Guns or diplomacy

Trump wants to boost the Pentagon's budget by $54 billion. Nothing wrong with that per se, except for one thing. He wants to emasculate the State Department and drop environment protection to pay for it. The poor State Department, it has never been in such a vulnerable position for decades. Trump obviously thinks all that diplomatic stuff can go hang. Who needs diplomats when you've got generals and admirals and nice big guns and tanks and stuff? Well, of course, that ain't true. The Brits invented what they call defence diplomacy which means having diplomats operating in the most sensitive and often dangerous nations spreading western values and emphasising peace not war. It can actually work. Some of the really good Brit diplomats and, by the way, MI6 station chiefs dotted around the world, can have huge influence - though probably more in the old days than today. Building up America's military capabilities sends a message to potential adversaries that under Trump the US is going to be as mighty as it was once was under Ronnie Reagan. But if the State Department is to be reduced to a junior status, that will also send a message around the world - that American diplomacy no longer matters. But who negotiated the Iran nuclear deal, whether you like it or not? Was it generals with guns or serious diplomats and nuclear experts? Could John Kerry have played such an important role if he had been regarded by Obama as a cabinet member of no importance? The answer is no! There are going to be numerous occasions during the Trump administration in which supreme diplomacy will be called upon to avoid conflicts, wars and disasters. If Rex Tillerson is going to have his department turned into an also-ran agency, then God help the rest of us. War should always be the last possible resort. Having more guns and warships and nuclear warheads than anyone else may seem like a great idea from Trump's point of view, but will it lead to a more stable and safer world? As anyone who understands deterrence theology knows, adding more and more nuclear missiles to your arsenal does not make you safer or better. For nuclear deterrence you need maximum credibility but it doesn't have to be based on a huge arsenal. Sufficiency is the name of the deterrence game. Enough to deter an enemy from striking first. Trump seems to think that if the US has a lot  more and a lot better nukes than any other country, that's all that matters. But if he starts to boost the nuke stocks, then what? Russia, China, North Korea, Pakistan, India....they will all think it's ok to follow suit. Nuke proliferation! As for environment protection, I doubt Trump knows what that means, and even if he does, he doesn't care.