| Chapter Twenty-Nine of Pax Americana: The Military Industrial Complex and the War On Terror by Danny Quintana |
| Defense Spending Alternatives: Mass Transit High Speed Trains |
There are certain defense programs we should as a nation oppose on the basis of patriotism. Missile defense is such a program. We need to
change national policy from building missile defense to upgrading our mass transit system. This new transportation system should
incorporate high-speed trains like those in use in Europe and Japan.
change national policy from building missile defense to upgrading our mass transit system. This new transportation system should
incorporate high-speed trains like those in use in Europe and Japan.
The proposed and controversial missile defense idea is not new. This is a variation of the Reagan/Bush Strategic Defense Initiative, “Star
Wars” proposal that failed to gain political support in the 1980’s 1. With the difficult election of George W. Bush, the country is once again
being offered missile defense as a politically viable national security policy.
According to the Department of Defense’s Ballistic Missile Defense Organization:
Wars” proposal that failed to gain political support in the 1980’s 1. With the difficult election of George W. Bush, the country is once again
being offered missile defense as a politically viable national security policy.
According to the Department of Defense’s Ballistic Missile Defense Organization:
With this premise, politicians are spending hundreds of billions of tax dollars on the Bush missile defense system to protect the nation from
“rogue states” -- like Iran and North Korea. Absent a competing policy initiative, Americans and the world are going to get a revival of the
arms race under the justification of Missile Defense.
“rogue states” -- like Iran and North Korea. Absent a competing policy initiative, Americans and the world are going to get a revival of the
arms race under the justification of Missile Defense.
The main beneficiaries from the rich, cost-plus defense contracts from this shift in military policy are campaign contributors and the “Beltway
Bandits” who gave us the $300 hammers and $600 toilet seats. With military bases and/or defense contractors in the majority of
congressional districts, defense spending has traditionally been an expedient method to fund pork barrel projects 3.
Avarice makes for very poor national policy. Deploying a weapon system that will awaken the sleeping nuclear dragon, at rest since the end
of the Cold War, is a dangerous shift in national security policy. We need to seriously question this proposal. No weapons system in memory
has ever come in within the proposed budget. Weapon systems usually come in three to five times the projected cost, behind schedule and
with numerous technical defects 4.
Policy, however ill-conceived, is a political problem. Democrats and Republicans presently lack consensus on an economic and
environmental policy. Since neither party has any idea on where they are going, it’s impossible for them to know how to get there. Arms-
racing via the Cold War was economic and political policy, until the Russians quit playing. The Cold War at least gave politicians a
sense of direction, albeit a very dangerous one.
Being short one “evil empire” to justify our political pork barrel missile defense system, the “rogue states” of Iraq and North Korea will have to
do. Why on earth these “rogue states” would lob a hot one at Los Angeles and not expect their starving villages to be bombed back into the
stone-age is something the proponents of missile defense have not been able to adequately explain. The simplest method around missile
defense is to park a small boat with an atomic, chemical or biological weapon in one of our many harbors. Like Athens in antiquity, Pax
Americana is a sea power. This corporate welfare program for rich campaign contributors has not been able to withstand scientific and public
scrutiny. The numerous critics of national missile defense accurately shoot holes in this ‘the rich get richer’ scam 5. But no alternative is
proposed. The Federation of American Scientists, Green Peace, the Union of Concerned Scientists, the Center for Defense Information, our
allies and numerous others go to great lengths to criticize this idea.
Since taxpayers’ money is going to be spent on pork-barrel projects, the economic and environmental policy alternative we propose is use
existing technology to build a high-speed train system connecting all of our major cities. The economic and environmental benefits of this
policy alternative are numerous.
High-speed trains will reduce transportation deaths and injuries. Each year approximately 41,000 Americans are killed in auto accidents 6.
Approximately 15,000 of these deaths are alcohol related 7. Our present transportation system is wasteful, dangerous and very expensive.
This overuse of fossil fuel and the resulting greenhouse gases from 200 million plus American vehicles on crowded highways must be
changed. 8
Bandits” who gave us the $300 hammers and $600 toilet seats. With military bases and/or defense contractors in the majority of
congressional districts, defense spending has traditionally been an expedient method to fund pork barrel projects 3.
Avarice makes for very poor national policy. Deploying a weapon system that will awaken the sleeping nuclear dragon, at rest since the end
of the Cold War, is a dangerous shift in national security policy. We need to seriously question this proposal. No weapons system in memory
has ever come in within the proposed budget. Weapon systems usually come in three to five times the projected cost, behind schedule and
with numerous technical defects 4.
Policy, however ill-conceived, is a political problem. Democrats and Republicans presently lack consensus on an economic and
environmental policy. Since neither party has any idea on where they are going, it’s impossible for them to know how to get there. Arms-
racing via the Cold War was economic and political policy, until the Russians quit playing. The Cold War at least gave politicians a
sense of direction, albeit a very dangerous one.
Being short one “evil empire” to justify our political pork barrel missile defense system, the “rogue states” of Iraq and North Korea will have to
do. Why on earth these “rogue states” would lob a hot one at Los Angeles and not expect their starving villages to be bombed back into the
stone-age is something the proponents of missile defense have not been able to adequately explain. The simplest method around missile
defense is to park a small boat with an atomic, chemical or biological weapon in one of our many harbors. Like Athens in antiquity, Pax
Americana is a sea power. This corporate welfare program for rich campaign contributors has not been able to withstand scientific and public
scrutiny. The numerous critics of national missile defense accurately shoot holes in this ‘the rich get richer’ scam 5. But no alternative is
proposed. The Federation of American Scientists, Green Peace, the Union of Concerned Scientists, the Center for Defense Information, our
allies and numerous others go to great lengths to criticize this idea.
Since taxpayers’ money is going to be spent on pork-barrel projects, the economic and environmental policy alternative we propose is use
existing technology to build a high-speed train system connecting all of our major cities. The economic and environmental benefits of this
policy alternative are numerous.
High-speed trains will reduce transportation deaths and injuries. Each year approximately 41,000 Americans are killed in auto accidents 6.
Approximately 15,000 of these deaths are alcohol related 7. Our present transportation system is wasteful, dangerous and very expensive.
This overuse of fossil fuel and the resulting greenhouse gases from 200 million plus American vehicles on crowded highways must be
changed. 8
“While the end of the Cold War signaled a reduction in the likelihood of global conflict,
the threat from foreign missiles has grown steadily as sophisticated missile technology
becomes available on a wider scale. The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction
and the ballistic and cruise missiles that could deliver them pose a direct and immediate
threat to the security of U.S. military forces and assets in overseas theaters of operation,
our allies and friends, as well as our own country. We have already witnessed the
willingness of countries to use theater-class ballistic missiles for military purposes. Since
1980, ballistic missiles have been used in six regional conflicts. Strategic ballistic missiles,
including intercontinental and submarine launched ballistic missiles (ICBMs and SLBMs)
exist in abundance in the world today.” 2
the threat from foreign missiles has grown steadily as sophisticated missile technology
becomes available on a wider scale. The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction
and the ballistic and cruise missiles that could deliver them pose a direct and immediate
threat to the security of U.S. military forces and assets in overseas theaters of operation,
our allies and friends, as well as our own country. We have already witnessed the
willingness of countries to use theater-class ballistic missiles for military purposes. Since
1980, ballistic missiles have been used in six regional conflicts. Strategic ballistic missiles,
including intercontinental and submarine launched ballistic missiles (ICBMs and SLBMs)
exist in abundance in the world today.” 2
Overcrowding has made many of our national highways
extraordinarily dangerous. If you want an experience in terror,
take a four and one half hour drive from Las Vegas to Los
Angeles on a Sunday night. Over one hundred thousand
vehicles fly home at 85 mph, driven by hung over, broke and
anxious individuals. And once someone has an accident (which
is a routine occurrence), traffic is backed up for miles. Our
present system injures approximately 3.5 million people each
year, many permanently 9. For each reduction in highway
injuries there is a net savings to the public. From lower
payments for social security benefits and workers compensation
benefits, and from having healthy workers paying taxes. Fewer
highway injuries mean greater economic benefits for society.
Greater use of high-speed trains will inevitably reduce highway
injuries and deaths. 10
Reduction in use of fossil fuel: Over the long run, after ten
years of use, high-speed bullet trains will significantly reduce
our dependence on fossil fuels. Green house gases are real,
and global warming is a clear and present danger to our future.
Emissions from automobiles can come down significantly via
effective mass transit. While the debate continues on how
much warming is dangerous and theextent of the danger to
humans (the only species that seems to matter), there is little
question now thatfossil fuels contribute to this problem. 11
Part of the American justification for withdrawing from the Kyoto
Protocol is our current economic system cannot be disrupted.
In an administration that never met a treaty it liked, the Kyoto
withdrawal was expected. That move, coupled with the
proposed Artic Wildlife Refuge and off shore drilling, has sent a
clear, but erroneous message that our addiction to oil is not an
environmental problem. Instead of dealing with the addiction,
America’s approach is; “We will find more oil.”
extraordinarily dangerous. If you want an experience in terror,
take a four and one half hour drive from Las Vegas to Los
Angeles on a Sunday night. Over one hundred thousand
vehicles fly home at 85 mph, driven by hung over, broke and
anxious individuals. And once someone has an accident (which
is a routine occurrence), traffic is backed up for miles. Our
present system injures approximately 3.5 million people each
year, many permanently 9. For each reduction in highway
injuries there is a net savings to the public. From lower
payments for social security benefits and workers compensation
benefits, and from having healthy workers paying taxes. Fewer
highway injuries mean greater economic benefits for society.
Greater use of high-speed trains will inevitably reduce highway
injuries and deaths. 10
Reduction in use of fossil fuel: Over the long run, after ten
years of use, high-speed bullet trains will significantly reduce
our dependence on fossil fuels. Green house gases are real,
and global warming is a clear and present danger to our future.
Emissions from automobiles can come down significantly via
effective mass transit. While the debate continues on how
much warming is dangerous and theextent of the danger to
humans (the only species that seems to matter), there is little
question now thatfossil fuels contribute to this problem. 11
Part of the American justification for withdrawing from the Kyoto
Protocol is our current economic system cannot be disrupted.
In an administration that never met a treaty it liked, the Kyoto
withdrawal was expected. That move, coupled with the
proposed Artic Wildlife Refuge and off shore drilling, has sent a
clear, but erroneous message that our addiction to oil is not an
environmental problem. Instead of dealing with the addiction,
America’s approach is; “We will find more oil.”
Gradually restructuring our society and slowly weaning ourselves from our oil habit is a rehabilitation process we can begin immediately. The
first simple step to deal with our oil addiction is to acknowledge the problem. The second is to meet our needs by different and innovative
means and methods. One of these is to build a national high-speed train system to rival Europe’s and Japans.
Within very recent memory we have fought a Middle East War over the oil resources in Kuwait. Reliance on our military to insure access to oil
dealers is not in our long-term best interest. American’s present oil addiction is greater than at the time of the Arab Oil Embargo in 1973. We
need to acknowledge our addiction before we have another Middle East War. Military might alone will not create more oil or deal with the
consequences of our addiction. America is more dependent on fossil fuels than any other country on Earth 12. Our fragile global
environment cannot afford more Exxon Valdez oil spills. We damage fragile ecosystems so we can drive on crowded freeways or fly the
friendly skies on one of the numerous environmentally unfriendly airlines, all going to the same location. We waste tremendous amounts of
energy resources on inefficient, redundant transportation practices.
Economic benefits from high-speed trains. For the purposes of discussion, a high-speed train is one that travels at the French TVG
European speed of at least 186 mph 13. America has a long history of rail use. However, commuter rail travel does not appear to compete
with cars, trucks and planes. Amtrak loses money every year 14. One of the main reasons our train system does not compete well is it is
notoriously slow. We are a people in a hurry. With limited vacation time, we forego the economic and environmental benefits of rail travel to
get where we are going fast. If our trains traveled at 186 mph, people would flock to them instead of fighting cars and trucks on overcrowded
interstate highway our citizens would use them. That 4½-hour drive from Las Vegas to Los Angeles would take less than 2 hours by rail –
without the road rage and risk of death or dismemberment. Given a viable alternative, most Americans are just not going to plod along at 65
mph to get to their vacation or business destinations. 15
The speed of our new transportation system will immediately increase tourism. Saving the wear and tear on cars and ourselves will afford
people who would otherwise stay home the opportunity to travel. Many Americans do not have the financial resources to use their cars for
long trips. Although plane travel has come down in price, this situation will not last. In time, plane ticket prices are going to go up as jet fuel
prices increase as oil supplies becomes more limited. And, overused highways result in overburdened taxpayers, who must subsidize their
enhancement and maintenance.
Under our current transportation system funding, highways receive approximately $35 billion dollars in Federal investment annually, aviation
receives approximately $14 billion and Amtrak gets less then $500 million. The budget for high-speed trains in the U.S. is a mere $22 million.
16. Under our proposal, highways and aviation would not get less money. High-speed trains would just receive more funding. Spending $15
billion the first year and increasing this budget item by $5 billion per year until completion.
- Why the need for capital investment? Diesel trains are not as fast or powerful as electric trains. Our train system was build for a slower time
in history. The existing rail system is out of date and is only useful for transporting large bulky items like heavy industrial goods, commodities
and other low tech, non-agricultural products. Our tracks are built for bulk, not speed. Presently, approximately 40% of commercial product
distribution is by rail. Trucks and other forms of transport make up the remainder of our commercial shipments. 17
A faster train system will improve economic productivity. If goods arrive at their destination in less time, productivity increases. In Japan,
commercial rail use has greatly increased as their high-speed rail system expanded. The same will occur here, with faster rail shipments.
The added benefit is there will be fewer heavy trucks on the road. This will increase the life of our freeways and lower the costs of
maintenance and expansion.
Our present economic system has stagnated. A new train system will create far more jobs and have a much more broad-based economic
effect then the proposed missile defense system, which only benefits select, non-competitive industries. Jobs will be created from the
development of the new tracks, cars and locomotives. Construction, steel, tourism and other related industries will be positively impacted.
There will also be the multiplier effect of cottage industries via food, service and entertainment. As in Europe and Japan, a high-speed train
system indirectly promotes diverse classes of services and goods.
Unlike missile defense, which is technology intensive and creates very few jobs, renovating our entire rail system to make it faster and more
efficient requires far more diversity labor and products. Defense dollars just do not create this multiplier effect of the money spent on an
alternative sector of the economy. At best, the missile defense system will never be used. At worst, it will; which is an unthinkable and
hopefully unrealized possibility.
As our economy is slowly transformed from conspicuous consumption to eco-tourism all of us will benefit. We have a very beautiful country.
Our national parks are the envy of the world. Unlike Europe and Japan, we have wildlife and have done a remarkable job in preserving
nature. We have a lot to see and millions of national and international tourists who want to enjoy our great gifts of nature. The greatest
return on our investment in a high-speed rail system will be the conservation of our unique natural resources.
-The Interstate Highway System is outdated. As massive as our interstate highway system is, it was not designed to accommodate the over
200 million vehicles presently using it. What started in the 1950’s as a terrific idea that created millions of jobs, highways today are not
capable of supporting the overwhelming volume of traffic and commerce.
A high-speed train system will not mean the end of the automobile and long haul trucking. It will only mean less crowding and safer travel.
High-speed trains will not be the death knell for the airline industry. It will just mean more competition and over time less use of oil in the form
of jet fuel. Certainly there will be an impact. However, the market place is efficient and the companies that are best able to compete in the
transportation sector will continue to prosper.
Our love affair with the automobile will continue. Cars are popular because of the perceived convenience of being able to travel where and
when we want in the privacy of our own vehicle. For short trips to local parks, friends across town or to the store, cars will continue to retain
their popularity. But on long trips greater than 200 miles, after hours on the road, complete with backaches and fuel stops, the independence
of the car more closely resembles imprisonment, and the love affair ends. High-speed trains ferry both cars and the people who use them at
each end of the line but for the majority of the journey, the people are not confined to their cars.
The transformation of our society is a constant process. Preparing for the future rather than reacting to events is true political leadership.
Missile defense does not solve a single national problem, and not one real benefit is achieved. It will not improve the infrastructure of our
cities or make our streets safer from crime. The only product of such a system is an illusory and fleeting sense of security shared by some of
the people some of the time.
Development of the high-speed train should be in phases. The most crowded urban areas are the logical start for development and
deployment of high-speed trains. Boston to New York to Philadelphia to Washington DC can be implemented within four years. In Florida, the
Tampa-Orlando-Miami system, which has been proposed privately, should be part of the first phase. What has killed that project is funding.
Southern California (including a line to Las Vegas) should be included in this first phase. These areas have the greatest population density
and biggest traffic problems. The entire first phase can be operational within four years.
The second phase will be to connect the less populated areas; such as the interior of the country. These areas are going to have to be
subsidized in a similar manner as long distance telephone service is today. Quite unlike Europe and Japan, America is a very large country
with wide-open spaces in the Great Plains and Western Desert. Denver, Salt Lake City, Kansas City, Dallas, Oklahoma City and the few other
large urban areas are long distances apart from each other. These cities can be incorporated into the overall high-speed train system in the
second phase; as the first phase begins to produce a return on investment. The entire nation can be on line within eight years with a
concerted political effort.
The high-speed trains should be owned by the taxpayers. Our battleships, planes, tanks, military bases, national parks are and huge tracks
of land are owned by the government, i.e. the taxpayers. Some of the maintenance and operational contracts to take care of public facilities
are managed by private industry. A similar process can be used here. The people should own the system. Contracts should be bid (via our
existing government bidding process) to build, maintain and operate this system. Requests for proposals can be solicited immediately using
the existing Federal procurement process.
The Cold War is over. The Russians and the Chinese want to improve their economies. They are not even in the least bit interested in a new
round of defense spending and have made that very clear in their public statements. A high-speed train system will merely give Americans
what the Europeans and Japanese take for granted. This system is merely a step in the right direction. Since Congress and the
Administration are intent on spending taxpayer money, this project offers an alternative that will begin to solve several real and pressing
problems at one time. High-speed trains will strengthen the security of the country far more then missile defense. Spending money on public
infrastructure will not bar research and development of missile defense. It just avoids a frantic rush to build an ineffective, unnecessary and
provocative system that produces no objective, realizable benefit. We should just scale it back substantially and use the savings on
upgrading our transportation system with a better train system.
first simple step to deal with our oil addiction is to acknowledge the problem. The second is to meet our needs by different and innovative
means and methods. One of these is to build a national high-speed train system to rival Europe’s and Japans.
Within very recent memory we have fought a Middle East War over the oil resources in Kuwait. Reliance on our military to insure access to oil
dealers is not in our long-term best interest. American’s present oil addiction is greater than at the time of the Arab Oil Embargo in 1973. We
need to acknowledge our addiction before we have another Middle East War. Military might alone will not create more oil or deal with the
consequences of our addiction. America is more dependent on fossil fuels than any other country on Earth 12. Our fragile global
environment cannot afford more Exxon Valdez oil spills. We damage fragile ecosystems so we can drive on crowded freeways or fly the
friendly skies on one of the numerous environmentally unfriendly airlines, all going to the same location. We waste tremendous amounts of
energy resources on inefficient, redundant transportation practices.
Economic benefits from high-speed trains. For the purposes of discussion, a high-speed train is one that travels at the French TVG
European speed of at least 186 mph 13. America has a long history of rail use. However, commuter rail travel does not appear to compete
with cars, trucks and planes. Amtrak loses money every year 14. One of the main reasons our train system does not compete well is it is
notoriously slow. We are a people in a hurry. With limited vacation time, we forego the economic and environmental benefits of rail travel to
get where we are going fast. If our trains traveled at 186 mph, people would flock to them instead of fighting cars and trucks on overcrowded
interstate highway our citizens would use them. That 4½-hour drive from Las Vegas to Los Angeles would take less than 2 hours by rail –
without the road rage and risk of death or dismemberment. Given a viable alternative, most Americans are just not going to plod along at 65
mph to get to their vacation or business destinations. 15
The speed of our new transportation system will immediately increase tourism. Saving the wear and tear on cars and ourselves will afford
people who would otherwise stay home the opportunity to travel. Many Americans do not have the financial resources to use their cars for
long trips. Although plane travel has come down in price, this situation will not last. In time, plane ticket prices are going to go up as jet fuel
prices increase as oil supplies becomes more limited. And, overused highways result in overburdened taxpayers, who must subsidize their
enhancement and maintenance.
Under our current transportation system funding, highways receive approximately $35 billion dollars in Federal investment annually, aviation
receives approximately $14 billion and Amtrak gets less then $500 million. The budget for high-speed trains in the U.S. is a mere $22 million.
16. Under our proposal, highways and aviation would not get less money. High-speed trains would just receive more funding. Spending $15
billion the first year and increasing this budget item by $5 billion per year until completion.
- Why the need for capital investment? Diesel trains are not as fast or powerful as electric trains. Our train system was build for a slower time
in history. The existing rail system is out of date and is only useful for transporting large bulky items like heavy industrial goods, commodities
and other low tech, non-agricultural products. Our tracks are built for bulk, not speed. Presently, approximately 40% of commercial product
distribution is by rail. Trucks and other forms of transport make up the remainder of our commercial shipments. 17
A faster train system will improve economic productivity. If goods arrive at their destination in less time, productivity increases. In Japan,
commercial rail use has greatly increased as their high-speed rail system expanded. The same will occur here, with faster rail shipments.
The added benefit is there will be fewer heavy trucks on the road. This will increase the life of our freeways and lower the costs of
maintenance and expansion.
Our present economic system has stagnated. A new train system will create far more jobs and have a much more broad-based economic
effect then the proposed missile defense system, which only benefits select, non-competitive industries. Jobs will be created from the
development of the new tracks, cars and locomotives. Construction, steel, tourism and other related industries will be positively impacted.
There will also be the multiplier effect of cottage industries via food, service and entertainment. As in Europe and Japan, a high-speed train
system indirectly promotes diverse classes of services and goods.
Unlike missile defense, which is technology intensive and creates very few jobs, renovating our entire rail system to make it faster and more
efficient requires far more diversity labor and products. Defense dollars just do not create this multiplier effect of the money spent on an
alternative sector of the economy. At best, the missile defense system will never be used. At worst, it will; which is an unthinkable and
hopefully unrealized possibility.
As our economy is slowly transformed from conspicuous consumption to eco-tourism all of us will benefit. We have a very beautiful country.
Our national parks are the envy of the world. Unlike Europe and Japan, we have wildlife and have done a remarkable job in preserving
nature. We have a lot to see and millions of national and international tourists who want to enjoy our great gifts of nature. The greatest
return on our investment in a high-speed rail system will be the conservation of our unique natural resources.
-The Interstate Highway System is outdated. As massive as our interstate highway system is, it was not designed to accommodate the over
200 million vehicles presently using it. What started in the 1950’s as a terrific idea that created millions of jobs, highways today are not
capable of supporting the overwhelming volume of traffic and commerce.
A high-speed train system will not mean the end of the automobile and long haul trucking. It will only mean less crowding and safer travel.
High-speed trains will not be the death knell for the airline industry. It will just mean more competition and over time less use of oil in the form
of jet fuel. Certainly there will be an impact. However, the market place is efficient and the companies that are best able to compete in the
transportation sector will continue to prosper.
Our love affair with the automobile will continue. Cars are popular because of the perceived convenience of being able to travel where and
when we want in the privacy of our own vehicle. For short trips to local parks, friends across town or to the store, cars will continue to retain
their popularity. But on long trips greater than 200 miles, after hours on the road, complete with backaches and fuel stops, the independence
of the car more closely resembles imprisonment, and the love affair ends. High-speed trains ferry both cars and the people who use them at
each end of the line but for the majority of the journey, the people are not confined to their cars.
The transformation of our society is a constant process. Preparing for the future rather than reacting to events is true political leadership.
Missile defense does not solve a single national problem, and not one real benefit is achieved. It will not improve the infrastructure of our
cities or make our streets safer from crime. The only product of such a system is an illusory and fleeting sense of security shared by some of
the people some of the time.
Development of the high-speed train should be in phases. The most crowded urban areas are the logical start for development and
deployment of high-speed trains. Boston to New York to Philadelphia to Washington DC can be implemented within four years. In Florida, the
Tampa-Orlando-Miami system, which has been proposed privately, should be part of the first phase. What has killed that project is funding.
Southern California (including a line to Las Vegas) should be included in this first phase. These areas have the greatest population density
and biggest traffic problems. The entire first phase can be operational within four years.
The second phase will be to connect the less populated areas; such as the interior of the country. These areas are going to have to be
subsidized in a similar manner as long distance telephone service is today. Quite unlike Europe and Japan, America is a very large country
with wide-open spaces in the Great Plains and Western Desert. Denver, Salt Lake City, Kansas City, Dallas, Oklahoma City and the few other
large urban areas are long distances apart from each other. These cities can be incorporated into the overall high-speed train system in the
second phase; as the first phase begins to produce a return on investment. The entire nation can be on line within eight years with a
concerted political effort.
The high-speed trains should be owned by the taxpayers. Our battleships, planes, tanks, military bases, national parks are and huge tracks
of land are owned by the government, i.e. the taxpayers. Some of the maintenance and operational contracts to take care of public facilities
are managed by private industry. A similar process can be used here. The people should own the system. Contracts should be bid (via our
existing government bidding process) to build, maintain and operate this system. Requests for proposals can be solicited immediately using
the existing Federal procurement process.
The Cold War is over. The Russians and the Chinese want to improve their economies. They are not even in the least bit interested in a new
round of defense spending and have made that very clear in their public statements. A high-speed train system will merely give Americans
what the Europeans and Japanese take for granted. This system is merely a step in the right direction. Since Congress and the
Administration are intent on spending taxpayer money, this project offers an alternative that will begin to solve several real and pressing
problems at one time. High-speed trains will strengthen the security of the country far more then missile defense. Spending money on public
infrastructure will not bar research and development of missile defense. It just avoids a frantic rush to build an ineffective, unnecessary and
provocative system that produces no objective, realizable benefit. We should just scale it back substantially and use the savings on
upgrading our transportation system with a better train system.
 | |  | |  |
1. In a televised speech of March 23rd, 1983, President Reagan asked the American public for its support of the defense budget he had the
promise of retaliation') and highlighted the dramatically increased military power of the Soviet Union. This power, he claimed, undermined the
ability of the US to guarantee retaliation and thus to maintain deterrence: “The Soviets ... have enough accurate and powerful nuclear
weapons to destroy virtually all of our missiles on the ground.” In response to this threat, Reagan called for a continuation of the `major
modernization program' of conventional and nuclear forces which he had initiated after taking office in January 1981. The President framed
the main body of his speech with a futuristic vision. At the beginning he promised to reveal `a decision which offers a new hope for our
defensive'.children in the twenty-first century', and at the end he outlined `a mission to counter the awesome Soviet missile threat with
measures that are
He asked: “What if free people could live secure in the knowledge that their security did not rest on the threat of instant US retaliation to deter
a Soviet attack; that we could intercept and destroy strategic ballistic missiles before they reached our own soil or that of our allies?”
Reagan acknowledged that `this is a formidable technical task', but he was confident that `the scientific community who gave us nuclear
weapons' could now `turn their great talents to the cause of mankind and world peace; to give us the means of rendering these nuclear
weapons impotent and obsolete'. As an important first step, the President initiated a long-term research and development program to begin
to achieve our ultimate goal of eliminating the threat posed by strategic nuclear missiles. findarticles.com Peter Kramer Issue: March, 1999 or
dogpile.com search “strategic defense initiative” + “star wars”
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Search “ballistic missile defense organization” at most search engines or go to the main government site:
www.acq.osd.mil/bmdo/bmdolink/html/bmdolink.html
3. See generally, “center for defense information” at www.cdi.org. Virtually every congressional district in the United States has either a
military base and/or a defense contractor.
4. Within memory, the MX weapons system, Apache helicopter, B-1 and B-2 bombers, all involved substantial cost overruns. Military bases
are often kept open because of political pressures, not efficiencies in operations. Also, see generally, Atomic Audit: The Costs and
Consequences of U.S. Nuclear Weapons Since 1940 Stephen I. Schwartz, Editor 680 pp. / 1998. As early as 1950, nuclear weapons were
considered relatively inexpensive— providing "a bigger bang for a buck"—and were thoroughly integrated into U.S. forces on that basis. Yet
this assumption was never validated. Indeed, for more than fifty years scant attention has been paid to the enormous costs of this effort—
more than $5 trillion thus far—and its short and long-term consequences for the nation. See www.brook.edu/press/books/atomic.htm.
5. The numerous critics of missile defense can be found at www.dogpile.com search “missile defense” “critics” In addition to the American
Federation of Scientists, our allies, Green Peace International, the Center for Defense Information, Union of Concerned Scientists, Physicians
for Social Responsibility, there are numerous independent reports which conclude this program is an expensive waste of tax payer dollars.
6. See, United States Department of Transportation, U.S. TRANSPORTATION SECRETARY SLATER SAYS NATION'S TRAFFIC DEATH
RATES REACH HISTORIC LOW IN 1999 The fatality rate per 100 million vehicle miles traveled (VMT) was 1.5 in 1999, down from 1.6 in 1998
and dramatically lower than the 5.5 rate in 1966. The total number of people killed was down slightly from 41,471 in 1998 to
41,345 in 1999. Internet address at www.dot.gov/affairs/nhtsa1200.htm
7. Ibid. The number of alcohol-related fatalities, 15,794, also dropped slightly in 1999 from 15,934 deaths in 1998, according to preliminary
estimates from the U.S. Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).
www.dot.gov/affairs/nhtsa1200.htm
8. Worldwide there are over 600 million cars on the roads. In the US there are over 200 million cars and trucks. “Greenhouse Gases: A major
global increase in the level of carbon dioxide (CO2) is the major cause of the greenhouse effect. Catalytic converters and other high-
technology devices cannot reduce the production of CO2—we cannot burn fossil fuels without creating it. Unlike some emissions, CO2 levels
continue to rise. Every litre of gasoline poured into a gas tank produces 2.3 kilograms of CO2. Because CO2 is not poisonous and does not
create smog, we may not notice it. Methane (CH4), another greenhouse gas, is produced indirectly by cars because it forms from the carbon
monoxide they produce. Nitrous oxide (N2O) is the final greenhouse gas.”
See generally, http//cbcca/insidecbc/newsinreview/feb98/emission/index.htm
According to Priceline.com, “The major airlines fly over 500,000 empty seats a day.” This has created a nice business for this little Internet
company at www.priceline.com
9. No one is certain of the exact number of people who have died and/or are permanently injured as a result of motor vehicle accidents since
1908, the year Henry Ford invented the Model T. At approximately 40,000 per year for 40 years we have 1,600,000 motor vehicle deaths.
Every family in America has had a loved one killed or injured by our transportation system. The number of people who have been injured is
even more staggering. Each year an estimated 3,500,000 Americans are injured in motor vehicle accidents. Many are permanently injured
and end up paralyzed for life. Others suffer from post traumatic stress disorders and numerous other problems. Attorneys and insurance
companies have a field day with the injured and people wanting desperately to be injured. Attorney ads in phone books, newspapers,
television and the Internet chasing the every illusive injured client is one of the most common forms of advertising around. The constant cat
and mouse game with the attorneys, insurance companies, plaintiffs and defendants has made the public very cynical about the
legal system. See August issue of American Family Physician, 1999.
10. Both the French and Japanese high-speed trains have reported less then ten deaths since their inception. The best site for information
on the world’s railway systems and their safety is:www.rtri.or.jp/other/railfan/rail_companies_E.html This site has a web link to every major
railroad in the world. Clearly high-speed trains will reduce traffic deaths and injuries. Our love affairs with our vehicles will mean our society
will tolerate the continued carnage.
11. Some of the best information on global warming is located at the Pace University’s School of Law’s web site on global warming. They link
the critics and skeptics in an even handed manner at:www.pace.edu/lawschool/env/energy/links.html
12. We have a life style that is not presently “environmentally friendly”. We measure success by our conspicuous consumption of energy. If
we have a large home, complete with an RV, and SUV, a hot tub, and a swimming pool, we are “successful”. No one seriously believes our
lifestyle of suburban success and blatant materialism is compatible with the global ecosystem. Six billion people cannot possibly live like we
do. We have two choices, change our lifestyle and consume less resources or keep our military in the highest state of alert and more
powerful than all of the other militaries in the world combined. Empires have a price. Are we willing to pay the price of “success”?
13. High-speed trains have different performance standards in Europe and Japan. All of the major cities in Europe are accessible via high-
speed trains. Europe now has EuroStar, the new rail line connecting London, Paris and Brussels. With a EuroRail pass a tourist can visit 17
countries on 100,000 miles of rail lines.www.raileurope.com/us/rail/passes/eurail_index.htm
14. For fiscal year 2000, Amtrak lost a record $944 million dollars. Under Congressional mandate to carry their weight financially, Amtrak is
adding lines to become profitable. The problem is with outdated tracks and other kinks, the average speed is a mere 65mph. See generally
Can Acela Change the way we travel? By Tom Huth in Conde Nast Traveler, August 2001pp 43-48. Also, www.cntraveler.com
15. If the travel time from Los Angeles to Las Vegas was 1½ hours via a high-speed train, people would flock to the rail stations. The current
drive of 4 ½ hours, assuming traffic conditions are perfect, is crowded and dangerous.
16. See Huth supra at page 47. Rails do not have the lobbying power of major auto companies, and their allies, big oil, steel, tires, etc.
17. The gradual decline of our railways occurred after world war two. With the major auto, oil and tire companies buying up tracks and the big
push for the car, train use fell into disfavor. According to the Department of Transportation, rail use for commerce is down to a mere 40% of
total traffic.
promise of retaliation') and highlighted the dramatically increased military power of the Soviet Union. This power, he claimed, undermined the
ability of the US to guarantee retaliation and thus to maintain deterrence: “The Soviets ... have enough accurate and powerful nuclear
weapons to destroy virtually all of our missiles on the ground.” In response to this threat, Reagan called for a continuation of the `major
modernization program' of conventional and nuclear forces which he had initiated after taking office in January 1981. The President framed
the main body of his speech with a futuristic vision. At the beginning he promised to reveal `a decision which offers a new hope for our
defensive'.children in the twenty-first century', and at the end he outlined `a mission to counter the awesome Soviet missile threat with
measures that are
He asked: “What if free people could live secure in the knowledge that their security did not rest on the threat of instant US retaliation to deter
a Soviet attack; that we could intercept and destroy strategic ballistic missiles before they reached our own soil or that of our allies?”
Reagan acknowledged that `this is a formidable technical task', but he was confident that `the scientific community who gave us nuclear
weapons' could now `turn their great talents to the cause of mankind and world peace; to give us the means of rendering these nuclear
weapons impotent and obsolete'. As an important first step, the President initiated a long-term research and development program to begin
to achieve our ultimate goal of eliminating the threat posed by strategic nuclear missiles. findarticles.com Peter Kramer Issue: March, 1999 or
dogpile.com search “strategic defense initiative” + “star wars”
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Search “ballistic missile defense organization” at most search engines or go to the main government site:
www.acq.osd.mil/bmdo/bmdolink/html/bmdolink.html
3. See generally, “center for defense information” at www.cdi.org. Virtually every congressional district in the United States has either a
military base and/or a defense contractor.
4. Within memory, the MX weapons system, Apache helicopter, B-1 and B-2 bombers, all involved substantial cost overruns. Military bases
are often kept open because of political pressures, not efficiencies in operations. Also, see generally, Atomic Audit: The Costs and
Consequences of U.S. Nuclear Weapons Since 1940 Stephen I. Schwartz, Editor 680 pp. / 1998. As early as 1950, nuclear weapons were
considered relatively inexpensive— providing "a bigger bang for a buck"—and were thoroughly integrated into U.S. forces on that basis. Yet
this assumption was never validated. Indeed, for more than fifty years scant attention has been paid to the enormous costs of this effort—
more than $5 trillion thus far—and its short and long-term consequences for the nation. See www.brook.edu/press/books/atomic.htm.
5. The numerous critics of missile defense can be found at www.dogpile.com search “missile defense” “critics” In addition to the American
Federation of Scientists, our allies, Green Peace International, the Center for Defense Information, Union of Concerned Scientists, Physicians
for Social Responsibility, there are numerous independent reports which conclude this program is an expensive waste of tax payer dollars.
6. See, United States Department of Transportation, U.S. TRANSPORTATION SECRETARY SLATER SAYS NATION'S TRAFFIC DEATH
RATES REACH HISTORIC LOW IN 1999 The fatality rate per 100 million vehicle miles traveled (VMT) was 1.5 in 1999, down from 1.6 in 1998
and dramatically lower than the 5.5 rate in 1966. The total number of people killed was down slightly from 41,471 in 1998 to
41,345 in 1999. Internet address at www.dot.gov/affairs/nhtsa1200.htm
7. Ibid. The number of alcohol-related fatalities, 15,794, also dropped slightly in 1999 from 15,934 deaths in 1998, according to preliminary
estimates from the U.S. Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).
www.dot.gov/affairs/nhtsa1200.htm
8. Worldwide there are over 600 million cars on the roads. In the US there are over 200 million cars and trucks. “Greenhouse Gases: A major
global increase in the level of carbon dioxide (CO2) is the major cause of the greenhouse effect. Catalytic converters and other high-
technology devices cannot reduce the production of CO2—we cannot burn fossil fuels without creating it. Unlike some emissions, CO2 levels
continue to rise. Every litre of gasoline poured into a gas tank produces 2.3 kilograms of CO2. Because CO2 is not poisonous and does not
create smog, we may not notice it. Methane (CH4), another greenhouse gas, is produced indirectly by cars because it forms from the carbon
monoxide they produce. Nitrous oxide (N2O) is the final greenhouse gas.”
See generally, http//cbcca/insidecbc/newsinreview/feb98/emission/index.htm
According to Priceline.com, “The major airlines fly over 500,000 empty seats a day.” This has created a nice business for this little Internet
company at www.priceline.com
9. No one is certain of the exact number of people who have died and/or are permanently injured as a result of motor vehicle accidents since
1908, the year Henry Ford invented the Model T. At approximately 40,000 per year for 40 years we have 1,600,000 motor vehicle deaths.
Every family in America has had a loved one killed or injured by our transportation system. The number of people who have been injured is
even more staggering. Each year an estimated 3,500,000 Americans are injured in motor vehicle accidents. Many are permanently injured
and end up paralyzed for life. Others suffer from post traumatic stress disorders and numerous other problems. Attorneys and insurance
companies have a field day with the injured and people wanting desperately to be injured. Attorney ads in phone books, newspapers,
television and the Internet chasing the every illusive injured client is one of the most common forms of advertising around. The constant cat
and mouse game with the attorneys, insurance companies, plaintiffs and defendants has made the public very cynical about the
legal system. See August issue of American Family Physician, 1999.
10. Both the French and Japanese high-speed trains have reported less then ten deaths since their inception. The best site for information
on the world’s railway systems and their safety is:www.rtri.or.jp/other/railfan/rail_companies_E.html This site has a web link to every major
railroad in the world. Clearly high-speed trains will reduce traffic deaths and injuries. Our love affairs with our vehicles will mean our society
will tolerate the continued carnage.
11. Some of the best information on global warming is located at the Pace University’s School of Law’s web site on global warming. They link
the critics and skeptics in an even handed manner at:www.pace.edu/lawschool/env/energy/links.html
12. We have a life style that is not presently “environmentally friendly”. We measure success by our conspicuous consumption of energy. If
we have a large home, complete with an RV, and SUV, a hot tub, and a swimming pool, we are “successful”. No one seriously believes our
lifestyle of suburban success and blatant materialism is compatible with the global ecosystem. Six billion people cannot possibly live like we
do. We have two choices, change our lifestyle and consume less resources or keep our military in the highest state of alert and more
powerful than all of the other militaries in the world combined. Empires have a price. Are we willing to pay the price of “success”?
13. High-speed trains have different performance standards in Europe and Japan. All of the major cities in Europe are accessible via high-
speed trains. Europe now has EuroStar, the new rail line connecting London, Paris and Brussels. With a EuroRail pass a tourist can visit 17
countries on 100,000 miles of rail lines.www.raileurope.com/us/rail/passes/eurail_index.htm
14. For fiscal year 2000, Amtrak lost a record $944 million dollars. Under Congressional mandate to carry their weight financially, Amtrak is
adding lines to become profitable. The problem is with outdated tracks and other kinks, the average speed is a mere 65mph. See generally
Can Acela Change the way we travel? By Tom Huth in Conde Nast Traveler, August 2001pp 43-48. Also, www.cntraveler.com
15. If the travel time from Los Angeles to Las Vegas was 1½ hours via a high-speed train, people would flock to the rail stations. The current
drive of 4 ½ hours, assuming traffic conditions are perfect, is crowded and dangerous.
16. See Huth supra at page 47. Rails do not have the lobbying power of major auto companies, and their allies, big oil, steel, tires, etc.
17. The gradual decline of our railways occurred after world war two. With the major auto, oil and tire companies buying up tracks and the big
push for the car, train use fell into disfavor. According to the Department of Transportation, rail use for commerce is down to a mere 40% of
total traffic.