The Russian Threat: its Myths and realities, by Jim Garrison and Pyare Shivpuri, might seem outdated, having been published in 1983. The world has changed so much since then and besides, the USSR has collapsed. However, much remains as it was. One of the core ingredients in the view that the Russian and Soviet Empire poses a threat to the USA, democracy, world order and a way of life is based on a military-industrial complex in the USA. When so many people are employed in a sector that relies on warfare, it pays to see threats looming even if they are not there. This book is a valuable read about the reality of the threat posed and the costs to humanity of letting this "threat" grow so far out of proportion.
Because the USA, and Russia to some degree, still rely heavily on arms related industries and employment, people may find this book useful to assess modern day "threats." Much of the fear mongering uncovered in the book could equally apply to the way the Middle East threat, and terrorism, has emerged to replace cold war era foes folloing the collapse of the USSR, or the new wave of Russia hysteria in Western, primarily American, governments whether they are democrats or republicans. Regardless of who is president, when over 50% of the US federal budget continues to go to "Defense," far too many people have a specific interest to keep telling people they need to fear something to keep these businesses going. They also need to test them regularly and justify future long term technological development etc.
Although there may be spinoffs tot he economy from this massive expenditure, such as new tech, stable employment, there are also serious human costs, as this book points out repeatedly. This takes funding away from education, medicine, disaster relief and many other items that could be used to secure, protect and enrich lives. Add in the disaster, destruction and death tolls, and the case becomes much more clear.
The question I have is simply this: it is not enough to advocate a reduction in "Defense" budgets (it was the Department for War until 1947!) - instead, how can the economy be shifted away from this to other uses without shock therapy?
Because the USA, and Russia to some degree, still rely heavily on arms related industries and employment, people may find this book useful to assess modern day "threats." Much of the fear mongering uncovered in the book could equally apply to the way the Middle East threat, and terrorism, has emerged to replace cold war era foes folloing the collapse of the USSR, or the new wave of Russia hysteria in Western, primarily American, governments whether they are democrats or republicans. Regardless of who is president, when over 50% of the US federal budget continues to go to "Defense," far too many people have a specific interest to keep telling people they need to fear something to keep these businesses going. They also need to test them regularly and justify future long term technological development etc.
Although there may be spinoffs tot he economy from this massive expenditure, such as new tech, stable employment, there are also serious human costs, as this book points out repeatedly. This takes funding away from education, medicine, disaster relief and many other items that could be used to secure, protect and enrich lives. Add in the disaster, destruction and death tolls, and the case becomes much more clear.
The question I have is simply this: it is not enough to advocate a reduction in "Defense" budgets (it was the Department for War until 1947!) - instead, how can the economy be shifted away from this to other uses without shock therapy?
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий