|
|
The unrest faced in many parts of the world means good business for U.S. defense companies and a viable investment for stockholders, according to their CEOs.
The CEOs of Raytheon and Lockheed Martin are bullish on war and said the profits will follow.
Greg Hayes, the Raytheon leader, pointed to the deadly drone attack in the U.A.E. from earlier this month and tensions in Ukraine. He said “all of those things are putting pressure on some of the defense spending over there. So I fully expect we’re going to see some benefit from it,” RT reported.
Jim Taiclet, Lockheed’s CEO, also pointed to the “renewed great power competition that does include National Defense and threats to it.”
TRENDPOST: The Trends Journal has reported extensively on the simmering tensions and the role that the U.S. will play as the situations unfold. Washington has never concerned itself with military spending and just recently broke its own record on spending. (See “MILITARY SPENDING INCREASES AS ECONOMIES DECLINE,” “WAR CRIME GANG GETS RICHER” and “U.S. MILITARY TO GET MORE THAN $740 BILLION FROM CONGRESS.”)
U.S. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin is scheduled to meet with top CEOs from the hypersonics industry to talk about accelerating the development of these capabilities after rivals like China, Russia, and North Korea have all shown advancements in the field.
The purpose of the meeting is to “light a fire underneath the entire hypersonic industry” and “encourage industry to pick up the pace,” two executives at two defense companies who’ve been invited to attend the meeting which is scheduled for Thursday, told CNN.
Executives from Lockheed Martin, Raytheon Technologies, Northrop Grumman, Boeing, Leidos, Aerojet Rocketdyne, BAE Systems, L3 Harris, and about a half dozen other defense companies have been invited to attend, the report said.
The 2022 National Defense Authorization Act, which funds the Pentagon, included $3.8 billion for the development of offensive hypersonic weapons and $310 million for the development of defense against hypersonic weapons.
TRENDPOST: The Trends Journal has reported on the U.S.’s absurd investment into its military, with nothing to show for it other than spending trillions to kill millions and make the military industrial and intelligence business gangs richer.
Gerald Celente has pointed out that the American military has not won a war since WWII and has been stacking up defeats, including the recent retreat from Afghanistan. (See “DUH! PENTAGON SURPRISED BY CHINA’S TEST OF HYPERSONIC MISSILE,” “PENTAGON: TARGET CHINA” and “U.S. ‘ALREADY LOST’ AI WAR WITH CHINA, PENTAGON’S FORMER SOFTWARE CHIEF SAYS.”)
Money Down the Military Mafia’s Drain
Commondreams.org reported recently that the increase in spending for the U.S. is almost laughable because we do not face a threat of invasion. We are not Poland, with a migrant invasion on our eastern border, or Ukraine, with Russian troops massing on our right flank. We are surrounded by allies to the north and south and abutted by the Pacific and Atlantic oceans.
Taiclet told investors and analysts that it does not give him any joy to point out the problems playing out around the world, but said the “history of the United States is, when those environments evolve, we do not sit by and just watch it happen.”
“So I can’t talk to a number, but I do think, and I’m concerned personally that the threat is advancing, and we need to be able to meet it.”
The RT report mentioned that Brown University’s Costs of War Project found that the arms industry has spent $2.5 billion on government lobbying over the past two decades. The Pentagon has spent $14 trillion since 2001, and about one-third of the funding went to these companies.
Bryan MacDonald, a reporter for RT, took to Twitter to post a screengrab of a 1998 article in The New York Times—when relations between Russia and the U.S. were strong—that read, “Arm Contractors Spend to Promote an Expanded NATO.”
Part of the Times’ report read:
“American arms manufacturers, who stand to gain billions of dollars in sales of weapons, communication systems and other military equipment if the Senate approves NATO expansion, have made enormous investments in lobbyists and campaign contributions to promote their cause in Washington. The end of the Cold War has shrunk the arms industry and forced it to diversify.”
MacDonald tweeted that the push for NATO expansion began in the 1990s—at a time Russia and the U.S. were close.
“As with most things, it was about $$’s. US arms makers were looking for new customers & lobbied heavily,” he posted.
TREND FORECAST: As the saying goes, “Generals are always fighting the last war.” And America’s post WWII war track record is an unblemished failure. From their weaponry to tactics, the U.S. military have exemplified a common misconception and/or misunderstanding of technology and development in warfare… regardless of who they are fighting.
And the U.S. Senate allocated $768 billion for the military in 2022, roughly $24 billion more than the White House even requested from Congress.
In addition, as we have forecast, war with China or Russia, it will be the War that ends all wars. As we have quoted Albert Einstein, “I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.”
TREND FORECAST: The United States will not enter into a one-on-one military conflict with Russia or China. Indeed, they could not even beat the Taliban or win the “Mission Accomplished” Iraq war.
Yet, as they have since the end of World War II, Washington and their Presstitutes will continue their fear and hysteria Cold War rhetoric to frighten its masses while enriching the military manufacturing mob.
Gerald Celente’s forecast that America would lose the war when President George W. Bush launched it in October 2001—with 88 percent of Americans’ support—was prescient.
The vast majority of the nation believed Bush’s bullshit at the time and admonished Celente for his forecast.
Indeed, as noted in the movie What Zizi Gave Honeyboy, after being a major media favorite, Celente was banned from the airwaves for telling the media America would lose the Afghan War.
Farhad Manjoo, a columnist in The New York Times, wrote about how Sen. Joe Manchin said he could not—in good conscience—vote for the Democrats’ $2.2 trillion 10-year plan to address climate change and invest in child care, health care, and education because he could not “explain it” to voters back at home in West Virginia.
“Given all the challenges we face at home, does it make any sense to keep spending so many hundreds of billions on the Pentagon? And even just in terms of fighting wars, can anyone be satisfied with the way the military is managing its funds? The Pentagon has never passed an audit and says it may not be able to until 2028,” Manjoo wrote.