19.) If you were to install a security system in your plant, you would call it a capital
expenditure, and rightly so, not cavil over whether or not it was "productive".
Since I consider the military to be in a dangerous state of unreadiness, I think the peace
dividend has been pretty large. Most people thought that it was pretty large, actually,
regardless of political affiliation, but I guess if you think it should have been larger, the
perspective is different.
Whether or not the Soviets were as formidable as was commonly perceived, the supposed
strength of their forces fueled European neutralism, and the soviets themselves seemed to
have overestimated their own strength. Why do I say that? Because even after the decline
of the Soviet Union, Russian military officers were predicting that the Iraqis would prove
to be much more formidable opponents than they turned out to be, because the Soviets
had armed and trained them. A belligerent power that overestimates itself is also
dangerous, since much harm can ensue before it is vanquished. Look at Hitler: he
essentially doomed himself by declaring war on the United States, and opening the Eastern
front. But it was not only the German people who paid for his folly. |
