Abstract
It's been a bountiful season for impending doom. it's that time of year when reports to Congress and the president are filled to bursting with creative writing–stuffed with reasons to punch up the defense budget or face certain (“not if, but when”) destruction from any one of a dozen threats to U.S. national security that are said to loom on the immediate horizon.
Some of these reports are remarkably imaginative. One, adapted from an idea by Republican Sen. Bob Smith of New Hampshire and authored by a group led by now-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, suggests that the United States needs to put “non-aggressive” weapons into space to maintain its non-militarized character (see page 17).
Then there's the “Gilmore report,” a second annual advisory missive to the Defense Department meant to rationalize the exponential increase in funds to fight terrorism. Calling for “collective fortitude” and “bold action,” the panel seems to have grown weary of the “not if, but when” formulation. Instead, its authors say, they were “impelled by the stark realization that a terrorist attack on some level inside our borders is inevitable.”
Add to these another heavy-duty warning, Proliferation, Threat and Response, a housewarming gift from outgoing Defense Secretary William Cohen to his successor, listing weapons-of-mass-destruction threats from 25–count ‘em, 25–countries. As it was released, Cohen tried to preempt skeptics by insisting that it was not “just some scare tactic.” “This is reality,” he insisted.
A great deal of effort has gone into the campaign to build up the budget, but it was not a challenging task. The not-so-new boys now taking charge in Washington have already whipped out the checkbook.
Good thing, too, because the basic premise underlying the latest effort to generate fear and hysteria is hard to swallow. How believable is the idea that the United States is in grave danger precisely because it is the strongest, most heavily armed country on the face of the Earth? My favorite phrasing of this view, repeated in Threat and Response, is that it is the commanding lead of the United States that makes it vulnerable to attack by hostile forces.
Try testing the logic. If you shift the threatmongers adage from “a equals b” to “b equals a,” you'll get a statement to the effect that the United States would be stronger if only it were weaker–not, I think, the conclusion the budgeteers had in mind.
Whether it's wisdom or indifference–or perhaps just the right mixture of the two–so far the American public hasn't jumped on the build-bigger-bombs bandwagon or bought into the terrorism tempest.
One reason may be that they've heard it all–not just the nuclear threat–before. In the 1960s, it seemed as if the public was warned every few weeks that it was just a matter of time before a major city–usually New York–would be laid low by hippies lacing the municipal water supply with lsd.
But hysteria refused to be induced. Most people didn't believe anything would happen, and some who did believe it were definitely looking forward to it.