3 ms·
Tools created will be used, the cost of the US and Russian war arsenal is far greater than just the monetary cost to build them. One could argue that a weapons
by pastage 3y ago
Tools created will be used, the cost of the US and Russian war arsenal is far greater than just the monetary cost to build them. One could argue that a weapons destructive force should be counted against it.
To strive for peace is not near sighted, it is the only way forward.
- codyb 3y agoThe world’s more peaceful during the era of American Hegemony than it’s ever been. Odd how having a gigantic military with hundreds of millions of people under it’s umbrella seems to have stemmed regional conflicts from erupting. You can’t prove that regional conflicts would erupt should the US become more isolationist but any history book should quickly show you human’s propensity for war. It also turns out that human’s tend not to outright attack foes that will immediately decimate them. The USAF is the greatest stabilizer this world has as far as I can tell, missteps and outright awful moves like Iraq taken into account in this calculation.
- pastage 3y agoIt really does not matter, because my point is that weapons cost is a lot more than the fiscal cost of the weapon, it does not matter who bought the guns. Both the US and Russia have used their weapons to decimate other economies. It is very hard for us to prove or disprove your point.