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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (150541)	8/28/2002 9:02:19 AM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1585051

If that's the capability, why is it nonsensical? And when do we have enough armaments? Is there a number of missiles and planes and bombs and subs that will do the trick? It was this kind of thoughtless rhetoric that we heard when Carter was trying to get elected. Liberals didn't understand (and still don't, apparently) that there is no quantitative metric; it is necessary to consider the quality of weapons systems. A mainstay of our weapons systems for the last 50 years has been the tank. Now, tanks are relatively unimportant. You can't just look at the NUMBER of weapons.

To: tejek who wrote (150541)	8/28/2002 2:30:36 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1585051

Its nonsensical because even with nukes we don't have enough armament to blow up the planet let alone "300 times over" or whatever the current claim is. With conventional weapons its even further from being true. If you think we waste money by having more weapons then we need then say that, rather then some illogical statement about how we can blow up the world with our conventional weapons. Is there a number of missiles and planes and bombs and subs that will do the trick? How do you decide when to stop? There is no hard and fast amount that is simply enough. Unless you go to some really outrageous amount we benefit by having more. There is however a point where the cost exceeds the benefit. Figureing out that point is difficult. Among other things the answer depends on what happens in the future. But even looking back at a period of peace you can't say the military spending is a waste because 1 - A war could have been detered by our strength and 2 - Would you say it was stupid to buy homeowners insurance if it turns out that you never make a claim on that house? When war does come having more then "enough" is good. It reduces risks, and enables us to recover from mistakes instead of losing to an inferior force because of the mistakes. It also allows the war to be won quicker with less American casualties, and usually less enemy casualties as well. I would say that double our current level would be crazy abscent a conventional WWIII. Other then that its benefits and costs at the margin and not simply X is enough, X+1 is too much. Tim