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.

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.
/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

Share RightWeb

Foster Panel Résumé

Right Web connections

  • Harold Agnew, member
  • John S. Foster, Jr., chair
  • Jon Kyl, congressional proponent
  • James Schlesinger, member


  • Related:

    Foster Panel News Feed


    Right Web is not responsible for the content of external internet sites.

    The Right Web Mission

    Right Web tracks militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy.

    For media inquiries,
    email rightwebproject@gmail.com

    From the Wires

    Soon after a Saudi-led coalition strike on a bus killed 40 children on August 9, a CENTCOM spokesperson stated to Vox, “We may never know if the munition [used] was one that the U.S. sold to them.”


    The West has dominated the post-war narrative with its doctrine of liberal values, arguing that not only were they right in themselves but that economic success itself depended on their application. Two developments have challenged those claims. The first was the West’s own betrayal of its principles: on too many occasions the self interest of the powerful, and disdain for the victims of collateral damage, has showed through. The second dates from more recently: the growth of Chinese capitalism owes nothing to a democratic system of government, let alone liberal values.


    Falsely demonizing all Muslims, their beliefs, and their institutions is exactly the wrong way to make Americans safer, because the more we scare ourselves with imaginary enemies, the harder it will be to find and protect ourselves from real ones.


    Division in the ranks of the conservative movement is a critical sign that a war with Iran isn’t inevitable.


    Donald Trump stole the headlines, but the declaration from the recent NATO summit suggests the odds of an unnecessary conflict are rising. Instead of inviting a dialogue, the document boasts that the Alliance has “suspended all practical civilian and military cooperation between NATO and Russia.” The fact is, NATO was a child of the Cold War, when the West believed that the Soviets were a threat. But Russia today is not the Soviet Union, and there’s no way Moscow would be stupid enough to attack a superior military force.


    War with Iran may not be imminent, but neither was war with Iraq in late 2001.


    Donald Trump was one of the many bets the Russians routinely place, recognizing that while most such bets will never pay off a few will, often in unpredictable ways. Trump’s actions since taking office provide the strongest evidence that this one bet is paying off handsomely for the Russians. Putin could hardly have made the script for Trump’s conduct at the recent NATO meeting any more to his liking—and any better designed to foment division and distrust within the Western alliance—than the way Trump actually behaved.


    RightWeb
    share