The Biden (interim) Dictator

[MadCat]

He can probably get a pre-processed veggie tray for less than $20.  Follow me for more recipes

[catastrophe]

As crazy as people might take it, I think one of the best ways to cut military budget is to reduce our nuclear arsenal. Way back in HS debate I remember learning it’s very expensive to maintain the ability to basically nuke anyone in the world at a moment’s notice. I’m just not convinced we need that. Being a nuclear power is clearly important, but I don’t think we need to be one on any larger scale than a typical developed nation.

[LickNeckey]

dr. oz really knows how to speak to the working people of Pennsylvania

[Spracne]

Nothing like dipping your raw asparagus in some fresh salsa.

[Dugout DickStone]

Nothing like dipping your raw asparagus in some fresh salsa.

big carrot and guac has always been my go to.

[sonofdaxjones]

#DeflectoBotGe aka #neoconGe - Start at Dr. Oz thread and stop mucking up the thread where we discuss the crap show known as the Biden Administration

[sonofdaxjones]

Thanks for the  @sys

In that substack article the casual use of "defunding" is positively juvenile.   No one besides the absolute far left fringe is calling for the "defunding" of the U.S. military.

The discussion about the F-35 program is low hanging fruit that plays to the most simple of brains, and the writer then doubles down on simpleton by talking about how it's "a scary world out there".

The % of GDP discussion is utterly immaterial relative to the situation at hand.   When you're attempting to take the economic technocrat route to justify the U.S.'s insane military expenditures you have lost the argument right from the start unless you're simply a soul less droid.

[LickNeckey]

in many ways i support "defunding" military in the same way i support "defunding" the police

a reassessment of the organizational goals and a reallocation of resources to achieve those objectives

[sonofdaxjones]

Your DOD at work.   @sys will insist they actually need more money

https://twitter.com/armchairw/status/1512585538238255105?s=21&t=a63bep7iQzV2NDeMHJ0ohw

[sonofdaxjones]

16 level chess to actually hurt Europe not Russia.

https://twitter.com/vick_top55/status/1513118901995032576?s=21&t=AQPssEtdfmB8aWva8HGkEw


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[sonofdaxjones]

Leader of the free world

https://twitter.com/freebeacon/status/1514691339639791629?s=21&t=PIRfPvmIchiPr_9zXF17Qw

[I_have_purplewood]

in many ways i support "defunding" military in the same way i support "defunding" the police

a reassessment of the organizational goals and a reallocation of resources to achieve those objectives

This is incredibly vague and I'm not sure you can compare apples to apples?  Do we have a "reallocation" success story for "defunding" the police yet?

[LickNeckey]

I think Camden NJ and Denver's STAR program are probably the most noteworthy

[sys]

both the yglesias piece being addressed and this post are pretty educational.

https://twitter.com/Brian_Riedl/status/1515025207899086854

[Kat Kid]

I started reading that Noahpinion piece and found it shocking.  I haven't read the Yglesias piece.

https://noahpinion.substack.com/p/defense-spending-again?s=r

Noah, in the midst of trying to compare whether PPP-style defense spending adjustments adequately account for whether that the US really does spends more than China and Russia, posts the following:

In other words, if a major great-power war breaks out, or even just a U.S.-China war, it’s likely that Chinese military spending will kick into high gear and the U.S. will find itself struggling to keep up.

Looking at all of these numbers, I definitely do not feel secure that the U.S. has overmatched our potential enemies. In fact, given China’s economic size, it’s pretty clear we have no hope of overmatching them the way we did to Germany and Japan in WW2 — at least, not anytime soon. The argument that our military dominance is so secure that we can afford to slash spending therefore doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.

I know sys keeps talking about how much of a worry wort I'm being for saying "the United States should avoid a shooting war with a nuclear power"--but here is my problem: insisting on a permanent Pax Americana truly looks like this in the end. We must not only consider a war with China (and Russia and anyone else that would deny us this destiny), we must prepare for it.

We must all embrace nuclear armageddon, there's a substack explainer for that.

[sonofdaxjones]

A classic example @sys bot’s beloved DOD overspending.  Is the fact that the Army, Navy and Air Force have their own hypersonic missile development programs.  Each with their own budgets, contracts and development paths.

The executive level civilian side  of the DOD issued a report a few months ago urging the services to work together.   

This kind stuff happens again and again at the DOD.   

[sys]

I know sys keeps talking about how much of a worry wort I'm being for saying "the United States should avoid a shooting war with a nuclear power"--but here is my problem: insisting on a permanent Pax Americana truly looks like this in the end. We must not only consider a war with China (and Russia and anyone else that would deny us this destiny), we must prepare for it.

i don't think pax americana extends to china any more than it extended to the ussr while that entity existed.  but i agree with smith that having a stronger military makes war with china less likely, not more likely.

[steve dave]

yeah kk, let's plus size this fuckin military

[Kat Kid]

I know sys keeps talking about how much of a worry wort I'm being for saying "the United States should avoid a shooting war with a nuclear power"--but here is my problem: insisting on a permanent Pax Americana truly looks like this in the end. We must not only consider a war with China (and Russia and anyone else that would deny us this destiny), we must prepare for it.

i don't think pax americana extends to china any more than it extended to the ussr while that entity existed.  but i agree with smith that having a stronger military makes war with china less likely, not more likely.

What do you and Noah Smith propose would happen in a great power war or "even just a U.S.-China war" ? 

The entire premise of being worried that China would be able to ramp up defense spending in a world war or "even just a U.S.-China war" is so entirely insane. That would be the least of our problems.

[sys]

i think the primary value of an dominant military is deterrence.  if china doesn't think they can ramp up military spending in a conflict with the u.s. quickly enough to compete with the u.s. then they will less likely to do anything that might precipitate a conflict.

i also think that other countries are probably just as interested in avoiding a nuclear war as we are, so yes, i do think a conventional war between two nuclear powers is possible.

[Kat Kid]

Of course it is possible, I’ll even grant that it is more lively. But when the tail risk is nuclear war I think you look at it as not something to be so cavalier about.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[sys]

at the risk of oversimplifying, i think the crux of the disagreement is that i think if a conventional war is possible we should prepare for it, and you think that if we build the world's greatest hammer, we'll see nails everywhere.

[Kat Kid]

at the risk of oversimplifying, i think the crux of the disagreement is that i think if a conventional war is possible we should prepare for it, and you think that if we build the world's greatest hammer, we'll see nails everywhere.

Yes, but I also think we have some disagreements over guns v butter.

Also, I don’t think you should have to answer for everything Noah says but in the article he specifically seems to think that there is a scenario where China and the us would be in a global war long enough that being able to increase defense spending in a timely fashion is a bigger concern than nuclear war.

[sonofdaxjones]

I"m enjoying the Weinberger-Cheney-Rumsfeld logic of the @sys bot, who is fully engulfed in the spending more to ensure world peace mindset that has permeated U.S. defense policy for decades.    Spending does now equal effective, BTW.   You know, the Strangelovian - Bringing world peace 40 megatons at a time logic.

Meanwhile, in the real world, the mistrust of the United States grows around the world as nations now view the U.S. quest for maintenance of a monopolar hegemony as one where they are constantly under the perpetual thumb of the United States.   Act in their own interest and against U.S. interest yields up to 3 possible outcomes at once:   1.  Draconian sanctions  2.  Direct U.S. military intervention  3.   U.S. military intervention via proxy. 

This is why in places of emerging economies and natural resources across the globe, the Chinese are now more welcomed then the Americans. 

[sys]

we shouldn't have this problem.

https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1516174107448123396