A question for Republicans that I've had for a long time

[Bunnykid68]

Well...there was that one time, a few weeks ago.

They were still working, saw them barricading all kinds of stuff

 

[Tranquil]

Well...there was that one time, a few weeks ago.

+1

Never say never!

 

[jamil]

Well...there was that one time, a few weeks ago.

Oh, maybe he's a security guard for national monuments?

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Who, right now, poses a threat large enough to warrant a military as large as ours? This year, the US will spend as much money on the military as the next ELEVEN highest spending countries in the world. To extend on my first question, who in the next five years could pose a big enough threat that we wouldn't see coming that warrants a military the size of ours?

The Communist Chinese have approximately 2 million soldiers under arms, last I heard. They've also got on the order of 36 submarines - just bragged that their 6 ballistic missile subs could devastate the West Coast and their ICBMs could target the East Coast. The Russians have - or can field - a similar army, and also have an established ICBM capability, as well as nuclear-armed cruise missiles. The Venezuelans have a fairly large army as well.

The purpose of a military is to defend the country. Perhaps you thing that the country can best be defended from right here on US soil, but I've seen the results - 20 years on - of fighting a major war. When I was in Korea in 1974, there was still not a tree in the Western Corridor over 10 feet tall and vast areas of hills wouldn't grow vegetation at all. The only reason Germany doesn't look the same way is that we spent vast amounts of money getting them and Japan and Korea and France back on their feet economically. Why did we spend the money to station military forces in Europe and Korea and Japan for all those years. So we could give them a chance to stand up for themselves and not end up as the Germans did after WWI.

All that said, the best place to fight a war is on the other guy's territory. Since WWI we have maintained the capability to project our military power worldwide as a means of keeping our enemies at arms' length. At the end of the Vietnam War, we drastically cut our military. We delayed and cut weapons systems all through the 70s and drastically cut the size of our Navy. At the time, we still had the Soviets facing us across the Iron Curtain. After we won the Cold War, the "Peace Dividend" cut in. We again cut our military: The Army from 18 Divisions to 13; the Air Force cut whole wings of fighters and transport aircraft; the Navy started decommissioning ships again. Along came Gulf War I: we had to increase the military again, but for the Army, what we ended up doing was modernizing the National Guard so that those units could be called upon in the event of another conflict. Well before Gulf War II - (The War on Terror) there wasn't enough Air Force cargo capacity to rapidly move sufficient forces to an out-of-theater battle zone - a fact that has been exacerbated today by funding cutbacks and the retirement of the C-141 back in the early 2000s. The National Guard, which was intended to be a Reserve force for national defense, had to be pressed into service to participate in military operations overseas. Where we once had 18 Divisions, we now have fewer than 10 - in fact, we're not even measuring combat power in terms of Divisions anymore; we've downsized into modular Brigades - about 1/3 the size of a Division. We no longer have the capability to fight a major conflict in two theaters simulaneously - and our Navy and Air Force are not keeping pace with our potential enemies in combat developments. "Superior Technology" only goes so far, and at the point where a formerly "superior" weapons system is no longer sufficiently far enough advanced to overcome an enemy's superior numbers - or if we put all our eggs in one basket (can you say F-35) and the eggs don't hatch - we not only won't have "superior technology" OR sufficient numbers to overcome the deficit.

The problem with saying "we don't need a large military" and "we should just defend our borders" is that while we may not need a large military today, we could very well desperately need a large military next month and not have the trained personnel OR the infrastructure to train that military. We also don't have the manufacturing capacity that we had during WWII OR the ability to rapidly spin THAT up. It used to take two weeks to a month to get a sizable military force across the Pacific; the Russians or the Chinese could get sizable forces onto the North American continent in 36 hours with sufficient preparation.

On the other hand, as the Red Chinese and the Soviets and the Germans and the French and the British, and the Irish, and the Greeks have already learned, spending your capital on a freeloading population will only keep you in power for as long as the money holds out - and we're rapidly running out of money.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

They were still working, saw them barricading all kinds of stuff

That was for your safety.

 

[9mmfan]

Just saw this on another thread: Army chief: Just 2 brigades combat-ready | Fox News

Cut the military? Looks like "the Republicans" all ready have.

 

[Dean C.]

Don't touch my aircraft carriers!! Because diplomacy is not a pen and paper it is 100,000 tones of floating diplomacy loaded with nuclear tipped warheads.

 

[cobber]

The Communist Chinese have approximately 2 million soldiers under arms, last I heard. They've also got on the order of 36 submarines - just bragged that their 6 ballistic missile subs could devastate the West Coast and their ICBMs could target the East Coast. The Russians have - or can field - a similar army, and also have an established ICBM capability, as well as nuclear-armed cruise missiles. The Venezuelans have a fairly large army as well.

the Russians or the Chinese could get sizable forces onto the North American continent in 36 hours with sufficient preparation.

On the other hand, as the Red Chinese and the Soviets and the Germans and the French and the British, and the Irish, and the Greeks have already learned, spending your capital on a freeloading population will only keep you in power for as long as the money holds out - and we're rapidly running out of money.

Watching too much Red Dawn I and II?

FWIW, China is next door to Russia and Japan. We're next door to Canada and Mexico. The last time the US was invaded was 1812? China in 1937 by Japan, and border wars with India in 1962 and Russia in 1969. They might actually have a reason to arm themselves.

Please explain WHY Russia or China would have ANY motive to invade the US, and how even were they to move their entire armed forces (leaving their own borders unguarded, they would be able to pacify the US? (If China could move troops to the US, why haven't they already occupied Taiwan?)

Re spending money on a freeloading population, where do you get that China does anything of the kind? Under Mao, sort of, but now it's every man for himself, and the devil take the hindmost. No welfare, free meds or housing. Beef is about $10 a pound. Apartments in major cities $1000 a month. Not exactly the workers' paradise (average worker makes maybe $1000/mo.).

 

[Twangbanger]

Classic troll.

Accuses Republicans of being Drunken Sailors who like Whiskey. Says they ought to drink Vodka instead. When asked how much Vodka is enough, ignores the question while drawing Cider drinkers into the mix, who are always present and never hesitate to say so. When asked again how much Vodka is enough...throws up his troll arms and disappears. (Cider drinkers and Whiskey drinkers continue to trade Mark Twain quotes into the night...)


Good talk.

 

[88GT]

Watching too much Red Dawn I and II?

FWIW, China is next door to Russia and Japan. We're next door to Canada and Mexico. The last time the US was invaded was 1812? China in 1937 by Japan, and border wars with India in 1962 and Russia in 1969. They might actually have a reason to arm themselves.

Please explain WHY Russia or China would have ANY motive to invade the US, and how even were they to move their entire armed forces (leaving their own borders unguarded, they would be able to pacify the US? (If China could move troops to the US, why haven't they already occupied Taiwan?)

Re spending money on a freeloading population, where do you get that China does anything of the kind? Under Mao, sort of, but now it's every man for himself, and the devil take the hindmost. No welfare, free meds or housing. Beef is about $10 a pound. Apartments in major cities $1000 a month. Not exactly the workers' paradise (average worker makes maybe $1000/mo.).

Colonialism didn't die. It just fell out of favor temporarily. When the need/desire becomes greater than the consequences, you can bet we will see nations reverting back to the NORM of cross-border conquest.

 

[CarmelHP]

I disagree with the military needing to be as large as it is. We have no responsibility to be a global police force. We will soon be exiting (for the most part) Afghanistan and we are already mostly out of Iraq. It is time to downsize the military. It is unsustainable at its current size.

Why don't you tell us what level you'd be satisfied with? How about giving us a baseline, and not vague criticisms.

 

[Que]

Why don't you tell us what level you'd be satisfied with? How about giving us a baseline, and not vague criticisms.

It appears the level of satisfaction is one that will provide additional funding for other social government programs. We can't sustain the military, but we can certainly provide other support. I don't get it, but Pooty will be back pretty soon to explain.

 

[Rhoadmar]

Wow that's clever.

It fit the depth of the op.

 

[maxmayhem]

where are you getting your information....republicans are against waste aka known as welfare. We are for defense spending not war..there is a difference..get your facts first

Let me start by saying that I'm not trying to start anything. I just want to hear a Republican's explanation on the issue.

Why are Republicans so against government spending when it comes to social welfare programs, but are so willing to spend trillions on war? Or even when we aren't in a war, why are Republicans so willing to spend billions on the military during peace time?

 

[actaeon277]

Watching too much Red Dawn I and II?

FWIW, China is next door to Russia and Japan. We're next door to Canada and Mexico. The last time the US was invaded was 1812? China in 1937 by Japan, and border wars with India in 1962 and Russia in 1969. They might actually have a reason to arm themselves.

Please explain WHY Russia or China would have ANY motive to invade the US, and how even were they to move their entire armed forces (leaving their own borders unguarded, they would be able to pacify the US? (If China could move troops to the US, why haven't they already occupied Taiwan?)

Re spending money on a freeloading population, where do you get that China does anything of the kind? Under Mao, sort of, but now it's every man for himself, and the devil take the hindmost. No welfare, free meds or housing. Beef is about $10 a pound. Apartments in major cities $1000 a month. Not exactly the workers' paradise (average worker makes maybe $1000/mo.).

Your invasion dates left a little out, we had "territories" invaded in WWII, they were/are considered US. If Puerto Rico is invaded, then the US is invaded.

Why would they invade? Duh. Resources. Land, minerals, etc.
Germany invaded trading partners. Being friendly didn't seem to stop them.
Italy invaded trading partners. Being friendly didn't seem to stop them.

 

[jamil]

It fit the depth of the op.

I think you're misunderstanding the true depth of the OP. Can't you see how overwhelmingly superior are his morals?

 

[Rhoadmar]

I think you're misunderstanding the true depth of the OP. Can't you see how overwhelmingly superior are his morals?

I see too much. Been thru too much. Sometimes I tire of hagfish arguments and just need to laugh.

 

[Jack Burton]

The defense of our nation is a Constitutional mandate for Congress
Providing for some 30 year old college student activist to have free birth control pills is not.

It can't get much simpler than that if we want to hang onto our Constitutional nature as a country. Otherwise Congress becomes a "if if feels good, do it" government.

 

[24Carat]

I agree that armies have a purpose, but do we really need one as big as ours even in peace time? The US has the world's first AND second largest Air Forces. We have, what, seven aircraft carriers? Is all that really necessary?

Also, would it be so bad if some of the money spend on these wars would have been spent on medical research or tuition assistance or infrastructure or NASA? The bill for the Iraq War alone is around $1.2 trillion. If you add in estimations for long term veteran care, I've seen estimations of $6 trillion. Surely that money could be better spent elsewhere. Or better yet for fiscal conservatives, wouldn't it be nice to have a surplus for a change?

And yet, we only have two operationally equipped and ready army battalions as of todays date. Does that make you feel better? It sure doesn't make me feel protected in todays world.

 

[cobber]

Your invasion dates left a little out, we had "territories" invaded in WWII, they were/are considered US. If Puerto Rico is invaded, then the US is invaded.

Why would they invade? Duh. Resources. Land, minerals, etc.
Germany invaded trading partners. Being friendly didn't seem to stop them.
Italy invaded trading partners. Being friendly didn't seem to stop them.

Okay. Puerto Rico was invaded? Have to read more. How about, continental US territories not "liberated" from Spain in 1898, or the islands of Kiska and Attu, if that helps. (And yes, I realize you're talking about the Philippine Islands, which have since become not-US.)

As to "duh", are you seriously saying Russia and China have the same ambitions as Nazi Germany and Italy?

If so, what countries have they invaded in the last 20 years. Now, what countries has the US invaded, erm, "liberated" in the last 20 years? And we should be worried about being invaded?

Seriously. You think China or Russia would invade the US for land and/or resources? And that such a gambit would not result in their annihilation? Somehow the Italian invasion of Albania pales in comparison. At the very least the Italian army didn't have to cross the Pacific to occupy Tirane. Germany couldn't even get its army across the English Channel, and they had the most powerful army and air force at the time (and considerable naval assets for the 30 mile cruise).

I see your point. Two legs bad, four legs good. And some animals are more equal than others.