Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Tag: INF Treaty

  • First Missile Test in a “Post-INF Treaty World”

    First Missile Test in a “Post-INF Treaty World”

    Contact: Sandy Jones  (805) 965-3443; sjones@napf.org

    Rick Wayman  (805) 696-5159; rwayman@napf.org

     

    For immediate release – In what the Pentagon is calling a “post-INF treaty world” on Sunday, August 18, 2019, at 2:30 pm., without prior notice, the Department of Defense conducted a test of a land-based cruise missile off the California coast at San Nicolas Island.

    This missile test would have been banned under the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) treaty which the Trump administration terminated just over 2 weeks ago.

    There are many who believe that the termination of the INF brings us to the brink of a dangerous new arms race between the U.S. and Russia.

    Rick Wayman, Deputy Director of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, a non-profit based in Santa Barbara, CA dedicated to sustaining a peaceful and just world, free of nuclear weapons, commented, “Yesterday, I spent a peaceful, beautiful afternoon at the beach in Santa Barbara, celebrating a friend’s birthday. The only defense we needed was some sunscreen and a beach umbrella. I was appalled to learn that, just miles from our family’s tranquil celebration, the U.S. took a dangerous and ill-advised leap forward in its arms race with Russia. Testing and deploying such missiles is dangerous and unnecessary, and raises the risk of armed conflict. There was good reason why these weapons were banned for 32 years, and should have remained banned forever.”

    Having ended the INF treaty, both the U.S. and Russia are able to deploy nuclear-armed missiles in the foolish pursuit of a nuclear advantage. This is part of a pattern of bad decisions by the Trump administration, which also includes pulling out of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) with Iran.

    #             #             #

    If you would like to interview Rick Wayman, NAPF’s Deputy Director, please call the Foundation at (805) 965-3443 or (805) 696-5159.

    The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s mission is to educate, advocate and inspire action for a peaceful world, free of nuclear weapons. 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 wagingpeace.org.

    *photo by Scott Howe / U.S. Department of Defense

  • Hiroshima Unlearned: Time to Tell the Truth About US-Russia Relations and Finally Ban the Bomb

    Hiroshima Unlearned: Time to Tell the Truth About US-Russia Relations and Finally Ban the Bomb

    This article was originally published by InDepth News.

    August 6 and 9 mark 74 years since the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, where only one nuclear bomb dropped on each city caused the deaths of up to 146,000 people in Hiroshima and 80,000 people in Nagasaki. Today, with the U.S. decision to walk away from the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Force (INF) negotiated with the Soviet Union, we are once again staring into the abyss of one of the most perilous nuclear challenges since the height of the Cold War.

    With its careful verification and inspections, the INF Treaty eliminated a whole class of missiles that threatened peace and stability in Europe. Now the U.S. is leaving the Treaty on the grounds that Moscow is developing and deploying a missile with a range prohibited by the Treaty. Russia denies the charges and accuses the U.S. of violating the Treaty. The U.S. rejected repeated Russian requests to work out the differences in order to preserve the Treaty.

    The US withdrawal should be seen in the context of the historical provocations visited upon the Soviet Union and now Russia by the United States and the nations under the US nuclear “umbrella” in NATO and the Pacific. The US has been driving the nuclear arms race with Russia from the dawn of the nuclear age:

    — In 1946 Truman rejected Stalin’s offer to turn the bomb over to the newly formed UN under international supervision, after which the Russians made their own bomb;

    — Reagan rejected Gorbachev’s offer to give up Star Wars as a condition for both countries to eliminate all their nuclear weapons when the wall came down and Gorbachev released all of Eastern Europe from Soviet occupation, miraculously, without a shot;

    — The US pushed NATO right up to Russia’s borders, despite promises when the wall fell that NATO would not expand it one inch eastward of a unified Germany;

    — Clinton bombed Kosovo, bypassing Russia’s veto in the UN Security Council and violating the UN Treaty we signed never to commit a war of aggression against another nation unless under imminent threat of attack;

    — Clinton refused Putin’s offer of cutting massive nuclear arsenals to 1000 bombs each and call all the others to the table to negotiate for their elimination, provided we stopped developing missile sites in Romania;

    — Bush walked out of the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and put the new missile base in Romania with another to open shortly under Trump in Poland, right in Russia’s backyard;

    — Bush and Obama blocked any discussion in 2008 and 2014 on Russian and Chinese proposals for a space weapons ban in the consensus-bound Committee for Disarmament in Geneva;

    — Obama’s rejected Putin’s offer to negotiate a Treaty to ban cyber war;

    — Trump now walked out of the INF Treaty;

    — From Clinton through Trump, the US never ratified the 1992 Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) as Russia has, and has performed more than 20 underground sub-critical tests on the Western Shoshone’s sanctified land at the Nevada test site. Since plutonium is blown up with chemicals that don’t cause a chain reaction, the US claims these tests don’t violate the Treaty;

    — Obama, and now Trump, pledged over one trillion dollars for the next 30 years for two new nuclear bomb factories in Oak Ridge and Kansas City, as well as new submarines, missiles, airplanes, and warheads!

    What has Russia had to say about these US affronts to international security and negotiated treaties? Putin at his State of the Nation address in March 2018 said:

    I will speak about the newest systems of Russian strategic weapons that we are creating in response to the unilateral withdrawal of the United States of America from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and the practical deployment of their missile defence systems both in the US and beyond their national borders.

    I would like to make a short journey into the recent past. Back in 2000, the US announced its withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM)Treaty. Russia was categorically against this. We saw the Soviet-US ABM Treaty signed in 1972 as the cornerstone of the international security system.

    Under this Treaty, the parties had the right to deploy ballistic missile defence systems only in one of its regions. Russia deployed these systems around Moscow, and the US around its Grand Forks land-based ICBM base.

    Together with the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, the ABM Treaty not only created an atmosphere of trust but also prevented either party from recklessly using nuclear weapons, which would have endangered humankind, because the limited number of ballistic missile defence systems made the potential aggressor vulnerable to a response strike.

    We did our best to dissuade the Americans from withdrawing from the Treaty.  

    All in vain. The US pulled out of the Treaty in 2002. Even after that we tried to develop constructive dialogue with the Americans. We proposed working together in this area to ease concerns and maintain the atmosphere of trust.

    At one point, I thought that a compromise was possible, but this was not to be. All our proposals, absolutely all of them, were rejected. And then we said that we would have to improve our modern strike systems to protect our security. 

    Despite promises made in the 1970 Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) that the five nuclear weapons states – US, UK, Russia, France, China – would eliminate their nuclear weapons while all the other nations of the world promised not to get them (except for India, Pakistan, and Israel, which also acquired nuclear weapons), there are still nearly 15,000 nuclear bombs on the planet. All but 1,000 of them are in the US and Russia, while the seven other countries, including North Korea, have about 1000 bombs between them.

    If the US and Russia can’t settle their differences and honor their promise in the NPT to eliminate their nuclear weapons, the whole world will continue to live under what President Kennedy described as a nuclear Sword of Damocles, threatened with unimaginable catastrophic humanitarian suffering and destruction.

    To prevent a nuclear catastrophe, in 2017, 122 nations adopted a new Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW). It calls for a ban on nuclear weapons just as the world had banned chemical and biological weapons. The ban Treaty provides a pathway for nuclear weapons states to join and dismantle their arsenals under strict and effective verification.

    The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), which received the Nobel Peace Prize for its efforts, is working for the Treaty to enter into force by enrolling 50 nations to ratify the Treaty. As of today, 70 nations have signed the Treaty and 24 have ratified it, although none of them are nuclear weapons states or the US alliance states under the nuclear umbrella.

    With this new opportunity to finally ban the bomb and end the nuclear terror, let us tell the truth about what happened between the US and Russia that brought us to this perilous moment and put the responsibility where it belongs to open up a path for true peace and reconciliation so that never again will anyone on our  planet ever be threatened with the terrible consequences of nuclear war.

    Here are some actions you can take to ban the bomb:

    – Support the ICAN Cities Appeal to take a stand in favor of the ban Treaty

    – Ask your member of Congress to sign the ICAN Parliamentary Pledge

    – Ask the US Presidential Candidates to pledge support for the Ban Treaty and cut Pentagon spending

    – Support the Don’t Bank on the Bomb Campaign for nuclear divestment

    – Support the Code Pink Divest From the War Machine Campaign 

    – Distribute Warheads To Windmills, How to Pay for the Green New Deal, a new study addressing the need to prevent the two greatest dangers facing our planet: nuclear annihilation and climate destruction.

    – Sign the World Beyond War pledge and add your name to this critical new campaign to make the end of war on our planet an idea whose time has come!

  • Don’t Expect Rulers of Nuclear-Armed Nations to Accept Nuclear Disarmament―Unless They’re Pushed to Do So

    Don’t Expect Rulers of Nuclear-Armed Nations to Accept Nuclear Disarmament―Unless They’re Pushed to Do So

    At the beginning of February 2019, the two leading nuclear powers took an official step toward resumption of the nuclear arms race.  On February 1, the U.S. government, charging Russian violations of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, announced that it would pull out of the agreement and develop new intermediate-range missiles banned by it.  The following day, Russian President Vladimir Putin suspended his government’s observance of the treaty, claiming that this was done as a “symmetrical” response to the U.S. action and that Russia would develop nuclear weapons outlawed by the agreement.

    In this fashion, the 1987 Soviet-American INF Treaty―which had eliminated thousands of destabilizing nuclear weapons, set the course for future nuclear disarmament agreements between the two nuclear superpowers, and paved the way for an end to the Cold War―was formally dispensed with.

    Actually, the scrapping of the treaty should not have come as a surprise.  After all, the rulers of nations, especially “the great powers,” are rarely interested in limiting their access to powerful weapons of war, including nuclear weapons.  Indeed, they usually favor weapons buildups by their own nation and, thus, end up in immensely dangerous and expensive arms races with other nations.

    Donald Trump exemplifies this embrace of nuclear weapons.  During his presidential campaign, he made the bizarre claim that the 7,000-weapon U.S. nuclear arsenal “doesn’t work,” and promised to restore it to its full glory.  Shortly after his election, Trump tweeted:  “The United States must greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability.”  The following day, with his customary insouciance, he remarked simply:  “Let it be an arms race.”

    Naturally, as president, he has been a keen supporter of a $1.7 trillion refurbishment of the entire U.S. nuclear weapons complex, including the building of new nuclear weapons.  Nor has he hesitated to brag about U.S. nuclear prowess.  In connection with his war of words with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, Trump boasted:  “I too have a Nuclear Button, but it is a much bigger and more powerful one than his.”

    Russian leaders, too, though not as overtly provocative, have been impatient to build new nuclear weapons.  As early as 2007, Putin complained to top-level U.S. officials that only Russia and the United States were covered by the INF Treaty; therefore, unless other nations were brought into the agreement, “it will be difficult for us to keep within the [treaty] framework.”  The following year, Sergey Ivanov, the Russian defense minister, publicly bemoaned the INF agreement, observing that intermediate-range nuclear weapons “would be quite useful for us” against China.

    By 2014, according to the U.S. government and arms control experts, Russia was pursuing a cruise missile program that violated the INF agreement, although Putin denied that the missile was banned by the treaty and claimed, instead, that the U.S. missile defense system was out of compliance.  And so the offending missile program continued, as did Russian programs for blood-curdling types of nuclear weapons outside the treaty’s framework.  In 2016, Putin criticized “the naïve former Russian leadership” for signing the INF Treaty in the first place.  When the U.S. government pulled out of the treaty, Putin not only quickly proclaimed Russia’s withdrawal, but announced plans for building new nuclear weapons and said that Russia would no longer initiate nuclear arms control talks with the United States.

    The leaders of the seven other nuclear-armed nations have displayed much the same attitude.  All have recently been upgrading their nuclear arsenals, with China, India, Pakistan, and North Korea developing nuclear weapons that would be banned by the INF Treaty.  Efforts by the U.S. government, in 2008, to bring some of these nations into the treaty were rebuffed by their governments.  In the context of the recent breakdown of the INF Treaty, China’s government (which, among them, possesses the largest number of such weapons) has praised the agreement for carrying forward the nuclear disarmament process and improving international relations, but has opposed making the treaty a multilateral one―a polite way of saying that nuclear disarmament should be confined to the Americans and the Russians.

    Characteristically, all the nuclear powers have rejected the 2017 UN treaty prohibiting nuclear weapons.

    But the history of the INF Treaty’s emergence provides a more heartening perspective.

    During the late 1970s and early 1980s, in response to the advent of government officials championing a nuclear weapons buildup and talking glibly of nuclear war, an immense surge of popular protest swept around the world.  Antinuclear demonstrations of unprecedented size convulsed Western Europe, Asia, and North America.  Even within Communist nations, protesters defied authorities and took to the streets.  With opinion polls showing massive opposition to the deployment of new nuclear weapons and the waging of nuclear war, mainstream organizations and political parties sharply condemned the nuclear buildup and called for nuclear disarmament.

    Consequently, hawkish government officials began to reassess their priorities.  In the fall of 1983, with some five million people busy protesting the U.S. plan to install intermediate-range nuclear weapons in Western Europe, Ronald Reagan told his secretary of state: “If things get hotter and hotter and arms control remains an issue, maybe I should . . . propose eliminating all nuclear weapons.”  Previously, to dampen antinuclear protest, Reagan and other NATO hawks had proposed the “zero option”―scrapping plans for U.S. missile deployment in Western Europe for Soviet withdrawal of INF missiles from Eastern Europe.  But Russian leaders scorned this public relations gesture until Mikhail Gorbachev, riding the wave of popular protest, decided to call Reagan’s bluff.  As a result, recalled a top administration official, “we had to take yes for an answer.”  In 1987, amid great popular celebration, Reagan and Gorbachev signed the INF Treaty.

    Although the rulers of nuclear-armed nations are usually eager to foster nuclear buildups, substantial public pressure can secure their acceptance of nuclear disarmament.

    Dr. Lawrence Wittner (https://www.lawrenceswittner.com/ ) is Professor of History Emeritus at SUNY/Albany and the author of Confronting the Bomb (Stanford University Press).

  • U.S. to Launch Minuteman III Missile Test Days After Suspending Landmark Nuclear Weapons Treaty

    U.S. to Launch Minuteman III Missile Test Days After Suspending Landmark Nuclear Weapons Treaty

    For Immediate Release

    Contact: Sandy Jones  (805) 965-3443; sjones@napf.org

    Rick Wayman  (805) 696-5159; rwayman@napf.org

     

    Santa Barbara, CA – An unarmed Minuteman III ICBM missile test is scheduled for launch early  Wednesday morning, Feb. 6, from Vandenberg AFB. The missile will travel some 4,200 miles to a predetermined target in the central Pacific Ocean’s Kwajalein Atoll in the Marshall Islands.

    David Krieger, President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation stated, “The Marshall Islanders take the brunt of America’s nuclear testing program, and they have already suffered enough from such tests. It’s time for Americans to wake up. These tests don’t make us safer, they make the world more dangerous. Rather than continuing to test nuclear weapons, we should be leading negotiations to rid the world of these weapons of indiscriminate mass annihilation.”

    While Global Strike Command representatives assert that missile tests are scheduled months or years in advance, this test comes just four short days after the Trump administration suspended from the U.S. from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, a crucial landmark Treaty between the U.S. and Russia that eliminated entire categories of nuclear weapons.

    Rick Wayman, Deputy Director at the Foundation commented on the approaching launch, saying “Just four days ago, the Trump administration suspended the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, one of the most important arms control treaties ever achieved between the United States and Russia. The very same week, both of these countries now appear set to test-launch Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles. While ICBMs would not have violated the INF Treaty, it is alarming that this extraordinary tension is coming to a head with major nuclear-capable missile tests just hours or days apart.”

    Wayman went on to say, “The U.S. and Russia together possess over 90% of the approximately 14,500 nuclear weapons in the world. The Air Force always seeks to explain away ICBM tests as routine and disconnected from current geopolitical events. But there is nothing routine about rehearsing the annihilation of millions of people. President Trump’s reckless decision to torch the INF Treaty has put us all at even higher risk of nuclear catastrophe, and the United States’ ongoing testing of ICBMs must be viewed in this light.”

    Putting an end to the nuclear age need not be a partisan issue. The freshly-discarded INF Treaty was negotiated by President Reagan, who famously said, “Why wait until the end of the (20th) century for a world free of nuclear weapons?”

    #        #         #

    If you would like to interview David Krieger, President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, or Rick Wayman, Deputy Director of the Foundation, please call (805) 965-3443 or (805) 696-5159. The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s mission is to educate, advocate and inspire action for a just and peaceful world, free of nuclear weapons. 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 wagingpeace.org.

    Vandenberg AFB – Spaceflight Now

    spaceflightnow.com
  • Trump Withdraws U.S. from INF Treaty

    Trump Withdraws U.S. from INF Treaty

    NUCLEAR AGE PEACE FOUNDATION

    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

    Contact: Sandy Jones  (805) 965-3443; sjones@napf.org

    Rick Wayman  (805) 696-5159; rwayman@napf.org

     

    The Trump administration announced that it will formally suspend the United States’ obligations under the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, effective February 2nd. This crucial treaty requires the United States and the former Soviet Union (now Russia) to eliminate all nuclear and conventional ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with ranges of between 500 and 5,500 kilometers.

    The INF Treaty was the first agreement between the two nuclear superpowers that eliminated entire categories of nuclear weapons. As a result of the INF Treaty, the U.S. and the Soviet Union destroyed a total of 2,692 missiles by the treaty deadline of June 1, 1991 (1,846 Soviet missiles and 846 U.S. missiles).

    David Krieger, President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, commented on the imminent withdrawal, saying, “This is a massive mistake. The withdrawal moves the world closer to sounding a death knell for humanity. Rather than withdrawing from the treaty, U.S. leaders should be meeting with the Russians to resolve alleged treaty violations. Rather than destroying arms control and disarmament agreements, the U.S. should be taking the lead in bolstering such agreements, including providing support for the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.”

    Since July 2014, the U.S. has alleged that Russia was in violation of its INF Treaty obligation not to “possess, produce, or flight-test a ground-launched cruise missile having a range of 500 to 5,500 kilometers” or “to possess or produce launchers of such missiles.” In late November 2017, a senior U.S. national security official stated that the Novator 9M729, a land-based cruise missile, was the weapon that the United States believed violates the INF Treaty. The Russian Foreign Ministry asserts there is absolutely no evidence to support these claims.

    For its part, Russia alleges that the U.S. has violated the INF Treaty by deploying a component of a missile defense system — the Mark 41 Vertical Launch System (VLS) — that is capable of launching offensive missiles. It also claims that the U.S. has used prohibited missiles in defense tests and that some U.S. armed drones are effectively unlawful cruise missiles. To date, the U.S. has not made public any evidence to disprove these claims.

    Where does this leave us should Trump go forward as planned with the withdrawal?

    It brings us to the brink of a new and dangerous arms race. Russia could move to deploy new short-range and intermediate-range cruise missiles and ballistic missiles on its territory as well as on that of its allies, such as Belarus. If the U.S. were to respond with new intermediate-range missiles of its own, they would be based either in Europe or in Japan or South Korea to reach significant targets in Russia. This would spell the beginning of a new arms race in Europe on a class of especially high-risk nuclear weapons.

    The INF Treaty is just the latest treaty the Trump administration will have walked away from. He has been systematically undermining the longstanding framework of European and global security. He has withdrawn the U.S. from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (commonly referred to as the Iran Nuclear Agreement) and The Paris Accord (on climate change). He has also contemplated withdrawing the U.S. from NATO.

    Krieger went on to say, “The country would be well-served to look at what Trump is doing with regard to withdrawing from the INF treaty, and do the opposite – that is, strengthening the treaty and building upon it.”

    #        #         #

    If you would like to interview David Krieger, President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, or Rick Wayman, Deputy Director of the Foundation, please call (805) 696-5159.

    The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s mission is to educate, advocate and inspire action for a just and peaceful world, free of nuclear weapons. 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 wagingpeace.org.

  • Sunflower Newsletter: December 2018

    Sunflower Newsletter: December 2018

     

    Issue #257 – December 2018
    Our work doesn’t happen without generous and committed supporters. And so, as 2018 draws to a close: Will you share in our vision for a just and peaceful world by making a gift to the Foundation? In 2019 we have big things to do—let’s do them together.

    Donate now
    Perspectives

    • Withdrawing from the INF Treaty: A Massive Mistake by David Krieger
    • How The New York Times Deceived the Public on North Korea by Tim Shorrock
    • The Myth of the Middle by Ray Acheson
    • The Fate of the Earth Depends on Women by Beatrice Fihn

    U.S. Nuclear Weapons Policy

    • U.S. Outlines Nuclear Weapon Production Plans for Next 25 Years
    • Groups Challenge U.S. Plutonium Pit Production Plans
    • U.S. Conducts Another Nuclear-Capable Missile Test

    Nuclear Disarmament

    • ICAN Launches Cities Appeal

    War and Peace

    • U.S. Military Spending Set To Rise Even Higher

    Nuclear Insanity

    • U.S. Plans to Solve High-Level Radioactive Waste Problem by Calling It Low-Level
    • Southern California Wildfire Burns Area of 1958 Nuclear Meltdown

    Resources

    • Responding to the Unique Challenge of Nuclear Weapons
    • U.S. Strategic Nuclear Forces

    Foundation Activities

    • Holiday Gifts for Your Peace-Loving Friends and Family
    • Peace Literacy Team at Work in Canada
    • Women Waging Peace
    • Letter in the Washington Times

    Take Action

    • Congress Must Act to Save the INF Treaty

    Quotes

    Perspectives

    Withdrawing from the INF Treaty: A Massive Mistake

    by David Krieger

    It would be a mistake of significant proportions for the U.S. to unilaterally withdraw from the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty. It would end an important arms limitation treaty, one that eliminated a whole category of nuclear-armed missiles with a range from 500 km to 5,500 km.

    The treaty eliminated 846 U.S. nuclear missiles and 1,846 Soviet nuclear missiles, for a combined total of 2,692 nuclear missiles. President Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev signed the treaty in 1987. It was an agreement that followed their realization, “A nuclear war cannot be won, and must never be fought.”

    To read the full article, which was originally published by The Hill, click here.

    How The New York Times Deceived the Public on North Korea

    by Tim Shorrock

    Like many of his North Korea stories over the years, David Sanger’s account of what he basically described as a betrayal by Kim Jong-un seemed perfectly timed to interject public skepticism of the North at a crucial moment for the U.S. negotiations with both Koreas to resolve the nuclear standoff and pave the way for a final peace settlement on the Korean Peninsula.

    Over the past month, while the two Koreas have made spectacular leaps in reducing military tensions along their border, the U.S. dialogue with North Korea has stalled. The primary issues dividing them are Trump’s insistence on keeping his pressure campaign of economic sanctions in place until the North denuclearizes, and the North’s demand that Trump join the two Koreas in publicly declaring an end to the Korean War.

    To read the full article in The Nation, click here.

    The Myth of the Middle

    by Ray Acheson

    Amidst all this tension [at this year’s UN First Committee], it’s no surprise that appeals for a “middle ground” are also on repeat. It sounds rational: so many cracks and fissures have begun to split wide open, and a number of delegations are keen to “build bridges.” But this impulse for the middle is misguided and dangerous.

    What is the middle ground on nuclear weapons? What is in between those who categorically reject the bomb and those who say it is instrumental to (their) security and for maintaining “stability” in the world?

    To read more, click here.

    The Fate of the Earth Depends on Women

    by Beatrice Fihn

    Recognizing the threat to humanity from climate change, ecological destruction, and nuclear weapons, we ask: “What is the fate of the earth?” I’d answer that by borrowing from former secretary of state Hillary Clinton: “The fate of women is the fate of the earth, and the fate of the earth is the fate of women.” To state this more explicitly: The survival of the human species depends on women wresting power from men. For too long, we have left foreign policy to a small number of men, and look where it has gotten us.

    I should be careful here to make a distinction. I often say, “The leaders are not the problem; the weapon is.” This is a key point: While we might feel safer with Theresa May or Hillary Clinton in charge of our nuclear arsenals, we are not in fact safe. I don’t believe that having these weapons in the hands of women is a solution. That is not what I mean by wresting power from men. When you are concerned about the ease of one person’s access to world-destroying firepower, the answer is not to choose the most level-headed person; the answer is to remove the possibility that anyone could be in that position in the first place. That is the power we must wrest from men and the feminist foreign policy we need.

    To read the full article in The Nation, click here.

    U.S. Nuclear Weapons Policy

    U.S. Outlines Nuclear Weapon Production Plans for Next 25 Years

    The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) has published its fiscal 2019 Stockpile Stewardship and Management Plan, which lays out the investments that it says it will need. NNSA is part of the Department of Energy, and only deals with the development, maintenance, and “disposal” of nuclear warheads. Meanwhile, the Department of Defense manages the delivery systems, such as missiles, submarines, and bomber aircraft.

    President Trump’s Nuclear Posture Review has piled on an extra load of work on top of what NNSA already had planned from President Obama’s plan to overhaul the nation’s nuclear arsenal.

    Aaron Mehta, “Here’s When All of America’s New Nuclear Warhead Designs Will Be Active – and How Much They’ll Cost,” Defense News, November 2, 2018.

    Groups Challenge U.S. Plutonium Pit Production Plans

    Three environmental safety and nuclear watchdog groups have joined together to challenge the U.S. government’s plans to produce 80 plutonium pits per year at sites in New Mexico and South Carolina. The groups are demanding that the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) halt its plans because it is in violation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

    “NEPA clearly requires that proposed major federal actions be subject to public environmental review,” a letter from the three organizations said.

    Nuclear Watch New Mexico, Savannah River Site Watch, and Tri-Valley CAREs believe that without the proper environmental analysis, plutonium pit production at these high levels cannot begin.

    “Nuclear Groups Challenge Pit Program Expansion,” Los Alamos Monitor, November 5, 2018.

    U.S. Conducts Another Nuclear-Capable Missile Test

    On election day in the U.S., November 6, the U.S. test-fired a Minuteman III Intercontinental Ballistic Missile from Vandenberg Air Force Base. The previous test, on July 31, ended in failure when the nuclear-capable missile self-destructed over the Pacific Ocean.

    While the U.S. claims that these missile tests are benign, U.S. officials regularly express outrage when countries such as North Korea or Iran conduct missile tests.

    Janene Scully, “Air Force Says Minuteman III Missile Test Launch from Vandenberg AFB Hit Target,” Noozhawk, November 7, 2018.

    Nuclear Disarmament

    ICAN Launches Cities Appeal

    The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) launched a new appeal entitled “ICAN Save My City,” which calls on cities to take steps to support the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. Cities are also urged to cease business with financial institutions that support the nuclear weapons industry.

    Major cities have already signed the appeal, including Los Angeles, Toronto, Sydney, Manchester (England), and many others.

    Tony Robinson, “ICAN Launches Its New Cities Appeal in Support of the Nuclear Ban Treaty in Madrid,” Pressenza, November 8, 2018.

    War and Peace

    U.S. Military Spending Set To Rise Even Higher

    The bipartisan National Defense Strategy Commission has concluded that the nation’s astronomical spending on the military is insufficient, and that the country should slash “domestic entitlement programs” and “interest payments on the national debt” and instead funnel that additional money to weapons development.

    The U.S. military budget is already ten times larger than Russia’s and four times larger than China’s.

    The co-chair of the National Defense Strategy Commission, Admiral Gary Roughead, served as chief of Naval operations in 2007 and now sits on the board of Northrup Grumman, a weapons company that profits greatly from U.S. military contracts.

    Matt Taibbi, “Trump’s Defense Spending Is Out of Control, and Poised to Get Worse,” Rolling Stone, November 15, 2018.

    Nuclear Insanity

    U.S. Plans to Solve High-Level Radioactive Waste Problem by Calling It Low-Level

    The U.S. Department of Energy has spent billions of dollars at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation in Washington State in an attempt to clean up millions of gallons of highly-radioactive waste from the production of nuclear weapons. The liquid waste is stored in leaking underground tanks, and the government has yet to devise a solution to the environmental catastrophe.

    Instead of continuing to work on a meaningful solution, the Department of Energy now proposes to simply re-classify the waste as “low-level,” which would allow them to fill the leaking tanks with grout, cover them, and leave them in place.

    Ari Natter, “Plan to Leave Buried Nuclear Bomb Waste Underground Draws Fire,” Bloomberg, November 29, 2018.

    Southern California Wildfire Burns Area of 1958 Nuclear Meltdown

    The Woolsey Fire, which started in southern California on November 8, burned over 100,000 acres and killed three people. The fire is likely to have started on the grounds of the Santa Susana Field Laboratory, the site of a partial nuclear meltdown in 1958.

    Dr. Bob Dodge, President of Physicians for Social Responsibility – Los Angeles, said, “The Woolsey Fire has most likely released and spread both radiological and chemical contamination that was in the Santa Susana Field Laboratory’s soil and vegetation via smoke and ash.”

    Dahr Jamail, “California Wildfire Likely Spread Nuclear Contamination from Toxic Site,” Truthout, November 26, 2018.

    Resources

    Responding to the Unique Challenge of Nuclear Weapons

    The Parliament of the World’s Religions has adopted a strong statement in opposition to nuclear weapons and in favor of efforts to eliminate nuclear weapons worldwide. The statement reads in part, “The destructive capacity of nuclear weapons is beyond imagination, poisoning the Earth forever. These horrific devices place before us every day the decision whether we will be the last human generation.”

    The statement continues, “We thus make a passionate plea to the leaders of all religions, all people of good will, and all leaders of nations both with and without nuclear weapons to commit to work to eliminate these horrific devices forever.”

    To read the full statement, click here.

    U.S. Strategic Nuclear Forces

    The Congressional Research Service has published a report entitled “U.S. Strategic Nuclear Forces: Background, Developments, and Issues.”

    The report examines U.S. nuclear weapons force structure during the Cold War and the present day, and raises issues for Congress to consider in the future.

    To read the full report, click here.

    Foundation Activities

    Holiday Gifts for Your Peace-Loving Friends and Family

    The NAPF Peace Store has books, t-shirts, tote bags, and more. There’s something for every peace lover on your holiday shopping list.

    There are original NAPF books like “Speaking of Peace,” as well as our “Nukes Are Nuts” tote bags, t-shirts, and onesies.

    Click here to go to the NAPF Peace Store.

    Shipping rates are automatically available for shipping within the United States. For shipping outside the United States, please contact rwayman@napf.org for a quote.

    Peace Literacy Team at Work in Canada

    NAPF Peace Literacy Director Paul K. Chappell, and three others who are a part of the Peace Literacy international team of educators, recently completed a week-long trip to Canada, with events in the provinces of Alberta and Manitoba. Highlights included a Peace Literacy Jumpstart Day at Olds High School, a UNESCO school in Olds, Alberta; a keynote at a Winnipeg youth summit on nuclear weapons abolition; and a day-long Peace Literacy Workshop with the Manitoba Teachers’ Society.

    To read more about this action-packed trip, click here.

    Women Waging Peace

    The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s online campaign, Women Waging Peace, highlights the outstanding work of women for peace and nuclear disarmament. Though progress is made every day, women’s voices are still often ignored, their efforts stonewalled and their wisdom overlooked regarding issues of peace and security, national defense, and nuclear disarmament.

    Our fourth profile features Christine Ahn, founder and international coordinator of Women Cross DMZ, and a member of the NAPF Advisory Council.

    Click here to read our interview with Christine Ahn.

    Letter in the Washington Times

    On November 8, the conservative Washington, DC-based newspaper Washington Times published a letter to the editor written by NAPF Deputy Director Rick Wayman. His letter was in response to an op-ed that encouraged the U.S. to resume nuclear weapons testing.

    Wayman wrote, “There is a good reason that no country except North Korea has conducted a
    nuclear weapon test in the 21st century. It is the behavior of a rogue
    nation that cares not for the hostile message that nuclear weapon tests
    send, nor for the cascade of nuclear proliferation such tests could
    cause.”

    To read the full letter, click here.

    Take Action

    Congress Must Act to Save the INF Treaty

    President Trump has announced plans to withdraw the United States from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, a key nuclear arms control pact with Russia signed by President Ronald Reagan in 1987 and approved by the U.S. Senate.

    Congress must take action to keep the United States in the treaty. Click here to email your Representative and your two Senators.

    Quotes

     

    “War is an invention of the human mind. The human mind can invent peace with justice.”

    — Norman Cousins. This quote appears in the book Speaking of Peace: Quotations to Inspire Action, which is available to purchase in the NAPF Peace Store.

     

    “The government has set up a religion of nuclearism. It is terrifying and dead, dead wrong. It is a form of idolatry in this culture, spoken about with a sense of awe. It’s a total contradiction to our faith. It puts trust in weapons, not trust in God.”

    — Elizabeth McAlister, a member of the Kings Bay Plowshares, on trial for breaking into Naval Station Kings Bay in Georgia to non-violently protest U.S. nuclear weapons at the site. An update on the Kings Bay Plowshares case is here.

     

    “Nuclear weapons should be understood as suicide bombs. Even the ‘successful’ use of our own nuclear weapons against an enemy that doesn’t fire back could potentially destroy the world as we know it.”

    — Dr. Ira Helfand, co-President of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War and a member of the NAPF Advisory Council, writing in an op-ed for CNN.

    Editorial Team

     

    Katie Conover
    David Krieger
    Louisa Kwon
    Carol Warner
    Rick Wayman
  • Withdrawing from the INF Treaty: A Massive Mistake

    Withdrawing from the INF Treaty: A Massive Mistake

    This article was originally published by The Hill.

    It would be a mistake of significant proportions for the U.S. to unilaterally withdraw from the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty. It would end an important arms limitation treaty, one that eliminated a whole category of nuclear-armed missiles with a range from 500 km to 5,500 km.

    The treaty eliminated 846 U.S. nuclear missiles and 1,846 Soviet nuclear missiles, for a combined total of 2,692 nuclear missiles. President Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev signed the treaty in 1987. It was an agreement that followed their realization, “A nuclear war cannot be won, and must never be fought.”

    Fast forward to President Trump and his national security advisor, John Bolton announcing their intention to jettison the treaty that ended the Cold War; took Europe out of the cross-hairs of nuclear war; and allowed for major reductions in nuclear arms.

    After the signing of the INF Treaty, the two countries moved steadily downward from a high of 70,000 nuclear weapons in the world to less than 15,000 today. While this is still far too many, it was at least movement in the right direction.

    The withdrawal of the U.S. from the INF Treaty will reverse the progress made by the treaty over the past 30 years. It could restart the Cold War between Russia and the U.S.; reinstate a nuclear arms race; further endanger Europe; and make nuclear war more likely.

    Why would Trump do this? He claims that Russia has cheated on the agreement, but that is far from clear, and U.S. withdrawal from the treaty would leave Russia and the U.S. free to develop and deploy intermediate-range nuclear missiles without any constraints. Surely, that would be a far worse option for the U.S. and the world. Instead of withdrawal, the U.S. and Russia should resume negotiations to resolve any concerns on either side.

    This is the latest important international agreement that Trump has unwisely sought to disavow. Other agreements that he has pulled out of include the Paris accords on climate change and the Iran nuclear deal (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action).

    A recent Los Angeles Times editorial concluded: “On too many occasions this administration has acted impulsively on the world stage and scrambled to contain the damage later. Trashing the INF Treaty would be another such blunder. The president should pull back from the precipice.”

    However, since Trump operates in his own egocentric universe, it is doubtful that he even recognizes that his actions are moving the world closer to the nuclear precipice. With his deeply irrational and erratic leadership style, he is demonstrating yet again why nuclear weapons remain an urgent and ultimate danger to us all. He inadvertently continues to make the case for delegitimizing and banning these instruments of mass annihilation.