these societies have been able to invest in productive research and development—focusing on the immediate economic-technological needs of the world market and their societies. By contrast it’s been estimated that 80% of our research and development money since WWII has been spent for defense, space and nuclear energy. Because much of our best scientific and engineering talent is attracted to the obvious allure of high technology defense work, we may be forced further out of competition with other countries in terms of civilian production and sales. On top of this, many US multinationals have taken production abroad where labor costs are cheap, adding further to the internal erosion of the American economy. “Buy American” already has a rather hollow ring to it. As any economist knows, defense spending is the single most inflationary kind of expenditure. Although a certain number of jobs are created in selected areas, no goods are put in circulation that can absorb the additional money afloat. In the language of economics, too many dollars are chasing too few goods. Prices rise accordingly, as the corporate monopoly sector adjusts them ever upward. Not many of us would want to buy a multi-million dollar tank, no matter how paranoid we may occasionally feel. So the weapons are built (with costly delays), stockpiled and soon rendered obsolete by a new generation of “updated” versions. And the new versions are always more costly and often less effective than their predecessors. Ask any Vietnam vet about the M-16. Anyone who has followed Pentagon politics knows that it is an endless cyclical process of cultivating fears of “falling behind,” developing new weapon systems and then raising new future specters. Whatever we may think of it, we must recognize that defense spending can have short-term economic benefits. The popular wisdom that WWII rescued the American economy is correct as far as it goes. In the face of a severe 1938 recession, subsequent war production did generate a level of prosperity which carried into the immediate post-war years. But there is a difference between a temporary war economy and a permanent one. There have been some commercial spinoffs from a permanent war economy—namely in computers, semi-conductor technology, commercial aircraft and even solar energy. But the benefits have been exaggerated. Current expenditures aside, we have spent $2,000 billion on defense since 1946! This has not made us more secure, but has strengthened large corporate interests, since the defense industry is highly centralized. This in turn has left large areas of the civilian economy, and our economic infrastructure, weakened through neglect (archaic railroads and trackbeds, antiquated factories, etc.). “A military build-up of the magnitude proposed by President Reagan almost demands that the US insist that its military allies, who are also its economic competitors, engage in a similar military build-up. From the point of view of equity, the American taxpayer cannot be expected to accept a large reduction in his standard of living while taxpayers abroad continue to improve their standards of living. But even more importantly, America cannot afford to destroy the competitive strength of its none-too- strong domestic economy. If the skilled workers and funds that are used for defense here are used for civilian production abroad, it should not come as a great surprise if we are driven out of civilian markets. What will happen to the United States if the industries that manufacture semiconductors, micro-processors, and computers are forced out of business while the nation is busy rearming itself? What good does it do us to dominate the world in missile production if we are at the same time being defeated in toasters? (Lester Thurow, MIT Economist) International Implications: Opposition and Hope AJH uch of the explanation for the ■ w I phenomenal resurgence of military spending lies in the power of entrenched monopolies to work their A large, broadbased anti-nuclear movement has developed in Europe. The goal is to make it a nuclear-free zone. In that way the logic of the Cold War can be questioned and demolished. In Britain the movement has won over much of the Labour Party, and it is also strong in Belgium, The Netherlands, and West Germany. wills, the lure of arm sales, the presumed protection the military supplies to foreign investments and the all too simple but unfortunate fact that defense spending is the one area of domestic investment where the least resistance is to be met. But we must also carefully examine the ideological justifications for these increases. These lie with the everpresent existence of the “Soviet threat” and America’s need to stand firm in its face. People committed to educating others to the dangerous implications of the revived warfare state in America must do so from a position of realism. They must directly confront the reality of Soviet power. In the last decade the Soviet Union has been engaged in a build-up of conventional and nuclear arms. They have reached a position of rough military parity with the United States, although the West maintains a decisive technological advantage. Any observer of the Soviet Union must keep in mind that they lost 20 million people as the result of the German invasion in WWII. The ascendency of their own militarynational security elite and the prolonged tension with the Chinese have abetted their fear of US-Western encirclement. Hence, they insist on being granted a position of military equality which we will eventually have to recognize. How does this relate to the ideological world in which we now live? The vital fact is that American policy-making elites have operated amid great confusion since the mid- 1970s. The depraved US action and defeat in Vietnam, Watergate, and some brief examination of CIA activity precipitated a major crisis of legitimacy. America’s leadership was weakened and her image badly tarnished. Hence the Trilateralist position (spearheaded by Eastern bankers) gained ascendency. The corporate-political interests of the United States, Western Europe and Japan were bonded. The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund were employed to secure control of third world economies. Detente and the SALT process were pursued so long as American hegemony was maintained. Jimmy Carter, a member of the Trilateral Commission, was thrust forward as the symbol of this set of policies. At the same time, the traditional Cold Warrior faction was growing increasingly restive. The bright frontier (and profits) of advanced weapons technology beckoned and they refused to become reconciled to the inevitable reality of recognizing Soviet interests. The Soviet Union remains an unreconstructed authoritarian society, but not necessarily an expansionist one. In a nuclear world, weakening the dominance of regressive Soviet elites can’t come through military means. In 1976, the Committee on the Present Danger was founded. Bipartisan, with strong links to industrialists and militarily dependent trade unions, its members argued that if the United States did not launch a major build-up of its defenses it would soon be impotent in the face of Soviet strength. Through skillful use of the media, the “old verities” gradually assumed center stage. The Russian invasion of Afghanistan and the fall of the shah helped to solidify this position. Carter quickly jumped on the militarist bandwagon, but was soon outflanked by the old-line Cold Warriors. The lack of a visible left in America meant that the debate slid further to the irrational right. The Committee’s success is indicated by the fact that its director, Eugene Rostow, is now chief US arms control negotiator (a little like putting Count Dracula in charge of a blood bank) and a prominent member, Richard Allen, is now national security advisor. In practice, what this all means is that the entire tone of defense debates has changed. Strategic balance theory is being supplanted by what is called counterforce doctrine. The latter involves talk of a first strike capability, the capacity to hit and neutralize enough Soviet missiles and bombers to make a response from them untimely and weak. So public talk of “catching up” and regaining “clear superiority” really masks an even more aggressive stance. Consider the new Trident submarine, probably the most dangerous weapon ever developed. (One of two Trident bases is located directly across the sound from Seattle.) Fourteen have been approved so far (thirty are projected), although as usual the first is behind schedule. Their most advanced missiles (Trident-2) will have a range of 6,000 miles. Each missile carries fourteen independently targeted 150- kiloton warheads. With the new Navstar global positioning satellites in place (the system is due to be completed in a few years) each warhead will have a strike accuracy of 300 feet. This tremendous accuracy makes them ideal for hitting Soviet silos, which contain three-quarters of its strategic nuclear bombs. By comparison, our silos only house one- quarter of our strategic warheads. It is little wonder that the Kremlin perceives this as an offensive technology and will be forced to respond in kind. But we shouldn’t be blinded by these terrors. Nuclear weaponry has supplied a major opening wedge to a dramatic opposition movement in Western Europe. It is the first step toward questioning the new defense rationales. In 1979, NATO foreign ministers agreed to deploy American Pershing II and cruise missiles in Western Europe starting in 1983. The stated reason was to counter a new generation of Soviet SS-20 missiles. The problem is that this isn’t any great Russian policy change since they have always targeted Europe. Only the accuracy of the weapons has improved, as one would expect with the growth of an uncontrolled technology. The Pershings can’t hit the SS-20s (which are deep inside Russia) but from West Germany they can hit Soviet command centers in the Kremlin within five minutes. So another kind of first-strike fear has arisen. Heavy opposition has grown within Chancellor Helmut Schmidt’s Social Democratic Party to the stationing of these new missiles. It is feared that they will act as a lightning rod and draw a Soviet attack. In fact, throughout Europe fears have arisen that, at least in terms of doctrine, a limited nuclear war is a greater possibility for the continent. A large, broad-based anti-nuclear movement has developed in Europe. The goal is to make it a nuclear-free zone. In that way the logic of the Cold War can be questioned and demolished. In Britain the movement has won over much of the Labour Party, and it is also strong in Belgium, The Netherlands, and West Germany. France, while not a member of the military wing of NATO, is increasingly opposed to American policy. Both West Germany and Great Britain have made major defense cuts recently. Economically most of the other industrial nations have long recognized the foolishness of large defense expenditures. Opposition has also arisen in Japan to US pressure to raise defense spending there. The most optimistic future scenarios project the increasing isolation of American policy makers. Despite current protestations to the contrary, the old Cold War line-up is dead. Although reactionary elites in both the US and USSR may feed off a militarist, high tension atmosphere, others are turning their backs in disgust. Events in Poland signal a dramatic move toward democratic socialism in Eastern Europe. Soviet power is weak and defensive in the face of such challenges. Unlike the Prague spring of 1968, they face a broad-based movement for fundamental change. Similarly, the US has not received much support for its repressive action in Central America. Both superpowers may be able to work their regressive wills close to home but the bipolar world is shattered. It is up to us to help break the logic of domestic militarism and ask whose interest it serves. We should take inspiration from the popular movements sprouting up all across Europe, to pull down the militarist Goliath before events sweep beyond our control. Earl Klee, who served his time in Washington, D.C., is a political scientist now teaching at San Francisco State. Clinton St. Quarterly 31
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NTc4NTAz