Abolish Defense

The trick these days is to find the most sophisticated possible rationale for the largest possible cut in the U.S. defense budget. Senator George McGovern’s “Alternative Defense Posture” promises to be a classic of the genre. McGovern indeed recommends deep cuts in defense—he argues for a fiscal year 1975 budget of $54.8 billion. It would take $84 billion to purchase the forces programed for 1972 in 1975 (taking inflation and higher payroll costs into account), so we are left with a $30 billion cut in search of a rationale.

McGovern does not anywhere contend that his budget would support the range of foreign policy objectives (e.g., military support of most U.S. alliances) discussed in his proposed defense posture: he is simply forgetful about that kind of thing. McGovern is, however, explicit in his views on our strategic nuclear forces. He states that the “overriding mission of U.S. nuclear weapons is to deter attack by hostile powers, by demonstrating the ability to absorb a first strike and then retaliate with enough force to inflict unacceptable damage in return. The only real defense to nuclear attack is to prevent it.”

WS

About the Author

William Schneider Jr.

Featured Tags

The trick these days is to find the most sophisticated possible rationale for the largest possible cut in the U.S. defense budget. Senator George McGovern’s “Alternative Defense Posture” promises to be a classic of the genre. McGovern indeed recommends deep cuts in defense—he argues for a fiscal year 1975 budget of $54.8 billion. It would take $84 billion to purchase the forces programed for 1972 in 1975 (taking inflation and higher payroll costs into account), so we are left with a $30 billion cut in search of a rationale.

McGovern does not anywhere contend that his budget would support the range of foreign policy objectives (e.g., military support of most U.S. alliances) discussed in his proposed defense posture: he is simply forgetful about that kind of thing. McGovern is, however, explicit in his views on our strategic nuclear forces. He states that the “overriding mission of U.S. nuclear weapons is to deter attack by hostile powers, by demonstrating the ability to absorb a first strike and then retaliate with enough force to inflict unacceptable damage in return. The only real defense to nuclear attack is to prevent it.”