You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
I am not saying there aren’t hard choices to make and savings to be had. But even at that level, as a proportion of total defense spending, it’s a pretty good deal
"as a proportion of total defense spending" — this is the real rub here. What proportion for ~$700B would you consider too much? Doesn't nearly anything look like a "good deal" compared to such incomprehensible excess?
$700b not sustainable and % is a ruse. When you can't buy the other things you know you need - like ISR, space boosters, etc then even 6-7%/year a lot. $50 billion/year a lot no matter how you slice it.
No one is denying that. We are all on the same side here folks. I'm all for the most effective deterrent we can afford. But I think we, as a community, have a hard time valuing what that deterrent is worth. I don't have a good answer myself, but it's worth a lot imho.
Right, but 30% of that would still be "a lot" by any measure. We need better ways to think about these kinds of costs (not just nukes). What opportunities do we lose when we overspend? What else could we be spending that on that would also be worth "a lot"?
(I harp on this because I find the "nukes are actually cheap" line to be so misleading. They're not cheap. Maybe they're worth the cost, maybe it's a necessary cost. But let's not pretend it's cheap. We pay, and have paid, a dear cost for them.)
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
