Sunday, December 20, 2020

A letter to Maryland House members who voted for the Pentagon budget

Friends,

 Baltimore Peace Action has vetted this letter.  Let us know if you want to sign on to the letter.  Let us know if you are signing representing an organization.

  This letter will be emailed to aides representing these representatives.  We have Hoyer, Ruppersberger and Sarbanes covered.  If you are a constituent of Brown, Mfume or Trone, can you send this to the respective aide.  Thanks.

Kagiso, Max

Representatives Brown, Hoyer, Mfume, Ruppersberger, Sarbanes, and Trone

 We will be frank.   You voted in favor of a $740.5 billion windfall for the Pentagon, over half of which went to military contractors [https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/files/cow/imce/papers/2020/Peltier%202020%20-%20Growth%20of%20Camo%20Economy%20-%20June%2030%202020%20-%20FINAL.pdf]. You did this before you provided desperately-needed funds to deal with the effects of COVID-19.  There are enormous lines at food banks across the country, income inequality has worsened, and evictions will soon make countless Americans homeless.  Yet the military contractors are doing very well, thank you.  

The real security needs of Americans—for housing, food, medical care, and the Green New Deal —are ignored.  Instead, we get the F-35 boondoggle, along with other unnecessary and ridiculously expensive weapons, endless wars, and nuclear weapons upgrades.

A budget is a moral document.  This bloated Pentagon budget shows how skewed Congressional  priorities have become.  Lockheed-Martin, Raytheon and Northrop-Grumman surely welcome this largess, but we the people are incensed.  Only thirty-seven Democrats (one of whom was Jamie Raskin) voted against this bill. We are extremely disappointed that you did not join your progressive colleagues in opposing it.

But here is something you can do going forward:  commit to support a ten percent reduction in the Pentagon budget next year. Such a proposal was initiated in the House of Representatives by Barbara Lee and Mark Pocan, who have been tireless advocates for saner federal spending priorities. They have also created the Defense [sic] Spending Reduction Caucus, which we strongly encourage you to join. 

Earlier this year, more than 100 members of Congress voted for a 10 percent reduction in the Pentagon budget through the NDAA amendments process. The members of Maryland's congressional delegation who voted for these amendments included Representatives Mfume, Raskin and Sarbanes and Senators Cardin and Van Hollen.  We appreciated those votes, but we are appalled that such a reasonable amendment did not pass.

You probably know that the United States spends more on the military than the next ten nations combined, more on nuclear weapons systems than any other nation, and maintains about 800 military bases on foreign soil, eclipsing all other countries combined. While we spend an immense amount on "national security," life expectancy in the United States ranks 46th in the world [https://www.worldometers.info/demographics/life-expectancy/]; the US has the highest child mortality rate compared to 20 rich countries [https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2018-01-11/us-has-highest-child-mortality-rate-of-20-rich-countries]; and the US leads the world in COVID-19 deaths [https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/world-surpasses-40-million-covid-19-cases-u-s-leads-n1243889].

 Why are wealthy military contractors prioritized over people in need?  Of course, there is a relationship between military contractor lobbyists and the ever-increasing military budgets. Military contractors get increases in funding, while our health care system is overwhelmed.  Every tax dollar we spend on endless wars and unneeded weapons is a dollar that should have been invested in our communities.  

We urge you to become a leader in re-defining security and work to convince others in Congress to take corrective action.  We look forward to your response about supporting the 10 percent reduction and joining the Defense [sic] Spending Reduction Caucus.

Donations can be sent to Max Obuszewski, Baltimore Nonviolence Center, 431 Notre Dame Lane, Apt. 206, Baltimore, MD 21212.  Ph: 410-323-1607; Email: mobuszewski2001 [at] comcast.net. Go to http://baltimorenonviolencecenter.blogspot.com/

"The master class has always declared the wars; the subject class has always fought the battles. The master class has had all to gain and nothing to lose, while the subject class has had nothing to gain and everything to lose--especially their lives." Eugene Victor Debs

 

House Dems took weapons-makers cash (which comes from taxpayers!) and then voted for more weapons contracts

https://stephensemler.substack.com/p/house-democrats-get-paid-by-weapons?s=03

 

Those who voted “No” took a lot less cash from weapons makers.

 

Charlie Cooper

 

 

Thursday, January 30, 2020

depolyment of new W-76 2 (and from Georgia/ Kings-Bay submarine base most likely)

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jan/29/us-submarine-trident-nuclear-warhead-patrols-atlantic-ocean  


Deployment of new US nuclear warhead on submarine a dangerous step, critics say

First submarine to go on patrol armed with the W76-2 warhead makes a nuclear launch more likely, arm control advocates warn

The USS Tennessee at sea.
 The USS Tennessee at sea. Photograph: Screengrab

The US has deployed its first low-yield Trident nuclear warhead on a submarine that is currently patrolling the Atlantic Ocean, it has been reported, in what arms control advocates warn is a dangerous step towards making a nuclear launch more likely.

According to the Federation of American Scientists, the USS Tennessee – which left port in Georgia at the end of last year – is the first submarine to go on patrol armed with the W76-2 warhead, commissioned by Donald Trump two years ago.

It has an explosive yield of five kilotons, a third of the power of the "Little Boy" bomb dropped on Hiroshima and considerably lower than the 90- and 455-kiloton warheads on other US submarine-launched ballistic missiles.

The Trump administration's nuclear posture review (NPR) in February 2018, portrays this warhead as a counter to a perceived Russian threat to use its own "tactical" nuclear weapons to win a quick victory on the battlefield.

Advocates of W76-2 argued that the US had no effective deterrent against Russian tactical weapons because Moscow assumed Washington would not risk using the overwhelming power of its intercontinental ballistic missiles in response, for fear of escalating from a regional conflict to a civilian-destroying war.

Critics of the warhead say it accelerates a drift towards thinking of nuclear weapons as a means to fight and win wars, rather than as purely a deterrent of last resort. And the fielding of a tactical nuclear weapon, they warn, gives US political and military leaders a dangerous new option in confronting adversaries other than Russia.

Trump's NPR says the US could use nuclear weapons in response to "significant non-nuclear strategic attacks", including but not limited to "attacks on US, allied or partner civilian population or infrastructure".

The US Navy and Strategic Command did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Hans Kristensen, the director of the nuclear information project at FAS, said the report on the arming of the USS Tennessee is based on briefings from officials.

"We have had conversations with people inside, and they've been pretty clear that this has happened," Kristensen said. "They see a need to talk about it to some extent, because if people don't know it's out there, then how can it deter?"

"This is a very rapid mind quick turnaround for a nuclear weapon, and that's obviously because it was a fairly simple adjustment of an existing warhead," he added. "They have argued that this is to deter Russia, but it also has clear implications or potential use against other adversaries, not least North Korea and Iran."

Kristensen said: "Certainly the low-yield collateral effect that would come from this weapon would be very beneficial to a military officer who was going to advise to the president whether we should cross the nuclear threshold."

Two existential threats: climate crisis and nuclear war. Nuclear power is not the answer.. 

What President Biden Won’t Touch

https://tomdispatch.com/what-president-biden-wont-touch/