The Economics of Permanent Peace

Nathan, Otto
June 1963
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists;Jun1963, Vol. 19 Issue 6, p21
The article discusses the author's perspectives on the impossibility of disarmament in the U.S. He argues that eliminating armaments might mean to the American economy as industrial dislocation and readjustment. He discusses how the American government spends of its national product for defense purposes.


Related Articles

  • "Modernization" means cuts and slowdowns. Lockwood, Dunbar // Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists;Jun1991, Vol. 47 Issue 5, p8 

    This article discusses how hawks in the federal government are incorrectly asserting that the Soviet Union is continuing to build up its strategic nuclear forces while the United States is disarming. In one sense Cheney is correct: The Soviet Union is fielding new strategic forces, deploying...

  • T.R.B. from Washington.  // New Republic;2/5/62, Vol. 146 Issue 6, p2 

    Comments on issues and events related to politics in the U.S. as of February 5, 1962. Criticism on the failure of the U.S. Congress to pass legislative measures to deal with the problems facing the nation; Support of government to wealth families in the country; Information on activities and...

  • OBAMA ADMINISTRATION DEFENSE BUDGET.  // International Debates;Mar2012, Vol. 10 Issue 3, p15 

    The article discusses issues related to the defense budget of the administration of U.S. President Barack Obama. It cites several factors that have affected the proposed defense budget such as the current state of the nation's economy. It also mentions the commitment of the Obama administration...

  • Articulating the Threat. Fanning, Timothy O. // Sea Power;Sep2001, Vol. 44 Issue 9, p7 

    Explores issues over national defense funding in the United States (U.S.). Arguments of the U.S. Congress regarding defense spending; Possible national defense threats from Russia; Challenges faced by the Navy League of the United States.

  • Failure To Slash Military Spending Is Government's Failure.  // AirGuide Business;3/1/2010, p4 

    The article reports that the U.S. government is responsible for its failure to reduce national security and military-related expenditures.

  • A National Security Failure. McGrath, J. Michael // Sea Power;Sep2008, Vol. 51 Issue 9, p3 

    The author reflects on the impact of the inadequate government funding and limited shipbuilding authority given to the U.S. Navy fleet on the naval infrastructure. He muses on the number of ships needed to meet national security requirements to keep the peace, defend sea lanes from increasing...

  • Congressional Homeland Security Chairs Warn Super Committee Against Sweeping Cuts. Biesecker, Calvin // Defense Daily;10/17/2011, Vol. 252 Issue 12, p3 

    The article reports that Peter King, the chairman of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), has said that the DHS can't afford deep, sweeping cuts to its budget. He says that it is important that the Joint Select Committee endeavor to present meaningful reforms that reduce waste. King...

  • CUT TO THE CHASE. Korb, Lawrence J. // Officer;Nov/Dec2011, Vol. 87 Issue 6, p8 

    The author argues for a 15 percent U.S. defense budget cut totaling some 1 trillion dollars in the next ten years, noting that current defense spending is the highest since World War II. He says the reduction would be lower than those by previous U.S. Presidents including Richard Nixon. He...

  • Strategic Horizons: Saving America's Strategic Visionaries. Metz, Steven // World Politics Review (19446284);4/2/2014, p2 

    The article analyzes the need for the U.S. to focus on creativity and innovation towards downsizing the country's defense budget and national security organization strategically as of April 2014. It suggests not to disregard the value and contribution of the strategic visionaries for they may...


Read the Article


Sorry, but this item is not currently available from your library.

Try another library?
Sign out of this library

Other Topics