DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**stadiaKab** · 03-09-2010, 08:43 AM

That's the thing we're only starting to realize. There's only so much that military supremacy will buy you. Being the toughest person on the block doesn't mean others will just acquiesce at every turn.

It’s like being the biggest guy in a bar.

Someone always wants to pick a fight with you just to show how tough he is. You cannot respond with all the force available to you because that would be seen as an overreaction on your part.

Would it not be better to take something off the military spending and put it into other areas where some investment would be a little more productive in generating security?

For example I have heard the claim that the cost of one soldier in Afghanistan would build 20 schools. (Depending on how you go about using the numbers i.e. full cost accounting, average cost accounting, variable cost accounting or incremental cost accounting) I tend to believe that one soldier would pay for at least 1 if not a lot more schools.

What would make the US safer from an attack originating in Afghanistan, one more soldier on the ground or 20 schools turning out an educated population with the intellectual tools to actually understand the teachings of peace that is Islam or one guy to fight off a few hundred ignorant villagers who have been brainwashed by the Taliban into blaming the US and the west for all their problems.

One Soldier or 20 Schools | TPMCafe

The strength of the US military is undisputed. I believe that the point of diminishing returns has been passed long ago and more military spending will serve to make the US more vulnerable both because the extra troops will not be as effective for the cost and the troops already in service and because of the missed opportunities to win hearts and minds through non military methods.

03-09-2010, 08:43 AM	#20
stadiaKab Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 422 Senior Member	That's the thing we're only starting to realize. There's only so much that military supremacy will buy you. Being the toughest person on the block doesn't mean others will just acquiesce at every turn. It’s like being the biggest guy in a bar. Someone always wants to pick a fight with you just to show how tough he is. You cannot respond with all the force available to you because that would be seen as an overreaction on your part. Would it not be better to take something off the military spending and put it into other areas where some investment would be a little more productive in generating security? For example I have heard the claim that the cost of one soldier in Afghanistan would build 20 schools. (Depending on how you go about using the numbers i.e. full cost accounting, average cost accounting, variable cost accounting or incremental cost accounting) I tend to believe that one soldier would pay for at least 1 if not a lot more schools. What would make the US safer from an attack originating in Afghanistan, one more soldier on the ground or 20 schools turning out an educated population with the intellectual tools to actually understand the teachings of peace that is Islam or one guy to fight off a few hundred ignorant villagers who have been brainwashed by the Taliban into blaming the US and the west for all their problems. One Soldier or 20 Schools \| TPMCafe The strength of the US military is undisputed. I believe that the point of diminishing returns has been passed long ago and more military spending will serve to make the US more vulnerable both because the extra troops will not be as effective for the cost and the troops already in service and because of the missed opportunities to win hearts and minds through non military methods.
	Quote