Peace: A New Way of Thinking about Achieving and Preserving It

[Magda Hassan]

Please use this link to see the images. It is important to see them though many are very graphic of injuries to humans from the atomic bomb. There are also other illustrated images which are well worth the look.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info...e25307.htm
1
PEACE: A NEW WAY OF THINKING
ABOUT ACHIEVING AND PRESERVING IT
An earlier version of this essay appears in Chapter 12 of the book by James C. Warf,
ALL THINGS NUCLEAR, Figueroa Press (of University of S. CA), 2005.
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used
when we created them." — Albert Einstein
Raymond G. Wilson
Emeritus Associate Professor of Physics, Illinois Wesleyan University
Ideas and opinions expressed here unless otherwise noted are those of the author. (2007)
There is probably no issue in the history of humankind about which more words have been written
and argued, over a sixty two year period, than nuclear war/nuclear peace, and with such meager
results. Regarding the resolution of the problem of nuclear weapons – the only true weapons of mass
destruction – so little has been accomplished it is intellectually infuriating, especially after the
unheeded warnings by highly respected individuals such as Einstein and Eisenhower. In their time,
when world forces were in opposition, there was little opportunity for anyone to really lead, to point
the way to a world in which peace would be truly possible. They warned of the direction we were
heading. Others tried to show how that old habitual way could be altered. One perhaps unlikely
person was J. Robert Oppenheimer, "father" of the two nuclear bombs which brought about the
deaths of well more than 210,000 people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Oppenheimer is gone. Where
now are the leaders who have the wisdom to show the way?
Part I
1 Why a Solution to the War Problem Is Necessary, and Possible
Most people in the world have no conception of the enormity of the effects of nuclear war. Why?
It was some 22 to 30 years after 1945 before the United States would allow people to see the truth
of the nuclear devastation Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This was a human slaughter and the deadly
evidence of it, in photographs of the victims, was confiscated by the American occupation forces,
and not revealed until 1967, not by the US Government but mainly through the efforts of citizens
Warning: Some of the graphics and
ideas in this document are for mature
and thoughtful viewers.
Fig. 1 Hiroshima: Inside the fire prevention
water tank they were burned red, outside they
were scorched black. Drawn by Sagami Ogawa.
Code GE15-44, Courtesy of the Hiroshima Peace
Memorial Museum Curatorial Division.
Please do not reproduce without permission.
2
of Japan, of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and by Columbia University Professor Erik Barnouw.
Almost nothing of this human catastrophe appears in standard supposedly scholarly textbooks in
American education, even though the atomic bomb was selected by journalists as the “story of the
past century.” Here is one example: In the book, The Medical Implications of Nuclear War, by the
National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine, 1986, there is not a photograph of a victim
of Hiroshima or Nagasaki. Of the 40 contributors, not one is Japanese. You cannot learn if truth of
nuclear war is politicized and withheld.
As a teacher this writer greatly resents the fact that the U.S. Government and its WWII
Allies have never taken the responsibility to truthfully portray the results of the nuclear war they
initiated against a defeated, smaller and militarily exhausted nation, when they knew that Emperor
Hirohito was seeking to end the war. Part of this document in a small way will attempt to remediate
this deficiency of American education. In this small way, how well is it done?
Since “the people” have not learned, it is deeply regrettable that they may only learn if
nuclear weapons are used again. Most of the world has not yet understood the possible obliteration
of many millions of people within twenty-four hours. Our brains are too meager for such
immensity.
Fig. 2 A few black and white snapshots were taken in Hiroshima on that day. CNN was not there. The U.S.
Government black and white photographs made public revealed only the physical destruction of
buildings; they did not show what happened to the people. This illustration by Keiji Nakazawa is of the
Funairi, Nakamachi area as he saw it on that day. Multiply this picture 15,000 times to understand what
happened to the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The heat radiation, blast, flying glass, and deadly
nuclear poison were intense. Permission from Keiji Nakazawa.
3
Consider the following: It must be true that in a peaceful world without the
conventional weapons of war, without tanks, missiles, bombers, warships, there would be no
need for weapons of mass destruction. Regrettably, the converse is not true. In a world
without weapons of mass destruction, unless the world changes, there would still be
conventional weapons and wars and arms races, eventually leading again to the
development of efficient techniques for killing hundreds of thousands of people, so-called,
“mass destruction,” treating people like matter.
If it is not a fallacy that our goal truly is nuclear disarmament, ridding the world of the
“terror bomb” and the main new tool of a WW III, then the logical imperative would be to put full
effort into the simpler but crucially essential
problem of eliminating the need for
conventional weapons of war: put full effort into
solving regional disputes, the Balkans, the
Middle East, Africa, South & South East Asia,
the Korean peninsula, and elsewhere; put full
effort into solving the principal conflict, the one
between the haves – who want even more, and
the have-nots – those who are being ripped off,
exploited, robbed, and suppressed. Eliminate
the “justifiable” causes of international conflict.
There is evidence that world resources
necessary to solve these problems are actually
available but for more than 60 years have
been diverted into the continuous creation of
new weapons and weapon systems rather
Fig. 3 A typical example of what was revealed by the U.S. Government.
But what is under the rubble?
Fig. 4 The more than sturdy Hiroshima Gas Works
wherein no one survived. “You could hear their
screams.” U. S. Army photo
4
than toward the creation of a world at peace.
The single, small and primitive, Hiroshima bomb
destroyed a city of over 300,000 and claimed about 140,000
lives by the end of 1945. Nagasaki brought the total deaths to
well beyond 210,000. Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki and
their people were instantaneously seared, charred, and
vaporized.
It was as if a Richter-10 flaming cosmic-quake came
down upon them from the gods. And afterwards the nuclear
radiation began its dirty, deadly, silent, prolonged and
profane massacre. It kept killing for years. In October, 1955,
ten years after the bombings, in that year, 12-year old Sadako
Sasaki was the 14th death in Hiroshima attributable to the
atomic bomb.1 Folding paper cranes did not save her from the
ravages of leukemia induced by the bomb’s radiation in
1945.
Averaged over the 50 years following WW II, the
world’s military industrial complexes created an arsenal
equivalent to making 70 Hiroshima A-bombs every day of
every one of those 50 years. Seventy on each of those 18,250
days.
Just one day’s worth of 70 bombs could yield
9,800,000 killed in a new war, 70 × 140,000. The World has
been most fortunate in one sense.
The world arsenal just referred to is the equivalent of about 1,280,000 Hiroshima A-bombs.
Only two were ever used for their intended purpose. Is there anything wrong here? What does this
imply about diplomatic leadership over those 50 years? Talk about wasted resources! (Total
warheads created, from 1945 to 2000, more than 128,060.2)
The people of the world plead for peace, plead for an end to the killing, destruction, and
suffering, and their leaders cannot achieve it; and national governments’ insincere offers to reduce
nuclear arsenals is not the way.
In Part II of this document I shall explain how world resources could be used: to
achieve world peace with justice, fairness, and great benefits
for everyone and threats to no one, and to remedy the
regional tensions and devastation that permeate much of the
developing world. This can be done at no additional cost. Only
once before was a similar task attempted, the Marshall Plan,
bringing some relief from the devastation of WW II to selected
friends of the western Allied world, while creating an economic
boom in America.
Rather than the myopic focus mainly on nuclear abolition
with its nettlesome concerns of nuclear breakouts and nuclear
terrorism, we should develop the courage to aggressively follow a
path which circumvents and defuses terrorists’ and any nation’s
continuous regional threats, terrors, and wars. The world
initiatives for action need to be taken away from the war mongers
Fig. 5 Sadako Sasaki. Some
visible symptoms of leukemia
are present. Permission granted
by Masahiro Sasaki.
Fig. 6 Hiroshima: The heat
of the bomb burned her
kimono pattern onto her
skin. U. S. Army photo
5
Fig. 7 “Will I even want to live?”
Hiroshima -source unknown.
and their dictatorial suicide commands and directed toward peace for all those developing nations
which are ready for peace, ready for the promised
advances of the 21st century. One country tests a bomb,
sends a missile over a neighbor, or develops nuclear
technology and the world’s developed nations have fits
for the next several months, move to increase military
spending, and to create a missile defense system which
would likely fail, and to consider a pre-emptive attack.
Effective proactive amelioration on the world scene
seems an activity unknown in the developed world; the
tendency is always to be militarily reactive.
There need be no technical problems to achieve
a world without threats. It is only
socio-political-ideological problems, in people’s minds,
which prevent world peace.
Is it true that for some 200 years there has not
been a war between truly democratic nations? Is it true
that such nations don’t even prepare for war with one
another?
Hence, is it not understandable, the worrisome
situation of nuclear capability in nations without democracy? Is the creation of constitutional
democracies the long sought expedient to world peace? Would war be unlikely if there existed
democratic Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, Palestine, and Rwanda, and indeed, would living
conditions in those nations be improved?
2 Background
In the Cold War year of 1981 the U.S. defense budget in total increased to considerably more than
US$300 billion per year. We were led to believe that the U.S. would win this confrontation even if
the world detonated all 18,000 MILLION TONS 3 of “nuclear TNT,” in a WW III thermal and
radioactive holocaust. It would have been comparable to the destruction wrought by several
thousand WW IIs. What folly! But some people had no fear; the expected “rapture” to heaven
would save them. “We should not mistake for laws of God or nature the cultural values of the
world’s most unstable systems.”
No nation’s leader, and probably very
few active U.S. generals, have ever witnessed
a nuclear explosion above ground. Still, it is
easy for many to consider a nuclear bomb to
be a useable weapon of war; after all, in 1945
the Allies had actually used two, which many
believe ended that war. Even during the
nuclear tests in the South Pacific,
congressmen, invited to witness the tests,
were located so far away (for their safety) that
many came away unimpressed. “Like a giant
Fig. 8 Hiroshima: Flying glass splinters from the firecracker,” one said. In Nevada, American
blast of the bomb pierced this body.
Photo: Dr. Nobuo Kusano?
6
G.I.s advanced under the fallout of mushroom clouds to test themselves near radioactive ground
zero.
Imagine the hottest clear day of the year.
Remember walking out into the sunlight and
being amazed, that even at a distance of
93,000,000 miles, how hot the radiation of our
sun really was? The surface temperature of the
small primitive Hiroshima atomic bomb was
1000 Celsius degrees hotter than the Sun’s. It
hung in the air only 300 yards, 0.17 mile, above
the people of Hiroshima. Were some people
vaporized?
Radiant energy of about 7 calories per
square centimeter on the skin will cause a 3rd
degree burn, total skin scorching and skin death.
At the Hiroshima hypocenter it was 100 cal/sq.
cm; at Nagasaki it was 229 cal/sq. cm. Do you
begin to understand the photographs?
A semi-lethal dose of nuclear radiation
(neutrons and gamma rays) is often taken as 450
rads. At the hypocenters it was about 24,000
rads in Hiroshima and about 29,000 rads in
Nagasaki. Thus one should not be surprised that
regardless of concrete buildings for shelter, the
death rate around the hypocenters for both cities
was about 95%. Today’s average nuclear
weapon yield is ten times the Hiroshima bomb;
some warhead yields can be 100 times greater or
more.
Do American legislators ever confront
the question, “Why does the United States have
‘enemies’ in the world?”
Since 9/11/2001 a few United States
legislators are asking what went wrong. The solution chosen was to increase the military spending
by more than US$100 billion. It would be fascinating to survey all congressmen: Reasons why
you think people hate the United States. Do legislators understand? Are they capable of learning?
Do they have the time? Will they ever try? Why would Islamic people hate the United States?
By 2007, well more than 23 million killed by nonnuclear wars since 1945; the United
Nations incapable of, or always too late at, ending wars. The world average production rate of
nuclear weapons for 50 years the equivalent of 70 Hiroshima bombs per day every day of every
year since 1945. Something was terribly wrong with the world! Is time running out?
It became clear to many that nuclear weapons were only a symptom of an all-pervasive
cancer of the spirit of the world and of humankind. Some Japanese have an expression for this
period of human history in which we find ourselves; they call it “the era of nuclear madness.” It’s
still with us in the 21st century.
More than 400,000 war deaths per year since 1945: Shall the chaos of the world continue to
its end?
Fig. 9 – Nagasaki: Can you imagine the agony for
this burned 14 year old girl, brought to the
Omura Naval Hospital, one of the more than
210,000 killed by the two nuclear bombs.
Dr. Shiotsuki said, “My first assignment was
mercy killing.” Permission from the widow of
Dr. Masao Shiotsuki, via Kosei Publishing.
7
Although our eyes are open and adults worry about nuclear attacks, a blind side blow may
be in our future. There is clear evidence, the rules of biological growth mandate it, that young
people are more susceptible to the harmful effects of radiation. And now we know that there is no
safe, low-level of radiation. In the recent National Academy of Science, National Research
Council report, “The committee concludes that
current scientific evidence is consistent with the
hypothesis that there is a linear, no-threshold
dose-response relationship between exposure to
ionizing radiation and the development of cancer in
humans.”4
Regardless of elected politician’s mistaken
beliefs, nuclear radiation is not something to be
exposed to or to mess around with. It is extremely
subtle; you would not know you had too much until
it was too late. Just ask a member of the National
Association of Atomic Veterans. Why do dentists
shield themselves and parts of you when you get
x-rays?
In any size real nuclear conflagration how
many of your children and their children and
grandchildren would end up with shortened lives,
Fig. 10 The streets around the hypocenter in Hiroshima must have looked like this after the bombing,
but this is not Hiroshima. Any such photographs taken there were regrettably and perhaps foolishly
destroyed. This is the Asakusa area of Tokyo after an incendiary air raid. Do you think identification
of the any of the 90,000 was possible?
From: Haha to Ko de Miru Tokyo Daikuushuu, published by Kusanone Publishing Co.
Fig. 11 This child of
Rongelap has no
control of its body, its
head or eyes. Fallout
from a Bikini test is
the likely cause. Not
before nuclear testing
had they seen such
disabilities.
Photo-permission,
Dennis O’Rourke
8
perhaps the beginning of the end looking something like these young people whose lives were or
will be cut short. If leukemia doesn’t do it the other cancers will. Many children’s fates were sealed
while still in Mother’s womb, and many died at a very early age. I, along with Dr. Alice Stewart,5
am concerned that with the increased levels of radioactivity in the environment, especially since
beginning of the nuclear age with all its careless nuclear tests, that the gene pool of current and
subsequent generations will become hopelessly contaminated. We will not know until it is too late.
Then will every set of breeders be required to pass DNA egg and sperm screening for mutated
genes?
Fig. 12 Berik
Syzdykov, from
Znamenka, victim of
USSR nuclear bomb
testing,
Semipalatinsk,
Kazahkstan. Photo by
Yuri Kuidin –
Permission sought.
Fig. 13 Renata
Izmailva, 16, a high
school student, and
victim of USSR nuclear
bomb testing,
Semipalatinsk,
Kazahkstan. Photo by
Yuri Kuidin –
Permission sought.
Fig. 14 Two young people from the Persian Gulf War (1990-1991), one
with leukemia, the other with unspecified tumors, something you usually
don’t see after conventional warfare. Is this caused by depleted
uranium? Permission granted by Haruko Moritaki. From the
publication, Hiroshima Appeal for Banning DU Weapons, available from
NO DU Hiroshima Project,
http://www.nodu-hiroshima.org/en/html/pu...tions.html
9
If the photo above is missing it can be found at:
http://www.pcf.city.hiroshima.jp/kids/KP...i_2_e.html
Fig. 16 This burn is clearly from the flash of the Hiroshima bomb. His skin where it was covered was
not burned. Contrast this with images (page 1) of corpses completely burned; such victims may have
been burned by the bomb’s flash but afterward they were caught up in the conflagration of the entire
city. Photo by Masami Onuka. Code SA002-2, Courtesy of the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum
Curatorial Division. Please do not reproduce without permission.
Fig. 15 Schoolgirl with burns, Red Cross Hospital,
Hiroshima, Aug. 10, 1945 – Asahi photo
10
Fig. 18 Ikemoto brother and sister
of Hiroshima. Hair loss and
shortened lives from A-bomb
radiation. Photo by Shunkichi
Kikuchi.
Fig. 17 This soldier was not present
at the bomb’s explosion but worked
in the rescue effort afterwards. He
died five years later of leukemia.
Prof. Watanabe, Hiroshima
11
Regarding the photographs, please keep in mind that to a greater or lesser degree
well more than 210,000 people fell victim to the two small and primitive nuclear bombs
of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Almost all were civilians, many women and children.
Shall it happen again, on a grander scale with megaton weapons?
I am struck by the analogy between our early mistakes and failures in radiological health
physics and our mistakes and failures in attempting to bring freedom and democracy to other
nations.
— Over the past single century many errors and mistakes were made in the new nuclear
military-industrial complexes, some of them quite unethical. Part of that history is told by Karl
Morgan in his book, The Angry Genie,5 and by Dr. Alice Stewart in her biography by Gayle
Greene, The Woman Who Knew Too Much: Alice Stewart and the Secrets of Radiation.6 Morgan
was director of health physics at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory from the late 1940s until his
retirement in 1972. Stewart established the connection between x-rays of pregnant women and
childhood cancers in her Oxford Childhood Cancer Survey. Nuclear nations did not reveal the data
and truth about radiation effects on the victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and upon other
downwinders.
— Over the past twenty centuries and more, errors and mistakes were made, many quite
unethical, in attempts to force people to change their thinking and to force and/or subtly coerce
nations to change their way of life, change their social systems, to suit others. Many died from
politicians’, industrialists’, ideologues’, and militarists’, gross failures to comprehend the manner
by which peaceful change can be achieved, if indeed it was peaceful change that was sought. You
can eliminate many opponents to your will by killing them. We’ve had centuries of such methods,
Fig. 19 Nagasaki victim. Source sought.
12
and other methods wrought upon unsuspecting victims of exploitation. One would have thought
that centuries of bad examples and lessons would have been sufficient. What was the operational
cause of these millions of deaths – the cause that continues today?
It is hoped that everyone can see the dangers inherent in the present policies of many
nations and terror groups. Nuclear annihilation of the planet is a possibility and it would be a
disastrous affair even for those who thought they were to be raised to the heavens to meet their
maker, their God. My cynicism suggests that maybe there with guidance the conflicts will be
resolved.
But there might be other ways to resolve the conflicts presently confronting us. Do national
leaders truly want peace in the world? Or are there other agendas? Believe it or not, J. Robert
Oppenheimer thought he knew how wars could be avoided!
Fig. 20 John Smitherman was exposed to nuclear bomb
radiation during the Bikini “Able” and “Baker” tests
in 1946. Decades later “radiation sickness” has taken
both his legs. On September 11, 1983, he died of
cancer of the colon, liver, stomach, lung and spleen.
Thousands of others present near U.S., Soviet, and
other nuclear tests, were also affected. Photo by
Robert Del Tredici, from his excellent book, “At Work
In the Fields of the Bomb,” with permission.
13
Part II
3 Oppenheimer’s Conjecture on World Peace
J. Robert Oppenheimer, father of the atomic bomb, conjectured7 in 1946 that
. . . wars might be avoided by: universal disarmament; limited national
sovereignties; provision for all people of the world: of a rising standard of
living, better education, more contact with and better understanding of others;
and equal access to the technical and raw materials which are needed for
improving life. . . .
Though impossible to implement in 1946 (Stalin had other plans and goals.), most of what
Oppenheimer meant I believe is fully realizable now. There can be peace, justice, prosperity, and
fairness for all nations, as you shall see.
Even after the brutality of three and a half years of WW II imprisonment by the Japanese
Army in Borneo, author Agnes Newton Keith believes a peaceful world could be achieved:
“I believe that:
While We have more than we need on this continent,
and others die for want of it, there can be no lasting peace.
When We work as hard in peacetime to make this world decent to live in,
as in wartime we work to kill, the world will be decent,
and the causes for which men fight will be gone.” 8
Let us examine one way it could be done.
At the height of the Cold War America was militarily preparing for a two-hemisphere
WWIII with annual “defense” budgets in excess of $300 billion. The rest of the World was
spending approximately an equivalent amount, thus totaling $600 billion; some said more, $1000
billion. With the end of the Cold War, the end of the Soviet Union, and with an understanding of
the size of the unused world nuclear arsenals; a rational proposal in 1990 could have easily been
for the defense budgets of the United States, United Kingdom, France, Russia and China to be cut
in half; with appropriate caution, not abruptly, but promptly. This concept you may not understand
if you do not comprehend the size of present world arsenals. But such a cut is not all that is
required. Are there legitimate reasons for mistrust among nations and the multinational controllers
of human destiny?
Current and projected U.S. annual military budgets, of $400 billion and more9 make it
seem that an “arms race” continues. Certainly the taxation for arms will continue. Someone must
pay.
There is a further aspect of military spending that is essential to understand. In the early
1980’s the U.S. expenditures for ALL PHASES of creating useable new facilities, new weapons,
and new weapons systems was about $150 billion annually; i.e., using up about (at that time) half
the U.S. military budget.
I have referred to Oppenheimer’s conjecture. Here is ours:
After some 45 years studying world affairs, I have come to the firm belief
that in contrast to past policies, if a nation wishes to be at peace,
the most effective use of any nation’s “defense” budget is,
not resorting to murderous war, but by some safe and equitable means,
the proactive conversion of existent or potential enemies into friends,
all working for a peaceful world with justice and fairness for all.
14
Today, consider the semi-conversions between Russia and the United States, Egypt and
Israel, China and the United States. How much better off could all have been if military spending
had been cut in half, if the goals had been peace instead of conflict? Consider what might have
been, early on, had a proactive approach to peace been taken in the Middle East and throughout the
Islamic World. We ask, could such conversions be done again, and repeatedly, between Israel and
Palestine, the United States and Iraq and Iran, between Pakistan and India, the U.N. and the
Democratic Peoples’ Republic of (North) Korea. In 1945 the United States was engaged in brutal
and deadly warfare with Japan. What happened over the intervening years to all but eliminate the
bitter hatreds of those earlier years? Can it happen again in today’s world? Are there any world
leaders who will pursue world peace with fairness and justice for all?
If the aforementioned “conversions” are possible, and historical evidence seems to show it
so, then it is implied that if not threatened by war or terrorism, the United States and other nations
of the Developed World could make available, half their military budgets annually, totaling well
more than US$300 billion, to eliminate war and threats of war throughout the World. If the
Developed World is not threatened AND if no nations are intent upon any form of controlling
empire building. The some 192 members of the U.N. General Assembly need to consider what
they wish for their nations in the 21st century, continued strife or amazing improvements in living
conditions, in their nations, without war.
We will use US$300 billion as a baseline and will show that additional sources are also
available to raise the total to at least US$330 billion annually, which, if administered properly for
some 20 to 25 years, could be used to bring about the following for all nations that abide by the
U.N. Charter and all Covenants:
1. The virtual elimination of the possibility of nuclear war.
2. Throughout the world: control of illicit drugs and narcotics; immensely improved international
trade in peacetime goods; the extreme reduction of: unemployment,
budget deficits, and national debts.
3. In the less-developed world: the near elimination of malnutrition, disease, poverty,
slavery, illiteracy, rights deprivation, neo-colonialism, and indebtedness.
4. Establish stringent procedures for the elimination of modern conventional warfare
between nations and within them.
5. Curtailment of the refugee problem, and likely, immigration problems as well.
If the program here to be described had been implemented when the threats of the Cold
War ended we feel that the terrorisms of the past fifteen years would not have occurred. Make no
mistake; we will not describe a program that “throws money at problems” and hopes for the best.
By now (2007) some US$5,100 billion ($300 billion/year × 17 years) would have been at work on
items 1-5 above.
It was some satisfaction to learn that physicists Philip Morrison and Kostas Tsipis had
separately come to the same conclusion, that something of the order of US$300 billion annually
could be available to remedy many or most of the world’s most pressing problems.10 US$300
billion represents some 7 to 10 times what the less developed world receives now in aid. Probably
more. Considering how present nation-to-nation aid money is often wasted, our recommendations
mean that $300 billion could in effect be much more than 10 times present aid, especially if world
optimism about the future plays a role. This proposal might be considered to contain the honest
and objective peace dividend for all nations. It does not require “world government” and you will
15
be able to see that great benefits would accrue to all nations willing and able to participate.
Greater security for all nations can be obtained by worldwide reduction of the weapons
of our “enemies,” rather than increasing arsenals everywhere, as we are doing, and as has been
done for past centuries. Nations which truly abide by the intentions of the U.N. Charter pose no
malicious economic or military threats to their neighbors. Implementing Oppenheimer’s
conjecture will make it seem that more than US$300 billion each year is eliminating military and
economic threats, while peace and justice advance throughout the world, a great bargain.
We believe the following steps based upon Oppenheimer’s conjecture can bring us to a
peaceful world, if nations only have the hindsight, foresight, and courage to try. There will be
political nay-sayers but they have not dedicated their last thirty years in the search for true world
peace.
4 Steps Which Would Be Required
Step 1. Direct aid from developed world nations to the less developed world must end.
This kind of money is usually tied to undesirable long-term neo-economic/political/military
obligations, and, often in the receiving nation, environmental and social abuse, political and
financial corruption. This money stays where it was, in the developed world taxpayer’s nation.
This is the additional $30 billion, that becomes available, creating a total resource of about $330
billion annually.
Lech Walesa, former president of Poland, says that the United States wasted billions of
dollars in aid to formerly communist Eastern European nations in the 1990s because there was no
procedure in place to distribute the money – money thrown away. Step 1 remedies this
immediately.
Other examples of corrupted programs come to mind: The Alliance for Progress of the
Kennedy administration, and the Caribbean Basin Initiatives of the Reagan years.
There are some nations that can maintain efficient and non-political aid programs, Sweden
and Japan come to mind but the aid they provide, though valuable, is a single drop in a very large
bucket when one understands the immensity of vital world problems to be solved. Hundreds of
billions of dollars will be necessary.
We will show that there is a better way.
Step 2. The U.N. aims at obtaining in the less developed, and developing, world, democracy, and
in six areas, self-sufficiency: 1) food production, 2) housing, 3) health care, 4) economic means,
5) civilian security, and 6) education and training to support items 1-5.
Annually, US$330 billion in aid from the developed nations will be
distributed by the U.N. using new procedures.
What are these new procedures?
Each Developed Nation annually deposits with the U.N., “credit chits” in amount equal to
half their true military budget; the money actually remains in the Developed Nation’s treasury,
until payout is due. There will be great advantages to all nations who make payments into this
program, and considerable disadvantages to those who can, but do not. The more chits deposited,
the greater value accrues to the depositor, as will become obvious.
Who gets the “chits”? Dictatorships steal a nation’s most valuable resource, its future,
embodied in its next generations of young people. Dictators, for their own selfish gain, with lies,
16
propaganda, and indoctrination in mythological beliefs, often provide death as the fate of the
young ones. Dictators never exert honest efforts toward peaceful relationships. They and their
nations are disqualified as “chit” recipients.
It is regrettable that, for example, the two democracies type relationship of Canada and the
United States does not yet exist in 2007 between India and Pakistan, North and South Korea, China
and Taiwan, Iran and Iraq, Israel and its neighbors. Were these pairs all democratic there would be
less war danger in the world. Historical evidence indicates that true democracies do not wage war
against each other; true democracies do not even prepare for war with one another.11
Thus, for nations of the developing world, which are verifiably evolving toward
democratic rule by non-discriminatory consensus, the U.N. makes these funds available on the
basis of solicited application of their development proposals, verifiable need, and guarantees
against misuse or corruption. These funds may only be utilized for social and economic
development, the six specific U.N. self-sufficiency goals, above.
The development proposals submitted to the U.N. by developing nations are carefully
evaluated, in terms of the proposed societal, cultural, economic, and environmental impact, and
protection against abuse and corruption. Is the nation verifiably moving toward true but
self-defined and equitable nondiscriminatory constitutional democracy? Does the proposal truly
represent the desires of a great majority of the people? Will minority rights be protected? What
proof, what evidence, what tests support the proposal? The U.N. may wish to reject certain
proposals or return the proposals for corrective improvement.
When a proposal is accepted and funded, the U.N. awards the amount in “Developed
World credit chits” for peacetime goods and services. The chits must make their way back to their
origin nation within two years of issue, and may pass through several nations, all on the approved
list of democratic nations which abide by the U.N. Charter and all Covenants.
Developing nations which abide by the U.N. Charter and all Covenants, and which are
funded, can expect constant on-site verification and audit by U.N. inspectors, comptrollers, and
visitors who will have the responsibility to see that the credit chits are used exactly as originally
proposed.
The U.N. will not make such grants to nations where war is likely or where violations of
rights: gender, religious, human, or ethnic are active or likely. Repressive and military
governments and martial law governments will not qualify for funding or participation in this
program, nor will any nation, regardless of its size, including the United States, which is not fully
participating and cooperating in the worldwide elimination of: armaments of war, nuclear
weapons, terrorism, and illicit drugs.
Preference in the allocation of development funds will be given to those nations
1) which are able to demonstrate a continuing reduction or lack of “war armament,”
2) which are part of a multination cooperative regional development, and
3) which have instituted U.N. recommended educational programs designed to lead their
nations into the 21st Century, not indoctrinate for the furtherance of international
disputes and terrors.
When the chits arrive back in the nation of origin they do not go to the national treasury.
They go to the nation’s suppliers of peacetime goods and services, thence cashed in at the treasury,
thus enhancing productivity and employment in the original nation of chit origin.
Each nation will keep a trained national militia suitably equipped for national and
international disasters, not war, and for maintaining civil order in times of need. The U.N. General
Assembly must play a major role in controlling all transfers of war weapons between nations, with
17
the aim of reducing them to zero, never sponsoring an increase, never supporting new weapons
creation and expense. With the military burden gone in the less developed world, great changes
could be obtainable in twenty years rather than 200.
Of the 192 U.N. nations, perhaps 42 of them will be depositing credit chits with the U.N.
For 150 nations, it means that there is deposited in the U.N. some US$330 billion, each year for
their use, for 20 – 25 years. If one nation does not make use of it, some other nation will. All they
need to do is . . .
Step 3. At present, not all nations wish to live in peace with their neighbors. For a
temporary period, there must be assembled, trained and integrated, a U.N. multinational armed
force, the principle function of which shall be to immediately aid any nation which abides by the
U.N. Charter and all Covenants when it is physically abused or attacked by another. U.N. Charter
Articles 41 and 42 speak to this. The aggressor, clearly violating their signed obligations under the
U.N. Charter, will be penalized, shall pay the Multinational Force costs and reparations; and
possibly experience an enforced governance change toward democracy. The weapons they lose in
warfare will not be allowed to be replaced, a step which should cause great hesitation about even
considering armed aggression.
“Henceforth every nation’s foreign policy must be judged at every point by one consideration:
does it lead us to a world of law and order
or does it lead us back toward anarchy and death?” ⎯ Albert Einstein
Step 4. Each developing nation should insist on themselves creating “added value” to their
natural resources (with due consideration to the societal and environmental impact) by
processing these resources at home, rather than simply shipping only raw and crude materials
abroad: phosphates, copper, chromium, aluminum, diamonds, uranium, oil, minerals, etc. By this
means considerably greater “wealth” is created in each developing nation, and will allow them
much greater economic power for importation of necessary goods from abroad, e.g., exports from
developed nations. But each democracy-oriented developing nation shall decide for itself what
ultimate relationship with outside agents best fits its needs. They will ask, “Truly, who have been
our friends? Who can we trust?”
By this new policy the destiny of the Developing World shall be molded by their own
hands, free from exploitation by outsiders. This can be a rewarding challenge. It becomes their
responsibility. Can the leaders of nations of the developing world work together to make the 21st
century their century? They should consider the especially appropriate example of Japan in the
period 1945 to 1970, a mountainous nation, poor in natural resources, socially and physically
destroyed by war but in many ways recovered in 25 years. Their greatest resource is their people,
something that their old military government failed to understand. After 1945 a democratic Japan
accomplished a great deal with help from its democratic friends. (Could Japan have become a
modern industrialized nation without the Asian war activities of the 1930s and earlier?)
Even the small nation of Rwanda, racked with genocide and chaos in the 1990s, could form
a democratic nation at peace with itself, Hutus and Tutsis working together. They would need help
from outside sources, and freedom and protection from outside political interference. This is
exactly the solution we propose.
Not all nations are ready for the economic changes that would accompany a democracy.
They could be duped into errors. The contrasts between North and South Korea stand out. If
North Korea had a democratic government, aid from outside would not have been wasted as it has
in military spending. Some years after WWII Japan managed to regain control of its
18
wealth-producing capabilities and did not relinquish it to the victors. In the early 1950s Japan was
invited by Joseph Stalin to join with him and the Soviet Union in the great developments that lie
ahead. Wisdom prevailed. The knowledge of all the United Nations is available to help the
developing world; they need only ask. I have great fears that the people of North Korea may be
unknowingly led into a catastrophic disaster while their dictatorial leadership asks to be
guaranteed the right to do just as it pleases.
Step 5. To further assure and advance self-determination, development, and confidence
for the people of all nations it is necessary to establish government and private international
exchange programs involving 10,000 to 50,000 people per year, students, teachers, workers,
farmers, artists, government officials, scientists, athletes and upper-bracket bureaucrats; for the
purpose of finding creative new approaches to cooperation and development for mutual and world
benefit.
The “Sister Cities Program” should be greatly expanded to include the poorer nations of
the world. Does Timbuktu (in Mali) have a sister city in the Developed World? Does your town
have a sister city in the Developing World? Important question: Why not? Shall we soon be able
to have sister cities in North Korea? How about P’ungsan in the DPRK (North Korea)?
Step 6. The U.N. needs to decide when and how it can intervene in the internal affairs of a
“nation.” The U.N.’s inability to act over past years has sanctioned the deaths of millions.
Consider Cambodia and Sudan. The U.N. needs to come to grips with the fact that the U.N. actions,
which were possible in 1946, are woefully inadequate and much too late for events of the modern
electronic and high speed world. The Cold War has ended; much more U.N. activity without
vetoes should be possible. What shall be done about civil wars and “ethnic cleansing”? How many
need to be killed, imprisoned, or tortured, before the U.N. shall act? 10,000? 100,000? 1,000,000?
What was the 2006 year-end death toll in the Sudan? What shall be the limit before a nation is
dismissed from the U.N. until its leadership is replaced, perhaps by the U.N., and the oppressed
people are empowered? Clearly, under the world conditions being proposed, modern-day
democratic nations, such repression and civil wars are highly unlikely. Where is the voice of the
U.N. General Assembly in all this? What is “world opinion” about the possibility of world peace
and prosperity?
Developing nations, yielding their military burden in favor of democracy, must have
assurances that they will be quickly and adequately protected by the strongest powers of the world.
North Korea needs to understand what changes they need to make to receive assurances and
protection against attack by a more powerful nation. “Minds more wise,” not pre-programmed
bureaucrats, must speak to U.N. Charter revisions. Because all nations are not equal there should
be special rules to apply to emerging, developing nations for the protection of their people from
corrupt governance and from powerful outside political and exploitive influences.
Former U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan is right on target with what Time magazine
labeled “Kofi Doctrine,” urging world intervention to stop massive human rights violations, but
the doctrine falls far short without the complete and essential ameliorative steps we are proposing
here.
5 Implementation
This proposed activation of Oppenheimer’s conjecture is sometimes criticized as being too
futuristic and difficult to implement. But there are no technical implementation difficulties, only
19
those difficulties in people’s minds. The necessary, minds more wise, must be found.
If the Baruch proposal of 1946 had been accepted, how would it have been implemented?
How was the Marshall Plan carried out? The Manhattan Project? Similar implementation
procedures could be employed here.
Yes, war is much easier to implement; we’re all set up for it. We are not, however, set up to
implement world peace.
6 And In Our “Developed” World
Each year this program will see returned to the nonmilitary economies of the developed
nations, in total, more than US$ 330 billion! It is money most of which ordinarily would have
been spent for non-wealth-creating new military weapons and systems. It has been remarked that,
“Dollar for dollar, nonmilitary spending creates more jobs than military expenditures do, owing to
the less capital-intensive nature of civilian products and lower salaries.” Worldwatch Institute
provides estimates as examples; similar estimates can be found among 1981 data from the New
York Council on Economic Priorities. Hence, this program we propose should greatly reduce
unemployment in any nation adopting it.
With nations in full peacetime production and without threats of war, national debts should
be fairly easily paid off. What effect would a thriving well-managed economy have on social
problems? Would it make them solvable?
Oppenheimer’s conjecture implied that an exchange could be made:
• With self-sufficiency and self-defined but true democracy in the developing world
and the virtual elimination there of poverty, illiteracy, malnutrition, disease,
neocolonialism, rights deprivation, indebtedness, exploitation, and slavery;
• The entire world could have full economic recovery, elimination of the possibility for
international nuclear catastrophe, and the practical elimination of war. In a world at
peace the refugee problem is solved. The killing stops, and world problems can be
solved.
The basic tool is incentives, not sanctions; benefits, not penalties; advantages for all as
Oppenheimer knew it could be.
Consider, compare, what the 3,500,000,000 people of the developing world do not have,
and who is capable of supplying it! There are abundant opportunities for all!
Morrison and Tsipis, in their book10, Reason Enough to Hope, explore some of the
problems facing the world should the impoverished billions of people be brought online to also
benefit as we have from “the good life.” Food and energy needs, and overpopulation are likely
to present many difficulties. Food requirements and overpopulation are of course linked.
However, in any nation of fixed area which has made development advances in the last century
without going to war, I think you will find that though population has increased, family size has
decreased. I might be wrong in this conjecture but I think not. In the Japan of 100 years ago large
families would not be uncommon especially in rural areas, families with four to eight and more
children. It seems hardly conceivable, doesn’t it, in Japan, where now the ideal family will have
two children, one girl, one boy? If food, education, health care, and economic opportunity are
available, parents in a democratic society should be rather quick to learn that a family of four will
probably do better all around in contrast to a family of ten. Consider China also, with its desires
for one-child families.
Most impoverished nations, at present, do not have the capability to fully utilize all their
20
arable land. Implementation of our proposal would change that. Appropriate agriculture with U.N.
help can squeeze the maximum benefits annually out of lands considered not fruitful. Ichiro
Kawasaki in his book12, The Japanese Are Like That, remarked that the entire nation of Japan has
always had less good farm land than all of the mountainous state of Kentucky. And yes, we do
recognize that unlike Kentucky Japan does have the world’s oceans as a food source also. The
oceans and seas are free, and accessible to many less developed nations.
Some less advantaged nations are in dry climates, hindering agriculture. Potential farm
areas of India are dry and dusty. Annually, neighboring Bangladesh is flooded with fresh water
from monsoons and mountainous run-off. That could be changed. The dry plains of the middle
United States and Canada could be fed by a fresh water Hudson Bay, if the bay or parts of it could
be desalinized. (It was once seriously proposed to dam the north end of Hudson Bay from
Southampton Island to Cape Wolstenholme and gradually pump the heavier salt water from the
bottom of the Bay out into the Hudson Strait, thus gradually desalinizing Hudson Bay.) What
would Canada charge for that fresh water? International foresight and cooperation could make
such projects feasible.
Appropriate energy technology can serve the needs of developing nations. Fortunately
many such nations are in areas where winter heating needs may be small. Until recently Japanese
homes had minimal heating. On the African continent hydroelectric power and solar electricity
seem to be rather likely energy sources. The indigenous people supply the labor at a good salary,
the developed world supplies the knowledge, teaching, and technology. Nuclear power should not
be overlooked; there are safe power reactors. The “hub-spoke” arrangement, sometimes called
“nuclear batteries,” holds promise and would seem to be a very sensible way for developing
nations to quickly meet energy needs.13 Radioactive waste remains a solvable problem; this
writer’s preference is for nuclear incineration to much shorter half-lives. With IAEA oversight
reprocessing of spent fuel elements need not be a problem.
Perhaps the greatest danger in our proposition might be the personal avarice of those we are
trying to help, just as it has been dangerous among nations and industries. A major component of
this proposal is to exactly set in place solutions to all the above problems.
Shortly after WWII Senator Vandenberg told Truman that if he expected American
taxpayers to finance a military buildup in the aftermath of the war’s sacrifices he would have "to
scare the hell out of them." A very good job was done, continuing to the present day.
But Eisenhower warned us in his farewell message, “America's leadership depends, not
merely upon our unmatched material progress, riches and military strength, but on how we use our
power in the interests of world peace and human betterment...” “…we have been compelled to
create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions…” “…We annually spend on military
security more than the net income of all United States corporations...”
Eisenhower saw what was coming, “… In the councils of government, we must guard
against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the
military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of displaced power exists and will
persist.” “…We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic
processes.”
Gen Nagaoka’s father in 1945 Hiroshima understood, “Whenever the military grabs
political power, the world becomes a dark, terrifying place.”14
It becomes as simple as this example. There is a choice to be made. Which do you prefer:
$80 billion spent to support U.S.-Japan military activities in Japan, Okinawa, and elsewhere in
Asia, in anticipation of conflict which may never occur, and more billions for the U.S. Space
Command to achieve ‘full spectrum dominance’ and superiority in space weapons; or $80 billion
21
to eliminate the threats of wars in Asia while simultaneously enhancing the lives of destitute,
distressed, and sometimes oppressed people, bringing them much better life opportunities, and
steering $80 billion into peacetime production and services from the Developed world, and fruitful
cooperation with the people and wisdom of Asia?
7 Justification
Does the Developed World and its people have any responsibility for the conditions of
poverty, starvation, slavery, disease, displaced refugees, rights deprivation, and illiteracy, etc., as
they now exist in the former colonial and less developed world, in Africa, in Asia, in Latin
America? Hence, does the Developed World have any unfulfilled moral obligations to the former
colonial world?
Many believe it does. Whether or not you agree, the past half century of Developed World
taxation for military defense purposes, in preparation for a Nuclear WWIII holocaust, clearly
shows that, if the developed world is not militarily or significantly economically threatened, then it
can afford to meet “obligations” to the less developed world. The proposal is for US$330 billion
per year for 20 to 25 years to meet this obligation, while simultaneously ending wars and
alleviating international hostilities and the need for armaments. It is not expected that international
or national conflicts will vanish, but that procedures will be in place, early, for rectification
without resort to murder on the grand scale. Wiser minds, which we must find, can see to that.
There need be no problem with verification or with guarded conversion of fissionable
nuclear material and the chemical, biological and other tools of war; these are solvable human
problems, and not problems of technology. Mankind can make all nuclear weapons unusable
easily within a few years if there is a genuine wish to do so. From the catastrophes at Hiroshima
and Nagasaki some of us have learned it is most imperative that the world verifiably rid itself of all
nuclear weapons. Though some nuclear disarming is underway there still remain the real fears
concerning proliferation, Reliable Replacement Warheads (RRW), nuclear breakouts and
terrorism, and our “new enemies.” The danger continues, as Oppenheimer in 1946 recognized it
would; “nuclear weapons can be very effective.” There still remain at the start of the 21st century
some 30,000 deliverable nuclear warheads.
Oppenheimer’s conjecture represents one certain way for the elimination of international
war for all people of the Earth. It is also probably the only method, for decades or centuries to
come, by which people of the less-developed world, in peace, can become their own masters, can
create the sensible path to their own destinies as so many other nations have. This is not a threat to
the Developed World. Peace with justice is preferable to war, anytime.
If the “STEPS” we have been proposing would be put in place, then violence and warlike
activities throughout the Developing World would only be self-defeating; they would come to an
end. When regions and nations are at peace, they advance. Look! See! It is not by mere
coincidence that the nation of Japan, after its near total destruction in 1945, has in the past 62 years
made astounding advances in all aspects of human activity without killing anyone in a war.
For those Developing nations which repeatedly blame America and international
capitalism for all the ills of the world, all the troubles in their nations, here is their chance to
successfully move into the future without necessarily being sucked up into commitments and
obligations to Developed World Powers, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund.
How many leaders of developing nations are willing to put their people first, rather than their
military? How many will build schools and hospitals, homes and farms, rather than nuclear
22
fortresses and glorious palaces and monuments? Which leaders of the developed AND developing
nations will become immortalized as the ones who led their nation to the “New World,” rather than
as the ones who kept them chained to a past of perpetual wars? When will they awaken to a “new
way of thinking”?
"If a country develops an economic system that is based on how to pay for the war, and if
the amounts of fixed capital investment that are apparent are tied up in armaments, and if
that country is a major exporter of arms, and its industrial fabric is dependent on them,
then it would be in that country's interests to ensure that it always had a market. It is not an
exaggeration to say that it is clearly in the interests of the world’s leading arms exporters
to make sure that there is always a war going on somewhere." — Marilyn Waring15
But there can be a peaceful world with justice for all if both Developed and Developing
nations have the hindsight, foresight and courage to view the world in new ways.
8 Conclusion: World Peace is Possible Now
Nowhere in this essay has World Government been proposed, but perhaps every ten years all
nations should formally renew their pledge to all the world peace goals of the United Nations. One
should reread the first articles of the U.N. Charter. What are its goals to which all have freely
given their signature of obligation?
Oppenheimer’s conjecture leading to this solution of the war problem does not incorporate
revenge, penalties, or punishments for past deeds. But then who is not guilty for some past actions?
What nation has not killed in war, in some questionable wars? What nation has not enslaved or
tortured in times past? Instead of dwelling there, all people start from now and move forward. For
the past 70 years some might refer to this kind of proposal as futuristic. It does direct the World’s
fate toward a future of peace, and suddenly, that future is now.
Oppenheimer’s conjecture: It was impossible to implement in 1946 but is fully realizable
now. I am led to believe that,
The most effective use of military budgets is, not resorting to murderous war,
but the proactive conversion of extant or potential enemies into equal and
cooperative friends, all working for a peaceful world
with justice and fairness for all people and all nations.
We have shown how this can be done.
Our problem is the destiny of humanity on Earth. Understand, our “STEPS” comprise a
“complete procedural package.” Sixty-seven years of small half-hearted efforts perhaps insincere
and self-serving have obviously not worked. Our recommended “STEPS,” with all their
safeguards and assurances, will work; they will withstand any tests, if all the procedures of the
“package” are understood. Checking with the principal authorities who deal with questions of the
fate of humanity will provide assurance that these “STEPS” will work.
The people of the world, especially people of regional conflicts, plead for peace, plead for
an end to the killing, destruction, suffering, and contamination of their lands. Their leaders,
because of greed, ideology, isolated ignorance, and misinterpreted mythology, will not achieve it.
We have shown how it could be done. True peace with justice is not something to be bargained for
over or under the table.
23
Indeed, in 2001, the World Bank and the United Nations have stated the reasonableness of
our suggested plan:
“Afghanistan needs about $9 billion during the next five years to rebuild
after 20 years of war, the United Nations and World Bank have calculated.”16
That is only $1.8 billion per year, only 0.45% of a U.S. Annual $400 billion Military budget. And
half of this cost is to be contributed by all other developed nations. Why was the $9 billion not used
first instead of destruction? By April, 2004, donors had already pledged $8.2 billion. (You see
how easy it might be to get the resources if it means peace. How much will be wasted or stolen by
corruption and greed? Some Afghan regional lords were asking for about $25 billion. Guess how it
would have been spent.)
Should there be any doubts in the minds of people of the earth as to the desires of the
United States for world peace with justice and fairness for all nations, proposal of this plan by the
United States government to the United Nations would put such doubts to rest. It would renew the
faith of many Americans that their own government was not imperialistic.
How altruistic and honest about peace are nations willing to be? For 200 years there has
not been a war between truly democratic nations.
"...man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but usually manages to pick himself up,
walk over or around it, and carry on." ⎯ Winston S. Churchill
“Traveler, there is no path; paths are made by walking.” ⎯ Antonio Machado
“He that will not apply new remedies must expect new evils;
for time is the greatest innovator.” ⎯ Francis Bacon
“Some people see things as they are and ask why;
I dream things that never were and ask why not?” ⎯ Robert Kennedy
"You see things, and you say 'Why?'
But I dream things that never were, and I say 'Why not?' " ⎯ George Bernard Shaw
“The laughter of fools has always been the reward of any man
who comes up with a new thought.” ⎯ Stephen Lister17
Raymond G. Wilson is an Emeritus Associate Professor of Physics at Illinois Wesleyan University. In
addition to teaching about nuclear war issues for 47 years, he has been a somewhat regular visiting scholar to a
Hiroshima University which lost some 330 women students and 20 faculty and staff on August 6, 1945. With Akiko
Wilson he is co-director of the Hiroshima Panorama Project in the United States. Wilson guides an annual workshop,
“Hiroshima and Nagasaki for College Teachers.” He is the author of the 1995 book, “Fourier Series and Optical
Transform Techniques in Contemporary Optics: An Introduction,” John Wiley and Sons.
Opinions expressed in this document are those of only R. G. Wilson, though others may agree.
24
References
1. Masamoto NASU, CHILDREN OF THE PAPER CRANE: The Story of Sadako Sasaki and Her Struggle With the
A-Bomb Disease, translated by Elizabeth Baldwin, Steven Leeper, and Kyoko YOSHIDA;
M.E. Sharpe, Inc., 1991. ISBN 0-87332-715-2
2. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Vol. 56, Mar/Apr, p. 79, 2000.
3. Ruth Leger Sivard, WORLD MILITARY AND SOCIAL EXPENDITURES, 1996, 16th Edition, p.20, World
Priorities, Washington, D.C., 1996. ISBN 0-918281-09-1. (Actually the world's maximum nuclear
arsenal - in terms of total megatonnage - was reached in 1960 when it peaked at about 23,000 megatons
or so. The DOE report RDD-6, "RESTRICTED DATA DECLASSIFICATION DECISIONS 1946 TO
THE PRESENT" lists the 1960 U.S. arsenal at 20,491.17 Megatons. Add to that an estimate of Soviet
and other nation’s megatonnage to get to about 23,000.)
4. Committee to Assess Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation, National Research
Council of the National Academy of Science, Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing
Radiation, BEIR VII PHASE 2, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C. 2006, p.15.
ISBN 0-309-09156-X.
5. Karl Z. Morgan and Ken M. Peterson, THE ANGRY GENIE: One Man’s Walk through the Nuclear Age,
Univ. of Oklahoma Press, Norman, OK, 1999.
6. Gayle Greene, THE WOMAN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH: Alice Stewart and the Secrets of Radiation,
Univ. of Michigan Press, 1999. “Fueled by the wrath of radiologists, her work has been viciously
derided among the medical establishment for more than two decades.” “...have your children,
especially your daughters, read this book.”
7. J. Robert Oppenheimer, “THE INTERNATIONAL CONTROL OF ATOMIC ENERGY,” Bulletin of the
Atomic Scientists, Vol. 1, June, p. 1-5, 1946. Reprinted in THE ATOMIC BOMB, H. W. Wilson Co.,
New York, 1946.
8. Agnes Newton Keith, THREE CAME HOME, Little, Brown and Company, 1947.
9. Center for Defense Information, Feb. 5, 2002. http://www.cdi.org/issues/budget/FY03Dis...ary-pr.cfm
also, Friends Committee on National Legislation, Washington Newsletter, No. 665, April, 2002, p. 2.
10. Philip Morrison and Kostas Tsipis, REASON ENOUGH TO HOPE, MIT Press, 1998.
11. Spencer Weart, NEVER AT WAR—WHY DEMOCRACIES WILL NOT FIGHT ONE ANOTHER,
Yale University Press, 1998.
12. Ichiro Kawasaki, THE JAPANESE ARE LIKE THAT, Charles E. Tuttle Co., 1955.
13. Gerald E. Marsh & George S Stanford, BATTERIES INCLUDED, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists,
Nov/Dec, 2006, p. 19. (More information via the Internet, e.g.,
http://www.fas.org/faspir/2001/v54n5/nuclear.htm)
14. Keiji Nakazawa, from BAREFOOT GEN, Vol. 1, Last Gasp of San Francisco, CA, 2004. ISBN 0867196025
15. Marilyn Waring, Documentary 'Who's Counting', based on her book, COUNTING FOR NOTHING,
University of Toronto Press, 1999.
16. http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/12/...index.html
17. Stephen Lister, EVERYTHING SMELT OF KIPPERS, Peter Davies, London, 1957, p.58
25
Additional Illustration Credits
Fig. 1 Hiroshima: Inside the fire prevention water tank they were burned red, outside they were scorched black.
Drawn by Sagami Ogawa. Code GE15-44, Courtesy of the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum
Curatorial Division. Please do not reproduce without permission.
Fig. 2 From Barefoot Gen. Used by permission from Keiji Nakazawa.
Figs. 3 & 4 Typical examples of what was revealed by the U.S. Government.
Fig. 5 Sadako Sasaki. Some swelling from leukemia is present. Permission from Masahiro Sasaki.
Fig. 6 Hiroshima: The heat of the bomb burned her kimono… Photo: Gon-ichi Kimur...