On 9/6/20 6:23 AM, Ismail Lagardien via groups.io wrote:
Hi All.
I hope everyone is safe and healthy... I want to tabulate the value of
the US military industry. I will search online, but if anyone has a
source or knows of a paper that has pulled together the following, I
shall be grateful for a share.
1. Cost of operating >700 military bases
2. Value of Military Industry (from planes to ammunition)
3. Number of people employed in military industry
4. Number of people in Military
Military Spending
Posted to_www.marxmail.org_ <http://www.marxmail.org/>on February 23, 2004
(This was originally a submission to Revolution magazine in New Zealand)
At the end of the Vietnam war, U.S. citizens heard about a "peace
dividend" for the first time. Although military expenditures were
reduced by approximately 25 percent between 1973 and the end of the
decade, there were no benefits for poor or working people. This period
was marked by increasing attacks from Nixon's successor Gerald Ford and
then by Jimmy Carter, a Democratic president whose most famous quote is
"We have learned that more is not necessarily better, that even our
great nation has its recognized limits and that we can neither answer
all questions nor solve all problems."
Soon after the election of Ronald Reagan, military spending rose
dramatically. At the end of his first term, it was exceeding the amount
spent during the height of the Vietnam war. By all accounts, pressure
from the USA on the Soviet Union to react to initiatives such as the
Strategic Defensive Initiative (Star Wars) was one of the major factors
leading to the collapse of state socialism. Reagan's Vice President said
"We were right to increase our defense budget. Had we acted differently,
the liberalization that we are seeking today throughout the Soviet bloc
would most likely not be taking place." NY Times columnist agreed that
Reagan's buildup "seemed to impress the Soviets as a challenge that they
might not be able to meet."
After the rise of Gorbachev and the collapse of the Berlin Wall, hopes
rose again about the possibility of a peace dividend. In fact, Defense
Secretary Dick Cheney did order the military to cut $180 bn from the
budget for 1992-94, about a 6 percent reduction, but his boss George
Bush decided that the savings were to be used almost exclusively to
reduce the Federal budget deficit .
Under Clinton, military spending decreased somewhat from the previous
administration but only modestly. But by the time he left office, it was
up to the same levels as under Bush the elder, namely just under $300 bn
per year. Under Bush Jr. spending has increased sharply. In 2002 it was
up to $360 bn, just slightly below Reagan era figures. For 2004, the
amount requested from Congress is $400 bn--this does not include a
supplemental request of $35 bn for the occupation of Iraq. This exceeds
Reagan's largest, at a time when Soviet Union was still supposedly a
threat to the USA. Now that it no longer exists, it is all the more
irrational to be wasting billions with a rising unemployment rate and
declining social indicators.
There still are a couple of Communist bogeyman left but the more
reputedly dangerous of the two--North Korea--spends about 1/300 of the
USA on its military and Cuba less than half of that. Notwithstanding
this, they are represented along with Iraq as threats to the security of
the USA. (Iraq's expenditures were about the same as North Korea's.)
Right now the USA accounts for more than 43 percent of military
expenditures worldwide. It nearly doubles the amount spent by Japan ($41
bn), Great Britain ($35 bn), Russia ($29 bn), Germany ($23 bn) and China
($14.5 bn) combined.
Defense contractors have been ecstatic. Ronald Sugar, the chief
executive of Los Angeles-based defense company Northrup Grumman,
recently said he saw "very significant growth in sales and earnings" as
a result of the hikes in budgets. It should come as no surprise that
Donald Rumsfeld was an ex-director of a General Dynamics subsidiary and
that Paul Wolfowitz, his deputy defense secretary, was as a consultant
to Northrop.
Although it is beyond the scope of this article to fully analyze what
drives this profligacy, we can certainly say that it reflects the need
of a declining empire to maintain its control over vast areas of the
world. In a December 6, 2003 conference on Imperialism held at Columbia
University, both Peter Gowan and David Harvey explained US military
spending as compensating for a loss of economic power. Hegemony, to
paraphrase Chairman Mao, would seem to grow out of the barrel of a gun.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#1212): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/1212
Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/76664217/21656
-=-=-
POSTING RULES & NOTES<br />#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a
message.<br />#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.<br
/>#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
-=-=-
Group Owner: [email protected]
Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/marxmail/leave/8674936/1316126222/xyzzy
[[email protected]]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
