OMNI
NUCLEAR WEAPONS ABOLITION NEWSLETTER # 22, October 11, 2017.
Compiled by Dick Bennett for a Culture of Peace, Justice, and
Ecology
WHAT WE ARE CELEBRATING
The UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons was adopted by
122 UN members on 7 July 2017. The “BAN Treaty” was officially signed by 53 governments of UN member
states this September, and will come into force when 50 instruments of
ratifications have been deposited at UN Headquarters, which suggests its legal
status will soon be realized as signature is almost always followed by
ratification.
Then on October 6th the Nobel Committee awarded the 2017 Nobel Peace Prize to the International
Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) "for its work to draw attention
to the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of any use of nuclear weapons and
for its ground-breaking efforts to achieve a treaty-based prohibition of such
weapons."
RALLY TO OPPOSE NUCLEAR WAR AND CELEBRATE PROSPECTS
FOR A NUCLEAR TREATY
Celebration of the Nuclear Abolition Movement
(Fayetteville, Arkansas) – On Saturday, October 14th from 2 PM to 3 PM in front of the Fayetteville Town Center,
the Arkansas Nonviolence Alliance and the OMNI Center for Peace, Justice, &
Ecology are holding a Celebration of the Nuclear Abolition Movement.
This peace rally will feature speeches by Abel Tomlinson, Vietnam veteran Bill Williams, Physics Professor Art Hobson, music by Still on the Hill and prayer by pastor Roy Lennington.
The purpose of this event is to celebrate the historic U.N. Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, and the recent Nobel Peace Prize award to the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN). ICAN activists successfully worked with leaders from 122 nations to adopt the nuclear weapons ban. These momentous achievements for peace deserve the highest praise.
This recognition is of even greater importance due to President Trump’s renewed threats of nuclear war with North Korea. This war could likely kill millions of North and South Koreans, and has strong potential to spiral into something far bigger.
We are gathering to celebrate peace, and to call for abolition of nuclear weapons.
This peace rally will feature speeches by Abel Tomlinson, Vietnam veteran Bill Williams, Physics Professor Art Hobson, music by Still on the Hill and prayer by pastor Roy Lennington.
The purpose of this event is to celebrate the historic U.N. Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, and the recent Nobel Peace Prize award to the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN). ICAN activists successfully worked with leaders from 122 nations to adopt the nuclear weapons ban. These momentous achievements for peace deserve the highest praise.
This recognition is of even greater importance due to President Trump’s renewed threats of nuclear war with North Korea. This war could likely kill millions of North and South Koreans, and has strong potential to spiral into something far bigger.
We are gathering to celebrate peace, and to call for abolition of nuclear weapons.
In addition to the OMNI Center and Nonviolence
Alliance, this event is endorsed by the Arkansas Coalition for Peace &
Justice, Arkansas Women's Action for a New Direction (WAND), and the Spirit of
Peace Church.
CONTACT: Abel Tomlinson
Founder of Arkansas
Nonviolence Alliance
What’s at Stake:
The old incremental, US dominated, “arms control” method of nuclear
arms reduction failed. Oct. 1, 2017
was the 25th
anniversary of the U.S. Senate ratification of the START I treaty on a 93-6
vote. The treaty reduced the number of U.S. and Russian deployed
strategic nuclear weapons by 80 percent to 6,000 each. It seemed a great victory for peace and
planetary safety. But far more than
enough weapons remained to destroy human civilization: in 2017
there are 15,000 nuclear weapons and about 4,000 deployed. Obama,
before he left office was planning to spend one trillion dollars over the next
30 years for two new bomb factories, new warheads, and delivery systems. President
Trump plans to continue Obama’s “modernization,”
and (May 26, 2017) Trump's proposed budget for 2018 aims to pump an
extra $589 million into building nuclear
bombs. We need abolition for all
the nations, all humanity, and all creatures.
Contents: Nuclear Weapons Abolition Newsletter #22,
October 10, 2017
September witnessed important Days and the importance of the
United Nations to memory: Peace Week (ACPJ).
20th, UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons opened for
signatures. 21st, UN International Day of Peace. 26th, UN Day for
Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons.
Fayetteville Celebrates Two 2017 Nuclear
Abolition Achievements!
United Nations General Assembly
Bans Nuclear Weapons
Slater, 122 Nations Vote Abolition
Gerson, Building the Treaty Globally
Loretz, Analyzes the Treaty
Veterans for Peace, Affirms the Treaty
NAPF, Stop Funding Nuclear Weapons
ICAN Wins Nobel Peace Prize
Celebration!
Jan Oberg, Thanks to the Nobel Committee
Richard Falk, Essay on the Award
Tara John, 5 Reasons Why It Won
Some History Leading to the Ban
Recent US Nuclear Aggression
$1Trillion Upgrade
Burst-height Super-fuze
Ginger, Precursor to Ban, World
Court 1998
Reform: No First Use
Just Foreign
Policy
WAND
Organizations: From Reform to Abolition
Reform: Stop the $1 Trillion “Modernizing”
Proliferation
Council for a Livable World, Carl Sagan Remembered
WAND: Women's Action for New Directions (WAND)
WAND: Women's Action for New Directions (WAND)
Global Zero
NAPF
CLW
Chomsky
Celebrate 2017 Two Nuclear Abolition
Achievements!
United Nations General Assembly Bans Nuclear Weapons
ICAN Wins Nobel Peace Prize
United Nations General Assembly Bans
Nuclear Weapons September 2017.
We are
witnessing a striking shift in the global paradigm of how the world views
nuclear weapons. https://www.thenation.com/article/democracy-breaks-out-at-the-un-as-122-nations-vote-to-ban-the-bomb/
Support Progressive Journalism
The Nation is reader supported:
Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter.
On July 7,
2017, at a UN Conference mandated by the UN General Assembly to negotiate a
treaty to prohibit nuclear weapons, the only weapons of mass destruction yet to
be banned, 122 nations completed the job after three weeks, accompanied by a
celebratory outburst of cheers, tears, and applause among hundreds of
activists, government delegates, and experts, as well as survivors of the
lethal nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and witnesses to the devastating, toxic
nuclear-test explosions in the Pacific. The
new treaty outlaws any prohibited activities related to nuclear weapons,
including use, threat to use, development, testing, production, manufacturing,
acquiring, possession, stockpiling, transferring, receiving, stationing,
installation, and deployment of nuclear weapons. It also bans states from
lending assistance, which includes such prohibited acts as financing for their
development and manufacture, engaging in military preparations and planning, and permitting the transit of
nuclear weapons through territorial water or airspace.
We are witnessing a striking shift in the global
paradigm of how the world views nuclear weapons, bringing us to this glorious
moment. The change has transformed public conversation about nuclear
weapons, from the same old, same old talk about national “security” and its
reliance on “nuclear deterrence” to the widely publicized evidence of the
catastrophic humanitarian consequences that would result from their use. A
series of compelling presentations of the devastating effects of nuclear
catastrophe, organized by enlightened governments and civil society’s International Campaign to
Abolish Nuclear Weapons, was inspired by a stunning statement from
the International Committee of the Red Cross addressing the humanitarian consequences of nuclear war.
At meetings hosted by Norway, Mexico, and Austria, overwhelming
evidence demonstrated the disastrous devastation threatening humanity from
nuclear weapons—their mining, milling, production, testing, and use—whether
deliberately or by accident or negligence. This new knowledge, exposing the
terrifying havoc that would be inflicted on our planet, gave impetus for this
moment when governments and civil society fulfilled a negotiating mandate for a
treaty to prohibit nuclear weapons, leading towards their total elimination.
Perhaps the most significant addition to the treaty, after a draft
treaty from an earlier week of talks in March was submitted to the states by
the expert and determined president of the conference, Ambassador Elayne Whyte Gómez of Costa Rica, was amending the
prohibition not to use nuclear weapons by adding the words “or threaten to
use,” driving a stake through the heart of the beloved “deterrence” doctrine of
the nuclear-weapons states, which are holding the whole world hostage to their perceived “security”
needs, threatening the earth with nuclear annihilation in their MAD scheme for
“Mutually Assured Destruction.” The ban also creates a path for nuclear states
to join the treaty, requiring verifiable, time-bound, transparent elimination
of all nuclear-weapons programs or irreversible conversion of all
nuclear-weapons related facilities.
The negotiations were boycotted by all nine
nuclear-weapons states and US allies under its nuclear “umbrella” in
NATO, Japan, South Korea, and Australia. The Netherlands was the only NATO
member present, its parliament having required its attendance in response to
public pressure, and was the only “no” vote against the treaty. Last summer,
after a UN Working Group recommended that the General Assembly resolve to
establish the ban-treaty negotiations, the United States pressured its NATO
allies, arguing that “the effects of a ban could be wide-ranging and degrade
enduring security relationships.” Upon the adoption of the ban treaty, the United States,
United Kingdom, and France issued a statement that “We do not intend to sign,
ratify or ever become party to it” as it “does not address the security
concerns that continue to make nuclear deterrence necessary” and will
create“even more divisions at a time…of growing threats, including
those from the DPRK’s ongoing proliferation efforts.” Ironically, North Korea was the only nuclear power to vote for the ban
treaty, last October, when the UN’s First Committee for Disarmament forwarded a
resolution for ban-treaty negotiations to the General Assembly.
READY TO FIGHT BACK? SIGN UP FOR TAKE
ACTION NOW
Yet the absence of the nuclear-weapons states contributed to a more
democratic process, with fruitful interchanges between experts and witnesses
from civil society who were present and engaged through much of the proceedings
instead of being outside locked doors, as is usual when the nuclear powers are
negotiating their endless step-by-step process that has only resulted in
leaner, meaner, nuclear weapons, constantly modernized, designed, refurbished. Obama, before he left office was
planning to spend one trillion dollars over the next 30 years for two new bomb
factories, new warheads and delivery systems. We still await Trump’s plans for
the US nuclear-weapons program.
The Ban
Treaty affirms the states’ determination to realize the purpose of the Charter of the United Nations and reminds us that
the very first resolution of the UN in 1946 called for the elimination of
nuclear weapons. With no state holding veto power, and no hidebound rules of
consensus that have stalled all progress on nuclear abolition and additional
initiatives for world peace in other UN and treaty bodies, this negotiation was
a gift from the UN General Assembly, which democratically requires states to be
represented in negotiations with an equal vote and doesn’t require consensus to
come to a decision.
Despite the recalcitrance of the
nuclear-deterrence-mongers, we know that previous treaties banning weapons have
changed international norms and stigmatized the weapons leading to policy
revisions even in states that never signed those treaties. The Ban
Treaty requires 50 states to sign and ratify it before it enters into force,
and will be open for signature September 20 when heads of state meet in New York
for the UN General Assembly’s opening session. Campaigners will be working to
gather the necessary
ratifications and now that nuclear weapons are unlawful and
banned, to shame those NATO states which
keep US nuclear weapons on their territory (Belgium, Germany , Turkey,
Netherlands, Italy) and pressure other alliance states which hypocritically
condemn nuclear weapons but participate in nuclear-war planning. In the
nuclear-weapons states, there can be divestment campaigns from institutions
that support the development and manufacture of nuclear weapons now that they
have been prohibited and declared unlawful. See www.dontbankonthebomb.com
To keep the momentum going in this burgeoning movement to ban the bomb, check out www.icanw.org. For a more detailed roadmap of what lies ahead, see Zia Mian’s take on future possibilities in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.
To keep the momentum going in this burgeoning movement to ban the bomb, check out www.icanw.org. For a more detailed roadmap of what lies ahead, see Zia Mian’s take on future possibilities in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.
|
We just banned
nuclear weapons!
byJohn Loretz JULY 7, 2017 (similar in Space Alert!).
Nuclear weapons have been banned.
Stigmatized and prohibited. That means we’re two-thirds of the way
to fulfilling the Humanitarian Pledge, which feels like it
was launched only yesterday.
It took three international conferences, two open-ended working
groups, medical and scientific evidence accumulated over some 50 or more years,
decades of selfless appeals by the Hibakusha and by the victims of nuclear
testing, a core group of states with the courage to take effective leadership,
a decisive UN resolution, four weeks of honest, good faith negotiating by people
who really and truly want to rid the world of nuclear weapons, and seven years
of intensive campaigning by ICAN…
…and nuclear weapons have been banned.
The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons,
which was adopted today in Conference Room 1 at the United Nations by an overwhelming 122-1 vote, makes
a compelling case for the stigmatization and elimination of nuclear weapons. In
fact, the language it uses to make that case is indistinguishable from the
language of doctors, scientists, international lawyers, and others with expert
knowledge of what nuclear weapons are and the devastating harm they cause:
“[T]he catastrophic consequences of nuclear weapons cannot be
adequately addressed, transcend national borders, pose grave implications for
human survival, the environment, socioeconomic development, the global economy,
food security and the health of current and future generations, and have a
disproportionate impact on women and girls, including as a result of ionizing
radiation.”
“[A]ny use of nuclear weapons would…be abhorrent to the
principles of humanity and the dictates of public conscience.”
“[A] legally binding prohibition of nuclear weapons constitutes
an important contribution towards the achievement and maintenance of a world
free of nuclear weapons, including the irreversible, verifiable and transparent
elimination of nuclear weapons.”
The sections of the treaty that spell out the prohibitions and
the obligations of the states that are party to it close the legal gap that has
been exploited by the nuclear-armed and nuclear-dependent states not only to
forestall their disarmament obligations, but also to keep nuclear weapons at
the center of their military and security policies for decades to come. The
development, testing, production, manufacture, acquisition, possession,
stockpiling, use, and threat of use of nuclear weapons have been declared
illegal under this treaty. Period.
The nuclear-armed and nuclear-dependent states have been
provided with practical and flexible ways to comply with those prohibitions
once they decide to join. If they persist in defying the norms established by
the treaty, they will be outlaw states.
The treaty refutes the claim made by a handful of states that
they need nuclear weapons to ensure their own security, and that humanitarian
consequences must somehow be balanced with those needs. Not only does the
treaty insist that the dangers posed by nuclear weapons “concern the security
of all humanity,” but it also calls the long-overdue elimination of nuclear
weapons “a global public good of the highest order, serving both national and
collective security interests.”
The treaty is about more than prohibitions. It spells out the
obligations and responsibilities of its parties to work for universalization,
to redress and remediate the harm done by nuclear weapons to victims and the
environment, and to support and defend the norm of collective security in a
nuclear-weapons-free world.
Abacca Anjain-Maddison of the Marshall Islands—a place that has
experienced the consequences of nuclear weapons first-hand—spoke on behalf of
ICAN at the conclusion of this historic conference:
“The adoption of this landmark agreement today fills us with
hope that the mistakes of the past will never be repeated. It fills us with
hope that we will pass on to our children and grandchildren a world forever
free of these awful bombs.”
Setsuko Thurlow said at the beginning of these negotiations that
the ban treaty would “change the world.” With the successful conclusion of the
negotiations, we now have a powerful new legal, moral, and political tool to do
just that. We will have to maintain the partnership of states, international
organizations, and civil society that has brought us this far in order to use
the tool we’ve created for its intended purpose.
Nuclear weapons have been banned. All that’s left now is to
eliminate them once and for all.
 |
||||
|
Friday,
July 21st
Veterans
For Peace Applauds the Adoption of a Nuclear Ban Treaty And Calls on U.S. To
Sign Immediately
 Veterans For Peace is dismayed that the U.S. refuses to sign the monumental treaty that will make the world a safer place. The Treaty is a victory for humanity and the shared natural world. It brings Veterans For Peace closer than ever to achieving our mission to abolish war by forwarding our goal of of ending the arms race and to reduce and eventually eliminate nuclear weapons. Veterans For Peace remains committed to fulfilling our mission, redoubling our efforts to ensure that the United States ratifies the treaty and eliminate nuclear weapons entirely. Let this be the generation that will finally ban nuclear weapons. It's not just about peace and justice; it's about the survival of all life on earth.
Also check out the article Brian Trautman, Gerry
Condon and Samantha Ferguson wrote!
|
||||
No Money for New Nuclear Weapons
or Testing
The United States detonated 1,032 nuclear weapons tests in the
atmosphere, under the ocean, and underground between 1945 and 1992 that devastated
local communities. Though the U.S. has not conducted a full-scale underground
nuclear test in 25 years, resurgent nuclear threats are gaining intensity in
the Trump administration. More than inflammatory rhetoric from the President,
neocons, nuclear lab managers, and others are urging Trump to hit the
accelerator on new nuclear warheads and the underground explosions needed to
test them.
Public pressure from ordinary Americans was essential in halting
explosive U.S. nuclear testing in the atmosphere and underground 25 years ago.
We must act now to halt funding for a new arms race.
Join us as we urge
White House Budget Office Director, Mick Mulvaney, and the Armed Services and
Appropriations Committees of the U.S. Congress not to fund programs that may
lead to resumption of nuclear test explosions or new nuclear weapons.
ICAN Wins Nobel Peace Prize October 6, 2017
ICAN was just awarded Nobel Prize for the UN nuke ban efforts http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-41524583
International
Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons Wins Nobel Peace Prize
Congratulations
to our friends and colleagues around the world who are part of the
International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN). This morning, the
Nobel Committee awarded ICAN the 2017 Nobel Peace Prize "for its work to
draw attention to the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of any use of
nuclear weapons and for its ground-breaking efforts to achieve a treaty-based
prohibition of such weapons."
ICAN is made up of over
400 groups in 100 countries. The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation has been an ICAN member since
the campaign began a decade ago. This year, we were proud to work with ICAN and
many dedicated non-nuclear countries to bring into existence the Treaty on the
Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. The Nobel Peace Prize is a recognition of many
decades of campaigning by activists around the world. We still have a lot of
work to do to achieve a nuclear weapons-free world, and we hope that this
prestigious honor will encourage you to work even harder alongside us for this
goal. But today, let's take a moment to celebrate!
Please
join us in congratulating ICAN on this immense honor by helping to spread the
word on social media. Click on the Twitter or Facebook images
below to share with your networks.
The New York Times · 34
mins ago
Vox · 25 mins ago
https://twitter.com/search/abolish+nuclear+weapons
It’s a great honour to
have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in recognition of our role in achieving
#nuclearban www.facebook.com/icanw.…
7 hours ago · Twitter
Congratulations to the
International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons on well-deserved Nobel Peace
Prize award. www.facebook.com/Jeremy…pic.twitter.com/rM4FiWE…
50 mins ago · Twitter
BREAKING NEWS The 2017
Nobel Peace Prize is awarded to the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear
Weapons (ICAN) @nuclearban #NobelPrize pic.twitter.com/I5PUiQf…
8 hours ago · Twitter
Sure seems like not even
the Nobel Peace Prize can direct US media attention to the International
Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons.
1 hour ago · Twitter
A very sincere
congratulations to @nuclearban and thanks for forcing us to face the ugly
reality of living with the bomb. twitter.com/nuclearban/…
4 mins ago · Twitter
Nobel’s Peace Prize to ICAN:
Thank You to the Nobel Committee! BY TRANSCEND MEMBERS, 9 October 2017
https://www.transcend.org/tms/2017/10/nobels-peace-prize-to-ican-thank-you-to-the-nobel-committee/
Jan Oberg | Transnational
Foundation for Peace & Future Research - TRANSCEND Media Service
Our thanks to the Nobel Peace Prize Committee for awarding its
2017 Prize to ICAN – the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear
Weapons.
6 Oct 2017 – Undoubtedly nuclear disarmament and, ultimately, nuclear
abolition is a major – if not the major
– goal of humankind.
There can be no lasting peace with these weapons and there exists no goal the
achievement of which would legitimate the use of this type of weapons.
Even when not used, nuclear weapons cause problems, distrust,
risks and pretext for wars – think Russia-NATO, Iraq, the nuclear deal (JCPOA)
with Iran, US-North Korea, Israel, India-Pakistan – and documented technical
malfunctions, human failures, and accidents with nuclear weapons.
Secondly, this year’s award honours the UN Charter, Article 1 of which
states the essentially important norm that peace shall be brought about by peaceful means.
It is also in clear support – as was emphasized by the
Committee’s chairwoman, Berit Reiss-Andersen, herself a lawyer – of the NPT of
1970, the Non-Proliferation Treaty. The NPT states the longterm goal of general
and complete disarmament, that the countries who possess nuclear weapons shall,
in good faith, negotiate them away as a quid pro quo for others who may want to
acquire nuclear weapons abstain from doing so. That is, possession is as
important to abolish and a key to secure non-proliferation. Regrettably, all
those who possess nuclear weapons have done the opposite of negotiating them
away.
Thus, this year’s prize is a very important support for
international law and the UN – our basic common normative system and
foundations of international law that has been ignored (also by the media) and
violated time and again during the last 20-30 years.
Third, it is of tremendous importance that this year’s award goes to a civil
society organisation and not to a government representative. World
peace is a massive citizens’ desire anywhere, whereas governments (with few
exceptions) conduct such policies that trample upon this desire.
Fourth – and no less important than the above, this year’s
Award honours the
essential criteria of Alfred Nobel’s will. Importantly, this was
emphasized by Reiss-Andersen. Given some of the recent awardees non/anti-peace
work, there is a reason to congratulate not only ICAN but also the Committee
for getting it absolutely right this year.
May it be the beginning of a new drive on the road toward
peace with no more accidents in the ditch.
Those of us who, since 2007, have been engaged in a public
information campaign about the Committee’s non-adherence, in a number of cases,
to Alfred Nobel’s will, feel good today.
The Nobel Committee calls it “the world’s most prestigious
prize” and it is essential that it be awarded only to people whose work falls clearly
within the criteria of the will. It is neither a human rights, humanitarian,
women’s or general do-good prize. It’s for everything that has to do with
reducing warfare, risks of it, militarism. It is for disarmament, reduction of
forces, negotiated solutions to conflicts, peace conferences and international
sister- and brotherhood.
Most media do not seem to know that – also not that lots of
nominations this year too were totally irrelevant no matter their other,
non-peace qualities.
Finally, it is hardly unreasonable to view this year’s choice is
a mild kick to the countries who have worked against the BAN Treaty that
ICAN’s work has helped so efficiently to bring about – NATO in particular.
All NATO countries have ignored the BAN Treaty (as has the other
nuclear countries Russia, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel). This
only goes to show how important the BAN Treaty is.
But the US is known to have put pressure on NATO members and
others such as Sweden with direct threats to them should they sign the BAN
Treaty (NATO countries’ mainstream media haven’t told you much about that
whereas they fill you with so far non-documented rumours of Russian
interference in other countries).
It’s high time to encourage, as the Nobel Committee chair
emphasized, all those who possess (or store) nuclear weapons to change their
policies and join humanity. They have no right and have never been given a
mandate to possess these weapons and thereby threaten, potentially, the
survival of humanity.
It’s all a matter of political will and moral courage. None of
them base their possession of nuclear weapons on laws. The NATO Treaty doesn’t
mention them at all.
The nomination of ICAN can be seen on the Nobel Peace Prize
Watch here.
Nobel Peace Prize 2017:
International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN)
NOBEL LAUREATES, 9 October 2017
https://www.transcend.org/tms/2017/10/nobel-peace-prize-2017-international-campaign-to-abolish-nuclear-weapons-ican/
Richard Falk | Global
Justice in the 21st Century – TRANSCEND Media Service
8 Oct 2017 – Finally, the
committee in Oslo that picks a winner of the Nobel Peace Prize each year
selected in 2017 an awardee that is a true embodiment of the intended legacy of
Alfred Nobel when he established the prize more than a century ago. It is also
a long overdue acknowledgement of the extraordinary dedication of anti-nuclear
activists around the planet who for decades have done all in their power to rid the world
of this infernal weaponry before it inflicts catastrophe upon all living beings
even more unspeakable that what befell the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on
two infamous days in August 1945. Such a prize result was actually anticipated
days before the announcement by Fredrik Heffermehl, a crusading Norwegian
critic of past departures from Nobel’s vision by the prize committee. In making
the prediction that the 2017 prize would be given in recognition of
anti-nuclear activism Heffermehl prophetically relied on the outlook of the
current chair of the Nobel selection committee, a distinguished Norwegian
lawyer, Berit Reiss-Andersen, who
has publicly affirmed her belief in the correlation between adherence to
international law and world peace.
The recipient of the prize is ICAN,
International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, a coalition of more than 450 civil society groups around the
world
that is justly credited with spreading an awareness of the dire humanitarian
impacts of nuclear weapons and of making the heroic effort to generate
grassroots pressure sufficient to allow for the adoption of the UN Treaty on
the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons by 122 UN members on 7 July 2017 (known as
the ‘BAN Treaty’). The treaty was
officially signed by 53 governments of UN member states this September, and
will come into force when 50 instruments of ratifications have been deposited
at UN Headquarters, which suggests its legal status will soon be realized as
signature is almost always followed by ratification.
The core provision of the
BAN Treaty
sets forth an unconditional legal prohibition of the weaponry that is notable
for its comprehensiveness—the prohibition extends to “the developing, testing,
producing, manufacturing, possessing, stockpiling and deploying nuclear
weapons, transferring or receiving them from others, using or threatening to
use them, or allowing any stationing or deployment of nuclear weapons on
national territories of signatories, and assisting, encouraging, or inducing
any of these prohibited acts.” Each signatory state is obligated to
develop “legal, administrative and other measures, including the imposition of
penal sanctions, to prevent and suppress” activities prohibited by the treaty.
It should be understood that the prohibition contributes to the further delegitimation of
nuclear weapons, but it does nothing directly by way of disarmament.
The BAN Treaty no where claims to mandate disarmament except by
an extension of the reasoning that if something is prohibited, then it should
certainly not be possessed, and the conscientious move would be to seek a
prudent way to get rid of the weaponry step by step. In this regard it is
notable that none of the nuclear weapons states are expected to be parties to
the BAN Treaty, and therefore are under no immediate legal obligation to
respect the prohibition or implement its purpose by seeking a disarmament
arrangement. A next step for the ICAN coalition might be to have the BAN
prohibition declared by the UN General Assembly and other institutions around
the world (from cities to the UN System) to be binding on all political actors
(whether parties to the treaty or not), an expression of what international
lawyers call ‘peremptory norms,’ those that are binding and authoritative
without treaty membership and cannot be changed by the action of sovereign
states.
Standing in opposition to the BAN Treaty are all of the present
nuclear weapons states, led by the United States. Indeed, all five permanent
members (P-5) of the UN Security Council and their allies refused to join in
this legal prohibition of nuclear weapons, and to a disturbing degree, seem
addicted sustainers of the war system in its most horrific dimensions. Their
rationale for such a posture can be reduced to the proposition that deterrence
is more congenial than disarmament. Yet the nuclearism is a deeply discrediting
contention that the P-5 provide the foundations of responsible global
leadership, and therefore have accorded favorable status.
What the BAN Treaty makes clear is the cleavage between those
who want to get rid of the weaponry, and regard international law as a crucial
step in this process, and those who prefer to take their chances by retaining
and even further developing this omnicidal weaponry and then hoping for the
best. MORE https://www.transcend.org/tms/2017/10/nobel-peace-prize-2017-international-campaign-to-abolish-nuclear-weapons-ican/
5 Reasons Why ICAN Won the Nobel Peace Prize
Oct 06, 2017
The Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to
the International Campaign to Abolish
Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) for drawing attention to the
"catastrophic humanitarian consequences" of using nuclear weapons and
for its efforts in a nuclear treaty, the Norwegian Nobel Committee said
on Friday.
ICAN,
which was founded in Australia, is based in the offices of the World Council of
Churches in Geneva, Switzerland. It acts as an umbrella organization for 468
non-governmental organizations, including peace, rights and development groups,
which are all trying to push for global nuclear disarmament.
The
group, which was launched in 2007 by past Nobel laureates the International
Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW), has spent the last decade
campaigning for a global ban on nuclear weapons.
Here are five reasons why ICAN might have been a MORE
US Nuclear Aggression
What’s at Stake: Introduction: Arms Control has failed. The Nuclear Proliferation Treaty (NPT) has
not stopped proliferation; rather, the US plans to spend a trillion dollars to
“upgrade” its nuclear weapons in blatant violation of the NPT.
US NUCLEAR AGGRESSION
$1 Trillion “Upgrade” v. Nuclear Proliferation
Treaty
The Burst-height Compensating Super-fuze.
$1 TRILLION “UPGRADE” TO SHRED THE NPT
Tom Krebsbach.
“$1 Trillion for Nuclear Weapons.”
(Seattle Times May 7,
2016.) Rptd. Washington Report on Middle East Affairs (June/July 2016, p. 77).
$1 TRILLION FOR NUCLEAR WEAPONS
To The Seattle Times, May 7, 2016
The Op-Ed by State Rep. Gael Tarleton and Joe Cirincione argued
for cutting the massive U.S. nuclear arsenal to a smaller number of nuclear
weapons. It stated, “If Washington state were a sovereign nation, it would be
the third largest nuclear weapon state in the world.” The reason for this is
the large number of nuclear weapons maintained at the submarine base at Bangor
on the Hood Canal. The existence of such a large stockpile of nuclear weapons
so close to Seattle and its immense destructive power should instill in all
Washingtonians an abiding interest in seeing the world’s nuclear stockpile
being reduced.
The U.S.
is about to embark on a $1 trillion upgrade to its nuclear arsenal.
Investing so much tax money on these horrible weapons systems means they will
likely be around for most or all of the 21st century. One can just
imagine how $1 trillion of tax money could be used for more constructive
purposes, such as infrastructure repair, research into cancer and other
diseases and paying off student debt, among other uses.
But the most pressing reason for demanding an end to all nuclear
weapons in the world is the immense danger they pose to all life on earth. If
these weapons are allowed to exist indefinitely, at some point they could be
used—either because of madness, technical failure, or communication failure.
The world can ill afford the threat they pose.
Tom Krebsbach, Brier, WA ◙
US NUCLEAR AGGRESSION
How US
nuclear force modernization is undermining strategic stability: The
burst-height compensating super-fuze. Hans M. Kristensen, Matthew
McKinzie, Theodore A. Postol.
1 MARCH 2017.
Kristensen is the director of the Nuclear
Information Project with the Federation of American Scientists (FAS) in
Washington, DC.
The US nuclear forces
modernization program has been portrayed to the public as an effort to
ensure the reliability and safety of warheads in the US nuclear arsenal, rather
than to enhance their military capabilities. In reality, however, that program
has implemented revolutionary new technologies that will vastly increase the
targeting capability of the US ballistic missile arsenal. This increase in capability
is astonishing—boosting the overall killing power of existing US ballistic
missile forces by a factor of roughly three—and it creates exactly what one
would expect to see, if a nuclear-armed state were planning to have the
capacity to fight and win a nuclear war by disarming enemies with a surprise
first strike.
Because of improvements in the
killing power of US submarine-launched ballistic missiles, those submarines now
patrol with more than three times the number of warheads needed to destroy the entire
fleet of Russian land-based missiles in their silos. US submarine-based
missiles can carry multiple warheads, so hundreds of others, now in storage,
could be added to the submarine-based missile force, making it all the more
lethal.
The revolutionary increase in the
lethality of submarine-borne US nuclear forces comes from a “super-fuze” device
that since 2009 has been incorporated into the Navy’s W76-1/Mk4A warhead as
part of a decade-long life-extension program. We estimate that all warheads
deployed on US ballistic missile submarines now have this fuzing capability.
Because the innovations in the super-fuze appear, to the non-technical eye, to
be minor, policymakers outside of the US government (and probably inside the
government as well) have completely missed its revolutionary impact on military
capabilities and its important implications for global security.
Before the invention of this new
fuzing mechanism, even the most accurate ballistic missile warheads might not
detonate close enough to targets hardened against nuclear attack to destroy
them. But the new super-fuze is designed to destroy fixed targets by detonating
above and around a target in a much more effective way. Warheads that would
otherwise overfly a target and land too far away will now, because of the new
fuzing system, detonate above the target. MORE
http://thebulletin.org/how-us-nuclear-force-modernization-undermining-strategic-stability-burst-height-compensating-super10578
Our conclusions. Under the
veil of an otherwise-legitimate warhead life-extension program, the US military
has quietly engaged in a vast expansion of the killing power of the most
numerous warhead in the US nuclear arsenal: the W76, deployed on the Navy’s
ballistic missile submarines. This improvement in kill power means that all US
sea-based warheads now have the capability to destroy hardened targets such as
Russian missile silos, a capability previously reserved for only the
highest-yield warheads in the US arsenal.
The capability upgrade has
happened outside the attention of most government officials, who have been
preoccupied with reducing nuclear warhead numbers. The result is a nuclear
arsenal that is being transformed into a force that has the unambiguous
characteristics of being optimized for surprise attacks against Russia and for
fighting and winning nuclear wars. While the lethality and firepower of the US force
has been greatly increased, the numbers of weapons in both US and Russian
forces have decreased, resulting in a dramatic increase in the vulnerability of
Russian nuclear forces to a US first strike. We estimate that the results of
arms reductions with the increase in US nuclear capacity means that the US
military can now destroy all of Russia’s ICBM silos using only about 20 percent
of the warheads deployed on US land- and sea-based ballistic missiles.
Eventually, super-fuze upgrades
will make it possible for every SLBM and ICBM warhead in the US arsenal to
perform the hard-target kill missions that were initially envisioned to be
exclusively reserved to MX Peacekeeper ICBM warheads.
The W76 upgrade reflects a
25-year shift of the focus of US hard-target kill capability from land-based to
sea-based ballistic missiles. Moreover, by shifting the capability to
submarines that can move to missile launch positions much closer to their
targets than land-based missiles, the US military has achieved a significantly
greater capacity to conduct a surprise first strike against Russian ICBM silos.
The decision by the Obama
administration in 2009 to deploy the Aegis ship-based European Phased Adaptive
Approach (EPAA) missile defense system has created a program under which the
United States could eventually have between 500 to 700 anti-missile
interceptors that could in theory be used to defend the continental United
States from ships off the country's coasts. In spite of its severe limitations,
this growing defense system could appear to both Russia and China as a US
attempt to reduce the consequences of a ragged Russian or Chinese retaliation
to a US first strike against them.
We cannot foresee a situation in
which a competent and properly informed US president would order a surprise
first strike against Russia or China. But our conclusion makes the increased
sea-based offensive and defensive capabilities we have described seem all the
more bizarre as a strategy for reducing the chances of nuclear war with either
Russia or China.
That Russian silos are more
vulnerable to W76-1/Mk4A warheads will not come as an earth-shattering
revelation to Russian military officials; they would have to expect that the
silos would be destroyed anyway, by US land-based ICBMs. But the growing
capability of the US forward-deployed sea-based nuclear missiles could raise
serious questions in the minds of Russian military planners and political
leadership about US intentions—especially when seen in context of growing US
cyber, advanced conventional, and missile defense capabilities—almost certainly
deepening mistrust and encouraging worst-case planning assumptions in Moscow.
We end this article with quotes
from Vladimir Putin, talking impromptu to a group of journalists during the St.
Petersburg International Economic Forum in June 2016. His unrehearsed
remarks are clear and candid predictors of how he will assess the implications
of the super-fuze:
No matter what we said to our
American partners [to curb the production of weaponry], they refused to
cooperate with us, they rejected our offers, and continue to do their own
thing.
… They rejected everything we had
to offer.
… the Iranian threat does not
exist, but missile defense systems are continuing to be positioned...
That means we were right when we
said that they are lying to us.
Their reasons were not genuine,
in reference to the "Iranian nuclear threat."
Your people [the populations of
the Western alliance] … do not feel a sense of the impending danger—this is
what worries me.
A missile defense system is one
element of the whole system of offensive military potential.
It works as part of a whole that
includes offensive missile launchers.
One complex blocks, the other
launches high precision weapons, the third blocks a potential nuclear strike,
and the fourth sends out its own nuclear weapon in response.
This is all designed to be part
of one system.
I don't know how this is all
going to end.
What I do know is that we will
need to defend ourselves.
Precursor to Abolition, the Struggle
for International Law
A. F. Ginger, ed. Nuclear
Weapons Are Illegal: The Historical Opinion of the World Court & How It
Will Be Enforced. 1998.
DECISION BY WORLD COURT: NUCLEAR WEAPONS
ILLEGAL
“The decision, taken in response to a request from the World Health
Organization and the U.N. General Assembly, found that ‘the threat and use of
nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to the rules of international law
applicable in armed conflict, and particularly the principles and rules of
humanitarian law’—except, possibly, in ‘an extreme circumstance of
self-defense, in which the very survival of the state would be at stake.’ It enjoined the nuclear powers to move
expeditiously to fulfill their agreement in Article VI of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to eliminate nuclear
weapons.” The “greatest importance
of the ruling. . . .’it brings in organizations that previously may not have
been involved in nuclear disarmament.
The field is no longer the prerogative only of the disarmament experts’”
but of all inhabitants of the planet. Jonathan
Schell, The Gift of Time, p. 23.
REFORM: NUCLEAR ARSENALS AT LEAST SHOULD BE REDUCED
AND THEIR USE RESTRICTED. (I am not
including any of the 70-year history of nuclear nations’ arms reductions
negotiations, which might fill a warehouse.
We should be concentrating on Abolition not the number of bombs, since
very few can destroy civilization.)
REFORM AS
WAY TO ABOLITION
The
tricky position of the US Arms Control Agency, but the recent opposition of the
US to the UN General Assembly’s vote to ban nuclear weapons completely unmasks
US policy to use reduction and “control” as pretexts for maintaining the
nuclear industrial comp[ex. In contrast,
some non-governmental reform organizations seem genuinely to seek zero weapons
as their chief goal.
NO FIRST USE
Restrict the First Use of
Nuclear Weapons Act
Dear
Dick,
Urge Congress to assert its war powers over nuclear weapons.
Under the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution, Congress has the sole authority to initiate the use of force if the U.S. is not under armed attack. But during the Cold War, a bizarre exception to this basic idea of our democracy was introduced and tolerated: the President could start a nuclear war on his own say-so. It was a horrible policy then. There's certainly no excuse for it now. Right now, President Trump could launch thousands of nuclear weapons on his own say-so.
Sen. Ed Markey [1] and Rep. Ted Lieu [2] have introduced legislation – the Restricting the First Use of Nuclear Weapons Act – that would limit the ability of Trump - or any President - to launch nuclear weapons without Congressional action. The Act would require congressional authorization in order to use nuclear weapons, except in response to an incoming nuclear attack.
Urge Congress to support the Markey-Lieu bill by signing our joint petition with Win Without War and Daily Kos.
Thanks for all you do to help make U.S. foreign policy more just,
Robert Naiman, Avram Reisman, and Sarah Burns
Just Foreign Policy
Under the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution, Congress has the sole authority to initiate the use of force if the U.S. is not under armed attack. But during the Cold War, a bizarre exception to this basic idea of our democracy was introduced and tolerated: the President could start a nuclear war on his own say-so. It was a horrible policy then. There's certainly no excuse for it now. Right now, President Trump could launch thousands of nuclear weapons on his own say-so.
Sen. Ed Markey [1] and Rep. Ted Lieu [2] have introduced legislation – the Restricting the First Use of Nuclear Weapons Act – that would limit the ability of Trump - or any President - to launch nuclear weapons without Congressional action. The Act would require congressional authorization in order to use nuclear weapons, except in response to an incoming nuclear attack.
Urge Congress to support the Markey-Lieu bill by signing our joint petition with Win Without War and Daily Kos.
Thanks for all you do to help make U.S. foreign policy more just,
Robert Naiman, Avram Reisman, and Sarah Burns
Just Foreign Policy
|
NUCLEAR AGE PEACE FOUNDATION
NAPF: Committed to a World Free of Nuclear Weapons. wagingpeace.org/nuclearzero.org/facebook.com/twitter.com/napf
2015 ANNUAL REPORT, Vol. 26,
2015.
Humanize Not Modernize:
let’s not waste $1 trillion modernizing the U.S. nuclear arsenal.
One of best of our peace
organizations, a leader in the Nuclear Zero movement.
|
Carl Sagan Told the Truth
Decades Ago
|
3:21 PM (19 hours ago)
 |
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
Stop the Nuclear Weapons Spending
Binge!
|
10:21 AM (2 hours ago)
|
|
||
|
||||
|
“in the abolition camp
always working for whatever gains in that direction we can score”
|
5:40 PM (15 hours ago)
|
|
||
|
||||
Dear Dick and Jean,
Thanks for sending this. I can see how you might assume
that we were for reform rather than abolition. We are in support of any
resolution that reduces nuclear weapons or nuclear triad expenditure while
simultaneously believing in abolition. This action hi-lights our watchful
eye on the budget trade-offs and the outrageous cost of the “modernization”
plan. We also make the point that nuclear weapons do not add to our
security.
Place us in the abolition camp always working for whatever gains
in that direction we can score.
Thank you both.
I
have always taken the position Susan describes, but increasingly uneasily as I
learned more about the power of the bombs, that a nuclear war of, say, 300
weapons each by US and Russia would destroy the planet, even if they were only
Hiroshima or Nagasaki size, and now they are immensely more powerful.
Also, our government claims its Arms Control process aims for abolition, but
its practice--its trillion dollars "modernization," its
rejection of the recent UN abolition treaty-- exposes the lie. That's why
I am wary of two of the three categories: reform, reform leading to abolition,
abolition.
So
I will place WAND in the abolition category, with your permission Susan along
with your letter. I think this will stimulate productive thought.
I'll ask some other organizations too.
Dick
B
Global
Zero
Wikipedia (10-10-17):Global Zero is
an international non-partisan group of 300 world leaders dedicated to achieving
the elimination of nuclear
weapons.[1] The initiative, launched in
December 2008, promotes a phased withdrawal and verification for the
destruction of all devices held by official and unofficial members of the nuclear club. The Global Zero campaign works
toward building an international consensus and a sustained global movement of
leaders and citizens for the elimination of nuclear weapons.
Goals include the initiation of United States-Russia bilateral negotiations for
reductions to 1,000 total warheads each and commitments from the other key
nuclear weapons countries to participate in multilateral negotiations for
phased reductions of nuclear arsenals. Global Zero works to expand the
diplomatic dialogue with key governments and continue to develop policy
proposals on the critical issues related to the elimination of nuclear weapons.
https://www.globalzero.org/press.../global-zero-applauds-ican-its-nobel-peace-prize
Hey Dick –
There’s been an onslaught of deeply unsettling news coming out
about the Trump administration this week.
While Trump publicly handled classified information about North
Korea’s missile launch at his Mar-a-Largo hotel this weekend, a major donor
took a selfie with the soldier who carries the “nuclear football” (the
briefcase used to launch nuclear weapons). Meanwhile, Trump’s top national
security adviser has been ousted for lying about his contacts with the Russian
government.
This isn’t a reality TV show. Trump’s bad decisions --–from
putting reckless senior advisors in the White House to calling for a new
nuclear arms race --–have very real consequences. According to a new Global Zero study,
if Trump starts a nuclear war with Russia, 22 million Americans could die. Yet
for this administration, the nuclear codes are selfie material.
We need to take away Trump’s power to make the ultimate bad
decision and trigger a nuclear war. Sign our petition to make it
illegal for Trump to start a nuclear war.
From taking pictures with the nuclear football to having the
National Security Adviser resign in scandal, it’s increasingly evident this
leaky administration has a dangerous judgement problem --–specially on nuclear
issues.
That’s why we need Congress to pass key legislation that would
make it illegal for Trump to start a nuclear war on his own.
In solidarity, Lilly
Global Zero is the international movement for the elimination of all nuclear weapons. Sent by GLOBAL ZERO | 1342 Florida Avenue NW | Washington, DC 20009
Global Zero is the international movement for the elimination of all nuclear weapons. Sent by GLOBAL ZERO | 1342 Florida Avenue NW | Washington, DC 20009
Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (NAPF)
President Trump: "I want to do the right thing for the
American people"
At a press conference today, President Donald Trump said, “I
want to do the right thing for the American people, and to be honest,
secondarily, I want to do the right thing for the world.” Trump said this in
the context of U.S.-Russian relations, and immediately referred to each country’s
massive nuclear arsenal. He also stated, “Nuclear holocaust would be like no
other.”
Nuclear weapons put civilization and the human species at risk of annihilation, which is why we published an open letter to Presidents Trump and Putin in The Hill about this very issue early this morning. The open letter calls on the two leaders to negotiate for the total elimination of nuclear weapons.
The letter was signed by NAPF President David Krieger, NAPF Senior Vice President Richard Falk, Nobel Peace Laureate Jody Williams, MIT Professor Emeritus Noam Chomsky, NAPF Distinguished Fellow Daniel Ellsberg, Nobel Peace Laureate Mairead Maguire, and CODEPINK co-founder Medea Benjamin.
The letter states in part, “Your nuclear arsenals give each of you the power to end civilization. You also have the historic opportunity, should you choose, to become the leaders of the most momentous international collaboration of all time, dedicated to ending the nuclear weapons era over the course of a decade or so. This great goal of Nuclear Zero can be achieved by negotiating, as a matter of priority, a treaty to ban and eliminate nuclear weapons.”
Click here to add your name to the open letter.
We think that President Trump should do “the right thing for the American people, and…for the world” – to negotiate for the complete abolition of all nuclear weapons worldwide. Will you join us in this important effort?
Nuclear weapons put civilization and the human species at risk of annihilation, which is why we published an open letter to Presidents Trump and Putin in The Hill about this very issue early this morning. The open letter calls on the two leaders to negotiate for the total elimination of nuclear weapons.
The letter was signed by NAPF President David Krieger, NAPF Senior Vice President Richard Falk, Nobel Peace Laureate Jody Williams, MIT Professor Emeritus Noam Chomsky, NAPF Distinguished Fellow Daniel Ellsberg, Nobel Peace Laureate Mairead Maguire, and CODEPINK co-founder Medea Benjamin.
The letter states in part, “Your nuclear arsenals give each of you the power to end civilization. You also have the historic opportunity, should you choose, to become the leaders of the most momentous international collaboration of all time, dedicated to ending the nuclear weapons era over the course of a decade or so. This great goal of Nuclear Zero can be achieved by negotiating, as a matter of priority, a treaty to ban and eliminate nuclear weapons.”
Click here to add your name to the open letter.
We think that President Trump should do “the right thing for the American people, and…for the world” – to negotiate for the complete abolition of all nuclear weapons worldwide. Will you join us in this important effort?
COUNCIL FOR A
LIVABLE WORLD CAMPAIGN FUND, ELECTING NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRESSIVES
|
Noam Chomsky on pp. 128-131 of Who Rules the World gives a succinct summary
of the two greatest dangers ahead--nuclear war and climate change. By
these two human innovations, "For the first time in the history of the
human species, we have clearly developed the capacity to destroy
ourselves." (128). This summative power is typical of every
chapter in this book. As many of you as are inclined, read this book,
so we might have a shared foundation here, and buy it because Chomsky and
certainly his publisher needs our financial support (but the main thing is to
read it).
Thanks,
Dick
|
|||||||||
END NUCLEAR WEAPONS ABOLITION NEWSLETTER #22, OCTOBER 11, 2017
