The Archbishops of Santa Fe, Seattle, and Nagasaki and the Bishop of Hiroshima will be traveling to New York City in late November for the first Review Conference of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. The Archbishop and Archbishop Emeritus of Nagasaki plan to bring a replica of the Madonna of Nagasaki (a statute) whose face was burnt by the plutonium bomb 81 years ago.

https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Faleteia.org%2F2026%2F08%2F09%2Fbishop-shirahamas-75-hour-vigil-linked-hiroshima-to-the-world%2F&data=05%7C02%7C%7Cdc56b12221d7409f247308def6fb0628%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C639219755186669199%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=oQIMpQ%2BZARQZnTpf45lhii7m%2FkUU%2BGMKp6sQHvdQsg4%3D&reserved=0

The post Bishop’s 75 hour Vigil in Japan appeared first on The Colorado Coalition.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE, August 7, 2026
Contact: Jay Coghlan, 505.989.7342, cell 505.470.3154, jay[at]nukewatch.org

Sophia Stroud, 505.231.9736, sophia[at]nukewatch.org

Santa Fe, NM – The Department of Energy’s semi-autonomous National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) has released an unredacted report entitled Plutonium Aging: Executive Summary (Unclassified), copied in its entirety below. Its key “High-Level Finding” is:

“The Pu [plutonium] in the stockpile appears to be aging slowly. The degradation issues that have been observed do not call into question present weapons performance.”

Plutonium “pits” are the radioactive cores or “triggers” of nuclear weapons. The NNSA has repeatedly claimed that potential aging effects drive the need for the aggressive expansion of plutonium pit production, which is its most expensive and complex program to date.

However, the independent Government Accountability Office (GAO) has repeatedly stated that the NNSA has no credible costs estimates and no “Integrated Master Schedule” for simultaneous production at the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) in northern New Mexico and the Savannah River Site (SRS) in South Carolina. In fact, DOE and NNSA have been on the GAO’s “High Risk List” for project mismanagement and waste of taxpayers’ dollars since 1991. At more than $30 billion, the plutonium pit plant at SRS is on track to become the most expensive building in U.S. history. A comparable amount will be spent at LANL on facility upgrades and related projects, for which the NNSA fails to keep total aggregated costs.

Expanded plutonium pit production has been the choke point of resumed industrial-scale nuclear weapons production by the U.S. Crucially, no future pit production is to maintain the safety and reliability of the existing stockpile. Instead, it is all for new-design nuclear weapons for the new arms race. These new weapons can’t be tested because of the existing global testing moratorium, thereby perhaps degrading confidence in the stockpile. Or new-design nuclear weapons testing could prompt the U.S. to resume testing, which would have severe international proliferation consequences.

Nuclear Watch New Mexico filed a Freedom of Information Act request for the Plutonium Aging: Executive Summary (Unclassified) in June. On July 15 we received an unclassified executive summary, but its two narrative pages were completely redacted. The date is significant because on July 16 the public comment period expired for the draft Pit Production Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS), which was meant to examine the need and rationale for pit production to begin with. The nonprofit organizations Nuclear Watch New Mexico, Savannah River Site Watch and Tri-Valley CAREs had to sue NNSA under the National Environmental Policy Act to compel NNSA to complete the Pit Production PEIS to begin with. The agency has now apparently bowed to public and congressional pressure to release an unredacted version. Nevertheless, concerned citizens were deprived of this crucial document while attempting to submit truly informed comment.

NNSA’s draft Pit Production PEIS claimed:

“NNSA’s existing pit manufacturing capability is insufficient to meet current production requirements, necessitating the establishment of additional pit production capability and capacity both to satisfy the congressional mandate and to mitigate risks associated with plutonium aging.” Draft Pit Production PEIS, NNSA, January 2026, P. S-2

[While rejecting the reuse of more than 15,000 existing pits] “Only Reuse Existing Pits. Not feasible as sole solution. Stockpiled pits age and do not mitigate aging risks or enable enhanced safety features…” Ibid., p. S-14

“Many of the aging pits will have to be replaced with new ones in the coming years to maintain a safe and reliable nuclear stockpile and deterrence.” Ibid., p. 1-3

NNSA Administrator Brandon Williams recently said that the Los Alamos Lab will begin to produce 100 pits per year by 2028. In 2021, LANL Director Thom Mason declared:

“… the pits we have today were largely manufactured in the 1980s, and we don’t have the predictive ability to say with certainty that our current, 40-year-old pits will be good until any particular date. It’s sort of glass half full, glass half empty; we can’t prove that they will fail, but we also can’t prove that they will work.” The best way to deal with this dilemma is to “take it off the table,” Mason explains. “We do that by making new pits, immediately.” [1]

Jay Coghlan, Director of Nuclear Watch New Mexico, commented,

“The Lab Director certainly must be pleased that LANL is going to spend 2 billion taxpayer dollars on new plutonium pit production for each of the next six years. But it looks like his plutonium aging excuse doesn’t really hold water. LANL’s nuclear weapons programs are getting a huge $1 billion raise on October 1 for a total of $6 billion in FY 2027, while virtually everything else is being cut. We need real national security against wildfires, pandemics and adverse climate change, not empty excuses for new-design nuclear weapons for the new arms race that threatens us all.”

The post NNSA Releases New Plutonium Life Study appeared first on The Colorado Coalition.

As of May 2026, the United States is replacing or “modernizing” nearly every component of its strategic nuclear arsenal as well as expanding tactical capacity that was abandoned at the end of the cold war.

A war involving nukes would bring on blast and fire damage, along with radiological and chemical poisoning. It would likely bring on a “nuclear winter” that might last 5 years. A Nuclear Winter event would dramatically disrupt the world’s food supply.

In a rational world, we’d only have to worry about enemies starting war or accidents but now we face added problems of unstable, self-serving or even crazy leaders (e.g. Trump, Netanyahu and perhaps Putin) with fingers on the triggers. Underlings, civilian and military could trigger wars that go nuclear. False flag operations could go sour.

Please push for a serious American effort to live peaceably with other nations and halt the nuclear “modernization.”

bennet.senate.gov. hickenlooper.senate. gov. neguse.house.gov.

any member of Congress. 202-224-3121

The post Letters to Congress –Write One appeared first on The Colorado Coalition.

The post Bottom Line for NNSA appeared first on The Colorado Coalition.

She adds: “If the president decided to launch a counterattack, even if the initial attack was launched by accident, certainly the adversary is going to retaliate. That’s a civilisation-ending day – or an afternoon.” I’m so taken aback I laugh out loud. “I know,” she says. “I’m sorry. I’ve had many years to acclimate to this. But most people haven’t. Most people don’t know we’ve set up a system that is essentially a doomsday system. And we can dismantle it. We just have not.

.”https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Flifeandstyle%2F2026%2Fjul%2F20%2Fdoomsday-system-physicist-laura-grego-satellites-nuclear-weapons-battle-skies-space-elon-musk%3FCMP%3DShare_iOSApp_Other&data=05%7C02%7C%7Ccb9d585f88cd42faa06208dee8052aae%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C639203306068036220%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=r7GFC9WgK3HpnFZmrmZTM3RLWBbpKLHj6VFoubO%2BkEU%3D&reserved=0

The post ‘Most people don’t know we’ve set up a doomsday system’: physicist Laura Grego on satellites, nuclear weapons and the battle for our skies | Space | The Guardian appeared first on The Colorado Coalition.

The post Pope Leo on Nuclear Disarmament! appeared first on The Colorado Coalition.

lease feel free to use any of the language below, modified as necessary. Comments can be sent to PitPEIS@nnsa.doe.gov Please include document number DOE/EIS-0573 in the email subject line.

Jay

>
> I respectfully submit these comments on the draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Plutonium Pit Production. I am writing on behalf of the Kansas City Chapter of Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR). I’m a Masters-prepared Pediatric Nurse with a 45 year career protecting children’s health and public health in Kansas City. I also serve on the national board of PSR.
>
> I join with thousands of my colleagues across the country in opposing the NNSA’s plans to produce new plutonium “pit” bomb cores for new nuclear weapons in both the Los Alamos National Lab site (LANL) and the Savannah River Site (SRS), as well as the part other sites play, such as the Kansas City National Security (KCNSC) site. My first question is: Why is there not a “No Pit Production” alternative offered? My next question: Why is the number of pits per year increasing? I do not see a valid reason. New pit “trigger” production is provocatively dangerous, unnecessary and expensive. I believe in scientific evidence and demand a rigorous analysis of the risks involved in plutonium pit production across all the sites involved.
>
> Nuclear deterrence is a fallacy. It is a cover for preparation for full-on nuclear war-fighting capability. There are 15,000 plutonium pits ready for use at the Pantex site, available should any existing nuclear weapons need them. Making new nuclear weapons is an escalation to a new nuclear arms race. It is throwing gas on the current geopolitical fire of the Russian-Ukraine war, Israel’s genocide in Gaza, and the US war in Iran, all involving nuclear-armed states. We need diplomacy, not more nuclear bombs. What work, if any, does the Department of Energy (DOE) and the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) currently do that helps move the U.S. toward leading the world to global nuclear abolition?
>
> Making new plutonium bomb cores for new nuclear weapons flies in the face of the 1970 Non-Proliferation Treaty which was supposed to lead to worldwide disarmament. There are now 100 states who have signed onto the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, which became international law in 2021. The US should lead the nuclear-weapons states into joining this treaty. Making new plutonium pits is going the wrong way. Nuclear weapons do not keep us safe; they could end civilization in a matter of hours. Do the DOE and NNSA have any plans or processes to work towards global disarmament in any way? If not, why not? The Department of Energy should turn away from using most of its budget for making nuclear bombs to producing what’s in the title of its Department, that is Energy. And again, DOE is going the wrong way by promoting nuclear energy which harms the environment and our health, instead of promoting renewable energy like wind and solar, which do not foment wars and would help solve the climate crisis.
>
> Democracy cannot survive in secrecy. The Department of Energy has been opaque concerning the need for plutonium pits production and its risks to community health and the environment. For example, today Nuclear Watch New Mexico and the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) received the FOIA’d “Plutonium Aging Executive Summary (Unclassified) but it was completely redacted. Why was this information hidden? It should be released and another 30 day comment period started as NNSA maintains new pits are needed due to aging concerns. But the 2006 JASON Pit Life Study’s executive summary was released and made fully available to the public. It concluded that most pit types last at least 100 years. Average plutonium pit age is now ~43 years. A 2012 Lawrence Livermore National Lab study found no unexpected aging issues. And can NNSA really guarantee that making new pits for new nuclear weapons won’t lead to deteriorating confidence in these new designs and end up in a push for renewal of (now illegal) nuclear bomb tests? Undoubtedly this would cause world-wide testing to resume.
>
> Another local example of this lack of transparency is the KCNSC which was opened in 2014 by a public-private partnership designed to avoid seeking funding from Congress. The city of Kansas City, Missouri’s, Planned Industrial Expansion Authority (PIEA) holds title to the KCNSC and leases it for the federal government’s use. Two years ago when the 15-phase 50% expansion of the KCNSC began, for so-called modernization and plutonium pits production, the public was not well notified and informed of any public meeting or decision-making process. As a matter of fact, our phone calls and emails to the Kansas City authorities were never answered or returned, so we were effectively excluded from the process. Then, during the recent May 7th Kansas City PEIS hearing, an NNSA flier stated that KCNSC is producing 330,000 parts per year for nuclear weapons. This is over three times what had been publicized when the plant opened in 2014. Are these parts similar to the past or are these new parts for plutonium pit production?
>
> Given the problematic history of the KC Bannister Federal Complex (BFC) where hundreds, if not thousands, of federal workers in many and various departments were made sick and died from exposure to toxicants used in the KC nuclear bomb parts Plant there, why was the expansion of the KC NSC largely kept from public oversight and comment? It was widely reported in the press during the closing of the BFC that there were about 2,400 hazardous toxicants used at the BFC and that the contamination of the water table below the plant will require pump and treat wells into perpetuity. I believe the Kansas City area should be covered under the Radiation Exposure Compensation (RECA) program for downwinders. What assurances do we have that similar contamination is not happening at the KCNSC? How can the public access information on contamination and worker illnesses or deaths at the KCNSC? I do not see the KC NSC listed on the Department of Labor website showing the number of EEOICP (Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program) claimants at each site of the nation’s nuclear weapons complex. Why is KC NSC not in this list?
>
> The PEIS process has not specified what effects or hazards the plutonium pit production will have on the Kansas City area. What chemicals will be used? Are there any radioactive substances currently used at the KC NSC or will there be any used in the future? What toxicants will be transported in or out of Kansas City? By what means will they be transported – by truck or rail? Will the public be alerted when dangerous substances will be moved in or out of the city? What training will be provided to first responders along transportation routes? What are the risks to the workers at the KC NSC? Have all workers been informed of the risks? Do they have protective clothing and processes in place?
>
> The current proposed loosening of radiation limits and safeguards is of particular concern. We need tightened restrictions to protect the most vulnerable among us. Is NNSA aware of the heightened impacts of radiation exposure on women and girls? What analysis has been done of the effects of the relaxation of safeguards on occupational health, on needs for long-term health monitoring, and on impacts on communities that have long borne the burdens of the nuclear weapons enterprise? The RECA program is expiring next year, and a new bill to expand and extend it is to be introduced this week. After spending trillions to make nuclear weapons over the years, is NNSA aware of the billions needed to help those who have suffered and died from cancers and other illnesses over the past eight decades? Has NNSA ever studied the cancer rates around nuclear weapons production sites? If not, why not? If yes, what were the results? The Draft PEIS should thoroughly evaluate the cumulative health risks of expanded plutonium pit production for workers, surrounding communities, and future generations.
>
> Cleanup of already existing waste should be prioritized instead of making new bombs with new waste. People around the already contaminated Los Alamos and SRS sites are living with legacy radioactive contamination. The sole repository in New Mexico, the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) is already filling up with radioactive (TRU) wastes. What plan does NNSA have for future radioactive bomb waste? And has NNSA evaluated increased risks due to the climate crisis, such as forest fires and flooding? A known site risk at LANL is a risk of earthquakes. A new “Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis” (PSHA) was to be released early this year; why has this not been released? The half-life of many radioactive substances is thousands and millions of years. The radioactive fallout from over 1,000 U.S. nuclear bomb tests still covers our country and beyond. What policies and processes does DOE/NNSA use to address environmental justice issues at nuclear weapons production sites, particularly for indigenous communities, people of color, low-income folks, and historically marginalized groups? Cumulative radiation exposure increases the likelihood of cancer, heart disease, immunocompromised diseases, reproductive disorders, and inherited genetic damage.
>
> We cannot afford this deadly, dangerous and unnecessary pit production scheme. It’s the most expensive program in NNSA history. Plans are to spend $5 billion over each of the next six years and at least $60 billion over the next 20 years. The Government Accountability Office has repeatedly found that NNSA has no credible cost estimates. When will NNSA produce a comprehensive cost estimate and schedule for the pit production program? DOE had ordered a “special assessment” of NNSA’s troubled pit production program due for completion in December, 2025. Why has this not been released to the public? The SRS pit plant will end up being the most expensive building in U.S. history, with a current estimate of $30 billion. How does the NNSA justify this outrageous waste of taxpayer funds when our country is the only industrialized nation without universal health coverage, while the leading cause of bankruptcy is medical debt? It makes no sense.
>
> In summary, new pit production is perilous, unwarranted and outrageously expensive. It is a fantastical dream from the Cold War, or rather a nightmare, given the previous Rocky Flats plutonium pit factory fiasco of serious environmental crimes including explosions, fires, leaks, and widespread radioactive contamination. As a health professional, my aim is to first do no harm. It is estimated that radioactive contamination from nuclear weapons production and testing has likely killed more people across the U.S. than the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. PSR’s credo is “Prevention is the Only Cure” because scientists know an all-out nuclear war would cover the upper atmosphere with the soot from burning cities, resulting in a severe “nuclear winter” Ice Age. The living would envy the dead. That is ultimately why a stringent and rigorous analysis of all risks involved in plutonium pit production, across all the involved sites, is an imperative.
>
> Sincerely,
> Ann Suellentrop M.S. R.N.
> Kansas City, Kansas

The post Hi everyone, Feel free to use any of my comments, appeared first on The Colorado Coalition.

The post National Security?? appeared first on The Colorado Coalition.

(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.