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

[Strife26]

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?

Not really the best way to ask the question, I think. A better question would be what sort of global strike capability should the US keep, from win a land war in Asia, to the Switzerland Model, finally to the no military at all.

[Grakelin]

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".

Yeah, 200 years ago, when the USA wasn't a world superpower. But Britain (which is the country that held sovereignty over what is now Canada) was. And American soldiers didn't wear proper shoes.

I don't think you have anything to worry about from modern Mexico (which is a poor country which will only get poorer the weaker the US gets) or modern Canada (where people don't quite get excited and gung ho about going to war).

[Taniec]

America sucks, sky is falling, world is doomed. This thread is par for the course.

If the U.S gets rid of their military, will the UK do the same? China? Japan? Germany? Poland? Iran? North Korea? South Korea? Didn't think so. So while a whole lot of you may not appreciate the efforts of the American military I will tip my cap to each and every one of them because they do what I clearly don't have the balls to do. The abolishment of the military will only invite trouble. Budget cuts are needed in plenty of the sectors of the U.S. economy, cutting almost everything from the military budget won't even be close to solving any financial problems.

Why don't we get rid of currency? Then we don't have to worrry about failing economies! Yeesh.

[JohnnyDigs]

America sucks, sky is falling, world is doomed. This thread is par for the course.

If the U.S gets rid of their military, will the UK do the same? China? Japan? Germany? Poland? Iran? North Korea? South Korea? Didn't think so. So while a whoe lot of you may not appreciate the efforts of the American military I will tip my cap to each and every one of them because they do what I clearly don't have the balls to do.

Why don't we get rid of currency? Then we don't have to worrry about failing economies! Yeesh.

What are you saying? Do you think those countries are going to invade the U.S.?

[Taniec]

Poland, UK, and Germany are some of the bigger Allies to the U.S, so I doubt it. I'm just trying to point out the hypocrisy that if you ask the U.S to abolish their army then you have to expect the same from the rest of the world which is inconceivable due to not living in such a utopian world.

[Soulwynd]

Well, I don't think the US should dump their military, even if I'm an anarchist and think that would be fine in a perfectish world. I think you guys can be fine with 1/3 or even a 1/2 reduction and still maintain the same position.

[Phmcw]

.... and everyone is completely missing the point.

The fact to have a big army serve an economic purpose. Let me show you this :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption

An american use, in average, two times more energy than an European (EU-27).
In term of countries, only rich norther European countries use more, along with some petrol states.

It is true for other resources as well.
Now another thing. Why is European help so slow to reach Greece? Because as long as it linger, Germany can loan it money with very good interest rates. And why has Iraq been invaded? Because French companies has the exclusivity of it's oil.

US and Europe are allied, militarily, but are foes economically. Even among themselves, European countries fight for the world's resources. Not outright war, no, but in the third world dictators are pushed, aided and crushed by those fights.

The US army is not OP, it's too big, and too inefficient. The people who made your troops go into Iraq are stupid or corrupt (and most of them are corrupt).
It was going to be a disaster, and everyone warned against it. If anyone want a good laugh, read "The War Over Iraq". That idiot of William Kristol gloated that the debacle didn't happen,... right before it happened. Strife can say what he will, the war in Afghanistan and Iraq are two neat defeat for the US. Two defeat so costly it will cost you a whole generation.

And why? Because your army is completely inefficient, designed to fight in a conventional war who will not happen, and unable to fight the war of occupation who are asked for it.

And worse, even for the purpose of conventional war it's too costly. Having the best army in the world, well why not? But if you're not able to field it why bother?

Tl;dr : your army is necessary for your way of living and you need it. But it's too bloated right now therefore you waste money.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I don't think you have anything to worry about from modern Mexico (which is a poor country which will only get poorer the weaker the US gets) or modern Canada (where people don't quite get excited and gung ho about going to war).

I guarantee that the USA, Canada, and Mexico are a million bajilion times more likely to end up in a political unification with one another than a war with one another. Not to say that this is very likely either (although I would support at least trying it out if the idea was popular), but that should show how unlikely the aforementioned nations are to invade one another.

In any case, abolishing the military altogether is just plain stupid in the socio-political climate we are all in. Costa Rica got away with it because they have a pact with the US, who can act as protector should Nicaragua get any funny ideas. We definitely need to cut military spending though. I'd say it should be gradually reduced (minus 5-10% every year) to about 300 Billion per year, which gives 400 billion to help fund things that actually effect people's everyday lives. Also giving NASA a respectable budget, whomever the hell thought they should survive on 18 billion a year should be shot severely chewed out for incompetence.

[counting]

"War is an extension of politics by other means". If war success is the only measure of supporting war machine, it will simply become naked aggression. Politics always dominates war efforts. Desert Storm is a "military tactical success". But it's not a strategical success. Actually the second time, it's more of a strategical success since U.S. finally control 2 major footholds in middle east to divide and conquer the "Islamic world". (It's plain aggression since then)

From these footholds U.S can lunch tactical attack into Pakistan, central Asia, Iran, Arabic nations around Iraq, Syria, etc. (And it did, bin Laden was killed in Pakistan, god knows how many black ops are out there). And now even Libya is under controlled. If you open the world map and paint the Islamic countries with Red, and the controlled/footholds area with Blue, then you will see a pretty pattern (a red belt area with evenly spread blue regions in the center line). But of course, to maintain the ability to project political and military influence in Islamic world comes with the price. (And you wonder why Islamic world hates Western countries)

My prediction is that U.S government will not easily give up and withdraw from Iraq, and Afghanistan unless they can be sure the influence is strong enough by other means without military intervention. Or all the efforts will be lost just like the first golf war. What's your opinions? Do you think it's just necessary aggression? Spreading peace and democracy?

[JohnnyDigs]

Poland, UK, and Germany are some of the bigger Allies to the U.S, so I doubt it. I'm just trying to point out the hypocrisy that if you ask the U.S to abolish their army then you have to expect the same from the rest of the world which is inconceivable due to not living in such a utopian world.

The U.S. shouldn't abolish its entire defense spending. I'm just trying to point out that the likely hood of China, North Korea, Iran, Russia, Venezuela, Cuba, whatever, etc., invading the U.S. is too small to justify this much spending on defense:

[Nadaka]

Counting: The US does not control Libya at all, we have no soldiers there and we only supported the NATO airstrike effort for 90 days. We have virtually nothing to do with Libya at this point.

[GlyphGryph]

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...

A good chunk of those own more than one gun though. The us currently has 90 guns for every 100 people, which is pretty heavily armed. Considering any invader would have to come from over seas, not care about nuclear retaliation, have a large enough army AND a motivation to invade, the fact that the US has enough guns and resources to form an extremely strong insurgent movement is just icing on the cake.

If the U.S gets rid of their military, will the UK do the same? China? Japan? Germany? Poland? Iran? North Korea? South Korea? Didn't think so. So while a whoe lot of you may not appreciate the efforts of the American military I will tip my cap to each and every one of them because they do what I clearly don't have the balls to do.

Why does it matter whether or not they do? Would they then pose some sort of threat to us?

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.

And I'd argue we could be a lot better off, in economic terms and productivity terms, in focusing on power projection, if anything, and avoiding ground wars completely.

[counting]

Counting: The US does not control Libya at all, we have no soldiers there and we only supported the NATO airstrike effort for 90 days. We have virtually nothing to do with Libya at this point.

March 9, 2011: The United States had naval forces positioned off the coast of Libya, as well as forces already in the region, including the aircraft carrier USS Enterprise.

March 19, 2011: Three B-2 stealth bombers flying non-stop from the United States have dropped 40 bombs on a major Libyan airfield. The American destroyer USS Barry launches a Tomahawk cruise missile against Libyan defenses

Obama address "military mission" in Libya

Nothing? All the aircraft and ships need no fuel and crews and all just drones on them? U.S. president said : "We didn't want to do it, it's just because they force us to do it". And it's all NATO ops so recently "Libya seeks audiences with U.S.", to talk about U.S. will have nothing to do in Libya anymore in the future?

Remembered : "War is an extension of politics by other means". If you can used "means" to achieve goals, "Direct intervene as leading invasion" is not necessary when the goal of controlling the regional politics already been done by others' hands. (At front at least)

[Nadaka]

Yea Nothing. March was during the 90 days we contributed to the NATO effort. We have pulled out since then. We have no control of either faction, at all. We barely even have contact with the rebel government.

[nenjin]

You guys should read up on the military circa the Kennedy Assassination. Totally side-stepping the assassination, America's military has a systematic interest in staying involved in conflicts somewhere at some time. It's business, pure and simple. Materials, researchers, traders, manufacturers, foreign governments receiving weapons and training....all of that makes up a part of our economy. Go back even further, to the Civil War, and it's spelled out even more clearly with fewer confusing political elements.

On the flip side, crazy shit happens all over the world every day, some of which we do need to respond to. And so the military-industrial complex isn't completely out of line. It's when problems and wars are manufactured to increase demand, or when our foreign policy takes us into any conceivable conflict where the government can spend (and the industry can earn) money, that we have a problem.

As long as profits derived from war time activities continue to increase (profits not earned by the government or the public) and they make up a large chunk of our national economy, military spending will continue to be huge. It's only when we reject the possibility of future long-term military conflicts, and prevent our military and intelligence agencies from fomenting them, that we can truly start to draw down the military budget.

All that said, I feel like the military and the CIA are more on point now than they have been in the past. Rather than trying to take down sovereign nations aligned to a political view, they're going after terrorist cells. That we know about, at any rate.