“Conquests and wars of choice always bring unexpected consequences and never bring happiness. The seeking for security with massive armies is an illusion. While you are fighting to be secure, matters at home all too often deteriorate, especially if only a small part of the population benefits from the profits”. (Michel de Montaigne 1533-1592).
Montaigne lived in Perigord, in South Western France, best known for its geese and foie gras, and he came up with the above nugget over five hundred years ago. If he could get it why can’t we?
The current talk is about spending an unbelievable fortune on up-dating the US nuclear submarine fleet, increasing the national debt exponentially, no doubt at the expense of education, infrastructure and probably the welfare of millions. The military-industrial complex will benefit from the profits, but new nuclear weapons will not make us secure; they will simply guarantee that Russia and China catch up. Beware of generals and admirals demanding money for fancy weapons. Once involved in a war they seem incapable of winning it, however fancy their weaponry.
We should be having a blitz on scrapping all nuclear weapons throughout the world, not modernising them. We have already been too close to armageddon on occasions as it is. Meanwhile the military absorbs over half of the discretionary Federal expenditure. It is out of control and unnecessary.
The current military is too expensive, but would you scrap America’s nuclear capability altogether? Many people in Britain want this to happen, but there’s always the risk of other nations usig their nuclear weapons against you.
Owen, the US Navy wants 14 subs, sufficient to fry the planet. I would publicIy announce fourteen, but would give them 3 on the basis that warships always seem to be refitting, so you would have two on active duty while one is being mended. Keep the Russians guessing. We don’t need14; it’s just to keep contractor profits rolling in. ( I’m being cynical and contrarian).