Be Part of the CHAIN REACTION 2016!

There are roughly 15,000 nuclear weapons in the world. The only safe number is ZERO! Now is the time to break free of nuclear weapons. We need a huge groundswell of global citizen support and action to put pressure on the nuclear weapon states to assume their responsibility to disarm. CHAIN REACTION 2016 is an effort to help make this happen.

WHAT is CHAIN REACTION 2016?

A nuclear bomb destroys through an uncontrollable chain reaction of atoms being split in two. There are over 15,000 nuclear weapons in the world’s arsenals – ready to destroy the world.

From July to October 2016, civil society around the world is acting in a Chain Reaction of peace to highlight the immorality and insecurity of nuclear weapons, to oppose the institutions and policies perpetuating the nuclear arms race, and to support nuclear disarmament actions by governments and the United Nations.

This action is engaging youth, environmentalists, parliamentarians, mayors, religious leaders, human rights activists and other representatives of civil society.

Chain Reaction is facilitated by UNFOLD ZERO and the Basel Peace Office.

WHEN is CHAIN REACTION 2016?

The period July 8 – October 2 takes in a number of key anniversaries and international commemorative days.

It includes dates such as the International Day Against Nuclear Tests, International Day of Peace and the International Day for the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons.

GET INVOLVED in CHAIN REACTION 2016

Organize your own event or participate in one of the many events happening between now and October.

Learn more and get involved at unfoldzero.org.

Calling on Obama to Take Concrete Action in Hiroshima

Editor's Note: President Obama will visit Hiroshima this Friday after the Group of Seven economic summit in Japan. This will be the first time a U.S. president has visited the city that was devastated in the atomic bombing of August 6, 1945.

At a time when the US is modernizing its nuclear forces at an estimated cost of a trillion dollars over thirty years, the President's visit to Hiroshima is an opportunity that will likely not come again. Yet many, such as American University Professor Peter Kuznick, are concerned that Obama will "use it as a cover for his militarization of the conflict with China and his trillion dollar nuclear modernization program to make nuclear weapons more usable."

Joseph Gerson, of the American Friends Service Committee, said, “President Obama should cancel this spending, revitalize disarmament diplomacy by announcing a reduction of the U.S. nuclear arsenal, and challenge Russian President Putin to join in beginning negotiations to create the nuclear weapons-free world promised in Prague and required by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.”

Over seventy prominent scholars and activists signed the following letter urging President Obama to visit with Hibakusha, atomic bomb survivors, and to announce concrete steps toward nuclear disarmament during his visit to Hiroshima.

Whatever the President does and says in Hiroshima, his actions going forward toward the end of his term are what will count. He can take concrete steps to either end the new, rapidly escalating arms race or continue on the current path, one that will certainly come to no good end.

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

May 23, 2016

President Barack Obama
The White House
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President,

We were happy to learn of your plans to be the first sitting president of the United States to visit Hiroshima later this week, after the G-7 economic summit in Japan. Many of us have been to Hiroshima and Nagasaki and found it a profound, life-changing experience, as did Secretary of State John Kerry on his recent visit.

In particular, meeting and hearing the personal stories of A-bomb survivors, Hibakusha, has made a unique impact on our work for global peace and disarmament. Learning of the suffering of the Hibakusha, but also their wisdom, their awe-inspiring sense of humanity, and steadfast advocacy of nuclear abolition so the horror they experienced can never happen again to other human beings, is a precious gift that cannot help but strengthen anyone’s resolve to dispose of the nuclear menace.

Your 2009 Prague speech calling for a world free of nuclear weapons inspired hope around the world, and the New START pact with Russia, historic nuclear agreement with Iran and securing and reducing stocks of nuclear weapons-grade material globally have been significant achievements.

Yet, with more than 15,000 nuclear weapons (93% held by the U.S. and Russia) still threatening all the peoples of the planet, much more needs to be done. We believe you can still offer crucial leadership in your remaining time in office to move more boldly toward a world without nuclear weapons.

In this light, we strongly urge you to honor your promise in Prague to work for a nuclear weapons-free world by:

• Meeting with all Hibakusha who are able to attend;

• Announcing the end of U.S. plans to spend $1 trillion for the new generation of nuclear weapons and their delivery systems;

• Reinvigorating nuclear disarmament negotiations to go beyond New START by announcing the unilateral reduction of the deployed U.S. arsenal to 1,000 nuclear weapons or fewer;

• Calling on Russia to join with the United States in convening the “good faith negotiations” required by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty for the complete elimination of the world’s nuclear arsenals;

• Reconsidering your refusal to apologize or discuss the history surrounding the A-bombings, which even President Eisenhower, Generals MacArthur, Arnold, and LeMay and Admirals Leahy , King, and Nimitz stated were not necessary to end the war.

Sincerely,

Gar Alperovitz, Co-Chair of The Next System Project, former Lionel R. Bauman Professor of Political-Economy at the University of Maryland,

Christian Appy, Professor of History at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst

Colin Archer, Secretary-General, International Peace Bureau

Charles K. Armstrong, Professor of History, Columbia University

Medea Benjamin, Co-founder, CODE PINK, Women for Peace and Global Exchange

Phyllis Bennis, Fellow of the Institute for Policy Studies

Herbert Bix, Professor of History, State University of New York, Binghamton

Norman Birnbaum, University Professor Emeritus, Georgetown University Law Center

Reiner Braun, Co-President, International Peace Bureau

Philip Brenner, Professor of International Relations and Director of the Graduate Program in US Foreign Policy and National Security, American University

Jacqueline Cabasso, Executive Director, Western States Legal Foundation; National Co-convener, United for Peace and Justice

James Carroll, Author of An American Requiem

Noam Chomsky, Professor Emeritus, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

David Cortright, Director of Policy Studies, Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies, University of Notre Dame and former Executive Director, SANE

Frank Costigliola, Board of Trustees Distinguished Professor, University of Connecticut

Bruce Cumings, Professor of History, University of Chicago

Alexis Dudden, Professor of History, University of Connecticut

Daniel Ellsberg, Former State and Defense Department official

John Feffer, Director, Foreign Policy In Focus, Institute for Policy Studies

Gordon Fellman, Professor of Sociology and Peace Studies, Brandeis University.

Bill Fletcher, Jr., Talk Show Host, Writer & Activist.

Norma Field, Professor Emerita, University of Chicago

Carolyn Forché, University Professor, Georgetown University

Max Paul Friedman, Professor of History, American University.

Bruce Gagnon, Coordinator Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space.

Lloyd Gardner, Professor of History Emeritus, Rutgers University.

Irene Gendzier Professor Emeritus, Department of of History, Boston University

Joseph Gerson, Director, American Friends Service Committee Peace & Economic Security Program,

Todd Gitlin, Professor of Sociology, Columbia University

Andrew Gordon, Professor of History, Harvard University

John Hallam, Human Survival Project, People for Nuclear Disarmament, Australia

Melvin Hardy, Heiwa Peace Committee, Washington, DC

Laura Hein, Professor of History, Northwestern University

Martin Hellman, Member, US National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine Professor Emeritus of Electrical Engineering, Stanford University

Kate Hudson, General Secretary, Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (UK)

Paul Joseph, Professor of Sociology, Tufts University

Louis Kampf, Professor of Humanities Emeritus MIT

Michael Kazin, Professor of History, Georgetown University

Asaf Kfoury, Professor of Mathematics and Computer Science, Boston University.

G. Peter King, Honorary Associate, Government & International Relations School of Social and Political Sciences, The University of Sydney, NSW

David Krieger, President Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Peter Kuznick, Professor of History and Director of the Nuclear Studies Institute, American University

John W. Lamperti, Professor of Mathematics Emeritus, Dartmouth College

Steven Leeper, Co-founder PEACE Institute, Former Chairman, Hiroshima Peace Culture Foundation

Robert Jay Lifton, MD, Lecturer in Psychiatry Columbia University, Distinguished Professor Emeritus, The City University of New York

Elaine Tyler May, Regents Professor, University of Minnesota

Kevin Martin, President, Peace Action and Peace Action Education Fund

Ray McGovern, Veterans For Peace, Former Head of CIA Soviet Desk and Presidential Daily Briefer

David McReynolds, Former Chair, War Resister International

Zia Mian, Professor, Program on Science and Global Security, Princeton University

Tetsuo Najita, Professor of Japanese History, Emeritus, University of Chicago, former President of Association of Asian Studies

Sophie Quinn-Judge, Retired Professor, Center for Vietnamese Philosophy, Culture and Society, Temple University

Steve Rabson, Professor Emeritus of East Asian Studies, Brown University, Veteran, United States Army

Betty Reardon, Founding Director Emeritus of the International Institute on Peace Education, Teachers College, Columbia University

Terry Rockefeller, Founding Member, September 11 Families for Peaceful Tomorrows,

David Rothauser Filmmaker, Memory Productions, Producer of "Hibakusha, Our Life to Live" and "Article 9 Comes to America

James C. Scott, Professor of Political Science and Anthropology, Yale University, ex-President of the Association of Asian Studies

Peter Dale Scott, Professor of English Emeritus, University of California, Berkleley

Mark Selden, Senior Research Associate Cornell University, editor, Asia-Pacific Journal,

Martin Sherwin, Professor of History, George Mason University

Tim Shorrock, Journalist, Washington DC.

John Steinbach, Hiroshima Nagasaki Committee

Oliver Stone, Academy Award-winning writer and director

David Swanson, director of World Beyond War

Max Tegmark, Professor of Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Founder, Future of Life Institute

Ellen Thomas, Proposition One Campaign Executive Director, Co-Chair, Women's International League for Peace and Freedom (US) Disarm/End Wars Issue Committee

Michael True, Emeritus Professor, Assumption College, is co-founder of the Center for Nonviolent Solutions

David Vine, Professor, Department of Sociology, American University

Alyn Ware, Global Coordinator, Parliamentarians for Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament 2009 Laureate, Right Livelihood Award

Jon Weiner, Professor Emeritus of Histry, University of California Irvine

Lawrence Wittner, Professor of History Emeritus, SUNY/Albany

Col. Ann Wright, US Army Reserved (Ret.), former US diplomat

Marilyn Young, Professor of History, New York University

Stephen Zunes, Professor of Politics; Coordinator of Middle Eastern Studies, University of San Francisco

We the people: for a better world

Editor's Note: I have just returned from New York where I participated in a host of activities surrounding the Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference. I am not naïve; I know that the NPT was conceived out of avarice and power, and a desire of the nuclear weapons states (led by the U.S.) to keep others out of the exclusive nuclear club. 45 years of empty promises has convinced me that the nuclear weapons states will not live up to their moral or legal responsibilities to disarm without a groundswell of global citizen-led pressure. Ray Acheson's editorial below is a concise perspective on our responsibility in navigating the road ahead.

Ray Acheson is Director of Critical Will, a project of the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom. Learn more (and keep up with this year's NPT Review Conference) at the Reaching Critical Will website.

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

Editorial: We the people

Ray Acheson | Reaching Critical Will of WILPF

Last week more than 900 women and men from 80 countries gathered in The Hague to celebrate 100 years of peacemaking with the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF) and to set a new agenda for peace for the 21st century. Now WILPF is in New York at the NPT Review Conference. Our participation in these very different conferences has one thing in common: our intention is to confront and challenge the structures of power that privilege the few over the many, that undermine international law, and that impede human security.

WILPF’s 100th anniversary conference strongly confronted the corporate and military take-over of governments and the resulting preservation of power over the protection of human beings. “The UN Charter states ‘We the people,’ not ‘I, the hegemonic nation state’,” declared Madeleine Rees, WILPF’s Secretary General. The Charter and the rest of the UN system and body of international law surrounding it are designed to promote peace over violence, law over war.

But this system is not working effectively against the structures of power that prevent the achievement of peace and justice. The NPT has also failed in this regard.

The NPT demands that every effort be made to “avert the devastation of a nuclear war” and to take measures that would “safeguard the security of peoples”. It requires the cessation of the manufacture of nuclear weapons and the total elimination of all stockpiles of nuclear weapons and their delivery systems.

Yet five states parties continue to possess and even modernise and extend the lives of their nuclear weapons, while another 30 or so include nuclear weapons in their security doctrines.

The possession of nuclear weapons, argued South Africa’s delegation, privileges the security interests of a few states “at the expense of the rest of humanity.” And these few are so far unwilling to relinquish this particular tool of domination. The five NPT nuclear-armed state parties reiterated last week that “an incremental, step-by-step approach is the only practical and realistic option for making progress towards nuclear disarmament, while upholding global strategic security and stability.” 26 of their nuclear-dependent allies proclaimed the need to work “methodically and with realism,” imperiously asserting, “There are no short cuts.”

If these states were actually engaged in serious, concrete, time-bound, transparent, verifiable actions for nuclear disarmament, they might have a leg to stand on. But they are not. And their security doctrines assert the importance of nuclear weapons for security—principally, for deterring conflict by threatening massive nuclear violence.

The idea that nuclear weapons can prevent conflict or afford security to anyone has been firmly rejected by the vast majority of governments. And there is a new sense of empowerment developing amongst the peoples and governments of countries that reject nuclear weapons. While some states, such as Belgium, continue to believe that “nuclear disarmament will happen when nuclear-weapon states will no longer feel the need to have them,” most have shaken off this submissive position and are demanding real change, now.

We are told that we are being divisive by doing so. But just as we must stand up to those who abuse and then blame their victims for their abhorrent behaviour, we must reject this accusation. We must not accept a framing that a ban treaty is polarising or divisive, said the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) in its statement to the Review Conference. “Adopting a new international legal standard to prohibit nuclear weapons is a responsibility.”

It is everyone’s responsibility to challenge power and privilege and to fight for the rights of humanity over the interests of a few states. Whether we are at a women’s peace conference aimed at stopping war and violence or at a treaty review conference focused on nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation, this responsibility lies at the centre of all of our actions. Whether banning nuclear weapons or standing up to patriarchy we are demanding and designing a better world for all.

Who Are the Nuclear Scofflaws? by Lawrence Wittner

Editor's Note: Almost every day I find something in the corporate news media about Iran and its (alleged) quest for nuclear weapons. With so many wringing their hands and sounding the alarm about a nuclear Iran, one might think we're all going to need Prozac (FDA-approved for panic disorder) any day now. A major irony of this situation is that we are completely ignoring the elephant in the room - the already existing warheads (approximately 15,645) of the confirmed nuclear nations, many of which are deployed on missiles, ready to launch.

That nations (led by the US and Israel) scream and shout about Iran while essentially ignoring the clear and present danger posed by the existence of so many nuclear weapons (by nations prepared to use them) in an increasingly tense, new Cold War that is brewing, is madness and is a crime against humanity.

Enter the calm, clear voice of the respected historian of the nuclear age and the movement to abolish nuclear weapons. Lawrence Wittner wrote the following article to offer an important perspective on the current nuclear conundrum, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), and the Upcoming NPT Review Conference. The big question is, "What will it take to move the nuclear weapons states in a positive direction (towards disarmament)?"

In his book Confronting the Bomb, Wittner wrote that it is not the conventional explanation of "deterrence" that has saved the world from nuclear annihilation over the past 65 years, but a "massive nuclear disarmament movement." Let us hope that we will have a “massive” presence in New York City this April to send a clear message to the nuclear weapons states that the time for disarmament is NOW!

*********************
Who Are the Nuclear Scofflaws? 

By Lawrence S. Wittner

Dr. Lawrence Wittner (http://lawrenceswittner.com) is Professor of History emeritus at SUNY/Albany. He is the author of "Confronting the Bomb: A Short History of the World Nuclear Disarmament Movement" (Stanford University Press).

Test launch of a Trident submarine-launched ballistic missile

Given all the frothing by hawkish U.S. Senators about Iran’s possible development of nuclear weapons, one might think that Iran was violating the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

But it’s not. The NPT, signed by 190 nations and in effect since 1970, is a treaty in which the non-nuclear nations agreed to forgo developing nuclear weapons and the nuclear nations agreed to divest themselves of their nuclear weapons. It also granted nations the right to develop peaceful nuclear power. The current negotiations in which Iran is engaged with other nations are merely designed to guarantee that Iran, which signed the NPT, does not cross the line from developing nuclear power to developing nuclear weapons.

Nine nations, however, have flouted the NPT by either developing nuclear weapons since the treaty went into effect or failing to honor the commitment to disarm. These nine scofflaws and their nuclear arsenals are Russia (7,500 nuclear warheads), the United States (7,100 nuclear warheads), France (300 nuclear warheads), China (250 nuclear warheads), Britain (215 nuclear warheads), Pakistan (100-120 nuclear warheads), India (90-110 nuclear warheads), Israel (80 nuclear warheads), and North Korea (10 nuclear warheads).

Nor are the nuclear powers likely to be in compliance with the NPT any time soon. The Indian and Pakistani governments are engaged in a rapid nuclear weapons buildup, while the British government is contemplating the development of a new, more advanced nuclear weapons system. Although, in recent decades, the U.S. and Russian governments did reduce their nuclear arsenals substantially, that process has come to a halt in recent years, as relations have soured between the two nations. Indeed, both countries are currently engaged in a new, extremely dangerous nuclear arms race. The U.S. government has committed itself to spending $1 trillion to “modernize” its nuclear facilities and build new nuclear weapons. For its part, the Russian government is investing heavily in the upgrading of its nuclear warheads and the development of new delivery systems, such as nuclear missiles and nuclear submarines.

What can be done about this flouting of the NPT, some 45 years after it went into operation?

That will almost certainly be a major issue at an NPT Review Conference that will convene at the UN headquarters, in New York City, from April 27 to May 22. These review conferences, held every five years, attract high-level national officials from around the world to discuss the treaty’s implementation. For a very brief time, the review conferences even draw the attention of television and other news commentators before the mass communications media return to their preoccupation with scandals, arrests, and the lives of movie stars.

This spring’s NPT review conference might be particularly lively, given the heightening frustration of the non-nuclear powers at the failure of the nuclear powers to fulfill their NPT commitments. At recent disarmament conferences in Norway, Mexico and Austria, the representatives of a large number of non-nuclear nations, ignoring the opposition of the nuclear powers, focused on the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of nuclear war. One rising demand among restless non-nuclear nations and among nuclear disarmament groups is to develop a nuclear weapons ban treaty, whether or not the nuclear powers are willing to participate in negotiations.

To heighten the pressure for the abolition of nuclear weapons, nuclear disarmament groups are staging a Peace and Planet mobilization, in Manhattan, on the eve of the NPT review conference. Calling for a “Nuclear-Free, Peaceful, Just, and Sustainable World,” the mobilization involves an international conference (comprised of plenaries and workshops) on April 24 and 25, plus a culminating interfaith convocation, rally, march, and festival on April 26. Among the hundreds of endorsing organizations are many devoted to peace (Fellowship of Reconciliation, Pax Christi, Peace Action, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Veterans for Peace, and Women’s International League for Peace & Freedom), environmentalism (Earth Action, Friends of the Earth, and 350NYC), religion (Maryknoll Office for Global Concerns, Unitarian Universalist UN Office, United Church of Christ, and United Methodist General Board of Church & Society), workers’ rights (New Jersey Industrial Union Council, United Electrical Workers, and Working Families Party), and human welfare (American Friends Service Committee and National Association of Social Workers).

Of course, how much effect the proponents of a nuclear weapons-free world will have on the cynical officials of the nuclear powers remains to be seen. After as many as 45 years of stalling on their own nuclear disarmament, it is hard to imagine that they are finally ready to begin negotiating a treaty effectively banning nuclear weapons―or at least their nuclear weapons.

Meanwhile, let us encourage Iran not to follow the bad example set by the nuclear powers. And let us ask the nuclear-armed nations, now telling Iran that it should forgo the possession of nuclear weapons, when they are going to start practicing what they preach.

Originally published in History News Network, original source URL:  http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/158896

Court to hear Transform Now Plowshares appeal

Editor's Note: The following press release was just issued regarding the Transform Now Plowshares appeal to be heard tomorrow. The March 9th issue of The New Yorker magazine has a feature article by Eric Schlosser (Author of Command and Control) on the Transform Now Plowshares action. Click here to read BREAK-IN AT Y-12.

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

WHILE PRESIDENT PRAISES COURAGE OF NONVIOLENT ACTIVISTS OF FIFTY YEARS AGO, NONVIOLENT ACTIVISTS TODAY—INCLUDING 85 YEAR OLD NUN—HELD IN FEDERAL PRISON, CHARGED WITH SABOTAGE, FOR SAME COURAGEOUS ACTION, US SIXTH CIRCUIT TO HEAR APPEAL OF TRANSFORM NOW PLOWSHARES 9:00AM, THURSDAY, MARCH 12, 2015, IN CINCINNATI, OH

Five days after President Barack Obama’s March 7, 2015, speech on the Edmund Pettis Bridge, praising the courageous leadership of nonviolent demonstrators, modern day nonviolent activists languish in Leavenworth, McKean, and Brooklyn federal prisons, serving terms from three to five years, for the July 28, 2012, Transform Now Plowshares action at the Y-12 Nuclear Weapons Complex in Oak Ridge, Tennessee.

Embarrassed by the security breach at the bomb plant, Obama’s Justice Department charged Megan Rice, then 82 years old, Michael Walli and Greg Boertje-Obed with sabotage, invoking a little used statute originally intended for wartime saboteurs.

The Transform Now Plowshares three were convicted in 2013, imprisoned, and sentenced in 2014; Rice received a sentence of 35 months; Boertje-Obed and Walli, veterans of previous nonviolent plowshares actions, received sentences of five years. Rice, now 85, is currently incarcerated in Brooklyn, NY; Walli in McKean prison in Bradford, PA; Boertje-Obed in Leavenworth, KS.

Attorneys for the Transform Now Plowshares activists will have fifteen minutes on Thursday, March 12, 2015 to argue before the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati, Ohio, that the government’s misapplication of the sabotage statute was inappropriate and the sentences of Rice, Walli and Boertje-Obed should be recalibrated.

Like John Lewis and the Selma demonstrators fifty years ago, the Transform Now Plowshares action was designed to call attention to the failure of the United States government to live up to its ideals: in this case, the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, in which the US promised, in 1970, to negotiate an end to the nuclear arms race and complete nuclear disarmament “at an early date.”

When Boertje-Obed, Rice and Walli learned of US plans to build a new multi-billion dollar nuclear weapons production facility—the Uranium Processing Facility—at the Y-12 Nuclear Weapons Complex in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, they selected the site for the Transform Now Plowshares action. Fully aware of the grave personal risk they were taking, they entered the high security, deadly-force-authorized security zone at Y-12 and painted biblical peace slogans on the walls of the nation’s radioactive nuclear bomb material storehouse—the Highly Enriched Uranium Materials Facility. They surrendered peacefully when accosted by security.

“The President, on the Bloody Sunday anniversary, might well have been speaking of Walli, Rice and Boertje-Obed when he said: ‘It’s the idea held by generations of citizens who believed that America is a constant work in progress; who believed that loving this country requires more than singing its praises or avoiding uncomfortable truths. It requires the occasional disruption, the willingness to speak out for what is right, to shake up the status quo. That’s America. That’s what makes us unique.’” said Ralph Hutchison, coordinator of the Oak Ridge Environmental Peace Alliance.

Hutchison and other supporters from around the country will be in Cincinnati for the court hearing on Thursday, March 12, 2015. The hearing will be held at the federal courthouse, 100 East Fifth Street, beginning at 9:00am.

“Courageous agents of social change are often praised decades later,” Hutchison said. “Sometimes they get apologies. Sometimes, like Rosa Parks, they get medals. We believe it is an injustice to imprison them in the meantime. What the President said in Selma is true in Cincinnati today: ‘What greater expression of faith in the American experiment than this, what greater form of patriotism is there than the belief that America is not yet finished, that we are strong enough to be self-critical, that each successive generation can look upon our imperfections and decide that it is in our power to remake this nation to more closely align with our highest ideals?’”

During motions hearings in federal court in Knoxville in 2013, former US Attorney General Ramsey Clark testified the United States is not keeping its Nonproliferation Treaty commitment made while he was serving as Attorney General and declared the weapons production activity at the Y12 complex “unlawful.”

The Transform Now Plowshares action was one of several events that have so far thwarted plans for the new UPF bomb plant in Oak Ridge. Despite having spent more than $1.5 billion on design plans, no plan has yet been approved, and construction has not yet begun.

Two and a half years after the action, its effects continue to resonate; the March 8, 2015 issue of the New Yorker carries a major article by Eric Schlosser about the action.

========
for more information on Transform Now Plowshares, the Y-12 Nuclear Weapons Complex or the Uranium Processing Facility: Ralph Hutchison 865 776 5050, orep@earthlink.net

Stubborn like a musk ox -- why Homo sapiens can't think straight about nuclear weapons

Editor's Note: David P. Barash is an evolutionary biologist and professor of psychology at the University of Washington. Since the early 1980s he has actively researched, promoted and practiced the field of peace studies. His op-ed in the Los Angeles times presents a unique, thought-provoking perspective on our thinking about nuclear weapons (and how we might change it "in our own self-interest). David gave permission to reprint his op-ed here, and encourages others to share it as well. I hope it will be shared widely.

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

Stubborn like a musk ox -- why Homo sapiens can't think straight about nuclear weapons

By David P. Barash

Note: Originally published in the Los Angeles Times, January 24, 2015, Reprinted here with the author's permission

Most people can be forgiven for ignoring the threat posed by nuclear weapons. It might seem surprising, but we have been preprogrammed by our own evolutionary history to engage in such ignorance. The nuclear age is just a tiny blip tacked on to our very recent phylogenetic past, so when it comes to the greatest of all risks to human survival, we are more threatened by the instincts we lack than by those we possess..

And yet, we are genuinely threatened by those weapons we possess, which the United States government is planning to upgrade at an estimated cost of $1 trillion over the next three decades. Partly in response, on Thursday the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists reset its iconic Doomsday Clock from five minutes to midnight to three minutes and counting.

How does evolution create our ignorance, thereby adding to our danger? Because its two forms — biological and cultural — are disconnected, and so are we, from our own self-interest.

Homo sapiens is the product of biological evolution — a painfully slow Darwinian process — yet we are simultaneously enmeshed in its cultural counterpart, a Lamarckian phenomenon which, by contrast, is blindingly fast and proceeds under its own rules. We have one foot thrust into the cultural present and the other stuck in our biological past.

Individuals, after all, do not evolve in the Darwinian sense; only populations and lineages do. And they are shackled to the realities of genetics and reproduction, since organic evolution is a process whereby gene frequencies change over time. Accordingly, generations are required for even the smallest evolutionary step.

By contrast, cultural evolution is astoundingly rapid. Acquired characteristics can be “inherited,” a la Lamarck, in hours or days, then passed along to other individuals, modified yet again before being picked up or dropped altogether. For example, in just a few decades (less than an instant in biological time), personal computers were developed, proliferated and modified. If they had “evolved” by Darwinian, biological means, as a favorable mutation to be promoted in one or even a handful of individuals, there would currently be only a dozen or so computer users instead of billions.

Just a superficial glance at human history shows today's world is vastly different from that of a century ago, which is almost unimaginably different from 50,000 years ago. And yet a Cro-Magnon baby, magically plunked down at birth in 21st century America, could very well find herself comfortably reading on her iPad, and offspring of today's technophiles could adapt to the world of saber-toothed cats and stone axes.

Consider that stone ax. The history of civilization is, in large part, one of ever-greater efficiency in killing, as in the progression from club, knife and spear, to bow and arrow, musket, rifle, cannon, battleship, bomber and nuclear-tipped ICBM. At the same time, the human being who creates and manipulates these devices has not changed much at all.

As a biological creature, in fact, Homo sapiens is poorly adapted for killing, given his puny nails, minimal jaws and laughable little teeth. But cultural evolution has made it not only possible but easy.

This biology-culture disconnect is especially acute in the realm of nuclear weapons. At the one-year anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima, Albert Einstein famously noted that “the splitting of the atom has changed everything but our way of thinking; hence we drift toward unparalleled catastrophe.”

He might have been talking about musk oxen. These shaggy Arctic beasts have long employed a very effective strategy when confronted by their enemies: wolves. They herd the juveniles into the center while the adults face outward, arrayed like the spokes of a wheel. Even the hungriest wolf finds it intimidating to confront a wall of sharp horns and bony foreheads, backed by a thousand pounds of angry pot roast. For countless generations, their behavior served musk oxen well.

But in more modern times, their primary threat hasn't been wolves, but human hunters carrying high-powered rifles. Today, musk oxen would do better if they spread out and high-tailed it toward the horizon, but instead they respond as previous generations always have — forming their trusted defensive circle — and are easily slaughtered.

Human actions changed everything but the musk ox way of thinking; as they clung to their biology they drifted toward unparalleled catastrophe, until another human action (conservation) intervened.

Humans also cling to (or remain unconsciously influenced by) our biology. That stubbornness is especially evident when it comes to thinking, or not thinking, about nuclear weapons.

Take, for example, this widespread difficulty: When told something is “hot,” most of us readily think in terms of boiling water or burning wood. The biological creature within cannot effectively grasp the meaning of millions of degrees. Before the artificial splitting of uranium and plutonium atoms, nuclear explosions had never occurred on Earth. Even in the wake of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we are unprepared to wrap our minds around them, including the vast scale of destruction, deaths by the millions, and in minutes.

And so the conflict between our biological natures and our cultural products cloaks nuclear weapons in a kind of psychological untouchability.

But does this mean that things are hopeless, that we are the helpless victims of this aspect of our human natures? As Carl Sagan emphasized, eliminating nuclear weapons — certainly not building more or upgrading what we have — is a basic requirement of species-wide sanity and good planetary hygiene.

The missiles, bombers, bombs and warheads in our nuclear arsenal are our own creation, our own responsibility, not something imposed upon us by a malignant God. And we are the most adaptable of all creatures, probably the only ones capable of acting, consciously, in our own self-interest. Once we stop acting like musk oxen.

Original source URL: http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-barash-nuclear-weapons-evolution-20150125-story.html

It is 3 minutes to midnight (and counting)!!!

Earlier today the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists announced that it was moving the hands of the famous Doomsday Clock ahead, from 5 minutes to midnight to 3 minutes to midnight.

The Bulletin created the Doomsday Clock in 1947 "using the imagery of apocalypse (midnight) and the contemporary idiom of nuclear explosion (countdown to zero) to convey threats to humanity and the planet." Each year the distinguished scientists of the Bulletin's Science and Security Board decide whether or not to move the minute hands of the Doomsday Clock.

This year's decision considered many factors, and nuclear weapons figure prominently in it. The optimism that came with the end of the Cold War has disappeared due to two principal factors - "nuclear weapons modernization programs and nuclear disarmament machinery that has ground to a halt." The world is on the brink of a new and dangerous nuclear arms race.

The announcement begins with this:

In 2015, unchecked climate change, global nuclear weapons modernizations, and outsized nuclear weapons arsenals pose extraordinary and undeniable threats to the continued existence of humanity, and world leaders have failed to act with the speed or on the scale required to protect citizens from potential catastrophe. These failures of political leadership endanger every person on Earth. 

In 1984, as the United States began a major defense build-up that included the pursuit of a potentially destabilizing ballistic missile defense system, relations between the United States and the Soviet Union reached an icy nadir. "Every channel of communications has been constricted or shut down; every form of contact has been attenuated or cut off. And arms control negotiations have been reduced to a species of propaganda," the Bulletin wrote then, in explaining why the hands of the Doomsday Clock had been moved to three minutes to midnight, the closest they had been to catastrophe since the early days of above-ground hydrogen bomb testing. 

Today, more than 25 years after the end of the Cold War, the members of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Science and Security Board have looked closely at the world situation and found it highly threatening to humanity—so threatening that the hands of the Doomsday Clock must once again be set at three minutes to midnight, two minutes closer to catastrophe than in 2014.

Today's announcement focuses on the current and potential risks posed to humanity by nuclear weapons, climate change and emerging technologies. These risks, when combined, pose extraordinary challenges to the very survival of humanity, and it is the "stunning governmental failures [that] have imperiled civilization on a global scale." The scientists of the Bulletin make it clear that time is short, and that we as citizens must demand that our nations' leaders take action before it is too late.

Here is how the announcement wraps it up:

The threat is serious, the time short. The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists does not move the hands of the Doomsday Clock for light or transient reasons. The clock ticks now at just three minutes to midnight because international leaders are failing to perform their most important duty—ensuring and preserving the health and vitality of human civilization. 

During the past several years, the Bulletin's Science and Security Board has grown increasingly concerned as world political leaders dithered, leaving an undeniable threat to the future of mankind—climate change—largely unaddressed. In 2014, leaders in the nuclear weapons countries have consented to a mad dash down an expensive and dangerous path toward "modernizing" their nuclear arsenals; in the process, they turned away from reasonable disarmament efforts and allowed an economic dispute between Ukraine and Russia to turn into an East-West confrontation that hinders cooperation on worldwide nuclear security, arms control, and nonproliferation. 

These stunning governmental failures have imperiled civilization on a global scale, and so we, the members of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Science and Security Board, implore the citizens of the world to speak clearly, demanding that their leaders: 

• Take actions that would cap greenhouse gas emissions at levels sufficient to keep average global temperature from rising more than 2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels. The 2-degree target is consistent with consensus views on climate science and is eminently achievable and economically viable—if national leaders show more interest in protecting their citizens than in serving the economic interests of the fossil fuel industry. 

• Dramatically reduce proposed spending on nuclear weapons modernization programs. The United States and Russia have hatched plans to essentially rebuild their entire nuclear triads in coming decades, and other nuclear weapons countries are following suit. The projected costs of these "improvements" to nuclear arsenals are indefensible, and they undermine the global disarmament regime.  

• Re-energize the disarmament process, with a focus on results. The United States and Russia, in particular, need to start negotiations on shrinking their strategic and tactical nuclear arsenals. The world can be more secure with much, much smaller nuclear arsenals than now exist—if political leaders are truly interested in protecting their citizens from harm.  

• Deal now with the commercial nuclear waste problem. Reasonable people can disagree on whether an expansion of nuclear-powered electricity generation should be a major component of the effort to limit climate change. Regardless of the future course of the worldwide nuclear power industry, there will be a need for safe and secure interim and permanent nuclear waste storage facilities.  

• Create institutions specifically assigned to explore and address potentially catastrophic misuses of new technologies. Scientific advance can provide society with great benefits, but the potential for misuse of potent new technologies is real, unless government, scientific, and business leaders take appropriate steps to explore and address possible devastating consequences of those technologies early in their development. 

Last year, with the Doomsday Clock at five minutes to midnight, the members of the Science and Security Board concluded their assessment of the world security situation by writing: "We can manage our technology, or become victims of it. The choice is ours, and the Clock is ticking." 

In 2015, with the Clock hand moved forward to three minutes to midnight, the board feels compelled to add, with a sense of great urgency: "The probability of global catastrophe is very high, and the actions needed to reduce the risks of disaster must be taken very soon."

The scientists of the Bulletin have provided the blueprint for moving ahead. They have also made clear what many of us have been saying for years - that governments will not take the necessary steps unless we, as global citizens, demand it of them. They have, for far too long, been locked in the grip of massive corporate machines that serve only their own interests. It is high time that those who govern begin the work of "ensuring and preserving the health and vitality of human civilization." 

The people who make the decision to move the minute hand of the Doomsday Clock ahead do not do so lightly. These are scientists, not alarmists. They employed sound, scientific reasoning to reach their decision, and we must listen and understand the gravity of the situation. As they concluded, "The probability of global catastrophe is very high," and the consequences to humanity would be unacceptable. We must take action, and we must take it now.

Each of us needs to stand up and pressure our government to take action on the issues raised by the Bulletin. Send a copy of the Bulletin's announcement to President Obama, your representatives in Congress, and anyone else you think should read it. Ask them to read it and reply to you, explaining how they plan to respond to the Bulletin's call to action. Do not settle for anything less than a full commitment to action.

We cannot turn back the hands of time, and we certainly cannot undo the damage we have already done. We can, however, make the difficult, yet critical, choices that will provide a livable world for future generations, and thereby turn back the hands of the Doomsday Clock.

Time is short, and "the clock is ticking."

Click here to read the full text of today's announcement.

Click here to watch today's announcement and press conference.

Los Alamos Study Group Announces Summer Intensive Action and Training Program

Please read the following important announcement from the Los Alamos Study Group!!!

Study Group summer intensive action and training program announced: “Humanity at the Crossroads: Disarmament, Human Security, and Environmental Sustainability”

Dear friends and colleagues –

In response to multiple and mounting threats to our civilization and the world’s ecosystems, the Study Group is announcing a summer intensive action and training program, which will run from May 26 through August 9 of 2014, our 25th year.

Our primary focus will be on nuclear disarmament, but this summer we will approach this struggle in the wider context of humanity’s converging crises rather than the usual nuclear security, arms control, and narrow “national security” context. While nuclear weapons discourse has largely stalled in the U.S. for a variety of reasons, it is nonetheless clear to us that progress in nuclear disarmament is an essential part of the transformation in national security urgently needed for survival. The “survival” part of the equation is poorly understood.

Over an 11-week period, participants will receive group training and individual mentoring while conducting specific projects for the Los Alamos Study Group and allied organizations in New Mexico and elsewhere.

Each project will make a significant difference and advance prospects for success in nuclear disarmament, climate protection, energy transition, and closely-related issues.

Some projects will have a research and communication focus; others an outreach, networking, and capacity-building focus. We have a suite of projects in mind but will not describe them here. Which projects we tackle will depend on the skills, interests, and experience of the participants. Most but not all projects will have a New Mexico component or emphasis.

This will be a total immersion experience, addressing serious issues. While it won’t be a holiday, there will be an emphasis on teamwork, camaraderie, and on building and deepening connections with allied organizations and the Los Alamos Study Group community. There will be plenty of time to discuss and reflect individually on the issues we are addressing, and our personal responses to them. Evenings, and an average of one weekend day each week, will be free. Work time, not including the mutual work we will do to support the summer’s community of activist-scholars, will average about 50 hours per week.

After the program, most participants will no doubt return to academic studies or to their careers and other responsibilities, enriched we hope by their experience with us. Some may remain, with us or with allied organizations.

The program is open to all adult ages (18 or older). We are aiming for a diversity of ages, skills, and backgrounds. Prior detailed issue knowledge is helpful but not required.

Participants will receive room, board, and (for U.S. citizens or work visa holders) a $500 stipend. Most work will take place at the offices of the Study Group. Housing will be at Greg and Trish’s home as well as at the homes of Study Group members in Albuquerque. You will need a laptop or tablet computer.

To apply, the first step is to send your resume or curriculum vitae to Trish.

If we don’t get enough qualified applicants in April we will cancel this program and try another approach! To proceed, we need a minimum of at least four (preferably six) participants with a workable mix of skills. Our upper limit is about ten.

Long-time members in New Mexico may enjoy joining with the group on social occasions and could make a significant volunteer contribution on specific projects, especially those involving outreach.

Participants can expect a very interesting, engaging, educational, challenging, and fruitful experience. This program is not a chance at that long-awaited vacation, but is a chance to enhance your knowledge, work with others in a cross-disciplinary, community-based setting, and make a real contribution.

Background on the Study Group is available on our website.

Sincerely,

Greg Mello and Trish Williams-Mello, for the Study Group

To the Presidents of Russia and the United States: Carpe Diem

Editor's Note: Tom Krebsbach wrote the following poem in January 2014, and sent it to both President Obama and President Putin.  Passionate about abolishing nuclear weapons, he risked arrest in January 2014 trying to deliver another of his poems to the base commander of the Trident nuclear submarine base in Silverdale, Washington during a vigil and nonviolent direct action by Ground Zero Center for Nonviolent Action.  Tom was arrested, cited for trespassing, and will have to appear in Federal Court.

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

To the Presidents of Russia and the United States: Carpe Diem

“I refuse to accept the cynical notion that nation after nation must spiral down a militaristic stairway into the hell of nuclear annihilation” - Martin Luther King, Jr.

What is the destiny of man and earth?
What glories, what cataclysms with time unfold?
Will mankind’s future celebrate his worth?
Will stories of accord, despair be told?

The path is perilous; danger is nigh;
The seeds of destruction now germinate.
Nuclear weapons stand ready and high
To render this earth a disastrous fate.

Draped gloriously vain in mushroom cloud,
The serpent spits his poisonous venom;
Delivering extinction far and loud,
As he unleashes true Armageddon.

Must earthly paradise be lost once more?
Where stride towering leaders bold and wise?
Who dare destroy the serpent to his core,
Bestowing to earth lasting peaceful skies?

Those who end the evil nuclear threat
Will win forever mankind’s thankful praise,
And through their service of allaying fret,
Stand admired through all of history’s gaze.

Oh, dear Princes of nations great and true
Summon heads of powers to table round,
And forever more the vile threat undo,
Through a global agreement most profound.

Vanquish now the serpent; his threat ablate;
Abolish weapons which goad our dismay.
Tarry not in foolishness; tempt not fate;
With urgency we call out: Seize the day!

by Tom Krebsbach, January 2014

Transform Now Plowshares: The Sentencing Saga Begins...

Editor's Note:  Many thanks to Ralph Hutchison, of the Oak Ridge Environmental Peace Alliance (OREPA), for this detailed account of yesterday's sentencing hearing for the Transform Now Plowshares defendants - Greg, Megan and Michael. The proceedings ended prematurely due to weather conditions, and will be reconvene on February 18th.  You can keep up with Transform Now Plowshares at http://transformnowplowshares.wordpress.com/.  

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

The sentencing hearing of Michael Walli, Greg Boertje-Obed and Megan Rice was interrupted by wintry weather—some might say providentially. Judge Amul Thapar announced at 1:15 that the federal courthouse was closing at 2:30pm because the accumulating snow promised to make travel treacherous. After a brief consultation among the attorneys it was decided they could not conclude the sentencing process by 2:30, so the Judge suspended the hearing; it is currently scheduled to resume February 18th at 9:00am in Knoxville.

The courtroom was full of supporters, and a second courtroom was pressed into service; that room filled and there were reports of people sitting on the floor to view the proceedings on a big-screen TV.

At 9:00am, the hearing opened with the judge hearing arguments about the amount of restitution that would be required of Megan, Greg and Michael. After hearing testimony from a B&W Y12 official, and a detailed cross examination, the judge heard brief arguments, overruled all defense objections, and set restitution at $52,953.00; he waived interest since the defendants were not in a position to pay it off immediately. How much the final assessment might actually be has yet to be determined—no one in the court could say for certain whether the government had, in fact, reimbursed B&W Y12 or Wackenhut for the items billed—if there was no reimbursement, the government can not claim restitution from the TNP three.

After a brief recess, court resumed with consideration of objections to the Presentencing Reports; the judge quickly sustained the defense's objection to the use of the word "maliciously" in the charge against Greg, Michael and Megan. There was a detailed discussion of whether or not the defendants had accepted responsibility for their actions. As in the trial, legal language bears only scant resemblance to common usage of words—accepting responsibility means pleading guilty and not putting the government to the trouble of a trial.

Assistant District Attorney Jeff Theodore used the occasion to go on a mini-rant about Ramsey Clark, from US Attorney General who testified in a pre-trial motions hearing in April. "On this issue, he has no credibility," Theodore said, ignoring Ramsey's own testimony that he was the AG when the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty was signed. "He has represented just about every nefarious person out there," Theodore said, "Nazi war criminals, Saddam Hussein…he talked about war criminality at Y12!"

The judge cut him off. Francis Lloyd rose to address the record. Describing himself as a lawyer whose heroes include Clarence Darrow, he said no person should be faulted for taking any case. The judge tried to deflect Francis by reinterpreting Theodore's statements in a creatively favorable light.

The judge then danced around Francis' assertions that Megan, Michael and Greg, by submitting to arrest and admitting the particulars of their case amounted to accepting responsibility. "When you argue every element at every point, you're not accepting responsibility. You're asking the court to put a square peg in a round hole." The judge found his metaphor compelling and repeated it later. "I don't believe the defendants are contrite."

Francis pointed out that, in the history of law, it was only by repeatedly coming back to court with arguments again and again that bad law like Plessy v. Ferguson was overturned. "I get it," said the Judge.

The judge eventually ruled the TNP trio would not be given downward departures for acceptance of responsibility.

In the ensuing discussion about various cases and how they were interpreted, Judge Thapar in every instance chose the view most favorable to the prosecution, denying the defendants any benefit of the doubt, and stepping in to help the prosecution when it stumbled.

One issue raised by Greg Boertje-Obed was whether or not a nonviolent civil resistance action was "outside the heartland" of the sabotage law. The question is critical because circuit courts had ruled that if a law was being applied outside the primary purpose intended by Congress, "outside the heartland," the judge could take that into consideration at sentencing. Here's where it got surreal.

The prosecution argued, and the judge agreed, that since these kinds of cases—anti-nuclear actions—are the only kinds of cases where the law is being used at all, they must be the "heartland." Thapar said, "Congress and the [Sentencing Guideline] Commission has had plenty of time to change it if it doesn't like it." But in two of the three cases where the law was applied to anti-nuclear protesters, judges found at sentencing that it was "outside the heartland."

After some back and forth, the judge said he would not make a final decision at the moment, but would take it up during the discussion on reasons for variances.

The final point argued was about the defendants' "civic, charitable, public service," which can be taken into account. "But it has to be truly exceptional," said the judge, noting that for a billionaire to give millions to charity, it's not such a big deal. The fact that Michael, Greg and Megan have devoted their entire lives to civic, charitable public service did not seem to strike the judge as truly exceptional, but he allowed it could be taken up later, under "3553A factors."

It was 11:45, and Kathy Boylan took the stand. It was established that she has known Michael Walli for more than 20 years, sharing living space at the Dorothy Day Catholic Worker in Washington, DC for most of that time, where people are "committed to looking at the suffering of the poor, to alleviate that suffering, to eliminate violence, and to work for peace."

Chris Irwin, Michael's attorney, asked Kathy to tell the court who Dorothy Day was and she provided a brief, succinct description of Dorothy's coming to terms with poverty and suffering by working to change conditions that created poverty and suffering. "Dorothy and Peter Maurin wanted to change society to serve the ideals of the kingdom of God," said Kathy.

"And if Michael were released, would you be prepared to help him reintegrate into society?" asked Chris. "We'd like to do it immediately," Kathy said instantly.

Chris: Is there anything else you'd like to tell the court?

Kathy: Michael is a beloved member of our community and a servant of God. Every morning, we walk down the street to pray with our friends at the Assissi house. They sent a letter I would like to read.

The letter explained that Michael joined in prayer every morning, and that was how they had come to know him. "He is an unwavering example of active nonviolence, generous, kind, helping in many ways, whether it is picking up litter or working in the garden. He is always willing to help others, especially those with special needs. Michael is a man of deep faith; he is a role model, a living example of the gospel."

Chris: Does he get paid?

Kathy: We get a $20 stipend, plus $10 for Metro.

Kathy went on to describe Michael's 2013 Pax Christi Peacemaker Award and the certificate was entered in evidence. Kathy then told of a one of the women who shares the house with them, a woman from Ethiopia who is working hard to learn English. "One day she asked me, because she didn't understand this word, 'What is generosity?' The answer came to me immediately. I said, 'Michael Walli.' And she then described in her broken english the many ways Michael serves the community."

Kathy spoke also of a neighbor who, during a recent snow storm, came up the walk of the Dorothy Day house with a snow shovel. When he finished cleaning the walk he said, "I was just sitting inside watching the snow and I thought of how many years Mike Walli shoveled my walk, and other walks up and down the block, and I thought I should repay that since he was in jail."

Kathy described Michael as a teacher and a missionary for Jesus who commanded us to put down the sword. She quoted Dorothy Day on the atomic bomb—"If we wouldn't put people in gas chambers, why would we fling gas chambers at them?" I've learned these things because Michael has said them so often, she said. She spoke of Martin Luther King who condemned nuclear weapons in 1959 and declared that we face a choice between nonviolence and nonexistence. She quoted the Second Vatican Council: "Any act of war against cities is a crime against God and warrants universal condemnation," and Pope Paul VI who described Hiroshima as "a butchery of untold magnitude."

In closing Kathy drew the clear parallel between Michael Walli and the character Moshe the Beadle in the book Night. In the book Moshe is expelled from Hungary and goes to Poland where he witnesses the deportation of the Jews. Returning to Hungary, he seeks to warn everyone of the coming doom, but they won't listen. They thought him mad. They went to the gas chambers. We hope we would have cut the fences of the camps to free the prisoners, Kathy said. I am certain our Moshe, Michael Walli, would cut the fences. In our world, our gas chambers are nuclear weapons. They are ready for use. The whole world is the concentration camp, prepared for omnicidal weapons unless we transform this reality. Michael is trying to save our lives. Your life, Judge Thapar. Your life, Mr. Theodore. All our lives.

The courtroom was still for a long minute.

Jeff Theodore rose to cross exam, extracting information from Kathy, who gave it up easily. Yes, she has been a member of a Plowshares action group. Yes, she has engaged in protests. Yes, with these defendants. Yes, an action against nuclear submarines in Newport News—five times, she volunteered to save Theodore the trouble. Five times I have acted against these gas chambers without walls. He said "You don't believe what he did was wrong, do you?" She answered, "There is a higher law than the one in this court. There is the law of God." Theodore lowered the boom: "If he were to come back to be reintegrated into your community, would you try to discourage him from doing this kind of action again?" Kathy said she would not.

Chris Irwin rose to redirect, asking Kathy to described the basis for the Plowshares movement and she paraphrased the Isaiah passage. We should always take a hammer to the chains that enslave people, she said. We have fashioned these weapons with our hands, we can take them apart.

"One more question," said Irwin. "If Martin Luther King, Jr. were still alive, and he came to the Dorothy Day Catholic Worker house, would you discourage him from committing civil disobedience?"

"No!" said Kathy.

At 12:05 Mary Evelyn Tucker took the stand and Francis Lloyd walked her through her CV, and through the relationship between her family and Megan's. "How long have you know Megan Rice?" he asked. Mary Evelyn leaned into the microphone. "All my life," she said with a mixture of love and pride.

"Would you describe her personality?" Francis asked.

Mary Evelyn: She believes deeply and clearly. She is so far from disingenuous. When he (Prosecutor Theodore) used that word, it hit my heart. She is a sincere person of conviction, compassion and love. Her commitment to nonviolence—Gandhi, Mandela, Martin Luther King—there is a lineage of transformation. She has committed her life to this way of seeking transformation.

"To allow Megan to continue the work of her life, the work to alleviate suffering, outside the walls of a prison would be an invaluable gift to the world," said Mary Evelyn. "To keep her inside, the world would be diminished for lack of her work." Mary Evelyn then told the court that Megan has served as the caretake in her large family, often accompanying the older generation in its final journey. "With Aunt Megan by our side…" said one niece.

"I can't think of any good purpose that would be served by keeping her in jail. Megan is in a great lineage. Gandhi preached nonviolence; King practiced nonviolence; Mandela proclaimed nonviolence; and Megan invoked nonviolence. Through her work, we can imagine a future for our children, that we will not have to live under the long shadow of nuclear peril. Surely we want to be the generation that stood up for all of life and the future of the planet."

Jeff Theodore asked no questions.

Andy Anderson, Duluth Minnesota Veteran for Peace, age 87, took the stand. Bill Quigley began to ask him questions about his history. "Careful about those memory questions," Andy cautioned. The courtroom chuckled, appreciating the easing of tension. "I enlisted in the Navy in 1944," said Andy. "I served on a destroyer in the Pacific. Our group came under fire from suicide planes and torpedoes; our job was to go around rescuing sailors. I sat in the stern of the ship and held a friend in my arms when he died.…No more violence. I came home a different person, and I hope I've been a different person ever since."

Andy spoke of knowing Michael and Greg, of serving food to the homeless with Greg and being on the street with Michael. "There are terrific human beings," he said.

"If you were the judge, what do you think you would say," asked Bill Quigley.

"What is a crime? If I had my way—forgive them their mistakes and it's gone. The only way to be able to help people is to be free. I would ask the judge to consider the release of Michael and Greg so they can continue to serve the community in the manner they have been serving."

"Anything else?" "These aren't harmful people. They are decent, warmhearted. Let 'em go.

John La Forge was the last defendant. He told the court he knew Mike and Greg through the Catholic Worker movement fro 20 and 16 years respectively. He talked of taking vegetables from the farm in Luck, Wisconsin to the kitchens and shelters in Duluth. He pointed out there work was unpaid.

"And how would you describe Michael Walli?" asked Bill Quigley.

"He is the quintessential Christian," said John. "He speaks in Biblical terms, about the burden the Bible places on us to do the right things. He will do it all. He is one of the unsung heroes, a man of all tasks, willing to do the ordinary work—changing beds, doing laundry, dishes.

Quigley: Would you described him as disingenuous?

LaForge: I was taken aback that the court said that. Maybe you qualified it. But there was a statement that they don't care about the law. For people who practice nonviolence, this kind of nonviolence, they care deeply about the law. So much of this is about US law.

John also described a recent trip to Germany where he stood with people there for a two-week demonstration against the Tornado jets that carry US B61 nuclear bombs. Everybody in Germany wants these bombs out of there, he said, the people, the government, all the political parties. But the United States is bringing these bombs back here, to be refurbished, here at Y12, and then sending them back to Germany.

Greg asked John to talk about his knowledge of the history of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima, and John replied by referencing the work of Gar Alperovitz and Robert Lifton who documented that Japan was suing for terms of surrender in July 1945, and who linked the decision to drop the bomb to Russia's expected entry into the Pacific theater on August 8, 1945. "After the bomb was dropped," said Greg, "we accepted the terms offered by Japan, and they were able to retain the emperor."

Jeff Theodore attempted to discredit John by getting him to recount his arrest history, which John cheerfully did. "You don't think there was anything wrong with what they did, do you?" asked Theodore. "I might have done a few things differently," allowed John.

"If they were released, you would encourage them to do it again, wouldn't you," said Theodore, unmindful of the lawyers' dictum about asking questions you don't know the answer to.

"I'll refer to Phil Berrigan," said John, "who said we should always discourage each other from doing Plowshares actions. If a person can be discouraged, they are not ready to do it."

"So you would try to prevent him?" said Theodore. "Argumentatively, yes," answered John.

"But you would support him if he did it."

"Of course."

Greg asked John to describe his case before Judge Miles Lord; John explained the Judge used the case to condemn nuclear weapons production and the companies that made them before sentencing John and to six months unsupervised probation.

When John finished, the court took a 15 minute break. We returned at 1:15 to the judge's announcement that the courthouse would be closing at 2:30 due to the snow. The lawyers consulted calendars and the 18th of February came up as the next day all were free, so the sentencing hearing was suspended until then.

Yes, NUKES are bad... very bad!!! Will someone listen now???

Friends,

Ira Helfand, co-president of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War and a past president of Physicians for Social Responsibility has just published an updated report on the effects of a limited nuclear war.

In the updated study reported in Nuclear Famine: Two Billion People at Risk?, researchers report that the climatic effects of a "limited" nuclear war between Pakistan and India would cut crop production worldwide, putting up to 2 billion people at risk of starvation.

The previous report (Nuclear Famine: A Billion People at Risk, published in 2012) estimated one billion at risk of starvation under these circumstances.  The findings of the study conducted since then "suggest that the original report may have seriously underestimated the consequences of a limited nuclear war."

The updated report concludes (among other things) that there is an "urgent need to move with all possible speed to the negotiation of a global agreement to outlaw and eliminate nuclear weapons and the danger of nuclear war."

Some news outlets are paying serious attention to the updated report, and one of today's headlines read Nuclear War Could Mean 'Extinction of the Human Race' (in CommonDreams.org).

Although Dr. Helfand's report is of great importance we should be very clear - This is not news! The human race has been living under the threat of extinction by nuclear weapons since the early days of the Cold War when the United States and Soviet Union amassed arsenals capable of destroying life on Earth (as we know it).  Even today, decades after the fall of the Berlin Wall, the U.S. and Russia (along with the declared and undeclared nuclear powers) have enough deployed nuclear warheads (ready to launch on warning) to destroy civilization and leave the Earth uninhabitable for generations.

My point is that as important as Helfand's report is to our efforts at the global abolition of nuclear weapons, scientists have been studying climatic effects of nuclear weapons for decades.  Independent scientists have nearly all concluded that the effects of nuclear weapons on climate would be severe and long-lasting.  Steven Starr has written extensively on climatic effects of nuclear weapons.  So far, governments have mostly either ignored their findings or done their best to discredit them.

In the case of large-scale nuclear war, beyond the climatic effects are the direct blast and radiation effects, as well as the long-term exposure of surviving populations to radioisotopes resulting from the detonation of nuclear weapons.  Aside from the millions (or more) of immediate deaths, countless more people would die in the days, weeks and months that follow from exposure to radiation, and the effects would carry on in the form of blood dyscrasias and cancers.  Of course, the destruction of infrastructure, agricultural production and just every aspect of civilization as we know it, would likely cause a near total breakdown of society.

The bottom line is that nuclear weapons are the most vile creation of humankind, and absolutely threaten humanity with extinction so long as they exist. 124 states recognized this, and delivered a joint statement to the United Nations General Assembly in October: "It is in the interest of the very survival of humanity that nuclear weapons are never used again, under any circumstances." The only viable course is to abolish nuclear weapons once and for all.

The US government is engaged in research and development toward the goal of building 12 new ballistic missile submarines, known as the SSBN(X), to replace the current OHIO Class "Trident" submarines.  They are known as Tridents because of the Trident II D-5 submarine-launched ballistic missiles they carry.  Each Trident sub carries 24 Trident missiles, each missile currently armed with approximately four warheads (maximum capacity of 8 warheads per missile).

Each warhead has an explosive yield of either 100 (W76 Warhead) or 475 kilotons (W88 Warhead). The Hiroshima bomb, for comparison, was approximately 15 kilotons.  The nuclear firepower carried on a single Trident submarine is capable of destroying an entire continent.

Trident was initially designed, manufactured and deployed during the Cold War.  It was intended as a "deterrent" to the nuclear threat posed by the Soviet Union.  The Cold War is over, and the US is planning to spend $100 billion just to build the 12 new subs.  Essentially, the US is building an archaic, Cold War nuclear weapons system, and seems to have done so without adequately justifying its future mission.

These submarines are intended for one thing only - launching thermonuclear-armed missiles at another nation.  Such a strike, however limited it might be, would have devastating consequences on those targeted (and that would include civilians) as well as those in surrounding areas as the effects of nuclear weapons cannot be controlled in space or time. They are weapons of mass murder.

While nations wring their hands with concern over Iran this week (next week it will likely be North Korea once again), the very real danger exists right now with the major nuclear-armed nations. The US and Russia still lead the way (toward omnicide) with the largest nuclear arsenals.  It is, therefore, these two nations that must lead the way toward disarmament.

So long as we hold on to Cold War thinking and outmoded concepts like "deterrence", we will continue to sleepwalk toward oblivion.  In the US, that involves the continuing rebuilding of the nuclear weapons research, development and production complex, as well as the refurbishing of existing weapons systems and the development of new ones.  Meanwhile, we lecture Iran and North Korea to NOT build nuclear weapons.

Will we lead the world (as we do now) toward a continued buildup of nuclear weapons, or will we summon the courage to lead the way toward a nuclear weapons-free future? I firmly believe that our elected leaders will not listen to logic and reason until there is a significant groundswell - led by the people.

Cindy Sheehan recently said that "The power of the people is stronger than the people in power." If that is true and history is any indicator, we need to put together a huge constituency calling on our government to lead the way toward disarmament, beginning with the scrapping of counterproductive and destabilizing programs like the SSBN(X).

Join Ground Zero Center for Nonviolent Action in saying NO To NEW TRIDENT.  Right after we ring in the New Year, we will be moving full speed ahead to stop this wasteful $100 billion dollar project and refocusing that money on human needs. Check out our Blog at notnt.org and sign up to be notified of updates and opportunities to get involved.

While you're at it, please join PSR's Humanitarian Threats of Nuclear Weapons Campaign.  Please also tell President Obama to send a US delegation to the upcoming (February!!!) conference in Mexico on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons.

This is a watershed moment in terms of opportunity to move the world towards nuclear disarmament. The majority of nations in the UN are calling for abolition, while the few nuclear armed powers do everything to hold on to their precious nuclear weapons.  It is time for a paradigm shift, and it is up to We the People of the World to demand change.  Each of us can and must play a role in creating this change.

Let this be the legacy we leave to future generations - a world free from the fear of nuclear omnicide.

Toward a Nuclear Weapons-Free World,

Leonard

King's Legacy!!! Obama's Legacy???

Friends,

Today is the birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr. - just one day after The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists announced that the Doomsday Clock will stay at five minutes to midnight (at least for now).

Much of the world knows Dr. King as one of the great peacemakers of all time.  What many people are not aware of is just how deep was King's opposition not only to war, but also to nuclear weapons.

I wrote about this earlier in January in a tribute to Dr. King's legacy.  I will not say more about that here except to say that the following quote speaks volumes to the depth of King's understanding of the taproot of violence so deep in the tortured soul of the national security state.

When scientific power outruns spiritual power, we end up with guided missiles and misguided men.

As we consider the position of the minute hand on the Doomsday Clock in the context of Dr. King's birthday it is hard not to consider the contrast between the legacy he left and the one being created by U.S. President Barack Obama.  Two Nobel Peace Prize recipients - two radically different paths.

Dr. King was an extraordinary orator.  His words flowed deep from within his spiritual consciousness that was rooted in the struggles of human beings for their basic rights.  He lived out the words he spoke.

On the other hand President Obama, a prisoner of the National Security State and Military-Industrial Complex, is quite the orator, although his rhetoric falls far short.  As yesterday's open letter from The Bulletin reminds the President, "In 2009 you stood in Hradcany Square and boldly stated: 'America's commitment to see the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons,' and you specified that the United States will 'reduce the role of nuclear weapons in our national security strategy, and urge others to do the same.'"  Four years later these words seem like empty promises.

The authors of the letter to Obama were correct to state that "we see progress," a few positive steps need to be viewed in a total context.  Rebuilding the infrastructure that develops, builds and maintains nuclear weapons is not "progress."  Rebuilding nuclear warheads and bombs is not progress.  Moving ahead with plans to build a new generation of ballistic missile submarines is not progress.

As the letter stated, "2012 was a year of unrealized opportunity..."  And now the President is about to embark on another four years in office.  What path will he take?  What legacy will he leave?

What would Dr. King say to President Obama as he approaches the eve of another four years?  I imagine him speaking of the President's two daughters and asking,"Mr. President, what legacy do you want to leave for your children Malia and Sasha, and indeed what legacy do you want to leave for all the children of the world?  Mr. President, just when is our nation going to truly lead the world to peace?  When will we learn to live together in this great big World House that we all share?  You and I know, Mr. President, that the alternative to disarmament is the abyss of annihilation?  So Mr. President, what legacy will it be?"

The letter from The Bulletin is a positive model for moving forward, and its authors stated that "we see 2013 as a year for vision and engagement."  They further stated that "decisive action can make the world safer."

Indeed, to get back on track toward Obama's vision in his Prague speech it will require both vision, engagement AND decisive action.  Beyond vision, engagement and action already face strong opposition on many levels in both the civilian and military sectors of the government and on Wall Street.  The President will NOT be moved to lead the world toward disarmament without significant prodding beyond the letter from The Bulletin.

As the letter stated in the first sentence, "2012 was a year in which the problems of the world pressed forward, but too many of its citizens stood back."  Indeed, the vast majority of the nation (and the rest of the world) stood back while the few in control of humanity's destiny continued to make preparations for the unspeakable.

It is time for all citizens, and not just a small percentage, to be informed about the issues surrounding nuclear weapons and how they affect all of us.  It is time for citizens to step forward and become engaged in decisions that were never in their hands in the first place, but should have been.  It is time to bring nuclear weapons into the center of a public dialogue and debate, and for the citizenry to make its voice heard loud and clear in the halls of The White House, Congress and the Pentagon.

If this United States in which we live is to be a democracy, then it is up to us as citizens to make it so.  And there is no greater issue, in terms of the survival of humanity, in which we can (and must) become engaged.

Dr. King once said that "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice."  King understood that change (at least lasting change) does not occur overnight.  It is a long, hard struggle, as evidenced by every struggle for human rights throughout history.

Therein lies one major difference between Dr. King and President Obama.  Obama, in his Prague speech, recognized that "This goal will not be reached quickly –- perhaps not in my lifetime."  The difference is that Dr. King didn't stop working toward a goal even though he knew it may not be realized in his lifetime.  We, as citizens, must remind President Obama that he needs to be in this for the long haul - for the sake of his children and all the children of the world.

Happy Birthday Martin.  May our gift to you on this day be our commitment to a nonviolent world free of the scourges of war and nuclear weapons.

In Peace,

Leonard