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
    • Workshops
  • Donate

January 22, 2023 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Weapons Profiteers are the Winners

By John LaForge

The only winners in the war in Ukraine are weapons manufacturers. This is according to William Hartung and Julia Gledhill for the Quincy Institute in April, Paula Reisdorf writing for CorpWatch in May, Shlomo Ben-Ami for Project Syndicate in September, and Jeremy Scahill for the Intercept in December. The numbers prove it.

Between February and April this year, Hartung and Gledhill note, the US committed to giving approximately $2.6 billion in military aid to Ukraine, bringing the Biden administration spending to more than $3.2 billion and rising, according to Pentagon reports (“How Pentagon Contractors Are Cashing in on the Ukraine Crisis”).

“Weapons companies were already receiving a massive amount of money from the US government before the war in Ukraine began — some $768 billion in 2021. In [May], the US Congress approved a $40 billion spending package for the Ukraine war, with a big chunk going to arms companies,” Reisdorf wrote (“Weapons Makers Profit Handsomely off Ukraine War”). That chunk amounted to $10 billion, with the lion’s share going to Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Boeing, General Dynamics, and Northrop Grumman, according to Scahill’s piece, “The War Caucus Always Wins.”

BAE Corp. makes the M-777 howitzer. Lockheed Martin and Raytheon make Javelin anti-tank missiles; Raytheon makes Stinger anti-aircraft missiles. Northrop Grumman produces the RQ-4 Global Hawk aircraft which is making surveillance flights over Ukraine.

Scahill reports that some of the latest contracts include: $1.2 billion to Raytheon to produce six National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile Systems in support of the efforts in Ukraine; $431 million for Lockheed to produce M142 High Mobility Artillery Rocket System launchers to replenish those sent to Kyiv; and a separate $521 million for Lockheed to replace Guided Multiple Launch Rocket Systems going to Ukraine.

Reisdorf reports that by May Northrop Grumman’s stocks were up by about 16 percent, and shares of Lockheed Martin and Raytheon Technologies had increased by 28 and 20 percent respectively by March.

The Wall St. Journal updated the profiteering news November 24, noting that Lockheed shares are up 36 percent since the start of the year, General Dynamics’ are up 22 percent, and Raytheon jumped 12 percent.

Kristen Bayes, a spokesperson for the Campaign Against the Arms Trade in London told Sky News the transfer of weapons to Ukraine is “not problem-free,” and warned, “You might think you’re handing over weapons to people you know and like, but then they get sold on to people you don’t.” Even US Defense Sec. Lloyd Austin, has “acknowledged that some weapons given to Ukraine have also been ending up in the hands of Russians,” Bayes said.

Filed Under: Military Spending, Newsletter Archives, Nuclear Weapons, Quarterly Newsletter, War

January 22, 2023 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Who Deserves a Nobel Peace Prize in Ukraine?

By Medea Benjamin and Ariel Gold

 

In what was described as a harsh rebuke of Russia, the 2022 Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to the Ukrainian human rights organization Center for Civil Liberties, along with Belarusian human rights advocate Ales Bialiatski and the Russian human rights organization Memorial. While at first glance, the Ukrainian Center for Civil Liberties might sound like a group that is well-deserving of this honor, Ukrainian peace leader Yurii Sheliazhenko wrote a stinging critique.

Sheliazhenko, who heads up the Ukrainian Pacifist Movement and is a board member of the European Bureau for Conscientious Objection, accused the Center for Civil Liberties of embracing the agendas of such problematic international donors as the US Department of State and the National Endowment for Democracy. The National Endowment for Democracy supports NATO membership for Ukraine; insists that no negotiations with Russia are possible and shames those who seek compromise; wants the West to impose a dangerous no-fly zone; says that only Putin violates human rights in Ukraine; never criticizes the Ukrainian government for suppressing pro-Russian media, parties, and public figures; never criticizes the Ukrainian army for war crimes and human rights violations; and refuses to stand up for the human right, recognized under international law, to conscientious objection to military service.

Supporting conscientious objectors is the role of Sheliazhenko and his organization, the Ukrainian Pacifist Movement. While we hear a lot about Russian war resisters, as Sheliazhenko points out, even inside Ukraine, which is portrayed in Western media as a country entirely united in its war with Russia, there are men who don’t want to fight.

The Ukrainian Pacifist Movement was founded in 2019 when fighting in the separatist-ruled Donbas region was at a peak and Ukraine was forcing its citizens to participate in the civil war. According to Sheliazhenko, Ukrainian men were “being given military summonses off of the streets, out of night clubs and dormitories, or snatched for military service for minor infractions such as traffic violations, public drunkenness, or casual rudeness to police officers.”

To make matters worse, when Russia invaded in February 2022, Ukraine suspended its citizens’ right to conscientious objection and forbade men between the ages of 18 and 60 from leaving the country; nevertheless, since February, over 100,000 Ukrainian draft-eligible men managed to flee instead of fight. It’s estimated that several thousand more have been detained while trying to escape.

“The Knotted Gun,” by Carl Fredrik. Photo Credit: Reuters

International human rights law affirms people’s right, due to principled conviction, to refuse to participate in military conflict and conscientious objection has a long and rich history. In 1914 a group of Christians in Europe, hoping to avert the impending war, formed the International Fellowship of Reconciliation to support conscientious objectors. When the US joined WWI, social reformer and women’s rights activist Jane Addams protested. She was harshly criticized at the time but, in 1931, she became the first American woman to win the Nobel Peace Prize.

In Russia, hundreds of thousands of young men are refusing to fight. According to a source inside Russia’s Federal Security Service, within three days of Russia’s announcement that it was drafting 300,000 more recruits, 261,000 men fled the country. Those who could, booked flights; others drove, bicycled, or walked across the border.

Belarusians have also joined the exodus. According to estimates by Connection e.V., a European organization that supports conscientious objectors and deserters, an estimated 22,000 draft-eligible Belarusians have fled their country since the war began.

The Russian organization Kovcheg, or The Ark, helps Russians fleeing because of anti-war positions, condemnation of Russia’s military aggression against Ukraine, and/or persecution they are experiencing in Russia. In Belarus, the organization Nash Dom runs a “NO means NO” campaign to encourage draft-eligible Belarusians not to fight. Despite refusing to fight being a noble and courageous act for peace — the penalty in Russia for refusing the draft is up to ten years in prison and in Ukraine, it is at least up to three years, and likely much higher, with hearings and verdicts closed to the public — neither Kovcheg, Nash Dom nor the Ukrainian Pacifist Movement, were announced as Nobel Peace Prize winners yesterday.

The US government nominally supports Russia’s war resisters. On September 27, White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre declared that Russians fleeing Putin’s draft were “welcome” in the US and encouraged them to apply for asylum. But as far back as October 2021, before Russia invaded Ukraine, amid tit-for-tat US-Russia tensions, Washington announced it would henceforth only issue visas to Russians through the US Embassy in Warsaw, 750 miles away from Moscow.

To put a further damper on Russian hopes of refuge in the US, on the same day as the White House held its press conference where it encouraged draft-eligible Russians to seek US asylum, the Biden administration announced that it would be continuing into fiscal year 2023 its FY2022 global refugee cap of 125,000.

You would think that those resisting this war would be able to find refuge in European countries, as Americans fleeing the Vietnam war did in Canada. Indeed, when the Ukraine war was in its early stages, European Council President Charles Michel called on Russian soldiers to desert, promising them protection under EU refugee law. But in August, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky asked his Western allies to reject all Russian emigres. Currently, all non-visa travel from Russia to EU countries is suspended.

As Russian men fled after Putin’s draft announcement, Latvia closed its border with Russia and Finland said it was likely going to be tightening its visa policy for Russians.

Had the Nobel Peace Prize awardees been the Russian, Ukrainian, and Belarusian organizations that are supporting war resisters and peacemakers, it would have drawn global attention to the courageous young men taking this stand and perhaps opened more avenues for them to get asylum abroad. It could have also initiated a much-needed conversation about how the US is supplying Ukraine with an endless flow of weapons but not pushing for negotiations to end a war so dangerous that President Biden is warning of “nuclear Armageddon.” It certainly would have been more in line with Alfred Nobel’s desire to bring global recognition to those who have “done the most or best to advance fellowship among nations and the abolition or reduction of standing armies.”

— Medea Benjamin is co-founder of CODEPINK, and author of several books including War In Ukraine (with Nicolas Davies). Ariel Gold is the national co-director of CODEPINK and manages the group’s Middle East Program.

Filed Under: Newsletter Archives, Quarterly Newsletter, War

January 22, 2023 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Nuclear Threats in Ukraine: Real and Hyped

Photograph by Nathaniel St. Clair
By John LaForge

Is it possible that all the press about the highly elevated the risk of nuclear weapons being detonated in Ukraine is a lot of smoke? US political and military leaders have downplayed the risk of nuclear attacks in Ukraine many times.

The United States, Russia, France, China, and the United Kingdom possess most of the world’s nuclear weapons. Last January 3rd, these five states jointly declared, “We affirm that a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.”

Consequently the five governments should be racing to sign and ratify the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and to redirect the hundreds of billions of dollars being spent on nuclearism after defunding their vast nuclear weapons infrastructures.

Instead, most are spending enormous sums on expanding their nuclear arsenals, and publicly announcing plans for the “first use” of the devices under certain conditions. The spending and strategies flatly contradict their public pledge that nuclear weapons can’t win anything and must never be used.

Yet it is possible that the military and political authorities in control of nuclear weapons know they must not explode them. It could be that nuclear attack planners understand that the effects of such detonations boomerang and bite back, poisoning and killing their own forces, contaminating the sought-after territories and that of neutral states.

The White House, the Pentagon and other experts have repeatedly assured the world they don’t think nuclear attacks are likely.

November 30:“Why Zelensky thinks Putin won’t use nukes on Ukraine” (Axios)

November 2: “US sees no indications Russia readying nuclear weapons, White House says.” (Reuters)

October 24: “No indication Russia has decided to use nuclear weapon in Ukraine, says senior US official.” (The Guardian & Financial Times)

October 9: “White House Sees No Indication Russia Is Preparing Nuclear Attack After Biden’s ‘Armageddon’ Warning.” (Forbes)
October 9: “…the White House emphasized on Friday that the United States has seen no signs that Russia is gearing up to use nuclear weapons.” (New York Times)

October 9: “Pentagon spokesperson tamps down concerns over nuclear ‘Armageddon.’” (The Guardian)

October 7: “Pentagon: No sign Putin is planning to use nukes after Biden’s ‘Armageddon’ comment.” (Politico)

Sept. 30: “US has not seen acts indicating Russia contemplating nuclear attack.” (Reuters)

Sept. 28:“US believes it’s unlikely Putin will use a nuclear weapon but threat has ‘elevated.’” (CNN)

Sept. 24: “The US says Russia isn’t preparing to use nuclear weapons, yet.” (New York Times)

Sept. 16: “I don’t see Putin using nuclear weapons” [says] British military strategist Sir Lawrence Freedman. (Euromaidan Press)

When asked about it on October 28, 2022 before the Valdai Discussion Club in Moscow, even Russian President Vladimir Putin himself made clear that it’s useless to detonate nuclear weapons in Ukraine. Putin answered, “There is no point in that, neither political, nor military.”

The truly terrifying threat from nuclear weapons in the Ukraine war is the risk of an accidental or unintentional detonation. Nearby nuclear weapons are in the hands of Russia, France, Britain, and the United States, which deploy them on submarines, bombers, fighter jets and in “nuclear sharing” with NATO members Germany, Holland, Belgium, Italy, and Turkey — which station US B61 H-bombs at six separate bases. Computer glitches, false alarms, mistakes identifying shooters (as happened November 15 when Ukraine blamed Russia in error for a blast caused by one its own air-defense missiles striking Poland), or panicked commanders misreading communications, could all lead to catastrophe; a good reason to demand universal denuclearization.

The other truly consequential nuclear threats in Ukraine stem from the country’s 15 operational nuclear power reactors, those sitting-duck time bombs in this first-ever reactors-in-a-war zone conflict. These radiation grenades with their pins ready to be pulled should spark global anti-nuclear militancy — as did the Chernobyl reactor catastrophe in the same place 36 years ago.

 

— A version of this opinion ran at Counterpunch.org on November 21, and at L.A. Progressive December 2, 2022

Filed Under: Military Spending, Newsletter Archives, Nuclear Weapons, Quarterly Newsletter, War

January 22, 2023 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Nuclear Bomb Profiteers Create Their Market

By John LaForge

According to a recent news release from “ResearchandMarkets.com,” worldwide sales of nuclear bombs and missiles is a growth market expanding by leaps and bounds. The report, “Nuclear Bombs and Missiles Market,” claims the field was worth $72.64 billion in 2020, and will reach $126.34 billion by 2030, “growing at a compound annual growth rate of 5.4%.” While the United States “dominated the global nuclear bombs and missiles market share in 2020,” this year the Asia-Pacific dominates, followed by Europe, North America and Latin America, Middle East and Africa. The report reads like the profiteers’ version of recent research by Don’t Bank on the Bomb, a project of PAX in The Netherlands that tracks nuclear weapons funding.
Sounding upbeat, the report says donations to “think tanks” from the weapons industry result in white papers about the urgent need for new weapons. It describes the corruption without irony: “Think tanks are research and analytical bodies that demonstrate future needs and reasons to have nuclear arsenals. … Twelve think tanks across the globe have disclosed funding of [$]5.5 million to [$]10.2 million in 2020 from corporate giants who are manufacturing nuclear weapons.” The cynicism extends to the current war in Ukraine, as the report shamelessly says: “Factors such as the rise in geopolitical conflicts … are expected to support the nuclear bombs and missiles market growth.” “Key market players” named in the document are familiar: Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, Boeing, Airbus, and BAE. — PR Newswire, News from Research and Markets, Sept. 20, 2022

Lockheed Martin stock plunged by 5.5 percent, and its capitalization decreased by more than $7 billion, after a fake Twitter account posted this faux announcement.

Economic Times, Sept. 12, 2022

Filed Under: Military Spending, Newsletter Archives, Nuclear Weapons, Quarterly Newsletter, War

December 28, 2022 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Background info’ on US B61 Nuclear Bombs in Europe, and Nonviolent Resistance to Them

Background info’ on U.S. B61s bombs in Europe, and nonviolent resistance, from John LaForge, Nukewatch staff

“Why Not Pay Fines Imposed for Actions Against Nuclear Threats?” Dec. 16, 2022,  https://www.counterpunch.org/2022/12/16/why-not-pay-fine-imposed-for-actions-against-nuclear-threats/

“Horrifying ‘Small’ talk about Nuclear Weapons,” Nov. 7, 2022, https://www.counterpunch.org/2022/11/07/horrifying-small-talk-about-nuclear-weapons/

“No One Is Paying Attention to Your Protests”, July 15, 2022, https://www.counterpunch.org/2022/07/15/no-one-is-paying-attention-to-your-protests/\

“Reducing Tensions, Building Trust, De-Escalating,” April 29, 2022, https://www.counterpunch.org/2022/04/29/reducing-tensions-building-trust-de-escalating/

“US and NATO Nuclear Lunacy Still Raving,” Dec. 24, 2021, https://www.counterpunch.org/2021/12/24/us-and-nato-nuclear-lunacy-still-raving/

“Novel Appeal Filed with the European Court of Human Rights in Nuclear Weapons Protest Case,” Nov. 15, 2021, https://www.counterpunch.org/2021/11/15/novel-appeal-filed-with-the-european-court-of-human-rights-in-nuclear-weapons-protest-case/

“US Peace Activists in Germany Join Call for Withdrawal of US Nuclear Weapons,” July 16, 2021, https://www.counterpunch.org/2021/07/16/us-peace-activists-in-germany-join-call-for-withdrawal-of-us-nuclear-weapons/

“Germany: US Nuclear Weapons Shamed in Nationwide Debate,” Sep. 18, 2020, https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/09/18/germany-us-nuclear-weapons-shamed-in-nationwide-debate/

“US Air Force Veteran Could Face ‘20 Days for 20 Bombs’ — for Protest Against US H-Bombs Stationed in Germany,” August 7, 2020, https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/08/07/usaf-vet-could-face-20-days-for-20-bombs-for-protest-against-us-h-bombs-stationed-in-germany/

“Gerd Büntzly, Crime Fighter,” January 25, 2019, https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/01/25/gerd-buntzly-crime-fighter/

“The Eye of a Tornado,” July 27, 2018, https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/07/27/the-eye-of-a-tornado/

“18 Protesters Cut into German Air Base to Protest US Nuclear Weapons Deployment,” July 20, 2018, https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/07/20/103839/

“What Kind of Nuclear Attack Would be Legal?” Dec. 7, 2017, https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/12/07/what-kind-of-nuclear-attack-would-be-legal-2/

 

“Nobel Peace Prize Goes to Abolitionists While US Conducts Nuclear War Games,” Oct. 27, 2017, https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/10/27/nobel-peace-prize-goes-to-abolitionists-while-us-conducts-nuclear-war-games/

“Top German Politicians Want US Nuclear Weapons Out,” Sept. 9, 2017, https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/09/15/top-german-politicians-want-us-nuclear-weapons-out-did-anti-nuclear-actions-propel-issue-into-national-elections/

“Activists Challenge US Nukes in Germany; Occupy Bunker Deep Inside Nuclear Weapons Base,” July 21, 2017, https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/07/21/activists-challenge-us-nukes-in-germany-occupy-bunker-deep-inside-nuclear-weapons-base/

“Wild Turkey with H-Bombs: Failed Coup Brings Calls for Denuclearization,” CounterPunch, July 28, 2016

“Undeterred: Amid Terror Attacks in Europe, US H-bombs Still Deployed There,” CounterPunch, June 17, 2016

“Nuclear Weapons Proliferation: Made in the USA,” CounterPunch, May 27, 2015

“US Defies Conference on Nuclear Weapons Effects & Abolition,” Dec. 15, 2014

“German ‘Bomb Sharing’ Confronted with Defiant ‘Instruments of Disarmament’,” Aug. 9, 2013

 

 

Filed Under: B61 Bombs in Europe, Direct Action, Nuclear Weapons, US Bombs Out of Germany, War

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • …
  • 22
  • Next Page »

Stay Connected

  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Subscribe

Donate

Facebook

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
  • Quarterly Newsletter
  • Radiation Exposure
  • Radioactive Waste
  • Renewable Energy
  • 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

© 2023 · Nukewatch