Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

World Police, we can take on the world, we could win a land war in Asia, god damn it!

24 (20.9%)

Matched Force, enough power to take on any other nation one on one and win

34 (29.6%)

Force Projection, enough to have influence around the world, but no real capability for a full on war in a foreign nation

10 (8.7%)

Fulfilling Treaty Obligations, no more

22 (19.1%)

Homeland Defense, no more

16 (13.9%)

Nuclear Deterrent is enough

4 (3.5%)

We need no military power at all

5 (4.3%)

Total Members Voted: 115

[Levi]

Keep in mind the the US does have a lot of allies.  Its not like anybody is just going to ignore the US if it gets attacked.  Also you've got a lot of people who are both patriotic and own a stupid amount of personal firepower.  Even if the entire US military suddenly disappeared they certainly won't be defenseless.

[Pnx]

The US does a lot of the world's military research, if it stops, where will the rest of the world stand with it's military technology. There are a lot of people who get their military tech from the US.
It also has by a wide margin the most military power, the rest of the developed world can't throw around the kind of weight the US can, and sometimes bigger is better.
If the US cuts back it could mean big trouble later on down the road if a major war breaks out... like say, Korea.
The world will be thrown off balance if the US cuts back... and we might not like how things resettle.

I think the US has to eventually shrink as a military, but I'm not sure it'll wind up being a good thing.

[Strife26]

At least from what I understand, the US has to spend ridiculous amounts of money on its military because we're still trying to fight wars the same way they've been fought for centuries: with mass deployments of troops and materiel and overwhelming brute force. History has proven several times (Frank D. Merril and the SAS in the Malayan emergency spring to mind) that smaller numbers of more highly trained, better equipped soldiers is the better (and presumably cheaper) way to go.

Not really. You give me a company of tanks and I'll slaughter any special operations group easily enough.

Spec ops are all fine and good for certain things, but taking and holding terrain still requires boots and treads.

Kaijyuu: Not really. Building up an army is a very very difficult thing, imagine a demilitarized US trying to remilitarize. How long do you think it'd take Congress to reauthorize funds, for example? Then you've got to dust off equipment, which requires all sorts of new parts (the Abrams, for example is *not* a girl who does well when you let her sit for very long, as I keenly know). Then if the core of the army is gone, you need to replace it. Turning civies into good soldiers isn't instant.

While true, certainly we could at least match the speed of the buildup of the country or countries we feel threatened by.

And besides, I didn't say completely get rid of it. Match whoever we're suspicious might turn hostile in the future. Maybe even stay #1, but not by as large a margin as we are now.

Yeah, I'll agree with that. It's just important to remember the sheer amount of time getting stuff ready in the military takes.

Keep in mind the the US does have a lot of allies.  Its not like anybody is just going to ignore the US if it gets attacked.  Also you've got a lot of people who are both patriotic and own a stupid amount of personal firepower.  Even if the entire US military suddenly disappeared they certainly won't be defenseless.

Yeah, there's a lot of places in the United States that'd be as tough as heck to take over (midwest especially). However, when you're getting to the point where "even if we got invaded, civilian Strife could totally kill at least 15 commies between his knowledge of explosives, easy access to fertilizer, and hunting rifle" there's a problem. American infrastructure is going to be completely trashed at that point. I can look at Iraq, and we tried damn hard not to blow this place up overmuch when we invaded.

[GlyphGryph]

Strife, assuming for a minute we DID get rid of everything but the navy+missile(nuke) power, how often would we NEED to have boots on the ground taking and holding ground? Our Navy alone seems to be more than enough to keep us completely secure from the threat of invasion AND act as a huge deterrent to those other conflicts, and I think its arguable that not having the option to do a full scale land invasion might have been better for us, economically, at this point.

And, as always, just want to make sure - I do appreciate our military and soldiers and what it does for us, just want to remind everyone that what I'm proposing here is more akin to the argument over whether manned space missions are worth it when compared to the benefits of automated ones. Essentially, that we (and the world) might be better off if we give up on military projection and focus all that effort elsewhere. Maybe their are other ways (like foreign investment?) to accomplish the same goals with more efficient applications of our dollars.

[Impending Doom]

Not really. You give me a company of tanks and I'll slaughter any special operations group easily enough.

Spec ops are all fine and good for certain things, but taking and holding terrain still requires boots and treads.

My father would beg to differ.

Sure, you'll still need armor and conventional troops to hold ground, but if you have less of them, you can afford to outfit all of them with the newest and best gear.

[inteuniso]

We're probably going to see a reduction in military power.

You have to realize, a great deal of the reason we have an active army is because we still have a live generation who lived through the Cold War, where if the USA did NOT have a large military that could be fielded anywhere, we would have had bad stuff happen supposedly (see: Domino Effect)

As soon as those who lived through the cold war die off (probably those who were born in the 70's will be the last few), Americans will start to realize that the military is nice and all, but doesn't really have any enemies large enough to fight it. Thus, we will shrink our army, shrink our government budget, and everything will be more hunkey-dorey. Except for the continued reliance on fossil fuels, immigration problems, south american drug cartels, Wal-Mart, and shitty TV series.

I think that the USA does need a strong military. What we don't need is a large one.

[Nadaka]

We still need an army in order to meet our treaty obligations at the very least.

It has also been shown repeatedly that strike power alone is insufficient in an actual shooting war. Just look at the Gulf War and the current conflict in Libya.

[Bdthemag]

Why does everyone assume alot of people in the U.S. own a gun? Last time I checked less than 10% of the population owned one, its not like we could fight back like in Red Dawn...

[JohnnyDigs]

The U.S. can't be invaded. We have two huge oceans acting as barriers. Our land neighbors Canada and Mexico will never invade us. In order for China or Russia (which many people seem to view as a threat) to invade, they will need a large navy to get troops across the oceans. Maintaining a better Navy than the countries we're scared of might be worth it. As well, as a few nukes to provide the threat of mutual destruction. But at the moment we're really over doing it . . .

[counting]

Counting: counter example: Desert Storm. Which I'd contend is exactly the sort of force that America needs to maintain. There'll always be naked aggression in the world, and therefore the world as a whole needs an army to stop it, can one trust the UN to field troops?

As been protected under the U.S. force, I think I am the one supporting your claim as who DON'T like the U.S. military budget been cut to the part where the oversea operation becomes impossible, but at least it needs to be sustainable and not aggressively provoking wars. The large land battle on Desert Storm is necessary, only because in the previous Iran-Iraq war, U.S. actually support and aid the Iraq war machine to build up and fight the Iran and leave to it at dangerous level. Even after first golf war, Iraq still had enough standing force for the second Iraq War.

I don't see anywhere the aggressive land operations leading a good outcome. And if the Desert Storm is such a success operation, then I don't think the second one we are in right now is needed. And it's withdrawing again, give me the impression that a prolong and aggressive U.S. Army is not a sustainable oversea operation department. The U.S. Army oversea often given other countries the impression like the Terminator who appears unbeatable, but eventually get kick out at the end, and always said "I'll be back".

[Nadaka]

The U.S. can't be invaded. We have two huge oceans acting as barriers. Our land neighbors Canada and Mexico will never invade us. In order for China or Russia (which many people seem to view as a threat) to invade, they will need a large navy to get troops across the oceans. Maintaining a better Navy than the countries we're scared of might be worth it. As well, as a few nukes to provide the threat of mutual destruction. But at the moment we're really over doing it . . .

Both Canada and Mexico have invaded the US in the past. And we have invaded them. In Mexico there are still serious political movements that want to see their territories in Texas and California taken back. So I wouldn't exactly say "never".

[Strife26]

Strife, assuming for a minute we DID get rid of everything but the navy+missile(nuke) power, how often would we NEED to have boots on the ground taking and holding ground? Our Navy alone seems to be more than enough to keep us completely secure from the threat of invasion AND act as a huge deterrent to those other conflicts, and I think its arguable that not having the option to do a full scale land invasion might have been better for us, economically, at this point.

Naval forces are great for power projection, but one can't win wars without boots. I'll bring up Desert Storm/Shield again, because, as far as I'm concerned, it's what we'd want in our Armed Forces, one that can field an Armored Corp strong enough to crush aggression without trying to occupy the country.


The United States, to some extent, supported both sides in the Iran-Iraq war. Moreover, I'd certainly claim that Iraq was the lesser of the two evils there, and our support was never all that much. The failure of Desert Storm was not one of the military, it was a political decision to let Iraq withdraw all their material. Even then, the actual invasion was a massacre. In an open battle, the US Armed forces *isn't* beatable. That's why you have Iraqi divisions surrendering to reporters. It's trying to hold ground against internal insurgency that we were bad at (note a very big difference from holding ground against other armies), and we're getting much, much, much better.

We didn't finish Desert Storm right, but we're finishing this one the right way, leaving a semi-stable Iraqi government that can take care of itself. I don't forsee us having to land an Army again here, excepting some other external action.

The U.S. can't be invaded. We have two huge oceans acting as barriers. Our land neighbors Canada and Mexico will never invade us. In order for China or Russia (which many people seem to view as a threat) to invade, they will need a large navy to get troops across the oceans. Maintaining a better Navy than the countries we're scared of might be worth it. As well, as a few nukes to provide the threat of mutual destruction. But at the moment we're really over doing it . . .

Both Canada and Mexico have invaded the US in the past. And we have invaded them. In Mexico there are still serious political movements that want to see their territories in Texas and California taken back. So I wouldn't exactly say "never".

Never say never, I guess. But in the medium-term future, say at least 10 years, I am confident that the US will not face invasion from within North America.
 

[darkrider2]

In before someone says US military is OP. 

[counting]

I think we can make a poll here. We can have options from "Increasing all military size (not likely anyone)", "Maintain current level (a few I guess)", "Cut the Army, save the rest", "Cut every department equally", "Cut defense ... to National Guard", until "Cut they all out (That's what she said)". It should be fun. Any other combinations/options?

[Nadaka]

Strife26: Basically yes, the odds of Mexico invading the US are almost non-existent in the short term, even over the next 50 years I can't see a reasonable way for that to happen. But never say never.