Biden administration approves controversial weapons for Ukraine, unemployment falls to 3.6%: 5 Things podcast

On today's episode of the 5 Things podcast: USA TODAY Pentagon Correspondent Tom Vanden Brook explains why cluster munitions are controversial, as the U.S. sends an order to Ukraine. And June saw the smallest hiring gain since December 2020, but jobs numbers stayed steady overall. Then Weather records are falling around the globe and USA TODAY and Star News Climate Change Reporter Gareth McGrath talks about a potential solution to severe erosion on the Outer Banks. Finally, the Homeless World Cup kicks off.

Podcasts:True crime, in-depth interviews and more USA TODAY podcasts right here

Hit play on the player above to hear the podcast and follow along with the transcript below. This transcript was automatically generated, and then edited for clarity in its current form. There may be some differences between the audio and the text.

Taylor Wilson:

Good morning, I'm Taylor Wilson, and this is 5 Things you need to know, Saturday the 8th of July 2023.

Today, a closer look at the cluster munitions the US is sending Ukraine, plus hiring remains steady, and the Homeless World Cup kicks off.

The Pentagon announced yesterday that it was supplying Ukraine with so-called cluster munitions. I spoke with USA Today Pentagon correspondent, Tom Vanden Brook, about the controversial weapons, and about who is expected to pay for European defense going forward. Welcome back to the show, Tom

Tom Vanden Brook:

Taylor, good to be here.

Taylor Wilson:

So it's been a busy week for news from the war in Ukraine. One of the big developments for the US is that the Biden Administration plans to send these so-called cluster munitions to Ukrainian troops. Tom, what are these and why are they controversial?

Tom Vanden Brook:

Taylor, they are artillery shells that we're sending to Ukraine that contain numerous bomblets inside of them, so that when the shell explodes they send a number of small bombs, either down on armored vehicles, they're designed to penetrate those, or into troop concentrations where there're fragments that maim or kill them. They're controversial because there's what they call a dud rate, not all of them go off. Some of these get caught in trees, and vegetation, and soft ground, and they act as essentially landmines, and they can remain lethal for decades. And they have in the past, these are old weapons, dating to World War II, or at least the technology is. It's improved obviously since then, but these weapons have killed and maimed civilians by the hundreds and thousands.

Taylor Wilson:

And why does Ukraine need these types of weapons at this stage of the war?

Tom Vanden Brook:

Well, very frankly, President Biden said they're running out of ammunition. They've been expending this tremendous amount of artillery shells in this fight with Russia. We simply can't keep up the production to supply them, and we do have a massive stockpile of these cluster munition shells, hundreds of thousands according to Pentagon, that can help bridge a gap between their need right now and industry picking up the slack and producing more conventional artillery shelves.

Taylor Wilson:

And the US continues to send military aid to Ukraine in this conflict. Lawmakers this week are pushing President Joe Biden to pressure NATO countries to increase their military spending. What's the latest on this Tom?

Tom Vanden Brook:

Well, this is a bit of an old story with a new twist on it, Taylor. So for the better part of 20 years, the United States Congress, Defense Department, the White House, Administrations, Republican and Democrat have been pushing NATO members to meet a 2% GDP threshold for defense spending. That doesn't mean it all goes to NATO, but just that much of their defense spending. US is over 3%, and the thought is that if these countries spend more on defense, in Europe particularly, that will ease some of the burden on the United States, and particularly given the fact that we are spending tens of billions of dollars to support the Ukrainians, far more than any other country, that they would help pick up some of that slack as well.

Taylor Wilson:

Tom Vanden Brook covers the Pentagon for USA today. Thanks, Tom.

Tom Vanden Brook:

You bet, Taylor

Taylor Wilson:

Hiring slowed but remains steady last month as US employers added 209,000 jobs, that's despite inflation, high interest rates and ongoing recession fears, but it's the smallest gain since December of 2020. Retail and transportation lost jobs, while leisure and hospitality made relatively modest advances for the third straight month, and all private sector growth slowed substantially with 149,000 gains after 259,000 in May. The unemployment rate fell slightly from May to June, but has stayed mostly steady around 3.6% since last spring.

Weather records of all kind are falling around the world this summer. The Earth's unofficial average temperature broke records last week, and stateside daily high temperatures were set in South Florida and Arizona. Scientists also expect more records to be broken this summer. That's due to a number of factors, including massive marine heat waves that are expected to reach 50% of the world's oceans and seas later this summer, an El Nino system is currently warming the Eastern Pacific, and is forecast to intensify and linger through the end of the year, and then of course there's the overall steady influence of global warming. Scientists believe this will likely be the warmest year in the planet's recorded history, that was previously set in 2016. Stateside the country's been warm, but not scorching in most regions over the past week. Around a dozen states even had areas of below average temperatures. But the Southwest is expected to feel severe heat danger next week, including temperatures near 120 in Phoenix, approaching the all-time high there of 122.

The North Carolina Outer Banks have some of the worst and most constant erosion in the country, and it's become a costly headache to deal with. I spoke with USA Today and StarNews climate change reporter, Gareth McGrath, about one potential solution, buying out and moving the most threatened properties. Thanks for hopping on the podcast, Gareth.

Gareth McGrath:

Pleasure to be here.

Taylor Wilson:

So let's start here for folks who maybe don't know, how serious is the erosion on the Outer Banks?

Gareth McGrath:

It's quite bad. The Outer Banks basically are series of very thin barrier islands off the mainland of North Carolina, and at the widest point, the islands are probably half a mile wide, three quarters a mile wide, and about 60 miles long. And basically the purpose of these barrier islands is to act as speed bumps, if you will, for approaching storms. So they're there to absorb the energy, the wave energy, the wind energy, before tropical storms, hurricanes, nor'easters, hit the mainland. And so what happens in a perfect world, without any man-made structures, is the islands literally roll over themselves. So the sand from the front of the islands on the ocean side, rolls over onto the backside, the sound side, of the islands. So they literally are moving slowly, maybe a few feet a year, toward the mainland.

Taylor Wilson:

So you write that one solution here might be buying out and moving the most threatened properties. What can you tell us about that and the community there of Rodanthe?

Gareth McGrath:

Rodanthe isn't a super wealthy beach community. The other thing that's unique about Rodanthe is it has some of the highest erosion rates on the US East Coast. Most places see about two to three feet of erosion every year. Parts of Rodanthe are seeing up to 20 feet of erosion every year. And so even if, let's say, you build your beach house 200 feet back from the waves, within five years you might have lost half your beachfront. The ocean keeps coming because of climate change, sea level rise, nor'easters, hurricanes, et cetera. And so what's happened in Rodanthe is that the beach has literally washed away, and now the waves are lapping underneath. Some of these homes used to have huge areas of sand and beach in front of them. And so the question becomes, do you renourish the beach or do you move the homes?

Moving structures is often seen as a mark of surrender, that you're giving in. Not only are you giving into Mother Nature, but you're also surrendering some of the most valuable property in some of these coastal towns. So there's also the issue of lost tax value, lost tax base, things like that. And of course, towns don't want to get a reputation of being seen as moving structures away from the ocean, because that then can impact the number of visitors and tourists visiting these towns. Dare County, which is the county that covers the Outer Banks, is seeing erosion up and down its coast, and it has a number of beach nourishment projects underway. A beach nourishment project could cost up to $40 million for let's say three or four miles of beach to be renourished. The county doesn't have that money, and so they're hoping Washington, or Raleigh, where our state leaders are here in North Carolina will step up and help out. That's not going to happen.

And so some of the scientists at Western Carolina University decided to look at what about if we relocated some of the most threatened structures in Rodanthe? And what they came up with was that removing, I think it's 80 or so, of the most threatened structures, would cost about $43 million, based upon their 2021 tax value, the last time there was a assessment done in Dare County. Basically what the study was saying is if you remove the most threatened structures, you will get at least 15 to 20 years of relative safety for the beach in Rodanthe and for no more threatened structures, versus spending the same amount of money for a beach nourishment project that maybe will give you four or five years of relief, but then will have to be repeated again with another, we'll say, 55, $60 million, because of inflation, to rebuild the beach.

Taylor Wilson:

Gareth McGrath, thanks for your insight here. Really appreciate it.

Gareth McGrath:

Thank you.

Taylor Wilson:

The US will host the men's FIFA World Cup in 2026 and the Women's World Cup is set for later this summer in Australia and New Zealand. But this weekend it's time for another soccer tournament, the Homeless World Cup. In 2003, Mel Young, an entrepreneur from Scotland, launched the tournament, allowing homeless individuals from around the world a chance to represent their country in street soccer, all while learning how to move forward in life. The event was held annually until the pandemic forced a three-year pause, and for the first time it's being held in the US, with games set to begin today in Sacramento and running all week. There are men's and women's tournaments and participants must meet at least one criteria from a list that includes being homeless at some point in the last year, or being a current asylum seeker among other options. The US women will begin their tournament this morning against Finland and the men will play Indonesia. You can read more at homelessworldcup.org.

And before we go, did you know that 5 Things is now on YouTube? A limited number of our specials and Sunday episodes will now be available as vodcasts. We have a link in today's show notes. And thanks for listening to 5 Things. Dana Taylor is in tomorrow for the Sunday edition, and I'll see you Monday with more of 5 Things from USA Today.

This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Biden administration approves controversial weapons for Ukraine: 5 Things podcast