Does the US need more military spending?

[Novus America]

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.

Admittedly we do need to cut the Pentagon’s bloated bureaucracy and overuse of contractors.

But the bigger issue is our trade deficit with China. Sending China hundreds of billions in cash so they use against us is absurd.
We should sanction the hell out of China first.
And ban Russian products altogether.

[Medwind]

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.

We prefer quality over quantity, in both weapons, equipment, and personnel, China doesn't care as much, but this has been changing, and they are quickly advancing in many areas, specifically to compete with us in the region.

[Shanhwa]

No. We currently have enough spending. None of the budget needs to be modified for the military.


/thread

[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.

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to us being spread so thin, we are also outnumbered by China & India, our aircraft, and fleet's are becoming steadily out of date, whilst our rivals advance in tech, we need more troops, and funding, to combat terrorism over seas, to project power in certain regions, to deter Russian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.

If "Amount of money doesn't = superior numbers", then clearly, the US doesn't need more spending, and you just made your whole topic null and void.

[AhmadiMuslim1889]

It's definitely no secret that we live in a competitive world, and you've provided some interesting links (some being biased, and others not biased). History has shown this, and the modern day is no exception. Throughout the years, I've always tended to be more non-interventionist, though with my studies of the circumstances of a globalized world or rather, us being more like resembling one big world city, I can definitely understand to an extent why military is a big thing.

We as humanity aren't isolated peoples anymore but basically becoming more like one. Communication, finances, military, leadership, etc. Are no exceptions.

Though personally, I wouldn't say it should be the US's sole responsibility to spend on its military and be the world police. As your last link says, it should be the responsibility of all of NATO. Like I said, we are humanity, and we are one. Thus, we should work as one.

I'm normally not a fan of military interventionism, but it's also not a secret that we have some very competitive countries.

I personally think, although impossible, that the UN should really step up its its game. It shouldn't be the sole responsibility of the US to keep up with other countries, but everyone to work together to stop corruption, but only a dreamer can dream this due to the amount of corruption in the UN.

Money is more important than justice, sadly.

But I tend to take a balanced view on foreign policy now. Military intervention should be necessary when an enemy exceeds all bounds.

[Novus America]

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%

“Unofficial estimates place the total amount of military spending for China higher than the Chinese government figures, but these calculations tend to differ between organizations.”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militar ... _estimates

Given that China probably lies about both its GDP and its military funding it is hard to tell.
But if we only faced a threat from China, we could possibly spend less.

Unfortunately a conflict with China would not allow us to just focus on China and abandon Europe to Russia.

Together China and Russia have more submarines than we do.

[Medwind]

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.

If "Amount of money doesn't = superior numbers", then clearly, the US doesn't need more spending, and you just made your whole topic null and void.

Not at all. We still need more money for equipment, and, training as well, it also depends how the money is spent, yes, it can be, and should be used to expand the size of the military. However, my point was is that a bigger budget does not always equate to a larger size force.

[Novus America]

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.

If "Amount of money doesn't = superior numbers", then clearly, the US doesn't need more spending, and you just made your whole topic null and void.

Spending money CAN produce better results.
Sure we need to do more than ONLY increase spending.

Replacing all F-15s (well besides the Es) with F-22s (we need to restart production of an F-22B) would not be cheap. But is absolutely needed.

[Upper Secundus]

If I don't see space lasers by the end of my lifetime I shall be severely disappointed.

[Shanhwa]

It's definitely no secret that we live in a competitive world, and you've provided some interesting links (some being biased, and others not biased). History has shown this, and the modern day is no exception. Throughout the years, I've always tended to be more non-interventionist, though with my studies of the circumstances of a globalized world or rather, us being more like resembling one big world city, I can definitely understand to an extent why military is a big thing.

We as humanity aren't isolated peoples anymore but basically becoming more like one. Communication, finances, military, leadership, etc. Are no exceptions.

Though personally, I wouldn't say it should be the US's sole responsibility to spend on its military and be the world police. As your last link says, it should be the responsibility of all of NATO. Like I said, we are humanity, and we are one. Thus, we should work as one.

I'm normally not a fan of military interventionism, but it's also not a secret that we have some very competitive countries.

I personally think, although impossible, that the UN should really step up its its game. It shouldn't be the sole responsibility of the US to keep up with other countries, but everyone to work together to stop corruption, but only a dreamer can dream this due to the amount of corruption in the UN.

Money is more important than justice, sadly.

But I tend to take a balanced view on foreign policy now. Military intervention should be necessary when an enemy exceeds all bounds.

It’s not just corruption in the UN. A globalist government and humanity “uniting” as one is only possible in the realms of sci-fi. It’s highly unlikely to ever happen, and is in practice impossible.

The UN is a failed experiment that has collapsed into a stock market, but instead of stocks you have politicians.

[Medwind]

It's definitely no secret that we live in a competitive world, and you've provided some interesting links (some being biased, and others not biased). History has shown this, and the modern day is no exception. Throughout the years, I've always tended to be more non-interventionist, though with my studies of the circumstances of a globalized world or rather, us being more like resembling one big world city, I can definitely understand to an extent why military is a big thing.

We as humanity aren't isolated peoples anymore but basically becoming more like one. Communication, finances, military, leadership, etc. Are no exceptions.

Though personally, I wouldn't say it should be the US's sole responsibility to spend on its military and be the world police. As your last link says, it should be the responsibility of all of NATO. Like I said, we are humanity, and we are one. Thus, we should work as one.

I'm normally not a fan of military interventionism, but it's also not a secret that we have some very competitive countries.

I personally think, although impossible, that the UN should really step up its its game. It shouldn't be the sole responsibility of the US to keep up with other countries, but everyone to work together to stop corruption, but only a dreamer can dream this due to the amount of corruption in the UN.

Money is more important than justice, sadly.

But I tend to take a balanced view on foreign policy now. Military intervention should be necessary when an enemy exceeds all bounds.

Someone read the links! Thank you! Thank you! You have an interesting opinion, thank you for it. I would advocate taking a more interventionalist stance, however.

[Novus America]

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.

Yet you are against US military spending?
Who then will defend you from China?
Especially when your own president refuses to do so?

Though China need not attack the Philippines with carriers when they can just buy it instead.
You need not use weapons on target willing to surrender without a fight.

[The Galactic Liberal Democracy]

They need to change what they spend it on, and only then will I be able to make a decision on this topic.

[Medwind]

If I don't see space lasers by the end of my lifetime I shall be severely disappointed.

We already have them.
https://rense.com/general16/USspacebasedlaser.htm
http://www.covertbookreport.com/yes-spa ... -are-real/
https://www.defenseone.com/business/201 ... es/130845/
http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2 ... star-wars/

Edit: and so do China & Russia.

[Novus America]

They need to change what they spend it on, and only then will I be able to make a decision on this topic.

Which is a valid point. Spending better is just as important as spending more.

[AhmadiMuslim1889]

It's definitely no secret that we live in a competitive world, and you've provided some interesting links (some being biased, and others not biased). History has shown this, and the modern day is no exception. Throughout the years, I've always tended to be more non-interventionist, though with my studies of the circumstances of a globalized world or rather, us being more like resembling one big world city, I can definitely understand to an extent why military is a big thing.

We as humanity aren't isolated peoples anymore but basically becoming more like one. Communication, finances, military, leadership, etc. Are no exceptions.

Though personally, I wouldn't say it should be the US's sole responsibility to spend on its military and be the world police. As your last link says, it should be the responsibility of all of NATO. Like I said, we are humanity, and we are one. Thus, we should work as one.

I'm normally not a fan of military interventionism, but it's also not a secret that we have some very competitive countries.

I personally think, although impossible, that the UN should really step up its its game. It shouldn't be the sole responsibility of the US to keep up with other countries, but everyone to work together to stop corruption, but only a dreamer can dream this due to the amount of corruption in the UN.

Money is more important than justice, sadly.

But I tend to take a balanced view on foreign policy now. Military intervention should be necessary when an enemy exceeds all bounds.

It’s not just corruption in the UN. A globalist government and humanity “uniting” as one is only possible in the realms of sci-fi. It’s highly unlikely to ever happen, and is in practice impossible.

The UN is a failed experiment that has collapsed into a stock market, but instead of stocks you have politicians.

I didn't say that a globalist government and humanity is completely one. Rather, I said, we resemble more of one because of the constant flow of communication between the groups with the advent of the internet, especially.

And yes, I agree, the UN is failed when it comes to maintaining peace. However, it's also impossible to get rid of the UN altogether, considering that it's just inevitable that nations will get together, and discuss their affairs. Even the most corrupt of politicians acknowledge this, but use this to their advantage.

It's definitely no secret that we live in a competitive world, and you've provided some interesting links (some being biased, and others not biased). History has shown this, and the modern day is no exception. Throughout the years, I've always tended to be more non-interventionist, though with my studies of the circumstances of a globalized world or rather, us being more like resembling one big world city, I can definitely understand to an extent why military is a big thing.

We as humanity aren't isolated peoples anymore but basically becoming more like one. Communication, finances, military, leadership, etc. Are no exceptions.

Though personally, I wouldn't say it should be the US's sole responsibility to spend on its military and be the world police. As your last link says, it should be the responsibility of all of NATO. Like I said, we are humanity, and we are one. Thus, we should work as one.

I'm normally not a fan of military interventionism, but it's also not a secret that we have some very competitive countries.

I personally think, although impossible, that the UN should really step up its its game. It shouldn't be the sole responsibility of the US to keep up with other countries, but everyone to work together to stop corruption, but only a dreamer can dream this due to the amount of corruption in the UN.

Money is more important than justice, sadly.

But I tend to take a balanced view on foreign policy now. Military intervention should be necessary when an enemy exceeds all bounds.

Someone read the links! Thank you! Thank you! You have an interesting opinion, thank you for it. I would advocate taking a more interventionalist stance, however.

I mean, we can't outright invade both Russia and China by themselves as the articles you mentioned say that they have excellent missile defense systems, and not to mention, China has numbers on its side. Though, perhaps, we do what we usually do, and give military equipment to both Taiwan and Ukraine.

But like I said, it shouldn't be just us that should be fighting corruption, provided if done properly, but the whole world, again, if done properly.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

The US spends more on the military than the next seven countries combined. Whether or not we need more military power is irrelevant, the fact is that if throwing more money at the problem could solve it, we would have solved it by now. But as it stands, spending billions of dollars on blowing up terrorists has managed to do very little to remove the terrorists, so maybe we should consider alternative means.

[Vespertia]

There was a war on waste. What happened to that?

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

There was a war on waste. What happened to that?

Corrupt bureaucrats who have a vested interest in higher paychecks, mostly.

[Havarland]

The US spends more on the military than the next seven countries combined. Whether or not we need more military power is irrelevant, the fact is that if throwing more money at the problem could solve it, we would have solved it by now. But as it stands, spending billions of dollars on blowing up terrorists has managed to do very little to remove the terrorists, so maybe we should consider alternative means.

Excuse me, can you read?

[Medwind]

The US spends more on the military than the next seven countries combined. Whether or not we need more military power is irrelevant, the fact is that if throwing more money at the problem could solve it, we would have solved it by now. But as it stands, spending billions of dollars on blowing up terrorists has managed to do very little to remove the terrorists, so maybe we should consider alternative means.

No, what we need to do is double down. If Obama & Bush hadn't pulled us out of Iraq, ISIS would have been defeated in it's infancy. We need to aggressively combat terrorist organizations in the middle east.


Edit: Not that this has to do with the actual discussion.

[Upper Secundus]

If I don't see space lasers by the end of my lifetime I shall be severely disappointed.

We already have them.
https://rense.com/general16/USspacebasedlaser.htm
http://www.covertbookreport.com/yes-spa ... -are-real/
https://www.defenseone.com/business/201 ... es/130845/
http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2 ... star-wars/

Edit: and so do China & Russia.

Sorry I didn't clarify my post.

I meant space lasers like the following:

The following

[AhmadiMuslim1889]

The US spends more on the military than the next seven countries combined. Whether or not we need more military power is irrelevant, the fact is that if throwing more money at the problem could solve it, we would have solved it by now. But as it stands, spending billions of dollars on blowing up terrorists has managed to do very little to remove the terrorists, so maybe we should consider alternative means.

Well, getting rid of terrorism won't be done by military means alone. Educating the youth, and using rhetoric to persuade people in the middle east and eradicate terrorism in the middle east, as well as going at the source, the mullahs who wrongfully call themselves ulama (scholars), who perpetrate their nonsense.

[Valrifell]

They need to change what they spend it on, and only then will I be able to make a decision on this topic.

Which is a valid point. Spending better is just as important as spending more.

They need to prove they can spend better before we even think about giving them more. The audit was a good first step, but only the first.

[Risottia]

Aggression?
Exactly what US territories are currently occupied or bombed by foreign armies?


Yes.

Anyway I hope the US military expands its budget even more. Ideally to 50% of the US gov't budget and buying a lot of stuff from Beretta, Agusta-Westland, Thales, Rheinmetall and Leonardo.

Did you read a single link? The answers are there, but I'll cover it a bit. There are only 5 NATO countries meeting the required military spending, as outlined by the treaties they are bound to uphold.

Bullshit. NATO spending guidelines are guidelines, non-mandatory, and not written in the treaty.

Russian ships in the gulf of Mexico,

Gulf of Mexico =/= US territory.

Russia annexing territory in Ukraine,

Ukraine is neither American territory nor a NATO country.

sending troops into the middle east & Africa,

ME and Africa aren't American territory.

threatening nuclear war

So does America since August 1945, with the difference that America conducted nuclear first strikes on a non-nuclear-armed country.

, China using belligerent rhetoric, and modernizing, and expanding the military,

Rhetoric and arming isn't aggression.

terrorists abroad

Abroad = not American territory or jurisdiction. Mind your own mass shooters.

, North Korea prepping missile sites, and continuing nuclear research, etc. etc.

See Russia and China above.

I suppose by your standards Europe wasn't under threat until Hitler invaded Poland.

Europe was threatened and even when Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia, Poland, Yugoslavia, Greece, France, UK (Channel Islands), Norway, Denmark, Austria, Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and the Soviet Union America didn't move a finger. Only after Germany declared war on America.