Military buget cut proposals would take US to 1940 troop levels.

[jdmack79]

And basically guaranteeing we would have no other choice but to resort to nuclear weapons to defend ourselves if we were required to fight off an enemy attacking from two fronts. Yeah, this is REAL smart thinking...

Sorry, I keep forgetting we should have just let Hitler run roughshod over Europe, Great Britain, and the Soviet Union, it wasn't 'our' fight anyway. What was I thinking, Hitler would have never posed a threat to the United States even though he declared war on us... Oh, the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor.

When have we faced two possible future adversaries like a China and Russia who if so inclined could attack the continental United States in a matter of minutes? Your giant island isn't so giant or isolated in today's world. BTW, when has an economic superpower never become a military superpower?

So what your saying is that we don't want to be forced into counting on our nuclear weapons, we could be attacked very quickly with nuclear weapons, and we need a huge conventional military to respond with since we shouldn't rely on nuclear weapons?

 

[firehawk1]

So what your saying is that we don't want to be forced into counting on our nuclear weapons, we could be attacked very quickly with nuclear weapons, and we need a huge conventional military to respond with since we shouldn't rely on nuclear weapons?

So what you're saying is we and the world would be much safer if the United States possessed a small conventional military force unable to respond in time or numbers to a threat(s)? The sign of, or actual weakness invites aggression. Just one of many reasons Obama is so dangerous.

 

[9mmfan]

But Obummer's not dangerous. Some of INGO's very own will tell you so. The ISIS fools are just laughing their collective asses off at us.

 

[AA&E]

Why is it that we need multi billion dollar ships, 10s of million dollar aircraft and a million soldiers standing at the ready?

Who is this vague boogeyman we are supposed to be ready to fight all the time? And why would they want to go to war with us again?

Stop the standing army and go to a Swiss type system that has kept them free, neutral and mostly happy for almost 800 years. In fact Switzerland was one of the templates our Founders used when designing our governmental system. Decentralized government, a militia, and a neutral stance towards the BS in the rest of the world.

Sounds like just the ticket for a long and happy existence.

Seriously? No offense intended here... but.. We've far too many enemies to take such a simplistic approach today. The swiss have a historical policy of neutrality that has shielded them largely from the current terrorist threat and enemy aggressions in the past. You read the news? Vague boogeymen? Putin is a genuine threat, without a deterrent force we could be another Ukraine expansion conquest. China is always a threat. Islamic extremists, threat. North Korea, threat. This world isn't a warm fuzzy place where we can put all the **** that goes boom away and let our guard down.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Sorry, I keep forgetting we should have just let Hitler run roughshod over Europe, Great Britain, and the Soviet Union, it wasn't 'our' fight anyway. What was I thinking, Hitler would have never posed a threat to the United States even though he declared war on us... Oh, the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor.

When have we faced two possible future adversaries like a China and Russia who if so inclined could attack the continental United States in a matter of minutes? Your giant island isn't so giant or isolated in today's world. BTW, when has an economic superpower never become a military superpower?

With the ideas of what some consider a friend or ally and what that means, who the heck would need an enemy.

China and Russia aligning to attack the United States? Yeah, not so much. Their relations aren't that warm. The military should be funded based on realistic threats, of which a constant reassessment would be required. If it becomes apparent that there's a rising threat, then the nation should make moves to potentially address that threat.

We really need to stop with this fantasy stuff. We DO have nuclear weapons, and if Russia and China ever did simultaneously attack us, domestically, I don't there's a military strategist, on the planet that would say we wouldn't have a nuclear response. But what's the logic behind either one of the nation's attacking us? We have a massive debt to China. Kill the borrower, and you lose your money... while at the same time, plunging yourself into financial ruin (there's probably a pretty high price tag on invading the continental United States). As someone else said, China is winning the peace, so why go to war?

As for Russia, they're so paranoid, that it's very difficult to envision them putting forth the man and machinery, of war, to implement a U.S. invasion. The manpower needed would be difficult to comprehend. But let's say they could pull it off, do they expect European NATO members to do nothing? Even if NATO failed to act, that doesn't mean the Russians wouldn't have to take into consideration the possibility that the would. Russia wouldn't leave it's flanks open like that. And truth be told, if they did, Germany, Poland, and the UK would immediately join the fight. IMO.

 

[Birds Away]

This thread would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad.

 

[Baditude]

What percentage of the US defense budget is dedicated to protecting our 'allies'? Their costs are artificially low because our spending is so high. Not that they need 'protection' any more.

This is the truth

 

[Kutnupe14]

This is the truth

Theyre supposed to spent what 2% of their GDP? Europe doesn't pull their weight. U.K., Greece and Estonia are the only ones at, or above 2%.

How much NATO member spends on military in 2014 - Business Insider

NATO's Military Decline - WSJ