Our current military readiness

no other nation has the commitments that the U.S does. You want to trim back the commitments? Fine do that. But you do that BEFORE cutting the military. I believe strongly that you want to do what President Obama (reportedly) wanted to do. Reduce the size of the U.S. military so that it CANNOT fight a major overseas conflict without massive assistance and cooperation from other nations. In short giving other nations a veto over U.S. military action.

 

Really? We completely pulled out of Afghanistan and ended up with the 9-11 attacks. So your assumption is not borne out by facts on the ground.

Also, I suppose you don't know that we really have little idea how much the Russians and Chinese spend on their military's don't you?

 

And what has happened because of cut numbers?

Personnel over-stressed. Guys who are literally spending over half their time deployed. Moral drops, alcohol abuse rises, marriages crumble, suicides increase.

Yea, so pretty much **** those who are actually serving, we are now going to require them to do even more, with less help. I returned in 2007. And I know more than a few who have done 5 1 year deployments in that time. They literally come back from a 1 year deployment, spend their 1 year dwell time, then are tapped to go to a new unit that is about to deploy because there is a shortage of their skills (this is especially true when it comes to the RADAR operators and maintenance areas).

One of which had always intended to make the military his career. The Army spent 18 months training him to maintain and repair RADAR systems. Last year he was finally able to get reclassed into a new field. He now repairs generators. After 6 deployments since 2006, he has now been stationed in an engineer unit, and will likely spend the rest of his time never deploying.

But I keep forgetting, to far to many the only thing that matters is money. That is their God, nothing else matters.

 

Can you see post #143. you will claim they lie about their spending but our intelligence on them is very good and we know what they spend.

 

That is because they are overseas instead of protecting our shores.

 

That is because they are overseas instead of protecting our shores.

 

Our commitment is to our own safety. We need to stop these overseas wars. Europe should be dealing with Isis....not us. Bring the troops home.

 

And what if Europe won't deal with ISIS? What if they cut deals with ISIS to the effect "if you don't conduct terrorist attacks in Europe you can have free passage through here to the U.S." informal agreements have been made in the past in the 1970s IIRC with Middle Eastern terrorists and various European nations.

What if instead of arming themselves to protect against North Korea, South Korea and Japan simply buy their safety by sending billions and billions to North Korea which of course they reinvest in expanding their arsenal to threaten the United States.

There is nothing to be gained by the U.S. withdrawing to isolationism and a purely "defend our shores" mentality.

 

It works pretty well for every other country on the planet. You are buying into the what if paranoia. That is justification for 30 carriers. The madness needs to end

 

There is nothing that more glaringly points to the illusion of the grand american mythology and its inherent hypocrisy. Something on the order of ~1% “serve”. And we as a society do nothing to support the troops, but rather to maintain our denial and ease our consciences. No way should anyone return home, broken of body and god knows what else, and then be left to charity operations like Wounded Warrior Project. Not that they or any others do not do good work, but rabid frothy-mouthed champions of war who stay home shopping at the mall while others go, should be willing to pay taxes and fund our soldiers rather than the private coffers of war profiteers and military contractors. Eric Prince has already made moves to push toward privatizing war. The bullshit displays we make at football games do nothing for troops/human beings; they serve in the glorification of endless wars of aggression and economic colonialism. Rumsfeld himself pretty much said, “meh, **** it” once it was discovered that cabal sent US soldiers into battle with shabby protective equipment. It simply got in the way of profit and desires of the aristocracy.

The power structure learned much from the Viet Nam era, no draft, too many people involved will getcha called on things. Endless wars of aggression, purposeful destabilization of the middle east, Afghanistan and North Korea's vast mineral reserves. The US will be at war now until it no longer stands, it is the only way to prop up this predatory economic system.

America goes to war for the interests of the Wall Street/donor/”job creator” class and we are economically cannibalizing society at home to maintain the ruse abroad as empires in decline are wont to do.

 

Someone has been drinking the kool-aid

 

Great rebuttal, you're really deep, I can tell.

 

You want a list of terrorist attacks in Western Europe and Russia recently? And we don't have 30 carriers. We have 10 carriers and several amphibious warfare ships that only look to ignorant people like carriers.

Like I said would be content with 13 carriers including one dedicated training carrier.

 

Agreed, thing is, we should not need to militarily occupy the planet for the benefit and coffers of the Wall Street/donor/"job creator" class to the detriment of society as a whole. That's all.

 

None of those attacks were a problem for us in america. They need to clean their own house.

 

I say why do we need 10 carriers and the answer I get is ....well because we do. LOL

 

I think you are the one attempting to project fear.

Despite a proposed slashing of U.S. Army personnel to pre-World War II levels, American military might is beyond question.

This chart from April 2013, which is making the rounds again, shows that America's 2012 defense budget surpassed that of the next 10 countries combined.


Defense spending accounts for about 20 percent of all U.S. federal spending. Peter G. Peterson Foundation[/QUOTE]

And this does not even attempt to answer the charge that the American military is hollowed out. (Instead, it merely speaks to "[d]efense spending," generically--without addressing the charge that this spending has not kept our equipment up to date.)

 

And this does not even attempt to answer the charge that the American military is hollowed out. (Instead, it merely speaks to "[d]efense spending," generically--without addressing the charge that this spending has not kept our equipment up to date.)[/QUOTE]
My god it better be more up to date than the other ten countries on this list. What are we spending our money on then?

 

My god it better be more up to date than the other ten countries on this list. What are we spending our money on then?[/QUOTE]

Over half of U.S. defense spending each year goes to personnel or personnel related costs. About 25% of it goes to weapons systems and weapons support systems.

 

I think you are the one attempting to project fear--fear of some (supposed) "aristocracy" and "police state".

 

Well we can all toss out numbers from the internet:

"Another example of American military dominance is all of the world's aircraft carriers: The U.S. has 19 aircraft carriers (including 10 massive ones), compared to 12 operated by other countries."
http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-defense-spending-by-country-2014-2

I guess we can argue over numbers if you like, not sure how your perfect # of aircraft carriers helps with your list of terrorist attacks in Western Europe and Russia recently though. But I do understand the power structure needs to keep the masses anxious and incoherent for this all to work.

But hey, war in America represents opportunities for private US firms, US military contractors, US arms dealers and the funneling of societal wealth into the hands of the Wall Street/donor/”job creator” class all of which serves to make US citizens even less free than we already are. It is as if our power structur took a page right out of North Korea’s book; economically cannibalize society at home to project power abroad. None of what we are up to now is about defense, but rather the military occupation of foreign lands to fill the pockets of the american aristocracy, even as society at home is driven downward economically and the liberty of the citizenry is diminished over time in a society with THE most heavily surveilled and incarcerated population the planet has ever known.

 

That is a very good question.

I just wish I knew the answer to it...

 

Over half of U.S. defense spending each year goes to personnel or personnel related costs. About 25% of it goes to weapons systems and weapons support systems.[/QUOTE]
Bring them home.

 

We don't need 10. We need at least 12 plus one training carrier. Twelve carriers allows the U.S. to keep four forward deployed to keep sea lanes open, support U.S. interests abroad, and protect U.S. citizens abroad (have you forgotten the millions of American citizens who are overseas at any one time? ) That enables one carrier to be forward deployed in the North Pacific (response to North Korea), the South China Sea (deter the Chinese) and protect vital sea lanes), the Indian Ocean (protect sea lanes where vital oil is transported from the Persian Gulf), the Mediterranean (support U.S. operations against terrorists and the horrible Assad regime in Syria as well as support the southern flank of NATO.

 

Nope. We need 5 at best. Maybe less.