"The GOP must consider military spending cuts"

[JohnB]

A couple of thoughts.

 

Strategic thinking for a large scale non nuclear conflict. (If there's a large scale nuclear conflict, we'll all glow in the dark anyway and all bets are off) However, if there is a large scale non nuclear conflict there is much wisdom in the US having large forces. You can't be invaded and you won't be attacked much. Your NATO Allies will, during the start of the conflict have boots on the ground and their airfields and factories will cop a pasting. There is wisdom in having a large, well armed force that is immune to the initial assault for use in the counter attack.

 

During WWII a term was often used to describe America, "The Arsenal of Freedom". You could make tanks, ships, munitions and planes without hinderance by enemy forces. In a conventional exchange this is still true. With a European conflict, how many British munitions plants will survive the first 48 hours? Probably none. In a sense and concerning the safety of Western nations on the Global scene, geography places the US in this vital strategic position.

 

On saving budget money in general. You can probably save a lot of money through increased efficiency rather than straight cuts. Some people might want to revisit this threadon UHC. You spend 3 times as much per capita as we do for healthcare and get a worse outcome than we do. It is not unreasonable to say that if you really reformed the system, then nobody would suffer and you would cut your health expenditure by half to two thirds. The facts are still the same. Your system is grossly overexpensive for very poor outcomes. Throwing more money at it won't make it better, ground up reform will make it better and cheaper.

 

I'm sure that there are other areas where similar solutions apply. But Healthcare is such an obvious one.

Edited November 9, 2010 by JohnB

[mississippichem]

Think twice about that. More than twice.

 

The debt -- certainly not. The obligation to pay the debt is right there in the constitution. How about the rest of the mandatory spending?

 

Have you ever been to a developing or underdeveloped nation? One big difference between those countries and the developed world is a lack of stability in the developing/underdeveloped nations. We are seeing just the slightest hint of that instability in our country right now. Many companies are stockpiling money rather than building products. One problem is they haven't the foggiest idea what the future has in store for them. Magnify that by multiple orders of magnitude and voila! you have the third world. The standard solution to this instability problem in third world nations is a military coup.

 

The mandatory spending represents hard-fought efforts on the part of Congress and the people. If anything, more of our spending should be mandatory. Making multi-year R&D efforts the annual whim of the current Congress doesn't make much sense. Besides, Congress does have a simple way to address the issue of mandatory spending: Grow a pair and modify the laws that mandate that spending.

 

Good point. I used too strong a phrase when I said it should all be discretionary. The obligation to pay debt is constitutional and I would never want to change that, lest we go the way of many credit card weilders. What I should have said is that we need a major reorganizing in the way we prioritize our liabilities. I'm not very sure what the specifics should be...I'm no economist, but I've taken alot of accounting and I see waste and number "fudgery" everywhere I look. I tend to beat the efficiency mantra to death, but it ends up making a huge difference over large timescales.

 

 

You're right. I should have said all y'all rather than just y'all.

 

Nothing wrong with y'all. There is a big gaping hole in the English language that y'all fills exactly. Unlike most languages, English has no widely accepted second person plural. Instead it has a boatload of regional variants. Most languages have a second person plural because, simply put, there is a need for a second person plural. English is just about the only Germanic or Latin language that does not have a second person plural.

 

Yes, this is a huge lexical gap in English (not a very efficient language ). People make fun of "ya'll" but its actually quite functional. I try to shy away from it though to keep from getting grouped in with the ignorant, broke, in-bred, multi-generational epic fail that is so prevalent in my home state. Not that everyone who says " ya'll " is that; my grandparents use it.

[Pangloss]

Have you ever been to a developing or underdeveloped nation? One big difference between those countries and the developed world is a lack of stability in the developing/underdeveloped nations. We are seeing just the slightest hint of that instability in our country right now. Many companies are stockpiling money rather than building products. One problem is they haven't the foggiest idea what the future has in store for them. Magnify that by multiple orders of magnitude and voila! you have the third world. The standard solution to this instability problem in third world nations is a military coup.

 

The mandatory spending represents hard-fought efforts on the part of Congress and the people. If anything, more of our spending should be mandatory. Making multi-year R&D efforts the annual whim of the current Congress doesn't make much sense. Besides, Congress does have a simple way to address the issue of mandatory spending: Grow a pair and modify the laws that mandate that spending.

 

This is a far more ideological concept than you represent. Not only is the degree of "stability" control that is exerted by mandatory (I guess "entitlement" is considered pejorative?) spending debatable, it's also in the budget for ideological reasons, not stability reasons (can we be honest about what we're spending money on, please?).

 

The degree to which the economy needs to be controlled is highly debatable, and on top of that there is more than one way to control it.

 

So I think this argument that "mandatory" spending is necessary to avoid becoming a third world nation and fall to a coup is a particularly dangerous form of FUD. I do, however, agree with your final point.

 

 

However, if there is a large scale non nuclear conflict there is much wisdom in the US having large forces. You can't be invaded and you won't be attacked much. Your NATO Allies will, during the start of the conflict have boots on the ground and their airfields and factories will cop a pasting. There is wisdom in having a large, well armed force that is immune to the initial assault for use in the counter attack.

 

There's also a pretty good school of thought that the only reason we haven't had another large-scale non-nuclear conflict is because of the long arm of the American military. South Korea? Taiwan? Israel? Would those places even exist today if there weren't somebody around to respond to neighbor aggression? Look what happened when Saddam invaded Kuwait -- we weren't afraid to go over there and do what absolutely EVERYONE (who matters) agrees was the right thing to do (even if Kuwait is a little greedy and pretentious).

 

People make fun of "ya'll" but its actually quite functional.

 

I agree! It fills a totally bizarre and completely unnecessary void in the English language.

[padren]

This is a far more ideological concept than you represent. Not only is the degree of "stability" control that is exerted by mandatory (I guess "entitlement" is considered pejorative?) spending debatable, it's also in the budget for ideological reasons, not stability reasons (can we be honest about what we're spending money on, please?).

 

The degree to which the economy needs to be controlled is highly debatable, and on top of that there is more than one way to control it.

Evolution is highly debatable, but it doesn't mean both sides have equal merit. Most of the debate on economic oversight to date still revolves around one side stating we can't allow the sort of "hands off" approach that occurred during the Bush years leading to this economic collapse, and the other side saying we have to try the hands-off approach but with less oversight before the "magical corrections" kick in and prevent future depression-caliber busts.

 

There is room for nuance in that debate - nuance that could actually lead to progress - but it is a pipe dream when the debate is still dominated by Ayn Rand disciples that have lived in a bubble for the last 10 years.

 

As for entitlement, the topic does include ideological spending but also most certainly includes strategic spending for the purpose of stability. That would be like saying all tax cuts (even funded ones at times without national debt) are all ideological populist spending gimmicks and not for stability reasons. Both tax cuts and entitlement programs can both be ideological or economically strategic in nature.

 

 

There's also a pretty good school of thought that the only reason we haven't had another large-scale non-nuclear conflict is because of the long arm of the American military. South Korea? Taiwan? Israel? Would those places even exist today if there weren't somebody around to respond to neighbor aggression? Look what happened when Saddam invaded Kuwait -- we weren't afraid to go over there and do what absolutely EVERYONE (who matters) agrees was the right thing to do (even if Kuwait is a little greedy and pretentious).

I don't think there can be any doubt that the long arm of the US military lead to at least one of the best possible conclusions of the Cold War, and continued to provide stability. The question is, if all our major allies and us combined were able to maintain a force the size of our current combined forces, but with more equal distribution among the nations would we suffer for it or benefit from it with regards to security?

 

I think at this point we can actually start sharing some this burden, and we will all benefit more for it in the long run. The question isn't if it works, but if it is the most economical and effective way to achieve that goal.

 

I agree! It fills a totally bizarre and completely unnecessary void in the English language.

I think y'all are on to something there - I know i use that phrase with some regularity.

[Pangloss]

Interesting story making its way around the Web this week about China's new stealth fighter, which had been thought to be further off in development. Someone spotted one sitting on a runway.

 

 

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/01/05/china.us.fighter.jets/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chengdu_J-20

[rigney]

Evolution is highly debatable, but it doesn't mean both sides have equal merit. Most of the debate on economic oversight to date still revolves around one side stating we can't allow the sort of "hands off" approach that occurred during the Bush years leading to this economic collapse, and the other side saying we have to try the hands-off approach but with less oversight before the "magical corrections" kick in and prevent future depression-caliber busts.

 

There is room for nuance in that debate - nuance that could actually lead to progress - but it is a pipe dream when the debate is still dominated by Ayn Rand disciples that have lived in a bubble for the last 10 years.

 

As for entitlement, the topic does include ideological spending but also most certainly includes strategic spending for the purpose of stability. That would be like saying all tax cuts (even funded ones at times without national debt) are all ideological populist spending gimmicks and not for stability reasons. Both tax cuts and entitlement programs can both be ideological or economically strategic in nature.

 

 

 

I don't think there can be any doubt that the long arm of the US military lead to at least one of the best possible conclusions of the Cold War, and continued to provide stability. The question is, if all our major allies and us combined were able to maintain a force the size of our current combined forces, but with more equal distribution among the nations would we suffer for it or benefit from it with regards to security?

 

I think at this point we can actually start sharing some this burden, and we will all benefit more for it in the long run. The question isn't if it works, but if it is the most economical and effective way to achieve that goal.

 

 

I think y'all are on to something there - I know i use that phrase with some regularity.

 

Bein' from down 'er I think public schoolin' is overrated. Todays kids should be home schooled. Many of the greatest minds who have ever lived, never spent a day in a formal educational setting. Some, if not all of them probably couldn't even spell Harvard, Carnegie, Prinston, or many of the names associated with higher learning. Yet, they did one hell of a job keeping this country together and safe to get us to where we are today. Wanna cut the pork, the fat? Slash the unstable, unrepentant and overpaid bastards who cause this deficiency in our nation. "Cut our military, cut our throats." Edited January 6, 2011 by rigney

[Marat]

Look at the issue in terms of how well the American budget meets the real needs of people in each area. Our healthcare system is known to be grossly inadequate (e.g., highest infant mortality rate in the developed world); our public education system ranks about 15th in the world; our infrastructure is in decline (no prospect of bullet trains such as they have had in Japan and France for years now); and our welfare support for the truly needy leaves poor people living in utter misery. But in terms of protecting the American public against the utterly unreal threat of a military attack, we are massively over-protected by current government spending, since we spend as much on our military as the rest of the world combined. This spending is pure fantasy, comparable to ancient cultures wasting vast resources on potlachs or sacrifices to the gods while letting thousands of people starve for lack of investment in agriculture, since there is now no conceivable scenario in which foreign enemies would ever attack the U.S. in the type of military operation which our current military is prepared to resist. Its value in protecting us against terrorist attacks, which are likely, is comparable to bringing a 420 mm naval gun with you when you go camping to keep mosquitos from biting you, since it is utterly disproportionate in scale and configuration to opposing terrorist threats, which really require intelligence facilities and police to prevent.

 

Just ask, what are you more worried about, getting cancer and going bankrupt from the resulting costs in the inadequate American healthcare system; not being able to afford sending your children to university because tuition is not free as in most European countries; dying of some disease because too little is spent on medical research; winding up on welfare and living a life of utter penury and desperation because American welfare systems are grossly inadequate, or being invaded by Iran and its ten-boat navy, which could land upwards of 1000 troops on Long Island?

 

Although military spending has some positive impact on the American economy, it is generally quite a wasteful way to stimulate economic activity, since the military hardware produced does not in turn create any products of any value whatsoever. In contrast, if the same amount of money were invested in infrastructure, new factories, new hospitals, better schools and universities, improved housing, it would generate enormous amounts of new goods and services which would add real value to American lives, as opposed to building more and more aircraft carriers, which just sail stupidly around the planet, producing absolutely nothing of real value beyond pandering to some nostalgic dream that it's still 1945 and these things really matter, until they finally rust and fall apart.

[rigney]

Look at the issue in terms of how well the American budget meets the real needs of people in each area. Our healthcare system is known to be grossly inadequate (e.g., highest infant mortality rate in the developed world); our public education system ranks about 15th in the world; our infrastructure is in decline (no prospect of bullet trains such as they have had in Japan and France for years now); and our welfare support for the truly needy leaves poor people living in utter misery. But in terms of protecting the American public against the utterly unreal threat of a military attack, we are massively over-protected by current government spending, since we spend as much on our military as the rest of the world combined. This spending is pure fantasy, comparable to ancient cultures wasting vast resources on potlachs or sacrifices to the gods while letting thousands of people starve for lack of investment in agriculture, since there is now no conceivable scenario in which foreign enemies would ever attack the U.S. in the type of military operation which our current military is prepared to resist. Its value in protecting us against terrorist attacks, which are likely, is comparable to bringing a 420 mm naval gun with you when you go camping to keep mosquitos from biting you, since it is utterly disproportionate in scale and configuration to opposing terrorist threats, which really require intelligence facilities and police to prevent.

 

Just ask, what are you more worried about, getting cancer and going bankrupt from the resulting costs in the inadequate American healthcare system; not being able to afford sending your children to university because tuition is not free as in most European countries; dying of some disease because too little is spent on medical research; winding up on welfare and living a life of utter penury and desperation because American welfare systems are grossly inadequate, or being invaded by Iran and its ten-boat navy, which could land upwards of 1000 troops on Long Island?

 

Although military spending has some positive impact on the American economy, it is generally quite a wasteful way to stimulate economic activity, since the military hardware produced does not in turn create any products of any value whatsoever. In contrast, if the same amount of money were invested in infrastructure, new factories, new hospitals, better schools and universities, improved housing, it would generate enormous amounts of new goods and services which would add real value to American lives, as opposed to building more and more aircraft carriers, which just sail stupidly around the planet, producing absolutely nothing of real value beyond pandering to some nostalgic dream that it's still 1945 and these things really matter, until they finally rust and fall apart.

 

After reading such a dissertation from a very young mind, in total disbelief; I'm much more amazed than appalled. It actually breaks my heart to think we have come so far, to have sunk so low. The flood gates are open! What can, or should we do now? Edited January 7, 2011 by rigney

[Mr Skeptic]

After reading such a dissertation from a very young mind in total disbelief, I'm much more amazed than appalled. It actually breaks my heart to think we have come so far, to have sunk so low. The flood gates are open! What can, or should we do now?

 

So you found nothing wrong with what he said?

[rigney]

So you found nothing wrong with what he said?

 

Absolutely nothing!, but I'm sure you'll correct that for me. Edited January 7, 2011 by rigney

[Pangloss]

Well I found a great deal wrong with it.

 

Our healthcare system is known to be grossly inadequate (e.g., highest infant mortality rate in the developed world)

 

Source?

 

This page lists the United States at 33rd out of 197, with the actual number at only 0.63%, compared with 0.29% for first place. I'm not going to lose any sleep over that.

 

 

our public education system ranks about 15th in the world

 

That doesn't really tell us anything, since the top 15 (or 30 or more) may all be really excellent.

 

 

our welfare support for the truly needy leaves poor people living in utter misery

 

Source?

 

Uttery misery, you say? According to the Census Bureau:

- 43% of all "poor" households own an average 3-bedroom, 1.5-bath house

- Almost 75% of "poor" households own a car; 31% own 2 or more

- 97% of "poor" households have a color television; over half own 2 or more

- 78% have a VCR or DVD player; 62% have cable or satellite TV

- 89% have a microwave oven; over half have a stereo, more than a third have a dishwasher

- Only 6% of all "poor" households are overcrowded. More than 67% have more than two rooms per person.

- Average child dietary consumption of poor children is on par with children of middle and upper income parents

- 89% of poor families have "enough to eat"; only 2% report "often" not having enough

- 80% of all "poor" households have air conditioning

- The average American "poor" person has greater living space than the average person in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and many other European cities. (The average citizen there, not the average "poor" citizen.)

 

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/08/how-poor-are-americas-poor-examining-the-plague-of-poverty-in-america

 

 

But in terms of protecting the American public against the utterly unreal threat of a military attack

 

That's not the sole purpose of the American military. We also have treaty obligations to support other countries from aggression, and those treaties are widely supported by international opinion. It's true that the world is angry with us over Iraq, and understandably so, but if we were to pull back and South Korea were to fall then I'm sure we'd be blamed for that as well.

 

 

we are massively over-protected by current government spending

 

I agree, and I think we can curtail military spending. IMO the problem is in the structure of the government's arrangement with the military-industrial complex, and in the systemic nature of procurement practices. It's too difficult to get good projects made, with Senators looking after their home states and not thinking about what the best equipment might actually be.

[rigney]

Well I found a great deal wrong with it.

 

 

 

Source?

 

This page lists the United States at 33rd out of 197, with the actual number at only 0.63%, compared with 0.29% for first place. I'm not going to lose any sleep over that.

 

 

 

 

That doesn't really tell us anything, since the top 15 (or 30 or more) may all be really excellent.

 

 

 

 

Source?

 

Uttery misery, you say? According to the Census Bureau:

- 43% of all "poor" households own an average 3-bedroom, 1.5-bath house

- Almost 75% of "poor" households own a car; 31% own 2 or more

- 97% of "poor" households have a color television; over half own 2 or more

- 78% have a VCR or DVD player; 62% have cable or satellite TV

- 89% have a microwave oven; over half have a stereo, more than a third have a dishwasher

- Only 6% of all "poor" households are overcrowded. More than 67% have more than two rooms per person.

- Average child dietary consumption of poor children is on par with children of middle and upper income parents

- 89% of poor families have "enough to eat"; only 2% report "often" not having enough

- 80% of all "poor" households have air conditioning

- The average American "poor" person has greater living space than the average person in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and many other European cities. (The average citizen there, not the average "poor" citizen.)

 

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/08/how-poor-are-americas-poor-examining-the-plague-of-poverty-in-america

 

 

 

 

That's not the sole purpose of the American military. We also have treaty obligations to support other countries from aggression, and those treaties are widely supported by international opinion. It's true that the world is angry with us over Iraq, and understandably so, but if we were to pull back and South Korea were to fall then I'm sure we'd be blamed for that as well.

 

 

 

 

I agree, and I think we can curtail military spending. IMO the problem is in the structure of the government's arrangement with the military-industrial complex, and in the systemic nature of procurement practices. It's too difficult to get good projects made, with Senators looking after their home states and not thinking about what the best equipment might actually be.

 

Pangloss, we need people like you in politics carrying a pick handle to do what needs to be done. Sadly, it will likely never happen, but good luck! Here is a quick read on our military.

http://defensetech.org/

Edited January 7, 2011 by rigney

[CharonY]

I think Marat put the facts quite into a wrong context. The main criticism on the US health system is less that it is awful and everyone is dying left and right, but rather that it is more expensive than other developed nations, without providing a better outcome. Regarding education it is probably more that the US was losing a lot of ground on several areas while (I believe) it used to be in the top spot. The difference between self-assessment and actual results may also play a role. According to the OECD survey 2009 USA ranked 30 in mathematics, 23rd in sciences (slight improvement compared to the last, I believe) and 17th in reading (the focus of the last survey).

Are the differences significant? Well, they are, though I do not have the values with me right now. What I do have is a statistical test of the countries as difference of the OECD average of each tested element (e.g. reading comprehension). Based on that, the US is roughly OECD-average (not absolutely abysmal) in most areas, except mathematics, where it is significantly below the average.

 

Regarding poverty, I recall someone mentioning that the heritage foundation article was not really reliable for some reasons, but I have to ask (or read up) to figure what it was. Though glancing to the list this

The average American "poor" person has greater living space than the average person in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and many other European cities. (The average citizen there, not the average "poor" citizen.)

is quite laughable, if you know the apartment costs in the these major cities. Edited January 7, 2011 by CharonY

[Marat]

In order not to get bogged down in the details, I think we can all agree that if America's defense needs are now met to say 150% of what is necessary, America's healthcare, education, infrastructure, and welfare needs are generally met to around 60% of what is necessary, so we have to ask ourselves seriously whether this is a rational distribution of our resources to get the most benefit from the funds available. Anyone who has lived in Western Europe in the leftist era of the 1980s and experienced first-hand the luxurious public healthcare, public welfare, publicly funded university education, and excellent infrastructure (if you want to take a subsidized train ride from Duisburg to Duesseldorf at 2 AM, there's a special train ready for you), will agree that America at best provides a standard of living for its people amounting to about 60% of that quality of life. When German students go from their tuition-free university studies to collect their $18,000 a year check from the government to pay their living expenses during their studies, and enjoy the best surgical care in the world for free, and enjoy subsidized subway and train rides everywhere in the country, they really can't feel in their personal lives the lack of any German aircraft carriers stupidly prowling the oceans in search of the type of enemy that no one has seen since the end of World War II when the atomic bomb made major wars impossible.

 

The U.S. budget and deficit can't be realistically discussed without a clear view of the total GDP taken in taxation by the U.S. in contrast to most other countries. While America takes 28% of GDP in taxes, Canada takes 34%, England takes 39%, Germany takes 40%, and France takes 46%. This means that on a comparative basis the U.S. is taking much too small a proportion of the GDP for government expenditures, which is why America is a country of trashy consumer junk bought with excess cash by the bourgeois, with every backyard in suburbia having its own swimming pool and deck, but no great public institutions which really make life better for people, like medical care and university education without user fees. Add to this the utter waste of spending so much money on pretending that it is still World War II and America can still dominate the world by stockpiling 3000 tanks at $10,000,000 each (where can they ever be used without causing more international trouble than benefit?), and you can account for the low quality of life that characterizes the U.S.

[Pangloss]

Perhaps. It's certainly a sad state of affairs when we're arguing over which broken arm of government is most in need of wasteful overspending to make up for its brokenness.

 

I loved this sentence, btw:

 

When German students go from their tuition-free university studies to collect their $18,000 a year check from the government to pay their living expenses during their studies, and enjoy the best surgical care in the world for free, and enjoy subsidized subway and train rides everywhere in the country, they really can't feel in their personal lives the lack of any German aircraft carriers stupidly prowling the oceans in search of the type of enemy that no one has seen since the end of World War II when the atomic bomb made major wars impossible.

 

Nicely said!

 

Of course, German students had that luxury in the 1980s because American tanks and aircraft were based nearby. It's easy now to pretend that the Soviet Union had no interest in Western Europe, but there are plenty of Hungarians, Czechs, and Poles still around who remember things differently.

[Mr Skeptic]

Of course, German students had that luxury in the 1980s because American tanks and aircraft were based nearby. It's easy now to pretend that the Soviet Union had no interest in Western Europe, but there are plenty of Hungarians, Czechs, and Poles still around who remember things differently.

 

Maybe we should start charging for our services!

[Marat]

Though perhaps we could have kept everyone safe, including the U.S., just by having a dozen ICBMs (nuclear missiles are relatively inexpensive) rather than that whole, massive military budget for hundreds of thousands of troops, thousands of tanks and artillery pieces, plus all the ships and other hardware. If Clausewitz was right and war is politics by other means, what possible Soviet political goal could have been worth losing a dozen major Russian cities to American ICBMs during the Cold War?

[Pangloss]

The existence of nuclear weapons didn't stop the proxy wars or direct invasions in Eastern Europe. Prague Spring? Hungary 1956? Korea?

[waitforufo]

Though perhaps we could have kept everyone safe, including the U.S., just by having a dozen ICBMs (nuclear missiles are relatively inexpensive) rather than that whole, massive military budget for hundreds of thousands of troops, thousands of tanks and artillery pieces, plus all the ships and other hardware. If Clausewitz was right and war is politics by other means, what possible Soviet political goal could have been worth losing a dozen major Russian cities to American ICBMs during the Cold War?

Such a plan might work great if we were willing to occationally nuke our adversaries. Who knows, after killing several million people we just might learn to get along. Somehow I don't think we would have the political will to see such a plan through. Those pesky moral objections might get in the way. So if we shifted to such a plan and someone called our bluff would you be willing to exterminate millions of their citizens? If not, how would such a plan work?

[ParanoiA]

Though perhaps we could have kept everyone safe, including the U.S., just by having a dozen ICBMs (nuclear missiles are relatively inexpensive) rather than that whole, massive military budget for hundreds of thousands of troops, thousands of tanks and artillery pieces, plus all the ships and other hardware. If Clausewitz was right and war is politics by other means, what possible Soviet political goal could have been worth losing a dozen major Russian cities to American ICBMs during the Cold War?

 

I don't think you're considering human nature honestly, nor do you appear to be aware of the consequences of "perhaps" and "if".

 

Perhaps you could have kept everyone safe with only ICBM's (unethical in my opinion), or perhaps you could not and our history books would then have to include another chapter or two of mass death and carnage and relabeled territories in Europe. That's an incredibly callous "perhaps" when the business end of that is death and trauma.

 

Humans don't live up to your ideas of morals, even right where you live, let alone the difference in morals and ethics from culture to culture, region to region. It's not very thoughtful to build an opinion that relies on everyone in the world sharing your moral view. Just because you can't imagine why you would want to invade a country doesn't mean no one will. It only means you won't. That's all it means. Ok, cool, so we have 1 guy out of 6 billion that we know wouldn't invade another country if he was the big boss.

 

There is no evidence whatsoever that humans are done with large wars and mass carnage. Nothing. Any ideas to the contrary are leaps of faith. I refuse to scrap war machinery over a leap of faith that big ole wars are over.

 

 

 

 

But I will scrap war machinery over the evidence that we have way more than we need. And being the military superpower is a romantic burden we can do without. And it's the perfect time. With so much emphasis on cutting spending and the momentum to make deep, thoughtful cuts coupled with the love/hate paradox for the american military, let's trim it all down, bring the boys home and solve both problems at once.

 

Right about the time we're being criticized for our heartless world police resignation and blamed for some aggression somewhere, we might have our finances in order and we can just start all over again.

[Marat]

Although there were enormous political tensions between the messianic Communist world system and the capitalist West from 1945 to 1991, with the Communist world dedicated to the destruction of capitalism as a moral mission, and capitalism lusting for the expansion of exploitable markets into the virgin territory of the Communist countries, there never was a major war between the two world systems despite that huge motivation on both sides for war. I think the reason why a major war never occurred was because the threat that one side of the other would use nuclear weapons was simply too great a risk for anything that could be gained in a war to outweigh it on any rational balance sheet. When you consider how even relatively trivial motivations caused major wars in Europe prior to nuclear weapons I think it is obvious that nuclear weapons simply made serious wars too risky.

 

The only question then is how many missles are required to create sufficient risk that no one would dare cultivate the possibility of the use of thermonuclear missiles in retaliation. I would guess that enough missiles to destroy a dozen large cities in either country would suffice to guarantee that the theoretical gains from any war would not be worth the potential losses multiplied the percentage chance that nuclear weapons would be used.

[Pangloss]

There is no evidence whatsoever that humans are done with large wars and mass carnage. Nothing.

 

Excellent point.

 

 

But I will scrap war machinery over the evidence that we have way more than we need.

 

Exactly.

 

 

It's not just about World War 3, Marat. You're not wrong suggesting that cut-backs are possible. Your error, IMO, is in suggesting that a military is no longer necessary. Conflicts still happen, and like it or not your peaceful worldview relies upon remotely deployable American military power. Without the American military, Saddam would still occupy Kuwait today, and Saudi Arabia as well. North Korea would be dictating over South Korea. Iran would control the Persian Gulf. The Taliban would still be busy repressing women and blowing up Buddha statues in Afghanistan.

 

And deployable is expensive. It costs a lot of money to project power. That's why nobody else does it.

[swansont]

It's not just about World War 3, Marat. You're not wrong suggesting that cut-backs are possible. Your error, IMO, is in suggesting that a military is no longer necessary. Conflicts still happen, and like it or not your peaceful worldview relies upon remotely deployable American military power. Without the American military, Saddam would still occupy Kuwait today, and Saudi Arabia as well. North Korea would be dictating over South Korea. Iran would control the Persian Gulf. The Taliban would still be busy repressing women and blowing up Buddha statues in Afghanistan.

 

And deployable is expensive. It costs a lot of money to project power. That's why nobody else does it.

 

Add to this the realization that we import a lot of goods, both raw material and finished materials, which didn't used to be the case (to this extent), and that makes us more susceptible to overseas problems. So projecting power is even more important.

[Marat]

But even if you look seriously at Pangloss' list of horrors of what might occur or might have occurred if the U.S. had not invested so much of its budget in having such an oversized world police force, you might react with a sigh and a 'so what.' Saddam only wanted Kuwait because it was sucking oil out from under Iraq with its drilling and had always been part of the same administrative unit as Iraq during the Ottoman Empire. The British separated it to divide the oil rich areas from the rest of the country. If Saddam had increased his hold over oil reserves, we just would have bought oil from him rather than from Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Even if we do need natural resources which are located elsewhere in the world, are these really worth what we pay for our military, given that for those natural resources to have much value to those possessing them they ultimately have to be sold to countries, like the U.S., that are willing and able to buy them? The prices might go up, but perhaps if you calculate the total increase in price it would turn out to be less than the massive cost of having a military large enough to keep those prices down.

 

The old saying maintains that if all you have is a hammer, eventually every problem starts to look like a nail. Perhaps having such a costly, bloated military machine as the U.S. now commands simply tempts us to get into useless, trillion-dollar wars 'by mistake,' as in the invasion of Iraq to prevent Saddam using his non-existent weapons of mass destruction.

[Pangloss]

But even if you look seriously at Pangloss' list of horrors

 

Actually that was just a page from the history books. My actual list of horrors contains mainly zombie apocalypse scenarios and Golan Globus movies from the 1980s.

 

 

Saddam only wanted Kuwait because it was sucking oil out from under Iraq with its drilling and had always been part of the same administrative unit as Iraq during the Ottoman Empire.

 

So Saddam was justified? Wow, I guess it's just too bad for the Kuwaitis, huh?

 

 

Even if we do need natural resources which are located elsewhere in the world, are these really worth what we pay for our military, given that for those natural resources to have much value to those possessing them they ultimately have to be sold to countries, like the U.S., that are willing and able to buy them?

 

So your advice is not to help our friends when they're invaded because it's too expensive?

 

 

The prices might go up, but perhaps if you calculate the total increase in price it would turn out to be less than the massive cost of having a military large enough to keep those prices down.

 

Or... perhaps they wouldn't. Got any data?