Monday, June 3, 2013


OMNI NUCLEAR ABOLITION DAY 2013.  June 2, 2013.  Compiled by Dick Bennett for a Culture of Peace, Justice, and Ecology.

Here is the link to all OMNI newsletters:   For a knowledge-based peace, justice, and ecology movement and an informed citizenry as the foundation for change.  Here is the link to the Index:

See:  International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons




Contents 2012

Film:  Radio Bikini

Contents 2013

Google Nuclear Abolition Day

Ellsberg, Missiles, Call President Obama

Valerie Plame Wilson:  Global Zero

Bishop Tutu

Oliver:  Cuban Missile Crisis

Chomsky: Many Nuclear Threats




1.                             International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons - Wikipedia ...
On 2 and 3 March 2013 in Oslo ICAN hosted the ICAN Civil Society Forum to ...Promotional banner for Nuclear Abolition Day 2012, which took place on 2 ... ICAN coordinates Nuclear Abolition Day, an annual global day of action in June for a ...

2.                             Abolition 2000 » Nuclear Abolition Day 2012
Nuclear Abolition Day 2012. On June 2, 2012 thousands of campaigners will demand the immediate start of negotiations for a ban on nuclear weapons.

3.                             IPPNW.EU | Events
Villingen, Germany, May 30-June 2, 2013 ... End: 02.06.2013 ... ICAN received many requests to transform Nuclear Abolition Day into a week of action.

4.                             Events 2012 | INES Global
nad-banner_3_0.png. 2. June 2012 ... Building upon the successes of previous days of action, Nuclear Abolition Day 2012 focused on the ..... The Budget Control Act passed by Congress directs that on January 2, 2013, the Obama ...

5.                             NewsDaily: China, India, Pakistan boost nuclear arsenals: study
Three of the world's nuclear powers -- China, India and Pakistan -- have increased their arsenals ... Sunday Jun 02, 2013 | Hugues Honore for Agence France Presse ... slow, according to SIPRI, a long-time advocate of abolishing weapons of mass destruction. ...Amazon's German workers called out for third day-long strike ...

6.                             Nuclear Abolition Day - YouTube
May 10, 2012 - Uploaded by ICANinAction
Despicable Me 2 - Official Teaser Trailer (2013) HD Movieby Movie Trailers 23,472,544 views · 0:30. Watch ...
7.                              More videos for Nuclear Abolition Day June 2, 2013 »

8.                             Calendar - Reaching Critical Will › Resources
30 May - 02 June 2013 | Villingen-Schwenningen, Germany ... Nuclear AbolitionWeek is an annual global week of action for a treaty to ban and eliminate all ... The International Day against Nuclear Tests commemorates the closure of the ...

9.                             Nuclear Abolition Day 2012 | Facebook
Saturday, June 2, 2012 ... Nuclear Abolition Day is an annual global day of action for a treaty banning ... Go to to register your action!

10.                        SGI's Efforts | People's Decade for Nuclear Abolition
From February 27 to March 2, Applied Nichiren Buddhism, the SGI-USA student campus group at ... Soka Gakkai Malaysia Supports Nuclear Abolition Day | June 21, 2011 ... SGI's Anti-nuclear Exhibition Opens in Bahrain | March 13, 2013 ...

11.                        Nuclear Abolition Day > Justice & Peace Scotland > Campaigns ...
May 30, 2012 – The International Campaign Against Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) have declared the 2nd June as Nuclear Abolition Day. ... Start Date/Time: 02 June 2013. End Date/Time: 02 June 2013. Recurring Event ...

 Tue Mar 12, 2013 12:14 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
Hi Everyone,
A fascinating recounting of a time when Daniel Ellsberg witnessed the launch of an MX missile. A large questions mark appeared in the sky. Will humanity transcend this time of fear, war and nuclear weapons? Dan then offers some thoughts on why the Vandenberg 15 were successful in protesting the Minuteman lll missiles at Vandenberg Air Force Base. Call President Obama now and insist that he dismantles this doomsday machine. 202-456-1111. Thank you!



A World Without Nuclear Weapons

By Valerie Plame Wilson, Reader Supported News  05 March 13
 wenty-five years ago, President Reagan laid out a vision for a world without nuclear weapons, and in his first term President Obama boldly picked up that mantle - most famously in his 2009 speech in Prague, where he announced America's commitment to eliminate all nuclear weapons globally. There is now a unique opportunity for President Obama, in his second term, to follow through on that commitment and set the world's course to global zero. He can do this by pursuing further reductions to the United States' and Russia's massive Cold War arsenals and bringing other key countries to the table for the first multilateral nuclear arms negotiations in history.
This week, Global Zero - the international movement for the elimination of nuclear weapons - is launching a global campaign urging President Obama to do just that. And we are calling on him to make a major announcement about this on April 5, 2013 - the fourth anniversary of his historic Prague speech.
As part of this campaign, we are rolling out a short video narrated by my fellow Global Zero leader Michael Douglas, which is being promoted by a host of celebrities, organizations and students on social media and that we hope the president will watch.
In addition to the video, the campaign includes a letter to the president from approximately 75 former prime ministers, foreign and defense ministers and military commanders; an official declaration recently adopted by the European Parliament in support of Global Zero's step-by-step plan to eliminate nuclear weapons; and a grassroots petition appealing directly to the president.
We believe that President Obama wants to make good on his commitment to seek a world without nuclear weapons and elevate it to be a legacy issue of his presidency - but he is facing a host of other pressing problems in the world and he needs to hear urgent support for eliminating nuclear weapons.
The Global Zero movement is supported by hundreds of respected national security and military leaders from around the world who understand that nuclear weapons do not address today's security threats - and a powerful grassroots movement that's led by the world's first post-Cold War generation, which rejects absolutely the 20th century idea of basing national security on the threat of mass destruction.
Years from now, when the last nuclear bomb is dismantled, it will be because people all over the world had the courage to demand zero - and a safer world for their children, their grandchildren and all generations to come. Please join this critical campaign at and join us as we call on President Obama to set the world's course to zero.
Together, we can make history.

Nuclear Weapons Must Be Eradicated

By Desmond Tutu, Guardian UK
04 March 2013  RSN
 No nation should own nuclear arms - not Iran, not North Korea, and not their critics who take the moral high ground.
e cannot intimidate others into behaving well when we ourselves are misbehaving. Yet that is precisely what nations armed with nuclear weapons hope to do by censuring North Korea for its nuclear tests and sounding alarm bells over Iran's pursuit of enriched uranium. According to their logic, a select few nations can ensure the security of all by having the capacity to destroy all.
Until we overcome this double standard - until we accept that nuclear weapons are abhorrent and a grave danger no matter who possesses them, that threatening a city with radioactive incineration is intolerable no matter the nationality or religion of its inhabitants - we are unlikely to make meaningful progress in halting the spread of these monstrous devices, let alone banishing them from national arsenals.
Why, for instance, would a proliferating state pay heed to the exhortations of the US and Russia, which retain thousands of their nuclear warheads on high alert? How can Britain, France and China expect a hearing on non-proliferation while they squander billions modernising their nuclear forces? What standing has Israel to urge Iran not to acquire the bomb when it harbours its own atomic arsenal?
Nuclear weapons do not discriminate; nor should our leaders. The nuclear powers must apply the same standard to themselves as to others: zero nuclear weapons. Whereas the international community has imposed blanket bans on other weapons with horrendous effects - from biological and chemical agents to landmines and cluster munitions - it has not yet done so for the very worst weapons of all. Nuclear weapons are still seen as legitimate in the hands of some. This must change.
Around 130 governments, various UN agencies, the Red Cross and the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons are gathering in Oslo this week to examine the catastrophic consequences of nuclear weapons and the inability of relief agencies to provide an effective response in the event of a nuclear attack. For too long, debates about nuclear arms have been divorced from such realities, focusing instead on geopolitics and narrow concepts of national security.
With enough public pressure, I believe that governments can move beyond the hypocrisy that has stymied multilateral disarmament discussions for decades, and be inspired and persuaded to embark on negotiations for a treaty to outlaw and eradicate these ultimate weapons of terror. Achieving such a ban would require somewhat of a revolution in our thinking, but it is not out of the question. Entrenched systems can be turned on their head almost overnight if there's the will.
Let us not forget that it was only a few years ago when those who spoke about green energy and climate change were considered peculiar. Now it is widely accepted that an environmental disaster is upon us. There was once a time when people bought and sold other human beings as if they were mere chattels, things. But people eventually came to their senses. So it will be the case for nuclear arms, sooner or later.
Indeed, 184 nations have already made a legal undertaking never to obtain nuclear weapons, and three in four support a universal ban. In the early 1990s, with the collapse of apartheid nigh, South Africa voluntarily dismantled its nuclear stockpile, becoming the first nation to do so. This was an essential part of its transition from a pariah state to an accepted member of the family of nations. Around the same time, Kazakhstan, Belarus and Ukraine also relinquished their Soviet-era atomic arsenals.
But today nine nations still consider it their prerogative to possess these ghastly bombs, each capable of obliterating many thousands of innocent civilians, including children, in a flash. They appear to think that nuclear weapons afford them prestige in the international arena. But nothing could be further from the truth. Any nuclear-armed state, big or small, whatever its stripes, ought to be condemned in the strongest terms for possessing these indiscriminate, immoral weapons.


We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
+8# Vinush 2013-03-05 01:39
Mr. Tutu is correct.
For the human race to thrive we need to be in Love not in fear.
Remove the evil causes of fear and we will have Harmony on Earth.
Let's realise the Oneness of All.

+7# RMDC 2013-03-05 03:47
Thanks. This is what everyone should demand of nuclear armed nations. The dismantling of nuclear weapons needs to start at the top -- the most heavily armed nations. Small countries like North Korea build nuclear weapons to keep the big nations like the US from invading them. That is a rational defense policy. We all believe that if Iraq would have had nuclear bombs it would not have been invaded and destroyed. 

The problem is the aggressive nations like the US. The US won't even renounce a first strike policy. When the US threatens a small nation, its leaders always say that "all options are on the table" and this directly means the use of nuclear weapons. 

The US has used nuclear weapons in every war since the 1990s. They are the depleted uranium cores in most bombs, rockets, and artillery shells. They spread radiation all over the nation, causing cancers and birth defects for probably generations or maybe even forever. The cancer and birth defect rates in places like Fallujah are so high that the Iraqi government has advised people not to have any babies. There are about 3 million people in Vietnam with serious birth defects caused by all the chemical weapons the US used against the people there. 

Thanks for this strong statement. We need more. We need a huge global outcry and boycott of the US.



Remembering when they nearly blew us up

Mon Oct 22, 2012  Posted by:  "vfp_chapter39" vfp_chapter39

This article appeared in the Forum Section on Sunday, 10-21, in the
Cleveland Plain Dealer
Remembering when they nearly blew us up
by Arnold Oliver
TIFFIN, Ohio -- This month marks the 50th anniversary of the Cuban
missile crisis -- when nuclear war between the Soviet Union and the
United States was only narrowly averted.

Coincidentally, the last presidential debate for 2012 just happens to
be on foreign policy, and is scheduled for Monday, Oct. 22 -- 50 years
to the day since President John F. Kennedy's dramatic television address
to the nation which led to a week of heightened anxiety, to put it
, among the people of the world. It is to be hoped that candidates
President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney will be asked to weigh in on the
lessons of 1962.

First, some background: The crisis developed out of the conflict over
the Cuban revolution of 1959. The Kennedy administration pulled out all
the stops in an effort to bring down the new Castro regime. Trade
sanctions, sabotage, assassinations and finally the Bay of Pigs invasion
were launched in an effort to roll back Fidel Castro's revolutionary
government, which then took a sharp turn to the left and turned to the
Soviet Union for support.

Premier Nikita Khrushchev, acutely aware of U.S. nuclear Jupiter
missiles based close to Soviet territory in Turkey, approved sending
military aid, troops and nuclear weapons to Cuba. Khrushchev's goals
were to protect his new Cuban allies and to achieve nuclear deterrence
vis-+-vis the United States on the cheap. At that time, the Soviets had
very few long-range nuclear missiles.

After a U.S. spy plane discovered missile sites under construction on
Oct. 14, the crisis rapidly escalated. When Kennedy spoke to the
nation, he demanded that the missiles be removed, and imposed a naval
blockade of the island.

We know now that the crisis was a classic example of misperception and
misunderstanding -- the fog of war in action. Soviet leaders thought
incorrectly that the United States government would accept missiles in
Cuba since the United States had missiles in Turkey, on the doorstep of
the USSR. U.S. leaders did not know that the Soviet military already had
162 nuclear warheads in Cuba, as well as nuclear armed torpedoes on its
submarines. Both sides thought, incorrectly, that they understood the
situation as well as the motives of the other side. They were wrong.

It seems clear in retrospect that the president was poorly served by
his top military advisers. Secret White House tapes made during the
crisis reveal that the Joint Chiefs of Staff were unanimous in pressing
for war, and hurled charges of "appeasement" in an effort to intimidate
Kennedy into launching an attack on Cuba. At one point, after the
president left the room, the joint chiefs can be heard mocking him.

It later emerged that both sides had grossly misunderstood the
situation, and nuclear war had been averted more by accident than
competent statesmanship. Robert McNamara, Kennedy's secretary of
Defense, later worked to abolish those weapons worldwide. In the end he
concluded that, unless we act, the indefinite combination of human
fallibility and nuclear weapons must at some point result in "the death
of nations."

What is perhaps most alarming about the crisis is that both U.S. and
Soviet leaders behaved as if the addition of nuclear weapons to the mix
had little impact on their handling of the crisis. In a mind-boggling
display of hubris, they allowed a dispute over a transient tactical
advantage to put at risk the fate of the entire planet, both the natural
world and human generations yet unborn.

If that sounds insane, it should. This is what Albert Einstein warned
about in 1946 when he declared that, "The unleashed power of the atom
has changed everything save our modes of thinking, and we thus drift
toward unparalleled catastrophe."

Do you think either Romney or Obama would have done better than Kennedy
during the crisis? Do you trust either one of them to be stewards of
weapons quite capable of extinguishing life on the planet? Well, I
don't either. So, on this our 50th anniversary of being more lucky than
good, let us make a commitment to rid the Earth of nuclear weapons. It
can be done.

Oliver is emeritus professor of political science at Heidelberg
University in Tiffin. He is now in Eureka, Calif., helping Veterans for
Peace restore the Golden Rule, the very first anti-nuclear sailing

Nuclear War and Environmental Catastrophe
Want to Read
pick shelf

Nuclear War and Environmental Catastrophe

 “There are two problems for our species’ survival—nuclear war and environmental catastrophe, ” says Noam Chomsky in this new book on the two existential threats of our time and their points of intersection since World War II.

While a nuclear strike would require action, environmental catastrophe is partially defined by willful inaction in response to human-induced climate change. Denial of the facts is only half the equation. Other contributing factors include extreme techniques for the extraction of remaining carbon deposits, the elimination of agricultural land for bio-fuel, the construction of dams, and the destruction of forests that are crucial for carbon sequestration.

On the subject of current nuclear tensions, Chomsky revisits the long-established option of a nuclear-weapon-free zone (NWFZ) in the Middle East, a proposal set in motion through a joint Egyptian Iranian General Assembly resolution in 1974.

Intended as a warning, Nuclear War and Environmental Catastrophe is also a reminder that talking about the unspeakable can still be done with humor, with wit and indomitable spirit.(less)
Paperback, 160 pages
Published April 30th 2013 by Seven Stories Press (first published February 12th 2013)

RSN Godot Logo
Reader Supported News | 19 April 13
It's Live on the HomePage Now: 
Reader Supported News

FOCUS | Noam Chomsky: How Close the World Is to Nuclear War 
Author, historian and political commentator Noam Chomsky. (photo: Ben Rusk/flickr) 
Noam Chomsky and Laray Polk, Seven Stories Press 
Excerpt: "Actually, nuclear war has come unpleasantly close many times since 1945. There are literally dozens of occasions in which there was a significant threat of nuclear war." 


1.                             Noam Chomsky: How Close the World Is to Nuclear War | Alternet
Apr 17, 2013 – The following is an excerpt from the new book Nuclear War and Environmental Catastrophe, by Noam Chomsky and Laray Polk, which takes ...

2.                             Noam Chomsky: How Close the World Is to Nuclear War …North ...
Apr 27, 2013 – Noam Chomsky: How Close the World Is to Nuclear War India and Pakistan have come close to nuclear war several times, and the issues ...

3.                             Noam Chomsky: How Close the World Is to Nuclear War
The following is an excerpt from the new book Nuclear War and Environmental Catastrophe, by Noam Chomsky and Laray Polk, which takes the form of a series ...

4.                             Noam Chomsky: How Close the World Is to Nuclear War ... - Zimbio
Apr 19, 2013 – A powerful excerpt from the new book, "Nuclear War and Environmental Catastrophe." The following is an excerpt from the new book Nuclear ...

5.                             Noam Chomsky: If Nuclear War Doesn't Get Us, Climate Change ...
Mar 28, 2013 – VIDEO: Noam Chomsky lays out the two biggest threats facing humanity. ... Noam Chomsky: If Nuclear War Doesn't Get Us, Climate Change Will ...When Black Kids Want to Learn and the World Tells Them 'No' · Will El ... Work for Us · Privacy Policy · Terms of Use. Copyright © 2012 The Nation. Close ...

6.                             Noam Chomsky: How Close the World Is to Nuclear War | digger666
Apr 19, 2013 – Reblogged from Talesfromthelou's Blog: Noam Chomsky: How Close the World Is to Nuclear War | Alternet. Seven Stories Press / By Noam ...

7.                             Cuban missile crisis: how the US played Russian roulette with ...
Oct 15, 2012 – Noam Chomsky: President Kennedy is often lauded for managing the crisis. ... The world stood still 50 years ago during the last week of October, from the ...Kennedy, and a close circle of advisers, debated how to respond to the crisis. ... Anuclear war was all too imminent – a war that might "destroy the ...

8.                             Noam Chomsky: Obama was willing to start nuclear war to kill bin ...
May 18, 2013 – Noam Chomsky: Obama was willing to start nuclear war to kill bin Laden ... “We were very close to war with Pakistan, which easily could have turned into a nuclear ... “Polio has been almost eradicated in the world,” he said.

9.                             Nuclear War and Environmental Catastrophe by Noam Chomsky ...
 Rating: 3.8 - 4 votes
Apr 30, 2013 – “There are two problems for our species' survival—nuclear war and environmental catastrophe, ” says Noam Chomsky in this new book on the ...

10.                        Noam Chomsky: How Close the World Is to Nuclear War | Alternet ...
Apr 18, 2013 – Noam Chomsky: How Close the World Is to Nuclear War | Alternet. Peace Madera 20 April, 2013 Noam Chomsky, Nuclear War ...




No comments: