||From The Christian Science
Monitor July 25, 2001
THE MONEY DEFENSE SHIELD
I once sat on a plane in front of two drunk arms traders, on a flight from Dallas to Washington DC. Theyd sold helicopters to both sides during the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s. When the helicopters got shot down, the countries bought more, then more again, so the arms traders made more money each round. They laughed wildly about the story, considering it a perfect deal.
This incident came to mind when I heard the Bush administration talk of kindly sharing their proposed national missile defense system with their allies. Why not? The more countries, the more orders. And the more benefits to those truly protected and benefited by this projectthe weapons producers whove spent over $40 million in the past two years on campaign contributions and lobbying.
A group of Lockheed Martin employees essentially acknowledged this, when I gave a talk, a few years ago, at their Missile & Space Division, in Sunnyvale, California. The company had invited me to discuss a book of mine on the values of current studentstheir future employees. I hesitated, then decided to speak as honestly as I could, even though it would mean raising discomforting questions. Introduced by a former Air Force General then serving as a Lockheed Martin Vice President, I talked about the generations complex worldview and struggles to engage some of the critical issues of our time. When students feel that the world is corrupt and can't change, I said, they often point to the political clout of weapons companies, citing corporate bailouts, pork barrel contracts, and military systems that never work but still made millions. I mentioned how Boeing, well before it acquired Rockwell and McDonnell Douglas, had more staffers in its Washington DC lobbying office than the entire DC staff of Washington States Congressional and Senatorial delegations combined. The students were beginning to believe, I said, that political access comes only when you give at the door.
After mentioning some respected critics of military buildups, such as former Reagan assistant Secretary of Defense Lawrence Korb, I cited the famed Eisenhower quote: "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in a final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed--those who are cold and not clothed." Since the average American household now pays over $200 each year to finance Lockheed Martins government contracts, I challenged the audience to question their corporate culture and not assume that just because a contract provided money and jobs, it automatically served a greater common good. I specifically questioned some of the companys missile defense systems, which critics were calling politically destabilizing and technologically problematic. A man in the audience quickly jumped in to defend the companys role in developing them.
Then one of his colleagues spoke up. "Lets get real," he said. "We all know that if anyone ever attacks America, the bomb is going to be delivered by a suitcase, a car or a truck, or in a boat. Its not going to come from a missile, because you can track where a missile comes from and retaliate. We all know that were lobbying for these programs because they make us money. We dont care whether theyll ever work, or even be useful. We care that the dollars come our way."
The room was silent. The original questioner answered briefly, but no one else jumped in. The conversation moved on to my original topic of the students. It was as if people were ashamed to respond.
Im not saying that all who embrace the National Missile Defense proposals do so for venal reasons. Some do believe in it. Building an invincible technological shield has been a core dream of the political right since Reagans first Star Wars plans, albeit a dream spearheaded by think tanks that companies like Boeing, Raytheon, TRW, and Lockheed Martin have lavishly supported. The engineers and designers who support it want the chance to take on what J. Robert Oppenheimer (who directed the creation of the first atomic bomb), once called the "technically sweet" challenge of building complex and challenging technological systems, whatever their consequences. But weve spent $45 billion on Star Wars systems and $95 billion on total missile defense efforts since Reagan embraced the idea, with little beyond failed tests to show for it.
Lets leave aside the endless reasons why National Missile Defense will never work. Leave aside all the ways thateven if it didit would only undermine hard-won arms control treaties, destabilize global politics, move us back toward nuclear confrontation, and squander over $200 billion of resources that could otherwise provide health care, hire teachers, rebuild our communities or protect our environment. Do we have the political honesty, like the Lockheed Martin employee who spoke out, to acknowledge that this entire proposal may be largely about political payback? The true shield its designed to create would not protect people and communities. But it would protect the massive profits of the companies that build itwhatever the costs to the rest of us.
Paul Loeb is the author of Soul of a Citizen: Living With Conviction in a Cynical Time (St Martins Press www.soulofacitizen.org).