Lawsuits Against Facebook Growing

Lauren Price has been on Facebook (FB) for eight years and claims she frequently saw political ads on the social network during the 2016 election. She is suing the companies on behalf of other US Facebook members whose information was also collected by Cambridge Analytica, a data firm that worked with the Trump campaign.

The proposed class-action lawsuit was filed Tuesday at the US District Court in San Jose, California. Price is seeking unspecified damages.

This is the first lawsuit brought by a Facebook user over the Cambridge Analytica news, but others are likely to follow. The lawsuit is part of a growing backlash against both companies.

On Tuesday, Facebook (FB) investor Fan Yuan filed a lawsuit against the company in federal court on behalf of other investors. The suit claims Facebook made “misleading statements” and neglected to disclose details about third-party access to data, which caused the company’s stock price to fall significantly.

Price’s complaint adds that the companies have violated the privacy of million of people in the U.S. alone, and that users now have a higher risk of identity theft as a result.

“There’s going to be a lot of litigation flowing from this,” said attorney Jay Edelson of Edelson PC in Chicago. He is not involved with either case, but his firm does plan on filing related lawsuits in the near future.

“The most direct liability is against Cambridge Analytica. We believe they have violated a host of city, state, and federal laws,” said Edelson. “The case against Facebook is less direct. On the surface, many believe that Facebook acted, perhaps, negligently. We believe we will be able to provide more context to how Cambridge Analytica fits Facebook’s overall business model.” More here from CNN.

*** Facebook Hit with Lawsuit Alleging Privacy Wrongs | PCWorld photo

SAN FRANCISCO

Civil rights groups filed a federal lawsuit Tuesday against Facebook for enabling housing discrimination.

The housing rights activists, led by the National Fair Housing Alliance (NFHA), alleged that Facebook’s ad practices allow landlords and real estate agents to avoid serving housing ads to certain groups of people. The NFHA said landlords are able to avoid showing housing ads to women and families, for example.

“Amid growing public concern in the past weeks that Facebook has mishandled users’ data, our investigation shows that Facebook also allows and even encourages its paid advertisers to discriminate using its vast trove of personal data,” Lisa Rice, NFHA’s president and CEO, said in a statement.

“Facebook’s use and abuse of user data for discriminatory purposes needs to stop. It is already a challenge for women, families with children, people with disabilities and other under-served groups to find housing.”

Earlier this month, it was revealed that a political consultancy group was able to exploit Facebook user data on behalf of the 2016 presidential campaign for Donald Trump. Facebook chief executive Mark Zuckerberg personally apologized, but the social media giant has remained mired in controversy regarding how third parties can access user data.

Shares of Facebook dropped another 4.9 percent Tuesday to close at $152.22. Since the data breach was widely publicized on March 17, the stock has plummeted 18 percent.

The federal lawsuit filed by NFHA alleged that the way Facebook’s ad service is built allows for discrimination when it comes to housing. Landlords can choose not to show ads to certain groups of people based on gender, family status and a series of other qualities.

“Facebook’s platform that excludes these consumers from ever seeing certain ads to rent or buy housing must be changed immediately,” Rice continued.

“Facebook ought to be opening doors to housing opportunities instead of closing them.”

Facebook has not released any comments on the NFHA lawsuit.

Judiciary Cmte Subpoenas FBI for all Clinton Investigation Records

Politico: Facing a legal threat from House Republicans, the FBI announced Tuesday that it is doubling to 54 the number of staffers combing through documents to comply with GOP requests for records of the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s email server.

“Up until today, we have dedicated 27 FBI staff to review the records,” FBI director Christopher Wray said in a statement. “The actual number of documents responsive to this request is likely in the thousands. Regardless, I agree that the current pace of production is too slow.”

Wray’s statement comes just days after a top House Republican, Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), subpoenaed the Justice Department for Clinton investigation records, citing “ongoing delays” in obtaining the documents. Goodlatte added that the subpoena covers documents related to the recent firing of former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe.

Wray’s statement describes an intensifying demand on resources required by the bureau to fulfill the GOP subpoenas. It comes as some House Republicans have mounted an increasingly hostile campaign against the bureau leadership, accusing top DOJ and FBI officials of mishandling the Clinton investigation while assigning anti-Trump agents to oversee the Trump-Russia probe that the FBI launched in July 2016.

Democrats have derided those criticisms as baseless and politically motivated.

In a separate letter issued Tuesday, a top Justice Department official accused Goodlatte of breaking from longstanding norms in the relationship between DOJ and Congress. His subpoena for records surrounding McCabe’s firing, the department noted, came less than a week after his ouster and without any negotiations that typically precede a subpoena.

In a letter to Goodlatte, Assistant Attorney General Stephen Boyd called it a “significant deviation” from past practices.

Boyd also indicated that Goodlatte’s request included demands for documents that include “highly sensitive law enforcement and national security” information. Another request, Boyd said, covered information protected by attorney-client privilege and other aspects of the GOP requests were already provided, he said.

Boyd indicated that the FBI had provided the committee in August 2016 — during a previous session of Congress — with a 32-page set of investigative documents about the Clinton probe.

He said the department continues to provide new documents ever 10 to 14 days, based on Goodlatte’s requests, and that the work to produce them includes scrubbing for grand jury information, privileged materials or other sensitive material related to ongoing investigations.

“We are expeditiously reviewing the remaining documents to determine whether they are responsive,” Boyd said.

 

Congress Calls for Hearing with Facebook, Twitter and Google

While Cambridge Analytica has a proven shady history as noted below, Facebook has already admitted guilt and offered apologies when it comes to safeguarding private user information and interactions. So, when it comes to social media Facebook, Google and Twitter hold the power. Instagram and SnapChat are quite popular but do not hold the volume of data in comparison.

Now the FTC comes knocking at the door of Facebook.

FTC is investigating Facebook over privacy practices ... photo

***

The stuff you share and the inferences Facebook makes about you are packaged together with similar people’s data, stripped of names and sold to companies. That allows businesses to put ads in front of people they’re certain they can influence.

On Facebook, you are the product. Advertisers are the customer.

Facebook’s not alone. Most advertiser-supported networks sell some of your information to third parties. Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, AOL, Amazon, Twitter and Yelp do the same.

Giving up our privacy is the price we pay for getting to use Facebook for free. Most of the time, that tradeoff works: People take advantage of free services by posting, searching and sharing. Most companies that collect our data use it for legitimate purposes and within the bounds that companies like Facebook permit.

That arrangement has turned Facebook (FB) and Google (GOOGL) into online advertising juggernauts. They have built massive audiences of billions of customers, and advertisers flock to them. Facebook and Google control three-quarters of the $83 billion digital advertising market in the United States, according to eMarketer.

But the customer-is-the-product deal doesn’t always work to the user’s advantage. This weekend, the public learned data company Cambridge Analytica improperly accessed 50 million Facebook users’ personal information to influence the 2016 election.

Internet companies have a financial disincentive to give users more control over their data. If people share less, social networks will earn less money. More here.

In part from Bloomberg:

Fake News

Bell Pottinger’s tactics included producing phony television news reports as well as fake terrorist propaganda videos containing computer code that allowed Western intelligence agencies to track anyone who watched, according to a 2016 report from the London-based Bureau of Investigative Journalism, a not-for-profit reporting organization.

The man who awarded Turnbull’s Bell Pottinger unit its first Iraq contract was Ian Tunnicliffe, then a British colonel who was running strategic communications for the U.K. defense ministry. Tunnicliffe, now retired, has been a member of SCL’s advisory board. He didn’t respond to emails seeking comment.

SCL also stoked ethnic tensions in Eastern Europe and sprayed fake graffiti in the Caribbean, according to the firm’s own sales documents. Its defense business claims in pitch documents to have worked for clients as wide-ranging as the Libyan National Transitional Council, NATO and the U.K. Foreign Office. It says it worked in Pakistan for the U.S. Department of Defense and the U.S. Pacific Command in India on countering radicalization.

SCL recently signed a contract with the U.S. State Department for market research and public-opinion polling, according to a federal procurement database. The one-year contract, signed last week, is worth $496,232, according to the database.

Deep Ties

The firm also has deep ties to the British defense establishment and Conservative Party. Its first chairman was Geoffrey Pattie, a defense minister under Margaret Thatcher. In addition to Tunnicliffe, the advisory board has included retired Rear Admiral John Tolhurst and Ivar Mountbatten, the great-nephew of Louis Mountbatten, the military hero and Queen Elizabeth’s cousin. Jonathan Marland, a former Conservative Party treasurer who served as a minister for business under former Prime Minister David Cameron, is a shareholder.

Marland told the Guardian newspaper he hadn’t had a role in running SCL following his initial investment and had refused requests to introduce the firm to Conservative Party officials.

Roger Gabb, a former British Army officer who later made his fortune as a wine distributor and wholesaler, is also a major SCL shareholder. A founding director who, with his family, still controls about 25 percent of the firm’s shares, Gabb has also been active in the Conservative Party and the campaign for the U.K. to leave the European Union. He donated 500,000 pounds ($705,300) to the party in 2006. In 2016, he was fined 1,000 pounds by the U.K.’s Electoral Commission for failing to disclose that he had helped purchase local newspaper advertisements supporting the leave side in the Brexit referendum. More here.

Why Did Trump Hire McMaster in the First Place?

Much has been written about Trump’s now former National Security Counsel advisor H.R. McMaster who at one time was General Petraeus’ ‘go-to’ tank operations expert in Iraq. The 3-star general from the outset never really gelled in a cohesive policy relationship with President Trump and the chatter for months in DC was that his time at the White House was going to be short.

McMaster Worked at Think Tank Backed by Soros-Funded Group ...

Question is who recommended McMaster to Trump in the first place and who did the background investigation such that Trump accepted and confirmed him to lead the National Security Council?

“After 34 years of service to our nation,” the lieutenant general said, “I am requesting retirement from the U.S. Army effective this summer, after which I will leave public service.” A White House official told VOA that the president and McMaster had mutually agreed upon McMaster’s resignation, after discussing it for some time. The official said the president asked McMaster to stay on until mid-April to ensure a smooth transition, and McMaster agreed. A graduate of the U.S. Military Academy, known as West Point, McMaster earned a Silver Star for leadership during the Persian Gulf War when, as a cavalry commander, he led a small contingent of U.S. tanks to destroy 80 Iraqi tanks and other vehicles. More here.

Well, the Daily Caller did some remarkable deeper work on McMaster spelling out how Trump never should have brought him on board in the first place. The other question remains on why the Pentagon did not advise McMaster on terminating his outside relationship especially with some rogue nations.

  • Outgoing National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster worked for a foreign-based think tank for 11 years before assuming his post
  • The think tank has ties to Russia, China, the Uranium One deal and Bahrain
  • Career armed forces officers spoke out against the arrangement

Outgoing National Security Advisor Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster served for more than a decade as a consultant to the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies, a foreign-based think-tank that has received funding from hostile foreign governments to include Russia and China, according to a Daily Caller News Foundation investigation.

The career soldier ended his employment at the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) in February 2017 after President Donald Trump tapped him to serve as his national security adviser following the resignation of former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn.

McMaster is planning to leave the NSC in April, to be replaced by former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton, according to The Wall Street Journal.

The outgoing NSC official said in a statement, he was “requesting retirement from the U.S. Army effective this summer after which I will leave public service.”

The general, who did not leave the Army to assume his NSC post, was one of only two White House national security chiefs who retained active duty status while working at the White House. The other general was Gen. Colin Powell.

McMaster never publicized his decade-long outside consultant work with the foreign-based think tank that often supported a globalist agenda opposed by Trump. IISS often espoused foreign and military policies that served as the centerpiece of the Obama presidency, including support for the former president’s Iran nuclear deal.

While his 11 years at the institute were never part of his official military biography, former military officers who learned of it were harshly critical of his unusual moonlighting.

Veteran military officers expressed disbelief at McMaster’s consulting work at a foreign-based think tank that receives funding from hostile governments. They called the arrangement “unethical” and “unprecedented.”

IISS operates offices in the Bahrain, Singapore and Washington, D.C. It generally reflects a globalist “realist” Eurocentric view of foreign and military postures that’s at odds with Trump’s foreign policy. The think-tank was a major advocate of former President Barack Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran.

IISS receives funding from friendly Western sources such as aerospace firms and even the British army, but is also has received funding from the Russian Federation, China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, as well as the governments of Azerbaijan, Turkey, Qatar, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, according to the IISS website.

During McMaster’s time at IISS, the think tank also received $700,000 from George Soros’s Open Society and $140,000 from Ploughshares, the pacifist organization that aggressively pushed for Obama’s Iran nuclear deal.

The organization’s council — its board of directors — also is filled with people who have ties to the Kremlin, to the Qatari emir who has been accused of supporting terrorists, to people associated with the Uranium One scandal, and with a Russian investment bank that paid former President Bill Clinton $500,000 for a single speech.

“This is bizarre,” retired Army Lt. Gen. William “Jerry” Boykin said in an interview with TheDCNF. “If that kind of information was available to The Trump administration before they selected him, the question is: Would they have selected him for this very job?”

The Army told TheDCNF that from 2006 when he first joined IISS as a “senior research associate” until he left in 2017, he did file annual financial disclosure forms notifying the Army of payments he received from the institute.

McMaster’s office did not respond to a DCNF request for his current financial disclosure form, which he was required to submit in 2017 as a White House employee.

Retired Rear Adm. James “Ace” Lyons, who served 35 years in the Navy, including a stint as commander of the Pacific Fleet, told TheDCNF McMaster’s consulting role at the think tank was “absurd.”

“It is really absurd that an active duty military officer, particularly one of flag rank, is a consultant to a foreign organization that is taking money and contributions from questionable countries that are known enemies of the United States,” Lyons told TheDCNF in an interview. “This to me seems to be outside the bounds of what we’re committed to. This is atrocious.”

“I’ve never seen this kind of thing before,” said Boykin, a 36-year veteran who served as under secretary for defense intelligence for President George W. Bush.

Boykin said he was convinced any commanding officer would have rejected McMaster’s proposed consulting work at IISS. “I cannot believe that the ethics people of the U.S. Army would approve of him doing that, and I can’t believe that any responsible person he worked for in the Army would have agreed to that.”

William J. Sharp, a public affairs civilian attached to U.S. Army Headquarters, told TheDCNF the Army accepted McMaster’s proposed consulting work at IISS without any prior approval because they regarded the think tank as not falling under the category of a “prohibited source.”

The term “prohibited source” relates to a company that seeks a business or other formal contractual relationship from the Department of Defense. Using that limited standard, the Army concluded IISS was not a prohibited source and McMaster did not need to obtain prior approval from military superiors.

“IISS is not a prohibited source for Army personnel,” Sharp told TheDCNF in an email. “Therefore, LTG McMaster was not required to obtain approval prior to consulting for IISS.”

“I’m surprised at this,” Boykin said. “I find this in my view and in my experience of 36 years to be unprecedented, and I would love to see an authorization. And if it’s an open-ended authorization — if there’s one at all — then I would be willing to bet you it was an error on the part of whoever provided that authorization. You just can’t do this on your own,” he told TheDCNF.

Retired Special Forces Col. James Williamson told TheDCNF he considered it “very unusual” for an active duty officer to serve for a decade at any educational institution. “It’s very unusual for a general officer on active duty to have that type of affiliation over that timespan,” he said. “I’ve had friends that have gone to Harvard or the Fletcher School at Tufts, but they’re U.S.-based.” He said most terms were for a short duration — usually six months to a year.

In fact, the military approves and even encourages active duty officers to seek temporary assignments with American educational institutions and think tanks. But those assignments are very short and rarely extend for more than a year.

Williamson said active duty military officers have plenty of private sector and think tank opportunities after they leave military service. “We have other people who served in London, but they’re not on active duty. They’re retired officers and there’s no problem with that,” he said.

Williamson, a counter terrorism specialist who served with NATO and U.S. Southern Command, said he regarded McMaster’s work as posing a basic “conflict of interest” in light of funding from hostile governments. That funding “would almost make it a de facto conflict of interest in my eyes.”

Retired U.S. Air Force Col. James Waurishuk, who also worked at the NSC, agreed. “I would be concerned about the work he’s doing and how it applies in relation to a think-tank that’s taking money from perhaps adversarial foreign governments. That would be of concern to me,” he said.

Williamson also shared the same view and added that even working at a London think tank poses problems. “Even our closest allies don’t have the same agendas and priorities that we do,” he said.

During his 11 years with IISS, the group promoted McMaster’s activities. A review of previous IISS websites by TheDCNF shows he was highlighted between six and 10 times each year.

IISS praised McMaster when he joined the Trump White House. Jonathan Stevenson, an Obama NSC official who also is a senior fellow at IISS, wrote a fawning opinion piece about McMaster in The New York Times. He called him a “compelling choice: a scholar-warrior” and “both a proven cavalry officer and a formidable defense intellectual.” Stevenson wrote McMaster could save Trump, and the general’s appointment, “should augur at least a fleeting period of stability at the dysfunctional National Security Council.”

Igor Yurgen has been on the IISS Council since 2010. He is chairman of Rennaissance Capital Group, which awarded Bill Clinton $500,00 in speaking fees.

Russia Today, a pro-Kremlin news organization, once described Yurgen as “one of Russia’s most influential experts close to [former] President Dmitry Medvedev.”

“He is remarkably skilled at combining public, business and political careers,” according to RT.

Another council member is Michael Rich, an executive vice president of the RAND Corp. But significantly, he is co-chair of the board of overseers of a project called the RAND Qatar Policy Institute.

The Qatar Policy Institute is also part of the Qatar Foundation, started by Qatar’s former emir, Sheikh Hamad Bin Khalifa Al Thani, and his wife, Sheikha Moza bint Nasser.

Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf states accuse Qatar of supporting Islamic terrorism. Al Thani has supported the Taliban in Afghanistan, Hamas in the Gaza Strip, militias in Libya, and the Muslim Brotherhood, The New York Times reported in 2014. The Emir personally traveled in 2012 to the Gaza Strip, where he received a hero’s welcome as he pledged to work with the terrorist group Hamas. Al Thani also founded Al Jazeera, the pro-Muslim Brotherhood television news channel.

Badr Jafar, another current council member, is the son of Hamid Jafar, who founded the biggest private equity firm in the Middle East, North Africa and South Asia. Badr is the CEO of Crescent Enterprises who, with his father Hamid Jafar, engineered an oil exploration partnership between their Emirates-based company, Crescent Petroleum with the Boris Kovalchuk, CEO of the Russian company of Inter Rao UES.

News agencies in the United Arab Emirates hailed the 2010 financial deal between Crescent and Moscow. “Russian state news agencies began their coverage of the recent high-level meeting in Moscow between Crescent officials, the Russian prime minister, Vladimir Putin, and the Iraqi former prime minister Dr Ayad Allawi by linking the names of Hamid Jafar and Mr Putin,” according to the National Business report.

Russian President Vladimir Putin decreed that all shares of Inter Rao UES be transferred to the Russian state-owned atomic energy agency called Rosatom. Kovalchuk is a Kremlin confidant who served as a vice president of Rosatom. Americans know about Rosatom because of its purchase of Uranium One, which was made possible by then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s support for the Russian acquisition.

While McMaster was a consultant at IISS the organization was a strong, unwavering supporter of President Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran.

Mark Fitzpatrick, its director for non-proliferation and disarmament was the most outspoken IISS director for the nuclear deal calling it in 2015 a “a potential game changer in many ways, opening a path to better relations with Iran that has been closed for more than 35 years.” Fitzpatrick said the deal “makes it demonstrably less likely Iran will become nuclear-armed now and in the future.”

IISS also entered domestic American politics by defending the Democratic Party during the 2016 presidential campaign. It flatly stated following the release of emails from the Democratic National Committee it “revealed no evidence of significant wrongdoing within the Democratic Party.”

IISS also has been criticized for the secrecy of its activities and its routine denial of visas for reporters seeking to attend its overseas events, particularly its annual event in Bahrain where human right groups accuse the government of silencing critics and keeping journalists away.

BahrainWatch, a human rights group published an investigation in December 2016 claiming that even well known American journalists have been barred from its Bahrain conferences called the “Manama Dialogue.”

“New York Times journalist Nicholas Kristof has openly called for an invitation since 2011, though his media visa was once again rejected last year. Wall Street Journal journalist Yaroslav Trofimov was also denied a visa.

Waurishuk concluded that McMaster’s relationship with IISS raises too many alarms.

“There’s too many red flags that kind of go up,” he said.

Neither IISS Washington nor IISS London returned repeated queries about McMaster.

Russia Investigation, Sanctions and Military Readiness

President Donald Trump may not have realized on Monday that his executive order would step on Russia’s toes. Its official target was Venezuela, specifically the country’s plan to create the world’s first state-backed cryptocurrency, the petro, which went on sale Tuesday.

But behind the scenes, the petro was in fact a collaboration—a half-hidden joint venture between Venezuelan and Russian officials and businessmen, whose aim was to erode the power of U.S. sanctions, sources familiar with the effort told TIME.

Trump’s executive order did not mention the petro’s Russian backers, whose role has not previously been reported. Citing economic sanctions that the U.S. imposed against Venezuela in August, the order simply made clear that anyone who buys or uses the new cryptocurrency would be in breach of those sanctions, as would anyone under U.S. jurisdiction who helps Venezuela develop the petro. “Any conspiracy formed to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited,” the document states. More here.

***

Meanwhile the House Intelligence Committee released the Russia report.

https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/russia_report_findings_and_recommendations.pdf?platform=hootsuite

 
Is the United States doing enough to respond to Russia? Still curious? Given the dramatic increase in military spending in the Omnibus, we are not prepared yet to take on the alleged star war weapons Putin advertises.

In his address to the parliament earlier this month the Russian president unveiled a small zoo of strategic programs that are supposed to counter U.S. missile defense (or make it “impotent and obsolete”). Some of these systems were not entirely new – we knew about the ejection test of the Sarmat missile, the Status-6 underwater drone, and, of course, about the Avangard hypersonic glider that was known as Project 4202 or Yu-71. A number of people pointed out that the Kinzhal “hypersonic” missile appears to be an air-launched modification of the Iskander ballistic missile and that there were reports about something like that in the past. The only genuinely new system seems to be the nuclear-powered cruise missile, which doesn’t have a name yet.

With the exception of Kinzhal, none of these systems appear to be close to operational capability. Yes, it’s been said that tests were successful, but for Sarmat it was only the first ejection test; Status-6 and the cruise missile seem to be at the point of proof-of-principle tests of their nuclear reactors and propulsion systems. As for Avangard, it probably had two successful test flights, but is not clear if it is fully ready for deployment. On the other hand, there is no reason to believe that these systems cannot become operational in the next few years, now that they are likely to be treated as priority programs.

It is not surprising that the defense industry used the specter of missile defense to get support for its programs. In fact, we have seen this before. In 1985, the Soviet defense industry put together a series of programs that were supposed to counter U.S. Strategic Defense Initiative. I described the history of these programs in my “Did Star Wars Helped End the Cold War?” paper last year. But I thought that the list of those programs may be of some interest as well. That list comes from Vitaly Katayev’s notes – he compiled a table of the programs that were included in the four anti-SDI programs at the time. Here is the document:

Программы противодействия ПРО

The table contains some interesting entries. For example, the hypersonic glider is there – it was known as Albatross then. A few other programs survived to this day as well, but most were abandoned. One word of caution – most of the anti-SDI systems existed before SDI, but of course the missile defense presented a perfect excuse for the industry to put everything in one package to ensure that they get the support they wanted. The current list of anti-missile defense programs seems to be much shorter, but the basic idea is the same.

*** Lots of questions are being asked in congressional hearings. The summary is such:

The nation’s nuclear deterrence enterprise remains as important as ever in light of the return of superpower competition and rogue nation threats presented by North Korea and Iran, senior Defense Department officials told the House Armed Services Committee’s strategic forces subcommittee here today.

The officials discussed national security policies with regard to DoD’s fiscal year 2019 budget request and within context of the country’s nuclear force posture.

John C. Rood, undersecretary of defense for policy; Air Force Gen. Robin Rand, commander of Air Force Global Strike Command; Navy Vice Adm. Terry Benedict, director of the Navy Strategic Systems Program; and Lisa Gordon-Hagerty, administrator of the Energy Department’s National Nuclear Security Administration, each presented testimony on the importance of the nuclear force.

Rood’s opening remarks quoted Defense Secretary James N. Mattis: “[The Nuclear Posture Review] rests on a bedrock truth. Nuclear weapons have, and will continue to play, a critical role in deterring a nuclear attack, and in preventing large-scale conventional warfare between nuclear armed states for the foreseeable future. U.S. nuclear weapons not only defend our allies against conventional nuclear threats, they also help them avoid the need to develop their own nuclear arsenals. This, in turn, furthers global security.”

Sustaining Modernization Efforts

According to Rood, the 2018 Nuclear Posture Review reflects DoD’s strategic priority to maintain a safe, secure, survivable and effective nuclear deterrent. While the diverse capabilities of the current nuclear triad provide necessary flexibility and resilience, each leg of the triad has surpassed its intended operating lifecycle.

While the U.S. remains the strongest military in the world, the advantages are eroding as adversaries continue to modernize conventional and nuclear forces, now fielding broad arsenals of nuclear missiles capable of reaching the American homeland, Rood said.

“Weakness invites challenge and provocation,” he said. “Our task at the Defense Department is to ensure that the U.S. military advantages endure, and in combination with other elements of national power, we are able to fully meet the increasing challenges to our national security.”

At the direction of U.S. Strategic Command, a recent reorganization of authority took place within Air Force Global Strike Command, Rood said. In September, Rand became dual-hatted, assuming the duties of Joint Force Air Component Command, Air Forces Strategic-Air, a position created to streamline authorizations for bomber and intercontinental ballistic missile forces under one line of authority. This, along with other current and future initiatives, are a priority for Rand and Global Strike Command in the continued defense of the nation.

“Modernization of [America’s] nuclear force is absolutely critical,” Rand said. “The key to Global Strike Command’s continued success will remain on our ability to modernize, sustain, and recapitalize our force.”

Looking Toward the Future

The Navy is currently in the process of implementing life-extension programs for defense weapons. Benedict said those programs are on track and within budget constraints. Benedict said existing efforts will ensure effective and credible sea-based deterrents until the 2040s, and the Navy is also taking steps to provide credible weapons systems beyond the 2040s.

The Nuclear Posture Review directs the Navy to begin studies in 2020 to define a cost-effective, credible and effective sea-launched ballistic missile that can be deployed beyond the life of the Columbia-class submarine nuclear weapons system, Benedict said. The first of the Columbia-class submarines, which are to replace the present Ohio-class Trident nuclear submarines, is slated to come into service in 2021.

Benedict added that budget requests included funding for modernization efforts in partnership with the National Nuclear Security Administration to bolster the U.S. deterrence posture.

The NNSA, according to Gordon-Hargerty, has three main objectives, to maintain the safety, security and reliability of the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile, reduce the threat of nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism around the world and provide nuclear propulsion for the Navy’s fleet of aircraft carriers and submarines.

To meet those objectives, Gordon-Hargerty said the president’s fiscal year 19 budget request included increased spending in areas such as weapons activities, defense nuclear nonproliferation and naval reactors.

“This request moves us forward to a deterrent that is modern, robust, flexible, resilient, ready and appropriately tailored to meet current and future uncertainties as outlined in the 2018 Nuclear Posture Review,” she said.

Gordon-Hagerty said this added funding will also provide the resources required to ensure protection of the U.S. and its allies and partners.

“In an increasingly complex and threatening security environment, the DoD must sustain the capabilities needed to deter and defend against attacks on our homeland,” Rood said. “Along with our allies and partners, we must ensure we have the capabilities now, and into the future, to protect our people and the freedoms we so cherish, and are able to engage our adversaries, diplomatically, from a position of strength.”