Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Category: US Nuclear Weapons Policy

Overcoming Nuclear Crises

This article was originally published in The Hill under the title “Averting the Ticking Time Bomb of Nukes in North Korea” on May 30, 2017.

Alarmingly, tensions between the United States and North Korea have again reached crisis proportions. The United States wants North Korea to curtail any further development of its nuclear weapons program, as well as to stop testing its missiles. North Korea evidently seeks to bolster its security by acquiring a sufficiently robust deterrent capability to discourage an attack by the United States. The unpredictable leaders of both countries are pursuing extremely provocative and destabilizing patterns of behavior. Where such dangerous interactions lead no one can now foresee. The risk of this tense situation spiraling out of control should not be minimized.

It is urgent that all governments concerned make a sober reassessment in a timely manner. The following questions need to be addressed: What can be done to defuse this escalating crisis? What should be done to prevent further crises in the future? What could be learned from recurrent crises involving nuclear weapons states?

It is discouraging that the White House continues to rely mainly on threat diplomacy. It has not worked in responding to North Korea’s nuclear ambitions for the past few decades, and it is crucial to try a different approach. Currently, there are mixed signals that such a shift may be underway. President Trump has turned to China, imploring that it use its leverage to induce Kim Jong Un to back down, and has even mentioned the possibility of inviting Kim for crisis-resolving talks. Also relevant and hopeful is the election of Moon Jae-in as the new president of South Korea, and his insistent calls for improved relations with the North.

In the end, no reasonable person would opt for another war on the Korean Peninsula. The only rational alternative is diplomacy. But what kind of diplomacy? American reliance on threat and punitive diplomacy has never succeeded in the past and is almost certain to fail now. We assuredly need diplomacy, but of a different character.

It is time to abandon coercive diplomacy and develop an approach that can be described as restorative diplomacy. Coercive diplomacy relies on a zero/sum calculus consisting of military threats, sanctions, and a variety of punitive measures. Restorative diplomacy adopts a win/win approach that seeks to find mutual benefits for both sides, restructuring the relationship so as to provide security for the weaker side and stability for the stronger side. The challenge to the political imagination is to find the formula for translating this abstract goal into viable policy options.

The basic shift is a mental recognition that in the context of the Korean Peninsula any military encounter, whether nuclear or non-nuclear, is a recipe for catastrophe. It is not a win or lose situation. It is lose/lose in terms of human suffering, devastation, and likely political outcome. If nuclear weapons are used by either or both sides, millions of casualties could occur in an unprecedented disaster.

While there have been suggestions from the Trump administration that the time for talk with North Korea is over, actually the opposite is true. A solution to the present Korean crisis would involve an immediate return to the negotiating table with positive inducements made by the U.S. in exchange for North Korea halting its development of nuclear weapons and missile testing.

Such incentives could include, first and foremost, bilateral and regional security guarantees to the North Korean government, ensuring that the country would not be attacked and that its sovereignty would be respected. This could be coupled with confidence-building measures. The U.S. and South Korea should halt their joint annual military exercises in the vicinity of North Korea, as well as forego provocative weapons deployments. In addition, the U.S. and possibly Japan could offer North Korea additional benefits: food, medicine and clean energy technology. China could play a positive role by hosting the negotiations, including possibly inviting the new leader of South Korea to participate.

Beyond resolving the current crisis is the deeper challenge to prevent recurrent crises that pit nuclear weapon states against one another. There is no way to achieve this result so long as some countries retain, develop, and deploy nuclear weapons, and other countries are prohibited from acquiring such weaponry even if their security is under threat. Iraq and Libya arguably suffered the consequences of not having nuclear weapons to deter attacks against them.

The only way out of this trap is to recognize that the nuclear nonproliferation regime has failed. The treaty provisions calling for nuclear as well as general and complete disarmament negotiations have been neglected for nearly half a century. Outside the terms of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the United States has acted as an enforcer of a nuclear nonproliferation regime. Such a role motivated the U.S. attack on Iraq in 2003 with its disastrous impacts on the country and the entire Middle East. It also underlies the current crisis pitting Washington’s demands against Pyongyang’s provocations. Hard power approaches to such dangerous developments have a dismal record and pose unacceptable risks of regional and global havoc.

To prohibit and eliminate nuclear weapons epitomizes prudence in the Nuclear Age. It is the only way to prevent a crisis between nuclear-armed opponents turning into a nuclear catastrophe. Such behavior would constitute an act of sanity for humanity and its future given the extreme dangers of nuclear weapons, the periodic crises that erupt among nuclear-armed countries, and the growing odds of nuclear weapons being used at some point. Yet for smaller, weaker nuclear weapons states to go along with this approach, the United Nations Charter and international law must be respected to the point that regime-changing geopolitical interventions by dominant states are convincingly rejected as a reasonable policy option.

Any use of nuclear weapons would be catastrophic. Depending upon the extent of the nuclear exchange, cities, countries, civilization, and even all complex life, including the human species, would be at risk. Experts anticipate that a nuclear war between India and Pakistan in which 100 Hiroshima-size nuclear weapons were used against cities would likely cause a nuclear famine taking two billion lives globally. An all-out nuclear war could be an extinction event for complex life, including humanity.

Nine countries currently possess nuclear weapons (United States, Russia, United Kingdom, France, China, Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea). Nine leaders could initiate nuclear war by mistake, miscalculation or malice. The future rests precariously in the hands of this small number of individuals. Such an unprecedented concentration of power and authority undermines democracy, as well as being extremely reckless and irresponsible.

It is essential to maintain our focus on the challenges posed by the development of North Korean nuclear capabilities. At the same time, while struggling to defuse this crisis endangering the Korean Peninsula, we should not lose sight of its connection with the questionable wider structure of reliance on nuclear weapons. Until this structure of nuclearism is itself overcome, crises will almost certainly continue to occur. It is foolhardy to suppose that nuclear catastrophes can be indefinitely averted without addressing these deeper challenges that have existed ever since the original atomic attack on Hiroshima.

Richard Falk is senior vice president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation and Albert G. Milbank Professor of International Law Emeritus, Princeton University. David Krieger is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

June 13, 2017
US Prepares to Confront Nuclear Ban Treaty with Smart Bombs

This article was originally published by In Depth News.

On May 23, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) issued a press release celebrating President Trump’s proposed 2018 budget. DOE specifically lauded the proposed “$10.2 billion for Weapons Activities to maintain and enhance the safety, security, and effectiveness of our nuclear weapons enterprise.”

Less than 24 hours earlier, Ambassador Elayne Whyte of Costa Rica released a draft of a treaty banning nuclear weapons. Ambassador Whyte is President of the United Nations Conference to negotiate a legally binding instrument to prohibit nuclear weapons, leading towards their total elimination. Over 130 nations have participated in the ban treaty negotiations thus far. A final treaty text is expected by early July.

The draft treaty would prohibit state parties from – among other things – developing, producing, manufacturing, possessing or stockpiling nuclear weapons. The United States has aggressively boycotted the treaty negotiations, and has actively sought to undermine the good faith efforts of the majority of the world’s nations to prohibit these indiscriminate and catastrophically destructive weapons.

No one is surprised at President Trump’s proposed funding for nuclear weapons activities; in fact, it is largely a continuation of the U.S. nuclear “modernization” program that began under President Obama. What is alarming, however, is the tacit admission by the Department of Energy that it is not simply maintaining current U.S. nuclear warheads until such time as they are eliminated. Rather, it is enhancing the “effectiveness” of nuclear weapons by incorporating new military capabilities into new weapons expected to be active through the final decades of the 21^st century.

The draft ban treaty makes clear “that the catastrophic consequences of nuclear weapons transcend national borders, pose grave implications for human survival, the environment, socioeconomic development, the global economy, food security and for the health of future generations.”

Whether or not the United States plans to join the majority of the world’s nations in a treaty banning nuclear weapons, its policies and programs must reflect the indisputable evidence of the catastrophic consequences of nuclear weapons use. There is simply no excuse for investing in new nuclear weapons instead of an all-out diplomatic push for true security in a world without nuclear weapons.

A Good Faith Obligation

Article VI of the Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) obligates all parties to negotiate in good faith for an end to the nuclear arms race at an early date. That treaty entered into force over 47 years ago.

The draft ban treaty repeats the unanimous 1996 declaration of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which said, “There exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control.”

Judge Christopher Weeramantry was Vice President of the ICJ when it issued its 1996 Advisory Opinion. In a paper that he wrote for the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation in 2013, he examined in detail the concept of good faith in the context of nuclear disarmament.

He wrote, “There is no half-way house in the duty of compliance with good faith in international law.” He continued, “Disrespect for and breach of good faith grows exponentially if, far from even partial compliance, there is total non-compliance with the obligations it imposes.”

The U.S. and numerous other nuclear-armed countries argue that they are in compliance with their obligations because the total number of nuclear weapons in their arsenals has decreased. Quantitative reductions are important, and the progress on this front has been significant over the past couple of decades. However, a nuclear arms race need not simply be quantitative. Rather, what we see now among many of the nuclear-armed nations is a qualitative nuclear arms race, with enhancements of weapons’ “effectiveness” being a key component.

This qualitative nuclear arms race is a blatant breach of the good faith obligation and, according to Judge Weeramantry’s interpretation, likely even constitutes bad faith.

A Ban Is Coming

Regardless of how much money the United States and other nuclear-armed nations commit to their nuclear arsenals, the vast majority of the world’s nations plan to conclude a treaty banning nuclear weapons in July.

Even though such a treaty will not immediately halt nuclear weapons development or diminish the threat that current nuclear weapon arsenals pose to all humanity, it is an important step in the right direction.

The NPT and customary international law require all nations – not just those that possess nuclear weapons – to negotiate for nuclear disarmament. The ban treaty is the first of many steps needed to fulfill this obligation, and will lay a solid foundation for future multilateral action.

Non-nuclear-armed countries must continue to enhance the effectiveness of their diplomatic arsenals to ensure the successful entry into force of a ban treaty and subsequent measures to finally achieve a world free of nuclear weapons.

Author’s note: Generally speaking, the U.S. Department of Energy is in charge of the design, production and maintenance of nuclear warheads and bombs, while the Department of Defense deals with the delivery systems (ICBMs, submarines, and bomber aircraft) and deployment in additional multi-billion dollar budget lines not addressed in this article. For more information on the Department of Energy’s nuclear “modernization” plans, see the Alliance for Nuclear Accountability’s new report “Accountability Audit.”

May 26, 2017
U.S. to Launch Another Provocative Minuteman III ICBM Test

For Immediate Release

Contact:
Rick Wayman: (805) 696-5159; rwayman@napf.org
Sandy Jones: (805) 965-3443; sjones@napf.org

U.S. to Launch Another Provocative Minuteman III ICBM Test

Vandenberg Air Force Base – Amidst mounting tensions between the United States and North Korea, and just one week after a test launch of a U.S. unarmed intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), the U.S. has scheduled another Minuteman III ICBM missile test for Wednesday, May 3, between 12:01 a.m. and 6:01 a.m. PDT from Vandenberg Air Force Base. Like last week’s test, according to Air Force Global Strike Command, “The purpose of the ICBM test launch program is to validate and verify the effectiveness, readiness, and accuracy of the weapon system.”

David Krieger, President of the Santa Barbara-based Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (NAPF), noted, “How does one test the effectiveness of a weapons system that is designed as a deterrent, that is, to prevent others from ever using nuclear weapons against us? Such effectiveness cannot be assumed from a missile test no matter how ready we are to fire the missile or how accurate the missile proves to be. In other words, so-called ‘effectiveness’ is a psychological concept that cannot be proven by a missile test. This is a very dangerous game we are playing.”

Rick Wayman, Director of Programs at NAPF, commented, “It is significant to note that this nuclear-capable missile test will take place on the second day of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty conference. This treaty requires all parties to negotiate in good faith for an end to the nuclear arms race.”

Wayman continued, “Conducting a test-launch of a missile whose sole purpose is to deliver nuclear warheads anywhere around the world is a glaring example of bad faith and violates the spirit of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. It’s exactly this kind of double standard that undermines U.S. credibility when insisting that other nations not develop nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles.”

North Korea test-fired a ballistic missile on April 29, the day after U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson convened a special session of the U.N. Security Council, calling for new economic sanctions on North Korea and other “painful” measures over its nuclear weapons program.

The Trump administration’s strategy of “maximum pressure and engagement” towards North Korea seems to rule out immediate military intervention, though U.S. officials have continued to say that “all options are on the table.”

Continued ballistic missile tests by both parties can only be perceived as provocative in nature and an escalation of an already dangerous situation. Surely our political and military leaders can and must do better.

An unarmed Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile launches during an operational test at 12:03 a.m., PDT, April 26, from Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif. (U.S. Air Force photo by Mark P. Mackey)

# # #

If you would like to interview David Krieger, President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation or Rick Wayman, Director of Programs, please call the Foundation at (805) 965-3443.

The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s mission is to educate and advocate for peace and a world free of nuclear weapons and to empower peace leaders. Founded in 1982, the Foundation is comprised of individuals and organizations worldwide who realize the imperative for peace in the Nuclear Age. The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation is a non-partisan, non-profit organization with consultative status to the United Nations. For more information, visit wagingpeace.org.

May 2, 2017
63rd Nuclear Victims Remembrance Day Keynote Remarks

Her Excellency Hilda C. Heine, Ed.D., President of the Republic of the Marshall Islands, delivered this speech on March 1, 2017 at the Marshall Islands’ Nuclear Victims Remembrance Day event.

March 1, 2017
Vandenberg to Launch Minuteman III Missile Test

For Immediate Release

Contact:
Rick Wayman
(805) 696-5159; rwayman@napf.org
Sandy Jones
(805) 965-3443; sjones@napf.org

Vandenberg to Launch Minuteman III Missile Test

Santa Barbara, CA – A Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) test is scheduled for launch between 11:39 p.m. Wednesday and 5:39 a.m. Thursday of this week, from Vandenberg AFB to Kwajalein Atoll in the Marshall Islands. While it won’t carry an armed nuclear warhead, the purpose of the United States’ 450 land-based ICBMs is to deliver powerful nuclear warheads to any target on Earth in under an hour.

The U.S. Air Force tested this Minuteman III Intercontinental Ballistic Missile on February 20, 2016. Photo | U.S. Department of Defense

The scheduled test comes just days after the Trump administration imposed new sanctions on Iran to punish them for their latest ballistic missile test. President Trump tweeted that “Iran has been formally PUT ON NOTICE.” Michael T. Flynn, Trump’s national security advisor, said, “The ritual of convening a United Nations Security Council in an emergency meeting and issuing a strong statement is not enough. The Trump administration will no longer tolerate Iran’s provocations that threaten our interests.”

USAF officials regularly boast of U.S. intercontinental ballistic missile tests as “messages we send to our allies who seek protection from aggression and to adversaries who threaten peace.” Clearly, this kind of double standard cannot be lost on the rest of the world.

David Krieger, President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, commented, “Test-firing these missiles while expressing criticism when other countries conduct missile tests is a clear double standard. Such hypocrisy encourages nuclear proliferation and nuclear arms races and makes the world a more dangerous place.”

William Perry, former defense secretary under President Bill Clinton, has stated unequivocally that his experiences have led him to believe the U.S. should remove ICBMs from its nuclear triad, which also includes strategic bombers and submarine-launched ballistic missiles.

With each missile test, the U.S. sends a clear and expensive message that it continues to be reliant on nuclear weapons. Each test costs tens of millions of dollars and contributes to the U.S. plans to spend $1 trillion modernizing its nuclear arsenal over the next thirty years.

# # #

If you would like to interview David Krieger, please call the Foundation at (805) 965-3443.

The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s mission is to educate and advocate for peace and a world free of nuclear weapons and to empower peace leaders. Founded in 1982, the Foundation is comprised of individuals and organizations worldwide who realize the imperative for peace in the Nuclear Age. The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation is a non-partisan, non-profit organization with consultative status to the United Nations. For more information, visit www.wagingpeace.org.

February 6, 2017
A Peace Agenda for the New Administration

The looming advent of the Trump administration in Washington threatens to worsen an already deeply troubling international situation. Bitter wars are raging, tens of millions of refugees have taken flight, relations among the great powers are deteriorating, and a new nuclear arms race is underway. Resources that could be used to fight unemployment, poverty, and climate change are being lavished on the military might of nations around the world―$1.7 trillion in 2015 alone. The United States accounts for 36 percent of that global total.

Given this grim reality, let us consider an alternative agenda for the new administration―an agenda for peace.

One key ingredient is improving U.S. relations with Russia and China. This is not an easy task, for these countries are governed by brutal regimes that seem to believe (much like many politicians in the United States) that a display of military force remains a useful way to deal with other nations. Even so, the U.S. government has managed to work out live-and-let-live relationships with their Soviet and Chinese predecessors―some of which were considerably more bellicose―and should be able to do so again. After all, the three countries have a good deal to gain by improving their relations. This includes not only avoiding a catastrophic nuclear war, but reducing their spending on useless, vastly expensive weapons systems and cooperating on issues in which they have a common interest: countering terrorism; halting the international drug trade; and battling climate change.

It is not hard to imagine compromise settlements of their recent conflicts. Behind the hard line Russia has taken in Ukraine, including the annexation of Crimea and military meddling in what’s left of that country, lies NATO’s expansion eastward to Russia’s borders. Why not show a willingness to halt that expansion in exchange for a Russian agreement to respect the sovereignty of Ukraine and other nations in Russia’s vicinity? Similarly, when dealing with the issue of war-torn Syria, why not abandon the U.S. government’s demand for the ouster of Assad and back a UN-negotiated peace settlement for that country? The U.S. government’s growing dispute with China over the future of islands in the South China Sea also seems soluble, perhaps within a regional security framework.

The three nations could avoid a very dangerous arms race and, at the same time, cut their military costs substantially by agreeing to reduce their military expenditures by a fixed percentage (for example, 10 percent) per year for a fixed period. This “peace race” would allow them to retain their current military balance and devote the savings to more useful items in their budgets.

A second key ingredient in a peace agenda is moving forward with nuclear arms control and disarmament. With over 15,000 nuclear weapons in the arsenals of nine nations, including 7,300 held by Russia and 7,100 by the United States, the world is living on the edge of nuclear annihilation.

Although the Kremlin does not seem interested right now in signing further nuclear disarmament agreements, progress could be made in other ways. The President could use his executive authority to halt the current $1 trillion nuclear “modernization” program, take U.S. nuclear weapons off alert, declare a “no first use” policy for U.S. nuclear weapons, and make significant reductions in the U.S. nuclear arsenal. An estimated 2,000 U.S. nuclear warheads are currently deployed and ready for action around the world, but the Joint Chiefs of Staff have concluded that only 1,000 are necessary. Why not cut back to that level?

The new administration could even engage in international negotiations for a treaty banning nuclear weapons. Peace and disarmament organizations have pushed for the opening of such treaty negotiations for years and, this October, the UN General Assembly rewarded their efforts by passing a resolution to begin negotiations in 2017. Why not participate in them?

A third key ingredient in a peace agenda is drawing upon the United Nations to handle international conflicts. The United Nations was founded in 1945 in the hope of ending the practice of powerful countries using their military might to bludgeon other countries into accepting what the powerful regarded as their national interests. National security was to be replaced by international security, thereby reducing aggression and military intervention by individual nations. Critics of the United Nations have argued that it is weak and ineffectual along these lines and, therefore, should be abandoned―except, perhaps, for its humanitarian programs. But, instead of abandoning the United Nations, how about strengthening it?

There are numerous ways to accomplish this. These include eliminating the veto in the Security Council, establishing a weighted voting system in the General Assembly, and giving General Assembly decisions the force of international law. Two other mechanisms, often discussed but not yet implemented, are creating an independent funding mechanism (such as an international financial transactions tax) for UN operations and establishing a permanent, all-volunteer UN rapid deployment force under UN jurisdiction that could act to prevent crimes against humanity.

Of course, at the moment, little, if any, of this peace agenda seems likely to become U.S. government policy. Donald Trump has promised a substantial increase in U.S. military spending, and his new administration will be heavily stocked with officials who take a hardline approach to world affairs.

Even so, when it comes to peace, the American public has sometimes been remarkably active―and effective. In January 1981, when the Reagan administration arrived in Washington, it championed an ultra-hawkish agenda, highlighted by a major nuclear weapons buildup and loose talk of waging and winning a nuclear war. Ultimately, though, an upsurge of popular opposition forced a complete turnabout in administration policy, with Reagan joining the march toward a nuclear-free world and an end to the Cold War. Change is always possible―if enough people demand it.

[Dr. Lawrence Wittner (http://www.lawrenceswittner.com) is Professor of History emeritus at SUNY/Albany and the author of Confronting the Bomb (Stanford University Press). A different version of this article appeared recently in the magazine Democratic Left.]

January 19, 2017
Donald Trump, the Bomb, and the Human Future

Donald Trump and the Bomb are nearly the same age. Which of them will prove to be more destructive remains to be seen, but in combination they are terrifying.

Trump was born on June 14, 1946, less than a year after the first and, thus far, only nuclear weapons were used in war. Given Trump’s surprising recent election as president of the United States, his fate and that of the Bomb are about to become seriously and dangerously intertwined with the fate of all humanity.

On January 20, 2017, Trump will be sworn in as the 45^th president of the United States, and he will be given the nuclear codes and the power to launch the U.S. nuclear arsenal, which is comprised of some 7,000 nuclear weapons. A military officer will always be close to Trump, carrying the nuclear codes in a briefcase known as the “football.” What does this portend for civilization and the future of humanity?

The Singular Positive

The most positive policy proposal Trump will bring to the table as president is his desire to improve and strengthen relations between the U.S. and Russia, which have deteriorated badly in recent years. This is one hopeful sign that could lead to renewed efforts by the two countries to reduce their nuclear arsenals and reverse current plans to modernize these arsenals.

The Numerous Negatives

Trump’s behavior during the presidential campaign was often erratic, seemingly based on discernable personality traits, including narcissism, arrogance, impulsiveness, and a lack of predictability. If these traits provide a fair characterization of Trump’s personality, what do they suggest for his control of the U.S. nuclear arsenal?

Trump’s narcissism seems to be reflected in his need to be liked and treated positively. During the primaries, if another candidate criticized him, Trump would respond with even stronger criticism toward his attacker. On the other hand, if someone praised Trump, he would respond with praise. This could result in creating a spiral in either a positive or negative direction. A negative spiral could potentially get out of hand, which would be alarming with regard to anyone with a hand hovering near the nuclear button.

His narcissism was also reflected in his need to be right. Even though Trump is reported to not read very much and to have a limited range of experience, he is often certain that he is right and boldly asserts the correctness of his positions. At one point, for example, he argued that he knew much more than military leaders about the pursuit and defeat of ISIS. His assuredness of his own correctness seems also rooted in arrogance reflecting his fundamental insecurity. This insecurity and his belief in his own rightness, when combined with his success at making money, leads him to be self-reliant in his decision-making, which could result in his taking risks with threatening or using nuclear weapons. He said on MSNBC’s Morning Joe program, “My primary consultant is myself.” While this may make consensus easy, the range of perspective is dangerously narrow.

Two other personality traits could also make more likely Trump’s use of nuclear weapons: his impulsiveness and his lack of predictability. Impulsiveness is not a trait one would choose for a person with the power to launch the U.S. nuclear arsenal. When it comes to deciding to use the Bomb, a personality that is calm, clear and measured would seem to inspire more confidence that caution would be employed. Predictability would also seem to inspire confidence that a President Trump would refrain from deciding to respond with overwhelming force when he is in a negative spiral and out of patience with a country or terrorist organization that is challenging the U.S., which he may interpret as mounting a challenge to himself personally.

Where Does Trump Stand?

On many issues, including on the use of nuclear weapons, it is not clear where Trump stands, due to his contradictory statements. Here is what Trump said in March 2016 at a town hall event when host Chris Matthews asked him if he might use nuclear weapons:

Trump: “I’d be the last one to use the nuclear weapons, because that’s sort of like the end of the ballgame.”

Matthews: “So, can you take it off the table now? Can you tell the Middle East we are not using the nuclear weapon on anybody?”

Trump: “I would never say that. I would never take any of my cards off the table.”

Matthews: “How about Europe? We won’t use it in Europe.”

Trump: “I’m not going to take it off the table for anybody.”

Matthews: “You might use it in Europe?”

Trump: “No. I don’t think so, but — I am not taking cards off the table. I’m not going to use nukes, but I’m not taking cards off the table.”

Trump has also said that he would do away with the Iran Deal negotiated by the U.S. and five of its allies with Iran, and yet he recently backed away from vowing to scrap the Iran Deal for now. He also said that he would encourage Japan and South Korea to develop their own nuclear arsenals to lower U.S. costs, and then has denied that he would encourage nuclear proliferation to allies (although he did say so). He supports the modernization of the U.S. nuclear arsenal, while complaining about budget expenditures. He presumably intends to go forward with the $1 trillion nuclear modernization plan.

Conclusion

Perhaps the singular positive of Trump’s desire to improve the deteriorating relations between the U.S. and Russia will lead to achieving progress toward a world free of nuclear weapons. A lot will depend on who Trump chooses for key cabinet positions, but even more will depend on his consultations with his key advisor (himself).

That so much power over the U.S. nuclear arsenal is placed in the hands of one man – any man – bodes ill for humanity, while completely undermining the war power granted to Congress in the U.S. constitution. That the man in question should be Donald Trump, with all his personal flaws, challenges the United States and the world as never before in human history.

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

Vaya aquí para la versión española.

November 16, 2016
Donald Trump, La Bomba y el Futuro Humano

Por David Krieger
Traducción de Rubén D. Arvizu

Donald Trump y la Bomba atómica tienen casi la misma edad. ¿Cuál de esto resultará ser más destructivo.? Es algo que queda por verse, pero la combinación es aterradora.

Trump nació el 14 de junio de 1946, menos de un año después del primer y, hasta ahora, único uso de armas nucleares en la guerra. Dada la sorprendente elección reciente de Trump como presidente de Estados Unidos, su destino y el de la bomba están a punto de entrelazarse peligrosamente con el destino de toda la humanidad.

El 20 de enero de 2017, Trump será juramentado como el 45.o presidente de los Estados Unidos, y le serán entregados los códigos nucleares y el poder de lanzar el arsenal de EEUU, que está compuesto de cerca de 7.000 armas nucleares. Un oficial militar siempre estará cerca de Trump, llevando los códigos nucleares en un maletín conocido como el “fútbol”. ¿Qué presagia esto para la civilización y el futuro de la humanidad?

Lo Positivo Singular

La propuesta de política más positiva que Trump traerá a la mesa como presidente es su deseo de mejorar y fortalecer las relaciones entre EE.UU. y Rusia, que se han deteriorado en los últimos años. Este es un signo esperanzador que podría llevar a renovar los esfuerzos de los dos países para reducir sus arsenales nucleares y revertir los planes actuales para modernizar este armamento.

Lo Negativo Numeroso

El comportamiento de Trump durante la campaña presidencial fue francamente errático, aparentemente basado en discernibles rasgos de personalidad, incluyendo narcisismo, arrogancia, impulsividad, y una falta de previsibilidad. Si estos rasgos proporcionan una caracterización justa de la personalidad de Trump, ¿qué sugieren para su control del arsenal nuclear estadounidense?

El narcisismo de Trump parece reflejarse en su necesidad de ser aceptado y tratado positivamente. Durante las primarias de la campaña presidencial, si otro candidato lo criticaba, Trump respondía con críticas aún más fuertes hacia su atacante. Por otro lado, si alguien alababa a Trump, él respondía con alabanza. Esto resulta en la creación de una espiral en una dirección positiva o negativa. Una espiral negativa puede salirse de control, lo que sería alarmante con respecto a cualquier persona con la mano muy cerca del botón nuclear.

Su narcisismo también se refleja en su necesidad de tener razón. A pesar de que se dice que Trump no lee mucho y tiene un rango limitado de experiencia, siempre asegura de que tiene razón y despreocupadamente afirma que sus posiciones son correctas. En un momento, por ejemplo, argumentó que sabía mucho más que los líderes militares acerca de la persecución y derrota de ISIS. La seguridad con la que se empecina en estar correcto parece también estar arraigada en la arrogancia que refleja su inseguridad fundamental. Esta inseguridad y su creencia en su propia rectitud, cuando se combina con su éxito en hacer dinero, le lleva a ser autosuficiente en su toma de decisiones, lo que podría resultar en que tome riesgos ante amenazas o el uso de armas nucleares. Él lo dijo en el programa Morning Joe de MSNBC, “Mi consultor principal soy yo mismo.” Aunque esto puede hacer que el consenso sea simple la gama de perspectivas es peligrosamente estrecha.

Otros dos rasgos de su personalidad también podrían hacer más posible que Trump decida usar armas nucleares: su impulsividad y su falta de previsibilidad. Impulsividad no es un rasgo que se elija para una persona con el poder de lanzar el arsenal nuclear de los EE.UU. Cuando se trata de decidir usar la bomba, una personalidad que es tranquila, clara y razonable inspira más confianza en que la precaución sería empleada. La falta de previsibilidad también inspira desconfianza de que el Presidente Trump se abstendría de responder con fuerza abrumadora cuando esté en una espiral negativa y pierda la paciencia con un país o una organización terrorista que esté desafiando a Estados Unidos, lo que él podría interpretar como un reto personal.

¿Cuál es su posición?

En muchos temas, incluyendo el uso de armas nucleares, no está claro cuál es la posición de Trump, debido a sus declaraciones contradictorias. Esto es lo que dijo Trump en marzo de 2016 en un evento público de preguntas y respuestas cuando el anfitrión Chris Matthews le preguntó si consideraba usar armas nucleares:

Trump: “Yo sería el último en usar las armas nucleares, porque eso es como el final del juego de pelota”.

Matthews: “Entonces, ¿puede sacar el tema de la mesa ahora? ¿Puede decirle al Medio Oriente que no usaremos armas nucleares contra nadie?”

Trump: “Nunca diría eso, nunca quitaría ninguna de mis cartas de la mesa”.

Matthews: “¿Qué dice de Europa ? no la usaremos en Europa”.

Trump: “No retiro la posibilidad para nadie”.

Matthews: ¿Podría usarlas en Europa?

Trump: No. Creo que no, pero no voy a sacar las cartas de la mesa, no voy a usar armas nucleares, pero no voy a sacar las cartas de la mesa.

Trump también dijo que acabaría con el acuerdo negociado por los Estados Unidos y cinco de sus aliados con Irán, y sin embargo recientemente pareció decir que abandonaría la idea de terminar el acuerdo de Irán por ahora. También dijo que alentaría a Japón y Corea del Sur a desarrollar sus propios arsenales nucleares para bajar los costos para EE.UU., y luego ha negado que alentaría la proliferación nuclear a sus aliados (aunque lo dijo). Apoya la modernización del arsenal nuclear estadounidense, mientras se queja de los gastos presupuestarios. Presumiblemente, se propone seguir adelante con el plan de modernización nuclear de 1 millón de millones de dólares.

Conclusión

Quizás el positivo deseo singular de Trump de mejorar las relaciones deterioradas entre Estados Unidos y Rusia podría conducir hacia un mundo libre de armas nucleares. Mucho dependerá de quién elija Trump para puestos clave del gabinete, pero aún más dependerá de sus consultas con su asesor clave (él mismo).

El que tanto poder sobre el arsenal nuclear estadounidense se coloque en las manos de un hombre – cualquier hombre – es un mal presagio para el mundo y socava completamente el poder de guerra otorgado por el Congreso en la Constitución de los Estados Unidos. Y si el hombre en cuestión debe ser Donald Trump, con todos sus defectos personales, eso desafía a los Estados Unidos y al mundo como nunca antes en la historia de la humanidad.

David Krieger es Presidente de la Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingperace.org) Es autor y editor de

muchas obras sobre la paz y la abolición de las armas nucleares, incluyendo “Hablando de Paz: Citas para inspirar

acción.”

Rubén D. Arvizu es Director para América Latina de NAPF, Director General de Comunicaciones Internacionales de WorldArcticFund y

Director General para América Latina de Ocean Futures Society.

Click here for the English version.

November 16, 2016
Elections Have Consequences

Nuclear weapons have posed an existential threat to humanity for decades. They undermine democracy by putting an unbelievable amount of destructive power in the hands of a single individual. They threaten every person we love, every child, and every beautiful thing that has ever been created and cherished. They threaten the very future of life on our planet.

Elections have consequences. We woke up this morning to a situation in which control of the U.S. nuclear arsenal will soon be handed to President-elect Trump, a man who has shown erratic, impulsive behavior and a lack of understanding of nuclear weapons. This is dangerous. But just as dangerous is public apathy, which is where you come in.

Will you join us in doing everything in your power to ensure that nuclear weapons are never used? Are you prepared to speak out against the “modernization” of the U.S. nuclear arsenal, which would lead to smaller, more “usable” nuclear weapons? Will you speak out for U.S. leadership to fulfill its obligations under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to negotiate to achieve a nuclear-zero world?

We must remind the new president-elect of Ronald Reagan’s critical insight: “A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.”

Our world needs you. And we need you, as well. Please ask your friends and family to sign up for the free NAPF Sunflower Newsletter and Action Alert Network. Urge them to get engaged on this issue that is critical to our survival.

Now, more than ever, the work of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation is essential. We will continue working every minute for peace and the abolition of nuclear weapons. Please join us.

In peace,

Team NAPF

November 9, 2016
President Obama’s Speech in Hiroshima

Seventy-one years ago, on a bright, cloudless morning, death fell from the sky and the world was changed. A flash of light and a wall of fire destroyed a city and demonstrated that mankind possessed the means to destroy itself.

Why do we come to this place, to Hiroshima? We come to ponder a terrible force unleashed in a not so distant past. We come to mourn the dead, including over 100,000 in Japanese men, women and children; thousands of Koreans; a dozen Americans held prisoner. Their souls speak to us. They ask us to look inward, to take stock of who we are and what we might become.

It is not the fact of war that sets Hiroshima apart. Artifacts tell us that violent conflict appeared with the very first man. Our early ancestors, having learned to make blades from flint and spears from wood, used these tools not just for hunting, but against their own kind. On every continent, the history of civilization is filled with war, whether driven by scarcity of grain or hunger for gold; compelled by nationalist fervor or religious zeal. Empires have risen and fallen. Peoples have been subjugated and liberated. And at each juncture, innocents have suffered, a countless toll, their names forgotten by time.

The World War that reached its brutal end in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was fought among the wealthiest and most powerful of nations. Their civilizations had given the world great cities and magnificent art. Their thinkers had advanced ideas of justice and harmony and truth. And yet, the war grew out of the same base instinct for domination or conquest that had caused conflicts among the simplest tribes; an old pattern amplified by new capabilities and without new constraints. In the span of a few years, some 60 million people would die — men, women, children no different than us, shot, beaten, marched, bombed, jailed, starved, gassed to death.

There are many sites around the world that chronicle this war — memorials that tell stories of courage and heroism; graves and empty camps that echo of unspeakable depravity. Yet in the image of a mushroom cloud that rose into these skies, we are most starkly reminded of humanity’s core contradiction; how the very spark that marks us as a species — our thoughts, our imagination, our language, our tool-making, our ability to set ourselves apart from nature and bend it to our will — those very things also give us the capacity for unmatched destruction.

How often does material advancement or social innovation blind us to this truth. How easily we learn to justify violence in the name of some higher cause. Every great religion promises a pathway to love and peace and righteousness, and yet no religion has been spared from believers who have claimed their faith as a license to kill. Nations arise, telling a story that binds people together in sacrifice and cooperation, allowing for remarkable feats, but those same stories have so often been used to oppress and dehumanize those who are different.

Science allows us to communicate across the seas and fly above the clouds; to cure disease and understand the cosmos. But those same discoveries can be turned into ever-more efficient killing machines.

The wars of the modern age teach this truth. Hiroshima teaches this truth. Technological progress without an equivalent progress in human institutions can doom us. The scientific revolution that led to the splitting of an atom requires a moral revolution, as well.

That is why we come to this place. We stand here, in the middle of this city, and force ourselves to imagine the moment the bomb fell. We force ourselves to feel the dread of children confused by what they see. We listen to a silent cry. We remember all the innocents killed across the arc of that terrible war, and the wars that came before, and the wars that would follow.

Mere words cannot give voice to such suffering, but we have a shared responsibility to look directly into the eye of history and ask what we must do differently to curb such suffering again. Someday the voices of the hibakusha will no longer be with us to bear witness. But the memory of the morning of August 6th, 1945 must never fade. That memory allows us to fight complacency. It fuels our moral imagination. It allows us to change.

And since that fateful day, we have made choices that give us hope. The United States and Japan forged not only an alliance, but a friendship that has won far more for our people than we could ever claim through war. The nations of Europe built a Union that replaced battlefields with bonds of commerce and democracy. Oppressed peoples and nations won liberation. An international community established institutions and treaties that worked to avoid war and aspire to restrict and roll back, and ultimately eliminate the existence of nuclear weapons.

Still, every act of aggression between nations; every act of terror and corruption and cruelty and oppression that we see around the world shows our work is never done. We may not be able to eliminate man’s capacity to do evil, so nations – and the alliances that we’ve formed – must possess the means to defend ourselves. But among those nations like my own that hold nuclear stockpiles, we must have the courage to escape the logic of fear, and pursue a world without them.

We may not realize this goal in my lifetime. But persistent effort can roll back the possibility of catastrophe. We can chart a course that leads to the destruction of these stockpiles. We can stop the spread to new nations, and secure deadly materials from fanatics.

And yet that is not enough. For we see around the world today how even the crudest rifles and barrel bombs can serve up violence on a terrible scale. We must change our mindset about war itself – to prevent conflict through diplomacy, and strive to end conflicts after they’ve begun; to see our growing interdependence as a cause for peaceful cooperation and not violent competition; to define our nations not by our capacity to destroy, but by what we build.

And perhaps above all, we must reimagine our connection to one another as members of one human race. For this, too, is what makes our species unique. We’re not bound by genetic code to repeat the mistakes of the past. We can learn. We can choose. We can tell our children a different story – one that describes a common humanity; one that makes war less likely and cruelty less easily accepted.

We see these stories in the hibakusha – the woman who forgave a pilot who flew the plane that dropped the atomic bomb, because she recognized that what she really hated was war itself; the man who sought out families of Americans killed here, because he believed their loss was equal to his own.

My own nation’s story began with simple words: All men are created equal, and endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Realizing that ideal has never been easy, even within our own borders, even among our own citizens.

But staying true to that story is worth the effort. It is an ideal to be strived for; an ideal that extends across continents, and across oceans. The irreducible worth of every person, the insistence that every life is precious; the radical and necessary notion that we are part of a single human family -– that is the story that we all must tell.

That is why we come to Hiroshima. So that we might think of people we love — the first smile from our children in the morning; the gentle touch from a spouse over the kitchen table; the comforting embrace of a parent – we can think of those things and know that those same precious moments took place here seventy-one years ago. Those who died – they are like us. Ordinary people understand this, I think. They do not want more war. They would rather that the wonders of science be focused on improving life, and not eliminating it.

When the choices made by nations, when the choices made by leaders reflect this simple wisdom, then the lesson of Hiroshima is done.

The world was forever changed here. But today, the children of this city will go through their day in peace. What a precious thing that is. It is worth protecting, and then extending to every child. That is the future we can choose – a future in which Hiroshima and Nagasaki are known not as the dawn of atomic warfare, but as the start of our own moral awakening.

May 27, 2016