SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Al Gore vs George Bush: the moderate's perspective
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Dayuhan who wrote (2112)10/11/2000 11:22:23 AM
From: TimF  Read Replies (2) of 10042
 
The question, simply, is this: do the current level of threat and the current probable missions justify an increase in military spending? I do not think that they do.

You have to be prepared for more then merely the likely missions, but for possible threats as well. Possible threats include having to fight two wars at once in different places of the world. Possible threats include ballistic missile attack.

Another consideration. Having just enough to have a decent chance to win is not ideal. If you have more then sufficient forces available then your chances of winning are greater and victory can come sooner at a much lower cost. Wars that drag on because both sides are close to equal usually result in a lot more deaths on both sides.

Tim
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News