 Okay, so I'm gonna start off where Dan left off with reference to King's Beyond Vietnam speech in which he laid bare the relationship between US wars abroad and racism and poverty being challenged by the civil rights movement at home. This is a quote, I knew that I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today my own government. In that speech, he also said, quote, I'm convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values we must rapidly begin the shift from a thing-oriented society to a person-oriented society. When machines and computers, profit modems and property rights are considered more important than people the giant triplets of racism, materialism and militarism are incapable of being conquered. And he said, a nation that continues year after year to spend more military, more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death. And I always ask myself, are we dead yet? Last month and just over a week we experienced two shocking US military strikes and an alarming increase in tensions on the Korean Peninsula. Two days after major newspapers reported that a chemical attack had occurred in a village in Syria killing and injuring many civilians the US launched 59 cruise missiles at a Syrian air base the first direct military attack against the government of Syrian President Assad. Despite the fact that there had been no investigation by any international agency that might confirm a chemical weapons attack occurred or who was responsible and in violation of international law this bombing was unquestionably welcomed by most of the mainstream media and democratic leadership in Congress bombing apparently is considered presidential. On April 13th, seemingly out of the blue the US dropped a 22,000 pound bomb on an ISIS or Daesh cave complex in Afghanistan this so-called massive ordinance air blast bomb or MOAB mechanistically called the mother of all bombs was the largest non-nuclear bomb ever used by the United States on the battlefield and I think it should be called the FOAB the father of all bombs what signal was being sent into whom? The next day the National Nuclear Security Administration announced the successful field test of a B61-12 nuclear gravity bomb at the Nevada test site with speculation about a potentially imminent nuclear weapons test and several missile launches by North Korea tensions on the Korean Peninsula have risen to the highest level in decades as US and North Korean officials posit threats and counter threats of preemptive military strikes even hawkish former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta warned, quote we have the potential for a nuclear war that would take millions of lives so I think we have to exercise some care here this isn't the only nuclear flashpoint tensions between the United States slash NATO and Russia have risen to levels not seen since the Cold War with the two nuclear giants confronting each other in Ukraine, Eastern Europe and Syria and an accelerated tempo of military exercises and war games, both conventional and nuclear on both sides the US, the only nation with nuclear weapons deployed on foreign soil is estimated to have 180 nuclear weapons stationed at six NATO bases in Belgium, Germany, Italy the Netherlands and Turkey in June of last year the largest NATO war games in decades were conducted in Poland the exercises came weeks after activating a US missile defense system in Romania and groundbreaking for another missile defense system in Poland Russian President Vladimir Putin warned that there would be, quote action in response to guarantee our security and sure enough in October, Russia moved nuclear capable Iskander missiles into the Kaliningrad territory bordering Poland and Lithuania signaling its response to NATO while at the same time claiming it was a routine exercise Russian officials have previously described the role that the 500 kilometer range Iskander system would play in targeting US missile defense installations in Poland then at the end of January amid concerns about Donald Trump's commitment to NATO 87 US tanks 144 armored vehicles and 3,500 troops took part in a demonstration of NATO firepower in Poland according to General Ben Hodges the commander of the US Army in Europe quote, this is the largest ever US deployment in Poland and it's about deterrence an outright attack by Russia is unlikely but the best way to keep it unlikely is to do what we're doing here today end quote Russia not surprisingly saw the deployment as a quote serious threat according to Putin's spokesperson and former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev warned quote, it looks, it all looks as if the world is preparing for war and as he wrote in Time Magazine quote, more troops, tanks and armored personnel carriers are being brought to Europe NATO, I'm sorry, being brought to Europe NATO and Russian forces and weapons that used to be deployed at a distance are now placed closer to each other as if to shoot point blank now at the moment Donald Trump seems to have a warm and fuzzy view of Chinese President Xi Jinping but at the same time the US is facing off against China in seas where other Asian nations are contesting Chinese territorial claims and just this week the US Navy warship sailed within 12 nautical miles of an artificial island built up by China this so-called freedom of navigation operation is the first such challenge to China under the Trump administration and India and Pakistan remain locked in a nuclear arms race amid mounting diplomatic tensions Derek Johnson, Executive Director of Global Zero has recently stated this this is an unprecedented moment in human history the world has never faced so many nuclear flash points simultaneously from NATO Russia tensions to the Korean Peninsula to South Asia and the South China Sea and Taiwan all of the nuclear arms states are tangled up in conflicts and crises that could catastrophically escalate at any moment, end quote an accidental or intentional military incident could send the world spiraling into a disastrous nuclear confrontation a great danger is that the rulers of one nuclear arms state will miscalculate the interests and fears of another pushing some geopolitical gambit to the point where economic pressures, covert actions low intensity warfare and displays of high tech force escalate into regional or general war and this vulnerability to unintended consequences I think is reminiscent of the circumstances that led to World War I and I'd like to ask Adam about that later while our ability to discern what's actually going on is shrouded in an unprecedented web of intrigue and a blizzard of propaganda there can be no doubt that the dangers of wars among nuclear arms states are growing but I don't want to talk about Donald Trump I want to talk about the continuity in U.S. nuclear weapons and national security policies Trump's ability to launch massive military strikes on a whim while threatening global annihilation within the first 100 days of his presidency was only possible because of the vast military industrial complex he inherited this continuity is exacerbated by Trump's shifting more authority over military operations to the Pentagon on December 22nd 2016 President-elect Donald Trump ominously tweeted quote, the United States must greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability until such time as the world comes to its senses regarding nukes in February of this year President Trump said it would be wonderful a dream would be that no country would have nukes but if countries are going to have nukes we're going to be at the top of the pack his initial budget request signals his administration's intention to prioritize reliance on the nuclear threat so while it's only a small portion of his proposed $54 billion increase in military spending the $1.4 billion budget increase for the Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration which oversees nuclear weapons research and development is a proportionally higher increase at 11% than the 8% increase the Pentagon would get Trump's 2018 budget request for weapons activities under the National Nuclear Security Administration at $10.2 billion quote to meet the administration's requirements to modernize the nation's nuclear weapons stockpile and infrastructure is almost 11% higher than the 2017 level and I want to be very clear that that does not include many, many billions more for delivery systems which are under the Department of Defense so in an increasingly volatile world this is consistent with U.S. national security policy in the post World War II and post Cold War eras despite the dramatically changed geopolitical conditions now if you cast your mind back many of you will remember that during the 1980s fear of nuclear war was by far the most visible issue of concern to the American public in the early 1980s thousands of people rallied and were arrested in nonviolent acts of nonviolent protest yet following the end of the Cold War nuclear weapons and especially U.S. nuclear weapons fell off the public's radar screen meanwhile deeply embedded in the military industrial complex Pentagon planners and scientists at the nuclear weapons labs conjured up new justifications to sustain the nuclear weapons enterprise following the sudden collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 Colin Powell then chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff declared quote, you've got to step aside from the context we've been using for the past 40 years that you base military planning against a specific threat we no longer have the luxury of having a threat to plan for what we plan for is that we're a superpower we are the major player on the world stage with responsibilities and interests around the world in 1997 nearly 10 years after the Cold War ended President Bill Clinton signed Presidential Decision Directive 60 reaffirming the threatened first use of nuclear weapons as the cornerstone of U.S. national security and contemplating the expanded role for nuclear weapons to deter not only nuclear but chemical and biological weapons the Bush Doctrine of Preventive War was a continuation and expansion of programs and policies carried out by every U.S. administration Republican or Democrat since 1945 when President Harry Truman, a Democrat oversaw the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki his soaring rhetoric notwithstanding President Obama left office with the United States poised to spend $1 trillion over the next 30 years to maintain and modernize its nuclear bombs and warheads the submarines, missiles and bombers to deliver them and the infrastructure to sustain the nuclear enterprise indefinitely over the past couple of years the U.S. has conducted a series of drop tests of the newly modified B61-12 gravity bomb at the Tonapa test range in Nevada the Russian Foreign Minister has declared these tests provocative the B61-12 has a selectable yield making it up to four times more powerful than the Hiroshima bomb it has a new tail kit which provides precision guidance this capability along with the selectable yield raises concerns that it could be considered more militarily usable each new bomb will cost more than twice its weight in solid gold 181 B61 bombs slated to become the B61-12s approximately 180 will be deployed at the six NATO bases in Europe Trump's 2018 budget request includes 10.3 billion dollars for 70 F-35 joint strike fighters which will be capable of carrying these bombs Pentagon budget documents show that the F-35A is scheduled to be certified to carry nuclear weapons in fiscal year 2025 and this illustrates the long planning horizons in the military and among the nuclear planners so more than a quarter century since the end of the Cold War nearly 15,000 nuclear weapons most in order of magnitude more powerful than the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs more than 90% held by the U.S. and Russia continue to pose an intolerable threat to humanity and the biosphere recent studies show that a nuclear war involving 100 Hiroshima-sized atomic bombs dropped on cities could produce climate change unprecedented in recorded human history a drop in average surface temperatures depletion of the ozone layer and shortened agricultural growing seasons would lead to massive famine and starvation resulting in as many as 2 billion deaths over the following decade now the good news is I knew you were waiting for good news as that much of the world has come to its senses regarding nuclear weapons in December of last year over vociferous objections by the United States and Russia the United Nations General Assembly voted to hold negotiations in 2017 on a treaty prohibiting nuclear weapons leading to their elimination incredibly here's how President Obama's U.N. Ambassador Robert Wood explained the U.S. objection quote a treaty banning nuclear weapons will not lead to any further reductions because it will not include the states that possess nuclear weapons advocates of a ban treaty say it is open to all but how can a state that relies on nuclear weapons for its security possibly join a negotiation meant to stigmatize and eliminate them he said that on the floor of the United Nations it's available in writing the first week of the negotiations took place at U.N. headquarters in New York the last week of March with 130 countries participating on the opening day Trump's U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Nikki Haley held a press briefing outside the conference hall flanked by nuclear allies including the U.K. and France and claiming to represent almost 40 U.N. member states Haley proudly identifying herself first and foremost as a mom a wife and a daughter who wants to keep her family safe announced that they will be boycotting the negotiations so I am rethinking whether maybe the mother of all bombs isn't so wrong after all a draft treaty was released earlier this week and the ban treaty negotiations will resume on June 15th at United Nations headquarters in New York City it is anticipated that a treaty will be agreed upon by the close of negotiations on July 7th and I do want to mention that the Women's International League for Houston Freedom founded by Jane Adams over 100 years ago is the umbrella organization organizing a women's march to ban the bomb on June 17th in New York with sister marches around the world but how are we to understand the meaning of a treaty prohibiting nuclear weapons leading to their total elimination if no nuclear armed states participate so I want to quote from a statement made by Iran in May to a review concession for the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty this is what Iran said Iran by the way was the first state to renounce nuclear weapons and join the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty in 1970 quote reiterating our full support for negotiating a comprehensive convention on nuclear weapons to prohibit their possession, development, production, acquisition, testing, stockpiling transfer use or threat of use and to provide for their destruction we would like to stress that the ongoing United Nations conference to negotiate a legally binding instrument to prohibit nuclear weapons leading toward their total elimination should be considered a collective protest by a large number of non-nuclear weapons states parties that are frustrated from 47 years of non-compliance of the nuclear weapons states with their nuclear disarmament obligations we hope that this situation would compel nuclear weapons states to come to the conclusion that they cannot remain consistently inconsistent with their nuclear disarmament obligations this indeed is an alarming situation and cannot continue indefinitely that's the end of the Iran quote to realize the full value of a ban treaty we must demand that the nuclear armed states recognize the existing illegality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons under international law protecting civilians and the environment from the effects of warfare the governments of these states must finally act to meet their disarmament obligations under Article 6 of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and customary international law and participate in good faith in the negotiations as unanimously mandated by the International Court of Justice in its 1996 advisory opinion I'm almost done, you can put that down however it's unlikely that much progress will be made on nuclear disarmament until there is a significant trend towards demilitarization in general in 2016 the United States spent $611 billion on its military more than twice as much as China and Russia combined amounting to 36% of world military spending the bottom line is that security must be fundamentally redefined instead of national security the security of the nation's state premised on the threat of overwhelming military force and nuclear annihilation we need a new concept of human security defined by our previous head of the United Nations Development Program as quote the security of people not just of territory the security of individuals not just of nations security through development not through arms security of all the people everywhere in their homes, in their jobs, in their streets in their communities and in their environment this new concept of human security is quote universal, global and indivisible addressing nuclear dangers must take place in a much broader framework taking into account the interface between nuclear and non-nuclear weapons and militarism in general the humanitarian and long-term environmental consequences of nuclear war and the fundamental incompatibility of nuclear weapons with democracy the rule of law and human well-being nuclear disarmament should serve as the leading edge of a global trend towards demilitarization and redirection of military expenditures to meet human needs and protect the environment we must reject the apocalyptic narrative and summon the imaginations of people everywhere to envision a vastly different future there's no inevitability to the course of history and a mobilized citizenry can redirect it toward a positive future progress towards a global society that is more fair, peaceful and ecologically sustainable is interdependent we are unlikely to get far on any of these objectives without progress on all but these are not preconditions for disarmament together with disarmament they are preconditions for human survival in our relationships both with each other and the planet we are now hard up against the choice Dr. King warned about 50 years ago non-violence or non-existence