Trump: "I Want To Build Biggest Military On Earth So We Won't Have To Use It"

I told you there was no attempt to distort and posted the page and number where I ALSO posted a graph of the entire budget. It's obvious to me from this post that we need not discuss issues any further. Have a nice day.

 

Can you be more specific about "OUR people"? Like what exactly??

 

Healthcare
Education
Public utilities and government services

All those should be improved substantially and more frequently than our military.

 

We already have the best doctors and hospitals in the world.

We have private and state universities that you can go to at your expense if you don't meet the requirements for scholarships.

Public utilities? Last I checked my electricity and water are fine, of course I pay the bill every month.

What exactly are you not satisfied with, and what are you doing about it with your own time and money?

 

<Carthage>, but an interesting Freudian slip all the same!

 

Every nation needs a military but what the U.S. has are instruments of terror and intimidation to enforce their mafia-imperial ethos.

 

This is a joke, right?

 

The Army has been organizing itself into individual brigade combat teams for several years. Each of the 82nd Airborne's individual infantry brigades has a dedicated artillery battalion and other elements assigned to it to allow it to act independently or in combination with other units depending on the mission. This is not unlike thinking in the past, but there is much more emphasis on units operating outside the division concept. A mission may require a rapid deployment of an airborne brigade to, say, seize airfields and set up defensive positions and a follow on deployment of an attached armored cavalry battalion will provide heavier firepower support. Artillery battalions now have lighter, more mobile equipment that have a variety of smart projectiles that can provide support for either urban warfare or a range of other scenarios (such as anti-tank).

They are all preparing to be able to fight all kinds of wars, and not just concentrating in urban warfare. I fear, however, the politicians and armed forces bureaucrats will not take the lessons of past conflicts and listen to the warriors, but will demand short sighted attention to only the conditions they see today. They will reduce capabilities (as they seem to be intent on doing with various social justice projects -women Seals?) and will not be ready for the next crisis.

In that direction is the path to more Task Force Smiths.

 

Isn't that just what Reagan did and the Soviet Union went belly up trying to stay up with us? No more Soviet Union.

 

I was thinking more of the maneuver brigades to operate independently. But in a divisional format, the brigades are still dependent on certain special troops for logistical support. a key difference with independent brigades is that it eliminates the divisional concept altogether and relies that brigade to be sustained within the brigade exclusively with minimal logistic support from HQ.

Still, I think you are right about politicians and bureaucrats similar to the 1920's when this new concept called the aircraft carrier was being developed.

 

That's a bit over dramatic.

 

Oh Horse ****.

What was needed was a POTUS and a SecDef who understand that the way to deal with terrorists is to kill them in great numbers, once we had that, things went much worse for ISIS, or ISIL as the Kenyan Skidmark like to call them. ISIL includes Israel in The Caliphate.

 

Cadet Bone Spurs could not even keep a casino liquid.

 

Military spending only accounts for about 16% of total federal spending. Over 60% of total federal spending is spent on social programs.

https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/spending/

 

Peace through strength ... makes sense.

 

Well, by all accounts we already have that military. And spend so much on it, as to not be able to keep up with modern infastructure here in america.

Thing is, there is more to national security or defense than having the biggest rockets in your britches. An important part of security and defense is your infastructure which allows a nation to win an all out big war. Otherwise it is like sending your military into great battles with a lack of, or very poor SUPPORT.

 

Except terrorists don’t give flying **** how many F-22’s we have.

 

Uhm, OK? Your point?

 

My point? Is that your post is misleading and not telling the whole story. That's my point!

Your post was for the low information voter.

 

Who said anything about terrorists?

The world has hostile countries like China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, etc.

 

Russia and China do.

 

As does peace via diplomacy and non hegemony for any nation. Of the two, yours or mine, which one is better for humanity? For the trouble comes in with peace through strength, and the risk, is that those will huge militaries have historically tended to use them for non self defense...you know, like we have done since ww2? Not to mention how we have used our CIA, which is any part of a military effort.

 

Our current military is more than enough to deter an attack by any of them. So no need to increase spending.

 

And our military is already sufficient to deter attack from either of them without adding trillions more to the debt.