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.

                                                               * * * * *