At a high, perhaps.

https://www.zerohedge.com/mili...pending-country-2024

Eisenhower, who knew the subject well...

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.
This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement. We pay for a single fighter with a half-million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people. . . .

This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.

But, as a Christian nation, I’m sure Jesus would want America to create, apply and dispense more instruments of death, destruction and suffering, wouldn’t He?

It gets confusing - in one instance, even the (false) allegation that a much smaller and distant nation has “weapons of mass destruction” is enough to invade and essentially destroy their population and infrastructure.

Simultaneously, the nation doing the ‘destroying’ in the name of global security has, produces, and markets hundreds of times the WMDs of the lesser nation while aggressively demanding that its ‘allies’ buy even more from them.

I’m wondering how the planet’s principal purveyors of death and destruction manage to square that enterprise with a loud and demonstrative allegedly Christian ethic?

It would seem obvious that Dwight Eisenhower’s clear and emphatic warnings after the Second World War have been completely ignored.

It's not confusing at all.

America chooses to ignore the instruction and advise of Jesus, Ike, Sherman and many others.

While you can make the point that military spending is too high and causes some problems, I would point out that we have indulged in one of the largest wealth transfers in human history in our war on poverty.

From a purely scientific standpoint, that has produced almost no scientific progress. Comparatively, our military research spending has developed most of the technological improvements that have made modern society.

Giving the hungry free food has gotten us… more hungry people. Giving free clothing has given us a larger dependent class.

While I would applaud getting government out of everyone’s pockets more, it seems to me that military spending (as opposed to fighting a war) is much more beneficial to mankind than welfare spending.

Yes, we need to stay out of things that are not our business… but the Iranian regime has demonstrated a willingness to arm irresponsible people and use force for religious reasons.

The crusades and the other religious wars give a good reason to not feel they should have WMD’s.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
While you can make the point that military spending is too high and causes some problems, I would point out that we have indulged in one of the largest wealth transfers in human history in our war on poverty.

From a purely scientific standpoint, that has produced almost no scientific progress. Comparatively, our military research spending has developed most of the technological improvements that have made modern society.

Giving the hungry free food has gotten us… more hungry people. Giving free clothing has given us a larger dependent class.

While I would applaud getting government out of everyone’s pockets more, it seems to me that military spending (as opposed to fighting a war) is much more beneficial to mankind than welfare spending.

Yes, we need to stay out of things that are not our business… but the Iranian regime has demonstrated a willingness to arm irresponsible people and use force for religious reasons.

The crusades and the other religious wars give a good reason to not feel they should have WMD’s.

The poverty rate has gone way down in the United States in the last 100 years. From 60-70% of the population in the early 1900's to 12-14% today.

Hard to argue that hasn't been beneficial.

Maybe so, but could it be lower but for another aircraft carrier, or sub?

A war does drive research, on various fronts, but it also produces untold suffering and misery. Is it worth the price in human suffering? Would we have developed canned food, the jet engine, penicillin and whatever else without military research?

Have organ transplants, caner treatment, efficient ICE engines, window glass or whatever else come about because of military research or in spite of it. Maybe a bit of both... certainly the staggering leaps and bounds we have made in many fields are driven as much by commercial pressure.

quote:

Originally posted by nute:
Maybe so, but could it be lower but for another aircraft carrier, or sub?

A war does drive research, on various fronts, but it also produces untold suffering and misery. Is it worth the price in human suffering? Would we have developed canned food, the jet engine, penicillin and whatever else without military research?

Have organ transplants, caner treatment, efficient ICE engines, window glass or whatever else come about because of military research or in spite of it. Maybe a bit of both... certainly the staggering leaps and bounds we have made in many fields are driven as much by commercial pressure.

If the efforts into military research are concentrated on research to benefit humanity the benefits would be so much better!

The amount of time and money spent on such thing as developing nerve gas, viruses and so on.

Which are totally useless to humanity!

I do not know so I am asking, is the poverty rate now lower because the benefits given by the federal government raises people above the poverty level?

Mike, you are technically incorrect.

Poverty is defined by what position you are by income. At one time the bottom 10% of income was considered the poverty line. I think now we have defined it as the bottom 20%.

US poverty is not poverty compared to most of the nations of the world if you view it in absolute terms.

I agree that the suffering caused by war is horrendous. But the Romans had a saying that has for the most part been true… if you desire peace, be prepared for war.

Most of the major wars of the 20th century were either caused or exacerbated by folks worshiping peace.

If France and Britain had gone to war over Czechoslovakia , Hitler would have been put down and a lot of bloodshed stopped.

That’s the legitimate argument about Ukraine now.

My point is that while social spending may have its own rewards, it is not advancing human technology at all.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
Mike, you are technically incorrect.

Poverty is defined by what position you are by income. At one time the bottom 10% of income was considered the poverty line. I think now we have defined it as the bottom 20%.

US poverty is not poverty compared to most of the nations of the world if you view it in absolute terms.

I agree that the suffering caused by war is horrendous. But the Romans had a saying that has for the most part been true… if you desire peace, be prepared for war.

Most of the major wars of the 20th century were either caused or exacerbated by folks worshiping peace.

If France and Britain had gone to war over Czechoslovakia , Hitler would have been put down and a lot of bloodshed stopped.

That’s the legitimate argument about Ukraine now.

My point is that while social spending may have its own rewards, it is not advancing human technology at all.

The Romans who made sure every citizen has food by right on the grain dole?

I think that was the emperors who knew that they would be thrown out if they did not keep the masses appeased.

Bread and circuses.

The parallels in the western world to the Romans are numerous.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
Mike, you are technically incorrect.

Poverty is defined by what position you are by income. At one time the bottom 10% of income was considered the poverty line. I think now we have defined it as the bottom 20%.

US poverty is not poverty compared to most of the nations of the world if you view it in absolute terms.

I agree that the suffering caused by war is horrendous. But the Romans had a saying that has for the most part been true… if you desire peace, be prepared for war.

Most of the major wars of the 20th century were either caused or exacerbated by folks worshiping peace.

If France and Britain had gone to war over Czechoslovakia , Hitler would have been put down and a lot of bloodshed stopped.

That’s the legitimate argument about Ukraine now.

My point is that while social spending may have its own rewards, it is not advancing human technology at all.

The Romans who made sure every citizen has food by right on the grain dole?

No, the Grain Dole was passed by the Senate before the Emperors. Cato the Younger proposed and passed legislation to expand it.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
While you can make the point that military spending is too high and causes some problems, I would point out that we have indulged in one of the largest wealth transfers in human history in our war on poverty.

From a purely scientific standpoint, that has produced almost no scientific progress. Comparatively, our military research spending has developed most of the technological improvements that have made modern society.

Giving the hungry free food has gotten us… more hungry people. Giving free clothing has given us a larger dependent class.

While I would applaud getting government out of everyone’s pockets more, it seems to me that military spending (as opposed to fighting a war) is much more beneficial to mankind than welfare spending.

Yes, we need to stay out of things that are not our business… but the Iranian regime has demonstrated a willingness to arm irresponsible people and use force for religious reasons.

The crusades and the other religious wars give a good reason to not feel they should have WMD’s.

And if The West gave no reason to Iran to arm irresponsible people and have WMD's?

My fellow Americans have been promoting perpetual war in its neutered fashion and prosecution for decades. Our Military Industrial Complex and it's stock holders have benefitted.

The way we gave been doing it is demonstrably wrong and we should try something different.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
While you can make the point that military spending is too high and causes some problems, I would point out that we have indulged in one of the largest wealth transfers in human history in our war on poverty.

From a purely scientific standpoint, that has produced almost no scientific progress. Comparatively, our military research spending has developed most of the technological improvements that have made modern society.

Giving the hungry free food has gotten us… more hungry people. Giving free clothing has given us a larger dependent class.

While I would applaud getting government out of everyone’s pockets more, it seems to me that military spending (as opposed to fighting a war) is much more beneficial to mankind than welfare spending.

Yes, we need to stay out of things that are not our business… but the Iranian regime has demonstrated a willingness to arm irresponsible people and use force for religious reasons.

The crusades and the other religious wars give a good reason to not feel they should have WMD’s.

While I don't dispute that virtually any spending is better than welfare spending, do you not think that spending money and resources on infrastructure, education, scientific advancement for peaceful reasons, medical research, would not be at least as beneficial as military spending? Would working toward trying to build a stable, secure, population and economy not be as beneficial to the nation as building a technologically advanced military?
I say this, knowing full well that we do not live in a vacuum. In a very real sense, what we do has to reflect our position in the world, but I can't help but think we often take the wrong approach. From "Walk softly and carry a big stick", we have decided to yell and bluster while burying ourselves in debt to buy more sticks.
The real challenges facing humanity were plain to see in the post war period. Burgeoning population and squandering of resources were two of the major problems we would be facing. They are also the two we chose to ignore. There was money to be made, and we placed that above all else.
Eisenhower's warnings have been ignored completely, by choice, worldwide. I suspect our children and grandchildren will reap what we have sown, and it won't be pretty. Regards, Bill