I am pessimistic when I think about a war with another super power and
we should all be. On the other hand I don't think about it enough to
square spending close to a trillion a year that we don't have trying
to fight conventional wars with 3d world nations. We can beat them
much less expensively.
Nukes are cheap and present a credible deterrence to aggression just
because what I said is true.
The fantasy that a nuclear power would lose a conventional war of
attrition without using them is ludicrous too.
That is the main reason why the US is so interested in making sure
Israel never gets in a real war and why we jump in front of the
bullets aimed at them. If they ever were in any real trouble they
would nuke someone and WWIII would be on.
BTW all of us pessimists know the real danger is a killer asteroid or
a gamma ray burst. ;-)
That's our difference. I am very optimistic that we will never have
a war with another super power *if* we stay militarily strong enough
both conventionally and with the deterrent of nukes to discourage any
goofy nation to even try.
We haven't had to fight a major war with the goal of *winning* since
WWII when we emerged as a super power, both economically and militarily.
I think there's a reason for that and it's not just because of nukes.
They conflicts we've engaged in have been bad enough and cost too many
lives but they have all been politically motivated and controlled.
My only question is how much stronger than them do we need to be 5x?
10x?
We spend more money than the next dozen countries behind us or
something.
If we actually crash the dollar and the world economy follows, all of
those air craft carriers won't mean much.
Similar Threads
Yo Greg..The Navy and I agree
Threaded Mode
