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: bentway who wrote (747715)	10/18/2013 8:16:47 PM
From: TimF	1 Recommendation Recommended By TideGlider Respond to of 1570829

The dollar point that happens to match rivals spending has just about no strategic, operational, or tactical significance, and very little significance in terms of budget and fiscal issue. There is just about no reason to aim for that point above any other point. Evem if there was, the Chinese military gets a lot of money outside of its military budget (still a lot less than the US total, but the difference isn't as great as it might appear). Also Chinese spending has increased a lot. Would you support future increases in US military spending as China increases? Not to mention that China, Russia, and Al Qaeda are not the only potential opponents or rivals. And if we did fight one of them (well one more we are already fighting Al Qaeda) or other potential rivals - 1 - We would want a predominance of force. Equal levels of forces gets a lot of people killed. Almost certainly more on our side, possibly even more on the other side if the war takes longer to resolve. 2 - We would need to spend more to achieve an equal level of force. We pay out soldiers a lot more, and also the combat wouldn't be likely to be near the US, its more difficult to project force across the world.