Waging Peace Today

Why Can't We Say Sorry?

2012-01-26T11:00:00.000-08:00

In Senate Resolution 330, the U.S. Senate has designated January 27, 2012 as "a national day of remembrance for Americans who, during the Cold War, worked and lived downwind from nuclear testing sites and were adversely affected by the radiation exposure generated by the above ground nuclear weapons testing."

The first nuclear test explosion at the Nevada Test Site, 65 miles from Las Vegas, was conducted on January 27, 1951. The United States proceeded to conduct over 1,000 nuclear explosions at the Nevada Test Site over the next 40 years.

I was pleasantly surprised to hear that a resolution with the one line synopsis above was actually passed by this Senate. The U.S. government is admitting that people are adversely affected by nuclear weapons? Our nuclear weapons?

Then I read the full text of the resolution, and my shock turned to dismay. Here are the key lines in the full text:

Whereas the downwinders paid a high price for the development of a nuclear weapons program for the benefit of the United States; and

Whereas the downwinders deserve to be recognized for the sacrifice they have made for the defense of the United States

The downwinders certainly paid a high price for the development of the U.S. nuclear weapons program. Families were torn apart by sickness, death, birth defects and the profound fear that the air they were breathing every day was killing them.

Downwinders were not choosing to make a sacrifice for the defense of the United States; it was forced upon them. They are Native Americans whose families have been on that land for many centuries. They are farmers and ranchers committed to their work in that part of the country. They are poor people who could not have afforded to move to a safer part of the country even if they had been aware of the significant health risks associated with nuclear weapons testing in Nevada.

Here's how a real resolution would look if the Senators actually cared about the people who suffered the consequences of nuclear testing:

Be it resolved that:

(1) The Senate sincerely apologizes for the death, destruction and heartache caused by nearly five decades of nuclear weapons testing in Nevada, New Mexico, the Marshall Islands and other Pacific islands;

(2) The Senate will work to immediately ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, which we unwisely rejected in 1999;

(3) The United States will fully cover all medical issues that arise in downwinders due to the U.S. nuclear testing regime and compensate them for their losses; and

(4) The United States will immediately commence a full environmental cleanup of the Nevada Test Site, Pacific islands and all affected communities.

Nuclear Power? No Way!

2012-01-25T13:48:00.000-08:00

It has been about five months since I left the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation team to return to Savannah, Georgia to finish my degree in political science. Since the nuclear meltdown at Fukushima, I have been paying close attention to the post-disaster living conditions in the surrounding area; especially since one of NAPF’s former interns, Olivia, traveled to Japan for a study abroad. This past summer I specifically remember her researching the conditions in Japan and reassuring the NAPF staff that she would not be at risk for radiation exposure of any kind. We all felt a sigh of relief; if only it was that simple.

A recent article in the Economist revealed that living conditions following the Fukushima disaster were not as they seemed. A privately funded foundation, headed by Yoichi Funabashi, has been working on an investigation using the testimony of Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) whistle-blowers. To make matters worse, sources note that the amount of radioactive materials released from the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant has actually increased since December. 48 out of the 54 nuclear reactors in Japan remain out of service due to safety concerns. If these facts do not make us question our own nuclear energy issues, I don’t know what will.

Within the United States, the Indian Point nuclear power plant in Westchester County, New York has been a major source of controversy, and for good reason. Not only has New York Governor Cuomo advocated closing the plant for years, but also the Huffington Post recently disclosed that the plant’s location on a fault line makes it extremely susceptible to an earthquake or natural disaster. In the words of philosopher and poet, George Santayana, “Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”

For more information on the dangers of nuclear power, check out NAPF’s “Nuclear Energy Issues” segment on Nuclear Files.org.

War Corrupts

2012-01-18T16:28:00.000-08:00

This guest blog post was written by Robert Laney.

Hillary Clinton and Leon Panetta may protest until they are blue in the face that the videotape showing four Marines desecrating Afghani corpses does not reflect the values of the American people or their Armed Forces. Unfortunately this videotape is merely the latest addition to a body of evidence which shows that inhumane and barbaric attitudes persist in the U.S. Armed Forces. In my opinion the important questions presented by this videotape are (1) how widespread and virulent are these tendencies today, (2) how many similar instances of inhumane conduct by the Armed Forces in Iraq and Afghanistan have never been videotaped and publicized, and (3) how may the life experiences of these four Marines, both prior to and during their military service, help explain their conduct in this instance.

We might also reflect upon the facts that these four Marines are products of our society and educational system and, according to Marine Corps regulations, had never been convicted of a serious crime prior to their enlistment. Certain additional questions therefore come to mind. (4) To what extent do the more violent and inhumane aspects of American culture condition young minds toward inhumane tendencies after they put on the uniform? (5) To what extent does military combat training (in this case training to kill with long-range sniper rifles) tend to dehumanize the characters of young people in uniform? (6) And to what extent do the terrors of actual combat apply the coup de grace to whatever empathy young soldiers may feel toward the enemy or indeed toward anyone other than their immediate comrades and their loved ones at home?

After Abu Ghraib and other revelations of misconduct, we should not be surprised by this latest instance of barbarism by young Americans in uniform. These latest official pleas about the ethical standards of “the vast majority” of the Armed Forces cause one to sense that our leaders either are out of touch with all-too-common attitudes within the U.S. military and indeed within the larger population, or they wish to suppress what they know or suspect and to know nothing more. Instead of endless praise of all but a few “bad apples” in the military, what we need from our officials are answers to these questions and a frank acknowledgment of mankind’s long experience that war tends to corrupt everyone it touches.

Accidents Happen?

2012-01-17T12:38:00.000-08:00

"Accidents happen. That's what they say."
-- Grover

My two year-old daughter is in full potty training mode, and right now her favorite video is Sesame Street's "Elmo's Potty Time." Unfortunately this means that the soundtrack plays over and over in my head. One of the catchiest songs is "Accidents Happen" (quoted above). The conclusion of the song is that accidents happen, and that's ok.

The other world in which I reside, where I work every day for the abolition of nuclear weapons, is full of examples where accidents are not ok. One such example is the Palomares accident, which happened on this day in 1966.

On this day in the middle of the Cold War, a U.S. B-52 bomber carrying four nuclear weapons collided in mid-air with a KC-135 refueling tanker plane, causing both planes to crash. One of the B-52's nuclear weapons was recovered on the ground and another was found after a months-long search in the sea. The other two nuclear weapons have never been found.

While this accident did not result in a full-scale nuclear explosion, it contaminated a large area with an unknown amount of plutonium. To this day, local residents are fighting the U.S. government to clean up the area, monitor residents' health and compensate them for the accident. For more information on the local struggle, click here.

A long list of significant nuclear accidents is available on the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation's Nuclear Files website.

Nevada Test Site: Ho-Hum

2011-10-27T12:46:00.000-07:00

A great example of the trivialization
of what has gone on at the Test Site.

The Nevada Test Site tour was an eye-opening endeavor in many ways. Seeing the remnants of our nuclear testing regime was shocking. What struck me over and over from the moment we left Las Vegas on the bus early in the morning was the "ho-hum" attitude of our tour guides, the nonchalance with which they presented a selected set of facts and other statements about the test site and the long-term effects of radiation and nuclear waste.

I suppose that to live with yourself as a NTS lifer, you must force yourself to believe that what has gone on there over the past 60 years has been of great benefit to the country, or at least not particularly damaging. I will give some examples of how this attitude came across.

"This will be a DOE site forever," the nuclear waste site manager told us. The test site is located on land taken from the Western Shoshone. The tribe has many sacred sites within the boundaries of the test site. To have scarred the land so extensively and to leave poisons that will last for untold generations is an insult to the Western Shoshone past, present and future and all of us who share this earth. It would cost an estimated $7.3 trillion to properly clean up the test site.

"I’m not sure." The radioactive waste dump at the Nevada Test Site accepts waste from around the United States as well as from other parts of the site itself. One of my colleagues asked the manager of the dump how much radioactive waste is stored there. She said that she was not sure, and she did not indicate that this lack of knowledge led her to lose any sleep at night. They also seem to have no plans to mark the disposal site so that people centuries from now might understand the dangers inherent in the masses of waste buried there.

Other examples of the sterilization of the subject included:

The tour guide’s explanation of how nuclear tests were named. He said that they had "a lot of fun with it" – they named tests after wines, cheeses and cars. The lab guys would bring in a bottle of the type of wine that the test was named after to celebrate.
Explaining the Sedan Crater, he said that the explosion moved enough dirt that in a concrete equivalent would build two Hoover Dams with enough left over for a large housing development. He also showed us an old Livermore Lab propaganda video about this explosion that applauded the fact that "only" 4% of the radiation was released into the atmosphere. To his credit, after the video our guide said that he is glad the US never utilized earth moving nuclear explosions because with radiation, "four percent of a hell of a lot is still a hell of a lot."
"Tritium is not so bad." Our guide repeatedly downplayed the gravity of tritium in the groundwater. For example, he said that some workers didn’t mind being exposed to tritium-laced water because they could just flush it out of their bodies by drinking a couple of six-packs of beer.

As discouraging as it was to experience first-hand the trivialization of the world’s most destructive and deadly weapons, it was also enlightening to see the site firsthand. More than anything, this experience has reinforced my belief that nuclear weapons testing must be banned forever and that we must urgently achieve a Nuclear Weapons Convention for the phased, verifiable, irreversible and transparent elimination of all nuclear weapons.

Can the "Superpowers" Abolish Nuclear Weapons?

2011-10-06T10:16:00.000-07:00

One of the arguments I often hear from supporters of nuclear weapons and skeptics of nuclear disarmament in the United States is that Russia would never agree to fully abolish nuclear weapons, so there is no reason to even pursue it.

Next week (October 11-12) is the 25th anniversary of the Reykjavik Summit, where Presidents Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev came close to an agreement to abolish all strategic nuclear weapons within 10 years.

Can you imagine? In the thick of the Cold War, the Presidents of the United States and the Soviet Union seriously discussed getting rid of all of their nuclear weapons, and almost accomplished it. Of course, there would have been a lot of details to work out - among them tactical nuclear weapons and missile defense (Reagan's insistence upon missile defense is what ultimately derailed the summit).

So why is it that now, 20 years after the Cold War ended, there are still over 20,000 nuclear weapons in the world? Why do the US and Russia each have about 1,000 nuclear weapons on high-alert? Come on, President Obama and Prime Minister Medvedev. If Reagan and Gorbachev can almost accomplish it, certainly you can at least start talking about it! A Nuclear Weapons Convention for the phased, verifiable, irreversible and transparent elimination of nuclear weapons is within reach if the leaders will lead.

For more background on the Reykjavik Summit of 1986, see NAPF President David Krieger's essay "Looking Back at Reykjavik."

This Story Just Couldn't Wait

2011-09-29T12:01:00.000-07:00

I'm currently working on the October issue of The Sunflower newsletter, which will be published on October 3. As with every issue of The Sunflower, this one is filled with important stories on key nuclear issues. But this story is so extraordinary, so brazen, that I just couldn't wait until Monday for people to read it.

Thanks to my colleagues in the Alliance for Nuclear Accountability, Tom Clements of Friends of the Earth and Ralph Hutchison of the Oak Ridge Environmental Peace Alliance, for breaking this story.

_____________________________________________

The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) and the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) have announced a plan to increase tritium production by 50% at the Watts Bar "civilian" nuclear power plant. Tritium is a key component of nuclear weapons, boosting the explosive power of fission and thermonuclear weapons.

In the announcement of the proposed 50% increase in production, NNSA also admitted that current tritium production is releasing three to four times the amount of tritium into the Tennessee River as originally estimated. NNSA also admits that tritium demand has been less than they originally expected.

Ralph Hutchison, coordinator of the Oak Ridge Environmental Peace Alliance, said, "Our use of commercial nuclear facilities to produce nuclear materials for weapons has sent a powerful, clear and dangerous signal to the rest of the world. It has undermined our efforts to constrain weapons production activities, crossed a once-impermeable boundary [between civilian and military facilities], and diminished our security."

Hutchison also said, "With the likely prospect of additional arms control agreements, and budget constraints leading to calls for a reduction in the bloated US strategic reserve (the 5,000 or so warheads we keep in the garage in case we ever use up our 1,500 deployed warheads and need more), the need for tritium will continue to decline. Still these agencies are proposing a 50% increase in production!"

Sept. 21: Peace 1, Nuclear Missiles 0

2011-09-16T15:13:00.000-07:00

I just got word that the US Air Force has postponed the planned test of a Minuteman III nuclear missile. It was originally scheduled for September 21, the International Day of Peace. The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, together with organizations around the world and many thousands of our supporters, worked hard to register our ardent opposition to this test.

Of course there has been no government statement saying, "We were wrong to schedule this test on the International Day of Peace and now recognize the problems inherent in our continued reliance on missile testing and nuclear weapons." Nor will there ever be such a statement. But we should all be proud of our work against this test, and we must continue to spread the message that the only to stay safe from a nuclear attack is to implement a Nuclear Weapons Convention for the phased, verifiable, transparent and irreversible elimination of all nuclear weapons worldwide.

Anti-Nuclear Resisters in Court

2011-09-15T15:27:00.000-07:00

I just got back from court. I went in support of two dedicated protestors, Father Louis Vitale and Dennis Apel, who were arrested at Vandenberg Air Force Base for "trespassing," even though they were in the designated protest zone the whole time. The whole "designated protest zone" concept is outrageous in and of itself, but for the base security to arrest these men on a public highway was nothing more than an attempt at intimidation.

The judge granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the case, so the charges have been dropped. The defendants and others plan to be back at Vandenberg on September 21 to protest the next nuclear missile launch on the International Day of Peace.

While the anti-nuclear resisters in California were let off by the legal system this time, a group in Tennessee is facing a more uphill battle. Below is an article by John LaForge that bears repeating:
__________________________________________________________________

Bonnie Urfer, 59, of Luck, Wis., is being sentenced in federal court in Knoxville, Tenn., today, even though she’s been in federal custody ever since her May 11 trespassing conviction. A long-time nuclear weapons resister and nonviolence trainer, she’s spent most of the last four months in a private, for-profit jail in southeast Georgia. [Bonnie Urfer (Nuke Watch.org)] Bonnie Urfer (Nuke Watch.org)

After working for Nukewatch for 25 years, Bonnie’s learned something about nuclear weapons and she’s done more than four years in jail for peacefully resisting them. She joined 12 others in walking onto the property of the Y12 nuclear weapons fabrication complex in Oak Ridge, Tenn., in 2010. Convicted of the federal misdemeanor with the others, she could get a year in prison.

A gifted graphic artist, Bonnie always says, “I are not a writer.” But her sentencing statement, written for presiding Magistrate Bruce Guyton is worth repeating. She titled it, “So Many Crimes, So Little Time":

“To the Court: One of the most unpleasant things in life is to go to jail. But because they are places with some of the worst human rights violations in one of the most unjust systems, it is important that people know what happens in them. We need people in jails who have a voice, and people who know to tell the truth.

“In the past 126 days I have been booked into three different jails. The hardest part of the experience is being just one person in the midst of so much systematic crime.

“I have a decision to make.

“Do I refocus and put my energy into exposing the on-going crime of medical negligence in these jails? Do I begin a campaign to highlight the illegal starvation diet in the Blount County jail, for which no one has been arrested? Do I join the effort to condemn the practice of overcharging mostly dirt poor inmates for phone calls, and commissary, so that corporations and counties receive greater kickbacks? Should I add my voice to those in this courthouse who show up protesting unjust sentences for nonviolent conspiracy charges? Or should I spend all of my time researching how many prosecutors, judges, attorneys, court clerks and law enforcement personnel who hold stock in the private prison industry, commissary companies, phone providers or medical contractors in these human warehouses? I see so many literal and moral crimes, and I’m just one person.

“My final answer is none of the above. I will continue to resist the ultimate crime of nuclear weapons and their production here and around the world.

“I heartily disagree with this court that Y12’s production of nuclear bombs does not equate to imminent nuclear war. I can tell you about the women I met in the jails who lost family members from cancer after exposure to radiation while working at Y12. The government pays $150,000 to those with cancer or to their family after a death, if they can prove Y12’s liability. Thousands of people are dead or dying from weapons production. How many deaths does it take to convince the courts that Y12 is killing its own in a nuclear war? How many does it take to name it a crime? In my mind — just one.

“I have just one life and there is so much to do.

“It doesn’t matter what my sentence is. If I am returned to jail, I’ll expose more crimes. If I am set free, I’ll expose more crimes.

“Now, it is your decision.” — Bonnie Urfer, Ocilla, Georgia

The Anomaly of Budget Increases in a "Debt Crisis"

2011-09-13T14:33:00.000-07:00

We've all heard the Beltway mantra this year: "Cut the budget. Cut the budget."

When push comes to shove, what does this really mean? If powerful lawmakers can exempt extraordinarily wasteful and unnecessary projects from budget cuts while further slashing the already-meager budgets of other important projects that enhance society, what does that say about the priorities of those we have left in charge?

In an all-too-common display of pork politics, Rep. Martin Heinrich (D-NM) has asked President Obama to declare a funding "anomaly" for a list of nuclear weapon programs. In the likely event that Congress can't agree on the FY2012 budget by October 1, the government will likely continue to run on a Continuing Resolution (CR), meaning that most programs will be funded at their 2011 level for the duration of the CR. The anomaly would fund certain parts of the nuclear weapons complex at the higher 2012 levels during the CR. This money would largely go to the Los Alamos and Sandia National Laboratories in New Mexico.

Heinrich is joined by Rep. Michael Turner (R-OH), Chair of the House Armed Forces Strategic Forces subcommittee. In their letter to President Obama, the two lawmakers write that the anomaly is needed to keep "on track the tight schedule for infrastructure modernization and life extensions of our current warhead types."

Turner wrote In a recent blog post entitled To Remain a World Leader, U.S. Must Stop Mounting Debt, "If Congress and the President do not work together to stunt the unsustainable growth of our debt, the consequences will be grave."

Sorry, Rep. Turner. You can't have it both ways. Squandering billions on new nuclear weapons production facilities and stunting the unsustainable growth of our debt are not compatible. The only anomaly I see here is that such a request can be made by anyone with a straight face.

What Hypocrisy?

2011-09-08T13:47:00.000-07:00

Breaking news from the United Nations Security Council: The United States, the UK, France and Germany have formally charged Iran with violating Security Council Resolution 1929, which bars Iran from undertaking ballistic missile activity. Apparently the activity in question is Iran's recent launch of its Rasad 1 satellite, which relies on ballistic missile technology.

Fair enough, right? I don't think Iran should be developing, testing or deploying ballistic missiles that are capable of carrying nuclear warheads.

But wait! The US Air Force has scheduled its next test of its Minuteman III Intercontinental Ballistic Missile for September 21 - the International Day of Peace. The US has test-fired the Minuteman III over 200 times since its introduction into the US nuclear arsenal in the 1970s. As David Krieger wrote in a recent opinion piece, "The US approach to nuclear-capable missile testing seems to be 'do as I say, not as I do.' This is unlikely to hold up in the long run."

If the US, UK, France and Germany would spend as much time and energy pursuing the global conditions necessary for the abolition of all nuclear weapons as they do pursuing hypocritical UN Security Council resolutions, we would all be better off.

By the way, you can take action to oppose the September 21 launch of the US nuclear missile at this link.

A Struggle for Democracy

2011-08-30T10:39:00.000-07:00

Big things have been happening in Kansas City, Missouri over the past few months. For decades, the Kansas City Plant has manufactured the vast majority of non-nuclear components for the US nuclear arsenal. For the first time in the long history of nuclear proliferation around the world, a new plant was proposed that would be effectively owned by a city, financed through $815 million in municipal bonds. An inspiring group of citizens, calling themselves the Kansas City Peace Planters, has resisted this proposal with a welcome degree of success thus far.

The Peace Planters have engaged in civil disobedience at the construction site of the new plant, calling for the new plant to engage in green energy work instead of destructive nuclear weapons work. This has brought media attention to the issue and has increased public awareness of the outrageous proposal to build new nuclear weapons facilities 20 years after the end of the Cold War.

Perhaps the biggest success of the Peace Planters so far is their proposed ballot initiative for the Kansas City elections in November 2011. The initiative proposes to ban production of nuclear weapons components in Kansas City and in its place promote jobs in renewable energy. The Peace Planters have painstakingly followed all of the rules to get this initiative before the voters, but the City Council is trying prevent voters from having their say, claiming that the ballot initiative is unconstitutional.

The issue is currently before the courts, and just Friday a judge issued a temporary order in favor of the Peace Planters. We will certainly be keeping our eyes on this story - will democracy prevail, or will the misguided reliance on nuclear weapons trump all else?

Click here for more background information on the Kansas City Plant issue. For updates on the current situation in the courts, click here.

International Day Against Nuclear Tests

2011-08-29T10:22:00.000-07:00

Craters from nuclear tests
at the Nevada Test Site

Today, the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s Geneva branch hosted a seminar commemorating the International Day against Nuclear Tests in conjunction with the UN Mission of Kazakhstan. The International Day against Nuclear Tests – August 29 – was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly last year at the urging of Kazakhstan.

Today’s seminar looked at the history of the Semipalatinsk test site in Kazakhstan, where the Soviet Union conducted 456 nuclear tests, causing untold damage to the land and downwind inhabitants. Kazakhstan closed the Semipalatinsk site 20 years ago today. The seminar also examined the importance of ratifying the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which still needs ratification from a few key nations, including the United States, to enter into force.

I am traveling to Las Vegas in October for the fall meeting of the Alliance for Nuclear Accountability. As part of our meeting, we will take a tour of the Nevada Test Site, where the United States conducted 1,021 nuclear detonations between 1953 and 1992. The pictures of the Nevada Test Site (like the one above) and the testimony of those living downwind from the Nevada Test Site are shocking and sad. I’m sure that a visit in person to the test site will add another layer of strength to my belief that nuclear testing must be stopped forever, and a just compensation paid to the victims of nuclear testing around the world.

The Power of Voice

2011-08-01T09:38:00.000-07:00

As some of you know we are just around the corner from the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s 17^th annual Sadako Peace Day. While this day holds special significance for us at the Foundation, it also serves as a reminder of our role as a human race to wage peace and use our voices as a source of power.

When we think back about the great peace leaders in history they all seem to recognize one thing: the power of voice. I mean think about it- What would the world be like if on August 28^th 1963 Martin Luther King Jr. only thought, “I have a dream.” What about if in 1873 Susan B. Anthony decided that giving a speech on women’s right to vote would be better left unsaid? After all, she had just been arrested for casting an illegal vote in the presidential election.

German-Swiss poet and novelist, Herman Hesse, once said “Everything becomes a little different as soon as it is spoken out loud.” And he’s right; the power of voice is the best tool we have to stand up for what we believe in. It is able to transcend time, promote social change, and advocate a safer nuclear-weapons free world for generations to come.

So I have to admit, when I first learned about the power of voice I was skeptical. I thought, 'sure it must be easy to inspire and unite the masses once you have perfected the art of oratory like John F. Kennedy or Malcom X, but most of us have not mastered the skills of communication.' That is where Sadako Sasaki comes in.

Sadako Sasaki was only two-years old when the atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima. Ten years later she was diagnosed with leukemia and made it her dying wish to spread peace on the wings of 1000 paper cranes. This courageous little girl said, “I will write peace on your wings, and you will fly all over the world.” Sadako was not a professional speaker or wizard of words, but she was able to able to leave her legacy through her heartfelt message and compassion for humanity. And like the great peace leaders throughout history, she recognized the power of her own voice.

Since Sadako’s death, children and adults from countries all over the world honor her spirit by creating paper cranes as symbols of peace. Many of them even travel to the Children’s Peace Monument in Hiroshima where they bring their own folded paper cranes as a message of peace and desire for the abolition of nuclear weapons. In memory of Sadako let us be reminded that we can protect our world through the power of our own voice, no matter how average that voice may be.

“One Giant Leap for Mankind."

2011-07-20T15:49:00.000-07:00

How amazing it is that 42 years ago, 240,000 miles from Earth Neil Armstrong became the first human to walk on the moon. While history sometimes regards the Moon landing as a victory for the United States, it is important that we recognize this accomplishment as a triumph for humanity. Entertain this thought for a moment: what if instead of the American flag, Neil Armstrong dug an ‘Earth flag’ into the Moon’s surface? I know I know I can’t rewrite history, but here at the Foundation we believe that only when we overlook boundaries and identify ourselves as inhabitants of one Earth will we truly be able to wage peace on a global scale.

Fun Fact: It turns out that 73 world leaders did in fact share the victory of the Moon landing- at least in spirit. Today I came across an article on Space.com called “The Untold Story: How One Small Disc Carried One Giant Message for Mankind.” The article said that prior to the Moon landing the U.S. State Department authorized NASA to collect messages of peace and good will from 73 leaders of the world's nations. These microscopic messages were etched into a tiny silicone disc about the size of a half-dollar. Buzz Aldrin then carried the disk in his spacesuit's sleeve pocket before leaving it on the Moon. Here are a few of the messages:

“On this unique occasion when man traverses outer space to set foot on Earth’s nearest neighbor, Moon, I send my greetings and good wishes to the brave astronauts who have launched on this great venture. I fervently hope that this event will usher in an era of peaceful endeavor for all mankind." Indira Gandhi, prime minister of India

"This is a message from black militants. It is a message of human solidarity, a message of peace. In this first visit to the Moon, rather than a victory of technology we salute a victory of human will: research and progress, but also brotherhood." Léopold Sédar Senghor, president of Senegal

"On behalf of the British people I salute the skill and courage which have brought man to the moon. May this endeavor increase the knowledge and well-being of mankind." The Queen

“Live Long and Prosper”

2011-07-18T16:19:00.000-07:00

I have to admit when I hear these words it’s hard not to picture the stereotypical Sci-Fi convention equipped with futuristic space costumes and Vulcan salutes. And I’m not alone; the Simpsons, Futurama, and even Family Guy have all poked fun at Star Trek at one time or another, but in this case imitation truly is the most sincere form of flattery. Trekkers everywhere will tell you that laced deep within the interstellar adventures of Starfleet Academy are teachings of loyalty, tolerance, and social responsibility that transcend both time ‘and space.’

NAPF’s Peace Leadership Director Paul Chappell recently sent me a radio interview called, “Star Trek and Peace” and I have to say: I get it. While the show’s creator, Gene Roddenberry originally sold the idea for Star Trek as a ‘Western in outer space,’ the only showdowns we see on the frontier are those concerning peace, war, and morality. When describing the theme of the show Roddenberry says, "It speaks to some basic human needs, that there is a tomorrow - it's not all going to be over in a big flash and a bomb, that the human race is improving, that we have things to be proud of as humans. No, ancient astronauts did not build the pyramids - human beings built them because they're clever and they work hard. And 'Star Trek' is about those things."

And he’s right. Not only does Starfleet Academy represent a hard-working peacekeeping navy, but it unites both aliens and humans alike to benefit the greater good. When faced with moral dilemmas like ‘just war’ and self-defense, Star Trek forces us to self-reflect and ask “in combating evil, how much evil can we do ourselves?” This reoccurring theme is often paired with the idea that what we leave behind is just as important as how we lived.

The show also tackles the issue of nuclear weapons. In an episode called “The Doomsday Machine” the USS Enterprise crew encounters a powerful device built to destroy both sides in a war. Although it was intended only as a deterrent (sound familiar?) the device ended up being activated and destroying its creators. The episode originally aired in 1967; does anyone else find it odd that the theme is just as prevalent over forty years later?

Egyptian Protests and Lessons on Waging Peace

2011-07-14T15:23:00.001-07:00

If the average American looked deep enough into their newspaper today, they may have thought they were experiencing déjà vu. For, hidden amongst talks of national debt, a war in Libya, and debates about the future of nuclear energy is a rather peculiar story about Egypt. Nearly six months after the fall of Hosni Mubarak, Egyptians have returned to Tahrir square in droves to protest. For them, the government has not done enough to protect the rights of its citizens or bring justice to oppressors.

There is a lot we can learn from this move. While many Americans are disaffected by how little changes in the United States, Egyptians are reminding us of so many lessons we have forgotten. As Egyptians are becoming the masters of waging peace, here are five lessons we can carry away from their success:

1. Prepare and Educate

When protests were first being organized in Tahrir Square, one of the biggest challenges was getting people out. Not only did some fear being attacked by the government for protesting, many others were faced with daily indoctrination by state-run news.

To resolve these issues, organizers of the protests had to prepare. Months in advance, these protesters spent countless hours gathering support, spreading the message, and hyping the protests. They passed along messages and videos that were based in factual evidence with proof that the government was lying, the press was lying, and that Egyptian rights were being repressed.

When the protests started, many organizers spent time pushing intelligent leaders to the front of the movement to drive the message. Mohamed ElBaradei was one such leader. Others spent time educating protesters about democracy, rule of law, and checks and balances. Today, if you go to the protesters at Tahrir square, a tent sits in the middle of the protests filled with books and digital literature on democracy and law.

Today, peace leaders have failed to gain this sort of traction. Instead of focusing on facts and spending a good amount of time preparing, peace movements all too often resort to emotion and partisan politics.

2. Remain Persistent

The average protest in the United States lasts one day. Organizers send out invitations, rent space, hire bands and speakers, and chant their message from outside the Capitol. At the end of a few hours, everybody packs up and returns home.

Egyptians proved that their cause mattered to them by remaining persistent. It took less than 1% of the population just 18 days to peacefully bring down a dictator who controlled their country for 30 years. Their persistence didn’t stop there, either. When the interim government refused to lift emergency law, protesters returned to the streets. When that same government banned protests, the people protested even more. Now, when they fail to prosecute those who committed crimes in the Mubarak regime, Egyptians turned out to the streets with every intent of staying until their needs are met.

Today, it would be newsworthy if an American protest lasted longer than a weekend.

3. Control the Message

One of the biggest failures of people fighting for a cause is controlling their message. Interested in gaining numbers, we oftentimes allow for more radical and extreme elements to enter our movements and make some noise. This destroys the peace movement’s credibility.

Egyptians were faced with the exact same problem. As they drove back the police and took control of Cairo for the people, several renegades began ransacking shops and vandalizing the city. The protesters, knowing Mubarak would try and paint their movement as violent and unruly to justify his crackdown, responded firmly. They set up an ad hoc policing system where vandals and thieves were put under citizen’s arrest and placed in makeshift jails. Regular citizens took turns guarding prisoners. Once order was restored and Mubarak had been ousted, the prisoners were freed and protesters spent several days sweeping the streets and cleaning the city.

The protests in Tahrir square today have become even more impressive. Organizers have blocked off the square from traffic and set up checkpoints at each end. When someone wishes to join the protest, they are searched for weapons, drugs, stolen goods, and contraband. A media tent has been established where reporters are welcome to come and gain insight from the organizers and interview individuals representative of the protest’s message.

4. Be Results-Driven

There is only one thing that matters when a protest organizes, and that is results. However, protests today seem to be deemed successes by an entirely different variable: numbers. In a world of satellites and statistics, opposing viewpoints are declared victors solely on how many people come to their rally. And, of course, nothing changes.

The Egyptian protesters are results-driven. Big numbers might get media attention, but a lack of attention hasn’t prevented Egyptians from creating real and effective change. As the government realizes how little it can do without the will of the people and gives concessions, the Egyptians only grow more confident that they can receive everything they deserve.

________________________________________________________________

Do Americans have the capacity to return to our roots of waging peace? Do we have the will to make our needs heard? The answer seems to be a resounding “yes,” for, in a microcosm of what is going on in Egypt, the citizens of Wisconsin displayed many of the above qualities to fight for their rights. Peace warriors should take heed of this development and strive to implement these very policies elsewhere.

All of these qualities are what it takes to be an effective peace warrior. Each leads to more results, and each leads to greater confidence and results. As one protester put it: “We don’t request anymore: we give orders.”

Science, Religion, and...Peace?

2011-07-13T11:24:00.000-07:00

British Chemist Peter Atkins once said, "Science is almost totally incompatible with religion." While I do not doubt his expertise (the man literally wrote the book on Molecular Quantum Mechanics) I’m going to have to disagree with him on this one. Yes religion is based on beliefs unlike science which relies on hard facts, but what if the two ‘opposites’ had much more in common than we thought? And what if the similarities between them could be used to further our understanding of humanity and peace?

The first time I really sat down and thought about the relationship between science and religion was after watching Ron Howard’s commentary on the book-based movie “Angels and Demons.” He said “We are all just trying to understand the universe,” and he’s right. This longing to understand the universe is what made the 14^th Dalai Lama vow that his spirituality and respect for science would never be at odds with each other. It is also the reason that Albert Einstein extensively studied the life of Gandhi, one of the greatest spiritual leaders of all time.

Our shared interest in understanding the universe can serve as a vital tool for promoting peace and acceptance. I recently watched a satellite interview of Pope Benedict XVI and the International Space Station crew. The Pope’s first question was “how can science affect peace?” The crew responded that when you understand how fragile and beautiful the planet is you have a new-found appreciation for all inhabitants of the earth. The Pope then acknowledged that scientific exploration is an adventure of the human spirit; one that instills hope and appreciation for all mankind.

Well my friends, you heard it from the Pope himself. Not only are science and religion compatible, but when used together they can create a powerful force that promotes peace and acceptance.

Nuclear Power Plant Safety?

2011-07-12T16:51:00.000-07:00

Last week, I heard a report on NPR that was surprising, but all too familiar in today’s age where greed fuels politics. Recently Japan raised the danger level rating of the Fukushima disaster to a level 7, the highest level on the International Nuclear Event Scale, putting it on the same level as Chernobyl. The severity of this recent crisis has called into question the safety of U.S. nuclear power plants. An extensive investigation recently conducted by the AP revealed that U.S. reactors are much less safe than they appear to be. Over 30% of U.S. reactors are first generation reactors just like those at the Fukushima plant. This means that many of our reactors are almost 50 years old, and during the past years many have avoided significant repairs.

It is a fact of life that over time things wear down, and nuclear reactors are no different. Metals rust, concrete crumbles and pipes leak, which allow for accidents to more easily occur. Not only are many of the reactors in the U.S. old, but many of them have slid through the cracks due to corrupt or lax safety inspections. Here’s how: the government and nuclear power industry have been working together to re-adjust regulations or tweak risk assessments in order to make the plants appear safe in the eyes of the public. Nuclear power plants cost billions of dollars to build, but call for additional funding in order to keep them running efficiently and safely. In order to avoid high repair costs and still pass safety inspections and regulations, energy companies have built close ties with the Nuclear Regulation Committee (NRC). The NRC has repeatedly argued that safety measures are too strict and could be easily loosened without causing any harm. As safety measures are relaxed, reactors begin to wear down, which is able to occur unnoticed. For example, the picture above shows a 5-by-5-inch hole in a section cut from the top of the reactor vessel at the Davis-Besse nuclear plant in Ohio. The hole was a result of boric acid, which leaked from inside the reactor due to cracks in the vessel head. Only three-eighths of an inch of steel cladding remained, which according to the NRC could have resulted in a reactor breach in as little as two months. Fortunately, this hole was discovered before an accident occurred, but three-eighths of an inch is cutting it too close.

It is time that our government places the safety of our citizens above costs. It is depressing to see that time and time again, the government values cutting costs over saving lives and implementing safety measures. The U.S. government not only needs to tighten safety standards and conduct more outside audits, we need to follow other countries who are investing in other safer forms of renewable energy such as wind and solar power. The Japanese government says it will make up the loss of its nuclear future with solar power and other renewable energies. Countries such as Germany, Italy, and Switzerland have also halted many of their nuclear power programs. It is time for the U.S. to re-think its energy programs and focus on safety and sustainability.

hhttp://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=137291169
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=137440797

"Secrecy"

2011-07-11T16:26:00.000-07:00

For those of you who don’t know, Sunday is 'Netflix documentary day.' Since coming to Santa Barbara I have made a habit of waking up early on Sundays and getting all the day’s work done in the morning so by the time 3:00 rolls around, I can lose myself in countless hours of instant cinematic gratification. Yesterday’s pick was a 2008 film directed by two Harvard University professors called, “Secrecy.” In addition to detailing the history of government confidentiality from its origins in the 1940s, the film features countless gripping interviews with former CIA and national security experts on the topic. Popcorn anyone?

The most compelling concept I took from "Secrecy" was that despite what we are told, classification does not always promote national security. In fact, in many cases over-classification can actually make us less secure and even violate the rule of law. There is no greater example of this than the Manhattan Project. In addition to being the pinnacle of modern government confidentiality, the Manhattan Project demonstrated how secrecy can be used as a tool to keep a large amount of power in a small amount of hands.

As head of the Manhattan Project, General Leslie Groves was largely responsible for the strict censorship of information. Many of the scientists working on the project disagreed with his idea of compartmentalization because it restricted the free exchange of ideas; a concept that was essential for scientific discovery. Even today over fifty years later much of the nuclear industry is held to Groves’ standard of confidentiality. "Secrecy" even pointed out that in a single recent year the United States classified about five times the number of pages added to the Library of Congress. FIVE TIMES! That means that I can only know about 20% of what my government is doing. Scary thought.

There is a reason that Gandhi regarded secrecy as the enemy of freedom and if you watch this documentary, you will see why. For further reading on government secrecy, check out the Project on Government Secrecy by the Federation of American Scientists. This project promotes public oversight in national security affairs and provides some thought-provoking insight on the United States’ classification policies.

A Scoop of Philanthropy

2011-07-05T12:19:00.000-07:00

Ahh the Fourth of July. For many of us, Independence Day involves backyard barbecues, trips to the beach, and lots of fireworks. While these things are all very nice, there is one essential ingredient that all Fourth of July celebrations must have: ice cream. I know, it’s not the first thing that comes to mind while contemplating the birth of the United States, but would you believe that Thomas Jefferson actually requested a scoop of ice cream while writing the Declaration of Independence? Ok I made that up, but if it were true it would certainly help me transition into the next part of this blog.

The truth is Independence Day reminds me of ice cream because ice cream reminds me of childhood memories. And I'm not talking about just any ice cream, what I am referring to is “Vermont’s Finest.” Yes, that’s right folks, the one and only: Ben and Jerry’s. Growing up, I spent my summers living in a log cabin very close to the Ben and Jerry’s factory in Waterbury, Vermont. What I didn’t know then was that while I was deciding between Cherry Garcia and Chocolate Fudge Brownie, Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield were perfecting the art of corporate social responsibility.

What does this mean? It means that if you look at the back of most pints of Ben and Jerry’s ice cream, you will see more than a witty description of the flavor; you will see a cause. In 2006 that cause was a national campaign that used free ice cream samples to raise awareness about nuclear weapons spending. The company’s motive behind the American Pie Campaign can be found in the 2006 Social and Environmental Assessment Report. “We looked at the $30 billion in the U.S. budget earmarked for nuclear weapons spending — while millions of American children are living in poverty or without health insurance — and we decided the time was right to speak out on this important issue once again.”

And we’re glad they did. In addition to giving out 11,000 free samples of yummy apple pie ice cream, the company collected 2,450 postcards urging Congress to cut nuclear weapons spending. Ben and Jerry’s also launched an interactive educational website that received 105,000 page views and allowed people to directly contact Congress with their concerns. Oh and did I mention that the American Pie flavor had a pie chart of the federal discretionary budget on the inside of the lid? Genius.

So seeing how it was Fourth of July weekend I decided to do some ‘ice cream market research’ (somebody’s got to do it). When the owner of the local Ben and Jerry’s here in Santa Barbara informed me that American Pie had been discontinued, I took my research to the web. To my surprise I learned that Ben Cohen, co-founder of Ben and Jerry’s, had been a supporter of NAPF and the abolition of nuclear weapons. This was fantastic.

As a strong believer in Ben and Jerry’s and using ice cream as a tool to promote awareness, I am currently writing the company not to resurrect a flavor, but to resurrect a cause. Our government continues to make nuclear weapons programs a financial priority. If we ever want to reach the goal of a world without nuclear weapons, we need to call more attention to the massive nuclear weapons budget. And let’s face it, nothing calls more attention than cold creamy goodness.

The Power of Poetry

2011-06-30T10:21:00.000-07:00

Robert Frost once said, “Writing a poem is discovering.” Since I prefer reading poems to writing them I would like to add that reading a poem is also discovering, and sometimes even rediscovering (no disrespect, Mr. Frost). Since working as an intern with the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation I have learned to rediscover poetry in a way that I did not expect, and not just any poetry: war poetry.

Here is the irony in all of this: in Georgia I worked at an Air Force museum where we literally played the History channel’s documentary, “WWII in HD” on repeat all day long. I found it interesting and informative, but never moving. Who would have thought that a few simple words about the very same war could evoke so much emotion? Let me give you an example:

I read “The Death of the Ball Turret Gunner” by Randall Jarrell about 7 years ago in my high school English class. I specifically recall my professor telling us that the ball turret gunner had one of the most dangerous positions on the aircraft because he was an easy target. A couple years later Perry, one of the WWII veterans from the museum, showed me a ball turret on the underside of a B-17 the museum was restoring. I remember thinking that it was such a cramped space, probably designated for the youngest or smallest guy on the plane, maybe somebody’s son or little brother. I came across the poem again a few days ago in a book I found in the NAPF library. As I read it the words jumped off the page and shook me.

“From my mother's sleep I fell into the State,

And I hunched in its belly till my wet fur froze.

Six miles from earth, loosed from its dream of life,

I woke to black flak and the nightmare fighters.

When I died they washed me out of the turret with a hose.”

In only five lines of text, this poem manages to transcend time, technology, and gives the reader a more intimate view of war than all the media outlets combined. That, my friends, is the power of poetry. War poetry can be and should be used as a tool to help us appreciate peace and the human spirit. NAPF will soon be publishing an anthology of poems called, “War Poetry: Memory, Myth and Meaning.” I was lucky enough to get my hands on a copy and I picked out a few of my favorites to share with you.

“Speaking: The Hero” by Felix Pollak: Powerful. A must read.

“Bring Forth New Life” by Sadako Kurihara: So Inspiring. Humans are capable of amazing things.

“The Children of Iraq Have Names” by David Krieger: Very moving. This will make you think differently about the face of war.

“No Regrets for Our Youth”

2011-06-27T11:24:00.000-07:00

In a recent publication titled, “An Open Letter to Graduates” NAPF President David Krieger asks several thought-provoking questions to the future leaders of our world. While some of the questions require sincere self-reflection, others empower a sense of responsibility and commitment to change the world for the better. While reading the letter for the first time one question reminded me of a recent conversation I had with my older brother, Joe. “Does your education lead you to believe that money will buy happiness?”

For as long as I can remember, Joe has been one of the people I respect the most in my life. He works extremely hard, thinks for himself, and makes the best of every situation he’s in. On my last trip home he told me that he didn’t feel like he was really helping people in his profession and it was starting to take a toll on his life. This came as a shock to me since he went to a great school and spent the last several years working a well-paying job for a busy medical practice. He said, “It just seems like when I do help people, it’s in a very indirect way and I can’t help but think that I could be doing more.” What I learned from Joe is that the root of a fulfilled life is not success, but how you benefit humanity.

We have all heard the joke, “Money can't buy happiness, but I'd rather cry in a Ferrari.” I have to admit that I too would rather cry in a Ferrari, but here are the facts: a Ferrari won’t promote a safer planet, a Ferrari won’t stand up against injustice, and “a Ferrari” is not a suitable answer for our grandchildren when they ask us what contribution we made to the world during our lifetime. According to David’s letter, the true path to an enriched and happy life is through compassion for others, courage, and commitment. And these qualities are worth far more than a $200,000 Ferrari.

I recently watched a Kurosawa film called, “No Regrets for Our Youth.” The movie follows the story of a spoiled girl named Yukie who only cares about the superficial elements in life. When she falls for a man who is arrested for protesting the Fascist government, she realizes how empty her shallow life had been. This movie is significant because it teaches us that it is never too late to support something bigger; something that will benefit mankind and the generations to come. We all have traits that resemble Yukie prior to her transformation, but if she is capable of change then so are we. David’s letter is addressed to recent graduates, but we can all learn from the questions he asks us to consider. Check it out.

Einstein: Looking Beyond the Hair

2011-06-22T15:22:00.001-07:00

There are few people in history who have had the ability to view the world in a different light; to see the workings of nature and humanity with imagination and wonder. Albert Einstein was one of those people. I know what you’re thinking: he’s the really smart guy who looks like he stuck his finger in a light socket, right? Yes, that’s the one. Sure he had scraggly white hair and an absent-minded brilliance that would put any modern day physicist to shame, but if you take the time to read about the life of Einstein you will learn that that he was actually a lot like you and I.

Einstein once said, “I have no special talent. I am only passionately curious.” It is this curiosity that allowed him to picture what it would be like to ride on a motorcycle at the speed of light, study the bending of starlight, and question the relationship between time and space. It was also this curiosity that compelled him to continue his experiments after failing his university entrance exam in 1895 and being turned down time after time while trying to find a job.

Not only did Einstein question the world around him, but he also stood up for what he believed in. At only seventeen years old, Einstein renounced his German citizenship to avoid military service. Can you imagine? Let’s see, when I was seventeen I was watching Elf and saving up money for the Beyonce CD. Einstein was sacrificing his statehood for peace…amazing. He later expressed that the idea of going to war to promote peace was absolutely absurd. The man had a point, and a great one at that.

Although he was not one to apologize for his actions, Einstein did recall having one regret during his lifetime. “I made one great mistake in my life,” he said. That mistake he referred to was sending a letter to President Roosevelt to support the development of the atomic bomb. The man who literally defines the word “genius,” (Wikipedia…look it up) alleged that his only burden was supporting the production of the nuclear bomb. Now if that isn’t a big red flag, I don’t know what is.

So here is my challenge to you: When you go out into the world every day, channel your inner Einstein. Visualize the earth through the scope of possibility and wonder. And stand up for what you believe in. This Saturday, June 25th, is Nuclear Abolition Day. Let’s make Einstein proud and create new standards for humanity; standards that rise above weapons capable of total destruction. In the words of the goofy scientist who refused to wear socks, “Only the individual can think, and thereby create new values for society, even set up new moral standards to which the life of the community conforms. ... The ideals which have lighted my way and time after time have given me new courage to face life cheerfully, have been Kindness, Beauty and Truth.”

The Samurai Sword as a Symbol of Peace

2011-06-20T11:34:00.000-07:00

For most people the image of a Samurai sword doesn’t automatically evoke warm fuzzy feelings of peace and tranquility, but despite popular belief we can actually learn a great deal from the Samurai soldier. Martin Luther King Jr. said, “Non-violence is a powerful and just weapon. It is a unique weapon in history, which cuts without wounding and ennobles the man who wields it. It is a sword that heals.” If we fight for peace with a sword that heals, tactical strength and discipline will enable us to cut through violence and injustice.

While making the Katana, or the Samurai sword, the master craftsman stays awake for three days and three nights to tend the furnace that produces a very unique type of steel called tamahagane. Once the tamahagane is produced it is covered with a precise mixture of clay and ash to avoid oxidation. Finally, the carbon undergoes a meticulous three month process of hammering and folding to drive out any impurities. In order to drive out the impurities of life, we must approach waging peace with the same persistence and concentration that the master craftsman applies to the Katana.

Ok, question for you. Let’s assume that the average person isn’t a master in the art of Kendo a.k.a “the way of the sword.” It's probably not a good idea to defend a population without the proper training, right? The same philosophy applies to peace activism because without learning how to properly use the sword of nonviolence, the outcome may do more harm than good. Martin Luther King Jr. and Gandhi were both educated and well-read in areas like history, sociology, and philosophy. Studying these subjects armed them with the tools to unite people and bring about social change.

Since the 1960s the peace movement has often been associated with the "anything goes" hippie subculture. In order to change that stereotype we need to approach the road to nonviolence with professionalism and strategic thinking. By mastering the tactics of great peace leaders throughout history, we can arm ourselves with what Dr. King called, “the sword that heals.”

What Star Wars Can Teach Us About Nuclear Energy

2011-06-15T16:51:00.000-07:00

Ask epic filmmaker George Lucas where he got his inspiration for the Star Wars Trilogy and he will tell you tell you about Akira Kurosawa. For those of you who are unfamiliar with Kurosawa films, fear not. I too just recently learned of the award-winning Japanese director and already find myself totally inspired by his ability to capture the human spirit on film.

Now I have to warn you: upon netflixing a Kurosawa film don’t expect to see any futuristic Endor space battles or Darth Vader cameos. Think more along the lines of Yoda’s timeless wisdom meets traditional Japanese culture. Recently here at the NAPF office I was shown a clip from one of Kurosawa’s later films called “Dreams,” which seemed eerily predictive of the Fukushima tragedy.

Yes Kurosawa was a brilliant director, but I don’t think psychic medium was part of his forte. And that’s the whole point; it doesn’t take a nuclear scientist, foretelling prophet, or award winning director to see how dangerous nuclear energy is. Kurosawa’s dream or should I say nightmare, portrays a nuclear meltdown following the eruption of Mount Fuji. And as horrifying and chaotic as the scene is, the few survivors can’t help but discuss the fact that it was all preventable.

The most groundbreaking part of the dream is captured by the mother of two young children when she cries, “they told us that nuclear plants were safe.” She goes on to say, “human accident is the danger, not the nuclear plant itself.” And that, my friends, is the big picture. Supporters of nuclear energy stand by the technology through and through, but the technology is not the problem; human error is the problem. There is no contesting that nuclear reactors’ safety precautions are better than 30 years ago, but no matter how careful or meticulous we are, accidents will always happen because they are part of human nature.

Ok, maybe we should give nuclear plant employees the benefit of the doubt. Let’s say that human error doesn’t occur, but a natural disaster does. While Fukushima was a prime example of this, it doesn’t take a 9.0 earthquake to cause a nuclear catastrophe. Right now in Nebraska, the Fort Calhoun nuclear power plant is at a severe risk due to the flooding of the Missouri River. Fires have already temporarily knocked out one of the plant’s cooling systems and the FAA closed down the airspace within a two mile radius. Oddly enough, the nuclear industry insists that the airspace restriction is due to flooding, not the billowing plumes of potentially radioactive smoke emitted from the fires. Hmmm, it doesn’t take a Jedi mind trick to figure that one out.

“Lockheed Martin Developing Ninja Robots”

2011-06-13T14:06:00.000-07:00

OK..It’s a little off topic, but I just couldn’t resist this one. I know what you’re thinking: this article reads more like something out of a Marvel comic book rather than the Christian Science Monitor, but I assure you it’s real. While our over-the-top technological advancements may provide some short-lived humor, they represent a more serious issue regarding international law and our country’s disregard for it. Now I’m not saying that Lockheed’s robots are going to use their super-human ninja skills to violate the laws of war, but I am suggesting that throughout history the United States’ government has had a tendency to overlook international law for the sake of "defense."

This brings me to the topic of today’s blog: the UCAV. Otherwise known as the “combat drone,” this undetectable killer is capable of dropping guided 2,000 lb bombs at the press of a button. What’s the best part? The Air Force gave them cool super villain names like “Sabre Warrior” and “Hunter-Killer.” And it’s only fitting that UCAV operators are basically trained on video games much like those played on an X-box or Playstation. Unfortunately, the targets are live people, not digital images.

I’m sure that we have all become familiar with the headlines, “Heavy Civilian Casualties After Drone Attacks,” or “US Drone Strikes Kill Many in Pakistan,” and this is not ok. The United Nations even released a report stating that "the number of [civilian] deaths attributed to pro-government forces marginally exceeds that caused by anti-government forces” — basically acknowledging that the United States and NATO-led forces are responsible for an alarming increase in casualties resulting from drone attacks.

If the heightened death toll from combat drones doesn’t shock you, their egregious violation of international law will. In 2010 United Nations investigator on extrajudicial killings, Philip Alston, issued a 29-page report on the lack of rules or safeguards for drones. Alston also noted the absent data on drone related deaths and called on CIA operators to prove that they have attempted to capture or incapacitate suspects without killing them. Unfortunately, the intelligence community has done little to address the issue of drone killings or their breach of international law. The Pentagon continues to make drone warfare a top budgetary and strategic priority for the coming years.

For a further reading on the use of drones, check out this moving poem called, “Of Hawks and Drones,” written by NAPF President David Krieger.

President's Message

2011-06-10T12:47:00.000-07:00

Today is an important day in history. It was 90 years ago on this day that Babe Ruth became baseball's all-time home run leader. It was 68 years ago today that the ballpoint pen was patented in the United States. And on this day just 48 years ago during the height of the Cold War, President Kennedy gave the Commencement Address at American University where he discussed the importance of peace and how nuclear weapons would destroy that peace by creating, “a new face of war.” While we have come a long way on the road to peace and nuclear abolition, this “new face of war” still remains.

In light of the recently released Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) report, NAPF President David Krieger released a message titled, "How Many Nuclear Weapons Still Threaten Humanity?" On this significant day in history we must be proud of how far humanity has come, but we must also realize that the path to nuclear abolition is one we must continue to walk if we ever want to experience the kind of genuine peace that President Kennedy referred to almost 50 years ago: the kind of peace that we all deserve.

The Scope of Nuclear Proliferation

2011-06-08T15:44:00.001-07:00

While compiling information for Nuclear Files today, I came across a timeline entry from a document from the Carnegie Endowment that helped visualize just how many countries are involved in nuclear affairs:

“December 2001 - The German cargo ship BBC China is intercepted en route to Libya with components for 1,000 centrifuges. The parts were manufactured in Malaysia by SCOPE and shipped through Dubai.”

In a single event, four separate countries and one company are implicated in the illegal transfer of nuclear technology. More than that, none of these countries are typically “counted” when discussing nuclear proliferation.

Those who like to argue that nuclear weapons and technology are safe and that proliferation has been relatively successful point to the fact that, in nearly 70 years of existence, only 9 nations (United States, Russia, India, China, Pakistan, The United Kingdom, France, Israel, and North Korea) currently have nuclear weapons. What they don’t like to point out, however, is how many nations, companies, and groups are capable of creating nuclear weapons or transferring radioactive material.

In 1996, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty began the signing and ratification process. It lists Annex II countries which, at the time, were capable of creating a nuclear weapon and had to sign the treaty in order for it to take effect. The list contains:

Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bangladesh, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Egypt, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Israel, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Netherlands, Norway, Pakistan, Peru, Poland, Romania, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Slovakia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America, Vietnam, Zaire

This list does not include nations formerly holding nuclear weapons, including Belarus and Kazakhstan. It also does not include new nuclear powers, such as Armenia, the Czech Republic, Slovenia, Croatia, and Taiwan. Most importantly, it does not cover the hundreds of private nuclear companies in countries worldwide that are capable of proliferation violations on their own.

In all, over 50 countries handle or currently have nuclear material in their possession. These nations represent nearly 80% of the entire world’s population. Four out of five citizens in the world have nuclear material capable of weaponization in their country. We are no longer trying to prevent proliferation; we are trying to prevent catastrophe.

Security measures can no longer protect the world from weapons development and nuclear terrorism. The only option is abolition.

Study Says Nuclear Weapons Threat Not Decreasing

2011-06-07T15:58:00.000-07:00

As we know all too well at the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, the threat of nuclear weapons is not going to decrease any time soon. For those who have been keeping up with the Department of Energy blog series, it’s clear that the United States is putting more emphasis on developing new atomic weapons or “modernizing” our nuclear arsenal, rather than phasing out or retiring existing warheads. A recent study from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) revealed that we are not alone. According to the Swedish study, “the five legally recognized nuclear weapons states, as defined by the 1968 Non-Proliferation Treaty are either deploying new nuclear weapon systems or have announced their intention to do so.” And by doing so, nuclear weapons states are only making the WMD club look that much more appealing to non-weapons states.

If there was ever a time to step back and reassess our nuclear defense policy, now would be it. Here is an alarming fact: SIPRI Director Daniel Nord revealed that Pakistan is already losing control of part of its nuclear arsenal to a terrorist group. He also found that North Korea "is believed to have produced enough plutonium to build a small number of nuclear warheads, but there is no public information to verify that it has operational nuclear weapons." I’m going to go out on a limb though and say that North Korea probably won’t be gracing the international community with a nuclear weapons courtesy call any time soon.

What does all this mean? It means that we need a nuclear reality check. We need to acknowledge that advancing our own nuclear weapons industry encourages the rest of the world to do the same. And if we want to see nuclear abolition at any point, it will be up to the United States as a world leader to pave the road to nuclear zero. We already had our “START” so now let’s go! One way we can work towards this goal is by urging our local congressmen and women to cut the Defense Budget. And it just so happens that our Action Alert Network makes doing so exceptionally easy. Check it out.

W78 Life Extension Program

2011-06-06T15:09:00.000-07:00

There is a reason why only two people “like” the W78 Interest Page on Facebook. While these nuclear warheads are currently deployed on 200 Minuteman III missiles, the W78s may only be in service for another five years. So does that mean the National Nuclear Security Administration is planning their retirement? Not exactly. In a recent post I briefly discussed how the Department of Energy’s “Life Extension Programs” are just a fancy sounding way to increase the power and destructiveness of existing warheads rather than to “ensure that the nuclear stockpile remains reliable.” This is precisely the case with the W78 Life Extension Program.

According to a declassified study released by the NNSA, the W78 will have been deployed for more than 41 years by 2021. Somehow this fact justifies exploring the possibility of a new joint warhead approach (this is the part where “increase the power and destructiveness” comes in). In other words, instead of replacing the existing W78 that has already been extensively tested, the DOE wants to combine the W78 and W88 warhead to make an entirely new type of bomb.

The greatest cause of concern for the W78 Life Extension Program is the implication it may have for the future of nuclear weapons tests. By simply restoring (or better yet retiring) the existing W78, the United States will have no need to conduct full scale tests to ensure the reliability and effectiveness of a new weapon. However, introducing an entirely different type of warhead will open the floodgates to new testing procedures and stray further away from the possibility of achieving a comprehensive test ban.

Excuse me, Mr. President, but whatever happened to the “immediate and aggressive pursuit to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty?” How are we supposed to internationally outlaw nuclear weapons tests if we continue to allocate billions of dollars to develop new types of warheads? Something just doesn’t add up here. But that’s not all: studies by the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and Los Alamos National Laboratory have concluded that the plutonium pits in the current warheads have a life span of at least 85 years, if not a century. That means that the existing W78 warheads have a solid 44 years of life left. Let us be reminded that we’re talking about a thermonuclear weapon here, not a person going through a mid-life crisis.

According to the Alliance for Nuclear Accountability, the focus of the W78 Life Extension Program should be on “nuts-and-bolts surveillance and maintenance programs, which seek to avoid changes to previously tested nuclear weapons.” So, NNSA decision makers: go out and buy a motorcycle, but spare the middle-aged nuclear stockpile from improvements that would only cause greater destructive capabilities and move further away from a ban on nuclear weapons tests.

Nuclear Deterrence Theory: still alive and kicking

2011-06-03T04:46:00.000-07:00

One of the major impediments on the path to sustainable universal nuclear disarmament – meaning a world without nuclear weapons as well as the incentive to acquire them – is the persistent belief in the nuclear deterrence theory. This theory – which, in its most common form, claims that the threat of retaliation in kind will deter an opponent from carrying out a nuclear strike against you – was a cornerstone of the security mindset during the Cold War, yet continues to influence foreign and defence policies of nuclear weapon states, and such aspiring states, today.

Excellent efforts by academics, policy analysts and NGOs (with the support of some governments) have recently been undertaken to debunk the nuclear deterrence theory and as far as the present author is concerned, the reasoning displayed in these works is irrefutable and should convince anyone still in doubt of the uselessness of these instruments.[1] However, although there are hopeful signs that in some states the blind belief in nuclear deterrence is losing its grip on security thinking, in others the theory is still very much alive and kicking.

Consider these comments made by A.Q. Kahn, the father of the Pakistani nuclear bomb and zealous proliferator of nuclear know-how and technology, in a recent article in Newsweek:

The question of how many weapons are required for credible deterrence against India is purely academic. [...] India doesn’t need more than five weapons to hurt us badly, and we wouldn’t need more than 10 to return the favor. That is why there has been no war between us for the past 40 years. [...] Don’t overlook the fact that no nuclear-capable country has been subjected to aggression or occupied, or had its borders redrawn. Had Iraq and Libya been nuclear powers, they wouldn’t have been destroyed in the way we have seen recently. If we had had nuclear capability before 1971, we would not have lost half of our country—present-day Bangladesh—after disgraceful defeat. [...] India and Pakistan understand the old principle that ensured peace in the Cold War: mutually assured destruction. The two can’t afford a nuclear war, and despite our saber rattling, there is no chance of a nuclear war that would send us both back to the Stone Age.

According to Mr. Kahn, nuclear weapons fulfil at least three essential functions: they keep the peace, bestow pride upon the nation and guarantee sovereignty. These comments should not be dismissed as the opinion of just one man. Unfortunately, Mr. Kahn’s thinking is still deeply embedded in the security mindset of many governments, and not just those of so-called “rogue states”. As actions speak louder than words, it is worth examining what the nuclear powers, according to a recent report by the Federation of American Scientists, are expected to do in the next decade in terms of developing their arsenals.

Pakistan is currently building up its nuclear arsenal at an alarming rate, and is expected to become the world’s fourth biggest nuclear state in the next decade or two. In an effort to keep up with its neighbour and main rival, India too is rapidly expanding its nuclear stockpile, eerily calling to mind the US-Russia nuclear arms race during the Cold War. Meanwhile, after conducting its second nuclear test in May 2009 and revealing an astonishingly modern new uranium enrichment facility late last year, North Korea is showing no signs of slowing down its nuclear programme. While the US and Russia have taken a moderate yet important step towards further reduction of their arsenals through the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, their combined nuclear stocks still account for over 95% of the world’s total. Meanwhile, Britain’s planned reduction of its nuclear weapons is merely the result of the country’s current climate of economic austerity, not a change in government policy on needing what it stubbornly continues to call a “nuclear deterrent”. Similarly, France’s projected slight nuclear stockpile reduction should by no means be interpreted as a move away from its love affair with its force de frappe. According to the report, the nuclear capabilities of China and Israel are expected to remain unchanged.

So while efforts to debunk the nuclear deterrence theory have gained traction in some circles, they have yet to reach the chambers of foreign -and defence policymaking. Because once the understanding that nuclear capability is not just useless but a source of insecurity permeates the security mindset, we can expect to see a race to zero, with nations eager to get rid of their nuclear weapons. Today this might seem like a highly improbable scenario. However, once this tipping point, which turns an instrument from a security guarantor into a liability, has been reached, is this really so hard to imagine?

[1] Worth mentioning is Security Without Nuclear Deterrence by Robert Green, The Myth of Nuclear Deterrence by Ward Wilson, and Delegitimizing Nuclear Weapons by the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies.

[2] Newsweek, May 23-30, 2011

Letter from a Fukushima Mother

2011-06-01T10:11:00.000-07:00

So I decided to take another hiatus from the series on the Department of Energy’s most dangerous and budget-busting projects to call attention to a monumentally important email we received here at the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. Some of you may have read, “Letter from a Fukushima Mother,” as it has been circulating throughout Twitter, but if you haven’t I highly suggest doing so. The letter written by Tomoko Hatsuzawa, a mother of two living in Fukushima City, expresses the devastating impact of the recent nuclear catastrophe and urges the public to speak out against the government’s use of nuclear power. Please don’t read this letter as an outsider looking in, we need to awaken to the fact that what happened in Japan could and will happen in the United States if we continue to pursue nuclear power as the solution to our energy needs. Here are the facts:

*We have 104 operating nuclear reactors here in the United States.

*Half of them are over 30 years old.

*Several of them are in earthquake-prone areas.
Whether it’s natural disasters or human error, things will go wrong. The nuclear energy industry claims a nuclear crisis like what happened in Japan, can’t happen in the United States. But let me remind you that Wall Street investment banks said a crash couldn’t happen, and BP claimed they had the technology to deal with anything on the horizon. When you read, “Letter from a Fukushima Mother,” I ask you to read it as a mother, father, sister or brother. Read it as a human being who must watch his/her loved ones suffer the damages of a technology that we created, and read it as someone with a voice who has the power to speak out against nuclear energy and implement change so that this kind of tragedy will not be repeated.

Letter from a Fukushima mother

When Tomoko-san, a mother of two in Fukushima City, heard from an NGO worker that I was going to be in Fukushima to report on a story about radiation levels at local schools, she was kind enough to volunteer her time to speak to me – and handed me this letter. I promised to translate it and share it with you. So here it is:
To people in the United States and around the world,
I am so sorry for the uranium and plutonium that Japan has released into the environment. The fallout from Fukushima has already circled the world many times, reaching Hawaii, Alaska, and even New York.
We live 60 kilometers (37 miles) from the plant and our homes have been contaminated beyond levels seen at Chernobyl. The cesium-137 they are finding in the soil will be here for 30 years. But the government will not help us. They tell us to stay put. They tell our kids to put on masks and hats and keep going to school.
This summer, our children won’t be able to go swimming. They won’t be able to play outside. They can’t eat Fukushima’s delicious peaches. They can’t even eat the rice that the Fukushima farmers are making. They can’t go visit Fukushima’s beautiful rivers, mountains and lakes. This makes me sad. This fills me with so much regret.
Instead, our children will spend the summer in their classrooms, with no air conditioning, sweating as they try to concentrate on their lessons. We don’t even know how much radiation they’ve already been exposed to.
I was eight years old when the Fukushima Daiichi plant opened. If I had understood what they were building, I would have fought against it. I didn’t realize that it contained dangers that would threaten my children, my children’s children and their children.
I am grateful for all the aid all the world has sent us.
Now, what we ask is for you to speak out against the Japanese government. Pressure them into taking action. Tell them to make protecting children their top priority.

Thank you so much,

Tomoko Hatsuzawa
Fukushima City
May 25, 2011

National Ignition Facility Project

2011-05-26T15:18:00.000-07:00

According to the National Nuclear Security Administration, the National Ignition Facility at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California is the government’s attempt to create "a miniature star on earth" to push the envelope on nuclear weapons design. If you ask me it sounds more like something on Dr. Evil’s “to do” list, maybe after “sharks with laser beams attached to their heads.” When originally proposed in 1994, the project was intended to advance nuclear weapons design, provide additional capability for nuclear weapons effects tests, and develop inertial fusion energy. While the cost of this $7 billion science experiment is alarmingly high, the real problem is its representation of our country’s priorities regarding nuclear weapons.

Although the experiment is being sold as the solution to the world’s energy crisis, it is above all else a nuclear weapons advancement project. Skeptics of the ‘energy solution’ claim that the National Ignition Facility is highly unlikely to lead to a practical energy source, let alone one that could be competitive with renewable energy technologies. Critics even go as far to say that the project is essentially “busy work,” in other words, a plan to keep nuclear weapons design teams at Livermore and increase notoriety for the laboratory.

One report that struck my interest on the National Ignition Facility comes from Walter Kohn, a Nobel laureate and physics professor from the University of California, Santa Barbara. Since the University of California is involved in managing the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Kohn argues that the University’s involvement in the development of nuclear weapons compromises the effectiveness and integrity of the educational process. As a university student, I can understand and respect his opinion about the ethical and moral principals underlying this issue. What do you think? In a nation striving for a world without nuclear weapons, is it right to encourage students and professors to participate in nuclear weapons activities?

The hype associated with the National Ignition Facility bears an eerie resemblance to that of the Manhattan project. With 80% of its experiments classified, and supporters claiming that the project will be one to tell our grandchildren about, it seems that the environmental and proliferation concerns will be neglected until it is too late. According to the lab’s latest Environmental Impact Statement, the nuclear waste output at the National Ignition Facility will increase by 50% and exposure to radiation for those working on the project will triple in amount. It seems that the National Ignition Facility Student Internship Pamphlet failed to mention that.

Kansas City Plant Project

2011-05-25T15:53:00.000-07:00

Since 2001 the Bannister Federal Complex in Kansas City, Missouri has been on the radar of the EPA, Nuclear Watch, Physicians for Social Responsibility and several other environmental justice groups. Unfortunately for the mega-complex, its notoriety stems from countless health violations and lawless action, not exemplary service. In 2008 the National Nuclear Security Administration recognized the need for a new Kansas City Plant, a key federal facility that manufactures components for nuclear weapons.

While the proposal to build a new safer facility is supported by the local community, the method of operation and ownership has been widely disputed. The Department of Energy has decided to turn over possession of the new federal plant to local municipality and private developer, CenterPoint Zimmer. Sound harmless? It is if you don’t pay taxes. Because of local ownership, the Kansas City Plant production costs will be left out of the NNSA annual budget and are exempt from congressional review. According to the Alliance for Nuclear Accountability, the new facility will cost taxpayers $1.2 billion in lease payments over the next 20 years.

Hold on, it gets worse. Remember how I mentioned that the Kansas City Plant was known for health and environmental violations? Before I go any further, let us review a very elementary lesson: when you used to play board games after school and wanted to play something different, didn’t mom always say, “clean up the first activity before you go on to the next?” The only difference between this fundamental concept and the Kansas City Plant is that instead of crayons and checker pieces we’re talking about contaminated groundwater and PCB spills.

The lack of commitment to a comprehensive cleanup plan illustrates a greater concern: accountability. It’s bad enough that the new plant will not have congressional oversight, but allowing a private company to supervise operations increases the chance for misconduct and corporate cover-ups. A recent study by the Government Services Administration found that federal employees at the old Kansas City Plant were lax in their duties and misled the public about safety conditions. Thanks to this lack of responsibility, thousands of former plant employees and members of the local community suffered health problems related to heightened carcinogenic levels. To make matters worse, leaked documents revealed that the contamination at the federal complex was known about, but the information was not released to the public.

The Department of Energy’s Kansas City Plant project is a perfect example of why we need to inform ourselves and take action as a society. I know what you’re thinking: “a small group of activists against the nuclear industry, I wonder who will prevail.” But check out this article released just yesterday by the Kansas City Star. A local advocacy group obtained 4,342 valid signatures on a petition to reassess the practicality of the Kansas City Plant project. If the city refuses to recognize the petition, we may see a court case in the near future.

Uranium Processing Facility

2011-05-24T15:46:00.000-07:00

The expansion of the Cold War-era Uranium Processing Plant in Oak Ridge, Tennessee is the third, “Most Dangerous and Budget-Busting Project,” on the Department of Energy’s agenda. While the original proposal was estimated to cost around $600 million in 2005, scheduling delays and construction conflicts have prolonged the expansion and tacked on additional costs making it the most expensive bomb plant in history. To make matters worse the NNSA said that it won’t have a definitive price tag until the facility’s design is 90 percent complete.

Between 2005 and 2010 the cost was not the only part of the program that changed. The National Nuclear Security Administration’s original justification for the urgency of the project was that the facility was, “essential to its ability to meet national security requirements regarding the nation’s nuclear deterrent.” The NNSA also claimed that the expansion was needed to maintain basic nuclear weapons capabilities.” Flash forward five years to 2010 and the new reasoning behind the project was to, “avoid the risks of intermittent shutdown associated with current facilities.” The drastic shift in the purpose of this program suggests that maybe the Uranium Processing Facility was not so urgent after all. Also, “to avoid being shutdown,” is not a particularly convincing argument to support the $6.5 billion project.

The Alliance for Nuclear Accountability recognizes an even greater fear for the Uranium Processing Facility expansion program: how it will affect our national identity. As a country that works to discourage the nuclear ambitions of other nations, we should not be building new nuclear weapon facilities on our own soil. Such a double standard could have severe implications for our diplomatic credibility and efforts towards nonproliferation.

So what is the alternative? The Alliance for Nuclear Accountability suggests several recommendations for how to move forward with this project in a way that is productive and beneficial to our national interest. Instead of upgrading the Uranium Processing Facility, the DOE should downsize operations and consider incorporating a dismantlement facility. In addition, Congress and the Obama Administration should thoughtfully reassess plans for uranium operations in a way that is realistic and practical for the future. Want more information on the Uranium Processing Facility? Check out this interesting Environmental Impact Statement from the Project on Government Oversight.

National Nuclear Security Administration Releases New Strategic Plan

2011-05-23T16:39:00.000-07:00

Breaking News: So I had to interrupt the series about the Department of Energy’s, “Nine Most Budget Busting Projects,” because this was just too hot not to print. Just recently I walked into Rick’s office and found him reading the 2011 Strategic Plan published by the National Nuclear Security Administration. When I saw the front cover on his computer screen I was almost positive that he had just ordered “Armageddon” on Netflix, but with Bruce Willis nowhere to be found I soon realized that this was the title page of the updated Strategic Plan that outlines our country’s new national security priorities.

Have you ever played that picture game, “What doesn’t belong?” You know, the one where you look at a photo and have to identify the object that doesn’t fit with the rest of the picture? I’m pretty sure that game was the inspiration for the cover of the 2011 Strategic Plan. On first glance your eyes are drawn to the massive earth sitting in front of a waving American flag. Ok so far, right? But then you notice the strategically placed atomic blast right smack dab in the center of the photo. In an additional irony, the vision on the opening page emphatically states “to make the world a safer place.”

As the first NNSA Strategic Plan released since 2004, the report offers several key goals for the coming decade. The objectives set out to reduce nuclear dangers, manage the nuclear weapons stockpile and advance nuclear propulsion, modernize the NNSA infrastructure, and strengthen the science, technology and engineering base. Throughout the report the five goals are often accompanied by the phrase, “safe, secure, and effective nuclear stockpile.” The only problem here is that weapons of mass destruction are not safe or secure, and what does effective mean? Effective at causing severe devastation to civilization? Effective at emitting thermal radiation that causes flash blindness and skin burns? Effective at igniting entire cities and towns?

One segment of the plan that is particularly unsettling is in regards to the Life Extension Programs. While these plans claim to ensure that the nuclear stockpile is safe and reliable, what they actually do is increase the power and destructiveness of existing warheads. For example, the 2008 Life Extension proposal for the W76 warhead was so extensive that it resulted in an entirely new type of bomb. When Congress realized that “Life Extension Program,” was essentially another name for upgrade, it denied funding for two of the Department of Energy’s new nuclear weapons.

The 2011 Strategic Plan does have some redeeming initiatives. In addition to improved nuclear safeguards, the plan seeks to secure the most vulnerable nuclear materials worldwide by 2013. However, such a monumental task would require international cooperation and a greater commitment from the United States to reduce (not improve) our nuclear stockpile. The release of the National Nuclear Security Administration’s Strategic Plan illustrates the need for an increased dedication to a nuclear free world. Please take a moment to check out our Action Alert Network and help us cut the 2012 Nuclear Weapons Budget!

Chemistry & Metallurgy Research Replacement Project

2011-05-20T14:12:00.000-07:00

While CMRR stands for Chemistry & Metallurgy Research Replacement project, I think a more appropriate title would be the Costing Massive Resources and Redundancy project. The Department of Energy’s proposal to build a new large scale nuclear facility at the Los Alamos National Laboratory is not only ten times costlier than originally announced, but it’s also planned to be constructed on the side of a dormant volcano. Now I’m no seismologist, but I am almost positive that a plutonium facility sitting on top of an earthquake-prone area is not a recipe for success.

According to the Department of Energy’s proposal, the CMRR project will be carried out in a three phase assignment which will ultimately replace the fifty-year old facility responsible for building plutonium pits. The plutonium pit refers to the core of an implosion weapon that is responsible for detonation when compressed by explosives. Because of the radiation emitted from these pits, over half of the former facility has been shut down due to severe contamination, yet another warning sign that makes one question the safety and practicality of the project.

Currently, construction costs for the CMRR project total around $5.86 billion and operations are expected to begin in Fiscal Year 2023. That being said, it is important to note that this same project has been in the works for over a decade. Scheduling delays have wasted valuable resources, time, and manpower on a project that continues to be vulnerable to natural disasters as years pass. The Alliance for Nuclear Accountability finds that $3 billion have already been added to program costs since 2008 due to increasing concerns over seismic activity.

Another cause of concern for the Chemistry & Metallurgy Research Replacement Project is the issue of nuclear waste. As it stands, the new site is planned to be 32,000 square feet larger than the current facility. Such a vast expansion is excessive and increases the risk for improper waste disposal and nuclear proliferation. Need a second opinion?

Jay Coghlan, Executive Director of Nuclear Watch New Mexico, sums up the Chemistry & Metallurgy Research Replacement Project quite nicely. He says, “We should be cleaning up, not building up new production plants that will produce yet more radioactive and toxic wastes. We should be following a conservative curatorship program that prudently maintains the stockpile, saves American taxpayers dollars, and demonstrates leadership toward the nuclear weapons-free world that global security truly needs.” Well put Jay, well put.

Nuclear Reality Check

2011-05-19T11:00:00.000-07:00

There is a reason why nuclear expert Arnie Gundersen claims that the best way to prevent further nuclear energy is to be a capitalist. With projected spending as high as ten times the anticipated amount, the price of nuclear energy production has gone from excessive to downright absurd. While the nuclear industry remains reliant upon government loans and ratepayer dollars to fund upcoming projects, the concern for public safety and the risks of proliferation have been grossly overlooked.

Recently the Alliance for Nuclear Accountability, a non-profit advocating openness and transparency in the nuclear industry, released an alarming report entitled, "Nuclear Reality Check: The U.S Department of Energy’s Most Dangerous Budget-Busting Projects." In addition to reviewing nine of the Department of Energy’s most costly and environmentally hazardous nuclear projects, the report also urges Congress to think twice before providing the Department of Energy’s full $29.5 billion budget request for Fiscal Year 2012.

Among the nine proposed projects are those dealing with the production of MOX, a highly toxic mixed-oxide fuel made with weapons-grade plutonium, while others reveal the soaring costs of construction of new weapons research and production facilities - plans that clearly contradict President Obama’s vision for a world free of nuclear weapons. In fact, one might find it strange that several of the proposed projects actually support the manufacturing of nuclear weapons and processing of fissile material rather than oppose it.

So what exactly are these monumentally expensive and harmful programs on the Department of Energy’s agenda? Wonder no more! Over the next several posts I will discuss each of the high risk proposals and illustrate how they will not only compromise the money in our pockets, but also our health and safety. The first step to change is awareness, so stay tuned to learn more about the following programs.

Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement Project
Uranium Processing Facility
A New Kansas City Plant
National Ignition Facility
B61-12 Nuclear Warhead Life Extension Program
W78 Nuclear Warhead Life Extension Program
Mixed Oxide Plutonium Fuel Fabrication Facility
Nuclear Reactor Loan Guarantees
Waste Treatment Plant

Peace Education: Not Just for Hippies

2011-04-21T11:15:00.000-07:00

This guest blog post was written by Mallory Servais, a senior at the University of Maryland. Mallory recently attended a lecture by NAPF's Peace Leadership Program Director Paul Chappell. The article was originally published by The Diamondback.

A couple Mondays ago, I found myself with free time and the curiosity to attend one of my favorite Monday activities — the Beyond the Classroom Monday-night seminars. So, sporting my "it's-red-lipstick-Monday" British lipstick and accompanied by my partner-in-peace, I sauntered down to the seminar room. For two hours, former U.S. Army Capt. Paul Chappell talked to us about how killing is unnatural in humans, war is not necessary and peace is entirely possible.

OK, so that may be a terribly basic summary of the evening, but essentially I found myself re-inspired and super smiley about peace and life in general after this talk. It helped me remember that I don't believe in anything (except love) as much as I believe in peace, and there isn't really anything I would rather spend my life pursuing. The only thing that comes close is the dream I have with a friend to run and own a vegan cupcake shop and bookstore aptly named "Nooks, Books and Cupcake Cooks."

Anyway, I say re-inspired because my first foray into peace in the classroom was sophomore year. I had finagled my way into an honors seminar course called HONR 359B: Alternatives to Violence, taught by Colman McCarthy. Every Monday, armed with quotes, books and films, about thirty students came together to learn about peace, love and truth. More important than anything else, though, we learned to question everything — that is to say, we learned how to question the norms of everyday life in the war-based society we grew up in. Simply put, this class changed my life — my worldview, the goals I have in life and the things I want to spend my time learning.

So my question is this: Why did it take so long for me to get to a class focused on teaching the principles of peace? Not a single class was offered about peace in my public high school. In college, the course was optional and technically only offered to a small group of honors students. What if I had not stumbled upon it myself, frog rain boots and all? What about all the students who never have the chance to explore these ideas in college?

I know what some of you are thinking: "Freakin' hippie losers! Quit daydreaming about peace, love and hugs. Quit playing with pinwheels and dancing in the sunshine. Quit doodling polar bears and get back to your useless anthropology, philosophy and art history classes. What good is teaching peace? We don't need your peace studies classes here."

But think twice about this. Mull it over with a vegan cupcake and a mug of soy chai tea. How can we, as a university community, strive to produce well-rounded students who hope to improve the world without endowing them with a perspective that encourages constructive peacemaking in all aspects of life? How can we hope to send truly innovative, free-thinking individuals into an inherently violence-based society without providing the context and tools necessary to question authority?

In May, I will graduate, having been blessed with the experience of learning an alternative to violence. My only regret as I leave is that more students don't get that opportunity here or in high school; I wish I had done more to promote peace studies here and I hope to spend my life working to change the lack of peace studies in American schools. My real hope is that this university takes proactive steps toward teaching peace in the future. Because, well, I don't know for sure about the rest of my fellow students, but I'd rather learn peace.

Hope for the Future

2011-04-20T12:27:00.000-07:00

This guest blog post was written by Jillian Forte, a Nuclear Age Peace Foundation intern since September 2010. Jillian was joined by three other NAPF interns - Justin Galle, Jameisha Washington and Olivia Wong - at the Clinton Global Initiative University (CGIU) summit in San Diego at the beginning of April.

NAPF interns Justin Galle, Olivia Wong
and Jillian Forte at CGIU in San Diego.

To all of the older generations who wonder about the future resting in our hands, all I have to say is not to worry. After attending the Clinton Global Initiative University, my faith in my own generation has been restored and is stronger than ever. During the three day conference, almost 2,000 university students and many professionals, including of course, President Bill Clinton, attended the conference to discuss ideas and action plans to instill positive global change. In addition to being greatly inspired and motivated, I have also been assured the world is in fact being changed for the better because the ideas brought forth by students in their late teens and early twenties.

The main reason I was so inspired was meeting and talking to hundreds of brilliant students who are dedicated to making changes felt around the world. It’s easy for the older generations to see us as “lost,” caught up in celebrity drama, and tuned out of world affairs, but anyone would be convinced otherwise if they had seen what I experienced at CGIU. With so many innovative and progressive ideas flying around, it was easy to get lost in conversation and in each person’s unique vision to make the world a better place.

What set us apart from the rest of the commitments was our universal, comprehensive goal: to stand for peace, to strengthen international law, and to achieve a world free of nuclear weapons. Every one of the commitments is important and these incredible ideas are undoubtedly changing lives around the world. What really made us stand out was our worldwide commitment, where as the majority of the commitments are focused on a specific area of the world. Not only does our commitment cover the entire planet, but I was surprised how easily I could relate my ideas of global change to every other commitment I encountered. For example, I connected with groups dedicated to improving environmental degradation, clean energy, public health, human rights, and world peace. We have a very unique commitment to action asking people join us in this global struggle. Nuclear weapons are not an issue to be taken lightly. Our issue, and in turn our commitment, is a worldwide problem that potentially effects every single person on Earth. Perhaps it was this way of thinking that got us invited to the Clinton Global Initiative in the first place.

One of the many reasons I left with such a positive feeling after the conference was how well my group’s commitment resonated with others. I guess I shouldn’t have been so surprised that these globally minded students supported advocating peace, strengthening international law, and abolishing nuclear weapons. In the networking sessions it was almost funny to see so many people rushing around talking to as many others as possible in order to get the word out about their respective commitments. In retrospect, its pretty amazing that I had so many engaging conversations in such a short amount of time. The only thing I can think of to accurately portray my experience at CGIU is a quote by Margaret Mead, “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.”

The Road to Freedom, The Road to Peace

2011-03-23T14:26:00.000-07:00

Upon reaching Birmingham, Alabama, we were greeted by warm sunshine and a haunting stillness in the heart of the vibrant city. With a group of five other students, we entered our history of discrimination and segregation at Kelly Ingram Park. While our trip was focused specifically on racial issues and reconciliation the parallels to peace in the nuclear age were very real.

It’s hard to imagine that at one point in time, this beautiful place was all but beautiful. Smoke filled the sky, people ran amuck, as police dogs and billy-clubs met innocent marchers at Kelly Ingram Park. These people knew the risks of their participation in nonviolent protests. They knew they could die and lose it all. However, they also knew that morally they could wait no longer for justice. A placard with the words of Anne Frank reads, “How wonderful it is that nobody need wait a single moment before starting to improve the world.”

These words sting me, when I look at my generation. I wonder if we know the cost of the peace that we have, I wonder if anyone still believes it’s worth it. The popular John Mayer song “Waiting on the World to change” comes to mind. We see injustice and room for improvement, but we continue to wait. What are we waiting for? Our world, this generation is starving for peace. But if our generation continues to walk between complacency and apathy, I have no doubt that we'll keep waiting, waiting, waiting on the world to change.

Adjacent to the park is the 16th Street Baptist Church, where four little girls were killed by a bomb on September 15, 1963. This event woke up the world to the human atrocities happening in the city nicknamed “Bombingham”, and made them see the evil that was being perpetrated. The victims in Nagasaki and Hiroshima know all too well the devastation that bombs cause, as do the people of our own country. Why then do we continue to allow the use and testing of bombs and ballistic missiles? These young girls are a testimony to the precious life we’re all deserving of, but that bombs, nuclear weapons and WMD’s indiscriminately take away.

Whether a bomb is placed under a building, dropped from above, or launched off of a submarine vehicle, it is wrong and dangerous. The Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) was signed but still hasn't been ratified by the US, and the military continues to test its nuclear delivery vehicles. How many more little girls will have to die until we pursue another path to peace? When will we stop waiting for the world to change?

Nuclear Accident Strikes Close to Home

2011-03-16T10:49:00.000-07:00

Three Mile Island

Until recently I did not realize that San Onofre and Diablo Canyon are designed to withstand even less seismic stress than the designs of the Japanese nuclear plants. I see the situation at San Onofre and Diablo Canyon as especially dangerous because we know that a major seismic event is due along these fault lines and could strike either of these facilities at any time. San Onofre, situated adjacent the beach at Camp Pendleton, would appear vulnerable to tsunamis as well as earthquake. (I am not aware of the tsunami vulnerability of Diablo Canyon). In any case I agree that the tragedy in Japan should be a wake-up call at least for us in California and that ordinary prudence requires an immediate and thorough review of these two facilities for earthquake and tsunami vulnerability. Either site would appear to be a disaster waiting to happen.

The events in Japan and the implications for nuclear power in the U.S. strike especially close to home for me, inasmuch as my father (now deceased) was intimately involved with the nuclear power industry from its inception.
From 1954 until 1959, then a Naval officer, he served as the Atomic Energy Commission’s on-site representative at the construction of the world’s first nuclear power plant at Shippingport, PA. His immediate supervisor during that period was Admiral Rickover, then regarded as the Government’s premier expert on nuclear power. When Shippingport began supplying electricity to the City of Pittsburgh in 1959, those “in the know” predicted that nuclear technology would revolutionize both the financial and environmental costs of electrical power production across the nation and beyond.

Twenty years later when TMI failed, Pres. Carter asked his former Naval superior, Admiral Rickover, to investigate the accident and report to the NRC with recommendations. Rickover tasked my father and two others from his original nuclear team to perform this investigation and compose the report for the NRC. After this experience, my father served for several more years as a board member and consultant of GPU, the utility which owns TMI, and also as a consultant for other nuclear power utilities.

From this history you will understand that I was raised from an early age with a faith in nuclear power. Of course with others I have questioned this faith over the years, especially after Chernobyl and TMI. This latest tragedy, however, leads me to conclude that the risks of nuclear power simply outweigh the benefits, real as those benefits are. Prior to this tragedy in Japan, we have been right to worry that terrorists would (1) attack and damage a nuclear plant with potentially disastrous consequences, or (2) steal nuclear waste materials for bomb-making purposes. We also have been right to worry that electrical power production in its present forms is inconsistent with a sustainable living environment over the long term. To these risks we now must add the likelihood of catastrophic damage to nuclear plants located within seismic zones such as the California coast.

I suggest that we learn from the Japanese experience and forthrightly consider whether to dismantle San Onofre and Diablo Canyon while we are able to do so safely. Then in my view we should re-examine the broader implications of our electricity-dependent culture and consider, not whether, but how soon renewable energy sources, heightened efficiency, reduced energy consumption overall, and acceptance of some attending inconveniences should move from the “nice ideas” stage to practical policy. Perhaps we need to negotiate the American way of life after all.

That's not cool

2011-03-09T17:02:00.000-08:00

A few days ago I heard reports from some California-based missile watchers that there was an unidentified missile launch off the coast of San Diego. Well, ends up it was a test launch of a submarine launched ballistic missile (SLBM) that was not announced publicly beforehand.

There's not a whole lot new here - the US conducts many tests of its nuclear missiles on land (from Vandenberg Air Force Base) and from the sea. What really struck me about this story was a quote in a news report a few days after the launch.

From the Navy Compass story entitled "USS Nevada Successfully Tests Trident II D5 Missile," there is a quote from Caitlin Hitt, co-president of the Naval Base Kitsap Officers Spouses Association. She said, "It was incredible. Nothing that I ever expected, quite honestly I was shocked at how cool it was when it came out of the water."

This quote highlights a major disconnect that many people have when it comes to destructive weapons, including nuclear weapons. Sure, it's cool in the sense that it is amazing that human beings have been able to construct weapons that shoot out of a submarine, break the surface of the water and go on a ballistic trajectory to the other side of the world. What's not cool is what would happen when that missile does what it is designed to do: deliver a nuclear warhead to a target on the other side of the world. And you can't have one thing without the other.

This is not a video game. This is not the 8th grade science fair won by the kid who makes a rocket that can fly 300 feet into the air. This is the world's most destructive weapon, capable of killing millions of people. That's not cool, Mrs. Hitt.

The Four Horsemen Stumble Again

2011-03-07T13:14:00.000-08:00

In today's Wall Street Journal, the "Four Horsemen" (Henry Kissinger, George Shultz, William Perry and Sam Nunn) appear to address some of the problems with nuclear deterrence. But what are they really saying?

The four former high-ranking US government officials lay out five somewhat contradictory "practical steps toward deterrence that do not rely primarily on nuclear weapons or nuclear threats to maintain international peace and security."

The first step is to develop a strategy to deal with the many other issues that threaten the survival of a country (chemical/biological weapons, cyber warfare, terrorism, climate change, health crisis).

The second step is to realize that continued reliance on nuclear weapons encourages (or at least excuses) proliferation in other countries.

The third step is for the US and Russia to take their nuclear weapons off of hair-trigger alert, engage in further reductions of strategic nuclear weapons and eliminate tactical nuclear weapons.

The fourth step is "as long as nuclear weapons exist, America must retain a safe, secure and reliable nuclear
stockpile primarily to deter a nuclear attack and to reassure our allies through extended deterrence" but the US and Russia should lead the build-down of nuclear stockpiles.

The fifth step is to address regional dynamics that make nuclear weapons more appealing to countries, such as an imbalance in conventional military power.

To me, this list reads like a standardized test where you have to identify which of the five points doesn't fit in with the topic.

Let's look at the wording of #4 along with my translations:

"As long as nuclear weapons exist" = everyone else must disarm. We are responsible stewards of nuclear weapons and can be trusted under all circumstances.
"America must retain a safe, secure and reliable nuclear stockpile" = the nuclear weapons labs in which we have a significant economic interest must continue to receive billions and billions of taxpayer dollars to make more nuclear weapons even though in point #2 we say that continued reliance on nuclear weapons encourages proliferation in other countries.
"Primarily to deter a nuclear attack" = there are other things we will use nuclear weapons for, including offensive purposes.
"To reassure our allies through extended deterrence" = we want to keep as many countries as possible under our thumb by continuing to pretend that our nuclear weapons will keep them safe.

In mid-February, the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation hosted a conference challenging nuclear deterrence at its headquarters in Santa Barbara, California. Conference participants drafted a statement that actually rejects nuclear deterrence and explains why. You can read and sign on to the Santa Barbara Declaration here.

Remembering Eisenhower's Farewell Address

2011-01-13T15:59:00.000-08:00

January 17th will be the 50th anniversary of President Eisenhower’s Farewell Address to the nation in which he warned of the unwarranted and unprecedented influence of the military-industrial complex. I think he would be shocked to see how this influence has grown over the past half century and what this has meant in terms of the country’s immense military budgets, the nuclear arms race, the permanent war footing, the failure to achieve meaningful disarmament, and the illegal wars the US has initiated. In addition to all of this, there is the influence of the military-industrial complex on the media, academia, the Congress and the citizenry. It has also ensnared US allies, like the UK, in its net. The only way to assure that the military-industrial complex can be meshed “with our peaceful methods and goals,” Eisenhower said, is through “an alert and knowledgeable citizenry.”
Eisenhower was 70 years old when his term as president came to an end. He had been a General of the Army and hero of World War II, Supreme Commander of Allied Forces Europe, and for eight years the president of the United States. His Farewell Address was, above all else, a warning to his fellow Americans. He stated, “The conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience.” He worried about what this conjunction would mean in the future, stating, “In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for misplaced power exists and will persist.”

Eisenhower feared that this powerful complex would weaken democracy. “We must never,” he said, “let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes.” He felt there was only one force that could control this powerful military-industrial complex, and that was the power of the people. In Eisenhower’s view it was only “an alert and knowledgeable citizenry” that was capable of defending the republic “so that security and liberty prosper together.”

What kind of report card would President Eisenhower give our country today if he could come back and observe what has transpired over the past 50 years? For starters, I believe he would be appalled by the enormous increase in influence of the military-industrial complex. Today the military receives over half of the discretionary funds that Congress allocates, over $500 billion a year for the Department of Defense, plus the special allocations for the two wars in which the country is currently engaged. The Department of Defense budget does not take into account the interest on the national debt attributable to past wars, or the tens of billions of dollars in the Energy Department budget for nuclear arms, or the funds allocated for veterans benefits. When it is totaled, the US is spending over a trillion dollars annually on “defense.”

Surely Eisenhower would be dismayed to see how many national institutions have been drawn into and made subservient to the military-industrial complex, which some would now refer to as the military-industrial-Congressional-academic-media complex. Every district in Congress seems to have links to the complex through jobs provided by defense contractors, putting pressure on Congressional representatives to assure that public funds flow to private defense contractors. At the same time, academia and the mainstream media provide support and cover to keep public funds flowing for wars and their preparations.

Near the end of his speech, Eisenhower lamented that he had not made greater progress toward disarmament during his time in office. He said, “Disarmament, with mutual honor and confidence, is a continuing imperative.” It was true then, and remains so today. He continued, “Together we must learn how to compose differences, not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose. Because this need is so sharp and apparent, I confess that I lay down my official responsibilities in this field with a definite sense of disappointment.” Indeed, there was reason for his disappointment, since the number of nuclear weapons in the US arsenal increased under his watch from approximately 1,400 in 1953 to over 20,000 in 1960. I suspect that he would be even more disappointed today to find that the US has not been more proactive in leading the way toward disarmament and particularly nuclear disarmament since the end of the Cold War.

Fifty years ago, Eisenhower feared the threat that nuclear war posed to the world and to our country, and expressed his desire for peace: “As one who has witnessed the horror and the lingering sadness of war – as one who knows that another war could utterly destroy this civilization which has been so slowly and painfully built over thousands of years – I wish I could say tonight that a lasting peace is in sight.” He recognized that much remains to be done to “reach the goal of peace with justice.” That was true when Eisenhower made his Farewell Address and it remains true today.

We would do well to reflect upon the deeply felt concerns of this military and political leader as he retired from public service. He prayed “that the scourges of poverty, disease and ignorance will be made to disappear from the earth, and that, in the goodness of time, all peoples will come to live together in a peace guaranteed by the binding force of mutual respect and love.” That was his vision, and he passed the baton to us to overcome the unwarranted influence of the military-industrial complex. Our challenge is to exercise our power as citizens of a democracy and to use that power to attain a more peaceful and nuclear weapons-free world.

New Year, Old Conflicts

2010-12-23T06:33:00.000-08:00

Nuclear crises in 2011 and their implications for US-China relations

As the New Year is upon us, it might be worth looking at what 2011 will bring in terms of potential international crises, especially those with a nuclear dimension to them. Two conflicts in particular seem as if they might escalate into military action: first, the sharply rising tensions between North and South Korea, and, second, the standoff between Iran and the US and its allies on Tehran’s nuclear ambitions. A third conflict worth mentioning is the ongoing dispute between India and Pakistan which, ever since both countries achieved nuclear weapons capability, has taken an especially ominous turn.

No real surprises there. These three are among the usual suspects when it comes to threats to international peace and security. Nevertheless, these cases deserve to be mentioned as they involve nuclear security concerns and, interestingly, also shed some light on the increasingly strained relationship between the United States and China.

The never ending war

First up: North Korea. Tensions between North and South Korea have been building to particularly volatile levels since the North’s apparent role in the sinking of a South Korean warship in March this year, killing 46 sailors, and last month’s shelling of the South Korean island Yeonpyeong by North Korea, which cost the lives of two soldiers and two civilians. After being criticized for responding weakly to the attacks, South Korea’s President Lee Myung-bak has toughened his stance, threatening the North with “enormous retaliation” if it launches fresh attacks. On December 20^th South Korea held live-fire drills on the island, raising fears of retaliation by the North. Luckily Pyongyang has showed restraint so far.

In addition to this escalation of hostilities, concerns over North Korea’s nuclear program have recently risen sharply. In May 2009 the country conducted its second nuclear test, thus fuelling the international community’s fears over its capabilities and intentions. Last month, North Korea took experts and officials by surprise by revealing a previously unknown “astonishingly modern” new uranium enrichment facility, which might provide the regime with another pathway to increasing its nuclear arsenal.

The disclosure revealed that the United Nations Security Council has not been as effective as it hoped in thwarting Pyongyang’s nuclear ambitions by passing resolutions. Additionally, it indicated that Western intelligence agencies are still very much in the dark when it comes to North Korea’s nuclear progress.

Particularly worrisome is that the country seems determined to consolidate its position as a wholesaler of nuclear know-how and technology. US diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks reveal that the US believes that North Korea shipped 19 advanced missiles to Iran in 2005, and that other technology has passed through Beijing on its way to Iran. Furthermore, there is evidence that suggests Pyongyang has traded nuclear equipment with Syria and Libya. Some experts are concerned that North Korea’s latest public disclosure of its nuclear capabilities is meant as an advertisement of its merchandise for potential buyers.

Interestingly, what these incidents with North Korea also bring to light is how US-China relations have recently deteriorated. Whereas Washington unreservedly condemned the North’s acts of aggression and followed up by conducting joint war games with South Korea, Beijing has been reluctant to rebuke its unruly ally, notwithstanding strong calls from the Obama administration to do so. Instead, China has reserved its strongest criticism for the US-South Korean military exercises, just off China’s borders. It views the increased American presence in its backyard with heightened suspicion. Although over the last days China has urged its neighbor to make good on its offer to allow in nuclear inspectors of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the US has found it increasingly difficult to get China on board in containing the North’s nuclear progression.

Beyond the crisis on the divided Korean peninsula, Washington-Beijing relations have further soured over US arms sales to Taiwan and several new alliances between the US and some of China’s neighbors. This competition between the two superpowers over winning the loyalty of the region could severely poison their already strained relationship.

The Iran crisis

Moving on to the second conflict worth keeping an eye on in the New Year: Iran’s nuclear aspirations and the efforts of the US and its allies to curb them. At the heart of the nuclear dispute are essentially some serious trust issues. While Tehran maintains that its nuclear program is solely for peaceful purposes, Washington and its allies suspect the country is seeking to build nuclear weapons.

Since 2006, Iran has been subject to several UN Security Council Resolutions aimed at thwarting its nuclear progress. Diplomatic efforts to resolve the standoff have been unsuccessful so far, yet continue to rumble on with new talks with Iran planned in January 2011. Meanwhile, the prospect of Israel–possibly with the support of the US–attacking Iranian nuclear facilities inches forward. It seems Israel has some unlikely supporters in the region, with recently leaked US diplomatic cables revealing that King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia repeatedly exhorted the United States to “cut off the head of the snake” by launching military strikes to destroy Iran’s nuclear program.

Some rightly argue that the war on Iran’s nuclear program has, in fact, already begun. While heads of state, officials and experts meet in New York and Geneva, Iranian nuclear scientists are being assassinated, nuclear facilities sabotaged and highly advanced computer viruses let loose on vital software and hardware. Make no mistake; a covert war is very much in progress.

Although it seems it has thus far been rather successful in slowing down Iran’s nuclear advancements, by no means does it provide a sustainable solution to the problem. A solution could come from within–most likely through a regime change in Iran. As for a solution coming from without, an attack targeting key nuclear facilities would only temporarily stall Iran’s nuclear progress and might lead to America’s third war in the Middle East in little less over a decade. This will make it increasingly difficult to reject the notion that the beginning of the 21^st century is experiencing what Samuel Huntington called "the clash of civilizations”. Ideally, comprehensive international negotiations would resolve the nuclear standoff with Iran.

However, Iran’s nuclear program is one of the most polarizing issues in global politics today. One relationship that has suffered from its toxicity is the one between the US and China. Iran is among the issues that have both countries struggling to stay on good terms. So far, Washington has been rather successful in bringing Beijing on board to pressure Tehran on its nuclear program. Although preceded by heated rhetoric between the two capitals, the Obama administration managed to secure China’s backing for UN Security Council sanctions earlier this year.

However, some Chinese officials suspect the US of using the Iran crisis to isolate their country as a so-called “irresponsible stakeholder” and to pressure it into backing American foreign policy objectives, without taking into account China’s key interests. China is heavily dependent on Iranian oil and is thus worried that signing on to anti-Iran initiatives could greatly impact its energy security. If the Iran crisis further escalates China might be less willing to side with the US, possibly forcing a showdown between the two superpowers. Similarly, if an all-out war breaks out again on the Korean peninsula, the US and China will have to significantly up their diplomatic game to make sure their relationship does not fully break down as a result of such a crisis.

Honorable mention: the India-Pakistan conflict

Of course, there are other conflicts that deserve our attention and worries in 2011. Crises might arise and catch the international community off guard. In fact, often tipped as the regional nuclear exchange most likely to happen, the India-Pakistan conflict has seen some highly volatile episodes these last few years, sometimes seemingly teetering on the brink of war.

The India-Pakistan dispute is also yet another example of an issue that could send US-China relations into a downward spiral, with both countries having vital interests in the region. China and India are having their own set of problems while the US is in an unstable alliance with Pakistan and simultaneously tries to maintain good relations with India. What's more, the US and China are making competing civil nuclear deals with, respectively, India and Pakistan, thereby fuelling the mutual nuclear anxiety between Delhi and Islamabad. Finally, both Pakistan and India sit on sizeable, and growing, nuclear arsenals, with the US fearing that Islamabad’s nuclear weapons program might lead to fissile material falling into the hands of terrorists. It makes up a volatile mix of mutual mistrust and competition that could easily set off a chain of violent events.

The deeper lying problem

What these three crises illustrate is how Washington and Beijing are struggling to see eye to eye on several important geopolitical issues. They represent some of the first cracks in an otherwise, so far, remarkably stable relationship. Unfortunately it seems that the fate of US-China relations is worryingly intertwined with each of these conflicts.

In essence, US-China relations have suffered from a widening difference of opinions on how to be a responsible stakeholder in the world order. China is unwilling to rise to power on American conditions. Neither does it seem eager to follow the example that the US has set in the last decades. The US, being in many aspects a declining power, will have to surrender some leadership to China as the world’s new presumed superpower. Expect this process to hit many speed bumps. As The Economist recently noted in a special report on the dangers of a rising China, “As China’s power grows, so will its determination to get its way and to do things in the world. America, by contrast, will inevitably balk at surrendering its pre-eminence.” The article offers a very simple, yet potent, explanation of why these struggles might turn violent. “Perhaps China does not mean ever to use its weapons aggressively. But American defence planners cannot rely on that, so they must respond. In this way two states that never intend harm can begin to perceive each other as growing threats. If you do not arm, you leave yourself open to attack. If you do, you threaten the other country.” The British historian, Herbert Butterfield, dubbed this the “absolute predicament and irreducible dilemma”.

What the conflict on the Korean peninsula and the disputes in the Middle East lay bare is rising discord and competing interests between the US and China. As such, they could act as multipliers of the deterioration in US-China relations or escalate themselves as a result of Beijing and Washington falling out. Alternatively, although it would require impressive diplomatic efforts from both sides, these crises could also offer the two superpowers an opportunity for pragmatic cooperation. The Obama administration has already devised a strategy aimed at achieving this, known as “strategic reassurance”. Let us hope that 2011 will see officials from Washington and Beijing, and diplomats between them, overcoming the vicious circle of mutual mistrust and military preparations, and instead work together to find a way to resolve these crises.

Can We Still Blow Up the World?

2010-12-22T14:41:00.000-08:00

I was recently asked the following questions: How many times could we blow up the world with the number of nuclear missiles New START will take off the table? And with the number still on the table afterwards, how many times can we blow up the planet? Here is my response:

I’ve actually never thought there was a good answer to the questions you pose. First of all, you can’t really “blow up the world.” What you can do, though, is destroy civilization and potentially annihilate the human species and most complex life. We could do the worst we can to the planet and it will survive us, although not in a way we would necessarily recognize over the next few hundred thousand years. And it is unlikely that members of our species would be here to observe the planet at all after an all-out nuclear war.
Second, I think the number of times one could destroy the world has always been speculation. Some recent simulation studies by well recognized scientists predicted that an exchange of a total of 100 Hiroshima-size nuclear weapons detonated on cities in an exchange between India and Pakistan could result in a billion deaths due to heat, blast, fire, radiation, weather change and crop failure.

The treaty will reduce the number of deployed strategic nuclear weapons by about a third, from the 2,200 agreed to in the 2002 Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (SORT) to a high of 1,550. The treaty doesn’t take into consideration some accounting irregularities that were agreed to, such as counting each bomber as one nuclear weapon although it can hold 20 or so nuclear bombs. Nor, does it take into account tactical (battlefield) nuclear weapons or reserve stocks.

The cost of the getting the Republican votes for the treaty was also high, over $180 billion to modernize the US nuclear complex, nuclear weapons and delivery systems over the next decade. We’ll be spending much more annually on qualitative improvements of our nuclear arsenal than was spent annually during the Cold War. Some countries will take this as a sign we are not serious about fulfilling our obligations to achieve a world free of nuclear weapons and consider the modernization of our nuclear arsenal as a provocation to nuclear proliferation.

Act Now: Senate to Consider New START Today

2010-12-15T12:09:00.000-08:00

Today the Senate is finally scheduled to begin discussion on the New START treaty. After months of obstruction and delay, the Senate has one last chance to ratify the treaty before the end of the year. The original START treaty expired over a year ago, during which time there have been no inspections or verification measures in place between the US and Russia.

Click here to contact your Senators TODAY and urge them to vote YES on ratification of New START. If the treaty is not ratified now, it will be much more difficult to get the required 67 votes when the 112th Congress begins in 2011.

Missile Defense Test Canceled Due to Clouds

2010-12-14T14:01:00.000-08:00

There was a test of a Ground-Based Interceptor, part of the US missile defense system, scheduled for this morning up the road at Vandenberg Air Force Base. Near the end of the four hour launch window, Vandenberg announced that the test would be delayed until tomorrow because of bad weather. The test can't happen because of fog? Memo to "rogue" states: if you want to launch missiles at the US, do it when it's cloudy on the California Coast.

This test, estimated to cost $120 million, is the latest in a long series of failed and questionable tests of the US missile defense system. While many tests have resulted in outright un-spinnable failure, others have seen "success" through rigging the incoming missile with a homing device. Regardless of the result of any individual test, the missile defense program is a failure for the United States and a massive waste of resources.

Back in 1986, Mikhail Gorbachev and Ronald Regan met in Reykjavik, Iceland and were on the brink of agreeing to abolish all nuclear weapons. The agreement fell apart, however, when President Reagan refused to give up US missile defense plans, which the Soviet Union (and now Russia) viewed as highly provocative.

The situation is much the same today. Russia has threatened a new arms race if we go ahead with provocative missile defense installations in Eastern Europe. We are still spending billions of dollars on missile defense with no indication that it will be operationally effective at any point in the future.

While we're squandering billions of dollars on this program, education and social services face continued cuts. Why are so many politicians dead set on a missile defense program that has proven time and time again to be a failure? Defense contractors around the nation have lined their pockets - and the campaign coffers of many politicians - over decades developing this fantasy defense.

There needs to be a serious re-examination of what is worth paying for in this country. What are the short-, medium- and long-term consequences of cutting education and increasing military spending?

Guilty of Trying to Uphold International Law

2010-12-13T14:24:00.000-08:00

Members of the Disarm Now
Plowshares with their legal team.

Five individuals have been found guilty of a number of charges related to their November 2009 protest at the Kitsap-Bangor Naval Base in Washington state. Anne Montgomery, Bill Bischel, Susan Crane, Lynne Greenwald and Steve Kelly were part of a Plowshares action to challenge the legality and morality of the US storage and use of thermonuclear missiles by Trident nuclear submarines.

On the first day of the trial, the prosecution objected to the defendants' reference to international law as a reason for their actions. In 1996, the International Court of Justice ruled that the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons is generally illegal. The military, it seems, sees nothing wrong with threatening the instant death of millions of people through the use of its nuclear weapons. Some might argue that the issue is more complex. But I would say that it is that simple - these five brave protestors were attempting to shed light on the thoroughly illegal and immoral possession of nuclear weapons by the United States.

Principle VII of the Nuremberg Principles states, "Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity as set forth in Principle VI is a crime under international law."

To be silent in the face of the grave threat of nuclear weapons makes one complicit in the consequences of their use. These five courageous peace leaders in the Disarm Now Plowshares group are guilty of nothing more than trying to uphold international law. In my book, that's not a crime; it's an ideal to which we should all aspire.

For more in depth coverage of this issue, visit the Disarm Now Plowshares blog.

Re-thinking strategy

2010-11-22T11:53:00.000-08:00

Choose domestic legislation over international treaties in nuclear disarmament efforts?

For anyone working on freeing the world of nuclear weapons, the standoff between the Obama Administration and Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona on the required Senate approval of New START has been an infuriating chapter in 2010’s already rich collection of thrilling nuclear arms control tales.

Speaking for myself, it is sometimes difficult to see any positive side to the ‘what if-scenario’. Put plainly, if Senator Jon Kyl and his loyal group of Senators keen on obstructing the White House any way they can, manage to thwart ratification of New START, then surely all headway made by President Obama with regard to nuclear disarmament will have evaporated.

It seems that for every step that is taken in the right direction, two are taken in the opposite direction, effectively getting us further and further away from the end goal of a nuclear weapon-free world. As a result, the cynics are rewarded while the idealists have to be resilient and “get back on the horse.”

I should mention that the news of NATO not taking up nuclear disarmament in its Strategic Concept, in spite of Germany’s efforts, and learning that North Korea has flouted international pressure by secretly building an “astonishingly modern” uranium enrichment facility at a pace that would suggest help from other nations, did not help improve my less than positive disposition.

Returning to the difficulties of ratifying New START.

With the survival of the important Russian-US nuclear arms control treaty now in the balance, it is easy to build failed ratification up as an important nail in Obama’s foreign policy coffin.

It was thus refreshing to read an International Herald Tribune Op-Ed entitled Farewell to the Age of the Treaty by James P. Rubin, which looks beyond the chances of New START being approved by the Senate and argues for a change in strategy with regard to achieving nuclear disarmament objectives. Mr. Rubin, a former assistant secretary of state during the Clinton administration, makes a case for choosing domestic legislation over international treaties, at least in the US context.

With regard to New START, Mr. Rubin claims that the US could “achieve roughly the same result without signing a treaty. International negotiations would still be needed, but instead of a binding treaty, the administration could commit to pursuing Congressional action to accomplish the agreed terms. The effect would be the same, but the process would be much easier at home, requiring a simple majority in the Senate, instead of two-thirds.”

Interestingly, he looks at that other issue which, although widely accepted as posing an existential threat to humanity, still has a dedicated band of skeptics (many of them US Senators) in its corner: climate change. “This strategy is already being used on climate policy. After the Senate failed to ratify the Kyoto Protocol on climate change that was negotiated during the Clinton administration, it became clear that any treaty to cut greenhouse gas emissions would be a lost cause. In recent years negotiators have continued to pursue international climate agreements, but with the understanding that adherence would occur through domestic energy legislation that the rest of the world could then examine and assess.”

According to Mr. Rubin, the same model could work for nuclear arms control. "If the Senate continues to stall on New Start, Moscow and Washington could simply set the same level of 1,550 strategic warheads through domestic legislation and exchange deployment plans consistent with the treaty´s other provisions. Crucial verification procedures, escpecially on-site inspections, could be established through executive agreements, which may not even require legislative approval. In any case, it is hard to imagine Congress opposing a bill to monitor Russia´s nuclear forces. Further arms control efforts planned by the Obame adminstration - reducing strategic nuclear forces, prohibiting nuclear weapons testing and controlling the production of special nuclear material - could be handled in the same way."

Mr. Rubin wisely does not rule out the practicality and necessity of treaties in some cases. He would like to see them reserved for rare cases, “like the creation of a mutual defense pact or perhaps President Obama’s vision for the elimination of nuclear weapons.”

In other cases, pursuing an effective mix of national laws and executive agreements may be President Obama’s only way to circumvent efforts of US Congressmen hell-bent on shutting down his government and quashing his foreign policy objectives, including his vision of a nuclear weapon-free world. In the new US political climate, President Obama cannot afford to ignore this approach.

Answering Bolton and Yoo: New START Will Strengthen U.S. National Security

2010-11-14T19:45:00.000-08:00

Two staunch ideologues who served in the George W. Bush administration, John Bolton and John Yoo, ask rhetorically in a New York Times opinion piece, “Why Rush to Cut Nukes?” Bolton, a recess appointment as United Nations Ambassador under Bush II, never met an arms limitation agreement that he supported. Yoo, the lawyer who wrote memos supporting the legality of water boarding under international law (not a very favorable prospect for captured U.S. soldiers), worked in Bush II’s Justice Department. Bolton and Yoo can find no good reason to support the New START agreement with the Russians, arguing that without amendments it will weaken “our national defense.”

Let me answer the question posed in the title of their article.
The Senate should support and ratify this treaty because it will strengthen U.S. national security by:

reducing the size of the bloated nuclear arsenals in both countries, creating a new lower level from which to make further reductions;

reinstating verification procedures that ended with the expiration of the first START agreement in December 2009;

building confidence in the Russians that we stand behind our agreements; and

sending a signal to the rest of the world that we are taking steps to fulfill our legal commitment under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to achieve nuclear disarmament.

The downsides of failing to ratify the treaty would be to remove restraints on the size of the Russian arsenal, forego inspection and verification of the Russian arsenal, undermine Russian confidence in U.S. commitments, and encourage further nuclear proliferation by other countries thereby increasing the possibilities of nuclear terrorism. Further, if the treaty is not ratified before the new Congress is seated in January 2011, its future ratification will be far more difficult.

What do Bolton and Yoo say they want? First, to remove language in the treaty’s preamble, which is not legally binding, that says there is an “interrelationship” between nuclear weapons and defensive systems. That language only recognizes a reality. Of course, there is a relationship between missiles and missile defenses. Second, they don’t want the U.S. to be limited in putting conventional weapons on formerly nuclear launch systems. But that is a price, and a fair one, that each side will pay for lowering the other side’s nuclear capabilities. Third, they want a Congressional act for the financing, testing and development of new U.S. warhead designs before the treaty is ratified. In other words, they want guarantees that the U.S. nuclear arsenal will be modernized. They seek long-term reliance on the U.S. nuclear threat, but this means that U.S. citizens will also remain under nuclear threat for the long-term.

Bolton and Yoo are an interesting pair. The first would lop ten floors off the United Nations, the second do away with the laws of war when they aren’t convenient. Do they deserve their own opinions? Of course. Do their opinions make any sense? Only in the context of the American exceptionalism and militarism that were the trademarks of the Bush II administration and have done so much to weaken the spirit, values and resources of the country while continuing to haunt us in our aggressive wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

One must wonder what possessed the New York Times to publish their rantings. Additionally, using the word “Nukes” in the title suggests somehow that nuclear weapons are cute enough to have nicknames and not a serious threat to the very existence of civilization. That Bolton and Yoo could rise to high positions in our country is a sad commentary on the country, but perhaps understandable in the context of the Bush II administration’s persistent flouting of international law. That the New York Times would find sufficient merit in their discredited opinions to publish their article is an even sadder commentary on the editorial integrity of one of the country’s most respected newspapers.

Selling Arms in Asia

2010-11-10T13:40:00.000-08:00

My impression of President Obama's trip to Asia is that he has unfortunately gone as chief arms salesman to new frontiers. This says much more about the US than it does about Asia. First, Congress allocates much of our discretionary income, more than half, to strengthening our military and bolstering our armaments, and then our President flies off to Asia to boost the sales of tanks, planes and missiles to client states. We call it geopolitics, but at its heart it is about greed and gluttony. Asian economies seem vibrant. Ours seems stuck in the mud of militarism.

America's needless wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are reducing us to a second or third rate power, a helpless giant. China is one beneficiary of our wasteful militaristic policies. India and other Asian countries could be as well, if they resist the temptation to purchase our second-hand military hardware and follow our lead into unnecessary and illegal wars. If the United States still wishes to be respected in the world it needs to return to the basics of democracy, human rights, the rule of law and international cooperation. There are too many serious problems confronting the world for the US to be focused on pushing arms and building war coalitions in Asia or any other part of the world. We need to think much more deeply about the example we are setting and how it is already returning to haunt us.

That Little Problem of Nuclear Energy

2010-11-08T13:24:00.000-08:00

I recently wrote this short piece for an online publication in the UK called The Fresh Outlook.

Iran’s Bushehr nuclear power plant makes the world a more dangerous place. There – I said it. On this point, I am in agreement with the hardliners in Israel, the United States and the West in general. Where our viewpoints diverge, though, is why it is dangerous and what we should do about it.

Article IV of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty gives “the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.” In this sense, Iran is well within its rights to develop and operate one or more nuclear power plants.

However, given the relative ease with which a country can employ dual-use technologies to clandestinely develop a nuclear weapons programme, perhaps it is time to reconsider spreading nuclear power plants across the globe. Apart from the astronomical expense, danger of operation and lack of a plan for highly toxic waste, a double standard of encouraging nuclear energy in “good” countries and trying to prevent it in “bad” countries simply cannot hold.

Before the revolution in 1979, Iran was considered to be a US ally. During this period of friendship, the US encouraged the Shah to develop nuclear energy in Iran. The United States supplied Iran with a research reactor under the Atoms for Peace programme. US President Jimmy Carter signed an agreement with Iran in 1978 that would have sent eight US-made nuclear reactors to Iran. However, that agreement never went through because the 1979 revolution nullified it. How quickly a friend can become an enemy!

By allowing nuclear power to proliferate, we are asking for trouble down the road. Leaders such as France’s Nicolas Sarkozy should not be allowed to sell nuclear power plants to countries for short-term gain and leave subsequent generations to clean up the mess. We must begin to take a longer-term view of the world and our actions if we want to avoid these sticky situations. As for what to do about Iran’s Bushehr nuclear power plant, the best we can do at this point is to negotiate with the Iranians to ensure that the strictest safeguards of the International Atomic Energy Agency are in place.

Nuclear power is not a “must-have.” Humans are intelligent and creative enough to come up with energy solutions that do not create the key materials for weapons that can destroy civilization. Whether it’s the Bushehr plant in Iran or Sizewell in the UK, nuclear power is a short-sighted technology that creates many more problems than it solves.

A silver lining?

2010-10-27T13:39:00.000-07:00

Climate of austerity creates window of opportunity for nuclear disarmament
Last week, the United Kingdom was under the spell of the coalition government’s Comprehensive Spending Review, which unveiled the biggest cuts in public expenditure in decades. Announced by Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne in the House of Commons last Thursday, the Spending Review proposes a £81bn ($127bn) cut in public spending over four years. These measures have been both applauded as necessary to tackle Britain’s deficit and condemned as leading the country into a double-dip recession. Time will tell where the truth lies.

What is certain is that departments will undergo cuts averaging 25%. Although substantially less, the 8% cuts (or £4.7bn) that the Ministry of Defence (MoD) faces still translates into 42,000 service personnel and civil servants losing their jobs over the next five years and the cancellation of high-profile equipment.

A day ahead of the Spending Review, Prime Minister David Cameron presented in the House of Commons his government’s Strategic Defence and Security Review to clarify the strategy behind the MoD cuts. The first wide-ranging analysis of British defence spending since 1998, the strategy takes some steps toward recognizing Britain’s diminished standing in the current world order and associated security and military requirements. For example, it makes clear that the UK will not be able to mount large scale operations like those in Iraq and Afghanistan for at least a decade and emphasizes the importance of conflict prevention as opposed to military intervention. Unfortunately, however, it does not go far enough in shifting resources accordingly. It still envisions the UK as a global player and proudly portrays the country as “punching above its weight” in conventional military terms. Fortunately, it seems the review process has opened the door to allowing more realism in further assessments of Britain’s defence policy and force structures.

Although many of us like to see defence spending significantly curbed, the loss of jobs it often entails is nothing to rejoice over. A more welcome aspect of the Strategic Defence and Security Review is its implications for the UK’s Trident submarine-based nuclear-missile system. They come twofold.

First of all, the decision whether or not to replace the existing fleet of four Trident nuclear missile submarines will be pushed back to after the next general election, due in 2015. Devised by the former Labour administration, the renewal plan is estimated to cost £20bn, although some NGOs have warned it would cost four to five times that figure. The life of the Vanguard-class submarines will be extended so that the first replacement submarine will not be needed until 2028.

Secondly, the number of warheads aboard each submarine will be reduced from 48 to 40, the total number of operationally available nuclear warheads reduced from fewer than 160 to no more than 120, and the UK's nuclear weapons stockpile set at a maximum of 180–a cut of 25%. Cameron added that this number will allow the UK to have continuous at-sea deterrence.

These measures will save around £1.2bn and defer a further £2bn of spending over the next ten years.

The announcement did not sit well with everybody. Labour politician and shadow Defence Minister Kevan Jones argued that the move is “playing fast and loose with the nuclear deterrent in a way that is reckless.” “What is shocking is that this is clearly designed as some form of appeasement of the Liberal Democrats who are, and have always been covert unilateralists,” a former Conservative defence spokesman added.

It is true that within the coalition, the future of Trident has been a key issue between the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats. While the former has backed the Trident replacement programme, the latter has called for scrapping the Trident system, arguing it is too expensive and unnecessary. Several former senior military officers have backed the Lib Dem position.

No doubt, the move to delay the decision on Trident renewal and cut 25% of Britain’s stockpile of nuclear weapons should partially be attributed to the efforts of the Liberal Democrats in the coalition government. Yet, the decisive factor in arriving at this decision has been Britain’s current economic climate. The Trident delay and cuts are predominantly the result of a cost saving exercise–not moral reasoning or a shift in mindset with regard to strategic security. This is not necessarily a bad thing. It does, however, say something about what we might expect five years from now, when Britain will inevitably have to decide whether it will remain a nuclear weapon state.

Two divergent scenarios–with a wide realm of alternatives between them–come to mind.

In the first, the British economy improves considerably, bringing prosperity to its citizens and making both the public and policy-makers less sensitive to public expenditure allocations. With the nation’s public finances in order, and people not hit by austerity measures, the issue of whether or not to renew Trident could slip to the back of people’s minds, leaving the path clear for the new Government to push through with Trident renewal. Trident proponents are no doubt hoping on this scenario to come true.

Alternatively, in the second scenario, Liberal Democrats keep making the case for nuclear disarmament within the coalition by emphasizing that the Trident system does serve the UK’s defence or security needs–which even former Prime-Minister Tony Blair now acknowledges–and that these weapons are illegal under international humanitarian law and thus morally indefensible. Simultaneously, like-minded parliamentarians from across the political spectrum will apply pressure by scrutinizing government policy and taking legislative action. If done effectively this will keep Britain’s nuclear policy under review and make advocating Trident renewal the unfashionable stance come next election season. By making it a central issue of the election, voters will have the chance to vote into power a government that reflects the popular opinion that Trident is an expensive irrelevance to Britain’s security.

A third, rather eccentric scenario, is worth mentioning. Proving that the cost saving bottom-line truly widens the realm of possibilities, an unlikely nuclear alliance seems to be in the making. Early November, French President Nicolas Sarkozy and British Prime-Minister David Cameron will meet in London to explore the possibility of nuclear cooperation between the two countries. The summit comes at a time when military spending in both countries face severe reductions. The relationship has certainly come a long way since Admiral Nelson advised young sailors to “hate the French as you hate the Devil,” and former French President Clemenceau declared a century later that “English is just badly pronounced French.”

Although I welcome the government’s austerity measures’ implications for the Trident system, it does not make for sustainable nuclear disarmament. Following its reasoning further, where would it end? A double-dip recession will slice another 25% of the nuclear arsenal? Britain’s bankruptcy will get rid of it entirely?
Instead the Trident discussion should take into account all aspects of maintaining nuclear capability–not just the price-tag it bears. Next to it being a waste of human and financial resources, retaining nuclear weapons is also immoral, illegal and counterproductive to Britain’s real security needs. Come next general election, I hope the public and political debate will appreciate the issue’s full scope.

Until then, the current Trident delay and cuts represent a silver lining to the dark economic cloud still hovering over us.

Need Some Cash? Saudia Arabia Now Buying Weapons

2010-10-21T12:14:00.000-07:00

The United States just announced its biggest arms deal EVER: a $60 billion sale to Saudi Arabia. The biggest US arms sale ever - that's saying a lot. We export weapons to countries all over the globe; it's nothing new. Fighter jets here, helicopters there. What really blows me away about this deal is the US government's inability to understand that history tends to repeat itself.

The US Assistant Secretary for Political-Military Affairs, Andrew Shapiro, said that this deal with Saudi Arabia is intended in large part to counter the threat that Iran poses to the Saudis.

OK. It's 2010. Saudi Arabia is a US ally. Iran is an enemy. But let's go back for a moment to the 1950s, 60s and 70s. Iran, under the autocratic rule of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, was a major US ally. We encouraged Iran to develop a nuclear (energy) program and turned a blind eye to the repressive tactics of the Shah.

How quickly a friend can turn to an enemy. In 1979, a revolution in Iran overthrew the Shah and so began our odious relationship. The US befriended Saddam Hussein's Iraq and backed Iraq in its war against Iran during the 1980s. Then came the 1990s up to today - we all know how that relationship turned out for us.

Last month State Department spokesman Philip Crowley said major arms deals to countries like Saudi Arabia and Israel were in the US "national interest" as Washington seeks to keep the region stable and counter potential threats from Iran.

This short-term view of who's a friend and who's an enemy is to our great detriment. Instead of selling billions of dollars of weapons to our "friends," who often end up our enemy a decade later, we should be seeking to create peace in the Middle East. $60 billion of fighter jets and guns aren't going to deliver that.

My Critique of Nuclear Deterrence in The New York Times

2010-10-14T15:54:00.000-07:00

On Saturday, October 9, my letter to the editor of The New York Times was printed. The letter was in response to an earlier editorial from the Times that essentially called on the UK to scale back its plans for replacing its Trident nuclear weapon system and rely on the United States for a full "nuclear deterrent."

Before joining the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, I worked for two years with the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) in the UK. CND has worked tirelessly for over 50 years against nuclear weapons in the UK and around the world. Trident replacement was a huge issue when I worked there in 2006-07, as it continues to be now.

Typically I only write letters to the editor when an article or editorial gets me so fired up, I have no choice but to respond. This was one of those cases. Here at the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, we are working hard to debunk the myth of nuclear deterrence, like in our new 5-minute animated video. Combine that with my history and passion for preventing the UK from replacing its nuclear weapon system and you have a perfect story for me to comment on.

I have had a reasonable amount of success in getting letters to the editor published in major newspapers like the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times and many national UK papers. I would like to share my formula here in the hopes that it will help you get your opinions published when there is something you feel compelled to comment on.

1. As I mentioned previously, the issue must be something you are passionate about.
2. You don't have to be exceptionally knowledgeable about the issue (you're only writing 150-200 words), but you should know enough that your argument doesn't have any holes.
3. Keep it short and focused. You may disagree with 12 different things that were said in the article. Pick the top one or two and respond to them. You only have a few words to work with - make each one count.
4. Include an anecdote, metaphor or something catchy that will set your letter apart from the hundreds the editors receive every day (in my case with the NYT letter, talking about sending a friend out in the rain with an umbrella that only works in theory).
5. Include your contact information at the bottom of the letter, including address, phone number and email (don't worry - they'll only publish your city).

The letters to the editor page is the second-most read page in every newspaper, just after the front page. While you may not get every letter published that you do write, you occasionally will have important successes that could help change the minds of a significant number of people.

Iran Is Unphased by the Saber Rattling

2010-10-11T16:40:00.000-07:00

Regarding nuclear weapons, the US message to Iran has been “do as we say, not as we do.” We tell Iran that they cannot have nuclear weapons, but we do so in the context of relying upon these weapons for our own security and being silent about Israel’s nuclear arsenal. This is clearly an irksome double standard for Iran, one that would be far easier to tolerate if the US showed it was serious about eliminating its own nuclear arsenal and pressuring the other nuclear weapons states, including Israel, to do the same.

Further, Iran was one of three countries, along with Iraq and North Korea, named by George W. Bush as belonging to an Axis of Evil. We invaded Iraq, which had no nuclear weapons, and negotiated with North Korea, which does have them. Our behavior, on its face, would seem to be an incentive to countries not on friendly terms with the US to develop nuclear arms and justify their actions in the name of national security.

US saber rattling must give pause to Iran and, for that reason, Iran will likely stop short of actually creating nuclear weapons. On the other hand, it seems that Iran is motivated to continue to push the envelope. Its leaders most likely believe that the strategic costs to the US of attacking Iran would be too great for the US to actually initiate an attack, particularly since it is still engaged in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The bigger danger to Iran is an Israeli attack on its nuclear facilities, but it is doubtful that Israel would act without approval by the US. A preventive Israeli attack on Iran would be far more complicated and far less likely to succeed than its 1981 attack on Iraq’s Osirak reactor. An attack by Israel could result in a more general war in the Middle East, which would be disastrous for the region and would almost certainly lead to restricting Middle East oil exports with consequent global economic chaos.

Heads held high?

2010-09-23T07:26:00.000-07:00

Interview with a true nuclear believer

Among the many obstacles to achieving lasting nuclear disarmament is the persistent belief that a nuclear arsenal provides a nation not just with security—a flawed notion itself—but with national prestige. The “superpower” status that allegedly comes with possession of nuclear weapons means that the rest of the world, particularly your enemies, will have to reckon with you. Thus, apart from their supposed deterring effects, a nuclear arsenal would put a nation in a position of parity with the “big boys”. At least, that’s how the argument goes. As a result, nuclear weapons are regarded by some as a source of pride. This sentiment is twisted and dangerous and continues to frustrate disarmament efforts.

A recent NEWSWEEK interview[1] with Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan, widely considered the father of Pakistan’s nuclear bomb and often hailed as a hero by the Pakistani people, reveals how this narrative is ingrained in Pakistan’s nuclear ambitions and posture.

Leaving the strong anti-West rhetoric aside—including legitimate grievances about the Western nuclear power’s double standards regarding nuclear security matters—Dr. Khan’s answers provide some valuable insight into the psychology behind nuclear pride and prestige. Considerations of security, status and pride—all three closely interrelated—make up this sentiment. Excerpts.

Q: Most here take pride in the fact that Pakistan is a nuclear state and believe this has served as a deterrent to conventional war with India.

A: Yes, I fully agree. Our nuclear program has ensured our survival, our security, and our sovereignty ... I am proud to have contributed to it together with my patriotic and able colleagues.

Q: The CIA chief, Leon Panetta, said earlier this year that Pakistan is now the headquarters of Al Qaeda. British leaders have declared Pakistan the exporter of global terrorism. Is this accurate, and, if so, what can Pakistan do to turn the tide?

A: The CIA chief—like his bosses and those before him—is a liar. There is no headquarters of Al Qaeda in Pakistan. Yes, Pakistan has become very unsafe due to foreign troops in Afghanistan. Our cohesion has been shattered. The spineless political leaders have turned our country—a nuclear and missile power with [180] million people—into a beggar state, a third-rate country. If there had been any pride left in our leaders, they would have responded appropriately and nobody would have dared to say such things in the first place.

Q: There is also the popular theory that Pakistan is a nation with no sustainable identity. The bomb, like cricket, is one of those things that bind all Pakistanis in common pride and cause. Do you agree?

A: Pakistan was not an artificially created country. We, the Muslims in India, were a separate nation with a distinct culture, history, social order, and heritage. By any definition we were a nation. Unfortunately, selfish, narrow-minded leaders broke it into ethnic groups, which led to exploitation. Nuclear weapons made the nation walk with heads held high.

The last sentence is particularly telling. In a view which equals military might to prestige, nuclear weapons represent the pinnacle of pride. This pride, however, comes at a price. Surely, the Pakistani people would rather have the billions of dollars invested in the Pakistani nuclear program go to improving the country’s flood defenses or addressing its social and developmental problems.

In the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s (NAPF) Briefing Booklet for the 2010 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference, entitled ‘Shifting the Mindset’,[2] Dr. David Krieger distinguishes the different categories across the spectrum of perspectives on nuclear weapons. They range from believing nuclear weapons are essential assets at one end to seeking their total elimination at the other. Being responsible for providing nuclear know-how to Iran, Libya and North Korea, Dr. Khan falls in the category of ‘Nuclear Believers’, a group that believes nuclear deterrence always works and—at the most extreme—promotes the proliferation of nuclear weapons to other countries.

The main theme of the Briefing Booklet is the need for a shift in mindset to a new way of thinking about the nuclear dilemma confronting mankind. It recognizes that the main challenge for the nuclear abolition movement is to bring about such a shift. For as long as views such as those expressed by Dr. Khan persevere, sustainable nuclear disarmament will remain elusive.

Part of shifting the mindset is delegitimizing nuclear pride and prestige and to show instead that there is nothing honorable about having these monstrous instruments of mass destruction. It is imperative that we move towards a world where a nation that abolishes its nuclear weapons (or refrains from pursuing them) may walk with heads held high.

[1] ‘Western Hypocrisy’, http://www.newsweek.com/2010/08/31/a-q-khan-on-his-role-developing-pakistan-s-nuke.html.
[2] ‘Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament: Shifting the Mindset’, Dr. David Krieger, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. www.wagingpeace.org/goto/nptbooklet/

New START is a Needed Re-Start

2010-09-14T15:57:00.000-07:00

The New START agreement, signed by US President Obama and Russian President Medvedev, is not a major leap forward toward nuclear disarmament. Its goals are far more modest than needed, but they are still crucial. For the Senate to turn down ratification of the treaty would be a disaster for the country and the world, opening the door to new arms races and to new justifications for nuclear proliferation.

The treaty will reduce the number of deployed strategic warheads on each side to 1,550 and the number of deployed delivery vehicles to 700 for each country. The treaty will also provide for verification procedures to assure compliance. Since the expiration of the START I agreement in December 2009, there has been no agreement on verification procedures between the two countries.

President Obama has preemptively sought to buy off the Republicans in the Senate by promising an additional $80 billion for nuclear weapons over the next decade and another $100 billion for nuclear weapons delivery systems. This promise by the President is unfortunate as it will send a message to other countries that the United States continues to seek improvement of its nuclear weapons for its security. This will encourage other countries to pursue or expand their nuclear weapons programs, which in turn will increase the likelihood of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorist groups. Nuclear proliferation and increased likelihood of nuclear terrorism will further undermine US national security.

Nuclear deterrence does not make the US more secure. There are too many ways in which nuclear deterrence can fail. In fact, it has come perilously close to failing on many occasions during the Nuclear Age. We can certainly deduce that a terrorist group that cannot be located and whose members are suicidal is not subject to being deterred. No matter how large the US nuclear arsenal, it will be ineffective in deterring nuclear terrorists should they obtain a nuclear device.

This understanding should dictate US leadership toward achieving a world free of nuclear weapons. It is a goal that President Obama has said the US is committed to achieving. The way to that goal lies through the New START agreement with the Russians. Should the New START agreement be defeated in the Senate, it will not be only a stinging defeat for the President. It will be a deeply troubling setback for the security of the American people and the people of the world.

In considering the New START agreement, the American people should keep in mind that nuclear weapons cannot provide physical protection for them. All that policymakers are capable doing with nuclear weapons is threatening retaliation, carrying out of the act of retaliation, or striking preventively with them. Nuclear arms are devices of mass annihilation. They are capable of destroying civilization and most complex forms of life, including the human species.

The New START agreement is a step toward nuclear sanity. The members of the Senate who would vote against the treaty are still basing national security on Mutually Assured Destruction, which is truly MAD. We are in need of a shift in thinking that moves us toward Planetary Assured Security and Survival (PASS), which will allow us to pass the world on intact to new generations.

Testing a Fragile Relationship

2010-09-13T22:25:00.000-07:00

This is a big week for nuclear weapon issues in the United States. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee is set to give its take on the New START agreement with Russia a mere five months after the agreement was signed. Also, the US military has scheduled a test launch of a Minuteman III Intercontinental Ballistic Missile from Vandenberg Air Force Base to the Kwajalein Atoll in the Marshall Islands for Wednesday morning.

For months now Republican senators and pundits have flooded the op-ed pages with warnings of the "bad deal" that is the New START agreement. "We're giving up everything while Russia gives up nothing," they say.

Now let's imagine that on Wednesday morning, instead of the US shooting off one of its ICBMs, it's the Russians doing it.
What would the Senate Foreign Relations Committee meeting look like then? I can hear it now: "We can't trust the Soviets - I mean the Russians - they're practicing how quickly they can wipe us all out as soon as we ratify New START."

Sadly, here's how it will play out in reality: we launch yet another nuclear-capable missile at the fragile Kwajalein Atoll, our favorite long-range missile target. Senators on both sides of the aisle applaud the launch for keeping us safe and ensuring a safe and effective nuclear deterrent. Leaders from countries around the world take note and take a step closer to the only thing they think can prevent an offensive US attack - their own nuclear weapon and missile delivery programs.

Update on Iran

2010-08-16T16:43:00.000-07:00

It seems that U.S. voters are not the only party feeling disillusioned about Obama’s campaign promises of “Hope” and “Change.” The 2010 Arab Opinion Poll, taken by the University of Maryland and Zogby International, shows a downswing in Obama’s approval ratings and a sharp decline in overall optimism about the administration’s Middle East foreign policy. This shift in opinion is accompanied by a notable increase in support for a nuclear Iran.

The poll’s sample size is just under 4,000 individuals and includes nationals of Egypt (818), Saudi Arabia (812), Morocco (816), the United Arab Emirates (512), Lebanon (509), and Jordan (509). The participants were polled on a number of broad topics, including identity; world view; the Arab-Israeli conflict; the United States and the Middle East; and Iran.

The percentage of respondents who believe that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons rather than peaceful research hasn’t changed much (a 55% majority, compared to last year’s 59%). However, while a reassuring 40% felt that Iran should be pressured to curtail its nuclear program in last year’s poll, only 20% of all 2010 respondents favored curtailment. Similarly, attitudes about the regional impact of a nuclear armed Iran seem to have been reversed: in 2009, a mere 29% said that they thought the outcome for the Middle East would be “more positive” if Iran acquired nuclear weapons, while 46% said “more negative.” This year, 57% choose the “more positive” option, and only 21% “more negative.”

Shibley Telhami, Professor of Peace and Development at the University of Maryland and a nonresident senior fellow at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at Brookings, headed the poll. In an interview with Voice of America News, he stated that the 35% decrease in “hopeful” attitudes about U.S foreign policy was directly correlated to increased support for Iran. “When they’re optimistic about our American foreign policy,” said Telhami, “they’re much tougher on Iran.”

The truth is that it’s getting harder for anyone to be optimistic about U.S. foreign policy – particularly where Iran is concerned. On Sunday, the Los Angeles Times reported that the U.S. and EU’s most recent attempts to halt Iran’s nuclear program have been largely unsuccessful. After the U.N. adopted somewhat lax trade sanctions against Iran in June, the U.S. and EU hurried to add more stringent restrictions. The U.S. sanctions are aimed at preventing the sale of refined petroleum products and aid in refinement of petroleum to Iran, while the EU sanctions penalize foreign investment in banking, shipping, insurance, transportation as well as energy and nuclear-related industries.

The economic pressure exerted by the sanctions is intended to curb Iran’s nuclear development. Despite the U.S. Department of State’s assurances that they are, in fact, having an effect on the "thinking in Tehran” there seems to be a hiccup in the plan. China, Russia, India and Turkey have moved ahead on investments that violate the sanctions, taking advantage of the opportunity to expand their business. Indian daily The Hindu reports that Iran has also decided to dramatically reduce gasoline consumption and work towards self-sufficiency in its domestic refining sector. These steps, combined with foreign support from China, Russia, India and Turkey could very well take the sting out of the U.S. and EU sanctions.

Unsurprisingly, neoconservatives are endorsing a military “solution” to Iran. U.S. House of Representatives’ Resolution 1553 explicitly provides support for Israeli military strikes against Iran, backing Israel's use of “all means necessary” “including military force.” The resolution has garnered the support of nearly on third of House Republicans, yet supporters seem to be ignoring expert opinion Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, General David Petraeus, The Brookings Institution's Saban Center, and the Oxford Research Group all agree that another war in the Middle East would be disastrous, and do nothing to curb Iran’s nuclear aspirations.

Celebrated Iranian journalist Akbar Ganji adds to the chorus of protestors, noting that an attack on Iran would decimate Iran’s growing Green Movement. “The mere fact that Obama didn't make military threats made the Green Movement possible," Ganji stated. He refers to Iran's increasingly secular liberal democratic movement, which is comprised largely of the middle class and college educated youth from all social classes. The Green Movement was born in response to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s victory in the June 2009 elections. Protestors flocked to the streets to decry what they regarded as a fraudulent election. Although Ahmadinejad retained power, Green Movement continues to push for democracy and civil rights within the framework of the existing regime. Ganji is optimistic about the movement’s future, but says that it needs time to stabilize and develop leadership. “It's not to our benefit for this regime to collapse today,” Ganji explained, “You need an experienced democratic force that will be able to replace the regime.”

So where do we go from here? According to Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, engagement is still an option. Iran has to “reassure the international community by words and actions as to what their nuclear program is intended for," Clinton told The New York Times. We can only hope that U.S. - Iran relations don’t take a turn for the worse; military action would be madness in light of plummeting Arab opinion, lack of support from other nations, and the warnings of intellectuals and military leaders alike.

Preventing Iran from developing of a nuclear arsenal is certainly important in the struggle for non-proliferation, but perhaps it is even more important to look closer to home. Reflecting once again on Obama’s campaign promises of “hope” and “change,” it seems high time for the administration to make good on their promise to work toward U.S. disarmament. A little more than two years ago, Obama told CNN, "It's time to send a clear message to the world: America seeks a world with no nuclear weapons." The then-candidate continued, “we'll make the goal of eliminating all nuclear weapons a central element in our nuclear policy." With ratification of the START treaty stalled until after summer recess and no clear roadmap for fulfilling the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, however, the “clear message” sent by U.S. nuclear policy sounds a bit like double talk. A nuclearized Iran is certainly a terrifying prospect, but it is the U.S.’s massive arsenal that has helped create a world in which nuclear weapons are ubiquitous with political clout. We can hardly inspire other nations to rethink the role of these weapons in their foreign policy without taking measures to show that we are doing the same. Ultimately, while staying true to the goal of non-proliferation, the U.S. must tread carefully, speak softly, and be very careful about wielding any big sticks.

Far Larger DoD Cuts Are Needed

2010-08-13T13:47:00.000-07:00

The US budget for 2008 shows over
50% is spent on the military.

The US military budget is way out of proportion to our national budget, our needs as a country and the threats that confront us. In fact, the military budget may be the greatest single threat to the future of the United States. We now spend well over $700 billion a year on “defense,” more than the rest of the world (including our allies) combined, or nearly so. The US military budget dwarfs education, health care, and other social needs. In light of this, the DOD's plan to save $100 Billion over five years is paltry and largely insignificant.

US citizens need to be asking why it is that we take such good care of the military with our taxes and such minimal care of our citizens in need. We currently spend more than $50 billion a year on nuclear weapons and their delivery systems, weapons that cannot be used without destroying ourselves in the process. If we wanted to be serious about reducing the military budget, we could start with abandoning plans to modernize our nuclear arsenal for $80 billion over the next 10 years and improving delivery systems for nuclear weapons for $100 billion over 10 years. In fact, we should be asking ourselves in a serious way why we need nuclear weapons at all, and wouldn't we be far better off leading the way to a world without these weapons.

For roughly $50 billion annually we could assure that the United Nations meets its eight Millennium Development Goals by 2015 to reduce poverty, disease, childhood and maternal mortality, etc. We would have far less need for a bloated, oversized and largely ineffective military if we reached out to the world with anti-poverty measures rather than predator drones and wars of choice.

The Myth of Nuclear Deterrence

2010-08-12T12:02:00.000-07:00

I'm thrilled to announce the release of our newest video, "The Myth of Nuclear Deterrence." This five-minute animated video shows that relying on nuclear deterrence is extremely dangerous and that, in fact, the only way for us to be safe from a nuclear attack is to abolish all nuclear weapons around the world.

The video was directed by Erik Choquette, an 18 year-old from Santa Barbara, CA. Erik won our Swackhamer Disarmament Video Contest in 2008 and 2009, and we are happy that he is continuing his involvement with the Foundation in this way. I owe Erik and his team at Chipotle Pictures a huge thank you for their hard work and dedication in getting this video done over the summer.

We will have DVD copies of the video available in just a couple of weeks. You can email me now to let me know that you would like a copy, or you can order it on our website as soon as it's available.

I hope that you find the video educational and enjoyable to watch.

Another Reason to Abolish Nuclear Weapons

2010-08-11T09:48:00.000-07:00

Links between nuclear security and climate change demonstrated by wildfires in Russia

by Rob van Riet*

From massive landslides caused by torrential rain in China, to unprecedented floods affecting over 14 million people (and counting) in Pakistan, to rampant wildfires spreading through parts of Russia; the Northern hemisphere has been experiencing some extreme weather conditions this summer. Although one should be careful in proving (or disproving) climate change by pointing to such incidents, these episodes give a taste of some of the expected effects of global warming.

A concern that has been growing in my mind for some time is how nuclear security fits into this increasingly unstable picture (all three abovementioned countries have nuclear arsenals).

The wildfires that have been besieging Russia for over two weeks now have deepened this worry. With western and central parts of Russia suffering the worst heat wave since records began 130 years ago, wildfires have been ravaging the countryside. They have destroyed more than a third of cultivable land, claimed over 50 lives, clouded Moscow in smoke and damaged several military sites. Another threat surfaced last week when blazes were on their way to engulfing key nuclear sites.

The head of Russia’s federal atomic energy agency, Sergei Kirienko, confirmed that “material was moved from a nuclear research facility in Sarov in Nizhny Novgorod, about 310 miles east of Moscow, as fires approached, removing any threat of explosions at the center.”[1] Several soldiers mobilized to fight the wildfires near the major nuclear research center were killed in the blaze.

On state television, Russia’s Emergencies Minister, Sergei K. Shoigu, warned that in the event of a fire in the Bryansk region on the border with the Ukraine, radionuclides from land contaminated by the Chernobyl nuclear disaster “could rise together with combustion particles, resulting in a new pollution zone.”[2]

This is not the first time a natural disaster has caused nuclear security concerns. As a Newsweek article revealed in April, a team dispatched by the U.S. National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) was in Chile gathering up dangerous nuclear stock while the earthquake of February 27th hit.[3] Although several heart-stopping moments ensued, due to the professionalism of the team, they managed to avert disaster (only twelve hours before the earthquake had the NNSA engineers secured the irradiated uranium by fitting protective impact limiters on it and placing it in an airtight cask). Next time, however, the responsible parties might not be so prudent and competent, or nature might not wait.

Although nuclear concerns are not often linked to discussions on climate change, as the wildfires in Russia and the earthquake in Chile demonstrate, they should be factored in. These events confirm what many intuitively already feel: environmental degradation and extreme weather events –whether man-caused or not– can be a severe threat to nuclear security. Conversely, nuclear material has the ability to upscale any natural disaster to an unimaginable new level of destruction and deleteriousness.

Of course not all extreme weather events or environmental disasters cause nuclear security risks. Yet we cannot afford to wait for a natural disaster to ‘go nuclear’. In a world with an increasingly unpredictable environment, nuclear facilities, weapons and materials represent a highly volatile variable in an already unstable equation. It would surely be wiser to remove this nuclear variable altogether.

[1] ‘Wildfires Ravaging Swaths of Russia’, New York Times, August 6th 2010.
[2] Ibid.
[3] ‘Bomb chasers. Inside a top-secret program to keep nuclear material from getting into the hands of terrorists’, Newsweek, April 19th 2010.

*Rob van Riet is coordinator of the World Future Council's disarmament programme. He is based in London.

The Real Price of Nuclear Weapons

2010-08-06T16:45:00.000-07:00

By Adrianna Wolaver

If you ask an economist for a price, their answer will not only include the number where the supply and demand curves intersect, but the opportunity cost for those resources. The concept is simple; what else could have been done with that time and/or money? That’s the opportunity cost. Recently, Stephen Shwartz, author of Atomic Audit, has put the price tag of the entire pursuit of nuclear deterrence since 1940, including development, maintenance, and expansion, at $7.5 trillion.[1] Today we spend $55 billion annually on nuclear weapons and related programs.[2] To some people this may seem like a reasonable price for “nuclear security” and global military dominance, but I want to challenge you to think about what else that money could do.

There are eight Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) set forth in 1990 by the United Nations designed to substantially improve the quality of life and safety of our planet. The eight goals are as follows:

eradicating extreme poverty and hunger by halving the proportion of people living on less than $1 a day,
achieving universal primary education,
promoting gender equality and empowering women,
reducing child mortality by two-thirds,
improving maternal health by reducing maternal mortality ratios by two-thirds,
combating HIV and AIDS, malaria and other diseases,
ensuring environmental sustainability, and
creating a global partnership for development.[3]

The MDGs' 2015 deadline is fast approaching and many of the goals are far from being reached. It is possible, however, to reach these goals with $40-60 billion per year in foreign aid. [4] In order to put our nuclear weapons budget into perspective, I am comparing the United States’ annual nuclear budget of $55 billion with the foreign aid that is needed annually in order to reach the MGDs. Let’s close our eyes and imagine that we could redirect $55 billion a year to the MDGs.
$55 billion annually over five years would:

· Lift 500 million people out of poverty

· Allow 30 million more children to survive past their fifth birthday

· Save 2 million mothers who would die from complications during childbirth

· Supply 350 million people with clean drinking water

· Give 650 million people access to basic sanitation

· Provide140 million children with proper nutrition[5]

Over 1.6 billion lives will be immediately improved by these direct efforts and countless future generations will reap the benefits.

Valuable insights can be gained by comparing costs of development and nuclear security. For example, in Ghana around $80 in annual per capita public investments would meet all MDG targets.[6] Over twice that amount is spent per capita annually in the U.S on nuclear weapons programs. Another mind-boggling example is the comparison between building a girls’ school in Banaw Langla, Pakistan for $72,000[7] and building the new Honeywell nuclear weapons parts plant in Kansas City, Missouri for a staggering $815 million.[8] Girl’s schools are one the most cost effective ways to improve development and ultimately reduce extremist tendencies in nations like Pakistan.[9] You could build 11,000 schools in Pakistan for $815 million. What is more cost effective - changing the landscape of a society susceptible to extremist violence or building more nuclear weapons to deter them? One will inspire an ameliorative change through education, while the other will escalate violence, perpetuate the military-industrial complex and continue to drain resources. One must ask the question: are we allocating our resources in efficiently? Could there not be greater good and ultimately more security if the world was a better fed, better educated, and healthier place? Over the next 10 years, the United States will spend $18 billion annually to modernize its nuclear arsenal.[10] The same amount of money could provide a years worth of universal access to effective AIDS prevention in Africa and prevent 2.25 million new infections.[11] The cost of nuclear security is far greater than the $7.5 trillion price tag. It also includes the consequences of leaving 1.6 billion people in poverty.

We are also facing high domestic opportunity costs for our nuclear weapons programs. We are spending $800 million to develop new nuclear-capable cruise missiles; the same amount could provide one year of “Head Start,”- a comprehensive education, health, nutrition, and parent involvement services for low-income children and their families - for over 95,000 children.[12] The Department of Energy requested $2 billion in the fiscal year 2011 budget for stockpile support. Alternatively, $2 billion could be used to create 58,000 education related jobs.[13] Another domestic example: the 25% projected increase, or $405 million, for stockpile support in the fiscal year 2011 is the equivalent to providing 10,432 university students with four-year scholarships.[14] Perhaps it is time to re-evaluate our priorities at home and abroad.

While it is unrealistic to expect the immediate dismantling of all nuclear weapons programs, it is essential to reflect on our priorities and the most efficient use of our resources. Let these comparisons open your eyes to the vast amounts of money spent on nuclear weapons programs. Are nuclear weapons providing us with something more valuable than lifting 500 million people out of poverty or significantly improving our domestic economy? In this new era of nuclear cooperation we can begin to reconsider the costs and benefits of these weapons. How much are we willing to forego to maintain weapons of mass destruction: our domestic education system, a worldwide reduction of poverty, ending epidemics like AIDS? Only after our nation is free of nuclear weapons can we redirect our resources to pursue positive initiatives.

[1] Joseph Cirincione, "Lessons Lost," Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists,
61, no. 6 (November 2005): 42-53

[2] $55,000,000,000/307,006,550= 179.149272

[3] JD Sachs and JW McArthur, “The Millennium Project: a Plan for Meeting the Millennium Development Goals.” The Lancet, 365 (Jan. 2005): 347-53.

[4] World Bank, “The Costs of Achieving the Millennium Development Goals,” The World Bank, www.worldbank.org/‌html/‌extdr/‌mdgassessment.pdf, (accessed 16 July 2010).

[5] JD Sachs and JW McArthur, “The Millennium Project: a Plan for Meeting the Millennium Development Goals.” 352.

[6] Ibid., 351.

[7] UNICEF, “Inauguration of the Banaw Langla School in Pakistan-administered Kashmir,” United Nations, 19 March 2009, http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry /pakistan_48676.html

[8] Kevin Collison, “Private Financing Expected to Flow in June for Honeywell Nuclear Weapons Parts Plant,” The Kansas City Star, 9 June 2010, http://www.kansascity.com /2010/07/09/2073863/honeywells-contract-with-nuclear.html (accessed 10 July 2010).

[9] Isobel Coleman, “The Payoff From Women’s Rights,” Foreign Affairs, 83, no. 3 (May & June 2004): 3.

[10] Walter Pincus, “Nuclear Complex Upgrades Related to START Treaty to Cost $180 Billion,” The Washington Post, 14 May 2010, A02.

[11] The World Bank, “Executive Summary,” The World Bank’s Africa Region HIV/AIDS Agenda for Action 2007-2011, 24, June 2007.

[12] American Friends Service Committee, “Toward a Nuclear Free Future: Making Sense of Nuclear Weapons.” American Friends Service Committee, 3 June 2010, http://afsc.org/document/toward-nuclear-free-future-making-sense-nuclear-weapons-2010, (accessed 11 July 2010).

[13] American Friends Service Committee, “Toward a Nuclear Free Future: Making Sense of Nuclear Weapons.” American Friends Service Committee.

[14] Ibid.

Upcoming Reminder for Sadako Peace Day

2010-08-04T11:35:00.000-07:00

The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation will remember the 65th anniversary of the Hiroshima bombing on August 6th with our annual Sadako Peace Day Memorial. The event will take place in the Sadako Peace Garden at the Casa de Maria Retreat Center.

Sadako Sasaki was just two years old when the atomic bomb fell on Hiroshima. She survived the bombing, but was later diagnosed with leukemia. As her condition progressed, she began folding origami cranes, inspired by the Japanese saying that one who folds a thousand papers cranes was granted a wish. She finished her thousand paper cranes and continued folding more. Tragically, leukemia took Sadako’s life at the age of twelve. Japanese children fold cranes in her memory, and leave thousands at her memorial in the Hiroshima Peace Park every year on August 6th.

Sadako’s story can inspire all of us to believe in peace. If you are in the Santa Barbara area, we invite you to join us at Sadako Peace Day. If not, we encourage you to reflect on the subject of peace and how we can share peace in the future. For a fun activity, make you own paper crane and place it in a spot where it will remind you of peace. For instructions click here.

Message for Hiroshima Day

2010-08-04T09:50:00.000-07:00

The Nuclear Age has entered its 65th year. The first test of a nuclear device took place on July 16, 1945 at the Alamogordo Test Range in New Mexico’s Jornada del Muerto Desert. The Spanish name of this desert means “Journey of Death,” a fitting name for the beginning point of the Nuclear Age. Just three weeks after the test, the United States destroyed the city of Hiroshima with a nuclear weapon, followed by the destruction of Nagasaki three days later. By the end of 1945, the Journey of Death had claimed more than 200,000 human lives and left many other victims injured and suffering.

Over the past 65 years, the Journey of Death has continued to claim victims. Not from the use of nuclear weapons in war, but from the radiation released in testing nuclear weapons (posturing). We can be thankful that we have not had a nuclear war in the past 65 years, but we must not be complacent. Our relative good fortune in the past is not a guarantee that nuclear weapons will not be used in the future. Over the years, the power of nuclear weapons has increased dramatically. They have become capable of ending civilization and complex life on the planet. What could possibly justify this risk?

We remember the anniversaries of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as cautionary tales. The survivors of the bombings, the hibakusha, have been strong proponents of “Never Again!” They have spoken out about what they experienced so that their past does not become our future. They have warned us repeatedly,
“Nuclear weapons and human beings cannot coexist.” We must choose: nuclear weapons or a human future. The choice should not be difficult. Humanity should shout out with a single voice that we choose a world free of the overarching nuclear threat, a world free of nuclear weapons.

The people must lead their leaders, choosing hope for a far more decent human future. The United States alone has spent more than $7.5 trillion on nuclear weapons over the span of the Nuclear Age. The world currently spends more than $1.5 trillion annually on weapons, war and the preparation for war, while spending only a small portion of this on efforts to meet human needs and achieve social justice. Clearly, change is needed. Bringing about this change could begin by joining together to eliminate the nuclear weapons threat to the human future.

The future is now. Sixty-five years of nuclear threat to humanity is enough. We continue to rely upon the theory of deterrence at our peril. The theory requires rationality from leaders who are not always rational. The higher rationality and greater good for humanity would be to eliminate the threat by eliminating the weapons. The time to raise our voices and demand a world free of nuclear weapons is now, before it is too late. On this demand we must be both insistent and persistent.

Countdown to Zero Follow-Up

2010-08-02T11:43:00.000-07:00

Countdown to Zero was a great success here in the LA area. To those of you who came out to see it, thank you! If you haven't seen it yet, CtZ is still playing in theaters. Everybody at NAPF loved it, and those who we talked to after the movie liked it as well; we were quite pleased how responsive people were after the film. It is a well-made and beautifully photographed film--so go see it now!

Also, check out Valerie Plame's recent article in Newsweek, written as a corollary to the film. She discusses the dangers of nuclear terrorism and the hope for a world without nuclear weapons.

Red hot movie alert!

2010-07-29T17:12:00.000-07:00

Countdown to Zero is opening this weekend at theatres across the nation. It’s already playing in some cities, and we are mobilizing the masses to go out and see it!

The film is a smart, well-crafted look at the present state of global affairs: nine nations possess nuclear weapon capabilities, and other nations are racing to join them. An act of terrorism, failed diplomacy, or a mere accident could devastate the earth and its people. Now is the time for change.

Your attendance (and that of your friends, relatives, spouses, boyfriends, girlfriends, teachers, hairdressers, mechanics…well, you get the picture) will make a difference. We want to rock the box office, so that this film is distributed outside the major cities and word spreads like wildfire across the United States. Let’s put nonproliferation at the top of the national agenda. Let’s leave the past behind, and work towards a brighter, more human future. Let’s do this.

As you know, NAPF’s vision is a world at peace, free of the threat of war and free of weapons of mass destruction. This is one way to help make that vision a reality.

If you are in the Los Angeles area, you can come and say hi with the NAPF staff at a screening this weekend! We will be attending the following screenings at Landmark 12 in West Los Angeles:

The 5:30 pmshowing on Friday, July 30
The 7:40 pm showing on Friday, July 30
The 9:50 pm showing on Friday, July 30
The 7:40 pm showing on Sunday, August 1

If you won't be in the LA area, fear not! Countdown to Zero may be playing at a theater near you, click here to check!

SEE YOU THERE!

An Unflinching Look At Afghanistan: What Do the WikiLeaks Afghan War Diaries Really Reveal?

2010-07-27T16:32:00.000-07:00

By Jasmine Heiss

On July 26, WikiLeaks released a huge cache of more than 75,000 secret US military reports covering the war in Afghanistan. The full compendium of over 91,000 reports, known as the Afghan War Diary, is being hailed as the most significant archive about the reality of a war to have ever been released during the course of a conflict.

Despite their significance, the reports aren’t exactly polished journalistic writing. They are generally written by field units who are answering critical questions: Who, When, Where, What, With Whom, by What Means, and Why. To help make sense of this raw intelligence, Reader Supported News has published a comprehensive everyman’s reading guide (beginning about halfway down the page). One of the most valuable insights that the Reader Supported News offers is the deeply rooted origin of cover-ups: “When reporting their own activities US Units are inclined to classify civilian kills as insurgent kills, downplay the number of people killed or otherwise make excuses for themselves,” they observe. “Conversely, when reporting on the actions of non-US ISAF forces the reports tend to be frank or critical and when reporting on the Taliban or other rebel groups, bad behavior is described in comprehensive detail.”

Wikileaks gave the New York Times, the Guardian, and Der Spiegel, access to the reports before public release. In their respective articles, the three publications keyed in on different elements of the War Diaries: The Times, for example, highlighted the apparent double role of the Pakistani military. This sharply contrasts the picture of a harmonious alliance between the United States and Pakistan that has painted by Secretary of State Hilary Rodham Clinton. The Guardian, on the other hand, emphasized the widespread concealment of civilian casualties, including comments from Human Rights Watch correspondent Rachel Reid. She believes that the reports should force the U.S. to adopt a more transparent approach to reporting. “Accountability,” says Reid “is not just something you do when you are caught. It should be part of the way the US and NATO do business in Afghanistan every time they kill or harm civilians."

These revelations might not warrant gasps of shock, however. In an incisive (and somewhat snarky) article written for wired.com, Spencer Ackerman asks if these observations – or anything revealed by the reports – is really new news. He points at the absence of any Mai Lai-esque smoking guns, reminding readers that what is secret isn’t necessarily damning. Ackerman doesn’t think that the reports are totally trivial, though – for him the devil is in the details. Like the Guardian, the Times, and Der Spiegel, he appreciates the cumulative effect of the Afghan War Diaries for its capacity to paint an unflinchingly honest portrait of Afghanistan – more precisely, of an Afghanistan in which U.S. forces are flailing and failing. The White House has condemned Wikileaks for the publication of the files, citing national security concerns. Although the source of the leak is not yet known, the Pentagon has already launched an investigation. Some suspect 22-year-old army intelligence analyst, Bradley Manning. Manning, also known by his brash screen name “bradass87,” has already achieved dubious fame for leaking a 2007 video of a deadly American helicopter attack in Baghdad. Whether or not the War Diaries reveal new truths about the war in Afghanistan, they’re sure to cause a tightening up of the US intelligence sector. We can only hope that the comprehensive picture of the war’s past will have other effects, and help us reconceptualize the U.S’s role in its future.

Dear Mitt Romney, Please Learn How to Properly Structure an Argument

2010-07-26T16:09:00.000-07:00

Three weeks ago, Mitt Romney penned a Washington Post op-ed entitled "Obama's Worst Foreign-Policy Mistake," chock full of misleading information and outright lies about New START. His op-ed prompted a flurry of repudiation from across both aisles (Sen. Lugar, Sen. Kerry, Steven Pifer); even staunch anti-STARTer Senator Jon Kyl's (R-AZ) letter of response wasn't that supportive. Kyl's article was more of an angry rant against Obama than a well-articulated claim that Romney's assertions were correct.

Scores of experts were called before various Congressional committees, and they all refuted every one of Romney's arguments: missile defense, rail-mobile missiles, ICBM-silo conversion, data sharing, and verification.

Anyway, that brings us to today. Romney has responded to Senators, officials, and experts with a brand new op-ed in the National Review, in which he attempts to save face by re-iterating "Eight Problems with New START." I say that Romney attempted to save face, because, well...when it comes down to it, he pretty much fails at any real argumentation skills. Let me lay it out for you, Mitty.

Most academics go by Toumlin's Model of Argumentation, which stipulates that there are six--count 'em six--components of an argument: Claim, Qualifier, Grounds, Warrant, Backing, Rebuttal.

Claim: This is akin to a hypothesis, i.e. what you are asserting to be true.
Qualifier: This indicates the probability of the argument (usually with key phrases such as: mostly, often, always, etc.)
Grounds: Reason behind the claim.
Warrant: A link between Grounds and Claim.
Backing: Probably the most important component of an argument. Backing is where the big guns come out, i.e. statistical data, reports, etc.
Rebuttal: Used either before/after the argument to refute any counter-arguments. When used pre-emptively (anticipating counter-arguments and using evidence to refute them before they are even made), it makes for a much stronger argument.

Here is my favorite argument of Romney's from his most recent op-ed broken down using this model:

Claim: "In the long term, agreeing to this limitation could prove to have been very short-sighted."

Qualifier: ??

Grounds: "The sixth agreed statement of the treaty’s protocol suggests that telemetry data on missiles governed by the treaty is not to be used for strategic-missile-defense purposes."

Warrant: ??

Backing: ??

Rebuttal: ??

--Do you notice all the blank spaces? That's where Romney fails to refute experts--experts like Secretary of Defense Robert Gates who said that "For nearly 40 years, treaties to limit or reduce nuclear weapons have been approved by the U.S. Senate with strong bipartisan majorities." Or experts like James Schlesinger, former Secretary of Defense and former Director of Central Intelligence under Nixon and Ford, who said "fail[ure] to ratify the treaty...would have a detrimental effect on our ability to influence others with regard to particularly the nonproliferation issue. Or scores of other experts including Henry Kissinger, James Baker, Colin Powell, William Cohen, Linton Brooks, or STRATCOM Commander General Kevin Chilton. Why does Mitt Romney believe that his experience as a governor of Massachusetts makes him somehow more qualified to give foreign policy advice to the American public than these people?

Mr. Romney, let me present you with a properly ordered argument:

Claim: Mitt Romney writes poorly researched articles in order to undermine arms control.

Qualifier: Unless there is evidence to the contrary, Mitt Romney is a poor influence on American foreign policy.

Grounds: Mitt Romney wrote this article. Also, this one.

Warrant: These op-eds were widely panned by experts across the political spectrum.

Backing: Missile Defense; Silo-Conversion; Rail-Mobile Missiles; Verification; Data Sharing (Telemetry); Experts Say Ratify

Rebuttal: To those who claim that Mitt Romney is entitled to his opinion, I say this: Yes, Romney is entitled to his opinion, but not at the expense of an important arms control agreement that would heal U.S.-Russian relations and promote safety and security.

Check Out Steven Crandell's Latest Article at the Huffington Post!

2010-07-23T16:45:00.000-07:00

The fate of the planet does not usually hang on how we spend our leisure time. But it will for the next few weeks. So heed my words. Go to the movies. Take a friend. Watch the new film Countdown to Zero. Then invite more friends to see the movie. Countdown to Zero will open your eyes to a nemesis that pretends to be a guard dog.

Read more at The Huffington Post!

More Tickets Available for Additional CTZ Showings...Get Yours Now!

2010-07-22T16:17:00.000-07:00

To those in the LA area: The NAPF has 114 tickets available for a free screening of COUNTDOWN TO ZERO on Sunday, August 1st at 7:40 PM. Please request your free ticket here! Keep checking back...we are working to get additional tickets for the 5:30pm and 9:40pm showings on Friday, July 30.

Come See "Countdown to Zero"

2010-07-19T15:39:00.000-07:00

The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation has some exciting news: Countdown to Zero is coming to a theater near you! This movie presents an unprecedented opportunity to raise awareness about the dangers of nuclear weapons and a vital step to initiate positive change. You can play an active role! We are calling on you to help us by coming to see the movie and bringing a friend. You can find information about screenings in your city here. We would also like to ask you to invite your friends through facebook and other social media networking!
Thanks for your support,
The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

The 65th Anniversary of the Nuclear Age

2010-07-16T09:28:00.000-07:00

July 16, 1945 marked the beginning of the Nuclear Age. On that day, the United States conducted the first explosive test of an atomic device. The test was code-named Trinity and took place at the Alamogordo Test Range in New Mexico’s Jornada del Muerto Desert. The bomb itself was code-named “The Gadget.”

The Trinity test used a plutonium implosion device, the same type of weapon that would be used on the city of Nagasaki just three and a half weeks later. It had the explosive force of 20 kilotons of TNT.

The names associated with the test deserve reflection. “The Gadget,” something so simple and innocuous, was exploded in a desert whose name in Spanish means “Journey of Death.” Plutonium, the explosive force in the bomb, was named for Pluto, the Roman god of the underworld. The isotope of plutonium that was used in the bomb, plutonium-239, is one of the most deadly radioactive materials on the planet. It existed only in minute quantities on Earth before the US began creating it for use in its bombs by the fissioning of uranium-238.

There is no definitive explanation for why the test was named Trinity, but it generally seems most associated with a religious concept of God. The thoughts of J. Robert Oppenheimer, the scientific director of the project to create the bomb and the person who named the test, provide insights into the name:

“Why I chose the name is not clear, but I know what thoughts were in my mind. There is a poem of John Donne, written just before his death, which I know and love. From it a quotation: ‘As West and East / In all flatt Maps—and I am one—are one, / So death doth touch the Resurrection.’ That still does not make a Trinity, but in another, better known devotional poem Donne opens, ‘Batter my heart, three person'd God.’”

Oppenheimer’s reaction to witnessing the explosion of the atomic device was to recall these lines from the Bhagavad Gita:

If the radiance of a thousand suns
Were to burst at once into the sky,
That would be like the splendor of the Mighty One...
I am become Death,
The shatterer of Worlds.

Did Oppenheimer think that he had become death that day, or that all of us had? Certainly that first nuclear explosion portended the possibility that worlds would be shattered (by a “Mighty One”?), as they were soon to be in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

This year marks the 65th anniversary of the Trinity test. We are now 65 years into the Nuclear Age. At Hiroshima and Nagasaki we have seen the devastation that nuclear weapons can inflict on cities and their inhabitants. We have witnessed a truly mad arms race between the United States and the former Soviet Union, in which the number of nuclear weapons in the world rose to 70,000. We have learned that one nuclear weapon can destroy a city, a few nuclear weapons can destroy a country, and a nuclear war could destroy civilization and most of the complex life forms on the planet.

Nuclear weapons have endangered the human species, and yet today there are still more than 20,000 nuclear weapons in the world. Nine countries now possess these weapons. Humanity is still playing with the fire of omnicide – the death of all. We are still waiting for the leaders who will take us beyond this overarching threat to our common future. Instead of continuing to wait, we must ourselves become these leaders.

On this 65th anniversary of embarking on the Journey of Death, we must change course and move back from the nuclear precipice. The weapons are illegal, immoral, undemocratic and militarily unnecessary. The surest way to bring them under control is by negotiating a new treaty, a Nuclear Weapons Convention, for the phased, verifiable, irreversible and transparent elimination of nuclear weapons.

The United States led the world into the Nuclear Age. President Obama has pointed out that the country also has a moral responsibility to lead the way out. This can be done, but not with a citizenry that is ignorant, apathetic and in denial. Sixty-five years on the Journey of Death is long enough. It is past time for citizens to awaken and become engaged in this issue as if their future depended upon it, as it does.

The fervent prayer of the hibakusha, the survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, is “Never Again!” They speak out so that their past does not become our future. It is a prayer that each of us must join in answering, both with our voices and actions to achieve a world free of nuclear weapons.

Officials Bust South African Nuclear Smugglers

2010-07-12T12:45:00.000-07:00

Last Friday, officials arrested four South African men in the capital city of Pretoria for trying to sell an industrial machine containing nuclear material that could have been used to create a "dirty bomb." The origin of the machine is unknown, although South Africa manufactures large amounts of medical equipment for cancer treatment.

The nuclear material in question was cesium-137, the same kind of radioactive material used by Chechen terrorists in 1995. The rebels buried the material in Moscow's Ismailovsky Park and told officials they would only reveal the burial sites if Russia withdrew its troops from Chechnya. Russian military officials ultimately found the nuclear material with Geiger counters.

While still in the machine, the cesium-137 remains relatively harmless. If extracted, however, it can be used in a "dirty bomb." South African police are on the hunt for the device in which the nuclear material was to be used.

This incident highlights the willingness of individuals to smuggle radioactive material for profit, as well as the reality of nuclear terrorism. Thankfully, officials caught the smugglers before they could hand off the radioactive material, but will we be so lucky next time?

New START Op-Ed Roundup!

2010-07-09T15:19:00.000-07:00

This week saw a slew of op-eds about New START. It began when The Washington Post published former MA governor Mitt Romney’s op-ed on Tuesday, June 6th. Not only did Romney toe the conservative line regarding the ratification of New START, but he also concocted some new gems most Republicans don’t even use, such as the issue of placing ICBMs on bombers. On Wednesday, John Kerry wrote his own op-ed slamming Romney; Kerry even got in a personal dig, claiming Romney blatantly ignored the facts because he was in a “footrace to the right against Sarah Palin.” The same day, Steven Pifer and Strobe Talbott, analysts from the Brookings Institution, also wrote op-eds for The Washington Post debunking Romney’s claims. Yesterday, Jon Kyl’s piece appeared in The Wall Street Journal. To nobody’s surprise, Kyl did not support New START, but his piece was considerably tamer than Romney’s.

Many bloggers have already written extensively about these op-eds, but here's a conciser version of what you need to know...links and highlights after the jump:

June 6, 2010: Mitt Romney, The Washington Post, “Obama’s Worst Foreign-Policy Mistake.”

Impedes missile defense: It doesn't. In fact, President Obama is continuing to deploy a ballistic missile defense system that categorically does not work.
Forbids the US from converting ICBM silos into missile defense silos: US military officials would scoff at this accusation. Converting ICBM silos is costly and inefficient.
Russia could withdraw if US continues with missile defense: The Russians issued a non-binding unilateral statement that said they would consider withdrawing if they felt it was in their national security interests--just like the US withdrew from the ABM treaty in 2002. Withdrawal clauses are always drafted into international treaties.
Russia could "cheat" by deploying loads of ICBMs on heavy bombers, which under the treaty, are only counted as one warhead: Russia and the US didn't even do this during the Cold War. Even if Russia does decide to deploy ICBMs outfitted with multiple independtly targetable re-entry vehicles (MIRVs), the Bilateral Consultative Commission would deem this to be a new weapon. By definition, it would not constitute a "heavy bomber," thus it could not be counted as one warhead.
Gives advantage to Russia, who could "cheat" by stocking up on rail-mobile missiles: A confusing issue, but one that several experts have already addressed (I also wrote about this argument, as well as most of the ones above, here).

June 7, 2010: John Kerry, The Washington Post, “How New-START Will Improve Our Nation’s Security.”

Wow. Kerry is really fuming in this piece. Rightly so, I might add. In addition to countering every inaccurate assertion promulgated by Romney, Kerry blasts the former Massachusetts governor for political pandering:

"I have nothing against Massachusetts politicians running for president. But the world's most important elected office carries responsibilities, including the duty to check your facts even if you're in a footrace to the right against Sarah Palin. More than that, you need to understand that when it comes to nuclear danger, the nation's security is more important than scoring cheap political points."

June 7, 2010: Steven Pifer and Strobe Talbott, The Washington Post, “New START is No Mistake.”

Pifer and Talbott also raise strong objections to Romney's op-ed. In regard to missile silo conversion, they note that "Gen. Patrick O'Reilly, head of the Missile Defense Agency, testified to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on June 16 that, if he needs more missile defense interceptors, it would be simpler and cheaper -- $20 million less -- to build new silos rather than convert ICBM silos" They also continue to destroy Romney's false allegations line by line.

June 8, 2010: Jon Kyl, The Wall Street Journal, “The New START Treaty: Time for a Careful Look.”

Senator Kyl's argument is that New START is not a "stand alone treaty," rather national security is strengthened only when the treaty is coupled with other measures, such as the modernization of warheads and delivery systems, and a commitment to missile defense and global strike. This is a much more subdued claim than Romney, who asserted that New START in and of itself is a threat to national security.
Senator Kyl's stance on modernization is the quintessential conservative argument: If the U.S. reduces the size of its nuclear arsenal, then it must modernize and create new generations of warheads and delivery systems. This, however, not only wastes gobs of money, but it goes against the very spirit of the START treaties and the NPT. This argument is a red herring anyway, as President Obama has already increased modernization funding and slashed disarmament speanding.
Kyl is stalling the ratification process by demanding that Obama open up the negotiating record. It's all about politics, folks. The conservatives care less about securing the world's nuclear arsenals than it does about blaming the other side. By alleging that Obama won't open the negotiating record, the GOP can claim Obama isn't being bipartisan--and that's why New START didn't pass, not that the Republicans were being purposefully stubborn.

Animated Map of the 2,053 Nuclear Explosions Between 1945-1998

2010-07-08T12:46:00.000-07:00

Japanese artist Isao Hashimoto created an animated map which shows the 2,053 nuclear tests which occurred between 1945 and 1998. The final count (which does not include the two North Korean tests after 1998) is: US (1032), Russia (715), China (45), Great Britain (45), France (210), India (4), and Pakistan (2).

Each test is represented by a metronomic blip, which, in the end, creates an eerie rhythm reminiscent of the exchange between humans and the alien spaceship in Close Encounters of the Third Kind. The 14 minute long video begins slowly--illuminating the first test in New Mexico, followed by the devastating bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August, 1945. The blips incrementally accelerate, and by the late 1950s the map lights up with numerous tests between the U.S. and Russia.

NPR Highlights 1962 Nuclear Explosion in Space

2010-07-02T15:54:00.000-07:00

Check out NPR's Robert Krulwich piece about the U.S. nuclear tests in space. In 1962, the U.S. launched a nuclear device, a bomb 1000 times larger than the one that destroyed Hiroshima, and detonated it 250 miles above the Earth over the Pacific Ocean. (Krulwich erroneously reports that this is the only nuclear explosion in space. Both the U.S. and Russia tested nuclear weapons above the earth's atmosphere, as he indeeds reports later in the article.)

Codenamed "Starfish Prime," the military formulated this operation just days after the discovery of the Van Allen radiation belts, which surround Earth. The plan was to send up several missiles in order to glean whether "a) If a bomb's radiation would make it harder to see what was up there (like incoming Russian missiles!); b) If an explosion would do any damage to objects nearby; c) If the Van Allen belts would move a blast down the bands to an earthly target (Moscow! for example); and — most peculiar — d) if a man-made explosion might "alter" the natural shape of the belts."

One hopes that this kind of testing never occurs again.

Does Deterrence Really Deter?

2010-06-30T12:39:00.000-07:00

Today's post is from Martin Hellman, friend of the NAPF and author of the blog Defusing the Nuclear Risk. Martin is a Professor Emeritus of Electrical Engineering at Stanford University.

Calling nuclear deterrence by that name was a stroke of marketing genius for selling it to the public. Unfortunately, that stroke of genius was also a potential death sentence for us all by hiding another, more ominous aspect of this strategy.

To deter someone is “to discourage him from doing something, typically by instilling doubt or fear of the consequences.” Hence deterrence implies that it will work, that it will deter adversaries from calling our nuclear bluff.

To date, it has worked somewhat as advertised, though far from perfectly. If nuclear deterrence really worked, would the US have risked Soviet ire by deploying nuclear armed missiles in Turkey in 1961? And would Khrushchev have risked American ire by placing similar missiles in Cuba the next year? More recently, would the US have planned an Eastern European missile defense system that raised Russian ire, including a threat to respond by basing nuclear-armed bombers in Cuba?

To see deterrence for what it really is, it helps to go back to the early days of the nuclear era. Henry Kissinger’s 1957 book Nuclear Weapons and Foreign Policy noted that:

Deterrence is greatest when military strength is coupled with the willingness to employ it. It is achieved when one side’s readiness to run risks in relation to the other is high; it is least effective when the willingness to run risks is low, however powerful the military capability.

I agree with Kissinger, but wish he also had stated the obvious conclusion: To have any hope of being effective, nuclear deterrence must be conducted with a high tolerance for risk, namely that it might fail and destroy civilization. Deterrence is only an appropriate name for this strategy early in the process, after which it can suddenly be transformed into nuclear chicken and then into nuclear Armageddon.
All of which leads to two critical questions: Balancing its risks and rewards, is nuclear deterrence a net positive or a net negative for our security? And, if it detracts from our security, why do we cling to it instead of seeking alternative strategies?

Notes:
1. My thanks to the Arms Control Wonk blog for its post yesterday which included the above Kissinger quote.
2. My web site is dedicated to bringing objectivity to the assessment of nuclear deterrence’s risks and rewards.
3. One of my posts last September, makes a related point.

Sadako Peace Day Reminder

2010-06-29T11:43:00.000-07:00

Nuclear Age Peace Foundation Director of Programs Rick Wayman will be the featured speaker at the 16th Annual Sadako Peace Day ceremony, Friday August 6, at the Sadako Peace Garden at La Casa de Maria, 800 El Bosque Road, between 6:00 and 7:00 p.m. Admission is free and open to the public.

His theme will be “Persistence and Dedication.” He will discuss the importance of working for a world free of nuclear weapons in spite of opposition – and why the support of many people is required for progress to be made towards nuclear weapons abolition. Wayman guides all programs at the Foundation – including worldwide efforts to educate and motivate people to work for nuclear disarmament.

The August 6th Sadako Peace Day ceremony will also feature poetry from several local poets, including Santa Barbara’s Poets Laureate Emeriti, Perie Longo and Barry Spacks and Glenna Luschei, Poet Laureate Emerita of San Luis Obispo. Bob Sedivy will provide beautiful, evocative music on the shakuhachi or traditional bamboo flute. And Janice Freeman-Bell will sing accompanied by Chris O’Connell on Native American flute.

Background: Many people know the story of the brave, athletic Japanese girl named Sadako. She was only 12 years old when she was diagnosed with leukemia. She had been exposed to radiation from the Hiroshima atomic bomb at the age of two. She started folding origami paper cranes after a friend reminded her of a legend: if a person folds a thousand cranes, he or she will live to be very old. As Sadako folded the cranes, she would say these words:

“I will write peace on your wings and you will fly all over the world.”

Sadako had intimate knowledge of the costs of war and nuclear attack. Her health was waning, yet her wish was to spread peace. Sadako set out to fold 1,000 cranes. There are differing accounts of how successful she was. One book says that she folded 644 before dying. The Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum says she folded 1,000 and began work on another set of 1,000. However many cranes Sadako folded, students in Japan were moved by her story and began to fold cranes, too.

The paper crane has become a global symbol of peace, and a statue of Sadako now stands in Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park. In 1995, on the 50th anniversary of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation and La Casa de Maria dedicated the Sadako Peace Garden in Santa Barbara, California.