Doc wrote:So you feel that smart micro nuclear weapons intended to be used in a conventional war are a good thing? Or is it just still all bush's fault?
"
Micro nuclear weapons" are a dubious concept at best, from the scientific, the operational and the political point of view.
Doc wrote:Obama is also planning to spend $385 billion to improve the defense of Europe from Putin. Is Europe really worth that much to the US?
Europe, no.
However, the US military-industrial complex has been worth
orders of magnitude more, maybe not to the American people, but to all US presidents no matter their political persuasion, ever since this fair guy warned about it:
8y06NSBBRtY
A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.
Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.
Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
Counting only "military"-tagged expenditures, America is presently spending a minimum of 35% of global military expenditures, which is three to four times as much as the next spender China.
The sum total of military expenditures of America + her allies is a minimum of 60% of global military expenditures, that is three & a half to five times as much as the sum total of China+Russia together.
Now total US defense expenditures include also other things like Veteran care, for a total of
roughly 810 billion$ in FY 2016.
So the actual difference between US and the next big spender is more like a x 4 to x 5 factor.
===> Given the actual military capabilities of the US' potential rivals, given the existence of US allies in Europe and Eastern Asia and their actual military capabilities, it would be possible to reduce US total defense expenditures by a minimum of one third, and possibly up to half, while keeping equivalent level of security.
Now, of course, special interests wouldn't be served. And which should get priority, special interests or a country's general interests?