• About Us
  • Join
  • STAND for PEACE
  • Calendar
  • Contact Us
  • Peace Allies
  • Palestine
  • Photos and videos
  • Volunteer
  • Action Alerts
  • DONATE
  • Mobilizer newsletter
  • No F-35 Nuclear Bombers in WI
    • No F-35 Nuclear Bombers in WI
    • no f-35 in wi
  • No Nuclear Weapons or Nuclear Power
  • Indigenous and First Nations Rights
  • Middle East
  • Ukraine
  • Blog
  • Assange Defense MKE
  • 2023 Steering Committee
  • Order Books on PEACE ACTION WI BOOKSHOP

Pages tagged "TPNW"


No Nuclear Weapons or Nuclear Power

Posted by Pamela Richard · January 14, 2022 10:37 AM · 1 reaction

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

Five councils in our state have signed on to the ICAN Appeal of support for the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.  Help us grow that number!

Peace Action

 

Dear Peace Action members,

Recently our friends at the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists moved their iconic Doomsday Clock ahead to 90 seconds before midnight, the closest it’s ever come to a symbolic global catastrophe. This is due in part because the terrifying threat of nuclear war grows agonizingly close. The possibility of nuclear war is being talked about now as a more serious possibility than it has been since students were doing nuclear drills under their desks. Vladimir Putin has issued threats to potentially use nuclear weapons in Ukraine, and tensions are rising between the United States and China. A renewed arms race and Cold War with Russia, China, and the US, is unfortunately already underway.

In short, the risk of catastrophic nuclear war is all too real, putting all of humanity at risk. It’s time for bold, pro-peace leadership from Congress, who can help shape U.S. nuclear weapons policies and the decisions of the President.

Our pro-peace allies Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA) and Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) have just introduced legislation in the House of Representatives that does just that. It demands the United States embrace the goals and provisions of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) and adopt a comprehensive package of policies to reduce the nuclear risk and prevent nuclear war.

Specifically, it calls for –

  • The President to embrace the goals and provisions of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and make nuclear disarmament the centerpiece of the national security policy of the United States; and
  • The Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, all other Federal and congressional leaders of the United States, and the American people to lead a global effort to move the world back from the nuclear brink and to prevent nuclear war by:
  1. Actively pursuing and concluding negotiations on a new, bilateral nuclear arms control and disarmament framework agreement with the Russian Federation before 2026 and pursuing negotiations with China and other nuclear-armed states on an agreement or agreements for the verifiable, enforceable, and time-bound elimination of global nuclear arsenals
  2. Renouncing the option of using nuclear weapons first
  3. Ending the President’s sole authority to launch a nuclear attack
  4. Taking U.S. nuclear weapons off of hair-trigger alert
  5. Canceling the plan to replace the nuclear arsenal of the United States with modernized, enhanced weapons.

The legislation is called H. Res. 77, and it will be a terrific grassroots organizing and advocacy tool to stimulate real debate about nuclear weapons in communities around the country, and for cultivating congressional leaders committed to advancing the cause of actual nuclear disarmament.

Please write to your U.S. House Representative and urge them to take the necessary step and co-sponsor H. Res 77. 

Following the entry into force of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons on January 21, 2021, nuclear weapons activities are officially illegal under international law. Over the coming year, we’ll organize support for H. Res 77, as well as any stand-alone efforts to enact a No First Use policy, take U.S. missiles off “hair-trigger” alert, and stop funding for a new generation of U.S. nuclear missiles sure to throw fire on the new global arms race. This isn’t the last you’ll hear from us on this issue, but know this– your activism and engagement are going to be absolutely critical to our success. 

Please take action today and write to your representative to urge them to co-sponsor H. Res 77!

NUCLEAR FAMINE

The Deadly Consequences of Nuclear War
Most people and animals starve to death after smoke from nuclear firestorms creates Ice Age weather, preventing crops from being grown for many years.

The 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- 


Screen Shot 2023-01-05 at 6.15.34 PM.png

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

Roger Waters – Two Suns In The Sunset – electronicGIG

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.

PHOTO

* "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.

Read more


Exposed: The Most Polluted Place in the United States

Tara Lohan / The Revelator
28 December 22

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

https://www.ecowatch.com/most-polluted-place-in-the-united-states.html
A new book is out about Hanford, by Joshua Frank, co-editor of Counterpunch, Atomic Days: The Untold Story of the Most Toxic Place in America. Engagingly written; includes chapters on Hanford whistleblowers (Tom Carpenter was a major source for Joshua Frank, who got started on the subject when a journalist in Seattle). Also overview of the nuclear age and some discussion of nuclear power and climate change. I can't vouch for everything the book says about the complex situation at Hanford, but it seems generally pretty solid. The book strikes me as a good resource for people not in the field (and in the field too), educational events, etc.

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.

Executive Summary

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.

Full Report

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.

Full Report

15 December 2022


https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/12/14/fusion-power-climate-energy-renewables/ 

Fusion power is tantalizing, but it won’t save the planet
By the Editorial Board
December 14, 2022 at 11:19 a.m. EST

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

http://nuclearstreet.com/nuclear_power_industry_news/b/nuclear_power_news/archive/2022/11/09/national-labs-given-_2400_1.5b-funding-boost-110901#.Y2wN0oLMJOo

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.

Oak Ridge"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.


OCTOBER 29, 2022 UPDATES

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 Show

GUESTS
  • Norman Solomon
    executive director of the Institute for Public Accuracy, co-founder of RootsAction.org and author.

LINKS
  • Norman Solomon on Twitter
  • "Don't Just Worry About Nuclear War—Do Something to Help Prevent It"
  • "Tell Congress and President Biden to make NATO cease its nuclear war rehearsals"
Image Credit: Massachusetts Peace Action (MAPA)

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

FAS

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.

 https://thebulletin.org/2022/10/nowhere-to-hide-how-a-nuclear-war-would-kill-you-and-almost-everyone-else/#post-heading


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

By William M. Arkin 
09/29/22 at 5:00 AM EDT
https://www.newsweek.com/2022/10/14/biden-thinks-non-nuclear-threats-will-stop-putin-his-military-doesnt-1747343.html  

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.


 

 
Panel Event to Commemorate the International Day for the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons

Monday, September 26, 2022 at 6:30pm Eastern Daylight Time 
https://wagingpeace.us4.list-manage.com/track/click?u=62e892a405d4033c9ec6db972&id=a62dd9b1fe&e=260905b39c

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

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=pfbid02bqdCkYeMtbcpUQNCv1jqx3RGuA9hVd5mYKtaeBXMrUxAkcREffdiSiavw386gfzel&id=100000751590631

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]

WorldBEYONDWar.org

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

Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference begins Aug 1, 2022

Nuclear risks are extreme:
"Luck is not a strategy" warns UN Secretary-General

NPT Open Letter to be presented tomorrow



The 10th Review Conference of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) opened on Monday August 1 with a stark warning from UN Secretary-General António Guterres.

"From the Middle East and the Korean Peninsula. To Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.The clouds that parted following the end of the Cold War are gathering once more", he told leaders, ministers and ambassadors of nuclear-armed, allied and non-nuclear countries, along with civil society representatives gathered at the UN for this 4-week long event. 

"We have been extraordinarily lucky so far. But luck is not a strategy. Nor is it a shield from geopolitical tensions boiling over into nuclear conflict. Today, humanity is just one misunderstanding, one miscalculation away from nuclear annihilation."
UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres speaks at the opening of the 10th Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference at UN Headquarters in New York on Aug. 1, 2022. 
(Loey Felipe/UN Photo)
Mr Guterres called on the States Parties to use the opportunity of the NPT Review conference to reinforce the norm against any use of nuclear weapons, adopt practical measures to reduce the risk of nuclear war, strengthen all avenues of dialogue and transparency, and return to the path of nuclear disarmament.
 

From nuclear threats to human security:
NPT Open Letter presented to NPT plenary tomorrow

Fulfil the NPT: From nuclear threats to human security, an Open Letter organised by NoFirstUse Global, will be presented to the afternoon plenary session of the NPT Review Conference tomorrow (Friday August 5, New York time) by John Hallam, a member of the NoFirstUse Global steering committee.

Over 1400 political, military and religious leaders, as well as legislators (parliamentarians and mayors), academics, scientists, business leaders, youth, lawyers, artists, Nobel Laureates and other representatives of civil society from 80 countries have endorsed the Open Letter, which calls on the NPT States Parties to:
  • End the nuclear arms race and phase out the role of nuclear weapons in security policies starting with no-first-use;
  • Commit to a timebound framework for the global elimination of nuclear weapons;
  • Adopt a concrete plan to implement this commitment including through the systematic and progressive reduction of nuclear arsenals;
  • Agree to shift budgets and public investments from the nuclear weapons industry to instead support public health, climate stabilization and sustainable development.
A pre-view of the Open Letter, including a categorised list of endorsers, is available to view or download as a PDF file.

You can view the NPT plenary session at which the Open Letter will be presented tomorrow (August 5) on UNTV.

Nuclear weapons threaten current and future generations

“Nuclear weapons threaten current and future generations. They cannot resolve the conflicts between countries, and they are counter-productive to the human security issues of today and tomorrow – the COVID pandemic, climate crisis, food security, cybersecurity, and achievement of the sustainable development goals. It’s time to fulfil the NPT and the goal established by the UN in 1946 to eliminate nuclear weapons globally.”

Maria Fernanda Espinosa, Member of the World Future Council, President of the 73rd UN General Assembly. Endorser of the Open Letter FulFil the NPT: From nuclear threats to human security
 

NoFirstUse Global working paper to the NPT

NoFirstUse Global has submitted a working paper to the NPT Review Conference entitled No-first-use of nuclear weapons: An Exploration of Unilateral, Bilateral and Plurilateral Approaches and their Security, Risk-reduction and Disarmament Implications.

We encourage you to read the paper in order to learn more about no-first-use policies and options, how they can contribute to nuclear risk reduction and disarmament, and how this could be taken forward by States Parties to the NPT.

The key ideas and recommendations in the working paper will be discussed in more detail at Nuclear Risk Reduction – More Topical than Ever, an NPT side event at the United Nations in New York on August 19th.
What If We Nuke A City.

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/


DefuseNuclearWar.org
  • HOME
  • CO-SPONSORS
  • PODCAST

THE DEFUSE NUCLEAR WAR PODCAST WITH DANIEL ELLSBERG

 https://defusenuclearwar.org/podcast/


Japan: UN experts say they are deeply disappointed by decision to discharge Fukushima water

​https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2021/04/japan-un-experts-say-deeply-disappointed-decision-discharge-fukushima-water?LangID=E&NewsID=27000

 

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 UMAX system Lemons

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.

Recall and replace defective thin-wall nuclear fuel waste storage systems with proven thick-wall transportable storage casks.

Holtec and other thin-wall nuclear fuel waste canister storage systems are lemons. 

10ReasonsToUseThickNuclearWasteStorageCasks

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.

NRC and Southern California Edison engineers admit it’s impossible to inspect nuclear fuel waste canisters for cracks per ASME Nuclear Pressure Vessel standards

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 is an example of a country that requires dry storage systems that meet or exceeds ASME N3 standards.

Switzerland and other countries store thick-wall casks in hardened passively cooled building for additional environmental and security protection. 

behaelteranlage-3

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

DOE-Commercial-Proposed RepositoryHLNWmapGAO-10-14-2009Nov

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.

 

image.png

 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

[email protected]

(415) 488-3606


To Meet Nuclear Threat, US Should Attend Historic Vienna Meeting on Ban Treaty

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.

RALPH HUTCHISON

June 19, 2022

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.


Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.

RALPH HUTCHISON

Ralph Hutchison is long-time peace activist and coordinator of the Oak Ridge Environmental Peace Alliance.


www.mayorsforpeace.org

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.”



 
 

New US Submarines Hobbled by Billions in Added Costs and Delays

  • GAO’s weapons report also cites delays on drones, helicopters
  • Boeing’s F-15EX fighter found to have cyber vulnerabilities

By Tony Capaccio / June 8, 2022 11:00AM ET / Bloomberg Government

The US Navy’s two newest submarine programs have been hampered by growing costs, poor contractor performance and delays in the last year, according to an assessment by congressional auditors.

Costs for the 12-vessel Columbia class, the US’s next nuclear-missile submarine, have grown by $3.4 billion to a projected $112 billion before the first planned deployment in 2031, the Government Accountability Office said in its latest annual report on major US weapons systems. 

Similarly, over the last year work on the latest model Virginia-class attack submarine, which shares some of the same workforce, “fell further behind schedule, and construction costs continued to grow above original targets due to overall higher workforce demand and additional factors such as correspondingly less experienced workers,” the agency said.

The Columbia class will replace the fleet of 14 Ohio-class submarines that carry






 

ntury. The subs will carry one leg of the so-called nuclear triad along with land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles and air-launched weapons.

The 252-page GAO assessment  -- the most comprehensive evaluation of the Defense Department’s weapons portfolio -- reviewed 40 major current defense acquisition programs, four future major programs and 19 middle-tier projects. The submarine setbacks are among the most telling in the report released Wednesday. Both submarines are built jointly by General Dynamics Corp. and Huntington Ingalls Industries Inc.

Seventeen of the major programs GAO reviewed had delays, some of them “on top of past postponements,” according to the report. Those include the DDG-1000 destroyer from General Dynamics, the MQ-4C Triton surveillance drone made by Northrop Grumman Corp., the CH-53K cargo helicopter from Lockheed Martin Corp. and Boeing Co.’s new Air Force One presidential jet and its MH-139A Gray Wolf helicopter to patrol ICBM silo fields.

Talk World Radio: Norman Solomon on Defusing Nuclear War

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

 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-06-07/us-warns-kim-jong-un-of-forceful-response-to-nuclear-test?sref=q0d8jPEj&utm_source=AM+Nukes+Roundup&utm_campaign=996afd248c-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2018_07_25_12_19_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_547ee518ec-996afd248c-391829837


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, 2022
 It 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.

UNITED STATES PHYLLIS BENNIS ANTI-WAR JOE BIDEN NUCLEAR NUCLEAR WEAPONS SANCTIONS KEVIN MARTIN IRAN UNITED NATIONS BIDEN OBAMA TRUMP OPINION IRAN NUCLEAR DEAL
Screen Shot 2022-05-23 at 11.40.05 AM.png

Kevin Martin

Kevin Martin is the president of Peace Action and the Peace Action Education Fund.

READ MORE BY KEVIN MARTIN
Phyllis-Bennis.jpg

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 BENNIS
 

Will 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

Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs
Join Dr. Ira Helfand and Dr. Michael Klare as they weigh in on the threat of nuclear war amid the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Learn about the historical, diplomatic, and political contexts of a potential nuclear war and the associated medical and humanitarian consequences. Find out how to get involved with the growing “Back from the Brink” movement in the United States and the larger international movement to abolish nuclear weapon

Nuclear Dangers in Ukraine

WITH NOAM CHOMSKY AND DANIEL ELLSBERG
Co-hosts Cynthia Lazaroff and Richard Falk

Friday, April 29, 2022

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

https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/04/27/move-over-chernobyl-fukushima-is-now-officially-the-worst-nuclear-power-disaster-in-history/

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. 
      • SOURCE: https://earth.org/us-military-pollution
    • 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.
      • SOURCE: https://earth.org/us-military-pollution
    • 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.
      • SOURCE: https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2020/8/29/a-message-from-the-most-bombed-nation-on-earth
    • 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.bbc.com/future/article/20200803-the-forgotten-mine-that-built-the-atomic-bomb

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.

https://vimeo.com/590296934

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. 

 
On Sunday, June 12 — from 12 noon to 4 pm ET — we are planning a special online event to help commemorate this historic time in our history, to reflect, learn, and examine the nuclear disarmament movement then and now. The goal of the commemoration is not only to study the past, but to inspire a new generation of organizers and concerned people to take up the antinuclear banner and work for a future without nuclear weapons, a future grounded in social and climate justice, democracy, and an end to militarism.
 
Details of the program, along with additional resources, are online at June12Legacy.com The event will include panels and concurrent breakout sessions on:
 
  • 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?
 
Please consider joining the conversation. You can RSVP for the webinar here: https://www.june12legacy.com/registration

Check out these links to find out what the people of the world are doing to abolish nuclear weapons.
Peace Action WI also opposes nuclear power because it is part of the nuclear weapons fuel cycle and the enormous radioactive harm they cause and they aren't a truly renewable source of energy to stop climate change.
 Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.
Here is an overview from the United Nations website:
https://www.un.org/disarmament/wmd/nuclear/tpnw/
 
The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN)
ICAN is a coalition of non-governmental organizations promoting adherence to and implementation of the United Nations nuclear weapon ban treaty.
https://www.icanw.org/
Parliamentary Pledge to promote the abolition of nuclear weapons.
https://pledge.icanw.org/
 
Back from the Brink of Nuclear War 

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.

NO FIRST USE OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS
 Senator Edward J. Markey, a co-chair of the Nuclear Weapons and Arms Control Working Group, has introduced legislation calling for No First Use of Nuclear Weapons.
A copy of the legislation can be found HERE.

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.

Add your name
 
His Holiness the Dalai Lama, International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, and other Nobel Peace Prize Laureates have launched a historic call to reject war and nuclear weapons. Now they are asking Avaaz and citizens around the world to join them in protecting our planet.

Let's all sign with one click and share now -- when it's huge, they will deliver our voices for peace to key leaders from the Russian Federation, NATO, and the media:
ADD YOUR NAME

Open Letter From Nobel Peace Prize Laureates and Citizens of the World Against War and Nuclear Weapons

We reject war and nuclear weapons. We call on all our fellow citizens of the world to join us in protecting our planet, home for all of us, from those who threaten to destroy it.

The invasion of Ukraine has created a humanitarian disaster for its people. The entire world is facing the greatest threat in history: a large-scale nuclear war, capable of destroying our civilization and causing vast ecological damage across the Earth.

We call for an immediate ceasefire and the withdrawal of all Russian military forces from Ukraine, and for all possible efforts at dialogue to prevent this ultimate disaster.

We call on Russia and NATO to explicitly renounce any use of nuclear weapons in this conflict, and we call on all countries to support the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons to ensure that we never again face a similar moment of nuclear danger.

The time to ban and eliminate nuclear weapons is now. It is the only way to guarantee that the inhabitants of the planet will be safe from this existential threat. 

It is either the end of nuclear weapons, or the end of us. 

We reject governance through imposition and threats, and we advocate for dialogue, coexistence and justice. 

A world without nucle

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.


These nine men

 


Ralph Hutchison 

This morning’s interview (Sunday, March 27) by Ayesha Rascoe with Ankit Panda of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace addressed the elevated sense of the threat of nuclear weapons resulting from Vladimir Putin’s threat to use his nuclear weapons.
The interview focused exclusively on the 50 year-old Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and left unchallenged Panda’s assertion that the NPT has been a success, despite obvious evidence to the contrary. When the NPT was signed in 1970 there were five nuclear weapons countries. That number has since doubled, then settled at nine when South Africa dismantled its nuclear weapons program. The speaker claimed this signaled the success of the NPT because President John F. Kennedy had speculated many more countries could be nuclear armed.
The claim of success—and this is directly relevant to today’s nuclear threat—ignores the fact that the NPT required nuclear armed states to negotiate “in good faith” an end to the arms race and a treaty on complete disarmament “at an early date.”
The claim of success also ignores the fact that none of the nuclear armed states party to the Treaty, with the possible exception of China, has understood the clear meaning of the NPT and the desire of the states that signed it. Nuclear armed states have limited their efforts to horizontal proliferation (preventing the spread of nuclear weapons to additional states) rather than vertical proliferation (the reduction of stockpiles by nuclear armed states). For the NPT to work, efforts must address both horizontal and vertical proliferation.
If NPR polled the rest of the world about the “success” of the NPT, you might have noticed that 122 nations adopted the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) at the United Nations in July 2017. That Treaty entered into force on January 22, 2021. It is a direct expression of the frustration of non-nuclear-armed states with the failure of the nuclear armed states to meet their NPT obligations to disarm.
Nuclear armed states, including the US, have staunchly refused to engage the TPNW process, boycotting negotiations leading to the Treaty and the vote itself. The media has been complicit in this effort by its failure to do independent reporting on the Treaty.
The complete failure to mention — just mention, to say nothing of in-depth exploring — of the TPNW in today’s interview is dishonest in the sense that it does not represent reality and, instead, presents a falsely limited view of the possible responses to the nuclear threat.
Vladimir Putin’s threat to use nuclear weapons is an undeniable demonstration of the failure of the NPT. It does not come out of the blue. In 1996, the World Court’s opinion of the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons tied the two—the power of nuclear weapons lies not only in their use, but also in the threat that they might be used. One could hardly imagine a more explicit validation of that opinion than Putin’s recent actions.
The TPNW continues to gain support as nations formally join the Treaty. On January 22, 2021, more than 100 events took place across the United States celebrating the Treaty; on January 22 this year, nationwide demonstrations called on the US to join the treaty. With the exception of a few local outlets, the media ignored these demonstrations.
Now, with the nuclear threat on everyone’s mind, it is incumbent on the media to tell the whole story. Surely the TPNW, and it promise of a future free of the threat of nuclear annihiliation, is one of the things that must be considered by a media organization that calls its flagship news program “All Things Considered.”
If you need “experts” to talk about the TPNW, contact the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists or Daryl Kimball of the Arms Control Association. Excerpts from their web sites appear below.
Excerpt from On Nuclear Weapons, Actions Belie Reassuring Words
Daryl G. Kimball, Arms Control Association
https://www.armscontrol.org/.../nuclear-weapons-actions...
Fresh statements by the five NPT nuclear-armed states reaffirming their “intention” to fulfill their NPT disarmament obligations are hardly credible in the absence of time-bound commitments to specific disarmament actions.
At the same time, the five, led by France, have criticized the good faith efforts by the majority of NPT non-nuclear-weapon states-parties to advance the 2017 Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW). Contrary to claims by the nuclear-armed states, the TPNW reinforces the NPT and the norm against possessing, testing, and using nuclear weapons.
Rather than engage TPNW leaders on their substantive concerns, U.S. officials are pressuring influential states, including Sweden, Germany, and Japan, not to attend the first meeting of TPNW states-parties as observers. Such bullying will only reinforce enthusiasm for the TPNW and undermine U.S. credibility on nuclear matters.
The leaders of the nuclear five, especially Biden, can and must do better. Before the NPT review conference later this year, Russia and the United States should commit to conclude by 2025 negotiations on further verifiable cuts in strategic and nonstrategic nuclear forces and on constraints on long-range missile defenses. China, France, and the UK should agree to join nuclear arms control talks no later than 2025 and to freeze their stockpiles as Washington and Moscow negotiate deeper cuts in theirs.
Instead of belittling the TPNW, the five states need to get their own houses in order. Concrete action on disarmament is overdue. It will help create a more stable and peaceful international security environment and facilitate the transformative move from unsustainable and dangerous deterrence doctrines toward a world free of the fear of nuclear Armageddon.
Excerpt from The United States should support the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons
William J. Perry, for The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
https://thebulletin.org/.../why-the-united-states-should.../
When the United States signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1968, we agreed to the terms in Article VI, obligating us to “pursue negotiations in good faith…on a treaty on general and complete disarmament.” However, we and other nuclear powers have failed to uphold our obligation to the NPT, a failure which the ban treaty is working to correct. The ban treaty rightly establishes abolition as the standard that all nations should be actively working to achieve, rather than an indeterminate future goal.
The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons is a significant step forward, toward the future we imagined 14 years ago. It creates a bold vision of a nuclear weapons-free world, shifting our focus to the inhumane aspect impact of these weapons and proclaiming a global consensus to address this existential issue. The ban treaty strives to bring our global perception of nuclear weapons closer in line with their terrible reality and formally enshrines the necessity of their total elimination for the good of humanity.
While the treaty alone is not sufficient to bring about the end of nuclear weapons, it establishes key ideals necessary to push us further up the mountain. It offers inspiration to combat the sense of hopelessness that many feel when confronting this daunting problem. It serves as a new instrument of non-proliferation, augmenting the existing Non-Proliferation Treaty. It offers powerful support to those arguing against modernizing and expanding nuclear arsenals, actions that will now fail to follow the international law that most countries have agreed to live by. The treaty won’t end nuclear weapons any time soon, but it represents an important step in that direction.
The United States signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1968. At the Reykjavik Summit in 1986, President Reagan made the case for eliminating these weapons. And in 2009, President Obama pledged that the United States would “seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons.” Now in 2021, a treaty has come into force that makes nuclear weapons illegal for all who sign it. America prides itself on being a nation of trailblazers; let us be the first nuclear-armed nation to blaze this new trail toward the top of the nuclear-free mountain.

NUCLEAR RADIATION IS BECOMING A CAMPAIGN ISSUE

Why it’s time to expand the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act.

  • COMMENTARY

Words: Tina Cordova and Mac Hamilton

Pictures: Andreas Wagner

Date: March 29th, 2022

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

Ukrainian and Russian lives will continue to be shattered until either a ceasefire or completion of successful negotiations are announced.

JOSEPH GERSON

March 28, 2022

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.


Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Joseph Gerson

JOSEPH GERSON

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?

25,995,604 views
Mar 31, 2019
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyECrGp-Sw8
Kurzgesagt – In a Nutshell

#nuclearban #nomasarmasnucleares #fimdasarmasnucleares

What if We Nuke a City?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5iPH-br_eJQ
23,936,171 views
Oct 13, 2019

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.

RELATED:
“Get out now:” US closes Kyiv embassy and warns of imminent invasion amid Russia-Ukraine crisis

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

 

Call To Action: The UN Treaty to Ban Nuclear Weapons Enters Into Force –  Massachusetts Peace Action

W. E. B. Du Bois to Coretta Scott King: The Untold History of the Movement  to Ban the Bomb - Zinn Education Project

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. (Image: Bettmann/CORBIS)

Ploughshares Fund on Twitter: &quot;For Martin Luther King Jr., the struggle  against racism was part of a larger struggle for peace and justice. He  firmly opposed nuclear weapons, and he inspires us

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.

Sponsored by Peace Action WI, Wisconsin Network for Peace and Justice, WI Physicians for Social Responsibility, Safe Skies Clean Water WI, WILPF Milwaukee, Interfaith Peace Working Group

 logo footer  Watch the 2022 Doomsday Clock announcement

In 2021 it was 100 seconds to midnight

LIVE on January 20 at 10 a.m. EST

https://thebulletin.org/doomsday-clock/


W. E. B. Du Bois to Coretta Scott King: The Untold History of the Movement to Ban the Bomb

July 30, 2015

SharePrint
Coretta Scott King (R) with Women Strike for Peace founder Dagmar Wilson, 1963 | Zinn Education Project

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.

malcolmx_yuri_kochiyama

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.

Robeson and Du Bois in Paris, 1949 | Zinn Education Project: Teaching People's History

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 | Zinn Education Project

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.

CND Letter to Dr. King and Bayard Rustin | Zinn Education Project

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.



  • Sign in with Facebook
  • Sign in with Twitter
  • Sign in with Email


peaceactionwi
Follow @peaceactionwi on Twitter

Facebook—Twitter


Sign in with Facebook, Twitter or email.
Created with NationBuilder