I don't necessarily believe maintaining a ludicrously strong military for the purposes of defending our homeland is a bad idea. Maybe I'm just being silly, but like, why would you not want the strongest military you could possibly muster to defend your nation?
Maybe I'm thinking about it wrong? But I don't think so.
(I'm wondering about this after reading today's NYT article about the escalating use of drone warfare in Ukraine.)
The same will happen here. I guarantee you, the American military will be among the best in the world at employing the services of satellites, autonomous ordinance and surveillance, and cyber offensives.
You have concerns about our facility with drones? Be assured, we'll be able to work out how to create nightmarish swarms just as well as Europeans or Chinese can. We'll have the same facility with working with countermeasures and mitigating countermeasures as well.
Actually, it did. At the beginning of its intervention, US weaponry and tactics were way below their European counterparts, even in nuclear research. The difference was made through sheer power of scale and speed of adaptation, not pre-war innovation.
In the same way, the US military is currently as good as it is precisely because it sees significant deployments very frequently (Korea, Vietnam, Kuwait, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq), which means they learn hard lessons and develop technologies solving real problems, at a rate that no other military can match.
But hey, if you believe it, my pointing out the flaws in the arguments is not likely to change your mind. So I’ll just politely disagree with you.
You have a good evening sir or ma’am.
Because it comes at the opportunity cost of other things we could spend money on. For example, you could cut education to fund military even more, but it would eventually catch up to us.