Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Tag: David Krieger

  • The Simple Act of Pushing a Button

    “Since the appearance of visible life on Earth, 380 million years had to elapse in order for a butterfly to learn how to fly, 180 million years to create a rose with no other commitment than to be beautiful, and four geological eras in order for us human beings to be able to sing better than birds, and to be able to die from love. It is not honorable for the human talent, in the golden age of science, to have conceived the way for such an ancient and colossal process to return to the nothingness from which it came through the simple act of pushing a button.”

    I recently came across this quotation by the great Colombian novelist Gabriel Garcia Marquez, the author of One Hundred Years of Solitude and recipient of the 1982 Nobel Prize for Literature.  The quotation is from a 1986 speech by Garcia Marquez entitled “The Cataclysm of Damocles.”  In the short quotation, he captures what needs to be said about nuclear weapons succinctly, poetically and beautifully.  With a few deft literary brushstrokes, he shows that the journey of life from nothingness to now could be ended with no more than “the simple act of pushing a button.”

    The button is a metaphor for setting in motion a nuclear war, which could happen by miscalculation, mistake or malice.  Of course, it matters whose finger is on the button, but it matters even more that anyone’s finger is on the button.  There are not good fingers and bad fingers resting on the button.  No one is stable enough, rational enough, sane enough, or wise enough to trust with deciding to push the nuclear button.  It is madness to leave the door open to the possibility of “a return to nothingness.”

    On one side of the ledger is everything natural and extraordinary about life with its long evolution bringing us to the present and poised to carry its processes forward into the future.  On the other side of the ledger is “the button,” capable of bringing most life on the planet to a screeching halt.  Also on this side of the ledger are those people who remain ignorant or apathetic to the nuclear dangers confronting humanity.

    We all need to recognize what is at stake and choose a side.  Put simply, do you stand with life and the processes of nature that have brought such beauty and diversity to our world, or do you stand with the destructive products of science that have brought us to the precipice of annihilation?  We must each make a choice.

    I fear too many of us are not awakened to the seriousness and risks of the unfolding situation.  We are taken in by the techno-talk that amplifies the messages of national security linked to the button.  Nuclear deterrence is no more than a hypothesis about human psychology and behavior.  It does not protect people from a nuclear attack.  It is unproven and unprovable.  Nuclear deterrence may or may not work, but we know that it cannot provide physical protection against a nuclear attack.  Those who believe in it, do so at their own peril and at our common peril.

    The possibility of “a return to nothingness” is too great a risk to take.  We must put down the nuclear-armed gun.  We must dismantle the button and the potential annihilation it represents.  We must listen to our hearts and end the nuclear insanity by ending the nuclear weapons era.  If we fail to act with engaged hearts, we will continue to stand at the precipice of annihilation – the precipice of a world without butterflies or beautiful roses, without birds or humans.  The golden age of science will come to an end as a triumph of cataclysmic devastation, which will be humanity’s most enduring failure.

    Reading, discussing and understanding the meaning of Gabriel Garcia Marquez’s short quotation should be required of every schoolchild, every citizen, and every leader of every country.

    Vaya aquí para la versión española.

    David Krieger is President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org).  He is the author and editor of many books on peace and nuclear weapons abolition, including Speaking of Peace: Quotations to Inspire Action.

     

  • El simple hecho de oprimir un botón

    Por David Krieger
    Traducción de Ruben Arvizu

    “Desde la aparición de la vida visible en la Tierra debieron transcurrir 380 millones de años para que una mariposa aprendiera a volar, otros 180 millones de años para fabricar una rosa sin otro compromiso que el de ser hermosa, y cuatro eras geológicas para que los seres humanos a diferencia del bisabuelo pitecántropo, fueran capaces de cantar mejor que los pájaros y de morirse de amor. No es nada honroso para el talento humano, en la edad de oro de la ciencia, haber concebido el modo de que un proceso milenario tan dispendioso y colosal, pueda regresar a la nada de donde vino por el arte simple de oprimir un botón.”

    Recientemente me re-encontré con esta cita del gran novelista colombiano Gabriel García Márquez, el autor de Cien años de soledad y galardonado con el Premio Nobel de Literatura 1982.  La cita es de un discurso de García Márquez que en 1986 pronunció en Ixtapa, México en el 41 Aniversario del ataque atómico a Hiroshima, titulado “El cataclismo de Damocles”. Esta cita corta, capta lo que hay que decir acerca de las armas nucleares de manera sucinta, poética y muy bella. Con unas cuantas magistrales pinceladas literarias, muestra que el viaje de la vida de la nada al ahora podría terminar con  “el simple hecho de oprimir un botón.”

    El botón es una metáfora de poner en marcha una guerra nuclear, que podría ocurrir por un mal cálculo, error o malicia. Por supuesto, es importante el dedo que está en el botón, pero es aún más importante que el dedo de alguien esté en el botón. No hay buenos o malos dedos sobre el botón. Nadie es lo suficientemente estable, racional, sensato, o prudente para confiar en su decisión de oprimir el botón nuclear. Es una locura dejar la puerta abierta a la posibilidad de “un regresar a la nada.”

    Por un lado de la balanza, es natural y extraordinario que la vida siga su larga evolución hasta el presente y continúe para realizar sus procesos hacia el futuro. Por otro lado de la balanza es “el botón,”  el capaz de que la vida en el planeta llegue a un punto final. También en este lado de la balanza se encuentran aquellas personas que permanecen ignorantes o apáticas a los peligros nucleares que enfrenta la humanidad.

    Todos tenemos que reconocer lo que está en juego y elegir un lado. En pocas palabras, ¿usted está del lado de la vida y los procesos de la naturaleza que han traído la belleza y diversidad de nuestro mundo, o de los productos destructivos de la ciencia que nos han llevado al precipicio de la aniquilación? Cada uno debe hacer su elección.

    Me temo que muchos de nosotros no se den cuenta de la gravedad y los riesgos de la situación a la que nos enfrentamos. Nos dejamos llevar por la tecno-charla que amplifica los mensajes de seguridad nacional vinculado al botón. La disuasión nuclear no es más que una hipótesis acerca de la psicología y el comportamiento humano. No protege a las personas de un ataque nuclear. No es probada ni demostrable. La disuasión nuclear puede o no puede funcionar, pero sabemos que no puede proporcionar una protección física contra un ataque nuclear. Los que creen en ella, lo hacen bajo su propio riesgo y además del nuestro.

    La posibilidad de “un regresar a la nada” es un riesgo demasiado grande que tomar. Hay que librarnos de las armas nucleares. Hay que desmantelar el botón y la aniquilación potencial que representa. Debemos escuchar a nuestros corazones y poner fin a la locura nuclear, a la era de las armas de destrucción total. Si no somos capaces de actuar con corazones comprometidos, seguiremos caminando hacia el precipicio de la aniquilación – el precipicio de un mundo sin mariposas o hermosas rosas, sin aves o seres humanos. La edad de oro de la ciencia llegará a su fin como un triunfo de la devastación catastrófica, y será el fracaso más grande de la humanidad.

    La lectura, discusión y comprensión del significado de la cita de Gabriel García Márquez debería promoverse entre las escuelas, entre los ciudadanos, y los líderes de todos los países.

    Click here for the English version.

    David Krieger es Presidente de la Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org) Autor y editor de numerosos libros sobre la abolición de las armas nucleares, incluyendo Hablando de paz: Citas para inspirar acción.

    Rubén D. Arvizu es Director para América Latina de la Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, Director General para América Latina de Ocean Futures Society de Jean-Michel Cousteau y Embajador del Pacto Climático Global de Ciudades.

  • The Power of Imagination

    David KriegerAlbert Einstein, the great 20th century scientist and humanitarian, wrote, “Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.”  Let us exercise our imaginations.

    Imagine the horror and devastation of Hiroshima, and multiply it by every city and country on earth.

    Imagine that a nuclear war could end human life on our planet, and that the capacity to initiate a nuclear war rests in the hands of only a few individuals in each nuclear-armed state.

    Imagine that nuclear weapons threaten the future of humanity and all life.

    Imagine that we are not helpless in the face of this threat, and that we can rise to the challenge of ending the nuclear weapons era.

    Imagine that together we can make a difference and that you are needed to create a nuclear weapons-free world.

    Imagine a world without the threat of nuclear devastation, a world that you helped to create.

    There is an Indian proverb which states, “All of the flowers of all the tomorrows are in the seeds of today.”  We must nurture, with all our human capacities, the seeds of peace and human dignity which have been so poorly tended for so long.

    The time has come for renewed energy and leadership to end the nuclear weapons threat to humanity, to restore and maintain peace, to live up to the highest standards of human rights, and to pursue a non-killing world.  Change is coming, if we will use our imaginations, raise our voices, stand firm and persist in demanding it.

  • Presidential Visit

    The President went to Hiroshima,
    the place of the first atomic attack.
    He carried his heart in an old knapsack.

    He went where no sitting president
    ever ventured before, journeyed
    through time to a long ago war.

    He stood at the very place where death
    fell from the sky, where the mushroom cloud
    sucked up the earth, rose higher than high.

    His words poured forth like a passionate poem,
    a poem filled with power, as he placed
    a white wreath on a sea of white foam.

    He bowed before the city’s eternal flame,
    cried out for a world deeply in pain,
    swore we must not let it happen again.

    We must choose our vantage point well,
    above the bomb or beneath,  On one side
    is hubris, on the other is grief.

  • 2016 Message to Vienna Peace Movement

    Dear Friends of Peace in Vienna,

    David KriegerI applaud your continuing to commemorate August 6th, the day in 1945 on which the first atomic bomb was used in warfare, dropped by the United States on the Japanese city of Hiroshima. The use of that bomb took 70,000 lives immediately and 140,000 lives by the end of 1945.  It was a bomb that vaporized people, leaving behind, for some, only shadows and elemental particles.  The use of atomic weapons was a war crime and crime against humanity.  Three days later these crimes were repeated on the Japanese city of Nagasaki, killing 40,000 people immediately and 70,000 by the end of 1945.

    When these atrocities were committed in August 1945, there were no additional nuclear weapons in the world.  Today there are more than 15,000 nuclear weapons, most far more powerful than those that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  And most of the world is complacent in the face of these terrible devices of mass annihilation.  In our world today, nuclear weapons bestow prestige rather than disgrace.  We are like small children playing with fire.  In our hubris, we believe that we can possess these weapons and threaten their use without adverse consequences.  But this isn’t so.  If countries continue to rely upon nuclear weapons for their security, eventually they will be used again – because we humans are fallible creatures and nuclear deterrence is a dangerous and unproven hypothesis.

    Some 180 U.S. nuclear weapons are deployed in Europe, including in Turkey, where there was a recent attempted coup d’état that involved high-ranking military officers from Incirlik Air Force Base, the very base where the U.S. stores its nuclear weapons.  Mass killings occur almost daily.  The world is filled with terrorists and unstable individuals, who desire to do harm to innocent people.  This is bad enough, but the ultimate evil would be to again use nuclear weapons.  So long as they are relied upon for security, so long as they are possessed, there remains a not insignificant chance they will be used again by mistake or malice.  We must abolish these weapons before they abolish us.

    Nuclear weapons must be abolished so that we can get on with the task of building a more decent world.  To achieve that more decent world we must move from apathy to empathy; from conformity to critical thinking; from ignorance to wisdom; and from denial to recognition of the dangers to all humanity posed by nuclear weapons.

    On behalf of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation and our 75,000 members, I send you our greetings, our good wishes and our appreciation for your reflections on this anniversary day of such significant consequence to all humanity.

    Sincerely,

    David Krieger
    President
    Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

  • Ten Lessons from Chernobyl and Fukushima

    George Santayana famously said, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”  The same may be said of those who fail to understand the past or to learn from it. If we failed to learn the lessons from the nuclear power plant accident at Chernobyl more than three decades ago or to understand its meaning for our future, perhaps the more recent accident at Fukushima will serve to underline those lessons. Here are ten lessons drawn from the Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters.

    1. Nuclear power is a highly complex, expensive and dangerous way to boil water. Nuclear power does nothing more than provide a high-tech and extremely dangerous way to boil water to create steam to turn turbines.
    1. Accidents happen and the worst-case scenario often turns out to be worse than imagined or planned for. Although the nuclear industry continues to assure the public that nuclear power plants are safe, the plants continue to have accidents, some of which exceed worst-case projections.
    1. The nuclear industry and its experts cannot plan for every contingency or prevent every disaster. Although it was known that Fukushima is subject to earthquakes and tsunamis, the nuclear industry and its experts did not plan for the combination of a 9.0 earthquake and the larger-than-expected tsunami that followed.
    1. Governments do not effectively regulate the nuclear industry to assure the safety of the public. Government regulators of nuclear industry often come from the nuclear industry and tend to be too close to the industry to regulate it effectively.
    1. Hubris, complacency and high-level radiation are a deadly mix. Hubris on the part of the nuclear industry and its government regulators, along with complacency on the part of the public, have led to the creation of vast amounts of high-level radiation that must be guarded from release to the environment for tens of thousands of years, far longer than civilization has existed.
    1. Nuclear power plants can catastrophically fail, causing vast human and environmental damage. The corporations that run the power plants, however, are protected from catastrophic economic failure by government limits on liability, which shift the economic burden to the public. If the corporations that own nuclear power plants had to bear the burden of potential financial losses in the event of a catastrophic accident, they would not build the plants because they know the risks are unacceptable. It is government liability limits, such as the Price-Anderson Act in the US, that make nuclear power plants possible, leaving the taxpayers responsible for the overwhelming monetary costs of nuclear industry failures. No other private industry is given such liability protection.
    1. Radiation releases from nuclear accidents cannot be contained in space and will not stop at national borders. The wind will carry long-lived radioactive materials around the world and affect the people and environment of many countries and regions. The radiation will also affect the oceans of the world, which are the common heritage of humankind.
    1. Radiation releases from nuclear accidents cannot be contained in time and will adversely affect countless future generations. The radioactive materials from nuclear power plant accidents, as well as from radioactive wastes, are a legacy we are bequeathing to future generations of humans and other forms of life on the planet.
    1. Nuclear energy, as well as nuclear weapons, and human beings cannot co-exist without the risk of future catastrophes. The survivors of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki have long known that nuclear weapons and human beings cannot co-exist. The Fukushima accident, like that at Chernobyl before it, makes clear that human beings and nuclear power plants also cannot co-exist without courting future disasters.
    1. The accidents at Fukushima and Chernobyl are a wake-up call to phase out nuclear energy and replace it with energy conservation and more human- and environmentally-friendly forms of renewable energy. For decades it has been clear that various forms of renewable energy are needed to replace both nuclear and fossil fuel energy sources. Now it is clearer than ever. The choice is not between nuclear and fossil fuels. The solution is to disavow both of these forms of energy and to move as rapidly as possible to a global energy plan based upon various forms of renewable energy: solar cells, wind, geothermal, ocean thermal, currents, tides, etc.

    The nuclear power plant accident at Chernobyl was repeated, albeit with a different set of circumstances, at Fukushima. Have our societies yet learned any lessons from Chernobyl and Fukushima that will prevent the people of the future from experiencing such devastation? As poet Maya Angelou points out, “History, despite its wrenching pain, cannot be unlived, but if faced with courage doesn’t need to be lived again.” We need the courage to phase out nuclear power globally and replace it with energy conservation and renewable energy sources. In doing so, we will not only be acting responsibly with regard to nuclear power, but will also reduce the risks of nuclear weapons proliferation and strengthen the global foundations for the abolition of these weapons.

  • Anniversary of World Court Advisory Opinion

    The International Court of Justice (“Court,” or “ICJ”), the world’s highest court, issued its Advisory Opinion on the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons on July 8, 1996. Thus, this week marks the 20th anniversary of that momentous opinion.

    Peace Palace
    Photograph: CIJ-ICJ/UN-ONU, Capital Photos/Frank van Beek – Courtesy of the ICJ. All rights reserved.

    The Court found in a split vote (7 to 7), with the casting vote of the Court’s president Mohammed Bedjaoui deciding the matter, that the threat or use of nuclear weapons would generally be illegal under international law. The Court could not determine whether it would be legal or illegal to threaten or use nuclear weapons “in an extreme circumstance of self-defense, in which the very survival of a State would be at stake.”

    Three of the judges voting to oppose general illegality, however, were concerned with the word “generally” and wanted the Court to go further and remove any ambiguity about the illegality of threat or use of nuclear weapons. Judge C.G. Weeramantry, for example, argued in a brilliant dissenting opinion “that the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons is illegal in any circumstances whatsoever.” Thus, in actuality, ten of the fourteen judges supported either general illegality or total illegality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons.

    The Court also found unanimously that any threat or use of nuclear weapons must be compatible with the United Nations Charter and must also be compatible with the international law of armed conflict and particularly with “the principles and rules of international humanitarian law.” This means that the threat or use of nuclear weapons must be capable of distinguishing between combatants and civilians and must not cause unnecessary suffering. It is virtually impossible to imagine any use of nuclear weapons that could meet such limiting criteria.

    Finally, the Court concluded, “There exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control.” Unfortunately, despite this obligation, such negotiations have not taken place in the past twenty years.

    The tiny Pacific Island country, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, has cited the Court’s conclusion regarding this legal obligation in bringing contentious lawsuits against the nine nuclear-armed countries at the International Court of Justice and separately against the United States in U.S. federal court. In the ICJ, only the cases against the UK, India and Pakistan are currently going forward, since the other six nuclear-armed countries do not accept the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court and have not opted to accept the Court’s jurisdiction in this matter.

    The cases brought by the Marshall Islands in the ICJ are currently awaiting the Court’s ruling on preliminary objections filed by the three respondent countries. The case against the U.S. was dismissed in U.S. federal district court on jurisdictional grounds, and is currently on appeal in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

    Nuclear weapons are devices of mass annihilation. The ICJ found these weapons to be generally illegal and to require good faith negotiations leading to total nuclear disarmament. All nine nuclear-armed countries are in breach of this obligation to the detriment of the people of the world, including the citizens of their own countries. The Republic of the Marshall Islands has had the courage to bring this matter back to the ICJ as contentious cases.

    On the illegality of nuclear weapons, the then Court President, Mohammed Bedjaoui, stated: “Nuclear weapons, the ultimate evil, destabilize humanitarian law, which is the law of the lesser evil.  The existence of nuclear weapons is therefore a challenge to the very existence of humanitarian law, not to mention their long-term effects of damage to the human environment, in respect to which the right to life can be exercised.”

    On the 20th anniversary of the ICJ Advisory Opinion on threat or use of nuclear weapons, the people must wake up, stand up and speak out. Nuclear weapons are illegal as well as immoral and costly.  They are not even weapons, but instruments of mass annihilation. They serve no useful purpose and endanger all countries, all people, and all future generations. It is past time to end the nuclear era.

    David Krieger is President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org). He is the author of Zero: The Case for Nuclear Weapons Abolition.

  • Ten Worst Acts of the Nuclear Age

    The ten worst acts of the Nuclear Age described below have set the tone for our time.  They have caused immense death and suffering; been tremendously expensive; have encouraged nuclear proliferation; have opened the door to nuclear terrorism, nuclear accidents and nuclear war; and are leading the world back into a second Cold War.  These “ten worst acts” are important information for anyone attempting to understand the time in which we live, and how the nuclear dangers that confront us have been intensified by the leadership and policy choices made by the United States and the other eight nuclear-armed countries.

    1. Bombing Hiroshima (August 6, 1945). The first atomic bomb was dropped by the United States on the largely civilian population of Hiroshima, killing some 70,000 people instantly and 140,000 people by the end of 1945.  The bombing demonstrated the willingness of the US to use its new weapon of mass destruction on cities.

    2. Bombing Nagasaki (August 9, 1945). The second atomic bomb was dropped on the largely civilian population of Nagasaki before Japanese leaders had time to assess the death and injury caused by the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima three days earlier.  The atomic bombing of Nagasaki took another 70,000 lives by the end of 1945.

    3. Pursuing a unilateral nuclear arms race (1945 – 1949). The first nuclear weapon test was conducted by the US on July 16, 1945, just three weeks before the first use of an atomic weapon on Hiroshima.  As the only nuclear-armed country in the world in the immediate aftermath of World War II, the US continued to expand its nuclear arsenal and began testing nuclear weapons in 1946 in the Marshall Islands, a trust territory the US was asked to administer on behalf of the United Nations.  Altogether the US tested 67 nuclear weapons in the Marshall Islands between 1946 and 1958, with the equivalent explosive power of 1.6 Hiroshima bombs daily for that 12 year period.

    4. Initiating Atoms for Peace (1953). President Dwight Eisenhower put forward an Atoms for Peace proposal in a speech delivered on December 8, 1953.  This proposal opened the door to the spread of nuclear reactors and nuclear materials for purposes of research and power generation.  This resulted in the later proliferation of nuclear weapons to additional countries, including Israel, South Africa, India, Pakistan and North Korea.

    5. Engaging in a Cold War bilateral nuclear arms race (1949 – 1991). The nuclear arms race became bilateral when the Soviet Union tested its first atomic weapon on August 29, 1949.  This bilateral nuclear arms race between the US and USSR reached its apogee in 1986 with some 70,000 nuclear weapons in the world, enough to destroy civilization many times over and possibly result in the extinction of the human species.

    6. Atmospheric Nuclear Testing (1945 – 1980). Altogether there have been 528 atmospheric nuclear tests.  The US, UK and USSR ceased atmospheric nuclear testing in 1963, when they signed the Partial Test Ban Treaty.  France continued atmospheric nuclear testing until 1974 and China continued until 1980.  Atmospheric nuclear testing has placed large amounts of radioactive material into the atmosphere, causing cancers and leukemia in human populations.

    7. Breaching the disarmament provisions of the NPT (1968 – present). Article VI of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) states, “Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament….”  The five nuclear weapons-states parties to the NPT (US, Russia, UK, France and China) remain in breach of these obligations.  The other four nuclear-armed states (Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea) are in breach of these same obligations under customary international law.

    8. Treating nuclear power as an “inalienable right” in the NPT (1968 – present). This language of “inalienable right” contained in Article IV of the NPT encourages the development and spread of nuclear power plants and thereby makes the proliferation of nuclear weapons more likely.  Nuclear power plants are also attractive targets for terrorists.  As yet, there are no good plans for long-term storage of radioactive wastes created by these plants.  Government subsidies for nuclear power plants also take needed funding away from the development of renewable energy sources.

    9. Failing to cut a deal with North Korea (1992 to present). During the Clinton administration, the US was close to a deal with North Korea to prevent it from developing nuclear weapons.  This deal was never fully implemented and negotiations for it were abandoned under the George W. Bush administration.  Consequently, North Korea withdrew from the NPT in 2003 and conducted its first nuclear weapon test in 2006.

    10. Abrogating the ABM Treaty (2002).  Under the George W. Bush administration, the US unilaterally abrogated the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty.  This allowed the US, in combination with expanding NATO to the east, to place missile defense installations near the Russian border.  It has also led to emplacement of US missile defenses in East Asia.  Missile defenses in Europe and East Asia have spurred new nuclear arms races in these regions.

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

  • Ten Myths About Nuclear Weapons

    Nuclear weapons were needed to defeat Japan in World War II.

    It is widely believed, particularly in the United States, that the use of nuclear weapons against the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was necessary to defeat Japan in World War II.  This is not, however, the opinion of the leading US military figures in the war, including General Dwight Eisenhower, General Omar Bradley, General Hap Arnold and Admiral William Leahy.  General Eisenhower, for example, who was the Supreme Allied Commander Europe during World War II and later US president, wrote, “I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced [to Secretary of War Stimson] my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives.  It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of ‘face’….”  Not only was the use of nuclear force unnecessary, its destructive force was excessive, resulting in 220,000 deaths by the end of 1945.

    Nuclear weapons prevented a war between the United States and the Soviet Union.

    Many people believe that the nuclear standoff during the Cold War prevented the two superpowers from going to war with each other, for fear of mutually assured destruction.  While it is true that the superpowers did not engage in nuclear warfare during the Cold War, there were many confrontations between them that came uncomfortably close to nuclear war, the most prominent being the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis.  There were also many deadly conflicts and “proxy” wars carried out by the superpowers in Asia, Africa and Latin America. The Vietnam War, which took several million Vietnamese lives and the lives of more than 58,000 Americans, is an egregious example.  These wars made the supposed nuclear peace very bloody and deadly.  Lurking in the background was the constant danger of a nuclear exchange. The Cold War was an exceedingly dangerous time with a massive nuclear arms race, and the human race was extremely fortunate to have survived it without suffering a nuclear war.

    Nuclear threats have gone away since the end of the Cold War.

    In light of the Cold War’s end, many people believed that nuclear threats had gone away.  While the nature of nuclear threats has changed since the end of the Cold War, these threats are far from having disappeared or even significantly diminished.  During the Cold War, the greatest threat was that of a massive nuclear exchange between the United States and Soviet Union.  In the aftermath of the Cold War, a variety of new nuclear threats have emerged.  Among these are the following dangers:

    • Increased possibilities of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists who would not hesitate to use them;
    • Nuclear war between India and Pakistan;
    • Policies of the US government to make nuclear weapons smaller and more usable;
    • Use of nuclear weapons by accident, particularly by Russia, which has a substantially weakened early warning system; and
    • Spread of nuclear weapons to other states, which may perceive them to be an “equalizer” against a more powerful state.

    The United States needs nuclear weapons for its national security.

    There is widespread belief in the United States that nuclear weapons are necessary for the US to defend against aggressor states.  US national security, however, would be far improved if the US took a leadership role in seeking to eliminate nuclear weapons throughout the world.  Nuclear weapons are the only weapons that could actually destroy the United States, and their existence and proliferation threaten US security.  Continued high-alert deployment of nuclear weapons and research on smaller and more usable nuclear weapons by the US, combined with a more aggressive foreign policy, makes many weaker nations feel threatened.  Weaker states may think of nuclear weapons as an equalizer, giving them the ability to effectively neutralize the forces of a threatening nuclear weapons state.  Thus, as in the case of North Korea, the US threat may be instigating nuclear weapons proliferation.  Continued reliance on nuclear weapons by the United States is setting the wrong example for the world, and is further endangering the country rather than protecting it.  The United States has strong conventional military forces and would be far more secure in a world in which no country had nuclear arms.

    Nuclear weapons make a country safer.

    It is a common belief that nuclear weapons protect a country by deterring potential aggressors from attacking.  By threatening massive nuclear retaliation, the argument goes, nuclear weapons prevent an attacker from starting a war.  To the contrary, nuclear weapons are actually undermining the safety of the countries that possess them by providing a false sense of security.  While nuclear deterrence can provide some psychological sense of security, there are no guarantees that the threat of retaliation will succeed in preventing an attack.  There are many ways in which deterrence could fail, including misunderstandings, faulty communications, irrational leaders, miscalculations and accidents. In addition, the possession of nuclear weapons enhances the risks of terrorism, proliferation and ultimately nuclear annihilation.

    No leader would be crazy enough to actually use nuclear weapons.

    Many people believe that the threat of using nuclear weapons can go on indefinitely as a means of deterring attacks because no leader would be crazy enough to actually use them.  Unfortunately, nuclear weapons have been used, and it is likely that most, if not all, leaders possessing these weapons would, in fact, use them.  US leaders, considered by many to be highly rational, are the only ones who have ever used nuclear weapons in war, against the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  In addition to these two actual US bombings, leaders of other nuclear weapons states have repeatedly come close to using their nuclear arsenals.  Nuclear deterrence is based upon a believable threat of nuclear retaliation, and the threat of nuclear weapons use has been constant during the post World War II period.  US policy currently provides that the US will not threaten or use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapons states that are parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and in compliance with their non-proliferation obligations.  Importantly, this leaves out other nuclear weapons states, as well as states not parties to the NPT and states the US determines not to be in compliance with their non-proliferation obligations.  US leaders have regularly refused to take any option off the table in relation to potential conflicts.  Threats of nuclear attack by India and Pakistan provide another example of nuclear brinksmanship that could turn into a nuclear war.  Historically, leaders of nuclear-armed countries have done their best to prove that they would use nuclear weapons.  Assuming that they would not do so would be extremely foolhardy.

    Nuclear weapons are a cost-effective method of national defense.

    Some have argued that nuclear weapons, with their high yield of explosive power, offer the benefit of an effective defense for minimum investment.  This is one reason behind ongoing research into lower-yield tactical nuclear weapons, which would be perceived as more usable.  The cost of research, development, testing, deployment and maintenance of nuclear weapons and their delivery systems, however, exceeds $7.5 trillion (in 2005 dollars) for the US alone.  The US is planning to spend another $1 trillion over the next three decades modernizing and upgrading every aspect of its nuclear arsenal.  The nine nuclear-armed countries are spending over $100 billion annually on their nuclear arsenals.  With advances in nuclear technology and power, the costs and consequences of a nuclear war would be immeasurable.

    Nuclear weapons are well protected and there is little chance that terrorists could get their hands on one. 

    Many people believe that nuclear weapons are well protected and that the likelihood of terrorists obtaining these weapons is low.  In the aftermath of the Cold War, however, the ability of the Russians to protect their nuclear forces has declined precipitously.  In addition, a coup in a country with nuclear weapons, such as Pakistan, could lead to a government coming to power that would be willing to provide nuclear weapons to terrorists.  In general, the more nuclear weapons there are in the world and the more nuclear weapons proliferate to additional countries, the greater the possibility that nuclear weapons will end up in the hands of terrorists.  The best remedy for keeping nuclear weapons out of the hands of terrorists is to drastically reduce their numbers and institute strict international inspections and controls on all nuclear weapons and weapons-grade nuclear materials in all countries, until these weapons and the materials for making them can be eliminated.  The 2016 Nuclear Security Summit had a narrow focus on protecting civilian stores of highly enriched uranium (HEU), which accounts for only a very small percentage of the world’s weapons-grade material.

    The United States is working to fulfill its nuclear disarmament obligations.

    Most US citizens believe that the United States is working to fulfill its nuclear disarmament obligations.  In fact, the United States has failed for nearly five decades to fulfill its obligations under Article VI of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to negotiate in good faith for an end to the nuclear arms race at an early date and for nuclear disarmament.  The US is currently being sued in US federal court by the Republic of the Marshall Islands for failing to fulfill its nuclear disarmament obligations under the NPT.  Rather than negotiating to end the nuclear arms race, the US is planning to upgrade and modernize all aspects of its nuclear arsenal, delivery vehicles and nuclear infrastructure.  The United States has also failed to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.  Further, it has unilaterally withdrawn from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, and thereby abrogated this important treaty.  The New START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) between the US and Russia, which was signed in April 2010 and entered into force in February 2011, will reduce the number of deployed strategic warheads on each side to 1,550 by the year 2018.  This is not, however, a fulfillment of the US treaty obligations under the NPT.

    Nuclear weapons are needed to combat threats from terrorists and “rogue states.”

    It has been argued that nuclear weapons are needed to protect against terrorists and “rogue states.”  Yet nuclear weapons, whether used for deterrence or as offensive weaponry, are not effective for this purpose. The threat of nuclear force cannot act as a deterrent against terrorists because they do not have a territory to retaliate against. Thus, terrorists would not be prevented from attacking a country for fear of nuclear retaliation.  Nuclear weapons also cannot be relied on as a deterrent against “rogue states” because their responses to a nuclear threat may be irrational and deterrence relies on rationality.  If the leaders of a rogue state do not use the same calculus regarding their losses from retaliation, deterrence can fail.  As offensive weaponry, nuclear force only promises tremendous destruction to troops, civilians and the environment.  It might work to annihilate a rogue state, but the force entailed in using nuclear weaponry would be indiscriminate, cause unnecessary suffering, and be disproportionate to a prior attack, as well as highly immoral.  It would not be useful against terrorists because strategists could not be certain of locating an appropriate target for retaliation.

    David Krieger is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org). Angela McCracken, the 2003 Ruth Floyd intern in human rights and international law at the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, was co-author of an earlier version of this article.

    6/08/16
    7/03/08
    7/07/03

  • True to Himself

    Muhammad Ali was graceful and strong
    and he had no quarrel with the Vietcong.

    He always had a poem or a quip at hand,
    particularly about where his opponents might land.

    They called him the “Louisville Lip,”
    as he danced his way to the world championship.

    That he had courage, there was no doubt,
    facing giants in the ring and taking them out.

    When called upon to fight in the Army’s ranks,
    he said in so many words, “No thanks.”

    He had nothing against the Vietnamese foe,
    so he dug in his heels and refused to go.

    He said his religion barred him from killing,
    while the government said he should be willing.

    They took away his well-earned crown,
    threatened him with jail and called him a clown.

    Through it all, he stayed true to himself,
    not allowing his deepest beliefs to be put on a shelf.

    Finally the man who I call a hero
    won at the Supreme Court eight to zero.

    Muhammad Ali was graceful and strong
    and he had no quarrel with the Vietcong.