>>> Max Sawicky <sawicky at epinet.org> 01/26/00 02:10PM >>>
Nukes are cheap.
&&&&&&&&
CB: "Cheap" is a mystical number.
&&&&&&&&
The great cost in the military budget is non-nuclear procurement and labor. By making nukes less feasible, JFK could have had the effect of raising the budget, not lowering it.
&&&&&&&&
CB: I think from your comment below, we agree on the main aspect. Public cannot be permitted to know that "innocent" America government is as jaded as old europe. "Democracy" is limited here. There can be coup d'etats.
Think about margins and superprofits. The issue is what is the margin of profit. At any rate, the nuclear weapons companies do not look at it the way you frame it. If they lose their portion, even if it is a minor fraction of the whole, then that's enough reason.
&&&&&&&&
If this is the "core" of an explanation for the assassination, it's pretty weak, IMO.
&&&&&&&
CB: Well, there's more to a materialist explanation. WAR and bellicose relations in general drive demand for the military industrial complex. So, steps toward peace with the main enemy threaten all forms of commodities produced by the merchants of death. A _nuclear_ test ban treaty with the main enemy threatens _conventional_ weapons demand as well.
This is part of what you miss in the materialist explanation of the U.S. war on Yugoslavia. The military-industrial complex needs war, period, somewhere , somehow to perpetuate the general sense of threat that rationalizes weapons production in general.
The military industrial complex of 1963 was against peace treaties period, as tending to cut their business.
You are a bit too focussed on the MAYBE (and you are not sure of this) that , on balance, after all is calculated, over many years, fewer nukes might have cost the FEDERAL government less. That is not the calculation that the military industrial complex , nuc sector, or even all around bellicose sector, makes. The Nuc industry wants the feds to buy nucs, even if it is less cost in , maybe , in the long run.
Then add in that fanatical anti-communism and anti-Sovietism was a real force in American power world then. So, this too means their calculation of the issues you mention may not be as sober as yours.
This element viewed the peace treaty and compromise on the Cuban missile crisis as a form of surrender to Communism, and in general Communism cut back on areas in the world for imperialism to exploit. So, there was the general rule of thumb for this element that Communism hurts profiteering overseas.
&&&&&&&&&&&& Max: My working hypothesis is that multiple betrayals of Cuban exiles and Mafiosi by JFK, in concert w/intelligence cronies, was the first conspiracy. The second one was the establishment cover-up, because the public could not be permitted to learn that such things are possible in America.
It was either that or "cancer man."
&&&&&&&&&
CB: "Hypothesis" is the accurate term for mine too.
We agree on your "second one".
I just think the groupings you are talking about in the first part would not have been allowed by other elements in the ruling circles to off the pres for their own reasons alone, without being busted. Cuban exiles and Mafiosi did not have much weight. Mafia were not exactly in the ruling class, otherwise they wouldn' get such bad press. To kill the pres. and have it completely covered up had to come from sectors with more power, i.e. military-industrial complex and secret police. Also, Soviets were much more of a concern than Cuba. The Cuban missile crisis was important because it was the Soviets involved.
Sub-hypothesis, the big boys brought in or allowed in the Mafia as a diversion. The Mafia was willing to participate as a junior partner or sub-contractor for a minor job ( Jack Ruby hit Oswald) in order to bolster it reputation, even exaggerate its power. The big boys let the Mafia in so that some people would think it was the Mafia, not the CIA.
On balance, there were capitalist , bigtime political AND economic reasons. This doesn't mean there weren't other smaller time motives mixed in.
Cancer man ?
CB