Saturday, July 20, 2013


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.


Nuclear Abolition Day June 2. 
International Day against Nuclear Tests August 29.


Here is the link to all OMNI newsletters:   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:


Nos. 12 and 13 at end.

Contents of #14  August 14, 2012
Video Underground:  Hydrogen Bomb Testing in Marshall Islands
Chomsky, US/SU Nuclear Confrontation at Cuba
From the Nuclear Abolitionist
Annual Desert Protest
Resisters Receive New Felony Charges

Contents of #15
Protesters Arrested, Sign Petition
Plutonium Cores Project Stopped
India’s Tests
Mayors vs. Nukes
Uranium Mines
The Nuclear Resister (Sept. 3, 2012)
Nevada Desert Experience
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 › 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]


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. leadership for a nuclear weapons-free world."

2012 Winners - Swackhamer Disarmament Video Contest
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
2011 Swackhamer Disarmament Video Contest. 285 likes · 1 talking about this.

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]

Monday, June 24, 3pm (ET):
Pull the Plutonium Pork – End MOX
(Co-hosted with Georgia WAND)

Developing a disposition method for plutonium from dismantled U.S. nuclear weapons is important, but the Department of Energy’s current plan to make experimental fuel with this weapons’ plutonium is costly, dangerous and on the verge of collapse. It’s also siphoning dollars away from other nuclear nonproliferation and nuclear weapons cleanup priorities. Please join us to learn about the Mixed Oxide Plutonium Fuel Program (MOX) and what can be done to keep this failing program from gobbling more dollars while increasing nuclear dangers.

We’ll also consider what alternatives need to be developed to deal with plutonium from nuclear weapons.   Tom Clements, Southeastern Nuclear Campaign Coordinator for Friends of the Earth and Katherine Fuchs, Program Director of the Alliance for Nuclear Accountability will tell us how to pull the plutonium pork and develop needed solutions. Cohost, Georgia WAND will also discuss the regional impacts of MOX.

“Pull the Plutonium Pork – End MOX” is part of WAND’s Nuclear Budget Webinar Series looking at specific nuclear weapons programs in particular need of Congressional budget cutting scrutiny.  Last month we started with: "Is it time to boot the B61 nuclear bomb?"

691 Massachusetts Ave. | Arlington, MA 02476 US


Santa Barbara Declaration: Reject Nuclear Deterrence: An Urgent Call to Action
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:  
  1. Its power to protect is a dangerous fabrication. The threat or use of nuclear weapons provides no protection against an attack.
  2. It assumes rational leaders, but there can be irrational or paranoid leaders on any side of a conflict.
  3. 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.
  4. It is deeply immoral for the same reasons it is illegal: it threatens indiscriminate and grossly disproportionate death and destruction.
  5. 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.
  6. It has no effect against non-state extremists, who govern no territory or population.
  7. It is vulnerable to cyber attack, sabotage, and human or technical error, which could result in a nuclear strike.
  8. 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, Santa Barbara, February 16-17, 2011.
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
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.

[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
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.

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." 

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.
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 Newsletter
The Nuclear Resister
Hartung, MAD Still


No comments:

Dick's Wars and Warming KPSQ Radio Editorials (#1-48)

Dick's Wars and Warming KPSQ Radio Editorials (#1-48)