Quote:
Originally Posted by
DuckieHo 
Weapons are not always for use..... the existence of weapons itself is sometimes the main use of a weapon. It is a deterrent. The US is stepping up its focus on the Pacific as already publicly stated. In fact, Defense Secretary Panetta is in Vietnam to discuss US support against China and re-establishing a supply base.
This, a million times over. If any of you guys are interested in US-world-domination theories, and want to learn about the method behind the madness of all this defense spending, you guys should read George Friedman's book "The Next 100 Years". Who's George Friedman? He's the CEO of Stratfor (yes, the intelligence agency that was hacked by Anonymous), an organization commonly referred to as "the second CIA"
In short:
- the U.S. must have a large navy to dominate the seas, which is key to controlling/monitoring global trade
(have a country working against your interests? You can single-handedly halt all trade going to and from ports, devastating their economy)
- full-scale wars are a thing of the past due to technology which allows precise killing e.g. drone strikes
(think WWII, you needed larger armies because weapons were inaccurate, if you can blanket an entire area with gunfire you will eventually defeat your opponent)
- think of the unintended consequences/implications of military R&D spending
(highways, ARPANET->internet, many medical devices, these all originated from military R&D and have very practical use for the public)
This doesn't mean I'm not a critic of defense spending, far from it, but the minute we turn our back someone else will try and one-up us, possibly with dire consequences
Edited by mingqi53 - 6/4/12 at 9:54pm