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

[Heron TSG]

Besides if we dropped our military right now to a low amount we would be endangering not only ourselves, but many other countries too. For instance, let's say your town's police were weakened down to about two or three policemen and a police car, people who have never even thought of doing shit would start doing theft and things, because they know the only thing stopping them is weakened down and this wouldn't be JUST in your town either, nearby towns might go over and start doing things and eventually you got yourself a living ghetto.

My entire county recently dropped from 8 to 6 police officers and 3 police cars. A significant rise in crime did not occur.

[penguinofhonor]

Optimally, homeland defense only with a little extra to lend to the UN. Because I think that the UN should be doing the world policing, not us by ourselves.

I know that's not feasible right now - we've got too many troops doing too much work in too many places, but hopefully we could phase those out.

[Lord Shonus]

Chemical/Biological is largely an academic difference, basically the same protective measures, with similar problems with delivery for terrorists, and controlling the effect for militaries.

Chemical weapons are different in one critical way from biological weapons. Deploying a sarin canister in Chad can't kill of millions in South Africa. With bioweapons, that is a very real possibility.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Optimally, homeland defense only with a little extra to lend to the UN. Because I think that the UN should be doing the world policing, not us by ourselves.

I know that's not feasible right now - we've got too many troops doing too much work in too many places, but hopefully we could phase those out.

The UN put Iran at the head of their Women's Rights council and issued multiple proclamation that "defaming religions", particularly Islam, is to be a crime. Forgive me if I'm not jumping to give them any sort of power.

Simply put, the UN cannot have power because there is more autocracy than democracy in the world right now, and the UN functions on majority rule. Because of the sheer number of nations that don't care about human rights in any meaningful way, this means that the UN does not and should not have authority over anyone.

[Hiiri]

50% think US should be able to conquer any country in the world?

Feeling a bit insecure down there, are we?

[penguinofhonor]

Optimally, homeland defense only with a little extra to lend to the UN. Because I think that the UN should be doing the world policing, not us by ourselves.

I know that's not feasible right now - we've got too many troops doing too much work in too many places, but hopefully we could phase those out.

The UN put Iran at the head of their Women's Rights council and issued multiple proclamation that "defaming religions", particularly Islam, is to be a crime. Forgive me if I'm not jumping to give them any sort of power.

Simply put, the UN cannot have power because there is more autocracy than democracy in the world right now, and the UN functions on majority rule. Because of the sheer number of nations that don't care about human rights in any meaningful way, this means that the UN does not and should not have authority over anyone.

Well yeah, that's another reason that wouldn't work right now.

But honestly, we're not that awesome about women's rights and stuff like that either. Yes, we're not the worst, but I wouldn't put the USA as the shining bastion of progressiveness. I wouldn't put Europe there either, though they tend to be better on women's rights they tend to be worse about racism and xenophobia.

And honestly, the entire West is terrible about Islamophobia. I'd like to give the Islamic countries a say in stuff that has to do with that instead of letting the West just stomp all over them.

Why are all these issues so complex and multifaceted, damn it.

[counting]

Optimally, homeland defense only with a little extra to lend to the UN. Because I think that the UN should be doing the world policing, not us by ourselves.

I know that's not feasible right now - we've got too many troops doing too much work in too many places, but hopefully we could phase those out.

The UN put Iran at the head of their Women's Rights council and issued multiple proclamation that "defaming religions", particularly Islam, is to be a crime. Forgive me if I'm not jumping to give them any sort of power.

Simply put, the UN cannot have power because there is more autocracy than democracy in the world right now, and the UN functions on majority rule. Because of the sheer number of nations that don't care about human rights in any meaningful way, this means that the UN does not and should not have authority over anyone.

Well yeah, that's another reason that wouldn't work right now.

But honestly, we're not that awesome about women's rights and stuff like that either. Yes, we're not the worst, but I wouldn't put the USA as the shining bastion of progressiveness. I wouldn't put Europe there either, though they tend to be better on women's rights they tend to be worse about racism and xenophobia.

And honestly, the entire West is terrible about Islamophobia. I'd like to give the Islamic countries a say in stuff that has to do with that instead of letting the West just stomp all over them.

Why are all these issues so complex and multifaceted, damn it.

The one with the iron fist said so.

And Sinophobia is still at play. (At rise to dangerously level in certain part of countries, mostly south, south-east, east Asia, Europe as well)

[Lagslayer]

News flash: the whole world is racist and xenophobic.

[Heron TSG]

50% think US should be able to conquer any country in the world?

Feeling a bit insecure down there, are we?

The poll indicates that, yes, but several people have stated that they voted for the top one and were trolling the polling. Also, 'winning' does not mean 'conquer' in most cases. As far as I can see, though, enough to match any one country is a reasonable level. Our military is HUGE. Cutting it down to say, China's levels of spending and matching their army would provide for fulfilling most, if not all, of our treaties. Even with a military that big, that's a huge cut that would do much to balance our budget.

[Lagslayer]

You also forget that the less massively more powerful we are compared to our foes, the more likely we will get hurt. We don't want more our guys coming back in body bags because we barely have enough people to get the job done.

[penguinofhonor]

News flash: the whole world is racist and xenophobic.

My point was that, out of the powerful regions that could police the world instead of the UN (those being the US and Europe), Europe seems to be worse on the racism and xenophobia than the US, while the US seems to be worse on women's rights and gay rights (and both of them still have problems with the stuff that the other region is worse about), meaning that I don't really think we're so much better than the rest of the world that the West can just say "screw it, them muslims are sexist so we don't want them to have a say in world affairs".

[Jashugan]

I personally do not find a major conflict between national armies to be likely anytime soon.  Globalization has expanded the economies of the world into a fragile interdependent network and any major war would likely cause a catastrophic worldwide economic crisis that would set the entire world back decades, not only the war's participants.  Just look at the drastic economic consequences circling the planet recently, caused by relatively minor events.  Peace has made the world very rich.  I think even recent bogeyman China is seeing just how much value they're getting out of peace and (growing) freedom.  That, and their over-abundance of single-child families causes me to suspect they'd be very reluctant to commit to a war where they stand to lose a lot of troops. 
Specifically in regards to the US, given its geography, it would be easy for it to depend on itself, but not without first undergoing an earth-shattering breakdown of its economy and society.  Therefore I think a policy of maintaining a military just to defend itself is a faulty notion.  Peace in other countries is very directly beneficial to it.  I think a much bigger threat to the US(and the rest of the world) is that modern(and future) technology allows individuals and small groups to wield massive destructive power.  So, while I do support a slimming down of the US conventional military, I think a growing/strengthening of specialized forces able to thwart these small groups is of great importance.

In regards to the US' foreign policy, if one can take at face-value it's claim that it is willing to pay in blood and treasure to protect the freedoms of individuals across the world without asking anything in return, well, thats a pretty damn amazing thing.  The history of the world is rife with conquering superpowers who weren't quite so generous.
And while its safe to assume that the intentions of the US aren't always so altruistic, one cannot deny that there are a lot of nations and peoples of the world that owe their freedom/safety/existence to the US military.  Heck, there's a even an argument to be made that the US Navy is responsible for safe oceans over the past 70s years that allowed rapidly growing and successful ocean-based shipping and trade.  Fact of the matter is, if the US is making the world safer, then everyone is benefitting in very real ways, even it's detractors. 
Now, I'm not saying what the US does is always good, but I think people often overlook the good in favor of the bad.  Personally, I dont think that worldwide democracy, freedom, and safety for individuals is a bad goal.  The problem is, not everyone agrees with that and they're willing to go to war to prevent it.

And since the thread has turned that way, I want to add that I politely object to the usage of the term "Islamophobia".  Its a loaded term that carries a negative connotation that in and of itself belittles opposition and stifles rational discussion.  A phobia is defined as an irrational fear so the word implies that anyone who has a beef with Islam is a loon that needs to go consult a shrink.  Personally, I am generally opposed to all religions, but I find Islam to be head and shoulders above the rest as a source for legitimate complaints.

[Muz]

Even with a military that big, that's a huge cut that would do much to balance our budget.

No, it wouldn't. That's why they're not cutting it. Your military is only a small percentage of your expenses, even if you cut it down by a lot, you'd still be deep in debt.

I personally don't mind a huge military, as long as it's not being used aggressively.

[kaijyuu]

No, it wouldn't. That's why they're not cutting it. Your military is only a small percentage of your expenses, even if you cut it down by a lot, you'd still be deep in debt.

Small percentage? What? It's nearly 1/4 our budget. That's no where near small, and cutting it down even to the second option (match the highest possible opponent) would be a huge boost in available funds.

I personally don't mind a huge military, as long as it's not being used aggressively.

What is the point of a military if you're not going to use it?

[Muz]

No, it wouldn't. That's why they're not cutting it. Your military is only a small percentage of your expenses, even if you cut it down by a lot, you'd still be deep in debt.

Small percentage? What? It's nearly 1/4 our budget. That's no where near small, and cutting it down even to the second option (match the highest possible opponent) would be a huge boost in available funds.

It's only about 14%. You can find me another link saying otherwise, i'm just taking the first stat I found. Cutting it by half would just be 7% savings, and that would include things like decomming battleships, planes, all that extremely expensive, hundred billion dollar stuff to save a few billions every year. It would mean firing a lot of people who have contributed to the welfare of the nation, as well as a hell lot of people who have trained for years to get to their position. You can't simply "cut down" on defense spending, the best you can do is just not buy more. And if you were to get into a war in the future, you'd spend way, way more than you saved.

I personally don't mind a huge military, as long as it's not being used aggressively.

What is the point of a military if you're not going to use it?

For defense.