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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: unclewest who wrote (19623)2/23/2002 9:55:55 AM
From: tekboy  Read Replies (2) of 281500
 
To me, Stiner's positions make sense separately but not together...

I mean, I can accept that the important threats are cyberwar, biological and chemical weapons, and nukes. And I can accept that our conventional military is less extensive and prepared than before.

But--how would redressing the latter problems--which presumably is what most of W's defense budget build-up will go toward--help in dealing with the former ones? If those "new" security threats are the real danger, and not a conventional war against some kind of peer competitor, then wouldn't it make sense to revamp the military substantially, perhaps even at the expense of some of the kinds of traditional programs (large conventional weapons, large forces in being, expensive current readiness) that Stiner wants to see boosted?

tb@provocateur.com
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