After a brief debate Wednesday, the state Senate voted by a 22-7 tally for a nonbinding resolution “strongly opposing the basing of any nuclear weapon delivery system in Vermont.”
Those in favor included 20 Democratic and/or Progressive senators plus Sen. James McNeil (R-Rutland) and Richard Westman (R-Lamoille). The other four Republicans voted “no,” plus Sens. Dick Mazza (D-Grand Isle) and John Rodgers and Bobby Starr (both D-Essex/Orleans). Sen. Chris Pearson (P-Chittenden) was absent from the floor during the roll call.
The resolution, S.R.5, got a thorough overhaul in the Senate Government Operations Committee before heading to the floor. The original wording repeatedly mentioned the F-35 fighter jet, which the Vermont Air National Guard is scheduled to begin flying from its base at the Burlington International Airport this fall. A group called Citizens Against Nuclear Bombers in Vermont pushed for the resolution over fears that the F-35 is capable of carrying nuclear weaponry.
But the version approved by the Senate barely refers to the F-35 at all. Instead, it describes Vermont’s history as “a national leader in opposing the spread of nuclear weapons” and recounts committee testimony describing instances where the military apparently based such weapons in Vermont.
“It’s not about airplanes. It’s about nuclear weapons systems,” lead sponsor Sen. Anthony Pollina (P/D-Washington) said during floor debate. “This resolution is in keeping with our long tradition of being opposed to nuclear weapons.”
Sen. Joe Benning (R-Caledonia) spoke against the measure. “This is a statement to members of the Vermont National Guard that we don’t trust them,” Benning said. “Vermonters have always been equipped with the most advanced weapons possible in order to defend our country.”
The resolution will be sent to Vermont’s three members of Congress and to the U.S. Secretary of Defense. Pollina argued that the measure is not mere window dressing. “There are instances where the military has changed its plans due to local opposition,” he said.
A similar resolution is pending before the House General, Housing and Military Affairs Committee. The House is not expected to take it up this session.
Correction, May 21, 2019: The original version of this story mischaracterized the votes of two senators.
Related Stories
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
Is there any way to dock their pay for the time wasted on this idiotic proposal?
Pollina sponsored a nonsensical non binding resolution? Well theres a shock! Well, not really. It would be more of a shock if Pollina actually accomplished something.
Thanks for representing Vermont values, Anthony.
*Thanks for representing Vermont values, Anthony.*
*Vermont values?* Really? What does *Vermont values* mean?
I demand that the Vermont Senate pass a resolution in favor of Truth, Goodness, Peace, Love, and Beauty! And against Badness and anything Ungood! Those are *Vermont values.*
So no F35? All aircraft stationed at Burlington Air Guard since the 1950s have been Nuclear capable. The F16 was, the F4 was. The B57 was. the F102 was. The F89 was ” Two years later F-89Js replaced the D models. The J model was designed to carry two AIR-2 Genie nuclear-tipped air-to-air missiles under the wings to defend against enemy bomber attack.” Why it an issue NOW?
I do enjoy those who feel entitled to define “Vermont Values” for everyone else as if Vermonters are a lockstep, monolithic block of unthinking martinets. Whatever happened to valuing diversity?
What good is a nonbinding resolution? Give me a break!
It is sad that the same people that advocate against nuclear power tell us that the world will end because of Co2 and global warming. Fortunately Vermont now gets most of it’s power from Hydro Quebec which is green.
There are certainly area’s where solar can make a major contribution. Not in Vermont though where it is too overcast and we get limited solar energy due to our northern latitude. The only goal of solar in Vermont is to raise our electric rates. And we shut down Vermont Yankee we removed the only reliable energy source we had that could possibly meet our energy needs. It is too bad that the leftists that push green energy in VT do not have a clue what they are talking about.
Everything accomplished in this country happens in stages. Emancipation, civil rights, rules of war, women’s rights, etc. – none happened in one day, or with one event. History happens gradually. I know my assumptions, and I assume that a number of people are trying to make it illegal to have VT be a target, as a nuclear-capable aircraft may be based here – in the most populated part of the state. The National Guard has NO other bases so close to a densely-populated area. We would become a “human shield” if anyone wanted to cripple the country’s nuclear bases. When I hear about this moving through the state senate, it’s the sound of freedom to me. 120 decibels is not peaceful. The only person I know who is still happy about “the sound of freedom” coming to the airport is already almost deaf. These jets make sounds that no one will hear for long. Also, a nuclear war would end life on the planet, so we can never have one. Some may resent this comment. I suggest they post their own, but I presume they’ll just dislike this one. [Oh yes – rightly, many folks are worried about climate change also – and I vote for slow extinction over nuclear war, if we must have one or the other.] Best of luck to all.
“Why is an issue NOW?” you ask?
It’s because being nuclear capable is one thing. But the F35s being named as the part of the nuclear delivery force, along with the B2 and B52 bombers, is something completely different and changes the conversations exponentially.
All F35As — even the ones that are scheduled to be based here (actually forced here against the will of the people) will receive Block 4 upgrades to include nuclear weapon readiness. So says the USAF.
Did you read the the nuclear posture statement or are you merely relying on someone else’s interpretation? Dual capable aircraft (DCA’s) have been a delivery system of last resort for quite some time. Why? Because most of our allies don’t have ICBMs or SSBNs. Hence the B61, which has also been around for quite some time. So are you advocating we abandon our allies and treaty requirements? America First as they say?
Thank you Anthony for making us all feel a little safer. Now you can return to your thumb-sucking fetal position to enjoy your inherited trust fund.
For those interested in facts over propaganda the CRS has an excellent discussion of the issues around non-strategic nuclear weapons and delivery systems at https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pd…
An important observation from that report is: “The 110th Congress also mandated (P.L. 110-181, 1070) that the next Administration conduct a new Nuclear Posture Review (NPR). The Obama Administration completed this NPR in early April 2010. This study identified a number of steps the United States would take to reduce the roles and numbers of nuclear weapons in the U.S. arsenal. A few of these steps, including the planned retirement of nuclear-armed, sea-launched cruise missiles, affected U.S. nonstrategic nuclear weapons. At the same time, though, the NPR recognized the role that U.S. nonstrategic nuclear weapons play in assuring U.S. allies of the U.S. commitment to their security. It indicated that the United States would retain the capability to forward-deploy U.S. nuclear weapons on tactical fighter-bombers and that the United States would seek to expand consultations with allies and partners to address how to ensure the credibility and effectiveness of the U.S. extended deterrent. No changes in U.S. extended deterrence capabilities will be made without close consultations with our allies and partners.
“It is sad that the same people that advocate against nuclear power tell us that the world will end because of Co2 and global warming.” There is no contradiction between opposing nuclear power and addressing global warming. Study and study and locality after locality show that we can meet our energy needs with renewable and sustainable sources of energy.
“Fortunately Vermont now gets most of it’s power from Hydro Quebec which is green.” Vermont has never gotten more than about 1/3 of its power from HQ, and there is considerable debate about just how green large-scale hydro power really is.
“There are certainly area’s[sic] where solar can make a major contribution. Not in Vermont though where it is too overcast and we get limited solar energy due to our northern latitude.” Solar can supply more energy in extremely sunny places than it does here, but it works just fine in Vermont. Many Vermonters depend solely on solar photovoltaic power for their electricity.
“And we shut down Vermont Yankee ….” Unless Creepyoldman represents Entergy, “we” did NOT shut down VY. Entergy did, because it could not compete in the electricity market. Nukes are shutting down all over the US for the same reason.
” It is too bad that the leftists that push green energy in VT do not have a clue what they are talking about.” It’s pretty clear that it’s Creepyoldman who doesn’t have a clue, not unnamed “leftists.”
Truth be known and the actual fact is that the F35As are not being forced here against the will of the people at all. That’s the kind of misinformation I expect from CNN and liberals. We embrace the sound of freedom and the arrival of this state of the art defense mechanism for the good of everyone.
Facts matter.
I tend not to believe anyone here who uses a pseudonym.
We have the “sound of freedom” cited again. We have the blame on “liberals.” We get it all here.
For one thing, this plane is unproven and hardly even works yet. So much for it saving our butts. Second thing: those who cherish the “sound of freedom” should enjoy what sounds they hear NOW because this thing will make them deaf. It’s in the science. Here are facts: http://tinyurl.com/yylos8l2
I’m curious. In my above comment I provided a link to a CRS report and a quote from same. And the comment received 3 (currently) “dislike”‘s. What are you “disliking”? Don’t get me wrong, I have no emotional investment in it, I’m just really wondering what possible offense a dry government report can give.
Patrick,
Don’t be dismayed. Comments are more often disliked – you only got 3, and I’ve gotten dozens on posts of mine. You asked people to read a dense 45-page report, which they do not want to do. They disliked the idea of reading it, that’s all. As you said, facts are facts.
Charlie,
I’m not dismayed per se, I just have to wonder about the mindset that lashes out at facts when they don’t support someone’s preferred narrative. It just seems delusional.
Rheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee