Andrea Widburg has penned a thoughtful piece, as is usual in her contributions to American Thinker.com, about Biden’s nuclear escalation in the Ukraine. The possibility is being discussed by the chattering class, who have the Ukraine as a new religion, of delivering nuclear weapons to the Ukraine, with no ties on their use. That policy would be a total disaster, as Putin has said many times that that would be a clear existential threat to Russia. Widburg discusses Eisenhower’s Farewell Address, in which he warned against a coming military-industrial complex, where he said that permitting the growth of the military sector with industry, could get out of control, and become self-perpetuating. As Eisenhower said: “In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.”
But, that is exactly what has occurred, and which now engagers the world with nuclear war.
“You may have noticed that official D.C. is reluctant to discuss the possibility of peace in Ukraine. And if you’re cynical, as I am, you suspect that there’s money behind that reluctance. That cynicism had me hunting down President Eisenhower’s Farewell Address, in which he warned against a coming military-industrial complex. It turns out that he also predicted what’s happening in the scientific and technological realm.
Jordan Schachtel wrote yesterday that “A senior official within the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), which is one of the most influential Washington, D.C. policy shops, is calling on the Biden Administration to deliver nuclear weapons to Ukraine.” Fortunately, the AEI’s Michael Rubin isn’t insisting that we raid our arsenal immediately for Ukraine’s benefit. Instead, he argues that the nuclear weapons would be a deterrent:
What Biden should instead do is tell Russia clearly that any use of nuclear weapons of any size against Ukraine will lead to U.S. provision of the same types of nuclear weapons to Ukraine without any controls on where and how Ukraine might use them. The non-proliferation mafia might howl with outrage, but the West must gear its nuclear policy toward reality, not wishful thinking or an empty façade of a treaty regimen by which revisionist states no longer abide.
That’s a mighty big bluff there, although Putin could look at Biden’s diminished mental state and think, “He might actually do that.” Alternatively, Putin could also think that, if he goes nuclear, he’d better go so big that there’s no response possible.
This suggestion may actually come to fruition because official D.C. is so darn enthusiastic about pouring weapons into Ukraine. Doing so depletes our own weapon supplies, which will then need to be replenished—and for every million-dollar weapon sent to Ukraine, you know that the better, newer version for America will cost ten times as much.
The news got me thinking about Eisenhower’s Farewell Address on January 17, 1961. Despite his military background (or perhaps because of it), Eisenhower was worried about government wealth combined with a military-industrial complex that thrived during and after WWII. Many know how he warned against letting the manufacturing sector get too engaged with Washington politics, but it’s worth restating:
Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United State corporations.
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence-economic, political, even spiritual-is felt in every city, every state house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
Weapons manufacturers and D.C. power brokers weren’t Eisenhower’s only concern. He was also worried about the risk of according too much money and respect to the tech-science sector. Given the tech tyrants' control over Americans’ speech and the medical industry’s outsized say during COVID, it’s worthwhile revisiting Eisenhower on that topic too (emphasis mine):
Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.
In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.
Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been over shadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.
The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.
Many of us look longingly back at the best parts of the 1950s, primarily its normalcy, optimism, and prosperity. We should also look back at its wise governance and try to apply that wisdom moving forward.”