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

April 24, 2026 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

War Crimes – Reposted from PeaceVoice, Original Link Included

By John LaForge, PeaceVoice, 20 April 2026

“It is the plot and the act of aggression which we charge to be crimes.”  – Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson

With Spain and Austria refusing to allow their airspace to be used for the massive, unprovoked U.S. bombardment of Iran, there is international denunciation of this illegal action; and the initiation of the U.S. carpet bombing of Iran is clearly unlawful in view of the UN Charter, the Kellogg Briand Pact, the Geneva Protocol, and the Nuremberg Charter of 1945.

Yet the charge of “illegality” is weak and papery considering the thundering condemnation of any such war of aggression by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson in his opening of the Trial of the Major War Criminals in Germany in late 1945, which stands as one of history’s most significant authorizations of international law and order. Unvarnished facts regarding of thousands of U.S. bombing raids against Iran’s cities, and the resulting thousands of casualties and fatalities, show that the aggression is not just illegal but criminal. Jaywalking is illegal. Bombing schoolgirls is criminal.

In Justice Jackson’s Nov. 21, 1945 opening statement he noted, “A basic provision of the Charter is that to plan, prepare, initiate, or wage a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements, or assurances, or to conspire or participate in a common plan to do so, is a crime.” He reminded the court that for 20 years, “The Geneva Protocol of 1924 for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes … declared that a war of aggression constitutes an international crime.”

Yet Jackson understood the dilemma of the Nuremberg prosecutors, warning that “[T]he ultimate step in avoiding periodic wars, which are inevitable in a system of international lawlessness, is to make statesmen responsible to law.” How else to prevent presidents, chancellors, prime ministers, cabinet secretaries, military commanders, or kings from criminally launching wars than to prosecute the war heads themselves?

So, Justice Jackson explained that the criminalization of wars of aggression must be understood and enforced universally, declaring: “[W]hile this law is first applied against German aggressors, the law includes, and if it is to serve a useful purpose it must condemn, aggression by any other nations including those which sit here now in judgment.”

The criminality of U.S. military actions against Iran, against Venezuela, and against civilian speed boats in international waters may have been foreseen by Secretary Pete Hegseth who today defends troops charged with war crimes as “heroes.” Hegseth has tried for years, according to the Wall St. Journal, to end the military’s use of “stupid rules of engagement” which protect civilians and civilian objects like hospitals, schools, and religious sites. Mr. Trump shares Hegseth’s disdain for the laws of war, having pardoned Navy SEAL Eddie Gallagher who was accused by his own troops of a war crime in Iraq for stabbing to death, in front of the platoon, a wounded 17-year-old prisoner, and then taking a selfie with the corpse. (Gallagher found not guilty of murder in a chaotic court martial, only found guilty of posing with the corpse.)

Later in the course of the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, Justice Jackson explained even more emphatically why Trump, Hegseth, the General Staff, and the military’s field commanders ought to end up in the dock for their massacres in Iran: “To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.”

 

John LaForge, syndicated by PeaceVoice, is Co-director of Nukewatch a nuclear power and weapons watchdog group.

Filed Under: Direct Action, Military Spending, Through the Prism of Nonviolence, War

April 18, 2024 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

“The Only Sane Solution …”

By Brian Terrell

“We still hold that nonviolent resistance is the only sane solution,” Dorothy Day wrote in 1940, in a time of war much like our own, minus the daily escalating threat of nuclear annihilation that we face today. “We have to continue to make our voice heard until we are finally silenced — and even then, in jail, or concentration camp, to express ourselves.” In that spirit, Catholic Workers and other activists in Kansas City will be hosting the annual Spring Midwest Catholic Worker Resistance Retreat there April 12-15.

Each spring for more than 20 years, Catholic Workers and their fellow travelers have left their homes, houses of hospitality, and farms to lend support for a local campaign of nonviolent resistance somewhere in the Midwest.

The Kansas City “National Security Campus,” (KCNSC) “creating technology roadmaps to ensure we’re at the forefront of national security innovation” — along with the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, the Los Alamos National Laboratory, the Nevada National Security Site, the Pantex Plant, the Sandia National Laboratories, and the Y-12 National Security Complex — is a facility of the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). With some 7,000 employees, the Kansas City “campus” produces more than 80% of the non-nuclear components in U.S. nuclear weapons.

In January 2022, officials at KCNSC announced the completion of the B61-12 “Life Extension Program’s” first production unit (FPU): “It is with great pride and excitement that we see the B61-12 achieve FPU,” said Eric Wollerman, president of Honeywell Federal Manufacturing & Technologies which manages and operates the “campus” complex, formerly known as the Kansas City Plant.

The new B61-12 H-bombs are on their way to replace the old B61 freefall gravity bombs at bases in five NATO countries as part of “nuclear sharing” arrangements. These new, “more flexible” thermonuclear bombs — with adjustable tail assemblies that allow them to be guided, and a built-in option to dial up to 50 kilotons (three times the destructive power of the Hiroshima bomb) or down to less than one kiloton — are the nuclear weapons closest to the borders of Russia. If or when the order is given, they will be “delivered” to their target areas by their host countries’ air forces.

New technologies like the B61-12 have inspired optimism in U.S. war planners that a nuclear war, once started, can be controlled and brought to decisive victory. Open talk about “using nuclear weapons could create conditions for decisive results and the restoration of strategic stability,” in the words of a June 2019 report by the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, “and create conditions that affect how commanders will prevail in conflict ” has become commonplace. On Oct. 12, 2023, the Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States published its report on the unsubstantiated dangers posed by China and Russia, suggesting that “the United States and its Allies and partners must be ready to deter and defeat both adversaries simultaneously.”

Responding to “the demands of a rapidly evolving security environment,” on October 27 the [Pentagon] announced that “a modern variant of the B61 nuclear gravity bomb, designated the B61-13” would be produced. [According to the Arms Control Association, the B61-13 would have a maximum explosive force of around 360-kilotons, “a massive increase when compared to the most recent 50-kiloton B61-12.”] The B61-13 “would be deliverable by modern aircraft … providing the president with additional options against certain harder and large-area military targets,” the Pentagon said. The doctrine of “mutually assured destruction” (MAD) — that a nuclear war could have no winners and would annihilate the combatant parties leaving much of the planet lifeless — was never a good plan for lasting peace. The existential fear that gripped the planet in the cold war years was “not a way of life at all, in any true sense,” President Eisenhower said in 1953, but “humanity hanging from a cross of iron.” MAD didn’t prevent endless conflicts and wars of proxy, but somehow, by sheer luck some say, a final nuclear weapons exchange did not happen in those years.

In the 1990s, there was some real progress toward disarmament and even now, the nations of the world are uniting in support of a total prohibition of nuclear weapons. Over the past three administrations, however, the United States has led the other nuclear powers in a new arms race. For elected officials and policy makers, talk of arms reduction has been replaced by “stockpile stewardship,” ensuring the nuclear threat for future generations. While quality of life declines globally and the world faces imminent climate collapse, the U.S. Department of Energy commits trillions of dollars for “life extension” of the B61-12 and other nuclear weapons systems.

Last August, United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres warned, “This year, we face an alarming rise in global mistrust and division. At a time in which nearly 13,000 nuclear weapons are stockpiled around the world — and countries are working to improve their accuracy, reach, and destructive power — this is a recipe for annihilation.”
This will be the second such retreat and action by Catholic Workers at the Kansas City National Security Campus. The first one in 2011 drew some 150 participants and culminated in fifty-three arrests on May 2 for blocking the construction of what was to become the nation’s first nuclear weapons production factory built in 33 years. Since then, Catholic Workers have regularly organized protests and resistance there, as they have at the weapons plant that preceded it, sponsored by PeaceWorks Kansas City.

Print by Sarah Fuller, sarahfullerart.com

Last August, Catholic Workers and others from around Europe and the U.S. joined protests hosted by the Jeanette Noel Catholic Worker in Amsterdam at Volkel air base in the Netherlands. The group participated in a series of other protests sponsored by the German coalition “Büchel is Everywhere!” at Germany’s Büchel air base. Both bases host U.S. air force squadrons that maintain their B61 bombs, ready to be loaded onto Dutch and German fighter jets at a moment’s notice.

“Fill the Jails!” was Dorothy Day’s urgent advice to Catholic Workers during the war on Vietnam. The Earth has not seen such perilous times as the “rapidly evolving security environment” that we are living through today. This spring’s retreat in Kansas City is a weekend of education, prayer, reflection, community-building, and training, followed on Monday, April 15, with nonviolent direct action to disrupt the deadly business as usual at the KCNS nuclear weapons factory. For more information contact Ann Suellentrop, 913-271-7925, annsuellen@gmail.com.

— Brian Terrell is a peace activist who has spent time in prison for protesting assassinations at U.S. military drone bases and lives at Strangers and Guests Catholic Worker farm in Maloy, Iowa.

Filed Under: B61 Bombs in Europe, Military Spending, Newsletter Archives, Nuclear Weapons, On The Bright Side, Quarterly Newsletter, Through the Prism of Nonviolence, War

January 22, 2023 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Why Not Just Pay the Fine for Resisting the B61s?

By John LaForge

My refusal to pay fines imposed for resisting nuclear weapons at Germany’s Büchel Air Force Base raises a lot of questions, principally: Why not avoid prison and just pay?

One reason is because my protest was not wrong or a mistake in any sense, whereas paying the court-imposed penalty implies I’m guilty of some sort of offense or misconduct. Further, paying the fine has the appearance of an apology or remorse on my part when none is warranted. Any nonviolent action against preparations to commit mass destruction with nuclear weapons is honorable. An upsurge of such actions would be in the public interest. Further, my so-called “trespass” was an attempt at crime prevention, or interference with ongoing government criminality, and as such was a civic duty.

A recent test of the new US B61-12 thermonuclear gravity bomb. Photo by US Air Force.

Refusing to pay fines for nonviolent resistance to nuclear war preparations is, from my position of privilege, also an act of solidarity with the poor, the undocumented, and the outcasts who often don’t have resources or connections enough to purchase their way out of pre-trial detention or incarceration for minor offenses.

In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law. The ongoing threat to attack people with nuclear weapons (known as “deterrence”) is prohibited by international law. My go-in actions at Büchel were based on international legal obligations, which in the words of the Nuremberg Principles “bind every citizen just as does ordinary municipal law.” Plans for massacres inherent in nuclear sharing and deterrence policy are prohibited and have been criminalized by the combined obligations — considered as a whole — set out in the UN Charter, the Geneva Conventions, the Hague Conventions, the Nuremberg Charter, Principles, and Judgment, the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), and the US and German federal constitutions.

The NPT in particular explicitly prohibits any transfer whatsoever of nuclear weapons from one state to another. I hope never to pay respect to governments that declare treaties are the “supreme law” but then proceed to wantonly violate them.

It can never be a crime to interfere with the deployment, rehearsals for use, or the threatened use of nuclear weapons, or to resist our governments’ joint plans to commit indiscriminate, uncontrollable mass destruction using firestorms and radiation. No criminal conspiracy of any kind anywhere compares to the level of deliberate public lawbreaking inherent in nuclear weapons threats. Rather than a trespass, my peaceful interference with nuclear attack machinery is justifiable, preventative, precautionary, and lawful.

Court systems in Germany and the US have labored to dismiss this lawful defense of necessity and to ignore their own constitutional command to abide by international treaties. Instead, when courts in both countries have been confronted with the treaty obligations outlined above, they have routinely denied their applicability in protest cases involving nuclear weapons. Courts in Germany have gone so far as to say that because Germany and the US have agreed to “nuclear sharing” the practice is therefore legitimate.

I have presented to the courts in Cochem, Koblenz, and Karlsruhe the facts about nuclear weapons, their effects, the government’s preparations for using them against civilians, and the treaties that forbid all such planning for massacres. By ignoring or denying these facts, the judges are guilty of pretending the criminality of deterrence is lawful, and they are complicit in the self-destructive maintenance of prohibited and suicidal nuclear threats. It is naïve or mentally unbalanced to act as if this charade is not homicidal and suicidal, and to ignore the criminal intent of the governments of Germany and the United States regarding nuclear sharing. I hope to be able to stand up to the courts’ coercion and intimidation, and to refuse to cooperate with such a government that is also the nuclear weapon’s government.

— This statement is in the Winter Nukewatch Quarterly, and ran Dec. 16 2022 at CounterPunch.org.

If you write to John at the prison, remember mail takes two weeks to reach Germany. After January 10 check nukewatchinfo.org or Nukeresister.org for other mail restrictions.
JVA Glasmoor
Am Glasmoor 99
22852 Norderstedt
Germany

Filed Under: B61 Bombs in Europe, Direct Action, Newsletter Archives, Nuclear Weapons, Quarterly Newsletter, Through the Prism of Nonviolence, US Bombs Out of Germany

March 29, 2021 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

“All the Way to Texas”

Nukewatch Quarterly Spring 2021
By John Heid Through the Prism of Nonviolence

“We’re goin’ all the way to Texas,” a border wall construction worker proudly told me last October. I was on a Tucson Samaritans humanitarian aid “water run” outside Sasabe, Arizona, population 54, at the time. When circumstances allow, I engage border wall workers to better understand what the men (literally) on the ground are thinking.

In the weeks leading up to the presidential inauguration, the work pace of wall construction became frenetic. Two-lane roads in rural southern Arizona were clogged with 18-wheelers transporting 30-foot posts and concrete mix. The border was a swirl of workers and machines going at breakneck speed. Efficient. Driven. Like the red ants of Texas on a bone.

On January 20, inauguration day, everything came to a halt. Like mist evaporating at first light of dawn, all was still along the border line. No more dynamite blasting the granite hillsides. No more trucks roaring down the highway. In surrounding towns, workers were terminating their rental leases or checking out of their motel rooms. A wary calm was settling on the Arizona-Sonora-border lands. Still, a bevy of questions lingered, not the least being, will the other shoe drop? Days turned into weeks. Could it be true? Had the nightmare really ended?

On February 10, a companion and I returned to the wall road at Sasabe to assess the situation. How far had the “all the way to Texas” construction gone? Were there unfinished sections where we might still be able to place water for people crossing this remote desert terrain? We passed the once bustling muster yard. All the familiar office trailers and heavy equipment were present but were still as a ghost town. We began our drive along the border wall road adjacent to the Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge and soon noticed some activity.

Off in the distance. Construction workers! A few here, a few there, like ants quietly working away. A pick-up truck approached. Our access was blocked. The driver announced: “This is an inactive work zone. I can’t prohibit you from proceeding, but I have to caution you there’s rock crushing activity ahead. Heavy machinery. It could be dangerous. I advise you to turn back.” He drove off and so did we. In opposite directions. We had to see for ourselves what an “inactive” rock-crushing work zone means. Borderland double-speak.

We drove the wall road for a dozen or so miles. The wall stretched to the horizon like a never ending coil of unraveled wire. In the distance we began to hear the roar of heavy equipment. The myth of “no more wall work” was shattered. The following morning I saw photos taken the same day by another Samaritan crew that accessed the wall road further east. Devastating. Mining scale bulldozers are shown slashing a wide swath over a cacti-covered hill in the Coronado National Forest — pristine wilderness plowed down.

All to say there is a wall. It’s not going away. It’s metastasizing. A low profile presence, double speak, and legal machinations are the strategy. No parade of trucks and workers is crowding small border towns. The destruction goes on, unimpeded, undercover, in plain, albeit remote, sight.

The US Army Corps of Engineers’ line is, “The work is part of the contractor’s obligation to ensure work site safety and security.” Whose safety? Whose security? The only safe solution is to tear down that wall and restore the habitat — all the way to Texas.

—John Heid writes from Tucson, Arizona. He recommends visiting <biologicaldiversity.org> for more information.

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

August 1, 2020 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Gone Viral

By Mark Taylor

Through the Prism of Nonviolence

By John Heid
Nukewatch Quarterly Summer 2020

TUSCON, Arizona—May 9, 2020, the 99th anniversary of Dan Berrigan’s birth

A half century ago this month Daniel Berrigan, S.J., wrote America Is Hard to Find: Notes from the Underground and Letters from Danbury Prison, Doubleday & Co. 1972.

At the time he was underground. Dan and eight others—the Catonsville 9—had been convicted of multiple felonies for burning draft card files in resistance to the US War in Vietnam. He chose to continue his resistance by surreptitiously appearing at anti-war events rather than willingly submit to imprisonment. “On the lam” for four months, Dan spoke publicly, albeit clandestinely, and wrote ferociously. The times were as volatile as the fire. Dan, his brother, Phil and seven others burned hundreds of 1-A draft files. His reflections during this period offered an incisive lens into American culture. That lens, looked through 50 years later, is still acute, clarion.

Why is America still so hard to find? What is America anyway?  Dan understood the symbiotic relationship between war and the state of our nation, any nation. He also recognized an antidote: resistance. People power.

War is antithetical to Civil Society. It blurs our visibility, let alone our humanity. What has changed in a half century? What hasn’t? Today we find ourselves in the grip of a microscopic virus that rivals the size of the split atom. Suddenly our world is turned upside down. It’s become a heyday for doomsday prophets, and profiteers, a free-for-all for conspiracy theorists. Rumor, prediction, and fact have become a sordid ménage à trois.

Meanwhile America and much of the world is “doing time” above ground, and staying at home—those who have one. Will the flippant quip “gone viral” ever sound the same? How can our war machine state save us from what we cannot even see without a microscope? Guns, let alone nuclear weapons, are rendered powerless.

An insight I gleaned from Dan’s youngest brother, Phil, was to pay attention to the larger context of any political moment. Phil said he learned this lesson during the Vietnam War, when most eyes were understandably focused on Southeast Asia. Behind the scene, the US stealthily built up its nuclear arsenal. Thus follows my query: what’s behind the Covid-19 curtain?

For one, the Tucson-based corporation Raytheon Missiles and Defense secured a multi-billion dollar contract to develop the next generation of air-launched and nuclear-armed missiles—at the height of the pandemic.

The coronavirus is unarguably a major health crisis. Still, in terms of casualties, it amounts to a dress rehearsal to nuclear war. There are ways to minimize the impact of the virus. There is no quarantine from nuclear weapons detonations, no safe space, not even deep in the high-tech bunker at Offutt Air Force Base. There will eventually be a vaccine for Covid-19. There is no cure for nuclear war, only prevention through abolition. The virus has become a partisan issue. Nuclear weapons have bipartisan support. In dystopian terms they are the great equalizer. No one is immune. No one gets out alive.

A pandemic allows us, or perhaps forces us, to recognize our vulnerability, our interdependence. Granted, those with more privilege suffer less in a pandemic. Not so with nuclear war. While our eyes are focused on a cure to resolve our current crisis, another is looming backstage. One might ask, Why isn’t the US government investing in a multi-billion dollar research for this pandemic rather than in so-called nuclear security?

There are many smoke screens, so much government subterfuge. Small wonder the heart of America is hard to find. There are war contractor coffers to fill. The heart of America is not underground in resistance. No, it’s at large, in plain sight. We are a nation of nuclear war deniers.

Following his imprisonment for the Catonsville 9 action, Dan Berrigan continued his strident resistance to the US militarism, particularly nuclearism, in the streets, in the dock, in jail cells. Nevermore underground. He took his life-long search for America to the grave, and by example urges us to carry on the struggle for disarmament—of ourselves, of fear, of nukes. Only then will we find the heart of America.

 — John Heid is a humanitarian aid activist living in Tucson, Arizona

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • …
  • 5
  • 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