USG falsely claims that nukes are essential, it doesn’t seek conflict, it strengthens the integrity of the media, and it possesses a 360-degree strategy for security
In this series I’ve been identifying and refuting the claims made in the National Security Strategy 2022, which I refer to as the Sullivan & Biden NSS, even though it’s not known whether or not Biden’s National Security Advisor, Jake Sullivan, actually wrote the document. It could have been written by any members of the National Security Council or their staff.
In fact, I found online Jake Sullivan’s speech enthusiastically introducing the NSS 2022, and he specifically refers to three individuals who, he says, were “instrumental in putting together this National Security Strategy”: Tom Wright, Sasha Baker, and Rebecca Lissner. Nonetheless, I’ll continue to refer to it in this series as the Sullivan & Biden NSS.
I had rough drafts of several more essays on the Weaknesses of the NSS 2022, but there were so many weaknesses it became very time-consuming so I decided to summarize certain weaknesses I found particularly illogical, untruthful, and/or simply poor strategies for supporting national security and international harmony and justice. To keep this condensed, I’ll include here several topics with a quote straight from the NSS and then a brief response of my own.
A. “We do not seek conflict.”
NSS: “We do not seek conflict or a new Cold War. Rather we are trying to support every country, regardless of size or strength, in exercising the freedom to make choices that serve their interests. This is a critical difference between our vision, which aims to preserve the autonomy and rights of less powerful states, and that of our rivals, which does not.”
KYC: I think Sullivan & Biden are seeking conflict because they’re seeking to win this “race to the top.” Certainly, their preference is for all other nations to back down and let the USG do what it wants without conflict. Their second choice is to bribe the nations or intimidate them economically, politically, or militarily to change the variables in these nations’ “calculations” so that they’ll decide it literally pays to go along with the USG. The third choice is a coup, as in Ukraine in 2014.
Sullivan & Biden claim they don’t seek conflict, but if another nation won’t bend to USG dictates, the USG won’t hesitate to inflict its fourth choice, its “last resort”: fight to get what it wants. Of course, it describes this fight with a moral veneer: to counter “autocracy” and to “defend against. . . aggression and coercion in all its forms.”
For Sullivan & Biden and the dominant players in the US foreign policymaking establishment, cooperation seems to have a very limited, stunted definition. It means getting those who agree with you into leadership positions abroad and then working happily with them.
It’s absolutely false for Sullivan & Biden to maintain they support every country in exercising the freedom to make choices that serve those nations’ interests. The USG only supports those national leaders that will serve the interests of those US social and business circles running US foreign policy! How can that possibly be called the preservation of other nations’ autonomy?
The USG supports South Korean and Ecuadorean leaders who will host US military bases; it supported Russia’s Yeltsin who would support US business interests in Russia; it supports Ukraine’s post-coup leaders who want to join NATO. But the USG won’t support leaders in those nations if they don’t want US military bases, if they don’t want to join NATO, and if they won’t serve US business interests. The USG will likely topple such leaders. So much for autonomy.
If Sullivan & Biden support all nations, whether strong or weak, in having the freedom to make choices that serve their interests, why didn’t they support Russia’s interests in having a buffer zone and in not having NATO missiles and NATO nations on its borders? And why haven’t Sullivan & Biden supported Donetsk and Lugansk who have wanted to be independent from a government in Kiev that attacks them and cuts off water, power, and food supplies to them?
Biden likes to portray the USG’s relation with Ukraine as one which advocates Ukraine’s “freedom to make choices” and Ukraine’s right to choose its own alliances. However, this seemingly noble attitude conceals the fact that the USG was evidently not supporting Ukraine’s “freedom to make choices” prior to the coup when a pro-Russian leader was in power, only after the US-supported coup when a pro-NATO leader was in power. Such USG behavior can hardly be called supporting Ukraine’s freedom to choose. It is, rather, supporting the USG’s “right” to interfere in another nation to place in power those leaders who will make the choices that support the USG, not the democratic will of their own nations’ majorities.
B. “With the informed consent”
NSS: “The American military is the strongest fighting force the world has ever known. America will not hesitate to use force when necessary to defend our national interests. But we will do so as the last resort and only when the objectives and mission are clear and achievable, consistent with our values and laws, alongside non-military tools, and the mission is undertaken with the informed consent of the American people.”
KYC: Once we get beyond the repulsive gloating, I’d point out that war is never a last resort of the USG. The USG is trigger-happy about initiating both war and proxy war, by means of weapon shipments. The “will not hesitate to use force” part of that quote is much closer to the truth than the “last resort” phrase. The “use force when necessary” part of the quote is highly skewed because US policymakers who are prejudiced and protective of fossil fuel interests abroad and weapon industry goals will deem it “necessary” to use force when Americans without these biases and Americans without these “national interests” would consider force to be absolutely unnecessary.
And since when has the USG ever asked for the informed consent of the American people to wage a war? It’s hard enough getting US presidents to observe their constitutional limitations and wait for Congress to declare war. If Sullivan & Biden and others did blow up the Nord Stream 2 as Seymour Hersh reported, they already have engaged in war inconsistent “with our values and laws” and with “objectives and mission” that are not “clear and achievable” but rather muddled and infused with ignorance and selfishness. And certainly, Sullivan & Biden’s weapon shipments to support proxy war in Ukraine were performed completely without our consent and completely absent of any attempt to truthfully inform the American public as to the full nature of this conflict.
C. “Gain warfighting advantages”
NSS: “. . . Amid intensifying competition, the military’s role is to maintain and gain warfighting advantages while limiting those of our competitors.
KYC: Notice not only the armed race embedded in this statement, but the violent conflict that’s also hidden in this message. And they’re not even talking about wartime, they’re referring to the military’s permanent role whether in war or peace. Their claim is that the US military’s role is not only to beat the others in the race to develop the latest innovations in killing and spying machines but also—even in times of alleged peace—to limit Russia’s and China’s “warfighting advantages.”
Even in peace, the US military’s role therefore is to go about crippling Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, and Venezuela. Of course, this could include attacking Nord Stream 2 and other pipelines in order to cripple Russia economically. It’s a recipe for permanent violence and acts of sabotage. It’s a recipe for always attacking any so-called competitor’s arsenal for fear it might get too strong, for making sure US weapons get up to space first and shoot down anyone else’s attempts to put weapons in space, for ensuring that US bioweapons are more deadly than everyone else’s. It’s a recipe to keep other nations in a perpetual state of intimidation, to use force and manipulation to make sure others stay inferior. Do you think other nations will settle for such an anxiety-producing order? This is not a foundation for international security. It’s a foundation for rage, paranoia, injustice, and violence.
D. “Should diplomacy and deterrence fail”
NSS: The military will be “prepared to fight and win the Nation’s wars should diplomacy and deterrence fail.”
KYC: Given that the USG foreign policymaking establishment is incapable of grasping the opponent’s perspective, refuses to take seriously their grievances, rejects and even hides from public eye their negotiation offers, is unskilled and unwilling to engage in cooperative forms of negotiation, and seems capable only of a certain ill-advised type of negotiation, “power-based negotiation,” which depends upon using force, threats, leverage, and intimidation to get one’s way at the bargaining table, it appears that the USG’s attempts at diplomacy will always fail.
And deterrence? It cannot fail to provoke violence, for the Sullivan & Biden campaign of deterrence depends upon keeping the “adversaries” in an inferior position which is, in fact, a state of tension and insecurity that many nations will never tolerate. It’s like promising somebody there will always be wasps and mosquitoes buzzing around their head just to make sure they behave. There’s no understanding in the NSS of human dynamics and the dynamics necessary for peace, justice, and harmony.
E. “A vibrant Defense Industrial Base”
NSS: “The war in Ukraine highlights the criticality of a vibrant Defense Industrial Base for the United States and its allies and partners.”
KYC: It’s ironic they use the word “vibrant,” like springtime flowers, to describe something quite deadly. And, though the weapon industry which contributes millions annually to US policymakers is doubtlessly gleeful upon reading such a statement which promises even more US tax dollars flowing their way, I adamantly disagree with their conclusion. The statement would be truthful if it read this way: “The war in Ukraine highlights the criticality of the hiring, appointing, and electing into US foreign policymaking positions a massive proportion of individuals with top levels of empathy, insight, and intelligence who are highly qualified in their knowledge and skills in cooperative negotiation and non-violent conflict resolution.”
Incidentally, I noticed that in Sullivan’s introductory speech to the NSS in October 2022 he thanks the Center for a New American Security for their part in making the day’s events at Georgetown University possible. Center for a New American Security was formerly chaired by Biden’s Undersecretary of State Victoria Nuland, infamous for being caught on tape in Ukraine in 2014 as she was apparently selecting Ukraine’s leadership. Center for a New American Security is largely funded by the numerous US weapon corporations and ExxonMobil. It’s just one more piece of evidence supporting the fact that the US foreign policy mission has been captured by the missions of other organizations, including the US weapon and fossil fuel industries.
F. “NATO is united.”
NSS: “NATO is stronger and more united than it has ever been.”
KYC: NATO is united only in the superficial sense of having select leaders in power who create a network that supports NATO. This claim does not take into account that the network of leaders who are pro-NATO are not necessarily representative of their populations. Some, in the past and present, are in power precisely because of USG foreign election interference and support for coups to help install pro-NATO leaders.
If the USG and NATO refuse to accept another nation’s population’s voting preferences, voting preferences unadulterated by CIA propaganda and funding, then the USG and NATO can hardly go around calling themselves democratic and defenders of democracy. They might as well call themselves cotton candy because they’re more like cotton candy than any democracy. They give a sweet, smooth talk, they’re artificial, full of air, cheap, and bad for your health.
G. “A safe, secure, and effective nuclear force”
NSS: “Nuclear deterrence remains a top priority for the Nation and foundational to integrated deterrence. A safe, secure, and effective nuclear force undergirds our defense priorities by deterring strategic attacks, assuring allies and partners, and allowing us to achieve our objectives if deterrence fails.”
KYC: In the first place, what objectives could they possibly have in a super-radiated world where all our DNA is ruined and our skin’s been fried off?
And how can Sullivan & Biden possibly assume that the US nuclear force is “assuring” to “allies and partners”? Have they surveyed the populations of Germany and Italy to see if they actually sleep better at night, knowing that the hazardously-radioactive US nukes located in their nations will fly through the air to “protect” them if need be? Have they asked German protestors why they’re opposed to US nukes on their land? And, if these nukes are ever launched, what will life be like for Germans and Italians and their deformed offspring? Is it reassuring to them to know that these nukes could go off by accident or be targeted for attack, thus destroying their nations and anywhere the wind and water carry the radiation for billions of years?
Nuclear deterrence should not be a part of any nation’s security strategy. It’s far too dangerous, expensive, and wasteful. It also doesn’t offer protection, only the promise of radiation for us all. The US nuclear arsenal didn’t prevent 9/11. Russia’s nuclear arsenal isn’t stopping the USG from reportedly supporting Ukrainian attacks on Russian land.
I also don’t see why 4,000 nukes are required to deter attacks. Why would any nation want to risk being attacked by even 1 nuke? Isn’t 1 nuke intimidating enough? What proof is there that more than that is needed? What proof is there that even that one is needed? Even a single nuke would make the entire planet less safe for all species of life, given how radiation travels in air and water currents. The radiation from the nuclear accident in Fukushima, Japan is already appearing in fish across the entire Pacific Ocean.
Why is science so cherished when making this technology yet science is then merrily tossed out the window when it comes to evaluating the effectiveness and the positive and negative consequences of applying such technology to remedying social conflicts? Why no evaluation of the costs and benefits of alternative means of ensuring national security, peace, and justice? Why is US nuclear policy based upon ignorance, guesswork, and a magical faith in nukes?
An even larger point, a colossal point, is that creating and using nukes is a blasphemous use of power that human beings should never even have. In other words, the problem with nukes is even bigger than the painful lack of democratic input on their manufacture, storage, testing, and use. This is an issue much bigger than democracy. In short: humans have no right to inflict such devastation upon their own species and upon all other species of life on the planet. Human beings are not the only ones who matter on this planet. US policymakers’ lack of respect for this species and all others is entirely shameful and is proof that they do not deserve to be in leadership positions.
Since nukes should never be used, manufacturing them is a complete waste of money. Their very manufacture and storage also cause radioactive contamination of the planet. They just sit there and do nothing helpful. US policymakers would be better off constructing paper dolls with menacing faces. They could even send them to foreign leaders if it made them feel better. Given the lack of logic and the entire lack of evaluation of the relative effectiveness of building and even modernizing nukes, my suspicion is that building nukes is simply a profitable exercise for the nuclear industry and those they bribe to prey upon US tax dollars and line their personal pockets. Paper dolls would be a lot cheaper and a lot more respectful of all species of life.
Belief in paying money to support a nuclear arsenal that will protect us is comparable to the beliefs of centuries ago that making blood sacrifices to deities would ensure their protection and paying money to priests would ensure protection from hell. Such beliefs take a lot of crazy imagination and distorted thinking, but insulated groupthink helps make them seem solemn and sensible.
H. “Reducing the risks of nuclear war”
NSS: “Our competitors and potential adversaries are investing heavily in new nuclear weapons. By the 2030s, the United States for the first time will need to deter two major nuclear powers. . . . To ensure our nuclear deterrent remains responsive to the threats we face, we are modernizing the nuclear Triad, nuclear command, control, and communications, and our nuclear weapons infrastructure, as well as strengthening our extended deterrence commitments to our Allies. We remain equally committed to reducing the risks of nuclear war. This includes taking further steps to reduce the role of nuclear weapons in our strategy and pursuing realistic goals for mutual, verifiable arms control, which contribute to our deterrence strategy and strengthen the global non-proliferation regime.”
KYC: The USG should not use other nations’ allegedly heavy investments in nuclear weapons as justification for increased USG investment in its own weapons. The USG already has 4,000 nukes. If it were to disarm, or even cut this arsenal down to a fraction of its size, other nations would likely not feel pressed to build more nukes.
Moreover, you cannot be “equally committed to reducing the risks of nuclear war” on the one hand and also “investing heavily in nuclear forces” and “strengthening our extended deterrence commitments” on the other hand. It’s one or the other. The “investing heavily” cancels out the “reducing the risks of nuclear war.” And promising more nations, such as Japan, that you’ll use nukes to protect them, is increasing, not reducing, the risks of nuclear war. The only genuine way to be committed to reducing the risks of nuclear war is to dismantle nukes and abolish them. Anything less than that is not equal to the commitment to building and using them. And until they’re abolished, there’s great risk of nuclear war—more risk than any sane human being, if given the opportunity to have a democratic voice in the matter, would tolerate.
Incidentally, when they talk of “reducing the risks of nuclear war,” are Sullivan & Biden suggesting they’re seeking to reduce the likelihood of engaging in nuclear war? Or are they suggesting that they aim to reduce the risks that are associated with experiencing a nuclear war? It’s not quite clear.
And how can Sullivan & Biden tell us they’ve investing heavily in nukes and simultaneously claim in other parts of the NSS that we live in a democracy? To state that nukes protect democracy is utterly illogical since no democratic vote, let alone comprehensive information of the facts about nukes, their wastes, and their risks, has ever been allowed in the United States. The very existence of the US nuclear arsenal is blatant evidence of the absence of democracy in this nation.
Why have we no voice in a matter of such existential importance? We’re treated like dirt. Like insignificant, brainless beings who don’t know what’s best for them.
I. “Transform warfare”
NSS: Sullivan & Biden speak glowingly of the “emerging technologies” that will “transform warfare” and so “we are investing in a range of advanced technologies including applications in the cyber and space domains, missile defeat capabilities, artificial intelligence, and quantum systems.”
KYC: It sounds like they’re copying words and attitudes straight out of the neoconservative Project for the New American Century’s (PNAC) “Rebuilding America’s Defense” document of 2000, in which PNAC spoke ardently of transforming warfare, not only with space weapons and robots but with pharmaceutical skin patches to regulate the emotions of troops and bioweapons to target specific genotypes, presumably to wipe out entire ethnic groups!
It also sounds like the weapon industry is bored and seeking to continually re-invent itself, promise growth to its investors, and acquire a never-ending sense of ugly purpose and grotesque meaning on the planet. Peace is the last thing the weapon industry wants. But why should US foreign policy serve the desires for growth and meaning of the weapon industry? If US foreign policy must serve an industry, why can’t it serve a different industry with a more enlightened mission, like animal rescue and habitat preservation organizations?
J. “Weaponizing information”
NSS: “. . . we are responding to the ever-evolving ways in which authoritarians seek to subvert the global order, notably by weaponizing information to undermine democracies and polarize societies. We are doing so by working with governments, civil society, independent media, and the private sector to prevent credible information from being crowded out, exposing disinformation campaigns, and strengthening the integrity of the media environment—a bedrock of thriving democracies.”
KYC: Democracy is based upon knowledge of the truth, on the ability of people to govern themselves because they have access to the truth and can therefore use human reason to make wise decisions. Without that truth and reason, and without the freedom to think as an individual, US democracy is a dangerous, ignorant hoax.
The outright lies produced by US policy and media makers are infuriating, yet the NSS brazenly acts as if the USG is the guardian of truth. In the United States, whether through deliberate lying or the conformity and intellectual laziness of groupthink, what is truth is called lies and what are lies are called truth.
Because the US media is now completely unreliable as a source of truthful, 360-degree comprehensive reporting on international relations, because the manipulation of minds is a form of soft authoritarianism, the US media is not a bedrock of US democracy but has instead become the kindling for the flames of autocracy and war.
Since the bulk of my essays and youtube channel have been already devoted to illustrating in detail examples of the outright and provable lies echoed throughout the US media chambers, it’s impossible to believe that Sullivan & Biden’s claim to support “credible information” and expose “disinformation” is anything but false and oppressive—the censoring out of truthful perspectives. The fact that they even admit they’re working with the “independent” media shows the tight link between the USG and the so-called “independent” media who won’t dare publish an article on Seymour Hersh’s breakthrough report.
The unity of the Western media, the fact that they’re all saying the same thing, in no way creates more proof of the validity of their statements. Such proof could only be found in the logic of their words, which is utterly lacking, and the proof behind their statements, which is also utterly lacking, as described in my essays and youtube channel online. Therefore, lockstep unity only proves that the media are all tied to the master puppeteers of deception and ignorance.
K. “360-degree strategy”
NSS: Sullivan & Biden undoubtedly think themselves clever with a “360-degree strategy” as they proclaim:
“Our National Defense Strategy relies on integrated deterrence: the seamless combination of capabilities to convince potential adversaries that the costs of their hostile activities outweigh their benefits. . . . Integrated deterrence requires us to more effectively coordinate, network, and innovate so that any competitor thinking about pressing for advantage in one domain understands that we can respond in many others as well. This. . . allows us to better shape adversary perceptions of risks and costs of action against core U.S. interests, at any time and across any domain.”
KYC: So instead of trying to understand, for example, why Russia feels threatened by NATO’s expansion eastward into Slavic nations and into the former Soviet republics of Georgia and Ukraine, and why Russia feels threatened by NATO missiles along Russian borders that could reach Moscow in a few minutes, the USG is only going to think about how to shape Russia’s perception of risk and costs of action against NATO so that Russia will still feel threatened but will hopefully feel too scared to do anything about it.
Frankly, Sullivan & Biden, I don’t think your plan’s going to work. Russia, China, Iran, and others aren’t going to agree to feel threatened and quake in their boots and not do a thing about their fears or their rage over international injustice, US-supported coups, US foreign election interference, and international military imbalances.
You’ve got to get out of this board game mentality in which you’re submerged. You seem to think of your opponent, your “competitor,” as some token on the board without any mind, heart, and soul, as a token that you just want to beat, a token that has only one goal: to beat you.
But we’re not playing board games. This is life. The goal isn’t to take all the money, beat the opponents, and win the game. For the most part, people on the other side of the conflict, just like people on this side of conflict, aren’t malicious, evil people. They have reasonable grievances and goals. They have understandable feelings and fears. You can’t go around trying to topple everyone and be king of the mountain and think that’s what makes peace and justice. That might win a board game, but it doesn’t create a win in life.
You’ve got to care about other people and listen sincerely to what they’re saying—all of them, whether they share your “vision” or not. If you try to just beat and topple them, you’ll be destroying and killing real live people who have a right to live and have a right to live how they choose. It’s not like a board game where you can destroy your opponent and then you all go home to supper afterwards and can play again the next day. This is real life and death you’re toying with.
You describe Russia as “profoundly dangerous,” but until you can stop letting that narrow-minded fear asphyxiate your thoughts, until you start thinking of Russia and their leaders—Putin—as genuine people worthy of your caring and respect, you’re never going to develop the mental ability to consider with compassion how Russia genuinely feels threatened. The same need for your compassion holds true with regard to China.
And, by the way, despite your calling it a “360-degree-strategy,” you’re not thinking comprehensively at all. International security requires balance, balance in justice, security, and respect, balance in the fulfillment of needs amongst different people, and balance in the fulfillment of different types of needs. Security requires a military defense and an arsenal, but it is not bolstered by intimidation, resentment, injustice, and the imbalance that results from a never-ending quest for superiority.
Security requires balance and it requires emotional security. It requires friendship, understanding, and genuine caring, not merely base alliances of selfish convenience, not an emotional security based upon superiority of wealth and power, but an emotional security based upon genuine caring, a healthy sense of self-worth, and a balanced caring for all. And, at heart, democracy is “caring equally for all.” So let’s apply that equal caring, those 360-degrees of empathy and that 360-degree search for truth, on a community, national, and international scale. Without 360-degrees of empathy and 360-degrees of truth, you don’t have a 360-degree strategy.
The fatal flaw of the National Security Council and of the US foreign policymaking establishment itself is that their members breed a mentality that perceives the opponent as a token on a game board and that perceives security in terms of superiority of all forms of power, especially military power. Even worse, they breed a mentality with a tremendous oversensitivity to its own fears and a shameful obtuseness to the so-called “adversary’s” fears—and they consider this being tough and sensible.
Consequently, they’re so determined to protect their “interests” that they’re blind to their own aggression as well as blind to the fact that these “interests” only represent their own shallow goals, not the goals of the American people. They can’t feel security, emotional security, unless they’re in complete control over the other and they can’t feel their worth unless they’re on top—a position that actually diminishes their worth.
Other methods are at least as important as weapons if not more important in the creation of security. Impartial justice and fairness without double standards help to create security. Friendships, positive cooperative activities, cooperative recreation, international programs of music and science—these all help to create emotional security and thus physical security.
Consider the dynamics of the foreign exchange groups between Soviets and Americans described by Margaret Hyde in her book, Peace and Friendship. One exchange program in Brattleboro, Vermont, took place in the early 1990s. “After the first few days, the barriers between Americans and Soviets dissolved and firm friendships were made.” “Both Americans and Soviets were surprised to find how much they were alike. . . . There was a feeling that they could never be enemies after their weeks together.”
That’s it! That’s the feeling we want! Not superiority. Not hatred. Not fear. That feeling “that they could never be enemies again” is the mentality we need to re-create that will fuel efforts to overcome obstacles to peace and friendship. That feeling is more powerful than an arsenal. Why foster and harness hatred to corrupt humans and transform them into killing machines when we could instead nurture understanding to bring out the best in humans and help them become caring friends? As far as promoting the mission of creating peace based upon caring, understanding, truth, and justice, weapons only shoot blanks.
The Achilles Heel of US foreign policy is the lack of a national agency with this mission or anything even close to it. We don’t have a US Department of Peace that could have such a mission. Instead, we’ve got the Department of Defense, the CIA, and the National Security Administration all thinking with the tunnel vision that their agencies’ missions perpetuate. Even the Department of State is like a non-weaponized form of the Department of Defense—it’s all about pushing and promoting US interests abroad.
We’ve got the US foreign policy mission captured by the missions of agencies with threat-oriented world views and captured by the missions of the weapon, nuclear, and fossil fuel industries. There’s no National Non-Violent Conflict Resolution Strategy or National Peace Strategy. There’s only a National Security Strategy that promises to deliver anything but security.
Kristin Christman has been independently researching US foreign policy and peace since 9/11. Her channel focuses on US-Russian relations at https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCuNEw9-10lk-CwU-5vAElcg. Kristin graduated summa cum laude from Dartmouth College with a BA in Russian, and she holds Master’s degrees in Slavic languages from Brown University and public administration from SUNY Albany. She has been a guest with former UNSCOM weapons inspector Scott Ritter and UNAC coordinator Joe Lombardo on Cynthia Pooler’s program, Issues that Matter, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDlaLNJih7U. Peace Review: A Journal of Social Justice recently published her article on suicide, culture, and peace in their special edition on suicide, Vol. 33 No. 4. email@example.com
 NSS 2022, 38.
 NSS 2022, 9.
 NSS 2022, 20.
 NSS 2022, 20.
 NSS 2022, 20.
 NSS 2022, 21.
 NSS 2022, 2.
 NSS 2022, 21.
 NSS 2022, 21.
 NSS 2022, 21.
 Project for the New American Century (PNAC), “Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century,” Donald Kagan and Gary Schmitt, Project Co-Chairmen; Thomas Donnelly, Principal Author, (Washington, DC, 2000), 60, 62.
 NSS 2022, 18.
 NSS 2022, 3.
 NSS 2022, 22.
 NSS 2022, 23.
 Margaret O. Hyde, Peace and Friendship. Mir i druzhba. Russian and American Teens Meet (New York: Cobblehill Books, 1992), 17-18.