Find fields & stores near you!
Find fields and stores
Zipcode
PbNation News
PbNation News
Community Focus
Community Focus

View Poll Results: Military size should be reduced?
Yes 26 63.41%
No 15 36.59%
Voters: 41. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 01-10-2013, 11:23 AM #1
Pump Revolution
It is what it is
 
Pump Revolution's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Should the U.S. reduce the size of it's military?

Do you think the U.S. should downsize it's military?

Aside from some minor incidents in WWII, the continental U.S. hasn't been attacked by another country since 1848.

I don't seen a need for such a vast number of ground troops in today's world. Ground forces are becoming obsolete IMO. I believe the threat of nuclear deterrence is much more effective than any standing army.

I definitely think that technology spending is important, but I believe having 1,500,000 active personnel to be completely unnecessary.

Thoughts?
__________________
"Originally posted by ']TSS[ Dake: Is anything really TMI in ST:F at this point?"


"Originally posted by Lurker27: inb4 pelt says you're still fat"

Last edited by Pump Revolution : 01-10-2013 at 11:27 AM.
Pump Revolution is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sponsored Links Remove Advertisement
Advertisement
Old 01-10-2013, 11:29 AM #2
Space Pope
 
 
Space Pope's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Our military is used for a whole lot more than national defense...
Space Pope is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2013, 11:54 AM #3
eforce
Factory PB
 
eforce's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Chicago
Annual Supporting Member
eforce is a Moderator
 has been a member for 10 years
eforce plays in the PSP
eforce is an NCPA player
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pump Revolution View Post
Do you think the U.S. should downsize it's military?

Aside from some minor incidents in WWII, the continental U.S. hasn't been attacked by another country since 1848.

I don't seen a need for such a vast number of ground troops in today's world. Ground forces are becoming obsolete IMO. I believe the threat of nuclear deterrence is much more effective than any standing army.

I definitely think that technology spending is important, but I believe having 1,500,000 active personnel to be completely unnecessary.

Thoughts?
Nuclear deterrence didn't help us in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, or any other country we've deployed troops to. It may discourage countries from attempting to invade our land, but it certainly doesn't do anything for us offensively in the context of the modern battlefield, especially when dealing with urban warfare and guerrilla tactics where your enemy is deliberately hiding among innocent civilians (Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine).

If you want to change the configuration of our military, dump money into R&D projects that streamline our operations via reduction in crew size and shift the emphasis of ground forces recruitment to the reserves. Regardless of the details, we've been projecting power around the world far too long to weaken ourselves and expect no repercussions.
eforce is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2013, 12:31 PM #4
tsbalr120
Goooonsberry
 
tsbalr120's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Cowbutt, AR
tsbalr120 is an NCPA player
tsbalr120 is Legendary
I've always wondered about something,

I believe our economy is so globalized that our "world police" mentality is actually beneficial to us, despite opposition to it from libertarians. I think if we just "let the world fight eachother and do what they want", it could hinder our imports and exports. For example, if the conflict resumes between north and south korea, it could directly effect our imports from china.


Idk, I'm sure the econ wizkids in here will give me more insight on this.
__________________
|NCPA: Razorbacks|
rip120
tsbalr120 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2013, 12:37 PM #5
Pump Revolution
It is what it is
 
Pump Revolution's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by eforce View Post
Nuclear deterrence didn't help us in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, or any other country we've deployed troops to.
Ground troops didn't help us in Vietnam, Afghanistan, or Iraq either. Ground troops were still effective in Korea IMO though, due to the lack of technology in the 50s.

Quote:
It may discourage countries from attempting to invade our land, but it certainly doesn't do anything for us offensively in the context of the modern battlefield, especially when dealing with urban warfare and guerrilla tactics where your enemy is deliberately hiding among innocent civilians (Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine).
This falls upon the CIA and the drones IMO. Ground invasions didn't seem to do much for the Israeli situation, which is similar.
__________________
"Originally posted by ']TSS[ Dake: Is anything really TMI in ST:F at this point?"


"Originally posted by Lurker27: inb4 pelt says you're still fat"
Pump Revolution is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2013, 01:12 PM #6
Iamamartianchurch
 
 
Iamamartianchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Space Pope View Post
Our military is used for a whole lot more than national defense...
Indeed.

We don't maintain worldwide garrisons for self defense.

Last edited by Iamamartianchurch : 01-10-2013 at 01:14 PM.
Iamamartianchurch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2013, 01:12 PM #7
TheSilentAssassin
Words and Stuff
 
TheSilentAssassin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Before we go much farther, let's be clear where we stand:



Quote:
Originally Posted by tsbalr120 View Post
I've always wondered about something,

I believe our economy is so globalized that our "world police" mentality is actually beneficial to us, despite opposition to it from libertarians. I think if we just "let the world fight eachother and do what they want", it could hinder our imports and exports. For example, if the conflict resumes between north and south korea, it could directly effect our imports from china.


Idk, I'm sure the econ wizkids in here will give me more insight on this.
I would think this to be the case as well, but I would be wary to this into a strictly economic decision.
__________________
“There are only two kinds of people, those who accept dogmas and know it, and those who accept dogmas and don’t know it.” – G. K. Chesterton - The Mercy of Mr. Arnold Bennett, Fancies vs. Fads
TheSilentAssassin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2013, 01:54 PM #8
barrel roll
secedere
 
barrel roll's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: FL/GA border
barrel roll is one of the top 500 posters on PbNation
barrel roll is Legendary
Quote:
Originally Posted by eforce View Post
Nuclear deterrence didn't help us in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, or any other country we've deployed troops to. It may discourage countries from attempting to invade our land, but it certainly doesn't do anything for us offensively in the context of the modern battlefield, especially when dealing with urban warfare and guerrilla tactics where your enemy is deliberately hiding among innocent civilians (Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine).

If you want to change the configuration of our military, dump money into R&D projects that streamline our operations via reduction in crew size and shift the emphasis of ground forces recruitment to the reserves. Regardless of the details, we've been projecting power around the world far too long to weaken ourselves and expect no repercussions.
Do you know the manning for nuclear deterrence? It is small.

That aside, your idea about changing the configuration won't do anything except make the job for guy on the bottom of the CoC harder.

You want to lessen the manning? Decrease the missions, decrease OPTEMPO. That will decrease the actually manning requirements, which will decrease the numbers the right way... instead of the dangerous way.

Also, to be clear where we stand - the numbers in the informational graphic posted do not show you what is spent where. Hint hint. Do some homework.
__________________
--- UNDRPRVLGD Goggle Straps n stuff ---
If this be treason, make the most of it.-Patrick Henry
I'm a damn veteran, I've got more rights and privileges than you do.
MQ2 rebuild kits, MP4 ram rebuilds, general 'cocker teching
Will soon be making super slick mid/half block bolts
barrel roll is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2013, 02:19 PM #9
TheSilentAssassin
Words and Stuff
 
TheSilentAssassin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by barrel roll View Post
Also, to be clear where we stand - the numbers in the informational graphic posted do not show you what is spent where. Hint hint. Do some homework.
I am well aware of where that money is spent, but it doesn't change the fact that from a monetary perspective we spend a lot.
__________________
“There are only two kinds of people, those who accept dogmas and know it, and those who accept dogmas and don’t know it.” – G. K. Chesterton - The Mercy of Mr. Arnold Bennett, Fancies vs. Fads
TheSilentAssassin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2013, 02:29 PM #10
Volucris
asmuchtextastheywillallow
 
Volucris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Nashville
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSilentAssassin View Post
I am well aware of where that money is spent, but it doesn't change the fact that from a monetary perspective we spend a lot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSilentAssassin View Post


We don't spend that much. We are below the OECD 21 and OECD 30 average. We are with the likes of Mexico and Turkey for Christ's sake!
Volucris is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2013, 02:30 PM #11
barrel roll
secedere
 
barrel roll's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: FL/GA border
barrel roll is one of the top 500 posters on PbNation
barrel roll is Legendary
Your average poster isn't as learned as you.
__________________
--- UNDRPRVLGD Goggle Straps n stuff ---
If this be treason, make the most of it.-Patrick Henry
I'm a damn veteran, I've got more rights and privileges than you do.
MQ2 rebuild kits, MP4 ram rebuilds, general 'cocker teching
Will soon be making super slick mid/half block bolts
barrel roll is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2013, 02:33 PM #12
TheSilentAssassin
Words and Stuff
 
TheSilentAssassin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volucris View Post
Not quite sure your point. Defense spending =/= social welfare spending. Clearly in this thread I was referring to the former while in the other I was referring to the latter.

Quote:
Originally Posted by barrel roll View Post
Your average poster isn't as learned as you.
If my outlook is wrong, please correct me.
__________________
“There are only two kinds of people, those who accept dogmas and know it, and those who accept dogmas and don’t know it.” – G. K. Chesterton - The Mercy of Mr. Arnold Bennett, Fancies vs. Fads

Last edited by TheSilentAssassin : 01-10-2013 at 02:41 PM.
TheSilentAssassin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2013, 03:00 PM #13
SniperForce-Duffek
Delta Farce
 
SniperForce-Duffek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
SniperForce-Duffek plays in the APPA D5 division
It's always been us against the world and we've always been in competition with our allies. For a country of 315 million, the number of service members is quite small. You look at the spending charts and compare us to others, but with a force of .045% it means nothing. I think a lot of you look at manning as the big issue and it isn't. It takes a lot to be the best and most advanced and you would **** yourself if you knew the operational costs of equipment. Tell me how much the flight cost is per hour for an f-22 that doesn't fly in combat, for a nuclear sub, for a carrier.
__________________
Kick *** military apparel _ Mars Strategic

"May god have mercy upon my enemies, because I won't."
G.S.P
SniperForce-Duffek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2013, 03:10 PM #14
licence2kill
POOP
 
licence2kill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Orange County
just an fyi, we can afford our military and our welfare state if we control costs in health care (like every other nation) and raise a little bit more in taxes.
licence2kill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2013, 03:11 PM #15
TheSilentAssassin
Words and Stuff
 
TheSilentAssassin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by SniperForce-Duffek View Post
It's always been us against the world and we've always been in competition with our allies.
We always had slaves until we didn't.
We always thought the earth was flat until we learned it wasn't.
We always acted as if it were us against the world until we stopped acting as if it was us against the world.
We've always been in competition with our allies until we weren't.

Fallacy is fallacy. We can choose to play world police or we can choose not to. My point of this post is not that we should or we shouldn't. My point is that we are not bound by our past.
__________________
“There are only two kinds of people, those who accept dogmas and know it, and those who accept dogmas and don’t know it.” – G. K. Chesterton - The Mercy of Mr. Arnold Bennett, Fancies vs. Fads
TheSilentAssassin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2013, 03:12 PM #16
barrel roll
secedere
 
barrel roll's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: FL/GA border
barrel roll is one of the top 500 posters on PbNation
barrel roll is Legendary
He isn't saying we should be, he is saying that is why.
__________________
--- UNDRPRVLGD Goggle Straps n stuff ---
If this be treason, make the most of it.-Patrick Henry
I'm a damn veteran, I've got more rights and privileges than you do.
MQ2 rebuild kits, MP4 ram rebuilds, general 'cocker teching
Will soon be making super slick mid/half block bolts
barrel roll is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2013, 03:18 PM #17
eforce
Factory PB
 
eforce's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Chicago
Annual Supporting Member
eforce is a Moderator
 has been a member for 10 years
eforce plays in the PSP
eforce is an NCPA player
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pump Revolution View Post
Ground troops didn't help us in Vietnam, Afghanistan, or Iraq either. Ground troops were still effective in Korea IMO though, due to the lack of technology in the 50s.

This falls upon the CIA and the drones IMO. Ground invasions didn't seem to do much for the Israeli situation, which is similar.
What I'm saying is that you cannot solely depend on nuclear deterrence. For smaller or more precise applications, you need the approach with less (relatively speaking) collateral, that being manned forces.
Quote:
Originally Posted by barrel roll View Post
Do you know the manning for nuclear deterrence? It is small.

That aside, your idea about changing the configuration won't do anything except make the job for guy on the bottom of the CoC harder.

You want to lessen the manning? Decrease the missions, decrease OPTEMPO. That will decrease the actually manning requirements, which will decrease the numbers the right way... instead of the dangerous way.

Also, to be clear where we stand - the numbers in the informational graphic posted do not show you what is spent where. Hint hint. Do some homework.
I was not suggesting we alter the nuclear arsenal. I was pointing out that nuclear weapons have not been deployed in any of our conflicts since WWII, making the effectively useless in our operations. If they aren't used, we obviously need to generate power elsewhere.

As a side note, my statement was predicated on the assumption that we would not reduce our operations, but rather continue our history of protecting our interests with military force. You're obviously correct that a reduction in operations would reduce expenses.
eforce is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2013, 03:29 PM #18
TheSilentAssassin
Words and Stuff
 
TheSilentAssassin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by barrel roll View Post
He isn't saying we should be, he is saying that is why.
Why we are is not necessarily relevant to what we should be. I guess I am questioning his point.
__________________
“There are only two kinds of people, those who accept dogmas and know it, and those who accept dogmas and don’t know it.” – G. K. Chesterton - The Mercy of Mr. Arnold Bennett, Fancies vs. Fads
TheSilentAssassin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2013, 03:41 PM #19
Iamamartianchurch
 
 
Iamamartianchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by eforce View Post
What I'm saying is that you cannot solely depend on nuclear deterrence. For smaller or more precise applications, you need the approach with less (relatively speaking) collateral, that being manned forces.


I was not suggesting we alter the nuclear arsenal. I was pointing out that nuclear weapons have not been deployed in any of our conflicts since WWII, making the effectively useless in our operations. If they aren't used, we obviously need to generate power elsewhere.

As a side note, my statement was predicated on the assumption that we would not reduce our operations, but rather continue our history of protecting our interests with military force. You're obviously correct that a reduction in operations would reduce expenses.
Nuclear weapons are built and maintained to deter other nuclear armed nations. That is why nations build the bombs and we maintain an arsenal. They are not effectively useless what so ever.
Iamamartianchurch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2013, 07:10 PM #20
SniperForce-Duffek
Delta Farce
 
SniperForce-Duffek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
SniperForce-Duffek plays in the APPA D5 division
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSilentAssassin View Post
We always had slaves until we didn't.
We always thought the earth was flat until we learned it wasn't.
We always acted as if it were us against the world until we stopped acting as if it was us against the world.
We've always been in competition with our allies until we weren't.

Fallacy is fallacy. We can choose to play world police or we can choose not to. My point of this post is not that we should or we shouldn't. My point is that we are not bound by our past.
BR had it right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSilentAssassin View Post
Why we are is not necessarily relevant to what we should be. I guess I am questioning his point.
It is absolutely relevant. It's a zero sum game and you expect others to follow suit when it absolutely won't happen. Look at intelligence agencies always competing against each other. It doesn't matter if we are allies with the UK, we'll still spy on them and they'll do the same. It's just how defense works. To give up defense is foolish at this point. If anything, you just don't grow it anymore.
__________________
Kick *** military apparel _ Mars Strategic

"May god have mercy upon my enemies, because I won't."
G.S.P
SniperForce-Duffek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2013, 08:18 PM #21
TheSilentAssassin
Words and Stuff
 
TheSilentAssassin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by SniperForce-Duffek View Post
BR had it right.
BR addressed the same point as I was in a different way. I critiqued the irrelevance of your argument by showing it in the context of the argument; he claimed your argument was relevant to a different context than we were talking about (making it irrelevant).

Quote:
Originally Posted by SniperForce-Duffek View Post
It is absolutely relevant. It's a zero sum game and you expect others to follow suit when it absolutely won't happen. Look at intelligence agencies always competing against each other.
It being "a zero sum game" has nothing to do with "we always have been the world police"... My point was that your argument was invalid not that your conclusions were false.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SniperForce-Duffek View Post
It doesn't matter if we are allies with the UK, we'll still spy on them and they'll do the same. It's just how defense works. To give up defense is foolish at this point. If anything, you just don't grow it anymore.
The point is giving up that foothold. Of course others may not. That's fine if your role as world police changes... I'm not sure as to what point you are trying to make.
__________________
“There are only two kinds of people, those who accept dogmas and know it, and those who accept dogmas and don’t know it.” – G. K. Chesterton - The Mercy of Mr. Arnold Bennett, Fancies vs. Fads

Last edited by TheSilentAssassin : 01-10-2013 at 08:22 PM.
TheSilentAssassin is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
Forum Jump