Memorial Day thought: Will coronaplague bring us years of peace?

My Dutch friend, quoted in an earlier post:

What was his take on the continued lockdown in the U.S.? “All of the rights that Americans fought and died in multiple wars to defend, they gave up in one governor’s press conference.”

Even if it turned out that we did not need or value the freedoms that Americans previously died for, today is our day to reflect on their sacrifice.

Maybe there won’t be too many more sacrifices among soldiers worldwide for the next few years. Do countries that have shut down their societies, schools, and economies have the will or the wealth to go to war? What would they fight for? To conquer a territory that is also shut down and packed with inhabitants who are entirely dependent on government welfare?

Readers: What do you think? Time to short the merchants of death because governments won’t be buying weapons and going to war any time soon?

5 thoughts on “Memorial Day thought: Will coronaplague bring us years of peace?

  1. We are already at war — with us! Glorious news from the Malabar front!

    The tabloids used to have to make up stuff like this, Part MCMLXXXIV:

    “Meet Our Home Quarantine SOLUTION”

    “Israeli surveillance outfit SuperCom is literally repackaging as a Covid-19 “solution” technology previously used on incarcerated or criminally convicted people. The security company has customers in 20 countries, including the U.S., and claims decades of experience with what it calls in a press release “secured boundaries projects,” like border crossings and home confinement. It’s the house arrest expertise that the company is now marketing as PureCare, described on the SuperCom website as a “state-of-the-art solution for quarantine and isolation monitoring to aid government efforts in containing and limiting the reach of infectious diseases” and, incredibly, as “a non-intrusive patient friendly system that constantly tracks patient location within buildings, vehicles and outside.”

    • It’s fascinating that the ACLU is weighing in on these technologies while simultaneously taking a stand against due process here in the United States:

      “That the ACLU is suing the federal government in the hope of altering its due-process standards is not headline news. That the ACLU is suing the federal government in the hope of *weakening* its due-process standards is headline news for the ages. Once more, the line between parody and reality has been blurred.”

    • @Toucan: I’m aware of what the ACLU has become, and I’ve watched it morph for more than 30 years – some of that time from the “inside” so to speak. Their most recent assault on due process is a propelled by the left’s hatred of Betsy DeVos, but it is based on actions that began long before the Trump administration. It “began” in 2001 with the Obama administration through their “Dear Colleague” letter lowering the evidentiary standard needed to prove sexual assault. That change was long in the making; it wasn’t something that Obama woke up one morning and just decided to do.

      “To prove someone’s guilt through a preponderance of evidence, the accuser must convince a judge or jury that there is a greater than 50 percent chance that their claims are true. From a legal perspective, this sets a much lower bar for convicting people accused of crimes and misconduct.”

      It also blew open the door for forensic psychiatrists providing testimony in abuse cases to convince the jury – using the best psychological mumbo jumbo they can invent – that the defendant is guilty and the accuse is to be believed even if there’s no physical evidence and the existing evidence is contradictory or fabricated from whole cloth. And that works, because forensic psychologists have been practicing their strategy for a long time. Even if they’ve never met or evaluated the accuser!

      They also won’t be taking anyone’s case who protests stay-at-home orders while armed, legally or not. And if you say something that offends a protected victim group, it’s indefensible. “Speech that denigrates such groups can inflict serious harms and is intended to and often will impede progress toward equality,”

  2. I don’t expect the U.S. to start walking away from its global security commitments as a result of COVID, at least — not yet. With all the ancillaries, the U.S. spends about $1 trillion a year and we protect a lot of people and interests around the world. They will get through COVID and so will our enemies.

    Why Does the U.S. Spend So Much On Defense?

    America has global security commitments, lots of them.

    The United States has treaties obligating it to the defense of about 51 nations across four continents. Here is how that breaks down:

    • 28 through the North Atlantic Treaty Organization which covers Canada and most of Europe
    • 18 through the Rio Treaty that applies to most of Central and South America.
    • Two through the ANZUS Treaty with Australia and New Zealand
    • A bilateral treaty with Japan
    • A bilateral treaty with South Korea
    • A bilateral treaty with the Philippines
    In addition to these treaty commitments, the United States also has close relationships with, clear security interests in, and in some cases troops deployed to nations with whom we have no formal treaty. Some of these include:

    • Taiwan (While it recognizes the island belongs to China, the United States opposes hostile resolution of the dispute between Taiwan and Beijing.)
    • Israel
    • Saudi Arabia
    • Iraq
    • Afghanistan
    • Jordan
    • United Arab Emirates
    • Qatar

    “In conclusion, those who say the United States spends too much may be surprised to learn what Washington actually spends far higher than they believed…it appears that the U.S. public is willing to pay this price because the nation prefers that the cost be in billions of dollars instead of tens or hundreds of thousands of lives.”

    Under the upcoming Biden administration anything is possible. Bernie Sanders might be the next Secretary of Defense, and maybe a lot of other countries will decide it’s better to let China handle their security. Hong Kong (who we don’t protect, and can’t) has already decided, or rather, the matter has been decided for them.

Comments are closed.