Neocon is a harsh sounding word. I probably should have said American Exceptionalists. You know; the people who believe we run a benevolt imperial policy for the betterment of the world.
It's not a harsh sounding word. I just don't know anybody here who discusses foreign policy and would also be a neocon. American exceptionalist? Definitely. We don't, and I don't know anybody who thinks that. Nevertheless, I'll comment. The author's revision of history with respect to WWII and the atomic bomb is downright laughable. "Soviet scientists and engineers got cracking?" More like their spies got craving. Having said that, if Russians have developed some exotic weaponry (though I hear echoes of the MiG-25), good for them. Competition is a good thing. Now it's up to American scientists to outdo them (if they haven't already).
Ha. You just demonstrated that's exactly what you think. Your initial instinct is never to consider negotiation or compromise, but rather to double down on an arms race to retain superiority. Let me show you what this line of thinking has brought about for the American nation. From an analysis of Putin's presentation: http://www.unz.com/article/the-implications-of-russias-new-weapons/ "While Western punditry was discussing all those exotic and, no doubt, stunning weapon systems designed for the delivery of nuclear weapons to any point on the globe with very high precision, many true professionals were gasping for the air when the Dagger (Kinzhal) was unveiled." Here's the bottom line. It finally moves aircraft carriers into the niche of pure power projection against weak and defenseless adversaries, and away from the remote sea zone of Russia, be it the Mediterranean, Pacific or North Atlantic. This also means a complete no-go zone for any of the 33 Aegis-equipped US Navy destroyers and cruisers which are crucial for American Ballistic Missile Defense It makes classic CBGs as a main strike force against a peer or near-peer completely obsolete and useless, it also makes any surface combat ship defenseless regardless of its air-defense or anti-missile capabilities. It completely annuls hundreds of billions of dollars investment into those platforms and weapons, which suddenly become nothing more than fat defenseless targets. The whole concept of Air-Sea Battle, aka Joint Concept for Access and Maneuver in the Global Commons (JAM-GC), which is a cornerstone of American global dominance becomes simply useless—this is a doctrinal and fiscal catastrophe. Sea Control and Sea Denial change their nature and merge. Those who have such weapons, simply own vast spaces of the sea limited by the ranges of the Kinzhaland its carriers. It also removes completely any crucial surface support for submarines in the area, thus exposing them for Patrol/ASW aviation and surface ships. The effect is multiplicative and it is profound. In layman’s lingo that means only one thing—the US Navy’s whole surface component becomes a complete hollow force good only for parades and flag demonstration near and in the littorals of weak and underdeveloped nations. This can be done for a tiny fraction of the astronomical costs of US platforms and weapons. So the past 15 or 20 years while other countries have built high speed rail, modernized airports, and enhanced infrastructure, the US government has spent trillions of dollars on anti-ballistic missiles and gigantic naval fleets, both of which have now been neutralized for all practical purposes. And the only answer is to double down and waste more at the expense of the economic infrastructure. There is never any room for critical self-evaluation.
Negotiate and compromise? Sure. Cede global military superiority to Russia just because it claims to have developed some game-changing missiles? No.
The combination of debt, military overreach, and systemic government corruption brought down the USSR. All three ingredients are in place for a repeat again, but here this time.
Lots of differences between the two. First, the Soviet Union had a command economy that was "commanded" by pretty incompetent people. The US has plenty of incompetent people in government, but it mostly doesn't have a command economy, so they're idiocy is far less damaging. Most our economy is still driven by the market-based decisions of people. That's a lot more efficient and competent than the judgments of Marxist economists and central planners in Moscow. That's why we had a far bigger economy with far fewer people and less valuable natural resources. And frankly, this was the Soviet Union's biggest and most fundamental problem. Modern Russia's problem isn't as bad, because Putin is more of an economic fascist (and I use that term without the politically charged garbage that goes with it) than an economic Marxist, but the problem still exists to a point. Second, the Soviet military was significantly more extended than the current US military. We have troops deployed to some hot spots, but it's not a particularly big force. The Soviet Union's military presence just in Eastern Europe was about double the size of the entire US military's overseas presence. And if course, they had a large presence far beyond that. So even though they spent less than we did in gross amounts, the spent much more as a percentage of GDP and many times more than the US does now. Debt? We've got too much, but see the first point. A large and growing economy greatly mitigates the impact of debt. Yes, I know you think our growth is phony (but that Russia's is real) and will collapse, but that rationale has existed for decades. If you keep predicting the apocalypse, it eventually has to happen, or people will stop believing it.
Good post, but I’ll explain where you have made false assumptions (made in good faith) when I have access to my computer. A detailed reply is difficult on my iPhone.
The error in the above analysis is that you are describing the former US economy; not the economy we've morphed into the past 20 years or so. The major expenditures people make - housing, health care, and education - are not so much market driven. The economy has been financialized and has succumbed to cartels with disproportionate political power. With respect to housing, the combination of deregulation of Wall Street and the Federal Reserve forcing interest rates low have resulted in loose lending standards and skyrocketing home values. As a result, people take on larger and larger loads of debt in order to put a roof over their head than would otherwise be the case. Should the process ever reverse (higher interest rates or stricter lending standards) millions of people would find themselves underwater as housing values would plummet. In other words, housing is now a centrally managed market more than a free market. Health care costs in America are the highest in the world. Health care costs are the leading cause of bankruptcy. The pharmaceutical industry is a multi-billion dollar industry that focus on sick care rather than healing, the idea being it is better from a profit perspective to chronically treat people rather than to prevent illness or cure it. The influence of the sick care lobby on Congress shapes the laws and raises consumer costs across the board. Education is similar to housing. The government (US public) backstops loans so that lenders have no risk; there is even less stringent screening of loans (zero) than in housing. Anyone that breathes can take out a student loan. With low interest rates and high demand, education prices soar. All of the billions of activity I've described in the three areas above count toward GDP. All of these are extracting wealth from the majority of citizens and loading them up with private debt. This is not the economy you were describing. You were describing an economy which existed decades ago. The current economy is becoming increasingly dependent on debt fueled by low interest rates and makes up a higher percentage of GDP year by year. It's not just troops deployed, but also special forces, NGOs, private contractors, and various supplemental pieces not necessarily classified as armed forces. In addition, we are training many foreign fighters in Africa, Aisa, and Eastern Europe and in many cases paying these foreign fighters. I don't even know that all of these payments are even on the books. Its not just the percentage of spending to GDP, but also the ratio of debt to GDP that is important. And as I argued above, GDP itself is now extractive rather than positive in terms of benefit to a growing percentage of the population who contribute to GDP from accumulation of debt rather than spending from savings. Already addressed this above. But even putting aside the quality of GDP, if the average annual economic growth is say, 3% of GDP , and the average annual debt growth is 6% of GDP, you eventually have a problem. We have a problem.
“Nevertheless, I'll comment. The author's revision of history with respect to WWII and the atomic bomb is downright laughable.”
