actualiteitsforums  

Ga Terug   actualiteitsforums > NASLAG > Focus op... > U.S.A.
Gebruikersnaam
Wachtwoord
Home FORUMS Registreer Arcade Zoeken Posts van vandaag Markeer Forums als Gelezen

Antwoord
 
Onderwerp Opties Zoek in onderwerp Waardeer Onderwerp Weergave Modus
  #1  
Oud 8th February 2018, 01:08
bijlinda's Avatar
bijlinda bijlinda is offline
Administrator
 
Geregistreerd op: Nov 2004
Locatie: Hasselt
Posts: 1,686
Huge Military Budgets Make Us Broke, Not Safe

Huge Military Budgets Make Us Broke, Not Safe

By Miriam Pemberton


Backing down from nuclear war would make us a lot safer than piling more money into the Pentagon.


We’re now spending more on the military, adjusted for inflation, than at any time since World War II — including during the Reagan and George W. Bush buildups. We spend more than the next eight countries put together.

Worse still, the military can’t even say what it’s actually spending — it’s still the only federal agency that can’t pass an audit. The brass says they’ll really try this year, but I’ll believe it when I see it.

Trusting the Pentagon to rein in its own waste hasn’t worked. Back in 2015, the Pentagon’s own commissioned report found $125 billion in administrative waste that could be cut over five years. But then they simply buried the report.

Here’s what we really need to feel safer: Leaders who are working to reduce nuclear tensions rather than rev them up.

Instead, in addition to firing off scary tweets, Trump repeated calls in his State of the Union to “modernize and rebuild our nuclear arsenal,” to the tune of $1.7 trillion. Why? The 4,000 nukes we currently have — enough to destroy the entire planet — seem like an adequate deterrent.

Leaders are meanwhile working on designs for new “lower yield” nukes, envisioning them as tools for “limited” nuclear war. That makes nuclear war seem more feasible, and therefore more likely. Feeling safer yet?

And they want to build up the arsenal of conventional weapons, mostly to counter China. But China is expanding its influence around the world not mainly through military spending — its military budget is only a third of ours — but through its civilian investments.

As the U.S. retreats from providing development aid, China is filling the vacuum. As the U.S. cuts off its previous investments in clean energy technology, China has become the solar panel provider to the world.

Our new security strategy, by the way, has also airbrushed out climate change. A military that previously identified climate change as “an urgent and growing threat to national security” is now barred by the administration from talking about it at all.

While we contemplate spending money we don’t have for weapons we don’t need, the urgency of this threat continues to grow.

Miriam Pemberton is an associate fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies and an expert on the federal budget.


Information Clearing House, 07-02-2018 (Miriam Pemberton)
Met citaat antwoorden
Antwoord


Onderwerp Opties Zoek in onderwerp
Zoek in onderwerp:

Uitgebreid Zoeken
Weergave Modus Stem op dit onderwerp:
Stem op dit onderwerp::

Posting Regels
Je mag niet nieuwe onderwerpen maken
Je mag niet reageren op posts
Je mag niet bijlagen posten
Je mag niet jouw posts bewerken

vB code is Aan
Smilies zijn Aan
[IMG] code is Aan
HTML code is Uit
Forumsprong



Alle tijden zijn GMT +2. De tijd is nu 08:21.


Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.0.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.