time to save the American Government's finances.

[jonathankaplan]

I had intended to list the planks one by one, but first, it will make less sense, and seem less cohesively thought out, if I do it that way, so here are the main planks affecting Finance

Comments

[prock]

Replying to your fixes

[corwyn_ap]

" If we are interested in being able to act quickly and decisively against countries developing nuclear weapons, Afghanistan is a perfect place to be as it borders both Iran and Pakistan"

What do you view as being the action that needs to happen quickly and decisively against nuclear weapons?

I don't see massive troops entrenched on the ground hundreds of miles away as being much more useful than a carrier group, or bombers in hangars at home, for that matter. The nuclear threat is not one which responds well to long term troop deployments. And might exacerbate the problem rather than reduce it.

[prock]

"What do you view as being the action that needs to happen quickly and decisively against nuclear weapons?"

I'm not sure you're asking the right person. That's not my view. Speaking generally, the ability to strike quickly and with a varied set of options has a lot of value. Without a base in the region, we lose both speed and many tactical options.

I'm not thrilled with a lot of our overseas deployment ...

[freelikebeer]

but there is some merit to employing the strategic encirclement that is our occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. It deters the monkey-in-the-middle from doing anything drastic, quickly.

My seat of the pants guess is that we are ten years away from being able to deploy a robust, alternate strategy. We are working on it in drips and drabs, though.

Re: I'm not thrilled with a lot of our overseas deployment ...

[corwyn_ap]

Ok, assume one of the countries in that region passes a milestone in nuclear weapons (pick any milestone you wish), what would _you_ do with 100,000 troops on the ground 500 miles away?

Next, what is the effect on those countries vis a vis nuclear weapons given the presence of those occupying troops (i.e. are they more or less likely to work on passing that milestone)?

Why?

This is basically off-topic

[freelikebeer]

But say a milestone was reached, in that particular place. I would declare their leaders criminals. I would bomb the crap out of anything remotely weapons-like. I would pack the troops, then blitz and seize the capital. Then I would methodically move through the troops through the countryside to eliminate hillbilly rebels.

That should sound familiar, no?

Re: This is basically off-topic

[corwyn_ap]

So you would sympathize with other countries that did the same? In which case, I need to fortify my 'hillbilly rebel' bunker.

That is...

[freelikebeer]

essentially the rationale that we've used for *our* military operations for the last twenty or so years. Good bad or indifferent, it is the doctrinal response to growing threats. Sympathizing is a strong word, since it requires a great deal more thought than I've put into it.

[jonathankaplan]

1) I agree, but that is actually a huge increase in a known tax, and will be hard to move anywhere. But a combination of means testing, raising the FICA cap, and (somewhat) raising the SS age should work