There is nothing more dangerous than the US supremacists who say the US spends more on the military than any other military in the world, has the best technology, most well trained army, etc. These people are absolutely ignorant. War is politics by other means, by that criteria the US has lost the Iraq/Afghanistan wars. Including Vietnam and in terms of cost the US lost Korea. Because of the political failure of the Gulf war leading to the Iraq war, the gulf war was lost too. The US has failed to achieve political outcomes despite the most expensive military on the planet. It is an expensive military, just because you pay $10,000 for a used car doesnt mean you landed yourself a nearly new Mustang. US personel costs drive most of the US military budget, if you subtract veteran college benefits the US military budget is closer to $400 billion, subtract 2 million from the pay rolls even at $10,000-20,000 per year and the defense budget drops to $380, $360 billion. Take out health care, housing, other services. US MBT were invented and developed in the 70s. US attack helicopters, 80s. US war planes, all but 182 are from the 80s or earlier. US nuclear weapons last built in the 70s. The US has some nnew tech. But for the most part the enemies of the US either win wars despite US advantages (war on terrorism) or they have equal or better newer equipment ready to hit mass production without capital structure costs impeding their development (Russia and China). With anti ship missiles, new submarines, new tanks, new planes, new eelectronic warfare platforms, new anti-air, Russia and China are quickly out doing the US. US drone technology is not even safe nor the most advanced, Russia has heavier drones and has brought down US drones via hacks. China has anti satellite capabilities though still in testing. The US could very quickly find itself losing the 3rd world it has built around its model as Russian/chinese war technology becomes more available to countries outside the US control, such as Syria. And as Russia-China axis begins to push more countries out of the US Sphere. The people directly responsible for this are these US supremacists who think the M1Ax is a good tank. The A10 is a good plane. The F22 is untouchable. Drones are unique to the US. The US has the best hackers. The US has a secure electrical grid. The US has a monopoly on space. The US can afford anything and has infinite money. These people are posion and need to be silenced.
I half agree - more on your analysis of the U.S. military than of your conclusions on silencing people. If the U.S. military scrapped all of it's equipment but maintained its personnel and their compensation, it would still spend more on its military than any other country in the world. Put in perspective, the U.S. military spending isn't so extreme. It's between 3 and 4% of GDP. Now that may seem high compared to some European countries, but European countries have different military needs. Since they are united by the EU there is a reduced concern of military action by their close neighbors (for example, France isn't concerned about a German invasion), so they can reduce their military strength. As far as threats outside the EU are concerned, such as that of Russia, the EU is just so big that combined they have the strength to at least match any threat they can foresee. Additionally, Europe can still count on the U.S. to aid in its defense, and the U.S. already has a sizable military force in Europe, so that only further reduces European need for a strong military. While this last one is often overplayed, it is still worth noting. And the most important part: Europe's foreign policy doesn't necessitate a strong military force, while the U.S. foreign policy does. The U.S. still protects Germany and Japan, but it also protects global trade, and has an aggressive "forward presence" strategy. Even so, the U.S. spending, as a percent of GDP, isn't very high relative to non-European states. A large chunk of U.S. spending just comes from good compensation for our service members. We have one of the highest standards of living in the world, and so we pay our troops accordingly.
Russia has more advance nuclear weapons than the US and the US has put nothing into the program except to reduce it. I am not sure the US has better hackers. We lose wars because of at home politics, not because of military deficiencies.
This especially. People do not realize just how big a gap Russia is putting between the US in what really matters. Nuclear weapons. Assymetrical warfare. Cyber warefare.
Silence them by preaching the truth. That the US has aggressive imperialist policies that drive it's need for such military extension. That Nukes deter invasions. That we we can down size and up tech.
Are you an American? Why don't you just have a post about why you hate America? Your post sucks. You have no understanding of the truth.
Largely irrelevant, since these are not really "weapons" but deterrence forces. Nobody ever expect to really need to use them. And even if we do, so what? Our major strike arm is an ICBM. And when you are talking about a 5 megaton warhead, having a CEP of 20 meters as opposed to 50 meters is largely meaningless. Everything within a mile is still going to be completely destroyed. So you hit the parking lot to Dodger Stadium instead of Home Plate. The stadium is still completely obliterated so the "more advanced" is irrelevant.
Plus we have to be honest with ourselves and ask how many nuclear warheads do we really need? People have long criticized the US government for reducing the size of our nuclear arsenal but we have to think logically here. ok so Russia has 8,000 and we have 7,300, that doesn't mean anything. In a nuclear war nobody is going to be able to empty their entire stockpile on the enemy. In all hell broke loose then we Russia may get off a few dozen and we would get off a few dozen, and that would be the end of the world, literally. Nobody would be around to launch the other 7,250 of our nukes and nobody would be around to launch Russia's other 7,950. And thats being extremely generous. In reality both nations would only be able to pop off a handful. Nuclear weapons are one of those weapons to where numbers don't really matter. The battle of attrition would be over within the first few volley's. The main focus should be on maintaining our second and third strike capabilities. Strategic placement, targeting, and delivery platforms are what matter in a nuclear war, sheer numbers have absolutely nothing to do with it.
