(THIS ARTICLE IS MACHINE TRANSLATED by Google from Norwegian)
The Pentagon manages sixty percent of the US state budget in 1968
Since the crisis in 1929, the United States has not had a steady increase in prosperity, except during a war economy. Only at the end of 1944 did unemployment in the US drop to 1 million. If you look at the labor force today, 4 is in the army and in addition everyone who works directly or indirectly for the armor industry comes. On the whole, one-third of all American workers are either employed in the armor or military or are unemployed. The Ministry of Defense's budget grants the third party of all research funding and takes 43 percent of the government's tax revenue.
war economy
The United States is spending huge sums to consolidate its power around the world while the country itself is marked by poverty and decay. What problems does a state face in ever-increasing contradictions? The war is not a consequence of American politics. It is the fundamental factor in American society and in economic life. The war industry is more than ever before a dominant power factor. On a global scale, it accounts for the tenth part of total production. The United States alone produces between $ 60 and $ 70 billion a year in this sector. At the same time, the US part of the gross domestic product of the military system is the largest in the Western world. The war economy acts as a stabilizer on the rest of economic life. This is due to several factors, but the fact that the goods produced by the armor industry are being destroyed quickly (bombs, fighter jets, ammunition, etc.) solves the problem of overproduction, while the war economy is independent of the fluctuations in the private sector and is not affected by supply and demand for the regular market. A report from the United States Office for Arms Control and Disarmament admits that the large expansion of the public sector after the Second World War is a result of increased defense spending and that it has provided protection against depression. The war economy controls employment, consumption and production effectively.
An example
The United States therefore faces the danger of peace. If war production were stopped, it would have catastrophic consequences for economic life, social programs, research, etc. The capitalist system knows nothing that has a more favorable effect on the economy than a war system. That is why there is a close connection between politicians and war producers. An example is President Nixon's Deputy Secretary of Defense David Packard. He symbolizes the alliance between the Pentagon and the industrial princes. Packard is not a politician but a big man in the electronics industry. Last year, his company sold equipment to the Pentagon directly and for more than $ 61 million to other Pentagon-dependent companies. In addition, Packard is a director of a company other than its own Hewlett-Packard. This is General Dynamic, which in 1968 was the Pentagon's largest supplier with contracts totaling $ 2,2 billion. This company produces both fighter bombers and submarines, and Packard sits on the board of other companies working for the Department of Defense. One of them is US Steel, which is the world's largest steel producer.
The power of the Pentagon
The political structure in the United States is evolving towards an alliance between the Pentagon's civilian and military technocrats and industry and the aerospace industry. President Eisenhower strongly warned against this in 1961.
60 percent of the US state budget was managed by the Pentagon in 1968. The amount was greater than 80 billion dollars. The Ministry of Defense entered into large contracts with industry so that a large part returned to the country's economy.
Litton Industries, which supplies electronic equipment for rockets, aircraft and warships, can stand as an example. The chairman of the board is Charles B. Thornton and is considered a personal friend of former President Johnson. Since 1960, this company has quintupled its contracts with the Pentagon. The leaders of such companies have often expressed concern about any attempt to create tension in relations with the Soviet Union. They are happy with the election of Nixon as the new president and especially with the Ministry of Defense's new chief Melvin Laird. Laird has made himself a spokesman for military superiority if one is to avoid nuclear war.
The Ministry of Defense and the CIA have infiltrated the research. There is now a close connection between research policy and military policy. It is arranged in such a way that funds act as an intermediary between the individual research institutions and the business world, which is dominant. Many cases of infiltration are kept hidden from researchers and their institutions. The CIA has its people on both sides to make sure everything goes as it should.
The Institute for Defense Analysis manages a budget of $ 12 million. It has contact with twelve American universities. The research assignments these universities are given are adapted to the needs of the Ministry of Defense. These are geographical studies of areas where the United States is at war, the manufacture of plant toxins and other weapons against humans and nature. The University of California has a basic research project underway on felling leaves on trees. These are just scattered examples. The scam is that the majority of universities are in the belief that they conduct basic research for the benefit of all. Students and scientists outside the country's borders are entangled in the same web of infiltration. Through exchange programs, among others. a. with poor countries, one ensures a large influence on the development and social processes in the individual country.
The generals
The generals are a powerful group. In the United States, it is now feared that the US General Staff will completely take over the political decisions as well. The long period of cold and hot war has led to a large group of professional soldiers being trained to a greater extent than before, guarding their own symbols and institutions. The military schools that are emerging today have their parallel in Europe before the Second World War. Through the military parades and the military philosophy, the group manifests itself as a power factor. The military support organizations are increasing in strength and are increasingly commenting on political issues. But the most frightening thing is the positions taken by the professional military in critical situations. The generals wanted to bomb Cuba in 1962. They demanded the use of nuclear weapons in Vietnam as early as 1964. They wanted to strike back at North Korea with nuclear weapons. They wanted to deploy troops when the wall was built in Berlin. A former chief of staff of the country's air force, General Curtis Le May, became Wallace's vice presidential candidate in the presidential election this autumn.
The background for the generals' power is the US military expansion of power in the world. Today, the country has large armies, aircraft and naval forces throughout Southeast Asia, many places in Europe and at home. The forces require the training of specialists. As before, the commanders do not consist of men with a one-sided military education but of highly qualified specialists in mathematics, physics, telecommunications, economics, psychology and administration. A large group of officers checks e.g. the country's economy and has made large parts of the industry dependent on the military. As the generals strengthen their position of power, they will also make decisions in the political sphere. It will happen directly and could have catastrophic consequences for the United States itself and for the rest of the world.
