CMR is the leading provider of funding and management support for small to medium-sized businesses and entrepreneurs 

Authored by Ryan McMaken via The Mises Institute,

Republicans and Democrats may quibble over how federal tax dollars might be spent on various social welfare programs like Medicaid and food stamps. But alongside Social Security, there is one area of federal spending that everyone can apparently agree on: military spending. Last year, the Biden administration requested one of the largest peacetime budgets ever, at $813 billion. Congress wanted even more spending and ended up approving a budget of $858 billion. In inflation-adjusted terms, that was well in excess of the military spending we saw during the Cold War under Ronald Reagan. This year, Joe Biden is asking for even more money, with a new budget request that starts at $886 billion. Included in that gargantuan amount—which doesn’t even include veterans spending—is billions for new missile systems for deploying nuclear arms, plus other programs for “modernizing” the United States’ nuclear arsenal.

Indeed, over the past year, the memo has gone out among the usual advocates of endless military spending that the US needs to spend much more on nuclear arms. This is a perennial position at the Heritage Foundation, of course, which has never met a military pork program it didn’t like. Moreover, in recent months, the Wall Street Journal has run several articles demanding more nuclear arms. The New York Post was pushing the same line late last year. Much of the rhetoric centers on the idea that Beijing is increasing its own spending on nuclear arms and thus the United States must “keep up.” For instance, last month, Patty-Jane Geller insisted that the US is in an “arms race” with China. Meanwhile, writers at the foreign-policy site 1945 claimed Congress must “save” the American nuclear arsenal.

Congress will surely be happy to cooperate. Such spending is an enormous cash cow for weapons manufacturers, although it has little to do with actual military defense. The US nuclear arsenal is huge, and China’s efforts to expand its own arsenal will have no effect on the already substantial deterrent effects of the US’s existing nuclear arsenal. Although the 1945 article insists that China soon “will field a peer or superior arsenal to the United States,” it’s difficult to see by what metric this is actually true.

Contrary to claims that the US nuclear arsenal needs to be “saved” or it will soon be eclipsed by the Chinese arsenal, the US remains well in the lead of every single nuclear power except Russia. Even if Beijing increases its arsenal to one thousand warheads, as the New York Post breathlessly predicts, the Chinese arsenal will remain well behind that of the US.

This is true even if we remove all the retired US warheads from the equation. In that case, Moscow retains the global lead with more than forty-four hundred weapons, and the US comes in second with more than thirty-seven hundred. Presently, Beijing has approximately 350 of these weapons, France has 290, and the rest of the world is well behind that.

Source: Data from Our World in Data, "Inventories of Nuclear Weapons."

Like Moscow, Washington has a full-blown and well-developed nuclear triad, complete with a fleet of nuclear subs that can launch up to twenty missiles—each containing multiple independently targeted warheads—land-based missile silos, and bombers. Each option provides ways to deliver hundreds of warheads. The submarine fleet, of course, is constantly mobile, ensuring first-strike survivability.

The Nonexistent Missile Gap

This won’t stop advocates of more spending from calling for more. They’ll always have reasons why there is some sort of missile gap. Lately, the obsession is with hypersonic missiles and having various forms of delivery, as well as the claim that the current gap between the US arsenal and rival arsenal is not sufficiently large.

There’s a reason US advocates of an aggressive nuclear posture invented the “missile gap” myth during the Cold War. It sows doubt about US security and ensures a certain level of paranoia about US nuclear capability. Nowadays, it’s acknowledged that the missile gap was always a myth, but this was much less known in the days when debates over US rocket technology were a frequent cause for alarm and debate. Nonetheless, the nonfactual basis of the “gap” was known at least as early as the 1960s, and then defense secretary Robert McNamara noted to John F. Kennedy:

There was created a myth in the country that did great harm to the nation. It was created by, I would say, emotionally guided but nonetheless patriotic individuals in the Pentagon. There are still people of that kind in the Pentagon. I wouldn’t give them any foundation for creating another myth.

How Much Do Numbers Matter?

The myth persists, however, and Geller claims: “Given the hundreds of new Chinese missile launchers and other new weapons, the U.S. will need more nuclear weapons to hold these targets at risk. In nuclear deterrence, numbers matter.”

How much do numbers really matter? Yes, in matters of deterrence, ten is certainly better than zero. But is three thousand better than one thousand, or even one hundred? That logic often works with conventional arms, but it makes little sense with nuclear arms, a single unit of which can destroy an entire city. As John Isaacs noted last year in the National Interest:

In the nuclear age, a country that deployed 1,000 nuclear weapons rather than an adversary’s 500 is not twice as powerful since a handful of weapons could devastate both countries. But the Pentagon and political leaders did not learn this critical lesson. This is a numbers game that may have been relevant for tanks and battleships before [the invention of nuclear weapons] but is not today.

What is key in nuclear deterrence is not simply numbers. Nuclear strategist Albert Wohlstetter identified this problem in the early 1960s and concluded that “the criterion for matching the Russians plane for plane, or exceeding them is, in the strict sense, irrelevant to the problem of deterrence.” Rather the key, Wohlstetter went on, is creating a force that is “survivable” to ensure the possibility of a retaliatory “second strike.” This is what establishes deterrence.

Wohlstetter certainly wasn’t the only one to come to this conclusion. In a 1990 essay titled “Nuclear Myths and Political Realities,” Kenneth Waltz—perhaps the most influential scholar of international relations of the past fifty years—concludes that the total number of missiles in these enormous arsenals is of little importance for nations that are already well above the threshold for achieving nuclear deterrence.

What really matters is the perception that the other side has second-strike capability, and this certainly exists in both US-Russia and US-China relations. Once each regime knows that the other regime has second-strike capability, the competition is over. Deterrence is established. Waltz notes:

So long as two or more countries have second-strike forces, to compare them is pointless. If no state can launch a disarming attack with high confidence, force comparisons become irrelevant. . . . Within very wide ranges, a nuclear balance is insensitive to variation in numbers and size of warheads.

The focus on second-strike capability is key because pro-arms-race policy makers are quick to note that if a regime’s first strike is able to destroy an enemy’s ability to retaliate in kind, then a nuclear war can be “won.”

Second-Strike Capability Evens the Score

But, as shown by Michael Gerson in “No First Use: The Next Step for U.S. Nuclear Policy” (2010) establishing second-strike capability—or, more importantly, the perception of it—is not as difficult as many suppose. Gerson writes:

A successful first strike would require near-perfect intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) to detect, identify, and track all of the adversary’s nuclear forces; recent events surrounding U.S. assessments of Iraq’s suspected WMD [weapons of mass destruction] capabilities forcefully demonstrate the challenges of reliable, accurate, and unbiased information. Intelligence regarding where an adversary’s nuclear weapons are located and if the state is actually planning to attack could be wrong or incomplete, and an attempted first strike based on inaccurate or incomplete information could have far-reaching negative consequences.

The threat of a successful first strike can be countered through a variety of methods, including secrecy and the ability to shift weapons delivery channels. This is why the US, Russian, and Chinese regimes have long been so enthusiastic about the so-called nuclear triad. It is assumed that if nuclear weapons can be delivered by submarine, aircraft, and land, then it is impossible for an opposing regime to destroy all three at once and achieve first-strike victory.

But even in the absence of a triad, an opposing regime that seeks a total first-strike victory has few grounds for much confidence. As Waltz shows, “nuclear weapons are small and light; they are easy to move, easy to hide, and easy to deliver in a variety of ways.” That is, if a regime manages to hide even a small number of planes, subs, or trucks, this could spell disaster for the regime attempting a successful first strike. Gerson explains:

A nuclear first strike is fraught with risk and uncertainty. Could a U.S. president, the only person with the power to authorize nuclear use and a political official concerned with re-election, his or her political party, and their historical legacy, ever be entirely confident that the mission would be a complete success? What if the strike failed to destroy all of the weapons, or what if weapons were hidden in unknown areas, and the remaining weapons were used in retaliation?

Nor must it be assumed that a large number of warheads is necessary to achieve deterrence. Waltz recalls that Desmond Ball—who advised the US on escalation strategies—convincingly asserted that nuclear deterrence could be achieved with as few as fifty warheads.

Proceeding on the assumption that an enemy has no warheads left following a first strike requires an extremely high level of confidence because the cost of miscalculation is so high. If a regime strikes and misses only a few of the enemy’s missiles, this could lead to devastating retaliation both in terms of human life and in terms of the first-strike regime’s political prospects.

This is why a rudimentary nuclear force can achieve deterrence even with a small but plausible chance of second-strike capability. A small nuclear strike is nonetheless disastrous for the target, and thus “second-strike forces have to be seen in absolute terms.” Waltz correctly insists that calculating an arsenal’s relative dominance is a waste of time: “the question of dominance is pointless because one second-strike force cannot dominate another.”

The US Is Already Far beyond the Deterrence Threshold

One could certainly debate how much the US nuclear stockpile could be cut without sacrificing deterrence. Given the enormous size of the stockpile, however, the answer is that “most of it” could be cut. Indeed, the US arsenal could be cut by 90 percent and still have hundreds of warheads available for silos, submarines, and bombers.

Moreover, reductions in the arsenal are prudent for reasons of avoiding unintended nuclear war. As Wohlstetter noted, a prudent policy also requires “strategic nuclear forces to be not only capable of riding out and operating coherently after an actual preemptive attack against them; but also completely controllable in times of peace, crisis, and war—and especially in the face of ambiguous warning—so as to avoid unauthorized operations, accidents, and war by mistake.” Having large numbers of nuclear warheads actually is imprudent because it creates more potential for accidents, mistakes, and unauthorized use. Maintenance remains expensive and risky.

In spite of all this, it remains popular among some to keep arguing for more nuclear expansion year after year. Surely, some of these advocates are true believers, but there is also a lot of money at stake for government contractors. Thus, in one form or another, the myth of the missile gap - and its modern variants - endures.

Ford is getting close to unveiling its next generation electric pickup plan at its BlueOval city mega-campus in West Tennessee.

An update from the company this week said that the new plant - which is designed to be radically efficient and carbon neutral - is "taking shape and preparing to build Ford’s next-gen electric truck, code named Project T3, in 2025". 

The Project T3 is being called by the company “a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to revolutionize America’s truck” as Ford, along with other legacy auto manufacturers continue to shift their business models from an ICE base to an EV base. 

Slated to start production in 2025, the plant will be capable of producing 500,000 EV trucks a year at full production - and most notably the next generation of Ford's electric truck. Here's a sneak preview of what the second gen pickup will look like:

Bill Ford, Ford’s executive chair said: “BlueOval City is the blueprint for Ford’s electric future around the world. We will build revolutionary electric vehicles at an advanced manufacturing site that works in harmony with the planet, aligning business growth and innovation with environmental progress.”

“Project T3 is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to revolutionize America’s truck. We are melding 100 years of Ford truck know-how with world-class electric vehicle, software and aerodynamics talent. It will be a platform for endless innovation and capability,” said Jim Farley, Ford president and CEO.

Ford's PR reads:

Project T3 is short for “Trust The Truck” – a code name that stuck after the development team made it their rallying cry. The team’s single guiding principle has been to create a truck people can trust in the digital age – one that’s fully updatable, constantly improving, and supports towing, hauling, exportable power and endless new innovations owners will want.

The assembly plant will use carbon-free electricity from the day it opens. For the first time in 120 years, Ford also is using recovered energy from the site’s utility infrastructure and geothermal system to provide carbon-free heat for the assembly plant – saving about 300 million cubic feet of natural gas typically needed each year to heat similarly sized vehicle assembly plants.

Here's the video stream of Ford's update on the campus:

North Korea claimed Friday to have tested a nuclear-capable underwater drone designed to generate a gigantic "radioactive tsunami" that would destroy naval strike groups and entire ports. Analysts were skeptical that the device presents a major new threat, but the test underlines the North’s commitment to raising nuclear threats.

But according to The Associated Press, analysts in the West are deeply skeptical of the claims or that the weapon presents a major new threat, at a moment the Pentagon has expanded its activity on the Korean peninsula.

State-run Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) described that the drone is designed to "stealthily infiltrate into operational waters and make a super-scale radioactive tsunami through an underwater explosion" - and that it can either be deployed directly from the coast or towed by ships.

KCNA said that North Korea is responding to this month's joint US-South Korea drills, which it considers a huge provocation. The state media report described an ongoing "nuclear crisis" due to Washington's "intentional, persistent and provocative war drills."

Kim Jong Un has also promised to make his rivals "plunge into despair" if North Korea continues to be threatened. This week the North Korean government launched a major new recruiting drive, hosting events across the country while conducting near daily test launches of projectiles - including a test last Sunday which included a 'mock nuclear warhead' as a warning to Seoul and Washington.

State media described that "youth college students from universities in various places as well as high-end middle school students from all over the country" expressed their determination "to join forces in the fight…"

The KCNA report additionally cited citizens' willingness "mercilessly wipe out the war maniacs" - in what's also clearly a propaganda blitz and bit of signaling aimed at the south and at the west. At the same time, Pyongyang is apparently seeking to impress its enemies and the world by rolling out new high-tech weapons.

A suburb of Denver, Colorado has voted to ban the construction of new gas stations in order to address 'environmental concerns with the continued use of gasoline powered vehicles and equipment.'

The Louisville City Council voted unanimously on Tuesday in support of a 2022 ordinance limiting the number of gas stations to six - with an exception carved out for one more (for a total of seven) if big box stores such as Costco or Sam's Club build a store that's 80,000 feet or larger and includes a gas station.

The limitation includes existing gas stations.

A 79-page report of the ordinance issued by the City Council on the day of the vote in part states such caps on gas stations "is a growing trend for local municipalities due to health and environmental concerns with the continued use of gasoline powered vehicles and equipment."

The reports also states gas station "bans may also be seen as promoting the use of electric vehicles." -Just the News

The report acknowledges that gasoline is still required for non-electric vehicles.

"The proposal for a cap but not a full ban on new gasoline and automobile service stations is in recognition that there will continue to be some demand for gasoline and automobile service stations as more EVs enter the market and gasoline vehicles are transitioned out of the market over time," it reads.

The proposal included letters from the community in support of the ordinance.

"I strongly support and encourage you to not allow the further construction of fossil fuel refueling stations (gas) in our community. All of us, not just the citizens of our community, need to move quickly away from fossil fuel consumption," reads one letter from resident Channah Horst.

"If you are a climate denier then my plea falls on deaf ears. If you acknowledge the peril our planet is in then it is your responsibility to do what you can to help us make changes in the way we live. In other words--do not make it easier for me and my fellow residents to keep using gasoline."

Eric Lund, Executive Director of the Louisville Chamber of Commerce opposed the move, writing "If you limit the number of gas stations then competition could become an issue as our local residents will likely have to pay higher prices if open market competition is blocked by an ordinance of this type," adding "I am not sure that there is a benefit by limiting the number of gas stations which typically also include retail stores and would be interested to understand the thought behind how this ordinance helps to support local businesses and our residents in the area.

The US State Department has lifted so-called 'assignment restrictions' which prevented employees - some of whom would hold top-secret clearances - from serving in countries they had immigrated from, or have family or financial relationship with, after Democratic lawmakers said it was discriminatory - particularly against Chinese and Pacific Islander employees.

The move follows a 2021 bill introduced by Reps. Ted Lieu (D-CA), Joaquin Castro (D-TX), Andy Kim (D-NJ) and Chrissy Houlahan (D-PA), who have discarded national security concerns to end a practice that "disproportionately impacts federal employees who can’t trace their heritage to the Mayflower and directly undermines the department’s goal of promoting diversity and inclusion," Politico reports.

State Department data reveals that around 1,800 employees are subject to assignment restrictions - with the top four countries being China (196), Russia (184), Taiwan (84) and Israel (70).

According to Secretary of State Antony Blinken, the change came after he lifted more than half of the restrictions during his first year in office, which opened "new possible assignments" for hundreds of US diplomats.

"Today, I’m pleased to share that after a rigorous review, I have decided that, moving forward, the Department will end its practice of issuing new assignment restrictions as a condition placed on a security clearance."

Those currently subject to assignment restrictions will be allowed to go through a new review and appeal process. That said, some restrictions will remain in place, such as those related to a situation "in which a foreign country may consider an employee to be one of their own nationals," or when there are "assignments to posts rated critical for human intelligence threats."

Perhaps all those millions of dollars which flowed from CCP-linked individuals to the Biden family are once again paying off?

One day after a lengthy meeting on the growing bank crisis by the Financial Stability Oversight Council (chaired by Janet Yellen who five years ago vowed there would be "no financial crises in her lifetime") on the last day of a week which started with the collapse of Credit Suisse and culminated with US regional banks nursing historic losses amid speculation that First Republic Bank could keel over any moment and drag down countless other names with it, even though the FSOC assured Americans that "while some institutions have come under stress, the U.S. banking system remains sound and resilient", Bloomberg reports that in their attempt to rescue the most trouble of regionals, authorities are considering expanding the recently introduced emergency lending facility for banks - the BTFP - in order to give First Republic Bank more time to shore up its balance sheet.

Or they may not: after all this has been a crisis has been marked by at times puzzling second-guessing, miscommunication and lack of conviction on the part of regulators, whose actions not only precipitated the contagion from the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank when they blocked potential buyers from acquiring the bank and avoiding a complete wipeout of shareholders, but where Janet Yellen has actively sought to destabilize the regional banks by explicitly refuting what Fed chair Powell was stating, the most vivid example being last Wednesday's market crunch when stocks stabilized after the dovish FOMC only to puke after Yellen inexplicably said that US regulators were not even contemplating uniform deposit insurance.

And sure enough, the BBG report adds that "officials have yet to decide on what support they could provide First Republic, if any, and an expansion of the Federal Reserve’s offering is one of several options being weighed at this early stage." Meanwhile, regulators continue to grapple with two other failed lenders — Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank — that require more immediate attention... attention they wouldn't need if regulators had intervened more competently in the beginning and not waited until almost a trillion in deposits had been pulled from small banks as confidence cratered.

Bizarrely, even without of a step, watchdogs see First Republic as stable enough to operate without any immediate intervention as the company and its advisers try to work out a deal to shore up its balance sheet, the people said, asking not to be named discussing confidential talks.

Officials have yet to decide on what support they could provide First Republic, if any, and an expansion of the Federal Reserve’s offering is one of several options being weighed at this early stage. Regulators continue to grapple with two other failed lenders — Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank — that require more immediate attention.

Even short of expanding the BTFP, regulators reportedly "see First Republic as stable enough to operate without any immediate intervention as the company and its advisers try to work out a deal to shore up its balance sheet"; maybe those regulators should also see the stock price of FRC which has lost more than 90% of its value, and which is far less confident about the bank's ability to evade the same forces that recently caused a trio of US banks to collapse. But while those banks toppled when rapid customer withdrawals forced them to lock in losses on depreciated assets, First Republic has remained open and independent.

And while the BBG reporting suggests that regulators are once again indecisive at best, and may either help the bank... or not, the only actionable news here is that US officials "have concluded the bank’s deposits are stabilizing and that it isn’t susceptible to the kind of sudden, severe run that prompted regulators to seize Silicon Valley Bank within just a few days, the people said." This confirms what we first reported on Friday in "Finally Some Good News On The Bank Crisis."

One way First Republic is different from other banks is that it managed to obtain enough cash to meet client needs while it explores solutions, courtesy of $30 billion in cash deposited by the nation’s largest banks this month... which of course is merely cash that was recycled after it was pulled from banks such as First Republic in the first place.

Bloomberg also notes that a potential adjustment to the Fed's emergency lending program is among options authorities have weighed in recent days. Of course, such an expansion of the Fed’s liquidity offerings would merely be another incremental step to institutionalizing moral hazard as it would apply to all eligible users, in keeping with banking law that says remedies must be broadly based, rather than aimed at helping a particular bank. But the change could be made in a way to ensure that First Republic benefits.