Does the US need more military spending?

[Novus America]

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.

Terrorists are not the real threat. And terrorism does require military responses, but not only military responses. Our failure to focus on stable governance and economic improvement is a failure, but still we need to spend to replace our vast amounts of obsolete equipment.

Pretty much all our major equipment and platforms are from the 80s or even the 50s and early 60s.

And again looking at spending alone in absence of things like wage disparities is a mistake.
If China paid their soldiers a decent wage compared to ours their military spending would have to quadruple or more.

[Medwind]

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

"You may fire when ready!"

[AhmadiMuslim1889]

Our failure to focus on stable governance and economic improvement is a failure, but still we need to spend to replace our vast amounts of obsolete equipment.

Well, it's also the fault of Middle Eastern governments and their mullahs for not educating the youth, and letting them be prone to recruitment by extremists. Sadly, the middle east is like America's inner cities where gangs recruit the youth to do terrible things. Same with terrorist organizations.

[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.

Excuse me, can you read?

Do you have a point? If so, maybe consider making it.

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.

Staying there as long as we did accomplished basically nothing, so I don't see why staying there longer should do more.
I'm not saying that we should do nothing, but I am saying that if you've been doing the exact same thing for over a decade and it has failed to yield tangible results, then maybe you should consider doing something else.

[Novus America]

Our failure to focus on stable governance and economic improvement is a failure, but still we need to spend to replace our vast amounts of obsolete equipment.

Well, it's also the fault of Middle Eastern governments and their mullahs for not educating the youth, and letting them be prone to recruitment by extremists. Sadly, the middle east is like America's inner cities where gangs recruit the youth to do terrible things. Same with terrorist organizations.

This is true, military response is only one part of the fight against terrorism. A critical part but not the only critical part. We are unfortunately failing at the other parts.

[AhmadiMuslim1889]

Well, it's also the fault of Middle Eastern governments and their mullahs for not educating the youth, and letting them be prone to recruitment by extremists. Sadly, the middle east is like America's inner cities where gangs recruit the youth to do terrible things. Same with terrorist organizations.

This is true, military response is only one part of the fight against terrorism. A critical part but not the only critical part. We are unfortunately failing at the other parts.

Yep. War doesn't come by military means alone. Education and Rhetoric comes with it.

[Novus America]

Excuse me, can you read?

Do you have a point? If so, maybe consider making it.

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.

Staying there as long as we did accomplished basically nothing, so I don't see why staying there longer should do more.
I'm not saying that we should do nothing, but I am saying that if you've been doing the exact same thing for over a decade and it has failed to yield tangible results, then maybe you should consider doing something else.

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.

[DACOROMANIA]

Having served in the US armed forces, I've observed that huge amounts of the budget are generally wasted on bureaucracy, benefits and aid programs rather than weapons and training. Actually, this is common around the world. Many European nations push their budgets toward the 3% of GDP NATO standard by simply increasing personnel expenses rather than buying new weapons.

Honestly, the military has more than enough funding, but it needs to use it more efficiently.

In real life, my native nation from Europe is a NATO member and partner of the USA, however my native country has to deal in politics more like a "vassal" (secretly more countries in the world are controlled in part by foreign powers) and didn't benefit of a "Marshall plan" for reconstruction but rather an opposite plan. And that's not the only. Otherwise my country would had been better as a strong NATO partner & member in a region of Europe.
If I were a leader, I wouldn't neglect welfare, health and education, but I would put at 20% military spending at least.

[Medwind]

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.

Seriously dude? You had to make all these quotes? Ahhh… I'm not doing that. Russia seizing land in Europe is a concern for America, this is no longer the 30's, when tinpot dictatorships could annex territories without much notice from the US. That is a very good thing. Russian ships sitting in our backyard is cause for concern. Russian interference in that region has lead to many problems (see: Cuban missile crises) Russia sending their forces throughout the middle east & Africa is reminiscent of the cold war. The United States does not threaten nuclear war, not in modern days anyway, whereas, Russia does. Attacking our history, (IE a necessary strategy that saved tens of thousands of American lives, something your nation would likely have done if it were the other way around) and launching attacks about mass shooters shows your bias, and disinterest in actual debate, preferring to spiel your anti US rhetoric instead. "Talks about how we don't have any business abroad despite our numerous allies, and treaties with different parts of the world, doesn't say anything about Russia doing the same thing, defends them coming to US backyard" hypocrite.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

Our failure to focus on stable governance and economic improvement is a failure, but still we need to spend to replace our vast amounts of obsolete equipment.

Well, it's also the fault of Middle Eastern governments and their mullahs for not educating the youth, and letting them be prone to recruitment by extremists. Sadly, the middle east is like America's inner cities where gangs recruit the youth to do terrible things. Same with terrorist organizations.

Then maybe we should invest in schools so that the youth can be educated.
(Also, quick maths: Google tells me that it costs $26.5 million to build a school, and Politifact tells me that we've spent $2 trillion on the War On Terror, which means that we could have built over 750,000 schools with that money. For comparison, the United States has less than 100,000.
This is not to say that we should actually build 750,000 schools in the Middle East, since most of that would also be a colossal waste of money if for no other reason than "there aren't enough people there to use them", but rather to provide a point of reference for what else we could have spent that money on.)

[Upper Secundus]

"You may fire when ready!"

I for one believe the US should allocate 99% of the Federal Budget to building cool space weaponry. The world's problems can be fixed with Venator-class Star Destroyers.

Rising Sea Levels? Bombard the planet until the seas evaporate.

Forest Fires? Get rid of the forests.

Hotel? Triva-BOOM

[AhmadiMuslim1889]

Well, it's also the fault of Middle Eastern governments and their mullahs for not educating the youth, and letting them be prone to recruitment by extremists. Sadly, the middle east is like America's inner cities where gangs recruit the youth to do terrible things. Same with terrorist organizations.

Then maybe we should invest in schools so that the youth can be educated.
(Also, quick maths: Google tells me that it costs $26.5 million to build a school, and Politifact tells me that we've spent $2 trillion on the War On Terror, which means that we could have built over 750,000 schools with that money. For comparison, the United States has less than 100,000.
This is not to say that we should actually build 750,000 schools in the Middle East, since most of that would also be a colossal waste of money if for no other reason than "there aren't enough people there to use them", but rather to provide a point of reference for what else we could have spent that money on.)

I don't disagree with you there, but the question is, will these middle eastern governments manage these new schools properly rather spending it on other useless means?

I'm not saying war will wipe out terrorists altogether. What I'm saying is, we should intervene to the extent that we keep those stubborn, and close-minded terrorists at bay while educating the youth.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

Do you have a point? If so, maybe consider making it.

Staying there as long as we did accomplished basically nothing, so I don't see why staying there longer should do more.
I'm not saying that we should do nothing, but I am saying that if you've been doing the exact same thing for over a decade and it has failed to yield tangible results, then maybe you should consider doing something else.

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.

[AhmadiMuslim1889]

Also, another point I'd like to add to this discussion is that we have a tendency to look at one thing, and not the whole things that could be causing that so called "one thing" in the first place.

[New Sukberia]

"You may fire when ready!"

I for one believe the US should allocate 99% of the Federal Budget to building cool space weaponry. The world's problems can be fixed with Venator-class Star Destroyers.

Rising Sea Levels? Bombard the planet until the seas evaporate.

Forest Fires? Get rid of the forests.

Hotel? Triva-BOOM

Would you mind running for office?

[Cetacea]

"You may fire when ready!"

I for one believe the US should allocate 99% of the Federal Budget to building cool space weaponry. The world's problems can be fixed with Venator-class Star Destroyers.

Rising Sea Levels? Bombard the planet until the seas evaporate.

Forest Fires? Get rid of the forests.

Hotel? Triva-BOOM

Pave the Earth!

prepare for global Road Wars

[AhmadiMuslim1889]

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.

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?

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

Then maybe we should invest in schools so that the youth can be educated.
(Also, quick maths: Google tells me that it costs $26.5 million to build a school, and Politifact tells me that we've spent $2 trillion on the War On Terror, which means that we could have built over 750,000 schools with that money. For comparison, the United States has less than 100,000.
This is not to say that we should actually build 750,000 schools in the Middle East, since most of that would also be a colossal waste of money if for no other reason than "there aren't enough people there to use them", but rather to provide a point of reference for what else we could have spent that money on.)

I don't disagree with you there, but the question is, will these middle eastern governments manage these new schools properly rather spending it on other useless means?

I'm not saying war will wipe out terrorists altogether. What I'm saying is, we should intervene to the extent that we keep those stubborn, and close-minded terrorists at bay while educating the youth.

How about we don't just hand them money and hope they spend it on the right things, and instead we actually make sure that they're doing what they say they're doing?

[Valrifell]

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.

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?

Yes.

[Medwind]

"You may fire when ready!"

I for one believe the US should allocate 99% of the Federal Budget to building cool space weaponry. The world's problems can be fixed with Venator-class Star Destroyers.

Rising Sea Levels? Bombard the planet until the seas evaporate.

Forest Fires? Get rid of the forests.

Hotel? Triva-BOOM

Throw colonization projects in with that, and I'm in. Time to establish a galactic empire, amirite? The United Sectors of American Space maybe? Sounds good, send it.

[AhmadiMuslim1889]

I don't disagree with you there, but the question is, will these middle eastern governments manage these new schools properly rather spending it on other useless means?

I'm not saying war will wipe out terrorists altogether. What I'm saying is, we should intervene to the extent that we keep those stubborn, and close-minded terrorists at bay while educating the youth.

How about we don't just hand them money and hope they spend it on the right things, and instead we actually make sure that they're doing what they say they're doing?

I suppose.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

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.

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.

[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?

Yes.

Then, our $20 trillion debt is an illusion.

[Upper Secundus]

Would you mind running for office?

'Fraid not my dude, I'm not a US Citizen and I wasn't born in the US. That and I refuse to be shackled by a silly piece of paper from 232 years ago, signed into law on a MONDAY, of all days.

However, you're welcome to support my bid to take over the planet and rule in a blaze of fire and glory.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

Yes.

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.