Bringing Jobs Back To America
Is this the Republican plan?
Religion Kills !!!
Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
Let me pose a problem. Does not increasing military R&D decrease the available talent for civilian R&D? New products and new profits? And does that not reduce the taxes to pay for military R&D? How much military R&D is not too much?
Only the amount necessary to keep the country safe from invasion by another nation's army is not too much.
If it were only that simple. So our oil can be cut off as long as we are not invaded? So our world trade can be terminated as long as we are not invaded? Like England we obviously need a navy.
So we can keep our sea trade lines open but some country can take control of oil (or other sources) and prevent them from selling to us? On the other hand prevent potential customers from buying from us? So we need to prevent that from happening. The peaceful way is to promote global trade for everyone not just for ourselves. If it is just for ourselves others will try the same thing leading to war again. But should it come to war over control of trade the ability to deal with the responsible country itself not just the sea routes is required. Thus an army and air force.
Simply here minimum military has to be able to inflict enough damage to make it cost more to restrict free trade than what can be earned from the restriction. China has announced it will restrict sale of the rare earth elements needed to make the magnets needed for electric cars. War or no war? If China decides to restrict the sales of finished magnets, war or no war? Finished products?
Not that simple.
My evidence is quite simple and obvious. A country that feared losing would have optimized the dollars spent. Instead the US spread war dollars all over the country opening military bases for no reason other than Congressional districts getting a share of the money. For 40 years after the war it was essentially impossible to close any of them even the most redundant and worthless solely for political resistance. The same thing happend with war materiel contracts.
The US had an incredible number of difference aircraft. That was not because they were needed but because contracts had to be parcelled out to congressional districts. The money had to be spread around. Even when there was some kind of standardization such as in combat rifles, it is the rare collector who has one from every company that made them. Why not one or two huge factories producing them as cheaply as possible? The money had to be spread around to congressional districts. If a state had a sea coast it had a naval base -- the more coast line the more bases. Mare Island in Alameda was still around when they made the fifth Startrek movie. I think the one in Long Beach is closed leaving only the pre-war one in San Diego for California at least. There is still one at Puget Sound, Washington. Matter of fact even sea coast was not a requirement as there was one on Lake Erie. It might still be there.
Have I established the validity of the outrageous statement? If winning was in question the inefficient and often deadly in the case of shitty aircraft spreading around the money could not have been tolerated. All those war bond drives? BS! They were to raise more money to spread around. And the Americans all eager to kill Japs and Krauts and save the world? 94% of them were drafted. Obviously the people didn't feel threatened either.
So, we agree that ending the wars in the Middle East, closing all overseas military bases, closing some home military bases, and cutting funding of non-drone-related R&D is a good idea?
No. I see there is a rational need for a military. I think it is time to get passed WWII and Cold War thinking. It is also time to find a means to auto-assassinate clowns like GW Bush and his father who start wars that cost more than they are worth in addition to wars based upon lies. Without those two clowns the worst me would have done since 1990 in the middle east is keeping the oil lanes open. It is also time to forget Iran took US hostages in its revolution. Iran can't turn back the clock and make it not happen.
And with the middle east in general, for both wars against Iraq and the current clamoring for war on Iran it has only been the izziehuggers pushing for those wars. Make it illegal to support a foreign country if necessary.
Castro is Cold War. Forget him too. If Cubans do not like their government they have shown their ability to revolt against it. That is how Castro did it.
In any event had those things been done after the Soviet Union collapsed we would not be having this exchange. How much military and what kind in that world is another issue. New weapons systems like drones are needed. It takes R&D to develop them for production. Something most people don't realize is something like 80% of R&D is spent developing the production prototypes. The R is the 20% then D is the rest. The different weapons systems won't reduce the R&D all that much.
The real money can only be saved by having fewer deployed and manned systems. To do that Congress has to reduce the 2 1/2 war readiness requirement. Make it 1 1/2 wars and mitary costs drop to half in the long term. There is a simple answer. This is the simple answer. It cannot be solved playing around with bits and pieces of the consequences of the prime mover behind the cost.
There are people who spend their entire military careers, cest moi as one, working to get costs down within the 2 1/2 war requirement. What you see is more or less the best there is, one answer within a wide range of good answers. Debating between good answers does not reduce the overall cost.
Drones are a good answer. I summarized their good points. They are dependent upon satellites in the $2-300 million cost of getting to orbit plus maintenance and operation meaning expensive manpower on the ground. These has to many of them depending upon altitude to have 24/7 coverage. They fail so spares in orbit are needed. In a war with a country that can reach orbit they can be destroyed. And if Iran really did bring down a drone they are obvously vulnerable to any country at that technological level. I can go on with more problems and more benefits. Everything is a tradeoff.
I am under the impression that the politicians have laid requirements on the military for the number of wars and readiness to fight them. Until those are changed what you see is a modest optimization attempting to satisfy of the law.
All right, so the question is how to change these requirements, correct?
As Mad Madelyn Albright said almost, what good is a miltary if you can't kill things with it? In a South Carolina debate, Ron Paul was booed for suggesting we shouldn't go around invading other countries. While not considered a political philosopher Hermann Goring did understand political reality.
Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship. ...voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.
Find a way to make him wrong.
Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.
I wouldn't have thought we were so high on the list. 25 out of 200 is pretty damn high.
Glass half empty vs glass half full, right ?
Lol. How does we don't need or want your troops on our soil translate to abandoning NORAD, NAFTA, NATO, and probably a thousand other treaties?
National alliances can swing from one extreme to another. All it takes is the will to do so. Before 1945 the Soviet Union was an ally whom the US government gave military aid to, after 1945 the Soviet Union became the "Evil Empire". Before 1945 Japan was our sworn enemy who attacked us without warning, after 1945 we are in complete harmony with Japan. See how it works ?
"You must be having a blast. You weathered the storm of Brian37's idiocy for a few years. And now he's alienating 99% of the site, taking hits from all sides. I think maybe you broke him. Now all he can do is laughably compare you to Ayn. A comparison that only holds water in his fictional little world." Vastet posting to BeyondSaving