Re: Job Offer

On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 11:43:39 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
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.

..nor any losers, either, unles you count moles and rats.

--
C'est bon
Soloman