Newsletter Archives

December 20, 2021 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

To Avoid Armageddon, Don’t Modernize Missiles — Scrap Them

Nukewatch Quarterly Winter 2021-2022

Daniel Ellsberg, Norman Solomon, The Nation

Land-based nuclear weapons are world-ending accidents waiting to happen

The single best option for reducing the risk of nuclear war is hidden in plain sight. News outlets don’t mention it. Pundits ignore it. Even progressive and peace-oriented members of Congress tiptoe around it. And yet, for many years, experts have been calling for this act of sanity that could save humanity: Shutting down all of the nation’s intercontinental ballistic missiles.

Four hundred ICBMs dot the rural landscapes of Colorado, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, and Wyoming. Loaded in silos, these missiles are uniquely—and dangerously—on hair-trigger alert. Unlike the nuclear weapons on submarines or bombers, the land-based missiles are vulnerable to attack and could present the commander in chief with a sudden use-them-or-lose-them choice. “If our sensors indicate that enemy missiles are en route to the United States, the president would have to consider launching ICBMs before the enemy missiles could destroy them. Once they are launched, they cannot be recalled,” former Defense Secretary William Perry warns.[1]

“The president would have less than 30 minutes to make that terrible decision.”

The danger that a false alarm on either side — of the sort that has occurred repeatedly on both sides — would lead to a preemptive attack derives almost entirely from the existence on both sides of land-based missile forces, each vulnerable to attack by the other; each, therefore, is kept on a high state of alert, ready to launch within minutes of warning. The easiest and fastest way for the US to reduce that risk — and, indeed, the overall danger of nuclear war — is to dismantle entirely its Minuteman III missile force. Gen. James E. Cartwright, a former Vice Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who had been commander of the Strategic Command, teamed up with former Minuteman launch officer Bruce G. Blair to write in a 2016 op-ed: “By scrapping the vulnerable land-based missile force, any need for launching on warning disappears.”[2]

“These missiles are some of the most dangerous weapons in the world,” said former Pentagon head William Perry, Sep. 30, 2016, a fact demonstrated by out-of-control ICBMs reported on by this Casper, Wyoming Star-Tribune story from Oct. 28, 1987

But rather than confront the reality that ICBMs — all ICBMs — are such a grave threat to human survival, the most concerned members of Congress have opted to focus on stopping new ones from taking the place of existing ones. A year ago, the Air Force awarded Northrop Grumman a $13.3 billion “engineering and manufacturing development” contract for replacing the current Minuteman III missiles with a new generation of ICBMs named the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent.[3]

Northrop Grumman was the only bidder for GBSD after Boeing decided to drop out of the competition.

Current projections peg the overall cost over the next five decades at $364 billion. Northrop Grumman calls the GBSD “the modernization of the ground-based leg of the nuclear triad.” But if reducing the dangers of nuclear war is a goal, the top priority should be to remove the triad’s ground-based leg — not modernize it.

Many arms-control advocates, while understanding the inherent dangers of ground-based nuclear missiles, have largely stuck to opposing the GBSD. Instead of challenging ICBMs outright, a coalition of organizations has concentrated on aiming a fiscal argument at Capitol Hill, calling the GBSD program a “money pit” that would squander vast amounts of taxpayer dollars. But the powerful chair of the House Armed Services Committee, Adam Smith, executed a deft end run around that strategy in early summer when he declared that “Minuteman extension, as it is currently being explained to us, is actually more expensive than building the GBSD.”

The same Congressman Smith said less than a year earlier, “I frankly think that our [ICBM] fleet right now is driven as much by politics as it is by a policy necessity. You know, there are certain states in the union that apparently are fond of being a nuclear target. And you know, it’s part of their economy. It’s what they do.”

Senators from several of the states with major ICBM bases or development activities—Montana, North Dakota, Wyoming, [Nebraska, Colorado,]and Utah — continue to maintain an “ICBM Coalition” dedicated to thwarting any serious scrutiny of the land-based weaponry. Members of the coalition have systematically blocked efforts to reduce the number of ICBMs or study alternatives to building new ones. They’re just a few of the lawmakers captivated by ICBM mega-profiteers. In a report issued this year by the Center for International Policy, nuclear weapons expert William Hartung gives readers a detailed look “Inside the ICBM Lobby,” showing how ICBM contractors get their way while throwing millions of dollars at politicians and deploying battalions of lobbyists on Capitol Hill.[4]

As the recipient of the sole-source contract to build the proposed new ICBMs, Northrop Grumman has joined with other top contractors to block efforts to reduce spending on these dangerous and unnecessary systems — or even simply to pause their development.

When opponents of the GBSD decline to challenge the currently deployed Minuteman III missiles, the effects are counterproductive if their ultimate goal is to get rid of ICBMs. Tacit acceptance of the Minuteman missile force while attempting to block the GBSD sends a message that the ICBM status quo isn’t so bad. Such a tactical path might seem eminently pragmatic and realistic. But sooner or later, the extraordinary dangers of keeping any ICBMs in place must be faced, exposed, explained to the public — and directly challenged.

Getting trapped in an argument about the cheapest way to keep ICBMs operational in their silos is ultimately no-win. The history of nuclear weapons in this country tells us that people will spare no expense if they believe that spending the money will really make them and their loved ones safer — we must show them that ICBMs actually do the opposite. Unless arms-control and disarmament groups, along with allied members of Congress, change course and get serious about addressing the fundamentals of why ICBMs should be eliminated, they’ll end up implicitly reinforcing the land-based part of the triad.

“First and foremost,” former Defense Secretary Perry wrote five years ago, “the United States can safely phase out its land-based [ICBM] force, a key facet of Cold War nuclear policy.[5] Retiring the ICBMs would save considerable costs, but it isn’t only budgets that would benefit. These missiles are some of the most dangerous weapons in the world. They could even trigger an accidental nuclear war.”

Contrary to uninformed assumptions, discarding all ICBMs could be accomplished unilaterally by the United States with no downside. Even if Russia chose not to follow suit, dismantling the potentially cataclysmic land-based missiles would make the world safer for everyone on the planet. Frank von Hippel, a former chair of the Federation of American Scientists and a cofounder of Princeton’s Program on Science and Global Security, wrote this year: “Eliminating launch on warning would significantly reduce the probability of blundering into a civilization-ending nuclear war by mistake. To err is human. To start a nuclear war would be unforgivable.”

Better sooner than later, members of Congress will need to face up to the horrendous realities about intercontinental ballistic missiles. They won’t do that unless peace, arms-control, and disarmament groups go far beyond the current limits of congressional discourse — and start emphasizing, on Capitol Hill and at the grassroots, the crucial truth about ICBMs and the imperative of eliminating them all.

— Daniel Ellsberg is a former American military analyst employed by the RAND Corporation who precipitated a national uproar in 1971 when he released The Pentagon Papers, the US military’s account of activities during the Vietnam War, to The New York Times. The release awakened the American people to how much they had been deceived by their own government about the war. Ellsberg has continued as a political activist, giving lecture tours and speaking out about current events.

— Norman Solomon is the Executive Director of the Institute for Public Accuracy, the author of War Made Easy, and a cofounder of RootsAction.org.

— This article originally appeared in the Oct. 17, 2021 edition of the Nation. Copyright (c) The Nation.

___

Notes, not original with the authors, added by the editor:

[1] William J. Perry, “Why It’s Safe to Scrap America’s ICBMs,” https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/30/opinion/why-its-safe-to-scrap-americas-icbms.html

[2] “End the First-Use Policy for Nuclear Weapons,” https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/15/opinion/end-the-first-use-policy-for-nuclear-weapons.html

[3] “Northrop Grumman receives $13.3 billion contract to develop next-generation ICBM,” Space News online, Sep. 8, 2020; https://spacenews.com/northrop-grumman-receives-13-3-billion-contract-to-develop-next-generation-icbm/

[4] “Inside The ICBM Lobby: Special Interests or The National Interest?” https://3ba8a190-62da-4c98-86d2-893079d87083.usrfiles.com/ugd/3ba8a1_89fe183f8a164e22a2fa29d4d6381d7b.pdf

[5] Wm. Perry, note 1

December 20, 2021 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Ignoring Outcry, Mockery, Japan Intends 2023 Start of Fukushima Wastewater Dumping

Nukewatch Quarterly Winter 2021-2022

On October 18, Japan’s Prime Minster Fumio Kishida said there would be no postponement of its plan to pollute the Pacific Ocean with 1.27 million metric tons of radioactive cooling water from Fukushima’s destroyed reactors. Kishida said releasing the “heavily diluted” waste water would begin in the spring of 2023. The dispersal is expected to continue for decades as the accumulation of radioactive cooling water increases by 150 tons every day. The water becomes severely contaminated after being poured over large volumes of roiling, not, melted uranium and mixed uranium/plutonium fuel under Fukushima-Daiichi’s three destroyed nuclear reactors.

The International Atomic Energy Agency’s Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi was openly mocked with laughter by the dignitaries at COP26 on November 4. The adamantly pro-nuclear Grossi had said before the large audience, “No one died from radiation at Fukushima,” provoking the laughs. “I don’t know why you’re laughing, it’s a fact,” he griped. Earlier Grossi warmed up the crowd with this thigh-slapper: “We control this activity so it does not cause any harm.” Grossi’s job is difficult since under its United Nations Statute, the IAEA has only one objective: “The Agency shall seek to accelerate and enlarge the contribution of atomic energy … throughout the world.”

Japan’s April decision to further pollute the Pacific caused an uproar in dozens of Pacific rim of countries. South Korean officials denounced Kishida’s declaration the same day, saying that it represents a “grave threat” to the marine environment. South Korea continues to ban seafood imports from the Fukushima region and has repeatedly condemned the dumping plan, which a senior South Korean foreign ministry official said, “could affect our people’s health and security as well as the ocean environment.”

Alternatives to the ocean dumping include long-term tank storage, more thorough filtering, or evaporation, and in 2019 Japan’s own ministry of economy and industry recommended including evaporation in its list of waste water options.

China’s Global Times reported in October that Liu Jiangyong, vice dean of the Institute of Modern International Relations at Tsinghua University, asked if the wastewater will be processed and will have no impact on the marine environment and food web as the Japanese government claimed, why can’t the water be recycled on land? Japan can’t answer any of these questions, said Liu. The ideal plan would be for Japan to process the wastewater to a safe level and recycle it, rather than dump it into the sea, said Liu.

A June letter to Japan’s permanent mission to the United Nations signed by a group of 70 groups, including Nukewatch, warned: “The dumping of radioactive water into the Pacific is also a violation of international law. The 1972 Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter and the London Protocol prohibit dumping of any concentration of radioactive material into the sea.”

In May, three human rights experts appointed by the UN’s Human Rights Council issued a statement that expressed “deep regret” at Japan’s dumping plan and “reminded Japan of its international obligations to prevent exposure to hazardous substances, to conduct environmental impact assessments of the risks that the discharge of water may have, to prevent transboundary environmental harms, and to protect the marine environment.”

Tokyo Electric Power Co. (Tepco), operators of the Fukushima complex, announced August 24 it would construct a tunnel underwater to release the 1.27 tons of radioactive water into the Pacific Ocean. Tepco said it would start building at least one 8-foot diameter half-mile-long tunnel in March 2022 by hollowing out bedrock on the seabed near the No. 5 reactor at Fukushima, Japan Times reported.

Critics around the world immediately denounced the plan as an attempt to avoid any oversight, monitoring, or independent inspection of the radioactive materials in the waste water.

“…to dump it into an ocean, where we share the same tides, current, and fish, it is a level up from urgent for us,” said Henry Puna, secretary general of the Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat, noting that even basic concerns had not yet been addressed. “Currently we are not satisfied there will be no harm to our Blue Pacific,” he told Civil Beat in September.

A regional collective of young activists called Youngsolwara Pacific has condemned the dumping plan and Japan’s lack of consultation. Likewise, a senior South Korean foreign ministry official told China’s Global Times in October that, “Japan’s decision was made without enough consultations with neighboring nations.” Talei Luscia Mangioni, a researcher at Australian National University and Youngsolwara Pacific member, said “… this is an act of transboundary harm. ” And it is typical, she said, considering the history of nuclear powers that “have treated the Pacific as a sacrifice zone.”

In Iitate village 24 miles from Fukushima’s meltdowns, Nobuyoshi Ito, a former computer engineer, has been measuring the radioactive properties in the food and soil for nearly a decade. Mr. Ito always carries a monitor and is constantly recording radiation levels, “trying to determine what is and isn’t safe to eat, and where it is and isn’t safe to go,” CBS News reported last August. While the town’s evacuation orders are gone, Ito says people — especially children — shouldn’t return. “It will take 300 years to restore the village to its original state, and it will continue to emit radiation for 300 years,” he said.

On September 22, the United States lifted its weak restrictions on imported food stuffs from Japan, and food products free of inspection now include even rice harvested in Fukushima. According to Japan’s farm ministry, the US is the 3d-largest importer of its food products and were worth $1.09 billion in 2020. Fourteen countries continue to maintain their food import bans. FDA officials say they’d determining a “very low risk” to US consumers from radioactive contaminants in the foods. — JL

December 20, 2021 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Nuclear-Powered Submarine Wrecks: Routine, Deadly, Toxic

Nukewatch Quarterly Winter 2021-2022

USS Connecticut Smashes into Undersea Mountain

US Navy officials report that its nuclear-powered, fast-attack submarine USS Connecticut struck an underwater mountain in the South China Sea on October 2, echoing the disastrous crash of the USS San Francisco in 2005 south of Guam. US military officials told CBS News that two Connecticut crew members suffered “moderate” injuries and several sustained minor bumps and bruises. The Navy said the sub’s nuclear reactor was not damaged.

A month after the crash, Connecticut’s three top officers were fired “due to loss of confidence.” As we go to press, the Pentagon had not yet explained why the 23-year-old Connecticut struck an underwater mountain, or revealed the extent of damage to the vessel. China’s government has accused the US of a “lack of transparency and responsibility” regarding the accident. Foreign Ministry spokesperson Wang Wenbin said November 2, “We once again urge the US to give a detailed account of the accident,” the AP reported.

Some 52 US conventional diesel-powered Navy submarines were lost at sea during WWII, according to The Lost 52 Project. Beginning with the USS Nautilus in 1951, the submariners’ risk-taking with their own lives and with the ocean’s biological integrity was compounded by the switch to nuclear reactors for propulsion.

300-Year Oceanic Hazard

The Aug. 25, 2000 New York Times report about long-lived radioactive materials leaking from sunken nuclear reactors (then onboard the Russian sub Kursk), noted a fact that applies to all the lost reactors: “The two of most concern — strontium-90 and cesium-137 — have half-lives of about 30 years, and will take about 300 years to decay away.”

USS Thresher

USS Thresher was a nuclear-powered attack submarine that sank on April 10, 1963 during deep-diving tests, killing all 129 crew and shipyard workers onboard. Thresher was the third of four submarines that would sink with more than 100 people aboard.

USS Scorpion

The nuclear-powered submarine Scorpion sank with all hands on May 22, 1968. The Scorpion was one of four submarine disappearances that year, the others being Israel’s sub Dakar, France’s sub Minerve, and the Soviet sub K-129.“Neither vessels’ reactors [on the Thresher and Scorpion], nor the nuclear weapons on board the Scorpion, have ever been recovered,” the Australian Broadcasting Corp. reported Sept. 17, 2021.

Komsomolets

Forty-two crew members died when the experimental Soviet sub Komsomolets sank 5,577 feet to the bottom of the Norwegian Sea following a five-hour-long onboard fire April 7, 1989. While part of the crew abandoned ship in rubber rafts, some of the crew stayed on fighting the fire and shutting down the sub’s nuclear reactors. Researchers said July 10, 2019, that the sub is still emitting radiation, Reuters reported.

Kursk

In August 2000, after explosions destroyed forward parts of the sub, Russia’s nuclear-powered and nuclear-armed Kursk sank in the Barents Sea, only 354 feet down. All 118 crew members died after the failure of repeated rescue attempts.

HMS Tireless

On May 12, 2000, the British fast-attack submarine Tireless suffered reactor accident, spilled radioactive coolant into the Mediterranean, and conducted a lengthy, risky, experimental, and unlawful repair operation in the densely populated area of Gibraltar. News reports at the time said Tireless came within “a few minutes” of a reactor meltdown when high-pressure coolant began gushing out of the system. Docking the damaged, contaminated sub at Gibraltar for six months of repair work violated Royal Navy regulations, and reactor failure resulted in the recall of all 12 of Britain’s Trafalgar Class subs.

K-159

Nine crew members died when the Russian submarine K-159 sank in 2003 while being towed through a violent storm in the Barents Sea. Environmentalists said that the danger of radioactive contamination from the sub’s two propulsion reactors was “much higher than official statements suggested.”

USS San Francisco

On Jan. 8, 2005, the nuclear-powered fast-attack submarine San Francisco, running at top speed, smashed into an undersea mountain 500 feet down, killing one sailor and leaving 98 battered and bloodied after being hurled through the air by the crash. Several were knocked unconscious and many were bleeding from head wounds. After the crash, “blood was everywhere,” one account read. “There was so much blood on the instruments and on the control room floor,” Chief Petty Officer Danny Hager said, “that the place looked like a slaughterhouse.”

HMS Vanguard and Le Triomphant

On the night of Feb. 3, 2009, France’s Le Triomphant, and Britain’s HMS Vanguard, both carrying nuclear weapons, collided while submerged in the Atlantic. Both vessels were damaged although the 250 crew members aboard were uninjured, the New York Times reported. All nuclear-armed subs are shrouded in extreme secrecy, so very little is known about the extent of the damage, but Kate Hudson, chairwoman of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, said then the collision “could have released vast amounts of radiation and scattered scores of nuclear warheads across the seabed.”

Losharik

On July 1, 2019, fourteen Russian sailors were killed by toxic fumes when a fire broke out aboard the nuclear-powered research submarine Losharik which was operating in the Arctic. —JL

December 20, 2021 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Staggering Military Suicide Rates

Nukewatch Quarterly 2021-2022

A September Pentagon report shows a 41% increase in suicides among active-duty troops from 2015 to 2020, and suicides among US Army’s active-duty forces jumped 46% in the second quarter of 2021, compared to the same period last year. On the heels of this news, a military inspector general’s report released November 12 found that US troops are not regularly screened for suicide risk as they leave active-duty. “Furthermore, the [military] may not arrange for continuing mental health care for thousands of transitioning service members with existing mental health conditions,” the IG said.

30,000 since 9/11, four times total combat deaths

The grim active-duty suicide reports only hint at the overall suicide rate including veterans. The larger picture was presented June 21 in a report by the Costs of War Project at Brown University. The study, “High Suicide Rates among United States Service Members and Veterans of the Post-9/11 Wars,” found a staggering 30,177 active-duty personnel and veterans who served in the military since 9/11 have died by suicide — four times the 7,057 killed in military occupations and warzones over the same period. Yet, even this jaw-dropping number is a fraction of the whole.

“In total, there were 89,100 confirmed US veteran suicides between 2005 [when the Pentagon began tracking suicide rates] and 2018, including veterans of the Global War on Terror and also previous wars such as the Vietnam War,” wrote author Thomas Suitt.

Suitt found that “continued access to guns” as well as “the rise of improvised explosive devices, the attendant rise in traumatic brain injuries, the war’s protracted length, advances in medical treatment that keep service members in the military longer, and the American public’s disinterest in the post-9/11 wars, have greatly contributed to increased suicide rates.”

“Even the very conservative estimate that I came up with, it’s horrifying,” said Suitt in an interview with NPR. Every suicide among military service members should stand as a criminal indictment of a government that sends its men and women into endless, undeclared, unwinnable wars around the world.

— If you or someone you know may be considering suicide, contact the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline at 1-800-273-8255 (En Español: 1-888-628-9454; Deaf and Hard of Hearing: 1-800-799-4889) or the Crisis Text Line by texting HOME to 741741.

December 20, 2021 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

US Senators Join Fight for Palomares Vets’ Compensaton

Nukewatch Quarterly Winter 2021-2022

Editor’s note: Four US senators have urged Secretary of Veterans Affairs Denis McDonough to withdraw the VA’s appeal of a federal court order granting class action status to veterans contaminated with plutonium in Palomares, Spain, after a 1966 nuclear weapons crash. The senators’ October 12, 2021 letter, lightly edited, follows.

Dear Mr. Secretary,

We write to respectfully request you withdraw your appeal in Skaar v. McDonough now before the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, concerning the claims of approximately 1,400 veterans exposed to dangerous radiation during the 1966 nuclear clean-up operation in Palomares, Spain. Instead of pursuing your appeal, which will only serve to further delay relief for these veterans, we urge you to use your rulemaking authority to finally provide long-overdue care and assistance to Palomares veterans by including Palomares in the list of [service related] “radiation-risk activities” under 38 CFR 3.309. Events with lower levels of radiation exposure are already on that list, and civilian workers who buried sealed barrels filled with Palomares soil — a similar, but even less risky task than that performed by the Palomares veterans — receive presumptive benefits…

By way of background, in 1966, approximately 1,400 US service members were exposed to dangerous levels of ionizing radiation when they were deployed to clean up the crash site of a B-52 bomber which was carrying nuclear warheads. These service members worked, slept, and ate at the crash site, shoveling radioactive plutonium dust into barrels for weeks without proper protective equipment. In the decades since, many of those veterans have developed radiation-related illnesses that require medical treatment and numerous veterans have already died from these conditions, leaving the survivors to continue to fight for recognition and benefits. The US Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) recently ordered the VA to reexamine the methodology by which it adjudicates disability benefits claims for veterans of the 1966 Palomares nuclear disaster. This decision came one year after the CAVC had permitted veteran Victor Skaar to proceed with this challenge on behalf of a class of Palomares veterans. [emphasis added]

At its heart, Mr. Skaar’s legal challenge is about the failure to recognize the radiation exposure of the Palomares veterans. The VA does not include Palomares in its list of radiation exposure events … and it has relied on an unsound method to calculate individual exposures instead…. The merits of this argument have not yet been resolved. Rather, the CAVC ordered only that the Board of Veterans’ Appeals is required to review Mr. Skaar’s evidence and adequately adjudicate his legal challenge. Yet, the VA has chosen to appeal even this interim ruling.

… The Court’s orders in Skaar, from which you now appeal, are long-awaited, critical steps towards securing benefits and health care for these veterans. Tragically, many of them have died during their decades-long fight for recognition, and the very youngest among them are now in their seventies. We urge you not to further prolong justice for these now aging and ill veterans by pursing an unnecessary appeal of the Court’s class certification and remand orders, before the merits of the Palomares veterans’ claims have fully been heard. This case truly embodies the legal maxim that justice delayed is justice denied. The VA’s decision to appeal the Court’s class certification and remand orders before the merits have been fully reached, will add potentially years of delay to resolution of this case, when the affected service members simply do not have that time to spare. To put it bluntly, more Palomares veterans will die during the pendency of this litigation if the VA continues with this appeal. You have the authority to act to their benefit, and we strongly urge you to do so expeditiously by withdrawing your appeal.

Sincerely, Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, Dianne Feinstein, D-California, Christopher Coons, D-Delaware,

Richard Blumenthal, D-Connecticut.

~~~~~

Note from the Lead Plaintiff

On November 8, Victor Skaar emailed Nukewatch with this update: “I obtained the ‘official’ urinalyses of myself and of each of the other ‘high 26’ [who were] selected by USAF medical scientists to submit follow-up specimens to the Radiological Health Lab, six, twelve, and eighteen months after departure [from Spain]. Those were the only data evaluated by the USAF Surgeon General’s contracted bio-environmental engineering team — Labat-Anderson…. [This team] did not consider any specimen results collected and submitted while we were on the [Palomares] site, working with constant exposure to plutonium and other radioactive materials. Obviously, that stupid, arbitrary, non-scientific decision resulted in the ‘desired’ mathematical result of our exposure of 4.6 rems — slightly less than the [allowed maximum] of 5.0 rems — therefore, we were ‘not exposed.’

“To me John, this is evidence of the AF/SG Staff knowingly, and purposely, falsifying the official data to demonstrate our ‘non-exposure.’”— Victor Skaar

Contact Us

Donate To Nukewatch

Nukewatch Quarterly Winter 2021-2022

Daniel Ellsberg, Norman Solomon, The Nation

Land-based nuclear weapons are world-ending accidents waiting to happen

Nukewatch Quarterly Winter 2021-2022

Nukewatch Quarterly Winter 2021-2022

Nukewatch Quarterly 2021-2022

Nukewatch Quarterly Winter 2021-2022

Contact Us

Donate To Nukewatch

Stay Connected