[Aztegjpl]

I'd argue that a lot of defense spending has helped the private sector (GPS for example, oh an the Internet you are using.).

Spending money on the military isn't always about spending money to kill people. Sometimes you want to save your own guys. I won't go into the minutia of that.

You misspelled peace bomb...it's spelled peace bong. And for your point, I like things like the X Prize. I really do like the private sector rewarding innovation.

There ya go! You make the point better than I. Although I do question that the private sector could have given us the Internet, although once in their hands, they made the Internet bloom. (Does anyone even remember ping, chat, finger, plan, or gopher anymore?)

[L8fGLM4d]

There ya go! You make the point better than I. Although I do question that the private sector could have given us the Internet, although once in their hands, they made the Internet bloom. (Does anyone even remember ping, chat, finger, plan, or gopher anymore?)

So we can pick and choose. So the private sector would have created the Internet. So we should be funding the peace bomb to create the next Internet. (That's kinda black and white and I apologize.) But where do you stand? Do you like public or private funding of innovation?

[Keeriewof]

Afghanistan has the Kahber Pass, no one thought they could be defeated because of it. That was before helicopters and B-52's. No place on earth is unassailable, where there's a Vicksburg, there's a Grant, only time will tell.The US NEEDS to alter it's spending habits, we should also find a way to control growth, too fast and too slow is not good. I agree with Danny in the Manhattan type project. The first nation to become free of oil imports will write it's own ticket for the next few decades, but it will cost money and the GOP is reluctant to do this. They, and the tea-baggers, think we can depend solely on private sector to regain our lead. Of course I trust a bunch of mulitnational corporations to do whats best for America, I am sure they won't manulipate the stock market for personal gain, or abuse their position to gain market share in foreign nations, that would be un American and could never happen.

[tpdirorg]

So we can pick and choose. So the private sector would have created the Internet. So we should be funding the peace bomb to create the next Internet. (That's kinda black and white and I apologize.) But where do you stand? Do you like public or private funding of innovation?

In my opinion there is a need for both. I seriously doubt that a privately funded Internet would look like today's Internet, but probably more like the cell phone industry, where everything is an extra, the basic service is twice what we pay today, and the Apple Internet doesn't talk well with the Microsoft network.

So, I do like the idea of both. The military bought and paid for the Internet, on their terms, and it worked out just fine. The space program put a man on the moon, but private enterprise built all of the pieces. The military designed and was the driving force on the Interstate, but private contractors built it.

The model of government being the driving force is there, it is proved to work, and it is available. Lets use the process. An example: We badly need a new power grid. Industry knows how to do it but so far it is a lot of jockeying for a competitive advantage, and if someone doesn't do something, the new power grid will be a patchwork of proprietary standards. Wouldn't it be fantastic if the military said "OK, here's what we need. Build it for us"

[baxodrom]

I don't think the US will ever be defeated militarily. That is, the overthrow of the US gov by a foreign power. It will NEVER happen. The size and geographical location of the country alone prevent this.

Just a thought...

'Ever' is a long time...now I agree, certainly not in my, or anyone else on this forums lifetime...but ever?

Two, three hundred years from now war may be fought on foot and horse back again, without even the technology of that used during the ACW.

There may be little or no fossil fuels left, so no petrol/diesel for the internal combustion engine, or kerosene for aviation...even the ingredients for gun powder may be exhausted...no plastics, no high grade alloys, no coal for steam locomotives, or even the quantities of wood required to construct fleets of sailing ships similar in size to that of the Napoleonic era Royal Navy (or at least these commodities would have to be sourced from so far away that their cost would make their use prohibative in large quantities)...

The US military reigns supreme as a result of it's greater quantity of superior war technologies, all based upon the use of these comododities...without them, no M1 tanks, no F22's, no cruise missiles...what happens to the US military's advantage then (or any other technicalogically superior military force)?

With no spy satellites in orbit any more how would the US defend itself from a surprise attack by a five million strong army of south americans invading through Mexico, fully equiped with identical weapons that the US forces have...cavalry with lances, infantry with spears and swords, and archers with bow & arrow?

May not get to this extreme, but then again who knows what the future holds...as I wrote above, 'ever' is a long time...and history shows us no nation's boundaries or soveriengty has remained unchanged for ever...

[Eugen80]

Every country in the world can be deafeated militarily. Every country! If there are enough nations allying up to defeat the US it is possible. Of course.

[MadMark]

Every country in the world can be deafeated militarily. Every country! If there are enough nations allying up to defeat the US it is possible. Of course.

IMHO. Any nation can be defeated by its own people, because soldiers are people.

[HQTheodore]

Lots of wars were started when it was very unwise for the aggressor to start a war.

The Nazi’s invading Russia is the most recent large scale example. ( Not trying to invoke the Goodwin rule, just making the point that sometimes the invading country is not always acting rationally.)

good point.

I actually think it would be wise for China to co-opt the U.S. politically (from a Chinese view-point). They could use our military as their foreign legion to kick the apple cart over and topple petty dictators so they can move in afterward with economic renewal programs and help establish "democratic" market partners.

[movlabs]

Can the military machine be used to do good when it is not used for wars/destruction etc.

Ok point taken, alot of money is being spent on the military, but why cant it be steered to do humanitarian work.

I know some of you will say there is the UN for that. But the size of the US military is huge and alot of whats produced will probably never be used as no one will think of attacking the US and I dont think the US is planning any wars soon (I hope so).... so instead of leaving the Iron to rust,.. why not go parallel with other humanitarian machines and do good.

It can only be good for America's image.

Yes, its lost investment, and you wont get anything financial in return whereas war is a big buck winner for alot of weapon manufacturers etc.... I think in the end it comes down to this, wether it is a good investment or not. And I think in previous wars (esp recent ones) America considered this. Contractors made shitloads but as a whole the government spent trillions.

Come on! Do it for a good cause, I thoght America cares about the rest of the world. This is why it "liberated" Afghanistan and Iraq no?

WS.

[laperuzdfhami]

I like your thinking! Let me add a thought to it. When we spend money for military stuff (like bullets) in the end that money goes 100% for wages to someone in the production chain. There is no other place that money goes.

So, if you refocus the military supplier from building water pumps to bail out submarines to water pumps to provide water to villages, then you really haven't damaged our economy, and instead of blowing up some distant village, or some toy target on a firing range, we have made some village somewhere like us forever.

Sounds to me like a winning strategy all the way around.

[Snuddyentaine]

You still wonder why Georgian economy isn’t getting healthier. Don’t waste time to set questions and seek for answers. It’s simple. I got it after working for some years in the field of Georgian-Ukrainian military interaction.
You see, Georgian leaders’ interests are far from any economics. They are busy making money, huge money. The scheme is no brainer as it is. They just buy old weaponry in post-soviet space (Byelorussia and Ukraine in the first run), then upgrade it and then sell them to those who need it badly, some groupings in Africa for instance.
There are neither any revelations nor any probes into corruption cases relating illicit selling of armaments in Georgia. Could it be any different when it can be traced to the very top political hierarchy in Georgia? Among the pols involved there are minister of the internal affairs Merabishvili, head of the parliamentary committee on defense and security Targamadze, Georgian Presidential administration head Arveladze). But that’s still arms trade!! Which is done by-passing UN arms embargo!!

[VardyCodarexyz]

Can the military machine be used to do good when it is not used for wars/destruction etc.

Certainly - ask the victims of the Tsunami or the earthquake in Haiti.

The US massive amounts of charity and aid around the world.

Matt

[jerzeygymwolf]

Well, Osama Binladen seems to think we can be brought down via economics. Wasn't he schooled in economics? I think so. Afterall, the twin towers were a financial center..so perhaps the next big target with involve a center of finance too. Or pehaps it will be an eruption in the oil supply. Not sure which one would be worse. What happens if Wall St. goes up in smoke?

[meridiasas]

Certainly - ask the victims of the Tsunami or the earthquake in Haiti.

The US massive amounts of charity and aid around the world.

Matt

Just imagine the good that could be done if we decided to divert 75% of our military budget to a new kind of force which would be equipped and trained for disaster relief, charity, and village building around the world. Replace tanks with ditch witches and missile launch sites with schools and hospitals.

Cheaper, more effective for keeping peace, and much better long range successes.


But of course that is a wussie response. We need to be ready to bomb the snot out of people, by God!

[beonecenry]

Just imagine the good that could be done if we decided to divert 75% of our military budget to a new kind of force which would be equipped and trained for disaster relief, charity, and village building around the world. Replace tanks with ditch witches and missile launch sites with schools and hospitals.

Cheaper, more effective for keeping peace, and much better long range successes.


But of course that is a wussie response. We need to be ready to bomb the snot out of people, by God!

Yeah, trade in swords for plows. I could dig it.