Richard Barsanti’s good question in the June 21 letter “Kids, not guns,” wondering at the persistence of military spending, has a two-part answer.
The first reason is the sad fact that weapons have a psychological appeal that transcends need. Weapons seem to be more than they are.
The second reason is an economic one: It is easier to sell to the government, where payment is assured, than to sell to the civilian market, where collection is a gamble.
I am not a pacifist, and I hope that the armed services are now actively involved in theoretical work that may end their current malaise. Perhaps now is the time for a new look at the concept of service unification, combined with truly universal service. The army was part of my education, and perhaps a short stint would be good for all.
If we are committed to a government-supported industry, which is what the military is, then why not revitalize our merchant marine and create adventurous jobs–jobs with pride–that would move American goods under the American flag?
