The Trillion Dollar Question

By Lawrence Wittner*

Isn’t it rather odd that America’s largest single public expenditure scheduled for the coming decades
has received no attention in the 2015-2016 presidential debates?

The expenditure is for a thirty-year program to “modernize” the U.S. nuclear arsenal and production facilities. Although President Obama began his administration with a dramatic public commitment to build a nuclear weapons-free world, that commitment has long ago dwindled and died. It has been replaced by an administration plan to build a new generation of U.S. nuclear weapons and nuclear production facilities to last the nation well into the second half of the twenty-first century. This plan, which has been largely ignored by the mass media, includes redesigned nuclear warheads, as well as new nuclear bombers, submarines, land-based missiles, weapons labs, and production plants. The estimated cost? $1,000,000,000,000.00 — or, for those readers unfamiliar with such lofty figures, $1 trillion.

Critics charge that the expenditure of this staggering sum will either bankrupt the country or, at the least, require massive cutbacks in funding for other federal government programs. “We’re . . . wondering how the heck we’re going to pay for it,” admitted Brian McKeon, an undersecretary of defense. And we’re “probably thanking our stars we won’t be here to have to have to answer the question,” he added with a chuckle.

Of course, this nuclear “modernization” plan violates the terms of the 1968 nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which requires the nuclear powers to engage in nuclear disarmament. The plan is also moving forward despite the fact that the U.S. government already possesses roughly 7,000 nuclear weapons that can easily destroy the world. Although climate change might end up accomplishing much the same thing, a nuclear war does have the advantage of terminating life on earth more rapidly.

This trillion dollar nuclear weapons buildup has yet to inspire any questions about it by the moderators during the numerous presidential debates. Even so, in the course of the campaign, the presidential candidates have begun to reveal their attitudes toward it.

On the Republican side, the candidates — despite their professed distaste for federal expenditures and “big government” — have been enthusiastic supporters of this great leap forward in the nuclear arms race. Donald Trump, the frontrunner, contended in his presidential announcement speech that “our nuclear arsenal doesn’t work,“ insisting that it is out of date. Although he didn’t mention the $1 trillion price tag for “modernization,” the program is clearly something he favors, especially given his campaign’s focus on building a U.S. military machine “so big, powerful, and strong that no one will mess with us.”

His Republican rivals have adopted a similar approach. Marco Rubio, asked while campaigning in Iowa about whether he supported the trillion dollar investment in new nuclear weapons, replied that “we have to have them. No country in the world faces the threats America faces.” When a peace activist questioned Ted Cruz on the campaign trail about whether he agreed with Ronald Reagan on the need to eliminate nuclear weapons, the Texas senator replied: “I think we’re a long way from that and, in the meantime, we need to be prepared to defend ourselves. The best way to avoid war is to be strong enough that no one wants to mess with the United States.” Apparently, Republican candidates are particularly worried about being “messed with.”

On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton has been more ambiguous about her stance toward a dramatic expansion of the U.S. nuclear arsenal. Asked by a peace activist about the trillion dollar nuclear plan, she replied that she would “look into that,” adding: “It doesn’t make sense to me.” Even so, like other issues that the former secretary of state has promised to “look into,” this one remains unresolved. Moreover, the “National Security” section of her campaign website promises that she will maintain the “strongest military the world has ever known” — not a propitious sign for critics of nuclear weapons.

Only Bernie Sanders has adopted a position of outright rejection. In May 2015, shortly after declaring his candidacy, Sanders was asked at a public meeting about the trillion dollar nuclear weapons program. He replied: “What all of this is about is our national priorities. Who are we as a people? Does Congress listen to the military-industrial complex” that “has never seen a war that they didn’t like? Or do we listen to the people of this country who are hurting?” In fact, Sanders is one of only three U.S. Senators who support the SANE Act, legislation that would significantly reduce U.S. government spending on nuclear weapons. In addition, on the campaign trail, Sanders has not only called for cuts in spending on nuclear weapons, but has affirmed his support for their total abolition.

Nevertheless, given the failure of the presidential debate moderators to raise the issue of nuclear weapons “modernization,” the American people have been left largely uninformed about the candidates’ opinions on this subject. So, if Americans would like more light shed on their future president’s response to this enormously expensive surge in the nuclear arms race, it looks like they are the ones who are going to have to ask the candidates the trillion dollar question.

This article was originally published in the Huffington Post, March 17, 2016, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-wittner/the-trillion-dollar-question_b_9481432.html 

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

Editor's Note: I'm sharing this piece by Peter Cohen as it speaks directly and succinctly to a central issue in the struggle against nuclear weapons and war-making.  Cohen is right on the "money!"  It is critical that we find every possible way to counter the power of BIG $$$$$$$$$$$$$$. 

Peter's article was origninally published in counterpunch (http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/01/30/end-the-nuclear-lobby/).

###

JANUARY 30, 2013

We Must Stop Investing in Our Extinction!

End the Nuclear Lobby

by PETER G. COHEN

For decades the peace movement has been satisfied with scraps from the table of nuclear weapons and their beneficiaries. Even the New START Treaty was offset by the Obama administration promise to spend $185 billion in this decade on modernization of nuclear weapons and delivery systems.

The vulnerable point in the complex of nuclear weapons corporations, their lobbies, their campaign recipients in Congress and the resulting ongoing budget for these weapons and facilities, is the delivery of corporate money by lobbyists to the key members of Congress.  

“In the 2012 election cycle, the top 14 nuclear weapons contractors gave a total of $2.9 million to key members of Congress with decision making power over nuclear weapons spending. These firms have donated $18.7 million to these same members of Congress over the course of their careers.” –Bombs Versus Budgets: Inside the Nuclear Weapons Lobby, By Hartung and Anderson at the Center for International Policy, June 6, 2012, –( a MUST read!)

There is ample evidence that nuclear weapons are useless in our national defense, that they and their delivery systems are extremely expensive and that their possession and modernization by the United States prevents any progress toward abolition by the other nuclear powers. Above all, we now know that any use, accident, or hacking of these weapons, anywhere, endangers the people of the world and all complex forms of Life on Earth.

Therefore, when we protest nuclear weapons we are defending the future of Life on Earth. And when corporations bribe our Representatives to preserve their contracts and profits, regardless of actual need, they risk the future of that life.

We must interfere with this lobbying (bribing) process. We must stand in the way. The children of the world demand that they not live under this “sword of Damocles” for the profits of the nuclear corporations, such as Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, General Dynamics and Boeing. The current situation of nuclear weapons is sick and beyond the moral compass of all religions. 

It is urgent that the peace movement bring this truth to the attention of the American people. The methods of the last decades have been insufficient. The harsh reality of thousands of weapons on quick response demands a new approach. we must go beyond past experience, to learn from the methods of others who have had long, hard battles to change our society. Symbolically or actually, we must stand between the K Street lobbyists with their campaign contributions and the leaders of these House Committees. The public must be aroused to the insanity of our ongoing weapons and delivery systems preparations.

We must act now to preserve the wonder of Life on Earth. There is no nobler cause or greater meaning for our lives. We must venture forth with greater energy, imagination and determination to stop the insanity of investing in our extinction.

Peter G. Cohen, Santa Barbara, CA, is the author of www.nukefreeworld.com and other internet writing.

One half of 1%: a sobering perspective!

Today the Preparatory Committee (PrepCom) for the 2015 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) wraps up the first of three meetings leading up to the 2015 NPT Conference. 

It is an appopriate time for a serious reminder that, even with the overarching (yet important) emphasis of many of the nuclear powers on terrorists getting their hands on nuclear weapons or materials, the greatest probability of a disaster related to nuclear weapons is still an exchange of these horrific weapons between the existing nuclear powers.

The following article published today at CNN provides that reminder in clear terms.  Working to abolish the Trident weapons system (and all nuclear weapons for that matter) this quote from the article hits home:   

Each U.S. Trident submarine can destroy 100 cities and produce the global famine described in the study.

And that's just ONE submarine.  Here at the Bangor Trident submarine base we have 8 of the 14 ballistic missile submarines mentioned in the article.  Overkill by many orders of magnitude!!! 

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

A nuclear clash could starve the world - CNN.com

By Jayantha Dhanapala and Ira Helfand, Special to CNN, Fri May 11,2012

Editor's note: Jayantha Dhanapala is a former ambassador to the United States from Sri Lanka, U.N. under-secretary general for disarmament and chairman of the 1995 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review and Extension Conference. Ira Helfand is the past president of Physicians for Social Responsibility and current North American vice president of the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War.

(CNN) -- Recent ballistic missile tests by India, Pakistan and North Korea -- which has ominously threatened to "reduce to ashes"the South Korean military "in minutes" -- are once again focusing the world's attention on the dangers of nuclear war.

This concern was dramatically underscored in a new report released at the Nobel Peace Laureates Summit in Chicago. Titled "Nuclear Famine: A Billion People at Risk"

http://www.psr.org/nuclear-weapons/nuclear-famine-report.pdf

The study shows that even a limited nuclear war, involving less than half of 1% of the world's nuclear arsenals, would cause climate disruption that could set off a global famine.

The study, prepared by International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War and its U.S. affiliate, Physicians for Social Responsibility, used a scenario of 100 Hiroshima-sized bombs exploded in a war between India and Pakistan. If there were such a war, the study estimated that 1 billion people, one-sixth of the human race, could starve over the following decade.

Along with recent events, these findings require a fundamental change in our thinking about nuclear weapons.

The study, in positing a war between India and Pakistan, shows the importance of understanding that smaller nuclear powers, not just the United States and Russia, pose a threat to the whole world.

But the greater lesson concerns the forces of the larger nuclear powers. Each U.S. Trident submarine can destroy 100 cities and produce the global famine described in the study. The United States has 14 ofthem, a fleet of land-based nuclear missiles, and an arsenal of nuclear weapons that can be delivered by bombers. The Russians possess the same grotesque overkill capacity.

Even the most ambitious arms reductions under discussion would leavethe United States and Russia with 300 warheads each, most of them 10 to 30 times larger than a Hiroshima sized bomb. This would be a massive arsenal capable of producing the global famine scenario many, many times over.

These arsenals are an archaic, but lethal, holdover from the Cold War. Their continued existence poses an ongoing threat to allhumanity.

Steps can and should be taken immediately to lessen this danger. Substantial numbers of these weapons remain on what The New York Timeshas described as "hair-trigger alert." They can be fired in 15 minutes or less and destroy cities a continent away 30 minutes later. This alert posture creates the needless danger of an accidental or unintended launch, and the United States and Russia have had many close calls, preparing to launch a nuclear strike at the other under the mistaken belief they were under attack.

The most recent of these near-misses that we know about took place in January 1995, well after the end of the Cold War. The United States and Russia should stand down their nuclear arsenals so that it takes longer to launch their missiles, lessening the danger of an accidental war. U.S. President Barack Obama and Russian President Vladamir Putin can take this step on their own without negotiating a formaltreaty.

Beyond this, it is time to begin urgent talks aimed at reducing the U.S. and Russian arsenals as the next essential step toward multilateral negotiations for a Nuclear Weapons Convention, a binding, verifiable, enforceable treaty that eliminates nuclear weapons altogether.

As former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev observed on reviewing the new "Nuclear Famine" study: "I am convinced that nuclear weapons must be abolished. Their use in a military conflict is unthinkable; using them to achieve political objectives is immoral.

"Over 25 years ago, President Ronald Reagan and I ended our summit meeting in Geneva with a joint statement that 'Nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought,' and this new study underscores in stunning and disturbing detail why this is the case."

# # #

(Source URL for this article: http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/11/opinion/dhanapala-helfand-nuclear-famine/index.html)

Blogger's Note: Steven Starr has done tremendous research on nuclear famine.  Learn more at http://www.nucleardarkness.org/

Thoroughly Modern Nukes for FY2012

Friends,

Abolitionists beware!  It would be easy to go through an entire bottle of ibuprofen (not in one sitting of course) while attempting to make any sense of all the analysis of the U.S. Fiscal Year 2012 Budget!  As for the "defense" budget the great shell game continues.  It gives peacemakers a tremendous headache.

As for issues of a nuclear nature, actions speak even louder than numbers.  While it is easy to get sidetracked by the figures (and I don't mean to discount the costs; they ARE important), it is crystal clear from the projects currently in the works and those on the planning table that the U.S. Government's focus is  much like a horse with blinders - Can you say "DETERRENCE?"

Hans Kristensen of the Federation of American Scientists has summarized The Nuclear Weapons Modernization Budget in the FAS Strategic Security Blog (Feb 17, 2011).  Between "maintenance and modernization" the government is ensuring that the nuclear weapons development, construction, maintenance deployment and delivery infrastructure is thoroughly protected from the budgetary axe.  If spending is the true indicator of intention, then President Obama's disarmament rhetoric rings hollow.

Nuclear weapons, based on FY2012 budget request, continue to stand at the forefront of U.S. foreign policy, and if the government's current plans are realized the prospects for global nuclear disarmament before the year 2100 - should we not commit nuclear omnicide before then - look grim.

From missiles to bombs, "the budget includes significant investments in maintaining and modernizing the nuclear weapons in the stockpile through the life-extension programs (LEPs)."   But that's not all folks!  The Obama administration will make sure that the "missiles, submarines and bombers designed to deliver the warheads" are also "modernized."

But wait!  We are talking about way more than mere modernization here.  As Kristensen states, the Minuteman III ICBM is analogous to the Six Million Dollar Man (but way more expensive) and "is essentially a new missile."  The Air Force's heavy bombers and fighter-bombers will be upgraded, and in the case of the B-52 "will provide for further nuclear weapons in both bay and under wings."  Great - More nuclear weapons!!!

 The biggest and scariest news of all is the intention (and research has been underway for some time now) to build a new generation of ballistic missile submarines (SSBN(X).  Although Kristensen covers this only briefly, it is a huge issue as Trident is the nations premier first strike weapon, and according to estimates would be in service through 2082!

And finally, the infrastructure that has developed, built and maintained the nations nuclear weapons continues to receive more than adequate funding to continue rebuilding itself.  Construction at Los Alamos and Y-12 in Tennessee are well under way and well over budget, and the Kansas City Plant (not mentioned by Kristensen) is on a roll.

As for the "Implications and Outlook" of the current nuclear weapons budget, here's what Kristensen has to say:

With massive investments in widespread modernization of nuclear forces and industry, the FY2012 budget shows that the Obama administration is following through on its promise to make significant investments in modernizing the U.S. nuclear deterrent.

The “generational” modernizations proposed in the budget represent a commitment to extending the nuclear era as long into the future as it has lasted so far. A challenge will be whether nuclear modernization will overshadow nuclear disarmament in the administration’s public nuclear image.

Following on the heels of the Prague speech and the New START treaty, it remains to be seen whether other nuclear weapon states and the international non-proliferation community will see the nuclear modernization programs as progress toward reducing the role and numbers of nuclear weapons and putting an end to Cold War thinking, or business as usual only at lower numbers.

To what extent the Congress will fund these programs is another unknown. With unprecedented deficit and a new Congress that appears determined to cut government spending, several of the nuclear modernization programs will like come under considerable scrutiny.

It is obvious that the Obama administration is locked into a decades old pattern of thinking linked to a deeply entrenched military-nuclear-industrial complex that perpetuates a potentially deadly reliance on weapons that by their very design indiscriminately kill civilians, and if ever used in even a limited conflict would result in devastating immediate and long-term global effects.  The world cannot afford a continuation of "business as usual" at any numbers!!!




I urge everyone to read Kristensen's summary and analysis, and consider how we can respond. We need to send a clear message to President Obama and Congress that planned modernization efforts are antithetical to the President's stated "goal of a world without nuclear weapons." We need to ask the President just what kind of legacy he wants to leave the world when he leaves office.

Peace,

Leonard

Kansas City, Kansas City Here It Comes...

Dear Friends,

August 29th marked the first observance of the International Day against Nuclear Tests, proposed in 2009 by the Government of Kazakhstan at the sixty-fourth session of the United Nations General Assembly. The Preamble of the resolution emphasizes “that every effort should be made to end nuclear tests in order to avert devastating and harmful effects on the lives and health of people … and, that the end of nuclear tests is one of the key means of achieving the goal of a nuclear-weapon-free world”.

In his message for the Day, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said that “there is real momentum behind this great cause”, and that he looked forward to “working with all parties to rein in spending on nuclear weapons and rid the world of the nuclear threat”.

Meanwhile, back on the Homeland "reigning in spending on nuclear weapons" is not on the table, and ironically the very efforts the U.S. government is putting into building up the U.S. nuclear weapons complex is doing nothing to "rid the world of the nuclear threat", but everything to increase it. And what of the Nobel Peace Prize-winning President Obama??? According to Nukewatch:

President Obama has declared that he intends to increase next year’s funding for the National Nuclear Security Administration’s (NNSA’s) nuclear weapons research and production programs by 14%. Further, despite crippling national debt, he claims their budgets will rise by more than 40% from $6.4 billion in 2010 to $9 billion by 2018. This means that eight years from now, nearly three decades after the end of the Cold War, spending on NNSA research and production programs for nuclear weapons will be 75% higher than the annual Cold War average of $5.1 billion. Is this the right path to Obama’s declared long-term goal of a nuclear weapons-free world?

Now isn't that special! As part of the "modernization" of the U.S. nuclear weapons complex, the government will soon break ground on a brand new bomb production plant in Kansas City. Rougly 85 percent of the non-nuclear components for the nation's nuclear weapons come from the current Kansas City plant. Don't worry about the employee health concerns and huge environmental contamination at the current plant though; they'll probably get it right the second time around. Won't they???

Well, there are lots of us out there who don't want to see a second time around. The nation has plenty of nukes with plenty of shelf life left, and we should be spending a whole lot more energy working towards that "nuclear weapons-free world" the Pres has been touting (although his deeds have not followed his words).

What is extra special about this project is that the local Kansas City, MO government is subsidizing private developers, who will build and eventually own the plant (can you say PRIVATIZATION???), using over $750 million in municipal bonds, while the City closes schools and hospitals. What's wrong with this picture?!?!?!

On September 8, 10:00 AM Central Time, federal, congressional and municipal officials will hold a groundbreaking ceremony for the new Kansas City Plant (KCP), and there will be some additional guests (who aren't on the government's guest list). What I hope will be a huge group of nuclear resisters will be showing up at Highway 150 and Botts Road to tell the government, "NO NEW BOMB PLANT!"

I know that most of us can't drop everything and swing over to Kansas City, but we can certainly show our support and solidarity with those who will be there, some of them likely engaging in acts of resistance that will get them arrested.

Please send your message of support (either individual or organizational) to Ann Suellentrop (annsuellen@gmail.com) Kansas City Physicians for Social Responsibility, one of the co-sponsors of the September 8th action. Then ask others to do the same.

I can only hope that some Raging Grannies will show up at Highway 150 and Botts Road on September 8th and perform an appropriate (or should I say inappropriate) version of that great song, Kansas City in dishonor of the new bomb plant.

Supporting our comrades in the struggle for a nuclear weapons-free world.

Peace,

Leonard

Read the Statement of Resistance to Nuclear Weapons Production that was delivered to workers and officials during the August 16th civil resistance at the site of the new Kansas City nuclear weapons production plant where 14 resisters were arrested.

CLICK HERE to learn more about the Kansas City bomb plant and the upcoming September 8th civil resistance. Here you will find a huge archive of materials courtesy of the Greater Kansas City Chapter of Physicians for Social Responsibility and Nuclear Watch New Mexico.

De-Alert Dammit!!!

Friends,

Ever since the fall of the Berlin Wall people have been calling on the United States and Russia to ratchet down the level of alert status for their nuclear weapons, thereby decreasing the possibility of an accidental launch of nukes due to itchy trigger finger syndrome or in the midst of any number of possible international crises. For the most part, those with the power to influence and make that decision have spent their time arguing over whether having nuclear weapons ready to launch in very short order (also known as "high alert status") should be called "hair-trigger alert".

Call it what you will; we MUST get beyond the rhetoric that serves to obfuscate the subject to such a degree that we might never take this critical step to avoid the unspeakable. There is absolutely no reason for any nuclear power to have its weapons ready to launch on warning; U.S. intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) can be launched in as little as 4 minutes once the missile launch crews receive their orders, and once they are one their way there is no turning back.

President Obama initially pledged to take the nukes off high alert status. Here is what the White House Website had to say about it early on (this statement subsequently disappeared into thin air and Obama seems to have changed his tune):

“The United States and Russia have thousands of nuclear weapons on hair-trigger alert. Barack Obama believes that we should take our nuclear weapons off hair-trigger alert – something that George W. Bush promised to do when he was campaigning for president in 2000. Maintaining this Cold War stance today is unnecessary and increases the risk of an accidental or unauthorized nuclear launch. As president, Obama will work with Russia to find common ground and bring significantly more weapons off hair-trigger alert.”

Now President Obama "has asked four countries to postpone a resolution at the United Nations calling for reducing the alert-level of nuclear weapons" (FAS Strategic Security Blog). What's up with that??? It seems that the President's idealism has clashed (once again) with the deeply entrenched U.S. nuclear weapons establishment. Whatever their motives, they are simply putting the U.S. and the rest of the world at greater risk, and this is unconscionable.

I have just read an informative study that goes beyond the rhetoric and provides background and practical steps the nuclear powers can take to lower the operational readiness of their nuclear weapons. An intriguing aspect of the study is its emphasis on de-alerting as not just a technical fix, but a strategic step in the discussion about deemphasizing the military role of nuclear weapons. The study looks at de-alerting from the perspectives of not only the nuclear weapons states, but also the non-nuclear weapons states. Read Reframing Nuclear De-Alert: Decreasing the Operational Readiness of U.S. and Russian Arsenals.

Then click here to send President Obama a message reminding him to keep his pledge to work with the Russians to get nuclear weapons off high alert status, hair-trigger alert, or whatever you want to call it!!! This is one of the most basic (and initial) steps the U.S. and Russia can take towards a world without nuclear weapons, and both nations must take it NOW!

And don't forget to ask everyone else to send that message to the President! The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference is coming up, and this is a key issue for the NPT. The time is NOW!

Peace,

Leonard

Read Obama Asks UN De-Alerting Resolution to Wait at the Federation of American Scientists Strategic Security Blog (posted October 16, 2009).

They've Got Missiles so We've Got Missiles, or Where Do We Go From Here?

Friends,

As with much of President Obama's Eurofest, the Czechs rolled out the red carpet this past weekend, but he was also welcomed by significant crowds representing the 70 percent of Czechs who do not want any part of the U.S. missile defense shield in their country, and helped topple their pro-missile defense government not long before the President's visit.

President Obama is not ready to let this folly of the U.S. Military-Industrial Complex go quite yet (or perhaps he's channeling Ronald Reagan); during his speech in Prague, he spoke of going forward with European missile defense (invoking Iran as its raison d'etre), and praised the Czech Republic for agreeing to host the radar system (he must have missed the recent news).

As expected, the President threw out some heavy rhetoric about North Korea's launch of a Taepo-dong 2 missile on the same day as the President's speech. He also focused on "Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile activity." He made all the predictable statements, among them, "Rules must be binding. Violations must be punished. Words must mean something. The world must stand together to prevent the spread of these weapons." All very presidential.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1718 does prohibit North Korea from shooting off missiles (like the Taepo-dong 2) that could carry nasty things like nuclear warheads. Despite the evidence that the North Koreans have a long way to go in becoming a serious nuclear contender, has anyone considered the fact that while President Obama is chiding the North Koreans for shooting off another dud, the U.S. regularly lobs ballistic missiles from its shores all the way to the Marshall Islands (and quite successfully too)???

The 30th Space Wing, 576th Flight Test Squadron at Vandenberg Air Force Base, located on the Southern California coast, conducts regularly scheduled quarterly operational test launches of ballistic missiles so they can be confident when the time comes to launch the real thing, that everything will work. So they ship one of those bad boys, a Trident D5 or a Minuteman III, to Vandenberg where they reassemble it with a dummy warhead (phew!), and then lob it 4,800 miles away to the Kwajalein Atoll in the Marshall Islands.

Of course, besides all the other data they gather about the functioning of the missile, the most important thing is to see how close the re-entry vehicle will come to its intended target. After all, when they shoot one off containing a real nuclear warhead they want it hit dead on. Of course, what's a few metres when you're talking about an explosive yield of 335 kilotons (W78 warhead)???

But I digress (as usual). The point is that we're screaming at the top of our lungs about the North Koreans shooting a missile or two, and here we are shooting them off right and left. I am not trying to defend the North Korean government; it would be nice if they could feed their people rather than building death machines. But let's face it; until the nuclear powers start making real progress towards disarmament, the six-party talks might as well be the five-party talks (not much of a party, eh?).

I believe President Obama knows that this is the historical moment in which we may have the last opportunity to begin the new and difficult journey towards the abolition of nuclear weapons. If we miss this opportunity, the future could well be a grim one indeed. This President is one who I see as the marriage of idealism and pragmatism, a marriage that creates a most difficult tension when dealing with an issue such as nuclear weapons. How he approaches every aspect of this subject is of critical importance; an error of judgement on just a single aspect could negate progress on many other aspects.

While we must (as nuclear abolitionists) keep the pressure on President Obama on every issue of importance, it will also be extremely important to support him in every positive proposal (and thank him as well). Much of what the President said in his Prague speech was extremely positive; he laid out a clear vision of a nuclear weapons-free world and demonstrated (for the first time in recent years) real U.S. leadership on this most important issue

It will be important to gain as much Congressional support for the President's positive measures. You can advocate by contacting your Senators and Representative and signing a petition at the Friends Committee on National Legislation, and you can also send a personalized email courtesy of the Campaign for a Nuclear Weapons Free World .

It wouldn't be a bad idea to send an email (or letter) to President Obama thanking him for his commitment to a nuclear weapons-free world, and sharing your priorities regarding nuclear weapons. He is going to need both our support and prodding in this journey in which he faces opposition from deeply entrenched interests in both government and industry. Let's stay with him all the way!

Peace,

Leonard



CLICK HERE to read the full text of President Obama's speech on nuclear issues delivered in Prague (courtesy of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation).

CLICK HERE to watch the entire speech on video (at the BBC).

Photo Notes/Credits: (1) Posters hanging from a bridge in Prague over the Vltava river protest the possible construction on Czech soil of a U.S. radar tracking system (By Petr David Josek -- Associated Press); (2) A minuteman III ICBM launches from a silo at Vandenberg AFB. (30th Space Wing Public Affairs, USAF)

Non-Proliferation or Non-Existence

Friends,

Wow! When was the last time you heard the President of the United States give a major speech (or any speech for that matter) on ANYTHING related to nuclear weapons??? Well, President Obama is scheduled to give a major speech on nuclear proliferation while in Prague, Czech Republic this Sunday, April 5th at 10:00 a.m Central European Time (4:00 a.m. Eastern Daylight Time). It may be broadcast on C-SPAN or C-SPAN2, and possibly CNN (according to FCNL's Nuclear Calendar). If you miss it, video of the speech will be posted on the White House website.

It is timely that the President will speak from the Czech Republic, considering that the Czech government recently fell after a no-confidence vote in mid-March by the Czech Parliament. The government had doggedly supported U.S. plans to site missile defense radar within its borders, but a nonviolent campaign made up of citizens and various groups (including a couple hundred Czech mayors) finally (after more than two years) convinced enough members of the Czech Parliament to oppose the plans; polls showed 70 percent of Czechs opposed the plans. Although some of the news coverage has focused on the government's poor handling of the economic crisis, the missile defense issue WAS a key issue in the government's ouster.

This was absolutely revolutionary - nuclear weapons abolitionists take note - that the Czech people, utilizing non-violent means helped bring down a government and sent a clear message to the United States: We do not support your military-industrial complex or your flaky (and destablilizing) missile defense plans! The proposed missile defense radar plans WILL be on the agenda during President Obama's meeting with Czech Prime Minister Mirek Topolánek; that should be interesting.

I am sure that all of us working for the abolition of nuclear weapons will be watching and listening carefully to President Obama's speech. This is a pivotal moment, and this speech will be an opportunity for the President to show his leadership by stating a firm U.S. commitment to real disarmament measures, and not just calling on other nations (like North Korea and Iran) to pull back. The U.S. (and Russia) must commit to definite, immediate and quantifiable measures to show a firm commitment to non-proliferation, and only then will they have the right call on nations like North Korea and Iran to join in these efforts.

The days of the nuclear haves and have nots is over. The infamous (and once exclusive) nuclear club is no longer exclusive. And the nations of the world have to make a choice; continue building these omnicidal weapons and face nonexistence or beat all our (nuclear) swords into ploughshares as a major step in building a world of nonviolence. Let us choose nonviolence.

Peace,

Leonard

Photographic Notes/Credits:

Photo of Czech demonstrators courtesy of Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space.

The bronze sculpture "Let Us Beat Our Swords into Ploughshares," was created by Soviet artist Evgeny Vuchetich, and presented to the United Nations on 4 December 1959 by the Government of the USSR. The sculpture, depicting the figure of a man holding a hammer aloft in one hand and a sword in the other, which he is making into a ploughshare, is meant to symbolize man's desire to put an end to war, and to convert the means of destruction into creative tools for the benefit of mankind. It is located in the North Garden of the United Nations Headquarters. (UN Photo/Andrea Brizzi)

Let the Talks Begin - No Fooling

Friends,

This is a historic day; President Obama and Russian President Dmitriy Medvedev met, talked and agreed to move forward on negotiations aimed at reducing the numbers of both nations' nuclear weapons. NO JOKE! You can read the Joint Statement (below) posted today at The White House Website. And NO, President Obama didn't claim to be able to see into Medvedev's soul (unlike his predecessor, who claimed to see into Vladimir Putin's soul; I'm sorry, but that was just way too creepy).

Soul searching aside, they did find common ground. And though this is just a beginning, today's meeting and Joint Statement is a major step in reversing the return-to-the-Cold-War relationship that the previous administration brewed up by abrogating treaties, stirring up ex-soviet bloc nations, and vigorously pursuing European missile defense (and that's just a partial list). Can't you already feel the tension easing? Of course, the European missile defense piece will likey be a key item on the agenda as the U.S. and Russia go forward in these negotiations. And sooner or later (whether in these or future negotiations) the subject of weapons in space will have to come up.

Today's joint statement is a significant milestone, and an extremely hopeful sign that the two leaders will take their leadership roles regarding nuclear weapons seriously enough to assign the highest level negotiators, and take a personal role. It will be up to us to keep the pressure on these leaders to negotiate a treaty that will be truly binding and will demonstrate to the rest of the world our nations' pursuit of a world free of nuclear weapons.

If you are not already engaged with this issue, please consider it. We need every one's voice raised in the pursuit of a nuclear weapons-free world. Morally, it has always been the right thing. And now, with the world economy in a downward spiral, it is even more critical that we stop throwing money down the drain in preparation for the ultimate genocide, or what some have referred to as omnicide. We simply can't afford it.

Be sure to get involved with at least one of the organizations listed in the Hot Links section of my blog; from Abolition 2000 to Zero Nukes, there is sure to be an organization for you! At many of them you can sign up to receive action alerts and stay engaged in a positive way to build a nuclear weapons-free world. Check them out today!

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

Leonard

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

Joint Statement by
Dmitriy A. Medvedev, President of the Russian Federation, and
Barack Obama, President of the United States of America,
Regarding Negotiations on Further Reductions in Strategic Offensive Arms

The President of the United States of America, Barack Obama, and the President of the Russian Federation, Dmitriy A. Medvedev, noted that the Treaty on the Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms (START Treaty), which expires in December 2009, has completely fulfilled its intended purpose and that the maximum levels for strategic offensive arms recorded in the Treaty were reached long ago. They have therefore decided to move further along the path of reducing and limiting strategic offensive arms in accordance with U.S. and Russian obligations under Article VI of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.

The Presidents decided to begin bilateral intergovernmental negotiations to work out a new, comprehensive, legally binding agreement on reducing and limiting strategic offensive arms to replace the START Treaty. The United States and the Russian Federation intend to conclude this agreement before the Treaty expires in December. In this connection, they instructed their delegations at the negotiations to proceed on basis of the following:

- The subject of the new agreement will be the reduction and limitation of strategic offensive arms;

- In the future agreement the Parties will seek to record levels of reductions in strategic offensive arms that will be lower than those in the 2002 Moscow Treaty on Strategic Offensive Reductions, which is currently in effect;

- The new agreement will mutually enhance the security of the Parties and predictability and stability in strategic offensive forces, and will include effective verification measures drawn from the experience of the Parties in implementing the START Treaty.

They directed their negotiators to report on progress achieved in working out the new agreement by July 2009.

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

Note: You can also read the REMARKS BY PRESIDENT OBAMA AND RUSSIAN PRESIDENT MEDVEDEV AFTER MEETING and the BACKGROUND READOUT TO THE TRAVEL POOL BY SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICALS ON PRESIDENT OBAMA'S MEETING WITH RUSSIAN PRESIDENT MEDVEDEV, both posted today at The White House Website.

Photo Credit: Presidents Obama and Medvedev on April 1, 2009, by AFP/Saul Loeb