I hear that a traditional and modern war will never happen again. Heck I don't even know when our last one was. So why do we keep spending like it's right around the corner? Makes no sense.
When was our last traditional / modern war?
- Thread starter UCFhonors
- Start date
I'll feed the troll ...
Is that what you "hear" ? First, please define a "traditional and modern" war. After you have failed to do that, just for a second, attempt to comprehend all of the things the NSS requires of the military and all of the tasking across the ROMO (there is a new one for you, look it up) that our service members are called upon to accomplish. As your statement on spending is inaccurate (we are not spending like "traditional and modern" war is right around the corner) and ignores reality, naturally, the complexities would not make sense to you.
I googled both those terms and have no idea what a space society and the Dallas Cowboys QB has to do with any of this.
Traditional / modern wars are pretty easy concept to understand. It means tanks are going to fight tanks, planes are going to fight planes, ground troops are going to have lines and hold positions of strategic importance, ect.... You know like how WWII was fought. That's really important to understand bc it explains why we have built an industrial military complex. But again, it's extremely unlikely the we will ever see another traditional / modern war.
I highly suggest you read the Art of War then watch this
I'm a big fan of military history and know a shit ton about the military and military strategy. So don't even try to talk down to me. Just last knight I watched a 2 hour documentary on the Gulf War. I loved the last line of it, "Probably the most dangerous thing that came out of the Gulf War is this idea that you fight a "war" and nobody dies. That nobody is in danger. That there is no pain and suffering." - General Chuck Horner
Coalition Air Force Commander "If I had a message about the Gulf War. It's that war is a horrible thing. It should not be entered into except under the most dire circumstances."
So that makes me question, when was our last defensive war? A war we had to fight. Then list the wars that we started. Then look at our obscene military expenditures. I bet you have no idea how much we spend and how much everyone else does.
#pwned
@ucflee @UCFKnight85 and whoever else that considers themselves supporters of the military.
I'll give you my complete stance on the military since I like to talk about it and bc I don't believe you guys can be rational and non-emotional about the topic.
First, we spend 4-5x the amount on our military as a % of GDP as our biggest allies. That may not seem like that much more but considering that we have 5-7x larger economy than them, our spending is enormous. We spend on average on our military as the whole world combined. It's not just been that way for the last decade but for the last half century.
Here is the big thing about our spending:
1. Spending on technology should have a compounding effect. Spending 2x as much for 10 years isn't 20x "better" but more like 100x better bc of the compounding effect. We have been doing it for 60 years.
2. We could cut our budget by 3/4ths today by just spending on technology & keeping experts on hand and still have the strongest military
3. Just raise the fighting force when we need it. It took us 6 months to organize our equipment for the Gulf war. We could train an entire military in that time. No reason to have 1 million person standing military during peace time. There is absolutely no reason for it.
4. Our spending on military is a bigger threat to America than any foreign power. We could cut our military spending to ZERO and still would have a deficit and a growing $18.6 trillion debt. We can't afford it and it's making us go broke. When we go broke there won't be a military.
5. We are light years ahead of any potential threat. Hello the SR-71 began development in the 1960s. I seriously doubt any military today could make anything similar without our help. Don't get me started on the f-35. Lol.
Who the hell are we preparing to go to war with? (I'm not talking about foreign policy here - just military- but it's way worse). With our spending, we should be able to kick the whole worlds ass easily. But we can't. Here is why:
1. Solely relying in technology makes you weak. Countless examples. But there is always a way to fight against a technologically superior force with ingenuity. Al la Art of War. The US has had it's ass kicked by peasants with ingenuity.
2. Our weapons are designed to fight within the rules. There are no rules in war. We expected to lose 100-200k coalition troops in the final ground assault in the Gulf War and that is after we destroyed half of Iraq's military. Why, bc we expected Chemical and nuclear weapons be used. Thank God we only lost 245 soldiers in the whole war.
3. The underdog always has a chance - The colonists versus the British Empire, Brittania versus the Roman empire, The white locus rebellion versus the Mongolian empire ect. As the saying goes it's not the size of the dog in the fight but the size of the fight in the dog. All major empires become too spread out, spend too much on their military, and lose the will to fight. The American Empire has already been seeing the beginnings of that.
4. Our next major war won't be fought like how we expect it to be fought. That will render many of our weapons to be useless.
That's my basic stance on the military. Again, I'm not talking about foreign policy which is way worse. Leave that out of this thread though.
Last point, wars are suppose to be fought with a clear objective in mind. Most of the time the objective is a political objective. It's extremely clear with the size of our military, our military spending and the type of weapons that we make, that our military objectives are very extremely aggressive And very very little to do with the defense. I dare anyone to come up with a weapon that has been designed in last 50 years that was designed for defense which cost 1/10th of a weapon that is purely for aggression.
Haha. I just thought of Reagan's foolish "Star Wars" project. I mean an actual weapon not some fantasy.
I'll give you my complete stance on the military since I like to talk about it and bc I don't believe you guys can be rational and non-emotional about the topic.
First, we spend 4-5x the amount on our military as a % of GDP as our biggest allies. That may not seem like that much more but considering that we have 5-7x larger economy than them, our spending is enormous. We spend on average on our military as the whole world combined. It's not just been that way for the last decade but for the last half century.
Here is the big thing about our spending:
1. Spending on technology should have a compounding effect. Spending 2x as much for 10 years isn't 20x "better" but more like 100x better bc of the compounding effect. We have been doing it for 60 years.
2. We could cut our budget by 3/4ths today by just spending on technology & keeping experts on hand and still have the strongest military
3. Just raise the fighting force when we need it. It took us 6 months to organize our equipment for the Gulf war. We could train an entire military in that time. No reason to have 1 million person standing military during peace time. There is absolutely no reason for it.
4. Our spending on military is a bigger threat to America than any foreign power. We could cut our military spending to ZERO and still would have a deficit and a growing $18.6 trillion debt. We can't afford it and it's making us go broke. When we go broke there won't be a military.
5. We are light years ahead of any potential threat. Hello the SR-71 began development in the 1960s. I seriously doubt any military today could make anything similar without our help. Don't get me started on the f-35. Lol.
Who the hell are we preparing to go to war with? (I'm not talking about foreign policy here - just military- but it's way worse). With our spending, we should be able to kick the whole worlds ass easily. But we can't. Here is why:
1. Solely relying in technology makes you weak. Countless examples. But there is always a way to fight against a technologically superior force with ingenuity. Al la Art of War. The US has had it's ass kicked by peasants with ingenuity.
2. Our weapons are designed to fight within the rules. There are no rules in war. We expected to lose 100-200k coalition troops in the final ground assault in the Gulf War and that is after we destroyed half of Iraq's military. Why, bc we expected Chemical and nuclear weapons be used. Thank God we only lost 245 soldiers in the whole war.
3. The underdog always has a chance - The colonists versus the British Empire, Brittania versus the Roman empire, The white locus rebellion versus the Mongolian empire ect. As the saying goes it's not the size of the dog in the fight but the size of the fight in the dog. All major empires become too spread out, spend too much on their military, and lose the will to fight. The American Empire has already been seeing the beginnings of that.
4. Our next major war won't be fought like how we expect it to be fought. That will render many of our weapons to be useless.
That's my basic stance on the military. Again, I'm not talking about foreign policy which is way worse. Leave that out of this thread though.
Last point, wars are suppose to be fought with a clear objective in mind. Most of the time the objective is a political objective. It's extremely clear with the size of our military, our military spending and the type of weapons that we make, that our military objectives are very extremely aggressive And very very little to do with the defense. I dare anyone to come up with a weapon that has been designed in last 50 years that was designed for defense which cost 1/10th of a weapon that is purely for aggression.
Haha. I just thought of Reagan's foolish "Star Wars" project. I mean an actual weapon not some fantasy.
#pwned? Your level of understanding matches your juvenile gamer mentality.
Which is it? traditional and modern war or traditional / modern war? words matter.
Either way, your narrow description fails to capture what traditional or modern warfare entails.
I have spent a considerable amount of time in a graduate setting with military officers studying Sun Tzu, Clausewitz, etc. in context of conflicts from the Peloponnesian War through recent and ongoing conflicts. The documentaries you have watched, while entertaining and mildly informative barely scratch the surface of the planning and operations of those events.
Your apparent ignorance of common terms such as the NSS and ROMO and inability to uncover their meaning in context does not speak well to your "shit ton" of perceived knowledge about the military or military strategy.
Do not confuse my attempt to provide foundational information as talking down to you. It is not your fault that you don't know what you don't know. Mission accomplished for you though, you got a response your misinformed comments about military spending and the post-WWII composition of our armed forces (way to move the goalposts).
Which is it? traditional and modern war or traditional / modern war? words matter.
Either way, your narrow description fails to capture what traditional or modern warfare entails.
I have spent a considerable amount of time in a graduate setting with military officers studying Sun Tzu, Clausewitz, etc. in context of conflicts from the Peloponnesian War through recent and ongoing conflicts. The documentaries you have watched, while entertaining and mildly informative barely scratch the surface of the planning and operations of those events.
Your apparent ignorance of common terms such as the NSS and ROMO and inability to uncover their meaning in context does not speak well to your "shit ton" of perceived knowledge about the military or military strategy.
Do not confuse my attempt to provide foundational information as talking down to you. It is not your fault that you don't know what you don't know. Mission accomplished for you though, you got a response your misinformed comments about military spending and the post-WWII composition of our armed forces (way to move the goalposts).
Impossible to separate the two, the thread should end here. You should reread Sun Tzu.
1) proliferation of technology and near-peer advances.
2 & 3) you have absolutely no idea what it takes to train, equip, and maintain a force capable of doing ALL that is asked of the military.
4) Spending is required to accomplish 2&3. Can efficiencies be gained? absolutely, but not to the scale you suggest.
5) see 1.
F-35? Was it you or one of the others that insist that it can't VSTOL sooooooo, yea.
blaaa, blaaa, blaaa, I bored by your myopic and emotionally charged diatribe and I am le tired ...
Last edited:
Typing this in bold and larger font somehow gives legitimacy to this sophistic question?
1) if the proliferation of technology is the reason why peers are close to what we have, and they spend 1/10th or less than we spend, then that a huge problem. It is a huge problem. We used to be confident that we had far superior technology. Now we still spend like we do but we don't.
2 & 3) doesn't seem like our military know what it takes to maintain and raise military for war. The US has had about a 1.5 million person standing armed force for over 2 decades. It's the same number of people despite times of war and peace. So that literally means we always have enough military personel for war and never cut when we can just like with welfare.
4. Efficiencies never happen with government spending. We spend too much, can't afford it, and never been in worse financial circumstances. Again our military spending is a bigger threat to America's safety than any foreign military.
5. Being okay with spending way more than everyone else while admitting that it has his diminishing returns - we get way less out each dollar that we spend shows that you're being irrational.
That wasn't me about the F-35 can't VSTOL. It is over budget and late. I have a good friend who is an engineer on the F-35. I have a Challenge Coin for the Squadron- the Deadly Jesters which I think is pretty cool.
I'm guessing you're still active in the military. That blinds you to the real problems. Just like with teachers, you won't admit that we spend way too much and have massive problems. Very rarely will someone ever admit to problems with the institution who pays them. I don't get paid by the govt, and not dependent on them. So I'm far more objective.
Last edited:
A quick Google search didn't yield the budget for development of the patriot missile. The per unit cost for it's most advanced version is $3.43m. While the F-35 is $148m for the Air Force and a whopping $337 for the Navy version. It's not even close.
I dared anyone to come up with a defensive weapon that costs 1/10th or greater to an aggressive weapon. You give a defense weapon that costs 1/100th or 1% per unit vs an aggressive weapon. You failed big time. You did prove my point though. We could cut our military budget by half to 1/10th of what it is today if we spent for defense rather than trying to police the world.
It's appalling, atrocious, dumb, and undermines every original intent of our founding foreign-policy principles. We've become an Empire. America was suppose to The Country of the World that stood for Freedom, Independence, and Liberty. Not respecting other country's sovereignty is the exact same thing as not respecting US citizens' liberty. The military undermines everything that we are suppose to be.
I really would like to know from @ucflee is why the US keeps losing in our own war games?
http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/09/18...war-plans-for-a-baltic-battle-against-russia/
Just like with teachers, military blowhards think that if we just spend more that will fix all of our problems. AND conveniently ignore that we already spend way more than everyone else. You don't have to be an expert to understand that is completely illogical.
http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/09/18...war-plans-for-a-baltic-battle-against-russia/
Just like with teachers, military blowhards think that if we just spend more that will fix all of our problems. AND conveniently ignore that we already spend way more than everyone else. You don't have to be an expert to understand that is completely illogical.
Last traditional war (if you call it that) was Operation Desert Storm in Gulf War I.
Prior to that, it was WWII. (Korea and Vietnam conflicts were declared "police actions").
Poorly worded "question", what military system do we own that is "purely for aggression" ... the answer is none.
Couldn't be more wrong.
Welcome to reality. The world is a different place. You can't demonize current military funding based on "founding foreign policy principals." Well, I suppose you can but that would make you about as ignorant as that young lady who wants the "1%ers" to pay for everyone to get a college degree.
The fact that you conveniently ignore is that the United States requires the military to do, be ready to do all manner of things at all times, and be constantly prepared for operations 25 years from now. This costs a lot of money and requires a lot of trained professionals. It requires the military to spend money on R&D, S&T, acquisition, maintenance, etc. to be prepared to do what is required.
Your complaints are misguided. If you change what the American people want from the military, then you can adjust funding accordingly. The question is, are you willing to accept the risk of a world in which the U.S. has significantly reduced military options.
I agree.
I suspect that the Gulf War will be our last traditional war. Lots of stats and facts to prove that point. The one that sticks out the most to me is that our first assault was the stealth bombers F-117s bombing Baghdad with laser precision. They shot everything that they could add those bombers and we still managed to hit the most vital targets without losing a plane. Keep in mind that the F-117 began development in the 1970s. That's pure dominance.
Gulf War
100 day war.
Lost 245 troops to their ~100,000.
Now compare that to the Afghan war:
Longest war in US history - 13 years (I don't think we won or did anything but create chaos)
2,224: the number of U.S. troops, according to an AP tally, who werekilled in Afghanistan during the war, with more than 1,000 international coalition troops killed
17,674: estimated number of U.S. troops wounded during Operation Enduring Freedom, according to the website iCasualties.org
21,000: estimate number of Afghan civilians killed since 2001 as a result of “crossfire, improvised explosive devices, assassination, bombing, and night raids into houses of suspected insurgents,” according to the website Costs of War
747,000: estimated number ofweapons the U.S. provided to the Afghan National Security Forces, many of which experts say have gone missing, prompting worries they will be used in escalating insurgency attacks by Taliban fighters
69: the number of women in Afghanistan’s parliament, which is proportionately more than the number in the U.S. Congress. To be fair, when written, their constitution set a quota of at least 27 percent female representation in parliament, a quota that was recently revised to 20 percent.
34 million: amount, in dollars the U.S. spent trying, unsuccessfully, to provide Afghan farmers with soybeans as a new cash crop option
63.7 billion: dollars appropriated to “overseas contingency operations” in Iraq and Afghanistan for the coming year in the latest appropriations bill passed by Congress, including $2.9 billion for Afghanistan’s Ministry of Defense
3.6 billion: Afghan GDP in 2001
Shit! We could bribed every Afghan with $63.7 billion. And no one would've died.
The average income of Afghan workers was $70 in 2004. That's $70.00. Less than $100.00.
Those peasants kicked the shit out of the greatest and most expensive military force known to mankind.
Oh give me a break! Bomber. Do you use a bomber for defending your own land? Hell no you don't. Bombers are for attacking. Seriously, stop grasping at straws and defending the indefensible. Bombers are the purest form of an aggressive weapon. I'll challenge you on that, bc I respect your military knowledge. Realistically or even hypothetically, what general type of weapon is the most aggressive weapon? My answer is a bomber. Guess what! Our most expensive weapons have been bombers and spy planes. Those aren't defensive weapons!
And before you even try to bring up smart bombs, ~80% of the bombs we used in the Gulf War (the last modern tradition war) were "dumb bombs." Bombs are indiscriminate weapons to attack your opponent. Period.
No doubt we have a philosophical difference. Too bad you're wrong.
Let's discuss foreign policy. I've already laid out that our military spending is for an Empire who wants to police the world. Would you agree that our current foreign policy is we will "protect" anything of American interest with military force? Yes or no? Or explain.
My stance:
The United States' Constitution said that we should never have a standing army. That there should be no military appropriations that extend for more than two years. If you don't like that create a constitutional amendment. Just like If you don't like the second amendment, the right to bear arms, pass a constitutional amendment.
We are leaders of the world. If we lead in military spending others will follow. This massive arms build up over the last 70 years has made the world a more risky place. Once we feel like we can go war with anyone, attack anyone and not see a loss of life that's the most dangerous thought in human history. That makes war acceptable, tolerable and palpable. That's morally and logically wrong
The US foreign policy IMHO should be this:
1. Defend our borders
2. Avoid all foreign entanglement.
That's it. Everything else is wrong.
I understand that some think our massive military buildup is a deterrent to war. But the facts provider otherwise. The facts are we have been in more wars and more military conflicts since the 1950s with the rise of the military-industrial complex.
Politicians are like kids- they are easily manipulated. Give them a big fancy new toy and they are going to want to play with it. They are going to want to see what a tomahawk missile and F 35 bomber can do. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The whole reason why we created a Constitution was to limit the powers of the federal government so it would not corrupt. We are corrupted. Our whole beliefs, integrity, ideas and purpose have been compromised. The military is a big reason for that. Maybe the biggest reason....
Lee, I suspect that your expert on the military. You brought that stupid girl who couldn't do Math, who was talking about giving free college tuition, forgiving student loan debt and a $15 minimum wage. She got owned by Cavuro because she talked conjecture while he talked about real numbers, facts and history. You compared me to her. Ha. I've been the one using number, math, facts and history. All you've said so far is:
The world is different now
We need to spend that much
Your questions are unclear.
We have to do it
Our current rules says we have to do this and that.
What about the Patriot missile system?
Bro. You're just conjecture. No substance. Give me a number. Provide a fact. Without that, you're the dumb girl.
Again:
We spend way too much
We've become an empire
We need to radically cut the military industrial complex bc it's one of the biggest threats to our Liberty, Founding Principles, and our Safety & Security.
Last edited:
Speaking of "traditional warfare", B-52's also played a major role in bombing the Iraq Republican Guard...as the B-52 was and is probably the most terrifying plane ever to fly in warfare...as the B-52 was one of the main reasons why Iraqis were surrendering by the thousands as they never wanted to live thru another B-52 raid.
USA flew daily B-52 raids daily (sometimes squads would be over targets every other hour), as their devastation was everywhere...giving some troops shell shock, like seen in the first World War.
Some of the first B-52's flew all the way from their base in Shreveport, LA all the way to dropping their load in Kuwait and Iraq.
DYK: Some may not realize why OIA is called MCO, as it stands for McCoy Air Force Base, a base that use to host B-52's...and one of those B-52's is on display near the 528 entrance way to OIA.
B 52 at Memorial Park at OIA
Another devastating "traditional" plane that caused heavy damage to the enemy was the A-10 Warthog, which specialized as Tank Killers.
There was a squad of them stationed in Central Louisiana and I'll never forget 2 of them coming down over the main 4 lane hwy...on a training run back to their base....as those things were BAD A$$.
They worked with forward ground troops and helped save hundreds and hundreds of American troop lives.
Allow me to answer this question directly.
Yes. I'm willing to accept the risk of a world in which the U.S. has significantly reduced military options. I like numbers. So I'll use them in my stance. And I'll take the hard line to make it easier for anyone to attack my stance.
I would be fine with spending as much on our military as the Swiss do, $4.53 Billion. We currently spend 100 x that. We have spent 200 x that.
I could give a **** what the Swiss or any other country does, bc we are America. We are the best. We changed the world for the better. The biggest thing that we did was limit the govt with this thing called a Constitution and create a land for Liberty. We were the first. Now virtually everyone followed us, and has a Constitution promoting a value like Liberty.
What does the land for Liberty look like with regards foreign policy? I'll save you from George Washington's and other Founding Fathers diatribes. It means trade with everyone, be friends with everyone, and only use force domestically or aboard when your Life, Liberty or Property is threatened. We come to accept oppression as a normal course of govt. We accept that the military can murder a US citizen without due process. We accept that "Liberty" now means we are "free" to do what the govt approves us to do. We are fine with the govt stealing property of it's citizens at the point of a gun. That's all wrong.
We should make our borders impenetrable to invaders but open to all those who yearn to breathe Free as Lady Liberty pronounced.
We should spend less than our allies spend on the military showing that we are not scared of the world and are confident of that we have the weapons to kick everyone's ass, can create the best ones if need be, and have the best relationships with the world. The last one is the most important. No row countries have gone to war when they both have a McDonalds. Why? Because they have mutual benefit. We need to go back to focusing on prosperity and advancement and working with others for the betterment of the world. We need to stop being paranoid. Nobody is born to get us. Our foreign policy and messing with the world has created enemies. Stop it. Stop it now.
Math says we could stop spending on our military for 20+ years and still have the strongest military capabilities. I say spend just enough to keep the engine running. $50 billion or so. Think of the military as the very last resort when we have exhausted all others. Treat war as war is - no rules. We need to internalize war as being willing to kill innocent people and raping of women, men and children.
The fact is that wars, even modern wars, of even the most noble clauses killed more people than anyone could've possibility assumed to be killed if the war wasn't fought. So I will challenge anyone with this, Is war ever justified?
Bet you won't listen to this video with an open heart and mind.
would you rather more died? And no, they did not "kick the shit" out of the US military, if they did, why are the KIA numbers so low for over 10 years of combat?
Speaking of "traditional warfare", B-52's also played a major role in bombing the Iraq Republican Guard...as the B-52 was and is probably the most terrifying plane ever to fly in warfare...as the B-52 was one of the main reasons why Iraqis were surrendering by the thousands as they never wanted to live thru another B-52 raid.
USA flew daily B-52 raids daily (sometimes squads would be over targets every other hour), as their devastation was everywhere...giving some troops shell shock, like seen in the first World War.
Some of the first B-52's flew all the way from their base in Shreveport, LA all the way to dropping their load in Kuwait and Iraq.
DYK: Some may not realize why OIA is called MCO, as it stands for McCoy Air Force Base, a base that use to host B-52's...and one of those B-52's is on display near the 528 entrance way to OIA.
B 52 at Memorial Park at OIA
Another devastating "traditional" plane that caused heavy damage to the enemy was the A-10 Warthog, which specialized as Tank Killers.
There was a squad of them stationed in Central Louisiana and I'll never forget 2 of them coming down over the main 4 lane hwy...on a training run back to their base....as those things were BAD A$$.
They worked with forward ground troops and helped save hundreds and hundreds of American troop lives.
Hell yeah! The B-52 and Warthhog shows how badass and superior our weapons are. I like every American should take great pride in them.
Gotta ask you, bud, if most of our most advanced weapons aren't seen or know about for 10 or even 20 years until after they become operational, what do we have now? I mean, the F35 is 3-4 years from being operational, and based on history we basically have something that is a decade more advanced than the F35.
It's crazy to think that in our lifetime that planes - man or unmanned - may become obsolete. Its crazy to think of. It's crazy to think of the future.
Last edited:
A credible bomber force is absolutely a weapon of defense. The capability to stop an adversary's ability to mass at a distance from your own shores is a formidable deterrent.
Bro, stop with the conjecture. 245 coalition troops died in the Gulf War. Half were from friendly fire!
As K_L would say, more Americans died on Saturday knight in Chicago.
I don't want anyone to die. That's my starting point. I want to exhaust all options before we even think about war. Give me a scenario and I'll show a peaceful option or twelve. Haha.
A bigger military basically guarantees more war. It promises more death.
I'll admit, as someone who loves history, military, and basically kicking ass is life, that it took me a long time to realize bigger military means war.
I'll tell you story:
Oh gosh. You can't be this brainwashed....
Bombers attack. The don't defend invading forces that are in NYC. You can't be this way and be considered logical.
So stop with the wild assumptions.
My little story. I recently rented one of my properties to a Marine Sniper. He was out for 6 months. I love talking military so we had a few beers and discussed it. His biggest regret, not getting a kill. See, he was a spotter. As he said, "Any Monkey can pull a trigger. Everyone wanted a kill."
"How did you do it?" I asked.
"What? Shoot? They ain't human. They're a target."
We had many discussions on this. We hire murders.
I don't pretend. I don't pretend that with the largest military budget ever that we won't kill at will. Nobody can touch us, right. No American life is loss. I don't pretend that we haven't killed to get our paid politicians elected in foreign counties. I don't pretend that our military hasn't supplied our "enemies" with weapons.
The moment you put our military outside of our boarders, you're guaranteeing killing. We have ~85 foreign military bases. Think of the reaction of one police officer killing a civilian... Now think of your reaction if the "police officer" was a solider from Russia....
Can you at least consider that our military can make us less safe?
"How did you do it?" I asked.
"What? Shoot? They ain't human. They're a target."
We had many discussions on this. We hire murders.
I don't pretend. I don't pretend that with the largest military budget ever that we won't kill at will. Nobody can touch us, right. No American life is loss. I don't pretend that we haven't killed to get our paid politicians elected in foreign counties. I don't pretend that our military hasn't supplied our "enemies" with weapons.
The moment you put our military outside of our boarders, you're guaranteeing killing. We have ~85 foreign military bases. Think of the reaction of one police officer killing a civilian... Now think of your reaction if the "police officer" was a solider from Russia....
Can you at least consider that our military can make us less safe?
Bob thinks that a "Red Dawn" invasion will first capture Spring Hill. He is prepared to surrender to the concentration camp.
Let's continue to ignore the months it takes to build a force for invasion....
I get that Bob is retarded. No one military has come close to an US state border in over 200 years.
Since Bob and others are retarded, Pearl Harbor was a foreign occupied territory for almost 2 decades after it's bombing. Art of War 101, attack outposts first. But Bob thinks a war would start in he own backyard. ****ing retard.
So you think without a strong offensive military, we would not have been attacked by now on our mainland? (WWII Maybe) Furthermore, would we not be more susceptible to attack or less able to help our allies from threats?
Yeah what was I thinking. No way our enemies can kill thousands of people on American soil. Nothing to see here.
Solid argument. I expect nothingness from Fab.
Offensive weapons do very little if any thing to prevent attacks. I guess that is basically my whole point. If we only had nuclear bombs would no one attack us...?
If we only had Abombs, a 9/11 would still happen. Iraq would've still invaded Kuwait. Vietnam would still have happened.
So because I get your real question of would more attacks on us happen if we didn't spend more on military than the whole world combined? My answer is no. Absolutely no.
It's not ironic that countries who spend very little on their military have virtually no military conflicts. Now I get you can say that is bc we are policing the world. But even before the US became a super power, military conflicts didn't happen with counties who took a defensive stance.
So, basically our massive military expansion has guaranteed conflict, not deterred it. History and logic proves that is the case. No massive military has set idle for a century. At the same time, most countries have never seen a conflict much less for defense in over a century.
We spend now and justify it later.
Yeah what was I thinking. No way our enemies can kill thousands of people on American soil. Nothing to see here.
Always remember.
How dare you make a tragedy a talking point. You ****ing dick. What weapon, how much spending, and what policy could've prevented 9/11?
this was not the premise of your original post. you went on about your self proclaimed expertise on military history and strategy. then you declared that foreign policy had no place in the discussion. the fact is that you have a limited understanding of warfare and military operations despite your cursory reading of Sun Tzu, History Channel documentaries, and your challenge coin. talk about conjecture.
As far as "all I have said so far" as you put it are the facts in the simplest terms based on reality not the "if only" world that you wished we lived in. You somehow decided that I am a supporter of unchecked military spending.
At least you were able to make the connection b/w policy and funding the military in this post even though it is laced with conjecture like the existence of a strong US military has caused more wars.
At the end of the day, we have a military that is (under) funded to do what it is asked of it. I appreciate that you have come around to accept that if you want to reduce funding that you will have to ask for and expect less. good for you.
