This article originally appeared at TomDispatch.com. To receive TomDispatch in your inbox three times a week, click here.
It's true that no nuclear weapon has been used (except in tests) since the U.S. dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945 to end World War II. And yes, we now know that, were there to be a nuclear confrontation on this planet (think: the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 without the diplomacy of President John F. Kennedy and Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev), it could quite literally send us all to hell and back. It might leave much of humanity dead and the planet in a version of rubble. (Think: nuclear winter!) So, consider it a cheery thing that, all too recently, two world leaders, President Vladimir Putin of Russia and Kim Jong-un of North Korea, threatened to use just such weaponry in our world right now.
And if that makes you nervous, then let me reassure you this way: the United States, while making no nuclear threats, is putting staggering numbers of your tax dollars into expanding and further enhancing its nuclear arsenal. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), we're talking about spending a nifty $756 billion between 2023 and 2032. And, hey, to cheer you up a little further, here's how the CBO breaks that figure down: "$247 billion for modernization of strategic and tactical nuclear delivery systems and the weapons they carry; $108 billion for modernization of facilities and equipment for the nuclear weapons laboratory complex and for modernization of command, control, communications, and early-warning systems; and $96 billion for potential cost growth in excess of projected budgeted amounts."
Yep, $96 billion of your tax dollars are carefully included to cover "cost growth in excess of budgeted amounts." And here's the even better news: that $756 billion figure is a mere $122 billion more than the last estimate for the period 2021-2030, which, in turn, means, assuming such weapons aren't ever used, it's going to take a while to hit the trillion-dollar mark. Still, have faith in our military and count on it! In fact, if you have any doubts on the subject, check out today's report from Pentagon experts and TomDispatch regulars Julia Gledhill and William Hartung on just how expensive everything involving future American weaponry and our military could get. I know you'll feel a deep sense of relief to be reassured that your tax dollars will be stretched so far into a world from which there may be no return. Tom
Spending Unlimited
The Pentagon's Budget Follies Come at a High Price
By Julia Gledhill and William D. Hartung
The White House released its budget proposal for Fiscal Year 2025 on March 11th, and the news was depressingly familiar: $895 billion for the Pentagon and work on nuclear weapons at the Department of Energy. After adjusting for inflation, that's only slightly less than last year's proposal, but far higher than the levels reached during either the Korean or Vietnam wars or at the height of the Cold War. And that figure doesn't even include related spending on veterans, the Department of Homeland Security, or the additional tens of billions of dollars in "emergency" military spending likely to come later this year. One thing is all too obvious: a trillion-dollar budget for the Pentagon alone is right around the corner, at the expense of urgently needed action to address climate change, epidemics of disease, economic inequality, and other issues that threaten our lives and safety at least as much as, if not more than, traditional military challenges.
Americans would be hard-pressed to find members of Congress carefully scrutinizing such vast sums of national security spending, asking tough questions, or reining in Pentagon excess -- despite the fact that this country is no longer fighting any major ground wars. Just a handful of senators and members of the House do that work while many more search for ways to increase the department's already bloated budget and steer further contracts into their own states and districts.
Congress isn't just shirking its oversight duties: these days, it can't even seem to pass a budget on time. Our elected representatives settled on a final national budget just last week, leaving Pentagon spending at the already generous 2023 level for nearly half of the 2024 fiscal year. Now, the department will be inundated with a flood of new money that it has to spend in about six months instead of a year. More waste, fraud, and financial abuse are inevitable as the Pentagon prepares to shovel money out the door as quickly as possible. This is no way to craft a budget or defend a country.
And while congressional dysfunction is par for the course, in this instance it offers an opportunity to reevaluate what we're spending all this money for. The biggest driver of overspending is an unrealistic, self-indulgent, and -- yes -- militaristic national defense strategy. It's designed to maintain a capacity to go almost everywhere and do almost anything, from winning wars with rival superpowers to intervening in key regions across the planet to continuing the disastrous Global War on Terror, which was launched in the wake of the 9/11 attacks and never truly ended. As long as such a "cover the globe" strategy persists, the pressure to continue spending ever more on the Pentagon will prove irresistible, no matter how delusional the rationale for doing so may be.
Defending "the Free World"?
President Biden began his recent State of the Union address by comparing the present moment to the time when the United States was preparing to enter World War II. Like President Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1941, Joe Biden told the American people that the country now faces an "unprecedented moment in the history of the Union," one in which freedom and democracy are "under attack" both at home and abroad. He disparaged Congress's failure to approve his emergency supplemental bill, claiming that, without additional aid for Ukraine, Russian President Vladimir Putin will threaten not just that country but all of Europe and even the "free world." Comparing (as he did) the challenge posed by Russia now to the threat that Hitler's regime posed in World War II is a major exaggeration that's of no value in developing an effective response to Moscow's activities in Ukraine and beyond.
Engaging in such fearmongering to get the public on board with an increasingly militarized foreign policy ignores reality in service of the status quo. In truth, Russia poses no direct security threat to the United States. And while Putin may have ambitions beyond Ukraine, Russia simply doesn't have the capability to threaten the "free world" with a military campaign. Neither does China, for that matter. But facing the facts about these powers would require a critical reassessment of the maximalist U.S. defense strategy that rules the roost. Currently, it reflects the profoundly misguided belief that, on matters of national security, U.S. military dominance takes precedence over the collective economic strength and prosperity of Americans.
As a result, the administration places more emphasis on deterring potential (if unlikely) aggression from competitors than on improving relations with them. Of course, this approach depends almost entirely on increasing the production, distribution, and stockpiling of arms. The war in Ukraine and Israel's continuing assault on Gaza have unfortunately only solidified the administration's dedication to the concept of military-centric deterrence.
Contractor Dysfunction: Earning More, Doing Less
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
