Unz评论•另类媒体选择$
美国主流媒体大都排除了有趣,重要和有争议的观点
 博客浏览汤姆·恩格哈特(Tom Engelhardt)档案
迈克尔·克莱(Michael Klare):《超战》的来临
通过电子邮件将此页面发送给其他人

 记住我的信息



=>

书签 全部切换总目录添加到图书馆从图书馆中删除 • B
显示评论下一个新评论下一个新回复了解更多
回复同意/不同意/等等 更多... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
同意不同意谢谢LOL轮唱
这些按钮可将您的公开协议,异议,感谢,LOL或巨魔与所选注释一起注册。 仅对最近使用“记住我的信息”复选框保存姓名和电子邮件的频繁评论者可用,并且在任何八个小时的时间内也只能使用三次。
忽略评论者 关注评论者
搜寻文字 区分大小写  确切的词  包括评论
列表 书签

Imagine, for a moment, a country that no longer rebuilds or reinforces its sagging infrastructure but just can’t stop pouring money into its military. Oh wait, you don’t have to imagine that at all! You just have to look at the United States. This fall, for instance, the president who swore he was going to give us an infrastructure plan that would blow our minds discovered that, after a tax cut for billionaires, a ballooning 国债, and a staggering \716 亿美元 Pentagon budget, there were few dollars left over for much of anything else. In October, Donald Trump began talking about cutting agency spending by 5% across the board and about a possible \$700 billion limit on the 2020 Pentagon budget. As December began, he became even more emphatic on that point, tweeting that he should talk to the Chinese and Russian presidents about halting an arms race and so cut down on military spending that was… well, not to put too fine a point on it, “疯了!=

Hmm… and just how long did that sentiment survive? Well, that was Monday, December 4th. On Tuesday, the newly nominated head of U.S. Central Command, Lieutenant General Kenneth McKenzie, appeared before the Senate Armed Services Committee and 坚持 that any future Pentagon budget below \$733 billion would “increase risk and that risk would be manifested across the force.” That very day, Secretary of Defense James Mattis and the chairmen of the House and Senate Armed Services committees, Congressman Mac Thornberry (R-TX) and Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) trooped to the White House for a lunch meeting. The next thing anyone knew, the 2020 Pentagon budget was to be a modest \750 亿美元. “The President fully supports the National Defense Strategy and continuing to rebuild the military,” an administration official told CNN. “With the help of Sen. Inhofe and Chairman Thornberry, President Trump agreed to \$750 billion topline.”

Well, honestly, what can you expect of a Pentagon incapable of 审核自身? How could it possibly solve a total stumper of a division and subtraction problem like: What’s 5% less than its 2019 budget? (And here’s a little footnote to that change in numbers: Senator Inhofe walked out of that lunch and within the week had 购买 “tens of thousands of dollars of stock in one of the nation’s top defense contractors.” 雷神公司, to be exact. When that buy made news, he blamed it all on his “financial adviser,” claimed to know nothing about it, and cancelled the order.)

立即订购

And then, of course, there’s always the purely secondary question: What is the U.S. military — its budget already bigger than of that those of god-knowshow-many-other countries combined — going to spend 所有的钱 on? Fortunately, TomDispatch 定期 Michael Klare has a thought on the subject. He suggests that, in the years to come, increasing billions of those dollars are going to be invested in creating a future battlespace in which “intelligent” machines fight our wars and, in the end, the only role left for humans may be the dying. In other words, we’re heading for a militarized, remarkably automated, artificially intelligent hell on Earth. What about an \$850 billion budget, just to ensure that we’re the first ones there?

(从重新发布 TomDispatch 经作者或代表的许可)
 
• 类别: 对外政策 •标签: 美国军事, 唐纳德·特朗普 
隐藏6条评论发表评论
忽略评论者...跟随Endorsed Only
修剪评论?
    []
  1. anonymous[340]• 免责声明 说:

    Wait! Is there hope for Mr. Engelhardt in his battle with TDS?

    Now I really want to know what Mr. Engelhardt thought of the Trump/Putin summit in Helsinki, and the President’s awkward retraction at that creepy presser attended by Bolton, et al. Remenber? The one where the lights literally went out?

    • 回复: @anonymous
    , @anonymous
  2. anonymous[340]• 免责声明 说:
    @anonymous

    On the other hand, and once again: why does Mr. Engelhardt enjoy the privilege of having these introductions published separately from the article of the, as he vainly reminds us, “TomDispatch regular”?

    Mr. Klare’s article is here separately, where it can receive comments; so we’ll have commenters literally talking past each other, diminishing one of the best aspects of TUR.

    假设(非常)假设TomDispatch或其父公司The Nation想要放大Linh Dinh或CJ Hopkins等人撰写的TUR文章,很难想象Unz先生要求的,很少得到的,如此烦人的小肥皂盒。

  3. JLK 说:

    When you’re a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

  4. MarkU 说:

    Current developments alone are making nuclear war increasingly likely, the introduction of automated warning and response systems will make it practically a certainty.

    The major nuclear powers are holding the (nuclear) gun to each others heads, just how insane does anyone have to be to make the other side more paranoid?

  5. Anonymous [AKA "o4554747"] 说:

    I’m sure Tom would not know what to do with an original thought. Until he faces the complex problem, suffer to those who fll for his piggy back reactions.

  6. anonymous[340]• 免责声明 说:
    @anonymous

    The just announced troop withdrawal from Syria could be just another lie.

    But in the meantime, whether and how it’s addressed by Mr. Engelhardt will be a good screen for his TDS.

    等待…..

当前评论者
说:

发表评论-对超过两周的文章发表评论,将在质量和语气上进行更严格的判断


 记得 我的信息为什么?
 电子邮件回复我的评论
$
提交的评论已被许可给 Unz评论 并可以由后者自行决定在其他地方重新发布
在翻译模式下禁用评论
通过RSS订阅此评论主题 通过RSS订阅所有Tom Engelhardt评论
Personal 古典文学
二十一世纪美国八项杰出的(愚蠢的)成就
安全国的保密狂热将如何创造您
单一超级大国时代的妄想思维