Does the US still need a large military? (status, million, percentage)
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.
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.
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
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...
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.