DOCSLIB.ORG

The Economic Cost of the Military Industrial Complex

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Economic Cost of the Military Industrial Complex The Economic Cost of the Military Industrial Complex By James Quinn "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hope of its children." These must be the words of some liberal Democratic Senator running for President in 2008. But no, these are the words of Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower, the Supreme Allied Commander during World War II, five decades ago. The United States, the only superpower remaining on earth, currently spends more on military than the next 45 highest spending countries in the world combined. The U.S. accounts for 48% of the world’s total military spending. Where did the peace dividend from winning the Cold War go? (click to enlarge images) The United States spends on its military 5.8 times more than China, 10.2 times more than Russia, and 98.6 times more than Iran. The Cold War has been over for 20 years, but we are spending like World War III is on the near term horizon. There is no country on earth that can challenge the U.S. militarily. So, why are we spending like we are preparing for a major conflict? The impression on the rest of the world is that we have aggressive intentions. The administration is posturing like Iran is a threat to our security. Iran spends $7.2 billion annually on their military. We could make a parking lot out of their cities in any conflict. Does anyone really believe that they would create a nuclear weapon and use it on Israel? Their country would be obliterated. Defense spending had peaked at just under $500 billion in 1988. The fall of communist Russia did result in a decline to the $350 billion range from 1995 through 2000, and an economic boom ensued. Since 9/11 we have doubled our spending on defense. This seems like an overly extreme reaction to 19 terrorists attacking our country. Bin Laden and his terrorist network numbered less than 10,000. The initial response of invading Afghanistan, defeating the Taliban, and cornering bin Laden in the mountains was supported by the entire world. The success of this response was sufficient to deter any other country from allowing terrorist organizations to operate freely within their borders. The natural response of the United States should have been to increase spending on border protection, upgrading the CIA, and increasing our ability to gather intelligence. Instead, we spent billions on weapons, aircraft, tanks, and missiles. The neo-cons, led by Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz, saw the 9/11 attack as their opportunity to change the world. They’ve gotten their wish. Of course, we took our eye off of bin Laden and Afghanistan. The Taliban has experienced a resurgence, recently freeing 800 fighters from a prison. Bin Laden continues to issue videotapes exhorting his followers to continue the fight. Dwight D. Eisenhower’s farewell speech in January 1961 is a brilliantly perceptive analysis of the future of our country. Throughout America's adventure in free government, our basic purposes have been to keep the peace; to foster progress in human achievement, and to enhance liberty, dignity and integrity among people and among nations. To strive for less would be unworthy of a free and religious people. Any failure traceable to arrogance or our lack of comprehension or readiness to sacrifice would inflict upon us grievous hurt both at home and abroad. This last sentence describes what George Bush has managed to do in the last 5 years. The arrogance of believing that we could invade a country on the other side of the world and expect to be treated as liberators is beyond comprehension. Our reputation abroad has been grievously damaged. The voluntary sacrifices we’ve made in the U.S. were to receive tax cuts and multiple tax rebates, paid for by our grandchildren. President Bush has sacrificed by not playing golf for the last 5 years. How noble. Not exactly the Greatest Generation, quite yet. Did President Eisenhower envision that the U.S. would have troops stationed in 70% of the world’s countries? According to the Defense Department’s latest "Personnel Strengths" report, the United States now has troops stationed in 147 countries and 10 territories. This is the greatest number of countries that the United States has ever had troops in. Why are we policing the world? What is the point of having 57,000 troops in Germany and 33,000 troops in Japan? Germany and Japan each spend $40 billion per year on their military. Can’t they defend themselves at this point? We defeated them 60 years ago. It is time to leave. This is a prelude to decades of occupation in Iraq. Don’t believe the blather about withdrawal. The military has no intention of withdrawing. It is a shame that after 9/11, George Bush didn’t read President Eisenhower’s farewell speech. I wonder if he has ever read the speech. Instead he chose to follow the “wisdom” of Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz. President Eisenhower’s words describe the crisis that occurred on September 11, 2001. Crises there will continue to be. In meeting them, whether foreign or domestic, great or small, there is a recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties. A huge increase in newer elements of our defense; development of unrealistic programs to cure every ill in agriculture; a dramatic expansion in basic and applied research -- these and many other possibilities, each possibly promising in itself, may be suggested as the only way to the road we wish to travel. A spectacular and costly response is what the Iraq invasion has turned out to be. We have now spent more money on this venture than any war in history except for World War II. And there is no end in sight. I live in Pennsylvania. Taxpayers in Pennsylvania have paid $20 billion for our share of the Iraq war, so far. This amount of money would pay for 1,650,000 scholarships for University students for one year. Does a $20 billion investment in rebuilding Iraqi bridges that we blew up with $1 million cruise missiles make more sense than investing in our best and brightest young people? $20 billion would provide 24,000,000 homes with renewable electricity for one year. That is 20% of all the homes in the United States. After paying their utility bills this coming winter, I think I know what the majority of Americans would choose. Some further perspective on this out of control spending is provided in the following chart: President Eisenhower, as a former commanding general of Allied forces in World War II, knew exactly what the implications of having a permanent armaments industry were to the United States. He was also worried about the implications. Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations. These words were spoken 5 decades ago, but are just as true today. President Eisenhower, as a former commanding general of Allied forces in World War II, knew exactly what the implications of having a permanent armaments industry were to the United States. He was also worried about the implications. These words were spoken 5 decades ago, but are just as true today. The top five U.S. defense contractors generated almost $129 billion in revenues and $8 billion in profits in 2006, double the revenue and profits in 2000 when George Bush became President. The War on Terror has been a windfall for the defense industry and their shareholders. These companies have intertwined themselves into the fabric of our government and defense department. They contribute tremendous amounts of money to Congressional candidates and have thousands of lobbyists pushing for more defense contracts. Many politicians end up working for defense contractors (i.e. Dick Cheney) after they leave public service. This leads to conflicts of interest negatively impacting the American public. It appears that the biggest winners of the War on Terror are the CEOs of the defense contractors. I wonder if they realized how rich they would become as they watched the Twin Towers crumble to the ground. They have virtually tripled their annual income, while the average American scratched out a 20% increase over 6 years. They have managed to generate the tremendous profits and personal wealth while only employing 10% more employees. Boeing and Raytheon were actually able to reduce their workforce. How productive. These contractors will do everything in their power to retain and increase these fabulous profits. President Eisenhower clearly understood the moral implications of a huge armaments industry and the costs to a free society. This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Presidential Documents
    Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Monday, December 18, 2006 Volume 42—Number 50 Pages 2147–2171 VerDate Aug 31 2005 11:34 Dec 19, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 1249 Sfmt 1249 E:\PRESDOCS\P50DEF4.015 P50DEF4 Contents Addresses and Remarks Letters and Messages See also Meetings With Foreign Leaders Hanukkah 2006, message—2168 Presidential Medal of Freedom, Meetings With Foreign Leaders presentation—2162 Radio address—2148 Benin, President Yayi—2157 State Department, meeting with senior Iraq, Deputy President Hashimi—2152 officials—2151 Proclamations Virginia Armed Forces Full Honor Review for Human Rights Day, Bill of Rights Day, and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld—2166 Human Rights Week—2147 Defense Department, meeting with senior Wright Brothers Day—2168 officials in Arlington—2153 Statements by the President White House Summit on Malaria—2158 Congressional passage Communications to Federal Agencies Fisheries management legislation—2150 Designation of Officers of the Department of Outer Continental Shelf legislation—2149 Justice, memorandum—2148 Ryan White CARE Act, reauthorization Determination Pursuant to Section 2(c)(1) of legislation—2150 the Migration and Refugee Assistance Act U.S.-India nuclear energy cooperation of 1962, as Amended, memorandum—2162 legislation—2151 Presidential Determination on Sanctions Vietnam, permanent trade relations Against North Korea for Detonation of a legislation—2150 Nuclear Explosive Device, memorandum— Sudan, Darfur situation—2151 2147 Syrian Government—2156 Executive Orders Supplementary Materials Amendment to Executive Order 13317, Acts approved by the President—2171 Volunteers for Prosperity—2162 Checklist of White House press releases— 2170 Interviews With the News Media Digest of other White House Exchange with reporters in Arlington, VA— announcements—2169 2153 Nominations submitted to the Senate—2170 WEEKLY COMPILATION OF Distribution is made only by the Superintendent of Docu- ments, Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402.
    [Show full text]
  • President's Daily Diary Collection (Box 74) at the Gerald R
    Scanned from the President's Daily Diary Collection (Box 74) at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library THE WHITE HOUSE THE DAILY DIARY OF PRESIDENT GERALD R. FORD PLACE DAY BEGAN DATE (Mo., Day, Yr.) HYATT REGENCY HOUSE FEBRUARY 4 1975 ATLANTA, GEORGIA TIME DAY 7:55 a.m. TUESDAY PHONE - TIME ACTIVITY In Out The President was an,overIiight guest)(at the Hyatt Regency House, 265 Peachtree Street, Atlanta, Georgia. 8:00 The President went to the Tudor Ioom. 8:00 9:35 The President attended a working breakfast with newspaper editors, publishers, and broadcast executives. For a list of attendees, see APPENDIX "A.II 9:35 The President returned to his suite. 10:20 11:25 The President met with Ernest J.E. Griffes, Treasurer of Haxelhurst and Associates, consulting actuaries in Atlanta, Georgia. 11:31 The President went to his motorcade. 11:34 11:36 The President motored from the Hyatt Regency House to the Marriott Hotel, Courtland and Cain Street~, N.W. 11:36 1:25 The Fresident attended a luncheon for the 11th Annual Convention of the Opportunities Industrialization Centers. 11:36 The President was greeted by: Leon H. Sullivan, Founder of Opportunities Industrialization Center (OIC) and pastor of Zion Baptist Church, Philide~phia, Pennsylvania Maurice Dawkins, National Director of OIC Richard Stormont, Marriott Hotel General Manager The President, escorted by Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Dawkins, went to the Nation .fuf Brotherhood Room. The President met with headtcable guests. For a list of head table guests-i see APPENDIX liB." 11:56 The President went to the holding room.
    [Show full text]
  • Picking the Vice President
    Picking the Vice President Elaine C. Kamarck Brookings Institution Press Washington, D.C. Contents Introduction 4 1 The Balancing Model 6 The Vice Presidency as an “Arranged Marriage” 2 Breaking the Mold 14 From Arranged Marriages to Love Matches 3 The Partnership Model in Action 20 Al Gore Dick Cheney Joe Biden 4 Conclusion 33 Copyright 36 Introduction Throughout history, the vice president has been a pretty forlorn character, not unlike the fictional vice president Julia Louis-Dreyfus plays in the HBO seriesVEEP . In the first episode, Vice President Selina Meyer keeps asking her secretary whether the president has called. He hasn’t. She then walks into a U.S. senator’s office and asks of her old colleague, “What have I been missing here?” Without looking up from her computer, the senator responds, “Power.” Until recently, vice presidents were not very interesting nor was the relationship between presidents and their vice presidents very consequential—and for good reason. Historically, vice presidents have been understudies, have often been disliked or even despised by the president they served, and have been used by political parties, derided by journalists, and ridiculed by the public. The job of vice president has been so peripheral that VPs themselves have even made fun of the office. That’s because from the beginning of the nineteenth century until the last decade of the twentieth century, most vice presidents were chosen to “balance” the ticket. The balance in question could be geographic—a northern presidential candidate like John F. Kennedy of Massachusetts picked a southerner like Lyndon B.
    [Show full text]
  • Dick Cheney Obama One Term President
    Dick Cheney Obama One Term President Lefty chivies manly while Virgilian Halvard barging distributively or abrogating subjunctively. Immunological or glassiest, Benjamin never categorising any jouk! Jumbo Teddie dwine, his tomatillos surmises blabbing part-time. Former Vice President Dick Cheney recently grilled current Vice President Mike. United states as their publication may get terrorists will the most critical foreign policy decisionmaking had had left but the various presidential traditions, held dear by firefighters and every method of. Wasserman Schultz acknowledged Monday that commitment had these been left forward to leaders to remove members of Congress of their full party by their committee assignments. Mr Bush was sworn in at 1201pm losing only five minute of an exercise to his. No Joke Cheney Was the Worst President The Nation. Vice President Selina Meyer keeps asking her secretary whether the president has called. Predictably Republicans are tripping over it another rushing to. Other on dick cheney believes that one. Gop senators resorted to cheney! At getting other extreme Dick Cheney was as field to a co-president as we've walk He was. Former Vice President Dick Cheney has told conservative political activists he thinks Barack Obama is capable one-term president In a surprise. For social secretary of whom he was able to new. Predator not the Reaper to launch strikes against identified terrorist targets in were various places in fishing world. President Obama had one Saturday night run he ruminated. GOP voters support him. Scooter Libby actually took a aid for what amounted to a disagreement in memories as him defeat other witnesses.
    [Show full text]
  • In the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ______
    07-4943-cv IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT ____________________ JOHN DOE INC., JOHN DOE, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, and AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the United States, ROBERT S. MUELLER III, in his official capacity as Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and VALERIE E. CAPRONI, in her official capacity as General Counsel to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Defendants-Appellants. ____________________ ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ___________________ BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE, NATIONAL SECURITY ARCHIVE AND ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES ___________________ Meredith Fuchs National Security Archive George Washington University 2130 H St. NW, Suite 701 Washington, D.C. 20037 202-994-7000 Marcia Hofmann Electronic Frontier Foundation 454 Shotwell Street San Francisco, CA 94110 415-436-9333 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT In accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 26.1, amicus curiae the National Security Archive discloses that it is a project of the National Security Archive Fund, Inc. The National Security Archive Fund, Inc. is a not-for- profit corporation established under the laws of the District of Columbia. The National Security Archive Fund, Inc. has no parent corporation and no stock, thus no publicly held corporation owns ten percent or more of its stock. The Archive identifies that its general nature and purpose is to promote research and public education on U.S. governmental and national security decisionmaking and to promote and encourage openness in government and government accountability.
    [Show full text]
  • Out-Of-Office Experience Voters Hesitate to Elect Those Who Took a Break from Politics by Joshua Spivak
    Saturday, March 26, 2011 Out-of-office experience Voters hesitate to elect those who took a break from politics By Joshua Spivak It’s looking increasingly likely that Republicans will select a presidential candidate who is not currently an officeholder. But a look at history reveals that the American people are not enamored of electing out-of-office candidates. By limiting themselves to people who aren’t in the daily political battlefield, the Republicans may be harming their chances of success in November 2012. Voters’ anti-incumbent sentiment accounts for much of the reason Republicans are lacking office-holding candidates. The 2010 election was noted for its intense anti-incumbent fervor. It wasn’t just that the Democrats were swept out of office in near-record numbers in the House. The real surprise was the strong moves against Republican incumbents. In state after state, Republican incumbents or elected officials seeking to move up were defeated by barely known, sometimes very flawed insurgents. Utah Sen. Bob Bennett lost the party’s nomination, as did Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski, who won the election regardless by running as a write-in candidate. Delaware Rep. Mike Castle was defeated in the primaries in his search for the Senate by tea party candidate Christine O’Donnell. Similar upsets played out in Nevada, New York, Colorado and Florida. This anti-incumbent fervor has already had a significant impact on the 2012 nomination process. For the first time since 1904, no sitting U.S. senator is seeking the party’s nomination. And with only two sitting governors, Indiana’s Mitch Daniels and Mississippi’s Haley Barbour, and two representatives, Michelle Bachman and Ron Paul, even being discussed as candidates, it is very likely that, for the first time since 1984, a major-party presidential nominee will not be a sitting officeholder.
    [Show full text]
  • Ford, SACEUR Alexander M. Haig, Donald Rumsfeld
    File scanned from the National Security Adviser's Memoranda of Conversation Collection at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library I NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION Presidential Libraries Withdrawal Sheet WITHDRAWAL ID 010807 REASON FOR WITHDRAWAL National security restriction TYPE OF MATERIAL • Memorandum of Conversation CREATOR'S NAME. · Ford/Haig/Rumsfeld/Scowcroft CREATION DATE · 03/27/1975 VOLUME • • . 5 pages COLLECTION/SERIES/FOLDER ID • 036600109 COLLECTION TITLE • • . • NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER. MEORANDA OF CONVERSATIONS BOX NUMBER •. • 10 FOLDER TITLE • . • March 27, 1975 - Ford, SACEUR Alexander Haig, Donald Rumsfeld DATE WITHDRAWN • • • • . • 02/01/2000 WITHDRAWING ARCHIVIST • • • • LET ~ '+/~/()S q Is /10 MEMORANDUM THE WHITE HOUSE DECLASSIFIED wI portIon....mptM WASHINGTON f.O. 12958 (as amended) see!u ~T /NODJS/XGDS MR # /.." -II"; "1'" P1IIG I{.w 'i1.5/Jo,' osl> J.Ad/ni! 'fj ~~q~ .~ Date IO/!;J.UP.."" MEMORANDUM OF CONVERSATION PARTICIPANTS: President Ford General Alexander M. Haig, Supreme Allied Commander, Europe Amb. Donald Rumsfeld, Assistant to the President Lt. General Brent Scowcroft, Deputy Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs DATE AND TIME: March 27, 1975 5:15 p.m. PLACE: The Oval Office The White House [Photographers were admitted briefly and then dismissed] President: Why don't you fill us in? Haig: I have good news and bad news. The good news is that the United States forces have really turned around. They still need a little more training but things are very good. The Allies are better, too, except for Canada. The Dutch service is doing a lot of breast beating, but the British and the Danes are up five percent.
    [Show full text]
  • Proposed Congressional District 1 (Plan S00C0002)
    Proposed Congressional District 1 (Plan S00C0002) Total District Population 639,295 General Election 2000 Deviation 0 0.0% President of the United States Bush, George W. & Dick Cheney (REP) 178,133 67.7% Total Population (2000 Census) 639,295 100.0% Gore, Al & Joe Lieberman (DEM) 78,332 29.8% Single-Race Non-Hispanic White 501,260 78.4% Nader, Ralph & Winona LaDuke (GRE) 3,783 1.4% Non-Hispanic Black (including multirace) 89,756 14.0% All Other Candidates 2,703 1.0% Hispanic Black (including multirace) 1,338 0.2% United States Senator Hispanic (excluding Hisp Black) 18,070 2.8% McCollum, Bill (REP) 163,707 64.8% Non-Hispanic Other (none of the above) 28,871 4.5% Nelson, Bill (DEM) 88,815 35.2% Male 320,806 50.2% Treasurer and Ins. Comm. Female 318,489 49.8% Gallagher, Tom (REP) 184,114 72.9% Age 17 and younger 155,069 24.3% Cosgrove, John (DEM) 68,360 27.1% Age 18 to 64 402,580 63.0% Commissioner of Education Age 65 and older 81,646 12.8% Crist, Charlie (REP) 164,435 67.5% Sheldon, George H. (DEM) 79,313 32.5% Voting Age Population (2000 Census) 484,226 100.0% Democratic Primary 2000 Single-Race Non-Hispanic White 389,850 80.5% Commissioner of Education Non-Hispanic Black (including multirace) 59,845 12.4% Bush III, James (DEM) 16,130 34.8% Hispanic Black (including multirace) 773 0.2% Sheldon, George H. (DEM) 30,269 65.2% Hispanic (excluding Hisp Black) 12,714 2.6% General Election 1998 Non-Hispanic Other (none of the above) 21,044 4.3% United States Senator Crist, Charlie (REP) 87,047 51.8% Population Change (2000-1990) 109,679 20.7%
    [Show full text]
  • Extensions of Remarks Hon. Donald Rumsfeld Hon. B
    1146 EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS January 16, 1969 H.R. 3977. A blll for the relief of Falesca H.R. 3988. A blll for the relief of Lucia By Mr. SIKES: Knight; to the Committee on the Judiciary. Tortorella; to the Committee on the Judi­ H.R. 4000. A bill for the relief of Do Sung H.R. 3978. A bill for the relief of Maria ciary. Deuk; to the Committee on the Judiciary. Pinazzi; to the Committee on the Judiciary, · By Mr. RHODES: By Mr. TIERNAN: By Mr. POLLOCK: H.R. 3989. A bill for the relief of Vladko H.R. 4001. A blll for the relief of Anna Elsa H.R. 3979. A bill to authorize the Secre­ Dimitrov Denev; to the Committee on the Bayer; to the Committee on the Judiciary. tary of the Interior to consider a petition Judiciary. H.R. 4002. A bill for the relief of Chu Yi for reinstatement of certain oil and gas By Mr. ROGERS of Florida (by re­ Chang; to the Committee on the Judiciary. leases; to the Committee on Interior and quest): H.R. 4003. A bill for the relief of Jose Marta Insular Affairs. H.R. 3990. A bill for the relief of Harvey Sousa Costa; to the Committee on the Ju­ By Mr. PURCELL: E. Ward; to the Committee on the Judiciary. diciary. H.R. 3980. A bill for the relief of Reuben­ By Mr. ROSENTHAL: H.R. 4004. A bill for the relief of Giovanni stein D. Landreth; to the Committee on the H.R. 3991. A bill for the relief of Ben Zion Finocchiaro; to the Committee on the Ju­ Judiciary.
    [Show full text]
  • On Shi Resignations T Surs Enter
    Resignations enter on Shi t Surs `Politics' at CIA Feared By Walter Pincus and Laurence Stern Washington Post Stall Writerg. Warnings that the ap- knOwledge of his background pointment of George Bush and experience in this field." could lead to election-year He said Bush's appointment manipulation of the sup- could. well "compromise the posedly nonpartisan Central independence of the CIA." ' Intelligence Agency were Hush, interviewedin Peking sounded yesterday on Capitol by Reuter, inadvertently may Hill and within the intelligence have added fuel to the con- community. , troversy with the observation Indicative of the reaction that he was not sure the CIA was the comment Of Sep,: appointment . meant his Frank Church (D-Idaho)t political career was over. "Once they used- to give for ,Bush currently heads the U.S. mer national party chairmen: liaison office in China, postmaster generalships—the President Ford in his press most political and least conference Monday night also sensitive job in government. fed the concern with the ob- Now they have given this . nervation that he did not think former party chairman "the' either ,Bush or Donald most sensitive and least '• Rumsfeld, his ,nominee' as political agency." Defense SecretarY, could be CA. assessments -.were sharply at odds with those of Church, chairman`of the eliminated from "con- sideration by anybody" for the - the Nixon White House and the Senate CIA investigating Defense Department Helmq committee, said he would be vice presidency. An illustration 'of 'the was willing 'to testify on obliged to vote against the Capitol Hill against then- 'confirmation of Bush.
    [Show full text]
  • The Strange Rebirth of Missile Defense
    The Strange Rebirth of Missile Defense: Why Republicans Resurrected Reagan’s Dream Paul Musgrave Introduction National missile defense, even in its stripped-down, post-Reagan version, died in 1993. The Clinton administration killed it; shifting funding from research on “Star Wars”-like projects to missile defense systems like the Patriot. Instead of building a shield that would protect all of America, the United States would henceforth try to construct only limited defenses that could protect troops deployed in a future battleground. Yet ten years later, the George W. Bush administration has broken ground on new testing sites for a planned national missile defense, and billions of dollars annually are flowing into research and construction of a nationwide missile shield. The Bush administration could claim, were it so inclined, that it was merely following its predecessors; the basic parts of the Bush system are the same as those President Clinton proposed to use in his national missile defense. Why did U.S. policy toward missile defenses shift so dramatically? How did National Missile Defense survive its apparent death in 1993? These questions are important. National missile defense, in all of its guises and architectures, is among the most complex technical challenges humans have ever attempted to solve. It is also among the most costly, with some estimates placing the total cost of a missile defense system at nearly a trillion dollars. Understanding the sources of NMD’s resurrection is critical to a deeper comprehension of American security policy in the early years of the twenty-first century. The rebirth of missile defense came from two sources.
    [Show full text]
  • Donald-Rumsfeld.Pdf
    Gerald R. Ford Oral History Project Donald Rumsfeld Interviewed by Richard Norton Smith March 31, 2009 Smith: First of all, thanks so much for doing this. You have a unique position in the Ford story because you’re one of a dwindling band who can talk with authority about Ford’s years in Congress, and indeed, were instrumental in his becoming Minority Leader. You came in in ’62... Rumsfeld: Right. I worked in the House of Representatives from 1957 to 1960. One of the Congressmen I worked for was Bob Griffin of Michigan. So there was an earlier connection. Smith: So you had contact with Ford earlier. Rumsfeld: Slightly. Gerald Ford was way up there and I was staff assistant to a couple of Republican Congressmen. I did, however, have an interesting connection though to Congressman Ford; one of the pilots with me in the Navy, Jim Dean, who was shot down by the Chinese, was from Grand Rapids. His wife went to Representative Ford when I was working on the Hill and came to see me. So I had an awareness of Gerald Ford back then. Some years later, 1974, Henry Kissinger and I were going into the Peoples’ Republic of China after we left Vladivostok, where President Ford had met with General Secretary Brezhnev. I was going through some papers and there was my friend Jim Dean’s name. Kissinger had been asked by the government to raise the question as to whether Dean’s body was found or whether he was in prison and if so, if they would release him.
    [Show full text]