Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Tag: David Krieger

  • Response to NAPF from Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov

    To see the original PDF in Russian and the unofficial English translation, click here.

    Unofficial translation

    RUSSIAN FEDERATION
    MINISTRY OF FOREIGN RELATIONS

    Moscow, March 2012

    President David Krieger
    Nuclear Age Peace Foundation
    PMB 121, 1187 Coast Village Rd, Suite 1
    Santa Barbara, CA, 93108-2794
    USA

    Dear Mr. Krieger,

    I have very attentively read the Open Letter to Presidents of Russia and the US concerning the issue of NATO missile defense plans and their influence on the nuclear disarmament.

    I notice the harmony between the ideas expressed in the letter and the fundamental Russian approaches.  We fully share the view that the fact the North Atlanta Alliance refused to include Russia into a joint missile defense is the evidence of its unpreparedness to treat our country as an equitable partner.  This appears to be specifically alarming against the background of enlarging NATO and pursuit of vesting global military functions into the coalition.  One cannot help agreeing to a conclusion that deployment of missile defense system at the very borders of Russia as well as upbuilding system’s capabilities increase the chance of any conventional military confrontation might promptly turn into a nuclear war.  We have numerously been outspoken that such steps taken by the US and NATO undermine strategic stability and make further progress in reducing and limiting nuclear arms problematic.  Russian President Dmitry Medvedev was obliged to remind of this once again in his November 23, 2011 statement.

    Russia has always been and will remain a committed opponent to a military confrontation.  Despite the growing hardship we do not close the door either for continuing the dialogue with the US and NATO on missile defense issues or for a practical cooperation in this field.  In this respect we find undoubtedly interesting the idea of the freeze on US/NATO deployment of missile defense facilities until the joint Russian-US assessment of the threats is conducted.  We believe that its acceptance by the US side would radically relieve the tension around the implementation of the US missile defense program.

    Let me thank you for the considerations and express my hope for continuing this positive and unbiased dialogue.

    Sincerely,

    /s/

    Sergey Lavrov

  • 2011 Earth Charter Award

    David KriegerI’m honored to receive this Earth Charter Award from Citizens for Peaceful Resolutions, and particularly an award presented in memory of two dedicated and lifelong peace makers, Bill Hammaker and Betty Eagle. 


    The Earth Charter is a great collaborative and visionary document.  Its words are both poetic and inspirational.  It opens we this passage: “We stand at a critical moment in Earth’s history, a time when humanity must choose its future. As the world becomes increasingly interdependent and fragile, the future at once holds great peril and great promise. To move forward we must recognize that in the midst of a magnificent diversity of cultures and life forms we are one human family and one Earth community with a common destiny.”


    How succinct.  How beautiful.  How true.


    I believe we should all strive to live as world citizens.  I believe strongly in the principles embodied in the Earth Charter, including those for which this award is given: democracy, nonviolence and peace.  They are, at the same time, both goals to achieve and maintain, and a way to live our lives. 


    Democracy, from my perspective, means the opportunity for all members of a society to participate fully and fairly in the political process.  That possibility has been usurped in our political process by the power of money to buy candidates, legislators and legislation.  Regardless of what they may rule at the Supreme Court, as they did in Citizens United, money cannot be allowed to equate to free speech in democratic elections.  We can do far better than we have in making our institutions and political process open and fair.


    It concerns me greatly that our democracy, such as it is, has become so militarized.  We now spend more than half of the discretionary funds in our national budget on the military, some $700 billion annually.  This does not include the tens of billions of dollars we also spend for nuclear weaponry through the Department of Energy, or the budget of the Department of Veterans Affairs, or the interest on the national debt to pay for our foreign wars.  We spend more on our military than all other countries in the world combined.


    We also have more than 700 military bases and our powerful naval fleets spread throughout the world.  We are the only country on Earth that does this.  We are an empire without formal subjects, but we bind countries and leaders to us by our economic power to reward and punish and by the implied threat of our military might.


    A militarized democracy with global reach becomes a militarized empire.  It fights wars of its choosing, despite its obligations under international law, and its people are easily manipulated and lied into war.  The US is now fighting wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, and something less than wars in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia.  We are developing a new technology of warfare, based on sanitized long-distance killing with drones and a Global Strike Force that allows the US to attack with no risk of taking casualties.  Recently we have assassinated two American citizens in Yemen using drones.  President Obama signed off on these assassinations.  So much for due process of the law!


    The Global Strike Force plans to replace nuclear warheads with powerful conventional warheads on some inter-continental ballistic missiles, making it possible to attack any target on the globe in under an hour.  Drones and the Global Strike Force make long-distance killing more possible, but no more palatable. 


    Nonviolence is a strategy for social change.  It is more powerful than weapons of war.  These can kill and maim, but they have far less power to influence the human heart than techniques of nonviolence.  The world moves in strange ways.  Gandhi was the great leader of a nonviolent movement to end colonialism in India.  He was influenced by Thoreau and Tolstoy, and in turn he influenced Martin Luther King, Jr. and many other leaders of nonviolent revolutions. 


    Nonviolence is the means to bring about a new world order, one based upon peace and justice.  We have seen it again show its remarkable power during the Arab Spring.  We are witnessing it show its power now on Wall Street in what will hopefully become an American Fall.


    A.J. Muste said this about peace: “There is no way to peace; peace is the way.”  Without achieving peace in the Nuclear Age, we are all – wherever we live on the planet – potential victims of nuclear annihilation.  Nuclear weapons go beyond the homicide and genocide of warfare, and make possible omnicide, the death of all. 


    The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, which I helped found three decades ago, works to abolish nuclear weapons.  It is a stretch even to call them weapons.  They are the ultimate long-distance killing devices, making the destruction of our world, including all that we hold dear, all too possible. 


    By our capacity for destruction, we have reached a point in our societal evolution at which peace is not only desirable but necessary for our survival – peace is an imperative of the Nuclear Age.  The questions I ask myself are these: Will humanity choose peace?  Will we grow up and put away our adolescent resort to violence as a means of resolving conflicts?  Will we awaken in time to avert catastrophe?


    The answers to these questions remain unclear, but it is clear that we are at a point of decision.  Everything begins with choice and intention.  We need to make the right choices and we need to set our intention to build a new world on a foundation of peace.  We need to stop wasting our resources on war and its preparation.  We need to find news ways to appreciate the miracle of life – our own and others.  We need to become planetary patriots, replacing the acronym MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction) with a new acronym: PASS (Planetary Assured Security and Survival).  It is our job to pass the planet on intact to new generations.


    Our world badly needs peace leadership if we are to create peace.  I urge each of you to be a peace leader by speaking out and acting for peace.  There are many areas of study and training, but a critical one that is often overlooked is peace leadership.  This training is one of our most important projects at the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.  I hope you all will join in this essential effort, keeping in mind the final words of the Earth Charter: “Let ours be a time remembered for the awakening of a new reverence for life, the firm resolve to achieve sustainability, the quickening of the struggle for justice and peace, and the joyful celebration of life.”


    There is so much left to do.  How can we not commit to this beautiful struggle?


    None of us should be content to sit on the sidelines when there is so much to be done.  Despite all the world’s serious problems, and there are many, we must choose hope, for it is hope that propels us to action.  The opposite of hope is despair, which leads to indifference and inaction.  So, I urge you to see hope as a choice, and choose it and live as though we can and will change the world.

  • Admiral Noel Gayler: Dispelling Nuclear Illusions

    David KriegerAdm. Noel Gayler, a World War II Navy pilot who later rose to the rank of four-star admiral and served as Commander-in-Chief of the US Pacific Command in the 1970s, died on July 14 at the age of 96. Adm. Gayler was one of the most prominent US military leaders to publicly call for the abolition of nuclear weapons and put forward a proposal to achieve this goal.


    Adm. Gayler’s proposal, published in December 2000 by the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, presents a sober assessment of the dangers that nuclear weapons pose to humanity and calls for the total elimination of these weapons.  His assessment was influenced by viewing Hiroshima from the air only six days after its devastation on August 6, 1945 by a US nuclear weapon.  He also witnessed the atmospheric testing of thermonuclear weapons in the Marshall Islands in the 1960s. 


    In his proposal, Adm. Gayler dispels some common illusions concerning the military value of nuclear weapons. These include:



    • Physical defense against nuclear weapons is possible;
    • Nuclear weapons can be used in a sensible manner;
    • Nuclear disarmament imperils our security; and
    • Nuclear deterrence is an effective defense.

    “With these illusions dispelled,” Adm. Gayler stated, “it becomes evident that nuclear disarmament works to the advantage of every power.  Only in this way can the world be made safe from unprecedented murder and destruction.”


    The central thesis of Adm. Gayler’s proposal is that US and global security would be vastly enhanced by the total elimination of nuclear weapons.  The proposal states, “An irony is that in developing and using nuclear weapons, we, the United States, have done the only thing capable of threatening our own national security.”


    Adm. Gayler’s proposal involves the delivery of all nuclear weapons to a central point, where they would be irreversibly dismantled.  Adm. Gayler’s passing provides an appropriate moment to revisit his vision and proposal to achieve a nuclear weapon-free world.


    ___________________________________________


    A Proposal for Achieving Zero Nuclear Weapons
    by Admiral Noel Gayler, US Navy (Ret.)*, December 2000


    It is conceded by all hands that we stand at some continuing risk of nuclear war. The risk is possibly not imminent, but it is basically important above all else — for survival. The Defense and Energy Departments together have made promising starts to reduce possession of nuclear weapons, but far more and much faster action is needed.


    Credible report has it that weapons are adrift, potentially available to irresponsible regimes and to terrorists. Independent development by them is not needed to establish threat. The peculiar characteristic of nuclear weaponry is that relative numbers between adversaries mean little. When a target country can be destroyed by a dozen weapons, its own possession of thousands of weapons gains no security. Defense against ballistic missiles is infeasible. What is more, it is irrelevant. Half a dozen non-technical means of delivery are available, in addition to cruise missiles and aircraft.


    The recognized and awful dangers of other weapons of mass destruction, such as chemical and biological, do not compare to nuclear, despite their vileness. On the tremendous and incredible scale of killing, the others are retail as compared to the nuclear’s wholesale; but there need not be competition since all can be — must be — addressed concurrently.


    Drafting a successor to the nuclear arms treaty is purportedly underway. If START III repeats the mistakes of the past, it may well bog down into haggling over relative numbers. More productive can be a process continuing toward total nuclear disarmament, the only way in which both we and the world may be truly secure from nuclear destruction.


    An irony is that in developing and using nuclear weapons, we, the United States, have done the only thing capable of threatening our own national security. We have comparatively weak and friendly neighbors to the north and south, control of the seas, and a powerful air and combat-tested armed forces. We are proof that this in no way diminishes the need, as the world’s single greatest power, for Army, Navy, Air, and Marines capable not only of our own defense, but of intervention abroad in the interest of peace and human rights. These forces do not come into being overnight, but need to be continually developed and supported. The argument for a nuclear component is no longer valid. The time is now for a concrete proposal that meets the problem. Process, as opposed to negotiating numbers, is the basic principle of the proposal that I suggest. It is nothing less than drastic: the continuing reduction to zero of weapons in the hands of avowed nuclear powers, plus an end to the nuclear ambitions of others.


    The proposal: Let weapons be delivered to a single point, there to be dismantled, the nuclear material returned to the donors for use or disposal, and the weapons destroyed. This process, once underway, will be nearly impossible to stop, since its obvious merits, political and substantive, will compel support. The “single point” may well be a floating platform, at sea, in international waters. A handy platform can be an aircraft carrier that has been removed from “mothballs” and disarmed, yet capable of steaming to the desired location and operating support aircraft and ships to handle heavier loads. Living quarters for personnel, ships company, and disarmament processors, would be integral, as would be major protected spaces.


    The US, of course, is the obvious source of a carrier, but there could be international manning, following the precedent of NATO. This would make the American ship politically palatable to the participants and Russia would be handled sensitively. Obvious and major advantages of security, inspection, availability, timing, and cost would ensue. Those regimes and groups not initially participating can be put under enormous pressure to join. Any remaining recalcitrant can be disarmed militarily, this time with a concert of powers. The need for persuasion and understanding of the participating powers is, of course, fundamental, and probably the most difficult requirement to meet. To meet this need of public understanding and consequent action, domestic and foreign, will require that we dispel some common illusions, such as:



    • Is physical defense against nuclear weapons possible? No. What’s more, it’s irrelevant. A half dozen non-technical means of delivery avail.
    • Can nuclear weapons be used in any sensible manner? No. This includes “tactical.”
    • Does nuclear disarmament imperil our security? No. It enhances it.
    • Is deterrence of nuclear or other attack by threat of retaliation still possible? No. The many potential aggressors are scattered — even location unknown. No targets!

    With these illusions dispelled, it becomes evident that nuclear disarmament works to the advantage of every power. Only in this way can the world be made safe from unprecedented murder and destruction. It remains to take the necessary actions. They are feasible and imperative.


    Admiral Noel Gayler (US Navy, Ret.) was a four-star admiral and served as Commander-in-Chief, Pacific Command (CINCPAC). He was responsible for nuclear attack tactical development and demonstration of nuclear attack tactics to the Chairman and Joint Chiefs.

  • An Open Letter to Graduates

    Dear Graduates,


    David KriegerHaving received a college degree, you are among the 6.7 percent of the world’s most educated elite.  If your education has been a good one, you are likely to have more questions than answers.  If your education has been mediocre, you are likely to think you have more answers than questions. 


    Did you have a chance in college to ponder these questions: What does it mean to be human?  Why are we here on Earth?  What are the greatest goals one can pursue in life?  What are the keys to a happy and fulfilled life?  If you didn’t, it’s not too late.


    You may have taken many introductory courses during your college years, but was there a course on Global Survival 101?  If not, you may not be prepared to make a difference in ending the great dangers to humanity in the 21st century. 


    Do you know how many nuclear weapons there are in the world?  Do you know which countries possess them?  Do you know what nuclear weapons do to cities?  Do you know whether these weapons are legal or illegal under international law?  Do you know whether they could end civilization and the human species?


    Do you know about the Nuremberg Principles, those that were derived from the tribunals at Nuremberg that held the Nazi leaders to account after World War II?  Do you know that these principles apply not just to Nazi leaders, but to all leaders who commit heinous crimes under international law?  Do you know what those crimes are? 


    Have you studied the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?  Do you know to whom these rights apply?  Do you know that these rights encompass economic and social rights as well as political and civil rights?


    Do you know that we all live on a single fragile planet and that we humans are the caretakers and stewards of this planet, not only for ourselves, but for future generations yet unborn?


    Do you realize that you are about to enter a world of vast inequities, as measured in money, health and happiness?  Do you understand that throughout the world there are more than a billion people who are malnourished and go to bed hungry every night?  Can you comprehend that in our world there are still 25,000 children who die daily of starvation and preventable diseases?


    Does your education lead you to believe that money will buy happiness?  It may buy fancy material things, and even status, but it is unlikely that it will buy happiness or fulfillment in life.  Caring for others and living with compassion, commitment and courage offers a far surer path to a fulfilled and happy life.


    Graduating from college is a commencement, not an ending.  It is a commencement into responsibility for one’s society and one’s world.  Exercising this responsibility is a daily task, a necessary and never-ending task.  It is a task that will require further education, outside the college classroom, but inside the multiversity of life. 


    The world needs to change.  We cannot continue to teeter on the precipice of nuclear and ecological disasters.  We cannot continue to exist divided into those who live in abundance and those who live in scarcity.  We cannot allow the greed of the few to overwhelm the need of the many.  We cannot continue to exploit the planet’s finite resources, in effect, stealing from the future.  We cannot continue to draw lines on the planet and separate ourselves into warring factions. 


    For the world to change, new peace leaders and change makers will be needed.  The first and most important questions you must ask yourself in your new role as graduates are these: Will I be one of the peace leaders and change makers, devoting myself to building a better world?  Or, will I choose to be detached and complacent in the face of the 21st century’s social, economic, political and military threats to humanity? 


    As the little prince, in Antoine de Saint-Exupéry’s book by that name, stated so clearly, “It’s a matter of discipline….  When you’ve finished washing and dressing each morning, you must tend your planet.”  Look around.  Our beautiful planet needs a lot of tending.

  • The Eighth Anniversary of the Iraq War

    David KriegerOn this eighth anniversary of the Iraq War, I feel a deep sense of sadness mixed with anger, along with regret for what might have been.  We’ve had eight years of futile war in Iraq and nearly ten years of the same in Afghanistan.


    Following September 11, 2001, the world stood with the US.  We had a choice then: to respond legally, morally and with wisdom; or, like a helpless giant, to flail out with our vast arsenal of weapons.  To our shame, our leaders, then and now, have taken the latter course. 


    Before this war began, many of us marched for peace.  People all over the world marched for peace, but peace was not to be.


    Dick Cheney said, “We will be greeted as liberators.”


    Donald Rumsfeld said, in effect, that the war would pay for itself: “The bulk of the funds for Iraq’s reconstruction will come from Iraqis – from oil revenues, recovered assets, international trade, direct foreign investment….”


    George W. Bush said, we will attack “at a time of our choosing.”  He dismissed the United Nations, saying “The United Nations Security Council has not lived up to its responsibilities.  So we will rise to ours.”  He chose to attack Iraq on the evening of March 19, 2003, and he did so with shock and awe, but without legality under international law. 


    Less than two months later, Bush dressed up in a flight suit, landed on the aircraft carrier, the USS Abraham Lincoln, stood under a sign that said “Mission Accomplished,” and boasted with his usual shortsightedness, “In the Battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.”  The people of the world will have prevailed when Mr. Bush is on trial at the International Criminal Court.
     
    The result of our Global War on Terror is that we have spent more than $780 billion on the Iraq War and more than $387 billion on the Afghanistan War, a total of over $1.167 trillion.  These wars have cost California $147 billion, and have cost our 23rd Congressional District $2.6 billion.  These numbers grow by the day.  Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel Laureate in Economics, has predicted that the total cost of the war in Iraq to the Federal government and to society will conservatively exceed $3 trillion.


    It is long past time to end this drain of our resources, which might have gone instead of war and massacre to support the poorest among us, to schools, to health care, and to improve our infrastructure. 


    The Global War on Terror, along with other excesses of capitalism, including massive fraud, has resulted in some 400 families in the US having assets exceeding those of the poorest 50 percent of Americans, some 155 million people.  Four hundred families versus half our population.  And many of our political representatives have fought for tax breaks for the very rich, while seeking to end the collective bargaining rights of the unions for public employees – teachers, nurses, firefighters and policemen.  This is just plain wrong.  But it is what we have become as a nation.


    Across this nation, people still haven’t connected the dots to understand the toll war takes on our society.


    Of course, the money wasted is only a part of the outrage that has weakened our country.  More importantly, some 4,500 American soldiers have died in Iraq. Of these, 4,300 Americans died since George Bush dressed up in his flight suit and gave his victory speech on the USS Abraham Lincoln.  But the death toll of Americans is dwarfed by that of Iraqis.  By some estimates, more than a million and a half Iraqis have died in the Iraq War.  Four million have been displaced from their homes.


    In Afghanistan, 1,498 American soldiers have died and 2,361 total coalition forces have died.  In 2010 alone, 2,777 civilians died in Afghanistan.  Of these, 1,175 were children and 555 were women.


    It is tempting to say that they all died because George Bush lied.  But George Bush’s lies were only one factor.  They also died because so many good Americans were silent in the face of these wars.  They also died because, in the case of Afghanistan, Barack Obama escalated the war and made it his own.


    Let me conclude with a poem I wrote about the war, titled “Worse than the War.”



    WORSE THAN THE WAR


    Worse than the war, the endless, senseless war,
    Worse than the lies leading to the war,


    Worse than the countless deaths and injuries,
    Worse than hiding the coffins and not attending funerals,


    Worse than the flouting of international law,
    Worse than the torture at Abu Ghraib prison,


    Worse than the corruption of young soldiers,
    Worse than undermining our collective sense of decency,


    Worse than the arrogance, smugness and swagger,
    Worse than our loss of credibility in the world,
    Worse than the loss of our liberties,


    Worse than learning nothing from the past,
    Worse than destroying the future,
    Worse than the incredible stupidity of it all,


    Worse than all of these,
    As if they were not enough for one war or country or lifetime,
    Is the silence, the resounding silence of good Americans.


    When will we say that we’ve had enough?  When will America try to regain its conscience, its soul, its decency and its honor?  When will we become a force for peace in the world?  The answer is: It’s up to us!  It’s up to us to take back our country and put it on the path to peace.

  • The Hawks Are Out Today

    The hawks are out today searching
    from the clear rain-washed air for prey.
    So, too, the drones are out searching
    for enemies of the state.


    For the hawks movement of the prey
    is enough to send them into a dive.
    For the drones, a distant operator
    is needed to make the kill.


    For the hawks the kill is an instinct
    for survival.  For the drones there is
    no instinct, only manipulation.
    Someone must decide who is to die today.


    The hawks are creatures that kill to eat. 
    The drones are tools that kill to kill,
    that in the arrogance of their masters
    bring death to many an innocent child.

  • Santa Barbara Declaration: Reject Nuclear Deterrence: An Urgent Call to Action

    Click here to sign the declaration.


    Vaya aquí para la versión española.


    Nuclear deterrence is a doctrine that is used as a justification by nuclear weapon states and their allies for the continued possession and threatened use of nuclear weapons. 


    Nuclear deterrence is the threat of a nuclear strike in response to a hostile action.  However, the nature of the hostile action is often not clearly defined, making possible the use of nuclear weapons in a wide range of circumstances.


    Nuclear deterrence threatens the murder of many millions of innocent people, along with severe economic, climate, environmental, agricultural and health consequences beyond the area of attack.


    Nuclear deterrence requires massive commitments of resources to the industrial infrastructures and organizations that make up the world’s nuclear weapons establishments, its only beneficiaries.


    Despite its catastrophic potential, nuclear deterrence is widely, though wrongly, perceived to provide protection to nuclear weapon states, their allies and their citizens.


    Nuclear deterrence has numerous major problems:  



    1. Its power to protect is a dangerous fabrication. The threat or use of nuclear weapons provides no protection against an attack.
    2. It assumes rational leaders, but there can be irrational or paranoid leaders on any side of a conflict.
    3. Threatening or committing mass murder with nuclear weapons is illegal and criminal.  It violates fundamental legal precepts of domestic and international law, threatening the indiscriminate slaughter of innocent people.
    4. It is deeply immoral for the same reasons it is illegal: it threatens indiscriminate and grossly disproportionate death and destruction.
    5. It diverts human and economic resources desperately needed to meet basic human needs around the world.  Globally, approximately $100 billion is spent annually on nuclear forces.
    6. It has no effect against non-state extremists, who govern no territory or population.
    7. It is vulnerable to cyber attack, sabotage, and human or technical error, which could result in a nuclear strike.
    8. It sets an example for additional countries to pursue nuclear weapons for their own nuclear deterrent force.

    Its benefits are illusory. Any use of nuclear weapons would be catastrophic.


    Nuclear deterrence is discriminatory, anti-democratic and unsustainable. This doctrine must be discredited and replaced with an urgent commitment to achieve global nuclear disarmament. We must change the discourse by speaking truth to power and speaking truth to each other.


    Before another nuclear weapon is used, nuclear deterrence must be replaced by humane, legal and moral security strategies.  We call upon people everywhere to join us in demanding that the nuclear weapon states and their allies reject nuclear deterrence and negotiate without delay a Nuclear Weapons Convention for the phased, verifiable, irreversible and transparent elimination of all nuclear weapons.
    _____________



    Initial Signers: Participants in The Dangers of Nuclear Deterrence Conference, hosted by the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, Santa Barbara, February 16-17, 2011.


    Blase Bonpane, Ph.D., Director, Office of the Americas
    Theresa Bonpane, Founding Director, Office of the Americas
    John Burroughs, Ph.D., Executive Director, Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy
    Jacqueline Cabasso, Executive Director, Western States Legal Foundation
    Kate Dewes, Ph.D., Co-Director, Disarmament and Security Centre, New Zealand
    Bob Dodge, M.D., Coordinator, Beyond War Nuclear Weapons Abolition Team
    Dick Duda, Ph.D., founding member, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation – Silicon Valley
    Denise Duffield, Associate Director, Physicians for Social Responsibility – Los Angeles
    Richard Falk, J.S.D., Chair, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation
    Commander Robert Green (Royal Navy, ret.), Co-Director, Disarmament and Security Centre, New Zealand
    David Krieger, Ph.D., President, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation
    Robert Laney, J.D., Secretary, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation
    Steven Starr, Senior Scientist, Physicians for Social Responsibility
    Rick Wayman, Director of Programs, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation
    Bill Wickersham, Ph.D., Adjunct Professor of Peace Studies, University of Missouri

  • Ten Serious Flaws in Nuclear Deterrence Theory

    David KriegerNuclear deterrence is the threat of nuclear retaliation for a proscribed behavior, generally an attack upon the threatening state.  The theory of nuclear deterrence posits that such threat, if perceived as real and likely to cause sufficient devastation, will prevent an attack or other proscribed behavior from occurring. 


    The desire for a nuclear deterrent existed even before nuclear weapons were created.  Refugee scientists from Europe, concerned about the possible development of German nuclear weapons during World War II, encouraged the United States to explore the use of uranium for building nuclear weapons.  Albert Einstein was among the scientists who urged President Roosevelt to initiate a program to explore the feasibility of creating such weapons as a deterrent to the use of a German nuclear weapon, should the Germans succeed in their quest.  After the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, he would consider this to be one of the great mistakes of his life.


    By the time the United States succeeded in developing nuclear weapons in July 1945, Germany was already defeated.  The US used its powerful new bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  In doing so, it sent a nuclear deterrent message to other states, particularly the Soviet Union, that the US possessed nuclear weapons and was willing to use them.  This would spur on the secret Soviet nuclear weapons program to deter future use of the US nuclear arsenal.  Other states would follow suit.  Britain and France developed nuclear arsenals to deter the Soviets.  China developed nuclear arms to deter the US and the Soviets.  Israel did so to assure its independence and deter potential interventions from the other nuclear weapon states.  India developed nuclear weapons to deter China and Pakistan, and Pakistan to deter India.  North Korea did so to deter the US.


    One steady factor in the Nuclear Age has been the adherence of the nuclear weapon states to the theory of nuclear deterrence.  Each country that has developed nuclear weapons has justified doing so by the pursuit of nuclear deterrence.  The security of not only the nuclear weapon states but of civilization has rested upon the reliability of the theory of nuclear deterrence.  Vast numbers of people throughout the world believe that nuclear deterrence contributes to the security of the planet and perhaps to their personal security and that of their family.  But does it?  What if nuclear deterrence is a badly flawed theory?  What if nuclear deterrence fails?  What if political and military leaders in all nuclear weapon states who have treated nuclear deterrence theory as sacrosanct and imbued it with godlike, but unrealistic, powers of protection are wrong?  The future itself would stand in grave danger, for the failure of nuclear deterrence could pose an existential threat to humanity. 


    As a former commander of the US Strategic Command, General George Lee Butler was in charge of all US nuclear weapons.  After retiring from the US Air Force, General Butler critiqued nuclear deterrence, stating that it “suspended rational thinking in the Nuclear Age about the ultimate aim of national security: to ensure the survival of the nation.”  He concluded that nuclear deterrence is “a slippery intellectual construct that translates very poorly into the real world of spontaneous crises, inexplicable motivations, incomplete intelligence and fragile human relationships.”


    As volcanoes often give off strong warning signals that they may erupt, so we have witnessed such signals regarding nuclear arsenals and the failure of nuclear deterrence theory over the course of the Nuclear Age.  Nuclear arsenals could erupt with volcano-like force, totally overwhelming the relatively flimsy veneer of “protection” provided by nuclear deterrence theory.  In the face of such dangers, we must not be complacent.  Nor should we continue to be soothed by the “experts” who assure us not to worry because the weapons will keep us safe.  There is, in fact, much to worry about, much more than the nuclear policy makers and theorists in each of the nuclear weapon states have led us to believe.  I will examine below what I believe are ten serious flaws in nuclear deterrence theory, flaws that lead to the conclusion that the theory is unstable, unreliable and invalid.


    1. It is only a theory.  It is not proven and cannot be proven.  A theory may posit a causal relationship, for example, if one party does something, certain results will follow.  In the case of nuclear deterrence theory, it is posited that if one party threatens to retaliate with nuclear weapons, the other side will not attack.  That an attack has not occurred, however, does not prove that it was prevented by nuclear deterrence.  That is, in logic, a false assumption of causality.  In logic, one cannot prove a negative, that is, that doing something causes something else not to happen.  That a nuclear attack has not happened may be a result of any number of other factors, or simply of exceptional good fortune.  To attribute the absence of nuclear war to nuclear deterrence is to register a false positive, which imbues nuclear deterrence with a false sense of efficacy.


    2. It requires a commitment to mass murder.  Nuclear deterrence leads to policy debates about how many threatened deaths with nuclear weapons are enough to deter an adversary?  Are one million deaths sufficient to deter adversary A?  Is it a different number for adversary B?  How many deaths are sufficient?  One million?  Ten million?  One hundred million?  More?  There will always be a tendency to err on the side of more deaths, and thus the creation of more elaborate nuclear killing systems.  Such calculations, in turn, drive arms races, requiring huge allocations of resources to weapons systems that must never be used.  Leaders must convince their own populations that the threat of mass murder and the expenditure of resources to support this threat make them secure and is preferable to other allocations of scientific and financial resources.  The result is not only a misallocation of resources, but also a diversion of effort away from cooperative solutions to global problems.


    3. It requires effective communications.  In effect, nuclear deterrence is a communications theory.  Side A must communicate its capability and willingness to use its nuclear arsenal in retaliation for an attack by adversary B, thereby preventing adversary B from attacking.  The threat to retaliate and commit mass murder must be believable to a potential attacker.  Communications take place verbally in speeches by leaders and parliamentary statements, as well as news reports and even by rumors.  Communications also take place non-verbally in the form of alliance formations and nuclear weapons and missile tests.  In relation to nuclear deterrence, virtually everything that each side does is a deliberate or inadvertent form of communication to a potential adversary.  There is much room for error and misunderstanding.


    4. It requires rational decision makers.  Nuclear deterrence will not be effective against a decision maker who is irrational.  For example, side A may threaten nuclear retaliation for an attack by adversary B, but the leader of side B may irrationally conclude that the leader of side A will not do what he says.  Or, the leader of side B may irrationally attack side A because he does not care if one million or ten million of his countrymen die as a result of side A’s nuclear retaliation.  I believe two very important questions to consider are these: Do all leaders of all states behave rationally at all times, particularly under conditions of extreme stress when tensions are very high?  Can we be assured that all leaders of all states will behave rationally at all times in the future?  Most people believe the answer to these questions is an unqualified No.


    5. It instills a false sense of confidence.   Nuclear deterrence is frequently confused with nuclear “defense,” leading to the conclusion that nuclear weapons provide some form of physical protection against attack.  This conclusion is simply wrong.  The weapons and the threat of their use provide no physical protection.  The only protection provided is psychological and once the weapons start flying it will become clear that psychological protection is not physical protection.  One can believe the weapons make him safer, but this is not the same as actually being safer.  Because nuclear deterrence theory provides a false sense of confidence, it could lead a possessor of the weapons to take risks that would be avoided without nuclear threats in place.  Such risks could be counterproductive and actually lead to nuclear war.


    6. It does not work against an accidental use.  Nuclear deterrence is useful, if at all, only against the possibility of an intentional, premeditated nuclear attack.  Its purpose is to make the leader who contemplates the intentional use of a nuclear weapon decide against doing so.  But nuclear deterrence cannot prevent an accidental use of a nuclear weapon, such as an accidental launch.  This point was made in the movie Dr. Strangelove, in which a US nuclear attack was accidentally set in motion against the Soviet Union.  In the movie, bomber crews passed their “failsafe” point in a training exercise and couldn’t be recalled.  The president of the United States had to get on the phone with his Soviet counterpart and try to explain that the attack on Moscow that had been set in motion was just an accident.  The Americans were helpless to stop the accident from occurring, and so were the Soviets.  Accidents happen!  There is no such thing as a “foolproof” system, and when nuclear weapons are involved it is extremely dangerous to think there is.


    7. It doesn’t work against terrorist organizations.  Nuclear deterrence is based upon the threat of retaliation.  Since it is not possible to retaliate against a foe that you cannot locate, the threat of retaliation is not credible under these circumstances.  Further, terrorists are often suicidal (e.g., “suicide bombers”), and are willing to die to inflict death and suffering on an adversary.  For these reasons, nuclear deterrence will be ineffective in preventing nuclear terrorism.  The only way to prevent nuclear terrorism is to prevent the weapons themselves from falling into the hands of terrorist organizations.  This will become increasingly difficult if nuclear weapons and the nuclear materials to build them proliferate to more and more countries.


    8. It encourages nuclear proliferation.  To the extent that the theory of nuclear deterrence is accepted as valid and its flaws overlooked or ignored, it will make nuclear weapons seem to be valuable instruments for the protection of a country.  Thus, the uncritical acceptance of nuclear deterrence theory provides an incentive for nuclear proliferation.  If it is believed that nuclear weapons can keep a country safe, there will be commensurate pressure to develop such weapons. 


    9. It is not believable.  In the final analysis, it is likely that even the policy makers who promote nuclear deterrence do not truly believe in it.  If policy makers did truly believe that nuclear deterrence works as they claim, they would not need to develop missile defenses.  The United States alone has spent over $100 billion on developing missile defenses over the past three decades, and is continuing to spend some $10 billion annually on missile defense systems.  Such attempts at physical protection against nuclear attacks are unlikely to ever be fully successful, but they demonstrate the underlying understanding of policy makers that nuclear deterrence alone is insufficient to provide protection to a country.  If policy makers understand that nuclear deterrence is far from foolproof, then who is being fooled by nuclear deterrence theory?  In all likelihood, the only people being fooled by the promised effectiveness of nuclear deterrence theory are the ordinary people who place their faith in their leaders, the same people who are the targets of nuclear weapons and will suffer the consequences should nuclear deterrence fail.  Their political and military leaders have made them the “fools” in what is far from a “foolproof” system.


    10. Its failure would be catastrophic.  Nuclear deterrence theory requires the development and deployment of nuclear weapons for the threat of retaliation.  These weapons can, of course, be used for initiating attacks as well as for seeking to prevent attacks by means of threatened retaliation.  Should deterrence theory fail, such failure could result in consequences beyond our greatest fears.  For example, scientists have found in simulations of the use of 100 Hiroshima-size nuclear weapons in an exchange between India and Pakistan, the deaths could reach one billion individuals due to blast, fire, radiation, climate change, crop failures and resulting starvation.  A larger nuclear war between the US and Russia could destroy civilization as we know it. 


    The flaws in nuclear deterrence theory that I have discussed cannot be waved aside.  They show that the theory has inherent weaknesses that cannot be overcome.  Over time, the theory will suffer more and more stress fractures and, like a poorly constructed bridge, it will fail.  Rather than staying docilely on the sidelines, citizens of the nuclear weapon states must enter the arena of debate.  In fact, they must create the debate by challenging the efficacy and validity of nuclear deterrence theory. 


    After these many years of accepting nuclear deterrence theory as valid and unimpeachable, it is time to awaken to the reality that it could fail and fail catastrophically.  The answer to the risks posed by nuclear deterrence theory is not to shore up an inherently flawed theory, but to take a new path, a path leading to the elimination of all nuclear weapons from the planet.  This is not an impossible dream and, in fact, the risks of taking this path are far less than maintaining nuclear arsenals justified by an unstable and unproven theory.  But for this dream to be realized, citizens will have to raise their voices, challenge their leaders, and refuse to be docile in the face of the overwhelming threat that nuclear weapons pose to humanity.

  • Nuclear Weapons: The Goal is Zero

    David KriegerNuclear weapons release vast amounts of energy.  They do this by breaking apart the bonds of the atom, but this is not all they break apart.  They also break apart the bonds of our relationships with the Earth, with other forms of life and with the future.  This is part of the nuclear fallout that occurred at Hiroshima and Nagasaki and has continued through the Nuclear Age.


    Nuclear weapons are capable of destroying cities, as was demonstrated by the US attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  We know that the destructive capacity of these weapons does not end there.  They are also capable of destroying countries and civilization as we know it.  The philosopher John Somerville coined the term “omnicide” to describe the potential destructive capacity of nuclear weapons – the death of all.  In the Nuclear Age, our destructive capacity has moved from homicide to genocide to omnicide. 


    In considering the fallout of nuclear weapons, we might ask: what have these weapons done to our psyches?  The destructive potential of our nuclear inventions transcends the death of an individual or group and shows us a glimpse of the death of all.  For those of us willing to look, this is a fearful view into the abyss, a darkened world of incineration and shadows, a world barren of life.  Although nuclear weapons bring us close to the precipice of such a world, most of us choose to avert our eyes and our minds from grasping the reality.  We gamble the human future on the judgment and human fallibility of political and military leaders.  This strikes me as a very bad bet. 


    It is argued that no weapon ever created has been discarded until another, more powerful weapon has taken its place.  But with nuclear weapons we do not have this luxury.  Nuclear weapons force us to put aside our childish and tribal ways of solving conflicts.  They push us to higher levels of maturity.  We cannot continue our old ways and survive in a nuclear-armed world. 


    Ten Reasons to Abolish Nuclear Weapons


    Let me share with you ten reasons to abolish nuclear weapons:


    1. They are long-distance killing machines incapable of discriminating between soldiers and civilians, the aged and the newly born, or between men, women and children.   As such, they are instruments of dehumanization as well as annihilation.


    2. They threaten the destruction of cities, countries and civilization; of all that is sacred, of all that is human, of all that exists.  Nuclear war could cause deadly climate change, putting human existence at risk. 


    3. They threaten to foreclose the future, negating our common responsibility to future generations.


    4. They make cowards of their possessors, and in their use there can be no decency or honor.  This was recognized by most of the leading generals and admirals of World War II, including Dwight Eisenhower, Hap Arnold, and William Leahy. 


    5. They divide the world’s nations into nuclear “haves” and “have-nots,” bestowing false and unwarranted prestige and privilege on those that possess them. 


    6. They are a distortion of science and technology, siphoning off our scientific and technological resources and twisting our knowledge of nature to destructive purposes.  


    7. They mock international law, displacing it with an allegiance to raw power.  The International Court of Justice has ruled that the threat or use of nuclear weapons is generally illegal and any use that violated international humanitarian law would be illegal.  It is virtually impossible to imagine a threat or use of nuclear weapons that would not violate international humanitarian law (fail to discriminate between soldiers and civilians, cause unnecessary suffering or be disproportionate to a preceding attack). 


    8. They waste our resources on the development of instruments of annihilation.  The United States alone has spent over $7.5 trillion on nuclear weapons and their delivery systems since the onset of the Nuclear Age.


    9. They concentrate power in the hands of a small group of individuals and, in doing so, undermine democracy.


    10. They are morally abhorrent, as recognized by virtually every religious organization, and their mere existence corrupts our humanity. 


    New START


    In December 2010, the US Senate voted 71-26 to ratify the New START agreement with Russia.  It was a struggle to obtain the requisite two-thirds majority of the Senate needed for ratification, but in the end enough Republicans joined with the Democrats to assure the treaty’s ratification.  With previous strategic arms reduction treaties, however, the votes for ratification were largely bipartisan, reflected by overwhelming majorities. 


    The New START agreement was described by Admiral Mike Mullen, the chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, as “vital to national security.”  The treaty has four important benefits. 


    First, it will reduce the number of deployed strategic nuclear weapons on each side to 1,550 by the year 2017.  This is about a one-third reduction from the 2,200 agreed to in the 2002 Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (SORT).  However, there are some accounting irregularities that were agreed to in New START, such as counting each bomber plane as having one nuclear weapon even though it could carry up to 20. 


    Second, it will reduce the number of delivery vehicles for nuclear weapons to 800 total, with an upper limit of 700 of these deployed. 


    Third, it will put inspectors back on the ground in both countries to verify compliance with the treaty.  There have been no inspections since December 2009, when the START I agreement expired. 


    Finally, it will hopefully keep the US and Russia moving forward on reducing their arsenals still further in the years to come.  A failure to ratify the New START agreement would have been disastrous for US-Russia cooperation.


    Despite the important benefits of the treaty, however, it should not be forgotten that it still leaves the US and Russia with 1,550 deployed strategic weapons each, more than enough to destroy the world many times over.  It also does not place limits on the shorter-range tactical nuclear weapons or the strategic nuclear weapons held in reserve.  These issues will be on the agenda of future US-Russia negotiations.


    There was also a heavy price pledged by President Obama for obtaining Republican votes for the treaty, approximately $185 billion over the next ten years.  About $85 billion will go to the modernization of the nuclear infrastructure in the country and the modernization of the US nuclear arsenal.  Another $100 billion will go to improving the delivery vehicles to carry the nuclear weapons.  These expensive improvements to US nuclear forces cast reasonable doubt on the seriousness of the US commitment to nuclear disarmament.


    The Republicans were also able to extract a promise from President Obama regarding missile defenses.  As a candidate for President in October 2007, Obama said, “I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems.”  In an effort to get the New START agreement ratified, President Obama wrote in December 2010 to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, “…as long as I am President, and as long as the Congress provides the necessary funding, the United States will continue to develop and deploy effective missile defenses to protect the United States, our deployed forces, and our allies and partners.”  Candidate Obama had it right that missile defense systems were “unproven.”  President Obama had it wrong that such systems are “effective.”  In recent months, two missile defense tests from Vandenberg Air Force base have been admitted failures with no intercepts, and these were simple tests without multiple attack missiles or decoys.


    New START is only what it says – a start.  The only stable number of nuclear weapons in the world is zero, and this must be our goal.  The way to get to zero is through a negotiated Nuclear Weapons Convention, a new treaty for the phased, verifiable, irreversible and transparent elimination of nuclear weapons.  A Nuclear Weapons Convention will require leadership from the US and other countries.  Leaders must be pushed from below.  In effect, the people must lead their leaders.  Achieving the goal of Zero must start with each of us.


    Implementing Change


    The path to achieving change in the Nuclear Age starts with the implementation of some traditional means for bringing about change: conscience, compassion, courage, cooperation, creativity and commitment.  


    Conscience is the voice inside that distinguishes right from wrong, and moves us to take action for what is right.  It is a capacity that is uniquely human.  We can recognize right from wrong and choose our course.  With conscience there is always choice.


    Compassion is the force of love put into action.  Along with poet John Donne, we must recognize that we are “a part of the continent, a piece of the main.”  We must care for the Earth and all its inhabitants.  Compassion does not recognize borders.  We all share a common Earth.  We are all created equal.  We are all diminished by nuclear threats or any other threats to the well-being of people anywhere. 


    It takes courage to think differently, to break away from the group-think of the tribe.  It takes courage to express compassion and to embrace the world.  It takes courage to wage peace rather than war. 


    Cooperation is needed to solve the world’s great problems.  There is no significant global problem – war, abuses of human rights, environmental degradation, climate change, nuclear threat – that can be solved by any one nation alone.  It takes not only a village, but a world to bring about the changes that are needed.


    Creativity is also essential to change.  It will take new and creative ways of thinking to prevent the ultimate catastrophe to ourselves and our fellow inhabitants of Earth.  Einstein said prophetically, “The unleashed power of the atom has changed everything save our modes of thinking, and thus we drift toward unparalleled catastrophe.”  We must change our modes of thinking, and replace the old patterns with new ones.  We must become world citizens and peace leaders.


    Commitment will keep you going when the goal seems distant and the obstacles seem overwhelming.  No great goal is easy to attain, but some goals – and I would place the abolition of nuclear weapons among these – are challenges that cannot be ignored or cast aside.  The future, which cannot speak for itself and has only our voice, deserves our commitment.

  • A Silly Dream?

    Vaya aquí para la versión española.


    David KriegerA note recently came to the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation that said: “Are you folks out of your minds?  The nuclear genie is out of the bottle and isn’t going back in.  Shortly even non-state actors will have nukes!  Quit wasting your time on this silly dream.”  The author of the note, to his credit, signed his name, and also indicated that he is a retired U.S. Air Force colonel. 


    The colonel poses a critical question: Are we out of our minds to believe that change is possible and that humans might find a way to cooperate to eliminate the existential threat that nuclear weapons pose to humanity (and other forms of life)?  Perhaps we are, but it seems to me that the future of civilization, the human species and other complex forms of life are worth the effort.  The Nuclear Age is distinct from the periods that preceded it in having the capacity to end most complex life, including human life, on the planet.  Fighting for the elimination of nuclear weapons is also the fight for human survival and for the rights of future generations.  I’ve always believed that we have a choice: nuclear weapons or a human future.  Along with the survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I believe it is unlikely that both are possible.


    Next, the colonel asserts that “[t]he nuclear genie is out of the bottle and isn’t going back in.”  I suppose this means that the knowledge of how to create nuclear weapons exists and cannot be erased.  Granted, the knowledge now exists.  The challenge is whether countries will choose to eliminate nuclear weapons in their common interest, or whether they will be paralyzed by fear into failing to try.  Knowledge alone is not sufficient to make nuclear weapons.  Scientific and engineering skills are also needed, as are nuclear materials.  There may not be a foolproof method to assure the elimination of nuclear weapons, but there is also no foolproof method to assure that existing nuclear weapons will not be used in a nuclear war that could kill billions of people and destroy civilization. 


    The question is: which is a safer path for humanity?  On the one hand, to seek the phased, verifiable and irreversible elimination of nuclear weapons and effective international safeguards on nuclear materials; or, on the other hand, to continue the status quo of having the world divided into a small but increasing number of nuclear “haves” and a far larger number of nuclear “have-nots”?  I would place my bet on working for the elimination of the weapons, the same path chosen by Albert Einstein, Bertrand Russell and Ronald Reagan.  According to his wife, Nancy, President Reagan “had many hopes for the future, and none were more important to America and to mankind than the effort to create a world free of nuclear weapons.” 


    The colonel seems to like the odds of continuing with the status quo, even though he recognizes that “[s]hortly even non-state actors will have nukes!”  This is most likely true and it poses an enormous problem for the US and other nuclear armed countries, if we fail to bring nuclear weapons and the materials to make them under strict and effective international control.  All of the thousands of nuclear weapons in the US arsenal can’t deter a terrorist organization in possession of a single nuclear weapon.  You can’t credibly threaten retaliation against an organization or individuals that you can’t even locate.


    “Quit wasting your time,” the colonel admonishes, “on this silly dream.”  But all dreams may seem silly before they are realized.  Mohandas Gandhi had a dream of an independent India.   It must have seemed silly to Winston Churchill and other British leaders at the time.  Martin Luther King, Jr. had a dream of racial equality.  Perhaps it seemed silly to many.  Nelson Mandela dreamed of an end to apartheid in South Africa.  During his 27 years in prison, this dream must have seemed silly to the white power structure in South Africa. 


    There are dreams of justice and equality that must seem silly to many.  There are dreams of alleviating poverty and hunger, and dreams of educational opportunity for all children.  There are even dreams of eliminating war.  It is not silly to fight for a better future, and certainly not silly to fight to assure the future itself. 


    For me, a New Year is a new beginning and always brings hope.  I will continue to choose hope and to fight for the dream of peace and the elimination of nuclear weapons.  Achieving these goals is the great challenge of our time, and on their success depend the realization of all other goals for a more just and decent world.