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
    • Workshops
  • Donate

May 2, 2023 by Nukewatch 1 Comment

John’s Letter from Jail

Artist Mark Taylor’s rendition of Uncle Sam and his German doppelganger sentencing John LaForge.

 

January 15, 2023

This month has three important political anniversaries, anti-war and anti-nuclear holidays if you will, events I’ll celebrate privately for a change, since I’m temporarily cooling my heels in a German prison on the west end of Hamburg. It’s not that I killed or robbed very many people, but I have acted contemptuously toward the court system here and have refused to cooperate with its deeply corrupt and dishonest protection of the nuclear weapons establishment.

Because Susan Crane and I had the gall to occupy the top of a nuclear weapons bunker that holds U.S. hydrogen bombs here in Germany, and then refused to apologize by paying a fine for trespassing, the court has decided that seven weeks in this modern prison ought to mend my ways, or at least discourage other abolitionists.

The three war-weary events are Martin Luther King Day, January 16; the second anniversary of the entry into force of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, January 22; and the yearly setting of the “Doomsday Clock,” January 24 – that weirdly formulaic gauge of nuclear armageddon’s likelihood concocted by a group of scientific nuclear eggheads.
The establishment of the MLK holiday and of the TPNW were both monumental achievements made against fierce, wealthy, bigoted, and colonialist forces of reaction. Advocates of nonviolent action and campaigners for a world free of nuclear weapons this Monday and next Sunday, then get back to work Tuesday when the alarm goes off again on the Doomsday Clock. Of course the clock’s “up one year, down the next” assessment of nuclear war risks has been ignored as a worn out rewrite of the Chicken Little tale. Yet the five metric tons of plutonium dust that was lofted into the upper atmosphere by nuclear weapons tests is all making its way back down to Earth. So yes, Mr. Watson, in fact the worst part of the sky is falling.

Dr. King and opposition to nuclear weapons will always be connected in my mind because MLK said, “We have guided missiles and misguided men” and “the ultimate logic of racism is genocide,” and because nuclear weapons are nothing if not genocidal.

Dr. King’s books, and the hard-won triumphs of the fearlessly nonviolent Civil Rights Movement, inspired a group of us in the 1980s to repeatedly blockade the entrance to the Grand Forks Air Force Base in North Dakota which then controlled 150 land-based, long-range nuclear-armed missiles. Over a ten-year period, our band of nuclear resisters served enough county jail time after staging so many marches, protests, and stunts – once pouring blood across the 100-ton concrete lid of a locked-and-loaded Minuteman III missile silo – that when the Air Force later decided to eliminate over half of its land-based missiles, the Grand Forks nukes were some of the first to go.

Our small group efforts were encouraged back then by news of hundreds of thousands across Europe who took to the streets demanding – successfully, it turned out – the ouster of U.S. Cruise and Pershing missiles. Any prospective use of the weapons was almost universally viewed in Europe as suicidal.

We never know if our demands will be realized – only that nothing is gained without venturing. Anti-nuclear marchers in the ‘80s never guessed they’d see the UN General Assembly vote 122-to-3 to endorse a treaty banning nuclear weapons. This overwhelming majority of the world’s governments have agreed that nuclear weapons can only produce massacres, that any chance of a successful medical response to their effects is impossible, that these effects would illegally cross neutral borders, do long-term criminal damage to the environment, and then recoil to maim and destroy the very militaries that unleash them. (That’s why I wrote “B61 = Suicide” on the weapons bunker just before being detained.)

Today, the groundbreaking TPNW has permanently shamed and stigmatized the nuclear weapons states as hypocrites, scofflaws, and rogues who ridicule and ignore the treaty’s means while cynically claiming to desire its ends.

The nine-member thermonuclear cartel, like a gang of coldblooded mobsters, acts outside and above the law by rewarding their judicial, police, and prison authorities for the cover they provide – authorities who then wink and pretend that the protection racket is necessary and that the Bomb is legal.

Maybe our marching, our rebellion, and the law of nations can’t denuclearize the cabal of atomic weaponeers. Maybe the nuclear mobsters won’t re-direct their war chests to useful purposes before they run our earthly train off the rails. But then nothing changes unless we demand it.

— Written by John LaForge

Filed Under: Direct Action, Newsletter Archives, Nuclear Weapons, Office News, Quarterly Newsletter, US Bombs Out of Germany

May 2, 2023 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

What Can the United States Bring to the Peace Table for Ukraine?

PhotoCredit:https://www.independent.co.uk/tv/news/ukraine-russia-peace-talks-belarus-b2024774.html
By Medea Benjamin and Nicolas J.S. Davies

So far, the debate has revolved around what Ukraine and Russia can do to end the war and restore peace. However, given this war is not just between Russia and Ukraine, NATO, and the United States must consider what they can bring to the table to end it. The geopolitical crisis that set the stage for the war in Ukraine began with NATO’s broken promises not to expand into Eastern Europe, and was exacerbated by its declaration in 2008 that Ukraine would eventually join this primarily anti-Russian military alliance.

Then, in 2014, a U.S.-backed coup against Ukraine’s elected government caused the disintegration of Ukraine. Only 51% of Ukrainians surveyed recognized the legitimacy of the post-coup government, and large majorities in Crimea and in Donetsk and Luhansk provinces voted to secede from Ukraine. Crimea rejoined Russia, and the new Ukrainian government launched a civil war against the self-declared “People’s Republics” of Donetsk and Luhansk.

The civil war killed an estimated 14,000 people, but the Minsk II accord in 2015 established a ceasefire and … casualties declined substantially. But the Ukrainian government never resolved the political crisis by granting Donetsk and Luhansk the autonomous status promised in the Minsk II agreement. Now former German Chancellor Angela Merkel and former French President François Hollande have admitted that Western leaders only agreed to Minsk II to buy time to build up Ukraine’s armed forces to recover Donetsk and Luhansk by force. Russia and Ukraine drew up a 15-point “neutrality agreement,” which President Volodymyr Zelenskyy publicly presented on March 27th, 2022. Russia agreed to withdraw from the territories it occupied since the invasion in exchange for a Ukrainian commitment not to join NATO or host foreign military bases. That framework included proposals for resolving the future of Crimea and Donbas.

But in April … Western allies … persuaded Ukraine to abandon its negotiations with Russia. U.S. and British officials said they saw a chance to “press” and “weaken” Russia, resulting in a prolonged and devastating conflict with hundreds of thousands of casualties. U.S. and NATO leaders now claim to support a return to the negotiating table … with the same goals. They implicitly recognize that nine more months of unnecessary and bloody war failed to greatly improve Ukraine’s negotiating position.

Instead of sending more weapons to fuel a war that cannot be won, Western leaders have a grave responsibility to restart negotiations and ensure that they succeed. Instead of risking nuclear annihilation, the U.S. could open up a new era of disarmament treaties.

For years, President Putin has complained about the large military footprint in Eastern and Central Europe. But in the wake of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the U.S. actually beefed up its European military presence. It increased the total deployments of American troops in Europe from 80,000 before February 2022 to roughly 100,000. It sent warships to Spain, fighter jet squadrons to the U.K., troops to Romania and the Baltics, and air defense systems to Germany and Italy.

Even before the Russian invasion, the U.S. began expanding its presence at a missile base in Romania that Russia objected to since 2016. The U.S. also built “a highly sensitive military installation” in Poland, just 100 miles from Russian territory. These bases have sophisticated radars … and interceptor missiles. The Russians worry these can be re-purposed to fire offensive or even nuclear missiles, exactly what the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty between the U.S. and the Soviet Union prohibited, until President Bush withdrew from it in 2002.

While the Pentagon describes the two sites as defensive and pretends they are not directed at Russia, Putin has insisted the bases are evidence of the threat posed by NATO’s eastward expansion.

Here are some steps the U.S. could put on the table to start de-escalating the rising tensions and improve chances for a lasting ceasefire and peace agreement:

—The U.S. and other Western countries could support Ukrainian neutrality with the security guarantees Ukraine and Russia agreed to last March.

—The U.S. and NATO could lift sanctions against Russia as part of a comprehensive peace agreement.

—The U.S. could significantly reduce the 100,000 troops it now has in Europe, and remove its missiles from Romania and Poland, handing over those bases to their respective nations.

—The U.S. could commit with Russia to resume mutual reductions in their nuclear arsenals, and to suspend plans to build more dangerous weapons. They could restore the Treaty on Open Skies, from which the U.S. withdrew in 2020, so both sides can verify the other is removing and dismantling the weapons.

—The U.S. could remove its nuclear weapons from the European countries where they are deployed: Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium, and Turkey.

De-escalation would give Russia a tangible gain to show its citizens. It would allow the U.S. to reduce military spending and enable Europeans to take charge of their own security, as their people want.

— Reprinted and edited for space from Global Research, Jan. 26, 2023.
— Medea Benjamin is co-founder of CODEPINK, and the author of several books. Nicolas J. S. Davies is an independent journalist and researcher with CODEPINK.

Filed Under: Newsletter Archives, Nuclear Weapons, Quarterly Newsletter, War

May 2, 2023 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Blustery New START Suspension Familiar Territory for U.S.

By Lindsay Potter

President Putin announced in his national address on February 20 that he is suspending Russian participation in the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty. The treaty was signed in 2010 and given a five year extension in 2021. It binds Russia and the U.S., who together boast over 90% of the world’s nuclear weapons, to limit their arsenals and permit up to 18 inspections a year to verify compliance. New START allows up to 1,550 nuclear warheads and 700 deployed intercontinental ballistic missiles, submarine-launched ballistic missiles, and nuclear-equipped bombers – an arsenal large enough to cause massive human suffering and environmental apocalypse which begs the usefulness of any treaty that does not require elimination of all nuclear weapons. Set to expire in 2026, with no new negotiations underway, both the U.S. and Russia argue the other is not in compliance. The Kremlin points to U.S. provocation as cause for its decision to withdraw from the Treaty – accusing the U.S. of perpetrating a war against Russia by escalating the conflict in Ukraine in order to weaken Russia in a strategic defeat. In the eyes of Moscow, this changes the posture of the two nations and is tantamount to a U.S. treaty violation, as it attempts to undermine Russian national security. Furthermore, Putin accused the West of efforts to attack Russian strategic air bases and asserted the U.S. is skirting limitations on the number of deployed nuclear warheads capped by the Treaty. Russia refused an attempt to restart inspections in November and has since been out of compliance.

U.S. Air Force Staff performing a simulated missile reduction in accordance with the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty on Minot Air Force Base, N.D., 2011. Photo: Flickr/US Air Force

The U.S. has its own deep history of abandoning arms agreements, because it finds the other party to be offensive to national security interests. After the U.S. armed Ukraine with billions of dollars in ammunition, rockets, tanks, and now possibly fighter jets, and as evidence mounts proving the U.S. orchestrated terrorist attack on the Nordstream pipeline, it would be reasonable for the Kremlin to consider the U.S. antagonistic. Putin said his decision was based partly on indication the U.S. may begin testing nuclear weapons once more, which violates New START, and Putin clearly asserted Russia would do the same only if the U.S. does so first.

Though the move is escalatory, Russian officials hedged the decision, reminding pundits that Putin merely suspended the treaty rather than withdrawing altogether. Russia says it will observe limitations on nuclear warheads and nuclear missile carriers as well as continuing to notify the U.S. of nuclear deployments to “prevent false alarms,” and maintain “strategic stability,” according to remarks by defense ministry official Major-General Yevgeny Ilyin. Risks to global security include the likelihood of less transparency on arsenals on both sides. However, Russian leaders and Biden asserted the decision does not signal an increased risk of a nuclear war.

Russia clearly outlined olive branches the U.S. could extend to bring Russia back to New START – such as earnest efforts at de-escalation in Ukraine and inclusion of British and French nuclear weapons in the Treaty. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said: “Everything will depend on the position of the West. … When there’s a willingness to take into account our concerns, then the situation will change.” The U.S. must show restraint in no longer being held accountable by the Treaty and remember that, in 2021, Biden, Putin, and other leaders of nuclear-armed nations signed onto a reiteration of Gorbachev and Reagan’s 1985 observation that “a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.”

Headlines of nuclear threat flow constantly from U.S. media coupled with no demand the U.S. and NATO ratchet down their nuclear posture, alone in maintaining a first-use policy. As the faint peeping of reluctance to continue funding and arming Ukraine has pierced the media wall lately, this New START development may be used to rally the war cry and whip up renewed public enthusiasm, to foreshadow deepening U.S. and NATO involvement in Ukraine, perhaps beyond the veil of proxy.

— Reuters, The Independent, and Aljazeera, Feb. 22, 2023

Filed Under: Newsletter Archives, Nuclear Weapons, Quarterly Newsletter

May 2, 2023 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Death of the Iran Nuclear Deal

Editorial

By Naveen Borojerdi

Over the last six years, Washington’s attitude and policy toward Iran have changed for the worse. The exit of the Obama Administration heralded the end of the Democrats’ soft, liberal imperialism and ushered in a new, more hawkish foreign policy under the Trump Administration. The U.S. Ruling Class picks and chooses which of its enemies to sabre rattle with depending on whether their elected official in the oval office is a Democrat or a Republican. Under the Trump Administration, we saw the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, colloquially known as the “Iran Deal,” ripped up and sanctions placed back on the country. The agreement, which Tehran followed thoroughly, was the first attempt at peace between both nations despite being based on a lie that Iran is working towards obtaining a nuclear weapon.

At the time of the deal’s inception, I supported the Obama Administration, just like many Iranians among the diaspora, as it felt like a step towards a better future for all of us. But the deal was not built to last and the U.S. moved from peace towards escalation. Shortly after destroying the deal, the Trump Administration placed the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps on the terrorist list and ended its term with the assassination of General Qassem Soleimani, leader of the Quds Forces and one of the most powerful figures in Iran, while he was on a peace mission between Iran and Saudi Arabia [the IRGC and Quds Force are branches of the Iranian Armed Forces]. During the presidential debates leading up to the 2020 Election, most candidates for the presidency said they would return to the 2015 Deal, but make adjustments to it such as incorporating Iran’s Ballistic Missile program — incongruous policy promises, considering most of them did not stop the Trump Administration from placing sanctions back on Iran in 2017, thus ending the path towards diplomacy. Even the most progressive lawmakers among the candidates, such as Bernie Sanders, claimed they “Could not allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon,” a false, provocative smokescreen for hidden U.S. agendas considering Ayatollah Khamenei issued a Fatwa, or a religious order, against obtaining nuclear weapons back in 2003.

Cartoonist Carlos Latuff for Mint Press News

Leading up to the election, the Liberal members of the Iranian diaspora urged us to vote for current President Joe Biden because he would return to the deal, which I had predicted would be dead on arrival following four years under the Trump Administration. Fast forward three years later: still no return to the deal and the Biden Administration is making more demands for Iran to follow despite the U.S. having originally pulled out. Biden’s cheerleaders among the Iranian Liberal analyst class are painting both Iran and U.S. officials as being unreasonable, which we know is clearly not the case. Regardless of how you feel about the Islamic Republic, you cannot deny the fact they played by all the rules set out by Washington as part of the original deal. However, due to the decline in U.S. power with the rise of China on the world stage, the U.S. is losing bargaining power as the world moves towards an alternative to U.S. Hegemony. Washington is still trying to keep Iran under its thumb, but it can’t, simply because of the strengthening of relations between Tehran, Moscow, and Beijing. This is why the talks in Vienna have been unsuccessful.

In January, Israel’s new administration under Netanyahu carried out a drone strike on a military facility in Isfahan. This is a continuation of the previous administration’s policy, in the wake of a full-on assault on Iran’s sovereignty by sinister forces such as Trump Administration official John Bolton. Bolton, a long-time supporter of Maryam Rajavi and the Mojahedin-e-Khalq, boasted on BBC Persian that Washington arms separatist groups along the Iraq/Iran border in Kurdistan. The January attack comes in the midst of protests across Iran in the wake of the death of Mahsa Zhina Amini, a Kurdish woman. We’ve also seen, in the last few months, the Daesh carry out a successful terrorist attack in Shiraz, Iran, killing children, the elderly, and those in between. Iran’s enemies have been ramping up aggression, using the civil unrest as cover to carry out attacks, as Iran strengthens ties with its allies in the East, resulting in the weakening of the dollar. As we move closer to a multi-polar world, Washington and its satellites in Tel Aviv and Riyadh, are lashing out and doing anything they can to prevent the strengthening of the Iranian economy while continuing the same maximum pressure policy of the Trump Administration in administering more sanctions on Iran. This is the very reason why, the proof, that peace between both nations was nothing more than a pipe dream we all bought into. President Biden is clearly not interested in peace but rather escalation and we must oppose the continuation of these policies at all costs.

— Naveen Borojerdi is an Iranian-American peace activist living in Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Filed Under: Newsletter Archives, Nuclear Weapons, Quarterly Newsletter

May 2, 2023 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

U.S. Activist to German Prison for Protesting Büchel Nukes

John LaForge enters Billwerder Prison in Hamburg on Jan. 10 to serve 50 days for his actions aimed at removing U.S. nuclear weapons from Germany.

Amidst heightened nuclear tension between NATO and Russia in Europe, U.S. peace activist John LaForge entered a German prison on January 10, 2023, to serve jail time there for protests against U.S. nuclear weapons stockpiled at Germany’s Büchel Air Force Base, 80 miles southeast of Cologne. LaForge entered JVA Billwerder in Hamburg as the first American ever imprisoned for a nuclear weapons protest in Germany.

The 66-year-old Minnesota native and co-director of Nukewatch, was convicted of trespass in Cochem District Court for joining in two “go-in” actions at the German airbase in 2018. One of the actions involved entering the base and climbing atop a bunker that likely housed some of the roughly twenty U.S. B61 thermonuclear gravity bombs stationed there.

Germany’s Regional Court in Koblenz affirmed his conviction and lowered the penalty from €1,500 to €600 ($619) or 50 “daily rates” – 50 days incarceration. LaForge refused to pay and appealed the convictions to Germany’s Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe, the country’s highest. In the appeal, LaForge argues the District Court in Cochem and the Regional Court in Koblenz erred by refusing to consider his defense of “crime prevention,” thereby violating his right to present a defense. Before entering prison, LaForge said: “U.S. and German air force plans and preparations, currently ongoing, to use the nuclear weapons stationed here in Germany are a criminal conspiracy to commit massacres with radiation and firestorms. The court authorities in this case have prosecuted the wrong suspects.”

Both courts ruled against hearing from expert witnesses who had volunteered to explain the international treaties that prohibit any planning for mass destruction. In addition, the appeal argues, Germany’s stationing of the U.S. nuclear weapons is a violation of the Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), which explicitly forbids any transfer of nuclear weapons between countries that are parties to the treaty, including both the U.S. and Germany.

— Press release reprinted from The Nuclear Resister editors Felice and Jack Cohen-Joppa

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

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • …
  • 80
  • Next Page »

Stay Connected

  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Subscribe

Donate

Facebook

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
  • Quarterly Newsletter
  • Radiation Exposure
  • Radioactive Waste
  • Renewable Energy
  • 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

© 2023 · Nukewatch