# Massive military spending in the age of espionage
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/massive-military-spending-in-the-age-of-espionage/544366
**Category:** Great Debates
**Created:** [June 24, 2010, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/massive-military-spending-in-the-age-of-espionage/544366 "2010-06-24T15:37:16Z")
**Posts on this page:** 16
**Page:** 2
### Author:  [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stranger_On_A_Train)
#### Post date: [June 25, 2010, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/massive-military-spending-in-the-age-of-espionage/544366/21 "2010-06-25T15:28:59Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#):
>
> Not really true; you just need to be strong enough that it wouldn’t be worth it to conquer you. And more importantly, if you have nukes then for defensive purposes the strength of the rest of your military matters little.
The practical deterrent capability of nuclear weapons, especially in the context of two opposing parties with relative parity in their nuclear arsenals, is vastly overstated as the credibility of the deterrent is based on the willingness to engage in a nuclear response to a conventional attack. The use of nuclear weapons by one side almost automatically demands reprisals by the other, irrespective of whether the use was ‘tactical’ or ‘strategic’, and game theory analysis of a nuclear exchange tends to result in a full scale exchange (“Use it or lose it,” or the Diner’s Dilemma). Contests between three or more vying, nuclear-armed parties that devolved into a nuclear exchange will almost result in a full up exchange. Even with one nuclear-armed party against another party not so capable, the political backlash by the rest of the world would be enormously detrimental.
Stranger
---
### Author:  [@Sailboat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sailboat)
#### Post date: [June 25, 2010, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/massive-military-spending-in-the-age-of-espionage/544366/22 "2010-06-25T15:34:19Z")
> [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](#):
>
> Developing “Abrams-like tanks” isn’t just dependent on having the design details, but also the technology, engineering skills, and manufacturing base to produce and support such weapons.
Also infrastructure capable of supporting heavy tanks. In some countries, you’d have to build bridges and railroads before you could even use such vehicles.
---
### Author:  [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)
#### Post date: [June 25, 2010, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/massive-military-spending-in-the-age-of-espionage/544366/23 "2010-06-25T16:10:17Z")
> [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](#):
>
> The practical deterrent capability of nuclear weapons, especially in the context of two opposing parties with relative parity in their nuclear arsenals, is vastly overstated as the credibility of the deterrent is based on the willingness to engage in a nuclear response to a conventional attack.
A willingness that is a near certainty faced with the threat of conquest. More importantly, we see the same pattern all over; nations don’t try to invade other nations with nukes; usually they are quite cautious in general towards such nations.
> [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](#):
>
> Even with one nuclear-armed party against another party not so capable, the political backlash by the rest of the world would be enormously detrimental.
That doesn’t matter in the case of defending against an invasion; the effects of any political backlash from the rest of the world would be trivial compared to the effects of not using nukes to stop the invaders.
---
### Author:  [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)
#### Post date: [June 25, 2010, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/massive-military-spending-in-the-age-of-espionage/544366/24 "2010-06-25T16:32:02Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#):
>
> A hundred million people is most certainly not “nothing”.
With respect to India and China, I disagree. There’s a story that in the 1960s, one of the American Presidents threatened China with a nuke over something and Mao’s response was, “A million less mouths to feed.”
---
### Author:  [@MOIDALIZE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MOIDALIZE)
#### Post date: [June 25, 2010, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/massive-military-spending-in-the-age-of-espionage/544366/25 "2010-06-25T16:58:21Z")
> [@Quartz](#):
>
> With respect to India and China, I disagree. There’s a story that in the 1960s, one of the American Presidents threatened China with a nuke over something and Mao’s response was, “A million less mouths to feed.”
Sounds delightfully apocryphal.
---
### Author:  [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)
#### Post date: [June 25, 2010, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/massive-military-spending-in-the-age-of-espionage/544366/26 "2010-06-25T17:04:23Z")
> [@Quartz](#):
>
> With respect to India and China, I disagree. There’s a story that in the 1960s, one of the American Presidents threatened China with a nuke over something and Mao’s response was, “A million less mouths to feed.”
Sounds like standard demonization of foreigners to me; the old “they don’t have feelings like us real people do” routine. And Mao’s dead, anyway.
---
### Author:  [@Camus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Camus)
#### Post date: [June 25, 2010, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/massive-military-spending-in-the-age-of-espionage/544366/27 "2010-06-25T17:45:12Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#):
>
> Sounds like standard demonization of foreigners to me; the old “they don’t have feelings like us real people do” routine. And Mao’s dead, anyway.
It appears to be a fictionalized derivation of the original quote according to [Wikiquote](http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Mao_Zedong) and _Mao’s Last Revolution_, “People who try to commit suicide — don’t attempt to save them! . . . China is such a populous nation, it is not as if we cannot do without a few people.”
---
### Author:  [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)
#### Post date: [June 25, 2010, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/massive-military-spending-in-the-age-of-espionage/544366/28 "2010-06-25T17:50:26Z")
To paraphrase the great military philosopher, GI Joe, “knowing is only half the battle.”
John Keegan illustrated this point with the example of the German invasion of Crete in 1941. British intelligence had pretty much figured out when, where, and how the Germans were going to invade. And the outcome was that the Germans captured Crete.
Why? Because, even though the British knew what the Germans were going to do, they didn’t have enough forces available to stop them from doing it.
Great intelligence alone cannot defend a country.
---
### Author:  [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)
#### Post date: [June 25, 2010, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/massive-military-spending-in-the-age-of-espionage/544366/29 "2010-06-25T17:56:50Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#):
>
> Sounds like standard demonization of foreigners to me; the old “they don’t have feelings like us real people do” routine. And Mao’s dead, anyway.
While I have little doubt that story is not accurate, biographers of Mao have reported a serious lack of… empathy for the deaths caused by the Great Leap Forward. It’s a matter of some debate, but the debate is clearly more substantive than “them weirdos who don’t speak American don’t much like their children like we do.”
[See second quote.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao_Zedong#Great_Leap_Forward)
---
### Author:  [@MOIDALIZE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MOIDALIZE)
#### Post date: [June 25, 2010, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/massive-military-spending-in-the-age-of-espionage/544366/30 "2010-06-25T18:07:49Z")
> [@Ravenman](#):
>
> While I have little doubt that story is not accurate, biographers of Mao have reported a serious lack of… empathy for the deaths caused by the Great Leap Forward. It’s a matter of some debate, but the debate is clearly more substantive than “them weirdos who don’t speak American don’t much like their children like we do.”
>
> [See second quote.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao_Zedong#Great_Leap_Forward)
Sure, but the contrast is that was within the context of one of those lovely Soviet-style industrialization/collectivization efforts, meant to drag the nation out of a backwards, agricultural mindset and ensure its ability to defend itself from future aggression. He was ready to break quite a few eggs to build a powerful Chinese omelet, and he recognized that there would be quite a bit of resistance for numerous reasons.
That’s different than viewing the population as a resource, just like any other, that can be expended (even though that’s true to some extent).
---
### Author:  [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)
#### Post date: [June 25, 2010, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/massive-military-spending-in-the-age-of-espionage/544366/31 "2010-06-25T20:32:05Z")
> [@MOIDALIZE](#):
>
> Sounds delightfully apocryphal.
That it does. You’d think JFK or Johnson threatening to nuke China would have made the news somewhere.
The idea that 100,000,000 deaths from nuclear attacks would be viewed as nothing - **or even a benefit** (wtf?) - by China or India is palpably absurd. 100,000,000 is larger by far than the total deaths for every nation on the planet during the entirety of WW2. If one insists that this loss would mean nothing to those in power in New Delhi or Beijing, having New Delhi or Beijing and a number of other cities turned into radioactive cinders and the subsequent fallout would tend to get their attention.
---
### Author:  [@Mr\_Smashy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr_Smashy)
#### Post date: [June 25, 2010, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/massive-military-spending-in-the-age-of-espionage/544366/32 "2010-06-25T22:04:41Z")
Seems to me that the OP is comparing apples to oranges. If they are spending 2/3 of their GDP vs us, then that seems to be the more apt comparison. Further, MILPERS is a big piece of our DOD budget; what do they pay for conscripts?
---
### Author:  [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)
#### Post date: [June 25, 2010, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/massive-military-spending-in-the-age-of-espionage/544366/33 "2010-06-25T22:24:51Z")
> [@xtisme](#):
>
> If we NEED a globally capable military then it’s going to cost money.
Why do we need that?
---
### Author:  [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)
#### Post date: [June 27, 2010, 8:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/massive-military-spending-in-the-age-of-espionage/544366/34 "2010-06-27T08:16:46Z")
[QUOTE=spark240]
Why do we need that?
[/QUOTE]
Why do we need anything? Because the tax payers THINK we do. As for the military, if we don’t protect our external interests, who is going to do it for us? What it boils down to is this: does the American tax payer THINK we need a military capable of protecting our interests abroad, the ability to project power on a global scale (and, perhaps, deter other countries from either aggression or from feeling they can attack our interests), etc etc. The answer still seems to be ‘yes’, so that’s really the only one that counts. When the American tax payer (as a whole) no longer wants to foot the bill for those kinds of capabilities, or no longer feels that the US should be involved externally (i.e. if we turn back to isolationism) then we won’t have it any more. Hopefully it won’t happen any time soon, or someone else will step up and decide to protect our interests for us.
-XT
---
### Author:  [@erez](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erez)
#### Post date: [June 27, 2010, 10:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/massive-military-spending-in-the-age-of-espionage/544366/35 "2010-06-27T10:42:11Z")
> [@NurseCarmen](#):
>
> A [60 Minutes](http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6252949n&tag=contentMain;contentBody) piece from earlier in the year talked about just how much of our military technology the Chinese have. The short answer? Most of it. Yet they spend [1/10th](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures) on defense that we do.
For that comparison to be meaningful, the U.S. would need to spend most of its defense budget on R&D. The [data](http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2011/assets/hist03z2.xls), however, shows that R&D spending was only at around 12% of the total defense spending in 2009.
---
### Author:  [@Superhal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superhal)
#### Post date: [June 27, 2010, 11:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/massive-military-spending-in-the-age-of-espionage/544366/36 "2010-06-27T11:28:30Z")
Couple points:
1. Yeah, I’m sure China told Western reporters the whole truth. They never, ever EVER lie.
2. Sure, it’s cheaper for them. All electronics are made in China, they get the home team discount.
3. Last I head, the cost of living in China was 1/4th the US. So, adjusted for cost differences, maybe they are spending the same amount.
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/massive-military-spending-in-the-age-of-espionage/544366.md?page=1)