Commemoration of Trinity Atomic Bomb Test Will Be Held Saturday, July 18th at the Tularosa Little League Field at 8 pm16 Jul

· Commemoration of Trinity Atomic Bomb Test Held Saturday, July 18th at the Tularosa Little League Field at 8 pm

In the early morning of July 16, 1945, the U.S. government dropped the first atomic bomb from a 100-foot metal structure in the south central desert of New Mexico, called Jornada del Muerto, or Journey of Death. In the massive explosion, the radiation and toxic materials rose an estimated 70,000 feet and began to fall back to earth in what many thought was snow. The kids played in it, the cattle and vegetable gardens were covered in it, and later that night when it rained, the water cisterns were contaminated with radioactive and toxic particles.

The innocent people of the Tularosa Basin were not informed beforehand and were not evacuated after the test, even though the exposures were at least 10,000 times higher than the safe radiation levels of the time. Cancer rates in the Tularosa Basin are four to eight times higher than the national average. For more information, please see Chapter 10 “The Trinity Test” of the 2010 Los Alamos Historical Document Retrieval and Assessment Report at

Anniversary of the First Nuclear Test: Investigate the Fallout and Downwinders

Transcript of radio commentary that aired July 15, 2003 on KUNM public radio 89.9 fm in Albuquerque. Link to audio at end of page.

By Arjun Makhijani

The age of nuclear shock and awe was born fifty eight years ago. On July 16, 1945, the desert dawn of New Mexico was greeted with the blinding, awful flash of an atomic blast. It is often celebrated as a moment of great accomplishment. The town of Los Alamos, where the bomb was designed and built, has a street named Trinity, not after the well-known holy trio, but after the nuclear explosion that day, which had a heart of plutonium.

Robert Oppenheimer, the scientific director of the bomb project, thought that he was seeing a “destroyer of worlds.” But still, the damage that was inflicted that day on the land and the people of New Mexico still remains practically unknown.

Colonel Stafford L. Warren, the radiological safety director for the test, set out to survey the fallout soon after it. He found a radiological disaster: “[T]he dust outfall from various portions of the [radioactive] cloud was potentially a very dangerous hazard over a band almost 30 miles wide extending almost 90 miles northeast of the site.”

There were many communities in the path of that hazard, including the Mescalero reservation. While he dutifully reported that no one was exposed to “a dangerous amount of radiation,” Col. Warren also estimated that some people received external radiation doses up 60 rad over two weeks. That’s equivalent to thousands of chest X-rays. Radioactive dust from the test was still lingering in the air four days later, as far as 200 miles from ground zero.

There has never been a serious investigation of what that fallout did to people, especially children and pregnant women in its path. What happened to them? There are troubling indications, but we do not we do not know definitively.

General Groves, who headed up the Manhattan Project, had already expressed fears of legal liability well before the test. The concerns of two insightful physicists, John Magee and Joseph Hirshfelder, who feared that the fallout may extend far from the test site, were set aside.

The U.S. government has failed in its responsibilities to the affected people. It is time for the State of New Mexico to take up the question. Governor Richardson, when he was Energy Secretary in Washington, showed historic leadership by advocating for compensation for nuclear weapons workers who were put in harm’s way during the Cold War. I urge him to show the same compassion for the downwinders created by the very first atomic blast in his own state. He might use its fifty-eighth anniversary to announce the formation of a state-led public commission to investigate its health effects.

You can find Col. Stafford Warren’s radiological survey and his memo of July 21, 1945, on the web site of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, This is Arjun Makhijani.


Rep. Thornberry: Increase U.S. Defense Spending to Counter Russian Nuke Modernization25 Jun

Who started this Nuke Modernization and who is “Countering”??? The answer is that the US did and we have been fighting against the funding (maybe as high as a Trillion in spending through 2030.

Subject: RE: Rep. Thornberry: Increase U.S. Defense Spending to Counter Russian Nuke Modernization
From: Hans Kristensen

It’s a funny thing, even with a numerical advantage of 270 deployed strategic launchers more than Russia, one-third more nuclear warheads deployed than needed to meet national and international security commitments, full-scale production of W76-1 warheads, a decade-and-a-half overhaul of the Minuteman III ICBM force, development of the B61-12 guided nuclear bomb for six different US and allied tactical and strategic aircraft, development of the W80-4 cruise missile warhead, development of the Ohio-class replacement SSBN, development of a life-extended version of the Trident II D5 sea-launched ballistic missile (the most reliable nuclear ballistic missile ever), development of the next-generation bomber, and development and deployment of advanced conventional precision weapons, the US still somehow comes out short.

About that 10-to-1 advantage in tactical warheads; as far as I recall, it was the US military that didn’t want their “9†and unilaterally retired them. I doubt neither the Navy nor the Army would want a new tactical nuke even if Thornberry somehow found the money.

And just to remind of the extensive modernization and maintenance of US nuclear forces over the past two and a half decades:

Defense hawks in Washington and Moscow have become strange bedfellows in reviving a dangerous Cold War-like mindset.



Energy Department Announces New Red Team to Review Plutonium Disposition25 Jun

How many times over how many can plutonium disposition be studied? The program is 20 years old and the prognosis for MOX gets worse and worse. Will yet more delay by Senator Graham to try and save the day? I’m afraid that this Red Team report could be a whitewash but I bet it won’t fully answer a key question: how can a program getting $345 million/year but needing $1 billion/year over the next 2+ decades survive? (TCC Commet)

Press Release
News Media Contact: (202) 586-4940
For Immediate Release: Thursday, June 25, 2015

Energy Department Announces New Red Team to Review Plutonium Disposition

WASHINGTON, DC – Today, the U.S. Department of Energy announced the creation of the Plutonium Disposition Program Red Team to review plutonium disposition options and make recommendations.

Led by Dr. Thom Mason, Director of Oak Ridge National Laboratory, this team will provide an assessment of options to help the U.S. achieve its commitment to dispose of 34 metric tons of surplus weapon-grade plutonium and provide a recommended path forward.
The assessment will address the MOX fuel approach, the downblending and disposal approach, and any other approaches that the team deems feasible and cost effective, taking into account cost, regulatory or other issues associated with a particular approach. The Red Team will provide its recommendations to the Secretary of Energy in August 2015.

Dr. Mason led a similar effort reviewing options to replace uranium capabilities at the Y-12 National Security Complex in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, in 2014.


Nuclear Saber Rattling vs. Demonizing Putin23 Jun

Alic Slater is New York director of the “Nuclear Age Peace Foundation” and sent this letter in response to NYTimes accusation that Putin is playing the bully by irresponsible nuclear weapons brandishment. Really a good letter–will they publish it.

June 22, 2015
Re: The Fantasy Mr. Putin is Selling

It’s astonishing that you express alarm at “Mr. Putin’s willingness to brandish nuclear weapons ” despite your reports that Obama is projecting a nuclear weapons budget of one trillion dollars over the next 30 years for new bomb factories, delivery systems and nuclear bombs.. To understand how we reached this sorry state, it must be remembered that in 2002 the US walked out of the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty with Russia and proceeded to build new missile bases in Poland, Turkey and Romania despite Kennedy’s agreement with Khruschev that in return for his removing Soviet missiles from Cuba, we would take our US missiles out of Turkey which are now back in Turkey along with almost 300 nuclear bombs stationed at NATO bases in German, Belgium, Turkey, Netherlands and Italy. There is no shortage of aggressive behavior from both countries, starting with US military maneuvers on Russia’s borders in NATO countries, a holdover from a rusty cold war alliance, only serving to heat it up once again, and enrich all the arms manufacturers, ignoring President Eisenhower prescient farewell warning to guard against the military-industry complex, most recently brilliantly represented by our new Defense Secretary Ashton Carter, who has been careening through the revolving door between military contractors and government, and has never seen a weapons system he didn’t like and didn’t vigorously promote.

Alice Slater
446 E. 86 St.
New York, NY 10028
646-238-9000 (cell)


“Mission Accomplished” speech on the bass trombone02 Jun

Thursday, June 11, Trident Bookstore, 7:30 p.m.

Pictures and Conversations about the new photography book
James Crnkovich’s

Atomic America>

by James Crnkovich and Robert Del Tredici

Authors/Photographers will show pictures and read from the book

Felix Del Tredici will perform Bush’s Mission Accomplished speech
on the bass trombone



Hope of a U.S. Bomb Monopoly to Shape World Politics24 May

U.S. Goal of Preventing World Domination by Hitler Turned to Hope of a U.S. Bomb Monopoly to Shape World Politics
Wartime Bomb Project Has Created a Moral and Military “Monstrosity”

Takoma Park, Maryland, May 2, 2003: Manhattan Project officials began to consider the use of the atom bomb well before it was ready and well before anyone knew when World War II might end. The original purpose of the bomb project to prevent Hitler armed with an atomic-bomb from taking over the world was bent to other purposes during the very first targeting discussion, which took place sixty years ago, according to an article published in the current issue Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.

While Manhattan Project scientists were still pursuing the bomb with the single-minded desire to beat Hitler to the punch, a meeting of the Project’s Military Policy Committee on May 5, 1943 produced the first official signals that the government was beginning to take a much broader view of the project: Such a weapon could be used not only to deter the Nazis, but to craft and maintain a U.S.-dictated post-war new world order, the article says.

“They were afraid that if the bomb was a dud, German scientists might recover the plutonium, make a bomb and use it on Britain,” said Dr. Arjun Makhijani, author of the article and president of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research (IEER), who has published many studies on nuclear-weapon-related questions. “So, they targeted Japanese forces at the island of Truk at first, and then Japanese cities.”

As the project went into 1944, and it was certain that Germany had no effective bomb program, the U.S. program became its own justification, according to the article. The bomb had to be used because it was built. The immense expenditure had to be justified by something more than the fact that a project of deterrence had been undertaken as a precaution. The proof of the scientific and engineering work had to be carried through to a nuclear test. The technical questions about the destructive power of nuclear bombs had to be answered by their use on cities. The power of the bomb had to be demonstrated to the world, especially to the Soviet Union.

The idea of using the monopoly of the bomb to dominate the world, the very thing U.S. bomb scientists were afraid Hitler might do, was explicitly discussed with the incoming President Truman by then-Secretary of War, Henry L. Stimson on April 25, 1945. Stimson said that “If the problem of the proper use of this weapon can be solved, we will have the opportunity to bring the world into a pattern in which the peace of the world and our civilization can be saved.”

“Hiroshima and Nagasaki were really the first experiments on what Stimson called the ‘proper use’ of the bomb,” said Dr. Makhijani. “The unspeakable terror of a single bomb dropped from a lone plane that could destroy a whole city in a flash was to replace the armadas of bombers dropping thousands of bombs that were incinerating Japanese and German cities in early 1945. It was to be the most fearsome kind of ‘shock and awe.’”

But if a single bomb could replace the power of an entire military, then controlling the world with it depended on the maintenance of a monopoly, which was soon broken. So instead of bringing sole control to the possessor, the fearsome unveiling of the bomb at Hiroshima became the principal driving force in nuclear proliferation. The German threat led to the U.S. bomb to the Soviet bomb and in a chain whose end does not seem to have arrived yet.

Well over half the world’s population now lives in countries that have nuclear weapons or are allied with a nuclear weapon state. Forty four countries have the technical capability to make nuclear bombs. The article disputes those who argue that nuclear weapons have brought peace. It points out that the United States and the Soviet Union fought proxy wars because they were now too afraid to fight one another in Europe. Nuclear weapons did not stop violence but shifted it. Millions have been killed in proxy wars, whose violence continues. The problem of global terrorism is a direct result of some of those wars. Now some of that terrorism threatens to go nuclear.

“Today, sixty years after that fateful decision, the idea that you can dictate your terms to the world if you have the bomb has migrated from the capitals of civilization to the caves of Afghanistan,” said Dr. Makhijani. “Osama bin Laden has more than once made reference to Hiroshima in asserting his own determination to use nuclear weapons to destroy and kill.”

The article catalogs the host of problems that have arisen as nuclear establishments around the world have become entrenched. They have subverted the rule of law and democracy, where they existed, in the name of national security. They have covered up hazards of radiation and lied to their people. For instance, while the U.S. military was reassuring the public that nuclear tests posed no radiation danger, it was contemplating radioactive terror for potential enemies. The article cites a 1947 Joint Chiefs of Staff report:

“We can form no adequate mental picture of the multiple disasters that would befall a modern city, blasted by one or more bombs and enveloped by radioactive mists. Of the survivors in the contaminated areas, some would be doomed by radiation sickness in hours, some in days, some in years . . . . Added to every terror of the moment, thousands would be stricken with a fear of death and the uncertainty of the time of its arrival.“

“Stimson himself had been fearful at other times that the bomb might get out of control instead of a U.S-shaped ‘peace of the world’,” said Dr. Makhijani. “Today we seem to be on the brink of nuclear chaos in large measure because the most powerful, led by the United States, proclaim loudly their own prerogative to hold on to nuclear weapons, while they are intent on disarming others. India, which complained loudly of ‘nuclear apartheid’ before it tested the bomb five years ago, now is quiet, having joined the ‘White’ side of the plutonium club. Not a happy result for the land of Gandhi, whose own struggle for freedom began in apartheid South Africa.”

Gandhi, while condemning the “misdeeds” and “unworthy ambitions” of the Japanese imperialists, the article notes, thought that that the United States might find itself confronted by nuclear terror one day: “What has happened to the soul of the destroying nation is yet too early to see. . . . A slave holder cannot hold a slave without putting himself or his deputy in the cage holding the slave.”

“Scientific brilliance is not enough,” Dr. Makhijani writes in the article. “Bereft of moral and political vision or consideration for future generations, it can lead to chaos, violence, and, in the case of nuclear weapons, annihilation.


Humanitarian Impacts of Nuclear Weapons Development24 May


107 States committed to ban nuclear weapons24 May

We currently are able to do this more than  1500 times within 30 minutes launch on warning.   Does it make us any safer?  NO We currently are able to do this more than 1500 times within 30 minutes launch on warning. Does it make us any safer? NO[

As the 2015 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference ended, over 100 governments have committed to work for the prohibition and elimination of nuclear weapons by endorsing the “Humanitarian Pledge”.

While the United States and the United Kingdom declared failure over the Middle East, the draft outcome document was deeply flawed on disarmament. It contained no meaningful commitments on nuclear disarmament, rolls back on previous agreements and was not negotiated amongst states parties. A wide range of governments from all regions admitted that the text fell dramatically short of making credible progress.

Based on the evidence of the humanitarian impacts from any nuclear weapon detonation and an acknowledgment of the increasing risk of use of nuclear weapons, the humanitarian pledge reflects a fundamental shift in the international discourse on nuclear disarmament over the past five years. It is the latest indication that governments are preparing for diplomatic action after the Review Conference.

The wide and growing international support for this historic pledge sends a signal that a majority of the world’s governments are ready to move forward with the prohibition of nuclear weapons, even if the nuclear weapon states are not ready to participate.

“Regardless of what has happened here today, the humanitarian pledge must be the basis for the negotiations of a new treaty to prohibit nuclear weapons”, says Beatrice Fihn, Executive Director of ICAN. “It has been made clear that the nuclear weapon states are not interested in making any new commitments to disarmament, so now it is up to the rest of the world to start a process to prohibit nuclear weapons by the 70th anniversary of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.”


Unnecessary Nuclear Weapons Spending24 May

Katie Lewallen (202) 225-4061

NO MOre HiroshimasHouse Passes Quigley Amendments to Save Taxpayers Billions in Unnecessary Nuclear Weapons Spending

WASHINGTON – Today, the House passed two amendments offered by U.S. Representative Mike Quigley (IL-05) to highlight the costs of our wasteful nuclear weapons programs in the Fiscal Year 2016 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which authorizes spending on defense programs.

“I was very disappointed to see that this year’s defense authorization uses off-budget gimmicks to waste billions of taxpayer dollars on defense programs the Pentagon says we do not need while refusing to provide the Department of Defense with the flexibility it needs to prioritize spending in this difficult budget environment,” said Rep. Quigley. “Although I voted against the NDAA, I’m glad that Congress took a much needed step towards smarter spending by including my two amendments that promote a more modest and responsible nuclear weapons budget.”

Rep. Quigley’s first amendment, which was cosponsored by Reps. Earl Blumenauer (OR-03) and Jared Polis (CO-02), requires the Department of Defense to submit a report to Congress justifying the department’s plans to increase the number of new nuclear-armed cruise missiles, known as the Long Range Standoff Weapon (LRSO), to the U.S. arsenal. This amendment comes in light of new information that the Air Force is planning to procure 1,000 LRSOs, which is double the size of the existing nuclear-armed cruise missile stock. Many experts believe that we need to reassess the strategic need for a new cruise missile before investing an estimated $9 billion into the program. The report will outline how the number of planned missiles aligns with U.S. nuclear employment strategy and the costs associated.

Rep Quigley’s second amendment requires the Secretary of the Air Force to submit a report to Congress comparing the costs associated with extending the life of the Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) with the costs associated with procuring an entirely new ICBM. By comparing costs, we can better determine the affordability and practicality of developing a new ICBM at the same time the Department of Defense is spending billions rebuilding the rest of the nuclear triad, including procuring new strategic submarines, long-range bombers, and air-launched cruise missiles.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office recently estimated that the U.S. is likely to spend $348 billion maintaining and modernizing the nuclear weapons triad over the next decade. An additional report from the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies (CNS) found that over the next thirty years, the U.S. plans to spend approximately $1 trillion maintaining the current nuclear arsenal, buying replacement systems, and upgrading existing nuclear bombs and warheads.

Rep. Quigley is an outspoken advocate for nuclear arms reduction, using his role as the only Illinois member of the House Appropriations Committee to overhaul wasteful defense spending. Last year, he urged a one-third reduction in America’s ICBMs stockpile, and worked to cut $23.7 million in wasteful funding for the B61 nuclear bomb program. He is the author of Reinventing Government: The Federal Budget, a report which offers 60 recommendations to save $2 trillion over the next 10 years.


ANA DC Days14 May

May 14th Press advisory
The Colorado Coalition for Prevention of Nuclear War
for immediate release
For more information contact Bob Kinsey, 303-949-4073
On May 16 five Coloradans will join community leaders around the country to oppose the U.S. Department of Energy nuclear weapons projects they say will waste billions in taxpayer funds, damage the environment and undermine the nation’s non-proliferation goals.   They will be meeting with leading members of Congress, committee staffers, and top administration officials with responsibility for the U.S. nuclear policies to press for new funding priorities.
The Colorado Coalition for Prevention of Nuclear War is supporting 5 members of the Rocky Mountain Peace and Justice Center (RMPJC) joining the 27th annual Alliance for Nuclear Accountability (ANA) “DC” Days. The five are, Jade Begay and Chris Allred on staff at RMPJC , Dr. LeRoy Moore, key Rocky Flats activist and  long time member of the Rocky Flats Citizen Oversight Board, Judith Mohling a Boulder therapist and ANA Board member, and Jon Lipsky, retired FBI agent who led  in the 1989 FBI raid of the Rocky Flats  and testified in the follow-up Grand Jury investigation.  Mr. Lipsky will be honored by ANA at the DC days awards reception for his work to achieve justice for Rocky Flats workers and uncover.    DC Days participants will deliver copies of its just published report, “The Growing U.S. Nuclear Threat  ( 
The new 20-page analysis dissects the Obama Administration’s latest plans to spend hundreds of billions more on nuclear weapons programs without, the authors conclude, enhancing U.S. security.
“Massive spending on nuclear weapons ‘modernization’ increases the nuclear danger for the U.S.   Lack of accountability at DOE wastes billions and puts the public at even greater risk,” explained Ralph Hutchison of the Oak Ridge Environmental PeaceAlliance, the report’s editor.   “ANA members from across the country will urge policy-makers to cut programs that fund dangerous boondoggles. The money saved should be redirected to cleaning up the legacy of nuclear weapons research, testing and production.”
Participants in DC Days include activists from groups that monitor such U.S. nuclear weapons facilities as Hanford, Lawrence Livermore, Rocky Flats, Los Alamos, Kansas City Plant, Pantex, Sandia, Oak Ridge, Savannah River and the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant.
“There are currently 49 nuclear armed missiles in NE Colorado that could be launched withi only 30 minutes warning. The Rocky  Flats plant was creating as many as 300 the plutonium pits, the initial nuclear explosion in a thermonuclear weapon, during the nuclear arms race of the cold war. Rather than focusing the security
resources (perhaps as much as $6 Trillion dollars in 70 years) on building and hiding behind weapons of mass destruction the US could have achieved security and peace by spending to create a just economic system that would produce peaceful stability among the nations and a decent life for all. Its time to turn our national security policy in this life giving direction rather than accelerating our investments in anew nuclear arms race.” said Bob Kinsey, board member the TCC.
“Today, after 70 years, more than 16,000 nuclear weapons in the world continue to pose an intolerable threat to humanity. And the danger of nuclear war is growing. Whether a nuclear conflagration is initiated by accident, miscalculation or madness, the radiation cloud will know no boundaries. The US plans to spend a trillion
dollars over the next thirty years “modernizing” its nuclear arsenal.  The human cost of this is astronomical—to our health, environmnent, ethics and democracy, to our prospects for global peace, and to our confidence in human survival. The Colorado Coalition has worked since 1987 to get the truth out about the US Nuclear Weapons program and the dangers the presence of these weapons hold for humanity, ” commented Marylia Kelley, director of Tri Valley CARES which monitors the Lawrence Livermore Labs in California.

Disarmament Quotes

Loading Quotes...

Contact Us

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

Bob Kinsey, Board of Directors Email