The Causes of World War Three by Wright Mills - Essay Example

World War III According to C. Wright Mills, a nuclear war that would deva the whole world was imminent and virtually nothing could be done to prevent it (Goertzel, 241). While writing on the causes of World War III in 1958, C. Wright Mills was almost sure that the war was going to occur, and very little would be done to prevent it. Therefore, he outlined the major factors that would contribute to this war. Thus, according to Mills, the following factors would contribute to the occurrence of the third world war: Power Elites created by the US industrial complex According to C. Wright Mills, the structure of national policy was centered on politics and military supremacy. Therefore, if a country had to achieve economic prosperity, it had to be superior on the war front and in its military organization (Goertzel, 242). Thus, economic prosperity was to be achieved through the assertion of political and military power, instead of applying the economic principles which drive the economy. Therefore, the economic elites who lead major organizations were also the same who drove the political life of both the USA and the USSR, the major rivals in the foreseen war (Goertzel, 242). Making the political power an elite component, where the political and military authority was centered on the economic elite’s point of view posed some war danger. According to Mills, the political, the military and the economic elites shared a common world view (Goertzel, 243). This made the perception that a country’s economy cannot thrive without first establishing itself as the political and military giant. Thus, concentrating power on the elites, who considered themselves superior to other members of the society, was a catalyst in the process of simmering a war that would have a devastating and lasting impact on the world (Goertzel, 243). Considering that this view by Mills occurred during the Cold War period, apparently a bigger and fierce nuclear was looming (Goertzel, 241). Thus, Mills had an opinion that the elites were interested in their own affairs only. Therefore, they were seeking to establish a permanent war economy, which would solidify their positions in the society and make it possible for them to manipulate and control the world social order (Goertzel, 244). Mills observed that the elites were using the media as their tool of manipulation and propaganda to mislead the masses, whom they considered inferior. Therefore, with the economic elites at the helm of political and military authority, a devastating war was inevitable (Goertzel, 242). The conspiracy and poor definition of reality According to the Americans, the enemy of the people was Russia. This faulty definition, which substituted the reality with the preconceived notion of a specified enemy, could ultimately cause another devastating war (Goertzel, 241). The actual definition of the enemy is war, since any war, irrespective of the parties involved, has the same damaging effects. Therefore, while the Americans substituted the real definition of the enemy and personalize it to suit their interest, they created an environment for pursuing the wrong target (Goertzel, 243). If the American could perceive war as the common enemy, they would work towards ensuring that no more war could be experienced in the world, owing to the damaging effects caused by the previous world wars. Nevertheless, through the erratic perception of Russia as the enemy, they were determined to continue the warfare until they subdued it (Goertzel, 243). This inevitably made the third World War a reality that could not be escaped. Additionally, the Americans based their arguments on a false premise that peace with the USSR could not be achieved unless through war. This made it clear that the Americans would pursue the Russians. The same case applied for the Russians, who perceived the USA as an aggressive opponent, who could not relent until a war determined who was powerful. This prepared a stage for the most devastating war in the history of the world, which could entail dangerous nuclear weapons that could tore the whole world apart (Goertzel, 242). Thus, a poor definition of the real enemy was another factor that could cause world war III. Blatant generals and the unrestrained powers of the warlords The placement of people who are supportive of conflict and warfare at the top of the military and defense leadership is yet another cause for a looming World War III (244). After the previous world wars, the United States and the USSR embarked on looking for individuals who were aggressive and war motivated to head the military and the defense ministries. This, coupled with some civilian political forces made another devastating war inevitable (Goertzel, 245). Both the super powers, at the time, were interested in building formidable forces, which would prove their worth on the event that a war could emerge. This required a search for generals who would not be cowed and who perceived war as the only alternative to the establishment of economic and political stability (Goertzel, 244). No wonder then, that such individuals were influenced easily by the civilian forces, when an issue concerning war emerged. It is the aggressiveness of such blatant generals that saw the USA fight in the unnecessary Vietnamese war under the leadership of Lyndon Johnson (Goertzel, 243). Counter arguments by Ted Goertzel Ted Goertzel disagrees with the arguments staged by C. Mills in support of the factors causing the looming World War III. According to Ted Goertzel, Mills did not apply any scientific verification, while determining these factors. Therefore, according to Ted Goertzel, the argument that the USA government was spending a higher percentage of the GDP on military and defense affairs was misplaced (Goertzel, 242). For example Ted shows that the US military spending kept going down over the years, from a high of 8.5% GDP spending in 1958 to a low of 4.6% in 1978 (Goertzel, 243). Another point of disagreement between C. Mills and Ted is that, the aggression of the US military against other foreign nations was not an act of military initiative as argued by C. Mills. Ted gives an example of the Vietnamese aggression, which was caused by the initiative of Lyndon Johnson, as opposed to military initiative (Goertzel, 242). Another counter argument against Mills argument is that the political forces are no longer stronger than other major groups in the USA. Ted observes that the elderly group wields immense power, through commanding a fair share of the nation’s income (Goertzel, 245). Ted observes that while the expenditure on the elderly has consistently grown over the years, military spending on the other hand has consistently decreased. Ted applies the same argument to the education sector, where he observes that despite the decline of birth rates and school population, the education budget has consistently grown, as opposed to the military budget which increases occasionally, based on the mission at hand (Goertzel, 244). Finally, while Mills observed that the cause of the third war is the military preparation for the war, Ted observes that such preparations have continued over the years without any indication of the war drawing closer (Goertzel, 245). Additionally, Mills argued that the public is being influenced through the mass media to support the military aggression sheepishly. However, this was countered by Ted, who argues that it is only 26% of the USA population which supported increased military funding by 1978 (245). Ted also observes that the perception that America perceived Russia as the only enemy is erratic, since it could not have engaged in war with the Vietnam (246). However, Mills would respond to the counter arguments offered by Ted, through asserting that military expenditure has increased, though seasonally. Additionally, he could assert that the Vietnam War was a function of Russian conspiracy, making the perception that America views Russia as the enemy, effective. Works Cited Goertzel, G. E. "The Causes of World War III: Thirty Years Later.” Sociological Forum, 4.2 (1989): 241-246. Print. Read More