Something I Don't Understand About Critics Of U.S. Military Spending

Critics of U.S. military both foreign and domestic seem to love saying things like "the U.S. spends more on defense than the rest of the world combined" or "the U.S. could cut its spending by more than half and have plenty" or specifically "the U.S. Navy is larger than all the other navies in the world combined". '

Yet it seems to me these SAME PEOPLE or at least those of that general political bent say things like

"The U.S. could not defeat China in a war"

"The U.S. could not defeat Russia in a war".

"The U.S. could not defeat Iran in a war"

"the U.S. could not defeat North Korea in a war"

I've even heard some say


"The U.S. could not defeat Venezula in a war".

Now.

If the U.S. military is really so weak that we could not defeat ANY possible opponent in a war.....then can't you make a strong argument that the U.S. military is UNDERFUNDED and TOO SMALL?

You can't say the U.S. military spends too much at the same time you're claiming that it can't defeat any potential adversary.

What gives?

 

I don't know. Some people are stupid.

I'm pretty confident in our ability to defend ourselves with only half of the spending we engage in now.

We could easily defeat any nation at half of our current strength.

The only real concerns for us militarily are related to funding itself.

For example, we could easily defeat Iran, but if we attacked them, it could escalate to a world war. The same goes for Pakistan.

In either case, victory isn't the worry -- the associated costs (both monetary and in terms of lives) are.

 

We have to spend on military because it's the only thing we're good at. Everything else has been offshored. We're just the long arm of the international law.

 

In the case of Russia or China, I can see the argument being made. We couldn't invade either country successfully and expect to hold territory.

That's not really about spending, though. That's just physics and weather and culture.

 

You point out an important flaw in the arguments of those for a scaled down military. As one in favor of a significant drawdown in military spending, my belief is that in the modern world, strength in numbers is no longer important. Intelligence and advanced weaponry are crucial. North Korea may have one of the largest armies in the world, but their intelligence and technology pales in comparison to ours. Therefore, if we were to engage in a war with North Korea, our strategy and efficiency would probably allow us to defeat them. Few nations have better intelligence and military technology than the United States. Israel, who supplies a significant amount of weaponry to the United States, is one of these countries.

 

My criticism is that some of our military actions might not be beneficial or necessary in the end, might actually put us in a worse situation, henceforth making those trillions a huge waste.

We need bar-none national defense, the ability to deploy if needed, and top notch intelligence gathering. I see very little reason for preemptive war (our recent and pending engagements at least) and being posted up in all the corners of the world.

 

Those people are stupid. We obviously need to cut spending in Military just like entitlements.

 

Do you think we need a large standing army such as the one we currently have? "The ability to deploy if needed" is a vague statement, and can be interpreted in a variety of ways.

 

What gives:

America defeated Iraq
America defeated Libya
America defeat Afghanistan
America could not defeat North Korea, hence it exists
America could not defeat Viet Nam hence it is communist

America defeated nothing worth having. Dare if you may but a track record speaks for itself at a big cost. Every country they defeated in the past required a lot of help and money. Good Luck with your wierd wide sweeping victimized statement.

Dude, I clearly can work but do I get a job worth working for? Maybe the problem is not with yourself but with others. I would rather fight for my beliefs with your American conviction then with the current situation.

 

Paraphrased - we need a civilian national security force that is just as powerful and well-funded as our military
-Barack

So the answer is yes, our liberal president thinks we need a police state and a world policing military.

 

I am simply looking for an elaboration from leftlegmoderate, NetworkCitizen. That portion of his statement seemed to lack clarity.

 

No. The reason we have such a large military in the first place is due to current conflicts and our overseas bases.

I think we should have an enlisted force which is more than sufficient for defending our land, air, and sea from invasion. We really shouldn't build our military around the ability to invade, but we should have the ability to deploy respectable numbers of troops for allied efforts. It'd be wise to have large numbers of reserves and a really efficient mechanism for recruiting more troops if necessary.

 

Easy answer. It's the amount we would be willing to sacrifice in regards to life and limb. We have two wars that have been going on (had) for nearly 10 years. What did the average American have to sacrifice - Answer: Nothing. Why? Because the moment that the war was any kind of inconvenience to the American public we would end them. Korea/China etc have no problem sending 100,000, 200,000 people to their deaths to win. We don't possess that anymore. If people have to wait on line for 10 minutes they get annoyed. The American population for the most part has become too soft, nannied and obese.

 

I don't know anyone who agrees with the second part of what you are saying. I think it's pretty common knowledge that we could kick anyone's butt in a war if we wanted.

 

The U.S. would smoke any nation in a non-conventional war.

But, that being said... I would like to see spending cuts in the following areas:

• Redundant Weapon Programs
• Foreign Bases (too many - not all)
• Failed Weapon Programs
• U.N. Participation

We could make those cuts and still not lose our edge.

 

I would agree with your four spending cuts, with a few exceptions:

1. I feel that all foreign bases can be eliminated. The Middle East seems to be a more unstable place with our presence. From my perspective, strong diplomatic relations and economic relations with all the nations in that region could be more effective. The one exception I would possibly make is the Korean Peninsula. The Asian Pacific will be such a crucial area in the coming years.

2. We should not completely withdraw from the United Nations. There are a plethora of subsidiary bodies that are unnecessary, and we should not be apart of them. I consider the Security Council and General Assembly to be viable UN bodies, and we should remain members of them, with a few revisions such as a dual military action approval mandate. Essentially, in order for the United States to go to war based upon a SC resolution, Congress must declare war.

 

Lol, people are dumb. They equate the Iraq/Afghanistan war with a war against an actual military. The United States would absolutely destroy any country in a war, especially if they tried to advance on to our homeland.

The Iraq War was a policing effort. Like finding needles in a haystack, going through buildings, looking through closets, just trying to find Al Qaeda members who look like everyone else on the streets. That is the new age war against terror.

But if we had to fight say North Korea and it was a serious threat, we would completely annihilate them off the map before a single North Korean soldier stepped foot on American soil.

There is no reason to cut spending on the military. Spend away!!

 

Uh, what does that part mean?

 

Um, who said that?

The Afghans and Vietnamese?

 

It's causing you debt problems which empowers the enemy. It's what China wants. It's what Russia wants.

 

Its also what Japan wants.

One of the biggest reasons for heavy American presence in the Pacific theatre is to prevent Japan and China from engaging in an aerospace and maritime arms race.

If Japan really thought for a minute that US carriers were not over the horizon somewhere, the Japanese Government would have to begin a heavy rearmament program in order to keep pace with the Chinese Juggernaut that seeks to eat up the territorial waters surrounding japan and all the natural resources within them. This is the stated goal of Chinese strategists to secure natural resources for a couple billion people.

China doesn't want land, they want ocean, and they will try and take it one day and one of the places they will try to take it from is Japan.

 

Japan has enough capabilities. There would be no war. No real problems. Korea and Japan contest a few islands, one in particular, no problem. Just disputes.

China's next president said his strategy of engagement would be to drive the Americans into military debt. It's working. RE: Soviet Union. History does repeat! Except backwards...

 

Excellent idea.

At 700 bil a year and 1.5 trill for its wars, the plan is working nicely.

 

The US can defeat any other country except maybe China in a war and the US is as likely to go to war with China as it to go to war with Canada.

 

It IS about time to go bomb or invade (by choice) another small brown country with oil interests, isn't it? That IS what we do best these days. Bullies usually pick on the smaller kids, and we need MORE profit for the war profiteers. What better way to fix up our economy? Just bomb our way out of it? It's what we do...for profit. It's "just business".