Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: WEDNESDAY, May 9, 1990 TAG: 9005090602
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A7 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: ROBERT L. McCONNELL
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
Too little attention has been devoted to the way in which Pentagon spending degrades the environment. Some of the money spent, directly or indirectly, generates alarming quantities of toxic waste. As a case in point, we need only remember the recently closed Avtex Fibers plant in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia. Scandals involving waste generated at atomic-weapons facilities have revealed billions of dollars of unfunded liabilities in "cleanup" costs, estimated at one Ohio facility alone to be $1 billion.
Finally, routine activities of the military result in pollution on a large scale, quite apart from the numbing examples of waste all too familiar to Americans. Dumping of large volumes of plastics at sea by naval vessels, pointless consumption of vast quantities of jet fuel in military aviation, and blowing up large quantities of unused ammunition rather than returning it to base after exercises, are examples of the kinds of activities that needlessly degrade the environment and cost taxpayers billions.
The "last flight" of the SR-71 reconnaissance plane took place in early March. With much hype and hoopla, the plane made its flight from the west coast to Washington, D.C., in 68 minutes, setting a much-trumpeted speed record. It was on its way for eventual display in a Washington museum. According to press reports, the plane is being retired largely because of extremely high maintenance costs.
Though no figures were mentioned, one blanches at the thought of a plane too expensive to maintain by Pentagon standards. Press reports of the event read more like a gossip columnist's breathless gush, rather than a balanced appraisal of what many thoughtful Americans view as a wasteful, meaningless and even dangerous stunt. Questions beg to be asked. What was the fuel consumption and fuel cost of this flight? How much carbon dioxide was produced? How specifically has this particular flight contributed to "national security"? How much has it cost to operate over its lifetime? Are all the data for this now-retired plane "classified"?
Examples of everyday squandering of scarce resources are suggested by the routine purchase of fuel by the Pentagon, which of course is under no mandate to conserve. On March 14, the national press reported that Shell Oil received a $202.5 million contract for jet fuel, and that a similar contract was awarded to Amoco for $58.1 million.
Small expenditures like these represent choices between options, and reflect the basic values of a society responsible for making them. Implied choices include such questions as:
Tens of billions for the B-2 bomber vs. mass transit for America in the form of a revitalized passenger-rail network, linking cities in the manner of the interstate highway system, but in a more efficient, safer and less environmentally degrading manner.
Tens of billions for nuclear-powered warships vs. investment to develop solar, wind, wave and other renewable-energy-based electric power stations, avoiding the choice between nuclear and coal.
And tens, even hundreds of billions, for SDI and rail-mounted missile systems vs. an economy based not on "conquering" or even "managing" nature, but on maximum effort towards a sustainable society.
Even the ultimate rationale for a gigantic military establishment in a democracy must be questioned, apart from the issue of "disarmament." If the underlying philosophical reason is the protection of freedom, surely the events in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union itself suggest that freedom has a way of overcoming all but the most heinous regimes. This implies the need for armed forces powerful enough to ensure against the birth of another Nazi-like state - yet what was needed prior to World War II was arguably the will to challenge Hitler in his early years, and not necessarily a swollen military machine, as recent biographies of Winston Churchill so clearly illustrate.
If the rationale for an enormous and unsustainable military is to protect the material possessions of America, then the issue may soon be moot. The latter continues to be auctioned off. At the rate our infrastructure is disintegrating, in future years there could be little left to protect. It is fitting that debate in this country consider the option, even the necessity, of massive cuts in the military budget. Our very survival as an economic power, ironically, may depend on it.
by CNB