By Arnie Alpert, op-ed

Arnie Alpert spent decades as a community organizer/educator in NH movements for social justice and peace.  Officially retired since 2020, he keeps his hands (and feet) in the activist world while writing about past and present social movements.  His regular column at InDepthNH is “Active with the Activists.”

For the third time in recent decades, the Nobel Peace Prize went this year to a group advocating the abolition of nuclear weapons as the only sure way to eliminate the threat they pose.  It’s a threat that is growing, but mainstream media reports on the prize let the United States off the hook for our own responsibility.

Presenting the Peace Prize to Nihon Hidankyo, an organization made up of survivors of the atomic blasts which spread fire and radiation over Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, the Nobel Committee praised the group “for its efforts to achieve a world free of nuclear weapons and for demonstrating through witness testimony that nuclear weapons must never be used again.”

“In response to the atomic bomb attacks of August 1945, a global movement arose whose members have worked tirelessly to raise awareness about the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of using nuclear weapons. Gradually, a powerful international norm developed, stigmatizing the use of nuclear weapons as morally unacceptable,” they said.

“At this moment in human history,” they added, “it is worth reminding ourselves what nuclear weapons are: the most destructive weapons the world has ever seen.”

NPR played a quote from a Nobel spokesperson, “The nuclear powers are modernizing and upgrading their arsenals. New countries appear to be preparing to acquire nuclear weapons. And threats are being made to use nuclear weapons as part of ongoing warfare.”  The reporter went on to single out Iran, North Korea, and Russia, “where Vladimir Putin recently lowered the threshold for when it would launch a nuclear attack.”   

Reuters, too, pointed fingers at Iran, N Korea, and Russia, where it noted, “Vladimir Putin has repeatedly warned the West of potential nuclear consequences since Russia’s 2022 full-scale invasion of Ukraine.”

CNN focused on Russia, where “Vladimir Putin has repeatedly threatened the West with using nuclear weapons.”

The New York Times, like the others, noted the Nobel reference to the nuclear powers that are all “modernizing” their arsenals while others consider joining the nuclear club. “The committee did not name any specific nations,” reported the Times. 

The Times also noted, “President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia has threatened to use tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine. And concerns are growing about nuclear proliferation in the Middle East and Asia.”

We get the point.

Russia’s threats, and the nuclear programs of Iran and N. Korea are indeed deserving of the world’s attention and condemnation.  But it’s too bad the Times reporter didn’t mention the paper’s recent article by W.J. Hennigan on our own nuclear buildup.  “With Russia at war, China escalating regional disputes and nations like North Korea and Iran expanding their nuclear programs, the United States is set to spend an estimated $1.7 trillion over 30 years to revamp its own arsenal.” 

That’s right.  $1.7 trillion and counting to build a new generation of missile-bearing submarines, bombers, and land-based missiles to threaten nuclear devastation all over the world, armed with a new generation of warheads.  “The federal government has said little about the plan in public, outside of congressional hearings and strategy papers, or the vast amount being spent,” wrote Hennigan. “There has been no significant debate. The billion-dollar programs move under the radar. At a time when funding for politicized issues such as climate change, foreign military aid and border security are under a microscope, this issue miraculously appears to have sidestepped the crossfire.”

In other words, responsibility for nuclear threats is not limited to nations deemed U.S. adversaries.  It was George W. Bush who pulled the United States out of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.  It was Donald Trump who withdrew the United States from the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty.  It was Trump again who withdrew the United States from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, under which Iran pledged to abandon its plans to acquire nuclear weapons.  It was Joe Biden who pledged during the 2020 New Hampshire Primary campaign to adopt a no-first-use policy and after his election adopted a nuclear strategy which maintains the first strike option. 

And it’s Congress, which year after year appropriates the money, which has backed the nuclear build-up.  According to the International Campaign Against Nuclear Weapons, itself a Nobel Peace Prize winner, the United States spent $51.5 billion on nuclear weapons in 2023, “more than all the other nuclear-armed countries put together.”

China, too, is expanding its nuclear capacity, and Israel’s “secret” nuclear arsenal should not be ignored when we consider rising tensions in the Middle East.   Critics need a lot of fingers to point at all the parties responsible.

Fortunately, there are alternatives.  As a new report, “Common Security in the Indo-Pacific Region,” points out, “International peace requires a commitment to joint survival rather than the threat of mutual destruction.”  While the report focuses on the Indo-Pacific, it’s equally true in the Middle East and eastern Europe, all regions where strategic choices or mis-steps could set off nuclear conflagration.  No nation is safe when its potential adversaries believe their own security is at risk, especially when they have nuclear weapons at their disposal.  And with the last major arms control agreement between Russia and the United States due to expire in 2026, we should be deploying more diplomats, not more missiles.    

In recent decades, the Nobel Committee has pointed its finger squarely at this existential problem.  In 2017, the Peace Prize went to the International Campaign for the Abolition of Nuclear Weapons for its leadership in the global effort for a treaty declaring nuclear weapons to be illegal.  In 1985, the prize was awarded to the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War.  The Prize has also gone to the International Atomic Energy Agency for its non-proliferation work and the Pugwash Movement, an international group of scientists who have been advocating nuclear arms control since 1957.  When Barack Obama received the prize in 2009, the Nobel Committee emphasized “his support – in word and deed – for the vision of a world free from nuclear weapons.”  Sadly, he backed off from the vision before leaving the White House.

At this moment in human history, the vision of a world free from nuclear weapons desperately needs to be revived.  Toshiyuki Mimaki, the chairman of Nihon Hidankyo, said upon receiving the Nobel Peace Prize that his foremost wish was for the world to “please abolish nuclear weapons while we are alive.”  His message deserves our urgent attention and support.

InDepthNH.org takes no position on political matters, but welcomes diverse opinions at nancywestnews@gmail.com