We at Science for Peace contend that militarism and the national security system are a major part of the civilizational challenge we face, not the solution. States, on a global level, may spend vast sums on new generations of nuclear weapons and expanded military capabilities in the next decade, yet we the people will end up vastly more insecure and vulnerable than we are now. If accidental or deliberate nuclear attacks do not destroy us, ecological collapse will. And militarism, we contend, is a cause of, not a solution to, global warming. Our call for human security and global cooperation as an alternative to “national security” is thus a practical necessity, not a utopian proposal. Our present course leads to destruction. We recognize that we live in a complex world, a world of multiple crises. Besides the two we are focused on — global warming and nuclear war — we can identify other systemic crises: a continuing pandemic, species extinctions, periodic financial instability, and the rise of far-right paranoia and authoritarianism. We suspect that all these crises are interlinked, with vast international and intra-national inequality probably at the centre of an explanation. It is unlikely that tinkering with the system will solve the crises. Deeper structural changes will be needed. We need to avoid two pitfalls in developing a strategy. First, it is a mistake to just throw science and dire predictions at people; people will commonly react by turning off or feeling paralyzed. An effective organization is one that connects with the values of a diverse following, one that is inclusive both inter-sectionally and generationally. It must also offer a plausible game-plan for achieving a better world. Secondly, we must avoid being mesmerized by the onrush of individual issues and campaigns. Yes, each campaign is important. However, of equal importance is understanding how each campaign fits into a larger social movement — encompassing people who realize that the current economic, political and geopolitical systems are not serving their needs. We need to work across issues (peace, climate, environmental, social justice, human rights) in building coalitions for forging structural change. Too often analysts and activists frame the macro-strategic choices as revolutionary or reformist change. That is a false dichotomy. For one thing, system change does not necessarily mean the end of capitalism. Yes, we cannot continue with endless growth, especially in the rich countries. However, those who propose movement toward a steady-state economy, an idea associated with ecological economist Herman Daly, or “postgrowth,” implicitly assume that this transition is not incompatible with capitalism. Through-puts of energy and resources must decline or remain constant, but competition, entrepreneurship and innovation continue to produce goods more efficiently and invent new products. A steady-state economy or postgrowth is our future. We do not need to get entangled in debates about capitalism versus socialism. These terms are both vague and ideological red flags. For another thing, reformism breaks down into two categories: policy reforms that can be implemented within existing political, social and economic conditions (usually the position of policy analysis as practised at universities), and radical reforms that will become feasible under foreseeable conditions (that is, human agency can shape the sociopolitical conditions). The last is implicitly, for example, what climate scientists are tending toward in their opaque reports for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Scientists claim that “holistic and transformative change” is required to hold global warming to under 2 degrees Celsius. Those changes could only come about via a shift in power structures. In short, the difference between those arguing for system change and those arguing for policy changes is, in some cases, not as deep as it may appear. What we aim for is radical reformism with respect both to global warming and to the nuclear threat arising from the international balance of power/terror system. Tinkering within neoliberalism is unlikely to resolve the challenges; revolutionary change is not only highly uncertain, but also costly in human suffering. Radical reformism, linked to nonviolent action, is the only feasible and humane approach in averting catastrophes. This advocacy of radical reformism is no longer exceptional. On the issue of postgrowth, for example, consider this project funded by the European Research Council with a budget of €10 million. On the issue of dealing with the threat of nuclear annihilation, refer to this appeal, which is supported by many prominent scholars and activists globally. The manifesto calls for the establishment of a new international order, based on a massive global mobilization of civil societies. The conclusion is simple. We are in a dangerous era in which boldness is essential in dealing with looming catastrophes. For Science for Peace and other peace and climate organizations to act effectively, we must offer an integrated, positive, comprehensive, and radical message. What counts as “radical reforms”? That is a complex issue, which can only be touched on in this overview. Reformist reforms are those that reinforce the existing war and economic systems that are the basis of our current crises. Radical reforms are those that move, incrementally, toward an alternative world of human security, nonviolence, and cooperation—at the local, national, and international levels. Nonviolence and augmented cooperation/solidarity are the preconditions for human security. Human security itself, as mentioned above, involves four sets of rights. Political or personal security involves the installation of a democratic order that provides both a defense against domination (whether on a gender, ethnic/racial, religious, or class basis) and the foundation for empowering people. Economic security requires, at a minimum, the right to a decent education and a job, protection from personal catastrophes, and a pension. Health security entails both food security and access to decent public health facilities. Ecological security, which is the foundation for the other aspects of human security, is advanced by a variety of policies that rapidly cut GHG emissions on national and global levels, protect species, rewild 30 percent of the Earth’s surface, and finance the mitigation of, and adaptation to, the ravages of climate change. Although all aspects of an alternative common security require elaboration, the point is radical reforms seek piecemeal changes that, in combination, lead to systemic change and human survival with dignity. Science for Peace recognizes, therefore, that the path to a peaceful and sustainable world takes place in steps, not leaps. To take those steps, we have developed a set of five working groups to find our way. Our Right to Know is a working group dedicated to safeguarding the work of scientists and the free exchange of scientific knowledge. It is the foundation on which Science for Peace rests. We have two working groups devoted to ending the threat of nuclear and non-nuclear war. The Nuclear Weapons working group focuses directly on the issue of limiting and abolishing these weapons. The Critical NATO Studies group promotes awareness of how the alliance system in general, and NATO in particular, work to legitimize a narrow view of national security, which, by endangering the national security of rivals, enhances the prospects of war. The Militarism and Climate Change group has an interest in the climate crisis in general, but more specifically emphasizes the relationship between demilitarization and decarbonization. Finally, the Nonviolent Resistance working group develops and propagates knowledge of the most efficacious tactics that can be employed by unarmed civilian movements in pressing for decarbonization and demilitarization. In working together, these five groups strive to chart a pathway to a livable future. Our working groups are currently refining their own strategic plans for the next five years. In these separate plans, we emphasize Canada’s actions, policies and movements, mindful of our own major contributions to global warming – via high per capita emissions – and militarism – through NATO membership and arms sales. In addition, our approach underscores the role of civil society as an agent of change. The market, left to itself, will not solve our problems but only make them worse. States are slow and often yield to vested interests. We thus advocate a bottom-up approach of nonviolent movement politics. This emphasis, however, does not preclude SfP engagement with government, the commons, and the private sector.