3 ms·
Probably the issue is that during wartime (and I think the Cold War counts) the object of a weapons program is to defend one’s country, whereas in the absence o
by fallingfrog 6y ago
Probably the issue is that during wartime (and I think the Cold War counts) the object of a weapons program is to defend one’s country, whereas in the absence of any major foe the object of a weapons program is to spend money. From that standpoint the program was a spectacular success.
- thrill 6y agoAnd the counterpoint is that spending money correctly is what prevents wartime with major foes.
- bluGill 6y agoFine in theory. In practice you know only in hindsight if you spent the money incorrectly. If you spend your money correctly that looks just like spending your money incorrectly and getting lucky in hindsight. So we end up with a lot of politics where people say "I'm right, because [insert some factor that may or may not be relevant]", and then argue about who is right.
- salawat 6y agoI disagree, if anything, it just escalates the resulting conflict when it inevitably goes hot again. Conflict never stops, it just becomes indiscernable from diplomacy.