• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do you support reducing the US military to pre-WWII levels?

Do you support reducing the military to pre-WWII levels?


  • Total voters
    41
Yes. I do not believe modern major wars will be decided by who has more in the military. We can't win that contest anyway with such countries as China. Rather, the funds should go into technology and weapons systems.
 
I think, since we're already half-way living under Communist rule, we should just roll over and let China and Russia or whoever butt-**** us into Hell.
 
I think, since we're already half-way living under Communist rule, we should just roll over and let China and Russia or whoever butt-**** us into Hell.



If anyone took over here, would they assume our debt as well?

Who in their right mind would do that? Who in their right mind would keep running up a trillion a year in debt?
 
Do you support reducing the military to pre-WWII levels?

Yes
Sort of, it needs to shrink but not that small.
No,it should stay the same
No, it should be increased
Not sure
don't care


http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/24/u...rink-army-to-pre-world-war-ii-level.html?_r=0

We certainly need a total destruction capability, the unquestionable power to eliminate any middle power and overwhelmingly more advanced technology and logistics. We must be able to enable our allies and support the UN to gain a mandate to guarantee international security. But we will have to reduce the overall costs, which is why a demonstration of the capacity to be uncompromisingly brutal is likely necessary.
 
Do you support reducing the military to pre-WWII levels?

Yes
Sort of, it needs to shrink but not that small.
No,it should stay the same
No, it should be increased
Not sure
don't care


http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/24/u...rink-army-to-pre-world-war-ii-level.html?_r=0

No - we need to logically and with careful consideration, shift things *slowly* - reversing to any 'pre something something' time is always stupid.

People seem to think that if we're not at war we can just disband the military.
 
Absolutely. When can we start with those cuts?
 
If anyone took over here, would they assume our debt as well?

Who in their right mind would do that? Who in their right mind would keep running up a trillion a year in debt?

There are several countries that don't seem to mind. Aren't we already giving China US property as collateral? Japan? Other countries that we owe?
 
Didn't Clinton reduce our military shortly before, and didn't we scramble for enough troops right after 9/11? Of course our experts will correct me if I am wrong.
 
yes. then we should rehire those same patriots to rebuild America instead of sending them into harm's way.
 
Do you support reducing the military to pre-WWII levels?

Yes
Sort of, it needs to shrink but not that small.
No,it should stay the same
No, it should be increased
Not sure
don't care


http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/24/u...rink-army-to-pre-world-war-ii-level.html?_r=0

Call me racist but our troops should be home guarding the borders!!

America having all of the bases around the world protecting other countries,
most of whom can't stand us,at her expense should be ended ASAP!!

Also the nation building needs to go as well !!!:rantoff:
 
People seem to think that if we're not at war we can just disband the military.

Maybe if we didn't have such a ridiculously large military, we wouldn't get into so many pointless and meaningless wars.
 
Yes, except I would keep up R&D and low volume production on high tech weapon systems AND I would also want VERY large reserves.

A tiny (by today's standards), extremely well equipped, full time military backed by a huge, extremely well trained, reserve force.

I do not see why this could not be achieved on even 1/2 of today's total U.S. military budget...if not less.

Of course, this would include bringing EVERY U.S. military individual home and closing every foreign military base while ending ALL military aid to every country.
 
Last edited:
Maybe if we didn't have such a ridiculously large military, we wouldn't get into so many pointless and meaningless wars.

Our military does more than 'fight people' - though, as of late, we haven't had a centralized 'focus'

That's always the problem with targeting an issue that's almost global in scope with no specific goal or concept in mind as for 'what are we going to achieve and how are we going to achieve it'

Right now our goal is to: combat terrorism . . . with leaders and members who can't agree on much of anything and don't seem to care.
 
Maybe if we didn't have such a ridiculously large military, we wouldn't get into so many pointless and meaningless wars.
The choice was really two things post WWII. Either the U.S. keeps a sizable military and intervenes on the worlds behalf in regional fights that we really have no business getting involved in, in an attempt to avoid another World War, or we do the opposite and simply draft and fight during the next world war if we are drawn into it. What has occurred is we kept a sizable and arguably oversized military but then misused that power. We really didn't need to get involved in Vietnam and other regional conflicts such as Iraq. Yet, the proper use of the military was with Schwartzkof which was decimate your enemy and get out. We should have done that in Iraq and Afghanistan - our military is not meant to build schools but meant to kill the enemy and come home. We decided that wasn't enough and that was a mistake. We got involved when we didn't need to. So now, since we cannot handle the power we wield and the rest of the world resents us for using that power - they do not deserve the protection of it. So, I'm in favor of bringing the military down to a defensive power only. Let China and Russia or whomever to fill the vacuum and see how that goes. My guess is not well.
 
Pre-WWII we did not have to aid the reconstruction of Europe, fight Communism and deter Russia, nor did we have as many military treaties around the world which requires us to place bases and strategic outposts. We did not have as much responsibility to our allies as we do not (i.e. NATO, NORAD, etc.)

We should reduce our military enough to still maintain deterrence. The problem is that our military is currently being used for empire building, so it is serving as much more than a deterrent, and a time when our economy is already under threat. People would not be questioning its deployment and its necessity if it were being used responsibly by our government.
 
As long as we reduce our involvement in anything and everything all over the world correspondingly, then yes, I support it.
 
I support the reduction, however, there is a but in that statement that I will explain. Downsizing the military during a period where our country is not involved in a conflict is just smart. But we have to do it smartly as well. We need to maintain a level of proficiency by retaining expirienced personnel while continuing to increase our capability. IMO the clearest road is to reduce the Army substantially.. The Navy needs to be maintained to project power and the Air Force needs to downsize in both Airframes and manning. I can only speak from the Air Force perspective because that is the branch I am employed. Many of the higher ups want to maintain the amount of A/C we have while cutting the number of personnel to support those A/C. Which is the biggest mistake we could possibly make if we are going to agree we need to cut the Air Force. What needs to happen is that we need to drastically reduce the number of A/C. If we do this, we can decrease the manning numbers. We can not simply cut people out of the AF and maintain the same number of A/C. My opinion, for what it is worth, would be to bring the F-22 back into production, produce 3-1 or 4-1 maybe even 5-1 and replace the F-15 and F-16... Keep the A-10 and ditch the F-35... That would be the solution to the problem IMO.
 
What are those levels?

At drill this evening I learned that the Guard is cutting 35,000 troops. For perspective the SD Guard has 3100 troops, so the cut is 10x the SD Guard.

The first Soldiers to be cut are E5 and below who fail the next APFT and/or are not MOSQ by the end of the year, followed by anyone flagged for hight/weight, discipline or certain medical profiles.
 
Last edited:
Our military does more than 'fight people' - though, as of late, we haven't had a centralized 'focus'

That's always the problem with targeting an issue that's almost global in scope with no specific goal or concept in mind as for 'what are we going to achieve and how are we going to achieve it'

Right now our goal is to: combat terrorism . . . with leaders and members who can't agree on much of anything and don't seem to care.

Our goal is to run around the planet, swinging our dick around, sticking our nose into other people's business, pissing them off and when they strike back at us the only way they can, we go in and blow up their country. Sure, that's a good use for the military.
 
Call me racist but our troops should be home guarding the borders!!

America having all of the bases around the world protecting other countries,
most of whom can't stand us,at her expense should be ended ASAP!!

Also the nation building needs to go as well !!!:rantoff:

When I first heard about them wanting to reduce troop levels I was saying "WTF!". But after hearing globalists talk about what China or Russia trying to expand I am beginning to think that maybe reducing troops to pre-WWII levels might not be a bad idea.The last thing I want is another American dying for some other country's citizen.And do not want my government interfering with other countries. Because sometimes it seems that when we help out a country and it comes back to later bite us in the ass. So we are damned if we do and damned if we don't.
 
No - we need to logically and with careful consideration, shift things *slowly* - reversing to any 'pre something something' time is always stupid.

People seem to think that if we're not at war we can just disband the military.
No one is talking about disbanding the military.
 
Back
Top Bottom