Re: Job Offer

On 3/17/2025 1:43 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 09:37:34 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
 

I do understand that last argument, but in our actual real
world a nation with insufficient defense quickly becomes not
a nation at all; dead or enslaved.
>
US defense is as full of corruption, self dealing, waste and
inefficiency as everything else (such as road building or
the education racket or the Medical Billing racket) but
defense is still necessary, despite inefficiency.

 I agree.  It's difficult to win an argument (or a war) from a position
of weakness.  That was the logic from the Cold War era, where the
country or bloc with the most atomic bombs would inevitably "win".
That translated into which bloc could spend the most on weapons.  The
Cold War ended when the Eastern bloc ran out of money (and credit).
The argument still holds validity, but the players seem to have agreed
to limit the scale and scope of arms buildup.  Whether that will
insure peace any better than uncontrolled military buildup is
uncertain.  I'm not worried about nations armed with atomic weapons.
I'm worried about smaller nations inventing ways to weaponize
literally everything.
 Hopefully, I won't live long enough to see the next war.  It probably
won't be pretty.  I don't know how to stop a trend that started with
tribalism and seems to be growing out of control.  The next war will
not have any winners.
 

Great example.
The principle is correct (a competent defense is absolutely necessary).  The application was flawed (your phrase: ...the
  country or bloc with the most atomic bombs would inevitably "win".)
Turns out that is not exactly correct. With the explosion of innovation and widespread adoption of computer systems and software all across and through US society shocked the Soviets and Mr Reagan's bluff of space-based defense (we were nowhere near creating such at the time) forced the issue.
And yes, I absolutely agree that psychopathic ideologies bent on death and destruction armed with advanced biological or nuclear weapons will be a daunting game changer.  The Soviets were at least interested in survival.
[note Hamas founding statements linked here recently. Such thought is not singular nowadays].
--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971