Nukewatch

Working for a nuclear-free future since 1979

by Leave a Comment

Four Members of E.U. Parliament Arrested Protesting US Nuclear Weapons in Belgium

By John LaForge
Nukewatch Spring Quarterly 2019
Three Members of the European Parliament climbed into the air base at Kleine Brogel in Belgium February 20 and symbolically blocked the runway, demanding the withdrawal of the US nuclear bombs stationed there. Standing with banner L-to-R were lawmakers Molly Scott Cato, Tilly Metz, and Michèle Rivasi. Photo by Act for Peace.

“I have been arrested for breaking into a Belgian military airbase to protest against the stockpiling of American nuclear bombs.” This dramatic declaration came from Molly Scott Cato, a Green Party Member of the European Parliament (MEP) representing southwest England. Ms. Cato joined three other parliamentarians and members of the Belgian peace group Agir Pour la Paix (Act for Peace) in the February 20 protest at Kleine Brogel air base in eastern Belgium, “to challenge EU countries to remove US nuclear weapons from Europe.”

Ms. Cato, 55, from Bristol, and two other MEPs boldly scaled a 7-foot fence with Act for Peace members and walked directly onto the runway used by F-16 fighter jets. Holding a banner calling for a “Nuclear free zone for Europe,” they symbolically blocked the runway to demand the ouster of US nuclear weapons from Europe. A fourth Green Party parliamentarian, Thomas Waitz from Austria, was arrested along with 12 members of Act for Peace at a simultaneous protest outside the base, The Guardian reported. The activists were arrested and released.

The lawmakers—Michèle Rivasi of France, Tilly Metz from Luxembourg, and Ms. Cato—all represent Green parties in their home countries, and Rivasi is the Vice-Chair of the Green Party caucus of the European Parliament. The Greens currently hold 51 of the EP’s 751 seats.

According to a press release from the Greens and the European Free Alliance, the blockaders issued three demands: the withdrawal of US nuclear bombs stationed in Europe; the ratification of the Treaty of Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons by all European Union Member States; and the creation of a nuclear weapon-free zone for Europe.  Kleine Brogel is one of six European air bases that deploy and train in the use of US B61 nuclear weapons.*

“To date, no state or international organization has the medical, human and logistical means that would manage the humanitarian and environmental consequences of a nuclear detonation,” Act for Peace said in a statement. “That is why it is essential for Belgium to set an example by joining gestures with words, and concretely work towards nuclear disarmament.”

Ms. Rivasi told The Guardian, “We are demanding the withdrawal of nuclear bombs at Kleine Brogel and also from Italy, Germany and the Netherlands. We urge all EU (European Union) member states to sign and ratify the treaty prohibiting nuclear weapons. Our first objective is a Europe without nuclear arms.”

“Today, 15,000 nuclear weapons are still in circulation in the world and about 20 nukes are still present at the Kleine Brogel military base,” Rivasi told The Irish Times. “However, the bombs stored in Belgium have adjustable power ranging from one to 340 kilotons, or up to 26 times the power of the Hiroshima bomb. Yet everyone seems to have forgotten their presence and most importantly, their danger,” she added.

The US Air Force’s 701st Munitions Support Squadron manages the twenty B61 nuclear bombs on the base, home to the Belgian Air Force’s 10th Tactical Wing which flies the nuclear-capable F-16s.

In a statement sent to Newsweek, the British-based Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament voiced its support for the action. CND General Secretary Kate Hudson said, “US nuclear weapons have no place in Europe—this isn’t a battle-ground for a nuclear war between world powers.”

“A secret bilateral agreement between a European Union Member State and the US is an imposed choice of extreme violence—imposed on the Belgian and European people. These bilateral agreements leave no room for democratic debate and genuine consideration of citizens. That is why we join activists today in civil disobedience because we believe the public interest is under threat,” Rivasi said.

Ms. Cato, who represents Cornwall and Devon, said to The Cornwall News, “These apocalyptic weapons should find no home in Europe. We demand that Europe’s nuclear nations immediately sign up to the landmark global Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and begin the process of decommissioning their nuclear arsenals.”

* The United States is the only government in the world that places its nuclear weapons in other countries. The other bases are in The Netherlands, Germany, Turkey and two in Italy. Unconfirmed reports suggest that the 70 to 90 US H-bombs thought to be stationed at Turkey’s Incirlik airbase have quietly been removed. Previous “nuclear sharing” agreements have ended with Britain, Greece and Canada where US nuclear weapons were formerly stationed.

 

by 1 Comment

Plowshares Activists Say Prosecution Violates Religious Freedom

By Kelly Lundeen
Nukewatch Spring Quarterly 2019
The Kings Bay Plowshares activists from left, Elizabeth McAlister, Father Steve Kelly, Carmen Trotta, Mark Colville, Martha Hennessey, Clare Grady, and Patrick O’Neill. Since their April 4, 2018 action, Colville, Kelly and McAlister have been held in jail while the others have been released pending trial.

On April 4, 2018, seven participants of the Kings Bay Plowshares entered the Kings Bay Submarine Base in Georgia, hung banners and poured blood. Their protest against the base’s Trident submarines marked the 50th commemoration of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s assassination. Clare Grady, Martha Hennessey, Patrick O’Neill, and Carmen Trotta have been released pending trial, while Father Steve Kelly, Mark Colville and Elizabeth McAlister remain jailed in Brunswick, Georgia. Later charged with three federal felonies and one misdemeanor, the activists were ordered by the court to submit Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) Supplemental Briefs, which were filed on Jan. 18. As the one-year anniversary of their disarmament action approaches, we share excerpts from some of those declarations.

Because of participants’ deeply held religious convictions, the seven contend that the charges of conspiracy, depredation of property on a naval installation, depredation of government property, and trespassing, are an inordinate burden to their free exercise of religion, and violate the RFRA. They argue that since the government has neglected to offer them the least-restrictive means to settle the charges brought against them for acts carried out as part of their religious beliefs, the charges should be dismissed. As we go to press, the court has not yet ruled on the motion to dismiss. The seven activists face up to 25 years if convicted on all counts.

From the Declaration of Elizabeth McAlister:

I make this affidavit to explain why I entered and symbolically disarmed the facility protecting, celebrating, and worshiping nuclear weapons at King’s Bay Trident Naval Base.

I write this from jail where I have been since my arrest at Kings Bay April 5, 2018…. Due to the government’s actions, I am faced with the choice of either following my conscience and living a life consistent with my faith and beliefs and going to jail, or denying the faith and beliefs with which I have tried to live with my whole life and staying out of jail. I am 78 years old. Going to jail for my beliefs keeps me away from my loving children and grandchildren at an important time in their lives and mine. But the idolatry of these nuclear weapons and the government which protects their massive destructive power, leave me no choice, I must follow my conscience and my faith…

From the Declaration of Martha Hennessy:

…I am being threatened with prison for following my conscience, or being allowed to retain my freedom if I ignore the primacy of my conscience…Imprisoning me for my religious beliefs and civic duty to point out government crimes against humanity would prevent my continued positive contributions to my family and society. My country’s threat to use nuclear bombs in a first strike capacity as outlined in the most recent Nuclear Posture Review compels me to follow my conscience and religious beliefs…. As in all Plowshares actions from the beginning of the movement, inspiration comes from the [Christian biblical] Scriptural readings of Isaiah 2:4 to turn swords into plowshares and spears into pruning hooks. The pouring of blood on the Missile Shrine and where the weapons are maintained is a symbolic act of contrition and remorse for the shedding of blood of innocent victims when the bomb was used in Japan in 1945…

From the Declaration of Clare Grady (who repeated part of the Action Statement read prior to entering the Naval Base):

“Nuclear weapons kill every day by their mere existence. Their production requires mining, refining, testing, and dumping of radioactive material, which poisons Sacred Earth and Water, primarily on Indigenous land. We see the billions of dollars it takes to build and maintain the Trident as stolen resources, which are desperately needed for human needs. We see nuclear weapons as a cocked gun, the biggest gun, used 24/7 to ENFORCE the many layers of state-sponsored violence and deadly force required to maintain white supremacy, global capitalism, and global domination”…

Hammering dents in the monuments to the missile is [one] step I took to withdraw my consent… The hammer I used was made with metal from melted down guns, weapons converted into peaceful tools… Our non-violent symbolic act of disarmament seeks to withdraw consent from the Trident weapons system, and the systems of theft and domination that the Trident enforces.

Elizabeth McAlister calls on the conscience of us all:

Knowing and doing are at the core of every examined life. The hardest question our culture has faced, and it has faced it repeatedly is this: “If you knew, why didn’t you do something?”  

Find legal updates, jail addresses and actions you can take to support the Kings Bay Plowshares here.

 

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

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 Leave a Comment

Allies Move to Block High-Level Radioactive Waste Targeted for New Mexico: HOLTEC Proposes World’s Largest Nuclear Dump and Nationwide Shipment of N-Waste

By Diane D’Arrigo, Nuclear Information and Resource Service and Leona Morgan, Nuclear Issues Study Group

In this photo from the 1970s, barges from KPS Construction help in the construction of the Kewaunee nuclear reactor on Lake Michigan. Federal plans envision the use of barges like these to move hundreds of tons of highly radioactive waste fuel rods from the now closed Kewaunee reactor to the port of Milwaukee. Photo by Power Engineering online.

[Albuquerque, NM]  Ten organizations* and two industry groups** blasted Holtec International’s application*** to the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for a license to build and operate the world’s largest nuclear waste dump in New Mexico. The waste, from commercial nuclear power is currently at the reactor sites where it was produced. Opening a high-level waste dump, if licensed, would lead to tens of thousands of ongoing high level radioactive waste shipments on rail, truck and boat for decades. Deadly containers would pass through nearly 90% of U.S. Congressional districts including neighborhoods, cities, farmlands, lakes, rivers and ocean-fronts. The waste is the hottest, most concentrated atomic waste from the nuclear fuel chain, misleadingly dubbed “spent” fuel.  This radioactive waste can cause death in minutes if unshielded, and remains radioactive for literally millions of years; it is one of the most deadly materials on Earth.

The organizations are demanding that the NRC Atomic Safety and Licensing Board halt the Holtec licensing because it is illegal. The federal Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as Amended, only allows the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to take ownership of irradiated nuclear fuel at an operating permanent geologic repository. Such a title and liability transfer to DOE at the “interim” site proposed by Holtec, is not allowed. The wise precaution was included in the law to safeguard against an “interim” surface site becoming de facto permanent in the absence of a permanent repository. The Holtec site  would not be suitable for long-term isolation and, in the view of those challenging Holtec, it is also not suitable for short-term storage.

The Holtec license application says the lethal waste at the site would be owned by either the Department of Energy (DOE) or the nuclear utility companies that made it. But at the hearing, Holtec’s lawyer, Jay Silberg, admitted that under current law DOE cannot take title and ownership of the waste at an “interim” centralized storage site. This makes the proposal unrealistic.

Diane Curran, attorney for Beyond Nuclear, said “We should not even have to argue this hypothetical case. We call on the licensing board to dismiss the application.”

Attorney Terry Lodge, representing seven organizations from California to New York and Michigan to New Mexico charged that, “The Holtec proposal is a corporate welfare trough that will make the nuclear waste problem in this country worse, putting millions of people along transport routes at unnecessary risk.”

Sierra Club lawyer Wallace Taylor, argued against the segmented licensing stating that, “It is irresponsible and illegal to grant a license for 20, 40 or 60 years and ignore that the waste will be dangerous for centuries longer with no plans to continue managing and isolating it.”

Holtec admitted they do not have a way to repair cracked storage and transport canisters but stated that since they are not expecting cracked canisters they don’t have to prepare to deal with them.

Major questions were raised about how waste would get to New Mexico (which has no commercial nuclear power reactors); how long it would stay (forever?); who would pay; and who would be liable for the statistically-inevitable accidents and radioactive releases, both in transit and at the site.

Alliance For Environmental Strategies (AFES), based in southeastern New Mexico, is charging that the siting violates principles of environmental justice and that Holtec’s Environmental Report is totally inadequate in this regard.

Given admissions by Holtec, it seems that nuclear power companies would have to keep title, pay to transport the waste and remain economically and legally liable, which they will not be willing to do. This makes funding for the Holtec dump operation and eventual closure highly questionable.

Diane D’Arrigo, Radioactive Waste Project Director at Nuclear Information and Resource Service, said “New Mexico could end up holding the bag, threatening the thriving industries already in the region including dairy, pecan farming and ranching. Mixing high-level radioactive waste with the booming Permian Basin oil and gas industry is a recipe for disaster. Everyone along the transport routes would be at personal and economic risk because all insurance policies expressly state they will not cover radioactive accidents or incidents. Check your own auto, renters and homeowners policies,” she advised.

Approximately 40 objections were filed, including environmental racism/injustice; danger of contaminating water; inadequate radioactive waste containers and storage systems; no ability to inspect, monitor or repackage damaged fuel and containers; condition of the waste after extended storage; eventual decommissioning costs and funding; next destination of the waste when the temporary storage license expires and unnecessary transport dangers.

Curran stated that “Holtec’s environmentally reckless, poorly conceived dump proposal is an environmental, economic fiasco for the State of New Mexico and for communities all across the country from nuclear power reactors to the Holtec site.”

The 3 judge panel will decide in about 45 days, mid-March to early April, 2019, who will have standing and which objections will be considered.

-30-

*Organizations: Public Citizen, Sierra Club, Beyond Nuclear, Alliance for Environmental Strategies (NM), Citizens for Alternatives to Chemical Contamination (MI), Citizens Environmental Coalition (NY), Don’t Waste Michigan (MI), Mothers for Peace (CA), Nuclear Energy Information Service (IL), Nuclear Issues Study Group (NM)

**Industries: Faskin Oil, NAC International

*** Holtec International’s HI–STORE Consolidated Interim Storage Facility (CISF) Project, NRC Docket No. 72-1051; Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2018

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