Nuclear Ban Treaty obligates countries to assist nuclear victims and remediate environments
Policy Approaches Addressing the Ongoing Humanitarian and Environmental Consequences of Nuclear Weapons: A Commentary, Wiley Online Library Nate Van Duzer Alicia Sanders‐Zakre 20 January 2021 https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.12870
Abstract
The 2017 Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) not only bans nuclear weapons, it obligates its states parties to engage in assisting victims and remediating contaminated environments (Articles 6 and 7). As states and civil society consider the best methods to implement these provisions, it is important to take stock and review existing policy approaches addressing the ongoing humanitarian and environmental consequences of nuclear weapons. This practitioner commentary, written by members of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), which was awarded the 2017 Nobel Peace Prize for its advocacy for the TPNW, reviews existing programs of victim assistance and environmental remediation. It highlights key considerations for policy makers seeking to improve on the existing mechanisms.
……….. Key takeaways
Dozens of identified sites around the world remain contaminated by nuclear weapons use, production and testing, and there is no one standard for their remediation. Notably, there is no widely accepted standard to determine how clean is clean, or how to monitor radiation levels over time. Speed and thoroughness of cleanup vary widely as well, and the cost to remediate each site ranges from millions of US$ to billions. Even remediated sites are often still somewhat closed to the public. The nuclear‐armed states have historically done the most to direct and carry out the cleanup of sites, even if the test site is not under those states’ jurisdiction. However, nuclear‐armed states do not always respond to local requests for action. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1758-5899.12870
5 nuclear activities that are now Illegal under international law
Here are five examples of the type of activities that will be Illegal under international law on 22 January 2021 https://nukewatch.org/new-and-updated-item/here-are-five-examples-of-the-type-of-activities-that-will-be-illegal-under-international-law-on-22-january-2021/
One of the main problems with talking about nuclear weapons is that it often becomes abstract and hypothetical. Most people barely know which countries have nuclear weapons and do not know to what extent other actors are involved in maintaining and upholding nuclear weapons.
WHAT THE TREATY PROHIBITS
Article 1 of the treaty prohibits states parties from developing, testing, producing, manufacturing, transferring, possessing, stockpiling, using or threatening to use nuclear weapons, or allowing nuclear weapons to be stationed on their territory. It also prohibits them from assisting, encouraging or inducing anyone to engage in any of these activities.
#1: THE TREATY BANS THE DEVELOPMENT OF NEW NUCLEAR WEAPONS SYSTEMS
Right now, all nuclear armed states are quantitatively or qualitatively advancing their nuclear arsenals, to the tune of nearly $73 billion in 2019 alone. Developing nuclear weapons is banned for states parties in Article 1(a) of the treaty. So activities like India’s Agni-V intercontinental ballistic missile? Banned under international law. Pakistan’s Babur-3 submarine-launched ballistic missile? Banned under international law. North Korea’s’ growing nuclear warhead arsenal? Banned under international law. Nuclear-armed states may not be legally obligated to comply with a treaty they haven’t joined. But their behavior contradicts this new instrument of international law and the growing norm it represents.
#2: THE TREATY BANS ASSISTING WITH DEVELOPING NUCLEAR WEAPONS
Dozens of U.S. universities are involved in the U.S. nuclear weapons complex, including through direct management and research partnerships with the laboratories that design and can produce nuclear weapons components. The University of California, Texas A&M University, Johns Hopkins University, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and the University of Rochester receive billions in contracts to directly manage laboratories that work on nuclear weapons. The University of California and Texas A&M University are both operators of the Los Alamos National Laboratory, which provides design and engineering for several nuclear warhead types, conducts simulated experiments to evaluate warheads, and has the capacity to produce plutonium pits, the core material for nuclear warheads. An average-sized U.S. nuclear weapon, that could be designed and developed at Los Alamos overseen by the University of California and Texas A&M University, detonated over the center of Paris would immediately kill over 500,000 civilians, and injure more than one million, causing third-degree burns all the way out to the suburbs.
From 22 January 2021, these universities, and others that are participating in the development and production of nuclear weapons, are carrying out activities that are banned under international law. Students should demand their universities focus on research to save lives, not end them.
#3: THE TREATY BANS THE HOSTING OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS
Article 1(g) of the TPNW explicitly prohibits allowing the stationing, installation or deployment of nuclear weapons.
|
There are five countries in the world that are currently engaged in this soon to be banned behaviour: Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands, Italy, and Turkey.These five countries currently host collectively about 150 U.S. nuclear weapons at bases on their territory. The fact is, there are likely more nuclear weapons in Italy than in North Korea. Not only does the continued hosting of U.S. nuclear weapons run contrary to international law, it also flies in the face of public opinion. Less than one-third of the public in most nuclear hosting states support the continued existence of weapons of mass destruction on their soil. A recent poll in Belgium shows that 77% of Belgians want their government to join the TPNW. #4: THE TREATY BANS THE MANUFACTURING OF NUCLEAR WEAPONSEven outside of nuclear-armed states companies contribute to the development and production of nuclear weapons. Belarus’ Minsk Automotive Factory manufactures mobile launchers for a Russian intercontinental ballistic missile. The multinational Airbus Group, headquartered in the Netherlands, contributes through a German-headquarted subdivision to the development and production of the French submarine-launched ballistic missiles. These companies are engaging in activities outlawed under international law. There is a growing trend for financial institutions to divest from companies producing weapons banned under international law. If these companies do not choose to adhere to the new norm on nuclear weapons, they may pay the price. #5: THE TREATY BANS ENCOURAGING THE USE OF NUCLEAR WEAPONSNuclear-armed states are always ready to use nuclear weapons. They regularly prepare to use nuclear weapons through joint exercises, where many states contribute to nuclear attack exercises. One example is the annual NATO Steadfast Noon nuclear exercise. Non-nuclear-armed states that participate in these mass murder trial runs would be acting contrary to Article 1(e), the prohibition against encouraging prohibited behaviour. This year, countries like the Czech Republic and Poland contributed conventional aircraft to the Steadfast Noon nuclear strike exercise – something that will be illegal under international law when the TPNW enters into force. CONCLUSIONThe entry into force of the TPNW is the perfect opportunity for all countries, companies, universities and other entities to re-evaluate their relationship to this new international legal standard. Countries producing or hosting nuclear weapons or participating in nuclear strike exercises, as well as the companies manufacturing them and universities helping to design them are acting against international law. All entities should end these illegal activities and join the international community in renouncing nuclear weapons entirely. When the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) enters into force on 22 January 2021, that will need to change. |
|
|
Protest rally against University of Arkansas’ involvement with nuclear weapons corporation
Group protests UA involvement with nuclear corporation, https://www.nwahomepage.com/news/group-protests-ua-involvement-with-nuclear-corporation/ by: Megan Wilson, Jan 22, 2021, FAYETTEVILLE, Ark. (KNWA/KFTA) – Northwest Arkansans join peace groups around the world celebrating an international treaty on prohibiting nuclear weapons.
A group gathered at the University of Arkansas to protest its contract with the nuclear weapons corporation Honeywell International.
Abel Tomlinson is the founder of Arkansas Non-Violence Alliance.
He said the University contradicts its mission statement by building non-nuclear components for the bombs.
“Its mission statement says that they’re ‘determined to build a better world.’ and we belive that building nuclear bombs is the complete opposite of that. Nobody should be having them. They’re endangering everyone, it’s unacceptable,” Tomlinson said.
The University of Arkansas was aware of today’s protest, but did not wish to comment.
Arab League hails passing of Treaty on Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons
Arab League hails passing of Treaty on Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, Business Standard, 24 Jan 21, The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons was adopted in July 2017 and was opened for signature in September 2017
The Arab League has welcomed the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, commonly known as the Nuclear Weapon Ban Treaty’s coming into force and urged for intensifying international efforts to establish a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East.
In a statement on Friday, AL Secretary-General Ahmed Aboul-Gheit descibed the move as an important step towards the disarmament and the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons in the world, reports Xinhua news agency.
He explained that the Arab countries were supportive of international efforts during the negotiation process for this treaty, “despite Israel’s boycott of this path as an extension of its anti-nuclear disarmament policies and its stances opposing international efforts aimed at getting rid of nuclear weapons, especially in the Middle East”.
“It is time to intensify efforts to establish a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East, which is fully consistent with the objectives of this treaty,” the AL chief said… https://www.business-standard.com/article/international/arab-league-hails-passing-of-treaty-on-prohibition-of-nuclear-weapons-121012300306_1.html
The nuclear weapons ban treaty is groundbreaking, even if the nuclear powers haven’t signed
 The nuclear weapons ban treaty is groundbreaking, even if the nuclear powers haven’t signed https://theconversation.com/the-nuclear-weapons-ban-treaty-is-groundbreaking-even-if-the-nuclear-powers-havent-signed-153197January 22, 2021 Tilman Ruff, Honorary Principal Fellow, School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Today, many around the world will celebrate the first multilateral nuclear disarmament treaty to enter into force in 50 years.The UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) was adopted at the United Nations in 2017 and finally reached the milestone of 50 ratifications in October. The countries that have signed and ratified include Austria, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand, South Africa, Nigeria and Thailand.
The treaty completes the suite of international bans on all major weapons considered unacceptable because of their indiscriminate and inhumane effects, including anti-personnel landmines, cluster munitions, biological and chemical weapons. The countries that have signed the TPNW were fed up with over half a century of the nuclear-armed states flouting their obligation to rid the world of their weapons. They have asserted the interests of humanity and global democracy in a way the nuclear-armed states were powerless to stop. It is certainly long overdue for the most cruel and destructive weapons of all — nuclear weapons — to be banned. But this treaty is a sign of hope — a necessary and important step toward a less destructive planet. What will the treaty do?The aim of the treaty is a comprehensive and categorical ban of nuclear weapons. It binds signatories not to develop, test, produce, acquire, have control of, use or threaten to use nuclear weapons. States also cannot “assist, encourage or induce” anyone to engage in any activity prohibited under the treaty — essentially anything to do with nuclear weapons. The TPNW strengthens the current nuclear safeguards found in the 1970 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons by requiring all states that join to have comprehensive provisions in place and not allowing states to weaken their existing safeguards. The treaty provides the first legally binding multilateral framework for a process by which all nations can work toward eliminating nuclear weapons. For instance, states with another nation’s nuclear weapons stationed on their territory must remove them. States with nuclear weapons can “destroy then join” the treaty, or “join then destroy”. They must irreversibly dismantle their weapons, as well as the programs and facilities to produce them, subject to agreed timelines and verification by an international authority. Further, the TPNW is the first treaty to commit member nations to provide long-neglected assistance for the victims of atomic bombs and weapon testing. It also calls for nations to clean up environments contaminated by nuclear weapons use and testing, where feasible. Nuclear-armed states have been put on noticeCurrently, 86 nations have signed the TPNW, and 51 have ratified it (meaning they are bound by its provisions). The treaty now becomes part of international law, and the number of signatories and ratifications will continue to grow. However, none of the nine nuclear powers — the US, China, Russia, France, the UK, India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea — have yet signed or ratified the treaty. Many other countries that rely on other nations’ nuclear weapons for their security, such as the 27 members of NATO, Australia, Japan and South Korea, have also not signed. So, why does the treaty matter given these states currently oppose it? And what effect can we expect the treaty to have on them? While any treaty is technically only binding on the states that join it, the TPNW establishes a new international legal standard against which all nuclear policies will now be judged. The treaty, in short, is a game-changer, and the nuclear-armed and dependent countries have been put on notice. They know the treaty jeopardises their claimed right to continue to threaten the planet with their weapons, as well as their plans to modernise and maintain their nuclear arsenals indefinitely. The strength of their opposition is a measure of the treaty’s importance. It will have implications for everything from defence policies and military plans to weapons manufacturing to financial investments in the companies that profit from making now illegal nuclear weapons. For example, a growing number of banks, pension funds and insurance companies around the world are now divesting from companies that build nuclear weapons. These include the Norwegian Pension Fund (the world’s largest sovereign wealth fund), ABP (Europe’s largest pension fund), Deutsche Bank, Belgium’s largest bank KBC, Resona Holdings, Kyushu Financial Group and Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group in Japan, and the Japanese insurance companies Nippon Life, Dai-ichi Life, Meiji-Yasuda and Fukoku Mutual. A ‘dangerous’ belief nuclear weapons enhance securityWould joining the treaty mean nations like Australia, Japan, South Korea and NATO members would have to end their military cooperation with nuclear-armed states like the US? No. There is nothing in the TPNW that prevents military cooperation with a nuclear-armed state, provided nuclear weapons activities are excluded. Countries like New Zealand and Kazakhstan have already demonstrated that joining the treaty is fully compatible with ongoing military cooperation with, respectively, the US and Russia. In a recent letter urging their governments to join the treaty, 56 former presidents, prime ministers and defence and foreign ministers from these nations said
The signatories include two former NATO secretaries-general, Willy Claes and Javier Solana. Ban treaties have been proven to work with other outlawed weapons — landmines, cluster munitions and biological and chemical weapons. They have provided the basis and motivation for progressive efforts to control and eliminate these weapons. They are now significantly less produced, deployed and used, even by states that haven’t joined the treaties. We can achieve the same result with nuclear weapons. As Hiroshima survivor Setsuko Thurlow said at the UN after the treaty was adopted, This is the beginning of the end of nuclear weapons. |
|
|
Russia welcomes US proposal to extend New Start nuclear treaty
Russia welcomes US proposal to extend nuclear treaty, 9 News, By Associated Press
More than half of public supports UK joining UN ban on nuclear weapons.
The National 22nd Jan 2021, More than half of public supports UK joining UN ban on nuclear weapons.
https://www.thenational.scot/news/19029821.half-public-supports-uk-joining-un-ban-nuclear-weapons/
Despite Covid regulations, 22 nuclear bombs delivered to Scotland
As many as 22 nuclear warheads were transported from England to Scotland in eight road convoys during 2020 despite coronavirus restrictions, according to a new report by campaigners.
Another bomb convoy arrived at the Royal Naval Armaments Depot at Coulport in Argyll on 15 January and set off south to the nuclear weapons factory at Burghfield in Berkshire on 20 January during a ban on non-essential travel.
Nukewatch, which monitors the convoys, accused the UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) of taking “disregard for public safety to a new low”. Critics and politicians questioned whether the convoys were essential…..
A historic United Nations treaty banning nuclear weapons came into force on 22 January 2021 after being signed by 51 countries. It is supported by the Scottish Government, but opposed by the UK Government.
Convoys comprising 20 or more vehicles regularly transport Trident nuclear warheads by road between Coulport and Burghfield for maintenance and upgrades. They are tracked and filmed by activists, and often travel close to Glasgow, Edinburgh, Newcastle, Manchester and Birmingham.
The Ferret reported in May 2018 that safety problems plaguing the convoys had risen to a record high. The total number of incidents logged by the MoD over ten years was 179.
A historic United Nations treaty banning nuclear weapons came into force on 22 January 2021 after being signed by 51 countries. It is supported by the Scottish Government, but opposed by the UK Government.
Convoys comprising 20 or more vehicles regularly transport Trident nuclear warheads by road between Coulport and Burghfield for maintenance and upgrades. They are tracked and filmed by activists, and often travel close to Glasgow, Edinburgh, Newcastle, Manchester and Birmingham.
The Ferret reported in May 2018 that safety problems plaguing the convoys had risen to a record high. The total number of incidents logged by the MoD over ten years was 179……..
Jane Tallents from Nukewatch criticised the MoD for ignoring lockdown travel bans. “We call on the MoD to suspend these non-essential movements at least while the Covid restrictions are at this high level,” she told The Ferret.
“The emergency plans for dealing with a serious accident while transporting nuclear weapons always looked inadequate to us. But travelling while all our hospitals are near to being overwhelmed by the pandemic is taking the MoDs disregard for public safety to a new low.
“The resources are just not available to organise an evacuation and tell people to take shelter near to the site of a radiation leak from a damaged warhead in transit especially in any of the high population areas they travel through.”
Tallents pointed to evidence that the warhead convoy often broke down. “We are told to trust their safety record with nuclear weapons but it appears they can’t even manage to keep their vehicles roadworthy,” she said.
The Nuclear Information Service, which researches nuclear weapons, also urged the MoD to stop bomb convoys during Covid restrictions. “I can’t see any reason for the convoys to happen during lockdown,” said the group’s director, David Cullen.
“I’m sure there’s enough leeway in the programme to work around the restrictions if they wanted to. There’s no way drivers and security staff can maintain safe distances within the convoy vehicles.”
He added: “The government owes Scotland an explanation, and I’d like to see them release the risk assessment they used to justify this.”
The Scottish Greens also disputed whether the bomb convoys were essential. “It is deeply irresponsible to have weapons of mass destruction on our roads, especially at the moment,” said Green MSP, Mark Ruskell.
“They increase the risk of being targeted by terrorist groups, and although the likelihood of a catastrophic incident remains slim, the implications of a safety breach would be horrific and impossible to contain.” https://theferret.scot/22-nuclear-bombs-scotland-covid/
The 70-year nuclear gloom begins to lift on January 22
Abolishing Nuclear Weapons: A New Chance, https://portside.org/2021-01-19/abolishing-nuclear-weapons-new-chance– 20 Jan 21,
The 70-year nuclear gloom begins to lift on January 22, 2021. The nine countries that have held the world captive to the threat of nuclear war are losing moral ground to 122 smaller countries that approved the world’s first nuclear weapons ban.
The 70-year nuclear gloom begins to lift on January 22, 2021. The nine countries that have held the world captive to the threat of nuclear war are losing moral ground to 122 smaller countries that approved the world’s first nuclear weapons ban in July 2017. Once 50 of those 122 approving countries completed the ratification process of the UN Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in their legislatures, it became international law in October 2020.
The law goes into effect January 22, 2021 to the profound relief of most people of the world. Those now 51 “freedom fighter” countries commit to having nothing to do with nuclear weapons – no design, testing, manufacturing, storage, transport, use or threat of use. Consider this a marathon for disarmament to outpace the current nuclear arms race in which all nuclear-armed countries are, in lockstep, upgrading their weapons.
And this is only the beginning. Thirty five additional countries are in the process of ratifying the Treaty; 50 more support the Treaty; a dozen more have immense popular support, among them Canada, and are one election away from signing the Treaty. If the United States, where a majority of citizens does not want to use nuclear weapons, signed the Treaty, the rest would follow.
Actions of note:
- The General Electric Company stopped production of nuclear weapons in 1993.
- Two of the world’s largest pension funds have divested from nuclear weapons.
- Mitsubishi UFG Financial Group, 1 of the 5 largest banks in the world, has excluded nuclear weapons production from its portfolio, labeling them “inhumane.”
- Kennedy and Khrushchev were working toward the abolition of nuclear weapons when Kennedy was assassinated.
- Reagan and Gorbachev agreed to a radical dismantling of their nuclear weapons.
- Our goal must be a world “without nuclear weapons… “nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought:” Former Republican Secretary of State George Schultz and former Democrat Secretary of Defense William Perry.
- Mayors for Peace: 7675 cities in 163 countries support the total abolition of nuclear weapons.
- 56 former presidents, prime ministers, foreign and defense ministers from 20 NATO countries and Japan and South Korea recently signed an open letter in support of the UN treaty to ban nuclear weapons. “Sooner or later our luck will run out – unless we act…There is no cure for a nuclear war,” they asserted. “Prevention is our only option.”
- Pope Francis: “The use of atomic energy for purposes of war is immoral. As is the possession of atomic weapons.”
A limited nuclear war could trigger a global famine that would likely end billions of lives. A full scale nuclear war would end human and most other life on Earth, reminding us of the classical depiction of total war: they had to destroy the village to save it. A nuclear war, whether by accident, misjudgment or intention to destroy the enemy would destroy the rest of us as well – how insane is that?
What then can President-elect Biden do?
Open dialogue with and renew nuclear agreements and diplomacy with Russia immediately.
Change US policy in 3 key ways: No first use of nuclear weapons; take weapons off of hair trigger alert; and select another senior official to share decision-making about “pressing the button.”
Revive the agreement with Iran: they do not develop nuclear weapons, we lift sanctions.
With South Korea, engage in diplomacy with North Korea to freeze and roll back their nuclear weapons program.
Stop the new program of upgrading nuclear weapons.
Listen to the world’s majority and lead the United States toward signing the new UN Treaty and the others will follow. It is our only solution to exit a dead-end system that permits a single human being, in the words of national security analyst Joseph Cirincione, “to destroy in minutes all that humanity has constructed over millennia.”
Pat Hynes, retired from Boston University, is on the board of the Traprock Center for Peace and Justice https://traprock.org.
Biden can’t ignore that continuing crisis -the danger of nuclear annihilation.
|
Biden can’t lose sight of the nuclear crisis, https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/01/19/biden-cant-lose-sight-nuclear-crisis/ by Katrina vanden Heuvel, Columnist, Jan. 20, 2021 At Wednesday’s inauguration, President-elect Joe Biden is likely to address the “four historic crises” he has repeatedly identified as confronting our country: a global pandemic, a severe recession, climate change and systemic racism. Yet even as so many challenges compete for our attention, we can’t afford to lose sight of a fifth crisis: the continued danger of nuclear annihilation. Overlooking the nuclear crisis might feel unthinkable for Americans who came of age during the Cold War, when nuclear destruction preoccupied our collective imagination. In 1983, for instance, 100 million Americans watched “The Day After,” a made-for-TV movie that depicted a potential nuclear holocaust. As detailed in a recent documentary, its haunting images — which included a mushroom cloud erupting over the plains of Kansas and scorching bodies in its blast radius — terrified viewers, including President Ronald Reagan. And it spurred our political leaders to join millions of grass-roots activists around the globe in taking action to prevent nuclear war. While nuclear conflict has largely faded from public consciousness, it still poses a clear and present danger. America is now locked in a new Cold War with Russia, with multiple direct engagements between the two countries’ forces and rising tensions between Russia and the United States’ NATO allies. Meanwhile, the United States and Russia still maintain nearly 2,000 atomic bombs on hair-trigger alert. It’s no wonder that, last year, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists adjusted its Doomsday Clock to reflect an increased likelihood of global annihilation. It is high time to step back from the brink of catastrophe. Fortunately, Biden has long championed stronger nuclear arms controls. And his administration can act immediately to make our world safer. Biden will have just two weeks to complete the first move, as the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) between the United States and Russia is set to expire on February 5. Negotiated by the Obama administration, the pact limits the capabilities of the two countries’ respective nuclear arsenals. Allowing it to lapse would represent yet another blow to the international arms control framework that protected us for decades and is being systematically dismantled. President George W. Bush, for instance, ended America’s Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty with Russia. And President Trump pulled us from the Open Skies Treaty despite the pleas of our allies. The good news is that both Biden and Russian President Vladimir Putin have expressed willingness to reverse that dangerous trend and extend New START — which can be accomplished through a simple exchange of diplomatic letters. The Biden administration should make this goal an immediate priority. Preserving New START, while an important step, should also be exactly what it sounds like: a start. There are many other actions Biden should take to reduce the likelihood of nuclear conflict — and move our nation further toward the ultimate goal of abolishing all nuclear weapons. Former defense secretary William Perry and nuclear scholar Tom Collina outline a series of strong steps in their recent book, “The Button.” One key suggestion is retiring the nuclear football that gives presidents the sole discretion to launch atomic attacks. Even after Trump was banned from tweeting, he still wielded unfettered power to destroy the world. We can’t ever allow that situation to repeat itself. All subsequent presidents should have to share this authority with a select group from Congress. Biden should also scrap the Trump administration’s plans to spend $264 billion on a new generation of intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs). These land-based weapons offer little military value, since our nuclear-armed submarines can already retaliate against another country’s first strike. And building more ICBMs only heightens our very real risk of accidentally launching a nuclear war. These actions should be accompanied by a broader reimagining of our national security. America is poised to spend $2 trillion over the next 30 years replacing every Cold War submarine, bomber, missile and warhead. These expenditures aren’t driven by military necessity or grand strategic plan, but they do have the support of hundreds of defense industry lobbyists. Protracted cold wars with powers like Russia and China aren’t just dangerous — they’re also expensive and distracting. And as America confronts multiple crises, we simply can’t afford to engage in them. We can prevent future conflicts by balancing sober realism with well-measured diplomacy — including reestablishing bonds with the many long-standing allies Trump spurned. As former governor Jerry Brown (D-Calif.) argued in a just-released open letter to Biden, reopening dialogue with Russia around the nuclear crisis would allow us to end the arms race and free up resources to enact the core elements of Biden’s agenda — from delivering covid-19 relief to combating climate change to advancing racial justice. While the destruction portrayed in “The Day After” no longer dominates our public consciousness, the threat of nuclear war remains a vital issue. Today, those who understand what is at stake should recapture the energy of previous generations and ensure our new administration understands the danger we face. In the words of Perry and Collina: “We need to bring the bomb into the new mass movement.” The president-elect must recognize both the danger — and the opportunity — at hand. |
|
|
A view from the law: The Danger Of Sole Presidential Authority Over Nuclear Weapons
|
The Gold Code Standard Revisited: The Danger Of Sole Presidential Authority Over Nuclear Weapons Jurist, Kevin Govern, JANUARY 19, 2021
Kevin Govern, a Professor of Law at Ave Maria School of Law, analyses the sole Presidential authority over nuclear weapons vis-a-vis the Trump administration and military intervention…
On January 8, 2021, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) took the extraordinary step of publicly revealing she had talked with Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Mark A. Milley, about “available precautions for preventing an unstable President from initiating military hostilities or accessing the launch codes and ordering a nuclear strike.” Milley reportedly issued a statement saying he “answered [Speaker Pelosi’s] questions regarding the process of nuclear command authority.” Four days later, The House of Representatives voted 223-205 to formally call on Vice President Mike Pence to use the 25th Amendment to strip President Trump of his powers after he incited a mob that attacked the Capitol. With the Vice President’s refusal, impeachment proceedings went forward in the House on January 13, 2021, with a vote of 232-197, to impeach President Trump for “incitement of insurrection” in only the fourth presidential impeachment in US history, and the first time a President has been impeached twice. Continue reading |
Trump’s worst move – gambling on nuclear war with North Korea
He didn’t merely threaten to attack North Korea if it possessed the ability to strike the U.S. He ordered the Pentagon to develop new plans, over the resistance of then-Secretary of Defense James Mattis, to do so. As Slate columnist Fred Kaplan reports in his book “The Bomb,” the Joint Chiefs of Staff created new war plans “that assumed the United States would strike the first blow.”
|
By Far the Worst Thing Trump Did Was Flirt With Nuclear War With North Korea
Trump’s actions on this one issue outweigh everything else, yet it’s received less attention than many of his tweets. The Intercept Jon Schwarz, January 21 2021, JUST BEFORE NOON Wednesday, when President Joe Biden took the oath of office, the nuclear codes in the briefcase carried by a military aide to Donald Trump became invalid. The United States and the world survived the four years of Trump’s presidency without him starting a nuclear war.
This was a genuine possibility during 2017 and early 2018, Trump’s first year in office, when he brought the U.S. far closer to a nuclear conflict with North Korea than most Americans realize. Incredibly, the American foreign policy establishment seemed to look upon this risk with equanimity at the time and by now seems to have completely forgotten it.
The significance of Trump’s actions on this one issue outweighs every other aspect of the Trump years, including his response to the coronavirus pandemic. A conflict with North Korea could have led to the deaths of millions, tens of millions, or even more. Yet it’s received less attention than many of his tweets. Here’s what happened and why Trump’s behavior was extraordinarily dangerous. Continue reading
|
Investigation of Algerians affected by France’s nuclear bomb tests
Le Monde 20th Jan 2021, At the heart of Franco-Algerian memory: the fight against those irradiated from the Sahara. This January 20, historian Benjamin Stora submits to the
President of the Republic, Emmanuel Macron, his report on Franco-Algerian memory. The nuclear tests carried out until 1966 in the Sahara are one of the disputes between the two countries. Investigation.
Pakistan test-fires nuclear-capable surface-to-surface ballistic missile
The missile is capable of carrying nuclear and conventional warheads to a range of 2,750 kms, the statement said.
ISLAMABAD: Pakistan said on Wednesday that it successfully test-fired a nuclear-capable surface-to-surface ballistic missile which can strike targets up to 2,750 kilometres. …… https://www.newindianexpress.com/world/2021/jan/20/pakistan-test-fires-nuclear-capable-surface-to-surface-ballistic-missile-2252773.html
Hiroshima ‘peace clock’ reset to 49 days following US nuclear test
|
Hiroshima ‘peace clock’ reset to 49 days following US nuclear test https://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20210119/p2a/00m/0na/004000c January 19, 2021 (Mainichi Japan) HIROSHIMA –– A clock located in the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum in this western Japan city was reset from 705 to 49, indicating the number of days that have passed since the latest nuclear test took place — a subcritical one carried out by the United States in November 2020. The adjustment was made on Jan. 18, after it was revealed in a U.S. national laboratory document that a subcritical nuclear experiment was held in November under the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump. The “Chikyu Heiwa Kanshi Dokei (Peace Watch Tower)” had previously displayed the number “705” to mark the number of days that had passed since the subcritical nuclear experiment conducted by the U.S. in February 2019. As the exact date of the latest test in November is unknown, the clock is currently set at “49 days,” under the assumption that the nuclear test was held on the last day of the month. On Jan. 17, the Hiroshima Municipal Government sent a letter of protest addressed to President Trump to the U.S. Embassy in Japan. On the following day, some 35 people, including hibakusha, or A-bomb survivors, gathered at the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park in the city’s Naka Ward, which includes the peace memorial museum, and staged a sit-in protest. President-elect Joe Biden, who will be inaugurated on Jan. 20, issued a statement vowing to “work to bring us closer to a world without nuclear weapons,” on Aug. 6, 2020, which marked the 75th anniversary of the U.S. atomic bombing of Hiroshima. (Japanese original by Isamu Gari, Hiroshima Bureau) |
|
1 This Month
22 June – Virtual Event –Climate Change: New Data, New Debate
Monday, June 22, 2026 2:30 p.m. – 3:15 p.m. CT
YouTube. Register here
25 June- THE PUKE ON NUKES
Thursday, June 25, 2026
7pm Central Time (8pm ET, 6pm MT, 5pm PT) UTC – 5
From NRC & DOE Deregulation to Techno-Fascist Billionaires Going Nuclear, Plus a Few Songs from Atomic Cabaret REGISTER
26 June – Radiation Trainwreck at the NRC / Join the Protect Better Campaign – https://us02web.zoom.us/meeting/register/4ZlZ5_qLSHGiLSCg8FF6Bg#/registration
1st July – Webinar Waste of Space: The Environmental Harm of Military and Civil Space Activity st July, 7 pm
Report Launch Online: We are seeing an increasing exploitation of space for military and commercial purposes. This must change.
Protect Sazan Island from the Trump family! https://secure.avaaz.org/campaign/en/protect_sazan_island_from_the_trump_family_loc/?bqFCVab&v=174511&cl=22707147157&_checksum=5e9dde668860e8231c33699735e16a1fbf22ab2cb01da50c999fe8732b9775ef&utm_source=email&utm_medium=blast_email&utm_campaign=174511
Cuba Is Not a Failed State – It Is a Besieged State
PETITION: “Global Appeal to Endorse Palestinian Right of Return of Refugees”
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- June 2026 (227)
- May 2026 (306)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (268)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (257)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 