3 ms·
That's the point - remove temptation from your own politicians. That is for those who believe in a "military is for defense" doctrine. Myself, I'm not so sure t
by Noseshine 10y ago
That's the point - remove temptation from your own politicians. That is for those who believe in a "military is for defense" doctrine. Myself, I'm not so sure the evidence for interventions abroad would support an offensive military - narrow interest groups who clearly have benefited a lot excepted.
- toyg 10y agoAs much as I want to agree with the overall sentiment, when one talks about defense one inevitably ends up defining a spectrum of activity beyond "protecting the Motherland from invasion". Protecting South-China Sea trade routes, is that not defending your own economy? Peacekeeping in neighboring countries like NATO did in the Balkans, is that not defending your own security and borders? But you couldn't do it with nukes or some proxy rebel army. Adventurism is bad, but even the most peaceful of strategies sooner or later will run into a situation where a non-nuclear big stick is the lesser evil. As much as I loathe post-9/11 US foreign policy (and a lot of pre-9/11 as well, to be honest), I wouldn't want the US to lose much of their military capability at this point in time. I'd rather live with a conventional military and no nukes than the opposite scenario.