Recognizing the 63rd Anniversary of the atomic nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan.

Article for the August 3, 2008, St. Francis FORUM front page.  By Jim Varani leader of our parish efforts in Opposition to Indiscriminate Warfare and Nuclear Disarmament.

 Hope is the virtue that binds our trust in God.  We learned as children that there are two major sins against hope – despair (which assumes that we are so wretched that a perfect God could not love us), and presumption (that God will somehow force us to love Him against our will).  At the communal level, hope is the basis for our recognition that God’s kingdom will, ultimately, prevail.  This does not absolve us from efforts to bring about His kingdom.  Quite the contrary, hope demands the opposite – that we commit ourselves body and soul to bringing about the triumph of God’s kingdom.  Through hope, we acknowledge that we exist for that purpose.  This is not ancillary – this is the reason for our being! 

 Each year in early August, our diocese asks us to consider the meaning of peace.  God’s kingdom is a kingdom of peace and justice.  Without justice, there can be no peace. Without peace, there will be no justice.  Pope John Paul II once said, “war is ultimate poverty.”  What can each of us do to foster peace?  With so much strife in the world today, with so much violence, it is not an easy question to answer.  It is unlikely that anything any one of us does will miraculously transform the world.  None-the-less, each of us is called to be a peacemaker.  Each of us is called to work, in some way, to bring about peace in the world.  Reminding us of that is why we celebrate Peace Sunday.

 The Peace and Justice Committee at St. Francis urges you to consider the ways in which you can work for peace.  One thing you can do is oppose the most egregious forms of indiscriminate warfare.  Please visit the Social Ministry Page of the parish website.  Follow the link to Opposition to Indiscriminate Warfare.  There you will find what you can do to promote nuclear disarmament and ways to help end the scourge of landmines and cluster bombs.  While we do not naively believe that banning these forms of mass murder will, in and of themselves, bring about the peace of God’s kingdom, it is a step in that direction. 

---------------
------------
Also see: BY JAMES VARANI, "Activism at all levels needed to ensure nuclear disarmament."   See Ann Arbor News website. It is in the OPINION section "Other Voices":  Tuesday, May 13, 2008.   http://www.mlive.com/annarbornews/
------------

Activism at all levels needed to ensure nuclear disarmament
Tuesday, May 13, 2008 
BY JAMES VARANI 

George Shultz (former Secretary of State), Henry Kissinger (former National Security Adviser and Secretary of State), William Perry (former Secretary of Defense) and Sam Nunn (former Senator and Chairman of the Armed Services Committee) - what do these former high-ranking government officials have in common? They are part of a group of former government officials who have come to the conclusion that comprehensive (worldwide) nuclear disarmament is the only course of action that can prevent us from suffering a nuclear catastrophe at some future date. 

None of these individuals was ever considered a "dove'' while in government service. All were dedicated to the idea that American military strength was essential to preservation of our national interest and international stability. None has changed in this. What has changed is the world. Nuclear weapons no longer provide a shield (if they ever did) against attack - Sept. 11th proved that. Meanwhile, the dangers inherent to nuclear weapons - including acquisition by terrorists, accidental nuclear war and escalation of a conventional conflict involving nuclear powers, as well as economic and environmental costs - remain. 

In an op/ed earlier this year in the Wall Street Journal, this group of knowledgeable individuals asked the question: "Can a worldwide consensus be forged to define a series of practical steps leading to major reductions in the nuclear danger?'' They ended their essay on the topic as follows: "We endorse setting the goal of a world free of nuclear weapons and working energetically on the actions required to achieve that goal.'' 

For those of us who have long considered the complete abolition of nuclear weapons essential for a secure world, the endorsement of nuclear disarmament by this distinguished group of former U.S. government officials is welcome. Our concern, however, is that George Shultz and his colleagues will be shunted aside by the entrenched (worldwide) pro-nuclear weapons special interest groups, much as have all other attempts to foster nuclear disarmament over the years. 
According to the Brookings Institution's "Cost of Nuclear Weapons Project,'' an estimated $5 trillion in contemporary dollars has been spent on nuclear weapons by the United States since the Manhattan Project. With this amount of money devoted to the endeavor, it is a given that those on the receiving end will make great efforts to ensure that the money keeps rolling in. Ignoring anti-nuclear activists (in high places as well as low) is just a part of doing business. 

There has always been activism for nuclear disarmament, but interest among the general population has waxed and waned over the years. At present, interest is low. Without energetic support for nuclear disarmament among the general population, the efforts of a small group of influential people such as Shultz, Kissinger et al will not succeed. 

What can you do? You can write to your elected officials and encourage them to support several measures outlined by The Shultz Group as well as other intermediate steps. Among these are: 

1. Continue to substantially reduce the size of the nuclear arsenals in the United States and Russia, and invite other nuclear powers to be part of these arsenal reduction efforts. At the height of the Cold War, the United States and Soviet Union had 50,000 to 70,000 strategic warheads between them. Now the combined arsenal size is approximately 12,000. While this reduction represents real progress, both sides could further reduce the size of their respective stockpiles without compromising security. 

2. Perhaps more importantly, remove weapons that are now on "ready alert'' from that posture to reduce the danger of accidental or unauthorized use. 

3. End the worldwide production of fissile material, eliminate the existing stockpiles of such material, and provide the highest possible security for all existing weapons and their components. 

4. Eliminate all tactical nuclear warheads. Such weapons are typically deployed in "forward'' bases and not under as tight control as strategic weapons. Some of these "tactical'' weapons are larger than the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. 

5. Work for ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty in the United States and encourage ratification in other countries. 

6. Reaffirm the Non-Proliferation Treaty as the basis for international nuclear arms control efforts and support the reinstatement of arms control treaties (such as the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty) that have been abrogated by the Bush administration. The Non-Proliferation Treaty, in particular, needs to be supported as the basis for world-wide nuclear disarmament. While it is generally known that non-nuclear states agree under the Non-Proliferation Treaty to forego development of nuclear weapons, the same treaty requires nuclear states to undertake serious efforts toward nuclear disarmament and to, ultimately, eliminate all of their nuclear weapons. 

Another important issue is the government plan to replace the existing U.S. arsenal of nuclear weapons with an entirely new stockpile. This "Reliable Replacement Weapon'' program, as it is known, will cost billions of dollars. Far from making us more secure, this program will increase our insecurity as other nations see our lack of commitment to nuclear disarmament as a justification for their own ambitions. 

These steps will not, in and of themselves, bring about nuclear disarmament. They are, however, all things that can be done immediately and will make the world safer. Calls and letters to our elected officials will indicate to them that nuclear disarmament is not just the goal of a few activists. 

While individuals acting alone can make a difference, members of the Disarmament Working Group (DWG) at the Inferfaith Council for Peace and Justice recognize the importance of organized support for nuclear disarmament. The ICPJ Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament is based on the assumption that members of congregations, civic groups and other "mainstream'' organizations can magnify the effectiveness of their voices by working in concert with other members of their respective organizations. Our religious congregations, in particular, should be actively involved in nuclear disarmament efforts. The spiritual leaders and hierarchy of virtually every major religion have strongly endorsed nuclear disarmament as being consistent with their core spiritual values. Carl Sagan, referring to the world's religions, said that "not one ... would condone the destruction of this one planet which has nourished human life.'' 

Civic groups, too, should take a lead. Such groups have always had healthy communities as their priority. It is sometimes easy for elected officials to dismiss requests from individual constituents. Can you imagine the impact, however, if they heard not only from individuals but also from entire organizations and congregations? The Disarmament Page of the ICPJ Web site - www.icpj.net/task-forces/disarmament/ - provides information on how you and your organization/congregation can be a part of the campaign. 
The possible acquisition of nuclear material by terrorist groups as well as the nuclear ambitions of North Korea and Iran provide a strong impetus for the world's leaders to work seriously on behalf of nuclear disarmament. The Shultz Group acknowledged as much when they called the present situation a historic opportunity. Failure to take advantage of this opportunity will result, they noted, "in a new nuclear era that will be more precarious, psychologically disorienting and economically even more costly than was Cold War deterrence.'' 

About the writer: James Varani is an Ann Arbor resident and a scientist in the University of Michigan Department of Pathology. To contribute essays to Other Voices, contact Mary Morgan, opinion editor, at 734-994-6605 or "mmorgan@ ... Ann Arbor News . Com"    http://www.mlive.com/annarbornews/