By A Duret 'THE THREAT of a third world war' arises, according to the media, from the 'aggression' of the USSR, Vietnam, Cuba, etc. against a insufficiently 'protected' by the gical powers of What is the reality behind this smokescreen?
Since 1975 and the victory of the Vietnamese revolution, there has been a change in the global relation of class forces to the detriment of imperialism. The American defeat in dochina, along with its repercussions inside the USA, combined with the decline of American dominance in capitalist world, and the crisis of the international capitalist economy, to produce a worsening of social contradictions and increased inter-imperialist competition. All this is reflected in the crisis of imperialist political leadership — what the media means when it refers to Carter as 'indecisive'. has the An imperialist took shape focussing danger of 'Soviet tanks' on the frontiers of capitalist Europe, the "discovery' brigade in Cuba, with racist overtones on the Iranian revolution (launched when the embassy hostages taken), and lastly the 'tramp of Red Army boots' in Asia.
All this had a purpose: to the US's make the American masses accept the idea of a military intervention American necessary - • against a people's anti-imperialist along with a major increase in the US military budget at a time when austerity dictated massive cubtacks in social expenditure. It is well known that when new stage of reorganise is forces to prepare a counter-attack, it talks about 'disarmament' and kicks up a big fuss about the 'imminence' of war. So what are the real facts of the situation?
Between SALT 1 in 1972 and last year's agreement in principle arimale of the great powers SALT have carried on growing - not only quantitatively, qualitatively. The levels fixed in the accords are so high that they can have nothing to do with disarmament.
Furthermore, the tions are also an incentive tol research into the production of arms in areas not covered by the regulations. neces breakthroughs for technological means a big emphasis on exporting arms, including those of the there is no disermament.
American imperialism has embarked on a new stage of 1 May 1980 Page 2 campaign arms production bining longstanding techniques the with new electronics or covering new technical Soviet period of economic crisis these new projects come just at the right time perialism's key industries.
were According Tribune in January:
Central arms planners have their way, the next decade will inaugurate a period of such innovation in weaponry that it will transform war as we know it on land. the ocean, in the air and space.' mobilisation, Robert Fossum, director of research projects of the Pentagon, was quoted in the paper as saying: 'Such developments have been made possible by the appearance of such things as micro-computers, arming and OsCi than fingernail thousands of active elements. And that is technology where the Russians are lagging and will fall even further behind.' Part of this new phase of American arming already has a name: the Trident submarine, capable of launching twenty-four missiles each with seven nucicar warheads. but also are the Cruise missiles, flying the Soviet bomber can gramme in flight in line with limita- satellite course of the Backfire. There are the mobile MX missiles with ten nuclear The huge in- wallen these tional between 1985 and 1989 And that's not to mention the neutron bomb, the high energy So laser beam, the vast network of satellites which is essential to the functioning missiles, the planes, and so on.
either comcampaign : areas. In a budgets. revve To to the Herald of 'If the La Le Monde dossier:
the superficial insistence false no bigger repeated by but an area of dustry finds stakes does not disturb Then there which in response to in different Backfire alter their proplaining the observations on the DCall warheads each, should become opera Monde Diplomatique:
general redeployment of these This is what is behind the on and the 'need to strengthen the defence of the free world'. This solete. is what explains the military ment aircraft cover up and justify these developments, the myth weapons.
Soviet supremacy on the military level has been created.
As Claude Julien pointed out in technological 'No expert can ignore the and fact that the real relationship of forces does not correspond to impression stalling which is derived from a purely quantitative comparison... The with which certain figures are cited can only give a impression; widely press, such This arguments are basically intend ed to convince Congress to be 'above more openhanded with regard to the military budget. The damaging Pentagon chiefs are not the on- Cullully ly ones to play this game; init equally profitable. But this bidding up the tion of war their serenity, for everyone in charge Eastern knows that American military might is qualitatively superior. economy This superiority is reflected levels technological development in nal). specific but decisive areas. Excampaign NATO circles to get the Europowers to take PGMs (precision guided missiles, such as the Pershing II and Cruise), Alain Joxe wrote recently in Le "The alarm is being sounded because the time has come for a PMs, and a vast industrial and commercial operation is at The threat of a surprise attack by an armoured column mains tle, is resurfacing in the mass media at a time when the armoured of column is considered to be obTo justify the deployof anti-tank and antiPGMS, you have to have a suitable object for these American intervention forces is accentuated by the quality of their performance: the Soviet transport planes' lack refuelling capacity in flight, the absence of helicopter units integrated into the amphibious forces...More important still, the USSR has no real assault aircraft-carriers; lacking aerial supremacy on the field of batthe Soviet ground forces would be highly vulnerable' writes the American researche Michael T. Klare.