Glad to see I've stirred some interest!
Actually, yes, it does, because it ensures then that the Europeans and the U.S. will have lots of training with each other so good interoperability of forces, good quality equipment, adequate logistics, and so forth, which will ensure the Russians can be stopped in their tracks when they try anything again.
Do you really think a constant US presence in Europe is needed for our European Allies to stop Russia "in their tracks"? You don't even think they can hold the line long enough for us to get over there? What do you base this assessment on?
I don't know that the risk of another Hitler coming to power is as unlikely with Germany as many today may think.
This is absurd. If you polled the German populace about their thoughts on their own history, you'd find that the vast majority are utterly embarrassed by it. They would be the last country on earth to attack another country. Go talk to some Germans.
The defense budget is not the major driver of the overall budget though. And we don't fully know what the three major threats actually spend, but regarding that, I'd say that if we could, we absolutely should spend more, namely to increase the size of the Navy and Air Force, as from what I've read, both of those are over-stretched as it is, especially the Navy. The Navy has to handle global obligations along with being able to deter China. Unfortunately, the money just isn't there.
Are they overstretched, or are they over-tasked?
Let me ask you this.. you'd say you'd spend even more on the military... When does our debt become the biggest threat to our national security and way of life to you? What about when our interest payments alone are
$400 billion per year (or over $3k per household), as is the case right now? What about if it were $1.2 trillion per year, as the CBO projects it will be in 2032? How do you suppose we will get out of the debt once that happens? Print money and cause hyperinflation? How do you think that will work out for our security, military spending down the road, etc.?
Now, if not cutting our budget dramatically, how do you propose we get out of this problem? Do you think we can keep doing business as usual militarily, or even increase spending as you said?
1) Russia's trying to take Ukraine does threaten us given what an important piece of land Ukraine is and how it would aid the Russians in being able to launch an attack on NATO and bully the world agriculture-wise, along with the fact of we want to support peoples seeking freedom, or else the other former Soviet-bloc states might just slide back under the Russian sphere of influence as they will feel they have no choice.
You know who is a lot more dependent on Ukrainian agriculture and resources than us? Europe. We in the US are paying our farmers not to farm. That aside, I've agreed many times that we should support Ukraine. But we are not threatened by Russia.. not seriously.
2) "Provoking" Kim Jong-Un? How so? I'd say he has been the one constantly provoking us, not the other way around. The U.S. and South Korea have been desiring peace with the North for decades, it is the North who keep being so militaristic and warlike, attacking South Korean ships and launching missiles and so forth. I think you are living in a fantasy land if you think that withdrawing from South Korea would make the North more friendly and less militaristic. The way we make it clear that we will be right there with them if the Korean War reignites is by having a troop presence, so that Kim knows if he attacks, he's attacking us along with South Korea.
Do you think the Kim feels provoked when the largest military in the world, that fought his country in a war for its survival in the not too distant past, consistently performs training exercises right off his coast? What if China and Mexico started doing mock amphibious landings in Baja California? Would we feel threatened? Now magnify that by 1000, since we are so much more capable than they would be in comparison to NK. I understand that
our perspective is that they are the aggressors and the provocative ones... but how do you think
they feel? Just like you said Russia is paranoid before... so is NK. We know we won't attack, but they don't. Kim isn't spending something like 26% of his GDP on defense just for fun. He's terrified.
3) I would seriously question whether we could actually cut the defense budget in half and maintain the same readiness. There is a reason why we are the only country with any real power projection capability.
I don't mean to imply we won't lose any readiness. Of course we will. I mean that there is a lot of fat we could cut that wouldn't cost us readiness. Of course, if we cut half the budget, we will have to mothball equipment and downsize the force. That will allow us to build back up quickly if the need for such a massive military presents itself at some point in the future.
I want to put this to bed, we DO NOT spend more than our three major threats combined. First, I find it amusing that most folks seem to blissfully accept or give any credibility to the what autocratic governments claim to spend on their militaries. Here's a hint, those figures are bullshit. Secondly, a lot of countries don't count certain things in their 'military' budget, for example we separate out much of the intelligence budget and veterans funding while others cut out a lot more than just that. Finally, one third of our budget funds pay and benefits and is the largest single expense for the DoD. This is not the case for most of our adversaries.
I was using our own government's published estimates of foreign expenditures. But regardless, what if we spent as much as the UK, France, Germany, Japan, South Korea, Italy, Australia, Spain, the Netherlands, and Poland, all put together? Now surely THAT would be enough, right? Those are 10 of the top 20 militaries in the world, and their people are expensive, too! That's less than $400 billion.
One of the biggest factors binding our European allies together is us, and our much reduced presence in Europe is a tangible reminder to all that we continue to be committed to their defense. Why is that commitment and our alliance still needed? Have folks forgotten that warring European countries laid waste to much of the continent (and beyond) not once but twice last century? And both times we stayed out of it until we got dragged in them, kicking and screaming. You would think we had learned our lesson by now?
That was before nukes, global trade to the extent we have, before all the major countries were in the SAME alliance, before the EU, etc. This is as irrational a fear as Random thinking the Germans shouldn't have a strong military because Nazis.
In no way are we 'provoking' North Korea unless you think us merely existing is 'provoking' him, and he spends money on his own 'defense' whether we do anything or not. This is the sort of thinking that gets us blamed for 'provoking' Putin by expanding NATO while ignoring the fervent wishes of our new Eastern European allies who suffered under the Russian yoke for 45-80 years.
See my comments above. Why is it that when European states increase their military spending it's clearly because they're scared, but when NK spends a ridiculously crippling amount on theirs, your conclusion is "that has nothing to do with fear!"? Can you explain the logic there?
I don't even know where to begin with this other than to say this would very severe impact on our effectiveness, at the very least. It isn't a matter of just cutting some program 'fat' but cutting up to half or more of our personnel in addition to a lot of other things. So yeah, no.
See comments above. My meaning was misinterpreted, as I should have worded it more clearly.
If that's a "fact" to you, then you need to go back to school.
Everyone on here is telling me how we need to spend so much because Russia scares the Europeans, and we need to help them. But I guess spending on having a strong military that we then use to deter Russia to help out Europe doesn't count as spending to defend Europe. Weird logic. I also guess sending $100 billion to UKR doesn't count, because that's spending a lot, I'd say.
North Korea has nukes, while the South doesn't. That implies a certain power dynamic that isn't particularly favorable to the country w/o them. If we pulled out of that alliance, the South would create a home grown nuclear capability very rapidly to establish deterrence. Nuclear non-proliferation is a key US strategic interest.
Care to revise your assessment?
I didn't say pull out of that alliance. Re-read my post. I said withdraw our troops from there "while making it clear that if the Korean war reignites we will be right there with them". That means our nukes still back SK. Nice try.
