Sorry, I'm late.
I had to stop by the Wax Museum again and give the finger to FDR.
We know Al-Qaeda, Zawahiri, is supporting the opposition in Syria.
Are we supporting Al-Qaeda in Syria?
It's a proud day for America.
And by God, we've kicked Vietnam syndrome once and for all.
Thank you very, very much.
I say it, I say it again.
You've been hacked.
You've been took.
You've been hoodwinked.
These witnesses are trying to simply deny things that just about everybody else accepts as fact.
He came, he saw us, he died.
We ain't killing their army, but we killing them.
We be on CNN like Say Our Name been saying, say it three times.
The meeting of the largest armies in the history of the world.
Then there's going to be an invasion.
All right, you guys, introducing William Hartung again.
No, this is not a repeat.
This is another interview about another great article that he wrote.
But first of all, a bio here.
He's the director of the Arms and Security Project at the Center for International Policy, and the author of Prophets of War, Lockheed Martin, and the Making of the Military-Industrial Complex.
All right, so this one, it's at Tom Dispatch.
I think the last one probably was too.
It's a ball to go nowhere, or Trump's space force, it's called.
Smoke and mirrors are a step towards war in space.
Welcome back to the show.
How you doing?
Good, good.
Good.
And listen, thanks for writing this, because I'm happy to have the opportunity to interview you about this space force.
It's an important issue.
And I guess I had read some news stories, but no good opinion pieces about it yet, which I'd rather have you guys on.
And so, yeah, you really put together a great one here, and it's really important.
But I guess, so bottom line to start with here is we already have a space force, right?
It's just part of the Air Force?
Well, exactly.
I mean, we've got a huge investment in military space of all sorts.
So partly some of the space lobby, like Representative Rogers, who represents Alabama, which is Huntsville, where all the big space companies are, he wants a bigger chunk for those companies.
So he thinks they have a separate force, maybe fewer fighter planes, more military interceptors and such in space.
So it's kind of a turf war in a way, but certainly U.S. military is doing tons of stuff in space, and we have to keep an eye on that, whether or not Trump builds his space force.
Yeah, it's funny.
First of all, there is no deep state.
Second of all, OK, so let's talk about what all the military firms and the different agencies and departments of the military have to say about the president's new policy.
I guess to start with, what's his motive in doing this?
Is there a faction of the Air Force that pushed him to do this, or who is he pleasing with that?
The Air Force is largely against it because once it's outside their control, they'll probably have less money and influence over what happens in space.
But Rogers, the congressman from Alabama who represents a lot of companies that want to do more in space, has been bending Trump's ear about it.
Also, Pence is a big space guy, and there's a guy in the Pentagon, Patrick Shanahan, who used to work on missile defense for Boeing.
So there's a faction inside the administration and in Congress that's been leaning on Trump.
And Trump himself just thought it sounded like a neat idea.
He's like, oh, space force.
Well, yeah, that sounds good.
And he thinks it's like a good slogan, and he's been using it on the campaign trail and speeches, and people are starting to chant space force, space force.
They used to chant about the wall.
So it serves Trump's ego in a way.
It's like another talking point for his base.
That's so funny.
All right.
So now you mentioned Boeing there.
Now, is there a faction fight between different corporations on this, or they're all in on it kind of and pushing the Air Force to let them break this project off?
I think they're a little bit neutral as long as the money flows.
And in fact, the head of the Aerospace Industries Association expressed skepticism because he's afraid with a space force, more money will go into bureaucracy and less money into buying weapons.
So there's perhaps a split.
Some companies do more in military space.
But Lockheed Martin, for example, builds the F-35, which is the most expensive weapons program in history.
And that's in the Air Force budget.
So in theory, if the Air Force loses some funds to this new space force initiative, some of that can come from Lockheed Martin.
On the other hand, they do build military satellites and so forth.
So it'd be like cutting the baby in half.
Do we lose on the F-35 and gain on military space?
Is that what we really want?
So I think some of the companies are skeptical.
Some of them, I think, are pushing Rogers and others in Congress to get Trump going on the space force idea.
So it's one of those cases where the military-industrial complex is at odds with itself, which can be a good thing, because then sometimes it's easier to stop stupid ideas from going forward.
It was just in the last few days.
Sorry for this parentheses here, but I know you're the expert on Lockheed.
There's the F-35.
It was celebrated throughout the media, according to my Google News alert, that they used the F-35 in Afghanistan to bomb a supposed Taliban target.
It's combat debut.
And was it the same day or the one day apart, one of these things fell out of the sky and crashed?
Well, you know, they've been working on this thing, counting R&D, for over 20 years.
So the fact that it can do a bombing mission is not really that big of a deal.
I mean, it's a very low bar.
But there was a period where they weren't able to use it in combat at all, and certainly they've had cost overruns and performance problems.
So they're, of course, going to highlight any time that it performs like an actual aircraft, but it doesn't mean it's a good investment.
And then, yeah, the thing fell right out of the sky in South Carolina.
Hey, for you meme makers out there, you should get Kay Lee, the mechanic from Serenity, saying watch out for that F-35 engine.
Those things fall right out of the sky.
That's what I was thinking.
If I was a meme maker, I would have done.
And so, yeah, boy, what a sucker's game.
That thing is the F-35.
I'm sorry, let's stay on this parentheses for a minute longer.
They've been developing this thing for how long and they've spent how much money?
And this machine is how flawed still, Bill?
Well, you know, they've been spending at a clip lately of about 10 billion a year, but it goes back to a competition in the 90s.
When it was called the Joint Strike Fighter before they, you know, got the designation.
And, you know, the problem with it is it's kind of this Rube Goldberg contraption.
It's like it's supposed to land on aircraft carriers and do close air support and do a vertical takeoff and landing version and be a bomber and a fighter.
You can't really do all those things with the same aircraft.
So basically, it's ill suited to most of the tasks that it's supposed to be carrying out.
And they've had things like the wings cracking and there's a special high tech helmet that's supposed to tell the pilot what's going on and that's misfunctioned.
They've had problems communicating with troops on the ground.
And so and it's lost in some mock fighter battles with current generation aircraft.
And didn't the Alice software get hacked and leaked to the Chinese and the Russians already too?
And they already know it and are like shrugging about it?
Yeah.
I mean, well, you know, maybe they should build it.
Then they'll have inferior fighters also.
I know.
I was thinking Obama when everyone was saying, geez, Obama's given the F-35 to Israel as a reward for all their misbehavior.
I was like, maybe a sabotage, you know, he's sticking it to him after all.
I mean, sometimes these things malfunction and have problems.
And then decades later, they figure it out.
But at so much cost and with so many other options that could have been pursued in the meantime.
You know, it's a moneymaker, basically.
You know, Lockheed Martin has put subcontractors in something like 46 states and they're always touting the jobs.
They even have a little map on their website where you can click your state and have their version of how many jobs will be there on the F-35, which is vastly exaggerated.
But the technique works very well.
Right.
I forget the name of the guy, Pierre something or other, who had designed the F-16.
And he did this interview where he just laughs.
This is the F-35 is a complete turkey.
That was what he called it.
Pretty much that's all you need to know.
He says, it's not fast.
It's not stealth.
It can't climb.
It can't turn.
It can't bomb.
It can't hit ground targets, as you're saying.
All those things it's supposed to do, it can't do any of them.
Yeah.
Pierre Spray.
Oh, right, right.
And he's, you know, as you suggested, he's good at summarizing this stuff.
Yeah.
And I mean, just the idea that the designer of the F-16 is that cynical about the F-35.
I mean, that's just kind of all you need to know is just to take a snapshot of just his attitude about it.
And you know, he must be right.
And this thing must be wrong.
Anyway, I'm sorry.
I'm way off.
But the story of the F-35 is just fascinating to me.
Where like the Air Force and Lockheed are simply a conspiracy against the American people.
Like in Russia or any other country, Sweden or France, where they're developing their fighter jets.
They don't develop their fighter jets to be as expensive as possible.
They're trying to get an effective fighter jet out of their project.
But in America, the global dominating power, effectiveness is last on the list compared to just the outright Afghanistan style corruption involved.
Well, there is some of them have their mini military industrial complexes and some of them also are buying the F-35.
So, you know, there's some problems in other countries as well.
But, you know, like many things, America is the best at it.
Here at Port Royal Politics.
Yeah, it's really amazing.
All right.
So now back to the Air Force or the Space Force here.
Well, don't you know, let's see, Washington Times version of this story is the Chinese and the Russians.
But I guess the Chinese probably especially they're a threat to our satellites and all this.
We need to have an effective defensive deterrent against their ability to destroy all our space capabilities, etc. like that.
So how come you don't want to defend America from that?
Well, I think the problem with that is China's done some tests, but they haven't deployed anything.
And I think that's the thing.
You want to you don't want to put weapons in space.
You don't want to cross that line because satellites are quite vulnerable.
You know, unlike trying to intercept, you know, a ballistic missile warhead that's going at huge volume with decoys around it and it's unpredictable.
You know, satellites have predictable orbits.
And so if you start putting weapons in space that can shoot down satellites, all bets are off.
So what's needed is some sort of rules of the road.
There is an outer space treaty, but it only covers not putting nuclear weapons in space.
But there should be some effort put into that because the United States in some ways is more vulnerable because our whole military system is built on satellite communications and it's high tech.
So, yeah, there's an issue there.
But I think a space force putting weapons in space is the worst possible way to deal with it.
Well, you know, you mentioned the Airborne Laser Project in here, which I'm trying to remember exact words, but I did meet a real aerospace genius type.
And I believe what he told me about that was that it was effective, but at way too high of a price.
Basically, it's not that it couldn't work.
It was just you would need so many of them and at such an expense that it was impossible to justify something like that.
But of course, the whole thing is a big, you know, exercise in question begging.
Right.
Where the only thing that they would be useful for, I think they correct me if I'm wrong, but I think they were designed for preventing a North Korean strike.
Right.
Hitting their rockets on the way up, something like that.
They didn't think for a minute that they'd be able to take out all the Russians if they were launching in a war with them.
It was more for these so-called rogue state powers.
And but then at the same time, just under the presumption, the unstated, unproven, unspoken, but basis for the whole thing that you can't negotiate and become friends with North Korea and make the whole thing obsolete.
That this this must be necessary to be able to shoot down these missiles, as opposed to even having the imagination that somebody could have a policy like the one we have now, where we're trying to disarm them with kindness instead of with threats.
And so kind of same thing with all of this.
Right.
Like you're saying about with China.
Hey, let's have new and improved agreements about what not to do up there rather than just simply, you know, maintaining dominance.
In a way that provokes their response.
Well, the thing is, all the major powers are equally vulnerable if you start shooting satellites out of the sky.
So there would be a common interest in some sort of rules of the road to keep weapons out of space on a very, you know, organized, committed basis.
But of course, you know, insulting people is not the best first step to doing that.
And so, particularly with China, the Trump relationship is not heading in the right direction to be able to talk about this kind of thing.
Right.
I was about to say, wait, what did I say?
But yeah, no, I get you.
Well, of course, he praises the leader there, but every other thing he says about China sure is hawking it up.
And I guess, do you have an opinion about what's going on in the South China Sea there with the battleship the other day?
Well, not other than that, you know, playing chicken in the South China Sea is not a good idea.
I mean, China wants to be a regional naval power, just like the United States wants to be a global naval power.
And the idea that we should be bumping up against them militarily to sort of shape their behavior, I think, is a losing proposition.
So, you know, certainly for the countries in the region, China trying to control that area and the related resources is an issue.
But that doesn't mean the United States should be stalking the possibility of a military confrontation over it.
You know, again, there's got to be other ways to go at these problems.
Yeah.
Well, you'd like to think, but, you know, one of the problems here is, I think, as we may have talked about in the last interview, I forget, is that Trump really is a military Keynesian where he really believes this stuff, apparently, that like, oh, yeah, you know, all this military spending is good for the economy.
That's what we got to have instead of seeing it, you know, as an actual, in an actual capitalist way that this is all a diversion away from reinvesting capital in improving production in a way that benefits people.
Right.
This is all, you know, even if you believe in it, it's a necessary evil and waste.
But to think that this is the basis of a healthy economy and thank God for all the distortions caused by American militarism, that's a pretty bad starting place for a presidency, you know?
Yeah.
Well, he, you know, as you've seen, he likes to brag about arms sales whenever he meets with a foreign leader and how great it's going to be for jobs here.
And he was in Japan.
He talked about the F-35, which, first of all, was not his deal.
It was sold under Obama.
But, you know, the thing is, the F-35s that were sold to Japan are going to be assembled in Japan, and Japan is going to be a regional hub to assemble F-35s sold in the region.
Well, maybe they can help work out some of the bugs over there.
He picked a terrible example, you know, for...
Yeah.
All right, Bill.
Now, you have a thing in here, too, the real danger of weapons in space about, you know, possibly the resurrection of the Reagan-era Star Wars program where they'd put a bunch of nukes up there, anti-nuke nukes, or some kind of interceptors up there.
Yeah, well, there's a guy at the Pentagon who gave a talk at a conference, did an interview, and he said, you know, it's not actually that hard to put weapons in space.
I don't know what these people are talking about.
But any real studies that have been done, for example, one idea was, well, let's put up a bunch of rockets that could take out a North Korean missile as it's being launched.
But the studies of what that would take talk about hundreds or even thousands of interceptors, a couple hundred billion dollars for a proposition that may or may not actually work.
And of course, the thing that's not talked about that often is, if we have thousands of nuclear weapons, the chance of North Korea choosing to attack us are pretty low.
You know, a lot of their reasons for building them are defensive.
They don't want regime change.
They feel like it's a bargaining chip.
But for any North Korean leader to attack the United States with the handful of nuclear weapons that they have, knowing that their lives and their country would be at stake, is extremely unlikely.
So, you know, rather than contemplate spending these hundreds of billions of dollars on something that would be a little bit of a crapshoot, you know, Trump, to his credit, at least they're talking with North Korea.
I think a lot of it is the lead of the South Korean leader who's really been kind of pushing for reconciliation, but that's a far better approach.
And I'm a little surprised that some people that are criticizing Trump, I mean, partly because he's Trump, of course, but why he would be against having talks versus threatening nuclear wars is beyond me.
Yeah.
Well, no, it's not.
I mean, you got the one and only answer is the jobs of this military industrial complex.
Like in your book, you know, the Center for the CSIS, whichever think tank, they trot out their Korea expert immediately to say, and unashamedly, unembarrassed, you know, right there out in front of everyone that, yeah, but if we have peace with North Korea, then that will threaten the justification for keeping our troops in Korea.
We can't have that.
And I guess what is the Wall Street Journal or these others saying, yeah, no, we need those troops really for China.
North Korea will keep a crisis going with them just as a pretext to keep those troops there for use, as though those 30,000 troops, 35,000 troops are somehow going to be effective against China in some kind of war.
Anyway, but yeah, it's all for the most cynical reasons that they want to continue the status quo.
You know, instead of putting peace first, like any, you know, normal American civilian might think would be the national interest in resolving the conflict, they would rather have it.
Yeah, I think there's a little bit of a Cold War hangover, you know, it's sort of like, well, we've had troops there, we've got to keep troops there.
We're going to deter them, their, you know, the essence of evil and so forth.
And there's other ways at it.
I mean, you know, no matter how bad a dictator Kim Jong Un is, he wants to survive.
You know, the South Korean leader feels like reconciliation is their best way forward.
And so, you know, could Trump botch talks?
Absolutely.
But is it better to have talks going on than not?
Certainly, you know, and I think especially the work that the South Koreans are doing could create a possibility of a peace treaty of, you know, nuclear rollback and so forth.
And, you know, his leadership should be welcomed.
Although, of course, an American president can't admit that he's taking, you know, the lead of another world leader.
But ideally, Trump could do that and still claim credit.
And also, you'll get keys to the new Reddit page, reddit.com slash Scott Horton Show.
And then if you go to scotthorton.org slash donate, 20 bucks will get you the audiobook of Fool's Errand, Time to End the War in Afghanistan.
Fifty bucks will get you a signed copy of the paperback there.
And a hundred dollar donation will get you either a QR code, commodity disc, or a lifetime subscription to listen and think libertarian audiobooks.
That's all at scotthorton.org slash donate.
And also anybody donating five dollars or more per month there.
If you already are or if you sign up now, you'll get keys to that new Reddit group as well.
Already got about 50 people in there and it's turning out pretty good.
Again, that's reddit.com slash Scott Horton Show.
If you're already donating or you're a new donor, just email me scott at scotthorton.org and I'll get you the keys there.
And hey, do me a favor.
Give me a good review on iTunes or Stitcher or if you liked the book on amazon.com and the audiobook is also on iTunes and I sure would appreciate that.
And listen, if you want to submit articles to the Libertarian Institute, please do and they don't have to be about foreign policy.
My email address is scott at scotthorton.org.
Well, and President Moon doesn't seem to mind praising Trump and giving him all the credit as long as Trump will continue to let him make progress.
And it really is absolutely remarkable, isn't it?
You know, the news comes in and the news comes out, but then you see some world historical things like, hey, they're really demining the DMZ and they're demilitarizing the DMZ right now.
I mean, my God, really?
Yeah, that's been there my whole lifetime.
It's been like that.
I mean, unfortunately, a lot of the hawkish instincts of the Trump folks have been turned on Iran.
And that is a real crisis.
So it's a decidedly mixed picture.
No doubt about that.
At least on that front, there's talks, which I think is a good thing.
You know what Trump should do?
He should hire the Iraqi Dawa party that Bush and Obama put in power there and have them negotiate with Iran on our behalf.
Hey, whatever works.
Things are going badly.
Actually, they're threatening the Iraqis for being such good friends with the Iranians.
Never mind how it got that way.
Exactly.
And now they're trying to blame Iran for attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq, even though Iran itself has been attacked there.
And they're certainly ginning up a case for some kind of more extreme policy.
Is it just ratcheting up sanctions?
Is it some sort of military strike?
It has a very threatening feel about it.
A lot of these folks in Trump's administration were architects of the Iraq war, which was a complete disaster.
So one would hope they didn't have any credibility anymore.
But it doesn't seem to work that way.
Yeah.
Well, it's funny, Ray.
You could have a conversation in a living room about, well, I think Iran is very comparable to the Soviet Union.
In 1988.
And that if we just kind of push it a little bit, it'll fall right over.
And then you could have someone else say, no, I disagree with that.
I think if we intervene, it'll probably backfire in favor of the Ayatollahs.
And you might both be a little bit right and this and that.
But when they had that exact same conversation on the National Security Council, it's more like, so it's decided.
This is the analogy.
This is the situation.
This is what we believe the thing is.
Here's how we're going to act on it.
And so now we have this very clumsy metaphor where the MEK play the role of a Polish solidarity, maybe.
I don't know, something.
And they just try to figure out how to shoehorn that into this.
And I keep hearing them say that, right?
So it makes it, it's sort of like in the Obama government when they decided that, yes, there's such a thing as these moderate rebels.
And it didn't matter that it wasn't true.
They had had a meeting where they wrote that down.
And so that was, you know, how they're stuck, basically.
And so I get really worried about that, where that becomes like the permanent frame of reference from a policy point of view, that somehow we could get a regime change short of a war when that kind of policy is much more likely to cause a war.
And, you know, backfire in every way.
Exactly.
Republicans and Democrats, you know.
All right.
Hey, you know what?
When you were in here, you mentioned him about the X-ray laser.
In the studio, like the ghost of Edward Teller or something.
Can you tell that part of the story here real quick?
Well, Teller, who is known as the, quote, father of the hydrogen bomb and was one of the models for Dr. Strangelove, had this idea, was pushing on Reagan, which is that you have a nuclear weapons driven laser in space.
That would take out Soviet ballistic missiles.
And it was a completely ridiculous idea.
Unworkable and, of course, extremely dangerous.
And the only way it actually came to be was there was like a little mock up of it on the cover of Time magazine.
That's as far as it got.
And I can only hope that some of these other ideas don't get much further than that, you know.
Yeah.
Well, I'm glad that you mentioned him because I just wanted to bring up, I saw this thing.
I've never heard of this and I've learned a lot about nukes and this and that over the years.
But this didn't even make Ellsberg's book or anything.
But apparently, have you ever heard of this?
That Edward Teller proposed, apparently seriously, the development of a 10,000 megaton H-bomb.
That would be, so it would be a thousand gigatons or whatever exactly.
But that's how they were measuring it in gigatons.
And that this would be in one bomb, it'd be enough to kill all of France or, you know, two thirds of Texas, all of California, all of the Northeast, something like that in one bomb.
The entire Korean peninsula was one of the examples that they used.
And this was the guy, as you say, the father of the H-bomb.
That was the point of view that he was coming from, that this might be useful or maybe it would just be fun to see if he could build one that big.
Or I don't know exactly what, but is that incredible or what?
I remember a discussion of him wanting to build a mega bomb.
I didn't know those details, but I think, you know, part of it is true.
It's like, hey, let's see what we can do.
You know, there's kind of this kind of twisted can-do spirit about it, which is as dangerous as anything else.
Right.
Yeah.
Let the policy be somebody else's problem.
As long as I have license, I'm going to fuse these hydrogen atoms together.
And, you know, there's that movie where they have, it's Starship Troopers, where they have the Q-bomb.
You know, some kind of quark thing or whatever, something, the Q-bomb that can destroy an entire planet.
It sounds like something the Americans would build at some point, you know?
Well, there's an old satirical song by this guy, Tom Lehrer, from decades ago, talking about Wernher von Braun, who was a Nazi scientist that helped build our space program.
And it's in the voice of Wernher von Braun.
He says, well, you know, it's not my problem.
I'm just in charge of sending them up.
It's not my responsibility where they come down, you know?
And there is a little bit of amorality in the midst of all this, for sure.
Yeah.
Yeah, it really is amazing.
And it's funny to really read about that stuff where, you know, it's the diffusion of responsibility, right?
I'm the guy that turns the key, but whether I should or not, that's beyond me.
And even when we're talking about, you know, H-bombs pointed at cities, stuff like that.
Everybody involved in it only has a little piece of the responsibility for carrying it through.
And so it becomes doable in that way.
Well, if your top priority is following the chain of command, then, you know, basically it's up to Trump, which is one of the scariest things of all.
Well, and that's the crazy part or one of the crazy parts of Ellsberg's book where actually that's up to thousands of different people, any of whom could start a nuclear war if they felt like it without the president going along at all.
They could just do it.
The authority is diffused all throughout the government, throughout the military.
Yeah, well, he was on the inside, so he certainly knows how that works.
Crazy.
You would think that that would be the highest political priority, would be to get rid at least of the H-bombs, right?
But instead, like, yeah, no, this is just going to be the status quo from now on, that we're just going to have a world full of thousands of city killer bombs.
You know, like an A-bomb wasn't enough, like the smallest Hiroshima bomb wasn't enough.
No, and it's partly the complex.
You know, they want to build bigger, better, more expensive.
And a lot of the nuclear thinking came out of Rand Corporation, which was funded by the Air Force.
And so a lot of these rival doctrines were like, well, which doctrine is better for the Air Force?
Well, wait a minute, this doctrine is better for the Navy.
So it was really about inter-service rivalry and competition for resources.
And, you know, when the future of the planet is at stake, that's a sad commentary.
Yeah, absolutely.
I mean, if you were just an innocent kid, you wouldn't believe for a minute that that was how the adults resolved who was getting which nukes for which targets was based on a bunch of jealous inter-bureaucratic politics rather than what was the bare minimum for absolute necessary defense of the population or some kind of concept like that.
No, it's really crazy.
Fred Kaplan has a great book on this called Wizards of Armageddon, which has been out for quite a while.
But one of the admirals is quoted as saying, you know, the Air Force wanted to take over targeting policy, which once you run targeting policy, it's like what kind of weapons, how accurate you can kind of skew it to favor the things that your service controls and likes to build and so forth.
And so they're kind of doing this end run around the Navy.
And the Navy guy said, they're like communists.
So it was like for their point of view, the war was with the Navy versus the Air Force, not the U.S. versus the Soviets.
Yeah, it's amazing.
At least they didn't go to a nuclear war against each other, you know, yet.
No, no, because they would have had two of the biggest arsenals.
Yeah, it's not too late, but hopefully it will never break out.
All right.
Well, thanks very much, William.
I probably wasted enough of your afternoon here, but I love talking with you.
No, good.
We covered some interesting ground.
I thought it was great.
Yeah, I appreciate it very much.
Take care.
All right, you guys, that's great.
William Hardtung, he wrote Prophets of War, Lockheed Martin and the Making of the Military-Industrial Complex, which now that I have quit my destructive Twitter habit, I'm going to read very soon.
Right now I'm reading Trita Parsi, Treacherous Alliance.
But Hardtung and his Lockheed book, they're on the list, near the top of it anyway.
I guess I got to get to the lobby by Grant Smith.
But yeah, join the book club at the Reddit group if you want, guys.
All right.
Thanks again.
Oh yeah, again, the article is at tomdispatch.com and at antiwar.com.
To Boldly Go Nowhere and or Trump's Space Force, Smoke and Mirrors, or a Step Toward War in Space by William Hardtung.
All right, y'all, thanks.
Find me at libertarianinstitute.org, at scotthorton.org, antiwar.com and reddit.com slash scotthortonshow.
Oh yeah, and read my book, Fool's Errand, Timed and the War in Afghanistan at foolserrand.us.
