[SniperForce-Duffek]

I like you you quote me as saying we are the 'world police' when I said nothing of the sort. The up against the rest of the world has nothing to do with policing. There is a difference between policing and defending or even holding a stake in current affairs. Governments spying on each other is a tactic, which would fall under defense.

[BodyCount81]

A large military is key if we want to keep our title of the undisputed World War champ.

[Pump Revolution]

Is there any point to being "champ" in the modern nuclear age? Our military is usless if Russia or China want to get involved in a conflict. No superpowers can win a full scale war anymore.

[slateman]

Yes, it needs to be smaller, simply because of the Surge. Too many under-qualified people got in. It has become a form of welfare. They've already started with the increasing the PT standards for women and mandating height and weight standards.

There also needs to be a dramatic cut in spending. We spend way too much. Too many projects. Too many lose funds going to stuff we don't need.

FInally, the military needs to change how it does contracts. Stop giving money to contractors to see if something is viable. That should be on them. They spend their own money to see if it's viable. If it is, they sell it to the US. The US decides if they're able to sell it to other countries.

[SniperForce-Duffek]

pump - How so?

[TheSilentAssassin]

Originally Posted by SniperForce-Duffek

I like you you quote me as saying we are the 'world police' when I said nothing of the sort. The up against the rest of the world has nothing to do with policing. There is a difference between policing and defending or even holding a stake in current affairs. Governments spying on each other is a tactic, which would fall under defense.

My mistake. I meant to say "us against the world". Either way it doesn't change much. The fact that we have always been "us against the world" is irrelevant to what we should do. "What we have always been" has no place in a normative argument.

[slateman]

Originally Posted by Pump Revolution

Is there any point to being "champ" in the modern nuclear age? Our military is usless if Russia or China want to get involved in a conflict. No superpowers can win a full scale war anymore.

Russia's military is a joke. They could barely handle some Georgians.

China is still well behind the technology curve, particularly in their navy. And frankly, who are they going to invade? Only logical choice would be Saudia Arabia or Iran, for the oil.

Can you imagine that? A hoard of godless invaders attempting to take over the most holy of holy sites in Islam. Good luck with that.

[Pump Revolution]

Originally Posted by slateman

Russia's military is a joke. They could barely handle some Georgians.

China is still well behind the technology curve, particularly in their navy. And frankly, who are they going to invade? Only logical choice would be Saudia Arabia or Iran, for the oil.

Can you imagine that? A hoard of godless invaders attempting to take over the most holy of holy sites in Islam. Good luck with that.

They're crude technology could still destroy the U.S. at will, so that is irrelevant.

[Pump Revolution]

Originally Posted by SniperForce-Duffek

pump - How so?

How is it possible for us to win a full scale war against China or Russia? Both sides would be annihilated if it came down to it. Once you have the means to reliably destroy another nation, other aspects are basically overkill.

[SniperForce-Duffek]

Originally Posted by TheSilentAssassin

My mistake. I meant to say "us against the world". Either way it doesn't change much. The fact that we have always been "us against the world" is irrelevant to what we should do. "What we have always been" has no place in a normative argument.

What should be done and what needs to be done are two different things. Are you looking at this from a morality standpoint? If you are that's fine, cause I could care less if other states kill each other and shouldn't be our business. However there is a grey line where our interests are at stake.

[Maximum Liberty]

What should be done?

[Tuff]

We should not cut our military drastically, but we should look into cutting some spending of utterly absurd and stupid projects. China's spending is growing exponentially, and despite some up here thinking "Oh we'll never have a war with China" we need to be prepared for that because I completely disagree. Nobody knows how the world platform will shift in even 20 years, much less beyond that. **** communism reigning supreme.

Originally Posted by Pump Revolution

How is it possible for us to win a full scale war against China or Russia? Both sides would be annihilated if it came down to it. Once you have the means to reliably destroy another nation, other aspects are basically overkill.

China has more troops than we do, but is still a full generation behind us technologically. Russia has less troops and while some advanced military weaponry, still less than the United States. I guess you are thinking nuclear weapons, but neither country could singlehandedly defeat us.

[licence2kill]

god forbid we ask the rich to pay a little more in taxes to pay for countering the great commie threat

[Pump Revolution]

Originally Posted by Tuff

China has more troops than we do, but is still a full generation behind us technologically. Russia has less troops and while some advanced military weaponry, still less than the United States. I guess you are thinking nuclear weapons, but neither country could singlehandedly defeat us.

Why does it matter how many troops a country has, they're useless. Technology wins today's wars, not manpower.

Why can't China or Russia obliterate us?

[TheSilentAssassin]

Originally Posted by SniperForce-Duffek

Are you looking at this from a morality standpoint?

I wouldn't necessarily call it morality but yes I am looking at it from a normative perspective. I assumed that was the purpose of this thread. Sorry if that wasn't made clear.

[eforce]

Originally Posted by Iamamartianchurch

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.

Missing the point. We have not deployed a nuclear weapon in battle for more than half a century. We have deployed ground forces in nearly every battle since then. I'm saying that while yes, the nuclear program is essential in the MAD sense of warfare, it does not have a place in day to day operations. Obviously with submarines that's a different story but it's not relevant to the discussion at hand. That being said, keep the nuclear arsenal we have now and focus the budget on what we actually use.

[SniperForce-Duffek]

Originally Posted by Pump Revolution

Technology wins today's wars, not manpower.

Oh? We should be killing the taliban with lasers...

[eforce]

Originally Posted by SniperForce-Duffek

Oh? We should be killing the taliban with lasers...

The night vision goggles that let you see your enemy in the dark.
The drones that launch missiles without risking a pilot's life.
The kevlar vest that takes a bullet for you without fatally severing your arteries.
The nuclear reactor that powers your naval vessel without poisoning your air supply.

These are all technologies that could have been sidelined to make room in the budget for more personnel, rather than being integrated to improve our combat capabilities. There's no replacement for skilled ground forces and that's not in question. That doesn't mean we can't opt for efficiency and improvement through R&D rather than sheer manpower.

[tsbalr120]

Originally Posted by eforce

The night vision goggles that let you see your enemy in the dark.
The drones that launch missiles without risking a pilot's life.
The kevlar vest that takes a bullet for you without fatally severing your arteries.
The nuclear reactor that powers your naval vessel without poisoning your air supply.

These are all technologies that could have been sidelined to make room in the budget for more personnel, rather than being integrated to improve our combat capabilities. There's no replacement for skilled ground forces and that's not in question. That doesn't mean we can't opt for efficiency and improvement through R&D rather than sheer manpower.

Too much technology = terminator/matrix/blackops2/****that

[Pump Revolution]

Originally Posted by SniperForce-Duffek

Oh? We should be killing the taliban with lasers...

They are pulling the troops out while the taliban is still strong, so I don't see how the foot soldiers are effective against them. Meanwhile the drones are constantly slaughtering taliban personnel.

It seems the army barely accomplished anything in the 10 years they spent there. As soon as we leave it's going to revert back to how it was.

[slateman]

Originally Posted by Pump Revolution

They're crude technology could still destroy the U.S. at will, so that is irrelevant.

Oh really? They're going to sail all the way over here? Good luck with that.

Originally Posted by Pump Revolution

Why does it matter how many troops a country has, they're useless. Technology wins today's wars, not manpower.

Why can't China or Russia obliterate us?

Technology has never won a war. It never will. Technology is useless without the man behind it.

Because they can't get to the US. Because we have superior technological edge, vastly superior training, and the doctrine that combines technology, training, and man power to produce effective results.

Originally Posted by eforce

The night vision goggles that let you see your enemy in the dark.
The drones that launch missiles without risking a pilot's life.
The kevlar vest that takes a bullet for you without fatally severing your arteries.
The nuclear reactor that powers your naval vessel without poisoning your air supply.

These are all technologies that could have been sidelined to make room in the budget for more personnel, rather than being integrated to improve our combat capabilities. There's no replacement for skilled ground forces and that's not in question. That doesn't mean we can't opt for efficiency and improvement through R&D rather than sheer manpower.

Night vision goggles enable the soldier to see the enemy so the soldier can kill the enemy.
Drones enable leaders to see the enemy and kill the enemy
Kevlar vests keep soldiers alive so they can continue to kill the enemy
Nuclear reactors keep naval vessels powered so they can continue to kill the enemy.

Technology is useless without the human behind it. The most important thing a military can have is a well trained soldier/airman/sailor/Marine