I wrote this for my Dissent in American Politics class. I just got my grade back, so I'd like to share it with you all:
A Different Vision for Life
In a change of plans, on January 27th 2013, The United States President, along with top Congressional members from both the House and Senate, publicly announced that they would not be parties to the upcoming scheduled World War III. Immediately disappointed and confused Ambassadors from Europe and Asia descended upon the capitol, demanding both explanations and reparations for loans loaned. Stocks for Boeing, Lockeed Martin, BAE Systems, Blackwater Worldwide and other defense contractors teetered dangerously—until a leaked document noted the federal government’s desire to keep their contracts. The document, tediously titled “Tentative Federal Budget for 2014” described the intention to reapportion money for weapons research towards energy and medicine, to recycle bases into parks and public housing and to change vehicles into subsidized scrap metal. It also expressed a wish to amend the duties of army personnel to included “farming”, “teaching” and “space exploration”.
The political leaders were lambasted. Like junkies deprived of their fix, the media and its public exhibited all the signs of withdrawal: anxiety, depression and extreme cravings. And, like rehabilitated addicts, they all came to see the wisdom in abstinence from assured, eventual annihilation.
The process of change began very slowly, yet gradually it was wholeheartedly embraced to the point where the beginning of 2015 saw the rebirth of a very different United States of America. The abandonment of military bases and operations overseas led to a dramatic improvement of the country’s status, image and self-identity. In just a few months, international rivals of the United States found themselves incapable of raping the near defenseless nation due to their own rampant native admiration and inspiration at, what was called, “The Great Transformation”. Impossible humility had disarmed the globe.
Touring Americans surprisingly found themselves pestered not about celebrities, Coke or cowboys but about their vanishing domestic homelessness, hunger and disease. As the infectious spread of peace and prosperity began to overcome both despotic and democratic nations, the once pesky and useless United Nations emerged as a forum for discussion and cooperation. One hundred years after the first Great War, the Great Transformation oversaw the creation of the Casual Union of Nations (C.A.N.). One of the first great CAN endeavors involved using bombs not against humans, but against asteroids during mining missions between Mars and Jupiter. The subsequent leaps and bounds in human civilization were beyond everyone’s serious expectations and imagination. Not long after the personal iShuttle by Apple was released and distributed (at a subsidized price). Suffice to say historians and social analysts agree the new vehicle played a prominent role in the dawn of the new era.
If only. If only our political leaders had the courage to lead in such a way. Perhaps such a future is but fanciful fantasy—an impractical dream. However I do not believe it is naïve, or at all fantastic to abhor the bloodshed and obliteration of millions upon hundreds of millions of peoples. Of the threat of massacre and spilling of blood, I am convinced. I am convinced because our nation leads the world in the development and stockpiling of weapons. I am convinced because of the deep level of integration and interdependency between our government and private arms manufacturers that from our military-industrial complex. I am convinced because neither the Republican Party, nor the Democrat Party will educate, confess to the public—let alone relinquish all together our continuing capacity for mass holocaust. Instead, the need for more and better spending for “defense” is ever enunciated and increased.
One must question the usage of the word “defense”. For example, the only country to ever use a nuclear weapon against another country is the United States of America. In World War II, the dropping of the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed 150,000 and 75,000 human souls, respectively. Currently, the U.S. has the equivalent of "120,000 to 130,000 Hiroshima-sized bombs." Simple multiplication of the Nagasaki bomb with the lower equivalent alone shows that we have the capability of wiping out our plant 1.5 times over. How can we still be accumulating defense when we have enough to destroy our own planet? Of course this is assuming that every bomb delivered successfully detonated over their target population, and it is also assuming that no other weapons are used. The later point we know is impossible. In the event that a nuclear bomb might be used, it goes without saying that soldiers, planes, tanks and ships would be used. The former fact reveals a certain structural stupidity and dangerous wastefulness. Why spend billions upon trillions of dollars and resources on thousands nuclear bombs that will never be used? These two facts point towards a senseless, gluttonous appetite for weapons and works of death.
More facts are necessary to outline the mere shadow of our appetite for arms. As of a 2008 report issued by the Department of Defense, our country maintains 865 bases overseas and 4,564 bases domestically for a total of 5,429 (PDF file). The total square miles of these bases (45,312.5 sq mi) equals roughly to the size of Pennsylvania (46,055 sq mi). On these lands and in operations around the globe there are 1,411,932 U.S military personnel working, a figure that exceeds the estimated population of San Antonio, Texas (1,351,305 people) by 60,000 thousand people or so.
The official cost for one Trident II missile, a nuclear missile that is launched from submarines, is currently set at $30.9 million. There are two variations of the Trident II missile, one with a payload of 100 kilotons and another with 457 kilotons. These are approximately 6 and 28 times the payload of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima. This small snapshot prepares us for the difficult-to-grasp number of $494.3 billion spent on military spending in 2009 or roughly 20% of the Federal Budget—a number which excludes the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and does not reflect the actual amount spent, but only the requested budget size. This can be the low estimate. It is noteworthy to include the high end number, as specified by the War Resisters League, which includes the budgets of Veterans affairs and half of NASA’s budget (that goes towards technology development that is then used by the military)—this number is $1.449 trillion or 54% of the federal budget. The real amount spent on the military by our government probably lies somewhere in the murky middle of $800-900 billion—about the same figure as the entire gross domestic product (at the official exchange rate) of Mexico for 2009.
On the dangers of modern armament development and hoarding of military, one only has to listen to the words of the Commander in Chief and President Dwight Eisenhower (not even Martin Luther King Jr., Mohandas Ghandi or Jesus but the Supreme Commander for the Allied forces of World War II). In his farewell speech towards the end of his term in 1960, President Eisenhower gave an eerie warning regarding the development, stockpiling and maintenance of a standing military:
…we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society. In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
The development of our current military-industrial complex has progressed to the point where we have the ability to destroy humanity several times over using an army spanning the size of Pennsylvania, with the population of the size of a small city and the annual budget equaling the GDP of an entire nation. Is this defense? When our country leads the world in increasing the potential for destruction, a destruction so great that it can only be compared to mass suicide, how can we claim to be agents of liberty, freedom and the pursuit of happiness?
Towards the end of his speech, Eisenhower calls for the abandonment of military solutions to international problems, “Disarmament, with mutual honor and confidence, is a continuing imperative. Together we must learn how to compose differences, not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose.” In an age filled with environmental, financial and energy crises far greater than any military danger posed to the America populous, in an age where American citizens are declaring medical bankruptcy and states are considering the abandonment of the 12th grade, we cannot afford to sustain our military-industrial complex. We cannot afford these weapons of death especially when they are our own undoing. If our future is to contain any shred of decency we must begin to reconsider the purposes of our military and weapons. If we want a future full of breathtaking life, we must stop supporting death. We must preach to our children and soldiers and political leaders a vision of life. We must, for it is only through our advocacy and active movement in support of disarmament and armistice that we can reach this future of life.