But that doesn't mean that I think everything he says or does is bad. The CIA has been wrong before, particularly during the Cold War. And their current statement says only that the leaks were “consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts.” Plus, the United States was “not now in a position to attribute this activity to the Russian Government.” So, he has some direct basis to be skeptical.
Could the CIA essentially be following the military's lead relative to the power of Russia? We have been extremely profligate in our military spending largely to defend against Russia. Andrew Cockburn points out that "The Navy has therefore been promised a fleet of twelve ballistic-missile-launching nuclear submarines, loaded with newly developed missiles, at an estimated price of $100 billion. The Air Force will acquire 642 new ICBMs at a supposed cost of $85 billion (a price tag that will, like that of the naval program, inevitably increase). In addition, the Air Force is getting a long-range nuclear bomber, the cost of which it has brazenly classified with the excuse that such details would reveal technical secrets to the enemy. The shopping list also includes several nuclear warheads that are essentially new designs. Meanwhile, command-and-control systems are being developed for an array of satellites (costing up to $1 billion each), whose purpose is to make the business of fighting a nuclear war more manageable."
No comments:
Post a Comment