Return to Nuclear Diplomacy with Iran

 In late February of this year, Senator Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, led 10 of his colleagues in the reintroduction of the Iran Diplomacy Act. The legislation supports President Joe Biden's diplomatic effort to return all sides to full-compliance with their commitments under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), also known as the Iran Nuclear Deal. 

"President Biden is right to pursue diplomatic steps that verifiably shut the door on an Iranian nuclear weapon." said Senator Markey. "President Trump's 2018 exit from the Iran nuclear deal alienated the United States from allies whose support is needed to confront the full-range of Tehran's bad behavior. Trump's 'maximum pressure' campaign brought us to the brink of war and allowed Iran to edge ever closer to nuclear weapons capability. All sides must return to their commitments under the Iran Nuclear Deal, so we can take the existential threat of a nuclear Iran off the table and provide the momentum to advance multilateral and bilateral diplomatic efforts to address Iran's burgeoning missile program; extend elements of the Iran deal due to expire; and combat the Iranian government and its proxies' malign activities throughout the region."

Prior to President Trump's unilateral withdrawal from the JCPOA in 2018, the International Atomic Energy Agency and the U.S. intelligence community both verified that Iran had lived up to its end of the agreement -- which extended the "breakout time" for an Iranian nuclear bomb from a span of weeks to over one year. However, Iran responded to the U.S exit from the JCPOA with concerning, but reversible rollbacks of its commitments under that agreement and it increased its provocative behavior that increased the risk of armed conflict with the United States and its allies. The Iran Diplomacy Act backs Secretary of State Antony Blinken's January 19, 2021 position that full-implementation of the JCPOA provides a" "platform, working with our allies and partners to build a longer and stronger agreement that will also capture some of the other issues that need to be dealt with regard to missiles and with regard to Iran's activities and destabilizing activities in the region." 

Specifically, the Iran Diplomacy Act states that:

# Full implementation of the JCPOA would represent a meaningful step to both preventing an Iranian nuclear weapon and a costly future armed conflict.

# The United States and Iran should promptly return to full-compliance with all of their commitments under the JCPOA.

# After such time that all sides return to their commitments under the JCPOA, the United States should lead international efforts to:

# strengthen the restrictions on Iran's ballistic missile program and counter the proliferation of such technology;

# advance the sunset of select provisions of the JCPOA and other elements of the agreement that merit strengthening; and

# advance any other diplomatic measures that promote United States, regional, and international security. 

# The United States should reaffirm is commitment to United Nations Security Resolution 2231 (2015)

Annual U.S.- South Korea Combined Exercises as Trigger Point

 One of the thorniest foreign policy challenges the Biden administration will need to face is a nuclear-armed North Korea. Talks between the U.S. and North Korea have been stalled since 2019, and North Korea has continued to develop its weapons arsenal, recently unveiling what appears to be its largest intercontinental ballistic missile.

As a retired U.S. Army Colonel and U.S. diplomat with 40 years of experience, I know all too well how actions by the U.S. military can exacerbate tensions that lead to war. That's why the organization I am a member of, Veterans for Peace, is one of several hundred civil society organizations in the U.S. and South Korea urging the Biden administration to suspend the combined U.S.-South Korea military exercises.

Due to their scale and provocative nature, the annual U.S.-South Korean combined exercises have long been a trigger point for heightened military and political tensions on the Korean Peninsula, These military exercises have been suspended since 2018, but Gen. Robert B. Abrams, Commander of U.S. Forces Korea, has renewed the call for the full resumption of the joint war drills. U.S. and South Korean defense ministers have also agreed to continue the combined exercises, and Biden's secretary of state, Antony Blinken, has said suspending them was a mistake.

Rather than acknowledge how these joint military exercises have proven to raise tensions and provoke actions by North Korea, Blinken has criticized the suspension of the exercises as an appeasement of North Korea. And despite the failure of the Trump administration's "maximum pressure" campaign against North Korea, not to mention decades of U.S. pressure-based tactics, Blinken insists more pressure is what's needed to achieve North Korea's denuclearization. In a CBS interview, Blinken said the U.S. should "build genuine pressure to squeeze North Korea to get it to the negotiating table."

Unfortunately, if the Biden administration chooses to go through with the U.S.-South Korean joint military exercises, it will likely sabotage any prospect of diplomacy with North Korea, heighten geopolitical tensions, and risk reigniting a war on the Korean Peninsula, which would be catastrophic.

Since the 1950s, the U.S. has used the military exercises as a "show of force" to deter a North Korean attack on South Korea. To North Korea, however, these military exercises -- with names such as "Exercise Decapitation" -- appear to be rehearsals for the overthrow of its government.

Consider that these U.S.-South Korea combined exercises have involved the use of B-2 bombers capable of dropping nuclear weapons, nuclear-powered aircraft carriers, and submarines equipped with nuclear weapons, as well as the firing of long-range artillery and other large caliber weapons.

Resuming Nuclear Weapons Testing

 The U.S. government stopped its atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons in 1962, shortly before signing the Partial Ban Treaty of 1962. And it halted its underground nuclear tests in 1992, signing the Comprehensive Test Treaty (CTBT) in 1996. Overall, it conducted 1,030 nuclear weapons test explosions, slightly more than half the global total.

A Washington 'Post' article reported that, in mid-May 2020, a meeting of senior U.S. officials from top national security agencies engaged in serious discussions about U.S. nuclear test resumption. According to one official, the idea was that test renewal would help pressure Russia and China into making concessions during future negotiations over nuclear weapons. 

Meanwhile, during a press briefing in Brussels, the administration's special envoy for arms control stated that the U.S. government "will maintain the ability to conduct nuclear tests if we see reason to do so." Although he said he was "not aware of any reason to test at this stage," he added that he would not "shut the door on it," either. "Why would we?"

Actually, there are numerous reasons why the resumption of U.S. nuclear weapons explosions is a terrible idea. If the government began atmospheric nuclear testing, it would violate the Partial Test Ban Treaty (which it ratified), as well as the CTBT (which it signed but, thanks to Republican Senate opposition, has not yet ratified). Even if U.S. nuclear tests were conducted underground and, thus, violated only the CTBT, the result would be a dramatic loss of credibility for the United States and a escalation of the nuclear arms racer. As Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association, has remarked: "Other nuclear powers would undoubtedly seize the opportunity provided by a U.S. nuclear blast to engage in explosive tests of their own, which could help them perfect new and more dangerous types of warheads."

In addition, a considerable number of non-nuclear nations might decide that, given the U.S. government's failure to fulfill its treaty obligations, their adherence to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty no longer made sense. Therefore, they would begin nuclear testing to facilitate developing their own nuclear weapons arsenals.

Furthermore, U.S. nuclear weapons explosions, whether in the atmosphere or underground, would have serious health and environmental consequences. Even underground U.S. tests have released large quantities of radioactive fallout, and the U.S. government is still dealing with the devastation they caused to communities near the testing sites. Furthermore, no method has been found for cleaning up the plutonium and other radionuclides that the tests have left underground.

Remarkably, there is no military necessity for nuclear test resumption. Not only does the U.S. government possess nearly half the world's nuclear weapons, which are quite sufficient to eradicate life on earth, but the occasionally-cited justification for testing -- that it is necessary to make sure U.S. weapons actually work -- is deeply flawed. The U.S. government has spent tens of billions of dollars on the Stockpile Stewardship Program, a wide range of diagnostic non-explosive tests, to ensure that its nuclear weapons are reliable. And every year the directors of the U.S. nuclear labs report that they are. (Source: Excerpts from an article in "Common Dreams," entitled "Making America Feared Again: The Trump Administration Considers Resuming Nuclear Weapons Testing," by Lawrence Wittner, a professor at Albany University).

Heading Toward a Cold War, or Even a Hot One

 The United States and China, the word's mightiest military and economic powers, are currently heading toward a Cold War, or even a hot one, with potentially disastrous consequences. But an alternative path is available and could be taken.

Beginning in 2018, U.S. government policy toward China turned sharply hostile, bringing relations between the two nations to their lowest point in the last four decades. The Trump administration fostered military confrontations with China in the South Sea, initiated a trade war with the Asian nation, blamed China for the COVID-19 pandemic, and sharply denounced its human rights record. In a July 2020 public address, U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo called for "a new alliance of democracies" to resist China, declaring: "The free word must triumph over this new tyranny."

For the most part, the Biden administration has continued this hard-line policy. Soon after taking office in 2021, U.S. officials stepped up political and military engagement with Taiwan, which China considers part of its territory, while Secretary of State Antony Blinken used his first meeting with Chinese officials to publicly berate China. At the beginning of June, the U.S. Senate passed the U.S. Innovation and Competition Act, explicitly designed to compete with China by pumping hundreds of billions of dollars into advanced U.S. technology. This action followed the release of a proposed Pentagon budget that identified China as "the greatest long-term challenge to the United States." 

The Chinese government has not shied away from confrontation, either. XI Jinping, taking office in 2012 as General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party, and in 2013, as President of China, has launched his nation on a 'more assertive nationalist course' in world affairs. This has included turning disputed islands in the South China Sea into Chinese military bases, and steadily building up Chinese military forces. The latter have been employed for dangerous confrontations with U.S. warships in the South China Sea, and for flights into Taiwan's airspace.

The dangers of this growing confrontation are enormous. The United States and China have developed unprecedented military might, and a conventional war could easily spiral into a catastrophic military conflict. Even if war were averted, their escalating arms race, which already accounts for more than half the world's military expenditures, would be a colossal waste of resources.

Fortunately, though, there is plenty of opportunity on the world scene for the United States and China to cooperate and, thereby, not only avert disaster, but serve their common interests.

Avoiding climate catastrophe is certainly a key area in which they would be well-served by cooperation. Not only are the people of China and the United States threatened by climate change, but, as the two nations are the world's biggest emitters of greenhouse gases, they can make or break world climate agreements.

Moreover, both countries have a great deal to gain, as does the world, by their agreement on a nuclear arms control and disarmament program. Minimally, they could increase the transparency of their nuclear holdings, develop arms control verification procedures, and freeze China's nuclear stockpile in exchange for further cuts in U.S and Russian nuclear arsenals.

Other area are also ripe for cooperation. Economic agreements could reduce global poverty, outlaw multinational malfeasance, and regulate trade while crime-fighting measures could address cyberattacks and piracy.

Cooperation between the two nations is not as far-fetched as it might seem. In past decades, the U.S. and Chinese governments worked together on projects like stopping Ebola, reducing the production and consumption of hydrofluorocarbons, averting global financial catastrophe, and assuring food safety. Furthermore, there has recently been agreement by the governments of both nations on U.S.-China cooperation in fighting climate change.

China as Excuse for Bloated Pentagon Spending

 On the eve of his visit to Asia in March 2021, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin explained that for the past 20 years, the United State had been focused on the Middle East, while China had been modernizing its military. "We still maintain the edge," he noted, "and we're going to increase the edge going forward." Welcome to the new age of bloated Pentagon budgets, all to be justified by the great Chinese threat.

What Austin calls America's "edge" over China is more like a chasm. The United States has about 20 times the number of nuclear warheads as China. It has twice the tonnage of warships at sea, including 11 nuclear-powered aircraft carriers, compared with China's two carriers (which are much less advanced). Washington has more than 2,000 modern fighter jets, compared with Beijing's  600, according to national security analyst Sebastien Roblin. And the United States deploys this power using a vast network of some 800 overseas bases. 

At the height of its imperial might in the late 19th century, when it ruled a quarter of the world's population, Britain adopted a "two-power standard" -- its navy ha to be larger than the next two put together. U.S. military spending remains larger than the defense budgets of the next 10 countries put together, most of which are Washington's close allies. The United States' intelligence budget alone --around $85 billion --is larger than Russia's total defense spending.

In any case, the size of military sending is a misleading indicator of strength. Far more important are the objectives sought and the political-military strategy used to achieve those objectives. The United States has probably outspent the Taliban 10,000 to 1 in Afghanistan. And yet Washington has been unable to achieve its objective there -- ensuring that the Kabul government rules the country uncontested. If the United States defines its goals carefully and assembles an intelligent and consistent political and military strategy to achieve them, it can succeed. Without that, millions of troops and trillions of dollars will not guarantee victory. Bigness is not a substitute for brains.

The Pentagon operates in a realm apart from any other government agency. It spends money on a scale that is almost unimaginable --and the waste is, too. Every government agency is required to audit its accounts, but for decades, the Pentagon simply flouted this law. In 2018, it finally obeyed, paying $400 million for 1,200 auditors to examine its books, yet it still could not get a clean bill of heath. As writer Matt Taibbi noted in a brilliant 2019 expose of Pentagon accounting, the auditors "were unable to pass the Pentagon or flunk it. They could only offer no opinion, explaining the military's empire of hundreds of acronymic accounting silos was too illogical to penetrate." The Pentagon has failed to pass two more audits since then.

Having spent two decades fighting wars in the Middle East without much success, the Pentagon will now revert to its favorite kind of conflict, a cold war with a nuclear power. It can raise endless amounts of money to "outpace" China, even if nuclear deterrence makes it unlikely there will be an actual fighting war in Asia. Of course, there might be budget wars in Washington -- but those are the battles that the Pentagon knows how to win!. (Source: Excerpts from an op ed by Fareed Zakaria in the March 19, 2021 Washington Post).

ICBMs Are Obsolete

 I. ICBMs Are Obsolete

The U.S. Air Force wants to replace their midwestern land-based Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs) at a price tag of $100 billion. The ICBMs are obsolete because today's submarine nuclear-bombing missiles are now more accurate, and the submarines are hard to find. The ICBMs are not necessary for any deterrence doctrine. Besides, the goal is nuclear disarmament.

The ICBMs are on "trigger alert" because they they so vulnerable to attack. This fact makes them extremely dangerous, since on several occasions it was thought a foreign attack was coming, and they were mistakenly readied for launch. A president is liable to "fire them before losing them."

The Air Force wants to retain all legs of the Triad -- ICBMs, submarines, and bombers. The ICBMs bring in money to the Air Force, are seen as job creators in several states, and the defense contractors relish the income.

There is $44.5 billion in the 2021 defense budget for nuclear weapons, a 19% increase over 2020. Last year, Representative Ro Khanna (D-CA) proposed a two-thirds cut to ICBM research and development. Peace Action, the nation's largest grassroots peace and justice organization, hopes he presses on with such legislation this year.

Will the Biden Administration reduce the budgeting for the obsolete ICBMs? Peace Action wants the ICBMs dismantled and not replaced.

II. Council for a Livable World Highlights

# Denounces Biden Defense Budget

President Joe Biden requested an increase in the defense budget to an exorbitant $735 billion, including $43.2 billion for nuclear weapons. Taxes are being wasted on outdated weapons systems when they could be spent for dealing with cybersecurity, climate change, global health security, and infrastructure in the wake of the global pandemic.

# Nuclear Subsidies may be Slowing Transition to Clean Energy

Many activists, scientists and lawmakers agree that nuclear energy -- which provides one fifth of the power in the U.S. -- is by definition not "clean" or renewable, given that spent fuel remains radioactive and dangerous for thousands of years. Billions in state and federal subsidies that prop up the nuclear industry -- payments that the Biden administration has signaled it may continue to support --may be wasting taxes that should be spent for the transition to a truly energy economy. 

# Biden Should Sink this Proposed Nuclear Weapon

Former-president Donald Trump's nuclear-armed, sea-launched cruise missile is a redundant, and  dangerous multi-billion-dollar mistake. (Source: Adapted from "The Council Front & Center: an update on arms control, national security, and politics from the Council for a Livable World").

Cold War with China is Dangerous

I. Cold War with China is Dangerous

Sixty-six organizations, including Peace Action, issued a statement with the following key points:

# We are deeply concerned about the growing Cold War mentality driving the U.S. approach to China.

# Worryingly, both parties are increasingly latching onto a dangerously short-sighted worldview that presents China as the pivotal existential threat to U.S. prosperity and security, and counsels zero-sum competition as the primary response.

# The true global challenges of today -- like economic inequality and lack of opportunity, climate change, nuclear proliferation, pandemics, financial crises, supply chain disruption and ethnonationalism -- will require joint, non-military solutions with China and other countries.

# Instead, the level of demonization and outdated Cold War thinking driving Washington, threatens to fuel destabilizing arms-racing and risks escalation towards a predictably devastating conflict.

# President Biden and Congress should focus on innovation, cooperation and multilateral approaches, not hostility and confrontation, to address shared challenges and areas of concern.

# If the U.S. government doesn't change course quickly, this dangerous bipartisan push for a new Cold War with China risks empowering hardliners in both countries, fueling more violence against Asian American and Pacific Islander communities, and failing to confront the truly existential-shared threats we face this century." (Statement is found in Peace Action of Michigan "Flash!", SUMMER 2021).

President Biden's Battle: Guns or Butter?

President Joe Biden's big spending on the American Jobs Plan offers hope for decent jobs improving roads, bridges, and broadband. His American Families Plan offers hope for investments in childcare and community college, and lowering taxes with the Child Tax Credit. Child poverty could be cut by 50%.

But big spending on "butter" can be stymied by overspending on "guns." In the 1960's battle between guns (Vietnam) and butter (The Great Society), well-intended programs of social uplift were squeezed by a lack of financial outlays.

President Lyndon Johnson got the legislation for "The Great Society" adopted, However, LBJ undermined it by spending American blood and taxes fighting the U.S. war in Vietnam. Will Joe Biden avoid a similar failure? He wants to "Build Back Better," but will he get the resources without reducing Pentagon overspending?  

Although Biden has extended the New START cap on nuclear weapons with Russia, he is going ahead with the rising costs associated with upgrading all the U.S. nuclear armaments. Is that affordable or safe? Can the U.S. afford the financial drain and blowback from over 800 military bases in dozens of countries around the world?

Biden continues to transfer more military assets to the South China Sea and near to Taiwan. Will some variant of a Tonkin Gulf Incident sink his domestic programs?

Given his domestic priorities for building back better, why is Biden proposing an increase in the Defense Budget over President Trump? Does he really think Americans can afford both "guns and butter?"  

President Dwight Eisenhower offered a cautionary vision: "There is no way in which a country can satisfy the craving for absolute security, but it can bankrupt itself morally and economically in attempting to reach that illusory goal through arms alone." (Source: Same as above).

A Bunch of Lies

The Washington Post published "The Afghanistan Papers" based on confidential documents written by the Pentagon. Those papers reveal the real results of war in Afghanistan. 

U.S. officials failed to develop a clear strategy for war in Afghanistan. They admitted to fueling corruption by flooding the country with money and then turning a blind eye. They confessed that almost everything they did to end opium farming in Afghanistan backfired. 

U.S. officials failed to tell the truth about the progress of the war in Afghanistan. One U.S. veteran wrote, "Every data point was altered to present the best picture possible. Truth was rarely welcome."

Will Congress learn from the tragic mistakes? Will Congress conduct hearings to hear from those who lied to us? (Source: Found in Peace Action of Michigan "Flash!", Winter-January 2020).

Peace on Korean Peninsula

 Excerpts from "Peace on the Korean Peninsula Needs to Be a Priority," by Kevin Martin [President of Peace Action], published by "Peace Voice", on July 13, 2021.

"President Joe Biden deserves credit for successfully re-engaging in international diplomacy. Extending the New START nuclear arms control agreement with Russia, rejoining the Paris Climate Accord, World  Health Organization and UN Human Rights Council, and especially (hopefully soon) getting the US back into the Iran anti-nuclear deal are significant achievements. Policy experts, grassroots organizations and elected officials advocated these moves, and they advance US and global peace and security.

However, an issue that should be a high priority, negotiations for a peace agreement on the Korean Peninsula, is missing from the list. It should be and if the Administration won't take it up, Congress and concerned individuals should provide a strong nudge."

"A treaty to officially end the Korean War -- which was never formally ended, as the 1953 Armistice was  meant to be temporary -- seems out of reach due to the partisan nature of the US Senate, a treaties require a two-thirds majority for ratification. However, a peace agreement, possibly requiring only simple majority support of both Houses of the US Congress, could go a long way to ease tensions, including reducing the North's desire to retain its nuclear weapons indefinitely.

Immediate denuclearization by North Korea is unrealistic, but a peace agreement that reduces conventional forces and weapons on the Peninsula would be a critical first step toward ultimate nuclear disarmament on the Peninsula and in the region.

Another benefit to US and global security could be cooperation with China in regional security matters. The US national security establishment seems hell-bent on the preposterously bad idea of a dangerous, unnecessary and exorbitant Cold War with China, and multilateral diplomacy around Korea, whether    as a first or second step, would be a good start to easing US-China tensions.

ADDENDUMS:

* According to the Washington Post, the number of children hospitalized with COVID-19 hit a record high of 1,900 on Saturday, August 14.

*Based again on a Washington Post report, there are now 130 Secret Service officers either now infested or in quarantine because of exposure to the coronavirus.

*Dallas County Judge Clay Jenkins revealed that in "Dallas [Texas] we have zero ICU beds left for children."

Back from the Brink

 The United States president has the legal power to order a nuclear missile attack without consulting Congress or other government officials, regardless of whether the United States is attacked. As soon as one country fires nuclear bombs, the entire conflict could escalate into a devastating nuclear war. No matter where on earth it happens, the use of nuclear bombs threatens American security.

The 2013Nuclear Famine Report from The Physicians for Social Responsibility identifies the catastrophic climate effects after a limited regional nuclear war between India and Pakistan.

'Back from the Brink' is a campaign to pull the U.S. back from beginning a catastrophic nuclear war, and calls upon our federal officials to endorse the following:

1. Renounce the option of using nuclear weapons first

A policy that the U.S. would initiate a nuclear war (first use) increases the fears of a surprise attack, puts pressure on other nuclear-armed countries to keep their nuclear arsenals on high alert, and increases the risk of unintended nuclear war. We can raise awareness and eventually pass legislation to make us safer.

2. End the sole unchecked authority of any U.S. president to launch a nuclear attack

Since only Congress can adopt a declaration of war, any U.S. president should not have the authority to launch nuclear weapons.

3. Take nuclear weapons off hair-trigger alert

Political miscalculations and human mistakes should not trigger an immediate launching of nuclear weapons. This will lower the risk of starting a nuclear conflagration. The bottom line is this would increase U.S. security.

4. Cancel the plan to replace its entire nuclear arsenal with enhanced weapons.

The U.S. is planning to spend about 1.7 trillion dollars to build new nuclear bombs and missiles to replace the old ones over the next thirty years. That amount is unimaginable. It is about $5,000 for every man, woman, and child in America.

5. Actively pursue a verifiable agreement among nuclear-armed states to eliminate their nuclear arsenals, as we are obligated under Article VI of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT).

Since the end of the Cold War, both Republican and Democratic administrations have worked to reduce the number of nuclear weapons. Republican presidents have actually gotten rid of more nuclear weapons than have Democrats.

What Americans Want

Most  Americans actually reject former-President Trump's 'America First' policy, reports veteran Peace Action member Dr. Lawrence S. Wittner in an April 25, 2019 article in "Foreign Policy in Focus."

Large majorities of Americans support arms control, curbs on military spending, and support international institutions. In the aftermath of Trump's withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal, 'modernization' of our nuclear arsenal, and withdrawal from the International Nuclear Forces (INF) agreement, most Americans want the United States and Russia to come to an agreement to limit nuclear arms.

What Can We Cut?

Lindsay Koshgarian, director of the Institute for Policy Studies' National Priorities, has identified cuts of $300 billion annually from Pentagon spending.

* We can stop using supplemental monies for funding wars, which are unwinnable and not making us safer, for example, in Afghanistan and Iraq. Savings: $14 billion a year.

* We can close half or more of our 800+ overseas military bases in more than 90 countries. Most of these bases are in non-combat or non-crisis zones. Savings: $90 billion.

* We can cut the Obama- and Trump-supported $1.7 trillion program to "modernize," and upgrade our nation's nuclear weapons and delivery systems. A total nuclear weapons ban could save $43 billion a year.

* Over its lifetime, the F-35 jet fighter, which can be equipped with nuclear bombs, is estimated to cost $1.5 trillion -- more than the G.D.P. of Australia:

     - A 2019 government report lists 900 performance deficiencies, including a dangerous night-vision           defect in the high-tech pilot's helmet, which costs $400,000 -- four times more than a typical                   fighter helmet like on the head of a F-16 pilot.

    - Proposed cuts to production and operation of the F-35 will save a  total of $14.7 billion -- more              than  the military budget of Iran.

Cutting $300 billion from the Pentagon budget would bring it down to about $400 billion per year, and that would keep it aligned with Pentagon spending during much of the 1990s. A Pentagon budget of $400 billion would still leave us with a military budget larger that the military budgets of Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea combined.

Drug Overdoses, ICBMs as "Nuclear Sponges," and Military Might as National Religion

 I. Drug Overdoses By the Numbers

93K - Estimated number of Americans who died of  drug overdoses in 2020, a 30 percent increase over 2019.

4x - Number of times more likely a Black man in Missouri is to die of a drug overdose than a white person.

70% - Approximate increase in drug overdose deaths in 2020 among Black men in Massachusetts.

50x - Number of times more potent the prescription painkiller fentanyl is than heroin. 

$4.5B - Minimum amount that Purdue Pharma, the manufacturer of OxyContin, is required to pay out in the most recently settled cases of the opioid crisis.

8 - Number of states that allow the sale of naloxone, a medication of OxyContin, a medication that reverses opioid overdoses, without a prescription. (Source: Gloria Oladipo, The Nation, July 2021).

II. ICBMs as "Nuclear Sponge" in Five States

Most people probably have not heard the term "nuclear sponge" before. It refers to Nebraska, Wyoming, Colorado, Montana, and North Dakota, where U.S. land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) sit in underground silos, serving as a "sponge" for nuclear attacks by Russia, China or another adversary armed with nuclear weapons. "The idea is [that] the missiles in these states would be targeted, since the adversary knows exactly where they are, and would seek to destroy them before they could be launched in a nuclear war.

Largely forgotten but not gone, 400 ICBMs have been in their silos since 1959, despite the Cold War having ended nearly 30 years ago. Now comes the Strangelovian plan to replace these missiles with new ones, in a program dubbed the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent (GNSD), or more properly, the Money Pit Missile.

The projected cost of our tax dollars for these new missies is $264 billion, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. The overall cost of upgrading the entire US nuclear weapons complex is projected by the CBO at $1.7 trillion over 30 years. Congress and three successive administrations, including one seem unconcerned about the opportunity cost of this folly. 

Surely, were there a national referendum on priorities, people would choose addressing climate chaos and pandemics, remedying racial and economic inequality, and creating green jobs by sustainably rebuilding the country's crumbling infrastructure, over new nuclear weapons. Said weapons are supposedly only for deterrence, designed never to be used, to rust in peace." (Paul Olson and Kevin Martin, "Midlands Voices: Nebraska a 'nuclear sponge'? Let's move away from this Cold War thinking," 'Omaha World-Herald,' no date supplied).

III. Military Might is Our National Religion

# "We believe in wars. From Korea to Vietnam, Afghanistan to Iraq, the Cold War on Terror, and so many military interventions, in between, including Grenada, Panama, and Somalia, Americans are always fighting somewhere.

#We believe in weaponry, the more expensive the better. The under-performing F-35 stealth fighter may cost $1.45 trillion over its lifetime. An updated nuclear triad... may cost [a minimum of $1.7 trillion]. New (and malfunctioning) aircraft carriers cost us more than $10 billion each ... despite a  history of  their redundancy, ridiculously high price, regular cost overruns and mediocre performance. Meanwhile, Americans squabble over a few hundred million dollars for the arts and humanities.

#We believe in weapons of mass destruction. ... We work overtime to ensure 'infidels' and 'atheists' (the Iranians and North Koreans, etc.) don't get them. Historically, no country has devoted more research or money to deadly nuclear, biological, and chemical weaponry than the United States."

# "We believe military spending brings wealth and jobs galore even when it measurably doesn't. Military production is both increasingly automated and increasingly outsourced, leading to far fewer good-paying American jobs compared to spending on education, infrastructure repairs of and improvements in roads, bridges, levees, and the like..."

#"A more likely ending (than apocalyptic worldwide destruction) is a slow-motion collapse of American's imperial empire and the church of the military that goes with it, the resulting chaos possibly leading to a Second Coming, not of Christ, but of medieval levels of meanness and misery." (Source: An edited account of William Astore, a retired lieutenant colonel (USAF). Astore's writing originally appeared in TomDispatch.com, 8/13/19.)