Justify: Why do we have such a massive military?

[rightwinger]

We have 10 active Nimitz-class carriers and 3 Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carriers under construction or planning. They all would require a battle group if all were active. My guess is they will retire a Nimitz-class carrier and not expand battle groups, which have some rather sophisticated ships, though such planning may be flexible, because smaller ships don't take as long to build. The Gerald R. Ford was to replace the Enterprise which retired in Dec 2012. These new carriers are due on 2015, 2020 and 2025 and the other two are named the John F. Kennedy and the Enterprise.

As far as I know, we have been increasing the air groups and spec ops. That Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor is a bad ass machine with 187 operational and 8 built for testing. It's a fifth generation fighter and a fourth generation stealth aircraft. The Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II is a fifth generation fighter originally built in 2006 that is part of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program. The United States plans to buy 2,443 aircraft in the coming decades and 10 other nations have plans to buy them as well.

Excellent. Then we can start decreasing our ground forces by 33% over the next ten years.

But then who will take on Darth Vader and the Death Star when they finally get here?

Obama killed the Death Star program



Shawcross estimated that it would cost approximately $852,000,000,000,000,000 to build the Death Star citing a “study” by Lehigh University economics students.

Shawcross also said building a Death Star would strike against the White House policy against “blowing up planets.”

The White House did do their homework. Shawcross made the salient point that building a Death Star seemed fruitless considering a glaring weakness.

“Why would we spend countless taxpayer dollars on a Death Star with a fundamental flaw that can be exploited by a one-man starship?” Shawcross said in a statement



Read more: http://defensetech.org/2013/01/14/obama-crushes-death-star-dreams/#ixzz2JaM9Njdz
Defense.org

 

[Samson]

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.

Not sure what the semantical point is that you're trying to make but I'll clarify mine:
A. US military personnel VOLUNTEER to join the military
B. US military personnel are PAID.
C. Volunteers are PAID

I probably skiped a step or two in the transitive property, but I don't have time to draw a picture here.

 

[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.

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


We can cut our military and still maintain global stability

Agreed, we can cut the military, in fact why not simply do away with it all together because no one is attacking us NOW?

However, what about in 30 years?

The point being: you don't know what threats we will need to deal with in 30 years, therefore it is impossible to quantify how much military we can cut.

 

[rightwinger]

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 can cut our military and still maintain global stability

Agreed, we can cut the military, in fact why not simply do away with it all together because no one is attacking us NOW?

However, what about in 30 years?

The point being: you don't know what threats we will need to deal with in 30 years, therefore it is impossible to quantify how much military we can cut.

30 years is a LONG time for an imaginary threat

The US has demonstrated that we can build our military in a hurry when the situation warrants it

 

[JakeStarkey]

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 can cut our military and still maintain global stability

Agreed, we can cut the military, in fact why not simply do away with it all together because no one is attacking us NOW?

However, what about in 30 years?

The point being: you don't know what threats we will need to deal with in 30 years, therefore it is impossible to quantify how much military we can cut.

Of course can, Samson, cut to levels of sustainability, and research and use our intelligence services for forward planning.

Which is what we do now. I am suggesting we do it more smartly and save a lot of money at the same time.

 

[Samson]

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?

"Where is that in the Constitution?"

Next to the section that allows the Feds to garnish income to pay for social security, medicade, the DOE, EPA, and FBI, etc. etc.

Have you turned Libertarian all the sudden?

 

[Sallow]

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.

Not sure what the semantical point is that you're trying to make but I'll clarify mine:
A. US military personnel VOLUNTEER to join the military
B. US military personnel are PAID.
C. Volunteers are PAID

I probably skiped a step or two in the transitive property, but I don't have time to draw a picture here.

Naw.

volunteer (ˌvɒlənˈtɪ&#601 [Click for IPA pronunciation guide]

— n
1. a. a person who performs or offers to perform voluntary service
b. ( as modifier ): a volunteer system ; volunteer advice
2. a person who freely undertakes military service, esp temporary or special service
3. law
a. a person who does some act or enters into a transaction without being under any legal obligation to do so and without being promised any remuneration for his services
b. property law a person to whom property is transferred without his giving any valuable consideration in return, as a legatee under a will

Volunteers do it for free.

No money.

Nadda..zip..nothing.

 

[Sallow]

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?

"Where is that in the Constitution?"

Next to the section that allows the Feds to garnish income to pay for social security, medicade, the DOE, EPA, and FBI, etc. etc.

Have you turned Libertarian all the sudden?

No.

Most of you folks are textualists.

"Dilusions" aside.

 

[Samson]

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


We can cut our military and still maintain global stability

Agreed, we can cut the military, in fact why not simply do away with it all together because no one is attacking us NOW?

However, what about in 30 years?

The point being: you don't know what threats we will need to deal with in 30 years, therefore it is impossible to quantify how much military we can cut.

Of course can, Samson, cut to levels of sustainability, and research and use our intelligence services for forward planning.

Which is what we do now. I am suggesting we do it more smartly and save a lot of money at the same time.

"Intelligence Services?"



You gotta fucking be kidding me right?

You mean the same guys protecting JFK, or
the guys that found WMD in Iraq, or
the guys that were tracking Saudi Al Queda members in August 2001?

Those intelligence services are who you want to project threats 30 years away?



No thanks.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You, Samson, just undercut your own argument. Your sense of logic means we shut down all operations now, because nothing is going to save us from failure.

 

[Samson]

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?

"Where is that in the Constitution?"

Next to the section that allows the Feds to garnish income to pay for social security, medicade, the DOE, EPA, and FBI, etc. etc.

Have you turned Libertarian all the sudden?

No.

Most of you folks are textualists.

"Dilusions" aside.

Who are "you folks?"

I am FOR reducing the size of the military, however am not sure HOW you could reasonably do it significantly.

Every now and then I read some article about congress refusing recommendations from the military to CLOSE POSTS. Why? because some congressman (R & D) has the post in his or her district: regardless, these wouldn't put much of a dent in the cost.

 

[Samson]

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


We can cut our military and still maintain global stability

Agreed, we can cut the military, in fact why not simply do away with it all together because no one is attacking us NOW?

However, what about in 30 years?

The point being: you don't know what threats we will need to deal with in 30 years, therefore it is impossible to quantify how much military we can cut.

30 years is a LONG time for an imaginary threat

The US has demonstrated that we can build our military in a hurry when the situation warrants it

Yes back in 1935, whe radar was a novelty, and a farmer could jump off his tractor and drive a tank, we did build the military up in a hurry.

Military weapons systems and their support have become more sophisticated since then.



Of course I suppose we could still quickly put together regiments of horse calvary.....opps......if we could teach anyone to ride.

 

[Sallow]

"Where is that in the Constitution?"

Next to the section that allows the Feds to garnish income to pay for social security, medicade, the DOE, EPA, and FBI, etc. etc.

Have you turned Libertarian all the sudden?

No.

Most of you folks are textualists.

"Dilusions" aside.

Who are "you folks?"

I am FOR reducing the size of the military, however am not sure HOW you could reasonably do it significantly.

Every now and then I read some article about congress refusing recommendations from the military to CLOSE POSTS. Why? because some congressman (R & D) has the post in his or her district: regardless, these wouldn't put much of a dent in the cost.

Personally I think the country has to be weened slowly off the military/industrial teet.

But that's probably not going to happen.

The sequester, as it stands, is the best way to do it.

But it's going to hurt.

 

[rightwinger]

Agreed, we can cut the military, in fact why not simply do away with it all together because no one is attacking us NOW?

However, what about in 30 years?

The point being: you don't know what threats we will need to deal with in 30 years, therefore it is impossible to quantify how much military we can cut.

30 years is a LONG time for an imaginary threat

The US has demonstrated that we can build our military in a hurry when the situation warrants it

Yes back in 1935, whe radar was a novelty, and a farmer could jump off his tractor and drive a tank, we did build the military up in a hurry.

Military weapons systems and their support have become more sophisticated since then.



Of course I suppose we could still quickly put together regiments of horse calvary.....opps......if we could teach anyone to ride.

From 1939 to 1946 we went from biplanes to jet aircraft
We developed an atomic bomb in three years
We sent a man to the moon in ten years

We can accomplish a lot when we are motivated

 

[thanatos144]

Justify isolationism......

 

[Redfish]

No.

Most of you folks are textualists.

"Dilusions" aside.

Who are "you folks?"

I am FOR reducing the size of the military, however am not sure HOW you could reasonably do it significantly.

Every now and then I read some article about congress refusing recommendations from the military to CLOSE POSTS. Why? because some congressman (R & D) has the post in his or her district: regardless, these wouldn't put much of a dent in the cost.

Personally I think the country has to be weened slowly off the military/industrial teet.

But that's probably not going to happen.

The sequester, as it stands, is the best way to do it.

But it's going to hurt.

I agree with you, the problem is that our career politicians are afraid to do anything that might hurt any potential voters, being in congress is too lucrative financially to do what needs to be done, if it might mean fallling off the gravy train.

 

[Dubya]

"Where is that in the Constitution?"

Next to the section that allows the Feds to garnish income to pay for social security, medicade, the DOE, EPA, and FBI, etc. etc.

Have you turned Libertarian all the sudden?

No.

Most of you folks are textualists.

"Dilusions" aside.

Who are "you folks?"

I am FOR reducing the size of the military, however am not sure HOW you could reasonably do it significantly.

Every now and then I read some article about congress refusing recommendations from the military to CLOSE POSTS. Why? because some congressman (R & D) has the post in his or her district: regardless, these wouldn't put much of a dent in the cost.

Here is my take on it. On one hand you have people who think they are totally supporting the military by supporting anything involving the military. On the other hand, you have people who hate the military and sometimes want it's spending cut so drastically that following such suggestions would be dangerous. Though I try to keep informed, I have enough sense to know that military experts have more information to make better decisions than I do.

When it comes to military bases inside the US, I also look at how much federal spending is done in that state for the amount of tax dollar the state sends in. I look at per capita figures, so when I see a state getting $2.02 in spending and another state getting $0.67, I say if it's possible, move the damned base to the state getting less spending. Why have a base in Mississippi and an empty base in New Jersey? The government owns both bases and the pay is the same regardless of where someone in the military is stationed. The same logic applies to what you called a military post. If any of these things are needed and it doesn't hurt our military readiness, move the operations to states paying for them. The same logic applies to other government spending and I say piss on those states who are so backwards in their ways that they can't develop a good economy. Why should we subsidize their stupidity and regressive ways? It's bad enough that they suck the government tit dry, but they have the nerve to want government spending cut in states contributing so much more than they are. I doubt they will be supporting military spending the way they are when it isn't benefiting themselves directly. I think the military experts can find ways to cut costs and perhaps some bases should close, but spend the money in the states providing the taxes whenever possible.

Overseas bases need a review and we need the countries involved to be responsible for their own security, if possible. This is another very complex subject that requires military experts, but there should be a desire to remove an overseas base or military presence whenever possible.

All military bases and large military populations affect the economies of the areas where they are located. There is a local economy around a military base that is fed by military personnel spending their money and the same logic applies to other government spending. Obviously, military bases also spend money, so having any unnecessary military post is a waste that does add up.