Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Tag: nuclear weapons

Congress Must Act to Stop a US Attack on Iran

George Bush has already lost the illegal war of aggression that he initiated in Iraq. In the process, he has spent enormous sums of money, stretched the US military to the breaking point, undermined international law and the US Constitution, been responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis as well as more US citizens than died on September 11, 2001, and brought respect for the United States to new lows throughout the world. He now appears poised to initiate a new war against Iran.

In advance of the war against Iraq, Mr. Bush moved US forces into the region. In an ominously reminiscent set of maneuvers, he has already moved two naval battle groups into the Persian Gulf, and has another battle group on the way. It is likely that Mr. Bush will opt for air attacks against Iran rather than “boots on the ground,” as too many US troops are already tied up in Iraq. There should be grave concerns about Mr. Bush’s inability to think strategically beyond threat and attack, given the dismal consequences of his actions in Iraq.

Mr. Bush believed our forces would be greeted as liberators in Iraq. One wonders what Mr. Bush thinks will happen if he attacks Iran, a regional power in the Middle East. The US could end up bogged down in the Middle East for decades. There have also been reports by respected journalist Seymour Hersh that the US military has contingency plans for the use of nuclear weapons against Iran, an act of terrorism that could open a global Pandora’s Box.

Speaking recently to a security forum in Munich, Russian President Vladimir Putin had some strong criticism for the Bush policies. While Mr. Putin’s credentials are far from impeccable, his words bear consideration. “One state, the United States,” he said, “overstepped its national borders in every way.” Putin observed, “It is a world of one master, one sovereign…it has nothing to do with democracy. This is nourishing the wish of countries to get nuclear weapons.” Mr. Putin was particularly critical of the way in which the United States is undermining international law.

Congress opened the door for Mr. Bush’s attack against Iraq. Congress should now be responsible for closing the door to a US attack on Iran. Congress should go on record before it is too late foreclosing the president from attacking Iran without specific Congressional authorization as well as appropriate authorization by the United Nations Security Council. The hour is late, but not too late, for Congress to assert its Constitutional responsibility. Under the US Constitution, only Congress can declare war and allocate funding for war.

Senator Robert Byrd has already put forward a resolution that requires Congressional approval of any offensive US military action taken against another country. In introducing Senate Resolution 39 on January 24, 2007, Senator Byrd stated, “I am introducing a resolution that clearly states that it is Congress…not the President – that is vested with the ultimate decision on whether to take this country to war against another country.” He called his resolution “a rejection of the bankrupt, dangerous and unconstitutional doctrine of preemption, which proposes that the President – any President – may strike another country before that country threatens us….”

As bad as things are in Iraq – and there is no doubt that they are bad – for Mr. Bush to initiate a new war by attacking Iran would only make matters worse for the United States. The US needs to pursue an exit strategy for Iraq, not a preemptive attack against yet another country that has not attacked the United States. Through its actions, the US needs to return to respecting and supporting international law. The Congress of the United States needs to go on record now to assure that Mr. Bush understands this and the limits of his authority under the Constitution.

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

February 13, 2007
Doomsday Clock Reset for an Alarming World

Be afraid. Be more afraid.

For the first time in five years, the elite board of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists is moving the minute hand on their Doomsday Clock closer to the fatal hour of midnight.

The clock – a symbol of the perils facing the human race – is expected to shift two minutes, from the current seven minutes to midnight to five, a figure the Bulletin would not confirm before its news conference today.

“This is a sober and highly alarming judgment by a group of people who are knowledgeable and experienced,” said Nobel laureate John Polanyi, a faculty member in the University of Toronto’s chemistry department.

“The most immediate hazard we face is also the most easily addressed, namely the thousands of nuclear-armed weapons aimed at Russia and the United States, and left pointlessly in a state of high alert. The fact that they are is an appalling failure to step back from the brink.”

The clock, which hangs in the University of Chicago, was first set 60 years ago to focus on the danger of nuclear weapons. But for the first time it will take into account the perils posed by global warming, which has sparked renewed interest in building nuclear power plants.

The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists was founded by former Manhattan Project scientists who turned against nuclear weapons after developing the first atomic bomb.

“The major new step reflects growing concerns about a ‘Second Nuclear Age’ marked by grave threats, including: nuclear ambitions in Iran and North Korea, unsecured nuclear materials in Russia and elsewhere, the continuing launch-ready status of 2,000 of the 25,000 nuclear weapons held by the U.S. and Russia, escalating terrorism and new pressure from climate change for expanded civilian nuclear power that could increase proliferation risks,” said a statement released before a news conference today.

The clock was first set in 1947 at seven minutes to midnight, and plunged to an all-time low of two minutes in 1953, when the United States and Soviet Union both tested hydrogen bombs. Since then India, Pakistan, North Korea and, it is believed, Israel have developed nuclear weapons and Iran is enriching uranium that could potentially be used to fuel an atomic bomb.

The clock was set furthest from midnight – 17 minutes – in 1991, when Washington and Moscow signed the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty.

But it has crept steadily nearer since then as global military spending increased, India and Pakistan tested nuclear weapons, the U.S. withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty to pave the way for its missile defence program, and reports spread of terrorists seeking nuclear weapons.

American non-proliferation expert Joseph Cirincione said today’s movement of the Doomsday Clock’s hand was a “measurable indicator of how bad things are. If some of the world’s smartest scientists are saying we are now closer to doomsday, it should focus attention on both the problems, and the urgency of finding solutions.”

And, he said, U.S. President George W. Bush’s administration has made the dangers faced by the planet worse.

“They came in determined to make a radical change and they made it. It was a complete disaster. Every member of what they call the ‘axis of evil’ is a greater threat now than it was before they came to power. They thought they could use the blunt instrument of military might to overthrow evil regimes. But instead of intimidating countries, they made things worse.”

And global warming is also worse, said Cirincione, a senior vice-president at the Washington-based Center for American Progress.

“We lost six years when we could have been taking steps to fix the problem.”

Last week, the once-hawkish former U.S. secretary of state Henry Kissinger, and three other American former officials, declared that reliance on nuclear arms was “becoming increasingly hazardous and decreasingly effective,” and called for Washington to lead in creating “a world without nuclear weapons.”

The group, which included former defence secretary William Perry, said “North Korea’s recent nuclear test and Iran’s refusal to stop its program to enrich uranium – potentially to weapons grade – highlight the fact that the world is now on the precipice of a new and dangerous nuclear era.”

Ernie Regehr, a policy adviser for Waterloo-based Project Ploughshares, agreed that the trends “are all in a dangerous direction, and the notion of a nuclear renaissance, the spread of nuclear power, is making (them) more so.”

Even a modest movement to revive nuclear power, he added, was perilous.

At the same time, Regehr said, not only the United States but Britain and France are helping to stoke the fires of nuclear proliferation by refusing to give up their deadly arsenals, or even signalling that they will update them.

“Britain could have pointed the world in the direction it needs to go, because it is a secure country that doesn’t need nuclear weapons. …

“Yet, in defiance of all that, it has indicated an interest in modernizing the arsenal, which is a heavy blow to non-proliferation.

Published on Wednesday, January 17, 2007 by the Toronto Star

January 17, 2007
A Bipartisan Plea For Nuclear Weapons Abolition
An amazing and important commentary appeared in the January 4, 2007 issue of the Wall Street Journal, co-authored by four high-level architects of the Cold War: George Shultz, William Perry, Henry Kissinger and Sam Nunn. The article, entitled “A World Free of Nuclear Weapons,” was amazing not so much for what it proposed, but for who was making the proposal. The four prominent former US officials reviewed current nuclear dangers and called for US leadership to achieve the abolition of nuclear weapons. Their argument was as follows:
1. Reliance on nuclear weapons for deterrence is becoming increasingly hazardous and decreasingly effective.
2. Terrorist groups are outside the bounds of deterrence strategy.
3. We are entering a new nuclear era that will be more precarious, disorienting and costly than was Cold War deterrence.
4. New nuclear weapons states lack the safeguarding and control experiences learned by the US and USSR during the Cold War.
5. The nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty envisioned the elimination of all nuclear weapons.
6. Non-nuclear weapons states have grown increasingly skeptical of the sincerity of the nuclear weapons states to fulfill their Non-Proliferation Treaty obligations to eliminate their nuclear arsenals.
7. There exists an historic opportunity to eliminate nuclear weapons in the world.
8. To realize this opportunity, bold vision and action are needed.
9. The US must take the lead and must convince the leaders of the other nuclear weapons states to turn the goal of nuclear weapons abolition into a joint effort.
10. A number of steps need to be taken to lay the groundwork for a world free of nuclear threat, including de-alerting nuclear arsenals; reducing the size of nuclear arsenals; eliminating tactical nuclear weapons; achieving Senate ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and encouraging other key states to also do so; securing nuclear weapons and weapons-usable materials everywhere in the world; and halting production of fissile materials for weapons, ceasing to use enriched uranium in civil commerce and removing weapons-usable uranium from research reactors.
For many of us committed to the global effort to abolish nuclear weapons, there is nothing new in their arguments. They are arguments that many civil society groups have been making since the end of the Cold War. Other former officials, such as Robert McNamara and General George Lee Butler, former head of the US Strategic Command, have also made such arguments. What is new is that these former Cold Warriors have joined together in a bipartisan spirit to publicly make these arguments to the American people. This means that the perspectives of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, the Global Security Institute, the Nuclear Policy Research Institute and other dedicated civil society groups are finally being embraced by key former officials who once presided over Cold War nuclear strategy.

The bipartisan advice of Shultz, Perry, Kissinger and Nunn to abolish nuclear weapons will require a full reversal of the current Bush administration nuclear policies. The Bush administration has thumbed its nose at the other parties to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, behaving as though the US had no obligations to fulfill its commitments for nuclear disarmament under the treaty. The administration has largely opposed the 13 Practical Steps for Nuclear Disarmament agreed to by consensus at the 2000 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference.

If the administration wants to demonstrate leadership toward nuclear weapons abolition, it could immediately submit the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty to the Senate for ratification; call for negotiations at the Conference on Disarmament of a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty; reach an agreement with Russia to begin implementing deeper cuts in the nuclear arsenals of the two countries, which Russia supports; and call for a summit of leaders of all nuclear weapons states to negotiate a new treaty for the elimination of nuclear weapons.

If the United States becomes serious about leading the way to a world free of nuclear weapons, as called for by the former US officials, it can assume a high moral and legal ground, while improving its own security and global security. Each day that goes by without US leadership for achieving a nuclear weapons-free world undermines the prospects for the future of humanity. There is no issue on which US leadership is more needed, and there is no issue on which the US has more to gain by asserting such leadership.

The 19th century philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer said, “All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.” The truth that if we are to have a human future the US must lead the way in abolishing nuclear weapons has been frequently ridiculed and violently opposed. The commentary by Shultz, Perry, Kissinger and Nunn suggests that this truth may now be entering the stage of being self-evident.

David Krieger is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org). He is a leader in the global effort for a world free of nuclear weapons.
January 5, 2007
India’s Nuclear Disarmament Gets Critical

In October 2006, eight years after India and Pakistan crossed the nuclear threshold, the world witnessed yet another breakout, when North Korea exploded an atomic bomb and demanded that it be recognised as a nuclear weapons-state. Talks aimed at persuading Pyongyang to give up its nuclear weapons, in return for security guarantees and economic assistance, collapsed last week.

In 2006, the ongoing confrontation between the Western powers and the Islamic Republic of Iran over its nuclear programme got dangerously aggravated. The United Nations Security Council imposed harsh sanctions on Iran but these may prove counterproductive.

Tehran dismissed the sanctions as illegal and vowed to step up its “peaceful” uranium enrichment programme. It added one more cascade of 164 uranium enrichment centrifuges during the year and is preparing to install as many as 3,000 of these machines within the next four months. (Several thousands of centrifuges are needed to build a small nuclear arsenal.)

Developments in South Asia added to this negative momentum as India and the United States took further steps in negotiating and legislating the controversial nuclear cooperation deal that they inked one-and-a-half years ago. The deal will bring India into the ambit of normal civilian nuclear commerce although it is a nuclear weapons-state and has not signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

Meanwhile, India and Pakistan continued to test nuclear-capable missiles and sustained their long-standing mutual rivalry despite their continuing peace dialogue. Looming large over these developments in different parts of Asia are the Great Powers, led by the U.S., whose geopolitical role as well as refusal to undertake disarmament has contributed to enhancing the global nuclear danger in 2006.

According to a just-released preliminary count by the Federation of American Scientists, eight countries launched more than 26 ballistic missiles of 23 types in 24 different events in 2006. They include the U.S., Russia, France and China, besides India, Pakistan, North Korea and Iran.

“One can list other negative contributing factors too,” says Sukla Sen, a Mumbai-based activist of the Coalition for Nuclear Disarmament and Peace, an umbrella of more than 250 Indian organisations. “These include U.S. plans to find new uses for nuclear armaments and develop ballistic missile defence (“Star Wars”) weapons, Britain’s announcement that it will modernise its “Trident” nuclear force, Japan’s moves towards militarisation, and a revival of interest in nuclear technology in many countries.”

“Clearly,” adds Sen, “61 years after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the world has learnt little and achieved even less so far as abolishing the nucleus scourge goes. The nuclear sword still hangs over the globe. 2006 has made the world an even more dangerous place. The time has come to advance the hands of the Doomsday Clock.” The Doomsday Clock, created by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, published from Chicago in the U.S., currently stands at seven minutes to midnight, the Final Hour. Since 1947, its minute hand has been repeatedly moved “forward and back to reflect the global level of nuclear danger and the state of international security”.

The Clock was last reset in 2002, after the U.S. announced it would reject several arms control agreements, and withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, which prohibits the development of “Star Wars”-style weapons.

Before that, the Doomsday Clock was advanced in 1998, from 14 minutes to midnight, to just nine minutes before the hour. This was primarily in response to the nuclear tests by India and Pakistan in May that year.

The closest the Clock moved to midnight was in 1953, when the U.S. and the USSR both tested thermonuclear weapons. The Clock’s minute hand was set just two minutes short of 12.

The lowest level of danger it ever showed was in 1991, following the end of the Cold War and the signature of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty between the U.S. and the Soviet Union. The Clock then stood at 17 minutes to midnight.

“The strongest reason to move the minute hand forward today is the inflamed situation in the Middle East,” argues M.V. Ramana, an independent nuclear affairs analyst currently with the Centre for Interdisciplinary Studies in Environment and Development, Bangalore.

“Iran isn’t the real or sole cause of worry. It’s probably still some years away from enriching enough uranium to make a nuclear bomb. But there is this grave crisis in Iraq, which has spun out of Washington’s control. And then there is Israel, which is a de facto nuclear weapons-state and is seen as a belligerent power by its neighbours in the light of the grim crisis in Palestine. All the crises in the Middle East feed into one another and aggravate matters,” adds Ramana.

At the other extreme of Asia, new security equations are emerging, partly driven by the North Korean nuclear programme.

“Today, this is a key factor not only in shaping relations between the two Koreas, but the more complex and important relationship between North Korea, China, Japan and the U.S.”, holds Alka Acharya, of the Centre of East Asian Studies at the Jawaharlal Nehru University here. Adds Acharya: “The U.S. has failed to resolve the North Korean nuclear crisis diplomatically. North Korea’s nuclear weapons programme will spur Japan and South Korea to add to their military capacities. There is a strong lobby in Japan which wants to rewrite the country’s constitution and even develop a nuclear weapons capability. Recently, Japan commissioned a study to determine how long it would take to develop a nuclear deterrent.”

Japan has stockpiled hundreds of tonnes of plutonium, ostensibly for use in fast-breeder reactors. But with the fast reactor programme faltering, the possibility of diversion of the plutonium to military uses cannot be ruled out. Similarly, South Korea is likely to come under pressure to develop its own deterrent capability. “Driving these pursuits are not just nuclear calculations, but also geopolitical factors,” says Prof. Achin Vanaik who teaches international relations and global politics at Delhi University. “The U.S. plays a critical role here because of its aggressive stance and its double standards. It cannot convincingly demand that other states practise nuclear abstinence or restraint while it will keep it own nuclear weapons for ‘security’. Eventually, Washington’s nuclear double standards will encourage other countries to pursue nuclear weapons capabilities too.”

In particular, the joint planned development of ballistic missile defence weapons by the U.S. and Japan is likely to be seen by China as a threat to its security and impel Beijing to add to its nuclear arsenal. Adds Vanaik: “The real danger is not confined to East Asia or West Asia alone. The overall worldwide impact of the double standards practised by the nuclear weapons-states, and especially offensive moves like the Proliferation Security Initiative proposed by the U.S. to intercept ‘suspect’ nuclear shipments on the high seas, will be to weaken the existing global nuclear order and encourage proliferation. The U.S.-India nuclear deal sets a horribly negative example of legitimising proliferation.” “A time could soon come when a weak state or non-state actor might consider attacking the U.S. mainland with mass-destruction weapons. The kind of hatreds that the U.S. is sowing in volatile parts of the world, including the Middle East, could well result in such a catastrophe,” Vanaik said.

The year 2006 witnessed a considerable weakening of the norms of nuclear non-proliferation. Until 1974, the world had five declared nuclear weapon-states and one covert nuclear power (Israel). At the end of this year, it has nine nuclear weapons-states — nine too many.

No less significant in the long run is the growing temptation among many states to develop civilian nuclear power. Earlier this month, a number of Arab leaders met in Riyadh in Saudi Arabia and decided to start a joint nuclear energy development programme.

“Although this doesn’t spell an immediate crisis, nuclear power development can in the long run provide the technological infrastructure for building nuclear weapons too,” says Ramana. “The way out of the present nuclear predicament does not lie in non- or counter-proliferation through ever-stricter technology controls. The only solution is nuclear disarmament. The nuclear weapons-states must lead by example, by reducing and eventually dismantling these weapons of terror.”

The writer is a Delhi-based researcher, peace and human rights activist, and former newspaper editor.

December 28, 2006
Kofi Annan’s Clarion Call for Nuclear Sanity

Nearing the end of his second term as Secretary General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan went to Princeton University on November 28, 2006 to make what may well be remembered as the most important speech of his tenure. He began by talking about the general sense of insecurity in our world today related to a broad range of issues, including poverty, environmental degradation, disease, war and terrorism. He concluded that “the greatest danger of all” may well be “the area of nuclear weapons.” He gave three reasons for this conclusion:

“First, nuclear weapons present a unique existential threat to humanity. “Secondly, the nuclear non-proliferation regime faces a major crisis of confidence….

“Thirdly, the rise of terrorism, with the danger that nuclear weapons might be acquired by terrorists, greatly increases the danger that they will be used.”

He pointed to the two significant failures by governments in 2005 to achieve progress on the twin issues of nuclear non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament: first, at the Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference; and second, at the World Summit, which brought together heads of governments from throughout the world.

Annan attributed the current stalemate, which he termed “mutually assured paralysis,” to the deadlock between those who put nuclear disarmament first and those who put non-proliferation first. He urged both sides to come together and tackle both issues “with the urgency they demand.”

He called upon the nuclear weapons states “to develop concrete plans – with specific timetables – for implementing their disarmament commitments.” He also urged them “to make a joint declaration of intent to achieve the progressive elimination of all nuclear weapons, under strict and effective international control.”

He concluded his remarks by appealing to young people: “Please bring your energy and imagination to this debate. Help us to seize control of the rogue aircraft on which humanity has embarked, and bring it to a safe landing before it is too late.”

This speech is a parting gift from the Secretary General to humanity. I urge you to read it and to demand far more serious action on these critical issues by the leaders of the nuclear weapons states, those who are attempting to control the hijacked “rogue aircraft on which humanity has embarked….”

Read the Kofi Annan Speech

David Krieger is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org). He is a leader in the global effort for a world free of nuclear weapons.

November 30, 2006
Lecture at Princeton University

Let me begin by saying how delighted I am to have been invited to give this address by a School named after Woodrow Wilson, the great pioneer of multilateralism and advocate of world peace, who argued, among other things, for agreed international limits on deadly weapons.

Princeton is indissolubly linked with the memory of Albert Einstein and many other great scientists who played a role in making this country the first nuclear power. That makes it an especially appropriate setting for my address this evening, because my main theme is the danger of nuclear weapons, and the urgent need to confront that danger by preventing proliferation and promoting disarmament, both at once. I shall argue that these two objectives — disarmament and non-proliferation — are inextricably linked, and that to achieve progress on either front we must also advance on the other.

Almost everyone in today’s world feels insecure, but not everyone feels insecure about the same thing. Different threats seem more urgent to people in different parts of the world.

Probably the largest number would give priority to economic and social threats, including poverty, environmental degradation and infectious disease.

Others might stress inter-State conflict; yet others internal conflict, including civil war. Many people – especially but not only in the developed world — would now put terrorism at the top of their list.

In truth, all these threats are interconnected, and all cut across national frontiers. We need common global strategies to deal with all of them — and indeed, Governments are coming together to work out and implement such strategies, in the UN and elsewhere. The one area where there is a total lack of any common strategy is the one that may well present the greatest danger of all: the area of nuclear weapons.

Why do I consider it the greatest danger? For three reasons:

First, nuclear weapons present a unique existential threat to all humanity.

Secondly, the nuclear non-proliferation regime now faces a major crisis of confidence. North Korea has withdrawn from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), while India, Israel, and Pakistan have never joined it. There are, at least, serious questions about the nature of Iran’s nuclear programme. And this, in turn, raises questions about the legitimacy, and credibility, of the case-by-case approach to non-proliferation that the existing nuclear powers have adopted.

Thirdly, the rise of terrorism, with the danger that nuclear weapons might be acquired by terrorists, greatly increases the danger that they will be used.

Yet, despite the grave, all-encompassing nature of this threat, the Governments of the world are addressing it selectively, not comprehensively.

In one way, that’s understandable. The very idea of global self-annihilation is unbearable to think about. But, that is no excuse. We must try to imagine the human and environmental consequences of a nuclear bomb exploding in one, or even in several, major world cities — or indeed of an all-out confrontation between two nuclear-armed States.

In focusing on nuclear weapons, I am not seeking to minimize the problem of chemical and biological ones, which are also weapons of mass destruction, and are banned under international treaties. Indeed, perhaps the most important, under-addressed threat relating to terrorism — one which acutely requires new thinking — is the threat of terrorists using a biological weapon.

But, nuclear weapons are the most dangerous. Even a single bomb can destroy an entire city, as we know from the terrible example of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and today, there are bombs many times as powerful as those. These weapons pose a unique threat to humanity as a whole.

Forty years ago, understanding that this danger must be avoided at all costs, nearly all States in the world came together and forged a grand bargain, embodied in the NPT.

In essence, that treaty was a contract between the recognized nuclear-weapon States at that time and the rest of the international community. The nuclear-weapon States undertook to negotiate in good faith on nuclear disarmament, to prevent proliferation, and to facilitate the peaceful use of nuclear energy, while separately declaring that they would refrain from threatening non-nuclear-weapon States with nuclear weapons. In return, the rest committed themselves not to acquire or manufacture nuclear weapons, and to place all their nuclear activities under the verification of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Thus, the treaty was designed both to prevent proliferation and to advance disarmament, while assuring the right of all States, under specified conditions, to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.

From 1970 — when it entered into force — until quite recently, the NPT was widely seen as a cornerstone of global security. It had confounded the dire predictions of its critics. Nuclear weapons did not — and still have not — spread to dozens of States, as John F. Kennedy and others predicted in the 1960s. In fact, more States have given up their ambitions for nuclear weapons than have acquired them.

And yet, in recent years, the NPT has come under withering criticism — because the international community has been unable to agree how to apply it to specific crises in South Asia, the Korean peninsula and the Middle East; and because a few States parties to the treaty are allegedly pursuing their own nuclear-weapons capabilities.

Twice in 2005, Governments had a chance to strengthen the Treaty’s foundations — first at the Review conference in May, then at the World Summit in September. Both times they fai— essentially because they couldn’t agree whether non-proliferation or disarmament should come first.

The advocates of “non-proliferation first” — mainly nuclear-weapon States and their supporters — believe the main danger arises not from nuclear weapons as such, but from the character of those who possess them, and therefore, from the spread of nuclear weapons to new States and to non-state actors (so called “horizontal proliferation”). The nuclear-weapon States say they have carried out significant disarmament since the end of the cold war, but that their responsibility for international peace and security requires them to maintain a nuclear deterrent.

“Disarmament first” advocates, on the other hand, say that the world is most imperilled by existing nuclear arsenals and their continual improvement (so called “vertical proliferation”). Many non-nuclear-weapon States accuse the nuclear-weapon States of retreating from commitments they made in 1995 (when the NPT was extended indefinitely) and reiterated as recently as the year 2000. For these countries, the NPT “grand bargain” has become a swindle. They note that the UN Security Council has often described the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction as a threat to international peace and security, but has never declared that nuclear weapons in and of themselves are such a threat. They see no serious movement towards nuclear disarmament, and claim that the lack of such movement presages a permanent “apartheid” between nuclear “haves” and “have-nots”.

Both sides in this debate feel that the existence of four additional States with nuclear weapons, outside the NPT, serves only to sharpen their argument.

The debate echoes a much older argument: are weapons a cause or a symptom of conflict? I believe both debates are sterile, counterproductive, and based on false dichotomies.

Arms build-ups can give rise to threats leading to conflict; and political conflicts can motivate the acquisition of arms. Efforts are needed both to reduce arms and to reduce conflict. Likewise, efforts are needed to achieve both disarmament and non-proliferation.

Yet, each side waits for the other to move. The result is that “mutually assured destruction” has been replaced by mutually assured paralysis. This sends a terrible signal of disunity and waning respect for the Treaty’s authority. It creates a vacuum that can be exploited.

I said earlier this year that we are “sleepwalking towards disaster”. In truth, it is worse than that — we are asleep at the controls of a fast-moving aircraft. Unless we wake up and take control, the outcome is all too predictable.

An aircraft, of course, can remain airborne only if both wings are in working order. We cannot choose between non-proliferation and disarmament. We must tackle both tasks with the urgency they demand.

Allow me to offer my thoughts to each side in turn.

To those who insist on disarmament first, I say this:

— Proliferation is not a threat only, or even mainly, to those who already have nuclear weapons. The more fingers there are on nuclear triggers, and the more those fingers belong to leaders of unstable States — or, even worse, non-State actors — the greater the threat to all humankind.

— Lack of progress on disarmament is no excuse for not addressing the dangers of proliferation. No State should imagine that, by pushing ahead with a nuclear-weapon programme, it can pose as a defender of the NPT; still less that it will persuade others to disarm.

— I know some influential States, which themselves have scrupulously respected the Treaty, feel strongly that the nuclear-weapon States have not lived up to their disarmament obligations. But, they must be careful not to let their resentment put them on the side of the proliferators. They should state clearly that acquiring prohibited weapons never serves the cause of their elimination. Proliferation only makes disarmament even harder to achieve.

— I urge all States to give credit where it is due. Acknowledge disarmament whenever it does occur. Applaud the moves which nuclear-weapon States have made, whether unilaterally or through negotiation, to reduce nuclear arsenals or prevent their expansion. Recognize that the nuclear-weapon States have virtually stopped producing new fissile material for weapons, and are maintaining moratoria on nuclear tests.

— Likewise, support even small steps to contain proliferation, such as efforts to improve export controls on goods needed to make weapons of mass destruction, as mandated by Security Council resolution 1540.

— And please support the efforts of the Director-General of the IAEA and others to find ways of guaranteeing that all States have access to fuel and services for their civilian nuclear programmes without spreading sensitive technology. Countries must be able to meet their growing energy needs through such programmes, but we cannot afford a world where more and more countries develop the most sensitive phases of the nuclear fuel cycle themselves.

— Finally, do not encourage, or allow, any State to make its compliance with initiatives to eliminate nuclear weapons, or halt their proliferation, conditional on concessions from other States on other issues. The preservation of human life on this planet is too important to be used as a hostage.

To those who insist on non-proliferation first, I say this:

—True, there has been some progress on nuclear disarmament since the end of the cold war. Some States have removed many nuclear weapons from deployment, and eliminated whole classes of nuclear delivery systems. The US and Russia have agreed to limit the number of strategic nuclear weapons they deploy, and have removed non-strategic ones from ships and submarines; the US Congress refused to fund the so called “bunker-buster” bomb; most nuclear test sites have been closed; and there are national moratoria on nuclear tests, while three nuclear-weapon States — France, Russia and the UK — have ratified the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty.

— Yet, stockpiles remain alarmingly high: 27,000 nuclear weapons reportedly remain in service, of which about 12,000 are actively deployed.

— Some States seem to believe they need fewer weapons, but smaller and more useable ones — and even to have embraced the notion of using such weapons in conflict. All of the NPT nuclear-weapon States are modernizing their nuclear arsenals or their delivery systems. They should not imagine that this will be accepted as compatible with the NPT. Everyone will see it for what it is: a euphemism for nuclear re-armament.

— Nor is it clear how these States propose to deal with the four nuclear-weapon-capable States outside the NPT. They warn against a nuclear domino effect, if this or that country is allowed to acquire a nuclear capability, but they do not seem to know how to prevent it, or how to respond to it once it has happened. Surely they should at least consider attempting a “reverse domino effect”, in which systematic and sustained reductions in nuclear arsenals would devalue the currency of nuclear weapons, and encourage others to follow suit.

— Instead, by clinging to and modernizing their own arsenals, even when there is no obvious threat to their national security that nuclear weapons could deter, nuclear-weapon States encourage others — particularly those that do face real threats in their own reg— to regard nuclear weapons as essential, both to their security and to their status. It would be much easier to confront proliferators, if the very existence of nuclear weapons were universally acknowledged as dangerous and ultimately illegitimate.

— Similarly, States that wish to discourage others from undertaking nuclear or missile tests could argue their case much more convincingly if they themselves moved quickly to bring the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty into force, halt their own missile testing, and negotiate a robust multilateral instrument regulating missiles. Such steps would do more than anything else to advance the cause of non-proliferation.

— Important Powers such as Argentina, Brazil, Germany and Japan have shown, by refusing to develop them, that nuclear weapons are not essential to either security or status. South Africa destroyed its arsenal and joined the NPT. Belarus, Ukraine and Kazakhstan gave up nuclear weapons from the former Soviet nuclear arsenal. And Libya has abandoned its nuclear and chemical weapons programmes. The nuclear weapon States have applauded all these examples. They should follow them.

— Finally, Governments and civil society in many countries are increasingly questioning the relevance of the cold war doctrine of nuclear deterrence — the rationale used by all States that possess nuclear weap— in an age of growing threats from non-State actors. Do we not need, instead, to develop agreed strategies for preventing proliferation?

— For all these reasons, I call on all the States with nuclear weapons to develop concrete plans — with specific timetables — for implementing their disarmament commitments. And I urge them to make a joint declaration of intent to achieve the progressive elimination of all nuclear weapons, under strict and effective international control.

In short, my friends, the only way forward is to make progress on both fronts — non-proliferation and disarmament — at once. And we will not achieve this unless at the same time we deal effectively with the threat of terrorism, as well as the threats, both real and rhetorical, which drive particular States or regimes to seek security, however misguidedly, by developing or acquiring nuclear weapons.

It is a complex and daunting task, which calls for leadership, for the establishment of trust, for dialogue and negotiation. But first of all, we need a renewed debate, which must be inclusive, must respect the norms of international negotiations, and must reaffirm the multilateral approach — Woodrow Wilson’s approach, firmly grounded in international institutions, treaties, rules, and norms of appropriate behaviour.

Let me conclude by appealing to young people everywhere, since there are — I am glad to see — so many of them here today.

My dear young friends, you are already admirably engaged in the struggle for global development, for human rights and to protect the environment. Please bring your energy and imagination to this debate. Help us to seize control of the rogue aircraft on which humanity has embarked, and bring it to a safe landing before it is too late.

Kofi A. Annan is Secretary General of the United Nations.

November 30, 2006
Helen Caldicott: Credo

I believe that women have the fate of the Earth in the palm of their hands. Some 53 per cent of us are women and we really are pretty wimpish. We don’t step up to the plate – and it’s time we took over. I think men have had their turn and we’re in a profound mess.

I believe that money is the root of all evil. When people start believing that materialism will produce ultimate, lasting happiness, it is a sure sign that they will be intensely unhappy. One third of Americans are on anti-depressants. Instead, what they should be doing is lifting their souls, not their faces.

I believe in the sanctity of nature. I believe we can save the planet. We are smart enough to do that, but we must act with a sense of dire emergency.

I believe that the media are controlling and determining the face of the Earth. As Thomas Jefferson said, an informed democracy will behave in a responsible fashion.

I believe in the beauty of classical music. I must have it; it feeds my soul.

I believe in the goodness in every person’s soul even though it’s sometimes hard to see. I treat a lot of patients where either their children are dying or they are dying. Even though sometimes it’s heavily obscured, in extremes this goodness will emerge.

I don’t believe in a god. I have helped many people to die and believe that it’s ashes to ashes and dust to dust.

I believe that heaven and hell are present every day.

I believe that life is an absolute gift to be treasured accordingly. We are very privileged to even have been conceived.

I believe that we are here to serve. We are not here to make ourselves happy, to be self-indulgent or to be hedonistic. The happiest state that I achieve is when I work in my clinic helping my children with cystic fibrosis to face death and help to treat them and look after their siblings. I’m utterly exhausted at the end of the day, but deeply, deeply fulfilled.

I believe in the beauty of my garden. I’ve got two and a half acres and I’m never more in touch with the power of the universe than when I’m in my garden on a warm, sunny day tending to my flowers and my trees, with the pelicans circling overhead.

I believe that there are far too many people on the planet. In the year 1900 there were one billion of us in the world. Now there are 6.5 billion and the predictions are that within a few decades there will be 14 billion.

I believe that the greatest terror in the world is not a few terrorists hitting the World Trade Center. It’s the fact that half the world’s people still live in dire poverty and 30,000 to 40,000 children die every day from malnutrition and starvation, while the rich nations continue to get richer and richer.

I believe that the most important job in the world is parenting. Women need to be financially supported for it. Their job is far more important than that of chief executive officers at the head of huge corporations.

I believe the secret of happiness is a) serving our fellow human beings and loving and caring for everyone. I don’t mean crappy Californian love; I mean really deep caring for each other; b) to understand our own psychology in a profound way, so we can be a more constructive human being; and c) to care for this incredible planet of ours.

Helen Caldicott, a pediatrician, is president of the Nuclear Policy Research Institute and author of Nuclear Power Is Not the Answer (The New Press). She lives near Sydney, Australia.

Originally published by The Independent UK

November 12, 2006
Building Global Peace in the Nuclear Age

In an age in which the weapons we have created are capable of destroying the human species, what could be more important than building global peace? The Nuclear Age has made peace an imperative. If we fail to achieve and maintain global peace, the future of humanity will remain at risk. This was the view of the preeminent scientists, led by Albert Einstein and Bertrand Russell, who issued the Russell-Einstein Manifesto in 1955. They stated, “Here, then, is the problem which we present to you, stark and dreadful and inescapable: Shall we put an end to the human race; or shall mankind renounce war?” They continued, “People will not face this alternative because it is so difficult to abolish war.”

With the end of the Cold War, nuclear dangers did not evaporate. Rather, new dangers of nuclear proliferation, terrorism and war emerged, in a climate of public ignorance, apathy and denial. Awakening the public to these dangers and building global peace are the greatest challenges of our time, challenges made necessary by the power and threat of nuclear arsenals.

Peace is a two-sided coin: it requires ending war as a human institution and controlling and eliminating its most dangerous weapons, but it also requires building justice and ending structural violence. One of the most profound questions of our time is: How can an individual lead a decent life in a society that promotes war and structural violence?

The answer is that the only way to do this is to be a warrior for peace in all its dimensions. This means to actively oppose society’s thrust toward war and injustice, and to actively support efforts to resolve disputes nonviolently and to promote equity and justice in one’s society and throughout the world. Martin Luther King, Jr. said, “The arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice.” We know, though, that it doesn’t bend of its own accord. It bends because people care and take a stand for peace and justice.

If we are committed to building global peace in the Nuclear Age, we must say an absolute No to war, and we must demonstrate by our words and actions our commitment to peace. We must have confidence that our acts, though the acts of a single person, can and will make a difference. We must understand that we are not alone, although we may be isolated by a corporate media and a sea of indifference. It is our challenge to awaken ourselves, to educate others and to consistently set an example for others by our daily lives. To be fully human is to put our shoulders to the arc of history so that it will bend more swiftly toward the justice and peace that we seek.

Humanity is now joined, for better or worse, in a common future, and each of us has a role to play in determining that future. Issues of peace and war are far too important to be left only to political leaders. Most political leaders don’t know how to lead for peace. They are caught up in the war system and fear they will lose support if they oppose it. They need to be educated to be peace leaders. Strangely, most political leaders take their lead from the voters, so let’s lead them toward a world at peace.

If you are an educator, educate for peace. If you are an artist, communicate for peace. If you are a professional, step outside the boundaries of your profession and act like the ordinary human miracle that you really are. If you are an ordinary human miracle, live with the dignity and purpose befitting the miracle of life and stand for peace.

This will not be easy. There will be times when you will be very discouraged, but you must never give up. You will find that hope and action are intertwined. Hope gives rise to action, as action gives rise to hope. The best and most reliable way to build global peace in the Nuclear Age is to take a step in that direction, no matter how small, and the path will open to you to take a next step and a next. In following this path, your life will be entwined with the lives of people everywhere.

David Krieger is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org). He is a leader in the global effort for a world free of nuclear weapons.

November 10, 2006
Can We Change Our Thinking?

It is a privilege to return to Nagasaki for this third Global Citizens’ Assembly to Eliminate Nuclear Weapons. I am convinced that it is only by the actions and initiatives of citizens leading leaders that humanity shall bring nuclear weapons, its most deadly invention, under control.

I want to return to what may seem an old theme, but one that remains critically important. More than fifty years ago, Albert Einstein warned, “The splitting of the atom has changed everything save our modes of thinking, and thus we drift toward unparalleled catastrophe.” I would like to explore what Einstein meant in reference to changing our “modes of thinking.”

I believe Einstein was referring to humankind’s continued reliance on force as a means of settling differences as the old way of thinking. He believed that in the Nuclear Age reliance on force was pushing us toward catastrophe. Einstein’s warning was a recognition that with the advent of nuclear weapons, the use of force – a long-standing currency in the international system – placed not only countries but civilization and even humanity itself at risk, making force as a means of resolving disputes between nations too dangerous to be acceptable. If we are to move away from reliance on force to resolve conflicts, we must substitute something else in its place. What must take the place of threat or use of force is honest diplomacy, a willingness to engage in continuous dialogue with the goal of resolving even major differences between nations. That was the purpose for which the United Nations was created in June 1945, less than a month before the first test of an atomic weapon by the United States.

The United Nations sought to “end the scourge of war.” To achieve this, the UN Charter prohibits the use of force except in the limited circumstance of self-defense, and then only until the United Nations can take control of the situation, or when authorized by the Security Council under Chapter VII of the UN Charter.

Unfortunately, the United Nations has not been very effective in prohibiting the threat or use of force. This is largely due to its structure, which gives special power to the five permanent members of the Security Council. These states can cast a veto on actions that would subject their behavior to appropriate scrutiny and control. Despite the bold opening words of the UN Charter, “We, the Peoples,” the UN is not a Peoples Parliament. Rather, it is a club of nation-states, and its most powerful members play by a different set of rules than do the other members.

The United Nations has been used cynically by the most powerful states to gain advantage rather than to seriously engage in problem solving about the world’s most pressing dangers. If we wish to move toward non-violent solutions to conflict, we must reform and strengthen the United Nations to truly become a House of Dialogue and a Parliament of Humanity.

One aspect of changed thinking that is needed is recognition of the importance of citizen participation in efforts to change the world. The world’s problems are too grave and dangerous to be left to governments without the active participation of citizens. Citizens must take responsibility for the actions of their governments as if their very lives depended upon those actions, as indeed they do. In the Nuclear Age, the actions of nuclear-armed states affect the future of all citizens on the planet. If citizens remain ignorant, apathetic and in denial, it is likely that governments will blunder into wars, inevitably including nuclear war.

Another aspect of the changed thinking that is needed is the disassociation of nuclear weapons with security both as a concept and as a national policy. Nuclear weapons do not make a country more secure. These weapons can be used to threaten retaliation, but they cannot provide actual physical security. Deterrence is a theory that requires rationality on all sides and effective communications. If there is one thing we know about humans, especially in the context of crises, they are not always rational and they do not communicate perfectly. This was one of the important findings of the meetings of key decision makers in the Cuban Missile Crisis. They came to understand that many of the assumptions they had made about the other participants in the crisis were incorrect and they were very fortunate to have averted nuclear war.

Still another aspect of thinking in which change is needed is the complacency of the rich within the two-tier structure of rich and poor nations. It is unlikely that wars will be eliminated while the economic divide is great and many people in the world live in deep poverty with all its disadvantages, while a minority lives in superabundance. Modern communications make the have-nots aware of what goes on behind the high walls of the rich, exacerbating the tensions.

This two-tier structure of rich and poor nations is also mirrored in our world of nuclear haves and have-nots. The world cannot go on indefinitely with bastions of the rich thinking they are protected by nuclear and other arms, while the majority of the world’s population lives in abject poverty. Nor can the world safely continue to be divided along religious and ideological fault lines.

Nuclear weapons, like other weapons, are part of the currency of power in a divided world. If there were widespread recognition of the essential oneness of humanity and the miracle of life that all humans share, it would be far more difficult to justify resort to arms and, in particular, to continue to threaten the indiscriminate mass destruction that is inherent in the use of nuclear weapons.

David Krieger is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org). He is a leader in the global effort for a world free of nuclear weapons.

October 26, 2006
Is There A Reason To Be Concerned About War With Iran?
The short answer is YES! A more complete answer becomes visible when we look at recent war signals. For insights on how war can be prevented, it is helpful to go back in history to when the governments of the US and Iran were the best of friends.

As the US war propaganda intensifies, I sometimes wonder what Iran and the Middle East would look like today if the CIA did not overthrow Iran’s democratic government in 1953?

A Timeline Worth Remembering

— 1950s & 1960s — In 1951, US and Iranian relations were so good that Mohammad Mossadeq was named Time magazine’s Man of the Year. To show his admiration of America’s democracy, Mossadeq made a high-profile trip to the Liberty Bell in Philadelphia. In 1953, the US and Britain illegally overthrew Iran’s democratically elected government because Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadeq interfered with US and British oil interests. In 1967, Mossadeq died after many years of living under house arrest. Mossadeq’s comment on his arrest was “My only crime is that I nationalized the oil industry and removed from this land the network of colonialism and the political and economic influence of the greatest empire on Earth.”

— 1970s — In 1973, the US offered Israel a defense treaty after the Yom Kippur war. Israel rejected this offer because Israel would have to define its boundaries. Contrary to incorrect statements by President Bush, there is no defense treaty between the US and Israel. Why does President Bush now continue to say that the US has a defense alliance with Israel? In 1976 Chief of Staff Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld persuaded President Gerald Ford to approve offering Iran nuclear reprocessing facilities. Cheney and Rumsfeld stated that Iran needed a nuclear program to meet future energy requirements which is what Iranian officials are saying today. In 1979 US embassy personnel in Iran were held captive for 444 days and the Islamic revolution changed the balance of power in the Middle East. Iran’s current President Ahmadinejad was a leader of the student group that stormed the embassy.

— 1980s — In 1980, Iraq attacked Iran. The US initially provided weapons to Iraq but eventually sold weapons to both sides. Iraq ended up spending more on weapons than it earned from oil sales. The war ended in 1988. In 1980, President Reagan’s campaign manager and future CIA Director, William Casey, made a deal with Iran’s leadership to delay the release of the US embassy personnel until a few hours after President Jimmy Carter leaves office. For compensation, President Reagan arranged for Iran to receive $4 billion dollars and a letter stating the US would never attack Iran. Since the 1980s Iran has had anthrax and other weapons of mass destruction. In 1981, Israel destroyed the Iraqi Osirak nuclear facility. Israel’s attack, against international law, motivated Iran to disperse, bury and harden its nuclear facilities. Between 1984 and 1988, Iraqi air attacks damaged Iran’s Bushehr nuclear facility. In 1986, Pakistan began helping Iran develop nuclear weapons. Abdul Qadeer Khan transfers over 2000 components and by 1995, P-2 centrifuge components are transferred to Iran. In 1987 and 1988 US forces secretly attacked Iranian forces, including strikes on Gulf oil platforms. In 1988 the US cruiser Vincennes mistakenly shot down an Iranian commercial plane and 290 people are killed.

— 1990s – In 1995, Russia resumed work on the Bushehr nuclear facility. In 1996, China sold Iran a conversion plant and provided the gas needed to test the uranium enrichment process. In 1997, the Project For A New American Century, authored by Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and other neo-cons now in power, calls for preemptive attacks so that the US will remain the dominant power in the new century. A cornerstone of the strategy is to keep a rising China subordinate by denying access to resources in Central Asia and the Middle East.

— 2000 to 2002 — Sep 2001: Pakistan’s Khan network and assistance to Iran is shut down after the US threatens to nuke Pakistan and bring it back to the stone age. Jan 2002: President Bush, in his State of the Union address, described Iran, Iraq and North Korea as an “axis of evil”. Aug 2002: Iranian dissident, Alireza Jafarzadeh, revealed two previously undeclared nuclear sites: a uranium enrichment facility in Natanz and a heavy water facility in Arak.

— 2003 — Mar: The US illegally invaded Iraq. Aug: A confidential UN report revealed that Iran has developed two kinds of enriched uranium that are not needed for peaceful energy production. Dec: US sent humanitarian aid to Iran after earthquake kills up to 50,000 people in city of Bam. Dec or earlier: President Bush had the 1980 document stating the US will not attack Iran nullified because it was signed under duress.

— 2004 — Jun: The International Atomic Energy Agency claims to have found new traces of enriched uranium that exceeded the levels necessary for civilian energy production. Jul: Iran admited to having resumed production of parts for centrifuges that are used for enriching uranium, but insists that it has not resumed its enrichment activities. Sep: Iran refused to accept an unlimited suspension of uranium enrichment and says it will not stop manufacturing centrifuges. Sep: To facilitate military operations in Iran, the U.S. sent 4,500 smart bombs to Israel and built a staging base in Afghanistan near its border with Iran. Oct: The Iranian parliament passed a bill approving resumption of enrichment activities. Dec or earlier: Israel built a model of Iran’s Natanz nuclear facility to practice attacks on the facility.

— 2005 — Jan: Iran’s Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani indicated that Iran has a nuclear bomb. Shamkhani said, “we have rapidly produced equipment that has resulted in the greatest deterrent.” Feb: The book American Hiroshima is published and warns the US will attack Iran’s nuclear facilities and this will lead to Iran’s Qods Force attacking US nuclear facilities. Feb: The inner cabinet of Ariel Sharon, at his private ranch in the Negev desert, gave “initial authorization” to attack Iran. They agreed to coordinate the attack with the most supportive US administration since Israel was created in 1948. Feb: Iranian Information Minister Ali Yunessi confirmed that US spy planes have been spotted in Iran. The objective of these spy missions is to identify approximately 36 nuclear weapons-related targets that can be destroyed by an Israeli or US surprise attack. Feb: North Korea, secretly collaborated with Iran. North Korea declared it has nuclear weapons. Aug: President Bush made the first of several statements in which he refused to rule out using force against Iran.

— 2006 — Feb to present: The war propaganda, direct from the playbook of Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels, is repeated daily. The “battlefield of public perception” is prepared for war with statements from Donald Rumsfeld that Iran is the “world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism.” Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist repeated the mantra “we cannot allow Iran to become a nuclear nation.” Richard Perle said “If we just let our vision of the world go forth, and we embrace it entirely and we don’t try to piece together clever diplomacy, but just wage a total war … our children will sing great songs about us years from now.” We also see Iran’s President repeatedly misquoted (e.g., he is quoted as saying military force should be used to wipe Israel off the map when President Ahmadinejad’s actual statement never used the words “wipe” or “off the map”). Feb: President Bush was asked if the United States would rise to Israel’s defense militarily, he said: “You bet, we’ll defend Israel.” Mar: US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice says the US faces “no greater challenge” than Iran’s nuclear program. Apr: A report by Seymour M. Hersh in the New Yorker warns the US is planning a tactical nuclear strike against Iran. Apr: The Washington Post reports the US is studying military strike options on Iran. Apr: The Asharq Al-Awsat newspaper reported Iran’s military response to an attack is called Operation Judgment Day. May: President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad sends a letter to President Bush proposing new and peaceful solutions to their differences. This is the first communication between Iranian and US leaders in 27 years. May: The Physicians for Social Responsibility publish a report titled “Medical Consequences of a Nuclear Attack on Iran.” The report illuminates that millions of lives will be lost if the US attacks Iran. Jul & Aug: Israel responds to the kidnapping of soldiers with war. This is seen by many as an attempt to draw Iran into a direct conflict with Israel. As a result of Israel’s attack, Hamas and Hezbollah “near” enemies are subsequently less able to inflict harm on Israel when the “far” enemy of Iran is attacked. Aug: Former Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence Chief, Maj. Gen (R) Hameed Gul “predicted” that America will attack Iran and Syria simultaneously in October. Aug: War propaganda continues to ramp up with Retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney, and other prominent proponents for attacking Iran, stating Iran is 5 to 10 years away from having a bomb. The public is “sold” this ridiculous piece of information, especially given Pakistan’s previous direct assistance, to minimize concerns about what Iran can do to retaliate. In addition, as media commentators increasingly demand America attack Iran, there is no mention of Iran’s existing chemical and biological weapons. Aug: Iran started the “Blow of Zolfaqar” military exercise in the Persian Gulf. Aug: Iran rejected the US led UN Security Council offer to stop uranium enrichment. Aug: Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is interviewed by Mike Wallace on 60 Minutes and calls for peaceful dialogue. He subsequently offers to debate with President Bush. The White House rejects the offer. Sep: Chief of Naval Operations (CNO), “asked for fresh eyes” to review the existing U.S. plans to blockade two Iranian oil ports on the Persian Gulf. Sep: The Pentagon announced the extension of overseas assignments for US soldiers. Oct: A major naval strike force carrying nuclear weapons received surprise “prepare to deploy” orders to depart for the Persian Gulf. Oct: North Korea sees the US as preoccupied with attacking Iran and conducted a nuclear test. The US media ignores North Korea’s 2005 public announcement that it had nuclear weapons to reinforce the fiction that a new rogue state has become a nuclear power stressing the message “this is what happens if we don’t strike Iran.” Oct: Ayatollah Ali Khamenei held an AK 47 on October 13 to symbolized Iran’s readiness to repel an Israeli and US attack. Oct: The Defense Department started mandatory anthrax immunizations. Oct: Iran’s military forces are deployed to battle positions as the Eisenhower naval strike force entered the Persian Gulf. Oct: Respected US whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg warns the US is planning to attack Iran with H-bombs. An H-bomb, also known as thermonuclear bomb, can be over one thousand times more powerful than an atomic bomb. Oct: According to Muslim tradition, the “Night of Determination” (10/26-10/27) is when Allah determines the fate of the world for the coming year. An Operations Northwoods (i.e., a self-inflicted attack so that Americans will support attacking Iran) event increasingly appears likely, especially with US elections taking place in November.

If The US Attacks Iran, What Happens? On April 27, 2006 the Asharq Al-Awsat newspaper reported Iran’s military response to a US and Israeli attack is a plan called Operation Judgment Day.

The attack has several components. The final component is the American Hiroshima attack.
1. A missile strike directly targeting the US military bases in the Persian Gulf and Iraq, as soon as Iranian nuclear installations are hit.
2. Suicide operations in a number of Arab and Muslim countries against the US and US allies.
3. Stepped up attacks by the Basij, the Revolutionary Guards and Iraqi fighters loyal to Iran against US and British forces in Iraq.
4. Hezbollah launches hundreds of rockets against military and economic targets in Israel.
The final Judgment Day component is for Iran to give the al Qods Brigades the go-ahead for more than 50 terrorists cells in Canada, the US, and Europe to attack civil and industrial targets in these countries. This could lead to an American/global Hiroshima attack to maximize civilian casualties by attacking nuclear and chemical facilities.

Is component 1 why the anthrax vaccinations of US military personnel started in October? Components 2 and 3 are already happening. Israel attempted to minimize component 4 with the July and August war with Hezbollah in Lebanon.

A detailed explanation of why this is happening and how it can be prevented is the subject of the American Hiroshima book.

While War With Iran Is On The Horizon – Choose Hope! Iran may or may not have developed the “greatest deterrent.” In the 1960s, it was unknown to US intelligence that the Soviet Union had almost 100 nuclear weapons in Cuba at the time of the 1962 missile crisis. Regardless of Iran’s status as a nuclear weapons power, Iran’s Qods Force has been capable of attacking US nuclear power facilities for over a decade. Therefore, the issue is really not Iran’s nuclear program but how can we return to the friendship that existed in 1951?

A first step would be for President Bush to acknowledge that the US was wrong to overthrow Iran’s democratically elected government in 1953. Regardless of what President Bush elects to do, we must choose hope and work to prevent war. History has shown us that a peaceful future is possible. In 1962 the US and the Soviet Union were on the brink of nuclear war and yet the Cuban Missile Crisis was solved without war.

As Martin Luther King, Jr. said “We still have a choice today: nonviolent co-existence or violent co-annihilation. History will record the choice we made. It is still not too late to make the proper choice. If we decide to become a moral power we will be able to transform the jangling discords of this world into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. If we make the wise decision we will be able to transform our pending cosmic elegy into a creative psalm of peace. This will be a glorious day. In reaching it, we can fulfill the noblest of American dreams.”

Americans bear a special responsibility for preventing war with Iran. I challenge my fellow citizens and people around the world to work to save lives in the Middle East and around the world. When we accept our share of the responsibility for a better world, everyone will be more secure. Please share this information with your political leaders. Please take action now so that we can create a groundswell for peace that is too powerful to be set aside.

David Dionisi is the author of American Hiroshima, the Northern California Representative for the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, and the National Awareness Officer for Freedom From War.
October 23, 2006