No, actually you have not.
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/iraq
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/afghanistan
I'd decrease it close to 80%. The military industrial complex has eaten up enough of taxpayer money.
It was the military industrial complex that created the middle class of the 50's, 60's and 70's.
Most jobs in the military industrial complex were well paying jobs.
Then you needed all of those burger flippers to feed those working in the military industrial complex and construction workers to build the homes for those who worked in the military industrial complex.
Then you have to look who really was responsible for producing all of the new products that have been developed over the past sixty or seventy years. The military industrial complex. From the internet, that computer you're on right now, cordless tools, cell and smart phones, tubeless tires, jet commercial airliners, GPS, and the Interstate Highway System.
What would you do with our defense spending? Would you downsize it? Increase it? Leave it the same? Please explain each of your choices.
That is, actually, a very legitimate concern. Ok, so let's say we downside the military industrial complex drastically. Then what? Where do these people go? What do they do for jobs? "Real jobs" as someone said earlier in the thread? Phfft! Yeah, even one could define exactly what that means, it's not like those just fall off trees.
I'd slash defense spending, starting with my beloved aircraft carriers and the gargantuan logistics train required to keep them operationally effective. But there are other areas where we should maintain (or perhaps increase) spending - cyber capabilities, space control (yeah, space), and SpecOps. But the cost of these won't even come close to what we spend on our carriers.
What if carriers could go under water ? Obama might know something that we don't. :lol:
I would go along with deactivating four carriers and reactivating four Iowa class BB's.
At this time with the current administration :golf :joke: who doesn't know how to use the military except for liberal social engineering and has big problems with just keeping two carriers at sea, our carriers today may look like a money rat hole. But it's very likely that the next Commander in Chief will not be a :laughat: community organizer.
why do we need ANY surface navy, or the army, or the marines, or ICBMS? ONE of our nuke missile subs has more firepower than the entire nuclear arsenal of Britian or France. Does anybody invade THEM? WE can defend the US just FINE with just the Natl guard, coast guard, subs, and the spec ops boys. if the latter can't handle something outside of our borders, just send the nukes. no biggie.
with a TRILLION $ per year saved, we can give all the laid off military and spies (1.5 million of them) 20k a year for a couple of years, and have 900 billion to the good.
I'd cut it by at LEAST 90%. we don't need the Army, the surface navy, the air force or the Marines. we can defend the US just FINE with backpack nukes, the missile subs, the spec ops guys and the Natl'guard,
I really dont understand why there is a question about this. We certainly need to decrease it. Were it not for all the pork we would not spend such stupid money on defesene. Our 20 year old birds are the best in the world
and we buy new all the time. Why is that? I think we need to bring our bases back from all over the world, reduce the standing army (not hte Marine Corps) and strengthen reserves. The only rival the US might have is if Martians invade or there is a Zombie attack. Otherwise no other cournty in the world has got anything. Our only weakness is political stupidity. But yea, Obama is a weak ally. You guys are hive minded Obama hate all the time.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?