[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Minimum Nuclear Deterrence - reply to Dr. Roy

---Charu datt <charu@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> I agree it is a widely propagated view that military spending, >
financed by taking on public debt,  performed a great deal of
> Keynesian pump-priming. I have never seen any arguments that could 
> disprove that the same changes could not be accomplished much more 
> efficiently by civilian spending as opposed to military spending.

I agree with you that civilian spending could have done the same. It
just so happens that the turn of events favoured military spending.

> My apologies for the missing information in an earlier reply to this
> thread. I'm unable to locate a current URL with the full text of the
> article. The article I was citing is titled "The Pentagon System" by
> Noam Chomsky. It details how US planners continue to use military 
> budgets to steer the economy and why. Essentially, the reasons are 
> that military spending does not have to be accounted for under the 
> guise of "National Security" secrecy. Also, direct accountability and
> civilian control threatens to transfer power from its current holders.

This brought up an interesting thought. In most democratic countries, 
the military could be wielding more power than most people think. I 
heard someone say that the military top brasses of India and Pakistan 
seem to want this state of "war" between the two countries so that they
can retain their powerful influence. Could be nonsense but go figure! 

> -Charu

Vinay, I have not forgotten your response about why I shouldn't be 
given free reign to start my own business and I do intend to respond to
the same (especially since I disagree with some of your views) as soon
as I have time to catch up. Please bear with me.

- Manju

This is a posting to India_Policy Discussion list:  debate@indiapolicy.org
Rules, Procedures, Archives:            http://www.indiapolicy.org/debate/