Tag Archives: military-industrial complex

how defense cuts could fund Medicare for all

Leave a reply

This New York Times op-ed goes through a series of defense cuts that could save $300 billion per year, enough to fund Medicare for All. The big ones are shutting down the big wars that are accomplishing little or nothing (or worse, creating future enemies and risks), closing foreign bases (and/or asking the foreign countries to fund them if they actually want them there), and phasing out most or all nuclear weapons.

I personally am indifferent between paying a monthly insurance premium vs. a monthly payroll tax to provide the same care at the same cost. But if we could get part of the way there with no tax increases at all, that is even better. Or, we could have a serious discussion about where else some of those current defense dollars could be spent (by the government) that would make us safer, richer, or healthier in the future.

Snowden on Snowden

Leave a reply

Fresh Air called up Edward Snowden in his Moscow apartment and had an hour-long conversation with him. Among the interesting things he talked about is the idea that the combination of surveillance technology and cheap data storage means the NSA is essentially trying to collect all the world’s electronic communications, store them forever, and have them available both to search algorithms and human searchers. In other words, the idea is that an NSA staffer can just type in anyone’s name in the world and pull up any and all of the communications they have ever been involved in.

“competing” with China

Leave a reply

This article in Defense One says the U.S. Department of Defense has been ordered to “compete” with China, but they don’t know what that means. One interpretation seems to be that it means a good old-fashioned advising, training, and arms sales. But another interpretation seems to be alliance forming and economic competition. Neither one of these is the military’s job, and they know they don’t have the expertise to perform these functions.

The article does offer some clues as to why some in the military feel threatened by the Belt and Road Initiative.

In Greenland, for example, Beijing sought to finance and build three airports that the DOD feared it could seize for military purposes if Nuuk fell behind on its payments. In Africa, Pentagon leaders are watching to see whether Beijing will invest in a West African port that could harbor its warships at need. “We need to understand it so that we know how to respond to it,” said the Army official.

We still don’t know who killed JFK, RFK, or Martin Luther King?

Leave a reply

A new letter by a number of family members and prominent figures is pressing for more investigation. This is from a blog called Who.What.Why.

Signers of the joint statement include Isaac Newton Farris Jr., nephew of Reverend King and past president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference; Reverend James M. Lawson Jr., a close collaborator of Reverend King; and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, children of the late senator.

Other signatories include G. Robert Blakey, the chief counsel of the House Select Committee on Assassinations, which determined in 1979 that President Kennedy was the victim of a probable conspiracy; Dr. Robert McClelland, one of the surgeons at Parkland Memorial Hospital in Dallas who tried to save President Kennedy’s life and saw clear evidence he had been struck by bullets from the front and the rear; Daniel Ellsberg, the Pentagon Papers whistleblower who served as a national security advisor to the Kennedy White House; Richard Falk, professor emeritus of international law at Princeton University and a leading global authority on human rights; Hollywood artists Alec Baldwin, Martin Sheen, Rob Reiner and Oliver Stone; political satirist Mort Sahl; and musician David Crosby.

The declaration is also signed by numerous historians, journalists, lawyers and other experts on the four major assassinations.

I’m not exactly a conspiracy theorist, in the sense that I think the vast majority of conspiracy theories are not true. But make a list of enough conspiracy theories, and a few of them are going to be true. There are enough eye-witness accounts that contradict the official accounts in both the JFK and MLK cases to put them both (the official accounts I mean) in the most likely false category. And if they seem like ancient history, consider that no leader since then has taken on the U.S. war machine in any serious way, as it continues to gobble up around 5% of our GDP and we lag the world’s other industrialized nations in infrastructure, education, health care, and child care, while leading it in violence and incarceration.

As for Malcolm X, I just don’t know all that much about him. Perhaps I should find out more.

George McGovern’s Green New Deal

Leave a reply

George McGovern proposed something similar to the current idea of a Green New Deal in the 1960s. A Yale historian says it had some momentum but was derailed when the Vietnam War broke out.


In 1964, McGovern sponsored legislation for the creation of a National Economic Conversion Commission (NECC) to transfer jobs in defense to peacetime work, for example, civil engineering and commercial manufacturing. On the surface, the NECC’s purpose was rather simple: to help unemployed defense workers find jobs. But McGovern’s ulterior motive for the commission was to reallocate military spending to fight environmental problems, to give defense workers “green jobs,” to use an anachronistic term…

But then came Vietnam. President Lyndon Johnson’s decision to escalate the war in Southeast Asia derailed McGovern’s vision. Whereas in 1963 the world seemed at the precipice of a new era in the Cold War, Vietnam revived ideological tensions between Democratic proponents and opponents of Cold War foreign policy. Hawkish Democrats became enemies to the NECC, afraid of diverting monies away from the war. The stiffest opposition to the plan came from the Johnson administration, which criticized McGovern’s idea for a 10 percent cut to a $300 billion-dollar defense budget as “radical.” Moreover, defense contractors failed to see the utility of McGovern’s commission as they were now awash in new, albeit temporary, defense contracts to fight the war. When the NECC would be revived over two decades later as the Cold War was finally coming to an end, it would be a smaller, private endeavor focused on public education about economic conversion and disarmament and stripped of its earlier environmentalist goals.

I’m sensing some urgency this time around over climate change, which is good, but military and national security spending seems to be largely unquestioned. For that to change, I suspect it would take some bold action in Congress like a war tax and/or an insistence that war must be declared before American troops or equipment are committed abroad. Ironically, I think maybe a compromise could be based on stepped-up border security in exchange for closing foreign military bases. That would seem to have something for everyone.

the death toll in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan

Leave a reply

According to this article from Brown University, around a half million people have been killed in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan since the U.S. invasions, around half of them civilians. For me, this continues to bring doubt on the idea that here is any such thing as a humanitarian war that helps more people than it hurts.

This total is only people killed by violence – it does not include “indirect deaths” due to “loss of access to food, water, health facilities, electricity or other infrastructure.”

Obviously, it doesn’t include horrible conflicts the U.S. is less directly involved in (but still involved in) such as Syria and Yemen.

I also read this depressing article in Foreign Policy in Focus saying the ongoing civil war in South Sudan is much nastier than I realized, with a death toll around 400,000 and counting.

running out of bombs?

Leave a reply

The military-industrial complex needs to engage in continuous war so it can be ready in case a war starts. Or so I interpret the logic. Is this part of some vast, hidden conspiracy? Well, no, apparently they put a report out about it periodically.

The Pentagon plans to invest more than $20 billion in munitions in its next budget. But whether the industrial base will be there to support such massive buys in the future is up in the air — at a time when America is expending munitions at increasingly intense rates.

The annual Industrial Capabilities report, put out by the Pentagon’s Office of Manufacturing and Industrial Base Policy, has concluded that the industrial base of the munitions sector is particularly strained, something the report blames on the start-and-stop nature of munitions procurement over the last 20 years, as well as the lack of new designs being internally developed…

All this is happening as the U.S. is expending munitions at a rapid rate. For instance, the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction concluded that 1,186 munitions were dropped in that country during the first quarter of 2018 ― the highest number recorded for the first three months of the year since tracking began in 2013; that number is also more than two and a half times the amount dropped in the first quarter of 2017.

Interesting, and I thought the Afghanistan war was more or less over. It seems like wars don’t really end any more, and the public now accepts ongoing regional wars as normal.

7 wars

Leave a reply

The Week counts and lists the number of wars the United States is currently involved in.

we’re currently at war in (at least) seven countries across the Greater Middle East: Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Libya, Somalia, and Pakistan…

It would be shockingly easy for the White House and Department of Defense to do whatever they wanted with no meaningful democratic oversight at all. Our wars are fought thousands of miles from American shores with an all-volunteer force drawn from a tiny percentage of the population. Meanwhile, the country has spent the astonishing sum of $250 million a day on war-making for each of the nearly 6,000 days since the 9/11 attacks 16 years ago. Instead of raising taxes to pay for it, Congress has cut taxes, insulating the American people entirely from the cost and handing the bill to future generations of Americans in the form of debt.

Other people fight, other people suffer, other people pay — it’s a recipe for political ignorance and indifference. All the American people know is that there hasn’t been another 9/11. And that one must always, no matter what, “support the troops.” Together these sentiments translate into: “We dare not say anything critical about whatever the military is doing.” That holds for members of Congress no less than for average Americans. Rather than raise questions or concerns, we’re expected to defer. And for the most part we’re all too happy to comply with this debased and degraded form of civic duty.

I have a proposal – fund these wars through a sales tax levied very clearly on everything we buy. Every time you buy a bag of groceries, your receipt would tell you how much you contributed to the war effort. This way, those of us not fighting or sending other people to fight would at least think about it every day, and maybe be willing to speak out against it or at least make the politicians clearly explain to us why it has to be this way.

Approaches for Managing the Costs of U.S. Nuclear Forces, 2017 to 2046

Leave a reply

This report from the Congressional Budget Office contains lots of facts and figures on nuclear weapons, along with some underwhelming proposal for reducing their costs a little bit. But no proposals for limiting them or even scaling them back by much.

What strikes me right away is not how expensive they are, but how cost-effective they actually are. That is, no country could ever afford to match the firepower and deterrent effect of nuclear weapons with conventional weapons. That is one thing that makes them so diabolically hard to get rid of.

The other thing that struck me is how easy they actually are to get rid of. Keeping them in good working order takes a ton of maintenance effort and constant upgrades. It is not just the nuclear material or even the nuclear weapon that has to be upgraded, but the aircraft carriers, submarines, bombers, missile silos, and all the associated hardware, software, and personnel required to keep all of these components running. Just stop investing and pretty soon, you will not have a functional nuclear arsenal. Of course, having a nuclear arsenal in a state of disrepair is probably not a particularly safe thing. To unwind a nuclear program, you would have to have an organized program of decommissioning and destroying the things as they become functionally obsolete. Maybe nobody has given much thought to how to actually do that, so maybe we are locked into maintaining the arsenal because no alternative has been seriously considered.

The report does go into nuclear strategy a little bit. One thing I had never thought about is that if you go for a strategy of “minimum deterrence”, which means just the bare minimum number of weapons needed for a credible threat of retaliation, it might lock you into a strategy of targeting civilians. In other words, you want your opponent to believe you would lob your limited number of weapons at their cities rather than military targets. I’m not sure I quite get that – I suppose the idea is that with more weapons you could retaliate against military targets first, see how that goes, and still have the option of taking out cities as a last resort, really just out of spite. It’s also possible that with a smaller arsenal, a weak leader could be more tempted to launch a preemptive strike. I have a hard time seeing the morality of any of these scenarios.