Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (1528)	1/18/2001 8:26:34 PM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Quickly overwhelming a possible threat is not necessarily the best way to deal with a possible threat. In many cases it is not even remotely practical: we could spend enough to bankrupt ourselves, for example, and still not be able to overwhelm China. That isn't a problem, though, because we don't need to overwhelm China. We might conceivably need to confront a Chinese offensive force outside China - though this is a very remote possibility - but anyone who has looked seriously at the Chinese logistic capabilities agrees that China can deploy and support only a tiny fraction of its forces outside its territory. Of course this reality is missed completely by those who cite the size of the Chinese armed forces as a compelling reason for greater American military spending. Military spending has to be scaled to probable missions and possible threats, and I don't see any reason why it needs to be expanded (or reduced) at this time. Greater efficiency would of course be desirable, but even assuming that the current level of efficiency remains, I think the current plans for drastic increases would be, if implemented, a waste of money.