SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
space force
From Space Force to F-35s, Congress Given Specific Path to Cut Pentagon Budget by $80 Billion
"We have a choice: funnel countless trillions of dollars into weapons of war and Pentagon waste, or put our resources toward efforts that will actually make the world safer for all of us."
Mar 24, 2021
A coalition of more than 25 groups representing a range of political perspectives sent a letter Wednesday to key congressional committees with specific suggestions for slashing the Pentagon's budget by roughly $80 billion--savings that progressives say could be redirected from war to address pressing human needs.
"The American people know that we can no longer continue the failed strategy of pouring $1 million a minute into the Pentagon."
--Carley Towne, CodePink
"Well-researched analysis from experts across the ideological spectrum show[s] that the Pentagon can dramatically reduce its spending, meet today's national security challenges, and continue supporting our troops and their families," the letter (pdf) reads. "As a coalition of organizations representing diverse political views, we share a common goal of reducing wasteful spending at the Pentagon."
The letter identifies several ways that military spending could be slashed. Specific opportunities mentioned include eliminating the Space Force created under former President Donald Trump; reducing--rather than expanding--the nation's nuclear arsenal; and canceling the purchase of additional F-35 fighter jets, a weapons program the coalition called "the most expensive in the Pentagon's history while also having over 850 design flaws that haven't been resolved."
The coalition asked lawmakers to "consider the proposed savings listed below for the Pentagon's budget request for fiscal year 2022."
| Proposal | Proposed FY 2022 Savings |
| Cancel purchasing additional F-35s | $11.4 billion |
| Cancel the B-1 Bomber | $1.7 billion |
| Eliminate the Space Force | $0.5 billion - $2.5 billion |
| Reduce the size of the nuclear triad | $0.3 billion |
| Reduce service contracting by 15% | $28.5 billion |
| Defer the B-21 program | $2.9 billion |
| Eliminate the Overseas Contingency Operations account | $20 billion |
| Cancel the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent | $0.4 billion - $2.4 billion |
| Cancel the Ford class aircraft carrier | $12.5 billion per carrier |
According to the Institute for Policy Studies' National Priorities Project, the $730 billion that the U.S. spent on its military in 2019--more than the next 10 countries combined--accounted for more than 53% of the federal discretionary budget.
Data for Progress noted last summer that the 2020 military budget of $738 billion was "more than all federal spending on public health, education, housing, and renewable energy combined, while our society strains under the stresses of the ongoing coronavirus pandemic and growing economic crisis."
Yet, despite the efforts of congressional progressives to cut the Pentagon's budget by 10% and reinvest the savings in education, healthcare, and housing in poor communities, the overwhelming majority of Republicans as well as the bulk of Democrats in the House and Senate voted in favor of spending $740.5 billion on endless war and military activities in fiscal year 2021.
The bipartisan decision in December to override Trump's veto of the National Defense Authorization Act--which coincided with the GOP's refusal to hold a vote on sending $2,000 relief checks to most Americans--demonstrated the extent to which most U.S. lawmakers' priorities aren't aligned with those of the public.
According to recent polling, 56% of voters would support slashing military spending by 10% and redirecting that funding toward education, healthcare, housing, and fighting Covid-19. Only 27% would oppose doing so.
"The American people know that we can no longer continue the failed strategy of pouring $1 million a minute into the Pentagon--the only federal agency to never complete, let alone pass, an audit," Carley Towne, co-director of the anti-war group CodePink and coordinator of the Defund the Pentagon campaign, said in a statement.
Jodi Evans, co-founder of CodePink, said that "even a 10% cut to the Pentagon budget would end homelessness in the United States, which is why we're continuing to build a grassroots movement to defund the Pentagon and invest in human needs."
\u201cWe have a choice: funnel countless trillions of dollars into weapons of war and Pentagon waste, or put our resources toward efforts that will actually make the world safer for all of us.\n\nTwo letters sent to Congress this week make this stark choice clear. \u2b07\ufe0f (1/3)\u201d— Win Without War (@Win Without War) 1616605136
\u201cWhile the Pentagon fritters away their near-limitless funds lining arms dealer pockets, those that actually foster peace and security are left to beg for scraps.\n\nWe can do better. It's time to put #PeopleOverPentagon! (3/3)\u201d— Win Without War (@Win Without War) 1616605136
The coalition's letter comes just over a week after 50 House Democrats urged President Joe Biden--who reportedly plans to request the same level of military spending as his predecessor--to "seek a significantly reduced Pentagon topline."
"Part of undoing the damage of the last four years is re-evaluating our spending priorities as a nation," the lawmakers wrote. "That re-evaluation should begin with the Department of Defense."
Towne stressed last week that "cutting the Pentagon budget and reinvesting in the needs of our communities is not only morally necessary, it's also urgent if we're going to address the biggest threat that faces our planet: climate change. The Pentagon is the world's single largest consumer of oil and one of the world's top greenhouse gas emitters."
"If we're going to take the future of our planet seriously," she added, "we need to cut the Pentagon budget now."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Time to Negotiate for Peace in Space
A legally binding international treaty banning the basing of weapons in space should be the global objective of all.
Feb 08, 2021
The U.S. mission to dominate and control the military use of space has been, historically and at present, a major obstacle to achieving nuclear disarmament and a peaceful path to preserve all life on earth.
Reagan rejected Gorbachev's offer to give up Star Wars as a condition for both countries to eliminate all their nuclear weapons when the wall came down and Gorbachev released all of Eastern Europe from Soviet occupation, miraculously, without a shot.
Bush and Obama blocked any discussion in 2008 and 2014 on Russian and Chinese proposals for a space weapons ban in the consensus-bound Committee for Disarmament in Geneva where those countries tabled a draft treaty for consideration.
After enacting a treaty in 1967 to prevent the placement of weapons of mass destruction in outer space, each year since the 1980s the United Nations has considered a resolution for the Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space (PAROS) to prevent any weaponization of space which the U.S. consistently votes against.
Clinton refused Putin's offer to each cut our massive nuclear arsenals to 1,000 bombs each and call all the others to the table to negotiate for their elimination, provided we stopped developing missile sites in Romania.
Bush walked out of the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and put the new missile base in Romania with another opened under Trump in Poland, right in Russia's backyard.
Obama rejected Putin's offer to negotiate a treaty to ban cyber war.
Trump established a new U.S. military division--a so-called Space Force--separate from the U.S. Air Force to continue the destructive U.S. drive for space domination.
At this unique time in history when it is imperative that nations of the world join in cooperation to share resources to end the global plague assaulting its inhabitants and to avoid catastrophic climate destruction or earth-shattering nuclear devastation, we are instead squandering our treasure and intellectual capacity on weapons and space warfare.
There seems to be a crack in the phalanx of the U.S. military-industrial-congressional-academic-media-complex's opposition to making space a place for peace. John Fairlamb, retired Army colonel who formulated and implemented national security strategies and policies at the U.S. State Department and as the political-military affairs adviser for a major Army command has just issued a clarion call to reverse course. In the piece--titled "The US Should Negotiate a Ban on Basing Weapons in Space"--Fairlamb argues that:
If the U.S. and other nations continue the current drift toward organizing and equipping to wage war in space, Russia, China and others will strive to improve capabilities to destroy U.S. space assets. Over time, this would greatly increase the threat to the full array of U.S. space-based capabilities. Intelligence, communications, surveillance, targeting and navigation assets already based in space, upon which the Department of Defense (DOD) depends for command and control of military operations, increasingly would be at significant risk. As a consequence, weaponizing space could become a classic case of trying to solve one problem while creating a much worse problem.
As Fairlamb notes:
[T]he Obama administration opposed a 2008 Russian and Chinese proposal to ban all weapons in space because it was unverifiable, contained no prohibition on developing and stockpiling space arms, and did not address ground-based space weapons such as direct ascent anti-satellite missiles.
Instead of just criticizing others' proposals, the U.S. should join in the effort and do the hard work of crafting a space arms control agreement that deals with the concerns we have and that can be verified. A legally binding international treaty banning the basing of weapons in space should be the objective.
Let us hope that people of good will can make this happen.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Cybernetics and the Trump
"The vice president could have said that one of the tasks of the Space Force guardians would be to protect the country from cyber attacks from space."
Dec 25, 2020
It was a joyous occasion and it was only too bad that the trump was unable to attend because of the press of business in what, during his tenure became known as the "Offal Office." The occasion was the announcement of the name to be given to those serving in a new branch of the armed forces known as the Space Force. The Space Force had been created almost exactly one year earlier by the trump. That the trump, who had famously avoided military service through a fake medical condition, would create a new branch of the armed forces in which he could also refuse to serve were he younger and subject to the draft, strikes only his detractors as slightly bizarre.
"The trump was, however, absorbed in petulance as a result of the election that had taken place a few weeks earlier and was not in the mood for any kind of celebration, even if the event being celebrated was his idea."
Following the creation of Space Force, $15.4 billion was transferred from the U.S. Air Force budget to Space Force. That money includes funds for space research, satellites and launch services, space operations, and maintenance, and war-related satellite services and space operations.
As with all entities, it was important to find a name for those who will be participating in work of the new creation. Hundreds of suggestions from taxpayers were considered during the year following its creation before a final decision was made. The presenter at the occasion of the announcement was a slight disappointment since it would have seemed that at such an important occasion in the history of the United States, he who was responsible for the creation of the new entity would be in attendance at the event. The trump was, however, absorbed in petulance as a result of the election that had taken place a few weeks earlier and was not in the mood for any kind of celebration, even if the event being celebrated was his idea. Accordingly, he delegated the important task of making the announcement to Vice President Mike Pence.
Delighted at having been entrusted with this important task, the vice president proudly announced that, "henceforth, the men and women of the United States Space Force will be known as 'guardians.'" In making the announcement the vice president said that the guardians would "ensure that America remains as dominant in space, and from space, as we are on land and sea and air."
At almost the same time as the vice president was imparting the exciting news of what members of the Space Force would be called and how we would be protected from hostile forces from outer space, we learned that instead of being attacked by hostile forces from outer space, we had been cyber attacked by foreign agents sponsored by Russia or China, depending on who was describing the attack. The trump, who remains reluctant to speak ill of anyone Russian and continues to enjoy wallowing in ignorance, attributed the attack to China. The rest of the country, including Mike Pompeo, the trump secretary of state--who took the unusual step of differing with his mentor--said that he believes the attack came from the trump's good friend and ally, Vladimir Putin. The source is less important than the vast amount of damage it is capable of doing and may already have done to sensitive agencies within the United States government and major U.S. technology and accounting companies.
According to Politico, which first reported the breach, hackers gained access to, among others, the Energy Department and the National Nuclear Security Administration, those being the entities that maintain the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile. Those were only two of several other federal agencies that were the target of the hackers. The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency said that "this threat poses a grave risk to the federal government and state, local, tribal, and territorial governments, as well as critical infrastructure entities and other private sector organizations."
One of the questions the inquiring mind may ask is how did this all come about? At least a partial answer was given by Frank Figliuzzi, a former FBI director for counterintelligence. In an interview with MSNBC three days after the Politico report, he said of the cyberattack: "Make no mistake, our nation is under attack and it appears to be ongoing." Figliuzzi attributed the successful attacks to the fact that the trump had placed a higher priority on protecting the country from immigrants than protecting government agencies, private companies, and critical infrastructure entities from hackers. As he explained in the interview, "we have a president diverting money, billions of it, to build a wall, changing personnel at the top of the Pentagon, and we've not heard word one about the plan or strategy to respond to this ongoing attack."
According to Wilson Topics, a blog of the Science and Technology Innovation Program, "satellites and other space-based assets are vulnerable to cyberattacks. These cyber vulnerabilities pose serious risks not just for space-based assets themselves but also for ground based critical infrastructure."
The vice president could have said that one of the tasks of the Space Force guardians would be to protect the country from cyber attacks from space, since that wasn't mentioned when the trump introduced the program a year earlier. That would have made Space Force more relevant to current events. He didn't know about the cyberattacks and so he didn't do so. Too bad.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular