STORM2K

Tuesday afternoon, I went to a seminar/dinner here at UTMB. A NASA physician at my table began talking with someone else about how he believes military spending should be cut and that money applied towards healthcare.

Now while I agree that something needs to be done about our current state of crisis in the healthcare system, I disagree with cutting the military budget anymore than it has been in the past. Clinton knocked it down to below-1983 levels (under $300 billion per year) while he was in office. Shortly after 9/11, a co-worker of mine mentioned that her hubby had to train with empty rifles (just aiming and pulling the trigger) while he was in the Army, because they had cut spending so much that they couldn't use live ammo for training exercises (gotta admit, it's probably safer, but not good when trying to show if you've hit a target or not).

Seems to me that all government spending needs a bit of control. There's waste and mismanagement wherever you look. But without the committment of our military resources, we don't have to worry about any of the other waste and mismanagement in other areas. Without our military, we have no national security. Without national security, we risk our freedom.

I didn't say anything to the doctor because the conversation was about a totally different subject and his comment was a sidenote. Even if we were pre-9/11, if 9/11 hadn't happened, or if we weren't at war, I believe we need strong national defense. But, for those of you who have served, how would you have argued your case for military spending?

Thanks!

All I would say is George Washington's quote from Cicero..."Si pacem quaeres, para bellum parates" (If you would seek peace, be prepared for war).

Disarmament is a utopian dream, but in the pursuit of dealing in Realpolitik, it is never a viable option...especially now, when we are in what may be the throes of a Third World War...one we didn't start, but one in which the whole of civilization as we know it is at stake.

History has shown over and over again a strong military is the only defense against agressive adversaries. Call it the old "carrot and stick" if you want but the same holds true. Witout a "stick" and the willingness to use it, there is no credible deterrent to agressive nations and groups.

Agreed. I hope our leaders, representatives, and military-industrial complex proves able to adapt to the changing threats.

Agreed Ed. In a lot of ways the new challenges we are facing to today are much tougher to deal with the the Soviets were in the past. The small cell tactics of the terrorists are a tough nut to crack. No matter how good we are you can never stop 100% of the solo bomber type of attacks. All you can do is try and destroy the infrastructure that supports them.

And we can't be "nice" about it...if you want to kill snakes, get meaner snakes to go in after them, and fight them on their own ground, in their own "coin".

They work in "cells"? We should, too...Vietnam taught us at least that much.

Agreed Street solider,Technology can't solve all our problems in War( another thing Vietnam taught us) I agree, they work in Cells , so should we.

Didn't Rome fall from internal softness and withering attacks from barbarians? Time to start teaching "real" history..... Uh-oh, I feel a rant coming on......Better shut up before we enter the "no win zone" again.

I used to have a book by NVA General Nguyen Van Giap; commentaries about how to employ small cadres of inferior, but more committed forces to defeat large, technologically superior armies.

It's on the USMC "required readings" list for professional development, along with about 40 other volumes; it is a "must read".

In a perfect world.....our differences would be appreciated, our cultures would be revered and protected, our leadership would not only sit at the same table, but live up to promises. That world would encourage education beyond our imagination, food would be plentiful, healthful, and cheap. Visionaries would have money to develop their dreams. Religious beliefs would be points to ponder, not hate. Power would truly be in the hands of all people...and respected as such by all. Work would be plentiful. Families would be seen as a foundation. And we would take care of one another in time of crisis.

Unfortunately, this is neither a perfect world nor a place composed of perfect people. Protecting the foundations we believe in requires a strong, resourceful, and superior...vastly superior force that by its own demeander can conduct the affairs on behalf of those who cannot.

Dialogue among those who feel perhaps that social issues, not defense, needs the infusion of cash is, in and of itself, a healthy exchange.

In the end, those programs can not work in the absence of a secure and steadfast nation....one guided by principal and enforced by a superior defense composed of people who truly believe in their mission.

A thought for you all to ponder...what "universal health care" service can stop thousands, or tens of thousands from dying in a 9-11-style attack?