The Iron Grip of the
U.S. 'Nuclear-Space Industrial Complex'
"NASA is a purely 'socialist'
way of transferring public funds to the private sector - even if many Americans
consider this word a near obscenity. … The issue of introducing rationality
into nuclear weapons programs and space exploration is linked to jobs, corporate
interests and the desire of many officials to continue to maintain their small plots
of power."
One of the more typical
characteristics of human beings is inertia. Just as "behavioral economists"
are proving, humans have a tendency to stick with the status quo and “put things
off until tomorrow." It’s the so-called "status quo bias." In
other words, rationalityhas its limits.
Recently, U.S. policy has
been marked by this tendency. That was one of the underlying elements of the Nuclear Security
Summit on April 12 and 13. It’s true that in theory, the meeting focused on
nuclear non-proliferation and on a more discrete level, imposing sanctions on
Iran. But the entire debate was stained by the nuclear “establishments” in the
U.S., Russia, Britain, France, China, Pakistan, India, and other countries that
were safeguarding their quotas of influence. And some of these influence quotas
have more to do with bureaucratic power and guaranteeing one another's positions
than with national security.
The debate on the U.S. space program is even more
complex. That's because there are bureaucratic
and political obstacles (in the form of the survival of NASA and its economic
impact in states like Florida, Ohio, Colorado and Texas) and a number of
private enterprises.
Let’s begin with the nuclear
issue. On April 13, while heads of state and government had dinner, I attended
an event on nuclear proliferation organized by the Washington European Society. Among the
speakers was Bob Alvarez who, among other positions, was director of two U.S.
missions to North Korea during the Clinton Administration.
Posted by WORLDMEETS.US
Alvarez is a critic of the
current model of nuclear deterrence. In his opinion, the U.S. only needs 200 or
300 nuclear warheads to defend itself. I’m not going to get into that issue
because it escapes me, but I'll dwell on some of the ideas that Alvarez gives
as to why it's so difficult to destroy these stockpiles even though a majority
of these bombs aren't immediately operational. In fact, I’ve been in U.S. nuclear
missile silos and one of the things that surprised me is how old the technology
is.
For Alvarez, the reason for
maintaining this nuclear antiquity (at least in regard to land-based missiles)
is simple: bureaucratic power. U.S. nuclear weapons don’t fall under the
purview of the Pentagon, but rather the Department of Energy, which spends about
$16.5 billion (nearly €13 billion) every year to maintain them. This is an
incredible number, especially when taking into account that America hasn't
manufactured a single bomb in over 20 years. In fact, according to Alvarez, the
United States now spends as much on its nuclear arsenal, accounting for
inflation, as it did at the end of the 1950s during the critical moments of the
Cold War.
Something similar is
happening with space exploration. On April 12, Obama announced the partial privatization
of the U.S. space program - and the goal of reaching Mars in 2030. His space
policy has been harshly criticized by Republicans and the Congressman of states
that receive the lion's share of NASA money: Florida, Texas, California, and
Ohio. Three astronauts have signed
an open letter to the president in which they criticize his lack of support
for the space program.
The first thing that stands
out is that the astronauts are unwilling to accept that in a country with
double-digit deficits, priorities must be established, and logically, sending
people out for a spin in space isn't one of them. In fact, the usefulness of
the space shuttle is more than questionable, as the astronauts' own criticism
aptly reveals.
But then there’s the
bureaucratic issue once again. With an annual budget of $18.7 billion, NASA is
an immense bureaucracy that, like any bureaucracy, is focused on one fundamental
task: ensuring its own survival. In fact, the much vaunted U.S. government
agency is at full speed losing market share in unmanned space flight.
But aside from that, NASA is
a purely “socialist” way of transferring public funds to the private sector -
even if many Americans consider this word a near obscenity. On one hand, there
are direct contracts for private companies to supply material and spacecraft. On
the other hand, there are the consequences of their research. According to the Wall
Street Journal, if you add up public and private spending in space, it
comes out to $260 billion a year.
Posted by WORLDMEETS.US
Much of what NASA discovers
goes to private companies. For example, if the U.S. wants to build a wind farm,
studies must show that over a period of at least two years, wind in the area has
been sufficient to generate electricity. But in the case of building a solar
energy park, one cannot be as precise. Why? Because this is information that
can only be obtained via satellite. The Journal cited the shipbuilding, aviation,
oil industry and other industries that depend on NASA and a growing number of
private space companies.
So then, the issue of introducing
rationality into nuclear weapons programs and space exploration doesn’t only
have to do with policy priorities, with the ideology of the government or scientific
criteria. It is also linked to jobs, corporate interests and the desire of many
officials to continue to maintain their small plots of power.
