• 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!

What would you do with our defense spending?

What would you do with our defense spending?


  • Total voters
    57
can't be using nukes over small stuff. But yes, get rid of 90+ % of the military, and just leave the savings in the pockets of the people who earned it. Screw your "re-distributing it elsewhere".
 
I'd give it a big hug and put it on a big diet.
 

First your links don't really support you that well Iraq ranks 13 with the amount of guns in civilian hands. That's a pretty decent number. And secondly and more important the amount of guns has nothing to do with what I was saying I saw in those two countries. What I saw was what happens when untrained civilians with small arms goes up against a well trained and equipped military.
 
yeah, IF there's a functioning economy supporting that military. but if we have civil war here, there won't BE any economy, I promise you!
 
I'd decrease it close to 80%. The military industrial complex has eaten up enough of taxpayer money.

It was the military industrial complex that created the middle class of the 50's, 60's and 70's.

Most jobs in the military industrial complex were well paying jobs.

Then you needed all of those burger flippers to feed those working in the military industrial complex and construction workers to build the homes for those who worked in the military industrial complex.

Then you have to look who really was responsible for producing all of the new products that have been developed over the past sixty or seventy years. The military industrial complex. From the internet, that computer you're on right now, cordless tools, cell and smart phones, tubeless tires, jet commercial airliners, GPS, and the Interstate Highway System.
 
the military and spy outfit costs us 1/2 million $ each. no thanks, that's 50x what they'd cost us on unemployment. and that's all our military IS, a huge, overpaid unemployment agency. They accomplish NOTHING, while we ARE being invaded by 1 million illegals per year!
 
It was the military industrial complex that created the middle class of the 50's, 60's and 70's.

Most jobs in the military industrial complex were well paying jobs.

Then you needed all of those burger flippers to feed those working in the military industrial complex and construction workers to build the homes for those who worked in the military industrial complex.

Then you have to look who really was responsible for producing all of the new products that have been developed over the past sixty or seventy years. The military industrial complex. From the internet, that computer you're on right now, cordless tools, cell and smart phones, tubeless tires, jet commercial airliners, GPS, and the Interstate Highway System.

That is, actually, a very legitimate concern. Ok, so let's say we downside the military industrial complex drastically. Then what? Where do these people go? What do they do for jobs? "Real jobs" as someone said earlier in the thread? Phfft! Yeah, even one could define exactly what that means, it's not like those just fall off trees.
 
What would you do with our defense spending? Would you downsize it? Increase it? Leave it the same? Please explain each of your choices.

I'd slash defense spending, starting with my beloved aircraft carriers and the gargantuan logistics train required to keep them operationally effective. But there are other areas where we should maintain (or perhaps increase) spending - cyber capabilities, space control (yeah, space), and SpecOps. But the cost of these won't even come close to what we spend on our carriers.
 
That is, actually, a very legitimate concern. Ok, so let's say we downside the military industrial complex drastically. Then what? Where do these people go? What do they do for jobs? "Real jobs" as someone said earlier in the thread? Phfft! Yeah, even one could define exactly what that means, it's not like those just fall off trees.

I was just watching the business news regarding the unemployment rate and how many found a job last month. Last month over 400,000 Americans dropped out of the labor market, basically aren't collecting unemployment benefits any longer so are no longer counted by the government as being unemployed.

Libs are suppose to be pro union but they have killed so many union jobs because of their anti defense policies.

Most of those who build military aircraft at Boeing, Northrop, etc. those working in the ship yards, those manufacturing tanks truck, guns, radios, etc. are usually highly paid union members.

Palmdale California use to be desert on the western edge of the Mojave. Nothing but Mojave Green rattle snakes and coyotes. When Lockheed moved the "Skunk Works" to Palmdale, look at it today. A ****ing city materialized . Grocery stores, liquor stores, McDonald's, restaurants, Targets and Walmarts, banks, appliance stores, doctor and dentist offices, Home Depots, gas stations, and homes had to be built originally to support the Lockheed employees.

Building bridges rebuilding the infrastructure and construction jobs are all short term.
 
I'd slash defense spending, starting with my beloved aircraft carriers and the gargantuan logistics train required to keep them operationally effective. But there are other areas where we should maintain (or perhaps increase) spending - cyber capabilities, space control (yeah, space), and SpecOps. But the cost of these won't even come close to what we spend on our carriers.

What if carriers could go under water ? Obama might know something that we don't. :lol:

I would go along with deactivating four carriers and reactivating four Iowa class BB's.

At this time with the current administration :golf :joke: who doesn't know how to use the military except for liberal social engineering and has big problems with just keeping two carriers at sea, our carriers today may look like a money rat hole. But it's very likely that the next Commander in Chief will not be a :laughat: community organizer.
 
What if carriers could go under water ? Obama might know something that we don't. :lol:

I would go along with deactivating four carriers and reactivating four Iowa class BB's.

At this time with the current administration :golf :joke: who doesn't know how to use the military except for liberal social engineering and has big problems with just keeping two carriers at sea, our carriers today may look like a money rat hole. But it's very likely that the next Commander in Chief will not be a :laughat: community organizer.

1. Sending carriers underwater wouldn't do any good - they'd be too big and too noisy...and a lot more susceptible to major damage from one torpedo.

2. We'll let the BB question rest - you and I beat that particular dead horse to death, IIRC.

3. At least he knows how and when NOT to use the military, unlike a certain Republican administration (and I won't mention Dubya's name) whose only tool was the hammer of the military, and so that was at least part of his answers to all foreign policy questions.

It doesn't take a whole lot of imagination to think what a President McCain would have done had he been presented with the problems in Libya and Syria - our troops would likely be on the ground again, fighting and dying for a people who don't want us there to begin with. And if you'll remember, when it came to the Soviets - er, I mean, Russians - invading Georgia, what did Dubya do about that? What did the Right want him to do?

Not much. Not even economic sanctions.

By their actions shall ye know them, y'know?
 
why do we need ANY surface navy, or the army, or the marines, or ICBMS? ONE of our nuke missile subs has more firepower than the entire nuclear arsenal of Britian or France. Does anybody invade THEM? WE can defend the US just FINE with just the Natl guard, coast guard, subs, and the spec ops boys. if the latter can't handle something outside of our borders, just send the nukes. no biggie.

with a TRILLION $ per year saved, we can give all the laid off military and spies (1.5 million of them) 20k a year for a couple of years, and have 900 billion to the good. :)
 
Increase spending on research and funding of private companies to continue innovation, reduce the amount of active troops everywhere by probably 50%, reduce the reserve by 20%, and then bring home the other 50% active and have them act as a paramilitary police form similar to a force of gendarmes. My views however can be very Machiavellian, not sure how the people would react to fully armed soldiers walking around enforcing normal laws or students reacting to fully armed soldiers occasionally checking on schools to ensure school massacres don't become an issue (soldiers discussing with students, teachers, and then reporting to the police about its finds).

I feel that with a Military police (not MP like in the army but you get what I am saying) handling dangerous situations and doing mundane duties it allows the police (who are more knowledgeable with the law and more effective at investigating situations) to focus more on "big fish" like major drug cartels, online criminals, huge organized crime, etc. (literally putting almost all their effort into these investigations and such).

But as I said, imposing fear on your citizens, some people may not agree with me on such things (Well I don't know, I wouldn't be fearful if I saw a soldier acting like police. I kind of would like to get to know them and share a laugh here and there) and think that I would be terrorizing a population.
 
why do we need ANY surface navy, or the army, or the marines, or ICBMS? ONE of our nuke missile subs has more firepower than the entire nuclear arsenal of Britian or France. Does anybody invade THEM? WE can defend the US just FINE with just the Natl guard, coast guard, subs, and the spec ops boys. if the latter can't handle something outside of our borders, just send the nukes. no biggie.

with a TRILLION $ per year saved, we can give all the laid off military and spies (1.5 million of them) 20k a year for a couple of years, and have 900 billion to the good. :)

"Just throw a nuke"

Humanity would be extinct with that kind of logic. Yes, offense.
 
I'd cut it by at LEAST 90%. we don't need the Army, the surface navy, the air force or the Marines. we can defend the US just FINE with backpack nukes, the missile subs, the spec ops guys and the Natl'guard,

OK, now will you make up your mind?

One moment you want to put the military on the border, the next you want to disband it.

I think you really do not have any idea about anything, you simply like to jump in and argue.
 
I really dont understand why there is a question about this. We certainly need to decrease it. Were it not for all the pork we would not spend such stupid money on defesene. Our 20 year old birds are the best in the world

Really? Oh, that's fantastic. Here I thought China was building a whole bunch of 5th Gen fighters while we were cutting back our F22 and F35 purchases, but apparently our old F16s are still #1.

We still have an edge. But that edge fades rapidly with the need to project it and without continual reinvestment.

and we buy new all the time. Why is that? I think we need to bring our bases back from all over the world, reduce the standing army (not hte Marine Corps) and strengthen reserves. The only rival the US might have is if Martians invade or there is a Zombie attack. Otherwise no other cournty in the world has got anything. Our only weakness is political stupidity. But yea, Obama is a weak ally. You guys are hive minded Obama hate all the time.

The bolded is certainly correct. So long as that also covers our debt problem.






Generally speaking, we need to restructure much of our defense spending. Shift to a defined-contribution rather than a defined-benefit program, give commands incentives to spend less than they are allocated, and use the savings to bulk up the Navy, which we desperately need to continue to secure the sea lanes that give us our first-world lifestyle.
 
Back
Top Bottom