3 ms·
Ok, so what you are suggesting is for every power to use an ever increasing amount of power in order to keep the peace? And that there is no such thing as spen
by ThinkBeat 2y ago
Ok, so what you are suggesting is for every power to use an ever increasing
amount of power in order to keep the peace?
And that there is no such thing as spending too much money right?
We got to have more and more and more.
We may increase the number of nuclear missiles ten hold.
or more
And what the US does not win the weapons race.
Then will we have achieved the goal of avoiding conflict?
The old speech:
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.
This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement. We pay for a single fighter with a half-million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people. . . . This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.
(Chance of peace)
- rcxdude 2y agoNo, there is an equilibrium point. Firstly, because as you point out, spending on military means not spending on other things. And secondly, because it takes a lot more military power to launch a successful invasion than to mount a defense, if you're not planning to invade you can usually spend a bit less than your potential invaders. Big defensive alliances can help with that as well. In a world where everyone was sufficiently uninterested or unworried about wars being instigated, military spending would generally decrease over time (and it generally has). While there are some parts of the world that feel they would benefit from mounting an invasion, for ideological or economic reasons, then some level of military spending will occur.
- Manuel_D 2y agoCorrect, every resource spent on defense could potentially have been spent elsewhere and we should judiciously think about what capabilities are necessary. But if you get conquered by a hostile country they'll be happy to strip you of your resources to fuel their war machine, and they won't really care about negative consequences to education and healthcare. Do you think Poland and Korea had much bargaining power to ask Germany and Japan to dedicate less resources towards war and more towards education and healthcare? Again, you don't get to choose when war comes. If Ukrainians had opted to neglect their defense sector, where would they be now?
- ThinkBeat 2y agoI am sure Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya, did not have a choice when it came to US military intervention. Per your logic, all countries in the world must dedicate absolutely all that can be spent on building up their militaries. Because having a strong military is the only possible way to not get invaded, bombed to pieces and/or occupied This further requires all countries to take all possible action to develop nuclear weapons. That is the only way they can be safe right? If 193 countries in the world have nuclear weapons, then there would finally be peace. Well each country would have to continuously innovate and create more lethal forms, and new forms of delivery to stay safe and maintain peace.
- Manuel_D 2y ago> Per your logic, all countries in the world must dedicate absolutely all that can be spent on building up their militaries. No, they don't the to "dedicate absolutely all that can be spent", they just need to spend enough to deter potential enemies from attacking them. Or, have allies strong enough to offer that deterrence on their behalf.