There's nothing defensive about it. Also, how is a borrowed/deficit financed defense strong? We owe over 15 trillion. Does this look like the balance sheet of a strong country? http://www.usdebtclock.org/ My favorite is US unfunded liabilities.
I act on with what I see as threats, not by the belief that "nuclear powers don't tend to fire nukes at each other".
It's not a belief that nuclear armed countries don't fire nukes at each other, it's an historical fact (unless I missed something you can elaborate on). Take nuclear armed Pakistan and nuclear armed India, they pretty much hate each other. Why aren't they firing nukes off across the border? The same reason neither we nor the Soviets fired nukes at each other....MAD (mutually assured destruction)...a painfully appropriate acronym for our times. It would be suicidal to do so. Now, firing a nuke at a country without nukes...well, that's not quite like bouncing a brick off your head now is it?
If someone warned you of the impending 9/11 attack, you would say, "that has never happened before, therefore, the warning is not credible". Leave it to an anti-military leftist to protect US from hostiles. You make Janet Napolitano look brilliant.
Let's clear a few things up because you seem to have the wrong impression. First, I am a centrist Libertarian. Second, I am the furthest thing from anti military, having served 8 yrs in the USMC. I consider every member of the military my brother and sister. I am anti war, but not anti military. Try and appreciate that not too subtle distinction. You should read the book "War is a Racket" by Smedley Darlington Butler, who was probably the most decorated Marine in the history of the Corps (2 cmh's). Here, in case you are not much of a reader: <iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/F3_EXqJ8f-0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> Criticizing our nations flawed foreign policy is not tantamount to criticizing the military. That's a Fox News talking point, not reality. Finally, if "someone" warned me of an impending attack, having worked in intelligence, I would do the following: 1. Assess the source. Has he or she reported in the past? Has past reporting been reliable? 2. Attempt to corroborate the information with other sources, ELINT, SIGINT, COMINT, HUMINT, etc. 3. Determine if this threat ties into any other indications/warnings of hostilities. 4. Assuming the threat was found to be credible, I would then put together a threat assessment, suggest countermeasures, and provide my commentary so the commander could make an informed decision. Any questions?
"The true (in a sense) cost of military spending and what else it could have bought " I admit to having not read the entire thread. Did anyone mention the inflationary impact that military spending has? Outside of the obvious ill side effects of this portion of the budget, the next most insidious is the affect it has on the price of raw materials and energy. Mad props for Major General Smedley Butler post. The man was a true Hero in all sense of the word.
Indeed that is also a concern, as is the cost of healthcare for our returning wounded. That's why I added the caveat (in a sense) because it is very difficult to accurately assess the total cost of war. The numbers on the initial graphic cover procurement costs only, so it's not a complete picture of what we are spending.
You wouldn't do the same for Iran? You would just say, "it hasn't happened in the past, therefore I don't see them as a threat. I was a Marine too, and I've seen some dumbass Marines, and you're one of them, you effing moron!
Actually, you just combined two statements (ideas) into one so let me help you out. 1. I don't see Iran as a threat. The reason I say that is because they've never invaded a single country. Their military is set up for defense, not offense. On that note, they have no ability to project power anywhere near the United States of America. Therefore, I do not see them as a threat. 2. No nation with a nuclear weapon has ever fired a nuke at another nation with a nuclear weapon. The reason is simple, if I have nukes and the other guy has nukes, and I fire my nukes at the other guy, he's gonna fire his nukes at me. Makes sense right? What would happen then? Both nations would be destroyed. Could that be why it hasn't happened? Also, you don't hear much about us pushing North Korea around anymore and do you know why? Because they are now a nuclear power. Gee, go figure that. Now, other than your blah blah blah you are dumb blah blah blah dumbass blah blah blah effin moron, do you have anything of substance to contribute to this discussion?