Shrink the military? Can right and left agree on this?

Yes, but we are bound by treaty in South Korea due to the armistice. If we break that treaty, the north will invade the south and one of the world's most economically productive democracies will be completely annihilated and millions of lives will be lost.

I agree about pulling out of Germany.

I'm conflicted about Japan due to their cultural history and have reservations about allowing them to start rebuilding their military in earnest.

As for Germany, Iraq, Kuwait, Djibouti, Afghanistan, and Italy, there's really no reason for us to be there and we should leave.

We must keep the 5th Fleet in Bahrain, however, due to its ability to keep trading lanes open and project force throughout the entire region.

As much as I'm in favor of reducing our presence of "boots on the ground", I'm actually in favor of expanding our navy and its force projection capabilities.

I have no problem shrinking the military, especially the military contracts for equipment. There is tremendous waste and abuse that goes with that. Why we continue to have troops in foreign countries, I don't really understand. We need to eliminate foreign aid.

Although it's not within the topic, I also believe we should reduce spending within the gov't across the board. Anyone that thinks we can stay on this path is insane. $17 trillion in debt, I'm not sure why we think we can stay on this path. I know it won't change and it's frustrating to hear this President talk about personal spending responsibility when they continue to waste our money as they do.

The problem is that with modern technology, the gap between the beginning of hostilities and when an enemy could realistically project force against the people and resources of the United States has gone from months to seconds. Our two oceans which protected us throughout the late 18th through the early 20th century is no longer the deterrent it once was. There is simply no longer enough time to "build up" when conflict comes any more.

Instead of taking months for an aggressive force to cross an ocean or thousands of miles of wilderness to project force, the press of a button could anhilate a city in minutes. In a day or two, entire armies could be on our shores and in the interior within a week. This has necessitated a completely different approach.

Mutually assured destruction has mostly prevented nuclear holocaust, while keeping a relatively large standing army and navy has allowed for "preventative action" as well as the capacity for instantaneous response to threats of force.

quote:

---

the press of a button could anhilate a city in minutes.

---

Sure. So how does having a bunch of soldiers in the middle east stop that?

quote:

---

In a day or two, entire armies could be on our shores and in the interior within a week.

---

You mean like troops/ships? Not a fricking chance. A hostile armada would be destroyed before it saw Hawaii or crossed the midway point of the Atlantic.

What I am saying is reducing international presence with ground forces while bolstering Naval efforts.

Reducing army spending while pumping up the navy.

In the end, a sizable net reduction in spending, mission, and scope. Rather than playing world police, we would be working mostly as a deterrent, ensuring free trade on the high seas, and honoring our treaties with Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea.

The big money hogs like Iraq, Afghanistan, Africa, and Europe would be eliminated.

I would like to spend some of that money on space exploration (bold new Space initiative including manned missions to Mars, probes to Triton and Europa, and setting up an eventual manned station on the Moon) while lifting many of the restrictions currently in place on private space exploration.

That way, we have our cake (a powerful military capable of responding to threats around the world rapidly), and we get to eat it too (reduced spending, reduced military deaths in pointless wars, and continued technological innovation)..

quote:

---

You mean like troops/ships?

---

ships, transport planes, ect.

quote:

---

Not a fricking chance. A hostile armada would be destroyed before it saw Hawaii or crossed the midway point of the Atlantic.

---

That's why I'm advocating for a strong, proactive navy to be able to deal with them before they reach us (and retaliate instantaneously) and a strong (although much smaller than we have now) army back home just in case they make it past our highly capable navy.

Yes. Not just arbitrarily, but abroad.

quote:

---

strong, well-armed populous

---

Which houses will the lefties want to hang out at if the enemy invades our country?

Defense spending needs to be cut 40-45%.

It's so fricking bloated we need to take the trough away from the fat war pigs in the military industrial complex.