Showing posts with label Nuclear weapon. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Nuclear weapon. Show all posts

Sunday, October 10, 2010

Preventing Crimes Against Humanity

The mushroom cloud over Hiroshima after the dr...Image via Wikipedia

Upholding International Law in a Muddy Kansas City Soybean Field

by Felice Cohen-Joppa
The judge found me guilty.  Even after I'd testified under oath that I had committed no crime when standing in front of a bulldozer in a muddy soybean field being cleared for the new Kansas City Plant, arm in arm with 13 others.  On August 16, we had tried to stop preparation of the site for the first U.S. nuclear weapons plant to be built in 32 years.  That's what brought us to Judge LaBella's Kansas City courtroom on October 7.
Many people I've talked to in the past year are not aware that while President Obama talks about the importance of nuclear disarmament, he and his administration are planning to replace and rebuild the nation's entire industrial capacity for nuclear weapons production at 3 key sites, with the goal of producing up to 80 new warheads per year for another 50-100 years.  This summer I joined protests at each of these 3 sites.
On July 4th and 5th I protested at the Y-12 nuclear weapons complex in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, where a new facility will be built for manufacturing highly enriched uranium secondaries.  On the 65th anniversary of the U.S. bombing of Hiroshima, I joined a protest at the Los Alamos nuclear weapons lab in New Mexico, where a new plutonium pit factory will be built.  The following week, on August 16, I was in Kansas City, where the remaining 85% of unique and critical components of nuclear warheads will be produced at the new plant. And I knew what my response had to be to the first nuclear bomb plant to be built in my adult lifetime - I had a responsibility to try to stop it.
So I stood in front of the bulldozer on August 16 not with the intent to trespass, but rather to try to prevent a crime from being committed.  I did it as an act of conscience to try to save our planet from the nuclear threat.  I did it because I understand the importance of civil resistance to bring about nonviolent social change, thanks to the many powerful examples in our nation's history, and because I understand my responsibility under international law to prevent war crimes and crimes against humanity.
As a Jewish woman who has family members who survived the Holocaust, and some who perished, I have always very seriously regarded the responsibility of each individual to act to prevent war crimes. I have wondered what more ordinary citizens could have done to prevent the deaths of millions in the gas chambers.   If a few courageous individuals, albeit at great risk to themselves, had dismantled a portion of the railroad tracks leading to Auschwitz or other concentration camps, for instance, they could have saved lives even as they were breaking the law by destroying property.  Certainly there are times when it is necessary to break a law in order to prevent a greater crime.  And here we are, decades after the killing of so many innocent people in the Holocaust, decades after the killing of so many innocent people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, with enough nuclear weapons to destroy life as we know it - and still our country plans to spend billions of dollars to build more.
Planning and preparing for nuclear war, and producing components for nuclear weapons at the Kansas City Plant in Kansas City, Missouri is a clear violation of international humanitarian law.
So I pleaded not guilty to the charge of trespass because I did not break the law.  I acted in a reasonable and nonviolent manner, as is my right and responsibility under international law, to prevent a crime from taking place, and to uphold the law.  I did because I know that it is up to each of us, now, before it is too late, to stop a nuclear holocaust.
Felice Cohen-Joppa is co-editor of the Nuclear Resister newsletter.  She can be reached at nukeresister@igc.org, and more information about anti-nuclear and anti-war resistance can be found at the Nuclear Resister blog, www.nukeresister.org
Enhanced by Zemanta

Saturday, June 12, 2010

Dangers of Offshore Drilling Mocked

World map with nuclear weapons development sta...Image via Wikipedia

Published on Saturday, June 12, 2010 by CommonDreams.org
British Petroluem, Imagination, and Nuclear Catastrophe

by David Krieger

Before the catastrophic British Petroleum oil gush in the Gulf of Mexico, there were environmentalists who warned that offshore drilling was fraught with risk - risk of exactly the type of environmental damage that is occurring. They were mocked by people who chanted slogans such as "Drill, baby, drill." Now it is clear that the "Drill, baby, drill" crowd was foolish and greedy. The economic wellbeing of people in and around the Gulf coast has been badly damaged and, for some, destroyed altogether. Aquatic and estuary life, in the Gulf and beyond, has fallen victim to an environmental disaster that was foreseeable with a modicum of vision and imagination.

Albert Einstein reached the conclusion that "Imagination is more important than knowledge." He said that "knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand." Let us try applying our imaginations to nuclear weapons and nuclear war. Here are some scenarios:

Scenario 1: Al Qaeda does what most commentators believed to be impossible. They obtain nuclear materials for several nuclear weapons and hire scientists to construct crude nuclear weapons. These weapons are detonated in London, New York and Paris within hours of each other. Millions would lie dead and injured. Around the world stock markets would freefall. Before the terrorist nuclear attacks, the people who warned against such a possibility were mocked.

Scenario 2: Nuclear deterrence fails dramatically, and India and Pakistan engage in a nuclear war over Kashmir. The hundred or so nuclear warheads that detonate on Indian and Pakistani cities leave millions dead and lower global temperatures so as to significantly shrink the size of agricultural areas in which food can be grown. Crop failures leave hundreds of millions more people to starve to death. Before the war, the people who warned against such a possibility were mocked.

Scenario 3: A nuclear war begins with an accidental launch of a nuclear-armed missile by Russia, followed by a retaliatory strike by the US, which brings further retaliation from Russia, leading to still more from the US. Before the accidental launch, few people believed that such a cataclysmic accident and its retaliatory follow up were possible. In its aftermath, the scenario seems far too feasible. People now realize that the failsafe devices to prevent accidental launches could fail, but those who foresaw this danger and warned about it earlier were mocked.

Scenario 4: North Korean leader Kim Jong-Il launches a nuclear attack that destroys US military bases on the Japanese island of Okinawa. He threatens to destroy the Japanese city of Kyoto and Seoul, South Korea unless he receives the development assistance he says was promised to him by the United States. Those who argued throughout the Nuclear Age that continued possession of nuclear weapons by the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council would result in nuclear proliferation and the weapons falling into the hands of irrational leaders were mocked.

There are many scenarios possible for the onset of nuclear war and there remain many justifications for nuclear weapons. Leaders of nuclear weapon states argue that these weapons are only for nuclear deterrence, that is, to prevent war by threatening nuclear retaliation. They don't foresee the potential failure of nuclear deterrence, even though they recognize the cataclysmic consequences of failure. They believe that nuclear weapons bolster a country's prestige and give it greater power in the international system. They proudly display their nuclear weapons and test their missile delivery systems. Those who argue that nuclear deterrence could fail catastrophically are mocked.

Political and military leaders have failed to honor the proposition that in every complex system in which humans are involved, system failure is a possibility. They have dismissed the idea of system failure leading to nuclear annihilation. Scientists spoke out about this shortsightedness, but they were mocked. Former high-level policymakers spoke out about the dangers, and they, too, were mocked. Even some former military leaders spoke out against the dangers of reliance on nuclear weapons, and they were mocked. The survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, who witnessed the horrors of the atomic bombs firsthand, have told their stories in an attempt to awaken people to the danger of nuclear weapons, but their voices are soft and few people in high places have listened to them.

Civil society organizations from throughout the world have called out for a commitment to an urgent plan for the elimination of nuclear weapons, and they also have been mocked. But, like the survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, they continue to speak out because it is the right thing to do. Nuclear weapons can end life on Earth as we know it. They can destroy civilization. In a major nuclear war, they could bring the human species and most complex forms of life to extinction. Even in a smaller nuclear war or accident, they could destroy cities and countries.

As the oil from the British Petroleum failure in the Gulf of Mexico continues to destroy the ocean and surrounding environment, it is perhaps too late to ask ourselves whether offshore drilling is worth the risk. Clearly it is not. It is still not too late, however, to raise the question of whether continued reliance on nuclear weapons is worth the risk to humanity and to future generations.

David Krieger is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org), an organization that has worked since 1982 to educate and advocate for a world free of nuclear weapons.
Enhanced by Zemanta