Stop Wasting Billions of U.S. Tax Dollars Defending Alaska

The U.S. Government has thousands of armed forces in Alaska that could be discharged or relocated from service here in order to save billions each year of purposeless federal spending.

Fund a moon base for the future instead of Prussianesque military archaism of Alaska. Why spend billions of dollars each year-perhaps for the next decade, to keep a substanl force in a U.S. state without reasonable odds of invasion from Canada, Russia, China or Japan? It might be more reasonable to prep an effective attack counter-strike structure than to spend billions like drunken sailors each year for fear the Aleutians will have hordes of invaders in a few days.

A large military force in Alaska to defend against Moslem terrorists is not a reasonable paradigm, and they are perhaps the main military threat to the U.S.A. today besides congressional debtonomics. The expense of keeping a numerous standing army in Alaska is unnecessary. If we wait until Alaska is attacked before spending money, we probably can pocket the savings for decades and invest it in border security and national bicycle paths..

One wonders why the U.S. Army should have a significant presence in Alaska long after the end of the cold war?

Alaska could create jobs for Alaska residents by spending two billion dollars of its 50 billion dollar permanent fund each year on its National Guard troops instead of providing state workers an extra check from the oil royalty investment fund. The state could create jobs for people that need them instead of free money to some.

If the United States wants to effectively reduce its federal debt it should cut pork barrel military spending in Alaska. An invasion of the state of Alaska isn't likely, and a defense of Alaska with neutron bomb cruise missiles costing a few million each would be less costly over the long run compared to keeping concentrated military forces here that could be similarly depleted en mass by an opposition force nuclear device or two. Maybe Russian nuclear scientists could work with American bomb builders to create a peace through neutron bomb readiness defense arsenal for each nation.

Some are concerned with the moral aspect of military spending. Is it more morally correct to spend less on war phenomena than more if the less costly way comprises neutron bomb deterrence? Christian ethicists might select the same option as a pragmatist in choosing to reduce large present military costs and allow a less costly potential military method-I cannot say. Christian grace might provide opportunity to avoid making such Hobson's choices. Actualization of conflict parameters may not always be understood a priori. Sub-nuclear conflicts may bring more damage than neutron conflicts in some circumstances should the warlike select to activate war scenarios at some juncture.

The U.S. Government should lead its budgeting plans to modern force use criteria that would not break the bank while providing full coverage-at least as good as that the Congress has designed for health insurance coverage for the nation's poor.

Send 50 extra F.B.I. agents, border security and D.E.A. personnel with good field training to Alaska and reduce the cost of stationing thousands of soldiers in Alaska.

In the era of robotic aircraft ahead invading foreign forces can receive an appropriate condign response of neutron bombs reasonable soon after arrival.