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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: unclewest who wrote (10498)	11/15/2001 9:16:44 PM
From: tfrugal	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Unclewest, A while back, I saw a documentary (frontline) exploring proposed changes in US military strategy. Some folks want to go from the current "able to fight on two fronts" to a sort of quick strike force. One problem with the current setup is we can't put tanks down with the quick forces, forcing us to rely on air power to keep them from being overwhelmed. I imagine you are aware of the debate, do you have an opinion on this? You mentioned the defense spending earlier, or the lack of it. Assuming Reagan ballooned defense spending to end the cold war, or a peace dividend, what is an appropriate level? It seems that all that R&D spent on smart bombs and such is paying off in one hell of a kill ratio and we are watching over a larger area of the world, can we hope for a peace dividend? Again, any comments? Sorry if I'm asking too many questions, I value your opinions and imo it is on topic. This is posted to you, but it is open to discussion. Should we change the military?