The Defense Budget

The President has submitted his FY 1990 Budget to the Congress and it contained few surprises. The President called for reductions in social programs and an increase in defense spending. Since the need for increases in defense spending are quite astonishing in the light of the events in the USSR and Eastern Europe, there must be an alternative agenda for the defense budget other than would seem to be required for national security requirements.

The nuclear threat from the Soviet Union has not diminished. All areas targeted before the rise of Mikail Gorbachev are still targeted and I do not believe they will be untargeted in the near future. In this respect we have to maintain our nuclear deterrent. But in view of the events now transpiring in the world is it necessary to build a nuclear superiority? Is it necessary to build aggressive nuclear weapons?

Total War

The Mongols invented the concept of "total war." We saw the results of total war and unconditional surrender in World War II. We were not interested in anything less than the total annihilation of Germany and Japan. The massive fire bombing of Germany and Japan and finally the atomic bombing of Japan was a clear indication of the Allied will. The post-war era saw the USSR become a nuclear power and the USSR and the United States became superpowers. Since we have embarked upon a course of budget manipulation to achieve social ends we have neglected the Federal role in the industrial and manufacturing sector of our economy and we are now witnessing Japan and West Germany emerging as the economic superpowers. The leaders of the United States have chosen a course that uses the defense budget to deprive other requirements of government of assets and has preferred debt both national and international to fiscal responsibility. There has to be a purpose for the debt and the FY 1990 budget shows clearly that the debt is not related to national security. It has another as yet undetermined role.

Nuclear War is not Winnable

When the Congress considers the Bush budget they should isolate all items in the budget that shift nuclear war from defense and deterrence to first strike superiority or sustainable defense, i.e. they should remove all items that give the illusion that a nuclear war can be won. This would mean eliminating the Space Defense Initiative—Star Wars. In nuclear strategy a good defense is the best offense. We should also eliminate cruise missiles, the mobile MX missile and the midgetman because they are not defensive weapons. Our nuclear deterrent should be modernized and rehabed but we should get rid of the foolish notion that a nuclear war is winnable and should settle for nuclear parity. The presence of nuclear weapons in the world has been the only factor for peace and we should not abandon our deterrent capability. Nuclear devices such as battlefield nuclear devices should be reduced along with the reduction of conventional forces. We don't need the B-2 bomber because it is an aggressive weapon. If the Air Force wants something it can fly hands-on, it should get something cheaper and define its mission to be for the defense of the country, not for the undetected destruction of some other country. The B-52 bomber could be rehabed yet again, or, there can be a follow-on that is reasonably priced. The need for the supersonic airplane that can attain orbital velocity could be the workhorse of our space effort but it should be part of the NASA budget and it should be pursued. Better C5-A cargo planes will always be needed not only for the military but for civilian use. Keep going on that.

Pork Barrel

Obsolete weapons should be scrapped. We don't need battleships. Not any. Home porting was simply pork barreling. We need to examine the rationale behind so many carrier fleets and again consider whether we are defending ourselves and our allies or are positioning ourselves to be the world's policeman. Japan should assume its own sovereign role for its own defense within an alliance with the United States and the free world.

After troop reductions and base closings the next need will be educational—retraining military personnel for civilian jobs and spurring the development of advanced manufacturing technologies to employ these people. Either that or start subsidizing MacDonald's.

Protecting the Economic Hegemony

The Defense Department is in a unique position to transform itself from its wartime role of arbitor of the defense industries protecting our political hegemony to assuming the same role for industries vital to our national security because they defend our economic hegemony. Instead of using the defense budget as a sink for our wealth so it will not be available for educational or social programs, let's put the Defense Department to protecting our economic hegemony. There is a lot of money to be made there. Such a change might actually be the impetus to increased growth of the GNP to the point where we can start paying taxes to support the government again and take our rightful place as the leading creditor instead of the leading debtor of the world.

Industrial Policy

Thanks for the Memories

As reported in BusinessWeek for February 5, 1990, U.S. Memories, a consortium of U.S. chip builders, folded. The member companies refused to come up with the money to fund the project and the U.S. government showed no interest in its survival. U. S. Memories, having received assurances from the Department of Justice that it would not be in violation of anti-trust laws, was going into the next generation of DRAMs (DEErams), the large memory chips that are essential to almost all automation operations, from robotics to computers, etc. The reasons the members gave for failing to support U.S. Memories were (1) the prices of the chips had recently fallen and were now readily available and (2) they were afraid their Japanese suppliers would retaliate and not supply them with the chips they needed later on.

The New Robber Barons

I can't think of two clearer indications of monopolistic practice than these two reasons for U.S. Memories failing. The Japanese are the new robber barons and they know what they are doing. In the absence of forceful leadership from our government, U.S. business is acting like sheep in the fold. As long as the flock is not being attacked they are not concerned. When one is attacked they bleat until the victim is dead, then they go back to business as usual.

Making Our Own Chips

It is as much in our national interest to make our own DRAMS, as it is to make our own fighter planes or submarines. Chips are to the industrial world as potatoes are to potato pancakes. They have to be plentiful and cheap. For chips to become a limiting factor in our industrial ecology is like going to the moon without oxygen. Then there is the matter of competitiveness. It comes in degrees. In the chip business today you can think of the Japanese as a well financed and coached football team, like the San Francisco 49ers and you can think of the U.S. semiconductor industry as a pick-up sandlot team. It's just a matter of time before the Reagan-Bush non-industrial policy causes the dissipation of the United States' technological superiority. A man from Mars would have to conclude that our industrial policy is to foster Japanese industry.

...Ted Sudia...

© Copyright 1990
Institute for domestic Tranquility