[net.politics] defense spending:how much is enough?

orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (11/16/85)

Dave Olson seems to feel that all we have to do to solve
problems of National Security (and the survival of this
planet and the human race) is throw more and more money
into nuclear weapons and the military. He states:
 
> My objection is also with people who claim that cutting defense will
> fix the deficit.  If defense was cut back to 1980 levels, it would only
> cut the deficit by 40%.  Even Jimmy Carter realized that that level of
> defense was *too low*.  The defense he wanted was even heigher than what
> Reagan wanted.  
> David Olson

Let's look at some fundamental facts, Dave:
   1)the US currently has 29,000 nuclear weapons
   2)former Secretary of Defense McNamara has stated that only *300*
     nuclear weapons would be enough to totally devastate either country
     Indeed at the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis which horrified
     the world the Soviets had less than 300 ICBM's.
   3)the teeney weeney (by today's standards) bomb that was dropped
     on Hiroshima annihilated a whole city.  Today we have the
     equivalent of about 600,000 Hiroshimas in destructive power
     in our nuclear arsenal
   4)In the last five years we have spent over a trillion (yes, *trillion*!)
     dollars on preparing for War.  Hundreds of billions of that money
     has been for development of still more nuclear weapons.  
     What has that trillion dollars bought us? Today we have thousands
     more Soviet nuclear weapons aimed at our throats.  The fact
     that we may now be able to blow up the Soviets 20 times over instead
     of 10 does not make me feel one whit safer - they can now blow us
     up 15 times over instead of 10
    
     tim sevener