Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Category: Uncategorized

  • The Renewable Switch: Environment-Friendly Energy Available Now to South Coast

    Renewable energy has come of age. A recent report on the state of the renewable energy industry concludes: “Dramatic improvements in performance, as well as government incentives, have resulted in reduced costs that are quickly making renewable energy technologies competitive with traditional forms of electricity generation . . .”

    The report adds that the cost of electricity from solar photovoltaics and wind is only one-tenth what it was 20 years ago. (Report, “The Changing Face of Renewable Energy,” available at www.navigantconsulting.com.)

    Large wind projects already produce energy at costs competitive with natural gas-powered electricity plants, and this will only continue to improve as the cost of natural gas increases and as demand for this finite resource increases. It is only a matter of time before solar, biomass and other renewable energy technologies achieve cost parity.

    It is becomingly increasingly apparent that the real obstacles to leaving the unsustainable fossil fuel era are largely political and legal in nature and less and less economic or technical. Accordingly, legal tools are being crafted throughout the country to help usher in the sustainable renewable energy era.

    Communities across America are now choosing to pursue greater energy independence through renewable and more environmentally friendly technologies, and these same choices are now available to the Santa Barbara region.

    California, in the last year alone, has enacted major energy legislation that has brought our state to the forefront in developing renewable energy. This legislation includes SB 1078, which mandates that California obtain 20 percent of its energy needs from renewable sources by 2017; AB 1493, which aims to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks beginning in 2009; and AB 117, the “Community Choice” law. AB 117 allows cities and counties, beginning on July 15, 2003, to combine their residents’ electricity needs to negotiate long-term power contracts directly with energy companies and to administer state-funded conservation and efficiency programs currently administered by investor-owned utilities.

    Community Choice will allow existing investor-owned utilities to maintain all their operations except power procurement negotiation and state-funded conservation and efficiency programs. That is, the incumbent utility will still meter customers, still bill customers, and still earn similar profits to those it currently enjoys.

    For achieving real, on-the-ground, economic and environmental benefits in a fairly short time frame, Community Choice may be the most promising of the new laws for communities like Santa Barbara and the rest of the South Coast.

    Under similar laws passed in Massachusetts, Ohio and California (in a similar, now defunct, program), communities have achieved significant cost savings by negotiating power contracts through renewable energy providers.

    California’s version of Community Choice may allow local governments to save money on their power bills and to obtain state funds to achieve greater conservation and efficiency, leading to additional savings. In addition to taking advantage of economies of scale, combining different types of electricity users (commercial, industrial and residential) will allow local governments to create an attractive “load profile” — the pattern of electricity use throughout the day, which providers like to be as constant as possible — to help negotiate savings.

    Other than the financial benefits Community Choice may bring, local governments will be able to negotiate power contracts with energy suppliers who can provide a significant percentage of renewable power.

    In the past, developing renewable energy generation has been hindered by a “chicken and egg” situation due to the difficulties in penetrating a market controlled by traditional fossil fuel power suppliers. Now, as demand for renewable power grows due to communities opting for it through Community Choice, energy suppliers will be enabled and motivated to bring online new renewable energy projects that are often stalled for lack of reliable contracts to sell such power. There are currently such projects being proposed in Santa Barbara County that may be aided through implementation of Community Choice.

    By promoting the development and use of renewable energy, California’s communities will be doing their part to curb the dangers of global warming, reduce asthma and other air-related health problems in our children, and ameliorate the problem of nuclear waste generation by reducing the need to build new nuclear power plants and creating green power to replace electricity from existing nuclear plants.

    Implementing Community Choice will not be an overnight endeavor and the proposed benefits are not written in stone. But this new legislation is tremendously promising and provides a substantial tool for communities suffering under the twin burdens of a budget crunch and a desire to help create a sustainable future.

    We believe that Community Choice bears consideration by both local governments and community organizations like the Community Environmental Council’s Santa Barbara County Regional Energy Alliance for adoption and implementation.

    It may prove to be the ultimate “win-win” in the quest to obtain energy that rests easy on our pocketbooks as well as our consciences.

    * Tam Hunt is a Santa Barbara attorney; Bud Laurent is CEO of the Community Environmental Council; Peter Jeschke is CEO of MEI Power Corp.; Kristen Morrison is coordinator of the Renewable Energy Project, with the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

  • University of California Passes Ground-Breaking Clean Energy Policy

    The University of California Board of Regents voted unanimously today in favor of a Clean Energy and Green Building policy that raises the bar for environmental leadership by any institution.

    This vote follows a year long “UC Go Solar!” campaign run by students across the state and Greenpeace. The campaign called for the Regents to adopt a comprehensive Clean Energy and Green Building policy to make UC a national leader in environmental stewardship.

    Since last September, students and faculty sent more than 10,000 postcards to the university in support of the campaign, VIPs including Lt. Governor Cruz M. Bustamente endorsed it, and dozens of editorials have appeared in student newspapers urging the Regents to take action.

    “This victory for the environment is the product of collaboration between Students, Faculty, Administrators, Regents and Greenpeace,” explained Kristin Casper, campaigner with Greenpeace. “The UC’s leadership will pave the way for campuses across the U.S. toward a clean, sustainable future. Now there is a clear road map for others to follow.”

    According to a Greenpeace study released today, the combination of the Los Angeles Community College District’s pledge to generate 10% of new buildings’ energy use with onsite

    renewable energy, and this UC victory, the current total amount of grid-connected solar power in the US could increase by nearly 30% above today’s levels. The study also notes that it is academic institutions that are a driving force in building a clean energy economy for our country. A full copy of the study is available at http://www.cleanenergynow.org.

    The University of California policy is a comprehensive initiative that mandates:

    • 10 megawatts (equivalent to power used by 5,000 homes) of renewable energy be installed across the 10 campuses (currently only 40 MW of solar energy are grid-connected in California and 52 MW total in the U.S.).
    • The purchase of 10% of the university’s utility purchased energy from clean energy sources immediately and ramping up to 20% by 2017, enough to power 26,000 homes.
    • All new campus building across the state will be built to green building standards (except acute care facilities)
    • Reduction of system-wide energy use to 10% below 2000 levels by 2014 in order to reduce consumption of non-renewable energy sources.

    Following the UC’s lead, students on more than 50 campuses across the country are expected to launch Clean Energy campaigns this fall, to inspire their schools to replicate the UC system. The Greenpeace report shows that if every U.S. college campus were to match the UC solar energy policy, the total grid-connected solar installations in the United States would increase more than 50 fold. With this surge, prices of solar could be expected to drop by some 23%, making it competitive with conventional, polluting energies in many areas.

  • New Bomb Plant Would Pose Safety Threat by the Institute for Environmental and Energy Research

    More than one-fourth of the potential accidents analyzed for a new facility designed to manufacture plutonium triggers for the U.S. nuclear arsenal would violate the DOE’s own guideline for radiation exposure to the public, some by as much as 400%, according to an independent analysis of government documents. In addition, the accidents analyzed by the government represent only a fraction of possible scenarios, thus preventing any clear understanding of the overall risk posed to the public by the facility.

    These conclusions are based on a review of the May 2003 draft Department of Energy (DOE) Environmental Impact Statement on its proposed Modern Pit Facility (MPF) conducted by the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research (IEER) in Takoma Park, Maryland. The plutonium “pits” to be made at the proposed facility are the triggers that initiate the explosion in modern multi-stage thermonuclear warheads and are similar to the plutonium explosive in the bomb that the United States used to destroy Nagasaki during the Second World War.

    Sites under consideration for the DOE’s Modern Pit Facility include the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) and Carlsbad, both in New Mexico; the Savannah River Site near Aiken, South Carolina; the Nevada Test Site, 60 miles from Las Vegas; and the Pantex Plant in Amarillo, Texas. At three of these sites (LANL, Carlsbad, and the Pantex Plant), one-third to one-half of the accidents analyzed for a plant capable of producing 450 pits per year (ppy) would lead to exposures in excess of the DOE guidelines for a member of the public. The maximum allowed exposure to a person offsite under the DOE guideline is 25 rem, which is 50 times the annual exposure limit to the population allowed from the normal operation of nuclear facilities. The most serious accident considered would lead to exposures from twice to nearly four times the DOE guideline depending upon the site.

    The DOE document claims that once a specific site is chosen, it will then determine how to bring it into compliance with the regulations. “It is unacceptable that the DOE has proposed a facility that would violate its own guidelines,” notes Dr. Brice Smith, a research scientist at IEER. “Without knowing the actual exposures that the DOE will eventually allow at each location following an accident, it is impossible to accurately compare the risk they pose to the public.”

    Additionally, the DOE report analyzes only a subset of the potential accidents that may occur at an MPF. Because the total risk from independent accidents is cumulative, the draft report offers no basis for determining the actual threat to the public at any of the proposed sights for pit production .

    However, it is not just accidents at an MPF that have the potential for serious human consequences. “Normal operation of a 450 pit per year facility would lead to average worker exposures in excess of the internal DOE recommended administrative standard at nuclear facilities,” notes IEER President Dr. Arjun Makhijani. In addition, an examination of the data tables presented in the draft report indicate that the DOE estimates that over a 40 year operating period roughly 9 workers will die due to radiation induced cancer. “This proposed plutonium explosives factory will be dangerous for its employees,” concluded Dr. Makhijani.

    The Modern Pit Facility is supposedly part of the DOE’s “Stockpile Stewardship Program” to maintain the safety and reliability of the U.S. nuclear arsenal. But no problems that would materially affect the reliability of plutonium pits in the current U.S. arsenal are identified in the draft report or in the scientific literature. On the contrary, the results of current research indicate that aging of pits affects neither the safety nor the reliability of nuclear weapons. “Given the remarkably consistent and positive findings of studies concerning the lack of age-related damage in plutonium, there is no scientific justification for the claim that pits needs to be replaced anytime in the foreseeable future,” concluded Dr. Smith. “We have determined from our analysis that even the 20 pit per year capacity that the DOE hopes to have developed at Los Alamos National Laboratory by 2007 is likely to be unnecessary, to say nothing of a massive new facility,” adds Dr. Makhijani.

    In its discussion of the case for the MPF, the DOE document wraps itself in the cloak of “classified analyses.” In response, Dr. Makhijani noted that “following the closure of the Rocky Flats pit production facility in 1989 due to violations of health, safety, and environmental laws, the Department of Energy assured the public that classified analysis proved national security was at risk if the complex remained closed, however the country has done quite well without Rocky Flats for over a decade.”

    “Given the lack of any need for the MPF to maintain the current stockpile, the likely reason for its development will be to manufacture new pit designs for new types of weapons,” says Dr. Smith. “The production of new weapons such as the ‘mini-nuke’ and the ‘bunker-buster’ is a dangerous drift towards usable nuclear weapons that is in violation of U.S. commitments under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty,” adds Dr. Makhijani. Dr. Makhijani also noted “it is highly unlikely, given current certification procedures, that pits of new designs would be mass manufactured for incorporation into the U.S. arsenal unless they were fully tested.” This consideration raises the likelihood of an end to the current U.S. nuclear test moratorium and the collapse of the international Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

    The final public hearing concerning plans to construct the new pit manufacturing facility is scheduled for today in Washington, D.C. Previous hearings have been held at locations near each of the five proposed sites throughout the summer.

    It is the conclusion of the IEER analysis that the “No Action Alternative” is the correct choice and that plans for the Modern Pit Facility should be scrapped.

  • The University of California & the Nuclear Weapons Labs: The Role of Academia in the Development of Nuclear Weapons

    Student Pugwash USA Educational Seminar
    “Nuclear Weapons: Science and Policy”
    July 13-17, 2003; American University; Washington, DC

    INTRODUCTION

    I am not a defense intellectual or degreed scientist. I am a young concerned citizen who recognizes patterns of aggression and violence done in may name and perpetrated by leaders of a country I call home. I imagine that many of you all fit a similar self-description simply based on your being here today. I thank you and commend you all for stepping outside of the matrix of corporate media, cold war theology, and public apathy. One of the mottos and mantras that I’m beginning to use with the young interns and volunteers at the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation is think for yourself, see for yourself, and help others. By being here today, you’re taking the crucial steps of gathering information toward thinking for yourself.

    Today’s theme, the role of academia and scientists in the development of nuclear weapons, is a large one. The increasing militarization of US colleges and universities is a national trend that influences the courses available to students, faculty hiring, the presence of military recruiters on campus, internship and fellowship opportunities, and potentially many aspects of your high school, undergraduate, graduate, professional, and adult lives. In the interest of time, I’ll focus my comments on the University of California system which along with such prestigious campuses as Berkeley, UCLA, and UCSB includes 2 pillars of the US nuclear weapons complex: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and Los Alamos National Laboratory. These are massive institutions involved in cutting-edge, multi-disciplinary scientific research. Billions of dollars flow through them annually as do thousands of employees, including UC faculty and students. The individuals who make decisions regarding this contract are not faculty or students. UC has Regents which are essentially like a Board of Directors. For the most part, they are wealthy, influential people who have made significant financial contributions to political campaigns. The California governor appoints them; the state legislature approves them. They serve 12-year terms. It is easy to be overwhelmed and confused by the role these labs serve, but the key point to remember is that the lab’s historical and current core purpose involves the research and development of nuclear weapons.

    BASIC QUESTION & MYTHS

    So we have to ask ourselves is it appropriate for an institution of higher learning with the creed to nurture values and morals within its many students to be in the nuclear weapons business? To help you develop your own personal answer for that question, I want to share with you my list of 5 myths about the role of academia in nuclear weapons development. These are ideas that I’ve heard during UC Regents meetings, read in newspaper articles and lab reports, and heard expressed by lab representatives during panel discussions just like this one.

    #1 Public Service, Prestige, and National Security

    Many people believe that managing nuclear labs boosts UC’s status and prestige in comparison to other research institutions. This belief is based on the notion that nuclear weapons are vital to our national security. Also, the belief is based on the notion that UC performs a public or community service by managing nuclear labs. UCLA Chancellor Albert Carnesale who worked on the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty delivered a lecture in February of last year titled “Rethinking National Security.” Based on his over 20 years of experience in the international peace and security field, he lectured on how the US has been hypocritical in our efforts to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons while maintaining our own stockpile. I wonder what Carnesale has to say now that his university system is being considered as a site to develop new nuclear weapons? Whatever his answer, one way to refute the service and status myth is by drawing attention to the dangers and pitfalls of nuclear weapons development: the toxic waste by-products that we do not yet know how to store safely and that will be here for tens of thousands of years, the indiscriminate nature of nuclear weapons damaging all life in their path whether military target or civilian population, and the many victims of the nuclear age, not just those who perished from the Hiroshima and Nagasaki blasts and the hibakusha who survived the blasts and suffer from radiation exposure but also those who suffer from underfunded health care and public education systems and an overfunded military.

    Philip Rogaway is a professor in the department of computer science at UC Davis. This excerpt is from an article that appeared in the UC Davis student newspaper January 16, 2003:

    “…For years I have been troubled by the fact that the university I am a member of plays this unique role in the U.S. weaponry. I have always believed that the UC should terminate this role. Running weapons laboratories is at odds with the mission of an open institution of higher education, as the bulk of what the labs do is neither in the open nor education-related. Our stewardship of the labs is also inappropriate from the point of view that we are a community that spans a wide range of political orientations, ethical views and nations of citizenship. It violates UC Davis’ Principles of Community.

    A 1996 study by the University Committee on Research Policy concluded that our management of the weapons labs does not fulfill the conditions of appropriate public service. It advocated phasing out this role. The report was severely attacked by UC officials. Their objections generally ignored the central ethical question of whether it was appropriate for a university to manage U.S. weapons laboratories.

    The 1996 report was one of several that have been done over the years, consistently taking a dim view of our role in the labs. In 1990, 64 percent of faculty voted to phase out UC management of the weapons labs. In 1996, 39 percent of faculty voted to do so. Regardless, this is not a question in which UC faculty have any say, and the DOE contracts have always been renewed, regardless of faculty sentiment.

    Now Los Alamos and its UC management are again in the news. Amid FBI, DOE and Congressional investigations of widespread theft and fraud, UC President Richard Atkinson recently announced the resignation of Los Alamos’ Director John Browne and Deputy Director Joseph Salgado. Employees are accused of purchasing numerous personal items on government funds, and management is accused of dismissing those who had been investigating the incidents. The scandal is the third to hit Los Alamos in recent years… It has been reported that DOE Secretary Spencer Abraham is considering putting out for bid the UC’s contract to run Los Alamos, or even canceling it early. This would be a nice outcome, even if it should come to pass for the wrong reason…The question isn’t if we manage the labs poorly or well. We shouldn’t be managing weapons labs at all. It is unfit business for a university.”

    #2 Freedom of Academic Exploration

    When I think of universities, I think of places where ideas flourish, where you can explore concepts that may not seem to have immediate application and you’re free to be ahead of your time. Some people use this rationale to justify university-managed nuclear weapons research. Universities have an air of transparency, openness, and accountability which clash with the realities of classified, top-secret federally-funded weapons research.

    #3 Cash Cow

    There is the belief that the nuclear weapons labs bring in a lot of money. The figure is close to $3 billion, but these dollars stay at the labs. The university receives an administrative fee which pales in comparison to the total contract amount. The last I heard the figure for the administrative fee was close to $17 million. This point has a lot to do with concerns over rising student fees. The University of California is a public university system. The state and federal education budgets have a greater impact on student fees than whether or not UC manages nuclear weapons labs.

    #4 UC is better than a defense contractor

    Matthew Murray is the UC student Regent. His position allows for a student voice at the highest level of decision-making in the UC system. Last Friday, Matthew wrote an email on the nuclear topic to a group of students I work with:

    “…I should be fair and say right off that I detest nuclear weapons, I am despondent about our nation’s current attitude in engaging the international world, and I wish we could rid ourselves and the world of nuclear arms. That said, it doesn’t seem likely that that will happen any time soon, and I am currently inclined to think that I’d rather have UC managing the nation’s labs than another less qualified university, or even worse a private company, where notions of academic skepticism, peer reviewed research, and openness to the public are nowhere near as strong as in the university setting.

    That said, I do not think UC should compete for the labs no matter the circumstances. Our involvement with them has always been considered something we do as a public service and participating in a competition for their management would frame our relationship with the federal government in a different light, one that does not sit well with me.”

    I disagree with Murray on one simple point though – UC is not better than a defense contractor. As an institution that provides weapons developers with the smokescreen of academic integrity and the cheap labor of thousands of students, UC is a defense contractor. I understand where Murray is coming from in his statement about the abolition of nuclear weapons seeming far off; still, I find hope in his belief that UC should not bid to continue managing the development of nuclear weapons and that a nuclear weapons-free world is our ultimate goal.

    #5 Historical Momentum

    I have heard UC spokesman cite the reasoning of historical momentum to explain the UC-DoE contract. They are saying that because UC was there in the beginning, UC will always be there. This is by far the pro-lab supporters’ weakest argument, basically saying that people and institutions can’t change. Here is one example of an individual who changed his mind. His name is Joachim Piprek. He is a professor in UCSB’s Computer Engineering Department. This excerpt is from a letter dated March 20, 2003.

    “History has reached a turning point. The Bush administration has started an unprovoked and illegal war – against international law, against the outspoken will of the world community, and against the will of about half the American people, who openly opposed a war without UN mandate.

    Germany has started two terrible world wars which killed over 60 million people. Despite the fact that I was born ten years after the last one ended, I was never proud of being a German. My family lives in Dresden, a city that was almost completely destroyed in one night of allied bombing in 1945. More than 40,000 civilians were burned alive that night. I grew up with pictures of war and I was hoping that humankind will learn from history and that this will never happen again to anybody. War always kills innocent people, on both sides. Today, the memory of war is still alive in Europe and the vast majority of Europeans oppose this new war, no matter what their government says. As a German who came to the US ten years ago to live his dreams, I feel a strong moral obligation to stand up for peace, here and now.

    As many researchers in the US, I am involved in military research projects which pay for part of my current salary. These projects are financed by the Pentagon to ensure the superiority of US military technology. We now see very clearly that this technology will not be used to maintain peace but to wage unjustified and aggressive wars. I can no longer participate in such research in good conscience.

    I therefore declare that I will immediately stop my contributions to research reported to the Pentagon…I know that this decision will hurt my career, however, this is a small price to pay compared to the many lives of Iraqi citizens (50% children under 15) and US soldiers (100,000 body bags have been shipped by the Pentagon) as well as the lives of US citizens who will be killed in future terror attacks. All these lives and billions of our tax dollars are intentionally sacrificed by the Bush administration in order to gain access to Iraqi oil.

    Is this the American Dream?”

    CONCLUSION – THE URGENCY OF NOW

    As Nobel Laureate Joseph Rotblatt expressed last night, there have been significant changes and setbacks in nuclear weapons policy just within the last year. These setbacks involve efforts to resume nuclear testing and develop new low-yield tactical nuclear weapons, the stated intent to use nuclear weapons in an offensive capacity against named countries, and traditional nonproliferation language co-opted and used as justification to attack.

    In about 3 months, a new UC president, Richard Dynes, will begin his term. During Dynes term, UC will decide whether or not to compete to continue managing the Los Alamos National Laboratory. If UC chooses not to compete, they can send a clear message to the world that nuclear weapons development does not belong in a university setting. Living in California, I feel compelled to work on this UC-DoE issue. There may be a similar opportunity for you where you live. Let’s work together on this and honor the decades-long stand for peace by Pugwash!

  • Unusual Course Suggests: Give Peace a Chance

    A Santa Paula school offers lessons on alternatives to violence, and teaches about historic activists such as Gandhi and King.

    Marisol Candalario learned plenty about the Revolutionary War, Civil War, World War I, World War II, Vietnam War and other military conflicts.

    But in her time as a public school student, the 18-year-old learned little about the nonviolent movements that also helped shape world history.

    She had never heard of Mohandas K. Gandhi. She didn’t know that the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was an outspoken critic of the Vietnam War, or that a group of conscientious objectors subjected themselves, among other things, to medical experiments rather than fight.

    Addressing that educational imbalance is the purpose of a popular course at Renaissance High School in Santa Paula. In the class, “Solutions to Violence,” Candalario studied Gandhi and King and other peace leaders. But she also learned how to apply principles of nonviolence in her own life.

    “Before, I would confront people a lot,” Candalario said. “Now, I know that you don’t have to fight. You can just ignore them; who cares what they think?”

    Taught by Leah Wells, a peace activist and education coordinator for the Santa Barbara-based Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, the class is funded through a federal grant from the 21st Century Community Learning Center.

    Renaissance, Santa Paula’s continuation high school, serves students who fell behind or had behavioral problems at the town’s mainstream campus.

    The semester-long elective class, which meets twice a week, has resulted in “a big difference in the students,” said former Principal Fernando Rivera, who recently moved to another assignment in Santa Paula.

    “They seem to have a different perspective on things, and we have had fewer fights on campus.”

    That is the driving idea behind peace education, which is taught in a smattering of public high schools and about 70 universities nationwide.

    The movement is “in its infancy,” said Colman McCarthy, founder of the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Teaching Peace, and is not without controversy.

    McCarthy, who trained Wells, said peace educators often are the target of attacks from “right-wingers saying you are a commie pinko,” or from other faculty members who “think you’re in there propagandizing the kids.”

    “Some see it as ideology, as though the study of peace is promoted only by the left,” said McCarthy, a former Washington Post columnist who teaches the same course — as a volunteer — at high schools and juvenile detention centers in Washington, D.C.

    But he insists: “Peace education is not the left wing nor the right wing; it’s the whole bird.” It’s about finding solutions to all types of violence, McCarthy said, including domestic, environmental, military, economic, and violence toward animals.

    McCarthy wrote the curriculum and two textbooks used by Wells and others around the country.

    Wells, 26, is an activist who visited Iraq three times in the last two years in an effort to raise awareness about the damage United Nations sanctions were doing to the country. Her most recent trip was in February, weeks before U.S. and British forces invaded Iraq.

    Her students knew what she had done, and it was no secret that she opposed the war.

    But several students strongly supported the invasion, creating fodder for lively class debates. Wells said she never used the class as a personal soapbox, and students said they never thought she was preaching.

    “I can’t spout my beliefs,” Wells said. “If I did that, I’d be just as bad as anyone spouting their beliefs. I’m empowering them to be critical thinkers.”

    Still, many school boards shy away from such peace classes.

    “It is a controversial topic for school districts,” said Charles Weis, Ventura County superintendent of schools. “With pressure for more accountability in reading, math, science and history, few have time to divert their energy to something controversial.”

    Despite Ventura County’s generally conservative leanings, Weis said he has not heard complaints about Wells’ class. That is because she is “careful about not crossing the line” into proselytizing, he said.

    In Santa Paula, a working-class town that has suffered from gang violence, most students, teachers and parents welcome the attention to nonviolence.

    The curriculum — which includes readings, videos and essay writing — gets rave reviews, as does Wells’ easy, inclusive teaching style. Many students say the course will stand out as their favorite in their school careers.

    One day in class, Wells sat on a desk in front of about 15 students. Holding a stuffed ball made to look like a globe, she tossed it back and forth to reluctant students, urging them to share their views.

    It was near the end of the war in Iraq, and Wells led a discussion about letters that had been sent by teenagers at an all-girls school in Baghdad to the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. Some included drawings that included butterflies and doves as well as American characters saying, “We want oil.”

    “What did you think?” she asked, lobbing the globe toward 18-year-old Luis Manzo.

    “It was neat to hear their perspectives,” Manzo said. He wrote a letter to one of the girls, he said, “to let them know we don’t hate them — just the government does.”

    Added Katie La France, 18: “We want them to know we’re kids, just like them.”

    Students talked about the difference between “hot violence” and “cold violence,” and “good trouble” and “bad trouble” — all part of Wells’ curriculum.

    An example of hot violence would be a fistfight; poverty is a form of cold violence, students explained. An example of bad trouble would be stealing, they said, while you could get in “good trouble” by turning in a friend who was using drugs.

    Student Michael Llamas, 18, said the class changed his perspective on the world, and got him thinking about things that otherwise never would have crossed his mind.

    “People aren’t familiar with peace, but they are familiar with violence,” Llamas said.

  • Nuclear Age Peace Foundation Statement: The Challenge of Nuclear Weapons in the Twenty-First Century: A Path Forward

    The peoples and governments of the world face an urgent challenge relating to weaponry of mass destruction and particularly to nuclear weaponry.

    At the crossroads of technology, terrorism, geopolitical ambition, and policies of preemption are new and potent dangers for humanity. Despite ending the nuclear standoff of the Cold War era, nuclear weaponry is again menacing the peoples of the world with catastrophic possibilities.

    We recognize the need for any government to pursue its security interests in accordance with international law; and further, we recognize that distinctive threats to these interests now exist as a result of an active international terrorist network having declared war on the United States and its allies. Nonetheless, we reject the assessment of the current US administration that upgrading a reliance on nuclear weapons is in any sense justified as a response. We find it unacceptable to assign any security role to nuclear weapons. More specifically, nuclear weapons are totally irrelevant and ineffective in relation to the struggle against terrorism.

    Nuclear weapons, combined with policies that lower barriers to their use, pose unprecedented dangers of massive destruction, recalling to us the horrors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Any major use of such weapons could doom humanity’s future and risk the extinction of most life on the planet.

    The international regime preventing proliferation of nuclear weapons has badly eroded in recent years, and is in danger of unraveling altogether. This is due in large part to the refusal of the nuclear weapons states to fulfill their long-standing obligations set forth in Article VI of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to pursue nuclear disarmament in good faith. Other states, taking note of this underlying refusal to renounce these weapons over a period of more than five decades, have seen growing benefits for themselves in acquiring nuclear weapons.

    Back in 1998, India and Pakistan, responding at least in part to the failure of the declared nuclear weapons states to achieve nuclear disarmament, decided to cross the nuclear weapons threshold. These two countries, both having always remained outside the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, have a long history of conflict and war with each other. They are a flashpoint for potential nuclear war in South Asia.

    Another flashpoint is Israel’s undeclared, yet well-established, nuclear weapons arsenal, which introduces the risk that nuclear weapons will be used in some future crisis in the Middle East. Israel’s nuclear arsenal and the implicit threat of its use has encouraged other Middle Eastern countries to seek or acquire weapons of mass destruction, including the establishment of nuclear weapons programs.

    A third flashpoint exists on the Korean Peninsula in Northeast Asia, where North Korea has withdrawn from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and other agreements restricting its nuclear program. The North Korean government has announced that it will expand its nuclear weapons program unless the US agrees to negotiations to establish a mutual security pact.

    US government policies are moving dangerously in the direction of making nuclear weapons an integral component of its normal force structure, and terrorists are becoming increasingly unscrupulous in challenging the established order. Terrorist organizations have been boldly seeking access to weaponry of mass destruction. Beyond this, the recent Iraq War, supposedly undertaken to remove a threat posed by Iraqi possession of these weapons, seems to have sent the ironic message to North Korea and others that the most effective way to deter the United States is by proceeding covertly and with urgency to develop a national arsenal of nuclear weapons.

    US official policies to develop smaller and more usable nuclear weapons, to research a nuclear earth-penetrating weapon for use as a “bunker buster,” and to lessen the timeframe for returning to underground nuclear testing, along with the doctrine and practice of preemptive war, have dramatically increased the prospect of future nuclear wars. The nuclear policies and actions of the US government have proved to be clearly provocative to countries that have been named by the US president as members of “the axis of evil” or that have been otherwise designated by the present US administration to constitute potential threats to the United States. Several of these countries now seem strongly inclined to go all out to acquire a deterrent in the face of American intimidation and threats.

    There is no circumstance, even retaliation, in which the use of nuclear weapons would be prudent, moral or legal under international law. The only morally, legally and politically acceptable policy with regard to nuclear weapons is to move rapidly to achieve their universal and total elimination, as called for by the world’s leading religious figures, the International Court of Justice in its 1996 opinion, and many other governments and respected representatives of civil society. Achieving such goals would also dramatically reduce the possibilities of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorist organizations.

    Given the existence of treaty regimes that already ban chemical and biological weapons, the outlawing and disarmament of nuclear weapons would complete the commitment of the governments and peoples of the world to the prohibition and elimination of all weaponry of mass destruction. Such a prohibition, and accompanying regimes of verification and enforcement, could lead over time to a greater confidence by world leaders in the rule of law, as well as encourage an increased reliance on non-violent means of resolving conflicts and satisfying grievances.

    It is the US insistence on retaining a nuclear weapons option that sets the tone for the world as a whole, reinforcing the unwillingness of other nuclear weapons states to push for nuclear disarmament and inducing threatened or ambitious states to take whatever steps are necessary, even at the risk of confrontation and war with the United States, to develop their own stockpile of nuclear weaponry. In this post-September 11th climate, the United States has suddenly become for other governments a country to be deterred rather than, as in the Cold War, a country practicing deterrence to discourage aggression by others.

    For these reasons, we call upon the United States government to:

    • Abandon its dangerous and provocative nuclear policies, in particular, researching, developing and making plans to shorten the time needed to resume testing of new and more usable nuclear weapons;

    • Take its nuclear arsenal off the high alert status of the Cold War;

    • Meet its disarmament obligations under Article VI of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Treaty’s Review Conferences, including making arms reduction agreements irreversible;

    • Renounce first use of or threat to use nuclear weapons under all circumstances;

    • Enter into negotiations with North Korea on a mutual security pact; and

    • Assert global leadership toward convening at the earliest possible date a Nuclear Disarmament Conference in order to move rapidly toward the creation and bringing into force of a verifiable Nuclear Weapons Convention to eliminate all nuclear weapons and control all nuclear materials capable of being converted to weapons.

    We also call on other nuclear weapons states to accept their responsibilities to work toward a world without weapons of mass destruction as a matter of highest priority.

    These steps leading to the negotiation and ratification of a treaty to eliminate nuclear weapons should then be coordinated with existing arrangements of prohibition associated with biological and chemical weapons to establish an overall regime dedicated to the elimination of all weaponry of mass destruction. It would be beneficial at that stage to also create an international institution with responsibility for safeguarding the world against such diabolical weaponry, including additional concerns associated with frontier technologies, such as space weaponization and surveillance technology, radiological weapons, cyber warfare, advanced robotics, genetic engineering and nanotechnology.

    Finally, we recommend that an international commission of experts and moral authority figures be appointed by the Secretary General of the United Nations to issue a report on existing and emerging weaponry of mass destruction and to propose international arrangements and policy recommendations that would enhance the prospects for global peace and security in the years ahead and, above all, the avoidance of any use of weapons of mass destruction.

    Humanity stands at a critical crossroads, and the future depends upon our actions now.

  • The Big Lie

    The Big Lie

    Bush administration officials, including the president, repeatedly told the American people that war against Iraq was necessary because Saddam Hussein was lying about not having weapons of mass destruction. We were told that Saddam Hussein not only had weapons of mass destruction, but that they were an imminent threat to the United States. We were told that our government knew where those weapons of mass destruction were located. Now, after yet another brutal war in which thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians and numerous young soldiers on both sides were killed, maimed and traumatized, the Bush Administration can produce no evidence that Saddam Hussein had the weapons of mass destruction.

    Prior to the war, the Bush administration offered detailed descriptions of Iraq’s weapons programs, including the claims famously made by Colin Powell before the UN Security Council. Bush administration claims included assertions that Iraq had a program for enriching uranium, that it had weaponized thousands of liters of biological weapons, including anthrax and botulism, and that Iraq could launch these weapons on very short notice.

    Prior to the war, when Saddam Hussein opened his palaces to UN inspectors, destroyed missiles with ranges barely longer than UN restrictions and allowed the US to send U-2 spy planes over Iraq, the Bush Administration said it was too little, too late.

    Prior to the war, when the Chief UN Weapons Inspector, Hans Blix, said that the inspectors were receiving increased cooperation from the Iraqis and pleaded for more time to continue their work, George Bush said he was growing impatient.

    Prior to the war, when members of the Security Council of the United Nations said they were not ready to support the use of force against Iraq, George Bush demonstrated his disdain for international law and the Security Council of the United Nations by launching a preventive war against Iraq.

    The failure to find weapons of mass destruction after the war is causing widespread skepticism throughout the world about the justification for going to war. It has become a major political scandal in the UK, where prior to the war Tony Blair echoed the Bush administration’s claims of Iraq possessing weapons of mass destruction.

    In the UK, Robin Cook, who resigned in protest from Tony Blair’s cabinet over the war in Iraq, has written: “Britain was conned into a war to disarm a phantom threat in which not even our major ally really believed. The truth is that the US chose to attack Iraq not because it posed a threat, but because they knew it was weak and expected its military to collapse. It is a truth that leaves the British government in an uncomfortable position.”

    It is a truth that also leaves the American people in an uncomfortable position. It would seem that we were also “conned into a war” by Mr. Bush and his administration.

    In a war that was sold to the American people and the Congress on the basis of misrepresentations by the Bush administration, more than 170 American soldiers were killed, more than 5,000 innocent civilians lost their lives, and thousands of Iraqi soldiers were slaughtered.

    In the aftermath of the war, US soldiers continue to be targets of Iraqi dissatisfaction. Eleven US soldiers were killed in the past week. Iraq remains a dangerous place, but not because of weapons of mass destruction.

    When the US and British forces invaded Iraq, one might have expected Saddam Hussein to use weapons of mass destruction if he had them. Rather, the Bush administration would have us believe that Saddam Hussein, while preparing for the US invasion or during the US attack, was busy destroying his weapons of mass destruction or moving them into another country.

    Rather than show any contrition for leading the American people into war under false pretenses, President Bush has claimed that weapons of mass destruction have been found. He makes this claim on the basis of the discovery of two mobile laboratories, argued by some to be meant for making biological weapons, but which contain no evidence, according to the CIA, that weapons were actually made.

    Far more honest is Lt. General James Conway, the commander of the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force, who stated to reporters, “It was a surprise to me then, it remains a surprise to me now, that we have not uncovered weapons, as you say, in some of the forward dispersal areas. Believe me, it’s not for lack of trying. We’ve been to virtually every ammunition supply point between the Kuwaiti border and Baghdad, but they’re simply not there.”

    Also more honest, but unapologetic, is Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, who said in an interview after the war with Vanity Fair, “The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason….”

    The US Congress owes the American people a thorough investigation of the “credibility gap” between the Bush administration’s claims regarding Iraqi weapons of mass destruction as a pretext for war and the failure to locate these weapons in the aftermath of the war. These claims cannot be dismissed, as some members of Congress would do, as simple exaggerations. They appear to be serious misrepresentations to the American people and the people of the world.

    The Bush administration has much to account for regarding its highly publicized claims prior to the war that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. While it is appropriate to acknowledge the tyrannical nature of Saddam Hussein’s regime, concern for the human rights of the Iraqi people was not the justification of the Bush administration for initiating a preventive war. Their justification, stated repeatedly, was the imminent threat of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, and it was on this basis that the Bush administration defied international law and the Security Council of the United Nations.

    The buck stops with Mr. Bush. Lying about the reasons for war and misleading the American people into supporting a war has the look and feel of “high crimes and misdemeanors,” for which the Constitution provides impeachment as the remedy.
    *David Krieger is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org). He is the editor of Hope in a Dark Time, Reflections on Humanity’s Future (Capra Press, 2003).
    Readers Comments

    If you’d like to send us your comments please e-mail us at: letters@napf.org
    (Please include the name of the article in the subject line)

    I have been waiting for some time for Georgie to plant weapons to be brilliantly discovered by crack teams of weapons discoverers who are paid large salaries to discover planted weapons…like a pathetic sitcom…which they all are….Here is a statistic I will share, that I learned while being interrupted from this email…amongst other human statistics…a women just told me, autism is of epidemic proportions is the states…I wonder if this is due to such a peaceful, humane, friendly environment we grown up in…where everyone loves everyone…there is no ruthless competition, everyone is honest and says nice things to hear….teenage suicide is on the increase again…teenage pregnancies, sexually transmitted disorders among teenagers…..

    -Joseph, Maine, USA
    I agree. I truly believe that we should all focus on Ramsey Clark’s VoteToImpeach.org

    No one seems to be talking about this anymore. But impeachment really is the only solution to saving our planet. THe onslaught of daily attacks on the fabric of our society is overwhelming. If we unite we can impeach this Administration. It’s our only chance.

    – Bob, USA
    I suspect that the Bush administration, which says the WMD “WILL BE FOUND” is going to plant them. How about an article that tells people that ANY WMD found WITHOUT THE PRESENCE OF UN INSPECTORS will not be considered a valid find? The US will do anything to protect itself, planting a few fake weapons is easy, getting a few Iraqi’s to lie about it is easy, fooling everybody is easy. So actually for you to make such a big deal out of whether we find WMD could be playing right into Bush’s hand, and instead of turning up the heat you set the stage for yet another bogus offering by this corrupt administration. I would love to see an article preparing people for the ‘discovery’ of PLANTED WMD and telling the world to accept NO CLAIMS OF WMD that are not witnessed by the UN IMMEDIATELY WITH NO TAMPERING by anybody.

    – Mike, USA

  • Nuclear Mirage

    Even as it strives to keep nuclear weapons from proliferating around the world, the Bush administration is moving toward research on a new generation of less powerful nuclear warheads. That effort, recently endorsed by Congress, unwisely overturns a decade of restraint intended to discourage development of a new nuclear arms race.

    The new weapons are portrayed as a way to meet emerging threats that the existing nuclear arsenal, aimed at obliterating the Soviet Union in an all-out war, was not designed for. Some would be relatively small, low-yield weapons that could be used against a variety of targets, ranging from mobile targets to underground bunkers. Others would be even larger bunker-buster warheads.

    The trouble is that the smaller weapons might be tempting to use in situations where no one would dream of dropping a more massively destructive nuclear bomb. That could speed the end of the “nuclear taboo” that has kept the world free of nuclear warfare since World War II.

    For the past decade, design and development of the smaller weapons, with a yield below five kilotons, has been banned in this country by law. The goal was to keep from blurring the distinction between nuclear and conventional weapons by lessening the difference in their destructive power. This year the Bush administration asked that the ban be lifted, and both the Senate and House passed bills authorizing research to proceed while requiring further Congressional approval before moving to development or production.

    Nuclear proponents argue that rogue nations are burying command centers and facilities to make nuclear, biological and chemical weapons underground, often in hardened structures that are difficult to destroy. But even a small nuclear weapon detonated below ground would spew out a mass of radioactive material. Moreover, any president would need to have extraordinary confidence in intelligence assessments about underground facilities before ordering a nuclear strike. Given the difficulty in finding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, such confidence may be hard to come by.

    Instead of creating a new generation of nuclear warheads, Washington should concentrate on improving its precision-guided bombs and missiles that carry conventional warheads. Administration officials insist that they are only doing research and are not committed to developing new weapons, but this project could well become the opening wedge for a full-fledged production program. Congressional opponents of a nuclear arms race should make sure that this effort stops at the research stage.

  • Teaching Youth To Start Worrying About The Bomb

    HIROSHIMA, Japan — After 18 years of almost daily lectures about surviving the atomic bomb dropped here on Aug. 6, 1945, Setsuko Iwamoto’s stories to classrooms full of students have a finely limned quality about them, as smooth as pebbles in a creek.

    There is no straining for melodrama as the 71-year-old woman recounts how her skin seemed to melt and pour off her arms after the flash, or how whatever scraps of cloth that could be found were used by people to protect themselves from the black rain that fell afterward.

    Stories of survival do not get much more compelling. But Ms. Iwamoto worries now, with Japan inching toward rearmament, that the spirit of Hiroshima and the moral power of her story are fading.

    Each year, she said, the stares of the students she faces from the podium grow blanker, just as their questions about the atomic bombing grow more stilted, appearing rehearsed rather than heartfelt.

    “Just a few years ago, most schoolteachers had direct memories of the war,” said Ms. Iwamoto, who said she was found to have cancer last year but appeared hale. “That’s not the case at all anymore, though, and I wonder once this kind of lecture ends, how effectively the experience of war is taught.

    “In my day we had trouble just surviving every day, whereas these days everyone in Japan is comfortable,” Ms. Iwamoto added. “Children learn about war through manga [comic books] and think it is kind of cool. They have no particular sensation of Japan’s defeat.”

    The profound shock of the Hiroshima bombing, and that of Nagasaki three days later, is widely credited not only with ending World War II, but with creating a strong emotional underpinning to Japan’s official creed of nonviolence, consecrated in an American-drafted Constitution that faces increasingly strident calls for revision.

    Fears about Japan becoming increasingly blasé about remembering the atomic bombings, though, are not limited to the survivors, or hibakusha, as they are known here.

    Hiroshima’s entire image and economy are linked to the horrendous final days of World War II, and city officials say visits by Japanese travelers are locked in a serious, long-term decline, broken only by a modest spike since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in the United States.

    Commissions have been formed to reverse the trend. A museum on the grounds of the Peace Park, near ground zero, has been expanded and modernized. In the hope of popularizing visits here, even a manga has been created — to celebrate the memory of Sadako Sasaki, a 12-year-old who died of blood cancer years after the bombing.

    “We are faced with the challenge of conveying this experience to the next generations,” said Noriyuki Masuda, associate director of the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Association. “At some point we realized that what we had was a crisis involving young people’s consciousness. We have been facing a change in attitudes and a decline of interest in Japan as a nation.”

    When Ms. Iwamoto completed her one-hour presentation to a lecture hall full of sixth graders who had come to Hiroshima on a field trip, five minutes were left for what was billed as a question and answer session.

    In lieu of a question, a young girl who appeared to have been chosen for her excellence in study walked nervously to the microphone and read a brief speech in the name of her class. “Why must there be war?” she said flatly, ending her comments with a wish for the lecturer’s good health.

    Asked if visits at a slightly older age might favor deeper thought, not to mention real questions, the girl’s teacher, Keiko Tokunaga, demurred. “This is the age when children are just beginning to think about the world,” she said, “and I think that it is the best time to introduce ideas like this. But this is just a start.”

    Out on the grand plaza of the Peace Park, where the famous atomic bomb dome sits, just a stone’s throw across the Motoyasu River, one has trouble imagining that visits to the Hiroshima memorial grounds are in decline.

    Over the course of a fine spring day, one group after another of uniformed students troops from the museum to the dome, typically laying wreaths and garlands of origami cranes by a statue of Miss Sasaki, the renowned 12-year-old bomb victim.

    Foreign visitors, whose numbers have increased as those of Japanese have declined, are also constantly in evidence. This day, a group of volunteer greeters were excitedly awaiting the arrival of a group from Senegal, including the country’s ambassador.

    At the approach of an American journalist, a group of ninth graders from Tokyo was unfailingly polite, and even excited to be answering questions about their trip here. None had discussed the bombing, or Japan’s long-fixed identity as a nation of peace, with their parents before coming.

    Nor did they have many ideas of how the war began or why it ended amid mushroom clouds and hundreds of thousands of instant casualties. “This was kind of an experiment, because it was the first atomic bombing,” said Eiichiro Hiraka, a 14-year-old with a dream of becoming a professional baseball player. “Hiroshima was the perfect size for that.”

    A classmate, Kaoru Iwasaki, said she had studied World War II the year before but did not remember much. “I’m sorry, but I can’t tell you why the war started,” she said. Asked the same question, her friend Chisato Kajitani declared that she was not very interested in the subject. “I’ve never really thought about that question before,” she said.

  • International Action Against ‘Dirty’ Weapons: Huge Public Support for the Second International Day of Action Against Depleted Uranium

    For immediate release:

    This Thursday 29th May the Second International Day of Action Against Depleted Uranium is taking place. The scale of the event promises to be many times larger than previously seen as public outrage over the recent use of depleted uranium (DU) weapons in Iraq by Britain and America grows. Groups all over the world have pledged to take part and will be involved in protesting against military, government and commercial targets involved in the production and use of depleted uranium weapons and public awareness raising in their local communities.

    Countries that will be seeing protests on the 29th May include so far; Yugoslavia, Greece, the USA, Ireland, Germany, Finland and Britain. Organizers of the many protests range from groups such as Nuke Resister in the States who have a long history of working against DU weapons to individuals who have just found out about the use of these weapons after the recent attack on Iraq and feel compelled to take a stand. Fittingly Britain and the US will see the highest levels of protests with at least 15 events planned across Britain and 10 across the States, including Washington DC and New York. Anger at the issue in Britain is especially strong in Scotland where DU weapons are tested.

    Anna Bell from the Campaign Against Depleted Uranium (CADU), who have been working to support those taking part in the day, said “We have been completely taken by surprise at how many groups have wanted to take part in the Day of Action. People who have not been involved in campaigning before have come to us and have said they couldn’t believe their governments were capable of such hypocrisy and irresponsible behavior. Iraq was the first time many people had heard of the weapons and their effects. With the international trade in these weapons and the contamination they cause respecting no borders an International Day of Action is the most effective way of saying DU weapons are completely unacceptable to the world community.”

    DU weapons are both chemically toxic and radioactive and can cause long term damage to human health and the environment. They are have been labeled a weapon of indiscriminate effect by the UN Subcommission for Human Rights.

    For more information please contact:

    The Campaign Against Depleted Uranium
    Fax or telephone: 0161 273 8293
    http://www.cadu.org.uk
    info@cadu.org.uk