[barrel roll]

Originally Posted by Pump Revolution

Actually it protects us from the threat of ground invasion, since anyone who tries invading the U.S. can have their country instantly destroyed in retaliation.

No it doesn't. You are incorrect. The modern use of nuclear weapons is to prevent a nuclear attack.

Ask me how I know.

[licence2kill]

ladies, we can afford your big expensive military. don't listen to the deficit hawks.

[Pump Revolution]

Originally Posted by Treghc

Doesn't work so well if the country invading us has nukes too and would destroy us just as quickly...

Which is why they wouldn't invade us in the first place, both sides would lose. You can't defeat a nuclear armed superpower, you will be destroyed yourself.

Originally Posted by barrel roll

No it doesn't. You are incorrect. The modern use of nuclear weapons is to prevent a nuclear attack.

Ask me how I know.

Simple ultimatum, "Halt aggression or face the total annihilation of you country".

[scienceguy]

Originally Posted by slateman

I went to Afghanistan twice. On the ground, with a rifle, patroling for an enemy.

Frankly, Afghanistan proves the point that you will always need to put someone on the ground. You can hide from planes, you can mix in with the local population to defeat ISR platforms, but if you physically occupy space on the ground, you prevent the enemy from accomplishing their goals.

Afghanistan shows what happens when you DON'T put troops on the ground. The Bush administration tried to fight it with fighters and drones, only to find out they were failing because they simply couldn't deny the enemy the freedom to move. Hence the drawdown in Iraq and the surge in to Afghanistan in 2008-2010.

To ask someone on the inside. Are we doing things differently than the Russians did? Or are we going to have the same result? I'm just curious what the ground troops think.

To the op question: I think the real question is should we decrease the scope of the military. As it stands now, I think the military is underpowered for its current scope. It's not being put in a position where it can win. It's only in a position where it can make mistakes. Until we decrease the scope we shouldn't talk about decreasing the size. That's just my opinion.

[Treghc]

Originally Posted by Pump Revolution

Simple ultimatum, "Halt aggression or face the total annihilation of you country".

Simple ultimatum, "Halt aggression or face the total annihilation of your country".

[EPAPressure]

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?

We thought the same thing in Korea. No matter how much air and naval power you project, you need boots on the ground. See: Desert Storm, OIF/OEF, Kosovo.

[SniperForce-Duffek]

Originally Posted by Pump Revolution

The sure seems to be working in Afghanistan.

Don't get the rules of engagement confused with what you think. How do you think the US won it's independance? Guerrilla warfare. How do you think we haven't won in Afghan...because we don't use that **** and they do. Take the gloves off and get bloody.

[Pump Revolution]

Originally Posted by SniperForce-Duffek

Don't get the rules of engagement confused with what you think. How do you think the US won it's independance? Guerrilla warfare. How do you think we haven't won in Afghan...because we don't use that **** and they do. Take the gloves off and get bloody.

Well we are never going to "take off our gloves", so yes that renders the troops pretty much useless. Which bringsis up theto question, why have so many troops if they can't be used effectively.

The troops capabilities don't matter if you can't use them.

[SniperForce-Duffek]

What you don't know about 03-05 in Iraq...There were no gloves.

[Pump Revolution]

Originally Posted by EPAPressure

We thought the same thing in Korea. No matter how much air and naval power you project, you need boots on the ground. See: Desert Storm, OIF/OEF, Kosovo.

World police: Ground forces are needed to enact our will.

National Defense: WOMD and technology handle that.

I should have been more specific in the OP, I believe the U.S. should cut back on foreign intervention and focus more on the home front.

[EPAPressure]

So for limited engagements we should always use the nuclear option as a fall back plan after our new weaker military is overwhelmed? Why not just keep a strong military that doesn't get overwhelmed and drastically reduces the need to ever use nuclear options. It's the last thing other countries want as well, however they know the limits to which we won't use them.

[licence2kill]

Originally Posted by EPAPressure

So for limited engagements we should always use the nuclear option as a fall back plan after our new weaker military is overwhelmed? Why not just keep a strong military that doesn't get overwhelmed and drastically reduces the need to ever use nuclear options. It's the last thing other countries want as well, however they know the limits to which we won't use them.

ok, stop cutting taxes then

[Snake13]

Originally Posted by EPAPressure

So for limited engagements we should always use the nuclear option as a fall back plan after our new weaker military is overwhelmed? Why not just keep a strong military that doesn't get overwhelmed and drastically reduces the need to ever use nuclear options. It's the last thing other countries want as well, however they know the limits to which we won't use them.

overwhelmed how? where? Our navy can kick the **** out of the rest of the world, combined, and the only other two countries on our continent are either unable to even conquer themselves or our best buds.

I have no problem with having a military capable of asserting our foreign policy objectives, but stop acting we need what we have for "defense"

[EPAPressure]

Originally Posted by licence2kill

ok, stop cutting taxes then

I could have sworn they just went up...

[Tuff]

Originally Posted by licence2kill

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

http://www.cnbc.com/id/31910310/page/16

They should pay all that welfare to those numerous liberal states too, right? How many cities went bankrupt in California last year, I forget.

Speaking of taxes on the rich:

http://www.humanevents.com/2013/01/1...tax-on-braces/

Those people above $53,000 are rich. Let's just keep bumping the debt ceiling and drown in money owed instead.

[licence2kill]

Tuff, blue states are net contributors to the federal government. Red states are generally net takers.

[BodyCount81]

Originally Posted by licence2kill

Tuff, blue states are net contributors to the federal government. Red states are generally net takers.

Define "takers".

How can you "take" what is yours?

[licence2kill]

How much you give to federal government in taxes against how much you receive in aid from them. Essentially net transfers from blue states to red ones.

derp

[licence2kill]

http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2013/0...ntil-2020.html

[TheSilentAssassin]

Originally Posted by licence2kill

How much you give to federal government in taxes against how much you receive in aid from them. Essentially net transfers from blue states to red ones.

derp

Essentially this:

[BodyCount81]

Originally Posted by licence2kill

How much you give to federal government in taxes against how much you receive in aid from them. Essentially net transfers from blue states to red ones.

derp

Well you got me on that one. Misunderstood what you were talking about(probably should have read the links in the previous post).


edit: And to bring this thread back on topic....Snake13, I think we do need what we have for defense. Are we using a lot of it for defense? Nope. But just having the technology and firepower that we have is our defense. No one wants to mess with us when we have the weapons we have.