>acheson and nitze's nsc-68 proposals represented imperialism of
>international faction of us capital that was powerful but not yet
>secure in its hegemony, korean war became legitmizing source for
>document - military became top federal budget priority, purge of
>left from unions was intensified, isolationist right was 'isolated',
>military expenditures in wake of recession that began in 1949
>soared, stimulating economy(eventually becoming permanent spending
>on corporate sector)...
>
>seems less important whether or not nsc-68 addressed 'pump priming'
>in any specific way, believe there's references to economy running
>at 'full capacity' (or some such language), because document served
>such ends...
As I recall, the economic argument - that military spending would ward off a return of the depression - was included in the document to persuade reluctant bureaucrats to go along; the idea of a permanent war economy was foreign to many Americans, even in the political elite. It was a hard sell until the Korean war; I think Kolko quotes Acheson as saying the NK invasion (putting that word under erasure) made for the most glorious two weeks in history.
Doug