Republicans Don’t Want to Know Costs of U.S. Nuclear Arsenal

Anyone who thinks republicans are fiscal conservatives has their head in the sand. They are refusing to estimate the costs of their foreign interventions and military expenditures.



https://theintercept.com/2016/05/02/republicans-dont-want-to-know-costs-of-u-s-nuclear-arsenal/

jvquarterback wrote:
Anyone who thinks republicans are fiscal conservatives has their head in the sand. They are refusing to estimate the costs of their foreign interventions and military expenditures.



https://theintercept.com/2016/05/02/republicans-dont-want-to-know-costs-of-u-s-nuclear-arsenal/

When I considered getting a master's degree in international relations along with my JD, I was interested in studying the costs of isolationism (WWI and WWII) versus the costs of interventionism (all the conflicts since). Apparently, the university I applied to was not interested in that as a research topic. I was just curious what the outcome would be.

Cougarfan87 wrote:

Anyone who thinks republicans are fiscal conservatives has their head in the sand. They are refusing to estimate the costs of their foreign interventions and military expenditures.



https://theintercept.com/2016/05/02/republicans-dont-want-to-know-costs-of-u-s-nuclear-arsenal/

When I considered getting a master's degree in international relations along with my JD, I was interested in studying the costs of isolationism (WWI and WWII) versus the costs of interventionism (all the conflicts since). Apparently, the university I applied to was not interested in that as a research topic. I was just curious what the outcome would be.

I think that would be an incredibly fascinating topic to study.

WWI and WWII are examples of interventionism. I suppose you could argue WWII wasn't but even if we agreed it was, the only necessary cost of "isolationism" was that of developing nuclear weapons for a deterrent.



Which brings us back to the point that all of the Republican congressman in the armed services committee voted against coming up with an estimate of the costs of those nuclear weapons.

jvquarterback wrote:
WWI and WWII are examples of interventionism. I suppose you could argue WWII wasn't but even if we agreed it was, the only necessary cost of "isolationism" was that of developing nuclear weapons for a deterrent.



Which brings us back to the point that all of the Republican congressman in the armed services committee voted against coming up with an estimate of the costs of those nuclear weapons.

I consider WWI and WWII the costs of isolationism because they came about, in large part, because he US refused to get involved in the regional conflict until it boiled over. It would be interesting to analyze costs in terms of lives and treasure, compared to all the entanglements since, and throw in what nuclear power costs and saves...if I were studying the topic as I had proposed to do about 12 years ago. There are real costs that are not being counted. I became interested in the topic after reviewing public opinion polls from the 1940s...against war, even after Pearl Harbor...and after speaking with a WWII vet who said what they learned from WWII was that you better have a very good reason for going to war.

In what possible way anyone would consider WWI a "consequence" of isolation? There was absolutely no US interest in the war. It would be like saying the US should have intervened in the Napoleonic wars in Europe. The costs came as a result of intervention proposed by Woodrow Wilson, not of isolation. The whole world would be a better (and much wealthier) place today if the US hadn't intervened in WWI.

Not sure I agree with the last sentence, but I like much of the rest. WWI would have dragged on for possibly years longer without US intervention. Europe is America's largest trading partner (or was at the time). The sooner that war ended the sooner America could get back to the business of America which is business.

Reading the article, it sounds like Republicans and Democrats alike have a pretty good idea how much it will cost (over $1 trillion). As I see it, the fight isn't over finding out how much it will cost, the fight is about paying the CBO to put an official stamp on the estimates so that Democrats have something to use to beat up Republicans for the November elections.



Maybe I'm misreading something?

jvquarterback wrote:
In what possible way anyone would consider WWI a "consequence" of isolation? There was absolutely no US interest in the war. It would be like saying the US should have intervened in the Napoleonic wars in Europe. The costs came as a result of intervention proposed by Woodrow Wilson, not of isolation. The whole world would be a better (and much wealthier) place today if the US hadn't intervened in WWI.

In the sense that the U.S. ignored it from 1914 to 1917, got involved, and the war was over in one year. Now, had they got involved immediately after the assassination of the Archduke of Ferdinand, perhaps it doesn't spiral into a World War at all. That is the real question, isn't it? To what extent does intervening in small skirmishes avoid a much broader war? Isn't that the basis of the U.S. constantly being engaged around the globe? And what is the cost of constant intervention versus waiting until things boil over and require a world war? How does the advent of the nuclear age change that analysis? Even though doing nothing required much more U.S. involvement in WWI and WWII then if those issues were nipped in the bud, maybe doing nothing now would not get that out of control due to the advent of nuclear weapons...or maybe it would lead to nuclear world war. At any rate, I thought these were interesting research questions. I guess I was trying to say that the analysis concerning the necessity of our constant global involvement and its costs has either not been done, or not well publicized, and it may actually cost more than just sitting back and waiting until you have to do something. Or maybe allowing things to fester and then getting involved costs even more.

So you're agreeing that the US had no more (probably less) at stake in WWI than in the Napoleonic wars in Europe, but you're still trying to lay the cost of the unnecessary intervention at the feet of non-interventionists. I don't think I've heard anything more backwards in a long time. No wonder no one wanted to touch your proposed research topic.

jvquarterback wrote:
So you're agreeing that the US had no more (probably less) at stake in WWI than in the Napoleonic wars in Europe, but you're still trying to lay the cost of the unnecessary intervention at the feet of non-interventionists. I don't think I've heard anything more backwards in a long time. No wonder no one wanted to touch your proposed research topic.

If one analyzed the cost of non-intervention in terms of what is spent on doing nothing, the cost would always be zero. But, that isn't the true cost of non-interventionism because you don't get to sit it out forever. Sooner or later, World Wars find their way to you, and then you have to do something. Just ask anyone during the Civil War who wanted to sit it out. When the bullets start flying past you, you have to pick a side. The true cost of non-interventionism is what later has to happen because no one intervened earlier. For example, the true cost of not changing your oil on your car isn't zero. It is the cost of having to replace your engine much sooner than you would have, minus the cost of what the maintenance would have cost.



The U.S. had no real need to be involved in WWI unless, and until, it really started impacting the U.S., such as when Germany was trying to encourage Mexico to start a war with the U.S. So, from 1914-1917, until the sinking of the Lusitania (where the U.S. pretty much dared the Austria-Hungarians to sink it) and Germany trying to prompt Mexico to enter the war against the U.S., the U.S. was content to sit it out. When they finally felt they had to intercede, what was the cost of delaying action until that point? How much would it have cost to nip it in the bud immediately after the Archduke of Ferdinand was assassinated and not let the regional skirmish grow into a World War? Same thing with WWII. Though the U.S. was dragged into WWII, although very hesitantly even after Pearl Harbor (because people realized the horror of war and wanted nothing to do with it), at some point the U.S. was going to have to get involved to restore world order. Luckily, they did get involved before Britain fell, or it may have been too difficult to fight off the Nazis on our own. What was the cost of the delay, minus the cost of what it would have been to put Hitler in his place early on and end the issues?



Instead of throwing darts at the topic, you should maybe try and understand it a little better.

So on the spectrum, the US could get involved in a foreign war immediately, late, or not at all. Too soon and the war might end sooner, saving more overall lives, property, and economy, but more US lives would be lost. Too late and the war might include the US against our will, at which point our allies would have already been defeated, leading to a greater loss of US life and liberty. Interesting questions, but it's probably too difficult to study hypothetical alternate-realities.

Mars wrote:
So on the spectrum, the US could get involved in a foreign war immediately, late, or not at all. Too soon and the war might end sooner, saving more overall lives, property, and economy, but more US lives would be lost. Too late and the war might include the US against our will, at which point our allies would have already been defeated, leading to a greater loss of US life and liberty. Interesting questions, but it's probably too difficult to study hypothetical alternate-realities.

Yes, it would be very difficult to analyze with any degree of certainty. Take US lives lost for example...



Scenario 1: More US lives are lost from being in the war immediately because we got in early and therefore had the longest period of time in the war, unless we ended it more quickly in which case fewer lives are lost.



Scenario 2: More US lives are lost from joining late giving the enemy time to ramp up war machine, fewer allies, more ground area to have to reclaim/take. Unless the enemy is significantly weakened due to ongoing shortages and strain on people/economy from extended period at war.



Scenario 3: More US lives are lost when victorious enemy turns their sights to invading mainland US after defeating all opposition abroad. Men, women, and children are now lost. Unless fewer lives are lost because the enemy loses their war without US intervention or decides not to pursue further expansion/disruption.

Come on, guys. If it was that difficult to objectively analyze, do you think jvqb would be so quick to jump to absolutes on the matter?

I see you've fallen for the yellow journalism and revisionist lies. The US had no business in WWI (neither did Britain BTW but whatever). And if the US hadn't overthrown the Hawaiian government for the special interests of the day (sound familiar?) and gotten mired in the Philippines (also part of an interventionist strategy on behalf of special interests) or embargoed Japan (again to protect special interests) there would have been no reason for war in the 1940s.



You see my reference to the Napoleonic wars is that involvement in that war (in what we call the war of 1812) is far better justified (and in your terms framed as the cost of nonintervention). Though even that war was mostly unnecessary and fought on behalf of the ship owners who were having their British employees pressed into service and blockaded from trading with continental Europe. One might even argue that the reason the US entered wars with Britain (in 1812) and Germany (1917) for the same reason Japan went to war with the US (1941) - because of embargoes.



On a side note it's kind of nuts then, that people don't see why Iraq and Iran, embargoed by the US, might want to go to war with the US government.

snoscythe wrote:
Come on, guys. If it was that difficult to objectively analyze, do you think jvqb would be so quick to jump to absolutes on the matter?

:lol: :lol: :lol:

jvquarterback wrote:
I see you've fallen for the yellow journalism and revisionist lies. The US had no business in WWI (neither did Britain BTW but whatever). And if the US hadn't overthrown the Hawaiian government for the special interests of the day (sound familiar?) and gotten mired in the Philippines (also part of an interventionist strategy on behalf of special interests) or embargoed Japan (again to protect special interests) there would have been no reason for war in the 1940s.



You see my reference to the Napoleonic wars is that involvement in that war (in what we call the war of 1812) is far better justified (and in your terms framed as the cost of nonintervention). Though even that war was mostly unnecessary and fought on behalf of the ship owners who were having their British employees pressed into service and blockaded from trading with continental Europe. One might even argue that the reason the US entered wars with Britain (in 1812) and Germany (1917) for the same reason Japan went to war with the US (1941) - because of embargoes.



On a side note it's kind of nuts then, that people don't see why Iraq and Iran, embargoed by the US, might want to go to war with the US government.

I'm pretty sure it was the importers/exporters and the merchants who were against the war, not in favor of it. And there were lots of US citizens the British were capturing because the king didn't really recognize US sovereignty yet.

Interestingly, Woodrow Wilson was strongly against USA joining WWI.

Mars wrote:
Interestingly, Woodrow Wilson was strongly against USA joining WWI.

But he was strongly FOR segregating the Armed Forces.

SpiffCoug wrote:

Interestingly, Woodrow Wilson was strongly against USA joining WWI.

But he was strongly FOR segregating the Armed Forces.

He was for a war to end all wars, to be followed up by a peace to end all peace. And he got it (the second part)