Cashing In on the New "Red Scare", Nukes, and the Defense Pork Barrel

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. 

- President Dwight D. Eisenhower, "Farewell Address", 1961

Welcome to the world of strategic analysis where we program weapons that don't work for threats that don't exist.

- Ivan Selin, former director of the Pentagon's Strategic Forces Division

The United States must greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability until such time as the world comes to its senses regarding nukes.

- Donald Trump, Dec 2016 tweet

As Congressional Republicans gear up to take away health insurance from 20 million Americans and to cut entitlement and other social programs, military spending - by far the most bloated and wasteful part of the Federal budget - will grow.  The new "red scare" generated by Russia's support for the rebels in Ukraine's Civil War has been given a boost by the alleged Russian hacking during the 2016 presidential campaign.  It comes at just the right time.

American militarists know a cash cow when they see it.  As with much of his comments, Trump's statements on Pentagon spending have been contradictory.   What better way to make sure the DOD budget stays intact than to exaggerate the threats.  The Republican Congress is ever willing to expand the defense budget - after all, to get more money and still balance the budget, they just need to cut more social programs.  The various branches of the armed forces are preparing their perennial cases for new weapons systems.  And defense contractors and arms suppliers are lining up at the trough.

President Eisenhower had been the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe during WWII.  For 56 years, the American public has ignored his warning about the military-industrial complex.  We might add to his description - it's actually a military-industrial-political complex that we need to confront. The revolving doors for defense industry lobbyists includes retired politicians as well as retired military.  Both Democrats and Republicans have been loathe to reduce military spending - Republicans because of their innate tendency toward militarism and Democrats because they don't want to be seen as "soft on defense".

U.S. AIR FORCE/SCIENCE FACTION/­GETTY IMAGES
A mushroom cloud from the 1954 Operation Castle-bravo
nuclear test cuts through the clouds.

Since the end of the Cold War, the US military budget has averaged $560 billion/year (in 2015 dollars).  Taking into account military-related spending in other departments and the interest payments on past military debt, total defense spending is now $1.3 trillion/year.  (HuffingtonPost) Ivan Selin's quote (from Andrew Cockburn's excellent article in Harper's December issue) points out the long-standing practice of the Pentagon and American political leaders to exaggerate the threats faced by the United States.  From the non-existent "missile gap" of the 1960's to the $1 trillion modernization of our nuclear weaponry forced on Obama by Republicans as he worked to gain ratification of the 2010 nuclear arms agreement ("New START"), the waste and failures of the US military spending are a major factor in the size of our national debt.  "So pay no attention to those cries of poverty emanating from the Pentagon.  There’s already plenty of money available for 'defense.'  Instead, the problems lie in Washington’s overly ambitious, thoroughly counterproductive global military strategy and in the Pentagon’s penchant for squandering tax dollars as if they were in endless supply." (William D. Hartung, TomDispatch, Nov 22)

And now we are treated to an incoming president who thinks we need to "greatly strengthen and expand" our nuclear capability.  Really?

Between them, the US and Russia possess more than 90% of the world's nuclear weapons.  The capabilities of either country are far more than enough to destroy civilization as we know it and usher in the Nuclear Winter.  To hear Trump and Putin talking about stronger arsenals is to feel that we have entered a new realm of unreality, of insanity.  The way to get the world to come to its senses regarding nukes is to lead them there, not to promise more of the same.

Can we hope that the two world leaders who most need to "come to their senses" regarding nukes will begin a new round of nuclear disarmament?  It wouldn't be the first time that an American administration committed to a nuclear buildup changed course.  The Reagan Administration changed its rhetoric and policies after its position on nuclear weaponry "triggered widespread public anxiety and an outburst of popular protest. In the United States, the Nuclear Weapons Freeze Campaign drew broad public support and won backing from the Democratic Party. Antinuclear agitation was particularly heated in Western Europe."  (Boston Review)  The resulting START I and INF treaties made the world a safer place.

The operative words for the Reagan Administration's change of heart are "popular protest."  But who will lead the protests so instrumental to changing nuclear policy in the 1980's?  The one-trillion-dollar modernization of our nuclear weapons - the price Republicans extracted from Obama to get New START ratified - raised scarcely a blip in the public consciousness.

Some continue to work tirelessly for a world without nuclear weapons.  Three such organizations are the Nuclear Threat Institute, founded by former US Senator Sam Nunn and broadcast magnate/philanthropist Ted Turner, the UK-based Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, and the Ploughshares Fund.  

The Ploughshares Fund is currently circulating  a public petition urging President Obama to place restraints on the incoming president’s ability to launch a nuclear attack by taking the weapons off "high alert". (Democracy Now, Dec. 29)  Here's a link to the petition - http://www.ploughshares.org/keep-donald-trumps-finger-off-nuclear-button.