Re: U.S. Federal Debt Nearly $12 Trillion

**Ferris Bueller** · 11-13-2009, 04:42 PM

Snoogs hit it right on the head. There are already over 30 locales in colorado that have legalized the carry and medical distribution of marijuana, so theres a big chunk out of the budget right there. Secondly, how about we start with everyone in the state legislature who makes more than 100k a year taking a 20k a year paycut. Theres another few million.

The fact that they're ripping a quarter of the budget defecit from an already ailing educational system is preposterous. They just dont want the money coming out of their own pockets. Maybe the state legislature ought to include on themselves some of the things the $250 million education cut is going to force on teachers: furloughs, mandatory unpaid work hours, no overtime, pay penalties for scheduled and unscheduled absence, sweeping program cuts, etc.

Originally Posted by INSUNABULA

If they take it away from "education" I guess they are hoping the uneducated masses wont know the difference

Amen.

**mp40x** · 11-13-2009, 04:51 PM

Originally Posted by Morganan

So you are saying you are willing to trade the ability to care what happens in the rest of the world that might effect our country's interests for the ability to act with what essentially would be impunity in the Americas?

We have already acted with impunity in the Americas for quite some time. Toppling elected goverments, stealing natural resources, and otherwise just meddling in the affairs of quite a few countries all throughout the Americas. I don't see our North American neighbors in this respect but rather friends that share our continent that should be counted as allies in a military alliance as I stated in my earlier post.

Originally Posted by Morganan

Another issue with your line of thought, you are ignoring history. How well do you honestly believe 2 countries like Japan and China would get along without our military influence in that region? How long do you think it would take for a large army/navy/air force expansion would take place in Japan if we told them they were basically on their own? How do you think China would feel about that, since they DO have memory of Japan conquering a large percentage of their country not to long ago?

You seem to be basing your whole argument on a possible war between Japan and China. Do you realize what would happen if such an event occured. The aggressor would be ostracized from the international community. Trade would cease, their oil supplies would be cut off, it would be WW3. You really think thats what they want for their perspective countries? I think not. Things have changed drastically since the Cold War era. Take Vietnam for example, they are everything and more than the US could have hoped for. It didn't take an invasion of Vietnam for this to take place. Its just the natural progression from failed communism to free markets.

Originally Posted by Morganan

You are over-estimating the value nation-states place on "economic-prowess". Do you really think countries wouldn't just go back to military competitions instead of economic ones if they felt they would be able to achieve their aims without fear of reprisals? I think you underestimate the effect our military has on our ability to keep conflicts small and thus keep them from inflating into large world-wide conflicts. Those are far more expensive all things considered then the price placed on hopefully deterring those large wars from starting in the first place.

I understand your logic, but don't agree unfortunately. The "fear of reprisals" is still there whether we have troops in Asia or not. The entire internantional community would rise against any aggressor under your scenario.

**sordavie** · 11-13-2009, 05:22 PM

MAD is actually a very poor strategy for avoiding nuclear war. There are a number of what I believe are fatal flaws to the theory.

The main criticism is that MAD requires the assumption that everyone in control is perfectly rational in the decision theory sense. I'm not sure I know any decision theorists who think people are actually perfectly rational.

Even if the commanders are perfectly rational, a second major flaw pointed out by David Lewis is that MAD also requires the assumption that aggressor states believe that target states will carry out MAD in the event of a nuclear strike. There are a number of situations in which a perfectly rational commander might have no good reason to carry out MAD. Here are two cases in which it's plausible an aggressor commander might believe a target state won't:

1. Aggressor state to initiate a conventional war with tactical nukes: The aggressor commander might reason in the following way. "If we strike with precision tactical nukes at military targets in a conventional+ war, enacting MAD would be an highly disproportional and thus inappropriate response by the target state commander. The target state commander wouldn't respond in such disproportional ways. (Perhaps because the aggressor commander believes the target state commander holds to certain ethical values or because the target state commander is perfectly rational and recognizes that fighting a conventional+ war with tactical nukes is a better overall outcome than destroying the entire aggressor state.) So we should strike."

2. Aggressor state to launch enough nukes to destroy target state: The aggressor commander might reason as follows. "The target state commander is rational. He has access to the information: thousands of strategic nukes are on the way. He understands that his entire population will be destroyed. There's no rational reason now to kill millions of innocent people in the aggressor state. So there's no rational reason to carry out MAD at this point. So he won't carry it out. So we should strike."

There are a number of other major flaws too. For instance, if nations develop stealth first strike capability, then MAD fails, since the target state commander needs perfect detection ability in order to make the decision to enact MAD. If you know you can strike without your opposing commander detecting your strike, then you don't have to worry about a retaliatory strike.

Also, since MAD is a theory of nuclear deterrence, even if it worked, MAD would not protect one from a conventional attack. And so it would be a poor catch all policy against foreign aggression.

We avoided a nuclear holocaust not because of MAD but because cooler heads prevailed.

**El_Gringo_Grande** · 11-13-2009, 05:27 PM

I don't know about Colorado but many legislators are independently wealthy. Why not have means testing for their pay?

Usually wouldn't amount to much but it is a great symbolic gesture.

**aeroripper** · 11-14-2009, 01:50 AM

Originally Posted by Kerostasis

A reasonable point. Historically, (by which I mean since about 1946) the US has shouldered that burden alone simply because no one else would. (caveat -- we have received some much appreciated help from a small number of countries, and I don't want to dismiss that -- but its been mostly us). It's not fair, and it's not right, but if we don't do it, it doesn't get done. AND people hate us for it! What a raw deal!

But could we live with ourselves if we stepped back and watched millions fall to death or slavery under tyrannical regimes? Ok, we probably could since there's a number of tyrannical regimes we don't do anything about already, but how many more do we want to add to the total?

Sort of off topic, but I'm picking up this book (Empires of Trust) about viewing America's power as one built on an "Empire of Trust" that is a descendant of the Roman legacy. Where nations trust us to use our unchallenged power responsibly to protect our allies and friends from aggression. I do believe for a time after WWII both us and the Soviet Union (arguably) were responsible for maintaining relative peace among the developed nations that were bleeding to death after the war (ironically, with the greatest buildup of destructive weapons in world history).

We're now at a point where the world has recovered, rebuilt, and is thriving for the most part. Our country can no longer support this "evangelistic" burden and we need to trust the other powers of the world as well to uphold the peace and institutions we helped lay the groundwork to (albeit they still need work). Our country is broke, and much of the western world's wealth is moving to the East behind the scenes. We don't really have a choice anymore and need to come to terms with this new reality in a post-American world.

**mp40x** · 11-14-2009, 09:09 AM

Originally Posted by sordavie

MAD is actually a very poor strategy for avoiding nuclear war.

I'm sure it is. The defintion of MAD is different in my mind and much simpler. We alot of nukes, you have alot of nukes, if we attack each other our countries will just be destroyed. Making nuclear conflict unacceptable. Now thats probably not the true defintion but thats how I see it in my mind.

Originally Posted by sordavie

Also, since MAD is a theory of nuclear deterrence, even if it worked, MAD would not protect one from a conventional attack. And so it would be a poor catch all policy against foreign aggression.

Understood. I never meant to insinuate that MAD was a deterrent against a conventional attack or a policy against foreign aggresion. As it is highly unlikely that the continental US would ever be attacked by conventional forces, I was using the MAD concept as a deterrent for nuclear attack by a foreign super power.

Originally Posted by sordavie

We avoided a nuclear holocaust not because of MAD but because cooler heads prevailed.

Would cooler heads have prevailed if only one side had a nuclear arsenal?

**Morganan** · 11-14-2009, 09:25 AM

Originally Posted by mp40x

We have already acted with impunity in the Americas for quite some time. Toppling elected goverments, stealing natural resources, and otherwise just meddling in the affairs of quite a few countries all throughout the Americas. I don't see our North American neighbors in this respect but rather friends that share our continent that should be counted as allies in a military alliance as I stated in my earlier post.
You seem to be basing your whole argument on a possible war between Japan and China. Do you realize what would happen if such an event occured. The aggressor would be ostracized from the international community. Trade would cease, their oil supplies would be cut off, it would be WW3. You really think thats what they want for their perspective countries? I think not. Things have changed drastically since the Cold War era. Take Vietnam for example, they are everything and more than the US could have hoped for. It didn't take an invasion of Vietnam for this to take place. Its just the natural progression from failed communism to free markets.

No, they wouldn't have any fears under your plan of "divvy up sphere's of influence and allow someone to be dominant inside that sphere" plan.

I understand your logic, but don't agree unfortunately. The "fear of reprisals" is still there whether we have troops in Asia or not. The entire internantional community would rise against any aggressor under your scenario.

Not really, again, your "plan" involves a lot of regional authority for the larger nations. Look, I'm all for cutting some of the more wasteful defense spending, but I feel you have some unrealistic expectations as to how other countries would react to a US pullback.

**Morganan** · 11-14-2009, 09:29 AM

Originally Posted by mp40x

I'm sure it is. The defintion of MAD is different in my mind and much simpler. We alot of nukes, you have alot of nukes, if we attack each other our countries will just be destroyed. Making nuclear conflict unacceptable. Now thats probably not the true defintion but thats how I see it in my mind.
Understood. I never meant to insinuate that MAD was a deterrent against a conventional attack or a policy against foreign aggresion. As it is highly unlikely that the continental US would ever be attacked by conventional forces, I was using the MAD concept as a deterrent for nuclear attack by a foreign super power.

Would cooler heads have prevailed if only one side had a nuclear arsenal?

Again, you base your opinion off the faulty assumption that rational minds are making logical decisions. Just look back over the last 100 years to see there are a lot of irrational minds that have ran nation-states and even rational minds can make bad decisions/take bad advice.

**mp40x** · 11-14-2009, 10:08 AM

Originally Posted by Morganan

No, they wouldn't have any fears under your plan of "divvy up sphere's of influence and allow someone to be dominant inside that sphere" plan..

No need to put quotations around a phrase that I never made mention of. There is no plan as you put it. Rather, that as the US, hypothetically, pulled back our forces other nations would step in and fill the void so to speak. We don't live in the Cold War era anymore. Those older ideas for national defense have served there purpose and the US is on the verge of insolvency now. Therefore we can no longer afford, financially, to serve as world police as we once did. Granted, there was a time when it was necessary after WWII and the Korean War, but it is no longer necessary as things have changed.

Originally Posted by Morganan

Not really, again, your "plan" involves a lot of regional authority for the larger nations. Look, I'm all for cutting some of the more wasteful defense spending, but I feel you have some unrealistic expectations as to how other countries would react to a US pullback.

There is no plan for regional authority. The nations mentioned already have an area of influence, as the US does.

Originally Posted by Morganan

Again, you base your opinion off the faulty assumption that rational minds are making logical decisions. Just look back over the last 100 years to see there are a lot of irrational minds that have ran nation-states and even rational minds can make bad decisions/take bad advice.

This kind of thinking goes under the guise that the US is the only nation capable of rational thought. Some would argue, rightfully so, that the US has reached the era of irrational thought, that our military interventions and constant meddling abroad have gone to far.

**Morganan** · 11-14-2009, 05:37 PM

Originally Posted by mp40x

No need to put quotations around a phrase that I never made mention of. There is no plan as you put it. Rather, that as the US, hypothetically, pulled back our forces other nations would step in and fill the void so to speak. We don't live in the Cold War era anymore. Those older ideas for national defense have served there purpose and the US is on the verge of insolvency now. Therefore we can no longer afford, financially, to serve as world police as we once did. Granted, there was a time when it was necessary after WWII and the Korean War, but it is no longer necessary as things have changed.

Think of the area's we are talking about. You suggest China to step in for our commitments in the Asian sphere. Well, I'm sure S.Korea has forgotten China invaded their country, the S. Koreans would be overjoyed to have the Chinese sit and watch the DMZ from the other side of the fence. I'm sure Eastern Europe wouldn't trip and fall over themselves asking Russia to deploy troops for any reason in their country. It's a new country now, they aren't the Soviet Union anymore, have to forget the 40 some years of domination by them!

If we pull back from these area's we loose our clout to speak for those people. Isn't that sending the wrong signal?

There is no plan for regional authority. The nations mentioned already have an area of influence, as the US does.

Yes, but our area of influence extends far beyond the "Americas" because we have the logistic setup to project force into any corner of the world fairly rapidly if needed to allow us to work diplomatically to solve regional issues.

This kind of thinking goes under the guise that the US is the only nation capable of rational thought. Some would argue, rightfully so, that the US has reached the era of irrational thought, that our military interventions and constant meddling abroad have gone to far.

See, I don't disagree with your premise here, it is time for a slight pullback. We can't afford to have a worldwide presence at this time. Instead however of pulling back everywhere at once, we need to choose areas where our military presence doesn't really do anything helpful for us. We could most definitely pull out of Europe, unless someone feels that is somehow going to be the next geopolitical hot spot. We should be concentrating our focus on Asia and Africa, which will be the places we will want to have influence over the next 30-50 years. It wouldn't be difficult, and would have the side effect of making Russia carefully consider their foreign policies if we let the European members of NATO step farther up to the plate in Europe.

**Sir-Nerd** · 11-15-2009, 09:04 PM

Originally Posted by mp40x

Its time that Asia and Europe were responsible for their own security. Why should the US shoulder the burden alone at GREAT cost financially?

Read a little on post World War 1 and the fall of the League of Nations.

To Sor's discussion at MAD, there was an article about the Soviet Perimeter (or something along those lines). It was a network that would allow the Soviets to unload nearly every nuke into America even if the Soviet had been bombed into the stone age.

**ScratchMonkey** · 11-16-2009, 09:48 AM

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Watch the numbers whirl!

**mp40x** · 11-16-2009, 11:47 AM

Originally Posted by Morganan

Think of the area's we are talking about. You suggest China to step in for our commitments in the Asian sphere. Well, I'm sure S.Korea has forgotten China invaded their country, the S. Koreans would be overjoyed to have the Chinese sit and watch the DMZ from the other side of the fence. I'm sure Eastern Europe wouldn't trip and fall over themselves asking Russia to deploy troops for any reason in their country. It's a new country now, they aren't the Soviet Union anymore, have to forget the 40 some years of domination by them!

I understand your position as it was once my position as well. Its very mainstream and widely accepted as the proper deployment of our military assets. But its has evolved into something like a religion, where its just blashemy to speak against it. Its at best outdated religious tradition that is riddled with cold war era philosophies that are not relevant to this time period, but those ideas are still revered as the gospel. We simply can't afford it, and its too expensive to maintain it. Also, you are now saying that China would move down into North Korea if we pulled our troops out of South Korea? Is this correct? Why would they do that?

Originally Posted by Morganan

If we pull back from these area's we loose our clout to speak for those people. Isn't that sending the wrong signal?

Its not sending the wrong message to do what is fiscally responsible for the US. No matter how unpopular it is.

Originally Posted by Morganan

Yes, but our area of influence extends far beyond the "Americas" because we have the logistic setup to project force into any corner of the world fairly rapidly if needed to allow us to work diplomatically to solve regional issues.

Yes, because we have been so diplomatic in the last 9 years. I don't want to project force anymore unless its absolutely neccessary. And how about a declaration of war by the Congress next time instead of the Executive Branch going beyond its authority. But thats another topic I guess.

Originally Posted by Morganan

See, I don't disagree with your premise here, it is time for a slight pullback. We can't afford to have a worldwide presence at this time. Instead however of pulling back everywhere at once, we need to choose areas where our military presence doesn't really do anything helpful for us. We could most definitely pull out of Europe, unless someone feels that is somehow going to be the next geopolitical hot spot. We should be concentrating our focus on Asia and Africa, which will be the places we will want to have influence over the next 30-50 years. It wouldn't be difficult, and would have the side effect of making Russia carefully consider their foreign policies if we let the European members of NATO step farther up to the plate in Europe.

Well thanks for conceding that we don't need troops in Europe anymore. Thats a start. But advocating an expansion into Asia and Africa is just a realignment not a withdraw. And I don't support an immediate pull back but rather something regimented and proper. But the overall goal would be complete withdraw.

Originally Posted by Sir-Nerd

Read a little on post World War 1 and the fall of the League of Nations.

So if we pull our troops out of Europe it will suddenly fall into chaos? As if France, Great Britain, Spain, Germany, and many others can't sort out any problem that would arise if any.

Heres the bottom line. Everyone makes good points. And I'm sure that a pull back of US troops could be problematic at best with real world issues that would arise under my utopian US non-interventionist foreign policy. But, why not let someone else try the role of world police for awhile? See how they like spending trillions of dollars taking on that endeavor. Personally, I don't see a need for it anymore. Defense and entitlement program spending will be the absolute death of America if left unchecked on its current path.

**ScratchMonkey** · 11-16-2009, 01:07 PM

I found a solution!

http://walmart.gov

**sordavie** · 11-16-2009, 04:49 PM

Originally Posted by Sir-Nerd

To Sor's discussion at MAD, there was an article about the Soviet Perimeter (or something along those lines). It was a network that would allow the Soviets to unload nearly every nuke into America even if the Soviet had been bombed into the stone age.

Yes. That is how it was set up.

I'm not sure whether you think this helps or hinders my point. At best it helps and at worse it is besides my point.

Your second sentence is true only depending on what you mean by the phrase "bombed into the stone age." If they really were bombed so bad that nothing survived except a few people with stone age technology, then they could not unload any nukes into America for the simple reason that, by hypothesis, nothing survived except a few people with stone age technology.

In any case, that is how their network worked and it is similar to how ours did too. But the details about how our particular nuclear deterrence system worked is no reply to the criticisms of this type of nuclear deterrence that I've mentioned. For instance, it says nothing to the points about perfect rationality. Indeed, this particular implementation allows for a number of additional criticisms - for instance that false positives in your detection network are much more likely to start an unstoppable chain of events that leads to nuclear war, and that's really bad.

Thread Tools

Display