Something I Don't Understand About Critics Of U.S. Military Spending

Pretty much... although soldiers are much cheaper than most of the high tech weaponry we have.

If we were serious about cutting the military budget, we'd cut equipment and R&D. There is a massive amount of pork involved with both.

 

I'm new here...I posted this earlier, but it was placed on hold
waiting for a moderator's approval

Defense Spending http://bit.ly/hNKDG6

 

I can explain: Military does not defend us from invaders these days, they defend special interests: for example, they sent you to fight in the middle east for freedom and security (operation iraqi freedom etc.) while tens of millions American families were losing their homes to the banks which got BAILED OUT by that exact same government. and the so called brave gun totting militias and patriots were watching Rush Bimbo types talk about how "THESE people had no business buying homes in the first place, unqualified, etc"

You got it? if no, go back and read again.

 

We can defeat any attacks by any of those you mentioned.

We do not now have the strength to invade and hold Russia or China.
It does not matter that we have the strength to defeat North Korea because they go nuclear. There is a reason that nuclear powers don't get attacked.

We could defeat Iran- but it would be uglier than Iraq. Why on earth would we want to invade another Middle Eastern country and get mired down there again?

More importantly- and what in your complaining you left out-

What size military do you think we need?

And why do we need that size?

Do we need an Army big enough to invade and hold China? Then we need to increase our Military by many factors.

What about invading both Russia and China at the same time?

Do you fear an attack from North Korea- do you believe we couldn't easily repulse that North Korean invasion with even 1/10 of our current military?

I am pro-military. I just want a military that we decide on what the military needs to be able to do, and equip it properly, and pay the military for their sacrifices.

Not just write blank checks every time someone evokes the word "war"

 

In terms of the size of our conventional military. I think we need a military large enough to do the following WITHOUT a massive reserve and national guard call up.

Large enough to do the following simultaneously:

1) Fight a large scale conventional war using up to 500,000 troops plus air force support and naval support equivalent to at least three carrier battle groups for up to 6 months.

2) Fight a long term low intensity war (like Afghanistan) using up to 100,000 troops for up to 4 years.

3) Maintain a force of a minimum of 50,000 ground troops plus a carrier battle group and supporting air force wings available for unexpected and unpredictable crisis different from those above up to 1 year.

 

As a strong Ron Paul supporter and anti military spending, I have to point out that I am more against special interests rather then military spending itself - I believe special interests like halliburton are quick to promote "support our troops" slogans, while they are also the ones who caused millions of soldiers families to lose their homes, their jobs, their loved ones and so on. I can see thru their hypocrisy and it infuriates me every day.

 

The question you really need to ask yourself is this; do we need to be prepared to defeat any of these nations in an immediate military struggle? If the answer to that is no, then there's no rational reason to support permanent military mobilization. The reason the US could not defeat at least the first two countries is because we have been permanently mobilized so long it has severely damaged our economy.

Why maintain high defense spending? That's what you need to ask yourself. All we really need in a standing military is a military strong enough to protect the country to give it time to mobilize to fight a war it might be able to win. It is simply not feasible or advisable to try to maintain a standing military that can defeat any other military on Earth without a mobilization period. That's certainly not a defensive military strategy.

No. That makes no sense. You set an impossibly high standard to meet for a satisfactory level of defense. Ultimately defense spending ought to have the goal of being sufficiently strong to defend the United States and no more than that. "Defense" spending in excess of what is required to defend the country--note, defend the US, not wage an aggressive war against other world powers and win--is a waste of money. There's never any good reason to be in a hurry towards aggression, if you have a military adequate for your own defense.

Ultimately the notion that the US needs a large standing army for "defense" is somewhat ludicrous given our nuclear weapons and geographic location.

 

Our geographic location didn't help on 9-11.

And the United States will not and cannot use its nuclear weapons.

 

Our military spending didn't either. Which is predictable; what good are billion dollar tanks when your enemy can achieve their relatively minor objectives with some box cutters and flying lessons?

It's a credible threat that would prevent any other state from seizing US territory.

 

Once again, the U.S. military is NOT designed to defend U.S. territory.

Our economy could be destroyed by enemy action without enemy forces coming remotely near U.S. territory.

And I would like to point out that in the decade prior to 9-11, U.S. military spending adjusted for inflation had plummeted dramatically.

 

While I agree, that's still a problem. It's a public subsidy of private industry. A massive one, in both lives and money.

Then what we really ought to spend money on is developing an economy where that isn't the case. Like, you know, every other country on Earth.

Again, would not have helped. As you note, the military isn't geared for defending the US or the American people, and even if it were, this sort of attack would not have been stopped by all the military in the world.

You want to throw out 9/11 as some kind of call for more defense spending? Well, that works both ways, because it demonstrates the futility of defense through military spending.

 

There is no such animal

EVERY major economy in the world would (from the Chinese to the British) would be crippled by a massive disruption in global trade.

 

Yawn, more republicans pretending they know about the military. Reichpublicans know nothing aobut the military, nothing.

The military can beat anybody in a war, all we have to do is bring back the draft. So we should cut the military budget by 50% at least.

 

Another sock puppet of a banned member makes an appearance I see.

What did they ban you for?

 

No ban, just screwed up my internet accounts. So had to set up a new account.

 

Sounds like your upset over your failed, racist right wing reichpublicant party. You know the party that invited a neo nazi racist to speak at CPAC 2012.

 

Just a few of our Nuclear Subs,stationed worldwide and on constant
patrol could wipe out most the planet if need be.
Nuff said.

 

However the worrisome part is a ground engagement.As it stands now,
The Chineese who have been building up their Army and Navy far
exceed the number of armed soldiers they can deploy.
Not highly-trained like ours.But on the ground,China would be a
real force to reckon with.Don't forget that in Viet nam,we did carpet
bomb for all the good it did.But the Chineese could never mount any credible
use of force onto our shores.

 

Except for the fact that the U.S. will not use nuclear weapons.

Unless one of our cities or the cities of an ally are attacked by nuclear weapons first.

Case closed.

 

This forum is both surreal and terrifying with some americans views to military use. In parts of this site there are topics devoted to usa invading europe/russia or china.

Now is this something seriously pondered in usa to kick off the next world war to finally witness MAD in all its horrible glory.

Or are some gun nuts just having a bad day?

So how does usa invade china or russia. I never understabd how they do it. By the supporters of this insane view it seems to rely on the wishfull thinking that bejing and the kremlin politicians and generals twiddle their thumbs while american forces treat the biggest land mass on earth and the biggest population center on earth like iraq.

But wouldent the hardliners simply nuke your navy if even attempted to get that close?

Ok lets say the kgb and chinese military are being kind and didnt press the button and usa forces storm in russia and china. Now what? The chinese restistance force is now bigger than the entire usa military and russia? it take years fighing to get anywhere near moscow, probably decades considering the sheer scale of the russian contintent.

Ok lets say the usa did all that, they lost millions of troops and all sides havent nuked each other to the stone age. Now the time to wave mini flags, Yay you won.

 

No.

It is a sense of frustration that many Americans feel that the U.S. military is used in a series of nondecisive, long, and seemingly pointless conflicts against on behalf of completely ungrateful third worlders that seemingly achieve nothing.

Americans would find it much easier to support a huge, sweeping military conflict involving hundreds of thousands of soldiers, hundreds of ships, and thousands of aircraft against a comparable opponent that killed thousands of people a day that was over in a month or so with a decisive victory.........than tepid low level combat like Iraq and Afghanistan with about three or four people killed per day but that lasts year after year after year.

 

Sure they support it for a few minutes before the realitation sets in that the powerful nations attacking are now launching thousands of nukes.

Maybe that is the point to all this, you want to see MAD in practise and not theory?

Think about it!

As this topic makes clear the usa is superior in conventional war. But against nations like china and russia they have no choice to use a first strike policy against the usa if america went insane and started invading them.

Enough nukes hey could cripple the usa even destroy it, of course the backlash they be destroyed themselves. This war you speak of have no real winners as the military leaders in bejing/kremlin wouldent bother fighting "your war" instead thier own.

 

No nation is going to launch nuclear weapons.

You (and others here) seem awfully certain that nuclear weapons, which have not been used in two thirds of a century would ever be used again.

The U.S. didn't use nuclear weapons even when it lost 100,000 soldiers in combat.

The Soviets didn't use nuclear weapons even while losing thousands of soldiers in combat and being convinced that the U.S. was on the verge of launching an attack more than once.

The aversion to ever using nuclear weapons again is simply staggering.

 

If the usa starts fighting china or russia for example with a rush of blood to have a war, what do you think happen? They fight you on your terms?

Probably not, as said the first strike policy in this type of war be used. Ie nuke the usa before they can position their armies.

Of course this destroys the wetdreams of americans who believe nations like russia and china simply wait to be invaded. Maybe they will. Only one way to find out.

 

Which they would never do.

Perhaps you should read about ACTUAL Soviet policies during the Cold War in Europe.

For years, it was thought that the Soviets would use nuclear weapons early in a conflict in a first strike at the very least.

Later, it turned out that not only did the Soviets plan to NOT use nuclear weapons, but EVEN IF THEY WERE LOSING the war and NATO armies were rampaging through Eastern Europe........they planned to NOT use nuclear weapons.