The Nuclear Clock Winds Back: Who Profits from Perpetual Brinkmanship?
THE ACTORS: Who benefits from a world without nuclear arms control? The usual suspects are lining up. We have Kingston Reif, a former deputy assistant secretary of defense for threat reduction and arms control, now conveniently telling Axios that the treaty was a 'huge net benefit' – curiously, after its demise. And Ankit Panda from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, warning of 'more
nuclear risk.' Rose Gottemoeller, New START's lead negotiator, a 'self-described optimist,' still believes a deal can happen if 'Presidents like to be on that big stage of saving humanity.' The narrative is carefully constructed to imply an unavoidable drift to chaos, rather than a deliberate policy choice. THE FUNDING: Where does the money flow when treaties collapse? This is where the plot
thickens. The article mentions a YouGov poll commissioned by ReThink Media and the Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI) finding 'a vast majority (91%) of registered voters think the U.S. should negotiate a new deal.' Curiously, the NTI, like many think tanks, receives significant funding from entities with vested interests in the defense sector. For instance, the Carnegie Endowment, where Panda is
based, gets funding from a mix of foundations, governments, and corporate partners, some of whom directly benefit from increased defense spending and research on 'threat reduction.' A 2023 report from the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft noted that over a five-year period, the top five U.S. defense contractors (Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, General Dynamics) spent