Justify: Why do we have such a massive military?

[rightwinger]

It all comes down to mission

The mission of the US military is not to defend the continental US. We have not been invaded in 200 years and we could block any invasion with 10% of our current military force

The mission of our military is to protect our interests abroad and keep the shipping lanes clear. Gotta keep that oil flowing.

The US military is larger than the next ten forces combined and eight of those ten forces are our allies. Time to relegate the role of world policeman to our allies. They created most of the current world situation and they are the ones most impacted by strife in their region.

 

[Samson]

there is another consideration, military spending creates jobs for millions of blue collar americans. Do we put those people on unemployment? .

Good point.

The purpose of the military is to defend US interests, not to act as a trainer/employer.

However, Is there really anything wrong with reducing the size of military forces, then using the budget savings to fund a "Civilian Conservation Corps" where enlistment would be manditory for all unemployed 18-30 year olds?

I think mandatory govt service of some kind may be a good idea, but your FDR CCC idea would only work if they were doing real work--not digging and filling up ditches as they did with the CCC under FDR.

But unless we balance the budget none of it will matter because the economy will collapse.

I'm just using the CCC as a reference example; and note I mentioned manditory for UNEMPLOYED 18-30 year olds. I'm certain the criminal element would avoid this service. The worker would receive no less compensation than they would receiving unemployment benefits: The budget for this would be taken from part of the savings from reducing the military budget, no no additional government funding would be needed.

Your suggestion that training in REAL skills is a good one, but digging a ditch doesn't mean you cannot also learn to use software

 

[JakeStarkey]

Our military expenditures are in excess of the next 25 national expenditures combined.

Neither Canada nor Mexico are going to invade us.

All we need are sufficient carrier forces, air strike and support forces, with mobile strike ground forces.

 

[Samson]

It all comes down to mission

The mission of the US military is not to defend the continental US. We have not been invaded in 200 years and we could block any invasion with 10% of our current military force

The mission of our military is to protect our interests abroad and keep the shipping lanes clear. Gotta keep that oil flowing.

The US military is larger than the next ten forces combined and eight of those ten forces are our allies. Time to relegate the role of world policeman to our allies. They created most of the current world situation and they are the ones most impacted by strife in their region.

The USA imports AND exports many goods and services.

The fact that you focus on portion of this commerce, "Keep that oil flowing" only makes you appear ignorant of the broader issue, and subverts attention away from the reasonable argument that the US military could be smaller.

 

[Samson]

Our military expenditures are in excess of the next 25 national expenditures combined.

Neither Canada nor Mexico are going to invade us.

All we need are sufficient carrier forces, air strike and support forces, with mobile strike ground forces.

What would "sufficient" be?

Warm up your crystal ball, and tell me what the world will be like in 30 years.

 

[JakeStarkey]

It all comes down to mission

The mission of the US military is not to defend the continental US. We have not been invaded in 200 years and we could block any invasion with 10% of our current military force

The mission of our military is to protect our interests abroad and keep the shipping lanes clear. Gotta keep that oil flowing.

The US military is larger than the next ten forces combined and eight of those ten forces are our allies. Time to relegate the role of world policeman to our allies. They created most of the current world situation and they are the ones most impacted by strife in their region.

The USA imports AND exports many goods and services.

The fact that you focus on portion of this commerce, "Keep that oil flowing" only makes you appear ignorant of the broader issue, and subverts attention away from the reasonable argument that the US military could be smaller.

I think RW agrees "that the US military could be smaller" and still keep the oil flowing and the sea lanes open and our exports/imports trade happy.

 

[Redfish]

Good point.

The purpose of the military is to defend US interests, not to act as a trainer/employer.

However, Is there really anything wrong with reducing the size of military forces, then using the budget savings to fund a "Civilian Conservation Corps" where enlistment would be manditory for all unemployed 18-30 year olds?

I think mandatory govt service of some kind may be a good idea, but your FDR CCC idea would only work if they were doing real work--not digging and filling up ditches as they did with the CCC under FDR.

But unless we balance the budget none of it will matter because the economy will collapse.

I'm just using the CCC as a reference example; and note I mentioned manditory for UNEMPLOYED 18-30 year olds. I'm certain the criminal element would avoid this service. The worker would receive no less compensation than they would receiving unemployment benefits: The budget for this would be taken from part of the savings from reducing the military budget, no no additional government funding would be needed.

Your suggestion that training in REAL skills is a good one, but digging a ditch doesn't mean you cannot also learn to use software

it used to be that when a kid committed a minor crime he was given the choice of jail or the army, that should be reinstituted. most of our inner city crime is committed by unemployed males 18-25, put them in the military, teach them responsibility and a skill. everyone would benefit.

but close all overseas bases unless the host country agrees to pay the entire bill. South Korea and Japan could easily afford to pay for our bases in those countries, for example.

 

[Sallow]

It all comes down to mission

The mission of the US military is not to defend the continental US. We have not been invaded in 200 years and we could block any invasion with 10% of our current military force

The mission of our military is to protect our interests abroad and keep the shipping lanes clear. Gotta keep that oil flowing.

The US military is larger than the next ten forces combined and eight of those ten forces are our allies. Time to relegate the role of world policeman to our allies. They created most of the current world situation and they are the ones most impacted by strife in their region.

The USA imports AND exports many goods and services.

The fact that you focus on portion of this commerce, "Keep that oil flowing" only makes you appear ignorant of the broader issue, and subverts attention away from the reasonable argument that the US military could be smaller.

No it doesn't.

What it does is provide an example and insight into what the United States has been corrupted into by private interests.

An Empire.

And that's something that the Founders never envisioned.

 

[Sallow]

I wonder how many genocides we have prevented compared to the rest of the world.

That is part of what we do.

that

And slaughter tyrants.

Shame we are so reserved. imagine how much nicer it would be in NK if we wiped out the ill family and his handlers.
or syria
or Sudan
or anywhere else

but hey, it's just children, we can always make more children.

That worked so well in Afghanistan.

And Iraq.

50,000 died in viet nam for nothing, iraq and afghan will have the same final result. if wars are not fought to win, they will always be lost.

There is no "win" in those places unless you engage in Genocide.

We came pretty damn close in Vietnam. And didn't do a bad job in Iraq or Afghanistan.

 

[Samson]

It all comes down to mission

The mission of the US military is not to defend the continental US. We have not been invaded in 200 years and we could block any invasion with 10% of our current military force

The mission of our military is to protect our interests abroad and keep the shipping lanes clear. Gotta keep that oil flowing.

The US military is larger than the next ten forces combined and eight of those ten forces are our allies. Time to relegate the role of world policeman to our allies. They created most of the current world situation and they are the ones most impacted by strife in their region.

The USA imports AND exports many goods and services.

The fact that you focus on portion of this commerce, "Keep that oil flowing" only makes you appear ignorant of the broader issue, and subverts attention away from the reasonable argument that the US military could be smaller.

No it doesn't.

What it does is provide an example and insight into what the United States has been corrupted into by private interests.

An Empire.

And that's something that the Founders never envisioned.

Well, as long as you're comfortable with your dilusions and conspiracy theories I'm good.

Just don't fly any planes into any buildings, Thanks.

 

[Redfish]

It all comes down to mission

The mission of the US military is not to defend the continental US. We have not been invaded in 200 years and we could block any invasion with 10% of our current military force

The mission of our military is to protect our interests abroad and keep the shipping lanes clear. Gotta keep that oil flowing.

The US military is larger than the next ten forces combined and eight of those ten forces are our allies. Time to relegate the role of world policeman to our allies. They created most of the current world situation and they are the ones most impacted by strife in their region.

The USA imports AND exports many goods and services.

The fact that you focus on portion of this commerce, "Keep that oil flowing" only makes you appear ignorant of the broader issue, and subverts attention away from the reasonable argument that the US military could be smaller.

I think RW agrees "that the US military could be smaller" and still keep the oil flowing and the sea lanes open and our exports/imports trade happy.

If we were drilling for our own oil, if obama had not blocked the keystone pipeline, we would not need to worry about "keeping the oil flowing". We are dependent on foreign oil because of the liberal stupidity of the federal govt.

 

[Samson]

I think mandatory govt service of some kind may be a good idea, but your FDR CCC idea would only work if they were doing real work--not digging and filling up ditches as they did with the CCC under FDR.

But unless we balance the budget none of it will matter because the economy will collapse.

I'm just using the CCC as a reference example; and note I mentioned manditory for UNEMPLOYED 18-30 year olds. I'm certain the criminal element would avoid this service. The worker would receive no less compensation than they would receiving unemployment benefits: The budget for this would be taken from part of the savings from reducing the military budget, no no additional government funding would be needed.

Your suggestion that training in REAL skills is a good one, but digging a ditch doesn't mean you cannot also learn to use software

it used to be that when a kid committed a minor crime he was given the choice of jail or the army, that should be reinstituted. most of our inner city crime is committed by unemployed males 18-25, put them in the military, teach them responsibility and a skill. everyone would benefit.

but close all overseas bases unless the host country agrees to pay the entire bill. South Korea and Japan could easily afford to pay for our bases in those countries, for example.

It used to be that a delinquent would comfortably fit into the military.

A military that requires VOLUNTEERS to operate sophisticated weapons and support systems cannot easily be a juvenile detention center.

 

[thanatos144]

Defense isn't cheap....Deal with it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

A smarter, smaller defense is coming. Deal with it.

 

[peach174]

Ok. Many have said we need to have the tough talks about budget. Alright. Lets begin.

Military. Why do we have/need the biggest military, by far, in the world? Questions:

1- Our neighbors are Mexico and Canada. We are surrounded by vast oceans. We have one of the most easily defensible plots of land in the world. In fact, we barely have a legit threat in the entire hemisphere.

2- Are we the World Police? I know people argue that we are. WHY? Why us? Why not slash all that spending and downsize. Let the world police itself.

So, either we are the World Police, and we are OK with our tax money being spent to police the rest of the world....or we need to seriously downsize. We dont have an immediate threat anywhere in the hemisphere. Even if we slashed our military with massive cuts, we'd still be unmatched by any other nation.

Entitlements can be the next talk. The next thread. THIS thread is on this topic. So.....from righties and lefties...what is the justification for this massive military? We need to JUSTIFY ever tax dollar spent. Its the fiscally responsible thing to do. Justify it.

We do not have the biggest Military by far in the World.
China does.
China - 2 million 285,000
American 1 million 458,219
Active Muslim Terrorists Worldwide approximately 1 million 800,000, potential future amount 300 Million.
We must keep this potential amount down to as low as it can be. If they actually reached the 300 million amount, the world would have a very big problem on their hands. The expense would be enormous.
Our Federal Government is suppose to have Military enough to defend us.
It is the number one thing the Feds are required to do by our Constitution not Entitlements.
Korea, China and Muslim terrorism a still very much a threat to the U.S.

 

[Sallow]

The USA imports AND exports many goods and services.

The fact that you focus on portion of this commerce, "Keep that oil flowing" only makes you appear ignorant of the broader issue, and subverts attention away from the reasonable argument that the US military could be smaller.

I think RW agrees "that the US military could be smaller" and still keep the oil flowing and the sea lanes open and our exports/imports trade happy.

If we were drilling for our own oil, if obama had not blocked the keystone pipeline, we would not need to worry about "keeping the oil flowing". We are dependent on foreign oil because of the liberal stupidity of the federal govt.

Bullshit.

President Obama didn't "block" anything. Republicans were in a rush to embarrass him. And several states had no taste for the project being ramroded through them given the "safety" standards that keystone was demonstrating in dealing with their own products. Their disaster recovery plans were a joke and as the Tar Sand oil spill in Kalamazoo proves, you'd better know what you are doing in regards to this.

Henry Henderson: Kalamazoo River Spill: Two Years Later and the Tar Sands Mess in Michigan Still Looks Ugly

This week marks the two-year anniversary of the massive Kalamazoo River pipeline spill. The event looks very different now than it did in 2010, when authorities openly worried that the Michigan mess would ooze tar sands oil into the Great Lakes. While there is still work underway to sop up the spill, it already stands as the longest and costliest pipeline cleanup in American history. And the ongoing investigations have given us a clearer and more frustrating view of the disaster, making it clear to anyone looking that our growing affinity for Canada’s bottom-of-the-barrel unconventional tar sands oil is unsafe on a variety of levels.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Deflection by peach174.

By expenditures, we have a larger military than the NEXT 25 COUNTRIES.

Such expenditures are unnecessary.

End of sotry.

 

[Sallow]

I'm just using the CCC as a reference example; and note I mentioned manditory for UNEMPLOYED 18-30 year olds. I'm certain the criminal element would avoid this service. The worker would receive no less compensation than they would receiving unemployment benefits: The budget for this would be taken from part of the savings from reducing the military budget, no no additional government funding would be needed.

Your suggestion that training in REAL skills is a good one, but digging a ditch doesn't mean you cannot also learn to use software

it used to be that when a kid committed a minor crime he was given the choice of jail or the army, that should be reinstituted. most of our inner city crime is committed by unemployed males 18-25, put them in the military, teach them responsibility and a skill. everyone would benefit.

but close all overseas bases unless the host country agrees to pay the entire bill. South Korea and Japan could easily afford to pay for our bases in those countries, for example.

It used to be that a delinquent would comfortably fit into the military.

A military that requires VOLUNTEERS to operate sophisticated weapons and support systems cannot easily be a juvenile detention center.

They aren't "volunteers".

They are professionals. Volunteers don't get paid.

 

[Sallow]

The USA imports AND exports many goods and services.

The fact that you focus on portion of this commerce, "Keep that oil flowing" only makes you appear ignorant of the broader issue, and subverts attention away from the reasonable argument that the US military could be smaller.

No it doesn't.

What it does is provide an example and insight into what the United States has been corrupted into by private interests.

An Empire.

And that's something that the Founders never envisioned.

Well, as long as you're comfortable with your dilusions and conspiracy theories I'm good.

Just don't fly any planes into any buildings, Thanks.

What "conspiracy" theories?

We have the largest military in the world and over 700 bases in foreign lands.

Where is that in the Constitution?

And what other country maintains that sort of presence?

 

[rightwinger]

It all comes down to mission

The mission of the US military is not to defend the continental US. We have not been invaded in 200 years and we could block any invasion with 10% of our current military force

The mission of our military is to protect our interests abroad and keep the shipping lanes clear. Gotta keep that oil flowing.

The US military is larger than the next ten forces combined and eight of those ten forces are our allies. Time to relegate the role of world policeman to our allies. They created most of the current world situation and they are the ones most impacted by strife in their region.

The USA imports AND exports many goods and services.

The fact that you focus on portion of this commerce, "Keep that oil flowing" only makes you appear ignorant of the broader issue, and subverts attention away from the reasonable argument that the US military could be smaller.

And that, my friend, is the crux of the issue

We sell our military as keeping us safe and protecting our freedom

Our safety and our freedom has rarely been attacked in the last 200 years. Most of the attacks on our safety and freedom have come from within

Our military serves an economic role of protecting our financial interest around the globe. Hard to make money in an unstable global environment. I have no problem with that. I do have a problem with our allies reaping financial benefit from our military umbrella without footing the economic burden

We can cut our military and still maintain global stability