Quote:
Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce
The Pentagon programs likely to be cut have no effect on our ability to fight terrorists. You don't need F-35s to stop truck bombs.
|
Military has an even bigger problem. Having massively increased spending, the ROI on that money has resulted in much less useful products. IEEE Spectrum recently had a major series on this problem. However that goes right back to a definition of quality. Throwing more money at something does not create more innovation and often results in less innovation.
Return to the lessons from Nam. Massive spending on a war that violates even basic military principles results in a smaller, weaker, and unaffordable military. Lessons from Nam apply to "Mission Accomplished" and the $1trillion bill that will be paid years from now. Monies spend in 1968+ resulted in a weaker military and massive job losses in the late 1970s. A fact that every informed American knew back when George Jr was blaming Saddam for 11 September and those mythical WMDs.
Spending $700million on an F-22 that cannot even support ground troops? What kind of military is that? One that is getting ready to fight an alien invasion from Mars? Well we started it by littering their planet. Or is that one preparing to unilaterally attack (Pearl Harbor) India, Germany or Russia?
George Jr wanted to increase the military budget from $400billion to almost $1trillion annually. After all, under George Jr, we were making enemies everywhere. Maybe a smarter America would invest in solving problems by diplomacy. But then means one talks to everyone - especially enemies existing and potential.