THE DANGERS THAT COULD LIE AHEAD

THE CONSEQUENT RISK TO MANKIND

The worst of all future possibilities that might befall man would be a global war.  At this point in time, too many nations possess nuclear weapons, biological weapons, and chemical weapons.  As a result, warfare has come to represent grave danger to more than military personnel.  Civilian morale, health, and efficiency have come to be subjects of attack by foreign enemies.  And whole societies are, and will continue to be, targeted for annihilation during future conflicts.  It is consequently rather obvious that World War III, when and if it should occur, will likely end in the destruction of the majority, if not all, of the human race.

 We are faced with a steadily increasing risk of such a world catastrophe taking place, on account of the continuing preoccupation on the part of nations with the maintenance of arms and armies for their respective interests, and for defense against one another.  Moreover, we lack an effective world machinery to settle international disputes by peaceful, but enforceable, means.

During the Cold War, the nuclear arms race likely never turned into actual warfare due to a factor termed "mutual assured destruction":  a realization by both sides that their respective arsenals were capable of destroying each other, as well as the rest of the world, several times over.  Future arms races will likely be subject to these considerations as well.  However, they will likely have expanded to comprise additional potential nightmares, including biological and chemical agents, as well as genetics, nanotechnology, robotics, and other such concepts.  The development and stockpiling of such new forms of weaponry would be even more potentially hazardous than the old nuclear arms races, by reason of the fact that a single error or mishap could possibly unleash a destructive force upon the world that might be impossible to reverse or correct.  Thus, the end of the world might truly be upon us in the not too distant future.  Considerations such as these recently prompted a body of American Roman Catholic Bishops to issue a pastoral letter entitled "The Challenge of P:eace...," in which we are warned that ours is "the first generation since Genesis with the power to virtually destroy God's creation."

                                                              * * * * *

It is particularly dismaying to note that the Middle East represents one of the world's most formidable concentrations of weapons, hostility, and violence.  In addition, the Middle East constitutes a region wherein religious fundamentalism has spawned enormous amounts of animosity toward the West in many quarters.  This hatred has given rise to numerous acts of violence, including hijackings, bombings, and other kinds of explosive violence throughout the world; and has culminated, to date, in the September 11, 2001 attacks upon the United States.

Moreover, in 2001, al Qaeda announced they were seeking nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons for the purpose of carrying out further attacks.  Threats have been voiced concerning New York City's bridges and tunnels, as well as the U.N. Building, and the White House.  Additional cause for concern resides in the fact that today's scientific advances have made it possible for a small group--or even a single deranged individual--in possession of the appropriate knowledge and materials, to effectuate widespread devastation.

Chemical weapons are an ideal choice for terrorists, in that they are cheap, their makings are readily accessible, they are easy to transport, and they are easily produced by someone with knowledge of chemistry. 

It seems that the only way to confront the antagonisms that have emanated from this region is to identify and deal with the sources thereof.  A primary source appears to have been the establishment and presence of an Israeli nation in the region, and the resultant conflict with neighboring nations and peoples.  The Palestinians' opposition to the presence of an Israeli nation, as well as their desire for an independent state of their own, was an original epicenter of much of the conflict, until it spread to engulf additional neighboring people and states.  Sympathy for the Palestinian position, as well as resentment toward the apparent favor for Israel on the part of the United States and other Western nations, has motivated a large part, if not originally all, of the hatred that has resulted in, among other things, today's malady that is terrorism.  It is noteworthy to realize that such animosity toward the West in general, and terrorist organizations and attacks in particular, were rare, if at all extant, prior to the establishment of the state of Israel. 
 
It is not my opinion that any particular sovereign state--including Israel and/or Palestine--should or should not, of itself, exist.  Rather, it is my opinion that if no sovereign states existed--that if, instead, everyone simply resided where they wanted, with and among whom they wanted, and away from and avoiding whomsoever they so desired--but governed by a single worldwide authority, whose purpose and functions were solely to promote the safety and welfare of all--many of these grievances would be automatically neutralized, and dissolve away.

I advocate private ownership of real property.  And so, individuals, corporations, and any and all other types of entities would simply buy and sell what they pleased, where they pleased, and when they pleased--subject, of course, to standards of law governing real property, and reasonable government regulations, such as zoning, eminent domain, etc., directed toward the safety and benefit of all people.

Without a state of Israel, there would be no Israeli troops at border check-points--for there would be no national armies and no national borders.  On the other hand, there would be a strong police presence, if and as needed, should neighbors anywhere resort to expressing disapproval, in an unlawful manner, of neighbors living within their neighborhood or in their vicinity.  Moreover, in such a world, Palestinians, Israelis, and everyone else, would be entitled to move and live anywhere.  Perhaps many Palestinians would move to Europe or the Americas.  There too, they would be entitled to reside among their European or American neighbors, without committing or enduring criminal expressions of objection.

The same would apply to any and all places on earth where there is currently agitation and hostility between groups of people living within the same national borders.  To remove the "national sovereignty" element, via the abandonment of all such national state concepts, would  possibly defuse many of these conflicts, and reduce them to the status of neighborhood discord among people of different backgrounds residing in the same or adjacent geographic areas.  And each side would not need bands of militants, or armies, to demonstrate and attempt to promote their respective interests.  On the other hand, unlawful efforts to demonstrate or to attempt to promote group A's dislike for group B, or to illegally snatch a geographic area owned by members of group B, would be considered criminal activity, and dealt with as such by forces of the world governing entity.

                                                            * * * * *



THE OBJECTIVE

The objective, in every instance, is simply to promote an atmosphere of people residing together--but nevertheless where they want, and among whom they want--in peace (or at least without committing or enduring unlawful violence to or from their neighbors).  It becomes reduced to the status of the racial problems that arose in many parts of the United States during the 1960s, as the concept of equal entitlement for all Americans regarding education, employment, and residence changed for the better.  If America's blacks and whites had been two separate national entities, there would have been a black army and a whit army; and possibly a war between black America and white America, during which many innocent blacks and whites would have been killed and injured.  [Admittedly, there was some rioting, and a comparatively small number of casualties; but there certainly could be no comparison to the death and damage that took place during our recent wars.]

This may sound "futuristic," or like pages from a science-fiction novel.  But it is coming.  Little by little, as mankind evolves, sociologically along with our evolution in every other aspect, this will come to pass.  A view of history during the past ten thousand years clearly demonstrates this progression--from separateness toward unity.  But it seems important in this case to "rush" evolution along.  For without conscious and meaningful actions to arrive at a state of societal unity, there is a real danger--in fact a likelihood--that mankind will have obliterated himself as a result of some conflict, or terrorism, or perhaps some accident that takes place while a military or terrorist group seeks to expand or implrove its "stockpile," before it takes place "naturally."

The choice is ours.  Even if readers of this can console themselves with a belief that the likelihood that any of these tragedies actually occuring is slim, Pascal's Prop;osition (that it is wise to take steps to avoid infinitely horrid consequences, even if their likelihood be tiny) would still counsel us to take care to do what we can to avoid them.

In Our Final Hour, Martin Rees submits that the gravity of a threat is its magnitude multiplied by its probability.  I suggest that the gravity of the possibilities set forth above and during the last couple of days are indeed extreme; and that the possibility regarding some of them, on a scale of one to ten, is at least a "five."

Professor Rees's conviction that the odds for human survival to the end of the twenty first century are no better than "fifty-fifty" is unsettling and frightful.  Treaties, agreements, bans, and moratoria mean well--but they are incapable of effective enforcement worldwide for an unlimited amount of time.  Eventually, subsequent events cause treaties to become distasteful, or burdensome, or obsolete; agreements come to stand in the way of newer, more necessary agreements and agendas; while bans and moratoria become passe` and unenforceable.

The only effective way to deal with a truly dangerously threatening situation is to neutralize it--that is, to cause it to no longer exist, or need to exist.  It is my object to implant the concept in a few--or, hopefully, many--that mankind's logical next step, as well as our only hope, lies in abandonment of the present condition of our world, wherein national interests, concerns, and conflicts govern our ominous destiny.

                                                      * * * * *

PLEASE LEAVE A COMMENT--HERE--OR VIA E-MAI, AT oneworld@tampabay.rr.com

THE DANGERS THAT COULD LIE AHEAD

THE THREAT OF BIOLOGICAL WEAPOHNS

Another grave threat to mankind is the possibility of biological attack.  Such a dread assault would entail the release of germs or other biological substances that would infect, sicken, and kill numbers of people.  A suicidal "attacker" could, for example, infect himself with smallpox, or ebola, and move about freely before perishing from it, causing one or more epidemics to break out, and eventually claim millions of lives--especially if it were carried out, or came to spread, over several continents. 

These viruses are relatively easy for one or more persons with some specialized knowledge to obtain or assemble, and put to deadly use.  And there happen to be thousands of people who possess such skills worldwide.  It is very possible--in fact, quite easy--for one or more of these persons, having use of a laboratory, and the requisite zeal and/or monetary inducement to do so, to carry out such a lethal project.

There are, furthermore, possibilities for the production of "engineered viruses," for which there could be no immunity or antidote.  These could cause even greater catastrophic results than the AIDS epidemic is currently producing in Africa.  Such observations become parti8cularly frightening when we realize that our world is becoming ever more interconnected and integrated, as commerce, travel, and personnel relocations increase and spread farther every day.  Moreover, our scientific capabilities are increasing daily as well, making it all the more possible and simple to carry out such dire projects.  A further consideration, particularly from a "terrorist's" point of view, lies in the fact that the present existence of instant worldwide communication would cause worldwide dread and panic upon the successful execution of even a miniscule endeavor of this nature.  An illustration of this is the widespread fear that spread throughout the United States, as well as other parts of the world, upon the death of five persons caused by the mailing of anthrax spores in September, 2001.

Martin Rees, author of Our Final Hour, states that he has recently made a wager of a thousand dollars with a colleague that an instance of "bioterror or bioerror" would cause at least a million deaths by the year 2020.  But even more frightening is his query, contained on an earlier page of his book, that if such causes could take a million lives before 2020, what horror could be in store for our descendants in the yrears or decades that follow that?



CHEMICAL WARFARE

A related form of potential danger to groups of people, and to humanity in general, is the threat of chemical weapons.  Chemical attack entails the release of toxic materials in a solid, liquid, or gaseous form, which can incapacitate, sicken, or kill people, and/or wreak harm upon the environment. 

Historically, the use of toxic materials has been viewed with mixed emotions and a degree of disdain in the West.  As early as the days of Roman conquest, we are told that Germanic tribes resorted to poisoning the wells of their enemies as a means of defense.  During the nineteenth century, when a British chemist named Playfair proposed the use of cyanide in warfare, his idea was criticized as constituting "as bad a mode of warfare as poisoning the wells of the enemy."  Playfair's response consisted of an interesting declaration that "war is destruction, and the more destructive it can be made with the least suffering, the sooner will be ended that barbarous method of protecting national rights."

During modern times, the most commonly employed chemical weapons have been poison gasses.  They are classified and named according to the means by which they befall their victims, or the effect they render upon persons thus exposed to them.  Thus, various gasses have been referred to as "nerve agents," "blood agents," "pulmonary agents," "blister agents," and "incapacitating agents."

Particularly horrible is a substance known as "mustard gas.," which is said to have the ability to penetrate leather and fabric, and to thus inflict painful burns on the skin.  This and other such nightmares are disseminated by means of munitions, such as bombs or projectiles; or via spray tanks, as might be borne by low-flying aircraft.

By the turn of the twentieth century, the use of poison gas had become more or less universally abhorred within the Western nations.  In 1899, the Hague Conference approved a proposal forbidding its use.  Notably, this prohibition was carried almost unanimously--i.e., but for a single vote--cast by the United States!

Chemical warfare arrived at a new and higher plateau during World War I.  At least 85,000 deaths, as well as over a million non-fatal casualties, can be attributed to the use of newly discovered substances, including chlorine and phosgene gas, during these hostilities.

After World War I ended, a number of European powers resumed efforts to establish and retain colonies in various parts of the world.  When native populations objected or rebelled, chemical agents were frequently resorted to as a means of suppressing them.  It appeared that little shame was felt on the part of the imperialists about the employment of such methods.  Consider, for instance, Winston Churchill's remarks uttered in 1920, when, as Britain's Colonial Secretary, he authorized such use upon resistors in Mesopotamia:  "I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas.  I am strongly in favor of using poison gas against uncivilized tribes."

In 1925, sixteen of the world's major powers signed an agreement known as the Geneva Protocol.  By this compact, the signatory nations pledged never again to employ gas as a weapon.  Curiously, the U.S. Senate didn't get around to ratifying it until 1975.  By 2004, a total of 132 countries had signed on.  But, in the interim, the use of gas and other chemical agents continued in many  parts of the world.  For example, in the 1940s, Japan used gas against Chinese troops.  Italy used it against the Ethiopian army.  And Nazi Germany found much use for cyanide as a means of murdering vast numbers of victims in its concentration camps. 

In fact, during these years, Germany may be credited with the development of additional, deadlier, nerve gas agents, including things known as "tabun," "sarin," and "soman."  We are told that the only reason why the Nazis didnt make more widespread use of these new products was their mistaken belief that the Allies had made similar discoveries and would likewise use them in retaliation.

Subsequently, however, it should be noted that tabun was utilized by Iraq during its long war with Iran.  In fact, approximately five percent of all Iranian casualties during this conflict were caused by exposure to this gas.

In 1952, England had developed an awesomely horrible nerve agent known as "VX."  Shortly afterwards, in the fashion of schoolboys, England traded its technology re the production of VX for information that the United States possessed concerning the production of bigger and better thermonuclear weapons.  And, as might be expected, by 1961, the U.S. was itself producing and stockpiling  large quantities of its newly acquired VX waeapon.  Meanwhile, and especially during the Cold War, the United States and Russia continued to expend enormous resources in efforts to develop new and better chemical and biological weapons.  By 1986, President Reagan proposed a plan to the United States' NATO allies which entailed further development and production of such weapons.  This plan was readily accepted by NATO. 

On June 1, 1990, America's President Bush and Russia's Mikhail Gorbachev signed a treaty calling for an end to the production of all chemical weapons, and the destruction of their respective national stockpiles.  But it is noteworthy to observe that after the fall of the Soviet Union, Russian research into even more deadly "binary" chemical weapons (wherein the components are mixed together in the field, just prior to use) continued.

The United Nations has classified chemical weapons as "weapons of mass destruction"; and in 1993 outlawed any and all production and stockpiling thereof.  However, notwithstanding this edict, production and stockpiling continues in various parts of the world--including Albania, India, Iran, North Korea, Russia, Syria, and the United States (and likely, as well, in China, Egypt, Israel, Pakistan, and Vietnam).

                                                        * * * * *



THREATS WROUGHT BY THE COMPUTER AGE

A strange and futuristic, but nevertheless possible, twenty first century scenario has been termed "nanobiotics."  It conjectures the development of computer-like machines having the ability to assemble copies of themselves. 

This procedure could be resorted to in the production of weapons by one side in a war, to be directed against the enemy.  However, when functions that should be reserved for humans are given to a machine, there is the possibility of error or accident--or the process itself taking control and superseding its human creators.  The aforementioned Professor Rees suggests that such a process run amuck could precipitate an infinite production of said machines, and eventual resultant disaster to the entire physical world.

                                                         * * * * *

PLEASE LEAVE A COMMENT--HERE--OR VIA E-MAIL, AT oneworld@tampabay.rr.com.

IF YOU AGREE WITH WHAT THIS SITE HAS TO SAY, PLEASE RECOMMEND THAT ANY AND ALL OF YOUR LIKE-MINDED FRIENDS AND ASSOCIATES LOOK IN.

IF YOU ARE A STUDENT, PLEASE SUGGEST THAT YOUR PROFESSOR AND/OR FELLOW-STUDENTS TUNE IN.

IF YOU ARE A PROFESSOR/TEACHER, PERHAPS YOUR STUDENTS WOULD BE INTERESTED IN, AND BENEFITTED BY, CONSIDERATION OF THE SENSIBLE CONTENT HEREOF.

ANY OF THE ABOVE WOULD BE VERY MUCH APPRECIATED--AND PERHAPS HELP TO MOVE US ALL A LITTLE FURTHER IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.

THANK YOU.






 

THE DANGERS THAT COULD LIE AHEAD

It has been conjectured that the odds stand at no better than fifty-fifty that the human race will survive to the end of the twenty first century.  (Martin Rees, Our Final Hour)  Should the disappearance of humanity occur, it would be particularly shameful if it happened to be attributable to something that would need to be termed "predatory mutual extinction."  Humanity must therefore take preemptive actions now, in order to make sure that the human race does survive into the twenty second century, and beyond.

This horrible--but nonetheless real--possibilitythat our present society is on the verge of self-destruction has prompted James Lovelock, originator of the "Gaia" biosphere, to urge the compilation of a "start-up manual for civilization," which would be a textbook of techniques for the possible few human survivors who might remain after an extinctive evantuality.  It has even been suggested that these threats to survival on earth ought motivate a search for alternative places of habitation beyond our planet.  It has been said that the establishment of self-sustaining communities away from Earth would enable humanity to be (technically) invulnerable to any such disasters that might occur down here.


THE NUCLEAR THREAT

When we speak of man-made perils to the survival of humanity, the first instrumentality that comes to mind today is atomic weaponry.  A nuclear blast produces a powerful explosion, intense light and heat, a pressure wave that kills and destroys, and radiation to land, water, and air, for miles around in all directions.

It is with trepidation that we realize that a nuclear conflict (i.e., a war between two nuclear powers) offers no hope of victory to either side.  This, in fact, has been conjectured to be its ultimate deterrent--politically and militarily--thus far.  Among the dreaded possibilities is the fear that an out and out nuclear exchange between two warring nations might produce what has been termed a "nuclear winter," wherein the sun might be blocked out around the world, producing mass extinction of any and all living things.  Furthermore, should a few humans survive such a calamity, these poor souls would face widespread contamination, radiation sickness, and eventual cancer, in a world thus rendered basically uninhabitable.  Such mass annihilation would, at best, set civilization back many centuries; and possibly constitute the end of earthly human existence altogether.

At this time, it is uncertain exactly how many countries have, or are close to obtaining, nuclear capability.  But as more nations acquire it, the greater the danger to all of us becomes.  A small desperate nation--or more likely, one or more "hot-headed" leaders thereof, who may not possess the sophistiction required for the exercise of self-control in foreign relations--might feel there is little to lose and much to gain in using its newly acquired giant weapon.  This could come to be the cause of such an extreme catastrophe as aforedescribed--and possibly the extinction of the human race.

Even more dangerous--because it is even more likely--is the acquisition by a terrorist individual or group having sufficient knowledge and materials to build a small nuclear device.  It has been estimated, for example, that the setting off of such a nightmare in lower Manhattan during business hours would produce devastation over several square miles, and kill hundreds of thousands of people.

                                                                   * * * * *

The first atomic bomb used in warfare was dropped on Hiroshima in 1945.  It had the explosive power of forty million pounds of TNT.  By the nineteen fifties, hydrogen bombs were being developed having two hundred fifty times that capability--which multiplies out to the destructive power of ten billion pounds of TNT.

The earliest "H bomb," tested by the United States at Eniwetok in 1952, produced a fireball said to be six times hotter than the sun, and caused the mile-long island to become a crater.  Just a few months later, the Soviets exploded a similar device in Siberia.  By 1954, further research and developmebnt on the part of the United States resulted in even more grandiose hydrogen bombs, with ever-greater potential for death and destruction.  That year, a bomb named "Bravo" was tested, which had the explosive power of thirty billion pounds of TNT. 

These goings-on troubled two of the world's most brilliant minds:  Albert Einstein and Bertrand Russell--the former of whom having done some of the very research that resulted in the dawning of our atomic age.  They issued a joint statement in the 1950s that came to be referred to as the "Einstein-Russell Manifesto."  The most disturbing aspect of what they had to say was contained in their personal knowledgeable prophesy, implicit in their remark that "the [experts] who know most are the most gloomy." 

Around the same period, a group of nine leading scientists, including the aforesid Albert Einstein and Bertrand Russell, issued an urgent worldwide call for a total ban of atomic weapons, by reason of the fact that they constitute a genuine threat to man's continued existence.  As if in a response constituting a rejection of this plea, America's Atomic Energy Commission announced, in 1955, that the U.S. had achieved the ability to build hydrogen bombs of virtually limitless size.

As the 1950s wore on, so too did the nuclear race between the United Stastes and Russia.  It was estimated, in 1957, that a nuclear attack upon New York City would cause well over two million deaths.  In the same year, we accidentally dropped a 42,000 pound hydrogen bomb in New Mexico.  A mishap of this nature upon a populated place could have caused many deaths and widespread destruction.

In 1961, the Soviets had set off a giant fifty megaton H-bomb of their own.  This ongoing foolish race created a new frenzy among the citizens of America to build bomb shelters--the efficacy of which were, and continue to be, questionable at best, and more likely completely valueless.

Then, in 1962, a crisis occurred which has been referred to as not only the most dangerous moment of the Cold War, but probably the most perilous moment in human history.  When Russia announced its intention to post missiles in Cuba, and the United States voiced an intention to prevent it at any cost, mankind faced what has been estimated to be a thirty-three to fifty percent chance of witnessing and enduring an atomic war between the world's two super-powers, that might have actually caused the above described extinction of the human race.  Fortunately, America's President Kennedy and Russia's Premier Kruschev seemed to act with appropriate restraint regarding actions that could have led to such a nuclear exchange, and the possiblde end of civilization.

Further appropriate restraint was exhibited by both nations in 1968, when they originated a non-proliferation treaty concerning nuclear weapons.  This treaty constituted an agreement that countries with nuclear capability would refrain from enabling other countries to become such.  This wise declaration of intent was eventually endorsed by over a hundred nations; but, unfortunately, more and more countries have continued to become "nuclear p[owers," notwithstanding.

Subdsequent reasearch and development have resulted in even more terrifying weapons--like the "neutron bomb," which causes little blast damage, but emits widespread doses of lethal radiation.

By 1985, the Soviet Union sought to negotiate a ban on nuclear testing with the United States.  But, at that point, the U.S. refused, citing a need to further perfect its arsenal.  And so, the bomb building went on.  By 1990, the United States and Russia possessed twenty five thousand nuclear weapons, containing the combined firepower of five hundred trillion (half a quadrillion!) tons of explosive material.  In addition, numerous other countries, including China, India, Israel, and Pakistan, have also achieved the dubious distinction of possessing stockpiles of nuclear bombs and missiles.  And now, North Korea and Iran have recently crossed this dreaded threshold (or are close to doing so).  To entertain the idea that all of these countries will peacefully retain all of these weapons forever, and never resort to use of a single one of them, is to truly reside in a fool's paradise.

                                                                      * * * * *

Since the emergence of atomic weapons, development of more and more sophisticated systems for delivering them has taken place as well.  German wartime accomplishments were resorted to after World War II.  Thus, in 1955, a large group of German scientists were at work in a U.S. government facility in Huntsville, Alabama, developing guided missile technology for this country.

By 1957, the Soviets had successfully tested long-range missiles of their own.  This added more urgency to our own quest for an effective ballistic missile system.  And so, a missile race began between the U.S. and Russia, alongside our continuing nuclear bomb competition.  The Soviets forged on, developing bigger and better missiles, as well as continuing to add to their nuclear and missile caches.  These achievements were proudly displayed to the Soviet citizens--whose domestic sacrifices helped finance their development--in grand military parades regularly staged in Red Square.  And by the mid-seventies, it was a known fact that the United States and Russia possessed enough missiles to completely destroy each other several times over.

Another means of delivery of deadly weapons came to the fore during the nineteen sixties:  the missile-equipped submarine.  Atomic submarines, stocked with nuclear-tipped missiles, began to range the seas of the world.  It was said that each such vessel carried weapons equal in destructive power to all of the bombs dropped during World War II.  The U.S. Navy declared an intention to have forty five of these water-going arsenals in service by 1965. 

Fortunately, the end of the Cold War has taken the edge off this particular aspect of grave danger to humanity.  But the submarines and missiles are still out there.  Furthermore, even if they are one day retired, the knowledge and technology for quickly duplicating this perilous state of affairs will still be there.  Moreover, there are other nations and groups who have, and/or would like to have, similar bombs, missiles, submarines, and the like.

                                                            * * * * *

PLEASE LEAVE A COMMENT--HERE--OR VIA E-MAIL, TO oneworld@tampabay.rr.com.

IF YOU ENJOY READING THIS SITE, PLEASE RECOMMEND IT TO ANY AND ALL OF YOUR LIKE-MINDED RELATIVES, FRIENDS, AND ASSOCIATES.

IF YOU ARE A STUDENT, PLEASE SUGGEST THAT YOUR TEACHER/PROFESSOR, AND/OR FELLOW-STUDENTS, LOOK IN AS WELL.

IF YOU ARE THE TEACHER/PROFESSOR, PERHAPS YOUR STUDENTS WOULD BE INTERESTED IN, AND BENEFITTED BY, DISCOVERING THE SENSIBLE CONTENT HEREOF.

ANY OF THE ABOVE WOULD BE VERY MUCH APPRECIATED--AND MIGHT HELP TO MOVE US ALL A LITTLE FURTHER IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.

THANK YOU.














 

WASTEFUL AND DANGEROUS MILITARY EXPENDITURES

ARMS VERSUS SOCIAL BENEFIT

The obsession to produce and otherwise obtain weapons has continued to affect the quality of life in many nations.  For example, after 1980, conditions for the average citizen in North Korea have become more and more bleak, as excessive expenditures on arms production and the military serve to impede economic growth.  Many nations in Africa are among the world's poorest; and yet, African expenditures on arms--during the 1980s, for example--exceeded the sum of international assistance received by these nations for economic development.

Malaysia began to purchase warships in 1992.  It has been determined that the price paid for two of these vessels would have enabled the government to provide safe drinking water to five million of its citizens who then lacked it for the next twenty five years.

The United States has at times been similarly guilty of permitting military spending to reduce or curtail social projects.  In 1942, Congress appropriated $43 Billion ($593 Billion, in 2011 Dollars) for our armed services, and began to close down extant agencies and projects such as the Civilian Conservation Corps.  Again, in 1964, our involvement in an expensive and fruitless war in Vietnam caused the billions of tax dollars required to finance it to compete with, and to eventually usurp, much that could and would have been put towerd the then-necessary social programs that had been collectively dubbed "the Great Society."  Social-minded individuals such as Dr. Martin Luther King pointed out at the time that the Two Billion Dollars per month being expended on the war were no less desperately needed to fund these programs at home.  By 1968, with over a half million American military in Vietnam, the huge war costs continued to draw funds badly needed for domestic reform projects.  Among these were (and continue to be) improvements of our educational system, more and better medical care for people with lower incomes, urban renewal, renovation of our infrastructure, and ecological reforms.  And when the struggle there finally ended for the U.S., Vietnam continued to be one of the poorest countries in the world--the major cause being the vast amount of money and resources necessary to support over a million Vietnamese troopsthat remained mobilized in thiat war-torn corner of the world.

                                                                   * * * * *

It is widely known and acknowledged that, since 1945, scientific research has become so large-scale and complex as to require the facilities of a university and/or the resources provided by government funding in order to be successfully carried on.  Much of this research should be directed toward ultimate benefit to mankind.  However, by the 1950s, a third of all such programs were devoted to projects which pertained to weapons and warfare.  Of course, a major factor behind this was simply because more government grants were awarded for work in such areas, than for endeavors directed toward social improvements. 

It has been suggested by some that, ironically, direction of monetary resources away from military uses, and toward improving human conditions--such as health, housing, education, eradication of poverty, preservation of our environment, and human rights--would likely have the effect of reducing the potential for, and causes of, the very conflicts for which we require our armed forces to begin with.  Be this fact or fancy, it is nonetheless true that war or the threat thereof, and the massive costs endured by each country in connection therewith, constitute a major obstacle to the solving of mankind's real problems--including hunger, sickness, educational deficiencies, environmental issues, and human rights violations.   Manpower, materials, amd capital should be directed to such necessities as roads, hospitals, schools, urban renewal, and other such needs, instead of armies and weapons.  In short, military spending obviates and frustrates our hopes for a peaceful and prosperous tomorrow.

It is simple logic to realize that, throughout the ages, each nation, whether rich or poor, has always had access to but a limited amount of money, manpower, and resources.  If more of it were expended upon "A," there would be less left to finance "B."  Japan's years following World War II constitute a vivid case in point.  Since she was forbidden to re-establish military forces, her efforts and resources were instead invested in industrial enterprise.  This facilitated a rapid and widespread growth of its civilian economy; and led Japan to assume a major role in business and industry beginning in the 1950s.  Subsequently, when America became involved in the troubles and expenses of wars in Korea and Vietnam, Japan enjoyed the lucrative role of supplier to the American forces.  It is said, for example, that while Americans "wandered around Saigon in combat gear," Japanese "walked their own streets wearing business suits," increasing the fortunes of the companies they represented.  At the same time, America's generous military assistance to South Korea, and aid to Taiwan, created opportunity for those places to utilize their own domestic funds upon capital outlays, and thus consequently prosper.

On a similar note, America's relief from the pressures of the Cold Warenabled us to reduce our defense budget, and to shift more of our resources to marketplace activities, to our commercial advantage.  However, our latest military activities in Iraq and Afghanistan have served to reverse a good deal of this advantageous situation once again.

                                                                * * * * *

There is a gap between the living standards within the "have" and "have not" areas of our world.  This gap has been growing ever wider for years.  According to some, the resources needed to reverse certain conditions, and thus reduce this gap, are within our grasp.  However, they are regularly diverted to the production and purchase of arms and the support of the world's various armed forces.

Disarmament has always led to reduction of political tensions, and release of funds for more worthwhile civilian purposes.  Referred to David Halberstam in his The Next Century, as "peace dividends" (i.e., "...vast billions that might be used for domestic needs...."), they are things which can and should be direccted toward an amelioration of mankind's more truly critical problems, such as the inexcusable hunger and homelessness that exists in our own "land of plenty," as wel as the many other similar grievous troubles that afflict so many of us throughout our world.

                                                             * * * * *

PLEASE LEAVE A COMMENT--HERE--OR VIE E-MAIL, TO oneworld@tampabay.rr.com.

ALSO, IF YOU ENJOY READING THIS SITE, PLEASE RECOMMEND IT TO ANY AND ALL OF YOUR LIKE-MINDED RELATIVES, FRIENDS, AND ASSOCIATES.

IF YOU ARE A STUDENT, PLEASE RECOMMEND THAT YOUR PROFESSOR/TEACHER AND/OR FELLOW STUDENTS LOOK IN AS WELL.

IF YOU ARE A PROFESSOR/TEACHER, PERHAPS YOUR STUDENTS WOULD BE INTERESTED IN, AND BENEFITTED BY, DISCOVERING THE SENSIBLE AND KINDLY CONTENT HEREOF.

ANY OF THE ABOVE WOULD BE VERY MUCH APPRECIATED--AND MIGHT HELP TO MOVE US ALL IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.



  



  

WASTEFUL AND DANGEROUS MILITARY EXPENDITURES

ARMS VERSUS SOCIA;L BENEFIT

The seventies saw a new aspect added to the phenomenon of nation-states expanding their respective collections of arms.  This next phase consisted of sales of arms, by some of the major producing nations to countless countries that possessed capital and/or resources to expend in exchange therefor.  The states of North Africa have been said to account for approximately ten percent of the world's arms imports.  Furthermore, beginning in 1972, and continuing for the next ten years, France's sales of weaponry to oil-rich Middle Eastern countries increased at the rate of twenty two percent per year.  Other weapon-producing nations participate, and continue to play their parts in this same deadly game--selling to various states (including some that can least afford to buy arms--but having the fastest growing appectites).

The folly of these wasteful expenditures is especially clear when we realize how much specific good could be accomplished by the cost of a single specific weapon or program.  For example, a Swedish statesman named Olof Palme once calculated that the price of a single nuclear weapon could provide a thousand years of nursing care (or a year's nursing care for a thousand people). 

As a further note, it has been sadly reckoned that, between 1946 and 1993, the United States and the Soviet Republic had spent at least Five Trillion Dollars upon their arsenals, in piecemeal efforts to instill fear in the hearts of their respective potential enemies.  And this has not been the end of it.  Today, a number of nations are still said to be involved in arms acquisition, involving nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons of mass destruction, as deterrents to attack by each other, and upon one another. 

Again, I must repeat the question.  How much more benefit could have been accomplished by mankind, had these foolich expenditures, the needless extravagance that accompanies them, as well as the unfortunate conflicts that have sometimes sprung from them, never taken place?

                                                           * * * * *

A standard of measurement that serves to illustrate the vastness of a nation-state's mi.itary spending is that country's Gross National Product.  It indicates the value of said country's total final production in the course of a year. 

Today, five to six percent of the world's gross production is directed toward arms and the military.  But there have been, and still are, periods during which particular countries expend much greater proportions of their gross national product upn things military.  For example, by the end of World War II, the United States was devoting thirty seven percent of its gross national product to its participation in that conflict.  Afterward, our expenditures remained above ten percent during the 1950s.  During this same postwar period, Portugal needed to utilize forty five percent of its gross national product to maintain military forces within its failing colonial possessions in Africa.  Istrael's per capita defense spending has long been among the highest in the world.  And, during the 1980s, the Soviet Union was applying one quarter of its gross national product to armaments.

The "bottom line" to all of this is the obvious concept that if nations could reduce or eliminate their need to be ever ready to fight one another (such as by ceasing to be nations any longer, but parts of an overall entity comprising man on earth), these vast assets could be utilized toward the reduction of worldwide poverty, as well as resolution of some of our most pressing social and environmental problems. 

                                                                   * * * * *

Of course, it stands to reason that social and environbmental programs and progress are slowed, stopped, and even reversed, when resources are diverted to weapons and warfare.  This has been a fact throughout human history.  During centuries before the birth of Christ, social progress has been said to have been frequently "retarded by endemic wars between neighboring cities or tribes."  Later, during the Roman era, expanded military activities eventually came to require a doubling of the size of the Roman army; and a consequent imposition of a heavier burden of taxation upon a populsation that had likely grown smaller.  This resulted in a diminution of some of the benefits that had been available in prior days to the average Roman citizen.

Even in India during the seventeenth century, military campaigns, and support of a class of military elites, resulted in a parasitic drain upon the economy, and a burden of taxation upon the peasantry consisting of as much as one half of their income.

A century later, revolution in France was precipitated by financial collapseof the "overloaded" reigning government.  The cause was that which typically overloads all governments:  war costs, upkeep of armies and navies, and public debt attributable to prior wars.  By 1788, both the French and British governments were devoting about twenty five percent of their respective annual public expenditures in support of their military organizations, and another fifty percent to payment of interest upon the debt which resulted therefrom.  This left little remainder for the welfare of the citizens--who were the actual bearers of this huge bill to begin with.

By 1900 we are told that taxation had risen in many places to "unthinkable" levels.  Again, the causes were generally always similar:  expanded armies, naval races, increasing military technology, etc., etc.; and the results, likewise, the same:  less attention to social needs than could otherwise have been rendered.

In 1913, Germany officially "scolded" the United States for selling arms to our Balkan allies--which arms were said to have been purchased with funds better utilized by these governments to help feed their starving citizens.  It is reasonable to conclude that such a reproach constituted incredible hypocrisy on the part of Germany, who was simultaneously in the process of arming herself "to the teeth."

 Beginning in the 1930s, Russia concentrated a giant portion of its expenditures, and the skills of many of its people, upon heavy industry and armaments.  Its penchant for planning is said to have virtually ignored consumer needs, and to prevent any real advancement in the living standards of its citizens.  Each year, the Soviet Union's arms burden grew larger; and its economic difficulties grew accordingly.  By the sixties, the burdens and deprivations had become quite regular but nonetheless quite difficult for its people; however the government was stubbornly unrelenting.  Perhaps this is why David Halberstam, author of The Next Century, described his impression while standing in Red Square in 1990, as observing a "sluggish society with a great many missiles and not much else." 

                                                                    * * * * *

PLEASE LEAVE A COMMENT--HERE--OR VIE E-MAIL, TO oneworld@tampabay.rr.com

ALSO, IF YOU ENJOY READING THIS SITE, PLEASE RECOMMEND IT TO ANY AND ALL OF YOUR LIKE-MINDED RELATIVES, FRIENDS, AND ASSOCIATES.

IF YOU ARE A STUDENT, PLEASE RECOMMEND THAT YOUR PROFESSOR OR TEACHER, AND/OR FELLOW-STUDENTS LOOK IN AS WELL.

IF YOU ARE A PROFESSOR OR TEACHER, PERHAPS YOUR STUDENTS WOULD BE INTERESTED IN, AND BENEFITTED BY, DISCOVERING THE SENSIBLE AND KINDLY CONTENT HEREOF.

ANY OF THE ABOVE WOULD BE VERY MUCH APPRECIATED--AND MIGHT HELP TO MOVE US ALL IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.

WASTEFUL AND DANGEROUS MILITARY EXPENDITURES

A SHORT HISTORY OF MILITARY SPENDING (cont.)

Even more wasteful than colossal expenditures for projects concerning arms and space vehicles that came to some fruition are the costs connected with things that never got "off the ground" at all.  For example, a program in the 1960s for the development of a B-70 bomber--at a cost of $1.34 Billion (almost $10 Billion in 2011 Dollars)--was terminated after production of only two airplanes.  The reason given for the abandonment of this giant investment of time, labor, knowledge, and money, was that its technology had already become obsolete.  And in the mid-1970s, an American anti-ballistic missile system known as "Safeguard," in the course of development by the U.S. Defense Department, was foresaken prior to completion, but not before a waste of $5.7 Billion (almost $24 Billion in 2011 Dollars).

Sometimes the costs involved in the abandonment of a program are greater than those encountered in its creation.  An instance of this is noted in an estimate that the cost of destroying chemical weapons would be up to ten times the costs associated with producing them.

                                                             * * * * *

 

WASTEFUL AND DANGEROUS MILITARY EXPENDITURES

ARMS RACES

Aside from, and sometimes intertwined as well, with the costs connected with actual warfare, it is of course obvious that "arms races" constitute a major factor in military extravagance.  Arms races have been aptly described as consisting of ever-rising spirals; and there can be no doubt that nations that become involved in them suffer substantial economic disadvantage.  Citizens are thereby deprived of funds they could have put to beneficial personal and household use, being compelled instead to send them away in the form of higher taxes; and government programs that could have provided advantage to the people of a nation are likewise omitted or curtailed in order to increase the funds available for military spending. 

As long ago as the ;latter years of the nineteenth century, Britain and Germany took part in such a wasteful and dangerous race.  In 1898, William II embarked upon a program of shipbuilding, in an effort to bring the German navy into a position of equality with that of Britain.  Observing this, and reacting to it, Britain began a program of its own designed to keep ahead of the Germans.  As the twentieth century began, the race heated up.  The British built more and larger warships, at greater cost to its treasury and its subjects, citing its position as a densely populated island, and its consequent need to control the seas around it for the sake of importing its requirements of food and materials.  Germany did pretty much the same, and resorted to similar justifications:  i.e., a need to protect its overseas colonies, secure its foreign trade, and maintain a general aura of "greatness."

Soon the warship-building infection began to affect other parts of the industrialized world.  By 1913, sharp increases in shipbuilding activity had begun in Austria-Hungary, France, Italy, Japan, Russia, and the United States as well.

This feverish activity also began to expand into other forms of armament.  In Britain, Winston Churchill voiced an intention "to put eight squadrons into service in the time it takes Germany to build five."  In Austria-Hungary, military espenditures became the largest item in its national budget.  And Russia began steps to quadruple the size of its army.  The result was a European powder keg, dissipation of national treasuries, and much deprivation among the citizenry, as more and more public funds were raised and utilized for the purpose of making more and more weapons, and supporting more and more armed personnel.

Germany was said to have spent 1.4 Billion Marks in 1913; and 22.4 Billion in 1914.  Russia spent at least 1.8 Billion Rubles.  England and France were obviously expending similar or greater amounts of their respective currencies as well.  Much of this weaponry, and many, many lives, were shortly thereafter consumed and thrown away in the carnage that followed.  And when it was over, there was little to show for it, except many deaths and massive destruction.

During the short inter-war period that followed, the ingrained habits of building and collecting arms did not abate.  By 1932, when America's President Hoover suggested a worldwide arms reduction to one-third of its present level, it was estimated that the potemntial savings would amount to Ten Billion ($164 Billion) Dollars.  But this did not happen--and our grim habit of self-armement continued on, at a consequent cost of approximately Thirty Billion (1932) Dollars ($492 Billion in 2011 Dollars) to the citizens affected thereby.

Feelings of persistent need to maintain and increase military assets seemed to dominate the thinking of the leaders of nations as these years continued forward.  In 1933, General Douglas MacArthur pleaded for increased military spending in the United States, basing his position upon his claim that the U.S. ranked an unacceptable seventeenth in military strength among the nations of the world.  A couple of years later, British Prime Minister Ramsay MacDonald sought an increase in British defenses, due to Germany's "aggressive spirit," as well as on account of the fact that "all over the world...armaments are being increased."

German arms plants were described as operating at full capacity in 1936.  Soon, its annexation of Austria, in 1938, would give it cause for even further military production.  And in France, a "rearmament program" was launched as an obvious countermeasure to these events.

1937 saw America's President Roosevelt calling for a larger navy, on account of "growing concern for world events."  And world events did soon turn ugly, as World War II gave these heavily armed participants an opportunity to employ their forces and weapons upon one another.  When this tragedy was over, there were the usual laments and regrets once more; repeated expressions of purpose to avoid future hostilities; and, predictably, new and more ambitious races to produce bigger, better, and more deadly weapons.  Notably among these, the United States and Russia began to build and stockpile greater and greater quantities of more and more powerful nuclear weapons, together with faster aned more efficient methods for delivering them.

The 1950s also witnessed the commencement of a "space race" between these same two countries.  The Russians took an early lead with their "Sputnik I."  President Kennedy asked Congress to approve an agenda estimated to bear an eventual price tag of Seven to Nine Billion Dollars, to accomplish our country's need to "take a leading role in space achievement [over the efforts of the Soviets]."  Our lawmakers responded; and approved a program that, culminating in 1969, with the employment of 400,000 people, including sixteen aerospace firms, twelve thousand subcontractors, and scientists from a hundred universities, resulted in an expenditure of Twenty Two Billion Dollars, and the questionable accomplishment of putting a man on the moon.

                                                               * * * * *





 



 

WASTEFUL AND DANGEROUS MILITARY EXPENDITURES

A SHORT HISTORY OF MILITARY SPENDING (cont.)

In 1984, a program for the development of a new fleet of long-range strategic bombers at a further projected cost of Fourteen Billion Dollars (over Thirty Billion in 2011 Dollars) was launched in the United States.  Our deficit had by now risen from $78.9 Billion to $221 Billion ($477 Billion), making us the greatest debtor nation in the history of mankind.  It has been described as the purchase of "artificial [or unusable] strength at the expense of real strength--the viability and integrity of the American economic system."  (David Halbersatam, The Next Century) 

Another costly military affair during this period was the long war between Iran and Iraq, which had consumed over Four Hundred Billion ($836 Billion) Dollars in the funds of those nations by 1985.

Moreover, by this time, total world military expenditures had increased to almost a full Trillion
(over Two Trillion) Dollars.  Half of this was attributable to the United States and the Soviet Union, the undisputed world champions of military extravagance.

It continued into the late 1980s.  Our "Stealth" project was launched in 1988.  It consisted of the acquisition of 132 bombers having an "averaged" cost of close to Three hundred Million Dollars ($570 Million) each.  The total Bill for this endeavor was therefore projected to amount to approximately Thirty Six Billion ($68 Billion) Dollars.

In 1989, issues began to arise concerning cleanup of nuclear waste that our activities thus far had created.  It was estimated that the cost of such a cleanup would amount to $92 Billion ($166 Billion) or so.

1991  saw the United States and a few of its allies' entry into the first Gulf War.  Short though it was, it required an expenditure of over Sixty Billion ($99 Billion) Dollars for the military effort; and total eventual cost to both sides and the surrounding region in the sum of $676 Billion ($1,115 Billion).

On Christmas Day in 1991, Russia's Mikhail Gorbachev declared personal jpoy at the fact that the Cold War, and the consequent arms race which had crippled his nation's economy, was over.

Nevertheless, by 1995, it was estimated that global military spending since World War II had reached the fantastic total sum of Thirty to Thirty five Trillion ($44 to 51 Trillion) Dollars)!

The coming of the Twenty first century has brought no relief. Consider, for example, the fact that our participation in the second Iraq War has thus far cost the United States well over a Trillion Dollars.  And there are estimates out there warning that the eventual price tag--when you count our efforts in Afghanistan and Pakistan, plus various postwar and other ancillary costs--might reach as high as Ten Trillion.  It is truly mind-boggling to imagine how much good could have been adccomplished for mankind and the world, had theae mammoth sums been applied toward poeaqceful and constructive purposes.

                                                         * * * * *

WASTEFUL AND DANGEROUS MILITARY EXPENDITURES

A SHORT HISTORY OF MILITARY SPENDING (cont.)


France suffered a huge financial strain, and enormous budget deficits during the 1950s, caused in large part by its military efforts in what would become its former colonies in Indochina and Africa.  In fact, it is reported that during the years 1954 to 1960, twenty eight percent of its national budget was expended upon warfare against guerillas in its African territories.  And by 1954, the U.S. had itself spend close to a billion dollars to aid the French in their efforts to resist the communist insurgency taking place in Vietnam.

By 1954 as well, single projects began to be undertaken at vast public expense.  For example, a mammoth aircraft carrier, the "Forrestal," was launched by the U.S. Navy, at a cost to our citizens of almost Two Hundred Million Dollars (over a Billion and a half, in 2011 Dollars).  The U.S. government thus began to regularly award multi-billion dollar defense contracts to companies such as Lockheed.  Moreover, by 1959, we were budgeting over Five Billion Dollars (almost Thirty nine Billion Dollars in 2011 funds) for missile development.

President Eisenhower began to express concern over the apparent dominance of what he termed the "military-industrial complex."  Composed of our Defense Department ands a number of leading defense contractors, it was feared that too much power was accumulating in the hands of a few, to the resultant detriment to other programs, and the welfare of our people as well.

As time marched forward, new increases in spending continued on as well.  Russia escalated its defense budget to greater heights, so as to possess and exhibit new and improved jet fighters and giant bombers.  President Kennedy's response on behalf of the United States included an increase in our military budget by almost $3.5 Billion Dollars (over $26 Billion in 2011 figures).  As a result of this, our national debt in 1962 exceeded $300 Billion (almost Seven and a half Trillion if it were 2011) for the first time.

By the mid nineteen sixties, this country's involvement in Vietnam became direct and vastly expanded.  By 1966, said participation was costing us Two Billion Dollars per month (over $14 Billion--I continue to express all sums in 2011 Dollars, using the increase in the Cost Of Living Index as a multiplier, in the parentheses following).  And by the time we left, we had expended a total sum of over Three Hundred Billion (One and a quarter Trillion) Dollasrs.  Yet, these years are described as an age of extreme arrogance.  While carrying on a financially devastating and militarily frustrating war in Vietnam, our adminstration spoke about "guns and butter," and turned, it is said, to "tricky bookkeeping"--including the borrowing of over Twenty Billion (almost $140 Billion) Dollars a year--as a means of justification, in its pursuit of popular support.  The net result developed into a massive deficit and consequent "crushing inflation." 

 During the mid to late sixties, Russia came under the Brezhnev regime; which adopted additional steps to achieve equality with the United States as regards its strategic arms and naval resources.  America's President Johnson responded in a similar manner; and the ongoing arms race simply flared up more brightly. 

During this decade, the U.S. additionally recognized a need to commit itself to a Five Billion ($32 Billion) Dollar program for the establishment of an anti-ballistic missile defense system composed of Nike and Spartan missiles.  We appeared to be operating under a delusion that we possessed a bottomless pit filled with wealth and treasure, as President Johnson presented Congress, in 1968, with a record annual budget of $168 Billion (a little over a Trillion).

By 1970, the arms race was costing the participants nore than Two Hundred Billion (almost a Trillion and a quarter) Dollars per year--$80 Billion ($463 Billion) of which was being expended by the United States.  It entailed the employment of many millions in the military; and more than twice as many in auxiliary occupations, such as the manufacture of arms and armaments.  It comprised almost half of America's federal budget.  At the same time, an even higher percentage of the Soviet Union's economy was being thus consumed.  In fact, during these years, only one fourth of the Soviets' economic output was devoted to consumer goods; the rest consisted of production of weapons and other military equipment.  In many other nations as well, extravagent military spending drained national economies, and resulted in neglect of other, more socially beneficial, and frequently clearly necessary, public programs. 

 Not long thereafter, in 1972, our next President, Richard Nixon, proposed an even more reckless budget for the United States, featuring a deficit of over 25 Billion (134 Billion) Dollars--the largest ever.  This too was in large part attribulable to military spending.

Thus, from being in possession of one of the world's strongest economies in 1964, we had travelled, within a single decade, into very serious debt.  Among the vehicles that got us there were the Vietnam conflict, and our reckless spending upon various other military and defense programs during these years.  Both Russia and the United States continued their binge of buying and building weapons, and were thus caught in the inescapable, ever-rising, spiral that constitutes an arms race.  Much of the rest of the world more or less followed suit; and by 1980, our planet's military expenditures increased to more than  a Half Trillion ($1.3 Trillion) Dollars.

President Reagsan sought to increase America's military budget by an additional 32 Billion ($79 Billion) Dollars in 1981.  And the Star Wars program proposed by him in 1983 would require still more phenomenal increases in spending.  This brought some critics to predict that our deficit could thereby one day reach the trillion dollar mark (n.b., as of today [September 17, 2012], it was $674 Billion more than a Trillion Dollars).

WASTEFUL AND DANGEROUS MILITARY EXPENDITURES

A SHORT HISTORY OF MILITARY SPENDING (cont.)

Being involved in a war has at times been observed as temporarily assisting a country's economy.  For it has the effect of stepping up employment and business activity, as demands for increased amounts of war materials and equipment are received and filled.  At the same time, jobs become more plentiful, as large numbers of qualified workers are called away to join the military and fight in the war itself--many of them never to return.

It has, in fact, been said that a country's economy has never achieved full employment without the stimulus of military spending.  A form of indirect evidence of this is reflected in the report that the stocks on the board at the New York Stock Exchange dropped dramatically, in 1916, following Germany's first overtures seeking peace.  And thus, based upon the same hypothesis, President Roosevelt and World War II are often jointly credited with pulling the United States out of the Great Depreswsion of 1929.

                                                         * * * * *

World War II (and the years leading up to it) was not without its own somewhat corresponding monetary costs as well.  By January of 1940, Franklin Roosevelt, in anticipation of what was to come, asked Americans for $460 Million (over $7 Billion in 2011 Dollars in new taxes, and for a total allotment, via the Military Supply Act, of $1.8 Billion (almost $29 Billion in 2011 Dollars).  By January, 1941, the U.S. Congress was asked to approve an "all out anti-Axis" defense budget totaling $10.8 Billion (over $173 Billion in 2011 Dollars). 
(The Consumer Price Index for 1940 was 14.0; it was 225 for 2011.  225 divided by 14 equqls 16.07.  I thus multiplied all of the above numbers by 16.07.)

Between July, 1940, and July, 1945, the American arms industry ran at "full steam," producing 71,000 naval vessels, 100,000 aircraft, 372,000 artillery pieces, 90,000 tanks, twenty million small arms, and 41 billion rounds of ammunition.  And sure enough, as has been previously conjectured, with the coming of war, the United States enjoyed full employment.  In fact, in order to fill gaps in the labor market, women were recruited, in some cases for the first time, to assume jobs that would have ordinarily been filled by their male counterparts.

Employment statistics were similarly favorable in other parts of the world as well.  This is attributable in part to the circumstance that millions upon millions of able-bodied males were now in the armies and navies of China, England, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Romania, Russia, etc., etc.  These numbers would eventually swell to over fifty million, as the war continued.

President Roosevelt's 1942 budget for the United States was the largest ever:  59 Billion Dollars ($814 Billion)--of which $52 Billion (over $717 Billion) was to be consumed in the war effort.
(In this, and every following instance, I have multipolied by the appropriate figure, based upon that year's Consumer Price Index, and have added the figure in 2011 Dollars, in parentheses, following each sum.)

By 1943, this was increased to $100 Billion ($1.3 Trillion) for military spending alone.  By 1943 as well, we were producing a ship a day, and an airplane every five minutes--many of which were to be inevitably sunk, or shot from the sky.

Our 1944 war budget was close to the same figure as that of 1943:  $99.7 Billion (a few Billion short of $13 Trillion).  By that year, the U.S. was producing forty percent of the world's armaments.  There was continued full employment; business prospered, and more people were said to be better off than ever before.

Russia's factories were likewise busy producing equipment for warfare.  For example, during the first half of 1944, her factories turned out 14,000 tanks, as well as 16,000 airplanes.

And what was to be our crowning World War achievement, the development of the atomic bomb, consumed a total of Two Billion Dollars (approximately $25 Billion), spent in secret, and culminating in the most dreaded instrumentality that man has ever produced.  Bringing instantaneous death to thousands, it ended the War; leaving the United States with a total national debt of $258 Billion (over $3 Trillion)--a sixfold increase over where said debt stood in 1941.

Europe also wound up in an economic, as well as physical, shambles.  England was virtually bankrupt.  Interestingly, Russia's loss of so many millions of men caused large numbers of women to necessarily come to fill the ranks of the country's professional specialists, and many other areas of employment as well.

                                            * * * * *

Subsequent to the Second World War, new military endeavors were to further dissipate mankind's assets.  This country's 1948 peacetime budget, as submitted to Congress by President Truman, was in the amount of $18 Billion (almost $168 Billion), the major portion of this sum being earmarked for "national defense."  By 1949, we had also committed to helping our NATO allies to rearm themselves; pledging, that year, the sum of $5.8 Billion (almost $55 Billion) for that purpose alone.

Also taking place during the late nineteen-forties was the birth of Israel.  The new nation sustained great financial burden in order to develop the military forces and air power it needed for survival as a separate country in a hostile Arab world. 

In July, 1950, our President Truman, seeking to protect our nation, sought to enlarge and extend the horrors of our new age of atomic weaponry.  He requested $260 Million (almost Two and a half Billion) for the development of a more dreadful successor to our atomic bomb, to be called the "hydrogen bomb."

At about the same time, conflict arose in Korea, in which the United States perceived an obligation to participate.  Plans for such participation included an escalation, in 1950, of our number of armed forces personnel to almost a million.  During these years, the United States spent more than Fifteen Billion Dollars (close to $140 Billion) upon its efforts in the Korean conflict.  And our military pop;ulation was eventually increased to almost three million in order to facilitate our efforts therein.

The 1950s have been termed the "Cold War" years; and in fact gave birth to a new age of military spending.  During this period, billions were expended, by many nations, upon research and development--as new and better ways to wreak havoc and destruction upon each other were sought, discovered, and perfected.  By this time, high levels of military and defense spending had become permanent fixtures in our federal budget, and in those of a number of other countries as well.  For the United States and Russia, this included further development of our nuclear arsenals; and, later, the launching of space programs, wherein each participant exerted duplicate efforts, aimed at achieving the same goal:  dominance and superiority beyond the immediate bounds of our planet.

                                                       * * * * *

WASTEFUL AND DANGEROUS MILITARY EXPENDITURES

War between nations is an expensive proposition.  It is furthermore a wasteful proposition--in terms of lives, talent, resources, and the routine of daily life as well.  Military preparedness and national defense are similarly costly.



A SHORT HISTORY OF MILITARY SPENDING

As long ago as 1799, Austria, Britain, and the Netherlands began to levy income taxes for the purpose of funding their wars against Napoleon.  And in the mid-nineteenth century, the two segments of the United States began resorting to a similar method in order to finance their respective roles in the Civil War.  In 1903, England reported that one-third of its budget was being regularly expended upon the Boer War and its military expedition in China.  And in 1910, long before the beginnings of World War I, the United States was already burdened by a defense budget of Two Billion Dollars.

By 1913, the nations that would comprise the combatants in the coming Great War had already amassed huge standing armies, millions of trained reserves, and almost a thousand ships and submarines.  Britain increased its military budget to 29 Million Pounds; France to 754 Million Francs; and Germany's Reichstag voted to furnish the equivalent of $510 Million in 1913 U.S. Dollars for its army.

Then, the dreaded event began.  Military budgets began to be consumed in earnest.  Britain issued an estimate in May, 1915, that its expenses during the first eight months of warfare had already reached the equivalent, in 1915 American funds, of Four Billion Dollars.  Europeans were said to work from dawn until dusk, on farms and in factories, to produce food and equipment for their armies.  At home, they conserved fuel and electricity so that more could be sent to the front.  They invested what leftover income they might have in Liberty Bonds, to assist in financing the warfare.  Exports of war paraphernalia issued forth prolifically from the United States.  By 1916, it was estimated that over Five Million Dollars (in 1916 Dollars) worth of munitions were shipped each day, from the port of New York alone.

Sixty three million men were mobilized.  And when it was over, the total gross financial cost of the War was estimated at $185 Billion, in 1914 Dollars--or more than $4 Trillion, when converted to 2011 Dollars.
 (To convert from 1914 to 2011 Dollars [figures for 2012 are not yet available], I multiplied the costs in 1914 Dollars by 22.49--because the annualized Consumer Price Index [CPI] is cited as "10.0" for 1914 [see the "Historical Consumer Price Index,"--www.InflationData.com]; and, per the same source, as "224.9" for 2011.  [$185 Billion times 22.49 equals $4,160,650,000.])

Britain owed the United States $4.6 Billion ($103.4 Billion) in war loans.  France, Italy, and Russia owed Britain $6.5 Billion ($146.1 Billion).  And Germany was notified that it owed a whopping $35 Billion ($787.1 Billion) in reparations.
(These figures are also quoted in 1914 Dollars, followed by a conversion to 2011 Dollars, pursuant to the aforesaid "Historical Consumer Price Index" in the parentheses   that follow.)  It is no wonder that Europe's position in the world economy was said to have been impaired beyond recovery.

But worse, the war cost a great deal more than that in human resources.  France sacrificed one half of its male populastion between the ages of twenty and thirty-two; and other countries involved in the war suffered similar losses.  Many who might have become leaders in government or industry during the 1920s and 1930s were dead.  Almost twenty percent of Oxford's students were killed.  Furthermore, tens of millions were wounded.  Some would eventually die; many more would be forced to endure the rest of their lives as cripples.

                                                  * * * * *

PLEASE LEAVE A COMMENT--HERE, OR VIA E-MAIL, AT oneworld@tampabay.rr.com

RE THE MILITARY

It is my position that in a united and borderless world, there would be no need for armies--because armies are primarily formed and maintained for the purpose of fighting one another, on behalf of their respective nation-states, if, as, and when circumstances should so dictate.  In a world consisting of but a single nation to begin with, it would be impossible for "nation A" to attack "nation B."

Of course, security for the populace of a place is always to be upheld, preserved, and protected.  But, domestically, this is the function of the police force.  And, in a single united and borderless world, the entire world will actually be a single domestic place.

This sort of atmosphere has actually somewhat existed, during times such as the relatively long period of peace that took place in Europe between 1815 and 1848.  During these years, it is said, the armies of Europe became "instruments of security," directed to their own respective populations--as opposed to being instruments of "international competition," directed against foreign enemies.

The military are said to have a "vested interest in armament," which is described as a "constant and powerful influence, averse to...conceptions which can...achieve genuine peace." (Clark and Sohn, Introduction to World Peace)  Therefore, other than a single worldwide police force, having sufficient personnel and equipment to preserve the peace, there should be no arms or armies.

If there were no national armies, to attack on behalf of their respective nation-states, or fight to defend and preserve said nation-states' respective sovereignties, there would be no need to train newly recruited police officers in the art of violently thrusting bayonets into dummies who represent the enemy, shouting "Kill!  Kill!"--as per a recent description of somewhat typical goings-on at a military training camp.  There would be no further need to carry on tests of germ warfare--similar to the 239 that were acknowledged to have been conducted by the United States prior to 1977.  And there would be no instances such as that which took place during 1979, when a computer error brought our military close to taking action in defense against what turned out to be a false report of an impending missile attack.

This concept of our military forces being utilized only for internal security was suggested in 1959 by Russia's Nikita Kruschev, when he proposed to the United Nations that all nations disarm down to the point whereby each shall possess and maintain only police units.  Such would obviate the necessity for the continued existence of a "military profession"--at least as regards the arts implicit in the mutual infliction of death and destruction upon people and property on one or the other side of a border line.

There will, of course, continue to be crime and criminals within society.  However, these instances would be simply regarded as lawless behavior; and their perpetrators appropriately dealt with according to then-extant provisions of duly enacted law.

Another segment of contemporary society which has a "vested interest" in conflict and warfare, and even in the mere threat thereof, is the armaments industry.  The need for such products would be greatly reduced, both in the quantity as well as in the nature and potential deadliness of the equipment still needed by a worldwide police force.  For it is obvious that a police department does not require thousands upon thousands of bombs, and airplanes to drop them; nor tanks, battleships, or other such devices to rain death and devastation upon entire populations.  This change would have a great impact upon the jobs of thousands of armament workers, and the correspoonding profits now being reaped by their employers.

The result would probably be a measure of resistance on the part of many of these interests to the establishment of that which I propose.  This is understandable.  But it is submitted that the end to organized wholesale murder and mayhem that my proposals can effect is reasonable justification for the loss of a certain amount of jobs or profits.  It is, moreover, likely that many of these industries, and their employees, will be readily adaptable to producing and rendering other, more beneficial, goods and services; thus keeping actual loss of jobs and profits to a minimum.

                                                        * * * * *

There have been numerous instances when seemingly knowledgeable persons have expressed opinions that the keeping of large armies and/or many armaments actually serves to promote and preserve peace.  In 1923, General Kenichi Oshimi of Japan voiced this view, saying: ""The height of folly is to imnagine that the cutting of armaments would assure world peace.  World peace is best maintained when nations are armed to the hilt."  In 1945, General George Marshall of the United States expressed a similar position, warning that if the U.S. were to lay down its arms, disaster worse than World War II would occur.  It was perhaps for these sorts of reasons that American General Patton recommended that our schoolchildren should study military and nursing arts in order to prepare foer the next war.  (Parenthetically, he is best remembered for the newspaper account of his slapping a hospitalized soldier for something that he called "cowardice.")

In 1949, Secretary of State Dean Acheson said the same thing in a different way.  In words of endorsement for the formation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, a collective defense organization composed of a number of Western European nations and the United States, Secretary Acheson recxommended that only strength will preserve peace.  In that same year, American General Carl Spaetz cited the atomic bomb and the B-36 airplane as the greatest forces for the preservation of worldwide tranquility.

A couple of years later, General Eisenhower counseled congress that the best way to "keep the Cold War from turning hot" was to send unlimited numbers of American troops and military supplies to Europe.  Later, as President, he remarked that "a soldier's pack is not so heavy a burden as a prisoner's chains."  And he ridiculed Adlai Stevenson's proposed plan for a ban on hydrogen bombs as an idealistic "cheap and easy" way to achieve peace.

In 1964, Senator Barry Goldwater of Arizona, during his unsuccessful campaign for the presidency, referred to military power as the key to peace.  And in 1983, President Reagan, speaking about the nuclear arms race, stated that we had to "find peace through strength [provided through nuclear weaponry])." 

Nevertheless, and notwithstanding the above, it must be pointeed out that these statements and remarks were all made in the context of the existence of a number of individual nation-states that might interact, compete, or experience conflict with one another.  In a unified world, guided by a single governing entity, there would no longer exist a need for each memnber of a group of nations to keep a supply of soldiers and weapons on hand, in preparation for potential warfare with one another.  Instead, mankind could and should work together, in worthwhile endeavor toward the solution of our many remaining real needs and problems.

                                                 * * * * *

PLEASE leave a comment--here, or via E-mail at oneworld@tampabay.rr.com







 

RE THE MILITARY

Connections between the military and the powers that be have been prevalent in a number of places, including Central America.  Examples can be cited describing situations where the ultimate source of power within the government of a Central American nation has been the armed forces.

One such case in point would be the happenings in Nicaragua beginning in the 1930s. Power was already  primarily in the hands of the National Guard, a military organization fostered and supported by the United States.  Its chief leader, General Anastasio Somoza, eventually installed himself as president in 1937; and ruled the country with an iron hand until his assassination in 1956.  Cirruption, self-dealing, and repression of the poor were widespread and commonplace under Somoza, as well as under the subsequent rules of his sons Luis and Anastasio, Jr., until 1979.  In that year, after a decade or more of armed revolt, by a leftist oppostion group known as the "Sandanistas," control, via military action, was wrested from the Somoza regime.

Nicaragua continued to be a battleground, and was the scene of another ten or more years of repression and military conflict.  Fierce and frequent fighting raged on between leftist-leaning Sandanistas, who received aid from Russia, and exiled remnants of the prior National Guard, now known as "Contras," who were given assistance in the form of military supplies from the United States.

Thus, until the region was permnitted to arrive at peaceful solutions to its problems in the late 1980s, Nicaragua was an arena of armed opposing military and semi-military forces.  In addition, this chronic state of conflict that prevailed for decades resulted in conditions of economic devastation and widespread unemployment for most of the country's hapless citizens.

Another example would be Honduras, where after a bloody military coup that took place in 1963, power resided in the military.  This was favored, once more, by American investment interests, who owned most of the banana industry there--as well as most everything else in the country--so as to guarantee stability and continuation of the status quo.  Since 1981, after restoration of a "civilian" government, a "constitutional facade" greets the unaccustomed eye--but real power continues to actually abide in the hands of the army.

In Guatemala, a series of military leaders, or "caudillos," have run the country on and off--but mostly "on"--for generations; and power has for the most part continuously resided within the army.  In the 1980s, military leaders had even stooped to fighting amongst themselves over the spoils that were available for the taking.  Here too, as per the varied but similar situations within Central America, the contrast between the Mayan underprivileged and the white Spanish-speaking coffee-growing elite is marked and pathetic.  Attempts at reform were met with death to 65,000 at the hands of "security forces" between the 1960s and 1980s; as well as to another 120,000 during a civil war which took place in 1982.  Once again, we learn that the U.S. investment sector, as well as American fears of the installation of a communist regime, prompted United States support for the Guatemalan military as a means of strict control, and conservation of the status quo.

In El Salvador, similar vast contrasts between the great peasant majority and the forty or so economically dominant families who owned the coffee plantations, banking institutions, and most of the rest of the country, precipitated attempts at reform, tens of thousands of murders by right-wing death squads, and a civil war in the early 1990s that claimed at least 70,000 lives.  Moreover, any hope for democracy was doomed as a result of alliances between these wealthy oligarchs and the military, whose actions were primarily directed toward their benefit.  Here again, the United States' fear of communist infiltration caused American support for the military; and the army was frequently "a law unto itself."

Panama was controlled by military people for many years.  In 1968, General Omar Torrijos became president, and imposed a harsh form of authoritarian leadership upon his people.  After his death in 1981, his successor, General Manuel Noriega, governed even more brutally and unscrupulously, garnering huge profits from illegal drug activities, until his arrest and imprisonment by American invasionary forces in 1990.

Within this frequently embattled region, only Costa Rica can be credited with doing something along the lines of one of the themes of these paragraphs:  it abolished its army in the late 1940s.  The country apparently maintains only a police force for the purpose of maintaining internal security.  Sgtrangely, Costa Rica has been basically spared from civil war; and enjoys the highest per capita income of all the Central American countries.

These few examples, pertaining to a small sector of our world, portray the role, power, and frequent ruthlessness of military and semi-military entities, wherever they are permitted to acquire and maintain political power.

                                                 * * * * *

On this eleventh anniversary of a national tragedy that had worldwide significance and effect, it should be realized that anger and hatred, by members of any national, racial, religious, cultural, or other faction, should not be permitted to surface and be acted upn so as to result in that which took place on that dark day in 2001.

Instead, we must begin to annihilate any and all factionalism, wherever it exists; and to recognize our common traits, and our common basic needs and desires.

We must each begin to do anything we can personally do to promote peace and happiness within our immediate environs--so that it can all eventually unite and blossom into a just and beneficent result for all of civilization, mankind, life, and the world.