Next president has a nuclear option: Scrap the program

NOTE: This Opinion was originally published in the Seattle Times on September 27, 2016.

The USS Ohio sailing in the Strait of Juan de Fuca. The Trident nuclear submarine
has been converted to a guided missile submarine. It was first launched in 1979,
and was the original nuclear submarine in the U.S. Pacific Fleet...
(Steve Ringman/The Seattle Times)

By David Hall and Leonard Eiger
Special to The Times

HAVE you seen the Seattle bus ads? They read: “20 miles west of Seattle is the largest concentration of deployed nuclear weapons in the U.S.”

In light of recent media attention on who should have their finger on the nuclear button, this statement seems to beg the question: With so many nuclear weapons, what would happen should the president order their use?

“Mutual-assured destruction” is still central to U.S. nuclear deterrence policy. U.S. and Russian nuclear-armed missiles remain on hair-trigger alert 24/7, threatening to end civilization.

One hydrogen bomb deployed from Naval Base Kitsap on Hood Canal could wipe out a large city like Seattle and make the land uninhabitable for centuries. Look up the presentation “One city, one bomb” to understand the devastating potential of modern nuclear weapons.

The United States is the only nation to have used nuclear weapons against another, and we have led the nuclear arms race from its beginning in 1945. Now Congress and the Obama administration have adopted a trillion-dollar plan to rebuild the entire nuclear-weapons complex, including replacement of the Trident submarine fleet on Hood Canal, over the next 30 years. Trident submarines are considered the deadliest weapon ever built.

When our leaders warn that “all options are on the table,” they are threatening to use nuclear weapons. This has happened dozens of times since WW II, including during the Korean and Vietnam wars.

King County Metro bus ad reading, “20 miles west of Seattle
is the largest concentration of deployed nuclear weapons
in the U.S. (Courtesy of Leonard Eiger)

Once the current international prohibition against using nuclear weapons is breached, the door is open for every nuclear-capable nation to use nuclear weapons. Climate scientists have modeled a “small” nuclear war between India and Pakistan assuming 50 Hiroshima-sized bombs from each side targeting cities. Smoke and soot would be lofted by superheated air into the upper atmosphere, lowering temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere enough to reduce agricultural production for a decade. That’s how 2 billion food-insecure people in South Asia and China could starve to death.

This is our policy: to threaten these consequences. But decision-makers are not calculating the scale of devastation built into a single nuclear warhead, much less the thousands they plan to maintain throughout this century. Because the U.S. is building up its nuclear capability, other nuclear nations are building up theirs.

Think the Cuban missile crisis to understand Russian fears of the proximity of U.S. nuclear weapons. The Cuban missile crisis, often described as the closest humankind has come to incinerating itself, was caused by nuclear weapons in proximity to U.S. shores. And the recent coup in Turkey could have put 50 nuclear warheads in potentially unstable hands.

Washington state sits at the center of U.S. nuclear policy for our deployed nuclear weapons at Naval Base Kitsapand for the largest Superfund site in our hemisphere at the Hanford nuclear reservation. Plutonium production for U.S. nuclear weapons left millions of gallons of highly corrosive and radiologically lethal sludge that we may never be able to safely dispose.

We are looking for leaders who understand that nuclear weapons are immoral and must never be used. Nuclear weapons threaten genocide on a scale that decision-makers refuse to talk about. The use of nuclear weapons are illegal under the laws of war and humanitarian law — unusable because there is no secure way to limit escalation, exorbitantly expensive and are a massive diversion of human talent and resources away from diplomacy, foreign assistance, innovation and public health.

U.S. priorities in the world are clearly written into our national budget.For the sake of future generations, we ask, “What will be the priorities of the next administration?”

David Hall, of Lopez Island, and Leonard Eiger, of North Bend, are active members of Ground Zero Center for Nonviolent Action and Physicians for Social Responsibility.

URL for original publication: http://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/next-president-has-a-nuclear-option-scrap-the-program/

The Nuclear Age at 70; Time for Mandatory Retirement!

Yesterday marked the anniversary of the day in which the world entered the atomic age. On July 16, 1945, at 5:29:45 AM at the Alamogordo Test Range, on the Jornada del Muerto (Journey of Death) desert, in the test named Trinity, the experimental device known as the "Gadget" was detonated, creating a light "brighter than a thousand suns." A mere 6 kilogram (13.2 pound) sphere of plutonium, compressed to supercriticality by the surrounding high explosives, created an explosion equivalent to 20,000 tons of TNT (20 Kilotons). It was a stunning sight.

No one who saw it could forget it, a foul and awesome display.
- Kenneth Bainbridge, physicist

Was this, as thought nuclear physicist Robert Oppenheimer, the beginning of the end? These scientists had "become death", and they had created what could become (quite literally) "the destroyer of worlds"(Oppenheimer quoted a verse from the Bhagavad Gita which read, "I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.")

Less than a month after the Trinity test, the United States dropped two atomic bombs - on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - that killed over 100,000 people in less time than it took me to type a few of these words. As many as 220,000 were dead from the effects of radiation by the end of 1945. Even today, 70 years later, survivors (the Hibakusha) and subsequent generations suffer the effects of radiation.

From its horrific beginnings the nuclear arms race has led humanity down a perilous road of preparation for its own destruction. Scientists have continued to seek the power of gods, creating ever more destructive nuclear devices over the years, and military planners continued asking for more of these awful weapons in every shape and form (and method of delivery).

The fall of the Berlin Wall provided an extraordinary opportunity for the U.S. to reach out to Russia to begin the process of bilateral disarmament that would have sent a clear signal to other nuclear armed nations, as well as the non-nuclear nations, that it was time to rid the world of the weapons of humanity's demise.

So why didn't this happen? The U.S. was so set on taking hold of the former Soviet republics, controlling resources in the region, and weakening the new Russian state that it barely throttled back on its nuclear weapons program. Oh yes, we cut back on the overall numbers of nuclear warheads and some delivery vehicles, Yet, the ICBM forces stayed (for the most part) on alert, and ballistic missile submarine (Trident) patrols have remained at near-Cold War levels to this day.

The nuclear weapons infrastructure has been in the process of rebuilding in recent years, a new generation of ballistic missile submarines is in the works, and other delivery systems are on the drawing boards. Is it any wonder then that other nations, including Russia, are building up their nuclear forces?

Of course, for the U.S., all this nuclear weapons modernization is about projecting force in our insane colonial quest to control resources around the world. The irony is that nuclear weapons do not provide any real security at all; they are only a liability, and their eventual use will mean the end of life on Earth as we know it. Don't future generations deserve better?

With the very real threats posed by Global Warming and its associated Climate Change, shouldn't we be spending our precious human and financial capital on works that will help humanity adapt and find sustainability in what will be a difficult enough future?

A new Cold War is brewing as the bomb approaches its 70th birthday. Is it not time to send this demonic creature into forced retirement and to transition the entire nuclear weapons infrastructure to sustainable industries and jobs to build a positive future for humankind?

Here in Washington State we have Naval Base Kitsap-Bangor and the Strategic Weapons Facility, Pacific. Bangor is home port to 8 of the nation's 14 ballistic missile (Trident) submarines, and the two facilities together represent the largest operational concentration of nuclear weapons in the U.S., and possibly anywhere in the world.

Trident is a first-strike weapon system designed during the height of the earlier Cold War in the bad old days of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). Those days are long gone, and with them any possible argument for the concept of Strategic Deterrence that continues to justify our nation's continued nuclear weapons modernization.

The Navy's plans for a successor to Trident, known as the OHIO Class Replacement, SSBN(X) or as I call it, "New Trident," are moving full speed ahead. Of course, the Russians are responding and building their submarine fleet (and the associated missiles) back up.

This madness must stop, or we will be assuring the eventual destruction of everything we hold dear. Ground Zero Center for Nonviolent Action has, for nearly four decades, resisted the Trident nuclear weapons system and worked for the abolition of all nuclear weapons, while grounding its work in the study and practice of nonviolence.

This August we will remember the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on this 70th anniversary and continue to work to retire Trident and all nuclear weapons. 70 years is long enough (or perhaps I should say far too long).

Wherever you may be this August, I invite you to commemorate the 70th anniversary of the atomic bombings and begin or continue your work (in whatever way you are able) to rid the world of the scourge of nuclear weapons. There are events around the country, and you click here to find one thanks to Physicians for Social Responsibility.

While you're reading this, consider taking one of the actions (at the top of the right-hand column of this blog) to help build a nuclear weapons free world. You can also check out (and get involved at) our campaign to stop production of New Trident at NO To NEW TRIDENT.

Towards a peaceful retirement for the nuclear age,

Leonard

Behold Your Nuclear God

DearFriends,

Tom Krebsbach wrote the following poem on Monday, August 12, 2013, following his participation in Ground Zero Center for Nonviolent Action's weekend of remembrance and action (at the Bangor Trident nuclear submarine base) around the anniversaries of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  

Naval Base Kitsap-Bangor represents the largest operational concentration of nuclear weapons in the US arsenal, and possibly anywhere in the world.  The nuclear missiles and warheads on a single Trident submarine are capable of destroying an entire continent - incinerating millions of human beings and leaving the land uninhabitable for generations.

A new book by Eric Schlosser, "Command and Control: Nuclear Weapons, the Damascus Accident, and the Illusion of Safety", poses questions about just how much "command" or "control" we have over these awesome and horrific tools of terror that are quite capable of ending life as we know it on this small planet.  Tom's poem turns the idea of command and control of nuclear weapons on its head, making clear the Faustian bargain humans have struck in our delusional power quest.

So much for "command and control" of nuclear weapons... in reality, they have controlled us since their creation in the minds of the scientists who developed them. Can we summon the strength and courage to turn away from them and embrace life?

With Tom's permission I am sharing his poem publicly for the first time.

In Peace,

Leonard 

***********************

Behold Your Nuclear God

Oh, foolish Homo sapiens, earth’s mistaken child,

In your puerile quest for indomitable power,

You have acted the obeisant midwife in my momentous birth,

Carefully hewing my cradle in the cauldron of ruthless war and strife,

Unleashing my fearsome powers to ravage and decimate earth. 

Bow down now before me and celebrate my awesome power,

For I am omnipotent and in charge.

I grow giddy with destruction fever as my time draws near,

When I shall consume all earthly existence in a fearsome ball of fire,

And render once and for all earthly life extinct. 

In fits of farcical delusion, you maintain that you are king,

Quite capable of restraining the primal powers I derive from sun and stars.

Continue on, foolish knaves, in your supreme complacency and unbridled arrogance!

Your very lust for unlimited power and defensive safety guarantee my ascendancy,

As I wait the fateful moment when I shall extend control over all of heaven and earth.

When that moment arrives in the devil’s hearse, there will be no turning back,

As all of life on earth tumbles into the fiery pits of hell. 

At this moment I will bite off man’s head like a voracious beast,

And sear the flesh of man and animal to a crisp and charred texture.

My apocalyptic frenzy of fire will cause Lucifer to bow down in envy before me. 

The structures and edifices of man will perish in a cloud of dust and twisted steel;

The seas will roil with the hot poison of radioactivity;

Children of man will vaporize into a cloud of radioactive dust;

And I will ascend my throne as man’s sole surviving heir,

The conception of his twisted mind, a product of his deviant progress. 

Gone for eternity, Beethoven’s music.  

My music is the moan of hot wind over charred and desolate plains.

Reduced to irrelevant ash, Rembrandt’s paintings. 

I paint a bleak and haunted landscape of blackened tree remains, 

Single black silhouettes against a gray and ominous sky.

Even now my human minions prepare the day of my ascendancy,

Stockpiling and upgrading my nuclear fuel to ludicrous extremes,

Assuring my day of coronation is near at hand,

When the short existence of man and life on earth will become irrelevant in the cosmic chaos, 

And I will rule on earth for evermore. 

Homo sapiens, bow down now before your only god. 

Nuclear Weapons Threaten Life and Waste Resources

Olympia Fellowship of Reconciliation (FOR) just aired it's newest TV interview show, "Nuclear Weapons Threaten Life and Waste Resources."   Olympia FOR's Glen Anderson interviewed two members of Ground Zero Center for Nonviolent Action (Ground Zero).

Ground Zero is located next to Naval Base Kitsap-Bangor, the home port of the West coast Trident submarine fleet and the Strategic Weapons Facility, Pacific. Bangor represents the largest operational concentration of nuclear weapons in the U.S. and quite probably the entire world.

Ground Zero offers the opportunity to explore the meaning and practice of nonviolence from a perspective of deep spiritual reflection, providing a means for witnessing to and resisting all nuclear weapons.

Tom Rogers is a retired U.S. Navy captain and former submarine commander.  Leonard Eiger is a retired public health professional and coordinates communications for Ground Zero.

In this show we focus on the Trident nuclear submarines based at Bangor in Kitsap County, just 60 miles north of Olympia and 20 miles west of Seattle. Tridents out on patrol are on constant alert status and poised for a suicidal first strike against Russia or other target.  Trident is a Cold War relic.

A single Trident submarine has enough nuclear warheads to destroy an entire continent. As Rear Adm. Joseph Tofalo, commander, Submarine Group 10, at Kings Bay, Georgia once said, "A single Trident submarine is the sixth largest nuclear nation in the world all by itself."

So it’s worth spending an hour watching this program! Click the image below to watch Nuclear Weapons Threaten Life and Waste Resources.

Don't Bank on the Bomb in the New Year!

Happy New Year Everyone!!!

It's hard to imagine... We've survived the Mayan Apocalypse and nearly fell over the fiscal cliff!!!  Phew!  That being said, the greatest threat to the survival of humankind still hangs over us like a Sword of Damocles, and this one doesn't come with a target date (although military planners most likely have plenty of potential targets in mind).

As we move into another New Year the money is flowing (like a fire hose at a three alarm fire) into the U.S. nuclear weapons complex.  And of course, the rest of the world is taking notice and following our lead.  Here are the most notable projects that come to mind.

The Y-12 Facility's $6.5 billion Uranium Processing Facility is moving ahead, although it recently experienced a minor glitch.  Despite years of design work officials recently admitted that the facility will have to be redesigned because all the equipment needed to process bomb-grade uranium and conduct other related activities won't fit into the existing design... ooooops!  Y-12 has already built a brand new Highly Enriched Uranium Materials Facility for storage of bomb grade uranium.  The HEUMF cost over a half billion dollars.

Construction of a huge new $673 million nuclear weapons manufacturing facility in Kansas City, Missouri is well underway.  The new facility will replace the existing Kansas City Bomb Plant, and will construct approximately 85 percent of the non-nuclear parts for nuclear weapons. 

National Nuclear Security Administration has already spent nearly a half a billion dollars on a new Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement (CMRR) facility at Los Alamos National Laboratories.  The $4 to 12 billion facility is intended to produce plutonium pits for nuclear weapons.  Quite ironically, the governments highest level scientific experts (the JASONS) have concluded that the pits in the nation's existing nuclear warheads have a lifetime of at least a hundred years.

The U.S. has continued to "refurbish" the W-76 nuclear warhead deployed on Trident II D-5 submarine launched ballistic missiles through the Life Extension Program that will cost close to $2 billion.  The B-61 gravity (nuclear) bomb, on the other hand, is estimated to cost $10 billion to upgrade.

The 450 Minuteman III Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles, deployed in underground silos around the country and ready to launch on warning, have been completely rebuilt.  As one analyst said, "they are basically new missiles except for the shell."  The modernization of Minuteman III has cost more than $7 billion over the past decade.

The Navy is full steam ahead with plans to build twelve new ballistic missile submarines to replace the current OHIO class submarines.  With nearly $2 billion in contracts having just been awarded for ongoing design and development work, the project is well on its way toward the nearly $100 billion that it will cost to build the new subs.

Of course the government has been working hard (and spending even more money) conducting tests to ensure the capabilities of the nuclear arsenal - including "sub critical" explosive testing of Plutonium and test firings of Minuteman III and Trident II D-5 missiles.

There is much, much more, but you get the idea by now.  While President Obama and Congress were fighting over the "fiscal cliff" the companies that manufacture, modernize and maintain nuclear weapons and their delivery vehicles and the companies that finance them were toasting a New Year bursting with the promise of profits.

Meanwhile, runaway spending on weapons that threaten humanity with extinction is stealing from human needs while encouraging other nations to either modernize and expand their arsenals or, in the case of non-nuclear nations, to develop their own nuclear weapons.

The challenges in the coming year to those working to abolish nuclear weapons are enormous!!!  In the U.S. we are still speaking in Cold War terms like "deterrence", while not questioning the rationale for replacing nuclear weapons systems (like Trident) with essentially identical systems that were originally designed in the context of the Cold War struggle to achieve nuclear dominance over the Soviet Union in the dangerous game of Mutually Assurred Destruction (MAD).

In the coming year we need to be at least as strategic in our thinking, planning and execution as those who plan and prepare for the real apocalypse. 

There has been no public debate regarding an archaic "deterrence" doctrine, while "deterrence" is still being used to justify almost every aspect of the U.S. nuclear arsenal.  It is certainly time to engage the debate and counter this outdated military doctrine.

We also need to know our adversaries in this struggle.  We need to bring serious public pressure to bear on the companies that manufacture, modernize and maintain nuclear weapons and their delivery vehicles and the companies that finance them.  The groundbreaking report Don't Bank on the Bomb,  from the International campaign to abolish nuclear weapons (ICAN), is the first major global report that identifies not only the companies doing nuclear weapons work, but also the "more than 300 banks, insurance companies, pension funds and asset managers from 30 countries that invest significantly in 20 major nuclear weapons producers."

If we can get the kind of coverage in the mainstream press (in the U.S) that we have seen in the United Kingdom in the debate over Trident in the UK, that will be a major success.  That should be our goal - to "mainstream" the discussion about nuclear disarmament and the role (and responsibilities) of the U.S. in the process, and bring serious political pressure to bear.

Global nuclear disarmament is obviously a very long-term goal.  The work, however, must begin now, and the coming year is going to be critical to setting a direction for the future.  All of us engaged in nuclear abolition efforts need to be supportive of one another's efforts in order to generate a critical mass (no pun intended) that can have an impact on policy makers.

Perhaps a good mantra for the New Year would be "Nuclear Disarmament Begins at Home".

Peace,

Leonard

Ho, Ho, Ho... Who's Next???

Friends,

With all the hand-wringing about Iran developing nuclear weapons (and North Korea developing missiles with which to deliver them) and thus vying for membership in the ever so exclusive nuclear club, one has to wonder who will be next. 

There have been rumblings from various countries singing the praises of nuclear weapons.  There have even been statements from some in Japan claiming the need to develop nuclear weapons.  What madness is this?

Perhaps a more appropriate question is - Just who (or what countries) are leading the rest of the world, like lemmings, toward the omnicidal cliff???

The U.S. and Russia still have vast nuclear arsenals.  Sure, they are much smaller than they were at the height of the Cold War.  And yet, what both nations have kept are the premier weapons. In the case of the U.S. those weapons would be the warheads mounted on Trident submarine launched ballistic missiles and those on the Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missiles.

Besides the sophistication of the weapons themselves, it appears that most, if not all, the major nuclear powers are modernizing not only their weapons and delivery systems, but also the infrastructure that develops, builds and maintains them.

Just in the U.S. we have built (or are building) brand new facilities at Oak Ridge, Tennessee (Y-12), Kansas City.  Others are in planning.  Besides "life extension" programs for warheads, submarines and more, the Navy is planning to build twelve new ballistic missile submarines.

It should then come as no surprise that other nations ponder going nuclear.  After all; who (or what country) is going to mess with a nuclear-armed nation?  Of course those of us involved in the effort to build a nuclear weapons-free world know that it's not that simple.  The more weapons there are and the longer they exist, the greater the chance of one big nuclear mess (also known as a nuclear holocaust).

And just as an aside - Why are we screaming about North Korea shooting off missiles when the U.S. regularly tests (unarmed) Trident and Minuteman III missiles every year??? Can you say "HYPOCRISY???"

Talk about a horrible role model!!!  But I digress.

Perhaps Tom Lehrer's timeless song "Who's Next" can provide some perspective as people start contemplating digging bomb shelters.  It may not be a song of the holidays, but what the heck; give it a chance.  It's truly a classic of the nuclear age.

Should the major nuclear powers continue on their current path with respect to nuclear weapons I might have to start a contest to guess Who's Next.  The grand prize could be a custom bomb shelter.  It would certainly come in handy if we continue arming ourselves to death. 

Peace (Please!!!),

Leonard

(Nuclear) Bombs or Bread: Who Decides???

In a response to recent "threats" made by North Korea, the U.S. State Department said that the country should "tend to the needs of its citizens rather than boasting about its missiles,"

I don't know of many people who would argue that the people of North Korea would be better served by their "leaders" if they were to spend less on their military - especially on nuclear weapons - and spend more on the true needs of its people.

That being said, isn't it the duty of every government - especially one that is supposed to be "of the people, by the people, for the people" (thanks to Abe Lincoln for the reminder) - to "tend to the needs of its citizens?"

As the State Department spokeswoman was going on about North Korea's (nuclear) missile ambitions, the U.S. Air Force was continuing its preparations for the test launch of a Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile scheduled for November 13th from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California.

Of course this is only a test launch, so the missile will carry a "dummy" warhead. If it was one of the 450 Minuteman III missiles sitting in silos scattered around the U.S. on alert and ready to launch in short order on the President's command it would be carrying a thermonuclear warhead of up to 475 kilotons!

But these are not the only missiles that the U.S. has deployed every day. A number of the 14 Trident (Ohio class) ballistic missile submarines patrol the world's oceans carrying the Trident II D-5 ballistic missile. Each Trident sub carries 24 missiles, each currently armed with four thermonuclear warheads, each warhead with a yield of 100 or 475 kilotons. They are also on alert, ready to launch on command.

Current U.S. Navy plans call for construction of 12 new submarines that will carry the current Trident missile. The existing W-76 (100 kiloton) warheads for the Tridents have been undergoing a "Life Extension Program." In this program the warheads undergo a "refurbishment" process in which they are improved.

So what does all this have to do with North Korea or taking care of the needs of our nation's citizens??? Well, the design, construction, operation and maintenance of the nation's nuclear infrastructure has cost trillions of taxpayer dollars since the beginning of the nuclear age. Just the construction of the 12 new submarines I mentioned will cost $99 billion or more (according to the Congressional Budget Office); and with operations and maintenance - $350 billion over the fleet's lifetime.

And it is not only North Korea that has hungry citizens. According to Feeding America, "In the United States, more than one out of five children lives in a household with food insecurity, which means they do not always know where they will find their next meal. According to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), 16.7 million children under 18 in the United States live in this condition – unable to consistently access nutritious and adequate amounts of food necessary for a healthy life." And that's just "children." 

The overarching questions beneath this issue are - What kind of security is our continuing pursuit of nuclear weapons and their use as a tool of foreign policy providing the people of the U.S., or the rest of the world for that matter? What message(s) does our continuing testing of missiles, refurbishing of weapons, building new nuclear weapons facilities, and planning new nuclear weapons delivery vehicles (eg., submarines) send to countries like North Korea? And, is it even conscionable on any level to spend hundreds of billions on nuclear weapons when so many people cannot afford food, shelter, education and health care???

So long as those in charge (whether in a totalitarian state or declared democracy) continue to be rooted in fear, blinded by power and beholden to special interests, they will also be blind to the needs of the people. 

No "enemy" will ever be defeated by the use of nuclear weapons.  Instead, the result will be unimaginable death and suffering (on both sides of any nuclear exchange).  Martin Luther King Jr. summed up the potential when he said (and it rings as true today as it did a half century ago):

In our day of space vehicles and guided ballistic missiles, the choice is either nonviolence or nonexistence.

Indeed, it is time for all those who should represent the interests of the people to do just that.  War is not the answer, and war fought with nuclear weapons is unconscionable.  Disarmament will not come easy, but if all leaders of the nuclear powers (starting with the U.S. and Russia) do not begin a sincere effort toward that worthy goal we will continue down a dangerous path that will lead to no good end. 

Beyond the question of bombs or bread, it is truly a matter of nonviolence or nonexistence.

###

For a good look at U.S. nuclear weapons spending check out Exploding Budgets, by Joe Cirincione, at Time.com: http://nation.time.com/2012/10/10/exploding-budgets/ 

Just Say NO to New Trident Plans!!!

The United States Navy has released its final decision on plans to build a new fleet of ballistic missile submarines.

The announcement, made in a news release earlier this month, informs us that the Ohio class submarines with their Trident II D-5 thermonuclear armed missiles, the crown jewel of the nation's nuclear weapons systems, are going to sail on well into the future. With the expected lifespan of the new subs we can expect them to be deployed quite probably to the end of this century (humanity should survive so long under the threat of nuclear annihilation).

The Navy plans to build 12 of the new Ohio class ballistic missile subs, each with 16 launch tubes to carry thermonuclear ballistic missiles.

The Trident nuclear weapons system is the most destructive force in the world.  "A single Trident submarine is the sixth largest nuclear nation in the world all by itself," according to Rear Adm. Joseph Tofalo, commander, Submarine Group 10. 

Each of the warheads (up to 8 per missile) on a Trident missile are capable of incinerating hundreds of thousands of human beings and causing unimaginable suffering to the survivors of the immediate blast, heat and radiation unleashed in a matter of seconds. 

There are not enough burn beds available in the entire world's hospital inventory to treat the countless victims in the zone in which people would suffer massive third degree burns (in addition to other serious injuries).

The really big question in all this is, "Would any use of nuclear weapons involve a single warhead, or even missile for that matter?  Should any use of nuclear weapons initiate even a limited nuclear war, all bets are off!!!

Even a limited exchange of nuclear weapons would cause widespread fallout and the associated, immediate and long-term health effects - mutations, cancers, birth defects, and much more - would affect millions of human beings.

Furthermore, even a "limited" nuclear war, unleashing just 100 nuclear warheads of the size of the Hiroshima bomb (15 kilotons) would cause global famine.  Each Trident submarine, in extreme contrast, is estimated to currently deploy nearly that many thermonuclear warheads of either 100 or 475 kilotons yield!

Nuclear weapons are truly the gravest threat facing humanity, just as they have been for nearly seven decades.  As a retired public health professional I see it as the greatest global public health threat facing our shared planet.

Rather than working with other nations towards nuclear disarmament, the U.S. continues to build up not only its nuclear weapons infrastructure and weapons, but (with the plan to build new subs) also the systems that deploy those weapons.  This sends a dangerous, threatening message to both the nuclear and nuclear-capable nations.  The result is a burgeoning new nuclear arms race!

The promises made in President Obama's famous Prague speech are now distant, hollow, rhetorical echoes.  We must remind the President of his promises.  We must demand that our elected leaders, in both The White House and Congress, work in the interests of the people and not a deeply entrenched Military-Nuclear-Industrial Complex.

Should the Navy succeed in building a new fleet of Ohio class submarines, it will be one of the final nails (if not THE nail) in the proverbial coffin for global nuclear disarmament.  This must not stand!

We need every one's voice in the call to disarm!  In response to the cheer leading article in the Washington Post about the U.S. "overhauling" its "aging" nuclear arsenal, Catherine Thomasson, the president of Physicians for Social Responsibility wrote a concise response.

The Washington Post article, Aging U.S. nuclear arsenal slated for costly and long-delayed modernization, does not remotely question the government's premise that the U.S. must move forward with a sense of urgency to confront a "decrepit, neglected... aging nuclear weapons complex."

Brand new facilities either in construction or completed at Y-12, Kansas City, along with ongoing construction at Los Alamos; completely "refurbished" W76 thermonuclear warheads (deployed on Trident submarine launched ballistic missiles); just to mention a few key projects.  "Decrepit" and "neglected" just don't seem to be the right words to describe the nation's current nuclear weapons complex.

Thomasson, in her Op/Ed response sums up the situation.  It is all about the people who allegedly represent us "appeasing special interests with little regard to our long-term national security or the fiscal health of the country." They do so at humanity's peril!

NO NEW TRIDENT!!!

One half of 1%: a sobering perspective!

Today the Preparatory Committee (PrepCom) for the 2015 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) wraps up the first of three meetings leading up to the 2015 NPT Conference. 

It is an appopriate time for a serious reminder that, even with the overarching (yet important) emphasis of many of the nuclear powers on terrorists getting their hands on nuclear weapons or materials, the greatest probability of a disaster related to nuclear weapons is still an exchange of these horrific weapons between the existing nuclear powers.

The following article published today at CNN provides that reminder in clear terms.  Working to abolish the Trident weapons system (and all nuclear weapons for that matter) this quote from the article hits home:   

Each U.S. Trident submarine can destroy 100 cities and produce the global famine described in the study.

And that's just ONE submarine.  Here at the Bangor Trident submarine base we have 8 of the 14 ballistic missile submarines mentioned in the article.  Overkill by many orders of magnitude!!! 

******************

A nuclear clash could starve the world - CNN.com

By Jayantha Dhanapala and Ira Helfand, Special to CNN, Fri May 11,2012

Editor's note: Jayantha Dhanapala is a former ambassador to the United States from Sri Lanka, U.N. under-secretary general for disarmament and chairman of the 1995 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review and Extension Conference. Ira Helfand is the past president of Physicians for Social Responsibility and current North American vice president of the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War.

(CNN) -- Recent ballistic missile tests by India, Pakistan and North Korea -- which has ominously threatened to "reduce to ashes"the South Korean military "in minutes" -- are once again focusing the world's attention on the dangers of nuclear war.

This concern was dramatically underscored in a new report released at the Nobel Peace Laureates Summit in Chicago. Titled "Nuclear Famine: A Billion People at Risk"

http://www.psr.org/nuclear-weapons/nuclear-famine-report.pdf

The study shows that even a limited nuclear war, involving less than half of 1% of the world's nuclear arsenals, would cause climate disruption that could set off a global famine.

The study, prepared by International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War and its U.S. affiliate, Physicians for Social Responsibility, used a scenario of 100 Hiroshima-sized bombs exploded in a war between India and Pakistan. If there were such a war, the study estimated that 1 billion people, one-sixth of the human race, could starve over the following decade.

Along with recent events, these findings require a fundamental change in our thinking about nuclear weapons.

The study, in positing a war between India and Pakistan, shows the importance of understanding that smaller nuclear powers, not just the United States and Russia, pose a threat to the whole world.

But the greater lesson concerns the forces of the larger nuclear powers. Each U.S. Trident submarine can destroy 100 cities and produce the global famine described in the study. The United States has 14 ofthem, a fleet of land-based nuclear missiles, and an arsenal of nuclear weapons that can be delivered by bombers. The Russians possess the same grotesque overkill capacity.

Even the most ambitious arms reductions under discussion would leavethe United States and Russia with 300 warheads each, most of them 10 to 30 times larger than a Hiroshima sized bomb. This would be a massive arsenal capable of producing the global famine scenario many, many times over.

These arsenals are an archaic, but lethal, holdover from the Cold War. Their continued existence poses an ongoing threat to allhumanity.

Steps can and should be taken immediately to lessen this danger. Substantial numbers of these weapons remain on what The New York Timeshas described as "hair-trigger alert." They can be fired in 15 minutes or less and destroy cities a continent away 30 minutes later. This alert posture creates the needless danger of an accidental or unintended launch, and the United States and Russia have had many close calls, preparing to launch a nuclear strike at the other under the mistaken belief they were under attack.

The most recent of these near-misses that we know about took place in January 1995, well after the end of the Cold War. The United States and Russia should stand down their nuclear arsenals so that it takes longer to launch their missiles, lessening the danger of an accidental war. U.S. President Barack Obama and Russian President Vladamir Putin can take this step on their own without negotiating a formaltreaty.

Beyond this, it is time to begin urgent talks aimed at reducing the U.S. and Russian arsenals as the next essential step toward multilateral negotiations for a Nuclear Weapons Convention, a binding, verifiable, enforceable treaty that eliminates nuclear weapons altogether.

As former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev observed on reviewing the new "Nuclear Famine" study: "I am convinced that nuclear weapons must be abolished. Their use in a military conflict is unthinkable; using them to achieve political objectives is immoral.

"Over 25 years ago, President Ronald Reagan and I ended our summit meeting in Geneva with a joint statement that 'Nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought,' and this new study underscores in stunning and disturbing detail why this is the case."

# # #

(Source URL for this article: http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/11/opinion/dhanapala-helfand-nuclear-famine/index.html)

Blogger's Note: Steven Starr has done tremendous research on nuclear famine.  Learn more at http://www.nucleardarkness.org/

Occupy Vandenberg on May 16th! Stop the tests!

After months of planning an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) is readied for test launch.  Air force aircraft and navy vessels work to clear the areas where the jettisoned stages of the missile will come down, as well as to keep a safety zone should the missile fail during one of its launch phases.  Countdown begins...

There has been no international outcry over the planned test launch of the missile that, under normal operational deployment would carry a thermonuclear warhead.  There is no discussion anywhere by the news media about the test and its implications regarding international efforts to control the proliferation of nuclear weapons and move the world towards disarmament.

What we see...

5... 4... 3... 2... 1... With a monstrous roar, and leaving a trail of smoke, the missile launches out of its silo using its first stage rocket motor. About 60 seconds after launch the first stage burns out and falls away, and the second stage motor ignites.  In another 60 seconds the third stage motor ignites and pulls away, sending the rocket out of the atmosphere.  In about another 60 seconds the Post Boost Vehicle separates from the third stage and maneuvers to get ready to deploy the reentry vehicle or RV.

Next the RV separates from the Post Boost Vehicle and re-enters the atmosphere, making its way to its target. The euphemistically named RVs are what contain the thermonuclear warheads that are capable of incinerating entire cities (and beyond) and instantly killing (at least) hundreds of thousands of people and causing untold suffering (both short and long term) to the survivors. 

Since this is a test the RV is loaded with a "dummy" warhead as it hurtles toward the test target.  In a matter of just minutes from launch the dummy warhead lands either on or near an isolated atoll 4200 miles from the launch site, right on target. 

And that's all folks.  No fanfare, no big news stories.  Just the usual news release from the U.S. government.  The launch just described occurred on February 27, 2012.  The Minuteman III ICBM was launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California, and landed at Kwajalein Atoll in the Marshall Islands.  The Air Force regularly conducts such test launches, as does the Navy for its Trident II (D5) submarine launched ballistic missiles (135 successful Trident test launches since 1989).

What we'd like to see!

And now the Air Force just announced another test shot from Vandenberg scheduled for May 16th.  I suppose that besides making weapons manufacturers very rich - each Trident missile costs roughly $70 million,while the Minuteman III is $7 million - the government wants to ensure that if the President orders the launch of these missiles armed with thermonuclear warheads, they will work as designed.  Now that's a comforting thought.

One can imagine how long it will take North Korea to get to the point at which it can launch one of its own missiles and expect it to reach its target with any reliability at all.  The U.S., on the other hand, has been conducting test launches of ballistic missiles for decades.  Based on the percentage of successful tests of its currently deployed ballistic missiles, there should be little need for such regular testing.  When doomsday comes, I have no doubt that the missiles will launch when the buttons are pushed.

On the eve of Tax Day here in the U.S. perhaps this is a good time to ask where our hard-earned money would be better spent - testing weapons designed to kill millions of people or supporting programs that support life.  After spending trillions on nuclear weapons, isn't it time to say ENOUGH?

No more test launches.  No new uranium facilities.  No new plutonium pit facilities.  No new (Kansas City) bomb plant.  No new ballistic missile submarines.  No new nukes!!!!!!!!!!!! Otherwise, there will be no future.

Occupy Vandenberg on May 16th!!!  No more nuclear weapon systems testing!!!

A Scene we'd like to see (in the U.S.)

Here is a scene (see photo below) we would be highly unlikely to see in the U.S.  Folks across the Big Pond have been engaging in a spirited debate on the (crazy) idea of a Trident replacement. 

Wouldn't it be great to get some serious money behind a campaign like this to stop the next generation of ballistic missile submarines right here at home??? 

Just think!!! A new generation of U.S. Trident subs (that will cost nearly $100 billion just to build) sailing the seas until the year 2082 (we should all survive so long without a nuclear war breaking out). 

Just how does a whole new generation of ballistic missile submarines (each one bristling with nuclear armed missiles) reduce the risk of nuclear war?  Oh yeah - deterrence.  How does it serve the process of global disarmament under existing treaty obligations?  What message does it send to other nations, both nuclear and non-nuclear?  How might this money (and all the rest spent to maintain and operate Trident) be better spent???       

And just how much did our (the U.S.) government spend on nuclear weapons while you waited for your bus (or perhaps while waited at a stop light) today???

NUKE DEBATE??? Let's have the real one...

Friends,

The front page of today's Seattle Times is embazoned with the headline:

Plan for $715 million Bangor wharf fires up

NUKE DEBATE

Under the headline is a mammoth photo of a Trident nuclear submarine somewhere in Puget Sound near Squim.  Each of these behemoths has 24 launch tubes, and is capable of carrying 24 Trident II (D-5) missiles, each with a capacity of 8 warheads, each warhead being either a W76 (100 kiloton) or W88 (475 kiloton).  In contrast, the Hiroshima bomb yield was somewhere between 12 and 15 kilotons.

Even if a single Trident sub carries only 24 missiles, each with only 4 warheads (as is supposedly the case due to current arms control agreements), that's a mighty big bang.  One Trident sub - and there are a total of 14, with 8 of them at Bangor - can easily wipe any nation off the face of the map in a matter of minutes... POOF!

The Times article stated that “the entire fleet carries enough nuclear warheads on its Trident missiles to obliterate every major city in Russia and China.” Wow!!!  If that seems like overkill, consider that the statement understates Tridents killing capacity.  Each warhead can incinerate hundreds of thousands or millions of civilians in an attack on a "major city."  With over a thousand warheads in the entire fleet, well... You do the math.

Should our government be crazy enough to start launching Tridents with armed nuclear warheads towards any nation all bets are off.  Besides the mass murders of scores of innocent men, women and children, the fallout and residual radiation - much of which would exist for countless generations - would render much of the planet uninhabitable, and would cause major climatic effects resulting in global famine.  Then, of course, there would be multi-generational birth defects, cancers and other radiation-related diseases.

It's safe to say that Trident is a "Cold War relic'" as retired Navy captain Tom Rogers referred to it in the article:

"Why are we doing this [building another Explosives Handling Wharf at Bangor]? We're spending a whole lot of taxpayer money on a Cold War relic," Rogers said in an interview. "All we are doing is making defense contractors rich."

Indeed it is making weapons makers extremely rich, and if the Navy goes ahead with its plans to build a next generation ballistic missile submarine to replace the current Trident fleet the amount to be spent on the new wharf will seem like chickenfeed.  Just the construction cost of the news subs will likely be around $100 billion.

Admiral Gary Roughead, chief of naval operations, has told Congress that the new wharf is "critical to nuclear weapons surety and our national security."  One has to wonder how, in an age when the Cold War is over and the greatest threat related to nuclear weapons or the fissile materials needed to make them likely would come from terrorists, a nuclear weapons system like Trident ensures our national security.  If anything, it's an impressive (and extremely expensive) symbol of military might.

At a time when we need to be shifting from our reliance on nuclear weapons in order to bring stability to (and ensure progress in) global disarmament and nonproliferation efforts we need to reduce our nuclear arsenal and its delivery systems.  If we do the math it is obvious that we have far more nuclear weapons than necessary to "deter" any adversary (that is assuming that the concept of deterrence is even applicable anymore).

Perhaps broader questions than those being debated about a Second Explosives Handling Wharf are in order.  Why does the U.S. assume a continued Cold War posture?  How can we possibly contemplate using weapons that kill indiscriminately and contaminate our environment for generations? 

We need to grasp the dangers that nuclear weapons present, and further accept the fundamental risk that the longer we continue to produce and deploy them, the greater the probability that they will one day be used either accidentally or intentionally.  And when that happens, it will be a dark day indeed.

As Tom Rogers pointed out - even with over a thousand nuclear warheads on all those Trident subs - we’re “not deterring anyone.”  What a waste!  So let's skip the small stuff and have the real debate -

Are nuclear weapons essentially obsolete???  Do we not need to learn to live together without threatening each other with annihilation???

As Martin Luther King Jr. said one year before his death, “We still have a choice today: nonviolent coexistence or violent co-annihilation.”   These were (and continue to be) prophetic words.  Indeed, we have a choice and we are at the crossroads.  Let us make the right choice, if not for ourselves, at least for future generations.  We must work towards global nuclear disarmament, and the U.S. can (and must) lead the way. 

In Peace,

Leonard  

Note: URL for Seattle Times article: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2017193326_navywharf09m.html     

Former submarine commander now anti-nuclear weapons activist

Friends,

The Central Kitsap Reporter ran the following article today about Captain Tom Rogers, US Navy, Retired, who served on nuclear submarines and was also the commander of one during the Cold War.

Years later Tom is now an active member of Ground Zero Center for Nonviolent Action, an organization of peace activists who study nonviolence and work for the abolition of all nuclear weapons with an emphasis on Trident, which is quite literally in its back yard.  Less than two weeks ago Tom, along with four other activists, was arrested while trying to block traffic into the Bangor Trident sub base in a symbolic act of closing the base.

This interview provides a perspective rarely found among anti-nuclear activists, yet one that is extremely important.  Tom is intelligent, articulate and passionate in his calm way.  His is a voice that needs to be heard.

You can also see a video of the August 7th action, photos, and more at the Puget Sound Nuclear Weapon Free Zone Blog.

Peace,

Leonard

****************************

Sub commander is now an anti-nuke activist — Tom Rogers was arrested while blocking Bangor gates

By TOM JAMES
Central Kitsap Reporter Staff Writer
Aug 19 2011

Tom Rogers, a former submarine commander turned antinuclear protester, was arrested Aug. 8 while blocking the gate at Naval Base Kitsap Bangor, home to a large nuclear weapons stockpile.

The date of his protest was chosen to commemorate the Aug. 6 and Aug. 9 bombings of Heroshima and Nagasak, Japan in 1945.

What led you to protest at the gate at Bangor?

In the years following the end of the Cold War I became less and less comfortable with the concept of nuclear deterrents when there really wasn’t anybody out there that we were deterring. What we were doing was spending a whole lot of money not to be any safer. It made me mad as a former naval officer who dedicated my life to the Cold War – that’s what I did – and as a taxpayer, and as a resident of Kitsap County, because the continuing presence of the weapons at Bangor is a danger to people and the environment, even though the folks out there do as good a job as they can.

You knew what was going to happen?

It was the culmination of a process of discernment and deciding if it was the right time for me to do that. Getting arrested was a step I hadn’t taken. I’d been at ground zero for eight years and I’d been very active, I’d testified at trials, I’ve written things, I’ve done a lot of work. But I was always dubious about the value of getting arrested. Four of us decided we would symbolically close the base by dragging that big inflatable missile into the road, and closing the base. And that’s what we did.

Was it hard to step over those barricades?

No. Not at all. Once I had gone through the process of discernment, and decided that it was time for me to do that and we made a plan and we rehearsed it, and had three other people with me that were going to cross the line with me there was no looking back, there was no recrimination.

You excelled in the military, and you say you're still promilitary?

I was a child of the ‘60s. I lived in Haight-Ashbury for a little while in the mid-’60s, the summer of love, I was a hippie. Then I got drafted – the Vietnam War was raging – it was 1966, so the first thing I did was I went home, to Connecticut, and I went to the local Navy recruiter and I said, ‘I’m not into this Army thing, what can you do for me?’ … and I said thank you very much, let’s do it. And that’s how I stayed out of the Vietnam War.

So I was an unlikely candidate for my subsequent career, but I kind of fit. I was technically proficient, smart, knew how to work. Then they just kept making me offers I couldn’t refuse. I never was really committed to making the Navy a career, it just sort of happened. They kept promoting me. I was surprised at every promotion board.

What is it about nuclear weapons that makes it OK to break the law protesting them?

Because I’ve testified for people who’ve broken the law – felonies – and here’s the deal. In 1996 the international court of justice, which is the judicial arm of the United Nations, was asked for a judgment on whether nuclear weapons were illegal. And after a year of hearings and deliberations, they came back and said unequivocally, that the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons is illegal under international law. That came out of … the Geneva Accords. If you look at those, its obvious that the use of nuclear weapons is illegal under those accords.

Now here’s the leap. I believe that deployment of nuclear weapons on board Trident submarines who are on alert patrol and can shoot those weapons within 30 minutes at anybody in the world constitutes a continuing threat of use. So we believe that the United States is doing something illegal.

Is it hard to go on base now that you've taken part in the continuing protest?

Absolutely not. I exercise my rights and obligations as a citizen of being an activist off the base. When I’m on the base I’m a Navy veteran, I use the facilities, and I feel very justified in doing so. I really have no relationships with anybody who is actively working on the base now, but if I did I would not compromise those relationships. I can live these two lives very happily within myself.

Central Kitsap Reporter Staff Writer Tom James can be reached at tjames@bremertonpatriot.com or (360) 308-9161 ext. 5062.  The URL for the article is http://www.pnwlocalnews.com/kitsap/ckr/news/128084923.html.

Navy Plans Rebuild of Trident Nuclear Weapons System

by David C. Hall, MD

The Pentagon and US Navy are planning to rebuild the Trident submarine nuclear weapons fleet over the next fifteen years at a cost likely to exceed $1 trillion over the life of the program. Currently eight of the fourteen Trident warships allowed under the START treaty homeport on Hood Canal at Naval Base Kitsap-Bangor in Washington State. The other six homeport at Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay, Georgia.

In what may well be an opening salvo announcing the rebuild of the Trident fleet, the Navy plans to build a new and expanded Explosives Handling Wharf at Bangor next to the one currently servicing these warships. Price tag: $783 million. The Navy claims to need 400 operational days a year to load and unload missiles from the warships over the next 30-plus years, and they can only get 300 operational days from the current Explosives Handling Wharf. (Editor's Note: Public comment on the Second Wharf Environmental Impact Statement was solicited through May 17, 2011 at www.nbkeis.com/EHW.)

What goes unsaid is the impact of current treaty negotiations to reduce the number of warheads and launch vehicles. While Trident warships are patrolling the world's oceans at Cold War levels, the number of warheads on the Trident subs has probably been reduced by half according to what data is available in the public record. The Navy, however, wants to upgrade the missiles and warheads, so presumably will want more handling days available.

This at a time when across the country we are cutting back basic medical care for indigent children, more people are out of work than at any time since the Depression, and people continue to lose their homes.

And then there is the unimaginable devastation these weapons are designed to create. Hiroshima was leveled in 1945 by a 12 kiloton atomic bomb. Trident warships can carry W-76 warheads rated at 100 kilotons and W-88 warheads rated at 450 kilotons, up to 192 warheads on a single warship. A single Trident submarine warship has the capacity according to recent climatalogical calculations to black out the sun in an entire hemisphere for weeks to months, an event named “nuclear winter” by Carl Sagan and colleagues in the 1980's. What sane motives continue to compel us to rebuild this doomsday system? How can human freedom hope to survive once such a weapon is used?

A single Trident-launched warhead could create a fireball with the heat of the sun over an area that would incinerate the heart of any city, and then the blast, firestorms, and radiation would expand that zone in waves of destruction over five miles and several generations.

On whose country would we deliver such wholesale killing, suffering, and environmental devastation? China would seem to be the principal target of the Pacific Trident warship fleet. We remember World War II, the Nazi holocaust, Stalinist Russia, and Mao Tse Tung's China – political and military catastrophes in themselves for people with any will to freedom and human rights. Yet there will be no democracy under nuclear fire. And if the United States is held responsible for the crime against humanity that a modern nuclear weapon would perpetrate, then what of the international backlash against us?

Imagine if the earthquake and tsunami assault on Japan had instead been caused by one or two nuclear weapons. The destruction could have been comparable with many more deaths, but what then would be the world's reaction against the perpetrator of such a crime? And where does it end?

This is not the world I want to leave for my grandchildren or their grandchildren.

Our world is much too interdependent and vulnerable to have its multifarious problems and injustices solved by military force, much less by weapons of mass destruction. We need national, international, and non-governmental institutions to broker negotiations across the panoply of threats to life on Earth.

It is time to outlaw and abolish nuclear weapons, not rebuild them. What is hopeful about abolishing nuclear weapons is that it is doable within a relatively short time frame, and it would propel other efforts at cooperative security and cooperative development to the benefit of all.

Our safety resides in our capacities to get along with each other. What sense does it make to threaten China daily with incineration by a Trident-launched hydrogen bomb when China now manufactures half of our consumer goods and holds nearly a trillion dollars of our debt? How about instead of spending another $783 million for a redundant and outmoded facility to service (illegal) weapons of mass destruction we instead invest in securing fissile materials worldwide, pass a nuclear weapons convention to abolish them, and develop cultural and educational exchanges with China, Russia, Iran and even North Korea to empower mutual understanding. That was a huge part of what helped to end the Soviet era of domination in Eurasia and bring an end to the Cold War.

David C. Hall, MD
Past President, Physicians for Social Responsibility and Washington Physicians for Social Responsibility (psr.org and wpsr.org)
Member, Ground Zero Center for Nonviolent Action (gzcenter.org)
Seattle, WA
206-235-8245 cell
206-957-4702 office voicemail

Editor's Note: You can read other posts on the Second Explosives Handling Wharf and watch video of public testimony at the Puget Sound Nuclear Weapon Free Zone.

Honoring Dr. King by Resisting Nuclear Weapons

The Seattle Raging Grannies set the mood for honoring Martin Luther King, Jr’s birthday, Saturday at the Ground Zero Center for Nonviolent Action in Poulsbo, Washington.

Eighty three people from the Center participated in a vigil at the Kitsap Mall in Silverdale with the help of a full scale, 44 foot long, inflatable Trident D-5 missile. Each D-5 missile, deployed on Trident nuclear submarines, carries up to 8 warheads, each with an explosive yield of up to 475 kilotons. Each D-5 missile costs approximately $139 million.

Participants carried signs and banners calling for an end to war and nuclear weapons. Notable was a quote by Dr. King: "When scientific power outruns moral power, we end up with guided missiles and misguided men."

Back at the Center for, Dr. David Hall, former president of Washington Chapter of Physicians for Social Responsibility, presented the threats posed by these nuclear weapons stored at Strategic Weapons Facility-Pacific and deployed on the Trident nuclear submarines based at Bangor Navy Base in Kitsap County.

The Seattle Raging Grannies chorus entertained participants with a series of musical parodies celebrating the day’s theme of “Billions for Life, Not Billions for Death.” The theme reflected Dr. King’s words: “A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.”

After nonviolence training 12 activists risked arrest by symbolically closing the Trigger Avenue gate during the afternoon shift change as an act of resistance to Trident, a first strike weapons system. Blocking traffic symbolizes stopping the horrific threat of Trident missiles, for a short time.

Rosy Betz-Zall, 60, of Seattle, WA; Anne Hall, 65, of Seattle, WA; Larry Kerschner, 64, of Centralia, WA; Brenda McMillan, 77, of Port Townsend, WA; Denny Moore, 66, of Bainbridge Island, WA; and Shirley Morrison, 88, of Seattle, WA walked onto Trigger Avenue with a banner reading “BILLIONS FOR LIFE, NOT BILLIONS FOR DEATH.”

Kitsap County Sheriffs arrested the six protesters. After initial processing they were transported by Sheriff’s van to the Kitsap County Jail for further processing. They were issued citations for blocking traffic and released.

Then another six Ground Zero Center activists crossed the ‘blue line’ designating federal control. Patricia “Patti” Bass, 63, of Poulsbo, WA; Carolyn Dorisdotter, 72, Seattle, WA; Norm Keegel, 71, of Bainbridge Island, WA; Gordon Sturrock, 52, of Eugene, WA; Sam Tower, 68, of Tacoma, WA; and Robert Friend Weber Whitlock, 32, of Olympia were arrested by naval security personnel, processed and released after being issued citations for trespassing.

Relating to the day’s theme of “Billions for Life, Not Billions for Death, according to Western Washington Fellowship of Reconciliation, “Washington State is planning to cut schools, health care, public safety and other programs by more that $4 billion. While Washington State taxpayers have paid $28.6 billion so far for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.” That figure does not include the annual defense budget or nuclear weapons spending.

The Trident submarine base at Bangor, just 20 miles from Seattle, is home to the largest single stockpile of nuclear warheads in the U.S. arsenal, housing as many as 2000 nuclear warheads. In November 2006, the Natural Resources Defense Council declared that the 2,364 nuclear warheads at Bangor are approximately 24 percent of the entire U.S. arsenal. Current estimates place the number of warheads at approximately 1000.

For over thirty-three years Ground Zero Center for Nonviolent Action has engaged in education, training in nonviolence, community building, resistance against Trident and action toward a world without nuclear weapons.

Contact: Leonard Eiger, Media and Outreach

Ground Zero Center for Nonviolent Action

www.gzcenter.org

subversivepeacemaking@gmail.com

(425) 445-2190