View Full Version : Strong Military
Franconicus
07-21-2005, 10:26
Some of our American friends stated that they believe in a strong military. Ceasar010 explained it to me:
You dont become a super power with teachers and police. With out our military we wouldn't be top dog in the superpower league any more. And most american want to stay powerful. (caesar010)
This idea is completely new to me, but I guess Caesar is right. It explained why the US military budget kept that high after the end of cold war. I do not know any other nation that defines its position by the strength of its military (well, maybe North Korea).
The US leadership is not only connected to their military. They also lead because they are number one in economy (Wallstreet), culture (Hollywood) and politics (oldest democracy alive).
Since I read ceasar’s post I am wondering: what would happen if the US decreases their military budget to let’s say one third. Would they be the leading superpower no more? Would it weaken or strengthen the US?
Al Khalifah
07-21-2005, 10:59
They also lead because they are number one in economy (Wallstreet), culture (Hollywood) and politics (oldest democracy alive).
I do not believe this statement is entirely true. In terms of economy, the US is the top dog in the world (unless you count the European Union).
But why is America is number one in culture? Because it can afford to spend the most on movies, which though visually spectacular, are shallow and for the most part badly acted. What about other forms of culture such as cuisine, theatre, arts, architecture, literature...? Bollywood produces far more films than Hollywood does.
Iceland is an older democracy than America and possibly the world's most pure democracy.
Franconicus
07-21-2005, 11:14
I do not believe this statement is entirely true. In terms of economy, the US is the top dog in the world (unless you count the European Union).
But why is America is number one in culture? Because it can afford to spend the most on movies, which though visually spectacular, are shallow and for the most part badly acted. What about other forms of culture such as cuisine, theatre, arts, architecture, literature...? Bollywood produces far more films than Hollywood does.
Iceland is an older democracy than America and possibly the world's most pure democracy.
America's culture has the biggest influence on the world. It is Hollywood, it is Pop-Music industry, it is McDonalds and Coke. Like it or not, that's the way it is.
My respect to Iceland. However, the political system of Iceland did not effect the world as much as the American. At least this is what I know. But I do not know the Island constitution ~:confused:
Al Khalifah
07-21-2005, 11:29
Infact, I may be wrong about the democracy. America did indeed have one of the oldest participatory democracies.
The Iroquios Cofderacy of the Mohawks, Oneidas, Onondagas, Cayugas, Senecas and Tuscarogas are an earlier participatory democracy. The United States representative democracy apparently drew much inspiration from this confederacy of nations.
bmolsson
07-21-2005, 12:00
A strong military isn't enough to battle the future threats to the modern open society. International crime and terrorism has clearly shown this.
English assassin
07-21-2005, 12:15
IMHO the current American leadership understands all about hard power, and next to nothing about soft power. And in time, unless they intend to turn the whole world into a prison camp, (and I sometimes wonder) that will be their undoing. The more military force they use, the less the rest of the world is willing to do as they would like out of affection for America.
Any objective person would agree there is still a lot to respect in American values, (most of which are nothing to do with her rulers of course) but if they go down the route they are on in 20 years time IMHO they will be truly hated by the rest of the world. A bit less strong military and a bit more smart diplomacy would serve them beter IMHO.
scooter_the_shooter
07-21-2005, 14:12
I like our military and i want to keep it as powerful as possible. I think its time we started voluntary militias for each state. (not those crazy paranoid racist ones only normal people allowed)
Productivity
07-21-2005, 14:21
ceaser010 you still haven't responded to me about how you intend to have a strong miltary without a sound education system.
Where do you think that strong military comes from. Lets take the coldwar for example. Do you think all of those nukes could have been developed without a strong education system? How about all those tanks that are in Iraq?
What about your aircraft carriers? And the aircraft? Do you think they could have been developed if you didn't have a strong education system?
Al Khalifah
07-21-2005, 14:24
1 years mandatory national service for school leavers would ensure a strong pool of ready troops and should help tackle soaring adult obesity rates.
Kagemusha
07-21-2005, 14:31
1 years mandatory national service for school leavers would ensure a strong pool of ready troops and should help tackle soaring adult obesity rates.
Then you should bring back conscription. :bow:
scooter_the_shooter
07-21-2005, 14:32
ceaser010 you still haven't responded to me about how you intend to have a strong miltary without a sound education system.
What about your aircraft carriers? And the aircraft? Do you think they could have been developed if you didn't have a strong education system?
If some one knows complex math they will not be better then a person of average intelligence if they are in the middle of baghdad. It will be who is better under stress.
We need some guru smart people but if every ones like that who will be in the infantry. And other dangerous jobs. So i think educations fine they way it is here.
Kagemusha
07-21-2005, 14:40
If some one knows complex math they will not be better then a person of average intelligence if they are in the middle of baghdad. It will be who is better under stress.
We need some guru smart people but if every ones like that who will be in the infantry. And other dangerous jobs. So i think educations fine they way it is here.
Are you saying that infantry men are stupid?I dont think infantry ar stupid they are the bravest.(I have had infantry training also). :furious3:
Productivity
07-21-2005, 14:42
If some one knows complex math they will not be better then a person of average intelligence if they are in the middle of baghdad. It will be who is better under stress.
I'm not saying send them into the battlefield.
We need some guru smart people but if every ones like that who will be in the infantry. And other dangerous jobs.
Education is pyramidal though. To get one brilliant genious, you need 100 people with PhDs, 1000 with honours, 10000 with a bachelors degree, 100000 with basic high school educations etc. Maybe not those numbers, but you can't just pick one person out and say you're going to be a genious and that's what we'll train you for, you need to train lots to get a few at the top and you need those at the top.
I'm not saying everyone needs a PhD (or even university) education, just that you need a strong base level education system. You seemed to be indicating that very little education was needed at all.
You dont become a super power with teachers
The_Doctor
07-21-2005, 14:45
You could replace the infantry with clones, or robots or cybernetically and genetical enhanced super clones.
scooter_the_shooter
07-21-2005, 14:48
No they are the best people we got i think.
But if every one knows how to make a plane or make a new weapon. Less people will volunteer for the infantry.
Because if you say
"do you want to get payed twice as much and not get shot at."(air craft designer)
Or do you want less money and to be in the sunni triangle for awhile. (infantry)
What will the vast majority do....
Look at it now no one will join the army or marines but the air force and navy recruiting is way up.
scooter_the_shooter
07-21-2005, 14:49
I'm not saying send them into the battlefield.
Education is pyramidal though. To get one brilliant genious, you need 100 people with PhDs, 1000 with honours, 10000 with a bachelors degree, 100000 with basic high school educations etc. Maybe not those numbers, but you can't just pick one person out and say you're going to be a genious and that's what we'll train you for, you need to train lots to get a few at the top and you need those at the top.
I'm not saying everyone needs a PhD (or even university) education, just that you need a strong base level education system. You seemed to be indicating that very little education was needed at all.
what i am saying is the education is fine as is.
Its gotten us on top militarily and economically hasnt it???
Franconicus
07-21-2005, 15:35
Maybe my questions were not clear enough:
what would happen if the US decreases their military budget to let’s say one third. Would they be the leading superpower no more? Would it weaken or strengthen the US?
Obviously it the US would loose the ability to beat every other nation whenever they want. They would be forced to co-operate. And it would cost jobs at once. On the onther side they could save millions and decrease taxes. That should increase their economy and create new jobs.
The US would be forced to work together with their allies (NATO) and the UN. They would try to reform the UN. They would be leading again instead of walking alone.
The US is like a man who carries a big gun to be respected and complains that nobody loves him.
PanzerJaeger
07-21-2005, 15:35
Since I read ceasar’s post I am wondering: what would happen if the US decreases their military budget to let’s say one third. Would they be the leading superpower no more? Would it weaken or strengthen the US?
America has commitments to dozens of countries all over the world. To do this would embolden aggressive nations and destabilize the world.
Franconicus
07-21-2005, 15:38
America spends as much money on military as the rest of the world. Since the end of cold war lot of countries decreased their military budget. America acts as if it was still fighting the cold war. Even with one third of the spending they would be the strongest military nation in the world. But they would have to rely on local allies instead of control everything alone.
Kagemusha
07-21-2005, 15:47
If i would like to be sarcastic,id say let them.If they want to be the sole superpower in the world and spend their money in military so much,let them do it.Soon they are having another cold war with China anyway.I hope that EU wont join the arms race.Infact i think if we Europeans would adjust our National militaries we could have very effective military too with even maybe less money that we are spending right now. :bow:
scooter_the_shooter
07-21-2005, 15:49
Americans want to be self suffiecient we dont want to have to rely on the UN to keep us safe. Because if we did we would be easy pickings.
Franconicus
07-21-2005, 15:59
[QUOTE=kagemusha]If i would like to be sarcastic,id say let them.If they want to be the sole superpower in the world and spend their money in military so much,let them do it.QUOTE]
If I would, I'd say, why don't let them be the military superpower on Mars? It would help increase their ego and would not hurt anybody.
Of course I would not ~D
Franconicus
07-21-2005, 16:02
Americans want to be self suffiecient we dont want to have to rely on the UN to keep us safe. Because if we did we would be easy pickings.
The European history shows that you cannot raise your security by becoming military superority on the long run. You will hurt the sacurity of the rest and they will combine their efforts and hurt you
Kagemusha
07-21-2005, 16:08
[QUOTE=kagemusha]If i would like to be sarcastic,id say let them.If they want to be the sole superpower in the world and spend their money in military so much,let them do it.QUOTE]
If I would, I'd say, why don't let them be the military superpower on Mars? It would help increase their ego and would not hurt anybody.
Of course I would not ~D
I have nothing against US being the most powerfull Nation in Mars.By all means.I say. ~;) Seriosly.If they are willing to use all their money in military.Let them do it its their choice.I have very different view in military then some of our American Patrons.Military is for selfdefence.All who think you can conguer the whole world with sheer military power have failed and those who will trye it will fail too. :bow:
Steppe Merc
07-21-2005, 16:17
Any decrease of military would strengthen that country. More money could be used to help citizens and the rest of the world, instead of just killing people.
A.Saturnus
07-21-2005, 16:19
Obviously it the US would loose the ability to beat every other nation whenever they want.
They don`t have that ability unless they pretend to be insane. If there were no nukes, the US could bully everyone because they have the strongest military. As it is now, they can bully everyone who doesn`t have nukes. But in a cold war scenario, it doesn`t count who has the bigger weapon but who`s most ready to use it. If the soviets had realized that, they wouldn`t have spend themselves to death. Because of that the US cannot force China to accept Taiwan, even though they are military vastly superior. China will lose all claims over Taiwan the moment everyone is convinced they wouldn`t use nukes.
Likewise, the US does not need a strong military to defend itself. They only need the promise that anyone who threatens them must be ready to die.
scooter_the_shooter
07-21-2005, 16:25
steppe merc
Its easy for us to say that we should cut funding... but we aren't there. Our lives aren't the ones depending on that equipment. I want americas soldiers to have the best equipment in the world.
Steppe Merc
07-21-2005, 16:29
Fine. Give them that. But we should stop spending money on making new nukes, stop spending money on the newest and fastest plane when we have perfectly good ones still working, stop spending money on missiles, stop spending money on totally unneeded things. If we slash our budget, we can still have very well equipped troops, without unneeded and wasteful things.
scooter_the_shooter
07-21-2005, 16:35
steppe
We need EVERY advantage we are at war. You are an american your self and you want cut the budget in the middle of a war ~:confused: . I think we need to take some of the welfare money and give it to military.
Its time to make our military even stronger. The war on terror needs to be won quickly.
Steppe Merc
07-21-2005, 17:49
Missiles, nukes and fancy planes can't win the war on terror.
scooter_the_shooter
07-21-2005, 17:53
Oh yes thats why we need therapist for the insurgents :help:
It wont be the weapons that win the war it will be the brave soldiers who use them. and they need the best things possible, planes and nukes included(hopefully not nukes but it may come to that)
Steppe Merc
07-21-2005, 18:03
Nukes have no real military purpose, especially in a war against terrorists. How can planes help, other than for survalience?
Making our military stronger can't win the war faster. It might if we were fighting a conventinal enemy, but we would just end up spending more money on things that will never get used.
scooter_the_shooter
07-21-2005, 18:15
we need every weapon avaible. steppe for 3 generations members of my family have been in the military they all agree we need every weapon possible. One even wanted to nuke afghanistan then carpet bomb the whole country ~:eek:
Its not our lives that depend on that equipment we should have NO say on taking that away from our soldiers.
Steppe Merc
07-21-2005, 18:53
Oh, so the politicians should? Or rather, the buisnesses that make the bombs and explosives that line the politicians pockets? You want guns and body armor for the infantry, that's fine. But most of the stuff that they spend it on isn't for the infantry soldier. How much does it cost to make a khevlar body suit and a rifle? We don't need all the money that we spend on the military, since most of it will never be used. We have countless of money guzzling nukes in the US, we certaintly don't need more.
How can a nuke or even a missile help fight against terrorists? Unless you are willing to slaughter countless of innocents, it can't. Oh wait, I forgot, innocents are supposed to die, so it doesn't matter, does it?
scooter_the_shooter
07-21-2005, 18:57
i dont want any innocents dead but rather theirs then ours
Franconicus
07-22-2005, 07:21
ceasar, do you think there would be more losses in Iraq if you had less nukes, carriers or stealth. Of course the US soldiers need good weapons, excellent protection and training. Do doubt about that. But why does the US military needs to spend more money than the rest of the world?
And concerning the war against terror, you cannot fight Bin Ladn with nukes. I even doubt that military will lead in this war. I guess its more intelligence and diplomacy.
The US is proud to have a strong military (and man they have). But they rely too much on their army. There are some problems you cannot solve with an amry. And sometimes it is even in your way.
bmolsson
07-22-2005, 12:02
we need every weapon avaible. steppe for 3 generations members of my family have been in the military they all agree we need every weapon possible. One even wanted to nuke afghanistan then carpet bomb the whole country ~:eek:
Now I understand your... Eh... Violent views.... ~;)
more nukes more bullying more terrorists...
and nukes, nukes? ik you'd ever attack someone with nukes damn that'll raise america's image. don't forget a lot off americans nukes aren't even in america and there are about 6 other nations with nukes. Damn if America would use nukes without really need to I'd wouldn't mind the people who were responsible (not the civilians or the ones who only had to follow the orders) be killed by terrorists.
you can arm you soldiers as good as it gets it doesn't really help if you aren't in war. you can't protect yourself from terrorists with arms! no just like steppe said
you can only protect yourself with a good diplomacy and intellegence.
they just have to take away the cause something arms really can't.
soory for bad english but I'd just had to respond to this.
Catiline
07-22-2005, 12:45
The argument for needing better equipment is not really going to stand up. The US is already significantly more advanced than the rest of the world, including the UK, to the extent that in osme cases that level of technological difference is a problem.
Through out history it's been demonstrated that equipment actualy makes little differnce. well motivated, high morale troops consistently out perform those dressed up in shiny new gear. A strong military does not rely on technology, it relies on morale, suupply and command. Two of these are inculcated by education and you'll get an infinitely better quality of soldier if he is educated, and understands what he is fighting for. By understand i mean can reason through the motivation, not blindly follow a flag, THat flags important, but the best troops will understand why they're following it.
If the US wants a strong military that's their choice. If that strength is used poorly it will eventually come back to haunt the US in time. Approach is everything.
Investment in nukes, Mig fighting super jets and aircraft carriers is useless in the type of war America is noqw fighting, unless of course you happen to hold shares in Boeing
Ser Clegane
07-22-2005, 12:48
Is that a slander against people in the US Military?
I think bmolsson's remark was more directed at the specific statements ceasar010 quoted and not at the US Military in general.
Crusader4thepeople
07-22-2005, 13:18
The argument for needing better equipment is not really going to stand up. The US is already significantly more advanced than the rest of the world, including the UK, to the extent that in osme cases that level of technological difference is a problem.
Through out history it's been demonstrated that equipment actualy makes little differnce. well motivated, high morale troops consistently out perform those dressed up in shiny new gear.
I agree. Ever heard of the Swiss in the middle ages, a small swiss army with next to no armour and some cruddy pikes thrashed knights in expensive full plate armour, and that was because the swiss used better tactics and were betetr motivated.
Now look at terrorists, there is no such thing as a terrorist army, 10 terrorists can kill thousands of troops. They might have no jets or nukes but they are willing to die for their cause. They have no scruples, soldier or civilian is the same to them, they can achive their goals by killing anyone. Nuking them or bombing them wont work, they dont have a fixed base, most members of radical groups look like civilians or live abroad, carpet Bombing or nuking cant get them. And i can bet loads of terrorists will be living in the U.S. Will you carpet bomb the US to kill them? You need to use diplomacy to eliminate the causes of terrorism, look at the UK and Ireland trying to disband the IRA, they know they cant kill them without making more attacks happen, and instead they are trying to prevent the terrorsism. That what you need counter terrorism not a war on terrorism
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.