Re:United States loses AAA credit rating from S&P
by stcredzero on Saturday August 06, 2011 @04:36PM
(#2854862)
that those tanks are used to assert and defend economic dominance
And the need for the assertion of force to defend economic dominance in turn cements the need for the military machine and perpetuates the military-industrial complex. We are essentially in agreement. I think it would be better for the US to concentrate on economic dominance through sheer commercial and industrial awesomeness combined with forward-thinking research and exploration.
Re:United States loses AAA credit rating from S&P
by redthrowaway on Saturday August 06, 2011 @07:32PM
(#2855178)
In that, we are in perctect agreement. With leadership and sane economic policy, the US could still be an economic juggernaut without the need for a military that could take out any two nations on earth simultaneously. It can still be by far the most powerful, without needing to cost as much as the next 8 combined.
I think you're missing my point. It's not that military spending drives manufacturing, service, and R&D industries (although it does), it's that direct military action has often been, and is often used to promote US economic interests. See the military's actions in Latin America in support of United Fruit, military support of right-wing (pro-US and pro-business) dictators everywhere, or the military-political interventions in the Middle East in support of energy interests.
My contention is not simply that making tanks is an economic activity that many people benefit from, but that those tanks are used to assert and defend economic dominance, which has a massive spillover effect for other industries.