06/20/16 – Derek Johnson – The Scott Horton Show

Hey, Al Scott Horton here to tell you about this great new book by Michael Swanson, The War State.
In The War State, Swanson examines how Presidents Truman, Eisenhower, and Kennedy both expanded and fought to limit the rise of the new national security state after World War II.
If this nation is ever to live up to its creed of liberty and prosperity for everyone, we are going to have to abolish the empire.
Know your enemy.
Get The War State by Michael Swanson.
It's available at your local bookstore or at Amazon.com in Kindle or in paperback.
Click the book in the right margin at scotthorton.org or thewarstate.com.
All right, y'all.
Scott Horton Show.scotthorton.org is the website.
Sign up for the podcast feed there and check out the archives.
More than 4,000 interviews now going back to 2003 there at scotthorton.org.
Follow me on Twitter, at scotthortonshow.
Introducing Derek Johnson.
He is the executive director of Global Zero, which I think means he has the most important job in the whole world.
Welcome to the show.
How are you doing, Derek?
Good, good.
Thanks for having me.
Very happy to have you here.
Listen, so, yeah, there's nothing more important in the world that you're doing.
The only thing more important maybe than what you're doing would be if you were the president himself and you went and tried to actually do the negotiating that you're promoting here.
But first of all, just tell the people, what is Global Zero?
Why should they care?
Yeah, Global Zero, we're the international movement for the complete elimination of nuclear weapons worldwide.
We're sort of a unique operator in that we are composed of a community of 300 former, current and former heads of state, senior political advisors, senior military commanders, national security experts, people who really know and understand the issue.
And a lot of these folks were sort of former Cold War warriors who really kind of turned around on the issue.
And we've matched that.
We're matching that kind of grass tops energy with a real grassroots movement, turning out a lot of young people to fight for this issue.
Great.
So, yeah, I think that's important for people to understand that at the very top level here, you have people like George Shultz, secretary of state for Ronald Reagan and people along those lines.
This is not, you know, Jane Fonda and a bunch of patchouli stinking hippies.
No offense to the grassroots people that you just mentioned there.
I'm a grassroots person myself.
But running this thing, as you mentioned, importantly, if you would please elaborate, it's a bunch of Republicans, a bunch of very old, very powerful American statesmen.
Indeed, indeed.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Well, you know, our the U.S. chair of Global Zero is Ambassador Richard Burt, who I don't think would would see himself as a as a hippie.
Yeah, we are.
You know, we're very fortunate in that we've been able to draw in a lot of high level supporters across the political spectrum and in all of the all of the nuclear armed states and a lot of their allies.
Well, no offense to the hippies again, but I think, you know, people hopefully will understand the connotation there that if it's just hippies, they can be dismissed.
It's not that they would be wrong.
It would just be that no one would take them seriously because what do they know about nuclear weapons policy?
The the grown men, we know what to do kind of thing.
And yet here's Ronald Reagan, secretary of state, saying, give them up.
We don't need H-bombs.
Absolutely.
Absolutely.
You know, what we're trying to do here is to forge, you know, a strong alliance between between people who are on the inside and really understand how it all works and folks who can exert pressure from the outside.
All right.
Now, so one of the things that's going against us here, I know that you have a lot of experience with this, and that is, I guess, kind of the unreality of the situation.
I had a conversation last week with Gilbert Doctorow from the Center for East West Accord, the committee for East West Accord, trying to get along with Russia now at the dawn of this new Cold War.
And one of the things that we talked about was how, you know, in my personal experience and in his, we know people who just can't accept that this is really even a crisis.
The Soviet Union is 25 years gone.
Like the kid in Terminator 2 says, aren't we friends with them now?
Why would we have a nuclear war with them under any circumstances?
Why would anyone be alarmed that there's some kind of crisis when we got through 1962 without shooting H-bombs at each other?
Surely this is not something that we really need to prioritize.
These things are just sitting around collecting dust, aren't they?
They are not.
The yeah, no, the the I think the the grim reality is we are not not much has changed since the Cold War.
You know, we still as you know, as we're as we're speaking right now, the United States and Russia keep almost 2000 nuclear weapons on on hair trigger alert.
They're they're fueled, they're armed, they're targeted and they're ready to launch the minute they receive a short burst of computer code.
And that's you know, that's been true since the Cold War.
Though the risks that we're living in today, in fact, you know, in a lot of ways are higher than they were a couple of decades ago.
You know, when the when the wall came tumbling down and we have nine nuclear armed states, we've got, you know, the United States and Russia are, you know, they're locked into this this Cold War posture, which is particularly dangerous now, given rising tensions between these two countries.
We have a number of new nuclear armed states who are starting to tiptoe in the footsteps, the United States and Russia, and they're moving to to grow their nuclear arsenals there.
They're making them more operational or more operation ready.
And, you know, the risks are rising on on on every front.
Yeah.
And now, well, of course, there's the the military rising.
And as you mentioned in the article, the proposed nuclear rising of Eastern Europe and the stationing.
Is it anybody besides Peter King who's publicly urging Obama to station H bombs in Eastern Europe?
Yeah.
You know, unfortunately, there you know, there have been, you know, a few.
These are predominantly, you know, GOP voices in Congress calling for some pretty loose, dangerous talk on what to do with nuclear weapons in Europe.
Yeah, I mean, well, you know, this is something that has been, you know, going around lately, lately, the last couple of years.
In fact, I have this interview with Mark Perry, the Pentagon reporter, about the different doctrines.
It's sort of a bureaucratic fight in the army right now of whose doctrine for tank war against Russia in Eastern Europe is the better doctrine for the tank war.
And that's the big fight they're having.
And, of course, the accepted premise of the entire argument is that this is something that we even need to be discussing or planning.
When the old plan was use nukes to keep them from pouring through the folded gap into Western Germany.
Now we're talking about how we might get into a nuclear war with them over the Baltic states or Poland for a way much further to the east.
It all seems very reckless and almost as though, you know, there are no gray beards who are participating in this policy.
Right.
We're all on the procurement level and on down as far as the intellectual debate is concerned.
We're just pursuing this policy because General McMaster has a career.
Yeah, I mean, you're not going to see a lot of, you know, a lot of sensible senior military folk making this argument because they understand that the utility of these weapons is essentially zero.
You know, these are not tools that military commanders are interested in using.
You know, these are big, dangerous, blunt instruments when, you know, the trend in the trend in in modern warfare is smaller and smart, smarter and more precise.
You know, nuclear weapons are dinosaurs, big, dangerous dinosaurs.
They're not interested in using.
Well, now.
So it seems like, well, you know, Obama from the beginning has talked really nicely about nuclear weapons and how we ought to live in a world free of them.
And then he's done absolutely nothing.
Well, almost nothing.
I guess the START treaty, although that didn't move us very far.
But he's in almost nothing to limit it.
And he's done quite a bit to ratchet up tensions.
And yet, I guess, Derek, tell me where you think I'm wrong here politically.
It seems to me that any Republican or Democrat could simply invoke Ronald Reagan and say, listen, if Ronald Reagan can come within a hair at Reykjavik back when the USSR was actually still a thing, then we can abolish nukes now.
And if us and Russia can come to an agreement to abolish nukes bilaterally, then we by no problem will be able to use our moral authority after that to lean on the rest of the countries of the world to get rid of their nuclear weapons, too.
And we can have conventional deterrence and they'll be just fine.
Why can't someone make that argument politically?
Ronald Reagan almost did it.
So, therefore, your right flank is protected forever from any accusation of weakness or capitulation, right?
Well, you're not going to get any argument from me on your first point.
Every president since Eisenhower has been working for the elimination of nuclear weapons.
We've come down from 70,000 nuclear weapons worldwide at the height of the Cold War and we're down to 15.
We've come a long way.
And this is an issue that has strong bipartisan support here in the United States, whether it's Ronald Reagan or Barack Obama.
So, to that point, yes, absolutely.
On your second point about the US and Russian leadership, I absolutely agree that I think progress to zero is predicated on US-Russian leadership.
I would sort of hesitate to suggest that the US and Russia should abolish them and we can just hope that the other nuclear-armed states would follow through.
What I actually think is a better way forward is this is something we hashed out a couple of years ago in the Global Zero Action Plan.
It's one of a number of possible approaches, but it goes something like this.
Essentially, we see a first phase with the United States and Russia negotiating another treaty, a follow-on to the New START treaty that would get both sides down to 1,000 nuclear weapons each.
The next largest arsenal after that is in France.
That's 300 weapons.
So, right now, none of these other nuclear-armed states have any interest in participating in disarmament talks.
But if the US and Russia can get down to that 1,000 level, that's an important reduction.
In our view, once that agreement is ratified, every other nuclear-armed country could be incentivized to freeze the development of their own arsenal and pledge to join multilateral talks in the second phase.
Then you would see the proportionate phase reduction across the board to zero over the next 10 to 15 years.
Well, and it seems like, too, part of that is if the Americans and the Russians are really leading the way, and it's not just some fancy Obama speech in Prague, but they're actually really doing it, then, politically speaking, the situation would change in the rest of the nuclear-armed states.
That, hey, if the Americans and the Russians are doing this now, we want our British leaders, our French leaders, our Israeli and Indian and Pakistani leaders, Chinese leaders to come to the same table.
If the Americans and Russians can do it, we can, too.
And it's just part of setting that level of an agenda.
Absolutely.
US-Russian partnership and leadership on this would be a pretty formidable force.
All right.
So now, I guess talk to me a little bit about the opportunities for mistakes here, because this is one that I brought this up to a friend of mine, and he really, you could tell the cognitive distance, he really just reacted against it, that you could have, literally, could have H-bombs going off and killing maybe tens or hundreds of millions of people, and that that could happen by accident, or it could start over some kind of misunderstanding.
Derek, no, come on.
There must be enough fail-safes engineered into these systems to make sure that that never happens.
After all, it hasn't happened yet.
It's almost happened, and it's almost happened numerous times in several different ways, whether it's having an American bomber flying over the United States and breaking apart in the air and dropping two nuclear weapons on North Carolina, which happened.
One of those bombs, the parachute opened up and it sort of floated safely to the ground, but the other one, the parachute didn't open, and it hit, and I think seven of eight safety mechanisms in that bomb failed.
It was a single switch that kept that thing from detonating from a nuclear explosion in the continental United States.
I mean, that's nuts, and that's one example of many where we've sort of lost control or there's been an accident.
I think the more pronounced danger goes back to the postures that we keep these nuclear weapons in, this Cold War posture of hair-trigger alert.
We've basically primed a section of our arsenal to launch on warning of an attack.
We've got this constellation of early warning radar and satellites that are constantly being looked at for indications of an attack on the United States, and lots of things can set this off, whether it's a scientific rocket that somebody sort of forgot to relay up the chain of command, a flock of geese, the rising sun, all sorts of things are mistaken as a nuclear missile launch.
So somebody on the other end of that has to look at it and make a decision, and we've had a number of instances in the United States and in Russia where someone made the wrong call, and the entire apparatus of nuclear command and control is activated then, and you have minutes to decide if what you're looking at is real and if you need to respond.
And now, I don't know all the correct lingo, I guess, for the hair trigger or the real ticklish trigger finger, or exactly how all these different things work, but what about the increase from itchy to itchy as hell here that comes with America putting so-called anti-missile missiles into Eastern Europe, and the whole world laughed out loud when W. Bush said that they were for Iran to protect Poland from Iran, huh?
Everybody stifled their laughter and pretended to take it seriously when Obama made the same fake claim, but we all know what they're doing is they're trying to enhance their ability to launch a first strike on Russia.
They're undermining mutually assured destruction, and at the very least they're giving the Russians the idea that they have the idea that if they launched a first strike, effective enough and targeted enough, and they had their anti-missile missiles in place in just the right places to shoot down any retaliatory strike, that they can cancel MAD and that they can have a first strike nuclear war against the Russians and win it outright.
And then doesn't that move their trigger finger to even, you know, far itchier than it ever was before, even when, as you said, it's already itchy as hell because we're on 30 minutes notice, which is not much time.
Yeah, I mean, I'll be honest, you know, missile defense is a little outside my wheelhouse, but, you know, the fact is when we're deploying these systems, you know, the Russians view it very, very skeptically.
It makes them very nervous.
Because it's not just missile defense, right?
It's part of an offensive first strike capability, isn't it?
You know, again, that's really outside of my wheelhouse.
You know, but I would, you know, what I would say is that, you know, these systems make the Russians nervous.
It makes them feel that, you know, strategic stability, what they imagine as strategic stability doesn't exist.
And it forces decisions like we're seeing on modernization and ratcheting up the readiness of nuclear arsenals, which is going exactly in the wrong direction and contributes to this trend of rising risk.
Yeah, well, and such an important point, right?
None of this happens in a vacuum.
As you say in the article, the Russians are now making more and more of their ICBMs mobile, spies like us style on the back of trucks, right?
And they're increasing their multiple reentry vehicle capability as well?
Yeah, as are the Chinese.
And how fair is it to say that this is in reaction to American policy rather than just, you know, policies of their own?
Well, you know, you said it yourself.
This doesn't happen in a vacuum.
You know, we've we, you know, thanks to the Obama administration, we have, you know, set ourselves down a path to spend a trillion dollars on on a complete overhaul of our of our nuclear arsenal over the next 30 years.
And it's, you know, I think it would be naive to think that that could proceed without any sort of reaction in another nuclear arms state.
I mean, what we're what we're seeing here is, you know, a potential for a for a new nuclear arms race.
And this one might be global.
Yeah, well, and speaking of the new trillion, you talk about this in the article to the danger of some of these new nuclear weapons being devised, you know, designed in the first place to be more usable, that if we try to find a way around the nuclear taboo, well, what if we use nukes, but just really little ones here or there?
What if we had these cruise missiles that we could dial a yield?
And I guess that makes a lot of sense if you're a nuclear weapons commander in the Air Force or whatever.
But what about for the rest of us?
Yeah, you know, I think, you know, when you're when you're a military planner, these distinctions might make a certain kind of sense.
But I think, you know, General James General James Carr, right.
This is a, you know, he's a former vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs.
Up until a couple of years ago, he was head of all strategic nuclear weapons.
And he's a he's a big global zero advocate.
He says it best.
You know, when when one of these things goes off, nobody's going to stop to ask whether it was a big nuclear weapon or a small nuclear weapon.
You know, a nuclear a nuclear detonation is is a global event.
Whether it's a strategic big strategic weapon or a so-called smaller tactical weapon.
There's going to be no kind of pausing to assess which kind it was.
He's saying the article that China's now making nuclear submarines.
And is it right that they didn't have them before, but now they're making a second strike capability there?
Yes.
Yeah, the you know, the Chinese are beginning to deploy strategic submarines, land mobile rockets.
And they're even developing their own early warning system, which which would enable them then to kind of move their nuclear arsenal to to a posture potentially as as dangerous and precarious as the U.S. and Russia hair trigger alert.
Well, you know, back to how unnecessary this all is.
It's the Cold War with China has been over for 40 years.
The Cold War with Russia has been over for 25.
To think that we, you know, that we're having this conversation in 2016 and that this issue wasn't resolved in 1996.
Yeah, I mean, you wouldn't know the Cold War was over looking at, you know, 2016 nuclear war plans.
Well, is that declassified?
You can get your hands on that.
No, no, you cannot.
You're just talking about what you know of it.
Yeah, yeah.
All right.
Now, and just two more things here real quick, if you could address, as you do in the article, the possibility or even likelihood that hackers could get into America's nuclear weapons systems based on technology as old as they are.
And then also the danger.
And we're running an article by John LaForge today at Antiwar.com, I think, about the danger of storing H-bombs in Europe when we've had some terrorist attacks, including not very far from where we keep some H-bombs in Belgium.
Yeah, well, so the you know, on the first point, the cyber vulnerabilities is, you know, this is pretty scary stuff and something where we're just starting to, I think, as a as a nation starting to wrap our heads around.
You know, this is this is pretty high on the list of general cartwrights, you know, things that keep them up at night.
You know, the idea that whether it's, you know, state sponsored hackers or non-state actors who can, you know, hack into an early warning, you know, an early warning network and generate a false alarm that that might prompt a, you know, a very real response.
Or even, you know, breach kind of, you know, breach Internet firewalls and get into the our own kind of nuclear command and control system.
You know, these things are are not 100 percent secure and they can't be made that way.
So, you know, it's very it's scary.
You know, we don't in some ways we don't we don't know what we don't know, which when you know, you're talking about nuclear weapons, it's just not that's not acceptable.
Right.
Well, and I was in the news just last couple of weeks that these guys are using floppy disks.
Yeah, yeah.
The systems are pretty old.
And then, in fact, one of the things I was reading was saying, actually, that might help keep them more secure because they're just so separate from all the rest of the computer technology in the world that maybe that'll make them harder to hack.
But that didn't inspire too much confidence.
Yeah.
Yeah.
It's sort of an unexpected advantage.
But it certainly they're they're not they're not isolated and they're not you know, they're not immune from from outside access.
All right.
And then the terrorist attacks, is that really you think a problem or or can we just safely assume that there are enough American army and or Marines at these bases in Europe to protect them, to protect that are stored nukes there from any attack?
No, absolutely not.
I certainly wouldn't rest easy.
You know, the you know, the safest the safest place for for nuclear weapons, if they're going to exist, is in is in deep central storage.
You know, the fact that we've got, you know, 200 nuclear bombs scattered in five European countries, including including Belgium, where where we know that the, you know, the terrorists who've been who've been apprehended and carry out attacks have been have been surveilling officials with who are connected to the kind of the nuclear infrastructure there.
We know that terrorists are working to get their hands on these things.
And the the farther they are from central storage, the the more vulnerable they are.
You know, that's true of U.S. nuclear weapons.
That's true of weapons in certainly true of weapons in Russia and in India and Pakistan.
And in Pakistan, you know, we've actually had a number of incidents where violent extremists have actually breached security at some of these facilities that are believed to house nuclear weapons.
Yeah, see, you'd like to assume that, well, somebody's thought of this and have they've made sure that even if we do have them scattered at all these different locations, that at least you have a full contingent of troops there ready to protect them from from any attackers.
But I guess if you're in the middle of Belgium, you just kind of imagine that there's no threat anywhere around who who could threaten them, even if it's 2016.
And we've already had terrorist attacks going on in Paris in in Brussels for the last three years.
Right.
2013 was the attack on that synagogue, I think.
So, yeah.
And then, oh, man, I'm sorry if it's OK.
One more thing about and I can't remember what I read about this recently, but you do make a bit of a mention here that the Pakistanis are making tactical nukes, much smaller yield battlefield nuclear weapons, while on the other side of the line, the Indians are making city killer H-bombs.
Is that right?
Excuse me.
Yeah, the you know, the Pakistanis are, you know, there are they feel very insecure and nervous about India's military capability.
You know, they're developing they're developing these these so-called tactical nuclear weapons for use on the battlefield, largely in response to to India's cold start doctrine, which is, you know, their their ability to to send a lot of troops into Pakistani territory very quickly.
And they you know, the Pakistanis are looking for for a way to stop that.
And, you know, they're unfortunately gravitating towards towards nuclear weapons as as an insurance policy.
And then about the Indians, what's their reasoning behind making H-bombs now?
And what they have plenty of a bombs to take care of all of Pakistan with in the event of the worst full scale war between the two, don't they?
They do.
They do.
I mean, I certainly can't speak to I mean, I'm not saying you would advocate it.
And what's your reasoning?
I'm saying, do they even have a doctrine that explains that?
Or what explains that?
I honestly, I don't know.
It just seems completely crazy when they're already both sides way overarmed for any eventual confrontation, you know, if they had one.
And then, by the way, do you agree with the claims that if there was even a limited nuclear war between India and Pakistan, that in China and in Russia and America, and everybody else stayed out, that even then, it would completely disrupt all crop cycles on earth and billions of people die and all this kind of stuff.
Yeah, some very good work has been has been done on this, looking into exactly that question.
That's been led by a guy, Dr. Ira Helfand, of International Physicians for Prevention of Nuclear War, and the Physicians for Social Responsibility.
And they, you know, they issued a very, a very well done report on the risk of nuclear famine in the in the event of a limited exchange between, you know, India and Pakistan.
And when I say limited, I'm talking about, you know, less than point 10, or I'm sorry, less than point 1% of the nuclear weapons in the world.
You know, in the event that those weapons would be that, you know, that number of weapons would be used, and these are not, you know, huge city killing, you know, H bombs, you know, a limited number of, you know, modest nuclear weapons could could put 2 billion people worldwide at risk of dying from starvation, due to the, you know, the disruption in agriculture and food supplies.
I mean, it would be it would be a global catastrophic event.
You know, there's no there's no such thing as a limited, you know, regional nuclear war, the world's too small for that.
Yeah, well, it really isn't that big, especially compared to some of the gas giants in our neighborhood and stuff.
So now global zero, we talked about this at the beginning here, you got a lot of very eminent people up there.
And yet, who's opposing you?
Is it just the the nuclear forces commanders in the Air Force?
Is it the Honeywell lobbyists?
Because it seems like you ought to be able to rally, especially with the leadership that you have in your group, you ought to be able to rally the American people to this cause.
And what argument against them against you?
Could they possibly have except?
Well, this congressman got paid that much money by that lobbyist.
Yeah, you know, I think the, you know, the biggest foe that we're up against, honestly, is is public complacency.
You know, this is an issue that I think unique, unique among sort of, you know, existential threats, you know, folks think it, they went away, you know, we there's a lot of attention on on nuclear weapons and nuclear threat during the Cold War.
And, you know, when the Cold War ended, folks, you know, people thought that the, you know, the threat of, of nuclear catastrophe was was on its way out that these, these weapons would be on their way out as well.
You know, so for, you know, for a big chunk of the public, this evaporated as an issue.
And then you have a whole generation of people who are growing up now, a post Cold War generation who've, who've never thought about it, it ranks nowhere in their, in their list of concerns.
And for us, that's the biggest issue is, is, is getting people to understand the risks that we're living in today.
And the way forward, you know, it's not so much about sort of an entrenched, you know, financial interests, or the military, industrial complex, or any of these things.
It's the fact that, you know, people don't care.
And the big challenge is finding a way for that message to get in front of them and for them to, for to resonate and to really activate people to take action on this.
Yeah, well, and unfortunately, I mean, what's going to galvanize people other than something absolutely terrible happening?
Yeah, you know, or is there a rock star fame enough, famous enough to make this the issue in the in the public debate, you know, without an actual event to, or at least a near miss or something to point to?
Yeah, I mean, there's no, there's no silver bullet.
I mean, it's gonna, what's required here, I think, you know, is a movement that's, that's significantly greater than any one person.
I mean, even you look at Barack Obama, for, you know, for all his, for everywhere, he sort of fell short on this issue.
Here's a, here's a man who came into the into office and, and really spoke powerfully and eloquently about about nuclear weapons.
And it's an issue he felt in his heart, you know, and that that wasn't enough.
You know, it's gonna take more than, you know, famous spokespeople to move the dial on this.
Yep.
All right.
Well, thank you very much for the great interview, Derek.
I really appreciate it.
Yeah, thanks so much for having me.
Yeah.
All right.
So that is Derek Johnson.
He is the executive director of Global Zero.
And you should check out this great article at Common Dreams.
It was originally published at Medium.
It's called The Nuclear Codes Come With Big Challenges for Clinton or Trump.
It's at CommonDreams.org.
All right, y'all.
Scott Horton Show.
Check out the archives at ScottHorton.org.
More than 4,000 of them now going back to 2003 and sign up for the podcast feed there.
Help support at ScottHorton.org slash donate and follow me on Twitter at Scott Horton Show.
Oh, and I meant to say, by the way, thank you very much to everybody who's sending me small fractions of bitcoins.
I love bitcoins.
Okay, thanks.
See y'all next time.
Hey, I'm Scott Horton here to tell you about this great new e-book by longtime future freedom author Scott McPherson.
Freedom and Security.
The Second Amendment and the right to keep and bear arms.
This is the definitive principled case in favor of gun rights and against gun control.
America is exceptional.
Here the people come first, and we refuse to allow the state a monopoly on firearms.
Our liberty depends on it.
Get Scott McPherson's Freedom and Security.
The Second Amendment and the right to keep and bear arms on Kindle at Amazon.com today.
Hey, I'm Scott Horton here for WallStreetWindow.com.
Mike Swanson knows his stuff.
He made a killing running his own hedge fund and always gets out of the stock market before the government generated bubbles pop.
Which is, by the way, what he's doing right now.
Selling all his stocks and betting on gold and commodities.
Sign up at WallStreetWindow.com and get real-time updates from Mike on all his market moves.
It's hard to know how to protect your savings and earn a good return in an economy like this.
Mike Swanson can help.
Follow along on paper and see for yourself.
WallStreetWindow.com.
Hey, y'all.
Scott here.
Check out Jacob Hornberger's great new book, The CIA Terrorism and the Cold War, The Evil of the National Security State.
They swear we need them, but the Future Freedom Foundation's Hornberger is having none of it.
Hornberger shows how from the beginning, empire has diminished Americans' freedom far more than our enemies ever could.
And all while undermining everything we profess to believe in and dealing with other nations.
The CIA Terrorism and the Cold War, The Evil of the National Security State by Jacob Hornberger.
Get it on Kindle for just a dollar at Amazon.com.