September 25, 2022

Bulletin 310: Speak up! We urge you to take up the call for peace in Ukraine

Permalink for this bulletin (please forward). Simple home page. Detailed home page.
Press releases. Bulletins. Letters. Plutonium pit production. Contact us. To subscribe send a blank email here.
Please endorse the "Call for Sanity, Not Nuclear Production" if you have not done so (check the list of endorsers if you aren't sure).
Contribute if you can! GoFundMe page (please share!).

Previously: Bulletin 309: The moment of maximum danger, Sep 22, 2022

1. Speak up! We urge you to take up the call for peace in Ukraine.
2. Update on pits, U.S. nuclear weapons policies and funding in FY 2023

Dear friends and colleagues --

We hope you are well and able to enjoy the autumn weather, as we are doing.

As you saw in Bulletin 309, urgent issues of war and peace are calling us to learn, and to speak up as best we can.

We urge each of you on this list who are in a position to do so to speak up in any way you can, in public, in favor of peace in Ukraine.

Private letters to political leaders are as a rule ineffective, but of course there are exceptions.

It is a simple message. No special background or extensive study is required.

It is very difficult to argue against peace. Despite our saturation in propaganda it is very popular, across diverse constituencies, however much it is condemned by, say, the New York Times.

What we peace leaders should not be doing is indulging in self-righteous moralizing and condemnation of Russia, a narrative which perfectly aligns with state power and propaganda in the U.S. and NATO states. That moral outrage is based on false predicates, as regards Ukraine and as regards U.S. and NATO behavior generally. It is the exact opposite of "speaking truth to power."

When you do speak up you can ask, "Do you or do you not want an end to this war?"

Everything else is secondary, isn't it? It's a matter of where we put our attention and how we direct the attention of others. We want to end the suffering, yes? We want to avoid escalation, yes?

Unfortunately, not everyone does want to avoid escalation. Some people -- not many, but they are influential, for now -- are willing to risk escalation in order to have the peace they want, which is peace through victory, as they define it. Few of these people are willing to personally fight in the war, of course. They have little or no "skin in the game." Thus their opinions are idle -- as ours will be also, if we remain silent and do not take risks for peace.

At the moment, the Biden Administration and some European leaders seem to want peace through victory. Which is more or less how militaristic societies bent on conquest always construe "peace." They don't want peace on somebody else's terms. They want victory -- over Russia, in this case. That is what makes the present moment "the moment of maximum danger," because that victory is unattainable, even with unlimited escalation.

Assuming for the moment that we and our audiences do actually want an end to this war without further escalation, death, and destruction, and without nuclear war (now a serious possibility), how do we propose that happen?

Our answer is again very simple. As we said in Bulletin 293 back in early March, "If you want a ceasefire (as we do), stop firing." Stop shipping weapons, stop supplying battlefield intelligence, stop sending "volunteers," stop all of it and step back.

We urge you to take up the call for peace in Ukraine. Not the call, blasted from ten thousand propaganda outlets and social media trolls, for self-righteous moralizing and condemnation of Russia -- and condemnation for anyone who dares call for peace and understanding.

For us it is quite amazing how some peace and nuclear disarmament groups and individuals have internalized neoconservative messaging. It ruins them.

So what are some of the very simple, easy-to-understand realities about the Ukraine war?

1. Russia is not going to be defeated in its defense of those four provinces, presuming they vote to join Russia as their history, ethnicity, language, and past voting patterns strongly suggest.
2. This war is existential for Russia, for reasons a number of official spokespersons have carefully explained. If sufficiently tested, Russia will escalate. They have many ways to do that, in multiple domains.
3. Russia is not going to collapse any time soon. Russia is economically strong, is largely united politically, and has many powerful and resourceful allies. Russia is not at all "isolated."
4. The more deeply the U.S. and NATO are involved in Ukraine, the greater the danger to Europe, the U.S. and the world. That danger is very great now but it could get much greater very quickly, within days, weeks, and months.
5. The UK and Europe are badly damaging themselves socially, economically, and politically. Popular support for the war is declining and will decline further as winter sets in and businesses continue to shut down.
6. The U.S. has plenty of problems at home, none of which are improved by this war. Quite the reverse. A large fraction of the U.S. population already understands this.
7. Many vulnerable nations are being hurt by economic sanctions. Countries with a combined 87% of the world's population do not support sanctions against Russia.
8. Support for the war in Ukraine among U.S. voters is weak to say the least, even before the present referenda and partial mobilization in Russia.
9. "Winning" in Ukraine is not important for the people of Western countries. It is important for many current leaders, certainly. It is important to NATO.
10. A ceasefire in Ukraine would not increase the danger to Ukrainians. Continuing and expanding the war would definitely do so. Up to now, Russia has refrained from destroying "dual-use" Ukrainian infrastructure, to its considerable military cost.

There are many other resources and themes which we would love to add here, but it seems better to keep this message as simple as possible, because we want to provide a simple outline for action. The war machine wants us distracted, divided, paralyzed, and silent.

Those who have moral leadership roles in the community -- churches and political leaders -- need to speak up, or they will forfeit just that much legitimacy. You, me, and the next person have to prod them to do so, and be examples ourselves.

As we see it here, the big problem in our society, the one we each can do something about, is our own habit of conformity and silence, not a lack of knowledge or the absence of some perfect activist technique or opportunity.

***

As mentioned in the last Bulletin, Greg was in Washington recently meeting with congressional and executive branch officials. As part of some of those briefings we offered these considerations in warhead core (“pit”) production policy.

We begin in a way we hoped would gain some attention.

We are unsure why you and your colleagues are supporting a crash program in early-to-need pit production, minimizing pit reuse while promoting MIRVs for the Sentinel system and building two separate pit factories, one of which is unsafe, wholly inadequate, uncosted, and non-enduring. No formal study supports these wasteful, risky policies.

It's a short, condensed document with interdependent parts. If you are interested you should read the whole thing.

At LANL we propose:

• The LAP4 project to be rebaselined and truncated, saving $1-2 billion;
• A long-term staff reduction of about 2,000 people (most of whom have not been hired; attrition and retirements will obviate layoffs), saving roughly $0.7 billion annually;
• Elimination and/or downsizing of several prospective line items and other capital investments, saving an indeterminate amount of up to several billions, up to many billions, if augmentation or replacement of PF-4 can be avoided;
• Safer, single-shift operation, with attendant smaller impacts on transportation, housing, services, resources, and waste management, which impact other LANL programs; and
• A clear focus on technology demonstration, capability maintenance, and training, with less direct and indirect impact on other PF-4 missions.

This is not meant as a pie-in-the-sky exercise. The United States is not going to stop maintaining its nuclear stockpile and declare unilateral nuclear disarmament any time soon. We are providing what we think is a realistic, better path.

Regarding nuclear weapons policy more generally, there are no significant changes being considered in Congress or the Executive right now. There are tweaks being negotiated, and reports are going to be required. The Navy continues to reject a nuclear-tipped submarine-launched cruise missile (SLCM-N), and the armed services committees continue to say they want it. The Navy, which is lying low for now, will win.

As noted in that recent pit briefing, pit production deadlines are going to be changed, because neither LANL nor SRS can meet the deadlines Congress invented. Stay tuned. There will be a lot more detail when the armed services committees produce a final National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for FY2023, and when a final appropriations bill appears some months down the road.

Stay well,

Greg Mello, for the Study Group