Quote:
|
Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore
No, my point is if you're going to argue that spending $3 billion on warplanes gets you a new vaccine for AIDS or something, is that a strong enough argument to keep spending that much on the military, or is it a sign that we should be spending more on disease research?
|
I definitely see and sympathize with your point, I agree with it on very fundamental grounds.
I think, surprising to some, that the US has such a monopoly on modern war technology that there should be no reason to continue to invest in such extremely expensive equiptment when we can accomplish the job with simpler tools our enemy do not even have -- and by simple, I mean
simple.
Our enemy can barely fight us, and the idea that we need billion dollar gadgets to blow them up is absurd.
I think that what we need to do is support a system that allocates more funding towards general protection of the foot soldier, and less in the way of funky explosives that all too often hit civilians (an infantryman can discriminate between a baby and a terrorist, but a bomb cannot).
We should use more money for tax breaks to fuel a better economy and growth throughout the world, and some money should definitely be redirected to providing proper medical care and education to the nations that are failing.
In a roundabout way, we even degree.
Threaded Mode
