"Peace through strength"..

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I prefer strength through peace.

This is true.

The best example of this ironically comes from playing the game Victoria. You build expensive ships and save up money in peace time, but in war you often go into debt and the ships get sunk. You don't get that money back. Its gone.

So in terms of relative strength, being at peace solidifies your position and allows you to build up resources. Part of the reason why the US was so effective in both WW1 and WW2 was because we had so much in the way of unspent resources they we could just unload on Japan and Germany all at once.

[Beet]

^ ^ ^

Both peace through strength and strength through peace are valid concepts. Hence why I support the US-led international order. However, we must do a better job at demonstrating attractive values at home. In many ways the 1980s were a dividend for the 1960s.

[i4indyguy]

I am generally agreeable to the 'Peace through Strength' notion, but with our current military expenditures, we could get, on average, better returns by moving 100B from bombs to 'softer' avenues like strategic industrial policy or diplomacy.

If we could spend 100B to stop the exporting of Wahhabi extremism from Saudi arabia, we might be able to save a trillion in military costs over a decade, for instance.

Still, B-2 bombers are worth it because they are sexy. AND mean.

[OSR stands with Israel]

^ ^ ^

Both peace through strength and strength through peace are valid concepts. Hence why I support the US-led international order. However, we must do a better job at demonstrating attractive values at home. In many ways the 1980s were a dividend for the 1960s.

We used our military strength less in the 1980s than in the 1960s though

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

“What is Truth?”

[HillGoose]

peace through strength protects us from evil.

Do you really think if we lowered our military spending the Irans and Russias of the world would be like "dur hur, we better lower ours too!"

[HillGoose]

I prefer strength through peace.

This is true.

The best example of this ironically comes from playing the game Victoria. You build expensive ships and save up money in peace time, but in war you often go into debt and the ships get sunk. You don't get that money back. Its gone.

So in terms of relative strength, being at peace solidifies your position and allows you to build up resources. Part of the reason why the US was so effective in both WW1 and WW2 was because we had so much in the way of unspent resources they we could just unload on Japan and Germany all at once.

When I play Victoria, I just go full blown neocon "form an empire of liberty with borders like the nation Oceania from Nineteen Eighty-Four" to make sure no one challenges American supremacy.

Back in 2013, I once managed to conquer the entirety of the Americas and parts of Australia, but that's as close as I've gotten to actually being Oceania in that game.

Also that game proves my economic ideals. Lower the taxes on the wealthy, they'll build a ton of factories and everyone gets their needs.

You can spend as much as you want on the military if you tax the hell out of the poor, while keeping taxes low on the upper class. You'll get the money back.