US Defense Spending

[Steely Glint]

It's not at all clear why having nukes would make Hussein less willing to invade Kuwait. If anything, having nukes would more or less guarantee that no one would take the risk of getting nuked to liberate Kuwait.

The point is that once a nation possesses nuclear weapons, it has how to consider how any use of its conventional forces might lead to a chain of events where a nuclear device gets used. Once that happens, that nation is well on it's way to becoming a pile of rubble. Consider how Soviet threats to intervene on the side of the Egyptians in the Suez Crisis directly resulted in the US reining in France, the UK and Israel. The Soviets didn't threaten to nuke us if we didn't back off, but they did suggest that they would intervene conventionally. A conventional conflict between nuclear powers always has the risk of going nuclear, and if it goes nuclear it draws the US in as well so they had to send the message 'cut it out'.

[Loki]

The point is that once a nation possesses nuclear weapons, it has how to consider how any use of its conventional forces might lead to a chain of events where a nuclear device gets used. Once that happens, that nation is well on it's way to becoming a pile of rubble. Consider how Soviet threats to intervene on the side of the Egyptians in the Suez Crisis directly resulted in the US reining in France, the UK and Israel. The Soviets didn't threaten to nuke us if we didn't back off, but they did suggest that they would intervene conventionally. A conventional conflict between nuclear powers always has the risk of going nuclear, and if it goes nuclear it draws the US in as well so they had to send the message 'cut it out'.

A) Why should it assume that it would get nuked just because it has nukes? There's an implicit assumption here that countries with nukes are only willing to use them against other countries with nukes.
B) The chain in logic you mention is based on far too many uncertainties to be viable. Ultimately, the US would not be able to credibly threaten to start a nuclear war over Kuwait. Iraq would know that and the US would know that (as would Kuwait).
C) There are many instances where a country would have started a war but chose not to do so because the other country had nuclear weapons. It was why Stalin didn't push things in Korea, why the US didn't do anything to help the Hungarians in '56, why the US didn't invade Cuba after the Missile Crisis, why India hasn't attempted a full-out invasion of Pakistan after numerous Pakistan-sponsored attacks, etc. In each of those instances, the country with nukes acted in a highly provocative manner knowing that there wouldn't be a nuclear war over the issue in question.
D) The Soviet intervention was effective because the Soviet Union had nukes, not because you did. The threat would have been no less credible if you didn't have nukes (there's also the fact that the Soviet Union didn't adopt the "no first use" doctrine).

I should also note that we're assuming that the country with nukes is both stable and rational. Those might or might not be good assumptions in a general model, but we know that in practice, many countries don't meet one or both criteria.

[Steely Glint]

A) Why should it assume that it would get nuked just because it has nukes? There's an implicit assumption here that countries with nukes are only willing to use them against other countries with nukes.

They would be nuked because they have nukes in order to stop them using those nukes. We know they will use those nukes because they know that we'll nuke their nukes, therefore they have to be used at the first opportunity so they aren't lost in a pre-emptive strike.

B) The chain in logic you mention is based on far too many uncertainties to be viable. Ultimately, the US would not be able to credibly threaten to start a nuclear war over Kuwait. Iraq would know that and the US would know that (as would Kuwait).

It's not about anyone threatening nuclear war, it's about the situation escalating to a point where on side or the other feels it has no option but to use it's weapons. Don't think about the U.S here, in this scenario it's still to overwhelmingly powerful to be threated by Hussein. Think, instead about Israel. And what point does Israel decide that Saddam's expansionism places it in mortal peril? At what point does it decide Saddam's weapons have to be taken out in a pre-emptive strike? At what point does Saddam - fully aware of how Israel will be thinking - decide that Israel is about to do a pre-emptive strike and do one of his own? Who blinks first? How does the US decide to react to this situation?

C) There are many instances where a country would have started a war but chose not to do so because the other country had nuclear weapons. It was why Stalin didn't push things in Korea, why the US didn't do anything to help the Hungarians in '56, why the US didn't invade Cuba after the Missile Crisis, why India hasn't attempted a full-out invasion of Pakistan after numerous Pakistan-sponsored attacks, etc. In each of those instances, the country with nukes acted in a highly provocative manner knowing that there wouldn't be a nuclear war over the issue in question.

You can provoke only to the point where someone decides you're too much of a danger to leave unchecked.

D) The Soviet intervention was effective because the Soviet Union had nukes, not because you did. The threat would have been no less credible if you didn't have nukes (there's also the fact that the Soviet Union didn't adopt the "no first use" doctrine).

The Soviet Union's threat was never to use nukes, it was to intervene conventionally on the side of the Egyptians. It was the nukes possessed by the UK, the France, Israel and (since you were bound to come to the aid of the UK and France through NATO) yourselves that made that prospect so toe-curling - the theory is that any conflict between nuclear powers will inevitability escalate to a full exchange. Had NATO not existed or if the UK, France and Israel not been nuclear powers the outcome of the conflict would have either been a soviet victory or an allied victory and that would have been the end of it - the defeated side goes home, licks it's wounds but continues much as before. It's only when both sides possess nukes that the logic of MAD says a conflict between them leads to nuclear war.

I should also note that we're assuming that the country with nukes is both stable and rational. Those might or might not be good assumptions in a general model, but we know that in practice, many countries don't meet one or both criteria.

North Korea seems to have managed so far.

[ar81]

All this nuke stuff is pointless. The reason why no one used nukes is that politicians do not want to die. They have no alternate planet to escape to. During the Cuba crisis if they wanted to nuke, we all would have died, but politicians do not plan to die. So this is why we will never have a nuke war, only strong words and media show off.

[Veldan Rath]

We wouldn't be attacked, but wouldn't this diminish our, ummm, ability to assist allies?

[Loki]

We wouldn't be attacked, but wouldn't this diminish our, ummm, ability to assist allies?

Why should we have allies if our only goal is national security?

[Veldan Rath]

Come on, I not one of your students.

[Loki]

The point stands. The only reason we have allies is because we want to have a global reach. If we were satisfied with sticking to North America, there would be absolutely no need for us to have allies elsewhere (other than perhaps Mexico and Canada).

[Veldan Rath]

And with outallies (as in us helping them), they could eventually be coerced to align against us, leaving us isolated and alone. How long would we stand then? Fortress America?

[Loki]

And with outallies (as in us helping them), they could eventually be coerced to align against us, leaving us isolated and alone. How long would we stand then? Fortress America?

The question is why would anyone expand significant resources to have countries align against someone who's not bothering them (how well are we doing with getting countries to change sides?).

Can you also provide an example of an issue that is necessary for US security that this other mythical country would be able to stifle us on with the help of our former friends?

[Veldan Rath]

So...you're an isolationist. Okay!

[agamemnus]

All this nuke stuff is pointless. The reason why no one used nukes is that politicians do not want to die. They have no alternate planet to escape to. During the Cuba crisis if they wanted to nuke, we all would have died, but politicians do not plan to die. So this is why we will never have a nuke war, only strong words and media show off.

This is why Tehran is so dangerous.*

*: Funny thing though-- they (and most of the Middle East) were always a good economic foothold that had virtually no military and could be rolled over in Civ2's WWII scenario. Spain was next in line, after Africa.

[Loki]

So...you're an isolationist. Okay!

I didn't say that was my position. I said that would be the logical position for anyone who doesn't think the US try to act like a great power.

[Steely Glint]

And with outallies (as in us helping them), they could eventually be coerced to align against us, leaving us isolated and alone. How long would we stand then? Fortress America?

Even with half the armed forces it has currently, it's still the most powerful country on earth, it has two vast oceans between it and potential adversaries, plus nukes I'm going with "quite a while" and "long enough to make it worth no ones while".

[GGT]

The point stands. The only reason we have allies is because we want to have a global reach. If we were satisfied with sticking to North America, there would be absolutely no need for us to have allies elsewhere (other than perhaps Mexico and Canada).

How much of that 'global reach' is tied to our oil consumption, and foreign imports deemed part of our National Security?

[Veldan Rath]

For giggles, does anyone think we would use our nukes if we were attacked with convential forces?

[Steely Glint]

NATO doesn't have a 'no first strike' policy, so it could happen. At the present time, no one has enough forces to put NATO/the US in enough peril to make them resort to nukes.

[EyeKhan]

D) . . . (there's also the fact that the Soviet Union didn't adopt the "no first use" doctrine).

I think you have this backwards. I believe it is the US that does (did...) not have a "no first use" doctrine and the Soviets had pledged only to retaliate with nukes...

[Loki]

I think you have this backwards. I believe it is the US that does not have a "no first use" doctrine and the Soviets had pledged only to retaliate with nukes...

I think you might be right on this one.

[EyeKhan]

I think you might be right on this one.

I don't think it matters to whatever point you were making, though. Also, reading on wikipedia, it appears we have a no first use policy against non-nuclear states, but not nuclear ones.

[EyeKhan]

It looks like most everyone agrees US defense spending isn't about defense of the US but about defense of US interests which are worldwide, economic, political, etc etc. No other country does this these days which accounts for the size of the US budget vs. Rest of World's. And it seems US allies, generally, like that we do this. Given this set of premises, to save money:

A. Any thoughts on what would happen if the US backed off somewhat? I'm not suggesting an isolationist policy, but say we didn't have our fingers in every hot spot around the world, maybe had a declared policy of protecting US citizens, physically and economically, wherever they were legally interacting with Rest of World, but that's it. It would be something like "don't mess with us and we won't mess with you."

-My first thought was that the US defense industry makes a LOT of money selling weapons systems around the world and a lot of those sales are subsidized as military aid to allies. Given that, and a host of other concerns I'm sure, this policy would be politically difficult to implement I imagine.

-Second thought is what would happen if the US dropped humans rights pressures on other countries, dropped interest in Iran and N. Korea's nuclear activities, dropped economic isolation of countries like Cuba, Burma, etc... Really. What would N. Korea do if we weren't fucking with them all the time? Keep making nuclear weapons in lieu of feeding its people? Then what? Would war with S. Korea be more likely or less?

B. Thoughts on the US overtly billing our allies? It has cost a huge load of money and lives to "manage" the Persian Gulf region, so what if we billled everyone that uses - and sells - Gulf oil? Do we already, after a fashion, indirectly say through the activities of our oil and related industries? And keeping peace in Europe - during the cold war and after - has been very costly too. Why shouldn't we get compensated so we cana have a decent health care system too?

[Nessus]

Be serious, that money would go straight into corporate welfare and tax cuts for the wealthy

[EyeKhan]

Be serious, that money would go straight into corporate welfare and tax cuts for the wealthy

Isn't more or less everything the government spends that involves private sector contracts a form of corporate welfare? And if you reduce the welfare, as opposed to shifting it around from one recipient to another, then you can reduce taxes/ deficit spending?

In the case of health care, in the employer provided system, the government gives tax breaks for corporations to provide health care in their employment packages. That money, along with corporate and employee contributions, gets paid to private insurance companies. Insurance companies then pass much of it on to various service providers, some goes toward salaries and overhead and the rest gets booked as profit. And on it goes from there.... I guess in Medicare/ Medicaid the government pays the providers directly, skipping the employers and the insurance companies. No wonder they hate Medicare/ Medicaid and/or want to privatize it. Once it is private, the insurance beauracracy gets paid. Huh.

[Nessus]

How much of that money ends up in bonuses and golden parachutes as opposed to new innovations, jobs and actual good for society?

[EyeKhan]

How much of that money ends up in bonuses and golden parachutes as opposed to new innovations, jobs and actual good for society?

Is that rhetorical?


Anyway don't bonuses = jobs? Same thing, right? And golden parachutes, well that's just bad contract writing. You might ask why a corporation would hire executives with such lavish compensation packages granting reward apparently independant of performance, but consider that corporations did essentially the same thing for decades with the UAW, and those were hostile negotiations. Theoretically anyway.

[ar81]

It looks like most everyone agrees US defense spending isn't about defense of the US but about defense of US interests which are worldwide, economic, political, etc etc.

It is not "US interests", it is interests of a few albeit those many Americans. If US was worried about Americans, they would have used QE to bailout citizens, not failed banks. They would have started criminal investigations on bankers and they would have allowed bank restructuring instead of bailing them out to preserve economy as a healthy one. The FED has some mandates, but Bernanke knows nothing about economy, or even banking. He only knows about printing money.

They turned a very proud and powerful nation into a third world country that is nowadays near hyperinflation. They turned US economy into 1980's Argentine economy. Shame on them.

Defense spending is just like spending on education or healthcare, but useless, as it is about having a bunch of government employees doing nothing or playing Call of Duty in a battlefield. The need of defense is reduced when you don't create your own enemies.

Power costs money, and probably they thought that since they had the printer they would not be subject to the laws of economics.

[EyeKhan]

It is not "US interests", it is interests of a few albeit those many Americans.

Some believe that what is good for the powerful/ wealthy/ and big corporate America is good for all Americans. That's sort of the idea behind tax cuts = good for everyone. Less tax burden frees up money to invest in the US economy which creates more opportunity for everyone.

If US was worried about Americans, they would have used QE to bailout citizens, not failed banks.

If the banking system collapsed, lots of 'regular' citizens would have been deeply harmed.

They would have started criminal investigations on bankers

Here I agree. Not going after those culpable for the economic crash is in itself criminal.

They turned a very proud and powerful nation into a third world country

Not even close. Sometimes I think Conservatives would rather have a country that operated like Mexico, but we're far from anything like that.

that is nowadays near hyperinflation.

Inflation is very low right now.

They turned US economy into 1980's Argentine economy. Shame on them.

Much that government has done in the last 15 years is shameful, but the US has nothing like the Argentine economy of any era.

Defense spending is just like spending on education or healthcare, but useless, as it is about having a bunch of government employees doing nothing or playing Call of Duty in a battlefield.

Oh it has its uses, and it isn't game playing.

[Loki]

kat likely has schizophrenia. What's Alpha's excuse?

[Nessus]

kat likely has schizophrenia. What's Alpha's excuse?

The use of feigned mental illness to silence dissidents was aborted with the end of the Soviet Union, comrade

[ar81]

Some believe that what is good for the powerful/ wealthy/ and big corporate America is good for all Americans. That's sort of the idea behind tax cuts = good for everyone. Less tax burden frees up money to invest in the US economy which creates more opportunity for everyone. If the banking system collapsed, lots of 'regular' citizens would have been deeply harmed. Here I agree. Not going after those culpable for the economic crash is in itself criminal. .

In US, politicians do not understand how jobs are created. Higher taxes create jobs cuts, but tax cuts do not create jobs, only higher profit and bonuses for CEOs.

Jobs flee US because Americans are too expensive. The wage of one american can pay 15 chinese workers. Blame FED's monetary policy that made dollar to be expensive, and that made US workers expensive, hence, FED sent jobs overseas and also it refused to protect credit card holders for a long time. Very expensive dollar making expensive americans also makes costs of operating in US higher, and other cheaper nations become more attractive for companies.

They may lower taxes to 0% and still companies may not come back to US.

Not even close. Sometimes I think Conservatives would rather have a country that operated like Mexico, but we're far from anything like that. Inflation is very low right now. Much that government has done in the last 15 years is shameful, but the US has nothing like the Argentine economy of any era.

Oh it has its uses, and it isn't game playing.

US unemployment is shown below 10% but that's because it does not take into account those who gave up looking for a job, or those who flee towards other nations. Independent studies state 22% unemployment, just like Spain.

There have been 28 episodes of hyperinflation in national economies in the 20th century, with 20 occurring after 1980. The tipping point for hyperinflation occurs (according to some economists) when the government's deficit exceeds 40% of its expenditures and is funded by money printing.

I think you are confusing CPI and hyperinflation.

UBS: The Risk Of Hyperinflation Is Largest In The US And The UK
http://www.businessinsider.com/hyper...urrency-2012-7

kat likely has schizophrenia. What's Alpha's excuse?

Ad hominem argument:

1.A provides argument B
2.C thinks A is mentally ill.
3.Therefore argument B is false.

Quite erratic reasoning.
Mentally ill patients use to be erratic and to have problems with logic.