Nukewatch

Working for a nuclear-free future since 1979

by Leave a Comment

Nuclear Weapons Divestment Campaign Makes a Dent

Activists projected this image of ING bank´s lion logo, shown kicking away a nuclear weapon, onto the bank’s headquarters in Amsterdam last October.

Dozens of financial institutions in the United States invest in companies doing nuclear weapons research, development and production, and you dear reader may have some skin in the game. Aetna? Allstate? American Family? These firms all claim to have your back but are banking on your demise. The group Don’t Bank on the Bomb (DBB) has been making headway in its campaign against these. The Swedish pension funds AP4 and AP, the Belgian bank KBC, and Germany’s giant Deutch Bank have all halted investments in nuclear weapons. Scores of other businesses have done the same, including Japan’s 5th largest banking group, Resona Holdings. By slashing investors’ dollars from investment firms and weapons contractors, DBB campaigners hope to force the nuclear bomb biz to simply, slowly, dry up. US companies behind the Bomb include among others Aecom, Aerojet Rocketdyne, BAE Systems, Bechtel, Boeing, BWX Technologies, CH2M Hill, Fluor, General Dynamics, Honeywell, Huntington Ingalls, Jacobs Engineering, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and Orbital ATK. Don’t Bank on the Bomb is pressuring the Dutch multinational banking and financial services firm ING Group in Amsterdam, to dump the $756 million it currently has tied up in weapons production. Activists recently projected onto ING’s headquarters an image of the company’s mascot lion kicking the bomb (above).

Information on the financial affairs of the nuclear weapons industry, so lacking in the US, can be found on the dontbankonthebomb.com website. Get the latest news about who produces the weapons, which companies make the most, which ones have divested and earned a spot in the Hall of Fame. Take advantage of this organization’s amazing research. The site contains resources so you can begin your own local divestment campaign. Check to see if you unknowingly invest in nuclear weapons—then divest.

— www.dontbankonthebomb.com

by Leave a Comment

International Week Action Camp, 8-16 July 2019, Büchel, Germany

Help Stop New US Nuclear Bombs Planned for Europe

By Marion Küpker and John LaForge
Spring Nukewatch Quarterly 2019
From left with banner, Margriet Bos from Amsterdam, Susan Crane from California & Bonnie Urfer from Wisconsin stopped traffic in July 2018.

Please join the campaign “Büchel is Everywhere: Nuclear Weapons-free Now!” to bring existing US nuclear weapons back home, and halt production of the new B61-12 nuclear bomb, scheduled to be built in the US by 2020 then deployed in five European countries: Italy, Belgium, The Netherlands, Turkey, and Germany.

For a third year in a row, Nukewatch invites peace, anti-nuclear, environmental, and student activists to participate in the International Week, July 8 to 16, 2019, at the peace camp near the main gate of the Büchel Air Base in Germany.

20 Weeks of Action for 20 Bombs
“International Week” at peace camp includes a variety of actions with activists from around the world, some seen here after a 2018 trespass.

In 2016, 2017, and 2018, twenty weeks of nonviolent actions took place with participants from over 50 organizations. Twenty weeks represent the 20 B61 H-bombs deployed at Büchel. The peace camp includes networking, training, and nonviolent civil resistance.

Again this year, groups and individuals will conduct all kinds of nonviolent actions (blockades, trespasses, vigils, etc.) at the base to pressure the government and to remind lawmakers of their various promises to permanently eliminate the US nuclear weapons.

International Week is part of 20 weeks of action stretching from March 26th to August 9th (Nagasaki memorial day). This year marks the third gathering of European activists with anti-nuclear resisters from the United States—where construction of the new bomb is taking place. In 2018, 10 campaigners from the US joined with dozens from Holland, Belgium and France, and the International Youth Group from Mutlangen, Germany. On July 17, 2017,  US delegates personally delivered a copy of the new Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons to the commander of the air base.

Political, Military & Corporate Background

According to AirForce-technology.com, the US bombs can be air-launched by warplanes such as the B-2s, F-15s, F-16s, and Germany’s Tornado PA-200 fighter jets.

German Tornado pilots are trained and obligated to take off with these US bombs and, under orders from a US president, to attack populations with them. This unlawful and terrifying war plan is part of a “nuclear sharing” agreement between the US and Germany, and includes a first-strike option that the US and NATO insist is necessary. (See NATO: Alliance for Global Intervention) NATO calls its weapons proliferation “power and burden sharing,” and it currently involves nuclear war exercises next to the East-European Russian border—one was code-named “Anaconda”—involving tens of thousands of soldiers and extensive maneuvering of heavy military equipment.

Like the current B61, the new precision guided B61-12 is a weapon of mass destruction, which experts have called illegal under German, US and international law.

Three US nuclear weapon’s National Laboratories—Los Alamos and Sandia in New Mexico, and Lawrence Livermore in California—have worked to design the new B61-12. Component parts are being made at the Y12 complex in Tennessee, the Kansas City Plant in Missouri (formally the “Kansas City National Security Campus”), and at Sandia. Final bomb assembly takes place at the Pantex weapons assembly site in Texas. Major contractors are Boeing, Lockheed-Martin, Honeywell, and Bechtel. Hans Kristensen of the Federation of American Scientists has reported that 400 new B61-12s are planned and each weapon will cost at least $25 million.

Public Opinion & the Ban Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons

The planned replacement of the B61s is moving ahead despite the German parliament’s overwhelming approval March 26, 2010, of a cross-party resolution calling on the government to pursue their permanent removal. The new B61s also fly in the face of huge majority public support of a denuclearized Germany, and of the newly adopted UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.

Germany has a strong nationwide campaign of 60 groups and organizations (“Büchel is everywhere—Nuclear Weapons-free Now!”) focused on nuclear abolition, and embracing civil resistance at the scene of the crime. Nukewatch is the first non-German organization to join the campaign. Besides lobbying work, nonviolent direct action increases awareness and political pressure, keeps the B61 issue in the public eye, and challenges “nuclear sharing” courts.

Because of public criticism, (a 2016 poll shows that about 90% of the German public is against the US nukes) the united Campaign Council now includes major international organizations, and its work led to the political decision to decriminalize participation in nonviolent blockades at Büchel.

Finally, in 2017 the global nuclear weapons ban treaty was signed at the United Nations by 70 countries, and 21 countries have ratified the Treaty. Fifty ratifications are needed for it to become international law, a goal that may be reached this year. German political decision makers refused to take part in the negotiations for the treaty ban and have refused to sign it—following the bad example of the United States, most NATO members, and all other nuclear-armed states.

In 2017, during Germany’s nationwide election campaign, Social Democrat Party leader Martin Schulz promised he would demand removal of the US weapons if he became chancellor—and Germany’s Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel publicly endorsed Schulz’s promise at a Washington, DC press conference. Also, Germany’s Left Party called for a parliamentary decision to remove the B61s, and the Green Party has the permanent removal of the bombs as part of its platform. These parties need to be pressured to take further actions to send the bombs home. Politicians know that when Germany steps out, it will affect future decisions of the four other “nuclear sharing” countries (Belgium, Holland, Italy and Turkey). A “domino effect” is possible, so the best time to stop the B61-12 program is now—before it goes into production.

Agreed Action Framework:
A camp meeting planning the next action at Büchel.

We will not use or threaten to use physical violence against any person, especially in situations where violence is being used against us. We will not treat others in a condescending way. We will treat others (police, soldiers, counter-demonstrators, and everyone) with respect, even as we criticize the actions they take. The complete Agreed Action  Framework can be found on the German campaign’s homepage: <www.buechel-atombombenfrei.de>

Camping/Housing

Camp housing in this beautiful volcanic region of Germany, near the Mosel River Valley includes tent camping or rental cabin rooms. Make arrangements early for indoor space, and for other special accommodations you might need.

The camp has limited internet access.

If you are interested in participating and want more details, please contact:

Nukewatch 715-472-4185

nukewatch1@lakeland.ws

The German coordinators of the camp have loads of additional information at their website:

<www.buechel-atombombenfrei.de>

Please help

All of these efforts are in need of financial support. If you aren’t able to join the delegation, please help support the scholarship fund by sending a donation to Nukewatch right away: 740A Round Lake Rd., Luck, WI 54853

by Leave a Comment

In Germany, Long-Standing Deal to Host US Nuclear Weapons is Now in Question*

Debate about US nuclear weapons in Germany flares up for the first time since the 1980s

By Bojan Pancevski, Wall Street Journal
Spring Nukewatch Quarterly 2019
See Nukewatch’s accompanying article, How the Wall Street Journal Gets it Wrong.

The [German] center-left Social Democrats, or SPD, have appointed a commission to re-evaluate their positions on strategic, foreign and security policy, including the merits of “nuclear sharing,” a Cold War-era agreement under which German warplanes would be used to launch US nuclear weapons in case of a Russian attack on Europe, a senior party official said.

The deliberations came partly as a result of President Trump’s withdrawal from a treaty with Russia that regulates the presence of nuclear missiles in Europe, according to SPD officials. The US plans to withdraw from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty after accusing Russia of violating it for years.

After Mr. Trump’s repeated criticism of the military alliance and its members, the SPD move shows NATO’s cohesion is now also under threat from a backlash among center-left forces in Europe that had long stopped questioning the alliance.

[German Chancellor Angela] Merkel’s party is continuing to back the agreement. Nevertheless, a decision by its junior coalition partner to oppose nuclear sharing would be momentous, putting into question an institution that is as old as Germany’s 1955 membership of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

Consecutive US administrations have criticized Germany for what they called insufficient military spending, but the dispute has escalated under Mr. Trump, who has put Berlin under notice to boost its defense budget.

Parties critical of Mr. Trump tap a rich political vein in Germany. A 2018 Pew Research Center survey for the Munich Security Conference, a global security forum, showed only 10% of Germans thought the US president was doing the right thing regarding world affairs, compared with 35% for Russian President Vladimir Putin and 30% for Chinese President Xi Jinping.

The appointment of the SPD commission will also put additional stress on Ms. Merkel’s fractious coalition. The chancellor’s conservatives back higher military expenditure and want to renew the ailing German Air Force with an order of US-made aircraft that are certified to carry US nuclear weapons. Leading SPD figures have said they would block the recently proposed purchase of up to 45 Boeing Co.-made F/A-18 jets by Ms. Merkel’s defense minister.

A spokesman for Ms. Merkel said the government would continue to back nuclear sharing, adding that it saw “no reason to debate this aspect of NATO deterrence. We continue to fully support the defensive nuclear strategy of NATO.”

A NATO spokeswoman said the alliance relied on the capabilities and infrastructure of its members in Europe. “Allied aircraft supporting NATO’s nuclear deterrence mission are central to this effort and we welcome the broadest possible participation in our nuclear burden-sharing arrangements,” she added.

Asked about the policy review, US Ambassador to Germany Richard A. Grenell said, “NATO’s nuclear forces are there for deterrence and defense. This is a commitment the alliance has made together. Germany should live up to its commitment.”

Germany is part of NATO’s so-called nuclear-sharing agreement that goes back to the 1950s. While exact numbers are secret, experts believe the United States has around 180 B61 tactical nuclear bombs on the continent—some 20 in Germany and the rest spread across Belgium, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey.

“We don’t think that the nuclear-sharing agreement is fit for the times anymore,” said Ralf Stegner, Vice Chairman of the SPD, following a meeting of the party leadership on [February 11]. He said the SPD was extremely unlikely to support the F/A-18 purchase.

The procurement would be a key step in maintaining nuclear sharing in coming decades. The only aircraft in the German fleet currently certified by the US to carry nuclear weapons are the German-made Tornados. But some of those are 40 years old and are being retired.

Mr. Stegner added that the mounting US pressure on Germany meant that the country was headed toward a fundamental debate about nuclear armament and military spending of a kind that hadn’t taken place since 1982, when a rebellion within the SPD over the stationing of nuclear weapons in Europe contributed to the ouster of Chancellor Helmut Schmidt.

“Nuclear sharing doesn’t necessarily mean we need to host nuclear weapons,” said Rolf Mützenich, the SPD’s deputy floor leader and speaker on defense policy. Mr. Mützenich said Germany could follow the example of Canada, a NATO ally that doesn’t keep US nuclear weapons on its soil.

Mr. Mützenich said he believed a majority of SPD lawmakers would reject any proposal to purchase new US aircraft, partly because of the large cost. Growing animosity between NATO and Russia and the likelihood of a renewed arms race were all arguments against nuclear sharing, Mr. Mützenich added.

The looming dispute about military doctrine, military spending and procurement is just one of many now rocking Ms. Merkel’s coalition—a government many analysts think could unravel as early as this year.

Peter Beyer, Ms. Merkel’s coordinator for trans-Atlantic cooperation and a member of her conservative party, said nuclear sharing was indispensable. Failure to revamp Germany’s aging fleet of nuclear-capable bombers would make a farce of the country’s commitment to the NATO nuclear deterrent, he said.

“How we can get Putin to disarm if we fail to confront him in any way,” Mr. Beyer said. “This does not help peace but creates instability. Our allies, including the smaller states in Europe, would then have to wonder whether they can still rely on Germany.”

—Bojan Pancevski (bojan.pancevski@wsj.com) wrote this for the February 12, 2019 edition of The Wall Street Journal.

* See Nukewatch’s accompanying article, How the Wall Street Journal Gets it Wrong.

by Leave a Comment

How the Wall Street Journal Gets it Wrong*

By John LaForge
Spring Nukewatch Quarterly 2019

* See accompanying article In Germany, Long-Standing Deal to Host US Nuclear Weapons is Now in Question.

A Sandia National Laboratories mechanical engineer adjusts a microphone for an acoustic test on a prototype of the new B61-12 nuclear bomb, scheduled to go into production by 2020. Photo by US Energy Dept.

The Wall St. Journal’s claim that the current debate in Germany about US nuclear weapons stationed there is “the first since the 1980s” is in error. Here are just a few examples of the debate.

  • In 2008, five former armed forces chiefs from the US, Britain, Germany, France and The Netherlands published a manifesto that declared in part that a “first strike” nuclear option remains an “indispensable instrument” since there is “simply no realistic prospect of a nuclear-free world.” The paper was signed by a former chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, Germany’s former top soldier and ex-chairman of NATO’s military committee, a former Dutch Chief of Staff, a former French Chief of Staff, and former Chief of the General Staff in the UK.
  • In 2009, then German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said the US B61 arsenal in Germany was “militarily obsolete” and urged the US to remove it.
  • On March 26, 2010, following nationwide grassroots campaigning and demonstrations, the German parliament adopted a widely popular, cross-party (nonpartisan) resolution demanding that the federal government see to the removal of US weapons.
  • After it was reported that disarmament activists had gotten far inside the Büchel Air Base and occupied the top of a potential nuclear weapons bunker July 16, 2017, Green Party parliament Deputy Tabea Rössner openly criticized the base’s security, prompting an August 7 headline that read, “Is Air Base Büchel just as safe as an amusement park?”
  • On Aug. 22, 2017, Martin Schulz, the Social Democrat Party candidate for Chancellor in September’s national elections, unexpectedly called for the ouster of the US nuclear weapons. Reuters, The Los Angeles Times, The 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.” The debate continued as conservative politicians and editorials attacked Schulz as unrealistic about military matters.

  • On Aug. 29, 2017, German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel made a surprise endorsement of Schulz’s proposal during a press conference with then US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson in Washington, DC. Gabriel’s statement included his bold admission that, “I agreed with Mr. Schulz’s point that we need to get rid of the nuclear weapons that are in our country.”

Media around the world reported, “Foreign Minister joins call to withdraw US nukes from Germany,” and “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.”

  • On Aug. 31, 2017, International Business Times and The Financial Tribune online declared, “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.”
  • Headlines and radio waves were buzzing again in July 2018, after five separate groups of activists clipped the fence around Büchel Air Base in broad daylight, gaining entry to the base and again occupying the top of a hardened aircraft shelter. Court cases stemming from these civil resistance actions always push the issue and the debate into the public square.

* See accompanying article In Germany, Long-Standing Deal to Host US Nuclear Weapons is Now in Question.

by 2 Comments

Gerd Büntzly, Crime Fighter

Gerd Büntzly (right) with attorney in appeals court

By John LaForge

HAMBURG, Germany — I was with Gerd Büntzly, 69, of Herford, in a demonstration in Germany July 17, 2017. So were Steve Baggarly, Susan Crane, and Bonnie Urfer, all of the United States. Ours was a peaceful if covert, night-time occupation of a protected aircraft shelter or bomb bunker far inside the Büchel Air Force Base, near the beautiful Mosel River valley.

We were there to help prevent the unlawful use of the shelter in nuclear attacks or nuclear war preparations. Routine nuclear war planning by US and German Air Force personnel there, using US B61 nuclear bombs (NATO’s so-called “nuclear sharing”), violates the Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and several other international treaties, all binding on the United States and Germany.

A rally in support of Gerd took place before the hearing.

In spite of our formal complaint to state prosecutors against “selective prosecution” of Gerd, and the violation of his “equal protection” rights, only he was charged, tried, and convicted of trespass and property damage (for clipping fences) in January last year. This Jan. 16, he was in court again appealing the conviction. Susan Crane from California and I travelled to Koblenz to speak on his behalf. Attorneys were quite sure that we two could testify, but ultimately were not allowed.

We wanted to explain that international law has the force of state and federal law in Germany and the United States, a fact recognized by Germany’s Constitution (Art. 25) and the US Constitution (Art. 6). According to Univ. of Illinois Law School Prof. Francis Boyle, writing recently for other nuclear weapons resisters, “International law is not ‘higher’ or separate law; it is part and parcel of the structure of federal law. The Supreme Court so held in the landmark decision in The Paquete Habana (1900), that was recently reaffirmed in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, in 2006.”

Contrary to modern military strategists, there is no such thing as a “limited nuclear war.” Nuclear weapons only produce massacres. Beginning with 8 to 10 million degrees at detonation, followed by indiscriminate mass destruction from blast effects, city-size mass fires (firestorms) in which nothing survives, and uncontrollable radiation poisoning that produces genetic damage unlimited by space or time, nuclear weapons are just massacre delivery systems.

Supporters hoped to testify in the hearing.

International law has prohibited the planning and not just the commission of such massacres since 1946.

Professor Boyle wrote last November 1st: “The Judgment of the Nuremberg International Military Tribunal meted out severe punishment in 1946 against individuals who, acting in full compliance with domestic law but in disregard of the limitations of international law, had committed war crimes and crimes against peace as defined in its Charter.”

The Nuremberg Charter and Principles apply to individual civilians like us and oblige individuals to disobey domestic laws that protect government crimes. And Nuremberg prohibits all “planning and preparation” of wars that violate international treaties.

The 1949 Geneva Conventions prohibit indiscriminate attacks on noncombatants, attacks on neutral states, and long-term damage to the environment. The 1907 Hague Conventions forbid the use of poison and poisoned weapons under any circumstances.

Under the 1970 NPT, it is prohibited for Germany to receive nuclear weapons from the United States and for the US to transfer them to Germany. Germany and the United States are both formal state parties to all of these Treaties.

“By implication,” Boyle explains, “the Nuremberg Judgment privileges all citizens of nations engaged in war crimes to act in a measured but effective way to prevent the continuing commission of those crimes. The same Nuremberg Privilege is recognized in Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice which has been adopted as a Treaty (the United Nations Charter) by the United States” [and Germany]. In my opinion, such action certainly includes nonviolent exposure and inspection of sites of ongoing war crimes.”

Because nuclear weapons cannot be used without violating these binding international treaties; since Germany and United States at Büchel are planning and preparing war that violates these treaties; and because the Nuremberg Charter and Principles forbid this planning and preparation, and apply to civilians and military personnel alike, and hold citizens individually responsible; and require citizens to disobey illegal orders, to refuse participation in or ignore international crimes, civil resistance at Büchel is no offense but a civic duty, a lawful obligation, and an act of crime prevention.

Some of the German and international supporters from the Netherlands and United States await the trial.

In the courtroom, crowded with 40 people, the three-person “bench” (two lay volunteers and one criminal court judge) found Gerd guilty — but reduced his fine from 1,200 Euros to 750 — after making a few standard quips about “deterrence.” Prescient as ever, Professor Boyle’s latest book is, “The Criminality of Nuclear Deterrence” (Clarity Press 2013).

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