The Libertarian Review March 1980 - Libertarianism.org

44thors have a serious problem.Can they let the Sovietsand their allies walk all overNATO? Can they showNATO easily repulsing theSoviets? Would a stalematebe acceptable to the readers?The answer to all three questionsis no. It puts the authorsin a curious position,since as advocates of higherdefense spending, more soldiers,the draft, and newweapon systems, they haveto face the dilemma of aplausible plot. First, ifNATO is walked over by theWarsaw Pact, it not only reflectson the military andtheir equipment, but goesagainst their pride. But evenifthe authors were willing tolet this happen it puts themin the position of having theWest use nuclear weaponsfirst, which is unacceptable.If NATO wins easily, thequestion could easily become,why do we need todevote all these resources fordefense? Why would theRussians be foolish enoughto attack when they arefaced with unrest in thesatellite states? Why indeed?The stalemate option on aconventional battlefieldleads to escalation, and ultimatelyto nuclear exchanges.Actually nuclearexchanges would be led toalmost inevitably if any ofthese scenarios were closelyexamined.So what can the authorsdo? Hackett et aL need tocombine enough action,suspense, and success for thegood guys with the basicpurpose of the book, whichis to increase military spending.So they add a little Warsawwalkover, with an eventualstalemate, a couple ofnuclear detonations (but notenough to blow up theworld) and an internal Russiancoup d'etat. The goodguys win, but only aftermuch struggle, and the vitalassistance of new weaponssystems developed in the late1970s and beefed up NATOmanpower.Obviously the premise theauthors start from is flawed.But, part of the scenarioleading up to the Soviet invasionis more plausible: "Inthe USSR the harvest wasexpected to be even moredisastrous than those of theprevious two years and criticalfoodstuffs were knownto be scarce. The measureswhich, in the recent past,had produced waves of unrestin Poland and Romaniaand even in parts of theSoviet Union itself-in theUkraine, for example, and inGeorgia...,...-were likely to berepeated." Unrest is widespreadamong the Asian republicsof the Soviet Uniontoo. This is hardly the primetime to strike, but under theplot the authors have developedthe Soviets do so.No one doubts that theSoviets try to take advantageof any situation which occursaround the world; theyhave been unceremoniouslybooted out of many countries.Where they remainthey are often hated, such asin most of eastern Europe,and the countries beingaided, like Cuba, are a constantdrain on the USSR'soverextended economy. Inother words, the authorsmix up their premises toCOMINGSOON IN LRBill Birminghamon the Ruins ofSaltJoel Spring Interviewreach a satisfactory conclusion.This is not surprising;politicians do it all the time.If they did not provide sufficientreason for this shakeup in the Soviet power structurethey would have noway of resolving the scenariowithout a massive nuclearexchange, where an overwhelmingpercentage ofthese "limited war" scenariosend.As literature the book isalso flawed. There reallyaren't any memorable characters.One is given glimpsesof particular individuals, agood-guy German tankcommander, an Americanmerchant marine sailor, anAfrikander, all briefly takecenter stage, and in a page ortwo are gone. The Presidentof the U.S. is just a name.The faceless troglodyteswho rule the Kremlin remainobscure even as theyare deposed. Reader interestis sought by rushing fromparticular event to eventusing the reader's generaldisposition to root for hisfellow countryman and theirallies the way you root forU.S. Olympic athletes. Theindividuals, the destruction,the chaos of war becomeobscured by this intenselyimpersonal approach.However, these flaws areirrelevant to the book's success,which will be measuredin its ability to mobilizemore tax dollars for MXmissiles, XM-l tanks, additionalanti-tank weapons,more divisions, more ships,more anti-submarine planes,etc. etc. And judging fromthe rave reviews from Englandcontained on thebook's jacket, the authorswill be successful. What willbe completely overlooked isthe likelihood that any conflictsuch as the authors havedesigned will ultimately endin a massive nuclear exchange.the result of suchan exchange is not givenin this book. Or even considered.Karl E. Peterjohn is a free-lancewriter and a former newspaperman.AdolescentdystopiaMICHAELGROSSBERGAlongside Night, by]. NeilSchulman, Crown, 181 pp.,$8.95.HERE IS A BOOK THATseems to have everything, ascience fiction disaster novelwith an important, original,and timely subject: the de-,struction of America byrunaway inflation. It isacclaimed by leading authors,from Poul Andersonto Anthony Burgess. Moreover,it has an explicitly libertariantheme: the inevitablydetrimental effects ofstatism. Unhappily, whatAlongside Night, by J. NeilSchulman, does not have iscredible characters or a convincingplot. It may be goodpropaganda, but it is badmelodrama.Science fiction, at its best,is a literature of idec;ls. Alltoo often, it consists almostexclusively of ideas: as if amad scientist designed thehuman body, giving it abrain (theme), but no skeleton(plot) or heart (flesh andblood characters). Like toomuch bad science fiction,Alongside Night has imaginativeideas, inadequatelyfleshed out.Schulman envisions a futureNew York in which inflation,wage-price controls,and the collapse of governmentservices have led to thedevelopment of a burgeoningcountereconomy. It is a1999 filled with Blues,brownies, vendies, tziganes,Gloamingers, Tasers, ProjectHarriman, and the GenghisKhan-that is, respectively,(1) hastily engravedNew Dollars resembling,and worth about as muchas, Monopoly money; (2)Harry Browne-outs whohead for the hills with theirrifles and survival foods; (3)federal tokens replacingdimes and quarters thatTHE LIBERTARIAN REVIEW