WAR AND WEAPONS

OVERVIEW ARTICLE

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

VIDEO

Prev 1 of 5 Next
Prev 1 of 5 Next

TRANSCRIPT

PUBLIC COMMENTS

How to Post a Comment 

After you have read the comments of other readers (scroll down to see them), you can respond by clicking the “reply” option under one of them. Well let him know that you have replied, so he can answer you and carry on as long a discussion as you like. 

You can also post your own ideas in the comment space below – or share an article you have read elsewhere by copying it and pasting it into the comment space, which is visible in a pale font. 

Other readers will not see your email address, but please provide it so we can notify you if someone replies to your comment, so you can respond.

When you post a comment, please give it a title; then select it and click the “B” (for “boldface”). You can also italicize passages (with the “I”), indent, add hyperlinks (with the chain symbol) or attach a photo or graphic from your hard drive by clicking the paperclip at the right side of the space. Have fun with it!

417 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

A Nuclear Review Conference Amidst Loud War DrumsBy Thalif Deen

UNITED NATIONS (IDN) — The Tenth Review Conference of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), which runs from August 1-26, takes place amidst a raging battle: a nuclear Russia vs a non-nuclear Ukraine and potential military conflicts on the horizon, including a nuclear China vs a non-nuclear Taiwan, a nuclear North Korea vs a non-nuclear South Korea and a nuclear Israel vs a non-nuclear Iran.
And in equally serious development, US non-proliferation experts have written to US President Joe Biden, echoing concerns expressed by both China and Indonesia, about a proposed plan by US and UK, two major nuclear powers, to sell Australia atomic submarines under the 2021 AUKUS partnership.
Tariq Rauf, former Alternate Head of NPT Delegation, and Head of Verification and Security Policy at the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), told IDN the Tenth NPT Review Conference is “taking place in the worst international situation in the 54-year history of the NPT”, as he recounted the following:
** A proxy war in full form over Ukraine
** A complete cut-off of nuclear arms control negotiations between Washington and Moscow,
** Nuclear-weapon use doctrines of Russia and the US increasing the dangers of nuclear war,
** A continuing stalemate on setting up a zone free of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction in the region of the Middle East
** The after-effects of Trump’s rejection in Hanoi of North Korea’s offer to dismantle its Nyŏngbyŏn nuclear facility, rising tensions between Washington and Beijing
** The CTBT (nuclear-test-ban treaty) has been languishing since September 1996, NATO extending its defence perimeter to the Asia-Pacific, and
** The only nuclear arms control treaty—New START—hanging by a thread between Russia and the US with an expiry date of February 2026.
“All these and other deleterious developments are casting a heavy shadow over the NPT review conference,” he cautioned.
“Having attended all NPT meetings as an official delegate since 1987, I am sympathetic to the NPT President Gustavo Zlauvinen’s plight in trying to herd the delegates to rise above their petty discourses, and unrealistic world views to find the “better angels of their nature” to hammer out an action plan for the implementation of NPT obligations and agreed commitments by August 26—the last day of the review conference,” he said.
In a statement ahead of the conference, US President Joe Biden said: “As the world gathers for the Tenth Review Conference for the NPT Treaty, the United States renews its commitment to the world to be a responsible steward of its nuclear arsenal and to continue working toward the ultimate goal of a world without nuclear weapons”.
“That commitment is why the United States joined together with the other Nuclear Weapons States in January to affirmatively state our shared belief that a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought, and it is why my administration has prioritised reducing the role of nuclear weapons in our national security strategy,” he noted.
In this moment of uncertainty and upheaval on the global stage, Biden said, “reaffirming our shared commitment to the grounding principles of the global nonproliferation regime has never been more crucial”.
“The world can be confident that my Administration will continue to support the NPT and seek to strengthen the nonproliferation architecture that protects people everywhere,” he declared.
Ned Price, the US State Department Spokesperson, told reporters on July 25 that the United States stands by the NPT. “We think it is extraordinarily important to underline the obligations that the NPT puts forward for nuclear weapon states and for non-nuclear weapon states alike.”
“In the face of challenges to the global nonproliferation regime, we think it’s important that the United States stands with the signatories of the NPT to make clear that even though it has been in effect for some time now, its relevance, its importance, has not diminished a single iota over the years and the decades,” he added.
In a statement released July 27, a spokesman for the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Project (NPPP) said U.S. experts urged President Biden not to proceed with the planned sale of eight submarines fueled by tons of nuclear weapons-grade, highly enriched uranium (HEU), arguing it would “undermine the nuclear nonproliferation regime”.
The experts said any such submarines should instead be fueled with low-enriched uranium (LEU), which is unsuitable for nuclear weapons.
Indonesia similarly submitted to the UN conference a working paper that “notes with concern the potential consequences of nuclear-powered submarine capability sharing to the global non-proliferation regime,” highlighting that it, “increases the associated risks … posed by potential proliferation and conversion of nuclear material to nuclear weapons, particularly HEU in the operational status of nuclear naval propulsion”.
In China last week, a government-affiliated report likewise warned that “The AUKUS nuclear-powered submarines collaboration is a serious violation of the object and purpose of the NPT, sets a dangerous precedent for the illegal transfer of weapons-grade nuclear materials from nuclear-weapon states to a non-nuclear-weapon state, and thus constitutes a blatant act of nuclear proliferation”.
The confluence of criticism is unusual and reflects the radical nature of the AUKUS plan, according to Alan J. Kuperman, professor at the University of Texas at Austin and coordinator of the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Project (http://www.NPPP.org).
“For half a century, the world has phased out bomb-grade uranium fuel to reduce proliferation risks,” he said, “but now the United States would export massive quantities of it as submarine fuel, creating a precedent for other countries to demand the same right to import or produce their own HEU—which would be game-over for nonproliferation.”
Rauf said the 15 September 2021 “AUKUS” agreement’s provision that the US would provide Australia with nuclear-powered submarines is one of the more irresponsible decisions of the hapless Biden administration.
Despite the AUKUS partners—Australia, UK and US—stated commitment to set a “gold standard” as regards IAEA safeguards (verification), in reality, the only “gold standard” that can be set is that of blowing a gaping hole through the IAEA’s NPT verification system by exempting up to 2000 kilogrammes of weapon-grade highly-enriched uranium from IAEA safeguards.
The first and still most authoritative study, “Opening Pandora’s Box: Nuclear-Powered Submarines and the Spread of Nuclear Weapons”, I wrote in 1988, clearly shows the inability of the IAEA to monitor and verify the nuclear fuel and nuclear reactor of nuclear-powered submarines.
“I have called for the Tenth NPT Review Conference to reject any possibility of non-nuclear-weapon States, such as Australia, to operate nuclear submarines outside IAEA safeguards.”
Speaking at the opening of the Conference on August 1, UN Secretary-General António Guterres said: “We are all here today because we believe in the Treaty’s purpose and function. But carrying it into the future requires going beyond the status quo. It requires renewed commitment and real, good faith negotiations. And it requires all Parties to listen, compromise and keep the lessons of the past—and the fragility of the future—in view at all times.”
Guterres also said that humanity is in danger of forgetting the lessons forged in the terrifying fires of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Geopolitical tensions are reaching new highs. Competition is trumping co-operation and collaboration.
Distrust has replaced dialogue. Disunity has replaced disarmament, he noted.
Rauf said, in his view, the Secretary-General’s NPT statement is “disappointing and weak on several accounts and misses the opportunity to show leadership at this important juncture in international relations”.
It is shocking that the SG fails even to mention the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), of which he is the Depositary.
The TPNW entered into force in January 2021 and held the First Meeting of States Parties in Vienna in June 2022, where an important Declaration and Action Plan on “Our Commitment to a World Free of Nuclear Weapons” was adopted, he declared. [IDN-InDepthNews — 01 August 2022]
Photo: UN General Assembly Hall. Credit: UN
IDN is the flagship agency of the Non-profit International Press Syndicate.
This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International licence. You are free to share, remix, tweak and build upon it non-commercially. Please give due credit.

UN GA.png

With regard to our discussion of this evening, 31 July 2022 on the Global Town Hall, I have a comment that I didn’t have a chance to make.

We will not be able to heal the wounds of war or to prevent future conflicts without dealing with the psychological traumas. We must work seriously with the generation that experienced the conflict. We also must work with future generations. Wars and conflicts repeat. There is vast evidence of trans-generational transmission of the traumas.There are very large numbers of examples of this.

Unfortunately, there is insufficient capacity to deal with these traumas.

The organization with which I work, the Coalition for Work with Psychotrauma and Peace, www,cwwpp.org, cwwppsummer@gmail.com, gives training and supervision online and without charge to anyone, regardless of previous training. We also are open to cooperation with other non-profit organizations.

Talk to the Russians in the Arctic?
Maybe the best way to begin taking care of the well-being of the Arctic people is by talking to them, person-to-person. Most younger people in Russia now speak English. There are huge numbers of the living in the Arctic — at least in comparison to the numbers in other Arctic countries. They have cities with universities. I bet they even have Zoom there. (I don’t actually know, but I bet they do.) Why not get the names of some scholars in a city like Norilsk and send them a note to get acquainted? Here is a picture of a street in Norilsk.

Norilsk.png

Pugwash Note on Present Dangers

The present global situation is very dangerous. Not since the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis have we had such a dangerous environment. But while the Cuban missile crisis lasted 13 days, the present situation has continued for over 100 days since February 2022.
Of course, the main problem now is the war in Ukraine. There are many underlying motivations for this war. The history of relations between what is now Ukraine and Russia is several centuries old and very complex. More recently, antagonism between the Russian- and Ukrainian-speaking populations has been revived, together with the separatist movement in the eastern part of Ukraine (the Donbas) where, according to the UN, between 2014 and the end of 2021 more than 14,000 people have been killed. The annexation of Crimea by Russia in 2014 also raised concerns in Ukraine.
The eastward expansion of NATO that reached many of the countries bordering Russia—despite informal assurances given at the end of the Cold War between Russia and the US—is also an important factor of concern for Russia. Russia is obviously worried not only by the loss of its “external zone of influence,” but also about its own territorial integrity. On the other hand, the 2014 election in Ukraine changed the leadership and strengthened the pro-Europe sentiment (evidenced by the Euromaidan demonstrations). Between 2014 and the beginning of 2022, the tensions inside Ukraine grew considerably, as did the number of people killed, especially in the Donbas area.
On 24 February 2022, Russia decided to invade Ukraine. The goals cited for this invasion have shifted over time, from forcing a new leadership in Ukraine to the occupation of the Donbas and part of the Ukrainian Black Sea shore. Understanding the Russian motivations is possible, but this is of course very different from justifying in any sense this attack. By signing the Charter of the United Nations, all states committed to refrain from the threat or use of force against the political independence and territorial integrity of any other state.
The Russian invasion of Ukraine has certainly been catastrophic for the Ukrainian population. It is hard to assess the number of civilians and soldiers from both sides who have been killed in Ukraine since 24 February 2022; estimates are 10,000 civilian casualties and 100,000 soldiers. Beyond the tragedy for the Ukrainian people, concerns have been raised about the increasingly tense relations between Russia and most NATO countries.

Read more

Last edited 3 months ago by Adele Buckley

We need to find a way to demilitarize, both to prevent an accidental or intentional nuclear exchange, and to release resources to resolve global warming. But how? Civilian defence can be part of the answer for many countries. It would not only reduce military budgets gradually, but, by lowering tensions, make nuclear disarmament more tenable. Also, nonviolent defence, when it is intended as more than a minor supplement to military defence, is a radical democratic project. That is an important consideration, in light of authoritarian tendencies worldwide.
To follow up: https://sandbroo.faculty.politics.utoronto.ca/The-Viability-of-Nonviolent-Defence-Today/

The continuing unprovoked mass-slaughter of innocent Ukrainian civilians by Russia is inexcusable. Having said that, Russian president Vladimir Putin’s apparent fear of NATO expansion, though especially the deployment of additional U.S. anti-nuclear-missile defense-system batteries, further into eastern Europe is typically perceived by the West as unmerited paranoia.  
 
Surely he must realize that the West, including NATO, would never initiate a nuclear-weapons exchange. But, then, how can he — or we, for that matter — know for sure, particularly with America’s military past? 
 
While Ronald Reagan postulated that “Of the four wars in my lifetime none came about because the U.S. was too strong,” who can know what may have historically come to fruition had the U.S. remained the sole possessor of atomic weaponry. There’s a presumptive, and perhaps even arrogant, concept of American leadership as somehow, unless directly militarily provoked, being morally/ethically above using nuclear weapons internationally. Cannot absolute power corrupt absolutely? 
 
After President Harry S. Truman relieved General Douglas MacArthur as commander of the forces warring with North Korea — for the latter’s remarks about using many atomic bombs to promptly end the war — Americans’ approval-rating of the president dropped to 23 percent. It was still a record-breaking low, even lower than the worst approval-rating points of the presidencies of Richard Nixon and Lyndon Johnson.     
 
Had it not been for the formidable international pressure on Truman (and perhaps his personal morality) to relieve MacArthur as commander, could/would Truman eventually have succumbed to domestic political pressure to allow MacArthur’s command to continue?

Opinion: Give Russia’s U.N. Security Council seat to Ukraine

Marc Thiessen | The Washington Post | 7 April 2022

In a fiery speech Tuesday, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky called out the U.N. Security Council for its utter fecklessness in responding to Russia’s horrific war crimes in his country. The United Nations is incapable of holding Russia to account, Zelensky said, because Moscow “turns the right of veto in the U.N. Security Council into a right to kill.” Member states should “remove Russia” from the Security Council, he said, or “dissolve yourself altogether.”

Read more

Zelensky is absolutely right. But we should take his bold proposal a step further. Not only should Russia be kicked off the Security Council, its seat should be given to Ukraine. Indeed, there is precedent for doing just that.

It is not written into the U.N. Charter that the “Russian Federation” is entitled to a permanent seat on the Security Council. The U.N. Charter states that “The Republic of China, France, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States of America shall be permanent members of the Security Council.” Two of those named countries no longer occupy seats on the Security Council.

On Oct. 25, 1971, the U.N. expelled the “Republic of China” (Taiwan) and admitted the “People’s Republic of China” (mainland China), which then became one of the five permanent members of the Security Council (or the P5). Despite its Security Council veto, Taiwan was powerless to stop its own expulsion by a vote of the U.N. General Assembly. A U.S.-led proposal to make China’s representation an “important question” requiring a two-thirds supermajority vote, failed by a vote of 59 to 55 (with 15 abstentions). The General Assembly then passed Resolution 2758 removing Taiwan by a simple majority vote of 76 to 35 (with 17 abstentions). In so doing, it set the precedent that a sitting member of the P5 could be removed and replaced by another entity with a plausible claim to the seat.

Just as Communist China now occupies the seat designated for the “Republic of China,” Russia now occupies the seat designated for the “Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.” But the “Russian Federation” and the “U.S.S.R.” are not the same country. Indeed, Putin’s justification for his invasion of Ukraine is to reclaim territory lost during the Soviet Union’s dissolution.

Just as the UNGA voted to expel Taiwan and declare that henceforth the People’s Republic of China would be deemed the legitimate occupant of the “Republic of China’s” seat, it could vote to expel Russia and declare that henceforth Ukraine will be deemed the legitimate successor state to the “Union of Soviet Socialist Republics” — giving it the old Soviet seat. One need look no further than Putin’s own 6,885-word manifesto for war — laying out a case stretching back more than 1,000 years that Ukrainians and Russians are one people descended from “Ancient Rus” — to justify declaring Ukraine to be the legitimate successor of the U.S.S.R.

The China precedent from 1971 establishes that Russia and China would be powerless to veto such a move in the Security Council. And unlike Taiwan, which did nothing to merit its U.N. ejection, Russia has earned its removal in spades.

The U.N. Charter explicitly states that a member state can be expelled if it “has persistently violated the Principles contained in the present Charter.” This past month, the General Assembly twice voted to overwhelmingly declare that Moscow is doing just that in Ukraine. On March 2, the General Assembly voted 141 to 5 (with 35 abstentions) to condemn the “aggression by the Russian Federation against Ukraine in violation of Article 2 (4) of the Charter.” And on March 24, it again condemned Russia for violating the Charter and creating a humanitarian crisis by a vote of 140 to 5 (with 35 abstentions).

In both cases, almost three-quarters of member states voted to condemn Russia. That is more than enough votes to replace Russia on the Security Council. Indeed, it would exceed the two-thirds supermajority required if the question of Russia’s replacement were deemed an “important matter.” On Thursday, the General Assembly voted to suspend Russia from the U.N. Human Rights Council. It can use the exact same procedure to replace Russia on the Security Council.

So, it can be done. Whether it will be done is a different matter — a question not of procedure, but of political will. It’s one thing to vote for a strongly-worded statement; quite another to impose actual consequences.

But the United States should force a vote and make every nation go on record — because Russia’s presence on the Security Council is a disgrace. The Putin regime is raping, murdering and massacring innocent men, women and children in Ukraine. If the United Nations can’t impose consequences on Putin and his henchmen for those crimes, then Zelensky is right — “the U.N. can simply be dissolved.”

Read More: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/04/07/russia-ukraine-united-nations-zelensky-right/

Hi everyone––I’ve written a short piece for Passage advocating for Canada to attend the First Meeting of States Parties to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. I hope folks find it useful!

https://readpassage.com/why-wont-canada-attend-a-historic-meeting-on-nuclear-disarmament/

Matt Korda

A Statement for Peace 

 

All citizens around the world are urged to stand up against war and the potential conflict between the Russian Federation, Ukraine, and the NATO alliance. In an age of global interdependence, when the Cold War has been relegated to a bygone era, global citizens should exercise their will, based on the foresight that conventional and nuclear weapons of one nation can no longer overtake another. Any conflict, even started by nations claiming self-defense or territorial integrity, can find that targeted bombing boomerangs back to their populations. This style of incurring damage on one country by another is outmoded because advanced technologies have changed the nature of warfare: it has become lethal to fight, and it halts the advance of all human development.

 

This threat of war comes at a time when most countries are dealing with the Covid pandemic, and when national economies are suffering economic hardship. One hundred and sixty million people worldwide have fallen into extreme poverty in the past two years. Women and children are the most affected with the closure of schools, loss of secure livelihoods, and high health costs. In this scenario a war between Russia and NATO would be tantamount to increasing this misery of so many people, and unnecessarily adding insult to injury.

 

We, members of the Jai Jagat International, call on the United Nations to exercise its authority, which has greater legitimacy than any individual state or military alliance, to stand for the defense of smaller nations against foreign aggression. If the United Nations Charter is enacted by citizens across the world, then the sovereign right of states and individuals is sacrosanct. 

 

We also call on all multilateral bodies associated with the UN and bodies like the G-20 “to let good sense prevail” at this moment of crisis. Genuine and respectful dialogue needs to be encouraged between Russia, the US, and the NATO Alliance, keeping in mind the interests of the larger world community. This dialogue needs to include diplomatic solutions and redressal of the economic challenges faced by each country in an interdependent world due to the gradual transition away from fossil fuels. To achieve peaceful coexistence, one does not impose harsh sanctions on a civilian population, pushing them to the brink of violence, or having them retaliate by cutting off the energy supply to millions of people.

 

 

We recall the statement of Mahatma Gandhi that “an eye for an eye leaves everyone blind”. Towards achieving a more nonviolent world, we reaffirm the need for all people to unite around the principles of a just and peaceful coexistence, for this is what binds the human family in a common destiny.

Op-ed: Toronto’s Waterfront Shouldn’t Serve as a Stage to Promote Warplanes

Yves Engler | NOW Toronto | 29 August 2021

https://nowtoronto.com/op-ed-torontos-waterfront-shouldnt-serve-as-a-stage-to-promote-warplanes 

With the Canadian military set to select a new fighter jet, the controversial F-35 stealth fighter will be participating in its first Canadian International Air Show next weekend.
As a father of a young child, I understand the appeal of some excitement in the sky, especially after the lockdown.
But flying warplanes over Lake Ontario is not innocent fun. 
Since the establishment of the Royal Canadian Air Force a century ago the Department of National Defence has promoted airshows. The CF-18 Demonstration Team and Snowbirds, which will also be flying over Lake Ontario, seek to “inspire” support for an air force that has bombed Iraq, Serbia, Libya and Iraq/Syria over the past three decades. Many civilians were killed directly or due to the destruction of infrastructure. 
As people seek to make sense of what’s happening in Afghanistan, it’s important to consider the death, destruction and enmity engendered by airstrikes.
The F-35 is a fighter jet that’s bombed Afghanistan. It is marketed as capable of releasing a B61 nuclear bomb. Toronto city council reaffirmed its commitment to Toronto being a Nuclear Weapons-Free Zone in 2018 and, according to an April poll, 80 per cent of Canadians believe “the world should work to eliminate nuclear weapons.” Rather than something to celebrate, the F-35 is a testament to humanity’s predilection for ploughing its resources and ingenuity into perfecting the art of killing. What could the US $1.7 trillion spent on the stealth fighter project accomplish if channeled towards fighting infectious diseases or transitioning away from fossil fuels?
The F-35 is participating in this year’s airshow as part of Lockheed Martin’s push to win the contract to provide the RCAF with 88 new fighter jets. Despite promising not to purchase the fighter during the 2015 election, the Liberals have included the F-35 in the three-jet competition set to be decided in the coming months. 
The No Fighter Jet coalition opposes the purchase. The Canadian Foreign Policy Institute released a public letter last month calling on Trudeau to scrap the $19 billion ($77 billion over their full lifecycle) purchase. The letter was signed by Canadian musicians Neil Young, Tegan and Sara and Sarah Harmer, as well as authors Michael Ondaatje, Gabor Maté and Yann Martel. The statement was also endorsed by environmentalists Naomi Klein and David Suzuki, as well as three sitting MPs, four former MPs and prominent international figures such as Roger Waters, Daryl Hannah and Noam Chomsky. 
Thousands of Torontonians have fled countries that have been bombed by fighter jets in recent years. The sound of low-flying warplanes can be triggering for those who have experienced such violence. There is often an influx of 911 calls whenever fighter jets fly by urban areas. 
Amidst a pandemic and intensifying climate crisis, Toronto’s waterfront shouldn’t serve as a stage to promote violent, incredibly expensive and environmentally destructive warplanes.
Yves Engler is the author of Stand On Guard For Whom? — A People’s History of the Canadian Military (Black Rose).

The US spent $2 trillion in Afghanistan – and for what?

Patrick Sabga | Al Jazeera | 16 August 2021

“Since 2001, the US has spent $2.26 trillion in Afghanistan, the Costs of War Project at Brown University calculates. The biggest chunk – nearly $1 trillion – was consumed by the Overseas Contingency Operations budget for the Department of Defense. The second biggest line item – $530bn – is the estimated interest payments on the money the US government borrowed to fund the war.
Yet for all those trillions, Afghanistan still has one of the smallest formal economies on the planet. Last year, President Ashraf Ghani said 90 percent of the population was living on less than $2 a day.
The illicit economy, meanwhile, has boomed. After US forces drove the Taliban from power in 2001, Afghanistan cemented its place as the leading global supplier of opium and heroin – a crown it is likely to keep as the Taliban emerge victorious again.
If that return weren’t poor enough for the US, the Afghan army and the government it was meant to protect have now collapsed. President Ashraf Ghani has fled the country and the Taliban are taking selfies behind his desk. This is what a $2 trillion investment has yielded for the US: a chaotic, humiliating end to a 20-year war.”

Read More Here: https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2021/8/16/the-us-spent-2-trillion-in-afghanistan-and-for-what?

The Canadian public shows much greater support for serious nuclear disarmament measures than does its Government. My opinion piece based on a Nanos poll demonstrates a solid majority in favour of Canada adhering to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons: Government out of step with Canadians on nuclear weapons

THE UNIVERSAL ABOLITION OF MILITARISM

To me, the Universal Abolition of Militarism, that is of Armed Forces, Military Sciences and the War Industry are the very first thing we must campaign for and achieve. The trillions of dollars spent annually on the Military, would solve all other problems. Take health for instance, at the moment Governments spend 30 to 40 times on scientists and engineers working to destroy life, buildings and nature than what they spend on those working on medical research, to help us live longer and healthier lives. 80% of the destruction of the environment is caused by military tests and actual wars. Hunger, lack of hospitals, of schools, homelessness (though poverty of refugees) is the direct result of wars and of the money spent on them. Social violence exists because in order to have Armed Forces, Governments must produce lovers of weapons, of fighting, on killing. This is why the partnership between The Pentagon and the Hollywood Film Industry is so strong. Militarism kills Democracy. Nobody wants or likes wars. Nobody asks Governments to organize wars. But, against our will, Governments impose wars upon us. We should all unite in demanding the end of Militarism,universally. President HUFUD

Please

Canada, NATO, & The Nuclear Ban Treaty

Paul Meyer | CDI 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/

Canada, NATO, & The Nuclear Ban Treaty

Paul Meyer | CDI 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/

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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

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

‘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: 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: 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: 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.

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/

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/

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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?

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

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

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

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLFub4kWx39dzBNj6WwNhaeG8WRApXTQv6

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Ut elit tellus, luctus nec ullamcorper mattis, pulvinar dapibus leo.

417
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x

Select the Videos from Right

We produce several one-hour-long Zoom conversations each week about various aspects of six issues we address. You can watch them live and send a question to the speakers or watch the edited version later here or on our Youtube channel.