- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Shrink the military? Can right and left agree on this?
Posted on 1/24/14 at 9:49 pm to kingbob
Posted on 1/24/14 at 9:49 pm to kingbob
quote:
I'm conflicted about Japan due to their cultural history and have reservations about allowing them to start rebuilding their military in earnest.
Yeah, the Japanese are nuts, but I don't think they'd be overly enthused about losing their entire economy and getting nuked again. The Japan of today is not the Japan of the 1930s.
1
Posted on 1/24/14 at 9:52 pm to sammyptiger
quote:
The only thing that stops them from doing this is us. We are the security guarantor for many countries throughout the world. It would be a much scarier world if we were to withdraw, as several posters here suggest.
Hence why I advocated for pulling out of some countries (Germany, Iraq, Afghanistan, Djibouti, Italy, ect), but staying in others (Bahrain, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, ect)
Posted on 1/24/14 at 9:53 pm to Tim
quote:
Cutting it 40%? Would you agree to social programs being cut 40% as well?
The ones I have in mind, 40% is about right, if not more. I would like to increase the budget on birth control though, since I think all of our problems as a society trace its origin back to unwanted children.
Posted on 1/24/14 at 9:55 pm to OMLandshark
quote:
Yeah, the Japanese are nuts, but I don't think they'd be overly enthused about losing their entire economy and getting nuked again.
If the US pulls out of Japan and says to them and the Chinese "If either of you invades the other, we're not only going to stop all trade with you, but we're going to get all of our allies to do the same," then neither is going to do shite.
Posted on 1/24/14 at 9:56 pm to kingbob
quote:Well, we don't have many left in Iraq. The military wants to keep 10,000 in Afg. We're not leaving Djibouti or Italy.
Hence why I advocated for pulling out of some countries (Germany, Iraq, Afghanistan, Djibouti, Italy, ect), but staying in others (Bahrain, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, ect)
Posted on 1/24/14 at 9:57 pm to sammyptiger
I know we're not, but I think we should. It's not like I'll ever get to enact my ideas as policy. 
Posted on 1/24/14 at 9:58 pm to deltaland
quote:
I don't have a problem with keeping an eye on Japan, Germany, etc. Don't be naive and think that for one second those countries wouldn't build back up and try again if we allowed it to happen. The mindset is still prevalent over there
I highly doubt it is. I have German and Japanese friends, and while they may be somewhat hostile to some of the groups they traumatized, they would never go to the extremes they did in the Second World War. The Holocaust and the Rape if Nanking even they can see that they were both among the biggest and most horrifying atrocities committed by mankind.
This is a different world. A world of trade and really peace. A Holocaust or invasion of a major country to where all the citizens are raped and killed isn't going to fly remotely anymore. You need to get this worldview out of your mind.
Posted on 1/24/14 at 9:59 pm to kingbob
I hear you. The air base at Aviano is particularly important I think.
Posted on 1/24/14 at 10:00 pm to OMLandshark
Agreed. I'm not worried about atrocities and war crimes. I'm worried about arms races and cold wars threatening trade. Just because I would be in favor of absolutely free trade with and between all nations doesn't mean most leaders share my ideas.
Posted on 1/24/14 at 10:01 pm to kingbob
quote:
Japan, on the other hand, could very easily rally around the existential threat of China to jump start its economy around rebuilding its military and Nationalistic pride Mussolini style. They would have the capacity to become a massive threat towards stability in the Pacific rim within a decade and throw fuel into the fire for a massive arms race/cold war with China. Not necessarily a good thing.
Then the Japanese would be destroyed if they fired the first shot, and we would take the Chinese' side. We wouldn't put up with that bullshite and it would mean instant economic depression world wide for such a war to break out. Japan understands the need for a stable economy, and they are the third largest worldwide. No way in hell does Japan make a move like that, regardless of how much Japan and China hate each other.
Posted on 1/24/14 at 10:01 pm to kingbob
quote:
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.
We own the air as well as the sea. That's all you need. There is no way a foreign armada will be able to cross the Atlantic or the Pacific to invade the United States as long as we control the air and the sea.
Posted on 1/24/14 at 10:06 pm to RollTide1987
Yeah, the Atlantic and pacific are really invincible moots. It woud take technology hundreds of years if not thousands to get close enough undetected and mount a credible threat.
Posted on 1/24/14 at 10:06 pm to RollTide1987
Our air superiority is vastly overstated and the gap between us and countries like Russia and China has shrunk much in the past decade. I'm not advocating for an army of millions of soldiers. I think we still need a small, highly mobile standing army stationed in the U.S. with a highly armed populace, and a robust National Guard that primarily works disaster relief during peace time and never gets deployed outside of the country.
Posted on 1/24/14 at 10:06 pm to RollTide1987
Well we can already see what's happening across the globe with satellites, so we'd see it coming. I wouldn't be surprised if, within the next 15 years, we have the ability to launch missiles from space to hit any place on the planet. We'd be able to stop an invading armada without a single troop or ship.
Posted on 1/24/14 at 10:07 pm to Sentrius
People always forget our massive, undefended and often unmonitored, northern and southern borders
Posted on 1/24/14 at 10:08 pm to THRILLHO
Why would we need to launch missiles from space when we can already launch missiles from land and sea and hit anywhere on earth? It seems like it'd be a waste of money to put all of those missiles up there
I think all of us agree on the principle that we need to reduce military spending, cut out waste, get less involved in overseas conflicts, reduce land forces, promote absolutely free trade with all countries around the globe, ect. I think we just disagree on the degree to which we should reduce and/or re-purpose our forces.
I think all of us agree on the principle that we need to reduce military spending, cut out waste, get less involved in overseas conflicts, reduce land forces, promote absolutely free trade with all countries around the globe, ect. I think we just disagree on the degree to which we should reduce and/or re-purpose our forces.
This post was edited on 1/24/14 at 10:11 pm
Posted on 1/24/14 at 10:23 pm to kingbob
quote:
Our air superiority is vastly overstated and the gap between us and countries like Russia and China has shrunk much in the past decade.
Not really.
One good thing from George Bush's wars is we have combat experienced pilots and weapon systems.
China is eeking forward and the Russians can't get out of their own way.
Both are a decade or so behind us and losing ground.
Posted on 1/24/14 at 10:27 pm to kingbob
quote:
People always forget our massive, undefended and often unmonitored, northern and southern borders
Nothing is coming from Canada but trade. We do have some issues to the South for sure though.
Posted on 1/24/14 at 10:29 pm to OMLandshark
I'm not real worried about a Mexican invasion anytime soon.
Frankly the only real threat is the Chinese (more so then their crazy cousins the North Koreans). I'm about half convinced they are willing to go to war over some empty islands.
If you are looking for precedent about fighting over rocks in the ocean see the Falklands war.
Frankly the only real threat is the Chinese (more so then their crazy cousins the North Koreans). I'm about half convinced they are willing to go to war over some empty islands.
If you are looking for precedent about fighting over rocks in the ocean see the Falklands war.
Posted on 1/24/14 at 10:31 pm to asurob1
Ah, the Fauklands: little rocks mean nothing until it turns out there's oil under and around them
Page 3 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News