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

December 31, 2018 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Russia Pledges No-First-Use of Nuclear Weapons, Joining China, North Korea, and India

By John LaForge
Winter Quarterly 2018-19

President Vladimir Putin said Oct. 18, 2018 that Russia would only use nuclear weapons in response to an incoming missile attack, the equivalent of a “no first use” pledge, the AP reported. Putin reportedly said Moscow would resort to launching nuclear weapons only in retaliation “if early warning systems spotted missiles heading toward Russia.”

“Only when we become convinced that there is an incoming attack on the territory of Russia, and that happens within seconds, only after that, we would launch a retaliatory strike,” Putin said during an international policy forum in Sochi, the Black Sea resort.

Neither the United States nor its NATO allies have ever made a “no-first-use” pledge, a promise not to use nuclear weapons in war or to launch a pre-emptive “first strike” with them.“NATO has always opposed a US ‘no-first-use” declaration and has never ruled out US first-use under its ‘flexible response’ posture since 1967,” wrote Ankit Panda in the July 2018 issue of Council on Foreign Relations online.

In 1964, China made the unequivocal pledge “not to be the first to use nuclear weapons at any time or under any circumstances,” and has reiterated the promise many times. China has also called on nuclear weapon states to establish an international no-first-use treaty.

India made a no-first-use promise in 2003, and North Korea declared the same on May 7, 2016.

—Associated Press; KIRO-7 News, Seattle, Wash.; “Putin: Russia would only use its nuclear arms in retaliation,” Oct. 18, 2018; The Independent, “North Korea will not use its nuclear weapons first, Kim Jong-un tells Congress,” May 8, 2016.

Filed Under: Newsletter Archives, North Korea, Nuclear Weapons, On The Bright Side, Quarterly Newsletter

December 31, 2018 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

“Low-yield” Mass Destruction

By John LaForge
Winter Quarterly 2018-19

The Trump administration’s 2018 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) is the government’s most public nuclear weapons and war-planning paper. It provides smart-sounding euphemisms for reporters, teachers, researchers, and others who are interested in nuclear weapons policy. Since nuclear weapons can produce only human catastrophes with mass fires, obliterated hospitals, crushed first responders, and poisoned food and water, the “Posture Review” uses cool, detached, and technical terms to convince Congress and taxpayers about the “need” and “usefulness” of the Bomb and “deterrence.”

A mock-up of the new B61-12 nuclear gravity bomb was brought into a Congressional hearing.

The phrase “low-yield nuclear weapon” is one of dozens of misnomers in the NPR. “Low-yield” refers to nuclear detonations ranging from 0.1 to 50 kilotons of TNT in explosive force. That is, up to three-times the 15 kiloton bomb the United States used on Hiroshima, killing 140,000. The White House NPR promotes building new “low-yield” warheads for Cruise missiles, submarine missiles, gravity bombs, and even land-based ICBMs.

Talking about low-yield nuclear weapons as if they are small is “dangerous,” says Alexandra Bell, of the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation. “‘Low-yield’ [are] …the kind of weapons that were used in World War II,” she told Medill News Service last February.

Yet Elbridge Colby writes in the Nov/Dec 2018 issue of Foreign Affairs now on newsstands. His article, “If you want peace, prepare for nuclear war.” Colby, a former Trump Administration Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Strategy & Force Development, writes, “Washington’s task is clear. It must demonstrate … the right strategy and weapons to fight a limited nuclear war and come out on top.”

In a similarly hair-raising vein, David Lonsdale writes in the Nov. 7 issue of The Strategist (from the Australian Strategic Policy Institute), in an article titled “The demise of the INF Treaty and a return to nuclear war fighting”: “Should deterrence fail, the US must have the wherewithal to fight, survive and win a nuclear war.”

Never mind that even Ronald Reagan, who oversaw the production of 17,000 new nuclear weapons during his eight years in office, declared, “Nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.”

Depending on where a “low-yield” H-bomb detonates, “it still has city-killing potential,” said Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association, in Washington. This power of mass destruction is overlooked partly because nuclear war planners have ignored the effect of mass fire caused by thermonuclear detonations.

In her book Whole World on Fire, Lynn Eden shows that “Because fire damage has been ignored for the last half century, high-level US decision makers have been poorly informed, if informed at all, about the damage that nuclear weapons would cause.”

“Any decision or threat to use nuclear weapons would in all likelihood,” Eden reports, “be based on a severe underestimate of the damage that would result. … Mass fire [sometimes called firestorm] and extensive fire damage would occur in almost every circumstance in which nuclear weapons were detonated in a suburban or urban area. … Under most circumstances, damage from mass fire would extend two to five times farther than blast damage.”

Filed Under: Newsletter Archives, Nuclear Weapons, Quarterly Newsletter

December 31, 2018 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Congress Could Trim Bomb Production Plans, Tweek Nuclear Attack Policy

By John LaForge
Nukewatch Winter Quarterly 2018-19

Democrats in the House of Representatives plan to cut back on some of the Trump/Obama nuclear weapons production programs, and curb presidential nuclear attack authority.

Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., joined Ted Lieu, D-CA and others in introducing HR 6840, the Hold the LYNE – Low-Yield Nuclear Explosive – Act. Tri-Valley CAREs in Livermore California reports that the bill would prohibit funds from being used for research, development, production or deployment of the new nuclear warhead. The bill has been referred to the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, and Lieu promises to re-introduce the measure in 2019.

Rep. Smith has criticized the $1.7 trillion, 30-year plan to upgrade the US nuclear arsenal—land-based missiles, submarines, and heavy bombers—as both unaffordable and dangerous, Politico reports. “There’s no such thing as a low-yield nuclear war,” says Rep. Lieu; and Smith warns that the proposed nuclear weapon “brings us no advantage and it is dangerously escalating,” Politico reported.

Rep. Lieu and Sen. Ed Markey, D-MA, have also introduced HR669 and its tandem measure S200, the Restricting First-Use of Nuclear Weapons Act of 2017. The legislation, now with 82 co-sponsors, would prohibit a president from launching a nuclear first-strike without a declaration of war by Congress. Rep. Lieu’s office told Nukewatch Nov. 4 that he will reintroduce the measure in the upcoming session.

Key Democrats have also targeted a proposed $100 billion replacement for today’s land-based Minuteman III missiles dubbed “Ground Based Strategic Deterrent” now in early development. “The rationale for the triad I don’t think exists anymore. The rationale for the numbers of nuclear weapons doesn’t exist anymore,” Rep. Smith said to a recent gathering of the Ploughshares Fund.

“But pork-barrel politics and campaign cash are slowing disarmament,” the Huffington Post reported. Current and future land-based missile are championed by the “ICBM Coalition,” a group of House and Senate members from states where the missiles are deployed, tested or repaired—Wyoming, North Dakota, Montana, Utah, Nebraska, Colorado, California, and Louisiana.

Maintenance workers inspect a Minuteman III Intercontinental Ballistic Missile.

But high-level critics want them abolished and are pushing back. Former Secretaries of Defense William Perry and Leon Panetta both want current ICBMs scrapped and plans for their replacement cancelled. Last year Sec. Panetta told Reuters news service, “There is no question that out of the three elements of the triad, the Minuteman missiles are at a stage now where they’re probably the most antiquated.” In a series of articles published in major papers, Sec. Perry and General James Cartwright, a former Vice Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, argue that, “the United States can safely phase out its land-based intercontinental ballistic missile force,” and “save about $100 billion over the next three decades.” And they wrote, “We are safer without these expensive weapons and it would be foolish to replace them.”

What you can do: Call, email or write your Representatives and Senators urging them to co-sponsor bills to cancel low-yield nuclear warheads, the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent, and the president’s sole nuclear war-making authority.

Filed Under: Military Spending, Newsletter Archives, Nuclear Weapons, On The Bright Side, Quarterly Newsletter

December 31, 2018 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Parking Lot Radioactive Waste Dumps

Cross-country transport of the high level radioactive waste would be mostly by rail along with some highway and barge shipments.

By Leona Morgan, Nuclear Issues Study Group
Nukewatch Quarterly Winter 2018-19

Plans for so-called Consolidated Interim Storage (CIS) of high-level radioactive waste (HLRW) in the desert Southwest are a threat to anyone living, working, or traveling near HLRW casks being transported, and that could mean most of the US population. HLRW is the most radioactive and long-lived waste left by nuclear reactors and must be containerized for over 1-million years.

Two firms, Holtec International and Waste Control Specialists (WCS), have each proposed building and operating “temporary” parking lot storage facilities with enough space for more than two times the volume of all the waste (“spent”) nuclear reactor fuel currently in the United States. Holtec plans a site in Southeast New Mexico near Hobbs; WCS plans a site in Andrews County in far west Texas. Cross-country transport of the waste would be mostly by rail along with some highway and barge shipments.

According to the national Nuclear Waste Policy Act, as amended, temporary CIS sites are not legally allowed unless a permanent waste repository is already operating. A June 2017 House Resolution (HR 3053) introduced by Rep. John Shimkus, R-Ill, was aimed at allowing CIS facilities to be built; it passed the House in May 2018, but is expected to die this year without a corresponding senate bill. Despite the question of legality, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is still considering the two CIS license applications and has been moving forward with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) processes.

Holtec’s NEPA scoping period ended July 30, and garnered 30,000 public comments. The NRC has announced that a Draft Environmental Impact Statement can be expected in June of 2019. WCS’s initial application process started and was paused last year due to the company’s financial issues. The NRC began a second scoping period this year. As of the mid-November deadline, it is estimated that 40,000 total comments were sent.

WCS’s financial problems were resolved enough to move forward when it was acquired by J.F. Lehman & Company. (Lehman’s chairman and founding partner John Francis Lehman, Jr. was allowed to go un-prosecuted for his involvement in the 1991 Tailhook Scandal where at least 83 women and 7 men were sexually assaulted by more than 100 US military officers in Las Vegas, Nevada.)

Legal challenges opposing both Holtec’s and WCS’s plans have been filed, and pre-hearing oral arguments for Holtec are scheduled for January 23 and 24, 2019 in Albuquerque, NM.

With all these events taking place, local communities in both New Mexico and Texas are actively working to inform the public and to build awareness regarding HLRW moving through their regions. Awareness has created both opposition, and support for the projects, but public opposition is much stronger than support. However, the strength of the opposition seemed to be trumped by big industry and government, especially in the current national administration.

The public has spoken out with the passage of 18 resolutions opposing CIS and related transport from counties and municipalities in New Mexico and Texas. There is only one resolution from a local community in support of CIS.

With the introduction of H.R. 3053 and NRC processing CIS applications, we have learned that the cancelled Yucca Mt. waste site is still being supported by some Congress and the nuclear industry. While government and industry have kept the public out of the debate as much as possible, people are becoming more aware and actively engaged in speaking out against both CIS proposals.

Although there is no current public comment period, the public can always send letters to the NRC and is strongly encouraged to educate local officials about CIS—and to encourage any type of official public opposition to these temporary “Band-Aid” storage sites and the deadly transport of waste reactor fuel through your community.

—Leona Morgan works with the Nuclear Issues Study Group in New Mexico

Filed Under: Environmental Justice, Newsletter Archives, Quarterly Newsletter, Radioactive Waste

December 31, 2018 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

In the Face of Immigration

Through the Prism of Nonviolence

By John Heid
Nukewatch Quarterly Winter 2018-19

“And the resistance actually has roots that stretch to the beginning of the human race. In every age, no matter how cruel the oppression carried on by those in power, there have been those who struggled for a different world. I believe this is the genius of humankind, the thing that makes us half divine: the fact that some human beings can envision a world that has never existed. Perhaps no one living today will see a major change. But it will come. And living in that world that is working to make it happen lets us know that our lives are worthwhile.” —Anne Braden

Finding Another America

The image of this mother with young daughters fleeing teargas launched by the US Border Patrol brought the humanity to the US-Mexico border when it went viral.

More and more these days I wonder what difference it would make if each of us in the US could see firsthand the human face of immigration—without media lenses, without political agendas, without ideological spins—simply eye-to-eye.

Last month while replenishing Humane Borders water tanks along remote desert roads, several of us humanitarian aid workers encountered Luis, a young man who had mired his 4-wheel drive pickup in an arroyo near a dilapidated windmill. After freeing the vehicle we talked with Luis about the risks of traveling solo in the desert. I asked, “Why are you out here alone anyway?” He replied that he was looking for his father who left Mexico for Phoenix on foot weeks ago and had not shown up. In his father’s last phone call 10 days earlier, he said that he was alone near an old windmill and nearly out of water. All this young man, an only son, wanted was to bring his dad back home to Phoenix where he had resided for decades. So he drove on and off road, in a place he had never been before, hoping against hope to find his father.

Last week I accompanied several members of the Tucson-based humanitarian aid organization Samaritans to a rugged mountainside 30 miles north of the US-Mexico border, where the desiccated remains of 25-year-old Jesús Lopez Villa were found last October. He too was simply trying to get home to his mother. At her request we planted a cross at the site of his death.

These stories are innumerable, and growing. The Pima County coroner’s office reported that another 122 bodies were recovered in the Tucson sector of the border between Sept. 2017 and Sept. 30, 2018. Each story is uniquely tragic. The accumulated weight becomes unbearable. The numbers begin to blur and numb my senses. After all, thousands have died. And yet, what are families to do? We are hard driven, or better said, heart driven, to be together. What can we as witnesses and allies do? The landscape around our borderland communities is an expanding graveyard. There is no end in sight.

Community in Borderlands

The US-Mexico borderlands region has been characterized by government and mainstream media as dangerous terrain, overrun by criminals and otherwise non-desirables. Our face-to-face reality on the ground tells a markedly different story.

On Sept. 21, the city of Ajo, AZ celebrated the International Day of Peace with a lively parade and communal gathering in the town plaza. The holiday was established in 1981 by a unanimous decision of the United Nations “to commit to Peace above cultural differences and to contribute to building a culture of Peace.” The Sierra Club reported that Ajo was the only community in North America known to have a tri-national event. People from Mexico, the Tohono O’odham Nation, and the US came together.

The circle of local residents and visitors at the No More Deaths’ monthly memorial vigil in the plaza is widening. In song, silence, and story we commemorate the lives of those who perished while crossing the desert around Ajo. A community aid center is now opening here. This office will offer information to local residents on their legal rights and hands-on ways to respond to the humanitarian crisis we are witnessing. People in the borderlands are finding deeper ethical and practical traction to provide humanitarian relief in the face of formidable odds including federal government efforts to criminalise such aid.

As I write these lines, the first wave of US troops has just arrived in Ajo. We are told that hundreds more will follow. Ironically an invasion is coming from the north, not from the South as anti-immigrant rhetoric had predicted. Out-of-state bands of armed vigilantes too have escalated their anti-immigrant activity along the Arizona-Mexico border. We are under siege by men with guns. A Border Patrol spokesperson said at a recent community meeting that the arrival of the army will be “good for our local economy.” Haven’t we heard that line before?

While this escalated militarization is disruptive to our border communities, it is lethal for the thousands of people—the refugee caravan and others—who are currently walking north from Central America; men, women, children, entire families armed only with hope. I believe these refugees are the current generation of people that civil rights activist Anne Braden was thinking of when she wrote of “those who struggled for a different world … those who can envision a world that has never existed.”

What a ludicrous mismatch: An army and militia vs. asylum seekers. Fear faces off with hope. Is our national security at risk? What is really at risk?

Immigration has a human face, as does fear. No army can stop, nor wall protect us from our fears, anymore than we can derail the hope in the face of others who like many of our ancestors sought refuge on this hallowed land.

As Anne Braden wrote, “Perhaps no one living today will see a major change. But it will come.” I believe it already is.

—John Heid works with the group No More Deaths and Humane Borders in Ajo, Arizona.

Filed Under: Newsletter Archives, Quarterly Newsletter, Through the Prism of Nonviolence, Uncategorized

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • …
  • 133
  • 134
  • 135
  • 136
  • 137
  • …
  • 223
  • 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