(Washington, D.C.) — The Arms Control Association (ACA) calls on Congress to reject and cut down the president’s request for a defense budget of $1.5 trillion dollars. Coming after several years of large increases to defense spending and in the absence of demonstrable progress in diplomatic steps to avoid arms racing and unnecessary military expenditure, the request is an unjustified and indefensible imposition on the American people.

“Both this administration and its predecessor have failed to convincingly justify several years of explosive growth in spending on nuclear weapons modernization and upgrades, an ambitious and destabilizing scheme for strategic missile interceptors, and other major weapons systems. The new budget request far exceeds any justifiable requirements, will line the pockets of military contractors, and steal taxpayer funds away from programs that address the real needs of Americans,” said Daryl G. Kimball, executive director.

“As the Trump administration seeks the largest military spending increase in U.S. history and massive increases in Defense and Energy Department spending on nuclear weapons, it has failed to seriously pursue lower-cost strategies to mitigate national security dangers, including effective nonproliferation diplomacy with Iran and bilateral nuclear arms reduction negotiations with Russia,” Kimball noted.

The budget calls for massive increases in military spending, including $71.4 billion for Pentagon nuclear weapons programs, $85.8 billion for missile defense and the president’s Golden Dome project, and $27.4 billion for nuclear weapons activities at the National Nuclear Security Administration.

“The United States is already set to spend more than $946 billion on its nuclear weapons systems in the decade between 2025 and 2034, according to the Congressional Budget Office. That estimate does not include recent hikes in cost estimates for several major nuclear modernization programs,” noted ACA senior analyst Xiaodon Liang.

One example of an unjustified nuclear program is the Sentinel intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) that is on track to cost upward of $200 billion and breached Pentagon cost-control measures.

“Because these ground-based missiles are vulnerable to attack by nuclear-armed adversaries, they pose a use-it-or-lose it dilemma for the president, creating an unnecessary escalation risk in the U.S. nuclear posture. ICBMs are an extravagance in an era when an enemy surprise attack is a lesser risk than escalation—particularly accidental escalation—in a crisis. Meanwhile, the Pentagon has ignored calls to forego Sentinel and instead life-extend the existing Minuteman III missile until all land-based ICBMs can be phased out through mutual, verifiable arms reduction agreements,” Liang added.

Despite Trump’s expressions of interest in “denuclearization talks” with Russia and China, the administration failed to pursue a new nuclear arms control framework with Russia to succeed the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) in the year before the agreement’s expiration on Feb. 5, 2026, while also failing to engage China on a bilateral basis.

“While it is tragic that U.S. and Russian leaders failed to engage in meaningful negotiations on a successor agreement to New START, it is also notable that following the expiration of New START, the United States proposed multilateral strategic stability talks as a means to achieving a ‘new era’ of nuclear arms control,” Kimball noted.

“A ‘multilateral’ approach to nuclear arms control may sound appealing. Indeed, all five nuclear-armed states have treaty obligations to engage in good faith negotiations to halt and reverse the nuclear arms race. But without a serious strategy for success, Trump’s approach could be a formula for further inaction, especially given the complexities of a five-sided negotiation involving states with different force sizes, force structures, nuclear postures, and strategic cultures,” Kimball warned.

“Such an initiative should not be allowed to substitute for the immediate commencement of serious bilateral talks between the United States and Russia and the United States and China on nuclear risk reduction, strategic stability, and nuclear arms reductions that could also yield concrete arms control and risk reduction outcomes, and perhaps more quickly,” he suggested.

“The Trump administration has also advocated for an expansion of the U.S. strategic missile defense system that could cost $185 billion by the end of this presidency according to the Pentagon’s own admission, would not establish an effective workable defense for the U.S. homeland, and would likely encourage Russia and China to improve their offensive capabilities so as to be able to overwhelm any new U.S. missile defense architecture,” Liang said.

The Congressional Budget Office recently estimated that a missile defense shield that satisfies the president’s stated goals would cost $1.2 trillion – far more than the $185 billion the Pentagon plans to request.

Other excessive nuclear programs include third and fourth warheads for the sea-based leg of the strategic triad (the W93 and the future sea-based warhead), a nuclear bunker buster (the Nuclear Delivery System Air-Delivered), the sea-launched cruise missile, and large-scale plutonium pit production in two states.

“We also oppose the president’s proposed budget hikes because it is designed, in part, to pay for his costly, reckless, and illegal war of choice against Iran. American consumers are already paying for the president’s mistake at the gas pump and their tax dollars should not be used to support an expansion of a war that should never have been launched,” Kimball said.

For these reasons, ACA joined other organizations to encourage Congress to reject the president’s budget request. ACA is one of a diverse array of organizations, led by the Coalition on Human Needs and Public Citizen, which jointly issued an open letter on April 3 to Congress calling on members to oppose the $1.5 trillion budget request.

Instead of further wasteful and excessive spending on the U.S. nuclear weapons enterprise, ACA calls on Congress to question the military effectiveness and strategic wisdom of the expensive nuclear build-up underway. Legislators should press the administration for evidence of tangible progress toward reducing military and nuclear competition with Russia and China through hard-headed and sensible risk reduction and arms control diplomacy.

The post $1.5 Trillion for Military?? My Tax dollars going for the worst — NO appeared first on The Colorado Coalition.

https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.santafenewmexican.com%2Fopinion%2Fmy_view%2Fspeak-out-on-pit-production-at-hearing%2Farticle_67ac779b-ccad-4cb1-a981-fb1805c20ce0.html&data=05%7C02%7C%7C33ad26dbc333448e5a7108deb1bef9b9%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C639143630944023869%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=mecxcZRfJoNhyk8TsbE9vEF22f%2BXo1sFdpVXNSPF1OY%3D&reserved=0

Today there is a public hearing in Santa Fe for the draft Plutonium Pit Production Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, made possible by Nuclear Watch New Mexico’s successful lawsuit.

Plutonium “pits” are the fissile cores of nuclear weapons. Their production has been the choke point of U.S. industrial-scale nuclear weapons production ever since a 1989 FBI raid investigating environmental crimes shut down the notorious Rocky Flats Plant near Denver.

As the archbishop of the diocese where nuclear weapons were invented, I follow in the footsteps of our late Pope Francis who declared that their mere possession is immoral. Today I am guided by Pope Leo XIV, who has declared: “The idea of the deterrent power of military might, especially nuclear deterrence, is based on the irrationality of relations between nations, built not on law, justice and trust, but on fear and domination by force.”

Here I believe that our Holy Father gets to the heart of the matter. The Pit Production Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement claims that the National Nuclear Security Administration’s programs are consistent with the 1970 Nonproliferation Treaty. That deserves serious examination.

For 56 years, the Nonproliferation Treaty has acted as the cornerstone of nuclear weapons nonproliferation. However, the treaty is now badly frayed, perhaps even in danger of collapsing. Its 11th review conference, being held now at the United Nations in New York City, is widely expected to fail for the third time over 15 years to make any progress whatsoever toward nuclear disarmament. This is primarily due to the never-ending refusal of the nuclear weapons states to enter into serious negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament, which they pledged to long ago in the treaty. The one-word excuse is always “deterrence”; that is, to deter others from using nuclear weapons. But this deflects the blame from our own possession of immoral, genocidal weapons.

“Deterrence” is at best only a half-truth. In reality, our government’s policy has always been a hybrid of deterrence and maintaining nuclear warfighting capabilities that can end civilization overnight. That is why the U.S. and Russia each have thousands of nuclear weapons instead of only a few hundred for minimal deterrence. That is why the U.S. has a $2 trillion so-called modernization program to keep nuclear weapons forever, in which expanded plutonium pit production is the critical issue.

Pope Leo XIV calls for a world built on law, justice and peace, which is our God-given duty to pursue. The U.S. Constitution enshrines international treaties as the “supreme Law of the Land.” The essential bargain of the Nonproliferation Treaty was that the nuclear weapons powers promised to negotiate nuclear disarmament, in exchange for which all other nations promised to never acquire them. The nuclear weapons powers have not upheld their end of this legal bargain.

No future pit production is to maintain the safety and reliability of the existing nuclear weapons stockpile. Instead, it is all for new-design nuclear weapons which can’t be tested because of the international testing moratorium, thereby perhaps eroding stockpile confidence. Or new-design nuclear weapons could prompt the U.S. to return to testing, which would shred the global nonproliferation regime.

The enormous sums for unneeded new nuclear weapons rob from the poor and needy. Military spending is reaching record heights while programs for the common man and woman are being slashed. We urgently need comprehensive cleanup at the Los Alamos National Laboratory to protect our irreplaceable groundwater. Instead, $6 billion will be put into LANL’s nuclear weapons programs next year, of which $2.4 billion is for plutonium pit production. But cleanup gets less than $300 million.

These are the clearly the wrong priorities. I urge concerned citizens to speak their minds at this evening’s public hearing. In addition, please be sure to submit written comments on the need for cleanup and nuclear disarmament by the deadline of July 16 (which happens to be the 81st anniversary of the Trinity Test that harmed New Mexicans).

The Most Rev. John C. Wester is archbishop of Santa Fe.

[The Pit Production PEIS public hearing Thursday, May 14, 2026: 5:00-5:30 pm Open House Poster Session, 5:30-8:00 pm Formal Public Hearing, at the Santa Fe Farmers Market Institute, 1607 Paseo de Peralta. It is also virtual at https://bit.ly/PitPEIS14May, Meeting ID: 278 752 885 654 34, Passcode: W9Bt96vN Written comments should be submitted by July 16 to PitPEIS@nnsa.doe.gov]

—

The post My View John C. Wester, Archbishop of Santa Fe, NM appeared first on The Colorado Coalition.

Message of the Holy Father for the 59th World Day of Peace 2026: “Peace be with you all: Towards an “unarmed and disarming” peace”

The post Pope Leo’s Comments on current confrontational logic. appeared first on The Colorado Coalition.

The post New Nuclear testing? What’s it all about? Maybe appeared first on The Colorado Coalition.

The post Nuke symposium New Mexico appeared first on The Colorado Coalition.

The post Deep Analysis of Need for update nuclear Arms Treaties!” appeared first on The Colorado Coalition.

Mass for World Peace-August 5th, 2025 – 16:00

HIROSHIMA MEMORIAL CATHEDRAL FOR WORLD PEACE

I offer cordial greeting to all gathered to commemorate the eightieth anniversary of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In a particular way, I express my sentiments of respect and affection for the Hibakusha survivors, whose stories of loss and suffering are a timely summons to all of us to build a safer world and foster a climate of peace.

Though many years have passed, the two cities remain living reminders of the profound horrors wrought by nuclear weapons. Their streets, schools and homes still bears-both visible and spiritual-from that fateful August of 1945. In this context, I hasten to reiterate the words so often used by my beloved predecessor Pope Francis: “Wars is always a defeat for humanity.”

As a survivor from Nagasaki, Dr. Takashi Nagai wrote, “The person of love is person of bravery who does not bear arms” (Heiwato, 1979). Indeed, true peace demands the courageous laying down of weapons-especially those with the power to cause an indescribable catastrophe. Nuclear arms offend our shared humanity and also betray the dignity of creation, whose harmony we are called to safeguard.

In our time of mounting global tensions and conflicts, Hiroshima and Nagasaki stand as “symbols of memory” that urge us to reject the illusion of security founded on mutually assured destruction. Instead, we must forge a global ethic rooted in justice, fraternity and comm [sic] good.

It is thus my prayer that this solemn anniversary will serve as a call to the international community to renew its commitment to pursuing lasting peace for our whole human family— “a peace that is unarmed and disarming” (First Apostolic Blessing “Urbi et Orbi”, 8 May 2025).

Upon all who mark this anniversary, I willingly invoke abundant divine blessings.

From the Vatican, 14 July 2025

Leo PP. 14

The post Message from Pope Leo XIV for the eightieth anniversary of the atomic bombings appeared first on The Colorado Coalition.

The post Hiroshima appeared first on The Colorado Coalition.

The Alliance for Nuclear Accountability is a national network of over 30 grassroots organizations formed by communities living in the shadows of nuclear weapons facilities, and concerned about the consequences of U.S. nuclear weapons and waste policies. Since 1989, ANA has hosted Spring D.C. Days, where grassroots representatives from major nuclear sites around the U.S. have joined together in Washington D.C. for a week of action to lobby Congress members and government departments on issues regarding nuclear weapons, power, and waste. The annual DC Days week of action offers a powerful opportunity for nuclear-impacted communities from around the nation to come together, learn from each other, and be a voice for justice in the face of the most dangerous industry the world has ever seen. Here are some reflections from DC Days this year:

The Lows:
There was a particularly ominous feeling in Washington D.C. this year as we were meeting with Congress members against the backdrop of ICE raids and military deployment in L.A., the preparation of a military parade in D.C., genocidal escalation in Gaza and the Middle East, and many other pressing issues. We felt firsthand the consolidation of power occurring in D.C., with government officials getting more and more disconnected from their constituencies each year. On the nuclear side, we learned from our peers in ANA just how much the U.S. nuclear weapons program is escalating, with $2 Trillion being committed towards nuclear weapons modernization and new plutonium pit production. De-regulation of the nuclear industry remains an ever-growing threat, as international nuclear tensions continue to escalate.

The Highs:
We are happy to report that the movement for nuclear accountability remains strong, powerful, resilient, and well-informed on the issues. This year’s DC Days had the most diverse representation of any ANA DC Days delegation to date, with delegates from the Western Shoshone, Southern Paiute, Laguna-Acoma Pueblo, and several other Indigenous nations, as well as a strong presence from youth and frontline communities. Through the ANA DC Days Youth, BIPOC, and Frontline Community Scholarship Fund, we were able to offer financial support to 25 participants to join this year, many of whom were lobbying for the first time. Every year, DC Days offers a powerful opportunity to build national alliances and grassroots power, and to deepen trust and friendship within the national anti-nuclear movement, and this year was no different. In total, we had 55 DC Days delegates participating in 85 meetings with Congressional staff and key government departments. We look forward to continuing to strengthen the national movement for nuclear disarmament and environmental justice.

Read the Full ANA DC Days 2025 Report!
If you would like to learn more about the current state of the U.S. nuclear weapons complex and the Alliance for Nuclear Accountability’s recommendations for Congressional action to halt nuclear weapons development and protect the public from the impacts of radioactive waste, you can read the 2025 DC Days Report, titled “What About Waste? 80 Years of Nuclear”. A copy of this report was given to every Congress member we met with in D.C.

Check out this week’s KGNU Hemispheres program that was aired on Tuesday June 24th, featuring guests from Colorado’s 2025 ANA DC Days Delegation. In this hour-long program, participants discuss reflections from DC Days, updates on the current U.S. nuclear weapons program, the history and significance of Nuclear Guardianship, the injustices faced by frontline communities targeted for nuclear development, and the need for a strong and multifaceted movement for nuclear accountability. We are grateful to KGNU’s Myrna Morales and Elizabeth Ruckus for hosting this program and offering a platform to discuss these important topics!

The post Update from the Alliance for Nuclear Accountability 2025 DC Days appeared first on The Colorado Coalition.

Amid all the chaos in the world, I want to provide a ray of light, a sliver of hope: We may be on the verge of radically reducing the gravest global existential danger ‒ that of nuclear weapons.

Many people and countries have felt threatened by the rapidly changing world order, and many increasingly look to nuclear weapons for supposed protection. But an uncontrolled global nuclear arms race would be the worst outcome, as global nuclear risks have already surged to the highest level since the end of the Cold War. The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists recently pushed its famed Doomsday Clock to 89 seconds to midnight, the closest ever to humanity’s destruction.

To his credit, President Donald Trump has proposed confronting the growing global nuclear danger head-on. He is right to be repeatedly calling for bold denuclearization talks among the United States, China and Russia ‒ the world’s three biggest nuclear powers ‒ to de-escalate the new nuclear arms race.

If President Trump is serious about pursuing nuclear diplomacy, I’ll strongly support his initiative ‒ and there is much work to be done.

As Trump has pointed out, nothing in the world is more dangerous than the persistent threat that nuclear weapons pose to our very existence. During the Cold War, the United States and the Soviet Union waged a dangerous, costly and ultimately unwinnable nuclear arms race under the doctrine of mutual assured destruction (MAD). At its peak, the two countries amassed more than 70,000 nuclear weapons and repeatedly brought the world to the brink of nuclear annihilation.

MAD was always a crazy gamble, positing that more nuclear weapons make us safer. But if it had any merit, it was designed for two nuclear peers, not for three nuclear superpowers. Nor did it account for the growing number of countries looking to acquire their own nuclear weapons, or irrational leaders with their fingers on the button. Yet, MAD still dominates countries’ nuclear thinking.

At a time of profound global changes and instability, following the dangerous and outdated Cold War playbook will only lead to another futile nuclear arms race among the world’s now nine nuclear powers and encourage even more countries to build their own nukes. Instead of increasing security, such a nuclear free-for-all will only hasten our own demise.

We don’t need to go down this path. There is a reason for hope. A new opening for peace. Not to solve all conflicts and all problems ‒ but the world’s most important and dangerous one.

As President Trump suggested, the best shot at reducing the growing nuclear threat is directly de-escalating the arms race among the United States, China and Russia. China’s rise as a world power has led it to increase its once-small nuclear arsenal. China now has roughly 600 nuclear weapons and is on a path to match America’s and Russia’s deployed arsenals of about 1,500 each (thousands more are in reserve).

Many U.S. politicians see the growth of China’s power as a reason to escalate tensions. The military industrial complex still sells the old lie: The more nuclear weapons we have, the more we can “deter” China and Russia, and the safer we will be.

This is wrong, as it always has been. Rivals like China and Russia can and will always build more of their own nukes in response. My grandfather J. Robert Oppenheimer shared the first principle of nuclear weapons: The only safety from them is in cooperation ‒ and in doing so, we can eliminate war and reap the incredible benefits that nuclear science can provide for energy and medicine.

President Trump echoed this fundamental truth when he described nuclear weapons as unusable and argued that the colossal sums we spend on making ever more destructive nukes should be redirected toward more productive ends.

Trump’s calls for U.S.-Russia-China nuclear dialogue have created an opening for much-needed diplomacy. Meaningful cooperation among the world’s three biggest nuclear powers could not only lead to direct reductions of each’s arsenal, it can also help dissuade countries considering building their own nukes from doing so.

The willingness of rival leaders to talk is the most important ingredient here ‒ something we have had a dangerous lack of since the Ukraine conflict. As global risks compound and the Doomsday Clock ticks ever closer to midnight, we must put to rest this idea that it’s somehow unacceptable to negotiate with countries we disagree with. Instead, it’s high time we embrace some nuclear realism and find common grounds to ensure our mutual survival.

In this respect, President Trump is right to propose direct talks with President Vladimir Putin of Russia and President Xi Jinping of China on nuclear arms control. Though nuclear negotiations often are held by bureaucrats with no real power and don’t go anywhere, it’s time the leaders themselves step up to lead.

A meaningful commitment from these three leaders to reducing global nuclear threats would be the biggest breakthrough on this most important of issues since the 1986 summit between Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev and President Ronald Reagan ‒ a hawkish leader who ended up embracing nuclear disarmament.

Such an accomplishment would be worthy of a Nobel Peace prize for Trump, Putin and Xi, regardless of what you think of their respective politics.

There are many great ideas out there on how trilateral nuclear negotiations could work. My recommendation is to start with prohibiting artificial intelligence from launching nuclear weapons, something all parties could agree to. Washington and Moscow could then explore reducing their respective arsenals from thousands toward Beijing’s much lower level. They can further negotiate with China on a mutual pledge not to use nuclear weapons first, which China has already committed to.

Lastly, all three parties can cooperate on the peaceful use of nuclear energy and medicine.

Finding a common thread of agreement among parties who otherwise disagree is the basis of negotiation ‒ and it can be done. You don’t have to agree with China’s political system, Russia’s military actions or Trump’s trade policy to agree that a new nuclear arms race is dangerous, wasteful and cannot be won. Reducing the growing threat of nuclear weapons is something we must all support. It is the most important thing in the world.

Charles Oppenheimer is the founder and co-executive director of the Oppenheimer Project. He is the grandson of J. Robert Oppenheimer, the director of the Los Alamos National Laboratory during the Manhattan Project.

The post I’m Oppenheimer’s grandson. I support Trump’s pursuit of nuclear diplomacy. appeared first on The Colorado Coalition.