US Defence Budget

[Anomalocaris]

Eisenhower ( the last decent republican ) warned us:

........

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

[/i]


We did not listen.

Defence industry consuming 5-6% of GDP needs seige mentality. I don't think seige mentality and true popular democracy can coexist for long.

When you look at how little resource Bin Laden expended to steer the mightest nation in history down such a diseasterous and costly course, you have to credit him with the most lopsided victory since Francisco Pizzaro overthrew the Inca Empire.

[paintpooper]

You also must question the efficiency of the spending. If we spend that much and couldn't even stop some huge organized attack then something is wrong. We can't even defend ourselves with the biggest defense budget in the world... well unless they "knew" about his plan..

[DeistPaladin]

You also must question the efficiency of the spending. If we spend that much and couldn't even stop some huge organized attack then something is wrong. We can't even defend ourselves with the biggest defense budget in the world... well unless they "knew" about his plan..

Or what kind of military we're sustaining.

The kind you're talking about is Intel gathering. Fighting a war on Al Qaida requires intel, diplomacy and surgical commando teams. Trying to keep us safe with a Cold War Army against Al Qaida is like using a two handed sword for surgery.

Wasn't that something that doomed Rome as well. They built their empire with their mastery of infantry tactics. By the end of their empire, cavalry, not infantry, was what won battles. The mark of a dying civilization seems to be a total failure to understand that what worked in the past no longer does and it's time to change.

[5thHorseman]

5000 nuclear warheads, how many times can you destroy the world?

The cost must be enormous for the upkeep, what a waste.

[Anomalocaris]

Actually, Roman empire adopted to the changes to Cavalry just fine. What doomed western Roman Empire was unsteady domestic politics, declining infrastructure and weakening demographics.

---

5000 nuclear warheads, how many times can you destroy the world?

The cost must be enormous for the upkeep, what a waste.

The cost of the nuclear forces is nothing compare to the cost of the conventional forces.

I think in some ways, by attacking Pearl Harbor, the Japanese may not have laid the foundation of their own victory, but they may have laid an important part of the foundation of America's eventual downfall by making a toxic paranoid seige mentality a permament part of American discourse on national security.

[DeistPaladin]

Actually, Roman empire adopted to the changes to Cavalry just fine. What doomed western Roman Empire was unsteady domestic politics, declining infrastructure and weakening demographics.

Interesting. My understanding of the battles of Adrianople and their equally devastating loss against the Huns (I forget the name of that battle), is that their enemies at both battles had a decisive edge on cavalry.

I think in some ways, by attacking Pearl Harbor, the Japanese may not have laid the foundation of their own victory, but they may have laid an important part of the foundation of America's eventual downfall by making a toxic paranoid seige mentality a permament part of American discourse on national security.

America didn't have a siege mentality until 9/11 and then it seems we went batshit crazy.

[Anomalocaris]

Interesting. My understanding of the battles of Adrianople and their equally devastating loss against the Huns (I forget the name of that battle), is that their enemies at both battles had a decisive edge on cavalry.

Actually, in Adrianople was primarily an infantry battle. Roman cavalry was actually stronger than Gothic cavalry. It is Roman overconfidence and poor tactical deployment that allowed a relatively small Goth cavalry contingent to become the decisive factor.

The key point here isn't the Romans were beaten by well deployed cavalry. Cavalry had been decisive in several Roman defeats in its earlier history. Battle of Cannae, for example. In any case, by this time Roman army has adopted drastically since Trajan or Hadrian. It is now a cavalry heavy force, with infantry legions reduced to 1/6-1/10 the size seen under Caeser. The point is how weak the empire had become such that the loss of mere 20,000 troops at Adrianople had such an large and long lasting impact on the fate of the western empire. During its Republican heydays, Rome could lose 20,000 troops several times in the same year and still carry on to victory.

---

America didn't have a siege mentality until 9/11 and then it seems we went batshit crazy.

I think the mentality that existed after 9/11 is nothing more than a opportunistic but virulent resurgence of the same siege mentality that was assiduously stoked all throughout the cold war, in no small part by invoking Pearl Harbor.

[paintpooper]

So the US is basically a war-mongering country with only it's interests in mind, regardless of loss of life of other peoples.
We wanted siege mentality by allowing the attacks to happen.
Obviously we suck at intelligence, or the intelligence community is doing exactly what it is suppose to.
What is better than a phantom enemy known as al-qaida!!!
They are here, wait no , no they are there, those guys help them, they support them, they are from there!
I check under my bed for al-qaida before I go to bed, the US is full of ignorant citizens.
They should be worried about other things and not fictitious enemies.

By invading Iraq and afgah, did the us prevent any us deaths, probably not, but they caused a lot more... mission FAILED. (in the sense the mission was to protect life) (Accomplished in the imperialist reasons )