Diplomatic WikiLeaks

Andy Hunt · Post by **Andy Hunt** » 04 Dec 2010, 13:02

Lord Beria3 wrote:A common myth is that arms suppliers want war, quite the contrary. The situation with the Koreas is perfect for arms suppliers; a decades long Cold War (which means that there is a high demand for arms) but not a actual 'hot' war.

Leftwing types never get this. The Cold War was wonderful for the arms industry, decades of sabre rattling and defence spending but no actual wars (at last in Europe).

Hitler rebuilt the German economy after WWI by re-arming; WWII pulled the USA out of the Great Depression.

After the Cold War ended, arms manufacturers weren't doing so well. The result? The "war on terror" - Afghanistan, Iraq, both still going on and both still very good for business.

Of course the arms manufacturers want war - just not war on their own soil.

As for leftwing types being anti-war, which party was it that got us into Iraq and Afghanistan?

JohnB · Post by **JohnB** » 04 Dec 2010, 13:05

Andy Hunt wrote:As for leftwing types being anti-war, which party was it that got us into Iraq and Afghanistan?

They were left wing? I thought New Labour was just a brand name, not a party representing socialism

Andy Hunt · Post by **Andy Hunt** » 04 Dec 2010, 13:08

JohnB wrote:
Andy Hunt wrote:As for leftwing types being anti-war, which party was it that got us into Iraq and Afghanistan?
They were left wing? I thought New Labour was just a brand name, not a party representing socialism

Well, fair point.

Lord Beria3 · Post by **Lord Beria3** » 04 Dec 2010, 13:16

For the big arms suppliers (BAE for example) the real money is made in the massive multi-billion defence spending of the major powers and actual wars complicate this because firstly real wars lead to deaths, popular disgust with war and anti-war movements which is bad for business.

Much better a armed peace.

New Labour wasn't socialist (socialism is a utopia, not a realistic society anyway), it was a electorally successful centre-right idealogy which won three massive election victories in the row.

Andy Hunt · Post by **Andy Hunt** » 04 Dec 2010, 13:26

Lord Beria3 wrote:For the big arms suppliers (BAE for example) the real money is made in the massive multi-billion defence spending of the major powers and actual wars complicate this because firstly real wars lead to deaths, popular disgust with war and anti-war movements which is bad for business.

Since when has popular disgust for war ever influenced foreign policy?

American arms manufacturers made an absolute packet out of Vietnam, and the only reason they stopped that war was because they lost.

Lord Beria3 · Post by **Lord Beria3** » 04 Dec 2010, 13:35

How about WW1 - it left at least the Anglo-saxon world a bitter hatred of war, a popular desire of disarmement, the League of Nations and a legacy of 'merchants of death' which was never great for the arms industry.

Vietnam was a strategic disaster for the United States, hundreds of billions was wasted on that war, it left a legacy of anti-war/popular disgust with the military and a neo-isolationist backlash with culiminated with Carters presidency. It was only with Reagon that the arms industry was feeling happy again as America decided to forget about Vietnam, go on one massive final military spending spree and in the process bankrupt the Soviet Union - leading the latters collapse and the end of the Cold War.

Andy Hunt · Post by **Andy Hunt** » 04 Dec 2010, 13:43

Lord Beria3 wrote:How about WW1 - it left at least the Anglo-saxon world a bitter hatred of war, a popular desire of disarmement, the League of Nations and a legacy of 'merchants of death' which was never great for the arms industry.

Amongst the masses maybe, but every country still re-armed.

Vietnam was a strategic disaster for the United States,

The US taxpayer maybe. The war industry made billions from it.

hundreds of billions was wasted on that war, it left a legacy of anti-war/popular disgust with the military and a neo-isolationist backlash with culiminated with Carters presidency. It was only with Reagon that the arms industry was feeling happy again as America decided to forget about Vietnam, go on one massive final military spending spree and in the process bankrupt the Soviet Union - leading the latters collapse and the end of the Cold War.

In other words, Vietnam changed precisely nothing. You forget about all the other wars the US was engaged in during the Cold War.

Oh, and the Soviet Union was brought down by its own economic model, and low oil prices.

Lord Beria3 · Post by **Lord Beria3** » 04 Dec 2010, 14:03

At the end of the day, most of human history is one gigantic military-industrial economy - cheap fossil fuels, the atomic bomb (which keeps the peace because of MAD) have led to a ahistorical era where we can pretend that the arms industry is something evil (when in fact it is necessary - after all most societies in history need a arms industry to ensure they don't get slaughtered and conquered by hostile empires or tribes).

So I can't take the anti-arms industry too seriously myself. A lot of the talk here is very nice, and when i am in the cheap oil bubble I actually agree with alot of it... but when you look at the great arc of history conventional war is a norm, violence endemic and retreat away from cheap fossil fuels will inevitably lead to permement warfare for a scarce resource base.

2 As and a B · Post by **2 As and a B** » 04 Dec 2010, 14:16

Lord Beria3 wrote:A common myth is that arms suppliers want war, quite the contrary.

Common with whom? Superficial thinkers? Arms manufacturers are happy just so long as they are selling their wares. It makes little difference whether that is for materiel destruction in a war or for ever more effective materiel in an arms race, where advantages can be glossily promoted but never get tested so no companies need get cut out of the game.

Ludwig · Post by **Ludwig** » 04 Dec 2010, 15:08

Andy Hunt wrote:
Lord Beria3 wrote:For the big arms suppliers (BAE for example) the real money is made in the massive multi-billion defence spending of the major powers and actual wars complicate this because firstly real wars lead to deaths, popular disgust with war and anti-war movements which is bad for business.
Since when has popular disgust for war ever influenced foreign policy?

There is evidence that the US Government let Pearl Harbour happen so that it could sell involvement in WW2 to the US people.

If that's true, it's an example of popular disgust for war influencing foreign policy.

Currently, the US population's resistance to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are behind the move to replace US soldiers with mercenaries.

But maybe that supports your argument on one level - i.e. a way will be found to fight wars regardless of popular support.

caspian · Post by **caspian** » 04 Dec 2010, 16:52

Lord Beria3 wrote:At the end of the day, most of human history is one gigantic military-industrial economy - cheap fossil fuels, the atomic bomb (which keeps the peace because of MAD) have led to a ahistorical era where we can pretend that the arms industry is something evil (when in fact it is necessary - after all most societies in history need a arms industry to ensure they don't get slaughtered and conquered by hostile empires or tribes).

MAD is an idiotic philosophy, and always was. It guarantees an arms race with no benefit to either side. As for the arms industry being "necessary", how do those countries without standing armies (like Costa Rica) manage to survive? Why do you seem to think it's some law of nature that people need an industrial-scale killing machine to keep them going?

So I can't take the anti-arms industry too seriously myself. A lot of the talk here is very nice, and when i am in the cheap oil bubble I actually agree with alot of it... but when you look at the great arc of history conventional war is a norm, violence endemic and retreat away from cheap fossil fuels will inevitably lead to permement warfare for a scarce resource base.

The only reason we can sustain such a huge killing machine is down to the cheap energy, the dearth of which you seem to think will somehow keep this machine going. What's it going to run on - air?

Vortex · Post by **Vortex** » 04 Dec 2010, 17:01

In most aspects the arms trade is a business like any other.

Buying, selling, designing, marketing, wheeling, dealing all go on ... just as in any other trade.

In my time I have met weapons designers, arms dealers and also those who have killed using the weapons.

All these appeared to be decent people - although I did become queasy when the effects of weapons were gleefully described to me by those who had pulled the trigger ...

Our reptilian brains crave weapons for a variety of reasons.

The trade is not going away any time soon.

Andy Hunt · Post by **Andy Hunt** » 04 Dec 2010, 19:20

rue_d_etropal · Post by **rue_d_etropal** » 04 Dec 2010, 22:38

Afganistan, I seem to remember the Soviets/Russia tried to win a war there and failed. This helped bring down the Soviet Union. Mind you it was the good old USA which was helping the opposition , and now that same opposition is fighting the USA and Nato .