Responsible Statecraft tends to have a more common sense approach to the profligate spending on the part of the American defense establishment.

The retirement of the entire ICBM arm and cancellation of the Sentinel successor would save enormous amounts of money wasted on very vulnerable strategic assets.

It’s time to consider a complete reappraisal of the three arms of the nuclear response in IRBMs and ICBMs and reduce them over time to zero and then to decide on the disposition of the bomber launched gravity bombs and nuclear-tipped cruise missiles. The drone technology emerging now and the concomitant stasis of the aforementioned weapons systems makes them incredibly vulnerable left of bang.

A complete reappraisal is in order to rely completely on the much more secure Submarine Launched Ballistic Missile (SLBM) fleet option.

Given that its budget is soaring towards $1 trillion per year, and that it wastes untold billions on overpriced components and excess bureaucracy, there’s no question that the Pentagon can find money to reinvest in other priorities. But a better approach would be to apply a good portion of the savings to reducing the department’s top line.

Cuts in overall spending could come from the reduction or elimination of dysfunctional, overpriced, or dangerous weapon systems like F-35 combat aircraft, the Sentinel intercontinental ballistic missile, or heavy, vulnerable fighting ships like a new generation of aircraft carriers. It could save billions. It could also clear the way for the development of more reliable, effective replacements that are simpler to operate, easier to repair, and more relevant to the most likely conflicts of the future.

Eliminating ICBMs from America’s nuclear arsenal would be a particularly smart move. Not only is the cost of the new system growing at an alarming rate – an 81% increase in projected costs in just a few years time – but independent experts like former Clinton administration defense secretary William Perry have pointed out that they are among the most dangerous weapons possessed by the U.S. military.

The time is now to consider retirement and reduction of nuclear assets in the US inventory.

Read the rest:

https://responsiblestatecraft.org/pentagon-budget-200-billion/

Threats are easy. Supply chains, deterrence math, and real endgames are not. We dive into the rising talk of U.S. strikes on Venezuela and why public saber-rattling can lock leaders into dangerous escalations they can’t control. From leaked authorizations to carrier movements in the Caribbean, we lay out the likely playbook, the unintended consequences for regional stability, and how regime-change logic keeps generating the very problems it claims to solve.

We then pivot to Ukraine to unpack a quieter crisis: dwindling Western stockpiles. It’s not just bombs; it’s interceptors, artillery shells, and the industrial base needed to sustain a modern war. Reports of low Patriot interception rates highlight a brutal truth—air defense is a volume game, and the West is running low. Even if funding appears, production capacity can’t magically expand overnight, especially as Washington juggles commitments in Europe, the Middle East, and possibly Latin America. The longer the gap between promises and deliveries, the worse Kyiv’s leverage becomes at any negotiating table

Finally, we tackle Israel’s prison rape scandal and the political focus on optics over accountability against the backdrop of a thin ceasefire in Gaza. Too few aid trucks, ongoing strikes, and mass displacement reveal a humanitarian pipeline that isn’t meeting minimum needs. When leaders prioritize messaging over remedies, the cycle of violence resets. Through listener Q&A, we pressure-test scenarios: Wagner in Caracas, missile ranges, funding mechanisms, and what lessons from the war on terror should guide policy now. The throughline is clear: align ends with means, choose negotiation over spectacle, and stop pretending scarcity is strategy.

Like what you heard? Follow, rate, and share the show. Your support helps us cut through the algorithm—what’s the one policy you’d reverse today?

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Power doesn’t just show up in elections; it builds laboratories. We dive into how New York City became a proving ground for a fusion of finance, philanthropy, and policing that later spread across the country—then map how that same logic now shapes narratives around Israel, Gaza, and the American right. Our guest, investigative journalist Matt Wolfson, brings rare insider perspective on Zionist networks in media and politics, the rise of pro-finance governance dressed up as centrism, and the backlash that produced figures like Zohran Mamdani. From the Democratic Leadership Council era to Bloomberg’s rezoning, we connect the dots between real estate booms, federal security funding, and the normalization of urban surveillance.

We also follow the technology pipeline: Microsoft partnerships, NYPD’s expanding domain system, gunshot detection with weak performance, and facial recognition that misidentifies yet continues to scale. Commissioner Jessica Tisch’s ascent—and her family’s long shadow in New York power—anchors a candid look at how public safety becomes a pretext for private networks. When private cameras feed public grids and “surge policing” becomes policy, the result is a sleek apparatus that watches more than it helps, especially in neighborhoods already stretched by inequality.

Then we turn to the right’s cultural firefight. Mark Levin’s broadsides, coordinated messaging against Tucker Carlson, and a rush to equate Israel skepticism with antisemitism reveal a strategy: elevate extremes to stigmatize dissent and justify new speech controls. Matt explains how financiers, media platforms, and political intermediaries can co-opt both sides, shrinking debate to a spectacle while expanding the security state at home and endless support abroad. If New York is the lab, the rollout is coming to a city near you.

If this conversation sharpened your lens on power, surveillance, and the future of the right, follow the show, share it with a friend, and leave a review so more people can find it. Where do you draw the line between real safety and permanent monitoring?

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

The Ron Paul Institute’s Daniel McAdams breaks down President Donald Trump’s attempt to implement a ceasefire in Gaza while maintaining his relationship with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

A new round of nuclear swagger, a fraying arms control regime, and a grinding war in Ukraine have pushed global risk back into everyday conversation. We bring James Carden of The Realist Review back to map how we got here—starting with the choices made in 1992, when Washington bet on an inevitable democratic future and ignored repeated warnings from Moscow. That post–Cold War confidence collided with NATO expansion, economic turmoil, and a parade of torn‑up treaties, leaving both sides more suspicious and less protected.

We unpack the unraveling of ABM, INF, and Open Skies, and why New START’s uncertain future matters more than any headline sound bite. Carden argues that treating Ukraine as the single prism for U.S.–Russia policy is a mistake, and makes the case for delinking nuclear risk reduction from unresolved territorial questions. Expect clear-eyed takes on whether additional aid can change the battlefield, what a realistic endgame might look like, and how incremental agreements—prisoner swaps, deconfliction, infrastructure safeguards—can keep doors open when a grand bargain is out of reach.

Then we head south and interrogate the rhetoric branding Venezuela a “drug caliphate.” We trace the legal gymnastics behind labeling cartels as terrorists, the dangers of mission creep, and the historical record that shows kinetic strikes don’t fix supply chains or demand. Instead, we outline smarter tools: targeted financial enforcement, precursor controls, regional coordination, and avoiding regime‑change traps that rarely deliver lasting security.

If you care about nuclear stability, pragmatic diplomacy, and avoiding another forever conflict in our own hemisphere, this conversation is for you. Follow, share with a friend who tracks world events, and leave a review to tell us where you think policymakers should draw the next red line.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download