It's time for BIG cuts in our military

Agreed.

True, and it shows a nation's character in how these conflicts are handled.

You imply that I suggested we should. Can you point out where you think I did so, please?

You imply that I suggested we should ignore these countries. Can you point out where you think I did so, please?

Stop them from what?? How far does your "do what we can" go? It seems to have little limit. Why should we abandon our principles simply because we "have the leg up"?

That's justification?? Whatever we can dream up that they might do to us if they were stronger gives us free reign to do that to them? That's crap!

I don't see how this connects with the rest of your post. Can you clear that up?

 

No thanks, I'd rather not undermine MAD.

 

This is the era of proliferation of nuclear weapons technology and ballistic missile technology. Does MAD continue to be effective regardless of the number of nuclear weapons states? How do you know?

 

Who says it has to be the era of proliferation? I'm in favor of restricting the nuclear club to the great powers.

There is a theory that states if every country has nuclear weapons, large scale warfare would cease. However, irrational states like the Islamic republics kinda undermine this theory.

 

Proliferation can't be stopped. It's human nature to want a big stick.

 

That is like claiming that police should not use bullet proof vests, because it will cause criminals to simply use bigger guns to counteract their effectiveness.

I never understood the faulty logic that increasing a defensive system increases danger.

 

Warspite,

I do believe that invasion was a fear during the Cold War, seeing that movies, safety instruction videos, and military contingency plans were all created for such an event. Secondly, I am not familiar with your background, but from your commments it seems that you are not to familiar with military history, strategy, or politics.

Having a base in Okinawa is very strategic seeing as it is in close proximity to many countries that have declared open hostility to the US (North Korea for example). Also the reason that we maintain such a strong military influence around the globe is because in many cases our military is the only one strong enough to combat certain countries. Do you honestly believe that Japan or India could come close to challenging the might of the Chinese army?

Bases are needed seeing as carriers take time to travel. When Japan suprised us in Pearl Harbor, it took us so long to get our navy moving that they were able to take over most of the Pacific. Carriers are limited in many aspects and a foreign war can't be maintained with only aircraft carriers.

 

It also totally ignores the fact that we have a mutual-defense treaty with Japan, and have had one for over 65 years. And part of that treaty calls for US forces to maintain bases on their islands, in order to protect them from attacks from other nations.

The bases are subsidised by Japan, and is also part of the reason why their military is rather small, restricted to a small "self defense force". By having a small military, it ensures that they will never again become an expansionist nation.

 

Surely you're not so blind that you can't see that those other countries don't have strong militaries because we spend our money to take care of what they would otherwise take care of. If we weren't there to "fill the vacuum" they would nave to spend some of their social program money for their own defense.


..... and we would not have nearly the deficit that we have.

 

There's definitely a truth to that. However, what do they give up by depending on a different nation for their defense?

 

I'm much less concerned about that than what are we expected to risk in their defense.

 

Legal: The Constitution incorporates all treaties. We're a signatory to the UN. International law justifies most of our bases.

Pragmatic: Our military presence abroad is the glue of the free world.

Moral: It's constitutional.

Sovereign nations? You think dictators and the like are true and proper sovereigns?

 

Then what are we arguing about?

 

I'm not aware of any treaty that empowers us with any kind of international judge status to convict any nation of misbehavior.

That's arrogant BS to think that the USA is so much more mature than the leaders of other nations that we know better than they how to behave.

The Constitution is not a moral document, it is a legal one. The Constitution grants no moral authority whatsoever.

The nations are sovereign. You and I don't have to like them or even agree with them. We are a nation of laws. How can we claim that if we ignore a nation's sovereignty whenever the whim hits us? This is the hubris that has gotten us in so much hot water.

We don't show the respect we expect to be shown.

 

Not sure is any of you have touched on this but...

The USA can no longer AFFORD to be the world's bully...I mean policeman.

A REAL fiscal conservative would realize this and encourage a slow withdrawal and draw-down of forces in order to help do what they've been screaming about...balancing the US budget.

But they won't 'cause if there's one thing that trumps money...its irrational fear.
Without it...I think most "fiscal conservatives" would feel like an arm was just cut off...

 

How much is irrational fear and how much is the military industrial complex that Ike warned us about?

 

When this recession is over, the size of the military will decrease.

 

What do you mean, it already is.

What we are seeing already is a gradual troop cut that is being done through attrition. The amount of new recruits allowed in the service has been decreased, senior personnel who would normally stay in for 30 years are being asked to retire at 20 years, and the ranks required for reenlistments has been increased in the last year.

And tens of thousands of members are being caught in these cuts.

 

I wonder why nobody in the debt ceiling debate is recommending real military cuts.

 

Because we're in engagined in two+ conflicts right now. Former secretary Gates definitely began implementing some cuts though. There's also so many other bloated areas of concern.

 

Which is also why so many personnel are on a 50/50 deployment cycle, we have fewer and fewer people, but more requirements to fill.

Imagine missing half your kids' lives because you had to go fight in Afghanistan.

 

My old unit just finished their 6th deployment since 2003 (Iraq/Afghanistan). 7 months deployed 11 months home, rinse and repeat.

 

7/11 is a very rough rotation cycle. When I came in, deploying was a rare thing and many people went their whole career without a deployment.

Now you are lucky if you only deploy every other year.

 

I retired from the AF shortly after 9/11. This crap is ridiculous and needs to stop. If the fighting were in any way necessary, then okay, but I just don't see it. Also, closing unnecessary bases in the Pacific would give a lot of manpower to reduce deployment turnarounds.

 

True, but in all honesty I and the majority of the other guys prefered being deployed. I think most Infantry/combat arms units who train relentlessly in the states love to actually put it to use overseas. There's also the money factor. I think deployments are harder on older servicemembers with families and support troops. In my unit everyone scrambled to make sure they got in on a deployment and weren't left behind. No one wants to sit at home while their buddies are out hooking and jabbing.