Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

[The Concord Monitor published this on May 8, 2016.]

News that President Barack Obama is considering a trip to Hiroshima brought back memories of meeting him on his first trip to Concord, early in his presidential campaign.  Given a heads-up that the Illinois Senator was headed for the Eagle Square Deli, colleagues and I went there in time to order lunch, find a table, and wait for his still small entourage.

Obama worked the room, escorted by Ann McLane Kuster, then a local attorney, now our Representative in Congress.  When he reached our table I asked the Senator a critical question about “free trade” agreements, but that’s a story for another day.

As Kuster was trying to get him to the next table, Erin Placey, my 24-year old colleague, grabbed Obama’s hand for a shake.  Once she had his attention, Erin told Obama that she had visited Hiroshima the previous summer.

Erin had been a delegate to the World Conference against A & H Bombs, an annual gathering in Hiroshima and Nagasaki on the anniversaries of the atomic bombings of the two Japanese cities.  There, she met peace activists from all over the world, including several “Hibakusha,” as the survivors of the atomic blasts are known in Japan.  The Hibakusha, dwindling in numbers as the years pass, are the moral leaders of a movement that demands nuclear weapons must never be used again and must be abolished.

For Erin, who grew up in southern Maine with family members employed at the local nuclear submarine base, the trip had a profound effect on her view of nuclear weapons.  On that day in early 2007, she wanted to know if Obama would pursue the abolition of nuclear weapons should he become president.

Obama responded quickly that he had dedicated considerable attention to halting nuclear proliferation, but Erin was not satisfied.

“Under Article 6 of the Non Proliferation Treaty,” she said in no uncertain terms, “we are obligated to work for the elimination of all nuclear weapons.” 

The former law professor was a bit taken aback by Erin’s directness and the specificity of her statement.   He let on that he needed to look into it more deeply.

Look into it he did. 

Six months after meeting Erin Placey in Concord, Barack Obama delivered a speech at DePaul University where he pledged, “Here’s what I’ll say as president: America seeks a world in which there are no nuclear weapons.”  After taking office as president he took his nuclear-free vision to the world stage.  In a much-heralded speech in Prague, Obama told the world, “as the only nuclear power to have used a nuclear weapon, the United States has a moral responsibility to act. We cannot succeed in this endeavor alone, but we can lead it, we can start it.  So today, I state clearly and with conviction America’s commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons.”

Despite a promising start, the president has not lived up to his stated commitment.  He did complete negotiations and won ratification of the New START Treaty, which achieved modest reductions in U.S. and Russian nuclear weapons.  He initiated a series of “nuclear security” summits aimed at lessening nuclear dangers.  And against serious political odds he reached a deal with Iran that can prevent another country from joining the nuclear “club.” 

But instead of continuing on the path toward “a world without nuclear weapons,” his administration is now backing a trillion dollar plan for an entirely new generation of nuclear warheads, along with new bombers, submarines, and missiles that could deliver them to targets across the globe.  “When Obama stopped pushing his nuclear policies in 2011 (save for Iran), the nuclear-industrial complex took over,” Joseph Cirincione of the Ploughshares Fund commented in a recent article.

Speaking recently at MIT, former Secretary of Defense William Perry said, “The danger of a nuclear catastrophe is higher today than at any time during the Cold War.”

“It may not be too late,” Cirincione says.  “Before a new arms race begins in earnest, Obama could move to delay or cancel some of the new weapons, notably the new nuclear cruise missile and the new ICBM, as former Secretary of Defense Bill Perry urges. There is no shortage of other recommendations. But he will have to be bold, as bold has he was at the beginning of his presidency.”

And that brings us back to Erin Placey.

Erin wants Obama to have an experience like the one she had in Hiroshima ten years ago.  “Don’t just visit ground zero,” she wants to tell him.  “Spend time with the people. Make time to meet publicly and privately with the A-bomb survivors, the Hibakusha.  Allow your soul to be moved by their life-long unwavering commitment to ensuring that this level of human atrocity never happens again.”

“Allow your resolve to be strengthened by theirs and use your remaining time in office to get us back on the path toward a nuclear free world,” Erin advises. 

Read Full Post »

P5050143 

The movement of fast-food workers demanding wages of at least $15 an hour made a spirited visit to Concord, New Hampshire this afternoon.

About 35 workers and allies chanted and marched down Loudon Road from HazenP5050187 Drive to East Side Drive and back again on the other side.  The route took us past Dunkin Donuts, McDonalds, KFC, Burger King, Wendy’s, and other establishments that currently depend on low-wage workers. 

The Granite State actually abolished its minimum wage in 2011, which means that the base pay for most workers is $7.25 an hour, the federal minimum.  The base pay for tipped workers is even less.  Attempts every year since then to restore the minimum wage and raise it have been unsuccessful, largely due to effective lobbying by trade associations of businesses that pay low wages.

P5050146

“You can’t survive on $7.25.  Live free or die!” was one of the chants.

Others included “Hey McDonalds, you can’t hide, we can see your greedy side.”  P5050127(The names of other businesses can be substituted.) 

The marchers went inside at KFC, where they chanted for several minutes before leaving voluntarily.  At McDonalds we were locked out.  Several members of the Concord Police Department met up with us at Burger King, where they explained the rules regarding trespass and disorderly conduct to labor organizers who no doubt were already familiar with the law.   

Today’s demonstration was organized by SEIU Local 1984, the Granite State

P5050142 (2) 

Organizing Project, and the United Valley Interfaith Project. 

GSOP and UVIP have been holding monthly “Fight for $15” protests in Concord, Manchester, Nashua,P5050098 and West Lebanon, but typically with smaller groups and a less confrontational approach.  The monthly actions generally take place on the 15th of the month.   

For more information, contact

GSOP at 603-668-8250 or http://granitestateorganizing.org/

UVIP at 603-443-3682 or

http://www.unitedvalleyinterfaithproject.org

More photos:

 

P5050159

 P5050094

 

  P5050162

P5050169

Read Full Post »

By Will Hopkins and Arnie Alpert

[Published in the NH Union Leader on April 7, 2016]

As US-Soviet relations heated to the boiling point during the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, Captain Vasili Arkhipov, second-in-command of a Soviet submarine, refused to authorize a nuclear missile launch when his ship was cut off from communications with Moscow and under fire from US depth charges. We have him to thank for avoidance of nuclear war.

Nuclear war was narrowly avoided again in 1980, when faulty US alarm systems signaled incoming Soviet missiles. The Pentagon later put the blame on a failed computer chip. In 1983, Soviet satellites mistook unusual sunlight glinting off clouds as incoming missile fire, and once more a cool-headed commander narrowly stopped nuclear exchange. In 1995, a Norwegian scientific rocket was mistaken for a US nuclear missile, and again Russian leaders were able to recognize a false alarm before it was too late.

We have been lucky, but at some point, if we don’t change course and if the US and Russia keep our missiles on high alert status, our luck is liable to run out.

Yet instead of pursuing negotiations with the Russians and other nuclear powers for worldwide abolition of nuclear weapons, or taking steps to de-alert our existing missiles, the US is planning a total overhaul of its nuclear weapons program, including new generations of nuclear warheads, bombers, land-based missiles, air-launched missiles and submarines.

The projected price tag? About $1 trillion over the next thirty years!

If the United States and Russia exchanged 1000 nuclear warheads (less than 1/12 of our combined arsenals), the resulting impact on the climate would render the planet uninhabitable. Even an exchange of 50 to 100 nuclear warheads would result in global famine capable of killing off one third of humanity.

From rising wealth inequality and poverty, to ISIS and Al Qaeda, and to our crumbling infrastructure, nuclear weapons do nothing to protect us from the real threats we face. Spending a trillion dollars for more or “better” ones makes us less safe and diverts precious funds from what we need. It also defies our obligations under the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty and creates tremendous obstacles to any efforts aimed at preventing new countries from acquiring their own weapons of mass destruction.

You pick: veterans’ health care, reducing the cost of higher education, repairing roads and bridges, assuring that no one is poisoned by our public water supplies, there are multiple better places to invest our public resources.

On April 18, Tax Day 2016, please join us in calling on our elected leadership to oppose the trillion dollar nuclear weapons plan, push for deep cuts and de-alerting of our nuclear stockpile, and for putting our tax dollars to work in ways that will make us more secure.

Will Hopkins is Executive Director of NH Peace Action and an Iraq War veteran. Arnie Alpert is Co-Director of the American Friends Service Committee’s New Hampshire Program.

Read Full Post »

20160402_150123

William Perry with Dr. Ira Helfand

The initial down payments toward the production of an entirely new generation of missiles, submarines and bombers designed to deliver a new generation of nuclear warheads are already in the federal budget. The ultimate pricetag would be in the vicinity of a trillion dollars if all the weapons on the Pentagon’s shopping list are produced. But it’s not too late to stop the nuclear assembly lines and get back to the business of nuclear abolition. That was the emphasis of a conference on “Reducing the Dangers of Nuclear War” held April 2 at MIT in Cambridge

“Once you start bending metal, it’s almost impossible to stop,” Joe Cirincione said at one of the workshops. Cirincione, a former staff member of the House Armed Services Committee who now heads the pro-disarmament Ploughshares Fund, said that means we have two to three years to stop the new weapons systems. “This is our moment,” he said.

The conference brought together an impressive array of activists and scholars, plus William Perry, the former Secretary of Defense who has joined the call for nuclear weapons abolition. “The danger of a nuclear catastrophe is higher today than at any time during the Cold War,” he warned. Perry is particularly alarmed by the proposal for a new cruise missile, the nuclear armed version of which would be indistinguishable from one carrying non-nuclear explosives until after it detonates. Eight thousand American and Russian nuclear weapons were dismantled while he was at the helm at the Pentagon, he said, but “we’re going backwards today.”

Given the stakes, “backwards” is an understatement. As Dr. Ira Helfand of Physicians for Social Responsibility reminded the conference attenders, detonation of a nuclear bomb over a major city would not only kill huge numbers of people in an instant, but by destroying hospitals and the doctors and nurses who work there, the ability to respond to burns and other injuries would be crippled. And as Alan Robock, a professor of environmental science from Rutgers stressed, detonation of a relatively small share of the world’s nuclear arsenal could throw so much smoke into the upper atmosphere that it could bring on a global cooling process so severe that food production would fall worldwide by 20 to 40% for a 5-year period.

20160402_162939-1-1

Mary Popeo of Global Zero with Joe Cirincione

“Only nuclear disarmament will prevent catastrophe,” he said.

It’s not just the number of nuclear weapons that poses a danger, it’s also their design. One of the features of the warheads now being pursued by the US nuclear weapons labs and the corporations that run them (on a for-profit basis) is increased accuracy. Aron Bernstein, an MIT emeritus professor of physics, said “when we make the missiles more accurate, we make them more likely to be perceived as a first strike weapon.” They might even be more likely to actually be intended for first strike or battlefield use, something which should not even be contemplated but which becomes an option for military strategists once they enter the arsenal.

Nuclear weapons have proven to be no use against terrorists or the regimes with which the USA has been in conflict in recent years. They certainly make no contribution to efforts to fight climate change, mass migration, growing inequality, and other dilemmas that ought to be top priorities. Whether “deterrence” even works is debatable. But nuclear weapons have proven useful to US leaders time and time again, said Joseph Gerson of the AFSC, who has documented the ways in which nuclear threats have backed up foreign policy objectives starting with their use in Japan 70 years ago. And they are certainly useful to the corporations that stand to get the contracts for new missiles, subs, and bombers.

That’s why the conference wasn’t just about spreading the alarm, it also spread news about a variety of ways to challenge the nuclear-industrial-complex. For a prime example, Cambridge’s Mayor Denise Simmons used the occasion to announce her city’s new policy of divesting city funds from corporations that build nuclear weapons. In this, her administration has the aid of a new web-based tool from MIT’s Future of Life Institute. The Responsible Investing Made Easy tool lists companies that produce nuclear weapons, cluster bombs, and landmines. It also gives grades to mutual funds which claim to be socially responsible. (Spoiler Alert: some of the funds have investments in other financial firms that invest in weapons makers.) The Netherlands-based Don’t Bank on the Bomb project has another set of useful lists.

Short of nuclear abolition there are steps, such as taking missiles off high alert status, which can reduce nuclear dangers. Ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and further nuclear reductions are important steps in the right direction. But for any of these steps to take place, the movement against nuclear weapons needs to grow. Stay in touch with AFSC and your local Peace Action chapter to get involved.

Read Full Post »

I wrote this one for AFSC’s “Acting in Faith” blog.

Next time you hear the National Rifle Association referred to as a “gun owners” group, ask yourself if the news would have a different impact if the NRA were called a “gun sellers” group.  Or next time you read a story in which the NRA is called a “gun rights” group or “second amendment defenders,” consider what the impact would be if it were labeled a “lobby for firearms manufacturers.”  The fact that makers and peddlers of firearms are big dollar supporters of the NRA ought to be part of the story.

According to the Violence Policy Center’s 2013 report, Blood Money II: How Gun Industry Dollars Fund the NRA, the NRA’s “Corporate Partners Program” generates between $19.3 million and $60.2 million a year for the organization.  Included in the figure, the report says, are eight gun industry ‘corporate partners’ who have donate a million dollars or more a year.

“The NRA’s so-called ‘corporate partners’ in the gun industry are the nation’s top-selling manufacturers of firearms and accessories. One of the companies that has donated a million dollars or more to the NRA is Remington Outdoor Company (formerly Freedom Group), manufacturer of the Bushmaster assault rifle used at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut,” according to VPC.

The big donors, in the million-dollar-plus category, are Midway USA, Beretta, Brownells, Freedom Group, Pierce Bullet Seal Target Systems, Springfield Armory, Smith & Wesson, and Strum Ruger.  Several firearm retailers (Cabella’s, Davidson’s, and Greg Martin Auctions) are in the $250,000 to $500,000 range.

“They are our voice” was how Smith & Wesson’s CEO, James Debney, put it in an NRA video. 

“In its early days, the National Rifle Association was a grassroots social club that prided itself on independence from corporate influence,” writes Walter Hickey in Business Insider.  Those days are gone.

“The bulk of the group’s money now comes in the form of contributions, grants, royalty income, and advertising, much of it originating from gun industry sources,” he writes, and adds, “The NRA also made $20.9 million — about 10 percent of its revenue — from selling advertising to industry companies marketing products in its many publications in 2010, according to the IRS Form 990.”

“Some companies donate portions of sales directly to the NRA,” Jarret Murphy reported several years ago on Alternet.  “Crimson Trace, which makes laser sights, donates 10 percent of each sale to the NRA. Taurus buys an NRA membership for everyone who buys one of their guns. Sturm Ruger gives $1 to the NRA for each gun sold, which amounts to millions. The NRA’s revenues are intrinsically linked to the success of the gun business.”

That the NRA’s own website is notably lacking in details about the organization’s finances and governance does make it hard to understand the powerful organization’s inner workings. CNN Money says the organization’s revenue grew to $350 million in the year after the Sandy Hook mass killings, with about half coming from the members.

The NRA still provides marksmanship training and sponsors educational programs, but its reputation is based on its political role, including more than $3 million a year in federal lobbying expenses and nearly $30 million in election-related projects during the last campaign cycle.  According to the Center for Responsive Politics, “the NRA’s influence is felt not only through campaign contributions, but through millions of dollars in off-the-books spending on issue ads.”   Its lobbying targets include members of Congress, but also the Department of the Interior, the Department of Agriculture, and the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau.

The Center for Public Integrity puts it this way:  “The power of the gun lobby is rooted in multiple factors, among them the pure passion and single-mindedness of many gun owners, the NRA’s demonstrated ability to motivate its most fervent members to swarm their elected representatives, and the lobby’s ability to get out the vote on election day. But there’s little doubt that money, the political power it represents, and the fear of that power and money, which the NRA deftly exploits, have a lot to do with the group’s ability to repeatedly control the national debate about guns.”

The NRA is perhaps the key place where the culture of fear and the money-drenched political system have their closest correlation.  Fear of crime, which often carries a racial tinge.  Fear of immigrants, likewise.  Fear of government officials taking or outlawing guns.  Stoke those fears, and too many Americans rush to the local or online arms market for more guns and send money to the NRA.  The manufacturers and peddlers of firearms add to the NRA’s cache of cash. The NRA uses its millions to stoke more fear and the cycle goes on.

And that’s what I’m afraid of.

Read Full Post »

This was first published yesterday by TruthOut, reprinted by permission.  For more perspective on the undue influence of the military industrial complex, visit Governing Under the Influence.

Wars and persecution have driven the number of refugees to record-breaking highs worldwide, the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees reported in June 2015.

Currently 59.5 million people – nearly 1 percent of the world’s population – are refugees, asylum seekers or internally displaced. Half of them are children.

This crisis has everyone talking about the proper response, but very few are talking about who is profiting from this tragic situation.

The reality is that wars, including the ongoing conflicts in the Middle East, fuel migration and extremism. Wars also fuel arms industry profits, which boost the industry’s capacity to influence public policy and generate more sales. For example, the US Air Force has already fired so many (more than 20,000) missiles and bombs at ISIS positions that it is on the verge of running out, USA Lockheed_Martin_Hellfire_IIToday reported on December 3, 2015. That has to be good news for Lockheed Martin, which makes the Hellfire missile.

Geopolitical tensions are causing nations worldwide to ramp up their defense capabilities, according to the investment research website Zacks.com. “Increasing threats … have pushed up demand for US weapons,” according to a post on the site. “This is in turn benefiting the US defense manufacturers.”

Military-industrial-complex executives have assured the titans of global finance that more war means more markets for their products. Lockheed Martin chief financial officer Bruce Tanner told a Credit Suisse conference that war in the Middle East would give his firm “an intangible lift,” and enhanced demand for F-22s and the new F-35 jets. At the same meeting, The Intercept reported, Oshkosh president Wilson Jones asserted his confidence that a growing ISIS threat will create more demand for the company’s armored vehicles.

Meanwhile, Gulf states are already supplying weapons manufactured in the United States to rebels in Syria, according to the Daily Mail, which quoted an executive from a US-based weapons firm as saying that the war in Syria is “a huge growth area for us.”

It is no coincidence that stock values in such companies as Raytheon, General Dynamics, Booz Allen, Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman all rose steeply the day after the Paris attacks, according to The Intercept’s analysis.

International arms sales are trending upward, with the United States holding onto its position as the world leader. “The volume of transfers of major weapons in 2010-14 was 16 percent higher than in 2005-2009,” reports the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. For the United States, arms sales were up 23 percent. “More than any other supplier, the USA delivered major weapons to at least 94 recipients in 2010-14,” SIPRI’s research found. The arms were spread throughout the world, but the Middle East received one-third of US weapons exports.

Arms sold to US allies such as Iraq and Saudi Arabia don’t stay in one place. “[ISIS] fighters are using arms, mainly looted from Iraqi military stocks, which were manufactured and designed in more than two dozen countries, including Russia, China, the USA and EU states,” according to Amnesty International. “The quantity and range of [ISIS] stocks of arms and ammunition ultimately reflect decades of irresponsible arms transfers to Iraq and multiple failures by the US-led occupation administration to manage arms deliveries and stocks securely, as well as endemic corruption in Iraq itself,” Amnesty said in a new report, “Taking Stock: Arming Islamic State.”

Conflict Armament Research, a London-based group which analyzed the ISIS arsenal, found that “the Islamic State’s relatively newly-formed force has had little difficulty tapping into the huge pool of armaments fueling the conflicts in Iraq and Syria, supplied not only by the world’s big powers but also by up-and-coming exporters such as Sudan,” according to a summary from the Center for Public Integrity. One of the ammunition suppliers is a factory in Lake City, Missouri, run by Alliant Techsystems, which spent $1.35 million on lobbyists in 2014.

The cycle goes on. The military-industrial complex uses its lobbying clout and PACWe_Pay_For_M-I-C contributions to win contracts for weapons production. Weapons used overseas drive people from their homes and create more enemies. Enemies capture weapons and turn them against US targets. Desperate migrants seeking safety provoke heightened waves of xenophobia, leading to more violence at home, especially against immigrants. More fear and more violence create more markets for weapons makers. More sales provide more funds to spend on lobbyists, election campaigns and pro-war think tanks.

We can break this cycle by ending wars, welcoming refugees and interrupting the unwarranted influence of those who profit from violence. President Dwight D. Eisenhower had it right 54 years ago when he warned about the “acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex.”

“Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together,” Eisenhower emphasized. It is long past time to answer his plea.

Copyright, Truthout.

 

Read Full Post »

This article was first published in the Concord Monitor on November 27, 2016.

$1 trillion for nuclear weapons

The 2016 National Defense Authorization Act, passed by Congress and recently signed by President Obama, includes in its 1,320 pages plans for an entire new generation of U.S. nuclear weapons. It’s a big – and expensive – step in the wrong direction.

The NDAA establishes policy and spending guidelines for actual appropriations. It calls explicitly for the United States to redesign our nuclear weapons and “modernize or replace” the submarines, missiles, and bombers designed to deliver them to targets all over the world. The price tag for the whole package is estimated to be in the vicinity of $1 trillion dollars over 3 decades.

How such commitments get made, at a time when our president received the Nobel Peace Prize because he pledged to work for a world free of nuclear weapons, shows that what a previous President, Dwight Eisenhower, called the “military industrial complex” is as powerful as ever.

Take the Long Range Strike Bomber as an example. The Air Force has just awarded a $21 billion contract to Northrop Grumman to build 21 of nuclear-capable plane. According to the Center for Public Integrity, “Lobbyists and officials at Northrop Grumman have spent years greasing the wheels on Capitol Hill to ensure congressional support for the program and for the firm’s central role in it.”

Since 2010, individuals associated with the Virginia-based corporation have contributed $4.6 million to 224 members of Congress who sit on key committees, such as Armed Services and Appropriations. The company has laid out another $85 million for a troop of 100 lobbyists, among them five former members of Congress.

Another program would design and build a new submarine, generally known as the “Ohio-class replacement,” or SSBN(x). The Navy wants 12 of them, at a cost estimated at $100 billion. Each sub will be able to launch 16 missiles, each missile with up to 8 independently targetable nuclear warheads, each warhead ranging from 100 kilotons (or nearly 8 times the size of the bomb that demolished Hiroshima) to 475 kilotons (more than 36 times the size of the Hiroshima bomb).

In other words, we are talking about a range of 12,000 to 55,000 Hiroshimas.

Unsure where they would get the money for this nuclear overkill capacity, Navy officials hatched an idea called the “National Sea-Based Deterrence Fund,” a budget gimmick which enables the Defense Department to shift money from other accounts into the submarine construction budget. The plan had an ally in a key position to help.

“The Navy’s effort to find non-Navy offsets to pay for its new ballistic missile submarines was thought a hopeless cause when it began last year, Breaking Defense reported. “But with the help of House Armed Services Committee seapower subcommittee chairman Randy Forbes (R-VA), the Navy has so effectively lobbied Congress that the plan received a strong vote of support earlier this year on the House floor and made it through conference unscathed.” Breaking Defense called the funding mechanism “a naked budget grab at the expense of sister services.”

Congressman Forbes’ district, in southeastern Virginia, sits next to the Norfolk Naval Station, the Norfolk Naval Shipyard, and Huntington Ingalls’ shipyard in Newport News. OpenSecrets.org lists “Miscellaneous Defense” and “Defense Aerospace” as the two business sectors most devoted to his election campaigns. Among Forbes’ most faithful donors over his 13-year Congressional career are shipbuilders Huntington Ingalls and General Dynamics, as well as Lockheed Martin, which builds the Trident missiles (at a cost of $37 million each). Other Forbes backers include Leidos, Honeywell, Northrup Grumman, and BAE.

In addition to the new bomber and new submarines, the NDAA also includes funds for new missiles and “modernized” nuclear warheads to be built by companies including Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and others, all with PACs and teams of lobbyists working hard to win access to the taxpayers’ money.

Eisenhower Warned Us

“In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex,” President Eisenhower warned in his farewell speech in 1961. He could not have been more prophetic when he added, “The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.”

There is no presidential power more awesome than authority over the nation’s arsenal of nuclear weapons. For the chief executive, there is no responsibility greater than the need to prevent global nuclear holocaust. Yet the topic rarely comes up on the presidential campaign trail.

That can change if voters and reporters pay heed. Candidates for president should be asked how they will make sure the military industrial complex does not have unwarranted influence over our foreign and military policy. As Eisenhower said, “Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.”

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 93 other followers