Do recent global developments change your view on defense spending?

[jaypatriot]

America watched as bombs rained down on London and shipping was being sunk in the North Atlantic, including an American destroyer, and didn't get involved until Germany declared war on the USA.

I guess you missed America's involvement in the Battle of the Atlantic.
The U.S. was sinking German subs before the U.S. entry into WW II.

Battle of the Atlantic: Overview

The Battle of the Atlantic was one of the most important fronts in World War II. In September 1939, Germany immediately sought to capitalize on Britain’s dependence on imports of food and raw materials. After the Wehrmacht attacked it in June 1941, the U.S.S.R repeatedly asserted its dire need...

www.history.navy.mil

 

[jakiejakester]

Why should we?

Do other countries pay for our military? Do other countries pay our soldiers?

Since when was/is the US the “world’s protector”? Where is that written?

The US has a military to protect the US and our interests. We are not the world’s police force or democracy keepers.

Have you ever traveled outside of North America? Do you have any concept of what other countries societies are like and how influential the US is around the world as a beacon for democracy, culture, even pop culture? Your earlier comment about being OK with having even more nukes exposed you as someone who has no idea what that means and how completely unnecessary that is. You want to blow the world up 5000 times instead of 4000 times?

 

[jakiejakester]

Military spending is about 3.2% of GDP.

3.74% in 2020 but it's also about 11% of our entire budget and we would not be less safe if we spent 10% less. Ever consider changing your handle here to BombinHand?

 

[Grand Mal]

I guess you missed America's involvement in the Battle of the Atlantic.
The U.S. was sinking German subs before the U.S. entry into WW II.

Battle of the Atlantic: Overview

The Battle of the Atlantic was one of the most important fronts in World War II. In September 1939, Germany immediately sought to capitalize on Britain’s dependence on imports of food and raw materials. After the Wehrmacht attacked it in June 1941, the U.S.S.R repeatedly asserted its dire need...

www.history.navy.mil

It doesn't say that in the report you cite. It does mention the sinking of the USS Reuben James over a month before the US responded to Germany's declaration of war.

 

[Schism]

Does your calculated retreat also include quitting NATO and letting Europe fend for itself in the face of Russian aggression? Does that make sense to you at this time?

America was in favor of isolationism (after WW I) until it saw Hitler start to invade countries in Northern Europe. You remember what America did then, right?
Why did it choose to come out of its shell?

If Europe and the EU want to defend themselves they should do so, and spend whatever their citizens want to commit.

Their security is not our problem; our defense is not theirs. I have no problem acting in a supporting role. But that's not what's happening in the world. People like yourself like to engage in global bravado, as though it's Americas responsibility. It's not.

 

[BirdinHand]

3.74% in 2020 but it's also about 11% of our entire budget and we would not be less safe if we spent 10% less. Ever consider changing your handle here to BombinHand?

And spend on what instead?

 

[Schism]

I have some agreement with this point of view! What about sales of weaponry and defense to other countries?

I would rather provide humanitarian relief, supplies, medical assistance, refugee centers in neutral countries.

Imagine spending half our defense budget on actually helping people instead of bombing them.

Because all we're really fighting for is oil, natural resources, and trade routes. No thanks.

 

[Callen]

I would rather provide humanitarian relief, supplies, medical assistance, refugee centers in neutral countries.

Imagine spending half our defense budget on actually helping people instead of bombing them.

Because all we're really fighting for is oil, natural resources, and trade routes. No thanks.

Refreshing to hear from someone on the right that US involvement in NATO, and their worldwide deployments are in their own best interests and not based on some altruistic mission. They especially like the ability to mass troops, arms, artillery, medical, naval and airforce capabilities close to areas that may be hot spots. The use tge US made of those facilities during the Iraq, Afgan and Syrian conflicts paid for themselves many times over. I appreciate US leadership, especially in the Ukrainian invasion, and support it but I am under no illusion they are just being good neighbours.

 

[Noodlegawd]

Do recent global developments change your view on defense spending?​

Yes. I think Ukraine should have spent more on defense.

 

[Peter]

The UK is no slouch in missile defense (number 5 in the world). Also, the UK does meet its NATO obligation. I'd agree the UK is quite capable. It's an ally I hope the U.S. keeps.

The UK had no choice but to spend heavily on defence. We are a global finance hub and are an obvious target for nukes as a relatively small island.
It's unfortunately much easier to nuke us and be done with it than try and invade.

It's one reason why the Eurofighter went for agility and climb rate over stealth in design as they have to get as high as they can as fast as they can to avoid nuclear blasts.

 

[Callen]

The UK had no choice but to spend heavily on defence. We are a global finance hub and are an obvious target for nukes as a relatively small island.
It's unfortunately much easier to nuke us and be done with it than try and invade.

It's one reason why the Eurofighter went for agility and climb rate over stealth in design as they have to get as high as they can as fast as they can to avoid nuclear blasts.

I think too there is a historical commitment to a substantial and strong military both from the days of the British Empire and the up close and personal experiences of WW1 and WW2. Canada has none of that historical perspective. We have one land border and virtually no serious enemies. However, this is opening our eyes to how ill prepared we are globally and the shift in public perception is shifting.....which is good thing.

 

[bomberfox]

I’m curious how recent events will effect public perception on this topic.

Humans have the unsettling habit of making war. It’s been going on since the dawn of civilization.

I think it unwise to think the world is without threat as we have all been seeing on Twitter over the past 10 days.

That said, I also think the defense lobbyists in DC are basically fleecing the American tax payer and that, collectively we could use the money we give to them in a far more useful way. So, I do still support cutting defense, because our military budget is already bloated. And I’m against the kind of corruption that the defense lobbyists and politicians engage in

We havnt seen a world war 3 yet and have yet to see a war that has required conscription so i would say we live in the least warlike times.

 

[gbg3]

I've been in defense and gov't contracting since the late 80's and I vote we scale way back to our borders and territorial waters.

We need to get out of the worldwide aggression business.

I would rather provide humanitarian relief, supplies, medical assistance, refugee centers in neutral countries.

Imagine spending half our defense budget on actually helping people instead of bombing them.

Because all we're really fighting for is oil, natural resources, and trade routes. No thanks.

If Europe and the EU want to defend themselves they should do so, and spend whatever their citizens want to commit.

Their security is not our problem; our defense is not theirs. I have no problem acting in a supporting role. But that's not what's happening in the world. People like yourself like to engage in global bravado, as though it's Americas responsibility. It's not.

I think I got your second and third quote out of order - sorry about that.

But I responded to this first quote with agreement because I've had it with the U.S. supporting the "west" and think it not a bad idea to scale back to our own protection and defense.

As far as humanitarian aid, I think the U.S. already gets and A+ in that category - but I don't feel like taking the time to look up current statistics as that's somewhat off topic.

I think we need every bit of our defense and miliary capability (and more) with the current structure of NATO and the strength (and danger/threat) of China/Russia/Iran/etc. But the current structure of NATO stinks IMO - which leads me to agree with the last paragraph in this set of your quotes ("Their security...").

 

[gbg3]

Yes. I think Ukraine should have spent more on defense.

Not only Ukraine! Many a country who is thinking someone else will take care of them if and when things get rough.

 

[Fishking]

Bullshit. You're providing security for yourselves. Give me one example of America providing security for someone else? In WW2 bombs were raining down on London and civilian shipping being sunk in the North Atlantic and the US didn't get involved until Germany declared war on them. Even a German sub sinking an American destroyer didn't do it. In WW1 you didn't deign to help out until Germany offered to help Mexico recover territory lost to the US. You go on military adventures all over the world, at the slightest provocation, but It's never on behalf of anyone else.
When you were 11 years old your teachers told you a lot of stuff to make you a proud and loyal American citizen, including that the USA was the world's protector, and you haven't questioned a word of any of it since

What a display of ignorance on your part, if you goal was to flout said ignorance you definitely achieved it. The US was involved in WWII before we got involved militarily. We were heavily involved materially by supplying equipment to various allies and cutting supplies off from other nations. We delivered $11 billion in jeeps, armored vehicles, tanks, ect. to the USSR alone, which was integral in keeping them in the fight as they were the biggest threat to Germany. We cut seized assets and cut oil off to Japan.

However, everything you said is a smoke screen to try and make people look at a different direction, instead of the stability that has been provided the world through the US alone, post WWII. It was the US that kept the USSR in check, as well as communist China. There is a reason why a significant portion of the world have paultry militaries. It's because the US is there to cover for them. The fact is, we have been the world protector post WWII. That's not even a question but reality.

 

[Fishking]

I wish I could fully agree with this comment. It's somewhat questionable, IMO.

The only thing lacking is just sheer numbers for personnel.

 

[Fishking]

American munitions aren’t going to set themselves off!

Nope...but unless we're getting full price paid for them, up front, it's a European problem.

 

[craig]

It's not a matter of spending, but military priorities. There was no reason to establish "defensive" weapon platforms so close to Russia. We were warned for years not to do it, and then we did it anyway. Russia is hardly the good guy but NATO has created a classic security dilemma with its hawkish foreign policy, all because the western billionaires want to isolate Russia in order to perpetuate a one-economy. It needs to stop.

Once Putin falls and Russia collapses, we need to rebuild it into a responsible European democracy so we don't need to.

 

[gbg3]

The only thing lacking is just sheer numbers for personnel.

Number 1 and 3 in this article haven't dropped the ball on capabilities (besides personnel). I would never dispute our capabilities and missile technology - but I wish I could dispute that numbers 1 and 3 also have tremendous capabilities.

Top 10 Best Missile Technology Countries in the World 2023-24 - India's Stuffs

There is so much missile technology so far that it has made the world a…

www.indiasstuffs.com

 

[gbg3]

However, everything you said is a smoke screen to try and make people look at a different direction, instead of the stability that has been provided the world through the US alone, post WWII. It was the US that kept the USSR in check, as well as communist China. There is a reason why a significant portion of the world have paultry militaries. It's because the US is there to cover for them. The fact is, we have been the world protector post WWII. That's not even a question but reality.

 

[MikePrime]

Up is down
left is right

war is peace in Mike Prime time.

Yeahhhhhhhh.....HARD PASS Mike......

Standing military isn't war, you'll have to explain that one.

So you deny that our army is a deterrent??? You think China would just let Taiwan exist if it weren't for the US military???

Ironic because your profile picture is JFK, rest in peace, but he was the president that escalated US involvement in Vietnam.

 

[Schism]

I think I got your second and third quote out of order - sorry about that.

But I responded to this first quote with agreement because I've had it with the U.S. supporting the "west" and think it not a bad idea to scale back to our own protection and defense.

As far as humanitarian aid, I think the U.S. already gets and A+ in that category - but I don't feel like taking the time to look up current statistics as that's somewhat off topic.

I think we need every bit of our defense and miliary capability (and more) with the current structure of NATO and the strength (and danger/threat) of China/Russia/Iran/etc. But the current structure of NATO stinks IMO - which leads me to agree with the last paragraph in this set of your quotes ("Their security...").

My long held position is for peace and diplomacy over military aggression abroad. Every military conflict we've been involved in post-WW2 has been for oil, natural resources, and trade routes. The US and CIA have overthrown dozens of sovereign gov'ts, while continuing to do business with some of the worst dictators and despots known in history. We've killed more civilians in foreign countries than all terrorist organizations combined. My greatest desire for our country is to end it's quest for global dominance and use our wealth and technology for good and to better the world. All you have to do is look at the nations we've destroyed over the last 20+ years as evidence we have no business running around the world threatening people.

For that view, I'm called a fascist, nazi, white supremacist, isolationist, and Putin sympathizer.

It's bizarre.

 

[Schism]

However, everything you said is a smoke screen to try and make people look at a different direction, instead of the stability that has been provided the world through the US alone, post WWII. It was the US that kept the USSR in check, as well as communist China. There is a reason why a significant portion of the world have paultry militaries. It's because the US is there to cover for them. The fact is, we have been the world protector post WWII. That's not even a question but reality.

It's like enabling a 32 year old adult son to live in the basement and play video games instead of getting a job and supporting himself.

It's not our responsibility to protect the world, but that's not how those in power look at it; that's simply how they present it to the public.

What's really behind being a world power is accumulating wealth through controlling natural resources and trade routes. I'm not a supporter of that mindset.

 

[Kreton]

We spend too much, and what is happening now doesn't change that fact. Why should the US carry the financial burden of the entire rest of the world on their shoulders?

Simple answer is someone is going to lead the world. It is inevitable.

There are 3 options who have the power to do it. The United States - China - Russia. I know who my choice to lead and shape the world is. The idea that the each country should operate in a bubble, defend themselves and rule themselves without regard for the world became outdated in the middle ages. To believe otherwise is naive. Russia is the enemy of the United States. There is no two ways about it. Listen to Putin talk. We have no choice in this. He wants to destroy what we are. He may or may not be in a position to do anything about it but if he takes over part of Europe unchecked he gets stronger. The world gets weaker. Conquering nations impact the world.

You have to pay the cost to be the boss. That is why.

 

[Fishking]

Number 1 and 3 in this article haven't dropped the ball on capabilities (besides personnel). I would never dispute our capabilities and missile technology - but I wish I could dispute that numbers 1 and 3 also have tremendous capabilities.

Top 10 Best Missile Technology Countries in the World 2023-24 - India's Stuffs

There is so much missile technology so far that it has made the world a…

www.indiasstuffs.com

I won't deny that Russia has good missile technology, especially when it comes to the actual engine construction. However, they resources are so limited and their practical experience so small that it wouldn't be enough to make a difference in the outcome.