August 9, 2022

Bulletin 305:Can we make Archbishop Wester's call for nuclear disarmament real, for us?

Permalink for this bulletin. Simple home page. Detailed home page.
Press releases. Bulletins. Letters. Plutonium pit production. Contact us.
Please endorse the "Call for Sanity, Not Nuclear Production" if you have not done so.
Contribute if you can!

Previously: Bulletin 304 (Aug 3, 2022): Your support is requested! / "US nuclear weapons since 2020: continuity and change" / Whither disarmament?

Dear friends and colleagues --

Archbishop Wester's pastoral letter ("Living in the Light of Christ's Peace,) on nuclear disarmament and recent guest editorial ("New Mexico, work for peace and well-being, not nuclear weapons"), together with related statement and events, may help foster peace and disarmament -- but only if they inspire practical actions, here and now.

Perhaps the most important point in the Archbishop's letter is so simple we may not notice or fully appreciate it. It has nothing to do with nuclear weapons, politics, or policy -- yet it has everything to do with them. It is just this: individuals, each of us, are moral agents.

Today's editorial in the New Mexican takes just the opposite approach, speaking of what "the world can do differently in seeking a path of peace," and converting the Archbishop's call to each of us into a "question humanity must answer." These abstractions are not, and will never be, moral agents. They are incapable of human action in the public sphere, the "second birth" as Hannah Arendt called it, through which human beings find freedom and fulfillment.

That maturity and freedom, found only in public conversation, is not contingent on political victories. It is accessible right now to everybody, as the Archbishop is telling us. He is calling us to a mature engagement with the world around us, which in New Mexico happens to involve nuclear weapons in a major way. He asks us to utterly reject them.

How?

"Fine words butter no parsnips" -- especially if they are the words of another. So what about us? The Archbishop's wake-up call faithfully brings Pope Francis's clear nuclear disarmament message into his Archdiocese. But unless his audiences -- that's us -- interpret and act upon these words concretely, they could become a distraction from the work of actually stopping the world's largest new investment in nuclear warhead production, currently underway on the doorstep of the Cathedral in Santa Fe.

That new production mission goes far beyond anything Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) has done in 70 years. It is, as the Pope and Archbishop both say, an assault on the core values of the Church, on Christianity -- and we may add, on humanity and all religion. To be blunt, it's a death cult and a parasitical mafia, and it's dead-opposed to peace.

According to federal budget requests, starting up the new mission will cost more than $14 billion in this decade alone, on top of LANL's other nuclear weapons missions. It entails 24/7 production and some two thousand new workers, many or most of which would come from elsewhere, as local labor markets are "depleted" of the workers LANL needs, according to the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), which oversees LANL.

The real "elephant in the room" for this Archdiocese is thus not nuclear weapons per se. Speaking out against nuclear weapons in general without squarely addressing the proposed factory in this Archdiocese would be hollow. It may or may not be the Archbishop's role to fill in this blank, but it must be filled if his vision is to be complete.

Nobody wants a nuclear war. Saying one is in favor of "nuclear disarmament" or "against nuclear war" is not saying very much. We know the Archbishop did not mean to speak in hollow phrases, but in many liberal circles those words are the equivalent of "motherhood and apple pie." In many circles those phrases can be used in risk-free, virtue-signaling exercises that do not partake of the life-changing personal conversions required of us to effectively build peace and prevent war or find the freedom that is our birthright, to which the Archbishop is calling us. Without foundations, they remain castles in the air. Either we are those foundations or there aren't any.

Nuclear disarmament can be quite popular. In fact it's already law in 191 countries. Here in the U.S., our government has been officially committed to (eventual) nuclear abolition since 1970, per Article VI of the Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons. According to the U.S. Constitution, this treaty, like others, is part of "the supreme Law of the Land."

Even President Obama said he sought nuclear abolition, and said the U.S. would lead the way. Not long after that he agreed to modernize or replace every U.S. warhead, delivery system, and factory (at a cost of several hundred billion dollars), while also asking taxpayers to support deploying and maintaining essentially all existing nuclear weapons. He rejected an offer from the Joint Chiefs to retire one-third of U.S. warheads.

In other words, "nuclear disarmament" can be vacuous and usually is.

We may be in favor of "nuclear disarmament" or "arms control," but are we against plutonium warhead production right now, right in front of us, and if so what are we going to do about it?

Much more than our personal feelings and opinions are required, if we are to be morally responsible. We must find ways to bring our search for nuclear truth into the public sphere.

Disarmament requires peace

To do so we have to lift our gaze out of northern New Mexico and out of the "nuclear disarmament" "silo" to its wider context, which now crucially involves the war in Central Europe and the near-war over Taiwan.

We must ask ourselves if using phrases like "nuclear disarmament" and "nuclear abolition" is actually responsible, or meaningful, in the absence of demands to end the U.S. war with Russia, and preparations for war with China.

In Ukraine, the U.S. and its NATO allies are now directly at war with Russia, supplying vast stores of weapons, training Ukrainian forces in-country and elsewhere, with skilled U.S. "advisors" and "volunteers" on the ground in Ukraine. The U.S. is also supplying real-time targeting information and reconnaissance in addition to financing the war and paying Ukraine's soldiers, and is providing vast propaganda support as well. U.S. space and cyber resources are engaged. Economic and political sanctions have been tightened far past the point of self-harm (and especially "Europe-harm").

At no time did the U.S. take any step to prevent this war from starting -- quite the opposite -- and at no time since it began has the U.S. taken any action to end it. Again, quite the opposite.

Under these conditions, preceded by two-plus decades of NATO expansion eastward, the installation of ambiguous, nuclear-capable missile launchers within striking distance of Moscow, the systematic dismantling of all but one remaining arms control treaty -- overall, the intentional creation of an existential security crisis for Russia in as many ways as possible -- how will nuclear disarmament be possible?

The simple answer is, it won't be. There will be no nuclear disarmament until Russia's security needs, as Russia perceives them, are met.

If we really do want nuclear disarmament and the peace that will help prevent famines and allow climate negotiations, we must speak out effectively against this war, as well as U.S. attempts to use the Taiwan issue in a similar way to weaken China.

If we willfully turn away from peace, taking refuge in what would then become pious platitudes about "nuclear disarmament," disconnected with the real world, what are we?

Building back those relations will not be easy. In Russia, many if not most senior leaders no longer consider the U.S. structurally capable of keeping agreements. Meanwhile China is rapidly increasing its nuclear forces, in response to U.S. aggression and stated U.S. aims.

For the peace needed to survive the global crises we face, we must work not just to prevent the new nuclear arms race implicit in LANL's new mission, but also to dismantle the deadly arrogance and chauvinism that permeate official U.S. policies and attitudes -- perhaps our own.

Absent that effort the prospects for nuclear disarmament will remain nil, and the probability of future Hiroshimas and Nagasakis thousands of times worse than the originals will continue to grow.

The Archbishop has sketched out some of the terrain. If we want to enjoy its beauty we have only to enter. Time, however, is short, and dangers are mounting.

What are some of the practical steps we might take?

As noted above, the Archbishop's letter is not "self-executing." Here are just a few suggestions for practical actions. There are no "one-size-fits-all" prescriptions.

We at the Los Alamos Study Group stand ready to help in whatever ways we can. Bear in mind that we are already deeply engaged to more or less the maximum of our organizational capacity. We are sincerely offering help here -- even as we need help ourselves in the usual ways.

We begin with two of the most essential and powerful. The first is issue-specific, the second an increasingly-necessary basis for survival in all our communities, sketched in very general terms.

• LANL is having a hard time recruiting for its pit production mission in particular, and is also suffering from high employee attrition. Many new hires soon leave, as many as 30% or 50% in certain LANL departments. The Archbishop calls for conversations with nuclear weapons staff. Even more important are conversations with potential LANL workers and new hires. For the most part these people, many of whom are young and/or relatively uneducated (with or without graduate degrees) do not know what they are getting into, what "the mission" really is, why LANL is attempting it. Organized, loving engagement, as the Archbishop says, is very important for us as well as them.

Such intervention could, with a relatively small effort, end LANL's new mission, which is quite fragile. There are ways, which we are sure you can think of, to reach possible employees before they set foot in New Mexico, or at LANL.

This suggestion can be implemented in many ways, by many people. The question for us is: are we really serious about disarmament, or do we just like talking about it?

• Religious communities could and should redouble any efforts they may now have to foster and support vocations of peace, in both the young and the retired, ideally both together. Our religious groups are ideal "growth media" for the new vocations we need, despite the usual lack of funds. In our experience, members can usually be found with spare living space, to mutual benefit. Our communities do have resources. Visible value brings material support, to religious communities as well as to these programs.

By contrast, the usual occasional, scattered efforts at "protest" will remain an ineffective mode of action on any serious issue, as will writing members of our congressional delegation. Typically, such efforts short-circuit development of understanding, leaving participants susceptible to propaganda and the latest fads, as well as co-optation from powerful, status-quo forces, networks, and funders. With few exceptions, only locally-accountable, essentially full-time efforts -- vocations, in other words -- can provide enough independence, depth, and permanence to transform society.

The need for local organization applies to community resilience efforts as well, which efforts are entirely complementary to, and mutually supportive of, peace and disarmament. Both arms of peace are required. They nourish one another.

Unity is overrated, generally coercive, and leads toward "lowest common denominator" thought and action. The diversity of efforts which will emerge from a diversity of communities is a strength, not a weakness, provided we learn to see beneath ideologies. Developing ideological tolerance will make our communities less divided and more resilient overall, and will help us each become more mature as we face the "polycrisis" now just beginning.

Make no mistake, very hard times are coming. Such community-based efforts are essential, as our governments will mostly fail to successfully address the crisis, despite our continuing efforts.

Others:

• Organize nonviolent direct actions of any of 1,000 different kinds, preferably enduring or recurring. It will be impossible to sustain these actions without some form of organization, and a continual process of mutual reflection. The most resilient of these organizations are likely going to be those with broader, less "stovepiped" values and purposes. See above! These actions are basically communication tools for a busy, distracted, demoralized society.

• Leave political parties, and tell them why. Drop all financial contributions to them, and tell them why. Use those funds in accountable local organizations. Go on the political offensive, visibly and forcefully.

In late 2017 and 2018, Industrial pit production at LANL was primarily arranged by the New Mexico senators -- both Democrats -- and their allies, over the initial objections of the NNSA. Our current Governor supported those efforts when she was in Congress and she supports that mission now, as do all members of the New Mexico delegation.

Our delegation will not change its tune because of a letter, a visit, an op ed, or a vote. Where $14 billion in new appropriations is concerned, they are unlikely to ever change. That much money buys a lot of propaganda, business support, government support, and Party support, and it buys candidate loyalty. That is why direct citizen action and responsible, accountable parallel organizations in various forms are necessary, and not just on nuclear issues. Recall that this summer's massive appropriation for the Ukraine war was supported by each and every Democrat in Congress, including all of the so-called "progressive" caucus.

• Bird-dog politicians in public settings so they can't get away from this issue. This has become much harder than it used to be, as public meetings are now infrequent and seldom announced ahead of time.

• Organize meetings within your group or religious community and invite us. We will try to answer your questions about nuclear weapons issues and related matters. We have given several hundred briefings on and around Capitol Hill and know as much as anyone about the status of nuclear weapons in the United States.

• Recruit religious organizations, businesses, and individuals to endorse the Call for Sanity, Not Nuclear Production. This is a register of resistance and a short set of demands, not a petition from the "weak" to the "powerful." Can the Archbishop and the Archdiocese sign the "Call for Sanity, Not Nuclear Production," we wonder? In the past, the Archdiocese signed onto statements calling for no new LANL  construction pending environmental analysis and no pit production at LANL. (In the latter case, the Archdiocese signed as part of the New Mexico Council of Churches, which included the Archdiocese; we were present.) So the "Call for Sanity" is not necessarily a huge leap for the Archdiocese.

Greg Mello and Trish Williams-Mello, for the Study Group