Foreign Policy In Focus

As regular readers know, we've been tracking the progress of the design and construction of a new nuclear facility (the CMRR-NF) at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico. As we posted yesterday … Nuclear Pit Boondoggle at Los Alamos Temporarily Scuttled due to a combination of the economic climate and the efforts of the Los Alamos Study Group (LASG), which has been educating the public, lobbying Washington, and filing two suits to halt the CMRR-NF on environmental grounds.

But sociologist Darwin BondGraham, who is on the LASG Board of Directors, is in no mood to gloat about the victory. In an elegiac article for Counterpunch titled Starving the Real Beast, he writes

The war machine has begun to eat itself for the sake of preserving hyper-inequalities resulting directly from the less progressive tax code instituted a decade prior, and the multitude of shelters capital now hides behind.

See what he's saying here? By paying minimal taxes, the rich and corporations are depriving the nuclear-weapons program and defense in general of funds (or forcing their reallocation from budget needs other than defense). In other words, BondGraham is providing progressives with a stunning talking point -- one seldom seen (never, in my case). It might be worded something like this: When the corporate rich don't pay their fair share of taxes, it leaves us more vulnerable to attack. (Not that we necessarily have to believe the last part.) BondGraham again (emphasis added):

Whether the Right realizes their folly at this point is not yet clear. After a decade of record breaking tax cuts for the wealthy, and economic deregulation … leading to explosive inequality and a historic crash of over-leveraged and debt ridden markets, the American plutocracy has not only [driven] millions into poverty, they have now gone so far as to undermine the budgetary and organizational basis of the military establishment upon which a larger global system of inequality, which they benefit from, rests.

Yes, you read that right. As well as putting the nation in harm's way (theoretically) they're undermining the security of their own enterprises. But less and less moored to the United States and able to afford their own security, perhaps that's their plan.

The new budget for fiscal year 2013 (which begins on October 1) just released, reports Chris Schneidmiller for Global Security Newswire, calls for the

Energy Department's semiautonomous National Nuclear Security Administration to receive $11.5 billion. … just shy of 5 percent above the amount allocated in the current budget … The budget would provide $7.6 billion for NNSA efforts to "maintain a safe, secure, and effective nuclear deterrent." 

The other $2.5 billion … 

… is proposed for NNSA initiatives to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and related materials. [Nonproliferation, in other words. -- RW] That amount, if approved, would constitute a $163 million boost from the amount allocated for this year.

All in all …

… the administration is seeking $372 million less for weapons programs than it had anticipated requesting as of 2011. 

Most encouraging of all:

The administration aims to freeze development of the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement complex at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, which would conduct work on materials such as plutonium employed in the U.S. nuclear arsenal. … Under the proposal, funding for the Los Alamos site … estimated to cost up to $6 … would be cut by $165 million and building would be pushed back by no less than five years.

This is the infamous plutonium pit -- the living, breathing heart of a nuclear warhead -- facility about which I frequently post. Much of the credit for inserting this major blip into the United States nuclear weapons-industrial complex goes to the Los Alamos Study Group (LASG). Among their protracted efforts to halt the CMRR-NF has been incessant lobbying on Capitol Hill and two separate lawsuits it has filed against the Department of Energy on the grounds that the planned facility is not environmentally safe.

Another factor in the CMRR-NF's delay is an economic climate that makes even Republicans open to the idea of defense cuts. The Pentagon, meanwhile (or elements thereof), with its unique talent for sensing the opportunity in any crisis, stands ready and willing to re-allocate money to weapons systems it can actually use, instead of just brandish (as with nuclear deterrence).

In one of its press releases on this development, LASG Executive Director Greg Mello reminds us of the extent to which the CMRR-NF is a boondoggle. 

The CMRR project has been a fiasco from the get-go. In the beginning, [the National Nuclear Security Administration and the Los Alamos National Laboratory] proposed CMRR structures which even the most cursory examination revealed could never be built. The construction materials specified in environmental documents could not have built a shed, much less a fortified, seismically-sound nuclear facility to hold and protect several tons of plutonium. As the project developed, NNSA and its contractors kept the bad news from Congress, as they always do, until the last moment. … Right now, NNSA is spending between one-half and one million dollars per day to design a facility which is highly unlikely to ever be built -- and if it were, much of the design would need to be redone anyway.

In the LASG's most recent bulletin, Mello also reminds us:

This is not an Obama-led “nuclear disarmament” decision. This decision has nothing to do with disarmament. CMRR-NF is being rejected, for now, on very strong factual and management grounds by the Pentagon, DOE, and NNSA itself, among many others.  

The postponement of CMRR-NF certainly doesn't kill, but it at least clips the wings of two birds with one stone: the United States nuclear-weapons program and any future nuclear-weapons boondoggles.

On February 8 I posted about an online dialogue on evangelical Christians and nuclear disarmament. In March of last year, at A Deeper Story: Tales of Christ and Culture, site administrator Nish shared emails with Reverend Tyler Wigg-Stevenson, founder of the Two Futures Project, a groundbreaking evangelical disarmament group, as well as with commenters.

One of the commenters addressed what constitutes a sticking point about disarmament for evangelicals, as well as fundamentalists. To wit, many of them either look forward to the End Times or see no way of avoiding it. No matter how familiar we may be with this line of thinking, for progressives -- secular or religious -- chancing upon evangelicals and fundamentalists actually discussing it is surpassingly strange.

Here's commenter Josh defending his "what me worry?" outlook on nuclear weapons. First, he points out, "God's Word gives us some knowledge about how the world ends, and it doesn't look much like nuclear apocalypse. … I don't worry so much about *us* [sic] screwing up and destroying the world, because God's already told us how *He* [sic] intends for it to happen."

His reasoning: "The Mount of Olives does indeed split in half, but that mighty rending comes from the feet of Christ, not a nuclear detonation (Zechariah 14:4)." Josh also write that even if you think that the world ends in a nuclear holocaust "what's the point of advocating against the fulfillment of prophecy?" Furthermore:

The evil lies not in the hunk of materials and technology that compose an atomic bomb, but rather in the heart of the one who would detonate it in aggression against innocents. Now, getting rid of "that"  evil seems a worthy goal – but once again, we know from Scripture that it will only be accomplished when God Himself renews all things.

To progressives it's clear: those who don't actually advocate nuclear weapons yet  accept the possibility of their use evince a blatant fatalism to the point of a death wish. As with many evangelical, fundamentalist, or conservative positions -- especially within the Tea Party or on the Republican campaign trail -- progressives can't help but wonder, "Are you even listening to yourself?" Though, in fairness, evangelicals, fundamentalists, or conservatives wonder how progressives can be pro-choice when abortion to them is clearly murder.

Another commenter to the dialogue, April, writes of the quotidian consequences of an End Times view of the world.

I think Josh brought up some points that many Christians believe, and may not even acknowledge that they believe. Many of us are trained in eschatology, whatever version our denomination supports, and we end up with this belief that the world is going to crap in the end, anyway. [As] when I willfully throw away a 2-liter [bottle] instead of walk it out to the garage for recycling–this ungodly thought creeps up that God's going to create a new heaven and a new earth anyway…so…why recycle this time? … I do think that many Christians are exposed to this end-time theology where we fixate on pre-, post- or mid tribulation and what the antichrist will and wont do, etc–but we're not trained on the "so-what" of it all.

Displaying the extent of her awareness of that fatalism, she writes:

Do we believe that God is in the active work of redeeming the world, as creation groans to be released from this evil, or do we believe, without saying so, that God's coming, will pour out his wrath and will then hit the re-do button after the apocalypse[?]

Talk about your creative destruction. Meanwhile, Rev. Wigg-Stevenson (who wouldn't want to hear this, but he's arguably the most rational evangelical in the United States) responds to Josh (emphasis added):

One of our most important jobs as an organization is separating religious apocalypticism and eschatology from nuclear weapons. Our "two futures" [as used in the name of his organization, Two Futures Project -- RW] isn't "God's end vs. our nuclear apocalypse." In the end there is just one future and it belongs to the Lord. I don’t think nuclear weapons will bring the world to an end — if they did, the gospel's promises would be void. But the human race has done horrible things between the cross and the Second Coming, and we're trying to prevent this particular manifestation of sinfulness.

Nuclear technology, writes Rev. Wigg-Stevenson, is "a technology that we have a responsibility to control and manage to the best of our ability." For it "magnifies the potential impact of human sinfulness to an extraordinary degree."

As a sort of force multiplier for sin, then, nuclear weapons distort -- pervert, even -- the Second Coming as God sees it (if, like evangelicals and fundamentalists, one believes in a personal God, unlike your editor). Furthermore, eager anticipation of or fatalism about the End Times screams damaged childhood.  Pathology is best addressed by domains secular, rather than religious, such as psychology and the other social services.

In fact, nuclear weapons in general is less a national security issue than a mental health one.

Long-time Democratic representative from Massachusetts and member of the member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus Edward Markey is the chief sponsor of a bill mandating $100 billion U.S. nuclear-weapon spending over the next decade. Not just bombs, but the nuclear triad -- missiles, aircraft, and submarines -- and perhaps most significant, nuclear-weapon design laboratories.

In particular, reports Brian Bender of the Boston Globe, Markey and 27 other Democratic congress members seek to kick one leg out from under the nuclear triad almost entirely -- aircraft. The bill would constrain F-35 fighter planes, as well as B-52 and B-2 bombers, from serving as nuclear-weapon delivery systems, and, as well, delay production of a new bomber. Of course the nuclear weapons program would still be able to stand on its own two feet. Bender writes:

… the legislation would also require that the military and Department of Energy, which builds and maintains the warheads, to keep at least 200 intercontinental missiles and 250 submarine-launched missiles to keep a strong nuclear deterrent in an uncertain world. 

Rep. Markey summed up: "We need more nuclear weapons programs like Lady Gaga needs another outfit."

Foreign Policy in Focus contributor Paul Mutter takes issue. "The analogy doesn't work too well," he writes. Why? Because: "You can never have too many steak dresses!" 

Oh, right. Meanwhile, this just in (again, thanks to Paul Mutter):

Amidst mounting geopolitical tensions. … Iranian foreign minister Ali Akbar Salehi. … said Wednesday. … "Our intelligence estimates indicate that, if it is allowed to progress with its aggressive nuclear program, the United States may soon possess its 8,500th atomic weapon capable of reaching Iran. [This] is very distressing to Iran. … After all, the United States is a volatile nation that's proven it needs little provocation to attack anyone anywhere in the world whom it perceives to be a threat."

Okay, it's the Onion.

What can pro-life advocates have to do with nuclear-weapons advocates? Read this comment by "The Tiny Twig" to a post on nuclear weapons at evangelical site A Deeper Story: Tales of Christ and Culture.

I think that this is another “pro-life” issue that Christians need to get behind if we’re going to be the lead voices in the anti-abortion world. It’s two-faced double speak if we don’t.

She's responding to a dialogue between site administrator Nish and Tyler Wigg-Stevenson, founder of Two Futures Project, a groundbreaking evangelical disarmament group. The Tiny Twigg's idea is basically the "seamless garment" or "consistent life ethic" that former Roman Catholic archbishop of Chicago Cardinal Joseph Bernardin made famous in a speech that linked abortion and nuclear war. (Not that he was the first to do so.) The archbishop said.

I am convinced that the pro-life position of the church must be developed in terms of a comprehensive and consistent ethic of life.

Also woven into his seamless garment are capital punishment, euthanasia, genetics, and modern warfare are also threads of his seamless garment. 

Question for Focal Points readers: Does this association sully and in some way ultimately subvert the cause of disarmament? Or is hitching pro-life to disarmament's wagon (or vice versa) a good idea and a small price to pay for helping to rid the world of nuclear weapons?

In other words, just how choosy can disarmament be about its bedfellows?