Nukewatch

Working for a nuclear-free future since 1979

  • Issues
    • Direct Action
    • Environmental Justice
    • Nuclear Power
      • Chernobyl
      • Fukushima
    • Nuclear Weapons
    • On The Bright Side
    • Radiation Exposure
    • Radioactive Waste
    • Renewable Energy
    • Uranium Mining
    • US Bombs Out of Germany
  • Quarterly Newsletter
    • Quarterly Newsletter
    • Newsletter Archives
  • Resources
    • Nuclear Heartland Book
    • Fact Sheets
    • Reports, Studies & Publications
      • The New Nuclear Weapons: $1.74 Trillion for H-bomb Profiteers and Fake Cleanups
      • Nuclear Power: Dead In the Water It Poisoned
      • Thorium Fuel’s Advantages as Mythical as Thor
      • Greenpeace on Fukushima 2016
      • Drinking Water at Risk: Toxic Military Wastes Haunt Lake Superior
    • Nukewatch in the News
    • Links
    • Videos
  • About
    • About Nukewatch
    • Contact Us
  • Get Involved
    • Action Alerts!
    • Calendar
  • Donate

October 23, 2017 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

US Nuclear Weapons in Germany Slammed by Protesters, Politicians

Fall Quarterly 2017
By John LaForge


Photos by Zara Brown, Marion Küpker and John LaForge.

In July, a Nukewatch-organized delegation of US peace activists joined ongoing protests against the deployment of US nuclear weapons in southwest Germany at the Büchel Air Base.
The group joined hundreds of activists from northern Europe that were part of dozens of nonviolent actions that took place between March and August. The efforts forced a reluctant media to take note of US nukes in Germany. News of the protests was widespread and ultimately prodded top politicians and even the current Foreign Minister to call for removal of the US bombs, all in the midst of a national election campaign.
Notable among the 11-person US delegation were seven war resisters who have served a combined total of 36 years in US jails and prisons for protests against nuclear weapons and the war system. After one particularly audacious action by four of the delegates and a German colleague, the German press took up our group’s humorous self-appointed moniker: the “prison gang.”

Sister Carol Gilbert (L) and Susan Crane war resistance has added up to over 13 years in prison.

The delegation, representing seven states and the District of Columbia, also helped put a spotlight on US and NATO plans to replace the current arsenal of B61 H-bombs deployed across Europe with an expensive new version. The new bomb is being touted as the first ever “smart” or precision nuclear weapon and aimed with a new tailfin attachment, making it unprecedented. New nuclear weapons are unlawful under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty which the US and Germany have both ratified.
Ralph Hutchison, coordinator of the Oak Ridge Environmental Peace Alliance in Tennessee—where the thermonuclear core for the new “B61-12” might be manufactured—said about joining the group, “It is important that we show this is a global movement. The resistance to nuclear weapons is not limited to one country.” The new B61-12 program will cost over $12 billion if production is authorized sometime after 2020. “Büchel is scheduled to get new H-bombs. Nothing could be stupider when 90% of Germans want them out and the when the world wants to abolish nuclear weapons,” Hutchison said.
In fact, a March 2016 public opinion poll conducted by International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW), found that 93% of Germans want nuclear weapons banned; 85% agree that US nuclear weapons should be withdrawn from Germany; and 88% said they oppose US plans to replace the current weapons with the new B61-12.
Dubbed “International Week” by Campaign Council organizers in Germany, July 12-18 had over 60 people—from Russia, China, Mexico, Germany, Britain, the US, The Netherlands, France, Belgium and Germany—participate in vigils, trainings, networking, blockades, “go-in” actions, marches, media work, and simply enjoying peace camp. The effort was part of the five-month-long effort—“20 Weeks for 20 Bombs”—launched on March 26, 2017 in conjunction with the start of the final negotiations at the United Nations for the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.

US delegation achieved a string of “firsts”

While the US delegation was itself a “first” in Germany’s anti-nuclear campaign, the group chalked up a string of additional firsts during its week of nonviolent actions.

On July 15, Susan Crane, of the Redwood City, California Catholic Worker and I walked through the base’s main gate and talked for 30 minutes with military guards and local police about whether their orders to protect nuclear war planning are lawful. While we were repeatedly ordered to leave, and Susan, a participant in five Plowshares disarmament actions, eventually sat down and had to be carried out, we were neither arrested or charged. “They don’t want to arrest internationals and draw attention to the nuclear weapons,” said long-time disarmament activist and Büchel peace camp organizer Marion Küpker.

After finding a security fence accidentally unlocked, dozens of war resisters streamed into the base’s main entrance and placed “bread, not bombs” around the displays of Air Force warplanes.

On July 16, about 35 activists streamed through the base’s flimsy outer gate and then through a heavy steel inside fence which was mistakenly left unlocked. While two people symbolically brought down the US flag, at least 30 others eagerly traipsed through the open fence, squeezed through another vehicle gate, and then fanned out across the broad entryway to inspect the exclusive surroundings and their gaudy display of retired war planes on pedestals. The Dutch activists, most of them from the Amsterdam Catholic Worker, were as shocked as anyone to be able to place a few dozen loaves of “bread, not bombs” on and around the memorialized “gods of metal.” All the while, Dominican Sisters Carol Gilbert and Ardeth Platte of Baltimore, Maryland, read aloud the text of the new international Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, and called for the base commander to come and accept a copy of the treaty.
The next day, July 17, during an early-morning blockade of the base by 30 protesters, the sudden appearance of the commander, “Oberstleutnant” Gregor Schlemmer who arrived on foot, thoroughly shocked the group which had locked arms and stretched banners across the road to his base. It is positively unheard of in the United States for high-ranking Air Force officers to meet openly with anti-war activists. Commander Schlemmer looked at ease and appeared to listen intently as Sister Ardeth explained the newly-minted nuclear weapons ban treaty, and then he calmly accepted her copy before leaving.

“Prison Gang” Go-in Action Occupied Bunker

Later on July 17, after nightfall, a group of five, me included, got deep inside the base, and for the first time in 21 years of protests against the US bombs, we occupied the top of one of the large bunkers potentially used for storing nuclear weapons. (Experts later reported that they are probably kept elsewhere on the base.)
After hiking along shadowy farm roads, shushing through dark rows of corn, clipping through the base’s outer fence, crossing a brightly lit air base road, and tramping noisily through a few wooded brambles, our small group cut through a second chain-link fence. We bumbled past a giant hanger and under the wing of a jet fighter parked in the open, and reached a set of double chain-link fences surrounding four tall, earth-bermed bunkers. After cutting the two non-electrified, unlit fences without tripping a single alarm or even having the lights snap on, the five of us scurried up to the top of the wide-topped, sod-covered concrete Quonset hut. No motion detector or alarm, no Klieg light or guard had noted our intrusion at all. We spent over an hour chatting, star gazing, checking our radiation monitor, and enjoying being flabbergasted that our implausible plan had worked. This was supposedly a severely controlled H-bomb storage depot, but we’ll never know. We didn’t try breaking into it.

Steve Baggarly of the Norfolk, Virginia Catholic Worker, was one of five to occupy a nuclear missile bunker.

Steve Baggarly, 52, of the Norfolk, Virginia Catholic Worker, suggested we label the bunker’s giant metal doors, so he and I scratched “Disarm Now” into the paint and this finally alerted some guards. We hustled back up to the top and we were all soon surrounded by vehicles, moving spot lights, and heavily armed soldiers searching on foot with flashlights. Still unnoticed because of the darkness and our elevation, we decided to announce our presence by singing “Vine & Fig Tree.” This prompted the patrol for the first time to look up. We were detained, and after an hour of being searched, photographed and lectured, Commander Schlemmer, summoned from bed at 2:30 a.m., gathered us for a short lecture. He said what we’d done was “dangerous” and that sneaking onto a military base “isn’t supposed to be fun.” Of course he was unaware that the five people before him had served a combined total of 19 years incarcerated for such actions. All of us—Baggarly, Susan Crane, Bonnie Urfer, Gerd Buentzly, of Herford, Germany, and myself—were released without charges.
News of aging peace activists occupying a nuclear weapons base unnoticed was widely reported in the press. The news moved Green Party Bundestag Deputy Tabea Rössner on Aug. 7 to lambast the “theme park” level of base security. Thanks to Rössner’s high-profile criticism, the head of the Social Democratic Party Martin Schulz unexpectedly called for the ouster of the US weapons, smack in the middle of his national campaign for the Chancellorship. A week later, Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel, during a press briefing in Washington, DC, with Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, endorsed Schulz’s call for removing the US nukes. Of course nuclear weapons are the last thing anyone wants to contemplate, so it takes focused inventiveness and a level of personal risk to get the public and the lawmakers to face the Bomb. Sometimes it works.

Zara Brown, delegataion phtographer.
Zara Brown, delegataion phtographer.

This summer’s “Twenty Weeks for Twenty Bombs,” made regular headline news thanks to the efforts of the nation-wide Campaign Council “Büchel is Everywhere: Nuclear Weapons-Free Now!” and its international coordinator Marion Küpker of Hamburg. After years of outreach and solidarity work, the five-month peace camp near the gates of Büchel Air Force Base, and its well-known use of nonviolent direct action, was endorsed by all 50 peace groups and organizations in the the Campaign Council which now includes mainstream bodies like International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, the Fellowship of Reconciliation, International Association of Lawyers against Nuclear Arms, and the DFG-VK, Germany’s oldest anti-war organization.
*The US delegates were Steve Baggarly, Kathy Boylan, Zara Brown, Carmella Cole, Susan Crane, Sr. Carol Gilbert, OP, Ralph Hutchison, John LaForge, Leona Morgan, Sr. Ardeth Platte, OP, and Bonnie Urfer.

See our photo gallery of the US delegation here.

Filed Under: B61 Bombs in Europe, Direct Action, Newsletter Archives, Quarterly Newsletter, US Bombs Out of Germany

October 13, 2017 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Did Nonviolent Actions Propel Issue into Germany’s National Elections? A partial timeline

“Top German politicians want US nuclear weapons out”

Fall Quarterly 2017
By John LaForge

Photos by Zara Brown, Marion Küpker and John LaForge.

The series of actions that occurred at the base during the “20 weeks for 20 bombs” brought wide media attention to the US weapons, prompting serious criticism from leading German politicians. A brief timeline of “international week” events shows how the work may have moved officials to speak out.

Marion Küpker, a disarmament campaigner and the International Coordinator for DFG-VK, Germany’s oldest peace organization, organized this years “20 Weeks for 20 Bombs.”

Upon its arrival in Germany, four members of the 11-person US delegation held a press conference in Frankfurt accompanied by Marion Küpker, the international coordinator for the national peace organization DFG-VK, and the German-wide campaign. News of the unprecedented US delegation and our plans for protest was reported in the Frankfurt Journal (“Activists from the US land in Frankfurt: Campaign against US nuclear weapons in the [southwest Germany]”), the online magazine FOCUS (“Nuclear fighters receive support from the US”), the magazine Volksfreund [People’s Friend], and elsewhere.

Role playing near the kitchen tent at camp.

 

July 15
A large crowd gathered near the air base’s main gate to hear the popular singer-songwriter Konstantin Wecker on July 16.

“Konstantin Wecker sings for the peace,” was news all across southwest Germany the day after the well-known singer-songwriter performed at the “Music Not Bombs” gathering July 15, near the base’s main gate. Between 300 and 400 concert-goers crowded the roundabout directly in front of the entrance. Other papers reported: “Music for Peace: Wecker Supports Activists,” and “Action day against nuclear weapons: Today in Büchel.”

July 17

Five peace activists including four US delegates traipsed deep into the air base, clipping, undetected, through four chain-link fences using wire cutters, and climbed to the top of a large sod-covered cement bunker or reinforced hanger. The five remained there over an hour before guards were alerted. Detained for an hour and ID’d by military and civilian police, the group was released around 3 a.m. without charges. As we go to press, still no charges.

Long-time Nukewatch co-director Bonnie Urfer joined the “go-in” action with Susan Crane’s banner: “Disarm all Nuclear Weapons!”
July 26

News of the “go-in” action was reported widely, and the Rhein-Zeitung used Nukewatch’s own humorous moniker: “‘Prison Gang’ Inspects Büchel Air Force Base—Peace movement claims five activists succeeded in penetrating the inner security area.”

July 28
From left, musician and composer Gerd Buentzly, of the German peacegroup “LifeSounds,” Nukewatch’s John LaForge, and Ralph Hutchison of the Oak Riege Environmental Peace Alliance at the Büchel peace camp.

Journalists asked weapons analysts and Air Force officials in Berlin whether the activists got near the US nuclear bombs. When Air Force headquarters was asked to explain the event, they assured the press that “security had been maintained.” This news went nation-wide. Yet the press and information center of the Luftwaffe in Berlin did acknowledge the breach of security. “The Luftwaffe confirmed that on the night of 18 July, five persons were in the military security area of the airport, where they illegally gained access by cutting fences with cutting tools,” RZ reported, referring to the regional daily Rhein-Zeitung. Another widely reported story quoted, “Military expert [Otfried] Nassauer: ‘Prison Gang’ was probably not in the sensitive area of the Büchel airfield.”

July 29

Eslayer Nachrichlen, the daily paper of Nuremberg with a circulation of 300,000, interviewed four of the US delegates at length (Urfer, Platte, Gilbert and Baggarly), and its detailed story and photos ran under the headline: “At night on the atom bunker”—Joint protest of peace activists from the region and the USA.”

August 7
German Green Party Bundestag Deputy (Member of Congress) Tabea Rössner said of a recent protest action that got deep into a nuclear weapons base, “If peace activists are in the inner security area of the Tactical Air Force squadron, Luftwaffe, Büchel, then that can mean only one thing: The security concept is more than bumbling.”

Criticism of security at the Büchel base reached a high point when Green Party Bundestag Deputy Tabea Rössner openly criticized the security services. Her questions in the parliament about the fence-cutting go-in action prompted the headline: “Is Air Base Büchel just as safe as an amusement park?”

The accompanying article—circulated widely on social media—reported that “The Greens demanded information about the safety situation at Büchel air base. The reason is an action by activists who entered the inner security area of the airbase. “The federal government must fully explain the incident,” said Deputy Rössner of Mainz [near Büchel]. “If peace activists are in the inner security area of the Tactical Air Force squadron, Luftwaffe, Büchel, then that can mean only one thing: The security concept is more than stupid,” Rössner complained.

This is not a trifle, even if those responsible would try to downplay the incident. “It is more than frightening that at a time of significantly increased terror, the safety measures of such a site fall below the level of a theme park,” Rössner said.

 

August 22

Martin Schulz, the Social Democrat Party candidate for Chancellor in the upcoming national elections, unexpectedly called for the ouster of the US nuclear weapons. Reuters, Los Angeles Times, New York Times, Politico and major German media reported, “German rival of Chancellor [Angela] Merkel vows to remove US nuclear weapons from the country”; “Searching for another point of difference, Schulz pledged on [August 22] to have US nuclear weapons withdrawn from German territory if, against the odds, he defeats Merkel”; and “Germany’s Schulz says he would demand US withdraw nuclear arms.” The LA Times reported that Schulz said at a campaign rally, “As chancellor, I’d push for the ejection of nuclear weapons stored in Germany.” Schulz also said Trump’s threats against North Korea “show us more than ever before how urgently we need to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons and encourage disarmament.”

Conservative politicians and editors attacked Schulz as unrealistic or uninformed about military matters, but the criticism was short-lived when Germany’s Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel made a surprise endorsement of Schulz’s proposal.

August 29

German Foreign Minister Gabriel, at a press conference with Secretary of State Rex Tillerson in Washington, DC, joined Schulz’s call for ridding Germany of the US weapons. Minister Gabriel’s surprise announcement included his straightforward admission that, “I agreed with Mr. Schulz’s point that we need to get rid of the nuclear weapons that are in our country.” The news was startling and media across Germany and the world reported: “Foreign Minister joins call to withdraw US nukes from Germany,” “German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel has supported Social Democrat (SPD) leader Martin Schulz’s pledge that he will push for the removal of US nuclear warheads from Germany if elected Chancellor.”

The International Business Times and the Financial Tribune online declared on Aug. 31, “Top German Politicians Want US Nuclear Weapons Out.” The reports noted, “Germany’s top diplomat has backed the suggestion of SPD leader and Chancellor hopeful Martin Schulz, who has pledged to rid his country of US nukes. Washington, meanwhile, is pressing ahead to modernize its nuclear stockpile.”

The issue of ending US nuclear weapons deployment in Germany has been raised by top officials in the past. In 2009, then German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said the B61 stockpile in Germany was “militarily obsolete” and urged the US to remove them.

Filed Under: B61 Bombs in Europe, Direct Action, Newsletter Archives, Quarterly Newsletter, US Bombs Out of Germany

December 10, 2016 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

“Modernization” of Cold War-Era B61 Proceeding Over Broad Objections

Nukewatch Quarterly Winter 2016-2017

The Obama administration has approved, and Congress in January 2014 fully funded, production of a new thermonuclear warhead under a program dubbed “Life Extension”—the latest version of the B61 known as the B61-12. If completed, it is to be used in war plans involving gravity bombs, as Hans Kristensen and Robert Norris reported in the May 2, 2014 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. 

The $537 million 2014 authorization is only a down-payment on the new B61. With a projected cost of $12.2 billion (up from $4 billion in 2010, and $8 billion in 2012), the authors note, the B61-12 is probably the most expensive nuclear bomb in US history. At approximately $25 million apiece, and weighing 700 pounds, each one is estimated to cost more than if it were made of solid gold ($14.6 million).

Reportedly a 300-to-500 kiloton “variable yield” thermonuclear device, the B61-12 will have 24 to 40 times the destructive power of the bomb that turned seven square miles of Hiroshima into powder and ash in 1945. Yet in the jargon of today’s nuclear war planners, the B61 is called a “low yield” nuclear weapon.

For 50 years the B61 has been a reliable federal jobs program for the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, which has engineered 15 different versions. Five B61 types are still in the US arsenal: the B61-3, -4, -10 and -7; along with the B61-11 “earth-penetrating” bomb. The administration has announced plans to retire three of these and “convert” the B61-4 into the B61-12.

Of the roughly 820 B61s still in use today, the Bulletin reports, 300 are kept at bases with B61-capable aircraft, “including 184 B61s deployed in Europe.” About 250 B61-7 and 50 B61-11 bombs are stored at Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri and at Kirtland Air Force Base in New Mexico.

The B61-12 has been in an engineering phase since 2013, and the first production bombs are set to roll out in 2020. About 480 could be built through the mid-2020s.

Storage depots at Büchel Air Base in west-central Germany where up to 20 US Air Force B61 thermo-nuclear gravity bombs are stored for use on German Tornado jet fighter/bombers. The base has been the object of nuclear weapons protests for 20 years.

The US Air Force ‘s B61-3s and -4s are deployed at European NATO bases in Belgium, Germany, Italy, The Netherlands, and Turkey—the United States being the only state in the world to deploy its nuclear weapons in other countries.

In their July/Aug. 2014 Foreign Affairs article “Bombs Away: The Case for Phasing Out US Tactical Nukes in Europe,” Barry Blechman and Russell Rumbaugh point out that “One NATO exercise in 1962 estimated that 10-15 million German civilians would be killed in a tactical nuclear exchange.” This self-destructiveness of nuclear war plans helps explain why the US European Command (EUCOM) has given up “advocating for maintaining nuclear weapons in Europe,” the authors report. EUCOM leaders told an oversight task force in 2008 there would be “no military downside to the unilateral withdrawal of nuclear weapons from Europe.” Indeed, “prominent critics … have long argued that the military rationale for keeping nuclear weapons in Europe is an anachronism,” they wrote. In its 2012 posture review, NATO’s ministers pledged to work for a world without nuclear weapons.

In “The Problem With NATO’s Nukes,” in the Feb. 9, 2016 Foreign Affairs, Richard Sokolsky and Gordon Adams report that Gen. James Cartwright, former vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has called the B61s “redundant,” and that Gen. Colin Powell favored eliminating them in the 1990s when he was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs.

Rush to Deploy Before Critics Kill Program

Opposition to the rebuild program is gaining depth and breadth in the US and Europe. US Senator Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., Rep. Mike Quigley, D-Ill., and Rep. Jared Polis, D-Colo., tried to curtail the program in 2013. In 2010, five of the US’s NATO partners (Belgium, Germany, Luxembourg, The Netherlands and Norway) asked that the B61s be permanently removed from Europe. In Germany, every major political party has been forced by popular demands to formally call for the permanent withdrawal of the 20 bombs still in Germany.

Major US allies in Europe and high-level European politicians have said that the B61s are “militarily useless.” In a widely published op/ed in 2010, former NATO secretary-general Willy Claes and three senior Belgian politicians wrote, “The US tactical nuclear weapons in Europe have lost all military importance.”

Another reason for the push to deploy rather than retire is that Germany is planning to replace its fleet of Tornado jet fighter/bombers. The enormous expense of building in a B61-12 capacity for the new replacement jet is not lost on the German parliament.

As Der Spiegel online reported Dec. 9, 2016: “By becoming a signatory to the Non-Proliferaton Treaty in 1975, the Germans committed ‘not to receive the transfer of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or of control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly.’

“During negotiations over German reunification in 1990, then-Chancellor Kohl also affirmed Germany’s ‘renunciation’ of the manufacture, possession and control of nuclear weapons.’”

 

Filed Under: B61 Bombs in Europe, Direct Action, Newsletter Archives, Nuclear Weapons, Quarterly Newsletter, US Bombs Out of Germany

July 18, 2014 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

More Nuclear Weapons, Less Security

Follow the Money

Editor’s note: This report focuses on the Air Force’s B-61 gravity bomb, still deployed in five European countries that have “nuclear sharing” agreements with the United States: Holland, Belgium, Germany, Turkey and Italy. About 180 B-61s are still used on F-16s and Tornado jet fighter-bombers in Europe. 

The program to replace the B-61s with a new “model 12” — rather than retiring them permanently — has been condemned by US allies in NATO, Congressional budget hawks and the entire arms control community. Even former Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General James Cartwright has said the B-61’s military value is “practically nil.” 

Hans Kristensen of the Federation of American Scientists interviewed Joe Cirincione, President of the Ploughshares Fund March 12. Cirincione said, “This decision represents the triumph of entrenched nuclear interests over good government. The B-61 is no longer relevant for US national security, but continues to rob billions of dollars from programs that would make America safer.” 

The B-61’s 300-to-500 kiloton “variable yield” thermo-nuclear device has 24 to 40 times the destructive power of the US bomb that killed 170,000 people at Hiroshima and destroyed everything within seven square miles. Yet its threat of indiscriminate destruction is still called “tactical” by US nuclear war planners.

Nukewatch Quarterly Summer 2014
By Marylia Kelley, Citizen’s Watch, Spring 2014 

Want to know a nation’s real policies? Skip over the government speeches and carefully groomed headlines. Read its budget. This is where true priorities are revealed. Federal budgets are a country’s policy in action, and, as such, are worthy of attention.

In March, the US Department of Energy (DOE) National Nuclear Security Administration sent its Fiscal Year (FY) 2015 budget request for nuclear weapons and related activities to Congress. The budget request consistently indulges nuclear bomb development over nonproliferation and environmental cleanup.

Especially blessed by the budget request is the Life Extension Program (LEP) to “modernize” the B-61 nuclear bomb by giving it provocative new military capabilities. Plundered in order to pay for the bomb is the program that secures the world’s most vulnerable nuclear materials.

Also caught in the budgeting vise are funds for slowing or preventing toxic and radioactive poisons moving downwind and downstream from contaminated nuclear weapons facilities.

Here are a few of the key numbers. The budget request for the DOE National Nuclear Security Administration is $11.7 billion. Of that, the largest chunk by far, $8.3 billion, is for Nuclear Weapons Activities, an increase of $534 million, or seven percent, above the FY 2014 level, which was already far too high.

Increases for the B-61-12 nuclear bomb 

Notably, a major increase is requested for Directed Stockpile Work. The increase is mostly for the LEP to combine four versions of the B-61 into a new B-61-12 bomb, a risky enterprise that is neither desirable nor necessary. Additionally, there is a B-61-12 LEP-related increase proposed in the nuclear weapons Readiness Campaign budget.

The total estimated cost for the B-61-12 has risen from $3.9 billion in 2010 to $10 billion today, not including an additional $1 billion in funding for a new tail kit. At this price each of the new B-61-12 nuclear bombs will cost twice its weight in solid gold, according to the Ploughshares Fund.

Here are the near-term costs. The FY 2015 request for the B-61-12 Life Extension Program stands at $643 million, a 20 percent increase over 2014. Worse, the budget documents state that this bomb’s LEP is slated to remain well above the $600 million mark in 2016 and 2017, and then rise to more than $725 million each year starting in 2018. As the B-61-12 LEP costs keep rising, the time line to actually produce the first new bomb is falling behind. The FY 2015 request extends the date for the first production unit to 2020, due to the complexity of the design changes the contractors want to make.

Moreover, this bomb’s presence in NATO countries contributes to rising tensions in the region and to global instability. A growing number of elected officials in the NATO countries that house the B-61s are objecting to the B-61-12 LEP and also to a future role for nuclear weapons in NATO. A logical step would be for the US to retire the B-61s rather than spend $11 billion “shLEPping” them into a new bomb design.

Nonproliferation funding takes the hit 

In contrast to the nuclear weapons activities budget, the DOE National Nuclear Security Administration’s nonproliferation accounts get a big cut in the FY 2015 request. It is fair to say that nonproliferation is being raided to pay for the B-61-12 and other ill-advised bomb programs. Here, too, the government’s priorities are showing.

Graphic from the May 2014 report by the Alliance for Nuclear Accountability: Billion Dollar Boondoggles: Challenging the National Nuclear Security Administration’s Plan to Spend More Money for Less Security.

The budget request for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation is down from about $2 billion in FY 2014 to $1.56 billion in the FY 2015 request. … Funding for the Global Threat Reduction Initiative, which helps secure vulnerable nuclear materials around the world, is slashed from $442 million to $333 million — a 25 percent reduction. Other nonproliferation projects are also reduced in the FY 2015 request.

Scott Yundt, Tri-Valley CAREs’ Staff Attorney, called the precipitous drop in the nonproliferation budget “a dangerous policy,” adding that, “the DOE likes to talk about reducing nuclear dangers, yet is cutting the very funds it needs to properly accomplish that mission. The US and the world need to better safeguard, package and store nuclear materials, not create new variants of nuclear bombs.”

Reduced cleanup funding 

The FY 2015 budget request does not express a commitment to cleanup needed by the people living near nuclear weapons facilities. Sites being cleaned up with DOE Environmental Management funding will see a slight drop in total funding, from $5.83 billion in 2014 to $5.63 billion in the 2015 request.

The funding for Superfund cleanup of leaking toxic and radioactive wastes at Livermore National Lab in California comes mostly from the National Nuclear Security Administration’s cleanup budget and partly from the Environmental Management budget. While Livermore’s Environmental Management funds are down slightly from last year, it appears that the FY 2015 cleanup monies will be sufficient for the Lab to cover its major activities. Still, measures that residents want in order to expedite cleanup would not be funded.

The budget request also contains a wholly new program called the “Opportunity, Growth and Security Initiative” (OGS), a “wish list” that if funded would … shower even more money disproportionately on nuclear weapons activities. As the budget process unfolds in the coming weeks, Congress should reject the OGS entirely and, instead, move a significant portion of the funds requested for weapons activities into nonproliferation and environmental management.

Some calls you can make 

Obama’s FY 2015 budget request has gone to Congress, where the House and Senate will decide how much funding each of these programs will actually receive. We have a window of opportunity now to make sure our voices are heard.

US Representatives and Senators can be reached via the capitol switchboard, (202) 224-3121. Ask to speak to the “defense aide” about the nuclear weapons budget, and ask the aide to keep you informed of the legislator’s position on it. Also ask to be informed of any action the lawmaker takes on a specific program, like the B-61-12 LEP or the Global Threat Reduction Initiative, or DOE’s Environmental Management program.

Here is what Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said about the budget request at a recent committee hearing she chaired: “What I see are additional cuts to well-managed programs that have made this country safer from nuclear terrorism at the expense of increased funding for poorly managed nuclear weapons programs.”

Filed Under: B61 Bombs in Europe, Military Spending, Newsletter Archives, Nuclear Weapons, Quarterly Newsletter

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • …
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20

Stay Connected

  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Subscribe

Donate

Categories

  • B61 Bombs in Europe
  • Chernobyl
  • Counterfeit Reactor Parts
  • Depleted Uranium
  • Direct Action
  • Environment
  • Environmental Justice
  • Fukushima
  • Lake Superior Barrels
  • Military Spending
  • Newsletter Archives
  • North Korea
  • Nuclear Power
  • Nuclear Weapons
  • Office News
  • On The Bright Side
  • Photo Gallery
  • Protect the Water Close Xcel's Monticello Reactor
  • Quarterly Newsletter
  • Radiation Exposure
  • Radioactive Waste
  • Renewable Energy
  • Social Issues
  • Sulfide Mining
  • Through the Prism of Nonviolence
  • Uncategorized
  • Uranium Mining
  • US Bombs Out of Germany
  • War
  • Weekly Column

Contact Us

(715) 472-4185
nukewatch1@lakeland.ws

Address:
740A Round Lake Road
Luck, Wisconsin 54853
USA

Donate To Nukewatch

News & Information on Nuclear Weapons,
Power, Waste & Nonviolent Resistance

Stay Connected

  • Facebook
  • Twitter

© 2026 · Nukewatch