ken@alberta.UUCP (Ken Hruday) (06/05/85)
<food for thought> I haven't seen this perspective on the arms race advocated anywhere previously, so I'm posting this for the sake of provoking discussion. It may have been pointed out before, but the arms race could be viewed as a form of warfare between the U.S. and Soviet economies. The Soviets have consistently sacrificed consumer production in favor of military production, this, coupled with an inherently flawed economic system and lagging technology has caused shortages - and lineups - for many basic consumer goods. The U.S., on the otherhand, has actually benefited economically from modest arms buildup in the past. It is only recently that massive spending is becoming a serious problem as it manifests itself as an ominous national debt and a drain on social programs. But it still remains true that the U.S. economy is healthier and much more able to sustain a prolonged arms buildup. I don't think that the American military establishment is blind to the economic problems of the Soviets and are willing to capitalize on it. By sustaining - and possibly fueling - the arms race, the burden to the Soviet economy is thus increased. In the Soviet Block, food lineups are the norm and one occationally hears of temporary meat shortages. In a more weakened condition the Soviets would be more susceptible to "economic persuasion" in the form of grain embargos or any other economic levers. Possibly, the ultimate intent is to destabilize the Soviet government by producing unrest amoung it's people. This may be one reason that the "Star Wars" defense research has been proposed - it fuels Soviet buildup and widens the technology gap. Both resulting in a relatively weaker Soviet economy. Of course, I realize that the U.S. suffers from the same "buildup paranoia" as the Soviets, but I don't think that the consequences of this mutual paranoia are lost on some of it's military analysts. There are a number of questions related to this: Do the Americans actually gain a relative economic advantage in an arms race? Is it possible to run the Soviet economy into the ground? Can the Soviet government be changed or modified by these means? What does a destabilized, toppling Soviet government do with thousands of nuclear warheads? Where do Canadians fit into this? What are your perceptions? I would be interested in any discussion of the above speculations or questions. Ken Hruday University of Alberta
clewis@mnetor.UUCP (Chris Lewis) (06/07/85)
In article <530@alberta.UUCP> ken@alberta.UUCP (Ken Hruday) writes: ><food for thought> > >I haven't seen this perspective on the arms race advocated anywhere >previously, so I'm posting this for the sake of provoking discussion. >It may have been pointed out before, but the arms race could be >viewed as a form of warfare between the U.S. and Soviet economies. >... >or any other economic levers. Possibly, the ultimate intent is to >destabilize the Soviet government by producing unrest amoung it's people. > >This may be one reason that the "Star Wars" defense research has been >proposed - it fuels Soviet buildup and widens the technology gap. Both >resulting in a relatively weaker Soviet economy. This is probably one of the most important reasons for what they are doing. I remember reading some time ago that, due to the nature of the Soviet economy, that with the then-current level of defense spending by the Soviet government, that the USSR was probably heading towards a state of collapse. Due to the major problems that they have with supplying consumer goods because of the defense spending level, they are starting to encounter a greater and greater level of resistance by their own citizens. You can see this in the protests that happen when the prices go up. The only thing that is countering this is the very strong "love for the motherland" that the govt. is trying to encourage (and is pretty successful in generating) by the high levels of propaganda that they generate. The suggestion was, that within 10 to 15 years, the Soviet economy would go into total collapse due to: 1) Higher and higher economic stress, and 2) higher and higher levels of public disorder. The major point that the paper was trying to make is that the US (and the West in general) should try to keep out of the situation. The fear was that if the situation was obviously generated or actively helped along by the West, a beleagered Soviet Govt. (A major Polish uprising, or major internal revolt) may decide to take the ones responsible along with them (or divert domestic attention) and start the "Big One". I believe that several of the U.S. defense scenarios start with revolts in various areas of the Soviet bloc instigated by just this sort of situation. "The Day After" was actually based upon a similar scenario, where the U.S. decided to throw their own two-cents-worth (some tactical nukes over the battlefield) during a full-scale armed revolt in Poland. This is one of my major fears as well. With higher and higher economic pressure applied by the U.S. on the fairly shakey USSR economy, the USSR may decide to get out of an intolerable situation by starting a war. -- Chris Lewis, UUCP: {allegra, linus, ihnp4}!utzoo!mnetor!clewis BELL: (416)-475-8980 ext. 321