Isn’t It Time to Ban the Bomb?

By Lawrence S. Wittner*

Although the mass media failed to report it, a landmark event occurred recently in connection with resolving the long-discussed problem of what to do about nuclear weapons.  On August 19, 2016, a UN committee, the innocuously-named Open-Ended Working Group, voted to recommend to the UN General Assembly that it mandate the opening of negotiations in 2017 on a treaty to ban them.

For most people, this recommendation makes a lot of sense.  Nuclear weapons are the most destructive devices ever created.  If they are used―as two of them were used in 1945 to annihilate the populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki―the more than 15,000 nuclear weapons currently in existence would destroy the world.  Given their enormous blast, fire, and radioactivity, their explosion would bring an end to virtually all life on earth.  The few human survivors would be left to wander, slowly and painfully, in a charred, radioactive wasteland.  Even the explosion of a small number of nuclear weapons through war, terrorism, or accident would constitute a catastrophe of unprecedented magnitude.

Every President of the United States since 1945, from Harry Truman to Barack Obama, has warned the world of the horrors of nuclear war.  Even Ronald Reagan―perhaps the most military-minded among them―declared again and again:  “A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.”

Fortunately, there is no technical problem in disposing of nuclear weapons.  Through negotiated treaties and unilateral action, nuclear disarmament, with verification, has already taken place quite successfully, eliminating roughly 55,000 nuclear weapons of the 70,000 in existence at the height of the Cold War.

Also, the world’s other agents of mass destruction, biological and chemical weapons, have already been banned by international agreements.

Naturally, then, most people think that creating a nuclear weapons-free world is a good idea.  A 2008 poll in 21 nations around the globe found that 76 percent of respondents favored an international agreement for the elimination of all nuclear weapons and only 16 percent opposed it.  This included 77 percent of the respondents in the United States. 

But government officials from the nine nuclear-armed nations are inclined to view nuclear weapons―or at least their nuclear weapons―quite differently.  For centuries, competing nations have leaned heavily upon military might to secure what they consider their “national interests.”  Not surprisingly, then, national leaders have gravitated toward developing powerful military forces, armed with the most powerful weaponry.  The fact that, with the advent of nuclear weapons, this traditional behavior has become counter-productive has only begun to penetrate their consciousness, usually helped along on such occasions by massive public pressure. 

Consequently, officials of the superpowers and assorted wannabes, while paying lip service to nuclear disarmament, continue to regard it as a risky project.  They are much more comfortable with maintaining nuclear arsenals and preparing for nuclear war.  Thus, by signing the nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty of 1968, officials from the nuclear powers pledged to “pursue negotiations in good faith on . . . a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.”  And today, nearly a half-century later, they have yet to begin negotiations on such a treaty.  Instead, they are currently launching yet another round in the nuclear arms race.  The U.S. government alone is planning to spend $1 trillion over the next 30 years to refurbish its entire nuclear weapons production complex, as well as to build new air-, sea-, and ground-launched nuclear weapons.

Of course, this enormous expenditure―plus the ongoing danger of nuclear disaster―could provide statesmen with a powerful incentive to end 71 years of playing with their doomsday weapons and, instead, get down to the business of finally ending the grim prospect of nuclear annihilation.  In short, they could follow the lead of the UN committee and actually negotiate a ban on nuclear weapons as the first step toward abolishing them.

But, to judge from what happened in the UN Open-Ended Working Group, a negotiated nuclear weapons ban is not likely to occur.  Uneasy about what might emerge from the committee’s deliberations, the nuclear powers pointedly boycotted them.  Moreover, the final vote in that committee on pursuing negotiations for a ban was 68 in favor and 22 opposed, with 13 abstentions.  The strong majority in favor of negotiations was comprised of African, Latin American, Caribbean, Southeast Asian, and Pacific nations, with several European nations joining them.  The minority came primarily from nations under the nuclear umbrellas of the superpowers.  Consequently, the same split seems likely to occur in the UN General Assembly, where the nuclear powers will do everything possible to head off UN action.

Overall, then, there is a growing division between the nuclear powers and their dependent allies, on the one hand, and a larger group of nations, fed up with the repeated evasions of the nuclear powers in dealing with the nuclear disaster that threatens to engulf the world.  In this contest, the nuclear powers have the advantage, for, when all is said and done, they have the option of clinging to their nuclear weapons, even if that means ignoring a treaty adopted by a clear majority of nations around the world.  Only an unusually firm stand by the non-nuclear nations, coupled with an uprising by an aroused public, seems likely to awaken the officials of the nuclear powers from their long sleepwalk toward catastrophe.

*Dr. Lawrence Wittner (http://www.lawrenceswittner.com) is Professor of History emeritus at SUNY/Albany.  He wrote Confronting the Bomb: A Short History of the World Nuclear Disarmament Movement. His latest book is a satirical novel about university corporatization and rebellion, What’s Going On at UAardvark?

Nuclear Weapons Do Not Make Us Safer!!!

What crazy times these are? But then again, hasn't the entire nuclear age been pretty crazy? At a recent youth forum, Vladimir Putin made the most significant nuclear threat in decades. “I want to remind you that Russia is one of the most powerful nuclear nations. This is a reality, not just words.”

Earlier today a young engineer in his early 20s, who I have known for many years, engaged me in a conversation about radioactive decay and how to survive a nuclear war. It seems like the day's of duck and cover that many of us grew up with during the Cold War may be returning. One can't help but think of the insanity in all of this. The Cold War ended well over a couple decades ago, and yet we seem to be watching a new Cold War unfolding. 

He's no puppy dog!

If one watches too much of certain news channels, one could easily be led to believe that it's those evil Russians once again, with Vladimir Putin taking the place of Nikita ("We will bury you!") Khrushchev. So Putin may not be some choir boy, but hey - Obama (and the U.S.) isn't exactly blameless. We continue to pursue a nuclear weapons renaissance, and since the fall of the Berlin Wall have been pushing NATO (bad drug that it is) as if we were an out-of-control drug cartel.

It is time for Obama and Putin to sit down like two adults (who just happen to preside over what are evidently still the two superpowers) and come to grips with the conflicts they have created. And, it is certainly time for them to sit down and negotiate a serious reduction in the two nation's nuclear arsenals. Russia and the U.S. can and must lead the way to a nuclear weapons-free world.

Deterrence is a relic, and should we continue pretending that it is a valid doctrine into the rest of this century, humanity will be in grave peril. The risk of nuclear war (and its consequences) is simply unacceptable. David Krieger states it directly and succinctly in the following letter to the editor recently published in The Washington Post.

***********

Letter: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Make Us Safer

by David Krieger

This letter to the editor of the Washington Post was published on August 22, 2014.

Are NATO-based nuclear weapons really an advantage in a dangerous world, as Brent Scowcroft, Stephen J. Hadley and Franklin Miller suggested in their Aug. 18 op-ed, “A dangerous proposition”? They are not. They make the world a far more dangerous place.

David Krieger

Nuclear deterrence is not a guarantee of security. Rather, it is a hypothesis about human behavior, a hypothesis that has come close to failing on many occasions. Additionally, nuclear weapons are not “political weapons,” as the writers asserted. They are weapons of mass extermination.

The United States and the other nuclear-armed countries are obligated under the terms of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and/or customary international law to pursue negotiations in good faith for an end to the nuclear arms race and complete nuclear disarmament. This is the substance of the Nuclear Zero lawsuits brought by the Marshall Islands against the nine nuclear-armed countries at the International Court of Justice and in U.S. federal court. The United States continues to evade its obligations.

Rather than continuing to posture with its nuclear weapons in Europe, the United States should be leading the way in convening negotiations to eliminate all nuclear weapons for its own security and that of all the world’s inhabitants.

David Krieger, Santa Barbara, Calif.

The writer is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

"Disarm Now!", says UN Secretary-General

Dear Friends,

It is the eve of the opening of the 2010 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference at the United Nations in New York City, and on the previous day UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon made a ground breaking speech at the historic, Riverside Church yesterday. Addressing an international conference of leading peace, justice and environmental activists, the Secretary-General gave the keynote address at the two-day conference, “For a Nuclear Free, Peaceful, Just and Sustainable World,” which has been organized by a network of 25 leading peace and nuclear weapons abolition organizations in the U.S., Europe, Japan and Israel.

Nearly 1000 participants from 30 nations have gathered to call on the nuclear nations to disarm, to honor their promises to work toward nuclear abolition; to build a world free of the nuclear Sword of Damocles. The Secretary-General's address is a clarion call as well as a clear reminder that the work of creating peace is too important to be left up to governments alone; it is up to the citizens of the world to bring pressure to bear on the world's leaders to do what is necessary (and right) to bring the nations together in peace, and abolishing nuclear weapons is a critical element that cannot wait.

You can read the Secretary-General's address below in its entirety. Following the rally in Times Square today, there will be a presentation to the Chair of the NPT Review Conference of more than seven million petition signatures urging that negotiations to eliminate the world’s nuclear arsenals begin without further delay. For more on the international gathering in progress in New York City, check out the Disarm Now Website.

Peace,

Leonard

P.S. - Thanks to Judith LeBlanc, Field Organizer, Peace Action & Peace Action Education Fund, and NPT Coordinator, Peace Action Fund of New York State, for providing the text of the Secretary General's speech.

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

THE SECRETARY-GENERAL

REMARKS TO AN INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE

“FOR A NUCLEAR FREE, PEACEFUL, JUST AND SUSTAINABLE WORLD”

Riverside Church , New York , 1 May 2010

Mr. Gerson,
Reverend Thomas, Minister with Education, Ecumenical and Interfaith relations,
Mayor Tadatoshi Akiba, mayor of Hiroshima
Ms. Maris Socorro Gomes, President , World Peace Council
Ms. Arielle Denis, Co-chair, Le Mouvement de la Paix
Ms. Jacqueline Cabasso, Executive Director, Western States Legal Foundation

Ladies and gentlemen,

Reading the list of organizations and individuals with us this evening, I want to say what an honour it is to be here.

I know of your hard work and dedication.

I know how much you have sacrificed in standing for your principles and beliefs.

I know how much courage it takes to speak out, to protest, to carry the banner of this most noble human aspiration … world peace.

And so, most of all, I am here tonight to thank you.

Let me begin by saying how humbling it is to speak to you in this famous place, Riverside Church .

It was here that Martin Luther King Junior spoke against the war in Vietnam .

Nelson Mandela spoke here on his first visit to the United States after being freed from prison.

Standing with you, looking out, I can see what they saw: a sea of committed women and men, who come from all corners to move the world.

It reminds us that what matters most in life… is not so much the message from the bully pulpit, but rather the movement from the pews.

From people like you.

And so I say: keep it up.

Our shared vision is within reach … a nuclear-free world.

On the eve of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty review conference … beginning on Monday … we know the world is watching.

Let it heed our call . Disarm Now !

Ladies and gentlemen,

From my first day in office, I have made nuclear disarmament a top priority.

Perhaps, in part, this deep personal commitment comes from my experience as a boy in Korea , growing up after the war.

My school was rubble. There were no walls. We studied in the open air.

The United Nations rebuilt my country. I was lucky enough to receive a good education.

But more than that, I learned about peace, solidarity and, above all, the power of community action.

These values are not abstract principles to me. I owe my life to them. I try to embody them in all my work.

Just a few weeks ago, I travelled to Ground Zero — the former test site at Semipalatinsk, in Kazakhstan, where the Soviet Union detonated more than 450 nuclear explosions.

It was strangely beautiful. The great green steppe reached as far as the eye could see. But of course, the eye does not immediately see the scope of the devastation.

Vast areas where people still cannot go. Poisoned lakes and rivers. High rates of cancer and birth defects.

After independence, in 1991, Kazakhstan closed the site and banished nuclear weapons from its territory.

Today, Semipalatinsk is a powerful symbol of hope … it is a new Ground Zero for disarmament, the birth-place of the Central Asian nuclear-weapon-free zone.

In August, I will travel to another Ground Zero — Mayor Akiba’s proud city of Hiroshima . There, I will repeat our call for a nuclear free-world.

The people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki … and especially the hibakusha … know too well the horror of nuclear war.

It must never be repeated! .

Yet 65 years later, the world still lives under a nuclear shadow.

How long must we wait to rid ourselves of this threat!? How long will we keep passing the problem to succeeding generations?

We here tonight know that it is time to end this senseless cycle.

We know that nuclear disarmament is not a distant, unattainable dream.

It is an urgent necessity, here and now. We are determined to achieve it.

We have come close in the past.

Twenty-four years ago, in Reykjavik , Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev came within a hair’s breadth of agreeing to eliminate nuclear weapons.

It was a dramatic reminder of how far we can go — as long as we have the vision and the will.

Today’s generation of nuclear negotiators must take a lesson from Reykjavik:

Be bold. Think big … for it yields big results.

And that is why, again, we need people like you.

People who understand that the world is over-armed and that peace is under-funded.

People who understand that the time for change is now.

Ladies and gentlemen,

The NPT entered into force 40 years ago.

Ever since, it has been the foundation of the non-proliferation regime and our efforts for nuclear disarmament.

To quote you, Mr. Gerson: It is one of the seminal agreements of the 20th century.

Let’s not forget. In 1963, experts predicted that there could be as many as 25 nuclear powers by the end of the last century.

It did not happen, in large part because the NPT guided the world in the right direction.

Today, we have reason for renewed optimism.

Global public opinion is swinging our way.

Governments are looking at the issue with fresh eyes.

Consider just the most recent events:

Leading by example, the United States announced a review of its nuclear posture … foreswearing the use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states, so long as they are in compliance with the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

In Prague, President Obama and President Medvedev signed a new START treaty, accompanied by serious cuts in arsenals.

In Washington, the leaders of 47 nations united in their efforts to keep nuclear weapons and materials out of the hands of terrorists.

And on Monday, we hope to open a new chapter in the life of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

In 2005, when leaders gathered for the last review of the NPT, the outcome did not match expectations.

In plainer English, it failed — utterly.

We cannot afford to fail again.

After all, there are more than 25,000 nuclear weapons in the world’s arsenals.

Nuclear terrorism remains a real and present danger.

There has been no progress in establishing a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East .

The nuclear programs of Iran and the DPRK are of serious concern to global efforts to curb nuclear proliferation…

To deal with these and other issues, I have set out my own five-point action plan, and I thank you for your encouraging response.

I especially welcome your support for the idea of concluding a Nuclear Weapon Convention.

Article VI of the NPT requires the Parties to pursue negotiations on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under international control.

These negotiations are long overdue.

Next week, I will call on all countries … and most particularly the nuclear-weapon states … to fulfill this obligation.

We should not have unrealistic expectations for the conference. But neither can we afford to lower our sights.

What I see on the horizon is a world free of nuclear weapons.

What I see before me are the people who will help make it happen.

Please keep up your good work.

Sound the alarm, keep up the pressure.

Ask your leaders what they are doing … personally … to eliminate the nuclear menace.

Above all, continue to be the voice of conscience.

We will rid the world of nuclear weapons.

And when we do, it will be because of people like you.

The world owes you its gratitude.

Thank you.

Abolition: Do it for the Children!

Dear Friends,

This is an exciting and challenging time for abolitionists. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference is nearing, and scores of abolitionists from all over the globe are converging on New York to engage in activities calling on the nations' representatives at the NPT RevCon to take serious steps towards abolition. Roughly 2000 of those converging on New York come from Japan, and nearly 100 of those are Hibakusha, survivors of the bombings of Hiroshima or Nagasaki.
Most victims of the bombings did not survive, and many of the victims were children. Sadako Sasaki (see photo) was one of those victims. Sadako was only 2 years old when the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima. She survived the bombing and led an outwardly healthy life; she was said to be an energetic child who never missed one day of elementary school. She was also a fast runner. Things changed dramatically for Sadako in 1955 when she was diagnosed with Leukemia (a radiation induced disease) shortly after her class won the relay at the school field day.

While in the hospital another girl in the same hospital died of Leukemia, and now Sadako knew she faced the same fate. In August after 1000 paper cranes folded by high school students in Nagoya were delivered to patients in the hospital, Sadako learned of the legend that if a person folds 1000 cranes, one's wish will come true. Sadako decided to fold 1000 cranes with one wish - to get well. Sadako kept folding cranes, each one a prayer for healing, even through the difficult and sometimes painful days. Sadako finally succumbed to the radiation-induced disease on October 25, 1955 at the age of 12. She would never run again.

Sadako's former classmates wanted to do something to remember Sadako, and that wish grew into a desire to build a monument not just for Sadako, but for all the children who died from the atomic bombs. They began planning and fundraising, receiving money and letters from 3000 schools around Japan, and the Children's Peace Monument (with a statue of Sadako) was completed on Children's Day (May 5) 1958. It stands in the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park. The inscription carved in stone carries the hope that no more children will ever be victims of nuclear weapons:

This is our cry.
This is our prayer.
For building peace in the world.

As adults we have a duty to protect children, and so as we gather all around the world in the coming weeks to call for nuclear abolition we call on world leaders to fullfill their moral obligation to protect the children by building a strong foundation for peace and working towards the abolition of nuclear weapons from the face of the Earth. And we will not stop until they listen! No more Hiroshimas... No more Nagasakis!

You don't have to travel to New York to participate in actions surrounding the NPT RevCon. There are many events coming up right here in Seattle, Washington including a rally and march on May 2nd, and presentations by a visiting delegation representing the Japan Council against Atomic and Hydrogen Bombs (Gensuikyo) on May 5th and 6th. A Hibakusha of Hiroshima will accompany the delegation and give her testimony and an urgent plea to abolish nuclear weapons.

Click here for information on "ABOLISH NUCLEAR WEAPONS: Set The Date Now", a rally and march in Seattle on May 2nd, beginning at 1:30 PM.

Click here for information on "Voices of the Hibakusha" at First United Methodist Church of Seattle, May 5th at 7:30 PM.

Click here for information on "Towards a Nuclear Weapons-Free World", a presentation by the visiting Japanese delegation at University of Washington Tacoma, May 6th at 12:30 PM.

Peace,

Leonard

Ratify START: Good Beginning on the way to the NPT Review Conference

Friends,

In just one month (on May 3rd) the 2010 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) will convene. Over a grueling 28 days representatives of nations that are parties to the NPT will try to strengthen the NPT and come to agreement on language to clarify and tighten up the treaty's rather loose provisions (such as having no time frames or deadlines for disarmament).

With the Cold War a distant memory and potential new cold wars and proliferation looming it is absolutely critical that this NPT Review Conference not end with the lackluster results of previous conferences. However, there is a momentum building towards this year's meeting.

In just one year since President Obama gave his now famous Prague speech (April 5, 2009) endorsing disarmament - "I state clearly and with conviction America's commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons." - his administration has negotiated a new arms treaty with Russia, and is preparing to return to Prague later this week to sign the new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START).

The new START Treaty is not what many of us were hoping for (Hey, we're idealists!) but it is a beginning, and a show of good faith between the U.S. and Russia. As Hans Kristensen of the Federation of American Scientists puts it, "the New START Treaty is not so much a nuclear reductions treaty as it is a verification and confidence building treaty."

After the President signs the START Treaty on April 8, it must be approved (ratified) by both the U.S. Senate and Russian Duma. I don't know about the Duma, but I do know that it will require at least 67 senators to approve this treaty. The Senate will need to consider the treaty and begin debate immediately, and ratify the treaty before the NPT Review Conference begins on May 3, 2010! Now is the time for the people to speak for ratification.

Please urge your senators to ratify the new START Treaty. It would be tragic to undo the months of hard work done by the U.S. and Russian negotiators on a treaty of vital importance to the continuing focus (and progress) on disarmament. Click here to send a message (courtesy of Women's Action for New Directions) to your senator. Then tell your family and friends to do the same. Tell them their grandchildren will thank them someday.

Onward to New York and disarmament!

Peace,

Leonard

Read an analysis of the START Treaty at the Federation of American Scientists Strategic Security Blog

Let's Stop This Silly Nuclear Posturing!

Friends,

In May 2010 nations will gather in New York City for the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference.  This will be the year that the pressure will be on to set binding and enforceable targets for reducing and ultimately eliminating the signatories' nuclear arsenals.  Of course, it will not be as simple as that since there are nations that are not signatories to the NPT that have developed nuclear weapons, the proverbial flies in the ointment.

No matter who currently has nuclear weapons, the entire world is at risk the longer nations maintain their arsenals.  Some arsenals, such as the United States' and Russia's, are so massive as to be ludicrous.  As of 2009, just the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile was estimated at 5,200 nuclear warheads, 2700 of those "operational" (in other words deployed and ready to go).  Do we really need that many nukes to "deter" another nation from attacking us???

The fact is that even a limited exchange of nuclear weapons would have disastrous consequences for those people living in the immediate vicinity as well as people around the world.  Aside from nuclear winter scenarios calculated during the Cold War, even a partial exchange between two smaller nuclear powers like India and Pakistan would be disastrous on a global scale.  Besides killing most of their people, and making the land in and around their nations uninhabitable (and unsafe) for those remaining, the huge volumes of soot released into the atmosphere would likely cause dramatic loss of stratospheric ozone (which protects us from ultraviolet light) and also cause massive crop failures.

So what's a nuclear power to do???  Besides the immediate actions of taking weapons of alert status, removing warheads from weapons and a host of other actions that would serve to reduce the risk of either accidental or intentional launch, the nuclear powers must tackle the long term (hopefully not too much longer) goal of disarmament as stated in the NPT.  To do so will require the leadership of the two largest nuclear powers, the U.S. and Russia.

The next U.S. Nuclear Posture Review, the document that lays out the role that nuclear weapons will play in U.S. military and foreign policy, will be (finally) released on March 1, 2010.  What this document has to say will be critical going forward towards the NPT Review Conference in May.  It is clear that President Obama and the Pentagon are not in agreement on some issues, one of them being whether the U.S. should commit a no-first use of nuclear weapons policy.  Issues like this one are key to showing good faith and ratcheting down tensions.

We should hope that the upcoming Nuclear Posture Review will not open with a statement like this one that begins the 2002 Nuclear Posture Review (Page 7):

Nuclear weapons play a critical role in the defense capabilities of the United States, its allies and friends. They provide credible military options to deter a wide range of threats, including WMD and large-scale conventional military force. These nuclear capabilities possess unique properties that give the United States options to hold at risk classes of targets [that are] important to achieve strategic and political objectives.

Much can happen between now and March 1st, and President Obama is getting it from all sides - those who want to continue the status quo that has carried over from the Cold War, as well as those (including military and security experts) who say that the only solution to the threats posed by nuclear weapons is their elimination.  The path to their elimination begins with reducing our reliance on them.  It requires imagination and a re-thinking of their place (do they have one?) in "achieving strategic and political objectives." 

The President made a pledge in Prague:

I state clearly and with conviction America's commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons.

Hold him to it!  Take a couple minutes to send President Obama an email asking him to be sure that the Nuclear Posture Review states a no first-use policy and that the U.S. will not build any new nuclear weapons.  And when you are done, consider phoning The White House to make the message even stronger.  You can personalize your email at Peace Action's Website, and you can also find The White House phone number there.

Don't you think that the best nuclear posture is a relaxed one?

Peace,

Leonard 

Honoring Dr. King - Keeping the Prophetic Voice Alive

Friends,

I honored the memory of Martin Luther King Jr. on Saturday, January 16, 2010 by gathering with other peacemakers at the site of one of the largest concentrations of nuclear weapons anywhere in the world.  We were there to speak truth to power.  Naval Base Kitsap-Bangor, according to a 2006 report by the Natural Resources Defense Council, has 2,364 nuclear warheads, or approximately 24 percent of the entire U.S. nuclear arsenal.  The base is home to Trident, the U.S. Navy's first strike nuclear weapons system.  Members and supporters of Ground Zero Center for Nonviolent Action held a vigil and nonviolent direct action honoring the memory of Dr. King, much of which has been conveniently lost (or perhaps sanitized) by our nation by and large; the memory of a powerful anti-war prophet is seldom welcomed (and conveniently forgotten) in the land of hubris and violence.

Dr. Gary Kohls, in a recent email, reminded me of the reason for that memory loss; he quoted Dr. King:

As I have walked among the desperate, rejected and angry young men, I have told them that Molotov cocktails and rifles would not solve their problems. I have tried to offer them my deepest compassion while maintaining my conviction that social change comes most meaningfully through nonviolent action. But, they asked, what about Vietnam? They asked if our own nation wasn’t using massive doses of violence to solve its problems, to bring about the changes it wanted. Their questions hit home, and I knew that I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today – my own government.

Gary also shared a column by Carl Wendell Hines:

“Now That He Is Safely Dead”

Now that he is safely dead let us praise him,

build monuments to his glory,

sing hosannas to his name.

Dead men make such convenient heroes.

They cannot rise to challenge the images

we would fashion from their lives.

And besides,

it is easier to build monuments

than to make a better world.

Our challenge going forward is for each of us to find our prophetic voice and go out into a hostile world declaring King's "eternal hostility to poverty, racism, and militarism."  With knowledge and the powerful tools of nonviolence we can, with the support of other like-minded people, shine the light of truth for all to see.  In the case of nuclear weapons, there is much truth that needs to be dredged out of the depths of the darkness (where governments prefer it to rest).

We can do it through participation in direct action (like the vigil and nonviolent direct action at Bangor last Saturday).  We can do it through our participation in organizations like the Campaign for a Nuclear Weapons Free Future and the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (to mention just a couple).  We can do it by directly engaging our elected officials.  We can do it by educating our families, friends and co-workers.

Ridding the world of nuclear weapons which (if ever used again) would be the most "massive" of the "massive doses of violence", which the U.S. uses "to solve its problems" is one of the most pressing issues facing humankind.  As we approach the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference (May 2010) we have much work to do.  Right now we need to pressure President Obama to approach the NPT Review Conference with the strong conviction that he claimed in his now famous Prague speech. 

Please sign the PeaceActionWest Petition calling for negotiations to eliminate nuclear weapons, and help President Obama make good on his promises.  He is hearing plenty from the nuclear weapons complex and his military advisors, the ones Dr. King once referred to as "misguided men" (see photo).  Now Obama needs to hear from the people (all of whom are threatened by the presence and proliferation of nuclear weapons) who understand the dangers of our continued reliance on nuclear weapons.  May each of us find our prophetic voice, and in doing so keep the memory of the prophets of peace alive.

Peace,

Leonard  

Note:  The photograph was taken during the January 16, 2010 vigil and direct action at the main gate, Naval Base Kitsap-Bangor.  Demonstrators were ordered to remain within the designated free speech zone designated by cones and yellow "crime scene" tape.  The real crime scene is well beyond the main gate. 

Light in the Dark Days

Friends,

Today is the winter solstice, the darkest day of the year (for those of us in the northern hemisphere).  These are dark times, indeed, as nations still worship the false (nuclear) idols they believe provide security (through "deterrence") and bolster national pride.  Nuclear weapons are truly a dark cloud hanging over humanity, and it has become increasingly clear that it will take a massive people's movement to convince our governments to take real steps to abolish these omnicidal weapons.

The Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference that will take place in May 2010 is a make-it-or-break-it gathering that will demonstrate either real resolve, or as in the case of the recent Copenhagen gathering, business as usual.  In both cases, the world can no longer afford business as usual.  We the people must pressure our governments to make the NPT a valid treaty with real and binding deadlines for disarmament.

There are many ways to get involved, through national and international coalitions (such as the Campaign for a Nuclear Weapons Free World), organizations (such as the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation) and local organizations in your area.  Here in the Seattle, Washington area we have Ground Zero Center for Nonviolent Action (GZ), which has resisted Trident and worked for abolition for over 32 years.  Over the next few months, leading up to the NPT Review Conference, there will be many opportunities to get involved.

In the next few weeks there will be a couple of events addressing the Trident nuclear weapons system.  A group is planning to ring in the New Year in a novel way with a vigil at the gates of Kings Bay (Georgia) Trident nuclear submarine base.  You can learn about the Alternative New Year activities by clicking here.  On the opposite side of the U.S., GZ will honor the memory of Martin Luther King Jr. on Saturday, January 16, 2010 with a day of nonviolence training, planning, and a vigil and nonviolent direct action at the gates of the Bangor Trident nuclear submarine base.  Click here for the poster and schedule.

Whatever you may do on New Year's or around the MLK weekend, be sure be engaged on some level in the coming months, and be sure to keep the pressure on as we approach the NPT Review Conference.  We cannot be complacent; we have seen how things play out (Copenhagen) without massive grassroots political pressure.  Let's start preparing now for May 2010.  The stakes are high, but the rewards are great!  Keep your light shining!

Peace,

Leonard

23,360 Nukes!

Friends,

Question: What is the relationship of the numbers 23,360, 111 and 14?

Answer: "There are approximately 23,360 nuclear weapons located at some 111 sites in 14 countries.  Nearly half these weapons are active or operationally deployed" (Nuclear Notebook: Worldwide deployments of nuclear weapons, 2009).

That's the news from the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists in its most recent look at where the weapons are.  The good news here is that there are fewer weapons than at the height of the Cold War, and the number of sites hosting nuclear weapons has decreased.  The bad news is that there are still far too many nuclear weapons out there in far too many places, and the U.S. and Russia have 96 percent of the global inventory (only 91 percent if you're talking about deployed weapons).  Here is the breakdown by country (from the Bulletin's report):

• Russia 13,000*
  
• United States 9,400**
  
• France 300
  
• China 240
  
• Britain 180
  
• Israel 80–100
  
• Pakistan 70–90
  
• India 60–80
  
• North Korea ?

* Approximately 4,850 of the Russian warheads are operational or active. The status of the other 8,150

warheads is unclear. Some portion may be in reserve with the balance retired and awaiting dismantlement.

** Approximately 5,200 of the U.S. warheads are in the military stockpile (about 2,700 deployed); 4,200 retired warheads are awaiting dismantlement.

While it's easy to get bogged down in the numbers, it is safe to say that every nuclear weapon eliminated from any nation's arsenal is one less weapon to worry about.  It is also obvious that the two major nuclear powers must reduce their arsenals (both deployed and those in storage) NOW to levels significantly below the current numbers if other nations are to take seriously the upcoming Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty Review Conference.

Send a message to President Obama today telling him to take bold action and initiate deep cuts in the U.S. nuclear arsenal along with other important steps to send a clear message that the U.S. is serious about bringing us closer to a world free of nuclear weapons. 

Peace,

Leonard

Reference:  Robert S. Norris & Hans M. Kristensen, “Nuclear Notebook: Worldwide deployments of nuclear weapons, 2009,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, November/December 2009, vol. 65, no. 6, pp. 86–98.

The Bomb - Who's Next?

Friends,

First we got the bomb, and we thought that was mighty fine. Then Russia got the bomb, and although not thrilled at first, we learned to live with it. Of course, the U.S. and USSR weren't the only ones in the nuclear weapons act. Slowly, but ever so surely over the decades, other nations have joined the club. And now, while the U.S. and Russia debate numbers of warheads and delivery vehicles, we have even more nations clamoring to join. Who's gonna be next???

As world leaders discuss and debate disarmament and non-proliferation, I thought this might be a good time to listen to a real expert on the subject. Our guest is the musical genius Tom Lehrer, giving a unique synopsis of the history of nuclear weapons states. Anyone with a desire to develop a deeper understanding of the history of nuclear weapons should start here. Please give a warm welcome to Tom Lehrer singing his 1964 hit, "Who's Next."

 

The question of Who's Next is even more pertinent now than in 1964 when Tom wrote this song shortly after China's first nuclear test. The nuclear powers need to seriously consider the consequences of any more nations going nuclear as they prepare for the upcoming Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference.

With the NPT Review Conference just 6 months away (May 3-28, 2010), we need to keep the pressure on President Obama, the U.S. Congress and other world leaders. Learn more about the importance of the NPT and upcoming Review Conference at Reaching Critical Will. Stay tuned for opportunities to advocate for the NPT in the next few months.

Peace,

Leonard

P.S. - As a bonus for all you loyal readers, here is the introduction and lyrics to Who's Next, by Tom Lehrer:

One of the big news items of the past year concerned the fact that China, which we called "Red China," exploded a nuclear bomb, which we called a device. Then Indonesia announced that it was going to have one soon, and proliferation became the word of the day. Here's a song about that:

First we got the bomb, and that was good,
'Cause we love peace and motherhood.
Then Russia got the bomb, but that's okay,
'Cause the balance of power's maintained that way.
Who's next?

France got the bomb, but don't you grieve,
'Cause they're on our side (I believe).
China got the bomb, but have no fears,
They can't wipe us out for at least five years.
Who's next?

Then Indonesia claimed that they
Were gonna get one any day.
South Africa wants two, that's right:
One for the black and one for the white.
Who's next?

Egypt's gonna get one too,
Just to use on you know who.
So Israel's getting tense.
Wants one in self defense.
"The Lord's our shepherd," says the psalm,
But just in case, we better get a bomb.
Who's next?

Luxembourg is next to go,
And (who knows?) maybe Monaco.
We'll try to stay serene and calm
When Alabama gets the bomb.
Who's next?
Who's next?
Who's next?
Who's next?

Israel's Nukes - Mum's (still) the Word.

Friends,

I barely got out that last post (in which I discussed the hypocrisy of lecturing Iran about its nuclear intentions while not even acknowledging Israel's sophisticated nuclear weapons program) and now it's official; the U.S. President, Barak Obama, just as with every President before him, "does not intend to press Israel to give international monitors access to its nuclear weapons" (source: Global Security Newswire (GSN), Friday, October 2, 2009).

The agreement or "understanding", which allegedly began with U.S. President Richard Nixon and Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meier in 1969, essentially says that the U.S. will look the other way so long as Israel doesn't do anything to flaunt its nuclear muscle (such as testing a weapon or having one of those big parades for which the Soviet Union was famous).

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu seems confident that President Obama will continue the treatment of the past 40 years, and that this "understanding" will continue as official/unofficial U.S. policy (albeit very quiet policy). It would seem self-evident that international treaties such as the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), to which the U.S. is a signatory, would supercede any such "understanding", and that the President of the United States, having sworn to uphold the Constitution, would honor such treaties.

That President Nixon entered into such an "understanding" with Golda Meier would itself have been unconstitutional (assuming he did not have the consent of Congress), considering that the Constitution prohibits the President alone to commit the United States to any agreements with other nations.

The GSN article quoted a Senate staff member as saying that "the president gave commitments that politically he had no choice but to give regarding Israel's nuclear program." Aside from the fact that the President's entire non-proliferation agenda could end up in the trash can should he not deal with the issue of Israeli nuclear weapons, the President is bound by the Constitution to uphold the NPT, and therefore must deal directly and openly with Israel as a nuclear power (whether declared or undeclared).

I am calling on President Obama to uphold the Constitution and the spirit of the NPT, and asking him to publicly recognize the illegality of the 40 year-old "understanding" between Nixon and Meier. At the same time, I am thanking him for his leadership that past presidents have not demonstrated. I hope you will join me. Continuing the folly of the past 40 years will only serve to weaken global disarmament and non-proliferation efforts. You can send the President an email by clicking here.

Peace,

Leonard

Reference: U.S. Not Seeking Disclosure of Israeli Nuclear Arsenal, Global Security Newswire, Friday, October 2, 2009

Photo: President Nixon and Prime Minister Golda Meier meeting in Washington in 1973. Photo from Getty Images.

The Criminality of Nuclear Deterrence

Friends,

In 2010 the nations will come together at the United Nations to review the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), ratified by the United States in 1968. To sum up this noble, yet vastly imperfect document, countries with no nuclear weapons promised not to build them, while the existing nuclear weapons states made a promise to disarm "at an early date."

President Lyndon Johnson looking on as Secretary of State Dean Rusk prepares to sign the NPT, 1 July 1968. (Photo: Courtesy of Lyndon B. Johnson Presidential Library)

Neither the United States, nor the other members of the nuclear club made any serious commitments to their promise, and we have seen the results. Without a serious demonstration of the U.S. commitment to achieving significant disarmament progress by 2010, the NPT could collapse, opening the doors to uncontrolled global proliferation of nuclear weapons.

It will be up to the citizenry of all nations to hold our leaders accountable to disarmament and nonproliferation in the spirit (not the letter) of the NPT. As the only nation to have ever used nuclear weapons on another, the U.S. has a special, moral obligation to lead (by example) the way to a nuclear weapons-free world. More on this in blog posts to come.

We, as abolitionists, need to consider nuclear weapons from a number of perspectives, including the legal perspective. Francis A. Boyle, a lawyer, professor and expert in international law and human rights, recently wrote an essay on The Criminality of Nuclear Deterrence that focuses on the criminality of the threat of using nuclear weapons and the human right to anti-nuclear civil resistance. I highly recommend it to anyone who is serious about nuclear abolition.

"Anti-nuclear civil resistance is the right of every citizen of this planet for the nuclear threat, attacking as it does every core concept of human rights, calls for urgent and universal action for its prevention." These words were spoken (on February 3, 2009) by another legal scholar, Judge Christopher Weeramantry, former vice-president of the International Court of Justice, and winner of The Right Livelihood Award in 2007.

We must understand our rights before we can defend them.

Peace,

Leonard

Read Francis Boyle's article, The Criminality of Nuclear Deterrence, at the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation's Website. Boyle also wrote a book by the same title, Criminality of Nuclear Deterrence: Could America's War on Terrorism Go Nuclear?, published in 2002.

Read Judge Weeramantry's presentation, The Trident and International Law: Scotland's Obligations, given at the Conference on Trident and International Law: Scotland's Obligations organized in Edinburgh by the Acronym Institute for Disarmament Diplomacy, Edinburgh Peace and Justice Centre and Trident Ploughshares on February 3, 2009

Promises, Promises, Promises...

Friends,

Cherie Eicholz, Executive Director of Washington Physicians for Social Responsibility, wrote the following guest column in The Seattle Times, Time for United States to keep promise on nuclear disarmament. It is timely, well written and hits the proverbial nail on the head. Promises are meant to be kept, especially promises of such magnitude.

Peace,

Leonard

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

More than 50 years after the United States dropped nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the United States has a golden opportunity to salvage the promise it made in an international 1968 nuclear non-proliferation treaty, writes guest columnist Cherie Eichholz.

By Cherie Eichholz

Special to The Times

Today many will remember the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki 64 years ago, the world's first and only actual use of nuclear weapons. A reverent few will gather at Greenlake and other areas around Seattle to memorialize those killed, and tomorrow we will resume our lives, ignoring the lethal threat that lurks all around us.

Today, the United States still possesses more than 9,000 nuclear warheads, approximately 2,000 of them on hair-trigger alert, ready to deploy and explode within 30 minutes of launch. Over one-quarter of those weapons are maintained at Bangor Naval Base, scarcely 30 minutes from Seattle, which is one of only two bases in the nation that houses Trident nuclear submarines, arguably the world's deadliest weapon.

Modern nuclear weapons are many times more powerful than those that killed hundreds of thousands of Japanese in 1945 and are thus significantly more dangerous and devastating. They are hardly in the category of an adequate and reasonable security measure. Today's nuclear weapons are weapons of mass destruction and the longer they lay in waiting, the greater the risk that either they will be used for their stated purpose of extraordinary destruction, possibly by rogue nations or individuals, or that an accident will occur and unintentionally kill thousands if not more.

For the first time in many years we have a president committed to disarming the U.S. nuclear arsenal and seeking a world free from nuclear weapons. But in past weeks, President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have pledged to help India in their efforts to increase the size of their military and nuclear capabilities. These actions and the president's oft-stated commitment to disarmament seem at odds. Indeed, while it is apparent there is some measure of sincerity in Obama's repeated proclamations, it is also apparent the commencement of global disarmament remains a goal waiting for concrete actions by the U.S. and others.

U.S. citizens want to feel safe and be safe, but when it comes right down to it, we are not engaged in pursuing what would above all else ensure our safety, regardless of our long-standing pledge to do so.

The international Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons we signed in 1968 states: "Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament."

It would be difficult to argue that in the past 40 years we have honored this commitment — but we have a golden opportunity to salvage that promise.

In the coming months, the U.S. will face a number of critical decisions concerning nuclear weapons as several treaties and agreements are to be re-evaluated. The question remains: Will the U.S. take the necessary steps to move toward a world free from nuclear weapons? The answer seems clear: If we hope to ensure a safe future, free from the kind of devastation wrought in 1945, we must demand the U.S. set an example and begin disarming.

Cherie Eichholz is executive director of the Washington Physicians for Social Responsibility.

Get the Nukes Out Of Europe!

Friends,

We STILL haven't gotten all the U.S. nuclear weapons out of Europe years after the end of the Cold War. What's up with that??? At the height of the Cold War the U.S. had thousands of tactical nuclear weapons scattered all over Europe, ready to launch, shoot, drop or bury had the Soviet Union launched an invasion of Europe. There were missiles, gravity bombs, artillery shells, and even land mines. Imagine driving over one of those!?!?!

German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier told the German news organization, Spiegel that he wants to see all the remaining U.S. nuclear weapons removed from Germany, calling them "militarily obsolete". There are approximately 100 nuclear weapons currently stored in five European countries, and they are most likely all gravity bombs. With Trident prowling much of the Seven Seas these days, bombs are, indeed, passe.

Contrast Steinmeier with Chancellor Angela Merkel who spoke to the German Bundestag before the recent NATO summit, saying "that the German government still fully supported the NATO doctrine of 'nuclear sharing,' whereby non-nuclear states such as Germany host third-party nukes in order to get more say in decision-making. Hosting American nuclear weapons secures Berlin's "influence in the defense alliance, including in this highly sensitive area." So she's O.K. with "sharing" so long as she gets to covet a few of those bad boys. Hmmm. Sounds like nuke envy, doesn't it???

Of course, NATO is now a dinosaur; the Cold War ended long ago, and with it NATO's reason for living. But the alliance refuses to die; on the contrary, it just celebrated its 60th anniversary, and is looking for a new mission to justify its existence. And it has antagonized Russia by signing up as many ex-soviet bloc countries as it can get its hands on (not very sporting).

NATO "retains policies that promote the role of nuclear weapons and undermine the NPT. According to NATO's current Strategic Concept - up for review by 2009 - nuclear weapons provide the "supreme guarantee" of Alliance security" according to The Acronym Institute for Disarmament Diplomacy. What kind of guarantee is that? So during a war, the United States would give Belgium, Germany, Italy, The Netherlands, Turkey and Greece permission to use their nukes. That certainly opens up a world of (nuclear) possibilities, doesn't it? I can just see them lining up at the drive (or fly) through window; "a dozen B61's please, and could you supersize those?"

This is an issue to watch. It will be important for President Obama, as he moves forward with negotiations with Russia, to address this issue decisively, not only for U.S. relations with Russia, but also to bolster the impoverished Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) that is up for review in 2o1o. Anything that undermines the NPT must be dealt with, and the issue of a nuclear NATO must be addressed directly.

Peace,

Leonard

Check out NATO's nuclear sharing: A cold war anachronism that undermines the NPT at The Acronym Institute for an in depth analysis of NATO and nuclear weapons.

We Need A Global Nuclear Weapons-Free Zone!

Friends,

Central Asia just became the newest addition to the club whose members have said NO to nuclear weapons. Here is the official statement from UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, issued on March 20th:

The Secretary-General welcomes the entry into force of the Treaty on a Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone in Central Asia. Opened for signature on 8 September 2006, it has now been ratified by all five Central Asian States and will enter into force on 21 March 2009.

The Treaty on a Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone in Central Asia, for which the Government of Kyrgyzstan is the depositary, has five States parties: the Republic of Kazakhstan; the Kyrgyz Republic; the Republic of Tajikistan; Turkmenistan; and the Republic of Uzbekistan. The Treaty is of particular significance. This will be the first nuclear-weapon-free zone to be established in the northern hemisphere and will also encompass an area where nuclear weapons previously existed. It will also be the first nuclear-weapon-free zone that requires its parties to conclude with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and bring into force an Additional Protocol to their Safeguards Agreements with IAEA within 18 months after the entry into force of the Treaty, and to comply fully with the provisions of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT).
In order to ensure the effective implementation of the Treaty, the Secretary-General would like to urge the States concerned to address any outstanding issues that may affect its operation.

As the 2010 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons approaches, the Secretary-General trusts that the entry into force of the Treaty on a Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone in Central Asia will reinforce efforts to strengthen the global nuclear non-proliferation regime, underline the strategic and moral value of nuclear-weapon-free zones, as well as the possibilities for greater progress on a range of issues in the pursuit of a world free of nuclear weapons.

It is noteworthy that Kazakhstan, one of the signatories, was once (while part of the Soviet Union) a hub for nuclear weapons testing, and had the fourth largest nuclear weapon arsenal in the world (UN News Centre, 3/20/2009). The Semipalatinsk Test Site was the Soviet's primary test facility with over one hundred above ground tests and hundreds of underground tests conducted before testing ended in 1989. The residents of the area surrounding Semipalatinsk still suffer from the long term radiation effects, and the environmental effects are staggering; it has been called the most heavily contaminated place on earth.

It is fitting that Kazakhstan and its neighbors have entered into this treaty (that was signed a few years ago) creating the Northern Hemispheres first nuclear weapons-free zone, not just because of the region's history during the Cold War, but because of the strong statement that it sends to the nuclear powers and the rest of the world. Nations have spent huge amounts of human and financial capital over the past six decades building up and maintaining nuclear arsenals. And what are they good for? Can they feed, clothe or house people rather than incinerate them? Can they cure people rather than make them ill? Can they green the earth rather than poisoning the soil and water on which life depends?

Ban Ki-moon recently said that making progress in this area [global disarmament] will free up vitally important resources for development at a time when the world is facing a financial crunch. As we approach the 2010 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, we need to focus on not only the moral issues surrounding nuclear weapons (although they are always first and foremost to me), but also the practical issues surrounding the world's problems and how best to solve them. Just think of what we could do if all the human capital in the nations' nuclear weapons laboratories were put to work solving all of our problems related to energy and our environment.

Just think!!! So here's to that day when the whole world is a nuclear weapons-free zone.

Peace,

Leonard

Note: The photo of the mushroom cloud is a early test at the Semipalatinsk Test Site.

Iran And THE Bomb

That's right - one lousy bomb! That's how much enriched uranium the experts believe Iran has; enough to build one bomb. Ooh! I'm about to faint. But really folks - ONE nuclear weapon. Besides the relatively small nuclear arsenals of Pakistan, India, China, Israel, France and the United Kingdom, you have to admit that it's pretty impressive to consider that just the United States and Russia combined have an estimated 19,400 nuclear weapons . And when you add in those other nations' nuclear weapons, the total is around 20,000.

All right, even one bomb IS significant. But what is staggeringly evident as the world (led by the Bush Administration) has focused so much attention on Iran's drive to get the bomb is that it has shifted the focus from the most critical issue to resolve in order to convince countries like Iran to give up the bomb, namely real global disarmament efforts. For all the talk about non-proliferation, the only way we will ever see any real progress is by the major powers undertaking a serious effort to reduce their arsenals with the goal of total disarmament at some (reasonable) future date (with a specified timeline with verifiable goals).

Let's face it; there are some very basic aspects of human behavior involved here. When you have the bully on the block running around brandishing its brass knuckles and pushing everyone around, you can bet that not everyone is going to start paying protection money. Someone (or two or three) is going to go out and buy a pair of those cool brass knuckles and show them off. When it comes to nuclear weapons, however, the stakes are way too high. And it's time for the bullies on the block to disarm and play nice.

Now, that is not to say that the U.S. and Russia should just get rid of all their weapons at once and hope that everyone will follow. Of course it isn't as simple as that. But it has to start with a concerted effort at reducing the numbers of weapons along with serious diplomatic efforts to convince other nations to do the same. Strengthening the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty (and establishing target dates) will be a key element; the next NPT Review Conference is scheduled for 2010.

One might counter that the United States has significantly reduced its stockpile of nuclear weapons since the end of the Cold War, and they would be (partially) correct. The U.S. has "dismantled more than 13,000 nuclear weapons since 1988." But if you read the fine print , nearly all of those weapons are either outdated, or (as is the case with some warheads) have been replaced by newer models. Let's get real here (just a couple of examples) - "naval nuclear depth bombs"? "Nuclear artillery shells"? And, I'm sure we didn't need those "suitcase bombs" anymore.

Who needs all this old stuff anyway when you have silos spread across the American heartland bristling with roughly 500 Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles, in addition to those 18 stealthy Trident nuclear submarines, each one loaded with 24 of the new and improved Trident D-5 nuclear missiles. These are the big boys! Just one Trident sub carries enough missiles to destroy an entire (large) continent.

As for Iran; lets not get too excited just yet. However, let's also remember that they aren't the only new kid on the block trying (or thinking about trying) to join the prestigious nuclear club. If we deal with them the old fashioned way using military force (and President-elect Obama has not yet ruled out this option), we will just be sending a message to nations like North Korea that they had better ramp up their programs or they will be next. Military action must NOT be on the table.

For an interesting perspective, watch The Folly of Attacking Iran: Lessons From History produced by Just Foreign Policy below.


You can read the recently issued Joint Experts Statement on Iran from Just Foreign Policy. If you agree with their five step strategy for a new relationship with Iran, consider sending an email to your members of Congress asking them to support direct diplomacy with Iran (without preconditions).

Fortunately for Iran, our nation and the world, we will soon have a new administration in Washington, D.C. But don't let that lull you into a false sense of security; the hawks are already descending on The White House (stay tuned for more on that). Our voices will be needed to help convince Congress and the Obama administration that the only way to avoid having Iran build nuclear weapons is through direct diplomacy (as well as meaningful progress in disarmament by all the nuclear nations, led by the U.S. and Russia).

Peace,

Leonard

Note: The top photo is of a "cascade" of centrifuges that are used to enrich uranium to separate out the isotope of Uranium needed to build a nuclear weapon.