Bill to Extend Radiation Exposure Compensation Act Without Reforms a “Slap in the Face” to those Sickened by US
Senator Lee’s Bill Would Deny Health Screenings, Compensation for Downwind Communities in Northern Utah
Published Apr 18, 2024
Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) today introduced legislation that would extend the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA) as-is, without needed improvements to provide health care screenings and financial compensation to communities sickened by nuclear weapons tests conducted in New Mexico and Nevada, uranium mining and nuclear waste. Congress should reject the bill and focus its attention on existing legislation passed by the Senate that would protect and strengthen RECA.
“It is a huge betrayal to the entire state of Utah and surrounding states that my senators are pushing only for a temporary extension of RECA when what is urgently and desperately needed for all those suffering and dying is for the program to be expanded and strengthened as laid out in the bill proposed by Senators Hawley, Lujan and Crapo and passed with overwhelming bipartisan support in March,” said Mary Dickson, a journalist and cancer survivor from Salt Lake City, Utah.
“Senator, the residents of southern Utah were covered under the original RECA bill, but what about the folks living in northern Utah, not to mention southern Nevada, New Mexico, and other affected areas? The list goes on, but that’s because the fallout went on and on,” said Linda Chase, an author and downwinder from Nevada. “Support the RECA reauthorization that passed the Senate by a 3:1 margin. In your heart, you know it’s the right thing to do.”
"Any attempt to simply extend RECA without making it more inclusive would be a blatant disregard for the people who have sacrificed so much in the name of our country's national security,” said Christen Commuso, a community outreach specialist with the Missouri Coalition for the Environment and a cancer survivor. “Missouri played an integral role in the war effort by purifying the mass quantities of uranium needed to create the world's first-ever atomic weapons. This process created hundreds of thousands of tons of deadly radioactive waste. This waste has been allowed to harm the citizens of our region for over eighty years. We call upon Speaker Johnson to put S.3853 on the House floor for a vote without further delay. We urge Senator Lee to stand with his people in Utah and across this great nation by supporting the strengthening of the RECA program. We cannot continue with the status quo of neglect and harm to our own people and lands."
“I would ask Senator Lee: how do we decide who deserves to be taken care of and who doesn’t? Who gets to make these decisions? Why are people in certain zip codes considered more important than others?” asked Tina Cordova, executive director of the Tularosa Basin Downwinders Consortium, a sixth generation New Mexican and cancer survivor. “We urgently need for our government to take responsibility for the egregious harm that was done to American citizens, including children, when nuclear testing was taking place in the American west and the Pacific. Not only did that testing negatively affect the health of those alive at the time, it destined our children and grandchildren forevermore to a life never free of the genetic damage associated with our overexposure to radiation. I can think of no other act that is more immoral than this.”
“It is past time to expand and extend RECA for all of the suffering citizens of our beautiful country. Anything less is a slap in the face,” said Tona Henderson, Director of Idaho Downwinders.
“After repeatedly voting against legislation that would help their constituents, Senators Lee and Romney are now putting forward a sham bill that denies Utahns access to health screenings and compensation for their suffering,” said Lilly Adams, senior outreach coordinator for the Global Security Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists. “Their bill to extend RECA would only extend the injustice suffered by Utahns and other communities that have been exposed to radiation, but never had the chance to apply for recognition and support through RECA.”
In March, the Senate voted 69-30 to advance legislation, sponsored by Sens. Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.), Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) and Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), that would extend RECA for six years, giving victims more time to apply for aid, and make necessary improvements to the program, which has inexplicably excluded large swaths of the country impacted by radiation exposure for decades.
The bill proposed by Lujan, Crapo and Hawley would offer compensation and access to health screenings for the first time to communities impacted by the test of the first atomic bomb in New Mexico, as well as extend coverage to residents of Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Utah and Guam sickened by nuclear tests. Recent research from Princeton suggests that fallout from U.S. nuclear tests blanketed the contiguous U.S. The bill would also offer compensation to residents of Kentucky, Missouri and Tennessee sickened by exposure to nuclear waste from the Manhattan Project and Cold War era uranium processing, and additional uranium workers.
The bill would modernize the program by increasing compensation for communities downwind of nuclear weapons test sites. Compensation levels have not been updated since 2000 despite dramatically rising health care costs.
Radiation exposure increases the risk of lung cancer and lung disease, leukemia, lymphomas and sixteen other recognized cancers. Many downwinders continue to struggle to access quality, timely health care. The legislation would fund the Radiation Exposure Screening and Education Program (RESEP) which supports education and screenings for cancers and other radiation-linked illnesses, and require the Government Accountability Office to conduct a study on downwinders’ unmet medical needs and issue recommendations on how to meet them.
“Warheads to Windmills: Preventing Climate Catastrophe and Nuclear War”
By Timmon Wallis, PhD
National Coordinator of the Warheads to Windmills Coalition
Discussion and book-signing
Thursday, May 16, 6:30-8:00 pm
Unitarian Universalist Congregation
421 S. Farwell St, Eau Claire, WI
Contact for more information:
Rita Webb
“Warheads to Windmills: Preventing Climate Catastrophe and Nuclear War”
By Timmon Wallis, PhD
National Coordinator of the Warheads to Windmills Coalition
Discussion and book-signing
Friday, May 17, 12:00-1:30 pm
Universalist Unitarian Church
504 Grant St, Wausau, WI
Contact for more information:
Rita Webb
From the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons
FUTURE ACTION FESTIVAL IN TOKYO, JAPAN ON MARCH 24,2024
This is Miyuki Horiguchi from SGI/Youth for TPNW. Please allow me to share overview report regarding the Future Action Festival, which took place in Tokyo at the national stadium yesterday on March 24, 2024. Attached the photo from the finale of the festival.
It's part of the lead up to the Summit of the Future to be held at the UN headquarters this September 22-23, 2024.
The organizing committee consisted of the six representatives from GeNuine, Greenpeace Japan, Japan Youth Conference, Kakuwaka Hiroshima, Soka Gakkai International (SGI) Youth and Youth for TPNW. They organized this event with the aim of raising public awareness on the issue of nuclear weapons and the climate crisis in particular and enhancing a sense of agency among young people in Japan.
On the day of, approximately 66,000 participants attended the festival at the national stadium coming from across the country, as well as more than 500,000 people watched the livestreaming of the event. The festival was supported by so many different organizations, institutions and companies, including ICAN, ICRC and Peace Boat, three of which had supported the event as partner organizations for months. The main program included diverse performances with singers and dancers, interactive quiz session, panel discussion with activists, delivery of a joint statement, and a keynote speech by the Rector of the United Nations University in Tokyo.
On behalf of the organizing committee, I would like to take this opportunity to extend our deepest gratitude to those who supported to make this event a big success with full of positive energy, hope and determination to take actions for peace together. I also would like to show my greatest appreciation to Melissa for having kindly sent her strong and hopeful video message for the audience, which I believe inspired and encouraged a number of young individuals to be the change for nuclear abolition.
In the preparation for the festival, we conducted the youth awareness survey in Japan from last November to February, targeting individuals aged from 10 to 49. In total, 119,925 participated in this survey, and we have drafted our joint statement based on their voices. Kindly find attached the joint statement and the results summary report of the survey, although these are still tentative translation.
We look forward to more collaborations both nationwide and worldwide to achieve a sustainable future that we envision as youth, in solidarity with like-minded individuals and organizations.
Miyuki Horiguchi (she/her)
Program Coordinator for Disarmament
Soka Gakkai International (SGI)
TEL: +81-70-7473-3575
FAX: +81-3-3353-4368
DOE Admits Design Problems with Controversial New Plutonium Bomb Plant at Savannah River Site, Cost Soars to $25 Billion
Anticipated DOE Funding Requests for SRS Plutonium Pit Plant, Key to New Nuclear Warheads, to Hit $9 Billion Over the Next 5 Years
COLUMBIA, SC, US, March 14, 2024 /EINPresswire.com/ -- On the heels of releasing information that the design of proposed plutonium bomb facility at the Savannah River Site in South Carolina “continued to trend negative,” the Department of Energy has admitted in budget documents released this week that the cost could hit a staggering $25 billion.
The massive cost increase, rising from an estimated $11.1 billion in June 2021, was reflected in DOE’s National Nuclear Security Administration’s (NNSA) Fiscal Year 2025 budget request to Congress, posted on March 11, 2024. Like all complex DOE projects, such as the plutonium fuel (MOX) project canceled at SRS in 2018, significant delays and large cost overruns related to design and technical problems are standard and, as congressional oversight is minimal, tend to get worse over time. The abandoned MOX building, now being stripped of all costly installations, is proposed to be converted into the pit plant.
If it ever operates, the SRS Plutonium Bomb Plant - which DOE calls the more innocuous “SRS Plutonium Processing Facility” - would be key in fabricating the plutonium pits, or cores, for both new and existing U.S. nuclear warheads. The weight of a spherical, hollow pit is classified but it’s around a few kilograms of plutonium (much of which was made in nuclear reactors that operated at SRS until the late 1980s). The first new pits would go into the W87-1 warhead planned for the new Sentinel ICBM, a project whose cost has also soared dramatically and whose need has faced growing questions.
“The pit facility is central to a brewing nuclear arms race and thus should be unwelcome in South Carolina but contractor profits are driving its location here,” said Tom Clements, director of the public interest group Savannah River Site Watch, based in Columbia, SC. “Given the massive cost overrun projected for the SRS pit plant and the growing threat of the unconstrained pursuit of new nuclear weapons, it’s time for cooler heads to prevail and for the government to hit the pause button on this misguided and unnecessary project,” added Clements.
The goal for the SRS pit plant is to produce 50 or more pits per year, with the Los Alamos National Lab making 30 or more pits per year, initially to be used in new warheads. Though it has not been clearly stated by NNSA, it appears, according to SRS Watch, that the long-term goal is to replace all pits in all 4400 active and reserve warheads, keeping the U.S. on a footing to fight a full-scale nuclear war.
Reflecting the dramatic increase in the cost of the facility from the 2021 estimate, NNSA has proposed to spend over $9 billion on the controversial SRS facility over the next 5 years. The request for FY 25 is about $1.3 billion. In the recently passed funding for DOE, the SRS pit plant received $1.06 for FY 24.
In a February 23, 2024 response to a Freedom of Information Act request by the public interest groups Savannah River Site Watch, Nuclear Watch New Mexico (Santa Fe) and Tri-Valley CAREs (Livermore, CA), and later posted on line, DOE’s National Nuclear Security Administration revealed in a review of contractor performance that the design of the SRS facility faced problems and delays. The FY 23 Performance Evaluation Report (PER) for contractor Savannah River Nuclear Solutions stated that project “design continued to slip in FY23” and “the design performance measurement baseline completion date continued to trend negative due to less than adequate design integration.”
The original goal was to have the SRS pit plant operable by 2030 but that date has quickly slipped to 2036, according to a NNSA document obtained by SRS Watch via a FOIA request. (NNSA’s “Critical Decision (CD)-1 Independent Project Review (IPR),” March 2021, obtained by SRS Watch via a FOIA request, see page 24 for 2036 operational date of SRS pit plant: https://srswatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Doc-1-SRPPF-CD-1-IPR-Final-Report-210505-2.pdf)
Pit production would produce a large amount of radioactive plutonium waste, called transuranic waste (TRU), aimed to be disposed of in DOE's Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) in New Mexico. But is unclear if WIPP, whose volume is capped by federal law, could accommodate the amount of TRU projected to result from pit production. SRS Watch and allied non-profit groups (named above) have a lawsuit in federal court in Columbia, SC - Docket 1:21-cv-1942 - aimed at forcing NNSA to prepare a "Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement" (PEIS) analyzing all environmental impacts at all DOE sites involved in any aspect of pit production or disposal of waste from such production. The original case was filed in June 2021 and is proceeding on the schedule set by the court..
The FY 25 NNSA budget request indicates a “project schedule extension of approximately 1 to 3 years,” which would add billions to the cost and further undermine the claimed necessity of the project.
“Based on past DOE performance with large projects, yet more cost overruns and schedule delays are all but guaranteed; the time to stop this controversial project is now," added Clements.
Tom Clements
Savannah River Site Watch
+1 803-834-3084
TIME Magazine
Oppenheimer’s Lessons for Nuclear Threats Today
Christopher Nolan’s biopic of the father of the atomic bomb has been a cultural triumph. Besides its artistic achievements—it has racked up awards and shined again at last night’s Oscars—the film touched a deep nerve in society and reignited public conversations around nuclear risks that we’ve not seen since the end of the Cold War. People who saw the film were rightly shaken by its vivid depiction of the bomb’s awesome destructive power. Many have commented on the existential dread the film induced. But what’s been largely overlooked in discourse around the film are the urgent, powerful, and specific lessons the film—and its protagonist J. Robert Oppenheimer—have for the world today.
As inheritors of Oppenheimer’s legacy, we feel an urgent need to speak out in face of surging nuclear risks. We cannot afford to repeat the mistakes made by politicians at the start of the atomic age to ignore Oppenheimer’s warnings and dive headlong into another dangerous and futile nuclear arms race. As the U.S. prepares to spend close to $2 trillion on remaking its nuclear arsenal, we must draw on Oppenheimer’s wisdom and take bold action now to protect humanity from the existential threat of nuclear weapons.
The Oval Office scene from the film between Oppenheimer, Truman, and Secretary of State James Byrnes carries profound meaning. It reflects a real meeting that perfectly encapsulates the conflict between two starkly different visions of not only how to manage the atom, but also of how nations should fundamentally relate to each other i a new world rising from the ashes of the old.
On one side, Oppenheimer, joined by other Manhattan Project scientists and Secretary of War Henry Stimson, understood that other advanced nations were bound to soon discover the so-called “secrets” of the atomic bomb. They knew that, unless the U.S. gave up its nuclear monopoly and established a cooperative international body to make sure that the atom would only be used peacefully, others—chiefly the Soviet Union—would feel compelled to develop their own bomb to restore the balance of power. A free-for-all arms race between powerful industrial nations over the most destructive weapon in human history would make the world exponentially more dangerous and ultimately be a dead end. Only mutual accommodation and good-faith cooperation could guarantee peace and advance the common interests of humanity.
On the other side, however, figures like Byrnes held that the U.S. can and should hold onto its monopoly over the bomb. Fruitful wartime partnership notwithstanding, they fundamentally distrusted the Soviet Union, believing that the Soviets only understood raw power, of which the bomb was the highest representation. Peace could only be achieved through military strength, and relations between rivals must be zero-sum Initially, Truman entertained Oppenheimer’s disarmament proposal conceived on the principles of mutuality, openness, and bold U.S. leadership. Known as the Acheson-Lilienthal Plan, it called for the U.S. to give up its nuclear monopoly, reveal what it knew to the Soviets, and establish an international regime that would control all fissile materials and forbid any additional nuclear weapons development While mindful of the danger of nuclear weapons, Truman was ultimately more sympathetic to Byrnes’ views, dismissing Oppenheimer’s pleas for speedy nuclear disarmament. His eventual offer to the Soviets, known as the Baruch Plan, insisted on unilaterally retaining U.S. nukes until the U.S. was satisfied with other nations’ compliance with nonproliferation, as well as unrestricted ability to inspect and punish the Soviet Union for any perceived or real violations.
Though the Soviets committed to nuclear disarmament in principle, they felt that Truman’s plan was too one-sided and feared that it was a cover for the U.S. to maintain its nuclear monopoly. As expected, they ultimately rejected the Baruch Plan and developed their own bomb. Thus began the Cold War arms race—conceived on naive and false hopes instead of science that the U.S. could keep nuclear weapons a secret, and that producing more of them faster would make Americans safer—that saw, at its peak, almost 70,000 nuclear weapons.
After the many crises and terrifying near misses that followed—and numerous unheralded casualties from nuclear weapons construction and testing—leaders of the U.S. and the Soviet Union eventually stepped back from the brink and made concerted efforts to de-escalate tensions. Successive arms control breakthroughs saw dramatic mutual reductions of stockpiles, elimination of whole classes of weapons, banning of nuclear testing, and promises to eventually abolish nuclear weapons Yet today, that hard-won arms control consensus has all but collapsed. From Ukraine to the Korean Peninsula to the Taiwan Strait, the horrific prospect of nuclear use has once more reared its ugly head. Leaders have seemingly forgotten about the terrifying consequences of the Cold War, while citizens—many of whom came of age in a world where nuclear risks became an afterthought—have largely given their governments free reign to launch a new nuclear arms race.
While there are immediate steps the President can and should take to restart arms control diplomacy, we believe that any lasting solution to today’s nuclear perils requires reimagining our foundational assumptions around global security. Oppenheimer correctly understood that, to secure the Soviet Union’s buy-in on disarmament, the U.S. must lead by example and offer a plan that addresses its rival’s insecurity. He believed in diplomacy, mutual accommodation, and the potential for even rivals to come together around shared interests. Those ideas were as difficult to swallow then as they are today, but he was and remains right. Initially dismissed as naive, he was ironically vindicated by the concrete outcomes of later U.S.-Soviet arms control cooperation.
We must take his insights to heart and apply them to today’s volatile tripolar nuclear rivalry between the U.S., Russia, and increasingly China. While some urge “strategic competition” between the three powers, declaring that geopolitical flashpoints like Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine preclude any potential for deal-making, we believe that now, as at the height of the Cold War, is precisely the time for the three countries to come to the table. Their mutual self-interests, and the collective survival of humanity and the planet demand it. Our political leaders must marshal the courage and vision to overcome their differences, build a new global security architecture fit for our increasingly multipolar world, and move quickly to halt the new nuclear arms race and build a new consensus on arms control and disarmament. The alternative is sliding back down the abyss of nuclear brinkmanship and existential terror of the darkest days of the Cold War.
The start of the atomic age was defined by a costly, dangerous, and ultimately futile nuclear arms race that repeatedly brought the world to the brink of destruction. But it did not have to be that way. Oppenheimer and others offered an alternative path that holds important lessons for us today as global nuclear risks rebound. We must learn those lessons, avoid repeating the mistakes from the Cold War, and stop the budding new nuclear arms race before it’s too late.
‘Ashes of Death’: The Marshall Islands Is Still Seeking Justice for US Nuclear Tests
Seven decades after Castle Bravo, the United States’ most devastating nuclear test, it’s time to give the nation fair compensation.
On March 1, 1954, a blinding flash of light in the west made it seem as though the sun was rising from the wrong side of the ocean. The sky and the sea turned red as a mushroom cloud swelled rapidly to a height of nearly 25 miles. Ash, water, and pulverized coral rained down. The people of Rongelap Atoll began to suffer from severe burns, nausea, and vomiting – symptoms of acute radiation sickness.
This was the experience of the closest witnesses to Castle Bravo, a thermonuclear weapon detonated by the United States on Bikini Atoll in the Marshall Islands 70 years ago. The sunrise they saw was the explosion of a 15-megaton bomb, the most powerful weapon ever used by the U.S. military, 1,000 times larger than the blast that leveled Hiroshima.
On March 1, 2024, as every year, Marshallese flags will be flown at half-staff in remembrance of victims and survivors of nuclear testing.
Bravo was one of 67 nuclear tests conducted by the United States in the Marshall Islands from 1946 to 1958; the U.S. military controlled the islands from the end of World War II until 1947, when they became part of a U.S.-administered trust territory. The tests yielded as much radiation as 1.6 Hiroshima bombings every day for 12 years, and the Marshall Islands continues to suffer from their legacy – including high cancer rates, environmental degradation, and cultural dislocation – which the U.S. government has done little to redress. Nor has Washington rectified a series of its own cover-ups and human rights abuses, which still poison its relationship with the Marshall Islands.
The United States subjected the Marshallese people to scientific study without their consent; destroyed their health and their environment; lied to them about their radiation exposure; evacuated them too late, or not at all; knowingly resettled them on contaminated land; and displaced them – often indefinitely – from their homes.
Marshallese leaders have long sought fair compensation and an apology from the United States, and their position is supported by the United Nations and over 100 arms-control and environmental groups. Now, as Washington seeks to reengage in the Pacific during a new Cold War, nuclear justice has become even more essential for positive relations with the Marshall Islands and improving U.S. standing in the region.
A map of the Marshall Islands, with the two U.S. nuclear testing sites (Bikini Atoll and Enewetak Atoll) highlighted.
Lies, Broken Promises, and Human Experimentation
Nuclear testing began in 1946. U.S. Navy Commodore Ben Wyatt, military governor of the Marshall Islands, asked the Bikinian people to leave their home “temporarily” so that nuclear tests could be conducted there for “the good of mankind and to end all wars.” The islanders’ agreement was irrelevant: the U.S. government had already designated Bikini as a test site. Many Bikinians later said they felt they had no choice but to leave.
The U.S. military relocated them to resource-scarce Rongerik Atoll, and by 1948 they were starving. They were moved again to Kili, which was little better. Today they cannot return home as they were promised; Bikini remains uninhabitable.
Among all the devastating effects of nuclear testing on the Marshall Islands, Bravo stands out as an exceptional tragedy. In 1982, the U.S. Defense Nuclear Agency called it “the worst single incident of fallout exposures in all the U.S. atmospheric testing program.” Radiation spread over 7,000 square miles, about the area of New Jersey, and traces were detected around the world.
But it wasn’t Bravo’s magnitude alone that made it dangerous; it was the actions and inactions of the U.S. government. The United States hadn’t evacuated atolls near the test site – the closest, Rongelap and Ailinginae, were less than 100 miles away. Children played in the radioactive ashfall, not knowing what it was. No one but U.S. personnel had been warned about the test. Radioactive particles reached other inhabited atolls including Ailuk, Likiep, and Utirik.
The U.S. military waited until March 3 to evacuate Rongelap and Ailinginae, and until the day after to evacuate Utirik. By then, many Marshallese were sick from radiation. The United States later blamed shifting winds for fallout east of Bikini, but the U.S. military knew the winds changed hours before the test and still failed to make swift evacuations. Hundreds of people living on Ailuk and Likiep were never evacuated, even though U.S. ships were close enough to help.
Then the U.S. government lied about the danger. Radioactive material had fallen on a nearby Japanese fishing vessel, and when the crew returned home with acute radiation sickness, the world learned of Bravo and the “ashes of death” it had unleashed. The word “fallout” was born, and with it an international campaign against nuclear testing. In response, the erstwhile U.S. Atomic Energy Commission claimed that only three islands besides Bikini were contaminated. But the U.S. government knew that more than a dozen atolls had received significant radiation from Bravo, according to documents declassified in 1994.
The immediate and long-term health effects were catastrophic. U.S. officials claimed that the people of Rongelap showed no signs of exposure, despite visible burns, lesions, and hair loss. Rongelapese women suffered miscarriages and stillbirths, and “jellyfish babies” were born without bones. One third of Rongelapese developed thyroid abnormalities, and 90 percent of Rongelapese children developed thyroid tumors. A U.S. medical program was established for Rongelap and Utirik, but thousands of Marshallese from other islands affected by Bravo and later tests remain ineligible because the United States hasn’t acknowledged the range or severity of the fallout.
Six days after Bravo, the U.S. government began its most dehumanizing policy, Project 4.1, in which American scientists studied the effects of radiation on the Marshallese people without their knowledge or consent, according to information declassified in 1994. Marshallese statesman Tony deBrum told the U.S. Congress in 1996 that American doctors had extracted people’s teeth, both healthy and unhealthy, for scientific research. Male U.S. scientists forced Marshallese women to undress in front of them. The program lasted decades.
During that time, the U.S. government purposefully resettled islanders on contaminated atolls. In 1956, Atomic Energy Commission director of health and safety Merril Eisenbud called Rongelap “by far the most contaminated place in the world.” He therefore recommended sending the Rongelapese people back in order to study their uptake of radiation, which he justified by describing them as uncivilized and comparing them to “mice.” In 1957, the U.S. government proceeded to resettle Rongelap, promising that it was safe, in what one U.S. official later called a cover-up. Bikini was likewise resettled and then re-evacuated in the 1970s after Bikinians had ingested high levels of radiation.
The “Baker” explosion, a nuclear weapon test by the United States military, at Bikini Atoll, Marshall Islands, on July 25, 1946. Photo by U.S. Department of Defense.
U.S. Policy Must Change
Like the sun rising in the west, U.S. policy toward the Marshall Islands is backwards.
In 1947, the U.N. gave the United States a legal responsibility to protect the health, lands, and resources of the trust territory’s inhabitants, but the U.S. government failed in that duty. In 2004, the U.S. National Cancer Institute found cancer to be the Marshall Islands’ second-leading cause of death; meanwhile, the country has no oncology center. A 2012 U.N. report determined that nuclear testing caused “immediate and continuing effects on the human rights of the Marshallese,” including deaths, long-term health complications, displacement, and “near-irreversible environmental contamination, leading to the loss of livelihoods and lands.”
The Marshall Islands has never been fairly compensated. In 1986, the country received $150 million in nuclear compensation from the United States under the Compact of Free Association (COFA). Additional funds for relocated communities brought total compensation to $600 million. The United States calls the 1986 agreement a “full and final settlement,” but the Marshall Islands doesn’t accept it as sufficient. During negotiations, Marshallese leaders lacked crucial information that was later declassified: the range of fallout, Project 4.1, and more. Nor could they negotiate equally with the United States because they didn’t have independence until signing the COFA. Like the people of Bikini asked to relocate, they had no choice.
The settlement was fundamentally inadequate. In 1991, the independent Nuclear Claims Tribunal, established by the COFA to adjudicate compensation claims, sought $2.3 billion from the United States – over $3 billion in today’s dollars. In addition, the COFA includes a provision allowing the Marshall Islands to request additional compensation for loss or damage from nuclear testing if such loss or damage was discovered after 1986. Overwhelming evidence fits this provision, but Marshallese petitions for compensation were rejected or ignored by the U.S. Congress in the 2000s, the U.S. Supreme Court in 2010, and U.S. negotiators during COFA funding negotiations in 2022-2023.
The United States’ domestic policies also demonstrate that $600 million is inadequate. Over $2.5 billion has been given to American nuclear-affected communities – and it’s not enough, but it is far more than the Marshallese have received. Last year the U.S. government even expanded nuclear compensation to Guam, over 1,000 miles from Bikini, while continuing to dismiss Marshallese negotiators.
The disparity is all the more glaring because the Marshallese were exposed to exponentially more powerful weapons than the U.S. population. The United States conducted over 1,000 nuclear tests during the Cold War, and less than 7 percent were in the Marshall Islands, but those produced 59 percent of the megatonnage of all U.S. nuclear tests.
The Marshall Islands has a special relationship with the United States under the COFA. It receives U.S. programs and services, gives the U.S. military exclusive operating rights in its islands, airspace, and territorial waters, and its citizens enlist in the U.S. military at a higher per capita rate than any U.S. state. Marshallese deserve more from the U.S. government.
The White House has never apologized to the Marshall Islands for nuclear testing or connected policies. In 1994, in response to newly declassified materials, a U.S. government committee concluded that exposure of the Marshallese people to radiation was not motivated by research purposes. The U.S. government has touted the report as if it absolves wrongdoing. The fact remains that Project 4.1 was unethical, and that much radiation exposure could have been avoided if the United States had conducted full and timely evacuations, provided true information, and not resettled the Marshallese on contaminated atolls.
Some experts conclude that the United States won’t apologize to the Marshall Islands because it would be expected to apologize to nuclear-affected U.S. citizens too. But there is precedent for the U.S. government apologizing for some of its worst domestic policies, including slavery, the Jim Crow laws, the internment of Japanese Americans, and the Tuskegee experiments. The harm of nuclear testing in the United States and its former territory also deserve acknowledgement.
Others says the U.S. government won’t apologize because nuclear testing strengthened national security, but this just underscores how much the United States owes the Marshall Islands. Nuclear testing wasn’t for the good of mankind, but for U.S. strategic interests: building its nuclear arsenal, maintaining its Cold War security doctrine, and propelling it to superpower status. In other words, nuclear testing in the Marshall Islands paid for American security. Bravo itself illustrates this: the test allowed the United States to catch up with the Soviet Union, which in 1953 had built a hydrogen bomb deliverable by airplane.
After Bravo, the Marshallese people petitioned the United Nations to halt nuclear testing because of the overwhelming harm to their health and islands, but their requests were denied. Marshallese leaders continued fighting back, from Tony deBrum, who witnessed Bravo as a child and campaigned against nuclear proliferation as foreign minister, to Darlene Keju, a public health worker, educator, and advocate for survivors of nuclear testing. Both have passed away, but they are followed by a new generation of Marshallese leaders fighting for nuclear justice.
As Bravo’s 70th anniversary dawns, it’s time for Washington to finally make things right. The Marshall Islands National Nuclear Commission stated in 2019: “We know we will obtain nuclear justice when the health of the Marshallese people and our islands is restored, when displaced communities are returned to or compensated for their homelands, when the full range of damages and injuries stemming from the program is acknowledged and compensated by the U.S. government.” Nuclear justice is long overdue.
MISA My Fish is your Fish
The #MyFishIsYourFish campaign aims to bring awareness on how the leaking of the ‘Nuclear Dome’ in Runit Island could potentially harm our marine resources. This campaign targets SDG 14.1 and is critically linked to the wellbeing of the Pacific Ocean.
Friday, 1 March marks the 70th anniversary of the largest ever US nuclear detonation. Code-named Castle Bravo, this nuclear weapon detonated over Bikini Atoll in the Marshall Islands, was about 1,000 times more destructive in terms of explosive yield than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima.
There will be several events to mark this somber occasion, including a ceremony in the Marshall Islands and a conference in Arkansas organised by the Marshallese Educational Initiative “Nuclear Legacy Week.”
MEI is welcoming submissions in the form of a photo or a short (10-15 second) video with a message in solidarity with the Marshallese people on the 70th anniversary of the Bravo detonation which could be shown during the Nuclear Victims Remembrance Day event. If you would like to send a submission to the conference, please email them to me - [email protected] and Lina at [email protected] by Tuesday, 27 February and we will compile them and pass them along to MEI.
Please let us know if you have plans to commemorate this anniversary and how we can help lift those up on our channels. There are many resources which can be shared on this occasion. Here are a few, but we also invite you to share more resources on this list: You can find out more about the devastating impacts of nuclear testing worldwide here, read and listen to survivors here, and watch this poignant film by MISA4thePacific here. As always, when engaging with communities impacted by nuclear weapons, their expertise and their resources, we encourage adhering to protocols based on rights, respect and reciprocity, as articulated by the Nuclear Truth Project.
China urges largest nuclear states to negotiate a 'no-first-use' treaty
February 28, 20242:16 AM GMT+1Updated 3 days ago
The United Nations headquarters building is pictured with a UN logo in the Manhattan borough of New York City, New York, U.S., March 1, 2022. REUTERS/Carlo Allegri/ile Photo Purchase Licensing Rights
BEIJING, Feb 28 (Reuters) - States with the largest nuclear arsenals should negotiate a treaty on no-first-use of nuclear weapons against each other or make a political statement in this regard, the Chinese foreign ministry's arms control department said.
Director general of the department, Sun Xiaobo, called on nuclear states to fulfil their "special and priority responsibilities" on nuclear disarmament according to the U.N. Conference on Disarmament, which seeks to prevent nuclear war, official news agency Xinhua said on Wednesday.
During the forum's weekly meeting in Geneva on Monday, Sun said the body should define a roadmap or timetable for an international legal instrument that would protect non-nuclear-weapon states from the threat of nuclear weapons.
"Nuclear-weapon states should negotiate and conclude a treaty on no-first-use of nuclear weapons against each other or make a political statement in this regard," Sun said.
Advertisement · Scroll to continue
China and India are currently the only two nuclear powers to formally maintain a no first use policy. Russia and the United States have the world's biggest nuclear arsenals.
Sun also called for a universal, non-discriminatory, non-proliferation, export control order to address global security challenges, and promote more compliance in the field of biochemistry to maintain the authority of the arms control treaty system.
Advertisement · Scroll to continue
The U.N. disarmament forum should also respond to emerging scientific and technological challenges such as artificial intelligence, outer space and cyber, he said.
Sun described the international strategic security situation as facing new challenges, and that countries with the strongest military power have repeatedly "broken treaties" in order to "seek their own absolute superiority".
Reporting by Liz Lee and Shanghai newsroom; Editing by Tom Hogue and Michael Perry
We can and we must abolish nuclear weapons now.
Letter Writing–Action Network
Rep Eleanor Holmes Norton (D C) on Nuclear Abolition
By Anduin Devos on Jan 24, 2024 11:54 am
 |
Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC-At Large) spoke in a subcommittee hearing on nuclear energy about her bill H.R.2775, the Nuclear Weapons Abolition and Conversion Act which calls on the US to sign the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. The nuclear weapons and nuclear energy industries are inseparable.
The Congresswoman speaks from 1:19:22 to 1:22:52
The post Rep Norton on Nuclear Abolition appeared first on NuclearBan.US.
January 22, 2023
to: President Joe Biden
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW
Washington, DC 20500
Dear President Biden,
We, the undersigned, call on you to immediately sign, on behalf of the United States, the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), also known as the “Nuclear Ban Treaty.”
Mr. President, January 22, 2023 marks the second anniversary of entry into force of the TPNW. Here are six compelling reasons why you should sign this treaty now:
1. It’s the right thing to do. As long as nuclear weapons exist, the risk increases with every passing day that these weapons will be used.
According to the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, the world stands closer to “doomsday” than at any point even during the darkest days of the Cold War. And the use of even one nuclear weapon would constitute a humanitarian disaster of unparalleled proportions. A full-scale nuclear war would spell the end of human civilization as we know it. There is nothing, Mr. President, that could possibly justify that level of risk.
Mr. President, the real risk we are facing is not so much that President Putin or some other leader will purposely use nuclear weapons, although that is clearly possible. The real risk with these weapons is that human error, computer malfunction, cyber attack, miscalculation, misunderstanding, miscommunication, or a simple accident could so easily lead inexorably to a nuclear conflagration without anyone ever intending it to.
The increased tension that now exists between the US and Russia makes an unintended launch of nuclear weapons so much more likely, and the risks are simply too great to be ignored or downplayed. It is imperative that you take action to reduce those risks. And the only way to reduce that risk to zero is to eliminate the weapons themselves. That is what the TPNW stands for. That is what the rest of the world demands. That is what humanity requires.
2. It will improve America’s standing in the world, and especially with our closest allies.
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the US response to it may have greatly improved America’s standing, at least in Western Europe. But the imminent deployment of a new generation of US “tactical” nuclear weapons to Europe could quickly change all that. The last time such a plan was attempted, in the 1980s, it led to enormous levels of hostility toward the US and nearly toppled several NATO governments.
This treaty has enormous public support across the world and especially in Western Europe. As more and more countries sign on to it, its power and significance will only grow. And the longer the United States stands in opposition to this treaty, the worse our standing will be in the eyes of the world, including some of our closest allies.
As of today, 68 countries have ratified this treaty, outlawing everything to do with nuclear weapons in those countries. Another 27 countries are in the process of ratifying the treaty and many more are lining up to do so.
Germany, Norway, Finland, Sweden, Netherlands, Belgium (and Australia) were among the countries who officially attended as observers at the first meeting of TPNW last year in Vienna. They, together with other close allies of the United States, including Italy, Spain, Iceland, Denmark, Japan and Canada, have voting populations who overwhelmingly support their countries signing the treaty, according to recent opinion polls. There are also hundreds of legislators in those countries who have signed the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) pledge in support of the TPNW, including the prime ministers of both Iceland and Australia.
It is not a question of “if,” but only of “when,” these and many other countries will join the TPNW and outlaw everything to do with nuclear weapons. As they do, US armed forces and the international corporations involved in the development and production of nuclear weapons will face increasing difficulties in carrying on with business as usual. It is already punishable with an unlimited fine and up to life in prison if found guilty of involvement with the development, production, maintenance, transportation or handling of (anyone’s) nuclear weapons in Ireland.
As it states very clearly in the US Law of War Manual, US military forces are bound by international treaties even when the US does not sign them, when such treaties represent “modern international public opinion” as to how military operations should be conducted. And already investors representing more than $4.6 trillion in global assets have divested from nuclear weapons companies because of the global norms that are shifting as a result of the TPNW.
3. Signing is nothing more than a statement of our intention to achieve a goal that the United States is already legally committed to achieving.
As you know very well, signing a treaty is not the same as ratifying it, and only once it is ratified do the terms of the treaty enter into force. Signing is just the first step. And signing the TPNW does not commit this country to a goal it is not publicly and legally committed to already; namely, the total elimination of nuclear weapons.
The United States has been committed to the total elimination of nuclear weapons since at least 1968, when it signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and agreed to negotiate the elimination of all nuclear arsenals “in good faith” and “at an early date”. Since then, the United States has twice given an “unequivocal undertaking” to the rest of the world that it would fulfil its legal obligation to negotiate the elimination of these weapons.
President Obama famously earned a Nobel Peace Prize for committing the United States to the goal of a nuclear-free world, and you yourself have reiterated that commitment on a number of occasions, most recently on August 1, 2022, when you pledged from the White House “to continue working toward the ultimate goal of a world without nuclear weapons.”
Mr. President, signing the TPNW would demonstrate the sincerity of your commitment to actually achieve that goal. Getting all the other nuclear-armed nations to also sign the treaty would be the next step, ultimately leading to ratification of the treaty and the elimination of all nuclear weapons from all countries. In the meantime, the United States would be no more at risk of nuclear attack or nuclear blackmail than it is at present, and until ratification, would still maintain the same arsenal of nuclear weapons as it does today.
In fact, under the terms of the treaty, the complete, verifiable and irreversible elimination of nuclear weapons only takes place well after ratification of the treaty, in accordance with a legally-binding timebound plan that all parties must agree to. This would allow for staged reductions according to a mutually agreed timetable, as with other disarmament treaties.
4. The whole world is witnessing in real time the reality that nuclear weapons serve no useful military purpose.
Mr. President, the whole rationale for maintaining an arsenal of nuclear weapons is that they are so powerful as a “deterrent” they would never need to be used. And yet our possession of nuclear weapons clearly did not prevent the invasion of Ukraine by Russia. Nor has Russia’s possession of nuclear weapons prevented the United States from arming and supporting Ukraine despite Russia’s threats.
Since 1945, the US has fought wars in Korea, Vietnam, Lebanon, Libya, Kosovo, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria. Possession of nuclear weapons did not “deter” any of those wars, nor indeed did possession of nuclear weapons ensure that the US “won” any of those wars.
The possession of nuclear weapons by the UK did not prevent Argentina from invading the Falkland Islands in 1982. The possession of nuclear weapons by France did not prevent them losing to insurgents in Algeria, Tunisia or Chad. The possession of nuclear weapons by Israel did not prevent the invasion of that country by Syria and Egypt in 1973, nor did it prevent Iraq from raining down Scud missiles on them in 1991. India’s possession of nuclear weapons did not stop countless incursions into Kashmir by Pakistan, nor has Pakistan’s possession of nuclear weapons stopped any of India’s military activities there.
It is no surprise that Kim Jong-un thinks nuclear weapons will deter an attack on his country by the United States, and yet you would no doubt agree that his possession of nuclear weapons makes such an attack more likely at some point in the future, not less likely.
President Putin threatened to use nuclear weapons against any country that tried to interfere with his invasion of Ukraine. That was not the first time anyone has threatened to use nuclear weapons, of course. Your predecessor in the White House threatened North Korea with nuclear annihilation in 2017. And nuclear threats have been made by previous US Presidents and the leaders of other nuclear-armed nations going all the way back to the aftermath of World War II.
But these threats are meaningless unless they are carried out, and they are never carried out for the very simple reason that to do so would be an act of suicide and no sane political leader is likely to ever make that choice.
In your joint statement with Russia, China, France and the UK in January of last year, you clearly stated that “a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.” The G20 statement from Bali reiterated that “the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons is inadmissible. The peaceful resolution of conflicts, efforts to address crises, as well as diplomacy and dialogue, are vital. Today’s era must not be of war.”
What do such statements mean, Mr. President, if not the utter pointlessness of retaining and upgrading expensive nuclear weapons that can never be used?
5. By signing the TPNW now, you can discourage other countries from seeking to acquire nuclear weapons of their own.
Mr. President, despite the fact that nuclear weapons do not deter aggression and do not help win wars, other countries continue to want them. Kim Jong-un wants nuclear weapons to defend himself from the United States precisely because we continue to insist that these weapons somehow defend us from him. It is no surprise that Iran might feel the same way.
The longer we go on insisting that we must have nuclear weapons for our own defense, and that these are the “supreme” guarantee of our security, the more we are encouraging other countries to want the same. South Korea and Saudi Arabia are already considering acquiring their own nuclear weapons. Soon there will be others.
How can a world awash in nuclear weapons possibly be safer than a world without any nuclear weapons? Mr. President, this is the moment to seize the opportunity to eliminate these weapons once and for all, before more and more countries are engulfed in an uncontrollable arms race that can have only one possible outcome. Eliminating these weapons now is not just a moral imperative, it is a national security imperative.
Without a single nuclear weapon, the United States would still be the most powerful country in the world by a very wide margin. Together with our military allies, our military spending outpaces all our potential adversaries put together many times over, every single year. No country on earth comes close to being able to seriously threaten the United States and its allies – unless they have nuclear weapons.
Nuclear weapons are the global equalizer. They enable a comparatively small, poor country, with its people virtually starving, to nevertheless threaten the mightiest world power in all of human history. And the only way to finally eliminate that threat is to eliminate all nuclear weapons. That, Mr. President, is a national security imperative.
6. There is one final reason for signing the TPNW now. And that is for the sake of our children and grandchildren, who are inheriting a world that is literally burning down in front of our eyes as a result of climate change. We cannot adequately address the climate crisis without also addressing the nuclear threat.
You have taken important steps to address the climate crisis, through your infrastructure bill and the inflation reduction act. You have been hampered by Supreme Court decisions and a difficult Congress from achieving more of what you know is needed to fully address this crisis. And yet, trillions of taxpayer dollars are being poured into developing the next generation of nuclear weapons, along with all the other military hardware and infrastructure you have signed off on.
Mr. President, for the sake of our children and grandchildren, please use this opportunity to switch gears and begin the transition to a sustainable world for them. You don’t need Congress or the Supreme Court to sign a treaty on behalf of the United States. That is your prerogative as President.
And by signing the TPNW, we can begin the monumental shift of resources that is needed from nuclear weapons to climate solutions. By signalling the beginning of the end of nuclear weapons, you would be enabling and encouraging the vast scientific and industrial infrastructure that supports the nuclear weapons industry to begin to make that transition, along with the billions in private finance that support that industry.
And most importantly, you would be opening up a door to improved international cooperation with Russia, China, India and the EU without which no action on climate will be sufficient to save the planet.
Mr. President, as the first country to develop nuclear weapons and the only country to have ever used them in war, the United States bears a special moral responsibility to ensure they are never used again. As you yourself said in a speech on January 11, 2017, “If we want a world without nuclear weapons—the United States must take the initiative to lead us there.” Please, Mr. President, you can do this! Please take the first clear step to nuclear abolition and sign the Nuclear Ban Treaty.
Yours sincerely,
* Organizations in bold = official signatories, organizations not in bold are for identification purposes only
Timmon Wallis, Vicki Elson, Co-Founders, NuclearBan.US
Kevin Martin, President, Peace Action
Darien De Lu, President, US Section, Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom
Ivana Hughes, President, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation
David Swanson, Executive Director, World Beyond War
Medea Benjamin, Jodie Evans, Co-Founders, CodePink
Johnny Zokovitch, Executive Director, Pax Christi USA
Ethan Vesely-Flad, Director of National Organizing, Fellowship of Reconciliation (FOR-USA)
Melanie Merkle Atha, Executive Director, Episcopal Peace Fellowship
Susan Schnall, President, Veterans For Peace
Hanieh Jodat, Partnerships Coordinator, RootsAction
Michael Beer, Director, Nonviolence International
Alan Owen, Founder, LABRATS (Legacy of the Atomic Bomb. Recognition for Atomic Test Survivors)
Helen Jaccard, Manager, Veterans For Peace Golden Rule Project
Kelly Lundeen and Lindsay Potter, Co-Directors, Nukewatch
Linda Gunter, Founder, Beyond Nuclear
Leonard Eiger, Ground Zero Center for Nonviolent Action
Felice and Jack Cohen-Joppa, Nuclear Resister
Nick Mottern, Co-coordinator, Ban Killer Drones
Priscilla Star, Director, Coalition Against Nukes
Cole Harrison, Executive Director, Massachusetts Peace Action
Rev. Robert Moore, Executive Director, Coalition For Peace Action (CFPA)
Emily Rubino, Executive Director, Peace Action New York State
Robert Kinsey, Colorado Coalition for the Prevention of Nuclear War
Rev. Rich Peacock, Co-Chair, Peace Action of Michigan
Jean Athey, Secretary of the Board, Maryland Peace Action
Martha Speiss, John Raby, Peace Action Maine
Joe Burton, Treasurer of the Board, North Carolina Peace Action
Kim Joy Bergier, Coordinator, Michigan Stop The Nuclear Bombs Campaign
Kelly Campbell, Executive Director, Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility
Sean Arent, Nuclear Weapons Abolition Program Manager, Washington Physicians for Social Responsibility
Andrea Jones, Government Relations and Public Policy Director, Georgia WAND Education Fund, Inc.
Lizzie Adams, Green Party of Florida
Lois Gagnon, Co-Chair, Green-Rainbow Party of Massachusetts
Doug Rawlings, Veterans For Peace Maine Chapter
Mario Galvan, Sacramento Area Peace Action
Gary Butterfield, President, San Diego Veterans For Peace
Michael Lindley, President, Veterans For Peace Los Angeles
Dave Logsdon, President, Twin Cities Veterans For Peace
Bill Christofferson, Veterans For Peace, Milwaukee Chapter 102
Philip Anderson, Veterans For Peace Chapter 80 Duluth Superior
John Michael O’Leary, Vice President, Veterans For Peace Chapter 104 in Evansville, Indiana
Jim Wohlgemuth, Veterans For Peace The Hector Black Chapter
Kenneth Mayers, Chapter Secretary, Veterans for Peace Santa Fe Chapter
Chelsea Faria, Demilitarize Western Mass
Claire Schaeffer-Duffy, Program Director, Center for Nonviolent Solutions, Worcester, MA
Mari Inoue, Co-Founder, Manhattan Project for a Nuclear-Free World
The Rev. Dr. Peter Kakos, Maureen Flannery, Nuclear Free Future Coalition of Western Mass
Douglas W. Renick, Chair, Haydenville Congregational Church Peace and Justice Steering Committee
Richard Ochs, Baltimore Peace Action
Max Obuszewski, Janice Sevre-Duszynka, Baltimore Nonviolence Center
Arnold Matlin, Co-Convenor, Genesee Valley Citizens for Peace
The Rev. Julia Dorsey Loomis, Hampton Roads Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (HRCAN)
Lorie Cartwright, Trustee, New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution Inc.
Jessie Pauline Collins, Co-Chair, Citizens’ Resistance at Fermi Two (CRAFT)
Keith Gunter, Chair, Alliance To Halt Fermi-3
Hendrica Regez, Chair, Galena Green Team
Julie Levine, Co-Director, MLK Coalition of Greater Los Angeles
H.T Snider, Chair, One Sunny Day Initiatives
Ellen Thomas, Director, Proposition One Campaign for a Nuclear-Free Future
Lynn Sableman, Branch President, WILPF St. Louis
Mary Faulkner, President, League of Women Voters of Duluth
Sister Clare Carter, New England Peace Pagoda
Tracy Powell, No More Bombs
Ann Suellentrop, Program Director, Physicians for Social Responsibility – Kansas City
Robert M. Gould, MD, President, San Francisco Bay Physicians for Social Responsibility
Cynthia Papermaster, Coordinator, CODEPINK San Francisco Bay Area
Patricia Hynes, Traprock Center for Peace and Justice
Christopher Allred, Rocky Mountain Peace and Justice Center
Jane Brown, Newton Dialogues on Peace and War
Steve Baggarly, Norfolk Catholic Worker
Mary S Rider and Patrick O’Neill, Founders, Father Charlie Mulholland Catholic Worker
Jill Haberman, Sisters of St. Francis of Assisi
Rev. Terrence Moran, Director, Office of Peace, Justice, and Ecological Integrity/Sisters of Charity of Saint Elizabeth
Thomas Nieland, President Emeritus, UUFHCT, Alamo, TX
Henry M. Stoever, Co-Chair, PeaceWorks Kansas City
Rosalie Paul, Coordinator, PeaceWorks of Greater Brunswick, Maine
New York Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (NYCAN)
Craig S. Thompson, White House Antinuclear Peace Vigil
Jim Schulman, President, A Thousand Friends of Virginia’s Future
Mary Gourdoux, Border Peace Presence
Alice Sturm Sutter, Uptown Progressive Action, New York City
Donna Gould, Rise and Resist NY
Anne Craig, Reject Raytheon Asheville
Nancy C. Tate, LEPOCO Peace Center (Lehigh-Pocono Committee of Concern)
Marcia Halligan, Kickapoo Peace Circle
Marie Dennis, Assisi Community
Mary Shesgreen, Chair, Fox Valley Citizens for Peace & Justice
Jean Stevens, Director, Taos Environmental Film Festival
Mari Mennel-Bell, Director, JazzSLAM
Diana Bohn, Coordinator, Nicaragua Center for Community Action
Nicholas Cantrell, President, Green Future Wealth Management
Mary Hanson, Chair, Seattle Fellowship of Reconciliation
Charles Michaels, Coordinator, Pax Christi Baltimore
Sven Lovegren, Coordinator, UUCA Peace Network
Rachel Roberts Bliss, Founder and Administrator, Western North Carolina for Peace
Jane Leatherman Van Praag, President, Wilco Justice Alliance (Williamson County, TX)
Ernes Fuller, Vice Chair, Concerned Citizens for SNEC Safety (CCSS)
The World Is My Country
Carmen Trotta, Catholic Worker
Paul Corell, Shut Down Indian Point Now!
Patricia Always, West Valley Neighborhoods Coalition
Thea Paneth, Arlington United for Justice with Peace
Carol Gilbert, OP, Grand Rapids Dominican Sisters
Susan Entin, Church of St. Augustine, St. Martin
Maureen Doyle, MA Green Rainbow Party
Lorraine Krofchok, Director, Grandmothers for Peace International
Jasmin Nario-Galace, Facilitation Committee, Pax Christi Asia-Pacific
Bill Kidd, MSP, Convenor, Scottish Parliament Cross Party Group on Nuclear Disarmament
Ed Lehman, President, Regina Peace Council
Dr David Hutchinson Edgar, Chairperson, Irish Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament / An Feachtas um Dhí-Armáil Núicléach
Marian Pallister, Chair, Pax Christi Scotland
Ranjith S Jayasekera, Vice President, Sri-Lanka Doctors for Peace and Development
Juan Gomez, Chilean Coordinator, Movimiento Por Un Mundo Sin Guerras Y Sin Violencia
Darien Castro, Co-Founder, Wings for Amazon Project
Loreta Castro, Co-President, Pax Christi Philippines
Lynda Forbes, Secretary, Hunter Peace Group Newcastle, Australia
Nick Deane, Convenor, Marrickville Peace Group, Australia
MARHEGANE Godefroid, Coordinator, Comité d’Appui au Développement Rural Endogène (CADRE), Democratic Republic of Congo
Anselmo Lee, Pax Christi Korea
Edwina Hughes, Coordinator, Peace Movement Aotearoa
Kevin McBride, Pax Christi Aotearoa New Zealand
Gerrarik Ez Eibar (No a la Guerra)
Terrible News for people and the environment, but great for the nuclear power industry. The hoax that nuclear power can solve the climate crisis in time to avert catastrophic effects of global warming.
10 Big Wins for Nuclear Energy in 2023
1. Vogtle 3 Nuclear Power Plant in GA
It entered commercial operation in Waynesboro, Georgia on July 31, 2023, becoming the nation’s first new reactor to connect to the grid since 2016. The expansion project received approximately $12 billion in loan guarantees from the U.S. and will cost GA ratepayers billions of dollars.
2. Advanced Reactor Licensing NUSCALE POWER
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission issued its final rule in February to certify NuScale Power’s 50-megawatt power module thanks to technical and licensing work supported through industry awards with DOE. It will use a more radioactive highly enriched uranium fuel. Plans are to approve many more nuclear reactors.
3. Scaling Up Clean Hydrogen Production
Constellation’s Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station started clean hydrogen production in Oswego, New York earlier this year. The Davis-Besse and Prairie Island projects in Ohio and Minnesota plan to generate hydrogen in 2024. Three hubs (the Mid-Atlantic, Midwest, and Heartland) will use nuclear energy as part of their projects to generate clean hydrogen for the regions.
4. Fueling Future Reactors- HALEU DEMONSTRATION
Centrus Energy Corporation produced the nation’s first 20 kilograms of high-assay low-enriched uranium, a crucial material required by many advanced reactor designs. The production was the first of its kind in the U.S. in more than 70 years and completed a key milestone in DOE’s HALEU Demonstration project in Piketon, Ohio, a community already suffering the devastating health effects from years of DOE nuclear enterprises there.
5. Expanding Testing Capabilities
Idaho National Laboratory (INL) made several enhancements to its TREAT reactor to support the next wave of innovation for nuclear energy. The lab developed a specialized capsule to enable transient testing on fast reactor fuels as part of a joint project between the United States and Japan. The two countries plan to test mixed oxide and metallic alloy fuels next year at TREAT, which will be the first of their kind in the world in more than two decades.
6. Fueling University Research
TRIGA International delivered 30 new fuel elements to Penn State this fall to help fuel its research reactor. It was the first shipment of new TRIGA fuel in more than a decade thanks to DOE-supported upgrades to the company’s fuel fabrication facility in Romans, France. The upgrades restore an important fuel supply for the world’s 35 TRIGA reactors, including a dozen at U.S. universities and colleges.
7. MARVEL
TRIGA International will also provide fuel for DOE’s upcoming microreactor project. MARVEL achieved 90 percent final design this fall and is mature enough to start fabricating key reactor components and systems. MARVEL is a sodium-potassium-cooled reactor that will be built inside INL’s TREAT facility. It will be used to advance microreactor technologies and demonstrate end-user capabilities for industry.
8. Consent-Based Siting Progress
DOE is using a consent-based siting process to identify one or more federal consolidated interim storage facilities for the nation’s spent nuclear fuel. The Department awarded $24 million this year to 12 project teams to form its first ever consortia focused on its consent-based siting activities for federal consolidated interim storage. Target communities include Native American reservations, poor communities and cash-strapped universities.
9. All Aboard Atlas
DOE also built one of the safest trains in the world! The 12-axle railcar will be used to safely and securely transport the nation’s spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste to future storage and disposal facilities in the United States. (Mobil Chernobyl)
10. COP28
And finally, nuclear energy enjoyed several successes on the world stage, including its inclusion into the final COP28 deal in Dubai to accelerate its use. The U.S. joined dozens of like-minded countries in making landmark pledges at COP28 to triple global nuclear capacity by 2050 and to mobilize more than $4.2 billion in government-led investments to deliver a global commercial nuclear fuel market that is free from Russian influence.
Hans M. Kristensen
Federation of American Scientists
Hello everyone, we successfully blocked all three entrances at the United States mission to the UN today, Nov 30, 2023, since the US refuses to even send a delegate to consider the TPNW. About 15 people were arrested during a nonviolent action that lasted a little over two hours. Archbishop Wester came down to offer us his support and encouragement.
Second Meeting of States Parties to the TPNW opens with focus on the humanitarian impacts of nuclear weapons
The Second Meeting of States Parties to the TPNW began on Monday at the UN in New York. This week, delegates will take stock of progress under the treaty and discuss and decide next steps to further strengthen the treaty.
The opening session of the Second Meeting of States Parties to the TPNW opened with addresses by the High Representative for Disarmament Affairs, Izumi Nakamitsu, on behalf of the UN Secretary-General, the International Committee of the Red Cross, the Executive Director of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, Melissa Parke. Ms. Parke highlighted the impact of the treaty so far, stating:
Like other weapons of mass destruction, nuclear weapons are now internationally banned. And that in itself is a great stride forward. Our treaty has been in force for less than three years, but already it is having a demonstrable impact.
Read her full statement here. The delegates also heard from Sueichi Kido, Secretary General of Nihon Hidankyo and survivor of the bombing of Nagasaki, who represented survivors of nuclear weapon explosions.
The meeting continued on Monday afternoon and Tuesday morning with an interactive thematic discussion on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons, with panels covering why the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons is the basis for prohibition, and exploring areas of opportunity for new research and innovative policies. Karina Lester spoke on the panel on Tuesday morning, presenting her expertise as a second generation nuclear test survivor from Australia.
More than sixty states spoke as part of the General Debate - expressing their support for the TPNW, their concern about rising nuclear weapons risks and the devastating humanitarian and environmental consequences of nuclear weapons and challenging the misguided and outdated theory of deterrence.
Austria spelled it out clearly:
The assumed security benefits of nuclear weapons and nuclear deterrence do not hold up against this new evidence and that a collective paradigm shift away from nuclear weapons is urgently needed.
Many also welcomed the Treaty’s Vienna Action Plan - and the work to implement it, including the new countries to have joined the Treaty since the First Meeting of States Parties.
Civil society also spoke to the UN meeting. A joint statement endorsed by 26 nuclear affected community-led organisations, and supported by a further 45 allied organisations, was delivered by Benetick Maddison, who declared:
We are people bound together by what nuclear weapons have inflicted. Our lives, our lands, our waters, and our communities were permanently changed by the development, testing and use of nuclear weapons. Our struggles against radioactive violence have continued for many decades, throughout the generations. We have the right and responsibility to speak about what nuclear weapons really do… We call on States Parties to the TPNW to push relentlessly for its universalisation.
A delegation of 23 parliamentarians from 14 countries also addressed the conference in a joint statement delivered by Guillaume Defossé (Belgian parliament) to express their resolute determination to universalise the TPNW.
States will continue the debate to discuss in greater detail the implementation of the Treaty - with reports on work on nuclear disarmament verification, victim assistance and environmental remediation and universalising the Treaty, amongst other topics in the days to come.
COP28 - U N Nuclear Weapons Ban Treaty 2nd Meeting- Intersectionality Event
When:
Thursday, November 30th 12:30-2pm in New York, 9:30-11pm in Dubai
Where:
In New York for 2MSP- The Bahá’i International Community’s United Nations Office in New York (866 UN Plaza, short walk from UN building).
In Dubai for COP28 - speakers can join zoom call from hotel rooms/wherever
What:
A zoom call for activists at the COP28 and 2MSP to share information, ideas, goals
Zoom call to be livestreamed on youtube for others to watch: Youtube Link
To explore the intersectionality of the climate crisis and nuclear weapons issues. An opportunity for exploring this intersectionality as a way to build connections and learn from each other in these two movements. To acknowledge that we cannot address one issue without addressing the other
General program points:
- Conversation between organization members represented at both conferences to talk about the goals and expectations of their organizations at each meeting
- Sharing of ideas and connections
- Emphasizing the links between fossil fuels and nuclear weapons abolition
- Discussion about how the TPNW was made, what is in process for the FFT
- How we can learn from each other and support each other
- Q+A with activists at 2MSP and via Youtube Chat
Speakers/Agenda
Pairs need not feel pressured to take up their whole allotted 10 minutes, allows more time for Q+A at the end
12:30pm EST / 9:30pm GST:
Introduction by Timmon Wallis
12:35 EST / 9:35 GST:
Tuvalu
COP28: Gemma Nelson (FFNPT advisor)
2MSP: DPR Taniela K Siose
12:45 EST / 9:45 GST:
ICAN/FFNPT
COP28: Melissa Parke (ICAN)
2MSP: Rebecca Byrnes (FFNPT)
12:55 EST / 9:55 GST:
PeaceBoat
COP28: Emilie McGlone
2MSP: Molly Rosaaen
1:05 EST / 10:05 GST:
WILPF
COP28: Katrin Geyer
2MSP: Cherrill Spencer
1:15 EST / 10:15 GST:
IPB/WILPF
COP28: Sean Conner (IPB)
2MSP: Tamara Lorincz (WILPF)
1:25 EST / 10:25 GST:
IPPNW
COP28: Kuria Harrison
2MSP: Stella Ziegler
1:35 EST / 10:35 GST:
Q+A
2:00 EST / 11:00 GST:
Peace Action WI opposes Nuclear Power, including new schemes for Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, because of nuclear power’s hazardous radioactive pollution, nuclear waste dilemma, and exorbitant expense, as well as to its severe dangers, as exemplified by the Chornobyl and Fukushima nuclear catastrophes.
https://www.energyintel.com/0000018c-11f2-d3ae-af8f-7ff22dd00000
United States: Developing First-of-a-Kind Projects After NuScale Fiasco
Copyright © 2023 Energy Intelligence Group
Published: Mon, Nov 27, 2023
Author: Phil Chaffee, New York
As the nuclear industry in the US continues to reel from the collapse of NuScale's first-of-a-kind small modular nuclear reactor (SMNR) project in Idaho, all eyes are on the only two newbuild projects with anything close to developers committed to a first-of-a-kind deployment: Rocky Mountain Power's plans for a Natrium reactor in Kemmerer, Wyoming, and Dow's plans to build Xe-100 high-temperature SMRs at its UCC Seadrift operation in Texas. Both projects are recipients of the US Department of Energy's (DOE's) Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program (ARDP) cost-share awards, and this is part of the reason that reactor developers Terrapower (for the Natrium) and X-energy (for the Xe-100) are better placed than NuScale to whether the current market uncertainty. Meanwhile, both hopeful advanced reactor vendors must still navigate key regulatory and fuel supply challenges, and must agree on commercial contracts with their respective first-of-a-kind customers. Given industry precedents, none of this will be an easy lift.
Locking in a first-of-a-kind customer is a make-or-break necessity in the new nuclear business, and many agree that it will be hard for NuScale Power to bounce back from the withdrawal of its customer for an initial deployment in Idaho. Many existing nuclear operators in the US are interested in or even committed to new nuclear, but generally only as a "fast follow" developer after some other developer takes on first-of-a-kind risks. This puts both Dow and Rocky Mountain Power parent company PacifiCorp in a unique place, as they work to help advance demonstration projects from X-energy and Terrapower.
Unlike Terrapower and X-energy's ARDP-backed first-of-a-kind projects, NuScale's Idaho project "was awarded non-competitively," according to a September 2022 US Government Accountability Office report. NuScale's project was also front-loaded with federal cost share funding, whereas ARDP maintains a 50-50 cost share through the program. These may be just a couple of the reasons, along with a failure to properly implement risk mitigation strategies, that Congress in a November 2021 infrastructure bill shifted ARDP out of the DOE Office of Nuclear Energy and over to the Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations.
Different Financing, Risk Strategies
For the moment, X-energy, which in the wake of the NuScale debacle was forced to cancel its plans to go public, has been most impacted by shifting market sentiment on new nuclear risks. The Rockville, Maryland-based company also laid off nearly 100 employees earlier this month as it refocused on Dow and the ARDP. "X-energy recently restructured some of our internal operations to better align company activities with our near-term priorities and objectives, notably our initial deployment" under ARDP with the DOE and Dow, X-energy spokesperson Robert McEntyre told Energy Intelligence. "Activities that are critical to maintaining the Seadrift site deployment and commissioning schedule have not been impacted," he continued, and the restructuring will have "no impact" on a construction permit application or the regulatory engagement process.
Terrapower, meanwhile, has the ability to ignore market cycles because it is entirely private and is a showpiece investment of billionaire Bill Gates, who also serves as its chairman. Between this backing and the ARDP, this allows Terrapower to offer Rocky Mountain Power, a division of PacifiCorp, something unseen in the nuclear industry for the past two decades: a fixed-price turnkey contract to supply the first-of-a-kind Natrium reactor. Under the scheme being contemplated by Terrapower and PacifiCorp, Terrapower will be the licensee and owner of the Kemmerer project through the construction period, and will only turn it over to Rocky Mountain Power — at a price agreed prior to construction — once the plant is operational. "If it doesn't work, that's not really on the backs of our customers," Gary Hoogeveen, the president and CEO of Rocky Mountain Power, told the Nov. 9 New Nuclear Capital conference in New York. "Terrapower isn't expecting PacifiCorp's customers to take the technology risk."
The commercial relationship between Dow and X-energy is much less delineated, for the moment. The two companies are "continuing to work together to develop the full project delivery and operating structure" for the UCC Seadrift first-of-a-kind XE-100s, said X-energy's McEntyre. Even as this is up in the air, X-energy must continue to raise money for its not-insignificant development and regulatory costs, even with the ARDP cost share. "We will continue to fund operations with private capital, grant awards and cooperative customer agreements just as we have since the company’s founding 14 years ago," said McEntyre. "X-energy founder and Executive Chairman Kam Ghaffarian and an investment vehicle affiliated with Ares Management" — a special purpose acquisition company that had been slated to help X-energy go public via a merger — "have both invested additional private equity into the company and will lead a new round of private capital financing."
Both Dow and PacifiCorp must ultimately agree on a price for their respective advanced nuclear reactors before construction proceeds, but while there is surely a limit to price, neither developer is likely to judge the price purely on a levelized cost of electricity basis. In both cases, Dow and Pacificorp are attracted by the potential reliability of nuclear, in contrast to non-dispatchable renewable sources. But they are also attracted to the respective advanced nuclear attributes of the specific designs. Dow has a constant demand for “high-temperature, high-quality steam on our sites,” Dow North American Business Director Kreshka Young said earlier this year, and this might be ideally served by a high-temperature design such as the Xe-100. For its part, PacifiCorp is attracted by the Natrium's ability to load-follow in a Northwest US grid that will be increasingly dominated by variable renewables. While the Natrium design will typically operate at 340 megawatts electrical of power, this can peak up to 500 MW and down to 150 MW, said Hoogeveen. "It ramps like a natgas [natural gas] peaker plant," and it's "more valuable to be able to load-follow."
-
THE GUARDIAN
Why is the US ramping up production of plutonium ‘pits’ for nuclear weapons?
Edward Helmore
Nov 26, 2023
The Pentagon is concerned about the the US nuclear arsenal’s viability, but critics worry about a renewed arms race
All 1,900 submarine-launched missiles would be refreshed after the first 800 plutonium ‘pits’ are installed in the Sentinel ICBM systems. Photograph: Woohae Cho/AFP/Getty Images On one side of the US – on New York’s Staten Island – the US army corps of engineers began this month to remove the radioactive remnants of Robert Oppenheimer’s Manhattan Project that produced the atomic bombs that ended the second world war. Meanwhile, 2,000 miles away, at the Los Alamos national laboratory north of Santa Fe in New Mexico, on the same site that developed and assembled the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, work is being ramped up to produce plutonium “pits” – spherical shells about the size of bowling balls that are a vital component of warheads in the US nuclear arsenal.
Both in their own way tell the story of the nuclear age, but one is historic housekeeping – in 1939, 1,200 tons of high-grade uranium ore was purchased and transferred from the Belgian Congo to Staten Island, where there are still traces of radioactive contamination – and the other is far more controversial and very current......
Candle message from Hiroshima
Disarmament Grows More Distant as US Plans Another “Upgrade”
Disarmament proponents have called the B61 bomb upgrade “an irresponsible escalation of the new nuclear arms race.”
Jon Letman , TRUTHOUT, November 20, 2023
In October, the United States Department of Defense announced plans to develop a new version of the B61 nuclear gravity bomb. The new variant, the thirteenth modification of a nuclear weapon first developed in the 1960s, will be called the B61-13. Development is subject to authorization by Congress.
According to a Department of Defense press release, the B61-13 reflects a “changing security environment and growing threats from potential adversaries.” Development of the bomb would not increase the overall number of weapons in the U.S. stockpile, the release said.
The bomb’s predecessor, the B61-12, was announced during the Obama administration and went into production last year. It is being deployed to military bases in five NATO countries (Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey).
Bottom of Form
The B61-13 will not be deployed in Europe, but instead housed at U.S. bomber bases that will host its delivery systems, the B-2 and yet-to-be-completed B-21 bombers.
Like all U.S. nuclear weapons, the B61-13 will be assembled near Amarillo, Texas, at the Pantex Plant, which describes itself as “the nation’s primary assembly, disassembly, retrofit, and life-extension center for nuclear weapons.” Life-extension programs are designed to upgrade and prolong the service life of nuclear weapons, keeping them in the arsenal for additional decades.
A first step toward anti-nuclear advocacy is becoming aware of the current sprawling state of the U.S. nuclear arsenal.
By
Matt Korda, a senior research fellow with the Federation of American Scientists’ Nuclear Information Project, told Truthout that the decision to develop the B61-13 appears to have been motivated more by politics than perceived military need.
Korda and fellow nuclear weapons analyst Hans Kristensen published a detailed summary report explaining the technological characteristics, political dynamics and background behind the B61-13. They suggest development of the B61-13 is a tradeoff to placate Republicans in Congress like Rep. Doug Lamborn of Colorado, Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana, and others who have argued for the retention of the B83, the last megaton-class weapon in the U.S. nuclear arsenal.
“Nuclear-armed countries are not planning on disarming any time soon. They’re planning on keeping nuclear weapons around longer than many of us are going to be alive.”
The idea was that the B61-13 could be developed in exchange for the B83, a weapon which may no longer be seen by the U.S. military as necessary if other conventional (nonnuclear) weapons could potentially threaten the same targets.
Under President Obama, the B83 was to be retired, but the bomb was revived by the Trump administration. And while Biden supports retiring the B83, that decision could be reversed as soon as 2025 under a different administration. There’s nothing that requires the next U.S. president to continue Biden’s nuclear plans.
“They could very easily say, ‘alright, great. Thanks for the B61-13. And we’re going to keep the B83’,” said Korda. However, the high cost of more additions without any cuts could erode support for both weapons systems.
Korda says it’s unclear what new capability the B61-13 offers that doesn’t already exist. “It’s hard for me to imagine a specific target or mission that the U.S. military would not be able to complete if they didn’t have this bomb.”
Old Bomb, New Bomb
If built, the B61-13 would have a maximum yield (the amount of energy, blast and radiation released in an explosion) of 360 kilotons, far larger than the B61-12, which has a maximum yield of 50 kilotons. By comparison, the bombs that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki had yields of 15 and 21 kilotons respectively.
Korda notes the importance of not oversimplifying comparisons in bombs because the “destructive power” of a nuclear weapon doesn’t scale perfectly with yield.
This sort of bomb could target military infrastructure or a leadership bunker buried deep underground with a variable yield, meaning the bomb’s explosive power could be “dialed up or down” depending on the target.
In a joint statement regarding the B61-13, House and Senate Armed Services Committee ranking members Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Alabama) and Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Mississippi) said they welcomed a variant of the B61 in order to “reach hardened and deeply-buried targets” but called it “only a modest step in the right direction.”
Referring to an October 2023 final report of the Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States, Rogers and Wicker said, “China and Russia are in a full-on arms race, and the U.S. is running in place. Dramatic transformation of our deterrent posture — not incremental or piecemeal changes — is required to address this threat.”
Neither Rogers nor Wicker’s offices responded to Truthout’s requests for comment.
Anna Newby, director of communications for the Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), told Truthout in an email that the NNSA “frequently investigate[s] opportunities, in coordination with congressional partners, to ensure the continued safety, security, and effectiveness of the U.S. nuclear arsenal.” Newby declined to comment specifically on the development of the B61-13.
In a statement, Melissa Park, executive director of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons called the B61 upgrade “an irresponsible escalation of the new nuclear arms race.”
The vast and complex web of nuclear modernization programs being pursued by the United States, an endeavor which could cost up to $2 trillion over 30 years, is thoroughly summarized by the Arms Control Association in this detailed fact sheet.
More Bombs, More Threats
The B61-13 announcement comes as Congress appears prepared to fund a new U.S. nuclear sea-launched cruise missile, which is opposed by the Biden administration.
These developments are happening nearly two years after Russia launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine, at a time when Russian President Vladimir Putin has made explicit nuclear threats and emphasized Russia’s own nuclear capabilities. Meanwhile, China is increasing its nuclear arsenal. In Israel, a country which refuses to comment on its own nuclear status, one Israeli minister recently said that using a nuclear weapon against Gaza was “one option.”
Modernization and expansion of nuclear arsenals by the world’s nine nuclear-armed nations continues despite the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) which was adopted by 122 countries in 2017 and entered into force in 2021. The TPNW (also called “nuclear ban treaty”) has been signed by 93 countries and ratified by 69 state parties. The treaty prohibits all aspects of nuclear weapons, from development and deployment to stockpiling and threat of use.
In late November, the second Meeting of States Parties to the TPNW will convene at the United Nations. Alexander Kmentt, director for Disarmament, Arms Control and Non-Proliferation for the Austrian Foreign Ministry and an active proponent of the nuclear ban treaty said, “We are at an inflection point on the nuclear weapons issue with an increasing re-emphasis on nuclear deterrence coupled with highly irresponsible nuclear rhetoric.”
In an email, Kmentt told Truthout “nuclear deterrence is a highly precarious theory” that could fail at any moment and, if it did, would have “catastrophic consequences on a global scale.” He added that “the nuclear taboo looks increasingly fragile and nuclear risks are higher today than probably ever.”
Kmentt says that the nonnuclear majority of nations argue for an “urgent paradigm shift [through the TPNW] … away from the ill-fated belief that a permanent threat of global mass destruction can be considered … as a legitimate way to provide security.”
Korda, who analyzes the complex, technical details of the world’s deadliest weapons, suggests that rather than focusing on the modifications of one specific bomb, the public would do well to pay attention to the bigger, general trends related to nuclear weapons.
“I think people should be aware of the fact that countries — not just the U.S. but certainly this includes the U.S. — are planning on maintaining nuclear weapons for the next 60, 70, 80 years,” said Korda. “Nuclear-armed countries are not planning on disarming any time soon. They’re planning on keeping nuclear weapons around longer than many of us are going to be alive. If we want to push countries toward disarmament, that’s going to be a long process.”
“Every time a country announces a new weapon, a new missile system, those have shelf lives of 50 years or sometimes more. Those are things that we’re going to be paying for throughout the entirety of our lives if you’re a taxpayer in one of those countries. And if you don’t live in one of those countries, then you still might pay for it anyway because it’s possible that one of these weapons is going to go off in our lifetimes, right?”
2023 Nuclear-Free Future Awards event on Nov 28,2023, where the winners will be announced
Prizes to be awarded at November 28 ceremony in New York City
UPDATE: The venue has changed! The Awards will now be held at the Blue Gallery, 222 E 46th St, New York, NY 10017. A reception at 6pm will be followed by the awards ceremony. All our welcome. The event is free and open to the public. The event is a joint presentation of Beyond Nuclear, International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation and Reverse the Trend.
The winners of the 2023 Nuclear-Free Future Awards, an annual event that honors the many heroes of the global anti-nuclear movement who work to rid the world of uranium mining, nuclear power and nuclear weapons, have now been announced.
They are:
Tina Cordova, a seventh generation native New Mexican, cancer survivor and the co-founder of the Tularosa Basin Downwinders Consortium. She has campaigned for more than 18 years to bring attention to the negative health effects suffered by the unknowing, unwilling, uncompensated, innocent victims of the first nuclear blast on Earth that took place at the Trinity site in New Mexico. Shockingly, the Trinity victims were never classified as downwinders but Tina and her allies are making extraordinary progress to ensure they are included under the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act.
Benetick Kabua Maddison, a young US-based Marshallese activist who last year became the Executive Director of the Arkansas-based Marshallese Educational Initiative. He works to educate both US and international audiences about the terrible legacy of the 67 US atomic tests conducted in the Marshall Islands between 1946 and 1958 and the ongoing health, environmental, and cultural consequences that affect multiple generations with previously unknown epidemics of birth defects and cancers. Benetick works for justice and for a universal commitment to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.
Hinamoeura Morgant-Cross, a French Polynesian in her mid thirties, whose realization that her own leukemia was a legacy of the French atomic tests in the South Pacific led her into activism. Hinamoeura works to ensure that the stories and experiences of the victims and their families will not be forgotten and to pressure the French government into both acknowledgement of responsibility and medical and financial support. She was elected to the Polynesian Assembly of Representatives last May and in September 2023 shepherded through a unanimous Assembly vote supporting the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.
Daniel Ellsberg for Lifetime Achievement, honored posthumously. (Ellsberg died earlier this year.) Ellsberg is best known for exposing US government decision-making about the Vietnam war when he leaked the Pentagon Papers. However, he was also a nuclear insider, a person who saw firsthand and even participated in planning for nuclear war, something he exposed in detail in his remarkable and chilling final book, The Doomsday Machine. Dan dedicated his life’s work to peace and the prevention of nuclear war.
The 2023 Nuclear-Free Future Awards ceremony will be held on Tuesday, November 28 at the Blue Gallery, 222 E 46th St, New York, NY 10017 in conjunction with the second Meeting of States Parties (MSP) to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons taking place at the United Nations. The Gallery will also be hosting a special exhibition of Marshallese, “Hope for a Better Tomorrow” . Live music will be performed by American multi-instrumentalist and composer, Peter Gordon together with pianist Max Gordon (Peter’s son) and by the Marshallese a cappella group, MARK Harmony.
Inaugurated in 1998, the Award was inspired by the 1992 World Uranium Hearing in Salzburg, Austria — the first time Indigenous peoples from around the world were able to testify together and in public about the discrimination and harm inflicted on them by the entire nuclear sector.
The Award was originally managed by the Nuclear-Free Future Foundation in Munich, Germany. It was the brainchild of journalist, Claus Biegert, and the Foundation’s creator, Franz Moll. It has now transitioned out of the Foundation and is coordinated by a small team including Biegert, Linda Pentz Gunter of Beyond Nuclear, Chuck Johnson of IPPNW and Günter Wippel of the Uranium Network.
The Nuclear-Free Future Awards, which provide cash prizes, are offered to three currently active individuals in recognition of their on-going efforts. There is also an honorary Lifetime Achievement Award.
How to donate to the Nuclear-Free Future Awards
If you are in the United States, please donate via the US fiscal sponsor, Beyond Nuclear. The best way is by check. Mail checks to: Beyond Nuclear, 7304 Carroll Avenue, #182, Takoma Park, MD 20912. Please write “NFFA” in the check subject line to distinguish it from donations to Beyond Nuclear. If you prefer to pay online, you can do so at this link: https://secure.actblue.com/donate/beyond-nuclear-1 However, you cannot earmark the funds so please let us know in a separate email to Linda Pentz Gunter — [email protected] — that your gift is intended to support the Awards.
If you are in Europe, please donate to the Nuclear-Free Future Awards via IPPNW Germany: Wire transfer donations to: IPPNWe.V., GLS Bank, IBAN: DE23 4306 0967 1159 3251 01, BIC: GENODEM1GLS and note “NFFAwards”
For those beyond Europe and the US, please use whichever donation method is easiest for you. And thank you for contributing! Please do not donate to the Awards via the Nuclear-Free Future Foundation website. Please use the above listed coordinates.
For more, visit the new Nuclear-Free Future Awards website, still under construction, here.
If you would like more detailed information about the 2023 Nuclear-Free Future Awards and future Awards events, please contact the organizers:
Claus Biegert: [email protected]; Linda Pentz Gunter: [email protected]; Chuck Johnson: [email protected]; Günter Wippel: [email protected]
Affected Communities Statement
To the Second Meeting of States Parties to the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, 2023.
We are people bound together by what nuclear weapons have inflicted. Our lives, our lands, our waters and our communities were permanently changed by the development, testing and use of nuclear weapons. Our struggles against radioactive violence have continued for many decades, throughout the generations. We have the right and responsibility to speak about what nuclear weapons really do.
War rages around us. It’s heartbreaking that nuclear weapons still exist in the 21st century. Are we adding to life or are we adding to death? Our common humanity is undermined by the existential threat hanging over us, that nuclear weapons will again unleash mass terror, contaminating our homes and our bodies, again.
Nuclear weapons do harm every day. From the mining of uranium, to the creation of the bomb, and the everlasting radioactive waste, our planet carries the scars of so many nuclear sacrifice zones. Nuclear colonialism has disproportionately impacted Indigenous Peoples and marginalised communities. Indigenous Peoples lands were taken. Bodies were used, people were bombed.
Indigenous Peoples carry responsibility and share connections to the lands, air, oceans and waters, acting as guardians of life. This includes all living creatures, animals and plants, some of which are sacred and others of which are food and medicine. Environmental violence impacts all of Mother Earth. Our sacred cultural heritage has been under attack, creating displacement for many survivors. We feel as though governments are waiting for us to vanish, hoping their responsibilities will die with us. But the effects continue for our children and grandchildren and beyond. We are anxious about the future. How much longer will we suffer?
As affected communities, we acknowledge the initial and robust advocacy of our predecessors and Elders. We have rights and dignity to firmly reclaim the life force that nuclear weapons attempted to take away. With the next generations, there is not only hope but also an assurance of continued advocacy for justice, as long as nuclear colonialism is not ended and justice is not granted to our communities.
Together with the global community, we have banned nuclear weapons. The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons holds great potential and is the first of its kind to take into account communities affected by nuclear weapons.
Healing comes through action.
We call for all states to do everything in their conscious power to implement Articles 6 and 7.
We call for the clean-up of our contaminated lands and waters. We call for assistance for victims and survivors, whether we are Indigenous Peoples, hibakusha, hibakunisei, nuclear veterans, downwinders or anyone whose lives are scarred by the intergenerational harms caused by the development and production of these weapons of mass destruction. We deserve recognition, respect and reparations.
States, institutions and companies that are enabling and funding nuclear destruction must stop.
We call for the nuclear-armed states in particular to join the treaty and be accountable for their actions.
We call on States Parties to the TPNW to push relentlessly for its universalisation.
We hope that governments of the day recognise that Indigenous Peoples rights matter, as do the rights of all victims of nuclear bombs everywhere.
Finally, let us all commit to put an end to the possession, development, testing, use and threat of use of nuclear weapons, so that not one more person will suffer as we have.
|
NEWS FROM BEYOND NUCLEAR For immediate release Contact: Kevin Kamps, Beyond Nuclear radioactive waste specialist, (240) 462-3216, [email protected] |
NEWLY UNCOVERED DOCUMENT REVEALS HOLTEC’S SECRETIVE, TRUE PLANS FOR PALISADES AND OTHER SHUTDOWN NUCLEAR POWER SITESApplication to DOE for Unprecedented Reactor Restart Reveals Ulterior Motive to Build
|
Nuclear Bomb Map Shows Impact of New US Weapon on World's Major Cities
Modelling of what a new nuclear warhead being developed by the United States military would do to cities around the world shows that, while far from the largest ever built, it would be capable of killing hundreds of thousands of people with a single detonation.
The Department of Defense (DOD) announced last week that it was developing a new variant of the B61 gravity bomb, which was among a series of weapons first produced in the 1960s during the Cold War nuclear arms race between the U.S. and the Soviet Union.
The B61-13 is intended to "strengthen deterrence of adversaries and assurance of allies" by providing the Biden administration "with additional options against certain harder and large-area military targets," the Pentagon said in a statement.
Officials added that the bomb variant is intended to be capable of an explosive yield similar to an older model, the B61-7, which the U.S. still has in its arsenal and of which 600 are estimated to have been produced. That warhead has a yield equivalent to 340 kilotons of TNT—around 23 times the destructive power of the one dropped on Hiroshima, Japan, at the end of World War II.......
What Message Does US Tomahawk-Carrying Submarine Send Amid Gaza War?
|
|
|
9 am PT - 12 pm ET - 4 pm UTC
- History of the Charter, the role and respective positions of the allied powers, and the antifascist resistance, controversial issues of its drafting including the absence of a right of peoples to self-determination
- Aims and principles – Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms; UN definition of “rule of law”
- Sovereign equality and non-intervention in domestic affairs
- Prohibition of the Use of Force and exceptions, the possibility of restriction by Right to Peace
- Multilateralism
- Modes of conflict settlement between States
Physicians for Social Responsibility: The Madison Common Council Voted Unanimously in Favor of “Back from the Brink” Nuclear Disarmament-Divestment Resolution
By Wispolitics, October 7, 2023
WBW Note: Cities like Charlottesville that have divested from all weapons have therefore also divested from nuclear weapons.
Madison, WI – Madison is now the third largest city in the US to limit investments in and contracts with nuclear weapon producers. It is the 76th US municipality to call on the US to take us “back from the brink” of nuclear war by working with other nuclear states to reach a multilateral, verifiable agreement to eliminate nuclear weapons and by:
- Renouncing the option of using nuclear weapons first.
- Ending the president’s sole, unchecked authority to launch a nuclear attack. -Taking 450 plus U.S. nuclear weapons off hair-trigger alert.
- Canceling Department of Defense plans to replace the entire U.S. arsenal with enhanced weapons.
Since Presidents Reagan and Gorbachev met in 1986, the number of nuclear weapons in the world has decreased from 60,000 to 13,000. But nuclear weapons have spread from five nations in 1965 to nine nations today. Climate change resulting in droughts is leading to mass migration and conflicts over water access. The US and Russia are engaged in a new nuclear arms race and
China, with 400 weapons, is trying to catch up. Russia has threatened to use tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine, some larger than the bombs dropped in 1945 on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. North Korea has threatened a nuclear attack if the US places nuclear bombers or submarines in South Korea.
After the United Nations Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons was adopted in 2017, Americans began a grassroots “Back from the Brink” campaign to convince US leaders to take nuclear disarmament seriously and join the Treaty.
“What we do can make a difference”, says Ann Behrmann, MD. “The nuclear freeze movement of the 1980’s led to a complete change in President Reagan’s thinking and to talks with President Gorbachev.”
The Madison Resolution also limits investments in and contracts with the world’s major nuclear weapons producers, making Madison the first city in the Midwest to do so. Oakland, CA, Berkeley, CA and Takoma Park, MD have been limiting investments and contracts since the 1990’s. In the last several years, other US cities have followed, including NYC, NY, Cambridge, MA, Corvallis, OR and Santa Barbara CA.
“Madison was one of the first American cities to declare itself a nuclear free zone in 1983. With this Resolution, Madison builds on its legacy and makes a financial commitment that matches its long-standing opposition to nuclear weapons”, says Paula Rogge, MD.
The Madison, WI Back from the Brink resolution was co-sponsored by 350 Madison, Dane County Chapter of United Nations Association, First Unitarian Society Social Justice Ministry, Four Lakes Green Party, Friends Meeting of Madison, Interfaith Peace Working Group, Madison Mennonite Church, Our Wisconsin Revolution, Physicians for Social Responsibility – Wisconsin, Prairie Unitarian Universalist Society Social Action Committee, Progressive Dane, Raging Grannies of Madison-Dane County, General Synod of the United Church of Christ, Veterans for Peace – Chapter 25, Wisconsin Network for Peace, Justice and Sustainability, Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom – Madison, and World BEYOND War – Madison Chapter.
THE HILL
Putin says Russia has tested nuclear-powered missile, could revoke atomic test ban
BY BRAD DRESS - 10/05/23 2:46 PM ET
Russian President Vladimir Putin confirmed Thursday that his nation has successfully tested an experimental nuclear-powered missile and warned that Moscow may revoke a ban on atomic bomb testing.
Dismantle the Doomsday Machine Abolish Nuclear Weapons
Remembering the U.S. atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki At this years’ event, with the Livermore Conversion Project, a collaborative of Bay Area peace groups including Tri-Valley CAREs. at the Livermore Nuclear Weapons Lab we honored the life of our dear friend and nuclear disarmament champion, Daniel Ellsberg.
Collection of speeches and talks by Daniel Ellsberg-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIUGPc-0z-Q
Editorial | Madison can lead in averting nuclear Armageddon
- Cap Times editorial
https://captimes.com/8cb49a43-05dc-5059-998f-aee9f1474225.html
Madison has a long tradition of standing on the right side of the history and the public policies that shape it.
This was one of the first cities in the United States to formally oppose South Africa’s apartheid regime, and to back that up with policies that blocked investment in firms that did business with that country’s racist government. Madison’s City Council took a strong stand against the Bush administration’s rush to war in Iraq. It has objected to threats to civil rights and civil liberties by presidents and policymakers of both major parties. It has also backed fair wages, union rights and economic justice campaigns.
But perhaps the most consistent example of Madison officially weighing in on national and international policy is its stance on nuclear disarmament.
Forty years ago, in 1983, the Madison City Council passed an ordinance declaring the city a “nuclear free zone,” backing the vibrant international movement to end weapons proliferation. At a time when former President Ronald Reagan was — to gasps, rather than laughter — gleefully joking, “I've signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever; we begin bombing in 5 minutes," Madison officials took seriously the threat of nuclear annihilation.
And they have continued to do so.
In a 2019 proclamation commemorating Aug. 6 as Hiroshima Day and Aug. 9 as Nagasaki Day, Madison officials called on the U.S. government to live up to its obligations under the 1970 Non-Proliferation Treaty and cancel nuclear weapons modernization initiatives.
Now members of the City Council have a chance to take an even bolder stand, and they should not hesitate to do so.
On Oct. 3, the council will take up the “Back from the Brink” resolution, which demands that U.S. officials move this country back from the brink of nuclear war by engaging in immediate negotiations with other nuclear powers to reduce the threat of nuclear war and by taking steps to eliminate nuclear arsenals.
This council debate comes at a point when the Doomsday Clock, which is maintained by the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, is ticking closer and closer to midnight.
“Because of the mounting dangers of the war in Ukraine … the Clock now stands at 90 seconds to midnight — the closest to global catastrophe it has ever been,” explained the Bulletin, after its Science and Security Board moved the hands of the Doomsday Clock forward this year.
As the scientists note: “Russia’s thinly veiled threats to use nuclear weapons remind the world that escalation of the conflict — by accident, intention, or miscalculation — is a terrible risk. The possibility that the conflict could spin out of anyone’s control remains high.”
While we agree with the scientists that Russia’s threats are a profound concern, we see threats on many fronts. The United States, Russia and other nations that have nuclear arsenals continue to modernize and expand them. Nations that do not have nuclear arsenals are seeking to obtain them.
The Biden administration and congressional leaders have a responsibility to take a leadership role in dialing back tensions — not just in Ukraine but globally. And when the administration and Congress fail to take the nuclear threat as seriously as need be, Americans must impress upon the president, upon senators, upon House members and upon the military-industrial complex that wields so much influence in Washington the urgency of the moment.
That’s what the Back from the Brink resolution does, with its call on the federal government to:
• Actively pursue a verifiable agreement among nuclear-armed states to eliminate their nuclear arsenals.
• Renounce the option of using nuclear weapons first.
• End the president's sole, unchecked authority to launch a nuclear attack.
• Take U.S. nuclear weapons off hair-trigger (launch ready) alert.
• Cancel the plan to replace the entire U.S. arsenal with enhanced weapons.
Those proposals parallel language contained in Back from the Brink resolutions that have already been passed by at least 73 U.S. cities and counties and five state legislatures.
In addition, the Madison Back from the Brink resolution adds language that commits the city to a policy of avoiding investments in corporations that profit from nuclear weapons development and proliferation. In that regard, Madison would join at least 13 other cities nationwide that have committed themselves to nuclear weapons-free investments and contracts.
“Some say nuclear disarmament is an issue that should be taken up with our Senators and Representatives rather than our City Council members. But with enough grassroots action, national policy can be changed,” explains Physicians for Social Responsibility Wisconsin as part of a coalition of local and statewide groups that’s been organized to support Madison’s Back from the Brink resolution.
Other members of the coalition include 350 Madison, the Dane County Chapter of United Nations Association, the First Unitarian Society’s Social Justice Ministry, the Four Lakes Green Party, the Friends Meeting of Madison, the Interfaith Peace Working Group, the Madison Mennonite Church, Our Wisconsin Revolution, the Prairie Unitarian Universalist Society Social Action Committee, Progressive Dane, the Raging Grannies of Madison and Dane County, the General Synod of the United Church of Christ, Veterans for Peace Chapter 25, the Wisconsin Network for Peace, Justice and Sustainability, Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, and Madison and World BEYOND War.
Add The Capital Times — whose founder, William T. Evjue, dedicated this newspaper to the advancement of justice and peace — to the list of supporters of the campaign.
We urge Madison council members to give the Back from the Brink resolution unanimous and enthusiastic support.
https://www.facebook.com/PSRWisconsin/
Military Times
:quality(70)/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/archetype/5CMM5N24WJFCNJM4ULRXURGNZ4.jpg)
How the ‘nuclear football’ remains a potent symbol of the unthinkable
The nuclear threat has been dormant in the public’s mind since the end the Cold War. But renewed attention due to the wild success of the film “Oppenheimer’' and rising tensions with Russia and China has brought the so-called nuclear football, the activation device for the U.S. arsenal, back into view.
The sighting of a military aide handling the football, closely following President Joe Biden as he exited a meeting with the United Kingdom’s prime minister on July 10, the day before the NATO summit during which the war in Ukraine was discussed, heightened already building tensions between NATO members and Russia.
|
Support the elimination of all Nuclear Weapons- sign the petition
https://www.codepink.org/nonukes
COMMON DREAMS
Top Medical Journals Publish Unprecedented Joint Call for the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons
"The nuclear-armed states must eliminate their nuclear arsenals before they eliminate us."
Leading medical journals published a joint editorial late Tuesday calling on world leaders to take urgent steps to reduce the risk of nuclear war—and eliminate atomic weapons altogether—as the threat of a potentially civilization-ending conflict continues to grow.
The call was first issued in The Lancet, The BMJ, JAMA, International Nursing Review, and other top journals. Dozens of other journals are expected to publish the editorial in the coming days ahead of the 78th anniversary of the U.S. nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
The editorial begins by noting that the hands of the Doomsday Clock are closer to midnight than ever before, reflecting mounting nuclear tensions amid Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
Read more:
https://www.commondreams.org/news/medical-journals-nuclear-weapons
TEWA WOMEN UNITED
Oppenheimer — And the Other Side of the Story
This week, “Oppenheimer” will open, a film that centers the creation and use of the atomic bomb through the story of J. Robert Oppenheimer.
Go see the movie if it calls to you. But please also take time to learn about the other side of the story and what unfolded at Tsankawi (also known as Los Alamos) and the Pajarito Plateau 80 years ago — the story that centers the Indigenous and land-based peoples who were displaced from our homelands, the poisoning and contamination of sacred lands and waters that continues to this day, and the ongoing devastating impact of nuclear colonization on our lives and livelihoods.
We’ve put together this resource list, with a focus on Indigenous and land-based communities, so you can learn more about our side of the story and ways to respond.
Together we are Beloved Community. Together we can grow a Culture of Peace.
https://tewawomenunited.org/2023/07/oppenheimer-and-the-other-side-of-the-story
|
|
||||||
|
A prominent Russian strategist, fearing that humanity has become "desensitized" to the risk of a nuclear war, is suggesting that the only way to prevent an all-out global apocalypse would be to detonate a single nuclear bomb in hopes that the resulting devastation would awaken such a profound mortal terror that no one would be able to consider launching a global nuclear exchange.
Sergey Karaganov's controversial essay is now being widely debated, debunked, and/or defended. That such a debate is even taking place should terrify everyone on our planet.
— Gar Smith
Why Russia "Needs to Consider a Nuclear Strike"
Here’s Why Russia Has to Consider Launching a Nuclear Strike on Western Europe
RT News
This month, there has been an active debate in Russia about the possibility of Moscow preemptively using nuclear weapons. Which would be at variance with the established doctrine. It began after the publication of an article by Professor Sergey Karaganov, which prompted a wide response from the domestic expert community.
While Karaganov has been advocating relaxing the rules, others have different opinions: for example, Fyodor Lukyanov thinks the West cannot be 'sobered up' by using the bomb, and Ilya Fabrichnikov believes Russia should not 'take NATO's bait' and unleash the ultimate weapon.
This is Karaganov’s follow up response to his critics.
If Things Continue as They Are, Moscow Will Have
No Choice but To Use the Ultimate Weapon
Sergey
MOSCOW (June 27, 2023) — During over seventy years of mutual deterrence, atomic weapons have saved the world. People just took this for granted. However, now we see that things have changed and the unthinkable is happening: the West is responsible for a major war in the underbelly of a major nuclear power.
The official history of the creation of these weapons is known, but in my opinion there is also a higher power at play. It is as if the Lord God saw that a large part of humanity had gone mad, having started two world wars in a generation, and gave us these nuclear weapons, which are weapons of the apocalypse. He wanted them to be, to be in the front of our minds, at all times, and to scare us.
But now people have lost their fear.
Over the last few decades in the United States, Western Europe and even partly in Russia, what I call “strategic parasitism” has spread: the belief that there can never be a major war and that there will never be a major war. People are accustomed to peace, and it is on this basis that modern Western ideology has grown. In addition, there is now an unprecedented amount of propaganda around, to an extent unprecedented event during the Cold War.
People are simply being fed lies, and they are afraid to say what they really think. As a result of more than 70 years of peace, the public's sense of self-preservation has become dysfunctional, and it is further stifled by the extraordinarily virulent agitprop, part of which claims that Russia would never be able to attack Western Europe.
Official Western propaganda pumps the idea that the West can do anything it likes and Moscow will just put up with it. This has now become very clear and vivid.
In recent years, Russia has begun to strengthen its nuclear deterrent, but the steps taken so far are woefully inadequate. We, too, became complacent at some point, following Western theories and recklessly overestimating the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons, which the West is now exploiting, and not by accident either. The little bureaucrats there keep saying: no, the Russians will never use nuclear weapons.
They do not want to hear anything different under any circumstances, as they don’t want to interrupt their desire for an endless war in Ukraine. Because their military-industrial complex is greater than ours, they just want to wear us down.
I hope we never use nuclear weapons, but the fact that we refuse to allow their use in all situations except in the case of mortal danger to the state itself seems to me to be reckless.
The US is tying Russia's hands in this way, hoping that in the long run this long war will cause an internal implosion. And, as a result, this would radically weaken its main rival, China, which will be left to fend for itself.
This is a strategic plan that is absolutely clear.
At the same time, having already thrown the Ukrainian people into the furnace, the Americans are pushing the Western Europeans into the same place, destroying the status they have held for five centuries. This policy also solves another problem — it destroys the Old World as a strategic player and potential competitor. In turn, the captured West European elites are driving their countries and peoples into the ground.
We would like to believe that our adversaries will come to their senses. Because if they don't, Russia's political-military leadership will be faced with a terrible moral choice and the need to make a hard decision. But I believe that our president must demonstrate his willingness to use nuclear weapons at some point.
But the question is who could and should be the target of such an attack. The Americans, as we all know, have been shamelessly lying when they say that we are preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Ukraine. This is monstrous nonsense, absolutely malicious, because of course the Ukrainians are a miserable, deluded people who are being driven to slaughter. But they are still our people, and we are not going to hit them.
If there are to be nuclear strikes, they should be aimed at countries in Western Europe that have been most supportive of the mercenary regime in Kiev.
Fortunately, we have begun to take steps up the ladder of nuclear deterrence. But we need to move faster and more decisively, even though their use would be, of course, a monstrous step and should be avoided if possible. But as the vector of development of the West, its elites and society — and its movement towards anti-human and post-human values show — all this clearly indicates an objective drift to an eventual thermonuclear war. We have to interrupt this process and save the world — avoiding, of course, super-violent actions if possible.
We have time, but we must realize that it is rather short. We have to use these few years to solve the problem of the West, to make it step back and mind its own business, because now, to distract from its own internal issues, it is trying to start wars all over the world.
Launching the current military operation was an important — and certainly correct — step, although in my view it should have been taken earlier. There are a number of other moves that can be made. In particular, it is worth making it clear to everyone in the West that any attack on Belarus will be equated to a blow to Russia and will have similar consequences.
Possible Russian measures could also include missile redeployments, tests of our strategic missiles at close range, as well as psychological actions and even the severing of diplomatic relations with those countries that play the most active Russophobic roles. Also possible is a measure such as warning all Russian speakers, all citizens of the former Soviet Union, and all people of goodwill to leave places that are potential targets of a nuclear strike.
This too could be a potentially powerful tool of deterrence. And all these people do not have to go to Russia: let them go to other states that do not have military facilities and do not help the Kiev regime and do not supply it with weapons and money — there are many such countries. People should return to Russia not out of fear, but out of their own free will.
When discussing a hypothetical atomic attack on Western Europe, the question arises: how would the US answer? Virtually all experts agree that under no circumstances would the Americans respond to a nuclear attack on their allies with a nuclear attack on our territory. Incidentally, even Biden has said so openly.
Russian military experts, however, believe that a massive conventional retaliatory strike could follow. It could be pointed out that this would be followed by even more massive nuclear strikes. And they would finish off Western Europe as a geopolitical entity. Which, of course, would be undesirable because, after all, we are to some extent Europeans and, to use Dostoyevsky's words, the old European stones are not alien to us.
When discussing such scenarios, the subject of China and its position inevitably comes up. Our strategic goals are the same, but our operational goals differ, of course. And if I were Chinese, I wouldn't be in a hurry to end the conflict in Ukraine, because it diverts US and Western attention and military power away from them and gives Beijing an opportunity to accumulate strength.
It's a perfectly normal, I would say respectful, position. And of course I do not want nuclear weapons to be used. First of all, for moral and ethical reasons: I think the Chinese and I agree on that.
And secondly, because the Chinese still have a small nuclear capability, it is undesirable for them to start a military and political competition in this area right now. In ten years' time they will have a first-class nuclear capability (and even in five to seven years' time their situation will change), and then the best option to prevent a major thermonuclear war will be to have a more powerful China in the front line, with Russia supporting and covering it, as the Chinese are supporting us now.
I fully understand the moral anguish of people who say: under no circumstances is the use of nuclear weapons conceivable or acceptable. To which I reply: my friends, I respect pacifists, but they exist and live in this world only because soldiers fight and die for them, just as our soldiers and officers are fighting now in Ukraine.
Professor Sergey Karaganov is the honorary chairman of Russia’s Council on Foreign and Defense Policy, and academic supervisor at the School of International Economics and Foreign Affairs Higher School of Economics (HSE) in Moscow
Related
- The US and its allies are playing 'Russian Roulette'. You'd almost think they want a nuclear war
https://www.rt.com/russia/578446-dmitry-trenin-sergey-karaganov/
- Why Russia cannot ‘sober up the West’ by using a nuclear bomb
https://www.rt.com/russia/578721-why-russia-cannot-sober-up-the-west/
- ‘Using nuclear war to save the world is like using a guillotine for a headache’: Russian experts respond to call for atomic strike
https://www.rt.com/russia/578218-experts-respond-to-call-for-atomic-strike/
- Why I disagree with the call for Russia to use its nuclear weapons against the West
https://www.rt.com/russia/578165-russia-shouldnt-use-nuclear-weapon/
Comment
Coleen Rowley — Karaganov is absolutely right in my opinion up to a point, including about the Western public being now so largely desensitized to the prospect of nuclear war that serves to erode (if not end) our prior consensus of "mutually assured destruction" that has, up till now, prevented a WWIII between nuclear superpowers.
The media and mind control in the West is so effective that almost no one worries about the nuclear escalation that is clearly happening. (As the NYC PSA put out, we just need to go inside and shut our windows.)
I don't think there is a right answer to the Russian experts' debate itself as to whether a limited nuclear strike on Europe (and then the retaliatory strikes that would follow) would serve to wake up ("sober up") the West and prevent total Armageddon (Karaganov's theory) or whether Russia's "taking the bait" to launch a nuclear strike (just as it's claimed they took the bait in launching their "strategic military operation" in Ukraine last year) will just quickly escalate to all-out Armageddon anyway (Karaganov's critics' theory who say launching a nuclear first strike to theoretically stop total destruction is like using a guillotine to treat a headache).
Formulating the correct answer to that unbelievably sickening debate is like counting angels dancing on the head of the pin. But what IS clear is that Western leaders either see this all as mere Russian bluffing or simply don't care if the world is destroyed--perhaps some like a Lindsey Graham (who lack ties to other humans but are totally power-driven) are all in, aka let's go for broke "Total War."
Karanganov may well hope or intend that these more serious threats that undergird this latest Russian "debate" serve to finally wisen/wake/sober-up the West but I'm pessimistic. That's a "Hail Mary" in my opinion at this point. Psychopaths like Sullivan-Blinken-Nuland Ilk are possessed not only of enormous self-confidence (actually blinding arrogance) but also of enormous focus and drive and leadership "courage," so will likely not be distracted by such worries.
The only good answer is to end the war in Ukraine but the reality is — barring a major miracle — we, the people of the world, are doomed.
‘This Is Hell’: Hiroshima Atomic Bomb Survivors Live in Fear of Another Nuclear Catastrophe
https://time.com/6280427/g7-nuclear-power-bomb-hiroshima/
WARHEADS TO WINDMILLS
https://warheadstowindmills.org/report/
|
NEWS FROM BEYOND NUCLEAR Rose Gardner, [email protected], 575-390-9634 Terry Lodge, Legal Counsel for DWM et al., [email protected], 419-205-7084 Stephen Kent, [email protected], 914-589-5988 |
|
NRC APPROVES NEW MEXICO NUCLEAR WASTE ‘INTERIM’ STORAGE FACILITY |
|
BUT A NEW STATE LAW AND FEDERAL COURT CHALLENGES COULD PREVENT THE PROJECT FROM GOING FORWARD |
|
LEA COUNTY, NEW MEXICO and WASHINGTON, D.C., May 9, 2023 --
Today, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) announced it approved licensing for Holtec International’s controversial consolidated interim storage facility (CISF) in southeastern New Mexico’s Lea County, not far from the Texas border. The facility is designed to store high-level radioactive waste from nuclear power plants across the U.S. But NRC approval notwithstanding, a recently enacted New Mexico State law and multiple federal court challenges may yet block the project. Holtec’s Bid to Enter the Nuclear Waste Storage Business Holtec International is a New Jersey-based company which manufactures radioactive waste containers and decommissions nuclear power plants. But, in an unprecedented scheme, Holtec recently sought to return to operations a reactor in Michigan which was already shut down and which it supposedly acquired for the purpose of decommissioning only. It has also proposed building two-dozen so-called Small Modular Nuclear Reactors (SMNRs) of its own design, using federal and state subsidies including $7.4 billion in U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)-issued nuclear loan guarantees. The SMNRs are proposed to be built in New Jersey, Michigan, and Ukraine. Holtec now seeks to branch out into consolidated storage and its associated high-level radioactive waste transportation. On the New Mexico CISF scheme it partnered with the Eddy-Lea Energy Alliance (ELEA), a quasi-governmental entity comprised of Eddy and Lea Counties (which border one another), as well as their county seats of Carlsbad and Hobbs, New Mexico. ELEA owns the targeted nuclear waste CISF site’s land surface, and would take a large cut of the proceeds. Giant Capacity May Signal Storing Foreign and Military Nuclear Waste The Holtec-ELEA nuclear waste CISF would store up to 173,600 metric tons of highly radioactive irradiated fuel (often euphemistically called “spent” nuclear fuel or SNF, despite the fact it is highly radioactive and lethal), as well as Greater-Than-Class-C (GTCC) radioactive waste from commercial nuclear reactors. The facility would hold up to 10,000 canisters of nuclear waste, inserted into pits in a platform which sits on the surface. Part of the canisters would stay above the natural land surface. “If opened, the site could become home to the biggest concentration of radioactive waste in the world,” reported Diane D’Arrigo, Radioactive Waste Project Director at Nuclear Information and Resource Service. The Holtec-ELEA CISF’s nuclear waste storage capacity would be in addition to another planned CISF some 40 miles to the east in Andrews County, Texas. If built, it would be able to store 40,000 metric tons of irradiated fuel and GTCC in above-ground dry casks. The Texas facility, proposed by Interim Storage Partners, LLC (ISP), was granted construction and operation license approval by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on September 13, 2021. Since the entire SNF inventory at U.S. commercial reactors is just over 90,000 metric tons, experts have questioned why the Texas and New Mexico facilities would need a combined capacity of 213,600 metric tons, and whether the projects may be aiming to store nuclear waste from abroad and/or from the military. There is precedent for shipping irradiated fuel from other countries to the U.S. for storage at Idaho National Labs. And in 2018, a test shipment of a mock SNF cask was transported from Europe to Colorado. Lead ISP partner Orano (formerly Areva) of France services the largest nuclear power reactor fleet of any single company in the western world. It lacks facilities in France to permanently dispose of the country’s own waste. The consortium backing the ISP facility includes Waste Control Specialists, LLC (WCS), a national dump for so-called “low-level” radioactive waste, located immediately adjacent to (and upstream of) the New Mexico border. WCS loudly proclaims its ties to the U.S. military, which needs to dispose of its own highly radioactive wastes. Nuclear Waste Transport Dangers Opening a CISF in the U.S. would trigger many thousands of shipments of domestic irradiated fuel across many of the Lower 48 states, through a large percentage of U.S. congressional districts. SNF canisters and transport casks are subject to so-called “routine” radiation emissions, as well as leakage and other failures, which would pose threats to thousands of communities along the transportation routes. “Transporting highly radioactive waste is inherently high-risk,” said Kevin Kamps, Radioactive Waste Specialist with Beyond Nuclear. “Fully loaded irradiated nuclear fuel containers would be among the very heaviest loads on the roads, rails, and waterways. They would test the structural integrity of badly degraded rails, for example, risking derailments. Even if our nation’s infrastructure gets renovated someday, the shipping containers themselves will remain vulnerable to severe accidents and terrorist attacks. They could release catastrophic amounts of hazardous radioactivity, possibly in densely populated urban areas.” “Even so-called ‘incident-free’ shipments are like mobile X-ray machines that can’t be turned off, in terms of the hazardous emissions of gamma and neutron radiation, dosing innocent passersby, as well as transport workers," Kamps added. Kamps’ February 24 letter to U.S. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, cc'd to governors and state Attorneys General across the U.S., warned of the dangers of transporting high-level radioactive waste. "The recent train wreck at East Palestine, Ohio demonstrates the urgency of the problem and the potential for a serious radiological accident from nuclear waste transport," he wrote. "Environmental toxicologists have expressed deep concern that detection and response to release of hazardous chemicals in East Palestine were ineffective and untransparent and failed to protect public health and safety. But if the train that derailed had been carrying SNF or other highly radioactive wastes, the consequences would have been much worse." The Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board has recommended spending a minimum of a decade to develop better irradiated nuclear fuel cask and canister designs before attempting to transport highly radioactive wastes. Yet Holtec and ISP expect their nuclear waste CISFs to open and start accepting shipments in just the next few years. State Laws Could Block CISF Projects Multiple lawsuits in federal appeals courts and state laws opposing storage and disposal of irradiated nuclear fuel in both New Mexico and Texas could upend both nuclear waste CISF schemes. Siting nuclear facilities is supposed to be consent-based, but both Texas and New Mexico have made it abundantly clear they do not consent. In advance of the NRC licensing the ISP facility in September 2021, the Texas legislature overwhelmingly approved a bill banning storage or disposal of high-level radioactive waste including SNF in the state, and directing the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality to deny state permits the ISP project needs. The measure passed the Texas Senate unanimously, and passed the Texas House 119-3. Texas Governor Greg Abbott then signed the bill into law. "This kind of bipartisan vote is very rare", said Karen Hadden, Executive Director of the Sustainable Energy and Economic Development (SEED) Coalition based in Austin, TX. "The message should be loud and clear: Texas doesn't want the nation's deadliest nuclear waste and does not consent to being a dumping ground." In the runup to the Legislature passing the law, opposition to the ISP project in Texas was widespread and vocal. Abbott and a bipartisan group of U.S. Congressional Representatives from Texas wrote strong letters to the NRC opposing the project. Andrews County, five other counties and three cities, representing a total of 5.4 million Texans, passed resolutions opposing importing nuclear waste from other states to Texas. School districts, the Midland Chamber of Commerce and oil and gas companies joined environmental and faith-based groups in opposing the ISP project. The City of Fort Worth, Texas submitted a Friend of the Court brief supporting appeals against ISP in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Strenuous opposition to nuclear waste CISFs is also widespread in New Mexico. The state recently enacted Senate Bill 53 (SB53) barring storage and disposal of highly radioactive wastes in New Mexico without its explicit consent. New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham signed SB53 into law on March 17, 2023, immediately after it had passed both houses of the State Legislature. Grisham has strongly objected to both nuclear waste CISFs on either side of New Mexico’s southeastern border since before she became governor in 2019. “I am thankful that the New Mexico Legislature voted to stop this dangerous nuclear waste from coming to our state, and for Governor Grisham for signing it into law,” said Rose Gardner of Eunice, New Mexico, co-founder of the environmental justice watchdog group Alliance for Environmental Strategies. Gardner’s hometown is very close to the ISP project site in Texas, as well as to the Waste Control Specialists, LLC (WCS) national dump for hazardous and so-called “low-level” radioactive waste. Every single one of thousands of rail shipments of highly radioactive waste bound for the ISP CISF would pass through Eunice. “I live less than five miles from the ISP site, yet my community in New Mexico has had no vote and no choice, and gave no consent for nuclear waste to be stored at the facility,” she said. “I have long been concerned about WCS and its voracious appetite for bringing more and more nuclear waste to my area, claiming it now needs a license for high-level radioactive waste because the waste disposal business wasn't making enough money. I hope my concerns will be heard by a higher court than the NRC." Gardner has served as a standing declarant in legal challenges to both the Holtec and the ISP CISFs in federal court. Lawsuits Argue CISFs Violate Federal Law Two sets of lawsuits seek to block the ISP project in Texas and the Holtec project in New Mexico on the grounds that they violate federal law. They have been pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit for years. In January 2023, the court rejected all opponents’ appeals against the Interim Storage Partners nuclear waste CISF in Texas. However, a separate federal court, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans, is still considering appeals against the ISP CISF from the State of Texas, as well as from Fasken Land and Minerals, LLC/Permian Basin Land and Royalty Owners. After being held in abeyance for several years, now that NRC has approved the license for the Holtec nuclear waste CISF in New Mexico, federal appeals against it are likely to move forward. The briefing phase of the D.C. Court of Appeals lawsuit is expected to resume soon, and other federal appeals are also ripe for judicial consideration in the 5th and 10th (Denver) circuits, pending final agency action. These lawsuits argue that nuclear waste CISFs violate federal law. Consolidated interim storage facilities are predicated on the assumption that the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) will enable SNF transportation by taking title to commercial reactor waste as it leaves the reactor sites, thus relieving the licensees of their liability for it. But transferring responsibility for highly radioactive nuclear waste from private businesses to the federal government is specifically prohibited by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as Amended (NWPA) -- unless and until a geologic repository is open and operating. By DOE’s own admission, an operating geologic repository remains at least 25 years away. The prohibition against DOE taking title to commercial reactor waste was included in the NWPA precisely to guard against “interim” storage sites becoming de facto permanent surface dumps for nuclear waste. But the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s CISF licensing process was pushed ahead anyway in defiance of the law, on the theory the law will be changed by Congress and the President. Former New Mexico U.S. Senator Jeff Bingaman, who chaired the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, was adamant that this “linkage” between any “interim” site to an operating final repository remain in the law. “The NRC never should have even considered these applications, because they blatantly violate the federal Nuclear Waste Policy Act by assuming that the federal government will take responsibility for the waste before a permanent repository is licensed and operating,” said Diane Curran, an attorney for Beyond Nuclear, one of the groups that brought the suits. ”Licensing the ISP and Holtec facilities would defeat Congress’s purpose of ensuring that nuclear waste generated by U.S. reactors will go to a deep geologic repository, rather than to vulnerable surface facilities that may become permanent nuclear waste dumps,” Curran added. Participants in the legal challenge to the Holtec CISF include the Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) Beyond Nuclear, Sierra Club, and Don't Waste Michigan, et al., a national grassroots coalition of watchdog groups, including the New Mexico-based anti-nuclear collective formerly called Nuclear Issues Study Group (recently renamed DNA, short for Demand Nuclear Abolition). Additional coalition members include: Citizens for Alternatives to Chemical Contamination (MI); Citizens’ Environmental Coalition (NY); Nuclear Energy Information Service (IL); and San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace (CA). Federal appeals before the D.C. circuit court have also been filed by Fasken Land and Minerals, Ltd., and Permian Basin Land and Royalty Owners, which advocate for ranching and mineral rights. "The grand illusion that the nuclear power industry will figure out what to do with the lethal nuclear waste later, is now revealed,” said Michael J. Keegan of Don't Waste Michigan, one of the lead intervenors in the lawsuits. “There is nowhere to put the waste. No community consents to accept nuclear waste -- not Texas, not New Mexico, not Michigan, or anywhere on this planet. We have to stop making it. No more weapons of mass deception!" # # # NOTE TO EDITORS AND PRODUCERS: Sources quoted in this release, participants in the lawsuits challenging CISFs and their attorneys, and other experts are available for comment and interviews. Fact sheets documenting problems with and alternatives to CISFs are posted here. For more information, additional documentation, or to arrange an interview, please contact Stephen Kent, [email protected], 914-589-5988. -30- |
|
Beyond Nuclear is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit membership organization. Beyond Nuclear aims to educate and activate the public about the connections between nuclear power and nuclear weapons and the need to abolish both to safeguard our future. Beyond Nuclear advocates for an energy future that is sustainable, benign and democratic. The Beyond Nuclear team works with diverse partners and allies to provide the public, government officials, and the media with the critical information necessary to move humanity toward a world beyond nuclear. Beyond Nuclear: 7304 Carroll Avenue, #182, Takoma Park, MD 20912. [email protected]. www.beyondnuclear.org. |
Daniel Ellsberg
Dear friends and supporters,
I have difficult news to impart. On February 17,
without much warning, I was diagnosed with
inoperable pancreatic cancer on the basis of a CT
scan and an MRI. (As is usual with pancreatic
cancer--which has no early symptoms--it was found
while looking for something else, relatively
minor). I'm sorry to report to you that my
doctors have given me three to six months to
live. Of course, they emphasize that everyone's
case is individual; it might be more, or less.
I have chosen not to do chemotherapy (which
offers no promise) and I have assurance of great
hospice care when needed. Please know: right now,
I am not in any physical pain, and in fact, after
my hip replacement surgery in late 2021, I feel
better physically than I have in years! Moreover,
my cardiologist has given me license to abandon
my salt-free diet of the last six years. This has
improved my quality of life dramatically: the
pleasure of eating my former favorite foods! And
my energy level is high. Since my diagnosis, I've
done several interviews and webinars on Ukraine,
nuclear weapons, and first amendment issues, and
I have two more scheduled this week.
As I just told my son Robert: he's long known (as
my editor) that I work better under a deadline.
It turns out that I live better under a deadline!
I feel lucky and grateful that I've had a
wonderful life far beyond the proverbial
three-score years and ten. ( I'll be ninety-two
on April 7th.) I feel the very same way about
having a few months more to enjoy life with my
wife and family, and in which to continue to
pursue the urgent goal of working with others to
avert nuclear war in Ukraine or Taiwan (or anywhere else).
When I copied the Pentagon Papers in 1969, I had
every reason to think I would be spending the
rest of my life behind bars. It was a fate I
would gladly have accepted if it meant hastening
the end of the Vietnam War, unlikely as that
seemed (and was). Yet in the end, that action—in
ways I could not have foreseen, due to Nixon’s
illegal responses—did have an impact on
shortening the war. In addition, thanks to
Nixon's crimes, I was spared the imprisonment I
expected, and I was able to spend the last fifty
years with Patricia and my family, and with you, my friends.
What's more, I was able to devote those years to
doing everything I could think of to alert the
world to the perils of nuclear war and wrongful
interventions: lobbying, lecturing, writing and
joining with others in acts of protest and non-violent resistance.
I wish I could report greater success for our
efforts. As I write, "modernization" of nuclear
weapons is ongoing in all nine states that
possess them (the US most of all). Russia is
making monstrous threats to initiate nuclear war
to maintain its control over Crimea and the
Donbas--like the dozens of equally illegitimate
first-use threats that the US government has made
in the past to maintain its military presence in
South Korea, Taiwan, South Vietnam, and (with the
complicity of every member state then in NATO )
West Berlin. The current risk of nuclear war,
over Ukraine, is as great as the world has ever seen.
China and India are alone in declaring
no-first-use policies. Leadership in the US,
Russia, other nuclear weapons states, NATO and
other US allies have yet to recognize that such
threats of initiating nuclear war--let alone the
plans, deployments and exercises meant to make
them credible and more ready to be carried
out--are and always have been immoral and insane:
under any circumstances, for any reasons, by anyone or anywhere.
It is long past time--but not too late!--for the
world's publics at last to challenge and resist
the willed moral blindness of their past and
current leaders. I will continue, as long as I'm
able, to help these efforts. There's tons more to
say about Ukraine and nuclear policy, of course,
and you'll be hearing from me as long as I'm here.
As I look back on the last sixty years of my
life, I think there is no greater cause to which
I could have dedicated my efforts. For the last
forty years we have known that nuclear war
between the US and Russia would mean nuclear
winter: more than a hundred million tons of smoke
and soot from firestorms in cities set ablaze by
either side, striking either first or second,
would be lofted into the stratosphere where it
would not rain out and would envelope the globe
within days. That pall would block up to 70% of
sunlight for years, destroying all harvests
worldwide and causing death by starvation for
most of the humans and other vertebrates on earth.
So far as I can find out, this scientific
near-consensus has had virtually no effect on the
Pentagon's nuclear war plans or US/NATO (or
Russian) nuclear threats. (In a like case of
disastrous willful denial by many officials,
corporations and other Americans, scientists have
known for over three decades that the
catastrophic climate change now underway--mainly
but not only from burning fossil fuels--is fully
comparable to US-Russian nuclear war as another existential risk.)
I'm happy to know that millions of
people--including all those friends and comrades
to whom I address this message!--have the wisdom,
the dedication and the moral courage to carry on
with these causes, and to work unceasingly for
the survival of our planet and its creatures.
I'm enormously grateful to have had the privilege
of knowing and working with such people, past and
present. That's among the most treasured aspects
of my very privileged and very lucky life. I want
to thank you all for the love and support you
have given me in so many ways. Your dedication,
courage, and determination to act have inspired and sustained my own efforts.
My wish for you is that at the end of your days
you will feel as much joy and gratitude as I do now.
Love, Dan
|
|
|
NUCLEAR FAMINE
The Deadly Consequences of Nuclear WarThe long-term environmental consequences of a nuclear war between the US and Russia could kill most humans and land animals. An India-Pakistan nuclear war could cause 2 billion people to starve to death. Nuclear war threatens all nations and peoples.
NUKEWATCH WINTER NEWSLETTER ONLINE HERE.
1-29-23 Albuquerque Journal
All Downwinders deserve justice from US
Flawed Radiation Exposure Compensation Act excludes far more victims than it covers
BY TINA CORDOVA
CO-FOUNDER, TULAROSA BASIN DOWNWINDERS CONSORTIUM
In response to the Dec. 29 column “Congress must do more for those on borrowed time,” the writers miss the broader context of current legislation to expand and extend the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act. Passed in 1990, RECA excluded far more people than those who have ever been acknowledged. We know too well how devastating that exclusion has been. We are members of frontline communities who have suffered and lost loved ones as a result of nuclear weapons development and testing but who have been excluded from compensation. Individually, we have worked for decades to expand and extend RECA so that justice is served. For the past several years, we have worked as a group on the expansion of RECA.
Our government exploded more nuclear weapons — 928 of them on our own soil at the Nevada Test Site — than did any other nation. Nuclear testing, which began in 1945 with detonation of Trinity in the south central desert of New Mexico, had devastating consequences for ordinary citizens who lived and worked downwind as well as for test-site workers and atomic veterans stationed at the Nevada Test Site. We wholeheartedly support the inclusion of post-1971 uranium workers in legislation to expand RECA, but we cannot forget the many innocent civilians poisoned by fallout who are dying as they wait for justice. The New Mexico downwinders have waited more than 77 years.
RECA was always exceedingly limited in scope. Currently, it compensates only Downwinders who lived in 22 largely rural counties of Arizona, Utah and Nevada between 1951 and 1958 and the summer of 1962 who developed leukemia or one of 17 kinds of cancer. Studies since 1990 have clearly shown that fallout did not stop at county or state borders. There were no lead walls that blocked the lethal radiation. The new bill would include all of Utah, Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, Idaho, Colorado, Montana and Guam. It would finally include those harmed by fallout from Trinity, which took place in populated areas of New Mexico.
The bill would increase the amount of compensation from $50,000 for Downwinders and $100,000 for uranium workers to a uniform $150,000. But what is a human life worth? This amount does not begin to make up for a lifetime of suffering, health complications, financial hardship from staggering medical bills and the loss of one’s ability to make a living, nor for the heartbreaking loss of far too many loved ones. Each year, our government spends $50 billion just to maintain our nuclear arsenal. Our lives are worth more than the civilization-ending weapons that harmed us.
Consider this. Congress recently approved $857 billion for the 2023 defense budget — that’s just one year. In the last 32 years, RECA has paid out only $2.5 billion to roughly 39,000 eligible survivors. We are veterans of the Cold War, only we never enlisted and we have paid an enormous price. We are hard-working, taxpaying American citizens who were harmed by a government we funded and trusted as it developed and tested nuclear weapons. Any government that knowingly injures its own citizens must be held accountable. Those elected leaders, especially members of Congress, who do not stand with American Downwinders are complicit in one of this nation’s most tragic injustices. Justice is long overdue. Time is running out.
This guest column was also authored by Mary Dickson, Utah Downwinders; Tona Henderson, director, Idaho Downwinders; Loretta Anderson, Southwest Uranium Miners Coalition Post 71; Phil Harrison, Navajo Uranium Radiation Victims Committee; and Robert N. Celestial, president, Pacific Association for Radiation Survivors, Guam
The Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons Second Anniversary of the Entry Into Force
Indigenous People on Surviving Nuclear Weapons Testing & Mining
The Rights of Nature- Anahkwet Reiter of the Menominee Nation the Rights of Nature
Monday, January 23, 2022 at 7 PM CT- Zoom presentation
***********************************************************************
ZOOM ONE CLICK JOIN
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/7165675210?pwd=WjJUcTE3c0gwd1NhQndab3dFQ3hRQT09
zoom id: 716 567 5210 password: 178153
phone: 1-312-626-6799 zoom id: 716 567 5210 password: 178153\
***************************************************************
6 PM- Potluck dinner- In-person with Peace Action WI- Peace Center, 1001 E Keefe Ave, Milwaukee
We're joining national actions that will begin on Friday, Jan 20, 2023, and will extend to Jan 24, 2023, when the 2023 Doomsday Clock will be announced by the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists.
In addition, Rep Jim McGovern, D, Mass, will be introducing his TNPW/Back from the Brink Resolution, Embracing the goals and provisions of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, into Congress at that time as well.
More information:
Indigenous Statement to the U.N. Nuclear Weapons Ban Treaty Negotiations
The Lasting Harms of Toxic Exposure in Native American Communities
PS:
In 2022 a further five countries signed and nine ratified the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), bringing the total number of signatories to 91 and states parties to 68.
In 2020 Peace Action WI and the Milwaukee End the Wars Coalition demonstrated in front of Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company that had $1.1 Billion invested in weapons of mass destruction. We provided the company with the link to Don't Bank on the Bomb, and they replied that they didn't want to invest in nuclear weapons. In 2022, according to Don't Bank on the Bomb(ICAN), the amount of investments in weapons companies had significantly been reduced to $304 Million. We're hoping this was influenced by our request to divest.
Sponsored by Peace Action WI, co-sponsored by the Milwaukee End the Wars Coalition and Building Unity WI
SAVE THE DATE! Feb 8, 2023, Wednesday ay 7 PM-
Last week, to honor and celebrate the legacy and courage of Dr. King in championing a nuclear-free world, DNW hosted a livestream featuring the Reverend Dr. Liz Theoharis, Pastor Michael McBride, Judith LeBlanc, Daniel Ellsberg, Khury Petersen-Smith, David Swanson, Norman Solomon, former Ohio Senator Nina Turner, and India Walton. You can watch the livestream at https://defusenuclearwar.org/photos-and-videos/.
During this call, our team launched a call to action that will focus on reaching the public and pressuring key elected officials – by offering people online tools for sending messages and photos of loved ones and others, whose futures are at stake, to the White House as well as to constituents’ senators and representatives.
It's 100 Seconds to Midnight!
Roger Waters - Two Suns In The Sunset
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_m2CZU9vdk
Germany Jails American Peace Activist- Nukewatch WI's John Laforge
for Protest of U.S. Nuclear Weapons Based There
Amidst heightened nuclear tension between NATO and Russia in Europe, U.S. peace activist John LaForge entered a
German prison on January 10, 2023 to serve jail time there for protests against U.S. nuclear weapons stockpiled at
Germany’s Büchel Air Force Base, 80 miles southeast of Cologne. LaForge entered JVA Billwerder in Hamburg as the
first American ever imprisoned for a nuclear weapons protest in Germany.
The 66-year-old Minnesota native and co-director of Nukewatch, the Wisconsin-based advocacy and action group, was
convicted of trespass in Cochem District Court for joining in two “go-in” actions at the German airbase in 2018. One
of the actions involved entering the base and climbing atop a bunker that likely housed some of the approximately
twenty U.S. B61 thermonuclear gravity bombs stationed there.
Germany’s Regional Court in Koblenz affirmed his conviction and lowered the penalty from €1,500 to €600 ($619) or
50 “daily rates”, which translates to 50 days incarceration. LaForge has refused to pay* and has appealed the
convictions to Germany’s Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe, the country's highest, which has not yet ruled in the case.
In the appeal, LaForge argues that both the District Court in Cochem and the Regional Court in Koblenz erred by
refusing to consider his defense of “crime prevention,” thereby violating his right to present a defense.
Before entering prison, LaForge said: “U.S. and German Air Force plans and preparations, currently ongoing, to use
the nuclear weapons stationed here in Germany are a criminal conspiracy to commit massacres with radiation and
firestorms. The court authorities in this case have prosecuted the wrong suspects.”
Both courts ruled against hearing from expert witnesses who had volunteered to explain the international treaties that
prohibit any planning for mass destruction. In addition, the appeal argues, Germany’s stationing of the U.S. nuclear
weapons is a violation of the Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), which explicitly forbids any
transfer of nuclear weapons between countries that are parties to the treaty, including both the U.S. and Germany.
* "Why Not Pay Fine Imposed for Actions Against Nuclear Threats?” by John LaForge
<https://www.counterpunch.org/2022/12/16/why-not-pay-fine-imposed-for-actions-against-nuclear-threats>
The Dismal State of Nuclear Disarmament
Viewpoint by Jacqueline Cabasso
The writer is the Executive Director of the Western States Legal Foundation.
OAKLAND, California (IDN) — The year 2022 has been a nightmare for nuclear disarmament. The year started out with a mildly reassuring Joint Statement by the five original nuclear-armed states, issued on January 3, 2022, declaring:
“The People’s Republic of China, the French Republic, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States of America consider the avoidance of war between Nuclear-Weapon States and the reduction of strategic risks as our foremost responsibilities. We affirm that a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.”
But less than two months later Russia launched a brutal war of aggression on Ukraine, accompanied by a series of veiled and no-so-veiled nuclear threats, raising concerns about the dangers of nuclear war to their highest level since the darkest days of the Cold War. And prospects for progress on nuclear disarmament went down from there.
The most polluted place in the United States — perhaps the world — is one most people don’t even know. Hanford Nuclear Site sits in the flat lands of eastern Washington. The facility — one of three sites that made up the government’s covert Manhattan Project — produced plutonium for Fat Man, the atomic bomb dropped on Nagasaki during World War II. And it continued producing plutonium for weapons for decades after the war, helping to fuel the Cold War nuclear arms race.
Today Hanford — home to 56 million gallons of nuclear waste, leaking storage tanks, and contaminated soil — is an environmental disaster and a catastrophe-in-waiting... read more
DON'T BANK ON THE BOMB
RISKY RETURNS
The 2022 report “Risky Returns: Nuclear weapon producer and their financiers” is a joint publication of ICAN and PAX. The report details how 306 financial institutions made over $746 billion available to 24 companies heavily involved in the production of nuclear weapons, between January 2020 and July 2022. These companies contribute to the nuclear arsenals of China, France, India, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States.
As shown in the report, fewer long-term investments were made in the companies behind the nuclear weapon industry. The data shows a $45.9 billion drop in loans and underwriting. This could signal that a growing number of long-term investors does not see nuclear weapon production as a sustainable growth market and regards companies involved in it as a risk to be avoided.
The report also examined companies involved in producing, manufacturing, or developing nuclear weapons for six of the nine nuclear armed countries for which data was available. These 24 companies are involved in activities that are outlawed under the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), which entered into force in 2021. More than $280 billion in contracts for such activities were identified, though the true number is likely much higher since many companies do not publish contract details. The biggest nuclear weapon profiteer remains Northrop Grumman, with at least $24.3 billion in outstanding contracts, not including the consortium and joint venture revenues. Aerojet Rocketdyne, BAE Systems, Boeing, Lockheed Martin and Raytheon Technologies also hold multi-billion-dollar contracts for nuclear weapon production and/or stockpiling.
Investors made over $746 billion available to the nuclear weapon producing companies, a $61.5 billion increase from the 2021 “Perilous Profiteering’’ report. This can be attributed to an increase in the total value of shares, which grew by $108.5 billion. Many nuclear weapon producers also produce conventional weapons and saw their stock values rise in 2022, likely resulting from the announcement by NATO states that they would significantly increase defense spending following Russia’s invasion in Ukraine.
Financial sector leverage
Financial institutions that back nuclear weapon producing companies enable them to continue their involvement in the development and production of these weapons of mass destruction. They therefore have an important role to play in joint efforts to reduce the role of nuclear weapons in society.
When an investor chooses to end its relationship with a company because of the latter’s involvement in the production of nuclear weapons, it sends a clear signal to the world that weapons of mass destruction are never acceptable.
The role of financial institutions in furthering efforts to reduce the role of nuclear weapons in society was exemplified by the engagement of the sector in the first Meeting of States Parties to the TPNW in June 2022. At that meeting, Italian asset manager Etica Funds delivered a joint statement on behalf of a group of 37 investors, that called upon states to apply the prohibition on assistance to prohibited acts under the Treaty to all forms of financial assistance, including those made by the private sector operating within their jurisdiction. As put forward in the statement, ‘‘[i]t would be illogical to prohibit the production of nuclear weapons without prohibiting the financing that enables the production to proceed’’
The financial sector has an opportunity to build on and reinforce the international norm against nuclear weapons, cemented by the entering into force of the TPNW in January 2021. Through divestment, nuclear weapon producers can be pressured to cut the production of these weapons of mass destruction from their business strategies and, in turn, will make it more difficult for nuclear armed states to maintain their arsenals.
15 December 2022
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/12/14/fusion-power-climate-energy-renewables/
Researchers at the National Ignition Facility at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory last weekend achieved something that had never been done before: They got a fusion reaction to produce more energy than was in the laser beams that went into sparking it. “Ignition allows us to replicate for the first time certain conditions that are found only in the stars and the sun,” Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm declared at the formal announcement Tuesday, hailing it as a milestone that “moves us one significant step closer to the possibility of zero-carbon abundant fusion energy powering our society.”
The potential benefits stemming from what Ms. Granholm called “one of the most impressive scientific feats of the 21st century” are indeed tantalizing. Fusion can power a large city with a tiny amount of fuel. Unlike fission, in which atoms are split in conventional nuclear reactors, fusion leaves almost no toxic byproducts and poses no meltdown risk. Unlike solar and wind power, it produces electricity at a regular and predictable rate. And fusion’s fuel — hydrogen — is the most common element in the universe.
But the National Ignition Facility’s achievement, while a scientific coup, does not mean that a fusion-powered utopia is around the corner. Rather, history suggests that fusion power is unlikely to play a major role in the energy grid for years or decades — time that the planet does not have in the climate change fight. Other, less exotic sources of clean energy that are immediately scalable remain the most plausible options. Humanity must continue to invest in them, and urgently.
Fusion reactors work — in theory, anyway — by superheating hydrogen. Under the right conditions, atoms fuse together to create helium and, in the process, lose a bit of mass. That mass gets translated into huge amounts of energy, according to Albert Einstein’s famous equation, e = mc^2. But getting hydrogen hot enough requires vast amounts of energy. Scientists have for decades tried to produce a fusion reaction that puts out more energy than is put in. Repeated bouts of optimism and investment, particularly during the 1970s and 1980s, produced disappointing results.
Until now. At the National Ignition Facility, researchers used the world’s largest laser to point 192 laser beams at a pea-size hydrogen pellet and — finally, according to the Energy Department — produced 3.15 megajoules of energy from 2.05 megajoules of laser energy. (A joule is a unit of energy; it takes 1 joule to lift a 3.5-ounce apple one yard. A megajoule is 1 million joules.) This is a big step for researchers seeking to learn more about the dynamics of fusion reactions.
However, that 2.05 megajoule input did not represent all the energy that went into the ignition process — just the amount that inefficient lasers managed to get to the hydrogen pellet. It took far more energy in total — on the scale of 300 megajoules — to produce that 3.15 megajoule result. Scientists can improve the picture by using better lasers, but there is always likely to be substantial energy loss that would require a much more robust fusion reaction to make up. read more in the above link
Nov 9, 2022
National Labs Given $1.5B Funding Boost
The Biden-Harris Administration announced this week a $1.5 billion bump in funding for the country's national laboratories, including close to $500 million for Oak Ridge near Knoxville, Tennessee, and $150 million for the Idaho National Laboratory that was announced in October.
The funding, channeled through the Department of Energy, is to go for a long list of upgrades, overdue maintenance projects and infrastructure improvements.
"Through the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) .... from President Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act, the funding was allocated to build and upgrade America’s national laboratories. The resources will upgrade scientific facilities, modernize infrastructure, and address deferred maintenance projects at DOE’s Office of Science-managed national laboratories, which are regional hubs for innovation, including clean energy technology that supports good-paying jobs and lower energy costs for families." the DOE said.
Both labs are critical to the nation's nuclear power industry, given the scale of projects that would be extremely difficult to fund simply through the private sector.
“America’s commitment to science and ingenuity shaped us into the world leaders we are today, and the continued success of our national laboratories will ensure we’re at the global forefront of innovation for generations to come,” said U.S. Secretary of Energy Jennifer M. Granholm. “Thanks to President Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act, these world-class institutions will receive $1.5 billion—one of the largest ever investments in national laboratory infrastructure—to develop advanced energy technologies and groundbreaking tools like Argonne National Laboratory’s powerful new supercomputer, Aurora, that we need to advance new frontiers, like modeling climate change and developing vaccines.”
Secretary Granholm met with White House Senior Advisor for Clean Energy Innovation and Implementation John Podesta, Office of Science and Technology Policy Deputy Director for Energy and Chief Strategist for the Energy Transition Sally Benson, and other senior White House and DOE officials. The meeting, in part ceremonial, "underscores DOE’s swift action to allocate funds for science and research infrastructure" the DOE said.
DOE’s Office of Science is the nation’s largest supporter of basic research in the physical sciences and the lead federal entity supporting fundamental research for clean energy. The Office of Science oversees the majority of DOE’s national laboratories, as well as various programs and facilities, which help achieve its mission of delivering major scientific discoveries, capabilities, and tools to transform the understanding of nature and to advance America’s energy, economic, and national security. However, decades of underfunding across DOE’s network of national laboratories have put the Office’s mission at risk and threatened America’s scientific and technological competitive edge over adversarial nations like China and Russia.
In direct, energy-related projects, the funding will support:
- Advanced scientific computing research facilities
- Basic energy sciences projects
- High energy physics construction and major items of equipment projects
- Fusion energy science construction and major items of equipment projects
- Nuclear physics construction and major items of equipment projects
- Isotope research and development facilities
- Science laboratory infrastructure projects
"The Inflation Reduction Act will position America to lead the world in the industries of the future and strengthen America’s ability to confront our biggest challenges, from climate change to quantum computing and everything in between," said the DOE statement.
States reaffirm support for Nuclear Weapons Ban Treaty at UN First Committee
SHARE
Against the backdrop of the war in Ukraine, with its attendant nuclear risks, a majority of the world’s countries have reaffirmed their support for the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), which entered into force last year and makes nuclear weapons illegal under international law. In a vote at the United Nations on Friday, 124 countries supported a resolution calling for greater adherence to this landmark disarmament treaty.
In a separate vote, 141 countries supported a resolution reiterating “deep concern about the catastrophic consequences of nuclear weapons” and stressing “that it is in the interest of the very survival of humanity that nuclear weapons never be used again, under any circumstances”. The resolution also urged UN members “to exert all efforts to totally eliminate the threat of these weapons of mass destruction”.
But the nine nuclear-armed states – the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France, China, Israel, India, Pakistan or North Korea – opposed the resolution on the TPNW, and all except India voted against or abstained from voting the resolution on the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons. Many of their allies did the same based on their view that the use of nuclear weapons can be justified in some circumstances. One notable development was Australia’s shift in position, dropping its opposition to the TPNW by abstaining from voting on the resolution. Regrettably, Sweden and Finland opposed the TPNW resolution for the first time
“Like climate change and pandemic disease, the terrible risks posed by nuclear weapons constitute a global problem and require a global response,” said Beatrice Fihn, ICAN’s executive director. “It is therefore in the interest of all states – and the responsibility of all states – to confront and condemn threats to use nuclear weapons and to take action to reinforce the norm against their use.”
Global support for the TPNW continues to grow, with a further nine countries ratifying it so far this year and five signing it. Their actions bring the total number of parties to 68 and signatories to 91. Over the past month, dozens of countries have voiced support for the TPNW in statements to the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, including all Caribbean, African and Arab states.
Three C’s to avoid nuclear Armageddon: Clarity, Compromise, Communication
CESAR JARAMILLO OCTOBER 28, 2022 ANALYSIS AND COMMENTARY, FEATURED, NEWS, NUCLEAR WEAPONS
In a seemingly positive turn of events, President Putin has reportedly denied any intentions to use nuclear weapons in the Ukrainian conflict, declaring that they would yield no political or military advantage. Regrettably, however, this position is subject to change. Such is the dangerous nature of conflict involving states with nuclear weapons.
Make no mistake: the nuclear threat remains critically high as long as the conflict in Ukraine is unresolved. Even then it will be at an unacceptable level, because nuclear weapons will still exist.
Russia has already made well-documented threats to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine. Such threats are reckless, unacceptable, and demand global condemnation. And it would bring the world little consolation to be able to name the culprit if nuclear weapons were to be introduced into the conflict.
According to several observers, the risk of nuclear Armageddon is now higher than it was at the height of the Cuban missile crisis 60 years ago.
The top priority for the international community must continue to be the prevention of any use of nuclear weapons. It is thus imperative to deny Russia any pretext to resort to its nuclear arsenal. No matter how high a cost Russia might bear if it precipitated such use, a nuclear confrontation would remain the worst possible result of the Ukraine crisis for everyone on Earth.
According to several observers, the risk of nuclear Armageddon is now higher than it was at the height of the Cuban missile crisis 60 years ago. And the fact that employing nuclear weapons would, objectively, not be in Russia’s best interests does not in itself guarantee that a nuclear confrontation will be avoided. Cost-benefit analyses minimized the likelihood of the Russian invasion in February, only to be proven wrong.
So, what can be done to step back from the brink? Obviously, Russia must immediately cease any and all nuclear threats—not to mention its illegal occupation of parts of Ukraine. But what if it does not?
To start, there must be clarity from the West—and NATO in particular—about the ultimate objectives of its robust military aid to Ukraine. Clarity has been sorely lacking thus far. Despite much talk and enthusiasm about a Ukrainian victory, there is no consensus on what an eventual win would look like. For some, in fact, the definition of winning seems to change with the evolving realities of the battlefield.
While strategic ambiguity may prove useful in some conflict situations, in the current context it might exacerbate the risk that nuclear weapons will be used. Members of NATO have repeatedly emphasized their unwavering support for Ukraine, yet their ultimate goals remain unclear. To minimize the risk of nuclear devastation, the West would do well to indicate what its objectives are and, perhaps more critically, what they are not.
Any scenarios in which Russia might predictably feel justified or compelled to use nuclear weapons must be explicitly and publicly ruled out. A key one has to do with regime change. If the goal is not to oust President Putin or interfere with the government of Russia, then this must be stated without equivocation, because such a threat is exactly what the current Russian leadership might deem existential.
Will NATO’s—and Ukraine’s—refusal to recognize the validity of Russian annexations translate into an effort to take back these regions with military force?
The issue of Russia’s territorial integrity is less straightforward, although germane to the risk that nuclear weapons might be used. For decades, a mantra of nuclear deterrence doctrine has been that the narrow circumstances under which nuclear weapons might be used involve threats to the vital security interests of the states possessing them, including the very survival of these states as they currently exist. But what constitutes the Russian state today?
Because Russia and Ukraine both claim certain regions, determining the exact territory that should be considered Russian is at the heart of any resolution of the Ukraine conflict. NATO has clearly stated that it will not recognize Russian annexation of Ukrainian territory, which it considers illegal. How does this view figure in NATO’s military and political objectives?
Will NATO’s—and Ukraine’s—refusal to recognize the validity of Russian annexations translate into an effort to take back these regions with military force? Is the status of any or all of the annexed regions negotiable? Is the approach to Crimea different from the one concerning the territory annexed in 2022?
Separately, there is the question of Ukraine’s prospective NATO membership, a known sore point that will need to be resolved as part of any negotiation to end the conflict. Since 1999, more than a dozen eastern European states have joined NATO, including former Soviet republics. Russia has argued for years that this creep raises regional security concerns as it sees a military alliance inching closer and closer to its borders.
While NATO expansion in itself does not justify the Russian aggression, it is impossible to deny that it has been a known irritant in the East-West security relationship—reaching a boiling point with the possibility of Ukraine joining the alliance. When all of this is considered, will Ukraine’s membership in NATO continue to be pursued, and even expedited?
Finally, a critical question: is NATO willing to compromise at all? Unless there is a decisive military victory, most conflicts end at the negotiating table, where all parties make concessions. There will be no decisive victory in Ukraine—for either side—as long as nuclear weapons are brandished. And is decisive victory, however defined, the outcome most conducive to peace and security in the region and globally?
NATO must not only be clear about the scope of its objectives but must also find the right avenues to communicate them, including to Russia. To this end, diplomatic engagement must continue and ramp up – in earnest. For NATO to embrace a counterproductive view of diplomacy as a reward for good behaviour is to defeat the purpose of diplomacy. During the most fractious circumstances, diplomatic efforts are most necessary, serving to defuse tensions and carve out paths for negotiation.
Beyond the urgent need to step back from the brink of nuclear catastrophe, the international community must recognize that Russia’s nuclear bravado, while utterly irresponsible and unacceptable, is not surprising or unexpected. It is a direct result of the perilous doctrine of nuclear deterrence, which has been sustained and perpetuated by all states with nuclear weapons, including those now alarmed at the possibility that these weapons might be used.
President Vladimir Putin has indicated Russia’s willingness to use nuclear weapons, including in a first strike. The Deputy Chair of the Russian Security Council, Dimitry Medvedev, has doubled down on the threats, stressing that the option to employ nuclear weapons is not a bluff. But these threats always existed, even without being verbalized.
NATO members know that the threat to use nuclear weapons is not a bluff because exactly this rationale is the basis for their own policy of nuclear deterrence. All nuclear-weapon states are ready and willing to use nuclear weapons under certain circumstances. And these circumstances are not confined, as some believe, to deterring nuclear threats.
Russia made this point clearly with its recent invocation of nuclear weapons, as did the United States in the Nuclear Posture Review recently released by the Biden administration. Much like the review conducted under President Donald Trump, this review effectively expands the role of the U.S. nuclear deterrent to include non-nuclear threats. The same can be said for the Strategic Concept that NATO adopted earlier this year.
If there can be a silver lining to Russia’s explicit affirmation of its nuclear deterrence policy, it is that it has laid bare the insanity and fragility of nuclear deterrence doctrine, some version of which is embraced by all states with nuclear weapons. And if President Putin proves to be reckless with his threats to use nuclear weapons, it is up to NATO to be the adult in the room and prevent a nuclear catastrophe.
60 Years After Cuban Missile Crisis, Activists Demand World Leaders “Defuse Nuclear War”
OCTOBER 18, 2022
Watch Full ShowGUESTS
-
Norman Solomonexecutive director of the Institute for Public Accuracy, co-founder of RootsAction.org and author.
As nuclear powers ratchet up tensions around the Ukraine war, the U.S., NATO and Russia are carrying out nuclear war games. Meanwhile, anti-nuclear activists are calling on lawmakers and world leaders to “Defuse Nuclear War.” Their calls come on the 60th anniversary of the Cuban Missile Crisis. “The Kremlin is making nuclear threats that are completely reckless. At the same time, there are things that the U.S. government can and should do that would reduce the chances of nuclear war,” says Norman Solomon, executive director of the Institute for Public Accuracy and co-founder of RootsAction.org. Meanwhile, Democratic leaders “are simply going along with this autopilot heading towards a precipice of nuclear annihilation globally.” His recent piece for Common Dreams is headlined “Don’t Just Worry About Nuclear War—Do Something to Help Prevent It.”
NATO Steadfast Noon Exercise And Nuclear Modernization in Europe
By Hans Kristensen • October 17, 2022
An F-35A test-drops a B61-12 guided nuclear bomb. The enhanced weapon will be compatible with both fighter jets and strategic bombers and begin replacing older B61 versions in Europe from 2023. Image: U.S. Air Force.
[Updated version] Today, Monday October 17, 2022, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) will begin a two-week long exercise in Europe to train aircrews in using U.S. non-strategic nuclear bombs. The exercise, known as Steadfast Noon, is centered at Kleine Brogel Air Base in Belgium, one of six airbases in Europe that store U.S. nuclear bombs. The exercise takes place midst significant modernizations at nuclear bases across Europe.
https://fas.org/blogs/security/2022/10/steadfast-noon-exercise-and-nuclear-modernization/
Vienna, Austria
Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi today met with Russian President Vladimir Putin as part of the IAEA’s efforts to prevent a nuclear accident during the current military conflict in Ukraine, stressing the urgent need to establish a safety and security protection zone around the Zaporizhzhya Nuclear Power Plant (ZNPP).
Last week, the Director General met with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in Kyiv and they will meet again there later this week, following today's discussions with President Putin in St Petersburg.
In recent weeks, Director General Grossi has been engaging in intense consultations with both Ukraine and the Russian Federation to agree and implement such a protection zone as soon as possible, in view of shelling at or near Europe’s largest nuclear power plant in recent weeks and months.
"The situation in the region around the Zaporizhzhya Nuclear Power Plant and elsewhere has become increasingly dangerous, precarious and challenging, with frequent military attacks that can also threaten nuclear safety and security," Director General Grossi said.
"Now more than ever, during these extremely difficult times, a protection zone must be established around the ZNPP. We can’t afford to lose any more time. The stakes are high. We must do everything in our power to help ensure that a nuclear accident does not happen during this tragic conflict, as it could cause even more hardship and suffering in Ukraine and beyond," he said.
NOWHERE
TO HIDE
How a nuclear war would kill you —
and almost everyone else.
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 2022
My biggest fear....who is the real aggressor?
You can see the writing on the wall. Put your ear to the railroad tracks and hear the train coming.
The US has nuclear weapons stationed at bases in Germany, Belgium, Italy, Netherlands, Turkey (and soon in the UK) and just might be getting ready to drop one in Ukraine.
The US-UK-NATO are losing the war (despite all the lies told in western corporate media). They've already shown themselves willing to use desperate measures by ordering/helping Kiev to repeatedly attack the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant in eastern Ukraine.
And just this week we saw the terrorist raid on Nordstream 1 & 2 pipelines which clearly were done by the western allies.
"Didn't NATO bases conduct exercises there [in the area of the incidents], were not American soldiers accommodated on the territory of neighboring countries? (...) This July, in the same place, near the island of Bornholm — this is Denmark — NATO exercises were conducted, using deep-sea equipment," Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said at a briefing.
NATO member states are currently saying they will begin an investigation to learn who did this sabotage. Talk about the fox guarding the chicken house.
What makes me think the west might turn to nukes? How would they pull this off?
My fear is that the US could drop a battlefield nuke in the Donbass and then use their global CIA-run media arm to blame Russia for doing so. (Just like they are presently starting to do by blaming Russia for damaging their own undersea pipelines.) Then the US-UK-NATO could use that for an excuse to go full bore against Russia.
For evidence one might turn to this statement just released:
On Sunday, Jake Sullivan warned that Washington and its allies would act “decisively” if Russia uses tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine, adding that it had communicated “at very high levels to the Kremlin” that any use of nuclear weapons in neighboring country would be “met with catastrophic consequences.”
NATO may send troops into Ukraine if Russia deploys nuclear weapons in that country, Polish Foreign Minister Zbigniew Rau told local media on Thursday. The US-led military bloc has repeatedly maintained it’s not at war with Moscow and is not a party to the conflict.
I know this sounds insane. Totally irrational. Crazy. Evil, despicable. All of those words describe the neo-con pirates who run Washington and most of the EU governments. They are blinded by greed and desire for 'full spectrum dominance'. They are disconnected from reality. Are they capable of using nukes? You judge for yourself.
I'm just raising this because I feel I must. The neo-cons have been running their global economic and military empire for a long time. But their day in the sun is quickly fading. Russia, China, Iran and many other nations are now standing up to them. The neo-cons are desperate and highly dangerous.
Many of my long-time friends are adamantly opposed to nuclear war - as I am. But some of these folks still put much of the blame for this war on Russia. I don't see it that way.
If we hope to survive this current apocalyptic moment then I believe we must point our collective fingers at the real aggressor - the neo-con led west.
Remember that Russia's military budget this year is right around $65 billion. That is a defensive military. Compare that with the offensive Pentagon budget of around $1.2 trillion (when you add in all the hidden pots of gold like the Department of Energy nuclear weapons budget). Add NATO members military budgets to the US numbers and it is well over 60% of the global total in military spending.
If Washington feels it can continue to neutralize the already weak peace movement across the west by its tactic of divide-and-conquer then the neo-cons will feel confident in continuing their suicidal death-march to regain global dominance.
Bruce
Biden Thinks Non-Nuclear Threats Will Stop Putin. His Military Doesn't
International Day for Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons highlights “deranged” nuclear policies and “irrational” nuclear spending
By Ray Acheson
28 September 2022
On 26 September 2022, the UN General Assembly marked the annual International Day for Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons with a high-level event, bringing officials from around the world together to critique the state of nuclear affairs. Only three nuclear-armed states participated—China, India, and Pakistan. Most members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), a self-described nuclear alliance, also kept their distance. Given that nuclear risks and rhetoric are at all-time high, the absence of those responsible for putting the world in peril speaks volumes about the genuineness of their alleged commitments to nuclear disarmament and international peace and security. The countries that did show up for disarmament were outspoken in their rejection of nuclear weapons and deterrence doctrine, and in their demand for all states to join the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW).
Inherent insecurity of the bomb
“Nuclear weapons are the most destructive power ever created. They offer no security—just carnage and chaos,” said UN Secretary-General (UNSG) António Guterres in his remarks opening the event. This warning comes amidst renewed threats by the Russian government to use nuclear weapons in relation to its war in Ukraine. “Current geopolitical tensions have brought humankind to the brink of a nuclear mishap,” warned Trinidad and Tobago, while many other delegations cited heightened nuclear threats and rhetoric to be detrimental to international peace and security, and potentially to the survival of humanity.
While some political leaders and commentators have tried to normalise or diminish the impacts of the potential use of nuclear weapons in the context of Russia’s war in Ukraine, the reality is that the use of even a single nuclear weapon would have devasting immediate and long-term impacts. Furthermore, as the President of the General Assembly (PGA) noted in his opening remarks, “we all know that such a conflict would never stay at the tactical level.” The Organisation for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean (OPANAL) similarly argued that “tactical nuclear weapons” or “limited nuclear use” are absurd terms, as there is nothing tactical nor limited about the use of weapons of mass destruction. Any use risks a “spiral of escalation” that will endanger humanity itself, argued OPANAL—thus, the quest for security dominance by a few results in insecurity for all.
The UNSG called for the end to the “the era of nuclear blackmail.” He argued, “The idea that any country could fight and win a nuclear war is deranged. Any use of a nuclear weapon would incite a humanitarian Armageddon.” The vast majority of delegations participating in the event agreed. Almost all renounced the idea that nuclear weapons make anyone safer or the world more secure. “The doctrine of nuclear deterrence is a flawed approach to global peace and a major hindrance to our disarmament goals,” said Ghana, while the Philippines argued, “Nuclear deterrence is an obsolete security concept. Nuclear weapons do not promote security. They are instead a source of insecurity, posing humanitarian risks and existential threat to all mankind.” Lebanon noted that there seems to be a “belief that having nuclear weapons is a better deterrence than arms control agreements for state security.” But, it argued, nuclear weapons are not helping security. The deficit of trust and lack of communication undermines the nuclear-armed states’ rhetoric and is “putting the world on a dangerous path.”
Jamaica similarly highlighted the incongruity of the arguments that nuclear weapons both provide security and threaten mass destruction. “Objectively, it is clear that only the latter is true.” Colombia likewise articulated that the idea that nuclear weapons provide security is a disproven fallacy, while Costa Rica pointed out that the possession of nuclear weapons and threats to use them reduces incentives for nuclear disarmament and hinders the prevention of nuclear non-proliferation. “Clearly, the threat of the elimination of all of humanity is no stable foundation for international peace and security,” argued Austria, yet many states appear willing to just sit idly by and wait for a nuclear catastrophe.
Actions against disarmament
In this context, several delegations criticised the Russian delegation and the other nuclear-armed states for the failure to adopt an outcome document at the Tenth Review Conference of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in August 2022. But even while lamenting this failure, some delegations argued that the result would have been ineffective regardless of the outcome’s adoption. The adoption of the final draft “would have been a very disappointing result, in no way matching the urgency of the situation,” said Austria.
The key problem with the NPT remains the intransigence of all the nuclear-armed state parties, which have consistently refused to implement their nuclear disarmament obligations and commitments. They argue that the international security environment is not “ripe” for nuclear disarmament, which the Philippines and several other delegations rejected at the International Day event. Eliminating nuclear weapons “is neither optional nor conditional,” argued Palestine, and “the possession of nuclear weapons is neither a conferred legal right nor an entitlement.”
Venezuela urged the nuclear-armed states to overcome the mentality of the Cold War era and put an end to exceptionalist and supremacist notions that feed the politics of blocs and global confrontation, that increase differences, promote nuclear rearmament, and undermine the realisation of international peace and security. Trinidad and Tobago similarly noted that the rhetoric about the necessity and utility of nuclear weapons “inevitably provides fertile ground to justify a nuclear arms race and the modernization of such weapons.” It urged others to imagine “the benefits which would have been created had similar resources been directed to some of the crises facing our global community.”
Many other speakers lamented the colossal waste of resources on nuclear weapons. The PGA noted, “Investments in these weapons continue to increase, while too many people struggle to buy food, educate their children, and keep warm.” Several delegations condemned what Cuba described as “irrational spending to maintain and modernize nuclear weapons,” with Colombia arguing that this spending raises questions about the basic foundations of civilization.
Undeniable impacts
Furthermore, while billions are wasted on nuclear weapons now, very little money goes toward dealing with the impacts of the use and testing nuclear weapons of the past. “For over 60 years our people have terribly suffered from the trauma of nuclear testing on Kiritimati island and nothing has been done,” said Kiribati. “I watched and heard that the world bank was very swift in responding to Ukraine’s request by providing billions of dollars as cash grant or a form of debt. But what about our needs to address those who have suffered from nuclear weapons and testing?” Kiribati also expressed concern with the build-up and future use of “nuclear-powered war machines” in the Pacific region, arguing that it poses an ever-present risk of nuclear contamination.
Aotearoa New Zealand also spoke of the trauma of nuclear weapon use and testing, both on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and in the Pacific. The latter “still bears the scars of decades of nuclear testing,” it said, noting, “The tests dislocated communities and forced people from their lands and traditional ways, causing immense and inter-generational harm to human health and the environment.” Honduras, Kenya, Zimbabwe, and others highlighted the devasting effects that nuclear weapons have on humanity, biodiversity, and the environment, and many warned that a nuclear war could threaten the existence of all life on the planet.
As the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) explained, no state or international bodycould adequately address the immediate humanitarian emergency nor the long-term consequences of a nuclear weapon detonation. “Any use of nuclear weapons would be abhorrent to the principles of humanity and the dictates of public conscience…. Accepting nuclear weapons as an instrument of security is an indefensible, dangerous logic.”
Prohibiting nuclear weapons
The humanitarian and environmental impacts of nuclear weapons are part of the rationale behind the negotiation and adoption of the TPNW in 2017. The vast majority of delegations welcomed the TPNW’s entry into force in January 2021, as well as its First Meeting of States Parties in June 2022 and its adoption of a Declaration and Action Plan.
Among others, the African Group, the Arab Group, the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC), the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), Algeria, Austria, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Chile, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Guyana, Holy See, Indonesia, Iraq, Ireland, Jamaica, Kazakhstan, Kiribati, Lebanon, Lesotho, Malaysia, Malta, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Namibia, New Zealand, Nigeria, Palestine, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Tanzania, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Viet Nam, and Zimbabwe indicated their support for the Treaty and its contribution to nuclear disarmament. Most also called on all states—including the nuclear-armed states—to sign, ratify, or accede to the TPNW.
Belarus was the only delegation to speak against the TPNW’s importance or utility, arguing that it has not helped to achieve nuclear disarmament. Belarus recently changed its nuclear-free constitution in order to permit the potential stationing of Russian nuclear weapons on its territory. Other nuclear-armed states and some of their allies have made similar remarks about the TPNW in the past—comments that only serve to underscore their refusal to comply with their legal obligations to nuclear disarmament rather than providing any kind of meaningful critique of the TPNW itself.
In reality, as Peru noted, the TPNW provides the best framework for meeting this responsibility. While the NPT Review Conference saw the nuclear-armed states trying to prioritise their visions of power, Peru argued, the TPNW is about denuclearisation of all, for the benefit of all. This instrument will “end the long impasse in multilateral nuclear disarmament,” affirmed Sierra Leone, noting, “It is more important now than ever, that world leaders speak out against nuclear weapons, and work together to strengthen international legal norms against their development, retention, use and threat of use by any State.” Dialogue and diplomacy must prevail over stockpiles of nuclear weapons, said Nepal, so that mutually assured peace and prosperity can prevail over mutually assured destruction.
|
|
|
Five nations sign and two ratify Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons
September 22, 2022 ICAN
https://www.icanw.org/tpnw_ceremony_2022
With world leaders gathering in New York this week for the annual opening of the United Nations General Assembly – and against the backdrop of Russia’s latest nuclear threats – five more nations have signed the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) and two more have ratified it. This brings the total number of TPNW signatories to 91 and states parties to 68.
The TPNW’s growing membership reflects the deepening concern of the international community at the existential threat that nuclear weapons pose to humanity. In June TPNW states parties declared at their first meeting in Vienna: “We will not rest until the last state has joined the treaty [and] the last warhead has been dismantled.”
By signing the treaty, the five countries – Barbados, Burkina Faso, Equatorial Guinea, Haiti and Sierra Leone – have taken a key step towards joining the treaty, while the Dominican Republic and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) have deposited their instruments of ratification with the UN secretary-general to become states parties.
The treaty actions took place at a high-level ceremony at the UN headquarters on Thursday, 22 September, officiated by Miguel de Serpa Soares, the UN under-secretary-general for legal affairs.
Beatrice Fihn, the executive director of ICAN, said at the event: “With more and more countries joining the nuclear ban treaty, we are taking significant steps towards the abolition of these weapons. As the number of countries signing and ratifying the TPNW grows, the pressure on the nine nuclear-armed states and their supporters to join the treaty grows.”
She added: “The strengthening of the treaty is particularly welcome at this time when the war in Ukraine has seen the risk of nuclear weapons use increase, and one of the world’s largest nuclear-armed states has made undisguised threats to use its arsenal with all the devastation that implies.”
The UN high representative for disarmament affairs, Izumi Nakamitsu, said: “Joining the TPNW sends a powerful signal of a state’s commitment to achieving our shared goal of a world free of nuclear weapons. But it is not merely a symbolic act. The decisions taken at the first meeting of states parties reflect a commitment to implementing the treaty comprehensively and thoughtfully.”
Peter Maurer, the president of the International Committee of the Red Cross, said: “The comprehensive prohibition of nuclear weapons is a crucial step towards their elimination, which is a vital responsibility of the international community as a whole. I commend those states who have made the courageous choice to sign or ratify this landmark treaty today.”
Bob Alvarez on the catastrophic radioactive legacy of mining, milling, making and testing nuclear bombs
Why Isn't the Media Talking About Banning Nuclear Weapons?
KARL GROSSMAN
August 6, 2022 by Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR)
https://www.commondreams.org/views/2022/08/06/why-isnt-media-talking-about-banning-nuclear-weapons?utm_source=AM+Nukes+Roundup&utm_campaign=dcb20b22a1-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2018_07_25_12_19_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_547ee518ec-dcb20b22a1-391829837
"The Day After" film screening and discussion
Start: Saturday, August 06, 2022•12:00 PM • Eastern Daylight Time (US & Canada) (GMT-04:00)
Host Contact Info: [email protected]
The Day After is an American post-apocalyptic film that first aired on November 20, 1983, on the ABC television network. A record-setting 100 million people watched it in the US - and 200 million on Russian TV during its initial broadcast.
The film postulates a fictional war between NATO forces and the Warsaw Pact countries over Germany that rapidly escalates into a full-scale nuclear exchange between the United States and the Soviet Union. The action focuses on the residents of Lawrence, Kansas, and Kansas City, Missouri, and of several family farms near nuclear missile silos.
Then-US President Ronald Reagan watched the film more than a month before its screening on Columbus Day, October 10, 1983. He wrote in his diary that the film was "very effective and left me greatly depressed", and that it changed his mind on the prevailing policy on a "nuclear war". Maybe this film can still change hearts and minds! Join us to find out!
https://actionnetwork.org/events/the-day-after-film-screening-and-discussion
Agenda for the event
World BEYOND War Executive Director David Swanson has agreed to help moderate.
We will have a short welcome on Zoom at 12 pm EDT, and then watch the movie, followed by presentations and a question-and-answer period with our experts, Vicki Elson of NuclearBan.US and Dr. Gordon Edwards of CCNR.
A Power Point on Atomic Diplomacy
Harry Targ, Peace Action WI Steering Committee
https://heartlandradical.blogspot.com/2022/08/a-power-point-on-atomic-diplomacy_57.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
July 16: the date of the Trinity Test in 1945, when the first nuclear weapon was exploded in the USA state of New Mexico
Tina Cordova, co-founder of the Tularosa Basin Downwinders Consortium, describes how, “The explosion produced more heat than the sun, and caused radioactive ash to fall for days – covering and contaminating crops, homes, bodies, and water supplies. We were innocent children, women, and men who were left to deal with the horrid consequences of being overexposed to radioactive fallout. Our families suffer from cancer, radiation-related illnesses, and early death. The people of New Mexico have been waiting over 77 years. We have never been acknowledged although we were the original Downwinders, the first people to be exposed to a nuclear bomb and nuclear fallout anyplace in the world. We have been casualties of the U.S. government’s quest for nuclear superiority. There is so much more to the history than what the U.S. government has been willing to share, and we were the human sacrifice.”
With the callousness that’s characteristic of nuclearism and all forms of systemic violence, the U.S. Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA) - which was recently extended for two years - has never acknowledged those affected by the Trinity Test.
Given the emphasis of the TPNW on centering impacted communities, and ongoing struggles to enact and implement policies that truly attend to the widespread impacts and forms of radiation exposure, July 16 is a day to show solidarity with those who have lost their lives, and continue to suffer, as an effect of the Trinity Test.
Since 1945, nuclear-armed states have detonated over 2,000 nuclear weapons, impacting communities around the world.
Learn more about the tests, survivors' stories and their activism for justice in the interactive map:
https://www.nucleartestimpacts.org/
Japan: UN experts say they are deeply disappointed by decision to discharge Fukushima water
17:20:23 From mp-nuclear-free.com to Everyone:
For those of you who are interested in learning more about this issue, we have the following video clips from experts and concerned citizens:
1. Dr. Stronell talked about issues and updates of Japan’s dumping plan https://youtu.be/1INRYJxtNWE
2. Dr. Fairlie talked about the dangers of radioactive tritium https://youtu.be/uku27rAy4R0 (with Japanese subtitles).
3. Video message from Dr. Amano. https://youtu.be/TFUrpHx4xIo
He explains that the contaminated water at Fukushima Daiichi contains more than 64 radionuclides, as opposed to what TEPCO and Japan say.
4. Video messages from Fukushima moms: https://youtu.be/J5k6hbMe-Cc and https://youtu.be/TFUrpHx4xIo
Sign Petition to recall thin-wall nuclear fuel waste storage systems — now!
Holtec and other thin-wall canister systems are lemons. Holtec downloading systems gouge or scrape walls of every thin-wall canister. Holtec lacks a precision downloading system that cannot be fixed.
Holtec and other thin-wall nuclear fuel waste canister storage systems are lemons.
Solution to prevent major radiological releases
- STEP ONE: Thin-wall canisters (only 1/2″ to 5/8″ thick) must be recalled, and the nuclear waste repackaged into thick-wall transportable storage casks (10″ to 19.75″ thick) that meet ASME N3 Nuclear Pressure Vessel storage and transport certification.
Only proven thick-wall casks can be inspected, repaired, maintained and monitored in a manner to prevent major radioactive leaks and hydrogen gas explosions.
- STEP TWO: Thick-wall casks must be moved to a safer location away from coastal and flooding risks. Store thick-wall casks in hardened buildings for additional security and environmental protection.
- Must do STEP ONE BEFORE STEP TWO: Nuclear fuel waste must be transfered into thick-wall casks BEFORE it can be transport to another location. Cracking thin-wall canisters with uninspected brittle fuel rods are not safe for storage or transport.
- Thin-wall nuclear waste canister storage systems pose a clear and imminent danger to the health and lives of the citizens, and pose potential financial and ecological disaster for the state of California, and beyond. Action is needed now.
You cannot put lipstick on a pig, yet both the NRC and Southern California Edison refuse to admit Holtec and other thin-wall canister systems are lemons and must be recalled and replaced.
The NRC is not protecting our safety. Instead, they give numerous exemptions to American Society of Mechanical Engineers Standards, including ASME N3 Nuclear Pressure Vessel storage and transport certification requirements.
Only thick-wall cask systems can meet ASME N3 Nuclear Pressure Vessel storage and transport certification requirements.
Switzerland and other countries store thick-wall casks in hardened passively cooled building for additional environmental and security protection.
The Swiss also have a dry transfer system (hot cell) facility, so they can transfer fuel from one cask to another, inspect inside casks and maintain casks and contents.
The U.S. has no large hot cells designed to do this. There is no U.S. plan in place to prevent or stop major radioactive releases from the canisters.
Handouts and U.S. Dry Storage Inventory
- Cracking Canister Problems, Recommendations, and Nuclear Storage Myths
- U.S Dry Cask Inventory, Sorted by State (2 pages) – includes age of canisters
- NRC admits San Onofre Holtec nuclear waste canisters are all damaged, 11/29/2018
- More Handouts
Legislation
Congress should not allow the NRC to give exemptions to ASME and other safety regulations and laws. Instead, proposed federal legislation promising to move the nuclear waste somewhere else, creates more problems than it solves.
Bills such as 2019 S.1234 co-sponsored by U.S. Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA), and 2017 H.R.3053 co-sponsored by U.S. Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL) and a similar House bill 2019 S.2699 co-sponsored by U.S. Rep. McNerney, Jerry [D-CA-9] and Senate bill 2019 S.2917 co-sponsored by U.S. Senator John Barrasso (R-WY) will:
- Remove critical safety requirements from the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA).
- Allow title transfer to the federal government at existing nuclear waste locations, such as San Onofre. Current federal nuclear waste sites, such as Hanford and Savannah River have for decades leaked radiation into the environment, including into fresh water sources.
- Current mandatory funding from the Treasury’s Judgment Fund for nuclear fuel waste storage will become discretionary with Congress, according to Congressional Budget Office analysis of H.R.3053. We’ll be at the mercy of Congress for adequate funding of nuclear waste.
- Learn more about unresolved storage and transport issues that will be made worse by this legislation: Holtec Nuclear Waste webpage.
-
Nuclear War Could Mean Annihilation, But Biden and Congress Are Messing Around
- Norman Solomon,
- Truthout
- July 3, 2022
- President Joe Biden and top subordinates have refused to publicly acknowledge the danger of nuclear war — even though it is now higher than at any other time in at least 60 years. Their silence is insidious and powerful, and their policy of denial makes grassroots activism all the more vital for human survival.....
- https://truthout.org/articles/nuclear-war-could-mean-annihilation-but-biden-and-congress-are-messing-around/?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=eccf0454-e0d8-49d3-8e0c-8125c5a4fd5f
Members of Congress Host Press Conference Calling on the U.S. to Join the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear WeaponsJune 29, 2022
***Watch the Livestream Here (Twitter)***
WASHINGTON, D.C.—Rules Committee Chairman James P. McGovern (D-MA), alongside Representatives Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), Eleanor Norton (D-DC), Don Beyer (D-VA), and Ilhan Omar (D-MN), held a press conference calling on the U.S. to join the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW). The TPNW was adopted by 122 countries in July, 2017 and it is the first legally binding international agreement to comprehensively prohibit nuclear weapons.
The press conference was held with advocates from NuclearBan.US and other organizations in conjunction with the first-ever meeting of state parties to the treaty in Vienna, Austria to review progress towards implementation. The TPNW bans the development, testing, production, acquisition, possession, stockpile, use of or the threat of use of nuclear weapons.
“Unless the nuclear powers, including the United States, demonstrate the leadership and resolve needed to address the existential threat of nuclear war facing our planet right now, we cannot expect a world that lives in peace,” said Rep. McGovern. “The United States and all nuclear powers must renew negotiations to reduce and eliminate nuclear weapons. For the sake of all people, around the world, we must end the existence of nuclear weapons on this planet, before nuclear weapons end the existence of human life on this planet.”
“The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons is a historic step towards a world free from the existential threat these weapons pose,” said Representative Blumenauer. “These are weapons we can never use, and can’t afford. The United States must urgently join the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and fully commit to denuclearization. I will continue fighting for a more rational U.S. nuclear posture in Congress with the goal of ridding the world of these weapons altogether. ”
“Our country and the world have a long list of urgent needs that have been put on the back burner,” said Representative Norton. “America is the only nation that has used nuclear weapons in war. We possess one of the largest nuclear weapons arsenals, but the Nuclear Disarmament Treaty would help the United States reestablish its moral leadership in the world by redirecting funds that would otherwise go to nuclear weapons to urgent needs. I urge members of Congress and leaders around the world to support the Treaty.”
“The Nuclear Weapons and Arms Control Working Group, which I established with colleagues last year, firmly believes that reversing dangerous competition through diplomacy and reducing the role of nuclear weapons would lead us to a world where nuclear weapons do not pose an existential threat to humanity,” said Representative Beyer. “We should do everything we can to get there, and signing the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons would be a great way to start. This is an important and meaningful step we could take towards a safer world, and I thank Rep. McGovern and my colleagues for their leadership on this initiative.”
“As a child of war, I know what death and destruction looks like. The trauma of war will never leave me. The use of nuclear weapons poses a threat to every human on the planet. Nuclear weapons are the most catastrophic, dangerous weapons ever created. These weapons cause widespread humanitarian and environmental damage, impacting everyone, regardless of the target. With the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the US withdrawal from the Iran deal, the threat of nuclear war is more real now than it has been for previous decades. The complete elimination of nuclear weapons is the only solution for a safer and more peaceful world. That’s why I am proud to join Rep. Jim McGovern to call for the United States to join the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons alongside more than 120 countries. When we say we champion human rights and peace, we should mean it,” said Representative Omar.
“These legislators believe that those billions of taxpayer dollars could be better spent on green technologies and other pressing human needs. They know that ‘keeping a few nukes for deterrence’ is just as morally corrupt and dangerous as keeping all of them, because even one, detonated on purpose or by accident, could cause destruction and suffering beyond what any of us want to imagine,” said Vicki Elson of NuclearBan.US “These people are not fooled by the theory that having thousands of climate-wrecking, civilian-slaughtering, accident-prone, hair-trigger weapons of mass extinction is somehow keeping us safe.
Defuse Nuclear War June 12, 2022 Webinar
The video of the live stream here:
https://defusenuclearwar.org/watch-june-12-live-stream/
Mandy Carter, David Swanson, Medea Benjamin, Jerry Brown, Leslie Cagan, Pastor Michael McBride, Katrina vanden Heuvel, Hanieh Jodat Barnes, Judith Ehrlich, Daniel Ellsberg, Khury Petersen-Smith, India Walton, Emma Claire Foley, and Ann Wright.
co-sponsoring organizations(Includes Peace Action WI)
Norman Solomon
National Director, RootsAction.org
(415) 488-3606
To Meet Nuclear Threat, US Should Attend Historic Vienna Meeting on Ban Treaty
Vladimir Putin's missile rattling has reawakened people's concern about nuclear weapons even as it exposes the lack of true understanding of the nuclear threat. An Associated Press poll found 75% of people in the U.S. are concerned or very concerned about a nuclear attack. What are we worried about?
None of the nuclear-armed states have indicated they will attend the Vienna meeting. That might not be true if the media broke the silence and reported on the promise of the TPNW.
Are we suddenly interested in the nuances of the policy of deterrence or U.S./NATO obligations to umbrella states to mount a military defense? Are we concerned about the mind-boggling cost of the modernization of U.S. nuclear programs or whether we should maintain the nuclear triad?
No, we are worrying about whether a nuclear exchange will kill us or the people we love and ruin the world we live in.
In other words, we are worrying about what really matters—the human cost of nuclear weapons. For decades, the official conversations about nuclear weapons have focused on political and military uses of nuclear weapons. The nuclear weapons "establishment" ruled talk about the actual human costs out of bounds, unspeakable, along with talk about nuclear disarmament.
Fifteen years ago, though, an effort began in Australia that spread around the globe, bringing civil society and governments together to work for a Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. In 2017, that Treaty was adopted by 122 nation-states at the United Nations, and the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) won the Nobel Peace Prize. On January 22, 2021, the Treaty entered into force.
The TPNW, in addition to its explicit prohibitions against nuclear weapons and its obligations to care for victims of the use and testing of weapons, made an implicit demand: all serious conversations about nuclear weapons going forward must include the human and environmental consequences of these weapons.
The refusal of the nuclear weapons establishment to consider the human and ecological cost of nuclear weapons has always been intellectually dishonest, but also necessary. Even a cursory consideration makes it immediately clear that there is no conceivable defense for these weapons that, if used, will destroy everyone on all sides.
This is the bottom line: What people care about—whether these weapons will destroy them, their loved ones, and the planet itself—is at the very heart of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. It is the first conversation we should be having in this moment when the nuclear threat is back on the table. It should be the frame for every media interview with policy or military "experts" on the nuclear threat.
It is time to break the silence, to tell the whole truth about nuclear weapons. There is a path out of the global peril that is, at this moment, being acutely felt by people around the world. The next step happens June 21-23, in Vienna, at the First Meeting of States Parties to the Treaty. The human and environmental costs of nuclear weapons will be center stage at the historic meeting.
None of the nuclear-armed states have indicated they will attend the Vienna meeting. That might not be true if the media broke the silence and reported on the promise of the TPNW. An informed public might demand our leaders pursue the only path that promises true safety and security for our children and their children.
In her Nobel acceptance speech, ICAN's Beatrice Fihn said, "Either we end nuclear weapons, or they will end us. One of these things will be true." Vladimir Putin has validated Ms. Fihn with his invocation of nuclear terror. At the moment this is being written, we still have time to choose life over death. Even if Putin puts his missiles away this time, the threat will not evaporate.
We have to eliminate nuclear weapons the day before the first missile is launched. The day after will be, horrifically beyond imagination, too late. If we feel the reality of the nuclear threat, we must act to protect our children and the future now. The path to a world free of nuclear weapons is long and will take time to travel.
US Presidents have declared that the United States has a special obligation to lead the world toward nuclear disarmament. It's time to meet that obligation, time to step out and lead. Sending observers to the First Meeting of States Parties would set an example for all nuclear-armed states. There, the U.S. "leaders" will meet hundreds of delegates from nations who are ahead of us on the road to abolition.
Ralph Hutchison is long-time peace activist and coordinator of the Oak Ridge Environmental Peace Alliance.
Contact: Jackie Cabasso, Mayors for Peace North American Coordinator
(510) 306-0119; [email protected]
June 8, 2022
U.S. Conference of Mayors Adopts Sweeping Resolution Calling for a Negotiated End to the War in Ukraine, Global Elimination of Nuclear Weapons, and Redirection of
Federal Spending Priorities: “Forging a Path to Peace and Common Security”
Reno, NV - At the close of its 90th Annual Meeting in Reno, Nevada, on June 6, 2022, the final business plenary of the United States Conference of Mayors (USCM) unanimously adopted a sweeping new resolution, titled “Forging a Path to Peace and Common Security.” This is the seventeenth consecutive year that the USCM has adopted resolutions submitted by U.S. members of Mayors for Peace.
Warning that, “Russia's unprovoked illegal war on Ukraine, which could eventually draw the militaries of the United States, its NATO allies and Russia into direct conflict, and Russia's repeated threats to use nuclear weapons, have raised the specter of nuclear war to the highest level since the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis,” the USCM “calls on the President and Congress to exercise restraint in U.S. military engagement in Ukraine while maximizing diplomatic efforts to end the war as soon as possible by working with Ukraine and Russia to reach an immediate ceasefire and negotiate with mutual concessions in conformity with the United Nations Charter, knowing that the risks of wider war grow the longer the war continues.”
Observing that “the immense nuclear arsenal of the United States, even when combined with the nuclear forces of its European allies France and the United Kingdom, failed to deter Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine,” and that “since the pandemic began, the U.S. has spent 7.5 times more money on nuclear weapons than on global vaccine donations,” the USCM resolution opens with a stark quote from a recent report:
WHEREAS, a new report, Common Security 2022; For Our Shared Future, sponsored by the Olof Palme Memorial Fund, finds that: “In 2022, humanity faces the existential threats of nuclear war, climate change and pandemics. This is compounded by a toxic mix of inequality, extremism, nationalism, gender violence, and shrinking democratic space. How humanity responds to these threats will decide our very survival.”
Noting that “over the next 30 years, the U.S. plans to spend some $1.7 trillion to replace its entire nuclear weapons infrastructure and upgrade or replace its nuclear bombs and warheads and the bombers, missiles and submarines that deliver them,” and that “the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), which entered into force in 1970, requires the U.S., Russia, the United Kingdom, France, and China to negotiate ‘in good faith’ the end of the nuclear arms race ‘at an early date’ and the elimination of their nuclear arsenals,” in the new resolution, the USCM
“calls on the U.S. and the other nuclear-armed states parties to the NPT, at the August 2022 10th Review Conference of the Treaty, to implement their disarmament obligations by committing to a process leading to the adoption no later than 2030 of a timebound plan for the global elimination of nuclear weapons by 2045, the 100th anniversary of their first use, and the 100th anniversary of the United Nations;” and
“calls on the Administration and Congress to rein in annual budgeted military and nuclear weapons spending, and to redirect funds to support safe and resilient cities and meet human needs, including by providing accessible and affordable health care for all, housing and food security, measures to assure reliable funding for municipalities and states throughout the COVID-19 pandemic and future disasters for which they are the first line of defense, green sustainable energy, and environmental protection and mitigation; and to increase investment in international diplomacy, humanitarian assistance and development, and international cooperation to address the climate crisis.”
As recognized in the resolution, “Mayors for Peace, founded in 1982 by the Mayors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, with 8,174 members in 166 countries and regions, including 220 U.S. members, is working for a world without nuclear weapons, safe and resilient cities, and a culture of peace, as essential measures for the realization of lasting world peace.
Noting that, “The United States Conference of Mayors has unanimously adopted Mayors for Peace resolutions for sixteen consecutive years,” the USCM “urges all of its members to join Mayors for Peace to help reach the goal of 10,000 member cities.”
The 2021 USCM resolution was sponsored by Mayors for Peace U.S. Vice-President Frank Cownie, Mayor of Des Moines, Iowa, and co-sponsored by Mayor Tishaura O. Jones of St. Louis, Missouri; Mayor Patrick L. Wojahn of College Park, Maryland; Mayor Jesse Arreguin of Berkeley, California; Mayor Libby Schaaf of Oakland, California; Mayor Joy Cooper of Hallandale Beach, Florida; Mayor Satya Rhodes-Conway of Madison, Wisconsin; Mayor J. Christian Bollwage of Elizabeth, New Jersey; Mayor Quentin Hart of Waterloo, Iowa; Mayor
Greg Fisher of Louisville, Kentucky; Mayor Frank C. Ortis of Pembroke Pines, Florida; Mayor Jorge O. Elorza of Providence, Rhode Island; Mayor Farrah Khan of Irvine, California; Mayor Tom Butt of Richmond, California; Mayor Pauline Russo Cutter of San Leandro, California; and Mayor Kenneth Miyagishima of Las Cruces, New Mexico.
The United States Conference of Mayors is the official nonpartisan association of more than 1,400 American cities with populations over 30,000. Resolutions adopted at its annual meetings become USCM official policy that will guide the organization’s advocacy efforts for the coming year.
Click here for the full text of the resolution.
Biden signs RECA extension
NM Political Report
June 6, 2022
By Hannah Grover
President Joe Biden signed an extension of the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act today, which lengthens the time that people who got sick after being exposed to radiation from uranium mining and processing or nuclear testing in Nevada have to apply for financial compensation.
This extension keeps the possibility of expanding eligibility open. Currently, people in the Tularosa area who became sick after the Trinity test are not eligible for compensation. U.S. Rep. Teresa Leger Fernández and U.S. Sen. Ben Ray Luján, both New Mexico Democrats, are among the lawmakers pushing to expand eligibility to those residents.
The extension received bipartisan support in Congress.
Related: RECA extension passes House, heads to president’s desk
The bill will expand the time period to file claims by two years. Had it not been extended, the program would have ended in July.
The extension was among nine bills that the president signed today, most of which focused on veterans and military.
Luján attended the bill signing. In a press release, he said it has been a top priority for him as a senator to ensure the program does not expire.
“With the President’s signature, we avoided that injustice,” he said. “But this fight is not over. The federal government must do right by all Americans whose lives were impacted by radiation exposure in the national defense effort, and I will continue working to expand this program to include all affected downwinders and post-1971 uranium mine workers. A strengthened RECA program would deliver long-overdue justice for families in New Mexico and across the nation who know the pain and sorrow caused by radiation exposure.”
|
https://davidswanson.org/talk-world-radio-norman-solomon-on-defusing-nuclear-war/
AUDIO:
https://soundcloud.com/davidcnswanson/talk-world-radio-norman-solomon-on-defusing-nuclear-war
US Warns North Korea of Forceful Response to a Nuclear Test
-
Signs indicate North Korea may soon conduct its seventh test
-
North Korea is firing off missiles at record pace this yea
Reseal the Deal with Iran
A renewed JCPOA provides a way to avoid the threat of war that would arise should Iran at some point move toward nuclear capability.
BY KEVIN MARTIN, PHYLLIS BENNIS
MAY 23, 2022It could be make or break time for the Iran nuclear deal.
The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) was the Obama administration’s top foreign policy achievement. It led to dramatic reductions in Iran’s ability to enrich uranium in return for the U.S. and its allies lifting nuclear-related sanctions that were crippling Iran’s economy.
Under Trump, the U.S. designated an elite Iranian military unit as a foreign terrorist organization. That led to extreme sanctions against individuals and agencies connected to this group.
Former President Donald Trump abrogated the agreement just over four years ago. The Biden administration’s talks with Iran to revive the deal have since progressed impressively, but now they have stalled again.
The problem lies with one of the many new sanctions Trump imposed against Iran during his last days in office that have nothing to do with Iran’s nuclear program or the JCPOA.
Under Trump, the U.S. designated an elite Iranian military unit, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, as a foreign terrorist organization. That led to extreme sanctions against individuals and agencies connected to this group.
The designation was explicitly designed by Trump to serve as a “poison pill” that would make it politically much harder for the U.S. to rejoin the deal, since it would require lifting sanctions against a so-called “terrorist” organization.
Unfortunately, the ploy seems to have worked.
The Senate recently approved a nonbinding GOP-backed measure pressuring the Biden administration not to de-list the Revolutionary Guard, even though getting back to the agreement will be almost impossible without delisting. Diplomats on all sides are working to overcome this obstacle, but time is running short.
Trump’s blatantly political move has made the United States, the region and the world less safe.
During the period that the JCPOA was in effect, all sides agreed that Iran was in full compliance with its requirements. But still it faced devastating new sanctions from the Trump administration.
While Iran has gradually enriched uranium to higher levels since Trump abrogated the deal, it has made no attempt to acquire nuclear weapons. Returning to the JCPOA is the best way to prevent this from happening.
Israel is the region’s only current nuclear weapons state. But others — including Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt and Turkey (which already has U.S. nuclear weapons on its soil as part of NATO’s nuclear sharing) — could end up joining the nuclear club if Iran does.
To repeat, Iran has, to date, not moved toward acquiring nuclear weapons. But its people continue to endure punishing economic sanctions, with the poorest and most vulnerable always the hardest hit.
A renewed JCPOA provides a way to avoid the threat of war — initiated by one of Iran’s regional rivals, or even the United States — that would arise should Iran at some point move toward nuclear capability. It might also serve as the basis for future negotiations with Iran on broader military and regional issues, and even set the stage for beginning negotiations towards global nuclear disarmament.
Negotiations over restoring the JCPOA are ongoing, and a resolution could come soon. A separate agreement between Iran and the UN’'s nuclear watchdog agency, allowing UN inspection of Iran’s nuclear sites, is scheduled to expire around June 6. That gives sharp urgency to getting the U.S. team to the table.
There’s still time to undo Trump’s reckless abandonment of diplomacy. The last thing the world needs is another regional arms race, or another war.
This column was produced for Progressive Perspectives, which is run by The Progressive magazine and distributed by Tribune News Service.
Kevin Martin
Kevin Martin is the president of Peace Action and the Peace Action Education Fund.
READ MORE BY KEVIN MARTIN
Phyllis Bennis
Phyllis Bennis directs the New Internationalism Project at the Institute for Policy Studies and the author of “Understanding the U.S.-Iran Crisis: A Primer.”
READ MORE BY PHYLLIS BENNISWill the Invasion of Ukraine Lead to Nuclear War? What we can do about it. Join Dr. Ira Helfand and Dr. Michael Klare
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJKQu8bmwPs
Nuclear Dangers in UkraineWITH NOAM CHOMSKY AND DANIEL ELLSBERG See the video of this event: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=asRywts02DE |
Move Over Chernobyl
Fukushima is Now Officially the Worst Nuclear Power Disaster in History
BY JOHN LAFORGE, COUNTERPUNCH APRIL 27, 2018
The radiation dispersed into the environment by the three reactor meltdowns at Fukushima-Daiichi in Japan has exceeded that of the April 26, 1986 Chernobyl catastrophe, so we may stop calling it the “second worst” nuclear power disaster in history. Total atmospheric releases from Fukushima are estimated to be between 5.6 and 8.1 times that of Chernobyl, according to the 2013 World Nuclear Industry Status Report. Professor Komei Hosokawa, who wrote the report’s Fukushima section, told London’s Channel 4 News then, “Almost every day new things happen, and there is no sign that they will control the situation in the next few months or years.”
Tokyo Electric Power Co. has estimated that about 900 peta-becquerels have spewed from Fukushima, and the updated 2016 TORCH Report estimates that Chernobyl dispersed 110 peta-becquerels.[1](A Becquerel is one atomic disintegration per second. The “peta-becquerel” is a quadrillion, or a thousand trillion Becquerels.)
Chernobyl’s reactor No. 4 in Ukraine suffered several explosions, blew apart and burned for 40 days, sending clouds of radioactive materials high into the atmosphere, and spreading fallout across the whole of the Northern Hemisphere — depositing cesium-137 in Minnesota’s milk.[2]
The likelihood of similar or worse reactor disasters was estimated by James Asselstine of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), who testified to Congress in 1986: “We can expect to see a core meltdown accident within the next 20 years, and it … could result in off-site releases of radiation … as large as or larger than the releases … at Chernobyl.[3] Fukushima-Daiichi came 25 years later.
Contamination of soil, vegetation and water is so widespread in Japan that evacuating all the at-risk populations could collapse the economy, much as Chernobyl did to the former Soviet Union. For this reason, the Japanese government standard for decontaminating soil there is far less stringent than the standard used in Ukraine after Chernobyl.
Fukushima’s Cesium-137 Release Tops Chernobyl’s
The Korea Atomic Energy Research (KAER) Institute outside of Seoul reported in July 2014 that Fukushima-Daiichi’s three reactor meltdowns may have emitted two to four times as much cesium-137 as the reactor catastrophe at Chernobyl.[4]
To determine its estimate of the cesium-137 that was released into the environment from Fukushima, the Cesium-137 release fraction (4% to the atmosphere, 16% to the ocean) was multiplied by the cesium-137 inventory in the uranium fuel inside the three melted reactors (760 to 820 quadrillion Becquerel, or Bq), with these results:
Ocean release of cesium-137 from Fukushima (the worst ever recorded): 121.6 to 131.2 quadrillion Becquerel (16% x 760 to 820 quadrillion Bq). Atmospheric release of Cesium-137 from Fukushima: 30.4 to 32.8 quadrillion Becquerel (4% x 760 to 820 quadrillion Bq).
Total release of Cesium-137 to the environment from Fukushima: 152 to 164 quadrillion Becquerel. Total release of Cesium-137 into the environment from Chernobyl: between 70 and 110 quadrillion Bq.
The Fukushima-Daiichi reactors’ estimated inventory of 760 to 820 quadrillion Bq (petabecquerels) of Cesium-137 used by the KAER Institute is significantly lower than the US Department of Energy’s estimate of 1,300 quadrillion Bq. It is possible the Korean institute’s estimates of radioactive releases are low.
In Chernobyl, 30 years after its explosions and fire, what the Wall St. Journal last year called “the $2.45 billion shelter implementation plan” was finally completed in November 2016. A huge metal cover was moved into place over the wreckage of the reactor and its crumbling, hastily erected cement tomb. The giant new cover is 350 feet high, and engineers say it should last 100 years — far short of the 250,000-year radiation hazard underneath.
The first cover was going to work for a century too, but by 1996 was riddled with cracks and in danger of collapsing. Designers went to work then engineering a cover-for-the-cover, and after 20 years of work, the smoking radioactive waste monstrosity of Chernobyl has a new “tin chapeau.” But with extreme weather, tornadoes, earth tremors, corrosion and radiation-induced embrittlement it could need replacing about 2,500 times.
-- John LaForge’s field guide to the new generation of nuclear weapons is featured in the March/April 2018 issue of CounterPunch magazine.
[1]Duluth News-Tribune & Herald, “Slight rise in radioactivity found again in state milk,” May 22, 1986; St. Paul Pioneer Press & Dispatch, “Radiation kills Chernobyl firemen,” May 17, 1986; Minneapolis StarTribune, “Low radiation dose found in area milk,” May 17, 1986.
[2]Ian Fairlie, “TORCH-2016: An independent scientific evaluation of the health-related effects of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster,” March 2016 (https://www.global2000.at/sites/global/files/GLOBAL_TORCH%202016_rz_WEB_KORR.pdf).
[3]James K. Asselstine, Commissioner, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Testimony in Nuclear Reactor Safety: Hearings before the Subcommittee on Energy Conservation and Power of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of Representatives, May 22 and July 16, 1986, Serial No. 99-177, Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1987.
[4] Progress in Nuclear Energy, Vol. 74, July 2014, pp. 61-70; ENENews.org, Oct. 20, 2014.
--LaForge is a Co-director of Nukewatch, a peace and environmental justice group in Wisconsin, and edits its newsletter.
Alliance for Nuclear Accountability
NUCLEAR WEAPONS
We work to oppose our massive nuclear weapons complex. This expensive and dangerous choice is something we can change.
-
- One of the most harrowing cases of U.S. military pollution activity was the nuclear weapons testing performed in the Marshall Islands. From 1946 to 1958, the United States tested 67 nuclear weapons in what is now known as the Republic of the Marshall Islands. These weapons tests have been equated to being 1,000 times greater than the Hiroshima bomb. Radiation poisoning, birth defects, leukemia, thyroid and other cancers are just a few of the detrimental life-threatening consequences experienced by the residents of those islands more than 75 years later.
- A second devastating case of U.S. military nuclear testing affected a Navajo Indian reservation. Between 1944 and 1977, Hanford Nuclear Reservation in Washington state released radioactive toxic gasses and fluids, affecting the fish that provide food and economic subsistence to the residences. In addition to this, uranium mining and aboveground nuclear-weapons tests had been occurring for approximately 50 years on and around these reservations. These actions have caused dramatic increases in cancer rates among indigenous people that reside in this region.
- Ian Zabarte, spokesperson and the Principal Man of the Western Bands of the Shoshone Nation of Indians, reports that as a result of decades of nuclear testing, they are the most bombed nation on earth. Shortly before the end of World War II, they were overrun by the military industrial complex. In violation of treaties, their land has now become the Nevada national security site. Since 1951, approximately 928 nuclear tests took place on the Shoshone territory – 100 in the atmosphere and more than 800 underground. The fallout from these tests covered a wide area, and contaminated water and killed flora, fauna and all wildlife and people.
- The Shinkolobwe uranium mine in the Congo (DRC) is an historic and ongoing tragedy shrouded in secrecy. The U.S., in collaboration with Belgian colonialists, used forced Congolese labor to extract the uranium it used in the atomic bombs it dropped on Hiroshima & Nagasaki Japan in WWII. While the full extent of the negative effects of radiation on the population around the mine are unknown, stories abound of children born with physical deformations generations later.
SOURCE: https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2020/8/29/a-message-from-the-most-bombed-nation-on-earth
NUCLEAR WASTE
Eight years after the 2014 explosion of one or more waste containers disposed in the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) underground, on Saturday, April 9th, WIPP announced that one or more waste containers had leaked radioactive liquids while being unloaded from a TRUPACT-II shipping container in the Waste Handling Building. WIPP reported that no contamination was found on the hands and feet of the workers and that “no indication of airborne contamination [was found] at this time.” Workers were first told to remain indoors, but were later evacuated from the Waste Handling Building.
Liquids are prohibited at WIPP unless they are contained in a very limited amount inside of the waste containers. Those liquids must be documented. WIPP and its contractor, Nuclear Waste Partnership, a limited liability corporation, have yet to provide any more information in writing about the release. https://www.nwp-wipp.com/
After the discovery of the radioactive leak, the WIPP Emergency Operations Center was opened for two hours and 39 minutes. All alerts were posted on Twitter. https://twitter.com/WIPPNEWS
According to verbal notices to the New Mexico Environment Department, the waste shipment originated at the Idaho National Laboratory where 55-gallon metal drums containing plutonium-contaminated waste are crushed or supercompacted. The compacted waste containers are not supposed to contain liquids.
After being discovered, the leaking waste container, or containers, was reloaded into the TRUPACT-II shipping container. It is unknown if the shipment will be returned to the Idaho National Laboratory.
The Nuclear Waste Partnership’s contract to operate WIPP expires on September 30, 2022. The Partnership did not reapply to manage the WIPP facility. The Department of Energy’s announcement of a new contractor is anticipated any day now.
In the meantime, the Defense Nuclear Facility Safety Board monthly reports reveal basic maintenance problems at the site. For instance, three continuous air monitors, or CAMs, located in the underground mine where workers dispose of radioactive and hazardous waste, were inoperable. Corrosion and excess salt built-up was found in the vacuum pump. There are three CAMs so that if one or more malfunctions, there is a backup. In this case there was no backup.
Further, two workers replaced two fuses in one of the hoists without following the Hazardous Energy Control protocols. These examples are only two of many.
NUCLEAR ENERGY
The time has come for a carbon-free, nuclear free future. Nuclear Energy is expensive, dirty, and dangerous; We can do better.
Here are just a few resources from IPPNW and ICAN to help others understand how nuclear weapons and militarism hasten climate catastrophe:
- Anointed, Kathy Jetnil-Kijiner
- Nuclear Weapons and Our Climate, ICAN Australia
- Nuclear Famine: 2 Billion People At Risk, IPPNW
- The Environmental Legacy of Nuclear Weapons Production: Five Case Studies, ICAN
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/04/13/biden-nuclear-cruise-missile-scrap-00024865
Political brawl looms over nuclear cruise missile Biden plans to scrap
JUNE 12, 1982 MARCH IN NEW YORK CITY
An uplifting documentary, “In Our Hands” interweaves performers, individual marchers and down-to-earth scenes of the massive gathering when one million people with one voice called for an end to the nuclear arms race. Capturing the magical spirit of that day with music, fun, tears, and a dazzling look at a cross-section of concerned humanity, "In Our Hands" is filled with high energy and warm feelings.
Directed and produced by Robert Richter and Stan Warnow.
This June 12th will mark the 40th anniversary of the largest peace demonstration in United States history. On this historic day, one million people marched from the United Nations, filled the streets of New York City, and rallied in Central Park to demand an end to the nuclear arms race and a shifting of resources to human needs. People from all over the world spoke with one voice to say "No More Hiroshimas” and “Abolish Nuclear Weapons." The demonstration catalyzed action to freeze and reverse the arms race.
- Examining the June 12th, 1982 Demonstration, including the organizing behind the event and its follow-on impacts
- Race, Class, and Nuclear Weapons
- The Importance of Education in the Nuclear Disarmament Movement
- Climate Change, Nuclear Weapons, and the Future of the Planet
- Art as Activism, Activism Through Art
- Where Do We Go From Here?
Back from the Brink campaign – preventnuclearwar.org/endorse.
More information can be found at preventnuclearwar.org
Milwaukee County Board Supervisors Board has endorsed Resolution 21-826, the Back From the Brink “Call to Prevent Nuclear War, introduced by Supervisors Steve Shea and Ryan Clancy, with a vote of 15-2.
Nuclear Power is Not a Climate Solution: The devastating impacts of Pacific nuclear testing, the Fukushima disaster, and radioactive waste from U.S. nuclear reactors.
The Affected Communities and Allies Working Group of the Nuclear Ban Treaty Collaborative will host a discussion on the devastating impacts of nuclear testing in the Pacific, the Fukushima nuclear disaster, and the dangers of parading nuclear energy as a solution to the climate crisis.
This free online webinar will explain why nuclear energy is not a climate solution and shed light on the underreported impacts of the ongoing nuclear crises in communities impacted by nuclear testing, nuclear energy, and radioactive waste.
Sixty-eight years ago, on March 1, 1954, the Castle Bravo nuclear test (the largest atmospheric explosion in the Pacific) was conducted by the United States in the Marshall Islands. The total of 67 nuclear tests left the community with ongoing health effects, continued radiation exposure, decimated environments, and generational trauma.
March 11 marks eleven years since the beginning of the ongoing nuclear disaster in Fukushima. The disaster forced some 160,000 to evacuate. Tens of thousands are still displaced. Thyroid cancer, one of the known adverse effects of radiation exposure, has been on the rise among children. In 2021, the Japanese government decided to dump 1.28 million metric tons of radioactive wastewater from the damaged nuclear power plant into the Pacific Ocean starting from 2023.
Avaaz petition; 1,067,000 have spoken up to prevent nuclear war.
|
|
|
Progressive Lawmakers in US, Japan Call on Biden to Reduce Risk of Nuclear War
https://www.ucsusa.org/about/news/progressive-legislators-call-no-first-use
AOC joins nuclear abolition bill
By Tim Wallis on Mar 29, 2022 12:04 pm
PHOTO: Franmarie Metzler; U.S. House Office of Photography, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
Washington, DC: U.S. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY14) has joined a list of co-sponsors of a bill that would abolish all nuclear weapons and use the money to address climate change and other pressing social needs.
The Nuclear Weapons Abolition and Economic and Energy Conversion Act of 2021 (H.R. 2850) is the 14th such bill introduced by Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC) since 1994. This latest version of Norton’s bill calls on the United States to sign and ratify the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, and to redirect the resources currently used for nuclear weapons programs to instead address “human and infrastructure needs, including development and deployment of sustainable carbon-free and nuclear-free energy sources, health care, housing, education, agriculture, and environmental restoration…”
“There is no reason for us to be increasing our military spending and our defense budget when we are not funding childcare, healthcare, housing priorities, and the climate crisis here at home,” Ocasio-Cortez stated during a Congressional debate on the Pentagon budget in September 2021. She also pointed out that “the Pentagon could save almost $58 billion by eliminating obsolete weapons – weapons like cold war era bombers and missiles designed and built in the last century that are completely unsuitable for this one.”
The Norton bill calls for a radical shift in federal spending priorities – from spending billions on obsolete bombers and missiles to instead addressing the real needs of people now and on the real threat we are facing today, which is the threat of global warming. And it is not just the spending on nuclear weapons that this bill objects to.
As the current crisis in Ukraine makes clear: nuclear weapons protect no one and serve no military purpose. “The dangerous policy of so-called nuclear deterrence is used to enable the continued invasion of Ukraine by Russia. It does not keep the peace, it allows for war to be carried out,” says ICAN Director, Beatrice Fihn. Russia is using the threat of nuclear weapons for this express purpose in Ukraine, just as the United States “used” its nuclear weapons to ensure that neither Russia nor any other country would interfere with the invasion and occupation of Iraq by US and allied forces in 2003.
In its annual update of the “Doomsday Clock” in January, the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists noted that the threat of nuclear war did not end when the Cold War ended. On the contrary, they claim that the danger is greater now than at any time since these weapons were invented, and that threat will not go away until these weapons are finally abolished, which is what the Norton Bill is calling for.
The post AOC joins nuclear abolition bill appeared first on NuclearBan.US.
NUCLEAR RADIATION IS BECOMING A CAMPAIGN ISSUE
Why it’s time to expand the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act.
In recent weeks, the world has held its collective breath as Russia shelled, and then occupied, Chernobyl, the site of the world’s worst-ever nuclear reactor disaster, and Zaporizhzhia, the largest nuclear power plant in Ukraine. Not to mention Putin’s thinly veiled threats of nuclear war to those who support Ukraine. With these developments, the world consciousness has been reinvigorated with concern about nuclear radiation. But, the concern over radiation never waned for those in the American West, who continue to live with the disastrous health consequences from Cold War-era nuclear testing and production.
Kael Weston, a former diplomat and Democratic challenger to Senator Mike Lee’s (R-Utah) seat, announced his candidacy with one issue front and center: His opponent has failed to protect Utahns by supporting the bipartisan Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA), the bill championed by long-time Republican Senate leader and Utahn Orrin Hatch and currently sponsored by Senator Mike Crapo (R-ID). Can Weston win a Senate seat by advocating for RECA?
PREVENTING THE BILL’S EXPIRATION
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention research shows that all people who were born in the contiguous US after 1951 have received some exposure to radiation from our Cold War-era nuclear testing. But, those in proximity to or downwind of testing sites face dramatically increased odds for cancer and other long-term health concerns. For many, including Weston’s father, the cost of living near nuclear testing sites has been their lives.
IF CONGRESS DOES NOT PASS RECA, IT IS LIKELY THAT IMPACTED COMMUNITIES WHO HAVE BEEN WAITING, SOME FOR AS LONG AS 77 YEARS, WILL NEVER SEE JUSTICE FOR THE HARM DONE TO THEM.
Without congressional action, RECA will expire in July 2022. Because of the arbitrarily drawn lines of eligibility written into the original 1990 bill, many Downwinders and other impacted individuals, like many uranium workers, are not eligible for compensation — both in Utah, and in states across the West and territories in the Pacific. Although the bill is championed by other Republican members of the Utah congressional delegation, notably Representatives Burgess Owens (R-UT) and Chris Stewart (R-UT), Weston is right that “neither Utah senator is leading ongoing discussions that would expand RECA.”
Currently, only Downwinders in particular counties in three states near the Nevada Test Site are eligible for any level of compensation — and even existing compensation is inadequate given the soaring cost of health care. Radiation does not stop at county lines, and we have known for many years that winds carried fallout throughout Idaho, Montana, Colorado, Guam, New Mexico, Utah, Nevada, and Arizona. Shockingly, even people in the area surrounding the Trinity Test Site in New Mexico, where the first ever nuclear weapon was detonated, have never been eligible for compensation. Radiation-induced illness affects entire communities regardless of age, race, economic status, gender, or political affiliation. Expanding RECA would bring life-changing support to both potato farmers in Idaho and impacted Navajo and Pueblo people in the Four Corners region.
It’s only right that the US should care for the people impacted by the development of our nuclear arsenal, the hidden victims of the Cold War. There are spaces where we have done this well that can serve as a roadmap. For example, the US government has taken care of coal miners with respiratory conditions and 9/11 first responders and victims that have been diagnosed with a related illness. RECA is very much in line with the care and concern Congress has shown other Americans harmed through no fault of their own. So, why pull the plug on Downwinders and uranium workers, especially when the bills have such bipartisan support?
RECA is a vital lifeline for individuals that live with the lifelong impacts of radiation, many of whom have been going bankrupt trying to cover the cost of cancer care. The maximum RECA compensation is $50,000. While no amount of money can bring back those killed by radiation poisoning, this pittance does not even cover the average $150,000 that cancer care costs in America today. The nuclear industrial complex already disproportionately harms the poor; to then bankrupt impacted individuals with medical debt is an additional level of harm and punishment that is beyond excuse or explanation.
MAKING IT RIGHT
Despite the fact that expanding and extending RECA is, historically, a bipartisan issue with bipartisan support, efforts to extend and expand the bill have fallen short.
In 1990, after building support in Congress for nearly 10 years, RECA was signed into law by President George H.W. Bush. An uphill battle from the beginning, Senators Hatch (R-UT) and Ted Kennedy (D-MA) worked together to ensure that at least some survivors of nuclear testing could make claims related to illnesses they endured as a result of radiation exposure. Two years before it would have expired, Congress, again on a bipartisan basis, amended RECA to expand benefits to more people and extend the benefits period for another 22 years. Unlike in 2000, however, Congress has left an extension to the eleventh hour, leaving at least tens of thousands of hopeful claimants in an anxious state of uncertainty.
As Senator Hatch stated in his testimony to the House Judiciary Committee in March 2021:
“When [RECA] was passed, in 1990, it had true bipartisan support in both Houses of Congress. There were members of Congress from both sides of the aisle and from all over the Country. There were sponsors as liberal as Senator Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) and as conservative as Congressman Jim Hansen (R-Utah). There were members of Congress from as far away as Rhode Island and Hawaii and as close to the test site as Nevada, Utah, and Arizona. It was truly a bipartisan effort then as it should be now.”
Radiation affects all people, regardless of their socioeconomic status, race, or gender, and RECA claimants span the political divide. Though there are more Democratic than Republican cosponsors, the bill is far from partisan. Given the leadership of previous Utah Republicans, it is particularly glaring that both Utah Senators have thus far failed to cosponsor RECA. With Representatives Burgess Owens, Chris Stewart, and Blake Moore — three of the state’s House members — as cosponsors, and a nearly-unanimous state-passed resolution supporting RECA expansion and extension, the absence of the support of the state’s Senators Mitt Romney (R-UT) and Mike Lee (R-UT) feels particularly pronounced.
Skeptics of the legislation say they’re concerned about the cost. But, the human cost of radiation exposure is incalculable and the monetary cost of the RECA program is marginal, especially when compared to our continued investment in harmful weapons. The US spends just over $60 billion per year maintaining our nuclear arsenal and yet has only spent $2.5 billion on compensating RECA claimants over the past 31 years. Recently the House Republican leadership blocked adding just the extension to RECA to the Omnibus funding bill.
If Congress does not pass RECA, it is likely that impacted communities who have been waiting, some for as long as 77 years, will never see justice for the harm done to them. Senators Romney and Lee have the responsibility to act, if only to tell the American people that Congress can agree on one thing: When we poison our own people, we are willing to do what is necessary to make it right.
Tina Cordova is a seventh generation native New Mexican, a Downwinder, cancer survivor, and cofounder of the Tularosa Basin Downwinders Consortium.
Mac Hamilton is the Advocacy Director at Women’s Action for New Directions, an organization committed to peace and security with justice.
Ukraine Negotiations: No Fly Zone, Nukes, Neutrality, and Disarmament
Regardless of whether we agree with him or not, President Biden's statements that Vladimir Putin cannot remain in power and that Putin is a war criminal have compounded already complex negotiations to end Moscow's devastating and nationally self-defeating war of aggression.
Humanity will be sleepwalking to its doom unless the great powers negotiate nuclear disarmament, and to collaborate to stanch the climate chaos that haunts humanity's future.
With Russia's military advances in Ukraine stymied, and with the mounting death tolls, we are receiving contradictory reports about the state of Russian-Ukrainian diplomacy. Ukraine's lead negotiator Mykailo Podolyak reports that the negotiations with Moscow are "absolutely real", but that the Kremlin hasn't pulled back from its most ambitious war aims. Negotiations, he has said, could continue for months. Ukraine's Defense Intelligence, Brig. General Kyrylo Budanov is less optimistic, reporting that the negotiations are "vague and unpredictable". Turkey's President Erdogan, who has met with both the Russian dictator and the Ukrainian president in his efforts to mediate an end to the war, reports that negotiators have reached "understandings" about Ukraine and NATO, partial Ukrainian disarmament, collective security, and the use of the Russian language, but there have been no agreements on the future status of Crimea or the Donbas. And, contrary to Podolyak, the New York Times claims that Russia is signaling a change in its war goals, announcing that the "first stage of the operation" has been "mainly accomplished." While it "does not exclude continuing attacks on major Ukrainian cities, the Times reports that are not Moscow's "primary objective". It contends that Russian forces will be concentrated on the "liberation of the Donbas."
Ukrainian and Russian lives will continue to be shattered until either a ceasefire or completion of successful negotiations are announced.
In recent months, I have been privileged to be a set of ears in a confidential series of track II discussions, initially designed to prevent the war and now to help frame diplomatic compromises that could end the bloodletting. Participants include former U.S., Russian and European officials—including military officers, advisors to their respective governments and scholars. A number of the participants communicate with their country's policy makers. A number of these people, despite their differences, have negotiated and otherwise worked together over many years. And even as emotions run high, the discourse is civil and "professional." While there could be unhappy professional consequences for some of the Western participants, one of the senior Russians has commented that "No new initiative comes without the risk of punishment."
This past week, as Ukrainian and Russian negotiators were meeting and other governments weighed in, one of these track II sessions was held to discuss the advocacy and dangers of possible Western no-fly declaration, as well as what Ukrainian neutrality and disarmament would entail. With the exception of near unanimous opposition to the exceedingly dangerous possibility of a no-fly zone declaration, as described below, a range of possibilities were identified which hopefully will inform the diplomacy needed to end the war.
A No-Fly Zone and NATO "Peacekeepers"
While Russian forces grind away at Ukrainian resistance, there is glee in Washington that Moscow may have trapped itself in an Afghanistan-like quagmire. But one thing that thoughtful U.S. and Russian elites agree upon is that despite the ongoing negotiations, the situation may be as dangerous as during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Then the Kennedy Administration believed the odds were between a third and a half that the crisis would result in a thermonuclear exchange between the world's two most heavily armed nuclear powers.
Just as the United States has done at least thirty times during international crises and wars, Vladimir Putin has threatened the possible use of nuclear weapons and increased the alert status of his nuclear arsenal. In the words of former U.S. Strategic Command Chief, Admiral Charles Richard, the U.S. has used its strategic nuclear forces to "create the 'maneuver space' for us to project conventional military power strategically." This strategy works both ways. It has prevented the U.S. and NATO from establishing a no-fly zone over Ukraine to eliminate aerial support for Russian ground forces. As was the case during the Cuban missile crisis, nuclear alerts increase the danger of accidents, insubordinations, or miscalculations triggering the unimaginable. There are also fears that if the Russian military and President Putin find themselves on the defensive, in desperation Putin might fall back on attacking with chemical or low-yield nuclear weapons, risking escalation up the nuclear ladder.
Zelensky has repeatedly appealed for NATO to impose a no-fly zone, an appeal that has found resonance in Congress. Fortunately, thus far NATO leaders have bowed to the reality that enforcing a no-fly zone against Russia would inevitably trigger World War III, in the form of genocidal or omnicidal nuclear exchanges. Enforcing a no-fly zone, would require attacking Russian anti-aircraft installations and shooting down Russian planes, to which Russia would respond in kind. Yet, in the track II discussion, a senior American warned that the longer the war continues, and as the Russian military is degraded, the temptation to impose a no-fly zone will grow.
A second reckless proposal, which was fortunately disregarded in Brussels, was made by Jaroslaw Kaczynski, Poland's president in the run up to the NATO summit.. Standing beside Volodymyr Zelensky, he floated the idea of dispatching NATO "peacekeeping" forces, capable of defending themselves, to operate in Ukraine. His spokesman later elaborated that the operation would involve deploying NATO and other forces in regions of Ukraine that have yet to be occupied by Russia and protecting them "against further Russian activities" .
In the track II session, a senior Russian advisor commented that "If Poland moves to impose a no-fly zone or otherwise intervenes in Ukraine, it will be considered an attack by a NATO member state." Similarly, immediately following the NATO summit, NATO leaders warned that if weapons of mass destruction were used within Ukraine, but their fallout drifted into NATO's territory, it could be interpreted an attack on NATO, necessitating military responses.
Neutrality & Demilitarization
Every war, for better or worse, ends with negotiations. While the details of Russian-Ukrainian negotiations remain tightly held secrets, track II participants assume that Russia's invasion will end with assurances that Ukraine will never join NATO and that it will become a neutral and significantly demilitarized state. Less certain is whether Moscow will insist on regime change in Kyiv in the guise of "denazification" or if Russia's territorial conquests will remain in place.
Russian ambitions in Ukraine, undefined as they continue to be, indicate that negotiating Ukrainian neutrality is at best a complex affair. As one Russian advisor commented, Moscow will insist that there be no possible military threats emanating from Ukraine for many decades to come. Recognizing the fragility of Swedish and Finnish neutrality, with both nations currently debating the possibility of applying for NATO membership, Russian leaders believe that neutrality cannot be rooted in what they perceive to be a hostile political environment. Thus, it is argued that meaningful agreements on Ukrainian neutrality will require progress in U.S-Russian and Russian-NATO negotiations, and they will need to be confirmed by an international treaty or United Nations Security Council resolution.
As if these obstacles are not sufficiently daunting, while Moscow states that regime change is not its goal, believing that neutrality must be rooted in a nation's political system and culture, it will demand some restructuring of the Ukrainian state, perhaps in the guise of its denazification demands. Not as difficult, but no slam dunk, are indications that Russia will demand intrusive inspections to verify Ukrainian neutrality and placing Kyiv's nuclear power plants under a special verification regime or in the future to be run by international operators.
Nonetheless, first steps in the direction of Ukrainian neutrality are being made. Under the pressure of Russia's invasion, President Zelensky has stated that, despite Ukraine's 2019 constitutional commitment to seeking NATO membership, he will not press the issue. He has stated that he is prepared to discuss neutrality as part of a peace deal with Russia but it need to be guaranteed by third parties and approved in a referendum. It is possible that Zelensky may have wanted to opt for neutrality to prevent Russia's invasion, but political pressure from right-wing Ukrainian nationalist forces—including assassination threats—raised the political (and personal) costs of pursuing that option.
Regardless of how it is designed, Kyiv agreeing to becoming a neutral state will face significant Ukrainian political opposition necessitating strong support, and likely considerable input, from the United States and other NATO states.
There are, in fact, many forms of nation-state neutrality. Swedish, Austrian, Moldavan, Irish, and Swiss neutrality differ from one another. International law would require that Ukrainian neutrality, which prevailed between its 1990 independence until 2015, would require renunciation of Kyiv's ambitions to join NATO, a ban on the presence of foreign military troops and bases, the commitment to treat warring parties equally, and guarantees from a number of countries. Militarily, Ukraine would need the ability to defend its neutrality and territorial integrity. Whether this would include Donetsk, Luhansk, and other regions now controlled by the Russian military appears to be the most divisive issue. Ukraine would also be prohibited from taking part in any international miliary conflict, making its territory available to nations at war (as Cambodia did during the Vietnam War), and providing troops or mercenaries to forces at war.
Determining how Ukraine would defend its neutrality will require intense negotiations. Sweden maintains a professional military, reinforced by conscripts, and its military-industrial complex produces weapons for export as well as for national defense. Switzerland has universal male military service. And at the end of the neutrality spectrum is Ireland which spends little on its military and is widely believed to be unable to defend itself against possible aggression, theoretical though it may be. That said, a neutral Ukraine would require some form of police for domestic security, a border/customs patrol, and a minimal military. Determining where weapons and related training for these forces would come from implies further questions about orientation and influence, and would be another highly contested issue.
Guaranteeing Ukrainian neutrality raises other questions. President Zelensky has said that it would require guarantees from the United States and other NATO nations. Russians respond by asking how this would differ in substance from Ukraine formally joining NATO. There is also the reality that nothing, even constitutions and international treaties that guarantees they will endure. With the people of and governments of Sweden and Finland debating whether end decades of neutrality and apply for membership in NATO Russian analysts are wondering how Ukrainian neutrality could be guaranteed.
What Then?
Ukrainian civilians and soldiers and Russian soldiers are being killed and maimed every day. Many of Ukraine's cities are being reduced to rubble. And indiscriminate sanctions are wreaking havoc and delivering despair to innocent Russians across that continental empire. These must all end.
International civil society has almost universally condemned Russia's invasion of Ukraine. With our demands for an immediate and unconditional ceasefire, a negotiated settlement to the war, and the withdrawal of all foreign military troops, we have helped to frame and apply international pressure to end this unjustified and tragic war. No one should be sacrificed or displaced while political leaders and diplomats debate the fine points of the negotiated settlement of the war. Negotiations can take place midst a ceasefire. This must be our immediate demand.
Looking to the future, after the guns are silenced we will face the shattered remains of the post-Cold War order, especially the continuing existential nuclear and climate existential threats. Recalling that NATO's expansion to Russia's borders was a contributing cause of the Ukrainian disaster and the long record of devastating U.S. imperial wars, Americans would do well to approach the new era with humility.
Putin has given us new lessons about the catastropich perils of the arrogance of power. Slow though the restoration of trust and normal diplomatic relations will be, we will face the urgent necessity of Common Security negotiations. The imperatives will be to replace the new ice age of a Cold War with a new Euro-Atlantic order in which no nation seeks to ensure its security at the expense of other nations. This was the promise of initial post-Cold War diplomacy, including the 1997 NATO-Russia Founding Act. And humanity will be sleepwalking to its doom unless the great powers negotiate nuclear disarmament, and to collaborate to stanch the climate chaos that haunts humanity's future.
Joseph Gerson is President of the Campaign for Peace, Disarmament and Common Security, Co-founder of the Committee for a SANE U.S. China Policy and Vice President of the International Peace Bureau. His books include Empire and the Bomb, and With H
Watch some interesting videos:
What If We Detonated All Nuclear Bombs at Once?
#nuclearban #nomasarmasnucleares #fimdasarmasnucleares
What if We Nuke a City?
Wildfires break out in Chernobyl amid a non-functioning radiation-monitoring system
By Susan D’Agostino | March 23, 2022
Fire in the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone from an earlier wildfire in April 2020. Credit: State Agency of Ukraine on Exclusion Zone Management. Accessed via Wikipedia. CC BY 4.0.
Seven wildfires have broken out in the exclusion zone surrounding the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant, the site of the world’s worst nuclear disaster, according to a statement by Ukraine’s Parliament. The fires, which were observed via satellite, exceed Ukraine’s emergency classification criteria tenfold. Ukrainian officials stated that the fires were caused by “the armed aggression of the Russian Federation, namely the shelling or arson,” though this has not been independently verified. Wildfires risk mobilizing and dispersing radioactive contaminants left over from the 1986 nuclear accident at Chernobyl.
Ukrainian firefighters have been unable to access the area since Russia took control in the first days of the war. Energoatom, Ukraine’s state nuclear company, also reported this week that Chernobyl’s radiation monitoring system is no longer working. Without the data that system would provide, radiation levels in the region may rise unchecked. Though the Chernobyl nuclear power plant is no longer operational, it requires constant management.
Ukraine’s State Agency on Exclusion Zone Management also reported this week that the Russian military destroyed a six-million-euro laboratory that, in part, worked to improve radioactive waste management, according to the Associated Press. The lab contained “highly active samples and samples of radionuclides” that could have been released, according to the agency.
Seasonal wildfires are common during spring and summer in the region surrounding Chernobyl. An April 2020 wildfire required more than 100 fire trucks with accompanying firefighters to extinguish; still, it burned more than 8,600 acres. Following that fire, the Chernobyl management team adopted early intervention efforts, such as moving firefighting equipment to the region in advance of fires, that helped mitigate risks. The team also offered fire-prevention education to workers in and residents living near the region. Those efforts kept the 2021 fire season under control, Kateryna Pavlova, Chernobyl’s Head of the Department for International Cooperation and Public Relations, told the Bulletin. “Last year, we prepared the exclusion zone to [prevent] a big fire, but this year it’s the opposite,” Pavlova said. “We are not prepared.” She added that the wildfires of concern started in March this year, whereas in years past, such fires, including the big one in 2020, started in April.
The current wildfire crisis follows a series of unfortunate events at the infamous Chernobyl site in the past month. After Russian forces took control of Chernobyl, they held hundreds of plant workers hostage in what the International Atomic Energy Agency call a “dire situation.” The staff worked at gunpoint, without replacement and despite exhaustion, to maintain safety at the nuclear facility. This week, some of the staff were freed, with priority given to those who were sick, after more than three weeks of captivity. Many of those who have been released have been unable to return to their families as the Russian military has not provided safe corridors, Pavlova reported.
Earlier this month, the plant also was cut off from the power grid, which raised concerns about monitoring the level and temperature of water in spent nuclear fuel cooling pools. The plant operated on emergency diesel generators during the power outage, and power has since been restored.
Russian forces also shelled and took control of Ukraine’s Zaporizhzhya Nuclear Power Plant—the largest in Europe—earlier this month. Though that incident resulted in no change in radiation levels, nuclear experts have expressed concern that an intentional or accidental wartime strike on a power plant’s reactor or spent fuel cooling pools could exact a significant human and environmental toll.
Listen to Representative Rashida Tlaib talk about why it is crucial to support the ban treaty and ICAN pledge to eliminate nuclear weapons.
Representative Rashida Tlaib talks about the need to eliminate nuclear weapons. - NuclearBan.US
Urge Congress to pass the Nuclear Weapons Abolition and Economic and Energy Conversion Act
| Background: Full text of HR 2850 |
The Nuclear Weapons Abolition and Economic and Energy Conversion Act in the U.S. House of Representatives would "provide for nuclear weapons abolition and economic conversion ... while ensuring environmental restoration and clean-energy conversion."
Let your representative know you want them to support it:
Nuclear Weapons Abolition and Economic and Energy Conversion Act
https://act.rootsaction.org/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=11837
https://outrider.org/nuclear-weapons/articles/nuclear-weapons-and-legacy-dr-king/
We join anti-nuclear activists across the country and throughout the world on January 22 to celebrate the treaty’s first anniversary of the Entry Into Force, https://www.facebook.com/groups/743982149793909/
Watch this video of "The Nuclear Blues"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oEMYR3zJJQw
The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICANW)
Nuclear Ban US https://www.facebook.com/groups/336042507972854
Petition to Stop the Basing of F-35s at Truax Air Base in Madison, Wisconsin.
Watch the 2022 Doomsday Clock announcement
In 2021 it was 100 seconds to midnight
W. E. B. Du Bois to Coretta Scott King: The Untold History of the Movement to Ban the Bomb
July 30, 2015
Coretta Scott King (R) with Women Strike for Peace founder Dagmar Wilson (L) in a march on the United Nations Plaza, New York City, Nov. 1, 1963. Source: © Bettmann/CORBIS.
By Vincent Intondi
When the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. announced his strong opposition to the war in Vietnam, the media attacked him for straying outside of his civil rights mandate. In so many words, powerful interests told him: “Mind your own business.” In fact, African American leaders have long been concerned with broad issues of peace and justice—and have especially opposed nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, this activism is left out of mainstream corporate-produced history textbooks.
On June 6, 1964, three Japanese writers and a group of hibakusha (atomic bomb survivors) arrived in Harlem as part of the Hiroshima/Nagasaki World Peace Study Mission. Their mission: to speak out against nuclear proliferation.
Malcolm X and Yuri Kochiyama
Yuri Kochiyama, a Japanese American activist, organized a reception for the hibakusha at her home in the Harlem Manhattanville Housing Projects, with her friend Malcolm X. Malcolm said, “You have been scarred by the atom bomb. You just saw that we have also been scarred. The bomb that hit us was racism.” He went on to discuss his years in prison, education, and Asian history. Turning to Vietnam, Malcolm said, “If America sends troops to Vietnam, you progressives should protest.” He argued that “the struggle of Vietnam is the struggle of the whole Third World: the struggle against colonialism, neocolonialism, and imperialism.” Malcolm X, like so many before him, consistently connected colonialism, peace, and the Black freedom struggle. Yet, students have rarely heard this story.
Focusing on African American history, too often textbooks reduce the Black freedom movement to the Montgomery Bus Boycott and the March on Washington. Rosa Parks and Dr. King are put in their neat categorical boxes and students are never taught the Black freedom struggle’s international dimensions, viewing slavery, Jim Crow, and the Civil Rights Movement as purely domestic phenomena unrelated to foreign affairs. However, Malcolm X joined a long list of African Americans who, from 1945 onward, actively supported nuclear disarmament. W. E. B. Du Bois, Bayard Rustin, Coretta Scott King, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., and the Black Panther Party were just a few of the many African Americans who combined civil rights with peace, and thus broadened the Black freedom movement and helped define it in terms of global human rights.
Writing in the Chicago Defender, poet Langston Hughes was among the first to publicly criticize using the atomic bomb in Hiroshima and the role race played in the decision. Years later, Hughes again used the Black press to raise awareness about the nuclear issue. He implored the U.S. not to use nuclear weapons in Korea, making clear that things would be different if Americans viewed people of color as human beings rather than an “Other.” In his view, racism, nuclear weapons, and colonialism were indeed inextricably linked.
Paul Robeson and W. E. B. Du Bois, World Peace Congress, Paris, April 20, 1949. Source: Du Bois Papers/UMass Amherst Libraries.
If students learn about Du Bois at all, it is usually that he helped found the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) or that he received a PhD from Harvard. However, a few weeks after the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Du Bois likened President Truman to Adolph Hitler, calling him “one of the greatest killers of our day.” He had traveled to Japan and consistently criticized the use of nuclear weapons. In the 1950s, fearing another Hiroshima in Korea, Du Bois led the effort in the Black community to eliminate nuclear weapons with the “Ban the Bomb” petition. Many students go through their entire academic careers and learn nothing of Du Bois’ work in the international arena.
Bayard Rustin speaking at the 1958 Anti-Nuclear Rally in England. Source: Contemporary Films.
If students ever hear the name Bayard Rustin, it is usually related to his work with the March on Washington. He has been tragically marginalized in U.S. history textbooks, in large part because of his homosexuality. However, Rustin’s body of work in civil rights and peace activism dates back to the 1930s. In 1959, during the Civil Rights Movement, Rustin not only fought institutional racism in the United States, but also traveled to Ghana to try to prevent France from testing its first nuclear weapon in Africa.
These days, some textbooks acknowledge Dr. King’s critique of the Vietnam War. However, King’s actions against nuclear weapons began a full decade earlier in the late 1950s. From 1957 until his death, through speeches, sermons, interviews, and marches, King consistently protested the use of nuclear weapons and war. King called for an end to nuclear testing asking, “What will be the ultimate value of having established social justice in a context where all people, Negro and White, are merely free to face destruction by Strontium-90 or atomic war?” Following the Cuban Missile Crisis in October 1962, King called on the government to take some of the billions of dollars spent on nuclear weapons and use those funds to increase teachers’ salaries and build much needed schools in impoverished communities. Two years later, receiving the Nobel Peace Prize, King argued the spiritual and moral lag in our society was due to three problems: racial injustice, poverty, and war. He warned that in the nuclear age, society must eliminate racism or risk annihilation.
Letter from the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament inviting Dr. King and Bayard Rustin to their mass march.
Dr. King’s wife largely inspired his antinuclear stance. Coretta Scott King began her activism as a student at Antioch College. Throughout the 1950s and 1960s, King worked with various peace organizations, and along with a group of female activists, began pressuring President Kennedy for a nuclear test ban. In 1962, Coretta King served as a delegate for Women Strike for Peace at a disarmament conference in Geneva that was part of a worldwide effort to push for a nuclear test ban treaty between the United States and the Soviet Union. Upon her return, King spoke at AME church in Chicago, saying: “We are on the brink of destroying ourselves through nuclear warfare . . . . The Civil Rights Movement and the Peace Movement must work together ultimately because peace and civil rights are part of the same problem.” Of course, Coretta was not alone. Zora Neale Hurston, Marian Anderson, Lorraine Hansberry were just a few of the black women who spoke out against the use of nuclear weapons.
Each new school year students will hopefully open their textbooks to study the nuclear arms race and the Black Freedom Movement. However, most will not learn how these issues are connected. They will not learn of all those in the Civil Rights Movement who simultaneously fought for peace. But this must change, and soon. The scarring of war and poverty and racism that Malcolm X spoke of continues. It is time that students learn about the long history of activism that has challenged these deadly triplets.
Nuclear Power is Not a Climate Solution: The devastating impacts of Pacific nuclear testing, the Fukushima disaster, and radioactive waste from U.S. nuclear reactors.
Here is the link to the video that was live streamed for those who were unable to attend or want to view it again or share it with others: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqQwRl5nqbQ&t=232s
The Affected Communities and Allies Working Group of the Nuclear Ban Treaty Collaborative will host a discussion on the devastating impacts of nuclear testing in the Pacific, the Fukushima nuclear disaster, and the dangers of parading nuclear energy as a solution to the climate crisis.
This free online webinar will explain why nuclear energy is not a climate solution and shed light on the underreported impacts of the ongoing nuclear crises in communities impacted by nuclear testing, nuclear energy, and radioactive waste.
Sixty-eight years ago, on March 1, 1954, the Castle Bravo nuclear test (the largest atmospheric explosion in the Pacific) was conducted by the United States in the Marshall Islands. The total of 67 nuclear tests left the community with ongoing health effects, continued radiation exposure, decimated environments, and generational trauma.
March 11 marks eleven years since the beginning of the ongoing nuclear disaster in Fukushima. The disaster forced some 160,000 to evacuate. Tens of thousands are still displaced. Thyroid cancer, one of the known adverse effects of radiation exposure, has been on the rise among children. In 2021, the Japanese government decided to dump 1.28 million metric tons of radioactive wastewater from the damaged nuclear power plant into the Pacific Ocean starting from 2023.
Showing 1 reaction
Sign in with