►
From YouTube: Skywatch: Prophets of War
Description
From Skywatch:
Skywatch hosts Jimmy Leas and Danaka Katovich interview guest William Hartung, a senior research fellow at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft and the author of the book Prophets of War, which is about Lockheed Martin, the F-35, and the deeply corrupt system of weapons acquisition in the US. The book describes Lockheed's lobbying, bribery, cost overruns, subsidies, lax oversight, flawed products, rigged tests, lies, self-dealing, revolving door, law-breaking, and endless pressure for endless war. The book also tells the story of remarkable "closet patriots"-- insiders who blew the whistle.
8/17/2023
https://linktr.ee/townmeetingtv
Town Meeting TV is a free speech forum and the ideas expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of the Town Meeting TV trustees and staff. If you have a different perspective to share, we invite you to join the conversation! Create your own program or cover a community meeting or event. Contact maketv@cctv.org or call 862-3966.
Thank you for tuning into Town Meeting TV! Please subscribe to our YouTube channel and visit our website for more videos and information about how we open the doors to local government using community media. www.Ch17.TV
This video belongs to http://www.cctv.org and published with permission under Creative Commons License CCTV Center for Media & Democracy Programming is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
A
Hello
I'm
Jimmy
lease
and
welcome
to
Skywatch
a
new
TV
program
about
grounding
the
F35
here
in
Burlington
Vermont
and
grounding
the
F35
everywhere,
I'm
co-hosting
Skywatch,
with
danak
katavich
who's
based
in
Chicago.
The
first
of
20
F35
Jets
arrived
here
in
one
of
Vermont's,
most
densely
populated
cities
four
years
ago,
but
I've
been
working
to
stop
the
F-35
since
2010,
when
the
possibility
of
basing
them
here
was
first
announced.
Skywatch
calls
for
grounding
the
F-35
because
of
its
115
dbel
noise.
It's
climate,
killing
greenhouse
gas
emissions
and
its
sole
purpose.
A
War
One,
,300,
Vermont
children
live
near
the
runway
or
in
the
flight
path
and
are
repeatedly
exposed
to
the
extreme
F35
noise
that
damages
hearing
and
impairs
their
cognitive
development.
F35
training
in
a
city
is
government
sponsored
child
abuse.
What's
more,
the
airport
purchased
and
demolished
200
homes
because
of
the
extreme
military
jet
noise.
The
44
Acres,
on
which
those
homes
stood
can
only
be
restored
to
desperately
needed
housing
once
the
F35
is
grounded.
A
The
F35
is
a
climate
killer,
each
F35,
Burns,
22
gallons
of
jet
fuel
every
minute,
and
they
fly
for
hundreds
of
hours
each
month
to
save
the
planet.
The
F35
must
be
grounded.
Now.
The
purpose
of
the
F35
is
war
like
the
Iraq
War,
the
war
in
Afghanistan
and
the
Vietnam
Vietnam
War.
All
of
them
based
on
lies.
There
is
no
just
War,
but
there
is
a
lot
more
to
learn
about
the
F35
and
the
military
industrial
complex
from
our
distinguished
guest
today
and
Skywatch
co-host
donica
katavich
will
introduce
him
now.
B
Hi
everyone
and
thanks
Jimmy
I,
am
the
national
co-director
at
code,
pink,
who
convenes
the
international
ground,
the
F-35
Coalition
F35
jets
are
one
of
the
many
weapons
produced
by
loed,
Martin
Corporation
and
today
we'll
talk
with
Bill
Harang.
A
senior
research
fellow
at
the
Quincy
Institute
for
responsible
statecraft
bill
is
the
author
of
the
book
profits
of
War,
which
is
about
loie
Martin
and
the
military-industrial
complex
bill.
B
You
say
in
your
book
prophets
of
four
that
the
F35
was
supposed
to
be
a
Chevrolet,
not
a
Porsche
I
think
that
was
actually
the
pentagon's
like
terminology
they
use
for
it,
meaning
that
the
F35
was
supposed
to
be
cheaper
than
its
predecessor,
the
F22.
Can
you
tell
us
how
that's
been
going
for
the
folks
over
at
the
Pentagon
and
locky
Martin.
C
Sure,
well
not
well,
you
know
the
program
as
a
whole
is
going
to
cost
$1.7
trillion,
which
is
the
most
expensive
weapons
program
in
the
history
of
the
Pentagon
and
400
billion
of
that
is
just
to
buy
them.
The
rest
is
to
operate
them
and
it's
had
severe
cost
overruns
scheduled
delays.
It
was
actually
first
put
forward
as
an
idea
in
the
199
90s
called
The
Joint
Strike
Fighter,
so
it's
also
got
at
least
800
unresolve
defects
according
to
the
Pentagon
Inspector
General.
C
It
spends
most
of
its
time
in
the
hanger
it's
too
complex
to
maintain
it's
not
good
at
any
of
the
things
it's
supposed
to
do.
Support
troops
on
the
ground
via
fighter
plane,
drop
bombs.
Now
you
know,
given
that
we
may
not
want
these
things
to
be
happening.
Perhaps
that's
not
a
you
know
the
decisive
question
on
the
table,
but
the
project
in
go
overset
has
made
it
clear.
It
may
never
be
ready
for
combat
and
it
was
supposed
to
be
cheaper
because
it
was
going
to
do
many
things
at
once.
C
It
was
going
to
be
a
fighter
for
the
Air
Force.
It
was
going
to
work
off
aircraft
carriers
for
the
Navy.
It
was
going
to
be
a
vertical
takeoff
and
Landing
aircraft
for
the
Marines,
and
so
that's
part
of
the
problem.
That's
veloped
is
there's
these
diverse
things
it's
supposed
to
do
and
it
does
none
of
them
well.
So
this
idea
of
the
Chevrolet
was
it
was
going
to
be
simple.
It
was
going
to
be
sort
of
easy
to
build
parts
for
the
different
Services,
therefore
making
it
cheaper
and
so
forth.
C
But
more
recently
the
chief
of
staff
of
the
Air
Force
say:
well,
really
it's
more
like
a
Ferrari
I
mean
you
know,
you
take
it
out
on
Sundays,
but
you
don't
use
it
during
the
week,
so
it
was
supposed
to
be
kind
of
the
backbone
of
the
US
Air
Force.
Now
it's
almost
like
a
luxury
good
and
it
doesn't
even
perform.
You
know
as
as
advertised.
B
Thank
you
and
in
your
book,
profits
of
War,
you
I,
think
start
the
book
out
talking
about
the
F-22
sort
of
in
relation
to
the
F35
fighter
jet
program.
I
know
they
were.
You
know
intended
for
mostly
different
things,
but
both
fighter
jets
made
by
locky
Martin.
Can
you
tell
us
a
little
bit
about
how
the
F-22
program
came
to
an
end?
What
were
the
issues
with
it.
C
Yeah,
it
was
an
interesting
fight,
the
Air
Force
and
the
Pentagon
actually
wanted
to
get
rid
of
it.
It
was
too
expensive.
They
wanted
to
move
on
to
the
next
Generation,
which
was
the
F35.
They
were
going
to
build
750
of
them.
They
built
189
for
about
the
same
cost
that
they
said
they
could
get
750
for
so
there
was
huge
cost
over
runs
and
but
locked
Martin
and
the
members
with
pieces
of
the
plane
in
their
districts
fought
back.
C
So
200
members
of
the
House
of
Representatives
wrote
a
letter
to
the
president,
saying
you
can't
stop
this
program.
12
Governors
they
claimed
there
were.
You
know,
hundreds
of
thousands
of
jobs
at
stake.
They
took
ads
out
in
papers
around
the
country
showing
workers
building
different
parts
of
the
plane,
so
they
put
on
a
big
push,
but
there
was
a
bipartisan
push
back,
not
just
from
the
administration
but
from
Senator
McCain.
Who
said
this
was
the
military
industrial
complex
at
work,
so
they
managed
to
stop
it.
C
But
the
clinching
argument
by
then
secretary
defense,
Robert
Gates,
was
well.
We
got
the
F35
that'll,
give
money
to
the
industry,
that'll
give
jobs
to
people,
it's
it's
a
substitute.
It's
it's
not
the
end
of
building,
combat
aircraft
or
spending
money
in
this
area.
It's
just
a
ship
in
what
kind
of
plane
we
purchased.
So
in
essence,
on
the
one
level
it
was
like
a,
it
was
a
victory
for
those
who
were
trying
to
stop
the
building
of
an
unnecessary
weapon
and
overcome
the
lobbying
of
ly
Martin.
C
C
B
C
Well,
I
mean
the
cost
overruns
are
in
common.
The
notion
that
you
know
high-tech
weapons
are
going
to
solve
complicated
problems
that
shouldn't
probably
be
dealt
with
by
military
force
at
all.
In
terms
of
the
more
technical
aspects,
the
F22
is
supposed
to
be
a
what
they
call
an
air
superiority
fighter
that
could
overcome
other
aircraft.
The
F35
was
supposed
to
do
multiple
things
you
know,
fly
off,
carriers
do
vertical
takeoff
and
Landing
from
the
Marines,
be
a
fighter.
C
Give
close
air
support
to
troops,
be
a
bomber,
so
they
had
slightly
different
missions,
but
I
think
this.
This
faith
in
high
tech.
This
notion
that
we
have
to
have
a
large
air
force
that
can
bomb
countries
anywhere
in
the
world.
You
know
the
missions
were
similar
and
and
things
that
we
need
to
push
back
against.
B
It
seems
like
a
theme
with
the
I
guess:
locked
Martin
product,
specifically
throughout
your
book
you,
you
know,
you
discuss
a
number
of
weapons
that
they
were
trying
to
create.
Sometimes
they,
you
know
only
got
a
prototype
out
or
they
never
even
got
a
prototype
out
a
helicopter
that
could
fly
like
a
small
plane
or
you
know
the
bigger
bigger
cargo
planes
for
the
Vietnam
War,
just
really
high
aspirations
with
sort
of
no
plan
on
getting
there
so
I
I
bet
Jimmy
has
some
questions
about
that.
B
So
I'll
leave
that
to
him.
But
do
you
see
the
F35
program
coming
to
an
end
under
similar
circumstances
to
the
F-22?
At
any
point,
I
know:
code
pink
has
been
in
conversation
with
members
of
Congress
who,
even
though
they
might
not
be
a
fan
of
the
plane,
can't
really
see
funding
for
it
coming
to
it
end.
At
any
point,.
C
Yeah
well
part
of
the
problem
with
Congress
is
the
you
know
the
alleged
economic
benefits
and
they
overstate
those
you
know,
I
looked
at
their
estimates
of
how
many
jobs
were
created.
It
was
about
half
what
they
claim
and
they
claimed
it's
in
46
States,
but
the
bulk
of
the
work
is
done
in
Georgia,
Texas
and
California.
Most
other
states
could
very
little
but
Congress
sort
of
bought
that
argument
that
it's
a
job
Creator
and
many
years
they
actually
add
f35s
to
the
budget.
B
C
I
think
there's
equal
blame
I
mean
locky
Martin,
and
all
these
companies
always
prom
the
sky.
You
know
it's
going
to
be
cheaper,
it's
going
to
be
more
effective,
it's
going
to
be
easier
to
maintain
and
they
they
never
deliver,
but
they
understand
that
they
don't
really
need
to,
because
there's
only
five
big
contractors
left
after
the
merger
boom
of
the
1990s.
So
often
the
Pentagon
has
nowhere
to
turn.
You
know
if
Lo
Martin
is
messing
up
the
program.
They
can't
just
shift
to
another
contractor.
C
So
in
that
sense,
locky
Martin
Bears
a
lot
of
responsibility,
but
then
Congress,
which
in
theory
is
supposed
to
do.
Oversight
of
this
stuff
has
been
asleep
at
the
wheel.
There's
members
like
Adam
Smith,
who
ran
the
armed
services
committee
when
the
Democrats
controlled
the
house,
who
said
he's
tired
of
throwing
money
down
the
F-35,
Rat
Hole
but
kind
of
said
you
know
we're
stuck
with
this
thing.
You
know
it's
too
late
to
replace
it.
C
We're
just
going
to
have
to
live
with
it,
so
I
would
put
kind
of
equal
blame
and,
of
course,
there's
collaboration,
because
the
company
gives
large
amounts
of
campaign
cash
to
these
members
of
Congress
and
also
they
hire
people
from
the
Pentagon
as
lobbyists
as
board
members
to
help
them
fend
off
any
possible
government
efforts
to
reduce
spending
on
the
plane.
So
it's
you
know,
there's
this
kind
of
collaboration
that
people
call
the
military-industrial
Congressional
complex
or
the
Iron
Triangle,
and
so
it's
kind
of
a
joint
responsibility.
B
Thank
you,
I
I'm
gonna
pass
it
over
to
my
host
for
for
his
questions.
If
any
came
up
for
Jimmy,
but
I
do
really
recommend
everyone
read
profits
of
War.
It
took
me
a
while
to
get
through
it's
very
annotated,
but
I
did
learn
so
much
about
it
and
if
you're
a
listener
and
not
a
read
per
se,
the
busted
Business
Bureau
podcast
did
an
episode
on
locked
Martin
that
uses
this
book
as
like
a
primary
source
for
everything
that
they
talk
about
on
the
podcast.
B
A
Okay,
I
love
the
book
too
I'
I've
been
reading,
it
and
I've
actually
I
finished
reading
and
I
really
admire
this
book.
This
is
a
really
great
handbook
on
how
bad
the
military
industrial
complex
is
in
this
country
and
I
just
like
to
get
your
view
on
why
that
is
they've
had
practice
building
aircraft
since
1905,
when
the
two
men,
the
Wright
brothers,
put
together
the
first
aircraft,
why
aren't
they
getting
cheaper
every
generation?
A
C
Right
well,
I
think
part
of
it
is
there's
no
Financial
incentive.
You
know
whether
they
get
it
right
or
not.
They
get
paid.
Congressmen
still
get
their
campaign
contributions,
they
still
get
to
point
to
jobs
in
their
District.
The
Pentagon
keeps
adding
bells
and
whistles
things
they
would
like
to
have,
many
of
which
are
not
achievable
so
that
adds
costs.
C
You
know,
there's
been
a
few
planes
that
have
worked
better
like
the
A10,
the
F-16,
where
people
in
the
Pentagon
pushed
hard
to
not
add
all
these
bells
and
whistles
and
to
hold
the
companies
to
some
standard,
but
more
often
than
not
the
F-35
is,
is
the
kind
of
thing
that
gets
generated
by
this
system.
So
it's
you
know
it's
it's
a
corrupt
system
that
basically
provides
benefits
to
the
contractors
to
the
members
of
Congress
to
the
Pentagon,
whether
or
not
the
planes
work.
C
A
So
there
was
a
an
example
that
the
book
talks
about
of
this
cargo
plane
called
the
c5a
and
it
had
all
kinds
of
problems,
and
it's
just
like
reminiscent
reading
about.
It
was
like
the
F35
itself,
but
one
thing
struck
me
was
that
there
was
a
pentagon
official
named
Ernie
Fitzgerald,
who,
who
really
did
some
remarkable
things?
Can
you
talk
about
what
he
did.
C
Yeah
well,
Fitzgerald
was
sort
of
a
cost
estimator
in
the
Air
Force
and
he
got
internal
documents
that
showed
that
it
was
going
to
cost
a
lot
more
than
they
claimed.
You
know
billions
of
dollars
more,
and
he
also
pointed
out
some
of
the
performance
problems
like
wings
that
crack
things
like
that.
It
was
supposed
to
be
this
like
massive
transport
plane
to
do
things
like
get
W
weapons
to
Vietnam
more
quickly,
but
it
it
had
so
many
issues.
C
It
wasn't
really
used
substantially
in
the
war
and
Fitzgerald
had
the
advantage
of
working
with
Senator
William
proxmire
from
Wisconsin,
who
was
kind
of
a
gadfly
who
went
after
the
Pentagon
on
various
issues,
also
passed.
The
foreign
crop
Practices
Act
that
made
it
harder
for
these
companies
to
bribe
overseas
officials
to
sell
their
planes.
So
proxmire
was
on
the
case
and
he
actually
even
hired
Fitzgerald
as
a
consultant
after
he
was
fired
by
the
Pentagon
for
raising
these
issues.
But
you
know
his
contribution
was
very
valuable
because
he
had
the
goods
on
them.
C
You
know
he
had
the
internal
documents.
He
had
the
analysis.
He
had
somebody
like
prox
Meer
to
give
voice
to
his
criticisms.
It
was
a
time
where
a
senator
could
get
a
lot
more
media
attention.
Media
environment
wasn't
as
crowded.
There
were
things
that
like
televised
hearings,
so
it
was
a
different
moment.
You
know
I
think
now.
C
You've
got
some
members
who
who
go
after
this
kind
of
thing
like
Senator,
Warren
and
others,
but
she
had
a
hearing
on
price
gouging
just
a
little
while
ago,
and
it
didn't
get
the
kind
of
media
attention
it
deserved
by
any
standard.
So
part
of
it
is
just
how
to
penetrate
the
media
and
political
environment
to
get
people
to
know
what's
going
on,
in
which
case
I
think
they
would
push
back,
but
it's
just
lost
in
the.
A
Noise,
one
of
the
things
that
your
book
takes
up
is
the
jobs
issue,
and
that
was
something
we
heard
a
lot
of
before
the
F35
arrived
from
Senator
Ley
and
from
Bernie
Sanders,
who
were
both
supporting
bringing
the
F-35
to
Vermont,
but
the
Air
Force
said
there
would
be
no
more
jobs
in
Vermont
compared
to
what
we
had
before
the
F-35
with
the
F-16.
What's
your
take
on
the
jobs
issue
and
I,
the
book
mentions
this
study
that
was
done
by
the
University
of
Massachusetts.
C
Contracts
yeah
well.
That
study
has
been
updated
by
the
cost
of
War
project
in
brown.
Just
recently
came
out.
They
estimated
spending
on
things
like
infrastructure,
green
energy,
Education,
Health
Care
would
create
anywhere
from
N9
or
10%
more
jobs
to
250%
more
jobs
than
spending
on
the
military,
so
throwing
money
at
the
F-35
actually
cost
jobs
for
the
national
economy.
C
She
found
that
some
companies
actually
we're
making
some
progress
on
moving
away
from
aircraft,
helping
build
energy,
efficient
buses
and
things
like
that,
but
neither
the
companies
nor
the
government
invested
in
that
capability
to
the
degree
that
would
have
helped
shift
the
industry
away
from
so
much
dependence
on
Pentagon
spending,
but
in
general
it's
it's
a
bit
of
a
con
game.
I
mean
locked
Martin
claimed
250,000
jobs
Nationwide
from
the
F35,
but
it
a
lot
of
it
was
by
saying.
C
Well,
you
know
it's
not
just
the
factories,
it's
the
waitress
at
the
borrow
across
the
street
from
the
factory,
it's
the
company
that
makes
this
widget.
That
goes
on
the
control
panel
and
they
exaggerated
the
extent
to
which
that
really
was
true.
So
they
probably
you
know,
doubled
the
number
of
jobs
actually
Associated
and
then
they
they
said.
Oh
every
state
is
benefiting,
but
then
you
looked
at
their
own
figures.
You
know
they
counted.
C
Nebraska
is
one
of
the
states
that
benefited
and
by
their
own
estimate
it
would
create
four
jobs
in
Nebraska,
whereas
the
bulk
of
the
jobs
were
in
a
few
States,
as
I
said,
Texas
Georgia
California,
so
they
they
kind
of
lie
about
the
extent
of
their
impact
Nationwide.
They
oppose
efforts
that
would
make
it
possible
to
invest
in
other
jobs.
So
it's
a
manageable
problem,
but
it's
politics
and
of
course,
in
the
current
Congress,
to
get
to
invest
in
things
like
green
energy
is
very
difficult.
C
Biden
had
a
plan
that
was
scaled
back
dramatically,
but
he
put
in
Investments
of
about
$37
billion
a
year
in
green
energy,
but
that's
you
know
less
than
12th
of
what
we
spent
on
the
Pentagon.
So
it's
still
highly
skewed,
but
there's
a
better
future.
That's
possible
and
Not
only
would
it
be
better
for
the
economy.
It
would
be
better
for
Humanity
because
there
would
be
fewer
Wars
there'd,
be
less
kind
of
capability
to
go
to
war
on
short
notice,
therefore,
making
it.
C
A
A
What's
motivating
our
state
legislature
in
Vermont,
our
governor,
even
our
local
governments,
are
obsequious
supporters
of
the
military
at
a
time
when
it's
destroying
the
climate,
with
this
22
gallons
a
minute
burning
vehicle
hundreds
of
hours
a
month,
we
have
a
climate
crisis.
How
can
you
justify
this?
What
is
what
is
wrong
with
Congress,
that
and
all
of
our
public
officials
and
then
the
wars
themselves
vastly
accelerate
the
amount
of
greenhouse
gases.
C
Emitted
yeah,
a
lot
of
it,
is
a
narrow
Focus
focus
on
the
short-term
economic
impacts
of
these
things.
You'll
even
see
it
in
Congressional
hearings.
You
know
members
will
praise
weapons
built
in
their
state
rather
than
asking
hard
questions
about.
Do
these
things
work?
What's
the
mission
that
they're
supposed
to
carry
out?
Why
do
we
have
a
strategy
that
involves
being
able
to
intervene
militarily
anywhere
in
the
world,
given
the
disastrous
results
in
Iraq
and
Afghanistan?
C
Instead
of
looking
at
what
a
better
future
for
the
country,
me
I
think
that
only
really
can
be
resolved
by
public
pressure
by
people
with
a
broader
Vision
running
for
office
and
that's
happening
in
many
regards,
but
it
just
hasn't
reached
the
Tipping
Point,
where
we
have
majorities
in
Congress
that
are
willing
to
change
course
and
fight
the
entrenched
interests.
They
want
to
keep
things
the
way
they
are.
A
Well,
that
brings
up
something
that
you
talked
about
in
the
book,
which
was
the
nuclear
freeze
movement.
The
F-35
is,
of
course,
a
nuclear
bomb
delivery
vehicle,
but
at
that
time,
in
the
19
early
1980s,
the
issue
was
the
anti
anti-ballistic
missile
and
there
there
was
a
tremendous
campaign
around
the
country,
I
believe
it
started
in
Massachusetts
at
Town
meetings
in
Massachusetts
and
then
moved
to
town
meetings
in
Vermont
a
couple
of
years
later
that
put
a
lot
of
pressure
on
Congress.
Can
you
talk
about
the
nuclear.
C
He
was
doing
a
radio
address
and
he
didn't
realize
the
mic
was
was
on
it
was
you
know,
pre
going
on
the
air
and
he
he
choked
that
the
bombing
started
in
5
minutes.
He
had
an
official
who
told
a
journalist,
I
think
it's
Robert,
sheer
that
was,
it
was
in
a
book
he
did
called
with
enough
shovels.
He
said.
Oh,
we
could
survive
a
nuclear
attack.
C
If
we
had
enough
shovels,
you
know
just
dig
little
holes
to
hide
in
so
that
was
a
huge
impetus
and
then
the
European
nuclear
disarm
movement
was
quite
strong
at
that
point.
So
that
was
a
a
model
and
they
were
concerned
about
the
putting
short
range
missiles,
nuclear
arm
missiles
in
Europe.
That
would
make
the
decision
time
for
the
Soviet
Union,
whether
to
retaliate
at
about
five
minutes.
C
So
the
trigger
on
nuclear
confrontation
would
be
quite
fast
and
it',
be
quite
dangerous
situation
and
then
I
think
because
they
built
locally
to
nationally.
They
managed
to
get
quite
a
big
following
and
they
they
had
things.
You
could
decide
on
resolutions
to
town
meetings,
a
resolution
of
Congress
that
Senator
Ed
Mary.
You
know
spearheaded
and
I
think
it.
It
made
sense
to
people
it
was
freeze
and
reduce.
Let's
stop
the
buildup
of
the
new
generation
of
nuclear
weapons
and
let
that's
work
to
getting
rid
of
them
it.
C
It
was
sort
of
a
a
bumper
sticker
that
people
could
understand.
You
know
they
weren't
talking
about
you
know
technical
issues
like
the
circular
error,
probable
of
accuracy
of
a
missile
or
something
so
I
think
that
helped
it
and
then
you
know
it
built
to
the
point
where
you
had
a
million
people
in
Central,
Park
Marching
for
disarmament.
Reagan
himself
went
from
you
know,
talking
about
the
evil
empire
to
saying
nuclear
war
can
never
be
won
and
should
never
be
fought.
C
He
negotiated
with
gorbach
off
about
even
the
possibility
of
getting
rid
of
nuclear
weapons,
so
he
you
know
that
whole
movement
turned
Reagan
around
from
where
he
started,
and
you
know,
nuclear
weapons
are
many
fewer
globally
than
they
were
in
the
in
the
60s.
You
know
it
was
70,000
now,
there's
13,000.
The
problem
is
even
one
is
one
too
many,
but
there's
Global
movements
like
U
internation
campaign
to
abolish
nuclear
weapons,
there's
a
nuclear
weapons,
Ban
Treaty
passed
by
the
UN.
C
So
on
a
global
level,
there
there's
a
lot
of
changed
opinion.
You
know
a
lot
of
the
countries
us
points
to
oh
we're,
we're
doing
this
to
defend
them
are
saying:
no,
you
know,
we
don't
want
these
things,
so
I
I,
think
there's
movement
and
I
think
the
problem
now
is
just
this
rightward
turn
in
our
national
politics
that
has
to
be
overcome
to
you
know,
make
progress
on
things
like
alternative
economic
strategies
that
so
we
don't
need
these
weap
weapons
and
reducing
the
nuclear
Arsenal.
C
A
C
And
often
changes
like
this
start
with
a
lot
of
organizing,
that's,
not
recognized
it's
kind
of
ignored
by
the
mainstream,
and
then
it
reaches
critical
mass
and
actually
starts
changing
our
policies
and
our
national
dialogue.
So
I
think
we
we'll
get
to
that
point,
but
people
need
to
keep
keep
after
it.
A
I
think
we're
running
out
of
time,
but
I
just
wanted
to
end
on
on
this
note
about
the
nuclear
freeze
and
you
really
hit
upon
it
that
it
became
a
it
started
locally.
It
built
into
a
national
movement
and
it
had
tremendous
tremendous
effect
it.
As
you
said,
it
turned
Reagan
himself
around
and
led
to
a
a
disarm,
a
an
a
treaty
to
eliminate
a
class
of
nuclear
weapons
and
reduced
the
nuclear
stockpile.
This
is
what
Skywatch
is
about
we're
going
to
continue
to
work
on
that
kind
of
campaigning.