| | I disagree with all except the 3rd point:
“The government holds to sole right to development and ownership of military-grade weapons”
The government will rarely be as efficient or creative as private parties when it comes to developing and creating military arms. If anything, the government should stick to programs like DARPA and let Lockheed Martin and Boeing do what they’re the best at. At best the government should stick to nuclear related material.
“The government will not engage in the trade of military-grade weapons to any foreign entity, be it foe or ally”
That’s what I like to call “shooting yourself in the foot”. To maintain the best military in the world means turning over a lot of systems that still work well in favor of better ones. For instance we just retired the F-14, a damn good aircraft. What do you want to do...scrap all those planes? Why shouldn’t we sell our surplus and allow Northrop Grumman to sell new planes to our allies who are likely to HELP us in our next war.
“Foreign military bases and other installments are only to be maintained for the purpose of ensuring the defeat of a recent enemy in war, until such a time as the enemy is on neutral terms with the nation and is no longer a threat.”
That makes as much sense as saying we only need a minimum military until we actually fight a war. This isn’t the early 20th century anymore, you fight a war with what you have, not what you can build up to because by then the war might be over and you’ll be sitting on your ass with a big ass shiner over your eye. Furthermore you can’t predict the future, if you would have told me on Sept. 10th that we would shortly be fighting in Afghanistan of all places, I would have laughed in your face. But we were able to engage there quickly because we had based in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Diego Garcia.
|
|