A Tufte-esque Approach to De-Mystifying the INF and Its Locus in "Mittleuropa"

Napoleon's Russia campaign, 1812-1813

The image above is, perhaps, the iconic example of the thinking of Edward Tufte. It stands for the proposition: you can use graphics to help people greatly increase their perception of what is going on with a numerically dynamic situation -- the key is to use the plane of the paper to capture the interaction of multiple dimensions simultaneously.

This image illustrates four dimensions together: the size of Napoleon's army as he marched toward (and then away from) Moscow during the War of 1812, the location of the army, the time, and the weather conditions. One can instantly get the picture: an overwhelming force, heading off to fight in Russia, full of confidence and bravado, only to find itself retreating as it is annihilated little by little by cold and hunger and disease. (More about this image on Edward Tufte's website.)

Tufte says, in essence, that we remember to make the fullest possible use of our visual and spatial intelligence. Sure, text and stories are useful; but how about drawing me a picture? (To me, the position Tufte advocates resonates strongly with Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences.)

I've been thinking about this particular image for a long time, since I first encountered it when I was in college in the late 1970s. Then, recently, several elements presented themselves to me.

The first is a chart of the pace of nuclear disarmament, showing the advance toward a peak US nuclear weapons arsenal in the 1960s and then progress -- in fits and starts -- in reducing that arsenal:

The American Nuclear Stockpile
Click to view full size on The New York Times website.

The second has been the increased attention that I have begun to give to NATO and the idea of Central Europe as the front line of nuclear confrontation. I read several books by Timothy Snyder, and realized that the bone of contention is an area of land that lies between Germany in the west and Russia and the east -- a place about which most people in the US have only the vaguest notion.

Since I first visited Berlin, Prague, Budapest, and Vienna in 1990, I have been fascinated by a sort of terra incognita that lies between the known West (France, England) and the Other in the East (Russia, China) -- a zone that is at once vaguely charming and vaguely menacing. I suppose I should get serious about understanding it; but there is also something appealing about letting it remain mysterious -- a Mittleuropa whose reality and destiny we can leave to someone else to worry about.

I had my "Tufte moment" when I read about a visit by Senator Sam Nunn in 1973 to meet with NATO commanders in Europe. Nunn was stunned to learn that the military assumed that they would use nuclear weapons if there were a fight in Europe. They had scoped out the geography (the chokepoint is a place called the Fulda Gap) and they had run the numbers (150,000 NATO troops vs. 450,000 from Warsaw Pact countries). "The invasion route would put the Warsaw Pact forces quickly within striking distance of Frankfurt and several large American military bases." (Philip Taubman, The Partnership: Five Cold Warriors and Their Quest to Ban the Bomb, p. 198 ff.).

It seems to me that there needs to be an infographic -- analogous to the one of Napoleon's army - that conveys the state of affairs in Central Europe, and how it is controlling our destinies. Perhaps an ingredient that would be helpful would be the events of the 1980s centering on the deployment of Pershing II and SS-20 missiles (see Taubman, p. 230).

An infographic illuminating the historic nuclear confrontation in the center of Europe - this would be a timely inquiry. The US has pulled out of something called the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF). Most people -- including myself -- struggle to understand what's really at stake.

Maybe it's time for someone to draw us a picture.


Postscript

I was stimulated to finally post this note because I had to look up an unfamiliar word -- anabasis -- used by my son in describing the film, Apocalypto. "Anabasis" means both a military advance and a a difficult and dangerous military retreat, and the graphic that Tufte touted came to mind.

By the way, proponents of greater attention to another one of our multiple intelligences -- musical intelligence -- might note that the graphic about the War of 1812 is mightily complemented by one of the great works in our classical music canon: Tchaikovsky's "1812 Overture." But that is a blog post for another day . . . .

Trump Is Right: It's Time to Deprecate NATO and Denuclearize

NATO: Soooooo 1949!!

"Deprecate" is a fancy software word that means, "That's so last year. Don't use it any more. Everybody's doing this new thing . . . ."

I'm sure many in the defense establishment are having a conniption over Trump's deprecation of NATO. But maybe they just need to get with the times . . . ?

Ever since the NATO summit in Chicago in 2012, I've been struggling with this problem: NATO isn't helping us, and is probably hurting us, but it's got loads of supporters in the establishment and the general public is puzzled about what it's all about. So how do we ever move on?

That's why the word "deprecate" seems appropriate. While admitting that it's going to take some time to work the remnants out of the system, let's set our sights on the next thing and start developing.

You can see how how ready NATO is to be retired by looking at how even its supporters talk about it. Yesterday's New York Times touted the importance of NATO by dragging out the tired old quip that got the whole thing started 70 years ago:

"keep the Soviet Union out, the Americans in and the Germans down"

(Oh, yeah, and the Times cited NATO's role in those paragons of successful military adventure: "Afghanistan, Iraq, Africa, and elsewhere.")

QED.

For years, I've been writing about the need for the US president to get down to the real business at hand: finish the job of negotiating nuclear disarmament with Russia.

Job #1 Vis-a-vis Russia: NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT

The Lesson of Reykjavik: TALK About Nuclear Disarmament (You Never Know)

Obama: Go to Moscow!

Obama's (and Putin's) Missed Opportunity at Hiroshima

Messrs. Trump and Putin: CHANGE THIS MAP!

Obama wouldn't even sit down with Putin. By scheduling a meeting with Putin, Trump is already ahead of the game.

As for NATO, one glaring problem is its annual war games at the Russian border (e.g. "US Army Launches War Games on NATO's Eastern Flank"). I wonder if during the next 48 hours, Trump will say something similar to his remarks with respect to Korea:

"Holding back the 'war games' during the negotiations was my request because they are VERY EXPENSIVE and set a bad light during a good faith negotiation. Also, quite provocative. Can start up immediately if talks break down, which I hope will not happen!"

That would lead to more conniptions at the Pentagon, I'm sure.

On the other hand, the nations of Europe (including all those erstwhile NATO members) should be the first to see the urgency of denuclearizing.

The US and Russia control the vast majority of the world's nuclear weapons.
(Image: Global News)

(More on Europe and denuclearization.)

Please share this post . . . .

Network Power and the Movement to Ban Nuclear Weapons

The majority of the world's nations voted to bring about a ban on nuclear weapons through negotiations in 2017.

The negotiations will be happening at the United Nations. But make no mistake: the real action will need to be out among the people. Because if we sleep through this, the political will to get to the finish line may just evaporate.

Here's how you can dive in . . . .

Activists worldwide . . .

(1) It's all about the network(s).

We're really not alone in this!

You can instantly access the global network by going to #nuclearban on Twitter.

But our ability to achieve critical mass will depend upon how creatively and thoroughly we build and make use of multiple, intersecting networks of influence.

One small example: this list of activists worldwide helping to advance the cause of the nuclear ban.

Each person on the list connects you to their huge network of activists and thinkers.

Give them your attention for ten minutes a day: they'll give you phenomenal resources.

And then think: how can you add the leverage of your network to this effort?


(2) The central campaign.

Here are your core tools for working on the nuclear ban: nuclearban.org.

The site is provided by ICAN - the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons.

There's a rich stream of real-time updates on the campaign blog.

And be sure to sign up for the campaign updates and activities.


(3) Many threads.

George Takei on Twitter:
Trump wants to expand our nuclear arsenal.
I think of my aunt and baby cousin,
found burnt in a ditch in Hiroshima.
These weapons must go.

It may sound simple -- ban nuclear weapons -- but it is a massive problem and will call on people from all walks of life, in every country in the world to help get the message across.

Diplomats
Celebrities
Musicians
Journalists
Speech-makers
Memoirists
Campaigners
Scientists
Students
Bloggers
Artists
Teachers
Pastors
Philanthropists
Fundraisers
Analysts
Organizers
Politicians
Physicians
Protesters
 . . . and many, many more . . .

Don't wait for someone to tell you your role. Decide how you can help and dive in!


(4) Anything can happen.

Donald Trump becomes the US president shortly.

As it stands today, the US (together with Russia) is the principal obstacle to global nuclear disarmament. That must change.

Activists and advocates should be prepared to be agile in the face of sudden (and possibly surprising) developments.

(See Messrs. Trump and Putin: CHANGE THIS MAP!)


(5) Show up.

A lot of power is in the hands of a few political powerholders - unfortunately.

 . . . AND . . .

The ultimate power is in the hands of the people. A massive popular outpouring will be necessary to move the US (and Russia) forward.

New York City, Central Park:  No Nukes Mobilization, 1982

UPDATE January 24, 2017: It's on! June 17 in New York City . . . .
 

There's a #nuclearban on the horizon: let's take it to the streets!
(Please share this message on Twitter.)

Please share this post . . . .

"Deterrence": As a strategy, it makes about as much sense as "proliferation"

The doctrine of deterrence -- and the preferential comfort it affords a few nuclear weapons states -- will not survive the 2017 Nuclear Ban Treaty Negotiations . . . .

The biggest global event of 2017 will be the negotiations on a worldwide ban on nuclear weapons.

Nuclear Ban Treaty Negotiations
United Nations, New York
27-31 March 2017
15 June - 7 July 2017
(For more information: ICAN)

I have just read a very provocative analysis of what the nuclear weapons ban treaty is all about. It asserts, in part:

"The ban treaty, then, is
an instrument to disrupt the comfort
of those who still believe that deterrence logic
(or mutual assured destruction)
provides a security rationale for nuclear weapons."

(emphasis added)

(See "The ban treaty: An interim step, but politically profound" by Joelien Pretorius in Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.)

This was a revelation to me, taken in concert with my current re-reading of Mohammed ElBaradei's The Age of Deception: Nuclear Diplomacy in Treacherous Times."That's right!" I thought. "'Deterrence' is only the chosen logical paradigm for those who already control a massive advantage AND have a way of maintaining that advantage. They -- the nuclear weapons powers - have managed to attach a taboo to proliferation, but not to deterrence. It's bogus."

"Deterrence" is the back-door concept by which nuclear weapons states, having undertaken a treaty obligation to give up their nuclear weapons in exchange for a promise by others to not acquire them, over and over and over again make excuses for doing so. "And yet . . . to achieve deterrence . . . maintain strategic balance . . . and keep in mind global security . . . . "

It slowly began to dawn on me that, because I live in the US, and have been inculcated with more than 50 years of pro-deterrence propaganda, at some deep level I have bought into the deterrence argument. Logically, of course, I have rejected it; but that's not the same thing as the visceral disdain for the idea that is felt by every person living in a non-nuclear weapons state.

If you think about it, it is only one set of parties for whom deterrence is okay, and for whom proliferation doesn't make any sense at all. Those without nuclear weapons don't have the luxury of being comfortable with it.

In fact: is it possible that those without nuclear weapons -- and facing the nuclear weapons monopoly of the "haves" -- may see proliferation as a preferable option?

In fact: if you really believe in deterrence, don't you believe in deterrence for everybody? Don't you achieve perfect deterrence when you achieve total proliferation?

Before you say "of course not," please consider: proliferation can never be more taboo than deterrence.

In 2017, the nations of the world will make that clear.


Related posts

It is a stunning lesson in global civics to observe who voted "YES" and who voted "NO" (and also who abstained) on L.41 - "taking forward multilateral nuclear disarmament negotiations."

(See Who would possibly vote "NO" to banning nuclear weapons???)



How do you formulate a statement that can somehow convince the United States to eliminate its threatening nuclear weapons? How do you formulate the 10th request? Or the 100th? Knowing all the time that the United States is in the position -- will always be in the position -- to say, "No" ?  At what point does it dawn on you that the United States will never give up its nuclear weapons, because it has the power and the rest of the world doesn't?

(See 360 Degree Feedback in New York (2014 NPT Prepcom and How the World Views the United States)) 





The Age of Deception deserves close reading by anyone who wants to understand why a nuclear ban will be negotiated in 2017.

(See HIGHLY RECOMMENDED: ElBaradei's "Age of Deception")

Messrs. Trump and Putin: CHANGE THIS MAP!

The rest of the world is committed to abolishing nuclear weapons in 2017.  US, Russia -- Trump, Putin -- your move . . . .

DECEMBER SURPRISE: Putin calls Trump "outstanding" (12/2015)

If Donald Trump intends to have good relations with Vladimir Putin and Russia, he can negotiate total nuclear disarmament.

That is something Barack Obama has failed to do.

And, by the way, it's something the entire US government can get behind -- starting right now. First step: let's hear from every US senator. The US president doesn't conduct foreign affairs in a vacuum. Treaties (such as disarmament treaties) are made with the advice and consent of the Senate.

The time is ripe. Just days ago, the majority of the world's nations voted to bring about a ban on nuclear weapons through negotiations in 2017. As the map below illustrates, the glaring holdouts against such a step were the US and Russia.

Vote on resolution to negotiate a ban on nuclear weapons in 2017 (L-41)
Green - Yes (123, 76%)
Red - No (38, 24%)
Beige - Abstained
(Via @ILPIwmd - share on Twitter)

The key to turning the rest of this map from red (NO) to green (YES) is the agreement of the US and Russia.

"Messrs. Trump and Putin: CHANGE THIS MAP!"


Related posts

Today, we may not be seeing kinetic (currently unleashed) violence on anything like the scale that consumed Europe and other parts of the world and resulted in 60 million deaths. Instead, thanks to technology, we have potential (waiting to be unleashed) violence -- nuclear devastation just the push of a button away.

(See Obama's (and Putin's) Missed Opportunity at Hiroshima)




It can all happen very fast . . . . No one really knows ahead of time what will happen . . . . That's why it's so important for people to get together and talk.

(See The Lesson of Reykjavik: TALK About Nuclear Disarmament (You Never Know) )








The nuclear "haves" are meeting in London today and tomorrow. Everyone in the world should be doing everything possible to drive them towards an agreement on nuclear disarmament. It's more important than ISIS. More important than Iran, Bibi, or Boehner. And certainly more important than the top ten things trending on Twitter or coming up in your Facebook feed.

(See Job #1 Vis-a-vis Russia: NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT) 

Who would possibly vote "NO" to banning nuclear weapons???

Of particular interest when the UN vote was taken - the actions of USA, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Iran, North Korea ... and Japan.

Vote on resolution to negotiate a ban on nuclear weapons in 2017 (L-41)
Green - Yes (123, 76%)
Red - No (38, 24%)
Beige - Abstained
(Via @ILPIwmd - share on Twitter)

"What do you notice . . . ?"

If I were lucky enough to be a high school or college teacher, I would seize the opportunity to invite my students to investigate a real life moment in global politics.

Last Thursday, the United Nations General Assembly voted overwhelmingly to proceed with negotiations in 2017on global nuclear disarmament - a worldwide ban on nuclear weapons.

It is a stunning lesson in global civics to observe who voted "YES" and who voted "NO" (and also who abstained) on L.41 - "taking forward multilateral nuclear disarmament negotiations."

ROLL CALL: votes on "taking forward multilateral
nuclear disarmament negotiations"

The assignment is simple: Pick a country ... guess how you might expect them to vote, giving reasons for your answer ... then look at how they really voted.  Next, try to think about additional reasons that might explain their actual vote. Final step: go online and see what others are saying about why the country voted the way they did.

This will prove to be a very illuminating exercise for anyone -- young or old -- who thinks they know which countries are working for the peace and safety of the world.

More information at on Common Dreams: "US Votes 'No' As UN Adopts Landmark Resolution Calling to Ban Nuclear Weapons"


For instance, see . . . 

133 Is a Lot of #Nuclearban-Supporting Countries

Tlatelolco 50: A Gift to the World

SCIENCE MARCHES: Are All These Countries In the Dark About Nuclear Weapons?

VIETNAM and the NUCLEAR BAN: Out From Under the Shadow of US Nuclear Terror

Why People Want a Pacific (and World) Free of Nuclear Weapons

A Peace-building Commonwealth Wants to Ban Nuclear Weapons
and The Road to the Commonwealth Games Passes Through #Nuclearban Territory

NUCLEAR WEAPONS BAN TALKS: With Japan at the Table (Hopefully)

NOWRUZ: New Day for a World Without Nuclear Weapons

China DOES Have a Role in the Nuclear Ban Movement

USA: Bringing a Trumpian Posture to the Nuclear Ban Talks. (Bankruptcy.)

North Korea and #NuclearBan

(Most of) The Mideast Wants a Nuclear-Weapons-Free World

Where Will Europe Stand on #Nuclearban?


Additional resources

"Standing With the Nonwhite World to Ban Nuclear Weapons" by Vincent J. Intondi: "It is no surprise that this current attempt to eliminate nuclear weapons is being led by many nonwhite nations. In 1955, ten years after the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, twenty-nine nations of Asia and Africa gathered in Bandung, Indonesia . . . "

"Nuclear weapons and the dialectic of universalism: the UN convenes to ban the bomb" by Kjølv Egeland: "[T]he nuclear ban-treaty movement marks the first time an instrument of international humanitarian law is forced into existence against a kicking and screaming European core. The civilising mission of normative stigmatisation has been taken up by those formerly on the receiving end."

 . . . and links to more helpful explanations on the "Full voting result on UN resolution L.41" page on the ICAN website.


More related posts

How do you formulate a statement that can somehow convince the United States to eliminate its threatening nuclear weapons?  How do you formulate the 10th request? Or the 100th? Knowing all the time that the United States is in the position -- will always be in the position -- to say, "No" ?  At what point does it dawn on you that the United States will never give up its nuclear weapons, because it has the power and the rest of the world doesn't?

(See 360 Degree Feedback in New York (2014 NPT Prepcom and How the World Views the United States))


Hibakusha is a word that has traditionally been used to refer to people affected by the nuclear blasts in Hiroshima and Nagaski.  It is now being broadened to recognize the many additional victims of acute affects of nuclear radiation (including fallout from tests and radioactivity from mining and processing). In fact, we are all subject to the impact and threat of nuclear radiation spread indiscriminately by nations and corporations.

(See HIROSHIMA: What does it mean to say, "We are ALL 'hibakusha'?")






"It's not enough to remember this just once a year; it's not enough that we make a single book -- Hiroshima -- required reading, and never go beyond that. There should be a whole canon that people study progressively, year by year, to grasp and retain the horror of this."

(See FIRE AND BLAST: A Curriculum that Confronts Nuclear Danger?)

Up next: Putin and Obama Talking Nuclear Disarmament?

The NATO summit fueled pessimism on US-Russia cooperation for nuclear disarmament; but things could change in an instant and Putin and Obama could sit down together. Maybe we need to demand it?

Putin and Obama: #talk

In the last 48 hours there were two pieces, both in the Washington Post, both by Josh Rogin:

"Obama plans major nuclear policy changes in his final months"

"Obama’s Syria plan teams up American and Russian forces"

Apparently Secretary of State Kerry is in Moscow for talks as I write this.

Now . . . what's the over/under on an Obama-Putin meeting on nuclear weapons before November? (Or better yet, before the August 6 Hiroshima anniversary??)

(For more background, here's the A-B-C on why Obama needs to go to Moscow to negotiate nuclear disarmament.)


Today, we may not be seeing kinetic (currently unleashed) violence on anything like the scale that consumed Europe and other parts of the world and resulted in 60 million deaths. Instead, thanks to technology, we have potential (waiting to be unleashed) violence -- nuclear devastation just the push of a button away.


(See Obama's (and Putin's) Missed Opportunity at Hiroshima)



There are three centers of power that will impact nuclear disarmament: the President, the Congress, and the people. One of them will have to make nuclear disarmament happen.

(See Countdown to U.S. Nuclear Disarmament (With or Without the Politicians) )

Obama's (and Putin's) Missed Opportunity at Hiroshima

At Hiroshima, Barack Obama missed the connection between the number of WW II deaths, 60 million, and the killing power of a single nuclear exchange today.

Barack Obama's Hiroshima speech was a missed opportunity.
(Please retweet this message.)

Obama's Hiroshima speech was well crafted and seemed to hit all the right notes. But it said, essentially, "war and violence is a bad thing." It was as if he was trying to dilute the importance of the nuclear threat by mixing it in with human suffering since the dawn of time. By talking broadly about peace and the need for a moral awakening, Obama sidestepped the urgency that exists for him to act.

Speaking of World War II, Obama said, "In the span of a few years, some 60 million people would die." Yes, that was a time of horror --take a minute to let the number 60 million sink in.  (If you've got a strong stomach, read Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin, by Timothy Snyder.)

But, if anything this should have alerted Obama to point to the difference between then and now.

Then, massive violence was being carried out by large states taking advantage of the fragility of smaller states. Today, that pattern continues in many ways, but the scale is just not the same.

The August 6 and 9, 1945, atomic bombings were, more than anything else, an announcement by the United States, principally for the benefit of the USSR, that the way of doing violence was going to be different in the future.

Today, we may not be seeing kinetic (currently unleashed) violence on anything like the scale that consumed Europe and other parts of the world and resulted in 60 million deaths. Instead, thanks to technology, we have potential (waiting to be unleashed) violence -- nuclear devastation just the push of a button away.

Obama knows it. Putin knows it. The arsenals of the US and Russia are far and away the greatest threat to all of us. I fault both of them for missing the opportunity at Hiroshima. You should, too.

I've spelled out this logic in this post: OBAMA: First stop, Hiroshima; second stop, Moscow. Here's what Obama's speech at Hiroshima should have been about:

Putin and Obama: #talk

If they won't act, we must.


Related posts

That's right . . .  just take a map of your local metropolis, spread it out on the floor, and put the whole family to work learning the geometry of nuclear strike using high quality wood-crafted educational aids.

(See Obscene Geometry: The Hard Facts about Death and Injury from Nuclear Weapons )



Perhaps most startling of all, the area affected by 3rd degree burns would extend far beyond the city limits to encompass towns as far north as Waukegan, as far west as St. Charles, and as far south as Crete, and as far east as Gary, IN.

(See What Would a Nuclear Weapon Do to Chicago? (Go ahead, guess . . . ) )







Do we have a way to immerse ourselves in the experience of what the use of those nuclear weapons would really mean -- prospectively -- so that we can truly cause ourselves to confront our own inaction?

(See Stop engaging in risky behavior )







There are three centers of power that will impact nuclear disarmament: the President, the Congress, and the people. One of them will have to make nuclear disarmament happen.

(See Countdown to U.S. Nuclear Disarmament (With or Without the Politicians) )








The following is a transcript of President Obama’s speech in Hiroshima, Japan, as recorded by The New York Times:

Seventy-one years ago, on a bright cloudless morning, death fell from the sky and the world was changed. A flash of light and a wall of fire destroyed a city and demonstrated that mankind possessed the means to destroy itself.

Why do we come to this place, to Hiroshima? We come to ponder a terrible force unleashed in a not-so-distant past. We come to mourn the dead, including over 100,000 Japanese men, women and children, thousands of Koreans, a dozen Americans held prisoner.

Their souls speak to us. They ask us to look inward, to take stock of who we are and what we might become.

It is not the fact of war that sets Hiroshima apart. Artifacts tell us that violent conflict appeared with the very first man. Our early ancestors having learned to make blades from flint and spears from wood used these tools not just for hunting but against their own kind. On every continent, the history of civilization is filled with war, whether driven by scarcity of grain or hunger for gold, compelled by nationalist fervor or religious zeal. Empires have risen and fallen. Peoples have been subjugated and liberated. And at each juncture, innocents have suffered, a countless toll, their names forgotten by time.

The world war that reached its brutal end in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was fought among the wealthiest and most powerful of nations. Their civilizations had given the world great cities and magnificent art. Their thinkers had advanced ideas of justice and harmony and truth. And yet the war grew out of the same base instinct for domination or conquest that had caused conflicts among the simplest tribes, an old pattern amplified by new capabilities and without new constraints.

In the span of a few years, some 60 million people would die. Men, women, children, no different than us. Shot, beaten, marched, bombed, jailed, starved, gassed to death. There are many sites around the world that chronicle this war, memorials that tell stories of courage and heroism, graves and empty camps that echo of unspeakable depravity.

Yet in the image of a mushroom cloud that rose into these skies, we are most starkly reminded of humanity’s core contradiction. How the very spark that marks us as a species, our thoughts, our imagination, our language, our toolmaking, our ability to set ourselves apart from nature and bend it to our will — those very things also give us the capacity for unmatched destruction.

How often does material advancement or social innovation blind us to this truth? How easily we learn to justify violence in the name of some higher cause.

Every great religion promises a pathway to love and peace and righteousness, and yet no religion has been spared from believers who have claimed their faith as a license to kill.

Nations arise telling a story that binds people together in sacrifice and cooperation, allowing for remarkable feats. But those same stories have so often been used to oppress and dehumanize those who are different.

Science allows us to communicate across the seas and fly above the clouds, to cure disease and understand the cosmos, but those same discoveries can be turned into ever more efficient killing machines.

The wars of the modern age teach us this truth. Hiroshima teaches this truth. Technological progress without an equivalent progress in human institutions can doom us. The scientific revolution that led to the splitting of an atom requires a moral revolution as well.

That is why we come to this place. We stand here in the middle of this city and force ourselves to imagine the moment the bomb fell. We force ourselves to feel the dread of children confused by what they see. We listen to a silent cry. We remember all the innocents killed across the arc of that terrible war and the wars that came before and the wars that would follow.

Mere words cannot give voice to such suffering. But we have a shared responsibility to look directly into the eye of history and ask what we must do differently to curb such suffering again.

Some day, the voices of the hibakusha will no longer be with us to bear witness. But the memory of the morning of Aug. 6, 1945, must never fade. That memory allows us to fight complacency. It fuels our moral imagination. It allows us to change.

And since that fateful day, we have made choices that give us hope. The United States and Japan have forged not only an alliance but a friendship that has won far more for our people than we could ever claim through war. The nations of Europe built a union that replaced battlefields with bonds of commerce and democracy. Oppressed people and nations won liberation. An international community established institutions and treaties that work to avoid war and aspire to restrict and roll back and ultimately eliminate the existence of nuclear weapons.

Still, every act of aggression between nations, every act of terror and corruption and cruelty and oppression that we see around the world shows our work is never done. We may not be able to eliminate man’s capacity to do evil, so nations and the alliances that we form must possess the means to defend ourselves. But among those nations like my own that hold nuclear stockpiles, we must have the courage to escape the logic of fear and pursue a world without them.

We may not realize this goal in my lifetime, but persistent effort can roll back the possibility of catastrophe. We can chart a course that leads to the destruction of these stockpiles. We can stop the spread to new nations and secure deadly materials from fanatics.

And yet that is not enough. For we see around the world today how even the crudest rifles and barrel bombs can serve up violence on a terrible scale. We must change our mind-set about war itself. To prevent conflict through diplomacy and strive to end conflicts after they’ve begun. To see our growing interdependence as a cause for peaceful cooperation and not violent competition. To define our nations not by our capacity to destroy but by what we build. And perhaps, above all, we must reimagine our connection to one another as members of one human race.

For this, too, is what makes our species unique. We’re not bound by genetic code to repeat the mistakes of the past. We can learn. We can choose. We can tell our children a different story, one that describes a common humanity, one that makes war less likely and cruelty less easily accepted.

We see these stories in the hibakusha. The woman who forgave a pilot who flew the plane that dropped the atomic bomb because she recognized that what she really hated was war itself. The man who sought out families of Americans killed here because he believed their loss was equal to his own.

My own nation’s story began with simple words: All men are created equal and endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Realizing that ideal has never been easy, even within our own borders, even among our own citizens. But staying true to that story is worth the effort. It is an ideal to be strived for, an ideal that extends across continents and across oceans. The irreducible worth of every person, the insistence that every life is precious, the radical and necessary notion that we are part of a single human family — that is the story that we all must tell.

That is why we come to Hiroshima. So that we might think of people we love. The first smile from our children in the morning. The gentle touch from a spouse over the kitchen table. The comforting embrace of a parent. We can think of those things and know that those same precious moments took place here, 71 years ago.

Those who died, they are like us. Ordinary people understand this, I think. They do not want more war. They would rather that the wonders of science be focused on improving life and not eliminating it. When the choices made by nations, when the choices made by leaders, reflect this simple wisdom, then the lesson of Hiroshima is done.

The world was forever changed here, but today the children of this city will go through their day in peace. What a precious thing that is. It is worth protecting, and then extending to every child. That is a future we can choose, a future in which Hiroshima and Nagasaki are known not as the dawn of atomic warfare but as the start of our own moral awakening.

OBAMA: First stop, Hiroshima; second stop, Moscow

#Obama in #Hiroshima
(Please retweet this message.)

Barack Obama is going to Hiroshima. The world will be expecting a big announcement - steps toward REAL nuclear disarmament, steps including Russia.

Here are five reasons why Hiroshima should be just the first stop on Obama's trip (and the second stop should be Moscow).

What Would a Nuclear Weapon Do
to Chicago? (Go ahead, guess . . . )

(1) Hiroshima? the tip of the iceberg ....

People can hardly bear to confront the horror of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

And yet perhaps the most important thing to remember as the eyes of the world turn to the Obama visit to Hiroshima is that each of today's nuclear weapons is a thousand times more powerful and a thousand times worse than the one used at Hiroshima.

Job #1 Vis-a-vis Russia:
NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT

(2) US and Russia

People in the US are fed a daily diet of stories about other countries' nuclear weapons -- China (scary!), Pakistan (very scary!!), North Korea (very, very scary!!!) -- and possible future nuclear weapons -- IRAN!!!! -- but the two countries with THOUSANDS of nuclear weapons on alert and ready to go are the US and Russia.

We will never be safe until the US and Russia cut their own nuclear weapons.

Nuclear disarmament is
an obligation.

(3) Promises to Keep

Little has changed in 50 years. The world entered into a regime designed to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons -- absolutely, 100% predicated on the promise of states with nuclear weapons -- the US, Russia, and others -- to eliminate theirs.

When you hear the words "NPT" and "Nonproliferation Treaty," ask the US and Russia: have you eliminate your nuclear weapons yet, as you promised you would?


(4) The US has a problem

President, Congress, People:
Who's gonna get this done?

A year ago, people were talking about how US politicians were gridlocked and our government had become ineffective.

Today, our political class is in crisis.

Barack Obama came into office in 2009 thinking -- or at least saying he thought -- he would bring about a huge advance in creating a nuclear-weapons-free world. Somewhere along the way, he seems to have decided it's not on him.

People need to tell Obama to face facts. It is on him.

It's not the way our government is supposed to work. But it's the hand he's been dealt.

World to US: DISARM!

(5) The world is watching

The way the world views the US is this: our country -- and a few others like us -- are holding a sword over everyone else's head.

It's time for the US to wise up and see itself as others see it.

In other words, it's time for us to care about our relationship with the other people with whom we share the planet.


What more is it gonna take?

Putin and Obama: #talk

Other related posts

"It's not enough to remember this just once a year; it's not enough that we make a single book -- Hiroshima -- required reading, and never go beyond that. There should be a whole canon that people study progressively, year by year, to grasp and retain the horror of this."

(See FIRE AND BLAST: A Curriculum that Confronts Nuclear Danger?)











Do we have a way to immerse ourselves in the experience of what the use of those nuclear weapons would really mean -- prospectively -- so that we can truly cause ourselves to confront our own inaction?

(See Stop engaging in risky behavior )

Any advocacy for the elimination of nuclear weapons must sooner or later get around to the specifics of the steps by which we get to zero. U.S. nuclear strategists recognize that 311 is still a large number of strategic nuclear weapons for the U.S. to hold. Shouldn't our minimum demand be to get U.S. to this level (or below)?

(See Why Are These Military Experts Saying CUT CUT CUT Nukes? )

Elaine Scarry demonstrates that the power of one leader to obliterate millions of people with a nuclear weapon - a possibility that remains very real even in the wake of the Cold War - deeply violates our constitutional rights, undermines the social contract, and is fundamentally at odds with the deliberative principles of democracy.

(See Reviews of "Thermonuclear Monarchy: Choosing Between Democracy and Doom" by Elaine Scarry )

I'm marveling at the adjacency of a piece of public art -- one with a very clear message about the risk of human ambition and self-absorption and heedlessness -- to the center of political power in the city of Chicago.

(See NUCLEAR WEAPONS: Who will bring us down to earth? )

Would You Buy an Elephant from This Woman?

Svetlana Geier, translator of Dostoevsky's "elephants"* into German
*The Brothers Karamazov, Crime and Punishment,  
The Idiot, The Devils, and Raw Youth

I watched the film The Woman with the 5 Elephants again the other night.

I have recommended it to many people. I thought that my recommendation had to do with the fact that it is about the novels of Dostoevsky (the "five elephants" of the title), or because it shed new light for me on people in Ukraine caught between the Nazis and the Soviet Union during World War II.

Svetlana Geier

The Woman with the 5 Elephants is about those things, but watching the film again reminded me there is something else that I really love more about it.

The Woman with the 5 Elephants is really about the beauty of this old woman. Watch how she keeps going . . . cooking with her family . . . traveling with her granddaughter . . . working away with her editor on her translations.

And, yes, there is a tremendous beauty in her ability to boil down all that she has seen and experienced and worked on to some simply-stated truths.

We live in a society that worships youth. But it is old people that are really beautiful!


Related posts

I love to walk around North Pond here in Chicago and notice the asters as September stretches into October. They make me think of my mom . . . .

(See Asters for Eva )








Who are we? The United States, personified by its "great man" President Obama, is a kind nation that is riven by a belief that it should have the ultimate power over life and death, that every being on earth is somehow of lesser importance.

(See Reflecting on America's Split Personality (Moscow Airport Summer Reads) )











I wonder if, years from now, we will be thinking back to today and feeling surprise at how little we thought about some of the developments in our world, and in our country, and how we talked about them even less. Someday will I have to explain to my kids, or to my kids' kids, why it was that "people just weren't talking about it" . . . ?

(See Why Weren't People Talking About It? )