Eighty years ago this month, on the 6th and 9th August 1945, the United States detonated atomic bombs over the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing 250,000 people – mostly civilians. Armed with such a devastating weapon, Washington held a decisive global military advantage. However, this ended four years later when the Soviet Union successfully tested its own atomic weapon. Thereafter emerged what has been referred to as the doctrine of mutual self-destruction.
While this message was unambiguous, there was also an underlying understanding that a full scale conventional war between superpowers was also unimaginable. This was in light of a widely accepted perception that any such conflict would inevitably escalate into atomic warfare. On this rather tenuous premise has rested, for the past eight decades, a world without direct conflict between the major powers. Unfortunately this safeguard may not remain for much longer as the US seeks a means to negate the balancing factor and now war clouds are gathering.
Underlining this assertion is the fact that in almost every country within the orbit of US led imperialism, there is a frantic race to increase the stock of weaponry and expand the size of their armed forces. Global military spending in 2024 was $2.72 trillion, with NATO accounting for $1.5 trillion – 55% of the world’s total. And still that organisation continues to push for ever more investment in war material. To meet the demand, Britain and the EU have significantly increased expenditure on what is disingenuously termed, ‘defence spending.;
This has led to the phrase ‘military Keynesianism’ reappearing in the capitalist financial press. Instead of governments spending on public works to boost employment, NATO members are advocating state led investment in the arms industry. Needless to say, the owners of armaments, businesses and their shareholders are only too happy to endorse the call.
An enthusiastic supporter of this symbiotic relationship is the German government led by right wing chancellor, Friedrich Merz. Within a week of winning election to the Bundestag in the Spring, he announced his intention to boost defence and infrastructure spending by loosening constitutional fiscal restraints known as the “debt brake”. Shortly thereafter, with support from the Social Democrats (SPD), the German parliament passed legislation providing funding for a €500 billion war chest. This measure was immediately endorsed by the president of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen.
More recently Merz and Keir Starmer have signed a German/UK friendship treaty. Ominously, much of this treaty focused on military cooperation and the production of armaments with an agreement to share manufacturing facilities. This accord included the joint development of long-range missiles and armoured vehicles. Tellingly, it comes after France and Britain decided to reinforce cooperation over their respective nuclear arsenals.
Meanwhile, in the East Japan is joining the race. Notwithstanding its horrific experience during WWII and post-war international commitments, the Japanese government’s so called defence budget this year hit a record $59 billion. A still more sinister aspect of Tokyo’s re-set came this year. For the first time, the Japanese government distributed a children’s version of its Defence White Paper to schools in a campaign of promoting militarist ideology among the young.
This comes against a backdrop of intensifying military coordination between the European Union and Japan. Last month Ms Von der Leyen posted on X (Twitter) … ‘We want to put our Security & Defence Partnership fully into action. Next year, we will launch the first EU-Japan Defence Industrial Dialogue.’
Against this disturbing background, the US military budget is larger than any other country in the world. Accounting for 37% of global military expenditure, this is greater than the combined armaments budgets of the next nine highest spending countries. Now in spite of large cut-backs to all its civilian government spending, the military’s allocation has increased by 13% to over $1trillion.
So what can we read into all this? What has changed that makes the threat of war more likely now than at any time since the Cuban missile crisis?
The chief factor is the economic decline of the US Empire and its allies in Europe while simultaneously the world is experiencing the rise of the People’s Republic of China as a global super power. This situation is different from the challenge posed in the past by the USSR insofar that the PRC, led by its communist party, has developed an economy that is overtaking the West in every field of material production. China is not only offering, but is actually providing a concrete and attractive alternative pole to that of the US Empire.
Unable to compete economically with the People’s Republic, the Empire is faced with the option of either quietly surrendering its global hegemony or opting to inflict physical damage on its rival.
Would or could the US risk a confrontation with China? The calculation in Washington relates essentially to the issue mentioned above, that of mutual self-destruction and whether that can be counteracted. The fact that as recently as May, Donald Trump announced plans to build an American version of Israel’s Iron dome anti-missile system indicates a dangerous mind-set. Should the US achieve this objective (and with sufficient resources this cannot be ruled out, if only for a brief period) the risk of war becomes disturbingly likely.
What might this mean for Ireland north and south? For a start, unless and until we break the connection with Britain, the north is caught up in the British war machine. Nevertheless, a strong local opposition to NATO may cause London to backpedal somewhat on how far it involves the 6-Counties.
As for the Republic, there is at least the option to avoid involvement in a global conflict but only if the government decides to be neutral. At present this is far from certain as the ruling class in the 26-Counties is determined to prioritise its subservient relationship with the US, EU and UK. A relationship maintained in order to retain capitalism and thereby ensure its own class domination.
Therefore we, the working class, have a choice. We must fight to assert Ireland’s neutrality or face the prospect of being forced to fight in bloody battles for NATO’s imperialists.
