5 ms·
They should cut military spending and focus more on nuclear type weapons, sure they will no longer have the same power in tactical ground warfare but it would b
by robryan 17y ago
They should cut military spending and focus more on nuclear type weapons, sure they will no longer have the same power in tactical ground warfare but it would be basically saying, sure you may be able to out maneuver us now but we can defiantly blow you off the face of the earth if you try.
- Perceval 17y agoBiden recently wrote an op-ed in the WSJ explaining the administration's goals for the U.S. nuclear arsenal: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704878904575031382215508268.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870487890457503...
- robryan 17y agoGuess my message was taken the wrong way? I'm not advocating nuclear weapons but rather scaling back military spending and using them as a deterrent to other countries so that the current US defense force size doesn't need to be maintained.
- mquander 17y agoYour message is insane. I don't even know where to start. Why would we prefer to have nuclear weapons as a deterrent instead of having a conventional military as a deterrent? Which is more favorable, defending one of our allies by deploying nuclear weapons, or defending them by deploying a few ten thousand soldiers, planes, and warships? Why would we want to put money into weapons we can never use without tremendous backlash and moral misgivings, instead of ones we deploy regularly to serve our interests? The current U.S. defense force size doesn't need to be maintained; we haven't used a significant portion of it to defend us or our direct allies from a military attack since World War II. We use our military proactively, as a tool for enacting our will. We cannot hammer a nail if our only tool is a bulldozer.