NUCLEAR
WEAPONS GENOCIDE
NEWSLETTER # 16, July
20, 2012. OMNI Building a Culture of
PEACE, Compiled by Dick Bennett. (See #1, June 14, 2007; #2, January 8, 2008; #3
May 16, 2008; #4 June 10; 2009, #5 July
23, 2009, ; #6 Sept. 21, 2009; #7 August 29, 2010; #8 April 11, 2011; #9 August
4, 2011; #10 Feb. 27, 2012; #11 April 4, 2012; #12 June 27, 2012; #13 July 27,
2012; #14 August 11, 2012; #15, Dec. 4, 2012)
Imagine a world free
of nuclear weapons, be committed to that goal.
US NATIONAL SECURITY
STATE
See OMNI NEWSLETTERS:
Nuclear Abolition Day June
2.
International Day against
Nuclear Tests August 29.
OMNI NUCLEAR
FREE AND INDEPENDENT PACIFIC DAY AND MARSHALL ISLANDS NUCLEAR VICTIMS
DAY, MARCH 1. NEWSLETTER #1. March 1,
2012.
OMNI’s NATIONAL/INTERNATIONAL DAYS PROJECT.
Here is the link to all OMNI newsletters:
http://www.omnicenter.org/newsletter-archive/ The dozens of newsletters provide OMNI and the
peace and justice movement with subject-focused information and criticism. Here is the link to the Index: http://www.omnicenter.org/omni-newsletter-general-index/
Nos. 12 and 13 at end.
Contents of #14 August 14, 2012
Video
Underground: Hydrogen Bomb Testing in Marshall Islands
From
the Nuclear Abolitionist
Resisters
Receive New Felony Charges
Contents of #15
Protesters
Arrested, Sign Petition
Plutonium
Cores Project Stopped
Mayors
vs. Nukes
Uranium
Mines
The Nuclear Resister (Sept. 3, 2012)
Nuclear
Age Peace Foundation
Contents #16
Disarmament
Video Contest
The Nuclear Resister (March 17, 2013)
WAND,
End the MOX Program
Sign
Declaration Against Nuclear Deterrence
Eiger,
Actions Arguments Against Nuclear Weapons
Chomsky,
Nuclear War Threats
Chomsky’s
New Book, Nuclear War and Environmental
Catastrophe
Green,
Consequences of Nuclear Attack
Swackhamer
Disarmament Video Contest <
College Scholarships
Eligibility details and
deadlines for Swackhamer Disarmament
Video Contestawarded by Nuclear Age Peace ... Deadline: Apr 1, 2013: 18 Weeks Left. Number ... [Prepare for 2014. –Dick]
Eligibility
Students must be in any high school in
the world and submit a video on the provided topic. Selection is based on
analysis of the subject matter, originality, development of point of view,
insight, clarity of expression, organization and grammar. Video submissions
should be two to three minutes in length on the topic of the "importance
of U.S.
2012 Winners - Swackhamer
Disarmament Video Contest
www.wagingpeace.org/menu/...contests/video-contest/.../winners.htm
2012 Swackhamer Video
Contest. Congratulations and thanks to all who entered this year's contest. You can see all of the
entries on the Facebook contest page ...
2011 Swackhamer Disarmament Video Contest | Facebook
www.facebook.com/2011video
2011 Swackhamer Disarmament
Video Contest. 285 likes · 1 talking about this.
THE NUCLEAR RESISTER MARCH 17, 2013
Protests
against drones, John Brennan, and more.
Military refusers identified and addresses provided.. A noble, vital newspaper edited by the wife-husband team,
Felice and Jack Cohen-Joppa. Give them
what you can.
WAND’s Nuclear Budget Webinar Series
[This Webinar has passed, but not its
significance.—Dick]
|
||
|
|
by (see signatories below) February 17, 2011 |
Click here to sign
the declaration.
Vaya aquí para la
versión española.
Nuclear deterrence is a doctrine that is used as a justification
by nuclear weapon states and their allies for the continued possession and
threatened use of nuclear weapons.
Nuclear deterrence is the threat of a nuclear strike in response
to a hostile action. However, the nature of the hostile action is often
not clearly defined, making possible the use of nuclear weapons in a wide range
of circumstances.
Nuclear deterrence threatens the murder of many millions of
innocent people, along with severe economic, climate, environmental,
agricultural and health consequences beyond the area of attack.
Nuclear deterrence requires massive commitments of resources to
the industrial infrastructures and organizations that make up the world’s
nuclear weapons establishments, its only beneficiaries.
Despite its catastrophic potential, nuclear deterrence is widely,
though wrongly, perceived to provide protection to nuclear weapon states, their
allies and their citizens.
Nuclear deterrence has numerous major problems:
- Its
power to protect is a dangerous fabrication. The threat or use of nuclear
weapons provides no protection against an attack.
- It
assumes rational leaders, but there can be irrational or paranoid leaders
on any side of a conflict.
- Threatening
or committing mass murder with nuclear weapons is illegal and
criminal. It violates fundamental legal precepts of domestic and
international law, threatening the indiscriminate slaughter of innocent
people.
- It is
deeply immoral for the same reasons it is illegal: it threatens
indiscriminate and grossly disproportionate death and destruction.
- It diverts
human and economic resources desperately needed to meet basic human needs
around the world. Globally, approximately $100 billion is spent
annually on nuclear forces.
- It has
no effect against non-state extremists, who govern no territory or population.
- It is
vulnerable to cyber attack, sabotage, and human or technical error, which
could result in a nuclear strike.
- It sets
an example for additional countries to pursue nuclear weapons for their
own nuclear deterrent force.
Its benefits are illusory. Any use of nuclear weapons would be
catastrophic.
Nuclear deterrence is discriminatory, anti-democratic and
unsustainable. This doctrine must be discredited and replaced with an urgent
commitment to achieve global nuclear disarmament. We must change the discourse
by speaking truth to power and speaking truth to each other.
Before another nuclear weapon is used, nuclear deterrence must be
replaced by humane, legal and moral security strategies. We call upon
people everywhere to join us in demanding that the nuclear weapon states and
their allies reject nuclear deterrence and negotiate without delay a Nuclear
Weapons Convention for the phased, verifiable, irreversible and transparent
elimination of all nuclear weapons.
_____________
_____________
Initial Signers: Participants in The Dangers of Nuclear Deterrence Conference, hosted by the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation,
Blase
Bonpane, Ph.D., Director, Office of the
Americas
Theresa Bonpane, Founding Director, Office of the Americas
John Burroughs, Ph.D., Executive Director, Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy
Jacqueline Cabasso, Executive Director, Western States Legal Foundation
Kate Dewes, Ph.D., Co-Director, Disarmament and Security Centre, New Zealand
Bob Dodge, M.D., Coordinator, Beyond War Nuclear Weapons Abolition Team
Dick Duda, Ph.D., founding member, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation – Silicon Valley
Denise Duffield, Associate Director, Physicians for Social Responsibility – Los Angeles
Richard Falk, J.S.D., Chair, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation
Commander Robert Green (Royal Navy, ret.), Co-Director, Disarmament and Security Centre, New Zealand
David Krieger, Ph.D., President, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation
Robert Laney, J.D., Secretary, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation
Steven Starr, Senior Scientist, Physicians for Social Responsibility
Rick Wayman, Director of Programs, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation
Bill Wickersham, Ph.D., Adjunct Professor of Peace Studies, University of Missouri
Theresa Bonpane, Founding Director, Office of the Americas
John Burroughs, Ph.D., Executive Director, Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy
Jacqueline Cabasso, Executive Director, Western States Legal Foundation
Kate Dewes, Ph.D., Co-Director, Disarmament and Security Centre, New Zealand
Bob Dodge, M.D., Coordinator, Beyond War Nuclear Weapons Abolition Team
Dick Duda, Ph.D., founding member, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation – Silicon Valley
Denise Duffield, Associate Director, Physicians for Social Responsibility – Los Angeles
Richard Falk, J.S.D., Chair, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation
Commander Robert Green (Royal Navy, ret.), Co-Director, Disarmament and Security Centre, New Zealand
David Krieger, Ph.D., President, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation
Robert Laney, J.D., Secretary, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation
Steven Starr, Senior Scientist, Physicians for Social Responsibility
Rick Wayman, Director of Programs, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation
Bill Wickersham, Ph.D., Adjunct Professor of Peace Studies, University of Missouri
This
declaration was drafted at the conclusion of The Dangers of Nuclear Deterrence
conference, hosted by the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation in Santa Barbara, CA on
February 16-17, 2011.
NUCLEAR
WEAPONS:
DOING SOMETHING ABOUT IT, BY LEONARD EIGER. GROUND
ZERO (JULY 2013).
[Arguments for banning
nuclear weapons. –Dick]
Three nuclear resisters appeared in a
Kitsap County District Court to speak out against the immorality and illegality
of the continuing threat of nuclear weapons, as well as the tremendous costs,
both human and economic, of their continued development and deployment.
Leonard Eiger, Tom Karlin and Cliff
Kirchmer requested mitigation hearings after receiving citations for their
March 4 nonviolent direct action at the Bangor Trident nuclear submarine base.
On May 7 all three appeared before Judge Steven L.
Olsen, and each
was allowed to read a prepared statement to the court. When they were all
finished, the Judge said, “Well done,” and reduced each resister’s fine to the
minimum ($25).
Cliff Kirchmer went first, stating some of
the stark facts
about Trident.
“Captain Tom Rogers has called the Trident ‘a
cold war relic’
and said that ‘the American people could certainly stop it – because it’s
stupid.’ It has been said that the
weapons on a
single Trident submarine, if used, could destroy
the world. Rear
Admiral Joseph Tobalo stated that ‘a single
Trident
submarine is the sixth largest nuclear nation in the
world by
itself.’ There are plans to replace the Trident fleet in
2029 with a new
class of submarines at an estimated total cost
of $100
billion.”
Kirchmer also spoke to the severe
budgetary constraints,
both military
and civilian, that are affected by such massive
investment in
nuclear weapons. Referring to his time working
with the Pan
American Health Organization, Kirchmer spoke
of the unmet
needs that he witnessed. He then spoke to the unmet needs here in the US . “To spend
hundreds of billions of
dollars on
nuclear weapons that can destroy the world when we
have so many basic
unmet human needs is a crime.”
Tom Karlin was next, saying that his “real
hope is that our
action at Naval
Base Kitsap on the morning of March 4, 2013
might in some
small way help to mitigate the unconscionable
fine that we the
people are paying for the presence of the weapons of mass destruction at Bangor .” Karlin stressed
the illegality of the threat of use of nuclear weapons, the application by the
resisters of nonviolent principles in their civil disobedience,
and how they
have exhausted every other “legal” means of communicating their wishes to the US government.In
speaking to the alleged “deterrent” that these awful
weapons present
to other nuclear-armed nations, Tom spoke d that “[nuclear weapons] deter us
from having health care for tens of millions of our people; they deter us from
educating our children adequately; they deter us from fixing our crumbling roads,
bridges and other infrastructures; they deter us from protecting and healing
our planet’s environment; they deter us from reaching out in compassion to
suffering people around the world; they deter peaceful resolution of conflict
the world over.”
Leonard Eiger finished by putting the risk
of nuclear weapons in
sobering
perspective. “The longer we deploy nuclear weapons as we do
now, the greater
the probability of either accidental or intentional nuclear
war. Such an
event could bring an end to civilization as we know it. According to Stanford
Professor Emeritus Martin Hellman, an expert in risk
assessment, the risk of a child born today suffering
early death due to
nuclear war is
at least 10 percent. Such a risk is simply unacceptable.”
In addition to speaking to the legal
aspects, Eiger spoke to the moral
issues. “Nuclear
weapons are fundamentally immoral in as much as they
are
indiscriminate killers that, in addition to the instant deaths of upwards of
millions of people (including civilians), continue to kill for generations.
Beyond that, they could quite likely bring an end to civilization as we know it
or even an end to the human race. This makes nuclear weapons absolutely
unacceptable instruments for maintaining anything remotely resembling peace in
our world.”
In speaking to the issue of why nuclear
resisters take such actions as
these three did,
Eiger quoted Catholic Worker activist and author Rosalie
Riegle. “In her
book ‘Doing Time for Peace’, Riegle says ‘St.
Augustine
told us that
hope has two beautiful daughters, anger and courage. Anger
at the way
things are and the courage to do something about it.’”
These three resisters continue an enduring
tradition of people choosing to do something about nuclear weapons. You can
read more details
and the complete
statements to the court by Eiger, Karlin and Kirchmer
at
www.pacificlifecommunity.wordpress.com.
Leonard Eiger
co-chairs the Communications Committee for Ground Zero. He tirelessly
publicizes the work of Ground Zero, the Plowshares movement, and other
activists for
nuclear
abolition.
Reader Supported
News | 19 April 13
FOCUS | Noam Chomsky: How Close the World
Is to Nuclear War
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." READ MORE |
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 theMiddle 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.
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
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.
Paperback, 160 pages
Published April 30th 2013 by Seven
Stories Press (first published
February 12th 2013)
Contents of
#12
The SANE Act
Schell, Abolish Nuclear Weapons
Uranium Double Standards
Wittner, Deterrence?
Falk and Krieger Dialogue
Contents of
#13
Contact President: Take Nukes Off Alert
FCNL Washington
The Nuclear
Resister
Hartung, MAD Still
ICAN
END NUCLEAR WEAPONS NEWSLETTER #16
No comments:
Post a Comment