I supported all but 12 of the 44 positions.....6 of the questioned were in "Defense."
I have a libertarian streak, I guess, but it ends at defense. Generally, I'm in favor of kicking the crap out enemies and asking about it later. I'm in favor of being in position to kick the crap out of any potential antagonist long before hostilities begin. Deterrence saves lives.
I supported all but 12 of the 44 positions.....6 of the questioned were in "Defense." I have a libertarian streak, I guess, but it ends at defense. Generally, I'm in favor of kicking the crap out enemies and asking about it later. I'm in favor of being in position to kick the crap out of any potential antagonist long before hostilities begin. Deterrence saves lives.Simply possessing Nuclear Weapons buys a whole lot of Deterrence.
Assume the following:
- A large Federal Nuclear Weapon arsenal.
- A Federal Navy patrolling the North Atlantic and the North Pacific.
- 50 State Militias constantly honing their skills against eachother... sorta like the Texas-Oklahoma football rivalry, except with Tanks (laser-tag only, please, no live ammo).
- NO Foreign Aid, to ANYONE.
Given these conditions, do you see any country attacking us?
Honestly? Any at all?