Our Humanity vs. Nuclear Weapons: A Conversation with Nuclear Abolitionist Anna Ikeda
Technology doesn't develop in a vacuum. It reflects the values, assumptions, and stories of the societies that create it.
Anna Ikeda of Soka Gakkai International joins us to explore how nuclear weapons, artificial intelligence, and other powerful technologies reveal deeper questions about human nature, security, and moral responsibility. We discuss Buddhism, grassroots movements, interfaith peacebuilding, and why humanity—not technology—will determine our future.
Michael Nagler follows with his Nonviolence Report highlighting practical examples of nonviolent change taking shape around the world.
Transcript (with gratitude to Elizabeth High)
Stephanie Van Hook: Well, greetings and good morning, everybody. Welcome to another episode of Nonviolence Radio. I'm your host, Stephanie Van Hook, and I'm here in the studio with my co-host and news anchor of the Nonviolence Report, Michael Nagler, and we're from the Metta Center for Nonviolence in Petaluma, California.
Today on Nonviolence Radio, we're exploring a question that's becoming more urgent every day: Is our technology outpacing our humanity? Our guest is Anna Ikeda of Soka Gakkai International, and her work revolves around the abolition of nuclear weapons. She reminds us that technologies don't arise in a vacuum. They embody the stories we tell about power, security, and what it means to be human.
Rather than simply asking how we can control nuclear weapons or artificial intelligence, she goes deeper. How do we cultivate the wisdom that orients these technologies to serve life instead of destroying it? And how do we practice that in our relationships with one another?
So Gandhi said, "We must never lose our faith in humanity." And Anna Ikeda echoes his wisdom as we move in this conversation from nuclear abolition to Buddhism, from grassroots action to hope, and then we ultimately return to the conviction that our greatest strength is not another technology, it's our shared humanity. It's important to reiterate that. Let's turn now to Anna Ikeda of Soka Gakkai International.
Anna Ikeda: Technologies don't happen or develop in a vacuum, right? So they are created by people with a specific purpose, specific intention, and they tend to reflect our values or choices or biases, even though it might not be explicit part of the design, but it's there because it's a human creation.
AI, for example, I think can bring about so many positive things. It's everywhere. We can't ignore that. I think we have to remember that just like I think any technology, AI reflects the assumptions, biases, and values of the societies that create it and users that use it.
So I think nuclear weapons too, for example, which is one of the areas that I work on, they are, I guess you can say it's a form of technology, but they're not merely machines, right? They too embody a belief that security comes through this threat of really mass destruction, mass killing. So I feel when we speak about technology, we're not just talking about the tool per se, but I think we're really talking about who we are as species, as human beings, and can our wisdom and humanity keep up with the pace of such progress, or do we let the technology determine who we are?
Stephanie: Yeah, it reminds me of Martin Luther King, who said that we have guided missiles and misguided men.
Anna: Yes, that's right.
Stephanie: Making that same connection, that technology is a human development, for better or for worse. And so what I hear you saying is that to help technology have a more valuable impact for peace, we have to change our mindset about what brings us peace and security, and what makes life worth living.
And you did say this, but I do want to ask you more explicitly about the story that gives rise to the development of nuclear weapons so that we can really understand that underneath it there is a story about power, security, about who we are, about what life is for. Can you speak to that?
Anna: Yeah, sure. And interestingly, my answer to that will be a Buddhist story, because I work for Buddhist organization. So it's something so central to our peace work because for our movement, really our engagement in social issues and peace started with our engagement with nuclear weapons. So in 1957, then our organization in Japan was led by this person named Josei Toda, he was the president. And he basically made this, what we now call, declaration. At the time, I think it was just a speech in front of thousands of young people, believers of this tradition. He surprised the audience by talking about nuclear weapons. And in that statement, he basically called nuclear weapons as the manifestation of our darkest tendencies. So it's our desire to control, to think it's okay to use or threaten to use this force that's powerful enough to destroy cities and environment and kill, harm millions of people when a country feels it's threatened. And he really called it such a demonic act.
So I think it says a lot about how we think about security. I think a lot of the times people tend to think that it can be protected by use of force or threat of violence, and that's the only way. But in our view, actually, nuclear weapons are not a tool of security, but it's really this darkest manifestation of our tendency. And I don't want to call it human nature, because I think that implies that we are naturally violent. But I think, in our Buddhist practice, it's worthy to note that we believe we all have such tendencies, potentials for good and bad, and it's really how we-- which one do we feed? Is it our positive nature or negative nature? We call it Buddhahood versus fundamental darkness in our Buddhist term. So really, I think for us, it's this darkest tendency that we all have that we have to keep in check.
But when we let it grow and let it out of control, we became inventor of this monstrous technology. So I think, yeah, that's one thing I was thinking about when you asked the question. And I think it also, to me, talks about, sort of the insanity of the reality we live in. So I'm sure you heard about the term nuclear deterrence, for example. It relies on the, I guess, the assumption that this threat of violence keeps the adversary in check, right? And therefore, it prevents attacks from the opponent. But what we don't think about often enough is that such a security system really stands on so much risk, right? So when it fails, it's a total nightmare, total catastrophe.
But we somehow are asked to believe that this always works and we're safe. So we have this technology that's essentially capable of destroying all of us, wiping out everything that we hold dear, yet we're expected to trust that we're safe and we can sleep at night. So it's such an insane reality. We have to dismantle the weapons, we have to talk about the technology, but it's this underlying tendency or the human story that gave rise to nuclear weapons.
Stephanie: So I did read over that declaration, and he talks about the claws inside the human heart in that.
Anna: That's right. Yeah. And we have to basically, he said, rip it out, but we really have to, first of all, see that's the cause, that's where it starts, and address it, right? And I think without really work at that level, I'm sure we'll talk about it more, no matter how much work we do in terms of dismantling the weapons, prohibiting them, if we don't change as human beings, then it's going to be something else. So I think it's so significant for our movement that he reminded us at such a fundamental level of who we are, and reminding us again that we all have that tendency.
And so to me, when I "fight against nuclear weapons" or work toward the abolition of nuclear weapons, I also have to remember that what I'm working to end is a symbol. No, it's not a symbol, it's a real manifestation, it is something real. But it's a mirror of what I have, therefore, I also have to really internally address the tendency to either disrespect others or even demonize the people who, for example, think it's okay to use nuclear weapons or to have nuclear weapons, right? I have that judgment, and how can I really continue to address that through my Buddhist practice and through my work?
Stephanie: Yeah, I could imagine that being quite powerful and radical, that you have a spiritual teacher all of a sudden turning to give a talk on something like nuclear weapons or bringing the teachings alive in that way, that it makes it seem that it's more than a political issue, that it's a spiritual issue. Do you agree with that? Do you agree that it's a spiritual issue that we're talking about then?
Anna: Yeah. Yeah. And yes, I agree. And I think that's why I'm grateful that I do this work for my spiritual community. Of course, there are many organizations that work on this issue, many experts, and they do such amazing work, and I admire their courage, their relentlessness. But to me, it helps that I have this spiritual, faith kind of foundation to think about it in a different way. And it also gives me hope because it gives me the solution or at least a part of the answer to be the change. So yeah, it certainly is a political issue, right? Because it does require political will and action to make a change. But I believe, I think if you really talk about it, any social and political issue can be a spiritual issue because politics should serve the wellbeing of people. And I think also another thing that I've been reminded of is if we get stuck in the realm of politics, then I'm not really confident that we would be able to really make much progress, and we don't really have a good track record in that way. 81 years since the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in World War II, we're still grappling with the same issue, and now we have over something like 12,000 of them in the world. So I think it's really important, at least for me, to widen the understanding of this issue beyond politics and really think about from a moral and spiritual understanding.
And I think speaking of that, I feel like Gandhi was so skilled in sort of merging those, I guess two realms or worlds, that people tend to separate. The causes that he struggled for were really political, and he demanded political action, but at the same time, he kept reminding people that those issues were also about who they were as human beings, and therefore the solution also were within them, right? So I think going back to your question, I think it's definitely more than eliminating nuclear weapons, although that's necessary. But I think as long as they exist, we risk the total annihilation of the world, and we can't stop there, so we really have to, again, think of it as a spiritual issue.
And just speaking of that, there's one quote from Daisaku Ikeda, who became the president of the Soka Gakkai movement after Josei Toda. He, of course, also worked on nuclear weapons issue pretty much for the rest of his life. And he said once, and I quote, "If we are to put the era of nuclear terror behind us, we must struggle against the real enemy. That enemy is not nuclear weapons per se, nor is it the states that possess or develop them. The real enemy that we must confront is the ways of thinking that justify nuclear weapons, the readiness to annihilate others when they are seen as a threat or as a hindrance to the realization of our objectives." So it's reiterating the point that Toda made, but I think again, just like really reminding ourselves that it is the way of thinking. That's the real, for the lack of better word, enemy, that we must continue to address. So I think again, it goes back to the mindset, or I guess the story, in your words, that support nuclear weapons that we discussed. And I think, yeah, continuing our work to really change that story, because if we don't do the work at that level, then I think, just like I mentioned earlier, I'm afraid nuclear weapons won't be the worst or the last kind of weapons that we have to deal with. There will be another technology that's capable.
Stephanie: As you're speaking, it just really makes me think about the challenge of grassroots change, because my– maybe you can tell me, my sense is that most people aren't in favor of nuclear weapons. But most governments are. What does that tell us about change? We do the work to change ourselves, but if the systems that we live through are promoting them and holding onto them, what's going to make that needle move? How are we going to get beyond just our own desire to survive on this planet, and to thrive with others, with the governments that feel that it's important to have them? Is there a conversation there that's meaningful that's happening?
Anna: Yeah. And just to know, I think yes, so I agree that a majority of the people do believe in a world without nuclear weapons, or they believe that nuclear weapons are no good even in nuclear weapon states, right? But also I think majority of the world in terms of the countries also believe that nuclear weapons should be abolished. I think if you really think about it, the number of countries that really hold on to the importance of nuclear weapons is small. So nine nuclear weapon states that actually possess them, and then this larger group of umbrella states that rely on their security assurance or what they call security assurance.
And yes, so sometimes even within those countries, there might be this discrepancy between what the political elites believe versus what the people believe. And yeah, so I think that gap is something that I think we need to really explore more because, again, the government's job should be to represent the will of the people, and right now it's not.
And I think also that speaks to an interesting aspect of nuclear weapons that we don't talk about. It's by nature a very undemocratic weapon because it's basically saying that "I hold this power, therefore you have to obey what I want because I can basically destroy you," right? And I think, so I feel like there's no coincidence that then even within those countries or institutions, there's kind of undemocratic system where the masses might want something, but the leaders may want something else. And it perpetuates power, right? People can make money out of it. There are just so many benefits that only benefit a small group of people, yet the rest of the world suffers, right? Even when it's not used. So yeah, I know I'm not really giving you a solution, but I really feel that's something we really can't forget, the power of the people.
And I think the issue to me is, people are silent. And I think perhaps there are many reasons for that. I know that this is an issue that feels distant from our day-to-day reality. Other social issues are perhaps more obvious. You can see clear kind of correlation between your life and the issue. I know we are guilty of using a lot of technical jargons that kind of alienate people in the public from the conversation sometimes, I'm talking about the disarmament experts. We like to talk in acronyms, the jargons, and we tend to talk to each other, right? When we really have to be expanding the circle of people who can work on this issue. And I know there are competing issues. Some people maybe think climate change is more urgent, for example.
So I'm sure there are many issues, but I haven't really seen this kind of mass mobilization on this issue, right? I hear from my colleagues in the movement a lot about the '80s and nuclear freeze movement and how they were part of the million people marching, and we don't have that today. So why is that, right? And when we've seen so many close calls or escalation or leaders threatening to use nuclear weapons, I've had friends calling me because they were scared. "Do you think this leader will act on it?" Some people couldn't sleep at night when the war in Ukraine started, for example. Yet it's not being translated in this kind of grassroots movement. So I think that's something, at least I've been really thinking about that and wondering what's our role, the disarmament movement, our faith community, what is it that we're missing where it's not translating into that kind of nonviolent grassroots action?
Yeah, because I think the nuclear freeze was successful in so many different ways. It not only raised awareness, it also did change certain policies, and I think there's no coincidence that... of course, it was also the end of the Cold War period, but nuclear weapons, the numbers of the arsenals decreased dramatically from that time to after, like in the '90s, for example.
So I think, yeah, the change at the grassroots level is so important, and of course, even when we make changes at this international level or national level, if there's no grassroots movement to support that, I don't think it can be sustained. So that's definitely one gap that I see today that I think we as a community have to do a better job.
Stephanie: Yeah, I think you answered that really well, Anna. Thank you. I started off with that question feeling somewhat hopeless. It reminds me that the peace sign, for example, is an anti-nuclear sign, and people continue to use that, so if there could even just be a little bit more education about that, like, "you know what this means?"
Anna: That's true. Yeah.
Stephanie: Yeah. It is in the back of people's minds, I would think, because just even a cursory reading of international disputes, I'm aware that the United States could use a nuclear weapon again, besides just for the threat of it, they're all using them for threat, but in the United States, Israel, Iran, Russia, there is a sense of awareness and I think a fear when conflicts escalate that, "oh, somebody could use their weapon." Luckily In some of these conflicts, they haven't yet, thank goodness.
Anna: That's right. Yeah. It's a pure luck that I think we have survived so far, and luck is not a good strategy. So I think people really have to realize that, as long as they exist, it could be used either by leader deciding this is the moment, or it could be used by accident. There were so many close calls in history where signals were sent or nuclear weapons were actually dropped from a airplane or so many incidents that we came so close to nuclear detonation, and we can't keep relying that we'll continue to be lucky.
Stephanie: I remember hearing a presentation from an activist or from a concerned citizen as part of Plowshares, that there are trains that were carrying nuclear weapons, that something could happen to that train. It's a ticking time bomb. And there is that nuclear clock, right?
Anna: The Doomsday Clock.
Stephanie: The Doomsday Clock, and where are we on this right now?
Anna: We pay attention to it, and we actually, some of us try to predict where the needle will be every year. It did move this year closer to midnight, so I think it's at 85 seconds to midnight. Closest ever, which is really concerning, right? So yeah, and of course now the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, that's the organization that created this clock and does the reveal every year of where they are in terms of the clock's hands. They consider, of course, not only nuclear risks, but of other kind of existential threats such as, of course, the impact on the climate, now technology and disinformation, all these things. I think they are interrelated issues that can really escalate conflicts and impacts of violence that can lead to really the end of the world. That's where the midnight is, right? So yeah, I think it's symbolic, but it's definitely a good way to raise awareness. I think media pays attention to it. There's more conversation around that time. And yeah, it really makes us think, what are the kind of contributing factors that go into that decisions, and how can we mitigate these risks so we can pull back the hands of the clock.
Stephanie: And has it jumped because of the development and kind of lack of control over AI, or fears around AI? Because I, as I think about my education around AI, I feel like it began in conversations with you and colleagues of yours, for example, around automation and nuclear weapons. Seems like it was, the technology was building together in some ways early on, and now there's a much bigger public conversation about the threats of nuclear weapons connecting with artificial intelligence. There's a real threat there, which is that AI could decide to use, to detonate nuclear weapons for one reason or another without human consent. So it's like, it might be a really good case to get rid of our nuclear weapons. How are people in your field seeing this development?
Anna: Yeah. And also it happened so fast, whereas I feel progress seems to happen so slowly. So yeah, I think we're like really racing, countries are racing in terms of creating these more sophisticated, more destructive tools where I think the endpoint would be global destruction, where I feel like we should be racing to stop them, to create a better world, to develop a moral compass. And I think, yeah, it's definitely not there. So yeah, I think AI is also not only used together with nuclear weapons, but also is really used in newer types of weapons, such as autonomous weapons systems, which I also mentioned earlier.
That's the other issue that we work on, my team. And again, there's this race to develop this kind of technology faster than other countries. And autonomous weapons systems, for listeners who are not familiar, it's not really a class of weapon, but type of weapons that are currently in development where if launched, it could select and engage target without a meaningful human intervention. So basically, a human could start the system and then say, based on the preloaded dataset, it can decide, "Okay, this is going to be the target in this scope, in this geographic scope. And if I find the target that matches the profile in my data, I can potentially launch a force." So there are different degrees of development, but we're concerned about where we are with the technology and lack of regulation at the international level. So that's something we're definitely working on.
And I think the key in this kind of technology, especially AI, is the speed, right? And that's something... because basically when countries are fighting war, faster you can make the decision and faster you can make a move, you're better off, or that's the belief. So therefore, there's this kind of competition for speed. And that's the major concern I think AI really brings to this discussion, especially with the nuclear weapons. So nuclear deterrence is already unstable and fragile by its nature. I was thinking about the film that came out last year, "The House of Dynamite," which I think the title really says it all...and AI is already being used in different areas of nuclear weapons-related systems, so we're not quite talking about AI launching nuclear weapons per se yet, although I know that's something people worry about. And again, if we don't do something about it, I'm sure that could be an option in the future.
But today it's, for example, used to identify missile launches or analyzing different sets of sensor data to see other countries' activities. So it's shaping decision-making, and it can do that in a very intense situation where people are basically pressured to decide in a matter of minutes, seconds, whether or not to launch, right?
So AI, by its nature, I think it selects information and decides which information gets prioritized, and then it demands fast action. So I think it again adds another layer of risk when we're talking about something like nuclear weapons. If machines are tasked to make that kind of decisions, that's where we could end up where nuclear weapons are considered as like a tool in a pocket or like a toolbox that we can just pull out and rather than this kind of we should never go there, right? And machines don't have that kind of moral judgment.
Stephanie: Okay. Let's talk about the money used to invest in nuclear weapons and where that money could go instead. So there's a conversation in the news right now about Pete Hegseth asking for $1.5 trillion dollars to spend in Iran. That's taxpayer money, that could be used to fund, to support the unhoused, to support food, farms, medicine, animal shelters, childcare, laborers, safety. I mean, this, what kind of society, think of all the money that's going into these weapons and into war and violence. What else can we do with them? I just, I think that's a fun conversation to have, to realize that the money doesn't have to go there, and that we could build a safer and more secure society when more people are fulfilled and happy, and that we're working on that for everyone.
Anna: Yeah. Disheartening part of this current story that we live in is this prioritization of national security versus what makes people really safe, right? Individual security, individual health. I'm glad you brought that up because I was just reading, we're part of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, and I just saw, they do this study of nuclear weapons spending every year. And last year, the nine nuclear arms states together spent $119 billion on nuclear weapons, which, if you calculate it, it said is $3,768 per second. It's just insane amount of money. Just can you imagine how many lives could have been saved or how much structure of society we can improve with that resources?
And then, yeah, you mentioned US spending. So there was a recent kind of mobilization because now the National Nuclear Security Administration is also saying that they need to produce new plutonium pits, which are basically like this radioactive core of nuclear weapons that would trigger detonation. And it's actually one of the most expensive projects of NNSA. So I think the proposal is something like to spend at least- $60 billion over the next 20 years. Again, that's the kind of money, taxpayers' money, that could be spent on so many other things that we could be spending on. So yeah, and then not to mention the potential health and environmental risks of the local communities that would happen as a result of such production.
So I think, yeah, we just can't forget, like nuclear deterrence is costing us every day, every minute just by its existence. And again, it's a big gamble in our security. And so instead, we should be, like you were saying, imagining, What would help pursue peace, right? What would help our countries become more secure in a truer sense? What are the kind of investments that we could use, we could do to actually improve communication between nations, create diplomacy, trust? Those are the things that I think is obvious, but somehow it gets overlooked. And I think, again, we're talking about money. That's part of the reason. Unfortunately, war and military spending profits people, a group of people, right?
Whereas peace somehow doesn't seem to be profiting. And I guess that's another reason why it does not get the attention that it deserves.
Stephanie: The last episode of Nonviolence Radio, we spoke with Marie Dennis, we were talking about the new pope's encyclical on AI. And, her conversations with church leaders is about trying to get just war theory out of Catholic teachings, saying that it's no longer a relevant theory, but that people feel like they're naive, and so they went back and thought about it, how do we get there? And they realized that they needed to educate more people about what nonviolence is and how nonviolence is a better alternative. That there's this kind of gap in knowledge and understanding, basically. And so I thought that was a really brilliant and strategic approach, was thinking, okay, they're not ready for this leap of imagination because there's work to be built up between. And I know that you work interfaith as well, so I wonder, can you tell us about any other interfaith work that's going on that you're part of, that people can get involved in or inspires action?
Anna: Yeah. And I, too, read parts of that encyclical, and I was quite inspired when, especially he talked about disarming AI and how, again, technology shouldn't be used to destroy humanity, but to serve our wellbeing. So I really resonated with the message. And yeah, I think those are the kind of conversations, people of faith taking action, that also gives me hope.
Yeah, in terms of interfaith collaborations, I think especially on these issues such as nuclear weapons and autonomous weapons systems, which are existential threats, it also talks about really who we are. We are realizing that so many faith traditions agree on the core messaging of our stance against those weapons and our real desire for peace, right? And we're really seeing so many common ground. So I do, for example, a lot of interfaith statements on these issues that we present at the different UN fora. And I'm just surprised or inspired whenever we discuss it that we have similar languages, similar values, and we have so many more places we agree than disagree. And I think it's just so hopeful to see that, that we are all working toward creating this better world together despite our differences in faith traditions and other backgrounds. So I think, yeah, creating such spaces has been not only-- I hope it's been effective in advocacy, but also it's been energizing for me.
And also August 6th and 9th are approaching.Those are Hiroshima and Nagasaki days, and many faith communities are praying, of course, on those days, around those days. Some of them are doing community engagements, education, action, visuals. I'm part of a group called Voices for a World Free of Nuclear Weapons, which is part of the United Religions Initiative, and we commemorate these days as Nuclear Prayer Day. And we are aware that, again, many faith communities are engaging in local actions, so I'm sure there are different groups, perhaps in different local communities that are doing something. So I think August is an important month for us, and it's also perhaps a good month to engage.
Stephanie: And it seems like there's a lot of support out there for anybody who is ready to take the next step and get more involved, that there's a really good tight network out there, whether it is with a faith community or with an activist community, direct confrontation work, if that's what you're interested in, policy work. It takes everybody, and people could give just even a little bit of their time to this, and it would help move it forward quite a bit, I think. How about you?
Anna: I am, yeah. I agree with you. Yeah. And I cannot emphasize enough that no action is insignificant or trivial. It all, I think, accumulates to not only help move the needle, but I think the action in and of itself is meaningful for that person, because I feel like that's the only way I am staying somewhat hopeful and sane in this reality is because I know that I can do something about it. And there are people, thousands of people, who care about this issue and are doing something about it, and they are incredibly dedicated, smart, amazing people. So I feel like if I'm on their team, I feel like there's something about this movement.
And so there are so many communities, like you said there, and there are not only like local groups or faith groups, but there's also health providers groups or educators groups, student groups, people, again, like you said, bringing in their talent, their gift. So I think whatever capacity that people can do, and even just talking about it to their families, to their neighbors. I think this issue doesn't get as much attention as I think it deserves, and I think it's in those conversations where people just like really questioning, do nuclear weapons really make us safe? Or is it actually a cause for worry? And yeah, like whose voices we're not hearing, I think all are like such important conversations and questions that I think, you know, we want people to have children to think about, so we can use anybody's help.
Stephanie: And I would definitely want to tell people that you wrote a children's book called Remember This Always, and in its essence, it's really an anti-nuclear book, if you think about it, if go all the way back to the beginning of our conversation about this is about a human story of who we are and what makes safe and our recognition of it. It's a beautiful book. It's both a prayer and a reflection and a philosophical inquiry into humanity, and those kinds of conversations early are so important.
Anna: Yeah. It's interesting that you bring that up, and I think it's so true, and I think especially in this era of technology where so many things are convenient, and I think even myself, I'm sometimes so guilty of depending on technology to the point that I'm outsourcing my thinking. It's so much easier if I just ask a chat bot than to really research and think, right? That's so dangerous, and I think what it's doing is I'm really contributing to this forgetting my own ability, my humanity, my capacity as a human being.
I think when we talk about, really this current era that we live in and extreme forms of technologies like nuclear weapons and autonomous weapons, we really have to go back to remembering that our humanity is the best weapon or best tool to counter that, right? And we really have to remember that we have that kind of infinite power. That's the power of nonviolence that I think Metta Center does so well to cultivate. In my practice, that's the kind of the Buddha nature that I also aim to cultivate every day because I think at the end of the day, I think that's what will help us prevent another nuclear war. It's not another form of technology. I think it's humanity, right?
So when I'm thinking about, yeah, all the things that happened through the history and why we've been so lucky, for example, going back to the previous conversation, it's really human intervention most of the time. There's definitely a cases where it was lucky, like nuclear weapon dropped, it didn't detonate. We were incredibly lucky. But there were cases, for example, where people really had to make intense decision of whether or not to follow a launch order, and there was always somebody who questioned it, and therefore the world was saved, right?
So recently I was in a meeting where actually my colleague was sharing this story about incident in Okinawa in the '60s. So my organization actually has this facility in Okinawa that used to be like a missile site, and now we use it to do peace meetings and retreats to convert the meaning of the center. But so when this colleague was visiting, they heard the story of at the height of the Cuba missile crisis, right? There were four US tactical missile sites in Okinawa and because it was under the US administration at that time, and they received basically authenticated orders to launch cruise missiles armed with a nuclear-armed capable of destroying a city.
So the system basically worked exactly as it was designed to do, but luckily the missiles weren't launched because this one captain, Captain Bassett, he trusted his judgment because he noticed that there was this kind of inconsistency where launch order didn't match DEFCON 2 alert level, which basically say it's one level below a level that's ready to launch. So he was questioning, why is there this discrepancy? And also there was another kind of gap, which was that Cuban Missile Crisis was a confrontation between the US and Soviet Union, right? But the order that he received was targeting China, so he just realized that it didn't make sense to strike a country that's not part of this immediate conflict. So he trusted his own judgment and he ordered his crew to basically stand down. So that's the only reason why the missiles were not launched.
So I really think, again, going back to your point, especially in this time of technological development, we really have to go back to cultivating our own humanity and reminding ourselves of that, not only ourselves, but with our children. And we have to develop that kind of wisdom, intuition, or even courage to disobey, especially when we feel like this isn't right, the way that the technology is being used or when the way that I'm asked to act is not right. So I really feel like it comes down to developing this human capacity, and I guess that's what our work at Metta Center does too, is to cultivate this capacity to practice nonviolence. And I guess that's why at the end of the day, I can go to sleep at night because I really feel humanity has greater power than any bomb, and I just have to keep remembering that.
Stephanie: That was Anna Ikeda. She works with Soka Gakkai International, and she's author of a children's book, Remember This Always, and she's a member of the board of directors at the Metta Center for Nonviolence.
Okay, Michael, let's turn now to your Nonviolence Report, because the conversation on nuclear weapons can feel very alienating and we can lose hope. And, but I really feel like Anna's approach to this conversation is about recognizing what's inside of our humanity and developing that, and the work that you're doing with the report also helps us to see that too, so we need more of it. So let's turn to you, Michael.
Michael Nagler: Well, but no pressure. Thank you, Stephanie. And yes, that's exactly what I was thinking, how well Anna put the emphasis, put our attention on the human level. She talks about how Josei Toda, who was the founder of Soka Gakkai, claimed that nuclear weapons are, quote, "The manifestation of our darkest tendencies." And, we always say that nonviolence is the manifestation of our brightest tendencies, and we are capable of both. And it always brings to my mind a line from the Greek dramatist Sophocles. I think of this line often. In Greek it goes, "polla ta deina, k’ouden anthropou deinoteron pelei" which means: there are many potent marvels in the world, but the most potent marvel of them all is the human being.
So, there's a parallel in all of this to what we've been going through with the really drastic drug crisis affecting many places in the world. And for example, an article about Estonia recently, which has really fallen victim to fentanyl in a very heavy way. And so the government is going to round up all the suppliers and get rid of the drug. But as someone pointed out, the drug is just the technology. It's not the human level. If we pull out fentanyl, something else will come in to fill that void. But the real void is not the absence of a particular substance, it's the void within the human heart when a person does not have a way to manifest their brightest tendencies by serving the rest of humanity. And it reminded me that cocaine was introduced to cure heroin addiction. And now look. So again, the symptoms, it's sometimes quite important to work on them, but it's very important not to think that by swapping out the symptom, you've cured the disease.
So yes, I should turn to some positive actions. And it's very interesting how back in the '80s and '90s, a group called Earth Quaker Action Team was trying to stop a terrible practice, mountaintop removal, which just, it-- I just can't say anything bad enough about mountaintop removal. It's just so violent. And they tried many different things, and eventually they realized that the companies that are doing this depend on loans from the bank. So they picketed Citibank, and sure enough, that led to success in ending that project immediately. So that's kind of the negative side.
Now, on the positive side, there's a new concept of, called net zero banking. Laura Wildenborg is a project leader for Sunrise Bank's initiative, net zero banking. It launched in July of 2024. Now, what this means is that the investors, the customers of the bank, can stipulate that their deposits be loaned out only to net zero projects, in other words, projects that will lead to a zero, if not a diminution of carbon in the atmosphere. And since launching this program, Sunrise Banks has received $5.5 million in deposits and has loaned out nearly 22 million. And they are a very important part of the commitment to reach net zero emissions by 2050 in alignment with the Paris Agreement, which was an international treaty to limit global temperature increases. We know what happened to the United States' participation in that treaty, but I'm not going to go there right now.
Instead, another issue about banks, if we get beyond the environmental issues, some cities in New Jersey have taken their money out of Citizens Bank, in fact, $91 million of it, out of Citizens Bank. Why? Because of their financing of ICE detention centers. And sure enough, within days, Citizens Bank announced that it would end all its credit agreements with the two major private companies that are running and building detention centers This reversion to private prisons has reminded me that back in the earliest days of the Quaker movement, one of the things that made imprisonment so dire was that it was privately run, and you could buy your way out of it. So again, it was enormous inequality involved in that, and it's really a bad move to be going back to it.
When we talk about positive developments in groups that are doing a lot of good, we seem to always come back, at least I don't know if this is just a Metta thing or not, but we always come back to Nonviolent Peaceforce.And I was very interested to note recently that they've expanded their roles as they encounter different community needs. The original role was to offer good offices and, if necessary, intervention in armed conflicts, to actually be there as a third party, to help communication gaps between two parties, and if necessary, and this has happened a time or two, to actually stand there and say, "Okay, if you shoot at this other person, you're going to hit us." So that was their original mandate. But now in the Philippines, in Kenya, and Ukraine, and other countries, they find that they're able to broaden that and address different community needs, which is, you know, very telling about, you know, once you've made the decision to be nonviolent, it's going to apply in many different ways, in many different places. And the one that really touched me was how they repatriated a large number of children in Sudan. They'd been separated from their families.
Let me turn to another issue now, just because there's so much going on. And I want to talk for a minute about prison abolition. So there is a famous low security facility in Norway, which has been called the most humane prison on the planet. And some officials from North Dakota prisons, in particular a woman official who was the head of the board, visited this facility in Norway, which is amazing. It doesn't even have a fence, you know. You hardly know that you're in prison. She came back and immediately ended solitary confinement, added book clubs, museum field trips, set up transitional rooms for inmates who are nearing release. That's very important because that's a critical transition where people often fail and go back into recidivism. And what was the response? The violence in the prison plummeted. Now, my thought here is that prison abolition at one stroke is a wonderful idea, but I wish it were realistic. The fact is, we live in a disordered kind of society where people take to crime. And when they take to crime, it is still sometimes necessary to sequester them for their own protection. So when we still have to incarcerate, and it's a terrible symptom of our failure as a society that we have to do that at such a high level, we do want to transition out of it, but where we still have to incarcerate, this model of that prison in Norway is a perfect transition.
We recently have had a conversation, as Stephanie was mentioning, with Marie Dennis, who's an important Catholic nonviolent activist, and it coincided with a diocesan commission in Spain that concluded recently with a commitment to the active nonviolence of the Gospel as a path leading to a just and lasting peace. Their Justice and Peace Commission was set up to reflect on the theme human rights, peace, and nonviolence.
Stephanie: Lovely. Thank you so much, Michael. I know this is a shortened Nonviolence Report, and there's a lot going on. Maybe we can do a separate recording. We want to thank our mother station, KWMR, to all of our listeners across the Pacifica Network and the other places that syndicate the show. Thank you so much to Elizabeth High, who helps to transcribe the show, our friends at Waging Nonviolence, who help syndicate, and to you, all of our listeners. Until the next time, everybody, please take care of one another. We'll be back in two weeks.