nations aren't allowed to survive unless they can instill fear by some means in their potential attackers. Originally Posted by Iaintliein
Respect and deterrence: defense and security were major concerns that the Founding Fathers addressed when they wrote the Constitution. Therefore, the Secretary of War numbered among the original four cabinet posts. (The others were the Secretary of Foreign Affairs, the Secretary of Treasury and the Attorney General.)
But, your point is well taken, the waste that is perpetually pointed out in military spending is an excellent reason to avoid putting the government in charge of health care, or pretty much anything else. As for me, I think the answer is pretty straight forward. Originally Posted by Iaintliein
+1
Forcefully re-assert the credibility of the nuclear deterrent. If you want cost effective bang for your buck, there is no substitute. And all of that money wasted on "smart weapons" to minimize collateral damage is a complete waste of money, isn't napalm a lot cheaper? Though, I'm sure, our potential adversaries all spend tons of money making weapons less likely to kill innocents, like land mines that self dis-arm after a given time period etc. Don't they? Originally Posted by Iaintliein
To underscore your remarks:
January 10, 2011
Schadenfreude In Taliban Country
“While the Islamic terrorist groups in Pakistan’s tribal territories are not happy with the six year CIA decapitation (kill the leaders) campaign, many of the local tribesmen are. Attacked by Predator and Reaper UAVs, armed with missiles, the terrorists (al Qaeda, Taliban and the Haqqani Network) have lost about 40 senior leaders in the last six years, most of them in the last three years. These losses are not only bad for morale at the top, but are seriously disrupting terrorist activities. The locals love this, because the Islamic radicals have been nothing but trouble. For one thing, the radicals come across as a bunch of self-righteous bullies, and use their weapons to intimidate, or kill, anyone who crosses them. This includes coercing families to provide daughters to be wives of bachelor terrorists.
“Then there is the terrorist tactic of using civilians as human shields for protection from the missile attacks. Here’s where the CIA won hearts and minds, by scrupulously avoiding casualties among the innocent tribesmen. Moreover, the tribes eventually drew the line on human shields, bringing out their own guns and forcing the Islamic radicals to back off on hostages. The locals also abandoned their compounds when the terrorists came by to spend the night. If the CIA hit the compound (after noting how the owners fled), the tribesmen blamed the Islamic radicals, not the CIA, for the damage. The Islamic radicals know that the tribesmen have been cheering, not so much for the CIA, as against the radicals, but don’t make an issue of it. On the surface, everyone is a good Moslem. But the local Moslems make no secret of wishing that the super-Moslems would go somewhere else.”
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htmoral/articles/20110110.aspx
Personally, I think the air craft carrier is an obsolete weapon system. . . .for "humanitarian" missions but then again we shouldn't be doing those anyway. Hummm, do you suppose the US military expends more money on humanitarian missions, "than all other nations combined?" Originally Posted by Iaintliein
Aircraft carriers are great assets for conducting humanitarian relief missions, e.g., Haiti.
Originally Posted by pjorourke
