Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site alberta.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcsri!sask!alberta!ken
From: ken@alberta.UUCP (Ken Hruday)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: The Arms Race as Warfare.
Message-ID: <530@alberta.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 5-Jun-85 16:21:46 EDT
Article-I.D.: alberta.530
Posted: Wed Jun  5 16:21:46 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 6-Jun-85 09:29:05 EDT
References: <893@mnetor.UUCP> <524@alberta.UUCP> <916@mnetor.UUCP> <1093@ubc-cs.UUCP>
Reply-To: ken@alberta.UUCP (Ken Hruday)
Organization: U. of Alberta, Edmonton, AB
Lines: 57

<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