H.R. 3524 The EAGLE Act, Military Spending, and Nuclear Technology

Code Pink says the legislation, H.R. 3524 The EAGLE Act, would commit $7 billion of US government dollars to military contractors, but I am having a hard time finding in the text of the bill where or how it says that.

Here is the bill. I did however find in the bill Congress overtly saying it has the sense that “The United States must sustain military capabilities necessary to achieve United States political objectives in the Indo-Pacific, including— … deterring PRC aggression and preventing unwanted conflict” (§4.7). I do not like the sustaining military capabilities as a method to achieve political objectives.

In similar recent news, The US and Britain are transferring nuclear powered submarine technology to Australia, and China and France are not happy.

Code Pink responded well, saying “If Biden and the Pentagon really want to ‘ensure peace and stability’ in the region, they could simply stop dealing missiles, weapons, [and] nuclear tech to Australia, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan.” I am not sure I heard of Code Pink before, and I wanted to know what they are. I found out they are a “women-led grassroots organization working to end U.S. wars and militarism, support peace and human rights initiatives, and redirect our tax dollars into healthcare, education, green jobs and other life-affirming programs.” Preach!

At best, the US sending more nuclear technology to South Korea is beneficial if it helps create military parity that decreases coercion between South Korea and northerly neighbors, but at worst, nuclear proliferation increases the risk of nuclear war. I would rather try the non-proliferation direction, though it does seem to increase the risk of bullying from the neighbors, however it may also increase the temptation of North Korea to bully.