Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Category: Nuclear Disarmament

  • Two Perspectives on Nuclear Weapons

    David KriegerThere are two basic and quite disparate ways in which nuclear weapons are viewed.  The first is that these weapons provide security and power to their possessors.  I would call this the view of the Nuclear Nine – the nine countries that possess nuclear weapons – and their allies.  The second is that nuclear weapons undermine the security of their possessors and must be abolished.  I would call this the humane view of the hibakusha (survivors of the atomic bombings).

    The perspective of the Nuclear Nine and their allies is based upon nuclear deterrence, which is a hypothesis about human communications and behavior.  Nuclear deterrence is the threat to retaliate with nuclear weapons if another country commits a prohibited act.  Such an act might be a nuclear attack, but it could encompass a much broader range of prohibited acts.  One major problem with nuclear deterrence is that it is unproven to work under all circumstances.  It requires rational leaders, and not all leaders are rational at all times.  Further, it requires a territory to retaliate against, thus making it inapplicable to terrorist organizations.  The bottom line with nuclear deterrence is that it might or might not work.  There are no guarantees, and it could fail spectacularly.

    Nations rely upon nuclear deterrence at their peril.  It is a concept that is intellectually bankrupt.  I would equate nuclear deterrence to the French Maginot Line. Prior to World War II, the Maginot Line was highly praised for its high-tech defensive capabilities.  However, when the Germans chose to invade and occupy France, they simply went around the Maginot Line and it provided no defense to France.  Nuclear weapons are a Maginot Line in the Mind; that is, they provide a false sense of security based on a belief in the effectiveness of threatening mass murder.  I fear this will not be understood by political and military leaders until nuclear deterrence fails and that line in the mind proves useless for defense, as surely it will if the status quo continues.

    The hibakusha perspective, on the other hand, is based upon the immorality and illegality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons as well as the uncertainty and unreliability of nuclear deterrence.  Can there be any doubt that weapons that cannot differentiate between civilians and combatants and that cause suffering to generations yet unborn are immoral and illegal?  Further, if nuclear deterrence were to fail, as it has come close to doing on numerous occasions, there would be catastrophic humanitarian consequences.

    At the relatively mild end of the spectrum (but, of course, not mild at all), cities and countries would be destroyed, as happened at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  At the most severe end of the spectrum, nuclear war could be an extinction event for human beings and other forms of complex life.  To describe the destructive potential of nuclear weapons, philosopher John Somerville coined the word omnicide, meaning the death of all.  In between these degrees of nuclear annihilation, there is the possibility of global nuclear famine, which atmospheric scientists predict would result from a relatively “small” nuclear war using only 100 Hiroshima-size weapons that could lead to a billion deaths by starvation.

    Which is the better perspective?  The perspective of the Nuclear Nine and their allies is not sustainable.  It may provide a false security for some countries, but it provides insecurity for the vast majority of countries as well as for all humans, including those living in Nuclear Nine countries and their allies.  This perspective encourages nuclear proliferation, nuclear brinkmanship, nuclear terrorism and nuclear war.  The perspective of the hibakusha, on the other hand, would level the playing field and fulfill the obligation for nuclear disarmament, which is an important element in the Non-Proliferation Treaty.  It is a far more sensible, decent, humane and prudent perspective.

    David Krieger is President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

  • Joint Statement on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons

    This statement was delivered by South Africa on behalf of 74 countries at the Non-Proliferation Treaty PrepCom in Geneva, Switzerland.

    I am taking the floor on behalf of the following States Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), namely Algeria, Argentina, Austria, Bangladesh, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Cambodia, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Côte D’Ivoire, Cyprus, Denmark, Djibouti, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Georgia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Holy See, Honduras, Iceland, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Maldives, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Palau, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Samoa, Singapore, Swaziland, Switzerland, Tanzania, Thailand, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Uganda, Ukraine, Uruguay, Yemen, Zambia and my own country South Africa.

    Our countries are deeply concerned about the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons. While this has been known since nuclear weapons were first developed and is reflected in various UN resolutions and multilateral instruments, it has not been at the core of nuclear disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation deliberations for many years.  Although it constitutes the raison d’être of the NPT, which cautions against the “devastation that would be visited upon all mankind by a nuclear war and the consequent need to make every effort to avert the danger of such a war and to take measures to safeguard the security of peoples”, this issue has consistently been ignored in the discourse on nuclear weapons.

    Yet, past experience from the use and testing of nuclear weapons has amply demonstrated the unacceptable harm caused by the immense, uncontrollable destructive capability and indiscriminate nature of these weapons. The effects of a nuclear weapon detonation are not constrained by national borders – it is therefore an issue of deep concern to all.  Beyond the immediate death and destruction caused by a detonation, socio-economic development will be impeded, the environment will be destroyed, and future generations will be robbed of their health, food, water and other vital resources.

    In recent years, the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons has increasingly been recognised as a fundamental and global concern that must be at the core of all deliberations on nuclear disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation. This issue is now firmly established on the global agenda: The 2010 Review Conference of the NPT expressed “deep concern at the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of any use of nuclear weapons”.  Similarly, the 2011 resolution of the Council of Delegates of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement emphasised the incalculable human suffering associated with any use of nuclear weapons, and the implications for international humanitarian law.

    The March 2013 Conference on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons held in Oslo presented a platform to engage in a fact-based discussion on the impact of a nuclear weapon detonation. The broad participation at the Conference reflects the recognition that the catastrophic effects of a detonation are of concern and relevance to all.  A key message from experts and international organisations is that no State or international body could address the immediate humanitarian emergency caused by a nuclear weapon detonation or provide adequate assistance to victims.  We warmly welcome Mexico’s announcement of a follow-up Conference to further broaden and deepen understanding of this matter and the resolve of the international community to address the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons.

    It is in the interest of the very survival of humanity that nuclear weapons are never used again, under any circumstances. The catastrophic effects of a nuclear weapon detonation, whether by accident, miscalculation or design, cannot be adequately addressed.  All efforts must be exerted to eliminate this threat.  The only way to guarantee that nuclear weapons will never be used again is through their total elimination.  It is a shared responsibility of all States to prevent the use of nuclear weapons, to prevent their vertical and horizontal proliferation and to achieve nuclear disarmament, including through fulfilling the objectives of the NPT and achieving its universality.  The full implementation of the 2010 Action Plan and previous outcomes aimed at achieving the objectives of the NPT must therefore not be postponed any further.

    Addressing the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons is an absolute necessity. As an element that underpins the NPT, it is essential that the humanitarian consequences inform our work and actions during the current Review Cycle and beyond.

    This is an issue that affects not only governments, but each and every citizen of our interconnected world.  By raising awareness about the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons, civil society has a crucial role to play, side-by-side with governments, as we fulfil our responsibilities.  We owe it to future generations to work together to rid our world of the threat posed by nuclear weapons.

    I thank you.

  • Nuclear Weapons Must Be Eradicated for All Our Sakes

    This article was originally published by The Guardian.

    We cannot intimidate others into behaving well when we ourselves are misbehaving. Yet that is precisely what nations armed with nuclear weapons hope to do by censuring North Korea for its nuclear tests and sounding alarm bells over Iran’s pursuit of enriched uranium. According to their logic, a select few nations can ensure the security of all by having the capacity to destroy all.

    Until we overcome this double standard – until we accept that nuclear weapons are abhorrent and a grave danger no matter who possesses them, that threatening a city with radioactive incineration is intolerable no matter the nationality or religion of its inhabitants – we are unlikely to make meaningful progress in halting the spread of these monstrous devices, let alone banishing them from national arsenals.

    Why, for instance, would a proliferating state pay heed to the exhortations of the US and Russia, which retain thousands of their nuclear warheads on high alert? How can Britain, France and China expect a hearing on non-proliferation while they squander billions modernising their nuclear forces? What standing has Israel to urge Iran not to acquire the bomb when it harbours its own atomic arsenal?

    Nuclear weapons do not discriminate; nor should our leaders. The nuclear powers must apply the same standard to themselves as to others: zero nuclear weapons. Whereas the international community has imposed blanket bans on other weapons with horrendous effects – from biological and chemical agents to landmines and cluster munitions – it has not yet done so for the very worst weapons of all. Nuclear weapons are still seen as legitimate in the hands of some. This must change.

    Around 130 governments, various UN agencies, the Red Cross and the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons are gathering in Oslo this week to examine the catastrophic consequences of nuclear weapons and the inability of relief agencies to provide an effective response in the event of a nuclear attack. For too long, debates about nuclear arms have been divorced from such realities, focusing instead on geopolitics and narrow concepts of national security.

    With enough public pressure, I believe that governments can move beyond the hypocrisy that has stymied multilateral disarmament discussions for decades, and be inspired and persuaded to embark on negotiations for a treaty to outlaw and eradicate these ultimate weapons of terror. Achieving such a ban would require somewhat of a revolution in our thinking, but it is not out of the question. Entrenched systems can be turned on their head almost overnight if there’s the will.

    Let us not forget that it was only a few years ago when those who spoke about green energy and climate change were considered peculiar. Now it is widely accepted that an environmental disaster is upon us. There was once a time when people bought and sold other human beings as if they were mere chattels, things. But people eventually came to their senses. So it will be the case for nuclear arms, sooner or later.

    Indeed, 184 nations have already made a legal undertaking never to obtain nuclear weapons, and three in four support a universal ban. In the early 1990s, with the collapse of apartheid nigh, South Africa voluntarily dismantled its nuclear stockpile, becoming the first nation to do so. This was an essential part of its transition from a pariah state to an accepted member of the family of nations. Around the same time, Kazakhstan, Belarus and Ukraine also relinquished their Soviet-era atomic arsenals.

    But today nine nations still consider it their prerogative to possess these ghastly bombs, each capable of obliterating many thousands of innocent civilians, including children, in a flash. They appear to think that nuclear weapons afford them prestige in the international arena. But nothing could be further from the truth. Any nuclear-armed state, big or small, whatever its stripes, ought to be condemned in the strongest terms for possessing these indiscriminate, immoral weapons.

    Desmond Tutu is Archbishop Emeritus of Cape Town and a member of the NAPF Advisory Council.

  • Who Will Assist the Victims of Nuclear Weapons?

    On 30 August 1945 Dr Marcel Junod, the head of the International Committee of the Red Cross delegation in Japan, received a chilling cable from an ICRC representative in Hiroshima. The cable read as follows: “Conditions appalling. City wiped out. Eighty percent of all hospitals destroyed or seriously damaged. Inspected two emergency hospitals, conditions beyond description. Effect of bomb mysteriously serious. Many victims apparently recovering suddenly suffer fatal relapse due to decomposition of white blood cells and other internal injuries, now dying in great numbers. Estimated still over one hundred thousand wounded in emergency hospitals located surroundings. Sadly lacking bandaging materials, medicines.”

    On his arrival in Hiroshima, Marcel Junod came face-to-face with the grim reality of medical care after an atomic bombing of a city and its medical infrastructure. In addition to the destruction and damage to hospitals mentioned in the cable, the impact on those meant to care for the sick and wounded was equally severe: 90% of Hiroshima’s doctors were killed or injured by the explosion, as were 92% of the city’s nurses and 80% of its pharmacists. There was a desperate need for blood but no possibility of blood transfusions as most potential donors were either dead or injured. To put it bluntly, the city’s capacity to treat victims had been wiped out. As a result, there was little or no health-care provision in the immediate aftermath of the explosion.

    This same catastrophic scenario – and more – awaits us if nuclear weapons are ever used again. While the destructive capacity of nuclear weapons increased dramatically during the Cold War, the capacity of States and international agencies to assist the victims did not. As you will hear tomorrow, the ICRC has over the past six years made an in-depth assessment of its own capacity, and that of other agencies, to help the victims of nuclear, radiological, biological and chemical weapons. We have concluded that an effective means of assisting a substantial portion of survivors of a nuclear detonation, while adequately protecting those delivering assistance, is not currently available at national level and not feasible at international level. It is highly unlikely that the immense investment required to develop such capacity will ever be made. If made, it would likely remain insufficient.

    In April 2010, my predecessor, Jakob Kellenberger, spoke of this state of affairs in a statement to Geneva’s diplomatic community. In this statement the ICRC made four key points:

    • Nuclear weapons are unique in their destructive power, in the unspeakable human suffering they cause, in the impossibility of controlling their effects in space and time, in the risks of escalation they create, and in the threat they pose to the environment, to future generations, and indeed to the survival of humanity.
    • It is difficult to envisage how any use of nuclear weapons could be compatible with the rules of international humanitarian law.
    • Regardless of their views on the legality of nuclear weapons, States must ensure that they are never again used.
    • Preventing the use of nuclear weapons requires fulfilment of existing obligations to pursue negotiations aimed at prohibiting and completely eliminating such weapons through a legally binding international treaty.

    We are encouraged by the response to the ICRC’s appeal in 2010. Since then, the 190 States party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons have recognized the “catastrophic humanitarian consequences of any use of nuclear weapons” and the relevance of international humanitarian law in this regard. Those States have also reaffirmed the call made by the United Nations Security Council at its summit in 2009, and by Presidents Obama and Medvedev earlier that year, to move towards a world free of nuclear weapons. In 2011 the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement made a historic appeal on nuclear weapons, in the same vein as that of the ICRC. In it, the Movement undertook to raise awareness among the public, scientists, health professionals and decision-makers of its ongoing concerns and to promote the norm of non-use and the elimination of nuclear weapons among governments and the public. In October 2012 the Movement’s concerns were reflected in a statement made by 34 States to the UN General Assembly’s First Committee.

    The ICRC warmly welcomes the Norwegian Government’s initiative to convene this conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons. Although nuclear weapons have been debated in military, technical and geopolitical terms for decades, it is astounding that States have never before come together to address their humanitarian consequences.

    In our view, no informed political or legal position on these weapons can be adopted without a detailed grasp of the immediate consequences of these weapons on human beings and on medical and other infrastructure. It is also essential to understand the long-term effects on human health and on the genetics of survivors; consequences that have been confirmed by research and have been witnessed and treated for nearly seven decades by the Japanese Red Cross hospitals in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In addition, one cannot ignore the insight offered by modern climate science into the implications of nuclear weapon use for the world’s climate and food production. And last, but by no means least, States must answer the question: Who will assist the victims of these weapons and how? The next two days provide a unique and historic opportunity to begin addressing these fundamental issues.

    In closing, I am confident that, as you broach these issues, you will share the ICRC’s commitment to prevent any future use of nuclear weapons. I also hope that you will be driven by the sense of opportunity generated by this conference and by the belief that the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons must be at the centre of the debate. This is an important moment to recognize and understand these consequences, thus ensuring that they are central to future discussions.

    And yet, an awareness of the consequences of nuclear weapons will not be enough to definitively prevent the use of and bring about the elimination of nuclear weapons. Public awareness, media interest and the sustained commitment of responsible State authorities are crucial. The international community has not always seized upon opportunities to prevent human suffering. In the case of nuclear weapons, prevention – including the development of a legally binding treaty to prohibit and eliminate such weapons – is the only way forward.

    Peter Maurer is President of the International Committee of the Red Cross.

  • Reader’s Response: The Risks Remain High

    Nuclear strategist Paul Bracken is interviewed by Robert Kazel for the Nuclear Age Foundation on December 17 2012. Professor bracken has recently published his second book on the nuclear danger,The Second Nuclear Age: Strategy, Danger, and the New Power Politics.

    Professor Bracken seems to be mostly concerned with the risks associated with nuclear proliferation, and not with the danger arising from the nuclear arsenals of Russia and the USA. He does not see as real the risks of nuclear war started by mistake or intervention in the command systems. One reason is that he is convinced that the nuclear weapons are no longer on High Alert. He states that [protocols concerning] emergency authorization to use nuclear weapons have been revoked.

    It would be very helpful if he provided us with the reason for that opinion. The information available to me gives no support for his statement. Thus, the report by the group lead by General James Cartwright,Modernizing U.S. Nuclear Strategy, Force Structure and Posture, for Global Zero, and published last year, emphasizes that strategic nuclear weapons are still on High Alert. They stress that the time to evaluate whether the threat is real and a nuclear response is necessary is very short, counted in minutes.  I quote: “The risks, while low, still exist for missiles to be fired by accident, miscalculation, mistake, false warning, bad judgment or unauthorized action. The results would be catastrophic.”

    I do hope Professor Bracken in the future will be right in his assessment. Today he seems to be mistaken, unfortunately.

    He also says, “I would be the first to give up U.S. nuclear weapons, all of them – every single one – if other countries would do so.” How does he know that other countries are not willing to give up their nuclear weapons if the USA does?

    Without US leadership we will not reach a nuclear weapons free world.

    Gunnar Westberg is former President (2004-2008) of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War.

  • Interview with David Krieger

    Vaya aquí para la versión española.

    Doctor of Law David Krieger is one of the most passionate and well-known in the U.S. advocate of non-proliferation, destruction and prohibition of nuclear weapons. In 1970 he was drafted into the army during the Vietnam War, but refused to serve, to approach the authorities with a statement that the war is immoral and participation in it is contrary to his convictions. But the authorities refused him. He did not give up and went to federal court. And he won. From 1982 until the present time, David Krieger is president of the NGO Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, lecturing at universities in the U.S., Europe and Japan. He was one of the leaders of the civil hearings in 2007 on the legality of U.S. actions in Iraq, and he was a member of the jury of public international tribunal on Iraq, held in Istanbul in 2005. He is author and co-author of dozens of books about the dangers of nuclear weapons, non-proliferation and elimination of it.  His vision of the problems David Krieger shared with readers of “Rosbalt.”

    Yaroshinskaya: There is no information in Russian media, but I know in February 2012 you were arrested – along with your wife, Carolee, Daniel Ellsberg, Cindy Sheehan, Father Louis Vitale, and ten other activists – near Vandenberg Air Force Base in California. Tell, please, shortly to our readers what you did there and how authorities punished you after all.

    Krieger: Several times a year, the United States Air Force conducts test flights of intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), without their nuclear warheads, from Vandenberg Air Force Base.  The Base – the only one in the US that tests ICBMs – is about 70 miles from Santa Barbara where I live.  To try to minimize protests, the Air Force usually schedules missile launches for the middle of the night.  My wife and I joined Daniel Ellsberg and some 70 others in a protest that took place just before midnight on February 24th at Vandenberg.  I can’t speak for everyone, but I was protesting because land-based nuclear-armed ICBMs are first-strike weapons.  In a time of high tensions, they are weapons that a country must use or face the prospect of losing to another country’s first-strike attack.  I believe that citizens should not allow testing of such weapons systems to go on as a routine matter.  These tests should not be routine.  They are warnings of the civilization-destroying threats that nuclear arsenals pose to all humanity, and should be ended while agreement is sought to dismantle the weapons and their delivery systems.

    After midnight, 15 of us joined hands and walked toward the front gate of the Air Force Base. We wanted to deliver a message to the commander of the base.  The message was that this nuclear insanity must end, and that the routine testing of ICBMs is a form of collective insanity.  Before we had gotten close to the kiosk at the front gate, young Air Force security personnel formed a line in front of us and then arrested us, handcuffed us behind our backs, put us in several vans and drove us to a deserted place in the woods where they took our fingerprints and photographs and issued citations to us for trespass on military property.  The Air Force then dropped us off in the middle of the night (around 4:00 a.m.) in a closed shopping center many miles from our automobiles.  When we appeared in federal court, we all pleaded “not guilty” to the charge of trespass.

    We were scheduled for trial last October, but on the day of the trial the government prosecutor moved to drop the charges against us and the case against all of us was dismissed.  I think that they didn’t want the publicity of a trial and perhaps were concerned that they would lose the case.  It was an honor to be arrested with Daniel Ellsberg, my wife and the others to protest the absolute insanity of continuing to threaten other countries and the people of the world with nuclear weapons and intercontinental delivery systems.  By our protest, we were giving voice to future generations of children who deserve a chance to live in a world without the threat of nuclear annihilation hanging over them.

    Yaroshinskaya: Despite the fact that since the signing of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) has been more than 40 years, it’s not diminished in the world. Few experts emphasizes that in this Treaty are registered also obligations of the nuclear club of the destruction of nuclear weapons. How are they implemented?

    Krieger: The Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) is the only existing arms treaty that contains obligations for nuclear disarmament.  The treaty obligates the five nuclear weapon states that are parties to the treaty (US, Russia, UK, France and China) to negotiate in good faith for a cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date, for nuclear disarmament and for a treaty on general and complete disarmament.  These negotiations have not taken place and, after 43 years, “an early date” has certainly passed.  All five of the NPT nuclear weapon states are in breach of their obligations under the treaty.  Their failure to act to fulfill their obligations puts the treaty, as well as the future of civilization, in jeopardy.  These states are demonstrating that they believe nuclear weapons are useful for their security.  In addition to being wrong about nuclear weapons providing security, they are being extremely shortsighted.  Nuclear deterrence is not “defense.”  It is a hypothesis about human behavior and is subject to failure.  By their reliance on nuclear deterrence, the nuclear weapons states are not only running the risk of nuclear war occurring by accident or design, but are also actually encouraging nuclear proliferation.

    Yaroshinskaya: Russia and the United States are the major players on the nuclear world stage. How do you assess (estimate) last Russian-American treaty on the reduction of nuclear capabilities – START-3, signed by Dmitriy Medvedev and Barack Obama in April 2010? What is your opinion – does US side ready to further reducing of nuclear weapons and finally to eliminate them at all as Barak Obama promised before his first presidential election?

    Krieger: The New START agreement called for the reduction of deployed strategic nuclear weapons on each side to 1,550 and of deployed delivery vehicles to 700 by 2018.  These numbers are still far too high.  I believe that President Obama viewed the New START agreement as setting a new platform from which to make further reductions in the size of nuclear arsenals.  However, it seems clear that the US deployment of missile defense installations near the Russian borders may make this difficult to achieve.  In 2009, in a speech in Prague, Czech Republic, President Obama spoke of “America’s commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons.”  But he continued, “I’m not naive. This goal will not be reached quickly — perhaps not in my lifetime. It will take patience and persistence.”  In my view, there needs to be a greater sense of urgency to translate this commitment into action within a reasonable timeframe if we are to achieve the goal of a world free of nuclear weapons.

    Yaroshinskaya: The former head of the Department of State Henry Kissinger spoke some time ago that the United States could lead the world’s nuclear disarmament. How realistic are these claims or it is nothing more than just politics games?

    Krieger: Henry Kissinger no longer has political power.  He has only the power of persuasion.  He has joined with other US Cold War leaders – George Shultz, William Perry and Sam Nunn – to call for nuclear weapons abolition.  Like President Obama, however, they see this as a long-term goal.  But I think it is correct that the US could lead the world in achieving nuclear disarmament.  President Obama has also called for such leadership.  If the US fails to lead, it is unlikely to happen.  Of course, Russia could also step forward and demonstrate such leadership.

    Yaroshinskaya: One of the most sensitive topics of Russian-American relations is American missile defense system in Europe. Do you personally believe that this system is directed only against countries such as Iran and North Korea, but not against Russia, as it declares the American generals?

    Krieger: My personal belief is that the US missile defense system is primarily a means of funneling public funds to “defense” contractors.  I doubt that missile defenses will ever actually be successful in stopping nuclear-armed missiles, and will certainly never be successful against a country, such as Russia, with sophisticated nuclear forces.  Thus, I think it is correct that US missile defenses are aimed at less sophisticated countries, such as Iran and North Korea, rather than at Russia.  It is easy to understand, though, why Russia is concerned.  Surely, the US would also be concerned if Russia attempted to put missile defense installations near the US border.

    Yaroshinskaya: What is your opinion with regard to the Iranian nuclear threat to the United States and the world? Does it actually exist? We remember about US mistake concerning Iraq nuclear program and we can see now the result of such mistake for people of that country.

    Krieger: At present, Iran poses no nuclear threat to the US and the rest of the world.  So far as I am aware, no national intelligence service concludes that Iran has a nuclear weapons program.  What we know is that Iran has a program to enrich uranium and this could be converted to a nuclear weapons program.  I believe it is important to discourage Iran from developing a nuclear weapons program, but this is made more difficult by the failure of the most powerful nuclear weapons states to make serious progress toward fulfilling their obligations for nuclear disarmament under the NPT.

    Yaroshinskaya: And there is last question. I know that some time ago you entered into a correspondence with Vladimir Putin. If I may ask, what about do you wrote to each other?

    Krieger: In February 2012, we sent an “Open Letter on NATO Missile Defense Plans and Increased Risk of Nuclear War” to President Obama, President Medvedev and other US and Russian officials.  You can find this letter at https://wagingpeace.davidmolinaojeda.com/articles/db_article.php?article_id=313.  I received a letter back from Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov.  He stated in his letter to me in March 2012: “We fully share the view that the fact the North Atlantic Alliance refused to include Russia into a joint missile defense is the evidence of its unpreparedness to treat our country as an equitable partner. This appears to be specifically alarming against the background of enlarging NATO and pursuit of vesting global military functions into the coalition. One cannot help agreeing to a conclusion that deployment of missile defense system at the very borders of Russia as well as upbuilding system’s capabilities increase the chance of any conventional military confrontation might promptly turn into a nuclear war. We have numerously been outspoken that such steps taken by the US and NATO undermine strategic stability and make further progress in reducing and limiting nuclear arms problematic.”  He also expressed his “hope for continuing this positive and unbiased dialogue.” The full text of the letter from Mr. Lavrov may be found at https://wagingpeace.davidmolinaojeda.com/articles/pdfs/2012_03_27_lavrov_reply.pdf.  I hope such dialogue will indeed continue at the official level and lead to negotiations for a new treaty, a Nuclear Weapons Convention, for the total elimination of nuclear weapons in a phased, verifiable, irreversible and transparent manner.

    Alla Yaroshinskaya published this article in Rosbalt, a Russian news service.

  • Abolishing Nuclear Arms: It Can Be Done

    This article was originally published on CNN Opinion

     

    When President Obama called for a world free of nuclear weapons in Prague, Czech Republic, this spring, many dismissed this part of his speech as idealistic rhetoric.

    But the abolition of nuclear weapons is not an unrealistic fantasy. It is a practical necessity if the American people are to have a secure future. President Obama should use his Nobel speech this week to reaffirm his commitment to this essential and obtainable goal.

    It is essential because a world armed with nuclear weapons is simply too dangerous for us to countenance. Since the end of the Cold War we have tended to act as though the threat of nuclear war had gone away. It hasn’t. It is only our awareness of this danger that has faded. In fact, there are some 25,000 nuclear weapons in the world today; 95 percent of them are in the arsenals of the United States and Russia.

    Just this past weekend, the START treaty limiting the number of U.S. and Russian warheads expired. Negotiators in Geneva, Switzerland, have not yet been able to work out the details of a follow-up treaty.

    We must hope they will be able to agree to deep reductions. A recent study by Physicians for Social Responsibility showed that if only 300 of the weapons in the Russian arsenal attacked targets in American cities, 90 million people would die in the first half hour. A comparable U.S. attack on Russia would produce similar devastation.

    Further, these attacks would destroy the entire economic, communications and transportation infrastructure on which the rest of the population depends for survival. In the ensuing months the vast majority of people who survived the initial attacks in both countries would die of disease, exposure and starvation.

    The destruction of the United States and Russia would be only part of the story. An attack of this magnitude would lift millions of tons of soot and dust into the upper levels of the atmosphere, blocking out sunlight and dropping temperatures across the globe.

    In fact, if the entire Russian and U.S. strategic arsenals were involved in the fighting, average surface temperature worldwide would fall 10 degrees Centigrade to levels not seen on Earth since the depth of the last ice age 18,000 years ago.

    For three years there would not be a single day in the Northern Hemisphere free of frost. Agriculture would stop, ecosystems would collapse and many species, perhaps even our own, would become extinct. This is not just some theoretical scenario; it is a real and present danger.

    On January 25, 1995, we came within minutes of nuclear war when Russian military radar mistook a Norwegian-U.S. scientific rocket for a possible attack on Moscow. President Yeltsin, a man reportedly suffering from alcoholism and other major medical problems, was notified and given five minutes to decide how to respond.

    Then as now, both the United States and Russia maintained a policy of “launch on warning,” authorizing the launch of nuclear missiles when an enemy attack is believed to be under way. We don’t know exactly what happened in the Kremlin that morning, but someone decided not to launch Russian missiles and we did not have a nuclear war.

    January 25, 1995, was five years after the end of the Cold War. There were no unusual crises anywhere in the world that day. It was a relatively good day in a time much less dangerous than our own. And we almost blew up the world. That was 15 years ago and the United States and Russia still maintain more than 2,000 warheads on high alert ready to be launched in 15 minutes and to destroy each other’s cities 30 minutes later.

    Nuclear weapons are the only military threat from which U.S. armed forces cannot protect us. It is urgently in our national security interest to eliminate these instruments of mass annihilation from the arsenals of potential adversaries. If we have to get rid of our own nuclear weapons to achieve this, it is a deal well worth making.

    Make no mistake, the elimination of nuclear weapons is an attainable goal. These bombs are not some force of nature. They are the work of our hand. We built them and we can take them apart.

    Some governments falsely see these weapons as safeguards of their security. It will not be easy to convince them that true safety requires that we abolish them. Nor will it be easy to design the verification regime needed to assure that the weapons are dismantled and that no new weapons are built. Yet national security experts in the United States and around the world say that it can be done and it must be done.

    If politics is the art of the possible, then statesmanship is the art of the necessary. And if ever there was a time that cried out for statesmanship it is now.

    There are many important issues that demand our attention — health care reform, energy policy, creating more jobs — but none is as urgent as eliminating the threat of nuclear war.

    Ira Helfand, MD, is a past president of Physicians for Social Responsibility, the U.S. affiliate of the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, recipient of the 1985 Nobel Peace Prize.

  • Message to First Annual Student Movement for Nuclear Disarmament Conference

    This message was delivered to the First Annual Student Movement for Nuclear Disarmament Conference at Soka University of America on November 17, 2012.


    David KriegerI want to congratulate you for organizing this conference and for bringing together students to form a movement for nuclear disarmament.  It is a much needed effort.  As someone who has worked for nuclear weapons abolition for most of my adult life, I believe firmly that the involvement of students is necessary for achieving the goal of a nuclear weapons-free world. 


    You did not create nuclear weapons, but you have inherited them, and they will remain a threat to your future for so long as they exist.  Thus, your awareness, your engagement and your voices are critical to your own future as well as to the future of your children and grandchildren.


    Nuclear weapons are illegal, immoral and costly.  They do not make their possessors safer or more secure; they only assure that their possessors are targets of some other country’s nuclear weapons.


    If the most powerful counties in the world behave as though nuclear weapons are useful to them, as they do, they assure that other countries will seek nuclear weapons for themselves.  Thus, the possession of nuclear weapons encourages the proliferation of nuclear weapons to other countries.   


    The more nuclear weapons proliferate, the greater the chances are that they will end up in the hands of terrorist organizations.  In truth, though, any country that relies upon nuclear deterrence for its security is threatening the use of nuclear weapons against innocent people, and thus behaving as a terrorist nation itself.


    We must recognize nuclear weapons for what they are.  Some, like Archbishop Desmond Tutu, see them as an “obscenity.”  Others, like Josei Toda, view them as an “absolute evil.”  I see them as a human-designed threat to the future of civilization and perhaps to all complex life on earth.  By our technological cleverness, we humans have created the means of our own demise.  We cannot allow this to continue.


    Our great challenge is to abolish nuclear weapons before they abolish us.  It is not an easy goal to achieve, but it is not an impossible one.  It is a necessary goal, and it gives me hope that your conference is taking place and that each of you is involved and joining in the effort to create a world free of nuclear threat. 


    The only number of nuclear weapons that will assure a human future is zero.  No significant goal, such as the abolition of nuclear weapons, can be accomplished without awareness, boldness, creativity and hard work.  I hope that you will never lose sight of the need to achieve a world with zero nuclear weapons and that you will always choose hope as an impetus for building a better world.  Be persistent, persevere and never give up.

  • Nuclear Disarmament: Letter in the New York Times

    This letter to the editor was printed in the November 15, 2012, edition of The New York Times.


    To the Editor:


    We share with your editorial (“The Foreign Policy Agenda,” Nov. 12) the view that one of President Obama’s “singular contributions has been his vision of a world without nuclear weapons.” We would go further and suggest that realizing this vision would ensure Mr. Obama a legacy of honor, not only for America, but also for the world.


    Your editorial adds a caveat that nuclear disarmament “is a lofty goal that won’t be achieved in his second term, or maybe for years after that.” We dissent from this bit of conventional wisdom that almost always accompanies the affirmation of the goal, nearly taking back what was so grandly proposed.


    In our view, there has rarely been a better time to initiate a negotiated process of phased nuclear disarmament, and there is no reason that such a process should be stretched out over a long period. We are at one of those few times in international history with no acute conflict between major states.


    In our view, the United States should prepare proposals for nuclear disarmament and convene an international conference of the nine nuclear-weapon states. Nothing could do more to restore America’s claim to world leadership. At the very least, President Obama would belatedly show that his 2009 Nobel Peace Prize was not wrongly awarded.


    RICHARD FALK
    DAVID KRIEGER
    Santa Barbara, Calif.


    The writers are senior vice president and president, respectively, of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

  • Youth Program on the Humanitarian Dimensions of Nuclear Disarmament

    In early September 2012, with the generous support of the Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs, students from Austria, Brazil, Germany, Mexico, Switzerland, Iran, Italy, Palestine, and Romania participated in the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s Youth Program on the Humanitarian Dimensions of Nuclear Disarmament. These students met with members of civil society and representatives from different states. They further participated in a seminar on the humanitarian dimensions of nuclear disarmament and an informational workshop about the Ban All Nukes Generation’s tentative program, entitled “Claim your voice. Ban the Bomb,” a youth empowerment program that will be held during the conference in Oslo.


    Prior to the program, the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation established an international coordinating group for this program. This international coordinating group assembled a background document, which contained references to reports from NGOs and statements by states, including Switzerland, about the humanitarian dimensions of nuclear disarmament.


    Participants in the humanitarian program


    When the students arrived to Geneva on September 4, 2012, they participated in a roundtable discussion with members of the NGO Committee for Disarmament, a substantive committee of the Conference of NGOs with Consultative relationship with the United Nations Committee, that is composed of Reaching Critical Will, International Peace Bureau, Mayors for Peace, World Council of Churches, Soka Gakkai International (SGI), Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, and the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons. During this meeting, participants asked the members of the NGO Committee about the international disarmament machinery, the role of religious organizations in promoting nuclear disarmament, and the humanitarian dimensions of nuclear disarmament.


    After the roundtable discussion with members of the NGO Committee for Disarmament, Mr. Christian N. Ciobanu distributed information about different states’ views on nuclear disarmament to the students. He also underscored the importance of the Swiss joint statement on the humanitarian dimensions of nuclear disarmament to the participants.


    Once the participants received an adequate background on the humanitarian dimensions of nuclear disarmament, the participants met with representatives from Non-Nuclear Weapon States. Most of these representatives explained to them why their governments either supported or did not support the joint statement on the humanitarian dimensions of nuclear disarmament.


    In the afternoon of September 5, the participants attended the NGO Committee for Disarmament’s Seminar on the Humanitarian Dimensions of Nuclear Disarmament in which Mr. Colin Archer, the Secretary-General of the International Peace Bureau served as the moderator. During this seminar, the participants heard statements from Mr. Peter Herby, head of the legal division of the International Committee of the Red Cross; Dr. Daniel Plesch, Director of the School of Oriental and African Studies’ Center for International Studies and Diplomacy (CISD); Mr. Magnus Lovold, a representative of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN); and Mr. Christian N. Ciobanu, Geneva Representative of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. Finally, based on the feedback from the participants, they enjoyed Lovold and Ciobanu’s views on how the humanitarian disarmament process can help raise awareness about the need for the international community to support a nuclear weapons convention and the devastating environmental impacts of nuclear weapons.


    On September 6, the final day of the program, the Ban All Nukes Generation convened an informational workshop about the “Claim your voice. Ban the Bomb.” In addition, as part of the workshop, the representatives of Ban All Nukes Generation underscored the need for young people to become empowered citizens and attend the program in Oslo in March 2013. The program would also tentatively give young European people an opportunity to make an impact at the conference in Oslo. Specifically, it will provide them with the methodological tools they need to become actively involved at the local, national and European levels to resolve both the global political and environmental impacts of nuclear weapons.