Thursday, Jul 02nd, 2020 - 15:58:11

Blog entry

H.R.1976 - Nuclear Weapons Abolition and Economic and Energy Conversion Act of 2015

'GOOD NEWS! Washington DC's Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton re-introduced her nuclear weapons abolition bill for the 12th time on Earth Day, April 22, 2015, as HR-1976. In her Dear Colleague letter, Ms. Norton writes, "Polls indicate that over 70% of Americans want 'the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons.' We must begin to turn public sentiment into public policy, and make advances toward a peaceful, nuclear-weapons-free future."

The bill has been submitted to the House Armed Services and Foreign Affairs Committees. In late May, Represenatives John Lewis (GA) and Raul Grijalva (AZ) told us that they would co-sponsor the bill.

This is the ONLY bill in the U.S. Congress calling for global abolition of nuclear weapons. It also provides funding for conversion of the war industries to provide for environmental restoration and clean-energy conversion. Co-sponsors are needed!

YOU CAN HELP by asking YOUR Representative to co-sponsor the "Nuclear Weapons Abolition and Economic and Energy Conversion Act" this session. We also hope that a Senator will be found to introduce similar legislation into the US Senate...'

History of the Bill

'Background: Proposition One Campaign is a grassroots movement for abolition of nuclear weapons and the conversion of nuclear and other arms industries to provide for human and environmental needs. The concept was proven viable by the victory of DC Initiative 37 in 1993.

As a result, the "Nuclear Disarmament and Economic Conversion Act" was introduced each session between 1994 and 2009 into the U.S. House of Representatives by Eleanor Holmes Norton.

The bill was first introduced in 1994, then 1995, 1997, and 1999, when U.S. Representative Lynn Woolsey (CA) joined Ms. Norton and several experts on nuclear disarmament issues to announce active support for the legislation, and again in 2001, 2003, and 2005 (when Representative Woolsey, plus John Lewis and Cynthia McKinney of Georgia, and Sheila Jackson-Lee of Texas, quickly signed on). In 2007 there were no co-signatories, but in 2009 John Lewis and Lynn Woolsey's aides repeatedly told us that they signed on to HR-1653, although you'd never know about it by searching Congressional bills. (See Ms. Norton's 2009 announcement, which she timed to recognize Proposition One co-founder William Thomas, who died on January 23, 2009.)

During 2009 and 2010, Proposition One co-founder Ellen Thomas and a team from DC traveled 30,000 miles around the country learning about the entire nuclear chain, from uranium mines (reclaimed and not), to nuclear power and weapons plants, to radioactive storage facilities, and promoting voter initiatives everywhere. During that time they became convinced that we will never be sure of abolishing nuclear weapons until there are no longer nuclear power plants, which for sixty-plus years have been producing weapons-grade uranium and plutonium. The travelers received excellent suggestions for improving the language of the proposed bill, which up till then hadn't been getting much respect from Congress. They proposed revisions which Ms. Norton accepted in 2011.

The bill was renamed the "Nuclear Weapons Abolition and Economic and Energy Conversion Act." There were four co-sponsors for HR-1334, Representatives Steve Cohen of Tennessee, Bob Filner of California, Dennis Kucinich of Ohio, and Fortney Pete Stark of California. Again, John Lewis and Lynn Woolsey's aides said they were signing on, but it didn't appear on the Library of Congress website.

In 2013, Representative Raoul Raul M. Grijalva (Arizona), co-chair of the House Progressive Caucus, signed on to HR-1650.

Other co-sponsors over the years, now retired, have included David Minge and James Oberstar (Minnesota), Charles Rangel (New York), Al Wynn (Maryland), and Earl Hilliard (Alabama). As each Congressional session ends, all unvoted-on legislation expires and must be re-introduced. Your help is needed in obtaining LOTS of co-sponsors in this Congress! Bipartisan support would be very helpful.'

+ Proposition One:

'After an absence of roughly 2000 years the Star of Bethlehem may soon be making a return to our night skies on June 30, 2015 — to be more specific Venus and Jupiter will be making their tightest highly visible conjunction in nearly two millennia. The reference to the Star of Bethlehem is with regard to the fact that there was a very similar ultratight conjunction between the two — and close by the star Regulus (as this one will be), and high up in the sky (as this will be as well) — in 3-2 BC. Some astronomers have in the past speculated that this earlier conjunction is what the “Star of Bethlehem” referred to.'
+ Tel Aviv:
+ The Quantum and the Lotus:

H.R.1976 -- Nuclear Weapons Abolition and Economic and Energy Conversion Act of 2015

1st Session

April 22, 2015

Ms. NORTON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and to the Committee on Armed Services


To provide for nuclear weapons abolition and economic conversion in accordance with District of Columbia Initiative Measure Number 37 of 1992, while ensuring environmental restoration and clean-energy conversion.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,


This Act may be cited as the `Nuclear Weapons Abolition and Economic and Energy Conversion Act of 2015'.


(a) In General- The United States Government shall--

(1) provide leadership to negotiate and enter into a multilateral treaty or other international agreement by the date that is three years after the date of the enactment of this Act that provides for--

(A) the dismantlement and elimination of all nuclear weapons in every country by not later than 2022; and
(B) strict and effective international control of such dismantlement and elimination;

(2) redirect resources that are being used for nuclear weapons programs to use--

(A) in converting all nuclear weapons industry employees, processes, plants, and programs smoothly to constructive, ecologically beneficial peacetime activities, including strict control of all fissile material and radioactive waste, during the period in which nuclear weapons must be dismantled and eliminated pursuant to the treaty or other international agreement described in paragraph (1); and

(B) in addressing human and infrastructure needs, including development and deployment of sustainable carbon-free and nuclear-free energy sources, health care, housing, education, agriculture, and environmental restoration, including long-term radioactive waste monitoring;

(3) undertake vigorous, good-faith efforts to eliminate war, armed conflict, and all military operations; and

(4) actively promote policies to induce all other countries to join in the commitments described in this subsection to create a more peaceful and secure world.

(b) Effective Date- Subsection (a)(2) shall take effect on the date on which the President certifies to Congress that all countries possessing nuclear weapons have--

(1) eliminated such weapons; or

(2) begun such elimination under established legal requirements comparable to those described in subsection (a).

+ H.R.1976 -- Nuclear Weapons Abolition and Economic and Energy Conversion Act of 2015:

'WASHINGTON, D.C.—To commemorate Earth Day, a day dedicated to protecting the planet and its environment, Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC) today introduced the Nuclear Weapons Abolition and Economic and Energy Conversion Act of 2015 to require the United States to negotiate an international agreement to disable and dismantle its nuclear weapons by 2020 and to redirect the funds to human and infrastructure needs, such as housing, health care, Social Security and the environment. This year, the bill is particularly timely because of final negotiations underway for a historic nuclear agreement to keep Iran from producing a nuclear weapon.

The bill, which also requires ecologically beneficial activities, including the control of fissile material and nuclear waste and conversion to nuclear-free energy power, would take effect when the President certifies to Congress that all countries possessing nuclear weapons have either eliminated them or begun such elimination under established legal requirements. The Congresswoman has introduced a version of the bill since 1994, after working with the District of Columbia residents who were responsible for the nuclear disarmament ballot initiative passed by D.C. voters in 1993.

“Earth Day has come into its own with the urgency of climate change, which could destroy the earth but was unknown when Earth Day was established in 1970,” Norton said. “At the same time, there is no greater threat to the future of our planet than nuclear war. As the United States seeks to eliminate the nuclear threat from Iran, our country, with the world’s largest nuclear arsenal, should lead by example by reducing our already unnecessarily high number of warheads, and move toward realizing a world without nuclear weapons.”'

+ On Earth Day, Norton Introduces Nuclear Disarmament Bill - Apr 22, 2015 Press Release:
+ Support Proposition One (H.R.1976):
+ H.R.1976 - Nuclear Weapons Abolition and Economic and Energy Conversion Act of 2015 - 114th Congress (2015-2016):


Photo Credit: "And the Times they are a Changin'" - William Banzai 7:

Current Sponsors in U.S. Congress (2015):
+ Rep. Eleanor H. Norton (Washington D.C.):
+ Rep. Raul M. Grijalva (Nogales, AZ):
+ Rep. John Lewis (Atlanta, GA):

Previous Sponsors of Proposition One:
+ Dennis Kucinich:
+ Cynthia McKinney:
+ Lynn Woolsey:
+ Sheila Jackson-Lee:
+ Steve Cohen:
+ Charles Rangel:

The Big Six:



typehost's picture

When Zero Met Putin

Zero: "Not much happens in Russia without Vladimir Putin. This is a pretty hierarchical operation."
+ Note: The Russian Federation (Росси́йская Федера́ция) is "the largest country in the world by surface area" (6,592,800 sq mi) with a population of 146,544,710 +/-1 people. "The Russian economy ranks as the twelfth largest by nominal GDP and sixth largest by purchasing power parity... The country is one of the five recognized nuclear weapons states and possesses the largest stockpile of weapons of mass destruction. It is permanent member of the United Nations Security Council."

"So, this is one of those situations where, unless the American people genuinely think that the professionals in the CIA, the FBI, our entire intelligence infrastructure, many of whom -- by the way, served in previous administrations and who are Republicans -- are less trustworthy than the Russians. Then people should pay attention to what our intelligence agencies say."

"This is part of what I meant when I said we've got to think what is happening to happening to our political culture here. The Russians can't change us or significantly weaken us. They are a smaller country, they are a weaker country, their economy doesn't produce anything that anybody wants to buy except oil and gas and arms. They don't innovate."

"But they can impact us if we lose track of who we are. They can impact us if we abandon our values. Mr. Putin can weaken us just like he's trying to weaken Europe if we start buying into notions that it's OK to intimidate the press, or lock up dissidents, or discriminate against people because of their faith or what they look like."

+ Transcript: Obama’s end-of-year news conference on Syria, Russian hacking and more (2016):

'But Mr. Obama did decide that he would deliver a warning to Mr. Putin in person at a Group of 20 summit meeting in Hangzhou, China, the last time they would be in the same place while Mr. Obama was still in office. When the two men met for a tense pull-aside, Mr. Obama explicitly warned Mr. Putin of a strong American response if there was continued effort to influence the election or manipulate the vote, according to White House officials who were not present for the one-on-one meeting.

Later that day, Mr. Obama made a rare reference to America’s own offensive cybercapacity, which he has almost never talked about. “Frankly, both offensively and defensively, we have more capacity,” he told reporters.'

+ The Perfect Weapon: How Russian Cyberpower Invaded the U.S. (2016):


"Less than a week after what some people are calling the biggest presidential election of our lifetimes, the biggest Full Moon of this young century will blaze across the night sky. From the time the Moon rises near sunset on the evening of November 13 until it sets at dawn the next morning, the glowing orb will loom over the landscape as it hasn’t since the Cleveland Indians last won the World Series.

This so-called Super Moon arises because the Moon reaches its Full phase just 2.5 hours after its closest approach to Earth of 2016. Full Moon arrives precisely at 8:52 a.m. EST on November 14. Perigee — the point in our satellite’s monthly orbit when it comes closest to Earth — comes at 6:21 a.m. EST. The Moon then lies 221,524 miles (356,509 kilometers) from our planet as measured between the centers of the two objects. Take the sizes of the two into account and the distance between their surfaces shrinks by a bit more than 5,000 miles (8,000 kilometers).

As if this isn’t impressive enough, the Moon hasn’t come this close to Earth since January 26, 1948, when it was 30 miles (48 kilometers) nearer. And it won’t be this close again until November 25, 2034. So, this Super Moon truly is a rare and special event."

+ There's super-hype for this month’s Super Moon (2016):


“The United States,” wrote Amitai Etzioni, professor of international Affairs at George Washington University, “is preparing for a war with China, a momentous decision that so far has failed to receive a thorough review from elected officials,namely the White House and Congress.” This war would begin with a “blinding attack against Chinese anti-access facilities,including land and sea-based missile launchers … satellite and anti-satellite weapons.” The incalculable risk is that “deep inland strikes could be mistakenly perceived by the Chinese as pre-emptive attempts to take out its nuclear weapons, thus cornering them into ‘a terrible use-it-or-lose-it dilemma’ [that would] lead to nuclear war.”

In 2015, the Pentagon released its Law of War Manual. “The United States,” it says, “has not accepted a treaty rule that prohibits the use of nuclear weapons perse, and thus nuclear weapons are lawful weapons for the United States.”

+ The Coming War on China (2016):

“The U.S. arsenal today looks much as it would if a disarming strike against Russia were still its dominant mission...”
+ The End of MAD? The Nuclear Dimension of U.S. Primacy (2006):

"The United States is openly seeking primacy in every other dimension of modern military technology. The desire to modernize U.S. conventional forces is broadly and correctly interpreted as an effort to build the tools necessary to retain U.S. military supremacy. The simultaneous modernization of U.S. nuclear weapon systems should be seen in the same light."

"The shift in the nuclear balance could significantly damage relations among the great powers and increase the probability of nuclear war. First, the United States’ growing offensive nuclear capabilities will pressure Russia and China to reduce the peacetime vulnerability of their forces. The steps that they may take to do this—for example, building larger nuclear arsenals, dispersing nuclear forces, predelegating launch authority to local commanders, and adopting a hair-trigger nuclear retaliatory doctrine—may signal the beginning of an intense, new nuclear arms race. Even worse, these steps may increase the danger of nuclear accidents, including unauthorized and accidental nuclear war."

Nuclear War: An Unrecognized Mass Extinction Event Waiting To Happen (2015):

Plans for Redrawing the Middle East: The Project for a “New Middle East” (2006):


Hitlary Clinton Fail

'Mrs. Clinton is indeed more hawkish than other Democrats, including toward Russia. In 2008, while a senator, she mocked President George W. Bush’s claim that he had looked into Mr. Putin’s soul.

“I could have told him — he was a K.G.B. agent. By definition, he doesn’t have a soul,” Mrs. Clinton joked. The line is still remembered in Moscow.

But the Kremlin’s views of Mrs. Clinton go beyond defining her as hawkish. They are also layered with a pre-existing Russian belief that promoting American democracy is a ploy to unseat unfriendly governments, that the United States remains bent on Russia’s destabilization or even destruction, and that there is an American hand behind nearly every Russian misfortune.

These suspicions go back decades. But, since Mrs. Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state, popular telling has cast her as the culprit responsible for America’s misdeeds and, therefore, Russia’s setbacks.'

Russia’s Hacks Followed Years of Paranoia Toward Hillary Clinton (2016):


Dwight Howard - Superman

"The bottom line on nuclear weapons is that when the president gives the order, it must be followed. There’s about four minutes between the order being given and the people responsible for launching nuclear weapons to do so. And that’s why 10 people who have had that awesome responsibility have come out and, in an unprecedented way, said they would not trust Don Crump with the nuclear codes or to have his finger on the nuclear button."

Clinton and Nuclear Launch Times (2016):

Nation of Islam Research Group: Dwight Howard, Superman, & the Palestinians (2014):

This Is No "New Cold War"; It's Far Worse Than That (2016):

typehost's picture

Obama Hussein Baraka

The Drone Memos: The troubling legacy of Obama's drone campaign (2016):

'Over just a short period in early 2016, in other words, the United States deployed remotely piloted aircraft to carry out deadly attacks in six countries across central and south Asia, north Africa, and the Middle East, and it announced that it had expanded its capacity to carry out attacks in a seventh. And yet with the possible exception of the strike in Somalia, which garnered news coverage because of the extraordinary death toll, the drone attacks did not seem to spark controversy or reflection. As the 2016 presidential primaries were getting under way, sporadic and sketchy reports of strikes in remote regions of the world provided a kind of background noise – a drone in a different sense of the word – to which Americans had become inured.

Senior officials in the administration of President Barack Obama variously described drone strikes as “precise,” “closely supervised,” “effective,” “indispensable,” and even the “only game in town” – but what they emphasized most of all is that the drone strikes they authorized were lawful.

In this context, though, “lawful” had a specialized meaning. Except at the highest level of abstraction, the law of the drone campaign had not been enacted by Congress or published in the US Code. No federal agency had issued regulations relating to drone strikes, and no federal court had adjudicated their legality. Obama administration officials insisted that drone strikes were lawful, but the “law” they invoked was their own. It was written by executive branch lawyers behind closed doors, withheld from the public and even from Congress, and shielded from judicial review.

Secret law is unsettling in any context, but it was especially so in this one. For decades the US government had condemned targeted killings, characterizing them as assassinations or extrajudicial executions. On its face, the drone campaign signified a dramatic departure from that position – a departure that demanded explanation, at the very least. It was far from obvious what distinguished American drone strikes from the targeted killings the United States had historically rejected as unlawful. Nor was it clear how these targeted killings could be reconciled with international human rights law, with a decades-old executive order that bans assassinations, with the constitutional guarantee of due process, or, for that matter, with domestic laws that criminalize murder.

The scale of the drone campaign, and the human cost of it, made government secrecy even more disquieting. The United States was carrying out lethal strikes not only on actual battlefields, but in places far removed from them as well. The first strike President Obama authorized killed at least nine people in the tribal areas of Pakistan. An early strike in Yemen, albeit one carried out with cruise missiles rather than drones, killed two families, including as many as 21 children – and, according to the New York Times, “left behind a trail of cluster bombs that subsequently killed more innocents.” By the end of President Obama’s first term, American strikes had killed several thousand people in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia, including many hundreds of civilian bystanders. The deaths of innocents raised sharp moral questions, and the moral questions gave urgency to the legal ones.'

+ How the US justifies drone strikes: targeted killing, secrecy and the law (2016):


+ "Welcome To Paradise" - Green Day (1992):

'Months prior to the release of Michelle Obama’s official portrait, we were invited to imagine her in the White House by way of caricature. The New Yorker’s Barry Blitt set the presidential candidate and his wife in a White House oval shaped room. Barack Obama’s figure was flanked by a portrait of Osama Bin Laden above, and a burning American flag below. His tunic and turban mirrored Bin Laden’s garb. The artist chided us about the suggestion that Obama was in any way allied with radical Muslim leaders. Michelle Obama’s billowing natural or Afro that crowns her head suggests how she would bring to the White House yet another brand of radical politics — that of Angela Davis and the Black Panther Party. Controversy erupted. The New Yorker defended the cartoon as a spoof on “The Politics of Fear,” while some Obama supporters deflected any suggestion that their candidate and his wife were subversive, anti-establishment figures. In the final analysis, Michelle Obama’s official portrait reframes the twenty-first century caricature. In her self-authored representation, a portrait of Thomas Jefferson and the south lawn replaces Bin Laden and a burning flag. A designer dress and pearls erase combat fatigues and an automatic rifle. In both cases, corporeality suggests character, with Obama’s arms telling the story. Open, gently poised hands pointedly displace the fierceness of the fist-bump of The New Yorker cover.'

+ REFRAMING THE COLOR LINE" - By Martha S. Jones (2009):

'There is something ironic, and even sad, in the fact that the expansion and normalization of the drone campaign was overseen by President Obama, a onetime professor of constitutional law who was elected after promising to end the lawless national security policies of the administration that preceded his. Perhaps it is also true, though, that only President Obama could have overseen it. When President George W Bush left office, he was unpopular and distrusted. The evidence he had cited to justify the invasion of Iraq had been exposed as a fiction. His administration’s torture policies were widely viewed as an embarrassment and an outrage. The supreme court had repeatedly rejected his policies relating to military detention and prosecution. It is doubtful that the courts or the public would have allowed him to expand the drone campaign.

But many Americans who were appalled when Bush ordered extrajudicial detention were untroubled when Obama ordered extrajudicial killing. If they appreciated the breadth of the power Obama had claimed, they assumed he would use the power wisely. Equally significant, some of the scholars and human rights lawyers who might otherwise have been expected to harshly criticize Obama’s targeted-killing policies were part of Obama’s administration and deeply involved in developing the policies...

Now the lethal bureaucracy whose growth Obama personally oversaw will be turned over to a new administration. The powers Obama claimed will be wielded by another president. Perhaps as significant is the jarring fact that the practice of targeted killing – assassination, as it would once have been called, without a second thought – no longer seems remarkable, and the fact that the United States now boasts a legal and bureaucratic infrastructure to sustain this practice. Eight years ago the targeted-killing campaign required a legal and bureaucratic infrastructure, but now that infrastructure will demand a targeted-killing campaign. The question the next president will ask is not whether the powers Obama claimed should be exploited, but where, and against whom.'

+ How the US justifies drone strikes: targeted killing, secrecy and the law (2016):

'Determined to stop Russia's interference in the presidential campaign, at least one of President Obama's senior advisers urged him to make the ultimate threat to Russian President Vladimir Putin, U.S. officials told NBC News:

"Mess with the vote and we will consider it an act of war."

But Obama opted not to issue a warning that specific when he spoke to Putin about the hacking during a September meeting at the G-20 summit in China, said intelligence officials offering NBC News exclusive new details. The president didn't want to inflame an already tense situation, the officials said. Instead, he used less specific language to warn Putin of consequences if Russian interference didn't stop. The release of hacked Democratic emails continued.'

+ What Obama Said to Putin on the Red Phone About the Election Hack (2016):

'The White House, the Pentagon, and the Central Intelligence Agency have contingency plans locked away in top-secret compartments. (In theory, locked away from Russia – who knows these days?) They could hit Moscow’s leaders, intelligence services and oligarchs where it hurts. The United States could strike at their computer motherboards or their offshore money. It could place multifaceted malware inside Putin’s espionage networks. It could throw a monkey wrench into his political machine.

If Obama looks back into the annals of the Cold War, he will find a fitting blueprint for the last big intelligence operation of his presidency. It has a perfect code name: Farewell...

“It was a brilliant plan,” Allen said 20 years later in an oral history interview. “We started in motion feeding the Soviets bad technology - bad computer technology, bad oil-drilling technology. We fed them a whole lot, let them steal stuff they were happy to get.” FBI agents posed as corrupt military contractors. They shipped clueless Soviet spies everything they sought and more: computer chips for next-generation weapons, blueprints for chemical plants, state-of-the art turbines. Each had a subtle and fatal defect. This herd of Trojan horses soon started running wild and biting the Russian bear.

And then the United States decided to really let them have it.

The Soviets needed the software for sophisticated computer systems to control pressure gauges and valves vital to an immense natural-gas pipeline under construction from Siberia to Eastern Europe. The CIA and the FBI surreptitiously steered a Soviet Line X officer to a Canadian company that had exactly the software he’d been assigned to steal. Moscow was well pleased. The codes and silicon chips were implanted in the Trans-Siberian pipeline in late 1982. Months passed. Then, slowly, the pressure started building - tick, tick, tick. Out in the frozen tundra, a fireball exploded.

Of course, had the tables been turned, this could have been seen as an act of terror. But no one was killed. In the context of the Cold War, it was fair play.'

+ The Hot Dog: Here’s how Obama can hit back at Putin over hacking (2016):


“The prerequisites for a new arms race were created after the US withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty. This is obvious. When one party unilaterally withdrew from the treaty and said it was going to create an anti-nuclear umbrella, the other party has to either create a similar umbrella – the necessity of which we are not sure about considering its questionable efficiency – or create effective ways to overcome this anti-ballistic missile system and improve its strike capabilities.”

Note: Putin was commenting on a report on the state of Russia’s military presented by Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu on Thursday, which included an update on the modernization of Russia’s nuclear deterrent.

+ If we are in arms race, US started it by pulling out of ABM treaty – Putin (2016):

'The Drone Memos collects for the first time the legal and policy documents underlying the U.S. government’s deeply controversial practice of “targeted killing”—the extrajudicial killing of suspected terrorists and militants, typically using remotely piloted aircraft or “drones.” The documents—including the Presidential Policy Guidance that provides the framework for drone strikes today, Justice Department white papers addressing the assassination of an American citizen, and a highly classified legal memo that was published only after a landmark legal battle involving the ACLU, the New York Times, and the CIA—together constitute a remarkable effort to legitimize a practice that most human rights experts consider to be unlawful and that the United States has historically condemned.'

+ The Drone Memos: Targeted Killing, Secrecy, and the Law (2016):


Zero Hour

"Let it be an arms race. We will outmatch them at every pass and outlast them all." - Don Crump

+ MLK & the Möbius War Mafia (2016):

'President-elect Don Crump said Thursday the U.S. should enlarge its nuclear arsenal, an apparent reversal of a decades-long reduction of the nation’s atomic weaponry that came hours after Russian President Vladimir Putin said his country’s arsenal should also be strengthened... Putin said in a speech earlier on Thursday that his country should also bolster its nuclear forces: "We need to enhance the combat capability of strategic nuclear forces, primarily by strengthening missile complexes that will be guaranteed to penetrate existing and future missile defense systems," he said. Global X Uranium ETF rose to a session high after Crump’s comments while Uranium Resources Inc., a Colorado-based mining company, climbed as much as 27 percent before trimming gains. President Barack Obama has both reduced the U.S. nuclear arsenal, in an agreement early in his presidency with Russia, and sought to modernize it to replace thousands of bombs and missiles. His modernization plan -- which the Arms Control Association said would cost as much as $1 trillion over 30 years -- has come under criticism from proponents of denuclearization, who warn it may prompt a new arms race with Russia and China.'

+ Merry Christmas: Crump Says U.S. Nuclear Arsenal Must Be ‘Greatly’ Expanded (2016):

+ Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin agree: Let’s revive the nuclear arms race (2016):

+ The Radical Jesus & The American Police State (2016):

Back to Top