Director/writer Oliver Stone with writer and professor Peter Kuznick. (photo: Getty)
Nuclear
Expert Peter Kuznick Concerned With Humanity's Future
By Jane Ayers, Reader
Supported News
07 April 17
Peter Kuznick on Trump and nuclear brinksmanship
Professor
Peter Kuznick, Ph.D., and director Oliver Stone recently gave the prestigious
Frank K. Kelly Lecture on Humanity’s Future, presented annually by the Nuclear
Age Peace Foundation at the Lobero Theater in Santa Barbara, California.
Previous honorees (all of whom have addressed the dangers of nuclear weapons)
have included Daniel Ellsberg, Dr. Helen Caldicott, Professor Noam Chomsky,
Dennis Kucinich, and Robert Sheer.
Peter
Kuznick is director of the Nuclear Studies Institute at American University and
co-author (with Oliver Stone) of the 12-part documentary book and film series,
“The Untold History of the United States.” Journalist Jane Ayers conducted
several phone interviews with Professor Kuznick over the past month regarding
his concerns about the Trump administration’s intention to add to the already
existing trillion-dollar budget to modernize and increase the U.S. nuclear
arsenals. Kuznick also focused on his serious concerns about the dangers of
nuclear engagement with North Korea, Iran, Russia, and Isis by President Trump.
Q: As
an expert on nuclear issues, what do you think about the current news that
President Trump wants to expand U.S. nuclear arsenals to ensure being at “the
top of the pack,” especially after Obama had already allowed a $1 trillion
budget to be added to modernize all the nuclear arsenals?
Kuznick: There
is no “top of the pack” when it comes to nuclear war. We know that any large
scale use of nuclear weapons will be just as suicidal for the nation that
strikes first as for the nation under attack – whether or not the latter
retaliates. It will just take the citizens of the attacking nation a little bit
longer before they feel the effects. Trump’s playground bully mentality reminds
me of the kind of insane logic that fueled the Cold War. We are seeing it
worldwide right now, with all nine nuclear nations modernizing their arsenals.
The U.S., Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Israel, Britain, France, North Korea
– all of them are making their nuclear arsenals more precise, efficient, and
deadly.
But,
language aside, Trump’s statement about nuclear weapons is not that much
different than Obama’s declaration in Prague in 2009 that helped win him the
Nobel Peace Prize. Obama called eloquently for nuclear abolition, but he also
indicated that the United States would be the last nation, not the first, to
give up its nuclear weapons. The difference is that Obama was not a shallow,
rash, impulsive person. Most of us trusted that he understood the consequences
of nuclear war and was horrified by the thought of using nuclear weapons. But
Trump saying he wants a more modern and efficient nuclear arsenal is terrifying
precisely because he does seem so reckless and impulsive. Does anyone really
sleep easily at night knowing that Trump has access to the nuclear codes and
the ability to launch America’s nuclear arsenals? Does anyone really trust
Donald Trump with the ability to end all life on this planet? I certainly
don’t.
Q:
Doesn’t “top of the pack” mentality increase the likelihood of all nuclear
nations (and more non-nuclear nations) to respond by increasing their arsenals
too? Doesn’t more buildup in the U.S. and/or Russia equate to more nuclear
weapons worldwide, even possibly causing a reaction by terrorists? In his first
address to Congress on Tuesday evening, President Trump stated he wants to
“demolish ISIS … to extinguish this vile enemy from our planet.” Does this
concern you that he might use nuclear options?
Kuznick: Trump
reportedly asked what was the point of having nuclear weapons if we can’t use
them. Most people would agree and conclude that we should eliminate the nuclear
arsenal. Trump, however, draws a different conclusion. He, like Barry Goldwater
and George W. Bush, wants to make them more useable. He said that if ISIS
attacks the U.S., we should respond with nuclear weapons. He has also said that
nuclear proliferation is fine. In fact, he stated that it was okay if Japan,
South Korea, and even Saudi Arabia developed their own nuclear arsenals. He
even went so far as to inveigh against the nuclear deal with Iran and threaten
to tear it up his first day in office. Fortunately, that hasn’t happened.
In
endorsing Trump, Bobby Knight, the former Indiana University basketball coach,
declared, “Harry Truman, with what he did in dropping and having the guts to
drop the bomb in 1944 [sic] saved, saved millions of American lives. And that’s
what Harry Truman did. And he became one of the three great presidents of the
United States. And here’s a man who would do the same thing, because he’s going
to become one of the four great presidents of the United States.” Instead of
Trump saying he wouldn’t do that or correcting Knight’s ignorance about the
atomic bombings ending the war and saving ‘millions’ of American lives, Trump
just gushed, “Such a great guy. Wow, how do you top that? You should be proud
of him in Indiana.… That is a national treasure, OK?” I’m still vomiting from
that exchange.
Q:
Yes, I remember Knight stated that he has “the guts” to drop atomic bombs
wherever there is a threat. Is this standard of having guts to use nuclear
bombs the proper definition of a “good” president at this time in history,
especially in these times of heightened global intensities?
Kuznick: No,
just the opposite. We now understand that the 1980s studies of nuclear winter
actually underestimated the danger of nuclear war and the threat to the
continued existence of life on this planet. But those studies, which warned
that the smoke and debris from the nuclear incineration of cities would block
the sun’s rays causing global temperatures to plummet, were falsely and
erroneously debunked by the 1980s equivalents of today’s ‘experts’ who deny
man-made climate change.
The
latest research shows that even a limited nuclear war between India and
Pakistan in which 100 Hiroshima-size nuclear weapons were to be detonated would
cause partial nuclear winter and the deaths of up to 2 billion people over the
next decade. There are still approximately 15,000 nuclear weapons in the world and
most are 7 to 80 times as powerful as the Hiroshima bomb. Anyone who talks
glibly about using nuclear weapons is a certifiable madman and should be locked
up.
Q:
Russia has 7300 nuclear warheads, and the U.S. has 6970 warheads. President
Trump also is currently stating that he is the first to say that nobody should
have nukes, but that the U.S. just can’t fall behind Russia. With the Obama $1
trillion budget for modernizing our nuclear arsenals in place right now, why is
Trump wanting to add $54 billion to the military budget? Is all this
modernizing budget just a major distraction/ploy that will sabotage the
international demand for the nine nuclear nations to aggressively work towards
disarmament?
Kuznick: Trump
recently said that it would be fine to have an arms race with Russia. It would
be fine for the arms manufacturers who used to be aptly called the ‘merchants
of death’. But it wouldn’t be fine for the rest of us. As Hillary Clinton
correctly pointed out, “Any man who can be provoked by a Tweet should not have
his hands anywhere near the nuclear codes.” That would be true whether he had
big hands or tiny ones.
The
U.S. and Russia, between us, have 93 percent of the world’s nuclear weapons.
The U.S. spends on its military more than the next 10 nations combined. More
military spending is the last thing this country needs. We should be spending
that money on schools, housing, health care, roads, bridges, dams, museums, the
arts, and scientific research. I would like to see us CUT $54 billion dollars from
the military budget each of the next few years. It is absolutely shameful that
the U.S. is the only major developed nation that doesn’t offer health care as a
right to all its citizens.
Q:
President Trump has stated he is “very angry” about North Korea’s recent
testing of ballistic missiles. He emphasized the need for our allies (Japan and
South Korea) to have the option to accelerate their own missile defense
systems. In fact, he also wants to develop a state-of-the-art missile defense
system to keep Iran and North Korea from attacking the U.S. What do you think
about this?
Kuznick: No
one outside of North Korea is happy about North Korea’s nuclear weapons
program. I would love to see North Korea give up its nuclear weapons. But there
is little chance of that happening right now. When the U.S. invaded Iraq, the
official communication from North Korea stated that the U.S. would not have
invaded if Saddam Hussein had had nuclear weapons. That’s how North Korea sees
the world: they believe they need nuclear weapons to keep the U.S. and others
from invading them and overthrowing their brutal regime.
So
first we need to build trust and nudge them toward reform in a way that won’t
heighten their paranoia. That won’t be easy to do, but we need to keep trying.
We need to sign a treaty to officially end the Korean War – a war that has been
over for 64 years. Using sanctions, threats, and other sticks with North Korea
hasn’t worked. We need to collaborate with China to offer more carrots. There’s
no guarantee that that would work, but it behooves us to at least make the
effort. There is no other reasonable alternative and North Korea’s bellicosity
only justifies further right-wing intransigence in Japan and South Korea.
Missile
defense in Europe and Asia has been destabilizing on its own. Russia sees
missile defense in Romania and Poland as targeted at them, not at Iran. The
Chinese see the THAAD system in South Korea as part of a U.S. strategy for
undermining the Chinese deterrent. We need to find ways to defuse tensions, not
exacerbate them, in this dangerous world. The nuclear experts at the Bulletin
of the Atomic Scientists had very good reason to move the hands of the Doomsday
Clock thirty seconds closer to midnight – the nearest the world has been to
nuclear war since 1953. With the Trump presidency and the tensions between the
U.S. and Russia over Syria, Ukraine, and the Baltics, the danger of war and
ultimately nuclear war is very real.
Q:
Since North Korea once again tested four more ballistic missiles a few weeks
ago, do you think the U.S. response to deploy the anti-missile system, THAAD
(Terminal High Altitude Area Defense), will further enrage China?
Kuznick: The
U.S. and North Korea are engaged in a very dangerous game of escalation right
now. Each side uses the other’s threats and provocations as an excuse for
further threats and provocations of its own. This can only end badly. North
Korea’s latest simultaneous launch of four ballistic missiles has alarmed U.S.
allies in the region, especially Japan and South Korea. The ability to
simultaneously launch multiple missiles suggests that North Korea could
overwhelm defensive measures that are being taken or contemplated. The
vulnerability of missile defense has always been that it can be overwhelmed
with offensive missiles and decoys. The U.S. began to install its THAAD missile
system in South Korea recently, despite the fierce opposition of China and the
concerted opposition of many inside South Korea. The U.S.-South Korean
agreement on THAAD was made with President Park Geun-hye, who is now facing
possible impeachment. Opponents say that it has never been adequately debated.
Chinese
officials believe that deployment of THAAD in South Korea will weaken their
nuclear deterrent and they threaten to retaliate. Right now, China has only
around 260 nuclear weapons. They have decided not to build a vast nuclear
arsenal like those maintained by the United States and Russia, but they could
decide to increase the number they do have. To make matters worse, Abe and
other Japanese leaders may use this as an excuse to increase military spending
and to install their own THAAD systems, so everyone is ratcheting up their
capabilities.
We
know that Obama considered a preemptive strike on North Korea to destroy its
nuclear weapons program but decided against it for various reasons. Who knows
what Trump is cooking up? He says all options are on the table, which means
also nuclear options. The situation grows more dangerous by the hour. Neither
Kim Jong-un nor Donald Trump is known for statesmanship and restraint.
Q:
Trump also criticized the recent Russian deployment of intermediate-range
missiles, stating Russia was in violation of the 1987 INF (Intermediate-Range
Nuclear Forces Treaty), an agreement between the U.S. and Russia to curtail the
use of intermediate range nuclear missiles. Do you think he is correct in his
complaints?
Kuznick: The
U.S. has been charging since 2014 that the ground-launched cruise missiles
Russia was developing were in violation of the INF Treaty. Now it claims Russia
has actually begun deploying the missiles. Russia has made counter-charges
about U.S. violations, which the U.S. dismisses as spurious. I take all such
charges and counter-charges as serious at a time when there is so much tension
and mistrust between the two nuclear behemoths. Don’t forget that the U.S. and
Russia have nearly a thousand nuclear weapons pointed at each other on
hair-trigger alert. Something must be done about that immediately.
Q:
What do you think of President Trump stating that the New START international
treaty is a “one-sided deal, just another bad deal”? Five nuclear nations are
under international treaty mandated to head toward nuclear disarmament, not to
regress. Does this flippant disregard for the New START treaty show Trump’s
ignorance in continuing to discredit and undermine complex international
nuclear treaties, especially this one signed by Obama, which limits both U.S. and
Russia on the number of nuclear warheads they can possess?
Kuznick: This
is another reckless move by Trump. The treaty limits both sides to 1,550
nuclear warheads by 2018. That is still well above the threshold for nuclear
winter. If that number of weapons were detonated, most complex life forms on
this planet would be eliminated. During Trump’s January 28th call with Putin,
Putin raised the possibility of extending the 2010 treaty. Reuters reported
that Trump had to pause the call to ask his aides what the New START treaty
was. When he got back on the phone, he angrily denounced the treaty.
U.S.-Russian relations still haven’t recovered from George W. Bush’s
cancellation of the ABM Treaty. Now we have further provocation. Trump must be
stopped on this before it’s too late.
Q:
What is your opinion concerning the modernization of the nuclear arsenals? Is
building new smaller, yet more powerful nukes just giving an appearance of
having smaller numbers of nuclear weapons when in reality they will be more
dangerous? Is this ‘less is more’ but more modern (more powerful) the smart way
to go, or is it a strategy to avoid true change? Doesn’t the modernization
category actually allow a country to get around the limits set by New START
treaty?
Kuznick: The
fact that Barack Obama committed the U.S. to a 30-year $1 trillion dollar
nuclear modernization program is sufficient grounds for rescinding his Nobel
Peace Prize. What was he thinking? This won’t make the U.S. safer, it will make
the world more dangerous. The U.S. will be modernizing every category of
nuclear weapons. It will make them more useable. That is a terrible legacy for
a man who started out saying he wanted to eliminate nuclear weapons. Shame on
him.
Q:
What did you think of General Lee Butler, the last Commander in Chief of the
U.S. Strategic Air Command, calling for nuclear abolition when he stepped down
years ago?
Kuznick: General
Butler has been a voice of sanity when it comes to nuclear arms. He has called
for their abolition. He considers them “immoral and therefore anathema to
societies premised on the sanctity of life.” He urgently wants to scrap
land-based ICBMs, which he contends are anachronistic and dangerously
vulnerable to preemptive attack. Like William Perry, George Schultz, Henry
Kissinger, and Sam Nunn, he believes that nuclear weapons are a scourge upon
humanity that must be eliminated.
Q: In
closing, President Trump has stated that he wants $54 billion added to the
military budget, but he plans to cut non-military programs by the same amount.
This includes environmental protections, at a time when climate change has been
cited as a national security issue. Do you foresee an increase of nuclear
threats if the effects of climate change increase tensions worldwide?
Kuznick: Trump’s
assault on the environment is the flip side to his militarism. Both are crimes
against the present and the future. Let’s encourage him to do something
positive instead. He has said that he wants to improve relations with Russia.
That would be a major step in the right direction. Let’s also see him reverse
course on China. He has eased his rhetoric a bit on that.
In
1942, Franklin Roosevelt called for “four policemen” to guarantee the peace and
stability of the postwar world. We may not need ‘policemen,’ and Britain’s day
on the world stage has largely passed, but let’s see the U.S., Russia, China,
and Germany work together to ease tensions and move the world down the path of
peace and development. Other countries can join in that effort. Abolishing
nuclear weapons and initiating a crash program to develop clean energy will be
high on that agenda, as will be a more equitable distribution of the world’s
resources. Oxfam’s recent report that the richest 8 people in the world have
more wealth than the poorest 3.6 billion should also give a clear sign that we
have a lot of work to do.
Jane
Ayers has conducted interviews with world figures concerning global issues for
the Los Angeles Times INTERVIEW page, and for the editorial page (Inquiry
Interview) for USA Today. She is a regular contributor to Reader Supported
News, and can be reached atJaneAyersMedia@gmail.com
C 2015 Reader Supported News
Donations can be sent
to the Baltimore Nonviolence Center, 325 E. 25th St., Baltimore, MD
21218. Ph: 410-323-1607; Email: mobuszewski [at] verizon.net. Go to http://baltimorenonviolencecenter.blogspot.com/
"The master class
has always declared the wars; the subject class has always fought the battles.
The master class has had all to gain and nothing to lose, while the subject
class has had nothing to gain and everything to lose--especially their
lives." Eugene Victor Debs
No comments:
Post a Comment