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

[Funk]

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

so the other side does't use theres.
that and the fact the u.s. has a vast amount of jobs linked in to the arms trade.

[RedKing]

Can't bring myself to wade through 11 pages of discussion, but I'll just say an unmitigated, unqualified YES. We not only need a military, we need a large, robust military. What we don't need is an over-reliance on high-priced gadgets and a succession of Presidents who lack the wisdom to use it properly.

[Heron TSG]

Source: CBO Historical Tables


and 10% of our spending is still a hell of a lot of money. That's $689,000,000,000 dollars right there. Roughly $2500 dollars per person in the US.

[Duuvian]

Again, same thing. US doesn't want China to get too much power. They don't want it getting Australia or Taiwan.

To that end, I don't think China is going to go to war with Australia. Taiwan is infinitely more likely, and even then, I think it's far more likely that China will just outlast the people over there who don't want Chinese rule, and assimilate the rest.

Honestly, I'd say it's the other way around. I think China will be changing in the future, and Taiwan will be able to call them brother again. The main thing would be to encourage the bankers to fuck off and make honest money, the military leaders to be wise and benevolent, and suggest to the Chinese people that it would be a beautiful thing to see a Chinese flavored democratic state now that we have the internet.

Also, I'm not done reading the thread yet.

EDIT: First, I read somewhere in this thread that there is an F-23. I did a 5 second search and only found something on an airplane from 1946 that I flew in Aces of the Pacific. I'm seriously hoping that is not being considered so quickly after the debacle that have been the last few pricetags the makers of the planes have thrown at us.

Seriously guys, talk of socialism be damned, make your own damn airplanes! Have an engineer corps that designs and manufactures your war goodies! Problem solved? It could even be it's own branch of the armed services. The United States Engineers has a sort of a ring to it. Perhaps throw the word 'Logistics' up in there in it's formal dinner title somewhere and you've taken away the ability for the private sector to profit from war. Being the biggest, toughest cowboy around that would set quite the precedent and make you look pretty good too. By you I mean you people who hold the guns so I don't have to. The only thing I would ask is you try very hard not to pay our way out of debt with your new ability to make weapons.

That's all I've got for now, time for me to prepare for a free haircut.

[Heron TSG]

We have the Army Corps of Engineers, if that's what you're thinking of. They're the people who do all the seemingly impossible things, like building gigantic dams, fixing ecological disasters, and digging canals between oceans.

[Strife26]

We have the Army Corps of Engineers, if that's what you're thinking of. They're the people who FUCK UP all the seemingly impossible things, like building gigantic dams, fixing ecological disasters, and digging canals between oceans WHILE DEMANDING MUCH MORE MONEY THAN THEY NEED.

Fixed for you.

Full Disclosure: I have an intense dislike of the Army Corps of Engineers.

[Nadaka]

We have the Army Corps of Engineers, if that's what you're thinking of. They're the people who do all the seemingly impossible things, like building gigantic dams, fixing ecological disasters, and digging canals between oceans.

I think he is suggesting a "design and manufacture" branch of the military instead of relying on private contractors to design and build military hardware. I don't think that would work very well unless your ran it as a civil service agency rather than military.

[Heron TSG]

We have the Army Corps of Engineers, if that's what you're thinking of. They're the people who FUCK UP all the seemingly impossible things, like building gigantic dams, fixing ecological disasters, and digging canals between oceans WHILE DEMANDING MUCH MORE MONEY THAN THEY NEED.

Fixed for you.

Full Disclosure: I have an intense dislike of the Army Corps of Engineers.

I'm ambivalent on them, myself. They use ridiculous amounts of money, but what they've done I have to give them credit before. There's a dam they built not 100 miles from here that provides power to almost every major city from Anchorage to the Panama Canal.

[Phmcw]

We have the Army Corps of Engineers, if that's what you're thinking of. They're the people who do all the seemingly impossible things, like building gigantic dams, fixing ecological disasters, and digging canals between oceans.

I think he is suggesting a "design and manufacture" branch of the military instead of relying on private contractors to design and build military hardware. I don't think that would work very well unless your ran it as a civil service agency rather than military.

No, bad idea. Capitalism work perfectly for that ; what you need is an efficient and honest bureaucracy to make the contracts, and to kill the lobbies who will try to corrupt them and the government.
For that you need a lot of liberties, and a lot of transparency, as well as the ability to highlight directly the eventual problem.

[Nadaka]

We have the Army Corps of Engineers, if that's what you're thinking of. They're the people who do all the seemingly impossible things, like building gigantic dams, fixing ecological disasters, and digging canals between oceans.

I think he is suggesting a "design and manufacture" branch of the military instead of relying on private contractors to design and build military hardware. I don't think that would work very well unless your ran it as a civil service agency rather than military.

No, bad idea. Capitalism work perfectly for that ; what you need is an efficient and honest bureaucracy to make the contracts, and to kill the lobbies who will try to corrupt them and the government.
For that you need a lot of liberties, and a lot of transparency, as well as the ability to highlight directly the eventual problem.

I agree its a bad idea. I was more pointing out that if it was to be attempted, a military structure would make it practically impossible because it relies on recruits. While a civil service agency has at least the basic flexibility to hire more normally.

[thobal]

EDIT: First, I read somewhere in this thread that there is an F-23. I did a 5 second search and only found something on an airplane from 1946 that I flew in Aces of the Pacific. I'm seriously hoping that is not being considered so quickly after the debacle that have been the last few pricetags the makers of the planes have thrown at us.

Seriously guys, talk of socialism be damned, make your own damn airplanes! Have an engineer corps that designs and manufactures your war goodies! Problem solved? It could even be it's own branch of the armed services. The United States Engineers has a sort of a ring to it. Perhaps throw the word 'Logistics' up in there in it's formal dinner title somewhere and you've taken away the ability for the private sector to profit from war. Being the biggest, toughest cowboy around that would set quite the precedent and make you look pretty good too. By you I mean you people who hold the guns so I don't have to. The only thing I would ask is you try very hard not to pay our way out of debt with your new ability to make weapons.

I think he means the F-22 or the F-35, both of which are mind-numbingly expensive. The 22 cant even fly in the rain.

As for the Engineer idea, that's SOCIALISM!!!! and is umpossible in today's political climate. Plus, where will politicians get millions in kickbacks and backscratching if they did something like that?

[Funk]

that is on par with the sealth plane that stops being a sealth plane if it gets wet.

[counting]

Again, same thing. US doesn't want China to get too much power. They don't want it getting Australia or Taiwan.

To that end, I don't think China is going to go to war with Australia. Taiwan is infinitely more likely, and even then, I think it's far more likely that China will just outlast the people over there who don't want Chinese rule, and assimilate the rest.

Honestly, I'd say it's the other way around. I think China will be changing in the future, and Taiwan will be able to call them brother again. The main thing would be to encourage the bankers to fuck off and make honest money, the military leaders to be wise and benevolent, and suggest to the Chinese people that it would be a beautiful thing to see a Chinese flavored democratic state now that we have the internet.

Also, I'm not done reading the thread yet.

EDIT: First, I read somewhere in this thread that there is an F-23. I did a 5 second search and only found something on an airplane from 1946 that I flew in Aces of the Pacific. I'm seriously hoping that is not being considered so quickly after the debacle that have been the last few pricetags the makers of the planes have thrown at us.

Seriously guys, talk of socialism be damned, make your own damn airplanes! Have an engineer corps that designs and manufactures your war goodies! Problem solved? It could even be it's own branch of the armed services. The United States Engineers has a sort of a ring to it. Perhaps throw the word 'Logistics' up in there in it's formal dinner title somewhere and you've taken away the ability for the private sector to profit from war. Being the biggest, toughest cowboy around that would set quite the precedent and make you look pretty good too. By you I mean you people who hold the guns so I don't have to. The only thing I would ask is you try very hard not to pay our way out of debt with your new ability to make weapons.

That's all I've got for now, time for me to prepare for a free haircut.

Don't count Taiwan out that soon. What our politicians said don't represent what people lived in Taiwan said (2012 election may reverse the pro-China policy). And China's problems are not just Taiwan strait. North Korea, Xinjiang and Tibet. South China Sea with South-east Asia countries. And the fudge with Japan. I think the ocean side of China is completely blocks by U.S projected military power. I don't think China will simply sit there and do nothing. China is about to launch it's first space-station/lab this month. I think the competition is getting higher, instead of dropping. (China even trying to build carriers of its own, despite all the disadvantage at Sea)

And I assume it's talking about the famous YF-23 and YF-22 competition in the 90s. Originally there are 2 kinds of next generation high-end fighters competed to become the replacement for F-15. And in the end the YF-22 won, and became F-22. Why YF-23 lost is not clear (mostly classified), but it's famous for both were overly priced, like a race to who can spend more rather than economical. (It's at the height of economy in 90's)

[Lord Shonus]

Sprry, it was the F-35 that I was thinking of, the one with three completely different variants that has cost the US 36 billion dollars (4 billion came from Europe) to design, and will cost 200 million dollars per aircraft (as opposed to 70 million for additional F-22s).

[Zangi]

On the needing a military... Mandatory Civilian Training would fix the problem of an army too small.  Most likely unpopular.  Every few years, people would have to go back to training for the new fangled stuff. 
While you'd have a standing army, between the levels of homeland defense and force projection.  An actual war would call out the 'reserve'...   It would also make it so our politicians would have to have a really damn good reason to get into an offensive war. 

Expenses would most likely be in technology...  maintenance, research, upgrade and retraining...