Vote for Joe

Last Saturday President Trump said he was pulling out of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty with Russia.  His administration’s contention is that Russia is breaking the treaty by building and testing a new class of weapons.  The treaty bans ground launched ballistic and cruise missiles that have a range from 300 to 3,400 miles.  According to the book the Nuclear Age Reader, Russian “strategic [nuclear] force expansion” has forced the U.S. to abandon its commitment to strategic superiority, and it has further driven the U.S. to settle for detente as the best framework for bilateral super-power relations.  Trump’s move, in tandem with his expressed intentions to ramp up our nuclear weapons development, could well start another Cold War Arms Race.  Our administration, on the other hand, would look to parity with Russia in a bilateral — or even unilateral (taking the lead) — nuclear arms reduction.  With, eventually (and sooner than later), this going all the way to: zero.  Why?  See the section in our military paper on: “nuclear weapons.”

With Trump’s new proposed Space Force, we stand at the brink of yet another Cold War arena. The book Beyond the Cold War notes that the U.S.’s military pre-eminence in the world is unmatched (the U.S. currently spends more on the military than the next 17 countries — combined)!  However, the book also notes that countries with a lot of nuclear weapons (read: Russia, for one), trumps — pun intended — military superiority in the other areas.  What’s more, the book notes that western allies with the U.S. know this, so they are not as dependent on America for security, as they were before.  Our administration would nix the Space Force idea, not only because it would inevitably start yet another unnecessary Cold War race; but it would also take a significant amount of money away from programs to help the poor, to help the environment, and so on.  So… “Beam me up Scotty…”  If you’re under 30, Google that phrase. Note: During a campaign swing through Texas, I told a reporter I would be opposed to any type of militarization of space.  For more on our stance on the military in general, see…

An NPR piece today noted that Canada is our biggest trading partner.  There is, for instance, a tremendously significant export/import dynamic around automotive vehicles and parts. Trump is threatening tariffs on imports of these (and other products), to play hard ball in getting a NAFTA 2 deal made with Canada.  However there’s push back from Canada, which, the NPR piece noted, is creating some friction between two countries that have had a strong alliance, across the board, for years.  I was just reading in the book Canadian Society (A Macro-Analysis) that there are, really, only subtle differences between the two societies.  And things like free trade “…contribute to better integration of the two societies.”  Our administration policies would reflect a paradigm that spins around increasing yet more of the camaraderie between the two countries.  Note:  While our administration’s economic policy would focus more on “Buy American,” conversely we would promote more joint cultural exchanges, joint environmental projects, joint tourism initiatives, Peace Corps outreach… to increase camaraderie with Canada.

As I write this, Trump’s “NAFTA 2” is in motion.  Mexico is at the table and Canada is lining up for talks as well.  There’s multi-dimensions to all this.  And they need to be well understood before the parties ‘…sign on the dotted line.’  In entering into trade talks with Canada, for example, its advisable to understand how Canadian society ticks in regard to the ideological underpinnings of their economic system.  In the book Canadian Society (A Macro-Analysis), it notes: “The dominant ideology in Canadian society has been the liberal model which accepts a stratified society because of its belief in individualism, yet modifies the excesses of the capitalist system by making some provisions for the most disadvantaged.  Marchak fears that with the increasing concentration of global capital (as multi-national corporations support the shift from competitive capitalism to monopoly capitalism), inequality will become an even more critical problem.”  After “NAFTA 1,” so to speak, our family toured Juarez, Mexico, where some of these multi-national corporation factories had gone up on the border. Because provisions in the first NAFTA were favorable for this, it created a situation where plant workers were making $3 a shift, not an hour, but a shift, in these plants, while living in extreme abject poverty in the slums of Juarez.  The hierarchy in the multi-nationals were making a lot of money, the, say, American consumers were saving a lot of money on these factory items; but on the lower end of the inequality side, these workers, and their families, were suffering tremendously.  As Marchak notes: “…as these multi-nationals move toward monopoly capitalism, inequality will become a more critical problem.”  And it has for these Mexican multi-national plant workers.  This could also happen in Canada this time around, at least to a degree. And our administration would not only be looking out for American interests in NAFTA 2, but we would also be looking out for the interests of the general populace in both Canada and Mexico.  While this is, indeed, sound spiritual principle, these trade agreements are seldom looked at through this type of paradigm.

‘De-nuclearization,’ as this term has been coined by politicians and pundits, of North Korea, and the Korean Peninsula in general, has been in the news regularly of late.  What hasn’t been in the news, and what was classified as “top secret” for many years, was a series of letters between John F. Kennedy and Nikita Khrushchev back in the early 1960’s.  They were discussing, of all things, ‘de-nuclearization’ of the U.S. and Soviet Union.  Total de-neclearization.  In the book The Kennedy-Khrushchev Letters, Khrusshchev, in one of his correspondences wrote that he wanted a treaty on general, and complete, nuclear disarmament “…under the strictest international control.”  Note: People say that neither country is using their nuclear weapons now.  But they are.  Both countries are using them to, not only protect themselves, but to wield “big sticks” in getting other countries to do their bidding.  What’s more, in using them (it costs $50 billion a year to maintain the U.S.’s nuclear arsenal), America, for instance, is taking food, clothing, shelter, medicine… out of the hands of, say, the Third World poor.  You have to wonder how God looks at that, don’t you.  Our military and foreign policies look squarely through this lens.