<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail-top-anchor"></div>
<div id="gmail-toolbar" class="gmail-toolbar-container">
</div><div class="gmail-container" dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail-header gmail-reader-header gmail-reader-show-element">
<a class="gmail-domain gmail-reader-domain" href="https://www.counterpunch.org/2022/04/18/how-pentagon-contractors-are-cashing-in-on-the-ukraine-crisis/">counterpunch.org</a>
<div class="gmail-domain-border"></div>
<h1 class="gmail-reader-title">How Pentagon Contractors Are Cashing in on the Ukraine Crisis</h1>
<span class="gmail-post_author_intro">by</span> <span class="gmail-post_author"><a href="https://www.counterpunch.org/author/jlghllhrt2992/" rel="nofollow">Julia Gledhill – William D. Hartung</a></span>- April 18, 2022<br></div>
<hr>
<div class="gmail-content">
<div class="gmail-moz-reader-content gmail-reader-show-element"><div id="gmail-readability-page-1" class="gmail-page"><div>
<div id="gmail-attachment_240247" class="gmail-wp-caption"><p><img aria-describedby="caption-attachment-240247" src="https://www.counterpunch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Screen-Shot-2022-04-17-at-5.01.41-PM-680x344.png" alt="" class="gmail-moz-reader-block-img" style="margin-right: 0px;" width="452" height="229"></p><p id="gmail-caption-attachment-240247" class="gmail-wp-caption-text">Javelin missile. Photo: US Army/Markus Rauchenberger.</p></div>
<p>The Russian invasion of Ukraine has brought immense suffering to the
people of that land, while sparking calls for increased military
spending in both the United States and Europe. Though that war may prove
to be a tragedy for the world, one group is already benefiting from it:
U.S. arms contractors.</p>
<p>Even before hostilities broke out, the CEOs of major weapons firms
were talking about how tensions in Europe could pad their profits. In a
January 2022 call with his company’s investors, Raytheon Technologies
CEO Greg Hayes typically <a href="https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2022/01/28/big-war-ceos-theres-chaos-in-the-world-and-our-prospects-are-excellent/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow external noopener noreferrer">bragged</a>
that the prospect of conflict in Eastern Europe and other global hot
spots would be good for business, adding that “we are seeing, I would
say, opportunities for international sales… [T]he tensions in Eastern
Europe, the tensions in the South China Sea, all of those things are
putting pressure on some of the defense spending over there. So I fully
expect we’re going to see some benefit from it.”</p>
<p id="gmail-more">In late March, in an interview with the <em>Harvard Business Review</em> after the war in Ukraine had begun, Hayes <a href="https://hbr.org/2022/03/raytheon-ceo-gregory-hayes-how-ukraine-has-highlighted-gaps-in-us-defense-technologies" target="_blank" rel="nofollow external noopener noreferrer">defended</a> the way his company would profit from that conflict:</p>
<blockquote><p>“So I make no apology for that. I think again recognizing
we are there to defend democracy and the fact is eventually we will see
some benefit in the business over time. Everything that’s being shipped
into Ukraine today, of course, is coming out of stockpiles, either at
DoD [the Department of Defense] or from our NATO allies, and that’s all
great news. Eventually we’ll have to replenish it and we will see a
benefit to the business over the next coming years.”</p></blockquote>
<p><strong>Arms to Ukraine, Profits to Contractors</strong></p>
<p>The war in Ukraine will indeed be a bonanza for the likes of Raytheon
and Lockheed Martin. First of all, there will be the contracts to
resupply weapons like Raytheon’s Stinger anti-aircraft missile and the
Raytheon/Lockheed Martin-produced Javelin anti-tank missile that
Washington has already provided to Ukraine by the <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2022/03/22/pentagon-scrambles-to-replenish-weapons-stocks-sent-to-ukraine-00019333#:~:text=The%20exact%20number%20of%20Javelins,1%2C400%20Stingers%20and%204%2C600%20Javelins." target="_blank" rel="nofollow external noopener noreferrer">thousands</a>.
The bigger stream of profits, however, will come from assured
post-conflict increases in national-security spending here and in Europe
justified, at least in part, by the Russian invasion and the disaster
that’s followed.</p>
<p>Indeed, direct arms transfers to Ukraine already reflect only part of
the extra money going to U.S. military contractors. This fiscal year
alone, they are guaranteed to also reap significant benefits from the<a href="https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF12040" target="_blank" rel="nofollow external noopener noreferrer"> Pentagon’s </a>Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative (USAI) and the State Department’s<a href="https://www.dsca.mil/foreign-military-financing-fmf" target="_blank" rel="nofollow external noopener noreferrer"> Foreign Military Financing</a>
(FMF) program, both of which finance the acquisition of American
weaponry and other equipment, as well as military training. These have,
in fact, been the two <a href="https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF12040#:~:text=Since%20Russia%20launched%20its%20invasion,other%20threats%20it%20is%20facing.%E2%80%9D" target="_blank" rel="nofollow external noopener noreferrer">primary</a>
channels for military aid to Ukraine from the moment the Russians
invaded and seized Crimea in 2014. Since then, the United States has <a href="https://www.defense.gov/News/Transcripts/Transcript/Article/2991964/pentagon-press-secretary-john-f-kirby-holds-a-press-briefing/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow external noopener noreferrer">committed</a> around $5 billion in security assistance to that country.</p>
<p>According to the <a href="https://www.state.gov/u-s-security-cooperation-with-ukraine/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow external noopener noreferrer">State Department</a>,
the United States has provided such military aid to help Ukraine
“preserve its territorial integrity, secure its borders, and improve
interoperability with NATO.” So, when Russian troops began to mass on
the Ukrainian border last year, Washington quickly upped the ante. On <a href="https://www.csis.org/analysis/unpacking-russian-troop-buildup-along-ukraines-border" target="_blank" rel="nofollow external noopener noreferrer">March 31, 2021</a>,
the U.S. European Command declared a “potential imminent crisis,” given
the estimated 100,000 Russian troops already along that border and
within Crimea. As last year ended, the Biden administration had
committed <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2022/03/16/remarks-by-president-biden-on-the-assistance-the-united-states-is-providing-to-ukraine/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow external noopener noreferrer">$650 million</a> in weaponry to Ukraine, <a href="https://www.forumarmstrade.org/ukrainearms.html" target="_blank" rel="nofollow external noopener noreferrer">including</a> anti-aircraft and anti-armor equipment like the Raytheon/Lockheed Martin Javelin anti-tank missile.</p>
<p>Despite such elevated levels of American military assistance, Russian
troops did indeed invade Ukraine in February. Since then, according to
Pentagon reports, the U.S. has committed to giving approximately <a href="https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/2999113/800-million-in-additional-security-assistance-for-ukraine/source/800-million-in-additional-security-assistance-for-ukraine/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow external noopener noreferrer">$2.6 billion</a> in military aid to that country, bringing the Biden administration total to more than <a href="https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/2999113/800-million-in-additional-security-assistance-for-ukraine/source/800-million-in-additional-security-assistance-for-ukraine/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow external noopener noreferrer">$3.2 billion</a> and still rising.</p>
<p>Some of this assistance was included in a March emergency-spending package for Ukraine, which <a href="https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/2987119/defense-department-announces-300-million-in-additional-assistance-for-ukraine/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow external noopener noreferrer">required</a> the direct procurement of weapons from the defense industry, <a href="https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/2987119/defense-department-announces-300-million-in-additional-assistance-for-ukraine/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow external noopener noreferrer">including</a>
drones, laser-guided rocket systems, machine guns, ammunition, and
other supplies. The major military-industrial corporations will now seek
Pentagon contracts to deliver that extra weaponry, even as they are
gearing up to replenish Pentagon stocks already delivered to the
Ukrainians.</p>
<p>On that front, in fact, military contractors have much to look
forward to. More than half of the Pentagon’s $6.5 billion portion of the
emergency-spending package for Ukraine is designated simply to
replenish DoD inventories. In all, lawmakers allocated $3.5 billion to
that effort, <a href="https://www.taxpayer.net/budget-appropriations-tax/fy22-omnibus-versus-ukraine-supplemental-request/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow external noopener noreferrer">$1.75 billion</a> more than the president even <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/COVID-and-Ukraine-Supplemental-Funding-Request-Pelosi.pdf#page=31" target="_blank" rel="nofollow external noopener noreferrer">requested</a>. They also boosted funding by <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/2471/text" target="_blank" rel="nofollow external noopener noreferrer">$150 million</a> for the State Department’s <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/COVID-and-Ukraine-Supplemental-Funding-Request-Pelosi.pdf#page=5" target="_blank" rel="nofollow external noopener noreferrer">FMF</a>program
for Ukraine. And keep in mind that those figures don’t even include
emergency financing for the Pentagon’s acquisition and maintenance
costs, which are guaranteed to provide more revenue streams for the
major weapons makers.</p>
<p>Better yet, from the viewpoint of such companies, there are many
bites left to take from the apple of Ukrainian military aid. President
Biden has <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2022/03/16/remarks-by-president-biden-on-the-assistance-the-united-states-is-providing-to-ukraine/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow external noopener noreferrer">already</a>
made it all too clear that “we’re going to give Ukraine the arms to
fight and defend themselves through all the difficult days ahead.” One
can only assume that more commitments are on the way.</p>
<p>Another positive side effect of the war for Lockheed, Raytheon, and other arms merchants like them is the <a href="https://breakingdefense.com/2022/03/exclusive-hasc-leaders-want-next-gen-stinger-replacement-as-stockpile-dwindles-due-to-ukraine/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow external noopener noreferrer">push </a>by
House Armed Services Committee chair Adam Smith (D-WA) and ranking
committee Republican Mike Rogers of Alabama to speed up production of a
next-generation anti-aircraft missile to replace the Stinger. In his
congressional confirmation hearing, William LaPlante, the latest nominee
to head acquisition at the Pentagon, argued that America also needs
more “<a href="https://www.armed-services.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/22-15_03-22-2022.pdf#page=45" target="_blank" rel="nofollow external noopener noreferrer">hot production</a> lines” for bombs, missiles, and drones. Consider that yet another benefit-in-waiting for the major weapons contractors.</p>
<p><strong>The Pentagon Gold Mine</strong></p>
<p>For U.S. arms makers, however, the greatest benefits of the war in
Ukraine won’t be immediate weapons sales, large as they are, but the
changing nature of the ongoing debate over Pentagon spending itself. Of
course, the representatives of such companies were <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/williamhartung/2022/02/10/contractors-poised-to-cash-in-on-china-threat-inflation/?sh=7d32416c6d80" target="_blank" rel="nofollow external noopener noreferrer">already plugging</a> the long-term challenge posed by China, a <a href="https://armscontrolcenter.org/china-is-still-not-the-new-soviet-union-top-u-s-military-leaders-affirm-u-s-lead-over-china/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow external noopener noreferrer">greatly exaggerated</a>
threat, but the Russian invasion is nothing short of manna from heaven
for them, the ultimate rallying cry for advocates of greater military
outlays. Even before the war, the Pentagon was slated to receive at
least <a href="https://www.cbo.gov/publication/57538#_idTextAnchor038" target="_blank" rel="nofollow external noopener noreferrer">$7.3 trillion</a> over the next decade, more than four times the cost of President Biden’s <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/us/biden-says-he-will-look-pass-build-back-better-elements-piecemeal-2022-01-19/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow external noopener noreferrer">$1.7 trillion</a>
domestic Build Back Better plan, already stymied by members of Congress
who labeled it “too expensive” by far. And keep in mind that, given
the current surge in Pentagon spending, that $7.3 trillion could prove a
minimal figure.</p>
<p>Indeed, Pentagon officials like Deputy Secretary of Defense Kathleen
Hicks promptly cited Ukraine as one of the rationales for the Biden
administration’s proposed record national-security budget proposal of <a href="https://thehill.com/policy/defense/599997-biden-unveils-813-billion-request-for-fy-2023-defense-national-security-budget/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow external noopener noreferrer">$813 billion</a>, <a href="https://www.defense.gov/News/Transcripts/Transcript/Article/2980638/deputy-secretary-of-defense-dr-kathleen-hicks-remarks-on-president-bidens-fisca/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow external noopener noreferrer">calling</a>
Russia’s invasion “an acute threat to the world order.” In another era
that budget request for Fiscal Year 2023 would have been mind-boggling,
since it’s <a href="https://quincyinst.org/report/pathways-to-pentagon-spending-reductions-removing-the-obstacles/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow external noopener noreferrer">higher</a>
than spending at the peaks of the conflicts in Korea and Vietnam and
over $100 billion more than the Pentagon received annually at the height
of the Cold War.</p>
<p>Despite its size, however, congressional Republicans — joined by a
significant number of their Democratic colleagues — are already pushing
for more. Forty Republican members of the House and Senate Armed
Services Committees have, in fact, signed a <a href="https://www.inhofe.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/gop-armed-services-committee-members-press-biden-to-boost-defense-budget-by-5-percent-above-inflation" target="_blank" rel="nofollow external noopener noreferrer">letter</a> to President Biden calling for 5% growth in military spending beyond inflation, which would potentially add up to <a href="https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2022/04/07/wiggy-data-fuzzy-math-and-tired-dod-budget-projection-ruses/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow external noopener noreferrer">$100 billion</a>
to that budget request. Typically enough, Representative Elaine Luria
(D-VA), who represents the area near the Huntington Ingalls company’s
Newport News military shipyard in Virginia, <a href="https://www.stripes.com/theaters/us/2022-03-30/rep-elaine-luria-virginia-rebuke-biden-budget-navy-5530849.html" target="_blank" rel="nofollow external noopener noreferrer">accused</a>the
administration of “gutting the Navy” because it contemplates
decommissioning some older ships to make way for new ones. That
complaint was lodged despite that service’s plan to spend a whopping <a href="https://www.stripes.com/branches/navy/2022-03-28/navy-budget-ships-sailors-defense-strategy-5507685.html" target="_blank" rel="nofollow external noopener noreferrer">$28 billion</a> on new ships in FY 2023.</p>
<p><strong>Who Benefits?</strong></p>
<p>That planned increase in shipbuilding funds is part of a proposed pool of <a href="https://www.defense.gov/News/Transcripts/Transcript/Article/2980638/deputy-secretary-of-defense-dr-kathleen-hicks-remarks-on-president-bidens-fisca/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow external noopener noreferrer">$276 billion</a>for
weapons procurement, as well as further research and development,
contained in the new budget, which is where the top five
weapons-producing contractors — Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Raytheon,
General Dynamics, and Northrop Grumman — <a href="https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/files/cow/imce/papers/2021/Profits%20of%20War_Hartung_Costs%20of%20War_Sept%2013%2C%202021.pdf" target="_blank" rel="nofollow external noopener noreferrer">make</a> most of their money. Those firms already split more than <a href="https://quincyinst.org/report/pathways-to-pentagon-spending-reductions-removing-the-obstacles/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow external noopener noreferrer">$150 billion</a>
in Pentagon contracts annually, a figure that will skyrocket if the
administration and Congress have their way. To put all of this in
context, just one of those top five firms, Lockheed Martin, was awarded <a href="https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/papers/2021/ProfitsOfWar" target="_blank" rel="nofollow external noopener noreferrer">$75 billion</a> in Pentagon contracts in fiscal year 2020 alone. That’s <a href="https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/files/cow/imce/papers/2021/Profits%20of%20War_Hartung_Costs%20of%20War_Sept%2013%2C%202021.pdf" target="_blank" rel="nofollow external noopener noreferrer">considerably more</a>
than the entire budget for the State Department, dramatic evidence of
how skewed Washington’s priorities are, despite the Biden
administration’s pledge to “put diplomacy first.”</p>
<p>The Pentagon’s weapons <a href="https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/defbudget/FY2023/FY2023_Weapons.pdf" target="_blank" rel="nofollow external noopener noreferrer">wish list </a>for
FY 2023 is a catalog of just how the big contractors will cash in. For
example, the new Columbia Class ballistic missile submarine, built by
General Dynamics Electric Boat plant in southeastern Connecticut, will
see its proposed budget for FY 2023 grow from $5.0 billion to $6.2
billion. Spending on Northrop Grumman’s new intercontinental ballistic
missile (ICBM), the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent, will increase by
about one-third annually, to $3.6 billion. The category of “missile
defense and defeat,” a specialty of Boeing, Raytheon, and Lockheed
Martin, is slated to receive more than <a href="https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/defbudget/FY2023/FY2023_Weapons.pdf#page=3" target="_blank" rel="nofollow external noopener noreferrer">$24 billion</a>. And space-based missile warning systems, a staple of the Trump administration-created Space Force, will jump from <a href="https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/defbudget/FY2023/FY2023_Weapons.pdf#page=18" target="_blank" rel="nofollow external noopener noreferrer">$2.5 billion</a> in FY 2022 to $4.7 billion in this year’s proposed budget.</p>
<p>Among all the increases, there was a single surprise: a proposed <a href="https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/defbudget/FY2023/FY2023_Weapons.pdf#page=20" target="_blank" rel="nofollow external noopener noreferrer">reduction</a>
in purchases of the troubled Lockheed Martin F-35 combat aircraft, from
85 to 61 planes in FY 2023. The reason is clear enough. That plane has
<a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-07-13/lockheed-f-35-s-tally-of-flaws-tops-800-as-new-issues-surface#:~:text=Lockheed%20Martin%20Corp.'s%20F,office%20and%20Congress's%20watchdog%20agency." target="_blank" rel="nofollow external noopener noreferrer">more than 800</a>
identified design flaws and its production and performance problems
have been little short of legendary. Luckily for Lockheed Martin, that
drop in numbers has not been accompanied by a proportional reduction in
funding. While newly produced planes may be reduced by one-third, the
actual budget allocation for the F-35 will drop by <a href="https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/defbudget/FY2023/FY2023_Weapons.pdf" target="_blank" rel="nofollow external noopener noreferrer">less than 10%</a>, from $12 billion to $11 billion, an amount that’s <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2022/s0328-2023-budget.html#:~:text=The%20Centers%20for%20Disease%20Control,over%20the%20FY%202022%20appropriation." target="_blank" rel="nofollow external noopener noreferrer">more than</a> the complete discretionary budget of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.</p>
<p>Since Lockheed Martin won the F-35 contract, development costs have <a href="https://www.pogo.org/analysis/2022/03/f-35-program-stagnated-in-2021-but-dod-testing-office-hiding-full-extent-of-problem/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow external noopener noreferrer">more than doubled</a>,
while production delays have set the aircraft back by nearly a decade.
Nonetheless, the military services have purchased so many of those
planes that manufacturers can’t keep up with the demand for spare parts.
And yet the F-35 can’t even be properly tested for combat effectiveness
because the simulation software required is not only unfinished, but
without even an estimated completion date. So, the F-35 is many years
away from the full production of planes that actually work as
advertised, if that’s ever in the cards.</p>
<p>A number of the weapons systems which, in the Ukraine moment, are
guaranteed to be showered with cash are so dangerous or dysfunctional
that, like the F-35, they should actually be phased out. Take the new
ICBM. Former Secretary of Defense William Perry has <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/30/opinion/why-its-safe-to-scrap-americas-icbms.html" target="_blank" rel="nofollow external noopener noreferrer">called</a>
ICBMs “some of the most dangerous weapons in the world” because a
president would only have minutes to decide whether to launch them in a
crisis, greatly increasing the risk of an accidental nuclear war based
on a false alarm. Nor does it make sense to buy aircraft carriers at <a href="https://taskandpurpose.com/military-tech/navy-gerald-r-ford-aircraft-carrier-emals-problems/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow external noopener noreferrer">$13 billion</a> a pop, especially since the latest version is having <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/power-problem-ford-aircraft-carrier-crippled-ability-to-launch-planes-2020-6" target="_blank" rel="nofollow external noopener noreferrer">trouble</a> even launching and landing aircraft — its primary function — and is increasingly <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-01-25/navy-s-13-billion-carrier-sows-doubt-that-it-can-defend-itself" target="_blank" rel="nofollow external noopener noreferrer">vulnerable to attack</a> by next-generation high-speed missiles.</p>
<p>The few positives in the new budget like the Navy’s decision to retire the unnecessary and unworkable <a href="https://taskandpurpose.com/news/navy-crowdsourcing-mission-littoral-combat-ship/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow external noopener noreferrer">Littoral Combat Ship</a>
— a sort of “F-35 of the sea” designed for multiple tasks none of which
it does well — could easily be reversed by advocates from states and
districts where those systems are built and maintained. The House of
Representatives, for instance, has a powerful Joint Strike Fighter
Caucus, which, in 2021, <a href="https://larson.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/joint-strike-fighter-caucus-announces-strong-bipartisan-support-f-35" target="_blank" rel="nofollow external noopener noreferrer">mustered</a>
more than one-third of all House members to press for more F-35s than
the Pentagon and Air Force requested, as they will no doubt do again
this year. A <a href="https://wittman.house.gov/congressional-shipbuilding-caucus/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow external noopener noreferrer">Shipbuilding Caucus</a>,
co-chaired by representatives Joe Courtney (D-CT) and Rob Wittman
(R-VA), will fight against the Navy’s plan to retire old ships to buy
new ones. (They would prefer that the Navy keep the old ones <em>and </em>buy new ones with more of your tax money up for grabs.) Similarly, the “<a href="https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2021/05/26/meet-the-senate-nuke-caucus-busting-the-budget-and-making-the-world-less-safe/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow external noopener noreferrer">ICBM Coalition</a>,” made up of senators from states with either ICBM bases or production centers, has a near perfect record of <a href="https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2021-05/features/inside-icbm-lobby-special-interests-national-interest" target="_blank" rel="nofollow external noopener noreferrer">staving off</a> reductions in the deployment or funding of those weapons and will, in 2022, be hard at work defending its budgetary allocation.</p>
<p><strong>Towards a New Policy</strong></p>
<p>Coming up with a sensible, realistic, and affordable defense policy,
always a challenge, will be even more so in the midst of the Ukrainian
nightmare. Still, given where our taxpayer dollars go, it remains all
too worthwhile. Such a new approach should include things like reducing
the numbers of the Pentagon’s private contractors, <a href="https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/world-report/2015/10/08/pentagon-needs-to-cut-shadow-contractor-work-force?context=amp" target="_blank" rel="nofollow external noopener noreferrer">hundreds of thousands</a>
of people, many of whom are engaged in thoroughly redundant jobs that
could be done more cheaply by civilian government employees or simply
eliminated. It’s estimated that cutting spending on contractors by 15%
would save around <a href="https://comw.org/pda/fulltext/1906%20SustainableDefenseTaskForce%20report.pdf" target="_blank" rel="nofollow external noopener noreferrer">$262 billion</a> over 10 years.</p>
<p>The Pentagon’s three-decades-long near <a href="https://www.armscontrol.org/reports/2019/USnuclearexcess" target="_blank" rel="nofollow external noopener noreferrer">$2 trillion</a>
“modernization” plan to build a new generation of nuclear-armed
bombers, missiles, and submarines, along with new warheads, should, for
instance, simply be scrapped in keeping with the kind of
“deterrence-only” <a href="https://www.globalzero.org/reaching-zero/the-end-of-nuclear-warfighting/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow external noopener noreferrer">nuclear strategy </a>developed
by the nuclear-policy organization Global Zero. And the staggering
American global military footprint — an invitation to further conflict
that includes more than <a href="https://quincyinst.org/report/drawdown-improving-u-s-and-global-security-through-military-base-closures-abroad/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow external noopener noreferrer">750 </a>military bases scattered on every continent except Antarctica, and counterterror operations in <a href="https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/papers/2021/USCounterterrorismOperations" target="_blank" rel="nofollow external noopener noreferrer">85 countries</a> — should, at the very least, be sharply scaled back.</p>
<p>According to the Center for International Policy’s <a href="https://static.wixstatic.com/ugd/fb6c59_59a295c780634ce88d077c391066db9a.pdf" target="_blank" rel="nofollow external noopener noreferrer">Sustainable Defense Task Force</a>and a <a href="https://www.cbo.gov/publication/57128" target="_blank" rel="nofollow external noopener noreferrer">study</a>
of alternative approaches to defense carried out by the Congressional
Budget Office, even a relatively minimalist strategic rethinking could
save at least $1 trillion over the next decade, enough to make a healthy
down payment on investments in public health, preventing or mitigating
the worst potential impacts of climate change, or beginning the task of
narrowing record levels of income inequality.</p>
<p>Of course, none of these changes can occur without challenging the
power and influence of the military-industrial-congressional complex, a
task as urgent as it is difficult in this moment of carnage in Europe.
No matter how hard it may be, it’s a fight worth having, both for the
security of the world and the future of the planet.</p>
<p>One thing is guaranteed: a new gold rush of “defense” spending is a disaster in the making for all of us not in that complex.</p>
<p><em>This column is distributed by TomDispatch.</em></p>
</div></div></div>
</div>
<div>
</div>
<div></div>
</div>
</div>