Although more than 50,000 nuclear weapons have been eliminated since 1986, more than 17,000 remain. It would only take a small number of these weapons of mass destruction to end civilization and most life on earth. Nine countries possess nuclear weapons, another five host U.S. nuclear weapons on their soil, and more still base their security on alliances with nuclear weapon states. Countless atomic bomb survivors worked hard until their last days for the elimination of nuclear weapons. The danger of nuclear annihilation, by accident, miscalculation or design continues to cast a dark shadow over humanity’s future. In addition, the failure of the nuclear weapon states to achieve more progress toward a nuclear weapons free world is undermining the legitimacy of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT). The nuclear weapon states’ repeated delays in fulfilling their “unequivocal” commitment to nuclear disarmament has discredited the nonproliferation regime and may destroy it. The massive and ongoing releases of radiation from the Tokyo Electric Power Company’s Fukushima nuclear power plant which resulted from the Great East Japan Earthquake of March 11, 2011, demonstrated yet again the inability of human beings to control nuclear technology. The fear and suffering of Fukushima citizens for their health and life renewed our recognition of the danger of radioactivity, whether from nuclear weapons or nuclear energy. The experiences of Fukushima and the atomic bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima have shown us that the effects of nuclear disasters are uncontrollable in time and space. Despite the daunting challenges, there are reasons for hope. Among them, the renewed emphasis on the humanitarian impacts of nuclear weapons use, which the hibakusha have been calling for for decades. In 1996, the International Court of Justice, in considering the uniquely destructive effects of nuclear weapons concluded that the threat or use of nuclear weapons would be generally illegal. The final document of the 2010 NPT review conference expressed “deep concern at the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of any use of nuclear weapons” and reaffirmed “the need for all States at all times to comply with applicable international law, including international humanitarian law.” Describing the inhumanity of nuclear weapons, the resolution adopted in November 2011 by the Council of Delegates of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement identified the need to “conclude … negotiations to prohibit the use of and completely eliminate nuclear weapons through a legally binding international agreement.” Since 2010, the humanitarian impacts of nuclear weapons have been discussed in the United Nations General Assembly and at preparatory committee meetings for the 2015 NPT Review Conference. In addition, an international conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons, hosted by the government of Norway, was held in Oslo in March 2013. A follow-on meeting, will be hosted by the government of Mexico in February 2014. We welcome this trend and expect it to contribute to global efforts to achieve the prohibition and elimination of nuclear weapons. The 2010 NPT Review Conference agreed: “All States need to make special efforts to establish the necessary framework to achieve and maintain a world without nuclear weapons,” noting in particular “the Five-Point Proposal for Nuclear Disarmament of the Secretary-General of the United Nations,” including the call for negotiations on a Nuclear Weapons Convention. The Open Ended Working Group to develop proposals to take forward multilateral nuclear disarmament negotiations for the achievement and maintenance of a world without nuclear weapons held meetings in Geneva for the first time in May, June and August of this year. It was a new situation in which representatives of government and civil society participated as equals. This prompted the Conference on Disarmament, following 17 years of inaction, to establish an informal working group on nuclear disarmament. In addition, the first High Level Meeting on nuclear disarmament in the United Nations General Assembly was held in September 2013. This is being followed up by the Non Aligned Movement proposal to establish 26 September as the International Day for the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons and to hold a High Level Conference on Nuclear Disarmament no later than 2018. We are encouraged by such efforts and hope they continue. We emphasize and reiterate that nuclear weapons are indiscriminate and inhumane weapons of mass destruction, and their use would be impermissible under any circumstances. The idea that nuclear deterrence can assure a country’s security is delusional. Another use of nuclear weapons would cause human death and suffering across national borders and generations. It would result in destruction of the environment and entire ecosystems. Even a relatively small regional nuclear exchange could result in a global “nuclear famine” leading to a billion deaths. Against this background, we appeal for the following concrete actions. 1. Negotiations on the comprehensive prohibition and elimination of nuclear weapons should start on the earliest occasion. We call for negotiations to begin in 2014, and for these negotiations to be supported by the NPT Review Conference in 2015 and the High Level Conference proposed to take place no later than 2018. 2. The nuclear-armed countries, especially those with the largest arsenals, the U.S. and Russia, should make significant reductions in their strategic and non-strategic, deployed and undeployed nuclear stockpiles through bilateral or unilateral measures. All nuclear-armed countries should halt development and modernization of their nuclear weapons systems. The obscene amounts of money and scientific resources dedicated to these ends should be reallocated to meeting social and economic needs. 3. All nations should phase out the role and significance of nuclear weapons in their military and foreign policies. Nuclear-armed countries and those countries that rely on nuclear umbrellas have a special responsibility. Nuclear-free countries can also take steps to delegitimize and stigmatize nuclear weapons, such as enacting national legislation and divesting from nuclear weapons industries. 4. Governments and civil society should publicize the decision of the District Court of Tokyo in the Shimoda case: “The [atomic bomb] attacks upon Hiroshima and Nagasaki caused such severe and indiscriminate suffering that they did violate the most basic legal principles governing the conduct of war,” especially following the 50th anniversary of the December 8, 1963 decision. 5. We encourage greater citizen participation in campaigns for the elimination of nuclear weapons, such as Mayors for Peace, Parliamentarians for Nuclear Nonproliferation and Disarmament (PNND), the Abolition 2000 Global Network to Eliminate Nuclear Weapons (Abolition 2000), the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), and International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW). We welcome the engagement of young people around the world. 6. We call for a redoubling of efforts to establish new nuclear weapon-free zones, including in the Middle East, Northeast Asia and the Arctic Circle. Nuclear weapon-free zones diminish the role of nuclear weapons in national security policies and reduce the risks of nuclear weapons use at the regional level. They also provide an achievable and more secure alternative to extended nuclear deterrence. 7. The nuclear disaster at the Fukushima nuclear power plant continues to cause immeasurable damage and suffering to the citizens of Fukushima Prefecture and beyond. Those responsible for the Fukushima accident should be held accountable. At the same time, civil society should support programs to assist displaced residents and restore, as much as feasible, the damaged areas in Fukushima. Information about the ongoing crisis should be transparent and publically available. Those exposed to radiation should be guaranteed long-term medical assistance. We must not let Fukushima be forgotten. 8. The accident at Fukushima has taught us that we cannot continue to rely upon nuclear energy. The hibakusha’s experience of the atomic bomb was brought to the United Nations in 1982 by Senji Yamaguchi, who declared: “No More Hiroshimas, No More Nagasakis, No more Hibakusha, No More War!” The accident at Fukushima requires the addition of “No More Fukushimas!” As the only nation that has experienced nuclear attacks in war, Japan has a special responsibility to lead in achieving a world without nuclear weapons. Therefore: 1. We welcome Japan joining 124 other governments in signing a joint statement on the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons in the United Nations General Assembly First Committee on 21 October 2013. However, we regret the U.S. – Japanese joint security statement of 3 October 2013 which reaffirmed the Alliance’s commitment to the security of Japan “through the full range of U.S. military capabilities, including nuclear and conventional.” The Japanese government should change its policy of reliance on the U.S. nuclear umbrella in conformity with the joint statement that indicates clearly that the continued existence of all humanity depends on not using nuclear weapons “under any circumstances.” 2. We believe that the Japanese government should pursue the establishment of a nuclear weapon-free zone in Northeast Asia as a path to achieving security that does not rely upon nuclear deterrence. Leaders of 532 local authorities in Japan have expressed support for this idea, as did 83 Japanese and South Korean parliamentarians from across the political spectrum in a joint statement on 22 July 2010. In September 2013, the President of Mongolia indicated his country’s interest in exploring the establishment of a nuclear weapon-free zone in Northeast Asia at the United Nations General Assembly. We call upon the Japanese government to initiate a dialogue with the government of South Korea to achieve a Northeast Asia nuclear weapon-free zone. 3. We call upon the Japanese government to inform the world about the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons as an imperative for the abolition of nuclear weapons. To demonstrate leadership, Japan should take advantage of the opportunity presented by the Non-Proliferation and Disarmament Initiative Foreign Ministers’ Meeting to be held in Hiroshima in April 2014. Japan should also urge political leaders and government officials who will participate in the G20 Summit that will be held in Japan in 2016 to visit Hiroshima and Nagasaki. 4. We call on the Japanese government to seek and welcome independent, international expert assistance in stabilizing, containing and monitoring the radiological crisis at Fukushima. We, the participants in the 5th Nagasaki Global Citizens’ Assembly for the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons, heard again the voices of survivors of the U.S. atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and their urgent appeal that the elimination of nuclear weapons becomes a reality while they are still alive. We also listened to hopeful voices of young people accepting responsibility for achieving and maintaining a world without nuclear weapons. The ties of mutual understanding and solidarity were deepened through three days of spirited interaction and discussion. We pledge to continue our utmost efforts to achieve a world without nuclear weapons, and we appeal to the people of the world: “Nagasaki must be the last A-bombed city.” by The 5th Nagasaki Global Citizens’ Assembly for the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons
Tag: Hiroshima
-
Hubris vs. Wisdom
David Krieger delivered this speech in Nagasaki, Japan, on November 2, 2013.
Mayor Taue, Dr. Tomonaga, people of Nagasaki, conference participants, I bring greetings from the 60,000 members of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation and wish to express to you and the city of Nagasaki our deep appreciation for continuing this tradition of Nagasaki Global Citizens Assemblies for the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons. It is a great pleasure to be back in this beautiful city, and I am particularly happy to renew old friendships.The steadfast commitment of the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to nuclear weapons abolition for nearly seven decades is both admirable and honorable. Along with many millions of other thinking and caring people throughout the world, I share with you the hope and goal that Nagasaki will remain the last place on Earth where nuclear weapons are ever used in warfare.
It is evident that there is only one way to assure this goal, and that is to abolish nuclear weapons. To do so will require leadership and a massive demand from people throughout the world. As one who has worked toward this goal for more than four decades, I know that this is an extremely difficult challenge, but I also know that we are making progress.
In 1986, there were over 70,000 nuclear weapons in the world. Today there are just over 17,000. It is progress that the world has shed some 53,000 nuclear weapons in roughly the past quarter century, but we still have far too many. To assure that there are no more Hiroshimas or Nagasakis will require achieving a world with Zero nuclear weapons.
Hubris Versus Wisdom
In the Nuclear Age, humankind must not be passive in the face of the threat posed by nuclear weapons. The future of humanity and all life depends upon the outcome of the ongoing struggle between hubris and wisdom.
Hubris is an ancient Greek word meaning extreme arrogance. Wisdom is cautionary good sense.
Hubris is at the heart of Greek tragedy – the arrogant belief that one’s power is unassailable. Wisdom counsels that no human power is impregnable.
Hubris says some countries can hold onto nuclear weapons and rely upon them for deterrence. Wisdom says these weapons must be eliminated before they eliminate us.
Hubris says these terrible weapons are subject to human control. Wisdom says that humans are fallible creatures, subject to error.
Hubris repeats that we can control our most dangerous technologies. Wisdom says look at what happened at Chernobyl and Fukushima.
Hubris says the spread of nuclear weapons can be contained. Wisdom says that the only sure way to prevent the spread or use of nuclear weapons is to abolish those that exist.
Hubris says that political leaders will always be rational and avoid the use of nuclear weapons. Wisdom observes that all humans, including political leaders, behave irrationally at some times under some circumstances.
Hubris says we can play Russian roulette with the human future. Wisdom says we have a responsibility to assure there is a human future.
Hubris says that we can control nuclear fire. Wisdom says nuclear weapons will spark wildfires of human suffering and must be eradicated forever from the planet.
The Necessity of Wisdom
In the Nuclear Age, wisdom is the best antidote to hubris. I want to go back in time to the horrific opening of the Nuclear Age and explore the wisdom of three men who understood clearly that the creation and use of atomic bombs changed the world. These men were Albert Camus, Mohandas Gandhi and Albert Einstein. Their responses to the use of atomic weapons were very different from that of then-President of the United States Harry Truman, who, when he heard of the bombing of Hiroshima, is reported to have said, “This is the greatest thing in history.” He also thanked God that the bomb had come to the United States and not to its enemies.
Albert Camus was a great French novelist and existentialist who, during World War II, edited the underground French Resistance newspaper, Combat. Twelve years after the war, in 1957, he would receive the Nobel Prize for Literature. After learning of the bombing of Hiroshima, even before the second bomb had been dropped on Nagasaki, he wrote:
“Our technical civilization has just reached its greatest level of savagery. We will have to choose, in the more or less near future, between collective suicide and the intelligent use of our scientific conquests. Before the terrifying prospects now available to humanity, we see even more clearly that peace is the only battle worth waging. This is no longer a prayer but a demand to be made by all peoples to their governments – a demand to choose definitively between hell and reason.”
Camus recognized instantly that, after the atomic bomb was created and used, peace needed to be elevated to the top of our hierarchy of values and goals. It needed to be pursued actively, that is waged, with the same strategic thinking, discipline, commitment and courage as for waging war. For Camus, the new circumstance of nuclear weapons in the world required the people to wage peace and to lead their leaders.
Gandhi was the great proponent of satyagraha (truth-force) and nonviolence. He was leading India to independence from the British when the atomic bombs fell on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Gandhi recalled his reaction to the bombs: “I did not move a muscle when I first heard that the atom bomb had wiped out Hiroshima. On the contrary, I said to myself, ‘Unless now the world adopts nonviolence, it will spell certain suicide for humanity.’ Nonviolence is the only thing the atom bomb cannot destroy.” For Gandhi, the violence of the atomic bomb could only be overcome by the nonviolence of humanity.
Albert Einstein, the great scientist and humanitarian, wrote, “The unleashed power of the atom has changed everything save our modes of thinking and thus we drift toward unparalleled catastrophe.”
Einstein saw that the old ways of thinking were a trap and that people must learn to think in new ways. I believe the most important new ways of thinking that are needed are species identification and solidarity, that is, we must think like members of one race, the human race. In doing so, we will learn to settle our differences peacefully and not through violence, and we will build institutions, such as the United Nations, that will support these ways of thinking. For Einstein, the critical factor brought about by atomic weaponry was the need for new modes of thinking if humankind is to avert “unparalleled catastrophe.”
Three great men; three powerful expressions of wisdom.
Ending the Nuclear Threat
The only number of nuclear weapons that makes sense is Zero and that must be our goal: a world with Zero nuclear weapons. This world is only as far away as our imaginations, our determination and our perseverance. To achieve Nuclear Zero, we must wage peace, take nonviolent actions, and change our modes of thinking to identify as members of the human species. The Nuclear Age demands of us that we conquer hubris with wisdom.
We must never give up on seeking the goal of a world free of nuclear weapons. We can follow wisdom and live together as humans, seeking solutions to our common problems; or we can follow the path of hubris and perish together stuck in our apathy, our ignorance and our national allegiances.
The most important next step on the journey to a peaceful and non-killing world is ending the nuclear weapons era. This can be accomplished by the negotiation of a Nuclear Weapons Convention for the phased, verifiable, irreversible and transparent elimination of nuclear weapons. Progress is being made toward this goal, but it seems unbearably slow.
Civil society and non-nuclear-weapon states must bring more pressure to bear upon the existing nuclear weapon states to negotiate the elimination of their nuclear arsenals. I would also encourage the countries participating in the upcoming Mexico conference to begin negotiations, with or without the nuclear weapons states, for a legal ban on the manufacture, possession, use or threat of use of nuclear weapons. The process must begin, and it must be approached with a sense of urgency.
Having identified the problem – that nuclear weapons endanger the human species and much of complex life – we should move rapidly toward eliminating the threat. In doing so, we will free up scientific and financial resources to deal with other pressing global threats, including climate change, development of renewable energy resources, pollution of the oceans and atmosphere, scarcity of potable water, food insecurity and loss of forests, biodiversity and arable land. For the future of humanity, we must also move forward to eliminate war as a human institution.
A Few Simple Truths
I will end with a short poem I wrote earlier this year. It is titled “A Few Simple Truths.”
A FEW SIMPLE TRUTHS
Life is the universe’s most precious creation.
There is only one place we know of where life exists.
Children, all children, deserve a full and fair chance.
The bomb threatens all life.
War is legitimized murder with collateral damage.
Construction requires more than a hammer.
The rising of the oceans cannot be contained by money.
Love is the only currency that truly matters.
One true human brings beauty to the earth.
This article was originally published by Truthout.
-
Army Teaches Wrong Lesson in Nation’s High Schools
This article was originally published on War Is A Crime.
This summer the world will pause to commemorate the 68th anniversary of the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Most Americans are still supportive of Truman’s decision despite overwhelming historical evidence the bomb had “nothing to do with the end of the war,” in the words ofMajor General Curtis E. LeMay.
Americans suffer from a misinformation campaign initially perpetrated by the Truman administration and carried on to this day by high school textbooks that continue to tell the story as if Hiroshima and Nagasaki were indispensible in ending the war and saving countless American lives. The historical record is clear, however. As President Dwight D. Eisenhower said, “It wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.”
There is no hint of controversy regarding the decision to drop the bomb in the majority of texts in use in American classrooms and many textbooks contain blatant historical inaccuracies, but the greatest purveyor of historical mistruth is the U.S. Army’s Leadership, Education and Training (LET 3) Custom Edition for Army JROTC. JROTC is the Junior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps. More than a half million American high school students are enrolled in JROTC classes nationwide.
JROTC students do more than march in uniform on the football field. They study government (The unit on constitutional law is entitled “You the People”), and they study a “history” of sorts. The JROTC treatment of Truman’s decision to drop the bomb is riddled with falsehoods and leaves students convinced that destroying those cities was the right thing to do.
Thanks to policymakers and military leaders of the era who have subsequently told their stories, we know today what transpired. We can also thank Professor Gar Alperovitz of the University of Maryland for a stellar academic career dedicated to analyzing American policy in this regard. Quite simply, President Truman dropped those bombs on a defeated Japan to tell the Russians and the world to back off. We had two bombs and we were going to use them. In a typically cavalier fashion, Admiral William F. Halsey, Jr., Commander, U.S. Third Fleet remarked, “It was a mistake to ever drop [the bomb]. . .they had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it. .”
Today we know:
- The bombs weren’t needed to win the war. Every top U.S. military leader of the era has since stated that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were militarily insignificant.
- The idea that dropping the bombs saved a million American lives is completely fabricated. The war against Japan could have been “won” without additional loss of life.
- The Japanese had been trying to surrender for months. They simply wanted to guarantee their emperor’s safety, a desire the Americans eventually allowed.
- The Japanese would have unconditionally given up without the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki when the Soviet Union entered the war.
- The bombing was not so much the last military chapter of the Second World War as it was the first Chapter of the Cold War.
The authors of the JROTC course book grapple with the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Japan within the context of an ethical case study where students discuss ethical choices and consequences inherent in a series of historical events. Rather than presenting an unbiased version of events, the discussion is tainted by a strong preference toward bombing Japan, complete with falsehoods and inexcusable omissions.
The JROTC text packages all the most prevalent misperceptions regarding Truman’s decision into one outrageous historical account. The U.S. Army is teaching high school students that using atomic weaponry was necessary to forestall a costly invasion of the Japanese mainland that would have cost a million American lives. The text leaves the impression that the Japanese military in mid-1945 was extraordinarily powerful and that the Japanese were fanatical in their resolve to resist. The text also perpetrates the falsehood that the top brass supported the bombing when in fact all of the top brass subsequently came out to object to its use. Finally, and perhaps most egregiously, the Army’s version of events distorts the complex geostrategic mix involving the Soviets.
The Army text leaves out Japanese attempts to surrender. The book makes no mention of the prior agreements to bring the Soviets into the war against Japan or the Soviet declaration of war on August 8th. The JROTC text fails to recognize that Japanese power quickly disintegrated during the first 6 months of 1945, especially after the US firebombing campaign destroyed 180 square miles of 67 cities, killing more than 300,000 people, figures that exclude the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The book doesn’t describe absolute American control of Japanese skies in the summer of 1945.
Consider the following selections from Leadership, Education and Training 3:
“The Soviet Union had not participated in the Pacific campaign, choosing to remain neutral with Japan while fighting for survival against Germany. Truman was in Potsdam meeting with Churchill, trying to enlist the aide of Stalin, when he learned of the atomic test at Trinity.”
At face value this is true, but this statement represents the totality of the Army’s discussion of the Soviet role. The JROTC text minimizes the importance of the Soviets while elevating the significance of the atomic bombings in bringing about Japan’s surrender. The Soviets are portrayed as being weak but it was Stalin’s decision to enter the war and the Red Army’s assault on Manchuria on August 9th and subsequent rapid advance through weak Japanese defenses that caused the Japanese to immediately sue for peace.
Truman and his trusted advisor, Secretary of State James Byrnes both believed the bomb would keep the Russians in line in Eastern Europe. Dropping the bomb launched the Cold War. It wasn’t necessary to end World War II.
During the Tehran Conference in 1943 Stalin agreed that the Soviet Union would enter the war against Japan after Hitler was defeated. In 1945 at the Yalta Conference Stalin agreed to enter the War with Japan within three months of the end of the war in Europe. The Soviet invasion began on August 8, 1945, precisely three months after the German surrender on May 8th. The start of the invasion fell between the atomic bombings of Hiroshima, on August 6, and Nagasaki, on August 9. In the words ofAir Force General Claire Chennault,”Russia’s entry into the Japanese war was the decisive factor in speeding its end and would have been so even if no atomic bombs had been dropped.” An examination of the Japanese historical record confirms this point. It is reprehensible for the Army to omit a more thorough discussion of the pivotal role of the Soviet Union in bringing about an end to the war.
“Truman was troubled by the mounting casualties in the Pacific as Allied forces drew nearer the Japanese home islands. Driven by the Bushido warrior code, the Japanese were prepared to resist to the last, and more willing to die than surrender.”
Truman knew a week before Potsdam that Japan’s emperorhad intervened to attempt to end the war and there were several attempts at peace before this. Japan was prepared to surrender, provided that it could retain its emperor but Truman had two bombs and he was determined to use them to fire a kind of a shot across the bow to the Soviets as post-war Europe was taking shape. General Douglas MacArthur understood it this way. “The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor.”
Colonel Charles Bonesteel, Chief of the War Department Operations Division Policy poignantly described the situation in the summer of 1945, “The poor damn Japanese were putting feelers out by the ton so to speak — through Russia.”
“The Joint Chiefs told Truman to expect over 1,000,000 American casualties and even larger number of Japanese dead in the pending attack on the home islands.”
This is false. There’s no record of the Joint Chiefs of Staff formally studying the decision and they never made an official recommendation to the President, according to Alperovitz. Additionally, the Joint Chiefs never claimed to be involved. The claim of 1 million casualties as a result of an (unnecessary) American invasion is a complete fabrication. It originated from a 1947 Harper’s article by Secretary of War Stimson. Stimson invented the number. It is not based on a shred of historical evidence.
For his part, President Truman randomly selected the number of American lives ostensibly saved as a result of dropping the bomb. He said it would “save thousands of American lives.” He later remarked, “It occurred to me that a quarter of a million of the flower of our young manhood was worth a couple of Japanese cities, and I still think they were and are.” He also said, “I thought 200,000 of our young men would be saved by making that decision.”
The Japanese position was hopeless by the summer of 1945. They were trying to surrender because they were defeated. According to Brigadier Gen. Carter W. Clarke, “We brought them down to an abject surrender through the accelerated sinking of their merchant marine and hunger alone, and when we didn’t need to do it, and we knew we didn’t need to do it, and they knew that we knew we didn’t need to do it, we used them as an experiment for two atomic bombs.” Commanding General of the U.S. Army Air Forces, Henry H. “Hap” Arnold looked at the situation from the air, “The Japanese position was hopeless even before the first atomic bomb fell, because the Japanese had lost control of their own air.”
“By August 1945, the United States had two nuclear bombs in its arsenal. On August 6, 1945, the Enola Gay dropped the first atomic bomb on Hiroshima. Over 140,000 Japanese were killed in the blast, and an uncounted number died from the lingering effects of radiation. On August 9, 1945, a second atomic bomb was dropped on the city of Nagasaki. The next day, August 10, 1945, Japan indicated its willingness to surrender.”
Japan had been indicating its “willingness to surrender” for some time before the bombs were dropped. The Japanese finally acceded to allied surrender terms because the Soviets had invaded Manchuria the day before.
Every top American military leader was revolted by Truman’s decision to drop the bomb. They couldn’t see its military necessity. It is incomprehensible that the today’s Army feels compelled to contradict its greatest leaders who understood the role of the military in relation to its political superiors. Commander of the U.S. Army Strategic Air Force, General Carl Spaatz understood the separation.He said,”The dropping of the atomic bomb was done by a military man under military orders. We’re supposed to carry out orders and not question them. “That was purely a political decision. [It] wasn’t a military decision..”
Top Naval officers joined in the chorus. Admiral William D. Leahy, the President’s Chief of Staff said, “The use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender.”
Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet echoed the sentiments of his colleagues, “The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace… The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military standpoint, in the defeat of Japan.”
“Truman appointed a committee to evaluate using the atomic bomb. The committee examined many options, including a demonstration in Tokyo Bay, but Los Alamos was uncertain the device would detonate. Rather than lose a valuable war asset, and to emphasize its destructive power, the committee recommended dropping the atomic bomb on a city.”
Secretary of State James Byrnes, Truman’s personal representative on the Interim Committee, was the most influential member of the committee and steered policy in the direction of using the new weapon without warning on a Japanese city. It was Byrnes who saw the bomb as a promising way to keep the Soviets in line in the post-war era.
Impressionable high school juniors are on the receiving end of this despicable propaganda. It is astonishing how easily the Army’s authors dismiss a quarter-million lives.
The discussion of the decision to drop the bomb in the JROTC text ends with the following:
“When thinking of ethical decisions that affected U.S. and world history, try to imagine how history would have been changed if the Atomic bomb had not been dropped on Japan during World War II. Would the war have continued much longer? Would the U.S. have been attacked again by the Japanese, as they had been at Pearl Harbor the year before [sic]? Because the Soviet Union had declared war on Japan on August 8th, do you think that thousands of Soviet and U.S. soldiers would have lost their lives?”
Based on the information contained in the JROTC text, it is “clear” to American high school students that the war would have dragged on indefinitely if we hadn’t dropped the bomb. We had to destroy Hiroshima and Nagasaki to keep the Japanese from attacking America as they did in 1941, and we had to do this to save American and Soviet lives!
JROTC lessons are developed and taught by Senior Army Instructors (SAIs) and Assistant Instructors (IAs). Although SAI’s have college degrees, they are typically not state-certified teachers. AIs must be retired from the Army and may be hired with a high school diploma provided they earn an associate’s degree within five years. AIs are the only unsupervised non-professionals allowed to instruct students in classrooms in most states across the country.
Public school officials rarely exercise control over the curricular content of the JROTC program or the professional qualifications of its instructors. It’s time they did.
Pat Elder is the Director of the National Coalition to Protect Student Privacy. -
Sadako Peace Day: planting Hiroshima survivor sapling
Santa Barbara, CA – The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (NAPF) will host the 19th Annual Sadako Peace Day to remember the victims of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and all innocent victims of war. The event will be held August 6, from 6:00 to 7:00 p.m., under the beautiful oaks and eucalyptus trees in the Sadako Peace Garden at La Casa de Maria Retreat Center, 800 El Bosque Road, in Montecito.
This year’s program will include the planting of a Gingko biloba sapling, grown from one of Hiroshima’s atomic bombing survivor trees. The sapling will be brought from Hiroshima to Santa Barbara by Nassrine Azimi, Co-Founder of Green Legacy Hiroshima, a non-profit organization dedicated to spreading world-wide the seeds and saplings of Hiroshima survivor trees. It is the first of its kind to be planted anywhere in the United States.
There will be music, poetry and reflections commemorating the story of Sadako Sasaki, a young girl from Hiroshima who died of radiation-induced leukemia as a result of the atomic bombing. Japanese legend holds that one’s wish will be granted upon folding 1000 paper cranes. Sadako set out to fold those 1,000 paper cranes. On the wings of one she wrote, “I will write peace on your wings, and you will fly all over the world.” Sadly, Sadako died without regaining her health. Students in Japan were so moved by her story they began folding paper cranes, too. Today the paper crane is an international symbol of peace. And a statue of Sadako now stands in Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park.
The event is a time to reflect on the past in order to build a more peaceful future. This year’s keynote speaker will be Dr. Robert Dodge, long-time peace activist and co-chairman of Citizens for Peaceful Resolutions. He is a NAPF board member, and a frequent speaker about nuclear security.
There will also be a paper crane folding workshop by Peace Crane Project and refreshments after the ceremony. The event is free and open to the public.
# # #
For further information, contact Sandy Jones at sjones@napf.org or (805) 965-3443.
The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation — The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s mission is to educate and advocate for peace and a world free of nuclear weapons and to empower peace leaders. Founded in 1982, the Foundation is comprised of individuals and organizations worldwide who realize the imperative for peace in the Nuclear Age. The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation is a non-partisan, non-profit organization with consultative status to the United Nations. For more information, visit www.wagingpeace.org.
-
Vandenberg to Launch Yet Another Nuclear-Capable Missile
Santa Barbara, CA — On July 27, 2013, the United States plans to launch a Minuteman III Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California to a target in the Kwajalein Atoll in the Marshall Islands. This test closely follows a similar test from Vandenberg on June 22.
The test comes just two weeks before the 66th anniversary of the US atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It is a reminder of the United States’ continued reliance on nuclear weapons in spite of proclamations by the Obama administration of the goal of a nuclear weapons-free world.
Each test costs tens of millions of dollars. In addition to the budgetary implications, such tests result in serious international relations problems.
David Krieger, President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, stated that the ongoing US testing program is provocative and stimulates other countries to improve or develop nuclear weapons and conduct their own tests. He said, “The continued testing of Minuteman III nuclear missiles is a clear example of US double standards. The government believes that it is fine to test-fire these missiles time and again, while expressing criticism when other countries conduct missile tests. Such double standards encourage nuclear proliferation and make the world a more dangerous place.”
Krieger also commended the nonviolent protestors who have been holding vigils against such tests outside of the Vandenberg AFB gates. There is a protest planned for 11:45 pm on Tuesday, July 26, just hours before the scheduled launch in the early hours of Wednesday morning.
# # #
For further comment, contact Rick Wayman, Director of Programs of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, at rwayman@napf.org or (805) 965-3443. Outside of regular office hours, please contact Rick Wayman at (805) 696-5159.
The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation — The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s mission is to educate and advocate for peace and a world free of nuclear weapons and to empower peace leaders. Founded in 1982, the Foundation is comprised of individuals and organizations worldwide who realize the imperative for peace in the Nuclear Age. The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation is a non-partisan, non-profit organization with consultative status to the United Nations. For more information, visit www.wagingpeace.org.
-
Visiting Hiroshima
I recently visited Hiroshima to give a speech. It is a city that I have visited many times in the past, and I am always amazed by its resilience. The city represents for me the human power of recovery and forgiveness.The first thing one is likely to notice about Hiroshima is that it is a beautiful city. It has rivers running through it and many trees and areas of green space. Without the reminders that have been left in place, one would not know that it is a city that was completely destroyed and flattened in 1945 by the first atomic bomb used in warfare.
I was the guest of the Hiroshima Peace Media Center of the Chugoku Shimbun, the largest newspaper in the region with a circulation of some 600,000. Walking from my hotel to the newspaper headquarters, I entered the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park and passed the famous Atomic Bomb Dome, one of the few buildings that survived the bombing. The Dome was designated a UNESCO World Heritage Site in 1996.
In the Peace Memorial Park there is a Children’s Peace Monument, a statue dedicated to Sadako Sasaki and the thousands of child victims of the bombing. Sadako, who was two years old when the bomb was dropped, lived a normal life until she came down with radiation-induced leukemia at the age of twelve and was hospitalized. Sadako folded paper cranes, which Japanese legend says will give one health and longevity if one folds 1,000 of them. On one of her paper cranes Sadako wrote: “I will write peace on your wings, and you will fly all over the world.”
Unfortunately, Sadako died without recovering her health, but her cranes have indeed flown all over the world. In Santa Barbara, for example, the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation and La Casa de Maria Retreat Center have created a beautiful Sadako Peace Garden, where each year on August 6th, the anniversary of the day Hiroshima was bombed, a commemoration is held comprised of music, poetry and reflections.
In the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park, groups of students visit the Children’s Peace Monument. I watched several groups of students pause in front of the statue to sing and pay their respects to the memory of Sadako and other child victims. All around the statue were brightly-colored strands of paper cranes, brought in honor of Sadako and other innocent children.
The Peace Memorial Cenotaph in the park contains a listing of all the people known to have died as a result of the bombing. Inscribed on the cenotaph are these words: “Let all souls here rest in peace for we shall not repeat the evil.” Many people come to the cenotaph, bow and pray for those who died as a result of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima. Through the cenotaph one can see a Peace Flame first lit in 1964. When all nuclear weapons are abolished, the flame will be extinguished.
On the grounds of the Peace Memorial Park is a museum, which tells the story of the bombing of Hiroshima from the perspective of the victims – those who were under the bomb, the people of the city. With the city rebuilt and beautiful, the museum is an important reminder of the tragedy of the bombing, which caused some 70,000 deaths immediately and some 140,000 by the end of 1945.
The most impressive part of the experience of being in Hiroshima, though, is not the statues, the cenotaph, the peace flame or the museum exhibits. It is the survivors of the bombing with their remarkable spirit of forgiveness. Many of the survivors have mastered English and other languages so as to be able to travel the world and share their memories of the bombing. They do so in order to prevent their past from becoming someone else’s future. Though the survivors are growing elderly, their good will and their concern for the future is evident. They deserve our respect and our commitment to creating a world without nuclear weapons.
David Krieger is President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. -
Hiroshima: City of Hope
David Krieger delivered this speech on May 25, 2013 in Hiroshima, Japan.
I am honored to be back in Hiroshima with you for this occasion, and I congratulate the Chugoku Shimbun on the fifth anniversary of its Hiroshima Peace Media Center. I am a strong supporter of this Center, and of other efforts to use the media to awaken people to the necessity of achieving a durable peace in the Nuclear Age.I extend a special greeting to former Mayor Tadatoshi Akiba, who did such important work in building the Mayors for Peace into a global organization of more than 5,000 members. He currently serves as the chair of the Middle Powers Initiative, a coalition of eight international civil society organizations that work with middle power countries in seeking to apply pressure for the abolition of nuclear weapons.
The room we are in today is called “Himawari,” which means sunflower. This is an appropriate place to meet, since sunflowers are the symbol of a world free of nuclear weapons. What could stand in starker contrast than natural, beautiful, brightly-colored sunflowers, which, bursting with life, grow toward the sun, and the metallic, manmade instruments of massive murder that are nuclear weapons and their delivery systems?
Hiroshima is a place made sacred by pain, suffering, forgiveness and perseverance in the cause of peace of its hibakusha (survivors of the atomic bombing). I would like to say to the hibakusha at the symposium that your efforts and your messages matter, that your words and deeds have touched people’s hearts throughout the world, including my own, and continue to do so. You have the power of truth and compassion on your side.
To the young people at the symposium, I want to stress how important it is to have hope and to carry on working for peace and a world free of nuclear weapons in the spirit of the hibakusha. I would like to impress upon you that Hiroshima is a city of hope and it is, at least in part, your responsibility to carry forward that hope. Without hope, our way would be lost and our future bleak.
Hiroshima
The bombing of Hiroshima was the kind of atrocity that can only be created in the cauldron of war, a human institution that has become totally dysfunctional. The destruction of Hiroshima split the 20th century nearly in half and, more importantly, provided a dividing line in human history. Before Hiroshima, nearly all of human experience and history unfolded. Much of it was creative and beautiful – the beauty of song, art, literature, friendship and love – but there were certainly grave atrocities and vivid examples of man’s inhumanity to man.
After the bombing of Hiroshima, man’s inhumanity to his fellow man took on a deeper and darker meaning, as it became possible to destroy everything. With the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, genocide gave way to the potential for omnicide, the death of all. Genocide – the destruction of a people based upon race, religion or ethnicity – was bad enough, but omnicide made possible the end of human and other complex life on the planet. We humans must rapidly increase our capacity for learning, tolerance and love, or face the dire and devastating consequences of nuclear war.
Hiroshima is both a city and a symbol. It is a modern city and one that is quite beautiful. But it is also a city recognized throughout the world as a universal symbol of the strength of humans to overcome adversity. The hibakusha of Hiroshima have said clearly: “Nuclear weapons and human beings cannot co-exist.” This is a deep insight that we need to collectively internalize. Those of us alive on the planet today must decide whether we continue to tolerate nuclear weapons and those who promote them, or whether we draw the line at the potential for human extinction and work to abolish these weapons.
I have had the opportunity in my life to meet many of the hibakusha of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I have found that their lives are filled with purpose, that is, to assure that their past does not become someone else’s future. The hibakusha have been to the depths of Hell and survived to reflect upon and share what they experienced on the fateful day of the bombing of Hiroshima and during the days, weeks, months and years of suffering that followed the bombing. They returned from that place of horror with hope in their hearts. By their willingness to forgive and by their constant efforts to end the nuclear weapons era, they have nurtured hope and kept it alive for all these years.
Poems
Over the years, I have written a number of poems and reflections about Hiroshima and the hibakusha. These have been published in Japan by Coal Sack Publishers in a book in Japanese and English entitled God’s Tears, Reflections on the Atomic Bombs Dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I would like to share two of these poems with you. I share them because I want to reach your hearts. Logic is not enough. The heart must be engaged to save our world. The first poem is dedicated to Miyoko Matsubara, a very committed hibakusha of Hiroshima who came to Santa Barbara and worked with us at the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation in developing her presentation skills in English.
THE DEEP BOW OF A HIBAKUSHA
for Miyoko MatsubaraShe bowed deeply. She bowed deeper than the oceans. She bowed from the top of Mt. Fuji to the bottom of the ocean. She bowed so deeply and so often that the winds blew hard.
The winds blew her whispered apologies and prayers across all the continents. But the winds whistled too loudly, and made it impossible to hear her apologies and prayers. The winds made the oceans crazy. The water in the oceans rose up in a wild molecular dance. The oceans threw themselves against the continents. The people were frightened. They ran screaming from the shores. They feared the white water and the whistling wind. They huddled together in dark places. They strained to hear the words in the wind.
In some places there were some people who thought they heard an apology. In other places there were people who thought they heard a prayer.
She bowed deeply. She bowed more deeply than anyone should bow.
GOD RESPONDED WITH TEARSThe plane flew over Hiroshima and dropped the bomb
after the all clear warning had sounded.The bomb dropped far slower than the speed of light.
It dropped at the speed of bombs.From the ground it was a tiny silver speck
that separated from the silver plane.After 43 seconds, the slow falling bomb exploded
into mass at the speed of light squared.Einstein called it energy. Everything lit up.
For a split-second people could see their own bones.The pilot always believed he had done the right thing.
The President, too, never wavered from his belief.He thanked God for the bomb. Others did, too.
God responded with tears that fell far slowerthan the speed of bombs.
They still have not reached Earth.The Nuclear Dilemma
Nuclear weapons create a dilemma. If some countries continue to rely upon nuclear weapons for their perceived security, sooner or later these weapons will be used again. The use of nuclear weapons could result in the extinction of the human species and other forms of complex life. Nuclear weapons place humans on the Endangered Species list.
And yet, although we humans should be mobilizing against the threat posed by these weapons of mass annihilation, we remain remarkably indifferent to them. This suggests one of four possibilities or some combination of them:
1. we are ignorant of the destructive power of nuclear weapons;
2. we don’t believe that the weapons will actually be used;
3. we have fear fatigue;
4. we believe that there is little that can be done by individuals to influence nuclear policy.It is unlikely that many of us are actually ignorant of the destructive power of nuclear weapons. Most people on the planet know what happened at Hiroshima and Nagasaki with the relatively small nuclear weapons of the time. In each case, one bomb destroyed one city. The terrible destructive power of these bombs has been vividly conveyed by the hibakusha.
It is possible that, having lived with nuclear weapons for more than two-thirds of a century, many individuals believe they will not be used again. But this is a denial of possibilities. So long as the weapons exist in the arsenals of some nations, neither their use nor their proliferation can be ruled out. Martin Hellman, a professor emeritus of electrical engineering at Stanford University, finds there is a one-in-six chance of a child born today dying of nuclear war during his or her 80-year lifespan. This is the equivalent of playing Nuclear Roulette with the life of that child – and all children. Psychologically, it may be more comfortable to live in denial, but it is not more secure.
When one is fearful for a long period of time, fatigue sets in. A person may be viewed as a prophet at a later time for having given warnings about survival threats in his or her own time, but in one’s own time one may be seen as crazy for continuing to shout warnings about such threats. For most people, fear fatigue sets in and they move on to take care of other areas of life. Thankfully, this isn’t the case for the hibakusha and for many abolitionists who continue to fight for a world free of nuclear weapons.
There are few people who can influence the course of human events by themselves, but collectively we can wield considerable influence. To assure that nuclear weapons are not used again, they must be abolished. We must join with others to achieve this goal – in the largest coalitions possible. I am deeply grateful to the hibakusha for their leadership in this effort.
Nuclear weapons are a technological triumph of the worst possible sort. We humans must triumph over our destructive technologies. We have created ever more powerful tools and these tools exert power over us. Our tools must be designed to aid us constructively rather than to threaten our very existence.
We must regain power over our tools if humankind is to survive. We can only do this collectively. We must unite rather than divide. We must cross borders in our minds and in our hearts. We must care for each other, and we must begin by eliminating the overriding threat of nuclear annihilation. The solution is not technological; it is human. It requires us to think about what really matters to us and to act accordingly.
We Must Change our Thinking
Albert Einstein was one of the greatest scientists of the 20th century. He changed the way we look at the universe. His theories described the relationship between energy and matter that led to releasing the power of the atom. Einstein was not only intelligent; he was wise. Early in the Nuclear Age, he pointed out, “The splitting of the atom has changed everything save our modes of thinking and thus we drift toward unparalleled catastrophe.” He saw clearly that the Nuclear Age had opened a new era in human history, an era in which the destructive power of nuclear weapons made peace an imperative.
The opening curtain of the Nuclear Age, which occurred here at Hiroshima, started the clock ticking on a race between finding new ways to forge friendships across borders and succumbing to the old patterns of war, but now with weapons incapable of being controlled in time or space. Bertrand Russell, Albert Einstein and 9 other prominent scientists issued the Russell-Einstein Manifesto on July 9, 1955. It is one of the most important documents of the 20th century and now for the 21st century. It states, “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.”
Yes, it is difficult to abolish war, but it is made necessary by the terrible devastation that occurred here in Hiroshima on August 6th, 1945, and that occurred again at Nagasaki three days later. Nuclear weapons have made possible the extinction of the human race and other forms of complex life. In this sense, they have made us one world, a global Hiroshima, uniting us in danger and in the opportunity to change.
The Russell-Einstein Manifesto concluded: “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.”
Nuclear Age Peace Foundation
The organization that I founded and where I have served as president for the past 30 years is called the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. The name means that peace is an imperative of the Nuclear Age. I hope that we are carrying on in the tradition of Russell and Einstein. Our mission is “to educate and advocate for peace and a world free of nuclear weapons and to empower peace leaders.”
We are motivated in our efforts by the spirit of Hiroshima and its hibakusha. In Santa Barbara, we have created a peace garden named for Sadako Sasaki. Each year on or around Hiroshima Day we hold a ceremony of remembrance with music, poetry and reflections in this beautiful and tranquil garden. Sadako’s paper cranes have indeed flown all over the world.
Each year we give a Distinguished Peace Leadership Award to an outstanding peace leader. Recipients have included the Dalai Lama, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Mairead Maguire, Jody Williams and Dr. Helen Caldicott. Two years ago, our award was presented to Mayor Akiba and, at the same time, we presented a World Citizen Award to Shigeko Sasamori on behalf of all hibakusha of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
Article VI of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) requires the parties to the treaty to pursue negotiations in good faith for a cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date, for nuclear disarmament, and for a treaty on general and complete disarmament. Such negotiations have not taken place. The International Court of Justice in interpreting the treaty stated, “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.” This obligation has existed since the NPT entered into force in 1970. For 43 years, this obligation has been largely ignored by the five nuclear weapon states that are parties to the treaty (US, Russia, UK, France and China). In addition, the negotiations have been ignored by three states not parties to the treaty that have developed nuclear arsenals (Israel, India and Pakistan), and by North Korea, which withdrew from the Non-Proliferation Treaty and also developed and tested nuclear weapons.
Each day the nuclear weapon states act illegally under international law by failing to fulfill their obligations to engage in good faith negotiations for nuclear disarmament and to bring these negotiations to a conclusion. In addition to acting illegally, they are behaving in a way that threatens the human future. Their inaction is intolerable and unworthy of the responsibility they have accepted.
I was recently in Geneva at the Second Preparatory Meeting of the parties for the 2015 NPT Review Conference. I found the conference to be notable for five reasons:
First, there was virtually no progress on the nuclear disarmament goal of the treaty.
Second, there was enthusiasm among the non-nuclear weapons states that carried over from the Oslo conference on the humanitarian consequences of nuclear war. In relation to this, 80 countries signed on to a Joint Statement introduced by South Africa to underline the severe humanitarian consequences of nuclear war and to call for a ban on nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, Japan was not one of these 80 countries. This statement said in part, “The only way to guarantee that nuclear weapons will never be used again is through their total elimination.” I think this is a statement that would resonate with the hibakusha of Hiroshima. Nonetheless, the Japanese government continues to support US nuclear policy rather than the reasonable aspirations of the hibakusha for significant progress toward a world without nuclear weapons. The Japanese government needs to bring its policies in line with the spirit of the hibakusha.
Third, the failure to hold a conference, as promised, on the establishment of a Weapons of Mass Destruction-Free Zone in the Middle East became a point of serious contention. The Egyptian Ambassador to Geneva, Hisham Badr, walked out of the conference expressing disappointment with the failure of the parties to the Non-Proliferation Treaty to convene the conference, which had been scheduled to be held in Finland in December 2012. He stated, “Egypt and many Arab countries have joined the NPT with the understanding that this would lead to a Middle East completely free of nuclear weapons. However, more than 30 years later one country in the Middle East, namely Israel, remains outside the NPT.” The Secretary-General of the Agency for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean (OPANAL), described the postponement of the conference, along with the lack of progress on nuclear disarmament, as “alarming factors.” She called for replacing “nuclear deterrence doctrines with more effective measures, with truly safe measures for humanity as a whole.”
Fourth, the US and Russia were busy patting themselves on their respective backs for their 2010 New START agreement to reduce the number of their deployed strategic nuclear weapons to 1,550 on each side by 2018. However, when asked whether their new relationship made possible a pledge of No First Use of nuclear weapons, both countries had little to say.
Fifth, despite claims to the contrary, all of the NPT nuclear weapon states continue to be engaged in modernizing their respective nuclear forces. The US, for example, said in its Working Paper for the conference, “On modernization, the 2010 Nuclear Posture Review made clear that the United States will not develop new nuclear warheads nor will its Life Extension Programs support new military missions or provide new military capabilities.” However, the US is planning to spend upwards of $10 billion for upgrading its B61 gravity bombs that are now stockpiled in Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany, Italy and Turkey and giving them new tailfins that will turn them into guided weapons.
East Asia
The situation in East Asia remains dangerous. North Korea joined the nuclear weapons “club” in 2006. Other nuclear weapon states active in the region are the US, Russia and China. Japan, although not a nuclear weapon state, has enough reprocessed plutonium to become a nuclear-armed state within months and to make a few thousand nuclear weapons in a relatively short time. While Japan has consistently said that it will not do this, it must be viewed as a virtual nuclear weapon state. At the same time, Japan has placed itself under the nuclear umbrella of the United States and has tended to support US nuclear policy in international forums. Japan’s dependence upon the US for nuclear deterrence seems likely to be the reason that Japan has been supportive of US nuclear policy and has not been more supportive of the position of the hibakusha of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Most Americans are not attentive to the position of the Japanese government on nuclear issues. However, US leaders view Japan as an important element in its security plan for East Asia. Because Japan is a close ally of the US, Japan could potentially assert an influence over US nuclear policy if Japan were to support the position of the hibakusha, take a strong stand for nuclear weapons abolition, and step out from under the US nuclear umbrella. It would have to do so while at the same time assuring the world that it would continue its policy of renouncing war and not itself developing a nuclear arsenal. Japan would be the most appropriate country to lead the world, including the US, toward good faith negotiations for nuclear disarmament. In doing so, it would be keeping faith with international law as well as with the hibakusha.
A Time for Boldness
The nuclear weapon states have put off their obligations to negotiate in good faith for nuclear disarmament for too long. They have proven that they are not serious about fulfilling their obligations under international law. The non-nuclear weapon states have warned of the dangers of continuing with the status quo, but to no avail. Meek warnings have not been sufficient and are no longer acceptable. It is a time for boldness and an assertion of hope that change is possible.
There have been no good faith negotiations for nuclear disarmament – only excuses. Enough is enough. It is time for action to end the nuclear weapons threat to humanity – action reflecting that nuclear deterrence is a hypothesis about human behavior rather than a reliable defense. It is not a defense at all.
Action is needed that ends the two-tier structure of nuclear haves and have-nots. The Non-Proliferation Treaty calls for leveling the playing field by eliminating all existing nuclear weapons. If the nuclear weapon states fail to fulfill their obligations, the playing field may well be leveled in the wrong direction by the widespread proliferation of nuclear weapons.
Examples of Bold
One possibility would be a boycott of the 2015 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference if the nuclear weapon states have not yet begun to fulfill their obligations for good faith negotiations for nuclear disarmament called for in Article VI of the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Another possibility would be for countries to set a deadline for withdrawal from the Non-Proliferation Treaty if sufficient progress toward nuclear disarmament obligations is not achieved.
Still another bold move would be for non-nuclear weapon states to begin negotiating among themselves for a Nuclear Weapons Convention for the phased, verifiable, irreversible and transparent elimination of nuclear weapons – and call upon the nuclear weapons states to join them. This is the call of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), and I strongly endorse it.
Hope
Despair is a recipe for giving up, while hope keeps us energized to achieve what may seem like impossible goals. Hope is a choice. It keeps us going to achieve what is necessary. Nuclear weapons have had their day, and it has been a dangerous and destructive day. That day is over, both because these weapons are inequitable and because they are cruel and indiscriminating as between civilians and combatants. They are 20th century dinosaurs.
Hope is related to boldness. It gives us the power to think in a new way, to speak truth to power, and to act resolutely, as the circumstances require.
Conclusion
Over the years, the US and Russia relied upon a strategy of Mutual Assured Destruction with the acronym MAD (meaning crazy). Now, it has become clear that with the use of nuclear arsenals there is also the possibility of Self-Assured Destruction with the acronym SAD. It is Self-Assured Destruction because the attacking side, even without retaliation from the other side, may destroy its own side due to nuclear famine and nuclear winter. But SAD has another meaning as well. It can also stand for Stupid Arrogant Denial. This may be said of leaders and countries that do not take seriously their obligations for nuclear abolition.
Our greatest challenge now is to move from MAD and SAD (in both its meanings) to PASS, which stands for Planetary Assured Security and Survival. This is the path that the hibakusha have walked and they have led the way in making Hiroshima a city of hope. Now, it is up to us to join the hibakusha in carrying forward the torch of truth that will end the nuclear weapons era. Our task is to assure human survival and that of other creatures on the only planet we know of in our vast universe that supports the miracle of life. This remains the greatest challenge of our time.
It is a noble challenge and an urgent one. It demands our best efforts. We must act as though the very future depended upon our compassion, commitment and courage. It does. Let us follow the path of the hibakusha. I will end with a final poem.
Hibakusha Do Not Just Happen
For every hibakusha
there is a pilot
for every hibakusha
there is a planner
for every hibakusha
there is a bombardier
for every hibakusha
there is a bomb designer
for every hibakusha
there is a missile maker
for every hibakusha
there is a missileer
for every hibakusha
there is a targeter
for every hibakusha
there is a commander
for every hibakusha
there is a button pusher
for every hibakusha
many must contribute
for every hibakusha
many must obey
for every hibakusha
many must be silentWe must respect and honor the existing hibakusha with our voices and our acts of peace. The best way we can do this is by assuring that no new hibakusha are created. The best way we can do this is by achieving a world free of nuclear weapons.
David Krieger is President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. -
Hiroshima: City of Hope
David Krieger, President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (NAPF), will give the keynote address at an international peace symposium to be held in Hiroshima, Japan, on May 25. This event is organized by Chugoku Shimbun to commemorate the 5th Anniversary of the Hiroshima Peace Media Center. The symposium is entitled “Toward a Nuclear-Free World: Spreading Hiorshima’s Message.”
Mr. Krieger has been to Hiroshima on many occasions in the past. “This city is a special place, made sacred by the pain, suffering, forgiveness and perseverance of the survivors of the atomic bomb. I consider it an honor to be invited to speak here. I am truly humbled,” said Krieger.
He continued, “In my speech, entitled, ‘Hiroshima: City of Hope,’ I wish to tell the hibakusha (surviving victims of the atomic bombings) that their efforts and messages matter and that their words and deeds have touched people’s hearts throughout the world, including my own.”
Mr. Krieger’s keynote address at the symposium is one of many continuing efforts by The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation to build momentum throughout the world towards the abolition of nuclear weapons. According to Krieger, “It’s critically important that no other city or country will ever suffer the same experiences and devastation caused by nuclear weapons such as those used at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or the far more powerful weapons that exist today.”
While in Hiroshima, Mr. Krieger will meet with Tadatoshi Akiba, the former Mayor of Hiroshima and current Chairman of the Middle Powers Initiative (MPI). Through the MPI, eight international non-governmental organizations, including the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, are able to work with middle power governments to encourage the nuclear weapons states to take immediate, practical steps that reduce nuclear dangers, and commence negotiations to eliminate nuclear weapons.
Mr. Krieger will also meet with Ambassador Yasuyoshi Komizo, the new Director of the Hiroshima Peace Culture Foundation. In a recent speech, Amabassador Komizo expressed his belief that a nuclear free world would require a new and reliable security framework based on a sense of community on a global scale and built upon mutual trust between people, replacing the current system of nuclear deterrence based on a reality of distrust and built upon the threat of nuclear weapons.
Mr. Krieger will stress that “The hibakusha have returned from that place of horror with hope in their hearts. By their willingness to forgive and by their constant efforts to end the nuclear weapons era, they have nurtured hope and kept it alive for all these years. It will soon be up to the next generations to carry on working for a world free of nuclear weapons in the spirit of the hibakusha.”
A transcript of Mr. Krieger’s speech can be found here.
-
Who Will Assist the Victims of Nuclear Weapons?
On 30 August 1945 Dr Marcel Junod, the head of the International Committee of the Red Cross delegation in Japan, received a chilling cable from an ICRC representative in Hiroshima. The cable read as follows: “Conditions appalling. City wiped out. Eighty percent of all hospitals destroyed or seriously damaged. Inspected two emergency hospitals, conditions beyond description. Effect of bomb mysteriously serious. Many victims apparently recovering suddenly suffer fatal relapse due to decomposition of white blood cells and other internal injuries, now dying in great numbers. Estimated still over one hundred thousand wounded in emergency hospitals located surroundings. Sadly lacking bandaging materials, medicines.”
On his arrival in Hiroshima, Marcel Junod came face-to-face with the grim reality of medical care after an atomic bombing of a city and its medical infrastructure. In addition to the destruction and damage to hospitals mentioned in the cable, the impact on those meant to care for the sick and wounded was equally severe: 90% of Hiroshima’s doctors were killed or injured by the explosion, as were 92% of the city’s nurses and 80% of its pharmacists. There was a desperate need for blood but no possibility of blood transfusions as most potential donors were either dead or injured. To put it bluntly, the city’s capacity to treat victims had been wiped out. As a result, there was little or no health-care provision in the immediate aftermath of the explosion.
This same catastrophic scenario – and more – awaits us if nuclear weapons are ever used again. While the destructive capacity of nuclear weapons increased dramatically during the Cold War, the capacity of States and international agencies to assist the victims did not. As you will hear tomorrow, the ICRC has over the past six years made an in-depth assessment of its own capacity, and that of other agencies, to help the victims of nuclear, radiological, biological and chemical weapons. We have concluded that an effective means of assisting a substantial portion of survivors of a nuclear detonation, while adequately protecting those delivering assistance, is not currently available at national level and not feasible at international level. It is highly unlikely that the immense investment required to develop such capacity will ever be made. If made, it would likely remain insufficient.
In April 2010, my predecessor, Jakob Kellenberger, spoke of this state of affairs in a statement to Geneva’s diplomatic community. In this statement the ICRC made four key points:
- Nuclear weapons are unique in their destructive power, in the unspeakable human suffering they cause, in the impossibility of controlling their effects in space and time, in the risks of escalation they create, and in the threat they pose to the environment, to future generations, and indeed to the survival of humanity.
- It is difficult to envisage how any use of nuclear weapons could be compatible with the rules of international humanitarian law.
- Regardless of their views on the legality of nuclear weapons, States must ensure that they are never again used.
- Preventing the use of nuclear weapons requires fulfilment of existing obligations to pursue negotiations aimed at prohibiting and completely eliminating such weapons through a legally binding international treaty.
We are encouraged by the response to the ICRC’s appeal in 2010. Since then, the 190 States party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons have recognized the “catastrophic humanitarian consequences of any use of nuclear weapons” and the relevance of international humanitarian law in this regard. Those States have also reaffirmed the call made by the United Nations Security Council at its summit in 2009, and by Presidents Obama and Medvedev earlier that year, to move towards a world free of nuclear weapons. In 2011 the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement made a historic appeal on nuclear weapons, in the same vein as that of the ICRC. In it, the Movement undertook to raise awareness among the public, scientists, health professionals and decision-makers of its ongoing concerns and to promote the norm of non-use and the elimination of nuclear weapons among governments and the public. In October 2012 the Movement’s concerns were reflected in a statement made by 34 States to the UN General Assembly’s First Committee.
The ICRC warmly welcomes the Norwegian Government’s initiative to convene this conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons. Although nuclear weapons have been debated in military, technical and geopolitical terms for decades, it is astounding that States have never before come together to address their humanitarian consequences.
In our view, no informed political or legal position on these weapons can be adopted without a detailed grasp of the immediate consequences of these weapons on human beings and on medical and other infrastructure. It is also essential to understand the long-term effects on human health and on the genetics of survivors; consequences that have been confirmed by research and have been witnessed and treated for nearly seven decades by the Japanese Red Cross hospitals in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In addition, one cannot ignore the insight offered by modern climate science into the implications of nuclear weapon use for the world’s climate and food production. And last, but by no means least, States must answer the question: Who will assist the victims of these weapons and how? The next two days provide a unique and historic opportunity to begin addressing these fundamental issues.
In closing, I am confident that, as you broach these issues, you will share the ICRC’s commitment to prevent any future use of nuclear weapons. I also hope that you will be driven by the sense of opportunity generated by this conference and by the belief that the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons must be at the centre of the debate. This is an important moment to recognize and understand these consequences, thus ensuring that they are central to future discussions.
And yet, an awareness of the consequences of nuclear weapons will not be enough to definitively prevent the use of and bring about the elimination of nuclear weapons. Public awareness, media interest and the sustained commitment of responsible State authorities are crucial. The international community has not always seized upon opportunities to prevent human suffering. In the case of nuclear weapons, prevention – including the development of a legally binding treaty to prohibit and eliminate such weapons – is the only way forward.
Peter Maurer is President of the International Committee of the Red Cross. -
The World Is Over-Armed and Peace Is Under-Funded
This article was originally published by Eurasia Review.
Last month, competing interests prevented agreement on a much-needed treaty that would have reduced the appalling human cost of the poorly regulated international arms trade. Meanwhile, nuclear disarmament efforts remain stalled, despite strong and growing global popular sentiment in support of this cause.
The failure of these negotiations and this month’s anniversaries of the atomic bombings at Hiroshima and Nagasaki provide a good opportunity to explore what has gone wrong, why disarmament and arms control have proven so difficult to achieve, and how the world community can get back on track towards these vitally important goals.
Many defence establishments now recognize that security means far more than protecting borders. Grave security concerns can arise as a result of demographic trends, chronic poverty, economic inequality, environmental degradation, pandemic diseases, organized crime, repressive governance and other developments no state can control alone. Arms can’t address such concerns.
Yet there has been a troubling lag between recognizing these new security challenges, and launching new policies to address them. National budget priorities still tend to reflect the old paradigms. Massive military spending and new investments in modernizing nuclear weapons have left the world over-armed ― and peace under-funded.
Last year, global military spending reportedly exceeded $1.7 trillion ― more than $4.6 billion a day, which alone is almost twice the U.N.’s budget for an entire year. This largesse includes billions more for modernizing nuclear arsenals decades into the future.
This level of military spending is hard to explain in a post-Cold War world and amidst a global financial crisis. Economists would call this an “opportunity cost.” I call it human opportunities lost. Nuclear weapons budgets are especially ripe for deep cuts.
Such weapons are useless against today’s threats to international peace and security. Their very existence is de-stabilizing: the more they are touted as indispensable, the greater is the incentive for their proliferation. Additional risks arise from accidents and the health and environmental effects of maintaining and developing such weapons.
The time has come to re-affirm commitments to nuclear disarmament, and to ensure that this common end is reflected in national budgets, plans and institutions.
Four years ago, I outlined a five-point disarmament proposal highlighting the need for a nuclear weapon convention or a framework of instruments to achieve this goal.
Yet the disarmament stalemate continues. The solution clearly lies in greater efforts by States to harmonize their actions to achieve common ends. Here are some specific actions that all States and civil society should pursue to break this impasse.
Support efforts by the Russian Federation and the United States to negotiate deep, verified cuts in their nuclear arsenals, both deployed and un-deployed.
Obtain commitments by others possessing such weapons to join the disarmament process.
Establish a moratorium on developing or producing nuclear weapons or new delivery systems.
Negotiate a multilateral treaty outlawing fissile materials that can be used in nuclear weapons.
End nuclear explosions and bring into force the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty.
Stop deploying nuclear weapons on foreign soil, and retire such weapons.
Ensure that nuclear-weapon states report to a public U.N. repository on nuclear disarmament, including details on arsenal size, fissile material, delivery systems, and progress in achieving disarmament goals.
Establish a Middle East zone free of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction.
Secure universal membership in treaties outlawing chemical and biological weapons.
Pursue parallel efforts on conventional arms control, including an arms trade treaty, strengthened controls over the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons, universal membership in the Mine Ban, Cluster Munitions, and Inhumane Weapons Conventions, and expanded participation in the U.N. Report on Military Expenditures and the U.N. Register of Conventional Arms.
Undertake diplomatic and military initiatives to maintain international peace and security in a world without nuclear weapons, including new efforts to resolve regional disputes.
And perhaps above all, we must address basic human needs and achieve the Millennium Development Goals. Chronic poverty erodes security. Let us dramatically cut spending on nuclear weapons, and invest instead in social and economic development, which serves the interests of all by expanding markets, reducing motivations for armed conflicts, and in giving citizens a stake in their common futures. Like nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation, such goals are essential for ensuring human security and a peaceful world for future generations.
No development, no peace. No disarmament, no security. Yet when both advance, the world advances, with increased security and prosperity for all. These are common ends that deserve the support of all nations.