09-05-2004, 11:02 AM
Kings and Prime Ministers, and Presidents, will sometimes go to war when the balance of power is close to tied. That tends to create long wars. See Europe 1796-1815. WW I. WW II. The Cold War, sorta.
They will not tend to go to war when the balance of power is waaaaaaaaaay against them.
They may go to war when the balance of power greatly favors them, or they may take advantage of their power and spend money elsewhere, or economize.
If you in general prefer to not start wars, believing that peace makes for more stable trade, then peace through strength is a sound policy. That has been a general trend of US policy for some decades, which is what makes the Iraq war such an inconsistent policy decision, although the Afghanistan War makes great sense.
Weakening yourself significantly in the face of uncertainty is a risk. You can sometimes get away with it, and sometimes not. Not getting away with it means either you lose a war, bad, or you get into a long war, bad. Trusting others to defend your interests, Hello Poland, Hello France, is not necessarily good from a policy perspective.
Your saying that defense money would be better spent elsewhere shows a mistaken world view. Rather than spending it elsewhere, money saved on defense cuts should not be spent at all. If you can create a smarter, leaner, more cost effective force that is both credible and effective, just don't spend the money. The "Peace Dividend" is an illusion.
Of course, if you let only cost align your sites, you get the nuclear arms race again.
Be careful what you wish for, Minionman, as a solution to the burden of defense spending. You may get what you seek: another nuclear arms race. Or, a long war the next time someone thinks we are weakened sufficiently to risk having a go.
What most of you do not know, since you are not in the defense world so I will point out, is that President Bush -- supported and even egged on by old-Sec-Def-now-VP-Cheney, was poised to make a significant cut in defense spending and force structure . . . when September 11 struck. I had just left an acquisition post and was five months into a training post. The budgetary signs were almost screaming in bright neon. Further deense cuts were a comin.' Then the two towers fell, and all of a sudden, our flight instructor shortage, which was near critical, went away as reservists were mobilized by the score.
Pres Bush is spending more on defense and "homeland security" (Bah, who needs a new bureaucracy???) because the conditions require it. Or so it seems.
Yet five months ago, an exotic and very expensive weapons system, Comanche Helicopter, was CANCELLED!
Billions "saved" in future years. Or, rather, not spent. No, I don't want Congress to spend that other 9 billion on something else, not with the deficit and debt we have, I want them to NOT SPEND IT AT ALL IF WE DON"T HAVE TO SPEND IT ON DEFENSE.
Not until we have a better debt and deficit picture.
Occhi
They will not tend to go to war when the balance of power is waaaaaaaaaay against them.
They may go to war when the balance of power greatly favors them, or they may take advantage of their power and spend money elsewhere, or economize.
If you in general prefer to not start wars, believing that peace makes for more stable trade, then peace through strength is a sound policy. That has been a general trend of US policy for some decades, which is what makes the Iraq war such an inconsistent policy decision, although the Afghanistan War makes great sense.
Weakening yourself significantly in the face of uncertainty is a risk. You can sometimes get away with it, and sometimes not. Not getting away with it means either you lose a war, bad, or you get into a long war, bad. Trusting others to defend your interests, Hello Poland, Hello France, is not necessarily good from a policy perspective.
Your saying that defense money would be better spent elsewhere shows a mistaken world view. Rather than spending it elsewhere, money saved on defense cuts should not be spent at all. If you can create a smarter, leaner, more cost effective force that is both credible and effective, just don't spend the money. The "Peace Dividend" is an illusion.
Of course, if you let only cost align your sites, you get the nuclear arms race again.
Be careful what you wish for, Minionman, as a solution to the burden of defense spending. You may get what you seek: another nuclear arms race. Or, a long war the next time someone thinks we are weakened sufficiently to risk having a go.
What most of you do not know, since you are not in the defense world so I will point out, is that President Bush -- supported and even egged on by old-Sec-Def-now-VP-Cheney, was poised to make a significant cut in defense spending and force structure . . . when September 11 struck. I had just left an acquisition post and was five months into a training post. The budgetary signs were almost screaming in bright neon. Further deense cuts were a comin.' Then the two towers fell, and all of a sudden, our flight instructor shortage, which was near critical, went away as reservists were mobilized by the score.
Pres Bush is spending more on defense and "homeland security" (Bah, who needs a new bureaucracy???) because the conditions require it. Or so it seems.
Yet five months ago, an exotic and very expensive weapons system, Comanche Helicopter, was CANCELLED!
Billions "saved" in future years. Or, rather, not spent. No, I don't want Congress to spend that other 9 billion on something else, not with the deficit and debt we have, I want them to NOT SPEND IT AT ALL IF WE DON"T HAVE TO SPEND IT ON DEFENSE.
Not until we have a better debt and deficit picture.
Occhi
Cry 'Havoc' and let slip the Men 'O War!
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz--
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
John 11:35 - consider why.
In Memory of Pete
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz--
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
John 11:35 - consider why.
In Memory of Pete