[izacus]

Is that the old tired "if you won't help build tools to butcher people, evil chinese will?" argument?

This zero-sum, jingoisti, outlook on the world has caused most damaging and bloody wars in history. World policy is not a zero sum game and every human does not have to help kill other humans for the world to be at peace.

[xvector]

> "if you won't help build tools to butcher people, evil chinese will?"

It's not that they will. It's that they are.

When someone who most certainly does not have your best interests at heart is building technology capable of crippling or dominating you, what response do you suggest? Passivity?

The only recourse here is to either convince them to step down or to - at the very least - match them. Anything else puts you at a disadvantage and puts your citizens in danger.

[izacus]

> It's not that they will. It's that they are.

[Citation needed]

> When someone who most certainly does not have your best interests at heart is building technology capable of crippling or dominating you, what response do you suggest? Passivity? > The only recourse here is to either convince them to step down or to - at the very least - match them. Anything else puts you at a disadvantage and puts your citizens in danger.

You are presenting a false fallacy where the only two options are "do nothing" and "invest all possible resources available to the country into killing other people". A casual look at history book would quickly show you that escalating arms races are not beneficial in the long run - even to the country winning them, since they degenerate into building murder tools at the expense of their own citizens. Much like modern US, which is incapable of providing healthcare to their citizens.

That does not mean that no resources should be put into defense, but every civilian IS NOT morally obligated to help kill other people.

[chrisco255]

Do you really need a citation for what the Chinese government is up to with classified military technology? (As if the Chinese government willingly publishes this info)

I would argue that the very raw destructive power that military weaponry has, in particular with regards to nuclear capabilities, has actually reduced the odds of another world war.

[sdinsn]

> [Citation needed]

The Chinese government has imprisoned 1 million+ members of a ethnic minority. I'm sure you've heard of this, if not, you need to do some research...

> You are presenting a false fallacy where the only two options are "do nothing" and "invest all possible resources available to the country into killing other people".

No one is presenting that.

> A casual look at history book would quickly show you that escalating arms races are not beneficial in the long run

[Citation needed]

From my perspective, it sure did help, as nuclear weapons resulted in the inability for large countries to go to physical wars (for now, at least).

[ambicapter]

> World policy is not a zero sum game

The Pentagon does not deal in World Policy, it deals in martial policy. As General Mattis said, "If you don't fund the State Department fully, then I need to buy more ammunition ultimately".

[izacus]

And as we've seen, it'll eat all the money you can throw at it and even more, even if it means no healthcare, education or basic infrastructure in the country they're supposed to defend. Militarys appetite for money is limitless.

[ambicapter]

> and even more

I find it hard to believe the military spends more than Congress gives it. Military doesn't decide the budget either. Of course a lot of pork is reps spending money in their districts to "create jobs", even when the military doesn't want what they're making [0]. Clearly Pentagon isn't in charge of that spending, or they wouldn't be spending money on what they don't want.

[0] https://www.military.com/daily-news/2014/12/18/congress-agai...

[joshuamorton]

>Military doesn't decide the budget either.

This relies on the (wrong) assumption that military leadership doesn't hold sway in the government. Historically, when the pentagon asks for more funds, the USG provides.

[sdinsn]

No, there is a difference: if you aid the US or not, the US will butcher their enemies. Whether or not you aid the US, companies are helping China butcher their enemies... but who are China's enemies? The US is one of them.