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.
Even with China and Russia having these increases, they are still small budgets compared to the US. As I stated, the US defense budget is four times as much as China's; a 10% increase is nothing.
The concept of needing to field a large military for preservation of the state has been outdated for some time. The USSR showed proof a large military does not mean preservation of the state. Germany's global influence has become even greater under its economic power than its military power ever provided. Russia will eventually learn this soft power is much more effective than military power ever will be.
I also do not see the hype out of other countries increasing their spending; Russia needs to spend to modernize its military that is dated; China is still trying to field even the basics of an aircraft carrier, let alone modernizing the rest of its forces, and same with India. It seems some views hold that the US is the only country that can legitimately spend on its military for "defense" (I blame American exceptionalism thought), while for everyone else, it is considered a threat (how many countries has China, India, and Russia invaded, or even invaded not connected to their borders?).
I think the defense industry pushes this non=sense because they are at most risk by way of losing contracts. You already see the hype and craziness that went on with Turkey's purchase of a Chinese AA missile system; the US defense industry is scared to death they will lose their share of the global arms trade, and will lobby the heck out of the US gov to do all it can to prevent this.
They drag headlines like "troops will be cut", to get the public lobbying their politicians to increase the defense budget, while the DOD ignores the billions it wastes each year.
The entire system makes little sense; how can China be a threat, yet the US borrows from them and allows US companies to fund China's military? Even that shows this whole thing is just BS.
Even with China and Russia having these increases, they are still small budgets compared to the US. As I stated, the US defense budget is four times as much as China's; a 10% increase is nothing.
I don't think the Chinese Defence Budget is small at $166 billion, although it only constitutes 1.4% of China's GDP in a country with one of the fastest growing economies in the world. By contrast the US spends 4.5% GDP on Defence. So there's plenty of scope for China to increase military spending at a time when US and western spending is contracting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxus
The concept of needing to field a large military for preservation of the state has been outdated for some time. The USSR showed proof a large military does not mean preservation of the state. Germany's global influence has become even greater under its economic power than its military power ever provided. Russia will eventually learn this soft power is much more effective than military power ever will be.
Chinese economic influence is growing at a substantial rate, and it has furthered it's influence through organisation such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) whose members include China, India and Russia. A major SCO onjective being to reduce American influence in the Asian region and in countries friendly too China.
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxus
I also do not see the hype out of other countries increasing their spending; Russia needs to spend to modernize its military that is dated; China is still trying to field even the basics of an aircraft carrier, let alone modernizing the rest of its forces, and same with India. It seems some views hold that the US is the only country that can legitimately spend on its military for "defense" (I blame American exceptionalism thought), while for everyone else, it is considered a threat (how many countries has China, India, and Russia invaded, or even invaded not connected to their borders?).
The Chinese are already the main nation spying on the US and one of the main nations launching cyber attacks against the US. As the Chinese become more technologically advanced they could theoretically build a military to challenge the current world order, whilst in terms of manpower they could also eclipse the conventional forces of every other nation in the world.
I think the defense industry pushes this non=sense because they are at most risk by way of losing contracts. You already see the hype and craziness that went on with Turkey's purchase of a Chinese AA missile system; the US defense industry is scared to death they will lose their share of the global arms trade, and will lobby the heck out of the US gov to do all it can to prevent this.
They drag headlines like "troops will be cut", to get the public lobbying their politicians to increase the defense budget, while the DOD ignores the billions it wastes each year.
The entire system makes little sense; how can China be a threat, yet the US borrows from them and allows US companies to fund China's military? Even that shows this whole thing is just BS.
I agree that the Defence Industry does try to sell products globally and is guilty of trying to create threats, however it would be foolish to ignore the potential rise of countries such as China at a time when our own military capabilities are being significantly cut.
I don't think the Chinese Defence Budget is small at $166 billion, although it only constitutes 1.4% of China's GDP in a country with one of the fastest growing economies in the world. By contrast the US spends 4.5% GDP on Defence. So there's plenty of scope for China to increase military spending at a time when US and western spending is contracting.
Also consider that the $100-166 billion (depending on whom you believe) goes a lot farther in China than it does here, at least as far as labor is concerned. Their soldiers make a tiny fraction of what U.S. soldiers make. The same goes for their engineers.
Also consider that the $100-166 billion (depending on whom you believe) goes a lot farther in China than it does here, at least as far as labor is concerned. Their soldiers make a tiny fraction of what U.S. soldiers make. The same goes for their engineers.
The big deal with the Army and China is??? Are we going to send in ground troops in China? The answer to that is no, more than likely it will be a spat over territory involving something in the South China Sea. This will turn out to be the Navy and Air Force who fight this. The lions share of the military budget in the future is going to be the Navy and Air Force who have less personal than the Army. I honestly could see the Army dropping to 350k or lower and we would still be fine, shift more of the support and maintenance roles to the reserves where experience plays more of a role.
This is what Obama and H. Clinton and all of their ilk want. They got re-elected so I guess that's what's the majority want.
I'm too old to care anymore. I don't have any children, so whatever.
01-19-2014, 10:14 PM
i7pXFLbhE3gq
n/a posts
Can the "fiscal conservatives" explain to me why we need to pour trillions down the drain on defense? I get that a lot of that money gets funneled to red states with military bases and red districts with manufacturing jobs, but seriously, do we really need to waste that much money? If this money was actually going to make us safer, then okay, but it's not.
If the force we have was needed to fight two wars simultaneously, then doesn't it follow that if we're fighting zero wars, we need less people? Or do we just keep picking new places to invade and destabilize so we can keep the welfare - oops, I mean defense - machine humming along?
If we're spending money to build and store equipment the military doesn't need or want, then doesn't it stand to reason that such spending can be cut from the budget? Why do we have to prop up a bunch of red districts with make-work jobs? It's nothing more than a giant, unfathomably wasteful welfare program for the defense industry, that exists primarily so red district politicians can bring home the bacon and a bunch of warmongering idiots can feel powerful while ranting from the comfort of their couch.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osito
What do you mean it has nothing to do with it? You can't have an army without soldiers.
One would assume the poster meant that people being too fat and unhealthy to serve has nothing to do with the coming cutbacks to the size of our military. And that would be absolutely correct.
Truman did the same thing after WW II and we almost lost the Korean War. This is what Democrats do when they get into power. I think there is a strong need to bring most if not all troops home from overseas bases, but these very deep cuts are a disaster.
Whelp, there goes our national security, maybe then they'll be appreciated for what they do.
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.
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.
