January, 12 2022, 07:00am EDT

Organizations Call for Elimination of 'Launch on Warning' Land-Based Nuclear Missiles in the United States
More than 60 national and regional organizations on Wednesday issued a joint statement calling for the elimination of the 400 land-based nuclear missiles now armed and on hair-trigger alert in the United States.
The statement, titled "A Call to Eliminate ICBMs," warns that "intercontinental ballistic missiles are uniquely dangerous, greatly increasing the chances that a false alarm or miscalculation will result in nuclear war."
WASHINGTON
More than 60 national and regional organizations on Wednesday issued a joint statement calling for the elimination of the 400 land-based nuclear missiles now armed and on hair-trigger alert in the United States.
The statement, titled "A Call to Eliminate ICBMs," warns that "intercontinental ballistic missiles are uniquely dangerous, greatly increasing the chances that a false alarm or miscalculation will result in nuclear war."
Citing the conclusion reached by former Defense Secretary William Perry that ICBMs "could even trigger an accidental nuclear war," the organizations urged the U.S. government to "shut down the 400 ICBMs now in underground silos that are scattered across five states -- Colorado, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota and Wyoming."
"Rather than being any kind of deterrent, ICBMs are the opposite -- a foreseeable catalyst for nuclear attack," the statement says. "ICBMs certainly waste billions of dollars, but what makes them unique is the threat that they pose to all of humanity."
Norman Solomon, national director of RootsAction.org, said the statement could represent a turning point in the range of options being debated about ICBMs. "Until now, the public discussion has been almost entirely limited to the narrow question of whether to build a new ICBM system or stick with the existing Minuteman III missiles for decades longer," he said. "That's like arguing over whether to refurbish the deck chairs on the nuclear Titanic. Both options retain the same unique dangers of nuclear war that ICBMs involve. It's time to really widen the ICBM debate, and this joint statement from U.S. organizations is a vital step in that direction."
RootsAction and Just Foreign Policy led the organizing process that resulted in the statement being released today.
Here is the full statement, followed by a list of the signing organizations:
Joint statement by U.S. organizations being released on January 12, 2022
A Call to Eliminate ICBMs
Intercontinental ballistic missiles are uniquely dangerous, greatly increasing the chances that a false alarm or miscalculation will result in nuclear war. There is no more important step the United States could take to reduce the chances of a global nuclear holocaust than to eliminate its ICBMs.
As former Defense Secretary William Perry has explained, "If our sensors indicate that enemy missiles are en route to the United States, the president would have to consider launching ICBMs before the enemy missiles could destroy them; once they are launched, they cannot be recalled. The president would have less than 30 minutes to make that terrible decision." And Secretary Perry wrote: "First and foremost, the United States can safely phase out its land-based intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) force, a key facet of Cold War nuclear policy. Retiring the ICBMs would save considerable costs, but it isn't only budgets that would benefit. These missiles are some of the most dangerous weapons in the world. They could even trigger an accidental nuclear war."
Rather than being any kind of deterrent, ICBMs are the opposite -- a foreseeable catalyst for nuclear attack. ICBMs certainly waste billions of dollars, but what makes them unique is the threat that they pose to all of humanity.
The people of the United States support huge expenditures when they believe the spending protects them and their loved ones. But ICBMs actually make us less safe. By discarding all of its ICBMs and thereby eliminating the basis for U.S. "launch on warning," the U.S. would make the whole world safer -- whether or not Russia and China chose to follow suit.
Everything is at stake. Nuclear weapons could destroy civilization and inflict catastrophic damage on the world's ecosystems with "nuclear winter," inducing mass starvation while virtually ending agriculture. That is the overarching context for the need to shut down the 400 ICBMs now in underground silos that are scattered across five states -- Colorado, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota and Wyoming.
Closure of those ICBM facilities should be accompanied by major public investment to subsidize transition costs and provide well-paying jobs that are productive for the long-term economic prosperity of affected communities.
Even without ICBMs, the formidable U.S. nuclear threat would remain. The United States would have nuclear forces capable of deterring a nuclear attack by any conceivable adversary: forces deployed either on aircraft, which are recallable, or on submarines that remain virtually invulnerable, and thus not subject to the "use them or lose them" dilemma that the ground-based ICBMs inherently present in a crisis.
The United States should pursue every diplomatic avenue to comply with its obligation to negotiate nuclear disarmament. At the same time, whatever the status of negotiations, the elimination of the U.S. government's ICBMs would be a breakthrough for sanity and a step away from a nuclear precipice that would destroy all that we know and love.
"I refuse to accept the cynical notion that nation after nation must spiral down a militaristic stairway into the hell of thermonuclear destruction," Martin Luther King Jr. said as he accepted the Nobel Peace Prize in 1964. Nearly 60 years later, the United States must eliminate its ICBMs to reverse that downward spiral.
Action Corps
Alaska Peace Center
American Committee for U.S.-Russia Accord
Arab American Action Network
Arizona Chapter, Physicians for Social Responsibility
Back from the Brink Coalition
Backbone Campaign
Baltimore Phil Berrigan Memorial Chapter, Veterans For Peace
Beyond Nuclear
Beyond the Bomb
Black Alliance for Peace
Blue America
Campaign for Peace, Disarmament and Common Security
Center for Citizen Initiatives
Chesapeake Physicians for Social Responsibility
Chicago Area Peace Action
Code Pink
Demand Progress
Environmentalists Against War
Fellowship of Reconciliation
Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space
Global Zero
Greater Boston Physicians for Social Responsibility
Historians for Peace and Democracy
Jewish Voice for Peace Action
Just Foreign Policy
Justice Democrats
Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy
Linus Pauling Chapter, Veterans For Peace
Los Alamos Study Group
Maine Physicians for Social Responsibility
Massachusetts Peace Action
Muslim Delegates and Allies
No More Bombs
Nuclear Age Peace Foundation
Nuclear Watch New Mexico
Nukewatch
Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility
Other98
Our Revolution
Pax Christi USA
Peace Action
People for Bernie Sanders
Physicians for Social Responsibility
Prevent Nuclear War Maryland
Progressive Democrats of America
RootsAction.org
San Francisco Bay Physicians for Social Responsibility
Santa Fe Chapter, Veterans For Peace
Spokane Chapter, Veterans For Peace
U.S. Palestinian Community Network
United for Peace and Justice
Veterans For Peace
Washington Physicians for Social Responsibility
Western North Carolina Physicians for Social Responsibility
Western States Legal Foundation
Whatcom Peace and Justice Center
Win Without War
Women Transforming Our Nuclear Legacy
World Beyond War
Yemen Relief and Reconstruction Foundation
Youth Against Nuclear Weapons
RootsAction is dedicated to galvanizing people who are committed to economic fairness, equal rights for all, civil liberties, environmental protection -- and defunding endless wars. We mobilize on these issues no matter whether Democrats or Republicans control Washington D.C.
LATEST NEWS
Decimated by Tariffs, US Farmers Warn Trump Bailout Not Nearly Enough to Erase Pain He Caused
"The average soybean acre in the United States this year is going to lose $109 an acre, and that's well over two dollars a bushel," said one farmer. "It's bloody."
Dec 22, 2025
President Donald Trump has announced a $12 billion relief package for US farmers hurt by his global trade war, but there are already signs that it will be woefully insufficient.
The Guardian reported on Monday that many US farmers are concerned that the bailout offered by the Trump administration won't come close to making up for the damage done by Trump's tariffs over the last nine months.
The report cited data from the American Farm Bureau showing that US crop farmers have collectively lost $34.6 billion this year, a total that is nearly three times the size of Trump's farm aid proposal.
Dan Wright, president of the Arkansas Farm Bureau, told the Guardian that Trump's plan is both too little to make up for lost sales and too late to prevent many farms from going under.
"A program that provides roughly $50 an acre will not save the thousands of family farms that will go bankrupt before the end of the year," Wright explained.
The Guardian noted that farms in Arkansas are expected to be hit particularly hard by bankruptcies this year, although farmers across the US report being under duress.
Ohio Capital Journal reported last week on new data from the Atlantic Council’s Tariff Tracker showing that Ohio farmers lost $76 million worth of exports to China this year after the Chinese government cut off all US soy purchases in retaliation for Trump restarting his trade war.
A Monday report from the Times-Picayune quoted Louisiana Commissioner of Agriculture and Foresty Mike Strain saying recently that roughly half of Louisiana farmers "are facing significant challenges" in which they're dealing not only with lost sales to foreign nations, but also increased costs for supplies and equipment thanks to Trump's tariffs.
"The cost has gone up, but the price the farmers receive went down," Strain explained.
Kentucky farmer Caleb Ragland, chairman of the American Soybean Association, told Spectrum News 1 on Monday that soy farmers were bracing for major losses from their crops as they get hit from both sides by depressed soy prices and increased input costs.
"The average soybean acre in the United States this year is going to lose $109 an acre, and that's well over two dollars a bushel," Ragland explained. "It's bloody."
While China recently pledged to start buying more soy from US farmers, the country has been gradually increasing its reliance on Brazil and other countries so that it no longer has to deal with unpredictable US trade policies.
Andrew Muhammad, a professor of agricultural policy at the University of Tennessee, said in an interview with local public radio station WPLN that China's shift toward Latin American markets means it is no longer held hostage to Trump's whims, and it can now ensure a steady supply of soy regardless of the US president's tariff policies.
Keep ReadingShow Less
‘You Cannot Annex Other Countries’: Greenland, Denmark Furious at Trump Special Envoy Appointment
Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry's new title "changes nothing for us at home," said the leader of Greenland. "We decide our future ourselves."
Dec 22, 2025
The leaders of Denmark and Greenland have rejected President Donald Trump's plans to take control of the latter country "very clearly before," said Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen and Greenlandic Premier Jens-Frederik Nielsen on Monday, but they were forced to make their resolve even more explicit after the US leader appointed a new special envoy to the autonomous Arctic island territory.
"National borders and the sovereignty of states are rooted in international law," said Frederiksen and Nielsen in a joint statement Monday. "You cannot annex other countries... Greenland belongs to the Greenlanders, and the US should not take over Greenland. We expect respect for our common territorial integrity.”
The two leaders spoke out after Trump announced his appointment of Republican Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry as envoy to Greenland, with both men referencing plans to take control of the country of 57,000 people, which is part of the Danish kingdom.
"Jeff understands how essential Greenland is to our National Security, and will strongly advance our Country’s Interests for the Safety, Security, and Survival of our Allies, and indeed, the World," said the president Sunday evening.
Landry replied that it is "an honor to serve you in this volunteer position to make Greenland a part of the US."
While joining Frederiksen in forcefully rejecting any plans for an annexation of Greenland, Nielsen also dismissed Landry's new role in another statement.
“It may sound big," said Nielsen of the Trump administration's latest overtures. "But it changes nothing for us at home... We decide our future ourselves."
Trump has pushed for a takeover of Greenland since his first term in the White House, and he has ramped up efforts this year since returning to office. In August, Danish Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen summoned Mark Stroh, the US chargé d'affaires in Denmark, after the country's public broadcaster reported that the Trump administration had launched a covert "influence" campaign to sew discord between Denmark and Greenland.
Earlier this year, polling showed that 85% of Greenlanders opposed joining the US. Hundreds of people protested in Greenland's capital, Nuuk, in March, ahead of US Vice President JD Vance's visit to the country.
Greenlandic photographer Orla Joelsen said Monday that should Landry come to the country, "he will be welcomed by a massive demonstration—larger than the one we held back in March this year."
The White House has said the US should take control of the mineral-rich island for "national security and even international security." According to the US Geological Survey, the Arctic holds 13% of undiscovered oil resources and 30% of undiscovered gas. The climate emergency and melting Arctic ice has also expanded the use of the northern ocean for trade shipping routes, and controlling Greenland would give the US a greater claim in the region.
Trump has threatened to use military action to seize Greenland, saying in March that the White House would "go as far as we have to” to take ownership of the island.
On Monday, Rasmussen told the press he plans to summon the US ambassador to Denmark, Ken Howery, to the European country to demand "an explanation" of Landry's appointment.
Rasmussen said Landry's statement about Greenland was "completely unacceptable."
“As long as we have a kingdom in Denmark that consists of Denmark, the Faroe Islands, and Greenland, we cannot accept that there are those who undermine our sovereignty," he said.
European Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen and European Council President Antonio Costa expressed "full solidarity" with Denmark and Greenland on Monday, calling territorial sovereignty "fundamental principles of international law."
"These principles are essential not only for the European Union," they said, "but for nations around the world."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Continues 'War Against Renewables' With Halt of Five Offshore Wind Farms
"Trump is killing jobs, raising energy costs, and harming the planet," said Sen. Tim Kaine. "Grinch!"
Dec 22, 2025
The Trump administration's efforts to thwart a transition from climate-wrecking fossil fuels to renewable energy continued on Monday with a halt on five wind farms along the US East Coast under the guise of national security concerns.
The US Department of the Interior announced that it is immediately pausing Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind off Virginia, Empire Wind 1 and Sunrise Wind off New York, Revolution Wind off Rhode Island and Connecticut, and Vineyard Wind 1 off Massachusetts, citing unclassified government reports that "the movement of massive turbine blades and the highly reflective towers create radar interference called 'clutter.'"
Bloomberg reported Monday that "President Donald Trump has long opposed offshore wind power and began imposing restrictions on it within hours of taking office this year. The policies have led to numerous court battles, and a federal judge this month ruled his ban on projects was illegal. Citing national security issues may be a more legally durable way to keep wind turbines out of US waters."
"Offshore wind farm projects raised national security concerns under previous administrations, too. The Defense Department under former President Joe Biden pushed successfully for changes to leases being sold along the West Coast to address some of the issues," Bloomberg noted. Elsewhere, such as in the United Kingdom, government and industry have responded to radar interference issues by investing in mitigation technologies.
Responding to the news on social media, American anthropologist and journalist Scott Carney said that "shutting down wind farms in the name of national security only proves that Trump is a national security risk. Lying that climate change doesn't exist is not an effective policy against environmental collapse."
Jonathan Cohn, political director of the grassroots group Progressive Mass, pointed out that "if these were oil drilling projects being canceled, Republicans would scream that canceling the project was theft from the company. If renewable energy is canceled, those same Republicans cheer."
Dean Baker, senior economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research, warned that "any company would be crazy to invest a dime in Donald Trump's America... The jerk can confiscate property any time he wants for any reason he invents."
According to the New York Times: "Vineyard Wind 1 is currently under construction and partially operational, with about half of the project's 62 turbines sending power to the electric grid as of October. Once complete, the project could produce enough electricity to power 400,000 homes."
Congressman Greg Stanton (D-Ariz.) declared that "wind farms are an essential part of a diversified energy strategy. Trump's cancellation of approved, in-progress projects wastes public dollars and widens the gap between America and its competitors."
Rep. John Larson (D-Conn.), whose constituents would benefit from the Revolution Wind project, said that "the president has taken an axe to wind energy, solar projects, and our state's clean hydrogen sector, putting hundreds of people out of work and saddling households across the state with even higher electricity bills. The state of Connecticut, led by Attorney General William Tong, already took him on to halt his illegal stop work order before, and we're prepared to do it again."
Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) said: "Trump is killing jobs, raising energy costs, and harming the planet. Grinch!"
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) similarly responded: "Donald Trump is trying AGAIN to kill thousands of good-paying union jobs and raise your electricity bill. I have been fighting Trump's war against offshore wind—a war that threatens American jobs and American energy. I will keep fighting to make sure these projects, the thousands of jobs they create, and the energy they provide can continue."
Sierra Club legislative director Melinda Pierce said in a statement that "blocking construction on all offshore wind projects underway in the US is an attack on our economy and our public health. The Trump administration's vengeance towards renewable energy knows no end."
"Instead of progressing us forward as a nation, they are obsessed with attacking a growing industry that provides good clean energy jobs and affordable, clean electricity," she added. "Americans need cheaper and more reliable energy that does not come at the expense of our health and futures."
Interior Secretary Doug Burgum discussed the decision on Fox Business Monday, pointing to the radar interference concerns.
Noting the appearance, writer and filmmaker Lee West said: "So 'national security' means suspending wind farms Navy approved for years—while drilling rigs multiply off Florida. The [administration's] pretexts grow taller than turbine blades."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


