5 ms·

But we do have vastly greater power. Terrorist groups definitely don't have a budget of 680 billion USD[0]. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_o

by khuey 14y ago

But we do have vastly greater power. Terrorist groups definitely don't have a budget of 680 billion USD[0]. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States#Budget_for_2010 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_S...

dllthomas 14y ago
While I agree with the point, raw budget comparisons are not a valid way to make it; terrorists also aren't defending such a big piece of land (and sea), and are more narrowly focused in scope as well.
- padraigm 14y ago
  The raw budget comparison is not the end of the United States' military superiority; the US has access to cruise missiles and aircraft targeting systems that allow them to put a precisely-measured dose of explosive through practically any window in the world at a few moments' notice. Meanwhile, the "terrorists" are strapping some fertilizer to a Nokia brick phone and laying it on the side of the road in the hopes that a truck will drive by so they can detonate it. The US so vastly out-matches the people it's fighting right now that they're having to write new strategic doctrine to be able to handle it. Are you really trying to make the argument that we don't have enough leeway to keep some principles in the process of defending ourselves?
  - dllthomas 14y ago
    Of course the raw budget comparison is not the end of the US's military superiority; I said I agreed with the parent's general point: that while additional constraints may make it harder to achieve tactical objectives, we don't have any trouble achieving tactical objectives. My point was just that the metric being used was irrelevant to the comparison being made.
andrewflnr 14y ago
In the intelligence battle, though, how much can we afford to cut ourselves off? A large budget is of little use, unless we can spend it on surveillance equipment...

5 ms·

But we do have vastly greater power. Terrorist groups definitely don't have a budget of 680 billion USD[0]. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_o

by khuey 14y ago

dllthomas 14y ago
While I agree with the point, raw budget comparisons are not a valid way to make it; terrorists also aren't defending such a big piece of land (and sea), and are more narrowly focused in scope as well.
- padraigm 14y ago
  The raw budget comparison is not the end of the United States' military superiority; the US has access to cruise missiles and aircraft targeting systems that allow them to put a precisely-measured dose of explosive through practically any window in the world at a few moments' notice. Meanwhile, the "terrorists" are strapping some fertilizer to a Nokia brick phone and laying it on the side of the road in the hopes that a truck will drive by so they can detonate it. The US so vastly out-matches the people it's fighting right now that they're having to write new strategic doctrine to be able to handle it. Are you really trying to make the argument that we don't have enough leeway to keep some principles in the process of defending ourselves?
  - dllthomas 14y ago
    Of course the raw budget comparison is not the end of the US's military superiority; I said I agreed with the parent's general point: that while additional constraints may make it harder to achieve tactical objectives, we don't have any trouble achieving tactical objectives. My point was just that the metric being used was irrelevant to the comparison being made.
andrewflnr 14y ago
In the intelligence battle, though, how much can we afford to cut ourselves off? A large budget is of little use, unless we can spend it on surveillance equipment...