5 ms·
> The US spends more on its military than the next ten countries combined, so there's a good chance it's possible to have effective national defense for an orde
by Jare 14y ago
> The US spends more on its military than the next ten countries combined, so there's a good chance it's possible to have effective national defense for an order of magnitude less than we currently pay
But national defense (or really, defense of any kind) is about more than just the ability to successfully repeal an attack; at certain scale, it's about ensuring that nobody even tries to lift a finger against you. And then there's the 'implied offensive' angle where others fear what you might do.
The security and strength provided by that military is a significant factor in the ability of the USA to create and retain its wealth. Limiting the size of military to purely defensive levels would also limit that ability, so in many ways it's as much an investment as roads and fire departments. It's hard to measure the ROI but the stakes are clearly very high.
Hope this doesn't feel cynical.
- Zak 14y agoat certain scale, it's about ensuring that nobody even tries to lift a finger against you. And then there's the 'implied offensive' angle where others fear what you might do All true, but I think these things are true of China, with 1/5 the spending or the UK with 1/10. It is probably possible to provide an effective defense, including the ability to effectively attack an overseas enemy spending a much smaller amount than the US actually does.
- enraged_camel 14y ago>>But national defense (or really, defense of any kind) is about more than just the ability to successfully repeal an attack; at certain scale, it's about ensuring that nobody even tries to lift a finger against you. And then there's the 'implied offensive' angle where others fear what you might do. We don't need a huge military to have that effect. We already have nukes.
- swombat 14y agoNo one believes that the US is going to use its nukes in all but the most dire circumstances. Does Iran fear that the US will nuke it? No. But it does fear a traditional war.
- enraged_camel 14y agoNukes are the most effective deterrent we have against non-nuclear states. Of course Iran fears that it may get nuked. Why do you think they are desperately trying to develop their own nukes?
- Zak 14y agoI don't think Iran's primary motivation for wanting nukes is US nukes. It might be, in part Israeli nukes, but I bet it's primarily conventional war with the US and/or Israel. Iran likely believes that having nuclear weapons of its own will discourage conventional attack. That line of thinking isn't unreasonable. As far as I know, there has never been open conventional warfare between two nuclear-armed states - just minor skirmishes.
- jackpirate 14y agoAccording to all intelligence reports by the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency and the US's CIA/NSA, Iran is not trying to develop nukes and has fully abandoned their nuclear program. Anyone saying elsewise is simply saber rattling. What the are doing is developing a civilian nuclear industry. Such an industry---like any other industry---has the potential for making military development easier in the future, but that is not its primary purpose.
- enraged_camel 14y agoConsidering the current geopolitical climate, you have to be extremely naive to believe that Iran's long term goal is not developing nuclear weapons. A "peaceful" civilian nuclear industry is only the first step.