A Sensible Defense Policy

When crafting defense policy, elected officials, professional civil servants, and experienced intelligence/military personnel need to think beyond achieving conventional and military superiority with our geopolitical adversaries Russia and China. Behind the glittering high technology weapons, the American defense system is structurally deficient and exists as a “colossus with feet of clay” (To quote Fidel Castro’s description of the United States in Robert Moss’ book Monimbo page 19). What are the deficiencies? A degraded industrial base; recruiting issues; corruption and overcharging by defense contractors; financialization of the economy (which negatively affects productive investment decisions); lack of civil defense; no hardening of our electrical grid to blunt the devastating effects of an EMP attack; double dealing with our geopolitical adversaries by defense contractors; and a lack of an overall anti-ballistic missile program. The purpose of this essay is to take a deep dive into these unaddressed challenges and propose solutions to fill in the gaps. When I say “unaddressed,” I am referring to deficiencies that have not been repaired or reversed. My basic defense beliefs could be summed up by some of America’s historical figures and common-sense points:

1)    As long as the US is faced with powerful countries whose governments seek the ultimate downfall of our country, America should have the most modern and numerically superior defense forces. President George Washington summed up this point well when he stated at the First Annual Address to both houses of Congress on January 8, 1790, “To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace.”^[1]

2)    We should minimize regime change wars as much as possible while not shying away from exerting American power when our national security interests are clearly threatened. President Teddy Roosevelt summarized this view well when he stated, “Speak softly and carry a big stick…”^[2]

3)    A population that is economically secure translates into a stable home front. When capitalism is working for the majority of our citizens, the socialist message will be largely invalidated by the public. While speaking of his Second Bill of (economic) Rights, President Franklin Roosevelt declared: “For unless there is security here at home there cannot be lasting peace in the world.”[3]

4)    Defending critical allies such as South Korea, Japan, Latin America, Israel, and Western Europe insofar that they are unable to defend themselves against hostile foreign powers.

5)    Protecting all fifty States in the Union against a missile, biological, EMP, cyber, and chemical attack by Russia, China, their allies (such as North Korea, Venezuela, Iran, or Cuba), and various terrorist groups (such as ISIS and al-Qaeda).

6)    Protecting all fifty States in the Union against a Red Dawn Scenario where Russian and Chinese troops would attempt to invade and occupy the US in the wake of a decapitation strike by weapons of mass destruction (WMDs).

7)    We need to reconstruct the military-industrial complex away from the purely (Milton) Friedmanite principle of solely focusing on shareholder value as the fiduciary responsibility and purpose of a corporation. Our defense production needs to be completely restored to within the territory of the United States of America. In testimony to the House Armed Services Committee, General Alton D. Slay underlined the importance of the latter point when he stated in November 1980, “It is a contradiction to think that we can maintain our position as a first class military power with a second class industrial base.”^[4] Soviet dissident Roy Medvedev confirmed the challenges of a divided government, paralyzed by private interests and unable to agree on a national plan for rearmament. During the height of the Cold War, Medvedev stated back in 1980, “In the United States, everything is based on private interest, and it is impossible to get anything accomplished there. People talk about Soviet bureaucratism, but it’s really America that is plagued by the problem. If the Pentagon wants to build a new fighter or bomber, it has to pay Lockheed twice as much as the plane costs in order to get private industry to do the job for the government. Americans care too much about their standard of living to build an army to match ours. Everything is ruled by private interests. There is no unified command. Nixon couldn’t beat tiny Vietnam because the country was too divided to win a war. We sent a few thousand troops down to Angola and we took over the place in just a few weeks.”^[5] Rearmament needs to be premised on a combination of unified planning and private production kept in check to maintain efficiency and reduce massive overcharging of the taxpayer. Popular support for a stronger defense policy (with a unified plan not overly beholden to private interests) would need to be achieved through an educational campaign by the Federal government (through the Department of Defense in cooperation with the White House).

8)    When engaged in comparative analysis of the defense budgets of Russia, China, and the United States, analysts need to reject the mirror imaging of all countries. Each country retains their own unique economic structures and military policies. As General Mark Milley, the former Army Chief of Staff, testified “…countries like Russia and China buy most of their equipment from domestic suppliers, which they can pay in local currency…most of these domestic defense firms are also either officially government-owned or heavily government-influenced, and their products are generally much cheaper than their US equivalents.”^[6] On the contrary, the US purchases most of its weapons from private defense contractors who typically charge very high costs for their products and services.

9)    Another area of concern is America’s paradoxical political opposition to Russia and China and our dependence on their resources for our national sustenance. Michael Lind pointed this out well when he wrote, “One side of the new Cold War is led by countries like China and Russia, whose economic power rests on their control of physical goods. On the other side, the Western alliance dominates the financial and information sectors of the virtual economy. Neither side is completely independent of the other, but the division between them is unequal. Despite protests over Ukraine, Western Europe still needs to buy Russian gas to avoid freezing in the winter. The U.S. assails the Chinese government, but remains utterly reliant on China to supply Americans with critical goods like antibiotics.”[7] Terminating this contradiction would be a costly challenge, especially since it may trigger a potential war with Russia and China. As defecting GRU Colonel Stanislav Lunev told J.R. Nyquist back in 1999, Russia and China would consider attacking the West “When they can no longer get money from the West.”^[8] Our contradictory relationship with Russia and China needs to be terminated through a bi-partisan national plan/consensus combined with a popular educational program on the necessity of such a policy shift. It will be gingerly applied since any rash actions could damage the economy in the short term and possibly provoke Russia and China to launch an attack on the US. Instead, we need to institute a long term plan to slowly wean ourselves off of Russia (which seems to have been accomplished after 2022) and especially China.

10) Our civil defense program is basically non-existent compared to Russia and China. Dr. Irwin Redlener, director of a Columbia University think tank on national disasters, warned that “…we are sadly not prepared for megadisasters and it’s very distressing. Progress is very slow, money is being spent that’s not transparent or accountable, especially federal dollars. The whole thing is a large failure of the government to move quickly on a subject of pressing importance to the public. We’ve had billions of dollars of random acts of preparedness. We are just now trying to get an accounting of what we’ve spent, and it’s an absolute nightmare. It’s been irresponsible, nontransparent, wasteful, and it hasn’t made the government safer. And billions and billions of dollars have been spent on this.”^[9]

Let’s start with the givens. There is no doubt in my mind that the US needs to maintain and even achieve superiority (both numerically and technologically) in conventional and strategic forces. This includes the modernization of our ICBMs by increasing the life of their atomic warheads and possibly placing the launchers on trains or trucks. Secondly, it is wholly reasonable to expect that the United States Armed Forces maintains troop, tank, and artillery strength at levels comparable if not superior to that of the combined power of Russia and China. According to the Institute for Strategic Studies’ Military Balance for 2017, the combined artillery, tank, and troop numbers of the Russian and Chinese military overwhelmed the United States. According to this well-regarded reference source, the US fielded over 2.2 million active duty and reserve troops, while Russia/China maintained 5.4 million regular and reserve troops. China and Russia also fielded over 9,400 main battle tanks and over 17,300 artillery guns, while the retained 2,300 main battle tanks and over 5,000 artillery pieces.^[10] (It is quite possible that both the Russian and American inventories were reduced due to the military commitments in Ukraine). Radical Civic Nationalists are in complete agreement with virtually all pro-national defense Republicans and Democrats on the need for continued (if not increased) investments in weapons systems and maintenance of numerically superior conventional forces. Beyond this point, Radical Civic Nationalists break with much of the political establishment’s approach to defense policies.

Deindustrialization is a huge problem that was brought about by Cold War era geopolitics and short-sighted business decisions. Historically, a self-sufficient industrial base was critical for the US to defeat the Confederate States of America (CSA) and the Axis Powers. Many contemporary historians ascribed the defeat of the CSA to its limited industrial base.^[11] A powerful industrial base was also needed to defeat the Axis Powers during World War II, in part because (to quote a Center of Military History study dated from 1960) Germany, Italy, and Japan “had a military machine overwhelmingly powerful in land and air forces, backed by an immediate war industrial capacity far greater than that of any other nation. These means were at the disposal of leaders utterly devoid of a sense of international morality.”[12] Unfortunately, we have lost this advantage relative to our main adversaries (Russia and China). Our degraded production base has placed America’s ability to defend itself and our allies in a difficult position. This was a long-standing problem which started in the 1970s and became very noticeable during the 1980s. Army Chief of Staff General John A. Wickham Jr. observed in June 1987 that the US Army “would run out of supplies after only a few months of intense fighting because there is no national production base to support it.”^[13] In a 1985 Annual Report to Congress, Secretary of Defense Casper Weinberger warned “While the US industrial base was experiencing its greatest decline in history, with detrimental effects on both civilian and defense sectors, the Soviet Union was rapidly expanding its industrial base, which is overwhelmingly dedicated to armaments production.”^[14] The problem worsened during the 1990s and 2000s. According to the Center for Strategic and International Studies, our defense industrial base could not aid in the defense of Taiwan, since we would run out of important long-range, precision-guided munitions in less than one week.[15] Exporting our industrial base in pursuit of short-term shareholder profits (through leveraged buyouts) was one of the chief culprits for the hollowing out of our defense industrial base. Bill Hickey, who was the owner of a metal fabricator/processing firm, recalled a conversation he had with an admiral who commanded the American submarine fleet. When Trump increased the military budget, the Navy realized that they could not produce the high-end castings for more submarines. Why? As Hickey related, “the LBO (leveraged buy-out) guys” bought up manufacturing facilities in the 1990s and moved them to China. As Hickey lamented, “The middle-class Americans who did the manufacturing work, all that capability, machine tools, knowledge, it just became worthless, driven by the stock price. The national ability to produce is a national treasure. If you can’t produce you won’t consume, and you can’t defend yourself.”^[16] The Trump Administration’s own Defense Department researched our industrial decline and pinpointed the culprits. Hint, it had nothing to do with those pesky environmentalists or intrusive regulations. Its Fiscal Year 2019 Industrial Capabilities Report to Congress implicated the financialization of the economy (focus on short term profits), lack of coordinated national planning, and lack of concern towards underinvestment in critical sectors of our economy.^[17]

There is also a fundamental misunderstanding of the fundamental strengths of a national economy. It is based on what I termed the Six Sources of National Wealth (manufacturing, mining, agriculture, R&D, infrastructure, and education). Our understanding of defense spending levels became tainted because many analysts misunderstand the key factors critical for a country’s economic power. Michael Lind wrote “The French scholar Jacques Sapir has argued that American economic statistics inflate ‘paper’ sectors like finance and real estate, and disguise areas important for national strategy in which the U.S. is at a disadvantage compared to China or Russia, like manufacturing and mining.”^[18] During the height of the Cold War, Soviet dissident Roy Medvedev stated back in 1980, “The Soviet Union is moving in one direction-toward the strengthening of our military might…Of course, our country has many problems-we are poor, we dress badly and eat badly. But in the key sectors of the economy we are growing and growing, and the United States cannot stop us…our country is a military machine. We are continuing now as we did in World War II-we were poor then, we starved and froze in miserable apartments, but we beat the Germans. The Germans lost nine million and we lost 20 million, but we won the war. We won because our system allowed the spending of colossal resources for one purpose alone-military strength.”^[19]  According to Medvedev, Americans typically conflated the production of high-quality consumer goods and services with the ability/inability to produce weapons: “We may be primitive, but we will take over-Americans are fools. They come to Russia, stay in our hotels, eat in the restaurants and find out that everything here is badly run. Then they return to the United States with the conclusion that since Russia can’t run a hotel, it can’t build a rocket. They don’t realize that we put everything into rocketry, that the government does not care about whether or not anything is left over for the population.” ^[20] Medvedev had a point, since the USSR and its successor state, the Russian Federation, produced durable and quality weapons such as the AK-47 assault rifle, T-34 tank, stealth aircraft, accurate ICBMs, and dangerous chemical and biological weapons.

            Many of the largest military contractors supplying our armed forces with weapons and other critical items conducted business with our geopolitical adversaries. This was evident during the Cold War as well as during the period of the 1920s and 1930s. Some of the major American defense contractors turned out to be board members of the US-Soviet Trade and Economic Council (USTEC). They included companies such as Rockwell International, Hewlett Packard, and General Electric.^[21] Equally incredible is General Motors, Boeing, and Raytheon exploring and seeking to inaugurate investments in North Korea during the 1990s.^[22] During the 1990s and 2000s, components and rare earth metals from Russia and China were increasingly used in our weapons systems, all in the name of lower costs and a flawed understanding of geopolitics.^[23] In 2008, Computer Sciences Corporation was awarded a contract from the Department of Defense (DOD) to create communications software for the DOD’s Defense Information Security Agency (DISA.) The company then subcontracted part of the work to Netcracker Technology, who used Russian services in order to lower costs.^[25] By 2016, the United States lifted a ban on importing Russian-made RD-180 rocket engines for use by the US Defense Department in launching payloads in Earth’s orbit. United Launch Alliance (ULA), a joint venture of Boeing and Lockheed Martin that has long been the primary contractor for launching Defense Department payloads into space, used Russian-made RD-180 rocket engines.^[26] Despite the rising tensions with China, some of largest defense contractors have treasonously refused to break ties with Beijing. Greg Hayes, chief executive of Raytheon, said the company had “several thousand suppliers in China and decoupling…is impossible…We can de-risk but not decouple…Think about the $500bn of trade that goes from China to the US every year. More than 95 per cent of rare earth materials or metals come from, or are processed in, China. There is no alternative…If we had to pull out of China, it would take us many, many years to re-establish that capability either domestically or in other friendly countries.”^[27] What should be done about this refusal to unequivocally support the common national defense? We as a society have to grapple with the necessity of checking private sector power whenever it clashes with national security. This will come about through lobbying bans, radical campaign finance reforms, and revocation of corporate charters (“corporate death penalty”) for businesses which clearly stab the country in the back. Radical Civic Nationalism contains both the ideological framework and programmatic plan to undertake this difficult task. Conservatives are generally paralyzed by the “government is always the problem” ideology while portions of the hard-core left are in denial that the US even faces a threat from Russia and China. Arthur Schlesinger was truly onto something when he wrote, “…The plutocracy thinks in terms of class and not of nation, in terms of private profit and not of social obligation, in terms of business dealings and not of war, in terms of security and not of honor.”^[28] Hence, plutocrats have no right to disproportionately shape any aspect of our country’s defense policy.

Our Federal government is wholly remiss in defending our most precious national resource: our people. Our political elites have taken care of themselves through the Deep Underground Bunkers (DUMBS) while many superwealthy Americans have enough resources to build shelters in case of a natural disaster, economic collapse, or global war. In the event of cataclysmic natural disasters and a global war, the same super-rich elites that dominate are government are the first ones to abandon the country and people who helped generate their wealth. This was evidenced, in part, by many billionaires purchasing bunkers in the US (using old ICBM silos on several occasions) and abroad to escape possible disasters or global wars in the future.^[29] Dr. Irwin Redlener, director of a Columbia University think tank on national disasters, was deeply disturbed about this apparent lack of national solidarity and callous disregard of millions of average Americans on the part of wealthy Americans and a Federal government in denial about the need for a robust civil defense. Dr. Redlener wrote: “In general, I am very concerned about creating a 2-tiered response system. The dynamic of disparities between the affluent and the rest of us, particularly the poor, seems to have deteriorated in recent years and it is certainly not my view of what this country stands for.” Dr. Redlener asserted, “But this whole thing with Sovereign Deed (a private company which shelters super-wealthy Americans) is very uncomfortable. It’s a vision that we’re going to have the top 1/10th of 1% saved in a major calamity. In the face of a major calamity, everyone else is screwed. It doesn’t sound American.”^[30] Given that many within this top 1/10^th of the 1% have no connection with our country’s destiny makes me less sympathetic to their physical survival. Remember, these are the folks who have leveraged our political system to provide open trade relations with Communist China, Vietnam, and Russia. Through leveraged buyout deals and adherence to short term business models, the 1/10^th of the 1% helped deindustrialize the US, leaving our country unprepared to deal with World War III. Their greed antagonized a growing number of Americans away from supporting our free enterprise system and political liberalism.

Radical Civic Nationalists fully support exploring and then implementing a civil defense program modeled on the recommendations issued in the November 1957 report Deterrence and Survival in the Nuclear Age of the Security Resources Panel of the Science Advisory Committee.^[31] A national civil defense program would include the development of hardened underground facilities and warehouses where items such as medical equipment, vaccines, antibiotics, lab equipment, food, appliances, construction machinery, automobiles, trucks, firearms, de-contamination equipment, and other items needed to repair damage from a WMD attack would be stored. All underground facilities and warehouses will be constructed with American-made materials and labor. Our people are our Nation’s most precious resource! Promote the adequate defense of our military bases, Command and Control locations, major industrial, and population areas as recommended in the November 1957 report Deterrence and Survival in the Nuclear Age of the Security Resources Panel of the Science Advisory Committee.^[32] This report recommended missile defense at SAC bases, early warning radar, hardening of Air Force bomber bases and personnel, modernization of IRBM and ICBM fleets, and the hardening of those missiles kept in silos. Missile defense systems would be installed to protect the population and strategic areas of the Nation. Strategic areas would include command and control centers, seats of government (including Washington DC), and industrial centers vital for war production.^[33] We would also consider placing ICBMs on trains, thus increasing their mobility in the face of an enemy attack. Meanwhile, what have Russia and China done? Build, build, and build more shelters and bunkers to protect their weapons, supplies, food stocks, and population. According to Dr. Phil Karber of Georgetown University, “For 45 years China has been building a large underground tunnel complex for protection on of its nuclear weapons and delivery systems.” According to Karber’s study, this network of over 3,000 miles of tunnels was called the Underground Great Wall. According to Chinese media, this network contained “extremely large tunnels with strategic missiles and ‘missile trains.’”[34] Starting under Brezhnev and continuing during the 1990s, the Russians started thr construction of a massive bunker complex inside Yamantau Mountain in the Urals. Even the appeasement-minded Clinton Administration were worried. A senior A US official stated, “We can’t say with confidence what the purpose is, and the Russians are not very interested in having us go in there. It is being built on a huge scale and involves a major investment of resources. The investments are being made at a time when the Russians are complaining they do not have the resources to do things pertaining to arms control.”[35] Meanwhile, according to Segodnya military correspondent Pavel Felgengauer, Prime Minister Viktor Chernomyrdin “was at the Odintsovo nuclear command center, overseeing an exercise whose assignment was ‘to destroy the U.S. in less than an hour.’”[36] While Russia and China ramped up for war and defense of their people/resources, the US willfully ignored the evidence and fell asleep. Perhaps symbolic of this situation was the retirement of the old Civil Defense symbol in 2006 by the Bush Administration.[37]

Radical Civic Nationalists support the hardening of our national electrical grids in response to the threat of an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attack. An EMP attack is seriously considered by our geopolitical adversaries and needs to be taken seriously. North Korea’s Nuclear Weapons Institute noted in 2017, “The H-bomb, the explosive power of which is adjustable from tens kiloton to hundreds kiloton, is a multifunctional thermonuclear nuke with great destructive power which can be detonated even at high altitudes for super-powerful EMP attack according to strategic goals.”[38] Vladimir Lukin, head of a Russian delegation to the US warned, “Hypothetically, if Russia really wanted to hurt the United States in retaliation for NATO’s bombing of Yugoslavia, Russia could fire an SLBM and detonate a single nuclear warhead at high altitude over the United States. The resulting EMP would massively disrupt U.S. communications and computer systems, shutting down everything.” China’s military doctrine openly pointed out America’s vulnerability to an EMP attack. People’s Liberation Army (PLA) newspaper articles dated from May 1996 claimed, “Some people might think that things similar to the ‘Pearl Harbor Incident’ are unlikely to take place during the information age. Yet it could be regarded as the ‘Pearl Harbor Incident’ of the 21st century if a surprise attack is conducted against the enemy’s crucial information systems of command, control, and communications by such means as...electromagnetic pulse weapons...Even a superpower like the United States, which possesses nuclear missiles and powerful armed forces, cannot guarantee its immunity...In their own words, a highly computerized open society like the United States is extremely vulnerable to electronic attacks from all sides. This is because the U.S. economy, from banks to telephone systems and from power plants to iron and steel works, relies entirely on computer networks.... When a country grows increasingly powerful economically and technologically.... it will become increasingly dependent on modern information systems.... The United States is more vulnerable to attacks than any other country in the world.”[39] According to a March 2006 issue of Iranian Journal, “Terrorist information warfare includes using the technology directed energy weapons or electromagnetic pulse.”[40] Another issue of the same Iranian publication asserted, “If the world’s industrial countries fail to devise effective ways to defend themselves against dangerous electronic assaults, then they will disintegrate within a few years....American soldiers would not be able to find food to eat nor would they be able to fire a single shot.”[41]

Radical Civic Nationalists support the continued implementation of top-of-the-line cyberwarfare/cyberdefense infrastructure. Cyberwarfare units based in hostile nations pose a major threat to the political, economic, and national security of the US. North Korea, China, Russia, Cuba, Iran, and other rogue powers have bolstered their cyberwarfare programs and targeted American institutions. In February 2008, Russia surpassed China as the largest generator of malware. Russia accounted for 27.9% of malware generated while China came into the not so distant second place with 26.5%.[42] Since the late 1980s, the North Korean State Security Agency (SSA) engaged in computer hacking.[43] In 1990, the Korea Computer Center, bolstered by foreign technology from capitalist states, was also involved in computer hacking and other cyberwarfare activities.[44] Starting in the 1980s, the Soviets hacked computer systems in America’s defense establishment, which yielded information on our nuclear weapons program and our Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) program. During the 1970s, the KGB bugged typewriters at the American Embassy in Moscow.[45] After the “collapse” of the Soviet Union, the Russians offered convicted hackers an opportunity to work for the FSB in exchange for judicial immunity.[46] The Russian defense establishment wholeheartedly supported the weaponization of information technology. In 2007, Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov suggested, “The development of information technology has resulted in information itself turning into a certain kind of weapon. It is a weapon that allows us to carry out would- be military actions in practically any theater of war and most importantly, without using military power. That is why we have to take all the necessary steps to develop, improve, and, if necessary—and it already seems to be necessary—develop new multi-purpose automatic control systems, so that in the future we do not find ourselves left with nothing.”[47] Starting in 1999, Chinese hackers attacked American targets, which included the Department of Defense, defense contractors, other government agencies, and major companies like Google. Chinese hackers are part of Unit 61398 of the People’s Liberation Army.[48] In 1991, the Cubans formed a hacking group under the control of the Military Intelligence Directorate of the Armed Forces.[49] In 2016, Iranian hackers associated with the Revolutionary Guard launched cyberattacks on computerized controls for a small dam north of New York City, the New Stock Exchange, AT&T[50], the Sands casino properties, petrochemical, defense and aviation firms, and major American banks, since they are the “properties of American-Zionist Capitalists.” Radical Mexican students, Russian, Cuban, and Venezuelan officials based at embassies in Mexico City also collaborated with the Iranians in hacking and other cyberwarfare operations.[51]

The governance model and economics implemented by the Reaganomics crowd undermined our capability to forge strategically minded defense program. The three-legged stool of Reaganism (Fusionism) stipulates a rigid social conservatism and fealty to its goals of stronger families and a moral population; wide open free enterprise and global trade (even with adversaries like China and to a lesser degree the old Soviet Union); and a strong national defense posture (focusing on weapons and troop numbers alone). However, to ensure that our country has the ability to defend itself, our political culture needs to jettison the “drown the government in the bathtub” ideology and implement a wide-ranging industrial policy. We cannot be allergic to state action, interventionism, and “picking winners and losers.” Two lonely conservative voices in the wilderness Anthony Harrigan and William R. Hawkins observed how “…conservatives who are normally the most sensitive to national threats and the most supportive of economic growth have been paralyzed by the notion that any act of government involving the economy is a sign of socialism.”^[52] Sadly, Harrigan and Hawkins are correct. Instead, we should heed the advice of Matt Stoller, who wrote in Foreign Policy, “The only way to organize a system resilient to Chinese intrusions is to make it clear that the era of big government is back, and that Wall Street is no longer able to force companies to think short-term. If China is using U.S. corporations to lobby and control the American state, then weakening the ability of corporations to lobby is the only answer. If China is using American divisiveness against Americans, then the only answer is to make America less divided. The U.S. government, not short-term-focused financiers, has to be the boss. The era of big government must come back...”^[53] This is one of my biggest disagreements with much of Conservative Inc. and the Republican Party, save for a few exceptions such as Senators Marco Rubio (R-FL), J.D. Vance (R-OH), and Josh Hawley (R-MO). In many ways, the Club for Growth, Americans for Tax Reform, and other likeminded organizations are just as deleterious for our defense efforts as the communists and their allies in the so-called antiwar movement.

The push to privatize defense functions is great, especially in the ostensibly “pro-military” Republican Party. While Radical Civic Nationalists should not completely exclude the private sector from our defense structure, our military should never be captured and controlled by these forces. Eric Prince of Blackwater wrote in May 2024: “America’s private sector has always outperformed government in solving problems. It is time to unleash America’s entrepreneurs in foreign policy to cut costs and restore American credibility.”[54] The push to privatize our military started under Reagan/Bush and accelerated under Clinton. This involved alliances between the anti- “Big Government” Republicans and anti-Cold War Democrats.

During the 1990s, House Speaker Newt Gingrich referred to himself as a “cheap hawk.”^[55] This cult of cheapness extended to defense production. This started in earnest under President George H.W. Bush. Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney supported the importation of foreign-made military equipment and arms. Cheney noted if foreign defense production were not supported, it would then prompt political forces to “raise questions about my spending money on things I could get cheaper elsewhere, and it raises the specter of having to rely upon less than first rate technology in certain areas.”^[56] Privatization of defense functions under Clinton (in alliance with corporate Republicans) became commonplace. The Clinton Administration’s “reinventing government” initiative massively increased the power of private defense corporations and eviscerated contractor rules from the procurement process. This process accelerated under the tenure of Clinton’s Defense Secretary William Perry (a mergers specialist and a huge fan of high technology), who gathered defense industry CEOs in 1993 and told them they would have to merge into monopolies in order to reduce military spending. The number of prime defense contractors were reduced from sixteen to six; subcontractor mergers quadrupled from 1990 to 1998. The personnel from the Defense Logistics Agency were slashed, thus purging a vast store of institutional knowledge from the DOD on the contracting process.^[57] During the early 2000s, the DOD cut 130,000 employees dedicated to negotiating and monitoring defense contracts. This was done to save money and for ideological reasons.[58] So where anti-Cold War Democrats and corporate, anti- “Big Government” Republicans leave us? In the financial gutter, covered with heaps of greed and bad policies. Consider that of the 63 largest Pentagon programs, 50 are over budget by $296 billion.^[59] On July 26, 2016, the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) issued a report “Army General Fund Adjustments Not Adequately Documented or Supported” which disclosed that the army failed to provide adequate accountability for $6.5 trillion in Fiscal Year 2015. According to Mark Skidmore and Catherine Austin Fitts (the former Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development), original government sources indicated a total of $21 trillion in unaccounted expenses for the DOD and HUD from 1998 to 2015.^[60] After 1,600 auditors combed through Pentagon’s $3.5 trillion in assets and $3.7 trillion in liabilities, officials found that the Department of Defense was unable to account for about 61 percent of its assets, Pentagon Comptroller Mike McCord told reporters on Tuesday.^[61] Financial waste and fraud extends to the procurement process. Shay Assad, formerly the Executive Vice President and Chief Contract Negotiator for Raytheon and then the DOD contract negotiator, the DOD was “convinced that they could rely on the companies to do what was in the best interests of the war fighters and the taxpayers.” Private defense contractors vastly increased the costs of goods, services, and weapons. For example, a shoulder fired Stinger SAM cost $25,000 in 1991 and skyrocketed to $400,000 to replace each Stinger used by the Ukrainians. In 2015, according to an investigation ordered by Assad, Lockheed Martin and Boeing, massively overcharged the DOD and American allies by hundreds of millions of dollars for Patriot PAC-3 missiles.[62] It was no small wonder that a DOD study indicated that major defense contractors were flush with “cash beyond their needs for operations or investment.”[63] This lack of accountability combined with massive overcharging and corruption in procurement represents a real challenge to the very concept of a strong national defense. This kind of corruption and profiteering plays right in the hands of the anti-defense lobby (of the left and elements of the isolationist/noninterventionist right). Ultimately, Russia and China benefits from the blackening of the image of the military-industrial complex. How do we reverse this situation and restore the credibility of the military-industrial complex?

1)    There needs to be a culture of accountability. Assad was correct when he recommended that private defense contractors “need to be held accountable. No matter who they are, no matter what company it is, they need to be held accountable. And right now that accountability system is broken in the Department of Defense.” Assad was correct when he stated, “We have to have a financially healthy defense industrial base. We all want that. But what we don’t want to do is get taken advantage of and hoodwinked.”[64]

2)    The Department of Defense needs to retain a team of tough negotiators to secure the best prices for military goods and services from the private sector. This will free up cash for other defense or social programs.

3)    While shareholders should benefit, the first priority should be the production of the best possible weapons at a reasonable cost. If this fails to materialize, then the Department of Defense will have to explore options to nationalize these defense contractor firms to lower costs while producing the best weapons possible. As General Milley pointed out, China and Russia were able to inexpensively produce weapons due to the factories being owned by the governments. This should be a choice of absolute last resort, since Radical Civic Nationalists eschew socialist measures unless absolutely necessary. There is some precedent for government ownership and operation of defense plants. One such factory is the Joint Systems Manufacturing Center located in Lima Ohio. This plant produced M-1 Abrams tanks. While this factory was operated by a private contractor, it was owned by the government.[65] If the Federal government owned the most monopolistic defense concerns, America will not turn into Putin’s Russia or North Korea.

4)    We would also eliminate the overcharging by defense contractors and waste/fraud in the DOD. This could result in a cost savings of $31 to $60 billion.^[66]

5)    Former Defense Department officials and all military personnel will be banned from lobbying.

6)    Radical campaign finance reforms will be implemented which will remove the pressure private sector donors (including defense contractors) exert on legislators.

While America should maintain a military presence (mostly air and naval assets) in Western Europe, Latin America, and Asia, we should carefully avoid provocative actions against our geopolitical adversaries. Certain elements within the hype-interventionist wings of both major political parties appear quick to dive into a conflict with major powers (like Russia) ostensibly in an effort to defend human rights, democracy, and our national interest. One memorable exchange occurred during one of the Republican Party primary debates back in 2016. In one such debate, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie declared: “Yes, we would shoot down the planes of Russian pilots if in fact they were stupid enough to think that this president was the same feckless weakling that the president we have in the Oval Office is right now.”^[67] Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) was the voice of reason when he countered: “My goodness, what we want in a leader is someone with judgment, not someone who is so reckless as to stand on the stage and say, ‘Yes, I’m jumping up and down, I’m going to shoot down Russian planes. It is a recipe for disaster. It is a recipe for World War III.”^[68] Sometimes, our leaders will utter statements which have the whiff of economic colonialist ambitions. Donald Trump stated at a political event in North Carolina: “When I left, (office) Venezuela was ready to collapse. We would have taken it over, we would have gotten all that oil.”^[69] There are several problems with rhetoric and positions quoted above:

1)    They blacken the reputation of the US, thus playing right into the hands of Russian and Chinese propaganda (and their assets in the US).

2)    The US is not ready to fight World War 3 with Russia and China (especially if they launch a combined counterattack against the Americans).

3)    They can lead to unnecessary loss of life and resources. War should only be a last resort in case the American continent is attacked or (possibly) if key allies are unable to defend themselves.

Another challenge facing the American armed forces is recruitment shortfalls. The facts are sobering. In 2022, the US Army reached only about 52% of its recruiting goals. US Air Force General David Allvin warned: “We’ve reduced our pilot shortage by 250 airmen, yet we still have over 1,600 pilot vacancies.” Colonel Matthew Amidon, Director of Veterans and Military Families at the George W. Bush Institute, observed: “This could potentially be multi-generational in terms of its impact. Young recruits today, become our young and senior leaders of tomorrow. So if you can’t develop them today, you have a gap in leadership tomorrow.” Amidon believed that “has to do with criminality, can’t necessarily pass the initial intake test, and or mental health conditions, things like that, and obesity and physicality.”[70] Topping it off is the woke-leftist propaganda pervading the military, which also turns off recruits. While diversity in the military should respected (nonwhites, women-if they are able to pass the same physical tests as men, and LGBTQ+ individuals) it should remain subjected to tight discipline with ethics of a strong solidarity irrespective of differences. As a Heritage Foundation study noted, “Although direct ‘cause and effect’ studies on the impact of woke policies such as these do not exist, common sense suggests that the consequences for military readiness are dramatic. Spending billions on woke programs while the Chinese are outpacing us on hypersonic weapons, quantum computing, and other important military technologies is one piece of evidence. Recent reports showing the military’s dismal failure to gain new recruits in adequate numbers is another. Is anyone surprised that potential recruits—many of whom come from rural or poor areas of the country—don’t want to spend their time being lectured about white privilege?”[71] What are some solutions to boost recruiting?

1)    Inculcating on all levels of society a culture of service and community. As US Army veteran and Congressman Mike Waltz stated “I believe, as a culture, we need to get back to a society of service. I think we need to look at national service, you don’t have to be in uniform to serve, you can be in inner city tutoring, national parks, oral medicine, but how do we get our youngest folks, frankly, off the couch? Off the video games and out serving each other and learning those life skills of teamwork, discipline, followership, leadership.”[72] Radical Civic Nationalism is perfectly suited to pursue this goal. A mandatory national service during high school could help foster this new culture of civic nationalism and community at the expense of extreme social atomism, apathy, and alienation. This is something that should be explored and discussed in a rational, non-ideologically charged fashion.

2)    Ending woke-left indoctrination and moving towards a culture which subsumes differences and highlights the common patriotism of the military personnel.

3)    Continue medical, psychological, and educational programs for veterans of the military.

4)    In the event the US enters a war, our government should blunt antiwar leftist and isolationist rightwing propaganda with the maximum number of facts and a powerful counternarrative.

5)    A national culture and policy directed at the population at large which incentivizes healthy eating and fitness through possible subsidies for gym memberships at community centers, better labor policies which encourage work-life balance, and eliminating sales taxes for healthy foods.

Lastly and in conclusion, what should our defense spending priorities look like? With the cost savings achieved from military procurement reform, reigning in contractors, and selectively closing military bases overseas, the US could potentially afford the programs needed to secure the homeland. In addition to maintaining our standing military with a superiority in strategic and conventional weapons, the US would need to invest in a massive civil defense program based on the recommendations of the 1957 Deterrence and Survival in the Nuclear Age of the Security Resources Panel of the Science Advisory Committee. This is estimated to cost $371 billion in today’s dollars.[73] Next, hardening the electrical grid will be another priority for a Radical Civic Nationalist government. According to EMP expert Dr. Peter Vincent Pry, the total cost to harden all of the critical infrastructure ranges from $10-20 billion. This could be funded in part from annual rate increases of 20 cents in our citizens’ electric bills.[74] Radical Civic Nationalists would continue the program of enhancing the modernization/Life Extension Programs for American nuclear warheads. Over the next twenty-five years, the National Nuclear Security Administration plans on spending over $293.4 billion on modernizing nuclear warheads (including the Life Extension programs) and the accompanying infrastructure/disposal costs.[75] We reiterate our support for this project. Lastly, there must be massive investments in anti-ballistic missile defense to cover much of continental United States from a Russian/Chinese missile attack. This defense could be achieved through an expanded number of Ground-Based Midcourse Defense (GMD) systems or restarting the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) as originally proposed during President Reagan’s first term in office. Unfortunately, our current GMD system consists of forty-four interceptors, which is not enough to counter an all-out Russian ballistic missile attack. The estimated cost for the GMD program from 2013 to 2017 was $892 million per year.[76] Let’s say defense experts recommend doubling the number of GMD systems to protect the US from an all-out Russian missile attack. How much would such an increase cost? It would total over $1.7 billion per year. A relaunched SDI program could cost (in today’s dollars) over $405 billion spread over ten years.[77] While these measures would be costly over both the long and short term, one of the most important responsibilities of the Federal government is to ensure the “common defense” of our Republic. Our Republic has achieved massive feats before: space travel, rearming to defeat three highly industrialized fascist powers, ensured the survival of the Union during the Civil War, and threw off the yoke of British colonialism. Let’s conclude on this optimistic note: America is more than capable of achieving the above-mentioned goals in the realm of defense policy. Our country has no shortage of great minds and potential leaders amongst intellectuals, professionals, small businesspeople, and the working class. America’s latent patriotism, entrepreneurial spirit, and natural resources are all valuable assets that can be harnessed for the common defense of the United States.

What are your thoughts? Do you have any additional recommendations on defense policy? Please let me know in the comments section.

---

[1] George Washington Mount Vernon Library Accessed From: https://www.mountvernon.org/library/digitalhistory/past-projects/quotes/article/to-be-prepared-for-war-is-one-of-the-most-effectual-means-of-preserving-peace/

[2] Theodore Roosevelt Accessed From: https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/presidents/theodore-roosevelt/

[3] “Second Bill of Rights” Accessed From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Bill_of_Rights

[4] Harrigan, Anthony and Hawkins, William R. American Economic Pre-Eminence (USIC Educational Foundation, 1989) page 65.

[5] Proposed Legislation to Establish an Office of Strategic Trade Hearings Before the Committee on Governmental Affairs, United States Senate, Ninety-sixth Congress, Second Session, on S. 2606 September 24 and 25, 1980 Accessed From: https://books.googleusercontent.com/books/content?req=AKW5QaddPVwc4Gd9ZukpER4jaxYmLmSV70Ik46sDeELH13nB1oal4o2p6mqwB8WcLqkIxuBwPf_I6KRn7oizax8g797q8zCwaHy9s-B1C9JJLgxGqwD-DTMYpNteaGcZ1e-YpktMqEbDVTa3LD18nTIs3sUwoO7GcqxN8voFtbs9gMKoP_MznU90pgDtMpVvk-xP_OoGZE5qxqaCrMOS13pCtxd43ZLg-O5ARVp0wLW_fC03R4iswGWZm-GRU2IqzXBaGBUJb8DoT3b41kDm4E2D9WJZlur9P2iEz00Eo0zjF9GQA_f8cW4

[6] Sydney J. Freedberg Jr. “US Defense Budget Not That Much Bigger Than China, Russia: Gen. Milley” May 22, 2018 Accessed From: https://breakingdefense.com/2018/05/us-defense-budget-not-that-much-bigger-than-china-russia-gen-milley/

[7] Michael Lind “Cold War II” Tablet Magazine January 23, 2023 Accessed From: https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/cold-war-2

[8] J.R. Nyquist “Did Xi Jinping Intentionally Release the COVID-19 Virus?” March 20, 2020 Accessed From: https://jrnyquist.blog/2020/03/20/did-xi-jinping-intentionally-release-the-covid-19-virus/comment-page-1/

[9] “Is Survival Only for the Rich” Northern Express December 12, 2007 Accessed From: https://www.northernexpress.com/news/feature/article-3111-is-survival-only-for-the-rich/

[10] The Military Balance 2017 (International Institute for Strategic Studies) Accessed From: https://archive.org/details/THEMILITARYBALANCE

[11] Carl Zebrowski “Why the South Lost the Civil War” August 19, 1999 Accessed From: http://www.historynet.com/why-the-south-lost-the-civil-war-cover-page-february-99-american-history-feature.htm

[12] Stetson Conn and Byron Fairchild The Framework of Hemisphere Defense (Center of Military Defense United States Army Washington DC 1989) Accessed From: https://history.army.mil/books/wwii/Framework/ch03.htm

[13] Morris, Robert. Our Globe Under Siege III (J & W Enterprises, 1985) page 4.

[14] Department of Defense Appropriations for 1985: Hearings Before a Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives, Ninety-eighth Congress, Second Session, Parts 1-2 United States. Congress. House. Committee on Appropriations. Subcommittee on Dept. of Defense U.S. Government Printing Office, 1984 page 83.

[15] Joe Gould “US defense industry unprepared for a China fight, says report” Defense News January 23, 2023 Accessed From: https://www.defensenews.com/industry/2023/01/23/us-defense-industry-unprepared-for-a-china-fight-says-report/

[16] Matt Stoller and Lucas Kunce “America’s Monopoly Crisis Hits the Military” The American Conservative June 27, 2019 Accessed From: https://www.theamericanconservative.com/americas-monopoly-crisis-hits-the-military/

[17] Fiscal Year 2019 Industrial Capabilities Report to Congress Accessed From: https://www.businessdefense.gov/Portals/51/Documents/Resources/USA000954-20%20RPT%20Subj%20FY19%20ICR%2007092020.pdf?ver=2020-07-10-124452-180

[18] Michael Lind “Knight Takes Rook in Cold War II” Tablet Magazine March 13, 2023 Accessed From: https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/knight-takes-rook-cold-war-2

[19] Proposed Legislation to Establish an Office of Strategic Trade Hearings Before the Committee on Governmental Affairs, United States Senate, Ninety-sixth Congress, Second Session, on S. 2606 September 24 and 25, 1980 Accessed From: https://books.googleusercontent.com/books/content?req=AKW5QaddPVwc4Gd9ZukpER4jaxYmLmSV70Ik46sDeELH13nB1oal4o2p6mqwB8WcLqkIxuBwPf_I6KRn7oizax8g797q8zCwaHy9s-B1C9JJLgxGqwD-DTMYpNteaGcZ1e-YpktMqEbDVTa3LD18nTIs3sUwoO7GcqxN8voFtbs9gMKoP_MznU90pgDtMpVvk-xP_OoGZE5qxqaCrMOS13pCtxd43ZLg-O5ARVp0wLW_fC03R4iswGWZm-GRU2IqzXBaGBUJb8DoT3b41kDm4E2D9WJZlur9P2iEz00Eo0zjF9GQA_f8cW4

[20] Proposed Legislation to Establish an Office of Strategic Trade Hearings Before the Committee on Governmental Affairs, United States Senate, Ninety-sixth Congress, Second Session, on S. 2606 September 24 and 25, 1980 Accessed From: https://books.googleusercontent.com/books/content?req=AKW5QaddPVwc4Gd9ZukpER4jaxYmLmSV70Ik46sDeELH13nB1oal4o2p6mqwB8WcLqkIxuBwPf_I6KRn7oizax8g797q8zCwaHy9s-B1C9JJLgxGqwD-DTMYpNteaGcZ1e-YpktMqEbDVTa3LD18nTIs3sUwoO7GcqxN8voFtbs9gMKoP_MznU90pgDtMpVvk-xP_OoGZE5qxqaCrMOS13pCtxd43ZLg-O5ARVp0wLW_fC03R4iswGWZm-GRU2IqzXBaGBUJb8DoT3b41kDm4E2D9WJZlur9P2iEz00Eo0zjF9GQA_f8cW4

^[21] Gill, William J. Trade Wars Against America (Greenwood Publishing Group, Incorporated, 1990) pages 202-203.

[22] Andrew Pollack “Beckoning Foreign Investors; North Korea Opens the Door, a Crack, to Capitalism” New York Times September 19, 1996 page D1.

[23] Ridge, Tom and Stephen, Colonel Robert B. Preparing for 21^st Century Risks Accessed From: http://americanmanufacturing.org/files/Homeland%20Security%20Report.July23.2012.pdf AND Adams, Brigadier General John. “Remaking American Security” Alliance for American Manufacturing 2013 Accessed From: http://americanmanufacturing.org/files/RemakingAmericanSecurityMay2013.pdf AND Fletcher, Ian. Why Free Trade Doesn’t Work (Coalition for a Prosperous America: 2011) pages 204-205 AND Scarborough, Rowan. “Pentagon Stuck with Chinese Berets” Washington Times August 01, 2001 page A3 AND American Iron and Steel Institute. Steel and the National Defense January 2007 Accessed From: http://www.ssina.com/news/releases/pdf_releases/steel_and_national_defense_0107.pdf

[24] Allum Bokhari “Military Contractors Fined for Using Russian Programmers for DOD Projects” Breitbart News November 6, 2015 Accessed From: http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2015/11/06/military-contractors-used-russian-programmers-for-dod-projects/

[25] Allum Bokhari “Military Contractors Fined for Using Russian Programmers for DOD Projects” Breitbart News November 6, 2015 Accessed From: http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2015/11/06/military-contractors-used-russian-programmers-for-dod-projects/

[26] “Washington Quietly Lifts Sanctions on Russian Rockets” Event Chronicle January 7, 2016

[27] “‘We can de-risk but not decouple’ from China, says Raytheon chief” Financial Times June 19, 2023 Accessed From: https://www.ft.com/content/d0b94966-d6fa-4042-a918-37e71eb7282e

[28] Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. The Vital Center (Houghton Mifflin Company Boston 1949) Accessed From: https://archive.org/stream/in.ernet.dli.2015.506434/2015.506434.vital-center_djvu.txt

[29] Elizabeth Stamp “Billionaire bunkers: How the 1% are preparing for the apocalypse” CNN August 7, 2019 Accessed From: https://www.cnn.com/style/article/doomsday-luxury-bunkers/index.html AND Evan Osnos “Doomsday Prep for the Super-Rich” New Yorker January 23, 2017 Accessed From: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/01/30/doomsday-prep-for-the-super-rich

[30] “Is Survival Only for the Rich” Northern Express December 12, 2007 Accessed From: https://www.northernexpress.com/news/feature/article-3111-is-survival-only-for-the-rich/

[31] Deterrence and Survival in the Nuclear Age (Security Resources Panel of the Science Advisory Committee Washington DC November 7, 1957) Accessed From: http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB139/nitze02.pdf

[32] Deterrence and Survival in the Nuclear Age (Security Resources Panel of the Science Advisory Committee Washington DC November 7, 1957) Accessed From: http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB139/nitze02.pdf

[33] Deterrence and Survival in the Nuclear Age (Security Resources Panel of the Science Advisory Committee Washington DC November 7, 1957) Accessed From: http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB139/nitze02.pdf

[34] Dr. Phillip A. Karber “Arms Control Implications of China’s Underground Great Wall” September 26, 2011 Accessed From: https://www.npolicy.org/article_file/Presentation_270911_1157_preview.pdf

[35] Michael R. Gordon “Despite Cold War’s End, Russia Keeps Building a Secret Complex” New York Times April 16, 1996 Accessed From: https://www.nytimes.com/1996/04/16/world/despite-cold-war-s-end-russia-keeps-building-a-secret-complex.html

[36] The American Foreign Policy Council Russia Reform Monitor Number 237 March 4, 1997 Accessed From:

https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2223698/posts?q=1&;page=325

[37] “Civil Defense Logo Dies at 67, and Some Mourn Its Passing” History News Network December 1, 2006 Accessed From: https://www.historynewsnetwork.org/article/civil-defense-logo-dies-at-67-and-some-mourn-its-p

[38] Jesse Johnson, Reiji Yoshida, and Tomohiro Osaki “North Korea conducts sixth nuclear test, says it has developed ‘perfect’ H-bomb” Japan Times Accessed From: https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2017/09/03/national/north-korea-earthquake-suggests-country-may-have-conducted-sixth-nuclear-test/#.Wr_xh9T48dV

[39] Congressional Record V. 151, Pt. 10, June 20 to June 27, 2005 page 13496.

[40] Congressional Record V. 151, Pt. 10, June 20 to June 27, 2005 page 13496.

[41] “Commission to Assess the Threat from High Altitude Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP): Overview” Accessed From: www.gurevich-publications.com/conspectus/comimssion_overview.pdf  AND  Congressional Record Proceedings and Debates of the 110th Congress Second Session Volume 154-Part 10

[42] Roger N. McDermott The Transformation of Russia’s Armed Forces: Twenty Lost Years (Routledge, 2016) page 154.

[43] Lee Kyo Kwan “True Aspects of Korea Computer Center” May 13, 2001 Accessed From: http://www.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200105/200105130132.html

[44] Lee Kyo Kwan “True Aspects of Korea Computer Center” May 13, 2001 Accessed From: http://www.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200105/200105130132.html

[45] Andrew Futter Hacking the Bomb: Cyber Threats and Nuclear Weapons (Georgetown University Press 2018)

[46] Kara Flook “Russia and the Cyber Threat” May 13, 2009 Accessed From: https://www.criticalthreats.org/analysis/russia-and-the-cyber-threat

[47] Stephen Blank “Cyber War and Information War à la Russe” Accessed From: http://carnegieendowment.org/files/GUP_Perkovich_Levite_UnderstandingCyberConflict_Ch5.pdf

[48] Dorothy Denning “Cyberwar: How Chinese Hackers Became a Major Threat to the US” Newsweek October 5, 2017 Accessed From: https://www.newsweek.com/chinese-hackers-cyberwar-us-cybersecurity-threat-678378 AND Dorothy Denning “How the Chinese Cyberthreat Has Evolved” Scientific American October 7, 2017 Accessed From: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-the-chinese-cyberthreat-has-evolved/

[49] Manuel Cereijo “Terrorism: Why the Cuban Government Should be Next” Accessed From: https://alt.politics.socialism.narkive.com/GcheHFLF/terrorism-why-the-cuban-government-should-be-next-by-dr-manuel-cereijo

[50] Mark Thompson “Iranian Cyber Attack on New York Dam Shows Future of War”

Time Magazine March 24, 2016 Accessed From: http://time.com/4270728/iran-cyber-attack-dam-fbi/

[51] Dorothy Denning “Iran’s Cyber Warfare Program is Now a Major Threat to the United States” Newsweek December 12, 2017 Accessed From: https://www.newsweek.com/irans-cyber-warfare-program-now-major-threat-united-states-745427

[52] William R. Hawkins and Anthony Harrigan American Pre-Eminence (USIC Educational Foundation, 1989) page 43.

[53] Matt Stoller “If the U.S. Doesn’t Control Corporate Power, China Will” Foreign Policy October 11, 2018 Accessed From: https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/10/11/if-the-u-s-doesnt-control-corporate-power-china-will/

[54] Erik Prince “To Big To Win” Asia Times May 3, 2024 Accessed From: https://asiatimes.com/2024/05/too-big-to-win/  

^[55] Elaine Sciolino “The Schooling of Gingrich, The Foreign Policy Novice” New York Times July 18, 1995 Accessed From:

https://www.nytimes.com/1995/07/18/world/the-schooling-of-gingrich-the-foreign-policy-novice.html

[56] Erik R. Pages Responding to Defense Dependence Policy Ideas and the American Defense Industrial Base (Praeger 1996) pages 21-22.

[57] Matt Stoller “How Bill Clinton and American Financiers Armed China” October 1, 2019 Accessed From:

How Bill Clinton and American Financiers Armed China

[58] Aliza Chasan “How the Pentagon falls victim to price gouging by military contractors” CBS News May 21, 2023 Accessed From: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/pentagon-budget-price-gouging-military-contractors-60-minutes-2023-05-21/

[59] Max Brooks and Lionel Beehner “America’s military is built to help defense contractors, not troops” Los Angeles Times May 24, 2017 Accessed From: http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-brooks-beehner-military-procurement-20170524-story.html

[60] Laurence Kotlikoff “Has Our Government Spent $21 Trillion of our Money without Telling Us?” Forbes December 8, 2017 Accessed From: https://www.forbes.com/sites/kotlikoff/2017/12/08/has-our-government-spent-21-trillion-of-our-money-without-telling-us/#1643541c7aef

[61] Ellen Mitchell “Defense Department fails another audit, but makes progress” The Hill November 17, 2022 Accessed From: https://thehill.com/policy/defense/3740921-defense-department-fails-another-audit-but-makes-progress/

[62] Aliza Chasan “How the Pentagon falls victim to price gouging by military contractors” CBS News May 21, 2023 Accessed From: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/pentagon-budget-price-gouging-military-contractors-60-minutes-2023-05-21/

[63] Aliza Chasan “How the Pentagon falls victim to price gouging by military contractors” CBS News May 21, 2023 Accessed From: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/pentagon-budget-price-gouging-military-contractors-60-minutes-2023-05-21/

[64] Aliza Chasan “How the Pentagon falls victim to price gouging by military contractors” CBS News May 21, 2023 Accessed From: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/pentagon-budget-price-gouging-military-contractors-60-minutes-2023-05-21/

[65] “Lima Army Tank Plant” Accessed From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lima_Army_Tank_Plant

[66] “Report Finds Fraud, Waste by War Contractors Costs Billions” PBS September 1, 2011 Accessed From: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/report-finds-fraud-waste-by-war-contractors-costs-billions

[67] Matt Arco “Christie vows to shoot down Russian planes, blasts Obama as ‘feckless weakling’” NJ.com December 16, 2015 Accessed From: https://www.nj.com/politics/2015/12/christie_blasts_obama_as_feckless_weakling.html

[68] Matt Arco “Christie vows to shoot down Russian planes, blasts Obama as ‘feckless weakling’” NJ.com December 16, 2015 Accessed From: https://www.nj.com/politics/2015/12/christie_blasts_obama_as_feckless_weakling.html

[69] Harshit Sabarwal “’Most horrific abuse of power in US history’: Donald Trump on indictment in classified documents case” WION News June 11, 2023 Accessed From: https://www.wionews.com/world/most-horrific-abuses-of-power-in-us-history-ex-us-prez-trump-on-indictment-in-classified-documents-case-603015

[70] Caitlin Burke “Military Recruiting Hits ‘Crisis' Level Lows, Americans Urged to Return to a ‘Society of Service’” CBN September 20, 2022 Accessed From: https://www2.cbn.com/news/news/military-recruiting-hits-crisis-level-lows-americans-urged-return-society-service

[71] Thomas Spoehr “The Rise of Wokeness in the Military” Heritage Foundation September 30, 2022 Accessed From: https://www.heritage.org/defense/commentary/the-rise-wokeness-the-military

[72] Caitlin Burke “Military Recruiting Hits ‘Crisis' Level Lows, Americans Urged to Return to a ‘Society of Service’” CBN September 20, 2022 Accessed From: https://www2.cbn.com/news/news/military-recruiting-hits-crisis-level-lows-americans-urged-return-society-service

[73] “What is $1 in 1959 worth in 2024?” Accessed From: https://www.amortization.org/inflation/amount.php?year=1959&amount=1

[74] “Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP): Threat to Critical Infrastructure” May 8, 2014 Accessed From: https://www.congress.gov/event/113th-congress/house-event/LC25001/text

[75] Jacob Marx “What Will Modernizing the Nuclear Weapons Complex Cost?” Pogo August 17, 2015 Accessed From: https://www.pogo.org/analysis/2015/08/what-will-modernizing-nuclear-weapons-complex-cost/  AND “Statement of Hon. John Garamendi, Subcommittee on Strategic Forces” Accessed From: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-113hhrg86075/html/CHRG-113hhrg86075.htm

[76] “Anti-Ballistic Missile” Accessed From:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-ballistic_missile AND “Ground Based Midcourse Defense” Accessed From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground-Based_Midcourse_Defense

[77] Juliana Geran “Strategic Defense: How Much Will It Really Cost?” Heritage Foundation October 2, 1987 Accessed From: https://www.heritage.org/defense/report/strategic-defense-how-much-will-it-really-cost