Reverse the Trend: Save our People, Save our Planet

The United States has 1,373 strategic nuclear warheads deployed on 655 intercontinental ballistic missiles, submarine-launched ballistic missiles, and strategic bombers. The United States also has an estimated 150 B-61 nuclear gravity bombs that are forward-deployed at six NATO bases in five European countries: Aviano and Ghedi in Italy; Büchel in Germany; Incirlik in Turkey; Kleine Brogel in Belgium; and Volkel in the Netherlands. The total estimated U.S. B-61 stockpile amounts to 230. FAS estimates approximately 3,800 stockpiled warheads and 2,000 retired warheads are awaiting dismantlement, for a total of 5,800 warheads as of early 2020.
Russia has 1,326 strategic warheads deployed on 485 intercontinental ballistic missiles, submarine-launched ballistic missiles, and strategic bombers. FAS estimates approximately 4,315 nuclear warheads, including 1,570 deployed offensive strategic warheads (with 870 in storage), 1,875 non-strategic warheads, and 2,060 additional retired warheads awaiting dismantlement, as of January 2020.

Other Nuclear Armed States

While the United States and Russia have the largest nuclear arsenals, several other states, the United Kingdom, China, France, India, Israel Pakistan, and DPRK also have nuclear weapons. These states are threatening the world with their arms.

The United Kingdom has 215 strategic warheads of which an estimated 120 are deployed and 95 are in storage.
China has 320 warheads.
France has 290 warheads.
Nuclear Armed States (not parties to the NPT): India has approximately 150 nuclear warheads, Israel has 90 nuclear warheads, Pakistan has 160 nuclear warheads, and the DPRK (North Korea) has an estimated 30-40 nuclear warheads.

While the worldwide total of nuclear warheads has decreased since the Cold War, modernization of nuclear arsenals has increased drastically. Photos courtesy of Arms Control Association.

Significance: The Nuclear Weapon States are parties to the NPT. Under Article VI, they are committed to nuclear disarmament. While they have reduced their nuclear arsenals, there are still around 14,000 nuclear weapons in the world. The Nuclear Weapon States are still upgrading and maintaining them in blatant violation of Article VI.

Additionally, former President Trump expressed interest in building a new nuclear device. Further, as outlined in the latest US Nuclear Posture Review, the Trump administration indicated that the US may use nuclear weapons in response to non-nuclear attacks, including cyber attacks.

A limited nuclear war of just 100 nuclear weapons can plunge the world into a nuclear winter by filling the stratosphere with smoke. Hunger and starvation will soon follow. It is significant to note that there is no adequate response to a nuclear attack. We must also think about the ramifications about nuclear weapons as there aren't adequate checks and balance in the US Command and Control System. For further information, please see the list of resources in Lesson Plan 1.

Click Here for Lesson Plan 1

Lesson 2: The Economic Costs of Nuclear Weapons

This plan outlines the economic costs of nuclear weapons. Information in this section is based on the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN)'s report entitled "Enough is Enough."

Overview

The nine nuclear armed states spent $72.9 billion on modernizing, maintaining, and developing nuclear weapons in 2019. This means that, on average, $138,699 is spent every minute on maintaining and modernizing nuclear weapons. Global nuclear spending rose $7.1 billion from 2018, in line with total military spending which rose dramatically from 2018 to 2019.

China: $10.4 billion allocated to its nuclear weapons in 2019 (roughly 4 percent of its military expenditures); China spent $19,786 of its military expenditures on nuclear weapons every minute.Additionally, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) estimated that in 2019, China spent $261.082 billion on military expenditures, with $10.4 billion going towards nuclear weapons.

France: $4.8 billion disbursed towards its nuclear weapons in 2019, meaning that France spent $9,132 on its nuclear weapons every minute. ICAN estimated that France allocated 15 percent of its total military budget (€30.249 billion) on nuclear weapons in 2019.

The United Kingdom: $8.9 billion spent on its nuclear weapons in 2019; the UK devoted $16,933 every minute to its nuclear weapons.

A 2018 BASIC report calculated that the annual UK nuclear operating cost is £2 billion. The UK is projected to spend £5.2 billion on its Dreadnought development program from 2018-2019. Costs include: £1.8 billion for the submarines, £1.4 billion for the missiles and warheads, £790 million for propulsion systems, and £220 million for management costs.

United States: $35.4 billion squandered on its nuclear weapons in 2019 ; $67,352 spent on nuclear weapons every minute.

The aforementioned numbers are derived from the Department of Defense and NNSA enacted funding that is allocated to nuclear weapons. The NNSA allocated $11.1 billion in 2019 on weapons activities. Additionally, the US Department of Defense requested $24 billion for nuclear weapons systems in the 2019 fiscal year. This amount includes: "$11 billion for nuclear force sustainment and operations, $7 billion for replacement programs, and $6 billion for nuclear command, control, and communications."

Under the 2019 National Defense Authorization Act, Congress further added $319 million to the Department of Defense. This influx of funding brought the "enacted Defense Department spending on nuclear weapons to $24.3 billion." Adding $11.1 billion to $24.3 billion= $35.4 billion spent on nuclear weapons in the United States. As a result, 5 percent of total U.S. military spending in 2019 was devoted to nuclear weapons.

Russia: Spent $8.5 billion on its nuclear weapons in 2019; $16,172 drained every minute towards itsnuclear weapons.

According to a 2018 SIPRI report, Russia has been allocating 13 percent of its total defense expenditures to the maintenance and development of its nuclear weapons. Consequently, ICAN estimated that Russia spent $8.5 of $65.103 billion (its total defense expenditures for 2019) to its nuclear spending.

India: $2.3 billion spent in 2019; $4,376 spent every minute in 2019 on nuclear weapons.

As highlighted in a 2016 parliamentary report, cited by the Stimson Center, India spent 46% of the Defense Research and Development Organization (DRDO)’s budget on its nuclear-capable delivery systems.

Once converted into USD, the total is $2.3 billion, which was the estimated amount spent for Indian nuclear spending in 2019. This is roughly 3 percent of $71.125 billion (India's military spending)

Pakistan: $1 billion of its military expenditures went towards nuclear weapons; Spent $1,903 on nuclear weapons every minute.

Experts estimated that Pakistan spent around 10 percent of its total military expenditure to its nuclear arsenal. In 2019, Pakistan's total military expenditure was $10.256 billion, with $1 billion going towards nuclear weapons.

Israel: $1 billion spent towards nuclear weapons in 2019, which translates to $1,903 every minute. This estimation is based on the average percentage (5 percent) that the nuclear armed states spend on their nuclear weapons.

The Stockholm Institute of Peace determined that Israel spent $20.465 billion on its military expenditures, 5 percent of its total GDP.

North Korea (DPRK): $620 million

Despite a time of relative peace, global spending on nuclear weapons has been on the rise. This amounts to over 138,699 USD spent each minute. Photo courtesy of ICAN.

The United States has put a disproportionate focus on nuclear weapons spending instead of other central issues such as healthcare. Unfortunately, they are not the only ones with this mindset.

Significance: In the time of COVID-19 especially, we must question why the Nuclear Weapon States have been allocating vast amount of resources towards maintaining and modernizing their nuclear weapons, when those resources could have gone towards supporting healthcare workers and medical care.

Click Here for Lesson Plan 2

Lesson 3: Scientists Concerns with Nuclear Weapons

Key Figures: President Truman, Dr. J. Robert Oppenheimer, Arthur Compton, Ernest Lawerence, Enrico Fermi, Leo Szilard, Edward Teller, Albert Einstein, General Leslie Groves, Marshall, Henry L. Stimson, and James F. Byrnes.

Many individuals are largely unaware that scientists linked to the Manhattan Project questioned the ethics dimensions of using nuclear weapons against Japan. The following lays out the key entities and the sequence of interactions amongst scientists on the moral and ethical aspects of using nuclear weapons.

Interim Committee established in May 1945 by US Secretary of War, Henry L. Stimson. The Interim Committee's official function was “to study and report on the whole problem of temporary war controls and later publicity, and to survey and make recommendations on post war research, development and controls, as well as legislation necessary to effectuate them,” including whether to use the atomic bomb against Japan.

Composition of the Interim Committee: Henry L. Stimson; James F. Byrnes, President Truman's representative; Ralph A. Bard, Under Secretary of the Navy; William L. Clayton, Assistant Secretary of State; Vannevar Bush, Director of the Office of Scientific Research and Development; Karl T. Compton, Chief of the Office of Field Service in the Office of Scientific Research and Development and president of Massachusetts Institute of Technology; James B. Conant, Chair of the National Defense Research Committee and George L. Harrison. All Civilian Committee

Science Panel: J. Robert Oppenheimer, Arthur Compton, Ernest Lawerence, and Enrico Fermi. They were asked to provide recommendations on the immediate use of nuclear weapons. They rejected ethical and moral pleas from their colleagues on using nuclear weapons against Japan.

Franck Report: June 1945; document produced by James Franck and signed by seven nuclear physicists, including Leo Szilard, urging the US not to use the nuclear bomb; main argument: "If the United States would be the first to release this new means of indiscriminate destruction upon mankind, she would sacrifice public support throughout the world, precipitate the race of armaments, and prejudice the possibility of reaching an international agreement on the future control of such weapons." The report recommended a demonstration in an uninhabited area to send a message to Japan. The report was submitted to the Interim Committee, but failed to convince the Interim Committee

From left to right: Niels Bohr, James Franck, Albert Einstein and Isidor I. Rabi. Signed portrait. Photo courtesy of the Atomic Heritage Foundation.

Science Panel's Recommendations from June 16, 1945 Meeting: 1. Inform Britain, Russia, France, and China about progress in our work with nuclear weapons, may be ready to be used, and would welcome cooperation. 2. Panel felt that no technical demonstration can bring an end to the war; "we see no acceptable alternative to direct military use." This opinion was not unanimous.

Szilard Petition: July 1945; written by Szilard and Seabourg; petition was initially circulated at the Chicago Met Lab and Oak Ridge; focused on moral concerns. The petition contended "[nuclear] attacks on Japan could not be justified, at least not until the terms which will be imposed after the war on Japan were made public in detail and Japan were given an opportunity to surrender." The petition further explained that "if Japan still refused to surrender, our nation might [...] resort to the use of atomic bombs. Such a step, however, ought not to be made at any time without seriously considering the moral responsibilities which are involved."

Leo Szilard, key physicist to the beginning of the Manhattan Project, petitioned its usage against Japan. Photo courtesy of the Atomic Heritage Foundation.

Szilard further requested Truman to ponder his obligation of restraint, "If after the war a situation is allowed to develop in the world which permits rival powers to be in uncontrolled possession of these new means of destruction, the cities of the United States as well as the cities of other nations will be in continuous danger of sudden annihilation. All the resources of the United States, moral and material, may have to be mobilized to prevent the advent of such a world situation. Its prevention is at present the solemn responsibility of the United States—singled out by virtue of her lead in the field of atomic power."

Requests to President Truman: 1. United States shall not resort to the use of of atomic bombs, unless the terms which will be imposed upon Japan have been made public, and subsequently ignored by Japan. 2. In such an event, the question whether or not to use atomic bombs be decided by you in the light of the consideration presented in this petition, as well as all the other moral responsibilities which are involved.

Petition Request from Szilard to Edward Teller: Szilard shared the petition with Teller and urged him to obtain signatories at Los Alomos. Szilard felt that nuclear physicists and scientists, who were involved in the Manhattan Project, had a moral obligation to express their concerns. Unfortunately, Oppenheimer convinced Teller not to circulate the petition by informing him that "we as scientists have no business to meddle in political pressure of that kind. We know too little about that." Many years later, Teller regretted that Oppenheimer had persuaded him.

Szilard gave the petition to Arthur Compton who then gave it to Kenneth Nichols, who then handed it to Groves.

How the Truman administration handled it: Groves decided to hold the petition until August 1945. Eventually, Groves sent it to Stimson's assistant, who merely filed it. Groves took this action because he felt that it was inappropriate meddle in the affairs of the state. This type of meddling could erode the Manhattan project's purpose and raise unwanted attention towards the project.

Significance

One must consider the implications linked to Leo Szilard's petition. If President Truman listened to him, then perhaps Japan's surrender could have been secured without nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, the Truman administration chose to ignore the request. This decision started the path towards using nuclear weapons and the subsequent arms race with the Soviet Union.

The aforementioned information about Szilard and his colleagues is important because many students are largely unaware of the attempts from scientists to persuade the Truman administration to reconsider the use of nuclear weapons. This "missing history" should complement any student's textbook or coursework related to the advent of the nuclear age.

Left: President Harry S. Truman, November 1945, photo courtesy of the Naval History and Heritage Command. Right: Szilard Petition document, July 17th, 1945, photo courtesy of the Harry S. Truman Library.

Click Here for Lesson Plan 3

Lesson 4: Uranium Mining and the Trinity Test

Uranium Mining

A worker drills for uranium in Church Rock Mine, New Mexico, 1980. Photo courtesy of the '71 Uranium Workers Committee.

Truman signed the Atomic Energy Act (AEA) in 1946 establishing the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC)
AEC was responsible for the material production of the U.S nuclear weapons program and was later given the responsibility to regulate both military and civilian uses of uranium
The AEC incentivized domestic uranium production and this led to a uranium “rush” in western states such as New Mexico, Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming
Originally the AEA banned the private ownership of milled uranium, this was changed in 1962 as 25 private companies took hold of 27 uranium mills
In 1951, the production of electricity from a nuclear reactor was successful and the first commercial use of nuclear reactor was achieved in 1957 in Pennsylvania.

Photo courtesy of Governing Uranium in the United States, CSIS.

Trinity Test

The world's first nuclear weapon test occurred in 1945 in New Mexico, USA.
The "Gadget" was a plutonium implosive device that was shaped like a large steel globe. This device was similar to the “Fat Man” bomb that was dropped on Nagasaki, however plutonium implosive devices are more dangerous than uranium bombs.
In case of test failure, a large steel container called "Jumbo" was developed to contain the test and would preserve the plutonium.
The successful attempt destroyed the 100 ft tower that the bomb was dropped from and left the area with 10 times more radiation than normal.
The surrounding communities faced many severe health issues such as: birth defects, stillbirth, possible epigenetic changes caused by exposure to radioactive materials, increased rates of cancer and other diseases that caused financial/social stress and death. Genes mutated in victims as a result of radioactive exposure, and caused generational issues including the passing down of new diseases like leukemia, heart disease, and generational psychological trauma of being scared to farm, fish, or hunt as the food sources had been contaminated by fallout.

Photo courtesy of the U.S. Department of Energy

Click Here for Lesson Plan 4

Lesson 5: Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Sept. 8, 1945, in Hiroshima, Japan. An Allied correspondent stands in front of the rubble a month after nuclear bomb was dropped. Photo courtesy of The New York Times.

Glossary

Hiroshima : Hiroshima is the Japanese city located in southwestern part of Honshu. Hiroshima experienced the first atomic bombing at 8:15 a.m. on August 6, 1945.
Nagasaki : Nagasaki is the Japanese city located in the northwestern part of Kyushu, which is itself at the western end of Japan. Nagasaki experienced the second atomic bombing at 11:02 a.m. on August 9, 1945.
Hibakusha : The survivors of the atomic bombs dropped in Japan by the United States in 1945. The Atomic Bomb Survivors Relief Law defines hibakusha as people who fall into one or more of the following categories: ① those who were directly affected by the atomic bomb ② those who entered within two kilometers of the hypocenter within two weeks of the atomic bombing ③ those who were affected by the radiation of the atomic bomb through relief and corpse treatment ④ fetal survivors who were exposed to radiation in their mothers’ womb. This word is also used in a word “global hibakusha”. Global hibakushas includes everyone affected by the production of nuclear weapons, nuclear testing, and accidents.
Nuclear umbrella : To ensure the security of nuclear powers by providing deterrence of nuclear weapons to their allies. About 30 countries, including Japan, are said to be under nuclear umbrella states.
ICAN : International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons
RECNA : Research Center for Nuclear Weapons Abolition, Nagasaki University
ICRC : The archives of the International Committee of the Red Cross

Overview

There are various views around the world about the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 and the possession of nuclear weapons. However, when we discuss these topics, it is necessary to know what hibakushas have experienced and felt thus far.

Significance

The tragedy that the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki brought to people and the community was beyond our imagination. Hibakushas have continued to face the suffering and appealed messages for world peace. We must take that voice seriously.

There are so many nuclear weapons in the world today, we do not know when they will be used due to mis-explosions, accidents, misunderstandings, etc. Moreover, we may be part of creating a situation that nuclear weapons are used. We all have the risk of being new hibakusha, and on the other hand, we are at risk of making others be hibakushas. We should all see it as our own problem.

The large mushroom cloud that lingered over Nagasaki 15 minutes after detonation. Photo by Prisma Bildagentur, courtesy of National Geographic.

Learning what happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki 75 years ago will be important points of view in discussing around the world whether nuclear weapons and humans can coexist.

Click Here for Lesson Plan 5

Lesson 6: Ethics, International Humanitarian Law, and the Immorality of Nuclear Weapons

Glossary

Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT): A landmark international treaty aimed to reduce the spread of nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons technology. This treaty ultimately seeks to further the goal of achieving nuclear disarmament in addition to general and complete disarmament.
Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW): An international treaty that will enter into force on January 22, 2021. This treaty seeks to completely ban nuclear weapons and is the first disarmament treaty to acknowledge the humanitarian and environmental consequences of nuclear weapons.
International Humanitarian Law (IHL): Otherwise known as the law of armed conflict, IHL is the body of law that governs conflict and war. Its main two elements are the principle of distinction and the principle of proportionality. The Principle of distinction is especially important when discussing nuclear weapons because nuclear weapons cannot distinguish between civilians and combatants, which is required by IHL.
Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT): This treaty was developed in order to ban nuclear testing around the globe. It has also been crucial in developing and implementing international monitoring systems around the globe that act as a verification mechanism.

Overview

Since their use at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, there have been numerous treaties negotiated that attempt to regulate and eliminate nuclear weapons. Some of these include the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT, not yet entered into force), and the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW, which enters into force on January 22, 2021). Each of these treaties serves as a mechanism to regulate and ultimately eliminate nuclear weapons. The NPT is often referred to as the cornerstone of the nuclear disarmament machinery. Article 6 of this treaty obligates state parties to "pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament." In addition to the use of nuclear weapons posing humanitarian concerns, they are also cause for ethical and legal concerns.

The laws and treaties surrounding nuclear weapons and nuclear disarmament are significant because they are the only way to legitimately hold states accountable for their actions and they create trust and confidence among states. These treaties also create international norms which are a strong component of international law. However, in recent years there has been a significant amount of erosion to that trust and confidence due to disregard and violations of the international instruments that have been put in place.

In an Advisory Opinion of the ICJ in 1996, they concluded that the "threat or use of force by means of nuclear weapons is contrary to Article 2, paragraph 4, of the Charter of the United Nations" and is therefore unlawful. They also stated that any threat or use of nuclear weapons must be compatible with the requirements under international humanitarian law. International Humanitarian Law (IHL), states that during an armed conflict, use of force must follow the principles of distinction and proportionality. The principle of distinction under IHL means that weapons must be able to distinguish between civilians and combatants. The principle of proportionality means that an attack against State A by State B during an armed conflict must be proportional to the initial attack State A inflicted upon State B (this is under the assumption that State A was acting in self-defense as is the only legal way a state can use force against another).

Nuclear weapons are incapable of following either of these principles and inherently cause unnecessary suffering, which is incompatible with IHL. Nuclear weapons are incapable of distinguishing between combatant and civilians, and furthermore, the use of nuclear weapons in any instance would not follow the principle of proportionality. This is significant because despite the illegality of these weapons under international law, nuclear-armed states continue to modernize and expand their arsenals.

In addition to nuclear weapons being incompatible with International Humanitarian Law, they are also incompatible with Human Rights Law. In paragraph 66 of General Comment No. 361 on the right to life set out in Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the United Nations Human Rights Committee recognized that nuclear weapons are a violation of the right to life that is set out in the Covenant. They stated that the “threat or use of weapons of mass destruction, in particular nuclear weapons, which are indiscriminate in effect and are of a nature to cause destruction of human life on a catastrophic scale, is incompatible with respect for the right to life and may amount to a crime under international law.” This was a significant declaration by the Human Rights Committee because it moved nuclear weapons from purely the disarmament sphere to the human rights sphere, shifting the perspective from one of national security, to one of human security.

On October 24, 2020, the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) received the necessary number of ratifications for it to enter into force. This was an historic moment because it is the first treaty banning production, stockpiling, and use of nuclear weapons. It is also the first treaty to recognize the gendered as well as environmental impacts of nuclear weapons, requiring environmental remediation and victims assistance. This treaty will officially enter into force on January 22, 2021. This treaty will further strengthen the illegality of nuclear weapons in their entirety.

Photo courtesy of the United Nations.

Significance

The existence of these weapons pose challenges ethically, morally and legally. Continuing to emphasize and strengthen the discourse around the illegality of these weapons will put pressure on states to abide by their obligations under the NPT, under international law, and under international humanitarian law. Legal arguments against nuclear weapons are an important mechanism for strengthening humanitarian and ethical arguments against nuclear weapons.

Click Here For Lesson Plan 6

Lesson 7: The Legacy of Nuclear Testing in Algeria

Glossary

Commissariat à l’énergie atomique (CEA): The French Alternative Energies and Atomic Energy Commission or CEA, is a French public government-funded research organization in the areas of energy, defense and security, information technologies and health technologies. General Ailleret directed a project that led to the first French atomic explosion, on March 19, 1960. He was popularized as “The Atomic General".
Algeria: Located in Northern African; French rule over Algeria was formally established during the years of 1830–47; in modern times, the Algerian Independence movement could be traced to "reforms" in 1947 that lead to unequal power distributions between French citizens and Algerians. Tensions escalated as Algerians demanded self-determination and independence in 1954; Front de Libération nationale (FLN) emerged at this time.
Evian accords (18 March 1962): A series of agreements and arrangements that included a treaty between France, Algeria, and the government-in-exile of FLN , which laid the framework for Algeria's independence. They addressed cease-fire arrangements, prisoner releases, the recognition of full sovereignty and the right to self determination of Algeria as well as guarantees of protection, non-discrimination and property rights for all Algerian citizens. It also contained a section on military procedures and withdrawal of French forces.
Evian Accords, Article 4: Relating to military issues, allowed France to use the sites in the Sahara until 1967: "France will use for a period of five years the sites that comprise the installations at Ekker, Reggane, and Colomb-Béchar-Hammaguir.

The majority of information for this section about the nuclear test sites in Algeria is from Radioactivity Under the Sand: The Waste From French Nuclear Tests in Algeria by Jean-Marie Collin and Patrice Bouveret.

Search for a Testsite

Commissariat à l’énergie atomique conducted a search to identify test sites. Some sites considered: The Kerguelen Islands, Clipperton Island or the Tuamoto Archipelago, but these territories were too remote. After several reconnaissance missions in 1957, the Algerian Sahara was selected. The Sahara was chosen for its desert climate and proximity to France as compared to the Paciﬁc.

Part 1: The Hamoudia zone for atmospheric nuclear tests: February 13, 1960 – April 25, 1961

Location: 15km from the east of the Reganne town
12km from the site: facilities: construction camp, swimming pool, military command post from where the launch commands were given, Atomic Energy Agency building, where all information relating to the nuclear experiment was received; the Hamoudia base, which included a power station, but mainly comprised office and technical installations, decontamination facilities and various barracks
Reganne Town: included a runway, a hospital, a water-pumping station (producing 1200 cubic meters a day), administration buildings and accommodation etc.

Location of Reggane, Algeria, photo courtesy of Wikipedia.

Gerboise Bleue, February 13th 1960
Gerboise Bleue was relatively large for a country’s first nuclear test, around four times as powerful as the Hiroshima bomb
Eye-Witness Testimonies:

On December 27, 1960 near Reggane, in southern Algeria, Operation Red Gerboise, the third aerial nuclear test carried out by France. Photo courtesy of ICAN.

1. "I was wearing shorts. We were made to lie face down on the ground, eyes closed and arms folded, and not watch the flash, but immediately afterwards, we had to get up with an apparatus round our necks and measure and photograph the impact." - Michel Verger, participant in the Gerboise Bleue test

2. Testimony by Ahmed el-Hadj Hamadi, an Algerian living near the test site: “I thought it was the apocalypse. We all did,” he said. “We all thought we might die.” Later, the French military began tasking out labor to residents in the isolated desert region of Algeria. “They had built a kind of village at the explosion area, and even put animals in it,” Hamadi added. “After the blast we were sent out to gather all the rubbish. The ground was all burned, white, liquid.”

Environment Impact: 13 days after the Gerboise Bleu, radioactive fallout reached Spanish coast. Hot particles were detected in the air around southwest Sweden
Subsequent tests: Gerboise Blanche, 1 April 1960; Gerboise Rouge, December 27, 1960; Gerboise Verte, April 25, 1961, and Gerboise Verte, April 25, 1961

What happened after the tests?

According to Mohamed Bendjebbar, an engineer officer in charge of dismantling the base at Reggane, French authorities had buried equipment, tooling equipment and mechanical equipment that had been used and was likely to have been contaminated at two sites. The first was ten kilometers to the north-east of the plateau where the site facilities were. The second was five kilometers away from ground zero. As far as the remaining highly radioactive waste was concerned, it had reportedly been placed in concrete bunkers.

Part 2: Underground Nuclear Tests Ekker zone November 7, 1961 – February 16, 1966

Oasis Military Test Centre was the location of 13 underground tests. The centre was located in the Hoggar mountain plateau; situated 150 kilometres north of Tamanrasset, an oasis capital of Tamanrasset Province in southern Algeria, in the Ahaggar Mountains. Chief city of the Algerian Tuareg.
The tests were conducted in a series of tunnels that the French constructed inside the grant massif of the Taourirt Tan Afella. Each test site was horizontally excavated and dug to end in a spiral shape. These areas were known as galleries.
France claimed that the "firing points were sufficiently thick for test containment (several hundred meters on the average." The design was constructed to "ensure" that the radioactivity produced would only "be confined within the mountain at the ground zero point, where the rock would become molten at the time of the firing." The tunnels would be closed by the shock wave before any of the radioactive materials would leak.

Location of Tamanrasset, Algeria. Photo courtesy of Wikipedia.

Part 3: The Berly Accident, 1 May 1962

Arrangement for a tunnel used for nuclear weapon testing. Photo Courtesy of the IAEA

A spiral shaped tunnel was constructed and opened into the firing chamber. The tunnel was meant to be closed off by the shock wave from the nuclear weapon, before the lava could reach the entrance of the main tunnel.
What actually happened is that the shock wave did not cause the tunnel to close. The shape of the tunnel weakened and "dampened the explosion of gasses, dust, and lava produced by the vitrification of the soil." As a result, "5-10 percent of the radioactivity was released through the gallery in the form of projected lava and slag which solidified on the floor of the gallery. The quantity of lava and slag amounted to «around 700 m³ and solidified at the exit from the gallery.
The zone with the highest level of radioactivity represented a surface area of around 2.5 ha. Contamination was fixed in the lava (average thickness of flows 40 cm) and in the blocks of slag.
Nine soldiers of the 621st Groupe d'Armes Spéciales were exposed to as much as 600mSv of radiation. Additionally, as many as 100 personnel were exposed to radiation when the leaked radioactive particulates formed a cloud and passed over a command center.

"Around 12:30, we heard an enormous blast coming from opposite us. At ﬁrst, the immediate sight was very beautiful, the mountain changed color, it was transparent, but suddenly, almost opposite us, towards the right, we saw a ‹plug› that came out accompanied by very black smoke." - Anonymous eye witness account.

Humanitarian Impact: some 10,000 people have suffered disease or material losses because of the tests – including tribes of nomads whose herds could have been exposed for years.

As explained by Hervé Morin, France's Defense Minister from 2007 to 2010, these tests "allowed us [France] to obtain an independent force of dissuasion, guaranteeing the protection of our vital interests and allowing us to be a power respected in the world alongside the other permanent members of the UN Security Council,"

Part 4: Tensions over Victim's Assistance

French law regarding recognition and compensation for victims of nuclear tests or accidents, termed the Morin Law

Adopted in 2010, introduced by Herve Morin
Approved $13.5 million US for the first year's compensation payments- in comparison, the US approved more than $1.38 billion in compensation to victims of nuclear tests since the enactment of the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act in 1990.
Problem: compensation measure corresponds to the official figures by the French governments of those who participated in the nuclear tests. French Ministry of Defense claimed that "150,000 civilians and military took part in the nuclear tests between 13 February 1960 and 27 January 1996, not counting the populations of the Sahara and French Polynesia... With decree no. 2014-1049, dated 15 September 2014, the law now recognizes 23 illnesses instead of just 18."
France warned that only few hundred were likely to be eligible for compensation; case-by-case basis and granted only to those who suffered health problems related to the tests.
No compensation went to the descendants of the victims.
1,598 files (submitted by people in Metropolitan France, French Polynesians and Algerians) were registered between January 5th, 2010 and December 31st, 2019 by the Comité d’indemnisation des victimes des essais nucléaires [Committee for compensation of victims of nuclear testing], otherwise known as CIVEN.
Note: "Out of 1,598 files, only 49 are from people who were residents of Algeria at the time of the tests."

French Refusal to Recognize Organizations Representing Victims.

On January 24th 2020, Algerian demonstrators held signs stating: "The residents of the Sahara are not guinea pigs. No to shale gas. Gang government, you are no different to France and what it did in Reggane."
Victims organizations include: Association 13 février 1960 [13th February 1960 Association] in Reggane, the Association de victimes des essais nucléaires de Taourirt [Association for Victims of Nuclear Testing in Taourirt] and Association algérienne des victimes des essais nucléaires [Algerian Association for Victims of Nuclear Testing].
Demands: "Monitoring post for the sites used in the nuclear tests; Decontamination of the soil and the groundwater; Establishment of a health facility specializing in treating illnesses caused by radiation, close to the affected areas to avoid victims having to travel to Algiers (1,500km away); transfer of the classified defense archives and opening of a memorial centre."
Rejection of the French Law: Many groups recognized it as inadequate.
Waer, chair of the Association in Taourirt, explained that:

"The priority is recognition by France of the status as victims for about 500 workers registered from the region. Since the radioactive and nuclear fallout from the tests [...] spared no one, neither humans, nor fauna, nor flora. Outside Algeria, the whole of North Africa and Sub-Saharan Africa were victims of a nuclear policy, for which France denies both responsibility and the aftermath."

Significance: Getting the issue on the political agenda has been incredibly difficult. Even after sixty years, only one Algerian has officially been recognized as a victim; and thus compensated by the French government. It is high-time for Algeria to ratify the TPNW as it contains significant provisions on victim assistance, environmental remediation, and acknowledges the responsibilities of the user-state.

Click Here For Lesson Plan 7

Lesson 8: The Legacy of Nuclear Testing in the Pacific

US nuclear test on July 26th, 1946 at Bikini Atoll, Micronesia. Photo courtesy to the United States Department of Defense.

Glossary

Marshall Islands: a state in Oceania; the state is part of the larger island group of Micronesia, a sprawling chain of volcanic islands and coral atolls in the central Pacific Ocean between Hawaii and the Philippines. Capital: Majuro. Between 1946 and 1958, US conducted 67 nuclear tests.
COMPACT Agreement with the US: an International agreement establishing and governing the relationships of free association between the United States and the three Pacific Island sovereign states of the Federated States of Micronesia (FSM), the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI), and the Republic of Palau. Contains a series of provisions related to economic assistance and defense and security. Regarding economic assistance, the US provides these states with access to several US domestic programs, including disaster response and recovery and hazard mitigation programs under the Federal Emergency Management Agency, some US Department of Education programs including the Pell Grant, and services provided by the National Weather Service, the United States Postal Service, the Federal Aviation Administration, the Federal Communications Commission, and US representation to the International Frequency Registration Board of the International Telecommunication Union. In terms of defense and security, the COFA allows the United States to operate armed forces in Compact areas and to demand land for operating bases (subject to negotiation), and excludes the militaries of other countries without US permission. Under the terms of the COFA, the US becomes responsible for protecting its affiliate countries and administering all international defense treaties and affairs, though it may not declare war on their behalf.
Ronald Reagan Ballistic Missile Defense Site: commonly referred to as the Reagan Test Site (formerly Kwajalein Missile Range), is a missile test range in Marshall Islands. It covers about 750,000 square miles (1,900,000 km2) and includes rocket launch sites at the Kwajalein Atoll (on multiple islands), Wake Island, and Aur Atoll. It primarily functions as a test facility for U.S. missile defense and space research programs. The Reagan Test Site is under the command of the US Army Kwajalein Atoll, or USAKA.
Bikini Atoll: a coral reef in the Marshall Islands consisting of 23 islands surrounding a 229.4-square-mile central lagoon. After the Second World War, the atoll's inhabitants were removed from their ancestral lands in 1946, after which the islands and lagoon were the site of 23 nuclear tests by the United States until 1958.
Enewetak Atoll: located in the North Pacific 11°30′N 162°20′E. It is a large coral atoll of 40 islands in the Pacific Ocean. With a land area total less than 5.85 square kilometres (2.26 sq mi), it is no higher than 5 meters (16.4 ft) and surrounds a deep central lagoon, 80 kilometres (50 mi) in circumference. It was held by the Japanese from 1914 until its capture by the United States in February 1944, during World War II. The atoll experienced 44 nuclear tests.
Runit Dome: a concrete dome that is known as "the coffin". in 1977, US built it to contain radioactive waste caused by the nuclear tests. It has been cracking. US refuses to recognize the structural problems of the dome.
Kiribati: located in the Central Pacific Ocean at 1°28′N 173°2′E. Kiribati gained its independence from the United Kingdom, becoming a sovereign state in 1979. The capital, South Tarawa, now the most populated area, consists of a number of islets, connected by a series of causeways.
Kiritimati (Christmas) Island: has the greatest land area of any coral atoll in the world, about 388 square kilometres (150 square miles). The atoll is about 150 km (93 mi) in perimeter, while the lagoon shoreline extends for over 48 km (30 mi). Kiritimati comprises over 70% of the total land area of Kiribati. It lies 232 km (144 mi) north of the Equator, 2,160 km (1,340 mi) south of Honolulu, and 5,360 km (3,330 mi) from San Francisco. Served as a test-site for both UK and US in late 1950s and early 1960s
French Polynesia: an overseas collectivity of France, comprises more than 100 islands in the South Pacific, stretching for more than 2,000km. Divided into the Austral, Gambier, Marquesas, Society and Tuamotu archipelagos. Capital: Papeete 17°34′S 149°36′W.
Tahiti: the largest and one of the most popular french Polynesia islands. It is divided into Tahiti Nui (the larger, western section) and Tahiti Iti (the eastern peninsula). Coordinates 17°40′S 149°25′W
Mururoa: also known as Aopuni. It is an atoll which forms part of the Tuamotu Archipelago in French Polynesia in the southern Pacific Ocean. It is ocated about 1,250 kilometres southeast of Tahiti. Coordinates 21°50′S 138°50′W
Fangataufa: a small, low, narrow, coral atoll in the eastern side of the Tuamotu Archipelago. Coordinates 22°15′S 138°45′W
Mururoa and Fangatafua were the sites of 193 nuclear tests by the French.
Australia: the largest state located in the Oceania. Capital: Canberra; Coordinates 35°18′29″S 149°07′28.″ Australia's uranium has been mined since 1954, and three mines are currently operating. Australia's known uranium resources are the world's largest – almost one-third of the world total. In 2019, Australia produced 7798 tonnes of U3O8 (6612 tU). It is the world's third-ranking producer, behind Kazakhstan and Canada. All production is exported. Uranium comprises about one-quarter of energy exports.
Montebello Islands: an archipelago in Australia of around 174 small islands lying 20 kilometers north of Barrow Island and 130 kilometers off the Pilbara coast of north-western Australia. Montebello is Italian for "beautiful mountain." The islands were the site of three nuclear weapons tests by the British military in the 1950s.
Maralinga: located in the remote western area of South Australia. It is the home of the Maralinga Tjarutja, a southern Pitjantjatjara people, an Aboriginal Australian people. Between 1956 and 1963, the UK detonated seven atomic bombs in this area.

Legacy of Nuclear Testing in the Marshall Islands

The Marshall Islands, photo courtesy of the Associated Press

Overview

In February 1944, U.S. Marine and Army forces defeated Japanese troops on both the Kwajalein and Enewetak atolls.
Both atolls were then turned into U.S. military bases. Due to the remote location, sparse population, and other nearby U.S. military bases, the U.S. planned to test powerful nuclear weapons in the Marshall Islands.
In 1947, the Marshall Islands became part of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, created by the United Nations and then administered by the U.S. In 1946, the islands had a population of 52,000.
Between 1946 and 1958, the US conducted 67 nuclear tests in the Marshall Islands
UN Trusteeship Resolutions 1082 and 1493, adopted in 1954 and 1956, explicitly authorized nuclear testing in the Marshall Islands; the only incidents in which the UN authorized such acts against humanity.

Nuclear Tests

Operation Crossroads: Baker, colorized photo courtesy of National Nuclear Security Administration/Nevada Field Office.

Operation Crossroads was a series of nuclear weapons tests conducted by the United States at Bikini Atoll in the Marshall Islands in 1946.
The purpose of the operation, which included two shots, ABLE and BAKER, was to investigate the effect of nuclear weapons on naval warships.
The tests were organized by a joint Army/Navy Task Force and were headed by Vice Admiral William H.P. Blandy.
The target fleet consisted of older U.S. warships and submarines, three captured German and Japanese ships, and other surplus auxiliary and amphibious vessels.
Some of the ships were loaded with live animals, such as pigs and rats, to study the effects of the nuclear blast and radioactive fallout on animals.
ABLE: The first test, occurred on July 1, 1946 when an implosion-type atomic bomb (named Gilda) was dropped from a B-29 and detonated over the target fleet at an altitude of 520 feet with a yield of 23 kilotons.
BAKER: occurred at 8:35 AM local time on July 25, 1946, when an implosion-type bomb, suspended 90 feet underwater, exploded with a yield of 23 kilotons.
The BAKER shot was the first underwater test of an atomic device, and the explosion produced so many unusual phenomena that a conference was held two months later to define new terms for use in descriptions and analysis.
The underwater fireball generated by the blast took the form of a rapidly expanding hot gas bubble, which reached the sea floor and the sea surface simultaneously.
The result created a shallow crater on the seafloor 30 feet deep and nearly 2,000 feet wide.
At the top, water burst through the surface like a geyser, creating a massive "spray dome" containing nearly two million tons of water.
The expanding dome stretched into a hollow chimney of spray called the "column," 6000 feet tall and 2000 feet wide with walls 300 feet thick.
The Arkansas was the closest ship to the blast and was lifted upwards by the rising water column. At 562 feet long (more than three times as long as the water is deep) and weighing 27,000 tonnes, the Arkansas was bow-pinned to the seafloor and toppled backward into the water curtain of the spray column.
The spray generated by the blast coated the surrounding ships with radioactivity and the target fleet remained too contaminated with radiation for several weeks for more than brief on-board activities.
Operation Crossroads was terminated on August 10, 1946 due to radiation safety concerns.

Impact of Operation Crossroads

Army Colonel Dr. Stafford Warren, Chief of the Medical Section during the Manhattan Project, concluded that the effort to decontaminate the target vessels for a scheduled third test, CHARLIE, was futile and dangerous.
The unprotected sailors tasked with decontaminating the ships' were stirring up radioactive material and contaminating their skin, clothing, and lungs. As a result, Warren demanded an immediate halt to the entire cleanup operation. He was especially concerned about plutonium, which could not be detected by Geiger counters.
Between Operation Crossroads and subsequent tests, the U.S. conducted a total of 23 nuclear detonations at Bikini between 1946 and 1958.
Residents were allowed to return in the early, 1970s, but were evacuated in 1978 due to residual high levels of radiation.
In 1997, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) declared that islands in Bikini Atoll “should not be permanently resettled under the present radiological conditions.”
The Bikini tests also inspired the eponymous swimsuit. Paris Swimwear designer Louis Reard adopted "Bikini" for his new line of swimwear during Operation Crossroads. Réard's bikini was not the first two-piece swimsuit, but he explained that "like the bomb, the bikini is small and devastating."

Operation Greenhouse and Ivy

Operation Ivy, photo courtesy of Atomic Heritage Foundation.

In January 1950, President Truman decided to increase U.S. research into thermonuclear weapons, which led to additional nuclear tests in the Marshall Islands. Operation Greenhouse was a series of nuclear tests conducted at Enewetak Atoll in 1951. These tests led to the development of the hydrogen bomb. Additionally, in November of 1952, U.S. conducted its first series of thermonuclear tests, Operation Ivy, at Enewetak Atoll. Under this operation, the two tests were Shot Mike and King Shot.

Operation Castle: series of high yield thermonuclear weapon design tests.

Castle Bravo, photo courtesy of Atomic Heritage Foundation.

Castle Bravo: March 1, 1954. Location: Artificial island on reef 2950 ft off Nam ("Charlie") Island, Bikini Atoll, Test Height and Type: Surface burst (7 feet above surface), and Yield: 15 Mt.
Bravo was over 1,000 more times powerful than “Little Boy.
Device called “Shrimp” which used lithium deuteride as fuel
The test was more powerful than scientists predicted.
Ocean currents, weather conditions, and wind patterns contributed to the spread of fallout and debris.
The fallout included pulverized coral, water, and radioactive particles. It fell into the atmosphere appearing as ashy snowflakes.
Traces of radioactive material can be found in the atolls of the Marshall Islands, parts of Japan, India, Australia, Europe, and the United States.
The worst radiological disaster in U.S. history, and caused worldwide backlash against atmospheric nuclear testing.
Testimony of H.E. Tony deBrum, former Minister of Foreign Affairs, about Bravo:

H.E. Tony deBrum of the Marshall Islands

"When I was nine years old, I remember well the 1954 Bravo shot at Bikini atoll- the largest detonation the world had ever seen, 1000 times the power the Hiroshima blast. It was the morning, and Was fishing with my grandfather. He was throwing the net and suddenly the silent bright flash- and then a force, the shock wave. Everything turned red- the ocean, the fish, the sky, and my grandfather's net. And we were 200 miles away from ground zero. A memory that can never be erased."

Additional Tests under this operation:
Castle Romeo, March 26, 1954 (GMT), Location: On barge in Bravo crater, Bikini Atoll, Test Height and Type: Barge shot (14 feet above surface), and Yield:11 Mt
Castle Koon, April 6, 1954 (GMT), Location: Eninman Island, Bikini Atoll, Test Height and Type: Surface burst (9.6 feet above surface), and Yield: 110 kt
Castle Union, April 25, 1954 (GMT), Location: On barge, Bikini Atoll,
Test Height and Type: Barge shot (13 feet above surface), and Yield: 6.9 Mt
Castle Yankee, May 4, 1954 (GMT), Location: On barge, Bikini Atoll, Test Height and Type: Barge shot (14 feet above surface), Yield: 13.5 Mt
Castle Nectar, May 13, 1954 (GMT), Location: On barge, Bikini Atoll,T est Height and Type: Barge shot (14 feet above surface), and Yield: 1.69 Mt

Displacement of the Marshallese

Bikini people leaving the Island in 1946. Photo courtesy to the United States Military.

In 1946, Navy Commodore Ben Wyatt met with 167 Marshallese living on Bikini Atoll.
Wyatt requested the Marshallese to relocate, and for use of their atoll “for the good of mankind.” He informed them that they were the "chosen people and that perfecting atomic weapons could prevent future wars."
Following his statement to the Marshallese, the US began the process of relocating the Marshallese living on Bikini Atoll to Rongerik Atoll, an uninhabited island with limited resources, 125 miles away. Residents of Bikini Atoll resettled in 1969, but then evacuated in 1978, after radiation levels were determined to be excessive.
By the 1960s, with assurances that conditions were safe, the US announced plans to return Bikini people to their home islands. In 1972, people began to move back to a “rehabilitated” island. By 1975, alarming levels of plutonium were found present in urine samples from Bikini people. However, after several more years of tests and findings of high-levels of strontium, cesium and other isotopes in the water, environment, food chain and peoples' bodies, Bikini was again evacuated.
In 1985, scientists determined that the levels of contamination in the Rongelap Atoll were comparable to Bikini atoll. Thus, the citizens of Rongelap were forced to evacuate their atoll. They received no assistance or support from the US.

Health effects from the fallout and pleas from the Marshallese

Fallout Pattern of Bravo, Photo featured by Atomic Heritage Foundation.

Senator Jeton Anjain (1933-1993) engaged himself in a steadfast struggle against the United States nuclear policy in support of Rongelap island’s inhabitant. Photo featured by The Right Livelihood Foundation.

Many Marshallese were unaware about the health impact of the nuclear tests. As explained by the former Senator Jeton Anjain, "Five hours after detonation, it began to rain radioactive fallout at Rongelap. The atoll was covered with a fine, white, powder- like substance. No one knew it was radioactive fallout. The children played in the ‘snow.’ They ate it."

Lijon Eknilang born Rongelap, Marshall Islands March 1, 1946 (d. 2012). International advocate against nuclear weapons; victim of hydrogen bomb testing. Photo courtesy of Women in Peace.

In November 1995, Marshall Islander Lijon Eknilang appeared before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague. She provided a first-hand account about the effects of nuclear testing and pleaded with the judges that they "can not allow the suffering that we Marshallese have experienced to be repeated in any other community in the world. While no government or other organization can fully restore the health of the Marshallese people or our environment, steps can be taken which will make it less likely that the same kinds of horrors will be experienced again." (November 14, 1995).

As part of her testimony, she discussed the birth defects linked to the nuclear testing. Specifically, she shared:

"Women have experienced many reproductive cancers and abnormal births … In privacy, they give birth, not to children as we like to think of them, but to things we could only describe as ‘octopuses,’ ‘apples,’ [and] ‘turtles,’ ” Lijon said, who herself has had seven miscarriages and no live births. “The most common birth defects … have been ‘jellyfish’ babies. These babies are born with no bones in their bodies and with transparent skin,” she continued. “Many women die from abnormal pregnancies, and those who survive give birth to what looks like purple grapes, which we quickly hide away and bury."

In 2005, the National Cancer Institute reported that that the risk of contracting cancer for those exposed to fallout was greater than one in three.
In 2010, the National Cancer Institute reported, “As much as 1.6% of all cancers among those residents of the Marshall Islands alive between 1948 and 1970 might be attributable to radiation exposures resulting from nuclear testing fallout.” They also suggested that up to 55% of all cancers in the northern atolls are a result of nuclear fallout. They concluded that this was a result of the Castle Bravo test.

Environmental Impact

The Washington Post reported that “the second of 67 American nuclear tests conducted in the Marshall Islands blew 2 million tons of lagoon a mile into the sky at Bikini Atoll in 1946. Nearly 70 years later, strong tides blamed on climate change are exhuming graves in the capital of Majuro” (Washington Post).
Even 61 years after, Tony deBrum gets “chicken skin” when sharing his memories of the largest American nuclear-weapons test — the biblical, 15-megaton detonation on Bikini Atoll, 280 miles northwest of his island. Its flash was also seen from Okinawa, 2,600 miles away. Its radioactive fallout was later detected in cattle in Tennessee.
The Bravo crater in the atoll reef had a diameter of 6510 ft, with a depth of 250 ft. Within one minute the mushroom cloud had reached 50,000 feet (15 km), breaking 100,000 feet (30 km) two minutes later. The cloud top rose and peaked at 130,000 feet (almost 40 km) after only six minutes. Eight minutes after the test the cloud had reached its full dimensions with a diameter of 100 km, a stem 7 km thick, and a cloud bottom rising above 55,000 feet (Nuclear Weapon Archive).
The majority of fallout was placed in the Runit Dome, which will be discussed in a subsequent section.

US's Inadequate Response

In the 1970s, the U.S. attempted to clean Enewetak Atoll. Following the U.S. attempts, the majority of the Marshallese voted to establish a new political relationship with the U.S. The Marshall Islands became the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI) in 1979.
In 1986, the U.S. and the RMI signed the Compact of Free Association. In addition to the visa waiver and defense agreement, the Compact stipulates the provisions linked to the medical care for the remaining Marshallese directly affected by the Castle Bravo test. The US only recognizes the atolls of Bikini, Enewetak, Utirik, and Rongelap as being affected by the contamination. The U.S. also narrowed its perspectives on victims to only include those Marshallese who were present during the testing period.
Problems: This narrow view about victims disregards the 1. long lasting effects of radiation, 2. the frequent movement of the Marshallese between various atolls, and 3. those who did not live on the Marshall Islands during the testing period, who were affected.
Compact also established the Marshall Islands Nuclear Claims Tribunal, which provides compensation for victims who developed cancers and other serious health effects, including burns and birth defects.
U.S. established a $150 million compensation trust fund for those affected. This included individual trust funds for Bikini, Enewetak, Rongelap, and Utirik.
However, the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation and many others have found the COMPACT's provisions to be inadequate. At the 21st Session of the UN Human Rights Council, NAPF contended that due to the U.S. response, the Republic of the Marshall Islands has been unable to "uphold the indigenous people’s human rights related to environmentally sound management and disposal of hazardous substances and waste. These rights include the 1. Right to adequate health and life, 2. Right to adequate food and nutrition, 3. Right to safe drinking water and adequate sanitation, and the 4. Right to the enjoyment of a safe, clean and healthy sustainable environment."
NAPF recommended that the U.S. must be willing to work with the Republic to the Marshall Islands to develop long term strategic measures to address the effects of the nuclear testing program. Unfortunately, the U.S. has yet to show such a willingness to engage in long term strategic measures. Thus, the Marshall Islands should support the TPNW and its provisions on victim assistance, environmental remediation, and the user obligations.

Activists

There are several additional incredible activists from the Marshall Islands. These include: Abacca Anjain-Maddison, Kathy Jetnil-Kijiner, and Selina Leem. Additionally, the Marshallese Educational Initiative and K=1 Project, Center for Nuclear Studies at Columbia University are at the forefront in collaborating and conducting research about the Runit Dome and the drier environmental situation.

Left, Kathy Jetnil-Kijiner. Middle, Abacca Anjain-Maddison. Right, Selina Leem.

Perspectives from Youth: Selina N. Leem

In 2020, Selina N. Leem, a Marshallese youth activist, shared her views about the humanitarian and environmental impact of nuclear testing. The full statement can be found here. The following is an excerpt from her statement:

"The US only recognizes four of our islands as being contaminated from nuclear tests: Enewetak, Rongelap, Utrik, Bikini. Take the first letter of each name and you get ERUB- the Marshallese word for broken, destroyed. My people, our islands were sacrificed for ‘the good of mankind and to end all world wars.’ 75 years have passed, and I have failed to see that accomplished. It WAS NOT for the end of the world my people left, it was for all of you, myself, and my generation and the future generations after me.”

Selina further shared "we simply cannot wait for certain states to create an environment for nuclear disarmament. Ne reba kon malon, konej malon? If they tell you to drown, are you to follow suit?" She concluded her remarks by expressing her strong views on the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.

Legacy of Nuclear Testing in Kiribati

Onotoa Atoll from the East, from an airplane midway from Tabiteuea and Arorae atolls, Gilbert Islands, Republic of Kiribati, Central Pacific. Photo courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.

Kiritimati (Christmas) Island

Historical Context

About 20,000 British servicemen, 524 New Zealand soldiers and 300 Fijian soldiers were deployed to “Christmas Island” from 1956 to 1962

Operation Grapple

Grapple X, Photo from The Telegraph, and Grapple Y shot from "Britain's Nuclear Weapons Program". Atomic Forum. Archived from the original on August 16, 2006.

Between May 1957 and September 1958, the British government tested nine thermonuclear weapons on Kiritimati for Operation Grapple.
Grapple X detonated over Christmas Island, at around one kilometer above ground. The two-staged design brought about a hydrogen reaction yielding 1.8 megatons.
The weapons engineers underestimated the yield by 80%. The shock wave was greater than expected, which demolished buildings and infrastructure
Grapple Y yielded a massive 3 megatons – the largest nuclear test ever conducted by the UK.

Witnessed by Ron Watson former Royal Engineer and now treasurer of the British Nuclear Tests Veterans Association, "I had my back to the explosion. My eyes closed with my hands covering them. I clearly saw the bones in my hand, just like you see them if you look at the results of an X-ray."

Ron Watson, photo courtesy of Sunday Mirror.

Operation Dominic

Operation Dominic, photo courtesy of the Nuclear Weapons Archive.

In 1962, the UK cooperated with the US on Operation Dominic, which consisted of 36 tests. The test series was scheduled quickly, in order to respond in kind to the Soviet resumption of testing after the 1958–1961 test moratorium.
The majority of the tests (29 airdrops) were weapons development tests, intended to evaluate advanced designs. Two tests of operational weapon systems were conducted - the Polaris submarine launched ballistic missile and the ASROC anti-submarine rocket.
Operational command centers were located at Christmas Island and Johnston Island.
Operation Dominic regularly lit up the sky above the Pacific Ocean with nuclear yields up to 700 times the size that destroyed Hiroshima.
The tests:
Adobe: Time: 15:45 April 25, 1962 (GMT), Location: Christmas Island, Test Height and Type: B-52 Airdrop, 2,900 Feet, and Yield: 190 kt. The mushroom cloud rose to about 60,000 ft
Aztec: Time: 16:01 April 27, 1962 (GMT), Location: 10 Mi. S of Christmas Island Test Height and Type: B-52 Airdrop, 2,610 Feet, and Yield: 410 kt. The mushroom cloud rose to about 60,000 ft.
Arkansas: Time: 18:00.00.16 27 April 1962 (GMT), Location: Christmas Island, Test Height and Type: B-52 Airdrop, 5,030 Feet, and Yield: 1090 k. First parachute-retarded device to be dropped at Christmas Island, it missed its intended air zero point by 600ft.
Frigate Bird: Time: 23:30 May 6, 1962 (GMT), Location: Johnston Island, Test Height and Type: SLBM Airburst; 11,000 Feet, Yield: 600 kt
"Frigate Bird was the only US test of an operational ballistic missile with a live warhead. This test involved firing a Polaris A1 missile from a ballistic missile submarine. The missile was launched by the USS Ethan Allen (SSBN-608) at 13:18 (local) from a position 1500 nm east-northeast of Christmas Island. The re-entry vehicle (RV) and warhead flew 1020 nm downrange toward Christmas Island before re-entering the atmosphere 12.5 minutes later, and detonating in an airburst at 11,000 feet."
Please note, Johnston Island was the site of Operation Fishbowl. As explained by the US air force, Operation Fishbowl consisted of five missile launches designed to detonate in space nuclear weapons with yields running from a very low kiloton rating to more than 1,000 kt. These tests sought to provide data on the effects of nuclear detonations as defensive weapons against incoming re-entry vehicles." Experienced several setbacks - at one point, "vehicle and weapon blew up on the launchpad, contaminating the area with radioactive material."
More information about the nuclear tests is available here
John Lax, Veteran of Operation Dominic and Secretary of the British Nuclear Test Veterans Association, stated that: "we were issued with a radiation film badge (a device used for measuring radiation dose) and some very dark goggles and these were the extent of our safety equipment."

Lax further explained that "when a test was taking place, we were instructed to put on long trousers, a long sleeve shirt and, wearing the goggles, sit on the football pitch with our backs to the blast. This was only enforced for the first two or three bombs, after that we just stayed in bed and turned away from the blast."

Humanitarian Impact and British treatment of the Kiritimati Communities

Flying over Kiritimati in 1956. Photo courtesy of Dennis Hobbs.

Throughout the tests, the indigenous communities were not evacuated from Kiritimati communities. Thus, they experienced severe health problems that were linked to contamination.

The following section contains excerpts between Dr. Becky Alexis-Martin and members of the Kiritimati communities who she interviewed for her article entitled "The atomic history of Kiritimati – a tiny island where humanity realised its most lethal potential."

Philomena Lawrence, an Islander from Kiritimati shared that “there was little understanding of harmful effects. The islanders were taken to a boat to watch a Disney film to distract them during one test and how they were also told to gather on a tennis court covered by a tarpaulin for another. “The locals were terrified,” she added.. She described how she knew of two women who were born with birth defects after the tests, and how their father, Tonga Fou, who died in 2009, had worked with the British as an unrecognised nuclear test veteran. Tonga Fou had recorded data from the tests in red notebooks. “He shared the notebooks with his grandchildren like a bedtime story."

Taabui Teatata, 11 years old at the time of the testing. She explained that "her community was unexpectedly moved at midnight by a military commander beforehand. She was frightened, but remembers the army commander who moved her and her family telling her: “Don’t worry, you’re safe – this is the British military.” She "was loaded onto a ship and taken offshore before the tests, and being too frightened to talk. It was very crowded, it was meant for cargo and there was no room for children like me to play. There was no space, we were treated like animals."

Kuburenga Iotebwa, the oldest person who was interviewed, moved to Kiritimati with her husband from another island before the tests. "She vividly recalled being corralled under a tarpaulin on a tennis court with many others during one early test. She developed sight and hearing impairments shortly afterwards. She mentioned to the researcher that "you would get food poisoning, even drinking from fresh coconut. All fish except shark gave us cramps … We were given some medicine from the soldiers."

Buburenga Iotebwa, photo courtesy of B.Alexis-Martin, 2018

Humanitarian Impact Amongst the British Nuclear Test Veterans

Photos of nuclear test veteran life, photo courtesy of B.Alexis-Martin.

The situation for the British soldiers were also dire. As Terry Quinlan explained "we had no protective clothing, I wasn’t even issued a pair of sunglasses. We were just told to assemble, sit down and to put our fists in our eyes. The officers were not with us, they had protective clothing and bunkers elsewhere. We were sworn to secrecy for life, and told that we must not discuss it with anyone. We received no medical examination when we left the island in 1962."

While witnessing a nuclear test, Terry shared that several soldiers and him "were pushed along the beach by the blast and people’s backs were scorched. I was hit by something, I thought it was a bit of coral or something. Years later in hospital, I discovered that it was a foreign body. The doctors discovered a piece of shrapnel from the blast in my chest."

In addition, genetic disorders occurred in the children of the soldiers. For instance, a British citizen, whose father was in Kiribati, experienced severe medical problems including chronic migraine, thyroid issues, nerve damage, bowel and bladder issues and Grave’s disease and depression, and fertility problems. She shared with Becky Alexis-Martin that "I truly believe that I have these health issues because my father was at the nuclear weapon tests."

For decades, the UK has refused to recognize and provide compensation to their soldiers. As explained by John Lax, "‘The British Government, who sent me to Christmas Island, has been reluctant to recognise our service there and the veterans who have suffered as a result." Consequently, veterans formed the British Nuclear Test Veterans Association (BNTVA). BNTVA is campaigning for medals for nuclear test veterans, to try to help them to gain state recognition. BNTVA’s mandate expanded to include support for the indigenous communities, which have been affected by tests.

Ron Watson and another veteran Robert McCann proudly hold their standard in front of a mural of Kiritimati Island, photo courtesy of B.Alexis-Martin, 2018

Lawsuit: In 2009, a group of veterans won a High Court case, which allowed them to sue the MoD. In response, the MoD argued that "too much time had passed and the claim was excluded under limitations regulations." The case ended up in the Supreme Court in 2012, where the court ruled in favor of the MoD.

It should be noted that in stark contrast to the UK, Fiji gave US$4,788 to each Fijian solider who was stationed in Kirimati during the nuclear tests.

H.E. Ambassador Teburoro Tito of Kiribati to the UN and US, photo featured on All Gov.

Due to the legacy of nuclear testing in Kiribati, Ambassador Teburoro Titi has dedicated his life to creating a world free of nuclear weapons. He chaired an important event on New Horizons on Victim Assistance and Environmental Remediation: The Positive Obligations of the TPNW.

Legacy of Nuclear Testing in French Polynesia

20 years since the last nuclear test, the French Polynesia atoll of Mururoa is still largely uninhabitable. Photo courtesy of Radio New Zealand.

Historical Context

Primarily occurred on Mururoa and Fangataufa
Est. 193 to 198 nuclear tests (41–44 atmospheric and approx. 154 underground tests); about 5,000 people lived within a 1,000 kilometer radius of the nuclear test site
Mangareva and Tureia, 100 km away, most severely affected by fallout and evacuated in 1968.
Many tests were conducted on floating barges.

Situation for those stationed on Mururoa

The troops, who were stationed on Mururoa, were not given adequate protection. For instance, one of veteran, who witnessed the nuclear tests, stated that "he was stationed in shorts and a T-shirt on a boat only about 15 miles from the explosion before having to sail immediately to the area of the vast mushroom cloud to examine the damage."

Nuclear Tests and Environmental Impact

July 1966, a nuclear bomb broke apart on the surface of Moruroa. This accident dispersed a significant amount of plutonium-239.
September 1966, 120 kiloton bomb was detonated in Mururoa. The radioactive fallout covered the island of Samoa and increased background radioactivity by a factor of 1,850, from 0.2 GBq/km² to 370 GBq/km².
July 1974, Centaur nuclear test dumped 500 times the maximum level of plutonium fallout on Tahiti, 1,250 kilometers away from the test site.
July 1979, 120 kiloton nuclear detonation created an underwater landslide on Moruroa. This accident released high amounts of radioactivity into the ocean and triggered a tsunami, which caused havoc on many islands on the archipelago.
Spring of 1981, cyclones hit Moruroa, washing radioactive waste into the ocean, including much of the plutonium released in 1966.

Fangataufa Site of 'CANOPUS' Test

August 24, 1968
The device weighed three tons and was suspended from a balloon at 520 metres.
France’s highest yielding test
2.6 megaton yield, its explosive power was 200 times that of the Hiroshima bomb.
The fallout contaminated large parts of Fangataufa atoll, leaving it off-limits for humans for six years, also affecting neighboring atolls.

Medical Impact of These Nuclear Tests

Former president of French Polynesia Oscar Temaru attends a 2014 ceremony at a nuclear test victim memorial in Papeete, the capital of French Polynesia, photo courtesy of Arms Control Association.

Bruno Barillot, (left), talks to Roland Oldham, president of Moruroa e Tatou and Father Auguste Uebe-Carlson, president of 193 anti-nuclear association. Photo courtesy of Radio New Zealand.

In 2013, classified documents about the French nuclear tests were made public. The report revealed that "plutonium fallout hit the whole of French Polynesia, a much broader area than France had previously admitted. Tahiti, the most populated island, was exposed to 500 times the maximum accepted levels of radiation. The impact spread as far as the tourist island, Bora Bora."
Bruno Barillot, who investigated the impacts of the nuclear tests for the Polynesian government, complained of the high levels of thyroid cancers and leukemia in Polynesia. He explained the declassified documents revealed that

Tahiti was showered with plutonium for two days during the Mururoa test; from the outset France knew the impact spread further than it publicly admitted. But of the 2,050 pages declassified, 114 remained blacked out.

Due to the fact that more than one hundred pages remain blacked out, activists are demanding to know more about what happened in French Polynesia and the spread of nuclear fallout. Specifically, Richard Oldham, a member of the Polynesia nuclear workers' association Mururoa e Tatou, informed Radio New Zealand International that, "It's the right for our future generations to know what has happened in this country."

In other studies, scientists wrote that fallout from the nuclear tests poisoned local fishing grounds that many local communities relied on to survive. French Polynesia has the highest rate of acute myeloid leukemia and thyroid cancer in the world—both radiation-induced types of cancer. More information is available here.

Scientists further reported that "radioactivity above 650,000 Bq/kg was measured in unwashed salad grown on the island. Depending on the prevailing radioisotopes, an adult would incur internal irradiation of about 40–70 mSv by eating one kg of salad, more than 100–200 times the amount of radiation that a human is exposed to from a normal diet (approximately 0.3 mSv/a). The radiation dose incurred from the same amount of salad would be twice as high for children." Additional information can be found here.

As discussed in the section about Algeria, French setup a mediocre compensation fund. More must be done to help the victims of France's nuclear testing. As discussed in the next section, France has a tumultuous record of responding to international pressure about its legacy of nuclear testing in the Pacific region.

France's Response to Peaceful Protests: The Sinking of the Rainbow Warrior

Photo courtesy of Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization.

On the night of July 10, 1985, the Rainbow Warrior was docked in the Auckland Harbor. It was prepared to protest France's nuclear tests at Mourora Atoll. It was close to midnight. As explained by Greenpeace International:

The captain, Pete Willcox, and many other crew members are already asleep. A few others, including the photographer Fernando Pereira, are still chatting around the mess-room table, sharing between them the last two bottles of beer. Suddenly, the lights go out. There’s the sharp crack of breaking glass. Then, a sudden roar of water. The crew’s first thought: We’ve been hit, possibly by a tug. Then, there’s a second explosion. Those already on deck scramble up the ladder or leap to safety on the wharf. Within minutes, they see the ship’s steel masts tilt towards them… It was later discovered that two French spies planted bombs on the Rainbow Warrior. France chose to respond to peaceful protests with violence. Greenpeace International provides a harrowing account of France's actions against activists. Its detailed account of the situation can be found here.

On January 27, 1996, after a 3-year long moratorium, France conducted a nuclear test at the Moruroa and Fangataufa Atoll test site. As 120,000 tonnes of conventional explosives, six times the force of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima in 1945. Due to international pressure, France ended its nuclear weapons test program in the Pacific.

Legacy of Nuclear Testing in Australia

Photo courtesy of Nuclear Australian Map.

Historical Context

British scientists collaborated with American scientists during the Manhattan Project. They assumed that they would continue to work with the American scientists and conduct their own nuclear test in the US. However, when the US discovered that Soviet spies obtained information about the US atomic program, the US passed the McMahon Act. This act limited the amount of information that the US could share about its nuclear weapons program with other states. As a result, the UK searched for a location to conduct its nuclear tests.
In September of 1950, PM of UK Clement Attlee sent a message to the PM of Australia Robert Menzies in which he requested whether Australia “would be prepared in principle to agree that the first United Kingdom atomic weapon should be tested in Australian territory.” Menzies concurred with consulting with members of his cabinet or parliamentarians.

Nuclear Tests near the Montebello Islands

Operation Hurricane, photo courtesy of Australian Government.

Operation Hurricane: October 3, 1952, Test Height and Type: Ship, -2.7 m, and Yield: 25 Kt.
Plutonium implosion bomb was similar to the Fat Man, but improved by using a levitated pit
Plutonium was produced at Windscale (now Sellafield) with a low Pu-240 content; the device also used some Canadian-supplied plutonium.
Tested the effects of a ship-smuggled bomb.
The explosion left a saucer-shaped crater on the seabed 20 feet deep and 1,000 feet across.
Operation Mosaic G1: May 16, 1956, Test Height and Type: Tower, and Yield: 15 kt.
Conduct research to support thermonuclear weapons development.
Operation Mosaic G2: June 19, 1956, Test Height and Type: Tower, 31 m, and Yield: 98 kt.
True yield was concealed until 1984 as the yield exceeded 2.5 times of Hurricane. UK promised Australia that it would not exceed beyond 2.5 times of Hurricane.

Emu Field

Totem/T1 - First view, Photo courtesy of Nuclear Weapons Archive.

Emu Field, SA, in where British nuclear tests were conducted in 1953. Photo courtesy of Burrinja Cultural Centre: Artist Rosemary Laing.

Above: Yami Lester was permanently blinded by the October 15, 1953 test at Emu Field. Photo courtesy of Jessie Boylan.

October 15, 1953: UK conducted a major nuclear test known as Totem 1 in the South Australian desert
Radioactive cloud known as the "Black Mist" covered a 250 km2 area
In 2006, the Guardian reported that the Black Mist "was responsible for the sudden outbreak of sickness and death experienced by nearby Aboriginal communities, including members of the Kupa Piti Kunga Tjuta and their extended families."
The Royal Commission concluded that "the test had been detonated under wind conditions that produced unacceptable levels of fallout, and that the firing criteria did not take into account the existence of people downwind of the test site."

Maralinga

One Tree explosion, September 27, 1956, part of the Operation Buffalo test series. Photo credits to Alan Parkinson, photo courtesy of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Organization.

Maralinga (the Taranaki test site) after the detonation of the 1.4 kt Marcoo test on October 4, 1956. Photo credits to Alan Parkinson, courtesy of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test Ban Organization.

Photo from https://www.pocketoz.com.au.

Maralinga village, 1956. Photo from https://www.pocketoz.com.au.

Two major sites: Operation Buffalo in 1956 and Operation Antler in 1957
Operation Buffalo, September 27, 1956 to October 22, 1956: consisted of 4 nuclear tests: One Tree Test (yield: 16 kt of TNT and the cloud rose to 11,400 meters), Marcoo (yield: 1.5 kt of TNT, lowered into a concrete pit, crater: 49 meters by 12 meters, and fallout crossed the east coast of Australia 25 to 30 hours later), Kite (yield: 2.9 kt of TNT, airdropped, fell about 91 meters and 55 meters short of the target, detonating at a height of 150 meters. Clouds formed at about 2,100 meters), Breakaway (10 kilotonnes of TNT from a 30-meter tower, The cloud reached 11,000 meter but became widely dispersed between Darwin and Newcastle in New South Wales). More information is available here.
Operation Antler, 14 September – 9 October 1957,: consisted of Round 1 (yield: Yield: 1 kt, height: 31m), Round 2 (yield: 6 kt, height: 31 m), Round 3 (yield:25 kt, height: 300 m). More information is available here.
Many of the Maralinga Tjarutja indigenous population moved throughout the region It.
A traditional Aboriginal route crossed through the Maralinga testing range.
The warning signs in English were usually incomprehensible to the Aborigines. Studies on the health effects of radiation on the Aboriginal populations were inconclusive due to inadequate identification and follow-up of the affected population.
Australian Department of Veterans Affairs conducted a study between 1982 and 2001: a significant increase in cancer rates (23 %) and cancer mortality (18 %) among veterans of the nuclear tests.
Hospital records are not available and dosage records are incomplete or have been removed from the archives.
The indigenous population faces even more bureaucratic hurdles in their fight for recognition and compensation. To this day, epidemiological studies on the affected population have not been performed.
UK and Australian governments unwilling to accept responsibility for the health impacts of nuclear testing.

Examining the Humanitarian Impact: Testimony of Sue Coleman-Haseldine

Kokatha Elder Sue Coleman-Haseldine announces support of nuclear ban treaty, photo courtesy of NITV.

Testimony by Sue Coleman-Haseldine, Nuclear Bomb Testing Survivor, Photo featured on Future of Life Institute.

At both the 2014 Conference on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons and the negotiations on the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, Sue Coleman-Haseldine provided a powerful testimony to states. She was a child when the UK began to test nuclear weapons in Australia. The following is an excerpt from her testimony. The full testimony can be found here.

Aboriginal people were still living close to the test sites and were told nothing about radiation. Some communities were so contaminated that most people developed acute radiation sickness. High rates of cancer were eventually documented in the 16,000 test workers but no studies were done on Aboriginal people and others living in areas of fallout, many of whom were even more highly exposed. High rates of cancer and chronic illness haunt my family and our wider community. My small town of Ceduna is being called the ‘cancer capital’ of Australia. I worry about animals and plants which are also harmed by radiation. They can’t speak for themselves and are ignored and left to die.

Significance

The Pacific Islands have been ravaged by nuclear testing. Sadly, the user states have neither adequately provided assistance to the victims nor remediated the environment. Many victims are still experiencing the medical impact of these nuclear tests. Justice has been denied to them. However, there is still hope. The new Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) has a set of positive obligations related to victim assistance, environmental remediation, and international cooperation. Additionally, it has a special section that recognizes the responsibilities that the user-states have to victims. Due to these significant provisions, Pacific states should all be supporting the TPNW. Indeed, many of them support the TPNW and participated in a regional forum on the TPNW in December of 2019. The Pacific states must be encouraged to form a working group and prepare common positions on the positive obligations that they can present at the 1MSP. This will ensure that the positive obligations remain relevant and discussed at the MSPs. Perhaps, one day, the parties to the TPNW can set up a funding mechanism to support the victims of nuclear testing. In short, there is hope that the new Treaty can help the citizens of the Pacific.

Click Here for Lesson Plan 8

Lesson 9: Legacy of Nuclear Testing in Kazakhstan

Photo courtesy of National Geographic.

Glossary

Semipalatinsk: The name of the area in which Soviets conducted their nuclear tests in Kazakhstan.
Polygon: Russian word for "test site"
Fallout Exposure: During the nuclear tests, radioactive particles and gases were spread in the atmosphere. Depending on the size and type of weapon that was exploded, some of these particles and gases traveled great distances before falling to earth where surrounding populations were exposed to the fallout.
Glasnost: the policy or practice of more open consultative government and wider dissemination of information, initiated by leader Mikhail Gorbachev.

Overview

The Soviet nuclear program began developing after World War II and involved uranium mining in East Germany. Uranium ores were then transported to the Soviet Union and processed at the Mayak plutonium facilities in Southern Urals. Nuclear warheads were then developed and tested at two major sites, Semipalatinsk and Novaia Zemlia. The Semipalatinsk polygon (test site) was located in the steppe areas of the Soviet Republic of Kazakhstan and comprised of approximately 19,000km2 west of the city of Semipalatinsk. Stalin's right hand man Lavrentiy Beria, who was in charge of the nuclear weapons program, declared the area to be uninhabited despite the fact that this site was close to the industrial heartland of Kazakhstan with many settlements and small towns close by.

Photo taken from Kazakhstan Archives.

August 28, 1949 marked the first of roughly 456 atomic explosions conducted in Kazakhstan over the next 40 years, over 100 atmospheric explosions and roughly 340 underground tests. The first explosion, codenamed "Pervaya Molniya" by the Soviets and "Joe-1" by the Americans, was an an above ground fission bomb and released 22 kilotons of nuclear energy into the atmosphere. This explosion resulted in fallout northeast of the Semipalatinsk test site. Over the next 40 years the atomic bomb tests conducted at Semipalatinsk polygon released nuclear energy 2,500 times greater than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima. Underground tests continued up until 1989.

"Four decades of nuclear weapons testing transformed the Soviet Union into a power to rival the US, but it also poisoned the air, water, and land and sowed seeds of misery and death for 1.5 million people."

This testing site in Semipalatinsk was top-secret during the Cold War. In fact, it was such a secret that its name was shown on Soviet maps as "Konechnaya, meaning ‘Last Stop’. The vast majority of the population were unaware of the testing site and those that had suspicions about the explosions happening on their doorsteps were advised to keep quiet.

On August 29, 1991, while the Soviet Union was collapsing and Kazakhstan's independence was looming, the Polygon was closed forever and the nuclear weapons in Kazakhstan were given up. In commemoration of this end to a very destructive era, August 29th has been declared the International Day Against Nuclear Tests. However, after 40 years of nuclear testing in Kazakhstan, the effects on the population and the land were already permanent and could not be undone. Many of the effects and impacts of the blasts remains unknown or is buried away in the archives in Moscow.

"We’d be sent outside, and we’d crouch in ditches. We saw mushroom clouds: big and terrifying ones." - Galina Tornoshenko, born in 1949, the year of the first nuclear test."

Significance

Moscow does not take responsibility for the legacy of nuclear testing on its former territory and on its people. The Kazakh government has been giving assistance to victims of nuclear testing to compensate them. However, the damage is irreversible.

Click Here for Lesson Plan 9

Lesson 10: Legacy of Nuclear Testing in Alaska

Amchitika Island. Photo courtesy of Britannica.

Overview

Shot Milrow 1965: 1 megatron (4.2 PJ) blast occurred after a long struggle between environmental activists and nuclear supporters, Milrow caused hundreds of small shallow earthquakes within a 3 mile radius of ground zero on Amchitka Island and did not stop for 37 hours following the blast, rock and peat fell from surrounding cliffs in the area and the ground was pulverized up to 500 ft below the blast.
Cannikin 1971: Cannikin was the largest and most powerful blast in US History, the 300 ft long bomb was denotated one mile underground and the blast registered a force similar to a 7.0 earthquake, Neither the Pentagon or the Fish and Wildlife Service has ever done a full study of the ecological effects of the nuclear bombings on Amchitka, but over 1,000 otters and birds died in the blast.

In 1971, the Spartan Missle nuclear warhead was lowered into a hole in Amchitka Island. Photo courtesy Los Alamos National Laboratory Archives

Significance

Native people living in Adak, an island village near Amchitka, had significantly high levels of tritium and cesium-137 after the blast, which are dangerous carcinogens. The Federal Government never followed up with this village or any surrounding communities after receiving these results. A 2005 study by the University of Anchorage by Dr. Mary Ellen Gordian found Amchitka worker’s radiation-related cancers were higher than the general population, with a 10 to 18x higher risk of developing leukemia. While many workers eventually got compensation from the U.S. Department of Labor for the health risks they worked through. Since workers were not tested for before it is impossible to know how many people were exposed to radiation. The bombings were veiled in controversy regarding environmental and health impacts, and many of these workers, their children, and their families are experiencing health impacts because of radiation exposure.

Click Here for Lesson Plan 10

Lesson 11: Multilateral Treaties And Paradigm Shift: The NPT And Article VI

British Foreign Secretary Michael Stewart (third from right) signing the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, London, 1968. Photo courtesy of Britannica.

Glossary

NPT: Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons
P5: The Permanent 5 members of the United Nations Security Council, also the 5 NWS under the NPT
NWS: Nuclear Weapon States
NNWS: Non-Nuclear Weapon States

Overview

Opened for signature in 1968, the Treaty entered into force in 1970. A total of 191 States have joined the Treaty.
The NPT divides states into two categories: Nuclear Weapon States (NWS) and Non-Nuclear Weapon States (NNWS). Under the NPT, NWS “manufactured and exploded a nuclear weapon or other nuclear explosive device prior to January 1, 1967” (Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Article IX). By this definition, the only NPT recognized NWS are the US, the UK, France, China, and Russia, which was then the USSR.
The four other NWS (India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea) are not party to the NPT, North Korea left the treaty to develop its nuclear program.
The NPT focuses on preventing horizontal proliferation, the spread of nuclear weapons to NNWS, rather than vertical proliferation, an increase in nuclear arsenal of NWS, or nuclear disarmament, the elimination of all nuclear weapons.

Article VI of the NPT reads:

Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.

The NPT was indefinitely extended in 1995. Many have complained that more than 50 years after entering into force countries party to the NPT have not pursued negotiations in good faith.

Significance

The P5 and many people see the NPT as the "cornerstone of the global nuclear non-proliferation regime and an essential foundation for the pursuit of nuclear disarmament." However, there has been long standing disputes over the inequality the NPT enshrined.

Click Here for Lesson 11

Lesson 12: Multilateral Treaties And Paradigm Shift: Humanitarian Consequences

Hiroshima Peace Memorial Floating Lanterns Ceremony, Photo Courtesy of Hiroshima City

Glossary

Hibakusha: Atomic Bomb survivors are referred to in Japanese as hibakusha, which translates literally as “bomb-affected-people”. For more information, visit the Hibakusha Stories website. The term is also used more widely, i.e., global hibakusha, to include those impacted by nuclear testing, production, accidents, etc.
Nuclear colonialism: The systematic dispossession of indigenous lands, exploitation of cultural resources, and the subjugation and oppression of indigenous peoples to further nuclear production (See Morgan 2019)
Nuclear famine: A hypothesized famine that could result from a global or regional nuclear exchange and its effect on the climate and food production.

Overview

In the 2010 NPT Review Conference, parties to the treaty expressed their “deep concern at the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of any use of nuclear weapons”.
This served as a catalyst for future statements and the three humanitarian conferences on the subject, held in Oslo (2013), Nayarit (2014), and Vienna (2014).
Increased understanding of the inhumane nature of nuclear weapons helped shift the discourse from one centering around national security and deterrence to that of human suffering and irreversible environmental devastation.
This process, also known as the “Humanitarian Initiative," was instrumental in creating a paradigm shift and leading to the negotiating conferences of the treaty and its adoption in 2017.

Significance

Testimonies of the hibakusha have played a central role in drawing attention to the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons. Their stories of tremendous human suffering and resilience have been powerful towards supporting the case for prohibiting and abolishing nuclear weapons.
Similarly, those from the communities affected by nuclear testing around the world have played a vital role in raising awareness about the devastating effects of testing on their health, their lands, water, and the natural environment.
Indigenous communities are often affected by uranium mining, nuclear waste disposal and nuclear weapons testing. The systematic dispossession of indigenous lands, exploitation of cultural resources, and the subjugation and oppression of indigenous peoples to further nuclear production is called nuclear colonialism.
A single nuclear bomb detonated over a large city could kill millions of people. The International Committee of the Red Cross has warned of the lack of adequate humanitarian response capacity in the immediate aftermath of the detonation of a nuclear weapon in a populated area.
Even a limited, regional nuclear war would cause significant climate disruption worldwide, posing a significant impact on global food production. A study by the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War in 2013 estimated that more than 2 billion people could be affected by this “nuclear famine.” Similarly, scientists warn that a nuclear war would result in a severe and prolonged global climatic cooling effect, called “nuclear winter.”

Click Here for Lesson Plan 12

Lesson 13: Multilateral Treaties and Paradigm Shift: The TPNW and Positive Obligations

Photo courtesy of the Ploughshares Fund.

Glossary

Positive obligations: Provisions in a law or treaty which require the government (and/or other actors) to take specific actions (rather than avoid taking an action). In weapons treaties, this usually involves states parties not only refraining from certain activities (like using landmines) but also taking affirmative action to universalize and ensure respect for the norm and to remediate and mitigate harms caused by the weapon in question (including by assisting victims and clearing mines).

* The definition developed by Dr. Matthew Bolton, Director, International Disarmament Institute at Pace University, in consultation with Bonnie Docherty, Associate Director of Armed Conflict and Civilian Protection at the International Human Rights Clinic at Harvard Law School.

Overview

The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) was adopted by 122 nations on July 7, 2017. The Treaty enters into force once 50 countries have signed and ratified it.
The Treaty prohibits nations from developing, testing, producing, manufacturing, transferring, possessing, stockpiling, using or threatening to use nuclear weapons, or allowing nuclear weapons to be stationed on their territory.
In addition, the TPNW requires States Parties to provide assistance to all victims of the use and testing of nuclear weapons and to take measures for the remediation of contaminated environments. (Positive Obligations, Articles 6 and 7)

Significance

TPNW is the first legally binding international agreement to comprehensively prohibit nuclear weapons. Prior to the adoption of the TPNW, nuclear weapons were the only weapons of mass destruction not subject to a categorical ban, despite their catastrophic humanitarian consequences. The new agreement thus fills this major gap in international law.
Banning nuclear weapons under international law is a critical step along the path to abolishing them. Generally, the prohibition of certain types of weapons facilitates progress towards their elimination. Weapons that have been outlawed by international treaties are increasingly seen as illegitimate, losing their political status.
TPNW complements and strengthens the NPT as an effective measure as foreseen in Article VI.
The Nobel Peace Prize 2017 was awarded to International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) "for its work to draw attention to the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of any use of nuclear weapons and for its ground-breaking efforts to achieve a treaty-based prohibition of such weapons."

Click Here for Lesson Plan 13

Lesson 14: History of the Climate Movement

Photo taken by Markus Spiske.

Overview

From a historical viewpoint, the climate movement can be traced back to the 1960s. The first action of the Climate movement occurred in 1965, where scientists began to research the causes of certain environmental occurrences. The first instance would be a report written in 1965, known as the "Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Report." This report was a 23-page Appendix that investigated the concentration of carbon dioxide held in the air. Reviewing the effects on air quality and how it was polluting our planet.
Also in 1965, the topic of "Global warming" arose after scientists who held a position on the US President's Science Advisory Committee started to warn the public about an environmental issue, known as the "greenhouse effect." These scientists were able to speak further about their research through a report called "Restoring the Quality of Our Environment," which was usually accompanied by the "Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Report," when speaking about climate change.
It wasn't until 1975, where the term "global warming" was originated by geoscientist Wallace Broecker and open up early mainstream society to the idea of Climate Change.
50 years ago was the first Earth Day held in the United States on April 22, 1970. Mainly led by Judy Moody and Denis Hayes, the two were staffers of Senator Nelson and was known as, an "Environmental Teach-in." During this time, Earth Day was organized to teach the public about different environmental concerns, particularly pollution and toxic waste.
In 1988, the UN created a panel known as the "Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)." This panel gave experts the opportunity to initiate assessments based on the developing science of climate change and updated the government regarding these issues. The IPPC's reports were also used as a reference for international climate negotiations as a key part of getting different countries to agree to resolve the issue of climate change.
In 1992, The Rio Earth Summit was created, which was an international conference on sustainable development that was hosted by the UN. This Summit created a set of principles that was centered around the education and protection of the environment. This was the first time in history that the scientists and some of the general public recognized that economy, climate, and international development are integrated in certain ways.

Left: Students build a "world" of tin cans at Regis College in Weston, Massachusetts for Earth Day, April 21, 1970. Right, Denis Hayes, head of the Environment Teach-In, the Washington organization coordinating activities for Earth Day, on April 22, 1970. Photos courtesy of The Boston Globe.

Significance

These historical actions that have occurred have allowed the Climate Movement to progress demanding more change in terms of climate action.
Through work of figures like Judy Moody and Rachel Carson's an environmentalist and author. The Climate Movement has realized in order to make true change, we must take action through education, rallies, events, art, and more.
Also the scientific movement for Climate Change has allowed the public to be more educated about environmental issues through environmental courses offered in school and online, such as AP Environmental Science, Ecology, Biotechnology, and more. Also, through environmental television channels such as Planet Green, Science Channel, and Sundance Channel.
Currently, we see many demonstrations being held in the 2000s demanding our government to regard climate change as a vital and universal emergency.
Between the years of 2000 and 2019, there were nine occurrences of the hottest years in history, primarily due to fossil fuel consumption making the temperature rise more than ever.
The first Global Day of Action occurred during the UN Climate talks that took place in Montreal, Canada. The people protested for the UN and their local government to start taking action towards a more sustainable Earth and future.
In late August 2018, 15-year-old Greta Thunberg went on her first Friday school strike, where she sat outside the Swedish Parliament. She urged leaders to take climate action and declare that she would strike every Friday until there was a change.
3 years later, Greta's impact has made a global presence with students all over the world striking every Friday from New York City to Berlin. Now the movement is not only revolving around protesting and educating but also other works people are passionate about. Whether this drawing art, creating music, presenting speeches, having a sustainable fashion line, and more. All these forms of work have currently been used to save our Planet and is an instrumental part in creating a more green and sustainable World.

Click Here for Lesson Plan 14

Photo courtesy of Sheffield Political Economy Research Institute.

Lesson 15: Basic Facts about Climate Change

Overview

Greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of fossil fuels causes climate change.
The effects of climate change include shrinking glaciers, sea level rise, increased number of droughts, heat waves, and stronger hurricanes. This poses great threats to people's health, safety and security.
Climate change disproportionately affects people of color, women, youth, the elderly, the disabled, and low-income communities. During hurricane Katrina, for example, the mortality rate for black people was two to four times higher than that of white people.
As global temperatures continue to rise at an alarming rate, drastic international efforts that address the use of fossil fuels, deforestation and habitat destruction, water use, and waste must be made.

Left: Aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, taken by Michael Appleton from the NY Daily News Archive. Right top: A whirlwind of hot ash in Santa Barbara, California, credits to the New York Times. Right Bottom: Taken on December 12, 2015, credits to COP Paris.

Significance

The climate crisis is endangering people’s lives, health, and livelihoods as well as the environment. The current measures in place to mitigate climate change are not enough—action must be taken to push for effective climate policy on the local, state, national, and international level.

Click Here for Lesson Plan 15

Lesson 16: Paris Conference and IPPC Report 1.5

During the Paris Conference in 2015, a landmark climate accord called the Paris Agreement was adopted by almost every country in the United Nations. By ratifying the Paris Agreement, countries committed to cutting back on fossil fuel emissions to limit global temperature rise to 2˚C, with efforts to reduce it to 1.5˚C.

Tony deBrum from the Marshall Islands was played a big part in making the Paris Agreement possible. He created the High Ambition Coalition, which strengthened the Paris Agreement. It consisted of 35 countries that were all committed to tougher climate change policies. It is widely credited for ensuring that the Paris Conference ended with an agreement. To make it operational, a work program was launched to develop modalities, procedures, and guidelines on a broad array of issues.

The text emphasized cooperation, transparency, flexibility, and that there would be regular reporting progress in achieving their Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs). Though there was no mechanism enforcing the compliance with the accord's provisions, it was going to be one to “promote compliance”.

This would be achieved by a committee that would report annually to COP, and each party was asked to update their INDCs every five years.

It was open for signature from April 22, 2016, to April 21, 2017, and entered into force on November 4, 2016, by which point 55 parties had ratified, accounting for at least 66% of global greenhouse emissions. By November 2019, 187 countries had signed and ratified it.

Though the Paris Agreement was a significant measure taken against climate change, its effects have not been enough. In fact, many countries are not on target to meet the commitments they made in Paris, and in 2019, the United States, one of the greatest contributors to global greenhouse gas emissions, withdrew from the agreement.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is the United Nations body assessing the science related to climate change. They were created to provide policymakers regular scientific assessments on climate change, implications, potential future risk, and put forward adaptation and mitigation options.

In 2018, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released a 700-page report on the effects of a 1.5˚C global temperature rise. The report determined that a global temperature rise of 2˚C would be significantly more detrimental than a rise of 1.5˚C. In order to keep global warming to 1.5˚C or below, greenhouse gas emissions must be slashed 45% from 2010 levels by 2030 and reduced to a net-zero by 2050.

Significance

This plan for the first time brings all nations under a common undertaking to battle climate change.

While some states have not made any or little progress on their plans, there are a few states like Sweden, Portugal, France and China that have.

The Agreement recognized the need of LDCs to improve economies and reduce poverty, as this made reductions in greenhouse gases difficult, and they called on developed countries to help improve mitigation efforts, make the move toward emission reduction or limitation targets.

Click Here for Lesson Plan 16

Lesson 17: Acidification of The Oceans

Glossary

pH: The measurement of how acidic or how basic a solution is, ranging from 0 - 14. Values less than 7 indicate acidity, whereas values greater than 7 indicates a base.
Ocean Acidification: The process of the ocean pH levels lowering and becoming more acidic caused by the uptake of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
Greenhouse Gases: Gases that contribute to the greenhouse effect through the absorbing infrared radiation, includes carbon, methane, etc.
Greenhouse Effect: The trapping of the sun's warmth in the lower atmosphere, where some of the sun's energy is reflected back to space when it hits the atmosphere but most is absorbed and re-radiated by greenhouse gases.
Carbon Dioxide: A greenhouse gas that comes from the burning of fossil fuels.
Sequestration: Absorbing and storing a substance.
Climate Change: A change in global or regional climate patterns, which can be largely attributed to the increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide caused by the burning of fossil fuels.
Coral Bleaching: The coral whitens due to expulsion of algae that lives in it's tissue from the coral, making it more vulnerable and susceptible to death. This is attributed to the warming of the oceans as well as ocean acidification.

Overview of Points

Ocean acidification is a phenomenon that is caused by the increase of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere.
It is the ongoing decrease of the Earth’s oceans pH levels, which is caused due to the ocean absorbing approximately 26-30% of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere.
The increasing acidity of the oceans is a global problem with implications of affecting the food supply for over one million people as well as important oceanic ecosystems.

Photos courtesy of Wikipedia Commons.

Significance

Ocean acidification is significant because as more carbon dioxide is released and absorbed by Earth’s oceans, their pH levels will continue to decrease and become more acidic with detrimental effects..
Currently, we are seeing that the dying off of the coral reefs, the disruptions of marine ecosystems, decreasing populations in fish species around the globe, threats to island communities livelihoods
This section of the curriculum is designed to inform young activists about this ongoing issue, who will be most affected by it, and how we can come together internationally to seek solutions for it.

This lesson also includes resources for further education (educational sites and facts, research papers, international and national reports, PDFs, infographics, activities, educational games, and creative prompts) in a google document linked below.

Click Here for Lesson Plan 17

Lesson 18: Rising Sea Levels

Photo courtesy of NOAA Climate.gov.

Glossary

Absorption of radiation: The uptake of radiation by a solid body, liquid or gas. The absorbed energy may be transferred or re-emitted.
Accumulation: All processes by which snow or ice are added to a glacier. This is typically the accumulation of snow, which is slowly transformed into ice; other accumulation processes can include avalanches, wind-deposited snow, and the freezing of rain within the snow pack.
Climate Change: A change in global or regional climate patterns, which can be largely attributed to the increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide caused by the burning of fossil fuels.
Earth System Models (ESMS): Models that integrate the interactions of atmosphere, ocean, land, ice and biosphere to estimate the state of regional and global climate under a wide variety of conditions.
Erosion: The slow wearing away of the land by wind, water and ice.
GMSL: Global Mean Sea Level
Modeling: The generation of a physical, conceptual or mathematical representation of a real phenomenon that is difficult to observe directly. Scientific models are used to explain and predict the behavior of real objects or systems. Although modeling is a central component of modern science, scientific models at best are approximations of the objects and systems that they represent—they are not exact replicas. Thus, scientists constantly are working to improve and refine models.
Ocean Circulation: The large scale movement of waters in the ocean basins. Winds drive surface circulation, and the cooling and sinking of waters in the polar regions drive deep circulation.

Overview of Points

Earth’s seas are rising as a direct result of climate change. With 8 out of the 10 largest cities globally located near a coast, rising sea levels will have huge implications in housing security for a massive amount of people around the globe.
Global mean sea level has increased approximately 8-9 inches since the 1880s, however a majority of that increase has been seen in the last two and a half decades and is continuing to accelerate.
Sea level rise is caused by ocean temperature rising, resulting in ocean expansion. Additionally, it is caused by the melting of sea ice, glaciers, and ice sheets which add more water to Earth’s oceans.

Significance

Effects from sea level rise as a result of climate change can already be seen today, with many coastal cities, communities, and island states slowly being encroached by rising waters. It is projected that mean global sea level will increase between 1 to 8 ft by 2100, meaning cities like Manhattan will be completely underwater. Key infrastructure internationally will be threatened, including roads, subways, bridges, dams, water supplies, oil and gas wells, power plants, sewage and water treatment plants, landfills, and many more modern day necessities.

Storm surges and super-storms including intense hurricanes will be more common and go further inland than before and flooding will increase as well. As sea level continues to rise, high-tide flooding already experienced by many coastal communities will worsen. Seas will encroach on coastal communities and cause a retreat inland necessary and result in less land available for living and agricultural purposes. Some island states are at risk of disappearing entirely, causing governments internationally to worry about a growing climate refugee crisis.

Click Here for Lesson Plan 18

Lesson 19: Adverse Environmental Impacts of Nuclear Weapons Testing

Glossary

Nuclear winter: An effect of nuclear war due to the high levels of soot and other debris that would be carried into the atomsphere from nuclear weapons detonations
Anoxia: an absence of oxygen
Runit Dome: a depository for nuclear waste in the Marshall Islands
UV light: a type of electromagnetic radiation. These high-frequency waves can damage living tissue.
Troposphere: the lowest region of the atmosphere, extending from the earth's surface to a height of about 3.7–6.2 miles
Mutagenesis: the production of genetic mutations
Fauna: animals
Flora: plants

Overview of Points

Conflict and climate change
Case studies of nuclear weapons affecting climate
How climate change could affect nuclear issues
Effects of nuclear winter on our bodies of water
Effects of nuclear winter on agriculture

Significance

A growing body of research shows that resource scarcity, such as would be caused by a nuclear winter, increases the chance of conflict which could have even more devastating effects than the bomb alone. For example, middle-season rice production in China alone could decline by 15% for the following 10 years from a nuclear war.

Some 300 million people live in countries where much of their food is imported, so decrease in agricultural yields could have devastating effects on food availability for those populations.

A study looking at the effects of a "small scale" nuclear war predicted that global surface temperatures would cool by about 2-5 degrees Celsius. A full scale nuclear war using just 1/3 of the US and Russia's nuclear arsenal could result in global cooling similar to those experienced during the last major ice age.

A 5000 Mt war could produce ice caps 60-100cm thick on standing freshwater bodies. If subfreezing temperatures began in the spring and were prolonged, some lakes and ponds could remain under ice for an entire annual cycle. This could then lead to anoxia and the extermination of species unable to sustain dormancy under the ice caps.

Case Studies

Hiroshima: About 20 min after the bombing of Hiroshima, a firestorm few and the "energy released in this mass fire may have been more that 1000 times greater than the energy released in the nuclear bomb blast." The estimated area burned was about 13 square kilometers.

Nevada & the South Pacific: Where nuclear bombs were tested, growth abnormalities were observed in fresh vegetative growth, reflecting a possible influence radiation on rapidly dividing cells.

Runit Dome is located in the Marshall Islands and contains more than 3.1 million cubic feet of radioactive soil and debris and lethal amounts of plutonium. The dome is under threat to collapse due to rising sea levels from climate change. Should the dome collapse, all surrounding waters would be highly contaminated, affecting surrounding islands and other communities' fishing and other water activities.

Consequences of a nuclear detonation include reduced sun exposure, reduced atmospheric temperatures, increased exposure to UV light, and other changes in tropospheric chemistry.

Other ecosystem disruptions from a nuclear war include reduction in:

Reduction in biological structures: Living matter protects the landscape, so removal of protective biomass could lead to temperature and moisture fluctuations in soil. This in turn could lead to greater erosion and nutrient loss.
Growth inhibition and reduction in productivity: ionizing radiation, frost, and drought may also result and negatively affect agricultural yields.
Differential kill: Certain organisms in different ecosystems may be at greater risk than other organisms.
Food chain disruption: Certain organisms may go extinct due to ecosystem-wide effects from a nuclear war while others may thrive, upsetting the balance between biological species
Succession setback
Changes in nutrient cycle rates: Some nutrients may become more readily available while others become scarce.
Evolutionary changes: A nuclear catastrophe may increase mutagenic rates of species, leading to a plethora of ecosystem-wide effects in fauna and flora

Click Here for Lesson Plan 19

Lesson 20: The Runit Dome

Glossary

Runit Dome: This is the dome in the Marshall islands that the U.S. installed as an attempt to safely trap the radioactive fallout from their nuclear tests. Runit Dome holds more than 3.1 million cubic feet — or 35 Olympic-sized swimming pools — of U.S.-produced radioactive soil and debris, including lethal amounts of plutonium.

Strontium-89 and 90, Cesium-137, and Iodine-131: some of the chemicals that are present in nuclear waste fallout.

Overview of Points

The Dome, which locals call “the Tomb,” is at risk of collapsing from rising seas and other effects of climate change. Tides are creeping up its sides, advancing higher every year as distant glaciers melt and ocean waters rise.

This is a diagram of the Runit Dome in the Marshall Islands

Marshallese Officials have lobbied the U.S. government for help, but American officials have declined, saying the dome is on Marshallese land and therefore the responsibility of the Marshallese government.

I’m like, how can it [the dome] be ours?” Hilda Heine, the former president of the Republic of the Marshall Islands.“We don’t want it. We didn’t build it. The garbage inside is not ours. It’s theirs.

“We didn’t know the Runit Dome waste dump would crack and leak…. We didn’t know about climate change,” said Jack Ading, a Marshallese senator from Enewetak Atoll. “We weren’t nuclear scientists who could independently verify what the U.S. was telling us. We were just island people who desperately wanted to return home.”

US withheld key info. about the dome’s contents and its weapons testing program before the two countries signed a compact in 1986. The United States did not tell the Marshallese that in 1958, it shipped 130 tons of soil from its atomic testing grounds in Nevada to the Marshall Islands.

According to unclassified military documents, the dome was viewed as “a moral obligation incurred by the United States.”

US officials were aware about the leaking of the dome. Feb. 25, 1975, US officials discussed various cleanup options — including ocean dumping and transporting the waste back to the U.S. mainland. Many “of those present seemed to realize that radioactive material was leaking out of the crater even then and would continue to do so." Additionally, a top Pentagon official was asked what would happen if the dome failed and who would be responsible. Lt. Gen. Warren D. Johnson of the U.S. Air Force, who was directing the cleanup process through the Defense Nuclear Agency, acknowledged that it would be the responsibility of the US; although this information was not shared with the Marshallese.

Based on a directive from Congress, in July of 2020, the Department of Energy released a report about the integrity of the Runit Dome. The DOE claimed that the Dome is structurally sound and radioactive leakage into the nearby lagoon is not significant. The report further insists that “no further maintenance of the dome is required at this time, beyond conducting occasional maintenance to the dome’s cracking exterior, including the removal of vegetation. The report claims the visible cracking and spalling do not provide a hazard." The report fails to mention that at 2019 presentation between Marshallese and US officials, the DOE contractor reported high levels of radiation in clams.

Due to the findings in the report,Michael Gerrard, a legal scholar at Columbia University’s law school, lamented that “it is as if Runit is like a radioactive sore in the middle of the Pacific, but one that can get by with band-aids for the foreseeable future unless they find more bleeding.”

Kathy Jetnil-Kijiner standing at the Runit Dome, Watch Anointed

Significance

The US continues to undermine the Marshall Islands. As previously mentioned, there are lingering questions whether the US decision to conceal information about the contents of the Runit Dome are grounds for the Marshall Islands to terminate or renegotiate the COMPACT agreement. Additionally, as the US refuses to rectify this matter, Marshall Islanders, especially youth, must consider the possibility of applying pressure onto Congressional members to address the potential global castarophe of the Runit Dome. Furthermore, the Marshall Islands should consider the possibility of supporting the TPNW, which contains significant provisions related to both victim assistance and environmental remediation. These positive obligations may provide an avenue for the international community to help the Marshall Islands.

Click Here for Lesson Plan 20

Lesson 21: Fukushima Radiation

Glossary

Nuclear power plant: Power plant which uses nuclear power. In this, plutonium and uranium are undergone fission sustainably and continuously, then, the energy which is generated by this fission reaction are extracted as heat energy. After that, a stream turbine is turned by the previous mentioned process and generates electricity.
Melt down: One of the serious accidents of nuclear plant. The nuclear fuels melt because the temperature in reactor cores rises. This high temperature is caused by breaking down of cooling system.
Hydrogen explosion: Gas explosion occurred by hydrogen.
Radioactive material: the general terms of material which has radioactivity. For instance, uranium, plutonium and thorium.

Overview of Points

In this part, we will learn what has been happening in Fukushima since March 11th, 2011. On March 11th, 2011, due to power loss caused by Great East Japan Earthquake and tsunami, the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant experienced three core-melt down accidents and three hydrogen explosions. As a result, radioactive materials and radiation were released to the environment, contaminating land, air and water. Many people (more than 150.000 people) who lived in close to the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant were forced to evacuate. Even now, there are a large number of problems related to the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plants.

Photo courtesy of Wikipedia Commons.

Significance

Understanding what occurred in the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, we can understand what would happen if radioactive material is released to the environment and the danger of using nuclear power. Of course, although there is a variety of opinion which agree with the nuclear power or take object to it, we should learn the status of nuclear power in the world and rethink the safety and the way of using nuclear power. Furthermore, we recognize that there is possibility to occur such accident anywhere which have nuclear plants. Also, we should not forget that the nuclear power plants have a possibility of creating nuclear weapons.

Click Here for Lesson Plan 21

Lesson 22: Toxic Pools at Test Sites

Glossary:

Strontium-90: Most of the radioactive strontium released to the environment occurred as a result of atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons from 1945-1980. Nuclear weapon testing injects radioactive material into the stratosphere, which results in wide dispersal of radioactive strontium and other radionuclides. The World Health Organization estimated the total amount of strontium-90 released to the atmosphere from weapons testing was 1.6X10+7 Ci (6X10+17 Bq) during the period of 1945-1980. Human body handles this isotope like calcium; concentrated in bones and teeth. Isotope was present in milk products during the height of the nuclear testing.
Cesium-137: Cs-137 is one of the byproducts of nuclear fission processes in nuclear reactors and nuclear weapons testing. The large quantities of cesium-137 produced during fission events pose a persistent hazard. Its half-life of about 30 years is long enough that objects and regions contaminated by cesium-137 remain dangerous to humans for a generation or more.
Plutonium-239: Plutonium-239 is the primary fissile isotope used for the production of nuclear weapons.

Overview of Points:

This section discusses how radioactive waste has serious adverse environmental and health effects because of its presence at nuclear waste sites. There continues to be a huge problem with nuclear waste build up and leakage into surrounding ecosystems and populations. This is an urgent environmental and health catastrophe that rarely gets the attention it deserves.

The consequences of radioactive fallout and contaminated land can have both environmental and health effects. For example, at the Indian Point nuclear power plant, radioactivity is leaked into the air, water, and soil and on February 15, 2000, Indian Point suffered a ruptured steam generator tube that released 20,000 gallons of radioactive coolant into the plant. One week later, 200,00 gallons of that waste were dumped into the Hudson River which severely damaged the fish population. In January 2007 it was reported that strontium-90 was detected in four out of twelve Hudson River fish tested. While this incident occurred at a nuclear power plant, this same level of toxicity still exists at nuclear test sites and their effects largely go unchecked.

You have already read about the Marshall Islands and the Runit Dome, an attempt by the U.S. to minimize the adverse environmental and health effects of the nuclear testing conducted there (although you have also read that this Dome is now leaking and seeping radioactive waste into the oceans). However, no efforts were made to reduce environmental and health impacts of other nuclear test sites.

Catastrophic environmental effects such as radioactive pollution is coupled with serious health consequences that affect the population at large. These include but are not limited to programmed cell death, genetic mutations, cancers, leukemia, birth defects, and reproductive, immune and endocrine system disorders.

The chemicals released by the nuclear waste fallout include Strontium-89 and 90, Cesium-137, and Iodine-131. Each of these chemicals targets a different part of the human body, but they all cause damage. For example, iodine targets the thyroid gland, strontium targets the bones and teeth (much like calcium), and cesium targets the soft tissues. These chemicals get into the human system through inhalation or through contaminated food (airborne radioactivity seeps into the soil which then contaminates crops). Contaminated soil not only affects humans, but also animals, plants, and all biodiversity in the surrounding area of the test site. For example, studies have been done on the residual radioactivity in the soil surrounding the Semipalatinsk Nuclear Test Site and they have concluded that there are increased toxicity levels in the soils surrounding the site as opposed to areas further removed from the site. There has also been evidence of Uranium isotopes found in well water samples surrounding the Semipalatinsk test site.

At the Trinity test site radiation levels in the fenced, ground zero area are low. However, there is no "safe threshold" when it comes to potential exposure to radiation. Each exposure that does not occur naturally in the environment can be dangerous and can have severe health and environmental consequences.

Significance:

The radioactive fallout that is still present decades after these tests have been conducted is highly toxic and continues to contaminate the environment and the health of surrounding populations. While the damage in these regions and to the health of these peoples cannot be undone, steps must be taken to ensure that our people and our planet are protected from further degradation because of the effects of nuclear weapons.

Click Here for Lesson Plan 22

Lesson 23: Convergence

Glossary

Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists: It is a nonprofit organization concerning science and global security issues resulting from accelerating technological advances that have negative consequences for humanity. The Bulletin publishes content at both a free-access website and a bi-monthly, nontechnical academic journal. The organization has been publishing continuously since 1945, when it was founded by former Manhattan Project scientists as the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists of Chicago immediately following the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The organization is also the keeper of the internationally recognized Doomsday Clock, the time of which is announced each January.
Doomsday Clock: It is a symbol that represents the likelihood of a man-made global catastrophe. Maintained since 1947 by the members of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, the Clock is a metaphor for threats to humanity from unchecked scientific and technical advances. The Clock represents the hypothetical global catastrophe as "midnight" and the Bulletin's opinion on how close the world is to a global catastrophe as a number of "minutes" or "seconds" to midnight, assessed in January of each year.

Overview

On January 2020, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists moved the Doomsday Clock to 100 seconds before midnight from 2 minutes. As part of its justification for moving the clock to 100 seconds, the Bulletin explained:

Humanity continues to face two simultaneous existential dangers—nuclear war and climate change—that are compounded by a threat multiplier, cyber-enabled information warfare, that undercuts society’s ability to respond. The international security situation is dire, not just because these threats exist, but because world leaders have allowed the international political infrastructure for managing them to erode.

The Bulletin further elaborated that ". We now face a true emergency – an absolutely unacceptable state of world affairs that has eliminated any margin for error or further delay.”

Recognizing the urgency of these twin existential threats, former UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, deputy chair, The Elders; and former South Korean Foreign Minister, mentioned the following:

We share a common concern over the failure of the multilateral system to address the existential threats we face. From the US withdrawal from the Paris Agreement and the Iran Nuclear Deal, to deadlock at nuclear disarmament talks and division at the UN Security Council – our mechanisms for collaboration are being undermined when we need them most.

Reflecting upon the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, there are two mitigating factors that exacerbated global problems. These two factors are nuclear weapons and climate change.

Regarding the crisis linked to nuclear weapons, national leaders have undermined significant arms control treaties and negotiations, including the INF, Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (Iran), and many more. These actions have created an environment in which a nuclear arms race may occur and spark an increase of nuclear war. Additionally, "political conflicts regarding nuclear programs in Iran and North Korea remain unresolved and are, if anything, worsening. US-Russia cooperation on arms control and disarmament is all but nonexistent.”

Regarding the climate crisis, there has been renewed attention amongst the public about the warming of the planet, rising sea levels, etc. This public awareness is largely linked to mass protests by young people and international conferences, including the UN Conference climate change. Unfortunately, while the public is seized upon the issue, governments have largely failed to limit their carbon dioxide emissions that are adversely impact Earth's climate. "This limited political response came during a year when the effects of manmade climate change were manifested by one of the warmest years on record, extensive wildfires, and quicker-than-expected melting of glacial ice."

How to alleviate these crises

Nuclear: US and Russia must return to the negotiating table to reinstate the INF Treaty, extend NEW START, further reduce nuclear weapons, takes nuclear weapons off of high-alert status, and limit their nuclear modernization programs. Additionally, the US must rejoin the Iran nuclear deal and work with the parties of the deal to curb the proliferation of nuclear weapons in the Middle East.
Climate: Reaffirm their commitments to the temperature goal agreed upon at the Paris Conference, which is set below 2C.
The international community must commence discussions, which are focused on creating norms of behavior, both domestic and international, that discourage and penalize the misuse of science.
The international community must prevent information technology from undermining public trust in political institutions. Example: Deception Campaign. Deception Campaign blurs the line between fact vs. politically motivated fantasy. Deception campaigns threaten democracies by causing confusion on what is the truth. If the public cannot trust democracies, then there's real concern that democratic institutions will unable to address both nuclear weapons and climate change.

Photo courtesy of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists.

Significance

This section illustrates the concerns amongst the Federation of American Scientists about the twin existential threats of nuclear weapons and climate change. The organization recognizes that International leaders have eroded institutions and multilateral agreements that safeguarded the world from these existential threats. It is clear that leaders have failed to uphold their international commitments in good faith. Since there are profound questions on whether global leaders can protect the world, it is imperative for young people from diverse fields to come together and hold leaders' accountable for their actions. This approach may save humanity from leaders that renege on their commitments and also actively engage in public deception campaigns.

Click Here for Lesson Plan 23

Lesson 24: Overcoming Barriers to Global Peace

Photo courtesy of The Japan Times.

Glossary

Political Activism: Taking action in means of vigorous campaigning to bring about political change.
Civil Society: A distinct sector from government and businesses, including the family and the private sphere. It’s a space to act for the common good.
Climate Change: A change in average weather and local conditions over a long period of time. Mainly caused by the burning of fossil fuels and destruction of habitats.
Nuclear Proliferation: The spread of nuclear weapons, nuclear weapons technology, fissionable material, to nations not recognized as “Nuclear Weapon States”.
Intergenerational Effects: Issues such as climate change and nuclear weapons have significant consequences that affect the old, the young, and those that have yet to be born.
Psychological Barriers: Opinions and conceived perceptions of what others think are often far from the truth. This is the main barrier in the movement for change, the belief that others’ simply don’t care enough, and that they won’t make much of a difference.

Overview of Points

Barriers prevent individuals from achieving progress. Many of these barriers are psychological in nature. To advance, those barriers must be brought down. World peace cannot be achieved without mutual agreements on the issue.
The issues of climate change and nuclear weapons have many similarities and can be faced together once those connections have been made. You cannot talk about one without addressing the other. Both topics must be attended to immediately before additional damage has been made.
All people can take initiative to create change such as becoming aware of the roles their municipalities, states, or countries play in climate change and nuclear weapons.

Protesters at the Y-12 Nuclear Weapons Site; age did not stop some octogenarians from taking a stand. This would dominate the news and numerous policy changes were made soon after. Photo courtesy of nukeresister.org.

Significance

World peace is an abstract concept requiring all facets of civil society to join in the call for change. Numerous barriers are inherently psychological and all western democracies have had major successful protests. There are more people in a protest, it is the more likely that others become involved, eventually those elected must concede to the demands, or at the very least sit down and talk - something that would never be possible if people did not protest in the first place.

Click Here for Lesson Plan 24

Lesson 25: Progressive Leaders

Prime Minister of New Zealand, Jacinda Ardern committed to achieving carbon neutrality by 2050 and also reinstated a government position for nuclear disarmament. Photo courtesy of World Economic Forum.

Numerous world leaders and ambassadors from all walks of life have publicly denounced the use of nuclear weapons and have taken steps to address the current climate crisis.

Having witnessed the Castle Bravo detonation when he was just nine, Tony deBrum spent all of his life advocating for nuclear justice for the people of the Marshall Islands. He also attempted to hold the United States accountable for performing over 67 detonations on the islands through the courts and the international stage.

Having chaired the 1995 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Conference, Ambassador Jayantha Dhanapala of Sri Lanka led the rebirth of the UN's Department of Disarmament Affairs. During his tenure, he advocated for the Central Asian Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone and called on all parties to the NPT to stay true to their words and commit to disarmament.

Ambassador Elayne Whyte Gomez of Costa Rica is the Permanent Representative of Costa Rica to the United Nations Office in Geneva. She presided over the most recent conference on the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and has also voiced concerns on the current climate crisis.

Handpicked by President Barack Obama for a position in the Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation; Ambassador Bonnie Jenkins founded and served as the executive director of the Women of Color Advancing Peace, Security and Conflict Transformation (WCAPS).

Prime Minister of New Zealand Jacinda Ardern committed to achieving carbon neutrality by 2050 and also reinstated a government position for nuclear disarmament.

Some states have also taken it upon themselves to ensure that signatories to the NPT abide by its regulations. The New Agenda Coalition is composed of Brazil, Egypt, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand, and South Africa. Their primary aim is to ensure the states who are 'permitted' to have nuclear weapons and non-nuclear weapons states are on the same page and agree to the terms outlined in the treaty. Most recently, they've brought forward a motion for the creation of a Middle East nuclear-weapon-free-zone.

Significance

The leaders and ambassadors of 193 Member States of the UN, both large and small, have an extraordinary role to play in the coming years. The climate crisis is worsening and a nuclear catastrophe is only 100 seconds to midnight. By voting for and supporting those with clear positive agendas with real solutions, we can ensure a much better future and make way for the next generation of progressive leaders.

Click Here for Lesson Plan 25

Lesson 26: Activists and Warriors

Beatrice Fihn of ICAN is a Swedish lawyer as well as the executive director of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons. She accepted the Nobel Peace Price for ICAN in 2017 alongside Hiroshima survivor Setsuko Thurlow. Through Ms. Fihns work with ICAN, the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom and the Geneva Centre for Security Policy, she has attained over a decades worth of experience in disarmament diplomacy and civil society mobilization.

Hiroshima survivor Setsuko Thurlow is a Japanese-Canadian activist who is a leading figure in the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN). She has amassed great support and recognition through her work in nuclear disarmament; having received the Nobel Peace Price for ICAN alongside activist Beatrice Fihn.

Ray Acheson is the Director of Reaching Critical Will, a disarmament program for Women's International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF). She has spent over a decade providing research and analysis on nuclear weapons, the international arms trade, and more. Having made great contributions to the nuclear disarmament field, Ray Acheson is highly respected by activists and policymakers.

ICAN Activists in Geneva, Switzerland, 2019. Photo Courtesy of Ari Besser.

Overview of Points

An overview of some of the many activists and warriors taking action in the nuclear disarmament and climate change movement.

Significance

Recognizing influential activists and warriors encourages more people to take action on issues such as nuclear disarmament and climate change. Individuals who go on to advocate for rising movements have a tendency to influence those around them. As media attention of these issues gains traction, a larger demographic can be reached. With more supporters and activists, greater changes can be made to the current systems dominating the nuclear disarmament and climate change field.

Click Here for Lesson Plan 26

Lesson 27: Divestment from Fossil Fuels, Nuclear Weapons, and Nuclear Power

Photo courtesy of Future of Life Institute.

Glossary

Fossil fuel: fossil fuel is a fuel formed by natural processes, such as anaerobic decomposition of buried dead organisms, containing organic molecules originating in ancient photosynthesis[1] that release energy in combustion.
Fossil fuel divestment: Fossil fuel divestment or fossil fuel divestment and investment in climate solutions is an attempt to reduce climate change by exerting social, political, and economic pressure for the institutional divestment of assets including stocks, bonds, and other financial instruments connected to companies involved in extracting fossil fuels.

Overview of Points

According to Don’t Bank on the Bomb, “research shows that at least US$ 116 billion in contracts between governments and private companies in France, India, Italy, the Netherlands, United Kingdom, and the United States for production, development, and stockpiling of nuclear weapons.” Meanwhile, fossil fuel companies have been invested in and given subsidies for decades. Nuclear weapons and climate change present two existential threats, and divestment is a step toward overcoming them by stigmatizing them. Personal divestment can take place by checking your personal investments, as well as contacting your financial institution and asking them to divest and to create a policy to prevent future investments.

Photo courtesy of Don't Bank on the Bomb.

Significance

Nuclear weapons production and fossil fuel burning can only be stopped if the companies responsible are forced to close or fundamentally change their business models.

Click Here for Lesson Plan 27

Lesson 28: Movements and the Role of Education

Glossary

United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs (ODA): United Nations ODA was established in January 1998 as the Department for Disarmament Affairs which was part of the SG’s program for reform in accordance with his report to the General Assembly (A/51/950). It was originally established in 1982 upon the recommendation of the General Assembly’s second special session on disarmament (SSOD II). In 1992, its name was changed to Centre for Disarmament Affairs, under the Department of Political Affairs. At the end of 1997, it was renamed Department for Disarmament Affairs and in 2007, it became the United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs. UNODA has placed youth engagement at the core of its disarmament education. The ultimate goal will be to increase youth participation and create spaces both on and offline for young people to make meaningful substantive contributions to facilitating progress on disarmament. It has created a dynamic platform called Youth4Disarmament Initiative.
United Nation Study on Disarmament and Non-proliferation Education: It was first introduced by Mexico on 18 October 2000. It was the outcome of a proposal adopted unanimously by the members of the Secretary-General’s Advisory Board on Disarmament Matters. The presidency of that body was held by the Mexican expert and the Mexican Government agreed to introduce this proposal in the First Committee without making any amendments to its content. The resolution requested the Secretary-General, with the assistance of a group of governmental experts, to prepare a study on disarmament and non-proliferation with the objectives of defining contemporary forms of disarmament and non-proliferation education and training and assessing the current situation of such education and training at various instructional levels. It would also recommend ways to promote education and training in disarmament and non-proliferation, examine ways to use new pedagogical methods, recommend ways for the organizations of the United Nations system to coordinate their efforts in disarmament and non-proliferation education and devise ways to introduce this type of education and training in post-conflict situations.
Youth, Peace and Security Resolution 2250 (2015): 1.Urges Member States to consider ways to increase inclusive representation of youth in decision-making at all levels in local, national, regional and international institutions and mechanisms for the prevention and resolution of conflict, including institutions and mechanisms to counter violent extremism, which can be conducive to terrorism, and, as appropriate, to consider establishing integrated mechanisms for meaningful participation of youth in peace processes and dispute-resolution. 2. Calls on all relevant actors, including when negotiating and implementing peace agreements, to take into account, as appropriate, the participation and views of youth, recognising that their marginalisation is detrimental to building sustainable peace in all societies, including, inter alia, such specific aspects as: (a) The needs of youth during repatriation and resettlement and for rehabilitation, reintegration and post-conflict reconstruction; (b) Measures that support local youth peace initiatives and indigenous processes for conflict resolution, and that involve youth in the implementation mechanisms of peace agreements; (c) Measures to empower youth in peacebuilding and conflict resolution: 3. Stresses the importance of Security Council missions taking into account youth-related considerations including, as appropriate, through consultation with local and international youth groups.
Second Resolution on Youth, Peace, and Security Resolution 2419 (2018): Recognizes the role of youth in promoting a culture of peace, tolerance, intercultural and interreligious dialogue that aims at discouraging their participation in acts of violence, terrorism, xenophobia, and all forms of discrimination and reiterates that efforts to counter terrorist narratives can benefit through engagement with a wide range of actors, including youth and youth-led civil society; recognizes that youth and youth-led civil society can also play an important role in efforts to peacebuilding and sustaining peace; reaffirming states’ obligation to respect, promote and protect human rights and fundamental freedoms of all individuals, including youth, and ensure equal access to justice and preserve the integrity of rule of law institutions; and foster an enabling and safe environment for youth working on peace and security; stresses the importance of creating policies for youth that would positively contribute to peacebuilding efforts, including social and economic development, supporting projects designed to grow local economies, and provide youth employment opportunities and vocational training, fostering their education, and promoting youth entrepreneurship and constructive political engagement;
Youth, Disarmament and Non-Proliferation UNGA Resolution, RES/74/64 (2019): South Korea introduced the resolution. The resolution 1. Encourages Member States, the United Nations, relevant specialized agencies and regional and subregional organizations to promote the meaningful and inclusive participation of young people in discussions in the field of disarmament and non-proliferation, including through dialogue platforms, mentoring, internships, fellowships, scholarships, model events and youth group activities; 2. Calls upon Member States, the United Nations, relevant specialized agencies and regional and subregional organizations to consider developing and implementing policies and programmes for young people to increase and facilitate their constructive engagement in the field of disarmament and non-proliferation; 3. Stresses the importance of realizing the full potential of young people through education and capacity-building, bearing in mind the ongoing efforts and the need to promote the sustainable entry of young people into the field of disarmament and non-proliferation; 4. Requests the Secretary-General to seek specific measures to promote the meaningful and inclusive participation and empowerment of youth on disarmament and non-proliferation issues; and 5. Encourages Member States to continue efforts to raise awareness and strengthen coordination within the United Nations system and beyond on ongoing efforts to promote the role of youth;
Agenda for Disarmament: Securing Our Common Future: In 2018, the UN Secretary-Agenda released his agenda in which he underscored how young people have been a tremendous force for change in the world, noting how they have “proved their power time and again in support of the cause of disarmament.

Overview of Points

Nuclear weapons pose an enormous existential threat to humanity. Education is essential to reduce the danger of nuclear weapons use. The United Nations recognizes how important education is, and in 2002 the United Nations Study on Disarmament and Non-Proliferation Education was submitted to the First Committee of the General Assembly at its 57th session. "Its main contribution was the 34 recommendations for action to be undertaken by governments, regional organizations, the UN and other international organizations, municipal and religious leaders. It also seeks to establish close collaboration between the experts and civil society, including educators and academic institutions mainly at the secondary and tertiary levels of education." The UN Security Council has also emphasized the role of youth in preventing and resolving conflict, as well as in building peace. Education and activism are extremely important, even for issues as big as nuclear non-proliferation.

Photo courtesy of Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation

UNODA Meeting. Source: https://armscontrolcenter.org/go-back-to-school-five-things-everyone-should-know-about-nuclear-weapons/

Significance

In addition to the work of the United Nations, many non-governmental organizations have engaged in educating people on the dangers of nuclear weapons. The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) and Hiroshima Prefecture co-hosted the first Hiroshima-ICAN Academy on Nuclear Weapons and Security in 2019. Furthermore, MIT started the Nuclear Weapons Education Project and provides information about the history and impact of nuclear weapons, the status of world nuclear forces, and a weapon effects simulator. Since the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki happened 75 years ago, most people don’t often think about nuclear weapons. Nevertheless, nuclear weapons remain one of the greatest threats to humanity and we must work to eradicate them through education and movements.

Click Here for Lesson Plan 28

Appreciate

Credits:

Created with images by WikiImages - "mushroom cloud atomic bomb nuclear explosion" • Markus Spiske - "ONE WORLD. Global climate change protest demonstration strike - No Planet B - 09-20-2019" • Markus Spiske - "WE ARE ON FIRE - ACT NOW! Global climate change strike - No Planet B - 09-20-2019"