retransfer of small arms, should be accompanied by national coordination agencies to create policy for monitoring, tracing, trafficking, brokering, trade, collection and destruction of weapons, public educaton, as well as effective DDR programs. Regional, and subregional, initiatives should include negotiations for prevention and control of the illicit trade, as well as trans-border customs and cooperation between states. Global measures would encourage the World Customs Organization to aid in cooperation for the regional use of the Interpol, the International Police Organization. Implementation for international cooperation and assistance should be supplemented at all levels with intergovermental organizations, financial institutions, civil society and NGOs, as well as legally binding instruments for tracing and exchange of information. A follow up conference in 2006 will review implemention.

     

    The voice of the people was heard in the briefings offered by the International Action Network on Small Arms, IANSA, which is a global network of non-governmental organizations, NGOs, that has a large constituency of 200 NGOs and other organizations worldwide. IANSA has organized many groups for the Small Arms Conference. Monday July 16 statements by NGOs, and other organizations, were presented to the delegations in Conference Room 4 with over 40 groups participating. Many urged the governments to address humanitarian and health concerns, human rights violations, especially for women, children, the disabled, the elderly and the vulnerable. Others urged reduction of military budgets to enhance social issues, the economies and the environment. Thirteen Firearms Community Groups supported the right to small arms and light weapons for civilians. Three groups supported controls of small arms, while others spoke about implementation and follow up to the conference. Mary Leigh Blek of the Million Mom March, USA, got rousing cheers from the NGOs in the balcony, as did Dr. Vyacheslav Sharov, Russian Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, IPPNW Russia. Dr. Natalie Goldring, National Center for Economic and Security Alternatives and Professor at the University of Maryland, urged the adoption of strong and extensive transparency measures accompanied by a global transparency regime for exchange of information on marking, tracing, brokering and relevant issues. Loretta Bondi, Advocacy Director, The Fund for Peace, spoke of a Model Convention on Arms Brokering that would result in an effective implementation of the Program of Action.

     

    The UN Coordinating Action on Small Arms, CASA, was established in 1998 for informaton exchange with various UN departments and agencies. The UN Development Program, UNDP, cooperates with the Department of Disarmament Affairs, DDA, UNICEF, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, UNHCR, the Department of PeaceKeeping Operations, DPKO, the International Labor Organization, ILO, and many countries to combat small arms and light weapons in the field. Working with governments, NGOs, national and local communities and PeaceKeepers, the UNDP “Weapons for Development” programs have collected tens of thousands of illicit military style weapons, while promoting development activites and coordinating disarmament, demobilization and reintegration of combatants, DDR. These ‘Weapons for Development” programs have had a major impact on reducing tensions to promote economic development and local businesses in various countries. Albania, Congo-Brazzaville, the Solomon Islands, Niger and Mali are some examples.

     

    During an Eminent Persons meeting with NGOs, consensus seemed to focus on national legislation and regional cooperation to address marking, tracing, brokering and especially the follow up mechanisms with a conference in 2006 for review and oversight. A code of conduct between businesses and governments for rules and standards, crime prevention and follow up, has been organized by an international manufacturing group. Industry has the technical expertise to help create a system of partnership with states and NGOs that should be successful. A UN Convention on Small Arms and Light Weapons was suggested that could be a result from the review conference in 2006. A convention could coordinate all the issues for action orientated implementation, follow up and verification, with cost effective regional cooperative monitoring for governments, the private sector, financial institutions and civil society.

     

    * Nancy E. W. Colton, United Nations Representative, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. Board of Directors, NGO Committee on Disarmament, Inc.

  • War as a Disease Epidemic

    War has been used to resolve political disputes between countries and within a country; to acquire another nation’s territory; and to defend a nation’s borders from foreign invasion. No matter how war begins, it always ends up to be a devastating form of traumatic disease. Because it kills, injures and disables more people in shorter periods of time than any other known disease, war should be recognized as a true disease epidemic. During World War ll alone 50 million lives were lost.

    Bullets, shells and bombs are not the only culprits. War-related starvation, exposure and epidemics of infection also take their toll. No one is immune. Of the 23 regional wars during the 1980’s, eighty-five percent of the fatalities occurred in civilians.

    Emotional causalities from war occur in the forms of anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress disorders, drug abuse and alcoholism. These result from the grim, dehumanizing experiences of battle, imprisonment, family separation, death and injuries of fellow comabatants, loss of homes and displacement of refugees. Add to this the anger of the disabled of war and the guilt and fears of survivors whose nightmares refuse to go away.

    If war were recognized as a public health form of disease epidemic, considerably greater effort would be directed to try to prevent war before it occurs. Prevention of any disease is, after all, the most cost-effective means of dealing with any disease especially epidemics. In this case, the cost in lives saved is even more valuable than the money saved.

    If nothing is done until war actually breaks out, it is too late for prevention. Here the analogy to public health epidemic model is that really effective “treatment” to stop an ongoing war is usually impossible. Diplomatic, political and economic pressures are more likely to be effective to prevent war. All too often the treatment of an ongoing war is for other nations to join that war, hardly an effective solution.

    When prevention of war does fail, what options should be considered to reduce suffering and deaths, especially of innocent women, children and civilian men? In a public health model of war, this would be considered the treatment phase for this disease epidemic.

    Priority should be given to minimizing civilian casualties. This could be accomplished by avoiding bombing of civilian neighborhoods and pinpointing strategic targets of military importance. This is now possible using so-called smart laser controlled bombs.

    Second, those weapons that spread destruction from neighborhood to neighborhood like fire bombs, nuclear, chemical and biologic weapons, should be avoided. Those whose killing and maiming power persist long after the war is over, should be banned. Examples are land mines and defoliants such as agent orange.

    The priority of killing as many of the enemy personnel in as short a period of time as possible, has rendered the military leaders to consider the safety of combatants on both sides, as well as civilians, to be of secondary importance. Examples are contaminating our own troops in Vietnam with agent orange; exposing our own troops and nearby communities to the effects of aboveground nuclear detonations; bombing two mostly civilian Japanese cities with atomic bombs in World War Two, when bombing major military targets would likely have been as effective; fifty years of lying that nuclear weapons plants were not polluting nearby American communities; and misleading Persian Gulf War veterans that they were not exposed to Iraqi chemical weapons.

    For these reasons the Defense Department and its military leaders should have independent medical advisors from the Communicable Disease Center to advise them regarding unnecessary risks during peacetime training and war. Military physicians in leadership positions depend upon military superiors, often non-physicians, for their promotions.

    Political and economic isolation of a potential or actual warring aggressor nation would reduce its capacity to obtain weapons and financially reduce its ability to maintain an ongoing war. Diplomatic threats by the United Nations or other organized nations would require detecting the earliest possible indications of an impending war followed by the strongest warning that the economic and political sanctions will certainly be enforced.

    The latter requires the best and most effective early diagnosis that a war may be eminent and the conventional word for this is military intelligence. Recent technical advances using spy satellites allows early detection of war preparations in terms of weapons and supplies.

    An example of the failing to take the opportunity to use diplomatic means to prevent a war occurred when the United States Ambassador to Iraq was asked by the Iraqi government how the United States would react if Iraq invaded Kuwait. The answer given by the U.S. Ambassador was that this would be considered an internal domestic affair. Within days Iraq invaded Kuwait in the Persian Gulf War. If Iraq did not care what the U.S. reaction would be, the U.S. Ambassador would likely not have been asked that question. Why the ambassador was instructed to say what she admitted six months later to a congressional committee is a matter of conjecture.

    The Persian Gulf War was followed by a disabling chronic new epidemic among many thousands of the American military veterans This illness was called The Persian Gulf Syndrome and our military leadership denied that such an illness existed. They claimed that it was just a stress reaction. When Czech military specialists discovered five years later that their instruments detected that American troops were exposed to Iraqi poison gas, it was not initially admitted by American authorities and was downplayed later on. It was an embarrassment to our government because they had checked for poison gas exposure immediately after the Persian Gulf War and had not indicated that any of our troops were exposed to it.

    This illustrates the common phenomenon that during and after war it is quite common for military authorities to evade, lie or exaggerate what has really happened. This distortion of truth also occurs in the censorship of the public media that occurs during war. While the public has come to accept this avoidance of honesty during war as being necessary, it is becoming more evident that in the long run honesty is a better policy. Deceit and lying only breeds suspicion and disbelief of government authorities not only during war but also during peace.

    The emphasis of the prevention of war and the use of effective diplomatic, political and economic alternatives would not necessarily guarantee the elimination of war. However, it would likely decrease its frequency, especially by the countries who are most likely to prefer peaceful methods.

    On the other hand, what about the political despots and dictators who crave the power of war and the acquisition of new territories? This is the reason why even the most peaceful nations need a strong military defense. It is also evident why this prevention-oriented disease model for war is not a form of idealistic passivism. Just the opposite. This approach would require continued vigilance and effort during peacetime to spot the earliest sparks of a possible impending war anywhere in the world and bring it to national and international attention such as the United Nations or NATO. Then international organized political and economic pressures would have a better chance to be effective than waiting until war breaks out.

    Civil wars within a nation’s boundaries are obviously more difficult to deal with. But even here international organized United Nation like pressures could be brought to bear simultaneously upon both opposing political leaders of the warring parties.

    The Vietnamese War is one of the darkest chapters in American History. Even the then Secretary of Defense admitted several decades later that the United States’ Vietnam involvement was a tragic mistake. How does that make the over 50,000 American Families who lost a son, husband or daughter feel? How does that make an American veteran of that war feel? This may be why there are so many drug addicted, alcoholic, homeless and post-traumatic stress syndrome affected Vietnam veterans.

    American involvement in World War ll was obviously unavoidable by the time the U.S. was attacked at Pearl Harbor and had war declared on it by Nazi Germany the following day. In fact it could be argued that this war involving the United States was inevitable by the time Germany and Japan were invading one nation after another. If so, the United States might have considered joining their allies even sooner than they did. Whether United States involvement in World War l, the Korean War, the Spanish American War and the Mexican-American Wars were really necessary is a matter of conjecture.

    Besides the necessary use of war to defend a nation’s borders and possibly to deal with an expanding invader nation, the recent use of military personnel by the United Nations with the help of the United States for humanitarian purposes such as preventing starvation in Somalia and reducing genocide in Bosnia, would appear to be the most ethical use of military personnel. However, it is always important not to expose the United Nations’ and the United States’ troops to greater risks than necessary.

    A practical way to look at war and peace is to consider that for most nations there is not sustained peace. There may be periods of no overt military action but the preparations for the next war goes on as if it were inevitable. The two world wars were only separated by 20 years, Korea occurred only a handful of years later and Vietnam only about ten years after Korea. A number of more limited involvements in the 1980’s and 50 years of high military readiness and preparation occurred between the United States and Russia in the so-called Cold War.

    Therefore, periods of overt war alternate with periods of active preparations for the next one. Preparations include not just maintaining a well-trained military who know how to use the latest weapons but constant upgrading and technological improvements in weapons, air power, rockets, nuclear weapons, submarines and ships, and even development of new means of biologic and chemical warfare.

    The deadly cycle of war and its preparations are not confined to this century but goes all the way back to the very beginnings of human history as documented in ancient Greek and Roman records and even in the Old testament.

    Little wonder that most people believe that war is an inevitable part of human existence and almost nothing can be done to reduce its recurrence. This defeatist attitude regarding war is similar to saying that nothing can be done to eliminate any disease epidemic.

    Yet look at the progress that has been made against the epidemics of heart disease and strokes and the reduction in childhood death rates through immunizations and safe water supplies. An example is how international efforts have actually eliminated smallpox from the face of the earth. Those that are old enough to remember the extent of polio epidemics in the United States before polio immunizations have been greatly impressed by the fact that this disease has all but been totally eliminated from our country and other industrialized nations.

    The futility of war is best illustrated by the horrendous suffering of both military combatants and civilians on both sides of any war. The increasing uncivilizing effects of war is best illustrated by the newer technical weapons that destroy huge numbers of mostly civilians during war. In prior centuries reasonable attempts were made to confine war to military combatants and not target civilians as has been done during this century. Nobody really wins in terms of the ordinary citizens involved in war. The winning political leaders and generals, however, become heroes who often become the future presidents and dictators with even more powerful support.

    The irony of war is illustrated by the fact that our two demonized enemies in World War ll, Japan and Germany, have become our new international friends within just a few short years. Similarly, two of our closest allies during the war, Russia and China, would become our new future enemies during that same short period.

    One of the greatest human rights violations occurs when healthy young men are forced to “lill or be killed” by means of a military draft or conscription. Even during our Revolutionary and Civil Wars the military was primarily composed of volunteers as it has been in the last few decades. Military training during war and peace is a dehumanizing experience. Individual freedom and choice is replaced by being told when and what to eat; when to sleep and when to wake up; what clothes must be worn; where one must live and travel often causing long separations from spouse, family and children. Absolute unquestioning obedience to one’s superior officer results in the ultimate loss of individuality. It the military method would occur in civilian life, it would be immediately labeled as a human rights violation.

    Perhaps all these extreme measures are necessary to be adequately prepared for war. Perhaps they could be made less dehumanizing. What is needed is true scientific studies involving multidisciplinary professionals, officers and enlisted men and women, psychologists, sociologists, and public health experts and both civilian and legal experts.

    Another undemocratic activity is that the decision to go to war has traditionally been the exclusive domain of the top national political leader, king, president or dictator. Even in democracies citizens usually have no voice in this life and death decision. Yet they are the ones who pay the price in terms of lives, disabilities and suffering.

    Our forefathers recognized the unfairness of this power of leaving this life and death decision to just one individual. That is why our constitution provides that only the congressional representatives of our citizens have the right to vote for or against a declaration of war. However, since World War ll our presidents have gotten around this limitation by deploying military combatants around the world, as in Vietnam, and calling it a police action rather than a war. Once our troops are already in harm’s way, then the president will ask Congress to vote for war. By that time we are already involved.

    Look at the remarkable growth of private militias recently all over the United States. They train with modern weapons in their own fenced off and guarded territories. They create their own laws and constitutions and are usually prepared to do battle with federal or local law enforcement authorities if they “invade” their private territories. Usually these organizations promote their own brands of racial and ethnic prejudice and often declare that they are not accountable to the laws of the nation.

    Another concern that has never been properly investigated is the possibility that an individually with an actual or potential personality disorder who undergoes military battle experience, may be unable to turn off the “kill or be killed” war commitment and be unable to resume the “thou shalt not kill” peacetime value. This possibility needs to be studied by behavioral scientists and their military counterparts. Recommendations should be made for military combatants to undergo adequate postwar psychological evaluation and retraining for civilian life before discharge. Whether or not this activity might have prevented the Oklahoma City Federal Building bombing by a recent Persian Gulf War veteran is a matter for conjecture but needs evaluation.

    Consider also the effect of war glamorization used by urban gangs. They also use sophisticated weapon to protect what they consider their neighborhood territories. They dress alike in colors and clothing styles similar to uniforms and often display gang tattoos and use gang signs to communicate. Usually they pledge blind obedience to their gang leaders and take on rival gangs in deadly battle.

    Consider how war has been glorified in our history books, our movies, TV and print media and in our childhood toys and now video games. In fact, if wars were eliminated from our history books and recreational activities, and they will not be, it would cause major economic and educational difficulties. In reality, war is too an important part of civilization to ever eliminate its popularity as games and media. But again, scientific behavioral studies could be done to reduce the excessive sensationalization and commercialization of war. Also appropriate age of exposure to war games, videos and toys needs to be studied by the proper authorities.

    The excitement and glamorization of war has lead countless millions of young men through the ages to join in the military and then to their horror experience the most unimaginable dehumanization witnessing or experiencing the realities of instant death, mutilation and disability. The television series “The Civil War” based on letters from Civil War soldiers said it all very well.

    Part of the glamorization of war is to focus on our historical war heroes. I recall the profound emotional impact when after viewing the names without rand of dead American military on the Vietnam War Memorial in Washington, I immediately walked across the bridge to see the Arlington National Cemetery. Here the military dead had their military ranks on their monuments, especially those of higher rank. My emotional reaction to the rankles lists on the Vietnam Memorial was that these dead men and women were all equally important in life as well as in death. It brought home the full overwhelming tragedy of war that in no way reduces the tragedy of those who were buried at Arlington National Cemetery across the bridge. In fact, all of our military combatants, dead, disabled or intact, deserves the greatest appreciation possible from our country and its citizens. They made truly supreme sacrifices. The greatest honor that could be bestowed on those who have sacrificed their lives in combat would be to reduce the incidence of and severity of wars so that their children ad grandchildren would not have to suffer the same tragic losses.

    With all the cataclysmic technical weapons already available, nuclear, biologic and chemical and those that will be even worse yet to be developed in the future, there is likely to be little or no future human survival unless we become more proficient at preventing and controlling wars.

    It is ironic that the United States is the largest supplier of weapons of war to nations all over the world. These weapons often end up being used against our own troops when they are sold or shared with enemy nations that were not intended to receive these weapons. Also friendly nations do not always remain friendly.

    The Soviet Union left tens of thousands of nuclear armed rockets in many former Soviet nations no longer controlled by a former central authority. Russian authorities announce that some of these weapons, as well as the high-grade plutonium to make them, have disappeared presumably by stealing them and selling them to other countries. The reality is that even smaller nations often lead by dictators have or will soon have nuclear bombs or rockets. Others will manufacture them in the future. There is no realistic way to cap their proliferation and there is little likelihood that the many thousands of those weapons stockpiled by the United States and the former Soviet Union nations can be completely dismantled and eliminated.

    For this reason alone the world has little choice but to reduce and to exert as much control as possible over the possible use of nuclear as well as biologic and chemical weapons. But it also has to be realized that even without using these weapons, increasingly devastating other types of weapons are being developed or will be developed so that it is necessary to emphasize that war itself needs to be more efficiently controlled in frequency and severity and not to focus on nuclear weapons alone.

    Using healthy values to deal with war may seem a contradiction in terms. After all, “First do no harm” can not be applied to war although the healthy value of prevention can. But a public health model for war will help put war and its prevention in a more realistic perspective. It also will make the study of war and its prevention less emotional and nationalistic and more humanistic and scientific. In fact, the prevention of war should be a major focus of universities and medical centers.

    A new world order based on international cooperation rather than military might have already begun. Witness the economic boycott of Iraq by the United Nations; the peaceful resolution of 45 years of the East-West Cold War; international agreements on resolving global pollution; greater international economic cooperation and such entities as the European Common Market. We need every ounce of resources and human creativeness to build rather than to destroy. The real challenges to survival of civilization are international in scope, and include in addition to war, global pollution, overpopulation, international epidemics such as AIDS and urban decay.

    War and violence as public health epidemics are concepts whose time has come and not a moment too soon.

  • Concerned Student Writes to President Bush

    Dear President Bush,

    My Name is Nelly Martinez. I am a student at Mount San Antonio College. Right now I am researching nuclear arms. Recently, a disturbing article came out about this particular subject in the Los Angeles Times. After researching and learning about the power of our nuclear arsenal, I was shocked and amazed at why we need such disastrous weapons. Maybe someone can help explain my misconceptions.

    In my mind, I believe the issue of having the most weapons is an issue of who has the bigger toy, or the bigger muscles. What about the opinions of the ordinary American citizens who do not have knowledge about nuclear issues? What about those who decide to just ignore the subject and place this issue in the back of their heads? It was a relief to hear that there is a treaty banning the testing of nuclear weapons. If one Trident submarine has enough firepower to wipe out the Northern Hemisphere and cause devastating effects, why do we need any more of such submarines? How can anyone want to destroy the life of other innocent human beings?

    There is no doubt that my life, the life of my family (whom I love and cherish with all my heart) and the life of future generations will be affected by a nuclear war. The fact is no one would survive a nuclear war. Isn’t that enough to get through the minds of the people in charge of these weapons? In my opinion, whoever decides to make more nuclear weapons is worse than Hitler. Such actions could result in a World Holocaust and it is doubtful that mankind could survive a nuclear winter.

    Please do not forget about the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But also, do not forget about the past in general so that we can learn from our mistakes. I know that the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are nothing in comparison to the capability we have now. I also know that if another country should strike the US with a nuclear weapon, we would without a doubt retaliate. This process of striking and reciprocating a nuclear attack could continue until mankind itself would be wiped out. I do support the Constitution’s “Right to Bear Arms,” but how far must we go?

    Here is a hypothetical example: We the Americans are up against the “enemy” standing in a pool of gas, representing our world, one side has 16,000 matches ready to ignite the other side has 30,000 matches. Who will win? One match alone (The firepower in one Trident sub) will do the job.

    I am here to plea for some kind of answer to my questions because I love my life, my country, my people and other people as well. I truly want my children’s children to live after I am gone from this earth. My dream is to live until I am old and not be vaporized by a nuclear bomb. Please Mr. President, help us keep peace with other countries and obey the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. Once we violate this Treaty the United States has made with Russia, both countries will start making more unnecessary nuclear weapons.

    Sincerely,

    Nelly Martinez A Concerned Student and Citizen

  • U.S. and Russian Nuclear Defense Strategies are Fatally Flawed – They Can’t be Used Without Self-Destruction

    Nuclear Defense Strategies – The nuclear arsenals of the United States and Russia, left-over from the Cold War, present the world with its greatest danger. These two arsenals have 90 percent of the world’s nuclear weapons. The nuclear defense strategies for Russia and the U.S. are similar. Within minutes upon receiving instruction to fire, either one or both countries can launch thousands of missiles. These strategies are fatally flawed because launching thousands of nuclear weapons could destroy all countries including themselves.

     

    Global Danger – In a study made by the World Health Organization, they found that a nuclear war between the U.S. and Russia could kill one billion people outright. In addition, it could produce a Nuclear Winter that would probably kill an additional one billion people. It is possible that more than two billion people, one-third of all the humans on Earth, would be destroyed almost immediately in the aftermath of a global thermonuclear war. The rest of humanity would be reduced to prolonged agony and barbarism. These findings are from a study chaired by Sune K. Bergstrom (the 1982 Nobel laureate in Physiology and Medicine) nearly 20 years ago. (1)

     

    Subsequent studies have had similar findings. Professor Alan Robock says, “Everything from purely mathematical models to forest fire studies shows that even a small nuclear war would devastate the earth. (2)

     

    Rich Small’s work, financed by the Defense Nuclear Agency, suggests that burning cities would produce a particularly troublesome variety of smoke. The smoke of forest fires is bad enough. But the industrial targets of cities are likely to produce a rolling, black smoke, a denser shield against incoming sunlight.(3)

     

    The late Dr. Carl Sagan and his associates in their studies found that a nuclear explosive force equal to 100 million tons of dynamite could create a global nuclear winter. (4) The U.S. and Russia each have on alert a nuclear explosive power more than 10 times greater than that needed to create a nuclear winter.

     

    Nuclear explosions with temperatures of 3,000 to 4,000 degrees centigrade at ground zero could start giant flash fires leaving large cities and forests burning with no one to fight them. Nuclear explosions can also lift an enormous quantity of fine soil particles into the atmosphere, creating more than l00,000 tons of fine, dense, dust for every megaton exploded on a surface. (5) This dust would add to the darkness and cold.

     

    Explosive Power Compared – Nuclear weapons are far more powerful than is generally realized.

     

    *The terrorist bomb that was detonated outside an office building in Oklahoma City in 1995 killed 168 people. This fertilizer and fuel bomb weighted 3 and 1/2 tons. (6)

     

    * A small nuclear warhead, that one person can lift can have an explosive power equal to 40,000 tons of dynamite, or 8,000 trucks each carrying 5 tons of dynamite, or 3 Hiroshima size bombs

     

    *One average size U.S. strategic nuclear warhead has an explosive force equal to 50,000 trucks each carrying 5 tons of dynamite.

     

    *If 1,000 of the average size 0U.S. warheads were used they could produce an explosive force equal to 50 million trucks each carrying 5 tons of dynamite.

     

    *One average size Russian strategic nuclear warhead has an explosive power equal to 40,000 trucks each carrying 5 tons of dynamite. (7)

     

    Leader’s Concern – General Lee Butler (USAF), former head of the US Strategic Command, said, “… twenty nuclear weapons would suffice to destroy the twelve largest Russian cities with a total population of twenty-five million people and therefore that arsenals in the hundreds, much less in the thousands, can serve no meaningful strategic objective.” (8) Twenty nuclear warheads is less than one percent of the nuclear weapons that the U.S. has set for hair-trigger release.

     

    Robert McNamara, former Secretary of Defense under Presidents Kennedy and Johnson, says there was no long-range war plan. Neither Russia nor the U.S. wanted to get behind. Each side strove to build the greatest number of nuclear weapons. More importantly, he said, the totals far exceeded the requirements of any conceivable war plan. (9)

     

    Accidental Nuclear War – There have been at least three times in the past that the U.S. and Russia almost launched to false warnings. Each time they came within less than 10 minutes of launching before learning the warnings were false.

     

    * In l979, a U.S. training tape showing a massive attack was accidentally played.

     

    * In l983, a Soviet satellite mistakenly signaled the launch of a U.S. missile.

     

    * In 1995, Russia almost launched its missiles because a Norwegian rocket studying the northern lights was mistakenly taken as the start of a nuclear attack. (10)

     

    False warnings are a fact of life. For example, during an 18-month period in 1979-80 the U.S. had 147 false alarms in its strategic warning system. (11)

     

    Casper Weinberger, when he was President Reagan’s Defense Secretary, said that since an anti-ballistic missile defense could require decisions within seconds there would be no time for White House approval. Hitting a missile having a head start and going thousands of miles per hour does not allow much time to assess whether a warning is false or not. (12) Do we want computers determining our fate?

     

    Action – All countries with nuclear weapons need to assess what would be the consequences of their use, including possibility of self-destruction. Reporting these findings to the public could help build a better understanding of the need to rid the world of nuclear weapons.

     

    General Butler has said the world can immediately and inexpensively improve security by taking nuclear weapons off hair-trigger alert. (13)

     

    Reference and Notes

     

    1. Sagan, Carl. The Nuclear Winter, Council for a Livable World Education, Boston, MA, 1983.

     

    2. Robock, Alan. “New models confirm nuclear winter,’ Bulletin of the Atomic Scientist, September 1989, pp.32-35.. .

     

    3. Blum, Deborah, Scientists try to predict nuclear future from forest fires, The Sacramento Bee. Nov. 28, 1987.

     

    4. Sagan, Op. Cit.

     

    5. Ibid.

     

    6. Hamilton, Arnold. “McVeigh forgoes 2 final appeals,“ Contra Coast Times, June 8, 2001.

     

    7. Norris, Robert S. and Arkin, William. “U.S. Nuclear Weapons Stockpile,”’ Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, July/Aug. 96.

     

    8. Butler, Lee. Talk at the University of Pittsburgh , May13, 1999.

     

    9. McNamara, Robert. Blundering Into Disaster, Pantheon Books, New, York, 1986.

     

    10. Babst, Dean. “Preventing An Accidental Armageddon,” Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, Feb., 2000.

     

    11. Hart, Senator Gary and Goldwater, Senator Barry, Recent False Alerts from the Nation’s Missile Attack Warning System, a report to the Senate Armed Forces, 9 October, 1980, pp. 4 & 5.

     

    12. Strategic Defense and Anti-Satellite Weapons, hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, April 25, 1984, pp. 69-74.

     

    13. Schell, Jonathan, “The Gift Of Time,” The Nation, Feb. 8, 1998, p. 58.

  • The Power of an Early Visit to the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum

    I first visited Hiroshima and its Peace Memorial Museum when I was 21 years old. The visit changed the course of my life.

     

    I was in Japan on an exchange program, and the program included a trip to Hiroshima around Hiroshima Day in 1963. I was apprehensive about going to Hiroshima. I thought the people of Hiroshima would be angry with Americans, probably hostile and perhaps even violent. After all, we Americans had dropped an atomic bomb on the city just 18 years before, killing well over 100,000 people.

     

    My fears proved to be unfounded. If the people of Hiroshima were hostile to Americans, they didn’t show it. They were kind and welcoming to young Americans, as were people throughout Japan.

     

    Here is what I had learned in high school and college about Hiroshima: The American military dropped an atomic bomb on the city, followed by the dropping of another atomic bomb on Nagasaki, and these bombings brought World War II to an end.

     

    Here is what I learned at the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum when I was 21 years old: There were people under that bomb we dropped on Hiroshima. Most were civilians. The bomb slaughtered its victims, killing men, women and children indiscriminately. I also learned that many of the people killed by the bomb were burned alive, some were incinerated. These were powerful details – details that were certainly not emphasized in the story we learned in school in the United States.

     

    One of the strongest impressions on me was the shadow on the wall that was left behind where someone had been sitting at the time the bomb was dropped. The person was incinerated and only his shadow remained.

     

    Visiting the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum had a strong influence on my views on war, and particularly nuclear war. The museum, which was filled with artifacts and photographs, powerfully demonstrated the futility of nuclear warfare. Hiroshima’s past was eloquent testimony to an intolerable future.

     

    The course of my life made a subtle shift. I was set on a course of wanting to do something to end the tragedy of war. Later, when I returned to the United States, other events would solidify the shift in my life, particularly my experience in the army and my fight in court against orders to go to Vietnam.

     

    Some 20 years later I was a founder of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, where I have served as president for almost 20 years. Hiroshima has never left my mind. I have written many poems and articles about the tragedy that occurred there and its meaning for our lives. I have worked for the abolition of nuclear weapons. I have done all that I can to further this goal. I was a founder of Abolition 2000, now a global network of over 2000 organizations working to abolish nuclear weapons. I have traveled around the world speaking out for realizing the dream of Hiroshima and the survivors of the bombing — the abolition of nuclear weapons.

     

    I believe that museums matter. They capture moments in time and freeze them for the future to examine. Of course, it is important for museums to be honest. It is possible for museums to be deceptive by overt acts or by omission. There is a museum about the first atomic bombs that I visited at Kirtland Air Force Base in Albuquerque, New Mexico. That museum celebrates only the technology. There are no photographs or displays of the people who were killed and injured in the bombings. The museum is steely and antiseptic. In visiting this museum, one would have no emotional connection with or even knowledge of the suffering and death caused by the bombings.

     

    It would be more than 35 years before I visited the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum again. When I did return in 1998, it was to give a speech at the museum. I began my speech with these words: “It is with profound appreciation and gratitude that I return to this city of peace, this sacred city of Hiroshima. This city was made sacred not by the tragedy which befell it, but by the rebirth of hope which emerged from that tragedy. From the ashes of Hiroshima, flowers of hope have blossomed, bringing forth a renewed spirit of possibility, of peace, to a world in which hope has been too often crushed for too many.”

     

    In another visit to the museum early in the year 2000, the museum director, Minoru Hataguchi, showed my wife and me through the museum. He was carrying with him a small box. At one point, he stopped and opened the box. He told us that this was the first time he had shared the contents of the box with visitors to the museum. The box contained the pocket watch and belt buckle of his father. Mr. Hataguchi had been in utero when the bomb fell. His father had been a train conductor, and had been near ground zero. The pocket watch and belt buckle were all that his mother recovered. We were very moved that he shared his father’s story and the artifacts with us.

     

    In Fall 2000, our Foundation sponsored an exhibit in Santa Barbara, California from the Hiroshima and Nagasaki Peace Memorial Museums. Mr. Hataguchi was one of the representatives of the two cities that came to Santa Barbara to open the exhibit. By bringing the exhibit to our city, we were able to share with members of our community an important perspective on Hiroshima with which many were unacquainted.

     

    In 1995, the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation commemorated the 50th anniversary of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by creating a peace garden in our community. We called it Sadako Peace Garden after Sadako Sasaki, a young girl who had been exposed to the bombing of Hiroshima at age 2 and had died at age 12 of leukemia. Sadako had been inspired by the Japanese legend that one’s wish will come true if one folds 1,000 paper cranes, and she had attempted to fold paper cranes to regain her health and to further world peace. She wrote: “I will write peace on your wings, and you will fly all over the world.” Each year on August 6th, the Foundation holds a public event at Sadako Peace Garden to commemorate the anniversary of Hiroshima with music, poetry and reflection.

     

    I am quite certain that my first visit to Hiroshima at the age of 21 left a strong enough impression on me to guide the course of my life. I am dedicated to ending the nuclear weapons era, and bringing the spirit of Hiroshima and its survivors, the hibakusha, to people everywhere.

     

    If a visit to the Peace Memorial Museums in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were a requirement of office for all leaders of nuclear weapons states, it just might change the world.

     

    *David Krieger is President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

  • The Frog’s Malaise: Nuclear Weapons and Human Survival

    If a frog is dropped into a pot of scalding water, it will sense the danger and immediately jump out. However, if a frog is dropped into a pot of tepid water and the water temperature is gradually raised, the frog will succumb rather than trying to escape.

    We humans are like the frog in this story. At the onset of the Nuclear Age we were dropped into a pot of tepid water and here we sit as the temperature of the water rises. ******

    “We cannot bear the thought that human life can disappear from this planet, least of all, by the action of man. And yet the impossible, the unimaginable, has now become possible. The future existence of the human species can no longer be guaranteed. The human species is now an endangered species.” -Sir Joseph Rotblat

    “Nuclear weapons are the enemy of humanity. Indeed, they’re not weapons at all. They’re some species of biological time bombs whose effects transcend time and space, poisoning the earth and its inhabitants for generations to come.” -General George Lee Butler

    The Rio Conference

    When the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development convened in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, nuclear weapons – arguably the most serious threat to the human future – were not on the agenda. It seems surrealistic that the leaders of the world’s nations gathered in Rio de Janeiro could devote nearly two weeks to the subjects of the environment and sustainable development without addressing, or at least acknowledging, the dangers of nuclear weapons.

    The Declaration issued from the Rio Conference contains 27 principles. None of them mention nuclear dangers, although one mentions warfare and one mentions peace. Principle 24 states: “Warfare is inherently destructive of sustainable development. States shall therefore respect international law providing protection for the environment in times of armed conflict and cooperate in its further development, as necessary.” Surely if warfare is destructive of the environment, nuclear warfare – if warfare would be an adequate way to conceptualize the extent of the devastation and annihilation caused by the use of nuclear weapons – would immeasurably aggravate the damage.

    Nuclear warfare has the potential to destroy cities, countries, even humanity itself. Given the magnitude of the potential dangers of nuclear weapons, it is surprising that these dangers did not rise to the level of inclusion in the Rio Conference.

    Principle 25 of the Rio Declaration states: “Peace, development and environmental protection are interdependent and indivisible.” While true, this principle also does not sound an alarm regarding the magnitude of danger inherent in the nuclear weapons policies of the states that possess these weapons.

    One other principle of the Rio Declaration deserves mention. Principle 1 states: “Human beings are at the center of concerns for sustainable development. They are entitled to a healthy and productive life in harmony with nature.” Surely, this would include freedom from nuclear annihilation. Perhaps a corollary to this principle should be the oft-repeated statement of those who survived the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki: “Nuclear weapons and human beings cannot co-exist.”

    There are many possible explanations for why the Rio Conference did not take up the issue of nuclear weapons. Perhaps the delegates to the Rio Conference in 1992 had their hands full with other problems related to environment and sustainable development, of which there were many. Perhaps dealing with issues of nuclear dangers seemed too confrontational to the nuclear weapons states. Perhaps the organizers of the Rio Conference believed that nuclear weapons issues would be better dealt with in disarmament forums.

    Whatever their reasons for leaving nuclear weapons and their dangers to humanity off the Rio agenda, the Conference failed to deal with what is arguably the most acute present danger to human survival, sustainable development and environmental security. When the Conference was held in 1992 the Nuclear Age, which was initiated by the dropping of an atomic bomb on Hiroshima in World War II, was 47 years old. The temperature in the pot in which the frog is treading water had grown very warm indeed.

    Nuclear Weapons: Warnings, Promises and Failure to Act

    We are approaching the ten-year anniversary of the Rio Conference, and the water temperature has continued to rise. Not that there have not been warnings. Many of the greatest individuals of the 20th century have spoken out against nuclear weapons. The list is impressive: Albert Camus, Albert Einstein, Bertrand Russell, Albert Schweitzer, Jacques Cousteau, Mikhail Gorbachev, the XIVth Dalai Lama, Archbishop Desmond Tutu. Religious leaders, military leaders and political leaders have spoken out. Nobel Laureates have spoken out, but the frog still treads water as the temperature rises.

    Since the Rio Conference, there have been a number of key events related to the elimination of nuclear weapons. At the 1995 Review and Extension Conference of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, the Treaty was extended indefinitely. At that time, the nuclear weapons states promised the completion of negotiations for a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the early conclusion of negotiations for a ban on the production of fissile materials for nuclear weapons, and “determined pursuit…of systematic and progressive efforts to reduce nuclear weapons globally, with the ultimate goals of eliminating those weapons….”

    We have learned, however, that the promises of the nuclear weapons states mean very little. A Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty was completed, but has yet to be ratified by some key states, including the United States and China. Negotiations on a fissile material cut-off treaty have not yet gotten off the ground. And the “determined pursuit” promise has led only to systematic and progressive efforts to maintain a two-tier structure of nuclear weapon “have” and “have-not” states.

    In 1996, the International Court of Justice considered the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons. The Court concluded that the threat or use of nuclear weapons would be generally illegal, but could not decide whether or not it would be illegal if the very survival of a state were at stake. The Court did make clear, however, that there could be no legal threat or use if such use would not discriminate between soldiers and civilians or if such use would cause unnecessary suffering. It is difficult to imagine any possible use of nuclear weapons that would not violate these principles of international humanitarian law.

    The Court was unanimous in concluding: “There exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control.” The nuclear weapons states have largely ignored this strong and clear opinion of the highest court in the world.

    In August 1996, the Canberra Commission on the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons, composed of a distinguished group of experts from throughout the world convened by the Australian government, issued its report. The Commission stated: “The proposition that nuclear weapons can be retained in perpetuity and never used – accidentally or by decision – defies credibility. The only complete defence is the elimination of nuclear weapons and assurance they will never be produced again.”

    The Canberra Commission viewed the existing situation of a world divided into nuclear “haves” and “have-nots” as discriminatory, unstable and therefore unsustainable. They wrote: “Nuclear weapons are held by a handful of states which insist that these weapons provide unique security benefits, and yet reserve uniquely to themselves the right to own them. This situation is highly discriminatory and thus unstable; it cannot be sustained. The possession of nuclear weapons by any state is a constant stimulus to other states to acquire them.”

    The Canberra Commission recommended a series of immediate steps: taking nuclear forces off alert; removal of warheads from delivery vehicles; ending deployment of non-strategic nuclear weapons; ending nuclear testing; initiating negotiations to further reduce United States and Russian nuclear arsenals; and agreement amongst the nuclear weapons states of reciprocal no first use undertakings, and of a non-use undertaking by them in relation to the non-nuclear weapon states.

    In December 1996, a group of some 60 retired generals and admirals from throughout the world issued a statement in which they said: “We, military professionals, who have devoted our lives to the national security of our countries and our peoples, are convinced that the continuing existence of nuclear weapons in the armories of nuclear powers, and the ever present threat of acquisition of these weapons by others, constitute a peril to global peace and security and to the safety and survival of the people we are dedicated to protect.” Among other urgently needed steps, the generals and admirals agreed that “long-term international nuclear policy must be based on the declared principle of continuous, complete and irrevocable elimination of nuclear weapons.”

    In February 1998, 117 civilian leaders, including 47 past or present presidents and prime ministers, issued a statement calling the threat of nuclear conflict “intolerable,” and invoking a “moral imperative” for the elimination of nuclear weapons. They called, as had the Canberra Commission, for immediate steps to reduce nuclear dangers, including the development of “a plan for eventual implementation, achievement and enforcement of the distant but final goal of elimination.” They also called for consideration of a ban on the production and possession of large, long-range ballistic missiles.

    “The world is not condemned to live forever with threats of nuclear conflict, or the anxious fragile peace imposed by nuclear deterrence,” the civilian leaders stated. “Such threats are intolerable and such a peace unworthy. The sheer destructiveness of nuclear weapons invokes a moral imperative for their elimination. That is our mandate. Let us begin.”

    In May 1998, India demonstrated the unsustainability of the global nuclear balance by testing nuclear weapons with Pakistan following closely in India’s footsteps. Both countries demonstrated their nuclear capabilities, and held mass public demonstrations lauding the scientists and political leaders who had given them these new powers. South Asia suddenly became a flashpoint of nuclear danger.

    In June 1998, the foreign ministers of eight middle power states (Brazil, Egypt, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand, Slovenia, South Africa and Sweden) expressed their concern for the lack of progress on nuclear disarmament and called for action by the nuclear weapons states. In a Joint Declaration issued in Dublin on June 9th, the foreign ministers called for a New Agenda to achieve a nuclear weapons-free world. They stated: “We can no longer remain complacent at the reluctance of the nuclear-weapon states and the three nuclear-weapons-capable states to take that fundamental and requisite step, namely a clear commitment to the speedy, final and total elimination of their nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons capability and we urge them to take that step now.”

    More recently, at the 2000 Non-Proliferation Review Conference, the parties to the treaty, led by the middle power states calling for a New Agenda, agreed to 13 practical steps to further the goal of nuclear disarmament. Among the new promises made by the nuclear weapons states were “an unequivocal undertaking…to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals…” and a promise to preserve and strengthen the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty “as a cornerstone of strategic stability and as a basis for further reductions of strategic offensive weapons….” The nuclear weapons states have thus far shown no progress on the first promise, and the US is thwarting the second promise by threatening to withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in order to deploy a National Missile Defense system.

    Nuclear Strategy

    Since the end of the Cold War, the United States has been the preeminent military and economic power in the world. The United States is the leader of NATO and has the potential to lead the world to achieve the promises of eliminating nuclear weapons. The United States, however, has not demonstrated any inclination to lead in this direction. Through eight years of the Clinton administration, the United States made no further agreements toward achieving nuclear disarmament. In fact, under Clinton’s leadership the United States and Russia postponed the date to achieve the disarmament levels set forth in the START II agreement from January 1, 2003 to December 31, 2007. Russian President Putin offered to reduce strategic nuclear arsenals in a START III agreement from START II levels of 3,500 to 1,500 or lower. Clinton failed to respond. He may be remembered as the President who had the greatest opportunity to end the nuclear weapons threat but lacked the vision and/or courage to do so.

    Whereas Clinton may have lacked vision altogether in the area of nuclear disarmament, George Bush has a confused and dangerous vision. Bush sees the primary nuclear threat to the United States arising from so-called “rogue” nations such as Iran, Iraq and North Korea. He seeks to build a missile shield to protect the United States, its friends, allies and troops from a ballistic missile attack by such smaller hostile states. To do so, he would abrogate the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, the treaty the US promised to preserve and strengthen at the 2000 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference. This has led to expressions of grave concern on the part of Russia, China and a number of US allies. US deployment of a National Missile Defense, as envisaged by Bush, could result in undermining the entire structure of arms control agreements that have been built up over many decades and initiate new arms races.

    While Bush has also made more positive proposals for the unilateral reduction of the size of the US nuclear arsenal to the lowest level consistent with national security and for further de-alerting of the US nuclear arsenal, these proposals would provide a better basis for global stability if they were made in the context of multilateral agreements and were made irreversible. The US has also continued to develop a new nuclear warhead, the B61-11, a warhead claimed to be capable of earth penetration and bunker busting. It has a smaller yield and is presumably a more usable nuclear warhead. The US has also indicated in a 1997 Presidential Decision Directive (PDD 60) that it would use nuclear weapons in response to a chemical or biological weapons attack on the US, its troops or allies.

    The bottom line is that the US and the other nuclear weapons states seem intent upon continuing to rely upon their nuclear weapons for the indefinite future, regardless of their promises made in the context of the Non-Proliferation Treaty and the destructive effects on the prospects for global security resulting from their shortsighted policies.

    The frog grows more lethargic as the water temperature rises.

    Sustainability

    Nuclear weapons have not been used in warfare since Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This has led to the comforting illusion that they will never be used again. But as long as these weapons exist in the arsenals of the world’s nuclear weapons states, there remains the possibility that they will be used – by accident or design. So long as these weapons exist, they will also be a spur and incitement to the proliferation of nuclear weapons to other countries.

    What is the likelihood that nuclear weapons will be used again in warfare? This is perhaps an impossible question to answer, but we know that the answer is not zero. We also know that relations between states can alter rapidly. Further, we know that there have been numerous instances in which states have considered using nuclear weapons or in which they have come close to accidental launches. One such incident occurred in 1995 when the Russians mistook a joint US-Norwegian rocket launch for an attack on their country. President Yeltsin, a man noted for excessive drinking, was awakened in the middle of the night to make the decision on whether or not to launch a retaliatory strike against the US. Yeltsin extended the time allotted to him to make the decision, and disaster was averted when it became clear that the missile was not aimed at Russia.

    Nuclear weapons do not protect any country, and it makes no sense to endanger the security of the world in a futile attempt to provide security to a few countries. Therefore, nuclear weapons must be abolished. This goal is in accord with security interests, international law and the moral foundation of all religions.

    Sustainable development presupposes protecting natural resources and the environment. The mining of uranium, the testing of nuclear weapons, and the ongoing problems of storing nuclear wastes present serious challenges to the environment and human health. The greatest challenge to sustainability, however, comes from the very existence of nuclear weapons, which pose a threat to humanity and all living things that surpasses other dangers. This threat must be addressed, and cannot be swept aside by those who otherwise express concern for the planet’s well being.

    When the International Court of Justice rendered its opinion on the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons, the Court pointed out: “The destructive power of nuclear weapons cannot be contained in either space or time. They have the potential to destroy all civilization and the entire ecosystem of the planet.” In this way nuclear weapons are unique.

    How Did the Frog Get Into the Pot?

    The frog did not just jump into the pot. Someone dropped it in, someone with his own motivations. Likewise, the situation in which we now find ourselves with respect to nuclear weapons did not just occur. It was created and maintained by national leaders and others with their own motivations for wanting nuclear weapons and tolerating nuclear dangers.

    The Nuclear Age began with reasonable intentions. Émigré scientists, refugees of Hitler’s policies in Germany, worried about the danger of Hitler developing a nuclear weapon and its implications for the war in Europe. Leo Szilard, a brilliant Hungarian scientist, convinced his friend Albert Einstein to sign a letter to President Roosevelt warning of this danger. The letter encouraged Roosevelt to initiate a project to explore the creation of weapons that would unlock the power of the atom. The project began slowly, but when the United States entered World War II it expanded dramatically. Thousands of scientists and engineers worked on the top-secret Manhattan Project that resulted in the creation of the world’s first atomic weapons.

    Many of the scientists who had worked on creating the atomic bomb, led by Leo Szilard, tried to convince Roosevelt and then Truman that the bomb should not be used against Japan. A petition to President Truman drafted by Szilard and signed by 68 members of the Metallurgical Laboratory in Chicago, stated: “The development of atomic power will provide the nations with new weapons of destruction. The atomic bombs at our disposal represent only the first step in this direction, and there is almost no limit to the destructive power which will become available in the course of their future development. Thus a nation which sets the precedent of using these newly liberated forces of nature for purposes of destruction may have to bear the responsibility of opening the door to an era of devastation on an unimaginable scale.”

    The petition to President Truman was dated July 17, 1945, less than three weeks before the first atomic weapon was used at Hiroshima. When President Truman heard of the bomb’s “success” at Hiroshima, he said, “This is the greatest thing in history.” Truman believed that it might take the Soviet Union 20 years to develop an atomic bomb. It took them four years. From that point until the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991 the world experienced a nuclear arms race that would result in deployment of tens of thousands of ever more powerful nuclear weapons capable of destroying most life on Earth.

    Understanding the Frog’s Malaise

    The first thing that is necessary to understand about our present situation is that there is not just one frog in the pot. We are all in a nuclear cauldron, potentially sharing a common tragic fate. Some have already died – the victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the uranium miners, the victims of nuclear experiments, the downwinders of nuclear tests, the soldiers and indigenous peoples deliberately exposed to nuclear tests. There will also be countless future generations that will pay the price — in genetic mutations, deformities, cancers and leukemias — of the radioactive legacy of preparing for nuclear war.

    The second thing necessary to understand is that those who have kept the frog in the pot are able to ignore the dangers to the frog so long as their goals are achieved. Many politicians, military leaders and academics believe that nuclear weapons make them more secure. In many respects, they do not believe that they are in the pot with the rest of us or, if they do, they believe that their personal gain outweighs the risks of disaster. They are true believers and they have constructed deeply held myths, which they have perpetuated to support their recklessness.

    The third thing necessary to understand is that there is no technological fix to the frog’s dilemma. No fancy umbrella over the pot will protect the frog from demise. The nuclear dilemma will not be resolved by a missile shield to protect against so-called “rogue” nations. Not only is it unlikely that a missile shield could ever be effective, but it is a way for certain countries to continue to rely upon nuclear weapons. A US missile shield will also be guaranteed to halt progress on nuclear disarmament with Russia and lead to new nuclear arms races in Asia. It is a costly and dangerous approach, which will decrease rather than increase security from nuclear dangers.

    What Keeps the Frog in the Pot?

    It was more than an oversight that nuclear weapons issues were not on the agenda at the Rio Conference, the world’s most significant conference for environment and sustainable development. Keeping the frog in the pot has been a matter of policy for the nuclear weapons states, and this policy has not been effectively challenged.

    If the frog continues treading water as the temperature rises, it will eventually die. Why does the frog fail to take action to save itself while the water temperature rises? If we can ascribe to the frog some human reasoning skills and other human characteristics, the following may be some of the principal factors that explain its failure to act, and also ours.

    Ignorance. The frog may fail to recognize the dilemma. It may be unable to predict the consequences of being in water in which the temperature is steadily rising.

    Complacency. The frog may feel comfortable in the warming water. It may believe that because nothing bad has happened yet, nothing bad will happen in the future.

    Deference to Authority. The frog may believe that others are in control of the thermostat and that it has no power to change the conditions in which it finds itself.

    Sense of Powerlessness. The frog may fail to realize its own power to affect change, and believe that there is nothing it can do to improve its situation.

    Fear. The frog may have concluded that, although there are dangers in the pot, the dangers outside the pot are even greater. Thus, it fails to take action, even though it could do so.

    Economic Advantage. The frog may believe that there are greater short-term rewards for staying in the pot than jumping out.

    Conformity. The frog may see other frogs treading water in the pot and not want to appear different by sounding an alarm or acting on its own initiative.

    Marginalization. The frog may have witnessed other frogs attempt to raise warnings or jump out, and seen them marginalized and ignored by the other frogs.

    Technological Optimism. The frog may understand that there is a problem that could lead to its demise, but believe that it is not necessary to act because someone will find a technological solution.

    Tyranny of Experts. Even though the frog may believe it is in danger, the experts may provide a comforting assessment that makes the frog doubt its own wisdom.

    Turning Down the Heat

    There are a number of important steps that can be taken to turn down the heat on nuclear dangers. Proposals for moving forward have been set forth in the statement of the Canberra Commission on the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons, in the statements of the generals and admirals and the civilian leaders, and in the 13 Practical Steps for Nuclear Disarmament set forth in the 2000 Review Conference of the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

    Turning down the heat on nuclear dangers is primarily a question of political will. Without political will progress will continue to be slow to non-existent. With political will to reduce nuclear dangers and achieve a nuclear weapons free world, important steps can be taken that would rapidly improve global security, including the following actions:

    1. De-alert all nuclear weapons and de-couple all nuclear warheads from their delivery vehicles.

    2. Declare policies of No First Use of nuclear weapons against other nuclear weapons states and policies of No Use against non-nuclear weapons states.

    3. Establish international accounting and control systems for all nuclear weapons and weapons-grade nuclear materials.

    4. Reaffirm the commitments to the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and cease efforts to violate that Treaty by the deployment of national or theater missile defenses, and cease the militarization of space.

    5. Sign and ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, cease laboratory and subcritical nuclear tests designed to modernize and improve nuclear weapons systems, cease construction of Megajoule in France and the National Ignition Facility in the US and end research programs that could lead to the development of pure fusion weapons, and close the remaining nuclear test sites in Nevada and Novaya Zemlya.

    6. Support existing nuclear weapons free zones, and establish new ones in the Middle East, Central Europe, North Asia, Central Asia and South Asia.

    7. Commence good faith negotiations to achieve a Nuclear Weapons Convention requiring the phased elimination of all nuclear weapons, with provisions for effective verification and enforcement.

    8. Publicly acknowledge the weaknesses and fallibilities of deterrence: that deterrence is only a theory and is clearly ineffective against nations whose leaders may be irrational or suicidal; nor can deterrence assure against accidents, misperceptions, miscalculations, or terrorists.

    9. Publicly acknowledge the illegality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons under international law as stated by the International Court of Justice in its 1996 opinion, and further acknowledge the obligation under international law for good faith negotiations for nuclear disarmament in all its aspects.

    10. Publicly acknowledge the immorality of threatening to annihilate millions, even hundreds of millions, of people in the name of national security.

    11. Set forth a plan to complete the transition under international control and monitoring to zero nuclear weapons by 2020, with agreed upon levels of nuclear disarmament to be achieved by the NPT Review Conferences in 2005, 2010 and 2015.

    12. Begin to reallocate the billions of dollars currently being spent annually for maintaining nuclear arsenals ($35 billion in the U.S. alone) to improving human health, education and welfare throughout the world.

    Taking the Frog Out of the Pot

    Those who put the frog into the pot are not likely to be the same ones to take the frog out. We need new leadership and, as Einstein warned, a new way of thinking. There is only one way out of the pot, and that is by cooperation on a global scale. Absent such cooperation and the leadership to attain it, further nuclear proliferation and the use of nuclear weapons by accident or design are inevitable.

    Once the water in the pot has heated up, it is doubtful that the frog can get out of the pot by itself. The frog’s dilemma can only be resolved by getting it out of the pot or turning down the heat. To resolve the nuclear dilemma confronting humanity will require cooperation – cooperation among people, cooperation among countries. Currently the nuclear weapons states, led by the United States, are blocking that cooperation. That is why it is so essential for US citizens to press their government for leadership in achieving agreement for the verified elimination of nuclear weapons in all countries. It is also why the leadership of the middle power countries calling for effective nuclear disarmament is also so important.

    The frog may need help getting out of the pot, but this help is unlikely to be forthcoming unless it asks for help. To end the nuclear threat to humanity requires all of us to raise our voices and demand the elimination of nuclear weapons.

    A Final Word

    Nuclear weapons are not weapons of war. They are devices that kill indiscriminately, and their use cannot be confined to soldiers in combat. Nor is their threat limited in time or place. It affects humanity across the globe and across time. This threat, along with the damage nuclear weapons have already done to the environment, will be our generation’s legacy to the future inhabitants of the planet – if we are able to keep the planet intact.

    Nuclear weapons are the tools of fools and cowards. Those who promote these evil tools should be removed from leadership. They are the ones who have kept the frog in the pot and are manipulating the controls on the heat. They will stay in control until the people of this planet act in concert to change the rules, reach accords for cooperative and sustainable development, and end the nuclear weapons threat to humanity and all life.

    The word croak has two meanings. One is the sound of a frog’s voice. The other is slang for “to die.” By recognizing the frog’s malaise and using our voices, we have the possibility to prevent the widespread death and destruction that will be the predictable result of continuing to base national security on the threat to use nuclear weapons. If we fail to recognize the seriousness of the frog’s malaise and fail to act on our own malaise, the result could be tragedy beyond imagination.

    In 1955 Bertrand Russell and Albert Einstein issued a manifesto signed by themselves and some of the greatest scientists of the time. In that manifesto, they stated: “There lies before us, if we choose, continual progress in happiness, knowledge and wisdom. Shall we instead choose death, because we cannot forget our quarrels? We appeal, as human beings to human beings: remember your humanity and forget the rest. If you can do so, the way lies open to a new Paradise; if you cannot, there lies before you the risk of universal death.” The choice is still before us.

    *David Krieger is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

     

    Appendix A

    Play a Role in Ending the Nuclear Weapons Threat

    If you and others do nothing, humanity will eventually face a nuclear holocaust that in a worst case could end human life on Earth.

    The nuclear weapons threat will not diminish or go away if good people who care about a sustainable human future do nothing. If you would like to play a role in ending the nuclear weapons threat to humanity, I encourage you to take these steps.

    1. Educate yourself. A good place to begin is the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s web site: www.wagingpeace.org. At this web site you will find a wealth of information on nuclear dangers as well as ideas for action. At this site you can sign up as a free online participating member of the Foundation and receive the monthly e-newsletter, The Sunflower.

    2. Educate others. Spread the word. Help your family and friends to realize the danger and lack of sustainability of some nations continuing to rely upon nuclear weapons. You can send information to others from the Foundation’s web site.

    3. Take Action. Sign the Appeal to End the Nuclear Weapons Threat to Humanity, and ask others to sign it. You can do this online at the above web site. Encourage political leaders to support the elimination of nuclear weapons and to oppose abrogation of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty by the United States.

    Appendix B

    Appeal to End the Nuclear Weapons Threat to Humanity

    [This Appeal, initiated by the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, has been signed by some of the world’s great peace leaders, including Jimmy Carter, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, the XIVth Dailai Lama, and Queen Noor of Jordan. The Appeal has been signed by 37 Nobel Laureates, including 14 Nobel Peace Laureates.]

    We cannot hide from the threat that nuclear weapons pose to humanity and all life. These are not ordinary weapons, but instruments of mass annihilation that could destroy civilization and end most life on Earth.

    Nuclear weapons are morally and legally unjustifiable. They destroy indiscriminately – soldiers and civilians; men, women and children; the aged and the newly born; the healthy and the infirm.

    The obligation to achieve nuclear disarmament “in all its aspects,” as unanimously affirmed by the International Court of Justice, is at the heart of the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

    More than ten years have now passed since the end of the Cold War, and yet nuclear weapons continue to cloud humanity’s future. The only way to assure that nuclear weapons will not be used again is to abolish them.

    We, therefore, call upon the leaders of the nations of the world and, in particular, the leaders of the nuclear weapons states to act now for the benefit of all humanity by taking thefollowing steps:

    De-alert all nuclear weapons and de-couple all nuclear warheads from their delivery vehicles.

    Reaffirm commitments to the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

    Commence good faith negotiations to achieve a Nuclear Weapons Convention requiring the phased elimination of all nuclear weapons, with provisions foreffective verification and enforcement.

    Declare policies of No First Use of nuclear weapons against other nuclear weapons states and policies of No Use against non-nuclear weapons states.Reallocate resources from the tens of billions of dollars currently being spent for maintaining nuclear arsenals to improving human health, education and welfare throughout the world.

    Appendix C

    13 Practical Steps for Nuclear DisarmamentThe following text is excerpted from the 2000 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review ConferenceFinal Document.

    The Conference agrees on the following practical steps for the systemic and progressive efforts to implement Article VI of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and paragraphs 3 and 4(c) of the 1995 Decision on “Principles and Objectives for Nuclear Non Proliferation and Disarmament”:

    1. The importance and urgency of signatures and ratifications, without delay and without conditions and in accordance with constitutional processes, to achieve the early entry into force of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty.

    2. A moratorium on nuclear-weapon-test explosions or any other nuclear explosions pending entry into force of that Treaty.

    3. The necessity of negotiations in the Conference on Disarmament on a non-discriminatory, multilateral and internationally and effectively verifiable treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices in accordance with the statement of the Special Coordinator in 1995 and the mandatecontained therein, taking into consideration both nuclear disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation objectives. The Conference on Disarmament is urged to agree on a programme of work which includes the immediate commencement of negotiations on such a treaty with a view to their conclusion within five years.

    4. The necessity of establishing in the Conference on Disarmament an appropriate subsidiary body with a mandate to deal with nuclear disarmament. The Conference on Disarmament is urged to agree on a programme of work which includes the immediate establishment of such a body.

    5. The principle of irreversibility to apply to nuclear disarmament, nuclear and other related arms control and reduction measures.

    6. An unequivocal undertaking by the nuclear-weapon States to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals leading to nuclear disarmament to which all States parties are committed under Article VI.

    7. The early entry into force and full implementation of START II and the conclusion of START III as soon as possible while preserving and strengthening the ABM Treaty as a cornerstone of strategic stability and as a basis for further reductions of strategic offensive weapons, in accordance with its provisions.

    8. The completion and implementation of the Trilateral Initiative between the United States of America, the Russian Federation and the International Atomic Energy Agency.

    9. Steps by all the nuclear-weapon States leading to nuclear disarmament in a way thatpromotes international stability, and based on the principle of undiminished security for all:

    – Further efforts by the nuclear-weapon States to reduce their nuclear arsenals unilaterally.

    – Increased transparency by the nuclear-weapon States with regard to the nuclear weapons capabilities and the implementation of agreements pursuant to Article VI and as a voluntary confidence-building measure to support further progress on nuclear disarmament.

    – The further reduction of non-strategic nuclear weapons, based on unilateral initiatives and as an integral part of the nuclear arms reduction and disarmament process.

    – Concrete agreed measures to further reduce the operational status of nuclear weapons systems.

    – A diminishing role for nuclear weapons in security policies to minimize the risk that theseweapons ever be used and to facilitate the process of their total elimination.

    – The engagement as soon as appropriate for all the nuclear-weapon States in the process leading to the total elimination of their nuclear weapons.

    10. Arrangements by all nuclear-weapon States to place, as soon as practicable, fissile material designated by each of them as no longer required for military purposes under IAEA or other relevant international verification and arrangements for the disposition of such material in peaceful purposes, to ensure that such material remains permanently outside of the military programmes.

    11. Reaffirmation that the ultimate objective of the efforts of States in the disarmament process is general and complete disarmament under effective international control.

    12. Regular reports, within the framework of the NPT strengthened review process, by all States parties on the implementation of Article VI and paragraph 4 (c) of the 1995 Decision on “Principles and Objectives for Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament”, and recalling the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice of 8 July 1996.

    13. The further development of the verification capabilities that will be required to provideassurance of compliance with nuclear disarmament agreements for the achievement and maintenance of a nuclear-weapon-free world.

  • Taking Ourselves Off the Endangered Species List

    Can you imagine a world without human eyes to view its wonder? Nuclear weapons make such a world possible. Our inaction in the face of nuclear dangers may make such a world probable. Despite the end of the Cold War, nuclear weapons continue to place human beings on the endangered species list. It is up to us to take ourselves off this list. Before we can do so, however, we must first recognize that we are on it.

    Perhaps this recognition is a motivating factor in US plans to develop and deploy a National Missile Defense system. These plans represent a pursuit of invulnerability to nuclear attack for US citizens. The problem is that there can be no invulnerability for one piece of territory or one country ‘s citizens in the Nuclear Age. There are no perfect defenses and, n the case of nuclear weaponry, even small margins of error can spell disaster.

    The problem is complicated by the fact that if one country proceeds with a defensive system, other countries will feel threatened. The reason for this is that one country ‘s invulnerability or even imagined invulnerability will give it potential offensive advantages over other countries. If, for example, the US has a missile defense system it believes will make it invulnerable to attack, then China will worry about being bullied by the US and further develop its offensive missile capabilities. Thus, improved defensive capabilities can lead to offensive arms races. Such is the contorted logic of security in the Nuclear Age.

    Invulnerability is not an option, but US decision makers are proceeding as though it is. This is a dangerous policy that could rekindle nuclear arms races throughout the world. A far better approach would be to provide leadership toward a nuclear weapons free world. Such an approach would increase global stability and reduce the risks of catastrophe resulting from human fallibility. This approach would be in accord with international law and the precepts of morality basic to all religions. It would also bring nuclear weapons and materials under tighter controls and reduce the risks of the weapons or materials falling into the hands of terrorists or criminals.

    For these reasons, individuals from through- out the world are adding their names and voices to the Foundation ‘s Appeal to End the Nuclear Weapons Threat to Humanity. Walter Cronkite, one of the most respected men in America and a signer of the Appeal, wrote: “Facing a holocaust that could take thousands or perhaps billions of lives and render much of the earth uninhabitable, how is it possible for humankind to continue to believe that the way to settle its disputes is by killing each other? Nuclear weapons represent the utmost fantasy in the perpetuation of this savage philosophy.”

    If you ‘d like to add your name to this Appeal, you can sign up online. If you are not already a member of the Foundation, we invite you to join us in waging peace by educating yourself, educating others and taking action. We try to make this easy for you by providing up-to-date information and suggestions for action.

    There is strength in numbers. When people come together for peace they are a powerful force. Like a mighty ocean, people power can overcome even the dangers of the Nuclear Age. We may not be invulnerable, but we are not without the power to shape our future. I invite you to play a greater role in spreading the Foundation ‘s message of peace, and helping us to grow to fulfill our mission of creating a peaceful, nuclear weapons-free future for humanity and all life.

    *David Krieger is President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.