Campaign for a Nuclear Weapons Free World Blog » Nuclear Weapons

Enter Drawing to Win FREE Movie Tickets!

Katie Heald — Fri, 30 Jul 2010 00:05:18 +0000

Countdown to Zero is opening this weekend in California and across the country. Recognizing the threat to humanity that nuclear weapons pose, Lawrence Bender, the producer of An Inconvenient Truth, worked with director Lucy Walker on a new film to make the case for nuclear disarmament and inspire people to join the worldwide movement to make zero nuclear weapons a reality. At a time when big changes on nuclear disarmament are in motion, this documentary is a critical tool to reach the generations of people in the US who never had to do duck and cover drills.

And today only, Peace Action West is giving you a chance to win 2 FREE TICKETS to screenings in San Francisco and Los Angeles!

Here’s how to enter the drawing:

Add a comment to this post by 12:00 noon PST Friday telling us why you joined the movement for a nuclear weapons free world. Be sure to leave your name and email address with your comment so we can contact you if you are the winner!

Comment by 12:00 noon Friday to enter the drawing to win 2 FREE TICKETS to a Peace Action West sponsored screening in the city of your choice. We’ll use the random number generator at Random.org to pick 2 winners on Friday at 1:00 pm. We’ll contact you via the email address you leave with your comment.

And to help the movement even more, sign the New START Petition at www.care2.com/zero and join thousands of others in Demanding Zero.

Add your comment to enter the drawing now. Remember, the contest ends Friday at 12:00 noon!

Bomb Shelters Making a Comeback: The Ultimate in Disaster Capitalism

Leonard Eiger — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 19:33:00 +0000

Friends,

What is it about fear that makes people go to such great(and seemingly futile) lengths (and cost) to feel safe??? A story as old as (recorded) time, fear has allowed people to profit from the fears of others over countless centuries. It’s what Naomi Klein calls Disaster Capitalism, and today the disaster capitalists are doing quite well thanks to the mass fear mongering that has reached epic proportions as the Global War on Terror has continued to escalate.

Many of you remember the good old bomb shelter days of the bad old Cold War. Back in the 1950s many folks decided that “duck and cover” just didn’t cut it for their families. Keeping up with the Joneses in the 50s often meant building a bomb shelter in one’s back yard (or basement). People buried these huge steel drums outfitted with at least a few of the comforts of home – beds, lanterns, canned food and water – and waited for the sirens.

Many also had a radiation detector, a nifty device with which they could determine when it was safe to go outside and try to rebuild their lives in what would have been a vast, radioactive wasteland had the Superpowers unleashed even a portion of their massive nuclear arsenals (roughly 65,000 warheads at the peak of the Cold War).

Well folks, if you are waxing nostalgic right about now for the old days, look no further. USA Today just reported that “Doomsday Shelters” are making a comeback. This is Disaster Capitalism at its best (or should I say worst). At least a couple of companies are making some pretty good money capitalizing on people’s worst fears and digging some pretty big holes in the ground and calling them “Catastrophe Shelters.”

Think of it as the ultimate pre-catastrophe timeshare. You buy a share for $50,000 per adult, and only half that for kids. When something really nasty is about to go down, you just head down to your designated shelter and, assuming there isn’t an angry mob also trying to get in, pop inside and wait out the worst (and wait, and wait, and wait…). Is that a great deal or what??? Of course, I don’t even want to start asking how they are going to guarantee up to “five years with food, power, water and filtered air”, not to mention how they will keep out the masses of zombies.

All kidding aside, the people behind this trend deny that they are profiting from people’s fears. As Robert Vicino, a disaster denizen and founder of the Vivos underground shelter network, says:

You don’t think of the person who sells you a fire extinguisher as taking advantage of your fear,” he says. The fact that you may never use that fire extinguisher doesn’t make it a waste or bad… We’re not creating the fear; the fear is already out there. We’re creating a solution.

I’m not so sure about the fire extinguisher analogy, but I can agree with him on one point; they are not creating the fear. Of course that is simply a matter of semantics. They are building (massively) on existing fears, and are doing a pretty good job of burying the Social Contract. This is the quintessential Naomi Klein vision of a world where only the wealthy are saved.

As for Vivino’s claim that they are “creating a solution”, I think that a more productive (and socially conscious) solution, particularly from the standpoint of nuclear weapons, might be to learn to address conflict nonviolently and abolish nuclear weapons. The terrorist nuclear threat is being overblown; the greatest threat from nuclear weapons currently is that of nuclear war.

Meanwhile back in the shelter, assuming that people don’t go nuts after being cooped up underground for such a long period of time after a nuclear holocaust, once they see what they are returning to they just might wish that they had spent that $50,000 on one huge pre-Armageddon block party. As for me, I am spending my money and energy on nonviolent conflict resolution and nuclear abolition. So there!!!

Peace,

Leonard

P.S. – You just have to check out the Vivos Website for yourself; these people are playing up the End Times big time. Talk about fear; these folks are really scary. Here is what their home page has to say:

Vivos is the life assurance solution for you and your family to survive the next earth devastating catastrophe that either nature or mankind may create. Our network of hardened, nuclear blast proof shelters will provide for up to one year of autonomous underground survival for 200 people in each Vivos shelter. We invite you to apply for co-ownership of the Vivos shelter complex closest to your home area from our planned worldwide network. Where else would you go with just a few days’ notice? You cannot predict, but you can prepare! Enter Vivos now to learn more.

Who are the real radicals in New START debate?

Rebecca Glass — Tue, 27 Jul 2010 23:40:55 +0000

The debate rages in the Senate on ratification of the New START treaty, as we wait for a vote from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The opposition claims that Obama’s vision of a nuclear weapons-free world is utopian, unrealistic and radical. But I think we know who is actually off their rocker on this issue.

The far right has abandoned the rational debate in favor of party politics in the divided Senate. Mitt Romney has made an anti-START agenda the focal point of his future presidential campaign with a fundraising pitch to supporters. Numerous arms-control and foreign policy experts have criticized Romney’s lame OpEds, including members of his own Republican party. Senator Richard Lugar described it as ”hyperbolic attack” that “repeats discredited objections and appears unaware of arms control history and context.”

Ultra-conservative fundraising groups like the Heritage Foundation, John Birch Society and Tea-Party-sponsored Liberty Central have begun campaigning against the treaty as well. They share in the hard-right’s nostalgic paranoia about Russian intentions, and refusal to give diplomacy a chance.

Nuclear arms-control expert Kingston Reif sheds light on the Heritage Foundation on Nukes of Hazard:

The degree to which Heritage will say just about anything to cast doubt on New START is pretty amazing, though perhaps not surprising. For example, yesterday Peter Brookes stated: “So we will cut our strategic nuclear warhead levels to 1,550, but Russia will keep 2,100.”

…But experts predict Russia’s strategic forces will drop to 1,000 warheads, which is below the 1,550 level of accountable warheads in New START, with or without the treaty. It would be nice if Heritage could at least get its story straight, even if they continue to have a little trouble with the facts!

The administration must secure two-thirds of Senate votes but key support is still missing. Case in point: Senator Joe Lieberman (I-Conn) Chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, an Independent who caucuses with Democrats, says he can’t support the treaty in its current form. “I’d like to be in a position to support it…[but] not yet.” This is crazy – This is a treaty, not a piece of legislation that can be amended, and there are no other forms of the treaty for him to support. So Lieberman, with apparently no specific objections to the treaty, joins currently undecided Republican senators Bob Corker, Scott Brown, Olympia Snowe, Bob Bennett and John McCain, among others.

The good news is that bi-partisan support for the treaty continues to grow. One of the newest supporters, Consensus for American Security, sums it up in their opening statement:

The New START Treaty is a critical and essential first-step. The Consensus demonstrates bipartisan support for efforts to SECURE the world’s current nuclear stockpiles, PREVENT terrorists from getting access to nuclear technologies, and REDUCE the spread of nuclear weapons worldwide.

The START Treaty represents the US national interest. It is the only option that allows us to invest in the nuclear security priorities necessary to confront the threats of today and tomorrow. Building on the successes of President Reagan, the Treaty allows us to control old weapons while supporting our forces and the development of advanced capabilities. Without this Treaty, we will not be able to move forward with new strategic issues that are vital to protecting America.

Tom Daschle, former Senate Democrat leader and member of the Washington think tank, Center for American Progress also spots political motives in treaty opposition. Daschle claims that failing to ratify new START would renew the arms race and encourage states like North Korea to join in, and “American credibility on nuclear issues would evaporate.“

The obstacles today to reducing the number of nuclear weapons in the world, the obstacles to increasing this country’s national security, the obstacles to continuing down the path that President Reagan himself first cleared—they are entirely political.

Daschle accuses irrational GOP opposition like Romney of ”flirting with nuclear anarchy.” He says Republican senators have a choice:

[they] can choose Mitt Romney or they can choose the entire U.S. military establishment.

Treaty opponents repeatedly claim that the administration’s plans for disarmament are radical. But Obama’s vision is nothing new. In fact, it’s shared by former presidents Reagan, Kennedy and Eisenhower. It doesn’t get more mainstream than that.

Republicans flirting with “nuclear anarchy”

Jon Rainwater — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 22:46:08 +0000

The moment we are working towards is fast approaching. We are getting word that the Senate could vote in just a few weeks on a new US agreement with Russia called New START that will cut the size of both nations’ nuclear arsenals. Your senators need to be reminded that this treaty would serve as a crucial stepping stone towards a nuclear weapons free world.

From Palin to Romney, hard-right Republicans are putting nuclear security on the line to score a win against Obama. According to former Sen. Tom Daschle, the failure to ratify this treaty could trigger “nuclear anarchy” by unraveling decades of international agreements that have kept the spread of nuclear weapons in check. There is too much at stake to let partisan games stand in the way. Will you call your senators now?

Please call the Capitol Hill Switchboard at (202)224-3121, ask for your senators, and let them know the following:

“My name is _________ and I’m calling from ___________. I am calling to urge Senator ______ to vote to ratify the New START Treaty, and exert her/his full influence in the Senate to help assure ratification. I also urge Senator _____ to work to further reduce US weapons stockpiles and to reduce the enormous nuclear weapons budget.”

Feel free to add your personal thoughts about why limiting nuclear weapons is important to you.

Then click here to send us an email and tell us how your call went.

This treaty needs the support of at least two-thirds of the Senate, a big challenge given Washington’s bitterly partisan climate, so we’re pulling out the stops to see it ratified. Failure to do so would undo over three decades of nuclear disarmament agreements between the United States and Russia. Testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in May, Henry Kissinger, Secretary of State to Presidents Nixon and Ford, said, “I recommend ratification of this treaty… this committee’s decision will affect the prospects for peace for a decade or more. It is, by definition, not a bipartisan, but a nonpartisan, challenge.”

Please call your senators today and ask them to vote Yes on the New START Treaty.

Thank you for standing up.

New START: what if it fails?

Rebecca Glass — Wed, 21 Jul 2010 19:31:47 +0000

In these last crucial weeks before a likely vote on the New START, many Senate Republicans are still on-the-fence about which way they will vote. So what are the consequences if New START fails?

The latest bout of treaty opposition is in the form of fundraising from right wing groups such as The Heritage Foundation and The John Birch Society (which has consistently opposed every nuclear arms treaty between the US and the Soviet Union/Russia.) Mitt Romney followed up his ridiculous Washington Post op-ed with a fundraising letter calling for donations to stop the treaty. It’s another not-so-subtle attempt to burnish his neoconservative credentials for the 2012 GOP presidential race.

The Obama administration needs 8 to 10 Senate Republican votes in order to pass the treaty. So far, 1 has pledged support (Richard Lugar, R-IN) and only 2 oppose (Jim DeMint, R-SC and James Inhofe, R-OK.) But a number of GOP heavy weights are on-the-fence, including John McCain. Their decisions are expected to swing remaining senators. This still leaves too much room for doubt.

There is too much at stake to assume safe passage for the New START treaty. Among its benefits, the agreement will reduce the size of nuclear arsenals in the US and Russia, which account for approximately 90% of the world’s nuclear weapons. The consequences of failing to ratify the treaty would extend beyond US – Russian relations.

Former Democratic Senator Gary Hart believes that the non-proliferation agenda will falter without New START ratification:

The two of us have the greatest burden, but sooner or later we want to bring in China and our European allies that have nuclear arsenals and see how far we can go. But it must begin with us and the Russians, and if we turn our back… it’s a giant step backward and it would set back our diplomacy, foreign policy, and national security in serious ways.

John Isaacs, executive director of the Council for a Livable World, warns those who seek to oppose the treaty:

The alternative [to ratification] is no START treaty, no verification, a clear setback to U.S.-Russian relations and widespread questioning of U.S. ability to carry forth international agreements if we can’t get this treaty through.

The US’s allies recognize that the New START treaty is essential to the administration’s foreign policy agenda. Many European diplomats are growing increasingly frustrated with the slow pace of progress on the treaty. Obama promised them ratification, yet it’s been 6 months since the previous treaty expired.

France’s Ambassador to Washington Pierre Vimont told foreign policy blog, The Cable:

From the European point of view, nobody can understand why the START treaty has not been ratified. When we send cables back home saying that START might not be ratified, they ask us ‘What have you been drinking?

Timing is crucial for New START ratification. We must ratify the treaty before Senate recess. It’s in the GOP’s best interest to delay the vote because after the November election, a GOP-heavy Senate will make it even harder to pass. That’s why Washington can’t count on New START ratification without making the most of these last few weeks.