Workers World, Vol. 20, No. 14
April 5 – Chinese scientists long ago discovered that some animals act erratically and run in all directions, contrary to their normal behavior, at the approach of an impending earthquake. What may be true of animal behavior may also be said with a great deal more validity about the behavior of the official representatives of the U.S. ruling class in the current political situation.
The intense round-the-clock diplomatic maneuvering of the Carter administration all over the globe has imparted a nervous and frantic character to U.S. diplomacy. This has become particularly manifest with some of the recent zigzags of Carter himself in the field of foreign policy and also on the domestic scene.
The latest example is a report in the April 4 New York Times that President Carter had decided against producing the neutron bomb – unquestionably a stunning surprise to all who have watched him relentlessly and energetically pushing the bomb, even in Warsaw, the capital of an East European socialist country, a stone’s throw from the USSR. The Times report also said that Carter had reversed himself on the neutron bomb against the advice of most of his top foreign policy advisors which include National Security Advisor Brzezinski, Secretary of State Vance, and Defense Secretary Harold Brown. There was no explanation as to why he really did it.
The next day, April 5, Carter was reported to be reconsidering his decision amidst a growing outcry from defense officials, Congressional hawks, and unquestionably from military leaders. A bitter dispute with the Navy over its share of the defense budget with Carter (a Navy hawk himself) opposing the Navy, the spectacle of Secretary of State Vance deeply involved in a virulent dispute with the Pentagon because he allegedly proposed a new method of controlling nuclear arms without consulting the Secretary of Defense “who was said to be furious” – all this is characteristic of the frantic pace of developments. These, of course, are rooted in the deep-seated antagonisms within the capitalist establishment in general and the military-industrial complex in particular. Such developments usually surface only under the impetus of an impending economic or political earthquake. Beneath all this lies the real danger of nuclear war. In no other way is it possible to understand the rapidly changing political scene in the U.S.
As we go to press the White House has said that Carter is “still considering” or having under review whether to cancel the production of the neutron bomb. Some newspapers in the U.S., such as the Philadelphia Inquirer of April 5, stated flatly in its front-page headline that the neutron bomb is dead.
The NATO allies, however, in whose countries the bomb is supposed to be deployed, were said to be upset by the decision. They were, it is said, in the process of preparing public opinion to accept the deployment of the neutron bomb which incidentally kills people and preserves property, but were taken by surprise by Carter’s decision. The facts of the matter are, however, that the workers and the mass of the people generally in Western Europe are strongly opposed to the bomb. The turnout of 60,000 demonstrators in Amsterdam against the N-bomb – a huge demonstration when one considers the size of Holland’s population – is only a small measure of the fear and anger of the masses against the deployment of the bomb.
Also the NATO imperialist allies wanted Carter to produce the neutron bomb first and then use it as a negotiating chip with the USSR before deploying it. Carter, on the other hand, felt that the NATO allies were placing him in the role of the warmonger and of taking responsibility for it while NATO would merely agree in principle. And this just after he had proclaimed the end of the “era of the Ugly American.” But a decision by NATO countries on whether to actually permit the deployment of the bomb may be a long time in coming, especially when one considers the ferment in the European working class and the severity of the capitalist crisis which afflicts Europe much more than it does the U.S.
The starting point for the latest escalation in the feverish diplomatic activity of what can only be regarded as war preparations was the March 17 Wake Forest University speech by Carter. It was so violent and provocative in character against the Soviet Union that it is hard to find a more belligerent and jingoistic speech by a president in recent years. Carter virtually pulled out all stops in his saber-rattling at the USSR and all other “adversaries.”
The speech was not televised probably because it was too scary and likely to arouse tremendous public fear and opposition. Rather scant coverage of it was made in the capitalist press, except for some of the leading capitalist dailies. Carter went so far as to state that his administration “is improving and will maintain quickly deployable forces – air, land, and sea – to defend our interests throughout the world.” The key phrase here is “quickly deployable forces” by “air, land, and sea.” Carter said that his Secretary of Defense will do this at his direction. Now this is a clear violation of the War Powers Act of 1974 which forbids presidential deployment of troops outside the U.S. without Congressional approval. It is strange, is it not, that none of the “doves” in Congress who fought so valiantly during the Nixon administration to pass this law, let out a peep when Carter made this unprecedented provocative threat.
Then how come Carter would suddenly make a turnaround and cancel the production of the neutron bomb? Is it because of “some deeply held convictions,” as he is quoted in the Times article of April 4? What convictions? Only a year ago he had Sam Nunn, the Georgia Democratic Senator and a reactionary militarist in the Armed Services Committee, vigorously push for the neutron bomb and get it passed through Congress. Where were his “deeply held convictions” when he made the Wake Forest University speech which bristled with all kinds of new weapons systems and threatened to put the entire economic and technological might of the U.S. behind military production unless the USSR buckled under?
Whatever the motivation for his swift change in position – Carter is now reconsidering it again – one thing is clear. It has nothing to do with pacifism, humanitarianism, or a sudden urge to reduce the U.S. arms arsenal as a response to popular pressure from the mass of the people. He has no intention of diverting military funds to civilian projects such as helping the cities arrest deterioration, unemployment, and cuts in the vital services to the people. If the neutron bomb is cancelled it will be for substantially the same reasons that the B-1 bomber was cancelled. The latter was scrapped because it was a duplication of what the Cruise Missile, which is cheaper and allegedly more effective, would accomplish.
Had the money which would have gone into the production of the B-1 bomber been diverted for civilian public projects, that would have been a demonstration of a desire to reduce the arms race and utilize the technical and human resources for purposes of civilian economic construction. But this is precisely what did not happen. The most persuasive evidence on that score is that Carter, who in 1976 repeatedly pledged to cut as much as $5 billion to possibly $7 billion out of a defense budget at that time which was around $100 billion, is today vigorously pushing a defense budget of $126 billion and is headed for even larger increases. Carter’s proposed scrapping of the neutron bomb, assuming it goes through, which seems dubious, must be seen in the perspective of the Pentagon’s overall military strategy.
An ever-present thought behind the production of the neutron bomb is to intimidate the USSR and its socialist allies. This military madness took no account, of course, of the unexpected groundswell of opposition by the European people. The immediate objective in trying to intimidate the USSR is the latter’s growing progressive role in rendering material, political, and military support to the embattled national liberation movements in Africa – first in Angola, later in Ethiopia, and of course to the Patriotic Front in the struggle of the Zimbabwean people and indeed to all of southern Africa. Carter’s March 17 speech all but said to the Soviet Union – “stop your aid and assistance to the national liberation movements, or else.”
As we said in an earlier issue of our paper, the Soviet leaders apparently did not get terrified and crumble into pieces. Carter’s March 17 speech was answered by Georgi Arbatov in an authoritative article in Pravda which was a calm, sober analysis of Carter’s military brinkmanship. It said, in so many words, on the one hand the U.S. talks of détente but its most recent conduct, meaning Carter’s speech, indicates a new emphasis on military escalation. It characterized the relationship between the U.S. and the USSR as having “reached a crucial stage.”
The article threw the ball back into Carter’s court. This probably accounts more for Carter’s “decision” and “reconsideration” concerning the neutron bomb than any “deeply held convictions” which Carter still boasts about.
The increasing rivalry between the U.S. and some of its imperialist allies, such as West Germany, Holland, Britain, no to speak of Japan, has compounded the difficulties of U.S. imperialism in getting the NATO allies to deploy the neutron weapon.
At the moment the U.S. is still trying to do in the West German imperialists concerning the contract the latter has with Brazil to build nuclear facilities which would gross the West German finance capitalists about $10 billion. The U.S. is still trying to shove down the throat of its NATO partners a fleet of 18 Boeing 747s. This would cost the NATO allies several billion dollars, not a piddling sum.
The U.S. is trying to get standardized military equipment in all of the NATO countries, most of it made in the U.S., but ultimately paid for by the NATO allies. The so-called airborne warning and control system, called AWACS, is mostly produced in the U.S. and is an extremely contentious issue between European and U.S. imperialist leaders. The cost is enormous.
Aside from the hazards involved in Europe in the deployment of the neutron bomb, it is a great risk for practically all the political leaders of the European bourgeoisie. Carter has had to take that into account as well. And it is entirely possible that he fears a double-cross by the European NATO partners if the U.S. proceeds to produce the bomb first and Britain, Belgium, the Netherlands, and West Germany, the countries where the bomb is supposed to be deployed, do not come through with their commitment after all, even though secretly agreed to.
The reality of the situation is that neutron bomb diplomacy is only one aspect of the overall military strategy of U.S. imperialism. The cancellation of one weapon may very well be the beginning of an entirely new weapons system of which many are in the research and development (so-called R&D) stage.
The fascination of the military-industrial complex and particularly the military intellectuals with laser technology is not something for drawing room discussion or cocktail party sparkling conversation. An authoritative writer, Lee Edson, states that “the entire laser field – military and civilian – still seems to many observers to be in the nursery stage, but the infant appears to be growing faster and more lustily than once envisioned. ... Lasers may turn out to be the world’s salvation, a new and inexhaustible source of energy, or its destruction in the form of devastating weaponry.” His conclusion is that “in either event, whoever comes out ahead in the race to develop them will be in a position to change the course of history.” That’s precisely what the Pentagon wants to do.
While Edson’s conclusion may be of too sweeping a character, it can positively be taken for granted that the military-industrial complex has vast and complicated systems of weaponry in the making or in the stage of development with military laser technology in view.
The main thing for revolutionary Marxists is to view so-called arms reduction proposals by the U.S. in the light of its imperialist character and not from the point of view of morality, pacifism, or humanitarianism, which the bourgeoisie peddles as a mask to deceive the people. Arms reduction agreements between the U.S. and the USSR are, of course, desirable and possible, but revolutionaries must remember that they take place in the world framework of two irreconcilable social systems based on diametrically opposed class structures.
Whether the neutron bomb is cancelled or produced, it will be a military decision. Whatever other reasons are given, the military decision is the real one. Neutron bomb diplomacy is an aspect of militarism and must therefore be regarded from the point of view of the military politics of the imperialist class in power. Militarism is congenitally tied to imperialism and is inseparable from it. This always has to be borne in mind when presidents speak of arms reduction, banning arms sales, and disarmament in general.
“Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signified in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed ... This world in arms is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.” Thus spoke President Eisenhower, who got elected at the tail end of the Korean War. He is the one who sent the aircraft carrier and landed the Marines in Lebanon in an unwarranted imperialist invasion which the Israelis, with U.S. acquiescence, are continuing today.
Last updated: 11 May 2026