Column Huge outlays for weapons a colossal blunder
By ROBERT F.
DRINAN
The verdict of history is not like a jury -- were not judged
by our peers. People looking back will not understand all the complexities of
our lives, the baggage we carried. While their judgment may be simplistic, it
is also likely to turn on obvious truths that we manage to gloss over in the
course of daily life.
One such obvious truth is that the United States, as the dominant
nation of the 20th century, missed an opportunity to advance the welfare of
humanity by investing so much of our wealth in weapons instead of global
development.
The Brookings Institution recently issued a report revealing that
since 1940 the United States has spent $5.8 trillion on nuclear weapons. This
figure dwarfs any expenditure on any civilian or military program in the
history of the world.
That point bears repeating. We have spent more money on nuclear
weapons than any civilization in history has ever spent on anything.
Even today our spending on the nuclear arsenal costs $35 billion a
year -- 15 percent of the total defense budget. No new nuclear weapons are
being produced, but it costs the American taxpayers some $4.5 billion just to
keep the stockpile reliable.
Those expenses beg the question: Why does the United States still
need weapons with the explosive force of some 120,000 Hiroshima bombs?
What is often forgotten is that the long-term cleanup costs for
the nuclear arms race may cost as much as the original expenditures over the
past 55 years! Dismantling and safely disposing of nuclear weapons is a costly,
time-intensive process. Even assuming that it is done perfectly, causing no
environmental damage whatsoever -- a dubious assumption -- it will cost in the
tens of billions.
The reliance of the United States on the threat of nuclear weapons
is one of the several reasons why India and Pakistan developed nuclear devices
-- leaving these two nations now also spending billions on a program they do
not need and cannot afford.
The Federation of American Scientists, which cosponsored the
Brookings project, wants to reverse the obsession the United States has had
with threatening atomic destruction on its so-called enemies. Why should the
United States retain an arsenal it can never use and which conveys a threat to
the 96 percent of humanity that lives outside the United States?
Contemplating the fantastic price that America paid for nuclear
armaments and the formidable expenses that will occur to dispose of them, with
all their radioactive ingredients, one has to wonder whether the development of
nuclear weapons was a colossal blunder by the United States. Could history
conclude that the United States overreacted to communism? If a substantial part
of the $5.8 trillion used for nuclear weapons had been directed to the
development of the 100 or more nations that became independent after World War
II, the entire history of the modern world would have radically changed for the
better.
Parallel to the reliance the United States has placed on nuclear
weapons is the carelessness the United States has displayed in the present
epidemic of small weapons around the world. A threat of small arms, many made
in the United States, was at the heart of the 101 low-intensity wars fought
between 1989 and 1996. Small arms are responsible for more deaths than all
other weapons combined.
Military style firearms in worldwide circulation are estimated to
number 500,000. In and out of civil wars, they breed a culture of violence.
They are used by right-wing militias, death squads and guerrilla
supporters.
There is no world authority that can prevent the proliferation of
small weapons. Access to them is out of control. Guns in large numbers move
from one conflict to another. An article by Michael Renner in the July-August
issue of World-Watch describes the epidemic in all its ghastly dimensions.
The expenditure of $5.8 trillion for nuclear weapons, the looming
bill for cleanup and dismantling those weapons of at least that much and the
U.S. negligence in allowing the worldwide epidemic of small arms all underscore
the challenging conclusions of the Center for Defense Information, a
Washington-based think tank. For 26 years the center, made up of retired
military officers, has been issuing materials in opposition to excessive
expenditures for weapons and policies that increase the danger of
war.
The center gives a very different version of what America should
be doing in its role as the only superpower. The retired generals and admirals
who run the center know the agonies of war and the need to use every means to
avoid it. They are not pacifists, but they see the errors, the inconsistencies
and the outright follies of many of our present policies -- while supporting
intelligent applications of force, such as humanitarian efforts in Haiti,
Rwanda, eastern Zaire and elsewhere.
The center, along with more and more observers of the U.S.
military, see in the defense establishment a vast organization isolated from
the rest of the nation. The Pentagon continues to operate on the assumptions of
the Cold War era.
It is time for a profound reassessment of Americas military
role in the world. The liquidation of the worlds nuclear arsenal and the
elimination of the worldwide availability of small arms should be the first
priorities of the reassessment.
Jesuit Fr. Robert Drinan is a professor at Georgetown
University Law Center.
National Catholic Reporter, October 16,
1998
|