US Politics thread

[Rutger Müller]

I hope Trump really does send the feds into Chicago so I can watch some gib me dats get shot on Live Leak

As if that's going to solve anything.

[GeneralSquirts]

Maybe we should follow the wise Dutch example and just mock the criminals to death

http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Netherlands/United-States/Crime
If it ain't broke?

To be fair, netherlands is a lot smaller. Ill use another example. United States vs. Lebanon

http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Lebanon/United-States/Crime

[Olafson]

I hope Trump really does send the feds into Chicago so I can watch some gib me dats get shot on Live Leak

As if that's going to solve anything.

Not even true. If the US would only spend half of their military budget on the military and the other half on NASA and science in general we would be so much more advanced right now. And to be fair, even spending just half of the military budget on military is still way to much. 250 Billion US dollar...

[StevenChilton]

Most scientific achievements of the last 100 years have been as a result of military funding, including the internet. But maybe if European countries spent more on their defence the US wouldn't need to spend so much.

[Olafson]

Right, because the US is spending $63 billion, or 9.5% of their defense budget on Research.

The EU combined spends $225 billion on defense, the US spends $590 billion on defense. It is ridicilous to think that the US needs that large of an military.
Let's say we cut the US military budget down to the same as the EU, so both the EU and the US together spend $450 billion on their militaries. The rest of the world combined only spends $976 billion.
Don't you think that the US and the EU should be able to handle any thread well enough, even with a lower US budget?

I mean, I get your point. The only reason anyone ever went to the moon, or sent satellites into space, was because the Russians/NATO could have built a military installation there. But this is the wrong idea. We should thrive for scientific advancement, purely for the sake of advancement and not for the sake of being first to build the most powerful weapon.


And to get back to my original argument, which still holds true. If the US would spend more on NASA than on their military, we would would be much more advanced (I meant in space travel btw.) It was a hypothetical thing, IF the US would spend that much on NASA, this would happen. It has nothing todo with the point that a lot of big scientific achievements have been achieved because of war (specially the cold war).

[Riddlez]

If you want an illustration about what a country can achieve by rerouting defence spending to another field, look at what Costa Rica has done.

[Theodin]

Comparing the Costa Rican defense budget and those budgets decsions to the US defence budget is a terrible comparison.

[Olafson]

Well sure 100% budget cut compared to a 50% budget cut is quite a difference, but I think what Riddlez wanted to say is that having no military can work.


Costa Rica has no military and can spend that money on other things. And it actually works. So why shouldn't a 50% budget cut work? You would still have more than enough money to have a large military (and it would still be much larger than that of all the EU forces combined...(If you compare populations)) and you would have a lot more money to do other things with.

[BabyJesus]

I hope America just gets rid of their defense budget. We don't need an army

[Theodin]

Is that a serious proposal Olaf?

[StevenChilton]

The US defence budget is definitely bloated I'm not gonna argue about that. But you've got to appreciate that it's defence spending that oils the wheels of the military-industrial complex, which is where most of the advancements are made. If you start reducing spending then there's less money available to BAE Systems, Boeing, Lockheed Martin etc. The 9.5% figure is also misleading and the real figure is much higher-for example the Pentagon may buy 10,000 M1 Abrams tanks but General Dynamics designs them and does the necessary R&D. Pentagon money is simply being spent to contract out a lot of R&D to the private sector.

The Pentagon could try and do everything in house but governments aren't great at doing that sort of thing, hence why the USSR lagged behind the US technologically speaking during the Cold War.

I mean, I get your point. The only reason anyone ever went to the moon, or sent satellites into space, was because the Russians/NATO could have built a military installation there. But this is the wrong idea. We should thrive for scientific advancement, purely for the sake of advancement and not for the sake of being first to build the most powerful weapon.

That's not human nature, and never will be. And I think the search for ever more powerful weapons is probably the right idea-I highly doubt we're alone in the universe, alien civilisations if they exist are probably just as warlike as we are if not more so.

[Olafson]

Alright, fair points, I do not think that I can say anything about these. Good argument. The Alien stuff is bullshit though. An Alien race has nothing to gain from war with the earth. Besides that, any alien civilization capable of getting here is also capable of complete elimination of the planet/all life on it, so there is no point in focusing in that regard anyway.

There are only three reasons an alien might start war with earth. 1.) It is an accident
                                                                                                      2.) The alien is a single being or a hivemind that simply wants all the universe for itself.
                                                                                                      3.) The alien civ somehow thinks that the earth is a threat to its existence.

None of these are very likely. Besides that, the likelihood of meeting an Alien race is extremely slim, if even possible at all. Your thinking is also crooked, an alien civilization that is like us would not start war with us. It would gain absolutely nothing from it.

Is that a serious proposal Olaf?

Decreasing the defence budget? Yes. Spending everything on NASA? Personally I wouldn't mind, I don't live in the US, but obviously it would be way better for the US itself if the money were to be spend equally on various different fields.

[Karth]

One thing though, NASA may look sophisticated and great on the surface, but they are a huge bureaucracy.  They butt heads with every private organization that wants to fund their own space explorations.

[Conway]

Doesn't the U.S have over 600,000 active ground troops? Isn't that a bit excessive seeing it'll realistically never fight a nation were that many troops are required for immediate combat? The USAF and Navy will win wars. The Army and Marines just hold onto the ground. But there is no country where you will instantly need 600,000 men to hold the ground. If you cut spending to the number of ground troops and focused on training and equipment instead wouldn't that be more practical? 50% cut to the military wouldn't be a good idea seeing 65% of the funding goes into the Air force and Navy. But the Army could probably do for a 33% cut in its funding via freezing recruitment for a good long while. That way the army just become more professional by keeping its equipment up to date but doesn't tank in cost for no reason. You could probably even relocate come of that money saved to help veterans and their families.

[Theodin]

Reducing the US defense budget by a drastic amount would shock the international security community.