If we were serious about the debt, we’d stop fighting dumb wars we don’t even try to win. One policy re-adoption could save a majority proportion of half-a-trillion dollars annually ($585B in FY2016), thousands of lives of our soldiers, tens of thousands of lives of our opponents, and make the entire world a safer place.
Shouldn’t that be the goal of our defense policy?
We don’t need to continue to enrich Lockheed and others building toys we won’t use to win combat in which we shouldn’t be involved. And if we won’t use them to win, what is the point of the spend?
We don’t need to deter the USSR – they no longer exist. If Russia attacks into Europe, it will be to kill terrorists. (Can we cease with the fantasy that an islamicized Europe is something Americans would or should be willing to defend?) Attacking China makes zero sense – if they want the S China Sea – we would wage nuclear war over it? No. Islam will not be deterred, so it doesn’t apply. If the North Atlantic Treaty Organization has to go to Afghanistan to find a war and be seen as useful, why, exactly, does it still exist?
Why is containing or limiting the violence of our enemies our goal – rather than annihilating them? Not killing our enemies is ahistorical – the West got to be the West by fighting decisively to destroy, not degrade, our enemies.
Why is fantasizing that losing incalculable human capital by sending our kids out to do infantry battles, so dying in urban third world squalor, never to have kids themselves … intelligent?
Why is sending our kids out to kill and die for causes we don’t believe in enough to fight to victory … moral?
Why are the egos of our leaders too afraid to be seen as the destroyers of our enemies, something to which leaders throughout history have aspired … more important than the lives of our kids?
Why send our kids to do a nuke’s job?
Adopting Ike’s policy of Massive Retaliation would allow us to quit wasting hundreds of $B annually on an enormously expensive conventional force capability. We don’t need to defend Europe – they’ve already surrendered to the only folks who will be invading them. We don’t need to defend Japan – they have plenty of money and technical capability to defend themselves. We don’t need to defend S Korea – ditto. We don’t need to defend Israel, who, like us, has a nuclear deterrent it is far past time to put to use on her mortal enemies.
And we sure as Hell don’t need to be defending Saudi Arabia. They are the root of the problem, can afford their own defense, probably paid for the development of the PakiNuke and already have taken delivery of a couple (or can in a transport cycle). We send them billions in armaments – and then, under GHWBush, also fight their wars… (On whom would SA use a nuke? The same mortal enemy they’ve been fighting for a thousand years: Shia Persia. Same reason they have given Israel overflight rights to attack Iran.)
The world will NOT be more dangerous if SWAT is turned into green glass. The world will NOT be more dangerous if Fordow and Arak are blasted into oblivion. The world will NOT be more dangerous if the next time DPRK puts an M-IRBM on a launch pad, their launch complex is vaporized.
All three of these examples would, in a microsecond, make the world a safer place. Isn’t that the goal?
Or are the goals to maximize General officers who can’t win wars, to maximize the profits of the Military-Industrial complex, to maximize the destruction of future generations?
If the West had the historical insight to annihilate Mecca, Medina and Qom, islam would die out in a few generations and a billion people would be released from the intellectual and moral squalor of islam, and the civilized world from its mortal threat.
Want to know a cause worth killing a few hundred thousand in a heartbeat? There it is.
People had better figure out that our enemies will, as soon as they have the capability, nuke us. Will we respond conventionally, sending out a few divisions to get nuked on a sand dune? Or will we nuke them back? If we are going to be willing to nuke them in response to a nuke – why are we willing to gamble a few hundred thousand civilized lives instead of nuking them first?
We aren’t dealing with sane opponents as we were in the Cold War. We are dealing with premodern uncivilized barbaric savages who cannot be negotiated with, raping, pillaging and burning their way across the civilized world. Not killing them may well be the most immoral choice the West has ever made. We don’t need to make it.
If we lack the foresight to kill our enemies there, what makes you think we will have the foresight to kill them here? Is Europe?
We have a violent and unstable world. American taxpayers can continue to throw money & men at it in ways we have been proving for half-a-century do not work, or we can re-adopt MR, use a few small tactical nukes on ISIS, thereby letting the genie out of the bottle and giving others implicit permission to do the same. Contrary to Conventional Wisdom, this is a good thing.
It sounds trite but is not, human nature being what it is: If a 2nd Amendment city is safer, why is a 2nd Amendment world… not? What could this do? Reduce the Global spend on conventional weapons, redirecting in a short time trillions of dollars – and saving the civilized future.
People rejecting nukes due to the Hollywood version are just miseducated on nukes. Their lack of understanding is not a reason to continue spending so much money on immoral and suboptimal defense. Nothing is more immoral than killing and dying in a cause you don’t believe in enough to win, and only that is more immoral than not using your most productive weapons to fight enemies, killing fewer of them and of you in the process, as well as achieving your goal: Victory.
If America wants to rein-in the budget, get serious on the world stage, and quit wasting lives all over the planet, we need to adopt MR and blow-up some enemies. After one or two, we probably won’t have to do it again. And, if we do, it won’t require F35s, massive formations of our kids, hundreds of ships or any other hugely expensive conventional toys.
The world will be a safer – and saner – place.