- 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
Shrink the military? Can right and left agree on this?
Posted on 1/24/14 at 8:16 pm
Posted on 1/24/14 at 8:16 pm
I am life long Republican, 56 years old. Since communism fell from its own weight, the world has changed a lot.
Since we borrow 40% of every dollar we spend, does it make since to have troops
In Japan, Germany, South Korea?
Are we really gonna go to war over 70 year old treaties for countries that don't pay for their own defense?
Since we borrow 40% of every dollar we spend, does it make since to have troops
In Japan, Germany, South Korea?
Are we really gonna go to war over 70 year old treaties for countries that don't pay for their own defense?
Posted on 1/24/14 at 8:19 pm to zeebo
Shrink the civilian bureaucracy of the military and I agree.
Posted on 1/24/14 at 8:21 pm to zeebo
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 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.
This post was edited on 1/24/14 at 8:22 pm
Posted on 1/24/14 at 8:24 pm to zeebo
It's an interesting question. For most of our nation's history, the military has been astonishingly small, the idea has been that we can build up quickly if needed and this worked out well during WW2.
Since that war we have been basically the world's police and while that certainly has benefits I'm not convinced it is worthwhile. I could be mistaken, but that debate is something that takes place in more scholarly places than TD.
Since that war we have been basically the world's police and while that certainly has benefits I'm not convinced it is worthwhile. I could be mistaken, but that debate is something that takes place in more scholarly places than TD.
Posted on 1/24/14 at 8:26 pm to Jake88
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.
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.
Posted on 1/24/14 at 8:30 pm to zeebo
quote:
Shrink the military? Can right and left agree on this?
I don't think that either side's establishment wants to do this. Pubs like the money being taken from taxpayers and given to companies like Haliburton/Lockheed/Northrop. Dems like having government jobs (look at Virginia going blue). Both sides want to convince Joe and Jill America that impoverished brown people thousands of miles away are a massive danger to us.
Posted on 1/24/14 at 8:31 pm to foshizzle
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.
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.
Posted on 1/24/14 at 8:35 pm to kingbob
It's beyond time to shrink our military. We spend more on it then the next ten nations and 9 of them are allies.
However, if you are going to shrink the military then you have to shrink their mission as well. Currently we have troops all over the world. US navy carriers now spend 9 months deployed due to shortfalls in combat ships, but continuing the same missions when I was in the Navy. You cannot do one without the other.
However, if you are going to shrink the military then you have to shrink their mission as well. Currently we have troops all over the world. US navy carriers now spend 9 months deployed due to shortfalls in combat ships, but continuing the same missions when I was in the Navy. You cannot do one without the other.
Posted on 1/24/14 at 8:35 pm to kingbob
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.
Posted on 1/24/14 at 8:38 pm to THRILLHO
Edit: wrong thread.
This post was edited on 1/24/14 at 8:39 pm
Posted on 1/24/14 at 8:39 pm to zeebo
2 dollars in social for every one in defense and I am on board but that will never happen
Posted on 1/24/14 at 8:41 pm to asurob1
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)..
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)..
Posted on 1/24/14 at 8:43 pm to asurob1
quote:Sadly, any thought that moving a repub out of the white house and installing a Dem would achieve the above goal has gone poof. We just seem incapable of not meddling.
However, if you are going to shrink the military then you have to shrink their mission as well.
Posted on 1/24/14 at 8:44 pm to THRILLHO
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.
This post was edited on 1/24/14 at 8:49 pm
Posted on 1/24/14 at 8:48 pm to kingbob
quote:
just in case they make it past our highly capable navy
If another military makes it past our Navy and lands on our soil, you'll have a lot of Libs re-thinking that gun control issue...
Posted on 1/24/14 at 8:50 pm to zeebo
Yes. Not just arbitrarily, but abroad.
Posted on 1/24/14 at 8:50 pm to Tim
Remember, we didn't always have such peaceful neighbors to the north and south. A strong navy and no army does a fat load of good when countries (or more likely, groups within countries) with which you share contiguous, largely undefended borders can cross at the drop of a hat, unmolested.
You have to have that backup at the ready along with a strong, well-armed populous.
You have to have that backup at the ready along with a strong, well-armed populous.
Posted on 1/24/14 at 8:54 pm to kingbob
quote:
strong, well-armed populous
Which houses will the lefties want to hang out at if the enemy invades our country?
Posted on 1/24/14 at 8:55 pm to Tim
The other side's, capitulation and cooperation is the surest way to save one's skin. Defending yourself and country means risking your life.
Posted on 1/24/14 at 8:55 pm to zeebo
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.
It's so fricking bloated we need to take the trough away from the fat war pigs in the military industrial complex.
This post was edited on 1/24/14 at 8:56 pm
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News