General Lee's Award Speech

General George Lee Butler, USAF
(Ret. - ex head of the Strategic Air Command)
on ridding the world of nuclear dangers

Acceptance Speech for the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation's
Distinguished Peace Leadership Award

General George Lee Butler, USAF (Ret.)
Santa Barbara California, April 30, 1999

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, and thank you Michael (actor Michael Douglas) for such a gracious introduction. However, I must confess it evokes mixed emotions; after all, it is rather awkward being introduced by a man your wife is in love with. I can deal with that, Michael, but for heaven's sake, don't go making a movie about it, o.k.? Truth be told, it is easy to fall in love with Michael Douglas. His qualities as a human being transcend his consummate skills as an actor and producer. The United Nations has chosen wisely and well in naming him an Ambassador of Peace, and we are graced by his presence.
You do me great honor this evening, and in so doing you honor my wife and children as well. They are my fount of support and inspiration. In August, Dorene and I will celebrate 37 years of marriage. Through four decades of service and sacrifice, she left an indelible mark on the men and women in uniform she loved so dearly. The two of us are blessed with a loving family, bound by common values and convictions, hopes and aspirations.
They join me in thanking you for this recognition, and for the
extraordinary efforts you have made in our mutual quest to rid the world of nuclear dangers. And, surely, none have served that cause more ardently than David Krieger and the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. The strength of his commitment is powerfully reflected in the moral force of is organization and in his eloquent testimony on behalf of humanity.
As I surveyed the history of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, I was once more reminded that I am a latecomer to the crusade to eliminatemnuclear weapons. And, as I have come better to know the global army engaged in this crusade, I have begun to appreciate more fully the uniqueness of my role. I also feel increasingly the burden of my responsibility, both to you, and to those in whose company I spent most of my professional life.
My responsibility to this legion of former colleagues is to represent our common experience fairly, to honor their sacrifice and praise their sense of duty and patriotism. The men and women who serve so faithfully at the perilous ramparts of nuclear deterrence deserve our gratitude and our respect. It matters enormously to all of us that they do their job with the skill and devotion it demands.
My responsibility to you has been first to feel the depth of your passion, to understand your rage and frustration, to absorb the logic of arguments for abolition, and to come to terms with the embedded moral issues. That task has largely been met. For the past five years, I have studied, traveled, reflected, written and rehearsed publicly the evolution of my views on the role of nuclear weapons as instruments of national security. I have met with, interviewed with and communed with thousands of individuals and organizations, who have showered me with praise, criticism and, periodically, confusion. My indoctrination into your world is complete, and I have begun the process of shaping my activities to fit my particular view of the work to be done.
Which brings me to my second responsibility to the abolition army: to explain, patiently and humbly, who I am and who I am not; what I believe and what I do not; what I consider to be a fair critique of the U. S. Nuclear weapons experience and what is not; and, to the point of my remarks this evening, how I see the future of the task to reduce and to eliminate the dangers posed by nuclear weapons.
As for who I am and what I believe, first and foremost, I am a husband, a father, a grandfather, a son and a brother who cherishes his family and the joys they bring. I am a child of god, a world citizen, a patriot and a responsible member of the city I call home. I am guided by my faith, devoted to mankind, inspired by democracy and with my wife Dorene, deeply engaged in community service.
But you should also understand that I am a lifelong military
professional and a combat veteran who holds firmly to the conviction that the United States plays an irreplaceable role in building global peace and security. We do not always play that role wisely, but by and large it has served the world supremely well. The history of this century would have been written far differently had our great nation faltered in its self-imposed task to defeat successive waves of tyranny
no matter the risk or cost.
My critique of the United States as a nuclear weapons power can be properly understood only in the context of that broader role. By clinging to the extreme precepts of cold war nuclear deterrence we erode the respect for life that anchors our sense of humanity, and the moral sensibilities that increasingly inspire us to contain the violence of war and the suffering of innocents. Worse, with respect to the central
issue of proliferation, we risk summoning the very nightmare we have worked so fervently to forestall. First-use policies and high alert postures are in direct contradiction to our self-interest, the objectives of the non-proliferation treaty and the patent rejection of the use of nuclear weapons by American presidents in conflicts from Korea to Indochina to the Persian gulf.
The price of this foolish nuclear weapons policy is steep and continues to mount. We have lost a priceless opportunity to negotiate with Russia sharp, accelerated reductions in nuclear arsenals. As a consequence both our former adversary and we are squandering vital resources to sustain nuclear forces that have no conceivable relevance to our mutual or unilateral security interests. The absurd standoff over Start II ratification, a treaty now overtaken by events, has stalled the arms control process, codified grossly excessive arsenals, weakened the political will essential to presidential leadership, and eroded the trust upon which further progress depends.
India and Pakistan have thrust themselves into the nuclear arena, casting aside pretense, brandishing their fledgling arsenals and declaring themselves cloaked in the security of the self-same deterrence proclaimed so insistently by the charter members of the nuclear club. It is by no means certain that U. S. Intervention could ever have stemmed the all too familiar tides of nationalistic fervor and mutual anxiety sweeping the subcontinent. However, it is painfully evident that no amount of protest would suffice coming from an American president hoist on the petard of his own nuclear weapons policy.
Of gravest concern, however, is the fate of the non-proliferation
regime, that grand contract which long stood as a tribute to
statesmanship and now stands imperiled by brinksmanship. What seems regrettably clear is that none of the five declared nuclear weapons states have any intention of taking meaningful near term steps toward meeting their obligations under article vi of the treaty. Even what I consider to be half-measures, such as reduced alert postures and no first use declarations, have met stiff resistance. Clearly we are at an impasse with profound implications for the non-proliferation bargain and for its enshrined principal that nuclear weapons are intolerable.
These cumulative blows to the spirit and to the letter of nuclear arms control have done great violence to the mutual reliance upon which this fragile balancing of sovereign anxieties depends. Reviving the process, or simply preserving it through the current impasse, poses a defining challenge to the proponents of abolition: establishing a productive, mutually respectful dialogue with the nuclear weapon states, and bringing responsible public pressure to bear on their policies. Both of these tasks are crucial, and in my judgment the abolition campaign has in both been largely unsuccessful.
The first task requires a more determined effort to understand the arguments, concerns and constraints of the policy makers in these states who must deal daily with the realities of arsenals in being, negotiations in deadlock and bitterly partisan politics. Even having been in these positions, I still devote much of my time and energy to the business of constructive dialogue and find it invaluable. I am therefore dismayed by the number of abolitionists I encounter who are unaware of, indifferent to or unwilling to address seriously the views of key government officials. I am put off by those who impute to them ill intent or ulterior motive. Rather, these decisionmakers are still disposed to see the world darkly, a Hobbsian brew of lurking enemies wherein Americans tire of engagement and nuclear weapons reign at once as ultimate threat and final salvation. Patient, courteous dialogue will not necessarily transform this view, but it is essential to clarify differences, air alternatives and begin the search for common ground.
With respect to mobilizing public interest and support, the task is equally daunting. It requires a sophisticated understanding of the role of the media, patient building of relationships with individual journalists, a very nuanced and regionally focused perspective of public opinion, and a detailed analysis of the constituencies who can be most effectively marshaled to influence the political arena. That entails in turn a careful appraisal of the attitudes of key public officials and a strategy to engage them on the merits of their objections and concerns.
None of this, of course, is new or different. It is the ordinary
business of informing public policy debate on any issue. Further, I recognize that much of this spadework has been done by any number of organizations in the abolition camp. What seems yet to be done is for the results of this disparate effort to be brought together in an organized fashion that will serve the purposes of the entire community, hopefully as a basis for a common plan of action.
Many of us spent a long day together in advance of this evening's agenda to wrestle with these questions of challenge and response. While I have yet to absorb all of what I heard, let me share my personal impressions and conclusions about why we find ourselves at what I have described as an impasse, and how I am structuring my time and resources to address it.
First, I am persuaded that the traditional arms control process, which served us well through the tensions of the cold war, is not just stalled, but dysfunctional. It is freighted with psychology, language, assumptions and protocols that perpetuate distrust, constrain imagination, limit expectations and prolong outcomes. It is mired in partisan politics, the nation's most vital interest reduced to a spiteful standoff across a liberal - conservative divide. It focuses on things that now matter relatively less, like numbers of warheads, at the
expense of things that matter a great deal more, such as the policies that drive the numbers, and the rapid response postures. With regard to the non-proliferation treaty, ingrained patterns of interaction between the nuclear and non-nuclear weapon states are promoting a train wreck, a collision of competing expectations that I believe is at this juncture irreconcilable.
Second, based on extensive recent discussions, I have concluded thatthe governments of the nuclear weapon states have simply stopped thinking seriously about their policies or the military utility of their arsenals. Civilian leaders talk in almost cavalier terms about the "political role" of nuclear weapons, as if they can be divorced from the risks of misperceived intent, the demands of operational readiness or
the emotional cauldron of real world crises. Nuclear deterrence has been transliterated from cold war parlance as if it were immutable, an intellectual dodge that suspends the onerous requirement to fundamentally rethink outmoded doctrines and forces.
Third, I believe the rhetoric about nuclear issues and dangers is becoming badly overheated. The shrill language and exaggerated portrayal of threats coming from parties on both sides of the nuclear debate is damaging to their credibility and detrimental to public understanding. It may well provoke precipitous responses, such as abrogation of the ABM treaty and a rush to defenses that will exacerbate tensions and foreclose options. Demonizing labels, such as "rogue states;" disparaging personal attacks; and scare tactics regarding ballistic missile threats, Y2K failures, or a "new cold war," are a disservice to intelligent debate and unworthy of the stakes involved.
Fourth, turning specifically to the agenda, tactics and timetable of the abolition community, I see a widening gulf between its aspirations and their prospects, especially in the near term. That disparity is most immediately obvious in the disjunction between the name of the umbrella organization, "abolition 2000," and the self-evident reality that its implied goal is not yet in sight, much less in hand. That is a real Y2K problem that must be addressed to ensure the vitality of the on-going work of the organization is not diminished by intimations of a failed strategic objective.
But, more to the substantive point, I worry that the message and the tactics are not attuned to the core conceptions and the priorities of its target audiences: publics and policymakers. With regard to both audiences, for example, I think the challenge of gaining and holding attention, igniting concern and prompting action is far more daunting than many of you perceive. Belief in the utility of nuclear deterrence is a universal article of faith, and small wonder. Generations of
authoritative figures, myself included, spent decades propounding its essence and extolling its virtues. And now, those who have no inclination nor see any reason to test its hypotheses have the intellectual luxury of asserting that "it worked." That simplistic but highly appealing supposition too easily translates to the equally simplistic corollary, "and deterrence will work against rogue states."
As concerns tactics, I leave to your judgment whether the traditional marches, demonstrations, ban the bomb symbols and calculated confrontations contribute to or detract from the task of dialogue. In my own view, they are more hurtful than helpful, but I readily admit that view comes from having too often experienced them from the other side of the chain link fences and the pentagon walls. That being said I worry that such tactics and slogans may not be psychologically attuned to a far lower level of public trepidation about nuclear dangers than prevailed during the cold war. As regards policy makers, I can tell you with some certainty these approaches are far from endearing.
My real concern, however, is that they depreciate the greatest strength you bring to this arena and that is the force of your moral conviction. My sense is that in today's environment, this powerful energy is best focused through the lens of carefully honed argument; otherwise it risks being diffused by the optics of erroneous or resentful perception.
I appreciate more than anyone in this room that I tread on very thin credibility in calling for a reappraisal of the abolition movement. Many of you have suffered great indignities, hardship and even incarceration in the name of a cause that touches the core of your being. I understand that and I respect it. I can only ask you to accept that I am gravely concerned for the continuing effectiveness of the campaign.
Many of you will also recognize that I am echoing frustrations arising from within your own ranks. The impasse I have described is widely felt and, witness today's colloquy convened by David Krieger, has already begun to prompt thoughtful assessments of cause and effect. Indeed, we have already witnessed an exemplary demonstration of the rigorous, sophisticated and fruitful enterprise I believe essential to sustaining the abolition cause. The middle powers initiative led by Ambassador Doug Roche and his very competent staff has already scored a major success. I have been privileged to play a small role in this activity as pertains to its Canadian dimension, and have seen at close hand the product of Doug's intelligent, focused leadership.
In no small way, I have taken a page from Doug's book in reordering the nature of my participation in the nuclear weapons arena. My wife Dorene and I take this occasion to announce formally the establishment of our own foundation dedicated to reducing and eliminating nuclear dangers. We have decided on the name, "second chance," to reflect our relief and gratitude that a merciful creator chose to deliver his wayward children from their inconceivable folly of threatening to destroy his divine creation.
Our charter commits us to two major activities: promoting public education and awareness of the dangers posed by nuclear weapons; and, sponsoring activities to reduce or to eliminate these dangers. We recognize that does not make us uniquely different, but it does give us strategic focus. For example it suggests that I must greatly curtail speaking to the converted, as uplifting as I find such audiences. Rather, I am going to spend my time assessing and interacting with those key constituencies who will or can play determining roles in affecting outcomes, but who are unaware or unconvinced of what must be done. Our mandate suggests equally that within the constraints of finite resources we intend to sponsor research and assist efforts that bear most directly on resolving the most difficult and important issues and obstacles.
I might add we intend to begin with a small but expert staff. As witness to that expertise, Dorene and I are pleased to announce we have engaged the services of Dr. Tom Graham, formerly of the Rockefeller Foundation. No one, in our judgment, knows this arena better or has been more effective in shaping outcomes than Tom. He is operating out of an office in New York in order to give us a presence on the East Coast. We have also brought on board as our office manager and principal administrative assistant a wonderful lady with whom some of you have already dealt. Peggy Kruse worked for me in my previous life as a businessman, and Dorene and I quickly found her to be indispensable. We will add other staff as our activities dictate, but for now we are in being and on-line.
You have heard me say before that five years ago I knew virtually nothing of nongovernmental organizations, but now I think I am one. Well, you can drop the "I think," and the "I am." The correct articulation is, "We are." Dorene, Tom, Peggy and I took this step only after long and searching consideration. We have accepted its consequences for us and for our families. We are mindful that the bar of expectation for performance in this arena has been raised very high by organizations like the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation who pioneered the crusade against nuclear weapons. And, we are indebted to the individuals and organizations who have provided valuable support in getting us airborne, especially Howard and Myra Brembeck and their fourth freedom forum, and Warren Buffett.
But most important, we know what is at stake. It is too much to ask of our creator a third chance to purge our souls and to mend our ways. We dare not continue to trifle with his work lest he finally leave us to our self-assigned damnation of nuclear hell on earth.
I accept your award tonight in the name of those who have labored so long in this cause. I accept it in tribute to my family who love and support me. I accept it as an obligation to serve the sanctity of life, the wonder of our planet and the birthright of every child who enters this world to live free from the threat of nuclear annihilation.

Michael Douglas on General Butler:

Lee's choice to make nuclear abolition his life's commitment has dramatically influenced many of us to commit ourselves with increasedenthusiasm and energy.
Lee continues living his life protecting our country, but his beliefs on how to achieve security have dramatically changed.
For years, as head of the Strategic Air Command, he planned the ultimate destruction. Now he tirelessly labors to prevent that destruction. A man willing to change based on reason and conscience is the kind of man who can change history. If that is not a true patriot then I do not know what is.
END