Nukewatch

Working for a nuclear-free future since 1979

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

In Germany, Long-Standing Deal to Host US Nuclear Weapons is Now in Question*

Debate about US nuclear weapons in Germany flares up for the first time since the 1980s

By Bojan Pancevski, Wall Street Journal
Spring Nukewatch Quarterly 2019
See Nukewatch’s accompanying article, How the Wall Street Journal Gets it Wrong.

The [German] center-left Social Democrats, or SPD, have appointed a commission to re-evaluate their positions on strategic, foreign and security policy, including the merits of “nuclear sharing,” a Cold War-era agreement under which German warplanes would be used to launch US nuclear weapons in case of a Russian attack on Europe, a senior party official said.

The deliberations came partly as a result of President Trump’s withdrawal from a treaty with Russia that regulates the presence of nuclear missiles in Europe, according to SPD officials. The US plans to withdraw from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty after accusing Russia of violating it for years.

After Mr. Trump’s repeated criticism of the military alliance and its members, the SPD move shows NATO’s cohesion is now also under threat from a backlash among center-left forces in Europe that had long stopped questioning the alliance.

[German Chancellor Angela] Merkel’s party is continuing to back the agreement. Nevertheless, a decision by its junior coalition partner to oppose nuclear sharing would be momentous, putting into question an institution that is as old as Germany’s 1955 membership of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

Consecutive US administrations have criticized Germany for what they called insufficient military spending, but the dispute has escalated under Mr. Trump, who has put Berlin under notice to boost its defense budget.

Parties critical of Mr. Trump tap a rich political vein in Germany. A 2018 Pew Research Center survey for the Munich Security Conference, a global security forum, showed only 10% of Germans thought the US president was doing the right thing regarding world affairs, compared with 35% for Russian President Vladimir Putin and 30% for Chinese President Xi Jinping.

The appointment of the SPD commission will also put additional stress on Ms. Merkel’s fractious coalition. The chancellor’s conservatives back higher military expenditure and want to renew the ailing German Air Force with an order of US-made aircraft that are certified to carry US nuclear weapons. Leading SPD figures have said they would block the recently proposed purchase of up to 45 Boeing Co.-made F/A-18 jets by Ms. Merkel’s defense minister.

A spokesman for Ms. Merkel said the government would continue to back nuclear sharing, adding that it saw “no reason to debate this aspect of NATO deterrence. We continue to fully support the defensive nuclear strategy of NATO.”

A NATO spokeswoman said the alliance relied on the capabilities and infrastructure of its members in Europe. “Allied aircraft supporting NATO’s nuclear deterrence mission are central to this effort and we welcome the broadest possible participation in our nuclear burden-sharing arrangements,” she added.

Asked about the policy review, US Ambassador to Germany Richard A. Grenell said, “NATO’s nuclear forces are there for deterrence and defense. This is a commitment the alliance has made together. Germany should live up to its commitment.”

Germany is part of NATO’s so-called nuclear-sharing agreement that goes back to the 1950s. While exact numbers are secret, experts believe the United States has around 180 B61 tactical nuclear bombs on the continent—some 20 in Germany and the rest spread across Belgium, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey.

“We don’t think that the nuclear-sharing agreement is fit for the times anymore,” said Ralf Stegner, Vice Chairman of the SPD, following a meeting of the party leadership on [February 11]. He said the SPD was extremely unlikely to support the F/A-18 purchase.

The procurement would be a key step in maintaining nuclear sharing in coming decades. The only aircraft in the German fleet currently certified by the US to carry nuclear weapons are the German-made Tornados. But some of those are 40 years old and are being retired.

Mr. Stegner added that the mounting US pressure on Germany meant that the country was headed toward a fundamental debate about nuclear armament and military spending of a kind that hadn’t taken place since 1982, when a rebellion within the SPD over the stationing of nuclear weapons in Europe contributed to the ouster of Chancellor Helmut Schmidt.

“Nuclear sharing doesn’t necessarily mean we need to host nuclear weapons,” said Rolf Mützenich, the SPD’s deputy floor leader and speaker on defense policy. Mr. Mützenich said Germany could follow the example of Canada, a NATO ally that doesn’t keep US nuclear weapons on its soil.

Mr. Mützenich said he believed a majority of SPD lawmakers would reject any proposal to purchase new US aircraft, partly because of the large cost. Growing animosity between NATO and Russia and the likelihood of a renewed arms race were all arguments against nuclear sharing, Mr. Mützenich added.

The looming dispute about military doctrine, military spending and procurement is just one of many now rocking Ms. Merkel’s coalition—a government many analysts think could unravel as early as this year.

Peter Beyer, Ms. Merkel’s coordinator for trans-Atlantic cooperation and a member of her conservative party, said nuclear sharing was indispensable. Failure to revamp Germany’s aging fleet of nuclear-capable bombers would make a farce of the country’s commitment to the NATO nuclear deterrent, he said.

“How we can get Putin to disarm if we fail to confront him in any way,” Mr. Beyer said. “This does not help peace but creates instability. Our allies, including the smaller states in Europe, would then have to wonder whether they can still rely on Germany.”

—Bojan Pancevski (bojan.pancevski@wsj.com) wrote this for the February 12, 2019 edition of The Wall Street Journal.

* See Nukewatch’s accompanying article, How the Wall Street Journal Gets it Wrong.

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

Fukushima Continues to Plague Pacific Ocean Fishery

John LaForge
Spring 2019 Nukewatch Quarterly

The Japanese fishing community and watchdog groups have raised alarms over government plans to dump over one million tons of highly contaminated waste water from the three devastated Fukushima nuclear reactors into the Pacific Ocean.

The London Telegraph reported last October that Japan’s “plan to release the approximately 1.09 million tons of water currently stored in 900 tanks… has triggered a fierce backlash from local residents and environmental organizations, as well as groups in South Korea and Taiwan fearful that radioactivity from the second-worst nuclear disaster in history might wash up on their shores.”

Making matters worse, Greenpeace issued a report last January 22 slamming the dumping plan, reminding readers that Tokyo Electric Power Co. or TEPCO—owners of the destroyed reactors—admitted in 2018 that its water decontamination system had never worked. The Telegraph noted, “[T]he Advanced Liquid Processing System (ALPS) has consistently failed to eliminate a cocktail of other radioactive elements, including iodine, ruthenium, rhodium, antimony, tellurium, cobalt and strontium.” Further, “In late September [2018], Tepco was forced to admit that around 80% of the water stored at the Fukushima site still contains radioactive substances above legal levels…” the Telegraph said.

The South China Morning Post reported, “Despite the much-vaunted ALPS plant… TEPCO has confirmed that levels of strontium-90 are more than 100 times above legally permitted levels in 65,000 tons of water that have already been through the ALPS system.” Some of the “treated” waste water still has strontium-90 concentrations 20,000 times the allowable limit.

Japan’s fishing community was outraged about the dumping threat during a series of public hearings last year that were designed to convince skeptical observers that pouring more radiation in the Pacific is a good idea. The magnitude-9 earthquake, and the tsunami it caused on March 11, 2011, left more than 27,500 people dead or missing in northeast Japan and triggered the largest oceanic radioactive contamination in history.

Fukushima’s contaminated water continues to flow into the Pacific at a rate of around 2 billion Becquerels a day, Japan Times reported on March 29, 2018.

Dumping Radioactive Water Poisons Fish

Since Fukushima’s meltdowns began in 2011, there has been regular news of seafood contamination. As recently as Feb. 2, the Japan Times reported that cesium-137 far above Japan’s legal limit was detected in fish caught off Fukushima. According to the local Fishery Cooperative Association, skate that were caught over 180 feet deep were found with 161 Becquerels-per-kilogram of radioactive cesium-137, exceeding the allowable limit of 100 Bq-per-kg.

Cesium-137 from Fukushima has been found in fish in the US and Canadian waters. The Haida Gwaii Observer in Queen Charlotte, British Columbia reported March 16, 2018 on a study by Simon Fraser University. Author Krysztof Starosta discovered that cesium-137 “levels found in both the salmon and soil samples remained below Canada’s safety guidelines, posing minimal health risk to B.C.’s salmon and human populations.” The use of the word “minimal” by Starosta is not a scientific term of art. “Minimal” means there is some risk, especially considering the cumulative effect of eating contaminated fish over many years.

“You can’t say there is absolutely zero risk because any radiation is assumed to carry at least some small risk,” said Delvan Neville of Oregon State University’s Department of Nuclear Engineering & Radiation Health Physics. The Oregon Statesman Journal reported on Neville’s 2014 study which found that cesium-137 from Fukushima in albacore tuna caught off Oregon’s coast had tripled since the three meltdowns. In 2012, albacore and blue fin tuna caught off the west coast, were also found contaminated.

Until 2018, TEPCO repeatedly claimed, and news reporters often noted, that its “advanced [ALPS] processes had reduced the cancer-causing radioactive contaminants” such as strontium-90, iodine-129 and ruthenium-106 in the water “to non-detectible levels.”

by Leave a Comment

Space Force Called “ Provocative, destabilizing & basically insane”

This article by Karl Grossman originally appeared in Counterpunch.org.

Spring Quarterly 2019

Image courtesy of Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space.

Beginning to fulfill his declaration of last year about turning outer space into a war zone and establishing a US “Space Force,” President Trump was at the Pentagon January 17 promoting a plan titled “Missile Defense Review.”

As The New York Times said in its headline on the scheme: “Plans Evoke 1983 ‘Star Wars’ Program.”  Bruce Gagnon, coordinator of the Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space, calls it “provocative, destabilizing and basically insane.”

Trump said at the Pentagon: “We will recognize that space is a new war-fighting domain with the Space Force leading the way. My upcoming budget will invest in a space-based missile defense layer technology. It’s ultimately going to be a very, very big part of our defense and obviously of our offense.”

The new United States’ outer space military plan comes despite the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, that designates space as a global commons to be used for peaceful purposes…. It has been ratified or signed by 123 nations. The release of the 100-page “Missile Defense Review” follows Trump’s June announcement at the Pentagon that he is moving to establish a US Space Force as a sixth branch of the US armed forces. He said then, “It is not enough to merely have an American presence in space, we must have American dominance in space”…. [On Feb. 19, Trump signed “Space Policy Directive-4” ordering the Pentagon to establish the Space Force.]

As the Times said: “In the most contentious proposal, the report embraced Reagan’s Star Wars plan of putting weapons in space to shoot down enemy missiles during ascent.” The Times also noted that “the document was careful to describe the step as largely a research project—for now.”

Of this component, the “Missile Defense Review” says: “The space-basing of interceptors also may provide significant advantages, particularly for boost-phase defense. As directed by Congress, [Pentagon] will identify the most promising technologies, and estimated schedule, cost, and personnel requirements for a possible space based defensive layer that achieves early operational capability for boost-phase defense.”

The Reagan Star Wars program also utilized a “defense” rationale—it was formally called Strategic Defense Initiative. … Despite its claim of being defensive, it was criticized for being offensive and a major element in what the US military in numerous documents then and since has described as “full spectrum dominance” of the Earth below that the US is seeking in taking the “ultimate high ground” of space.

Gagnon, whose Maine-based organization has been a world leader since its formation in 1992 in challenging the weaponization of space, said: “The new Trump space proposal is a key element in Pentagon first-strike attack planning sold to the public as ‘missile defense.’ The system is not actually designed to protect the US from every nuclear missile launched at us—that would be a mathematical impossibility. This Star Wars system would only work as the ‘shield’ to be used to pick off Russian or Chinese retaliatory responses after a US first-strike sword is thrust.”

Gagnon said “we know this because the Space Command” (the division of the US Air Force which Trump seeks to have succeeded by a separate Space Force) “has been computer war gaming such a scenario for years—they call it the ‘Red team’ versus the ‘Blue team.’ ”

“The kicker,” regarding the US space military plans, said Gagnon, “is that the costs would be colossal—what the aerospace industry has long said would be the ‘largest industrial project in human history.’ The only way the US can pay for it is by cutting Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and by twisting the arms of NATO members to pony up more money.”

The Outer Space Treaty was spurred, as Craig Eisendrath, who had been a US State Department officer involved in its creation … said, “we sought to de-weaponize space before it got weaponized…to keep war out of space.”

[The treaty] provides that nations “undertake not to place in orbit around the Earth any objects carrying nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction, install such weapons on celestial bodies, or station such weapons in space in any other manner.”

In recent decades, Canada, Russia and China have been leaders in pushing a treaty that would broaden the Outer Space Treaty—the Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space (PAROS) Treaty. This treaty would ban all weapons in space. But US administration after administration, Democrat and Republican, have refused to support the PAROS Treaty, thus providing a veto of its passage at the United Nations.

The new “Missile Defense Review” is explicit in how the US “will not accept any limitation or constraint on the development or deployment of missile defense capabilities.”

The announcement of the new US space plan came a day after the US confirmed it would [withdraw from] the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty of 1987. [Note: This has now taken place.]

… An AP story out of Russia [in January] reported: “The Russian Foreign Ministry described the new US strategy as a proof of ‘Washington’s desire to ensure uncontested military domination in the world.’ … It warned that the expansion of the US missile defense system ‘will inevitably start an arms race in space with the most negative consequences for international security and stability.’”

The “’implementation of its plans and approaches will not strengthen security of the US and its allies,’ the ministry said in a statement. ‘Attempts to take that path will have the opposite effect and deal another heavy blow to international stability.’”

The AP story said: “The Russian Foreign Ministry described the review as an attempt to reproduce President Ronald Reagan’s ‘Star Wars’ missile defense plans on a new technological level and urged the Trump administration to ‘come to its senses’ and engage in arms control talks with Russia.”

Meanwhile, Defense News is questioning whether Congress will fund the “Missile Defense Review” proposals. It said that “unless Congress approves the major funding increases that will be required to make it a reality, many of those programs may fall by the wayside—and questions are emerging over whether these systems will be funded by the Democratic House of Representatives that is looking to cut defense spending.” …

—Karl Grossman is a professor of journalism at the State University of New York/College at Old Westbury, & an associate of the media watch group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR). He is the author of The Wrong Stuff: The Space Program’s Nuclear Threat to Our Planet. This article is excerpted from Counterpunch.org.

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