Do you think worldwide military uav research will stop if the US chooses to cease its own particular efforts?
This is in no way intended as snark. It's a serious question. Where do we, as a society, put the dividing line between adequate, not enough, and too much military spending?
I certainly agree that many of America's recent military actions have likely not been a net contributor to world stability. But I also think that the commonly presented idea that if we just stopped, somehow there wouldn't be anyone left that wants to cause damage to the states is naive. The United States is one of the most developed countries in the world, and to be near the top is to have a target on your back, one way or another.
At most a reasonable amount of military spending would be on par with US rivals. In 2017 the US spent $610 billion. China, $228 billion. Russia, $66 billion. And let's be honest, neither Russia nor China are going to invade the US, because they know that would start a nuclear war.
Are you sure that your first sentence is a reasonable assumption?
Is it not better to be clearly stronger, so as to be able to negotiate from a position of strength?
And again, to be clear, these are good-faith questions. What is it that we lose, as a society, by spending as we do on our military? What is it that we gain? There are solid points in both columns.
How does China's spend of ~228 billion compare in purchasing power to the US's 610? How does Russia's? What can we do to de-escalate the otherwise runaway cost of defense, while still maintaining a position of strength? I think Eisenhower's Military-Industrial Complex speech* from 1961 was exceptionally prescient, and we've done a poor job heeding the warnings. I also think that the general disdain I see on HN for most anything defense-related is an outlook only possible when one hasn't experienced living in actual conflict zones. We need to be able to talk about defense needs with clear, rational heads.
> Don't create a weapon, if you don't want your enemies to have it too.
I'm thankful US Manhattan Project went on to successful completion, and not cancelled with above reasoning.
The series "The Man in the High Castle" shows what could've happened IF Hitler first got his nukes before US did. Most would agree that Hitler would've used it on London/NYC/DC with no qualms...
I totally agree with the reasoning at the time to go ahead with the Manhattan Project. We didn't know if the Germans or Japanese were close to creating an atomic bomb themselves. But after the war we learned that neither the Germans nor Japanese were anywhere near close. On the other hand, thanks to Klaus Fuchs and other pro-Soviet workers on the Manhattan Project, secrets were passed to the Soviets (yes, our allies in the war, but everybody knew that after the war that they wouldn't be) that allowed the Soviets to build their own bomb just 4 years later. In retrospect, without the Manhattan Project, who knows when anyone would have invented the atomic bomb. Maybe nobody for decades.
> that allowed the Soviets to build their own bomb just 4 years later
I think (not sure) Andrei Sakharov referred to Klaus Fuchs materials as a 'distraction'. Meaning it actually impeded their progress due to interference by Soviet political leaders. That's in line with a comment about the true nature of nuclear weapons 'secrets'. The secret isn't the design. The secrets are in the skills and technologies needed to manufacture a weapon. Which makes me think Klaus Fuchs and others were basically idiots.
Considering Sputnik happened, it's totally possible that USSR could've developed nukes if US had no Manhattan Project.
And if that had happened, US (and rest of world) would've been really screwed. Manhattan Project used 1/7 of all electricity generated in US at the time. No way such gigantic project could've been conceived and completed in peace time in US. And definitely not fast enough if USSR had developed it first.
Don't create a weapon, if you don't want your enemies to have it too.