Does the US need more military spending?

[Medwind]

Arms races are bad and everyone involved should feel bad, but of course they wouldn't, because what are people if not mere statistics, mere kindling before the bloodlust of the blindly powerful?

/thread

"I'm a pacifist, you know, like the ones who spat on Vietnam vets? Yeah, pacifism's great. Anyway, I just wanted to say, the whole world can be changed with smiles, we don't need a military, we should send the terrorists flowers, and, hula-hoops!"

[Havarland]

America has the best educational system in the world and each state is different.

What actual lol?

No other countries, with the few exceptions have such great universities and Cali has one of the greatest educational system in the world.

[Medwind]

I think the case against increased military spending can be summarised by this:
(Image)

All of these countries are protected by The USA with the exceptions of China and Russia.
South Korea wouldn't even exist without the glorious and beautiful United States of America

Very good point! Besides, why should we let foreign states dictate our policies?

[Andsed]

Arms races are bad and everyone involved should feel bad, but of course they wouldn't, because what are people if not mere statistics, mere kindling before the bloodlust of the blindly powerful?

/thread

"I'm a pacifist, you know, like the ones who spat on Vietnam vets? Yeah, pacifism's great. Anyway, I just wanted to say, the whole world can be changed with smiles, we don't need a military, we should send the terrorists flowers, and, hula-hoops!"

Nice Strawman. No one is saying we need to get rid of the military only that we are spending to much on it and that the money could be spent better elsewhere.

[Medwind]

"I'm a pacifist, you know, like the ones who spat on Vietnam vets? Yeah, pacifism's great. Anyway, I just wanted to say, the whole world can be changed with smiles, we don't need a military, we should send the terrorists flowers, and, hula-hoops!"

Nice Strawman. No one is saying we need to get rid of the military only that we are spending to much on it and that the money could be spent better elsewhere.

Disabling an already weakened military might as well mean disbanding it, depending on how far it's taken. I've seen some here advocate massive scale backs.

[Havarland]

All of these countries are protected by The USA with the exceptions of China and Russia.
South Korea wouldn't even exist without the glorious and beautiful United States of America

Very good point! Besides, why should we let foreign states dictate our policies?

Because The USA belongs to NATO. We shouldn't let anyone dictate America's policies. Things started improving once Trump was elected, but still the matter of fact is that only handful of countries pay 2%.
The USA has given a lot to Europe and most Europeans don't really appreciate it and laugh at us. My point was: Don't compare military spending with European countries, such as Germany, since they don't even pay 2% and The USA is protecting them. It's unfair. Also, for those of you who don't know: Educational, prison, welfare systems are different all across The United States. It's as if we generalised all of the Europe and said: "Poland is exactly the same as The UK", but it's not.
Another myth is that Americans are stupid. I like the fact that Europeans were whining on Trump and on The USA being anti-immigrant, while they are exactly the same.
It is also easier for illegals to stay in The USA (depending on cities / states) than in Europe.

Without The USA South Korea would be the same as North Korea, The Soviet Union might still exist and The Soviet Union would have never ever defeated Nazi Germany. So your talk about Americans being warmongers is completely wrong.

[Andsed]

Nice Strawman. No one is saying we need to get rid of the military only that we are spending to much on it and that the money could be spent better elsewhere.

Disabling an already weakened military might as well mean disbanding it, depending on how far it's taken. I've seen some here advocate massive scale backs.

We are not disabling the military by cutting back on spending. We already spend around 700 billion more than anyone else we can afford to and should cut back on spending.

[Medwind]

Very good point! Besides, why should we let foreign states dictate our policies?

Because The USA belongs to NATO. We shouldn't let anyone dictate America's policies. Things started improving once Trump was elected, but still the matter of fact is that only handful of countries pay 2%.
The USA has given a lot to Europe and most Europeans don't really appreciate it and laugh at us. My point was: Don't compare military spending with European countries, such as Germany, since they don't even pay 2% and The USA is protecting them. It's unfair. Also, for those of you who don't know: Educational, prison, welfare systems are different all across The United States. It's as if we generalised all of the Europe and said: "Poland is exactly the same as The UK", but it's not.
Another myth is that Americans are stupid. I like the fact that Europeans were whining on Trump and on The USA being anti-immigrant, while they are exactly the same.
It is also easier for illegals to stay in The USA (depending on cities / states) than in Europe.

Without The USA South Korea would be the same as North Korea, The Soviet Union might still exist and The Soviet Union would have never ever defeated Nazi Germany. So your talk about Americans being warmongers is completely wrong.

I agree with you 100%

[Medwind]

Disabling an already weakened military might as well mean disbanding it, depending on how far it's taken. I've seen some here advocate massive scale backs.

We are disabling the military by cutting back on spending. We already spend around 700 billion more than anyone else we can afford to and should cut back on spending.

Read some of the links. The military is currently being cut back as it is. We have equipment that is outdated & needs an upgrade, the Bradley fighting vehicle is a prime example. We are hurting, meanwhile Russia & China are expanding, modernizing & training their forces for war.

[Valrifell]

No, the Pentagon is an ethically questionable, administratively bloated mess more or less in the hands of defense contractors seeking a quick buck by making weapons that run overbudget and behind schedule. Either reform the DoD or cut the budget, because at the moment it's close to burning money.

[Duhon]

Arms races are bad and everyone involved should feel bad, but of course they wouldn't, because what are people if not mere statistics, mere kindling before the bloodlust of the blindly powerful?

/thread

"I'm a pacifist, you know, like the ones who spat on Vietnam vets? Yeah, pacifism's great. Anyway, I just wanted to say, the whole world can be changed with smiles, we don't need a military, we should send the terrorists flowers, and, hula-hoops!"

One doesn't have to be a pacifist (I'm not) to observe that the US military can deal with less than $707 million, just as the rest of America -- roads, bridges, government agencies, investments on R&D for nonmilitary purposes -- can do more with more.

[Medwind]

"I'm a pacifist, you know, like the ones who spat on Vietnam vets? Yeah, pacifism's great. Anyway, I just wanted to say, the whole world can be changed with smiles, we don't need a military, we should send the terrorists flowers, and, hula-hoops!"

One doesn't have to be a pacifist (I'm not) to observe that the US military can deal with less than $707 million, just as the rest of America -- roads, bridges, government agencies, investments on R&D for nonmilitary purposes -- can do more with more.

We need the money to stay competitive with our adversaries at a time they are ramping up. No opponents seems to have read the links, none of you has posted any answers to deal with these issues, just said we don't need money, or spouted some anti war propaganda, even though this is about spending.

[Valtrona]

Our Military spending is adequate where it is. Although, this money should also go to fixing outdated equipment.

[Havarland]

"I'm a pacifist, you know, like the ones who spat on Vietnam vets? Yeah, pacifism's great. Anyway, I just wanted to say, the whole world can be changed with smiles, we don't need a military, we should send the terrorists flowers, and, hula-hoops!"

One doesn't have to be a pacifist (I'm not) to observe that the US military can deal with less than $707 million, just as the rest of America -- roads, bridges, government agencies, investments on R&D for nonmilitary purposes -- can do more with more.

But please understand that many countries are taking advantages on The USA. This is where the money goes: even when the army isn't at home aka is in the overseas the American government pays for it. (Salaries, etc).
The huge military spending started during the Cold War with The USSR and has been like this ever since. South Koreans don't even really appreciate American troops.

The troops of The United States of America are all over the world, like in Europe and in Asia. This is where a lot of money goes as well. You can't really cut it.

Also, don't forget that The USA has some enemies.

[Duhon]

One doesn't have to be a pacifist (I'm not) to observe that the US military can deal with less than $707 million, just as the rest of America -- roads, bridges, government agencies, investments on R&D for nonmilitary purposes -- can do more with more.

We need the money to stay competitive with our adversaries at a time they are ramping up. No opponents seems to have read the links, none of you has posted any answers to deal with these issues, just said we don't need money, or spouted some anti war propaganda, even though this is about spending.

Haven't seen those links, and in any case, what I've been saying is that you neither need that much money nor do you need to be engaged in constant, unending wars the world over. For better or worse, no amount of money will make you the world's policeman, so maybe cut back on the spending and think of where that money should be spent.

[East Meranopirus]

One doesn't have to be a pacifist (I'm not) to observe that the US military can deal with less than $707 million, just as the rest of America -- roads, bridges, government agencies, investments on R&D for nonmilitary purposes -- can do more with more.

We need the money to stay competitive with our adversaries at a time they are ramping up. No opponents seems to have read the links, none of you has posted any answers to deal with these issues, just said we don't need money, or spouted some anti war propaganda, even though this is about spending.

And you seem to be just ignoring anything that doesn't fit your narrative, like the graphic I posted. The military spendings of China and Russia combined are less than a quarter of the US.

[Novus America]

What, so America can have quadruple the rest of the world’s aircraft carriers?

China is cranking out aircraft carriers...
Along with various other weapons.

[Novus America]

We need the money to stay competitive with our adversaries at a time they are ramping up. No opponents seems to have read the links, none of you has posted any answers to deal with these issues, just said we don't need money, or spouted some anti war propaganda, even though this is about spending.

And you seem to be just ignoring anything that doesn't fit your narrative, like the graphic I posted. The military spendings of China and Russia combined are less than a quarter of the US.

Because they give their soldiers crappy pay.
The much lower wages in those countries means we are going to have to spend more to keep up.
As a percentage of GDP our spending is not that high.

[Duhon]

What, so America can have quadruple the rest of the world’s aircraft carriers?

China is cranking out aircraft carriers...

Which is fucking worrying, especially as we're but a sea away, never mind Duterte's antics whenever anything Chinese is brought up.

[Valrifell]

What, so America can have quadruple the rest of the world’s aircraft carriers?

China is cranking out aircraft carriers...
Along with various other weapons.

If only our military was competent enough to use their current funds to maintain our weapons.

[Duhon]

And you seem to be just ignoring anything that doesn't fit your narrative, like the graphic I posted. The military spendings of China and Russia combined are less than a quarter of the US.

Because they give their soldiers crappy pay.
The much lower wages in those countries means we are going to have to spend more to keep up.
As a percentage of GDP our spending is not that high.

In the context of the Cut Cut Cut Act and the refusal of the Trump admin to act like a proper government, it absolutely is.

[Valrifell]

And you seem to be just ignoring anything that doesn't fit your narrative, like the graphic I posted. The military spendings of China and Russia combined are less than a quarter of the US.

Because they give their soldiers crappy pay.
The much lower wages in those countries means we are going to have to spend more to keep up.
As a percentage of GDP our spending is not that high.

Percentage of GDP doesn't excuse why we're throwing more money at our defense program and not getting similar results as the Chinese or the Russians. There's only so much their lower wages for soldiers can excuse.

[East Meranopirus]

What, so America can have quadruple the rest of the world’s aircraft carriers?

China is cranking out aircraft carriers...
Along with various other weapons.

Hardly cranking out aircraft carriers...they have one in operation and are projected to have 5 or 6 by 2030s. Meanwhile the US has 11, constructing 2 more, and planning on 7 more. If China's cranking, I don't think the US can even be described with words.

[Medwind]

We need the money to stay competitive with our adversaries at a time they are ramping up. No opponents seems to have read the links, none of you has posted any answers to deal with these issues, just said we don't need money, or spouted some anti war propaganda, even though this is about spending.

And you seem to be just ignoring anything that doesn't fit your narrative, like the graphic I posted. The military spendings of China and Russia combined are less than a quarter of the US.

Ahhh,.. look, the US has been cutting back dramatically, Russia & China have only been expanding. Amount of money spent doesn't = superior numbers, we are heavily outnumbered in most of the regions we're in due to us being spread so thin, we are also outnumbered by China & India, our aircraft, and fleet's are becoming steadily out of date, whilst our rivals advance in tech, we need more troops, and funding, to combat terrorism over seas, to project power in certain regions, to deter Russian aggression in Eastern Europe, and the Middle East, and Chinese aggression against Taiwan, and the pacific. North Korea, and Iran both pose serious threats as well, and, so on etc. etc.

[East Meranopirus]

And you seem to be just ignoring anything that doesn't fit your narrative, like the graphic I posted. The military spendings of China and Russia combined are less than a quarter of the US.

Because they give their soldiers crappy pay.
The much lower wages in those countries means we are going to have to spend more to keep up.
As a percentage of GDP our spending is not that high.

Actually, China's military budget as a percentage of their GDP is only 1.9%, that's lower than the NATO recommended target of 2%, not to say the US's 3.3%