Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Tag: David Krieger

  • Progress Toward Nuclear Weapons Abolition

    David Krieger

    The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation has been working to end the nuclear weapons threat to humanity and all life for 35 years.  We were one of many nuclear disarmament organizations created in the early 1980s, in our case in 1982.  Some of these organizations have endured; some have not.

    We were founded on the belief that peace is an imperative of the Nuclear Age, that nuclear weapons must be abolished, and that the people of the world must lead their leaders to achieve these goals.  As a founder of the organization, and as its president since its founding, it now seems an appropriate time to look back and reflect on the changes that have occurred over the past 35 years.

    1. War and Peace. Although there has not been an all-out world war since World War II, international terrorism may be viewed as a world war taking place in slow motion, and points to the continuing need to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of terrorists.  From a different perspective, those countries in possession of nuclear weapons may themselves be viewed as terrorists for their implicit, and sometimes explicit, threats to use nuclear weapons against their adversaries.  Also, there have been many proxy wars between the U.S. and Russia (formerly Soviet Union).
    2. Dramatic reductions. While nuclear weapons have not been abolished, there have been dramatic reductions in their numbers.  By the mid-1980s, there were some 70,000 nuclear weapons in the world.  Now the number is under 15,000, a reduction of 55,000.  This is positive movement, but there are still more than enough nuclear weapons in today’s nuclear arsenals to destroy civilization many times over and to send the planet spiraling into a new Ice Age.
    3. People leading. There are some signs that the people are leading their leaders on issues of peace and disarmament.  One of these is the July 2017 adoption of the new United Nations Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.  This treaty was spearheaded by non-nuclear weapon states in cooperation with the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), a campaign composed of more than 450 civil society organizations, including the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.  ICAN was recognized for this achievement with the 2017 Nobel Peace Prize.
    4. Proliferation. In the early 1980s, there were six nuclear-armed countries: the U.S., Soviet Union (now Russia), UK, France, China and Israel.  Now there are nine nuclear-armed countries, adding to the first six India, Pakistan and North Korea.  The proliferation of nuclear weapons, although limited, raises the odds of nuclear weapons use.  In addition to these nine nuclear-armed countries, the U.S. still keeps approximately 180 nuclear weapons on the soil of five European countries: Belgium, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, and Turkey.
    5. Curtailing nuclear testing. In the early 1980s, there was widespread nuclear testing, but today nuclear testing is almost nonexistent.  North Korea is the only country still conducting physical nuclear tests, although some countries, including the U.S., continue to conduct subcritical nuclear tests and computer simulation tests.
    6. Cold War. The Cold War ended in 1991, causing many people to think the dangers of nuclear weapons had ended, but this is far from the reality of the Nuclear Age, in which nuclear detonations could occur by accident or miscalculation, as well as by intention, at any time.
    7. Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). In 1995, the NPT was indefinitely extended, despite the failure of the parties to the treaty, particularly the five original nuclear-armed countries, to fulfill their Article VI obligations to negotiate in good faith for an end to the nuclear arms race at an early date and for nuclear disarmament.
    8. Ignorance. Many people alive today know little to nothing about the dangers of nuclear weapons, not having lived through the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the frequent atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons, the duck and cover drills that were conducted in schools, or civil defense drills.  Many younger people do not recognize the seriousness of the continuing nuclear threat, or else believe that the threat is limited to countries such as North Korea or Iran.
    9. Thermonuclear monarchy. In the 1980s and still today, we live in a world in which very few people in each nuclear-armed country are authorized to order the use of nuclear weapons.  Thus, these individuals hold the keys to the human future in their hands.  This has been described by Harvard professor Elaine Scarry as “Thermonuclear Monarchy.”
    10. Survivors. The survivors of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, known as hibakusha, have grown older and fewer in number.  Their average age is now above 80 years.  They are the true ambassadors of the Nuclear Age, and their testimony remains critical to awakening people to the nuclear threat to all humanity, and to achieving a world free of nuclear weapons.

    Over the past 35 years, there have been significant reductions in nuclear weapons and nuclear testing, but there are more nuclear-armed countries now than then.  There is still widespread ignorance and apathy about nuclear dangers.  Despite this, civil society organizations, including the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, are making progress by working with non-nuclear weapons states.  The most recent example of this is the adoption by the United Nations of the new Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.  The civil society organizations working in the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons will be instrumental in encouraging countries to sign and ratify the treaty for its early entry into force, which will occur 90 days after the fiftieth ratification of the treaty is deposited with the United Nations.

    Despite having gone more than seven decades without a nuclear war since the first atomic weapons were used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, there are no guarantees that these horrendous weapons will not again be used, by accident or design, on any given day. The nuclear-armed countries continue to rely upon the human-created theory of nuclear deterrence to avert a nuclear war.  This is a shaky foundation on which to base the future of civilization and of the human species.  Although some progress has been made toward eliminating nuclear weapons, it is not sufficient.  Far more people need to awaken to the dangers posed by nuclear weapons and to demand an end to the nuclear era.  We would be wise to listen to the hibakusha and abolish nuclear weapons before they abolish us.

    David Krieger is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org).  His most recent book is Portraits: Peacemakers, Warmongers and People Between.           

  • Ten Nuclear Wishes for the New Year

    This article was originally published by Counterpunch.

    1) That Hiroshima and Nagasaki’s past will not become any other city’s future.

    2) That the new UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons will get at least 50 ratifications and enter into force.

    3) That there will be no further proliferation of nuclear weapons to other countries.

    4) That no insane leader will initiate a nuclear war and leaders of nuclear-armed countries will stop taunting each other.

    5) That nuclear deterrence will be recognized for the fraud that it is.

    6) That there will be no accidents or miscalculations leading to nuclear catastrophe.

    7) That the parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty will engage in good faith negotiations, as the treaty requires, for an end to the nuclear arms race and for nuclear disarmament.

    8) That there will be no cyber-attacks on nuclear weapons systems, leading to the launch of nuclear weapons.

    9) That the nuclear weapons states will halt their plans to spend hundreds of billions, even trillions, of dollars to modernize their nuclear arsenals.

    10) That people everywhere will realize the necessity for peace in the Nuclear Age and will demand that their governments seek peace and the abolition of nuclear weapons.

  • Decoding Donald

    This article was originally published by Counterpunch.

    The future of the world and of humanity is at the mercy of a lunatic.  His name is Donald Trump, and he alone has access to the U.S. nuclear codes.  Before he does something rash and irreversible with those codes, it is imperative to decode Donald, taking the necessary steps to remove this power from him.

    Trump tweeted on December 16, 2016: “The United States must greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability until such time as the world comes to its senses regarding nukes.”

    What good would a greatly strengthened and expanded nuclear capability do for the U.S.?  We can already end civilization and most life on the planet with the use of our nuclear arsenal.  The U.S. has nearly 7,000 nuclear weapons, with more than 1,500 of them deployed and ready for use.  By comparison, North Korea and its leader, Kim Jong-un, the subject of much of Trump’s venom, have only 10 to 15 nuclear weapons.  But those have Trump worried enough to go to the United Nations and threaten to totally destroy North Korea should that country threaten the U.S.

    How many more nuclear weapons does Trump think are needed to keep Kim Jong-un at bay?  The truth is that the U.S. already has more than enough nuclear weapons to deter North Korea, assuming they need to be deterred at all.  What North Korea actually appears to want is a small nuclear arsenal capable of deterring the U.S. from invading its country, overthrowing its regime, and killing its leaders.  Since North Korean leaders believe they face an existential threat from the U.S., a greatly expanded U.S. nuclear arsenal won’t change the current equation.

    Nor will more and strengthened nuclear weapons change the equation between the U.S. and Russia, China, or any other nuclear-armed country.  It will just start a new nuclear arms race, which will benefit only the arms merchants while making the world far more dangerous.  Trump doesn’t seem to understand this.  His ignorance about foreign and nuclear policy is appalling and frightening.

    Further, the world won’t come to its senses about nuclear weapons on its own and without leadership.  Earlier this year, in July, 122 non-nuclear weapons countries adopted a new Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.  It was a great step forward.  But, unfortunately, none of the nine nuclear-armed countries participated, and the U.S., UK and France issued a joint statement saying they would never sign, ratify or ever become parties to the treaty.  Such is Trump’s leadership, moving the world toward doomsday. These countries, led by the U.S., appear to love their nuclear weapons and treat them as a security blanket, despite the fact that these weapons provide no security to their possessors.  In fact, nuclear weapons paint a bull’s eye target on the citizens of countries possessing nuclear weapons.

    Trump is exactly the type of person who should not be anywhere near the nuclear codes.  He is not calm, thoughtful, deliberate, cautious, or well-informed.  Rather, he is erratic, thin-skinned, narcissistic and self-absorbed.  He takes slights personally and likes to punch back hard.  He could be insulted and backed into a corner, and decide that nuclear weapons are the solution to what he takes to be taunting behavior.  He could be awakened at 3:00 a.m., and make a hasty decision to launch the U.S. nuclear arsenal instead of a tweet.

    The world’s best hope is that the military men surrounding Trump, particularly Secretary of Defense Mattis, would recognize any order from Trump to launch nuclear weapons as an illegal order and refuse to carry it out.  In addition, it should be recognized by Congress that Trump is mentally unstable and unfit for office, and that they must take the necessary steps to remove him from the presidency before it is too late.  Impeachment would be the best way to decode Donald.

  • Veterans Day Again

    David Krieger“The one thing I never want to see again
    is a military parade.”  — Ulysses S. Grant

    We’ve seen far too many military parades
    with their missiles, marching bands
    and mechanized young men.

    We’ve witnessed enough high-stepping
    soldiers in their polished black boots
    marching to the sounds of brass.

    Spare us the old men dressed in uniforms
    with their sorrowful hats and sewn-on patches.
    Spare us the slippery words of politicians.

    Let’s return to basics: On Armistice Day
    the soldiers laid down their arms on the 11th hour
    of the 11th day of the 11th month.

    The survivors had had enough of war.
    The 11th hour is here again, the sky clear blue.

  • Nobel Peace Prize for ICAN’s Nuclear Weapon Ban Is Spot On

    This article was originally published by The Hill.

    The 2017 Nobel Peace Prize does not go to a politician or political leader. In fact, it does not single out any individual. Rather, it goes to a campaign, the International Campaign to Ban Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), composed of more than 450 civil society organizations in some 100 countries around the globe. It goes to a broad base of civil society organizations working in coalition to ban and eliminate nuclear weapons.

    In this sense, the award goes to the extraordinary people (“We, the People…”) throughout the world who have stepped up to end the threat to all humanity posed by the nearly 15,000 nuclear weapons still remaining on the planet.

    In announcing the award to ICAN, the Norwegian Nobel Committee stated, “The organization is receiving the award for its work to draw attention to the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of any use of nuclear weapons and for its ground-breaking efforts to achieve a treaty-based prohibition of such weapons.”

    ICAN was launched in 2007. It worked with many of the world’s countries in organizing three conferences on the humanitarian consequences of nuclear war. These meetings took place in Oslo, Norway (2013), in Nayarit, Mexico (2014) and in Vienna, Austria (2014). At the Vienna conference, Austria offered a pledge to the countries and civil society representatives in attendance. When it was opened for signatures to other countries, it became known as the “Humanitarian Pledge.” The pledge has now been formally endorsed by 127 countries.

    After laying out the threats and dangers of nuclear weapons in the Humanitarian Pledge, the pledge concluded: “We pledge to cooperate with all relevant stakeholders, States, international organizations, the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movements, parliamentarians and civil society, in efforts to stigmatize, prohibit and eliminate nuclear weapons in light of their unacceptable humanitarian consequences and associated risks.”

    In 2016, the United Nations General Assembly agreed to an ICAN-supported resolution to negotiate a treaty outlawing nuclear weapons. These negotiations took place in March, June and July of 2017 at the United Nations in New York. On July 7, 2017, 122 countries adopted the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. This treaty banning nuclear weapons was opened for signatures on September 20, 2017. So far, 53 countries have signed the treaty and three have ratified it. It will enter into force 90 days after the 50th country deposits its ratification of the treaty with the United Nations.

    ICAN has accomplished a great deal in moving the world forward toward banning and eliminating nuclear weapons. It has helped states articulate the dreadful humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons use. In doing so, it has worked with survivors of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings and also with countries that suffered from nuclear testing, such as the Marshall Islands.

    ICAN also spearheaded the drafting and adoption of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, and is currently working on getting countries to sign and ratify the treaty so that it can enter into force.

    ICAN stands in stark contrast with those national leaders and their allies who possess nuclear weapons and have been unwilling to give up their claim on them for their own perceived national security. But ICAN is on the right side of history, because those with nuclear weapons threaten the future of civilization, including their own populations.

    ICAN well deserves the Nobel Peace prize. The campaign is effective. It is youthful. It is hopeful. It is necessary. May the Nobel Peace Prize propel it to even greater accomplishments. And may it awaken people everywhere to the threat posed by nuclear weapons, and the need to ban and eliminate them.

    David Krieger is a founder and president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. The Foundation has been a partner organization of ICAN since 2007.

  • The Reality of the Nuclear Age: U.S. Must Negotiate with North Korea

    David KriegerAnyone with a modicum of sense does not want to see the US teeter at the brink of war with North Korea and certainly not inadvertently stumble over that brink, or intentionally jump.  The first Korean War in the 1950s was costly in terms of lives and treasure.  A second Korean War, with the possibility of nuclear weapons use, would be far more costly to both sides, and could lead to global nuclear conflagration.

    Neither North Korea nor South Korea want a new war, but US leadership in Washington is threatening war, with remarks such as “talking is not the answer”; North Korean threats “will be met with fire and fury like the world has never seen”; “military solutions are now in place, locked and loaded”; and “all options are on the table.”  Such posturing has only elicited more nuclear and missile tests from North Korea.

    It is clear, though, that threats of attack are not a responsible way of going forward.  This may be difficult for Trump to grasp, since he has built his business and political reputation on threats and bullying behavior.  Like all bullies, he backs down when confronted.  But confrontation with a bully is still risky, particularly this bully, who is also thin-skinned, erratic, impulsive and has the full power of the US military at his disposal.

    The US does not need another war, not with North Korea or any country.  We need, instead, to extract ourselves from the ongoing wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria. Nor should we turn our backs on the well-negotiated agreement with Iran to halt their nuclear weapons program.  In fact, this agreement should serve as a model for the type of agreement needed with North Korea.

    What needs to be done?

    The US should agree to negotiate with North Korea and do so without preconditions.  It has been suggested by North Korea, as well as by China and Russia, that North Korea would freeze its nuclear and missile programs in exchange for the US and South Korea ceasing to conduct war games at North Korea’s border.  The US has foolishly, arrogantly and repeatedly ignored or rejected this proposal to get to the negotiating table. It seems that the US would prefer to continue its war gaming on the Korean peninsula than to negotiate with the North Koreans to find a solution to control their nuclear arsenal.

    It would appear that North Korea wants to assure that its regime is not vulnerable to a US attack and occupation, such as occurred in Iraq and Libya.  In each of these countries the leaders were captured and killed.

    Rather than seeking to tighten the economic sanctions on North Korea, which primarily hurt their people, the US should try a different approach, one offering positive rewards for freezing the North Korean nuclear and missile programs and allowing inspections.  Such positive rewards could include food, health care, energy, and infrastructure development.  North Korea has responded positively to such offers of help in the past, and would be likely to do so again.  Kim Jong-un is not, as the US ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, has said, “begging for war.”

    In addition, there has never been a formal end to the Korean War, and it is past time to reach a peace agreement and formally bring the war to an end.  This would be a major step forward and one greatly desired by North Korea.

    The Trump administration needs to engage with its allies, South Korea and Japan, in these negotiations.  It should also bring other interested parties in Northeast Asia into the negotiations.  This would include China and Russia.  All of these countries appear to be ready to talk.  The US just needs to put aside its arrogance and begin the task of negotiating rather than continuing the unworkable approach of trying to force its will on North Korea or any other country by means of threats or bullying.  That is the reality of the Nuclear Age.

  • The President Is Unfit for Office

    With each passing day it becomes increasingly apparent that Donald Trump is unfit to carry out the duties of President of the United States, particularly those of commander in chief. He is erratic, impulsive, thin-skinned and narcissistic. These are dangerous qualities in someone with control over a nuclear arsenal that, if used, could lead to the destruction of civilization and human extinction. Trump is not trustworthy to have such power at his fingertips and should be removed from office.

    To achieve peace with North Korea, the U.S. must be engaged in negotiations with their leadership. It seems simple enough, but the Trump administration appears unwilling. The talks must begin immediately, and the U.S. must do so without preconditions.

    Rather than pursuing this path, however, the Trump administration seems intent on tightening economic sanctions on North Korea, a strategy bound to fail. Trump recently said that the U.S. is considering stopping trade with any country that trades with North Korea. This is a non-starter unless we want to stop trading with China, leading to a serious deterioration in U.S.-China relations and possibly a worldwide recession.

    The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation has recently released an Open Letter to Members of Congress. It calls upon Congress to impeach Trump, or, at a minimum, pass legislation that would require a declaration of war and specific authorization of Congress before the president could engage in a first-strike nuclear attack. The Open Letter follows below. If you would like to sign the letter, click here.

    OPEN LETTER TO MEMBERS OF THE U.S. CONGRESS: ACT TO PREVENT NUCLEAR CATASTROPHE

    This may be the most dangerous time in human history. The Roman emperor Nero is remembered for having fiddled while Rome burned. We may be witnessing the far more dangerous Nuclear Age equivalent to Nero’s fiddling in the form of the nuclear threat exchanges between Donald Trump and North Korea’s Kim Jong-un.

    The U.S. has elected a man to its highest office who is erratic, impulsive, thin-skinned and generally imprudent and insufficiently informed on nuclear and foreign policy issues. As president, he possesses unrestricted authority to threaten and use the weapons of the U.S. nuclear arsenal, which could lead not only to the destruction of our country but to dire consequences for the entire world.

    The president has already caused widespread national and global alarm by his behavior in office, including his participation in a dangerous and irrational escalation of threats directed at the erratic leader of nuclear-armed North Korea, which if executed would produce a monstrous catastrophe of untold consequences. James Clapper, former Director of National Intelligence, a normally cautious civil servant, has described the president’s behavior as “downright scary and disturbing.”

    There are currently no restraints on the president’s ability to use the insanely powerful weapons in the U.S. nuclear arsenal, including using them in a first-strike attack rationalized as preventive war. To allow this set of conditions to persist would be a perilous, perhaps fatal, abdication of Congressional responsibility, posing severe dangers to the peace and security of the country and world.

    What can be done?

    Having shown himself to be unfit for office, the president should be impeached and removed from office by the Congress as a matter of most urgent priority, or possibly removed from the presidency by recourse to procedures under the 25th amendment.

    Congress should also independently act to put unconditional restraints on any president’s ability to threaten or order a nuclear first-strike. One approach would be enactment of the “Restricting First Use of Nuclear Weapons Act,” introduced by Senator Ed Markey and Representative Ted Lieu, which would prohibit the president from initiating a first-strike nuclear attack without a Congressional declaration of war expressly authorizing such strike. We would urge even stronger legislation that would make illegal any U.S. nuclear first strike and threats to do so.

    We do not suggest that the Markey-Lieu legislation would cure a nuclear first-strike of its essential immorality and illegality under international law. This legislation would, however, broaden the long-standing, dangerously centralized U.S. decision-making authority over a nuclear first-strike and could lead to a U.S. commitment never again to use nuclear weapons except in retaliation against a nuclear attack.

    While this proposed legislative initiative on first-strikes is a responsible effort to limit presidential authority with respect to nuclear weapons under present conditions, we urge a parallel framework of restraint with respect to any contemplated threat or use of nuclear weapons by a U.S. president. Additional legislation to this end needs to be proposed and enacted by Congress after appropriate vetting through hearings and public discussion as a matter of supreme national interest and for the benefit of global security.

    Furthermore, we would hope that in due course the United States would join with the majority of countries in the world in supporting the recently negotiated UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.

    Click here to sign the Open Letter.

  • What Factors Make Nuclear War More Likely?

    This article was originally published by The Hill.

    We know that the risk of nuclear war is not zero. Humans are not capable of creating foolproof systems. Nuclear weapons systems are particularly problematic since the possession of nuclear weapons carries an implicit threat of use under certain circumstances. In accord with nuclear deterrence theory, a country threatens to use nuclear weapons, believing that it will prevent the use of nuclear weapons against it.

    Nearly 15,000 nuclear weapons are currently under the control of nine countries. Each has a complex system of command and control with many possibilities for error, accident or intentional use.

    Error could be the result of human or technological factors, or some combination of human and technological interaction. During the more than seven decades of the Nuclear Age, there have been many accidents and close calls that could have resulted in nuclear disaster. The world narrowly escaped a nuclear war between the United States and Soviet Union during the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis.

    Human factors include miscommunications, misinterpretations and psychological issues. Some leaders believe that threatening behavior makes nuclear deterrence more effective, but it could also result in a preventive first-strike launch by the side being threatened. Psychological pathologies among those in control of nuclear weapons could also play a role. Hubris, or extreme arrogance, is another factor of concern.

    Technological factors include computer errors that wrongfully show a country is under nuclear attack. Such false warnings have occurred on numerous occasions but, fortunately, human interactions (often against policy and/or orders) have so far kept a false warning from resulting in a mistaken “retaliatory” attack. In times of severe tensions, a technological error could compound the risks, and human actors might decide to initiate a first strike.

    There are many other factors that affect the risk of nuclear war. These include an increase in the number of countries possessing nuclear weapons and a greater number of nuclear weapons in each country’s nuclear arsenal. Both of these factors increase complexity and make the risk greater. Additionally, the higher the alert status of a country’s nuclear arsenal, the shorter the decision time to launch and the greater the risk of nuclear war. The risks are compounded when tension levels increase between nuclear-armed countries, increasing the likelihood of false assumptions and precipitous action.

    Nuclear policies of the nuclear-armed countries can also raise the risk level of nuclear war. Policies of first use of nuclear weapons may make an opponent more likely to initiate a first strike and thus make a nuclear war more likely. First use is generally a default policy, if a country does not specifically pledge a policy of no first use, as have China and India. Policies of launch-on-warning cut into decision time for leaders to decide whether or not to launch a “retaliatory” strike to what may be a false warning The deployment of land-based missiles also raises the risk level due to the “use them or lose them” nature of these stationary targets.

    In addition to identifiable risks of nuclear war, there are also unknown risks — those that cannot be identified in advance. Unknown risks include little-understood possibilities for cyber-attacks on nuclear weapons systems, attacks that could potentially either activate or deactivate nuclear-armed missile launches.

    Given the catastrophic consequences of nuclear war, including destruction of civilization and human extinction, identifying and eliminating the factors making nuclear war likely or even possible is imperative. There are simply too many possibilities for failure in such a complex system of interactions.

    This leads to the conclusion that the risks are untenable, and all nations should move rapidly to negotiate the elimination of all nuclear arms. While doing so, nations would be well served to adopt and declare policies of no first use and no launch-on-warning, and to eliminate vulnerable land-based missiles from their arsenals.

  • U.S., UK and France Denounce Nuclear Ban Treaty

    This article was originally published by Counterpunch.

    The U.S., UK and France have never shown enthusiasm for banning and eliminating nuclear weapons. It is not surprising, therefore, that they did not participate in the United Nations negotiations leading to the recent adoption of the nuclear ban treaty, or that they joined together in expressing their outright defiance of the newly-adopted treaty.

    In a joint press statement, issued on July 7, 2017, the day the treaty was adopted, the U.S., UK and France stated, “We do not intend to sign, ratify or ever become party to it.” Seriously? Rather than supporting the countries that came together and hammered out the treaty, the three countries argued: “This initiative clearly disregards the realities of the international security environment.”  Rather than taking a leadership role in the negotiations, they protested the talks and the resulting treaty banning nuclear weapons. They chose hubris over wisdom, might over right.

    They based their opposition on their belief that the treaty is “incompatible with the policy of nuclear deterrence, which has been essential to keeping the peace in Europe and North Asia for over 70 years.” Others would take issue with their conclusion, arguing that, in addition to overlooking the Korean War and other smaller wars, the peace in Europe and North Asia has been kept not because of nuclear deterrence but in spite of it.

    The occasions on which nuclear deterrence has come close to failure, including during the Cuban missile crisis, are well known. The absolute belief of the U.S., UK and France in nuclear deterrence seems more theological than practical.

    The three countries point out, “This treaty offers no solution to the grave threat posed by North Korea’s nuclear program, nor does it address other security challenges that make nuclear deterrence necessary.” But for the countries that adopted the nuclear ban treaty, North Korea is only one of nine countries that are undermining international security by basing their national security on nuclear weapons. For countries so committed to nuclear weapons and nuclear deterrence, is it not surprising and hypocritical that they view North Korea’s nuclear arsenal not in the light of deterrence, but rather, as an aggressive force?

    The three countries reiterate their commitment to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), but do not mention their own obligation under that treaty to pursue negotiations in good faith for an end to the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament. The negotiations for the new nuclear ban treaty are based on fulfilling those obligations. The three countries chose not to participate in these negotiations, in defiance of their NPT obligations, making their joint statement appear self-serving and based upon magical thinking.

    If the U.S., UK and France were truly interested in promoting “international peace, stability and security” as they claim, they would be seeking all available avenues to eliminate nuclear weapons from the world, rather than planning to modernize and enhance their own nuclear arsenals over the coming decades.

    These three nuclear-armed countries, as well as the other six nuclear-armed countries, continue to rely upon the false idol of nuclear weapons, justified by nuclear deterrence. In doing so, they continue to run the risk of destroying civilization, or worse. The 122 nations that adopted the nuclear ban treaty, on the other hand, acted on behalf of every citizen of the world who values the future of humanity and our planet, and should be commended for what they have accomplished.

    The new treaty will open for signatures in September 2017, and will enter into force when 50 countries have acceded to it. It provides an alternative vision for the human future, one in which nuclear weapons are seen for the threat they pose to all humanity, one in which nuclear possessors will be stigmatized for the threats they pose to all life. Despite the resistance of the U.S., UK and France, the nuclear ban treaty marks the beginning of the end of the nuclear age.

  • The Russell-Einstein Manifesto

    The Russell-Einstein Manifesto

    Introduction written by NAPF President David Krieger on June 28, 2017:

    The Russell-Einstein Manifesto, issued in London on July 9, 1955, is one of the greatest documents of the 20th century.  It remains a critical warning to humanity in the 21st century.  As we approach the 62nd anniversary of the Manifesto, it is worthwhile to read it again (or for the first time) and reflect on its message to humanity.  It addresses the choices before us:  “continual progress in happiness, knowledge and wisdom” or “the risk of universal death.”  It was the last public statement Einstein signed before his death.  Of its 9 signers in addition to Russell and Einstein, two were members of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s Advisory Council, Linus Pauling and Sir Joseph Rotblat.  Pauling was a great scientist and two-time Nobel Laureate.  Rotblat was the only scientist to leave the Manhattan Project as a matter of conscience.  He was a founder of the Pugwash Conferences and received the Nobel Peace Prize 50 years after the tragic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  At NAPF, we carry on the commitment of the Russell-Einstein Manifesto to achieve a world free of nuclear weapons.  We accept its advice: “Remember your humanity, and forget the rest.”

    by Bassano, vintage print, 1936

    In the tragic situation which confronts humanity, we feel that scientists should assemble in conference to appraise the perils that have arisen as a result of the development of weapons of mass destruction, and to discuss a resolution in the spirit of the appended draft.

    We are speaking on this occasion, not as members of this or that nation, continent, or creed, but as human beings, members of the species Man, whose continued existence is in doubt. The world is full of conflicts; and, overshadowing all minor conflicts, the titanic struggle between Communism and anti- Communism.

    Almost everybody who is politically conscious has strong feelings about one or more of these issues; but we want you, if you can, to set aside such feelings and consider yourselves only as members of a biological species which has had a remarkable history, and whose disappearance none of us can desire.

    We shall try to say no single word which should appeal to one group rather than to another. All, equally, are in peril, and, if the peril is understood, there is hope that they may collectively avert it.

    We have to learn to think in a new way. We have to learn to ask ourselves, not what steps can be taken to give military victory to whatever group we prefer, for there no longer are such steps; the question we have to ask ourselves is: what steps can be taken to prevent a military contest of which the issue must be disastrous to all parties?

    The general public, and even many men in positions of authority, have not realized what would be involved in a war with nuclear bombs. The general public still thinks in terms of the obliteration of cities. It is understood that the new bombs are more powerful than the old, and that, while one A-bomb could obliterate Hiroshima, one H-bomb could obliterate the largest cities, such as London, New York, and Moscow.

    No doubt in an H-bomb war great cities would be obliterated. But this is one of the minor disasters that would have to be faced. If everybody in London, New York, and Moscow were exterminated, the world might, in the course of a few centuries, recover from the blow. But we now know, especially since the Bikini test, that nuclear bombs can gradually spread destruction over a very much wider area than had been supposed.

    It is stated on very good authority that a bomb can now be manufactured which will be 2,500 times as powerful as that which destroyed Hiroshima. Such a bomb, if exploded near the ground or under water, sends radio-active particles into the upper air. They sink gradually and reach the surface of the earth in the form of a deadly dust or rain. It was this dust which infected the Japanese fishermen and their catch of fish.

    No one knows how widely such lethal radioactive particles might be diffused, but the best authorities are unanimous in saying that a war with H-bombs might possibly put an end to the human race. It is feared that if many H-bombs are used there will be universal death, sudden only for a minority, but for the majority a slow torture of disease and disintegration.

    Many warnings have been uttered by eminent men of science and by authorities in military strategy. None of them will say that the worst results are certain. What they do say is that these results are possible, and no one can be sure that they will not be realized. We have not yet found that the views of experts on this question depend in any degree upon their politics or prejudices. They depend only, so far as our researches have revealed, upon the extent of the particular expert’s knowledge. We have found that the men who know most are the most gloomy.

    Here, then, is the problem which we present to you, stark and dreadful and inescapable: Shall we put an end to the human race; or shall mankind renounce war? People will not face this alternative because it is so difficult to abolish war.

    The abolition of war will demand distasteful limitations of national sovereignty. But what perhaps impedes understanding of the situation more than anything else is that the term “mankind” feels vague and abstract. People scarcely realize in imagination that the danger is to themselves and their children and their grandchildren, and not only to a dimly apprehended humanity. They can scarcely bring themselves to grasp that they, individually, and those whom they love are in imminent danger of perishing agonizingly. And so they hope that perhaps war may be allowed to continue provided modern weapons are prohibited.

    This hope is illusory. Whatever agreements not to use H-bombs had been reached in time of peace, they would no longer be considered binding in time of war, and both sides would set to work to manufacture H-bombs as soon as war broke out, for, if one side manufactured the bombs and the other did not, the side that manufactured them would inevitably be victorious.

    Although an agreement to renounce nuclear weapons as part of a general reduction of armaments would not afford an ultimate solution, it would serve certain important purposes. First: any agreement between East and West is to the good in so far as it tends to diminish tension. Second: the abolition of thermo-nuclear weapons, if each side believed that the other had carried it out sincerely, would lessen the fear of a sudden attack in the style of Pearl Harbour, which at present keeps both sides in a state of nervous apprehension. We should, therefore, welcome such an agreement though only as a first step. Most of us are not neutral in feeling, but, as human beings, we have to remember that, if the issues between East and West are to be decided in any manner that can give any possible satisfaction to anybody, whether Communist or anti-Communist, whether Asian or European or American, whether White or Black, then these issues must not be decided by war. We should wish this to be understood, both in the East andin the West. There lies before us, if we choose, continual progress in happiness, knowledge, and wisdom. Shall we, instead, choose death, because we cannot forget our quarrels? We appeal, as human beings, to human beings: Remember your humanity, and forget the rest. If you can do so, the way lies open to a new Paradise; if you cannot, there lies before you the risk of universal death.

    Resolution

    We invite this Congress, and through it the scientists of the world and the general public, to subscribe to the following resolution:
    “In view of the fact that in any future world war nuclear weapons will certainly be employed, and that such weapons threaten the continued existence of mankind, we urge the Governments of the world to realize, and to acknowledge publicly, that their purpose cannot be furthered by a world war, and we urge them, consequently, to find peaceful means for the settlement of all matters of dispute between them.”

    Max Born
    Perry W. Bridgman
    Albert Einstein
    Leopold Infeld
    Frederic Joliot-Curie
    Herman J. Muller
    Linus Pauling
    Cecil F. Powell
    Joseph Rotblat
    Bertrand Russell
    Hideki Yukawa