What is your take on USA's military spending?

[Nevins]

Hi Nevins,

I apologise for my rather inaccurate assesment of history, and the inappropriate use of certain terms, such as "democracy".
You're right on certain points, I acknowledge that I may gotten rather emotional about the matter, as you may have no doubt have noticed, I'm decidedly biased against Americans for rather personal reasons.

This reveals much, and you are definitely not alone in holding such opinions on this board.

1) Yes, I do quake at the thought of my ally. From a political standpoint, I would say that it isn't so much an alliance than it is a dependence. The relationship is serves the both of our nation's interest. However, what is freely given can as easily be withdrawn. Under these current political circumstances, there would be many complex political implications or consequences if that protection is withdrawn, however that does not mean that they cannot do so. To whom does my nation's sovereignity belong to? To the citizens? To my government? No, it belongs to those who can take it away. Just as the 2008 Georgian/Russian conflict proved, S.Ossetia owes it's current indepence to Russia, and to the world's lack of intervention. If NATO had decided otherwise, Gaddafi would stll be in control in Libya. Military might determines sovereignity, not constitutions nor righteousness. But military might is dependent on economical might, hence why Singapore will be safe as it is for now, because of this relationship. That doesn't change the fact that we're at their mercy. One should never ally to the strong, but rather against the strong.

Except that Singapore has been allying itself with the United States for years because it has been mutually beneficial, and only becomes more so as China grows. The government of Singapore (and many other Pacific Rim countries) find that they would rather have US influence than Chinese. I can't really fault them for that.

2) Much of the world as it is (Except Russia, who seems to take perverse delight in frustrating the American government). A bold claim I admit, one that you're sure to refute. Though, here's a thought. Why did we (I'm assuming you're American, which you proabably are)invade Iraq (My nation included), but not N.Korea?

Simply put, because N.K. has a rather powerful patron, China, and a much greater ability to retaliate than Iraq did short of resorting to NBCs. China wants, and has wanted, NK to function as a buffer state between itself and the staunchly American allied South Korea and Japan, its long time regional rivals. The North has also spent the last 50 years preparing to deter any move against its sovereignty, such as the thousands of long range artillery pieces capable of firing South of the border and killing large numbers of civilians.

Both nations at that point in time were "developing" weapons of mass destruction. Both nation's leader's have terrible human rights records. So why Iraq? I'll not use that washed out claim that America was there for the oil, albiet it being probably true. I'm merely pointing out that though we may criticise American actions, most world government's never actually block American actions.

And they do block Russia or China, for instance? Let us not pretend that the US is unique in this regard, merely powerful.

When Obama ordered Osama's execution, they ignored Iran's government and moved in their forces, and eliminated their target without warrant or . My question is this. Had it been any other nation that had recieved that information, and proceeded with that course of action (assuming they had the capacity or capability), how would the world have reacted?

You mean Obama ignored the advice of the regional foe of the US for the last 8ish years to take down the person who was responsible for 3,000 American civilians while being hidden by an alleged US ally?

3) You're right, there is no suprise in that. I was merely pointing out the obvious relationship between the spending on military, and political power. Key word was "veto". This thread was asking about whether America should cut down on it's military spending, which equates to "Should America cut down on political influence?" Should might determine right on a global, international platform? I agree that a certain amount of military might is needed to enforce UN's mission to:

"
To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;

Point? The US is not the armed branch of the UN.

Funny, that it should be worded thus. If the five members should determine a conflict is not a "breach of peace" or does not conform with the laws these power nations agree to set. What happens then?

Luckily the five members all see the world through different eyes, as the recent Syria scenario proves.

4) You're right. The UN is not a democracy. Wrong choice of a word.
The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.
To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;
It works on equality and self determination. Which means that in principle, all nations are qual, and all nations have a right to make decisions and employ them. In self determination, all nations should be heard on the council, and general assembly. Does that not sound a lot like democracy? Since it is in the interest of mutual peace? Not unconditional peace? I agree that some nations shoul carry more weight, in proportion to the global population, like India or China. But by how much?

They do have this, see Syria.

5) True that. Most stationed "peacekeepers" are indeed contributed by neighbouring nations. As in Africa, Bosnia, Israel and other such places of conflicts. However, under whose flag did most major "UN missions" operate under, such as the Korean war, or the first invasion of Iraq?

Because these are operations that only the US is capable of conducting? Thats why we are talking about two incidents rather than the dozens of other interventions.

I believe it was the star spangled banner... I was wrong to say that an UN army is composed of American troops, but America forms a substantial bulk of any invading army, that is of course invading withthe consent of the Americans.

And the French, and British, and Chinese, and Russians, ..... the list go ons.

Funny that the 2003 invasion of Iraq or Afghanistan, though was a clear breach of peace, America hasn't exactly been given "effective collective measures" to stop it.

Point?

6) It all seems rather far fetched to you. Not to those who aren't American. Each time you violate another nation's borers, as America might be planning to do to Iran (Whose military couldn't ever possibly hope to face up to the Americans), it makes other nations wonder about their own borders. It all seems rather non existent, should the Americans not agree with you. United States of the World. Has a nice ring to it doesn't it?

God no, I wouldn't want to incorporate anyone else into our nation when we are already so differentiated politically socially and economically as it is. And if the US is such a threat, then why are so many nations turning to America for protection from the Chinese? The US is certainly not perfect, but that is why international relations are relative matters.

7) Point taken. Most examples are old, but I still find them relevant when interpreting American motives and priorities. America hasn't changed much since a hundred years ago.

America has changed radically from what it was a hundred years ago. Go pick up a book discussing the tortuous process behind the US entering the Second World War. The isolationist tendencies in the US were so strong that basic preparedness and budgeting passed by margins of a single vote.

They begun those invasions on similar premises as those to today. Read your history, find the parallels. They might not be exactly the same, but the circumstances have changed, the excuses have changed, but the nature of American policies have not. Creating self reliant countries, or creating American dependent nations? Which one? Take for example, most of the nations that were "occupied" by America gets it weapons supplies from America. (With the exception of Cuba) As raised earlier on military might determines sovereignity. During that 2008 Georgian conflict, Georgia realised that most of it's arms came from Russia, and Russia then refused to continue selling it arms. Singapore's planes (Which allows us to have air supremacy within our region) come from America. If denied to us, we lose a substantial portion of our military strength. We are VERY much dependent on America. Why else do you think China has raised it's military budget, and has been racing to build up it's arms industry? Self suffiency. If America truly wishes other nations to be self sufficient, they should then help to build up a credible arms industry, share military technology, and stop hogging it's monopoly over military arms.

So the US should just give up things that it has spent billions and billions on developing and construction because its "hogging" it?

8) History has lessons for us all. Irrelevant to you perhaps, but I don't think that American atrocities commited in both America and Philipines are not exactly wonderful footnotes in history. I doubt the Americans had planned to leave Philipines, if it weren't for the Japanese invasion, and the subsequent national awakening of the Filipinos.

It was promised in 1916, partially established in 1935 and then granted in 1946, when the US was arguably at the apex of its relative international power, in the Treaty of Manila.

Again, check your history. I distinctly recall the supression of the Filipino people during their rebellion against American rule. Something not quite discussed today. Thousands of Filipinos dead, at American hands. American hands are drenched in blood. What of all the lives ruined in Iraq or Afghanistan. Nothing is ever said about them. All the fathers, and families killed. How is this fair, how is this just? Why does George Bush, elected twice as President of the United States of America walk away scott free? For every American dead, there are hundreds if not thousands of dead innocent civilians of oher nations.

I am not being dragged into a body count discussion again. You are trying to draw parallels that simply are not there, "Drenched in blood" and your previous assertions of letting emotion cloud your judgement are being shown quite clearly.

9-10) I'm sorry if I was rather blunt at this point. It's hard not to read American motives as Imperialistic ones when they bear so much resemblence to Roman ones. Conquest through culture, economy, and military might.

That describes just about every single international power, ever.

Rome too, never invade without a "plausible" Casus Belli. Rome always claimed the higher moral ground, feigning intervention, and planting military presences.

Again, this is such a vague and broad parallel that it can be applied to just about everyone. I wish Goldsworthy's article on the faultiness of this very parallel was available online but I cannot seem to track it down.

What else do we call the thousands of American troops stationed around the world? No I don't wish for America to be replaced by China, or Russia. I don't wish for any nation to assume that tryrannical role. I wish for a world without borders, and respect for all peoples, that justice not be delivered through military means, nor righteousness determined by strength of arms. I call for America to scale down it's weapons development program. Be the first to disarm it's nuclear arms, and ban nuclear arms in general. No more stockpiles, no more fear.

So you are an idealist in a world of realists.

[muller227]

Where I live, the middle class is quickly disappearing. I used to be upper-middle classed when I was in Germany- back when my dad was the aid of 4-Star General Hobbins (Ret), and now he didn't get the promotion (which there was a petition started by his coworkers since the other guy who got it was lazy) and also his paycheck was cut down lower than it should be. That 1 month where the military's budget was cut in half also affected him, though now we're recovered, we can't live in a nice three story modern-european styled house, and I also now feel kinda poor around my friends since I can't afford the stuff I used to be able to afford.

That month you are referring to was that during the debt ceiling crisis, I know my cousin's wife was freaking hard about rather they would get paid or not, they were fine with their savings, but were unsure about how many people they would have to help out. Since my cousin doesn't FB or talk about things like that I can only have her version of things but they are pretty accurate, she's not a whiner, if she was concerned there was reason for it.

[Col. Tartleton]

Hi Nevins,

I apologise for my rather inaccurate assesment of history, and the inappropriate use of certain terms, such as "democracy".

You're right on certain points, I acknowledge that I may gotten rather emotional about the matter, as you may have no doubt have noticed, I'm decidedly biased against Americans for rather personal reasons.
To address your points in a more coherent manner that you may understand my viewpoint better,

I'm sure the American people like you...

1) Yes, I do quake at the thought of my ally. From a political standpoint, I would say that it isn't so much an alliance than it is a dependence. The relationship is serves the both of our nation's interest. However, what is freely given can as easily be withdrawn. Under these current political circumstances, there would be many complex political implications or consequences if that protection is withdrawn, however that does not mean that they cannot do so. To whom does my nation's sovereignity belong to? To the citizens? To my government? No, it belongs to those who can take it away. Just as the 2008 Georgian/Russian conflict proved, S.Ossetia owes it's current indepence to Russia, and to the world's lack of intervention. If NATO had decided otherwise, Gaddafi would stll be in control in Libya. Military might determines sovereignity, not constitutions nor righteousness. But military might is dependent on economical might, hence why Singapore will be safe as it is for now, because of this relationship. That doesn't change the fact that we're at their mercy. One should never ally to the strong, but rather against the strong.

Your country exists because we like you. You're our East Asian Israel. An awesome little island fortress which is incredibly wealthy. Only you cause us far less headaches than Israel. You get to have better lives than Americans because of our protection of our shared trade. Your country isn't perfect, but it's nice.

2) Much of the world as it is (Except Russia, who seems to take perverse delight in frustrating the American government). A bold claim I admit, one that you're sure to refute. Though, here's a thought. Why did we (I'm assuming you're American, which you proabably are)invade Iraq (My nation included), but not N.Korea? Both nations at that point in time were "developing" weapons of mass destruction. Both nation's leader's have terrible human rights records. So why Iraq? I'll not use that washed out claim that America was there for the oil, albiet it being probably true. I'm merely pointing out that though we may criticise American actions, most world government's never actually block American actions. When Obama ordered Osama's execution, they ignored Iran's government and moved in their forces, and eliminated their target without warrant or . My question is this. Had it been any other nation that had recieved that information, and proceeded with that course of action (assuming they had the capacity or capability), how would the world have reacted?

Most likely we calculated that North Korea is an incompetent contained threat. We have a large presence in South Korea and Japan. Together we would break the DPROK and hand it over to the ROK. Similarly we figured that Sadam's Iraq was still a nuisance and we had already defeated it's military might. Iraq would be a push over and we'd be greeted as liberators. Smiling Iraqi kids would look good. Iraq was determined to be a paper tiger. We've had less than 5,000 deaths and about 32,000 wounded. As 9 year war/occupations go... well done given how it completely went to hell. However pulling out has basically handed the situation over to the Iranians which was a blunder. Given how Iraq went, Iran will be about 12,000 dead and 70,000 wounded. Probably more. Assuming we can't figure this thing our diplomatically. Not exactly a massive loss by past standards, but it's about calculating the value vs the cost. If we can establish secular states in the middle east and save some women and gays etc, it's probably worth the losses. If not it's a waste.

3) You're right, there is no suprise in that. I was merely pointing out the obvious relationship between the spending on military, and political power. Key word was "veto". This thread was asking about whether America should cut down on it's military spending, which equates to "Should America cut down on political influence?" Should might determine right on a global, international platform? I agree that a certain amount of military might is needed to enforce UN's mission to:

"To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;
Funny, that it should be worded thus. If the five members should determine a conflict is not a "breach of peace" or does not conform with the laws these power nations agree to set. What happens then?

The UN is a sham. It's a forum where illegitimate failed states and shining liberal republics have equal say on the world stage. Preposterous. It sounds legitimate, it's not, and thus it's capable of doing great mischief under the banner of being the UN.

4) You're right. The UN is not a democracy. Wrong choice of a word.
The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.
To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;
It works on equality and self determination. Which means that in principle, all nations are qual, and all nations have a right to make decisions and employ them. In self determination, all nations should be heard on the council, and general assembly. Does that not sound a lot like democracy? Since it is in the interest of mutual peace? Not unconditional peace? I agree that some nations shoul carry more weight, in proportion to the global population, like India or China. But by how much?

All nations are equal assuming they're republican and representative of their population. That's not the case. The concept of global government undermines national sovereignty. We'd be better off with old fashioned nation to nation diplomacy. There are more lousy countries than nice countries, and the only real factor as to the security council is how much heat you pack.

5) True that. Most stationed "peacekeepers" are indeed contributed by neighbouring nations. As in Africa, Bosnia, Israel and other such places of conflicts. However, under whose flag did most major "UN missions" operate under, such as the Korean war, or the first invasion of Iraq? I believe it was the star spangled banner... I was wrong to say that an UN army is composed of American troops, but America forms a substantial bulk of any invading army, that is of course invading withthe consent of the Americans. Funny that the 2003 invasion of Iraq or Afghanistan, though was a clear breach of peace, America hasn't exactly been given "effective collective measures" to stop it.

Effective collective measures don't exist. America is a third of the world economy. Sanctioning us hurts everyone else more. We control the world economy, we control the oceans, we control the skies, we control space. The US is a good friend and a terrible enemy. We fight these wars with both hands behind our back. Afghanistan was justified by an attack worse than pearl harbor. Iraq was justified by Saddam trying to assassinate George. H.W. Bush, previously invading Kuwait, and trying to get nuclear weapons.

6) It all seems rather far fetched to you. Not to those who aren't American. Each time you violate another nation's borers, as America might be planning to do to Iran (Whose military couldn't ever possibly hope to face up to the Americans), it makes other nations wonder about their own borders. It all seems rather non existent, should the Americans not agree with you. United States of the World. Has a nice ring to it doesn't it?

We don't want an empire. That costs extra money. Screw that. We just want everyone else to keep calm and carry on. When a bunch of Arabs try to blow up our capital and largest city our natural impulse is to find them and "justify" every last one responsible. Then the Taliban were like "No way Jose. We aren't giving up our friends." W. made an executive decision to bomb the crap out of them for harboring our enemies.

7) Point taken. Most examples are old, but I still find them relevant when interpreting American motives and priorities. America hasn't changed much since a hundred years ago. They begun those invasions on similar premises as those to today. Read your history, find the parallels. They might not be exactly the same, but the circumstances have changed, the excuses have changed, but the nature of American policies have not. Creating self reliant countries, or creating American dependent nations? Which one? Take for example, most of the nations that were "occupied" by America gets it weapons supplies from America. (With the exception of Cuba) As raised earlier on military might determines sovereignity. During that 2008 Georgian conflict, Georgia realised that most of it's arms came from Russia, and Russia then refused to continue selling it arms. Singapore's planes (Which allows us to have air supremacy within our region) come from America. If denied to us, we lose a substantial portion of our military strength. We are VERY much dependent on America. Why else do you think China has raised it's military budget, and has been racing to build up it's arms industry? Self suffiency. If America truly wishes other nations to be self sufficient, they should then help to build up a credible arms industry, share military technology, and stop hogging it's monopoly over military arms.

We didn't stay in Libya the first time. We didn't take all of Mexico. Cuba greatly benefited economically and in standards of living from American cooperation. As did the Philippines, but they got full of teenage angst and tried to fight us and got punched out. Cuba pulled similar moves but they had Soviet backing so we let them go. Puerto Rico is a territory. We used to control most of the pacific islands. We used to control Germany and Japan and Sicily. We had a lot of occupied territory, but the thing is we allowed people to make their own paths. After WW2 we could have easily tried to establish an Empire and succeeded. But we didn't we did the opposite, we dialed it down.

8) History has lessons for us all. Irrelevant to you perhaps, but I don't think that American atrocities commited in both America and Philipines are not exactly wonderful footnotes in history. I doubt the Americans had planned to leave Philipines, if it weren't for the Japanese invasion, and the subsequent national awakening of the Filipinos. Again, check your history. I distinctly recall the supression of the Filipino people during their rebellion against American rule. Something not quite discussed today. Thousands of Filipinos dead, at American hands. American hands are drenched in blood. What of all the lives ruined in Iraq or Afghanistan. Nothing is ever said about them. All the fathers, and families killed. How is this fair, how is this just? Why does George Bush, elected twice as President of the United States of America walk away scott free? For every American dead, there are hundreds if not thousands of dead innocent civilians of oher nations.

Because we're the God Damn Batman...

9-10) I'm sorry if I was rather blunt at this point. It's hard not to read American motives as Imperialistic ones when they bear so much resemblence to Roman ones. Conquest through culture, economy, and military might. Rome too, never invade without a "plausible" Casus Belli. Rome always claimed the higher moral ground, feigning intervention, and planting military presences. What else do we call the thousands of American troops stationed around the world? No I don't wish for America to be replaced by China, or Russia. I don't wish for any nation to assume that tryrannical role. I wish for a world without borders, and respect for all peoples, that justice not be delivered through military means, nor righteousness determined by strength of arms. I call for America to scale down it's weapons development program. Be the first to disarm it's nuclear arms, and ban nuclear arms in general. No more stockpiles, no more fear.

So, I hope I have dispelled any ill feelings that you may bear, in belief that I am an ignorant non American fool. I believe I am quite justified in my suspicious, and cynical attitude towards America.

Yeah... well we're going to keep doing what we're doing and you're going to continue reaping the rewards of independence, freedom, prosperity, a great climate, trade, culture, and safety.

We'll send you the bill.

[thomascreel]

Yeah... well we're going to keep doing what we're doing and you're going to continue reaping the rewards of independence, freedom, prosperity, a great climate, trade, culture, and safety.

We'll send you the bill.

Oh come on now, the weather in Afghanistan is crap.

[seanbg]

*Chuckles*

Thank you all for your very vigorous replies. I enjoyed reading them.

Especially your's Col. Tartelton. I liked your's too Nevin! I agree on various points, and understand both your perspective, but disagree with your orientation.

I shall not argue with you on American policies, and agree to disagree. Whilst what you may state may be true, or as some put it, "Realistic", I'll continue to disagree, on the principle that America should not behave the way it does, policing the world, and acting as judge as jury (Including the death of Osama, 3000 US citizens. So what? 10,000 Afghani deaths. Rather unbalanced don't you think? No tribute to them, no major movies made about them, no annual mourning) because America has NO moral authority to do so. History proves that America is no better than any other nation. (Hence all my outdated examples, which can be interpreted in various ways)

I am however stating my case that America has such a high military bill, because of it's policies, and as such, ad because I don't agree with those policies, I state that the cost is unnecessary. What you're telling me is that, America is right in what it does, and therefore I say, "Bill's your's", you can't expect to rule the world without spending a dime now do you?

And you might be probably right, that America might not be the total bastard I think it to be. Though I think you fail to see America's position from any other perspective but an American one. Probably because I'm on an English website about a game produced by an American company. But I'm just saying that America is Rome, it's either you like it or you don't. I admired Rome, I envied it. Rome brought economic wealth, and much of our civilisation can be attributed to them. But I've NEVER compromise with them in Rome Total War. War to the hilt. *Barbarian chants* Death to them all, and salt their ground, that their city may never rise again. Much like what they did to Carthage. Reason? Because they're the Empire. Yes, I know it's a broad parallel, then again, is there a specific example you can give me otherwise? I don't fancy Russia or China either, they're far worse in many ways, and I'd just as happily fight them too.

In many ways, it's ironic. I see America the same way it's founding fathers saw the red coats. Bloody imperialists. Sure, if you were British, you'd probably have replied the way you do now. After all bringing technology, global security and money, is your wonderful justification. But I don't think you'd agree if you were French, Indian, German, American, and plenty of other nations.

Singapore was a colony of Britain once, and you know what? Many of the older folks here speak fondly of them, and with pride too. Strange isn't it? Sure Singapore would have been a backward swampy island if it weren't for them. But that doesn't change the fact that they came here as colonialists does it?

You say America doesn't want an empire. But it already has it's empire. After WW2 America lents millions to Europe under the Marshall plan. Which is basically economic slavery. Who profited more than America after the war? If Germany had won the war, things would have beenvery different. (Yes, I know that America was hesitant to enter the war, but it seems more like an elaborate ploy than a moral decision) Not that I hope for that...I'm Asian, and they'd probably cull my race, seeing I'm far from the idealised blue eyed, blond haired model of a man. But Victors write the history, and once history has been made it cannot be undone.

To put it simply, Americans conquered tribal lands from the Indians. It's history now, but the consequence is reality now. Is that right? If America had never commited that error then. It might be an American America, without all the white people in it. Therefore we should look at the things we do today, and not act hastily. Think of Osama and Saadam, both were solutions created by America to fae threats of a different era, then terminated because it went against them later.

You've all given me much to think about, and lots of new information. I appreciate that you've tried to correct me. Ive learnt that America's intention may not have always been selfish, though I still very much doubt it, and that in that matyr like attitude it adopts, it can be mistaken for hypocracy when they act to ensure their own survival. Which again, I'm not too certain about.

Last post, I hope you can appreciate my perspective, as I have tried to understand your's.

P.S Syria is a disgrace. I don't exactly think it reflects well on the world's government's, on America either.

[☩Lord Inquisitor Derpy Hooves☩]

I don't deny the US is imperialistic, but I have no problems with it as long as it is being used in a moralistic way or a way that can benefit both countries. Not because I'm an American, but because I am a firm believer that world unification is possible. I can understand why you as well as millions or billions of others don't have a favourable view of the US. But, US presence is beneficial to SE Asia. Those countries are more anti-China than they are pro-American or anti-American. If the US lessened it's presence in that region, those countries wouldn't be all too happy.

My position stands, no reduction in military spending.

[♔DeusVult!♔]

I'm curious; does America need the Army anymore? I mean, isn't it possible that the Marines, Airforce and Navy could get along fine without the Army? It's not like Soviet Canukistan is dangerous, Mexico is unlikely to invade and even if they did they can have fun dodging aircraft attacks and China needs to cross the Pacific to launch ground operations (assuming of course that they do declare war, which is unlikely.)

I'm sorry, that is just ridiculous. You do understand that you are calling for the complete elimination of the "boots on the ground", right? The element that all other branches exist to support. The Marines are a highly specialized force, designed primarily for amphibious assault. Currently, they fight alongside the Army because we don't have any beaches to invade atm. The Marines are a small fighting force that has to rely on either the Navy or the Army for support (logistics, medical care, etc). That is what allows them to react quickly and decisively. If the Army were eliminated, the Marines would have to grow and expand their mission, which would turn them into the Army. On the other hand the Army has the support network to conduct major campaigns, and also excels at airborne/air assault capabilities (as opposed to the amphibious mission of the Marines). This allows for a lot of flexibility. It would be incredibly shortsighted to eliminate an entire branch based on the fact that "Mexico can't invade right now".

You might as well call for the elimination of the Air Force just because the Navy has carriers.

[conon394]

I'm sorry, that is just ridiculous. You do understand that you are calling for the complete elimination of the "boots on the ground", right? The element that all other branches exist to support. The Marines are a highly specialized force, designed primarily for amphibious assault. Currently, they fight alongside the Army because we don't have any beaches to invade atm. The Marines are a small fighting force that has to rely on either the Navy or the Army for support (logistics, medical care, etc). That is what allows them to react quickly and decisively. If the Army were eliminated, the Marines would have to grow and expand their mission, which would turn them into the Army. On the other hand the Army has the support network to conduct major campaigns, and also excels at airborne/air assault capabilities (as opposed to the amphibious mission of the Marines). This allows for a lot of flexibility. It would be incredibly shortsighted to eliminate an entire branch based on the fact that "Mexico can't invade right now".

Although elimination the army is unrealistic I think you can make an argument that the country might be better of if the bulk of it was made of conscripts of everyone at the age of 18. Yes keep a professional system of officers, NCOs and certain needed units (while keeping a professional Navy/Air force/Marines/Coast Guard). I find it disturbing how few people in the US have to pay the price/risk for our current wars and I worry about the effect on political leaders who know that.

[Nevins]

Although elimination the army is unrealistic I think you can make an argument that the country might be better of if the bulk of it was made of conscripts of everyone at the age of 18. Yes keep a professional system of officers, NCOs and certain needed units (while keeping a professional Navy/Air force/Marines/Coast Guard). I find it disturbing how few people in the US have to pay the price/risk for our current wars and I worry about the effect on political leaders who know that.

Tom Ricks agrees.

[Vanoi]

Tom Ricks agrees.

Good luck with implementing that. I don't think you should have to force people to join the army.

[muller227]

Although elimination the army is unrealistic I think you can make an argument that the country might be better of if the bulk of it was made of conscripts of everyone at the age of 18. Yes keep a professional system of officers, NCOs and certain needed units (while keeping a professional Navy/Air force/Marines/Coast Guard). I find it disturbing how few people in the US have to pay the price/risk for our current wars and I worry about the effect on political leaders who know that.

Conon has a valid point. Time magazine recently reported that less than 1% of the American Population has been engaged in these wars. The article made two more points as well, a very high proportion of recruits come from military families, and their is a disproportional representation of certain states on a per capita basis. Poor rural states such as MT, ND and SD. Have a significantly higher per capita ratio of service, as do lower income brackets in urban areas.

They also point out a growing separation between the American people and its military in thought and social norms. It has become rather easy for the bulk of the American populace to be patriotic. There are 32 people in my place of work, only 2 of us have been in the military, both as reserves in an easy time. And one NG who has been to Iraq twice. What is stranger, to my mind though is that I am the only person with close family members who have been to Iraq and Afghanistan. Most of them don't even know anyone who has been there.

This is a trend that is growing worrisome to sociologists and some in the military. There is a world of difference between having a Professional Military and a Professional Military Caste. One the main tenets of the Roman Republic and Athens was that the citizenry at large performed its public duty. Socrates himself was a soldier. The Marian reforms while successful were the beginning of the end of the Republic.

[♔DeusVult!♔]

Although elimination the army is unrealistic I think you can make an argument that the country might be better of if the bulk of it was made of conscripts of everyone at the age of 18. Yes keep a professional system of officers, NCOs and certain needed units (while keeping a professional Navy/Air force/Marines/Coast Guard). I find it disturbing how few people in the US have to pay the price/risk for our current wars and I worry about the effect on political leaders who know that.

Eh, not really. Sure, that works for small countries and those under constant threat such as Israel or the former West Germany. You think the military is too big now, just wait until every snot nosed high schooler has to enlist. The US has over 300 million people. We simply don't need everyone to participate. The US has also traditionally had a majority volunteer army, even during times of war. WWII might be an exception, I haven't looked at the numbers. But even when everyone was making hay over the draft in Vietnam, over 2/3rds of the Army was volunteers.

It sounds great in theory to say that every citizen should have to participate in defense, but it doesn't pan out in practice, at least in large nations. A conscript army would be less professional and less effective than a small all-volunteer force. Forced service would reduce morale. I'm proud to have volunteered, but frankly there are already idiots in that 1% that get in as it is, and I don't want to have to deal with a larger bunch of retards who don't want to be there and have a beef with the system. America is not short on volunteers, and won't face recruiting problems when the next war rolls around. Conscription is both unnecessary and un-American. I am just fine with "1%" serving in our wars.

[muller227]

Eh, not really. Sure, that works for small countries and those under constant threat such as Israel or the former West Germany. You think the military is too big now, just wait until every snot nosed high schooler has to enlist. The US has over 300 million people. We simply don't need everyone to participate. The US has also traditionally had a majority volunteer army, even during times of war. WWII might be an exception, I haven't looked at the numbers. But even when everyone was making hay over the draft in Vietnam, over 2/3rds of the Army was volunteers.

It sounds great in theory to say that every citizen should have to participate in defense, but it doesn't pan out in practice, at least in large nations. A conscript army would be less professional and less effective than a small all-volunteer force. Forced service would reduce morale. I'm proud to have volunteered, but frankly there are already idiots in that 1% that get in as it is, and I don't want to have to deal with a larger bunch of retards who don't want to be there and have a beef with the system. America is not short on volunteers, and won't face recruiting problems when the next war rolls around. Conscription is both unnecessary and un-American. I am just fine with "1%" serving in our wars.

Thats not the way the draft works, A nation like the US only calls up what is needed, not everyone. The draft was not the problem that caused vietnam an enormously corrupt deferment system was. The point of the articles being if Joe has some Cash, has too worry about his Pride and Joy, being called up for human target practice on some road in Kandahar or Helmand, he might not be so eager see the old USA kick some ass.

Democracy is not only about personal freedom it is about duty something the bulk of Americans have forgotten. Hell you can see it in something as simple as voter turnout.

[♔DeusVult!♔]

Thats not the way the draft works, A nation like the US only calls up what is needed, not everyone. The draft was not the problem that caused vietnam an enormously corrupt deferment system was. The point of the articles being if Joe has some Cash, has too worry about his Pride and Joy, being called up for human target practice on some road in Kandahar or Helmand, he might not be so eager see the old USA kick some ass.

Democracy is not only about personal freedom it is about duty something the bulk of Americans have forgotten. Hell you can see it in something as simple as voter turnout.

There is a difference between a draft and conscription. Calling for use of a draft is NOT the same as calling for conscription. Conscription means that your standing army is made of conscripts. A draft, like you said, only calls people up during time of war. I understand the point of calling up a draft everytime we get into some piddly conflict, but I just think the cons outweigh the pros. Such a system is very cost-inefficient and is detrimental to readiness. Also, I believe the other poster was calling for conscription, not for a draft.

*FYI, I do not have time to read that article atm, so sorry if I am misunderstanding your use of "draft".

[Condottiere 40K]

[Napoleon's Scribe]

LOL....a simple question about the military budget and all the America haters come put to play. Yes yes the great Satan and all that.

The budget doesn't need to be reduced, but like all government programs people have to be held accountable for all the waste. I mean how much money is wasted away in Washington on things that aren't even the government's responsibility. Cuts should be made, but after we find out the sources of waste. People would be shocked to find out very little of the defense budget goes to actually training troops. How much is paid to contractors to do support jobs the military used to handle itself, and are ripping off the government. These things need to be dealt with for every branch of government. If this was done the federal government would run much better, but I doubt it will ever happen. It's about keeping the government running not making it work for the people.

[Mangalore]

LOL....a simple question about the military budget and all the America haters come put to play. Yes yes the great Satan and all that.

The budget doesn't need to be reduced, but like all government programs people have to be held accountable for all the waste. I mean how much money is wasted away in Washington on things that aren't even the government's responsibility. Cuts should be made, but after we find out the sources of waste. People would be shocked to find out very little of the defense budget goes to actually training troops. How much is paid to contractors to do support jobs the military used to handle itself, and are ripping off the government. These things need to be dealt with for every branch of government. If this was done the federal government would run much better, but I doubt it will ever happen. It's about keeping the government running not making it work for the people.

I'm confused. You don't want to reduce the budget but say that alot of is wasted and you want to remove the waste. If the waste is removed who is going to get the rest of the budget that now is too big for the expenses? Sounds to me someone is pissed the contractors line their pockets and wants to replace them.

[Napoleon's Scribe]

I'm confused. You don't want to reduce the budget but say that alot of is wasted and you want to remove the waste. If the waste is removed who is going to get the rest of the budget that now is too big for the expenses? Sounds to me someone is pissed the contractors line their pockets and wants to replace them.

Well than you'd be wrong, but I have no problem explaining things. Any government agency wastes money, largely because many in the government don't seem to care when funds are misspent, because it's not their money. Ever notice how when there is a scandal so few people lose their jobs? Or when they government fails in it's duties nobody is fired.

Take the Bradly fighting vehicle for example. Over a Billion dollars was spent developing that weapons system, but they were ready to bring the vehicle into service with major flaws still in place. Nobody was reprimanded when this happened, and the whistle blower instead of being promoted was shown the door. Fortunately the flaws were fixed before the Bradly was used in Desert Storm. If these flaws weren't fixed casualties would have been much higher. Now I'm sure much less money and time would have been spent if people knew they'd be in serious trouble for wasting funds and at the very least be kicked to the curb for being incompetent. Nobody wants to streamline the process and hold people accountable.

Than there is the Cobra helicopter the Marines had. They wanted the new model, but had many factory fresh and well made choppers, and would give the Marines many more years of service. They sold some, but many were simply destroyed. Those who did get to buy these choppers (made so you can't mount weapons) were able to buy tons of spare parts at prices below wholesale. In the mean time allies were willing to buy the choppers as well as National Guard units that could have used them. All so they could by the next upgrade. Once again nobody was punished for these actions.

I think the defense budget could be trimmed, but let's see if the folks at the Pentagon can spent more wisely. They have to be held account for waste, and it shouldn't be accepted as business as usual. Now I have no problem with contractors assisting the military, but certain jobs should stay within the military. In my opinion national defense is one of the few things the federal government should be doing. Spend all the money you need, but don't spend like crazy. It could well be in the end they need much less money to accomplish their operations.

[thewolflord]

Defense spending in America is outrageous, but it's part of the whole Military-Industrial Complex that we all revolve around. Personally, I would eliminate non-critical defense projects, identify and close foreign bases not critical to regional projection of power, and shift more towards intelligence and clandestine ops rather than Shock and Awe (or is it Shock and Awk?). Scale back and spend it more wisely, not just to the whims of companies like Boeing and General Dynamics.

[Napoleon's Scribe]

Interesting idea and this is based off of how many years of military experience? I think even those who like Black Ops know you need conventional forces at the very least to provide a recruiting pool. Now spending more wisely I think is something everyone can get behind.