Statement in Support of the Kings Bay Seven

The Kings Bay Seven are seven Catholic peace activists who broke in to the Navy’s submarine base at Kings Bay, Georgia on April 14, 2018, sprayed anti-nuclear weapons graffiti on a sidewalk, splashed their own blood, and used a hammer to dent a statue on the base. They wanted to draw attention to the “illegal and immoral nuclear weapons that threaten all life on Earth.” They were entirely non-violent and undertook what at worst could be characterized as mild vandalism.

They face twenty-five years in Federal prison.

The following is a statement by Ward Wilson in support of the Kings Bay Seven.

I support the Kings Bay Seven and commend their actions.

The inevitability of nuclear war is as certain as human nature and as clear as the logic of three short sentences. First, “All human beings are fallible.” No man or woman is perfect. From the lowest private to the highest leader, we all make mistakes. Second, “Human beings are involved in nuclear deterrence.” We make the threats, we evaluate the threats, we decide how to respond. Nuclear deterrence is not some computer that runs unattended in a climate controlled room. Human beings are involved at every step. And third, “If human beings are prone to folly (and we are), and if human beings are involved in nuclear deterrence (and we are), then nuclear deterrence is inherently flawed. It will fail.

Seven decades of reassurances cannot change the facts. Despite claims that nuclear deterrence has worked perfectly, nuclear deterrence has already failed. If nuclear deterrence has never failed, how did the Russians blockade Berlin in 1948 when the United States had a monopoly on nuclear weapons? If nuclear deterrence has never failed, how did the Chinese join the Korean War (after the United States moved nuclear-capable bombers to Guam and “leaked” the move)? If nuclear deterrence has never failed, how did President Kennedy blockade Cuba, despite knowing that such an action risked nuclear war? If nuclear deterrence has never failed, how did the Israelis get attacked in the Middle East War of 1973? (The fact that they had nuclear weapons had been reported in the New York Times.) If nuclear deterrence has never failed, why did the Argentines attack the Falkland Islands (held by the nuclear-armed United Kingdom) in 1982? And so on.

Nuclear weapons advocates say that these are not failures of nuclear deterrence because they did not lead to nuclear war. But that is like saying that when the brakes on your car fail, if there isn’t a catastrophic outcome—if you don’t end up dead—then your brakes can’t have failed. The outcome of a car accident, like the outcome of a nuclear crisis, is determined by many factors. Of course nuclear deterrence can fail but other factors—luck or happenstance or timely actions by others—can keep nuclear war from occurring.

Nuclear deterrence has failed and will fail. Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara famously said that the only thing that prevented nuclear war during the Cuban Missile Crisis was “luck.” One day our luck will run out and we will find ourselves in a catastrophic nuclear war. If we continue to rely on nuclear deterrence, it’s not a question of if, it’s just a question of when.

Despite the plain and undeniable danger, our nuclear weapons policies are rarely questioned. Pat reassurances and stock phrases pass for public debate. But the ideas that supposedly justify keeping a nuclear weapons arsenal were formulated during the Cold War, a time of enormous fear, and no one does their best thinking when they’re afraid. Basic assumptions of our policy—like the reliability of nuclear deterrence—are obviously flawed.

Raising questions about policies that risk our nation’s survival is not rude or impolitic or unpatriotic, it is a civic responsibility, a basic duty of every citizen. Drawing attention to these dangerous policies is essential. The minor infractions that these seven used in an attempt to raise public awareness were not unreasonable given the stakes.

The law may demand punishment for spray painting and trespass. And maintaining the dignity of the law is essential for a democratic society. But it is difficult to avoid the appearance of pettiness in a case where the aim of the crime is the preservation of our nation, when the goal is to prevent catastrophic war, when people clearly acted for the greater good. The harm is so small and their intention so high that any harsh punishment of their actions risks the appearance of injustice—an injustice which would inevitably weaken, not strengthen, respect for the law.

You can sign the petition to dismiss the charges here.