Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Category: Nuclear Abolition

  • Imagination and Nuclear Weapons

    Imagination and Nuclear Weapons

    Einstein believed that knowledge is limited, but imagination is infinite.

    Imagine the soul-crushing reality of a nuclear war, with billions of humans dead; in essence, a global Hiroshima, with soot from the destruction of cities blocking warming sunlight. There would be darkness everywhere, temperatures falling into a new ice age, with crop failures and mass starvation.

    With nuclear weapons poised on hair-trigger alert and justified by the ever-shaky hypothesis that nuclear deterrence will be effective indefinitely, this should not be difficult to imagine.

    In this sense, our imaginations can be great engines for change.

    In our current world, bristling with nuclear weapons and continuous nuclear threat, we stand at the brink of the nuclear precipice. The best case scenario from the precipice, short of beginning a process of abolishing nuclear arms, is that we have the great good fortune to avoid crossing the line into nuclear war and blindly continue to pour obscene amounts of money into modernizing nuclear arsenals, while failing to meet the basic human needs of a large portion of the world’s population.

    The only way out of this dilemma is for the leaders of the world to come to their senses and agree that nuclear weapons must be abolished in order to assure that these weapons will never again be used. Given the state of the world we live in, this is more difficult to imagine.

    What steps would need to be taken to realize the goal of nuclear abolition?

    First, we would need a treaty to ban nuclear weapons. Such a treaty was agreed to in 2017 by a majority of countries in the United Nations, the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW). The treaty is now in the process of being ratified and will enter into force when ratified by 50 countries. Unfortunately and predictably, none of the nine nuclear-armed countries have supported the TPNW, and many have been overtly hostile to the treaty.

    Second, negotiations would need to commence on nuclear disarmament by the nations of the world, including all nine of the nuclear-armed countries. The nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) already obliges its parties to undertake such negotiations in good faith. Specifically, it calls for negotiations to end the nuclear arms race at an early date and to achieve complete nuclear disarmament. The nuclear-armed states parties to the NPT have failed to fulfill these obligations since 1970 when the treaty entered into force.

    Third, the negotiations would need to be expanded to encompass issues of general and complete disarmament, in order not to allow nuclear abolition to lead to conventional arms races and wars. Again, the states parties to the NPT are obligated to undertake such negotiations in good faith, but have not even begun to fulfill this obligation.

    If we can use our imaginations to foresee the horrors of nuclear war, we should be able to take the necessary steps to assure that such a tragedy doesn’t occur. Those steps have been set forth in the two treaties mentioned above.

    What remains missing is the political will to implement the treaties. Without this political will, our imaginations notwithstanding, we will stay stuck in this place of potential nuclear catastrophe, where nuclear war can ensue due to malice, madness, miscalculation, mistake or manipulation (hacking). Imagination is necessary, but not sufficient, to overcome political will. Even treaties are not sufficient unless there is the political will to assure their provisions are implemented. To do this, imagination must be linked to action to demand a change in political will.

    The time is short, the task is great, and terrible consequences are foreseeable if we continue to be stuck at the nuclear precipice.

    To do nothing is simply unimaginable.

    This article was originally published by Counterpunch.

    David Krieger is a founder and president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org).  His most recent book is In the Shadow of the Bomb.

  • Elaine Scarry Delivers the 2019 Frank K. Kelly Lecture on Humanity’s Future

    Elaine Scarry Delivers the 2019 Frank K. Kelly Lecture on Humanity’s Future

    The 18th Annual Frank K. Kelly Lecture on Humanity’s Future took place on May 9, 2019 at the Karpeles Manuscript Library in Santa Barbara, California.

    This year’s speaker was Elaine Scarry. Scarry teaches at Harvard University, where she is the Cabot Professor of Aesthetics and the General Theory of Value. She lectures nationally and internationally on nuclear war, law, literature, and medicine.

    She has been a Guggenheim Fellow, a fellow at the Institute for Advanced Study in Berlin, the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Studies in Palo Alto, and the Getty Research Center in Los Angeles.

    Ms. Scarry has received the Truman Capote Award for literary criticism, and most recently, the Zabel Award from the American Academy of Arts and Letters for being a writer “of progressive, original, and experimental tendencies.”

    In her recent book, Thermonuclear Monarchy: Choosing Between Democracy and Doom, Scarry describes the alarming power of one leader to annihilate millions by launching nuclear weapons, arguing that this power is at odds with the principles of democracy.

    Ms. Scarry’s work could not be more relevant to the geopolitical climate of today.

    “I realized that nuclear war much more closely approximates the model of torture than the model of war because there’s zero consent from the many millions of people affected by it.”

    Frank K. Kelly

    The Frank K. Kelly Lecture on Humanity’s Future was established by the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation in 2002. The lecture series honors the vision and compassion of the late Frank K. Kelly, a founder and senior vice president of NAPF. Each year, a lecture is presented by a distinguished individual to explore humanity’s present circumstances and ways by which we can shape a more promising future for our planet and its inhabitants. For more information on the first 17 years of the Frank K. Kelly Lecture on Humanity’s Future, click here.

  • Auckland Statement on the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons

    Auckland Statement on the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons

    5-7 December 2018 Auckland, New Zealand

    The TPNW and the Pacific

    1. Pacific countries (Cook Islands, Fiji, Kiribati, Nauru, New Zealand, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu and Vanuatu) came together in Auckland from 5-7 December 2018 to discuss the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), to take stock of the Treaty from a regional perspective, to assess its prospects for advancing nuclear disarmament and global security, and to canvass progress toward its entry into force.

    2. The Conference took place at a time of increasing concern in the Pacific region, and globally, regarding the slow pace of progress toward a nuclear weapon-free world and the serious implications of this (including for the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)) in view of the lack of progress in implementation of the nuclear disarmament obligation of Article VI.

    3. Rising tensions, the modernisation of nuclear arsenals, the continued reliance on nuclear weapons in military and security concepts as well as on high alert postures, and threats regarding the possible use of nuclear weapons are widely seen as increasing the risk of a deliberate or accidental nuclear detonation.

    4. For its part, the Pacific is only too well aware of the catastrophic consequences of any nuclear detonation as a result of its own experience with over 300 nuclear weapon tests carried out  over  many  years  and  which  has  resulted  in  long-term humanitarian  and environmental harm to parts of the region. Efforts by Pacific countries to stop this testing; to “promote the national security of each country in the region and the common security of all”; and, so far as lies within the region’s power, to retain “the bounty and beauty of [its] land and sea”; were key factors in the adoption of the Treaty of Rarotonga in 1985 and its establishment of the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone.

    5. Pacific countries continued after the end of testing in the region in 1996 to show leadership in efforts to advance nuclear This reflected their awareness that all regions and peoples have a stake in international security and an important part to play in efforts to advance International Humanitarian Law and the elimination of all weapons of mass destruction.

    6. Building on their full support for the NPT as the cornerstone of nuclear disarmament, and for other aspects of the global nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation regime including the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT), many Pacific countries took an active part in the Humanitarian Initiative on Nuclear Weapons with Pacific voices bearing witness to the horrors of nuclear weapon testing. Many Pacific countries were active, too, in the subsequent negotiations which resulted in the adoption of the TPNW on 7 July In this, they were giving reality to the words of the Pacific Conference of Churches that nuclear weapons “are no good for the Pacific, and no good for the world”.

    7. Five Pacific countries had already ratified the TPNW (Cook Islands, New Zealand, Palau, Samoa, and Vanuatu), and three others had signed it (Fiji, Kiribati, and Tuvalu) by the time of the convening in Auckland of the Pacific Conference.

    The Pacific Conference

    8. The Pacific Conference on the TPNW was hosted by New Zealand with an opening reception and welcome remarks given by the New Zealand Minister for Disarmament and Arms Control, Deputy Prime Minister, Rt Hon Winston Noting the increasing risks which nuclear weapons entail, Minister Peters expressed his hope that the region would be as strong in its support for the TPNW as it had been for the Treaty of Rarotonga. He conveyed New Zealand’s willingness to partner with its Pacific neighbours in carrying forward priority topics identified for action in the UN Secretary-General’s recent “Agenda for Disarmament”.

    9. A “Global Youth Forum on Nuclear Disarmament and the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons” was held concurrently with the Conference attendees welcomed the opportunity to engage with youth participants from NZ and from the wider Pacific, as well as further afield.

    10. In a video message to the Conference at its outset, New Zealand’s Prime Minister, Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern, described the TPNW as a significant first step towards the elimination of nuclear weapons. She invited Pacific countries to join together in supporting it and taking the Treaty of Rarotonga global.

    11. A statement was also delivered on behalf of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Vanuatu, Hon Ralph Regenvanu, highlighting the two key issues for Pacific countries of nuclear disarmament and climate change. Pacific Island nations must “continue to work in unity against the use of nuclear weapons for our good and, most importantly, for the good of our future generations”.

    12. Keynote speaker, Beatrice Fihn – Executive Director of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), the 2017 Nobel Peace Prize laureate – conveyed ICAN’s pride in standing with Pacific nations to advance the Noting that “voices from the Pacific continue to bear witness to the horrors of nuclear weapon testing”, she attributed the awarding of the Nobel Prize in part to ICAN’s work with Pacific survivors of testing. She stressed the lack of an effective response capacity to any use of nuclear weapons, and observed that “the only way to prevent nuclear weapons from harming us is by getting rid of them – no other solution is realistic.”

    13. The participation at the Conference of representatives from Austria, Brazil, Ireland and South Africa – members of the Core Group which led the adoption of the TPNW – was welcomed by all The Conference also benefitted from presentations by colleagues from Auckland and Princeton Universities and input from the New Zealand Red Cross on behalf also of the Red Cross Movement.

    14. Participants noted that the TPNW was fully consistent with the existing nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation regime including the NPT and Equally, they emphasised the consistency of the TPNW with regional instruments, most notably the Treaty of Rarotonga, but also the recent Boe Declaration on Regional Security which reaffirms the importance of the rules-based international order founded on the UN Charter, and adherence to international law, and which outlines an expanded concept of security inclusive of human security and humanitarian assistance. It was also highlighted that the TPNW, and efforts to advance nuclear disarmament, support progress in attainment of the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals, in particular SDG 16 with its focus on peace, justice and strong institutions.

    15. Conference participants accepted the clear moral and humanitarian rationale for joining the Recalling the words of a former UN Secretary-General that “there are no right hands for wrong weapons”, the advantage of the TPNW’s unambiguous prohibition of nuclear weapons was noted both in advancing disarmament and in reducing the incentive for proliferation. A number of those who had already ratified the TPNW conveyed their pride at their country’s leadership on this issue. Palau had led the way for the region, being the first to ratify the Treaty.

    16. Participants exchanged views on key provisions of the Discussion on Article 1 of the TPNW centred on the range of prohibitions which were included in that Article as well as those activities (such as military co-operation and transit) which were not prohibited. Discussion on Article 2 revealed that one country, with praise-worthy promptness, had already forwarded its declaration to the UN Secretary-General.

    17. The discussion under Article 3 highlighted the region’s commitment to meeting its International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards In this regard, it was noted that almost all Pacific countries (and all attendees at the Pacific Conference) do have a Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement in place and a considerable number have also adopted the Additional Protocol. Under the TPNW, if a State has the Additional Protocol in place at the time of entry into force of the Treaty, it must retain this as its minimum standard.

    18. Discussion on Article 7 served to emphasise the region’s strong interest in its provisions for victim assistance and environmental remediation of contaminated Access to such assistance was recognised as being of importance in the region in view of the legacy of nuclear testing.

    19. Emphasis was given to the obligation in Article 12 to promote universal adherence of all states to the Treaty.

    Next Steps on the TPNW

    20. It was recognised that the Pacific region has a role to play in adding its voice to the global effort to strengthen the norm against these inhumane weapons and to increase their In the Pacific, “we are small, but we can have a big impact.”

    21. Participants acknowledged the need to expedite the Treaty’s entry into force and lend weight to efforts to advance its A range of options were discussed for taking the TPNW forward in the region, as well as the potential to work with other regions around the world. Wider ratification in the Pacific region would be assisted by greater awareness-raising and by ensuring capacity for its implementation.

    22. In this regard, the range of offers of assistance to regional countries in moving forward with the Treaty – including from New Zealand, Core Group countries, the New Zealand Red Cross and International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), as well as by Auckland and Princeton Universities, and by ICAN – were welcomed by participants.

    23. Participants were also encouraged to make use of the existing assistance tools including the Signature and Ratification Kit for the Treaty published by the ICRC as well as the Information Kit on Signature and Ratification published by the UN Office of Disarmament Affairs (ODA). Use could also be made of the recent publication entitled “The TPNW: Setting the Record Straight” produced by the Norwegian Academy of International Law, and a range of other resources.

    24. Many participants agreed to work toward signature and ratification (as applicable) of the Participants agreed to stay in close touch in the lead-up to entry into force of the TPNW and to continue to engage actively, including in all appropriate regional contexts.

  • Responding to the Unique Challenges of Nuclear Weapons

    Responding to the Unique Challenges of Nuclear Weapons

    The following statement, developed by Jonathan Granoff of the Global Security Institute, with the supportive consultations of our esteemed Parliament presenters former Canadian Prime Minister Right Honorable Kim Campbell, General Romeo Dallaire, Senator Douglas Roche, Parliament Chairperson-Elect Audrey Kitagawa, Bishop William Swing, and Kehkashan Basu, has been adopted by the Parliament of the World’s Religions in November, 2018 for release worldwide:

    Responding to the Unique Challenge of Nuclear Weapons:
    A Passionate Call From The Parliament of the World’s Religions

    The destructive capacity of nuclear weapons is beyond imagination, poisoning the Earth forever. These horrific devices place before us every day the decision whether we will be the last human generation. The power to unleash this destruction is in the hands of a small number of people. No one should be holding such power over the very creation, which we regard as a sacred gift for all today and for future generations.

    At present, there are over 14,000 of these devices, with hundreds on hair trigger alert. Nine nations* claim that they can responsibly pursue global security by daily making thousands of people ready to use these weapons on a moment’s notice, by relying on machines to determine whether a threat is actual or mistaken, by spending trillions of dollars in the weapons designs and deployments, by demonizing other peoples and nations, by spending vast sums to convince populations that the weapons make them safe and secure, by demonstrating a present readiness to use the weapons to deter others from acquiring them or others with them from using them first, and by threatening to use them as an exercise of aggressive political will.

    This conduct is immoral, ignores the legal obligations contained in treaties and the unanimous ruling of the World Court to negotiate the elimination of nuclear weapons, and is practically unsustainable.  It is claimed that the readiness to use nuclear weapons under the military doctrine of deterrence is justifiable. Such reasoning is unrealistic and flawed. The possession of nuclear weapons relies on the alleged infallibility of men and machines not to use the weapons by mistake, miscalculation, madness, or design. Such arrogance is foolish. The possession of nuclear weapons is immoral, illegal, and must be rectified by prompt action.

    Scientific findings now demonstrate that if less than 1% of today’s arsenal were to be used, even in a first strike, the consequences would be millions of tons of soot in the stratosphere, which would lower the earth’s temperature, create dramatic ozone depletion, and render agriculture unable to sustain civilization. This would destroy the nation that used them first.

    Such a posture is unworthy of civilization, insults the dignity of life, is an impediment to all ethical and moral norms of all the world’s religions. To ignore the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons by exalting nationalism as higher principle raises moral corrosion to unprecedented levels. The ongoing possession and threat to use nuclear weapons is a gross affront to a culture of peace and an impediment to obtaining realistic security based on protecting our planet home, eliminating poverty, and basing the conduct of nations on the rule of law.

    For some nations to claim the weapons are good for them but not others violates the Golden Rule of Nations: Nations must treat other nations as they wish to be treated.

    Nuclear weapons promote the culture of ultimate violence claiming implicitly that the pursuit of security by one state can rightfully place the right to existence of all future generations at risk.

    The nine nations of the world placing this sword over the life of every person on the planet must change their conduct. Nuclear weapons states should take the weapons off of alert status, lower their numbers, bring the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty into force by ratifying it, lower the operational status of the weapons, decouple the warheads from delivery vehicles, strengthen the treaty verification and inspection institutions, expand the current nuclear weapons free zones, which make the Southern Hemisphere virtually nuclear weapons-free, and commit to explicitly accept the logic so clearly stated decades ago: “A nuclear war can never be won and thus must never be fought.”

     We thus make a passionate plea to the leaders of all religions, all people of good will, and all leaders of nations both with and without nuclear weapons to commit to work to eliminate these horrific devices forever. We support the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and the duty explicitly stated in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to obtain a nuclear weapons-free world. We call upon the nine nations with the weapons to promptly commence negotiations to obtain a legal instrument or instruments leading to the elimination of all nuclear weapons.

    * United States, Russia (with over 90% of the weapons), China, France, the United Kingdom (Five Permanent Members of the Security Council and members of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty) and India, Pakistan, North Korea, and Israel.

  • 2018 Evening for Peace Acceptance Speech

    2018 Evening for Peace Acceptance Speech

    I’m really humbled by this award and grateful for the opportunity to celebrate this evening with you. I want to start first by thanking David Krieger, President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, and of course the board and the staff of the foundation for their long-term commitment to the abolition of nuclear weapons and their work as one of the original organizations to join ICAN. I also want to give a special thanks to Jill Dexter and Diane Meyer Simon, the co-chairs of the honorary committee that put together this wonderful event tonight. It has really been a remarkable evening and it’s not over yet. I also would like to take a moment to recognize Kikuko Otake, a survivor of Hiroshima (hibakusha), for being here. It is the survivors of nuclear weapons who remind us why we’re doing this. Their human stories make us understand why this is an imperative issue. I would also like to thank California State Assemblymember Monique Limón for being here. She was responsible for the great resolution that shows that California, is supporting the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. Yay!

    Asm. Monique Limón with ICAN Executive Director Beatrice Fihn.

    So working in nuclear disarmament for the last few years, means constantly finding yourself in a state of either complete terror or inspiring hope. In that sense too it’s a little bit like being a parent. But instead of young children like the two ones that I have in my home giving us near nervous breakdowns constantly it’s the two most powerful men in the world acting like children. Threats to wipe out an entire nation on Twitter: terror. A majority of states in the world, over 120, agreeing to prohibit nuclear weapons rooted in humanitarian reality and law: hope. North Korea testing a missile that could reach us in this room: terror. The treaty opening for signature a year ago and already been signed by 69 states, ratified by 19, at a record pace: hope. Over one million Americans waking up one morning to a text message saying “ballistic threat inbound to Hawaii, seek immediate shelter. This is not a drill”: absolute sheer terror. And people are beginning to wake up to the reality that we are still living under the threat of these weapons every single day.

    They are starting to experience the terror of the Cold War, and it’s our job to give them hope. Following the end of the Cold War, we were promised a world where reasonable men and democratic states would slowly reduce their nuclear arsenals in an orderly fashion, until there were none left: from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty under California’s own Ronald Reagan; to START under George Bush; to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty under Bill Clinton; to the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty under George W. Bush, when he said, “This treaty liquidates the Cold War legacy of nuclear hostility between our countries”; and Obama’s soaring Prague speech calling for the end of nuclear weapons era and his support of New START as the latest treaty. But the weapons weren’t liquidated. The threat remains. The Nuclear Test Ban Treaty was never ratified by the Senate, and just yesterday Donald Trump confirmed plans of the United States pulling out of the INF Treaty. You know, in honesty, it would be all too easy to just blame Donald Trump as a rogue, but the truth is that a system that one impulsive or unpredictable person can uproot is not an appropriate security system in the first place. Maybe the problem is not the man, maybe it is the weapon.

    Since the end of the Cold War, India, Pakistan, North Korea have become nuclear-armed states. You know, we might see Iran join them, and Saudi Arabia has said that if Iran can develop nuclear capability, they will too. The old plan has not been working. So what went wrong? Why are all these weapons still here threatening us all almost three decades on from the fall of the Berlin Wall?

    It’s not the treaties. Each one has value and must be fought for, including the INF right now, but it is a fact that we forgot to actually outright reject nuclear weapons – to ban them.

    Thanks to the leadership of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, one of the first organizations to join ICAN, we are seeing monumental progress in a time of great danger – hope and opportunity in this time of terror and fear. The past approach was centered around abstract concepts of security, realism about geopolitics, but they really ignore the reality that keeping these weapons around forever means that they will eventually be used again. They ignore the reality that if you say nuclear weapons are instruments of power, and they keep you safe, other nations will want to follow you. Then they ignore the reality that nuclear weapons cause humanitarian catastrophes and violate the laws of war. The mission of ICAN and our many partner organizations, including the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, was to bring those realities into the conversation about nuclear weapons.

    We highlighted the humanitarian reality of these weapons. Relief organizations would not be able to send help into nuclear blast zones. As the International Committee of the Red Cross stated, “There will be no effective means to provide aid to the dying and wounded.” People will essentially be on their own. Our recent climate modeling shows a relatively limited nuclear exchange involving about a hundred nuclear weapons between India and Pakistan could result in a nuclear winter lasting two to three years. Beyond the unacceptable immediate deaths from the blast and fires, billions more around the world would die from the resulting famine. Our food system would collapse and our societies would likely follow.

    We told these stories where they needed to be heard. And most importantly we brought democracy to disarmament. For decades, the non-nuclear armed states have been told that they have no say in this issue. They were told that they have no right to speak up and create laws even though many bore the burden of these weapons when they were tested, and they will all bear the burden if they’re used again. Through working with those states and negotiating the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, we help those nations exercise their rights on the international stage and fulfill their obligation to protect their citizens.

    The treaty was adopted by 122 states at the UN last year, bringing credible pressure to the nuclear-armed states and countries living under the nuclear umbrella. It will create even more pressure once it legally enters into force when fifty states have ratified it.

    NAPF Deputy Director Rick Wayman spoke at the negotiations for the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in June 2017.

    But it’s not just nation states. Local communities and individuals play a really important role.

    So do we have any University of California graduates here? Gauchos? Banana Slugs? Bruins? Bears? I really have to admit I had no idea what those things meant before, but all of you UC alumni and in fact every single taxpaying California resident has a unique opportunity to effect change.

    The atomic weapons dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were designed at a lab run by University of California. Every U.S. nuclear weapon ever tested was designed by a UC lab. Every American warhead currently deployed around the world was designed in one of those labs now co-managed by the University of California. These labs are now developing Trump’s new generation of nuclear weapons. And their current task? Make nuclear weapons that are more likely to be used, what they call more usable.

    Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in the East Bay will receive nearly $1.5 billion in 2019 from the U.S. government. Eighty-eight percent of that will be going to nuclear weapons. While they have their grants, we have our plans.

    We’re targeting cities and states, businesses like right here in Santa Barbara, banks like Wells Fargo, universities, like the University of California, and we will succeed. And how do I know that?

    Well, first, we have the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. We aren’t just guessing this, we know this approach works because we’ve seen it happen with other weapons: biological weapons, chemical weapons, landmines and cluster munitions. Treaties, prohibition treaties, they have an impact. We know that shifting norms and changing law have a concrete impact.

    We can look at examples like Textron, for example, a U.S. company that actually stopped producing cluster bombs in 2016, even though the U.S. did not participate in the negotiations for the ban of cluster bombs or have any intention of signing or ratifying it. But because the rest of the world had banned them, it suddenly became bad business.

    Second, because we have partners like the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, working in this state and across the country, and have allies like all of you here. The ICAN movement has grown to over 500 organizations in over 100 countries working across generations to finally end the threat of nuclear weapons.

    And third, because we’re already having historic success even without the nuclear-armed states’ administrations on board. Take California for example. In a true expression of representative democracy, the California state legislature has said that it is their role to tell their federal counterparts how to represent California on the world stage, and we are telling them to embrace the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. They passed Assembly Joint Resolution 33 to do just that and to make nuclear disarmament the centerpiece of our national security policy and spearhead a global effort to prevent nuclear war. And even more local, the L.A. City Council recently passed a similar resolution, and a Santa Barbara resolution to make Santa Barbara a nuclear free city is in the works, and the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation has been working to make that happen.

    The California State Legislature adopted a resolution in August 2018 calling on the U.S. government to embrace the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.

    This state and those cities will join a host of major cities around the world who are speaking up on the rational side of nuclear disarmament through the treaty. ICAN will soon be launching a new campaign for a groundswell of local action: cities, regions, businesses, all joining our cause. What happens in these communities, in these cities, in California, matters around the world. I know this because I’ve heard it directly from global decision makers.

    Just a few weeks ago during the leader’s week at the United Nations in New York, people from as far away as Africa were talking about California embracing the treaty. It has motivated and inspired diplomats and leaders everywhere else in the world and your work is changing attitudes about what is possible and having a direct impact on building a nuclear weapons free world. This is really what momentum looks like, and this is democracy, and this is the impact that partner organizations of ICAN like the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation are having right now.

    I know many of you here have long cared about this issue and to you I say, never sink to the unimaginable level of those who tell you that nuclear disarmament is a pipe dream, that the U.S. will never give up their nuclear weapons.Prove them wrong. And some of you, many young people and students in the crowd, never knew the duck and cover drills of the Cold War and the constant fear of nuclear attack, and to you I say we need a new generation of leaders to take up the mantle of peace so that you will never have to know those fears. You inherited a problem not of your own making. But by the same token, you can better imagine a new international security not based on the risk of nuclear weapons, because many others can’t. Don’t buy into their terror, and join us on the side of hope.

    We’ve had a lot of very powerful opponents in this work, and they told us that we would never be taken seriously; we were. They told us that we would never ban nuclear weapons; we have. They told us the people would never feel secure without nuclear weapons, but the opposite is true.

    Now when they tell you it is not worth trying, that the U.S. will never give up its nuclear weapons, what will you choose? To continue to live in terror, or to join us on the side of hope? You are here tonight and you are part of this Evening for Peace and you support the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, so I know your answers pretty much already. And my question for you all is then, who will you bring with you on this journey and what will you do tonight, and tomorrow, and the next day, to assure that hope will win the day? This movement really needs your passion, your talent, and your commitment.

    And with that, and with partners like the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, we will end nuclear weapons before they end us.

    Thank you.

  • An Exchange on Nuclear Abolition

    An Exchange on Nuclear Abolition

    I want to thank the many commenters on my essay, “Nuclear Abolition: The Road from Armageddon to Transformation.”  The comments were thoughtful, intelligent and sometimes passionate.  Taken together, they give me hope that change is possible and humanity may somehow find a way through the current threat that nuclear weapons pose not only to human life but all complex life on our planet.

    I will begin with the question: What are nuclear weapons?  I remember some lines from a poem by American poet Robert Bly written during the Vietnam War.  Bly wrote, “men like Rusk are not men: / They are bombs waiting to be loaded in a darkened hangar.”  In the same way as Bly poetically removed “Rusk,” the then U.S. Secretary of State, from the category of “men,” I would argue that nuclear weapons are not really “weapons” in any traditional sense.  Rather, they exist in their own category, defined by their omnicidal threats and capabilities as “instruments of annihilation” or “world-ending devices.”

    Most of the comments recognized, either implicitly or explicitly, the unique destructive power of nuclear weapons and how they put us at the edge of Armageddon.  Ian Lowe argued that “nuclear weapons constitute an existential threat to human civilization.”  Lowe went on, “The subsequent development of fusion weapons gave the power-crazed the capacity to murder millions and raised the specter of destroying human society.”  Of course, it is not only the “power-crazed” that have this capability with thermonuclear weapons.  It could be any nuclear-armed leader, even the most ordinary, who could stumble into nuclear war.  There have been many close calls, more than enough to sound the alarm and keep it blaring.

    Steven Starr found, “Launch-ready nuclear arsenals represent a self-destruct mechanism for humanity, and they must be recognized as such.”  He continued: “Such recognition will make it politically impossible to justify their continued existence.”  I doubt, though, that awareness alone would make it possible to abolish nuclear arsenals.  Thus far, it hasn’t been sufficient to change the world, although brilliant scientists like Einstein, Szilard and Pauling did their best to raise such awareness.  More recently, Daniel Ellsberg has made the case that nuclear arsenals constitute “Doomsday Machines,” threatening the future of humanity.  Nonetheless, continued attempts to raise awareness of nuclear dangers and consequences of nuclear war should be an important part of any project seeking to bring about transformative change toward abolishing these weapons.

    Some of the commenters saw nuclear arms as a symbol, others as a symptom.  Roger Eaton saw them as “a symbol that we live in a dog-eat-dog world.”  He went on: “They tell us we cannot trust others and that cooperation only works if we are calling the shots.”  John Bunzl expressed the view that the weapons are more of “a symptom of humanity’s failure to cooperate than a cause.”  Arthur Dahl found that the weapons “are only the most egregious symptom of the lack of trust between States.”  These perspectives on what nuclear weapons represent have important implications for those who hold them on how to approach their abolition.  In Eaton’s case, it is a call for “human unity.”  In Bunzl’s case, it is a call for more cooperation among states.  In Dahl’s case, the symptom requires enough trust among states sufficient to create mechanisms of global governance.

    In my view, it is not sufficient to think of nuclear weapons as symbols or symptoms, although they may be these as well.  Nuclear weapons, regardless of what they symbolize, are the problem.  They are humankind’s most acute problem and they must be eliminated as a matter of urgency.  The question is how.  Before turning to this question, I will first examine some gender issues that were raised in the commentary, an aspect of the discussion that I found to be very rich.

    Anna Harris first raised the question of the disproportionate number of men responding to the issue of “nuclear Armageddon.”  She wrote: “What is lacking, to put it bluntly, is the ability to talk about feelings, which is something women seem to have developed more, and without which this whole discussion becomes one of control and numbers which renders it to me almost totally meaningless.”  I agree with Anna’s call for bringing the passion of one’s feelings into the abolition project, and I understand the “unspeakable rage” that she reports feeling.  Little is gained by a focus on control and numbers, which has been the principal approach of the leaders of nuclear-armed states.  I believe there is only one number that truly matters when it comes to nuclear arms, and that number is zero.  This is in line with Richard Falk’s warning about the dangers of focusing on the “arms control” and the managerial aspects of nuclear armaments, as opposed to the far more critical focus on their abolition.

    Miki Kashtan followed up on Harris’s post, arguing that “nuclear arms are the tragic and horrifying extension of patriarchy.”  She went on, “I don’t see that we can use patriarchal means to solve problems that patriarchy created.”  This is a strong point and may be at least part of the answer to what Einstein meant when, early in the Nuclear Age, he famously said, “The unleashed power of the atom has changed everything save our modes of thinking and we thus drift toward unparalleled catastrophe.”

    Susan Butler also came in behind the comments of Anna Harris’s concerns about the importance of feelings.  Butler argued, “Feelings are the basis of the moral compass….  It is feelings that tell us what to do, what’s important, and what we care about.”

    Finally, on the gender issue, Judith Lipton weighed in, stating, “Males and females can push buttons with launch codes.  The reality of nuclear war is so painful that young or old, male or female, we watch cat videos rather than saving our poor planet.”  In this way, she reminded us that we are all in this together, gender differences related to feelings notwithstanding.  The truth is that most citizens of the planet are distracted by more immediate concerns than nuclear Armageddon and have an insufficient awareness of nuclear dangers to play an effective role in pressing for their elimination.  There can be no doubt, though, that bringing feelings and passion to the endeavor is an important project for both men and women.  Both are needed.

    What needs to be done to abolish nuclear weapons?  There are obviously no easy answers to this question.  If there were, the goal would have been accomplished already.  We continue to live in a world in which a small number of leaders in a small number of countries with nuclear arms are holding the world hostage to their perceptions of their own national security.  A starting point would be to shift the public perceptions of nuclear weapons providing for their security.  One way to do this is to debunk nuclear deterrence, as did David Barash, who concluded, “In short, deterrence is a sham, a shibboleth evoked by those seeking to justify the unjustifiable.”  Aaron Karp also challenged nuclear deterrence theory, quoting from a 1999 essay in Resurgence, “Death by Deterrence,” written by General George Lee Butler, a former head of the U.S. Strategic Command.

    Katyayani Singh pointed out one important difficulty in changing public perceptions, “We cannot expect our political leaders to pursue nuclear disarmament when public opinion is in favor of nuclear armaments.” This may not be universally true, but seems to be the case in both India and Pakistan.  Singh suggested rightly that education, media and cinema are tools for raising consciousness on the nuclear issue.  Of course, they can also be tools for maintaining the status quo.

    Other commenters discussed the importance of building trust among states and of increasing cooperation among them.  Some commenters, including Andreas Bummel and Chris Hamer, argued that it would be necessary for states to cede some of their sovereignty to international organizations and that strengthened international institutions would be needed.  Bummel wrote, “What is required…is to relinquish sovereignty in this domain and to accept a global authority that would provide for enforcement and collective security.”  Hamer also argued for campaigning “for a global parliament, which would be able to deal with all the extremely serious global problems which confront us….”  That is, as a global parliament, it would be a global decision-making body.

    The creation of new global institutions present us with a chicken and egg dilemma: can we afford to wait for such new institutions to form and be accepted given the urgency of the nuclear dangers confronting the world?  Or, on the other hand, can we afford not to seek to create such new institutions, given the same urgency of nuclear dangers?  What we can say with certainty is that national security is threatened, not enhanced, by nuclear arms, and it would be wise to shift the focus from national security to global security.

    Yogi Hendlin found it a shortcoming in my essay that I did not discuss “how nuclear power generation schemes and nuclear weapons have worked as industries hand-in-hand.”  Although I did not address it in my essay, I fully agree with Hendlin’s premise that nuclear power reactors and research reactors have often been a façade for developing nuclear weapons.  Nuclear power has other serious problems, in addition to those related to preventing nuclear weapons proliferation.  These include there being no adequate plan for long-term storage of high level radioactive wastes, which, in some cases, will remain dangerous for tens of thousands of years; a history of serious reactor accidents, such as those at Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima; being potential targets for terrorists at any time or enemies in time of war; they are capital intensive; and, for all of the above reasons, starting with their relation to nuclear weapons proliferation, an extremely poor alternative to truly safe renewable energy sources.

    I will conclude with three important quotes with which I strongly agree and which I believe carry deep seeds of wisdom.

    The first is a quote, offered by Judith Lipton from T.S. Eliot’s poem, “The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock”:

    Do I dare
    Disturb the universe?
    In a minute there is time
    For decisions and revisions which a minute will reverse.

    The second quote is by Richard Falk: “In such a time [as ours], it is itself an act of will to keep the flames of hope and possibility from being snuffed out.”

    The third is a quote offered by David Barash from ancient Jewish wisdom: “It is not for you to finish the task, but neither is it for you to refrain from it.”

    We must not lose sight of the fact that, as T.S. Eliot reminds us, with nuclear arms, everything could change in a moment’s time.  That is the dangerous nature of the Nuclear Age.  It is only by our commitment and acts of will that we may be able to keep hope alive, protect our world, and pass it on  intact to future generations.  We may not finish the task, but we must accept the challenge and engage in it with passion if we are to create the awareness, trust, cooperation and institutional framework to achieve the goal of nuclear zero.

    I appreciate the work of the Great Transition Initiative, and the opportunity to share my thoughts with you and to receive yours in return.

  • ICAN Statement to the UN High Level Meeting on Nuclear Disarmament

    ICAN Statement to the UN High Level Meeting on Nuclear Disarmament

    I’m speaking today on behalf of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons. With 532 partner organizations in 103 countries, we are a truly global movement. We were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2017 for our work with governments to bring to fruition the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.

    We’re speaking here today as a voice of passion and persistence in the quest to make our world more secure, more just, and more equitable. For us, abolishing nuclear weapons is about preventing violence and promoting peace.

    Some say this is a dream, that we live in a time of uncertainty and change, that we can’t or shouldn’t try to eliminate nuclear weapons now. But when is there not uncertainty and change? It is the only constant in our world.

    What is true is that we live in a time where we spend more money developing new ways to kill each other than we do on saving each other from crises of health, housing, food security, and environmental degradation.

    What is also true is that after 73 years, we still live under the catastrophic threat of the atomic bomb.

    We should have solved this. We haven’t only because a small handful of governments say they have a “right” to these weapons to maintain “strategic stability”.

    It is neither strategic nor stable to deploy thousands of nuclear weapons, risking total annihilation of us all. It is neither strategic nor stable to spend billions of dollars on nuclear weapons when billions of people suffer from our global inability to meet basic human needs for all.

    And it is certainly neither strategic nor stable to reject and to undermine a treaty that prohibits these weapons.

    In July 2017, the most democratic body of the United Nations adopted the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. 122 governments supported the Treaty then. Now, they are signing and ratifying it. Significant progress has been made towards its entry into force. More will join today, at a special ceremony here in the UN. If you haven’t yet joined, we encourage you to do so. If you can’t do it today, do it tomorrow. Every new signature and ratification builds momentum for the abolition of nuclear weapons.

    We know some of you are experiencing pressure not to sign or ratify this treaty, just as many of you were subjected to pressure not to support the development of the treaty, not to participate in negotiations, and not to vote for its adoption. The governments that espouse the “value” of the bomb don’t want this treaty to enter into force.

    This is because they already feel its power. They know what it means for their policies and practices of nuclear violence. It is already disrupting the financial flows needed to maintain the industry around nuclear weapons. Just today, ICAN campaigners visited BNP Paribas offices around the world to demand the bank divest from nuclear weapons.

    This treaty is about bolstering the rule of law and protecting humanity. No one is safe as long as nuclear weapons exist. The death and destruction they cause cut across border, across generations. They undermine the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals. They undermine our commitments to preventing climate change, promoting peace and equality, and protecting human rights.

    This treaty is the new international standard on nuclear weapons. It compliments, but is not subordinate to, existing agreements aimed at controlling nuclear weapons. It goes further than any of these other instruments, making it clear that the possession of nuclear weapons is illegitimate, irresponsible, and illegal.

    We know there is more work to be done. We have proven, collectively, that we are not afraid of hard work. So to all those governments and activists listening: please keep at it. The world changes when people work together relentlessly to change it. Don’t give up. Stand strong, stand together, and make it clear that we are living in a new reality in which nuclear weapons are illegal and where the only option for any reasonable state is to reject and eliminate them.

    It’s time to sign the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.

    This statement was delivered by Ray Acheson on September 26, 2018.

  • Nuclear Abolition: The Road from Armageddon to Transformation

    Nuclear Abolition: The Road from Armageddon to Transformation

    Nuclear weapons pose a grave threat to the future of civilization. As long as we allow these weapons to exist, we flirt with the catastrophe that they will be used, whether intentionally or accidentally. Meanwhile, nuclear weapons skew social priorities, create imbalances of power, and heighten geopolitical tension. Diplomacy has brought some noteworthy steps in curbing risks and proliferation, but progress has been uneven and tenuous. The ultimate aim of abolishing these weapons from the face of the earth—the “zero option”—faces formidable challenges of ignorance, apathy, and fatigue. Yet, the total abolition of nuclear weapons is essential for a Great Transition to a future rooted in respect for life, global solidarity, and ecological resilience. This will require an emboldened disarmament movement working synergistically with kindred movements, such as those fighting for peace, environmental sustainability, and economic justice, in pursuit of the shared goal of systemic change.

    Civilization at Risk

    Nuclear weapons, unique in their power and capacity for destruction, pose an existential threat to humanity. Although the peril of living at the precipice of nuclear devastation is clear, progress toward nuclear abolition has been slow and uneven, and the issue of nuclear weapons appears distant or abstract to many. And yet, nuclear abolition remains vital to achieving a Great Transition in our minds and on our planet. Ignoring the problem could result in nuclear war, which could leave few, if any, humans to rebuild a better world. With so much at stake, it is more important now than ever to re-energize and broaden the movement toward nuclear abolition. Making Earth a nuclear-free zone would be a gift to all inhabitants of the planet and all future generations.

    The number of nuclear weapons in the world reached a peak of 70,000 in the 1980s amidst the Cold War. Although the nearly 15,000 that exist today across nine nuclear-armed countries (United States, Russia, United Kingdom, France, China, Israel, India, Pakistan, and North Korea) is far below this Cold War zenith, it is still enough to destroy civilization several times over. The vast majority of these weapons are in the arsenals of the US and Russia, the two countries that have always led the nuclear arms race.

    To grasp the scope of the risks, consider that atmospheric scientists conclude that a relatively small nuclear war in South Asia, in which India and Pakistan fired fifty Hiroshima-size nuclear weapons at each other’s cities, would send enough soot into the upper atmosphere to substantially block sunlight, shorten growing seasons, cause crop failures, and lead to a nuclear famine that could take the lives of some two billion people globally. The sunlight-blocking dust generated by the detonation of, say, 300 thermonuclear weapons in a war between the US and Russia could trigger a new Ice Age, dropping global temperatures to the lowest levels in 18,000 years, and leaving civilization utterly destroyed. Those who would survive the blast, heat, and radiation of nuclear war would live in a nuclear winter of freezing temperatures and perpetual darkness. The survivors would likely envy the dead.

    The history of the nuclear age reveals just how resistant nuclear-armed nations have been to real accountability, fueling a vicious cycle of ignorance, apathy, and fatigue. Only a global, systemic movement can bring the global, systemic change required. For that to be a possibility, the nuclear abolition movement must link up with the many other social forces fighting for a better world.

    The Case for Abolition

    It is clear that the status quo is not working. The paradigms of arms control and non-proliferation that dominate international diplomacy assume the continued existence of nuclear weapons. However, the dangers inherent in nuclear weapons will remain whether there are tens of thousands or only a few. As long as they exist, they can be used, whether by malicious intent, miscalculation or careless accident.

    Key attributes of nuclear weapons make them incompatible with a secure, sustainable world:

    Immense destructive potential. Nuclear weapons are capable of destroying cities, countries, civilization, and most complex life on the planet. The nuclear age has ushered in a new form of devastation: omnicide, the death of all. Living with nuclear weapons is like sitting on a world-encompassing keg of dynamite capable of exploding at any moment.

    Lack of discrimination between soldiers and civilians. Due to their immense destructive power, nuclear weapons cannot distinguish between armed soldiers and civilians, thus violating a basic tenet of international humanitarian law. As the world learned from the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, deaths from a nuclear attack result from blast, heat, fire, and radiation, the latter especially painful.

    Concentration of power. The decision to use nuclear weapons resides with a small number of leaders, sometimes only one. In the US, the president is given the codes to launch a nuclear strike, and the same centralization of power holds in other nuclear-armed countries. No pretext exists for democratic procedure, or even a formal declaration of war. Of the nuclear-armed countries, only China and India have current pledges of “no first use,” i.e., that they will not use nuclear weapons unless first attacked with nuclear weapons.

    Geopolitical imbalance. The world is divided into a small number of nuclear “haves,” and some 185 nuclear “have-nots.” This provides some countries with the leverage to bully other countries into submission. As a result, nuclear weapons look more attractive to all as a way of asserting geopolitical power, increasing the prospects of nuclear proliferation.

    Diversion of resources from meeting basic needs. The development, testing, deployment, and modernization of nuclear weapons impose immense costs. In recent years, many nuclear powers have embraced a crushing fiscal austerity, reducing public funding for health care, housing, education, and other services for the poor, the hungry, and the needy, while spending billions to maintain or even expand nuclear arsenals. At the same time, scientific and technological resources have been diverted from socially beneficial purposes, such as the rapid development of clean energy technologies.

    Violation of fundamental moral and ethical codes. Maintaining the nuclear option carries with it the implicit and sometimes explicit threat of mass annihilation, which no major religious, cultural, or philosophical standard of moral principles would condone. The persistence of this threat stands as a profound moral malady of our age; the only cure is unleashing the better angels of our nature in a reinvigorated campaign for nuclear abolition.

    A Brief History of the Nuclear Age

    How did the world come to build and maintain, to the tune of more than $100 billion each year, such civilization-destroying weapons of mass destruction?1 The story begins with the creation of the first nuclear weapons in the secret US Manhattan Engineering Project during World War II. This massive project was initially sparked by fears, which ultimately proved unfounded, that Germany was well on its way to developing an atomic bomb. The war in Europe, had, indeed, already ended by the time the US conducted its first test of a nuclear device at Alamogordo, New Mexico, on July 16, 1945.

    Three weeks later, on August 6, 1945, the US dropped an atomic bomb on the Japanese city of Hiroshima, causing massive destruction and killing up to 90,000 individuals immediately and 145,000 by the year’s end. Three days later, the US used a second atomic weapon on the city of Nagasaki, killing tens of thousands more. Later, it came to light that the US knew, through the interception of secret communications, that Japan was trying to surrender and obtain favorable terms.2 The two bombs were used anyway, purportedly to keep the Soviet military from moving into Japan, while signaling to the Soviet Union and the world the coming preeminence of US military power in the postwar order.

    In July 1946, less than a year after the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the US began testing nuclear weapons in the Marshall Islands, which the US would administer as a United Nations Trust Territory starting in 1947. The US conducted sixty-seven nuclear tests in the Marshall Islands from 1946 to 1958, the equivalent power of detonating 1.6 Hiroshima bombs each day for twelve years. Marshallese children on islands far away from the tests were powdered with radioactive ash, which they played in like snow. Over the course of the nuclear age, more than 2,000 nuclear tests have been conducted, causing untold numbers of cancers, leukemia, and other radiation-induced illnesses.

    By the end of the 1940s, the Soviet Union tested its first nuclear device, triggering a rapidly unfolding arms race. In 1952 and 1953, the US and the Soviet Union, respectively, detonated their first thermonuclear weapons, which, as fusion weapons, were far more powerful than the fission bombs used at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

    The world came very close to nuclear war during the Cuban Missile Crisis in October 1962 over the secret Soviet placement of nuclear missiles in Cuba. A number of incidents during the thirteen-day confrontation could have led either side to launch World War III. Ultimately, to the whole world’s benefit, an agreement was reached that the USSR would withdraw its nuclear weapons from Cuba, and the US would later and secretly withdraw its nuclear-armed missiles from Turkey.

    After reaching the brink, the US, UK, and Soviet Union took steps to control the nuclear arms race. First, the Partial Test Ban Treaty (PTBT) of 1963 prohibited nuclear testing in the atmosphere, outer space, and under water. The PTBT’s preamble stated clearly that it sought “to achieve the discontinuance of all test explosions of nuclear weapons for all time, [and was] determined to continue negotiations to this end.” But it would take another thirty-three years for the international community to adopt and open for signatures the 1996 Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), which has yet to secure the necessary support to enter into force.

    The second treaty in the aftermath of the Cuban Missile Crisis was the 1968 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), which entered into force in 1970. It aims not only to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons to additional countries but also, importantly, to provide for the disarmament of then existing nuclear states: the US, USSR, UK, France, and China. Indeed, the NPT could have been more accurately called the Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament Treaty. Parties agreed to “pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.” But a major loophole undermined non-proliferation: the treaty refers to nuclear energy as an “inalienable right.” Israel, India, and Pakistan never signed the NPT, and drew upon their so-called peaceful nuclear programs to develop nuclear weapons, while North Korea withdrew from the NPT in 2003, and conducted its first nuclear weapon test in 2006.

    The next two decades saw continued efforts by the Cold War superpowers to mitigate the risks of nuclear war. In 1972, the US and Soviet Union entered into the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty, which set limits on the number of sites that could be protected with missile defense systems (the deployment of ABM systems had exacerbated the arms race as countries sought to build even more powerful weapons to overcome them). Then, at a 1986 summit in Reykjavík, Presidents Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev jointly stated that “a nuclear war cannot be won, and must never be fought.” They came close to agreeing to abolish their nuclear arsenals, but negotiations collapsed over Reagan’s insistence on developing missile defenses. With the collapse of the Soviet Union several years later, the Cold War came to an end, but bloated nuclear arsenals remain a troublesome and dangerous legacy of Cold War rivalry that has been difficult to dislodge.

    The post-Cold War era has offered a mixed landscape on nuclear disarmament. In 2002, the US unilaterally withdrew from the ABM Treaty, and soon began deploying missile defense installations in Eastern Europe near the Russian border, purportedly against a threat from Iran. But Russia is concerned that their real purpose is to take out any Russian offensive missiles that might survive a US first strike.3 The US abrogation of the ABM Treaty also removed restraints on stationing weapons in outer space. US withdrawal from the ABM Treaty may prove to be the single greatest blunder of the nuclear age.

    This checkered history notwithstanding, there has been some progress. A series of Strategic Arms Reduction Treaties (START) have substantially reduced US and Russian arsenals. As of 2018, each country is limited to the deployment of 1,550 strategic nuclear weapons, still far more than enough to destroy most humans and other complex forms of life on the planet.4

    In July 2017, the United Nations adopted the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), the result of a partnership between the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), a coalition of civil society organizations, and most non-nuclear weapon states. They joined forces to assert that nuclear war would be a dead end for humanity, with a total ban on nuclear weapons the only way out. ICAN’s 2017 Nobel Peace Prize builds momentum, but achieving the necessary ratifications of 50 countries will take time. The US, UK, and France have vowed never to sign or ratify it, preferring to control their own nuclear arsenals rather than to cooperate in preserving a livable world—a reminder of the entrenched opposition the nuclear abolition movement faces.

    Challenges for Movement-Building

    The nuclear disarmament movement reached its apex in the early 1980s, when the arms race looked bleakest. In 1982, more than a million people took to the streets in New York to demand that the number of nuclear weapons be frozen and further deployment cease. One must wonder if the protest was so large because it asked for so little: a freeze, rather than deep reductions. Still, the movement succeeded in spreading public awareness and concern about the dangers. Once the Cold War ended, though, interest in nuclear disarmament issues rapidly faded.

    Various factors have contributed to this decline in enthusiasm. First and foremost is ignorance. The awesome destructiveness of nuclear weapons lacks tangibility since they are largely kept out of the public sight and mind. As a result, many in nuclear-armed countries see them as a positive source of prestige and necessity for security. Nuclear countries boast of technological achievement and belonging to an exclusive “club.” When the Indians and Pakistanis tested nuclear weapons in 1998, for instance, their people took to the streets in celebration. Such national pride undermines efforts to establish nuclear abolition policies. At the same time, the security justification—the belief that nuclear weapons offer protection—is a fallacy. In fact, countries that possess them, by posing risks to other countries, become more likely to be nuclear targets themselves.

    Contrasting narratives about the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki exemplify the tension between nuclear pride and punishment. Most people, at least in the US, learn in school that the atomic attacks were necessary to save American lives. A different story is told by the Japanese survivors—a story of pain, suffering, and death. These two stories, one from above the mushroom cloud and one from below it, compete for dominance as frameworks drawing lessons of the past for guiding the future. The story from above, celebrating technological achievement, serves to keep the nuclear arms race alive. The story from below awakens humanity to the extreme peril it faces. The nuclear abolition movement builds on the stories from ground-zero, those beneath the mushroom cloud.

    Beyond ignorance and its cousin pride, another source of apathy is a sense of fatigue. We must use our imaginations to envision the horror of nuclear catastrophe, but it is very difficult to sustain such fear in the public mind year after year, decade after decade, in the absence of nuclear war. The world has come close on many occasions, but malice, madness, or mistake has not yet triggered the use of nuclear weapons in war since World War II. Nonetheless, it is essential that we keep shouting warnings despite accusations of being “the boy who cried wolf.” Only by sounding the alarm can we build a movement with sufficient power to abolish nuclear weapons once and for all.

    Even when people understand the dangers of nuclear weapons, however, they may still be paralyzed by a perceived lack of power to bring about change. With decision-making power on nuclear policy highly centralized, individuals lack influence—unless they become politically active in large numbers. Ironically, the perception of impotence becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy that impedes movement-building and effective change.

    The only way to change direction is to build a strong popular movement, in the nuclear-armed countries and throughout the world, to delegitimize nuclear weapons, support the Treaty on the Prohibition on Nuclear Weapons, and oppose reliance on nuclear arsenals. Political pressure from below is our best hope for getting governments of the nuclear states to join the rest of the world in prohibiting the possession, use, and threat of use of nuclear arms.

    Toward Systemic Change

    Nuclear weapons stand as the quintessential shared risk, posing a danger to the whole of humanity. The problem cannot be solved by any one nation alone. Nuclear abolition requires collective global action—a deep shift in values and institutions lest the forces that created the nuclear age continue to prevail.

    Just as no nation can succeed on its own, in our interdependent world, no movement seeking fundamental change can truly succeed on its own. However, movements are too often isolated in different issue silos, competing for support and scarce resources. This fragmentation erodes unity and long-term impact. The nuclear abolition movement must join with other movements seeking systemic global change.

    Synergy is most promising between the nuclear abolition movement and the wider peace movement, the environmental movement, and the economic justice movement. Each of these movements demands a global sensibility and global action. And each calls into question the governing assumptions of society that have led us down an unsustainable path.

    The most obvious opportunity for cross-movement collaboration is with the peace movement. Any war involving nuclear-armed states or their allies could lead to the use of nuclear weapons. Peace activists, of course, have often been on the frontlines protesting the expansion of nuclear arsenals. However, the peace movement in the US and globally appears to be exhausted after the long wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere in the Middle East that have dragged on for more than a decade.

    Still, there are bright spots. New approaches to peace literacy are sprouting up.5 Veterans groups, such as Veterans for Peace (VFP), have helped to reinvigorate the peace movement. Through their first-hand experience with warfare, the veterans bring a unique perspective, legitimacy, and energy to the quest for peace, and have demonstrated a willingness to take on the issue of nuclear abolition as well. VFP has resurrected the Golden Rule, a ship that first sailed in the 1950s to protest atmospheric nuclear weapons testing in the Pacific. Now, she sails again in support of nuclear abolition and to display the bravery and tenacity that can overcome militarism. VFP also supports such disarmament projects as the lawsuits filed by the Marshall Islands in 2014 at the International Court of Justice against the nine nuclear-armed countries.6 The British Nuclear Test Veterans Association and other groups work to support veterans who have suffered radiation exposure from nuclear tests.

    The environmental movement offers another potential partner for cross-movement collaboration. Nuclear abolition has not been high on the priority list of the environmental movement. At least in the US, the movement has been preoccupied with defensive battles against an administration intent on rolling back environmental protection. Even before, it focused on tangible and immediately pressing battles while tackling such planetary-scale threats as ozone depletion and climate change.

    Environmentalists have, however, sounded the alarm on the deleterious impacts of so-called “peaceful” nuclear power, particularly in the aftermath of the accidents at Three Mile Island in the US, Chernobyl in the former Soviet Union, and Fukushima in Japan. But this is just one facet of the threat nuclear technology poses to a livable planet. Without total abolition, every aspect of the Earth’s living systems, as well as life itself, remains at risk, while building and maintaining these tools of total war are a drag on efforts to transition toward a sustainable economy. As nuclear energy always contains within it the possibility of nuclear proliferation, advocates of nuclear abolition must likewise get behind the fight for a renewables-driven clean economy that would render such technology unnecessary.

    The economic justice movement is a third promising ally of the nuclear abolition movement. Nuclear weapons systems have consumed vast public resources since the onset of the nuclear age. The US alone has spent more $7.5 trillion on its nuclear arsenal, and plans to spend $1.7 trillion more over the next three decades to modernize it. World nuclear weapons expenditures exceed $1 trillion per decade, with the US accounting for over sixty percent of the total with Russia accounting for 14 percent and China 7 percent.7 These resources could be far better used to provide food, clean water, shelter, health care, and education to those in need. This diversion of resources is a double whammy: we underspend on human and ecological well-being while intensifying the threat of a nuclear catastrophe.

    The militarization of the economy and centralization of power, for which nuclear weapons have been both cause and effect, are incompatible with egalitarian national economic systems. Internationally, as long as nuclear weapons give a handful of countries outsize power on the global stage, especially the ability to make credible threats, the shift toward a more democratic global economic system will be impossible.

    For all these reasons, nuclear abolition serves the cause of economic justice. And it is equally true that those of us who care about the nuclear threat need to advocate for greater justice. Economic inequality within and between nations fosters polarization, migration pressure, and geopolitical conflict, thereby raising the risk of (nuclear) war. Thus the peace movement has powerful incentives to ally with social justice movements.

    Peace, a healthy environment, and economic justice will remain elusive in a nuclear world. A cooperative movement of movements would enhance the capacity of each constituent to achieve its own goals, while fostering the cross-movement solidarity that can bring a Great Transition future. With the alarms sounding, the time has come to act together with a sense of urgency.

    Armageddon or Transformation?

    At the onset of the nuclear age, Einstein reflected, “The unleashed power of the atom has changed everything save our modes of thinking, and we thus drift toward unparalleled catastrophe.” The splitting of the atom made new modes of thinking not only desirable but necessary. Nuclear weapons threaten the future of civilization and the human species. We can no longer think in old ways, solving differences among countries by means of warfare. Instead of absolute allegiance to a sovereign state, we must think holistically and globally. In light of the omnicide that our technologies have made possible, we must elevate our moral and spiritual awareness to forge a movement global and systemic enough to meet the challenges ahead.

    Armageddon is a frightening thought, but as long as these “doomsday machines” exist, to use Daniel Ellsberg’s term, it remains a possibility. The only realistic alternative to Armageddon is transformation, both of individual and collective consciousness: an “anti-nuclear revolution,” to quote activist Helen Caldicott.8 This requires nothing less than changing the course of history; we are compelled to transform our world or to face Armageddon.

    Change ultimately begins with individuals. Movements are composed of committed individuals, some of whom step forward as leaders. The task is to awaken to the urgency of the threat and mobilize. The nuclear age and the Great Transition call upon us, before it is too late, to wake up.

    WAKE UP!

    The alarm is sounding.
    Can you hear it?

    Can you hear the bells
    of Nagasaki
    ringing out for peace?

    Can you feel the heartbeat
    of Hiroshima
    pulsing out for life?

    The survivors of Hiroshima
    and Nagasaki
    are growing older.

    Their message is clear:
    Never again!

    Wake up!
    Now, before the feathered arrow
    is placed into the bow.

    Now, before the string
    of the bow is pulled taut,
    the arrow poised for flight.

    Now, before the arrow is let loose,
    before it flies across oceans
    and continents.

    Now, before we are engulfed in flames,
    while there is still time, while we still can,
    Wake up!

    Endnotes

    1. Bruce Blair and Matthew Brown, Nuclear Weapons Cost Study (Washington, DC: Global Zero, 2011), https://www.globalzero.org/files/gz_nuclear_weapons_cost_study.pdf.
    2. Gar Alperovitz, “The War Was Won Before Hiroshima – And the Generals Who Dropped the Bomb Knew It,” The Nation, August 6, 2015, https://www.thenation.com/article/why-the-us-really-bombed-hiroshima/.
    3. The US public and leaders might more easily sympathize with this concern by imagining a scenario where Russian missile defenses were deployed at the Canadian or Mexican borders.
    4. President Trump’s criticism of this Obama-era treaty, which clouds its prospects, should also be noted. See https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-putin-idUSKBN15O2A5.
    5. A program developed by Paul Chappell at the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation is making its way into school curricula. See http://www.peaceliteracy.org.
    6. Although the lawsuit was dismissed, this type of action helps to forge a united front for a livable future.
    7. Joseph Cirincione, “Lessons Lost,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (November/December 2005): 47, https://thebulletin.org/2005/november/lessons-lost; Kingston Reif, “CBO: Nuclear Arsenal to Cost $1.2 Trillion,” Arms Control Association, December, 2017, https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2017-12/news/cbo-nuclear-arsenal-cost-12-trillion. Note that this will be $1.7 trillion when factoring in inflation.
    8. Daniel Ellsberg, The Doomsday Machine: Confessions of a Nuclear War Planner (New York: Bloomsbury, 2017); Helen Caldicott, Sleepwalking to Armageddon: The Threat of Nuclear Annihilation (New York: The New Press, 2017).

    Originally published at www.greattransition.org. Cite as David Krieger, “Nuclear Abolition: The Road from Armageddon to Transformation,” Great Transition Initiative (August 2018), http://www.greattransition.org/publication/nuclear-abolition.

  • 2018 Nagasaki Peace Declaration

    2018 Nagasaki Peace Declaration

    It was on this day 73 years ago, at 11:02 a.m. on August 9. The explosion of a single atomic bomb in the blue summer sky reduced the city of Nagasaki to a horrific state. Humans, animals, plants, trees and all other forms of life were scorched to ashes. Countless corpses lay scattered all around the annihilated streets. The corpses of people who had exhausted themselves searching for water bobbed up and down in the rivers, drifting until they reached the estuaries. 150,000 people were killed or wounded and those who somehow managed to survive suffered severe mental and physical wounds. To this day they continue to be afflicted by the aftereffects of radiation exposure.

    Atomic bombs are cruel weapons that mercilessly take away from humans the dignity to live in a humane manner.

    In 1946, the newly-founded United Nations made the elimination of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction the first resolution of its General Assembly. The Constitution of Japan, which was issued that same year, set pacifism as one of its unwavering pillars. These were strong expressions of determination to see that the tragedy of the atomic bombings experienced by Hiroshima and Nagasaki, along with the war that brought them on, would never be repeated. The fulfillment of this resolve was then entrusted to the future.

    Continuous efforts to realize this resolve made by countries and individuals, most prominently the atomic bombing survivors, bore fruit last year when the United Nations adopted the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. Furthermore, the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (also known as ICAN), which greatly contributed to efforts that led to the adoption of this treaty, was then awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. These two developments are proof that the majority of people on this earth continue to seek the realization of a world free of nuclear weapons.

    Even now, however, 73 years after the end of World War II, some 14,450 nuclear warheads exist in the world. Moreover, to the great concern of those in the atomic-bombed cities, a shift towards openly asserting that nuclear weapons are necessary and that their use could lead to increased military might is once again on the rise.

    I hereby appeal to the leaders of nuclear-armed nations and nations dependent on the nuclear umbrella. Please do not forget the resolve of the first United Nations General Assembly Resolution to work towards the elimination of nuclear weapons. In addition, please fulfill the pledge made to the world 50 years ago in the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (or NPT) to pursue nuclear disarmament in good faith. I strongly request that you change to security policies not dependent on nuclear weapons before humanity once again commits a mistake that would create even more atomic bombing victims.

    To the people of the world, please demand that the governments and parliaments in your countries sign and ratify the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in order to see that this treaty comes into effect at the earliest possible date.

    The Government of Japan has taken the position of not signing the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. In response to this, more than 300 local assemblies have voiced their desire to see this treaty signed and ratified. I hereby ask that the Government of Japan, the only country to have suffered from the wartime use of nuclear weapons, support the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and fulfill its moral obligation to lead the world towards denuclearization.

    Currently, a new movement towards peace and denuclearization on the Korean Peninsula has emerged. We in the atomic-bombed cities watch this development attentively and have great expectations that persistent diplomatic efforts, as initiated with the Panmunjom Declaration by the leaders of North and South Korea and the first ever United States-North Korea Summit, will lead to the realization of irreversible denuclearization. I hope that the Japanese government will make use of this great opportunity to work towards the realization of a Northeast Asia Nuclear-Weapons-Free Zone that would see Japan and the entire Korean Peninsula denuclearized.

    Last year, two of the hibakusha, or atomic bombing survivors, who led the anti-nuclear-weapons movement in Nagasaki for many years passed away in quick succession. One was Mr. Hideo Tsuchiyama, who had this to say about the leaders of countries that rely on nuclear weapons. “Your possession of nuclear weapons, or attempts to possess such weapons, is nothing to boast of. Rather, you should know that it is something shameful that risks making you perpetrators of crimes against humanity.” The second of these hibakusha, Mr. Sumiteru Taniguchi, spoke the following words. “Human beings and nuclear weapons cannot co-exist. The suffering we went through is more than enough. For people to truly live as human beings, we cannot allow a single nuclear weapon to remain on the face of the earth.” These two people harbored great worries that those who have never experienced war or atomic bombings might head down mistaken paths. With their passing, I feel anew the need to pass on to the next generation the war-renouncing message included in the Constitution of Japan.

    There are many things that each and every one of us can do to help bring about the realization of a peaceful world. One is to visit the atomic-bombed cities in order to learn about history and the fearfulness of nuclear weapons. It is also important to listen to accounts of the wartime experiences of those in your own towns. While the experiences themselves are not things that can be shared, feelings of appreciation for peace may be shared by all. The campaign to collect ten-thousand signatures in support of the abolition of nuclear weapons, a project that originated in Nagasaki, started with a proposal made by high school students. The ideas and actions of the young generation have the power to create new movements. There are also people who continue to fold paper cranes and send them to the atomic-bombed cities. Through exchanges between people from different cultures and traditions we deepen our mutual understanding, which in turn can lead to peace. We can also make expressions of peace through our favorite music or sport. The foundations of peace are most certainly formed in civil society. Let us use the power of the civil society to spread throughout the world a culture of peace instead of one of war.

    Seven years have now passed since the nuclear power plant accident that followed the Great East Japan Earthquake, yet the people of Fukushima are still suffering from the effects of radiation. Nagasaki continues to offer support to all those in Fukushima who are persevering with efforts aimed at rebuilding.

    The average age of the hibakusha is now over 82. I ask that the Government of Japan improve efforts to provide support for survivors still suffering from the aftereffects of the bombings, and offer relief as soon as possible for those who experienced the bombings but have yet to receive official recognition as such.

    While offering our heartfelt condolences to those who lost their lives in the atomic bombings, we citizens of Nagasaki hereby declare that we will continue to work tirelessly with people around the world to bring about everlasting peace and the realization of a world free of nuclear weapons.

  • 2018 Hiroshima Peace Declaration

    2018 Hiroshima Peace Declaration

    Kazumi Matsui, Mayor of Hiroshima, delivered this speech on August 6, 2018, the 73rd anniversary of the U.S. atomic bombing of Hiroshima.

    It’s 73 years ago and a Monday morning, just like today. With the mid-summer sun already blazing, Hiroshima starts another day. Please listen to what I say next as if you and your loved ones were there. At 8:15 comes a blinding flash. A fireball more than a million degrees Celsius releases intense radiation, heat, and then, a tremendous blast. Below the roiling mushroom cloud, innocent lives are snuffed out as the city is obliterated. “I’m so hot! It’s killing me!” From under collapsed houses, children scream for their mothers.

    “Water! Please, water!” come moans and groans from the brink of death. In the foul stench of burning people, victims wander around like ghosts, their flesh peeled and red. Black rain fell all around. The scenes of hell burnt into their memories and the radiation eating away at their minds and bodies are even now sources of pain for hibakusha who survive.

    Today, with more than 14,000 nuclear warheads remaining, the likelihood is growing that what we saw in Hiroshima after the explosion that day will return, by intent or accident, plunging people into agony.

    The hibakusha, based on their intimate knowledge of the terror of nuclear weapons, are ringing an alarm against the temptation to possess them. Year by year, as hibakusha decrease in number, listening to them grows ever more crucial. One hibakusha who was 20 says, “If nuclear weapons are used, every living thing will be annihilated. Our beautiful Earth will be left in ruins. World leaders should gather in the A-bombed cities, encounter our tragedy, and, at a minimum, set a course toward freedom from nuclear weapons. I want human beings to become good stewards of creation capable of abolishing nuclear weapons.” He asks world leaders to focus their reason and insight on abolishing nuclear weapons so we can treasure life and avoid destroying the Earth.

    Last year, the Nobel Peace Prize went to ICAN, an organization that contributed to the formation of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. Thus, the spirit of the hibakusha is spreading through the world. On the other hand, certain countries are blatantly proclaiming self-centered nationalism and modernizing their nuclear arsenals, rekindling tensions that had eased with the end of the Cold War.

    Another hibakusha who was 20 makes this appeal: “I hope no such tragedy ever happens again. We must never allow ours to fade into the forgotten past. I hope from the bottom of my heart that humanity will apply our wisdom to making our entire Earth peaceful.” If the human family forgets history or stops confronting it, we could again commit a terrible error. That is precisely why we must continue talking about Hiroshima. Efforts to eliminate nuclear weapons must continue based on intelligent actions by leaders around the world.

    Nuclear deterrence and nuclear umbrellas flaunt the destructive power of nuclear weapons and seek to maintain international order by generating fear in rival countries. This approach to guaranteeing long-term security is inherently unstable and extremely dangerous. World leaders must have this reality etched in their hearts as they negotiate in good faith the elimination of nuclear arsenals, which is a legal obligation under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Furthermore, they must strive to make the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons a milestone along the path to a nuclear-weapon-free world.

    We in civil society fervently hope that the easing of tensions on the Korean Peninsula will proceed through peaceable dialogue. For leaders to take courageous actions, civil society must respect diversity, build mutual trust, and make the abolition of nuclear weapons a value shared by all humankind. Mayors for Peace, now with more than 7,600 member cities around the world, will focus on creating that environment.

    I ask the Japanese government to manifest the magnificent pacifism of the Japanese Constitution in the movement toward the entry into force of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons by playing its proper role, leading the international community toward dialogue and cooperation for a world without nuclear weapons. In addition, I hereby demand an expansion of the black rain areas along with greater concern and improved assistance for the many people suffering the mental and physical effects of radiation, especially the hibakusha, whose average age is now over 82.

    Today, we renew our commitment and offer sincere consolation to the souls of all A-bomb victims. Along with Nagasaki, the other A-bombed city, and with much of the world’s population, Hiroshima pledges to do everything in our power to achieve lasting world peace and the abolition of nuclear weapons.