Twelve not allowed angry mutants

Well, we do have ten carrier BATTLEGROUPS. Which is the carrier, destroyer, cruiser, subs, etc.

Those foreign bases don't pay for themselves.

Bribe money so other countries ALLOW us to put bases on their soil, see Kyrgystan I think.

Continuous R&D. How else we going to get energy weapons?

EXOSKELETONS.....then.......POWA ARMA.

Funding for exotic projects, that may or may not work.

Paying to get stealth tech first and be ahead of the game.

Waste.

Employment.

Etc.
 
Last edited:
Thing is most countries only focus on defending their own territory, and limit their area of influence to places near their territory, one or two specific nations, etc. But if you want to be the world's police then you have to put down that kind of dough, I mean, US area of influence is the entire world nowadays, and all those military bases ain't gonna keep themselves. One might also consider expenditures on political lobbying (*cough* corruption).

That or the US is fighting in a galactic war that we know nothing about. I mean, those super star destroyers must be expensive ;)
 
Last edited:
I've read a thread on reddit discussing the huge US military budget and why not just use that money on space and science. A few posters wrote interesting, lengthy replies, detailing how these military programs are planned out and budgeted decades in advance, you also have development teams, personnel, that have a huge amount of experience and if you cut them, all that knowledge is lost and next project will have to begin from scratch. So basically cutting the military budget willy nilly would actually cost more in the long run.

I have no idea if it works that way, but it sounds logical to me.
 
So basically what you are saying is that the USA created this huge monster of expenditure, lets call it " military industrial complex", that started during WW2 and was blown out of proportion during the Cold War and now basically all this money is spent keeping this monster alive in case they might need it again in the future?

Yup, that's sounds about right.

A necessary monster, but also one to be kept in check.
 
Last edited:
Gonzalez said:
So basically what you are saying is that the USA created this huge monster of expenditure, lets call it " military industrial complex", that started during WW2 and was blown out of proportion during the Cold War and now basically all this money is spent keeping this monster alive in case they might need it again in the future?

Yup, that's sounds about right.

A necessary monster, but also one to be kept in check.
Click to expand...

It's not my claim, but the point being that everything is set up in a way that cannot be reduced here and now without heavy consequences. It needs to be done in the long run, step by step.

Though in a way it's not as big as a problem as it might seem, because the military budget of USA is about 3.5-3% of its GDP - which is high, but not even in the top 5.
 


Eisenhower, by far not a perfect politician or human beeing, actually feared the US would one day get a president who doesn't know the miliary as well as he did.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
America keeps on increasing it's military and for what? To wage war on some foreign threat like Russia? That's going to nukes way too fast, basically the countries America's force would be useful on have missiles. The rest are just too weak.
 
The Dopamine Cleric said:
On top of what?
Click to expand...

A more peacefull world of course.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/22/world-less-violent-stats_n_1026723.html

It is a known fact! The more peacefull the world becomes and less wars you have around the world the more soldiers and military you need. I mean com on, that one is quite obvious! :V

I mean yeah! You have to kinda fuck up your own economy, ignore social issues, cut on education and infrastructure, but hey! You have to make sacrifices!

*Edit
Who really thinks that the world needs a military of such vast proportions like the NATO and the US display, is pretty delusional, sorry. And he/she just falls in the trap of media coverage which is focused around what's horrorible, because that generates viewers and clicks. Evening news with "everything is alright and the world is more peacefull than ever" would be boring for the typical citizen.
 
Last edited:
Crni Vuk said:
The Dopamine Cleric said:
On top of what?
Click to expand...

A more peacefull world of course.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/22/world-less-violent-stats_n_1026723.html

It is a known fact! The more peacefull the world becomes and less wars you have around the world the more soldiers and military you need. I mean com on, that one is quite obvious! :V

I mean yeah! You have to kinda fuck up your own economy, ignore social issues, cut on education and infrastructure, but hey! You have to make sacrifices!

*Edit
Who really thinks that the world needs a military of such vast proportions like the NATO and the US display, is pretty delusional, sorry. And he/she just falls in the trap of media coverage which is focused around what's horrorible, because that generates viewers and clicks. Evening news with "everything is alright and the world is more peacefull than ever" would be boring for the typical citizen.
Click to expand...

For once, I agree with Crni. The US needs to stop "helping" everyone, especially when they don't want to be helped. A powerful military? Sure. A world-policing military? No.
 
Sure, we will essentially abandon our allies like Taiwan and S. Korea.

Good thing we can trust the N. Koreans not to go batshit on S. Korea the minute we are out.

We might as well trust the chinese to not blow up Taiwan as soon as we leave, Japan too.

And our euro brothers, they will finally be the responsible global policeman instead of outsourcing the job.

Yup, if it, wasn't for the west/NATO, the whole world would play nice.

A foreign country wants to devolve into civil war, oppress their own people, deny their own people rights, not our problem. We hqve no right to change hwo their government works.

Personally, the ostritch is not my favorite animal.
 
Last edited:
You know, it's quite funny that with the idea of democratic thought and liberty, we kick ourselves in the ass when we militarize when if we didn't, the rest of the world would be to busy enjoying our technology and pornography and white women to really care about crushing the imperialist capitalists.


What brought down the Berlin Wall?




1258763330945.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
DarkCorp said:
Sure, we will essentially abandon our allies like Taiwan and S. Korea.

Good thing we can trust the N. Koreans not to go batshit on S. Korea the minute we are out.

We might as well trust the chinese to not blow up Taiwan as soon as we leave, Japan too.

And our euro brothers, they will finally be the responsible global policeman instead of outsourcing the job.

Yup, if it, wasn't for the west/NATO, the whole world would play nice.

A foreign country wants to devolve into civil war, oppress their own people, deny their own people rights, not our problem. We hqve no right to change hwo their government works.

Personally, the ostritch is not my favorite animal.
Click to expand...

Oh please not this garbage again ... can't you really agree on ANYTHING here? Is it so hard to be at least ONCE critical about something.

Your precious government spends 700 billion dollar on a defence budged that is not used to actually defend your oh so defenceless allies but to make the share holders of the likes of Lockheat, Northrop, and the other countless defence contractors happy. And all of that in a situation when you are AT THE SAME TIME looking at the biggest financial deficit in US history a huge national debt, with an ailing infrastructure, a costly, outdated, and ineffective education system and questionable health care system. I am curious, how much of a world police do you want to be when you have more and more trouble to maintain your own economy and while you see your nation becoming a militaristic powerhouse. Do you know what destroyed the Roman empire by the way? It's own size.

I am pretty sure that you could defend your so called allies also with less than 700 billion per year spend on the biggest military machine this planet has ever seen ... you don't need the biggest tank army in the world and 750 000 men at arms to deploy a few radar shields and to maintain an effective fight force and some counter inteligence.

You can succesfully defend your self with just a fraction of those troops and resources. Simply because Defending by nature is ALWAYS easier than ATTACKING, contrary to popular believ. Both the US and Brits made studies based on experiences in WW2 and they deduced that to succesfully attack and take a prepared positions you need an advantage between 1,2 and 1,4, it was similar for the Germans.

If you're honest with your self, what the US is maintaining right now, is a force that is constantly ready to act preventively NOT defensively. Those are most if not all of the military actions that we saw after ww2. When was the last time the US started a war out of defence? Like if someone directly attacked them. If you would say Vietnam, you would be wrong. The last time an agressor DIRECTLY and AGRESSIVELY attacked the US in their OWN teritory was with the Empire of Japan and Nazi Germany during WW2!. Remember, Pearl Harbor? But it was not the only incident. Those have been the only nations that ever lunched direct attacks on US soil and military personal. No other nation did anything like that after WW2 leave alone in modern times, because they ALL know what kind of answer to expect!

No one with a sane mind can really believe that a military structure of such vast proportions is in any way shape or form justifable to the current situation in the world.
 
Last edited:
Crni Vuk said:
DarkCorp said:
Sure, we will essentially abandon our allies like Taiwan and S. Korea.

Good thing we can trust the N. Koreans not to go batshit on S. Korea the minute we are out.

We might as well trust the chinese to not blow up Taiwan as soon as we leave, Japan too.

And our euro brothers, they will finally be the responsible global policeman instead of outsourcing the job.

Yup, if it, wasn't for the west/NATO, the whole world would play nice.

A foreign country wants to devolve into civil war, oppress their own people, deny their own people rights, not our problem. We hqve no right to change hwo their government works.

Personally, the ostritch is not my favorite animal.
Click to expand...

Oh please not this garbage again ... can't you really agree on ANYTHING here? Is it so hard to be at least ONCE critical about something.

Your precious government spends 700 billion dollar on a defence budged that is not used to actually defend your oh so defenceless allies but to make the share holders of the likes of Lockheat, Northrop, and the other countless defence contractors happy. And all of that in a situation when you are AT THE SAME TIME looking at the biggest financial deficit in US history a huge national debt, with an ailing infrastructure, a costly, outdated, and ineffective education system and questionable health care system. I am curious, how much of a world police do you want to be when you have more and more trouble to maintain your own economy and while you see your nation becoming a militaristic powerhouse. Do you know what destroyed the Roman empire by the way? It's own size.

I am pretty sure that you could defend your so called allies also with less than 700 billion per year spend on the biggest military machine this planet has ever seen ... you don't need the biggest tank army in the world and 750 000 men at arms to deploy a few radar shields and to maintain an effective fight force and some counter inteligence.

You can succesfully defend your self with just a fraction of those troops and resources. Simply because Defending by nature is ALWAYS easier than ATTACKING, contrary to popular believ. Both the US and Brits made studies based on experiences in WW2 and they deduced that to succesfully attack and take a prepared positions you need an advantage between 1,2 and 1,4, it was similar for the Germans.

If you're honest with your self, what the US is maintaining right now, is a force that is constantly ready to act preventively NOT defensively. Those are most if not all of the military actions that we saw after ww2. When was the last time the US started a war out of defence? Like if someone directly attacked them. If you would say Vietnam, you would be wrong. The last time an agressor DIRECTLY and AGRESSIVELY attacked the US in their OWN teritory was with the Empire of Japan and Nazi Germany during WW2!. Remember, Pearl Harbor? But it was not the only incident. Those have been the only nations that ever lunched direct attacks on US soil and military personal. No other nation did anything like that after WW2 leave alone in modern times, because they ALL know what kind of answer to expect!

No one with a sane mind can really believe that a military structure of such vast proportions is in any way shape or form justifable to the current situation in the world.
Click to expand...

While I agree with most points, it can be argued that 9/11 was a foreign attack on US soil. Unfortunately, we went after the wrong people in retaliation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top