Would Obama Disarm the Military?

Every single one of those is a damn good idea. There's no reason to be building more aircraft carriers and bombers when there's no one to use them against. There's no reason to waste money on missile defense systems when there's no one to launch missiles against us.

We don't need to be spending half a trillion dollars a year on the military. We don't need to be propping up small towns that rely solely on military contracts to keep their factory working. We don't need to be policing the world and we need to severely cut back on the force projection capabilities.

Ridding the world of nukes and a worldwide ban on fissile material is a good thing. The only way to use nukes is against foreign states, not cells of terrorists so having those weapons does nothing to prevent them from being used on us.

Weaponizing space is one of the most heinous thing anyone could ever suggest.

This doesn't "disarm" our military, it makes it more efficient and limits its use and budget to necessities.

Wrong message? This is one of the best messages that could ever be sent. America will stop policing the world, stop initiating wars and stop exporting our way of life through the barrel of a gun.
 
We don't need to be propping up small towns that rely solely on military contracts to keep their factory working.
Click to expand...

Why not? Isn't that what Obama and Clinton are fighting hard to say they'd do in Ohio? Isn't this why Obama doesn't like NAFTA? So he can keep obsolete economies going, as long as they have unions dues coming into Dem coffers?
 
Why not?
Click to expand...
Because it's not right to waste billions on weapon systems we don't need just because a town of a few thousand doesn't want to start producing something else for a change?
Isn't that what Obama and Clinton are fighting hard to say they'd do in Ohio? Isn't this why Obama doesn't like NAFTA? So he can keep obsolete economies going, as long as they have unions dues coming into Dem coffers?
Click to expand...
¿que?
 
I do love to hear people spout off that don't really have a good understanding of the issues. Sir, I suggest as a primer you purchase and read "Sea Power" by Mahan. In our Blue Water Navy there is only one ship with an offensive capability that is the aircraft carrier. Control of the seas requires an offensive capability. As to launching missiles against us I guess you don't keep up with current events. Then again I suppose you figure it's all lies. In football lingo it's called the best defense is a good offense.
For further reading I would suggest,"The Art of War".


Every single one of those is a damn good idea. There's no reason to be building more aircraft carriers and bombers when there's no one to use them against. There's no reason to waste money on missile defense systems when there's no one to launch missiles against us.
Click to expand...
 
¿que?
Click to expand...

Did you watch the debate last night? I watched it, or at least as much as I can stand. They took turns arguing about which one hated NAFTA more, which slowly progressed to how much they are for protectionism, or how globalization is screwing over Ohio.

Hillary proposed some whacky but practical idea of retraining these workers - you know the ones that stamp metal or screw the caps on toothpast bottles but complain about Mexicans in mexico taking their jobs - to learn how to do things like install wind turbines, or so-called "green-collar workers."

Obama just wanted to stop NAFTA so the the metal stampers and toothpaste cap screwers can get their jobs back in Ohio. (Yes, yes, I know toothpaste caps are screwed in by robots now, but you get the gist.)
 
My parents, my family, my children and myself owe everything we have to the ability of our nations military to project force away from American borders. Just one generation ago, to stop world conquest by fascist, America demonstrated full force projection upon Japan to end a devastating world war.

How soon we forget the consequences if we had lost that one. What followed was the cold war. Why were nuclear options not employed again? Because of MAD ... mutual assured destruction. Consider the weight of those three words. It's why you and I are here today. Without force projection on our part ... well, we could all be living quiet different lives.

Now, we enter a new and very dangerous time of non-state nuclear profilition. Small groups of non-centralized stateless radical fascist are welling up to ferment anarchy among western civilizations in order to install a new/old religious order. More countries are now nuclear and most of them would rather see you or I die, if we chose not to convert to their stated mission in life. These radical anarchist are playing both sides of the board in hopes of drawing these aligned and opposed powers into a new world war, from which they either gain control or set a new world order in place.

Only by a complete and over powering force projection capability do we maintain our liberty and freedom. Together, western civilization will survive, divided and without military force it all falls.

With that in mind, remember, it's not any one military app that allows you and I to disagree, it is a combination of great men, women, treasure and resolve of will, which will allow America to survive the coming unknown.
 
I do love to hear people spout off that don't really have a good understanding of the issues. Sir, I suggest as a primer you purchase and read "Sea Power" by Mahan. In our Blue Water Navy there is only one ship with an offensive capability that is the aircraft carrier. Control of the seas requires an offensive capability. As to launching missiles against us I guess you don't keep up with current events. Then again I suppose you figure it's all lies. In football lingo it's called the best defense is a good offense.
For further reading I would suggest,"The Art of War".
Click to expand...
And we currently have seven Nimitz class carriers in service. The whole point is that we don't need yet another one nor do we have any right to control the seas in the first place.

I don't know how much football you've played but the best defense is a strong defensive line. A good offense doesn't mean jack when it goes up against a better defense nor will it prevent the other team from scoring.
 
Did you watch the debate last night? I watched it, or at least as much as I can stand. They took turns arguing about which one hated NAFTA more, which slowly progressed to how much they are for protectionism, or how globalization is screwing over Ohio.

Hillary proposed some whacky but practical idea of retraining these workers - you know the ones that stamp metal or screw the caps on toothpast bottles but complain about Mexicans in mexico taking their jobs - to learn how to do things like install wind turbines, or so-called "green-collar workers."

Obama just wanted to stop NAFTA so the the metal stampers and toothpaste cap screwers can get their jobs back in Ohio. (Yes, yes, I know toothpaste caps are screwed in by robots now, but you get the gist.)
Click to expand...
I didn't get a chance. :o

But none of that really ties into spending money on wasteful, unnecessary systems because a representative on the appropriations committee has a town in his district that needs the influx of military money to stay alive.
 
How soon we forget the consequences if we had lost that one. What followed was the cold war. Why were nuclear options not employed again? Because of MAD ... mutual assured destruction. Consider the weight of those three words. It's why you and I are here today. Without force projection on our part ... well, we could all be living quiet different lives.
Click to expand...
MAD was a lousy argument then and it's a lousy argument now. It has too many holes in it to put that much faith into it. MAD doesn't prevent anyone from attacking anyone else, it merely ensures that if someone does attack we're ALL screwed.
More countries are now nuclear and most of them would rather see you or I die, if we chose not to convert to their stated mission in life.
Click to expand...
How many of the nuclear powers out there are trying to convert the rest of the world?
 
Well, I think there's at least some difference between wanting to maintain American manufacturing jobs in general (toothpaste-cap screwers) and maintaining manufacturing jobs that produce military equipment that provides no other benefit. I can get behind the idea that maybe shipping our manufacturing jobs off to China (or even just Mexico) isn't the greatest idea, but for some reason keeping somebody at work spending my money on weaponry to fight an enemy that doesn't even exist? Not as much.

And yes, I know we have enemies. Even enemy countries with significant military forces. But some of the tech we're developing will keep us two or three steps ahead of them technologically, when one or two would probably be enough to keep them in line. With pricetags that rise exponentially.

Now, we enter a new and very dangerous time of non-state nuclear profilition. Small groups of non-centralized stateless radical fascist are welling up to ferment anarchy among western civilizations in order to install a new/old religious order. More countries are now nuclear and most of them would rather see you or I die, if we chose not to convert to their stated mission in life.
Click to expand...

And what good, precisely, are stealth fighters against small groups of non-centralized stateless radical fascists?
 
Ridding the world of nukes and a worldwide ban on fissile material is a good thing.
Click to expand...
It's certainly a bad thing considering nuclear power is the only truly viable replacement for coal/oil when it comes to generating power. We should be building dozens of new reactors. Preferably breeder types, to make MORE fissile material from useless U-238 and then Pebble Bed reactors to use the fuel that the breeders create. Reprocess fuel to get all the usable isotopes out.

Learn from the lessons decades ago and have many smaller reactors instead of one large one that is a PITA to control. Perhaps standardize two or three reactor designs of each type to make training and maintenance simple.

France uses nuke power for almost 75% of their energy with great benifits. There is no technological reason why the same could not be accomplished in the US. There are political and fear mongering reasons, yes, but no technological reasons.
 
We can still have nuclear power - and I fully agree that it needs to be our primary source of energy and massive bucks MUST be invested into finding a proper way to deal with the waste - without having the ability to create weapons from it.


sorry for being unclear :o
 
Your right, here's why we need to maintain our balance of power.

"These radical anarchist are playing both sides of the board in hopes of drawing these aligned and opposed powers into a new world war, from which they either gain control or set a new world order in place."
 
The ONLY duty explicitly laid out for the US Gov't is to "Provide for the COmmon Defense." The Dems will gut the military. It is what they do. It took Reagan to rebuild the disaster that was Carter and Bush (who I do have plenty of issues with) to rebuild the mess that Clinton left.

Investment in new systems is key. I have absolutely no problem with paying American citizens a fair wage to construct military equipment used for the defense of American interests. It is a hell of a lot better investment than the entitlement programs which are the real drain. Defense contractors work, welfare recipients do not. Then there is the technological benefits to defense investment...

The Dems will traditionally state there is no enemy for the current weapon system, until they call for an intervention here or there where such a system would have saved American lives.

Carriers are the number one way to project US force.

Missile defense is critical since it is no longer a matter of simply keeping communications open with the Kremlin. Iran, N.Korea, China and a host of nation states with completely different views on the value of human life and frames of reference have or are developing nukes and ICBMs. As bad as the old USSR was we could at least usually discern their motives and talk. That is not so with states like Iran... Diplomatic relations are important but meaningless if the other states intentions change overnight (or are never really understood) while they hold the capability to destroy a city. MAD also doesn't work when the enemy doubts your commitment to it, believes it can be circumvented through a third guilty party, or simply has a view of life where it doesn't matter.

Of course Obama will probably win, possibly two terms. He will gut the military and come 2020 when we actually wind up in a regional shooting war with China over resources we will be ill equipped to project the required force meaning we will either loose and have to reach a settlement or win the regional conflict with a higher American body count than we would have had if we were prepared. Simply not being prepared also leads to war since it emboldens our enemies. Nobody fears the cop who is 50 pounds overweight with green crusted bullets in his bullet loop holster and a glazed donut in his mouth. You do realize China is building a blue water navy... why do you think they would do that?
 
Would Obama Disarm the Military?
Or severely gut the military? See his speech on military cuts on Youtube. In a dangerous world this seems to be the wrong signal to send.
Click to expand...
The current US military is funded at a level equal to or larger than the next 30 countries combined.

A reduction in military funding isn't just warranted, it's verging on the mandatory.

Personally, I'd like to see funding cut by 90%, however, I know that figure is too optimistic.

Any cut will be good, the larger the better.

Lest anyone think I want to see the money shifted to something else, let me reassure them that I want that cut in expenditures to result in first a refund to taxpayers, then a cut in tax collections.

Real cuts in revenues, not adjustments in rates.
 
The ONLY duty explicitly laid out for the US Gov't is to "Provide for the COmmon Defense."
Click to expand...
Really? I see a number of other duties.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Click to expand...
:p


All your points are nice but they still don't justify spending so much money on it. We can stay ahead of the game without wasteful programs like the Osprey or the USS Bush. If such missile defense systems and other things are useful and necessary then the military should be able to justify them a hell of a lot better than they do now.

The entire world is not as war-hungry as we are. We invite enemies by going out and bullying the rest of the world. Decreasing military spending and showing the world that we're not just the fat, angry kid on the block pushing all the kids around will do wonders for international relations.



and a shooting war with china is about as likely as those SHTF "zombie" scenarios everyone keeps dreaming up


oh also

Iran, N.Korea, China and a host of nation states with completely different views on the value of human life
Click to expand...
Their views on the value of human life are not that different from anyone else's and to think that one culture's view is better than any others is part of the reason we have so many problems around the world in the first place. This ideal that America is somehow better at deciding what is right and wrong more than anyone else has got to go.
 
I think we should downsize our military and become an isolationist country just like we did during the 1920's and 1930's!

Why not? What is the threat?

It's not like Vladimir Putin appointed himself to be the lifelong President of Russia or something crazy like that. Who cares if Russia is slipping back into one-party government?

Besides, it's not like China will invade or destroy their biggest consumer market...so why spend all that money on our military?

Why should we worry about what goes on in the middle east. India or China will buy up all the oil there so that there will be none left in 25 years or so. When there is no oil left, the middle east will just fade back into the sands of obscurity and feudalism soon enough.

Who needs the defense industry anyway? There is no threat!


:D
 
It will be difficult for Obama to attack an allied country, like Pakistan, without a military.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes: Cutting back spending to necessities and reducing waste are a FAR cry from disarming and dismantling the military.

Scare monger a little more, why don't ya?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top