jump to last post 1-4 of 4 discussions (12 posts)

Is increasing the military budget to have the best military, boost the economy,

  1. tsmog profile image84
    tsmogposted 11 months ago

    Is increasing the military budget to have the best military, boost the economy, or both?

    According to Stockholm International Peace Research Institute nation spending in billions and share of GDP is: U.S. - 596/3.3%, 215/1.9%, Saudi Arabia - 87/13.7%, Russia 66/5.4%, UK 55/2.0%, India 51/2.3%, France 51/2.1% & Japan 41/1.0%

  2. Venkatachari M profile image56
    Venkatachari Mposted 11 months ago

    I can't answer definitely. But, to provide proper security to your country and people, you need to increase the spending on military and keep the best military force and equipment. It will safeguard your people and nation's assets thereby indirectly providing economic development.

  3. dashingscorpio profile image87
    dashingscorpioposted 11 months ago

    https://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/13427598_f260.jpg

    Increasing military spending can generate more jobs for companies that have government contracts to provide planes, ships, missile technology and so forth. Such spending helped Ronald Reagan turn the economy around.
    On the other hand spending to rebuild the nation's infrastructure, bridges, roads, highways, and airports would also generate a lot of jobs too.
    According some reports more than 63,000 bridges crossed 250 Million times a day need significant repairs.
    They are ticking time bombs!

    1. Ericdierker profile image58
      Ericdierkerposted 11 months agoin reply to this

      A pretty accurate view. I never got the straight scoop on POTUS negotiating with Boeing. But the indications are he has at least made progress with AF 1 and fighter jets. Perhaps an increase is not so needed. Efficiency is.

  4. bradmasterOCcal profile image32
    bradmasterOCcalposted 11 months ago

    https://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/12738688_f260.jpg

    Ironically, president Dwight D Eisenhower built the National Highway System as a military purpose to get troops and equipment across the country rapidly.
    Today, the irony is that we haven't even kept up with the maintenance of these roads, as the population has almost quadrupled since then and a corresponding increase in vehicles.

    The electric grid should also be called a military target to be protected, but it is dying on the line.

    We have been in one war or another since WWII. And the same politicians that argue against increasing the military budget are the ones that keep getting us into more wars. Wars by the way that they have lost, all of them.

    The military can win battles, but not wars. The reason is that the politicians seem to always grab defeat out of the jaws of military victories. Or like in Vietnam never get to military victories.

    Had the politicians won the Korean War, we would have Jungivitis today.

    The military budget has a limited increase in our economy. It goes to the GDP and it makes it look better than it is, but what about the private sector. Say bye bye to JC Penney while we launch another fighter plane, or sub, or ?

    1. Ericdierker profile image58
      Ericdierkerposted 11 months agoin reply to this

      Brad as long as you are the only one defining wins and losses, you are right on the wars -- a long view and you are very wrong. Did we stop the Domino effect in north and south Pacific? Is the Caliphate larger or smaller?

    2. bradmasterOCcal profile image32
      bradmasterOCcalposted 11 months agoin reply to this

      Eric
      How snarky of you. The first 2sentences is a cheap shot. I did a hub with all the details on why we even lost WWII. BTW your final 2 sentences are not descriptive of winning a battle much less a war.

    3. Ericdierker profile image58
      Ericdierkerposted 11 months agoin reply to this

      My pleasure to be snarky on this issue.

    4. bradmasterOCcal profile image32
      bradmasterOCcalposted 11 months agoin reply to this

      Eric
      Once again no real content in your comments. You continue to do personal attacks instead of contributing. If I were doing the same, I would say that you & Nancy Pelosi have a lot in common. I do prefer to discuss the info rather than the per

    5. Ericdierker profile image58
      Ericdierkerposted 11 months agoin reply to this

      Alright Brad. And you know that I read your hub on this as I commented there and disagreed. Where is there a personal attack? I attacked your definition of win is war. I still do.  I do not do personal attacks and you know it.

    6. bradmasterOCcal profile image32
      bradmasterOCcalposted 11 months agoin reply to this

      Eric
      "Brad as long as you are the only one defining wins and losses, you are right on the wars -- a long view and you are very wrong." how is this not personal. And you really didn't comment on the content of my comment.

    7. Ericdierker profile image58
      Ericdierkerposted 11 months agoin reply to this

      Brad that is totally a point on your contention not on you as a person.
      Looking hard for attacks maybe? Look elsewhere. Increasing military spending in the percentages suggested is not even matching inflation.

 
working