Does the US need more military spending?

[AhmadiMuslim1889]

Then, my question is in general (and I had this on my mind since reading the OP), where is all the money we spend on going to? Corruption and insufficient bureaucracy?

Pretty much.
I guess my biggest point is that if other countries can do what we're doing with less money, then maybe we should reevaluate our approach and stop thinking that a blank check is the solution to everything.

Yeah, like I said, it shouldn't be our responsibility alone to manage world affairs, but all of the world through the UN had it not been so corrupt.

[Novus America]

The thing we need to do is massively crack down on corruption and poor governance in places like Afghanistan. Yes we need a new approach, but that new approach should not be run away and abandon countries to ISIS and the Taliban either.

But again the real problem is not terrorism.

New fighters and air defense systems are not for terrorists.

I'm not saying that we should abandon the region to ISIS (but then again, ISIS is basically crushed anyway, so we could totally do that), but I am saying that we should try to give people reasons to not sign up. That would probably work better and cost less, so we should at least try it.
And I was using the War On Terror because that's the current conflict we're actively engaging in. But the point still stands for the arms race with Russia and China, we spend so much more than them already that it really shouldn't be a contest, and if it still is, then spending even more won't shift the outcome by much.

ISIS okay, but the Taliban is not.
And another group will just replace ISIS.
I agree with you the current fight against terrorism does need to be done differently but the military would still play a vital role, although of course not the only, or even primary role.

But again looking at aggregate spending is a bad way of doing it.
If Russia and China had wages similar to ours, their combined military spending would be much greater than ours.

And for example replacing all our F-15s (besides the Es) with F-22/ would vastly improve our capabilities.
But would obviously cost money.

[AhmadiMuslim1889]

Then, our $20 trillion debt is an illusion.

You aren't as wrong with that statement as you probably think you are, but I'm curious how this fits in.

Because it's basically stolen money from our pockets that could be just thrown back into the government from whoever hoards all that wealth. I personally think all this $20 trillion debt is a bit fear mongish. Then again, I'm not an expert on this subject.

[AhmadiMuslim1889]

You aren't as wrong with that statement as you probably think you are, but I'm curious how this fits in.

Because it's basically stolen money from our pockets that could be just thrown back into the government from whoever hoards all that wealth. I personally think all this $20 trillion debt is a bit fear mongish. Then again, I'm not an expert on this subject.

Plus, we often blame this debt on our spending on the military when really, it's just corrupt politicians and businessmen behind the scenes hoarding wealth.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

Pretty much.
I guess my biggest point is that if other countries can do what we're doing with less money, then maybe we should reevaluate our approach and stop thinking that a blank check is the solution to everything.

Yeah, like I said, it shouldn't be our responsibility alone to manage world affairs, but all of the world through the UN had it not been so corrupt.

This is off topic, but the UN's problem isn't corruption so much as it's people who say it's corrupt.
To rephrase, the UN isn't more corrupt than any other government, but there are so many people who try their best to stop it from doing anything, and then use the fact that it doesn't do anything as justification for not letting it do anything, that it can't do anything. Very few of the problems with the UN are actually the UN's fault, and while it definitely does have problems, corruption isn't really one of them.

[Slovenya]

The US is all about maintaining it's world influence and power. We need to be more like Switzerland!

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

The US is all about maintaining it's world influence and power. We need to be more like Switzerland!

We tried that whole "isolationism" thing. Next thing we knew, an Austrian landscape painter took over most of Europe, and we figured out that maybe we should do something about that.

[Medwind]

Well, it's been fun chatting, but I have to be going now. Wanted to part with this: incompetence, bureaucracy cost a lot of money, that is true, maybe even some corruption among politicians, that wouldn't surprise me. However the vast majority of funds go to paying the troops, providing services, building facilities, building schools, bridges, infrastructure, hospitals, forts etc. the US Army engineer corp is always building something. Healthcare, dental bills, etc. all costs money. Spending on training, ammunition, weapons, equipment, etc. etc. all this costs money. It's even worse that we're so spread out, and have to maintain so many posts & bases around the world. It's not like the military is just taking our money, and putting it in the bank. Realize also the HUGE difference in payment to soldiers, and benefits received between China, Korea, etc. and the US. I remember in S Korea their soldiers got paid dog shit, didn't volunteer, and got almost no benefits. Compare that to our military, they have to compete to some extent with civilian industries for manpower, etc. etc. They can't just force people to join, pay them just enough to survive, and not give em anything but a "thank you" when they get out. China can. It's like asking why China has such a strong economy.

[Slovenya]

We tried that whole "isolationism" thing. Next thing we knew, an Austrian landscape painter took over most of Europe, and we figured out that maybe we should do something about that.

uhm, actually no. He took back what was originally German.

[Alvecia]

We tried that whole "isolationism" thing. Next thing we knew, an Austrian landscape painter took over most of Europe, and we figured out that maybe we should do something about that.

uhm, actually no. He took back what was originally German.

As yes, that famously German former province of “France”

[Holy Tedalonia]

Given our unstable society and national debt. We would need to cut back on everything not just military spending. In order to get a positive income we would have to cut 60% of our military spending unless we cut back on other expedentures

[Slovenya]

As yes, that famously German former province of “France”

The French fought the Germans, he sought out to make peace with them (and other allies) before fighting them. So is it wrong they were defeated and conquered then? no.

[Valrifell]

Given our unstable society and national debt. We would need to cut back on everything not just military spending. In order to get a positive income we would have to cut 60% of our military spending unless we cut back on other expedentures

Or we could raise taxes back and undo the bad mindset Reagan put us in.

Just a thought.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

We tried that whole "isolationism" thing. Next thing we knew, an Austrian landscape painter took over most of Europe, and we figured out that maybe we should do something about that.

uhm, actually no. He took back what was originally German.

An argument can be made that the Sudetenland, Alsace, and Danzig were all German (not a very good one, tbh, but I'll assume that's your point), but Denmark, Norway, the Benelux, and Russia weren't. Didn't stop him from trying to take them anyway, did it?

[Valrifell]

As yes, that famously German former province of “France”

The French fought the Germans, he sought out to make peace with them (and other allies) before fighting them. So is it wrong they were defeated and conquered then? no.

The French and Brits declared war on Germany because the Germand invaded the historically German lands of *checks notes* Poland.

Fascinating.

[Medwind]

uhm, actually no. He took back what was originally German.

(Image)

As yes, that famously German former province of “France”

Lmao, yes, but don't forget Germanic Russia! (I see how this argument will go already, "France declared war." "Barbarossa was a preemptive attack" this won't go anywhere) Alright gtg fr now.


Edit: quadruple ninja'd & called the whole argument before it really began lmao ight frfr now, I'm gone.

[Slovenya]

An argument can be made that the Sudetenland, Alsace, and Danzig were all German (not a very good one, tbh, but I'll assume that's your point), but Denmark, Norway, the Benelux, and Russia weren't. Didn't stop him from trying to take them anyway, did it?

Norway and Denmark were being used by the allies to stage weapons and soldiers, so why wouldn't he do something about that? also he knew the Russians were going to betray him, so he made the right move, Bolshevism was, and is still a major threat to the world

The French and Brits declared war on Germany because the Germand invaded the historically German lands of *checks notes* Poland.

Fascinating.

The area of Poland he took over was an Area of largely Germanic people who were oppressed by the Poles. Look into it.

[Holy Tedalonia]

Given our unstable society and national debt. We would need to cut back on everything not just military spending. In order to get a positive income we would have to cut 60% of our military spending unless we cut back on other expedentures

Or we could raise taxes back and undo the bad mindset Reagan put us in.

Just a thought.

More taxes =/= fixed problems.

Not only does taxes have to be raised at such a high rate, but it makes politicians feel like they can spend more. That being said, I think we will ultimately have to do both, and not just cut back on military spending but most spending in general. Mind you the positive income I propose is more akin to a breaking even, then anything else.

[Hammer Britannia]

No

In fact, we need to spend less in general actually.

[Kowani]

An argument can be made that the Sudetenland, Alsace, and Danzig were all German (not a very good one, tbh, but I'll assume that's your point), but Denmark, Norway, the Benelux, and Russia weren't. Didn't stop him from trying to take them anyway, did it?

Norway and Denmark were being used by the allies to stage weapons and soldiers, so why wouldn't he do something about that? also he knew the Russians were going to betray him, so he made the right move, Bolshevism was, and is still a major threat to the world

The French and Brits declared war on Germany because the Germand invaded the historically German lands of *checks notes* Poland.

Fascinating.

The area of Poland he took over was an Area of largely Germanic people who were oppressed by the Poles. Look into it.

Nazi apologia too? Never fails.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

The U.S has military missions in over 20 African countries, in the places where U.S troops are engaged in combat they may be small in scale, but they should be 0 in scale. The United States accounts for over a third of military spending in the world, so to claim it's barely in any conflicts right now is disingenuous. Yes, there are forces and organizations in the world which would like to see the fall of the USA, but they usually pose little risk, and will continue to do so even if the US lowers its spending a little. Pacifism's nice.

Less than 1% of US personnel see combat nowadays. That's too much for combating terrorism overseas? You're like the isolationists who didn't want the US to enter WWI, and WWII. Pacifism leads to the weakening of our military capabilities, and the increase of opponents willing to test us, and begin expanding in their respective areas. Pacifism is not "nice" it's a failed policy/ideology, that doesn't acknowledge the realities of the world, or politics.

If less than 1% of personnel see combat, maybe they could save money by scaling back on personnel? Just a thought. Just because I think the US can afford to cut back on its military doesn't mean I'm an ultra-isolationist or an absolute pacifist (although they really had no reason to go into WW1).

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

Or we could raise taxes back and undo the bad mindset Reagan put us in.

Just a thought.

More taxes =/= fixed problems.

Not only does taxes have to be raised at such a high rate, but it makes politicians feel like they can spend more. That being said, I think we will ultimately have to do both, and not just cut back on military spending but most spending in general. Mind you the positive income I propose is more akin to a breaking even, then anything else.

You're arguing against lower spending and higher taxes, but later in the same post you admit that lower spending and higher taxes is something we have to do? What?

[The Technocrates]

no

[Holy Tedalonia]

An argument can be made that the Sudetenland, Alsace, and Danzig were all German (not a very good one, tbh, but I'll assume that's your point), but Denmark, Norway, the Benelux, and Russia weren't. Didn't stop him from trying to take them anyway, did it?

Norway and Denmark were being used by the allies to stage weapons and soldiers, so why wouldn't he do something about that? also he knew the Russians were going to betray him, so he made the right move, Bolshevism was, and is still a major threat to the world

The French and Brits declared war on Germany because the Germand invaded the historically German lands of *checks notes* Poland.

Fascinating.

The area of Poland he took over was an Area of largely Germanic people who were oppressed by the Poles. Look into it.

“Oppressed”

Oh you mean like the holocaust? To think the Poles, would be capable of such evil.

[Holy Tedalonia]

More taxes =/= fixed problems.

Not only does taxes have to be raised at such a high rate, but it makes politicians feel like they can spend more. That being said, I think we will ultimately have to do both, and not just cut back on military spending but most spending in general. Mind you the positive income I propose is more akin to a breaking even, then anything else.

You're arguing against lower spending and higher taxes, but later in the same post you admit that lower spending and higher taxes is something we have to do? What?

No I’m against the idea of simply heightening the taxes, but I think both are in order. Reread my friend.