People that would cut military spending need to ask themselves this

I don't understand how people can be so dumb. We fight wars in other countries so that the fight doesn't have to happen here in the US. Obviously it still happens, as visible with terrorists and other foreign attacks, but it is minimal compared to how things would be if we didn't fight overseas.

"Home of the free because of the Brave"

 

Pray tell, how were the Vietnamese or Iraqis going to bring the fight to America?

This isn't the age of sail. Projecting military power across thousands of miles of open ocean is something that only superpowers can do and even then only against second or third rate powers.

 

A small military, like ours, depends on well-trained, well-equipped, well--supplied, competent people for their effectiveness.
How do you get those things?
Money.

For every dollar we spend on defense, we spend $4.70 on entitlements.

 

Where do you get the idea our military is small?

 

No we fight wars overseas to make profit for the military industrial complex. It actually makes us less safe but more profitable.

 

It is no clear to me that all of these wars really do do us any good.

We fought in viet nam.... What good did that do?
We helped depose saddam and quadafi... But it has not made us safer

I support drone attacks, but that type war fighting capablity is not where most of the defense budget goes.
Do we really need more carriers? Are super fighters really required in the age of drones?

Really,... Who is going to invade the usa? Isnt that the salient issue of DEFENSE!?

Imo our super power pentagon is more about maintaining a global hegemony... And our so called "interests"

 

Our government might not always make the best decisions but they try. Not every situation has a solid answer but I'd like to think that pros and cons were weighed and in that decision lives of the soldiers were risked seeking the best outcome of that decision.

Where ever the budget cut, it better not come from the soldier's pocket or their protection.

 

The military is not a jobs program. Or at least it shouldn't be.

 

Per capita, the only relevant measure.
For the US, 4.6/100k of the population is active duty military.
By that standard, at least 50 nations have larger armies.
Why is ours the most powerful on the world? Money spend on training, equipment, supplies and competent personnel.

 

So your position is that the US invasion of Grenada and the combat with the Cuban military there was part of something less than war.

 

Per capita is meaningless. We have a gigantic population.

 

Cut it in half and we would still be the most powerful military in the world

 

Our engagement with the Cuban military in Grendada was only relevant to the defeat of the Grenadan regime. There was no further war with Cuba and no where at any stage of the planning was there ever an intention of overthrowing Cuba.

 

What makes you think that?

 

It has all kinds of meaning, for that reason.

Do you suppose the US military would be as effective as it is - as effective as as it needs to be - if we had the same levels of equipment, training, supply and personnel as the Russians or the Chinese?

 

That is what the Carthaginian's peace did with Rome. They tired of fighting signed an armistice and were beaten by their enemy, sold into slavery and their lands devastated.

 

The Russian and Chinese personnel levels are misleading because a huge portion of them are static garrison infantry divisions with no organic transport capability.

 

Prez Johnson stated in a speech that America’s reputation as a guarantor: “Around the globe, from Berlin to Thailand, are people whose well-being rests, in part, on the belief that they can count on us if they are attacked. To leave Vietnam to its fate would shake the confidence of all these people in the value of America’s commitment, the value of America’s word.”...

I am also sure that Communism was put in check as an outcome and S.Vietnam was happy with our aid.

As for IRAQ, our original intent was to go after S. Hussein. There might not have been much basis there, but US was still trying to avenge the losses from 9/11, I'm guessing you weren't affected by 9/11.

Now we are in IRAQ again due to ISIL/ISIS trying to get rid of them as much as we can, hitting the roots so they lose their resources and momentum limiting their attacks against us here. You probably aren't affiliated with the military either, or have anyone in your family fighting...you wouldn't understand.

 

Unfortunately Progressive Socialist Democrats go exactly for the soldier's pocket and their protection. See the cuts in military pensions, to dependents, and materiel. Then there's those ridiculous Rules of Engagement that cost soldiers lives.

 

Take carriers. We have ten china has one (barely) and Russia has one. We could survive on 4 (one Atlantic and one pacific and one in both ports). Ten CBG's are over kill

 

This does not answer my question.

 

And what if a crisis arises in the Indian Ocean?

You can't simply move a carrier from one ocean to another at the drop of the hat. Takes a couple of weeks at the very least.

What if one of those carriers on station is disabled at the very beginning of a crisis? There is a reason the U.S. Navy really likes having a minimum of two carriers in a war zone.

 

Yes it isn't a "jobs program" but it is a way of living, and those who choose to do so also agree to fight and possibly die so you can sit there on your computer and talk negatively about them(your freedom properly spent).

 

You're responding to ignorance.

We have as many carriers we do because we need a certain in-theater force level; the carriers we have rotate through deployment, refit/maintenance and training cycles, leaving 5-6 deployed at any time.

Reduction to 4 is, well, asinine.

Note too that the US Navy has 9 amphibious warfare ships that would qualify a fleet carriers in most other navies, but cannot project power like the CVN and therefore cannot undertake the same mission.

 

Every other country on the planet seems to manage. We do not run the world.

- - - Updated - - -

Your argument is asinine. That is all I need to say. Wow. You just lost this one.