Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site randvax.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!houxm!ihnp4!zehntel!hplabs!sdcrdcf!randvax!david From: david@randvax.UUCP (David Shlapak) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: Defense cuts - RSVP Message-ID: <1882@randvax.UUCP> Date: Wed, 15-Aug-84 14:39:08 EDT Article-I.D.: randvax.1882 Posted: Wed Aug 15 14:39:08 1984 Date-Received: Sat, 18-Aug-84 01:35:11 EDT References: <411@loral.UUCP> Organization: Rand Corp., Santa Monica Lines: 66 ---------- >1. For this discussion, orient choices from an economic viewpoint. > While there is plenty of room for discussion of which military > projects are more valuable militarily, these should be deficit- > cutting approaches. I gotta say, this is one of the *sillier* things I've ever seen on the net...and there have been some dillies in the past... Using this approach one can advocate cutting a random $170-billion from the defense budget and thereby completely balance the Federal books without cutting social programs (heaven forbid!) or (gasp!) raising taxes (heaven AND hell forbid!!)...ignoring, or even subordinating, the military value of defense programs to economic concerns is a prescription for disaster...whenever I read something like this I'm reminded of Calvin Cooldige's remark when informed that the Army wanted an extra $100K or so to buy airplanes: "Let's just buy one and let them take turns flying it." Even I, militarist fascist that I am, could name several defense projects which could be harmlessly deleted from the Pentagon's wish-list...but careful consideration of the operational value of any proposed expenditure is and should remain the first and foremost concern in any discussion of defense budgeting. Economics is just a side issue. As for Reagan's comment about bombing Russia, while I too find such remarks inappropriate, it has prompted (as usual) such virulent Reagan- bashing on this net that I feel obliged to respond. Reagan referred to "Russia" instead of "the Soviet Union" not because he (paraphrasing) "doesn't see any difference between the people and their government" but because he was speaking off the cuff; most people informally call the USSR Russia. Why do some insist on drawing deeply profound effects from the most obvious of causes? Perhaps you would have preferred "the evil empire"??? C'mon, folks, let's try to be fair (isn't that what "liberals" are always screaming for? "Fairness?") and not let sophomoric ideology get in the way of assessing the real dangers we face....Reagan is a threat NOT because he's a "trigger-happy cowboy with his finger on the button," since a major nuclear conflict is about the most unlikely eventuality this side of a Martian lighting in your bathtub but because he's intent on undoing a half-century of social change which has, at least marginally, made this country a better place to live. Nuclear holocaust is a chimera, a dark fantasy, an issue drummed up by those who have nothing real to worry about, and it will remain so as long as the Helen Caldicotts of the world are prevented from having their dangerous way... the real problems we face are hunger and injustice, both here and globally. Unfortunately, these are not difficulties amenable to solution through reflexive ideology or rhetoric; careful thought and consideration are much more likely to bring relief....Can we see just a little more of both on this net?? [Soapbox stowed] Cheers. --- das NECESSARY DISCLAIMER: While the opinions expressed above are all depressingly correct, they do not neessarily reflect the views of the Rand Corporation or the sponsors of its research. So there.