Noble Pursuits

Normally, I spend the last day of the month putting together our monthly e-newsletter, The Sunflower. Today, though, I just had to take a few minutes to write this blog, because I can't stop thinking about this quote.

Earlier this month, just before ending his term as President of Russia, Dmitry Medvedev spoke to a group of Russian elites. He said that good examples needed to be set for the next generation so they would be emboldened to pursue "success in literature, art, education..."

Great! Wow, Mr. Medvedev. Your dedication to the future of Russia's youth is laudable. Literature, art and education have been undervalued in the past, and are keys to a vibrant culture.

Unfortunately, Mr. Medvedev didn't turn off the microphone and leave the room at that point. He continued:

"...and nuclear weapons."

Are You Supporting the Continued Proliferation of Illegal Nuclear Weapons?

In March of this year the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, of which the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation is a member, published a report called Don’t Bank on the Bomb. The report looks at the role of investment in the global nuclear infrastructure, both by the nations who are proliferating and modernizing the weapons and their delivery systems as well as the banks, finance, and investment management groups who not only make this obscene industry possible, but in many cases tie each and every one of us into a dirty business with world ending potential. I dare you to look at the report and find out how your money is financing nuclear weapons.

You didn’t look did you? Let me give you a brief sampling of some American financial institutions who are involved: AIG, American Express, Allstate, Bank of America, Citi, Farmers Insurance, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, Knights of Columbus, Morgan Stanley, Northwestern Mutual, State Farm, and Wells Fargo. That is just a brief sample of the 322 institutions identified by the report¹.

For Nuclear Security Beyond Seoul, Eradicate Land-Based "Doomsday" Missiles

This article was originally published by the Christian Science Monitor. We think it is extremely important, though, which is why it is on our blog as well.

President Obama and other world leaders gathered at the Nuclear Security Summit in Seoul, South Korea, this week to address threats posed by unsecured nuclear material. If Mr. Obama is truly concerned about nuclear safety, he should seriously consider doing away with the 450 inter-continental ballistic missiles deployed and ready to fire at Russia on a moment's notice.

Last month we were among 15 protesters who were arrested in the middle of the night at Vandenberg Air Force Base, some 70 miles north of Santa Barbara, Calif. We were protesting the imminent test flight of a Minuteman III inter-continental ballistic missile.

The Air Force rationale for doing these tests is to ensure the reliability of the US nuclear deterrent force; but launch-ready land-based nuclear-armed ballistic missiles are the opposite of a deterrent to attack. In fact, their very deployment has the potential to launch World War III and precipitate human extinction – as a result of a false alarm.

Nuclear Terrorism is in the Eye of the Beholder

This guest blog comes from NAPF Board member Robert Laney.

The “Seoul Communiqué,” issued by the United States and other governments attending the 2012 Seoul Nuclear Security Summit this week, begins with the following preamble:

We, the leaders, gathered in Seoul on March 26-27, 2012, renew the political commitments generated from the 2010 Washington Nuclear Security Summit to work toward strengthening nuclear security, reducing the threat of nuclear terrorism, and preventing terrorists, criminals, or other unauthorized actors from acquiring nuclear materials.  Nuclear terrorism continues to be one of the most challenging threats to international security.  Defeating this threat requires strong national measures and international cooperation given its potential global political, economic, social, and psychological consequences.

The purpose of this communiqué is to summarize and reaffirm these various  governments’ common understanding of the components of “nuclear security” and their commitment to make progress toward achieving them.  Key to their notion of “nuclear security” are the words, “preventing terrorists, criminals, or other unauthorized actors from acquiring nuclear materials.”   In other words, “nuclear security” means ensuring that non-state actors do not acquire nuclear weapons or the means to develop them.  What nation-states may do or not do with nuclear weapons is beside the point of this communiqué.

I am all for keeping nuclear weapons and the means to develop them out of the hands of non-state actors.  Indeed I believe that a robust international effort to secure weapons-grade materials from the hands of non-state actors is long overdue after years of relative inaction by the previous U. S. administration.  In any case, who can be against “preventing terrorists, criminals, or other unauthorized actors from acquiring nuclear materials?” 

But I find a peculiar irony in defining “nuclear security” in terms of non-state actors only, without regard for those nation-states which for decades, by maintaining vast nuclear arsenals on hair-trigger alert with a “first strike” option, have implicitly threatened millions upon millions of ordinary men, women, and children with indiscriminate annihilation.  Viewed objectively and from a disinterested standpoint, do not those nation-states which in the 21st Century continue to threaten mass, “omnicidal” annihilation also qualify as “terrorists,” “criminals,” and “unauthorized actors,” only more so than do non-state actors because of their potential to put an end to civilization?  And if that is so, does not one’s concept of “nuclear security” derive from his particular place, situation, and perspective on the world?