The multinational corporations feeding the military-industrial complex, which President Eisenhower warned of, must be creaming in their coffee. The Obama White House has activated refurbishing a nuclear arsenal that will cost taxpayers $1 trillion. Let’s call it the insane Flash-to-Ash design for humanity.
The plan first came to light last January in a report from the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies. In a publication called “The Trillion Dollar Nuclear Triad: US Strategic Modernization over the Next Thirty Years” the center reported:
…the United States will likely spend over $1 trillion during the next three decades to maintain its current nuclear arsenal and purchase their replacement systems. The necessary level of procurement spending, as a percentage of the defense budget, will peak at levels comparable to the Reagan-era build-up of nuclear forces.
Among the lethal pile-up, the report cites these figures from the government’s own budget projections:
- $100 billion for 100 long-range strategic manned nuclear bombers. An additional $30-40 billion will be needed to provide the nuclear weapons and cruise missiles to be deployed on these airplanes. This includes some $45 billion in previously unacknowledged funds required to build the new airplane.
- $20-120 billion for a new generation of land based ICBMs. The highest end projection includes a few tens of billions of dollars to make new ICBMs mobile or implement other exotic basing schemes—a plan considered and rejected in the 1980s because of its extreme cost, but under consideration again according to Air Force solicitations.
- Some $350 billion in funding for the National Nuclear Security Administration for maintaining current and building more modern nuclear weapons. This averages over $11 billion per year, despite Congress’s refusal to provide more than $8 billion in any of the most recent budgets.
Fast-forward from the January report to last month and The New York Times’ lengthy article headlined “U.S. Ramping Up Major Renewal in Nuclear Arms”. It states that Obama plans over the next decade to spend $355 billion on the buildup:
The money is flowing into a sprawling complex for making warheads that includes eight major plants and laboratories employing more than 40,000 people.
One of those developments is in Kansas City, benignly called The National Security Campus. The other plants and labs are located in, west to southeast, California, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas, Tennessee and South Carolina.
The Nobel Peace President
All this is coming from a president who won the Nobel Prize for Peace in 2009, cited by the Nobel committee for his “extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples” and his promoting nonproliferation of nuclear arms.
That was then. This is now. Notes the September Times article:
‘The most fundamental game changer is Putin’s invasion of Ukraine,’ said Gary Samore, Mr. Obama’s top nuclear adviser in his first term and now a scholar at Harvard. ‘That has made any measure to reduce the stockpile unilaterally politically impossible.’
Of course, Samore fails to mention that the United States backed the right-wing-billionaire-led rebellion against the corrupt pro-Russian, democratically elected government in the Ukraine. And how this has given the U.S. and NATO an opportunity to challenge Moscow, and get a power foothold in a country bordering Russia. And how the Russians aren’t going to stand for that.
Paul Craig Roberts, a Reagan assistant treasury secretary and co-creator of Reaganomics, in a recent column condemned the last three White Houses—Democrat and Republican–basically summarizing what he headlined “Washington is Destroying the World”:
…over the past 21 years three two-term US presidents have taught Moscow that the word of the US government is worthless.
Today Russia is surrounded by US and NATO military bases, with more to come in Ukraine (part of Russia for centuries), Georgia (part of Russia for centuries and the birthplace of Joseph Stalin), Montenegro, Macedonia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, and perhaps also Azerbaijan…
…Washington always picks the puppet who serves as Secretary General of NATO. The latest is a former Norwegian politician and prime minister, Jens Stoltenberg. On Washington’s orders, the puppet quickly antagonized Moscow with the statement that NATO has a powerful army that has a global policing role and can be deployed wherever Washington wishes. This claim is a total contradiction of NATO’s purpose and charter.
All this warmonger maneuvering while the nuclear arms are being made ready. The U.S. State Department, in an Oct. 1 fact sheet (yes, this month), listed the current lethal scorecard in what the U.S. and Russian Cold Warriors of the ‘70s and ‘80s termed the Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) policy:
|Category of Data||United States of America||Russian Federation|
|Deployed ICBMs, Deployed SLBMs, and Deployed Heavy Bombers||794||528|
|Warheads on Deployed ICBMs, on Deployed SLBMs, and Nuclear Warheads Counted for Deployed Heavy Bombers||1642||1643|
|Deployed and Non-deployed Launchers of ICBMs, Deployed and Non-deployed Launchers of SLBMs, and Deployed and Non-deployed Heavy Bombers||912||911|
Follow the Money
Peculiar Progressive, through a number of columns, has consistently argued that, when a nation gets into deep financial trouble, its policymakers look for a foreign enemy to jerk the citizenry’s minds away from their economic problems and stir nationalism. In the case of the U.S., recreating enemies ranging from Russia to the Middle East has also primed funding for endless war. And, in this new case, perhaps the only thing that can stop endless war: a nuclear holocaust.
Meanwhile, the U.S. still suffers economically from…yes, we’ll keep repeating them…a student loan debt of over $1 trillion, a credit card debt of $1 trillion, a national debt (owed by the public) of $12.8 trillion, and infrastructure needs of $2.3 trillion. All this while we’ve also written about two major international reports warning of a global economic meltdown worse than 2008.
Which leads to a basic question: Can the U.S. afford a trillion-dollar nuclear build-up?
The September Times article quotes an authority who says no:
In the end, however, budget realities may do more than nuclear philosophies to curb the atomic upgrades. “There isn’t enough money,” said Jeffrey Lewis, of the Monterey Institute of International Studies, an expert on the modernization effort. “You’re going to get a train wreck.”
The article also quotes from the federal Government Accountability Office, indicating the nuclear upgrades have been planned since Obama’s first term, “over five years,” meaning in 2009 when he was accepting the Nobel Peace Prize:
Across the nation, 21 major upgrades have been approved and 36 more proposed, according to the Government Accountability Office. In nearly two dozen reports over five years, the congressional investigators have described the modernization push as poorly managed and financially unaccountable.
They recently warned — in typically understated language — that the managers of the atomic complex had repeatedly omitted and underestimated billions of dollars in costs, leaving the plan with ‘less funding than will be needed.’
So, are you ready yet? Will you get organized, educated and active in taking control of your government, starting with the November midterm elections? Or are you resigned to you and your family experiencing endless war, or the end of it and civilization with the Flash-to-Ash design?