jtc78@ihuxm.UUCP (Mike Cherepov) (11/02/84)
>No, "main reason would not be that 25% defenSe cut". A 25% defense cut would >still leave more waste in the Pentagon budget than already existed when Reagan >entered office. Well, who's against cutting waste? There are 2 things, both VERY important that your defense spendings buy you: 1) Real strength - the capability to fight back, assure mutual destruction, etc. You do not really want to test that. Mondale calls it "dollar of spendings buys you dollar's worth of defense".. or something to that effect. I repeat: you do not want to test it. 2) Perceived strength - your capability and determination to protect your interests (that also has to be defined) AS PERCEIVED by your opponents. You can exercise that strength every day, test it, benefit from it. And there is no dollar-to-dollar correspondence, Mondale talks about. I repeat: you want (and have to) exercise that. Cutting defense spendings is always associates with losing some of the strength[2] even if strength[2] does not decrease. Now, I feel that in past decades USSR has been developing its military strength[1][2] at truly cracking pace. Their success in spreading their influence around the world is largely due to that fact. It is important for US to all least match them in strength[1], and to try to catch up in strength[2]. If anyone doubts that they are eons ahead look at Afghans, Czechs, Hungarians, Poles,.............. US successes in countering are few. Supporting oppressive rightist governments is ugly, spending $7000 on coffee maker is absurd, yes. But please agree: 1) It is vitally critical to try to counter successful Soviet efforts to promote totalitarianism. Not trying to catch up now will make US pay dearly later. 2) Your opponents' perception of your strength is very important as it makes them more cautious and helps you achieve goals while minimizing the possibility of all-out conflict. >Still unanswered is how making the defense contractors richer makes the country >more secure. That's about all Reagan has done. Please. The second sentence would be recognized as inaccurate. He indicated that he's determined to counter the Soviet worldwide advancement. It is VERY important! It reduces the probability of conflict by reducing Soviet adventurism. He acted to prove that (Granada). You can make lists of his mistakes, but he's got one thing right. Better then Carter did, better than Mondale is capable of (please disagree if you want). In other words: Reagan improved strength[2] measurably and strength[1] somewhat. Have to cut it "short". Will elaboate on some aspects later. Comments on the value of this view are welcome. Mike Cherepov replies to ihlpm!cher