http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304384104579143873007691030?mod=WSJ_hpsMIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsSecond
"Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel has warned that the cuts could force the military to reduce the size of the Army by 20%, eliminate two Navy aircraft carriers, cut as many as 33,000 people from the Marines, and eliminate Air Force bombers and transport planes."
If you read the whole article they discuss the topic of compromise again and how difficult it can be with the complicated relationships that comes with politics.
But regarding the discussion of defense spending being cut, is it really so bad that we make these cuts? Isn't our military one of the most advanced and powerful nation in the world? Interesting to think about much such a little amount of money from defense spending could go towards for our country today.
Nothing is easy and there is always the losing side of the bargain. For the long term, I would rather the need and want for war and military prowess decline. I think it's absurd that the US spends so much on figuring out the most efficient ways to kill people. However, there is a lot to gain for the general public from the technological advances that are byproducts of the process. Now, if that spending is redirected towards actual scientific research on the other hand...
ReplyDeleteI agree with Chris. There is an undercurrent that is pervasive in the US. We have a need to have the largest and the best military in the world but there are more efficient ways to have a military. There could be better and more flexible military forces. By diverting some of the money that is used for military spending, they could fix so many of the issues that we face today as a nation.
ReplyDeleteLike what?
DeleteOf course when you have build up something such as a military in a way such as the United States has, of course you don't want to downsize, but to answer the question above "with defense spending being cut, is it really so bad that we make these cuts?" I think we will be just fine!
ReplyDeleteI agree. It really wouldn't make much of a difference considering that the US spends as much as the next top 12 country's military spending combined
ReplyDeleteThis reminds me of something that Tanzi (I believe it was Tanzi) said regarding the United States' defense spending. He mentioned that the standing army could be utilized for more productive things, when there isn't any military action, such as helping prep areas of the country that are prone for natural disasters.
ReplyDelete