There was an article in the paper that if the self-imposed sequester goes through tomorrow, then a new Aircraft carrier will not be able to be christened on its maiden voyage to the Persian Gulf. So, our government can't flex its muscle on the world stage because the money's not available. What's to become of us ?! I jest , of course, but this begs the question; "is not having another aircraft carrier really of any consequence"? At the beginning of WW II, the United States had the 17th largest army in the world. In 5 years we went on to defeat two of the world's most powerful military powers, Japan and Germany, at the same time. I think we can feel confident we're still prepared for most any offense, EVEN without that extra aircraft carrier. The real truth that neither party wants to admit is we could easily do without much of our military right now and still be safe. We continue to prepare for any eventuality because a lot of jobs depend on it, not because it's really necessary. And when that happens, it's a huge problem and a huge waste. As someone once said, "Justification for a job's existence cannot be so that job can exist". Yes, the generals and admirals would not like it, and the power of DC would diminish on the world stage, but I don't see the need to always be prepared for ANY eventuality. Neither party likes the idea of reducing the military too much because it makes them feel strong and mighty to command the world's largest military., but the reality is the people are the true power in our country and their "chest pounding" on the world stage is bankrupting our children's future. If Democracy is threatened to a significant level with a real military attack on the world stage, I feel very confident our country would rise to the occasion as we always have. We do not need to ALWAYS be ready for WW 3. I say, "let the sequestering begin".
3 comments:
Chuck, sorry that I found your blog so late in commenting on this post. But, I do disagree with you. We do need to be prepared for any eventuality in my opinion. Like 9/11, eventualities can hit us from the blind side.
Also, I am reasonably sure that much more than one aircraft carrier would be the effect on military readiness. There could be F-22's that won't be built, new M-16's that won't be manufactured, troop equipment that won't be issued, and so on.
I do believe we need to be prepared for another world war...more so since we are the only superpower (and fading fast). What about N.Korea for example? To take that attitude that we don't need to be prepared is foolhardy in my opinion Chuck.
Thanks for the comment Ken.. I got in trouble on this one with my nephew who is an ensign in the Navy, so I've already gotten major push-back on this. I'm willing to admit we need to "be prepared", but my point was that we can never be prepared for every possibility. You could make the same case for every federal program being "imperative", they can't ALL be. There's plenty of waste in every single department and if it required a sequestration to trim the fat then so be it. Thanks again.
Ken, the problem with your argument is that we have no shortage in our military budget. As of 2011, the US spent 41% of the total world military budget. Even if you were to cut 10% of the military spending, we would still be spending 39% of the world budget. You say that we need to spend more money to prevent another 9/11, yet we could have stopped it if we had listen to the many warnings we got from from several of our allies, including Germany. As for North Korea, spending more money on the military won't stop a nuke, plus it would be suicide for them. If we were to cut our military spending in half, we would still be spending 2.5 times more money than China, the second highest military spender in the world. In the worlds current state, we would have to be at war with almost the entire world. Depending on the causes of this theoretical war, the rest of the world might "for once" the rest of the world might know better than us. Not to mention that if we were to cut the military enough we would have the money for some real social programs that could potentially eliminate poverty.
Post a Comment