Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-tgr.ARPA
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!brl-tgr!wmartin
From: wmartin@brl-tgr.ARPA (Will Martin )
Newsgroups: net.followup
Subject: Re: Delhi Declaration - A Response to the Nuclear Dilemma
Message-ID: <3350@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Date: Mon, 18-Nov-85 15:13:13 EST
Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.3350
Posted: Mon Nov 18 15:13:13 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 21-Nov-85 20:36:39 EST
References: <1895@orca.UUCP> <2244@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: USAMC ALMSA, St. Louis, MO
Lines: 27

In article <2244@umcp-cs.UUCP> chris@umcp-cs.UUCP (Chris Torek) writes:
>[raynor@orca is quoting from the `Delhi Declaration']
>>It is imperative to find a remedy to the existing situation where hundreds 
>>of billions of dollars, amounting to approximately one and one half million
>>per minute, are spent annually on weapons.
>
>Correction:  one and one half million per hour.
>The U.S. government could pay off its ~1.8 trillion dollar debt in
>a mere six years by cutting all military spending.

Just to make waves... I recall that the main reason the west has "MAD"
and nuclear deterrence as its strategic methodology is that it is far
CHEAPER than matching the Soviets in conventional armaments and manpower.
Of course, total disarmament, not just nuclear freezes or eliminating
nuclear weaponry entirely, would save that large cost, but otherwise I
would expect that a committment to nuclear disarmament would RAISE our
defense spending, not lower it. Few people seem to follow through on
this. Most anti-nuclear types will claim they are not calling for total
disarmament, but just for eliminating nuclear weapons. But they expect
that this would *reduce* defense expenditures (I suppose by the cost of
the nukes themselves and the delivery systems). In fact, if you did cut
out nuclear weapons but, still and at the same time, wanted to preserve
a credible defense system, your costs and taxes to fund this would
skyrocket. Plus we would probably have to reinstitute a draft and keep
far larger standing armies overseas. 

Will