Wednesday, October 11, 2017


Compiled by Dick Bennett for a Culture of Peace, Justice, and Ecology

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."

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.
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
     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

Organizations:  From Reform to Abolition
Reform:  Stop the $1 Trillion “Modernizing” Proliferation
Council for a Livable World, Carl Sagan Remembered
Women's Action for New Directions (WAND)
Global Zero

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.

·         WAR AND PEACE
Democracy Breaks Out at the UN as 122 Nations Vote to Ban the Bomb.  By Alice SlaterJULY 13, 2017
We are witnessing a striking shift in the global paradigm of how the world views nuclear weapons.
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 G√≥mez 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.
Top of Form
Bottom of Form
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
To keep the momentum going in this burgeoning movement to ban the bomb, check out For a more detailed roadmap of what lies ahead, see Zia Mian’s take on future possibilities in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.

AFSC logo
 Pessimism of the Intellect, Optimism of the Will: Building on the Nuclear Weapons Ban Treaty

Joseph G 9-20-17 
3:28 PM (1 minute ago)


On September 20, in a formal UN ceremony, the Nuclear Weapons Prohibition Treaty will be opened for signatures. The treaty further stigmatizes nuclear weapons and seeks to outlaw their use, threatened the use, development, testing, production, manufacture, acquisition, possession or stockpiling nuclear weapons, transfer and deployment.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could unconditionally celebrate the negotiation of the "ban" treaty? It emerged from the righteous anger of most the world's nations at the nuclear powers' refusal to fulfill their Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons Treaty (NPT) obligation to engage in good faith negotiations for the elimination of their nuclear arsenals.
Who wouldn't want to celebrate 122 governments -- more than half of the UN member states -- having the gumption to insist enough and no more?
The nuclear weapons states and their allies -- that's who! Governments, militaries and elites who use preparations for and threats to use nuclear weapons to bolster their power and privilege. Men and women who practice international relations in the tradition of mafia dons. Those who profit from and have their fingers on the nuclear triggers.

Two trains are running in opposite directions. One is racing toward a nuclear weapons-free world. The other, now augmented by North Korea having become a nuclear weapons state, is spending unimaginable fortunes to upgrade their omnicidal nuclear arsenals and making threats to use them.
Honesty and the need for serious strategic thinking require that we acknowledge uncertainty and unpleasant realities. The treaty does contribute to the stigmatization of nuclear weapons, and it provides encouragement to people around the world who are working for nuclear disarmament. This is important.

But it will be law for only those states that sign and ratify it. All the nuclear powers boycotted the ban treaty negotiations. The US, UK, France and Russia denounced the treaty, falsely claiming that nuclear deterrence kept the peace for 70 years. (Ask the Vietnamese, Iraqis, Syrians, Yemenis, Congolese and so many others about that!) Led by US plans to spend $1.2 trillion for a new generation of nuclear weapons and their delivery systems -- including first-strike weapons, each of the nuclear powers is upgrading and/or expanding their nuclear arsenals. With NATO's expansion to Russia's borders, and the West's conventional, high-tech and space weapons superiority, Moscow has increased its dependence on its nuclear arsenal.
And it's hardly a secret that since the treaty's promulgation, the US and North Korea have exchanged nuclear threats, reinforced by Pyongyang's nuclear tests, US and North Korean missile "tests," Trump's threat of "severe" actions and simulated US nuclear bomber attacks against North Korea.

With increased Japanese and South Korean anxieties resulting from Pyongyang's nuclear threats and growing doubts about reliability of the US "nuclear umbrella" (would the US sacrifice Seattle for Seoul, Texas for Tokyo?) there are mounting calls from their elites for these governments to become nuclear powers.

We thus could be entering an era of nuclear weapons proliferation, not abolition.

Our future depends on how people and governments respond, and it dictates a global division of labor among nuclear weapons abolitionists.
Nations that negotiated the ban treaty must sign and ratify it as quickly as possible. This will reinforce the momentum created by its negotiation.
But winning nuclear weapons abolition still requires building mass movements, in alliance with other social movements, within the nuclear weapons and "umbrella" states: NATO nations, Japan, South Korea and Australia. These nations and their disarmament movements lie at the center of the struggle. If just one or two of these governments are led by their people to take advantage of the opening provided by the treaty and reject the strictures of their nuclear and potentially omnicidal alliances, the world's nuclear architecture will be weakened. That in turn could lead to a global disarmament dynamic.

And for those of us in the world's nuclear weapons states, the imperative of resistance remains. This includes ramped up education about the costs, preparations for, and dangers of nuclear war that can be brought on by miscalculation and accident, as well as intentionally. We need to highlight the deceit and deficiencies of "deterrence," and teach about the forces that led to and won the ban treaty.

But good ideas and truth rarely prevail on their own. Fredrick Douglas was right when he taught that, "Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will."We won't prevail without visible and challenging nonviolence actions and mobilized popular opinion
Our best near-term hope may lie in the remarkable rise of Jeremy Corbyn's Labour Party in Britain or possible Scottish succession from what was once Great Britain. Jeremy has said he would not push the nuclear button, and the loss of the Faslane on the Scottish coast could leave London without a nuclear weapons base.

Reality is dynamic, and via education and action, we can and must build on the ban treaty and prepare to take advantage of whatever nuclear disarmament openings appear.

Dr. Joseph Gerson is Director of the American Friends Service Committee's Peace and Economic Security Program, Executive Director of the Campaign for Peace, Disarmament and Common Security, and Co-Convener of the Peace and Planet international network. His most recent book is Empire and the Bomb: How the US Uses Nuclear Weapons to Dominate the World.

We just banned nuclear weapons!

by John 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. Money for New Nuclear Weapons or Testing

A nuclear test explosion
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.
Take Action

ICAN Wins Nobel Peace Prize October 6, 2017
ICAN was just awarded Nobel Prize for the UN nuke ban efforts
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.
Facebook post to share                
The New York Times · 34 mins ago
Vox · 25 mins ago
It’s a great honour to have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in recognition of our role in achieving #nuclearban…
7 hours ago · Twitter
Congratulations to the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons on well-deserved Nobel Peace Prize award.……
50 mins ago · Twitter
BREAKING NEWS The 2017 Nobel Peace Prize is awarded to the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) @nuclearban #NobelPrize…
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.…
4 mins ago · Twitter

Nobel’s Peace Prize to ICAN: Thank You to the Nobel Committee!  BY TRANSCEND MEMBERS, 9 October 2017
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
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

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. 

$1 Trillion “Upgrade” v. Nuclear Proliferation Treaty
The Burst-height Compensating Super-fuze.  

Tom Krebsbach.  “$1 Trillion for Nuclear Weapons.”  (Seattle Times May 7, 2016.)  Rptd. Washington Report on Middle East Affairs (June/July 2016, p. 77).
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 

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
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.
“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.)

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.
Restrict the First Use of Nuclear Weapons Act
Just Foreign Policy
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

Saturday, September 10, 2016
Dear Dick,
It’s amazing what we can do together.
Over the past month you proved once again that women are agents of peace by standing up and taking action against our dangerous nuclear weapons policy. Thousands of you contacted President Obama and signed a petition to the Presidential candidates to advance a no-first-use policy on nuclear weapons.
By speaking out, you’ve brought this vital issue to the front pages of national newspapers and gotten the attention of President Obama.
Now that North Korea has tested another nuclear weapon, we’ll stand up for change once again to keep nuclear forces at bay. Erica Fein, WAND Nuclear Weapons Policy Director, released a statement in response to this reckless, provocative, and dangerous nuclear testShare this on social media: Twitter and Facebook!
Next week we’ll ask you to continue to support this vital work to help ensure that there is common sense restraint when it comes to nuclear weapons testing.
Many thanks,
Jessie Calkins
Communications Director

691 Massachusetts Avenue | Arlington MA 02476
322 4th Street NE | Washington, DC 20002
250 Georgia Avenue S.E. Suite 202 | Atlanta, GA 30312

NUCLEAR AGE PEACE FOUNDATION NAPF: Committed to a World Free of Nuclear Weapons.
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. 

John Tierney, Council for a Livable World CLW  12-22-16   via 
Carl Sagan Told the Truth Decades Ago
3:21 PM (19 hours ago)
to James
FOLLOW US: Follow Us on Twitter Join Us on Facebook
“The nuclear arms race is like two sworn enemies standing waist deep in gasoline, one with three matches, the other with five.”
-Carl Sagan, November 9, 1934 – December 20, 1996
Dear James,
This week we remembered the legacy of one of our most influential board members: astronomer, astrophysicist, cosmologist and author, Carl Sagan. While to many Carl was the voice of the 1980s television series Cosmos: A Personal Voyage and responsible for a re-awakening of interest in space and science in American culture, he spent most of his career as a professor of astronomy at Cornell University.
In the early 1980s, Carl began working with a group of other scientists on a computational modeling study of the atmospheric consequences of nuclear war and soot in the stratosphere, publishing a paper in Science in December 1983. Throughout the 1980s, Carl was one of the most visible and most trusted public figures who spoke on the threats of nuclear proliferation and war.Give a gift of $25, $50, or $100 in honor of Carl Sagan’s legacy of scientific rigor, compassionate humanitarianism and nuclear nonproliferation. With your help, we will one day realize Carl Sagan’s dream of a world free from the threat of nuclear weapons.

In 1989, Carl Sagan and his colleague Richard Turco wrote a policy paper arguing that the U.S.S.R. and the U.S. should jointly reduce their nuclear arsenals to "Canonical Deterrent Force" levels of 100–300 individual warheads each to minimize the possible global devastation of nuclear winter.
Today [12-22-16], we are still a far cry away from this common sense limit. The United States and Russia, who still hold 93% of the world’s nuclear arsenal, maintain over 14,000 nuclear warheads between them. There is still real work for us to do, and the threat we face from nuclear attack, accident and annihilation has never been greater.
Sincerely,John Tierney, Executive Director, Member of Congress (former)  01/03/1997-01/03/2015
New Donate.png
Don't’want to donate online? Mail a check made out to the candidate of your choice to:
322 4th Street NE Washington, DC 20002 | Tel: (202) 543-4100
Council for A Livable World © 2016 All rights reserved.

Stop the Nuclear Weapons Spending Binge!
Jessie Calkins, WAND via 
10:21 AM (2 hours ago)
to James

Monday, December 12, 2016
Dear Dick,In a breaking investigative article, the Washington Post (1) reported that the Pentagon quashed a report that found $125 billion in wasteful spending on high-cost contractors and other “administrative waste.” This is money that could fix our crumbling bridges, be invested in our education system, or support health care access.
At the same time, the Pentagon is pushing for a $1 trillion overhaul of our nuclear arsenal - roughly 4,571 nuclear warheads (2) - the largest investment in nuclear weapons since the Cold War.
There are Members of Congress who are skeptical of the $1 trillion nuclear weapons spending binge, and they need your support!Senator Al Franken of Minnesota has introduced a resolution in the U.S. Senate to scrutinize these plans and ensure the Pentagon chooses options that are right for 21st century security needs.
With the end of the Cold War, we thought the arms race was over, but another is now beginning. And we know from history what it will look like: more advanced weapons of mass destruction and runaway budgets at the Pentagon. Meanwhile, all across the country our children go hungry, our veterans die of inadequate health care, and our crumbling bridges collapse. If the Department of Health and Human Services quashed a $125 billion savings report, there would be an uproar. We must hold the Pentagon to the same standards and demand more accountability, including its plans for the U.S. nuclear arsenal. 
A scaled up nuclear arsenal will do nothing to make us safer. Instead, it incentivizes other countries to begin or scale up their own arsenals. We as a nation cannot be successful in preventing the spread of nuclear weapons if we place such a premium on our own. The Franken Resolution sends a message that we should be scaling back these excessive plans.
Erica Fein
Nuclear Weapons Policy Director

101 Main Street, 14th Floor | Cambridge MA 02142
322 4th Street NE | Washington, DC 20002
250 Georgia Avenue S.E. Suite 202 | Atlanta, GA 30312

“in the abolition camp always working for whatever gains in that direction we can score”
Susan Cundiff  
5:40 PM (15 hours ago)
to me, Jean
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.
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

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?

FOLLOW US: Follow Us on Twitter Join Us on Facebook
Dear James,
Here’s what’s at stake if we don’t elect a majority of national security progressives this November:
·  Funding for arms control agreements could be withheld
·  Pentagon spending could increase drastically
·  The Iran Deal could be “ripped up”
·  Planned nuclear weapons dismantlement could be scrapped or delayed
·  Proposals for new unnecessary nuclear weapons could go forward without objection
We can't do it without you.
John Tierney, Executive Director
Member of Congress (former)
   Authorized and paid for by each candidate's campaign and by the Council for a Livable World Candidate Fund.
Contributions are not tax deductible.
New Donate.png
Don't want to donate online? Mail a check made out to the candidate of your choice to:
322 4th Street NE Washington, DC 20002 | Tel: (202) 543-4100
Council for A Livable World © 2016 All rights reserved.

Expand all
 Dick Bennett  12-16-16
12:21 PM (5 minutes ago)
to ArtBurnettaDawnGladysKellyLaurenLindaMatthewShaneTakemoto
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 


No comments:

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

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