Defense
Foreign Policy
Without an hyperactive worldwide superpower the world is a better and a safer place. Mr. Sandireddy is a former combat soldier who has seen what this war has done to his friends and the people who live there.
Although we have sacrificed much and all sides have suffered through this period of political instability, we have not made the situation better. Mr. Sandireddy has seen his fair share of this conflict in Operation Enduring Freedom, he knows firsthand that we are not helping, nor are we welcome. 15,141 Iraqi civilians are estimated to have been directly killed by US led Coalition Forces.
It is apparent that the broken bureaucratic system that has infected Washington now has taken the lives of hundreds of Americans overseas. In the long term over 2 trillion dollars is expected to have been lost in fighting a conflict we have no business being in.
It should not be the responsibility of American taxpayers to bear the burden of the Middle East’s unrest and political instability. To put into perspective, the US spent 3.7 trillion dollars total in the 2015 fiscal year. This comes at a time when our teachers and schools are underfunded, our roads and bridges collapsing, and to pay for these things state governments have to pawn off their rights to the federal bureaucrats.
When the US military becomes involved in a coalition other members tend to lower their military spending. The US government has been taken advantage of and our children have suffered for it.
Mr. Sandireddy strongly believes in defending our allies and citizens but believes that the way forward lies in investing in military technology rather than foreign intervention. Not only will this create jobs, but will make the US a beacon for those who wish to innovate and save lives, not destroy them.
Defensive wars are not something the US can control, but Mr. Sandireddy sees no sense in investing in projects that would instigate international conflict. Preparing to defend the homeland and preparing to invade the Middle East are two very different things, and Mr. Sandireddy knows that difference.
A Look at Military Spending
Ensuring the safety of its citizens is the prerogative of any government, but as the world’s foremost military superpower, and supported by a league of strong alliances, continuing to build our arsenal is wasteful. Despite the fact that Islamic militants, currently our greatest threat, do not have any navy, our country maintains over 80 nuclear submarines, and has allotted $1.8 billion to building 14 new submarines; the United States spends $18 billion a year simply maintaining our Cold War stockpile of nuclear weapons, which almost certainly can never be used without assurance of annihilation; $64 billion dollars last year was spent fighting overseas wars, which bailed regional powers out of their responsibility to maintain peace around their borders. The key to maintaining a global military is not overstocking on obsolete weaponry, but staying on the cutting edge of military research.
Under Anurag’s plan, U.S. discretionary spending on the military would be halved, to $250 billion a year, 1/3 of which will be dedicated specifically to research and development grants. To put this into context, the federal government spent $70 billion on education last year. It is time we end the narrative that lowering military spending would threaten our influence as a superpower. A nation in debt cannot assert any influence at all, and being pragmatic about military spending is smart, not unpatriotic.
Without an hyperactive worldwide superpower the world is a better and a safer place. Mr. Sandireddy is a former combat soldier who has seen what this war has done to his friends and the people who live there.
Although we have sacrificed much and all sides have suffered through this period of political instability, we have not made the situation better. Mr. Sandireddy has seen his fair share of this conflict in Operation Enduring Freedom, he knows firsthand that we are not helping, nor are we welcome. 15,141 Iraqi civilians are estimated to have been directly killed by US led Coalition Forces.
It is apparent that the broken bureaucratic system that has infected Washington now has taken the lives of hundreds of Americans overseas. In the long term over 2 trillion dollars is expected to have been lost in fighting a conflict we have no business being in.
It should not be the responsibility of American taxpayers to bear the burden of the Middle East’s unrest and political instability. To put into perspective, the US spent 3.7 trillion dollars total in the 2015 fiscal year. This comes at a time when our teachers and schools are underfunded, our roads and bridges collapsing, and to pay for these things state governments have to pawn off their rights to the federal bureaucrats.
When the US military becomes involved in a coalition other members tend to lower their military spending. The US government has been taken advantage of and our children have suffered for it.
Mr. Sandireddy strongly believes in defending our allies and citizens but believes that the way forward lies in investing in military technology rather than foreign intervention. Not only will this create jobs, but will make the US a beacon for those who wish to innovate and save lives, not destroy them.
Defensive wars are not something the US can control, but Mr. Sandireddy sees no sense in investing in projects that would instigate international conflict. Preparing to defend the homeland and preparing to invade the Middle East are two very different things, and Mr. Sandireddy knows that difference.
A Look at Military Spending
Ensuring the safety of its citizens is the prerogative of any government, but as the world’s foremost military superpower, and supported by a league of strong alliances, continuing to build our arsenal is wasteful. Despite the fact that Islamic militants, currently our greatest threat, do not have any navy, our country maintains over 80 nuclear submarines, and has allotted $1.8 billion to building 14 new submarines; the United States spends $18 billion a year simply maintaining our Cold War stockpile of nuclear weapons, which almost certainly can never be used without assurance of annihilation; $64 billion dollars last year was spent fighting overseas wars, which bailed regional powers out of their responsibility to maintain peace around their borders. The key to maintaining a global military is not overstocking on obsolete weaponry, but staying on the cutting edge of military research.
Under Anurag’s plan, U.S. discretionary spending on the military would be halved, to $250 billion a year, 1/3 of which will be dedicated specifically to research and development grants. To put this into context, the federal government spent $70 billion on education last year. It is time we end the narrative that lowering military spending would threaten our influence as a superpower. A nation in debt cannot assert any influence at all, and being pragmatic about military spending is smart, not unpatriotic.