Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Tag: nuclear zero

  • The Nuclear Zero Lawsuits: Taking Nuclear Weapons to Court

    Nuclear Zero LawsuitsNuclear weapons remain the most urgent threat confronting humanity.  So long as they exist, there is the very real chance they will be used by accident, miscalculation or design.  These weapons threaten everyone and everything we love and treasure.  They are fearsome destructive devices that kill indiscriminately and cause unnecessary suffering.  No man, woman or child is safe from the fury of these weapons, now or in the future.  Nor is any country safe from them, no matter how powerful or how much it threatens nuclear retaliation.

    Given the extreme dangers of nuclear weapons, we might ask: why isn’t more being done to eliminate them?  There has been talk and promises, but little action by the nine nuclear-armed nations – United States, Russia, United Kingdom, France, China, Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea.  All nine countries are modernizing their nuclear arsenals.

    One small Pacific nation, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, has decided to take legal action against the nine nuclear-armed countries, which are threatening our common future.  As Tony de Brum, Foreign Minister of the Marshall Islands, points out, “The continued existence of nuclear weapons and the terrible risk they pose to the world threatens us all.”

    To understand the nature of the legal actions taken by the Marshall Islands, it is necessary to go back in time.  Forty-six years ago, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) was opened for signatures; two years later it entered into force.  The treaty seeks to stop the further spread of nuclear weapons, but it does more.  It also obligates its parties to level the playing field by negotiating in good faith for an end to the nuclear arms race and for nuclear disarmament.  This treaty currently has 190 countries signed on, including five nuclear weapon states and 185 non-nuclear weapon states.

    The Marshall Islands is taking its case to the International Court of Justice in The Hague and, in addition, filing against the U.S. separately in U.S. Federal District Court in San Francisco.  The lawsuits argue that the nuclear disarmament obligations apply to all nine nuclear-armed states as a matter of customary international law.  The courts are being asked in these Nuclear Zero Lawsuits to provide declaratory and injunctive relief, by declaring that the nuclear weapon states are in breach of their obligations under international law and ordering them to begin negotiating in good faith to achieve a cessation of the nuclear arms race and a world with zero nuclear weapons.

    The Marshall Islands has shown courage and boldness by taking action in filing these lawsuits.  It is a country that knows firsthand the consequences of nuclear detonations.  Between 1946 and 1958, the U.S. conducted 67 nuclear weapon tests in the Marshall Islands.  These tests had an equivalent explosive force greater than 1.5 Hiroshima bombs being detonated daily for 12 years.  The Marshall Islanders paid a heavy price in terms of their health and well-being for these destructive tests.

    Now this small island nation is standing up against nine of the most powerful countries on the planet.  It is “David” against the nuclear nine “Goliaths.”  Its field of nonviolent battle is the courtroom.

    The Marshall Islands is, in effect, challenging the nuclear weapon countries to be honorable and fulfill their obligations not only to the rest of the countries that signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, but to all humanity.

    The Republic of the Marshall Islands is offering us a way to live on a planet that is not threatened by nuclear catastrophe due to human fallibility or malevolence. This courageous small island country deserves our strong and unwavering support.

    To find out more about the Nuclear Zero Lawsuits and how you can support them, go to www.nuclearzero.org.

  • Ally Nation Sues United States for Nuclear Treaty Violations

    For Immediate Release

    Contact: Shineh Rhee
    Phone: 646-477-5790
    Email: srhee@fenton.com

    Ally Nation Sues United States for Nuclear Treaty Violations

    Republic of Marshall Islands’ Historic Legal Action, backed by Nobel Laureates, Says U.S. Fails to Keep Commitments

    April 24, 2014 –San Francisco, CA — The Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI) today filed an unprecedented lawsuit in the U.S. Federal District Court in San Francisco to hold the United States government accountable for its flagrant violations of the international nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

    The small island nation, once used as a testing ground for nuclear bombs, says the United States has repeatedly broken its promise to pursue the abolition of nuclear weapons. Article VI of the 1968  Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) requires the U.S. to pursue negotiations “in good faith” for an end to the nuclear arms race “at an early date” and for nuclear disarmament.

    “The failure of the United States to uphold important commitments and respect the law makes the world a more dangerous place,” said Archbishop Desmond Tutu, a vocal backer of the lawsuit. “President Obama has said that ridding the world of these devastating weapons is a fundamental moral issue of our time. It is time for the United States to show true leadership by keeping the promises set forth in the Non-Proliferation Treaty.”

    The Nuclear Zero lawsuit (titled for the NPT promise of a world with zero nuclear weapons) filed today charges the United States with clearly violating its legal obligations by spending outrageous sums of money to enhance its nuclear arsenal and by failing to make real progress in nuclear disarmament.  The U.S. plans to spend an estimated $1 trillion on nuclear weapons in the next three decades and currently possesses nearly half of the world’s 17,300 warheads.

    The Marshall Islands does not seek compensation with the lawsuit. Rather, it seeks declaratory and injunctive relief requiring the United States to comply with its commitments under the treaty and begin clear action towards the agreed upon promises.

    The United States conducted 67 nuclear weapons tests in the Marshall Islands from 1946 to1958 and the health and environmental effects still plague the Marshall Islanders today. The 1954 “Castle Bravo” nuclear test was the largest the U.S. ever conducted – estimated to be 1,000 times more powerful than the bomb that destroyed the city of Hiroshima.

    “Our people have suffered the catastrophic and irreparable damage of these weapons, and we vow to fight so that no one else on earth will ever again experience these atrocities,” said Marshall Islands Foreign Minister Tony de Brum. “The continued existence of nuclear weapons and the terrible risk they pose to the world threatens us all.”

    World leaders, international organizations, world-class experts and Nobel Peace Laureates have declared strong support for the lawsuit and denounced nuclear weapons as immoral (see list on the website). The lawsuits are also supported by the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (NAPF), a U.S.-based civil society organization consulting with the Marshall Islands and its pro bono legal team.

    “Nuclear weapons threaten everyone and everything we love and treasure. They threaten civilization and the human species. After 46 years with no negotiations in sight, it is time to end this madness,” said David Krieger, president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. “ The Marshall Islands is saying enough is enough. It is taking a bold and courageous stand on behalf of all humanity, and we at the Foundation are proud to stand by their side.”

    The lawsuit filed today in U.S. Federal District Court in San Francisco is accompanied by related lawsuits brought in the International Court of Justice in The Hague against all nine nuclear weapons states: United States, Russia, United Kingdom, France, China, Israel, India, Pakistan, and North Korea.

    To learn more about the Nuclear Zero Lawsuits, please go to www.nuclearzero.org.

  • Pacific Nation Challenges Nine Nuclear-Armed States in Lawsuits before the World Court

    For Immediate Release

    Contact: Shineh Rhee
    Phone: 646-477-5790
    Email: srhee@fenton.com

    Pacific Nation Challenges Nine Nuclear-Armed States
    in Lawsuits before the World Court

    Republic of Marshall Islands’ Historic Lawsuits Charge the U.S., Russia, UK, France, China, Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea with Breaches of International Law

    April 24, 2014 –The Hague, Netherlands — The Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI) today filed unprecedented lawsuits in the International Court of Justice to hold the nine nuclear-armed states accountable for flagrant violations of international law with respect to their nuclear disarmament obligations under the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and customary international law.

    The small island nation, which was used for 12 years as a testing ground for nuclear bombs by the United States, says the five original nuclear weapon states – U.S., Russia, UK, France and China – are continuously breaching their legal obligations under the treaty. The lawsuits also contend that all nine nuclear-armed nations are violating customary international law.

    Article VI of the NPT requires states to pursue negotiations “in good faith” on cessation of the nuclear arms race “at an early date” and nuclear disarmament. The five original nuclear weapon states are parties to the treaty but continue to ignore their obligations. The four newer nuclear-armed states – Israel, India, Pakistan, and North Korea – are not parties to the treaty but are bound by these nuclear disarmament provisions under customary international law.

    “Our people have suffered the catastrophic and irreparable damage of these weapons, and we vow to fight so that no one else on earth will ever again experience these atrocities,” said Marshall Islands Foreign Minister Tony de Brum. “The continued existence of nuclear weapons and the terrible risk they pose to the world threaten us all.”

    “The failure of these nuclear-armed countries to uphold important commitments and respect the law makes the world a more dangerous place,” said Archbishop Desmond Tutu, a vocal backer of the lawsuits. “We must ask why these leaders continue to break their promises and put their citizens and the world at risk of horrific devastation. This is one of the most fundamental moral and legal questions of our time.”

    These lawsuits detail the states’ offenses in continuing to modernize their arsenals while failing to negotiate nuclear disarmament. The nuclear-armed states are projected to spend $1 trillion on their arsenals in the next decade.

    The Marshall Islands does not seek compensation with these lawsuits. Rather, it seeks declaratory and injunctive relief requiring the nine nuclear-armed states to comply with their obligations.

    “In 1996, the World Court unanimously held, ‘There exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control.’ The nuclear-armed states have chosen to ignore this ever since and in these cases the Marshall Islands requests the Court to tell them in no uncertain terms that they need to fully meet international obligations,” said Phon van den Biesen, who is heading up the RMI’s international legal team with Tony de Brum.

    Three of the nine states, the UK, India, and Pakistan, accept the compulsory jurisdiction of the World Court when the opposing state equally has done so, as has the Marshall Islands. As to the other six states, the RMI is calling on them to accept the jurisdiction of the Court for this particular case and explain to the Court their positions regarding the nuclear disarmament obligations.

    The United States conducted 67 nuclear weapon tests in the Marshall Islands from 1946 to1958, and the health and environmental effects still plague the Marshall Islanders today. The power of the 1954 “Castle Bravo” nuclear test was 1,000 times greater than the bomb that destroyed the city of Hiroshima.

    World leaders, international non-governmental organizations, world-class experts and Nobel Peace Laureates have declared strong support for these lawsuits and have denounced nuclear weapons as immoral (see list on the website). The lawsuits are also supported by the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (NAPF), a U.S.-based civil society organization consulting with the Marshall Islands and its international pro bono legal team.

    “Nuclear weapons threaten everyone and everything we love and treasure. They threaten civilization and the human species. After 46 years with no negotiations in sight, it is time to end this madness,” said David Krieger, president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. “The Marshall Islands is saying enough is enough. It is taking a bold and courageous stand on behalf of all humanity, and we at the Foundation are proud to stand by their side.”

    The lawsuits filed today in the International Court of Justice in The Hague are accompanied by a related lawsuit brought in U.S. Federal District Court in San Francisco against the United States.

    To learn more about these lawsuits please go to www.nuclearzero.org.

    #    #      #

    The international legal team contact information is as follows:

    • Tony A. de Brum, Co-Agent, Foreign Minister of the RMI
    • Phon van den Biesen, Co-Agent, Attorney at Law at Van den Biesen Kloostra Advocaten, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, http://vdbkadvocaten.eu/en/phon-van-den-biesen-en/, +31652061266
    • Laurie Ashton, Esq., Counsel, Keller Rohrback L.L.P., United States, www.KRComplexLit.com, +1 805.284.6820
    • Nicholas Grief, Counsel, Doughty Street Chambers, London, and Professor of Law, University of Kent, UK, www.doughtystreet.co.uk, +44 7891 460157
    • John Burroughs, Esq., Counsel, Executive Director, Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy, New York City, UN Office of the International Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms, www.lcnp.org, +1 917.439.4585; +1 212.818.1861
    • David Krieger, J.D., Ph.D., Consultant, President of Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, Santa Barbara, California, United States, www.wagingpeace.org, +1 805.965.3443; +1 805.450.4083

  • Missile Launching in the Dark

    This article was originally published by Truthout.

    David KriegerIn the early morning hours of December 17, under cover of darkness, the Air Force launched a Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile from Vandenberg Air Force Base. It was a test of a nuclear-capable missile. Despite the claims of the Air Force, such tests do not make us safer or more secure — only more terrifying to others, and when it comes to nuclear weapons we should be terrifying ourselves. These are weapons that could destroy civilization, and yet we have the hubris to play Russian roulette with them and continue to do so more than 20 years after the end of the Cold War.

    As General Lee Butler, former commander of the US Strategic Command, said, “Nuclear deterrence was and remains a slippery intellectual construct that translates very poorly into the real world of spontaneous crises, inexplicable motivations, incomplete intelligence and fragile human relationships.” We would do well to pay attention to General Butler and get on with the hard and urgent work of negotiating to achieve Nuclear Zero globally, as we are required to do under international law.

    Following the test launch, Lt. Colonel Thomas Vance said, “The test launch is one demonstration of the professionalism and pride all members of Team Malmstrom take in executing our mission.”

    The Air Force seems excessively proud of its ability to have “successfully launched” the nuclear-capable Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile. Is it pride in their ability to obey orders and carry out a mission fully capable of ending civilization should they be called upon to launch nuclear-armed Minuteman III missiles? The Air Force views its test launches as providing “data to ensure a safe, secure and effective nuclear deterrent.” But neither the Air Force nor anyone in authority can assure that nuclear deterrence will be safe, secure or effective.

    Nuclear deterrence itself only provides a hypothesis about human behavior, the hypothesis being that if one threatens to totally destroy another, the other country will refrain from attacking. This hypothesis requires, at a minimum, rational political leaders, and not all political leaders behave rationally at all times and under all circumstances.

    Test launches of ICBMs do not make nuclear weapons safe, secure or effective. The capability to conduct murderous retaliation does not make us safe, should not make us feel secure, and is not effective in protecting us. Rather than protecting Americans, the Air Force is conducting test launches that are provocative, encourage nuclear proliferation and call into question the seriousness of the United States to fulfill its obligation to pursue negotiations in good faith to achieve nuclear disarmament in all its aspects.

  • Nuclear Zero: The Necessary Number

    This article is the introduction to the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s Annual Report.

    David KriegerIn 1945 the first nuclear weapon was tested and, within weeks, the next two nuclear weapons were used by the United States on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

    By 1986 there were over 70,000 nuclear weapons in the world, nearly all in the arsenals of the US and USSR.

    Today there are just over 17,000 nuclear weapons in the world,

    which means that, since the mid-1980s, the world has shed some 50,000 nuclear weapons. That’s progress, but it’s far from sufficient.

    There are still some 2,000 nuclear weapons on hair-trigger alert in the US and Russian arsenals. These weapons are accidents waiting to happen.

    Atmospheric scientists tell us that, in a regional nuclear war between India and Pakistan in which 50 nuclear weapons from each side were exploded on the other side’s cities, enough soot would be put into the stratosphere to block warming sunlight, shorten growing seasons, and cause crop failures leading to a billion deaths by starvation globally. Nuclear famine is only part of the havoc that a “small” nuclear war would cause.

    Zero is the only safe number of nuclear weapons on the planet. It is what the human future requires of us. For the sake of the seven billion inhabitants of our planet, for everyone who matters to each of us, for everything that matters to each of us, we must strive for and achieve Nuclear Zero.

    Another necessary number is One, because each one of us has the power to make a difference with our voice, our actions and our support. When a dedicated portion of the seven billion Ones on the planet are joined together and motivated, they can achieve any great and necessary goal, including Nuclear Zero.

    At the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, we are committed to providing Peace Leadership that emphasizes the Power of One in achieving Nuclear Zero.

  • A Proposal for Achieving Zero Nuclear Weapons

    It is conceded by all hands that we stand at some continuing risk of nuclear war. The risk is possibly not imminent, but it is basically important above all else — for survival. The Defense and Energy Departments together have made promising starts to reduce possession of nuclear weapons, but far more and much faster action is needed.

    Credible report has it that weapons are adrift, potentially available to irresponsible regimes and to terrorists. Independent development by them is not needed to establish threat. The peculiar characteristic of nuclear weaponry is that relative numbers between adversaries mean little. When a target country can be destroyed by a dozen weapons, its own possession of thousands of weapons gains no security. Defense against ballistic missiles is infeasible. What is more, it is irrelevant. Half a dozen non-technical means of delivery are available, in addition to cruise missiles and aircraft.

    The recognized and awful dangers of other weapons of mass destruction, such as chemical and biological, do not compare to nuclear, despite their vileness. On the tremendous and incredible scale of killing, the others are retail as compared to the nuclear’s wholesale; but there need not be competition since all can be — must be — addressed concurrently.

    Drafting a successor to the nuclear arms treaty is purportedly underway. If START III repeats the mistakes of the past, it may well bog down into haggling over relative numbers. More productive can be a process continuing toward total nuclear disarmament, the only way in which both we and the world may be truly secure from nuclear destruction.

    An irony is that in developing and using nuclear weapons, we, the United States, have done the only thing capable of threatening our own national security. We have comparatively weak and friendly neighbors to the north and south, control of the seas, and a powerful air and combat-tested armed forces. We are proof that this in no way diminishes the need, as the world’s single greatest power, for Army, Navy, Air, and Marines capable not only of our own defense, but of intervention abroad in the interest of peace and human rights. These forces do not come into being overnight, but need to be continually developed and supported. The argument for a nuclear component is no longer valid. The time is now for a concrete proposal that meets the problem. Process, as opposed to negotiating numbers, is the basic principle of the proposal that I suggest. It is nothing less than drastic: the continuing reduction to zero of weapons in the hands of avowed nuclear powers, plus an end to the nuclear ambitions of others.

    The proposal: Let weapons be delivered to a single point, there to be dismantled, the nuclear material returned to the donors for use or disposal, and the weapons destroyed. This process, once underway, will be nearly impossible to stop, since its obvious merits, political and substantive, will compel support. The “single point” may well be a floating platform, at sea, in international waters. A handy platform can be an aircraft carrier that has been removed from “mothballs” and disarmed, yet capable of steaming to the desired location and operating support aircraft and ships to handle heavier loads. Living quarters for personnel, ships company, and disarmament processors, would be integral, as would be major protected spaces.

    The US, of course, is the obvious source of a carrier, but there could be international manning, following the precedent of NATO. This would make the American ship politically palatable to the participants and Russia would be handled sensitively. Obvious and major advantages of security, inspection, availability, timing, and cost would ensue. Those regimes and groups not initially participating can be put under enormous pressure to join. Any remaining recalcitrant can be disarmed militarily, this time with a concert of powers. The need for persuasion and understanding of the participating powers is, of course, fundamental, and probably the most difficult requirement to meet. To meet this need of public understanding and consequent action, domestic and foreign, will require that we dispel some common illusions, such as:

    • Is physical defense against nuclear weapons possible? No. What’s more, it’s irrelevant. A half dozen non-technical means of delivery avail.
    • Can nuclear weapons be used in any sensible manner? No. This includes “tactical.”
    • Does nuclear disarmament imperil our security? No. It enhances it.
    • Is deterrence of nuclear or other attack by threat of retaliation still possible? No. The many potential aggressors are scattered — even location unknown. No targets!

    With these illusions dispelled, it becomes evident that nuclear disarmament works to the advantage of every power. Only in this way can the world be made safe from unprecedented murder and destruction. It remains to take the necessary actions. They are feasible and imperative.
    *Admiral Noel Gayler (US Navy, Ret.) is a four-star admiral and served as Commander-in-Chief, Pacific Command (CINCPAC). He was responsible for nuclear attack tactical development and demonstration of nuclear attack tactics to the Chairman and Joint Chiefs.