by Alex Emmons
The Intercept
The Obama administration has historically insisted that its massive $1 trillion nuclear weapons modernization program does not represent a return to Cold War-era nuclear rivalry between Russia and the United States.
The hugely expensive undertaking, which calls for a slew of new cruise missiles, ICBMs, nuclear submarines, and long-range bombers over the next three decades, has been widely panned by critics as “wasteful,” “unsustainable,” “unaffordable,” and “a fantasy.”
The administration has pointed to aging missile silos, 1950s-era bombers, and other outdated technology to justify the spending, describing the steps as intended to maintain present capabilities going forward — not bulking up to prepare for a future confrontation.
Last year, speaking to NATO allies, Defense Secretary Ashton Carter insisted that “the Cold War playbook … is not suitable for the 21st century.”
But President Obama’s defense budget request for 2017 includes language that makes it clear that nuclear “modernization” really is about Russia after all.
The budget request explicitly cites Russian aggression, saying, “We are countering Russia’s aggressive policies through investments in a broad range of capabilities … [including] our nuclear arsenal.”
In December, Brian McKeon, principal deputy undersecretary of defense for policy, testified before Congress: “We are investing in the technologies that are most relevant to Russia’s provocations … to both deter nuclear attacks and reassure our allies.”
The public acknowledgement that Russia is the impetus for U.S. modernization has critics concerned the Cold War-era superpowers are now engaged in a “modernization” arms race.
“Both Russia and the United States are now officially and publicly using the other side as a justification for nuclear weapons modernization programs,” said Hans Kristensen, director of the Nuclear Information Project, in a statement emailed to The Intercept.
Early in his presidency, Obama was an outspoken advocate of nuclear disarmament. In April 2009, he pledged his commitment “to achieving a nuclear free world,” together with former Russian President Dimitri Medvedev. Later that month, Obama delivered a celebrated speech in Prague, saying he sought “the security of a world without nuclear weapons.” And he negotiated a 2011 nuclear treaty with Russia, which required both countries to reduce their arsenals to 1,550 operational warheads each.
But according to Obama’s advisers, Russia’s invasion of Crimea halted his disarmament efforts. In a 2014 interview with the New York Times, Gary Samore, one of Obama’s top first-term nuclear advisers, said, “The most fundamental game changer is Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. That has made any measure to reduce the stockpile unilaterally politically impossible.”
Former officials have proposed ways of trimming the trillion-dollar budget. In December, former Defense Secretary William Perry called for the Pentagon not to replace its aging ICBMS, arguing that submarines and bombers were enough to deter nuclear threats.
Retired Gen. Eugene Habiger, the former head of U.S. Strategic Command, which overseas the Pentagon’s nuclear weapons, has argued that U.S. nuclear forces have little to no deterrent effect on Russia and China, and that the U.S. can safely reduce its active arsenal to 200-300 weapons.
Last year, in an effort to cut the costs of nuclear modernization, Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., and Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., introduced a bill that would reduce the number of planned missile-bearing submarines from 14 to eight. The bill, which would save an estimated $4 billion per submarine, was co-sponsored by Sen. Bernie Sanders, the Vermont Democrat who is now running for president.
When asked about nuclear modernization at a campaign event in Des Moines, Iowa, Hillary Clinton responded, “Yeah, I’ve heard about that, I’m going to look into that, it doesn’t make sense to me.” Republican presidential candidate Marco Rubio, on the other hand, supported the expense, saying, “Deterrence is a friend to peace.”
Religious groups have also voiced opposition to nuclear modernization. “We were pleased with the president’s statement calling for a world without nuclear weapons,” said Mark Harrison, director of the Peace with Justice program at the United Methodist General Board of Church and Society.
David Culp, a legislative representative at the Quaker-affiliated Friends Committee on National Legislation, said, “The increased spending on U.S. nuclear weapons is already provoking similar responses from Russia and China. We are slowly slipping back into another Cold War, but this time on two fronts.”
Contracts are already being signed. In October, the Pentagon awarded Northrop Grumman the contract for the new long-range bomber. The total cost is secret, but expected to exceed $100 billion.
In other related news:
Western bankers are provoking Russian into starting WWIII
by Daniel Barker
Collapse News
Many have speculated about the possibility that the recent drop in oil prices was part of a ploy by Western bankers and governments to punish Vladimir Putin over his actions in Ukraine and challenges of NATO authority.
But there are some who see an even darker agenda. Is it possible that the West is deliberately pushing Russia into starting WWIII?
According to Dave Hodges of The Common Sense Show, it’s not just manipulated oil prices but also the cutting off of liquidity to Russian banks – two moves which he believes are designed to push Russia into a war with the West.
As frightening and reckless as that sounds, there seems to be solid evidence that this is indeed the case.
In a recent article, Hodges first compares the current situation to events leading up to WWII. He argues that Pearl Harbor was also the result of a deliberate plan:
This reminds me of the days before World War II in which the United States followed a doctrine called the eight point plan which was designed to provoke Japan into attacking America so Roosevelt could use this as the excuse to get involved in World War II.
That assertion may cause many to shake their heads in disbelief, but Hodges is not the first to suggest that this may have been the case. Many wars have been the result of manipulation behind the scenes — not just the ones of the 20th century.
Hodges goes on to ask his readership whether there has been any logical explanation for the recent drop in oil prices. A fair question in light of the fact that the price for crude oil has decreased by 50 percent in a matter of just a few months — and at a time of year when they normally spike.
It’s difficult to believe that, even if there were a “glut” of oil, as has been claimed, prices would drop so far and so fast.
And now there seems to be a concerted effort by Western bankers to ditch the ruble as a valid currency. As Hodges points out:
[B]rokers are now advising their clients that any existing Russian Ruble positions will be terminated without any further notice because of concerns related to the lack of Russian “capital controls“. At least that is the excuse that Western banks are using to run from the Ruble. The truth of the matter is that the West has declared war on Russia and its BRICS partners for undermining the Petrodollar.
