Overview: War and Weapons

Read Article | Comments

Author: Metta Spencer

Even before our primate ancestors began to walk upright, there were wars—times when whole human communities or groups within a community tried to kill each other. Scholars have reached this conclusion partly on the basis of Jane Goodall’s discovery that our closest primate relative, the chimpanzee, engages in war,(1) and partly on the basis of archaeological evidence. One site of skeletons was found in Kenya dating back 9,500 to 10,500 years showing that a group of 27 people had been massacred together.(2) Indeed, there is strong evidence that levels of violence were higher in prehistoric times than today.(3) One example is a cemetery about 14,000 years old where about 45 percent of the skeletons showed signs of violent death.(4) An estimated 15 percent of deaths in primitive societies were caused by warfare.

But life did not consistently become friendlier as our species spread and developed. By one estimate, there were 14,500 wars between 3500 BC and the late twentieth century. These took around 3.5 billion lives.(5)

Can we conclude, then, that war is simply an intrinsic part of “human nature,” so that one cannot reasonably hope to overcome it? No, for there is more variation in the frequency and extent of warfare than can be attributed to genetic differences. In some societies, war is completely absent. Douglas Fry, checking the ethnographic records, identified 74 societies that have clearly been non-warring; some even lacked a word for “war.” The Semai of Malaysia and the Mardu of Australia are examples.(6)

We may gain insights about solutions to warfare by exploring the variations in its distribution, type, and intensity. We begin with the best news: We are probably living in the most peaceful period in human history!

Infographic-Healthcare-Not-Warfare-GDAMS-3.jpg

Infographic, Global Day of Action on Military Spending (GDAMS)

Historical Changes in Rates of War

Steven Pinker is the scholar who most convincingly argues that violence has declined, both recently and over the millennia. Pinker’s book Enlightenment Now, contains a graph showing the numbers of battle deaths by year from 1945 to 2015. A huge spike represents World War II, of course, for that was most lethal war in human history, causing at least 55 million deaths. How can we reconcile that ghastly number with any claim that the modern era is a peaceful epoch?

Pinker’s proof is based on distinguishing sharply between absolute numbers and rates. To be sure, 55 million is a huge number, but the Mongol Conquests killed 40 million people back in the thirteenth century, out of a world population only about one-seventh the size of the world’s 1950 population. Pinker says that if World War II had matched the Mongols’ stupendous rate of killing, about 278 million people would have been killed.

Read more

To Post a Comment

Please wait a few seconds for the comments to load at the bottom of this page. Then read the ideas other people have shared and reply or add your own knowledge. The space for comments is in a pale font. It’s good to give your comment a title by selecting it and clicking the “B” (for “boldface”). And you can italicize passages with the “I”, indent, add hyperlinks (with the chain symbol) or even attach a photo or graphic from your hard drive by clicking the paperclip at the right side of the space. Have fun with it!

Subscribe
Notify of

199 Comments
Newest
Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Canada, NATO, & The Nuclear Ban Treaty

Paul Meyer | CDA Institute | 19 January 2021

Does the TPNW complement existing treaties? What are its aims and what gaps could it fill?

Supporters of the 2017 Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) characterized it as filling a “legal gap”. This refers to the fact that of the three categories of WMDs—chemical, biological, and nuclear, only the first two categories are subject to comprehensive prohibition treaties. Nuclear weapons are only constrained by the 1968 (Nuclear) Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT). The NPT has a far lower standard of restriction on nuclear weapons. The treaty commits its state parties to work towards nuclear disarmament and oppose any proliferation, but the NPT is actually silent on the possession and use of nuclear weapons. Article VI of the NPT outlines an obligation to engage in good faith negotiations to bring the arms race to a cessation at an early date, and for nuclear disarmament. But the NPT lacks the comprehensive prohibition of the other treaties. What’s especially significant is that the TPNW also prohibits the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons.”

Read More Here: https://cdainstitute.ca/paul-meyer-canada-nato-the-nuclear-treaty-ban/

Last edited 2 years ago by Adam Wynne

That’s an interesting point, but it sure seems contradictory to say that you are negotiating in good faith while actually continuing to possess nuclear weapons. In fact, I don’t think any NW state even pretends to be negotiating for nuclear disarmament.

Well, they did disarm somewhat when Russia and the US were negotiating various treaties. Quite a bit, in fact. They are just not planning to get rid of them all.

If you’re in Canada, please take action to say No to the War on Yemen,
Yemen is now the world’s worst humanitarian disaster – and 15 billion in Canadian-made weapons are going to the Saudis. Take action and call on Trudeau to stop sending munitions that fuel the war in Yemen.

  1. Sign this petition.
  2. Email your contacts this petition.
  3. Put out the post below social media.

Social Media Post to use:

Please kindly sign & widely share this Canadian Government petition. With enough signatures we can tell the Trudeau Govt to stop the sale of arms to Saudi & to bring them to The Hague for war crimes in #Yemen > https://petitions.ourcommons.ca/en/Petition/Sign/e-3075 #YemenCantWait #Yemen #StopArmingSaudi

Thank you

Excellent suggestion, Ali. Is there any proof that the Saudis are using Canadian weapons against the Yemen people? I am not saying that they AREN’T — I really just don’t know.

I don’t know either. But does it matter? I mean, we know what they are doing to the Yemen people, regardless of the national origin of their weapons, so we should not be providing them with tools that they MIGHT use to oppress people. Sell weapons only to legitimate police forces, and only certain kinds of non-military weapons at that.

On Tuesday, February 9, 2021 at 12:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time, I will be joining a conversation with Metta Spencer on her To Save The World YouTube channel. We will be speaking about my work on the McIntyre Powder Project, which is a justice project that I founded to seek answers about the health effects on miners and factory workers who were historically required by their employers to inhale finely ground aluminum dust known as McIntyre Powder – a non-consensual prophylactic medical treatment against the lung disease silicosis. My father, Jim Hobbs, was one of the affected underground miners, who ended up with Parkinson’s. After years of advocacy, researchers found a link between Parkinson’s and McIntyre Powder exposure in a groundbreaking study released in 2020.

What does this have to do with PEACE? Metta’s invitation to engage in this conversation gave me pause to think about the notion of peace and how it relates to the fight that I am engaged in to seek justice and reparation for what was at its core an industrial human health experiment. Where there is wrongdoing, human rights violations, or similar offences, the pathway to peace begins with acknowledgement of the wrongdoing, the violations, the offences. It is fundamental for healing to acknowledge the wound. I very much look forward to speaking with Metta and her guest co-host Dr. Richard Denton.

For anyone seeking background on this subject, please watch The Fifth Estate’s 2016 documentary “The Miner’s Daughter”, or read the Toronto Star’s April 15, 2017 article “In human experiment, Ontario miners say they paid a devastating price” – both of which are available under the “Media Reports” tab of the McIntyre Powder Project website. Thanks!

The following document was produced by a movement initiated by Sergey Rogov, former director of the USA/Canada Institute in Moscow. It has been endorsed by 146 experts; see their names at the end. We hope to produce a talk show on our Youtube channel with arms control experts in Moscow, Canada, and other NATO countries. Watch for it on our channel, https://youtube.com/c/ToSaveTheWorld .
— Metta Spencer

Recommendations of the Participants of the Expert Dialogue on NATO-Russia Military Risk Reduction in Europe

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This group of experts from Russia, the United States and Europe held 15 online-seminars on NATO–Russia Risk Reduction in summer and fall of 2020 and offer the following ideas:

To maintain strategic stability, we look forward to immediate action to extend the New START Treaty for 5 years.

At the same time, we are concerned by the deterioration of the European security situation in recent years. The nuclear and conventional arms control system that took decades to build is rapidly unraveling, with nothing to take its place. Incidents in the course of military activities which bring Russian and NATO forces into close proximity are worrisome in their own right and run the risk of escalation. While members of our group diff er over the root causes of the crisis, we are concerned that as tension builds between Russia and NATO, a real military confrontation becomes an increasing danger.

Given this situation, we call upon our countries’ leaders to demonstrate the political will necessary to take a number of urgent actions in order to reduce the risks of military conflict. These military and security actions should be pursued whether or not we make progress in reducing the serious political disputes among our countries. Indeed, these steps can contribute to an atmosphere, in which resolution of those difficult political issues becomes more achievable.

We propose a set of measures, recognizing that not all of these steps will be immediately feasible. The detailed recommendations below address the following areas:

1. Re-establishing practical dialogue between Russia and NATO, including direct contacts between the military commanders and experts of Russia and NATO member states.

2. Developing common rules that will reduce the risk of unintended incidents on land, air and sea.

3. Enhancing stability by increasing transparency, avoiding dangerous military activities, and providing dedicated communication channels that would avoid escalation of incidents that might occur.

4. Utilizing (and possibly supplementing) the 1997 NATO-Russia Founding Act to codify restraint, transparency and confidence-building measures.

5. Exploring possible limitations on NATO and Russian conventional force deployments in Europe to enhance transparency and stability.

6. Establishing consultations between Russia and US/NATO on the topics of intermediate-range missiles and ballistic missile defense, in order to prevent a new nuclear missile race in Europe.

7. Preserving the Open Skies Treaty.

SPECIFIC PROPOSALS

1.The need for dialogue

1.1. Political dialogue should be revitalized at the ambassadorial level in the NATO-Russia Council and include briefi ngs by military experts as appropriate.

1.2. As part of the NATO 2030 refl ection process, Russia and NATO member states should analyze relations between NATO and Russia with a view to developing the military-to-military dialogue. At a time when most NATO-Russia cooperation remains suspended, such a dialogue should not be viewed as a departure from NATO’s “no business as usual” policy, but as a step that is necessary to increase predictability and reduce the risk of military incidents at sea, in the air and on land escalating to the level of military conflict.
Read more

‘This is going to be quite a show’: Biden’s arms control team eyes nuclear policy overhaul

President Joe Biden is assembling a national security team with an unusually ambitious agenda to negotiate new arms control treaties, scale back the nuclear arsenal, and review decades of military doctrine.
But veterans of the last administration fear this newly empowered group of progressives may be naive about what can be achieved without undermining U.S. security, and are already warning them to prepare for a shock when they read the latest intelligence.

Taking up posts at the Pentagon, State Department and National Security Council are a cadre of experts who collectively have their sights on a renaissance in nuclear restraint, after President Donald Trump withdrew from three arms control pacts, threatened a nuclear war with North Korea and expanded the role of nuclear weapons in war planning.

Biden has already agreed to extend the last remaining nuclear agreement with Russia, the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, and called for further negotiations with Moscow to place new limits on their arsenals, the world’s largest. And the group of arms control experts he is enlisting to carry out his agenda represents the vanguard of a decades-long progressive push to pull back from the nuclear brink and seek the elimination of atomic weapons.
“The stars are aligned,” said Joe Cirincione, a veteran nonproliferation advocate who mentored a number of Biden’s picks. “Extending New START for five years is just the opening gambit. This is going to be quite a show.”
Read more

Suggestion Box: Compulsory Dispute Resolution to Abolish Nuclear Weapons

James Ranney has posted this proposal in the suggestion box:
“The missing link? Compulsory international dispute resolution. Check out my new book, World Peace Through Law.”

Great idea, James. Would you care to elaborate on it with another comment here? You may need to propose ways of making it happen!

Sure. The argument is as follows: 1) We must abolish war (or war will abolish us, JFK); 2) we therefore need ALTERNATIVES TO WAR; 3) this means we need INTERNATIONAL ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION; and 4) this means, in order to be workable, we need COMPULSORY INTERNATIONAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION (compulsory negotiation, which would probably have prevented WWI, according to two historians); compulsory mediation (which would probably prevent 95% of all int’l conflict); compulsory arbitration (as argued by President Theodore Roosevelt, but was rejected by the Republicans in the Senate); and compulsory adjudication in the World Court (proposed by Mikhail Gorbachev in 1987 & discussed for a couple years before being forgotten). This proposal was accepted by representatives of the U.S. and the USSR in the famous McCloy-Zorin Agreement in 1961, but has been totally forgotten since then.

Suggestion Box: Petition Canada to Prohibit Nuclear Weapons!

Nancy Covington has posted this suggestion:
“Until closing Feb 6, 2021 petition to call on the Canadian Government to sign the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons is open. Sign here:https://petitions.ourcommons.ca/en/Petition/Sign/e-3028
Yes! This is important, folks. Let’s get behind this campaign!

Suggestion Box: Build New Global Peace Movement by Women for Children

Andre Sheldon has posted this idea in the suggestion box:
” I have networked with women leaders from around the world, planting seeds, in preparation for this moment….Global Strategy of Nonviolence, For the Children Facilitator, CALL to WOMEN, a World-Wide Unity Campaign +1-617-964-5267 Email: Andre@GlobalStrategyofNonviolence.org Website: http://www.GlobalStrategyofNonviolence.org Facebook: Global Movement of Nonviolence”

Suggestion Box: Conventional Wars Count Too!

Alberto Portugheis posted this idea in the suggestion box: “It should be the other way round: “Weapons & War” and NEVER “especially nuclear.” 1,000s die daily from conventional warfare. Alberto, President HUFUD.”
Of course it’s true. The people being killed in wars now are all hit by regular bullets and bombs, not nuclear ones. Would you like to come back to this comments column and elaborate on this idea, Alberto? You can also tell us about HUFUD, or post events if you have anything planned. Thanks for your sensible comment.

Will America Help Britain Build A New Nuclear Warhead?

Matthew Harries | War on the Rocks | 22 October 2020

“The future of the United Kingdom’s nuclear deterrent depends, in part, on decisions being made right now in the U.S. Congress. At stake are Britain’s plans to build a replacement for its current nuclear warhead. According to the U.K. defense secretary and senior U.S. officials, the United Kingdom’s program is reliant on the United States pursuing its own new warhead program of record, the W93. But the Donald Trump administration’s Fiscal Year 2021 request for funds for the W93 was first nixed by House appropriators and then excluded from the stopgap continuing resolution. It is neither clear whether the W93 program will eventually make it into the budget proper, nor whether it would be taken up immediately by a potential incoming Joe Biden administration.”

Read more

Read More: https://warontherocks.com/2020/10/will-america-help-britain-build-a-new-nuclear-warhead/

Last edited 3 years ago by Adam Wynne

Until closing Feb 6, 2021 petition to call on the Canadian Government to sign the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons is open.

Sign here: https://petitions.ourcommons.ca/en/Petition/Sign/e-3028

Vatican’s Foreign Minister Reaffirms Church’s Shift Away From Accepting Nuclear Deterrence

Joshua J. McElwee | National Catholic Reporter | 16 December 2020

ROME — The Vatican’s foreign minister reaffirmed the Catholic Church’s recent shift away from accepting the Cold War-era global system of nuclear deterrence Dec. 16, telling a webinar featuring arms control activists that nuclear weapons only give “a false sense of security.”

“International peace and security cannot be founded on the threat of mutual destruction or total annihilation, or maintaining a balance of power,” Archbishop Paul Gallagher told the webinar, which was co-hosted by the Vatican and several institutes at Georgetown University and the University of Notre Dame.

“Peace and security must be built on justice, integral human development, [and] respect for fundamental human rights,” said Gallagher. “From this perspective, it is necessary to go beyond nuclear deterrence.”

Read more

Link: https://www.ncronline.org/news/vatican/vaticans-foreign-minister-reaffirms-churchs-shift-away-accepting-nuclear-deterrence

Last edited 3 years ago by Adam Wynne

The missing link? Compulsory international dispute resolution. Check out my new book, World Peace Through Law.

The missing link? Compulsory international dispute resolution. Check out my new book, World Peace Through Law.

Google Earth Reveals Suspected Nuclear Weapons Facility in Pakistan

Adam Vaughan | NewScientist | 27 November 2020

Sleuthing with satellite images on Google Earth has revealed a substantial and undocumented expansion to a suspected nuclear processing plant in Pakistan. Researchers say it is a possible sign of the country boosting the capacity of its nuclear weapons programme.

Pakistan has possessed nuclear weapons since 1998, but isn’t a signatory to key international treaties on nuclear proliferation and tests. The country’s secretive nuclear weapons programme is closely watched due to tensions with neighbouring India, which also has a nuclear arsenal.

Full article available here: https://www.newscientist.com/article/2261031-google-earth-reveals-suspected-nuclear-weapons-facility-in-pakistan

Last edited 3 years ago by Adam Wynne

Time to Ban the Bomb: A Path Forward:

The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons



Beatrice Fihn | Ploughshares Fund | 2020

“The risk of use of nuclear weapons is higher today than it has been for years. With developments in cyber warfare, autonomous weapons and an increasingly uncertain global security situation, that risk will only increase over time. A security policy based on plans to fight — and “win” — a nuclear war is morally bankrupt and unsustainable. The United States must begin developing a policy for a non-nuclear future, or risk becoming an outlier without moral authority.

The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), a global coalition of over 530 organizations, is leading a movement to achieve this non-nuclear future. Over 10 years, together with countless partners in governments, international organizations and civil society groups around the world, we helped incubate and amplify a previously-ignored conversation about nuclear weapons. We placed civilians and the harm caused to them by nuclear weapons at the center of debate. This movement ultimately led to the adoption of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) and to ICAN being awarded the 2017 Nobel Peace Prize for its work in promoting nuclear disarmament.

The Treaty emerged through something new and different in the disarmament debate within the nuclear community — the Humanitarian Initiative. This initiative reframed the discourse around nuclear weapons to make the horrific humanitarian consequences caused by their use the center of discussion, rather than a secondary issue. In seeking the negotiation and adoption of the treaty, we followed the path set by other global weapons prohibitions, including conventions related to biological weapons, chemical weapons, antipersonnel landmines and cluster munitions. The premise, based in international law, is founded on the total abnegation of possession and use of weapons with unspeakable consequences.”

Read more

The full article is available here: https://ploughshares.org/issues-analysis/article/time-ban-bomb

Last edited 3 years ago by Adam Wynne

Talking Tough and Carrying a Radioactive Stick:

The Nuclearization of American Diplomacy



Michael T. Klare | Moyers on Democracy | 20 October 2020

“States have long engaged in military operations to intimidate other powers. Once upon a distant time, this would have been called “gunboat diplomacy” and naval vessels would have been the instruments of choice for such missions. The arrival of nuclear arms made such operations far more dangerous. This didn’t, however, stop the US from using weaponry of this sort as tools of intimidation throughout the Cold War. In time, however, even nuclear strategists began condemning acts of “nuclear coercion,” arguing that such weaponry was inappropriate for any purpose other than “deterrence” — that is, using the threat of “massive retaliation” to prevent another country from attacking you. In fact, a deterrence-only posture eventually became Washington’s official policy, even if the temptation to employ nukes as political cudgels never entirely disappeared from its strategic thinking.”

Read the full article here: https://billmoyers.com/story/talking-tough-and-carrying-a-radioactive-stick

Last edited 3 years ago by Adam Wynne

US urges countries to withdraw from UN nuke ban treaty

Edith M. Lederer | The Associated Press | 21 October 2020
Link: https://apnews.com/article/nuclear-weapons-disarmament-latin-america-united-nations-gun-politics-4f109626a1cdd6db10560550aa1bb491

UNITED NATIONS (AP) — The United States is urging countries that have ratified a U.N. treaty to ban nuclear weapons to withdraw their support as the pact nears the 50 ratifications needed to trigger its entry into force, which supporters say could happen this week.

The U.S. letter to signatories, obtained by The Associated Press, says the five original nuclear powers — the U.S., Russia, China, Britain and France — and America’s NATO allies “stand unified in our opposition to the potential repercussions” of the treaty.

It says the treaty “turns back the clock on verification and disarmament and is dangerous” to the half-century-old Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, considered the cornerstone of global nonproliferation efforts.
“Although we recognize your sovereign right to ratify or accede to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), we believe that you have made a strategic error and should withdraw your instrument of ratification or accession,” the letter says.

The treaty requires that all ratifying countries “never under any circumstances … develop, test, produce, manufacture, otherwise acquire, possess or stockpile nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.” It also bans any transfer or use of nuclear weapons or nuclear explosive devices — and the threat to use such weapons — and requires parties to promote the treaty to other countries.

Read more

Historic Milestone: UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons Reaches 50 Ratifications Needed for Entry Into Force

ICAN | 24 October 2020

On October 24, 2020, the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons reached the required 50 states parties for its entry into force, after Honduras ratified just one day after Jamaica and Nauru submitted their ratifications. In 90 days, the treaty will enter into force, cementing a categorical ban on nuclear weapons, 75 years after their first use.

This is a historic milestone for this landmark treaty. Prior to the TPNW’s adoption, nuclear weapons were the only weapons of mass destruction not banned under international law, despite their catastrophic humanitarian consequences. Now, with the treaty’s entry into force, we can call nuclear weapons what they are: prohibited weapons of mass destruction, just like chemical weapons and biological weapons.
ICAN’s Executive Director Beatrice Fihn welcomed the historic moment. “This is a new chapter for nuclear disarmament. Decades of activism have achieved what many said was impossible: nuclear weapons are banned,” she said.

Setsuko Thurlow, survivor of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, said “I have committed my life to the abolition of nuclear weapons. I have nothing but gratitude for all who have worked for the success of our treaty.” As a long-time and iconic ICAN activist who has spent decades sharing the story of the horrors she faced to raise awareness on the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons this moment held particular significance: “This is the first time in international law that we have been so recognized. We share this recognition with other hibakusha across the world, those who have suffered radioactive harm from nuclear testing, from uranium mining, from secret experimentation.” Survivors of atomic use and testing all over the world have joined Setsuko in celebrating this milestone.

The three latest states to ratify were proud to be part of such a historic moment. All 50 states have shown true leadership to achieve a world without nuclear weapons, all while facing unprecedented levels of pressure from the nuclear armed states not to do so. A recent letter, obtained by AP only days before the ceremony, demonstrates that the Trump administration has been directly pressuring states that have ratified the treaty to withdraw from it and abstain from encouraging others to join it, in direct contradiction to their obligations under the treaty. Beatrice Fihn said: “Real leadership has been shown by the countries that have joined this historical instrument to bring it to full legal effect. Desperate attempts to weaken these leaders’ commitment to nuclear disarmament demonstrate only the fear of nuclear armed states of the change this treaty will bring.”

This is just the beginning. Once the treaty is in force, all states parties will need to implement all of their positive obligations under the treaty and abide by its prohibitions. States that haven’t joined the treaty will feel its power too – we can expect companies to stop producing nuclear weapons and financial institutions to stop investing in nuclear weapon producing companies.
How do we know? Because we have nearly 600 partner organisations in over 100 countries committed to advancing this treaty and the norm against nuclear weapons. People, companies, universities and governments everywhere will know this weapon has been prohibited and that now is the moment for them to stand on the right side of history.”

https://www.icanw.org/historic_milestone_un_treaty_on_the_prohibition_of_nuclear_weapons_reaches_50_ratifications_needed_for_entry_into_force

Last edited 3 years ago by Adam Wynne

Program ABM systems to shoot down intrusions, without regard to their source

Unlike Ronald Reagan’s 1980s Strategic defence initiative, a.k.a. Star Wars, the anti-missile defence shield, into which Canada currently seems to be placing some serious stock, is quite realistic and technologically sound. In fact, over two decades ago the tech had impressively (at least to me) proved itself to be on solid ground, though I feel that it could’ve already been by now solidly established as a fully functional defense shield.
Though there still are skeptics, I can recall the successful interceptions by Patriot missiles launched from batteries stationed around Israel during Desert Storm.
If I recall correctly, the Patriot missiles had been barely developed with no practical testing, thus they had to be field tested during actual warfare. Only one scud made it through the defence shield intact and another after being severely damaged, though both did not result in death, injury nor even notable damage. Had the system been shy of competent, let alone a failure, there’s no reason to believe that the nuclear-armed nation of Israel was bluffing when it promised to retaliate against Iraq if the Patriots failed to deliver and Israeli casualties were incurred.
Unfortunately, whatever small degree to which the U.S. has thus far developed its shield technology in actual hardware would only serve to intercept ballistic missiles targeting nations that are U.S. friendly or their protection is in U.S. interests.

Read more

Does the Soviet “Dead Hand” system count as a Lethal Autonomous Weapon? Has this system carried over into modern day Russia?

Arctic Peace and Security Policy Issues

The history of the circumpolar nations has been one of cooperation, of necessity in the harsh polar environment, and for the mutual benefit of all. As the Arctic opens to greatly enlarged economic and governance activity, there is significant risk that competition and confrontation will occur, and that the presently non-militarized Arctic could change dramatically, in a non-beneficial manner. To this end, it is important that the Arctic should be free of nuclear weapons, and that positive actions by the non-nuclear-weapon circumpolar states should commence in the immediate future. Canada, with its vast territories and extensive coastline is in a key position to draft its Arctic Policy to include its aspiration for a nuclear-weapon-free Arctic, and take an international leadership role.

 In this context, it is very important to recall the 1983 Declaration of the Inuit Circumpolar Council (ICC) on a Nuclear Free Arctic. Re-Issue of an updated Declaration by the ICC could have a powerful impact on the international community and influence progress toward a nuclear-weapon-free Arctic. Canadian Pugwash, together with its international contacts, has significant expertise in current political status of nuclear weapons and would gladly offer assistance in producing updated wording of the Declaration.

Read more

Japan Council’s Statement on Trump’s Nuclear Tests

President Trump’s Message on the Occasion of the 75th Anniversary of the Trinity Nuclear Test Shows No Sign of Remorse and Blatantly Declaring Further Nuclear Arms Buildup

On July 16, U.S. President Trump released a Presidential Message on the 75th Anniversary of the Trinity Nuclear Test held in New Mexico. Referring to the Manhattan Project which produced the atomic bombs, the Message says that it “helped end World War II and launch an unprecedented era of global stability” and “Our nuclear deterrent has also greatly benefitted our Nation and our allies”. This is a laudatory statement trying to justify the current nuclear buildup and modernization program promoted by the Trump Administration.

We strongly protest against his attempt to justify the production of the atomic bombs, rather than shifting to the elimination of nuclear weapons in the 75th year of the atomic bombing, which blatantly betrays the aspiration of the Hibakusha and challenges the world public opinion in support of the elimination of nuclear weapons. The atomic bomb attack was made on Hiroshima and Nagasaki when both Germany and Italy had surrendered and Japan had lost its war potential completely though it had yet to make a decision to surrender. It was the attack against undefended cities, where most of the victims were non-combatants. It was an unprecedented scale of mass destruction, which cannot be justified even in the light of international law in those days.

Read more

“Five reasons to say no to spending $19 billion on war planes”

By: Brent Patterson

The Canadian government intends to sign a $19 billion contract in 2022 with one of three transnational corporations bidding to manufacture 88 fighter jets for the Royal Canadian Air Force. Here are five reasons to say no to that planned purchase:

1- We can’t afford the fighter jets. On July 8, Finance Minister Bill Morneau announced that he expects a $343.2 billion deficit for the 2020-21 fiscal year due to the spending related to the pandemic. This is a dramatic increase from the $19 billion deficit in 2016 when the Trudeau government announced the bidding process for new fighter jets.

Read more

New Technologies Disrupt the Nuclear Balance!

Article by: Elizabeth Sherwood-Randall

“For decades, American policymakers and military planners have focused on preserving what is known in the nuclear lexicon as ‘strategic stability.’ During the Cold War, especially as mutual assured destruction became accepted logic between the United States and the Soviet Union, the pursuit of strategic stability provided a framework for managing the existential risks associated with massive nuclear arsenals.

Under conditions of strategic stability, each superpower recognized that its adversary could massively retaliate against a nuclear first strike—which created a disincentive to resorting to nuclear weapons. Preserving confidence that each side had a “second-strike capability” thus became essential. And even with the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, strategic stability has continued to structure thinking among policymakers and planners about how to create predictability in the nuclear relationship and reduce incentives to escalation.”

Read more

Are these REALLY immoral?

I found this interesting that morality was brought up – why is delegating killing to machines immoral? After all, I believe that humans would need to program the machines to only kill in certain circumstances- therefore the humans make the decision when to kill and under what circumstance. Therefore, the humans really decide…

What’s new?

We need some updates on status of disarmament agreements

Hurting Military Friends’ Feelings

Some of my friends with military backgrounds are deeply offended by the video that we posted this week. It is a recording of our monthly town hall, and we discussed the new proposal to defund the military. You can talk about defunding the police now, but you must nut speak of defunding the military, lest you hurt their feelings. Pride and honor mean too much to them.

But surely everyone can see that all those weapons we have purchased have not given us any security. A tiny virus can kill millions, so we should.be spending on health, education, and climate change. How can anyone take offense because i propose that? The world spends $1.9 trillion per year on militarism. That is ridiculous. Sorry, pal. We are friends but I cannot softpedal that reality to make you feel good about your job.

John Polanyi is a Nobel laureate in chemistry and a professor at the University of Toronto.

We must do more to prevent nuclear war

By John Polanyi December 9, 2019

When Greta Thunberg gives a speech, she wastes no time getting to the point.
“You come to young people for hope,” she told the United Nations General Assembly in September. “You say you understand the urgency…How dare you then pretend that this can be solved by ‘business as usual’?…Change is coming, whether you like it, or not.”
What Greta said is no less true of the most serious danger we face today: nuclear war.
To counter that, the world needs to take two major steps back from the brink of disaster, on which we have teetered for three-quarters of a century. The first of these steps is disarmament, and the second a ban on nuclear weapons.
You may think these overly ambitious aims. But, to many, they represent the minimum that our predicament demands. Fortunately for the world, there are strong precedents for both these steps. Unfortunately, we have yet to heed those precedents.
Why are we faced with this need for change? It stems from the transformative power of modern science, which marks off the age of the atom from all preceding history. This need did not arise overnight, but did happen with remarkable suddenness.
The word “atom” is based on the Greek “a-tomos”: “not divisible”. Scientists, beginning with Ernest Rutherford, began questioning that thousand-year-old supposition. Rutherford and his students realised that they had in their experiments broken the atom apart. Then, a student of my father’s, Leo Szilard, devised a way of harnessing the energy released in the nuclear break-up. His idea was to exploit the chemist’s notion of chain reaction.
In 1935, when I was a child, Szilard sat in the garden of our house in Manchester, calculating, with my father, the temperature that would be reached in a nuclear chain reaction (which Szilard had patented, donating the patent to the British navy). The answer was thousands of millions of degrees centigrade. Ten years later, in 1945, two atomic bombs based on this idea were used in war, and 200,000 people were killed.
That was the start of our new era, as different from earlier times as the iron age was from the stone age. Since the ages of mankind only follow one another at thousand-year intervals, you should reflect on the extraordinary timing of your arrival on this planet. If, rather than being born in recent decades, you had been born in the previous thousands of years, great feats of imagination would not have been required of you. Today, they are needed for your, and your fellow beings’, survival.
Read more

Prevent the weaponization of space

The Russian News Agency TASS has published articles about the Kremlin’s recent statements on preventing the weaponization of space. This appears to be a response to President Trump’s recent statement on potential commercial activities on the moon. Let’s remember the 1966 Outer Space Treaty.

Any attempts to ‘privatize’ outer space unacceptable — Kremlin

GENEVA, August 14. /TASS/. Moscow calls on the global community to develop consensus measures to keep outer space free from weapons, which will contribute to strengthening peace and security, Russian Permanent Representative to the UN Office and other international organizations in Geneva Gennady Gatilov said at a plenary meeting of the Conference on Disarmament on Wednesday.

“We call on all states to have a meaningful, constructive conversation to prevent an arms race in outer space with a view to jointly developing consensus measures to keep outer space free from weapons and thereby strengthen international peace and global security,” the diplomat said.

“There is no time to spare,” he stressed. “Missing this chance will be a crime against future generations.”

Gatilov recalled that, in 2004, Russia assumed the obligation not to be the first to deploy weapons in outer space. To date, 21 countries have become full-fledged participants in that initiative. The head of the Russian mission voiced regret and concern over the fact that none of the Western countries, primarily from among the ones significant in terms of space exploration, expressed a desire to join it until now.

Gatilov stressed that the implementation of intentions to bring weapons to the near-Earth space would have an adverse effect on international security and global stability.

“Thanks to efforts made by individual Western countries, we are entering a new space era,” he noted. “We can say with a high degree of probability that it will be marked by further degradation of trust between nations.”

The diplomat described statements on deploying weapons in outer space and their potential combat use as “an ultimatum to the global community” and the intention to seek uncontrolled dominance in outer space. He noted that this would give an opportunity for individual countries to dictate their terms both in the low Earth orbit and on Earth.

Russia remains committed to “finding reliable ways to keep outer space free from weapons of any kind,” Gatilov noted. One of the ways of achieving that goal would be “a legally binding treaty on preventing the deployment of weapons in outer space based on the principles and norms of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty,” he said. The diplomat explained that the signing of such an agreement and participation of countries most active in space in it would make it possible to remove preconditions for turning outer space into the armed confrontation sphere.”

The Conference on Disarmament consists of 65 countries. It was established in 1979 following the first special UN General Assembly session on disarmament held in 1978 as the only international negotiating forum of the global community to hammer out disarmament agreements.

7 April 2020 https://tass.com/science/1141217

More information on the 1966 Outer Space Treaty is available here: https://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/introouterspacetreaty.html
[/read]

I am wondering as to the phrasing of the treaty – does it cover all classes of weapons? It discusses prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and WMDs.

What about newer activities like asteroid and lunar mining? How would this fit within the notion of “outer space is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means?”

The United Nations Office of Outer Space Affairs offers the following principals for the 1966/1967 Outer Space Treaty:

The Outer Space Treaty provides the basic framework on international space law, including the following principles:

  • the exploration and use of outer space shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries and shall be the province of all mankind;
  • outer space shall be free for exploration and use by all States;
  • outer space is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means;
  • States shall not place nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction in orbit or on celestial bodies or station them in outer space in any other manner;
  • the Moon and other celestial bodies shall be used exclusively for peaceful purposes;
  • astronauts shall be regarded as the envoys of mankind;
  • States shall be responsible for national space activities whether carried out by governmental or non-governmental entities;
  • States shall be liable for damage caused by their space objects; and
  • States shall avoid harmful contamination of space and celestial bodies.

https://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/introouterspacetreaty.html

Regarding the last point, there is already a lot of debris and junk orbiting Earth. Should this be cleaned up eventually? Is it “harmful contamination?”

When the Minuteman Missiles Disappeared

This is an alarming article by Dr. Bruce G. Blair – one of the co-founders of Global Zero.

“It is tempting for the United States to exploit its superiority in cyberwarfare to hobble the nuclear forces of North Korea or other opponents. As a new form of missile defense, cyberwarfare seems to offer the possibility of preventing nuclear strikes without the firing of a single nuclear warhead.

But as with many things involving nuclear weaponry, escalation of this strategy has a downside: United States forces are also vulnerable to such attacks.

Imagine the panic if we had suddenly learned during the Cold War that a bulwark of America’s nuclear deterrence could not even get off the ground because of an exploitable deficiency in its control network.

We had such an Achilles’ heel not so long ago. Minuteman missiles were vulnerable to a disabling cyberattack, and no one realized it for many years. If not for a curious and persistent President Barack Obama, it might never have been discovered and rectified.

Read more

Nuclear Vulnerability to Hacking the Missile Controls

By Dr. Bruce G. Blair – one of the co-founders of Global Zero.

New York Times 14 March 2017
Article Excerpt(s):

“It is tempting for the United States to exploit its superiority in cyberwarfare to hobble the nuclear forces of North Korea or other opponents. As a new form of missile defense, cyberwarfare seems to offer the possibility of preventing nuclear strikes without the firing of a single nuclear warhead.

But as with many things involving nuclear weaponry, escalation of this strategy has a downside: United States forces are also vulnerable to such attacks.

Imagine the panic if we had suddenly learned during the Cold War that a bulwark of America’s nuclear deterrence could not even get off the ground because of an exploitable deficiency in its control network.
Read more

Could the Coronavirus Be a Biological Weapon in the Not-Too-Distant Future?

By Deen, Thalif
Inter Press Service: News Agency 20 March 2020

Article Excerpt(s):

“The devastating spread of the deadly coronavirus across every continent– with the exception of Antarctica– has triggered a conspiracy theory on social media: what if the virus was really a biological weapon?

And more specifically, was it an experimental weapon that accidentally escaped from a laboratory in China?

Or as others contend, is it a weapon surreptitiously introduced to de-stabilize a country with more than 1.4 billion people and described as the world’s second largest economy, after the United States.

Both narratives are considered false, and probably part of a deliberate disinformation campaign, according to military experts.

Still, in the US, Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas has repeated the charge that the virus was a creation of the Chinese military while others source it to North Korea.

Read more

Here Earl Turcotte – the Chair of the Canadian Network to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (CNANW) – examines the links between nuclear disarmament and other global crises, such as pandemics.

Public Health Crisis Offers New Lens Towards Nuclear Disarmament


Earl Turcotte, The Hill Times, 15 April 2020

“That COVID-19 has created a new global reality is clear. If there is any positive aspect to this unfolding situation, it could be a deeper understanding of the fact that the well-being of people throughout the world is inextricably linked. The COVID crisis might also serve as a cautionary tale, helping us to appreciate the fragility of life and avoid threats to humanity that are within our control.

In 2019, a team of researchers at Princeton University simulated a limited exchange of low-yield “tactical” nuclear weapons to depict “a plausible escalating war between the United States and Russia, using realistic nuclear force postures, targets, and fatality estimates.” They concluded that more than 90 million people would be killed or injured within a few hours and many more would die in the years following.
Read more

Here Senator Douglas Roche discusses the interconnection of conflicts / wars and COVID-19. he obviously admires the Secretary General of the United Nations for his bold proposal to cease warfare during the pandemic.

Warring Parties Must Lay Down Weapons To Fight Bigger Battle Against COVID-19

By Douglas Roche, the Hill Times, 6 April 2020
Article Excerpt(s):

EDMONTON—”The fury of the virus illustrates the folly of war.” In one short sentence, UN Secretary-General António Guterres opened the door to a new understanding of what constitutes human security. Will governments seize the opportunity provided by the immense crisis of COVID-19 to finally adopt a global agenda for peace?

In an extraordinary move on March 23, Guterres urged warring parties around the world to lay down their weapons in support of the bigger battle against COVID-19 the common enemy now threatening all of humanity. He called for an immediate global ceasefire everywhere: “It is time to put armed conflict on lockdown and focus together on the true fight of our lives.”

His plea to “silence the guns” would create corridors for life-saving aid and open windows for diplomacy in the war-torn zones in Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and the central areas of Africa.

But the full meaning of Guterres’s appeal is much bigger than only suspending existing wars. It is a wakeup call to governments everywhere that war does not solve existing problems, that the huge expenditures going into armaments divert money desperately needed for health supplies, that a bloated militarism is impotent against the new killers in a globalized world.
Read more

The Bomb Still Ticks

By George Perkovich April 07, 2020
Summary: Kaplan shows in his new book that the Americans and Russians who built the doomsday machine will not allow it to be dismantled. The more pertinent question is whether they could be motivated to meaningfully downsize and constrain it.

“Nuclear books don’t sell,” a New York book editor advised not long ago. “To have a chance, you would have to feature a really interesting central character.” Fred Kaplan’s excellent new volume, “The Bomb: Presidents, Generals, and the Secret History of Nuclear War,” will test this proposition.

Plenty of characters (nearly all male) abound in his fast-paced easy-to-follow narrative: from Curtis LeMay, Robert McNamara, John Kennedy, Henry Kissinger, Richard Nixon, and so on to Barack Obama and Donald Trump. But what drives the story is an unresolvable dilemma: “[h]ow to plan a nuclear attack that [is] large enough to terrify the enemy but small enough to be recognized unambiguously as a limited strike, so that, if the enemy retaliated, he’d keep his strike limited too” (p. 120).

Read more

Stephen Young is Washington representative for the Global Security Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists. By Stephen Young, 27 February 2020.

House Hearings Should Reveal Recklessness of Administration’s Nuclear Weapons Budget Request

Article Excerpt(s):
“The Trump administration is charging ahead with new nuclear weapon systems and joining a new nuclear arms race with Russia. Not only are these weapons pushing up current budgets by billions, but they are unnecessary add-ons to an already bloated, excessively expensive plan to rebuild the entire U.S. arsenal. Coupled with the Trump administration’s disdain for arms control, these new weapons will lead to a more dangerous strategic environment.

Read more

Canada Played a Critical Role in Nuclear Development. We Should Play a Critical Role in Reparations

This is an interesting article about some (not all) of Canada’s connections to nuclear weapons.

By Matt Korda
CBC News Opinion, 30 August 2019
Article Excerpt(s):

“Canada holds contradictory positions in the world of nuclear weapons. We played an essential role in their development, but we never built any bombs of our own.

No nukes are stationed on Canadian soil; however, they were for 20 years, until we finally sent the last American warheads back home in 1984.

As a people, Canadians are largely against nuclear weapons; however, Canada is part of a nuclear alliance and our government actively participates in NATO’s Nuclear Planning Group.

Almost 60 per cent of Canadians live in regions that have banned nuclear weapons, like Ontario, Manitoba, and the Northwest Territories, or in self-proclaimed nuclear weapons-free cities like Toronto, Vancouver, and Red Deer, Alta.; however, we currently allow American and British nuclear-capable vessels to visit our ports.

Very simply, in the nuclear arena, Canada is awkwardly straddling a line –– we’re not a member of the nuclear club, but we’re not exactly outside of it either. This position usually works in Canada’s favour, because it lets us simultaneously satisfy both our anti-nuclear impulses and our NATO defence commitments.

Read more

How the Coronavirus Outbreak is like a Nuclear Attack: An Interview with Jeffrey Lewis

This Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists’ interview with Dr. Jeffrey Lewis – author of “The 2020 Commission Report on the North Korean Nuclear Attacks Against the United States: A Speculative Novel.”

Jeffrey Lewis and John Krzyzaniak
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 20 March 2020
Article Excerpt(s):

“One thing about nuclear command and control, which the virus outbreak underscores, is that it is so hard to get good information in a crisis. The epidemic spiraled out of control so quickly in certain countries that even the best experts were rushing to figure out what was going on.

To me the danger of a nuclear war is not that somebody’s going to get up one morning and say, “Ah, fuck it,” and push the button. It’s that we’re deeply flawed as human beings, and we have imperfect information, and we’re always trying to make decisions under complexity.

Read more

The South China Morning Post published this editoria about the NPT Does it reflect wider Chinese opinions?

Talks Give World an Opportunity to Avoid Nuclear Weapons Nightmare

South China Morning Post, 20 March 2020
Article Excerpt(s):

“The United States sparked fears of a new nuclear arms race when it pulled out of a key missile treaty with Russia little more than six months ago. Hopes of preventing a race are now focused on another pact credited with helping keep us safe since the height of the Cold War – the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), which came into force 50 years ago this month. More importance now attaches to a five-yearly treaty review conference set to be held at the United Nations headquarters in New York next month.

The US pulled out of the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) signed in 1987 after Washington and Nato accused Russia of violating it by deploying a new type of cruise missile, which Moscow has denied. Russia suspended its own obligations to the treaty shortly afterwards. It is reassuring therefore that the five permanent members of the Security Council, including the US and Russia, have marked the anniversary of the NPT with a joint declaration celebrating “the immeasurable contributions” this landmark treaty has made to international security and prosperity and reaffirming their commitment to it. Such a consensus is increasingly rare these days.

Read more

Alarming US acceptance of Landmine Use

Here’s an excerpt from the World Federalist newsletter.

Article Excerpt(s):

At the end of January, US President Donald Trump reversed the Obama-era ban on the use of landmines (other than in the defence of South Korea).

The brief statement from the White House says, “The Department of Defense has determined that restrictions imposed on American forces by the Obama Administration’s policy could place them at a severe disadvantage during a conflict against our adversaries. The President is unwilling to accept this risk to our troops.”

Read more

So you’re telling me that Trump and the USA are willing to just use any type of weapon as long as it gives them the advantage?!!!!

Do Young People Care About Nuclear Weapons?


By Matt Korda, Inkstick, 27 February 2020
Article Excerpt(s):

“Last month, the International Committee of the Red Cross released a report with a shocking — and seemingly contradictory — pair of statistics.

According to the report, a majority of millennials (54%) believe that a nuclear attack will occur within the next decade. Yet those same respondents simultaneously ranked nuclear weapons as the “least important” out of 12 global issues.

These findings, although seemingly in conflict, may not actually be that surprising. In fact, they reflect an existential question that the nuclear community has been grappling with for some time:

HOW CAN WE GET YOUNGER PEOPLE TO CARE ABOUT NUCLEAR WEAPONS?

Two of the most common responses to this question are either: “we should scare the youths straight,” or: “we should meme nuclear weapons.” Neither of these is the answer. In fact, millennial Dadaist humor is already rooted in an ironic acceptance of the dystopian years that lie ahead of us. We’re terrified of our futures and apocalyptic memes are our defense mechanism.
Read more

One potential victim of coronavirus? Nuclear inspections in Iran


By George M. Moore, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 17 March 2020
Article Excerpt(s):

” Should the new IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi decide to suspend inspection visits to protect the health of his inspectors, it could metastasize concerns about Iranian nuclear proliferation. The same result would occur if Iran acted unilaterally to bar inspectors based on real or manufactured concerns about further spread of Covid-19.

To date, there is no public information about whether the IAEA will continue to send inspectors to Iran under the terms of the nuclear deal. Suspending inspections, even temporarily, could potentially leave a multi-month gap that Iran could exploit if it chose to fully break out of the nuclear agreement. In early March, the IAEA reported that Iran had amassed over 1,000 kilograms of low-enriched uranium, nearly triple the amount allowed under the deal.
Read more

Here Dr. Tariq Rauf discusses the impacts of COVID-19 (aka coronavirus) on the upcoming Non-Proliferation Treaty conferences. There is a possibility the conferences and associated discussions will be pushed to 2021 and beyond.

Relentless Spread of Coronavirus Obliges Postponing the 2020 NPT Review to 2021

By Tariq Rauf

Article Excerpt(s):

“Harvard University epidemiology professor Marc Lipsitch in his “very, very rough” estimate (relying on “multiple assumptions piled on top of each other”) has stated that 100 or 200 people were infected in the U.S. a week or so ago. But that is all it would take to widely spread the disease. Lipsitch has predicted that within a year, 40% to 70% of the world’s population could be infected with COVID-19? With the world’s population hovering around 7.5 billion, that translates to some 3 to 5 billion people getting COVID-19 and that perhaps fatalities of 60 to 100 million, according to Lipsitch.
Read more

A World War Could Break Out in the Arctic

By Michael Klare
The Nation, 11 feb. 2020

Finnmark, Norway

Notes: Discusses various elements ranging from the role of the military to the role of the resource extraction industry. Particular focus is on the new military exercises that will be occurring in March 2020 in Scandinavia.

Article Excerpt:

“In early March, an estimated 7,500 American combat troops will travel to Norway to join thousands of soldiers from other NATO countries in a massive mock battle with imagined invading forces from Russia. In this futuristic simulated engagement—it goes by the name of Exercise Cold Response 2020—allied forces will “conduct multinational joint exercises with a high-intensity combat scenario in demanding winter conditions,” or so claims the Norwegian military anyway. At first glance, this may look like any other NATO training exercise, but think again. There’s nothing ordinary about Cold Response 2020. As a start, it’s being staged above the Arctic Circle, far from any previous traditional NATO battlefield, and it raises to a new level the possibility of a great-power conflict that might end in a nuclear exchange and mutual annihilation. Welcome, in other words, to World War III’s newest battlefield.

For the soldiers participating in the exercise, the potentially thermonuclear dimensions of Cold Response 2020 may not be obvious. At its start, Marines from the United States and the United Kingdom will practice massive amphibious landings along Norway’s coastline, much as they do in similar exercises elsewhere in the world. Once ashore, however, the scenario becomes ever more distinctive. After collecting tanks and other heavy weaponry “prepositioned” in caves in Norway’s interior, the Marines will proceed toward the country’s far-northern Finnmark region to help Norwegian forces stave off Russian forces supposedly pouring across the border. From then on, the two sides will engage in—to use current Pentagon terminology—high-intensity combat operations under Arctic conditions (a type of warfare not seen on such a scale since World War II).

Read more

There is ongoing debate in Ireland about allowing the United States’ military to use airports – both as a base for operations, as well as a stopover.

Should the Irish government push for an end to the US military use of Shannon Airport?

News Agency: The Journal (Ireland) 29 January 2020
Article Excerpt:

If in Government, Labour would push for an end to the use of Shannon Airport for US military planes according to party leader Brendan Howlin.
Read more

New York City Divests Pension Funds from Fossil Fuel Companies. Next maybe nuclear weapons?


Jonathan Granoff

In January 2018, New York City decided to divest the city’s $189bn pension funds from fossil fuel companies within the next five years. Now the city looks set to also divest from the nuclear weapons industry.

Last Tuesday (January 28), the Council held public hearings on draft Resolution 0976 which calls on New York City to support the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and divest from the nuclear weapons industry, and on Initiative 1621 to reaffirm New York City as a nuclear weapons-free zone and establish an advisory committee to implement this status.
Read more

Divest Nuclear!

On Tuesday last week (January 28), New York City Council held public hearings on two measures (draft Resolution 0976 and Initiative 1621) which if adopted would oblige the city to divest its city pension funds from the nuclear weapons industry and establish an advisory committee to develop city action to further implement its status as a nuclear-weapon-free zone.

New York City pensions have approximately $480 million invested in the nuclear weapons industry. The divestment of this amount would probably not make any financial impact on the weapons manufacturers. However, it would serve as a positive example of an action that can be taken by cities and other investors to align their investments with their ethical values. And it would give support to federal initiatives to cut nuclear weapons budgets, such as the SANE Act introduced into the U.S. Senate by PNND Co-President Ed Markey and the Nuclear Weapons Abolition and Economic and Energy Conversion Act, introduced into the U.S. House of Representatives by PNND Member Eleanor Holmes-Norton.
Read more

Risk of Nuclear War Rises as U.S. Deploys a New Nuclear Weapon for the First Time Since the Cold War

By William Arkin, Democracy Now! 7 Feb. 2020
Article Excerpt:

The Federation of American Scientists revealed in late January that the U.S. Navy had deployed for the first time a submarine armed with a low-yield Trident nuclear warhead. The USS Tennessee deployed from Kings Bay Submarine Base in Georgia in late 2019. The W76-2 warhead, which is facing criticism at home and abroad, is estimated to have about a third of the explosive power of the atomic bomb the U.S. dropped on Hiroshima.

The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) called the news “an alarming development that heightens the risk of nuclear war.” We’re joined by William Arkin, longtime reporter focused on military and nuclear policy, author of numerous books, including “Top Secret America: The Rise of the New American Security State.” He broke the story about the deployment of the new low-yield nuclear weapon in an article he co-wrote for Federation of American Scientists. He also recently wrote a cover piece for Newsweek titled “With a New Weapon in Donald Trump’s Hands, the Iran Crisis Risks Going Nuclear.” “What surprised me in my reporting … was a story that was just as important, if not more important, than what was going on in the political world,” Arkin says.

Transcript:

AMY GOODMAN: As the nation focused on President Trump’s impeachment trial, a major story recently broke about a new development in U.S. nuclear weapons policy that received little attention. The Federation of American Scientists revealed in late January the U.S. Navy had for the first time deployed a submarine armed with a low-yield Trident nuclear warhead. The USS Tennessee deployed from Kings Bay Submarine Base in Georgia in late 2019, armed with a warhead which is estimated to have about a third of the explosive power of the atomic bomb the U.S. dropped on Hiroshima.
Read more

How to dispose of plutonium?

Russia and the USA agreed to dispose of 34 tons of weapons-grade plutonium. This was an agreement made in 2000 – 20 years ago.  

It is unclear how the USA plans on safely disposing of this surplus plutonium – as the 8 November 2018 senate report mentions they are cancelling the MOX program – though no viable alternative exists. Russia has been using fast reactors to burn up the surplus material. 
Read more

 

Who will send them into action?

If we had an emergency peace service, what would be the procedure for sending them into action? The ICJ ruled that Myanmar had gravely wronged the Rohingya, but that was three years ago. Would UNEPS be sent to intervene immediately, not delaying justice three years?

Amazing discussion, with this being the key question. All addressed at length in my book called “World Peace Through Law: Replacing War With the Global Rule of Law” (Routledge 2018). For a discount flyer, email me at jamestranney@post.harvard.edu

What is the current status of sonic weapons?


Are these prohibited under any of the treaties?

I have heard of some sonic weapons that play the person’s own voice back to them at a slight delay, causing the person to stop talking – as well as some that mess with people through ultra-low volumes and/or infrequent noises.

Sonic weapons: Sonic and ultrasonic weapons (USW) are weapons of various types that use sound to injure, incapacitate, or kill an opponent. Some sonic weapons are currently in limited use or in research and development by military and police forces

Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonic_weapon

Radioactive Chemical Gas!

I have been reading “Plutopia” by Dr. Kate Brown – a MIT professor of Science, Technology, and Society.

Dr. Brown discusses that during the early stages of Hanford’s development – the US government temporarily considered using strontium-90 byproducts to create a radioactive chemical gas – that could be used on battlefields. This strontium-90 based gas would be incredibly dangerous – with both immediate and lingering effects. Fortunately, military officials and researchers deemed it too dangerous to create and too dangerous to use – so it was never implementing. Alarming to consider nonetheless.

Why don’t nations just ban killer robots?

“Nations dawdle on agreeing rules to control ‘killer robots’ in future wars”

by Nita Bhalla, Reuters [17 January 2020]

“Countries are rapidly developing “killer robots” – machines with artificial intelligence (AI) that independently kill – but are moving at a snail’s pace on agreeing global rules over their use in future wars, warn technology and human rights experts.

Read more

At the end of the day, it’s all just a security dilemma. All countries have to decide to ban these weapons together, otherwise none will- because then certain countries will have the advantage. After all, these weapons give such an advantage…but at what cost?

From October 2018:

The Case Against France

“France is being taken to the International Criminal Court (ICC) for carrying out nuclear weapons tests in French Polynesia, a Polynesian opposition leader announced on Tuesday.”

“France carried out 193 nuclear weapons tests on islands in the archipelago between 1960 and 1996 until French President Jacques Chirac halted the program.

Around 150,000 military and civilian personnel were involved in France’s nuclear tests, with thousands of them later developing serious health problems.

France has long denied responsibility for the detrimental health and environmental impacts of the tests, fearing that it would weaken the country’s nuclear program during the Cold War.

In 2010, France passed a law allowing military veterans and civilians to be compensated if their cancer could be attributed to the nuclear tests.

Out of approximately 1,000 people who have filed complaints against France, only 20 have been compensated.”

The article additionally discusses German anti-nuclear protests.

https://www.dw.com/en/france-sued-for-crimes-against-humanity-over-nuclear-tests-in-south-pacific/a-45826054

Shipping Containers: The Poor Man’s ICBM

Radioactive materials have been found in shipping containers before, such as a batch of Cobalt-60 discovered in an Italian port. It was within a container of scrap metal originating from Jeddah, Saudia Arabia and destined for Genoa, Italy. The container sat around for over a year, until authorities could figure out who was responsible for it and subsequently how to safely handle and remove it.

By Matthew Wallin, 1 September 2011, American Security Project

Excerpt: “60,000 people dead—instantly. 150,000 more exposed to hazardous radiation. All ships and infrastructure at the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach destroyed. An exodus of six million people from the greater Los Angeles region. Initial costs of $1 trillion. This is exactly the scenario considered in a 2006 RAND Corporation study of the effects of a possible detonation of a 10-kiloton nuclear device hidden in a standard 20-foot shipping container. In 2010 alone, these ports received a combined total of over 7.2 million 20-foot equivalent containers. Haystack indeed. ”
Read more

Diego Garcia and the Chagossians

Diego Garcia is a remote atoll archipelago in the Indian Ocean – between the Maldives, Mauritius, and the Seychelles. For administrative purposes, it is considered part of the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT).

In the 1500s, the Portuguese used the area as a slave depot. Prior to this, the islands were uninhabited. A cultural group – known as the Chagossians – and who have a distinct language – emerged from the slave trade. During the Cold War, the Chagossians were evicted by the American and British military forces who cited the strategic geographic importance of the islands in relation to global and regional security – within the specific context of air and maritime access.

Various tactics were used to remove the population (population: 1500 in the late 1960s – 3000-4000 in the 2010s) – including inviting the population to neighboring Mauritius for a conference during Christmas in 1965 and subsequently prohibiting return to Diego Garcia. Other tactics included forced removal – such as via blockade of food supplies and/or forced (and allegedly violent) deportation. Alleged military documents – cited in books about Diego Garcia and its associated foreign policies – indicate that suppression of rights of the Chagossians were encouraged during the late 1960s due to the geopolitical significance of the region. By 1973, all Chagossians had been expelled from Diego Garcia.
Read more

What the CANDU reactor has done abroad

This is a CANDU reactor: Darlington

An excerpt:

“Our uranium and nuclear technology launched the UK and USA stockpiles, then the Indian nuclear arsenal, followed by Pakistan and others. We continued to sell our CANDU reactor for ‘peaceful energy use’ which was secretly described as a “military plutonium production reactor” by the insiders ever since the Manhattan Project.”

“Plutonium=forever.” Even if bombs are not made, plutonium goes on and on emitting deadly radiation for centuries.

“… ‘following the atoms’ proves that we are a boy-scout nation with a very dirty secret. It has been underwritten by $30 billion taxpayer dollars, greased with secret bribes to win export deals, and buried in decades of deceit by official Ottawa.”

https://canadiandimension.com/articles/view/review-atomic-accomplice

Beware the Solar Flares!

Is there a risk that a solar flare or solar store – of sufficient strength, such as one comparable to the 1859 Carrington Event – could trigger the detonation and/or launch of a nuclear warhead? Several media articles indicate a solar flare in 1967 almost started a nuclear exchange due to communication and radio signals being jammed.

However (and fortunately) some space weather scientists identified the cause was a solar flare. There was another incident where sunlight reflecting off the atmosphere almost triggered a nuclear launch – as early computer systems interpreted it as a nuclear flash. This would have been around the 1960s. Alarming to think about!

The 1859 Carrington Event was one of the largest solar storms with extensive records. There were a limited amount of electronic devices in this era – mostly telegraph wires – which were reported to have gone absolutely haywire when the storm hit.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/solar-flares-ballistic-missile-radar-station-cold-war-1.3719177

Most clashes are about race or religion

As heartening as it is to read of, for example, communing large multi-racial and -religious groups of people humanely allied against the common enemy of blind hatred, I nonetheless dread that it will sadly resettle to normal everyday life—and politics.

There are no greater differences amongst us humans than race and religion—remove that and left are less obvious differences over which to clash, such as sub-racial identity (i.e. ethnicity), nationality, and so forth down that scale we tumble.

Hypothetically, reduce our species to just a few city blocks of residents who are similar in every way and eventually there may still be some sort of bitter inter-neighbourhood fighting.

Will The Arms Merchants Comply?

The Arms Trade Treaty limits what weapons a country can sell to other countries, especially if the weapons are likely to be used to attack others. So is there any evidence so far that it is working? Has any country actually changed its plans and refrained from selling weapons just because it signed the treaty? I’m trying not to be cynical in asking. I’d prefer to hear good news.

Two Cheers for China!

We can’t be sure which countries would have sold arms if they hadn’t signed the treaty. However, there is some REALLY good news: China has just signed the Arms Trade Treaty! That is one reason why its influence is growing at the United Nations, while the US is losing influence. China declared that it allows arms exports only to sovereign states and not to non-state actors. The Treaty was adopted by the UN in 2013. Obama endorsed it, but Trump says he will revoke the US signature. I hope it slips his mind until he is ousted from office this fall (knock on wood).

Is China More Reliable Than Canada?

Let’s hope that China is better at keeping its treaty commitments than Canada, which signed the treaty in September 2019, but nevertheless is forging ahead with a plan to sell light armed personnel carriers to Saudi Arabia. The treaty is designed to prohibit the export of arms that could be used to perpetrate war crimes, genocide and other grave violations of international law.

What Will Biden Do?

It is true, as Ruth Needham says, that we cannot know why any country refrains from anything. But we can infer something about motives by looking at the list of countries that did not sign the Arms Trade Treaty right away. The nations that initially abstained included the world’s leaders in weapon exports–notably China and Russia, but also Cuba, India, Indonesia, Myanmar, Nicaragua, Saudi Arabia, and Sudan. That means it’s a wonderful sign that China has now signed. Obama did too, but it was never ratified. I wonder whether the US would (will) ratify it when the Democrats get back into power in Congress and the White House.

How Much Shall we Cut Military Expenditures?

comment image

Notice that the Platform for Survival does not say how much we are supposed to reduce the size of the military. I was in the audience at the forum when we discussed that and I heard the proposal originally was 80 percent. We were told that such a high number would be considered unreasonable or even laughable. But I think it is a good number. Reduce all the military systems in the world by 80 percent and we’d be on our way to a real solution to other global problems.

And yes, it will be hard to do. But I’d like us to pick a target number, please. Lately Bernie Sanders has proposed a ten percent reduction. Okay, that’s a starting point. Who will raise the bid?

Would that be good for bad for the economy?

Were they referring to just the military itself – or the number of businesses, industries, etc. which have the military as significant economic partners? What type of extent would reducing the (US?) military that much have on the global economy?

Rank Countries for their Demilitarizing

Good point. Maybe we should assign scores to countries based on how much they have reduced their military spending and converted it to the development of negative emission technologies — e.g. forest planting or carbon capture and conversion to fuel.

Hooray for the Pope!

Yes, it’s a great interview. I particularly like his statements that it’s a sin merely to own nuclear weapons, and that it’s hypocrisy to say you believe in peace while you’re making money from selling weapons. Right on, Francis!

This is a related article discussing the issue of cyber weapons and how they might participate on the battlefield.

Read more

That’s an understatement, Richard. It’s about a woman who quit Google last year because of their military project. She says that AI can accidentally start a war.

terminatorrobot-580x358.jpg

An Open Letter to Justin Trudeau

I am commenting by incorporating the whole of a recent letter from the Canadian Network to Abolish Nuclear Weapons to the Prime Minister and many other government officials. In an election period, all concerned citizens should make known their views to candidates, and ask questions at all-candidates meetings in their riding.
Adele Buckley
Canadian Pugwash, a member group of CNANW

—————————————-

Nuclear Disarmament: Canadian Leadership Required

Open Letter to PM Justin Trudeau
cc. All Members of Parliament and Senators

Dear Prime Minister,

The risk of nuclear catastrophe is growing and urgent action is required to prevent it.

Recent developments include:

• marked deterioration in East/West relations, most notably between Russia and NATO;
• U.S. withdrawal from the nuclear agreement with Iran;
• imminent U.S. and Russian withdrawal from the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty;
• poor prospects for renewal of New START in 2021;
• heightened military tension between nuclear-armed India and Pakistan;
• resurgence of North Korea’s nuclear weapons program;
• the development of ‘tactical nuclear weapons’ and hypersonic missile systems;
• increased vulnerability to cyber-attacks; and
• the real possibility that non-state actors will acquire and use nuclear weapons or fissile material.

All of this is occurring within the context of a new nuclear arms race, precipitated in large part, by the U.S. allocation of $1.5 trillion to ‘modernize’ its nuclear arsenal over the next 30 years.

The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists has set the Doomsday Clock to 2 minutes to midnight, the closest it has been since the height of the Cold War. Humanity, literally, faces the prospect that at any moment, human folly, miscalculation or nuclear accident could end life on earth as we know it, if not completely.

Canada can help to prevent this.
Read more

Laser Broom to Tidy Up Space

In 1978, Donald J. Kessler theorized that kessler syndrome would become a significant issue. This is where debris in orbit collides with other items in orbit, causing a cascading chain reaction. This was a plot in the 2013 movie Gravity – where a satellite that was shot down for decommissioning and started a cascading chain reaction that took out communications and research satellites across the world.

Orbital decay would take decades in some cases and it would be virtually impossible to launch new satellites or repair missions to pre-existing satellite if this was occurring .There is already research into a laser broom in attempts to clear some of the pre-existing debris from the planet’s orbit.

Here is a CBC article about a laser broom from 2000: https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/laser-broom-will-sweep-up-space-junk-1.243442

We, the People, have to Demand Compliance

There’s a vigorous campaign going on now called “Campaign Against the Arms Trade.” And one of their specific objectives is to “stop arming Saudi Arabia!”

Stop Arming Saudi.jpg

Nuclear terror

Personally I find the thought of Nuclear War pretty scary and to have heard stories from survivors makes it even more real and terrifying. To think that our world could end in a heartbeat threatens to throw me into despair. Its only the kindness of some humans that gives me hope in addition to a belief in a God Creator who is taking care of us.

Screenshot 2019-09-12 14.56.14.png

Is there a risk of a similar incident in the American context? I have heard several alarming reports, such as the fact that the production of intermediate missile materials – such as an aerogel foam used within the warhead itself – have fallen out of general production. One such material is “fogbank” which was manufactured in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. The material is so classified that finding manufacturing instructions and records have been a significant challenge for the industry, as pre-existing materials age out and need replacing.

Read more

Does Turkey want nuclear weapons? This is from Newsweek.

Turkey Has U.S. Nuclear Weapons, Now It Says It Should be Allowed to Have Some of Its Own

by Tom O’Connor | 9/4/19 AT 6:13 PM EDT


The American nuclear weapons are at Incirlik Air Base in Turkey, shown here.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has argued that his country should be allowed to develop nuclear weapons as other major powers have.

Addressing the Central Anatolian Economic Forum in the central province of Sivas, Erdogan lauded the expansion of the Turkish defense industry, especially recent conversations with the United States and Russia, while hinting at future talks with China. He then recalled how “some countries have missiles with nuclear warheads” and “not just one or two.”

“But I cannot possess missiles with nuclear warheads? I do not accept that,” Erdogan said. “Right now, nearly all the countries in the developed world have nuclear missiles.”

The U.S. currently has an estimated 50 of its nuclear weapons deployed to Turkey as part of the NATO Western military alliance’s nuclear sharing policy, according to an accidentally-released NATO report published in July by Belgian newspaper De Morgen. The weapons, located at Incirlik Base, are under U.S. control, but some have raised concerns as to their safety there amid regional instability and political differences.

Read more

Does Turkey have ingredients for a Dirty Bomb?

I read online that for a while – in the late 1990s and early 2000s — old radioactive materials from the former USSR countries (Georgia, etc.) were being sent to a site in Turkey for decommissioning. These included items like old RTGs, etc. Is there a risk of the fissile materials in these products being used to construct a “dirty bomb” or other improvised nuclear / radioactive explosive device?

When did Turkey get those Missiles?

Hi Jeremy – do you know when Turkey received the current batch of missiles as part of the NATO Agreement(s)? I thought the presence of “Jupiter’ missiles in Italy and Turkey was a significant negotiating factor in the Cuban Missile Crisis – with these eventually being removed. Have there been missiles continuously in this region since the 1960s?

Sauce for the Goose is Sauce for the Gander

While of course we don’t want Erdogan to get nuclear weapons, he has as much right to them as anyone else, doesn’t he? The nuclear weapons states keep claiming they have a right and nobody else does. No they don’t!

Coming Soon to a Battlefield: Robots that Can Kill

By Zachary Fryer-Biggs | The Atlantic, Sept 3, 2019.

The U.S. Navy’s ship Sea Hunter patrols the oceans without a crew, looking for submarines that, one day, it may attack directly. And the U.S. Army has a missile system that, without humans, can pick out vehicles to attack. So what do we think of such things? And what can we do about it? Here’s what Zachary Fryer-Biggs wrote in The Atlantic:

Read more

Project West Ford and the Copper Needles

Meet Project West Ford — in the 1950s-1960s – the United States of America launched 480 million copper needles into the upper atmosphere for Cold War radio communication. Some of them are allegedly still up there, orbiting in the lower-gravity.

“The same year that Martin Luther King, Jr. marched on Washington and Beatlemania was born, the United States launched half a billion whisker-thin copper wires into orbit in an attempt to install a ring around the Earth. It was called Project West Ford, and it’s a perfect, if odd, example of the Cold War paranoia and military mentality at work in America’s early space program.
Read more

When NASA Shot Copper Needles Into space

On October 21, 1961, NASA launched the first batch of West Ford dipoles into space. A day later, this first payload had failed to deploy from the spacecraft, and its ultimate fate was never completely determined.

“U.S.A. Dirties Space” read a headline in the Soviet newspaper *Pravda. *

**Ambassador Adlai Stevenson was forced to make a statement before the UN declaring that the U.S. would consult more closely with international scientists before attempting another launch. Many remained unsatisfied. Cambridge astronomer Fred Hoyle went so far as to accuse the U.S. of undertaking a military project under “a façade of respectability,” referring to West Ford as an “intellectual crime.”