Hiroshima Unlearned: Time to Tell the Truth About US Relations with Russia and to Ban the Bomb

By Alice Slater

August 6th and 9th mark 74 years since the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, where only one nuclear bomb dropped on each city caused the deaths of up to 146,000 people in Hiroshima and 80,000 people in Nagasaki. Today, with the US decision to walk away from the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Force (INF) negotiated with the Soviet Union, we are once again staring into the abyss of one of the most perilous nuclear challenges since the height of the Cold War.  

With its careful verification and inspections, the INF Treaty eliminated a whole class of missiles that threatened peace and stability in Europe. Now the US is leaving the treaty on the grounds that Moscow is developing and deploying a missile with a range prohibited by the treaty. Russia denies the charges and accuses the US of violating the treaty.  The US rejected repeated Russian requests to work out the differences in order to preserve the Treaty. 

The US withdrawal should be seen in the context of the historical provocations visited upon the Soviet Union and now Russia by the United States and the nations under the US nuclear “umbrella” in NATO and the Pacific. The US has been driving the nuclear arms race with Russia from the dawn of the nuclear age:

  • In 1946 Truman rejected Stalin's offer to turn the bomb over to the newly formed UN under international supervision, after which the Russians made their own bomb;
  • Reagan rejected Gorbachev's offer to give up Star Wars as a condition for both countries to eliminate all their nuclear weapons when the wall came down and Gorbachev released all of Eastern Europe from Soviet occupation, miraculously, without a shot;
  • The US pushed NATO right up to Russia's borders, despite promises when the wall fell that NATO would not expand it one inch eastward of a unified Germany;
  • Clinton bombed Kosovo, bypassing Russia’s veto in the UN Security Council and violating the UN treaty we signed never to commit a war of aggression against another nation unless under imminent threat of attack;
  • Clinton refused Putin's offer to each cut our massive nuclear arsenals to 1000 bombs each and call all the others to the table to negotiate for their elimination, provided we stopped developing missile sites in Romania;
  • Bush walked out of the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and put the new missile base in Romania with another to open shortly under Trump in Poland, right in Russia’s backyard;
  • Bush and Obama blocked any discussion in 2008 and 2014 on Russian and Chinese proposals for a space weapons ban in the consensus-bound Committee for Disarmament in Geneva; 
  • Obama's rejected Putin's offer to negotiate a treaty to ban cyberwar;  
  •  Trump now walked out of the INF Treaty;
  • From Clinton through Trump, the US never ratified the 1992 Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty as Russia has, and has performed more than 20 underground sub-critical tests on the Western Shoshone’s sanctified land at the Nevada test site.  Since plutonium is blown up with chemicals that don’t cause a chain reaction, the US claims these tests don’t violate the treaty;
  • Obama, and now Trump, pledged over one trillion dollars for the next 30 years for two new nuclear bomb factories in Oak Ridge and Kansas City, as well as new submarines, missiles, airplanes, and warheads!  

What has Russia had to say about these US affronts to international security and negotiated treaties? Putin at his State of the Nation address in March 2018 said:

I will speak about the newest systems of Russian strategic weapons that we are creating in response to the unilateral withdrawal of the United States of America from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and the practical deployment of their missile defence systems both in the US and beyond their national borders. I would like to make a short journey into the recent past. Back in 2000, the US announced its withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. Russia was categorically against this. We saw the Soviet-US ABM Treaty signed in 1972 as the cornerstone of the international security system. Under this treaty, the parties had the right to deploy ballistic missile defence systems only in one of its regions. Russia deployed these systems around Moscow, and the US around its Grand Forks land-based ICBM base. Together with the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, the ABM treaty not only created an atmosphere of trust but also prevented either party from recklessly using nuclear weapons, which would have endangered humankind, because the limited number of ballistic missile defence systems made the potential aggressor vulnerable to a response strike. We did our best to dissuade the Americans from withdrawing from the treaty.  All in vain. The US pulled out of the treaty in 2002. Even after that, we tried to develop constructive dialogue with the Americans. We proposed working together in this area to ease concerns and maintain the atmosphere of trust. At one point, I thought that a compromise was possible, but this was not to be. All our proposals, absolutely all of them, were rejected. And then we said that we would have to improve our modern strike systems to protect our security. 

Despite promises made in the 1970 Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) that the five nuclear weapons states--US, UK, Russia, France, China--would eliminate their nuclear weapons while all the other nations of the world promised not to get them (except for India, Pakistan, and Israel, which also acquired nuclear weapons), there are still nearly 14,000 nuclear bombs on the planet. All but 1,000 of them are in the US and Russia, while the seven other countries, including North Korea, have about 1000 bombs between them.  If the US and Russia can’t settle their differences and honor their promise in the NPT to eliminate their nuclear weapons, the whole world will continue to live under what President Kennedy described as a nuclear Sword of Damocles, threatened with unimaginable catastrophic humanitarian suffering and destruction. 

To prevent a nuclear catastrophe, in 2016, 122 nations adopted a new Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW). It calls for a ban on nuclear weapons just as the world had banned chemical and biological weapons.  The ban treaty provides a pathway for nuclear weapons states to join and dismantle their arsenals under strict and effective verification. The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, which received the Nobel Peace Prize for its efforts, is working for the treaty to enter into force by enrolling 50 nations to ratify the treaty.  As of today, 70 nations have signed the treaty and 24 have ratified it, although none of them are nuclear weapons states or the US alliance states under the nuclear umbrella.   

With this new opportunity to finally ban the bomb and end the nuclear terror,  let us tell the truth about what happened between the US and Russia that brought us to this perilous moment and put the responsibility where it belongs to open up a path for true peace and reconciliation so that never again will anyone on our  planet ever be threatened with the terrible consequences of nuclear war.   

Here are some actions you can take to ban the bomb:

  • Support the ICAN Cities Appeal to take a stand in favor of the ban treaty
  • Ask your member of Congress to sign the ICAN Parliamentary Pledge    
  • Ask the US Presidential Candidates to pledge support for the Ban Treaty and cut Pentagon spending
  • Support the Don’t Bank on the Bomb Campaign for nuclear divestment   
  • Support the Code Pink Divest from the War Machine Campaign 
  • Distribute Warheads To Windmills, How to Pay for the Green New Deal, a new study addressing the need to prevent the two greatest dangers facing our planet: nuclear annihilation and climate destruction.    

Alice Slater, author and nuclear disarmament advocate, is a member of the Board of World Beyond War, UN NGO Representative of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, and a longtime member of CODEPINK.


Please check your e-mail for a link to activate your account.
  • Ray Wilson
    commented 2019-08-05 21:41:57 -0400
    The Big Idea That Makes All the Lesser Ones Possible

    A Workable Moral Strategy for Achieving and Preserving World Peace

    Raymond G. Wilson*, Illinois Wesleyan University, rwilson@iwu.edu
    This is a slightly edited version of my article in the July 2019 Forum on Physics and Society Newsletter
    of the American Physical Society. (which contains a flow chart)

    Assumption: The reader thoroughly understands what happened within seconds to more than 210,000 people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August, 1945.

    It has become clear that nuclear weapons are only a symptom of an all-pervasive malignancy of the spirit of the world and of adult humankind. Some Japanese have an expression for this period of human history; they call it “the era of nuclear madness.” It is the purpose of this article to show one way that era can be brought to a remarkably peaceful end. Einstein, Oppenheimer, and others have suggested means to that end.

    Since 1945 there have been no conflicts which could have justified using nuclear weapons. International business conflicts seem to regularly arise with major trading partner China, and with Russia, usually a U.S. trading partner. Some politicos speak of possible war with North Korea or Iran or other Middle Eastern nations. We doubt there exist any American politicians, any “deciders,” or “dividers,” qualified to order the use of nuclear weapons to remedy international conflicts. Likewise there probably is no single person in the world, nor any cabal, qualified to make such a decision to indiscriminately murder hundreds of thousands within seconds; it would be a morally unjustifiable atrocity.

    But some people have considered nuclear explosives to be useable weapons of war; after all, in 1945 the Allies actually used two which many believe ended that war. Then, during the 1946 Bikini “Able” and “Baker” nuclear tests, U.S. congressmen, invited to witness the tests, were located so far away (for their safety) that many came away naively expressive. “Like a giant firecracker,” said one. Another, “In the next war I hope we don’t have to throw atomic baseballs.” The Bikini “Charlie” was cancelled; the tests were found too dangerous for everyone there. More recently from the White House, “If we have them, why can’t we use them?” “My button is bigger than theirs.”

    Apparently members of the U.S. Congress and policy creators of many nations pay little heed to wiser minds. For example, Albert Einstein in 1947 noted, “We scientists believe that a clear and widespread understanding of the facts and implications of the atomic discoveries is indispensable to a reasonable public stand on questions of international politics. Given this understanding, men and women will recognize that only international cooperation through effective institutions can ensure security against humanity’s destruction.” 1

    Carroll Quigley (former Professor at Princeton, Harvard, and the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown) wrote, “The powers of financial capitalism had a far-reaching [plan], nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole.” 2 Obviously they did not seek creation of a peaceful world, a world free from wars; they sought a different goal.
    Albert Einstein, in 1949 noted “The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society. . . since the members of legislative bodies are selected by political parties, largely financed or otherwise influenced by private capitalists who, for all practical purposes, separate the electorate from the legislature.” Einstein again, “…unless by common struggle we are capable of new ways of thinking, mankind is doomed.” “At present we are bound by political thinking, much of which seems dictated by private financial interests, not human or necessarily moral interests.” 3

    In the 20th century the annual average of war-killing was more than one million people. 4 We believe a great deal of it was brought about by political thinking dictated by private financial interests or at least supported by them. Unless there are changes we can expect such slaughter to continue. But the admonition of Albert Einstein was, “We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.” Until the war problem is solved this world will continue training our youngest adults, men and women, to be mass murderers, to get their “Expert” or “Sharpshooter” badge and continue bloody wars until financial control of the economy of the world is in private hands, undoubtedly not yours. The stupidity of people and their policies, allows the wholesale killing to continue.
    Let us attempt some “new ways of thinking,” based upon human and moral interests. Consider the following: It must be true that in an ideal peaceful world, a world without the conventional weapons of war, without tanks, missiles, bombers, warships, drones and cyber-threats, there would be no need for nuclear weapons. In contrast to the treaty negotiated by the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, (ICAN, 2017 Nobel Peace Prize), the inverse of the above proposition is not true. For example, year 1941 and the absence of nuclear weapons, conventional armaments were abundant and in use.

    We believe a world without conventional weapons of war, a world without need for nuclear weapons, can be achieved.
    World initiatives for action need to be taken away from the military-industrial establishment and from the war mongers of the world with their insidious subversions, their mythological belief in their superiority and cause, and their assumed destiny to dominate nations, to rule the world, or their part of the world. World initiatives need to be directed not toward war, dominance, and conquest, but toward peace, for all those nations which are ready for peace, ready for the promised advances of the 20th and 21st centuries. At present U.S. and many nation’s foreign and military policies are subverted and corrupted by events abroad, corrupted often by private financial interests that seek great personal and private gain, all supposedly to support national “vital interests.” National and international discourse needs redirection toward peace and away from war.

    J. Robert Oppenheimer, “father” of atomic bombs, told us 73 years ago in 1946, that “…wars might be avoided by: universal disarmament; limited national sovereignties; provision for all people of the world: of a rising standard of living, better education, more contact with and better understanding of others, and equal access to the technical and raw materials which are needed for improving life…” 5 For the avoidance of war we will show how this could be managed.
    In the following, a plan or strategy is proposed that, if adopted: would put “everyone” back to work; bring peace and stability; end war-sacrificed lives; and ensure corporate profits, growth, and cooperation; and would allow people to return to peaceful opportunity-laden homelands.

    This workable moral strategy seems the only approach, for decades or centuries to come, by which people of the Less Developed world, in peace, without war, can become masters of their own nation, can create a sensible path to their own peaceful destinies, as so many other nations have done. This workable moral strategy exports no United States’ or other nation’s money. It fosters the expressed desires of all people and nations seeking: peace, justice, opportunity, and a better life. This strategy has been referred to by one as “brilliant.” Well, certainly; the strategy incorporates ideas advocated by J. Robert Oppenheimer, Albert Einstein, Philip Morrison & Kostas Tsipis 6, and James C. Warf 7, some very bright fellows. We describe and recommend a workable moral strategy that might well be referred to as the “incentivization” of world peace. (You may wish to compare it with the world peace plan of the United States, or that of Russia or China or the United Nations.) Incentivization is an element lacking in the ICAN treaty.

    Niels Bohr remarked to colleagues who were stumbling over a particularly onerous mathematical problem, “No, no, you’re not thinking, you’re just being logical.” He was suggesting new ways of thinking.

    A Workable Moral Strategy for World Peace

    Since the United States is the world’s major arms supplier it makes moral sense that the U. S. should have the privilege of leading the way. Thus the United States would announce a strategy, that starting one year from now it will revise the manner by which it provides aid to all other nations and particularly to those of the Less Developed world, provides aid using tax-wealth created by American and other taxpayers. It will no longer be direct aid. All other Developed nations are encouraged to similarly participate so that they would also obtain the benefits that will accrue to them just as benefits will accrue to the United States.

    Henceforth, rather than direct aid, the United States will provide the United Nations with $165 billion per year in “credit chits” (promissory notes) for use by Less Developed nations. Other Developed nations are invited to contribute in total an additional $165 billion in “credit chits” to the UN; more if they wish. No actual money leaves any nation. The credit chits originating in the U.S. will only be redeemable in cash by American businesses and industries from the United States Treasury. With cooperation from other nations it means $330 billion or more per year of development aid to the Less Developed world, much more than what is now provided by the U.S. alone, a great deal of which we know under the current system is wasted, corrupted, or spent on tools of war.

    It seems affordable. On April 10, 2009 the small nation of Japan, not at war with anyone, announced a $150 billion government stimulus package. In 2009 Japan thought it could afford to do this. You can hear a conservative United States Congress complaining that we cannot afford to do something like that. But financial resources are always found for wars. We can be smart enough to find them for a peace which eliminates wars and the costs of wars. We will show reference that the workable strategy we are proposing will lead to more than 500,000 U.S. peacetime manufacturing jobs in the first year – with more to come, and greatly more than 500,000 other peacetime jobs throughout the world.

    The United Nations makes the “credit chits” available to peaceful democratic nations of the Less Developed world. Additionally, chits will also be very cautiously offered to those nations which are verifiably peacefully evolving toward equitable nondiscriminatory constitutional democracy. The chits are made available to Less Developed nations based on solicited application of: development proposals from them, verifiable need, and guarantees against misuse or corruption.

    These chits to be offered by the United Nations may be utilized only for social and economic development, six specific self-sufficiency goals:
    1) modern appropriate agriculture, food, and fresh pure water production;
    2) good sheltering and its basic amenities, including electricity, plumbing, sewage;
    3) health care, with hospitals, clinics, electronic communication, and well-trained doctors;
    4) national wealth creation and infrastructure from their own natural and human resources;
    5) civilian security, and;
    6) education and training at all levels to support goals 1-5.

    The solicited development proposals submitted to the United Nations will be carefully evaluated, in terms of the proposed societal, cultural, economic, and environmental impact, and in terms of protection against abuse and corruption. The UN will aid revisions of unacceptable proposals until they are in line with this UN sanctioned strategy.

    Administering this program, the United Nations will not grant chits to nations where war exists or is likely, or where violations of rights: gender, religious, human, or ethnic, are active or not being remediated. Repressive and military governments and martial law governments will not qualify for participation in this program, nor will any nation, chit donor or receiver, regardless of its size, power and influence, which is not fully and actively transparently participating and cooperating in the worldwide elimination of: armaments of war, nuclear weapons, terrorism, and the illicit drug trade. Chits may pass through other nations on their way back to their origin nation, that is, pass through nations which also must be in abidance with the conditions of this paragraph. In democracies seeking peace and advancement the people will not choose continued corruption and wars.

    All the above are the essential specifications to this workable moral strategy for achieving and preserving world peace. There are three additional “recommendations” in Chapter 5 of the author’s book* from which this document has been extracted and abridged. Chapter 5 also responds to reader’s other possible concerns.

    There will be great advantages for all nations that make chit deposits into this program, and considerable disadvantages for those who can, but do not. The more chits deposited, the greater productive economic value accrues to the depositor nation.

    Each year this workable and moral program will see returned to the nonmilitary economies of the Developed nations, in total, some US$330 billion or more, to be used solely for deliverance of peacetime goods and services! Hence, this proposed program should greatly reduce unemployment in any nation participating, supplier or receiver. This program will put workers, the original creators of wealth, back on the job. We estimate that the first year could create in the U.S. alone some 500,000 or more jobs, and at least that many outside the U.S. Here is a source of an estimate of the number of jobs that can be created or restored: David Swanson in Roots Action, Sept. 9, 2011; Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts (Amherst). (http://rootsaction.org/news-a-views/232-i-just-found-29-million-jobs)

    When this plan is activated individual citizens of participating Developed nations would come to understand that they are active participants, creating tools, equipment, materials, and know-how, making possible peace and justice onto all regions of the world, and doing it without guns, bombs, and missiles, without destruction and killing thousands. Citizens of the Less Developed world will finally begin to see their hopes and dreams of a peaceful homeland coming true. Their long sought homes, employment opportunities, health care, utilities, schools, society, foods and water, democracy, etc., all coming into being, and by their own work and efforts, with the tools, equipment, materials and know-how provided by all the participating UN Developed nations who committed themselves to such obligation with their UN Charter signature. 8 When the “chits” are allocated the field is leveled; Less Developed nations can then negotiate with all participating Developed nations to gain the best advantage for themselves. Political and financial obligations to “powerful” nations become unnecessary.

    Consider what 3,500,000,000 people of the Less Developed world do not have, and who is capable of supplying it! There are abundant opportunities for all! Chit donors and receivers. This proposal has the potential of bringing together the people of possibly 190 nations for the purpose of ending wars and creating a peaceful, cooperative world. This plan is “The Incentivization of World Peace.” Billions of people worldwide would be able to have jobs and greatly improved lives. If you think that this approach to world peace could become quite costly, compare it to the cost of “attempting” to recover from a war that could involve the United States (and Allies) and Russia, China, and stateless terrorists. Such a war could result in hundreds of millions of deaths as well as physical destruction of the major cities on the surface of a radioactive earth.

    Adoption of this strategy would result in an exchange being made:
    —With self-sufficiency and self-defined but true democracy growing in a protected Less Developed world and the elimination there of poverty, illiteracy, malnutrition, disease, neocolonialism, rights deprivation, indebtedness, exploitation, and slavery;
    —The entire world could have full economic recovery, elimination of the possibility for international nuclear catastrophe, and the practical elimination of war.
    —In a world at peace the refugee problem is solved. The killing stops and solutions to global problems can be found. The basic tool is cooperation and proper incentives, not trade wars, sanctions, boycotts, deadly threats, regime changes, and wars; but instead, justified benefits, not penalties; advantages for all. As promised, no money would leave any nation or pass through the UN, and the credit chits never pass through the World Bank, or any bank, or the International Monetary Fund.

    A world at peace as described above would aid solution of present day social problems, in particular the immigration problems in Europe, Africa, the Middle East, the United States, and Latin America.

    We believe the workers of the world, of the Americas, of Russia, of China, of the Middle East, would approve of this plan; unless someone throws a wrench into the works, for some reason.

    For the Developed World to reject this type of plan implies that the oligarchy of private capital influencing legislative bodies and those who receive their largesse would much prefer to continue structuring a world system of financial control in private hands, by means of murderous – possibly nuclear – wars, financial obligations, and forced regime changes.

    This approach to solving the war problem is also the approach to resolving a failure of capitalism,i.e., capitalism’s assumption of freedom of action which has long led to exploitation of weaker nations and their people by large and small financial and industrial conglomerates. 9

    Justification: A Moral World View

    We believe the Developed World and its people have some responsibility for centuries of: exploitation, poverty, starvation, slavery, disease, displaced refugees, rights deprivation, war-killing and destruction, and illiteracy, etc., as they have existed in the former colonial and Less Developed world, in Africa, in Asia and the Middle East, in Latin America. It is likely that your nation in some manner has taken selfish advantage of people of the Less Developed world. We believe the Developed World has some unfulfilled moral obligations to the former colonial and Less Developed World.

    Chapter 5 of Wilson’s book* also suggests specific solutions to the Palestine/Israel problem as well as the Senkaku Islands problem between Japan and China. Similar problems exist elsewhere; solutions can be found.

    Adoption of this Incentivization of World Peace would go down in history as the turning point which saved the earth and its people from return to a darkest and post-nuclear age. For all nations’ Congresses, Parliaments, and people it would symbolize the wisdom of finally coming to their senses. Otherwise, the world must endure many more centuries of “nuclear madness” and annual mass murders.

    But here is a prediction of “Constant Conflict”: “There will be no peace. At any given moment for the rest of our lifetimes, there will be multiple conflicts in mutating forms around the globe. Violent conflict will dominate the headlines, but cultural and economic struggles will be steadier and ultimately more decisive. The de facto role of the US armed forces will be to keep the world safe for our economy and open to our cultural assault. To those ends, we will do a fair amount of killing.” — Major Ralph Peters of the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence, 1997, where he was responsible for future warfare. 10

    For ends such as those any amount of killing would be morally unjustifiable. There are other choices, other options.

    “War does not determine who is right – only who is left.” — Often attributed to Bertrand Russell, but no sources exist.

    *Raymond G. Wilson is an emeritus Associate Professor of Physics, Illinois Wesleyan University, who has taught about nuclear war for over 58 years and has spent most of 18 summers of study and exploration in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This essay is adapted and greatly abridged from Wilson’s 2014 book, where the strategy is developed more completely in Chapter 5. Nuclear War: Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and A Workable Moral Strategy for Achieving and Preserving World Peace, Author House, is available in print from Amazon or ebook from the publisher. The book is not for profit and can be downloaded at no cost here, http://sun.iwu.edu/~rwilson/PNDclass.html
    There is a “Caution” on the cover.

    1 In a solicitation letter from the Emergency Committee of Atomic Scientists, Nov. 29, 1947. Some of the other
    Committee Trustees were: Hans Bethe, Harold Urey, Linus Pauling, Leo Szilard, Frederick Seitz, and Victor
    2 Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time, (Chapter 20), Macmillan, 1966.
    3 Albert Einstein, Ideas and Opinions, Bonanza Books, NY, 1954; also Albert Einstein, Why Socialism?,
    Monthly Review, May, 1949 and republished, May 1998. https://monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism/
    4 https://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/06/books/chapters/what-every-person-should-know-about-war.html
    5 J. Robert Oppenheimer, “The International Control of Atomic Energy,” Bulletin of the Atomic
    Scientists, Vol. 1, June, p. 1-5, 1946. Reprinted in The Atomic Bomb, H. W. Wilson Co., New York, 1946.
    6 Philip Morrison and Kostas Tsipis, Reason Enough to Hope, MIT Press, 1998.
    7 James C. Warf, All Things Nuclear, Figueroa Press, 2005.
    8 The Purposes of the United Nations are:
    1. To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;
    2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace; 3. To achieve international cooperation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and 4. To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.
    9 Suggested by Emery Reves in his book, The Anatomy of Peace, Harper & Brothers, Eighth Edition, 1946.
    Recommended by Albert Einstein
    10 “Constant Conflict,” Lt. Colonel Ralph Peters,