|
Most of what I am going to say has been implied or mentioned, but I want to revisit the financial side of the arms race, as someone who lived through half the Cold War and followed it intensively. The Reagan administration easily outspent the USSR with incremental advances in tech, which were just enough not to justify open warfare, but enough to justify Russians scrambling to match almost every policy, spending and military advancement (MIRVs, cruise missiles, ABM defence, stealth fighters, quieter and quieter SSBMs, stealth bombers, extra-long range stealth bombers, and finally SDI) - which, of course, benefitted the military industrial complex to the tune of massive deficits, which is no rich person's problem. Since then, messy, protracted wars have slaked the cash-lust of the MIC but resulted in wavering public opinion and regime changes...however nothing would do better than another arms race or a complete if pointless revamp of the American nuclear weapons delivery system if Trump and the Republicans can present it as A Good Thing For America, regardless of closer Russian ties. China, Iran, who knows, anyone with a current arsenal can become the straw man justification if it's on Fox. Nuclear war is stupid and would never benefit anyone in the long run. Naturally the likelihood of limited nuclear exchange or a first-strike or a decapitation strike (North Korea) are higher under an unpredictable demagogue, but full-fledged nuclear exchange is an end to the status quo (top one percentile). I would not however rule out a protracted and clumsily justified sea, air and cyber war with China, culminating in the invasion and subsequent liberation of Taiwan. This would be a convenient bolus for two stale supereconomies and allow them to flex some tech.
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2017 06:09
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 22:54 |
|