9-18-06, 9:31 am
On June 11, 1945, scientists Leo Szilard, James Franck and five of their colleagues working on the Manhattan project at the University of Chicago’s Metallurgical Lab issued a report in which they argued against using the atomic bomb on Japan. In their report, they argued that, “the military advantages and the saving of American lives achieved by the sudden use of atomic bombs against Japan, may be outweighed by the ensuing loss of confidence and wave of horror and repulsion sweeping over the rest of the world.” It will be very difficult to persuade the world that a nation which was capable of secretly preparing and suddenly releasing [such] a weapon… is to be trusted in its proclaimed desire to of having such weapons abolished by international agreement.” Therefore, they added, “a demonstration of the new weapon may best be made before the eyes of representatives of all United Nations, on the desert or a barren island.” 1
Little did they know at that time, that the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Japan had already been made. In early 1945, the Department of War had formed an Interim Committee to study the political and battlefield implications of using atomic weapons in war. In their May meeting, the committee concluded that the U.S. would “not give the Japanese any warning; that we could not concentrate on a civilian area; but that we should seek to make a profound psychological impression on as many of the inhabitants as possible. [It was] agreed that the most desirable target would be a vital war plant employing a large number of workers and closely surrounded by workers' houses.” At its June 21st meeting, the committee, in response to the Franck Report, reaffirmed its position that the atomic weapon, “be used without warning, and that it be used on a dual target, namely, a military installation or war plant surrounded by or adjacent to homes or other buildings most susceptible to damage.”2
On August 6th, 1945, at 8:15 am, the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima. 140,000 people were killed, some instantly vaporized by the heat of the explosion, leaving behind dark shadows on walls as a reminder of their horrible death. Thousands others suffered in agony from the deadly radiation for many hours or days before death came mercifully to their door. Three days later, the U.S. dropped a second bomb, this time on Nagasaki, killing tens of thousands more and destroying over a hundred thousand lives for generations to come. And so, we arrive at the reason for this, and countless other, events around the world, commemorating the victims of one of the most barbaric displays of human cruelty, a time when we rededicate ourselves, in the words of Mother Jones, to “pray for the dead and fight like hell for the living.”
Before I go on, let me thank the Detroit Area Peace with Justice Network, particularly Peace Action, Citizens for Peace and WILPF, for inviting me to give this talk. And I thank Hope United Methodist Church for graciously hosting us on this occasion. The Methodist Church has a clear and unequivocal stance against nuclear weapons. In your foundation statement In Defense of Creation (1986), the Council of Bishops stated, “We say a clear and unconditional No to nuclear war and to any use of nuclear weapons.”3 This position was reaffirmed by the 2004 General Conference of the United Methodist Church, which adopted a resolution stating, “We reaffirm the finding that nuclear weapons, whether used or threatened, are grossly evil and morally wrong. As an instrument of mass destruction, nuclear weapons slaughter the innocent and ravage the environment. When used as instruments of deterrence, nuclear weapons hold innocent people hostage for political and military purposes. Therefore, the doctrine of nuclear deterrence is morally corrupt and spiritually bankrupt.”4 The antinuclear movement is indeed at home in the Methodist Church!
It was a full year before Americans were really aware of the deadly and barbaric effects of dropping the atomic bombs on the Japanese. In August 1946, the New Yorker devoted an entire issue to the accounts of survivors interviewed by Pulitzer-Prize winning journalist John Hersey in the days following the attacks. Hersey’s interviews, later published as a book titled Hiroshima, became a classic, of which the New York Times said, “Nothing that can be said about this book can equal what the book has to say. It speaks for itself, and in an unforgettable way, for humanity.”5
Two days after Hiroshima, Methodist pastor G. Bromley Oxnam, writing with John Foster Dulles in the New York Times, expressed his horror, saying, “If we, as a professedly Christian nation, feel morally free to use atomic energy in this way, men elsewhere will accept that verdict.”6 The Catholic Herald of London assailed the bombing as “not only utterly and absolutely indefensible in itself, but ….lights up for us all the immorality along the path we have all been treading.” 7 The Vatican newspaper wrote, “this incredible, destructive instrument remains a temptation… for posterity, to whom history teaches very little, and which the forgetfulness of experience dominates so willingly.” 8 Others joined in, including Dorothy Day, WILPF and FOR. Even former Presidents and Generals were appalled by the bombs. Hoover said, “The use of the atomic bomb, with its indiscriminate killing of women and children, revolts my soul.” General Douglas Macarthur saw “no military justification for the dropping of the bomb.”
The key point to note here is that not all those who condemned the use of nuclear weapons were radicals or liberals. Many among them were conservatives who held to a strong moral position on the use of these weapons as being against their religious convictions. They held these convictions even in the face of a growing myth that dropping the bombs ended the war early and saved thousands of American lives.
The global movement for nuclear disarmament has persisted throughout the Cold War years and beyond, against a backdrop of the US-Soviet arms race; growing nuclear arsenals and military budgets; the development of more powerful and deadly weapons, such as the Hydrogen Bomb; nuclear proliferation to France, UK and China and later to other countries; and the emergence of a theory of deterrence called MAD, which served as a foundation for global nuclear proliferation. It would be impossible to do justice to the breadth and extent of the antinuclear movement in this speech, but I want to present a few examples to show that our event today, our commemoration of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the continuing struggle today, follow in a long and proud tradition of peace activism in this country.
In 1955, Albert Einstein and Bertrand Russell wrote an antinuclear manifesto9, in which they called upon the scientific community to unite in a demand that the US and USSR enact an immediate nuclear weapons freeze, leading to disarmament and abolition of war itself. In 1957, Russell convened the first Pugwash conference of scientists, based on the Einstein-Russell manifesto. This conference, and the global organization of scientists that coalesced around it, continues to this day.10 Chicago-area scientists who were involved in the Manhattan project, but opposed to the use of nuclear weapons, also joined together to form the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, to raise public awareness of the dangers of nuclear weapons and offer better uses for nuclear energy.
The antinuclear writings of public figures, such as Dr. Albert Schweitzer, Eleanor Roosevelt and others soon led to the formation of a grassroots organization called the National Committee for a Sane Nuclear Policy in the late 50’s. The work of SANE and other groups contributed to the growing international pressure that led to the ratification of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in 1968. In the seventies, this movement expanded to include the question of nuclear power, following the Karen Silkwood incident at the plutonium processing plant in Oklahoma and the Three Mile Island disaster, under the leadership of groups such as the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS).11
During the Reagan years, the antinuclear movement took to the streets to protest Reagan’s Star Wars program, with 1 million people gathering in New York City in 1982. Physicians for Social Responsibility, led by Helen Caldicott, evolved into International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW). In Congress, Senators Kennedy (D-MA) and Hatfield (R-OR) introduced a resolution that called for “a freeze on the testing, production and deployment of nuclear warheads, missiles and other delivery systems within the US and USSR. In 1987, SANE and Freeze united to form the organization that later came to be called Peace Action.
The end of the Cold War has diminished the movement’s effectiveness to some extent. But, the belligerent posture of the Bush administration on pre-emptive war and the use of nuclear weapons has refocused public attention on the dangers of nuclear proliferation and weapons use. Groups such as the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, Project Abolition and others have been joined in their efforts by alliances like the international Coalition to Reduce Nuclear Dangers.
At the heart of the struggle is a confrontation with a beast that has devoured over 3.7 trillion dollars between 1940 and 2005 in the United States alone. Today, the U.S. spends over 25 billion dollars annually to prepare to fight such a war. At the height of the nuclear arms race, there were more than 60,000 nuclear weapons in the world. Today there are still some 30,000 nuclear weapons in the world, and more than 95 percent of these are in the arsenals of the US and Russia. New nuclear weapons states India, Pakistan and Israel, and emerging ones, such as N. Korea and possibly Iran, have given the lie to the belief that the end of the Cold War has reduced the dangers of nuclear proliferation and use. Rather today, we face a formidable challenge in a world dominated by a belligerent US foreign policy, a challenge that was best stated by General Omar Bradley, the first Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff after World War II, when he said, “We know more about war that we know about peace, more about killing that we know about living. The world has achieved brilliance without wisdom, power without conscience. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants.”12
The Bush Agenda
And so we come to our struggle today, against the Bush agenda, which represents a dangerous and belligerent shift in U.S. nuclear weapons policy in the post cold-war world. From documents, such as Rebuilding America’s Defenses by the Project for a New American Century13 and the National Security Strategy14, put out by neoconservatives in the Bush administration – Cheney, Perle, Feith and Wolfowitz, among others, we see the ideological reasoning behind this shift in nuclear weapons policies, as the Bush administration’s NEED to
1. Respond to emerging threats and challenges to U.S. global economic and military hegemony from multiple nations following the end of the Cold War. 2. Stop the growing proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and associated technology involving state-to-state and state-to-non-state actors 3. Engage in a forward defense strategy i.e., to prevent the emergence of new crises or preempt serious crises 4. Re-envision role of the global U.S. stockpile of nuclear weapons to promote offensive capabilities, as opposed to deterrence
Based on these reasons, the administration called for a new Nuclear Posture to build upon and modify the 1995 Nuclear Doctrine put forward under the Clinton administration. In 2001, a revised Nuclear Posture was published, followed by National Security Presidential Directives NSPD 14 and 17 in 2002 and finally, last year, a revised Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations. Reading these documents reveal four strategic themes in the Bush nuclear posture for the 21st Century.15 Each theme envisions a shift in the way nuclear weapons are deployed and used, namely A SHIFT
Shift 1: From strategic to non-strategic use OR from global nuclear deployment/threat/use planning to regional (“theater-based”) or local deployment/threat/use nuclear planning. This is accomplished by:
1. Doing away with a separate theater role for non-strategic nuclear forces. Instead, assigns all nuclear weapons, whether strategic or non-strategic, support roles in theater nuclear operations. 2. Shifting command and control from STRATCOM to regional commands (Europe, Pacific etc)
Shift 2: From deterrent to pre-emptive use OR last-use to first-use of nuclear weapons in war. This is accomplished by:
1. Incorporating the concept of pre-emption into U.S. nuclear doctrine, including as a response to use or threat-to-use of non-nuclear WMD by enemy states “against the United States, our forces abroad, and friends and allies.” 2. Shifting from threat-based planning (target nuclear weapons at known threats) to capability-based planning (enable destruction of targets anywhere in the world more efficiently) in the belief that nuclear deterrence will fail sooner or later. 3. Identifying four conditions where pre-emptive use might occur:
a. An adversary intending to use weapons of mass destruction against U.S., multinational, or allies forces or civilian populations b. Imminent attack from an adversary’s biological weapons that only effects from nuclear weapons can safely destroy c. Attacks on adversary installations including weapons of mass destruction; deep, hardened bunkers containing chemical or biological weapons; or the command and control infrastructure required for the adversary to execute a WMD attack against the United States or its friends and allies d. Demonstration of U.S. intent and capability to use nuclear weapons to deter adversary WMD use
Shift 3: From unique nuclear weapons planning and deployment to integrated conventional and nuclear weapons planning OR from use of nuclear weapons in nuclear war to use of nuclear weapons in conventional conflict. This is accomplished by:
1. Accelerating the development and testing of new nuclear weapons capabilities:
a. Powerful earth penetrating nuclear warheads (RNEP) to destroy underground facilities b. 'Agent defeat' weapons to destroy chemical and biological weapons and support facilities while limiting damage from both release of hazardous materials and the nuclear explosion itself, such as the Divine Strake experiment [seen as a “Full-Scale tunnel defeat demonstration using high explosives to simulate a low yield nuclear weapon ground shock environment” to develop …confidence in selecting the smallest proper nuclear yield necessary to destroy underground facilities while minimizing collateral damage. The explosive power of Divine Strake will be approximately 593 tons of TNT equivalent, or roughly 0.6 kt. This is about double the lowest yield option on the non-strategic B61 nuclear gravity bomb, and suggests that Divine Strake may be intended to fine-tune use of the B61 bomb.] c. Building the Modern Pit Facility (MPF), a new factory to make plutonium pits, the nuclear explosive 'triggers' at the heart of modern thermonuclear weapons - 2011 or after; produce as many as 450 pits per year; add to the pit production facility now being established at Los Alamos, which has a capacity of 50 or more pits per year.
Shift 4: From multilateral approaches to nuclear proliferation and international treaties to unilateralism OR from International Law to National Security. This is accomplished by:
1. Designing a new Nuclear Posture, as mentioned above, which seriously undermines the NPT 2. Withdrawing from the Anti-Ballistic-Missile Treaty 3. Refusing to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which the US itself pushed at the UN 4. Refusing to enter into negotiations on the Fissile Materials Cutoff Treaty 5. Developing Theater & Strategic Missile Defenses for sale to countries such as Taiwan, South Korea and Japan.
Confronting Global Nuclear Proliferation in the 21st Century
How do we face the challenge of global nuclear proliferation in the 21st century? Let me speak briefly about a few ideas that I believe might be important for us to consider as part of our discussion. There are 5 things we need to make sure we are doing: We need to
1. Reengage the innate fear of nuclear weapons amongst the people, even if it is sometimes manifested in negative reactions towards the alleged nuclear programs of N. Korea, Iran etc. Emphasize that the only long-term solution to removing this fear will be a global abolition of nuclear weapons. 2. Reengage the moral conservatives based on a common opposition to violence as against religious teachings and basic dignity of human life: Emphasize the argument “Possession fuels Proliferation” and “Proliferation fuels Use”.
2. Reeducate the children & youth of today and successive generations to the dangers of nuclear weapons. Call for greater exposure in science and social studies curricula and lobby state and district Boards of Education for this purpose. 3. Integrate the Anti-nuclear movement with anti-war efforts. We need to see that war is the vehicle for the use of nuclear weapons. Therefore, we must always include a focus on anti-war efforts in ending nuclear proliferation. 4. Expand the Movement – Target the health, environmental racism, and the economics of the development and testing of nuclear weapons, even before they are deployed or used. The design and production of nuclear weapons destroys lives long before the bomb is dropped! 5. Challenge the proliferation of nuclear energy as a solution to the global oil crisis. Emphasize the proliferation risks inherent to the development and spread of nuclear technology. On this issue, turn the Bush argument against itself: If we are concerned that Iran’s nuclear power program could lead to a nuclear weapons program, then the US-India nuclear deal could accelerate India’s nuclear weapons program, resulting in nuclear proliferation between India, Pakistan and China.
These are just a few of the ideas that I believe are important in our anti-nuclear work. However, we should never forget that our work, and of those who came before us, has always had a higher purpose. Let me illustrate this in conclusion by quoting one of the distinguished leaders of the antinuclear movement. In 1995, the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to Dr. Joseph Rotblat and the Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs 'for their efforts to diminish the part played by nuclear arms in international politics and in the longer run to eliminate such arms.' Dr. Rotblat’s acceptance speech carried a message for us all, a message that each of us within this room needs to carry to those without, “Remember your humanity and forget the rest. Survival in a world free of war can be achieved by love rather than by fear, by kindness rather than by compulsion. Above all, remember your humanity.”16
--Prasad Venugopal is science editor of Political Affairs and can be reached at
Footnotes [1] The Antinuclear Movement, Jennifer Smith (ed.), Greenhaven Press (2003) [2] http://nuclearfiles.org/menu/key-issues/nuclear-weapons/history/pre-cold-war/interim-committee/interim-committee-informal-notes_1945-06-21.htm [3] In Defense of Creation: The Nuclear Crisis and a Just Peace, United Methodist Council of Bishops, Graded Press (1986) [4] http://www.zero-nukes.org/religiousstatements2.html#sayingno [5] Hiroshima , John Hersey, Random House (1946) [6] New York Times, August 8, 1945, page 6 [7] New York Times, August 8, 1945, page 6 [8] New York Times, August 8, 1945, page 6 [9] http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/key-issues/ethics/issues/scientific/russell-einstein-manifesto.htm [10] http://www.pugwash.org/ [11] The Antinuclear Movement, Jennifer Smith (ed.), Greenhaven Press (2003) [12] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omar_Bradley [13] http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf [14] http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html [15] http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2005_09/Kristensen.asp [16] The Antinuclear Movement, Jennifer Smith (ed.), Greenhaven Press (2003)
