Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-23-2011, 08:13 AM
 
15,706 posts, read 11,787,189 times
Reputation: 7020

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero View Post
my numbers were a little old

but the fact is still its only 4% of our GDP....we spend more on welfare than that
It's still an astronimical expense that's entirely unneeded. I don't know why the GDP ratio is relevant. A very large chunk of our debt is due to our defense spending, particularly in Iraq and Afghanistan. Clearly we can't afford having 43% of the world's military power, nor is there a need for it.

Why do we still need expensive military bases in Germany for example? We have more military bases spread out over the world than any other country. Those bases are VERY expensive to continue to operate.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-23-2011, 08:18 AM
 
Location: Long Island
32,816 posts, read 19,508,953 times
Reputation: 9619
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiyero View Post
It's still an astronimical expense that's entirely unneeded. I don't know why the GDP ratio is relevant. A very large chunk of our debt is due to our defense spending, particularly in Iraq and Afghanistan. Clearly we can't afford having 43% of the world's military power, nor is there a need for it.

Why do we still need expensive military bases in Germany for example? We have more military bases spread out over the world than any other country. Those bases are VERY expensive to continue to operate.
because they ASKED us to
because the status of forces agreement mandtates it
and 3/4 of the bases in germany have been closed starting in the 90's....I was stationed in germany for 8 of my 27 years in the military

we spend less today on the military than we did 20 years ago
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-23-2011, 08:18 AM
 
Location: Central Texas
13,714 posts, read 31,199,678 times
Reputation: 9270
Quote:
Originally Posted by oz in SC View Post
Why is that vitally important?
It keeps others from building up. As long as it is hopeless for others to arm themselves in a way that truly threatens the US, they won't.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-23-2011, 08:31 AM
 
Location: North Cackelacky....in the hills.
19,567 posts, read 21,886,336 times
Reputation: 2519
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiyero View Post
It's still an astronimical expense that's entirely unneeded. I don't know why the GDP ratio is relevant.
Well....because it is the only way to compare spending really?
If Pago Pago spends $100 on defense a year you would go well looky there,that is NOTHING!!!
But what if Pago Pago GDP was only $150/year?



Quote:
Why do we still need expensive military bases in Germany for example? We have more military bases spread out over the world than any other country. Those bases are VERY expensive to continue to operate.
Well,you got me there,bases in Europe aren't needed,neither is the forces based in SK or Japan.

Funny thing that the Korean War was a UN operation,but none of the other UN nations have thousands of their troops still in SK...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-23-2011, 08:32 AM
 
Location: North Cackelacky....in the hills.
19,567 posts, read 21,886,336 times
Reputation: 2519
Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffdano View Post
It keeps others from building up. As long as it is hopeless for others to arm themselves in a way that truly threatens the US, they won't.
Yeah,that didn't work last time....Arms race?Cold War?

It is how the USA ended up with troops spread all over the globe...of course the USSR is dead but we still have the troops there.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-23-2011, 09:24 AM
 
Location: Londonderry, NH
41,479 posts, read 59,827,375 times
Reputation: 24863
The primary reason we have such a huge military is it is simply the only acceptable and largest industrial subsidy and jobs program in the country. This complex makes billions of dollars per year making stuff most of the economy cannot buy. The foreign death and destruction created as a byproduct of these profits are simply irrelevant. This is both poor economics and immoral.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-23-2011, 09:35 AM
 
Location: Meggett, SC
11,011 posts, read 11,036,636 times
Reputation: 6192
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glitch View Post
Then the Marine Corps is no longer the rapid deployment force they once were. They certainly cannot deploy all of their units within 24 hours, like they use to be able to do. Never before during its entire history has the Marine Corps ever relied on the USAF to deploy anything. Which was the entire purpose of the Marine Corps Air Mobility Command.
The Marine Corps uses and still uses the amphibious landing ships as the primary means of transport. We have the MEF to support combat operations and the MEUs are forward deployed to respond to threats as needed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-23-2011, 09:43 AM
 
Location: Pa
20,300 posts, read 22,237,375 times
Reputation: 6553
Quote:
Originally Posted by southbel View Post
The Marine Corps uses and still uses the amphibious landing ships as the primary means of transport. We have the MEF to support combat operations and the MEUs are forward deployed to respond to threats as needed.
Once again people dont understand the nature of the mission of the US Marine. You do a great job trying to explain it but its greek to those who dont understand.
In layman's terms marines dont capture and conquer a nation. Think of marines as shock troops. Blunt force trauma......
They enter fast from any element. Air land or sea and establish the toe hold buying time for us to deploy other troops and more assets.
Our amphibious assault capabilities of the US Marine is unparalleled in the world.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-23-2011, 10:32 AM
 
8,263 posts, read 12,207,793 times
Reputation: 4801
Quote:
Originally Posted by tinman01 View Post
In layman's terms marines dont capture and conquer a nation. Think of marines as shock troops. Blunt force trauma......

They enter fast from any element. Air land or sea and establish the toe hold buying time for us to deploy other troops and more assets.
I keep hearing this and yes I understand it. What I'm having toruble with is why it needs to be a separate military branch instead of a type of unit in the United States Army with it's own unique mission characteristics, like the US Rangers, Airborne, Light Infantry, etc.

Quote:
Our amphibious assault capabilities of the US Marine is unparalleled in the world.
And one could argue that is no longer an important ability in modern warfare. Back in the day we didn't have precision strike and advanced recon by air, and ability to land larger numbers of troops by helicopter to secure a forward inland area and expand like we do today. The only option was carpet bombing and shore bombardment followed by a beach landing.

When was the last large scale Marine amphibious assault? Inchon 60 years ago?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-23-2011, 10:55 AM
 
Location: Wasilla, Alaska
17,823 posts, read 23,472,372 times
Reputation: 6541
Quote:
Originally Posted by southbel View Post
The Marine Corps uses and still uses the amphibious landing ships as the primary means of transport. We have the MEF to support combat operations and the MEUs are forward deployed to respond to threats as needed.
Good luck getting those amphibious landing craft into Afghanistan.

The Marine Corps that I knew were able to deploy anywhere in the world within 24 hours, and you cannot do that by vessel. Obviously that is no longer the case.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top