Yet more corrupting grift

President Trump is selling public property and pocketing the money.

--  It corrupts the markets.

--  It steals from the public.

--  It corrupts the government.

--  Republicans in Congress could stop it, but they don't.

Trump Media and Technology Group launched a new paid data service on August 1, providing faster access to market-moving Truth Social posts. The price is $100,000 a month, discounted to $60,000 a month under a three-year contract. Donald Trump's revocable trust owns approximately half of Trump Media.

President Trump uses posts on Truth Social to announce official acts that move financial markets. Milliseconds faster access to paid subscribers seems trivial at first glance, but being first to enter trades matters to computer-driven quantitative trading firms. Wall Street firms are paying the fee. It is worth it to them.

Early access to fee-payers corrupts the markets. Our financial markets rest on the presumption everyone has the same opportunity to be right or wrong. This head-start release of information makes advantage explicit and sanctioned. Now we know. People who pay a fee get a head start.

Selling early access is theft. We American taxpayers are being robbed. If the president of the U.S. is going to announce an official act, for example, bomb an Iranian oil refinery, news that would likely raise the value of American refineries, then that intellectual property belongs to the American public, not to the Trump family. Early access should not be sold at all, but if it is  to be sold, the revenue should go to the U.S. Treasury. Those Wall Street firms are not paying $100,000 to get early access to Trump saying that he bought Melania white roses for Valentine's Day; that news would be personal. But market-moving news of official acts is information that belongs to us all. 

Republican members of Congress are demeaning themselves by their acquiescence. They know better than to tolerate this, and they would not tolerate it from anyone but Trump. They know this looks wrong and is wrong. It sets a bad precedent. They are silent and cowering. 

The early-access sale reveals and clarifies something about Trump's understanding of his role. He does not consider himself a trustee, operating on behalf of the public. He is an owner. He understands his election in 2016 to have been, in effect, a successful purchase of a trophy property. Therefore, information about his public acts belong to him, not the public. It is a feudal, monarchical understanding of the presidency and the government.  L'État, c'est moi. Trump is the state. 

This helps clarify why Trump would feel entitled to tear down the East Wing of the White House. It was his to do as he chose. I have no doubt that he thinks he is improving it, but he isn't thinking like a tenant, nor a trustee of a public building. 

An owner's mindset helps explain his attitude toward the 2020 election. He acquired the presidency in the 2016 election. My 30-year experience working as a financial advisor taught me that people experience loss with five time the intensity as they do opportunity for gain. Trump did not face the 2020 election thinking he and Biden had an equal right to be elected. No. Trump had the presidency in hand. It was his. And someone --  Joe Biden, Democrats, Black voters in cities, Mike Pence, non-citizen voters, election workers, tabulating machines, corrupt state and federal judges -- took his presidency from him. 

The most dangerous thing about Trump's understanding of his role as owner, not trustee, is that his Republican enablers in the Congress are not contesting him on this subject. Their acquiescence is normalizing Trump. The public is getting accustomed to an elected strong man, with unlimited power to govern and the right to personal use of public property and the public trust. Trump is in trouble, and his power weakened, but not because he is acting like a king and Republicans object. He is in trouble because he foolishly led us into a war, we have inflation, the tariffs are unpopular, and the economy is continuing to squeeze a majority of Americans even as they see wealthy people getting richer.

The Trump monarchy is faltering, not because it is undemocratic and unconstitutional, but because he is bad at governing.

[Note: To get daily delivery of this blog by email go to Https://petersage.substack.com. Subscribe. The blog is free and always will be.]

Easy Sunday: An event with Pete Buttigieg

Presidential candidates are making their moves. 

Future presidential candidates are finding excuses to get around the country to meet influential people, to field-test policies and political messages, and to raise money. They are looking to see if they catch on. If they do, they will start building a national team, with field operations in early-primary states. A presidential candidate talks about the big picture, offering a moral and political narrative about the state of the country. They are creating their brand.

Pete Buttigieg is making his move. He was in Marion, Massachusetts this week.

Chip O'Hare, Pete Buttigieg, Bobbie O'Hare

Chip O’Hare's guest post is a field report on a fundraising event for Pete Buttigieg. Chip is a college classmate. Following college, he entered the U.S. Navy, then Harvard Business School, and then his family food brokerage business, now called JOH, a private company in its eighth decade and third generation.

Guest Post by Chip O'Hare

Peter Sage's post on the Jon Ossoff event prompted me to send him a note about a similar fundraiser for Pete Buttigieg held in Marion, Massachusetts on August 4.  Pete was in our area for three fundraisers in seaside locations that also included Providence RI and Provincetown MA.  He has been crisscrossing the country speaking and raising money for his PAC (Win the Era) and has been in 31 states in the past six months, appearing with local politicians and raising money.

Marion is a sailing and golf Mecca on the south coast of Massachusetts near New Bedford, a major fishing port and former whaling capital of the US where Herman Melville wrote Moby Dick. It is a typical summer colony with large waterfront homes.  It is not a political hotbed, with little political discourse as folks set aside their red and blue labels, for the most part, in the interest of keeping things cordial in the community. Those in attendance reflected that gentility, and I'd describe the crowd as older and polite.

My wife and I found out about the event by word of mouth and signed up two weeks prior as co-hosts, allowing us to attend a post-reception dinner with a small group of donors. We like Pete Buttigieg a lot and wanted to see him in person. He didn’t disappoint.  

Pete arrived on time with a small retinue and stayed at the reception for 90 minutes. I was struck by the lack of security, other than one local cop who directed traffic and a burly driver who I’d guess was a bodyguard of sorts, though he was not actually in the event space. As a result, the event had an air of informality, in which Pete fit well. He came across as personable, with an intense look when speaking to you. He focused on each person with whom he spoke, and I never saw him look over a shoulder to spot who was next. He was well advanced and very comfortable in the crowd. His clothing was on-brand, as he wore his usual navy/royal suit, open collar white shirt and brown Oxford shoes. (I must admit that as a 76-year-old, I’ll never understand wearing brown shoes with a blue suit!)  Anyway, Pete looked and sounded sharp. His ego was not on display, as he comes across as a quiet leader, knowledgeable of the details of government and very comfortable speaking on policy issues. 

Pete spoke about the seriousness of our times and the effort it would take to reverse the Trump agenda and Project 2025. He spoke of affordability, grocery and gas prices and the lack of housing. He expressed concern about the election and the attempt to lock in red districts through gerrymandering, which he would like to see ended with a constitutional amendment. He described the political environment as a war where the MAGA element is dismantling the old paradigm which calls for a much stronger response from the Democrats. He didn’t mention the DNC or its issues but stressed the fundraising strength of individual candidates and PACs. When asked about the democratic socialist movement, he expressed hope that the party could operate as a big tent where everyone focuses on the task of replacing the MAGA agenda with one of honesty, transparency and accountability, with no room for corruption. He didn't mention Israel or Gaza, the issue where the big tent is straining now and will likely strain even more in '28.

After the reception, about 20 of us walked next door to a private dinner where Pete took turns joining the three tables of sponsors. Being in the produce business, I brought up the cyclospora issue during our salad course (Yikes!), and Pete emphasized the importance of the FDA and other government agencies under fire from the Trump administration. We all ate the salad anyway, as it was made up of CEA (Controlled Environment Agriculture, i.e. greenhouse/safe) lettuce grown nearby by Little Leaf Farms, a company I represent in my food brokerage business. 

Whether Pete Buttigieg is electable in '28 is the question as we head into the midterms and on to the '28 presidential contest. My feeling is that this cycle will not favor a gay candidate, as the trans issue will remain a negative for Democrats, especially with the '28 Olympics being held in LA, where the trans/sports issue will be in the spotlight, barring a solution agreed upon by the IOC. The issue is a millstone for Democrats.  

Pete Buttigieg is the type of politician who is thoughtful and competent, and his time may come to lead the country, but I see someone rising from relative obscurity to lead the party in '28, as Carter, Clinton and Obama did in their times. If that person is a democratic socialist, however, independents like me and my wife will have a decision to make. Right now we see Jon Ossoff, Mark Kelly and maybe Andy Beshear as candidates who could bring us together and lead us out of the mess we are in. There may be others, but they better get started, as things are going to move fast after the mid-terms.

The event was quite successful and raised over $200,000 for Win the Era, and Pete Buttigieg showed the contrast between thoughtful politicians and those now running our country.

 

[Note: To get daily delivery of this blog by email go to Https://petersage.substack.com. Subscribe. The blog is free and always will be.]

Epstein's corrupt bankers

Senator Ron Wyden "followed the money" on Jeffrey Epstein.

Epstein's bankers knew something was very wrong: money laundering and cash for very suspicious behavior with very young people. There were "red flags" everywhere. The banks broke the law by doing nothing.

This week Wyden issued a 67 page report.

Wyden's report showed that the largest, most "respectable" financial institutions in the world --  bent the rules, broke the law, and tolerated the intolerable to accommodate a very large and profitable client. Jeffrey Epstein was such a client. He kept hundreds of millions of dollars in the banks, and he was a connection to other big clients. 

Wyden's report names names: JPMorganChase, Deutsche Bank, and Bank of America. The banks didn't pretend not to see what they saw. They saw "red flag" behavior. The banks internal compliance officers, up to the highest levels, knew that Epstein was a legal and reputational risk. They discussed it, weighed it, and decided the money was worth the risk. Eventually they were caught and paid fines and settlements (p. 56).

Wyden's  report shows that bank officials were aware that the unusually large cash withdrawals were likely for the purpose of paying for "massages" with underage girls. Epstein had already been adjudicated as a sex offender and the presence of very young models -- "nymphettes" -- was openly acknowledged in JPMorgan's internal emails (pp. 27-28).

The large cash withdrawals week after week, presumed to be for paying for these massages, needed a pretext. Epstein and JPMorgan's bankers settled on withdrawals from an "Aviation Account," as if jet fuel for Epstein's plane would be paid for with U.S. currency (p.38). 

The White House, the Treasury Department, and the GOP-majority Senate did not assist this investigation. They obstructed it. Wyden persevered. (pp.54-57).

Wyden's report is important as a stand-alone document revealing a dimension of the Epstein matter: the fact that this was not just a failure involving the unique and private character of Jeffrey Epstein. The "Epstein crime" involved a large group of people and institutions who knew something transgressive was happening. These powerful people tolerated it, snickered over it, were put off by it, and some participated in it directly or indirectly. These people included Donald Trump. Wyden published what is purportedly Trump's birthday greeting to Epstein, which references their shared secrets. (Trump denies he created it.)

Trump is doing more than changing our constitutional practice with a dramatic reset of the balance between executive and congressional power. He has also reset our norms regarding financial and sexual corruption. Wyden is doing what James Madison thought senators would do. "Ambition must be made to counteract ambition."  Wyden is doing what Democratic voters are demonstrating in primary election that they want. They want a fighter, someone who names names, calls out lawlessness and corruption, and points an accusing finger at the financial and political elites who have been consolidating power in Trump's second term. 

I will repeat an assertion I made yesterday in my comment about Wyden and Democrats. Wyden's busy week advanced policies that have widespread popular support. It is not clear to me that the median Democratic voter has shifted "left." Maybe they have. I am confident, though, that Democrats want to see some results, some change of a tangible kind to deal with the top-heavy distribution of national incomes. I also think Democrats are still unhappy with the inarticulate and weak leadership they got from President Joe Biden and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer. They want a narrative of a better Democratic future. Wyden comes across as willing to confront Trump in a smart, aggressive way. I think Wyden is in the sweet spot of what works for a Democrat.

[Note: To get daily delivery of this blog by email go to Https://petersage.substack.com. Subscribe. The blog is free and always will be.]

Senator Ron Wyden

 "Where have you gone, Joe DiMaggio?

A nation turns its lonely eyes to you"

     Paul Simon, "Mrs. Robinson," 1968

U.S. Senator Ron Wyden still has his fastball.

A player "still having his fastball" is an expression about aging and effectiveness. Senator Wyden is old enough to have slowed down. Instead, he is more active and effective than ever. In an era of frustrating political news, that makes me very happy.

Wyden has been in the news this week because he taped a long interview with Sharyn Alfonsi for the CBS News show 60 Minutes. In it, Wyden described the results of the investigation by the Senate Finance Committee of the banking records of Jeffrey Epstein. It revealed that Wall Street banks knowingly broke laws to continue banking services to Epstein notwithstanding "red flags" of both money laundering and sexual exploitation.

CBS, under the new ownership control of the Trump-allied family of mega-billionaire Larry Ellison, hired a Trump-friendly executive editor, Bari Weiss. She has been firing CBS News people to create a Trump-friendly news department. Weiss fired Alfonsi, and did not broadcast the planned news show on how Epstein's banks enabled him. Wyden protested, calling it self-censorship.

Senator Wyden posted a report on that investigation on August 4. I will comment on it in a future post.

For today, I have a different point. I have written often about the aging of politicians. I was early to warn that Biden needed the crutch of a teleprompter, even in 2019 campaign speeches. I have been critical of both parties for rewarding seniority so much that politicians hang on too long. Too many federal legislators spend their last months in office absent from the job, and sometimes in hospice or memory care. Yesterday I wrote that the rise of young, activist politicians was less a lurch to the left than one toward the energetic vibe of generational change. I suspect median Democratic voters want new and results more than they want left.

Locally in Medford, I am happy that Jeff Golden, a state senator, (and as chance would have it, like Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, a college classmate) after a period of back-and-forth indecision, decided not to run for re-election. Good. I am a fan of Jeff, but I think he had gotten curmudgeonly in his frustration with Oregon politics. People who embraced change in policy and personnel in their 20s and 30s have been part of the process that shaped the intervening 50 years. There is an implied insult from priorities voiced by new people and in the emergence of new people they themselves did not select. Jeff did the right thing by letting go. I hope Chuck Schumer does the same. Schumer, from his very being and position, cannot help but represent rigidity and the status quo. People age 76 have a hard time coming across as agents of change and reform. 

Senator Wyden is an odd case, and he represents for me the flaw in overgeneralizing about age. He is the exception. He is a dynamo. He isn't the image of change, protest, reform, and activism, but he is an example of it. Here is the output from Wyden's Senate Finance Committee in the first four workdays of August:

Day after day, Wyden is setting up roadblocks to the worst parts of the Trump presidency. He is doing what Congress is supposed to do: be an equal branch of government. Wyden is raising issues that have widespread bipartisan popular support. 

August 3: Working Americans are losing health insurance, putting them at risk of medical bankruptcy and closing rural hospitals.

August 4: Wyden exposes the tie between big money elites and Epstein, another issue with bipartisan popular support

August 5: Wyden exposes a cosy deal: Immediately after a $5 million dollar campaign contribution to the MAGA campaign fund, Trump made three phone calls, and the FDA promptly switched positions to allow the sale of candy-flavored nicotine vapes. I would like to think that even Republican supporters of Trump are uncomfortable with that kind of quid pro quo money in politics, as well as the risk of candy vapes as a gateway to nicotine addiction.

August 6: Wyden presents a way to finance Social Security into the future -- a giant issue where Congress had dithered.

And so on, day after day:  Click here to read the details. It is exhausting to try to keep up.

Wyden isn't part of the schism between liberals and progressives, or "regulars" and Democratic Socialists. He is both a Democrat of long standing, and a change agent. I was ready to assume he had slowed down. He hasn't.  See his day-after-day output. Click the link. See for yourself. 

Ron Wyden has his fastball and is pitching every day. 

[Note: To get daily delivery of this blog by email go to Https://petersage.substack.com. Subscribe. The blog is free and always will be.]

Trump did something smart.

     “Chevron, too much money. ExxonMobil, too much money. They’re going to give some of that back to the public and they better cut the retail price, the consumer price.”
          President Trump, from the Oval Office

"Oil prices DOWN, NOW! Thank you for your attention to this matter. President DJT"

          Truth Social Post

I get negative feedback from readers when I say something positive about Trump. So let me be clear: Trump is corrupt, a sexual predator, and a constitutional scofflaw. Trump is a lying, narcissistic, sociopath.

I credit Trump only with being skillful, not with being good. We can learn from bad people.

Voters see Trump breaking his usual alliances to fight for them. People understand this one: The oil companies didn't do anything to deserve higher margins on oil, but they are getting a windfall and consumers are paying the price. That feels unfair and Trump is doing something about it. It is as simple as that.

Trump does not say what they should do. He demands they do it, even though he has no power to force them to do what he demands. People read that as being strong, decisive, and on their side. 

Democrats who wonder how it is that a corrupt sexual-predator sociopath like Trump can win elections, should take note.

Trump shows he can be flexible when it is in the interests of voters. Trump has established that he is pro-oil company. He empowers them; they donate to him. He sabotages clean, renewable, cost-effective energy technologies to direct federal resources toward fossil fuels. He scoffs at Democratic fussing over climate change and carbon footprints. Trump is the oil companies' guy -- any voter paying attention knows that. So he is doing a version of that "Sister Souljah" comment of Bill Clinton having the courage to call a foul within his own team.  We love you, oil companies, but don't get carried away!

Democrats could learn from that, too. Correcting excesses within one's team reads as courage and integrity.

Trump demonstrates that government can interfere with free enterprise. The general rule is let markets work in a capitalist society. Trump openly and proudly breaks that rule when it is in the public interest.  Activist government is supposedly the brand of Democrats in the FDR tradition. Trump is stealing the Democratic brand.

Democrats could take note and reclaim it. And maybe they are.

I do not see the rift in the Democratic Party between the "moderates," or "establishment" Democrats and the "Democratic Socialists" as a division between left and more-left on a continuum. There is something else at work, too: bold energy. The rise of Democratic Socialist candidates springs from Democratic voters desire for the party to look active, alive, alert to the problems in America, and to accomplish something tangible, to use government to make lives better. They aren't primarily more left. They are bolder, better looking, and more articulate.

Trump can get away with telling oil companies to lower prices and not be attacked for being a communist. If a Democrat says what Trump said, then The Wall Street Journal, Fox News, and Republican politicians would shout how this is proof that Democrats have become communist tyrants in the mold of Mao, Stalin, and Castro. Democrats should do it anyway. Being criticized for going to bat for consumers is a net positive for Democrats. Just make clear that they aren't doing it because they hate capitalism. It is because they care about consumers.

The public wants change. Populism in both parties shows this. Some things in our economy aren't working well. Here is a look at one reason why:

So far Trump has done a better job of voicing worker frustration than have Democrats, but that is changing. The energy of change among Democrats is generational. Their activist candidates are young. They are wrenching the torch from the hands of the old guard. Republicans are not so lucky. The change agent for Republicans is not just deeply flawed in matters of character and judgment; he is 80 years old.

[Note: To get daily delivery of this blog by email go to Https://petersage.substack.com. Subscribe. The blog is free and always will be.]  

The "unthinkable" nuclear war: Part Two

I watched this when it was first broadcast on the Ed Sullivan show in 1958.

We had finally gotten a television. 

It was so thrilling!  He kept 13 plates spinning! Just barely.

He ran back and forth. Some tottered, but he got them going again. It is a fun 90 seconds on YouTube, and I recommend it. You might consider it a change of pace from politics. It isn't. 

It is a metaphor of nuclear proliferation.

Medford schools did not have "duck and cover" drills in my childhood and youth. Maybe they presumed we were out of the line of fire. In my first month as a county commissioner in 1981 I visited the county sheriff's office and spoke with Dwayne Franklin, the elected sheriff. I asked what plans for preparedness the county had in the event of a nuclear exchange. Were food, water, or geiger counters stored? Was there a backup communication system in the event the power was off in the radio towers?

He said there was nothing at all. No plans. The plan was to presume that it simply could not happen, so there was no use planning for the impossible. He said he didn't even want the commissioners to discuss creating a budget item for it. Planning for nuclear war would make him look like a kook. He told me to let it drop and not to talk about it.

Yesterday's guest post by Ira Helfand and today's post by Bruce Van Zee bring nuclear war back to mind, a place where prudent people need to keep it. Bruce is a retired physician in Medford and this guest post is a re-publication of his own Substack post from this anniversary week of the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. 

He makes an important point: President Trump has sent a message to non-nuclear countries that whatever protection they may have thought they had based on a world operating on "rules-based order" with the U.S. acting like a benign world policeman is over. Every country is on its own. Iran will survive because it has a nuclear-weapon equivalent, the ability to shut down the Strait of Hormuz. If a strategic waterway isn't available to a country, it better acquire a bomb.

That means more plates spinning. That is the metaphor. What could go wrong?  Bruce publishes an insightful blog about politics, health, life, and the human condition three times a week at https://bvzcvz.substack.com.

Guest Post by Bruce Van Zee

Avoiding a Nuclear Armageddon
Nuclear Proliferation is on the Rise

There is much to despair about the many ways Trump’s policies have made America worse than when he took office. From the cost of living (especially gas and groceries), to the loss of America’s respect in the world, to the fragmentation of Pax Americana, to the divisiveness with which he governs – we are a lesser country than we were.

Even more disturbing, we are not as safe. Our military has shown vulnerability in the Iran war of choice which depletes our treasury as we use million-dollar interceptors to shoot down thousand-dollar drones and missiles. A strategic objective to justify this war is lacking and Trump’s erratic prosecution of it makes it less likely, not more, that Iran will give up nuclear ambitions.

But most worrisome is the sense that Donald J. Trump has brought the world closer to the unthinkable possibility of a nuclear apocalypse.

Bear with me, and I dearly hope that I exaggerate, but here are the threads of my concern:

--  First, Trump abolished the JCPOA, Obama’s deal with Iran and with the agreement of even Russia and China, to limit Iranian nuclear enrichment safely below weapons grade uranium. International inspectors agreed Iran was abiding by the terms and was not violating the agreement. He also withdrew the U.S. from the INF treaty that provided safeguards and improved transparency about nuclear capability between rival powers.

--  Secondly, the Iran war only confirmed in Iran’s mind that to protect their country, they would need a nuclear deterrent. So, of course, there has been no substantial progress in negotiating a new agreement to constrain Iran’s nuclear ambitions. The MOU was a joke.

--  Thirdly, Trump then makes a very poorly timed deal with Saudi Arabia to offer American help to establish a nuclear energy program. And the agreement inconceivably does not have international inspections built in. Iran and Saudi Arabia are enemies, one Sunni, the other Shia. You can be certain that if Iran thinks Saudi Arabia has any chance of getting a nuke, they will redouble efforts to obtain nuclear weapons themselves. Adding to Iranian paranoia is Trump’s insistence that the deal include Saudi Arabia signing the Abraham accords which would make Israel an ally of the Saudis and would only further Iranian resistance and determination.

--  Fourthly, the leader of the most powerful nation on Earth has openly threatened Iran with annihilation. Trump has made statements such as, “blasting Iran into oblivion”, and “[bomb them] back to the Stone Age’, and “a whole civilization will die tonight.” Statements like these are not only irresponsible but hardly advance a positive dialogue towards peace and an agreement to constrain nuclear materials.

--  Finally, Trump vacillates and has no consistent strategy in his diplomatic and military approach to Iran. Unpredictability is destabilizing and could be a trigger for expansion of hostilities.

In sum, though Trump says his goal with the Iran war of choice is to prevent Iran from having nuclear weapons, it is hard to imagine that he could have done anything more to make sure they eventually do.

On top of these concerns is the disappearance of Pax Americana and the abandonment of our allies. I would not be surprised that many of the nations of Europe, Southeast Asia, Japan, and Oceania are having internal discussions about whether they will need a nuclear deterrent in the face of America’s unpredictability and seeming abandonment. Trust that America will always be there for them is rapidly shredding. And the more nations that have nukes, the more risk of an incident that could lead to a nuclear accident or intentional attack.

Trump makes it even worse with his rhetoric and erratic policies. If the policy is “America First” and the implication of “Might Makes Right” means international law takes a back seat, then other nations are likely to follow suit in self-defense. Then there is this juvenile macho, testosterone-fueled ethos out of the Pentagon from Pete Hegseth and his “Department of War” that only adds fuel to the fire. It makes it more likely that a rival nation, perhaps China, Russia, North Korea, would be sufficiently frightened of the aggressiveness and unpredictability of the Trump regime to initiate an attack. Or at least another arms race to prepare for one.

And here’s an awful thought: Trump has proven time and time again that his ego and self-interest are higher priorities than the interests of the nation. And he is easily offended and vengeful. I do not put it past him to use nukes if sufficiently provoked, not as every other president has viewed them – to remain on the shelf as a deterrent because of mutually assured destruction.

It is way past time for responsible Republicans who care more about their country and humanity to exercise some restraint on this President. Trump has shown enough erratic and unbalanced behavior that he should not be allowed anywhere near the nuclear codes. But this Congress has proven to be cowardly and incapable of challenging Trump. And at least some of them know better. For more on the dangers of Trump and Nuclear Proliferation (here).

[Note: To get daily delivery of this blog by email go to Https://petersage.substack.com. Subscribe. The blog is free and always will be.]  

Will Medford, Oregon residents survive a nuclear war?

Nuclear war is not "unthinkable."

Today's guest post author. Ira Helfand, MD, thinks about it and is trying to do something to stop it.

A nuclear war will be very, very bad for the people who survive the first wave of explosions. 

In this anniversary week of the atomic blasts that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I asked Microsoft's Co-Pilot artificial intelligence program if residents of Medford would survive a nuclear war. It assured me that Medford is unlikely to be a direct target but that residents should shelter in a basement or interior room for 48 hours, during which the radiation fallout would lose 99 percent of its danger. The implication is that we would emerge to resume normal life.

No.

What Co-Pilot did not say was that this begins a long, cold period of famine and social chaos. I mentioned Co-Pilot's response to a college classmate, Ira Helfand, MD, and he agreed to write a guest post to correct the record. 

Ira Helfand is past president of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, the recipient of the 1985 Nobel Peace Prize, and a member of the board of International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, the recipient of the 2017 Nobel Peace Prize."

Guest Post by Ira Helfand, MD

As we observe the Hiroshima/Nagasaki anniversary this week, Peter asked me to comment on Co-Pilot’s response to a question he posed asking how people in Medford, Oregon would do in the event of nuclear war. Co-Pilot had a pretty upbeat assessment. It told him that Medford would not be a target, and people would be OK if they just sheltered in their basements for a couple of days.

Unfortunately, the response appears to fall rather clearly into the category of AI hallucinations.

It is true that Medford would probably not be a target. But most of the major cities across the country would be. Estimates are that more than 100 million people would die that afternoon from the explosions, fires, and radiation.

Those who survived—including the good people of Medford-- would find themselves in a landscape we cannot imagine. Most of the critical infrastructure we all depend on would be destroyed or profoundly disrupted. There would be no electric grid, no cellphones, no internet, no food distribution system, no public health system, no system for producing or distributing gasoline or heating oil or natural gas. In the months following the initial attack the vast majority of the US population would die from starvation, from radiation, from epidemic disease and from exposure to the elements.

And the destruction would not be confined to the U.S. and the other countries that actually fought the war. A large-scale nuclear war between the U.S. and Russia would loft enormous amounts of soot into the upper atmosphere, as much as 150 million tons. The soot would block out the sun dropping temperatures across the planet an average of 18 degrees F. In the interior regions of Eurasia and North America, the temperature would fall 45 to 50 degrees F. and not recover for the better part of a decade. 

Earth has not seen temperatures that cold since the last ice age. Under these conditions, most of the ecosystems that evolved since the ice age would collapse, food production would collapse and the vast majority of the human race would starve to death. A study published in the journal Nature/Food in August 2022 showed that in the first two years after the war six billion people, three quarters of the human race, would starve to death.

That same study showed that the famine caused by even a limited nuclear war, as almost occurred between India and Pakistan last year, could kill up to two billion people worldwide, including 130 million here in the United States.

So do we really need to worry about this? Is nuclear war even possible?

Unfortunately, the answer is a very definite yes to both questions. In the last 15 months, five of the nine countries with nuclear weapons have been engaged in active warfare. Russia threatened to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine; the U.S. made slightly veiled threats to use them in Iran; and India and Pakistan fought a mini-war, during which airfields that housed nuclear weapons were bombed.

I was at the Global Nobel Assembly on AI and Nuclear War at the Vatican last month. One of the participants, a Nobel Laureate in physics, had an interesting way of assessing the risk. Suppose, he said, that there is a two percent chance per year of nuclear war, then statistically, there is a 50 percent chance –literally the toss of a coin--of nuclear war in 34 years. We can’t know the exact chance of nuclear war in a given year, but events of the last year suggest it is almost certainly much higher than two percent.

The bottom line? Right now we are marching blindly towards a nuclear catastrophe that will kill billions of people and destroy human civilization.

BUT—it doesn’t have to happen. Nuclear weapons are not a force of nature over which we have no control. They are little machines that we have built with our own hands. We have already dismantled some 60,000 since the 1980’s; we know exactly how to dismantle the 12,000 that remain and could do it in 3-4 years.

What is missing is the political will, a movement like the 1980’s Freeze Movement. Back from the Brink, (www.PreventNuclearWar.org) is a new campaign that intends to create such a movement. It has grown rapidly to a network of 25 chapters across the country, secured the endorsement of 70 cities and towns, and six state legislatures (including Oregon), and more than 500 NGO’s including most of the national faith communities and major environmental groups, labor unions, and a new student group Students for Nuclear Disarmament (www.students4disarmament.org). In Congress, H. Res 317 in the House has 60 co-sponsors, and S. Res. 323 in the Senate has ten, including both Senators Jeff Merkley and Ron Wyden of Oregon.

Looking for something to do? How about helping to save the world?

 

 [Note: To get daily delivery of this blog by email go to Https://petersage.substack.com. Subscribe. The blog is free and always will be.]