A TRILLION DOLLAR MILITARY BUDGET?

[Simon W. Moon]

Just like the NATO countries are doing now.
The Europeans know where their biggest threat is coming from.
The U.S. knows where their biggest threat is - in Asia.
It's an arms race all countries are engaged in.
Is that dangerous? Sure. Who should stop growing first?

You think there will never be enough then.

That sounds like your opinion is fantastical.

 

[smb3802]

What you missed is Reagan's
PEACE THROUGH STRENGTH message.
When you have adversaries like N Korea, Iran, Russia, and China, to be unprepared for war is to be at risk for defeat.
Does that answer your rhetorical question above?

I think what you miss is that if you spend that much money on something you have to use it. Hence all the proxy wars and police actions and deployments to ... I love how many conservatives tout their originalists bonafides but forget it when it comes to having a standing army. Especially a large standing army.

 

[ElChupacabra]

I never want to say the U.S. is militarily weaker than China.

If it were true, why not?

They are growing their military might faster than we are.
Should we allow them to grow stronger than we are growing?
Of course China will always have more people to field bigger armies. Their population is four times our size.

Then we are doing something very wrong if they are growing their military faster than we are at 1/4th the cost considering how much less they spend than we do. As for the growth of the Chinese navy, it has grown in some areas compared to the US Navy, but still falls behind in others.



How about our Air Force compared to others?

We have more planes than Russia, China, and India combined. Should we get to three, or 4 times the amount of the other combined? I'm curious as to what you think is the threshold.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Then we are doing something very wrong if they are growing their military faster than we are at 1/4th the cost considering how much less they spend than we do.

@jaypatriot seems reluctant to acknowledge these obvious implications of what they are posting

they seem to only want to tell us the sky is getting closer because Trump asked for money

 

[jaypatriot]

@jaypatriot seems reluctant to acknowledge these obvious implications of what they are posting

they seem to only want to tell us the sky is getting closer because Trump asked for money

I wish I knew who "they" so I can better understand your post.
I always like knowing if and when I am "reluctant to acknowledge these obvious implications of what they are posting."

 

[jaypatriot]

If it were true, why not?


Then we are doing something very wrong if they are growing their military faster than we are at 1/4th the cost considering how much less they spend than we do. As for the growth of the Chinese navy, it has grown in some areas compared to the US Navy, but still falls behind in others.

View attachment 67564629

How about our Air Force compared to others?

We have more planes than Russia, China, and India combined. Should we get to three, or 4 times the amount of the other combined? I'm curious as to what you think is the threshold.

I leave it to analysts in the Pentagon to determine the level of deterrents we have to aggressive nations like Iran, China, and Russia.
But those were interesting charts you displayed.

Also, I love that you are touting the military strength of our country vis a vis our greatest adversary. HOORAH!
And you are advising against increased military strength?
For what reason? You must have an idea of how our tax dollars can be better spent. Slave reparations maybe? More DEI programs in the government and schools? MORE solar panels or windmills?

Yes, we are strong and well armed. But China is a growing military threat and Russia still has over 6,000 nuclear warheads.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

I wish I knew who "they" so I can better understand your post.
I always like knowing if and when I am "reluctant to acknowledge these obvious implications of what they are posting."

lol @ you trying to change the subject to grammar

Better than admitting that you failed to grasp the implications of what you posted though, yes?

 

[Simon W. Moon]

I leave it to analysts in the Pentagon to determine the level of deterrents we have to aggressive nations like Iran, China, and Russia.

Is the Pentagon competent enough to handle its own HR policies?

Or does it need help from politicians on that count?

 

[jaypatriot]

Is the Pentagon competent enough to handle its own HR policies?

Or does it need help from politicians on that count?

BY HR you mean Pentagon personnel management.
Why would any government organization want to lose personnel?
Getting help from politicians is like asking the teachers' union to reduce the number of teachers in the union.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

BY HR you mean Pentagon personnel management.
Why would any government organization want to lose personnel?
Getting help from politicians is like asking the teachers' union to reduce the number of teachers in the union.

so, you think politicians should stay of DEI programs in the military.

 

[jaypatriot]

lol @ you trying to change the subject to grammar

Better than admitting that you failed to grasp the implications of what you posted though, yes?

I still don't know who or what you meant by "they".
If you want readers "to grasp the implications of what you posted" you need to explain your pronouns.

 

[jaypatriot]

so, you think politicians should stay of DEI programs in the military.

Politicians should not have nothing to do with bullshit DEI programs in the military, schools, federal agencies, and corporations.
Those programs should not exist.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

I still don't know who or what you meant by "they".
If you want readers "to grasp the implications of what you posted" you need to explain your pronouns.

lol

If you or others are unable to understand pronouns, nouns, verbs, or any other basic parts of the English language​

it's not actually my problem—it's yours​

 

[jaypatriot]

lol

If you or others are unable to understand pronouns, nouns, verbs, or any other basic parts of the English language​

it's not actually my problem—it's yours​

The good news this exchange has made me completely forget whatever point you were trying to make,

 

[Simon W. Moon]

The good news this exchange has made me completely forget whatever point you were trying to make,

lol
as if you weren't intentionally trying to change the subject from your failure to understand the implications of what you were saying

 

[ElChupacabra]

I leave it to analysts in the Pentagon to determine the level of deterrents we have to aggressive nations like Iran, China, and Russia.
But those were interesting charts you displayed.

Except China isn't a global aggressor. They've limited that their immediate region and mostly on the maritime front. That's also reflected in their growth of small surface combatant vessels versus larger ones. Russia is the only one that's actually gone to war with anyone recently, and Iran mainly backs terrorist groups/militias.

Also, I love that you are touting the military strength of our country vis a vis our greatest adversary. HOORAH!

Facts are facts.

And you are advising against increased military strength?

I don't see why we have to continue spending as much as we do considering the significantly smaller amounts our adversaries spend.

For what reason?

To spend money more efficiently. I'm surprised DOGE isn't all over this.

You must have an idea of how our tax dollars can be better spent.

Maybe.

Slave reparations maybe?

Ooh, is that a deflection I see? But no. Perhaps less on aircraft carriers in the age of drone warfare though.

More DEI programs in the government and schools?

Another stab in the dark. That would still be preferable to overpriced jet fighters though.

MORE solar panels or windmills?

More flailing. You're on a roll. I will say those would help us more than ordering more tanks.

Yes, we are strong and well armed. But China is a growing military threat and Russia still has over 6,000 nuclear warheads.

Cool, but we are still spending way more than those two countries combined. We seem to be pretty bad at controlling those costs. Seems odd for anyone asking for budgetary "efficiency" to support this clear discrepancy.

 

[Bum]

Donald Trump Announces $1 Trillion Pentagon Budget: 'Have to Be Strong' - NewsBreak

Speaking at a press event, Trump said his administration would approve a budget that will be "the biggest one we've ever done for the military."

share.newsbreak.com

So…wait.

Mr “going to end wars” and “cut government spending” not only wants to hand out 4.5T in tax cuts - largely benefiting his rich friends - but also wants to increase our military budget to a TRILLION dollars?


What do we need a TRILLION dollar military budget for?


I must have missed where he campaigned on that.

That should cover the cost of the first dozen toilet seats....

 

[Ishm]

I wonder how much of the extra spend is to add more capability, and how much is to replace the economic damage Trump has caused our defence industry with his crazy threats against our allies? I don't know how big that number is, but it isn't going to be small.

 

[Jason Warfield]

What you missed is Reagan's
PEACE THROUGH STRENGTH message.
When you have adversaries like N Korea, Iran, Russia, and China, to be unprepared for war is to be at risk for defeat.
Does that answer your rhetorical question above?

SMH....

This concept has been around since Hadrian, which is where Reagan got the phrase from. During Hadrian's reign.

And it doesn't work.

If you need proof...look at the whole of human history.

 

[ScrambledEggs]

We need that trillion $$$ budget because soon we will be bombing Iran, bombing cartels in Mexico, invading Greenland & the Pananananama Canal, and possibly putting troops on the border of Cananananada to scare them into joining us as the 51st state.

 

[jaypatriot]

SMH....

This concept has been around since Hadrian, which is where Reagan got the phrase from. During Hadrian's reign.

And it doesn't work.

If you need proof...look at the whole of human history.

Are you referring to the entire scope of human history?
Or just the part where the U.S. outspent the Soviet Union, militarily and economically, to where it collapsed in late 1991?
We were outspending them and they could not keep their empire together.

What about the phrase Mutual Assured Destruction? MAD?
Does that make any sense?