SilverWook said:

That wasn't some keen insight on Mitt's part. Keeping the Cold War on life support helped justify spending huge amounts of money on stuff we didn't need anymore. I saw a story recently on how the Army has more tanks than it needs, and more are being cranked out to keep a factory open. (That way the politicians can crow they saved jobs.) Not to mention surplus aircraft that go from the factory straight to the boneyard.

Deep down, some politicians are grinning like a cheshire cat at all of this. Nobody will question defense budgets, or talk cutbacks for a long time. Because, the Russkies are back! ;)

I completely agree it wasn't a terribly keen insight. It really should not have been a controversial statement at all...

Yet as you say about the legacy of military spending, it's about maintaining the jobs and political clout - not so much the Cold War!

Republicans historically have been reliably pro-military spending but were overtaken by crazy budget-cutting Tea Partiers who cheered sequestration (which Republicans were supposed to oppose because it cuts military spending). And the Defense Secretary is all in favor of cutting military spending too.

There are the politicians and defense contractors who will use any threat to push for additional military spending but there is no need for an arms race since Russia doesn't have the ability to engage in one.