Bombspotting

Bombspotting/Bombstopping.

What's it all about?

Kleine Brogel.

Kleine Brogel is a Belgian air force base which covers an area of 1100 acres in the North East of Belgium. It is the original and only remaining base used by the United States in Belgium.

Kleine Brogel is also currently the home of the Tactical Fighterbomber Wing (10 W TAC), the section of the Belgian Air force under NATO command. This wing is responsible and trained for flying with the F-16. The squadron takes part in regular exercises for the loading and use of nuclear weapons.

Nuclear weapons?

Lots of questions have been asked in Belgian Parliament concerning the presence of nuclear weapons at the base. The standard answer, dictated by the NATO, used to be to 'neither confirm or deny' the presence of nuclear weapons. The actual presence of nuclear weapons used to be a public secret... untill Belgian Air Force's Chief of Staff confirmed in an unguarded moment that Belgium DOES have a role in NATO's nuclear tasks.
Belgium's Prime Minister, Guy Verhofstadt, has confirmed the actual presence to other members of parliament several times. The public however had to put up with the 'standard answer'...

Released American and NATO-documents show that Kleine Brogel is being maintained to hold nuclear weapons. At Kleine Brogel, 11 WS3 bunkers (Weapons Storage & Security System) are installed under the floor of hardened aircraft shelters, with each bunker housing up to two nuclear weapons.

The weapons are of the B61-type, a modern free-fall bomb ranging up to 170 kiloton (14 times the destructive power of the Hiroshima bomb).

110 American soldiers (52nd Munitions Support Squadron) are responsible for the weapons. The pilots trained to fly those weapons are Belgian.

Our demands

Belgium is a democracy. Therefore, ALL information should be public.
Every possibility to have a substantive parliamentary debate concerning the Belgian involvement in NATO nuclear strategy is refused.

On July 8, 1996 the International Court of Justice (The Hague, The Netherlands) declared that the threat or use of nuclear weapons is generally contrary to international humanitarian law. The ICJ is the highest legal body in the world.

Bombspotting

Non-violent action. Period.
Trespassing the base DOES involve breaking Belgian Law. The Bombspotters feel strengthened by International law though, which orders every civilian to intervene where crimes against humanity are being prepared.

Belgian government, police and army had been warned a long time before about the bombspotting, about the 'civil disobedience'.

October 5, 2002: Bombspotting day!

The Bombspotters' goal was to trespass the base to draw attention. Nothing more. No criminal motives were involved.
Police knew that, and treated them almost as civilians.
Army and police arrested about 500 out of about 1500 manifestants. Among them were higher members of the government... The arrestants were released by the end of the manifestation.

And no, I wasn't one of them: I preferred not to trespass the base. My reasoning: breaking the law to protest against a violation of the law is just as bad as that violation of the law itself.

The result

We made the news again... Our government can not keep on denying what's going on...


Note: when I speak of 'we', by no means do I intend to speak in the name of the people organizing the Bombspotting (For Mother Earth, Forum voor Vredesactie, Bomspotting vzw).
The facts and numbers mentioned in this post come from original NATO-information, and from the forementioned organizations.

Dun agree with you about the non trespassing but cudos to you. Get involved and try to change what you think is wrong! :)

first id like to say, as long as any power not on my side has them, and they do, i want my country to have the biggest, badest and meanest bombs in the world.

What purpose does nato serve? an organization that was formed in answer to a expansionist, but now defunct soviet union. The first official act of nato was bombing serbs. Not a compleately ignoble act, but an act that did not require an organization of the magnitude of nato.

if there were a common enemy, would we not band together. And if we would not, would nato make a differance?

the united states spends more on funding nato than most other nations spend for the defense of their own country. we have many thousand of troops stationed in nato nations. nations that are capable of defending themselves for any of todays real threats.

there's not a doubt in my mind, that those bombs are there because people in gov both here and there, are profiting from it, and the people of both nations are paying for it.

The bombs arn't the real issue here, its nato. Its a white elephant, i say lets get rid of it.

Tedob1.

Quote:

---

first id like to say, as long as any power not on my side has them, and they do, i want my country to have the biggest, badest and meanest bombs in the world.

---

So, you agree with killing millions of people due to possible nuclear attacks? You agree to the fact that the natural enviremont of such a place of impact will never be restored? You agree to the fact that the radiation poisoning will kill, desease, and destroy more people's lives for a range of 200years? And all that just because YOUR country has to have the biggest bombs?

Damn, i'm not meaning to be rude, but that's just ****ing egoistic.

Later PPl

Why do we got nuclear weapons anyway... The only real use they have is threatening eachother for wich the bombs itself don't really have to exist. Maybe another good use for it is to blast away some evil aliens or destroy a comet that comes to close to earth, but we don't need so much (or there have to be very many many bad ugly aliens).
If we're going to use those bombs on ourselfs we probably get some kind of 'wargames' situation, how futuristic it is in a movie, because of a million chains of revenge. Those nuclear bomb are pretty much outdated now... They're 50 years old, almost everybody could make them (every country or state). erm... well hope that made some sence :)
Neel

Quote:

---

So, you agree with killing millions of people due to possible nuclear attacks? You agree to the fact that the natural enviremont of such a place of impact will never be restored? You agree to the fact that the radiation poisoning will kill, desease, and destroy more people's lives for a range of 200years? And all that just because YOUR country has to have the biggest bombs?

---

The short quick answer is ... Yes... People seem to forget that the Russians still have more than enough Nuclear weapons to destroy the entire world about 40-50 times over... Do you think that they wouldn't threaten to use them in order to get what they want from the world if the US and others didn't have them also... The reason the US and Nato still have Nukes is simple... There is still a viable nuclear threat to Western Europe and the US...

No i don’t, but if we didn't have them they would be used on us. And you too by the way. I do believe that if it were not for the superior nuclear strength of the US, they would have been used already.
If you believe any differently, that is your choice. But those thoughts will not change the nature of man. China will use them. Iraq will use them; they will be used by certain South East Asian nations. Russia would have used them if they believed that for one second that the same would not have happened to them. I believe that without our nuclear arsenal millions would have died already and the conditions that you described would exist right now in central Europe. There is a growing unrest in the world, to put it mildly, and I do not believe that this is a good time to be thinking about disarming.

For someone not meaning to be rude, it comes very naturally to you. What, in your opinion, would have happened with the soviet union if the US didn’t have the biggest bombs?

50 facts about US Nuclear Weapons here, and their cost.

Mahakaal > whats the most disturbing about that fact list is that of the massive amount of weapons the us has possessed, 11 have went missing and were never recoverd. You would think that weapons of mass destruction would be guarded much better than that. I wonder how many russian nukes have went missing and were never found?

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by Tedob1
China will use them. Iraq will use them; they will be used by certain South East Asian nations. Russia would have used them if they believed that for one second that the same would not have happened to them.

---

That's quite a big call to make without any proof whatsoever. It's all just hearsay...


The FACT is that the US is the only country to have ever used nuclear weapons as an act of war.. 130 000 dead from the blast and an additional 70 000 from radiation related illness...


Sorry for getting a little off topic.....


Taken from here...


179 megatons: Estimated total yield released by United States nuclear weapons test explosions.

427.9 megatons: Estimated total yield of all nuclear weapons test explosions.

114: Number of U.S. underground nuclear tests that released radioactive material into the atmosphere.

10,000: Additional cases of thyroid cancer that will occur as a result of fallout from 90 U.S. nuclear tests.

CK your absolutely right it is just hearsay. You weren’t around during the cold war. Didn’t experience the Cuban missal crises or have to go threw 3 air raids tests a week and take shelter. You didn’t see the front page of the ny times when Russia did an above ground test of a 250 megaton bomb. The radiation circled the earth 3 times. That winter mothers were urged not to breast feed their babies, because of the build up of strontium 90 in fatty tissue. Now its only hearsay. And I, for one, would like to keep it like that.

Quote:

---

The FACT is that the US is the only country to have ever used nuclear weapons as an act of war.. 130 000 dead from the blast and an additional 70 000 from radiation related illness...

---

Yes it is a fact that the US is the only country to have ever used atomic weapons in war... The fact that we did SAVED millions of lives... Both allied and Japanese... The Japanese were prepared to fight to the death if an invasion of the home island occured... They put men, women, and children under arms to repel any invasion that occured... Allied experiences on islands like Iwo, Tarawa, and the Solomans proved this out... I was born just after the Cubian missle crisis and grow up during the Cold War... I remember when there was an East and West Germany... I can remember patroling the border between the two while I was stationed in West Germany... I can say without a moments hesitation that the reason you are alive today and posting on this site is the fact that the US has nuclear weapons... And M.A.D. is still going strong... You are right about Iraq using nuclear weapons being hearsay... But based on Saddams past preformance with the use of Chemical and Biologic weapons it is safe to assume that he would also use Nuclear weapons when he gets them... Just as it was safe for allied planers to assume that millions would die in any invasion of the Japanese home islands...

Here's another fact about Kleine Brogel:

Quote:

---

The Mercury
Two Algerians, a Frenchman and a Dutchman are accused of running a terrorist support network out of a Rotterdam flat to assist in strikes against the American Embassy in Paris and a US munitions depot in Belgium.

...

Prosecutors say that in addition to the Paris embassy, the group targeted the Kleine-Brogel base in north-east Belgium, where around 100 US Air Force personnel are stationed. Environmental groups claim the munitions dump also stores 26 B61 free-fall nuclear bombs.

---

Although the chance that someone actually could succeed in blowing up those nuclear bunkers is minimal, it's still freightening....

And even when they're blown up, I'm pretty sure all kinds of security measures are taken to prevent that the nuclear bomb itself would explode. Think about it, if that wouldn't be the case, an enemy force would simply have to bomb munition depots to let a country ABomb itself...

I've thought this story over, this weekend, when I was at my parents' place. They live about a mile from Volkel AFB, which, as far as I know, resembles Kleine-Brogel in at least some points. It also stations F16's, United States soldiers occupy part of it, and it's rumoured to have nuclear bombs. Does that worry me? Actually, not at all.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all against (nuclear) bombs. It's, imho, a same discussion as with regular firearms: if you posses them, situations tend to escalate faster.

But then again, A-Bombs are around. At least for now, we'll have to live with that. Knowing that they are safely secured in an Airforce Base lets me sleep at night. Those things are in the most safe location they could be in.

One could draw an analogy with the protests agains the trains that transport nuclear waste. I never figured out why people all against nuclear power start sabotaging the railways over which it has to pass. Those people are increasing the potential risc that something happens. If you want to make your point, do it some other way.

You got a point there, Guus. But then again, on one of the previous bombspottings, some guys actually managed to get close to the bunkers without being ermm.. spotted. And you know why? Because the American soldiers don't work on Saturdays ;) The only thing that stopped them was the physical security of the bunkers. The previous bomb-spotting actually increased the safety of the bunkers, because from that moment on the bombs were guarded 24/7...

I can also understand the reasoning that those weapons are just a defense-measure, something to threaten with... In June 2000 though, NATO changed its policy: nuclear weapons are no longer weapons to be used as "deterrence", but they have become weapons of war...

The non-proliferation- and the ABM-treaty were cancelled by Bush.
Bush is putting away EXTRA money for the development of mini-nukes. So instead of a decreasement in nuclear weapons, we see an increasement. Why? Does he want to take out not only our earth (the nukes stored in Kleine Brogel are enough to do that), but the entire galaxy or something? Or does he want to make sure that by developing MINI-nukes the States won't get hurt by the use of nukes in other countries?

If we are attacked by thousenths of comets and very ugly bad mean aliens. Those are on television every day.
Maybe they should store the stupid thing in a sattelite... That's more efficient against aliens from out of space, decreases the risk and bombspottings on belgian airbases. Decreaes my bad mood. The bombs can still be used to destroy our selfs and also more efficient, because destroying our planet doesn't inflict any damage to the missile silo's in space... OK less bombs fit in there, but we only need to blow up our planet once... not a thousenth times.
I don't care who has the bombs, the cold war is over. If we decide to destroy the planet we can do it all on our selves.
<hiden or not very friendly talk>
I can understand some people find the US a more trustworthy authority to command the destroying of our planet, but if Bush can get president I serriously doubt that.
</hiden or not very friendly talk>

The figures are interesting, but let's put all of it into perspective:

The amount of free dangerous radioactive material produced by
US and Russian nuclear testing alone far exceeds(100x?) that of
Nuclear Power Plant melt-downs and much of this **** has a
much, much longer half-life so we're going to have more cell-
damage on planet Earth for a looong time thanks to this...

That's what I mean.... if we would use them....

Quote:

---

I don't care who has the bombs, the cold war is over.

---

Sorry neel but as long as the US has nukes pointed at us (from russia) the cold war isn't over IMO... All the BS that Clinton and Putin spewed in the late 90's about pointing all the warheads toward the extreme North Atlantic is just that BS... It takes all of a minute or less to put the warheads back on their original target...

Quote:

---

... but if Bush can get president I serriously doubt that.

---

Bush is a much better President then Gore would have been... With Gore as President we would have been a small miracle if the US had done anything about the attacks on 9-11... We MIGHT have tossed a couple of Taomahawks into Afganistan a said "don't do it again"... The current evidence shows that the 9-11 attacks were supposed to be just the first of three... The response of the US and UK has put a dent in the plans of Al Queda so the other attacks haven't happened... They still might but because we do have Bush and not Gore IMO they have thought twice about hitting us again...

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by 4MidgetHitmen
Yes it is a fact that the US is the only country to have ever used atomic weapons in war... The fact that we did SAVED millions of lives...

---

LOL....I love how you people try and justify the mass murder of so many Japanese with the above quoted line. "By killing so many people in one foul swoop we saved the world...Dont ya get it!?" Maybe I'm just to stupid to follow that line of thinking... :confused:


It reminds me of another line that I keep hearing. "We saved Australia's ass in WWII"....LOL... The United States wasn't in Australia to save us "poor, dumb Aussies". They were here because Australia was a brilliant base to fight the Japanese from. As they say...Location, location, location!


Anyway, I've gone WAY off topic.........

Quote:

---

Bush is a much better President then Gore would have been... With Gore as President we would have been a small miracle if the US had done anything about the attacks on 9-11... We MIGHT have tossed a couple of Taomahawks into Afganistan a said "don't do it again"... The current evidence shows that the 9-11 attacks were supposed to be just the first of three... The response of the US and UK has put a dent in the plans of Al Queda so the other attacks haven't happened... They still might but because we do have Bush and not Gore IMO they have thought twice about hitting us again...

---

Well, In requards to the presidency decisions for 9/11, All I have to say is that I'm happy we have a republican in office right now or you might be right! :D (JMHO)

Quote:

---

Sorry neel but as long as the US has nukes pointed at us (from russia) the cold war isn't over IMO... All the BS that Clinton and Putin spewed in the late 90's about pointing all the warheads toward the extreme North Atlantic is just that BS... It takes all of a minute or less to put the warheads back on their original target...

---

well you're right there :)
I live in the netherlands wich is right in the middle.

Quote:

---

Bush is a much better President then Gore would have been... With Gore as President we would have been a small miracle if the US had done anything about the attacks on 9-11... We MIGHT have tossed a couple of Taomahawks into Afganistan a said "don't do it again"... The current evidence shows that the 9-11 attacks were supposed to be just the first of three... The response of the US and UK has put a dent in the plans of Al Queda so the other attacks haven't happened... They still might but because we do have Bush and not Gore IMO they have thought twice about hitting us again...

---

I didn't want to say Bush is a bad president or that he did stupid things. I just wanted to say to some people who think the US is more trustworthy if it comes to the nukes (if that's true I don't know), that Bush even BECAUSE he's more "agressive" then Gore, he could use them easier (easier to his concience). Gore wouldn't probably even think of using those things. That's why I say that although the US always could be trusted it doesn't mean that that will always be like that. Human make mistakes and a president is human, so if there comes a weirdo to the US who becomes president with nice talkings and who just does a few things without first consulting the ... congres (? is it called like that), like Bush did, it's pretty bad if that one weirdo has control over all the nukes on this planet... ehm... yes...

Quote:

---

KARL ROVE, Bush's long-time political guru and White House advisor:
"As people do better, they start voting like Republicans...
...unless they have too much education and vote Democratic,
which proves there can be too much of a good thing."

---

Is it just me or does his logic seem...ermm....skewed?

Quote:

---

"I think if you know what you believe, it makes it a lot easier to
answer questions. I can't answer your question."

---

Bush on whether he wanted to change any answers from the 1st Prez. Debate.

Quote:

---

... I've been talking to Vicente Fox, the new president of Mexico... I know him... to have gas and oil sent to U.S.... so we'll not depend on foreign oil...

---

I must have been asleep for this one :). When did Mexico become the 51st state?
He's a man of limited intelligence, and I'm sure he has a lot of handlers. Also did anyone hear about this one recently,

Quote:

---

During a conversation between the two presidents, George W. Bush, 55, (USA) and Fernando Henrique Cardoso, 71, (Brazil), Bush bewildered his colleague with the question "Do you have blacks, too?"

---

I rest my case.

Edit: I respect Republicans like John McCain, not like Bush. And no I'm not a Democrat.