Group Sees Nuclear Threat at Port, Seeks L.B. Hearings

A coalition of local community groups has launched an effort to force the City Council to consider for the first time the potential danger of nuclear weapons on Navy ships in the port.

While the Navy will not confirm that nuclear warheads are on warships stationed at the Long Beach Naval Station, four vessels--including the battleship New Jersey--are capable of firing such weapons.

Members of the newly formed Coalition for a Nuclear-Free Harbor are pushing for the council to hold hearings on the matter, saying public discussion is needed to determine if Long Beach residents condone having nuclear weapons “in their backyard.”

‘Issue Needs to Be Addressed’

“I don’t think the Navy has the right to put these weapons in populated areas without public discussion,” said Joe Galliani, acting chairman of the group. “The council has hearings on light rail and airport noise. On the most basic level, nuclear weapons are just as much a community issue that needs to be addressed.”

The group contends the weapons are a threat because of the potential for an accident that could result in the release of radioactive plutonium particles. They also maintain that the warheads make Long Beach a more tempting target for Soviet missiles.

Nonetheless, the coalition faces an uphill struggle to get hearings in Long Beach, a city with a long tradition of supporting the Navy. Council members say they are solidly opposed to the idea of hearings.

“The mode of weapons systems on those ships is determined by the federal government, not by local officials,” Mayor Ernie Kell said. “Any hearings would just become a dog and pony show.”

Kell and other Long Beach officials instead point to the more than $100 million the Navy spends annually in payrolls and construction as proof that the ships are important for the city--nuclear weapons or not.

In addition, Kell said the Navy’s safety record with nuclear weapons “is above reproach.”

“I personally support the Navy being in Long Beach,” Kell said. “It’s not only good for our country, it’s good for the city and our citizens. And far and above the majority of residents feel that way.”

The council is currently trying to lure additional Navy ships to the area, in particular some of the nine warships that will be assigned to a task force headed by the battleship Missouri.

Although Long Beach has been ruled out as a home port for the Missouri, which is being overhauled at the Long Beach Naval Shipyard, the city is still in the running for some of the support vessels. A decision will probably be made by July 4, according to Capt. J.F. McCarton, leader of the Pacific Fleet Homeporting Study Team.

Councilman Thomas Clark said a move to hold hearings might send the wrong signal to the Navy at the wrong time.

“I don’t think it would help us,” Clark said. “A hearing would give the implication that we’re evaluating whether we want to have the Navy in town. In Long Beach, that’s just not the case.”

Coalition leaders complain that the council has given an open invitation to the Navy without asking city residents what they think.

‘Carte Blanche’ Invitation

“They’re inviting nuclear weapons to town, carte blanche, with no regard whatsoever to public opinion,” Galliani said. “They seem to view it as a black and white economic question. To them, the Navy is good for Long Beach money-wise, no questions asked.”

Galliani said the Coalition for a Nuclear-Free Harbor has sent letters and information to more than 50 Long Beach-area civic organizations, unions, political clubs and student groups in an effort to drum up support for hearings.

The group wants to gain widespread support for the hearings before formally approaching the council, probably during the summer. If the council does not agree to the hearings, the coalition will sponsor its own, Galliani said.

Although the coalition has been endorsed by 10 local civic and religious groups, its leaders are mostly members of the South Coast chapter of the Alliance for Survival, the Long Beach Area Peace Network and other activist groups.

Galliani could not say specifically how many people the coalition represents. But he said that the Los Angeles and Orange County chapters of Alliance for Survival, which backs the coalition, have a combined membership of 10,000 persons. The South Coast chapter of Alliance for Survival, which covers cities from the South Bay to the Orange County border, boasts a membership of 1,200, Galliani said.

The Coalition for a Nuclear-Free Harbor was formed after several of the peace groups came together in late February to hold a mock version of the Boston Tea Party at the Downtown Long Beach Marina to protest the council’s efforts to woo the Missouri.

Several council members said they feel the coalition has little support in the community.

Called ‘Fringe Element’

“I think they are a fringe element who have played into the hands of those very people who would like to destroy our confidence in the U.S. military and their ability to run a safe operation,” Councilman Edd Tuttle said.

Kell agreed: “I think this is a very, very small, minute movement. I don’t think the citizens of Long Beach take them too seriously.”

Coalition members, however, insist they are eager to form a broad-based group that cuts across ideological barriers.

“We want people who support having nuclear weapons to be part of the coalition,” said David Mulinix, president of the South Coast chapter of the Alliance for Survival. “Even people who support nuclear weapons can be opposed to having them in their backyard.”

Although coalition members have no direct proof that nuclear weapons are aboard any of the 24 warships at the Long Beach Naval Station, they point to a statement by retired Rear Admiral G.R. La Rocque to support their concerns. La Rocque--who currently is director of the Center for Defense Information, a defense-spending watchdog group--told a congressional subcommittee in 1974 that he felt “any ship that is capable of carrying nuclear weapons, carries nuclear weapons.”

According to the authoritative book Jane’s Fighting Ships, the 45,000-ton New Jersey is capable of firing 32 Tomahawk cruise missiles, which can be fitted with either conventional or nuclear warheads. The Paul F. Foster, a Spruance-class destroyer stationed in Long Beach, can fire cruise missiles and has an eight-tube launcher for anti-submarine rockets carrying either conventional or nuclear warheads. Two Knox-class frigates stationed in Long Beach, the Gray and the Lang, also have the capacity to fire the anti-submarine rockets, according to Jane’s.

Naval officials in congressional testimony said last year that 32 nuclear-tipped Tomahawk cruise missiles for the Navy’s surface ships had been built, with 35 more expected during 1985.

190 Ships by Mid-1990s

David Morrison, a senior research analyst with the Center for Defense Information, said about 190 ships--one-third of the ships in the Navy--will be equipped with cruise missiles by the mid-1990s.

However, the phenomenon of Navy ships being outfitted with nuclear weapons is not new, Morrison said. Many have been equipped with tactical nuclear shells for their guns since the early 1960s, he said. His group estimates that 84% of the Navy’s “major combatant” vessels can be considered “nuclear capable.”

Richard Fieldhouse, a research associate with the Washington-based Institute for Policy Studies, said the Navy has had few problems in handling nuclear warheads, despite their proliferation.

“The military’s record on this has been exceedingly good,” Fieldhouse said. “But for the public, it’s still very scary. It makes them realize that the arms race is very close to them. It makes them realize they’re not removed from it.”

Members of the Coalition for a Nuclear-Free Harbor maintain, however, that the Navy’s safety record has been spotty. According to Galliani, a digest of a Navy report entitled “Summary of Nuclear Weapons Accidents and Incidents” lists 379 mishaps between 1965 and 1977.

Risk of Plutonium Release

Although most weapons experts say an accidental detonation of a nuclear bomb is highly improbable, a more likely occurrence would be the release of plutonium if a nuclear warhead were damaged in an accident.

Such an accident could have disastrous effects. A report released by the Congressional General Accounting Office in 1979 said a major nuclear accident could result in a cigar-shaped cloud of radioactivity spreading 70 square miles.

Although coalition members contend the city is unprepared for a nuclear accident, Long Beach officials say evacuation plans are in place in case of such an emergency.

Deputy Chief Bud Clark, the fire department’s emergency preparedness coordinator, said the city would treat a nuclear accident in a manner similar to a major chemical spill that released noxious gas.

“We have an evacuation plan that lends itself to any kind of emergency,” he said. “The problem is that Long Beach’s principal business district is downwind from the harbor. We have a scenario here that’s dynamite, but it’s not something we’ve ignored. We’re prepared.”

‘First-Strike List’ Cited

Galliani and other coalition members say the presence of nuclear-capable warships puts Long Beach on “the first-strike list” for Soviet missiles. Such targets would be at greater risk if an accidental launch were caused by computer error, Galliani said.

Council members, however, scoff at that.

“With the port and all the defense industry around here, we were probably already one of the top four or five targets nationally, even without nuclear bombs here,” Tuttle said.

Fieldhouse agreed, saying Long Beach would be a high-priority target “even if there were no nuclear weapons there” because of the military facilities in the area.

Still, coalition members say that although their own goal is to see the harbor declared a nuclear-free zone, hearings must be held to gauge the sentiments of Long Beach residents.

“We’re willing to accept the conclusion of the community,” Galliani said. “If the majority, after hearing what is said, feels nuclear missiles are not a problem, we’re not going to beat a dead horse.”