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.

                                                               * * * * *