START: The Winter of Our Disconnect

Friends,

I can feel Winter settling in here in Washington's Cascade Mountains as the snow falls this evening; there is a definite chill in the air. While the changing seasons are something to which we adjust, it is critical for continued progress in the control and ultimately the abolition of nuclear weapons that we avoid any "chilling" of relations between the U.S. and Russia.

Right now the Senate must ratify the New START Treaty in order for the Superpowers to get back on track to inspecting each other's arsenals and exchanging information. This connection is necessary to secure ongoing cooperation and produce real security. Without the agreement we can forget about any reduction in the existing nuclear weapons stockpiles.

While ratification of New START is of such importance, there is a very real disconnect in Washington, DC., and not just among a few rogue senators who are trying to scuttle the treaty. Some senators, such as Jim Demint (S. Carolina), James Inhofe (Oklahoma) and Jon Kyle (Arizona) are holding New START hostage in exchange for increased funding of the nation's nuclear weapons complex.

One of their claims is that the Obama administration isn't doing enough to "modernize" the nations nuclear weapons. Judging by the current "modernization" of the nuclear weapons infrastructure along with the ongoing nuclear weapons work that includes the "stockpile stewardship program" (read "rebuilt warheads") I'm not sure how much more they expect the administration to do.

As for the broad scope of this nuclear disconnect, the numbers speak for themselves; the administration had already pledged $80 billion over 10 years to maintain and modernize the nuclear weapons complex. As if this was not enough, Kyl has demanded an additional $4 billion over 5 years, and it appears that Obama is giving in. Even with this offer, it is not looking good for passage of New START by this Congress. Even though we have the 67 votes needed to ratify the treaty, Kyl is trying to prevent a vote until the next Congress!!!

It is inexcusable that these politicians who are supposed to represent "the people" are playing games with the nation's (and the world's) security. First of all, passage of New START is of the utmost importance. Secondly, increasing funding to modernize the nuclear weapons complex and build new weapons neutralizes any previous efforts to reduce our reliance on nuclear weapons (and send a message of hope to other nations).

Non-ratification of New START is NOT an option! Neither is building up an essentially NEW nuclear weapons infrastructure. Both indicate a disconnect between the people's desire to abolish nuclear weapons and the special interests of those who claim to represent us, but who are far too heavily invested (literally and figuratively) in the Military-Industrial Complex and its parent, the National Security State.

We must not cut anyone even an inch of slack on an issue of such critical importance as New START. Although many senators have shown their support for New START (and we should thank them for that) we now need to demand that they apply some serious pressure to those who hold it hostage.

Click here to send a message to your Senators now! Then click here to download the Phone Bank Tool Kit from the Campaign for a Nuclear Weapons-Free World, and you and your organization can help mobilize grassroots support for New START! This is our last chance on this one folks!

And just think how far $84 billion would go towards programs of social uplift!!!

Peace,

Leonard

Point. Click. Kill.

Friends,

"Point. Click. Kill." That is part of the title of a article in the online Popular Science that gives a brief look at the U.S. Air Force's "frantic" drive to keep up with its newest star, the unmanned aerial vehicle, or drone. Drones are the hottest thing to hit the skies since the Wright Brothers took their first brief flight in Kitty Hawk, and based on the frenzy of work being conducted by just about every aerospace defense company to create its own drone, they are here to stay. Everybody wants a piece of this pie, and it's huge!

Aside from the nuts and bolts of drones called Reapers and Predators, it really all comes down to seduction. We have become seduced by everything about war - the mythology, the violence, the patriotism, and don't forget the toys. Of course, when I say "we", I do not mean the innocent Afghan civilians blown to bits by the Hellfire missiles fired from drones. I refer to we the war making people of the United States, and particularly its military-industrial complex, who just can't seem to get enough of the technology of death.

This video produced for the U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory gives a clear picture of just how enamored the U.S. military is of everything technological. Between the lines of this carefully scripted propaganda piece is the truth - that we are prisoners of the madness of a self fulfilling prophecy created by our military-industrial complex. It is a monster not unlike the giant human-eating plant in Little Shop of Horrors..."FEED MEEEEEEEE!" And we continue to feed it our tax dollars, while starving the rest of the economy. Click here to see the numbers.

Retired U.S. Air Force Colonel Tom Ehrhard, an expert on drones (according to the Popular Science article) epitomized war's (and its technology's) seduction when he said, "They [drones] give you a capability that you never had, and when you couple it with a lethal system, guess what? It's magic." We have made such extraordinary strides in the technology with which we conduct war, and yet we pay no attention (beyond lip service) to the prevention of war, and most definitely not to our motives for going to war.

I wonder how we would feel if we were the ones on the receiving end, if drones were buzzing around the skies of the U.S. watching for suspicious activities, ready to let loose their missiles at the push of a button by people in trailers thousands of miles away. How would we feel not knowing whether or not our families might be blown to bits while we were at work. How different it is to be on the receiving end, eh?

Ah, the magic. Point. Click. Kill. From 7000 miles away.

No Peace in that,

Leonard

Thanks to Bruce Gagnon; I found the YouTube video about the Air Force Research Laboratory posted on his blog, Organizing Notes.

P.S. - There is a full (feature) article on unmanned aerial vehicles in the September issue of Popular Science; more cheer leading for drones.

Missile Defense is So Offensive

Friends,

Well, well, well... The fallout (just had to use that one) over missile defense has gone global. U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates got in his two cents in a New York Times editorial in response to criticism of the new U.S. plans: A Better Missile Defense for a Safer Europe. Gates' opening line speaks volumes, and not just about missile defense in Europe, but missile defense in general. "The future of missile defense in Europe is secure." Although missiles in Poland and the Czech Republic are history, in reality missile defense in Europe has only been deferred until a later date (as explicitly stated by Gates). So what's new? Nothing really.

One way to look at U.S. missile defense is from the perspective of Pentagon contractors. Boeing loses out (for now) as ground-based interceptors in Europe shift to ship-based interceptors (a huge boon for Raytheon). Boeing also lost out (for now) as the airborne laser (think of a 747 jet modified with a huge chemical laser to shoot down missiles) program that the Obama adminstration recently cancelled. Of course, you can imagine that Boeing is working on other uses for the airborne laser; they won't be letting this baby go any time soon.

In the big picture, these losses and gains are just another day in the life of "defense" contractors, part of an endless game, one that has no end but in which the score keeps changing in favor of one team and then another. There seems to be a "gentlemens" agreement in which all the teams know that they will ultimately get their share, so they don't play hardball to often. They all know how much (profit) is at stake, and how much they all need each other in this intricate web of defense projects.

Of course, there will always be members of the U.S. Congress protecting (missile) defense jobs in their home states just as with the F-22 Raptor or C-17 Globemaster. In the case of the C-17, with "more than 650 suppliers and 30,000 jobs in 43 states", Congressional support is pretty much guaranteed. Then again, the Secretary of Defense can simply throw out a few key phrases about what kind of missiles Iran may be capable of producing, along with his concerns over "outdated" intelligence assessments, and the future of missile defense is good as gold (a little fear works wonders).

Projects like the Airborne Laser are like sacred cows (excuse the analogy); once the government starts pumping money into the research and development phase of a program this massive it is pretty hard to put on the brakes, particularly once it's "airborne". Long before President Obama announced the cancellation of this project, Boeing had been "developing additional missions" [read "guaranteeing the survivability of this program through mission diversification"]. Essentially, Boeing will look for anything and everything to shoot at to ensure that this baby flies.

And that is the way of defense contracting in today's competitive market. They are just applying some old fashioned thinking - If at first you don't succeed, try, try again (and in every imaginable way). And try, they will. So, don't cry for Boeing for the loss of a few missiles in Europe. It will all come out in the wash, and their stockholders will be very, very happy down the road.

However, one has to wonder if the U.S. put a fraction of the money spent on missile defense into positive engagement with Iran - diplomacy, people to people exchanges and trade - might we get a better return on our investment, including a peace dividend? And might we be just a bit safer than in a world bristling with missiles, since missiles (defensive or not) seem to beget more missiles?

Peace,

Leonard

The $60 Million Terrorist

Dear Friends,

"The U.S. Navy in August plans to conduct a flight test of Trident submarine-launched ballistic missile technologies modified for conventional strike operations..." Does this news ring any bells? Back in the bad old days of the Bush administration, someone came up with the wacky idea to outfit Trident D-5 missiles with conventional warheads in order to quickly take out long distance targets virtually anywhere in the world on short notice. Just what is a "long distance target", and what are these folks up to???

It's your Global War on Terror combined with Prompt Global Strike. Here is the one minute tutorial. Good guys patrol the seas in Trident nuclear subs loaded with Trident D-5 missiles, at least some (or all) of them armed with conventional (rather than nuclear) warheads. Intelligence report shows leader of bad guys in ultra-remote camp deep in the Hindu-Kush Mountains (Afghanistan). With not a moment to lose, coordinates sent to Trident sub commander with instructions to take out target. Conventionally armed Trident missile (or missiles) fired, and within minutes, hits target. Oops! Missed the bad guy's leader; he went out to lunch. That's okay; Lockheed Martin will gladly build replacements.

Good Trident test launch

This scenario is essentially what the Pentagon would like to be able to do with our Trident submarines. After all, they are out on patrol for months at a time, and never get to do just what these submarines were designed for - launching missiles! Besides breaking the boredom of long patrols, this is a missile maker's (Lockheed Martin's) dream almost come true! It's the ultimate expendable item. Just think; it's the $60 million terrorist! That's the cost of one Trident D-5 missile, and that's not counting all the other costs of operating a Trident submarine. This prospect must have the execs. at Lockheed Martin absolutely salivating.

But let's back up a minute. Why is the U.S. Navy planning to conduct tests of conventionally armed Tridents when the Congress explicitly warned the Defense Department in 2008 not to develop such weapons, and even cancelled proposed funding for this project in the 2009 budget. Why did Congress go ballistic over conventionally armed Tridents? They had the good sense to realize that any Trident missile launched from a submarine (even with conventional warheads) could be mistaken (by Moscow) for a nuclear armed missile, launching a nuclear war.

Not-so-good Trident test launch

No worries; the pentagon had it covered. They would notify the Russians, Chinese, and anyone else (ahead of time) who might get a bit jumpy about Tridents popping out of the water. Of course, the whole idea is to launch as soon as intelligence is confirmed. What if they got a busy signal? Then there is a historical precedent. In 2005 a rocket launch from Norway almost caused World War III. It seems that although someone in Russia was notified about the launch ahead of time, that person didn't pass the message along to the people who needed to know (sounds like the situation at my house), creating a few tense minutes until someone figured out that it was not a nuclear attack.

As for the Navy planning the August test despite Congress' explicit opposition, it seems that they never stopped working on this project, and have used every loophole and interpretation in the book to keep this idea alive. As for the Defense Department culture that perpetuates such stealth planning, U.S. Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition John Young summed things up back in 2008 when he expressed concerns about Bush administration plans for "prompt global strike" weapons.

Though Congress has attempted to kill the so-called Conventional Trident Modification program, Young said he would never consider any initiative truly "dead" because industry or service advocates would continue to push for them. "My experience in the Pentagon is ideas never die, they just get new labels or different things like that," he said. "To the extent that there's an advocacy that has a voice, that voice will find its way as far as it can. So I wouldn't tell you it's dead." (Global Security Newswire, Nov. 26, 2008)

What Young was describing is the extraordinary power of the Military Industrial Complex. This story is a perfect example of the Pentagon thumbing its nose at the Congress; this is just one of countless examples of ideas that the Pentagon will not let die. Beyond the phenomenal waste of taxpayer dollars that such a program would squander, one must wonder how people who are supposedly well versed in military strategy would consider an idea whose risk so greatly outweighs any possible benefits. Could they think of a more expensive (or risky) way to kill a suspected terrorist??? We simply cannot trust these people.

Consider dropping a line (via email) to everyone in your Congressional delegation and ask them what they think of the Pentagon's behavior, and what they plan to do about it.

Here's to the Pentagon's (and Lockheed Martin's) $60 Million Terrorist!

Peace,

Leonard

References and Further Reading:
U.S. Navy Plans August Test for Conventional Trident-Related Technology, Global Security Newswire, May 21, 2009.
Senior U.S. Official Doubts Conventional Global Strike Value, Global Security Newswire, Nov. 26, 2008.
Navy Eyes New Weapon for Global Strike, Missile Defense, Global Security Newswire, July 17, 2008.
Conventional TRIDENT Modification, GlobalSecurity.org

Our Biggest Hurdle: The Revolving Door

Friends,

After writing a recent post in my other blog about Trimming the President's war funding budget, I felt the need for a reality check. It came in a report I've had buried in my pile of "things to read" for several years. About Face: The Role of the Arms Lobby In the Bush Administration's Radical Reversal of Two Decades of U.S. Nuclear Policy, provides a sobering look at how the U.S. government's intimate relationship with corporate interests makes trimming (let alone questioning) any budget related to military funding (or nuclear weapons) a difficult, if not impossible task.

This special report from the World Policy Insitute, written in 2002, is a searing indictment of the role of the corporate arms lobby in shaping U.S. strategic policy, in this case as it relates to nuclear weapons. Chapter one is aptly titled,"The Bush Nuclear Policy: Making the World Safe for Nuclear Weapons?"

I don't know how many ex CEOs of Lockheed Martin President Obama has appointed to positions like Air Force Assistant Secretary, but he has appointed at least two heavys - National Security Advisor, James Jones (Director, Boeing) and Deputy Secretary of Defense, William Lynn (Lobbyist, Raytheon). Not a bad start, eh?

The Bush administration wasn't the first to pack the house with industry insiders (although it raised it to a high art), and it won't be the last. President Obama may have the best of intentions (and I believe he does) in wanting to rid the world of nuclear weapons, but he is up against an extraordinarily powerful weapons lobby. Better keep your eye on the ball on this one folks; nothing is going to change until we figure out how to close the revolving door.

I've extracted most of the players from Appendix A: Through the Revolving Door: Corporate Connections of Bush Administration Officials to the Arms and Energy Industries. It makes great late night reading.

Peace,

Leonard

P.S. - I'll research these key government appointments and report on their corporate connections in a subsequent post. It will be interesting to see if President Obama has done anything to slow down the revolving door.

**************

Appendix A: Department, Rank, Name, Affiliation(s), Compensation

White House/Executive, Vice President, Dick Cheney - CEO, shareholder of Halliburton (oil, defense construction) $35.1 mil. salary, $500,001-$1 mil. deferred comp., $1-$5 mil. Cash Value Bonus Plan director, Procter & Gamble $250,001-$500,000 shareholder, restricted stock director, Brown and Root Saudi Limited Co. N/A shareholder, Anadarko Petroleum $250,001-$500,000 deferred stock payment

Lynn Cheney, wife of Vice President - director, Lockheed Martin $500,000-$1,000,000 deferred fees

White House/Executive, Deputy National Security Adviser, Stephen Hadley - board member, ANSER Analytic Services, (major defense contractor) $20,000 partner, Shea and Gardner, law firm representing Lockheed Martin N/A

White House/Executive, Assistant to the President; Dir. Of Legislative Affairs, Nicholas Calio - paid consultant, Motorola (significant defense contractor) N/A

White House/Executive, Senior Advisor to the President, Karl Rove - shareholder, Enron and Boeing $100,001-$250,000 each

White House/Executive, Chief of Staff to Vice President, I. Lewis Libby - consultant, Northrop Grumman $6,000

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld director, Gilead Sciences (biotech) up to $30 million stock director, Asea Brown Boveri LTD. (nuclear energy) $148,020 limited partner, SCF-II(energy) $17,000 director, Gulfstream Aerospace (now a General Dynamics subsidiary), which specializes in corporate jets and "special mission" aircraft sold to foreign governments for military use $5,000

Defense Under Secretary for Comptroller Dov Zakheim, vice president, Systems Planning Corporation (defense consulting firm) $277,749 paid advisory board, Northrop Grumman $11,000

Defense Under Secretary for Policy Douglas J. Feith shareholder, Sunoco up to $650,000 stock president and managing partner of former law firm, Feith & Zell, clients include Loral Space and Communications Ltd, Northrop Grumman $5,000 in fees for each client, salary of $246,045 at law firm

Defense Under Secretary for Personnel & Readiness David S.C. Chu, vice president, Rand Corp.(major Pentagon consulting and research firm) $226,000

Defense Under Secretary for Acquisition, Technology & Logistics Edward C. "Pete" Aldridge Jr., CEO, Aerospace Corp., a nonprofit defense research firm which has received more than $600 million for work at the Space and Missiles Defense Center, Los Angeles (a top 100 defense contractor) $470,000 salary United Industrial Corp.(defense), director, shareholder $35,000 fees, up to $250,000 stock director, AAI (defense) $4,000 vice president, McDonell Douglas Electronics N/A

Defense Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz co-chairman of Nunn-Wolfowitz, task force, Hughes Electronics $300,000 consultant, Northrop Grumman $6,000 fees consultant, BP Amoco $10,000 fees

Defense Undersecretary Michael Wynne, senior vice president, General Dynamics, International Planning and Development, 25 years in defense industry at GD and Martin Marietta N/A

Defense Director, Office of Independent Testing and Evaluation Thomas Christie, director, Institute for Defense Analysis (major Pentagon consulting firm), Operational Evaluation Division N/A

Air Force Secretary James Roche, former president, Northrop Grumman Electronic Systems, in charge of combat avionics, defensive systems, space systems among others, began career with Northrop Grumman in 1984 N/A

Air Force Assistant Secretary for Installations, Environment and Logistics Nelson F. Gibbs, corporate comptroller 1991-1999, Northrop Grumman N/A

Air Force Assistant Secretary Peter B. Teetsm chief operating officer, Lockheed Martin, 37 years in defense industry N/A

Navy Secretary Gordon England, former executive vice president, General Dynamics, 20 years in defense industry with GD and Lockheed N/A

Energy Administrator for Defense Programs (includes nuclear weapons work) Everet Beckner, deputy chief executive, Lockheed Martin's representative in three company consortium running Britain's nuclear weapons complex (Atomic Weapons Establishment) N/A

State Secretary Colin Powell shareholder, General Dynamics $1 to $5 mil. stock honorarium for speaking, Carlyle Group $100,000 honorariums, Arthur Andersen, GE Power Systems $59,500 each director, Gulfstream Aerospace $5,000

State Deputy Secretary Richard Armitage president and partner, Armitage Assoc. LLP(consulting for Raytheon, Boeing, Brown and Root, Science Application International and other defense contractors), also served on boards of Raytheon and Mantech $246,965 salary GE, Coastal Corp. (defense), shareholder $500,001-$1 mil. each

Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta special business initiative vice president, shareholder, Lockheed Martin $130,000 salary, $80,000 stock board member, MELE Assoc., (tech consulting for Lockheed, Depts. of Energy, State, Transportation) up to $50,000 stock

Transportation Deputy Secretary Michael Jackson vice president, Lockheed Martin, chief operating officer Lockheed Martin Information and Management Services $300,000 salary, up to $500,000 severance package

Justice Solicitor General Theodore Olson private practice clients include; Hughes Electronics, Arthur Andersen $5,000 each

Sources: Center for Public Integrity, ("Bush Top 100" http://www.publicintegrity.org/cgi-bin/whoswhosearch.asp), Whitehouse.gov, supplemented by news accounts in the New York Times, Washington Post, Denver Post, Aviation Week & Space Technology and the Los Angeles Times among others.

Note: Connections cited here represent relationships that existed prior to the individual's appointment to the administration. In the vast majority of cases these financial links have been severed pursuant to conflict-of-interest rules.