Wow. Just how much POWER does one country need?

[Humble Warrior]

I was doing some research on Carriers and their expense since WW2 and eventually ended up checking on how many carriers each country of the modern world has. I was in for a bitof a surprise. The countries of the world that has carriers have only 1, including, to my surprise, Russia...

America has 11!

Then I decided to check on airforce power, naval power and land power. Only in land power does the US have slightly less than say, China. Russia has more tanks. Russia`s naval and air power are pathetic and the rest of the world isn`t even worth mentioning. Of course lets not forget the technological superiority too.

In fact, in a conventional war against America (Heaven forbid), it would need all the countries of the rest of the world to even have a slight chance of success.

In other words, the US`s military power is HUGE, incredibly huge, blindingly huge. Do they really need such a huge military power? Are they expecting Aliens to invade cos I can`t see anyone else even having a chance.

Way I see it, America already rules the earth.

Of course there are nuclear weapons, which I guess is the only unhappy equilibrium , but I`m talking conventional here, .

I knew America was powerful and stronger than Russia, I just didn`t realise just how powerful militarily they are than everything put together.

[mishkin]

America is really scared or the military industry makes excellent business in america.

[Erebus Pasha]

Moved to the Political Academy.

[Pielstick]

In the grand scheme of things I don't think it's very surprising. I'd bet the UK spent a similar amount of money and resources on its navy before the Great War.

[Imperial]

Being world police ain't cheap.

[Humble Warrior]

Well it`s a tad scary, isn`t it? I haven`t compared it to Britain during the Empire days or the Romans, but the US has to be right up there if not way beyond and in a way ridiculously short time period too.

I don`t see America as bad and it`s definitely better than some of the alternatives, but what if someone takes a dictatorial hold of the US and uses it to fully dominate? What if say, a Nazi or similar government takes over and decides to finish what Hitler started? No one is perfect. Not even Americans.

It`s just a lot of power to trust to one nation and a few people at the top. It`s the lack of balance I guess that is worrying. At least with Russia there was balance, both sides kept eachother in check.

[Azog 150]

Being world police ain't cheap.

In the grand scheme of things I don't think it's very surprising. I'd bet the UK spent a similar amount of money and resources on its navy before the Great War.

Actually you would be surprised at how little Britain spent policing the world in its hey day. In 1898 it was only spending 2.5% of its net national product on defence (About £40 million) and the British Army only numbered around 215,000 (Plus the 148,000 strong Indian Army). As a percentage of GDP thats not that much different from what we are currently spending, and it is far lower then the 8% we were spending at the height of the Cold War and the 4% the USA currently spends. And this was at a time when Britain actively controlled 1/4 of the world, it still took months to transport troops to the other side of the world and when there was a much larger number of strong opponents looking to knock Britain off its perch.

Being world police isn't cheap. But the military industrial complex and massive inefficiency in defence spending doesn't help. The USA military is a big expensive behemoth that quite simply isn't necessary. But if that's what the USA wants to continue spending so much money on then so be it.

[Manuel I Komnenos]

And in the debate Romney was stating that he wants to increase the military budget..? But why? There's no force on earth comparable with the American army.

[Humble Warrior]

And in the debate Romney was stating that he wants to increase the military budget..? But why? There's no force on earth comparable with the American army.

Exactly.

[Knight of Heaven]

And in the debate Romney was stating that he wants to increase the military budget..? But why? There's no force on earth comparable with the American army.

Its called populism. Earning votes. Off course if i was american i woulnt vote for him though.

Legio is right though. Americans that are in the know view the military budget as a whole as a real drain on us. SS and Medicare can be fixed through reforms and specific taxes but the military is out of control and Republicans refuse to cut it and Democrats won't cut it enough. It is really the one program we are stuck with and we are so far ahead it is isn't even a contest anymore.

Im sure there are lobbies, making profit and preasure.

[Nutsack]

And in the debate Romney was stating that he wants to increase the military budget..? But why? There's no force on earth comparable with the American army.

Probably because the military industry invested in his campaign?

[Col. Tartleton]

Probably because the military industry invested in his campaign?

We haven't deployed WMDs against anyone since the 1940's. No one believes we'll do it again. We also don't want to do it again. So instead we just make our military obscenely huge as a conventional/unconventional restricted war force. We've also had some ambiguous victories in the past. As a result my take is that the some people actually still view us as a paper tiger.

We could vaporize a city at random to make an example or we could build some more tanks. I think we all know which one is going to happen.

[Dr. Croccer]

You're forgetting that only about half of the military budget actually goes to maintenance of the military (Airforce, Army, Navy). The lion's share of the rest goes to interest, spending on veterans and Homeland Security and the FBI.

That and the fact that while America' military strength might look menacing on paper, much of it at any given moment isn't able to deploy to anywhere else. The US has a lot of strategic interests it needs to take care of. The US needs to maintain a large military presence in Asia to deter China and North Korea from pressuring Japan and Taiwan. It needs to have a large military presence in Europe and the Middle East to dissuade opposition and to counterbalance Russia. So their number of carriers might look impressive, but many, maybe most, are tied to points of strategic interest, like East Asia and the Persian Gulf. And at any given moment at least one of the carriers will be in repairs or maintenance work, so it's possible that only about half of the carriers would be able to deploy to anywhere on command if it were needed. Same with soldiers, the US has many committed to Afghanistan, Europe, the Stans, South Korea, Japan, Taiwan and all over the Middle East. They can't be suddenly pulled out, and many of the other troops are still in training or on leave or needed back in America, so again the actual numbers of the military would be considerably lower than one would imagine from the statistics.

[Humble Warrior]

You're forgetting that only about half of the military budget actually goes to maintenance of the military (Airforce, Army, Navy). The lion's share of the rest goes to interest, spending on veterans and Homeland Security and the FBI.

That and the fact that while America' military strength might look menacing on paper, much of it at any given moment isn't able to deploy to anywhere else. The US has a lot of strategic interests it needs to take care of. The US needs to maintain a large military presence in Asia to deter China and North Korea from pressuring Japan and Taiwan. It needs to have a large military presence in Europe and the Middle East to dissuade opposition and to counterbalance Russia. So their number of carriers might look impressive, but many, maybe most, are tied to points of strategic interest, like East Asia and the Persian Gulf. And at any given moment at least one of the carriers will be in repairs or maintenance work, so it's possible that only about half of the carriers would be able to deploy to anywhere on command if it were needed. Same with soldiers, the US has many committed to Afghanistan, Europe, the Stans, South Korea, Japan, Taiwan and all over the Middle East. They can't be suddenly pulled out, and many of the other troops are still in training or on leave or needed back in America, so again the actual numbers of the military would be considerably lower than one would imagine from the statistics.

Hmm. Interesting. So they really are the world`s police force then. Somewhat self-appointed. Thanks.

I suppose as long as their goals remain to keep peace that`s good.

[mishkin]

I suppose as long as their goals remain to keep peace that`s good.

Yes. That would be nice.

[Dr. Croccer]

Hmm. Interesting. So they really are the world`s police force then. Somewhat self-appointed. Thanks.

I suppose as long as their goals remain to keep peace that`s good.

No, not really, they're just doing what's in their interest, just as any other country would. The small numbers of troops in Europe aren't enough to actually form a deterrent, they're there to man and guard the various bases and airstrips which are there which are used to resupply troops on the way to and from the Middle East. The British did the same thing when they were on top.

[Humble Warrior]

No, not really, they're just doing what's in their interest, just as any other country would. The small numbers of troops in Europe aren't enough to actually form a deterrent, they're there to man and guard the various bases and airstrips which are there which are used to resupply troops on the way to and from the Middle East. The British did the same thing when they were on top.

That I understand, and I would criticise Great Britain herself (and anyone else) the same way if it had such overwhleming dominance.

I can`t see how having such a hugely overwheming military power is of any real use unless they intend to use it. If they don`t intend to use it then it has little point except to wait for theoretical Alien attack. I mean, there isn`t even an enemy that can fight such power any more. Those terrorists don`t count, they are gnats which literally fly under that power and pinprick America annoyingly, but they are certainly no threat for a conventional army, airforce and navy.

It`s like the US is just addicted to having a ridiculously surpassing and over-the-top military power. Almost like they`re playing some `I must pwn all` game and have forgotten to stop cos all the other players have left the server.

@I WUB PUGS: Thanks for your input also.

[Thorn777]

You're forgetting that only about half of the military budget actually goes to maintenance of the military (Airforce, Army, Navy). The lion's share of the rest goes to interest, spending on veterans and Homeland Security and the FBI.

That and the fact that while America' military strength might look menacing on paper, much of it at any given moment isn't able to deploy to anywhere else. The US has a lot of strategic interests it needs to take care of. The US needs to maintain a large military presence in Asia to deter China and North Korea from pressuring Japan and Taiwan. It needs to have a large military presence in Europe and the Middle East to dissuade opposition and to counterbalance Russia. So their number of carriers might look impressive, but many, maybe most, are tied to points of strategic interest, like East Asia and the Persian Gulf. And at any given moment at least one of the carriers will be in repairs or maintenance work, so it's possible that only about half of the carriers would be able to deploy to anywhere on command if it were needed. Same with soldiers, the US has many committed to Afghanistan, Europe, the Stans, South Korea, Japan, Taiwan and all over the Middle East. They can't be suddenly pulled out, and many of the other troops are still in training or on leave or needed back in America, so again the actual numbers of the military would be considerably lower than one would imagine from the statistics.

Hmm. Interesting. So they really are the world`s police force then. Somewhat self-appointed. Thanks.

I suppose as long as their goals remain to keep peace that`s good.

Ah, rescue ranger theorists. Cute....

[Captain Jin]

You're forgetting that only about half of the military budget actually goes to maintenance of the military (Airforce, Army, Navy). The lion's share of the rest goes to interest, spending on veterans and Homeland Security and the FBI.

I wouldn't say so. Homeland security isn't a big one in the grand scheme of things and FBI counter-terror stuff is an even smaller drop in the bucket.

For sure America has major spending issues in Defense primarily thanks to the sheer inefficiency for research and development. And even in other regards, when we see things like Congress approving things the DoD doesn't even want. I think a couple years ago there was something about Congress purchasing 17 or 18 new C-17 Globemasters and the DoD being like "No we don't need or want them" and Congress saying "We already bought them lol!"

In other regards I think a major issue is there are a still a ton of conventionalists, if I can phrase a fake word, still operating at the highest rungs of the US military. Throughout my entire time in the USMC I've seen a battle of philosophies between the old school guys, the senior Staff NCOs and Officers who grew up in the Corps before Iraq or Afghanistan and the younger guys like me who cut our teeth in two wars. Young NCOs and the younger corps of officers were always battling that conventional mindset. And we still are! Now as Iraq is over and Afghanistan is winding down military leaders ALREADY want to retool and refocus on the conventional fight! As if that will be our next conflict!? What we see in Iraq and Afghanistan is the future of land war; the likelihood of a major conventional war is unlikely (the Gulf War is out of place when you look at our military involvement globally since Vietnam). I'm not saying we shouldn't have some degree of preparation for the conventional, but not to the point they want.

Now we already see the Navy and Air Force jockeying for bigger and better budgets because they felt left out over the last ten years because it was the Marines and Army doing the majority of the fighting. And every branch has been spend crazy. Just recently all branches except the Corps were blasted by the office in charge of accountability of government spending because of their asinine projects to develop their own camouflage patterns. The Army, Navy and Air Force all spent millions on developing new patterns, the Army has already completely replaced theirs with multicam (which is not a permanent solution), the Air Force came out with their pitifully stupid tiger stripe that can't even be worn outside the wire, and the Navy has their dumb ass aquaflage (that they are already talking about replacing!). Millions spent. The Marines spent 300k on development of our patterns and we've came them.

But even the Corps, who was famous for its frugality, has lost its way in many cases. We're planning (or were) to buy 340 F35Bs! 340!?! That's insane. The F35B is the most expensive version of an already expensive plane! Well we need the short landing and take off, but really what it comes down to is the age old "I don't want another branch doing it's job for me" that the Corps is notorious for. What is the primary mission of EVERYTHING in the Corps? To support the infantry! So we need ground attack platforms capable of short landing and take off (so we can use on Amphib ships and unimproved runways). These platforms should be capable of delivering bombs up to a 1,000 pounds in size, or delivering PGMs such as Hellfire or Maverick missiles. Now for anyone that has ever been in a gunfight on the ground and called for a fighter to do a gun run you'll notice that pretty much every jet in our arsenal flies to ing fast to hit what they're aiming at with any kind of consistency. That's why they usually use bombs (which are expensive). An easy solution is a prop-driven aircraft which solves your short landing and take off issue, gives you a solid ground support platform that can sling lead accurately and drop plenty of decent ordnance (This anyone?). But no, the Corps needs its own air superiority capability. We can't have the Air Force exclusively in charge of that, or the Navy...

There are cock fights like this left and right. People don't know this but the Army aviation isn't allowed to do close air support. They call it something else and when it can be used is important enough that you have to learn before you get dropped in country because of all the dick fighting. The Air Force literally lobbied Congress when the Army was building up its own CAS abilities and said "Hey, they can't do that because if they do-- they're negating our purpose". And Congress agreed. In Sangin Navy aviators weren't allowed to drop ordnance for Marines anymore because they kept missing and almost hitting friendlies. Likewise its often stated that SOTF guys request Marine aviation stacked in the skies during their operations because of their greater familiarity and capabilities in the ground support role. Meanwhile Air Force is trawling around God knows where with what? F22s? I remember how those often saved... no one. The Warthog is the most bad ass piece of aircraft the Air Force has and the most relevant and they almost ing retired it because conventional thinkers couldn't find a role for it! Now its probably the single most effective aircraft for troops in contact on the deck! Aaand now I'm rambling.

[Dr. Croccer]

I don't even think the US military is that big. It's that everyone else who is modern is tiny in that area.

Post Imperialism the Europeans don't see the point of protecting commerce to places they don't directly control.

Right.

That's why Germany almost immediately showed interest in resolving the Yugoslav Wars en aiding Croatia during the 1990s, why the British still have military bases and deployments in Cyprus, Sierra Leone, Brunei and Belize as well as training camps in many other countries and why the French have defence agreements with half of Africa.

It might be smaller in scale than American deployments, but it would be naive to pretend that major European countries haven't been advancing their interests via military means across the world. Why do you think Cameron and Sarkozy were pushing for intervention in Libya? Those oil deals in years prior weren't a coincedence and the last thing the EU needs is even more instability in North Africa and the Near East.

I think history has shown that occupying Mountain People is an exercise in futility. The Scots, Swiss, Afghans, Nepalese, Vietnamese, etc. The only way to subdue them is to integrate them.

Nice rule but it doesn't really apply to Vietnam considering that most of the population lives in the fertile coastal lowlands and that's where most of the fighting took place, and the fact that actual mountain people like the Montagnards were largely favourable to the Americans.