Nuclear Weapons

January 22, 2023 by Nukewatch 2 Comments

Cracks Appearing in Wall of US Opposition to Nuclear Ban Treaty

Australia Moves to Consider Signing, Ratifying TPNW

By John LaForge

At the United Nations on October 5, Australia boldly ended five years of opposition to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), the International Campaign for the Abolition of Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) reports. Rather than voting against the annual UN General Assembly resolution urging countries to join the treaty — as it did under its former government — Australia “abstained” for the first time.

The plucky reversal by a military ally of the United States, the leader of minority opposition to the landmark treaty, was applauded by campaigners and by other governments. Gem Romuld, with ICAN Australia, said in a statement, “The majority of nations recognize that ‘nuclear deterrence’ is a dangerous theory that only perpetuates the nuclear threat and legitimizes the forever existence of nuclear weapons, an unacceptable prospect.”

New Zealand’s minister for disarmament and arms control, Phil Twyford, said his government welcomed “Australia’s approach” to the treaty. Indonesia’s ambassador to Australia, Siswo Pramono, said the Aussie’s positive shift on the treaty would “give encouragement to others who believe that we are on the right path” in seeking abolition. Indonesia, New Zealand, Malaysia, and Ireland were among the United Nations members co-sponsoring this year’s UN resolution pressing additional ratifications of the TPNW.

In 2018, Anthony Albanese, Australia’s Labor leader and new prime minister, initiated a resolution committing the party to sign and ratify the TPNW. As he introduced the motion, Albanese said, “Nuclear weapons are the most destructive, inhumane, and indiscriminate weapons ever created. Today we have an opportunity to take a step towards their elimination.” The Labor party reaffirmed its position in 2021, and Albanese’s “abstain” vote is merely abiding by the party’s platform. A formal cabinet-level decision to support and join the TPNW is pending, according to the Guardian.

The treaty, which prohibits the development, testing, stockpiling, use, and threatened use of nuclear weapons, now has 91 signatories, 68 formal ratifications; it entered into force last year.

The hostile US reaction to Australia’s action on October 7 was as swift as it was laughable. The US Embassy in Australia’s capitol Canberra announced that the vote to abstain would “obstruct” Australia’s reliance on US nuclear forces. However, most Australians view nuclear weapons as a threat to the world and want them abolished. The country’s Medical Association for Prevention of War tweeted, “The majority of the Australian people support our country joining the TPNW. Our government should act accordingly.” An Ipsos poll taken in March 2022 found 76% of Australians supported signing and ratifying the treaty, the Guardian reported.

Both the Trump and Biden Administrations have urged US allies to reject the 2017 treaty, and both of them continued Obama’s $1.7 trillion program, launched in 2014, to rebuild the country’s entire nuclear weapons complex and replace all the major nuclear weapons systems — including submarines, bombers, land-based missiles, and forward-deployed H-bombs in Europe — with new versions. The plan’s unfathomable nearly $2 trillion cost — a proposed 30-year-long avalanche of weapons industry contracts — continues in the face of increasingly severe global crises of climate chaos, ocean-level rise, war-displaced populations, droughts, wildfires, flooding, deforestation, desertification, famine, and water shortages.

When in office, Trump publicly scolded countries that had joined the treaty, preposterously telling them to withdraw their ratifications. For his part, President Biden reportedly urged Germany and Japan to avoid, even as “observers,” the First Meeting of States Parties to the treaty, which took place in Vienna last June. Several US allies snubbed President Biden’s directive and attended the meeting, including Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, and Australia, and NATO members Belgium, Germany, and The Netherlands. Opposition by the United States, as one of only nine nuclear powers in the world, represents a small global minority, ICAN’s Romuld told the Guardian.

– Julia Conley, Common Dreams, Nov. 11, 2022; The Guardian, Nov. 8, 2022; The Guardian, Oct. 28, 2022

January 22, 2023 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Weapons Profiteers are the Winners

By John LaForge

The only winners in the war in Ukraine are weapons manufacturers. This is according to William Hartung and Julia Gledhill for the Quincy Institute in April, Paula Reisdorf writing for CorpWatch in May, Shlomo Ben-Ami for Project Syndicate in September, and Jeremy Scahill for the Intercept in December. The numbers prove it.

Between February and April this year, Hartung and Gledhill note, the US committed to giving approximately $2.6 billion in military aid to Ukraine, bringing the Biden administration spending to more than $3.2 billion and rising, according to Pentagon reports (“How Pentagon Contractors Are Cashing in on the Ukraine Crisis”).

“Weapons companies were already receiving a massive amount of money from the US government before the war in Ukraine began — some $768 billion in 2021. In [May], the US Congress approved a $40 billion spending package for the Ukraine war, with a big chunk going to arms companies,” Reisdorf wrote (“Weapons Makers Profit Handsomely off Ukraine War”). That chunk amounted to $10 billion, with the lion’s share going to Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Boeing, General Dynamics, and Northrop Grumman, according to Scahill’s piece, “The War Caucus Always Wins.”

BAE Corp. makes the M-777 howitzer. Lockheed Martin and Raytheon make Javelin anti-tank missiles; Raytheon makes Stinger anti-aircraft missiles. Northrop Grumman produces the RQ-4 Global Hawk aircraft which is making surveillance flights over Ukraine.

Scahill reports that some of the latest contracts include: $1.2 billion to Raytheon to produce six National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile Systems in support of the efforts in Ukraine; $431 million for Lockheed to produce M142 High Mobility Artillery Rocket System launchers to replenish those sent to Kyiv; and a separate $521 million for Lockheed to replace Guided Multiple Launch Rocket Systems going to Ukraine.

Reisdorf reports that by May Northrop Grumman’s stocks were up by about 16 percent, and shares of Lockheed Martin and Raytheon Technologies had increased by 28 and 20 percent respectively by March.

The Wall St. Journal updated the profiteering news November 24, noting that Lockheed shares are up 36 percent since the start of the year, General Dynamics’ are up 22 percent, and Raytheon jumped 12 percent.

Kristen Bayes, a spokesperson for the Campaign Against the Arms Trade in London told Sky News the transfer of weapons to Ukraine is “not problem-free,” and warned, “You might think you’re handing over weapons to people you know and like, but then they get sold on to people you don’t.” Even US Defense Sec. Lloyd Austin, has “acknowledged that some weapons given to Ukraine have also been ending up in the hands of Russians,” Bayes said.

January 22, 2023 by Nukewatch 3 Comments

United States to Hurry Transfer of New Nuclear Bombs to Europe

By John LaForge

The United States has sped up the delivery to European NATO bases of its new thermonuclear bomb called the B61-12, Politico reports.

Citing “a US diplomatic cable and two people familiar with the issue,” the outlet reports that the 50-kiloton B61-12 will be flown to six NATO bases in five NATO states in December 2022, rather than the planned springtime delivery.

The individual sources familiar with the upcoming shipment to Europe, who asked not to be named, “confirmed the accelerated time-frame reported in the diplomatic cable,” Politico noted.

Tom Collina, director of policy at the Ploughshares Fund, told Politico that the accelerated transfer of the newest version of the B61 — which the Air Force says is more accurate than the bombs it will replace — “could be escalatory. We’ll see.”

Pentagon spokesperson Brig. Gen. Patrick Ryder told Politico in an email that the $10 to $12 billion plan to “swap out older weapons for the upgraded B61-12” has been “underway for years” and “is in no way linked to current events in Ukraine and was not sped up in any way.”

The B61-12 gravity H-bomb will replace two earlier versions, the B61-3s and -4s, about 100 of which are stationed at NATO bases in Germany, Italy, Belgium, The Netherlands, and Turkey, Politico confirmed.

B61-12. Photo Credit: Los Alamos National Laboratory

The giant US Air Base at Ramstein, Germany is also involved in the program. Ramstein Air Base operates the only branch of the US Air Force’s Defense Nuclear Weapons School outside the United States. The DNWS trains pilots in planning and preparing attacks with nuclear weapons. Other branches are in New Mexico, Florida, Texas, Georgia, Oklahoma, and Ohio. A part of the Air Force Nuclear College, the Ramstein-based DNWS is described on its website as being “responsible for delivering, sustaining, and supporting air-delivered nuclear weapon systems for our warfighters … every day,” and, “Programs managed by the directorate include the B61-12 Life Extension Program.”

None of this nuclear attack madness need proceed any further. Oscar Arias proposed last July 19 that as a good-will gesture of de-escalation and trust-building, NATO could — instead of replacing them with more destabilizing bombs — offer to withdraw all its nuclear weapons from NATO bases in Europe in exchange for Russia’s agreeing to begin peace negotiations.

Caitlin Johnstone made the point Oct. 19 in CounterPunch, noting that, “We survived the Cuban Missile Crisis because US President John F. Kennedy secretly acquiesced (Robert Moore wrote “wisely agreed”) to Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev’s demand that the US remove the Jupiter missiles it had placed in Turkey and Italy, which was what provoked Moscow to move nukes to Cuba in the first place.”

— Sources: German-Foreign-Policy, Oct. 31; Defense Post, Oct. 27; Politico, Oct. 26; and Robert Moore, CounterPunch, Oct. 18, 2022

January 22, 2023 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Why Not Just Pay the Fine for Resisting the B61s?

By John LaForge

My refusal to pay fines imposed for resisting nuclear weapons at Germany’s Büchel Air Force Base raises a lot of questions, principally: Why not avoid prison and just pay?

One reason is because my protest was not wrong or a mistake in any sense, whereas paying the court-imposed penalty implies I’m guilty of some sort of offense or misconduct. Further, paying the fine has the appearance of an apology or remorse on my part when none is warranted. Any nonviolent action against preparations to commit mass destruction with nuclear weapons is honorable. An upsurge of such actions would be in the public interest. Further, my so-called “trespass” was an attempt at crime prevention, or interference with ongoing government criminality, and as such was a civic duty.

A recent test of the new US B61-12 thermonuclear gravity bomb. Photo by US Air Force.

Refusing to pay fines for nonviolent resistance to nuclear war preparations is, from my position of privilege, also an act of solidarity with the poor, the undocumented, and the outcasts who often don’t have resources or connections enough to purchase their way out of pre-trial detention or incarceration for minor offenses.

In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law. The ongoing threat to attack people with nuclear weapons (known as “deterrence”) is prohibited by international law. My go-in actions at Büchel were based on international legal obligations, which in the words of the Nuremberg Principles “bind every citizen just as does ordinary municipal law.” Plans for massacres inherent in nuclear sharing and deterrence policy are prohibited and have been criminalized by the combined obligations — considered as a whole — set out in the UN Charter, the Geneva Conventions, the Hague Conventions, the Nuremberg Charter, Principles, and Judgment, the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), and the US and German federal constitutions.

The NPT in particular explicitly prohibits any transfer whatsoever of nuclear weapons from one state to another. I hope never to pay respect to governments that declare treaties are the “supreme law” but then proceed to wantonly violate them.

It can never be a crime to interfere with the deployment, rehearsals for use, or the threatened use of nuclear weapons, or to resist our governments’ joint plans to commit indiscriminate, uncontrollable mass destruction using firestorms and radiation. No criminal conspiracy of any kind anywhere compares to the level of deliberate public lawbreaking inherent in nuclear weapons threats. Rather than a trespass, my peaceful interference with nuclear attack machinery is justifiable, preventative, precautionary, and lawful.

Court systems in Germany and the US have labored to dismiss this lawful defense of necessity and to ignore their own constitutional command to abide by international treaties. Instead, when courts in both countries have been confronted with the treaty obligations outlined above, they have routinely denied their applicability in protest cases involving nuclear weapons. Courts in Germany have gone so far as to say that because Germany and the US have agreed to “nuclear sharing” the practice is therefore legitimate.

I have presented to the courts in Cochem, Koblenz, and Karlsruhe the facts about nuclear weapons, their effects, the government’s preparations for using them against civilians, and the treaties that forbid all such planning for massacres. By ignoring or denying these facts, the judges are guilty of pretending the criminality of deterrence is lawful, and they are complicit in the self-destructive maintenance of prohibited and suicidal nuclear threats. It is naïve or mentally unbalanced to act as if this charade is not homicidal and suicidal, and to ignore the criminal intent of the governments of Germany and the United States regarding nuclear sharing. I hope to be able to stand up to the courts’ coercion and intimidation, and to refuse to cooperate with such a government that is also the nuclear weapon’s government.

— This statement is in the Winter Nukewatch Quarterly, and ran Dec. 16 2022 at CounterPunch.org.

If you write to John at the prison, remember mail takes two weeks to reach Germany. After January 10 check nukewatchinfo.org or Nukeresister.org for other mail restrictions.
JVA Glasmoor
Am Glasmoor 99
22852 Norderstedt
Germany

January 22, 2023 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Nukewatch Co-Director to Report to Prison in Germany

Nukewatch staffer and Quarterly co-editor John LaForge has been sentenced to a 50-day jail term in Germany, for refusing to pay fines resulting from trespass convictions for several “go-in” nuclear weapons protests involving uninvited entry into Germany’s Büchel Air Base, where up to 20 US hydrogen bombs are stationed. The sentence will begin January 10 at the Billwerder prison in Hamburg.

LaForge appealed the convictions all the way to the Constitutional Court, which has yet to issue a decision. The appeal complains that expert witnesses — who were prepared to validate LaForge’s defense of “crime prevention” — were not allowed to testify. That decision, LaForge argues, effectively eliminated his right to present a defense.

The trial court in Cochem fined LaForge 1,500 Euros, which the appeal court in Koblenz later reduced to 600 Euros. In the US court system, refusal to pay the court-ordered fines is often ruled to be “contempt of court,” which can be considered a separate offense. Over four decades, LaForge has been jailed in the United States many times in anti-nuclear and anti-war actions.

Billwerder prison houses up to 734 adult male prisoners with relatively short sentences or held on pre-trial detention. It also holds up to 96 female adults or juveniles. Over a dozen German anti-nuclear resisters and one Dutch citizen have been jailed recently for nonviolent actions taken at the controversial NATO “nuclear sharing” base.

John LaForge entering Billwerder prison in Germany on January 10, 2023 (Photo by Marion Küpker)

If you write to John, remember mail takes two weeks to reach Germany.

John LaForge
JVA Glasmoor
Am Glasmoor 99
22852 Norderstedt
Germany

Before entering prison he was joined by other activists that have endured jail time for their anti-nuclear protests in a zoom meeting. Watch it here: John’s Jail Send-Off Zoom Meeting
Nukewatch Talks – an Exclusive

Contact Us

Donate To Nukewatch

Australia Moves to Consider Signing, Ratifying TPNW

By John LaForge

By John LaForge

By John LaForge

By John LaForge

Contact Us

Donate To Nukewatch

Stay Connected