US Priorities: 5,000 Tons of Ammo to NATO; $1 Trillion for New Nukes

February 24th, 2016 - by admin

RT News & Alex Emmons / The Intercept – 2016-02-24 22:33:13

Loaded: US Sends 5,000 Tons of
Ammunition to Germany ‘To Help NATO Alliance’

RT News

(February 22, 2016) — Washington has dispatched more than 5,000 tons of ammunition to Germany, the largest amount in 10 years, the US military announced, adding that the shipment will help to “continue to enable the NATO alliance” and to defend its allies.

“In the largest single Europe-bound US shipment of ammunition in 10 years, the 21st Theater Sustainment Command . . . transported over 5,000 tons of ammunition . . . to the Theater Logistics Support Center Europe’s ammunition depot in Miesau [Germany] Feb. 17-18,”said a statement on the US army website.

[According to a tweet from the 21st Theater Sustainment Command:
5,000 tons of ammunition, comprising the largest US ammo shipment to Europe in 10 years, were offloaded in the port of Nordenham and transported to the Theater Logistics Support Center – Europe ammunition depot in Miesau Feb. 17-19 by the 21st TSC and the 598th Transportation Brigade.]

“This critical shipment will help us to continue to enable the NATO alliance, and the fact that it’s the largest single shipment in 10 years demonstrates our continued commitment to the defense of our allies,” 21st TSC chief of staff, Colonel Matthew Redding, said.

Maintaining a stockpile of ammunition means the US and NATO “can quickly draw ammunition in support of short notice NATO operations,” says Redding.

“All that effort pays off when we’re able to quickly deliver ammo and other supplies to those down-trace units that need them,” he went on.

The ammunition was taken in 415 shipping containers and stored in Miesau. It will be available for various troops to support operations, including exercise Anakonda 2016, one of US Army Europe’s premier multinational training events, which will be held in Poland in June.

The Anakonda 2016 drills will involve more than 25,000 participants from 24 nations, including the UK, the US, Estonia, Finland, Georgia, Germany, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Spain, Sweden and Turkey.

NATO intensified its military activities in Europe following the start of the Ukrainian crisis and Russia’s reunification with Crimea in 2014.

In 2015, the alliance carried out a number of massive military drills including “Trident Juncture 2015”, the biggest since 2002, which included 36,000 international troops, as well as more than 60 warships and about 200 aircraft from 30 states.

Moscow has long called on NATO to refrain from expanding into Eastern Europe, saying that such moves have the potential to destabilize the security situation in the region.

Obama’s Russian Rationale for $1 Trillion Nuke Plan Signals New Arms Race
Alex Emmons / The Intercept

(February 23 2016) — The Obama administration has historically insisted that its massive $1 trillion nuclear weapons modernization program does not represent a return to Cold War-era nuclear rivalry between Russia and the United States.

The hugely expensive undertaking, which calls for a slew of new cruise missiles, ICBMs, nuclear submarines, and long-range bombers over the next three decades, has been widely panned by critics as “wasteful,” “unsustainable,” “unaffordable,” and “a fantasy.”

The administration has pointed to aging missile silos, 1950s-era bombers, and other outdated technology to justify the spending, describing the steps as intended to maintain present capabilities going forward — not bulking up to prepare for a future confrontation.

Last year, speaking to NATO allies, Defense Secretary Ashton Carter insisted that “the Cold War playbook . . . is not suitable for the 21st century.”

But President Obama’s defense budget request for 2017 includes language that makes it clear that nuclear “modernization” really is about Russia after all.

The budget request explicitly cites Russian aggression, saying, “We are countering Russia’s aggressive policies through investments in a broad range of capabilities . . . [including] our nuclear arsenal.”

In December, Brian McKeon, principal deputy undersecretary of defense for policy, testified before Congress: “We are investing in the technologies that are most relevant to Russia’s provocations . . . to both deter nuclear attacks and reassure our allies.”

The public acknowledgement that Russia is the impetus for US modernization has critics concerned the Cold War-era superpowers are now engaged in a “modernization” arms race.

“Both Russia and the United States are now officially and publicly using the other side as a justification for nuclear weapons modernization programs,” said Hans Kristensen, director of the Nuclear Information Project, in a statement emailed to The Intercept.

Early in his presidency, Obama was an outspoken advocate of nuclear disarmament. In April 2009, he pledged his commitment “to achieving a nuclear free world,” together with former Russian President Dimitri Medvedev.

Later that month, Obama delivered a celebrated speech in Prague, saying he sought “the security of a world without nuclear weapons.” And he negotiated a 2011 nuclear treaty with Russia, which required both countries to reduce their arsenals to 1,550 operational warheads each.

But according to Obama’s advisers, Russia’s invasion of Crimea halted his disarmament efforts. In a 2014 interview with the New York Times, Gary Samore, one of Obama’s top first-term nuclear advisers, said, “The most fundamental game changer is Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. That has made any measure to reduce the stockpile unilaterally politically impossible.”

Former officials have proposed ways of trimming the trillion-dollar budget. In December, former Defense Secretary William Perry called for the Pentagon not to replace its aging ICBMS, arguing that submarines and bombers were enough to deter nuclear threats.

Retired Gen. Eugene Habiger, the former head of US Strategic Command, which overseas the Pentagon’s nuclear weapons, has argued that US nuclear forces have little to no deterrent effect on Russia and China, and that the US can safely reduce its active arsenal to 200-300 weapons.

Last year, in an effort to cut the costs of nuclear modernization, Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., and Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., introduced a bill that would reduce the number of planned missile-bearing submarines from 14 to eight. The bill, which would save an estimated $4 billion per submarine, was co-sponsored by Sen. Bernie Sanders, the Vermont Democrat who is now running for president.

When asked about nuclear modernization at a campaign event in Des Moines, Iowa, Hillary Clinton responded, “Yeah, I’ve heard about that, I’m going to look into that, it doesn’t make sense to me.” Republican presidential candidate Marco Rubio, on the other hand, supported the expense, saying, “Deterrence is a friend to peace.”

Religious groups have also voiced opposition to nuclear modernization. “We were pleased with the president’s statement calling for a world without nuclear weapons,” said Mark Harrison, director of the Peace with Justice program at the United Methodist General Board of Church and Society.

David Culp, a legislative representative at the Quaker-affiliated Friends Committee on National Legislation, said, “The increased spending on US nuclear weapons is already provoking similar responses from Russia and China. We are slowly slipping back into another Cold War, but this time on two fronts.”

Contracts are already being signed. In October, the Pentagon awarded Northrop Grumman the contract for the new long-range bomber. The total cost is secret, but expected to exceed $100 billion.

Posted in accordance with Title 17, Section 107, US Code, for noncommercial, educational purposes.