What Nuclear Weapons Teach Us About Ourselves

David Krieger, president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, was excited by the promises Barack Obama made about reducing the threat nuclear weapons pose to the world. In my last blog I did an update, showing are short President Obama has fallen on his specific promises, on which I had sufficient information to comment. On May 24, 2011, Krieger did a piece for the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, with the title as shown above, which I think is a good companion piece for my last blog.

"Nuclear weapons are the most fearsome and destructive killing devices yet created by the human species. They have the capacity to destroy cities, countries and civilization. Yet, although these weapons give rise to some concern and worry, most humans on the planet are complacent about the inherent dangers of these weapons. It is worth exploring what our seeming indifference toward these weapons of mass annihilation teaches us about ourselves, and how we might remedy our malaise.

1. We are ill-informed. We appear to go about our daily lives with a self-assured degree of comfort that we will not be affected by the dangers of the weapons. We need more education about the extreme dangers and risks posed by nuclear weapons.

2. We are tribal. We divide ourselves into national tribes and identify with our own tribe while demonizing 'the other.' We need to be more global in our thinking. We need to think as members of the human species, not as members of a national tribe.

3. We are self-serving. We see our own nuclear weapons and those of our allies as being positive and useful, while we view the nuclear weapons of our enemies as being negative and harmful. We need to realize that nuclear weapons, as instruments of indiscriminate mass destruction, are illegal, immoral and dangerous in any hands, including our own.

4. We are arrogant. We seem to take perverse pride in our cleverness at having created such overwhelmingly powerful weapons. We need to take pride in constructive uses of our science-based technologies, and recognize the inherent dangers and immorality of their destructive uses.

5. We are pathological. We rely for our protection upon these weapons that threaten to kill millions of innocent civilians. We need to realize that true security cannot be based upon the threat of mass murder of innocents.

6. We are deluded. We believe that we will not survive threats from 'the other' if we do not rely upon these weapons of mass annihilation for our security. We need to engage 'the other' in dialogue until we realize that our common humanity supersedes our differences, and our common future demands our unity.

7. We are reckless. We are willing to bet the human species and the human future that we can keep these weapons under control. We need to stop playing Russian roulette with the human future.

8. We are foolish. We trust our leaders to act responsibly, so as to keep nuclear weapons under control. We need to realize that this is too great a responsibility for any person and that all leaders do not act responsibly at all times."

Bright Promise on Nukes Dashed for Major Nuke Opponent

In December 2008, David Krieger, president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, saw president-elect Barack Obama as the great hope for a nuclear weapons-free world, based on statements and promises Obama had made.The Obama statement that Krieger liked the best was: "A world without nuclear weapons is profoundly in America's interest and the world's interest. It is our responsibility to make the commitment, and to do the hard work to make this vision a reality. That's what I've done as a Senator and a candidate, and that's what I'll do as President."

Krieger also quoted Obama as saying: "I will make the goal of eliminating nuclear weapons worldwide a central element of US nuclear policy." And who would lead that effort? Obama had said that "if we want the world to de-emphasize the role of nuclear weapons, the United States and Russia must lead by example."

David Krieger made a list of specific steps that candidate Obama had said must be taken. I will comment briefly on the current known status of each of the steps.
* lead an international effort to de-emphasize the role of nuclear weapons around the world. In April 2010, President Obama renounced the development of any new nuclear weapons and he explicitly committed the United States not to use nuclear weapons against nonnuclear states that are in compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
* strengthen the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. There has been no action beyond what was said in the first bullet point.
* lock down the loose nuclear weapons that are put there right know. Barack Obama was a leader on this issue when he was a U.S. senator. Although some funding has been provided for this type of program, it has not been a major priority.
* secure all loose nuclear materials within four years. Well behind schedule
* immediately stand down all nuclear forces to be reduced under the Moscow Treaty and urge Russia to do the same. The status of this step is uncertain, although Obama has pushed back the warhead dismantlement date based on compliance with prior START treaties.
* seek Russia's agreement to extend essential monitoring and verification provisions of the START I (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) before it expires in December 2009. No information on this step.
* work with Russia to take US and Russian ballistic weapons stockpiles off hair-trigger alert. No information on this step.
* work with other nuclear powers to reduce global nuclear weapons stockpiles dramatically by the end of his presidency. The focus has been almost solely on Iran.
* stop the development of new nuclear weapons. Obama has pledged to not develop any new nuclear weapons; however, the building of three new nuclear weapons facilities will quadruple the capacity to build "pits", the triggers for nuclear weapons.
* seek dramatic reductions in US and Russian stockpiles of nuclear weapons and material. Besides the three new facilities in the modernization program, the future weapons blueprint calls for a new class of nuclear submarines, new nuclear-capable bomber and fighter aircraft, and updated nuclear bomb warheads and missiles. The price tag of $185 billion for just the next decade will almost certainly be greatly exceeded.
* set a goal to expand the US-Russian ban on intermediate-range missiles so that the agreement is global. No evident progress.
* build a bipartisan consensus for ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Totally off the table.
* cut investments in unproven missile defense systems. Obama has continued funding at about past levels. Deployment of anti-missile systems continues. Instead of a missile defense designed to knock down improbably launched long-range missiles by Iran, as proposed by President Bush, President Obama is proposing to station in Eastern Europe, smaller SAM-3 missiles designed to blow up short-range missiles launched by Iran.
* not weaponize space. The Pentagon currently has a space command with a mission to put weapons in space.

One further comment on our current nuclear weapons arsenal: the enormous explosive yields of the U.S. arsenal makes it inappropriate for use against weak, desperate adversaries. Moreover, the collateral damage from an attack on our adversaries could cause great suffering to our friends land allies, even bringing on the possibility of a devastating nuclear winter.