RAND Corp urges war with superpower to grow economy

reply to post by ALLis0NE

Over the last 60 years, more than 30 Nobel Prize winners have been affiliated with the RAND Corporation at some point in their careers.[1]

Notable RAND participants
Donald Rumsfeld — Chairman of Board from 1981–1986; 1995-1996 and Secretary of Defense for the United States from 1975 to 1977 and 2001 to 2006.
Condoleezza Rice — former trustee 1991–1997 and current Secretary of State for the United States (as of May 2006), former intern
Henry Kissinger— US Secretary of State (1973-1977); National Security Advisor (1969-1975); Nobel Peace Prize Winner (1973)
Herman Kahn — theorist on nuclear war and one of the founders of scenario planning
David S. C. Chu — Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, 2001–present
Harold L. Brode — physicist, leading nuclear weapons effects expert
Samuel Cohen — inventor of the neutron bomb in 1958

thats just a few of the noteables that have been/are still apart of this...

nonprofit global policy think tank first formed to offer research and analysis to the United States armed forces.

reply to post by Agit8dChop


beat me to it,


i like the way you think

Agreed...most of us know that it IS profitable to engage in war as it does create jobs and alliances with other economies (allies). Iraq has made millions for US and UK Contractors alike.

The thread though is stating that RAND urges war...and that is not the case.

Infowars so sucks (IMO)...right up there with C2C and Huffington. RAND does not urge war to fuel economies.

It's a great topic though this profit/war debate take RAND out of the equation and it's a HOT topic for sure.

here's a good intro to who profits from war if the OP is interested. It's from the Economist's View (a blog) it makes for great research material and search topics. Economist's View

Just check out this article from the New York Times! war is definitely profitable for some. It's an old article but the DOD should have an updated list of companies working to "rebuild" Iraq and should also have the percentages of revenues.NY Times article 2006

reply to post by justgeneric


I definetly cannot download the PDF... the RAND website is not working. Could someone upload it on rapidshare or something like that?

I listened to Alex Jones earlier today (you can still listen to his show on his site, it repeats until tomorrow). This was a Steve Watson special, he even requested to be on the show especially to break this news, which Jones said was very unusual.

The speculation about Japan was because they hold so many dollars, and have given so many loans to the USA.

Sounds like it was the usual overhyping though based on a bad translation of a bad article.

War does not build economies. War is another form of Keynesian stimulation that benefits some but destroys more than it creates. If we have X amount of resources to invest, should we invest them in things that go boom (disappear) or in things that are capital which we can use to build more things? The answer is obvious. War is like burning your wealth.

RAND Study Suggests U.S. Loses War With China

TAIPEI - A new RAND study suggests U.S. air power in the Pacific would be inadequate to thwart a Chinese attack on Taiwan in 2020. The study, entitled "Air Combat Past, Present and Future," by John Stillion and Scott Perdue, says China's anti-access arms and strategy could deny the U.S. the "ability to operate efficiently from nearby bases or seas."

According to the study, U.S. aircraft carriers and air bases would be threatened by Chinese development of anti-ship ballistic missiles, the fielding of diesel and nuclear submarines equipped with torpedoes and SS-N-22 and SS-N-27 anti-ship cruise missiles (ASCMs), fighters and bombers carrying ASCMs and HARMs, and new ballistic missiles and cruise missiles.

(Rest of the article: strategypage.com)

Originally posted by hotbakedtater
Doesn't RAND mean research and development? Anyway, I am curious.

Yes, it does. I used to do design work for RAND a long time ago. It was amazing how many business cards I would typeset for them. The titles of the people who worked there were the WHO'S WHO of the scientific community and the military world... engineers and quantum/nuclear physicists from around the globe with MULTIPLE doctorates, future world conceptualists that worked for Hollywood and possess degrees, theoretical physicists, retired military commanders and 3+ star generals, etc., even psychiatrists that specialize in hypnosis and mind control/deprogramming.

So to make a long story short, if they are in fact urging war with another superpower, you better be scared because they are one of the top corporations within the military industrial complex! But let's not be so quick to think this story is true until the documents are proven to say exactly what is being reported, especially if Alex Jones is mentioning it. He hasn't exactly been the most accurate source of information since 9/11, and while much of his claims may be true, most of it is virtually impossible to verify with 100% accuracy.

[edit on 10/31/2008 by pjslug]

You forgot to mention that the Rand Corporation is located all over the world.
But yes, they are in Santa Monica, California.

And this is their new headquarters two blocks from the beach!

I used to work for RAND Europe.

The claim on the InfoWars site that RAND is urging a new war "dovetails" with previous vague comments alluding to a "crisis" in early 2009 should be treated cautiously.

If RAND Corp has produced such a report (and they produce a vast amount of research (I believe approx 60% of their US income is derived from DoD/military contracts. RAND Europe is far less focused on military work altho has carried out consulting work for SIS)..then it will almost certainly be classified.

The Chinese would also be making a song and dance about this new American aggression if it had been leaked (which is a possibility).

I would be very interested to see the actual document, which I doubt InfoWars have seen.

[edit on 31-10-2008 by Dan.Dare]

ANyone that things that ww1 and ww2 did not help the anglo american empire, and boost them, is wrong. You took out your main competitor in the world stage, i.e germany.

Just look at the boom after ww2 for america, for having no competitors, lol.

Throughout history bust nations have gone to war to boost there economy and take out there rivals.

Its obvious they would be talking about such things. Also china and russia will be monitoring, them 24-7. Do you guys not think, that russia and china know what america does, in secret. If you think they do not, your kidding yourself.

reply to post by Grumble


War DOES build economy as it can stimulate the basic purpose of money - spending. Investing in your own country's capacity to manufacture creates optimism in the future which pushes the value of everything up as part of the natural cycle of inflation. Corresponding to this is the very real benefit of money being poured into industry which creates jobs which allows more people to earn and spend.

African "wars" between neighbouring states tend to lead to bankruptcy because the infrastructure is destroyed rather than invested in. Money goes out of the country to foreign arms dealers rather than circulating within the country and providing an opportunity for the economy to grow. There is also quite a lot spent on gold braid and nice uniforms for the dictator of the day.

The key is not to let war interrupt the infrastructure of a country so much so as to inhibit the growth. Germany benefited greatly by a blind faith in the future during the 30's directly as a part of gearing the economy to the war machine and the blind faith in the success and superiority of Germany. It's main problem was that although it had industry, it did not have raw materials. They solved this problem by invading countries that did have raw materials. Each conquest funded the next so they were kind of stuck in a loop whereby they were constantly chasing their own tail.

Quite apart from the subjugation of the Eastern peoples, the invasion of Russia was also seen as a way of getting their hands on all those raw materials.

Clearly, war should not be brought to your doorstep or you are in big trouble - whether or not you have a bunker beneath the Chancellery.

So, although war does create fantastic wealth opportunities for a country, any chance of losing more than cancels the benefits out. America did so well out of the war economically because it remained almost completely untouched and invested so much in itself. Any future war with a competent technologically advanced country would turn Washington into Berlin January 1945.

Britain did particularly badly because it owed so much money to America in particular as part of the money it had to pay back to America - this was completed only a couple of years ago.

The weird thing is, nowadays we invest outside of our own countries in preference to ourselves. Our governments are happily building up nations all about the globe whilst we tread water and reap the "benefits" of greedy economists.

This is a direct result of an extension of the specialisation of industry - the economists wet dream. If you want toxic plastic toys, don't make them yourself, get a country that really knows how to kill children to make them for you!



[edit on 31-10-2008 by SugarCube]

[edit on 31-10-2008 by SugarCube]

reply to post by SugarCube


Absolutely agree. The US 'MIC' system has sustained itself by perpetuating a series of threats to justify an ongoing stream of cash into the defence sector.

The threat used to be the Communist bloc, then we had 'Rogue Nations' aka Nations of Concern, then the Terrorism. The terrorism angle has been extraordinarily profitable for all concerned. However the 'threat' has become less and less plausible as time has passed, Which may be why the big bad scary monster that is Russia has been taken off the back burner in recent years.





[edit on 31-10-2008 by Dan.Dare]

Originally posted by fromtheheart66
Wonder if war does boost the economy?

Yes. At least that has been the history.

reply to post by ALLis0NE


why am i not surprise of war mongering to boost economy ?? and i think we are close to brink of war..Iran, Russia and China

War will revive economy in their perspective because money will be channel into manufacturing of weapons, bullets, bombs and what have you for blowing other countries till kingdom come..

they don't care if the average american citizen is blow up in your home turf, in fact they will gladly see some american cities being blown up to justify their war mongering effort..

with the economies around the world collapsing, greenbacks are becoming junks, they need it to maintain superiority...otherwise how are they going to feed their lust for wealth, luxuries and power ?

reply to post by affeyee


They don't need to have an actual fighting war to get the money. All that is needed is the spectre of war,a plausible but serious threat. And in any case, recent history shows us that the US and its allies do not pick fights with serious rivals who could offer some strong resistance. You pick on countries that can be overrun in a day.

There is the old comment, attributed to a Mexican diplomat "If the President says that Cuba is a threat to the USA, 40 million Mexicans will die laughing".

Alternatively you use proxies to do your dirty work for you (while ensuring they fight with US made weapons. Same effect.)

There was another thread on the "war boosts economy" subject somewhere...

I have looked at it from the psychological perspectives.
A world war (one on the scale of WW2), creates immense patriotism, commitment from the public, often devotion to the "cause". In this case, people will work a lot more, for a lot less. It comes back to doing what you have to do for your survival, and that of your nation.

Even those against any war will inevitably find themselves taking part for their own survival, or have their opinions changed by the immediate threat to them.

In WW2, women and children in Britain went to work, there was a massive drive to keep industry running, and everyone did their bit.

Exactly how this scenario would play out in modern times to boost the economy is something I cannot really grasp yet. But surely just the psychological impact on the nation would assist it? It would make people more willing to make sacrifices and to follow their leader.

Originally posted by detachedindividual
In WW2, women and children in Britain went to work, there was a massive drive to keep industry running, and everyone did their bit.

Exactly how this scenario would play out in modern times to boost the economy is something I cannot really grasp yet. But surely just the psychological impact on the nation would assist it? It would make people more willing to make sacrifices and to follow their leader.

Churlishly reverting to profanity, "We'd be f*cked"

In a "world" event the West would suffer greatly from the detachment from "civilisation". Even in the 1930's vast numbers of the population people still knew how to "survive" without having to rely on *everything" being bought from a supermarket. This was especially true in rural areas. People didn't rely on gadgets because< quite simply, they weren't invented back then - Households had a radio at most, certainly in Britain.

The population of the West has become soft - an electric cut can cause chaos in a matter of a couple of hours. Fuel shortages cause major chaos.

Any major disruption to the infrastructure of our Western World would cause real problems and I do not believe that anybody would see justification for a large scale "total war" effort against an enemy now - by that I mean not just emphasis on the armaments industry but every aspect of our daily lives geared toward a war footing.

That is once reason why the "5th column" approach is so useful. The invisible enemy that has an abstracted identity. The wars can be sold as "surgical", you don't have to go without your Playstation and your food isn't rationed, but as the Government states, "We're in a war with terror!"

This is nonsense. This is bunk.

The misappropriation of the term "war" to the securing a country against terrorist attacks is wrong. Although it is a cliche, we're rapidly heading toward the Orwellian concept of war in "1984"; leagues of nations that tacitly agree to fight each other to perpetuate a war economy of investment in the armaments industry, rationing of vital materials and above all, the "big brother" government.

OK, we have the massive investment in weapons, we have the clouded issue of price fluctuations in oil "beyond our control" and we certainly have the big brother state growing using the excuse of terrorism.

Besides which, consider this, if you were transported back to 1941 with your *current* Government in power back then, would you really feel safe against the Nazi thrust for world domination?

Does anybody believe that the current bunch of muppets would protect the "free world"? I mean, they haven't done a very good job for the last 10 or 15 years at protecting our freedoms.

Originally posted by SugarCube

Originally posted by detachedindividual
In WW2, women and children in Britain went to work, there was a massive drive to keep industry running, and everyone did their bit.

Exactly how this scenario would play out in modern times to boost the economy is something I cannot really grasp yet. But surely just the psychological impact on the nation would assist it? It would make people more willing to make sacrifices and to follow their leader.

Churlishly reverting to profanity, "We'd be f*cked"

In a "world" event the West would suffer greatly from the detachment from "civilisation". Even in the 1930's vast numbers of the population people still knew how to "survive" without having to rely on *everything" being bought from a supermarket. This was especially true in rural areas. People didn't rely on gadgets because< quite simply, they weren't invented back then - Households had a radio at most, certainly in Britain.

The population of the West has become soft - an electric cut can cause chaos in a matter of a couple of hours. Fuel shortages cause major chaos.

This is very true!
But I believe in the ability to adapt quickly. I do think that the vast majority (while it would be a shock) would adapt. And it would be assisted, people wouldn't be expected to suddenly know how to grow vegetables.

I do suspect that, faced with another threat as in WW2, where there is a real risk of direct contact with war, bombs dropping from the sky, instead of this "detached" war we're used to watching on TV, people would be forced to make the decision between fighting for your country (your way of life, family, friends) or... the other option (what is the other option)

I do not like war, anywhere, ever. I wouldn't join the army to fight a war on foreign land. But I would certainly make sacrifices, ration, change industry and even join a national home force to defend my country, at home, from whatever force threatened it.

You know, I've often wondered if it would take another massive war for people to change. In Britain I see far too many people complacent, spoiled, acting as though the world owes them (especially the younger generation, and I'm only in my 30's).

Originally posted by hotbakedtater
Doesn't RAND mean research and development? Anyway, I am curious. Did RAND have this or a similar urgeurge in the months leading up to 9/11, 2001?

And how does Infowars know this, anyway? I would think this would be highly classified.

I've jsut been listening to this on infowars.If i've got this right,one his English contributors,Paul Watson has a Chinese girlfriend who reported that in the Chinese press and China in general there is uproar going on over this proposal to boost the US economy.

Where this info originally came from -a suspected leak from within RAND?