In order to cut U.S. defense spending dramatically would you be willing to...

...make it the policy of the U.S. to use nuclear weapons liberally if necessary?


Across four separate political discussion boards I see the repeated whining about how the U.S. spends too much on its military. Some have even insisted the U.S. could cut its annual military by 50%.


One of the main things used as a basis for this is President Eisenhower's famed "military industrial complex speech" (actually military industrial governmental complex).


But what almost everyone ignores is that Eisenhower was a big supporter of using nuclear weapons if necessary as a response to conventional military attacks. And Eisenhower took it seriously. When he took office the Korean War was still going on. Eisenhower threatened the Chinese with the use of nuclear weapons. And Ike meant it. He ordered the dropping and detonations of several nuclear weapons across the North Pacific.


So in order to cut the U.S. defense budget by half, would you be willing to support the casual use of nuclear weapons by the U.S.? For example if North Korea attacks South Korea again would you support the U.S. conducted a wide ranging nuclear attack on the North? If Iran attacked Saudi Arabia or tried to close the Straits of Hormuz would you support the U.S. making selected nuclear strikes on Iran?


Don't pretend that if the U.S. cuts its defense budget that the other nations on Earth are simply going to "act nice".

 

Of course not as that would allow other nations to do the same.

Although the dangers of nuclear weapons has been greatly exxagerated there is really no reason to wander down that path yet.

Can we cut the military by 50%?

Easily if we don't have a force prepared for wars which we shouldn't. We should have enough military to defend our borders and that's it although I would exempt the navy from this.

We don't need thousands of tanks and Artillery pieces standing by ready to go, it's just a waste of money. Cut the military down to the national guard and special forces units. Shut down pretty much all of our foreign bases and bring the majority of soldiers back.

The list is endless.

As long as we can produce what we need then that's fine. We essentially had nothing at ww2 but still managed to build and retake most of Europe from the Nazis.

In fact I support scrapping the majority of our military and investing it in New AI technology which is where warfare is heading anyways.

If Russia wants to roll into Europe then fine, we will build what we need and go over there but remember that Europe has plenty of nukes on their own so the odds of that happening are essentially zero.

There will never be another world war and our military should reflect that. Japan has defended themselves for centuries so they hardly need us to do it, same for South Korea, they have more than enough military to take on the north and besides that isn't our fight.

If the North does take them about the only thing it means to me is an interesting headline to read while I have my morning coffee.

 

I do not support cutting the defense budget by 50%.

I do think, however, that we could save money if we re-imagine our defense forces.

I would like to see the U.S. Army ($245 billion) configured more like the U.S. Marine Corps ($46 billion).

 

They don't have remotely the same missions.

 

Cut down on manpower and increase drone usage. Drones don't have to be paid, they don't eat, and they don't sleep. No one is stupid enough to use nukes, because everyone has them now. Nuclear weapons have only ever been used once in wartime, and that's only because no one else had them at the time.

 

I think the way we fight wars has changed. I envision a sleek, elite Army which, as a part of its readiness, could expand quickly if necessary, but otherwise is much smaller. Our elite Army and Marine units are the most lethal in the world, capable of defeating lesser forces of much greater numbers, especially when supported by air power and superior intelligence. I think some of our defense thinking is stuck in the past and that a lot of that has to do with politics - protecting budgets that benefit constituents and the bureaucratic impulse to protect one's "kingdom".

 

If we use nukes, we will get nuked in retalilation.
Count on it.

 

Back then, we had nukes (and the capacity to deliver them) and they didn't.

 

I don't recommend the use of nukes unless we are attacked by another country who attempts to use nukes against us. One thing we've learned over the years is that radiation knows no borders and if nations who are not involved have radiation drifting over their borders, then it could have possible repercussions.

Perhaps scaling down some of the missions the armed forces do might be a good start.

 

1) Drones can't win wars.
2) Not remotely "everyone" has nuclear weapons.

 

wars are for oil

drones would be far cheaper than paying inner city boys free college education to kick in a door or raid a home.

 

How much oil did Serbia have? Or Grenada?

 

there was a return on investment

 

How so?

 

Even small nuclear weapons have no usage in wars against insurgencies. I wonder why the OPer specified nuclear weapons rather than poison gas or other chemical WMDs?

 

The U.S. doesn't have any of those available anymore.

 

Just having a policy to never deploy to a place we wouldn't be willing to nuke for the same reason we are deploying would be an improvement on US policy.

 

Bondsteel

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_Bondsteel#:~:text=Camp Bondsteel is the main,East (MNBG-E).

 

And what does that have to do with a "return on investment" and "oil"?

 

third world oil producers will still be allies if America uses drones or boots on the ground.

 

Same difference. Perhaps it is my low tolerance for misbehavior. If you deserved to be bombed, screw helping you clean up the mess.

 

I agree with you.

And this is why I would be willing to reconfigure our defense posture somewhat. I envision an Army that is elite, but much smaller as far as active personnel. I think the face of war as changed in the 21st Century. I see little need to maintain a gigantic Army capable of occupying countries and basically running them. I think our posture should be one that places a high priority on special forces, intelligence, naval and air power, with some elite ground fighting units of the Army and Marines.

This would be enough to, as you say, "hit you REAL HARD, not build your house", but it would cost a lot less. And a posture like that would take us out of the "nation building" and "endless occupation" business. Just go in, kick the ass of the enemy, and get out.