Two important dates are fast approaching: August 6th and August 9th, the anniversaries of the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of World War II. Last year on August 6th, Seafair officials welcomed a nuclear submarine to town as a tourist attraction for the Seafair crowd; the bitter irony of this was lost on the local media. Peace activists responded by holding a wake and vigil in a park across the street from the pier, and a smaller group later boarded the submarine tender to pour red paint (symbolizing blood) on the submarine itself. Although no nuclear subs are scheduled to be in town this year, we shouldn't forget the U.S. government's commitment to its nuclear arsenal and the problem of international nuclear proliferation.

So far, 1998 has brought eleven nuclear weapons tests in India and Pakistan and a continuation of weapons testing here in the U.S. Closer to home, inane politicians (Gary Locke and Patty Murray) have wanted to restart the Fast Flux Test Facility at Hanford, while private contractors (Fluor Daniels Hanford) have frittered away millions of dollars in clean-up funds without cleaning up a single ounce of radioactive waste, with the tacit approval of Gov. Locke and the Department of Ecology. Workers at Hanford were exposed to toxic chemicals and radiation during an explosion that brought to light serious safety violations by Fluor Daniels Hanford. The Department of Ecology has finally admitted that radioactive waste has leaked into the groundwater at Hanford. And now the Department of Energy wants to give $350 million to a French company to study the feasibility of vitrifying waste from Hanford (i.e., turning it into glass and encasing it in steel cylinders) over the next two years, as part of a privatization project. That's two more years of waiting, while nothing gets done, and more money flows out of government coffers and into the hands of private companies.

Recently the Brooking Institute released the results of the first comprehensive study of the costs of the U.S. nuclear weapons program. The study placed the total figure spent since 1940 at a conservative $5.8 trillion, which included only direct costs, like research and development, manufacturing weapons and nuclear material, deploying and storage of weapons, and a low figure of $365 billion for environmental cleanup and waste management. The environmental figure was based on "average projected future-year costs," not taking into account the myriad ways that government contractors milk money from the public without fulfilling their contracts. More disturbing is that the study obviously didn't (and probably can't) put a figure on the illnesses and deaths of downwinders and workers exposed to radiation, and the untold suffering of their children and families.

But reading the conclusions of the report can give us an accurate picture of the problem we face in getting rid of nuclear weapons and controlling proliferation. The U.S. alone produced 70,000 nuclear warheads from 1945 to 1990. The range of different types of U.S. warheads is staggering: 65 different types for 116 different weapons systems, including 14 different kinds of strategic bombers. The U.S. has produced 210 different nuclear-powered military vessels, many of which are still under production--including a new $4.5 billion nuclear-powered aircraft carrier named the Harry S. Truman, which was launched last Saturday in Norfolk, Virginia to great fanfare by President Clinton and a host of Democrats and supporters.

The current official figure of amounts spent to maintain the U.S. nuclear arsenal is about $35 billion per year, or about 15% of the bloated defense budget. And the current number of U.S. warheads is estimated at 10,635.

The odds seem stacked against folks who want to live in a peaceful world free of nukes. But here in Washington State we have two unique things that could make us the center for a movement to rid the world of its most dangerous weapons.

First of all, Washington State has the dubious distinction of having more warheads than four of the six known nuclear nations. In the next five years, Washington will have more warheads than any other state in the U.S. Furthermore, these warheads are concentrated in two places: at Fairchild Air Force Base in Spokane and at the Bangor Submarine Base across Puget Sound, over on Hood Canal. Bangor's 8 submarines have 24 Trident I missiles per boat, and each missile has 8 warheads, for a total of 1,536. In addition, there are several dozen "spares" stored on the compound. At Fairchild, 85 nuclear gravity bombs are stored in a "reserve" nuclear depot.

The second advantage that we have is Washington's vital anti-nuclear movement. From folks working at the lobbying level to groups working on the street level, there's continuous pressure for the decommissioning of nuclear weapons and the safe cleanup of Hanford. And on the anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, a small group of dedicated pacifist, anti-nuclear activists is sponsoring a weekend retreat to protest the continued deployment of nuclear weapons at the Bangor Submarine Base. To get involved, contact Ground Zero at or call the Nonviolent Action Community of Cascadia (NACC) at .

The U.S. nuclear arsenal has decreased from its peak size of 32,000 weapons during the 1960s, down to the current level of one-third that number, and much of the decrease is because of civilian resistance to the continuing insane threat of nuclear war or nuclear accident. The only sane goal is to bring that number down to zero.