US military spending

[Novus America]

Umm all ballistic missiles travel at hypersonic speeds. Including ours. Hypersonic weapons, even on the form of glide vehicles, are not some instant “I win” button.

Read
https://missiledefenseadvocacy.org/miss ... -missiles/

And? That article does not support your claim that they render everything else obsolete.
Or anything I did not already know.

[US-SSR]

Military spending is entirely acceptable. The reason why our spending so outstrips most nations. Is because we're the richest on the planet. Numerous nations spend porportionaetly more than we do.

We can afford our budget, and live quite comfortably. If it keeps us safe, then why not?

Wrong. Only Saudi Arabia (fueled by US arms sales btw) and Russia spend more than the US as a percentage of GDP.

[Novus America]

Military spending is entirely acceptable. The reason why our spending so outstrips most nations. Is because we're the richest on the planet. Numerous nations spend porportionaetly more than we do.

We can afford our budget, and live quite comfortably. If it keeps us safe, then why not?

Wrong. Only Saudi Arabia (fueled by US arms sales btw) and Russia spend more than the US as a percentage of GDP.

Umm your source does not say that at all.
Because it is wrong. The US is not even in the top 10.
Your source lists the top 15, and the US is not on the list in your source!

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS ... _desc=true

[Kaystein]

Read
https://missiledefenseadvocacy.org/miss ... -missiles/

And? That article does not support your claim that they render everything else obsolete.
Or anything I did not already know.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/19/maga ... siles.html
http://www.homelandsecuritynewswire.com ... s-obsolete

https://www.google.com/search?client=fi ... s+obsolete

[Novus America]

And? That article does not support your claim that they render everything else obsolete.
Or anything I did not already know.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/19/maga ... siles.html
http://www.homelandsecuritynewswire.com ... s-obsolete

https://www.google.com/search?client=fi ... s+obsolete

“Hypersonic Missiles COULD Make SOME US Defense Systems Obsolete”
http://www.industrytap.com/hypersonic-m ... lete/36491
They are useful, but not some silver bullet.

And of course we need to invest more in building more of our own, as well as countermeasures.

If Russia could automatically beat us in a war, we would not be here.

[Kaystein]

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/19/maga ... siles.html
http://www.homelandsecuritynewswire.com ... s-obsolete

https://www.google.com/search?client=fi ... s+obsolete

“Hypersonic Missiles COULD Make SOME US Defense Systems Obsolete”
http://www.industrytap.com/hypersonic-m ... lete/36491
They are useful, but not some silver bullet.

And of course we need to invest more in building more of our own, as well as countermeasures.

If Russia could automatically beat us in a war, we would not be here.

I'm just going to let you think that, person. But please. Read more.

[The Republic of Fore]

1. Because "might" isn't a reason to do something. Until there's actual evidence that they plan to, I don't believe they will. Why can't we tell Europe to handle their own problems? We're wasting money on something that isn't our concern because of pointless paranoia.
And sure, we can. But why not take the money we waste and give extra funding? It won't hurt anything. We don't owe Europe jack or squat. Whether people are fear mongering about Russia or not. Remember when it was totally for real 100% guaranteed that we were going to war with north korea and the world would end? Yeah how did those predictions turn out?

Well true we do not know for sure, which is why it is better to be prepared. The future is not written, outcomes not assured, which is why you need to be prepared for any eventuality.

Plus our forces in Europe, while poorly organized and positioned are not that large or expensive and they are not dying. And we do owe Poland, though NOT Germany. Europe is not one amorphous mass.

It doesn't matter if they cost one cent. That's one cent we don't need to spend. Screw Europe, we don't owe any other nation. Poland has never protected us.

[Novus America]

Well true we do not know for sure, which is why it is better to be prepared. The future is not written, outcomes not assured, which is why you need to be prepared for any eventuality.

Plus our forces in Europe, while poorly organized and positioned are not that large or expensive and they are not dying. And we do owe Poland, though NOT Germany. Europe is not one amorphous mass.

It doesn't matter if they cost one cent. That's one cent we don't need to spend. Screw Europe, we don't owe any other nation. Poland has never protected us.

Poles died in Afghanistan. They have helped us.
If you have screw over all your friends nobody will be your friend.

[Petrolheadia]

So you'd rather just leave billions of people to die and be oppressed elsewhere while we sit on our butts and laugh? How is our country any better if we turn our back on humanity?

Because less Americans have been harmed. People that would've been wasted fighting a war for the benefit of foreigners are instead being productive to society, and holding good jobs.

Additionally many non-Americans could benefit from not being harmed by escalation of conflicts in their countries.

[The Republic of Fore]

It doesn't matter if they cost one cent. That's one cent we don't need to spend. Screw Europe, we don't owe any other nation. Poland has never protected us.

Poles died in Afghanistan. They have helped us.
If you have screw over all your friends nobody will be your friend.

That was their choice to do so. Never mind that Afghanistan was unnecessary, so It's arguable over whether they really helped us. If Europe choses to have a fit because we tell them to handle their own problems then that's their issue.

[The Republic of Fore]

Because less Americans have been harmed. People that would've been wasted fighting a war for the benefit of foreigners are instead being productive to society, and holding good jobs.

Additionally many non-Americans could benefit from not being harmed by escalation of conflicts in their countries.

This to. Say what you will about Ghaddafi, but there wasn't a literal slave trade going on in Libya during his reign. US intervention tends to make things worse.

[Novus America]

Poles died in Afghanistan. They have helped us.
If you have screw over all your friends nobody will be your friend.

That was their choice to do so. Never mind that Afghanistan was unnecessary, so It's arguable over whether they really helped us. If Europe choses to have a fit because we tell them to handle their own problems then that's their issue.

Afghanistan was necessary. The Taliban were allowing Al Qaeda to use Afghanistan as a base to attack us.
And they had a requirement under NATO to help us. They stood by NATO to help us.

And do you really want us to be a completely isolated pariah state? I do not think that makes us safer.

[Phoenicaea]

^usa spending in wars is too high, is getting you bankrupt. most weight for your nation.
not forget, you have got two things: dollar as universal solvent, and cutting edge technology.

[The Republic of Fore]

That was their choice to do so. Never mind that Afghanistan was unnecessary, so It's arguable over whether they really helped us. If Europe choses to have a fit because we tell them to handle their own problems then that's their issue.

Afghanistan was necessary. The Taliban were allowing Al Qaeda to use Afghanistan as a base to attack us.
And they had a requirement under NATO to help us. They stood by NATO to help us.

And do you really want us to be a completely isolated pariah state? I do not think that makes us safer.

We could've taken out Bin Laden with just special forces, and the CIA has funded coups before. No need for an almost 20 year war. And good for Poland, it was still their choice to do so. Nobody forced them to join NATO, and nobody kept them from leaving. And why does everyone have to immediately jump to ridiculous extremes? Nobody is saying that we have to go full north korea. We're just not wasting our tax dollars on the problems of foreigners. Literally every other nation on earth manages to trade and maintain healthy relationships without maintaining a huge overseas military presence. Nevermind that keeping our nose out of other countries business would have prevented a lot of the problems we've had in the last 20 years.

[Novus America]

Afghanistan was necessary. The Taliban were allowing Al Qaeda to use Afghanistan as a base to attack us.
And they had a requirement under NATO to help us. They stood by NATO to help us.

And do you really want us to be a completely isolated pariah state? I do not think that makes us safer.

We could've taken out Bin Laden with just special forces, and the CIA has funded coups before. No need for an almost 20 year war. And good for Poland, it was still their choice to do so. Nobody forced them to join NATO, and nobody kept them from leaving. And why does everyone have to immediately jump to ridiculous extremes? Nobody is saying that we have to go full north korea. We're just not wasting our tax dollars on the problems of foreigners. Literally every other nation on earth manages to trade and maintain healthy relationships without maintaining a huge overseas military presence. Nevermind that keeping our nose out of other countries business would have prevented a lot of the problems we've had in the last 20 years.

Getting Bin Laden alone was not enough. Al Qaeda was and is more than one man.
Also special forces have limitations. We could not have done that as we did not know exactly where he was.

Sure we can reduce our overseas presence but that does not require abandoning all allies. Many countries provide support to or have alliances with others.

And we are a superpower, not just any country.

And you did not simply say you would reduce presence but literally do absolutely nothing to help anyone.

[Novus America]

^usa spending in wars is too high, is getting you bankrupt. most weight for your nation.
not forget, you have got two things: dollar as universal solvent, and cutting edge technology.

I already covered this:
No our military spending is not too high, it is much lower compared to our economy than during the Cold War and not that big a portion of our total government budget. Healthcare and pensions are our biggest economic burdens. Not the military.

Well certainly money is going to waste but really $700 billion is not that large considering the size of our economy.
It is less than what we spend on education.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governm ... akdown.png

And less than many countries relative to our economy:
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS ... _desc=true
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS ... _desc=true

[Thepeopl]

Look at the state of USA's budget deficit.
They should cut military, dismantle the military industry and nationalise internet providers, electricity net and all other big corporations.

[Dooom35796821595]

Look at the state of USA's budget deficit.
They should cut military, dismantle the military industry and nationalise internet providers, electricity net and all other big corporations.

Yeah, because all that nationalisation won’t drain the nations coffers.

And in twenty years, when China rules the world people will look back and curse the American tendency to switch between overzealous world police and inward looking isolationalists.

[New Sukberia]

The USA is the only thing holding Chinese hegemony back.

Until Europe gets its shit together.

Pentagon spending is laughably wasteful and in desperate need of reform however every single country in Nato except the US, Britain, France, Poland, and occasionally Greece wants to build a supporting force instead of an army. The Greeks are often focused on defence against their nominal ally Turkey until they go bankrupt again. The Brits want a parade and special forces (their navy is only funded a bit higher than the US coast guard....)

This leaves the US, Poland, and France. The rest have second rate militaries or worse. For a few this is excusable due to their size. Nobody expects Luxembourg to build an aircraft carrier or Montenegro to have a wing of f18's. Surely though Belgium could maintain a single tank, Iceland a few rifles, Germany get over its past, Spain a submarine that actually floats etcetera... but no. Instead we have Hungary, a country of 10 million people, that cant even maintain a corps.

For 74 years the US has protected the west. They rebuilt the economies with all the money they acquired from ww1 and ww2. Time to step up and do something. Or more accurately build a force strong enough to deter russia so the US can counterbalance China without having its arm tied behind back.

Tldr? Europe needs to defend itself.

I agree with this.

BTW, as a frenchman and someone who supports and will soon join the armed forces,i have to say that, our current President, Emmannuel Macron, has dismissed the chief of the Army, Pierre de Villiers, in 2017, because he pressured the President for a 2% comittment to the Army's budget.

It was the begginning of a slow decline of the public opinion's trust in Macron.

[Dooom35796821595]

Until Europe gets its shit together.

Pentagon spending is laughably wasteful and in desperate need of reform however every single country in Nato except the US, Britain, France, Poland, and occasionally Greece wants to build a supporting force instead of an army. The Greeks are often focused on defence against their nominal ally Turkey until they go bankrupt again. The Brits want a parade and special forces (their navy is only funded a bit higher than the US coast guard....)

This leaves the US, Poland, and France. The rest have second rate militaries or worse. For a few this is excusable due to their size. Nobody expects Luxembourg to build an aircraft carrier or Montenegro to have a wing of f18's. Surely though Belgium could maintain a single tank, Iceland a few rifles, Germany get over its past, Spain a submarine that actually floats etcetera... but no. Instead we have Hungary, a country of 10 million people, that cant even maintain a corps.

For 74 years the US has protected the west. They rebuilt the economies with all the money they acquired from ww1 and ww2. Time to step up and do something. Or more accurately build a force strong enough to deter russia so the US can counterbalance China without having its arm tied behind back.

Tldr? Europe needs to defend itself.

I agree with this.

BTW, as a frenchman and someone who supports and will soon join the armed forces,i have to say that, our current President, Emmannuel Macron, has dismissed the chief of the Army, Pierre de Villiers, in 2017, because he pressured the President for a 2% comittment to the Army's budget.

It was the begginning of a slow decline of the public opinion's trust in Macron.

As in 2% of GDP, as per NATO expectations? And was this overall military spending, or just for the army?

[New Sukberia]

I agree with this.

BTW, as a frenchman and someone who supports and will soon join the armed forces,i have to say that, our current President, Emmannuel Macron, has dismissed the chief of the Army, Pierre de Villiers, in 2017, because he pressured the President for a 2% comittment to the Army's budget.

It was the begginning of a slow decline of the public opinion's trust in Macron.

As in 2% of GDP, as per NATO expectations? And was this overall military spending, or just for the army?

I belive it was overall. Macron has said that the GDP's share will increase until 2% in 2022.

BTW, i made a mistake, Pierre de Villiers wanted a 2.5% share.

[Dooom35796821595]

As in 2% of GDP, as per NATO expectations? And was this overall military spending, or just for the army?

I belive it was overall. Macron has said that the GDP's share will increase until 2% in 2022.

BTW, i made a mistake, Pierre de Villiers wanted a 2.5% share.

Ah, well that is a little greedy. 2% is what should be spent, something a lot of countries come well short of.

[New Sukberia]

I belive it was overall. Macron has said that the GDP's share will increase until 2% in 2022.

BTW, i made a mistake, Pierre de Villiers wanted a 2.5% share.

Ah, well that is a little greedy. 2% is what should be spent, something a lot of countries come well short of.

Nah, 2.5% is good. Even 3%. France has many foreign operations, like Cerval or Barkhane, in northern Africa, an aircraft carrier that will be replaced in less than 20 years, a nuclear arsenal, and much equipment that needs to be replaced.

What Macron did was a cheap attempt at being like De Gaulle, former President who led Free France. Funny, since Macron is the first President of the 5th Republic, that didn't serve in the Armed Forces.

[Dooom35796821595]

Ah, well that is a little greedy. 2% is what should be spent, something a lot of countries come well short of.

Nah, 2.5% is good. Even 3%. France has many foreign operations, like Cerval or Barkhane, in northern Africa, an aircraft carrier that will be replaced in less than 20 years, a nuclear arsenal, and much equipment that needs to be replaced.

What Macron did was a cheap attempt at being like De Gaulle, former President who led Free France. Funny, since Macron is the first President of the 5th Republic, that didn't serve in the Armed Forces.

I always thought the EU should do more to make its members spend the 2%, anything less and they can pay the difference towards the costs of the European nuclear deterrent.

[Plzen]

The European Union collectively spends over 200 billion euros a year on defence. This is close to 15% of Russian GDP today, and over 10% of Russia's peak GDP before its post-2013 downslide.

If Europe can't hold its own against Russia, I don't think "insufficient money" is the problem.