Archbishop John C. Wester of Santa Fe, New Mexico, has strongly urged the U.S. National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) to stop expanding production of plutonium pits, the triggers used in nuclear weapons.
In a written statement, read by a priest on Wester’s behalf at a public hearing on May 14, the archbishop described nuclear weapons as “immoral” and “genocidal.” The priest who read the statement is from Hiroshima, Japan, where the U.S. dropped the first atomic bomb in 1945.
The hearing, the fourth of five scheduled this month, drew more than 130 people in person and roughly 100 online, with the vast majority expressing opposition to the agency’s draft environmental impact statement, in which it lays out its plan to ramp up plutonium pit production.
Wester directly challenged the position of the NNSA that increased pit production complies with the 1970 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). He argued that the treaty’s core bargain requires nuclear-armed states to work toward disarmament, a commitment he said has not been fulfilled.
“The essential bargain of the NPT was that the nuclear weapons states try to negotiate nuclear disarmament,” Westerʼs statement said. “The nuclear weapons powers have never upheld that part of the bargain.”
The NNSA proposal calls for at least 80 pits per year by 2030, as required by the 2015 National Defense Authorization Act, potentially split between Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico and the Savannah River Site in South Carolina.
Between the two locations, they could produce around 200 pits per year.
The current number of pits being produced annually is “classified,” according to Toni Chiri, a spokesperson for the NNSA’s Los Alamos field office.
Chiri stated that the agency values public input and will consider comments as it prepares a final environmental impact statement.
‘Peace through atomic strength’
Nevertheless, Chiri emphasized the NNSA’s mission. “We make weapons that deter our adversaries. Atomic strength is essential for U.S. nuclear deterrence and national security.”
During the hearing, a screen displayed the NNSA’s slogan: “Peace through atomic strength.” The NNSA is housed within the U.S. Department of Energy.
The prelate’s intervention carried particular weight coming from the Archdiocese of Santa Fe, which has lived for decades with the legacy of nuclear weapons development at Los Alamos in northern New Mexico.
Wester’s message aligns with consistent Church teaching that the use of nuclear weapons is incompatible with peace and human dignity.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church explicitly condemns “indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants,” calling them “a crime against God and man.”
It does not, however, explicitly declare the possession of nuclear weapons immoral. That stronger language has come more recently from Pope Francis.
In 2022, Francis wrote: “I wish to reaffirm that the use of nuclear weapons, as well as their mere possession, is immoral,” in a letter to Ambassador Alexander Kmentt, president of the First Meeting of States Parties, regarding the U.N. Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.
During his year-old pontificate, Pope Leo XIV has made multiple calls for peace. He has also warned of the dangers of modern warfare, including the threat of nuclear escalation at a time when global tensions remain high, and he has called for renewed international efforts toward disarmament and de-escalation.
Comments on the draft environmental impact statement will be accepted until July 16. The NNSA expects to issue a final decision early next year, though some commenters noted that as the agency is required by law to manufacture the pits, public hearings are useless.
Chiri said, however, that “NNSA does listen; we take the comments — especially those that actually address the document — and consider those as we work towards our final document.”
“Based on the turnout tonight, it’s clear that the public is paying attention and wants to provide its input,” she said.
Many attendees at the hearing also raised concerns about environmental impacts, water usage, waste disposal, and the health of workers and surrounding communities. Several speakers also questioned why a genuine “no-action” alternative — meaning no new pit production — was not seriously considered.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.