brianp@shark.UUCP (08/30/84)
-+ All this is only true if you can get someone to use the 727. If they don't
-+ use it, it has an effective lifetime of 0, and provides no employment
-+ to anybody.
-+ Missiles, on the other hand, provide employment for maintenance *until*
-+ you use them. Since they aren't made to be used, they have a very long
-+ effective lifetime - 20+ years.
If their mere existence (and requisite need of maintenance) is what provides
the jobs, why not stockpile 727s, or ultrasonic kiwi washers?
727s give us some sort of return, at least. Missiles don't give you
anything at all, unless you are going to blow someone up. Missiles can
be thought of as a form of welfare. Get some people to perform some
token tasks, and the government gives them money.
The only question is: how much is "deterrence" worth? If the evil
naughty Commies are guaranteed 100% to swarm over the entire world, the
answer is obvious. Make Commie repelent (missiles). If they are going
to have internal problems, and all their satellite countries would revolt
if they get a chance, and the Commies can't do a thing to us, the situation
is still obvious. Don't waste money on them. However, Murphy sticks us
in the middle, and the puzzle is to figure out exactly where in the middle
we are (what the threat from them "really" is), and how much we are willing
to spend to counter the threat.
Arms talks are one way of >reducing< the problem, but the problem (of a
country that might attack us) is still there. When this problem gets
smaller, we can spend less to keep it off of our backs.
Brian Peterson {ucbvax, ihnp4, } !tektronix!shark!brianp