Is the US Spending Enough On The Military?

[imawhosure]

The U.S. needs to get a handle on Military spending. Building toys for big boys to use in a gigantic ocean war that will never happen is a dead end. When the greatest fighting force is led by fools all the spending in the world won't compensate. "Intelligence" networks are so closely tied to the military that it's almost impossible to separate the two. The CIA has been used illegally by at least one administration and probably more and it hasn't been on top of any important event since WW2. Now we have a virtual alphabet of intelligence networks led by political hacks and thanks to a series of traitors there are no secrets left. We need to streamline the intelligence networks and get rid of the fat assed admirals and generals ensconced in the Pentagon and redirect the budget.

So your saying cut or navy while China is increasing theirs ?
China Doubling Its Aircraft Carrier Fleet | TIME.com

2 kinds of warfare, nuclear/conventional. Besides North Korea, who do you think would do nuclear? (that is unless the jihadists get some) And so, to stop people from EXPANDING, you use conventional force. Unless you attack places they own from the start, nobody shoots off a nuclear bomb. Why would they?

But, at some point in time, what they took becomes theirs in their own minds. So to stop them from getting into that position, you have to stop them from acquiring it in the 1st place.

Nuclear arsenal = nobody wants to attack you are they to are destroyed. Conventional weapons stop expansionism.

Now then, from a purely military point of view, let us look at 2 and 3 on the list!

How many of YOU from the left, or the right, would be willing to shoot off a few nukes at Russia, if they were to invade Europe, proper? And so, since we KNOW we aren't going to shoot nukes, look at the tanks! (consider this the same thing as NAZI Germany since really, no nukes are flying, our aircraft carriers don't really mean squat in a land locked war, our airplane fleet is old by a large %, and the navy isn't really involved either) So what do we do?

You see, how long did it take us to free East Germany? Why? Because the Russians were THERE! It was THEIR'S! To stop that mindset, we have to able to stop them in their tracks, and NEVER cross into the motherland, or nukes WILL go off! Same goes for the Chinese. What if they invaded Taiwan? Who amongst you wants to shoot off a nuke?

You see, I agree our military budget is to high, as long as our allies pick up the slack. But then you have to ask yourself this question-------> Europe has looked like fools both times they were invaded. How important is Europe to world peace, and if we abandon them, who will stand with us!

The point of this post is simple military, reality-------> nuclear weapons between nation states, are NOT offensive weapons, but rather deterrents from invasion. On the other hand, CONVENTIONAL weapons ARE offensive weapons to be used to attack others who are attempting to over run other nation states, that are not nuclear; and would be highly successful as long as you did NOT continue into the invading, nuclear, country of aggression. As long as you HOLD the area being attacked, that area would NOT be considered part of the attacking nuclear power, so no nuclear exchange would be warranted.

This is EXACTLY why, we need bolster conventional weapons systems, unless our theory is to abandon the rest of the West to aggressive, nuclear, states.