How the nuclear weapons industry is dominating think tank research  

A recent study finds that all major institutions working on nuke policy are getting funds from companies with a vested interest in it.

 

Written by 
Alicia Sanders-Zakre and Susi Snyder

 

If you read a report about nuclear weapons, odds are it was published by a think tank funded by a company producing nuclear weapons. In our recent study of global nuclear weapons spending, we found that almost all major think tanks working on nuclear weapon issues took money from companies involved in the nuclear weapons industry in 2020 — raising questions about their intellectual independence and moral integrity. 

In the report, we include 12 think tanks, picked from the Global Think Tank Index’s top foreign policy think tanks that also publish regularly on nuclear weapons from France, India, the United Kingdom, and the United States. We found the 21 companies that received nuclear weapon contracts gave $10 million in grants to these think tanks in just one year, as reported in the think tanks’ own annual reports and on their websites. This is a systemic issue. It’s not just one think tank, or a few $100,000 grants. Half of the profiled think tanks received up to well over one million dollars in one year from at least nine different companies working on nuclear weapons.

These companies don’t just donate money; key executives also oversee and advise several of these think tanks. Three CEOs of nuclear weapons-producing companies — Guillaume Faury (Airbus), Gregory J. Hayes (Raytheon), and Marillyn A. Hewson (until recently Lockheed Martin) — sit on the advisory board of the Atlantic Council. The Center for New American Security has a similar story: up to $1.8 million received from companies working on nuclear weapons and five board seats for those whose livelihoods are tied to nuclear weapon production. 

These links are a problem for two reasons: it raises questions about the think tanks’ independence, and it ties them to companies engaging in immoral activities banned under international law. 

Given the sway that these think tanks seek to have over nuclear policy, the extent to which they may be shaped by the funders with a vested interest in nuclear weapons is an important question. When making policy around issues that risk indiscriminate harm, there needs to be more space between those who profit from inaction and those who profess intellectual independence. 

At this stage, we do not know how the millions received by these major think tanks influenced their work, in part due to lack of transparency and unconscious bias. Not all think tanks disclose their funders. For those that do, most do not disclose program-specific funding, and seldom provide details on project- or report-specific funding. Our research does not prove that think tanks writing on the need to maintain nuclear deterrence, or build new nuclear weapon systems, do so because the companies that will benefit from nuclear weapons contracts may have paid for lunch at their seminars, or salaries for their staff. 

But the general effects of funding on the production of knowledge have been well established in other fields. In a 2020 book, Naomi Oreskesfound that the source of funding had a significant impact on the outcome of oceanography studies. Simone Turchetti wrote earlier this year about NATO’s efforts to cover up politically damaging studies on nuclear winter. And a 2018 study in the American Journal on Public Health on industry funding of public health research found limitations on the beneficiaries’ research agendas and the proposed policy solutions. The Center for International Policy’s Foreign Influence Transparency Initiative regularly reports on the “foreign influence industry working to shape U.S. foreign policy,” including a 2020 report on defense contractor funding to the top 50 U.S. think tanks over a five-year time period. 

And yet, think tank researchers often deny any influence from their nuclear weapons-producing funders. Those contacted prior to our report’s publication pointed to reports about nuclear arms control and intellectual independence policies as proof of their objectivity. However, think tank staff may not even be fully aware of the extent to which funders’ interests influence what is said and where. This means that think tanks’ explicit intellectual independence statements, while a step in the right direction, do not negate the risk of bias. Similarly, funding that is directed towards one program in a think tank may still influence other areas. Just as it is difficult to definitively prove the influence of this funding, particularly without further research, so is it impossible to deny outright that $10 million to a dozen think tanks makes no difference to the nuclear policy field.

In addition to the concerns of influence, think tanks should consider the optics of taking funds from companies producing weapons of mass destruction, which have recently been banned under international law through the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. The adoption of this treaty has pushed banks and financial institutions to cut ties with nuclear weapons producers. Think tanks should follow suit.

Other fields and initiatives have grappled with controversial corporate funding either in recognition of the risk of influence or because it looks bad. The Environmental Defense Fund has come under fire for accepting funds from the fossil fuel industry. The role of the tobacco industry was so detrimental that in the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, parties are obligated to protect public health “policies from commercial and other vested interests of the tobacco industry.”

This is a significant issue but it is certainly not a lost cause. Think tanks must acknowledge that there is a problem and take decisive action. They can individually or jointly pledge to not accept funding from companies working on nuclear weapons. There are already some research organizations in the field, including the Arms Control Association and the Federation of American Scientists, which did not accept any funding from nuclear weapons producers in the past year.

We’ve pointed out the nuclear weapon think tank funding problem, and now it is up to these think tanks to fix it. As long as their bank accounts and board rooms are filled with the profits and profiteers of vested interests, the independence and integrity of their research and policy solutions will be called into question. 

 

Read more: https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2021/07/28/how-the-nuclear-weapons-industry-is-dominating-think-tank-research/

 

 

Free Julian Assange NOWWWWWWWWWW

Now, if you were wondering about some articles and books written about Trump, you would be thinking that "thank XXX (god? dog?) the guy is out of the picture." But 99.99 per cent of what has been written about Trump's desire to bomb something with nukes, like a lot of the other stories are fake and designed to prevent him coming back to lead the country of idiots called the US of A. 

The ESTABLISHMENT hates Trump beyond hate...:

 

Fears That Trump Might Launch a Strike Prompted General to Reassure China, Book Says

 

In a sign of his concerns, the nation’s highest-ranking military officer also gathered commanders to remind them of the safeguards in the nuclear launch procedures.

 

THIS IS a COMPLETELY MADE UP STORY by Milley.

 

It's designed to make you feel that the guy, Trump, is a loony. Trump is a loony/fool sure, but GENERAL Mark A. Milley is far more of a dangerous loony/psycho! Meanwhile Joe Biden's controllers turn his mike off when he's about to spurt nonsensicalities... Joe is a "nasty" deceitful loony despite trying to appear gentle — and without comprehension of the situation...

The USA are in free-fall at the moment — because instead of choosing young and able people to lead the USA out of their loony past, the PARTIES of the establishment (Democrats and Republicans) picked two old fools as leaders. (As an old kook, I know fools when I see one). At this stage this is quite dangerous as in order to get off the rut, someone might actually push Biden to do something dangerously stupid — more stupid than Trump ever did — but with massive acceptance from the "liberal" media which hate Trump beyond repair... See biden's bidet policies...

The situation is FAR more dire than one could believe...

 

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) on Tuesday became the second senator to call for the removal of Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Army Gen. Mark Milley if allegations that he tried to undermine then-President Donald Trump and promised to alert China in the case of a U.S. attack are true.

 

I don’t care what you think of President Trump, the Chairman of the JCOS working to subvert the military chain of command and collude with China is exactly what we do not accept from military leaders in our country. He should be court martialed if true.

Couple that with his inept handling of the withdrawal from Afghanistan, and it is clear General Milley is no longer fit to serve as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and should be removed immediately.

 Earlier in the day, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) called for President Joe Biden to fire Milley in a letter charging that he undermined the former Commander in Chief of the United States Armed Forces by planning to commit treason. Rubio wrote:

I write with grave concern regarding recent reporting that General Mark Milley, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, worked to actively undermine the sitting Commander in Chief of the United States Armed Forces and contemplated a treasonous leak of classified information to the Chinese Communist Party in advance of a potential armed conflict with the People’s Republic of China (PRC). These actions by General Milley demonstrate a clear lack of sound judgement, and I urge you to dismiss him immediately.

 

 

According to the upcoming book Peril by Bob Woodward and Robert Costa, Milley worried then-President Trump would “go rogue” and orchestrated two back-channel phone calls with China’s top general promising to inform him if an attack on the Communist country were to commence.

 

“You and I have known each other for now five years. If we’re going to attack, I’m going to call you ahead of time. It’s not going to be a surprise,” Milley reportedly told his Chinese counterpart.

 

Read more:

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/09/14/rand-paul-calls-milley-court-martialed-removed-went-around-trump-colluded-china/

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ˛≈≈≈≈≈≈¸¸¸¸¸V√

New excerpts from "Peril", an upcoming book by Washington Post journalists Bob Woodward and Robert Costa, alleged that US Army Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, reassured his Chinese counterpart on two occasions that the US government was stable and then-US President Donald Trump would not wage an attack on China.  The 45th president of the US took time on Tuesday to address recent reports that Milley, the senior most officer of the US Armed Forces, conferred with China on two separate occasions regarding the possibility of a US attack.  

"So, first of all, if it is actually true, which is hard to believe, that he would have called China and done these things and was willing to advise them of an attack or in advance of an attack — that's treason", Trump asserted to "Spicer & Co." host Sean Spicer during a Tuesday Newsmax broadcast.

 

Read more: https://sputniknews.com/20210915/trump-says-reports-of-milley-contacting-chinese-general-would-amount-to-treason-if-true--1089082492.html

 

Then, the two authors obtained a transcript from a call between Milley and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. She was also concerned about the security of nuclear weapons and encouraged Milley to keep Trump away from them.

“What I’m saying to you is that if they couldn’t even stop him from an assault on the Capitol, who even knows what else he may do? And is there anybody in charge at the White House who was doing anything but kissing his fat butt all over this?” Pelosi said. “You know he’s crazy. He’s been crazy for a long time.”

“Madam Speaker, I agree with you on everything,” Milley said.

 

Read more:

https://saraacarter.com/report-gen-milley-stopped-trump-from-going-rogue-and-launching-nuclear-weapons/

 

PELOSI SHOULD RESIGN IMMEDIATELY.

 

Read from top.

 

assangez