• 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!

A Strong Military?

Strong Military? Cost and Purpose?

  • Over 50% GDP

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 30%-50% GDP

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Regional Stabilization and Force Projection

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No Military

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    13

Ethereal

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 17, 2005
Messages
8,211
Reaction score
4,179
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I hear the term "strong military" thrown around quite often. Many Americans, both left and right, are usually inclined towards having a "strong military" but I think everyone simply assumes its meaning and never analyzes the specifics of such a term.

So, what is a strong military? What are its functions (primary, secondary, etc.)? How much money should we spend on it?

Some info:

The defense budget for FY of 2008 was $481.4 billion [1], which is about 3.4% of GDP ($14.62 trillion [2]), as opposed to welfare spending (Medicare, Medicaide, SS, Unemployment, totaling $1.5 trillion [3]) which accounted for roughly 10.7% of GDP.

This means, as a percentage of GDP, Americans spend a little over three times as much on welfare as we do discretionary defense spending. Just food for thought...:)

[1] - http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy08/pdf/budget/defense.pdf

[2] - Report for Selected Countries and Subjects

[3] - 2008 United States federal budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
So, what is a strong military?

Lots of highly trained combat arms troops,not just support.
Lots of state of the art weapons that those combat troops use.
The most powerful weapons in the military arsenal readily available for use.
A military that finished the job it started.For example if our troops go to war they do not leave until it is finished,this gives the perception that the US is not the strong guy with a glass jaw.
 
I think our spending is about right. I think the government should negotiate better deals with contractors, but the level of spending is necessary to keep us ahead of the world. As far as a strong military, I think our military is strong when enlistment numbers are up, the soldiers have what they need, and our technology and weapons are the best or at least current.
 
My definition of a strong military is a military that can counter any reasonable threat to our country.

How much should we spend? As much as it takes to achieve my definition of a strong military.

I also think we should cut all forms of welfare and cushion programs.
 
Strong is a relative term.
 
A strong military? One that can protect my country and counter any threat

I think military spending should be raised dramatically in UK, No way near the same level as US but if higher taxes are needed to achieve that then fair enough

I would say right now UK has a 'weak' military - Something that needs to be addressed by the next Government
 
Last edited:
Your spending in percentage terms of GDP- how has it differed from pre Iraq/Afghanistan? I have inserted a graph further down.

I would suggest it would depend on a countries GDP as to how much should be spent on the Military. And, there global position, in geographical and geopolitical terms.

Paul
 
Last edited:
A strong military is what we have- the kind of military that, if it were so inclined, could wreak destruction on all of our current enemies without the need for nukes. It's a military that can repel any invasion- which we have. We have far and away the strongest navy and air force in the world, and our ground vehicles are also dominant. Our Marines and Navy SEALs are at the very least among the greatest individual soldiers on earth.

If we don't have a strong military, no one does. We do, and we still would if we spent half as much, or a third as much, on it (not that I suggest taking such measures). It's going to be decades before China can even begin to compete with our head start.
 
The US military exists to preserve the integrity of the nation from invaders and the navy serves the additional function of maintaining the freedom of the seas, for we are a great maritime nation and can't afford to have our overseas commerce interrupted by petty dictators interfering with our shipping.

What it costs to achieve this goal is the price it is. No point in trying to hang some ridiculous "percent of GDP" price on it.
 
country-distribution-2008.jpg

An interesting comparison.

And how its increased

us-spending-2000-2010.jpg

Paul
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom