Nuclear Force "Recapitalization"
An Abomination of the English Language
Just when you thought the assault on the English language couldn’t be more severe, I came across a new abomination in a recent memo (11/3/25) signed by the Chief of Staff of the Air Force (CSAF).
The CSAF expressed his commitment to nuclear force “recapitalization,” meaning that he fully supports the B-21 Raider and the Sentinel ICBM, which will cost more than $500 billion over the next two decades. He vowed he’d “relentlessly advocate” for them.
“Recapitalization”: What a word to describe more genocidal nuclear weapons!
Typically, the Air Force refers to “modernization” or “investment” when it comes to new nukes. This latest euphemism is an even more extreme example of bureaucratese and business-speak.
We’re just “recapitalizing” our nuclear forces, folks. Nothing to see here, move along.
One thing is certain. The new CSAF, with his talk of “recapitalization,” will make the smoothest of transitions to industry once he retires from the military.
Above is an idealized illustration of a Sentinel ICBM soon after launch. Don’t think about the aftermath of thermonuclear war. As NBC Pitchman Brian Williams once said, it’s important to be guided by the beauty of our weapons.
As Carlin noted, language always gives it away.
The increasing use of capitalism's terms, (e.g., 'recapitalization'; 'war fighter' for associate/employee/worker; baseline assessment); and corporate processes - use of contracted staff (i.e., mercenaries), all reflect the increasingly corporate orientation of the military.
What else are flag officers now but executives of the military looking for their next promotion into a corporate board sinecure, and willing to use their 'employees' to serve the corporate agenda (e.g., bombing fishing boats)
At some point you will get to 'Buck Turgidson' (in Doctor Strangelove) talking about 'getting your hair mussed' in a nuclear exchange and calling it 'acceptable'.
Usually when a company recapitalizes it adjusts its ratio of stock to debt. It's not obvious how that applies to missiles other than the fact that now when we spend additional money it's all pretty much added to the public debt ($38 trillion or so) since we are greatly outspending our tax revenue.