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

July 6, 2019 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Trump’s Ministry of No Information

Nukewatch Quarterly Summer 2019
By John LaForge

The Trump administration has halted, without explanation, the routine practice of reporting the current number of nuclear weapons in the US arsenal, the AP and United Press International report. The new secrecy will make it nearly impossible to estimate the true cost of nuclear weapons, to show adherence to arms control treaties, or to pressure others nuclear weapons states to disclose the size of their arsenals.

The secrecy decision was revealed in an April 5 letter from the Department of Energy’s Office of Classification to the Federation of American Scientists (FAS). Hans M. Kristensen, director of the group’s Nuclear Information Project, said the FAS regularly asks for the information and that it’s been made public for decades.

“The decision walks back nearly a decade of US nuclear weapons transparency policy—in fact, longer if including stockpile transparency initiatives in the late 1990s,” Kristensen wrote in an April 17 memo, according to the AP.

There is no national security rationale for keeping the number secret, Kristensen told the AP, adding that it is “unnecessary and counterproductive.”

“This is curious,” he reportedly said, “since the Trump administration had repeatedly complained about secrecy in the Russian and Chinese arsenals. Instead, it now appears to endorse their secrecy.”

Military classifies news of war in Afghanistan

In April, the Pentagon halted its public disclosure of how much of Afghanistan is controlled by the Taliban, adding to a long list of progress reports from the war that are now being kept secret.

John Sopko, US Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, told the New York Times, “We’re troubled by it.” Keeping Sopko’s reports secret means, “The only people who don’t know what’s going on and how good or bad a job we’re doing are the people paying for it,” he said. Sopko and some in Congress have access to some of the information.

The new restrictions on public information about the 18-year-long occupation of Afghanistan are in addition to the October 2017 halt to disclosing Afghan military casualties, its performance assessments, and anti-corruption efforts by the Afghan Ministry of Interior, David Zucchino reported May 1 for the Times. Anthony Cordesman at the Center for Strategic and International Studies told the paper, “There is no reliable way to know who is ‘winning’ or the level of stalemate.”

Pentagon secrecy hides missile defense program

Today’s increased military secrecy follows the March 2018 announcement by the Pentagon’s Missile Defense Agency (MDA) that it would no longer post the public calendar of upcoming missile tests and will keep the testing schedule classified. The schedule will only be made available to Congress the Seattle Times reported April 11, 2018. Lt. Gen. Samuel Greaves, director of the MDA which spans 14 time zones and employs over 9,000 military and civilian workers, reportedly said his test results will be made available after launches.

Expanding military control of information continues a pattern. Since June 8, 2002, the Pentagon has been allowed to keep secret all key missile defense test results. The military’s blanket classification of performance data was imposed following the disclosure of scientific evidence of a string of failed or faked tests and fabricated results, and after the FBI began an investigation into fraud and cover-ups inside the program. Then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld also waived all procurement oversight rules for the agency, laws designed to keep federal programs on budget.

Bruce Gagnon of the Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space wrote in June 2017 that, “Many of the tests are scripted, what [physicist] Michio Kaku calls ‘strap down rabbit tests.’ They can’t afford to release [details]. They would sink their boat.”

With secret test data, secret schedules, and an unaccounted, bottomless budget, the MDA’s mission impossible — “hitting a bullet with a bullet” — has wasted over $200 billion since 1983. Other military impossibilities — like victory in Afghanistan, or winning at nuclear deterrence — have cost trillions. They appear guaranteed to gobble up billions more as long as Pentagon censorship is allowed to hide the facts.

Published at

https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/06/26/trumps-ministry-of-no-information/

also at

http://www.peacevoice.info/2019/06/25/trumps-ministry-of-no-information/#more-13795

Filed Under: Military Spending, Newsletter Archives, Nuclear Weapons, Quarterly Newsletter

July 6, 2019 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Tax-Free Nuclear Weapons Gravy Train

Nukewatch Quarterly Summer 2019

Among the 30 most profitable corporations that paid no, nada, $0 federal income taxes in 2018, are a rogue’s gallery of nuclear power and nuclear weapons profiteers. As if tax-payer funded research & development, insurance and waste management subsidies, property tax breaks, and legislative protection from market competition weren’t hand-outs enough, zeroed corporate income tax bills put some giants in a cushier cat bird seat. Often, the same firms were given “tax rebates that could be used to reduce their tax burdens in other years,” the New York Times reported. The nuclear weapons and reactor firms that paid no federal taxes in 2018 include:

• Xcel Energy, which runs three nuclear reactors in Minnesota

• Honeywell, which operates nuclear weapon production sites in Kansas City, Missouri and Pantex, Texas, and works on tanks, cargo planes, military helicopters, and Reaper drones

• Duke Energy, which runs the 11 reactors at Catawba, McGuire, Oconee, Shearon Harris, HB Robinson, and Brunswick

• Dominion Energy, which operates the five reactors at Millstone, North Anna, and Surry stations.

— Institute on Taxation & Economic Policy, via New York Times, April 29, 2019

Filed Under: Military Spending, Newsletter Archives, Nuclear Weapons, Quarterly Newsletter

April 2, 2019 by Nukewatch 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

Filed Under: Direct Action, Military Spending, Newsletter Archives, Nuclear Weapons, Quarterly Newsletter

April 2, 2019 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Boeing Corporation to Run Pentagon

If he is confirmed by the US Senate, Patrick Shanahan, formerly of Boeing Corporation, will become Secretary of Defense although he has no military or foreign policy experience. Shanahan was Deputy Defense Secretary under General James “Mad Dog” Mattis when President Trump appointed him Acting Secretary January 1st. Shanahan worked for Boeing—the giant weapons contractor with $93 billion in sales in 2017, and 153,000 employees in 65 countries—for over 30 years, before joining the Pentagon. Boeing makes tanker aircraft for the Air Force, fighter jets, helicopters, satellites, missiles, missile defense systems, and laser weapons, as well as civilian airplanes. Shanahan was at Boeing when a notorious “kickback” scheme won the company a $23 billion Air Force contract, but resulted in both the procurement officer and the CFO being fired, fined and jailed, and the firm paying a $600 million fine. Boeing was also caught “vastly overcharging the Pentagon for its work on cruise missiles,” the New York Times reported. A Boeing man being appointed to run the Pentagon, by the man whose personal attorney, Michael Cohen, called him “a racist, a con man and a cheat,” seems to be in step with the president’s own history of corporate corruption, for which Shanahan has now been rewarded. — BBC, Feb. 23; New York Times, Feb. 20, 2019, & Boeing.com

Filed Under: Military Spending, Newsletter Archives, Quarterly Newsletter, War

April 2, 2019 by Nukewatch 1 Comment

Atomic Saber Rattling: NATO’s Nuclear First-Strike Offensive

By Jürgen Wagner
Nukewatch Spring Quarterly 2019

NOTE: This piece is excerpted from an article in 360⁰-NATO: Mobilization on All Fronts, edited by Sabine Lösing.

The 2010 Strategic Concept of the Alliance* clearly addresses “the hierarchy of NATO’s nuclear powers”: “The supreme guarantee of the security of the Allies is provided by the strategic nuclear forces of the Alliance, particularly those of the United States…”

Neither NATO nor its non-nuclear member countries hold any competence over the nuclear weapons of the United States—not even over the nuclear weapon stockpile deployed in Europe within the scope of nuclear sharing…. [Hans Kristensen of the Federation of American Scientists reported in 2015:] “NATO itself has no authority over the nuclear weapons use decision. The decision to employ nuclear weapons in support of NATO can only be made in Washington, London and Paris by the state leaders of those nuclear-weapon states. NATO … cannot block use.” …

[Otfried Nassauer reports that] “In its 1999 Strategic Concept … NATO went without depicting the use of nuclear weapons as a ‘last resort’ as it had … the no-first-use policy was not issued either, because the US reserve[s] a right to nuclear first use…”

Thus, Claudia Major of the German Institute for International & Security Affairs writes: “Nuclear deterrence offers protection, too—but only if Russia believes that NATO would actually apply nuclear weapons.”…

[Wikipedia reports,] “In peacetime, the nuclear weapons stored in non-nuclear countries are guarded by US Air Force personnel… codes required for arming them remain under [USAF] control. In case of war, the weapons are to be mounted on the participating countries’ warplanes. The weapons are under custody and control of USAF Munitions Support Squadrons.”…

The B61-12 [bomb] is now expected to replace older types 3, 4, 7, and 10 as well as the bunker busting B61-11 and B83 strategic nuclear bombs. …

[German] Tornados [fighter jets] are not compatible with the B61-12 without modifications. For this reason, they are candidates for “modernization” as is the associated airport at Büchel…. [According to N-TV, Sept. 22, 2015]: “German Tornados should be able to attack with the newest US nuclear weapons within the scope of nuclear sharing.… Not only American, but also German sources plow money into the modernization of the airbase in Büchel.

While the US pays for the weapons’ integration into German Tornados, the German Ministry of Defense invests [$127 million] into the modernization of the runway and the instrumental approach system in Büchel. Other US nuclear bases in Europe, like Incerlik, Turkey, or Aviano, Italy, are candidates for modernization, too.” …

The fact that they are focusing on more accuracy and penetrating power suggests that they are really aspiring to a first-strike capability. In 2006, a much-discussed report in Foreign Affairs revealingly entitled “The Rise of US Nuclear Primacy,” arrived at the same result: “…The current and future US nuclear force, in other words, seems designed to carry out a preemptive disarming strike against Russia or China.”…

An analysis by the US Congressional Research Service reads: “A prompt strike against an adversary’s ballistic missiles or caches of weapons of mass destruction might allow the US to destroy these weapons before an adversary could use them.” …

Until now they have been too inaccurate and without enough penetrating power to be used as strategic weapons…. Thus they could become integral parts of US first-strike plans… The German television program Frontal 21 reported in September 2015: “Armament experts confirm that the new B61-12 tactical nuclear weapons are much more accurate than the nuclear bombs that have been stored in Büchel so far. In case of war, German Tornado pilots are supposed to fly attacks with US bombs within the scope of nuclear sharing.”…

Hans Kristensen … in Washington, DC criticizes: “The differences between tactical and strategic nuclear weapons are obliterated with the new [B61] bombs.”…

[The Associated Press reported in 2015] “that the Obama administration was weighing options to deploy new land-based missiles in Europe to be able to pre-emptively destroy Russian nuclear weapons under certain conditions.”

[As Foreign Affairs reported]: “[T]he sort of missile defenses that the US might plausibly deploy would be valuable primarily in an offensive context, not a defensive one—as an adjunct to a US first-strike capability, not as a stand-alone shield. If the US launched a nuclear attack against Russia (or China), the targeted country would be left with a tiny surviving arsenal—if any at all…. Washington’s continued refusal to eschew a first strike and the country’s development of a limited missile defense capability take on a new, and possibly more menacing look.”…

In a footnote, Mr. Wagner writes, “In January 2008, several high-ranking NATO strategists published the report ‘Towards a Grand Strategy for an Uncertain World’… [and] explicitly emphasized their readiness for first use once again: ‘Regrettably, nuclear weapons—and with them the option of first use—are indispensable, since there is simply no prospect of a nuclear free world.’”

*The Strategic Concept is NATO’s official periodic document that outlines its purpose, nature and tasks.

On April 4, 2019, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization will celebrate its 70th anniversary in Washington, D.C. In view of NATO’s post-Cold War crime spree in Yugoslavia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, peace activists are organizing

 “Unwelcome” events between March 30 and April 4. For info on scheduled events in D.C., see:

<no2nato2019.org>

<no-to-nato.org/en/>

<worldbeyondwar.org/notonato/>

<Email: contact@No2NATO2019.org>

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

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • …
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • …
  • 21
  • Next Page »

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