[O]pponents of the F-35 fighter jets coming soon to Burlington took their concerns directly to lawmakers Tuesday, telling a Senate committee the “nuclear capability” of the planes would make Vermont a military target and had the power to spark a “worldwide holocaust.”
The opponents said despite assurances from military officials that the F-35s coming to Vermont starting in the fall would not be carrying nuclear weapons, military documents show upgrades would be made down the road to allow the planes to carry a range of nuclear weapons.
A Senate resolution, S.R.5, calls for “strongly opposing the basing of any nuclear weapon delivery system” in Vermont.
However, Sen. Jeanette White, D-Windham, said after the hearing of the Senate Government Operations Committee, which she chairs, that the resolution would have to be altered to pass. While concerned about Vermont housing nuclear weapons, White said the decision to base the planes in Burlington had already been made.
Other committee members have felt the language was too vague and could include cars and trucks as a “weapon delivery system.”
White said Vermont National Guard officials declined an invitation to testify.
In an email to VTDigger, a Guard spokesperson said the Guard “does not comment on political proceedings and therefore has none on S.R. 5. The Airmen of the Vermont Air National Guard are preparing to receive the F-35 and will continue to work as community partners to safely and responsibly field the new aircraft.”
Last month, Vermont National Guard spokesperson Capt. Mikel Arcovitch said the mission of the F-35s was subject to change over time depending on what is required. “The jets arriving to Burlington will not be nuclear capable,” he wrote in an email. “There are no plans to add the hardware to make the 158th Fighter Wing F-35s nuclear capable.”
Opponents and lawmakers say it is unlikely the Department of Defense would disclose where any nuclear weapons would be stored — whether in Vermont or another location where the jets would pick them up. They maintained the planes would be a target for America’s enemies regardless of where the bombs were stored.
A similar resolution is pending in the House. Rep. Tom Stevens, D-Waterbury, chair of House, General and Military Affairs, said last week the resolution would have to be changed because some of the claims were exaggerated.
Stevens pointed to a “fact-check” by VTDigger that found some activists had made misstatements that the F-35s heading to Vermont had a current nuclear mission.
Activists including Pierre Sprey, a weapons analyst, told the committee that military documents show the problem-plagued F-35 will be outfitted in the future to hold nuclear weapons. Sprey said part of the strategy included using smaller nuclear weapons in regional wars — he called the idea of a tactical nuclear war “a bizarre concept.”
Roger Bourassa of Colchester, who served in the Marines and is a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel, said nuclear weapons were stored in Vermont decades ago, though no one was told where. He flew in the F-89, the C-97, and the F-101 and flew all over the world including several missions to Vietnam. He opposes the basing of the new jets in Vermont.
Eighteen jets will be coming to Vermont over a year. The last of the F-16s flew out of Vermont last month.
Rosanne Greco, a retired Air Force colonel, said Vermont will be a target whether the weapons are stored on site or are picked up in another state or country. She and other said the public will likely not know if the weapons are in Vermont. However, military enemies, she said, will assume the weapons are nearby or will target Vermont to take out the planes.
“The only thing that matters is what the enemy thinks,” said Greco.
