Tag: nuclear abolition

  • Nuclear Zero: The Moral Imperative

    How grateful I am to be able to stand in this good company and to receive the honor that will make me a part of the great processional of those you have honored before me.
    I am especially grateful to your president, David Krieger.  David has a deep pervasive ultimate concern to which he has dedicated the full force of his creative energy and imagination.  He has this crazy idea to which he has committed himself: he wants to save the earth and all its inhabitants from self-destruction.  He wants to make the planet a more peaceable habitation for all of us, and for our children and grandchildren after us.  How good it is to be counted among his followers.
    Now here I bring you the words of the beloved poet, Stanley Kunitz, written when he was somewhere on his way to the 100 years he lived, before his death a few years ago.
    I have walked through many lives,
some of them my own,
and I am not who I was,
though some principle of being
abides, from which I struggle
not to stray.
When I look behind,
as I am compelled to look
before I can gather strength
to proceed on my journey,
I see the milestones dwindling
toward the horizon….
    And here am I, an aged rabbi, who, like a peddler with a pack on his back, wherever he goes, comes bearing a pack of notions, some very old and familiar notions:  “Love thy neighbor as thyself.  It hath been told thee what is good and what the Lord requires of thee: only to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.  And they shall beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks.  Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore.  And they shall sit, everyone, under his vine and his fig tree, with none to make them afraid.  If I am not for myself, who will be for me?  And being for myself alone, what am I?  And if not now, when?” And here, from a 1,800-year-old commentary on the Bible, the Midrash, where God is portrayed showing Adam all that has been created, and says to him: “See my works, how fine and excellent they are.  All that I have created has been given to you.  Remember this and do not corrupt and desolate the world, for if you corrupt it, there is no one after you to set it right.”
    Those are ancient words and ancient visions.  They come out of the sacred books of the Jewish civilization, but surely they embody ideals and visions held sacred by Christians and Muslims, and other faiths, and non-believers as well.  To voice them here is to remember that we live in a world in which the ideals of love and fellowship and peace and justice and care for the planet, are daily being mutilated throughout the world, even here in this land, even here in Santa Barbara.  For we live in a time of broken ideals, a broken world, a fragmented humanity, which needs to be made whole.
    But of all the words of the Bible, those that have been profoundly significant to all of us associated with the purposes of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation are to be found in the concluding chapters of the book of Deuteronomy.  In churches everywhere it is customary to read scripture from a book.  But in synagogues we Jews read every week from a parchment scroll we call Torah.  The Torah is written in Hebrew on a scroll which bears the first five books of the Bible, the Pentateuch.  Each scroll is written by hand, the work of a scribe who reverently and lovingly copies every word of it.  According to a rigorous tradition the scribe must use a quill to serve him as a pen, so that the ink will touch with gentleness the pages of the parchment.  For the Torah and the Bible it introduces is a book of peace.  Only a quill, no metal, is permitted to be the instrument of the scribe’s work.  For metal is the material of violence, of war; it may not be used in composing the book of peace.
    Wherever the scribe has done his work throughout the centuries and neared the completion of it as he reached the closing chapters of the fifth book, the book of Deuteronomy, his quill has brought to the parchment these words of danger and challenge, which, ever since they were first spoken, have reverberated throughout human history: “See, I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse; therefore choose life, that you may live, you and your seed after you.”
    To speak of choosing the way of blessing and life compels us to reckon with all that threatens life in our time, but also to raise the fearful question as to whether our civilization, so visibly incoherent and in decline, is not itself, in the throes of death. (Is such a thing possible?)   We have been so infused with the conceit that we could escape the remorseless fate that has overtaken all previous social systems—that we with all of our sophistication, with all of our so-called exceptionalism, that we with our science and industry, our democracy, our ingenuity, could violate the iron law of history.  For history has surely shown that every civilization has perished sooner or later.  Human social systems, as Robert Sinai once wrote, with their members anxious, insecure, restless, swollen with pride, driven by the will to power and by inordinate appetites, corrupted by self-intoxication and self-deception, sooner or later have sinned against the laws of proportion and harmony and have plunged into decay and self-destruction.
    Now, I ask you, what of our civilization?  Small wonder that we should be uncertain.  What hurts and confuses us is the lurking suspicion that because of what we have done to the air and the earth and the cities and the children and to one another, we may possibly have been condemned to live in an age that will make no significant contribution to the human spirit.  What hurts and confuses us is the knowledge that a huge proportion of our resources, our ingenuity, our wisdom, our creative energy, leaves untouched the abiding problems of human beings who live in this troubled time.  Technological processes uninhibited by any human values other than the dream of total security have committed great and even smaller powers to collective mechanisms of destruction.  But the dream of total security has produced only the reality of total vulnerability.  As for nuclear weapons, and the several powers that possess them, we know, as I think it was George Kennan who once said, “nuclear weapons cannot bring us security, they can only bring revenge.”  If only we could banish this sterile dream and sadistic nightmare.
    “We have fed the heart on fantasies,” the poet Yeats once said, “the heart’s grown brutal from the fare/  More substance in our enmities/ Than in our love.” And all of this rooted in the conviction that nothing must stand in the way of the demonstration of our power.  “Power to coerce,” Norman Cousins once wrote, “power to harm, power that intimidates intelligence, power that conquers language and renders other forms of communication incoherent and irrelevant, power becoming a theology, admitting no other gods before it…”  Surely we know that the policies to which we have been so slavishly obedient end up, as always, constituting a form of violence against the poor—the ever growing kingdom of the poor,
    Yet we know there is another power within us, a power that will enable to us to say “NO” to the forces that have ruled over our thinking and feeling.  It is the power of our own critical intelligence, of our own decency, the power of the human spirit, a spiritual power present in every person, and it can be actualized.  And we shall have to actualize this power without pretending away our need for security, or that we do indeed live in a brutal world, brimming with anger and suspicion, and adversaries.
    There is a story members of the clergy like to tell.  It concerns a minister (it could be a priest, a rabbi, or an imam) who wants to stage an object lesson for the members of his/her congregation, and placed a lion and a lamb in a cage outside the entrance to the church.  And they lived together in peace.  And people from miles around came to see this remarkable phenomenon.  Finally, the mayor of the city, intrigued by this feat, sent a delegation to inquire how the minister pulled off this trick.  ‘Oh, “there’s no trick at all,” said the minister.  “All you have to do is put in a fresh lamb from time to time.”
    In the real world, we know very well, lions and lambs do not live together peacefully.  Even the prophet Isaiah, when he spoke of such a possibility, was referring to a messianic time.  And that’s where the rub is for us: how to face up to the truth of this real world of brutality, fear, mutual rivalry, and the need for security, and still retain hope, still work for something different.
    How shall we do that?  We need some troubled people.  We need agitated people.  We need men and women who are not ashamed to be sensitive and tender with one another.  We need those who are willing to become members of a community dedicated to each other’s fulfillment.  We need men and women who have the courage to be afraid, afraid of all those forces which have removed our humanity.  And as for the vast store of nuclear weapons, we need men and women who can maintain a firm conviction that it is not so wild a dream (to borrow the words of Norman Corwin) that we can negotiate, not only to do away with the nuclear arms race, but also that we can abolish nuclear arms, altogether.  We must not let this hope be crushed amidst the powers and the principalities.  And that is why the work of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation is so important.
    And something more, we need to give voice to the abandoned and forgotten, and preserve a vision that can transcend the dangerous imagery of victory and defeat, a vision of a genuinely humane society, in a genuinely decent world, that we can ultimately approach a great common tenderness.
    How shall I thank you for the gift of the honor you have given me?  What I could have said at the very beginning, and it might have been worthy and sufficient for this occasion, are Shakespeare’s words:
    “I can no other answer make, but thanks, and thanks, and ever thanks.”

  • 2013 Evening for Peace Remarks

    David KriegerLet me add my welcome to our 30th annual Evening for Peace.  Over the years we’ve honored some remarkable Peace Leaders, and tonight we do so again.

    Thirty-one years ago we founded the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation with a dream that citizens could make a difference on the most important issues of our time – Peace in the Nuclear Age and the abolition of nuclear weapons.  We knew that what we were doing was important, but we only glimpsed the full potential of what the Foundation could be and how much we were needed in the world.

    Since our founding, the world has dismantled more than 50,000 nuclear weapons.  That’s the good news.  The bad news is there are still 17,000 in the world, and one is too many.  A relatively small regional nuclear war between India and Pakistan could result in a global nuclear famine taking the lives of upwards of a billion people.  A full-scale nuclear war would end civilization and most complex life on the planet.  So, there remains important work to do.

    I want to offer a few words of advice and encouragement to the young people here tonight.  I have five brief points.

    1. Be citizens of the world, embrace the world, see it in all its magnificence, and work to make it a more decent place for all.
    2. Be leaders of today; don’t wait for tomorrow.  The truth is that we need you now, and what you do now will help shape the future.
    3. Always choose hope.  Hope inspires action, as action inspires hope.
    4. Never give up.  To accomplish any great thing requires perseverance.
    5. Finally, learn how you can strengthen your vision and skills by working with the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.  Find out more about the Foundation at wagingpeace.org.

    Now, a few words of thanks to our supporters in the room and beyond.

    • Thank you for caring so deeply.
    • Thank you for joining your dreams of a better world with ours.
    • Thank you for making possible what we do each day to build peace and abolish nuclear arms.

    It is a rare and beautiful thing to have an organization like this Foundation, through which people can work day in and day out for the noble goals of assuring humanity’s future.  If you would like to become more involved in the Foundation’s work, let us know.

    Now, it is my great pleasure to introduce you to our honoree, Rabbi Leonard Beerman.

    We honor him as the co-founder, with George Regas, of the Interfaith Center to Reverse the Arms Race – an Interfaith Center that made it clear that nuclear weapons are a paramount moral issue of our time.

    We honor him as a wise and compassionate man.

    We honor him as a man of conscience and uncommon decency.

    When peace has needed a voice, Rabbi Beerman has spoken.

    When justice has needed an ally, Rabbi Beerman has stood firm.

    When dark clouds of war have gathered, Rabbi Beerman has been a ray of light.

    When nuclear weapons have put all that we love and treasure at risk, Rabbi Beerman has been a source of hope and moral strength.

    On behalf of the Directors and members of the Foundation, I am very pleased to present to Rabbi Leonard Beerman the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s 2013 Distinguished Peace Leadership Award.

  • 30th Annual Evening for Peace Honors Leonard Beerman

    Santa Barbara, CA – The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation will present its 2013 Distinguished Peace Leadership Award to Rabbi Leonard Beerman at the 30th Annual Evening for Peace, Sunday, Oct. 27, at La Pacifica Ballroom and Terrace, Four Seasons Resort, The Biltmore.

    The Distinguished Peace Leadership Award is presented annually to individuals who have demonstrated courageous leadership in the cause of peace. This year’s recipient, Rabbi Beerman, is a unique peace leader; a blend of intellect, integrity, compassion and a deep commitment to peace with justice. In 1979, he and Reverend George Regas co-founded the Interfaith Center to Reverse the Arms Race, an organization that awakened religious leaders and, through them, their congregations, to the realization that the abolition of nuclear weapons is a profoundly moral issue.

    As the rabbi of Leo Baeck Temple in West Los Angeles for 37 years before retiring in 1986, he could always be counted on to take a stand against human suffering. He counseled conscientious objectors during the Vietnam War. Cesar Chavez spoke from his pulpit, as did Daniel Ellsberg just before his Pentagon Papers trial.

    For years, Rabbi Beerman has fought for peace and justice and brought conscience and faith to bear upon the many important peace and disarmament issues of our time. He has inspired countless women and men who have gone on to work on issues of peace and justice in their communities and beyond.

    The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation has a rich history of honoring remarkable leaders who pursue peace. Past recipients include the XIVth Dalai Lama, Walter Cronkite, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Ted Turner, Captain Jacques-Yves Cousteau, and Her Majesty Queen Noor of Jordan are among many other distinguished leaders.

    In addition to raising much-needed funds to support the Foundation’s work for a world free of nuclear weapons, the event’s program is designed to celebrate and encourage leadership for a more peaceful and just world. Over 80 students from local colleges and high schools will be able to attend this year’s event thanks to sponsors who have underwritten the cost of their tickets.

    The evening will begin at 5:30 P.M. with a reception and silent auction on the Biltmore’s La Pacifica Terrace to be followed by the awards program and dinner at 6:30 P.M. in the La Pacifica Ballroom.

    To learn more about the Evening For Peace, visit www.wagingpeace.org or call the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation at 805-965-3443.

  • Statement on the Catastrophic Humanitarian Consequences of Nuclear Weapons

    I am taking the floor on behalf of the following Member States, Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chile, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Cyprus, DR Congo, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Fiji, Gabon, Georgia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Haiti, Honduras, Iceland, Indonesia, Iraq, Ireland, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kiribati, Lao PDR, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Macedonia, Mexico, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nauru, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Palau, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Rwanda, Samoa, San Marino, Senegal, Serbia, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, South Africa, South Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Switzerland, Tanzania, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Tuvalu, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, my own country, New Zealand, and the Observer State the Holy See.

    Our countries are deeply concerned about the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons. Past experience from the use and testing of nuclear weapons has amply demonstrated the unacceptable humanitarian consequences caused by the immense, uncontrollable destructive capability and indiscriminate nature of these weapons. The fact-based discussion that took place at the Conference on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons convened by Norway last March allowed us to deepen our collective understanding of those consequences. A key message from experts and international organisations was that no State or international body could address the immediate humanitarian emergency caused by a nuclear weapon detonation or provide adequate assistance to victims.

    The broad participation at the Conference, with attendance by 128 States, the ICRC, a number of UN humanitarian organisations and civil society, reflected the recognition that the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons are a fundamental and global concern. We warmly welcome Mexico’s announcement of a follow-up Conference, scheduled for 13-14 February 2014. We firmly believe that it is in the interests of all States to participate in that Conference, which aims to further broaden and deepen understanding of this matter, particularly with regard to the longer-term consequences of a nuclear-weapon detonation. We welcome civil society’s ongoing engagement.

    This work is essential, because the catastrophic consequences of nuclear weapons affect not only governments, but each and every citizen of our interconnected world. They have deep implications for human survival; for our environment; for socio-economic development; for our economies; and for the health of future generations. For these reasons, we firmly believe that awareness of the catastrophic consequences of nuclear weapons must underpin all approaches and efforts towards nuclear disarmament.

    This is not, of course, a new idea. The appalling humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons became evident from the moment of their first use, and from that moment have motivated humanity’s aspirations for a world free from this threat, which have also inspired this statement. The humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons have been reflected in numerous UN resolutions, including the first resolution passed by this Assembly in 1946, and in multilateral instruments, including the Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty. The world’s most eminent nuclear physicists observed as early as 1955 that nuclear weapons threaten the continued existence of mankind and that a war with these weapons could quite possibly put an end to the human race. The First Special Session of the General Assembly devoted to Disarmament (SSOD-1) stressed in 1978 that “nuclear weapons pose the greatest danger to mankind and to the survival of civilisation.” These expressions of profound concern remain as compelling as ever. In spite of this, the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons have not been at the core of nuclear disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation deliberations for many years.

    We are therefore encouraged that the humanitarian focus is now well established on the global agenda. The 2010 Review Conference of the NPT expressed “deep concern at the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of any use of nuclear weapons”. That deep concern informed the November 26 2011 resolution of the Council of Delegates of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, and the decision last year of this General Assembly to establish an open-ended working group to develop proposals to take forward multilateral nuclear disarmament negotiations. It underlies the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States’ call to the international community, in August 2013, to emphasise the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons during any discussion of nuclear issues. Last month, at the High-Level Meeting on Nuclear Disarmament, numerous leaders from around the world again evoked that deep concern as they called for progress to be made on nuclear disarmament. Today, this statement demonstrates the growing political support for the humanitarian focus.

    It is in the interest of the very survival of humanity that nuclear weapons are never used again, under any circumstances. The catastrophic effects of a nuclear weapon detonation, whether by accident, miscalculation or design, cannot be adequately addressed. All efforts must be exerted to eliminate the threat of these weapons of mass destruction.

    The only way to guarantee that nuclear weapons will never be used again is through their total elimination. All States share the responsibility to prevent the use of nuclear weapons, to prevent their vertical and horizontal proliferation and to achieve nuclear disarmament, including through fulfilling the objectives of the NPT and achieving its universality.

    We welcome the renewed resolve of the international community, together with the ICRC and international humanitarian organisations, to address the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons. By raising awareness about this issue, civil society has a crucial role to play side-by-side with governments as we fulfil our responsibilities. We owe it to future generations to work together to do just that, and in doing so, to rid our world of the threat posed by nuclear weapons.

  • Chemical Weapons, Then Nuclear Weapons

    David KriegerEveryone can agree that chemical weapons are terrible weapons.  When used, they kill indiscriminately and cause their victims to suffer and die horrible deaths.  The use of chemical weapons in Syria resulted in US threats to strike the Syrian regime with cruise missiles.  Fortunately, this response to the use of chemical weapons was averted, as it might well have caused even more death, injury and displacement for the Syrian people.  With pressure from their ally, Russia, the Syrian government agreed to sign the Chemical Weapons Convention and turn over its stock of chemical weapons for destruction.

    Chemical weapons are dangerous and deadly weapons, but they are not the worst weapons created by humans.  By any measure, the worst weapons are nuclear weapons.  They kill by blast, fire and radiation, and they are capable of causing a nuclear winter and sending the globe into an ice age.  Even the two relatively small nuclear weapons (by today’s standards) used at Hiroshima and Nagasaki each thoroughly destroyed a city.  The nuclear weapon dropped on Hiroshima killed some 90,000 people immediately and 145,000 by the end of 1945.  The nuclear weapon dropped on Nagasaki killed some 40,000 people immediately and 75,000 by the end of 1945.

    People are continuing to die from the effects of the use of nuclear weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and also from the radiation released by the atmospheric and underground testing of far more powerful nuclear weapons subsequently.  The effects of nuclear weapons cannot be contained in either time or space.  They are weapons that cause stillborn births and birth defects in succeeding generations, as well as genetic mutations.  Like chemical weapons, they are weapons that violate international humanitarian law, the law of warfare, because they cannot discriminate between soldiers and civilians and they cause unnecessary suffering.

    So, with last-minute collaboration by the US and Russia, the unexpected outcome was that Syria agreed to give up its chemical weapons.  This demonstrates the power of the US and Russia working cooperatively on solving global problems.  Of course, there are many more such problems to work through, including pollution of the oceans and atmosphere, climate change, human rights abuses, starvation, epidemic diseases and the list goes on.  There is not a single serious global problem that can be solved by any one nation alone, no matter the strength of its military power.

    Further, the unexpected success in Syria opens the door to moving from chemical weapons to nuclear weapons.  There is an obstacle, though, with nuclear weapons, and that is that the foxes are guarding the nuclear hen houses.  The five permanent members of the UN Security Council (US, UK, Russia, France and China) are the initial five states to develop nuclear arsenals, to test these weapons and to threaten their use.  They are also the five nuclear weapon states designated in the Non-Proliferation Treaty that have agreed to negotiate in good faith for a cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament.

    Understanding that the US and Russia aren’t pursuing their own nuclear disarmament obligations with the same vigor that they are pursuing Syria to give up its chemical weapons, it makes sense that they need pressure from below, from their citizens as well as from people throughout the world, to take the lead in ending the nuclear weapons threat to humanity.  Join us at the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation in putting pressure on the US and Russia to lead the world in negotiating in good faith for a Nuclear Weapons Convention (similar to the Chemical Weapons Convention) to ban nuclear weapons and set forth a plan for the phased, verifiable, irreversible and transparent elimination of all nuclear weapons.

    On the way to that goal, and as a follow-up to their success with Syria, it would be a large step forward for the US and Russia to throw their weight behind a Middle East Weapons of Mass Destruction Free Zone, long a goal of the parties to the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

    The possibilities for US-Russian cooperation for a more decent world order are exciting.  We owe it to ourselves and to future generations to fan these sparks of hope.

    This article was originally published by Truthout.

  • What On Earth are Nuclear Weapons For?

    Eric Schlosser’s hair-raising new book about actual and potential accidents with nuclear weapons, “Command and Control: Nuclear Weapons, the Damascus Accident, and the Illusion of Safety,” sharpens the dialogue, such as it is, between the anti-nuclear peace movement and nuclear strategists who maintain that these weapons still enhance the security of nations.

    We can imagine a hypothetical moment somewhere in time. No one can say when exactly, but for my money it is definitely far in the past. Before that moment—perhaps it was the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, or perhaps one of the terrifying incidents Schlosser describes, when computer glitches caused the Soviets or the Americans to misperceive that nuclear missiles had been launched—realists could argue that the deterrent effect of the balance of terror was preventing world war. After that moment, the more nuclear weapons, the more risk and insecurity for the planet as a whole and therefore for all nations whether they have the weapons or not.

    One of the important points that Schlosser makes, one which former Secretary of Defense William Perry has also emphasized, is that our present moment is not less dangerous because the Cold War has passed and treaties have reduced the overall numbers of warheads, but much more dangerous—because military service in the nuclear weapons sector is considered a career dead-end, and the very lack of post-cold-war tension increases potential carelessness. At least General Curtis Lemay, whom John Kennedy had to restrain from launching World War III by attacking Cuba in 1962, pushed the Strategic Air Command to adhere to strict protocols for the safer handling of the weapons. Still, even that additional rigor was insufficient to prevent some of the near-disasters that Schlosser chronicles in such vivid detail.

    The ultimate absurdity of the whole system of security-by-nukes is the potential of nuclear winter, which posits that it would only take the detonation of a small percentage of the total warheads on the planet to loft enough soot into the atmosphere to shut down world agriculture for a decade—in effect a death-sentence for all peoples and nations. Wherever the hypothetical line is before which nuclear weapons enhanced international security, the possibility of nuclear winter demonstrates irrefutably that we are on the other side of that line.

    If some superior intelligence equipped with an interstellar version of the Diagnostical and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders looked closely at the accepted order of things on our planet, they would have serious misgivings about our mental health. As such a visit from aliens seems unlikely to happen, we come to the question of authority here on earth. Ever since Oppenheimer and other scientists gave us nuclear weapons, other deep thinkers like Herman Kahn in his book “Thinking about the Unthinkable” and Henry Kissinger have tried to make rational the permanently irrational subject of mass death. In retirement, Kissinger has thrown up his hands and works now for total abolition. He does this because he knows from experience that nuclear weapons put us in the realm of Rumsfeld’s unknown knowns—no matter what experts may assert, we do know that no one knows how a nuclear war might begin. We have a somewhat clearer idea of how it would end, and “victory” is not one of the words that we associate with such an end.

    No one defined more exactly the reasons why we have been so slow to acknowledge our own madness than Dag Hammarskjold:

    “It is one of the surprising experiences of one in the position of the Secretary-General of the United Nations to find in talks with leaders of many nations, both political leaders and leaders in spiritual life, that the view expressed, the hopes nourished, and the trust reflected, in the direction of reconciliation, go far beyond what is usually heard in public. What is it that makes it so difficult to bring this basic attitude more effectively to bear upon the determination of policies? The reasons are well known to us all. It might not be understood by the constituency, or it might be abused by competing groups, or it might be misinterpreted as a sign of weakness by the other part. And so the game goes on—toward an unforeseeable conclusion.”

    On Thursday, September 26, 2013, the UN hosted the first ever High-Level Meeting on Nuclear Disarmament. Russia and the United States boycotted the meeting.

    The urgent and primary task is educational, and that is where you and I can do our small but necessary part, with letters to our newspapers and our legislators. The task is to seed into worldwide discourse the complete dysfunctionality of “realist” nuclear rhetoric—an act of love on behalf of our beautiful and deeply threatened planet. If we succeed in changing the paradigm, a moment in time will come, again a hypothetical, indefinable moment, when the majority of the world’s people and leaders, Obama and Putin and Netanyahu and Hasan Rouhani, the new head of Iran, the thinkers and the generals of the nine nuclear powers, the corporations who make money off these weapons, all will come to realize the futility of the course we are on. And together we will begin to change. God help us, may no fatal accident or misinterpretation happen before that moment arrives.

  • Eliminating Nuclear Weapons is Just as Important as Eliminating Chemical Weapons

    Lawrence WittnerThe apparent employment of chemical weapons in Syria should remind us that, while weapons of mass destruction exist, there is a serious danger that they will be used.

    That danger is highlighted by an article in the September/October 2013 issue of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Written by two leading nuclear weapons specialists, Hans Kristensen and Robert Norris of the Federation of American Scientists, the article provides important information about nuclear weapons that should alarm everyone concerned about the future of the planet.

    At present, the article reports, more than 17,000 nuclear warheads remain in the possession of nine nations (the United States, Russia, Britain, France, China, Israel, India, Pakistan, and North Korea). Over 90 percent of that inventory consists of U.S. and Russian warheads. These weapons, of course, are incredibly destructive, and almost all of them can massacre populations far more effectively than did the atomic bomb that obliterated the city of Hiroshima. Indeed, a single one of these weapons can slaughter hundreds of thousands of people.

    Although U.S., Russian, British, and French stockpiles of nuclear weapons have been declining since the end of the Cold War, those of the five other nuclear nations have been growing. Consequently, as Kristensen and Norris observe, with the possible exception of North Korea, all of these countries “have sufficient numbers of warheads and delivery systems to inflict enormous destruction over significant ranges with catastrophic humanitarian and climatic consequences in their regions and beyond.”

    Furthermore, many of these deadly weapons stand ready for almost instant use. As the authors state, “roughly 1,800 U.S. and Russian warheads are on high alert atop long-range ballistic missiles that are ready to launch 5 to 15 minutes after receiving an order.”

    But surely these terrible weapons are being phased out, aren’t they? After all, the major nuclear powers, plus most nations, have formally committed themselves to building a nuclear weapons-free world. And it is certainly true that the number of nuclear weapons on the world scene has dropped very significantly from the roughly 70,000 that existed in 1986.

    Even so, there are numerous signs that the nuclear disarmament momentum is slowing. Not only have nuclear disarmament negotiations between the United States (with 7,700 nuclear warheads) and Russia (with 8,500 nuclear warheads) apparently run aground, but none of the nuclear powers seems to take the rhetoric about a nuclear weapons-free world seriously. Kristensen and Norris note: “All the nations with nuclear weapons continue to modernize or upgrade their nuclear arsenals, and nuclear weapons remain integral to their conception of national security.”

    For example, the United States is modifying its existing nuclear warheads while planning production of warheads with new designs. Russia is phasing out its Soviet-era missiles and submarines and deploying newer missiles, as well as additional warheads on its missiles. France is deploying new nuclear missiles on its fighter-bombers and submarines. China is upgrading its missile force, while India and Pakistan are locked in a race to deploy new types of nuclear weapons. Although Israel is the most secretive of the nuclear powers, rumors are afloat that it is equipping some of its submarines with nuclear-capable cruise missiles. North Korea reportedly lacks operational nuclear weapons, but its hungry citizens can take heart that it is working to remedy this deficiency.

    In addition, of course, it is quite possible, in the future, that other nations will develop nuclear weapons, terrorists will obtain such weapons from national stockpiles, or existing nuclear weapons will be exploded or launched accidentally.

    In these very dangerous circumstances, surely the safest course of action would be to have the international community agree on a treaty requiring the destruction of all existing stocks of nuclear weapons and a ban on their future production. Nuclear disarmament discussions along these and other lines have recently been concluded by a UN Open Ended Working Group, and will be continued in late September by a UN High Level Meeting and later this fall by the UN General Assembly First Committee.

    But, to judge from past government behavior, it does not seem likely that disarmament discussions among government officials will get very far without substantial public pressure upon them to cope with the nuclear weapons menace. And it is a menace — one at least as dangerous to the future of world civilization as the existence of chemical weapons. So pressing world leaders for action on nuclear disarmament seems thoroughly appropriate.

    The alternative is to throw up our hands and wait, while power-hungry governments continue to toy with their nuclear weaponry and, ultimately, produce a catastrophe of immense proportions.

    This article was originally published by History News Network.

  • Nukes Are Nuts

    When asked by a reporter why nuclear weapons are useless, Colin Powell, former US secretary of state and four-star general said: “Because they’re such horrible weapons. And so no sane leader would ever want to cross that line to using nuclear weapons. And, if you are not going to cross that line, then these things are basically useless.” In other words, one could say, nukes are nuts.

    There are innumerable global security issues that need to be addressed, some of which are poverty, terrorism, the climate crisis, pollution of the oceans, loss of biodiversity and forest depletion. Not one of these issues can be addressed with nuclear weapons. In fact, nuclear weapons draw much-needed resources away from solving these global problems. Nukes are nuts.

    Nuclear weapons are justified by their possessors for nuclear deterrence, but nuclear deterrence is only a hypothesis about human behavior. While “no sane leader would ever want to cross that line,” even the best of political and military leaders can be less than rational at times, particularly when they are under stress. Nuclear deterrence is only as sound as the craziest political or military leader with a finger on the nuclear button. Does the name Kim Jong-un raise any concerns? Nukes are nuts.

    Nuclear weapons are weapons of vast overkill. They are equal-opportunity destroyers of men, women and children. The radioactive effects of these weapons cannot be contained in time or space. They affect not only the living, but generations yet to be born. Their radioactive material will affect countless future generations. Even a small regional nuclear war could result in a global nuclear famine, killing a billion people. Nukes are nuts.

    Nuclear weapons can destroy everything we hold dear and love most. They can destroy every special thing, every sacred thing that has ever been created. Nuclear weapons are anti-human weapons: they threaten us all, even their possessors, and place all of humanity at risk of annihilation. But they also place all of complex life at risk of destruction. The possession of these weapons makes us irresponsible stewards of our environment and of all the creatures dependent upon our stewardship. Nukes are nuts.

    Nuclear weapons are extremely costly, with anticipated global expenditures for the next decade at over $1 trillion. The US plans to modernize its B61 bombs, which it deploys in five European countries, at a cost that is more than two times that of building them out of solid gold. Nuclear weapons take away resources from the education of the world’s children, medical treatment from the world’s sick and infirm and food from the world’s hungry. Nukes are nuts.

    Nuclear weapons divide us when we need to unite to find cooperative, diplomatic and nonviolent solutions to the great global issues of the 21st century. Only nine countries have nuclear weapons and, of these, only two countries, the US and Russia, possess more than 90 percent of the more than 17,000 nuclear weapons in the world. Nukes are not useful, nor are they status symbols. Nukes are nuts.

    Every man, woman and child on the planet can understand that nukes are nuts. So, if we understand that, what are we going to do about it? My answer is to wage all-out peace with a sense of urgency until the last nuclear weapon is eliminated from the planet. We would be nuts to settle for anything less.

    This article was originally published on Truthout.

  • Buenos Aires Declaration on Nuclear Disarmament

    The Senior Officials of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC), having met on August 20, 2013 in the city of Buenos Aires, Republic of Argentina, aware of the historical commitment of the Community towards nuclear disarmament, issued the following Declaration:

    1. Highlighted the relevance and full validity of the Special Communiqué on the Complete Elimination of Nuclear Weapons adopted by the Heads of State and Government of the CELAC, on December 3, 2011 in Caracas, Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.  In this context, they reiterated their grave concern at the threat that the ongoing existence of nuclear weapons and their potential use or threat of use poses for mankind.

    2. Highlighted also the full validity of the Declaration of the 33 Member States of the Agency for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean (OPANAL), adopted in September 2011, reaffirming, inter alia, the urgent need to advance towards the primary goal of nuclear disarmament and achieve complete and general elimination of nuclear weapons, and in this regard, agreed to join the efforts of the International Community in making progress towards the negotiation of a universal and legally binding instrument banning nuclear weapons.

    3. Reaffirmed that the region grants the highest priority to the achievement of a complete and verifiable nuclear disarmament and reiterated that the only guarantee against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons is their complete elimination.

    4. Reiterated that the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons constitutes a crime against humanity and a violation of international law, including international humanitarian law, and of the Charter of the United Nations.

    5. Highlighted the importance of active participation by CELAC Member States in drafting concrete proposals to achieve universal nuclear disarmament, in accordance with a multilaterally agreed clear, irreversible, and verifiable timeframe.

    6. Identified as a legitimate interest of non-nuclear-weapon States, which includes all CELAC Member States, the unequivocal and legally binding assurance by nuclear weapon States against the use or threat to use such weapons.  CELAC Member States called for a start to the negotiation and adoption, as soon as possible, of a universal and legally binding instrument on negative security assurances.

    7. Called on all States, in particular Nuclear Weapon States, to eliminate the role of nuclear weapons in their doctrines, military strategies and security policies or as a prospective approach for the management of conflicts in order to achieve the total elimination of this armament regardless of its type or geographical location.

    8. Stressed that the establishment of Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zones strengthens international peace and security as well as the non-proliferation regime, and is an important contribution to nuclear disarmament.

    9. Expressed Latin America and the Caribbean’s pride in being the first densely populated area in the world to be declared a Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone (NWFZ), under the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean (Treaty of Tlatelolco). Reaffirmed that the establishment of a NWFZ in the Latin American and Caribbean region has contributed to nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation, as well as to regional and global peace and security.

    10. Emphasized that the Tlatelolco Treaty and the OPANAL have constituted a political, legal and institutional reference in the establishment of other Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zones (NWFZs) in different regions of the world. Today OPANAL’s experience, together with that of the other four existing NWFZs and Mongolia as a single State unilaterally declared free of nuclear weapons, constitutes an important heritage of the international community to inspire the establishment of new NWFZs and advance towards the goal of a nuclear weapons free world.

    11. Urged nuclear powers to withdraw all interpretative declarations to the Protocols I and II of the Tlatelolco Treaty that constitute actual reservations prohibited by this Treaty, thus contributing to eliminate the possibility of the use of nuclear weapons against the countries of the region. Expressed their commitment to continue working with those States Parties to the Protocols in order to convince them to withdraw or modify such declarations.

    12. Regretted the failure to implement the agreement on the convening in 2012 of an International Conference for the establishment of a zone free of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East. Reiterated that the convening of this Conference is an important and integral part of the final outcome of the 2010 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). Expressed that the outcomes of this Conference will be an important contribution to achieve the nuclear disarmament goal and reiterated their firm conviction that the establishment of said Zone would represent a significant step towards the peace process in the Middle East region. Urged the convening of this Conference as soon as possible.

    13. Urged Nuclear-Weapon States to fulfill their commitments under Article VI of the NPT, and to advance towards the complete elimination of those weapons.  Urged them to fully and immediately implement the thirteen (13) practical steps towards nuclear disarmament agreed at the 2000 NPT Review Conference, as well as the Plan of Action adopted at the 2010 Review Conference.

    14. Reaffirmed the inalienable right of States to develop research, production and peaceful use of nuclear energy without discrimination and in conformity with Articles I, II, III and IV of the NPT.  Reiterated the commitment of all Parties to the Treaty to facilitate participation in the fullest possible exchange of equipment, materials and scientific and technological information for the peaceful use of nuclear energy.

    15. Expressed their total rejection to the enhancement of existing nuclear weapons and the development of new types of nuclear weapons, which is inconsistent with the obligation of complete nuclear disarmament.

    16. Called on all States to refrain from nuclear weapon test explosions, other nuclear explosions or any other relevant non-explosive experiments, including subcritical experiments, for nuclear weapons development purposes. Such actions are contrary to the object and purpose of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT), its spirit, if not the letter, undermining its desired impact as a nuclear disarmament measure.

    17. Reiterated the demand for a comprehensive nuclear test ban and urged those States in Annex II whose ratification are essential for the entry into force of the CTBT to accelerate the process of signing and/or ratifying this instrument, as a matter of priority and an indication of their political will and commitment to international peace and security.

    18. Reaffirmed the importance of initiating negotiations for an international legally binding instrument banning nuclear weapons and commitment towards this primary goal.

    19. Recalled that the First Special Session of the UN General Assembly on Disarmament (SSOD-I) established the Conference on Disarmament (CD) as the single multilateral negotiating body on disarmament. Urged the CD to demonstrate the necessary political will in order to ensure the commencement without delay of substantive work through the adoption and implementation of a balanced and comprehensive program of work that advances the agenda of nuclear disarmament.

    20. Recognized the work of the Open-ended Working Group established by Resolution A/RES/67/56 of the United Nations General Assembly, with the mandate to put forward proposals to foster multilateral negotiations on nuclear disarmament, as well as the proposals and contributions made in this Group by the CELAC Member Countries.

    21. Reiterated the firm commitment of the CELAC to work on convening an International High-Level Conference as soon as possible to identify ways and methods to eliminate nuclear weapons, aimed at agreeing on a phased program for the complete elimination of nuclear weapons within a specific timeframe.  This program would ban the development, production, acquisition, testing, stockpiling, transfer, use or threat of use of nuclear weapons and stipulate their destruction.

    22. Emphasized the intention of CELAC Member States to actively participate in the High-Level Meeting of the United Nations General Assembly on Nuclear Disarmament to be held in New York on September 26, 2013, as well as in the Third Session of the Preparatory Committee for the Review Conference of the parties to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, to be held in New York in 2014.

    23. Expressed their greatest concern at the humanitarian impact of vast proportions and global effects of any accidental or intentional nuclear detonation. Called upon the International Community to reiterate its concern on the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons whenever the debate on this type of weapons takes place. Welcomed the Oslo Conference on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons, held in March 2013, and, in this regard, called all States to participate in the Second International Conference on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons to be held in Mexico, on February 13-14, 2014.

    24. Agreed to continue coordinating positions and contributing to the implementation of practical actions as a follow-up to the above mentioned High-Level Meeting of the General Assembly, including the adoption of a resolution on the matter in the First Committee, during the 68th regular session of the United Nations General Assembly.

    25. Agreed to distribute this Declaration as an official document of the High-Level Meeting of the United Nations General Assembly on Nuclear Disarmament and as an official document of the OPANAL General Conference.

    26. Expressed appreciation to the Government and People of the Republic of Argentina for the warm hospitality and the successful organization of the Meeting.

  • 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.