Why Do People Claim "The U.S. Can't Afford Another War"?

[Dayton3]

A common refrain from those opposing U.S. military action overseas such as Syria, Iraq and elsewhere is that "The U.S. can't afford another war".
And they are invariably talking about financially as they often add "we're broke" or refer to the deficit and/or national debt.
Come on.
Do people really believe that if Iran seized control of the Straits of Hormuz or North Korea launched a massive attack across the DMZ that the U.S. would have to throw up its hands and accept it because we "can't afford it".
In World War Two, the U.S. spent many times the percentage of GDP it does now on the military and did for fully 4 years.

 

[a351]

It's rhetoric aimed at refocusing on domestic priorities rather than foreign campaigns. I'm not sure I'd take it in the literal sense, especially given either of the scenarios you posed.

 

[TeleKat]

Here's a radical idea: How about our National Defense budget actually be used for defense!

 

[rocket88]

Here's a radical idea: How about our National Defense budget actually be used for defense!

Too radical. We need to go back into Iraq, don't you know.

 

[Dayton3]

Here's a radical idea: How about our National Defense budget actually be used for defense!

Because the United States is totally undefendable from within its own borders.

Trying to simply "defend" the United States would be like a football team giving the other team the ball on the 10 yard line (10 yards away from scoring) and trying to stop them.

No matter how strong you are and how week the other side, sheer proximately would allow even the weakest offense to score eventually.

 

[blackjack50]

Here's a radical idea: How about our National Defense budget actually be used for defense!

Yes. Forget the Mid East. If they wanna club each other, let em. I know that is simplistic and sad, but we get nothing but death and waste by being involved. Eventually they will work their own problem out. Heck...if we just let one group take over the entire Mid East...that might work out well.

 

[TeleKat]

Because the United States is totally undefendable from within its own borders.

Yeah because we didn't fight off the entire British Empire from within our borders. :roll:

 

[TobyOne]

We can't even afford the government we have. A war is immensely costly and would have to be financed by taxation or debt. Its more accurate to say a war would be a huge financial burden.

The US gov prints money so there's no danger out of running out of it. The danger is that we devalue or currency so much that our debt becomes worthless or close to worthless.

Actually the real danger is that the US dollar loses its status as the worlds reserve currency. That would cause the value of the dollar to drop precipitously and be an unrecoverable blow.

A common refrain from those opposing U.S. military action overseas such as Syria, Iraq and elsewhere is that "The U.S. can't afford another war".
And they are invariably talking about financially as they often add "we're broke" or refer to the deficit and/or national debt.
Come on.
Do people really believe that if Iran seized control of the Straits of Hormuz or North Korea launched a massive attack across the DMZ that the U.S. would have to throw up its hands and accept it because we "can't afford it".
In World War Two, the U.S. spent many times the percentage of GDP it does now on the military and did for fully 4 years.

 

[Helix]

Why Do People Claim "The U.S. Can't Afford Another War"?

Because we can't even afford health care, and we can barely afford to pave the roads.

No more ****ing war.

 

[blackjack50]

Because the United States is totally undefendable from within its own borders.

Said the Japanese and German militaries. What did that get them? A Few u boats off our coast and a mass naval attack on a small island well off our coast.

Trying to simply "defend" the United States would be like a football team giving the other team the ball on the 10 yard line (10 yards away from scoring) and trying to stop them.

No matter how strong you are and how week the other side, sheer proximately would allow even the weakest offense to score eventually.

Actually...it would be like putting them on their own 1 on a 200 yard field and adding an additional 40 players to America's team. Do you grasp the size of our nation? Our interstate system is literally a MASSIVE air strip waiting to be converted literally nationwide, we have massive mountain ranges and cities to take cover in, and then some. Anyone trying to invade would fall short and be destroyed by our navy before they got here.

And even still they would have to have the man power to invade and occupy, and that is just impossible. Our nation is filled with national guard, cops, and tons of amateur snipers who would make occupation a living hell.

The only option on attacking the United States is nuclear, and we would wipe anyone trying that off the map with our own stockpile.

 

[blackjack50]

Yeah because we didn't fight off the entire British Empire from within our borders. :roll:

That is kind of a bad analogy. We nearly lost in 76. Had it not been for slow moving British generals...Washington likely would have been defeated and with him the cause would have crumpled. It nearly did with him in 76.

 

[Dayton3]

^You don't have to invade the United States to harm it severely.

By the way, cops and "amateur snipers" are not soldiers and could never function effectively as them.

 

[Dayton3]

Said the Japanese and German militaries. What did that get them? A Few u boats off our coast and a mass naval attack on a small island well off our coast.



Actually...it would be like putting them on their own 1 on a 200 yard field and adding an additional 40 players to America's team. Do you grasp the size of our nation? Our interstate system is literally a MASSIVE air strip waiting to be converted literally nationwide, we have massive mountain ranges and cities to take cover in, and then some. Anyone trying to invade would fall short and be destroyed by our navy before they got here.

And even still they would have to have the man power to invade and occupy, and that is just impossible. Our nation is filled with national guard, cops, and tons of amateur snipers who would make occupation a living hell.

The only option on attacking the United States is nuclear, and we would wipe anyone trying that off the map with our own stockpile.

This post is bat crazy on every level.

 

[ARealConservative]

We are currently saddling unborn generations with debt because we are spending far more then what congress can raise in revenue.

How is this a form of affording things?

 

[StillBallin75]

Here's a radical idea: How about our National Defense budget actually be used for defense!

lol defense is a political buzzword, nothing more.

 

[joG]

A common refrain from those opposing U.S. military action overseas such as Syria, Iraq and elsewhere is that "The U.S. can't afford another war".
And they are invariably talking about financially as they often add "we're broke" or refer to the deficit and/or national debt.
Come on.
Do people really believe that if Iran seized control of the Straits of Hormuz or North Korea launched a massive attack across the DMZ that the U.S. would have to throw up its hands and accept it because we "can't afford it".
In World War Two, the U.S. spent many times the percentage of GDP it does now on the military and did for fully 4 years.

There is a difference between being able to wage a war of choice and one of necessity.

 

[ARealConservative]

how are we defining afford anyway?

We were called out in the 70's for not being able to honor our promises and unilaterally ended our agreements. Still count as afford?

I already discussed how much we add to the debt today. Is that an example of affording it?

how about when governments shut down?

what does it take to call it out?

 

[Slartibartfast]

Because the United States is totally undefendable from within its own borders.

Trying to simply "defend" the United States would be like a football team giving the other team the ball on the 10 yard line (10 yards away from scoring) and trying to stop them.

No matter how strong you are and how week the other side, sheer proximately would allow even the weakest offense to score eventually.

yeah that pesky ocean! Its no help!

 

[StillBallin75]

To me, I think coupled with the financial costs of war (both in the short and long-term), are the costs of engaging in bad policy. Nobody knows what will happen next in the Middle East, and nobody knows whether some time of armed military intervention will make it even worse and cause us to get stuck in a conflict that it will be even more difficult to extricate ourselves out of.

 

[StillBallin75]

Because the United States is totally undefendable from within its own borders.

Trying to simply "defend" the United States would be like a football team giving the other team the ball on the 10 yard line (10 yards away from scoring) and trying to stop them.

No matter how strong you are and how week the other side, sheer proximately would allow even the weakest offense to score eventually.

That is a horrendous analogy. War isn't football, and football isn't war. Defending your side of the field isn't at all analogous with fighting for one's homeland. The weakest offenses don't even get to the 10 yard line, and even if they did, the weakest offenses only score via field goal when the defense stiffens up and the field shrinks in the red zone.

With the possible exception of nuclear weapons usage, all other things being equal, defense always wins out in the end. And how is the United States "undefendable" from within its own borders?

In any case, even if you were correct, all the hypotheticals you're throwing out are irrelevant, as the US simply isn't facing any existential threats to its sovereignty at this moment. Just because we hold "interests" overseas doesn't mean that such interests warrant military intervention to protect, and there is no guarantee that military intervention wouldn't make things worse for us than they already were, which is evidenced by the past decade and a half of our foreign policy.

 

[Dayton3]

Once again, you could bring the U.S. economy to its knees without coming within thousands of miles of the U.S. mainland.

Terrorists could kill thousands of American citizens in the continental U.S. without coming within 100 miles or more of the U.S. mainland.

You people.

How can you seriously think that "as long as they don't invade" is the be all, end all of defending the United States?

 

[CalGun]

Because that policy inevitably loses and its been seen to lose through out history. We adopted that very policy after WWI and the result was easily seen in WWII. I could have voted for Ron Paul in the Republican Primary if hadn't adopted such an ignorant point of view and he did so to the extreme. We have far too many bases over seas no doubt, but to suggest eliminating them all is just ignorant - just like leaving Iraq after we defeated it the way we did was ignorant. All we had to do was maintain a base presence there and this crap wouldn't be happening today.

Here's a radical idea: How about our National Defense budget actually be used for defense!

 

[Mithrae]

Terrorists could kill thousands of American citizens in the continental U.S. without coming within 100 miles or more of the U.S. mainland.

If only there were some way of knowing the real reason they feel the need to kill Americans. They claim it's because of American invasions, occupations and economic deprivations in 'their' lands, but that's obviously nonsense, right? Better keep invading, occupying and protecting American economic 'interests' in order to ensure that terrorists won't hurt anyone.

 

[PirateMk1]

A common refrain from those opposing U.S. military action overseas such as Syria, Iraq and elsewhere is that "The U.S. can't afford another war".
And they are invariably talking about financially as they often add "we're broke" or refer to the deficit and/or national debt.
Come on.
Do people really believe that if Iran seized control of the Straits of Hormuz or North Korea launched a massive attack across the DMZ that the U.S. would have to throw up its hands and accept it because we "can't afford it".
In World War Two, the U.S. spent many times the percentage of GDP it does now on the military and did for fully 4 years.

We really cant at this point and it aint only about the money but about our men and how expended they are. Unless it is a direct threat and clear and present danger we shouldn't be putting men into harms way.

 

[Dayton3]

If only there were some way of knowing the real reason they feel the need to kill Americans. They claim it's because of American invasions, occupations and economic deprivations in 'their' lands, but that's obviously nonsense, right? Better keep invading, occupying and protecting American economic 'interests' in order to ensure that terrorists won't hurt anyone.

Really? Who had we invaded that provoked 9-11?

Answer? No one.