Lately we have heard a "bipartisan" call for more military spending. We are being told that we live in a more dangerous world and we need even more spending so that we do not become "vulnerable" [shades of remembrances and allusions to World War 2?] to enemy attack. Since NONE of the myriad of military engagements during the 50 plus years following the last declared war had anything remotely to do with our national security I find this latest "bipartisan" argument preposterous!

I am writing a book in which the US government is planning an intervention in a 3rd world country in which we have over a trillion dollars worth of investments. Their authoritarian government is threatened and the media tells of the dangers of an overthrow and the possibly total loss of our investments - many of them by middle class investors saving for retirement. Just as our forces are mobilized one Trident submarine crew defects to the revolutionary government and the intervention is deterred. This submarine would represent less than 5% of the sea based firepower available to our government and yet would we have bombed Iraq if we were faced with 240 nuclear warheads carried by an indetectable vessel? If the greatest military power ever could be deterred with a small fraction of our firepower, what are the chances of a much weaker opponent taking their chances?

As a variation of the theme I would offer: it has nothing to do with national security and everything to do with national security budgets!


Homepage

Geocities home page


1