What About Arms Control?

By JASON SIBERT

For years, progressives, or at least some progressives, talked about how money corrupts our politics.

Those ideas were given new life in the Bernie Sanders’ campaigns in 2016 and 2020 and in the Elizabeth Warren campaign in 2020. To be fair Dennis Kucinich talked about the issue in 2004 and 2008, but his campaign came before the left-wing populist groundswell behind Sanders and Warren.

It’s important to realize how money has corrupted the conversation on defense and security. The issue of intercontinental ballistic missiles is a case in point. Does the existence of ICBMs (a missile with a minimum range of 3,400 miles designed for nuclear weapons delivery) make us safer? Former Secretary of Defense William Perry said ICBMs are “some of the most dangerous weapons in the world,” because the president would only have a matter of minutes to decide weather to launch them in a crisis, increasing the risk of an accidental nuclear war.

President Joe Biden has an opportunity to mitigate the threat as the administration is considering a $500 billion plan to replace the current existing arsenal by 2028, as stated by William Hartung in his story, “Inside the ICBM Lobby: Special Interest or the National Interest” in the May 2021 issue of Arms Control Today. There have been suggestions on how to manage ICBM’s over the years, everything from abolition to a no first-use policy. Hartung stated the facts on the public’s view of ICBMs: “a recent poll found that 60% of Americans favored either forgoing the development of a new ICBM, eliminating ICBMs, or eliminating all nuclear weapons, an indication that a change in current ICBM policies would have significant public support. In addition, nearly two-thirds of respondents expressed a preference for delaying the new ICBM, known formally as the Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD), while continuing to extend the life of existing land-based missiles as the GBSD program undergoes a comprehensive review.”

Despite the views of the public, there’s been little change in our ICBM policy. Special interests determine our policy in this area more than strategic need. Nuclear weapons contractors have a hold on Congress that isn’t mentioned much in the mainstream media. There is a coalition of senators where ICBM’s are deployed and maintained. Senators from states with an economic stake in the ICBM mission are Republican Senators John Hoeven (N.D.), Kevin Cramer (N.D.), Steve Daines (Mont.), Mitt Romney (Utah), Mike Lee (Utah), and John Barasso (Wyo.) and Democratic Senator Jon Tester (Mont.). Senator Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.) has been a vocal proponent of ICBMs, as stated by Hartung. Tester will have an important role as chairman of the Senate Appropriations defense subcommittee. Tester called ICBMs “an incredible deterrent.”

This coalition has worked against the idea of arms control as a method of security. “Over the past decade, it has succeeded in limiting the reduction of deployed ICBMs under the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty to 50, leaving a force of 400; keeping the 50 unused silos in ‘warm status,’ or ready to receive missiles again should there be a shift in US nuclear policy requiring deployment of additional ICBMs; preventing the Pentagon from doing a study of the environmental and economic impacts of further reductions in the ICBM force; and helping to support the Pentagon’s plans for development of the next-generation ICBM,” said Hartung.

Of course, contractors are at the heart of the money machine. Northrop Grumman has powerful tools at its disposal for fending off any changes in the ICBM program. The company and its major subcontractors have given $1.2 million to Senators with an economic stake in the ICBM since 2012 and more than $15 million over the same time period to the 64 members of the key committees that play a central role in determining how much is spent on ICBMs: the Senate and House Armed Services strategic forces subcommittees and the Senate and House Appropriations defense subcommittees. The top 11 contractors working on the new ICBM spent more than $119 million on lobbying in 2019 and 2020 and employed more than 380 lobbyists!

One must also understand regional economics. These facilities have been strategically based in small states where a closure would mean a significant impact on the regional economies in question. On that note, these communities should diversify their economies to keep from being overly tied to this type of activity. There is a record of conversions in communities that were tied to different forms of military spending. In these cases, government, business, and representatives from the communities themselves work to make the transition. Hartung said of conversions: “officials thought creatively, envisioning diverse uses for the land freed up by the base closure, including everything from commuter airports and industrial/research parks to residential areas, parks, and university campuses. Most importantly, leaders commenced planning before a base was closed. Transitions can take years given the need for environmental cleanup, transfer of land, and identification of governmental or private investment funds. Yet, the effort is worth it given the prospect of new economic activity and employment at the sites of closed military facilities.”

It’s a matter of security and planning. Do we plan for arms control and economic conversion or the status quo?

Jason Sibert is the executive director of the Peace Economy Project in St. Louis, Mo. Email jasonsibert@hotmail.com.

From The Progressive Populist, June 15, 2021

Populist.com