Military question

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

How BIG a military does the modern United States need? Does it really need such a large and powerful force which suckes up so much funding? Could that funding effectively be put to use somewhere else?

I know we have wars, and we have "nations" to protect, but what if we just left it up to themselves to protect themsleves?

From what I have read, many authors say it is nearly impossible to attack the United States directly by military force, and due to the world economy and global society, no major developed nation woudl go to war with each other. So why does the nation need a big army? To defend against third world nations?

If so (dont know if its true or not) cannot the United States decrease its military spending in combination with increased foreign spending?

Put the funds to social programs and education?

[MKSheppard]

Moron. 3.5% of the GDP is not "big"

[beyond hope]

Without the threat of war with the US involved, just how long do you think Taiwan would remain independant from the mainland?

[Seggybop]

Taiwan doesn't need the US to defend them. They already have a better navy than China. Not like it's even definite that the US would aid them at this point anyway.

[beyond hope]

There's more to it than just the navies, such as the massive numbers of ballistic missiles being emplaced on the facing shore.

[Lonestar]

How BIG a military does the modern United States need? Does it really need such a large and powerful force which suckes up so much funding? Could that funding effectively be put to use somewhere else?

I know we have wars, and we have "nations" to protect, but what if we just left it up to themselves to protect themsleves?

From what I have read, many authors say it is nearly impossible to attack the United States directly by military force, and due to the world economy and global society, no major developed nation woudl go to war with each other. So why does the nation need a big army? To defend against third world nations?

If so (dont know if its true or not) cannot the United States decrease its military spending in combination with increased foreign spending?

Put the funds to social programs and education?

Countries don't listen to us because we have a big economy, countries listen to us because we can park more airpower than most airforces off of damn near any country in less than 24 hrs.

What, you think the Middleastern States would play nice if we vacated the Gulf? How long do you think it would take before someone like Iran grabs the world's oil by tha balls?

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Moron. 3.5% of the GDP is not "big"

which was stated to be about 9 times more than other major nations. That is to him. What is with the moron stuff anyway? I asked if it were true, not if I were stupid or not ya know.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Moron. 3.5% of the GDP is not "big"

Other sources say the GDP is 4%, not 3.5. ANYWAY, that is irrelevant, since I nevers said it wasn't. I said why does the united states need such a BIG miltary? Will you say it isn't big?

http://www.grscotland.net/ESF/disorder.htm+

The first $75 billion is just a downpayment. Expect to pay hundreds of billions in the short-term, trillions in the long run. Expect it to come out of your schools, your police forces, your highways, your future and your children’s future

WHy is so much needed? Whom do you fear in a modern society?

[Knife]

How BIG a military does the modern United States need? Does it really need such a large and powerful force which suckes up so much funding? Could that funding effectively be put to use somewhere else?

Actually, I think we have about the right size. Roughly 1 million, with reserves and National Guardsmen all included. Funding wise, well thats kind of tricky right now with two theaters of operations going on and alot of $ being spent on it.

I know we have wars, and we have "nations" to protect, but what if we just left it up to themselves to protect themsleves?

It'ld just give them another reason to be pissed off at us.

From what I have read, many authors say it is nearly impossible to attack the United States directly by military force, and due to the world economy and global society, no major developed nation woudl go to war with each other. So why does the nation need a big army? To defend against third world nations?

While the logistics of attacking America is some what daunting, I don't believe those who would say that nobody would go to war against a 'new' or 'modern' or 'first world' power. People have been saying that since the dawn of time and yet war remains a tenent in human nature.

If so (dont know if its true or not) cannot the United States decrease its military spending in combination with increased foreign spending?

Put the funds to social programs and education?

Actually if you look at the numbers, over half of the federal budget goes to Social Security and Medicare (Budget of 2001, IIRC) and is probably more today with the new perscription program. In all honesty, we throw too much money at social programs with too little oversight. The same for education. Funding for education does nothing but increase and our schools just keep getting worse.

Money, I think, is not the key there. At least not at this level.

So in a country of ~300 million, about 1 million (less than 1%) are in the military. Not an overly huge military. And a little less than half of the budget is spent on national security (military and other security spending) and alot less if you are talking straight military funding and not other defense spending.

[Trytostaydead]

Moron. 3.5% of the GDP is not "big"

Eeer.. it is quite big. You're measuring it against the GDP. But for next year, the 2005 discretionary budget for the military is going to be $401.7 billion and you just know it's not going to stay that way. For 2005, the slated TOTAL discretionary budget it 818 billion dollars. You're talking about 50% of the Federal Budget.

But to the OP's question. Yes, we need the military. First of all, democracy, as much as we would like to believe, does not run on goodwill and cookies. Freedom usually comes from the barrel of a gun, no.. has always come from a barrel of a gun and it's the gun that keeps it that way.

Secondly, historically.. it's pretty much always been the military, their technology and esprit de corps that maintains a nations soverignty and prestige in the world.

Following it's prestige are its influences. Which is important considering we're a capitalist society and require favorable markets. If a country considers us inconsequential, that's not good. Look at what Britain did to China and how it got favorable trade concessions. Then look at how we get cheap bananas. Once again, historical trends. While we might be a "liberated" nation, we pretty much remain so because we can fight for it.

Thirdly, and perhaps importantly for a society such as ours, military applications of technology is what makes the world go round. Military expenditures on research usually finds its way into the civilian sector, not to mention the money as well. The US has a very strong military-orientated economy with current trends shifting towards the biotech market.

Fourthly, a large military is required to maintain US presence in our places of interests either economically, politically or strategic locations. Our goal is not to stop an attack from reach our homeland, but to stop it before it even gets here. Plus, our military is also used as a kind of bargaining chip as well. Give us this, we'll sell you some military hardware and give you advisors.. etc, etc.

Fifth, our military is just badass and I'd like to keep it that way.

..you have to wonder whether or not though the US is heading towards a technological plateau? Historically when great nations and empires did that, usually through bureacratic thrift and complacency, those empires and nations fell to someone better or internal implosion. These days, it takes decades to field a new piece of equipment.. and even after decades of research they could still get axed.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Thanks. That helped. I didn't know if what they were saying was true, since I didn't have anything to put it against, and that is part of the HIstory curriculum at my college.

Most people here told me to listen to my professors when I first posted on the bias issue. Seems like every time I do...its wrong.

Secondly, historically.. it's pretty much always been the military, their technology and esprit de corps that maintains a nations soverignty and prestige in the world.

I agree too, but since we learned a deal about the international economy..what could a major nation do to another without harming its own economy? For example..I read in my history book that Canada, more or less, relies on the United States. European nations are ever increasingly using the same currency, and the economic web is getting so tight, that war would devastate them all. The United States was also said to be one of the worlds largest importers of European products (dont know if its true). But, we learned it, so I have to believe it.

Thirdly, and perhaps importantly for a society such as ours, military applications of technology is what makes the world go round. Military expenditures on research usually finds its way into the civilian sector, not to mention the money as well. The US has a very strong military-orientated economy with current trends shifting towards the biotech market.

I can see the benefit of R&D yes. THat they didn't cover, but its good.

Fourthly, a large military is required to maintain US presence in our places of interests either economically, politically or strategic locations. Our goal is not to stop an attack from reach our homeland, but to stop it before it even gets here. Plus, our military is also used as a kind of bargaining chip as well. Give us this, we'll sell you some military hardware and give you advisors.. etc, etc.

I can understand this, yes. But how do other nations get along without a military so cumbersom? Don't they want to protect their strategic resources?

..you have to wonder whether or not though the US is heading towards a technological plateau? Historically when great nations and empires did that, usually through bureacratic thrift and complacency, those empires and nations fell to someone better or internal implosion. These days, it takes decades to field a new piece of equipment.. and even after decades of research they could still get axed.

I am just worried that nations say American Education is so poor and lacking, that we are spending money on things that cou'd be downsized and still survive.

I never said a military was not needed, just the same military. Having a "bad ass" military creates its own problems. You have to fund it, people hate you for it, terrorism, militarism increases tensions. I don't know, from what I have read here on Nation vs Nation threads, even the weak nations do pretty well w/out it.

Actually if you look at the numbers, over half of the federal budget goes to Social Security and Medicare (Budget of 2001, IIRC) and is probably more today with the new perscription program. In all honesty, we throw too much money at social programs with too little oversight. The same for education. Funding for education does nothing but increase and our schools just keep getting worse. [/quote

Then why are school so poor, or so they say? My highschool couldn't, for some reason, afford computers and books for everyone, so they had to photo copy stuff.

1. Social security. Don't people pay social security themselves through wages? I don't know.

2. Education. Maybe if they stop wasting the money on programs and activities, we wouldn't have that problem. What do you think? Instead of buying books, they built a new GYM! I bet the money would work if they got someone to intelligently use the funds.

Not an overly huge military

WHy the fuck do so many history courses and poly sci courses I have taken focus on the UBER military machine of doom we have, if it is so small? They say how expensive it is? What the hell...? Why are these people lying to students? How can our budget by higher than the nearest 9 major nations combined if it's that small....something IS wrong with the education system, since teachers seem to be lying.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Eeer.. it is quite big. You're measuring it against the GDP. But for next year, the 2005 discretionary budget for the military is going to be $401.7 billion and you just know it's not going to stay that way. For 2005, the slated TOTAL discretionary budget it 818 billion dollars. You're talking about 50% of the Federal Budget.

This is the same thing that our book said, in more or less words. That sounds damn big.

[Trytostaydead]

I agree too, but since we learned a deal about the international economy..what could a major nation do to another without harming its own economy? For example..I read in my history book that Canada, more or less, relies on the United States. European nations are ever increasingly using the same currency, and the economic web is getting so tight, that war would devastate them all. The United States was also said to be one of the worlds largest importers of European products (dont know if its true). But, we learned it, so I have to believe it.

An interesting question that has been asked and never answered. To look at that, the best way to do it would be the compare Germany and England before the onset of WWI. Both sides were the crown jewels of the international market and both sides were HEAVILY invested in each other. Yet they went to war, one of the chief reasons being economic-associated reasons. Just food for thought..

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Seems very odd, yes. I think the situation would be even multiplied today though. Oh well. It's impossible to tell if there will be a war, just an large concensus of teaching is the opposite.

I guess it's kinda how there will be no more world wars. (speculative)

[CelesKnight]

I agree too, but since we learned a deal about the international economy..what could a major nation do to another without harming its own economy?

Depending on the war, the harm could be short-term. If Nation A spends $1 trillion to conquer Nation B, but then gets to loot $1 trillion a year from Nation B, Nation A clearly comes out ahead.

I can understand this, yes. But how do other nations get along without a military so cumbersom? Don't they want to protect their strategic resources?

Some other nations can get by without an effective military because the US is doing it for them. The global econemy is so interconnected that when the US protects it's strategic interests, the Europe, Japan, Canada, and a lot of other nations also benefit. Moreover, those nations don't really need a good military for their own defense because there is no way that the US would ever let them be conquered. That's not a matter of friendship, it's simply not in the US's strategic interests to let them be conquered.

Also, the purpose of the US military is not just to protect against current threats, but to prevent the existence of future threats by preventing enemies from becoming strong enough to be a serious threat. If the US suddendly disappeared, other nations would have to pick up the slack, or accept that the world has suddenly become a much more dangerous place.

Not an overly huge military

WHy the fuck do so many history courses and poly sci courses I have taken focus on the UBER military machine of doom we have, if it is so small?

Our military is not "small", but it's not huge either. Moreover, there is a difference between being huge and being uber. China has a huge military, the US has an uber military. It's uber because of our technology, our training, our econemy, our spirit, and yes, our size.

They say how expensive it is? What the hell...? Why are these people lying to students? How can our budget by higher than the nearest 9 major nations combined

Rememember that our econemy is also larger then them. The US has something to the effect of 30% of the entire world's econemy. Moreover, as mentioned above, some of those nations can rest on their butts because the US is doing the job for them.

if it's that small....something IS wrong with the education system, since teachers seem to be lying.

Not lying per se. It could be a lack of knowledge. It could be that bias. They could simply not be looking at the big picture--the military looks too big until you look at all the benefits. Or they could simply be approaching the problem differently--for instance, if someone thinks that some magical global community will protect us against threats, then the military is too large in their eyes.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Rememember that our econemy is also larger then them. The US has something to the effect of 30% of the entire world's econemy. Moreover, as mentioned above, some of those nations can rest on their butts because the US is doing the job for them.

Shouldn't nations be responsible for their own defense? I would think they are milking the USA's money spent on the its own military.

[Mr Bean]

Shouldn't nations be responsible for their own defense? I would think they are milking the USA's money spent on the its own military.

So when the indigionus peoples of Africa decided one of the other races in African has to die(IE Genocided) and then starts making good on that idea and killing thousand, you don't want us to be able to stop it?

Or if there is a country which a great many American company's depend on their exports and their nextdoor neighbor country decideds to burn the country we need to the group, you don't want us to be able to stop that

America can not survive on her own, The worlds problems are our problems
We need resources and we need markets, to get both we need peace

[PeZook]

They say how expensive it is? What the hell...? Why are these people lying to students? How can our budget by higher than the nearest 9 major nations combined

Rememember that our econemy is also larger then them. The US has something to the effect of 30% of the entire world's econemy. Moreover, as mentioned above, some of those nations can rest on their butts because the US is doing the job for them.

According to my textbook on economic integration, the US generates 21% of global GDP.

For comparison, the EU generates 19%, while Japan is only responsible for 7.7%. It's no wonder that 3.5% of US GDP means one hell of a lot of money

[HemlockGrey]

So when the indigionus peoples of Africa decided one of the other races in African has to die(IE Genocided) and then starts making good on that idea and killing thousand, you don't want us to be able to stop it?

You mean like when we sent the legions into Rwanda to crush the genocidal maniacs there? Or when we disptached troops to restore order to the Sudan?

Oh...wait, that's right, we never did that, because the United States military is used as a tool to project US influence and power across the globe. I'm not saying that it's wrong; that should be the primary goal of any military. But your post reeks of bullshit.

[CelesKnight]

Shouldn't nations be responsible for their own defense? I would think they are milking the USA's money spent on the its own military.

Both are true. However, life's not fair. The rest the first world benefits from the US spending, and there is likely nothing we can do to change that without weakening our own security. In any case, there are benefits to being a superpower.

Robert Kagan discusses why Europe has (and why it can have) a weaker military than the US in his book "Of Paradise and Power". I highly recommend it. However, keep in mind that Kagan has his own biases just like you, I, and your teachers do.

[The reason why the US does most of the First World's defense] is a product of the twentieth century, which has never been reversed, which is, objectively speaking, Europeans’ relative military weakness compared to the United States. Europe lost all of its greatest military power and global reach as a consequence of the two World Wars. They fell under a dependent strategic relationship to the United States during the Cold War.

When the Soviet Union and the threat from the east disappeared, Europeans thought that this was a holiday from strategy and now they could focus on Europe and the building of Europe. This is reflected in decreased defense budgets all across Europe. In Germany the defense budget is now heading toward 1 percent of GDP, and it may go lower, because the German economy is weak and German interest in defense spending is less than powerful.

In the best of circumstances, if the United States was the most multilateralist and generous, and if the Europeans were most eager to agree and fight with us everywhere, and we all went into the next war together, it would still be the United States which would provide 95 percent of all the military capacity in such a war.

This strategic gap, this gap in power, has an unavoidable effect on the psychology of the two sides. It is a natural human phenomenon that if you have more power, you are more likely to use it and more likely to think that it is legitimate to use it. When you have less power, you are less likely to use it and also less likely to consider it a legitimate activity.

....

A European friend of mine, who took a very critical view of what I was saying, used the old line, “When you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail.” We Americans need to recognize that there is a certain truth to that. It is also true that if you don’t have a hammer, you don’t want anything to look like a nail. This is the kind of psychological divide that is created by the structural gap that exists today and shows no signs of narrowing.

...

It doesn’t really surprise me that Canadians do not feel that they live in a Hobbesian world, because Canada enjoys almost unmeasurable security in any reasonable sense of the term.

Your question is often asked by Europeans, “You’re so powerful, so why are you so afraid?” My answer is, “We’re so worried because we’re so powerful,” by which I mean everybody knows that at the end of the day if there were a major world crisis in any part of the world, the United States will bear primary responsibility.

Quotes are from a speech given here

A larger essay is here

[Darth Wong]

The expression of US budgetary outlaws as a percentage of US GDP rather than the federal budget is a bit of a shell game. It's like comparing your monthly mortgage payments to your gross income rather than your net income, only worse.

I would say it is a testament to the vibrancy of the American economy that they can afford to blow nearly half their budget on defense spending and still have a good economy, but to a certain extent a lot of this is borrowing from the future, and they sort of need another boom to come along in order to pay for it all.

[Knife]

Then why are school so poor, or so they say? My highschool couldn't, for some reason, afford computers and books for everyone, so they had to photo copy stuff.

Understand first and foremost, that basic education is mostly funded by the states. Poorer states will have less money than richer states. The Fed does give out federal grants but they give them to the states or school board to spend (usually with strings attached).

My local elementry got a building upgrade grant by the feds (or some such thing, not sure on the official title of the grant). Could they use it buy new book, computers, up the teachers saleries? No. It was for a building upgrade of some sort. Since the school didn't really need anything of that nature, they spent it on a wall bench around the school and tore up some landscape and paved it over.

1. Social security. Don't people pay social security themselves through wages? I don't know.

SS was a pyrimid scheme. The money YOU put in isn't for you, its for the current recipients. When (not that it'll happen) its your turn to recieve benifits, the money You put in won't be there, it'll be the next generation that funds your benifits.

2. Education. Maybe if they stop wasting the money on programs and activities, we wouldn't have that problem. What do you think? Instead of buying books, they built a new GYM! I bet the money would work if they got someone to intelligently use the funds.

This is the crux of the situation. And is why I said that throwing more money at the problem won't work which is why I'm usually at threads that say "Hey lets cut out this political program that I don't like and we can cure the worlds ills."

More or less 1/2 the budget goes to social programs and 1/2 goes to national security. Really that sounds about right, though in truth both could be cut alot due to waste/fraud/abuse and taxes could be alot lower.

[CelesKnight]

According to my textbook on economic integration, the US generates 21% of global GDP.

It depends on how you measure it. If you use Purchasing Power Parity, the US GDP is ~10 trillion, and the world GDP is ~50 trillion. Without PPP, the world GDP drops to ~30 trillion while the US GDP remains at ~10 trillion. I myself have no idea which one is more accurate.

Regardless of if it's 20% or 30%, my general point remains.

For comparison, the EU generates 19%, while Japan is only responsible for 7.7%. It's no wonder that 3.5% of US GDP means one hell of a lot of money

[Mr Bean]

Oh...wait, that's right, we never did that, because the United States military is used as a tool to project US influence and power across the globe. I'm not saying that it's wrong; that should be the primary goal of any military. But your post reeks of bullshit.

Bullshit how?
Should/could and what we did are two diffrent things, I'm pointing out valid uses of our military(Prehaps we have not been using many of them)How is it bullshit to use the military to stop genocide, because we have not done it before?

[Trytostaydead]

Oh...wait, that's right, we never did that, because the United States military is used as a tool to project US influence and power across the globe. I'm not saying that it's wrong; that should be the primary goal of any military. But your post reeks of bullshit.

Bullshit how?
Should/could and what we did are two diffrent things, I'm pointing out valid uses of our military(Prehaps we have not been using many of them)How is it bullshit to use the military to stop genocide, because we have not done it before?

Both of you are right.. and wrong. Yes, the US is primarily to serve the interests of the United States, and sometimes that requires protecting someone else to serve our interests or going on a little PR campaign (Somalia). Because yeah, as hundreds of thousands died in Rwanda and it was recorded on CNN we just said, "how bad." And even WWII, yeah.. it was ultimately probably in our best interests as well to get involved.