Nukewatch

Working for a nuclear-free future since 1979

  • Issues
    • Direct Action
    • Environmental Justice
    • Nuclear Power
      • Chernobyl
      • Fukushima
    • Nuclear Weapons
    • On The Bright Side
    • Radiation Exposure
    • Radioactive Waste
    • Renewable Energy
    • Uranium Mining
    • US Bombs Out of Germany
  • Quarterly Newsletter
    • Quarterly Newsletter
    • Newsletter Archives
  • Resources
    • Nuclear Heartland Book
    • Fact Sheets
    • Reports, Studies & Publications
      • The New Nuclear Weapons: $1.74 Trillion for H-bomb Profiteers and Fake Cleanups
      • Nuclear Power: Dead In the Water It Poisoned
      • Thorium Fuel’s Advantages as Mythical as Thor
      • Greenpeace on Fukushima 2016
      • Drinking Water at Risk: Toxic Military Wastes Haunt Lake Superior
    • Nukewatch in the News
    • Links
    • Videos
  • About
    • About Nukewatch
    • Contact Us
  • Get Involved
    • Action Alerts!
    • Calendar
  • Donate

January 2, 2021 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

56 Former World Leaders Call for Ban Treaty Ratification

Nukewatch Quarterly Winter 2020-2021

An open letter from 56 former heads of state, foreign ministers and military secretaries—including those from 20 NATO member countries, and from Japan and South Korea—was issued Sept.19, 2020 urging the world’s current presidents and prime ministers to ratify the nuclear weapons treaty ban.

The open letter was coordinated by the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, whose director Beatrice Fihn, above, spoke at Augsburg Univ. in Minneapolis in 2018. Photo by John LaForge

All the letter’s signers are from countries whose current heads of state have refused to embrace or promote the treaty. Among the signers are former leaders from Albania, Belgium, Canada, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Korea, Spain, and Turkey.

Former prime ministers of Canada, Japan, Italy and Poland are among the 56 signatories, and two —Willy Claes of Belgium and Javier Solana of Spain—are former Secretaries General of NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Under US diplomatic and economic pressure to increase military spending and to ignore treaty obligations, no current NATO member state has yet ratified the nuclear weapons ban.

Pointedly, signers of the letter include former leaders from the five NATO countries—Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey—that station and train to use a total of about 140 US nuclear bombs that in a nuclear war on Russia would be unleashed from their NATO bases. In all five countries, overwhelming public opinion favors the permanent removal of the US weapons, something the treaty ban would necessitate if the governments ratified the law.

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

January 2, 2021 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Is New US H-Bomb Soon Ready?

Nukewatch Quarterly Winter 2020-2021
Opinion by Manlio Dinucci

A video was released on November 23 by Sandia National Laboratories that shows a US F-35A fighter flying at supersonic speed 3,000 meters above sea level, launching a B61-12 nuclear bomb. The bomb did not fall vertically but glided until its tail section rocket ignition gave a rotational motion and the B61-12 (satellite-guided) headed for a target and hit 42 seconds after launch. The test was carried out on August 25 at the Tonopah shooting range in the Nevada desert.

An official US air force statement confirmed its “full success.” It was a nuclear attack simulation, proof that the jet fighter works at supersonic speed and in stealth attitude (with mock B61 bombs in its internal bomb bay) with the capability to evade enemy defenses, the air force said.

The B61-12 has been engineered to penetrate and explode deep underground to destroy command bunkers and other buried structures. The Pentagon foresees construction of about 500 B61-12s, at an estimated cost of 10 to 13 billion dollars (each 825-pound bomb costing double the value of its weight in gold).

It has been officially announced that production of the new nuclear bomb will begin in fiscal year 2022, beginning Oct. 1, 2021. The exact number of B61-12 bombs that the US will station in Italy, Germany, Belgium, Turkey, and Holland to replace the current B61s is secret. Satellite photos show that renovations have been carried out at Italy’s Aviano and Ghedi air force bases in preparation for the arrival of the new nuclear bombs, and the US air force F-35A. The Italian F-35s under US command will be armed with these bombs. The kind of situation Italy will be involved in—once the F-35A aircrafts ready for a nuclear attack with B61-12 bombs are deployed on the Italian territory—is easily predictable.

Italy will aggravate its violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, joined in 1975, in which it pledged “not to receive nuclear weapons from anyone or control over these weapons, directly or indirectly.”

Italy’s “nuclear sharing” openly flaunts the new treaty ban, which states: “Any State Party that has nuclear weapons on its territory, owned or controlled by another State, must ensure the rapid removal of such weapons.” To throw a stone into the stagnant water of a Parliament that keeps silent on this subject, Independent Member of Parliament Sara Cunial presented a “question for written answer” to the Prime Minister and the Military and Foreign Affairs Ministries.

Th MP asks: “Does the government intend to respect the Treaty on Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons ratified by Italy in 1975? Does the government intend to sign and ratify the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons that enters into force in 2021? Does the government intend to ensure, on the basis of what these treaties establish, that the United States immediately remove any nuclear weapons from Italian territory and give up installing the new B61-12 bombs and other nuclear weapons?” While we wait to read the government’s response, the latest bomb tests are carried out in the US, and the bombs will arrive and be set under our feet.

—Manlio Dinucci is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization and wrote this article for Italy’s Il Manifesto.

 

Filed Under: Newsletter Archives, Nuclear Weapons, Quarterly Newsletter

January 2, 2021 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Air Force Veterans of Plutonium Dust Disaster Win Class Action Standing

Nukewatch Quarterly Winter 2020-2021

Air force veterans exposed to plutonium after a first-ever US nuclear weapons disaster in Spain have won extremely rare recognition as a class in a lawsuit against the Department of Veterans Affairs.

On Jan. 17, 1966, an air force B-52 bomber exploded over the village of Palomares, Spain during a routine airborne refueling. Seven airmen were killed and the bomber’s four hydrogen bombs were thrown to the earth. Conventional explosives (not the nuclear warheads) in two of the bombs detonated in massive explosions, one right in the village, gouging massive, plutonium-covered craters and spewing as much as 22 pounds of pulverized plutonium dust over houses, streets and farm fields.

On June 19, 2016, the New York Times published a 4,500-word investigative report about the lawsuit filed in the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims by chief master sergeant Victor Skaar (USAF, Rt.). Skaar, who was 30 at the time, was part of a clean-up team, dubbed Operation Moist Mop, assigned to the disaster response. A throng of some 1,700 soldiers were put to surveying 400 acres and washing the inside and outside of village buildings. Over a period of 80 days they filled 4,810 barrels with plutonium-contaminated soil and loaded the drums aboard a ship bound for disposal stateside.

Two years after Skaar retired in 1981, he came down with a blood disorder called leukopenia. He’s been trying ever since to have the illness recognized as service-related. In a phone interview, Skaar told Nukewatch that dozens of the veterans contaminated during the clean-up are also sick. If their claims can be established in court, they would be eligible for free health care and a disability pension. Sometimes “clean-up” amounted to hosing the plutonium dust. It was hosed off houses, streets and even a school, leaving the toxic runoff to contaminate downstream surface waters. When the barrels of collected soil had excessive radiation readings, troops blew the dust off using air compressors. When testing the troops’ clothing, radiation meters regularly went off-scale.

After the 2016 exposé in the Times, Michael Wishnie, a Professor of Law at Yale Law School who runs the Veterans Legal Services Clinic, called Skaar and offered the aide of the clinic in the case. It’s been a David and Goliath battle from the beginning. Skaar told the Times, “First they told me there were no records, which I knew was a lie because I helped make them.” The air force seems determined to keep denying responsibility until the surviving vets die off and the lawsuit becomes moot. Meghan Brooks, a former Yale clinic member, told the Times, “The bunk science the air force was using was not just harming Mr. Skaar, but all the other Palomares veterans. Mr. Skaar really wanted to fight on behalf of others,” she said.

After Sgt. Skaar’s three decades of relentlessly filing Freedom of Information Act requests and repeatedly appealing FOIA denials, he and the Yale team finally broke through. In a Dec. 6, 2019 decision the appeals court granted class action status for some but not all the Palomares veterans. The court also found that Skaar could serve as “class representative” for as-yet-unnamed class members.

Class action status for Skaar and the other appellants “represents a major step forward for veterans with long-term health issues linked to toxic exposure in the service,” the Times reported on Feb. 11, 2020. Then on Sept. 2, 2020, the court heard oral arguments in the case and accepted new evidence including a declaration by Dr. Murry Watnick, a former Strategic Air Command Medical Officer. (Full disclosure: Dr. Watnick is a longtime Nukewatch supporter and alerted us to the class action.) Part of Watnick’s affidavit notes that, “The amount of plutonium-239 released was estimated to be approximately 10 kilograms [22 lbs]. One microgram of plutonium-239 is extremely toxic. The estimated release was three billion micrograms.”

Plutonium’s chief danger is from inhalation, because its deadly alpha particles lodge in the lungs “bombarding the adjacent cells with highly toxic ionizing radiation,” Watnick wrote. Troops involved were exposed to “plutonium dust six to eight hours daily in an environment highly conducive to inhalation of alpha particles.”

The class action is focused on the VA’s denial of Mr. Skaar’s claim of service-related illness, and the military’s “arbitrary and capricious” use of inadequate radiation data which is based on shoddy methods of recording and maintaining urine samples taken from clean-up crew members. The veterans also challenge the VA’s omission of Palomares cleanup operations from its list of radiation risk activities. The appeal is currently ongoing.

–John LaForge (LA Progressive online published this report Dec. 13, & CounterPunch Dec. 18)

Filed Under: Newsletter Archives, Nuclear Weapons, Quarterly Newsletter, Radiation Exposure

January 2, 2021 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Kings Bay Plowshares Sentences: 10 to 33 Months

Nukewatch Quarterly Winter 2020-2021

The Kings Bay Plowshares 7 got inside the world’s largest nuclear submarine base—Naval Station Kings Bay, in Georgia—and poured blood, painted messages, hung banners, and damaged several objects there including nuclear weapons sculptures that the seven condemned as “false idols.” The reference is to the Old Testament declaration that “those who worship inanimate idols will be like them, unseeing, unfeeling, unable to hear the truth.” The seven chose April 4, 2018, for their radical action, the 50th anniversary of the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

In October 2019, the seven were convicted in federal court of felony sabotage and damage to property.

In June, defendant Elizabeth McAlister, 81, of New London, Connecticut, and a founder of both Jonah House in Baltimore and the Plowshares Movement, was sentenced by US District Judge Lisa Godbey Wood to time served after spending more than 17 months in jail awaiting trial. Liz was also sentenced to three years of probation, and ordered to pay $33,501 restitution to be shared jointly with the six other defendants.

On November 12, via video conference, Carmen Trotta, 58, of the New York City Catholic Worker was sentenced to 14 months in prison, and Clare Grady, 62, was sentenced to one year and one day in prison. The additional day means Clare will be eligible for time off for good behavior while in prison. Carmen and Clare were also ordered to serve three years of probation, and to “jointly and singly” pay restitution of $33,501.

On November 13, Martha Hennessy, 62, also of the New York City Catholic Worker, was sentenced to 10 months incarceration, three years probation, and restitution.

Fr. Steve Kelly, 71, a Catholic priest from California, has been incarcerated in Georgia jails ever since the action (32 months) for refusing to accept the conditions demanded for pre-trial release. Steve was sentenced October 15 by the same judge who gave him 33 months in prison, three years probation, and restitution. With the time he’s already served, and with credit for “good time,” Steve would normally be released. However, he faces additional prison for an alleged probation violation stemming from protests at the Bangor Trident sub base in Washington State. He will likely be transferred from Georgia to Washington State to face the judge there.

On October 16, Patrick O’Neill, 64, a Catholic Worker from Garner, North Carolina, was sentenced to 14 months in prison, restitution, and three years of probation. Independently of the others, Patrick, the father of six children, has appealed the sentence.

Sentencing for the 7th defendant, Mark Colville, 59, a Catholic Worker from New Haven, Connecticut, is scheduled for December 18. Mark has refused to travel to Georgia because of the coronavirus and has insisted on his constitutional right to be sentenced in person before the court.

All seven defendants delivered personal sentencing statements to the court, and we share that of Fr. Steve Kelly, below.

—For complete coverage of the action, trial, and sentencing hearings see: kingsbayplowshares7.org; and/or nukeresister.org. Both contributed to this update.

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

January 2, 2021 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Declaration to the Sentencing Judge from a Georgia Jail

Nukewatch Quarterly Winter 2020-2021

Editor’s note: Prior to his sentencing hearing, Fr. Steve Kelly delivered the following letter to the court explaining his decision to continue his non-cooperation with punitive probationary restrictions and penalties regardless of the judge’s sentence.

Conscientious Objection to and Non-compliance with Post-incarceration Conditions

While still in chains, I, pro se defendant Stephen Michael Kelly, S.J., file this declaration in an attempt to remove any ambiguity and avoid all misunderstanding, come time of sentencing.

I assert the innocence of the Kings Bay Plowshares. But this statement is my own declaration. Both my conscientious objection and my Religious Freedom Restoration Act testimony are attempts to fulfill the mandate of the Nuremberg Accords. This witness has me confronting and engaged with the omnicidal policies of the US government. Recourse to appeal is futile, pathetic, and dangerous because all the judiciary’s rulings precluded our jury from hearing any defense. The circuit, appeal, the entire judiciary has thwarted redress that would fulfill the purpose and mandate of the signatories of the Nuremberg Accords. For this reason, I am a political prisoner of conscience for Christ. The judiciary has been unable to see the Isaian vision as a way out of this spiral of violence. The [Christian Bible’s] Isaiah 2:4 vision is an imperative to conversion. The judiciary dangerously legitimizes a nuclear holocaust in following previous rulings. The precedents, when followed, have functioned as a gag order. This court would not allow the jury, the triers of fact, to hear what was recognized in our Religious Freedom Restoration Act evidence; we were at the Trident base to preach against the sin that flourishes in weapons of mass destruction.

Given that situation, my participation in any aspect of supervised release [probation/parole] is to comply with and accommodate the US’s compelling interest [in] the nuclear weapons agenda. Compelling interest is a euphemism for 1,000’s of Hiroshimas and Nagasakis. And, as in the case of the citizens’ obligation to expose the Nazi concentration camps’ industrial scale genocide in Germany/Europe in the 1930s and 1940s, the Nuremberg Accords were/are both an appraisal and indictment. The nuclear weapons are flying extermination ovens. In conscience, I can’t let any court order or threat restrict me from imitation of the Good Shepherd, Jesus when he placed himself, laying down his life, between the wolf, the thief and the flock. In this case, the wolf is the Trident aimed at millions and the thief is the larceny from the poor predicted by Eisenhower in his Oval Office departure. 

I answer to a higher authority in that my faith imperative, as outlined in the tenets of the Catholic Catechism, missions me to respond to the needs of the poor, oppressed, and disenfranchised in any locality and without any exclusion of those with felony records. I am indigent and itinerant. I will respond, should I be found worthy, led by the Spirit, to witness the prophetic vision offered in Isaiah 2:4 by fulfilling its embodiment.

I am aware that the imposition of supervised release is a [Justice Department] guideline option, not mandatory for this court. I point out that supervised release [probation or parole] was not intended for anti-nuclear activists. Consistent with the above, I will in conscience refuse any fines and restitution. This renders [the probation department’s] role to oversee collection pointless. In the wake of sentencing, I will be taken in chains to Federal Court in Tacoma, Washington to answer for the warrant that stemmed from my stating in open court in September 2016 that I refused supervised release. And I suggested [then] to the federal magistrate presiding to translate any term of supervised release into a period of incarceration. This has been consistent in all my previous Plowshares witnesses.

In closing this declaration, if it is not apparent that our nonviolent witness at the Trident base was to save not a few but a multitude of lives, then let this instrument serve to make that an explicit recapitulation of that intention. —Fr. Steve Kelly, SJ

Filed Under: Newsletter Archives, Quarterly Newsletter, Uncategorized

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • …
  • 97
  • 98
  • 99
  • 100
  • 101
  • …
  • 222
  • Next Page »

Stay Connected

  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Subscribe

Donate

Categories

  • B61 Bombs in Europe
  • Chernobyl
  • Counterfeit Reactor Parts
  • Depleted Uranium
  • Direct Action
  • Environment
  • Environmental Justice
  • Fukushima
  • Lake Superior Barrels
  • Military Spending
  • Newsletter Archives
  • North Korea
  • Nuclear Power
  • Nuclear Weapons
  • Office News
  • On The Bright Side
  • Photo Gallery
  • Protect the Water Close Xcel's Monticello Reactor
  • Quarterly Newsletter
  • Radiation Exposure
  • Radioactive Waste
  • Renewable Energy
  • Social Issues
  • Sulfide Mining
  • Through the Prism of Nonviolence
  • Uncategorized
  • Uranium Mining
  • US Bombs Out of Germany
  • War
  • Weekly Column

Contact Us

(715) 472-4185
nukewatch1@lakeland.ws

Address:
740A Round Lake Road
Luck, Wisconsin 54853
USA

Donate To Nukewatch

News & Information on Nuclear Weapons,
Power, Waste & Nonviolent Resistance

Stay Connected

  • Facebook
  • Twitter

© 2026 · Nukewatch