"Why a Cold War Budget Without a Cold War?"
Dr. Lawrence Korb, the former Assistant Secretary of Defense under Ronald Reagan, has outlined an alternative Pentagon budget that would reduce spending by more than 17% per year ($48 billion). Dr. Korb's study was sponsored by Business Leaders for Sensible Priorities (BLSP), a coalition of business people and military officials who are currently advocating a 15% reduction in the Pentagon budget. They believe this money can be reinvested in programs that build American communities, such as school modernization, class-size reductions, healthcare and other local and state programs. Dr. Korb calls the present Clinton Administration plan "A Cold War Budget without a Cold War" and argues for restructured spending that strengthens the U.S. military in a manner reflective of the drastically changed world order.
(Charts here at website - CB)
INVESTMENT
Dr. Korb's $75 billion annual modernization proposal (20% less than the present $94 billion investment budget) would replace aging equipment and increase our technological edge. Dr. Korb's plan would actually modernize U.S. forces "more rapidly at a lower cost" than the current investment strategy. The Pentagon could achieve this by buying less expensive weapons that would still be the most powerful in any battle, rather than building the next generation of unproven weapons at three times the price. "Rushing new generations of weapons systems into production," Dr. Korb reports, "is an antiquated Cold War practice that continues to cost taxpayers billions." A breakdown of Dr. Korb's proposed investment in conventional programs is contrasted to present investment spending in the graph below:
NUCLEAR CAPABILITY
The Korb report calls the $30 billion spent annually on strategic nuclear forces a remnant of the former U.S./Soviet practice of mutual assured destruction. Dr. Korb urges the U.S. cut the number of strategic nuclear weapons from its present level of 7, 500 to a number no greater than 1,000, a quantity large enough to destroy any possible targets but small enough to be maintained at $15 billion per year (half the present rate).
READINESS Dr. Korb details a readiness package costing no more than $145 billion per year, $21 billion less than present spending ($166 billion). Dr. Korb's plan would maintain forces capable of winning a major theater war and conduct a significant peacekeeping mission, while maintaining a presence in the other key areas around the globe. Dr. Korb finds that the Pentagon currently overspends in force deployment. He maintains, for example, that stationing 100,000 U.S. troops in Europe is excessive and that 50,000 troops would constitute an effective presence in Europe (which can afford to do more to protect its own interests).
CONCLUSION
Dr. Korb's report stresses the importance of making a Pentagon budget responsive to the reality of the post Cold War world. No longer should the U.S. Government overspend to ensure security or compete in an arms race with the Soviet Union. As the only remaining superpower, it is time for us to adjust spending to reflect that place of privilege and responsibility. Dr. Korb's realistic budget proposals set an important standard for fiscal responsibility. Pentagon officials were immune to financial constraints during the Cold War era, and the recent reviews they have conducted have been, Dr. Korb tells us, "nothing more than a rationalization for the existing force structure." Business Leaders believes that it is now time for the Pentagon to follow Dr. Korb's lead and become accountable for spending taxpayers' assets.
BUSINESS LEADERS FOR SENSIBLE PRIORITIES 130 William Street, Suite 700 New York, NY 10038 Tel: (212) 964-1109 Fax: (212) 571-3332 e-mail: thefolks at businessleaders.org