Nukewatch

Working for a nuclear-free future since 1979

by Leave a Comment

Nuclear Fairytales

Nine Mile Point, New York. Photo Credit: Constellation Energy
By John LaForge

The industry yarn that solar and wind power are intermittent and unreliable while “nuclear produces base-load electricity 24/7” is disproved with every refueling outage or unplanned shutdown. During the late summer heat wave Sept. 2, New York state’s largest reactor, Nine Mile Point on Lake Ontario, went into emergency shutdown — right when customers ordinarily need the electricity most. Surface water too hot to cool reactors have forced temporary shutdowns the world over. Still, the 18-year-old climate activist Ia Aanstoot, from Sweden, told Greenpeace in an open letter to “drop your old-fashioned and unscientific opposition to nuclear power, and join us in the fight against fossil fuels instead.” A Greenpeace spokesperson replied “building new nuclear plants just isn’t a viable solution. The top priority is to cut carbon emissions as fast and, ideally, as cheaply as possible, and nuclear fails on both scores. … Solar and wind technologies are a much cheaper and quicker way to cut emissions. We don’t have the luxury of endless time and resources so we should focus on solutions with the best chance of delivering.”

— Nuclear Regulatory Commission Event Report 56710, Nine Mile Point, Sept. 2, 2023; The Guardian, Aug. 29, 2023.

 

by 1 Comment

Organizations Increasingly Condemn Nuclear Weapons ‘Sharing’ in Europe

By John LaForge

A growing number of international organizations and publications have formally declared that the transfer of nuclear weapons between governments that are party to the Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) is a violation of the treaty. Most recently, the Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy, the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, the International Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms, and three academics writing in the influential Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists have called for ending the practice and the withdrawal of U.S. nuclear weapons from Europe. Excerpts from the four declarations follow.

The New York City-based Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy published “Three Issues Confronting the Non-Proliferation/Disarmament Regime: Nuclear Threats, Security Assurances, and Nuclear Sharing,” July 25, 2023:

“The incompatibility of nuclear sharing with the NPT is based on a straightforward application of NPT Articles I and II. Article I requires NPT nuclear-armed states ‘not to transfer to any recipient whatsoever nuclear weapons … or control over such weapons directly, or indirectly.’ It further requires the nuclear-armed states ‘not in any way to assist, encourage, or induce any non-nuclear-weapon State to … acquire nuclear weapons … or control over such weapons.’ … Article II imposes the corollary obligation on NPT non-nuclear weapon states not to be the recipient of any such transfer or assistance. …

“In no case should the argument that the United States put forward more than five decades ago in support of its interpretation of Articles I and II be accepted or promulgated. According to that argument, nuclear sharing does not ‘involve any transfer of nuclear weapons or control over them unless and until a decision were made to go to war, at which time the treaty would no longer be controlling.’ The contention that the NPT would not be legally binding in time of war, qualified as ‘general war’ in testimony before the Senate, is legally wrong, unworkable, and dangerously ‘destabilizing,’ as explained in non-governmental papers prepared over two decades ago in connection with the question of whether NATO nuclear sharing should be terminated. As noted earlier, the contention was implicitly rebuked by the 2000 NPT Final Document reaffirmation that ‘strict observance’ of treaty provisions is ‘central’ to ‘preventing, under any circumstances, the further proliferation of nuclear weapons.’

“NPT states parties should strongly express opposition to a Russia-Belarus nuclear sharing arrangement on both policy and legal grounds. They should also call for the termination of NATO nuclear sharing. Ending NATO nuclear sharing would remove a model and rationale for the establishment of such arrangements elsewhere.”

International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), on Aug. 2, 2023 submitted a statement to the United Nations Preparatory Committee for the 2026 NPT Review Conference:

“Our statement will focus on the practice commonly known as ‘nuclear sharing.’

“ICAN is deeply concerned that a small but growing number of NPT states parties are undermining the NPT by engaging in this dangerous practice.

“We condemn all such deployments, and call on those NPT states parties that are genuinely committed to nuclear disarmament — which is the vast majority — to do the same. Such deployments must be brought to an immediate end. “This practice runs counter to the fundamental tenets of the treaty and is a threat to the entire regime.

“It is in the interests of all NPT states parties that this practice does not spread further. And to guarantee that, it must be brought to an end.”

International Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms Germany, submission to the UN Human Rights Council Universal Periodic Review, April 5, 2023

“The maintenance of the nuclear deterrence policy and the operational deployment of nuclear weapons show the willingness to use these weapons. … [German Minister of Defense Annegret Kamp-Karrenbauer] stated that Germany must be prepared to use its deployed nuclear weapons against Russia in the tense international conflict situation. …

“Although there are persuasive arguments to describe this policy as a violation of the NPT, it can by no means be considered as in compliance with it. Even if Germany has no direct control over the nuclear weapons stationed in Germany, the training, the readiness and the overall nuclear sharing policy are a preparation to directly violate the NPT. So, Germany (and all nuclear sharing states) are at least not interpreting and performing the NPT in good faith according to its object and purpose, as required by Article 31 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969.”

The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, July 28, 2023, “Bombs Away: Confronting the deployment of nuclear weapons in non- nuclear weapon countries,” by Moritz Kütt, Pavel Podvig, Zia Mian:

“The NPT prohibits both the acquisition of nuclear weapons by non-weapon states and the transfer of nuclear weapons to such countries by the five nuclear weapon states who are parties (Russia, China, the United States, the United Kingdom, and France).
“[D]uring the 1995 NPT Review and Extension Conference … Mexico and then other non-weapon states questioned the continuing practice of NATO nuclear sharing after the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union.

[Then, at the 2022 NPT Review Conference] “Speaking on behalf of the 120 countries of the Non-Aligned Movement, Indonesia said, ‘In the view of the Group … nuclear weapon-sharing by States Parties constitutes a clear violation of non-proliferation obligations undertaken by those Nuclear Weapon States under Article I and by those Non-Nuclear Weapon States under Article II.’ Indonesia went on to say ‘The Group therefore urges these States parties to put an end to nuclear weapon-sharing with other States under any circumstances and any kind of security arrangements, including in the framework of military alliances.’

“Russia declared ‘U.S. nuclear weapons are still on the territory of non-nuclear allied states.… We have repeatedly called for the withdrawal of U.S. nuclear weapons to national territory, the elimination of the infrastructure for their deployment in Europe, and the cessation of NATO “joint nuclear missions.”’

“In its 2022 NPT Review Conference statement, China’s representative stated that ‘nuclear sharing arrangements run counter to the provisions of the NPT.’ China emphasized that the United States ‘should withdraw all its nuclear weapons from Europe and refrain from deploying nuclear weapons in any other region.’

“There are of course things nuclear weapon states could do. The five NPT nuclear weapon states could agree to a commitment on no-foreign-deployments as an effective measure relating to nuclear disarmament under their NPT Article VI obligations. This would require removing nuclear weapons in the European NATO countries and in Belarus, and prevent future hosting arrangements by them.”

-New York City-based Lawyers Committee

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/603410a4be1db058065ce8d4/t/64c050c279fdc079c3c214f2/1690325186314/LCNPWPNuclearThreatsNSAsSharingNPTPrepCom2023.pdf

-ICAN August 2 statement

https://www.icanw.org/ican_statement_on_nuclear_sharing_to_npt_prepcom_2023

–Int’l Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms Germany

joined the debate March 29 noting in a press release, “Nuclear sharing violates the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the human right to life.”

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#search/marion+kuepker?projector=1

–Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

https://thebulletin.org/2023/07/bombs-away-confronting-the-deployment-of-nuclear-weapons-in-non-nuclear-weapon-countries/

by Leave a Comment

Confronting “Nuclear Sharing”

By John LaForge

In June 2022, Nukewatch was privileged to attend the first United Nations meeting of state parties to the 2017 Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Vienna. During a side event sponsored by ICAN, Prof. Moritz Kütt from the Institute for Peace Research and Security Policy at the University of Hamburg, surprisingly said that nuclear sharing did not violate the 1970 Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), “because the U.S. hadn’t transferred control of nuclear weapons to foreign pilots.” Nukewatch’s John LaForge approached Prof. Kütt afterward and challenged him on the treaty’s precise language. Articles I and II prohibit any transfer of nuclear weapons among treaty governments, or the transfer of control over them — the ‘or’ being the crucial term.

The push-back may have been worthwhile. In the July 28 edition of Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Prof. Kütt along with Pavel Podvig, and Zia Mian, reports in no uncertain terms that: “The NPT prohibits both the acquisition of nuclear weapons by non-weapon states and the transfer of nuclear weapons to such countries by the five nuclear weapon states who are parties (Russia, China, the United States, the United Kingdom, and France).”

Nukewatch was also lucky enough to participate in the ICAN Forum “Act on It,” which took place in the beautiful capital city of Oslo, Norway last March. The conference focused on promoting and strengthening the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.

The issue of nuclear sharing was again raised in Oslo, when one ICAN presenter said to the gathering that the practice was “both legal and illegal.” This garbled statement prompted a discussion during a lunch meeting. Again Nukewatch suggested that ICAN formally shame nuclear sharing by declaring it to be unlawful. The same case was later made in writing to ICAN’s interim Executive Director Daniel Högsta. Nukewatch asked that ICAN further stigmatize the policy by officially declaring (then exclusively U.S., but now also Russian) nuclear sharing “a violation of the Nonproliferation Treaty.”

Again, the advocacy seems to have been valuable. In Vienna this past August 2, ICAN campaigner Elisabeth Saar from Germany delivered the organization’s formal statement to the United Nations Preparatory Committee for the 2026 NPT Review Conference. ICAN’s statement focused on nuclear sharing, and clearly condemned the practice, noting that it “runs counter to the fundamental tenets of the Treaty and is a threat to the entire regime.” ICAN’s repudiation declared emphatically, “Such deployments must be brought to an immediate end.”

A new version of this hydrogen bomb known as B61-12, above, is set to replace the two versions now stationed in Europe later this year or in 2024. Photo by PBS News Hour.
Russia reverts to U.S. practice

In June 2023, President Vladimir Putin complicated the opposition to nuclear sharing by announcing that Russia had moved a number of its nuclear weapons to Belarus, its ally and neighbor, “with more nuclear weapons on the way,” and that “by the end of the summer, by the end of this year, we will complete this work,” The Guardian reported.

The destabilizing move came in the midst of the NATO proxy war in Ukraine, and was the first time in over 20 years that Russia has stationed nuclear weapons outside its borders.

The United States downplayed the Russian action. “We don’t see any indications that Russia is preparing to use a nuclear weapon,” U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken said June 17 after President Vladimir Putin’s announcement. Mr. Putin said earlier that the practice would not violate the non-proliferation treaty — just as the United States claims about its nuclear weapons stationed in five European NATO states.

“There is nothing unusual here either,” Putin said, according to the BBC. “Firstly, the United States has been doing this for decades. They have long deployed their tactical nuclear weapons on the territory of their allied countries.”

The July 28 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists provided some background on the June announcement that Russia had moved some of its nuclear weapons to neighboring Belarus.

The authors report that in the mid-‘60s Soviet nuclear weapons were sent to the Czech Republic, Hungary, Mongolia, Poland, East Germany, Kazakhstan, Belarus, and Ukraine. After its 1991 collapse, the USSR had removed all its weapons from Eastern Europe by 1996.

The return of Russian nuclear bombs to Belarus is the first such transfer in 27 years while the U.S. weapons have been in Europe without pause since 1954.

Most NPT member states for almost three decades have raised their concerns over the practice, the Bulletin reports, particularly after the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union.

China is the only NPT nuclear-weapon state now consistently opposed to nuclear sharing, and has recommended that the United Stares “refrain from deploying nuclear weapons in any other region.” The reference is to suggestions from leaders in Poland and South Korea that they too would welcome U.S. nuclear weapons in their territory.

In June, Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki even said, “Due to the fact that Russia intends to site tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus, we are all the more asking the whole of NATO about taking part in the nuclear sharing program,” according to Stars and Stripes.

by Leave a Comment

“Wake Up Justice!” Protest Rallies Aimed at Court Inaction

By John LaForge

In honor of the United Nations International Day for the Abolition of Nuclear Weapons (September 26), Germany’s nationwide campaign Büchel is Everywhere! Nuclear Weapons-Free Now! will stage protest actions outside the offices of high-level courts that have made or will soon make decisions regarding nuclear weapons protest cases challenging the practice of U.S. “nuclear sharing” in Europe.

Graphic from event

Nukewatch will participate in the events as part of the campaign to see U.S. nuclear weapons withdrawn from Europe.

The first “Wake Up Justice!” action is set for Friday, Sept. 22, 2023, in Karlsruhe, Germany, at the seat of Germany’s Constitutional Court, its highest. On 20 separate occasions the high court has refused to issue an opinion explaining its dismissal of appeals by nuclear resisters who’ve objected to their convictions in lower courts over nonviolent “go-in” protest actions.

In Karlsruhe, participants plan on a rally and some irreverent street theater characterizing the Constitutional Court as a silent protector of the nuclear weapons establishment and a co-conspirator in deliberate violation of the 1970 Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).

Additionally, a civil lawsuit brought by a local resident living near Büchel airbase which argued that nuclear sharing unlawfully endangers her and the whole region by making it a target, was also rejected by the Constitutional Court.

Following the Karlsruhe protest events, campaigners will set out Sept. 23 on a climate neutral 62-mile bicycle delegation across the border to Strasbourg, France and the seat of the European Court of Human Rights. A rally will take place there Monday September 25.
Binding international law ignored by courts

For 30 years, peace activists have organized protests aimed at the U.S. bombs in Büchel demanding that they be withdrawn, have repeatedly resorted to nonviolent interventions, and have sometimes faced prosecution. The long campaign has seen twenty nuclear abolitionists file Constitutional Court complaints (appeals) against the U.S. weapons at “Fliegerhorst Büchel” arguing in part that the foreign stationing of nuclear weapons there violates their human and civil rights and is prohibited by the Nonproliferation Treaty.

Because Germany’s high court has upheld trial court convictions of nonviolent resisters without explaining its reasons, five activists have appealed to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Strasbourg. They have argued that their convictions were in error under Article 6 of ECHR Charter on the grounds that trial court judges unfairly refused to consider testimony from expert witnesses. Article 103 of Germany’s Basic Law also guarantees the right to a fair trial.

Even after 18 months, the first two appellants to the ECHR have yet to hear whether the court will consider their appeal.

These high courts are obligated to recognize and comply with treaty law above all other statutes, and the activists and their attorneys have provided the judges an opportunity to finally rule on the legal status of nuclear sharing.

The “Wake Up Justice” events are partly an alarm bell to alert the German and European courts to the issue, especially in view of the increased nuclear risks brought on by the war in Ukraine.

by Leave a Comment

Senate Extends Reactor Insurance Handout With No Public Scrutiny

By John LaForge

On July 27, the U.S. Senate approved a 20-year extension of the Price-Anderson Act. The law provides that if there are disastrous consequences resulting from reactor accidents, the manufacturers, builders, and operators won’t be held liable. The Act was first adopted in 1957 because no private insurer would issue an insurance policy to cover potentially huge costs. Later the government even took on responsibility for the industry’s radioactive waste disposal or abandonment.

In Europe, the Organization of European Economic Cooperation and EUROATOM assumed public liability for reactor accidents there.

As Victor Gilinsky reports in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Price-Anderson was handed to industrial giants General Electric, Westinghouse, and others after they told Congress they would not build civil power reactors — machinery with which they had no experience — if they faced liability for catastrophic accidents.

The recent Senate action was done at night, without any pesky public hearings, and after being added to the must-pass National Defense Authorization Act. The Act’s extension is likely to pass in the majority Republican House of Representatives.

Photo Credit: nuclearnews.net

To promote nuclear power, “the government gave the builders and vendors freedom from liability for offsite accidents,” Gilinsky wrote.

The act currently provides a mere $13 billion for post-accident public compensation, with the funds coming over time from a self-insurance scheme funded by reactor owners.

This is because not even the richest insurance agencies in the world will sell a reactor accident liability policy to operators: the risks are too astronomical. The estimated cost of the 2011 Fukushima accident — $300 billion dollars and counting — dwarfs the Price-Anderson “policy.”

Any compensation costs beyond the $13 billion “would land in the lap of Congress” Gilinsky notes, which is to say regular taxpayers — the same people who would be the health and environmental victims of a reactor disaster’s radiation dispersal.

— Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Aug. 22, 2023

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