generically speaking, i suppose
(1) re <<With the progress of weaponry around the world>>
progress is inevitable, and to be welcomed, because not engaging so w/ the inexorable is dangerous
that is not to say one should be happy about progression, only to point out that one better be disposed to inevitable / inexorable, even w/r to weapons, unless wars no longer happen, and that would not happen for awhile
(2) re <<The decline of US military by the present administration over the last eight years>>
unclear it is only the last 8 years. wasting of resources has been for a whole lot longer than 8 years. i mark the start at 1950, because the military is not what makes any nation strong. the economy makes a place strong, and the basics of economy is peace, learning, working, saving, and teaching.
i do not see clinton and i cannot see trump advocating workable path to genuine economic turnaround, and so am somewhat puzzled about all the election fuss, for there appears to be no real choice.
yes, i do see clinton championing free education. free education is not a workable way.
trump? he has not been a good role model for all his life, so a lost-cause at the get-go.
(3) re <<The fact that peace is insured by equal strength of Nations>>
there are advantages and disadvantages to equal-strength vs lopsided-weakness peace-keeping, the issue be how the participants choose to not play together.
(4) re <<And people who berate someone who advocates funding research and development & military strength, to keep the western world abreast of competing warfare technology>>
as the west has proven over the past few hundred years to be incapable of keeping peace, perhaps just as well competitiveness in weaponry is less, best by choice, rather than dictate.
(5) re <<Are basically encouraging an attack>>
doubtful that any large state shall be attacking any other anytime soon, but for the neocon proclivity for jasmine this and coloured that, which a bit of the right stuff quickly stops dead.
(6) re <<Setting the stage for surrender before the battle begins>>
that does seem to be a less expensive way to go for both sides of any fight, especially if there are better and more productive work to be done.
(7) re <<Nature provides that the weak will be preferred prey of a predator>>
assuming by predator you meant "the strong", and if so the protocol does seem to have certain good longterm rationale when compared to the strong systemically and always humbled by the weak.
should you mean the predator as some outfit that always and habitually pick a fight with the weak, my guess be that the world best be w/o a predator.
the truly strong does not pick fights, for that is how the strong stay strong.
all generically-speaking. |
