We DON"T need a new Cold War!!!

Editor's Note: Just how dangerous is the underlying U.S. - Russian confrontation related to the Ukraine and Crimean peninsula? With both countries bristling with nuclear weapons, it could be very dangerous indeed. A new Cold War appears to be heating up, even as we approach the 2015 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference. Lawrence Wittner's article (that follows) presents a sobering reflection on the situation.

*******************

Are the U.S. and Russian Governments 

Once Again on the Nuclear Warpath?

by Lawrence S. Wittner

Originally published in the History News Network on January 15, 2015

Dr. Lawrence Wittner (http://lawrenceswittner.com) is Professor of History emeritus at SUNY/Albany. His latest book is a satirical novel about university corporatization and rebellion, "What’s Going On at UAardvark?”

A quarter century after the end of the Cold War and decades after the signing of landmark nuclear arms control and disarmament agreements, are the U.S. and Russian governments once more engaged in a potentially disastrous nuclear arms race with one another? It certainly looks like it.

With approximately 15,000 nuclear weapons between them, the United States and Russia already possess about 93 percent of the world’s nuclear arsenal, thus making them the world’s nuclear hegemons. But, apparently, like great powers throughout history, they do not consider their vast military might sufficient, especially in the context of their growing international rivalry.

Although, in early 2009, President Barack Obama announced his “commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons,” the U.S. government today has moved well along toward implementing an administration plan for U.S. nuclear “modernization.” This entails spending $355 billion over a ten-year period for a massive renovation of U.S. nuclear weapons plants and laboratories. Moreover, the cost is scheduled to soar after this renovation, when an array of new nuclear weapons will be produced. “That’s where all the big money is,” noted Ashton Carter, recently nominated as U.S. Secretary of Defense. “By comparison, everything that we’re doing now is cheap.” The Obama administration has asked the Pentagon to plan for 12 new nuclear missile-firing submarines, up to 100 new nuclear bombers, and 400 land-based nuclear missiles. According to outside experts and a bipartisan, independent panel commissioned by Congress and the Defense Department, that will bring the total price tag for the U.S. nuclear weapons buildup to approximately $1 trillion.

For its part, the Russian government seems determined to match―or surpass―that record. With President Vladimir Putin eager to use nuclear weapons as a symbol of Russian influence, Moscow is building, at great expense, new generations of giant ballistic missile submarines, as well as nuclear attack submarines that are reportedly equal or superior to their U.S. counterparts in performance and stealth. Armed with nuclear-capable cruise missiles, they periodically make forays across the Atlantic, heading for the U.S. coast. Deeply concerned about the potential of these missiles to level a surprise attack, the U.S. military has already launched the first of two experimental “blimps” over Washington, DC, designed to help detect them. The Obama administration also charges that Russian testing of a new medium-range cruise missile is a violation of the 1987 INF treaty. Although the Russian government denies the existence of the offending missile, its rhetoric has been less than diplomatic. As the Ukraine crisis developed, Putin told a public audience that “Russia is one of the leading nuclear powers,” and foreign nations “should understand it’s best not to mess with us.” Pravda was even more inflammatory. In an article published in November titled “Russia prepares a nuclear surprise for NATO,” it bragged about Russia’s alleged superiority over the United States in nuclear weaponry.

Not surprisingly, the one nuclear disarmament agreement signed between the U.S. and Russian governments since 2003―the New START treaty of 2011―is being implemented remarkably slowly. New START, designed to reduce the number of deployed strategic nuclear weapons (the most powerful ones) in each country by 30 percent by 2018, has not led to substantial reductions in either nation’s deployed nuclear arsenal. Indeed, between March and October 2014, the two nations each increased their deployed nuclear forces. Also, they maintain large arsenals of nuclear weapons targeting one another, with about 1,800 of them on high alert―ready to be launched within minutes against the populations of both nations.

The souring of relations between the U.S. and Russian governments has been going on for years, but it has reached a very dangerous level during the current confrontation over Ukraine. In their dealings with this conflict-torn nation, there’s plenty of fault on both sides. U.S. officials should have recognized that any Russian government would have been angered by NATO’s steady recruitment of East European countries―especially Ukraine, which had been united with Russia in the same nation until recently, was sharing a common border with Russia, and was housing one of Russia’s most important naval bases (in Crimea). For their part, Russian officials had no legal basis for seizing and annexing Crimea or aiding heavily-armed separatists in the eastern portion of Ukraine.

But however reckless the two nuclear behemoths have been, this does not mean that they have to continue this behavior. Plenty of compromise formulas exist―for example, leaving Ukraine out of NATO, altering that country’s structure to allow for a high degree of self-government in the war-torn east, and organizing a UN-sponsored referendum in Crimea. And possibilities for compromise also exist in other areas of U.S.-Russian relations.

Failing to agree to a diplomatic settlement of these and other issues will do more than continue violent turmoil in Ukraine. Indeed, the disastrous, downhill slide of both the United States and Russia into a vastly expensive nuclear arms race will bankrupt them and, also, by providing an example of dependence on nuclear might, encourage the proliferation of nuclear weapons to additional nations. After all, how can they succeed in getting other countries to forswear developing nuclear weapons when―47 years after the U.S. and Soviet governments signed the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, in which they pledged their own nuclear disarmament―their successors are engaged in yet another nuclear arms race? Finally, of course, this new arms race, unless checked, seems likely to lead, sooner or later, to a nuclear catastrophe of immense proportions.

Can the U.S. and Russian governments calm down, settle their quarrels peacefully, and return to a policy of nuclear disarmament? Let’s hope so.

Source URL:  http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/158159

Say NO THANKS to Nuclear (Non) Diplomacy!!!

A few days ago Duncan Hunter, a Republican member of the House Armed Services Committee, suggested that the U.S. should plan to use nuclear weapons in a military conflict with Iran.

He said: "If you hit Iran, you do it with tactical nuclear devices and set them back a decade or two or three.”

Of course, Hunter failed to mention the consequences of the use of any nuclear weapons against Iran - among them the uncontrollable consequences of such weapons once released, the radioactive fallout and it's effects on the region, and the regional destabilization that it would most likely cause.

So much for diplomacy!!!

Hunter's statement demonstrates his total lack of understanding (on any level) of both the risks related to the use of any type of nuclear weapons and the realities of the situation with Iran.  It is completely irresponsible on the part of any elected (or other) official to remotely suggest the use of nuclear weapons.

In an article titled Nukes Are Nuts David Krieger quoted former US secretary of state and four-star general Colin Powell who said "no sane leader would ever want to cross that line to using nuclear weapons. And, if you are not going to cross that line, then these things are basically useless." Yes - Nukes are certainly nuts (and most definitely "useless", and the people who consider them a viable weapon most certainly are nuttier than a nuke.

There must be only one line of conversation about the situation with Iran - DIPLOMACY!!!

As citizens we need to send a clear message to Congress that there is only one acceptable path toward a resolution of tensions with Iran and that is a diplomatic one.

Click here to send a message to your Senator supporting President Obama's diplomatic efforts to avoid military confrontation with Iran.

Obama to Meet with Medvedev: Act Now!

Friends,

Soon after being elected President of the United States, then President-elect Obama spoke with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, and they agreed to meet soon. Well, soon has arrived; the two presidents will meet in just five days, on April 1st. It will be a historic meeting for many reasons, and it will be an extremely important one considering that relations between Moscow and Washington plunged to their lowest point since the Cold War ended while President George W. Bush was in office. Things can only go up from there.

Among the most serious conversations these two leaders will have will concern nuclear weapons. This could be the moment that the two superpowers, which for so many years stood ready to annhialate each other with nuclear weapons, agree to work towards a world free of nuclear weapons. There are a number of steps these two men could agree upon as a beginning, among them extending the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) agreement, taking all nuclear weapons off hair-trigger alert, and making deep cuts in both nation's nuclear arsenals.

It will take the leadership of the United States and Russia (that together possess 95 percent of the world's nuclear warheads) to set the example for the rest of the world on this issue. And it will require serious diplomacy in an atmosphere of mutual trust for these leaders to discuss these issues and move our nations (and the world) away from the threat of nuclear war. Both Presidents have stated their committment to a world free of nuclear weapons.

President Obama needs to hear our committment to (and support for) that goal. I hope you will join me in sending President Obama a message (before April 1st) urging him to focus on the nuclear weapons issue at this meeting, particularly extending the START agreement, taking all weapons off hair-trigger alert and deep cuts to both arsenals. Who knows; maybe he will even take European missile defense off the table.

CLICK HERE to send your message to President Obama courtesy of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (before April 1st).

Towards a nuclear weapons-free world (and peace),

Leonard

No Itchy (HAIR) Trigger Finger Please

Friends,

So, let's get this straight. The Cold War ended nearly two decades ago, but the United States and Russia still maintain their deployed nuclear weapons on high alert, hair trigger alert, launch on warning, ready alert status; whatever you want to call it. The bottom line is that, should the United States detect the launch of nuclear weapons by Russia (or vice versa), the President would have mere minutes to process a huge amount of information under tremendous pressure before deciding whether to launch a counterstrike.

Sound implausible? Think again. This very scenario has played out before, most recently in 1995 when Norway launched a weather rocket that initially resembled an intercontinental ballistic missile to Russian radar. The Norwegians had notified Russian officials before the launch, but the message was never delivered to the Russian nuclear weapons command center. Russian president Boris Yeltsin was notified and had only minutes to decide whether to retaliate. Fortunately, cool heads prevailed; a Russian officer observing the radar track not only questioned why there was only a single missile launched (not your typical first strike), but watched the track of the missile and finally (just in time) determined that it was not a nuclear missile.

So we squeaked by on that one But will we be so lucky the next time??? Accidents happen, even in systems with multiple safety features. And let's face it; there is absolutely no rationale for either the U.S. or Russia to maintain any nuclear weapons on hair trigger alert; the Cold WAR is so over!!! It only increases the risk of an accidental launch (and its catastrophic consequences). This is the kind of error the world can not afford.

President Obama has made nuclear disarmament not just a goal, but official policy. Secretary of State Clinton has already engaged in discussions aimed at official talks between the U.S. and Russia to further this goal. But before anyone talks about anything else, it is critical that both nations take their weapons off alert status. This is a first step, (more than) a good faith measure, needed to create a far greater (and necessary) margin of safety for both nuclear arsenals. President Obama has stated his intention to work with the Russians to take both nation's weapons off hair trigger alert.

President Obama could unilaterally take U.S. weapons off alert status, and ask Russian President Medvedev to do the same. I think chances are pretty darned good that he would reciprocate. What does the U.S. (or Russia) have to lose? Absolutely nothing. And if the two largest (and I mean LARGEST) nuclear powers took this action, it would send a strong message to the other nuclear powers and lay a foundation for further reductions of U.S. and Russian nuclear warheads.

You can write to President Obama asking him to take this action NOW! Send your message from the Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR) Website. The President needs to hear this positive message in order to counter those who believe that the U.S. security means retaining a large nuclear "deterrent" force, and even building it larger.

While at the PSR Website, check out other actions at their Legislative Action Center, and consider signing up to become a PSR Activist. Advocacy at its best!

Peace,

Leonard

Obama's Got the Football; Time to Call the Game

Friends,

Another Superbowl is history. If you think the best seats were in those Sky Boxes, think again. President Obama hosted some members of the House and Senate at his White House Superbowl soiree. And speaking of football (even though the President is more of a basketball fan) there is a football carried by a military officer just steps from the President 24 hours a day (anybody for a little pick-up game of touch football in the West Wing?). Is that cool or what?

Well, not really. You see; this euphemistic football is actually a sophisticated (and deadly) briefcase containing everything the President needs to begin World War III, or at least order the launch of a whole lotta nukes. And this ain't no game!

Among the nifty items in the briefcase is a playbook of sorts, but this playbook gives the President all the nuclear weapons launch options as formulated in the Single Integrated Operational Plan (SIOP). Let's see... Who are we going to incinerate today???

I'm just thankful that we now have a President who will think twice (or hopefully more) before launching any nukes. My hope, however, is that there will come a time when the only "football" the President tosses is one made of (artificial) pigskin.

Fortunately, President Obama seems serious about working with the Russian leadership to take both U.S. and Russian nuclear weapons of hair trigger alert. During his campaign for President he said, “A world without nuclear weapons is profoundly in America’s interest and the world’s interest. It is our responsibility to make the commitment, and to do the hard work to make this vision a reality. That’s what I’ve done as a Senator and a candidate, and that’s what I’ll do as President.”

And now, President Obama is making the initial overtures that could lead to the United States AND Russia demonstrating leadership in seriously cutting back both nations' nuclear arsenals, thereby setting the example for other nations. It MUST start here!

The President is ready to engage Russia in serious talks that would be aimed at an 80% reduction in both nations nuclear arsenals. That would be a momentous beginning. There WILL be some sticking points however, such as European missile defense. That will be a tough one for the President to turn around since there is major pressure from the Pentagon (and many in Congress) as well as the weapons industry to continue this futile program.

The President needs to hear from everyone who supports dialogue between the U.S and Russia aimed at major reductions in both nuclear arsenals! CLICK HERE to send an email to President Obama (courtesy of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation) encouraging him to directly engage the Russians and provide leadership for a nuclear weapons-free world.

After you send your email, please share this with others. We must let the President know that he is not alone on this one! He will be (and is already) getting resistance from the Pentagon and some in Congress. He needs the people behind him (pushing) all the way.

Peace,

Leonard

Cold War Redux? Let's HOPE not.

Buried inside the Friday, November 14 Seattle Times - the front page had the really important stuff like increased parking fees and inauguration ticket scams - was an article with the title, "Moscow warms to Obama." Moscow recently warned the U.S. (with a shot across the bow) that it was prepared to deploy short-range missiles to counter President Bush's plan to place tracking radar in the Czech Republic and interceptor missiles in Poland as part of a U.S. anti-missile shield.

While The White House claims it is a purely defensive system and intended to counter threats from the Middle East (and in particular Iran), the Russians haven't particularly warmed to the idea of missiles of any type being based on the other side of their fence. Of course, they may have reason for concern if history has any meaning.

At the height of the Cold War, Europe bristled with intermediate range nuclear missiles aimed at the (then) Soviet Union, while the Soviets had their missiles ready to incinerate Europe. It was all part of the "MAD" standoff that was at the heart of Cold War. Although the Cold War technically ended with the fall of the Berlin Wall 1989, things have gotten a bit chilly once again thanks in part to the Bush administrations push for a missile defense shield.

But I digress (to a point)! And the point of the Times article is that there is a good chance that relations between the United States and Russia (two nations that were once prepared to destroy each other and the rest of the world along with them) could "warm" (again). The article noted that Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and U.S. President-elect Barak Obama are (among other things) "less inclined to Cold War mindsets than their predessors". While this is very likely the case, it might be prudent for us to study a bit of history to know where we currently stand.

Fourty nine years ago today, another president-elect was preparing to move in to The White House in the midst of the Cold War tensions. President John Fitzgerald Kennedy took office on January 20, 1961 and in his Inaugural Address presented a message of hope (in the midst of Cold War rhetoric) "that both sides begin anew the quest for peace, before the dark powers of destruction unleashed by science engulf all humanity in planned or accidental self-destruction."

Presidents before and after Kennedy have made "hopeful" statements about the need for the U.S. and Soviet Union/Russia to work together to eradicate the threat of nuclear weapons, and some took (usually token) steps toward that end. But only one president in the history of our nation has actually brought the world back from the brink of nuclear war, a war that would have changed life (as we know it) on our planet. And President Kennedy performed this remarkable feat by choosing to talk to his "enemy", to establish an ongoing (and secret) dialogue with Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev. It was through this ongoing dialogue during (and in between) some of the most tense moments of the Cold War that President Kennedy and Premier Khrushchev came to understand each other and work together to resist their military advisors, avoiding what would have been the greatest genocide in the history of the world.

All of this has been documented, and the most recent (and thorough) documentation of Kennedy's remarkable peacemaking journey can be found in Jim Douglass' book, "JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died & Why It Matters." Much of what most of us know about JFK comes from either his oratories or the stories of his sexual exploits, but there is something much deeper that we have missed, and I propose that it is the quiet, behind-the-scenes JFK who we need to know and understand as we move forward.

If we come to understand the JFK who had hope for (and was willing to lay down his life for) "a world of peace where the weak are safe and the strong are just", we will come to understand that President-elect Obama will need to not only pursue genuine dialogue with President Medvedev, but concurrently have a firm grasp of the historical context underlying the relations between our nations along with a parallel vision of the future that Kennedy (and I hope Obama) envisioned and worked for.

We will need to remind President-elect Obama of that vision Kennedy had (and we as peacemakers have) for the world, particularly as he will enter The White House with the largest "defense" budget in history, a deeply entrenched nuclear weapons complex, and hundreds of nuclear weapons still ready to launch within a few minutes. With both powerful military and corporate interests - it always comes down to power and money - pushing for missile defense, it will require significant pressure to overcome the massively invested legacy of Star Wars.

The President-elect seems to think that a missile shield is "appropriate", but wants to be sure it is effective before he backs it. The trick will be clearing away the Pentagon's smoke and mirrors to make Obama see the folly of missile defense, and convincing him of the effectiveness of diplomacy and real efforts at non-proliferation. Our hope should be that Obama will see the wisdom of Kennedy's approach, and follow Kennedy's model of direct and sincere dialogue, cutting through the political rhetoric that separates nations (and their leaders) and guarantees continued military buildups. It is time to build up peace.

Building for Peace,

Leonard

Notes:

• You can read an analysis of National Missile Defense in Europe at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation.
• You can learn more about missile defense and keep up-to-date at the Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space.