July 22, 2002

1:06 PM

The pursuit of permanent military supremacy."The question facing all Americans, therefore, is whether the expenditure of hundreds (later thousands) of billions of dollars to defend against hypothetical enemies that may not arise until thirty or forty years from now is a sensible precaution, as contended by the President and Defense Secretary, or whether it eventually will undermine US security by siphoning off funds from vital health and educational programs and by creating a global environment of fear and hostility that will produce exactly the opposite of what is intended by all these expenditures."
posted by homunculus (37 comments total)

We seem to have outspent the Soviet Empire and brought about their downfall through their trying to keep ujp with us. Now we might be able to do it to ourselves. Our domestic needs are huge and I am afraid all of this or much of it will be shunted aside for military spending. And then the stuff we make and no longer needs get shoved onto the glabal market; small wars use this stuff and then we need to spend more to be alert in case these wars become bothersome to Our Way of Life.
Simply put: we now command more than all the industrial nations put together for our military. What more do we need and for what?
posted by Postroad at 1:39 PM on July 22, 2002

I almost read the article until I noticed that the link was to The Nation, a ludicrous leftie rag that is Naomi Klein's main dumping-ground. Noam Chomsky is another of their pet columnists. Don't waste your time.
posted by mrmanley at 1:51 PM on July 22, 2002

Whew, that was a close one, mrmanley! You could have been soiled somehow!

Good article. Thanks, homunculus.
posted by hackly_fracture at 2:00 PM on July 22, 2002

Mrmanley: actually, read it, and then realize it's a waste of time.

The Left was wrong in 1975, and 1985, and they're still wrong. Which isn't an argument for limitless military spending. Still, I think some deep-penetrating nuclear weapons are in order. And the ones which emit immobilizing glop as well.
posted by ParisParamus at 2:02 PM on July 22, 2002

What is troubling is how weak Europe's military is. That's decadent and irresponsible.
posted by ParisParamus at 2:11 PM on July 22, 2002

all that money goes right back into the economy anyway, it's not like it dissapears. The only 'real' cost is the natural resources used.
posted by delmoi at 2:14 PM on July 22, 2002

Well delmoi there's the natural resource of the kids who could use some of that funding for their schools. And the families currently losing their retirement money in the crumpling stock market. And the elderly whose lives we've managed to extend, but who now need all manner of expensive drugs everyday. They could use some of the money, too.

This defense policy will mostly see the money going into the pockets of the executives of a few defense companies.
posted by Red58 at 2:26 PM on July 22, 2002

Gee thanks, mrmanley. I almost broadened my mind there for a sec. Whew. Close one. After all, I wouldn't want to read anything I disagreed with ideologically. It might make my widdle head expwode.
posted by BitterOldPunk at 2:28 PM on July 22, 2002

Look past the issue of quality & ideology of the source article, and you might find raises a relevant question regardless:

Will programs developing ever more fierce military technologies in fact create(e) "a global environment of fear and hostility that will produce exactly the opposite of what is intended by all these expenditures."

Is this really just the same old "technology is developing faster than morality" argument?

If you were in charge, would you take a chance and start implementing a little good faith (if not trust) on mankind reigning in its demonstrated aggressive propensities or play it safe and keep your nation armed to the teeth in an attempt to stay one step ahead of your enemies?
posted by BentPenguin at 2:41 PM on July 22, 2002

Given that a fairly small percentage of the American economy goes to military spending (and a whole lot of that goes to military salaries. And a whole lot of the rest results in cross-over to the non-military, this continues to be a largely stupid polemic.

Which is not to say there aren't a lot of greedy, selfish contractors and congressman exploiting the system. But even if they weren't spending wouldn't be radically different.
posted by ParisParamus at 2:57 PM on July 22, 2002

If you were in charge...

If I were in charge, I would concentrate on keeping the rest of the world off balance. I would randomly react out of all proportion to the stimulus so that other countries could not predict my future actions. If some visitor to my country shoots up an airline counter, I would nuke his country of origin into glass. The next time it happens, I would ignore it entirely (or maybe not). Sooner or later, the world would start self-policing themselves rather than take the chance on someone setting me off. (I haven't figured out yet how I would keep other countries trading with mine, but I'll work that out as soon as I'm sworn in.)

At not time, however, would I ever entrust the safety of my own tribe to the good will of other tribes. Furtherance of an agenda is what creates tribes/countries/religions/whatever in the first place and that agenda is always more valuable than the welfare of others
posted by joaquim at 3:09 PM on July 22, 2002

As Robert Borosage said 5 years ago in his Boston Review piece NO Justice, No Peace, "peace comes not from a perfect arsenal or a military posture, but from a continuing process of diplomacy, finding peaceful resolution of disputes, creating justice, building a rule of law and reason". The Guns and Butter Curve points out that "every choice has an opportunity cost, you can get more of something only by giving up something else".
The other side of the coin is the fact that we don't have any "real friends" in the world and therefore must be ready to go it alone; when you tell the world "you're either with us or against us" you aren't leaving much room for discussion.
posted by Mack Twain at 4:07 PM on July 22, 2002

man would swallow the whole sky if he could.
posted by muppetboy at 4:07 PM on July 22, 2002

a fairly small percentage of the American economy goes to military spending

Uh... what?

Even if you exclude veteran's benefits, retirement, and debt interest from the calculation -- past expenses are past expenses, after all -- that still leaves you spending about $300 billion per year on the military... that's a fair chunk o' change.

If you were in charge...

If I were in charge, I would replace the Department of Defense with the Department of Real Estate. Any nation or group gets uppity, we just buy the land out from under them, turn it over to the Department of Theme Parks and Vacationland Resorts, and use the rental profits to buy us all those flying cars we were promised so long ago.
posted by ook at 4:08 PM on July 22, 2002

We seem to have outspent the Soviet Empire and brought about their downfall through their trying to keep ujp with us.

Well, as we on the fringes like to say: "One Evil Empire down...One to go."
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 4:27 PM on July 22, 2002

Well, as we on the fringes like to say: "One Evil Empire down...One to go."

Yup, no need to worry about militant islamists or anything. At least they don't push evil imperialist mcdonalds and nike and that other toootally bogus stuff, man!
posted by dagny at 4:35 PM on July 22, 2002

Whatever do you temper your right wing vitriol with mrmanley? Are you saying you just stew about in a broth of hate-filled, self-congratulatory, right-wing groupthink all day and all night?

Personally, I love to read the shit you read too. Sometimes I find some common sense in the things that those on the right have common sense about. Sometimes I find that there are also those on the left who don't have it themselves. But I read. Make up my own mind after I've read it.

I will say, having done my share of reading, listening and watching throughout the years I have been reading, listening and watching, your hatred for a magazine and henceforth your aversion to reading it and then announcing for all to hear that it's not worth reading, tends to support certain stereotypes of the dittohead American right that I've read about.
posted by crasspastor at 4:38 PM on July 22, 2002

ParisP: "Given that a fairly small percentage of the American economy goes to military spending": could you provide links to back up your assertions - ie, what is the GDP of the US vs. say, Germany or the UK; of that, what percentage is taken by the Govt; and of that, what percentages are spent on, say Health /pensions /defence /education?

O, wait, I did (some of) it -
According to the [always reliable source...] CIA[who don't seem interested in Education & Health spending],
USA Population: 278,058,881 of which 12.7% poor
gdp = $9.963 trillion
of which defence = 3.2% ($276.7 billion, FY '99 est.)
total U.S. govt. budget = $1.828 trillion (1999) (18% of gdp)
By comparison...
Germany Population: 83,029,536 of which n/a % poor [no poor people?](acknowledged as the wealthiest european nation)
gdp = $1.936 trillion
of which defence = 1.5% (FY98) or $32.8 billion of
total govt. budget = $996 billion (51% gdp)


UK ?4th largest economy in the world) Population= 60,000,000 17% poor
gdp =$1.36 trillion
of which defence = 2.7%(FY97) or $36.884 billion of
total govt. budget = $555.2 billion (40% gdp)


So the US govt. takes a smaller proportional slice of the much bigger National cake, but spends a larger part (relatively) of that slice of cake on defence (compared to 2 democratic, market economies which it is allied to).
Also interesting to note is that the US govt. budget is almost as big as the gdp of Germany, and is 34% bigger than the UK gdp.

That's how you manage to project power around the globe!
posted by dash_slot- at 5:40 PM on July 22, 2002

Paris, what exactly is it you're objecting to? The author isn't calling for cessation of military spending, if he was I would agree with you. Rather, he is questioning whether the increase in military spending is necessary or wise.

"If, as expected, Congress approves the Administration's proposed military budget for 2003, US military spending will grow by $45 billion in the next fiscal year--a 13 percent increase over this year's allocation and the largest increase since the early Reagan era. Some of the additional money will be used to pay for the war in Afghanistan and to underwrite a hefty increase in military pay, but much of it will be devoted to the "transformation" of the military establishment. Even larger amounts will be devoted to transformation in the coming years, as the Defense Department begins to replace existing, cold war-era weapons with new, super-sophisticated systems... Some weapons now on the drawing board will make it to full-scale production; others won't. The point is that these systems are being developed in the absence of any credible threat from any adversary possessing anything even remotely resembling America's existing military capacity. No nation or combination of states in the world today can overcome America's military establishment, and none are likely to appear on the horizon with this ability for another three or four decades, at the very least."

Why do we need such an increase in the absence of any credible military threat? It would seem present levels are fine since the Afghanistan campaign has been fought with the military forces Bush inherited from Clinton.
posted by homunculus at 6:01 PM on July 22, 2002

I wouldn't mind seeing an increase. They're doing a lot of research right now that will improve the common people's lot in the near future (I.e neural-reactive wireless blanket networks for combat communications, unmanned vehicle research, laser research, etc.).

I would prefer to see a cut in welfare. I don't mind paying for something I get something out of at a later date, and I don't mind paying for eldercare, but paying for someone out in rural montana to pop out another kid doesn't even give me a warm fuzzy feeling.
posted by SpecialK at 7:08 PM on July 22, 2002

Yup, no need to worry about militant islamists or anything. At least they don't push evil imperialist mcdonalds and nike and that other toootally bogus stuff, man!

Like, wow, man. Last time I checked, the casualty list for the World Trade Center bombings was less than a single week's death toll created by greedheads selling cigarettes. I daresay that more children will die in the United States this year from industrial pollution-induced carcinomas than will die at the hands of any dreaded "islamists" (whatever the hell that term means).

You do the math. Let us know whether it is really "militant islamists" or "militant capitalists" that actually cause more suffering in the world. Then write your congress-critter and demand an end to this contemptible little dance of money and military.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 7:21 PM on July 22, 2002

Oh, foldy, you funny! "You do the math." Why, I think I will!

Infant mortality rates, worldwide

Selected infant mortality rates:

Afghanistan: 147.02 deaths/1,000 live births (2001 est.)
Algeria: 40.56 deaths/1,000 live births (2001 est.)
Azerbaijan: 83.08 deaths/1,000 live births (2001 est.)
Bahrain: 19.77 deaths/1,000 live births (2001 est.)
Bangladesh: 69.85 deaths/1,000 live births (2001 est.)

United States: 6.76 deaths/1,000 live births (2001 est.)
Australia: 4.97 deaths/1,000 live births (2001 est.)
Japan: 3.88 deaths/1,000 live births (2001 est.)

"Let us know whether it is really "militant islamists" or "militant capitalists" that actually cause more suffering in the world."

Done.
posted by Slithy_Tove at 9:22 PM on July 22, 2002

Don't confuse him with the facts, Slithy.
posted by BitterOldPunk at 11:04 PM on July 22, 2002

but isn't the real war zone in every american inner city?
posted by quarsan at 11:32 PM on July 22, 2002

Ah-ha! But, the case could be made, if I follow fold_and_mutilate correctly, that those very infant mortality rates could be in the most fundamental of ways be attributed to corporate exploitation via "militant capitalists".

There ain't no study I can imagine, that show's so. But wait 50 years. Our kids' kids will finally make the connection that third world human exploitation by way of corrupt leaders and the money and labor they can procure for corporations from their citizenry, probably had something to do with that country's rate of infant death.
posted by crasspastor at 11:39 PM on July 22, 2002

Hmn, we do not appear to be reading the same article. In addition to the question of whether we'll spend ourselves broke, I saw a general outline of overall changes in US military strategy.

One encouraging point: some of the forward-looking new technologies may actually strengthen public health and response to infectious diseases.

One troublesome point: "the Administration's new emphasis on anti-access-denial systems. Stripped of jargon and obfuscation, this is a plan to enhance America's capacity to invade and overpower hostile countries with a significant defense capability, like North Korea and China." It's not too clear what they talking about -- re-emphasizing infantry and armies of occupation? Or is this just jargon for 'special ops to knock out rogue WMD sites?'
posted by sheauga at 1:21 AM on July 23, 2002

I was birdwalking with the guys who were arguing about this:

You do the math. Let us know whether it is really "militant islamists" or "militant capitalists" that actually cause more suffering in the world.

then this:

Infant mortality rates, worldwide

Selected infant mortality rates:

and then this:

Ah-ha! But, the case could be made, if I follow fold_and_mutilate correctly, that those very infant mortality rates could be in the most fundamental of ways be attributed to corporate exploitation via "militant capitalists".

Yes offtopic. But I think fold_and_mutilate meant the term "militant capitalists" and what such a term to mean to be implicit and pre-argued as far as Slithy_Tove's countermeasure of including the infant mortality rates of select Islamic countries.

Surely you won't find one pro-"democratic" leader among any of the members of the Islamo-Infa-Mortality Champeen list. But I bet you'll find yourselves a corrupted by American politico-capitalist interest one or two.
posted by crasspastor at 2:01 AM on July 23, 2002

If I was a citizen of the U.S then I would be more concerned about internal rather than external factors which may interfere/hinder with the greatest country on earth. Heck those salamists may run a few planes into buildings but that may pale into insignificance compared to the potential time-bomb ticking away in its inner cities, where illiteracy,depravation and poverty are the real axis of evil. Of course this is not a problem exclusive to the north American continent, here in north west Europe those same problems are all to apparent. However these problems may not be so intractable if the same determination be applied to these problems as is used to eliminate al-queda and associate
posted by johnnyboy at 3:36 AM on July 23, 2002

Look, I'm as embarrassed as the next enlighted slob at the number of poor people in the USA. But when you consider the legacy of segregation and slavery; and you consider that, in effect, the US invites a lot of (poor) immigrants most other countries don't; and you consider that the other nations mentioned have their militaries subsidized by our own, there's no clear case that we're spending too much for defense.
posted by ParisParamus at 4:39 AM on July 23, 2002

Well said johnnyboy. And I have one thing to contribute in the argument for a "clear case that we're spending too much for defense."
The most recent audit of military spending shows the Pentagon can't account for 25% of the money they spend already so why the hell should we reward them with more? I only wish economics worked that way where I work!
I've absolutely no problem with paying the troops what they are truly worth and taking proper care of our veterans but I draw the line at more money for defense contractors! Most especially subsidiaries of Carlyle Group.
posted by nofundy at 6:00 AM on July 23, 2002

yeah, what if we spent all that money on the peace corp, or like americorp or something! like even the army corp of engineers :)
posted by kliuless at 6:08 AM on July 23, 2002

Anti-terrorist levees. Yeah, that'll work.

sheauga's right: the article isn't nearly as inflammatory as the headline. The question of spending is wrapped up, though, in the question of reform. The Nation is against the former and ambivalent on the latter. As for "access denial", that's simply a broader term than "area denial" which is the generic for systems such as mines (land or sea) or anti-personnel weapons (biological, chemical, or nuclear); so "anti-access-denial" applies to technolgoies to counter these defensive means. Presently much of our doctrine revolves around our mobile, and nearly impregnable, carrier battle groups or the air mobility command that can get cavalry, men, and supplies to a potential battlefield almost as quickly as a local ground force could mobilize. Future wars may involve enemies who attempt to neutralize this advantage by various means. The emphasis, rather, will be on using our technological advantage to enhance the defensive capabilities of our forces (stealth, active defense systems like lasers) and the offensive capabilities (speed and range). On the esoteric end, think anti-mine robots, even anti-mine robotic mini-boats. At the high end, think anti-submarine warfare.
posted by dhartung at 8:10 AM on July 23, 2002

less than a single week's death toll created by greedheads selling cigarettes

On one hand, terrorists willfully killing 3,000 people - on the other, people voluntarily ingesting a substance they know to be harmful and deadly. If you can't see the difference yer full of shit.

*notes poster*

Ah, well then.
posted by owillis at 8:17 AM on July 23, 2002

The thing the military struggles with most, institutionally, is refighting the last war. Our appropriations must focus on the speculative, hard-to-imagine, and otherwise improbable.

That's why the Nation's fundamental non-ideological criticism that there is no conceivable enemy to oppose for these weapons is so basically invalid.

After all, who on September 10th, 2001 imagined that the greatest weaknesses in American defense were weapons-screeners at civilian airports and the inability to scramble fighters quickly enough to shoot down rogue passenger airliners on the Eastern seaboard?

I think that the Nation, ultimately, has a different agenda: it wants America to be vulnerable to future threats so that it will be forced to deal from a posture of weakness with the world community, and, hence, be outsted from its supposed arrogance. I, on the other hand, take comfort in our ability to reduce all conceivable enemies to rubble ... who would ever want to go to the big game without the biggest linemen?
posted by MattD at 8:40 AM on July 23, 2002

What one has to understand is that much of the world's thinking is linked to the fact they are militarily weak; in effect, they can only justify the wisdom of their choices by insisting we're inappropriately powerful.
posted by ParisParamus at 9:03 AM on July 23, 2002

Whatever. The F-22 rocks and I'm glad it's us that's got it.
posted by whuppy at 10:53 AM on July 23, 2002

Given

(1) that the US is a $10T economy,
(2) that defense expenditures total $32B for consumable goods, $55B for capital goods, and $263B for services (i.e. paying people's salaries),
(3) that US consumers spend, for example, $121B on personal computers and $59B on jewelry,

to say we're handing all our money to greedy defense contractors strikes me as unsupportable.
posted by Hieronymous Coward at 3:43 PM on July 23, 2002