Here is a Link worth a read! This Is a Pivotal Moment for the US Nuclear Arsenal – Defense One14 Oct
Here described is proof that the Republican Party is chief roadblock to any moves toward nuclear disarmament and compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The deals that had to be made to get ratification of the New Start Treaty were to fund “modernization” of the nuclear weapons complex–even when the Pentagon says it has less and less interest in more nuclear weapons. The Republican Party has come a long way from when their President warned of the Military Industrial Complex. It is now the chief proponent of that complex.


Bet You Didn’t Know Right Here in Colorado STILL09 Oct

Are 49 Nuclear Missiles on Launch on Warning alert
Carol Gilbert and Ardeth Platt at Witness Prayer Service n-8

On Saturday, October 4, Members of The Colorado Coalition, Pikes Peak Justice and Peace, Rocky Mountain Peace and Justice, Pax Christi Colorado, and Citizens for Peace in Space bore witness at Missile Silo N-8 just east of New Raymer Colorado. Ardeth Platt and Carol Gilbert, the two remaining living Catholic Religious who entered the site more than a decade ago in non-violent protest, and spent 3-4 years in prison after prosecution by now Attorney General of Colorado John Suthers, were present. Their third partner, Jackie Hudson, died in prison in continuing protest against our crime against humanity. We sang their song, “Sacred the land, sacred the water, sacred the sky, holy and true. Sacred all life, sacred each other; all reflect God who is good.”

They reminded us that the continuing presence these nuclear warheads, ready to go, is a violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and represent unwillingness of the United States to keep its treaty commitment to diligently work with other nuclear armed powers to eliminate their arsenals. It was after all the bogus “threat” of Iraqi nuclear Weapons of Mass Destruction, (which would have been a violation of that same NPT treaty), which was used to justify the preemptive war with Iraq and the destruction of its political and social systems, devastating the country for a second time and displacing millions. They reminded us that the US Congress/President has actually committed billions of dollars (probably $30B) to rebuild US facilities that research, design and produce nuclear warheads, we are moving in the opposite direction. So much for the Nobel Peace Prize!

Ardeth and Carol also joined Citizens for Peace in Space on October 7th at Peterson Air Force Base, a center of the US Space Command, protesting its role in the continued use of Space to target nuclear weapons, and to carry them on ISBMs and SBBMs to world wide targets. The vision 2020 of the Space Command is to “dominate the military aspects of space to protect American interests and investments world wide.” This is in violation of the UN Treaty for the Peaceful Uses of Space.

Ardeth and Jackie spent time in Boulder, Denver and Colorado Springs urging Colorado citizens to engage in the build up to the PrepCon events preceding the UN NPT renewal, the first week in May 2015 in New York at the UN, combined with further actions to move along world wide nuclear disarmament and to call the world to spending its efforts not in building weapons of destruction but in structural changes that will address Climate Change.

US Officers survey the annihilation of Hiroshima City 1945

US Officers survey the annihilation of Hiroshima City 1945

Nagasaki Archive2IMG_20120803_121412 (1) 2011 Picture of N-8 Nuclear Missile Silo in NE Colorado

The Colorado Coalition has called and continues to call on the Colorado State Legislature to pass a resolution calling for the removal of these 49 missiles and to urge immediate effective efforts for the abolition of nuclear weapons everywhere. Its proposed text is available elsewhere on this web site.

“Viewed from a legal, political, security and most of all, moral perspective, there is no justification today for the continued maintenance of nuclear weapons…With development needs across the globe far outpacing the resources being devoted to address them, the thought of pouring hundreds of billions of additional dollars into the world’s nuclear arsenals is nothing short of sinful. It is the grossest misplacement of priorities and truly constitutes the very “theft from the poor” which the Second Vatican Council condemned so long ago.”

–Archbishop Chullikatt, Vatican Nuncio to the united Nations.


Secrecy06 Oct

The fact that the United States Government is able to keep information secret in the name of National Security is destructive of Democracy. Below is one example of information unavailable in full to the American Public for over 50 years. It also lists a number of strands of information which are critical to the public that are in secrecy status, most of which have nothing to do with national defense in the military sense but contain critical government framing of scientific issues such as fracking.

From the FAS Project on Government Secrecy
Volume 2014, Issue No. 66
October 6, 2014

Secrecy News Blog:



The transcript of the momentous 1954 Atomic Energy Commission hearing that led the AEC to revoke the security clearance of J. Robert Oppenheimer, the physicist who had led the Manhattan Project to produce the first atomic bomb, has now been declassified in full by the Department of Energy.

“The Department of Energy has re-reviewed the original transcript and is making available to the public, for the first time, the full text of the transcript in its original form,” according to a notice posted on Friday.

The Oppenheimer hearing was a watershed event that signaled a crisis in the nuclear weapons bureaucracy and a fracturing of the early post-war national security consensus. Asked for his opinion of the proceedings at the time, Oppenheimer told an Associated Press reporter (cited by Philip Stern) that “People will study the record of this case and reach their own conclusions. I think there is something to be learned from it.”

And so there is. But what?

“No document better explains the America of the cold war — its fears and resentments, its anxieties and dilemmas,” according to Richard Polenberg, who produced an abridged edition of the hearing transcript in 2002 based on the redacted original. “The Oppenheimer hearing also serves as a reminder of the fragility of individual rights and of how easily they may be lost.”

It further represented a breakdown in relations between scientists and the U.S. government and within the scientific community itself.

“The Oppenheimer hearing claims our attention not only because it was unjust but because it undermined respect for independent scientific thinking at a time when such thinking was desperately needed,” wrote historian Priscilla J. McMillan.

First published in redacted form by the Government Printing Office in 1954, the Oppenheimer hearing became a GPO best-seller and went on to inform countless historical studies.

The transcript has attracted intense scholarly attention even to some of its finer details. At one point (Volume II, p. 281), for example, Oppenheimer is quoted as saying “I think you can’t make an anomalous rise twice.” What he actually said, according to author Philip M. Stern, was “I think you can’t make an omelet rise twice.”

The Department of Energy has previously declassified some portions of the Oppenheimer transcript in response to FOIA requests. But this is said to be the first release of the entire unredacted text. It is part of a continuing series of DOE declassifications of historical records of documents of particular historic value and public interest.

The newly declassified portions are helpfully consolidated and cross-referenced in a separate volume entitled “Record of Deletions.”

At first glance, it is not clear that the new disclosures will substantially revise or add to previous understandings of the Oppenheimer hearing. But their release does finally remove a blemish of secrecy from this historic case.


Offices of Inspector General (OIGs) are generally known for performing investigations of executive branch agencies in order to combat waste, fraud and abuse. But many IGs also have a law enforcement function, and many of their employees are armed.

The most recent data available (from 2008) indicate that 33 Offices of Inspector General had a total of 3,501 agents who were authorized to carry firearms, according to a recent report from the Congressional Research Service. Intelligence community IGs do not appear to be among them.

Why does the US Department of Agriculture IG, for example, need staff with guns?

Agriculture IG employees regularly conduct undercover operations, according to information that USDA provided to CRS. “The types of investigations conducted by OIG special agents include criminal activities such as fraud in farm programs; significant thefts of Government property or funds; bribery and extortion; smuggling; and assaults and threats of violence against USDA employees engaged in their official duties.” See Offices of Inspector General and Law Enforcement Authority: In Brief, September 8, 2014.

Other new and updated CRS reports that Congress has withheld from online public distribution include the following.

Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban-Treaty: Background and Current Developments, updated September 29, 2014

Increased Department of Defense Role in U.S. Ebola Response, CRS Insights, October 1, 2014

Syria’s Chemical Weapons: Progress and Continuing Challenges, CRS Insights, October 1, 2014

Israel’s Iron Dome Anti-Rocket System: U.S. Assistance and Coproduction, CRS Insights, September 30, 2014

Iran: U.S. Concerns and Policy Responses, updated October 1, 2014

India-U.S. Economic Relations: In Brief, September 26, 2014

Venezuela: Background and U.S. Relations, updated October 2, 2014

Temporary Professional, Managerial, and Skilled Foreign Workers: Legislation in the 113th Congress, September 30, 2014

Reauthorizing the Office of National Drug Control Policy: Issues for Consideration, updated September 30, 2014

Dark Pools in Equity Trading: Policy Concerns and Recent Developments, September 26, 2014

Hydraulic Fracturing: Selected Legal Issues, updated September 26, 2014

Legislative Research for Congressional Staff: How to Find Documents and Other Resources, updated September 25, 2014

Secrecy News is written by Steven Aftergood and published by the Federation of American Scientists.

The Secrecy News Blog is at:

To SUBSCRIBE to Secrecy News, go to:


OR email your request to

Secrecy News is also archived at:

Support the FAS Project on Government Secrecy with a donation:

Steven Aftergood
Project on Government Secrecy
Federation of American Scientists
voice: (202)454-4691
twitter: @saftergood


Funny, or Not so Funny: What The Colorado Coalition is about03 Oct

  • Resources

    Japan’s Nuclear Duplicity26 Sep

    Japan’s nuclear duplicity

    Sept. 26 is the International Day for the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons. Much attention will naturally be focused on Japan, and many will refer to the horror of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as they call for renewed efforts to rid the world of these terrible weapons. Japan’s government will be at the forefront of such calls, highlighting its own initiatives such as the “Youth Communicators for a World without Nuclear Weapons” and its hosting of the Non-Proliferation and Disarmament Initiative (NPDI) ministerial conference in Hiroshima last April.

    But if you look behind these worthy gestures, you will find a disturbing fact: Japan relies on nuclear weapons for its security, and has no plans to change this. Its calls for nuclear disarmament are at best disingenuous and manipulative, and at worst could be viewed as dishonest.

    At the United Nations General Assembly in October 2013, Japan joined
    124 other nations in a statement on the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons, affirming that “it is in the interest of the very survival of humanity that nuclear weapons are never used again, under any circumstances.” Yet in June, as Japan’s ambassador to the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva was proudly introducing the Youth Communicators initiative, his government colleagues were preparing to depart for the United States. In Albuquerque, New Mexico, they held a “bilateral Extended Deterrence Dialogue” with their U.S. colleagues, discussing “how to secure alliance deterrence as part of their security and defense cooperation” and visiting U.S. nuclear weapon facilities to “deepen understanding of the nuclear weapons systems that support U.S. extended deterrence guarantees.” No mention was made of any disarmament aspect of these talks.

    In other words, while Japan’s government is busy promoting nuclear disarmament, it also appears to be working hard on the completely incompatible goal of ensuring it continues to benefit from the “protection” of U.S. nuclear weapons. Strangely, this stark contradiction attracts little attention, either in Japan or abroad.

    As host of the NPDI ministerial meeting in Hiroshima in April, Japan joined the final statement which called on states “who have not done so to start reducing the role of nuclear weapons in their security strategies and military doctrines.” Not only has Japan not announced plans to start any such reduction, its participation in the U.S. talks suggests it has no intention of even considering it. And although it is a prominent advocate of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), Japan has also apparently ignored the requirement of the Action Plan agreed by NPT members in 2010 to “pursue policies that are fully compatible with the Treaty and the objective of achieving a world without nuclear weapons.”

    Security concerns cannot simply be dismissed; nobody would expect Japan to reverse decades of strategic policy overnight. But blithely pretending that there is no contradiction in its policy is a betrayal of the trust of the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Rather than continuing to feature the hibakusha in hollow public relations exercises, Japan’s government should begin a sincere national dialogue on practical steps that could be taken to reduce its dependence on nuclear weapons and allow it to join a global ban. This would be a far greater contribution to their total elimination.

    (Richard Lennane is a former United Nations disarmament official and Australian diplomat.)


    New York Times on Republican forced US Government Forked Tongue.23 Sep

    PictureColordo Cannabis convention 011Below is the recent New York Times Editorial Board comment on the Obama administrations Faustian bargain with the Republican Congress required to gain approval of the New Start Treaty. The Treaty created a reduction in the world wide stock of nuclear weapons — a move in accordance with the pledge the US made in compliance with the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty(Rule of Law), that, in return for non-nuclear states agreement not to develop nuclear weapons, the nuclear armed states would move toward abolition of their nukes. But the Republicans in Congress would not ratify this New Start Treaty unless Obama would put in place a near trillion dollar commitment to new nuclear weapons, new nuclear weapon production facilities and new nuclear bomb delivery systems.

    It must be remembered that the US went into Desert Storm demanding that Saddam Hussein end his nuclear weapons program, and that the US constructed a 10 year embargo on Iraq that was justified as a way of enforcing this demand. Probably tens of thousands of Iraqi’s suffered and died from disease as a result of this embargo. It must be remembered that the Republican neocons lead by PNAC signatory Dick Cheney (And Tony Blair of the UK) intentionally lied us into the 2003 invasion of Iraq by insisting that Iraq/Saddam had weapons of mass destruction at the ready. So they claimed we were enforcing International Law.

    But where were the “Weapons of Mass Destruction”? In the USofA, Israel, Pakistan, India, Great Britain, China, Russia, France, but NOT Iraq. The US insists that other nations (except Israel) must keep to the NNPT while it fudges and has fudged on its own required nuclear abolition. HUH?? Me thinks the so called “Christian” “Civilized” white man speaks with forked tongue! Make a treaty, break a treaty, rule of law, rule of force, etc. Some recent statements from the US government say the US doesn’t see Article 1 and 6 as relevant to this time in history. NPACer John Bolton who once was our anti-UN,anti-Treaty compliance, anti-International Law man in the UN is one long term instance. He is kind of the Rush Limbaugh of international affairs.

    We think that more of the criticism must be place on the Republican Party and the PNAC-neocons rather than a President that that GOP has sworn to undermine at all turns. The New York Times is speaking out too late, too softly and too infrequently and fails to point to the Military Arms Industry, imperialists, fear mongers and John Birchers who have the Republicans specifically, but all Congress in their thrall. Meanwhile the New Nuclear Bomb factory in Kansas City is built and properly blessed by the Department of Energy.

    Backsliding on Nuclear Promises


    For much of the past six years, President Obama has talked about working toward a world without nuclear weapons. Yet his administration is now investing tens of billions of dollars in modernizing and rebuilding America’s nuclear arsenal and facilities, as The Times reported on Monday. And after good progress in making nuclear bomb material more secure around the world, Mr. Obama has reduced his budget requests for that priority. This is a shortsighted and disappointing turn.

    With other challenges like a new war in Iraq dominating news headlines, it is easy to forget that the world is still awash in nuclear weapons and nuclear material. The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists says there are 16,300 nuclear weapons located at some 98 sites in 14 countries, the vast majority in the United States and Russia. There are also 25 countries that possess enough nuclear and radiological materials to build a weapon, with such material held at hundreds of sites, many vulnerable to extremists.

    When he first came to office, Mr. Obama was clearsighted about nuclear dangers and ambitious in his disarmament goals. His major arms control achievement was the New Start treaty with Moscow aimed at reducing deployed strategic nuclear weapons to 1,550 on each side, down from 2,200, by February 2018. But to win Republican support for the treaty in 2010, Mr. Obama made a Faustian bargain, promising to spend $84 billion to upgrade aging nuclear weapons over the next decade, a $14 billion increase over the regular $70 billion modernization budget.

    But now, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that Mr. Obama’s plans will cost $355 billion over the next decade; other studies put the price at $1 trillion over three decades. The wish list includes 12 new missile submarines, up to 100 new bombers, 400 land-based missiles plus upgrades to eight major plants and laboratories.

    There has been little debate among members of Congress and the public about the decision by Mr. Obama and Congress to pour billions of dollars into new nuclear weapons systems — even as other government programs have been cut significantly.

    Not only is this spending unwise and beyond what the nation can afford, multiple studies by the Government Accountability Office have described the modernization push as badly managed. In a statement released on Monday, nuclear weapons experts from the Arms Control Association, the Federation of American Scientists and others called the modernization plan excessive and said the country can reduce the number of missiles and bombers it buys and still maintain a safe and reliable nuclear arsenal.

    Worse yet, the administration is making a foolish trade-off — pouring money into modernization while reducing funds that help improve security at nuclear sites in Russia and other countries where there are serious risks that terrorists or criminals could get their hands on nuclear materials.

    Since Mr. Obama took office, he has pushed the international community to improve nuclear security. The result is that 13 countries have completely eliminated their nuclear materials stockpiles and 15 others removed or disposed of portions of theirs. But a report by experts at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard Kennedy School of Government says the administration’s proposed 2015 budget would cut spending for nuclear security from $700 million this year to $555 million, down 21 percent. While Congress restored some of that money in a stopgap spending bill, it expires in December and no one knows what happens after that.

    Fortunately, 26 senators have recognized that such cuts are dangerous and urged that they be reversed. Investing in nuclear security protects Americans more than unwise investment in new nuclear weapons.


    International Day of Peace–Two Events16 Sep

    Abomb ExhibitOn Saturday, September 20, The Colorado Coalition will be present at the 16th Street Mall event commemorating The International Day of Peace. We will bring our Hiroshima/Nagasaki display and seek to enlist more Coloradans in our effort to decommission the 49 Nuclear armed missiles on launch on warning in NE Colorado

    On Sunday, September 21 there will be an Interfaith Prayer of Peace on the Capitol Steps at Lincoln and Colfax/14th at 3 PM

    Sr. Jackie Hudson memorial flier
    Later, on October 3rd there will be a Potluck at the Capitol Heights Presbyterian Church 11th and Fillmore with Sisters Ardeth and Carol in preparation for the trip to Nuclear Missile Silo N-8 on October 4, arriving for a witness against Nuclear Weapons at Noon. This missile silo is a silent witness to the US duplicity in its support for the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty. The US has said, unknown to most Americans, that we will not honor our commitment to move, along with other nuclear armed powers, to nuclear weapons abolition. This is in return for the commitment by non-nuclear armed nations to not develop such weapons. The USA also is developing an up dated nuclear weapons development and production complex, committing probably $30 Billion in precious national resources to this process. The US is also engaged in claiming that Iran must honor its commitment not to develop Nuclear Weapons (NNPT-signatory) making it a reason we would engage in war with them, while at the same time ignoring the Israeli nuclear arsenal developed after the NNPT was signed into international law.


    More on Scotland and Nukes13 Sep

  • Britain’s wee nuclear problem
    Erika Simpson and Bill Kidd, Special to QMI Agency

    Friday, September 12, 2014 5:17:32 EDT PM

    (Paul Lachine illustration)

    If Scotland votes Thursday in favour of Scottish independence, yet another small country could soon join the United Nations. The Scottish National Party (SNP), which supports an independent and non-nuclear Scotland, wants Scotland to be a member of NATO and the European Union but rejects nuclear weapons, including nuclear-armed United Kingdom submarines now based in Scotland.

    The SNP pledges it will negotiate the removal of the UK’s Trident nuclear weapon system from the Faslane naval base, 40 km from Glasgow. The UK’s four Vanguard submarines are stationed on the Firth of Clyde, a series of rivers, estuaries and sea lochs.

    A Yes vote would mean Britain’s 20-billion-pound replacement of the four Trident submarines during the next decade could not go ahead.

    It also could mean the UK’s commitment to nuclear weapons would need to be rethought.

    The UK government has assumed since 1968 that the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty gives it some kind of right to possess nuclear weapons.

    If an independent Scotland fulfills its policy to remove the submarine-based Trident nuclear weapons system from its territory, the UK will need, within four years, to find another stationing location for all its sea-based nuclear warheads, since it costs too much to deploy them at sea for months at a time.

    This will be a difficult task, almost as tough as it would be for Vladimir Putin to find another home for Russia’s Black Sea fleet stationed in the Crimean Peninsula.

    If the UK wants to maintain its nuclear-armed submarines, it would need to find another deep-water port, preferably on British turf and not on another colony’s territory.

    (Canada loans the U.S. Navy its deep-water nuclear torpedo testing grounds at Nanoose Bay, north of Nanaimo, B.C.)

    The UK government says other potential locations in England are unacceptable due to their proximity to population centres, although the UK has housed nuclear submarines and loaded nuclear weapons onto them not far from Glasgow since 1969. If Westminster does decide to relocate the weapons, cost estimates vary enormously.

    Some argue building a new base would cost merely 2.5 billion to 3.5 billion pounds ($4.47 billion to $6.26 billion), while others say moving the Tridents will cost closer to 50 billion pounds. Certainly, it would be a lot extra for English and Welsh taxpayers to pay for in the wake of their country’s partition and probable economic decline.

    Whether an independent Scotland would continue to use the British pound has been a subject of much political debate, with the Scottish government saying it would but the unionist parties threatening to oppose that. People also wonder whether Scotland could play a key role in nuclear disarmament if it became a NATO state.

    But if an independent Scotland decided to join the alliance, it could follow the example of other NATO states such as Canada, Norway and Lithuania, which do not allow nuclear weapons on their soil. Furthermore, if an independent Scotland spearheaded initiatives to establish more international treaties to prohibit nuclear weapons, its approach could have a major impact on other NATO members, despite the inclination to erect a new central front in Europe to protect the Baltic states.

    Even if not enough Scots vote Yes to win independence, their voting patterns could provide an opportunity for Britons as a whole to rethink their approach to nuclear weapons. The very high costs of replacing the submarines, coupled with the logistical challenges of relocating the weapons, means there is a strong opportunity to reject the nuclear option, should a Westminster political party adopt such a policy.

    For their part, representatives of the SNP are prepared to participate actively in the humanitarian initiative on nuclear weapons and support negotiations on an international treaty to prohibit nuclear weapons, even without the participation of the nuclear-armed states. Such a treaty would make the possession of nuclear weapons unambiguously illegal for all, putting them on the same footing as biological and chemical weapons.

    In the face of such opposition from Scotland — even in the possible wake of a decided No vote — it will remain difficult for the UK government to continue its absurd and costly pursuit of renewing the Trident nuclear weapons system against the backdrop of international negotiations to ban nuclear weapons. Scotland’s vote this Thursday could go either way, but it is already sure to push Mother England to overcome her Cold War thinking about security by undermining traditional arguments in favour of maintaining these weapons of mass destruction.

    — Bill Kidd is the Scottish Member of Parliament for Glasgow Anniesland and a member of the Scottish National Party, which supports an independent and non-nuclear Scotland.

    — Erika Simpson is an associate professor of international relations in the politics department of Western University.



    “US/UK collusion in ignoring the Non-Proliferation Treaty re: Scotland08 Sep

    Send this to your Scottish Frients
    On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 10:19 AM, Jay Coghlan wrote:

    The Scottish referendum for independence is Sept. 18, and the gap between pro independence and con is apparently narrowing (with against independence now reportedly six points ahead, down from 20+). The presence of the U.K.’s nuclear-armed subs at Faslane has long been a contentious issue. What is less well known is U.K. plans for “Modernizing for the Second Nuclear Age.”

    Even at this late date I am attempting to get the following information to Scottish groups. Any assistance toward that end would be appreciated.

    Thanks, Jay

    Greetings. I am an American anti-nuclear weapons activist in Santa Fe, New Mexico, 25 miles from the birthplace of nuclear weapons, the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL). Given that nuclear-armed submarines at Faslane are a contentious issue, I want Scots to know that the U.K. is “Modernizing for the Second Nuclear Age.”

    A Review Conference of the NonProliferation Treaty (NPT) will be held at the United Nations in May 2015. Non-weapons state are growing increasingly impatient with the weapons states’ failure to abide by the NPT Article VI mandate “… to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament…” In fact, the Republic of the Marshall Islands has sued the UK and others in the World Court and the U.S. in an American court over that failure. Concerning the latter, please see a lengthy amicus brief I submitted to the court detailing the U.S. trillion dollar plan over 30 years for modernizing its nuclear weapons, subs, missiles and bombers (available at ). The U.K. is complicit in this as well.

    The NPT also requires through Article I that “Each nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to transfer to any recipient whatsoever nuclear weapons or other explosive devices directly, or indirectly…” Given the interdependence of their nuclear weapons programs, the U.S. and U.K. violate this as well, as explained below.

    The late Martin White, former head of Strategic Technologies for the Ministry of Defence (MOD) of the United Kingdom, made clear that the U.K. will not be honoring NPT Articles I and VI for the foreseeable future. The Los Alamos National Laboratory’s (LANL’s) July 2014 issue of National Security Science features an article by White entitled “Modernizing for the Second Nuclear Age.”

    Some excerpts:

    • You may know that we are in a period of major investment at AWE [Atomic Weapons Establishment] in terms of workforce, facilities, and programs. In the past decade, the workforce has grown from a low of 3,000to the current 4,500.

    • By the end of this decade, we will have new uranium, high explosives, and assembly facilities. Just as crucial, we will have a state-of-the-art high-power laser, supercomputing, and new hydrodynamic experimental capabilities.

    • In all this, our interactions with the United States have been and remain pivotal in shaping the U.K. deterrent program. And our continuing collaborations with Los Alamos National Laboratory touch the very core of our technical capability.

    But the title itself contains my main point, “Modernizing for the Second Nuclear Age.” The cover page of this article has a dramatic picture of a U.K. strategic submarine, which can only be based at Faslane.

    This “Second Nuclear Age” is already a common theme with American nuclear weaponeers, See, for example, “The challenges facing stockpile stewardship in the Second Nuclear Age”, LANL Director Charlie McMillan,

    Or “The Second Nuclear Age”,

    Also, know that the U.S. and UK nuclear weapons programs are very close and always have been. For example, the now head of the National Nuclear Security Administration’s (NNSA) nuclear weapons programs, NNSA Deputy Administrator for Defense Programs Don Cook, is an American from the Sandia Labs. Until a few years ago he was the manager of the UK’s Atomic Weapons Establishment as well. Also, the biggest U.S. defense contractor, Lockheed Martin, is one part of a three-part consortium running AWE.

    Contrary to NPT Article I the U.S. is manufacturing neutron generators for the UK. Neutron generators are crucial nuclear weapons components that introduce neutrons at the instant of detonation to begin the cascading chain reaction of a nuclear weapons explosion. For example, “…we noted that SNL {Sandia National Laboratories] had not established a costing methodology that consistently included a fair share of infrastructure costs to ensure full cost recovery for NG [neutron generator] units to be built for the United Kingdom (UK).“ Reference: The National Nuclear Security Administration’s Neutron Generator Activities, DOE Inspector General Audit report, page 2,

    I conclude by asking questions: If they knew about it, how would the Scots feel about a “Second Nuclear Age” happening on their soil at Faslane? Would that have any effect on their vote for independence? How would the increasingly impatient non-weapons states feel about a “Second Nuclear Age” at the May 2015 NPT Review Conference?

    Please feel to contact me should you have any questions or need more information.


    Jay Coghlan

    Executive Director, Nuclear Watch New Mexico

    Board President, Alliance for Nuclear Accountability

    505.989.7342 cell: 505.692.5854

    903 W. Alameda #325 Santa Fe, NM 87501


    TCC at CSU/CU Football game01 Sep

    3burmashave2Burma Shave signs

    Crowds crossing Federal Blvd across from us.

    Crowds crossing Federal Blvd across from us.

    Disarmament Quotes

    Loading Quotes...

    Contact Us

    The Colorado Coalition
    P.O. Box 102245
    Denver, CO 80250-2245

    Bob Kinsey, Board of Directors Email