The current proposals for modest defense cuts have caused controversy. Hawks never want to cut anything fron defense. Hawks want a defense budget capaple of operating 4 wars at a time, plus the ability to destroy the planet 2000 times over, because 1000 times over is not enough.
I've had it with the hawks who immediately smear anyone who believes we should cut out all unnecessary defense spending. I can only speak for myself, but I want a strong, capable and superior national defense, but "defense" is the operative word. The current justification for more defense spending and no cuts is that Iran is threatening us, and Iran might get a nuclear weapon in the near future. Those who claim that Iran presents the greatest threat to our national security, have a lot of 'splaining to do. If we are to believe that a nuclear Iran could arm terrorists with nuclear weapons, then we also have to be as concerned with that posssibility regarding North Korea, Pakistan, China and Russia. I'm not comparing all these countries, but a scenario can be built for each which has them arming terrorists in a struggle to destroy America or gain control of America. Whether it's a fanatical religious motivation, a political motivation or an economic motivation, how are we to feel secure, going along with the hawks' logic, if these countries possess nuclear weapons?
Even if we believe that Russia and China have more rational leaders in control, Pakistan and N. Korea both are unstable countries with unstable, unpredictable and unscrupulous leaders. Are we going to destroy the nuclear capacity of Pakistan and N. Korea, and, if not, then why Iran? And if Russian and Chinese leaders are more rational, this doesn't mean that their rationality won't guide them to use subterfuge, arm terrorists to attack us, and break us financially. Either country could look at our financial condition and calculate that another expensive, extended response to terrorism will bring us closer to financial collapse. If either country was disposed to do so, they could put in motion a plan based on a nuclear attack which would break us and shift global power to either country. These are all good scenarios for military strategists and novelists and movie producers to consider, but they aren't realistic, because none of the countries mentioned above would risk mutual annihilation, and, besides, each of these countries are dependent on other countries economically, and such a disruption in the global market, if it didn't end in annihilation, would result in financial disaster for everyone involved, thus, risking revolt from a suffering, angry population.
But even if the hawks say, yes, all these scenarios can happen, then we're left with the conclusion that America must eliminate nuclear weapons in all countries which can possibly do us harm. It seems arbitrary to pick Iran out of all the possibilities. I'm sure a smart hawk can develope many special justifications for why Iran is a special case, with the possibility of an attack on Israel being one, but Israel has greater nuclear capacity and expertise than Iran, so I don't buy this justification. No special case can be made for Iran.
Iran obviously wants to gain more prominence and influence in the mideast, and they might even want to create a regional alliance to become a major world power. Iran certainly won't be the first in the mideast to attempt such an alliance, but as the always shaky Ottoman Empire revealed, such alliances in the mideast aren't very likely. Europe's alliance is even shaky. Solidarity has taken a back seat to plurality all around the world. America's united states are at risk of losing unity. Centralized power is failing everywhere, and economic concerns are growing more urgent.
Too much is at stake to make World War and schemes of Wold Domination viable in the 21st century -- the destruction would be too devastating to make the enterpises worthwhile. No one can win. So, why are we rattling sabers over a blustering, weak and shaky Iran? Why do we have military bases in Europe and Asia? Why are we in Afghanistan, for Heaven's sake, going on decade?
There's a huge amount of American wealth which can stay in the private sector and go toward productive use leading to good jobs, if only we can lose our 20th century, fearful, hawkish mindset and join the 21st century global market. Yes, there are dangers in the world and always will be, but, with our technological and communications superiority regarding national defense, we can deal with these dangers in more creative and less deadly and wasteful ways going forward -- we need not be afraid to cut defense spending which is no longer necessary.