I am not against his confirmation, but this is a major problem. What did Austin do to earn $1.7 million from Raytheon, one of the top weapons corporations he will now oversee? More importantly, what will the Biden team do to end this corrupting influence? bloomberg.com/news/articles/…
This is not a promising start. One year?! “He also pledged to recuse himself for one year from decisions involving Raytheon, the nation’s No. 3 defense contractor.” How about “for ever”?
And there’s a huge loophole: “It isn’t absolute: an exemption would allow his involvement in a Raytheon issue if a designated Pentagon ethics officer determined that the government’s interest in Austin’s participation outweighed a perception he may not be impartial.”
This cannot be the best we can do. I’d love to hear from @POGOBlog@revolvingdoorDC@IndivisibleTeam@MoveOn and others about what barriers and safeguards @JoeBiden should adopt to curtail the unhealthy influence of weapons corporations on our national security decisions.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
<THREAD> An insane president able to launch nuclear weapons. An incoming SecDef paid millions by weapons contractors. Both big problems. Both just the tip of the iceberg. I tried to unpack it all here. Let me try to summarize in a few tweets. responsiblestatecraft.org/2021/01/06/why…
Austin's ties to the firms he will now oversee is part of the strategy of weapons corporations to dominate America's defense policy. They sell weapons like Kellogg’s sells cereal. It’s not a question of whether we need the product; they just need to convince us to buy it. 2/
They do this in three ways. "The first is a pitch that relies on product differentiation, a way to sell essentially the same goods in a variety of shapes, sizes, and packaging. You like shredded wheat? Then maybe you’d like it frosted, or bite-sized, or both." 3/
<THREAD> 1. I just finished recording a video for @natsecaction. I had a lot more to say than they could realistically use. If you don't mind, I'd like to share why I think @JoeBiden will strengthen our national security as president.
2. I have worked on national security issues in Washington for almost 40 years, in and out of government. I have opposed the policies of many presidents, Democratic and Republican. But I have never said this:
3. The number one threat to the national security of the United States comes not from North Korea or Iran or China or Russia. It comes from the president of the United States. The threat comes from within the White House.
One of the lesser bombshells in Bob Woodward’s new book is Trump’s brag that he has a secret new super weapon. I have some ideas about what he’s talking about - with the caveat that Trump often doesn’t know what he’s talking about and often just makes stuff up. 1/
Most likely, he means the “low-yield” warhead the Navy deployed on its strategic subs late last year. It is about a 5-kiloton yield (about 1/3 the size of the Hiroshima bomb and 1/30 to 1/90th the size of the warheads usually on the sub-launched missiles. theguardian.com/world/2019/jan…
Trump’s right that no one else has this weapon BECAUSE IT’S A STUPID IDEA. Listen to this @AtTheBrinkPod episode for more on why it’s idiotic to make nuclear weapons more usable, thus making nuclear war more likely. atthebrink.org/podcast/modern…
<Thread> I was not a fan of @JoeBiden. I favored @BernieSanders and @ewarren, who had specific plans for fundamental change, esp. in national security. But Biden has proved to be a strong, effective candidate. He’s united the party and adopted many, vital progressive policies. 1/
Discussions - even arguments - I had with my colleagues during the primaries revolved around how progressive policies could expand and mobilize the base vs. positioning on issues so as to win over Trump voters. It looks like Biden can do both. 2/
I see his strong appeal to moderate voters and the white working class. He’s cut Trump’s advantage there in half - while keeping and even improving on Clinton’s support among non-white voters and women and young voters. 3/ google.com/amp/s/www.usne…
<thread> There is no national security imperative for new US nuclear tests. We have almost 4,000 operational nuclear weapons. Enough to destroy the world 20x over. Here are some resources to help you understand how launching new nuclear tests makes us less secure. 1/
We've not tested a nuclear weapon since 1992. Since the India-Pakistan tests of 1998, the only other country to test has been North Korea. We have a global norm that Trump now wants to shatter . @ctbto_alerts is the go-to resource on nuclear testing. 2/ ctbto.org
<Thread> An important new development in the effort to redefine national security. “It is time to end our endless wars and adopt a new approach to international relations.” Over 50 groups demand we increase our security by cutting the Pentagon budget. 1/ huffpost.com/entry/antiwar-…
The most serious threats to our country are non-military and do not have a military solution, this broad coalition says. Read this excerpt from their letter. 2/
Donald Trump has increased the Pentagon budget by over $130 Billion in 3 years. Much of this is wasted. Much of the plan to build a new generation of nuclear weapons can be cut without risk, say the groups. 3/