An Arms Race With Ourselves

Paul Cummins

Mirror Contributing Writer

Because it’s night and the barbarians haven’t come. 
And some people just in from the border say
There are no barbarians any longer. 
Now what’s going to happen to us without them?
The barbarians were a kind of solution. 
—C.P. Cavafy

   Guns do not make people safe. Clearly, humanity was safer before men invented and began the relentless proliferation and intensification of guns and their range and power. Two weeks ago, I argued in this column that we in America are less safe having more guns out on our streets than there are in any other country. Proof: more Americans per capita and in total die of gun shots than in any other country. But such is our (neurosis? idiocy? insanity?) condition that we have now imposed this same twisted logic onto the global defense scene. 
   A little background. In the 1930s, we were mired down in a depression. World War II mobilized our citizens and our economy and ever since we have been dependent—in varying degrees—upon a wartime mentality and productivity. No sooner did we defeat fascism in Germany and Japan than a new enemy emerged—communism in Russia—or so we convinced ourselves. Thus began the infamous arms race which engendered a nuclear nightmare for all of humanity. Then in 1989 the Soviet Union unraveled. A “peace dividend” was promised for America and the world. However, it hasn’t happened. 
   Why? 
   Because in truth “we” had become dependent on a wartime economy. As we mobilized for World War II, we created what Dwight Eisenhower referred to as the “military-industrial complex.” Actually, in his farewell address on January 17, 1961, he warned the country against this marriage. More recent critics have referred to this complex as the “iron triangle” of Congress, the defense companies and the Pentagon. Thus, the Cold War (1948-1989) and its successor, “the new world order, comprise a five-decade period of such profit and mobilization for the M-I complex that we seem now to believe it is a necessity of economic life. Defense now has its own momentum and keeps rolling along even though there is really no one against whom we are defending ourselves. 
Although few politicians would admit it, we are now rather at sea without the Russian bogey man to justify our arms build-up. Now that the bogey man is gone, what pray tell is the justification for continuing our bloated defense spending? Not incidentally, defense spending is larger today in constant dollars than it was in the mid-70s, the peak of the Cold War. We try to pretend that we need our current massive capacity for overkill because of “terrorists” but even though the press obediently promulgates this government lie, it is difficult to believe. We continue to build more tanks, more bombers, more this, more that, but who is our so mighty enemy? 
   Hussein? Milosevic? And, as if this were not reason enough to pause and consider our bondage to defense spending, there is another even more compelling reason: we are making the entire planet less and less safe by arming others. 
   Before discussing the arming of others, there is one other factor to consider. Despite its momentum and high levels of spending, all is not well in the defense industry. Because of the glut of planes, tanks and other items, and because newer models are increasingly sophisticated and costly, the actual number of orders from the U.S. military is down. For example, in the 1980s, Fort Worth was turning out nearly 300 F-16s annually; now it’s only making 80 or so a year. 
   And, as William Greider points out (in his recent study, “Fortress America”) “almost none of those 80 planes are for defending America!” So, rather than re-access the rationale for continuing old modes of defense, we seek to keep our arms industry alive by exporting arms to other nations. The system is really rather absurd; we build F-16s, we sell them to other nations, we then say since other nations have F-16s, we must build F-22s. This is all fine and good for defense contractors, but the taxpayers are footing the bill. The tragedy of it all is that every dollar spent on defense is a dollar denied to education, health, the infrastructure, national parks and ecosystems. Congress is unwilling to offend its defense buddies and supporters and so even though orders are down in the U.S., the defense companies sell their weapons abroad. 
   Countries around the world are being armed by the U.S. and the U.S. then determines to play world policeman. Defense spending, for example, is up by 35% in Latin American countries since 1992. Their economies are only up by 22%. While it may be good business to sell weapons, it is making the planet less and less safe for everyone. 
   One is struck by the blithe, unchallenged assumption that war is inevitable, forever inevitable (otherwise why do we continue R+D for more sophisticated and devastating means of waging war?) and that we must pour untold billions of dollars and some of our best creative energy into imagining new wartime techno-futuristic scenes. 
   Further, we assume that an equivalent amount of money, time and energy should not be put into studying, networking among nations, holding the highest level conferences to find ways of disarming and seeking the peaceful care, protection and cleaning of our precious and fragile planet and its peoples. 
   As you sow, so shall you reap. If we continue to sow arms, is there any question what the harvest will be? As Greider writes, “By pushing more and more weaponry, old and new, on other nations, the arms manufacturers are laying the groundwork for future conflicts...the U.S. government spends 12 times more on promoting arms sales abroad than on environmental technologies.” 
   With the collapse of the Soviet Union, there is a unique opportunity for the world to stop the senseless intensification and proliferation of weapons in the world. The U.S. could take a leadership role in peace rather than producing the means of war on a mass global scale. 
   Do we wish to lead the world to peace or are the economic needs of a few so dominant that a future of truly terrifying proportions will be imposed upon humanity by the purveyors of arms? The “iron triangle” seems unwilling to atop what some refer to as the U.S. arms race with itself. Ultimately, an enlightened and, I suspect, an indignant citizenry will be the only ones to put a stop to this madness.