Viewpoint by Jacqueline Cabasso
The writer is the Executive Director of the Western States Legal Foundation.
OAKLAND, California (IDN) — The year 2022 has been a nightmare for nuclear disarmament. The year started out with a mildly reassuring Joint Statement by the five original nuclear-armed states, issued on January 3, 2022, declaring:
“The People’s Republic of China, the French Republic, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States of America consider the avoidance of war between Nuclear-Weapon States and the reduction of strategic risks as our foremost responsibilities. We affirm that a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.”
But less than two months later Russia launched a brutal war of aggression on Ukraine, accompanied by a series of veiled and no-so-veiled nuclear threats, raising concerns about the dangers of nuclear war to their highest level since the darkest days of the Cold War. And prospects for progress on nuclear disarmament went down from there.
Read more
Exposed: The Most Polluted Place in the United States
Tara Lohan / The Revelator
28 December 22
The most polluted place in the United States — perhaps the world — is one most people don’t even know. Hanford Nuclear Site sits in the flat lands of eastern Washington. The facility — one of three sites that made up the government’s covert Manhattan Project — produced plutonium for Fat Man, the atomic bomb dropped on Nagasaki during World War II. And it continued producing plutonium for weapons for decades after the war, helping to fuel the Cold War nuclear arms race.
Today Hanford — home to 56 million gallons of nuclear waste, leaking storage tanks, and contaminated soil — is an environmental disaster and a catastrophe-in-waiting... read more
A new book is out about Hanford, by Joshua Frank, co-editor of Counterpunch, Atomic Days: The Untold Story of the Most Toxic Place in America. Engagingly written; includes chapters on Hanford whistleblowers (Tom Carpenter was a major source for Joshua Frank, who got started on the subject when a journalist in Seattle). Also overview of the nuclear age and some discussion of nuclear power and climate change. I can't vouch for everything the book says about the complex situation at Hanford, but it seems generally pretty solid. The book strikes me as a good resource for people not in the field (and in the field too), educational events, etc.
DON'T BANK ON THE BOMB
RISKY RETURNS
The 2022 report “Risky Returns: Nuclear weapon producer and their financiers” is a joint publication of ICAN and PAX. The report details how 306 financial institutions made over $746 billion available to 24 companies heavily involved in the production of nuclear weapons, between January 2020 and July 2022. These companies contribute to the nuclear arsenals of China, France, India, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States.
Executive Summary
As shown in the report, fewer long-term investments were made in the companies behind the nuclear weapon industry. The data shows a $45.9 billion drop in loans and underwriting. This could signal that a growing number of long-term investors does not see nuclear weapon production as a sustainable growth market and regards companies involved in it as a risk to be avoided.
Full Report
The report also examined companies involved in producing, manufacturing, or developing nuclear weapons for six of the nine nuclear armed countries for which data was available. These 24 companies are involved in activities that are outlawed under the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), which entered into force in 2021. More than $280 billion in contracts for such activities were identified, though the true number is likely much higher since many companies do not publish contract details. The biggest nuclear weapon profiteer remains Northrop Grumman, with at least $24.3 billion in outstanding contracts, not including the consortium and joint venture revenues. Aerojet Rocketdyne, BAE Systems, Boeing, Lockheed Martin and Raytheon Technologies also hold multi-billion-dollar contracts for nuclear weapon production and/or stockpiling.
Investors made over $746 billion available to the nuclear weapon producing companies, a $61.5 billion increase from the 2021 “Perilous Profiteering’’ report. This can be attributed to an increase in the total value of shares, which grew by $108.5 billion. Many nuclear weapon producers also produce conventional weapons and saw their stock values rise in 2022, likely resulting from the announcement by NATO states that they would significantly increase defense spending following Russia’s invasion in Ukraine.
Financial sector leverage
Financial institutions that back nuclear weapon producing companies enable them to continue their involvement in the development and production of these weapons of mass destruction. They therefore have an important role to play in joint efforts to reduce the role of nuclear weapons in society.
When an investor chooses to end its relationship with a company because of the latter’s involvement in the production of nuclear weapons, it sends a clear signal to the world that weapons of mass destruction are never acceptable.
The role of financial institutions in furthering efforts to reduce the role of nuclear weapons in society was exemplified by the engagement of the sector in the first Meeting of States Parties to the TPNW in June 2022. At that meeting, Italian asset manager Etica Funds delivered a joint statement on behalf of a group of 37 investors, that called upon states to apply the prohibition on assistance to prohibited acts under the Treaty to all forms of financial assistance, including those made by the private sector operating within their jurisdiction. As put forward in the statement, ‘‘[i]t would be illogical to prohibit the production of nuclear weapons without prohibiting the financing that enables the production to proceed’’
The financial sector has an opportunity to build on and reinforce the international norm against nuclear weapons, cemented by the entering into force of the TPNW in January 2021. Through divestment, nuclear weapon producers can be pressured to cut the production of these weapons of mass destruction from their business strategies and, in turn, will make it more difficult for nuclear armed states to maintain their arsenals.
Full Report
15 December 2022
Fusion power is tantalizing, but it won’t save the planet
December 14, 2022 at 11:19 a.m. EST
Researchers at the National Ignition Facility at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory last weekend achieved something that had never been done before: They got a fusion reaction to produce more energy than was in the laser beams that went into sparking it. “Ignition allows us to replicate for the first time certain conditions that are found only in the stars and the sun,” Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm declared at the formal announcement Tuesday, hailing it as a milestone that “moves us one significant step closer to the possibility of zero-carbon abundant fusion energy powering our society.”
The potential benefits stemming from what Ms. Granholm called “one of the most impressive scientific feats of the 21st century” are indeed tantalizing. Fusion can power a large city with a tiny amount of fuel. Unlike fission, in which atoms are split in conventional nuclear reactors, fusion leaves almost no toxic byproducts and poses no meltdown risk. Unlike solar and wind power, it produces electricity at a regular and predictable rate. And fusion’s fuel — hydrogen — is the most common element in the universe.
But the National Ignition Facility’s achievement, while a scientific coup, does not mean that a fusion-powered utopia is around the corner. Rather, history suggests that fusion power is unlikely to play a major role in the energy grid for years or decades — time that the planet does not have in the climate change fight. Other, less exotic sources of clean energy that are immediately scalable remain the most plausible options. Humanity must continue to invest in them, and urgently.
Fusion reactors work — in theory, anyway — by superheating hydrogen. Under the right conditions, atoms fuse together to create helium and, in the process, lose a bit of mass. That mass gets translated into huge amounts of energy, according to Albert Einstein’s famous equation, e = mc^2. But getting hydrogen hot enough requires vast amounts of energy. Scientists have for decades tried to produce a fusion reaction that puts out more energy than is put in. Repeated bouts of optimism and investment, particularly during the 1970s and 1980s, produced disappointing results.
Until now. At the National Ignition Facility, researchers used the world’s largest laser to point 192 laser beams at a pea-size hydrogen pellet and — finally, according to the Energy Department — produced 3.15 megajoules of energy from 2.05 megajoules of laser energy. (A joule is a unit of energy; it takes 1 joule to lift a 3.5-ounce apple one yard. A megajoule is 1 million joules.) This is a big step for researchers seeking to learn more about the dynamics of fusion reactions.
However, that 2.05 megajoule input did not represent all the energy that went into the ignition process — just the amount that inefficient lasers managed to get to the hydrogen pellet. It took far more energy in total — on the scale of 300 megajoules — to produce that 3.15 megajoule result. Scientists can improve the picture by using better lasers, but there is always likely to be substantial energy loss that would require a much more robust fusion reaction to make up. read more in the above link
Nov 9, 2022
National Labs Given $1.5B Funding Boost
Against the backdrop of the war in Ukraine, with its attendant nuclear risks, a majority of the world’s countries have reaffirmed their support for the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), which entered into force last year and makes nuclear weapons illegal under international law. In a vote at the United Nations on Friday, 124 countries supported a resolution calling for greater adherence to this landmark disarmament treaty.
In a separate vote, 141 countries supported a resolution reiterating “deep concern about the catastrophic consequences of nuclear weapons” and stressing “that it is in the interest of the very survival of humanity that nuclear weapons never be used again, under any circumstances”. The resolution also urged UN members “to exert all efforts to totally eliminate the threat of these weapons of mass destruction”.
But the nine nuclear-armed states – the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France, China, Israel, India, Pakistan or North Korea – opposed the resolution on the TPNW, and all except India voted against or abstained from voting the resolution on the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons. Many of their allies did the same based on their view that the use of nuclear weapons can be justified in some circumstances. One notable development was Australia’s shift in position, dropping its opposition to the TPNW by abstaining from voting on the resolution. Regrettably, Sweden and Finland opposed the TPNW resolution for the first time
“Like climate change and pandemic disease, the terrible risks posed by nuclear weapons constitute a global problem and require a global response,” said Beatrice Fihn, ICAN’s executive director. “It is therefore in the interest of all states – and the responsibility of all states – to confront and condemn threats to use nuclear weapons and to take action to reinforce the norm against their use.”
Global support for the TPNW continues to grow, with a further nine countries ratifying it so far this year and five signing it. Their actions bring the total number of parties to 68 and signatories to 91. Over the past month, dozens of countries have voiced support for the TPNW in statements to the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, including all Caribbean, African and Arab states.
Three C’s to avoid nuclear Armageddon: Clarity, Compromise, Communication
CESAR JARAMILLO OCTOBER 28, 2022 ANALYSIS AND COMMENTARY, FEATURED, NEWS, NUCLEAR WEAPONS
In a seemingly positive turn of events, President Putin has reportedly denied any intentions to use nuclear weapons in the Ukrainian conflict, declaring that they would yield no political or military advantage. Regrettably, however, this position is subject to change. Such is the dangerous nature of conflict involving states with nuclear weapons.
Make no mistake: the nuclear threat remains critically high as long as the conflict in Ukraine is unresolved. Even then it will be at an unacceptable level, because nuclear weapons will still exist.
Russia has already made well-documented threats to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine. Such threats are reckless, unacceptable, and demand global condemnation. And it would bring the world little consolation to be able to name the culprit if nuclear weapons were to be introduced into the conflict.
According to several observers, the risk of nuclear Armageddon is now higher than it was at the height of the Cuban missile crisis 60 years ago.
The top priority for the international community must continue to be the prevention of any use of nuclear weapons. It is thus imperative to deny Russia any pretext to resort to its nuclear arsenal. No matter how high a cost Russia might bear if it precipitated such use, a nuclear confrontation would remain the worst possible result of the Ukraine crisis for everyone on Earth.
According to several observers, the risk of nuclear Armageddon is now higher than it was at the height of the Cuban missile crisis 60 years ago. And the fact that employing nuclear weapons would, objectively, not be in Russia’s best interests does not in itself guarantee that a nuclear confrontation will be avoided. Cost-benefit analyses minimized the likelihood of the Russian invasion in February, only to be proven wrong.
So, what can be done to step back from the brink? Obviously, Russia must immediately cease any and all nuclear threats—not to mention its illegal occupation of parts of Ukraine. But what if it does not?
To start, there must be clarity from the West—and NATO in particular—about the ultimate objectives of its robust military aid to Ukraine. Clarity has been sorely lacking thus far. Despite much talk and enthusiasm about a Ukrainian victory, there is no consensus on what an eventual win would look like. For some, in fact, the definition of winning seems to change with the evolving realities of the battlefield.
While strategic ambiguity may prove useful in some conflict situations, in the current context it might exacerbate the risk that nuclear weapons will be used. Members of NATO have repeatedly emphasized their unwavering support for Ukraine, yet their ultimate goals remain unclear. To minimize the risk of nuclear devastation, the West would do well to indicate what its objectives are and, perhaps more critically, what they are not.
Any scenarios in which Russia might predictably feel justified or compelled to use nuclear weapons must be explicitly and publicly ruled out. A key one has to do with regime change. If the goal is not to oust President Putin or interfere with the government of Russia, then this must be stated without equivocation, because such a threat is exactly what the current Russian leadership might deem existential.
Will NATO’s—and Ukraine’s—refusal to recognize the validity of Russian annexations translate into an effort to take back these regions with military force?
The issue of Russia’s territorial integrity is less straightforward, although germane to the risk that nuclear weapons might be used. For decades, a mantra of nuclear deterrence doctrine has been that the narrow circumstances under which nuclear weapons might be used involve threats to the vital security interests of the states possessing them, including the very survival of these states as they currently exist. But what constitutes the Russian state today?
Because Russia and Ukraine both claim certain regions, determining the exact territory that should be considered Russian is at the heart of any resolution of the Ukraine conflict. NATO has clearly stated that it will not recognize Russian annexation of Ukrainian territory, which it considers illegal. How does this view figure in NATO’s military and political objectives?
Will NATO’s—and Ukraine’s—refusal to recognize the validity of Russian annexations translate into an effort to take back these regions with military force? Is the status of any or all of the annexed regions negotiable? Is the approach to Crimea different from the one concerning the territory annexed in 2022?
Separately, there is the question of Ukraine’s prospective NATO membership, a known sore point that will need to be resolved as part of any negotiation to end the conflict. Since 1999, more than a dozen eastern European states have joined NATO, including former Soviet republics. Russia has argued for years that this creep raises regional security concerns as it sees a military alliance inching closer and closer to its borders.
While NATO expansion in itself does not justify the Russian aggression, it is impossible to deny that it has been a known irritant in the East-West security relationship—reaching a boiling point with the possibility of Ukraine joining the alliance. When all of this is considered, will Ukraine’s membership in NATO continue to be pursued, and even expedited?
Finally, a critical question: is NATO willing to compromise at all? Unless there is a decisive military victory, most conflicts end at the negotiating table, where all parties make concessions. There will be no decisive victory in Ukraine—for either side—as long as nuclear weapons are brandished. And is decisive victory, however defined, the outcome most conducive to peace and security in the region and globally?
NATO must not only be clear about the scope of its objectives but must also find the right avenues to communicate them, including to Russia. To this end, diplomatic engagement must continue and ramp up – in earnest. For NATO to embrace a counterproductive view of diplomacy as a reward for good behaviour is to defeat the purpose of diplomacy. During the most fractious circumstances, diplomatic efforts are most necessary, serving to defuse tensions and carve out paths for negotiation.
Beyond the urgent need to step back from the brink of nuclear catastrophe, the international community must recognize that Russia’s nuclear bravado, while utterly irresponsible and unacceptable, is not surprising or unexpected. It is a direct result of the perilous doctrine of nuclear deterrence, which has been sustained and perpetuated by all states with nuclear weapons, including those now alarmed at the possibility that these weapons might be used.
President Vladimir Putin has indicated Russia’s willingness to use nuclear weapons, including in a first strike. The Deputy Chair of the Russian Security Council, Dimitry Medvedev, has doubled down on the threats, stressing that the option to employ nuclear weapons is not a bluff. But these threats always existed, even without being verbalized.
NATO members know that the threat to use nuclear weapons is not a bluff because exactly this rationale is the basis for their own policy of nuclear deterrence. All nuclear-weapon states are ready and willing to use nuclear weapons under certain circumstances. And these circumstances are not confined, as some believe, to deterring nuclear threats.
Russia made this point clearly with its recent invocation of nuclear weapons, as did the United States in the Nuclear Posture Review recently released by the Biden administration. Much like the review conducted under President Donald Trump, this review effectively expands the role of the U.S. nuclear deterrent to include non-nuclear threats. The same can be said for the Strategic Concept that NATO adopted earlier this year.
If there can be a silver lining to Russia’s explicit affirmation of its nuclear deterrence policy, it is that it has laid bare the insanity and fragility of nuclear deterrence doctrine, some version of which is embraced by all states with nuclear weapons. And if President Putin proves to be reckless with his threats to use nuclear weapons, it is up to NATO to be the adult in the room and prevent a nuclear catastrophe.
60 Years After Cuban Missile Crisis, Activists Demand World Leaders “Defuse Nuclear War”
OCTOBER 18, 2022
Image Credit: Massachusetts Peace Action (MAPA)
As nuclear powers ratchet up tensions around the Ukraine war, the U.S., NATO and Russia are carrying out nuclear war games. Meanwhile, anti-nuclear activists are calling on lawmakers and world leaders to “Defuse Nuclear War.” Their calls come on the 60th anniversary of the Cuban Missile Crisis. “The Kremlin is making nuclear threats that are completely reckless. At the same time, there are things that the U.S. government can and should do that would reduce the chances of nuclear war,” says Norman Solomon, executive director of the Institute for Public Accuracy and co-founder of RootsAction.org. Meanwhile, Democratic leaders “are simply going along with this autopilot heading towards a precipice of nuclear annihilation globally.” His recent piece for Common Dreams is headlined “Don’t Just Worry About Nuclear War—Do Something to Help Prevent It.”
NATO Steadfast Noon Exercise And Nuclear Modernization in Europe
By Hans Kristensen • October 17, 2022
An F-35A test-drops a B61-12 guided nuclear bomb. The enhanced weapon will be compatible with both fighter jets and strategic bombers and begin replacing older B61 versions in Europe from 2023. Image: U.S. Air Force.
[Updated version] Today, Monday October 17, 2022, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) will begin a two-week long exercise in Europe to train aircrews in using U.S. non-strategic nuclear bombs. The exercise, known as Steadfast Noon, is centered at Kleine Brogel Air Base in Belgium, one of six airbases in Europe that store U.S. nuclear bombs. The exercise takes place midst significant modernizations at nuclear bases across Europe.
https://fas.org/blogs/security/2022/10/steadfast-noon-exercise-and-nuclear-modernization/
Vienna, Austria
Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi today met with Russian President Vladimir Putin as part of the IAEA’s efforts to prevent a nuclear accident during the current military conflict in Ukraine, stressing the urgent need to establish a safety and security protection zone around the Zaporizhzhya Nuclear Power Plant (ZNPP).
Last week, the Director General met with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in Kyiv and they will meet again there later this week, following today's discussions with President Putin in St Petersburg.
In recent weeks, Director General Grossi has been engaging in intense consultations with both Ukraine and the Russian Federation to agree and implement such a protection zone as soon as possible, in view of shelling at or near Europe’s largest nuclear power plant in recent weeks and months.
"The situation in the region around the Zaporizhzhya Nuclear Power Plant and elsewhere has become increasingly dangerous, precarious and challenging, with frequent military attacks that can also threaten nuclear safety and security," Director General Grossi said.
"Now more than ever, during these extremely difficult times, a protection zone must be established around the ZNPP. We can’t afford to lose any more time. The stakes are high. We must do everything in our power to help ensure that a nuclear accident does not happen during this tragic conflict, as it could cause even more hardship and suffering in Ukraine and beyond," he said.
NOWHERE
TO HIDE
My biggest fear....who is the real aggressor?
You can see the writing on the wall. Put your ear to the railroad tracks and hear the train coming.
The US has nuclear weapons stationed at bases in Germany, Belgium, Italy, Netherlands, Turkey (and soon in the UK) and just might be getting ready to drop one in Ukraine.
The US-UK-NATO are losing the war (despite all the lies told in western corporate media). They've already shown themselves willing to use desperate measures by ordering/helping Kiev to repeatedly attack the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant in eastern Ukraine.
And just this week we saw the terrorist raid on Nordstream 1 & 2 pipelines which clearly were done by the western allies.
"Didn't NATO bases conduct exercises there [in the area of the incidents], were not American soldiers accommodated on the territory of neighboring countries? (...) This July, in the same place, near the island of Bornholm — this is Denmark — NATO exercises were conducted, using deep-sea equipment," Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said at a briefing.
NATO member states are currently saying they will begin an investigation to learn who did this sabotage. Talk about the fox guarding the chicken house.
What makes me think the west might turn to nukes? How would they pull this off?
My fear is that the US could drop a battlefield nuke in the Donbass and then use their global CIA-run media arm to blame Russia for doing so. (Just like they are presently starting to do by blaming Russia for damaging their own undersea pipelines.) Then the US-UK-NATO could use that for an excuse to go full bore against Russia.
For evidence one might turn to this statement just released:
On Sunday, Jake Sullivan warned that Washington and its allies would act “decisively” if Russia uses tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine, adding that it had communicated “at very high levels to the Kremlin” that any use of nuclear weapons in neighboring country would be “met with catastrophic consequences.”
NATO may send troops into Ukraine if Russia deploys nuclear weapons in that country, Polish Foreign Minister Zbigniew Rau told local media on Thursday. The US-led military bloc has repeatedly maintained it’s not at war with Moscow and is not a party to the conflict.
I know this sounds insane. Totally irrational. Crazy. Evil, despicable. All of those words describe the neo-con pirates who run Washington and most of the EU governments. They are blinded by greed and desire for 'full spectrum dominance'. They are disconnected from reality. Are they capable of using nukes? You judge for yourself.
I'm just raising this because I feel I must. The neo-cons have been running their global economic and military empire for a long time. But their day in the sun is quickly fading. Russia, China, Iran and many other nations are now standing up to them. The neo-cons are desperate and highly dangerous.
Many of my long-time friends are adamantly opposed to nuclear war - as I am. But some of these folks still put much of the blame for this war on Russia. I don't see it that way.
If we hope to survive this current apocalyptic moment then I believe we must point our collective fingers at the real aggressor - the neo-con led west.
Remember that Russia's military budget this year is right around $65 billion. That is a defensive military. Compare that with the offensive Pentagon budget of around $1.2 trillion (when you add in all the hidden pots of gold like the Department of Energy nuclear weapons budget). Add NATO members military budgets to the US numbers and it is well over 60% of the global total in military spending.
If Washington feels it can continue to neutralize the already weak peace movement across the west by its tactic of divide-and-conquer then the neo-cons will feel confident in continuing their suicidal death-march to regain global dominance.
Bruce
Biden Thinks Non-Nuclear Threats Will Stop Putin. His Military Doesn't
09/29/22 at 5:00 AM EDT
International Day for Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons highlights “deranged” nuclear policies and “irrational” nuclear spending
By Ray Acheson
28 September 2022
On 26 September 2022, the UN General Assembly marked the annual International Day for Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons with a high-level event, bringing officials from around the world together to critique the state of nuclear affairs. Only three nuclear-armed states participated—China, India, and Pakistan. Most members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), a self-described nuclear alliance, also kept their distance. Given that nuclear risks and rhetoric are at all-time high, the absence of those responsible for putting the world in peril speaks volumes about the genuineness of their alleged commitments to nuclear disarmament and international peace and security. The countries that did show up for disarmament were outspoken in their rejection of nuclear weapons and deterrence doctrine, and in their demand for all states to join the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW).
Inherent insecurity of the bomb
“Nuclear weapons are the most destructive power ever created. They offer no security—just carnage and chaos,” said UN Secretary-General (UNSG) António Guterres in his remarks opening the event. This warning comes amidst renewed threats by the Russian government to use nuclear weapons in relation to its war in Ukraine. “Current geopolitical tensions have brought humankind to the brink of a nuclear mishap,” warned Trinidad and Tobago, while many other delegations cited heightened nuclear threats and rhetoric to be detrimental to international peace and security, and potentially to the survival of humanity.
While some political leaders and commentators have tried to normalise or diminish the impacts of the potential use of nuclear weapons in the context of Russia’s war in Ukraine, the reality is that the use of even a single nuclear weapon would have devasting immediate and long-term impacts. Furthermore, as the President of the General Assembly (PGA) noted in his opening remarks, “we all know that such a conflict would never stay at the tactical level.” The Organisation for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean (OPANAL) similarly argued that “tactical nuclear weapons” or “limited nuclear use” are absurd terms, as there is nothing tactical nor limited about the use of weapons of mass destruction. Any use risks a “spiral of escalation” that will endanger humanity itself, argued OPANAL—thus, the quest for security dominance by a few results in insecurity for all.
The UNSG called for the end to the “the era of nuclear blackmail.” He argued, “The idea that any country could fight and win a nuclear war is deranged. Any use of a nuclear weapon would incite a humanitarian Armageddon.” The vast majority of delegations participating in the event agreed. Almost all renounced the idea that nuclear weapons make anyone safer or the world more secure. “The doctrine of nuclear deterrence is a flawed approach to global peace and a major hindrance to our disarmament goals,” said Ghana, while the Philippines argued, “Nuclear deterrence is an obsolete security concept. Nuclear weapons do not promote security. They are instead a source of insecurity, posing humanitarian risks and existential threat to all mankind.” Lebanon noted that there seems to be a “belief that having nuclear weapons is a better deterrence than arms control agreements for state security.” But, it argued, nuclear weapons are not helping security. The deficit of trust and lack of communication undermines the nuclear-armed states’ rhetoric and is “putting the world on a dangerous path.”
Jamaica similarly highlighted the incongruity of the arguments that nuclear weapons both provide security and threaten mass destruction. “Objectively, it is clear that only the latter is true.” Colombia likewise articulated that the idea that nuclear weapons provide security is a disproven fallacy, while Costa Rica pointed out that the possession of nuclear weapons and threats to use them reduces incentives for nuclear disarmament and hinders the prevention of nuclear non-proliferation. “Clearly, the threat of the elimination of all of humanity is no stable foundation for international peace and security,” argued Austria, yet many states appear willing to just sit idly by and wait for a nuclear catastrophe.
Actions against disarmament
In this context, several delegations criticised the Russian delegation and the other nuclear-armed states for the failure to adopt an outcome document at the Tenth Review Conference of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in August 2022. But even while lamenting this failure, some delegations argued that the result would have been ineffective regardless of the outcome’s adoption. The adoption of the final draft “would have been a very disappointing result, in no way matching the urgency of the situation,” said Austria.
The key problem with the NPT remains the intransigence of all the nuclear-armed state parties, which have consistently refused to implement their nuclear disarmament obligations and commitments. They argue that the international security environment is not “ripe” for nuclear disarmament, which the Philippines and several other delegations rejected at the International Day event. Eliminating nuclear weapons “is neither optional nor conditional,” argued Palestine, and “the possession of nuclear weapons is neither a conferred legal right nor an entitlement.”
Venezuela urged the nuclear-armed states to overcome the mentality of the Cold War era and put an end to exceptionalist and supremacist notions that feed the politics of blocs and global confrontation, that increase differences, promote nuclear rearmament, and undermine the realisation of international peace and security. Trinidad and Tobago similarly noted that the rhetoric about the necessity and utility of nuclear weapons “inevitably provides fertile ground to justify a nuclear arms race and the modernization of such weapons.” It urged others to imagine “the benefits which would have been created had similar resources been directed to some of the crises facing our global community.”
Many other speakers lamented the colossal waste of resources on nuclear weapons. The PGA noted, “Investments in these weapons continue to increase, while too many people struggle to buy food, educate their children, and keep warm.” Several delegations condemned what Cuba described as “irrational spending to maintain and modernize nuclear weapons,” with Colombia arguing that this spending raises questions about the basic foundations of civilization.
Undeniable impacts
Furthermore, while billions are wasted on nuclear weapons now, very little money goes toward dealing with the impacts of the use and testing nuclear weapons of the past. “For over 60 years our people have terribly suffered from the trauma of nuclear testing on Kiritimati island and nothing has been done,” said Kiribati. “I watched and heard that the world bank was very swift in responding to Ukraine’s request by providing billions of dollars as cash grant or a form of debt. But what about our needs to address those who have suffered from nuclear weapons and testing?” Kiribati also expressed concern with the build-up and future use of “nuclear-powered war machines” in the Pacific region, arguing that it poses an ever-present risk of nuclear contamination.
Aotearoa New Zealand also spoke of the trauma of nuclear weapon use and testing, both on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and in the Pacific. The latter “still bears the scars of decades of nuclear testing,” it said, noting, “The tests dislocated communities and forced people from their lands and traditional ways, causing immense and inter-generational harm to human health and the environment.” Honduras, Kenya, Zimbabwe, and others highlighted the devasting effects that nuclear weapons have on humanity, biodiversity, and the environment, and many warned that a nuclear war could threaten the existence of all life on the planet.
As the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) explained, no state or international bodycould adequately address the immediate humanitarian emergency nor the long-term consequences of a nuclear weapon detonation. “Any use of nuclear weapons would be abhorrent to the principles of humanity and the dictates of public conscience…. Accepting nuclear weapons as an instrument of security is an indefensible, dangerous logic.”
Prohibiting nuclear weapons
The humanitarian and environmental impacts of nuclear weapons are part of the rationale behind the negotiation and adoption of the TPNW in 2017. The vast majority of delegations welcomed the TPNW’s entry into force in January 2021, as well as its First Meeting of States Parties in June 2022 and its adoption of a Declaration and Action Plan.
Among others, the African Group, the Arab Group, the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC), the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), Algeria, Austria, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Chile, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Guyana, Holy See, Indonesia, Iraq, Ireland, Jamaica, Kazakhstan, Kiribati, Lebanon, Lesotho, Malaysia, Malta, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Namibia, New Zealand, Nigeria, Palestine, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Tanzania, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Viet Nam, and Zimbabwe indicated their support for the Treaty and its contribution to nuclear disarmament. Most also called on all states—including the nuclear-armed states—to sign, ratify, or accede to the TPNW.
Belarus was the only delegation to speak against the TPNW’s importance or utility, arguing that it has not helped to achieve nuclear disarmament. Belarus recently changed its nuclear-free constitution in order to permit the potential stationing of Russian nuclear weapons on its territory. Other nuclear-armed states and some of their allies have made similar remarks about the TPNW in the past—comments that only serve to underscore their refusal to comply with their legal obligations to nuclear disarmament rather than providing any kind of meaningful critique of the TPNW itself.
In reality, as Peru noted, the TPNW provides the best framework for meeting this responsibility. While the NPT Review Conference saw the nuclear-armed states trying to prioritise their visions of power, Peru argued, the TPNW is about denuclearisation of all, for the benefit of all. This instrument will “end the long impasse in multilateral nuclear disarmament,” affirmed Sierra Leone, noting, “It is more important now than ever, that world leaders speak out against nuclear weapons, and work together to strengthen international legal norms against their development, retention, use and threat of use by any State.” Dialogue and diplomacy must prevail over stockpiles of nuclear weapons, said Nepal, so that mutually assured peace and prosperity can prevail over mutually assured destruction.
|
Panel Event to Commemorate the International Day for the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons
Monday, September 26, 2022 at 6:30pm Eastern Daylight Time
|
|
Five nations sign and two ratify Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons
September 22, 2022 ICAN
https://www.icanw.org/tpnw_ceremony_2022
The TPNW’s growing membership reflects the deepening concern of the international community at the existential threat that nuclear weapons pose to humanity. In June TPNW states parties declared at their first meeting in Vienna: “We will not rest until the last state has joined the treaty [and] the last warhead has been dismantled.”
By signing the treaty, the five countries – Barbados, Burkina Faso, Equatorial Guinea, Haiti and Sierra Leone – have taken a key step towards joining the treaty, while the Dominican Republic and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) have deposited their instruments of ratification with the UN secretary-general to become states parties.
The treaty actions took place at a high-level ceremony at the UN headquarters on Thursday, 22 September, officiated by Miguel de Serpa Soares, the UN under-secretary-general for legal affairs.
Beatrice Fihn, the executive director of ICAN, said at the event: “With more and more countries joining the nuclear ban treaty, we are taking significant steps towards the abolition of these weapons. As the number of countries signing and ratifying the TPNW grows, the pressure on the nine nuclear-armed states and their supporters to join the treaty grows.”
She added: “The strengthening of the treaty is particularly welcome at this time when the war in Ukraine has seen the risk of nuclear weapons use increase, and one of the world’s largest nuclear-armed states has made undisguised threats to use its arsenal with all the devastation that implies.”
The UN high representative for disarmament affairs, Izumi Nakamitsu, said: “Joining the TPNW sends a powerful signal of a state’s commitment to achieving our shared goal of a world free of nuclear weapons. But it is not merely a symbolic act. The decisions taken at the first meeting of states parties reflect a commitment to implementing the treaty comprehensively and thoughtfully.”
Peter Maurer, the president of the International Committee of the Red Cross, said: “The comprehensive prohibition of nuclear weapons is a crucial step towards their elimination, which is a vital responsibility of the international community as a whole. I commend those states who have made the courageous choice to sign or ratify this landmark treaty today.”
Bob Alvarez on the catastrophic radioactive legacy of mining, milling, making and testing nuclear bombs
Why Isn't the Media Talking About Banning Nuclear Weapons?
"The Day After" film screening and discussion
Start: Saturday, August 06, 2022•12:00 PM • Eastern Daylight Time (US & Canada) (GMT-04:00)
WorldBEYONDWar.org
The Day After is an American post-apocalyptic film that first aired on November 20, 1983, on the ABC television network. A record-setting 100 million people watched it in the US - and 200 million on Russian TV during its initial broadcast.
The film postulates a fictional war between NATO forces and the Warsaw Pact countries over Germany that rapidly escalates into a full-scale nuclear exchange between the United States and the Soviet Union. The action focuses on the residents of Lawrence, Kansas, and Kansas City, Missouri, and of several family farms near nuclear missile silos.
Then-US President Ronald Reagan watched the film more than a month before its screening on Columbus Day, October 10, 1983. He wrote in his diary that the film was "very effective and left me greatly depressed", and that it changed his mind on the prevailing policy on a "nuclear war". Maybe this film can still change hearts and minds! Join us to find out!
https://actionnetwork.org/events/the-day-after-film-screening-and-discussion
Agenda for the event
World BEYOND War Executive Director David Swanson has agreed to help moderate.
We will have a short welcome on Zoom at 12 pm EDT, and then watch the movie, followed by presentations and a question-and-answer period with our experts, Vicki Elson of NuclearBan.US and Dr. Gordon Edwards of CCNR.
A Power Point on Atomic Diplomacy
Harry Targ, Peace Action WI Steering Committee
Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference begins Aug 1, 2022
|
|
Nuclear risks are extreme:
"Luck is not a strategy" warns UN Secretary-General
NPT Open Letter to be presented tomorrow
|
|
The 10th Review Conference of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) opened on Monday August 1 with a stark warning from UN Secretary-General António Guterres. "From the Middle East and the Korean Peninsula. To Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.The clouds that parted following the end of the Cold War are gathering once more", he told leaders, ministers and ambassadors of nuclear-armed, allied and non-nuclear countries, along with civil society representatives gathered at the UN for this 4-week long event. "We have been extraordinarily lucky so far. But luck is not a strategy. Nor is it a shield from geopolitical tensions boiling over into nuclear conflict. Today, humanity is just one misunderstanding, one miscalculation away from nuclear annihilation."
|
|
 |
|
UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres speaks at the opening of the 10th Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference at UN Headquarters in New York on Aug. 1, 2022.
(Loey Felipe/UN Photo)
|
|
| Mr Guterres called on the States Parties to use the opportunity of the NPT Review conference to reinforce the norm against any use of nuclear weapons, adopt practical measures to reduce the risk of nuclear war, strengthen all avenues of dialogue and transparency, and return to the path of nuclear disarmament. |
|
From nuclear threats to human security:
NPT Open Letter presented to NPT plenary tomorrow
|
|
Fulfil the NPT: From nuclear threats to human security, an Open Letter organised by NoFirstUse Global, will be presented to the afternoon plenary session of the NPT Review Conference tomorrow (Friday August 5, New York time) by John Hallam, a member of the NoFirstUse Global steering committee.
Over 1400 political, military and religious leaders, as well as legislators (parliamentarians and mayors), academics, scientists, business leaders, youth, lawyers, artists, Nobel Laureates and other representatives of civil society from 80 countries have endorsed the Open Letter, which calls on the NPT States Parties to:
-
End the nuclear arms race and phase out the role of nuclear weapons in security policies starting with no-first-use;
- Commit to a timebound framework for the global elimination of nuclear weapons;
- Adopt a concrete plan to implement this commitment including through the systematic and progressive reduction of nuclear arsenals;
- Agree to shift budgets and public investments from the nuclear weapons industry to instead support public health, climate stabilization and sustainable development.
A pre-view of the Open Letter, including a categorised list of endorsers, is available to view or download as a PDF file.
You can view the NPT plenary session at which the Open Letter will be presented tomorrow (August 5) on UNTV. |
|
 |
|
Nuclear weapons threaten current and future generations
“Nuclear weapons threaten current and future generations. They cannot resolve the conflicts between countries, and they are counter-productive to the human security issues of today and tomorrow – the COVID pandemic, climate crisis, food security, cybersecurity, and achievement of the sustainable development goals. It’s time to fulfil the NPT and the goal established by the UN in 1946 to eliminate nuclear weapons globally.”
Maria Fernanda Espinosa, Member of the World Future Council, President of the 73rd UN General Assembly. Endorser of the Open Letter FulFil the NPT: From nuclear threats to human security
|
|
NoFirstUse Global working paper to the NPT
|
|
July 16: the date of the Trinity Test in 1945, when the first nuclear weapon was exploded in the USA state of New Mexico
Tina Cordova, co-founder of the Tularosa Basin Downwinders Consortium, describes how, “The explosion produced more heat than the sun, and caused radioactive ash to fall for days – covering and contaminating crops, homes, bodies, and water supplies. We were innocent children, women, and men who were left to deal with the horrid consequences of being overexposed to radioactive fallout. Our families suffer from cancer, radiation-related illnesses, and early death. The people of New Mexico have been waiting over 77 years. We have never been acknowledged although we were the original Downwinders, the first people to be exposed to a nuclear bomb and nuclear fallout anyplace in the world. We have been casualties of the U.S. government’s quest for nuclear superiority. There is so much more to the history than what the U.S. government has been willing to share, and we were the human sacrifice.”
With the callousness that’s characteristic of nuclearism and all forms of systemic violence, the U.S. Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA) - which was recently extended for two years - has never acknowledged those affected by the Trinity Test.
Given the emphasis of the TPNW on centering impacted communities, and ongoing struggles to enact and implement policies that truly attend to the widespread impacts and forms of radiation exposure, July 16 is a day to show solidarity with those who have lost their lives, and continue to suffer, as an effect of the Trinity Test.
Since 1945, nuclear-armed states have detonated over 2,000 nuclear weapons, impacting communities around the world.
Learn more about the tests, survivors' stories and their activism for justice in the interactive map:
Japan: UN experts say they are deeply disappointed by decision to discharge Fukushima water
https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2021/04/japan-un-experts-say-deeply-disappointed-decision-discharge-fukushima-water?LangID=E&NewsID=27000
17:20:23 From mp-nuclear-free.com to Everyone:
For those of you who are interested in learning more about this issue, we have the following video clips from experts and concerned citizens:
1. Dr. Stronell talked about issues and updates of Japan’s dumping plan https://youtu.be/1INRYJxtNWE
2. Dr. Fairlie talked about the dangers of radioactive tritium https://youtu.be/uku27rAy4R0 (with Japanese subtitles).
3. Video message from Dr. Amano. https://youtu.be/TFUrpHx4xIo
He explains that the contaminated water at Fukushima Daiichi contains more than 64 radionuclides, as opposed to what TEPCO and Japan say.
4. Video messages from Fukushima moms: https://youtu.be/J5k6hbMe-Cc and https://youtu.be/TFUrpHx4xIo
Holtec and other thin-wall canister systems are lemons. Holtec downloading systems gouge or scrape walls of every thin-wall canister. Holtec lacks a precision downloading system that cannot be fixed.
Recall and replace defective thin-wall nuclear fuel waste storage systems with proven thick-wall transportable storage casks.
Holtec and other thin-wall nuclear fuel waste canister storage systems are lemons.
Solution to prevent major radiological releases
-
STEP ONE: Thin-wall canisters (only 1/2″ to 5/8″ thick) must be recalled, and the nuclear waste repackaged into thick-wall transportable storage casks (10″ to 19.75″ thick) that meet ASME N3 Nuclear Pressure Vessel storage and transport certification.
Only proven thick-wall casks can be inspected, repaired, maintained and monitored in a manner to prevent major radioactive leaks and hydrogen gas explosions.
-
STEP TWO: Thick-wall casks must be moved to a safer location away from coastal and flooding risks. Store thick-wall casks in hardened buildings for additional security and environmental protection.
-
Must do STEP ONE BEFORE STEP TWO: Nuclear fuel waste must be transfered into thick-wall casks BEFORE it can be transport to another location. Cracking thin-wall canisters with uninspected brittle fuel rods are not safe for storage or transport.
- Thin-wall nuclear waste canister storage systems pose a clear and imminent danger to the health and lives of the citizens, and pose potential financial and ecological disaster for the state of California, and beyond. Action is needed now.
NRC and Southern California Edison engineers admit it’s impossible to inspect nuclear fuel waste canisters for cracks per ASME Nuclear Pressure Vessel standards
You cannot put lipstick on a pig, yet both the NRC and Southern California Edison refuse to admit Holtec and other thin-wall canister systems are lemons and must be recalled and replaced.
The NRC is not protecting our safety. Instead, they give numerous exemptions to American Society of Mechanical Engineers Standards, including ASME N3 Nuclear Pressure Vessel storage and transport certification requirements.
Only thick-wall cask systems can meet ASME N3 Nuclear Pressure Vessel storage and transport certification requirements.
Switzerland is an example of a country that requires dry storage systems that meet or exceeds ASME N3 standards.
Switzerland and other countries store thick-wall casks in hardened passively cooled building for additional environmental and security protection.
The Swiss also have a dry transfer system (hot cell) facility, so they can transfer fuel from one cask to another, inspect inside casks and maintain casks and contents.
The U.S. has no large hot cells designed to do this. There is no U.S. plan in place to prevent or stop major radioactive releases from the canisters.
Handouts and U.S. Dry Storage Inventory
Legislation
Congress should not allow the NRC to give exemptions to ASME and other safety regulations and laws. Instead, proposed federal legislation promising to move the nuclear waste somewhere else, creates more problems than it solves.
Bills such as 2019 S.1234 co-sponsored by U.S. Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA), and 2017 H.R.3053 co-sponsored by U.S. Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL) and a similar House bill 2019 S.2699 co-sponsored by U.S. Rep. McNerney, Jerry [D-CA-9] and Senate bill 2019 S.2917 co-sponsored by U.S. Senator John Barrasso (R-WY) will:
-
Nuclear War Could Mean Annihilation, But Biden and Congress Are Messing Around
-
Norman Solomon,
- Truthout
- July 3, 2022
-
President Joe Biden and top subordinates have refused to publicly acknowledge the danger of nuclear war — even though it is now higher than at any other time in at least 60 years. Their silence is insidious and powerful, and their policy of denial makes grassroots activism all the more vital for human survival.....
- https://truthout.org/articles/nuclear-war-could-mean-annihilation-but-biden-and-congress-are-messing-around/?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=eccf0454-e0d8-49d3-8e0c-8125c5a4fd5f
Members of Congress Host Press Conference Calling on the U.S. to Join the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear WeaponsJune 29, 2022
***Watch the Livestream Here (Twitter)***
WASHINGTON, D.C.—Rules Committee Chairman James P. McGovern (D-MA), alongside Representatives Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), Eleanor Norton (D-DC), Don Beyer (D-VA), and Ilhan Omar (D-MN), held a press conference calling on the U.S. to join the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW). The TPNW was adopted by 122 countries in July, 2017 and it is the first legally binding international agreement to comprehensively prohibit nuclear weapons.
The press conference was held with advocates from NuclearBan.US and other organizations in conjunction with the first-ever meeting of state parties to the treaty in Vienna, Austria to review progress towards implementation. The TPNW bans the development, testing, production, acquisition, possession, stockpile, use of or the threat of use of nuclear weapons.
“Unless the nuclear powers, including the United States, demonstrate the leadership and resolve needed to address the existential threat of nuclear war facing our planet right now, we cannot expect a world that lives in peace,” said Rep. McGovern. “The United States and all nuclear powers must renew negotiations to reduce and eliminate nuclear weapons. For the sake of all people, around the world, we must end the existence of nuclear weapons on this planet, before nuclear weapons end the existence of human life on this planet.”
“The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons is a historic step towards a world free from the existential threat these weapons pose,” said Representative Blumenauer. “These are weapons we can never use, and can’t afford. The United States must urgently join the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and fully commit to denuclearization. I will continue fighting for a more rational U.S. nuclear posture in Congress with the goal of ridding the world of these weapons altogether. ”
“Our country and the world have a long list of urgent needs that have been put on the back burner,” said Representative Norton. “America is the only nation that has used nuclear weapons in war. We possess one of the largest nuclear weapons arsenals, but the Nuclear Disarmament Treaty would help the United States reestablish its moral leadership in the world by redirecting funds that would otherwise go to nuclear weapons to urgent needs. I urge members of Congress and leaders around the world to support the Treaty.”
“The Nuclear Weapons and Arms Control Working Group, which I established with colleagues last year, firmly believes that reversing dangerous competition through diplomacy and reducing the role of nuclear weapons would lead us to a world where nuclear weapons do not pose an existential threat to humanity,” said Representative Beyer. “We should do everything we can to get there, and signing the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons would be a great way to start. This is an important and meaningful step we could take towards a safer world, and I thank Rep. McGovern and my colleagues for their leadership on this initiative.”
“As a child of war, I know what death and destruction looks like. The trauma of war will never leave me. The use of nuclear weapons poses a threat to every human on the planet. Nuclear weapons are the most catastrophic, dangerous weapons ever created. These weapons cause widespread humanitarian and environmental damage, impacting everyone, regardless of the target. With the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the US withdrawal from the Iran deal, the threat of nuclear war is more real now than it has been for previous decades. The complete elimination of nuclear weapons is the only solution for a safer and more peaceful world. That’s why I am proud to join Rep. Jim McGovern to call for the United States to join the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons alongside more than 120 countries. When we say we champion human rights and peace, we should mean it,” said Representative Omar.
“These legislators believe that those billions of taxpayer dollars could be better spent on green technologies and other pressing human needs. They know that ‘keeping a few nukes for deterrence’ is just as morally corrupt and dangerous as keeping all of them, because even one, detonated on purpose or by accident, could cause destruction and suffering beyond what any of us want to imagine,” said Vicki Elson of NuclearBan.US “These people are not fooled by the theory that having thousands of climate-wrecking, civilian-slaughtering, accident-prone, hair-trigger weapons of mass extinction is somehow keeping us safe.
Defuse Nuclear War June 12, 2022 Webinar
The video of the live stream here:
https://defusenuclearwar.org/watch-june-12-live-stream/
Mandy Carter, David Swanson, Medea Benjamin, Jerry Brown, Leslie Cagan, Pastor Michael McBride, Katrina vanden Heuvel, Hanieh Jodat Barnes, Judith Ehrlich, Daniel Ellsberg, Khury Petersen-Smith, India Walton, Emma Claire Foley, and Ann Wright.
co-sponsoring organizations(Includes Peace Action WI)
Norman Solomon
National Director, RootsAction.org
[email protected]
(415) 488-3606
To Meet Nuclear Threat, US Should Attend Historic Vienna Meeting on Ban Treaty
It is time to break the silence, to tell the whole truth about nuclear weapons. There is a path out of the global peril that is, at this moment, being acutely felt by people around the world.
Vladimir Putin's missile rattling has reawakened people's concern about nuclear weapons even as it exposes the lack of true understanding of the nuclear threat. An Associated Press poll found 75% of people in the U.S. are concerned or very concerned about a nuclear attack. What are we worried about?
None of the nuclear-armed states have indicated they will attend the Vienna meeting. That might not be true if the media broke the silence and reported on the promise of the TPNW.
Are we suddenly interested in the nuances of the policy of deterrence or U.S./NATO obligations to umbrella states to mount a military defense? Are we concerned about the mind-boggling cost of the modernization of U.S. nuclear programs or whether we should maintain the nuclear triad?
No, we are worrying about whether a nuclear exchange will kill us or the people we love and ruin the world we live in.
In other words, we are worrying about what really matters—the human cost of nuclear weapons. For decades, the official conversations about nuclear weapons have focused on political and military uses of nuclear weapons. The nuclear weapons "establishment" ruled talk about the actual human costs out of bounds, unspeakable, along with talk about nuclear disarmament.
Fifteen years ago, though, an effort began in Australia that spread around the globe, bringing civil society and governments together to work for a Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. In 2017, that Treaty was adopted by 122 nation-states at the United Nations, and the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) won the Nobel Peace Prize. On January 22, 2021, the Treaty entered into force.
The TPNW, in addition to its explicit prohibitions against nuclear weapons and its obligations to care for victims of the use and testing of weapons, made an implicit demand: all serious conversations about nuclear weapons going forward must include the human and environmental consequences of these weapons.
The refusal of the nuclear weapons establishment to consider the human and ecological cost of nuclear weapons has always been intellectually dishonest, but also necessary. Even a cursory consideration makes it immediately clear that there is no conceivable defense for these weapons that, if used, will destroy everyone on all sides.
This is the bottom line: What people care about—whether these weapons will destroy them, their loved ones, and the planet itself—is at the very heart of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. It is the first conversation we should be having in this moment when the nuclear threat is back on the table. It should be the frame for every media interview with policy or military "experts" on the nuclear threat.
It is time to break the silence, to tell the whole truth about nuclear weapons. There is a path out of the global peril that is, at this moment, being acutely felt by people around the world. The next step happens June 21-23, in Vienna, at the First Meeting of States Parties to the Treaty. The human and environmental costs of nuclear weapons will be center stage at the historic meeting.
None of the nuclear-armed states have indicated they will attend the Vienna meeting. That might not be true if the media broke the silence and reported on the promise of the TPNW. An informed public might demand our leaders pursue the only path that promises true safety and security for our children and their children.
In her Nobel acceptance speech, ICAN's Beatrice Fihn said, "Either we end nuclear weapons, or they will end us. One of these things will be true." Vladimir Putin has validated Ms. Fihn with his invocation of nuclear terror. At the moment this is being written, we still have time to choose life over death. Even if Putin puts his missiles away this time, the threat will not evaporate.
We have to eliminate nuclear weapons the day before the first missile is launched. The day after will be, horrifically beyond imagination, too late. If we feel the reality of the nuclear threat, we must act to protect our children and the future now. The path to a world free of nuclear weapons is long and will take time to travel.
US Presidents have declared that the United States has a special obligation to lead the world toward nuclear disarmament. It's time to meet that obligation, time to step out and lead. Sending observers to the First Meeting of States Parties would set an example for all nuclear-armed states. There, the U.S. "leaders" will meet hundreds of delegates from nations who are ahead of us on the road to abolition.
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
RALPH HUTCHISON
Ralph Hutchison is long-time peace activist and coordinator of the Oak Ridge Environmental Peace Alliance.
www.mayorsforpeace.org
Contact: Jackie Cabasso, Mayors for Peace North American Coordinator
(510) 306-0119; [email protected]
June 8, 2022
U.S. Conference of Mayors Adopts Sweeping Resolution Calling for a Negotiated End to the War in Ukraine, Global Elimination of Nuclear Weapons, and Redirection of
Federal Spending Priorities: “Forging a Path to Peace and Common Security”
Reno, NV - At the close of its 90th Annual Meeting in Reno, Nevada, on June 6, 2022, the final business plenary of the United States Conference of Mayors (USCM) unanimously adopted a sweeping new resolution, titled “Forging a Path to Peace and Common Security.” This is the seventeenth consecutive year that the USCM has adopted resolutions submitted by U.S. members of Mayors for Peace.
Warning that, “Russia's unprovoked illegal war on Ukraine, which could eventually draw the militaries of the United States, its NATO allies and Russia into direct conflict, and Russia's repeated threats to use nuclear weapons, have raised the specter of nuclear war to the highest level since the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis,” the USCM “calls on the President and Congress to exercise restraint in U.S. military engagement in Ukraine while maximizing diplomatic efforts to end the war as soon as possible by working with Ukraine and Russia to reach an immediate ceasefire and negotiate with mutual concessions in conformity with the United Nations Charter, knowing that the risks of wider war grow the longer the war continues.”
Observing that “the immense nuclear arsenal of the United States, even when combined with the nuclear forces of its European allies France and the United Kingdom, failed to deter Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine,” and that “since the pandemic began, the U.S. has spent 7.5 times more money on nuclear weapons than on global vaccine donations,” the USCM resolution opens with a stark quote from a recent report:
WHEREAS, a new report, Common Security 2022; For Our Shared Future, sponsored by the Olof Palme Memorial Fund, finds that: “In 2022, humanity faces the existential threats of nuclear war, climate change and pandemics. This is compounded by a toxic mix of inequality, extremism, nationalism, gender violence, and shrinking democratic space. How humanity responds to these threats will decide our very survival.”
Noting that “over the next 30 years, the U.S. plans to spend some $1.7 trillion to replace its entire nuclear weapons infrastructure and upgrade or replace its nuclear bombs and warheads and the bombers, missiles and submarines that deliver them,” and that “the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), which entered into force in 1970, requires the U.S., Russia, the United Kingdom, France, and China to negotiate ‘in good faith’ the end of the nuclear arms race ‘at an early date’ and the elimination of their nuclear arsenals,” in the new resolution, the USCM
“calls on the U.S. and the other nuclear-armed states parties to the NPT, at the August 2022 10th Review Conference of the Treaty, to implement their disarmament obligations by committing to a process leading to the adoption no later than 2030 of a timebound plan for the global elimination of nuclear weapons by 2045, the 100th anniversary of their first use, and the 100th anniversary of the United Nations;” and
“calls on the Administration and Congress to rein in annual budgeted military and nuclear weapons spending, and to redirect funds to support safe and resilient cities and meet human needs, including by providing accessible and affordable health care for all, housing and food security, measures to assure reliable funding for municipalities and states throughout the COVID-19 pandemic and future disasters for which they are the first line of defense, green sustainable energy, and environmental protection and mitigation; and to increase investment in international diplomacy, humanitarian assistance and development, and international cooperation to address the climate crisis.”
As recognized in the resolution, “Mayors for Peace, founded in 1982 by the Mayors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, with 8,174 members in 166 countries and regions, including 220 U.S. members, is working for a world without nuclear weapons, safe and resilient cities, and a culture of peace, as essential measures for the realization of lasting world peace.
Noting that, “The United States Conference of Mayors has unanimously adopted Mayors for Peace resolutions for sixteen consecutive years,” the USCM “urges all of its members to join Mayors for Peace to help reach the goal of 10,000 member cities.”
The 2021 USCM resolution was sponsored by Mayors for Peace U.S. Vice-President Frank Cownie, Mayor of Des Moines, Iowa, and co-sponsored by Mayor Tishaura O. Jones of St. Louis, Missouri; Mayor Patrick L. Wojahn of College Park, Maryland; Mayor Jesse Arreguin of Berkeley, California; Mayor Libby Schaaf of Oakland, California; Mayor Joy Cooper of Hallandale Beach, Florida; Mayor Satya Rhodes-Conway of Madison, Wisconsin; Mayor J. Christian Bollwage of Elizabeth, New Jersey; Mayor Quentin Hart of Waterloo, Iowa; Mayor
Greg Fisher of Louisville, Kentucky; Mayor Frank C. Ortis of Pembroke Pines, Florida; Mayor Jorge O. Elorza of Providence, Rhode Island; Mayor Farrah Khan of Irvine, California; Mayor Tom Butt of Richmond, California; Mayor Pauline Russo Cutter of San Leandro, California; and Mayor Kenneth Miyagishima of Las Cruces, New Mexico.
The United States Conference of Mayors is the official nonpartisan association of more than 1,400 American cities with populations over 30,000. Resolutions adopted at its annual meetings become USCM official policy that will guide the organization’s advocacy efforts for the coming year.
Click here for the full text of the resolution.
Biden signs RECA extension
NM Political Report
June 6, 2022
President Joe Biden signed an extension of the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act today, which lengthens the time that people who got sick after being exposed to radiation from uranium mining and processing or nuclear testing in Nevada have to apply for financial compensation.
This extension keeps the possibility of expanding eligibility open. Currently, people in the Tularosa area who became sick after the Trinity test are not eligible for compensation. U.S. Rep. Teresa Leger Fernández and U.S. Sen. Ben Ray Luján, both New Mexico Democrats, are among the lawmakers pushing to expand eligibility to those residents.
The extension received bipartisan support in Congress.
Related: RECA extension passes House, heads to president’s desk
The bill will expand the time period to file claims by two years. Had it not been extended, the program would have ended in July.
The extension was among nine bills that the president signed today, most of which focused on veterans and military.
Luján attended the bill signing. In a press release, he said it has been a top priority for him as a senator to ensure the program does not expire.
“With the President’s signature, we avoided that injustice,” he said. “But this fight is not over. The federal government must do right by all Americans whose lives were impacted by radiation exposure in the national defense effort, and I will continue working to expand this program to include all affected downwinders and post-1971 uranium mine workers. A strengthened RECA program would deliver long-overdue justice for families in New Mexico and across the nation who know the pain and sorrow caused by radiation exposure.”
| |
| |
|
New US Submarines Hobbled by Billions in Added Costs and Delays
|
- GAO’s weapons report also cites delays on drones, helicopters
- Boeing’s F-15EX fighter found to have cyber vulnerabilities
|
|
By Tony Capaccio / June 8, 2022 11:00AM ET / Bloomberg Government
|
|
The US Navy’s two newest submarine programs have been hampered by growing costs, poor contractor performance and delays in the last year, according to an assessment by congressional auditors.
Costs for the 12-vessel Columbia class, the US’s next nuclear-missile submarine, have grown by $3.4 billion to a projected $112 billion before the first planned deployment in 2031, the Government Accountability Office said in its latest annual report on major US weapons systems.
Similarly, over the last year work on the latest model Virginia-class attack submarine, which shares some of the same workforce, “fell further behind schedule, and construction costs continued to grow above original targets due to overall higher workforce demand and additional factors such as correspondingly less experienced workers,” the agency said.
The Columbia class will replace the fleet of 14 Ohio-class submarines that carry
ntury. The subs will carry one leg of the so-called nuclear triad along with land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles and air-launched weapons.
The 252-page GAO assessment -- the most comprehensive evaluation of the Defense Department’s weapons portfolio -- reviewed 40 major current defense acquisition programs, four future major programs and 19 middle-tier projects. The submarine setbacks are among the most telling in the report released Wednesday. Both submarines are built jointly by General Dynamics Corp. and Huntington Ingalls Industries Inc.
Seventeen of the major programs GAO reviewed had delays, some of them “on top of past postponements,” according to the report. Those include the DDG-1000 destroyer from General Dynamics, the MQ-4C Triton surveillance drone made by Northrop Grumman Corp., the CH-53K cargo helicopter from Lockheed Martin Corp. and Boeing Co.’s new Air Force One presidential jet and its MH-139A Gray Wolf helicopter to patrol ICBM silo fields.
|
|
|
|
Watch Full Show
