Yup, that's us..paradoxical. We ourselves struggle with that. We also struggle with actually trusting the politicians we elect. The really good people out there I feel stay out of politics. WHo wants to deal with it? Private sector pay is better anyway.happychem said:I've always found it interesting, if paradoxical, how strongly American people believe in the strength and equality of democracy but then want that democratically elected government to stay as far from their lives as possible.
The other way to look at this is who do you want in charge of your health...the usual government ineptitude and delays, or companies that are competing to provide the best value for the $.Who do you want in charge of your health? A government elected by you and ultimately answering to you, or a company whose sole goal is to make money off you?
My opinion...it's always better to stay ahead of the game. As to who wants to hurt us...believe me they are out there. 9-11 was a wake up call.You can create an endless cycle of arguments to say that we always need to keep developing more weapons, but that just means that those who allegedly want to hurt you, I'm guessing you mean China since it is the only country with the means to develop a comparable military, will also need to develop bigger and worse weapons to keep up.
I suppose my reply to this is in my opinion the best defense is a good offense..I know it's cliche..but I still believe it and I think a lot of US citizens do.While we're on the topic of "those who would hurt [you]", who are these mysterious people who would hurt you? .......... Of course, all of this only matters if you're arguing that these weapons are for "defense" and not for offense. If you simply believe in world domination then there's no need to rationalize a threat to yourself.
You will think I'm nuts...but read some Tom Clancey. It may not be the countries that he features in his various plots, but the scenarios are plausible.I am very interested (no seriously) in which country you believe poses a potential threat.
If the wolf was at your back door you would want the biggest shotgun you had loaded for bear to be sure you got that wolf.So far the logic for such devices have only saddened me: namely in that, as a scientist, I need to rigorously prove that what I claim is consistent with the data, but apparently to get billions of dollars in weapons dollars all I would need is to hint that there's the slightest possibility of a threat.
I think that is a big difference between our countries...the biggest threat you have is if someone nukes us and the radiation cloud drifts over. Or someone shoots something big at us and misses. We know they are aiming for us. I don't know if I can convey to you the gut viceral feeling I, and I'm sure a lot of other US citizens had as we sat there on that day and knew that our country was under attack here on our soil. Until the dust settled we didn't know that it was limited number of terrorists. You just sat there in absolute stunned disbelief wondering what would happen next...would there be bombs falling out of the sky next?
Hint of a threat that there is a slightest possibility of a threat? That's enough for me. Call it a collective national paranioa if you will.
I understand that you are a rational scientist, and you're a great guy, I'm not replying to cause trouble, but maybe help explain. I do find it refreshing to see and try to understand differing points of view, and it's interesting to see how we (the US) appear to outsiders.