Should the government increase or decrease military spending?
What threats does the United States face exactly that we are not already prepared to defend against…
Cyber warfare and terrorism are not bound by borders or geography. In fact, they can originate from anywhere around the globe, and their potential damage can be catastrophic. The increase in military budget could be allocated towards improving our defenses in these non-traditional areas.
Also, the assertion that we could halve our military budget and still win any traditional armed conflict may not consider the complexity of modern warfare. It's not just about brute force, but also about technology, intelligence, and strategic capabilities. Cutting the budget might affect these areas.
Moreover, while mutually assured destruction might have deterred nuclear conflicts, a well-equipped military still plays a crucial role in maintaining a balance of power, and hence, peace. It's not just about being able to retaliate, but also about deterrence.
Finally, about the grammar, thank you for pointing out the error. It's always good to learn and improve. But don't you think focusing on the content of the argument is more important than its form, especially in a discussion as crucial as this one? What do you think about the evolving nature of threats I mentioned above?
@9FDPB3L7mos7MO
Well, I am glad to see that you can compose a sentence, lol. That was a cheap shot on my part, but I felt it was warranted. You bring up interesting points. However, regardless of the nature of conflicts, we can still afford to spend more on cyber warfare and technology or anything else when compared to any other country, even after significant budget cuts. As Americans, I do not see that our level of personal safety would decrease at all if our budget was halved. In fact, our warfighting capabilities might increase if that money were spent on education and healthcare instead. The demands… Read more
