[Pump Revolution]

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?

[Space Pope]

Our military is used for a whole lot more than national defense...

[eforce]

Originally Posted by Pump Revolution

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.

[tsbalr120]

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.

[Pump Revolution]

Originally Posted by eforce

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.

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.

[Iamamartianchurch]

Originally Posted by Space Pope

Our military is used for a whole lot more than national defense...

Indeed.

We don't maintain worldwide garrisons for self defense.

[TheSilentAssassin]

Before we go much farther, let's be clear where we stand:

Originally Posted by tsbalr120

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.

[barrel roll]

Originally Posted by eforce

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.

[TheSilentAssassin]

Originally Posted by barrel roll

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.

[Volucris]

Originally Posted by TheSilentAssassin

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.

Originally Posted by TheSilentAssassin

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!

[barrel roll]

Your average poster isn't as learned as you.

[TheSilentAssassin]

Originally Posted by Volucris

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.

Originally Posted by barrel roll

Your average poster isn't as learned as you.

If my outlook is wrong, please correct me.

[SniperForce-Duffek]

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.

[licence2kill]

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.

[TheSilentAssassin]

Originally Posted by SniperForce-Duffek

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.

[barrel roll]

He isn't saying we should be, he is saying that is why.

[eforce]

Originally Posted by Pump Revolution

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.

Originally Posted by barrel roll

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.

[TheSilentAssassin]

Originally Posted by barrel roll

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.

[Iamamartianchurch]

Originally Posted by eforce

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.

[SniperForce-Duffek]

Originally Posted by TheSilentAssassin

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.

Originally Posted by TheSilentAssassin

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.

[TheSilentAssassin]

Originally Posted by SniperForce-Duffek

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).

Originally Posted by SniperForce-Duffek

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.

Originally Posted by SniperForce-Duffek

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.