Dr. Jerry Pournelle wrote this on his web site. I am reproducing it here only because the links tend to move around.

I was in a discussion in another conference, and was challenged about the republic vs. the empire, and what I would do about the current situation, and in particular, what would I "campaign for"? (My questioner was English.) Here, with some embellishment, is my response:



New Age of Empire

What I campaign for is billions for investment in energy resources. The most outlandish estimates of costs for hemispheric energy independence are small compared to the costs of war. Wars are expensive.

I propose the following:

Break enough heads in the Middle East that the ruling classes there are afraid of the US. Make it clear that they have not acted responsibly and we really don't care WHO governs over there, but we will not have the place governed by people who allow their territories to be used to attack us. That means to me outright replacement of the governments of Afghanistan and Iraq, and a clear message to Egypt, Kuwait, and Arabia that our patience is not only not endless but has worn thin.

Then make war on energy dependence: an all out campaign to build a large nuclear plant in every state within four years. Development of domestic oil resources.

And $20 billion a year on X programs in space. By X programs I mean real X projects: fly something within 4 years or don't get paid. Build flying hardware, 3 tail numbers per ship, fly one until it breaks, use what you learned to modify #2 and fly it but don't prang it, and keep #3 in case you do break #2 but probably it goes to the Smithsonian. Have several simultaneous projects, all with the aim of cheap access to space. Try multiple approaches: two stages to orbit, NASP-like vehicles, Black Horse if you like, but be sure to do the follow-on to DC/X that we proposed a dozen years and more ago, and which could have been done for the money wasted on the Lockheed "Venture Star" shitepoke.

Build up the armed forces: the United States of America has only 100 heavy bombers in the entire inventory. Only 100, and they are terribly expensive. We could easily build another hundred heavy bombers that would be effective in today's military environment. They wouldn't be a threat to the USSR. They would be a threat to Iraq and Afghanistan.

Build up the Navy. It's silly to have an under-strength Navy. We're a maritime power. We should act as if we are.

I could go on, but I find it fascinating that anyone could believe that mucking around with perpetual war for perpetual peace is going to be cheaper or more effective than developing technology and shoring up competitive enterprises here.

Wars are costly: they cost in money, they cost in freedom, and they cost in mental energy. They cost in letting government grow without bounds. they build the central state rather than decentralize to federal structure and self government. Wars are far more expensive than R&D programs. The only good thing about a war is that when it is over you can disband a lot of the structure you built to win it.

As to the jihad, if we show we are to be feared, then come home -- and I have said before what coming home means -- the incentives to target the US will not be particularly high. One reason we are a target is that we insist on minding other people's business. We should be the friends of liberty everywhere, but we need be guardians only of our own. We don't need to be concerned about who governs in every country in the world. We can be friendly with friends, indifferent to others; we don't need to make enemies. I am not buying into the notion that we somehow "deserved" the Black September attacks. We can, however, avoid provoking fanatics. On the other hand, if we do provoke fanatics, we had better be prepared to do something about them, and quickly. We weren't, and we aren't, and if for no other reason than that we should speak a bit more softly.

Of course this won't happen. We aren't coming home: we're going to do some nation building. So who is going to officer the Legions that we will have to build so that we can play Imperialist? The Raj could do it because it had an aristocracy, loyal sons to bind to exile, sergeants who obeyed Colonel Blimp, but mostly an aristocracy that really did feel itself superior to those it governed and sometimes was -- but which knew damned well that their places demanded loyalty.

We have to set out to build an officer corps promoted through pure merit except of course we must have affirmative action. And from this we will fashion the leaders who will be officers in the world imperial army, but will remain loyal to the US. My fear is that we will build Legions from the places you usually get Legionnaires -- jails and the under class -- and the officers will be tax farmers.

Incompetent Empire is far less stable than self-governing republic.



Most of this sounds eminently sensible to me, particularly the first parts. What do you think?