nuclear weapons

June 22, 2018 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Kings Bay Plowshares Action Names the Tridents with Blood

The Kings Bay Plowshares, left to right: Clare Grady, Elizabeth McAlister, Patrick O’Neill, Carmen Trotta, Fr. Steve Kelly, Martha Hennessy, and Mark Colville.

Seven Plowshares activists snuck into the Kings Bay Trident Submarine Base in Georgia on April 4^th, the 50^th anniversary of the assassination of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Once inside, they put up banners and poured blood on the base, and have been charged with four federal felonies each. In a statement announcing their daring action, the seven anti-nuclear activists said that “The ultimate logic of Trident is Omnicide.”

The reference is to the US Navy’s unimaginably destructive Trident submarines, each of which can carry up to 192 separately targeted nuclear warheads — that is, up to eight nuclear warheads on each of 24 missiles. Each warhead, at 475 kilotons, is 31 times the explosive force of the Hiroshima bomb. As 140,000 people at Hiroshima were killed by that 15-kiloton US atomic bomb, the incineration factor of today’s Trident submarines is potentially “omnicidal.

Each warhead can theoretically destroy 4,340,000 people (31 times the 140,000 killed at Hiroshima). Each missile with its eight warheads can potentially destroy 34,720,000 people (8 times 4,340,000). With 24 missiles on a sub, one Trident can possibly destroy 833 million people, give or take (24 times 34,720,000).

Not satisfied with threatening over 833 million people in 192 different places, the US government has 14 Trident submarines. Fourteen times 833 million is around 11.6 billion people that can be incinerated by the Navy. With only 7.6 billion people on Earth, it’s no exaggeration to call the Trident system “omnicidal.”

Navy slang for these submersible incinerators is “boomer” and “platform,” words that tactfully avoid any thoughts of burning wounds or cities consumed by firestorms. The protesters point out that between the Tridents’ threat of omnicidal atomic violence on one hand, and their waste of resources, the ballistic missile submarine fleet is easy to demonize. Each missile costs $37 million; each sub costs $2.8 billion without the missiles. Enter the radical religious disarmament activists, quoting the radical pacifist Dr. King who devoted his life to confronting what he condemned as “the triple evils of militarism, racism and materialism.” It was Dr. King that said, “The ultimate logic of racism is genocide,” a phrase that the “Kings Bay Plowshares” reworked to address the Tridents.

Risking Years in Prison for Calling a Spade a Spade

Risking many years in prison for their symbolic act, as did Dr. King and the Civil Rights radicals of the ‘50s and the ‘60s, the seven carried with them onto the base a written “citizen’s indictment” of the nuclear weapons system. The indictment accuses the US government of violating international treaties that prohibit planning and preparing mass destruction (the Hague Regulations, the Nuremberg Charter, the United Nations Charter). Being Roman Catholic laypeople, and one Jesuit Priest, the seven activists brought life-long religious commitment to the protest, and quoted scripture from the prophet Isaiah whose vision was to “beat swords into plowshares and spears into pruning hooks,” and to “study war no more.” Most of the seven hail from Catholic Worker shelters in major cities where they’ve worked for decades serving the homeless.

As with 100 previous “Plowshares” actions that have targeted nuclear weapons systems in the US and elsewhere, the seven carried baby bottles of their own blood. The group split up once inside the base, strung up large banners and poured out the blood at three separate places. The use of blood in the Plowshares protests has been explained as a way to “name” nuclear weapons with a shocking but universally understood symbol. The Nuclear Resister reported that the seven hoped to call attention to the ways in which nuclear weapons kill every day, even without being used, by stealing and then wasting desperately needed resources from the homeless, hungry, sick and destitute.

Initially charged in Georgia state court, the US Attorney in Georgia has now leveled felony charges of conspiracy, destruction of property on a Naval station, depredation of government property and trespass. Four of the seven remain in county jail in Brunswick, Georgia, and three have been released with ankle bracelets and restrictive bond conditions pending trial. Patrick O’Neill, 61, from the Garner North Carolina Catholic Worker, told me over the phone June 14 that because of poor nutrition at the Glynn County Detention Center, he’d lost 15 pounds in the few weeks between April 4 and his conditional release May 24.

The other activists are Elizabeth McAlister, 78, of Jonah House, Baltimore; Fr. Steve Kelly, SJ, 69, of Oakland, Calif.; Martha Hennessy, 62, and Carmen Trotta, 55, both of the New York City Catholic Worker; Clare Grady, 59, of the Ithaca Catholic Worker; and Mark Colville, 55, of the New Haven, Conn. Catholic Worker.

On the phone, O’Neill tried to make light of his jail experience, saying that maybe the peace movement could promote disarmament actions by calling them “weigh loss” programs. Unfortunately, the weapons themselves exact the worst sort of punishment, as the philosopher said, killing without being used by forcing people to starve.

You can keep updated on the Kings Bay Plowhares activists at: <king baplowshares7.org> — John LaForge

February 23, 2018 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Threats of Mass Destruction Are All ‘Mentally Deranged’

The US maintains a fleet of heavy long-range B-52 bombers like this one that carry nuclear-armed Cruise missiles and B61 nuclear gravity bombs, among many others, and which regularly fly “exercises” near North Korea.

After Trump’s Sept. 23 bombast at the United Nations where he claimed the US might “have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea,” the propagandists in Pyongyang responded quickly, calling him a “mentally deranged dotard.” During Trump’s 2017 visit to South Korea, an editorial in the Minju Joson, a state-run newspaper published in Pyongyang, said the president’s speech to the South’s parliament was a “load of rubbish spouted by the old lunatic Trump” and “was all nonsense.”

“Far from making remarks of any persuasive power that can be viewed to be helpful to defusing tension, he made unprecedented rude nonsense one has never heard from any of his predecessors,” the North’s President Kim Jong-un said after Trump’s UN bomb threat.

Of course the imbecility of Trump’s speech is almost always rude nonsense, but his White House predecessors have been nearly as bloodthirsty in their overt threats against North Korea. While Trump certainly speaks like a mentally deranged dotard, his threat to totally destroy a country of 25 million people is only as deranged as those made by earlier presidents.

On July 12, 1993, Bill Clinton was in South Korea and warned that if the North developed and used an atomic weapon, the United States would “overwhelmingly retaliate,” and he adding chillingly, “It would mean the end of their country as they know it.”

George Bush continued the routine, hatefully naming North Korea part of an “axis of evil” during his 2002 State of the Union speech. Bush’s choice of the word “axis” usefully conjured images of Hitler Fascism, against which any atrocity can of course be excused.

Likewise, Barack Obama calmly threatened the North during his April 2014 visit to Seoul, saying, “We will not hesitate to use our military might to defend our allies and our way of life.” Calling the North “a pariah state that would rather starve its people than feed their hopes and dreams,” Obama hearkened back to the country’s terrible 1996-1998 famine — “one of the great famines of the 20th Century” according to UN aid agencies. Obama conveniently neglected to recall much less apologise for any US responsibility in failing to provide adequate emergency food aid to the starving.

Nowadays, Trump gets rightfully condemned for making threats of mass destruction against the tiny, underdeveloped North, especially as he sits at the head of the grandest military empire in the history of the world, with 12 ballistic missile submarines, 19 aircraft carrier battle groups, 450 land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles, almost 800 military bases in 70 countries and territories abroad, and shooting wars underway in seven different countries.

Yet jittery trepidation regarding phantom threats by North Korea is routinely, almost universally voiced — even if it’s just as routinely debunked. In 1996, the editors at the New York Times warned, “North Korea could threaten parts of Hawaii and Alaska” in less 10 years. (“Star Wars, the Sequel” May 14) Now 22 years on, the North still can’t do it. In 2000, the same editors said US intelligence agencies “predict that North Korea could have the capacity to launch a handful of nuclear-tipped long-range missiles within five years.” (“Prelude to a Missile Defense,” Dec. 19) Eighteen years later, it still can’t.

Fearmongering about North Korea always lacks any evidence that its ruling regime is suicidal, because there is no such evidence. Never explained by our military-industrial-Congressional weapons merchants, newspaper and TV pundits, or think tank analysts is why the North would precipitate its inevitable self-destruction by attacking the United States or its allies, because it never would.

A few reporters have managed to fit this acknowledgment into their stories, and for this they need to be recognized. Jessica Durando, writing in USA Today Nov. 21, 2017, said North Korea’s leader appears “determined to keep his nuclear arsenal to deter a U.S. attempt to overthrow him.”

And journalist Loretta Napoleoni, author of the brand new “North Korea: The Country We Love to Hate” (2018, University of Western Australia Press), spoke to the London Express Feb. 20, saying about the North’s arsenal of 10 to 12 unusable nuclear bombs: “I don’t think they have any intention to use it. It is a deterrent,” Napoleoni said, “and very much what they wanted to achieve in order to make sure that nobody would attack them ever again.”

In view of the just-announced joint US/South Korean military invasion rehearsals known as “exercises” now set for April, North Korea is the place for legitimate trepidation.

— John LaForge

February 16, 2018 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Unwinnable War Budget Goes Nuclear

In keeping with the Trump Administration’s Feb. 2^nd Nuclear Posture Review, Trump’s just-released Fiscal Year 2019 federal budget proposal dramatically ramps-up nuclear weapons research and production.

The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), the Department of Energy’s semi-autonomous nuclear weapons agency, is receiving a $2.2 billion overall boost to $15.1 billion, a 17 percent increase above FY 2018. Of that, a full $12.8 billion is for nuclear weapons — 8 percent above FY 2018.

The NNSA’s “Directed [nuclear weapons] Stockpile Work” is increased 41 percent, from $3.3 billion to $4.7 billion. The “stockpile” programs are the hands-on, nut-and-bolts operations that include extending the operational service time of today’s nuclear weapons for up to 60 years, while also endowing them with new military capabilities.

In addition, the NNSA budget shows the addition of another $1.76 billion to “Nuclear Weapons Activities,” for a grand total FY 2019 budget of $12.78 billion. The document doesn’t make clear where the additional money comes from. In the past it’s been drawn from Pentagon, but elsewhere in Trump’s budget there is a cut of over $17 billion from the anti-poverty Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, which ought to cover the NNSA.

Of course, these figures cover just one fiscal year. Enormous as they are, they’re merely down-payments that only open the door on a proposed 30-year nuclear weapons “rebuild.” The $1.74 trillion “upgrade” includes $313 billion for a new fleet of missile-launching submarines; $13 billion for a “smart” hydrogen bomb the United States has never built before; $50 billion for a so-called “interoperable” nuclear warheads intended for use on either submarines, rockets, or missiles; $127 billion for a new heavy, long-range bomber dubbed the “China bomber” (to improve relations with our No. 1 trading partner); $30 billion for a new nuclear-armed Cruise missile; $149 billion for 600 new land-based missiles; and another $261 billion to rebuilt the Y-12 bomb plant in Tennessee, the Los Alamos Lab in New Mexico, and the (already finished) Kansas City bomb plant in Missouri.

Trump’s plan also calls for a 13 percent increase in over all military spending (about $80 billion), raising Pentagon allotment to $686 billion. Can you say “national bankruptcy”?

In a show of fiscal responsibility, some of the increases in weapons and war planning programs are being offset by deep cuts to the social safety net, education and healthcare programs. Although Mr. Trump’s political base of undereducated white supremacists are the biggest user of food stamps in the country, his budget slashes the Department of Education by over 10 percent, and bars Food Stamp recipients from buying fresh food and vegetables, “providing only a box food delivery program,” Democracy Now! reported. Trump’s budget also phases out federal funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting which supports public and community radio and TV stations, also known as Educational TV. With cuts to health, education and nutrition programs, you’d think the Self-proclaimed “genius” was trying to dumb down the electorate.

Jay Coghlan of Nuclear Watch New Mexico summed up the fiscal year plan this way: “Trump’s budget prepares for nuclear war, which even Ronald Reagan said ‘can’t be won and must never be fought.’ It finances a new arms race with Russia and increases the chances of a nuclear war with North Korea. It further raids the treasury by diverting huge sums of money to the usual fat cat nuclear weapons contractors.”

There must be a way to cut military spending, but we would have to be able to grasp its magnitude. In just the fiscal year 2015, the warplane, missile and satellite maker Lockheed Martin Corporation alone won $46 billion in military contracts. –John LaForge

February 6, 2018 by Nukewatch 1 Comment

US NUCLEAR WAR PLAN or “NUCLEAR POSTURE REVIEW” 2018

The “Nuclear Posture Review” is the sterile, abstract, ambiguous, euphemistic government explanation of its plans to commit indiscriminate mass slaughter of civlians using nuclear weapons. The Feb. 2, 2018 is the newest since 2010. Photo: Peter Sellers as “Dr. Strangelove.”

HERE IS THE US GOVERNMENT’S 2018 NUCLEAR WEAPONS POLICY and LANGUAGE ON USING NUCLEAR WEAPONS KNOWN AS THE “NUCLEAR POSTURE REVIEW”

September 12, 2017 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

“Top German politicians want US nuclear weapons out” — Did anti-nuclear actions propel issue into national elections?

By John LaForge

German Green Party Bundestag Deputy (Member of Congress) Tabea Rössner said of a recent protest action that got deep into a nuclear weapons base, “If peace activists are in the inner security area of the Tactical Air Force squadron, Luftwaffe, Büchel, then that can mean only one thing: The security concept is more than bumbling.”

A series of anti-nuclear weapons actions between March and August at Air Base Büchel in Germany brought widespread media attention to the 20 US nuclear weapons still deployed there. Surprising demands for the bombs’ removal soon came from high-ranking political leaders including Germany’s foreign minister. A timeline of events between July 12 and 18, involving a Nukewatch-organized delegation of 11 US peace activists, shows how the work may have moved the officials to speak out.

July 12 — Upon its arrival, four members of the US group held a press conference in Frankfurt accompanied by Marion Küpker, international coordinator for DFG-VK — Germany’s oldest anti-war group — and organizer of the 5-month peace camp. News of the unprecedented US group was reported in the daily Frankfurt Journal (“Activists from the US land in Frankfurt: Campaign against US nuclear weapons”), the online magazine FOCUS (“Nuclear fighters receive support from the US”) and picked up around the country.

July 15 — Headlines like “Today in Büchel: Action day against nuclear weapons,” and “Konstantin Wecker sings for the peace,” was news across southwest Germany when the well-known singer-songwriter drew about 400 to his performance near base’s main gates. The US delegates all spoke briefly to the gathering through interpreters.

July 17 — Five activists including four from the US snuck deep into the air base at night, clipping four chain-link fences, and climbed to the top of a large weapons bunker. The five went undetected on base for over two hours, before they themselves alerted guards. Detained by military and civilian police, the group was released around 3 a.m. without charges, and none have been leveled.

July 26 — News of the “go-in” action reaching a bunker was reported widely. The daily Rhein-Zeitung’s headline used Nukewatch’s moniker: “‘Prison Gang’ Inspects Büchel Air Force Base — Peace movement claims five activists succeeded in penetrating the inner security area.” (The reference was to seven of the US delegates who have served a combined total of 36 years in jail and prison for anti-war actions.

July 28 — Journalists asked experts and military officials in Berlin whether the go-in group got near the US nuclear bombs. Air Force headquarters in Berlin assured the press that “security had been maintained,” and this news went nation-wide. Yet the information center of the Air Force in Berlin did acknowledge the breach of security. One paper reported, “The Luftwaffe confirmed that on the night of 18 July, five persons were in the military security area of the airport, where they illegally gained access by cutting fences with cutting tools, RZ reported,” referring to the regional daily Rhein-Zeitung. Another widely reported story quoted, “Military expert [Otfried] Nassauer: ‘Prison Gang’ was probably not in the sensitive area of the Büchel airfield.”

July 29 — The daily paper of Nuremberg, Eslayer Nachrichlen, with a circulation of 300,000, interviewed four of the US delegates and its article was headlined: “At night on the atom bunker” — Joint protest of peace activists from the region and the USA.”

August 7 — Public criticism of lax security at Büchel went national when the Green Party Bundestag Deputy (Member of Congress) Tabea Rössner openly lambasted the base for not stopping the fence-cutting action. Rössner’s call for an investigation prompted the headline: “Is Air Base Büchel just as safe as an amusement park?”

Accounts of Rössner’s statement, circulated widely on social media, reported, “The Greens demanded information about the safety situation at Büchel air base. The reason is an action by activists who entered the inner security area of the airbase.” Rössner’s statement said in part, “The federal government must fully explain the incident. If peace activists are in the inner security area of the Tactical Air Force squadron, Luftwaffe, Büchel, then that can mean only one thing: The security concept is more than bumbling.”

“This is not a trifle,” Rössner said, “even if those responsible would try to downplay the incident. It is more than frightening that at a time of significantly increased terror, the safety measures of such a site fall below the level of a theme park.”

August 22 — The US H-bombs then burst into the national election campaign when Martin Schulz, the head of the Social Democrat Party (SDP) and candidate for Chancellor in this month’s 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 Aug. 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.” Schulz in a campaign stump speech said, “As chancellor, I’d push for the ejection of nuclear weapons stored in Germany.”

August 29 — Conservative politicians and editors attacked Schulz as uninformed or naive, but the criticism was short-lived when Germany’s Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel made a surprise endorsement of Schulz’s proposal. At a press conference with US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson in Washington, Gabrial joined Schulz’s call for withdrawal of the US weapons. The foreign minister’s surprise announcement included his blunt admission that, “I agreed with Mr. Schulz’s point that we need to get rid of the nuclear weapons that are in our country.” The news startled media around the world, which 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.”

Sept. 5 — The Left Party introduced a motion to “Refuse rearmament and withdraw nuclear weapons from Germany.” Endorsed by deputy leader Jan Korte, the motion calls for immediate negotiations with the United States to remove its nuclear weapons from Germany, and condemns NATO’s demand that member states increase military spending. The motion was partially supported by the Green party, which said in a statement, “The Greens are for a nuclear weapon-free Germany and Europe.”

The International Business Times and the Financial Tribune online declared on Aug. 31, “Top German Politicians Want US Nuclear Weapons Out.” The papers noted that “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.”

To help the German’s win permanent elimination of the US nukes, the movement here has to generate enough push-back to cancel Congress’s plan to replace instead of retire the US H-bombs in Europe. Nixing the replacement plan would save at least $12 billion.