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.