Unilateral disarming for the USA
There is little doubt in my mind
what this means, since I am big on definitions so even I can understand.
In May 2012 it means doing less with
less, certainly not more with less. Said another way, our USA Country is now
cutting meat from the bone, not just trimming the fat.
So the last decades of protecting
ourselves and even projecting our USA
might in pursuit of our goals is now a lost opportunity.
Let me say that another way.
Conservatively, WWII was a world war because two major regional powers drug us
into their wars, Germany, and Japan, and they were spread around the World. Now
we took a few years to spin up enough to win the world war, and many millions
died along the way during this "spin up" time. Our ancestors did a
good job, given the circumstances they were presented with. And nobody got
invaded either directly, or even indirectly, like by the weather spreading
fallout, as an example. Yep, we were an "arsenal of democracy" back
then.
Now we are disarming because we want
to, not need to. Again, and said another
way, and in my opinion, it is more a priority issue than a simple lack of funds
issue in May 2012, which can happen, too.
The consequences are pretty obvious.
First, our National Defense is being reduced. Second, just the basic numbers,
like numbers of ships, planes, ground equipment, and people are being
discarded. So in the near future when some future leader and his hired minions
ask questions like, where are the carriers, they will not exist.
Even our ancestors tried to
legislate peace through three Neutrality Acts in the late 1930's, and we all
know what happened after that. Despots in Germany and Japan had another way.
And there are still many despots
around, today.
Maybe we'll just surrender to them,
maybe not. Maybe we'll have millions die while we "spin up", and pay
the dollars later if we resist.
Unilateral disarmament is not some
esoteric discussion. There are real and different courses of action, and
consequences to each.
No comments:
Post a Comment