Back from the Brink

 The United States president has the legal power to order a nuclear missile attack without consulting Congress or other government officials, regardless of whether the United States is attacked. As soon as one country fires nuclear bombs, the entire conflict could escalate into a devastating nuclear war. No matter where on earth it happens, the use of nuclear bombs threatens American security.

The 2013Nuclear Famine Report from The Physicians for Social Responsibility identifies the catastrophic climate effects after a limited regional nuclear war between India and Pakistan.

'Back from the Brink' is a campaign to pull the U.S. back from beginning a catastrophic nuclear war, and calls upon our federal officials to endorse the following:

1. Renounce the option of using nuclear weapons first

A policy that the U.S. would initiate a nuclear war (first use) increases the fears of a surprise attack, puts pressure on other nuclear-armed countries to keep their nuclear arsenals on high alert, and increases the risk of unintended nuclear war. We can raise awareness and eventually pass legislation to make us safer.

2. End the sole unchecked authority of any U.S. president to launch a nuclear attack

Since only Congress can adopt a declaration of war, any U.S. president should not have the authority to launch nuclear weapons.

3. Take nuclear weapons off hair-trigger alert

Political miscalculations and human mistakes should not trigger an immediate launching of nuclear weapons. This will lower the risk of starting a nuclear conflagration. The bottom line is this would increase U.S. security.

4. Cancel the plan to replace its entire nuclear arsenal with enhanced weapons.

The U.S. is planning to spend about 1.7 trillion dollars to build new nuclear bombs and missiles to replace the old ones over the next thirty years. That amount is unimaginable. It is about $5,000 for every man, woman, and child in America.

5. Actively pursue a verifiable agreement among nuclear-armed states to eliminate their nuclear arsenals, as we are obligated under Article VI of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT).

Since the end of the Cold War, both Republican and Democratic administrations have worked to reduce the number of nuclear weapons. Republican presidents have actually gotten rid of more nuclear weapons than have Democrats.

What Americans Want

Most  Americans actually reject former-President Trump's 'America First' policy, reports veteran Peace Action member Dr. Lawrence S. Wittner in an April 25, 2019 article in "Foreign Policy in Focus."

Large majorities of Americans support arms control, curbs on military spending, and support international institutions. In the aftermath of Trump's withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal, 'modernization' of our nuclear arsenal, and withdrawal from the International Nuclear Forces (INF) agreement, most Americans want the United States and Russia to come to an agreement to limit nuclear arms.

What Can We Cut?

Lindsay Koshgarian, director of the Institute for Policy Studies' National Priorities, has identified cuts of $300 billion annually from Pentagon spending.

* We can stop using supplemental monies for funding wars, which are unwinnable and not making us safer, for example, in Afghanistan and Iraq. Savings: $14 billion a year.

* We can close half or more of our 800+ overseas military bases in more than 90 countries. Most of these bases are in non-combat or non-crisis zones. Savings: $90 billion.

* We can cut the Obama- and Trump-supported $1.7 trillion program to "modernize," and upgrade our nation's nuclear weapons and delivery systems. A total nuclear weapons ban could save $43 billion a year.

* Over its lifetime, the F-35 jet fighter, which can be equipped with nuclear bombs, is estimated to cost $1.5 trillion -- more than the G.D.P. of Australia:

     - A 2019 government report lists 900 performance deficiencies, including a dangerous night-vision           defect in the high-tech pilot's helmet, which costs $400,000 -- four times more than a typical                   fighter helmet like on the head of a F-16 pilot.

    - Proposed cuts to production and operation of the F-35 will save a  total of $14.7 billion -- more              than  the military budget of Iran.

Cutting $300 billion from the Pentagon budget would bring it down to about $400 billion per year, and that would keep it aligned with Pentagon spending during much of the 1990s. A Pentagon budget of $400 billion would still leave us with a military budget larger that the military budgets of Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea combined.

Green New Deal for Nuclear Weapons

The Green New Deal is a progressive response to climate change, because it's a solution commensurate with the scale of the problem. It also has a coherent vision for its implementation that is equal parts optimistic and realistic. Meanwhile, the arms control community is largely trapped in damage-control mode, valiantly resisting President Trump's efforts to build dangerous new nuclear weapons and withdraw from critical nuclear agreements. Environmentalists are playing offense, while the nuclear community is playing defense.

Most progressives would argue that the answer is global zero -- a nuclear-free world. However, that is a long-term solution. Just as the Green New Deal does not immediately see a fossil-fuel-free world, a progressive nuclear policy cannot immediately see a nuclear-free one.

This does not mean, however, that progressives should be satisfied with occasional and incremental nuclear policy tweaks. By applying core principles of the Green New Deal -- international cooperation, reductions, transparency, and justice -- to nuclear weapons, progressives can begin to craft a plan that seeks to ambitiously and coherently restructure U.S. nuclear policy.

The Green New Deal aims to make the United States "the international leader on climate change." In similar fashion, a progressive nuclear policy should  seek to place the United States at the forefront of global disarmament efforts -- acting as an international leader in nuclear transparency, diplomacy, and reductions.

President Trump has foolishly undone earlier diplomatic successes by killing off successful arms control  treaties -- including the Iran  nuclear deal and the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, which banned an entire missile class -- and threatening to terminate President Barack Obama's New START, the treaty that caps U.S. and Russian deployed strategic nuclear arsenals. Nevertheless, a progressive nuclear policy should begin by emulating and expanding upon specific policies from not only the Obama era, but also from the Trump administration.

In a similar vein, the United States should immediately end its bellicose rhetoric toward Iran and attempt to pick up the shattered pieces of the Iran nuclear deal. These efforts might require targeted sanctions relief and economic inducements to convince participating countries to return to the table in good faith.

With regard to other nuclear powers -- particularly Russia and China -- the Trump administration has embraced great-power competition and gung-ho militaristic policies that will drag the world deeper into a renewed arms race. Instead, the United States should engage with Russia to reconstruct the INF Treaty, with both countries returning to compliance; immediately extend- and try to expand New START; pursue arrangements to reduce military tension, draw up a long-term plan to include China and other nuclear-armed states in the arms-control process; and finally ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. 

The Green New Deal suggests the U.S. technological expertise can be leveraged to help other countries achieve Green New Deals of their own.

"Since 2016, JP Morgan Chase --which received  $25 billion in TARP funds -- poured $196 billion into coal, oil, gas projects around the world. Wells Fargo was given the same amount and has invested in new fossil fuel infrastructure to the tune of $153 billion over the same period." [1]

"Any bank that wants a check from the federal government, for example, should have to stop financing the companies wrecking the earth. Bailout recipients should be subject to a strict carbon audit that examines the  lifetime emissions of projects they finance." "As of 2018, over ten [of the] largest insurers in the United States were holding just over $50 billion in fossil fuel investments. Just two of these companies disclosed that they considered climate change when making investment strategies."

"New procurement standards mandating zero-carbon fleets see unionized workers building tons of thousands of electric vehicles for agencies like the US postal services. That massive purchasing power will continue to swell; more plant and animal species will die off ; people will suffer hotter   summers, colder winters, longer hours, worse benefits, less pay, and minorities will feel their pain compounded by the weight of marginalization." "That brings us to where we are today, with a veneer of economic prosperity, but few guarantees for working people in the future."

Footnote" 
[1] Kate Aronoff, "A Green Bailout for the People," The Nation, November 25, 2019.     

Green New Deal for Nuclear Weapons

The following is excerpted from the September 2019 issue of the "Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists." The article is entitled "We need a Green New Deal for nuclear weapons."

The Green New Deal is a progressive response to climate change, because it's a solution commensurate with the scale of the problem. It also has a coherent vision for its implementation that is equal parts optimistic and realistic. Meanwhile, the arms control community is largely trapped in damage-control mode, valiantly resisting President Trump's efforts to build dangerous new nuclear weans and withdraw from critical nuclear agreements. Environmentalists are playing offense, while the nuclear community is playing defense.

Most progressives would argue that the answer is global zero -- a nuclear-free world. However, that is a long-term solution. Just as the Green New Deal does not immediately see a fossil-fuel-free world, a progressive nuclear policy cannot immediately see a nuclear-free one.

This does not mean, however, that progressives should be satisfied with occasional and incremental nuclear policy tweaks. By applying core principles of the Green New Deal -- international cooperation, reductions, transparency, and justice -- to nuclear weapons, progressives can begin to craft a plan that seeks to ambitiously and coherently restructure U.S. nuclear policy.

The Green New Deal aims to make the United States "the international leader on climate change." In similar fashion, a progressive nuclear policy should seek to place the United States at the forefront of global disarmament efforts -- acting as an international leader in nuclear transparency, diplomacy, and reductions.

President Trump has foolishly undone earlier diplomatic successes by killing off successful arms control treaties --including the Iran nuclear deal and the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, which banned an entire missile class -- and threatening to terminate President Barack Obama's New START, the treaty that caps U.S. and Russian deployed strategic nuclear arsenals. Nevertheless, a progressive nuclear policy should begin by emulating and expanding upon specific policies from not only the Obama era, but also from the Trump administration.

In a similar vein, the United States should immediately end its  bellicose rhetoric toward Iran and attempt to pick up the shattered pieces of the Iran nuclear deal. These efforts might require targeted sanctions relief ad economic inducements to convince participating countries to return to the table in good faith.

With regard to other nuclear powers -- particularly Russia and China -- the Trump  administration has embraced great-power competition and gung-ho militarist policies that will drag the world deeper into a renewed arms race. Instead, the United States should engage with Russia to reconstruct the INF Treaty, with both countries returning to compliance; immediately extend -- and try to expand -- New START; pursue arrangements to reduce military tension; draw up a long-term plan to include China and other nuclear-armed states in the arms-control process; and finally ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.

The Green New Deal suggests that U.S. technological expertise can be leveraged to help other countries achieve Green New Deals of their own.This can be mirrored in the nuclear policy space. Just as the United States could become the leading exporter of renewable energy technology, it could also emulate the "just transition" envisioned in the Green New Deal,which seeks to smoothly reorient workers toward low-carbon jobs; in the nuclear context, such a transition could result in weapons manufacturers using their expertise for disarmament --placing an emphasis on warhead     dismantlement and verification, rather than on production.

Reductions. Committing to ambitious climate change goals (net-zero carbon emissions by 2050) is a critical component of the Green New Deal,and one that should also be translated to the nuclear space. For both threats, progressives must take steps to physically reduce the causes and enablers of the crisis at hand -- for climate change,it's carbon emissions for nuclear weapons, it's the weapons themselves. Over the next decade, the United States will spend nearly $100,000 per minute on its nuclear forces -- that's a tremendous amount of money that could otherwise be spent on priorities like infrastructure, health care, education, and fighting climate change.

First on the chopping block should be Trump's new nukes: a planned nuclear sea-lunched cruise missile akin to the one retired by the Obama administration for its lack of military utility and a "low-yield" warhead (the name obscures the fact that it's still one-third the size of the Hiroshima bomb that killed more than 100,000 people). These "flexible" weapons could make a nuclear strike even more tempting for military planners, making future crises all the more dangerous.

The current plan to replace nearly every weapon in the U.S. nuclear arsenal was actually enshrined under the Obama administration. As experts from Global Zero have argued, the majority of these replacements are unnecessary and could be phased out under a new nuclear posture favoring minimum deterrence over war fighting.Under this new posture -- and ideally alongside reductions by other nuclear-armed states -- the United States should dramatically reduce its bomber and submarine forces,and completely scrap its intercontinental ballistic missiles,which are irrelevant in a post-Cold-War era and are largely maintained to appease missile manufacturers and members of Congress where the missiles are based. Additionally, the United States should vow never to use nuclear weapons first -- a position supported by the majority of Democrats.

The United States should also be prepared to make concessions regarding its ballistic missile defenses, which -- despite being rudimentary at best and useless at worst-- are key drivers of the arms race. This is because other countries, particularly Russia and China, fear that expanded U.S. defenses might one day render their nuclear arsenals useless.

The INF, New START, and CTBT Treaties

I. The INF Treaty
At the beginning of February 2019, the Trump administration announced that, in August the U.S. government will withdraw from the Reagan-era Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty -- the historic agreement that had banned U.S.  Russian ground-launched cruise missiles -- and would proceed to develop such weapons. On the following day, Russian President Vladimir Putin declared that, in response, his government was suspending its observance of the treaty and would build the kinds of nuclear missiles that the INF treaty had outlawed.

II. The New START Treaty
The next nuclear disarmament agreement on the chopping block appears to be the 2010 New START Treaty, which reduces the U.S. and Russian nuclear deployed strategic nuclear warheads to 1,550 each, limits U.S. and Russian delivery vehicles,  and provides for extensive inspection. If the treaty   is allowed to expire, it would be the first time since 1972 that there would be no nuclear arms control agreement between Russia and the United States.

One other key international agreement, which President Clinton signed -- but the U.S. Senate has never ratified -- is the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). Adopted with great fanfare in 1996 and backed by nearly all the world's nations, the CTBT bans nuclear weapons testing, a practice which has long served as a prerequisite for developing or upgrading nuclear arsenals.

Coincidentally, the U.S. and Russian governments, which possess approximately 93 percent of the world's nearly 14,000 nuclear warheads, have abandoned negotiations over controlling or eliminating them for the first time since the 1950s.

Instead of honoring the commitment under Article VI of the 1968 nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, to pursue negotiations for "cessation of the nuclear arms race" and for "nuclear disarmament," all nine nuclear powers are today modernizing their nuclear weapons production facilities and adding new, improved types of nuclear weapons to their arsenals. Over the next 30 years, its nuclear buildup will cost the United States alone an estimated $1,700,000,000,000.

Confirming the new interest in nuclear warfare, the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, in June 2019, posted a planning document on the Pentagon's website with a more upbeat appraisal of nuclear war-fighting than seen for many years by declaring that "using nuclear weapons could create conditions for decisive results and the restoration of strategic stability."

Of course, most Americans are not pining for this kind of approach to nuclear weapons. Indeed, a May 2019 opinion poll by the Center for International and Security Studies at the University of Maryland found that two-thirds of U.S. respondents favored remaining within the INF Treaty; 80% wanted to extend the New START Treaty;  about 60% supported "phasing out" U.S. ICBMs, and 75% backed legislation requiring congressional approval before the president could order a nuclear strike.

(The material above was excerpted from an article published by Larry Wittner in the July 28, 2019 "History News Network." Larry and I serve on the Peace Action board.)

III. Capitalizing on Selling Nukes to the Saudis
The following is an analysis by Don Leich of the New Jersey Peace Action board of the Team Trump's efforts to capitalize from selling nuke technology to the Saudis. It is an analysis of the 50-page report released by Rep. Elijah Cummings of his committee's oversight work.

1.) This was the brainchild of ex-convict/former Reagan National Security Adviser Bud McFarland, who partnered with former generals to create an "underground" consortium of backers for a new Mideast Marshall Plan. The goal is to launch Saudi Arabia ahead of Iran in nuclear energy capacity and yes, weapons, of course, and ultimately to be paid billions for it.

2.) Tom Barrack was the self appointed middleman for negotiations between the Trump administration and the key players in the Middle East: Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Qatar. During the campaign, Manafort and Gates played important roles getting Barrack's message through.

3.) Tom Barrack (Colony Capital), Leon Black (Apollo),  Steve Schwarzman (Blackstone) attempt to buy Westinghouse (the nuke reactor builder) with funding promised from Saudi Arabia, UAE. Note that each one of these hedge funds currently fiance or have financed both Trump and Kushner. The case can easily be made that Trump and Kushner are their designated partners who use their government positions and access to negotiate transnational financial deals that increase their hedge fund lenders' holdings and profits.

4.) Brookfield Asset Management won the bid to buy Westinghouse, and then it took over the Kushners' lease on 666 Fifth Avenue. Qatar put up this money through Brookfield.

5.) Everyone involved in this Saudi Nuke deal bypassed Congress and withheld information about the deal. The shared secret goal is to proliferate nuclear technology in the Middle East when all U.S. efforts to date have been to limit proliferation through treaties and agreements. There are very strict standards for transferring nuke technology, safeguarding, cooperating, etc. Saudi Arabia wants exemptions and Team Trump was (is) fine with that, and is still keeping negotiations secret from any congressional oversight.