Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Category: Key Issues

This will display on the homepage under “Key Issues”

  • NATO Nuclear First Use Option

    David KriegerA recent article in The Guardian, “Pre-emptive nuclear strike a key option, Nato told” by Ian Traynor, January 22, 2008, refers to a report by a group of former senior military officers and strategists that calls for keeping open the prospect of resorting to the first use of nuclear weapons. The report’s five authors – including John Shalikashvili, a former NATO commander and a chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the Clinton administration – argue that current threats and challenges require NATO to keep open this option.

    The report states, “The first use of nuclear weapons must remain in the quiver of escalation as the ultimate instrument to prevent the use of weapons of mass destruction.” In their worldview, similar to that of President Bush, nuclear weapons are not just tools of deterrence; they are weapons that can be used preemptively.

    While the world is clearly dangerous, the threat of first use of nuclear weapons is unlikely to make it safer. The greatest dangers to the West now come from non-state terrorist organizations, which are generally not locatable, making it impossible to strike either before or even after an attack has occurred. The policy of first use of nuclear weapons, which the report’s high-ranking authors support, will speed the erosion of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, encouraging other states to develop nuclear arsenals, if only to protect themselves from such policies in the West.

    The reality is that NATO, in the aftermath of the Cold War, is an organization searching for a purpose. Threatening first use of nuclear weapons would be a provocative and dangerous direction for the organization. It would make its members less secure rather than more so. It would push the world closer to the brink of the nuclear precipice.

    Einstein warned, “The splitting of the atom has changed everything save our modes of thinking, and thus we drift toward unparalleled catastrophe.” A start toward the new way of thinking that Einstein saw as essential can be found in the thinking of those that support the total elimination of nuclear weapons, a prospect the authors of the report dismiss as unrealistic (“simply no prospect of a nuclear-free world”). If we want real security and freedom from the fear of nuclear holocaust, we had best focus on making the prospect of a world free of nuclear weapons realistic.

    There are a growing number of former US leaders, including George Shultz, William Perry, Henry Kissinger and Sam Nunn, who believe that a nuclear weapons-free world is possible and should be our goal. They have also argued that the United States must lead the way to attaining this goal. Their recent article, “A Nuclear-Free World,” in the Wall Street Journal (January 15, 2008), sets forth their thinking on the necessity of this vision and the steps that are needed to achieve it.

    If we are going to succeed in removing the greatest danger facing humanity – that of nuclear war – it is necessary to reduce the role of nuclear weapons in the security policies of the states that still possess these weapons. Developing doctrines for the first use of these weapons moves us 180 degrees in the wrong direction. Like war itself, nuclear weapons use should never be a strategy of first resort, and policies of first use move us dangerously in that direction.

    There is only one way to assure that nuclear weapons will never be used again – by accident or design – and that is to negotiate the abolition of these weapons and the strict international control of all weapons-grade nuclear materials and the technologies to create such materials. This would be consistent with the well-established obligation for nuclear disarmament in Article VI of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. It would be a far better way forward than standing at the nuclear precipice and thundering out the threat of nuclear first use.

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

  • How the Iraq War’s $2 Trillion Cost to the US Could Have Been Spent

    In war, things are rarely what they seem.

    Back in 2003, in the days leading up to the U.S. invasion of Iraq, the Pentagon adamantly insisted that the war would be a relatively cheap one. Roughly $50 billion is all it would take to rid the world of Saddam Hussein, it said.

    We now know this turned out to be the first of many miscalculations. Approaching its fifth year, the war in Iraq has cost American taxpayers nearly $500 billion, according to the non-partisan U.S.-based research group National Priorities Project. That number is growing every day.

    But it’s still not even close to the true cost of the war. As the invasion’s price tag balloons, economists and analysts are examining the entire financial burden of the Iraq campaign, including indirect expenses that Americans will be paying long after the troops come home. What they’ve come up with is staggering. Calculations by Harvard’s Linda Bilmes and Nobel-prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz remain most prominent. They determined that, once you factor in things like medical costs for injured troops, higher oil prices and replenishing the military, the war will cost America upwards of $2 trillion. That doesn’t include any of the costs incurred by Iraq, or America’s coalition partners.

    “Would the American people have had a different attitude toward going to war had they known the total cost?” Bilmes and Stiglitz ask in their report. “We might have conducted the war in a manner different from the way we did.”

    It’s hard to comprehend just how much money $2 trillion is. Even Bill Gates, one of the richest people in the world, would marvel at this amount. But, once you begin to look at what that money could buy, the worldwide impact of fighting this largely unpopular war becomes clear.

    Consider that, according to sources like Columbia’s Jeffrey Sachs, the Worldwatch Institute, and the United Nations, with that same money the world could:

    Eliminate extreme poverty around the world (cost $135 billion in the first year, rising to $195 billion by 2015.)

    Achieve universal literacy (cost $5 billion a year.)

    Immunize every child in the world against deadly diseases (cost $1.3 billion a year.)

    Ensure developing countries have enough money to fight the AIDS epidemic (cost $15 billion per year.)

    In other words, for a cost of $156.3 billion this year alone – less than a tenth of the total Iraq war budget – we could lift entire countries out of poverty, teach every person in the world to read and write, significantly reduce child mortality, while making huge leaps in the battle against AIDS, saving millions of lives.

    Then the remaining money could be put toward the $40 billion to $60 billion annually that the World Bank says is needed to achieve the Millennium Development Goals, established by world leaders in 2000, to tackle everything from gender inequality to environmental sustainability.

    The implications of this cannot be underestimated. It means that a better and more just world is far from within reach, if we are willing to shift our priorities.

    If America and other nations were to spend as much on peace as they do on war, that would help root out the poverty, hopelessness and anti-Western sentiment that can fuel terrorism – exactly what the Iraq war was supposed to do.

    So as candidates spend much of this year vying to be the next U.S. president, what better way to repair its image abroad, tarnished by years of war, than by becoming a leader in global development? It may be too late to turn back the clock to the past and rethink going to war, but it’s not too late for the U.S. and other developed countries to invest in the future.

    Craig and Marc Kielburger are children’s rights activists and co-founded Free The Children, which is active in the developing world. Marc Kielburger is a member of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s Board of Directors.

  • Required Reading for Assuring the Future

    Required Reading for Assuring the Future

    Few people have looked as deeply into the nuclear abyss, seen the monster of our own making and grappled with it as has the writer Jonathan Schell. But Schell is more than a writer. He is also a philosopher of the Nuclear Age and an ardent advocate of caging the beast and rendering it harmless. Schell’s first book on the subject, The Fate of the Earth, awakened many people to the breadth and depth of the nuclear danger and is now a classic. He has returned to the issue of nuclear dangers (nuclear insanity?) in several of his other books, always providing penetrating insights into the confrontation between humanity and its most deadly invention.

    His latest book, The Seventh Decade, The New Shape of Nuclear Danger, may be Schell’s most important book yet. In this book, he examines the roots of the Nuclear Age and its current manifestations. He unearths the truth, which once brought to light seems obvious, that the bomb began as a construct in the mind. “Well before any physical bomb had been built,” he says, “science had created the bomb in the mind, an intangible thing. Thereafter, the bomb would be as much a mental as a physical object.”

    One of the key concepts of the Nuclear Age is deterrence, the belief that the threat of nuclear retaliation can prevent nuclear attack. Schell takes a hard-headed look at deterrence, and finds the concept “half-sane and half-crazy.” While it seems sane to seek to forestall a nuclear attack, the half-crazy part (perhaps more than half), “consists of actually waging the war you must threaten, for in that event the result is suicide all around.” That suicide writ large becomes what philosopher John Somerville termed “omnicide,” the death of all. “In short,” Schell deduced, “to threaten seems wise, but to act is deranged.”

    In the post-Cold War period, deterrence has become even more complex and less certain, tilting toward the “deranged.” It is no longer the mental task of threat and counter threat aimed at keeping a fixed and powerful opponent at bay, as it was during the Cold War standoff between the US and USSR. Now, states must consider the possibility of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorist groups, not locatable and not subject to being deterred. In such circumstances, the rationality of deterrence is shattered and even great and powerful states are placed at risk of nuclear devastation by far weaker opponents. In such circumstances, overwhelming nuclear superiority is of no avail.

    The “bomb in the mind” can only do so much. It cannot deter those who cannot be located or are suicidal. Despite their devastating power, nuclear weapons in the hands of powerful states are actually a tepid threat. Yet, they stand as a major impediment to the post-Cold War imperial project of the United States, a project failing on many fronts, but poised to fail far more spectacularly if nuclear weapons find their way into the hands of terrorist groups.

    In today’s world, when deterrence has for nearly all sane thinkers lost its magical power in the mind (although in truth it was always a highly risky venture), it has become far harder to justify nuclear arsenals, and the United States has resorted to the vague possibility of a reemergent threat. In considering this, Schell finds, “In the last analysis, the target of the U.S. nuclear arsenal became history and whatever it might produce – not a foe but a tense, the future itself.”

    Schell correctly concluded that the George W. Bush administration had far more ambitious and sinister plans for the US nuclear arsenal. Although there was no clearly definable enemy, there was a strongly held vision and normative goal of US global dominance, set forth in the 2001 US Nuclear Posture Review (NPR). Nuclear weapons were required, in Schell’s careful study of the NPR “to dissuade, deter, defeat or annihilate – preventively, preemptively, or in retaliation – any nation or other grouping of people on the face of the earth, large or small, that militarily opposed, or dreamed of opposing, the United States.”

    Schell examines the US imperial project under George W. Bush and its role in shaping US nuclear policy. He points out that the Bush administration ordered its nuclear threats in this way: Iraq, with whom it went to war; Iran, with whom it threatened war; North Korea, which withdrew from the Non-Proliferation Treaty and developed nuclear weapons; and Pakistan, which already had nuclear weapons and a chaotic political environment. Of course, Bush chose exactly the wrong order in terms of the actual security threats posed by these nations. Schell found, “In responding to the universal danger posed by nuclear proliferation, the United States therefore had two suitably universalist traditions that it could draw on, one based on consent and law, the other based on force. Bush chose force. It was the wrong choice. It increased the nuclear danger it was meant to prevent.”

    In the final section of his book, Schell, who is himself an ardent nuclear abolitionist, reviews earlier attempts to achieve abolition of these weapons. He goes into heartbreaking detail of the efforts of Presidents Reagan and Gorbachev to achieve the goal of a world free of nuclear weapons. The two leaders, acting on their own initiative, without the advice or support of their aides (George Shultz is an exception), were incredibly close to agreement to eliminate their nuclear arsenals, but as we know faltered on the issue of missile defenses, which Reagan saw as key and which Gorbachev couldn’t accept. After coming so close to agreement on a plan for abolition, the world settled back to nuclear business as usual. As Schell pointed out, after the Reagan-Gorbachev Summit at Reykjavík, “Nuclear arsenals may remain not so much because anyone wants them as because a world without them is outside the imagination of the leadership class.”

    The possibilities of nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism led Schell to the conclusion that “with each year that passes, nuclear weapons provide their possessors with less safety while provoking more danger. The walls dividing the nations of the two-tiered [nuclear] world are crumbling.” The Reagan-Gorbachev vision has new advocates in former Secretaries of State George Shultz and Henry Kissinger, former Secretary of Defense William Perry, and former chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee Sam Nunn. Their basic premise is that deterrence can no longer be the foundation for 21st century security.

    Schell suggests that should the will for nuclear abolition materialize – something already favored by the majority of Americans – the following principles could guide the effort:

    1. At the outset, adopt the abolition of nuclear arms as the organizing principle and goal of all activity in the nuclear field;
    2. Join all negotiations on nuclear weapons – on nuclear disarmament, on nonproliferation, and on nuclear terrorism – in a single forum;
    3. Think of abolition less as the endpoint of a long and weary path of disarmament and more as the starting point for addressing a new agenda of global action;
    4. Design a world free of nuclear weapons that is not just a destination to reach but a place to remain.

    Schell concludes that the “bomb in the mind,” with us from the outset of the Nuclear Age, will remain with us, but that this is not necessarily a detriment. He points out, “even in a world without nuclear weapons, deterrence would, precisely because the bomb in the mind would still be present, remain in effect. In that respect, the persisting know-how would be as much a source of reassurance as it would be a danger in a world without nuclear weapons.”

    Jonathan Schell has provided an essential book for our time. He peels back the layers of veils and myths surrounding nuclear dangers and strategies, and offers a sound set of guidelines for moving to a nuclear weapons-free world. This book can help to create the necessary political will to achieve this end. It is required reading for every person on the planet who cares about assuring the future.

    David Krieger is the President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org). He is a leader in the global effort to abolish nuclear weapons.

  • Nuclear Weapons Abolition: Signs of Hope

    Nuclear Weapons Abolition: Signs of Hope

    Introduction Presidents Gorbachev and Reagan came close to achieving agreement on abolishing nuclear weapons at the Reykjavik summit in 1986. The stumbling block was Reagan’s dream of “Star Wars,” which Gorbachev could not accept. Who could have predicted that within a decade of the founding of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, the Berlin Wall would fall and the Soviet Union would cease to exist? Who could have predicted that, despite the end of the Cold War, nuclear dangers would continue to grow? The end of the Cold War helped to disarm public concern about nuclear dangers, but these dangers have not ended.

    Throughout this past quarter century, the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation has been a steady and persistent voice of reason in its calls for abolishing nuclear weapons. We believe, along with the hibakusha, the survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, that the threat or use of nuclear weapons is an evil that must not be repeated. I am proud that we stand with the hibakusha, who have shown such compassion and strength of character in their forgiveness and their persistence. I have supported their nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize, and I continue to do so.

    I want to speak about where we stand on the road to nuclear weapons abolition. I consider this goal – a world free of nuclear weapons – to be the greatest challenge of our time. Humans created nuclear weapons – weapons that could end civilization and the human species. Humans have used nuclear weapons in warfare. We know the results of that use. We know the danger that continues to exist with 26,000 nuclear weapons still in the world. Our cities are threatened, as is our common future. I will try to answer the following questions.

    1. What are nuclear weapons?
    1. Why oppose these weapons?
    1. Why do some countries possess these weapons?
    1. Why do other countries support these weapons?
    1. Do nuclear weapons make a country more secure?
    1. What is the current nuclear policy of the United States?
    1. Whose interests do nuclear weapons serve?
    1. What is the road to nuclear weapons abolition?
    1. Are there signs of hope?

    I will end with signs of hope. I believe that there is a way out of the nuclear dilemma for humanity, and that we must not allow complacency and despair to conquer hope.

    What Are Nuclear Weapons?

    Nuclear weapons derive their power from the energy contained within the atom. The bomb that destroyed Hiroshima used enriched uranium (Uranium 235) to create an explosive force equivalent to 12.5 thousand tons of TNT. The bomb that destroyed Nagasaki used Plutonium 239 to create an explosive force equivalent to 20 thousand tons of TNT. Thermonuclear weapons, which use the power of fusion, are capable of yields thousands of times greater than those used at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The great majority of nuclear weapons today are thermonuclear weapons.

    Nuclear weapons are not instruments of war in any traditional sense. They destroy everything within miles of their detonation. Their radioactive effects linger long after the damage of blast and fire has run its course. The effects of nuclear weapons cannot be contained in time or space. They go on killing and destroying even into new generations of survivors. They cannot be conceived of as simply “weapons.” They are instruments of annihilation, putting the future of humanity itself at risk. Beneath their veneer of scientific achievement, nuclear weapons are the tools of bullies, thugs and madmen. Why Oppose These Weapons?

    Some people support policies that rely upon nuclear weapons and justify the weapons as “instruments of peace.” This a strange way to conceptualize weapons that could destroy most life on the planet in a matter of hours.

    Here are ten reasons to oppose nuclear weapons. They are ten reasons that I oppose nuclear weapons, and I commend them as ten reasons that you, too, should oppose these weapons.

    1. They are long-distance killing machines incapable of discriminating between soldiers and civilians, the aged and the newly born, or between men, women and children.
    2. They threaten the destruction of cities, countries and civilization; of all that is sacred, of all that is human, of all that exists.
    3. They threaten to foreclose the future.
    4. They are cowardly weapons, and in their use there can be no honor.
    5. They are a false god, dividing nations into nuclear “haves” and “have-nots,” bestowing unwarranted prestige and privilege on those that possess them.
    6. They are a distortion of science and technology, twisting our knowledge of nature to destructive purposes.
    7. They mock international law, displacing it with an allegiance to raw power.
    8. They waste our resources on the development of unusable instruments of annihilation.
    9. They concentrate power in the hands of the few and undermine democracy.
    10. They corrupt our humanity.

    Why Do Some Countries Possess These Weapons?

    There are currently nine countries that possess nuclear weapons: US, Russia, UK, France, China, Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea. More than 95 percent of the 26,000 nuclear weapons in the world are in the arsenals of the US and Russia.

    The principal justification for nuclear weapons has always been deterrence – the threat of nuclear retaliation to prevent a nuclear attack. The reason that the United States first developed nuclear weapons was the fear that the Germans might also develop them, and the United States would need to have the weapons to deter the Germans from using their weapons. The Soviet Union developed its nuclear arsenal for deterrence – to keep the United States from threatening or using its nuclear arsenal against them. Every country that has developed nuclear weapons has had the intention of deterring another country. Even the most recent addition to the nuclear weapons club, North Korea, wanted to have a nuclear deterrent capability to assure survival of its regime from potential attack by the United States.

    In addition to deterrence, a second reason that some states have pursued nuclear weapons is prestige. Since the five permanent members of the Security Council were the original five members of the nuclear weapons club, other nations recognized that the possession of these weapons offered a high level of prestige in the international system. When India and Pakistan tested nuclear weapons in 1998, there was buoyant celebrating in the streets of the major cities of these countries. The people in these countries, despite their poverty, took pride in the achievement of their nation’s nuclear weapons capability – ironically, a capability that could lead to their demise.

    Why Do Other Countries Support These Weapons?

    The principal reason that some countries support nuclear weapons, without possessing them, is that they are tied by military compact with a nuclear weapons state. This is sometimes referred to as being under a “nuclear umbrella.” Many countries are under the US nuclear umbrella. These include Japan, South Korea and Taiwan in the Far East; Australia in the Pacific; and the countries belonging to NATO in Europe. These countries tend to give support to US nuclear policy in the belief that they are being protected by the deterrent value of the US nuclear arsenal.

    Some poorer and dependent countries give support to US nuclear weapons policy because their governments are pressured by US economic incentives and disincentives. But there are not too many of these countries, and most countries in the world express support for United Nations General Assembly resolutions aimed at achieving a nuclear weapons free world. To give one example, the Disarmament Committee in the United Nations General Assembly recently voted on a resolution for “Renewed determination towards the total elimination of nuclear weapons,” a resolution spearheaded by Japan. The resolution was passed by a vote of 165 states in favor, 3 states opposed, and 10 states abstaining. The three states voting against the resolution were India, North Korea and the United States.

    Do Nuclear Weapons Make a Country More Secure?

    Security is a concept with both psychological and physical dimensions. Psychologically, one may feel secure, but not be secure in reality. The opposite is also true. One may not feel secure, but actually be quite safe. Nuclear weapons operate at the psychological level. The security they offer is of the psychological variety. These weapons cannot provide actual physical security. Deterrence, for example, is a psychological theory. It cannot provide actual physical protection against a nuclear attack.

    It is worth examining deterrence theory to see how much security it actually provides. For deterrence to work, there must be clear communications, the threat of retaliation must be believed, the decision makers must act rationally, and the targets of deterrence must be locatable. In other words, one cannot deter someone who does not understand you, someone who does not believe you, someone who acts irrationally, or someone who cannot be located. Given all these ways in which deterrence can fail, it seems highly irrational to base the future of one’s country or the planet on the belief that deterrence will work under all circumstances.

    The best evidence that deterrence is not to be relied upon is missile defenses. If leaders thought that deterrence was foolproof, they wouldn’t need to have missile defenses for protection. Instead, many countries are developing missile defenses to provide actual physical protection against a nuclear attack. The problem with missile defenses is that they, too, are unlikely to work under real world conditions. Most of the successful tests with missile defense systems have employed a homing device that guides the “defensive” missile to the “offensive” one, a condition not likely to be present in the real world. Further, many experts have given clear testimony that missile defenses can be defeated by the use of offensive missile decoys. Russia has responded to US missile defenses by developing offensive missiles with greater maneuverability. Missile defenses are also making the prospects for nuclear disarmament increasingly distant.

    In the end, nuclear weapons make a country less secure, since a country that possesses nuclear weapons is almost certainly targeted by nuclear weapons. While nuclear weapons may add little to the security of an already powerful country, they may act for weaker countries as a perceived deterrent to offensive actions by more powerful countries. Thus, North Korea was able to sustain negotiations with the United States to achieve development and security goals by having a small nuclear arsenal, whereas Iraq, which did not have nuclear weapons, was attacked by the United States and its regime overthrown. This is a dangerous strategy for North Korea, but it points out that aggressive policies by powerful states can act as a stimulant to nuclear proliferation.

    Ronald Reagan, when he was President of the United States, recognized that the only viable purpose of nuclear weapons for the US and Soviet Union was to deter the other side from attacking. That being the case, Reagan noted, “…would it not be better to do away with them entirely?” Reagan was right. True security will be found not in possessing nuclear weapons, but in eliminating them.

    What Is the Current Nuclear Policy of the United States?

    In recent years, the United States has not played a constructive role on issues of nuclear disarmament. Rather, it has demonstrated by its policies its intention to rely upon nuclear weapons for the indefinite future. I would characterize US nuclear policy unstable, unreliable and, ultimately, as reckless, provocative and dangerous for itself and humanity. I will discuss below some of the principal elements of US nuclear policy.

    Double Standards. The US has upheld one standard for its friends and allies, and another standard for its perceived enemies. Thus, the US seeks to promote nuclear trade with India, despite the fact that India never joined the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and developed and tested nuclear weapons. The US has been willing to bend its own laws and pressure the international Nuclear Suppliers Group to support its agreement with India. In the same vein, the US has not complained about Israeli nuclear weapons and has continued to annually give billions of dollars of military support to Israel. At the same time, the US attacked Iraq for supposedly having a nuclear weapons program and is threatening Iran with attack for the same unsubstantiated reasons (Iran claims to be enriching uranium only for its legal nuclear energy program). The Bush administration is currently seeking to replace every weapon in its nuclear arsenal with a new thermonuclear warhead, the so-called Reliable Replacement Warhead. Such double standards are not sustainable, and are widely recognized as such in the international community.

    Extended Deterrence. The United States seeks not only to deter a nuclear attack against its own territory, but also an attack against its allies. Thus, the US provides nuclear assurances to its NATO allies as well as to its allies in East Asia, including Japan, South Korea and Taiwan. These countries are considered to reside under the US nuclear umbrella. One of the goals of US nuclear policy is to provide assurance to its allies. In the 2001 Nuclear Posture Review, it states, “US nuclear forces will continue to provide assurance to security partners, particularly in the presence of known or suspected threats of nuclear, biological, or chemical attacks or in the event of surprising military developments.”

    Ambiguous Messages. The US has not given clear messages about when it may use nuclear weapons. As indicated above, even “surprising military developments” can be viewed as a provocation for the threat or use of US nuclear forces. The 2001 Nuclear Posture Review, for example, also states, “Nuclear weapons could be employed against targets able to withstand non-nuclear attack….”

    Threat of Preventive Use. In a 2005 draft document, Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations, the US expressed a willingness to use nuclear weapons against an enemy “intending to use WMD” against the US or allied military forces, or in the case of an “imminent attack from adversary biological weapons….”

    High Alert Status. The US and Russia continue to keep some 3,500 nuclear weapons on high alert status, ready to be fired within moments of an order to do so. This creates a dangerous situation in which these weapons could be launched by accident.

    Preventing Proliferation by force. The US demonstrated its willingness to prevent proliferation of nuclear weapons by force when it attacked Iraq in 2003. It has threatened to use force to prevent proliferation of nuclear weapons to Iran.

    Launch on Warning. The US continues to employ a policy of launching its nuclear weapons on warning of attack. This increases the chances of launching to a false warning, and thus initiating a nuclear attack.

    Alliance Sharing. US nuclear weapons are currently shared with six US allies in Europe – Belgium, Germany, Italy, The Netherlands, Turkey and the UK. Some 350 US nuclear weapons are currently thought to be deployed in Europe in cooperative agreements with these countries that would leave the weapons in the hands of the European countries in the event of hostilities. The US is the only country in the world to deploy nuclear weapons on foreign soil.

    Negative Leadership. There are two main directions in which leadership can be applied on nuclear weapons issues. One direction is toward ending reliance on nuclear weapons and eliminating them; the other direction is toward sustaining these weapons for the indefinite future. The United States has chosen the latter course. It has blocked progress toward nuclear disarmament in the United Nations General Assembly, the Commission on Disarmament, and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conferences, despite its obligation under the NPT to engage in “good faith” negotiations for nuclear disarmament. In the area of nuclear policy, the US has shown negative leadership. It has been an obstacle rather than a beacon in moving toward achieving a nuclear weapons free world.

    When looked at in overview, and when taking the first letters of each of the elements of US nuclear policy described above, they spell Death Plan. While I don’t think that US nuclear policy is consciously meant to be a Death Plan, I do think that it is currently charting a course that will result in nuclear proliferation, potential nuclear terrorism, increased nuclear threats and the eventual use of these weapons.

    Above all countries, the United States should be leading the way toward a world free of nuclear weapons. Not only does it have special responsibilities as the country that first created nuclear weapons and first used them, but it is also the country that would benefit most in terms of security from abolishing these weapons.

    Whose Interests Do Nuclear Weapons Serve?

    Nuclear weapons seemingly serve the interests of countries that are threatened by another nation’s nuclear weapons. The US was originally threatened by the potential of German nuclear weapons, the Soviet Union was threatened by US Nuclear Weapons, the UK and France were threatened by the Soviet Union’s nuclear weapons, and so on. It is clear, however, that deterrence can fail, defeating reliance upon nuclear weapons for security.

    Beyond the questionable interests of countries in nuclear weapons for deterrence, the most obvious interests are those of the scientists and engineers employed to create and improve these weapons. The engineers and scientists employed by the nuclear weapons laboratories – such as the Los Alamos National Laboratory and the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in the US – have a continuing interest in their job security and prestige. In the US, the University of California has a financial interest in the resources it receives from the government for providing management and oversight to the Nuclear Weapons Laboratories, as does its partner in management, Bechtel Corporation ,and other defense contractors.

    One class of people whose interests are not served by nuclear weapons is the citizens of a country that possesses these weapons. They are the targets and potential victims of nuclear attack by other nuclear-armed states. It is ordinary citizens, the inhabitants of Earth, including the nuclear weapons states, who have the most to lose in a nuclear exchange.

    What Is the Road to Nuclear Weapons Abolition?

    The road to nuclear weapons abolition is a road not much traveled, but one that calls out to humanity. The survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki recognized that nuclear weapons and human beings cannot co-exist. We must choose: humanity or nuclear devastation. The choice should not be difficult. We must end the nuclear weapons era before these weapons end the human era.

    The road to nuclear weapons abolition can be conceived of as a series of steps to lessen nuclear dangers, while engaging in good faith negotiations on an international treaty for the phased, verifiable, irreversible elimination of nuclear weapons. It is a road to a Nuclear Weapons Convention (NWC). A Draft NWC has been created by some international civil society organizations, including the International Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms (IALANA), the International Network of Engineers and Scientists Against Proliferation (INESAP). The Draft Convention was first introduced to the United Nations General Assembly by the Republic of Costa Rica in 1997, and was revised and reintroduced to the UN by Costa Rica in 2007.

    The Draft Nuclear Weapons Convention sets forth a plan for the phased, verifiable, irreversible elimination of nuclear weapons. It is only one such guide, but it demonstrates that a feasible plan can be created. It should be an incentive to nuclear weapons states to begin the process of good faith negotiations that they are obligated to fulfill by their membership in the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

    Among the steps that can be taken in conjunction with negotiations for a Nuclear Weapons Convention are the following:

    1. De-alerting nuclear arsenals;
    2. Legally binding commitments to No First Use of nuclear weapons;
    3. Placing all weapons-grade nuclear materials, as well as uranium enrichment, plutonium separation and other key elements of the nuclear fuel cycle, under strict and effective international control;
    4. Ratification and entry into force of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty;
    5. Reestablishing an Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.
    6. Banning weapons of mass destruction in outer space.

    Are There Signs of Hope?

    There are some signs of hope that our human spirits can prevail over the cold technology of nuclear annihilation.

    1. The vast majority of states in the world support a world free of nuclear weapons. There are currently 188 countries that are party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The nuclear weapons states party to this treaty agree that they will pursue “good faith” negotiations to achieve nuclear disarmament. Unfortunately, these states (US, Russia, UK, France and China) have not acted to fulfill their disarmament obligations. Only three countries have not signed the treaty (Israel, India and Pakistan), and one country has withdrawn (North Korea). At the United Nations Disarmament Committee in October 2007, states voted overwhelmingly in favor of a resolution calling for “Renewed determination towards the total elimination of nuclear weapons.” The vote was 165 in favor, three opposed and ten abstentions. The three opposed were India, North Korea and the US.
    1. The vast majority of US and Russian citizens support a world free of nuclear weapons. A 2007 poll by WorldPublicOpinion.org found that the goal of eliminating all nuclear weapons was supported by 73 percent of Americans and 63 percent of Russians. In both countries, even larger majorities want their governments to do more to pursue this objective. Sixty-four percent of Americans and 59 percent of Russians favor taking all nuclear weapons off high-alert status. Most Americans (88%) and Russians (65%) endorse the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (SORT), but would like to speed up the timetable of the treaty and have reductions far greater than the 2,200 by 2012 that are called for in the treaty. A majority in both countries would support cutbacks to 400 nuclear weapons each, making their arsenals roughly comparable to those of other nuclear weapons states. A large majority of Americans (92%) and Russians (65%) believe that an international organization, such as the United Nations, would need to monitor and verify compliance with such deep reductions.
    1. Cities are standing up for nuclear disarmament. The Mayors for Peace “2020 Vision” Campaign to Ban Nuclear Weapons has grown to nearly 2000 Mayors in 124 countries. The United Cities and Local Governments organization, the world’s largest and most widely recognized mayoral association, voted in October 2007 to support the Mayors campaign to eliminate nuclear weapons. The Declaration of the United Cities and Local Government organization stated, “We call on all nation states and armed groups to cease considering cities as military objectives – ‘cities are not targets’.”
    2. More than half the world is covered by Nuclear Weapons Free Zones. Virtually the entire southern hemisphere is covered by Nuclear Weapons Free Zones, including Latin America and the Caribbean, the South Pacific, Africa, and Southeast Asia. In addition, central Asia has set up a Nuclear Weapons Free Zone.
    1. Former Cold War officials are now coming out in favor of a world free of nuclear weapons and US leadership to achieve such a world. In a January 4, 2007 article in the Wall Street Journal, George Shultz, Henry Kissinger, William Perry and Sam Nunn argued, “Nuclear weapons today present tremendous dangers, but also an historic opportunity. U.S. leadership will be required to take the world to the next stage — to a solid consensus for reversing reliance on nuclear weapons globally as a vital contribution to preventing their proliferation into potentially dangerous hands, and ultimately ending them as a threat to the world.” At a follow up conference in late 2007 on the 21st anniversary of the Reykjavic Summit of Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev, Nancy Reagan told the conference, “Ronnie had many hopes for the future and none were more important to America and to mankind than the effort to create a world free of nuclear weapons. As Ronnie said, these are ‘totally irrational, totally inhumane, good for nothing but killing and possibly destructive of all life on earth.’ I agree and applaud your effort to create a safer world.”
    2. Norway’s Government Pension Fund has divested from companies providing components for nuclear weapons. The Norwegian Government Pension Fund – Global, based upon a recommendation from the Ethics Council for the fund, has divested from companies that develop and/or produce central components for nuclear weapons. According to their ethical guidelines, the fund may not invest in companies that produce weapons that through normal use may violate fundamental international humanitarian principles, a category that includes nuclear weapons. The following companies were excluded from the fund on this basis: BAE Systems Plc, Boeing Co., Finmeccanica Sp.A., Honeywell International Inc., Northrop Grumman Corp., Safran SA and United Technologies Corp. The Ethics Council pointed out that this is not an exhaustive list.
    1. Legal measures are being taken to challenge the lack of progress on nuclear disarmament obligations. There is a plan by the International Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms (IALANA) to encourage the United Nations General Assembly to ask the International Court of Justice whether or not the nuclear weapons states are acting in “good faith” on their obligations for nuclear disarmament in the Non-Proliferation Treaty. In Italy, there is a legal case for the removal of US nuclear weapons from Italian soil.
    1. University students are showing increased concern for university involvement in nuclear weapons research and development. At the University of California at Santa Barbara, the students have established a Student Oversight Committee to oversee the US Nuclear Weapons Laboratories for which the University provides management and oversight. They intend to conduct inspections of the laboratories and report to their fellow students on whether the laboratories are fulfilling their obligations under international law.

    Conclusions

    Nuclear weapons are instruments of annihilation. Rather than provide security, the undermine it. US leadership toward nuclear disarmament is needed, but unfortunately the US has been setting up obstacles to nuclear disarmament. This must change.

    There are some signs of hope. The vast majority of countries and people support the goal of a world free of nuclear weapons. Large majorities of American and Russian citizens want to move faster in this direction. Some 2000 of the world’s cities are supporting the elimination of nuclear weapons by the year 2020, and are speaking out against the targeting of cities. More than half of the world is covered by Nuclear Weapons Free Zones. Even former American officials during the Cold War are now pressing for US leadership for the elimination of nuclear weapons. These are all good and hopeful signs of intention. But more is needed – in addition to intention, there must also be momentum and raising the issue to a higher priority on national and global agendas.

    Norway has found a way of applying economic pressure to the corporations involved in developing or producing components for nuclear weapons. This is a powerful action that should be adopted by other major funds throughout the world. There should be a global call for divestment from these companies. Legal channels present another powerful avenue for bringing pressure to bear upon the nuclear status quo. One can imagine a global campaign to remove nuclear weapons from the oceans, the common heritage of humankind, and to prevent their introduction into the common province of humankind in outer space.

    Finally, young people are beginning to awaken to this issue, as exemplified by the student activities in opposition to the University of California’s management and oversight of the US Nuclear Weapons Laboratories. Young people must be educated to understand that it is their future that is most endangered by nuclear weapons. They cannot wait to become the leaders of tomorrow; in their own interest, they must step up and become the leaders of today on this critical issue.

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

  • You Can Help End the Thermonuclear Threat to Humanity

    You Can Help End the Thermonuclear Threat to Humanity

    Do you think the threat of nuclear weapons is a relic of the past? If so, think again.

    The nuclear threat remains very real. At any moment of the day or night, a nuclear war could be triggered by accident or design. This isn’t an exaggeration or a paranoid delusion. It’s a fact.

    Did you know that there are still 26,000 nuclear weapons in our world? Twelve thousand of these are deployed and ready to be used. Some 3,500 are on hair-trigger alert, which means that these weapons could be fired within moments of an order to do so.

    No one would give that kind of order, right? Some say it is delusional to worry – after all, the Cold War is over. But what is delusional is to believe that we can maintain such arsenals for the indefinite future without a catastrophe – either a deliberate act of fanatical madness or Murphy’s law playing out at a cataclysmic scale.

    Imagine waking up and discovering one (or many or most) of the world’s great cities – New York, Moscow, London, Paris, Beijing, Tokyo, New Delhi, Karachi, or Tel Aviv – lies in rubble and ashes. It could be your city.

    We know this is possible. It’s not a Hollywood thriller. It’s an all too real possibility played out to the brink every day as new shifts of potential button-pushers and obedient followers take over the keys to Armageddon. Why aren’t more of us taking steps to save our cities and our common future – steps to end this game of planetary Russian roulette?

    Perhaps the reason we’re not acting is that the nuclear threat seems too remote – an artifact of bygone days. After all, we have lived for over sixty years without the use of nuclear weapons in warfare. But the weapons have been there, and they have been poised at the brink and ready to launch – just not triggered to the blinding flash.

    So we have become complacent – to our own detriment. Maybe we believe that we are just too smart to ever have a nuclear war – the fallacy in believing in never and in our own prowess. But there have been many accidents and many near misses with nuclear weapons. Just recently, six nuclear-tipped missiles were mistakenly loaded onto a US B-52 bomber and flown across the central US. Officials are still trying to figure out how that major breach in security could have happened – a mega-error that could have led to a mega-disaster. If such a breach can happen inside the US, with all our supposed controls and safeguards, it can happen anywhere.

    The current instability in Pakistan could result in their nuclear weapons falling into the hands of fanatics or terrorists. As a human community on a planet we share, we cannot afford to run such risks. The era of nuclear weapons must be brought to an end – for our own good, for the good of humanity and for the sake of life on Earth.

    By failing to be part of the solution, we are allowing our world to drift toward nuclear catastrophe. This is an even more urgent and “inconvenient truth” than that of climate change. We know full well that nuclear weapons are 100 percent human-created. While continued global warming could irrevocably change our planet, causing great dislocation and suffering, our self-created nuclear dangers are even more urgent. They could destroy civilization and end intelligent life on the planet in the virtual blink – or blinding flash – of an eye.

    Einstein concluded, “The splitting of the atom has changed everything save our modes of thinking, and thus we drift toward unparalleled catastrophe.”

    The old way of thinking leaves important decisions to leaders who surely “know better,” relies upon brute force to solve conflicts, and believes that strong nations can solve their own problems. The new way of thinking that is needed to prevent nuclear catastrophe understands that ordinary citizens must lead their political representatives, relies upon dialogue and diplomacy to solve conflicts so all sides can “win,” and recognizes that even the most powerful nations cannot solve the great global problems confronting humanity without cooperation and collaboration.

    The Nuclear Age we have created requires new modes of thinking based upon collective problem solving in which everyone has a seat at humanity’s table for one simple reason: our mutual survival depends upon it. There are many unknowns in our human future that we will have to deal with. One thing known for certain, though, is that nuclear weapons – monsters of our own making – can make our planet uninhabitable overnight. That is one looming threat we can choose to eliminate. For the sake of all that is dear to us – for the past as well as the future – that is a choice we must make.

    The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation is committed to abolishing nuclear weapons. For 25 years the Foundation has worked to change thinking in order to change the world. We need your thinking. We need your participation. We urge you to take these five steps now to help end the thermonuclear weapons threat to humanity.

    1. Change your thinking – put nuclear weapons in the unacceptable category, along with other major threats to human survival.
    2. Be vocal, strong and persistent in expressing this new thinking. Help make a world free of nuclear weapons an idea whose time has come.
    3. Lobby your Mayor to join the Mayors for Peace and support its “2020 Vision” Campaign to Ban Nuclear Weapons (www.mayorsforpeace.org). Lobby your Congressional or Parliamentary representatives to join the Parliamentary Network for Nuclear Disarmament (www.pnnd.org) in order to work with parliamentarians from throughout the world to eliminate nuclear weapons.
    4. Sign up to be a member of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation at www.wagingpeace.org. View and share the Foundation’s DVD, “Nuclear Weapons and the Human Future.” Read our free monthly e-newsletter, The Sunflower. Participate in our Turn the Tide Campaign.
    5. Provide financial support to the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation and other organizations that work daily for a world free of nuclear weapons. Contribute online at https://wagingpeace.davidmolinaojeda.com/menu/donate/index_secure.htm.

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

  • Nuclear Dangers and Challenges to a New Nuclear Policy

    Nuclear Dangers and Challenges to a New Nuclear Policy

    It is worthwhile asking the question: What are nuclear weapons? In some respects the answer to this question may seem obvious, but this is not necessarily the case. To some, nuclear weapons are a scientific achievement that bestows prestige. This is the view that has been taken by each of the nuclear weapons states, with the exception of Israel. Most recently, this perspective was on display when India and Pakistan conducted nuclear tests in 1998.

    To others, nuclear weapons are a deterrent that protects a weaker state from a more powerful one. This is likely the view of North Korea and perhaps Iran, after having been designated by the US president as part of the “Axis of Evil” and observing the United States attack Iraq, the third designated country in this axis. To still others, such as Israel, nuclear weapons represent a final response to an existential threat. To North Korea, nuclear weapons may represent a response to an existential threat and also a “bargaining chip” for security guarantees and development aid.

    To others, nuclear weapons demonstrate a state’s power in the international system. This likely reflects the view of the five original nuclear weapons states, the ones that also hold permanent seats on the United Nations Security Council – the US, UK, Russia, China and France – and quite possibly the rest of the nuclear weapons states as well.

    Thus far, I have only given the probable views of states that possess nuclear weapons or may wish to do so. Let me now offer another view of nuclear weapons. They are weapons that kill massively and indiscriminately. As such, they are long-distance instruments of annihilation. Weapons that kill indiscriminately are illegal under international law. In this respect, any threat or use of nuclear weapons that failed to discriminate between civilians and combatants would be illegal. It is hard to imagine any threat or use of these weapons that would or even could discriminate.

    The International Court of Justice has found that any threat or use of nuclear weapons would be generally illegal, allowing for the possible but uncertain exception under current international law of a circumstance in which the very existence of a state is at stake. But even then, for such use to be legal it would have to meet the standards of international humanitarian law. In other words, it would have to discriminate between soldiers and civilians, be proportionate, and not cause unnecessary suffering.

    Nuclear weapons are also cowardly and anti-democratic. More accurately, the weapons themselves may not be cowardly, but those who would threaten or use these long-distance killing machines are cowardly. Nearly all of the leading military figures of World War II recognized this and commented upon it. Admiral William Leahy, referring to the use of the atomic bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, said, “[I]n being the first to use it, we…adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.”

    Nuclear weapons are anti-democratic because they concentrate power in the hands of single individuals or a small cabal. They take away the most basic right of people everywhere – the right to survive. There will never be a democratic vote to use nuclear weapons. These weapons place in the hands of leaders the capacity to destroy cities, countries and civilization, with the high likelihood that any use of nuclear weapons would lead to the destruction of the country that initiated a nuclear attack.

    No Defense against Nuclear Attack

    It is not possible to defend against a nuclear attack. Deterrence, which has been the main line of prevention, cannot provide physical defense against a nuclear attack. It is simply the threat of retaliation. This threat must be effectively communicated and believed by a potential attacker. It is, of course, not a meaningful threat against a non-state extremist organization, which cannot be located. Deterrence theory is rooted in rationality. It posits leaders acting rationally to assure their survival, even in times of severe crisis. Basing protection against nuclear attack on rationality, unfortunately, is irrational.

    This is what the former commander-in-chief of the United States Strategic Command, General George Lee Butler, had to say about deterrence: “Deterrence serves the ends of evil as well as those of noble intent. It holds guilty the innocent as well as the culpable. It is a gamble no mortal should pretend to make. It invokes death on a scale rivaling the power of the Creator.”

    Early in 2007, four former high-level US officials – George Shultz, William Perry, Henry Kissinger and Sam Nunn – published an article, “A World Free of Nuclear Weapons,” in the Wall Street Journal. They addressed the issue of deterrence, arguing: “The end of the Cold War made the doctrine of mutual Soviet-American deterrence obsolete. Deterrence continues to be a relevant consideration for many states with regard to threats from other states. But reliance on nuclear weapons for this purpose is becoming increasingly hazardous and decreasingly effective.”

    If deterrence is becoming more dangerous and less effective, what remains? US leaders have put significant emphasis on missile defenses, but few knowledgeable scientists, other than those working on government contracts, believe that missile defenses would actually work under real-world conditions. There is a widespread understanding that missile defenses, in addition to being unreliable, can be easily overcome by offensive forces and the use of decoys. The US push to deploy missile defenses has frayed relations between the US and Russia and China, and led these countries to improve their offensive nuclear capabilities.

    If neither deterrence nor missile defenses provide security against nuclear attack, what is left? Nothing is viable but diplomacy to eliminate nuclear arsenals. There is no reliable defense against nuclear attack. Major countries might consider returning to the “duck and cover” drills of the 1950s, although they might update the drills so that they took place in legislatures rather than in schools. These drills, of course, offer no protection to those who do them, but they might help awaken them to the dilemma and the need to take action to eliminate the threat by eliminating the weapons.

    Nuclear Dangers

    Since nuclear weapons continue to exist, nuclear dangers have not gone away, despite the ending of the Cold War and the break up of the Soviet Union. What has largely ended is public concern for the dangers posed by nuclear weapons. The end of the Cold War has created a false sense of security, largely attributable to inertia and poor leadership. It is worthwhile reviewing current nuclear dangers.

    1. The proliferation of nuclear weapons to other state actors. The more states in possession of nuclear weapons, the more likely they are to proliferate further and to be used. The spread of nuclear weapons dramatically increases problems of control, as was demonstrated by the case of Pakistan’s A. Q. Khan.
    2. The proliferation of nuclear weapons to extremist organizations. This is a danger that cannot be ruled out. Nuclear weapons in the hands of an extremist organization, such as al Qaeda, pose substantial danger to all countries, including the major nuclear weapons states.
    3. The use of a nuclear weapon by an extremist organization against a state. The actual use of a nuclear weapon by an extremist organization against a state could result in destruction comparable to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, with added widespread security and economic implications. Questions would arise about the viability of the world economy, human rights and democratic processes in the face of such attack.
    4. The use of a nuclear weapon by a nuclear weapons state against another state. Such use would be devastating and could trigger a nuclear war. It would end the taboo on the use of nuclear weapons that has existed since 1945.
    5. An all-out nuclear war, initiated either intentionally or accidentally. The danger of an all-out nuclear war is always with us. It would be insane, but it could happen. Just as states stumbled into World War I, they could stumble again, by accident or miscalculation, into an all-out nuclear war.

    These dangers are obviously not trivial, nor are they dangers with which anyone should feel comfortable. They are dangers that place civilization and even the human species at risk of annihilation.

    Current nuclear dangers are fueled by the continued reliance of the nuclear weapons states on their nuclear arsenals for their security. Whereas these states once lived in a world of Mutually Assured Destruction, they now live in a world of Mutually Assured Delusions. Their greatest delusion is that they can continue to rely upon nuclear weapons for their own security and that of their friends, while preventing these weapons from spreading to others or being used again.

    There have been repeated warnings over a long period of time that nuclear double standards cannot hold. In 1955, the Russell-Einstein Manifesto warned: “We have to learn to think in a new way. We have to learn to ask ourselves, not what steps can be taken to give military victory to whatever group we prefer, for there no longer are such steps; the question we have to ask ourselves is: what steps can be taken to prevent a military contest of which the issue must be disastrous to all parties?”

    In 1996, the Canberra Commission on the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons warned, “The proposition that nuclear weapons can be retained in perpetuity and never used – accidentally or by decision – defines credibility. The only complete defense is the elimination of nuclear weapons and assurance that they will never be produced again.”

    This warning was repeated in 2006 by the Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission, chaired by Hans Blix. Their report, entitled Weapons of Terror, Freeing the World of Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Arms, stated: “So long as any state has such weapons – especially nuclear arms – others will want them. So long as any such weapons remain in any state’s arsenal, there is a high risk that they will one day be used, by design or accident. Any such use would be catastrophic.”

    A New Nuclear Policy

    There have been many proposals for a new nuclear policy. The essence of such a policy is rooted in the following:

    1. The obligation for good faith negotiations to achieve nuclear disarmament in Article VI of the 1970 Non-Proliferation Treaty;
    2. The 1996 Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice, which stated, “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.”
    3. The pledge in the 13 Practical Steps for Nuclear Disarmament agreed to unanimously at the 2000 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference: “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.

    US leadership will be necessary in order to move forward in implementing such a policy. Without US leadership there will be little incentive for the other nuclear weapons states to act, and we are likely to remain frozen in the nuclear double standards of the status quo.

    While US leadership for a new nuclear policy has not been forthcoming, some hope exists in that the group of former US officials – Shultz, Perry, Kissinger and Nunn – called for it in their January 2007 Wall Street Journal article. They endorsed “the goal of a world free of nuclear weapons and working energetically on the actions required to achieve that goal….” The four former officials argued, “Reassertion of the vision of a world free of nuclear weapons and practical measures toward achieving that goal would be, and would be perceived as, a bold initiative consistent with America’s moral heritage. The effort could have a profoundly positive impact on the security of future generations.”

    Once the political will for the goal of a world free of nuclear weapons exists, it will be possible to take the necessary actions to move from where we are to the goal. There have been many proposals for how to achieve the goal. A group of leading civil society organizations has drafted a plan for a Nuclear Weapons Convention that would lead to the elimination of nuclear weapons in a series of stages. This draft Convention has been introduced to the United Nations by the Republic of Costa Rica. The 13 Practical Steps for Nuclear Disarmament agreed to at the 2000 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference sets forth another series of steps. The four former Cold Warriors set forth their own series of steps. What is most important in achieving the elimination of nuclear weapons, once there is sufficient political will, is that the disarmament be phased, transparent, verifiable, irreversible, and subject to strict and effective international control.

    Challenges to a New Nuclear Policy

    There are many challenges to a new nuclear policy, but the greatest challenges lie in the orientation of the current leadership of the US. In July 2007, the US Secretaries of State, Defense and Energy issued a joint statement, “National Security and Nuclear Weapons: Maintaining Deterrence in the 21st Century.” This statement, contrary to the position taken by the four former US officials, began by extolling “the essential role that nuclear weapons play in maintaining deterrence.” It ended up by calling for replacing every nuclear weapon in the US arsenal with a new type of thermonuclear weapon, the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW). They argued that “RRW is key to sustaining our security commitment to allies, and is fully consistent with U.S. obligations under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty – including Article VI.” They also threatened that delays on RRW “raise the prospect of having to return to underground nuclear testing to certify existing weapons.”

    The Bush administration is clearly not seeking to achieve a new nuclear policy, but a retrenchment of the status quo, one in which the United States remains the dominant nuclear weapons state. They seem unaware of the risks they are running, particularly the dangers that their nuclear policies create for the US itself.

    Further challenges to a new nuclear policy come from those states that want to defy the nuclear status quo of privileged nuclear “haves” maintaining their superiority over nuclear “have-nots.” Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea were not content living in that two-tiered nuclear world, and pursued nuclear programs that led to the development of nuclear arsenals. South Africa had followed this path in earlier years, developed a small nuclear arsenal, and then reconsidered and dismantled its weapons. Without more concerted action to achieve nuclear disarmament, we can anticipate that more states will move toward a nuclear option in the future. Even today, some countries, like Japan, hold open the nuclear option as virtual nuclear weapons states, having both the technology and nuclear materials to develop nuclear arsenals in a very short time.

    A general challenge to a new nuclear policy is the belief that a firewall can be drawn between nuclear energy and nuclear weapons. No such firewall is possible, and nuclear reactors, for power or research, have fueled the nuclear programs of Israel, India and Pakistan. The designation of peaceful nuclear power as an “inalienable right” in the Non-Proliferation Treaty is a contradiction that must be addressed if nuclear proliferation is to be controlled.

    A Way Forward

    In the end, the most important consideration may be that suggested by the hibakusha, the survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, in their statement, “Nuclear weapons and human beings cannot co-exist.” This is patently true. The two are now placed in an uneasy juxtaposition. One represents the technology of annihilation. The other represents the sum total of human achievement – past, present and potential future. It should not be a difficult choice, but many of us on the planet seem to be voting against ourselves by our ignorance, apathy and denial. An awakened populace may prove to be a potent force to achieve a nuclear weapons free world.

    Our challenge, as leaders in civil society, is to educate and advocate for a new nuclear policy that will move the world away from the nuclear precipice. In doing so, we may find many important partners, including the mayors of cities throughout the world who have joined Mayors for Peace led by Mayor Tadatoshi Akiba of Hiroshima; the network of parliamentarians in the Parliamentary Network for Nuclear Disarmament; and the governments of non-nuclear weapons states, such as those in the New Agenda Coalition, which have worked closely with the Middle Powers Initiative.

    What has been accomplished thus far is not nearly enough. The world remains in peril. In Einstein’s words, “we drift toward unparalleled catastrophe.” Our challenge is to reverse that drift, to move back from the nuclear precipice, to prevent the catastrophe Einstein foresaw. To achieve a new and human-centric nuclear policy will require major national efforts within nuclear weapons states, and a major global campaign to bring pressure to bear upon these states from without. Already the southern hemisphere of the planet has organized itself into a series of Nuclear Weapon Free Zones.

    Europe could play an important role in the effort to achieve a nuclear weapons free world by demanding that US nuclear weapons be removed from Europe, by refusing to participate in missile defense programs, by stepping out from under the US nuclear umbrella, and by convening a forum for the good faith negotiations for nuclear disarmament called for in the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Now is the time to begin planning for a saner, more reasonable and law abiding US administration that will replace the current one in early 2009.

    Nuclear weapons currently divide humanity, but the recognition of their danger could be a force for uniting humanity for their elimination. This would be a great achievement not only for its expression of common human purpose, but also for the resources it would free for meeting basic human needs for food, health care, housing, education, the alleviation of poverty and the protection of the environment. A new nuclear policy aimed at eliminating nuclear weapons should be the top priority on the global agenda.

     

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

  • Meeting the Challenge of Abolishing Nuclear Weapons

    Meeting the Challenge of Abolishing Nuclear Weapons

    A recent conference on “The Challenge of Abolishing Nuclear Weapons” brought together experts from ten countries, including the US, Russia, China, India, Germany and Japan, for two days of intensive discussions. The conference, which was held in San Francisco, was sponsored by the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation and the Toda Institute for Peace and Policy Research. The participants examined the obstacles in the way of achieving a world free of nuclear weapons.

    There was general agreement that the United States, as the world’s most militarily and economically powerful country, needed to lead the way. Many participants noted that the United States is currently leading the way, but in the wrong direction – toward continued reliance upon nuclear weapons rather than toward their elimination. One participant pointed out that the United States is currently using nuclear weapons in a manner analogous to holding a loaded gun to someone’s head, threatening to shoot if they do not do as you instruct them. There was strong agreement that a US attack against Iran’s nuclear facilities would not only be a major crime, but would result in Iran’s withdrawal from the Non-Proliferation Treaty and the likely development of a well-protected program to achieve a nuclear arsenal.

    It was acknowledged that, in addition to preventing a US attack against Iran’s nuclear facilities, a series of steps are needed to reduce nuclear dangers and advance prospects for complete nuclear disarmament. These steps need to be taken in the context of a vision of a nuclear weapons free world. Among the steps called for were reductions in nuclear arsenals; de-alerting of nuclear arsenals (taking the weapons off hair-trigger alert status); ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty; agreement on a verifiable Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty; the strengthening of international agreements to control the nuclear fuel cycle and prevent nuclear proliferation; and legally binding commitments to No First Use of nuclear weapons.

    It has been a long-standing policy of the Chinese government to commit to No First Use, and to orient their nuclear doctrine accordingly. If all states adhered to this policy, and backed it up with their nuclear doctrine, there would be assurance that nuclear weapons states would not initiate a nuclear attack against a non-nuclear weapons state and would be restrained from first-use against another nuclear weapons state. This is currently the policy of only China and India among the nuclear weapons states. The United States continues to frame its nuclear weapons policy in terms of “all options are on the table.”

    The Chinese participant, a retired army general, thought that the only legitimate use of nuclear weapons was for deterrence. Other participants questioned whether deterrence, which relies on rationality, was a rational strategy and pointed out the many ways in which deterrence could fail by miscommunication, miscalculation or a failure of rationality in a time of crisis. It was acknowledged that deterrence cannot work against terrorist organizations that would not be locatable.

    Participants emphasized the importance of attaining a Nuclear Weapons Convention that would set forth a plan for the phased, verifiable, irreversible elimination of nuclear weapons. A draft Nuclear Weapons Convention has already been created by civil society organizations and has been submitted by Costa Rica to the United Nations.

    The Russian participant in the conference, an academic, suggested that many existing treaties between the US and Russia are in jeopardy due to the policies of the United States related to developing new nuclear weapons and moving missile defense components into countries in Eastern Europe. While the US claims these defenses are to protect against Iranian missiles, the Russian political and military leaders do not assess the situation in this way; they conclude US missile defenses have serious security implications for both Russia and China.

    The 1987 Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty between the US and Russia could be in particular jeopardy. This treaty led to the elimination of a whole class of nuclear weapons and their delivery systems with ranges between 500 and 5,500 kilometers. Over 4,000 nuclear warheads and 2,692 missiles were eliminated (1,846 by the USSR and 846 by the US). There was support for saving the existing treaties by acting to assure that there were no new nuclear weapons (such as the US is planning with its so-called Reliable Replacement Warhead); no nuclear weapons in space; limitations on deployment of missile defenses; de-alerting; reestablishing the Strategic Arms Reduction Talks, extending the START I agreement, which is set to expire in December 2009, and completing ratification of the START II agreement to bring it into force; strengthening the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (Moscow Treaty) by making it verifiable, irreversible and indefinite; agreeing to the elimination of tactical nuclear weapons; and working to achieve expanded Nuclear Weapons Free Zones and a Nuclear Weapons Convention.

    The conference was unique in bringing forth the important role of youth in the effort to achieve a world free of nuclear weapons. There were suggestions for increasing the education of the post-Cold War generation on nuclear dangers. There were also suggestions for focusing on the moral issues of threatening either first use or retaliatory use of nuclear weapons, and bringing people of faith into the discussion of these issues.

    Among the ideas for change emphasized were a Nuclear Threat Convention (outlawing nuclear threats); increased development of transnational coalitions for abolishing nuclear weapons; reaching out to the public explaining the successes that have been achieved and building momentum for a Nuclear Weapons Convention; building support in cities by joining the Mayors for Peace Campaign for the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons; de-legitimizing nuclear weapons use; and supporting a UN Decade of Nuclear Disarmament.

    One participant, a former president of the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, summed up the dilemma of achieving security in the Nuclear Age in this way: “The paradox of the Nuclear Age is that the greater the striving for power and security through nuclear weapons, the more elusive the goal of human security.” He added, “The greatest priority for the future is to ensure that there will be a future.”

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

  • Ten-Point Nuclear Policy Platform For US Presidential & Congressional Candidates

    Ten-Point Nuclear Policy Platform For US Presidential & Congressional Candidates

    In a January 4, 2007 Wall Street Journal opinion piece by George Shultz, William Perry, Henry Kissinger and Sam Nunn, the four former Cold Warriors argued, “Nuclear weapons today present tremendous dangers, but also an historic opportunity. US leadership will be required to take the world to the next stage – to a solid consensus for reversing reliance on nuclear weapons globally as a vital contribution to preventing their proliferation into potentially dangerous hands, and ultimately ending them as a threat to the world.”

    Our continued reliance on nuclear weapons only incites non-nuclear countries to acquire or develop nuclear weapons of their own. These include states willing to sell their technology and know-how to terrorist organizations who make no pretense of stockpiling nuclear weapons for deterrence, and in turn cannot be deterred from using the weapons. Therefore, initiating negotiations to ensure the phased, verifiable and irreversible elimination of nuclear arsenals under strict international control is of the utmost urgency. Such negotiations, in fact, are mandated by Article VI of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and by the 1996 International Court of Justice Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Threat of Use of Nuclear Weapons. The latter states, “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.”

    In accord with assuring its own security from nuclear attack, as well as setting an example for other nations with a principled legal and moral position, the United States should then commit to leading the world away from the nuclear precipice. A number of current US nuclear policies are in need of either renewed commitment or a new direction.

    1. The US and Russia, between them, currently maintain some 3,500 nuclear weapons on high alert status. Thus, we’re in constant danger of an unintended missile launch.
    Policy recommendation: Negotiate with Russia to remove all nuclear weapons from high alert status and create additional safeguards to prevent an accident which would lead to nuclear war.
    2. The US currently maintains the option of not only using nuclear weapons first, but against non-nuclear weapons states. This is an open invitation to nuclear proliferation.
    Policy recommendation: The US should make a commitment that legally binds it from first use of nuclear weapons under any circumstances, assuring that we retain them only for deterrence. Further, the US should sign an agreement that under no conditions would it nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapons states.

    3. The US is planning to replace every nuclear weapon in its arsenal under the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) program. While ostensibly intended to increase nuclear security, the RRW program is actually costly, dangerous and unnecessary. By sending the message that the US plans to continue to base its security on nuclear weapons indefinitely, it serves only to encourage nuclear proliferation.

    Policy recommendation: Eliminate funding for and cancel the Reliable Replacement Warhead program.

    4. Contributions on the part of the US to prevent the theft of nuclear weapons and weapons-grade materials in the former USSR and other countries around the world have been far from adequate.

    Policy recommendation: Increase US funding for: programs that secure all nuclear weapons and weapons-grade fissile materials in Russia and other countries; the Global Threat Reduction Initiative and other programs for preventing nuclear proliferation; security upgrades, including anti-theft technology, for all countries in possession of nuclear weapons or weapons-grade nuclear materials. Funds freed up by canceling the RRW program might be allotted to these ends.

    5. The US has not yet ratified the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). The US was the first country to sign the CTBT in 1996, but failed to ratify it, even though 138 other states have, when it came before the Senate in 1999. Nor has the Bush administration seen fit to resubmit the treaty for ratification since.

    Policy recommendation: Submit the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty to the Senate for ratification again, and encourage the other nuclear-capable states that have not signed or ratified it to do so. Further, the US should close the Nevada Test Site.

    6. Some countries, including the US, are continuing sub-critical nuclear tests, which stop short of producing a nuclear chain-reaction explosion. Continued nuclear testing, even in the form of computer simulations, sends a message to the world that nuclear testing is necessary and encourages other countries to follow suit.

    Policy recommendation: Cease testing of nuclear weapons by any means and urge other nations to emulate us.

    7. The US currently maintains some 480 nuclear weapons in Europe and hundreds more on submarines in the oceans.

    Policy recommendation: Repatriate all US nuclear weapons from foreign soil, and negotiate with the other nuclear weapons states for the removal of all nuclear weapons from ocean-going vessels. It’s imperative that the seas retain their status as the common heritage of humankind.

    8. The US military currently espouses a policy of “full spectrum dominance” over not only land, air, and sea, but outer space.

    Policy recommendation: The US should join other countries, including Russia and China, in negotiating a treaty to keep outer space beyond the limits of earthly hostilities.

    9. The US is proceeding with a plan called the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP), which provides for reprocessing nuclear waste to render its plutonium usable in nuclear power plants. Though advertised as proliferation-resistant, GNEP only increases the odds of plutonium falling into the hands of criminals and terrorist organizations.

    Policy recommendation: Eliminate funding for the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership program, prohibit the reprocessing of nuclear wastes, and house waste from nuclear power plants where it’s generated in hardened on-site storage facilities. Require a low-density, open-frame layout for spent fuel pools, and provide protection for these pools. Mandate periodic review of these facilities.

    10. Most significantly, the US has shown virtually no leadership in fulfilling its obligation under the Non-Proliferation Treaty to pursue nuclear disarmament in all its aspects.

    Policy recommendation: Pursue negotiations without further delay on a Nuclear Weapons Convention for the phased, verifiable, transparent and irreversible elimination of all nuclear weapons globally, as required by Article VI of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. We call upon candidates seeking the presidency of the United States and current representatives and candidates seeking seats in the Congress to adopt the recommendations of this ten-point platform designed to assure compliance with US obligations under international law. Thus will a commitment be demonstrated to US leadership in ending the nuclear weapons threat that hangs over humanity.

    We call upon candidates seeking the presidency of the United States and current representatives and candidates seeking seats in the Congress to adopt the recommendations of this ten-point platform designed to assure compliance with US obligations under international law. Thus will a commitment be demonstrated to US leadership in ending the nuclear weapons threat that hangs over humanity.

    David Krieger is President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org). Please send comments to him at dkrieger@napf.org.

  • Kofi Annan’s Clarion Call for Nuclear Sanity

    Kofi Annan’s Clarion Call for Nuclear Sanity

    Nearing the end of his second term as Secretary General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan went to Princeton University on November 28, 2006 to make what may well be remembered as the most important speech of his tenure. He began by talking about the general sense of insecurity in our world today related to a broad range of issues, including poverty, environmental degradation, disease, war and terrorism. He concluded that “the greatest danger of all” may well be “the area of nuclear weapons.” He gave three reasons for this conclusion:

    “First, nuclear weapons present a unique existential threat to humanity. “Secondly, the nuclear non-proliferation regime faces a major crisis of confidence….

    “Thirdly, the rise of terrorism, with the danger that nuclear weapons might be acquired by terrorists, greatly increases the danger that they will be used.”

    He pointed to the two significant failures by governments in 2005 to achieve progress on the twin issues of nuclear non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament: first, at the Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference; and second, at the World Summit, which brought together heads of governments from throughout the world.

    Annan attributed the current stalemate, which he termed “mutually assured paralysis,” to the deadlock between those who put nuclear disarmament first and those who put non-proliferation first. He urged both sides to come together and tackle both issues “with the urgency they demand.”

    He called upon the nuclear weapons states “to develop concrete plans – with specific timetables – for implementing their disarmament commitments.” He also urged them “to make a joint declaration of intent to achieve the progressive elimination of all nuclear weapons, under strict and effective international control.”

    He concluded his remarks by appealing to young people: “Please bring your energy and imagination to this debate. Help us to seize control of the rogue aircraft on which humanity has embarked, and bring it to a safe landing before it is too late.”

    This speech is a parting gift from the Secretary General to humanity. I urge you to read it and to demand far more serious action on these critical issues by the leaders of the nuclear weapons states, those who are attempting to control the hijacked “rogue aircraft on which humanity has embarked….”

    Read the Kofi Annan Speech

    David Krieger is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org). He is a leader in the global effort for a world free of nuclear weapons.
  • Can We Change Our Thinking?

    Can We Change Our Thinking?

    It is a privilege to return to Nagasaki for this third Global Citizens’ Assembly to Eliminate Nuclear Weapons. I am convinced that it is only by the actions and initiatives of citizens leading leaders that humanity shall bring nuclear weapons, its most deadly invention, under control.

    I want to return to what may seem an old theme, but one that remains critically important. More than fifty years ago, Albert Einstein warned, “The splitting of the atom has changed everything save our modes of thinking, and thus we drift toward unparalleled catastrophe.” I would like to explore what Einstein meant in reference to changing our “modes of thinking.”

    I believe Einstein was referring to humankind’s continued reliance on force as a means of settling differences as the old way of thinking. He believed that in the Nuclear Age reliance on force was pushing us toward catastrophe. Einstein’s warning was a recognition that with the advent of nuclear weapons, the use of force – a long-standing currency in the international system – placed not only countries but civilization and even humanity itself at risk, making force as a means of resolving disputes between nations too dangerous to be acceptable. If we are to move away from reliance on force to resolve conflicts, we must substitute something else in its place. What must take the place of threat or use of force is honest diplomacy, a willingness to engage in continuous dialogue with the goal of resolving even major differences between nations. That was the purpose for which the United Nations was created in June 1945, less than a month before the first test of an atomic weapon by the United States.

    The United Nations sought to “end the scourge of war.” To achieve this, the UN Charter prohibits the use of force except in the limited circumstance of self-defense, and then only until the United Nations can take control of the situation, or when authorized by the Security Council under Chapter VII of the UN Charter.

    Unfortunately, the United Nations has not been very effective in prohibiting the threat or use of force. This is largely due to its structure, which gives special power to the five permanent members of the Security Council. These states can cast a veto on actions that would subject their behavior to appropriate scrutiny and control. Despite the bold opening words of the UN Charter, “We, the Peoples,” the UN is not a Peoples Parliament. Rather, it is a club of nation-states, and its most powerful members play by a different set of rules than do the other members.

    The United Nations has been used cynically by the most powerful states to gain advantage rather than to seriously engage in problem solving about the world’s most pressing dangers. If we wish to move toward non-violent solutions to conflict, we must reform and strengthen the United Nations to truly become a House of Dialogue and a Parliament of Humanity.

    One aspect of changed thinking that is needed is recognition of the importance of citizen participation in efforts to change the world. The world’s problems are too grave and dangerous to be left to governments without the active participation of citizens. Citizens must take responsibility for the actions of their governments as if their very lives depended upon those actions, as indeed they do. In the Nuclear Age, the actions of nuclear-armed states affect the future of all citizens on the planet. If citizens remain ignorant, apathetic and in denial, it is likely that governments will blunder into wars, inevitably including nuclear war.

    Another aspect of the changed thinking that is needed is the disassociation of nuclear weapons with security both as a concept and as a national policy. Nuclear weapons do not make a country more secure. These weapons can be used to threaten retaliation, but they cannot provide actual physical security. Deterrence is a theory that requires rationality on all sides and effective communications. If there is one thing we know about humans, especially in the context of crises, they are not always rational and they do not communicate perfectly. This was one of the important findings of the meetings of key decision makers in the Cuban Missile Crisis. They came to understand that many of the assumptions they had made about the other participants in the crisis were incorrect and they were very fortunate to have averted nuclear war.

    Still another aspect of thinking in which change is needed is the complacency of the rich within the two-tier structure of rich and poor nations. It is unlikely that wars will be eliminated while the economic divide is great and many people in the world live in deep poverty with all its disadvantages, while a minority lives in superabundance. Modern communications make the have-nots aware of what goes on behind the high walls of the rich, exacerbating the tensions.

    This two-tier structure of rich and poor nations is also mirrored in our world of nuclear haves and have-nots. The world cannot go on indefinitely with bastions of the rich thinking they are protected by nuclear and other arms, while the majority of the world’s population lives in abject poverty. Nor can the world safely continue to be divided along religious and ideological fault lines.

    Nuclear weapons, like other weapons, are part of the currency of power in a divided world. If there were widespread recognition of the essential oneness of humanity and the miracle of life that all humans share, it would be far more difficult to justify resort to arms and, in particular, to continue to threaten the indiscriminate mass destruction that is inherent in the use of nuclear weapons.

    David Krieger is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org). He is a leader in the global effort for a world free of nuclear weapons.