Page 12 Portland Observer, April 8,1982
The arms race nobody talks about
By Michael T. Klare
Pacific News Service
W ASHINGTON. D C . — While
the vertical, nuclear arms race be
tween the United States and the
Soviet Union is heatedly debated in
public and in Congress, an equally
terrifying and vastly more expensive
horizontal, conventional arms race
is proceeding apace with little no
tice.
According to the Stockholm In
ternational Peace Research In
stitute, the world now spends some
$500 b illio n per year on m ilita ry
forces—o f which 90 per cent, or
$450 b illio n is devoted to conven
tional forces. While the major in
dustrial powers account for a very
large percentage o f that amount,
Third World countries are spending
more and more o f their scarce capi
tal on conventional weapons, and in
many cases are now capable o f
fighting wars o f near-nuclear inten
sity.
This T h ird W orld capacity w ill
expand even faster in the 1980s as a
result o f increasing conventional
arms sales by the United States and
other major military suppliers. For
a time. President Carter’s much crit
icized “ arms restraint” policy put a
brake on surging U.S. weapons
sales, but now President Reagan has
removed such restraints and U.S.
exporta are expected to soar to rec
ord levels.
Because Soviet and French ex
ports are also rising, total arms de
liveries to the T h ird W orld could
easily exceed $1 trillion in the 1980s.
Conventional weapons are “ con
ventional” only in the sense that
they are non-nuclear; otherwise,
they may be as familiar as the com
mon handgun or as “ unconvention
a l” as napalm and white phos
phorous. And while such arms may
be less efficient than nuclear wea
pons in killing large concentrations
o f people rapidly, they are no less
effective over the long run. Accord
ing to some estimates, more than 25
m illio n people have died since
World War II in conflicts fought ex
clusively w ith conventional wea
pons.
Although controlling the nuclear
arms race must be the world’s num
ber one priority, there are many rea
sons why conventional arms control
merits almost as much attention:
•Conventional weapons are be
coming more like nuclear arms in
their capacity to destroy large con
centrations o f people. Recent devel-
9% M ORTGAGE
FIRST TIME ON MARKET
5 BEDROOMS
2 BATHS
FIREPLACE
FULL DRY BASEMENT
A ?
¿ e s i - >uwi-s
-
CALL OWNER
vvi
. i R«
NO OUT POCKET
CASH REQUIRED
JEFF TALLMAN
* «Y 3
opments in the design o f “ cluster
b illio n on imported arms between
bombs” —large canisters which hold
1969 and 1978 (in constant non-in-
hundreds o f individually-scatterable
flated 1977 dollars), o f which 75 per
“ bomblets” —suggest that conven cent—$107 b illio n —was expended
tional munitions can be substituted
by Third World countries. Most ex
fo r tacitical nuclear weapons in
perts agree, moreover, that this fig
many situations in vo lvin g large-
ure is likely to double or triple dur
scale destruction. The West German
ing the current decade. As a result,
BD-1 cluster bomb, for instance, re
the arms inventories o f countries
portedly can decimate an area o f
like Iran, Israel, Syria, Saudi Arabia
three-quarters o f a square mile—ap
and L ib ya —w ith their m u ltiple
proxim ately 75 city blocks. Other
Phantoms, MiGs and Mirages—will
new weapons, including advanced
more and more resemble those o f
forms o f napalm and so-called “ air
the front-line states in NATO and
burst” m unitions, can also d u p li
the Warsaw Pact.
cate the killing effects o f a small nu
•Conventional wars arc far more
clear warhead.
likely than nuclear wars. The world
Because o f growing opposition to
has witnessed 140 conventional wars
nuclear weapons in Europe, NATO
and uprisings since 1945, and the
planners increasingly are talking of
likelihood is for more o f the same in
a new generation o f "near nuclear”
the turbulent years ahead. Many o f
conventional weapons that could do
these w ill be guerrilla conflicts or
just about everything that theater
coups with relatively low levels o f
nuclear weapons can do.
casualties, but some w ill be major
•M ore countries arc acquiring
regional wars like the Iran-Iraq con
large arsenals o f modern conven
flic t or the Arab-Israeli wars, with
tional weapons. U ntil as recently as
very large numbers of casualties. As
1970, most T h ird W orld armies
conventional weapons become more
were equipped with obsolete, World
powerful, these wars will be fought
War II vintage arms acquired under
at higher and higher levels o f vio
the m ilita ry aid programs o f the
lence and destructiveness. Thus,
superpowers. Today, through the
while in d iv id u a lly , none o f these
w orldw ide trade in conventional
wars would approximate the catas
weapons, these countries are
trophe o f a lim ited nuclear war, a
acquiring many o f the world’s most
series o f them might.
advanced missiles, tanks, warships
•Nuclear wars are most likely to
and bombers. According to the U.S.
grow out o f conventional wars. Any
Arms C o n tro l and Disarmament
realistic assessment o f lik e ly war
Agency, the world spent some $145
scenarios would suggest that a nu-
620-9874
620-4792
•'
clear war would probably begin as a
conventional war, when the super
powers intervene in a local conflict.
In such a situation, one side or the
other might find that its convention
al forces are in danger o f defeat and
thus resort to the use of tactical nu
clear weapons, which then invite re
taliation and counter-retaliation at
ever higher levels o f nuclear violence
until we reach all-out thermonuclear
war. Indeed, such escalation is be
coming more like ly precisely be
cause o f the growing proliferation
o f conventional arms.
THE TAX
LAWS HAVE
I
•O f the $1.6 tr illio n President
Reagan wants to spend on m ilitary
power over the next five years, ap
proximately 85 per cent—$1.35 tril
lion—will be devoted to convention
al weapons and forces. Much o f this
vast sum w ill be spent on re fu r
bished battleships, the Rapid De
ployment Force, and other interven-
tionary forces that will add nothing
to basic U.S. security, but w ill in
crease the risk o f U.S. involvement
in future Vietnam-,ype wars.
TAND WHAT
/YO U DONT KNOW
COULD COST YOU
No one should underestimate the
importance o f a genuine nuclear
weapons freeze. But in pushing for
such a move, advocates should not
forget the urgency o f conventional
arms control. As long as there is no
freeze on the proliferation o f con
ventional weapons, the world is just
as like ly to face Arm ageddon—it
just might take a little longer.
MONEY!
< liere are over 4 7 Orftereol L i, lorrre
.n the te,kr.1i I.,, i
SAN FRANCISCO—Lost in the
clam or over tax cuts, m ilitary
spending and the “ New Federal
ism,” the real centerpiece o f Presi
dent Reagan's plans fo r reshaping
the federal government is quietly
moving toward reality.
The Reagan-supported campaign
fo r a constitutional amendment to
cap federal spending and taxing is
not just three states short o f the re
quired two-thirds majority. Its pro
gress through state legislatures has
largely been eclipsed by the more
controversial fate of another consti
tutional change, the Equal Rights
Amendment.
But many observers agree that
passage o f the “ Balanced Budget/
Tax L im ita tio n C onstitutional
Amendment” appears far more cer-
tian than the apparently doomed
ERA.
The proposed amendment would
put an end to deficit financing of the
federal government and impose a lid
on the rate by which federal spend
ing grows so that it never outruns
the pace o f national income. These
two restrictions would impose mon
umental changes in how Washing
ton works. They would, in fact, be
the real cornerstone of “ Reaganom
ics.”
Some observers believe that a year
o f worsening recession and the larg
est d eficit budget ever—a deficit
nearing $1 trillio n —is an odd time
to press for an irrevocable cap on re
sources available to Washington.
But advocates o f the amendment,
including the president, see advan
tages to their cause in the current
fiscal crisis.
The birth o f this campaign, as far
as President Reagan is concerned,
occurred roughly 10 years ago. As
governor o f California, Reagan per
sonally sponsored an initiative at a
<
special 1973 election which p ro
posed fixing a lim it to C alifornia’s
year-to-year state spending increases
and freezing expenditures in the
state budget to a fixed portion o f all
C a lifo rn ia ’ s personal income. The
aim was to keep government from
encroaching further on the public’s
purse. Though the voters rejected it,
this was the harbinger o f the 1978
Proposition 13 tax rebellion. This,
in turn, triggered parallel tax reduc
tion moves or restraints on govern
ment spending in numerous other
states.
Today the same conservative
economists and monetarists who
fashioned that unsuccessful 1973
plan for California, led largely by Dr.
M ilto n Friedman, have master
minded a pincer move guaranteed to
focus national attention in 1982 on
the drive to impose ju st such a
formula on Washington.
One arm o f the pincers ap
proaches this fiscal change through
a succession o f state legislative reso
lutions calling for a national consti
tu tio n a l convention. Its purpose
would be to bar future federal defi
cit spending and to put a lim it on
revenues the government can collect
each year. This movement has gar
nered support from an odd assort
ment o f politicians including at one
point the frugal Gov. Jerry Brown
o f C a lifo rn ia . Brown hasn’ t men
tioned it lately, since his U.S. Senate
race requires careful adherence to
Democratic party principles.
So far, with the recent action by
Alaska, 31 states have called for a
constitutional convention to take up
this issue. Washington State, Ken
tucky and Missouri are now locked
in debate over it Only 34 states are
needed to mandate a convention.
The second arm o f the pincer is
Congress. Duplicate language for a
constitutional amendment has been
introduced with 60 co-sponsors on
the Senate side and 170 co-sponsors
in the House. The Senate measure,
already passed by the Judiciary
Committee last May, is expected to
come up for debate and a vote this
spring. Action on the House version
w ill not be so sw ift, since liberal
committee chairmen have blocked
the way.
But the fast-moving threat o f a
state mandated constitutional con
vention is expected to force Con
gressional action on the amend
ment. A convention, which would
require cooperation from Congress,
has never been used to amend the
constitutuion since the initial draft
ing in 1787, and Congress is not
eager to allow a precedent now.
Summoning citizens for a shot at re
designing even one little segment of
the Constitution is viewed in Wash
ington as an invitation to havoc—a
giant Pandora’s Box swarming with
every single-issue advocate and spe
cial-interest faction. Instead o f in
viting this mischief, Congress pre
fers what has become the customary
amendment practice: a two-thirds
vote in each House, referring the
matter then for ratification by two-
thirds o f the states. This move can
foil a convention call.
For more than six years organized
proponents o f curbs on government
have toiled to contrive just this pin
cer force on Congress. Key groups
are the N ational Tax L im ita tio n
Committee and the National Tax
payers’ Union. The first is close to
President Reagan and is led by his
form er aide, Lewis K. Uhler. Its
prime objective is to confine govern
ment taxes to a set ratio of national
income so they cannot grow faster
than the total economy. This guar-
rntees to the private sector that it
shall not be eroded further by gov
ernment’s burden.
Language in Section 2 o f the
proposed amendment asserts that
I
total federal receipts (taxes) in any
fiscal year shall not increase by a
rate greater than the increase o f na
tional income in the previous calen
dar year.
The N T U ’ s goal has been a bal
anced budget with no deficit. This is
set out in Section I o f the proposed
amendment. It calls for a Congres
sional “ statement” each year o f an
ticipated receipts and anticipated
outlays, and requires them to bal
ance. Deficit spending beyond this
in itia l statement would be allowed
only upon a th re e -fifth s vote o f
Congress.
The stark reality o f the present
alarm ing d e fic it, though unmen
tioned in the proposal, is recog
nized. The amendment would make
an exemption to the prescribed
"balance” to allow paying o ff past
debts.
These two inter-related fiscal con
trols may be waived in case o f war—
but only after an actual declaration
o f war.
As the band-wagon o f support for
the amendment has gained momen
tum, scores o f leading theoreticians
and politicians have taken up the
public battle, pro and con. Notice
ably absent from these ranks, how
ever, has been President Reagan
himself, perhaps the leading advo
cate. Reagan’ s absence from the
fray may be explained by the under
standing that his alliance to the
cause might be more o f a hindrance
than an asset, given his record-high
budget deficit.
But the nearly $1 trillio n deficit
does not discourage the leading
amendment cheerleaders. Says
Lewis Uhler o f the N ational Tax
L im ita tio n Committee: “ Every
member o f Congress wants to show
voters he is against deficit financing.
We o ffe r Congress the chance to
take such a stand. We expect over
whelming support.”
Pacific News Service
im l there ir< < .e r t()i
■ .
service to h'Kl all o l Ih, t t r r e . i v . tri.,'
,, , , ....
..
■ r>
,r. <>ntitt»>u io
Let H&R Block uncomplicate
these tax laws for you. »
Ou aarMcaa
ara arao to c a ta d at S a a > . and m o a t I r a d
Scars
Tax limitation sneaks through states
by Mary Ellen Leary
Pacific News Service
. Witt ...
Hour»
<» 14
U.,..,
Saa an
M S B B io t»
R«pr •$ » n |> |tv »
«I the
Mon thru T h u n 9-9
Fri -Sot Sun Holiday« 9 6
A ppointm ent» om ilobto but not n«c«»»«ry
»•«MW Wjl“
H&R BLOCK
THE INCOME TAX PEOPLE
LICENSED TAX CONSULTANT
FREE WRITTEN ESTIMATES GLADLY
BART’S HUSH PUPPIES
PATTERN
Contrasting pastel shades create a
striking pattern on this dress sandal
And you'll be pleased with their
comfort —Hush Puppies, of course'
In smooth finish multi-combinations
$31.
W O M fN S StZtS IN STOCK
$
Jantzen Beach
‘ ■ • I •
i » l » l » | a l a : a ’ a |a |a ,
a
Size* (bove 10. *? taira
B ART’S HUSH PUPPIES’
MAVEN TON MAI L
MALI 70S
Mi tMWT______ »» in s
EASTPORT J A N ^ N
rrt s w
BEACH
289 6451
, , j, SA*
m
f