Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

Foster Panel

Please note: IPS Right Web neither represents nor endorses any of the individuals or groups profiled on this site.

Print Friendly

About The so-called Foster Panel–after its head, John S. Foster, Jr.–was established at the urging of Sen. Jon Kyl by the fiscal year 1999 Defense Authorization Act to report on the safety and reliability of the country’s nuclear weapons stockpile. As head of the panel, formally known as the Panel to Assess the Reliability, Safety, and Security of the U.S. Nuclear Stockpile, Foster, a foreign policy hawk, has been instrumental in pushing for new nuclear weapons development and testing.

According to a report in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, "Congressional advocates of nuclear testing and new weapons production have not been particularly subtle. Consider the ‘Panel to Assess the Reliability, Safety, and Security of the United States Nuclear Stockpile.’ … In its second and most recent report, released in February, the panel recommends, among other things, spending $4 billion to $6 billion over the next decade to ‘restore needed production capabilities … to meet both current and future workloads’; to construct a small-scale plutonium pit production facility at Los Alamos; to continue design work on new warheads; and to shorten the time needed to prepare for tests at the Nevada Test Site from 24 to 36 months to just three to four months. The Energy Department is reported to be working now on increased preparedness for testing."

Foster, a former member of the Committee on the Present Danger and an instrumental figure in the establishment of the Team B exercise in the late 1970s, is a longtime player in the U.S. military-industrial complex. He is an advisor or board member for several defense contractors, including Arete, Jaycor, United Technologies, and Pilkington Aerospace. (2)

Share RightWeb

Please note: IPS Right Web neither represents nor endorses any of the individuals or groups profiled on this site.

Sources

(1) "Foster Panel Calls for Reducing Nuclear Test Preparation Time," Arms Control Today, April 2002
http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2002_04/fosterapril02.asp

(2) Right Web: John S. Foster, Jr.
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/ind/foster/foster.html

(3) Stephen Schwartz, "The New-Nuke Chorus Tunes Up," Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, July/August 2001
http://www.thebulletin.org/issues/2001/ja01/ja01schwartz.html

(4) House Armed Services Committee: Testimony of John S. Foster, March 21, 2002

http://web.archive.org/web/20030211054419/http://www.house.gov/hasc/openingstatementsandpressreleases/
107thcongress/02-03-21foster.html

From the Wires

Print Friendly

AIPAC has done more than just tolerate the U.S. tilt toward extreme and often xenophobic views. Newly released tax filings show that the country’s biggest pro-Israel group financially contributed to the Center for Security Policy, the think-tank that played a pivotal role in engineering the Trump administration’s efforts to impose a ban on Muslim immigration.


Print Friendly

It would have been hard for Trump to find someone with more extreme positions than David Friedman for U.S. ambassador to Israel.


Print Friendly

Just as the “bogeyman” of the Mexican rapist and drug dealer is used to justify the Wall and mass immigration detention, the specter of Muslim terrorists is being used to validate gutting the refugee program and limiting admission from North Africa, and Southwest and South Asia.


Print Friendly

Although the mainstream media narrative about Trump’s Russia ties has been fairly linear, in reality the situation appears to be anything but.


Print Friendly

Reagan’s military buildup had little justification, though the military was rebuilding after the Vietnam disaster. Today, there is almost no case at all for a defense budget increase as big as the $54 billion that the Trump administration wants.


Print Friendly

The very idea of any U.S. president putting his personal financial interests ahead of the U.S. national interest is sufficient reason for the public to be outraged. That such a conflict of interest may affect real U.S. foreign policy decisions is an outrage.


Print Friendly

The new US administration is continuing a state of war that has existed for 16 years.


RightWeb
share