• 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
Jerry said:
What are those levels?
Click to expand...

In 1939 the General Staff of the Army held an enormous set of war games all over the southern US from Georgia to Texas.

During these excercises most of the field artillery men had to make do with 2x4s placed on saw horses to simulate howitzers.Tankers had automobiles to simulate tanks and some were even running around on foot. No one had blanks and explosions were often simulated by bags of flour which were tossed to burst on the ground.

The other branches of the military had similar poverty stories.

The military beast needs to be shrunk in many ways but it has to be done smart. We need more teeth than tail ( we have the opposite now ) and less waste. The waste part is difficult because no one cares until a sensational news piece is done in the media. Such as an expose of the military paying $70.00 for a hammer or whatever. Much of the waste is not covered by media which has other things to do. An example is the remaining staff in Europe. During the cold war we had several divisions and brigades of combat troops in Germany. When the cold war ended most of them were deactivated and withdrawn. Strangely however the homes and headquarters for the various generals who commanded those units are still in use. Generals who once led units in Germany now have various staff jobs in Germany where they still get to enjoy the perks of being stationed in Germany. Yet most of the troops are gone. The few remaining troops now not only have to be trained for war but have to answer to all of these various staff officers with complex job descriptions who need to run around looking as though they are doing something by holding inspections and excercises etc.

Shrinking the military in a smart way requires one basic thing which is a clear and strict definition of what the military is meant for and used for. Part of the reason for such a bloated budget and size is that we constantly call on them to do anything and everything. As long as we keep relying on the military for every mission we can dream up every other year they will need an enormous budget.

I personally would like to see a new branch created. Remove all of the cargo/transport aircraft from the Air force and the other branches. All of the transport ships of the Navy and all of the truck and transport vehicles of the army and create a US logistics command. It's mission would be to move the military where ever needed by the most effecient means possible. I would compensate by removing ICBMS completely as time permits and relying on the Navy to provide strategic nuclear defense with it's subs. The Airforce could then be folded back into the Army where they came from in the first place. We could also deactivate 3 divisions of the Army and put the Marines onder the Armies command. In order to protect the traditions and es - spirit of the marine corps simply give individuals the choice of joining those divisions for life.

There are many other ideas the ones i mentioned aren't even mine but were mentioned in a war college paper. Other ideas may work also
 
WCH said:
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?
Click to expand...



Collateral id not really a gift. Even if the intent is to forfeit the collateral in lieu of payment, that is not a gift.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
I was being facetious - but I've seen it proposed.
Click to expand...

I've seen forced deportation of black people back to Africa proposed but that doesn't mean it's something worthy of discussion as if it's a real policy.
 
Deuce said:
I've seen forced deportation of black people back to Africa proposed but that doesn't mean it's something worthy of discussion as if it's a real policy.
Click to expand...

Facetious isn't being serious.

- Nevermind.
 
To those that replied yes, why did you? The first responsibility of the U.S. Federal Government is to protect our borders, our Country, our citizens. We need a force larger then all other Countries in order to protect us from attack by other Countries with large forces. Specifically, China, Northern Korea, Russia and so on.

We should not cut our forces which among other things will increase the number of our unemployed but leave us vunerable to attack. Instead, we should cut our financial assistance to Countries that are potential enemies or support our potential enemies. I am not claiming to be a scholar when it comes to foreign policy, etc. But it seems to me that keeping a viable force should be are first priority.
 
fedupwithgov said:
To those that replied yes, why did you? The first responsibility of the U.S. Federal Government is to protect our borders, our Country, our citizens. We need a force larger then all other Countries in order to protect us from attack by other Countries with large forces. Specifically, China, Northern Korea, Russia and so on.

We should not cut our forces which among other things will increase the number of our unemployed but leave us vunerable to attack. Instead, we should cut our financial assistance to Countries that are potential enemies or support our potential enemies. I am not claiming to be a scholar when it comes to foreign policy, etc. But it seems to me that keeping a viable force should be are first priority.
Click to expand...

Our force should be large enough to defend our country, not to defend and wage war in other countries. The lives of American citizens are worth more than Koreans, Chinese,Ukrainians and other people.We should not waste American lives and resources in those countries.

We should all foreign aid.
 
Helix said:
yes. then we should rehire those same patriots to rebuild America instead of sending them into harm's way.
Click to expand...

It's a good idea to use those members to restore our infrastructure, but the infrastructure industry doesn't have as many lobbyist as defense contractors.
 
reinoe said:
It's a good idea to use those members to restore our infrastructure, but the infrastructure industry doesn't have as many lobbyist as defense contractors.
Click to expand...

yeah, but it has a lot of people who are pretty tired of the status quo.
 
When it comes to our military size you lefties are clueless.
 
There's more wealth, power, and security in alliances than without them. That makes the choice over whether to have allies or not sort of easy from a utilitarian perspective, which is (and generally has to be) the deciding factor in creating policy.

That's not to say the United States hasn't been foolish or reckless. If the United States needed to be a hegemony at the end of WWII to stop the Soviets from taking over everything, we should have eased into a position of equality afterwards so there was less singular pressure to make things work out for the rest of the world. For whatever reason, our leadership in Washington became addicted to the sort of hegemony where other countries walked in lockstep with us and couldn't function once this adherence began to disappear.

The other great power that took responsibility for making things work out was Athens, and they exacted heavy taxation from their allies for the service.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom