Tweet
Hack, fair enough ..... I get the potential problems associated with presenting links to media sources that only fit a poster's bias. Having said that, I really do try to post links to interesting topics.
I think, in this particular exchange, we (or maybe just me doing it) are talking past each other.
What the professor offered in that article seemed to me to be interesting. I read his central hypothesis this way and here's my post on that reposted:
But, in general terms, the author suggests that governments that can and do act like China and Russia in determining what to spend and where to spend it do a better job than the US in ways that advance their own government's public policy initiatives and national security objectives. I agree with this point but not saying the US should emulate these governments and how they operate. Definitely not saying that and I don't think the author of the article is either.
IOW, I offered agreement with his position but certainly wouldn't want the US government to operate like or become like the Chinese or Russian governments to do a better job advancing it's public policy initiatives and national security interests. However, while I have some empathy with the US Government's policies under the Trump administration, I've made it clear that I also believe it is doing a really shitty job of implementing them by virtue of Trump's dumb-ass tweeting and his huge ego.
Another important point. The author of the article is not a national security expert and doesn't claim to be one despite the observations about him you make in your post. He offers as an example of how the Russians and Chinese, by virtue of the centralized control implicit in their modes of governing, can allocate resources to "hypersonic ICBMs" or landing on the "dark side of the moon" while the US and EU (the "West") (is) are absorbed in, if not distracted by/preoccupied with issues such as the "viability of the WTO and sanctity of the EU ....... et. al.
I think he makes a reasonable point.
I think you wanted to make the point and tried to do so by linking to the "War on the Rocks" article that, OTH, the US military along with other NATO members have made great strides in the "form of technological warfare." I agree. My post wanted to let you know that those "serious triumphs on behalf of the US military" have been ongoing for as long as I was involved with them - going back to the 70s - and that the NATO Cyber Command is absolutely nothing new - it is simply and in a calculated way, being revealed, albeit in very superficial detail, to the public and to our enemies.
..... and I just don't get your comments warning me about the risks of media sourcing from "Market Watch" when the article is written by "an economics professor" who probably "isn't the best source of news about national security." It makes me think you looked at the source, skimmed the professor's article and missed his point entirely - the repost of what I thought it was above. From there, you went on with your "unbearable pedantry" (AA's description of you, not mine but if the shoe fits, wear it).
Like I said, I'm fine with my news feeds. So, let's stick to the main points of "the professors'" article which I don't think you would disagree with entirelyor if you do, I'm not getting that from your posts.
I think, in this particular exchange, we (or maybe just me doing it) are talking past each other.
What the professor offered in that article seemed to me to be interesting. I read his central hypothesis this way and here's my post on that reposted:
But, in general terms, the author suggests that governments that can and do act like China and Russia in determining what to spend and where to spend it do a better job than the US in ways that advance their own government's public policy initiatives and national security objectives. I agree with this point but not saying the US should emulate these governments and how they operate. Definitely not saying that and I don't think the author of the article is either.
IOW, I offered agreement with his position but certainly wouldn't want the US government to operate like or become like the Chinese or Russian governments to do a better job advancing it's public policy initiatives and national security interests. However, while I have some empathy with the US Government's policies under the Trump administration, I've made it clear that I also believe it is doing a really shitty job of implementing them by virtue of Trump's dumb-ass tweeting and his huge ego.
Another important point. The author of the article is not a national security expert and doesn't claim to be one despite the observations about him you make in your post. He offers as an example of how the Russians and Chinese, by virtue of the centralized control implicit in their modes of governing, can allocate resources to "hypersonic ICBMs" or landing on the "dark side of the moon" while the US and EU (the "West") (is) are absorbed in, if not distracted by/preoccupied with issues such as the "viability of the WTO and sanctity of the EU ....... et. al.
I think he makes a reasonable point.
I think you wanted to make the point and tried to do so by linking to the "War on the Rocks" article that, OTH, the US military along with other NATO members have made great strides in the "form of technological warfare." I agree. My post wanted to let you know that those "serious triumphs on behalf of the US military" have been ongoing for as long as I was involved with them - going back to the 70s - and that the NATO Cyber Command is absolutely nothing new - it is simply and in a calculated way, being revealed, albeit in very superficial detail, to the public and to our enemies.
..... and I just don't get your comments warning me about the risks of media sourcing from "Market Watch" when the article is written by "an economics professor" who probably "isn't the best source of news about national security." It makes me think you looked at the source, skimmed the professor's article and missed his point entirely - the repost of what I thought it was above. From there, you went on with your "unbearable pedantry" (AA's description of you, not mine but if the shoe fits, wear it).
Like I said, I'm fine with my news feeds. So, let's stick to the main points of "the professors'" article which I don't think you would disagree with entirelyor if you do, I'm not getting that from your posts.
Comment