Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Tag: David Krieger

  • Tale of Two Nuclear Whistleblowers

    Reliable sources have revealed that as a result of a secret trial, Iranian nuclear whistleblower Amid Nasri has been sentenced to 18 years in solitary confinement.  Nasri, a former worker at an Iranian uranium enrichment plant, revealed to the The Sunday Times in London that Iran was developing nuclear materials as part of a program to create nuclear weapons.  Lured to Rome by a strikingly beautiful Iranian secret agent, Nasri was kidnapped by the secret service and returned to Iran for trial.  

    The government of Iran issued a brief statement in which they claim that Nasri violated the national security of the Islamic Republic of Iran and was tried and punished accordingly.  They state that he had a contractual obligation not to release any information concerning the work of the uranium enrichment plant where he worked.  

    Nasri has been incarcerated in Iran’s highest level security prison and has not been allowed to speak to the press or to foreign officials.  He is under such severe restrictions that he is not allowed even to speak with other prison inmates.  

    There have been widespread protests from Western governments about Nasri’s treatment at the hands of the Iranian government.  A high-level UK official called the secret trial a “sham of the first order,” and harshly criticized the Iranian government for its heavy handed treatment of Nasri.   US officials have also protested Nasri’s conviction, calling him a hero for making public the information on the Iranian nuclear weapon program. 

    Before you become too concerned about the harsh treatment of this Iranian whistleblower acting for the common good, I need to tell you that he is fictional.  He does not exist.  There is no Iranian whistleblower Amid Nasri.  There is also no proof of an Iranian nuclear weapon program, although there are concerns about its nuclear enrichment program.

    The story, though, is not entirely false.  There is an Israeli nuclear whistleblower by the name of Mordechai Vanunu.  He worked as a nuclear technician at the Negev Nuclear Research Center in Israel.  He revealed information on the Israeli nuclear weapon program to the The Sunday Times in London in 1986.  He was lured from London to Rome by a beautiful Israeli secret agent, where he was kidnapped by Israel’s secret service and returned to Israel.  There he was given a secret trial, convicted and sentenced to 18 years imprisonment.  He served more than 11 years of his sentence in solitary confinement.  The Israelis claimed that Vanunu violated his contractual obligations of secrecy and was a national security risk. 

    Vanunu was released from prison in 2004, but under harsh parole terms.  He is not allowed to leave Israel or to travel too close to the Israeli border.  Nor is he allowed to talk to foreign journalists.  In 2007, Vanunu was sentenced to six more months in prison for violating the terms of his parole for speaking to the foreign media in 2004.  The sentence was later reduced by half, and in May 2010 Vanunu was returned to prison for three months.  Amnesty International has called Vanunu a prisoner of conscience.  Although he has received many awards for his courage in blowing the whistle on Israel’s nuclear weapons program and has been nominated many times for the Nobel Peace Prize, he has received virtually no support from Western governments.

    What are we to learn from this tale of two whistleblowers, one fictional, one real?  One important lesson is the danger of nuclear double standards.  We cannot be content to make a hero of a fictional Iranian nuclear whistleblower, while turning a blind eye to the treatment of a real-life Israeli nuclear whistleblower and to the Israeli nuclear arsenal.

    Nuclear weapons are not reasonable weapons in the hands of any nation – not Israel, not Iran, not the US, the UK, or any other nation.  We should not be complacent with the punishment of truth-telling messengers such as Vanunu.  We should laud them and work to assure that no nation holds in its hands the nuclear power of mass annihilation. 

    The Final Document of the 2010 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference calls for a Middle East Nuclear Weapon-Free Zone, a long time aspiration of the people of this region.  If such a zone is created, it will mean that Iran and other countries in the region will not be able to develop nuclear weapons, but it will also mean that Israel will not be able to continue to possess its nuclear arsenal, which is thought to contain some 200 nuclear weapons. 

    If we are going to prevent future replays of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or even worse scenarios, we must rid the world of nuclear weapons.  It will not be easy, but it is necessary if we are to assure the continuation of human life on our planet.  President Obama has told us that America seeks “the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons.”  In that world, whistleblowers like Mordechai Vanunu will be respected and honored for the courage they displayed in revealing the truth in the face of the overwhelming power and hypocrisy of the state and of a global system that unwisely supported nuclear double standards.

  • Why We Wage Peace

    Some things are worth Waging Peace for: our planet and its diverse life forms, including humankind; our children and their dreams; our common future.  All of these are threatened by the possibility of nuclear catastrophe.

    We live on an amazing planet, the only one we know of in the universe that supports life, and does so in abundance and diversity.  Our planet is worth Waging Peace for – against those who are despoiling and ruining its delicate and beautiful environment.  

    On our unique planet are creatures of all shapes and sizes: Birds that fly, fish that swim, animals that inhabit jungles and deserts, mountains and plains, rivers and oceans.  Life is worth Waging Peace for – against those who are disrespecting and destroying the habitats of creatures great and small.

    Among the diverse creatures on our planet are human beings.  We are homo sapiens, the knowing ones, and are relative newcomers to the planet.  Yet, our impact has been profound.  We are creatures capable of learning and loving, of being imaginative and inventive, of being compassionate and kind.  We are worth Waging Peace for – against those who would diminish us by undermining our dignity and human rights.

    Human beings, like other forms of life, produce offspring who are innocent and helpless at birth.  These human children, all children, require care and nurturing as they grow to maturity.  The world’s children are worth Waging Peace for – against those who would threaten their future with war and other forms of overt and structural violence.

    Children as they grow have dreams of living happy and decent lives, dreams of building a better future in peaceful and just societies.  These dreams are worth Waging Peace for – against those whose myopia and greed rob children anywhere of a better future.

    Each generation shares a responsibility to pass the planet and civilization on intact to the next generation.  Accepting this responsibility is an important part of Waging Peace.  It is a way of paying a debt of gratitude to all who have preceded us on the planet by assuring that there is a better future.

    In the Nuclear Age, we humans, by our cleverness, have invented tools capable of our own demise.  Nuclear weapons are not really weapons; they are instruments of annihilation and perhaps of omnicide, the death of all.  Waging Peace in the Nuclear Age requires that we awaken to the dangers that these weapons pose to humankind and all life, and work to rid the world of these insane tools of global devastation.

    For too long humanity has lived with nuclear policies of Mutually Assured Destruction, with the appropriate acronym of MAD.  We need a new and distinctly different formulation: Planetary Assured Security and Survival, with the acronym PASS for passing the world on intact to the next generation.

    Among the greatest obstacles to assuring survival in the Nuclear Age are ignorance, apathy, complacency and despair.  These can only be overcome by education and advocacy; education to raise awareness of what needs to change and advocacy to increase engagement in bringing about the needed change.   

    The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation has three major goals: the abolition of nuclear weapons, the strengthening of international law, and the empowerment of new peace leaders.   The Foundation was created in 1982 in the belief that peace is an imperative of the Nuclear Age and that the people must lead their leaders if we are to assure a safe and secure human future.  We need your generous support to continue to educate and advocate for a brighter future for humanity.

  • Remembering Frank King Kelly

    Click here to view our Frank K. Kelly memorial page, which includes photos, reflections and more.

    Frank King Kelly lived a long and full life.  He died peacefully just one day before his 96th birthday.  He was a fortunate man and all of us whose lives were touched by him were fortunate as well.

    Frank was married to his great love, Barbara, for 54 years.  She was his rock, his partner and his strongest booster.  She also kept his feet on the ground, or at least tried.  Frank had two sons, Terry and Stephen.  He was very proud of them and of their wives.  He took joy in their accomplishments and those of his three grandsons.  He was delighted by the recent birth of his great grandson. 

    Frank had a remarkable career.  He was a reporter for the Kansas City Star, a Nieman Fellow at Harvard University, a soldier in World War II, a speech writer for Harry Truman, assistant to the Senate Majority Leader, vice president of the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions, and a founder and senior vice president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. 

    To everything he did, Frank brought creativity and optimism.  He believed firmly that everyone deserves a seat at humanity’s table, and he worked for this goal throughout his life. 

    Frank loved to tell stories and he had many of them.  As a young boy, he would be sent in to awaken his father who had recurring nightmares after returning from World War I.  His father’s strong and lasting torment from the hand-to-hand combat he had experienced was Frank’s initiation to the trauma of war.

    As a teenager, Frank wrote science fiction stories.  He often finished 15,000 word stories at one go, with no revisions required.  The editors to whom he sent his stories thought they were publishing the work of an older man rather than that of a teenager.  In 1996, Frank would be inducted into the First Fandom Hall of Fame, an award for contributions to science fiction dating back more than 30 years.

    At the Kansas City Star Frank met Ernest Hemingway, who told him that he would have to leave Missouri if he ever hoped to be a writer.  Frank did leave, and over the course of his lifetime wrote ten books, including one only a few years before his death. 

    As a soldier and reporter in World War II, Frank interviewed many dying soldiers.  At the end of their young lives, he said, they all cried out for their mothers.  Frank was with the first group of American troops to liberate Paris.  He loved it that they were greeted with such warmth and excitement, but Frank had seen enough to have a deep loathing for war and its consequences.

    Frank was asked to write speeches for Harry Truman in his 1948 campaign.  Most of his friends thought that Truman was a sure loser and that Frank would be crazy to take the job, but Barbara encouraged him and he did take it.  Throughout his life, Frank was fiercely loyal to Truman, a man he admired greatly.  When Frank introduced his mother to Harry Truman in the Oval Office, she told Truman how wonderful she thought it was that Frank and he had won that election.

    Frank next took a position as assistant to the Senate Majority Leader and then as staff director of the Senate Majority Policy Committee.  I don’t think he enjoyed that experience of power politics, and he was happy to accept a series of new assignments.

    In 1952, Frank served as Washington director of the Harriman for President Committee.  In 1952 and 1953, Frank was the US director of the Study of World News, conducted by the International Press Institute.  In 1953 and 1954, Frank directed a national campaign against book censorship.

    In 1956, Frank became the vice president of the Fund for the Republic, a nonprofit organization funded by the Ford Foundation, which was established to “support activities directed toward the elimination of restrictions on freedom of thought, inquiry and expression in the United States….”  The fund was a staunch opponent of McCarthyism. 

    When the Fund established the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions in Santa Barbara in 1959, Frank and Barbara moved their family to Santa Barbara.  Frank worked closely at the Center with its founder and president, Robert Hutchins, for the next 17 years.  At the Center, Frank initiated two major international convocations around Pope John XXIII’s papal encyclical, “Pacem in Terris.”

    It was at the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions that I met Frank when I joined the staff there in 1972.  Later, after Robert Hutchins had died and the Center for all practical purposes had ceased to exist, Frank wrote a seminal book about it, The Court of Reason.

    Frank and I worked together in founding the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.  At first, he thought it was a farfetched idea that we could create a new organization that could make a difference in building a more peaceful world, but he believed we should try and we did.  We founded the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation in 1982, along with three other Santa Barbarans.  We had no resources to start with, but a fervent belief that peace was an imperative of the Nuclear Age and that it would be necessary for citizens to lead their leaders.  That was 28 years ago, and throughout that time Frank and I conferred on almost a daily basis.

    Frank’s wife, Barbara, was a poet and, after her death in 1995, the Foundation established the Barbara Mandigo Kelly Peace Poetry Awards in her honor.  Each year these awards are given “to encourage poets to explore and illuminate positive visions of peace and the human spirit.”  The awards are given in three categories: adult, teenage, and 12 and under.

    Frank had many wonderful characteristics that stand out.  He was unfailingly optimistic and believed that better days were ahead.  He was a staunch advocate of women, and believed that their nurturing style of leadership was needed to build a better world.  He was deeply loyal to his friends and colleagues.  He had a special sense of humor and couldn’t resist a good pun.  He was committed to ending war, abolishing nuclear weapons and building a better future for humanity. 

    In 2002, the Foundation established the Frank K. Kelly Lecture on Humanity’s Future.  These lectures are given annually by a distinguished individual “to explore the contours of humanity’s present circumstances and ways by which we can shape a more promising future for our planet and all its inhabitants.”  Frank himself gave the first lecture.  He entitled it, “Glorious Beings: What We Are and What We May Become.”  He believed that each of us is a glorious being.

    Frank lived by one of the core values of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation: shameless idealism.  He was an idealist without regret, a visionary who saw that a better future was not only necessary but possible.   He worked daily throughout his life to achieve a more decent world.

    I would sum up Frank’s life by saying that he was decent, kind and loving, and he never gave up his desire to create a better world.  His life brought dignity to being human.  He was a glorious being.

    Frank was fond of quoting this line by William Blake, “…he who kisses joy as it flies lives in eternity’s sunrise.”  Frank had a special relationship with joy, and I believe he continues to live in “eternity’s sunrise.”

  • The Abolition of Nuclear Weapons and US Vulnerability

    At a recent meeting a question came up concerning how to respond to someone who asks, “Won’t the abolition of nuclear weapons leave the United States vulnerable?”  Here is my response.

    First, it is important to make clear that we are not asking for the US alone to disarm its nuclear arsenal.  Rather than seeking unilateral disarmament, we are calling for the US to lead a multilateral process for the phased, verifiable, irreversible and transparent elimination of nuclear weapons.  We are convinced that all countries, and especially the US, would be safer and more secure in a world without nuclear weapons.

    Second, we are not calling for going to zero nuclear weapons overnight.  Rather, it would be done cautiously over time and in phases.  The term “phased” in the disarmament process is very important.  By proceeding in phases, it means there would be a plan in place that allows for confidence building in discrete steps.  Each phase would need to be completed before moving on to the next phase.  US military and security professionals would be involved in designing the phases.  If problems arise in a phase, attention can be given to working them out before proceeding to the next phase.

    Third, there would need to be means built into the disarmament process by which there is confidence that cheating is not occurring.  This would require verification of the disarmament process.  President Reagan reached the conclusion that “nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.”  He supported the abolition of nuclear weapons, but understood the necessity of verification procedures.  He said, “Trust, but verify.”  This makes sense and would be a key element of the disarmament plan.  

    Verification procedures would need to include not only technical means, such as remote sensing and satellite imagery, but also the ability to hold on-site inspections, including unscheduled challenge inspections.  All sides would have to feel sufficiently comfortable with the verification procedures to move forward into new phases of the disarmament process.

    Fourth, the process would be designed to be irreversible.  It would include provisions that weapons that are dismantled could not later be converted back to weaponry.  Verification procedures would ensure the irreversibility of the process.

    Fifth, transparency would be another key element of the disarmament process.  Countries would reveal what weapons and delivery systems they possess in their nuclear arsenals, and the process would be subject to confirmation by means of inspections and verification.  The US has recently taken an important step toward transparency by revealing that its nuclear arsenal contains 5,113 weapons deployed and in reserve (plus several thousand more awaiting dismantlement).

    Sixth, the question itself implies that currently the US nuclear arsenal prevents the country from being vulnerable to nuclear attack.  This is clearly not the case.  Nuclear weapons do not provide physical protection to their possessors.  Their power to defend against nuclear attack is based upon their ability to deter by threat of nuclear retaliation.  But deterrence is only a theory and one that cannot be proven.  Deterrence cannot protect against accidents or miscalculations.  Nor can it protect against nuclear armed terrorists.  Additionally, nuclear deterrence may simply fail if the threat of retaliation is not believed.  Nuclear deterrence theory requires leaders to behave rationally, and not all leaders do at all times.  

    Seventh, the nuclear status quo of nuclear “haves” and “have-nots” supports double standards that encourage the proliferation of nuclear weapons to other countries.  Such proliferation makes accidents and proliferation to terrorist groups more likely, diminishing security for all.  The United States and the world would be safer and more secure in a world without nuclear weapons.  

    Finally, in a world without nuclear weapons, the US, with its strong conventional military forces, would be far more secure than in a world with many nuclear weapons states and the threat of nuclear terrorism.  Achieving a world without nuclear weapons would leave the US more secure and less vulnerable than it is at the present when the country remains subject to being destroyed by a nuclear attack.

    The choice before the US now is to continue to live with the vulnerability of the threats posed by weapons capable of destroying cities, countries, civilization and the human species along with other complex forms of life, or to proceed cautiously on the path to nuclear weapons abolition.  The nuclear status quo is filled with extreme risks.  The path to zero nuclear weapons may also contain risks, but of the options available, it is the safer and more secure path not only for the US but for the world.  To follow this path, which has legal, moral and practical imperatives, will require US leadership and the commitment of US citizens.

  • Review of From Omnicide to Abolition: Shifting the Mindset

    This article was originally published in Reaching Critical Will’s News In Review.

    Organized by the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (NAPF) and moderated by Rick Wayman, the panel consisted of five speakers who discussed the goal of shifting paradigms on nuclear weaponry and energy.

    David Krieger, NAPF President, defined “omnicide,” as the ability to destroy humanity and other complex life forms, calling it the most compelling reason to abolish nuclear weapons. He argued that because of the possibility for total destruction, nuclear weapons are not useful for war, only for political uses such as dominance and prestige.

    Mr. Krieger and fellow panelist Steven Starr both challenged nuclear deterrence in their statements. Mr. Starr pointed out that deterrence involves the assumption that leaders are rational, and Mr. Krieger added that omnicide was an incredibly high risk to take when tested against that assumption. Mr. Krieger also pointed out that there have been numerous near misses at nuclear war. Mr. Starr noted that deterrence has to work perfectly to justify nuclear weapons, and that it has to fail only once to cause a worldwide catastrophe.

    Mr. Starr and Alice Slater also discussed the environmental effects of nuclear technology. Mr. Starr concentrated upon the effects of usage of nuclear weapons, noting that a scientific modeling of a possible nuclear confrontation between India and Pakistan using only low-yield weapons found that atmospheric pollution would block sunlight, lowering temperatures in North America by 2.5-4 degrees Celsius; this would limit crop viability in Canada and the United States. Mr. Starr argued that even the low-yield weapons used would cause the starvation of nearly one billion people.

    In addition to the 32 states with plutonium and highly-enriched uranium, states with nuclear power programs are also able to develop weapons in months without significant technological adaptation.

    Ms. Slater quoted former CIA Director George Tenet, who noted that the difference between a power program and a weapons program is “time and intent, not technology.” Ms. Slater, who argued against nuclear energy altogether, noted that renewable energy sources were sufficient to power the planet without usage of nuclear, coal or oil-based power. She noted that while there was an “inalienable right” to nuclear power in Article IV of the NPT, it could be overruled in future agreements as renewable power arrangements such as the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) replaced nuclear power.

    Panelist Rob Green, who served as a commander in the British Navy before authoring Security Without Nuclear Deterrence, focused on the ‘indoctrination’ of military personnel and diplomats into the fallacy of nuclear deterrence. Green turned away from military leaders as a pilot in the 1960s, when he carried nuclear weapons until he realized that he would “destroy myself if I dropped it […] I was ordered to become a suicide bomber.”

    Multiple panelists noted the risk to democracy that nuclear weapons pose. Mr. Green warned that deference to leaders was a major obstacle to challenging the status quo and achieving total nuclear disarmament. Ms. Slater noted that the military and conservative allies in parliaments have provided universal “push-back” to disarmament, which limits debate and democratic decision-making.

    The final panelist, Kate Dewes, focused on current initiatives. Ms. Dewes, the Co-Director of the Disarmament and Security Centre, highlighted the Secretary-General’s 5-Point Plan on elimination of nuclear weapons and called upon civil society to continue pressuring the UN to proceed on the plan, which includes negotiations for a Nuclear Weapons Convention (NWC) and creation of Nuclear Weapon-Free Zones. Joining Ms. Dewes in calling for negotiations to create a NWC, Mr. Starr also recommended that nuclear weapon states conduct health and environmental assessments. Mr. Green called for openness in discussion of nuclear weapons as a way of continuing this discussion. All five of the panelists highlighted the present NPT Review Conference as one of many places to continue the discussion, including delegates of governments, civil society and peace activists in the process.

  • President Obama Is on the Right Track

    This article was originally published on the National Journal Experts’ Blog

    President Obama is on the right track with his multiple efforts to reduce nuclear dangers.  I only wish that it were a faster track and reflected a greater sense of urgency.  His policies take account of some important current realities: The Cold War has ended (20 years ago); the greatest threat confronting the US and the world is no longer all-out nuclear war, but nuclear proliferation and nuclear-armed terrorists; and the United States has obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty to engage in “good faith” negotiations to achieve total nuclear disarmament. 

    The Obama administration made a smart move by ruling out using nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapon states that are in compliance with the Non-Proliferation Treaty.  It could have gone further, though.  While the administration surely sees its posture as a useful threat for states not in compliance, this is a two-edged sword.  Such threats also send a message to the rest of the world that the US still finds nuclear weapons useful and is willing to threaten their use.  This continued reliance on nuclear weapons reinforces the current double standards of nuclear “haves” and “have-nots,” which in the long run will not hold.  Some states may be encouraged, as was North Korea, to pursue nuclear weapons capabilities in the belief that they can deter an attack by a more powerful adversary.

    The nuclear weapons reductions in the New START agreement are modest and leave more than enough capability on each side to destroy civilization, but they are a step forward and they do extend the important verification provisions of the first START agreement.  They should be seen as a platform from which to continue the downward movement in nuclear arms to zero.  Ultimately, zero is the only safe, secure and stable number of nuclear weapons in the world. 

    The US has enormous conventional force capability.  While this allows us to reduce our reliance upon nuclear weapons, it also creates problems with the Russians in achieving further nuclear reductions.  Russia has repeatedly expressed concerns with our missile defense deployments, our unwillingness to curtail space weaponization, and our Prompt Global Strike program that would entail putting conventional warheads on ICBMs.  To get to substantially lower levels of nuclear arms and finally to zero, we are going to have to meet the concerns of the Russians and other countries that we are not simply making the world safe for US conventional weapons superiority.

    Realists such as former Secretaries of State George Shultz and Henry Kissinger support the new nuclear posture of the Obama administration.  Critics such as Senators Jon Kyl and John McCain are playing nuclear politics with loaded barrels, pursuing outdated nuclear policies that are MAD in all senses, not only policies of Mutual Assured Destruction but policies based upon Mutual Assured Delusions.  We cannot continue to base our security on nuclear weapons without running the risk of massive and catastrophic disaster.  

    I would urge President Obama to move rapidly in building on the progress he has made to this point.  There is no scenario that would justify US use of nuclear weapons again.  Nuclear deterrence is unstable and dangerous.  Deterrence is a theory and it cannot be proven to be effective under all conditions in the future.  It came close to failing on various occasions during the Cold War.  Deterrence relies upon rationality, and it remains a dangerous assumption that all leaders will act rationally at all times.  Deterrence is subject to human fallibility, and human fallibility and nuclear weapons are a flammable mixture.

    A stronger indication that President Obama is indeed committed to seeking “the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons” would be a policy of No First Use of nuclear weapons, coupled with taking the weapons off hair-trigger alert and continuing to work with the Russians and soon other nuclear weapon states on major reductions in arsenals.  We should be pursuing a new treaty, a Nuclear Weapons Convention, for the phased, verifiable, irreversible and transparent elimination of nuclear weapons.  US leadership for this will be essential.

  • The New US Nuclear Posture

    In April 2009, President Obama went to Prague and told the world that the United States seeks “the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons.” A year later, his administration is moving forward toward this goal. The Obama administration released its Nuclear Posture Review on April 6, 2010. On April 8, 2010, the president flew back to Prague to sign a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) with the Russians.

    In both tone and substance the new Nuclear Posture Review is far more positive and hopeful than that of the George W. Bush administration. The Obama nuclear posture puts its primary focus on preventing nuclear proliferation and terrorism. “The threat of global nuclear war has become remote,” it says, “but the risk of nuclear attack has increased.” It views nuclear terrorism as “today’s most immediate and extreme danger.”  

    To prevent terrorists, such as al Qaeda, from obtaining nuclear weapons, the Obama administration seeks to bolster the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and secure all loose nuclear materials globally. It convened a Nuclear Security Summit on April 12-13, 2010 in Washington, with leaders of 46 other countries participating in making plans to prevent nuclear terrorism. The Obama administration is also pursuing arms control efforts, including the New START agreement, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty.  

    The administration has been straight forward in stating that it is taking these steps “as a means of strengthening our ability to mobilize broad international support for the measures needed to reinforce the non-proliferation regime and secure nuclear materials worldwide.”  In other words, the Obama administration understands that the US needs to show that it is taking steps to meet its own nuclear disarmament obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (something the Bush administration never grasped) if it hopes to have the support of other parties to that treaty for keeping nuclear materials out of the hands of terrorists.

    Many advocates of a nuclear weapon-free world, including the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, encouraged the Obama administration to go further and adopt a policy of No First Use; that is, committing to use nuclear weapons only in response to a preceding nuclear attack.  While the administration did not demonstrate this level of leadership, it did consider a policy of making the deterrence of a nuclear attack the “sole purpose” of nuclear weapons. However, it dismissed even this step, while offering some hope that it will work toward this end in the future.  

    The administration did take a smaller step by committing in the new Nuclear Posture Review not to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapon states that are in compliance with the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. It referred specifically to North Korea and Iran as countries out of compliance with the treaty. The new nuclear posture will please some advocates of nuclear weapons by leaving open “a narrow range of contingencies in which U.S. nuclear weapons may still play a role in deterring a conventional or CBW [chemical or biological weapons] attack against the United States or its allies and partners.”  

    The new Nuclear Posture Review states that the “fundamental role of U.S. nuclear weapons, which will continue as long as nuclear weapons exist, is to deter nuclear attack on the United States, our allies, and partners.” This suggests confusion in the policy. If terrorists are, in fact, the greatest threat to the country, and as non-state actors they cannot be deterred, then who exactly are the weapons deterring? The review may be contemplating Russia or China, but it also recognizes that the US is interconnected with these countries and the chances of war with them are very low. Or, it may be contemplating some unknown contingency in the future, but if this is the case then wouldn’t the country be better off moving more rapidly toward the goal of a world without nuclear weapons?  The review makes clear that the US “would only consider the use of nuclear weapons in extreme circumstances to defend the vital interests of the United States or its allies and partners.” This approach, and the vagueness of “vital interests,” will likely be viewed internationally as an unfortunate double standard that other countries may also choose to rely upon.

    In the new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, the US and Russia will reduce their deployed strategic nuclear weapons to 1,550 each and reduce deployed delivery vehicles to 700 each with 100 reserve delivery vehicles each by the year 2017.  It is not a large step forward, but it is a step in the right direction, and the Obama administration is committed to seeking further reductions with Russia.  Together the two countries have some 95 percent of the world’s 23,000 nuclear arms.  The new US nuclear posture indicates that the US “will place importance on Russia joining us as we move to lower levels.”  In the document, however, there are no constraints on the ability of the US to deploy missile defenses.  Since this is a major concern to Russia, it could limit the possibilities for additional progress toward nuclear disarmament.  

    One of the phrases that recurs throughout the new Nuclear Posture Review is “ensuring the safety, security and effectiveness” of nuclear warheads.  Safety and security both make sense.  If we are to retain nuclear weapons, we want them to be both safe from accident and secure from theft.  But what does “effective” mean?  That the weapons will serve the purpose of deterring?  If so, who?  Effectiveness would be impossible to measure unless we can answer the question, “Effective for what?”  In the end, “safe, secure and effective,” appear to be arguments for modernizing the US nuclear arsenal and spending an additional $5 billion on its nuclear weapons laboratories over the next five years.

    The Nuclear Posture Review concludes by looking toward a world without nuclear weapons. It recognizes that certain conditions are necessary for such a world. These include halting nuclear proliferation, achieving greater transparency into nuclear weapons programs, improving verification methods, developing effective enforcement measures, and resolving regional disputes. The review states that such conditions do not exist today. However, with the requisite political will, these conditions could be developed in the process of negotiating a Nuclear Weapons Convention – a treaty for the phased, verifiable, irreversible and transparent elimination of nuclear weapons. While pausing to celebrate the incremental steps in arms reductions and the limitations on nuclear weapons use that are being made now, we should also recognize that a policy of No First Use and a commitment to negotiate a Nuclear Weapons Convention would move us far more rapidly toward the peace and security of the nuclear weapon-free world envisioned by President Obama.  

  • Moving from Omnicide to Abolition

    Nuclear weapons present humankind with an immense challenge, one far greater than most people understand.  Many people realize, of course, that nuclear weapons are dangerous and deadly, and that in the past they were used to destroy the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, with a single weapon demolishing each city.  But few people have grappled with the proposition that these weapons are omnicidal; they go beyond suicide and genocide to omnicide, the death of all.  

    In a cataclysmic strike, resulting in the destruction of present life forms on the planet, these weapons would also obliterate the past and future, destroying both human memory and possibility.  They would obliterate every sacred part of being, leaving vast ruin and emptiness where once life, love, friendship, decency, hope and beauty had existed.

    Despite the omnicidal capacity of nuclear weapons, leaders of a small number of countries continue to maintain and develop nuclear arsenals and rely upon these weapons for national security.  They justify this reliance on the basis of nuclear deterrence, arguing that the weapons prevent war by the threat of retaliation with overwhelming destructive force.  This argument has many flaws, the most important being that deterrence is only a theory and is subject to human fallibility.  

    Deterrence theory posits rational decision makers, but it is highly unlikely that all political leaders will act rationally at all times, particularly under conditions of high stress.  Deterrence is also widely understood to be ineffective against non-state actors, such as extremist groups, which cannot be located and whose members are suicidal.  In other words, deterrence may fail, and such failure would be catastrophic.

    Unfortunately, leaders of the major nuclear weapon states are continuing to drag their feet on nuclear disarmament, sometimes rhetorically expressing the vision of a nuclear weapon-free world, but resisting serious actions toward the abolition of their arsenals that would provide assurance of their commitment.  For example, in his much heralded Prague speech in April 2009, President Obama said, “I state clearly and with conviction America’s commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons.”  But he quickly followed this visionary statement with a lowering of expectations.  “I’m not naïve,” he said.  “This goal will not be reached quickly – perhaps not in my lifetime.  It will take patience and persistence.”  

    President Obama is a relatively young man, who is likely to have a long life.  He is to be commended for his vision of a nuclear weapon-free world, but his lack of urgency in seeking the elimination of nuclear weapons opens the door to the further proliferation of nuclear weapons and their potential use.  There are still some 23,000 nuclear weapons in the world, far more than are needed to end civilization, the human species and other forms of complex life on the planet.  

    The next major international event at which the subject of nuclear weapons will be before the international community is the 2010 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference, which will take place in May 2010.  This treaty calls for both nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament.  In their deliberations, the states parties to the treaty should bear in mind the following points in seeking a comprehensive solution to the omnicidal threat of nuclear weapons:

    • Nuclear weapons continue to present a real and present danger to humanity and other life on Earth.
    • Basing the security of one’s country on the threat to kill tens of millions of innocent people, perhaps billions, and risking the destruction of civilization, has no moral justification and deserves the strongest condemnation.
    • It will not be possible to prevent proliferation of nuclear weapons without fulfilling existing legal obligations for total nuclear disarmament.
    • Preventing nuclear proliferation and achieving nuclear disarmament will both be made far more difficult, if not impossible, by expanding nuclear energy facilities throughout the world.
    • Putting the world on track for eliminating the existential threat posed by nuclear weapons will require new ways of thinking about this overarching danger to present and future generations.  

    The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation supports the following five priority actions for agreement at the 2010 NPT Review Conference:

    1. Each signatory nuclear weapon state should provide an accurate public accounting of its nuclear arsenal, conduct a public environmental and human assessment of its potential use, and devise and make public a roadmap for going to zero nuclear weapons.
    2. All signatory nuclear weapon states should reduce the role of nuclear weapons in their security policies by taking all nuclear forces off high-alert status, pledging No First Use of nuclear weapons against other nuclear weapon states and No Use against non-nuclear weapon states.
    3. All enriched uranium and reprocessed plutonium – military and civilian – and their production facilities (including all uranium enrichment and plutonium separation technology) should be placed under strict and effective international safeguards.
    4. All signatory states should review Article IV of the NPT, promoting the “inalienable right” to nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, in light of the nuclear proliferation problems posed by nuclear electricity generation.
    5. All signatory states should comply with Article VI of the NPT, reinforced and clarified by the 1996 World Court Advisory Opinion, by commencing negotiations in good faith on a Nuclear Weapons Convention for the phased, verifiable, irreversible and transparent elimination of nuclear weapons, and complete these negotiations by the year 2015.

    The most important action by the 2010 NPT Review Conference would be an agreement to commence good faith negotiations for a Nuclear Weapons Convention.  Such an agreement would demonstrate the needed political will among the world’s countries to move forward toward a world without nuclear weapons.  If the United States fails to lead in convening these negotiations, I would urge Japan to do so.  Regardless of which countries provide the leadership, however, I would propose that the opening session of these negotiations be held in Hiroshima, the first city to have suffered nuclear devastation, and the final session of these negotiations be held in Nagasaki, the second and, hopefully, last city to have suffered atomic devastation.

    If agreement could be reached to begin these negotiations for a new treaty, a Nuclear Weapons Convention, we would be on a serious path toward a nuclear weapon-free world, one that would allow the hibakusha of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to know that their pleas have been heard.

    If climate change is an “inconvenient truth,” as Al Gore argues, then the potentially omnicidal consequences of nuclear weapons are an even more critical inconvenient truth.  Perhaps the greatest contemporary challenge confronting humanity in the 21st century is urgently ending the nuclear weapons era.  To move from omnicide to abolition will require a major outpouring of support from people everywhere.  The task cannot be left to political leaders alone.  Without a strong foundation of public support, political leaders are unlikely to be courageous and persistent in seeking to achieve a world free of nuclear weapons.  Ordinary citizens must overcome their disempowerment and propensity to defer to experts in order to act for the benefit of all humankind and demand the change they seek, in this case the abolition of nuclear weapons.

  • Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament: Shifting the Mindset (Executive Summary)

    To download a full copy of this briefing booklet, click here.

    Executive Summary

    Throughout the Nuclear Age, leaders of the United States, Russia, United Kingdom, France and China – the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, known as the P5 – have been locked in old ways of thinking about security.  They believe that nuclear deterrence in a two-tier structure of nuclear haves and have-nots can hold indefinitely without significant nuclear proliferation and further use of nuclear weapons.  This way of thinking continues to place not only the P5 and their allies in danger of nuclear annihilation, but threatens global catastrophe for civilization, the human species and most forms of life. 

    The policies of the nuclear weapon states have favored going slow on achieving a world free of nuclear weapons, preferring arms control and non-proliferation measures to nuclear disarmament.  They have placed emphasis on small steps rather than taking a comprehensive approach to the elimination of nuclear weapons.  While reducing their nuclear arsenals, they have simultaneously modernized them, and thus have demonstrated their continued reliance upon these weapons in their security policies.

    However, cracks in this old and dangerous way of thinking have begun to show in the statements of former high-level policy makers in the United States and other countries and in the vision of a nuclear weapon-free world expressed by U.S. President Barack Obama.

    This briefing booklet explores new ways of thinking in relation to the 2010 Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference.  It presents the case that nuclear weapons abolition is the only rational and sane position to adopt toward current nuclear threats.  In light of the overwhelming threat posed by nuclear weapons, all conference participants are urged to bear in mind the following in preparing for their deliberations:

    •    Nuclear weapons continue to present a real and present danger to humanity and other life on Earth.

    •    Basing the security of one’s country on the threat to kill tens of millions of innocent people, perhaps billions, and risking the destruction of civilization, has no moral justification and deserves the strongest condemnation.

    •    It will not be possible to prevent proliferation of nuclear weapons without fulfilling existing legal obligations for total nuclear disarmament. 

    •    Preventing nuclear proliferation and achieving nuclear disarmament will both be made far more difficult, if not impossible, by expanding nuclear energy facilities throughout the world. 

    •    Putting the world on track for eliminating the existential threat posed by nuclear weapons will require a shift in thinking about this overarching danger to present and future generations. 

    The briefing sets forth a spectrum of perspectives on nuclear weapons, from Nuclear Believers at one end to Nuclear Abolitionists at the other.  Between them are three other groups, the largest being the Nuclear Disempowered.  This group is composed of most of the general public who are often ignorant, confused and apathetic about nuclear weapons as a result of government secrecy and manipulation of information about the role of these weapons in security policies and the consequences of persisting plans for their use.  It is this critical group that must be made more aware of the nuclear threats to our common future and must make their voices heard in a new and vigorous global dialogue on nuclear policy. 

    The booklet reviews a number of proposals to achieve a world free of nuclear weapons and sets forth five priorities for agreement at the 2010 NPT Review Conference:

    1.    Each signatory nuclear weapon state should provide an accurate public accounting of its nuclear arsenal, conduct a public environmental and human assessment of its potential use, and devise and make public a roadmap for going to zero nuclear weapons.

    2.    All signatory nuclear weapon states should reduce the role of nuclear weapons in their security policies by taking all nuclear forces off high-alert status, pledging No First Use of nuclear weapons against other nuclear weapon states and No Use against non-nuclear weapon states.

    3.    All enriched uranium and reprocessed plutonium – military and civilian – and their production facilities (including all uranium enrichment and plutonium separation technology) should be placed under strict and effective international safeguards.

    4.    All signatory states should review Article IV of the NPT, promoting the “inalienable right” to nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, in light of the nuclear proliferation problems posed by nuclear electricity generation.

    5.    All signatory states should comply with Article VI of the NPT, reinforced and clarified by the 1996 World Court Advisory Opinion, by commencing negotiations in good faith on a Nuclear Weapons Convention for the phased, verifiable, irreversible and transparent elimination of nuclear weapons, and complete these negotiations by the year 2015.

    The briefing then considers issues of double standards and concludes that such standards will result in predictable catastrophes.  A more just and secure future for humanity will require leaders of all countries, and especially those in the nuclear weapon states, to exercise sound judgment and act for the benefit of all humanity.  A thorough rethinking of nuclear policy is needed, with the goal of moving from minimal acceptable change to a comprehensive plan for achieving a nuclear weapon-free future.

    A full copy of the briefing booklet can be downloaded
    from our website at https://wagingpeace.davidmolinaojeda.com/goto/nptbooklet. To request a
    hard copy, please call our office at (805) 965-3443.

  • Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament: Shifting the Mindset

    2010_03_19_npt_briefing.pdf