Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons: a "Hiroshima Centennial Call"

Remains of the Hiroshima Prefectural Industrial Promotion Hall,
explosion epicenter from the US nuclear attack on August 6, 1945.

This summer will be the 75th anniversary of the days in August, 1945, when the United States used nuclear weapons against Japan.

It is possible that, considering 2020 is the 75th anniversary, more people will mark this day than in ordinary years. But I fear that it will still only be a "blip" on the screen of most people, and will, in itself, not offer much help in the overall endeavor of ridding the world of these terrible weapons.

Perhaps the best way to make use of the 75th anniversary would be to call attention to something that is perhaps much more sobering: the 100th anniversary. Because there is a very real possibility that the 75th anniversary will give way to the 76th . . . and the 76th to the 77th . . . and on and on, until we find ourselves facing the Hiroshima Centennial -- one hundred years of a world living under nuclear terror --  and realizing we have still been helpless to guarantee that it will never happen again.

Thus, the real question becomes not "how will the anniversary be marked in 2020?" but "are we still going to be in the same situation twenty-five years from now?"

The time is now to issue a Hiroshima Centennial call for the total elimination of nuclear weapons from the world by 2045. And then work as hard as we can toward that goal. That would offer the hope of an anniversary recognition that all of us would be grateful to participate in.

BFtB-WWND: "Back From The Brink": What Would Noah Do?

The resolution on preventing nuclear war passed overwhelmingly
at the UCC General Synod 2019 in Milwaukee.

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Thirty-Second General Synod of the United Church of Christ urges the National setting, conferences, associations, and local churches to advocate for policy makers to support the aforementioned resolutions [i.e. the five points of the Back From the Brink campaign, and global nuclear weapons ban].

 - from "RESOLUTION Calling for the United States to pull 'Back From The Brink' and Prevent Nuclear War" passed last week at the 32nd General Synod of the United Church of Christ (UCC) meeting last week in Milwaukee

"Build yourself a ship."

- Genesis 6:14
(translation from The Message: The Bible in Contemporary Language by Eugene H. Peterson)

I promised myself that if the resolution passed, I would spend the month of July in sacred study.

Last week, representatives from congregations of the United Church of Christ (UCC) from across the country gathered in Milwaukee for the 2019 General Synod. In the course of the next several days, they considered approximately twenty different resolutions. On Tuesday, June 25, the delegates voted overwhelmingly to pass its "RESOLUTION Calling for the United States to pull 'Back From The Brink' and Prevent Nuclear War."

The resolution urges member congregations, and all other levels of the UCC body, to actively support the nationwide "Back From The Brink" campaign. The campaign calls on the US to:

* renounce the option of using nuclear weapons first;
* end any president’s sole, unchecked authority to launch a nuclear attack;
* take US nuclear weapons off hair-trigger alert;
* cancel the plan to replace its entire arsenal with enhanced weapons; and
* actively pursue a verifiable agreement among nuclear armed states to eliminate their nuclear arsenals.

The resolution is simply this: an invitation to nearly 5,000 congregations, with about 850,000 members, to join others in "building a ship" to carry us out of the danger that we face.

(You can read the full text of the UCC's "Back From the Brink" resolution on the denomination's website. More information on key aspects of the UCC's "Back From the Brink" resolution and the campaign can be found in my April 8 blog post. )

So today I begin keeping that promise to myself, and open the Bible to the book of Noah. For the next month, I will look to this sacred text in search of insight about the situation we face, what we might do about it, and where God is in all this.

I will also be joining in sacred conversation with UCC colleagues and with members of other organizations who are hard at work on the "Back From The Brink" campaign, about how to move from resolution (and reflection) to action.

Watch this space for daily reflections on "Back From The Brink": What Would Noah Do?


Next NOAH post


Posts in the NOAH series:

Genesis 6:1-4 ... They were awesome. (But they really screwed things up.)
Genesis 6:5-8 ... Are we prepared to think about un-creation?
Genesis 6:9-16 ... What Will Modern Noahs Build?
Genesis 6:17-18 ... Earth On the Brink. (What's the deal?)
Genesis 6:19-22 ... A Multitude of Reasons to Work to Prevent Nuclear War
Genesis 7:1-5 ... ALL ABOARD! (the "Back From the Brink" Campaign, that is!)
Genesis 7:6-10 ... Preventing Nuclear War: Recommended for All Ages
Genesis 7:11-16 ... Lifeboat or Tomb? How the Nuclear Weapons Story Ends
Genesis 7:17-24 ... Nuclear Weapons: Why "Imagine the Worst"?
Genesis 8:1-5 ... Preventing Nuclear War: Can We Feel Solid Ground Beneath Our Feet?
Genesis 8:6-12 ... Company On the Walk "Back From the Brink" 
Genesis 8:13-19 ... NOAH: He got to the last step because he took the first step
Genesis 8:20-22 ... NOAH: A Model for Advocacy?
Genesis 9:1-7 ... Time to Re-write the Noachide Laws and Pull Back From the Brink?
Genesis 9:8-17 ... Come Together to Pull Back From the Brink
Genesis 9:18-27 ... "Back From the Brink" - Clear-Cut and Messy
Genesis 9:28 ... Preventing Nuclear War: The Work of a Lifetime

A United Church of Christ (UCC) Resolution on Preventing Nuclear War ("Back From the Brink")

"Earthrise" (William Anders, 1968)

I am feeling hopeful today.

I just returned from a gathering of the Wisconsin Conference of the United Church of Christ (UCC). Being together with people from 218 different congregations, with close to 41,000 members, and seeing them all work together, reminded me of the enormous potential in the Church to bring about the better world we all seek.

At the gathering, I was reminded that in just over 2 months the full UCC will convene for its bi-annual meeting in Milwaukee. And that's particularly important to me because of a resolution on preventing nuclear war that will be brought forward at that gathering.

The "Resolution Calling for the United States to pull “Back From The Brink” and Prevent Nuclear War" calls for action in five areas:

* renouncing the option of using nuclear weapons first;
* ending any president’s sole, unchecked authority to launch a nuclear attack;
* taking US nuclear weapons off hair-trigger alert;
* cancelling the plan to replace its entire arsenal with enhanced weapons; and
* actively pursuing a verifiable agreement among nuclear armed states to eliminate their nuclear arsenals.

There are already people at work on those five areas in the US government and in governments around the world. For instance, there are four bills currently making their way through Congress:

H.R.921/S. 272 - To establish the policy of the United States regarding the no-first-use of nuclear weapons

HR. 669/S. 200 - "To prohibit the conduct of a first-use nuclear strike absent a declaration of war by Congress."

H.R.1086 / S. 401 - Hold the LYNE Act

H.R.1231 / S. 312 - Prevention of Arms Race Act of 2019

And there is the global nuclear ban treaty currently advancing in the United Nations.

The reason, in my opinion, that the UCC resolution is particularly important lies in this sentence: If passed, "[t]he 32nd General Synod of the United Church of Christ will request that all churches, associations, conferences, and associated bodies of the United Church of Christ consider how to implement this resolution with the support and encouragement of the Covenanted Ministries." Nationally, the UCC consists of approximately 4,956 congregations with 853,778 members. These are people deeply committed to their relationships with each other and with God -- they meet weekly to worship, to socialize, and to get stuff done -- and they care profoundly about God's Creation. I can't think of another single group with more awesome potential to make a change in the fate of the Earth.

So: if you are a member of a UCC congregation, please share the news of this resolution with others and encourage them to support it at the Milwaukee meeting in June.

And if you are a member of some other denomination, you might want to begin to ask: what can our churches be doing to pull us "Back From The Brink"?

(Read more about the "Back From The Brink" campaign.)

John F. Kennedy: "... the fate of the world and the future of the human race, is
involved with preventing a nuclear war." ("Back From The Brink" campaign)

Even REPUBLICANS Can Support These Bills to Control Nuclear Weapons

Something we can all agree on:
"No one wins a nuclear war"

The only thing standing between current efforts in Congress to rein in nuclear weapons and success is a few Republic senators. Is it possible that the needed support will materialize?

This morning, the New York Times called attention to these ten Republican senators who stood up for principle and the Constitution against the President on the issue of the emergency declaration:

Lamar Alexander (TN)
Roy Blunt (MO
Susan Collins (ME)
Mike Lee  (UT)
Mitt Romney (UT)
Jerry Moran (KS)
Lisa Murkowski (AK)
Rand Paul (KY)
Rob Portman (OH)
Marco Rubio (FL)
Pat Toomey (PA)
Roger Wicker (MS)

(See "Senate Republicans’ Declaration of (Semi-) Independence.")

You might want to communicate with one or more of these senators and thank them for taking this action. (Even if you don't come from the state they represent.) And while you're at it, you can encourage them to co-sponsor the following bills that are designed to re-assert the Constitutional authority of Congress ... related to war, national security, treaties, the military, and the budget:


(1) Bill Restricting President from Ordering Nuclear First-Strike

Re-asserts Congressional authority over decision to declare war (including a decision on a first-use nuclear strike).

House bill: HR. 669 - "To prohibit the conduct of a first-use nuclear strike absent a declaration of war by Congress."

Senate bill: S. 200 - "To prohibit the conduct of a first-use nuclear strike absent a declaration of war by Congress."

(At this writing, the co-sponsors on these bills number: 52 in the House, 13 in the Senate.)


(2) No First Use Bill

Would institute as US policy that the US shall not use nuclear weapons first.

House bill: H.R.921 - To establish the policy of the United States regarding the no-first-use of nuclear weapons

Senate bill: S.272 - A bill to establish the policy of the United States regarding the no-first-use of nuclear weapons

(At this writing, the co-sponsors on these bills number: 21 in the House, 5 in the Senate.)


(3) Bill limiting "low-yield" nuclear weapons

Addresses the mistaken idea that "small" nuclear weapons are "less dangerous."

House bill: H.R.1086 - Hold the LYNE Act

Senate bill: S.401 - Hold the LYNE Act

(At this writing, the co-sponsors on these bills number: 27 in the House, 7 in the Senate.)


(4) Bill limiting nuclear weapons spending

This bill was introduced in the wake of the US withdrawal from the Intermediate Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty.

House bill: H.R.1231 - Prevention of Arms Race Act of 2019

Senate bill: S.312 - Prevention of Arms Race Act of 2019

(At this writing, the co-sponsors on these bills number: 9 in the House, 12 in the Senate.)


By the way -- Republican senators aren't the only ones who need to hear from you. Now is the time to reach out to all of your senators and representatives and urge support of these bills (and thank current supporters for leading the effort).


Need some inspiration? Take a look at this short video from a conference at Harvard in late 2017: Presidential First Use of Nuclear Weapons: Is it Legal? Is it Constitutional? Is it Just? To quote Senator Ed Markey (sponsor of several of the bills above and the final speaker in the video) -- things can change ... and it can happen in the blink of a political eye!

NUCLEAR WEAPONS AND CYBER ATTACKS: "The only winning strategy is not to play."

Depiction of computer-controlled nuclear warfare, c. 1983: WarGames.

Several weeks ago, I wrote a post about the nature of risk stemming from nuclear weapons. In that post, I focused on the singular and calamitous nature of that aggregate risk, and encourage people to avoid getting distracted by trying to pin down the precise probabilities associated with particular "what-ifs" (e.g. accident vs. superpower conflict vs. act of terrorism vs. . . . . ).

I have come to wonder, however, if there isn't one particular "what-if" that we should all study in more detail: cyberwar. As I learn more and more about cybersecurity (and cyberwar), it becomes apparent that no one is immune from hacking. You can try to minimize it, but you can't make yourself 100% immune. That means the only rational strategy is to minimize the danger of the thing that is vulnerable to hacking.

My hypothesis is that hacking poses such an enormous threat to the ability of the US military to maintain control over US nuclear weapons that very soon responsible military officers will begin to advise the US government that getting rid of these weapons is the only safe option. If this hypothesis is correct, I further hypothesize that there is a role for US citizens to play in counseling their representatives in Congress to be alert to these warnings and act accordingly.

The idea that the US military is relying more and more on autonomous weapons is not new to me. (See, for instance, my work on the No Drones Network.) Nor is the idea that humans are losing control to the machines. (See "Drone to Human: Leave the Thinking to Me") What does seem new is that Artificial Intelligence (AI) is entering the mainstream, and so is discussion of cyberwar as a major facet of armed conflict. This leads me to believe that this is a concern that every member of Congress will feel the need to be alert to.

As far back as 1983, the popular film WarGames painted a picture of what might happen if hackers successfully infiltrated nuclear weapons systems. In that fictional treatment, a super-intelligent computer played a game-turned-confrontation entitled "global thermonuclear war" -- and ultimately provided the counsel, "The only winning strategy is not to play." Will we be lucky enough to heed this advice in real life?


RESOURCES on nuclear weapons and cybersecurity


Recent articles

"Defense industry grapples with cybersecurity flaws in new weapons systems," by Aaron Gregg, Washington Post, October 14, 2018. This article reports on a full GAO report listed under Other related reports and documents below. "The threat is pervasive and dynamic — it isn’t going away and will never be fully defeated." What does this mean for nuclear weapons, in which even a single successful hack could result in millions of deaths?

"Cyber-attack risk on nuclear weapons systems 'relatively high' – thinktank," by Ewan MacAskill in The Guardian, January 10, 2018. Cites Chatham House report (below).

"As America’s Nukes and Sensors Get More Connected, the Risk of Cyber Attack Is Growing," by Patrick Tucker in Defense One, January 17, 2018. References the Chatham House report (below), plus pending study by the Air Force Scientific Advisory Board.


Recent books

Hacking the Bomb: Cyber Threats and Nuclear Weapons (2018), by Andrew Futter

The Perfect Weapon: War, Sabotage, and Fear in the Cyber Age (2018), by David Sanger.

Command and Control: Nuclear Weapons, the Damascus Accident, and the Illusion of Safety (2013), by Eric Schlosser.


Other related reports and documents

"Missing from the 2019 Missile Defense Review: Cybersecurity," by Lauren Borja in Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, February 22, 2019. See also report immediately below.

"Cyber Vulnerabilities and Nuclear Weapons Risks," by Lauren J. Borja and M. V. Ramana, American Physical Society Forum on Physics and Society. (Published subsequent to GAO 2018 report below.)

"WEAPON SYSTEMS CYBERSECURITY: DOD Just Beginning to Grapple with Scale of Vulnerabilities," US General Accounting Office (GAO), October 2018. Report submitted to Senate Armed Forces Committee.

"Cybersecurity of Nuclear Weapons Systems: Threats, Vulnerabilities and Consequences.," by Beyza Unal and Patricia Lewis at Chatham House, January 2018. "It is unlikely that nuclear weapons possessing governments will be forthcoming in public or with each other on the cyber vulnerabilities of nuclear weapons systems. . . . [I]t is vital that academics, thinktanks and NGOs press for information and reassurances from governments that such issues are being addressed, and that those governments are holding open discussions with the public, including the media and parliamentarians. After all, it is the public that will pay the ultimate price for complacency regarding cybersecurity of nuclear weapons systems."

Final Report of the Defense Science Board (DSB) Task Force on Cyber Deterrence, February 2017. Includes as one of its guiding principles this sobering statement: "...in practice cyber arms control is not viable ..." (How then to keep a nuclear arsenal "safe"?)

"Thermonuclear cyberwar" by Erik Gartzke and Jon R. Lindsay in Journal of Cybersecurity, March 2017.

Department of Defense Directive 3150.02 "DoD Nuclear Weapons Surety Program" (update August 31, 2018)

"Nuclear Deterrence in Cyber-ia," by Stephen J. Cimbala, Air and Space Power Journal, Fall 2016.

"Nuclear Deterrence and Cyber: The Quest for Concept," by Stephen J. Cimbala, Air and Space Power Journal, March-April 2014.

Stop Saying, "What has this to do with you? or with me?" Before Time Runs Out

"What has this to do with you? or with me?"
Based on John 2:1-11. (Image: Joe Scarry)

Madeline Island is my place to focus on the problem of nuclear disarmament.

One of the ways I'm hoping to do that is by way of more graphic/visual materials. Perhaps I will create a memoir in graphic novel format.

I now try to put pencil to sketch pad every single day. The more I draw, the more I remember; and the more I remember, the more I realize how the problem of nuclear weapons has been woven into my experience, from the time I was a little boy in the '60s.

Yesterday I got an idea for a unifying concept, and a possible cover.

My partner, Rachel, preached her first sermon as pastor of St. John's Church of Madeline Island. She spoke about the day's lectionary text - Jesus turning water into wine at the wedding at Cana. Rachel asked us to pay attention not just to what Jesus did in that story, but also to the role of Mary. Mary was the one who said, in effect, "It's time. Let's do this thing . . . . " Rachel asked us to notice that it really all started with Mary; without that push from Mary, all we are left with is "divine reluctance."

I woke up this morning and realized that one of the many areas of life that this applies to is humanity's confrontation with nuclear weapons. Our reaction to this monumental threat is so very much characterized by distancing . . . reluctance . . . dis-engagement. "Too much to think about . . . let's talk about something else . . . . " And that resonated with my own experience

What would happen if some people could successfully say, with respect to the urgent need for nuclear disarmament, "It's time. Let's do this thing . . . . " ? What would happen if enough people said it that there was no room left anymore for, "What has this to do with you? or with me?"


You can watch Rachel's January 20 sermon on the St. John's Madeline Island Ustream channel. (Her sermon begins at minute 21:50.)

My Single-minded Focus: the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons

Lake Superior and the mainland of Wisconsin,
viewed from the south side of Madeline Island.

It is 2019 and I have come to live on Madeline Island.

My hope is that I will be able to use my time here to make progress on the problem that has come to seem to me more urgent than any other: the elimination of nuclear weapons.

It is so easy to be distracted, and, heaven knows, one would like to think about anything else . . . .

But there is less excuse for getting distracted in Madeline Island. Maybe I can make a little progress every day.

*   *   *   *   *   

I am heartened by one fact: during the 115th Congress (2017-2018) a bill to restrict the US president's ability to use nuclear weapons obtained the support of 82 co-sponsors in the House of Representatives and 13 co-sponsors in the Senate. (See: H.R.669 - Restricting First Use of Nuclear Weapons Act of 2017 and corresponding Senate bill S. 200.)

Here's a chart I made showing the growth of that support month-by-month:

Growth of support for HR.669
Restricting First Use of Nuclear Weapons Act of 2017

There was support for the bill across the country -- although by far the strongest support was on the West Coast and in the Northeast Corridor.

*   *   *   *   *   

Eliminating nuclear weapons: more urgent than any other problem. What if all 535 US senators and representatives decided to take on this challenge?

And -- perhaps more importantly -- what if citizens in each of their states and districts became those senators' and representatives' dedicated collaborators in accomplishing this?

I have always believed that constituents had a role to play in influencing action in Congress. But as our departure for Madeline Island neared, I began to think much more deeply about what that role might look like. To put it bluntly: might citizens be co-problem-solvers together with the people serving in Congress, and with their staff? Might there be value in conversation and relationship that goes far beyond ordinary "issue advocacy"? -- especially on a problem of such an existential character?

*   *   *   *   *   

It's been a long week: California, Nevada, Utah, Wyoming, Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, and finally Wisconsin. Now it's time to rest.

There will be time to talk more about citizenship tomorrow.

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 . . . .

Trump and Nuclear Weapons? We need a different future . . . .

Dunne, Raby, and Anastassiades,
"Priscilla Huggable Atomic Mushroom"
from Designs for Fragile Personalities in Anxious Times

Yesterday I was at the Art Institute of Chicago and saw a staggering piece of art: "Priscilla Huggable Atomic Mushroom," from Designs for Fragile Personalities in Anxious Times by Anthony Dunne, Fiona Raby, and Michael Anastassiades.

The plush mushroom cloud is the perfect size to hug while curled up in a fetal position: "The soft, toylike object allows users to confront (and cuddle) their fear of nuclear annihilation directly."

"The soft, toylike object allows users to confront (and
cuddle) their fear of nuclear annihilation directly."
Dunne, Raby, and Anastassiades,
"Priscilla Huggable Atomic Mushroom"

 

I immediately thought of the Kurosawa film I Live in Fear, about a man who is alert to the risk of the next atom bomb dropping and can't rest until he finds some sort of solution.

Fearless samurai portrayer Toshiro Mifune plays against type
as the haunted protagonist of I Live in Fear.

And then there is what people in Hawaii experienced recently . . . .

Dunne and Raby have a book entitled Speculative Everything: Design, Fiction, and Social Dreaming, directed to getting us outside the ruts we're stuck in and inviting us to think about how the world could be completely different: "Dunne and Raby pose 'what if' questions that are intended to open debate and discussion about the kind of future people want (and do not want)."

What a perfect coincidence with the events of the past few days! We have just seen a vote of confidence in a new future by the people of Korea, as the teams from the North and the South marched together under one flag at the opening ceremony for the 2018 Winter Olympics in Pyeongchang.

Athletes march under the flag of a united Korea
at the 2018 Winter Olympic Games in Pyeongchang.
(New York Times photo) .

Could there be a starker contrast with the stuck-in-the-past behavior of the current US president?

"CNN BREAKING NEWS . . . .
Trump: If N Korea keeps threatening, will be met with 'fire'."

And people in the US were confronted with that very mushroom cloud imagery again this past week as the cover story of TIME described Trump administration efforts to ramp up the US nuclear weapons program. The TIME piece described how the US government is toting out all the old arguments -- "we need more, bigger, better so that they don't get a step ahead of us!" -- while also reporting the argument for an alternative future: "Enough! We don't have to do this!"

For anyone willing to imagine the alternative future, here are two ways to work to make it happen:

(1) Support the effort of members of the US Congress to restrict the US president's ability to conduct a nuclear first strike.

(2) Support the effort of countries worldwide to bring about a global ban on nuclear weapons. (It's happening now at the United Nations!)

Working for an alternative future: do we really have any other choice?

LIMITED TIME ONLY!
O F F I C I A L
Trump Administration
Collectible Plush Toy
MEMORABILIA!
offer good while supplies last . . . .

Related posts

Bunker Mentality

Is Kim Jong-un giving the US its "Suez Crisis"?

Korea: A History of Living Under Nuclear Terror

Nuclear Weapons: People Power Over Trump Power

133 Is a Lot of #Nuclearban-Supporting Countries


Please share this post . . . .

Bunker Mentality

Saturday, January 13, 2018: People in Hawaii this message:
 Emergency Alert
BALLISTIC MISSILE THREAT
INBOUND TO HAWAII.
SEEK IMMEDIATE SHELTER.
THIS IS NOT A DRILL.

Do you know somebody in Hawaii?

Ask them to share their experience . . . .

The thousands of people who experienced the "BALLISTIC MISSILE THREAT INBOUND TO HAWAII" emergency alert need to be listened to.


Related posts

Korea: A History of Living Under Nuclear Terror

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


Please share this post . . . .

THIS is how you protest a Nobel Peace Prize!

Six years ago I stood in front of Obama re-election headquarters and impersonated the King Of Norway in the act of revoking Barack Obama's Nobel Peace Prize.

December 10, 2010, in Chicago in front of Obama Re-election HQ:
"King Harald" regretfully revokes Barack Obama's Nobel Peace Prize
(Photo courtesy FJJ)

I bring this up because the Nobel Prize will be awarded to the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) in Oslo on Sunday. The US objects and says it won't send its Acting Ambassador to the ceremony.

From ICAN:
"The U.S., Britain, and France have decided not to send
their ambassadors to Norway to the #NobelPeacePrize ceremony.
It’s time to engage with the #nuclearban treaty and catch up
with the rest of the international community. #FOMO ?"

The United States government has a lot of resources at its disposal. I would expect that if it's really serious when it says that the campaign to abolish nuclear weapons will not bring peace, it would do something more than just have its diplomats stay home.

Especially when the world will get a stark reminder at the ceremony of the unique role of the US in using nuclear weapons.

From The Nobel Prize:
"On 10 Dec Hiroshima survivor Setsuko Thurlow will accept the
Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo on behalf of @nuclearban."

The US could hold a press conference outside the Nobel Peace Prize awards ceremony, saying how much it objects to the nuclear ban treaty. Of course, the US tried that when the treaty was being negotiated, and all it got them was 122 countries voting to approve the treaty text . . . .

Maybe it's time for the US government to up the ante.

Hmmm . . . . the US has a lot of planes. How about skywriting? Has anyone thought about skywriting?

Related posts

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

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

133 Is a Lot of #Nuclearban-Supporting Countries


Please share this post . . . .

Global Nuclear Disarmament? Take it from Uncle John . . .

Will Donald Trump support the global negotiations on a nuclear weapons ban when he becomes US president in January, 2017?

Donald Trump's uncle John G. Trump
was honored with the National Medal of Science
by President Reagan in 1983.

I was intrigued to read this quote in a recent Mother Jones review of Donald Trump's pronouncements related to nuclear weapons. In a 2004 interview, Trump said:

I had an uncle who was a great professor and a brilliant man—Dr. John Trump, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. His whole life was devoted to the study and eradication of cancer, and sadly, he died of cancer. But he was a brilliant scientist, and he would tell me weapons are getting so powerful today that humanity is in tremendous trouble. This was 25 years ago, but he was right. The world is rocky, and some terrible things are going to happen. That's why I lead the life I do. I enjoy it. I know life is fragile, and if the world looks like this a hundred years from now, we'll either be very lucky or have found unbelievably good leaders somewhere down the line. ("Does Donald Trump Believe Nuclear War Is Inevitable?" by David Corn)

Yes, Donald Trump's uncle John Trump was a prominent scientist: you can read about him on Wikipedia.

We spend a lot of time focusing on who Donald Trump doesn't listen to. But in this case maybe knowing who he has listened to could make a difference.

Listen to those words again:

. . . weapons are getting so powerful today that humanity is in tremendous trouble.

How many incoming US presidents have been advised on the need for nuclear disarmament by a family member who also happened to be a National Medal of Science honoree?

Beginning in March, 2017, the nations of the world will work to negotiate a global ban on nuclear weapons. Notably, a number of big states (colored red on the map below) voted against this initiative, and are unlikely to cooperate in the negotiations.

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)

Of course, if the US turned from red to green, numerous states that follow its lead -- Canada, UK, Australia, Japan -- would do so, too.

(Maybe that's not possible without also getting Russia to go green as well? Hmmm . . . . )

Donald Trump prides himself on his ability to make deals. This deal -- the global ban on nuclear weapons -- is one that Uncle John would've wanted him to make.



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???)



Gorbachev: "In light of their arguments and the strictly scientific data which they possess, there seems to be no room left for politicking. And no serious politician has the right to disregard their conclusions.”

(See When the facts all point to one conclusion: "No More Nukes" )







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

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

HIGHLY RECOMMENDED: ElBaradei's "Age of Deception"

Mohammed ElBaradei

All of us planning to be active in the global effort in 2017 to ban nuclear weapons should set aside time in December to read (or re-read) The Age of Deception: Nuclear Diplomacy in Treacherous Times by Mohammed ElBaradei.

ElBaradei's account of his years leading the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) help explain what the nuclear weapon "have-not" countries are up against as they try to get the nuclear weapon "have" states to disarm. (Did you know that nuclear disarmament by nuclear weapons "haves" is the foundation of the Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT)?)

Reading The Age of Deception is particularly important for people who live in the two biggest nuclear weapon "have" countries - the USA and Russia -- as well as those who live in countries that followed the USA and Russia to vote against the nuclear weapons ban negotiations. As I re-read sections of The Age of Deception today, this quotation leapt out at me:

Every statement by one of the nuclear weapon possessor states to "reaffirm" the deterrent value of nuclear weapons, every action to refurbish or modernize a nuclear arsenal, was another sign of a lack of good faith to the nuclear have-nots. (p. 125)

Those words were written in 2011. Clearly, the well of good faith has dried up. The nuclear weapon "have-not" countries throughout the world are moving to compel to the nuclear weapon "have" states to disarm.

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


Addendum December 13, 2016 - As I continue reading The Age of Deception, its relevance to the nuclear ban negotiations in 2017 leaps out from every page. Another example:

The most fundamental problem with the nuclear nonproliferation regime is, in itself, a double standard: the inherent asymmetry, or inequality, between the nuclear haves and have-nots, exacerbated by the continuing reliance by the nuclear-weapons states on nuclear weapons and their lack of progress on nuclear disarmament. Worse, rather than moving to fulfill their commitment to disarm, most have modernized their arsenals and continue to develop new types of weapons. For countries that do not have such weapons and do not fall under a nuclear umbrella protection arrangement such as NATO, this reinforces the perception that the acquisition of nuclear weapons is a sure path to power and prestige, an insurance policy against attack. (p. 236)

Read The Age of Deception yourself - I think you'll agree.


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


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???)



Far too many people think that the NPT is about freezing the status quo, and preventing additional states from obtaining nuclear weapons. This is a fundamental misunderstanding. The NPT is based on a quid pro quo: nuclear "have-nots" agree to not acquire nuclear weapons, and nuclear "haves" agree to disarm.

(See A DEAL'S A DEAL! (What part of "nuclear disarmament" doesn't the US understand?) )

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))

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) )