3 ms·
This is a fallacy. A strong army can also create peace and stability, which in turn feed many more mouths than the opposite. At some point you’d have to agree
by gpt5 4y ago
This is a fallacy. A strong army can also create peace and stability, which in turn feed many more mouths than the opposite.
At some point you’d have to agree that we also need to invest in creating order, or would you vote to remove the police, court, and the rule of the law (which is done by force).
- runnerup 4y agoI think the point is to spend the least necessary to achieve the stability required for the base of Maslow’s hierarchy.
- jessriedel 4y agoThat is certainly a reasonable goal, but it is not found in a straightforward reading of the Eisenhower quote. The words clearly suggest a 1-to-1 trade-off between military spending and intrinsically valuable things.
- cwkoss 4y agoLots of military action in modern times is worse than 1-to-1. Huge expense to destroy stability-enabling infrastructure, leaving the world a more dangerous place.
- yifanl 4y agoYou have to consider at least the minimal context of the Eisenhower quote, i.e. that it's _Eisenhower_'s quote, who in no uncertain terms could be considered anything close to a pacifist or idealist, he understands that military means are necessary.
- jessriedel 4y agoI mean I basically agree, but I think that just makes it a confusing/misleading thing to say. Would be better to quote people saying things that conform with their actions and beliefs, rather than things that don't where we have to try to infer what they actually meant.