ve ne

ven if the tens of thousands of

warheads in the world’s nuclear
arsenal are never used, British
Columbians will be the victims of the

arms race. We are paying the economic
cost today, every day.

Of course, in the event of nuclear war, British
Columbia would sustain a devastating nuclear strike.
An independent study by Swedish analysts identified
at least a dozen economic and military targets in our
province, including Esquimalt, Nanoose, Comox,
Prince Rupert, Kamloops and Vancouver.

Dr. Tom Perry, of the University of British
Columbia, estimates that a One-megaton bomb burst
in the air over Vancouver’s city hall on a weekday
would kill 400,000
people outright. A @ @
further 300,000 be
would die within the
month and 20,000
would be horribly
burned. There are
only 2,000 burn beds
in all of Canada and
the continental
United States.

But we already
are paying the price of the nuclear arms race with lost
jobs and a declining economy. The fight for peace
also is a fight for jobs anda strong economic future:

nada is mired in the arms race —
up to its eyebrows. The latest
national budget forecasts almost $100
billion in expenditures, including a
staggering $9 billion for defence.

When transfer payments to the provinces and
payments on the national debt are excluded,
Canada’s military spending will soak up more than
30 percent of the

national expenditures ‘ata ale RES aA everest 2

for 1984 to 1985.
Billions of. this
amount are for the
purchase of F-18 fighter
planes, elaborate
gadgets that will be
utterly useless in the
event of nuclear war.

m walking for peace because I
believe in stopping the arms race.
Money spent on arms doesn’t create military
jobs. We face restraints and ing :
rollbacks and don’t see any jobs. >] >] ste tar eg
Caroline Lee, CUPW pee

Se 0

aah MILITARY
fame EXPENDITURE AS
% OF GNP
ANNUAL RATE OF
ee eae GROWTH OF ——-
MANUFACTURING
PRODUCTIVITY | | 6

world armaments expenditures in 1982: Today, it
is buying arms at the rate of $1 million a minute.
Military research budgets outstrip research
spending on health, energy and outer space
combined. 4

Diversion of the United States’ vast resources
into arms manufacturing is reducing the amount of
taw materials available for consumer goods. This is
fuelling inflation. The record investment in the
military is tightening the money supply, forcing up
interest rates. And the lack of investment in
productive sectors like housing,
energy, transportation and the
service sector is cheating the
economy of literally hundreds of
thousands of jobs, reducing
purchasing power.

Recent
studies have
proved that
countries with
low levels of

spending are

economic
growth.
Japan is
the prime example. The United
States, the United Kingdom and our
Own economy, a virtual captive of the
American system, reflect the-slumping
productivity that accompanies heavy arms
expenditure. - piss
Capital spent on arms is taken out of
the economy. Capital spent on new
machinery, peaceful research, education or
health is returned to the economy to
reproduce more wealth. °
That’s a simple fact of life our
governments ignore. Rather,than trim arms
expenditures, they cut social services and
wages, clamping down on our economy’s

ability to grow.

No wonder our
government is runninga
deficit.

The fact is,
Canada’s defence
budget is growing
annually faster than
the rate of inflation.

In the U.S., too,
the rising deficit is
directly attributable to ~
unprecedented arms
spending. The U.S.
accounted for half of spending.

the $600 billion in

JAPAN

@ @The money is there to build houses,

ships, hospitals, schools or
whatever, but it’s going into the

arms budget instead. Until we invest
in people, not arms, we won’t beat

unemployment.
Colin Snell, Carpenters

CANADA
SWEDEN

© There is a direct relationship between
growth in the economy and military

Source: World Military and Social Expenditures, 1982

UNITED
KINGDOM

6 e PACIFIC TRIBUNE, MARCH 28, 1984