Tag: military industrial complex

Largest European Companies Arming Israel and Their Financiers – Report 

From 2019 to 2023, six of the world’s largest arms producers – Boeing, General Dynamics, Leonardo, Lockheed Martin, RTX, and Rolls-Royce – have sold weapons or weapon systems to Israel.

A new report published by a group of 19 civil society organizations and trade unions has exposed the largest European financial institutions investing billions of euros in international arms producers that sell weapons to Israel.

Titled The Companies Arming Israel and Their Financiers, the report “reveals European financial institutions have provided 36.1 billion EUR in loans and underwritings, and hold 26 billion EUR in shares and bonds in companies selling weapons to Israel,” the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) said in a statement on Thursday. The FIDH is one of the organizations involved in the exposé.

From 2019 to 2023, six of the world’s largest arms producers – Boeing, General Dynamics, Leonardo, Lockheed Martin, RTX, and Rolls-Royce – have sold weapons or weapon systems to Israel, the statement said.

It mentioned that French bank BNP Paribas is by far the largest finance provider to companies that have sold weapons to Israel, having provided 5.7 billion EUR in loans and underwritings since 2021.

Other large investors identified by the report include the banks Crédit Agricole, Deutsche Bank, Barclays and UBS, as well as the Norwegian government pension fund GFPG and the insurance company Allianz. It also mentioned banks such as the UK’s HSBC and Standard Chartered.

“According to international standards on business and human rights, financial institutions have a clear responsibility to ensure that they do not invest in companies that contribute to human rights violations”, said Gaëlle Dusepulchre, Deputy Director of FIDH’s Business, Human Rights & Environment Desk.

Keep reading

Ukrainians dying in their hundreds of thousands so US weapon manufacturers can profit

Washington has spent $1.8 trillion over the 20-year failed military campaign in Afghanistan to defeat the Taliban, whilst aid to Ukraine in just a little more than two years has already reached $175 billion dollars, according to a Council on Foreign Relations report published on May 9. The American military-industrial complex is rejoicing at the rate of weapons being given to Ukraine as contracts for military orders to replace outdated weapons with new ones are being secured for many years to come. However, the profiteering of American weapon manufacturers is coming at an immense human cost in Ukraine.

The huge expenses in Afghanistan were attributed to the fact that tens of thousands of American troops were stationed in the landlocked country and fought there directly. However, in the current conflict, Ukrainian soldiers continue to die in a futile war with Russian forces and are merely being used as cannon fodder in Washington’s indirect war with Russia so American troops do not have to die like they did in Afghanistan.

Although the situation is desperate on the battlefront for Ukraine, the US military industrial complex will continue profiting after the Biden administration on June 20 allowed for air defences to be swiftly delivered to Ukraine by delaying certain weapons shipments to other countries, which White House spokesman John F. Kirby admitted was a “difficult but necessary decision” given Russian rapid advances.

Kirby explained that Ukraine had a critical need for Patriot interceptor missiles as Russia has accelerated attacks, adding that the “decision demonstrates our commitment to supporting our partners when they’re in existential danger.”

Keep reading

Pentagon Wants to Feed Troops ‘Experimental’ Lab-Grown Meat to ‘Reduce CO2 Footprint’

A Pentagon-funded company is seeking proposals to feed America’s soldiers lab-grown meat in a bid to “reduce the CO2 footprint” at Defense Department outposts.

BioMADE, a public-private company that has received more than $500 million in funding from the Defense Department, announced earlier this month that it is seeking proposals to develop “innovations in food production that reduce the CO2 footprint of food production at … DoD operational environments,” according to an online announcement.

These include “novel cell culture methods suitable for the production of cultivated meat/protein,” or lab-grown meat, a product that is still in its experimental phases. This type of meat is grown in a lab from animal cells with the aid of other chemicals, and has emerged as a flashpoint in debates about the efficacy and morality of manufacturing meat products without slaughtering animals.

BioMADE—which earlier this year received a $450 million infusion of taxpayer cash—maintains that lab-grown food products will reduce the Pentagon’s carbon footprint, a priority for the American military as it pursues a Biden administration-mandate to address climate change and other cultural issues that critics describe as “woke.”

“Innovations in food production that reduce the CO2 footprint of food production at and/or transport to DoD operational environments are solicited,” the company says in an informational document and accompanying press release. “These could include, but are not limited to, production of nutrient-dense military rations via fermentation processes, utilizing one carbon molecule (C1) feedstocks for food production, and novel cell culture methods suitable for the production of cultivated meat/protein.”

BioMADE is also soliciting proposals for “processes that convert greenhouse gasses” and “projects that develop bioproducts useful in mitigating the negative environmental impacts either regionally or globally,” including “bioproducts that can be used to prevent or slow coastal erosion.”

Critics of the DoD’s partnership with BioMADE say that U.S. troops should not be used as test subjects for lab-grown meat products that are still in their experimental phase.

Keep reading

America’s Space Infrastructure: So Vulnerable It Destabilizes Geopolitics

No one would die directly from an attack on satellites, and no one cries over melted plastic and copper. Yet as American and Chinese reliance on their space-based satellite constellations increases, so will the incentive for either side to target and strike the other sides early in a conflict. This incentive to strike first—a “Pearl Harbor” in space—could be so destabilizing as to precipitate a war that neither state wants but cannot avoid. 

The United States needs a space infrastructure that is both resilient and redundant enough to survive a Chinese first strike. That is, the satellite constellation infrastructure that the United States uses for its military and commercial needs must still be functional even if the Chinese were to attack the system and attempt to destroy it. Currently, the brittleness of our satellite constellation is such that any concerted effort by an adversary would render the American satellite constellation useless for military purposes. The satellite infrastructure must be resilient to non-kinetic counterspace weapons like electronic jamming and laser blinding, but also to kinetic anti-satellite missiles or even the deployment of a nuclear weapon. 

The modern U.S. military is dependent on satellites for global positioning system (GPS); communications; sensing and targeting of enemy assets; and even the movement of American ships and planes across the planet. .  Put another way, the U.S. military would be hard pressed to conduct successful operations without access to it. Modern aircraft and navy vessels rely on GPS to traverse the world’s oceans and skies; the military relies on satellites for open and secure communications; and intelligence and surveillance satellites enable America’s precision-guided munitions to hit targets with accuracy. Increasingly, China and Russia are similarly reliant on satellite constellations for military purposes. 

Given the reliance of the United States, China, and Russia on their respective satellite infrastructure, there are first-mover advantages to an adversary who strikes first in space. That is, the more an actor is reliant upon satellite constellations in prosecuting a war, the more incentives their adversaries have to preemptively destroy or degrade said constellations. Indeed, the benefits of striking first are so great—and the consequences of being the target of such a strike are so grave—that brittleness in space incentivizes first strikes and is therefore destabilizing.

Strategic stability generally refers to a condition in which neither actor is incentivized to strike first—and both would pay significant costs for doing so. In the Cold War, neither side carried out a decapitation strike on the other, due in part because of the knowledge that such a strike would not provide meaningful benefit and would trigger a retaliation (a devastating nuclear second strike) the consequences of which would far outstrip any marginal benefit incurred in even a “successful” first strike.

Keep reading

US defence industry struggles to manufacture basic artillery for Ukraine

The United States arms industry is not producing the basic ammunition required to sustain support for Ukraine and Israel, Bloomberg reported on June 8. This is an extraordinary situation since Russia’s armed industry is booming despite facing major Western sanctions.

According to the outlet, the US defence industry gave priority to the manufacture of high-tech ammunition and halted the production of basic artillery such as 155-millimetre ammunition, the most used in the wars that are being fought today. The US is also facing a shortage of basic products, such as gunpowder or trinitrotoluene (TNT), to produce these munitions and have had to turn to other countries, such as Poland and Turkey, to obtain supplies.

At some point an attempt was made to replace the 155-millimetre ammunition with higher-tech projectiles on the battlefront in Ukraine, but the effort failed because the new weaponry was neutralised by the Russian military.

“Higher-tech shells that were intended to replace the traditional 155mm munitions failed an early test in Ukraine, when their targeting systems were thwarted by Russia,” Bloomberg reported. “The prospect that future wars could resemble the grinding combat taking place there has stirred fears that the US arsenal could someday be stretched to the breaking point.”

Keep reading

U.S. Government PSYOP Needs to be Zeroed Out and Re-started Under Constitutional Principles

Special Operation Forces Week in Tampa is the premier gathering event for all things related to Special Operations.  On May 9, 2024, at the most recent event in Tampa, there was a session on “Operations in the Information Environment (OIE) Symposium”.  This title is simply another name for Psychological Operations (PSYOP).

Having been to the PSYOP Course at Ft. Bragg (now Ft. Liberty) in 1984, this panel caught my attention.  The name, functional areas, doctrine and tactics have evolved a bit since PSYOP was first introduced in the 1950s to fight Soviet Communism that was on a post-World War II rampage to topple the Western System.  The Doolittle Report, the founding strategy and document for the CIA roles and missions, emphasized the need for methodologies and capabilities to tell the American story and defeat the aggressive Soviet propaganda efforts.  PSYOP was key to the early CIA and the nascent American military special operations community.  It was quite effective in those early and heady days of a battle for survival against Communism.

Keep reading

Florida Congressman Matt Gaetz wants Congress to OK killing rare whale

Of all the movies ever made in Florida — “Body Heat,” “Cocoon,” and “Spring Breakers,” to name a few — the one with the oddest concept was “The Truman Show.”

Jim Carrey plays a man with a sunny disposition who has no idea that secret cameras are recording every moment of his life for the entertainment of millions.

“Good morning, and in case I don’t see ya, good afternoon, good evening, and good night,” he’d cheerfully tell his neighbors, not realizing they were actors.

This movie was filmed in a seaside Florida town named Seaside. The town is real, not a movie set. I know someone who grew up in the house that Carrey’s character occupied in the movie, and so do you. His name is Matt Gaetz, and he’s the pompadoured U.S. congressman representing a chunk of the Panhandle.

Lately, though, Gaetz, R-Venmo, seems to be copying a much dourer fictional character. He’s been styling himself after Captain Ahab from “Moby Dick.”

He’s set a course to take out a whale. Or several.

Not a white whale, of course. No, he wants to harm the rarest whale on earth.

The Rice’s whale is the only one that lives entirely in the Gulf of Mexico. The species, discovered only recently, is definitely endangered. Scientists estimate that there are fewer than 100 of them — maybe as few as 51.

And Gaetz wants Congress to OK the military bombing the heck out of them.

Even though the military doesn’t want to do that.

Keep reading

Are They TRYING to Start a Nuclear War?

The steady path toward World War III continues. U.S. and NATO support for Ukraine in the war with Russia has been one long failure, but that hasn’t stopped them from escalating the war with new weapons and tactics.

Russia has met the escalation with its own escalation every step of the way. At what point do rational leaders in the West (if there are any left) pause, consider that the war is lost in Ukraine, deescalate and seek a treaty to end the war?

There’s no sign of that yet. In fact, all of the signs point to further escalation, which is a sure path to nuclear war. What good has escalation accomplished?

The West supplied Ukraine with HIMARS precision-guided artillery, but that largely failed because the Russians quickly learned how to jam the GPS guidance systems, so the missiles went off course.

That doesn’t mean the Russians shoot down or jam every HIMARS rocket Ukraine launches. Some will always get through. But overall, their effectiveness has been limited compared with expectations.

The U.S. and NATO also supplied Ukraine with Abrams, Leopard and Challenger tanks and Bradley Fighting Vehicles that have been left burning on the battlefield. They also require intensive maintenance Ukraine can’t necessarily provide, and are often unsuited for the battlefield conditions in Ukraine. Many Ukrainian soldiers have actually expressed a preference for Russian-made equipment over NATO’s.

Keep reading

Dismissing Tom Clancy’s Fanboy Generals In the USAF

In his foreword to Tom Clancy’s book Fighter Wing: A Guided Tour of an Air Force Combat Wing, updated in 2004, a retired USAF general named John M. Loh writes: “This book chronicles the creation of a command with a unique culture – the U.S. Air Force Air Combat Command. It possesses the leadership, the combat power, and the highly trained, competent people to provide the world’s best combat air forces anywhere in the world, at any time, to win quickly, decisively, with overwhelming advantage and few casualties. Tom Clancy does a masterful job of telling us all about it. I am proud to have served as the first commander of Air Combat Command, and proud to commend this book to your reading pleasure.” (Location 226)

Not only does the general validate Clancy’s outrageous claims about USAF pilots being the finest in the world, as one would expect from those who have both been thoroughly indoctrinated in the myth of American aerial supremacy, it just shows that the USAF liked Clancy because he published propaganda books that served their interests.

For those who have followed my writing career as a military reformer, you know that Tom Clancy sticks in my craw, and I am always keen to rebut his arguments, which never contain footnotes, or any documentation other than the words of defense contractors.

Although Clancy is no longer with us, General Loh still is, and I would like to offer the following news to him and other Clancy fanboys and ask them to possibly reconsider their bragging. In previous articles and my book I have argued that smaller air forces, such as the Royal Air Force, the Royal Australian Air Force, and the Royal Canadian Air Force have outstanding reputations, with pilot selection and training standards that are higher than the USAF.

Keep reading

The Speech That Military Recruiters Don’t Want You To Hear

I had hoped to speak to high-schoolers – I still do – but the six high schools nearest me either ignored my offer to speak or declined it.  “Do it for the kids,” they say when asking to raise your property taxes, but it’s beyond the pale to dissuade those very same kids from needlessly putting themselves in harm’s way?  Parents might have a different opinion, so here’s my speech:

Before we get into this, let’s discuss what most would label “a hypothetical.”  Tonight, I’m going to break into your home, point a gun at you, and rob you – all the while claiming that I’m not your enemy.  Your enemy, I’ll say, is elsewhere, and I don’t mean across the street but in a different country.  What will you do?  By a show of hands, will you fight back and protect those in your home by evicting me or even by killing me?  By a show of hands, who will thank me and travel to said country in search of the enemy, leaving those in your home vulnerable to me?  Anyone?  Nobody?  It sounds absurd, but for reasons that I’ll soon explain, you’ll understand that it’s more real than hypothetical.

Hello, I’m Casey Carlisle.  I’m a West Point graduate, and I spent five years in the Army, including 11 months in Afghanistan.  Some of you are thinking about serving your country, and most of you are asking yourselves, “Why am I listening to this guy?”  I’m glad that both of these groups are here, and I promise that my remarks will cause both groups to think differently about military service.

I was a high-school senior on September 11th, 2001, sitting in class and stunned after hearing the principal announce that our country had just been attacked.  Why would someone want to do this to the greatest country on Earth?  I was also livid, and I wanted revenge.  I wanted to kill the people responsible for this atrocity, and my dilemma then was between enlisting in the military to exact revenge now or first spending years at a military academy before helping to rid the world of terrorists.  I chose the latter, so I didn’t deploy to Afghanistan until 2009.  My time there radically changed my views, which was uncomfortable, but, as with failure, discomfort breeds learning.

I learned that not only were we not keeping our fellow Americans safe or protecting their liberty, we were further impoverishing one of the poorest countries in the world.  I watched in disgust my alleged allies – the Afghan police – rob their neighbors while on patrol and in broad daylight via traffic stops.  Imagine getting pulled over, not for speeding, but because the cop hopes to rob you.  My enemy – the Taliban – didn’t do such things, which is why I ended up having more respect for them than for my mission or for those who were allegedly helping us accomplish it.  “Oh, but they’re horrible in other ways,” you might argue, and I’d agree; however, it’s much harder to kill an idea than it is to kill a person.  Killing someone who holds an idea that you find distasteful only helps that person’s loved ones accept that idea.  It turns out that killing someone for their ideas is a great way to spread those ideas.

Instead of dismissing me as an anti-American lunatic, consider the following.  In the year 2000, the Taliban controlled most of Afghanistan, and today, they control all of it.  This is just one of the reasons why I feel contempt for those who thank me for my alleged service.  Our ‘service’ was worse than worthless, and the people thanking me were forced to pay for it.  All of those who died there did so for nothing.  And the innocent Afghans who were displaced, injured, or killed during our attempt to bring democracy to a country that didn’t want it were far better off in 2000 than they are now.

To be clear, the desire to serve one’s country is noble, but we must first define “country.”  Serving one’s country is entirely different from serving one’s government.  They are not the same.  Serving one’s country is serving one’s family, friends, neighbors, and the land that they’ve made home.  Serving one’s country is serving one’s community.  Serving one’s government, however, is ultimately what everyone does when they enlist or when they take my path as an officer.  Who are these people in government that you’ll end up serving?  Are they your family, friends, or neighbors?  For the most part, they are not, yet, they are ultimately who will decide your fate while in uniform.  Whether they’re politicians or bureaucrats, they decide what serving one’s country entails, and, naturally, they’ll subordinate our country’s prosperity to their job security.  If given the opportunity, these people will not hesitate to send you to your death if it means scoring a measly political point against their ideological foes.  Serving one’s country in this context – reality – means serving these parasites.

Keep reading