US Politics thread

[Conway]

Well, technically what I said isn't one drastic change. It would gradually decrease the budget in a certain field. A 50% cut would almost certainly cause shit to go wild though.

[Olafson]

What Conway proposed makes sense, cut where you are overdoing it. The US is practically an Island. No military will ever be large enough to land so many troops on the US coast that the US has to send in ALL of their soldiers. It is just unrealistic.
The Navy and Airforce keep the country protected, with the backup from the Marines. The Army is more of a reserve needed when doing large scale invasions or when defending the country on land (which will practically never happen anyway).

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

I don't know, how so?

Instead of having 101010101010 tanks, now the Us only has 10101010 (active) Tanks (They could still keep the other tanks in store, in case they do actually need them, because I don't know why). Not going to hurt anyone. The US could still keep troops in foreign countries and deploy their navy world wide, they just would cut the troops situated in the US.

[Thunderstormer]

i cant see the US cutting spending on the military in the slightest for various reasons.  the slightest cut gets perceived as a weakening of the military.  a loss of influence around the world.  etc,.  even trying to phase out old stuff(that requires more men and material to do the job) for a more economical stuff that does the same job, if not better for less cost in resources can be perceived as a horrible cut to the military.  quite often it is how the politicians spin what is happening which influences how people think about the possible changes rather than what will actually happen.

The US loves its military.  You would have to convince them that whatever changes are for the best, both locally, nationally, and globally. 

[Olafson]

Well yeah, obviously all of this just hypothetical.

[Karth]

Remember, even for a country as small as Iraq and Afghanistan, they deployed reserve and NG battalions to keep up with the surge. The # of active duty didnt cut it. So they want to be prepared as realistically the next 'conflict' would happen with a country much larger and more sophisticated

[BabyJesus]

If the US decreased their military budget the world would actually die

[Conway]

In response to what Thunderstormer said - Olafson is right, 100% hypothetical. I decided to leave out the part in my original post on how the Republicans would cry bloody murder and call the President a soldier hating communist if large military cutbacks were even whispered.

In response to Karth - From what I understand the national guard and reserves served mostly as a cheaper way to maintain and control occupied territory. Cheaper as in the alternative was more regular troops.  I believe they were deployed for more of a "boots on the ground" purpose rather then to participate in any large scale military operations. That way active troops could be focused on combat rather than patrol and guarding large military complex's. Of course correct me if this is false.

I think BabyJesus just had a lil bit of a stroke.

[Karth]

Err yea, I know about the wars, my assistant principal was KIA during the surge (he was a NG reservist).  The NG and Reserve troops actually going through the same basic and advanced training (depending on MOS) as active duty soldiers (albeit not as many trainings as they do after they get their stripes).  On deployments the paygrade is also the same as active duty, they dont differ from paygrade.  During the Iraq invasion, supporting all those active duty components required FOBs to be built continuously and maintained (building defenses, having soldiers occupy them, etc..) to maintain a presence around the country, along with a bunch of specialized logistical MOS's.  So you had over 140,000-150,000 troops in just Iraq at that time, along with ongoing operations in Afghanistan, WHILE maintaining numerous bases around the globe (which require active duty presence, or at that instance, reservists would be placed in their stead, in hotspots like Korea, Japan, Germany, Bosnia, Kuwait, etc..) 

Main point is: in today's modern age, even to invade and occupy a country like Iraq requires hundreds of thousands of troops, if the invasion wasnt a 'coalition', then the US would have had to double its numbers, again just for a country like Iraq.  So think of an Iran or North Korea, that would definitely require way more, and thats how they are justifying the 600,000 active duty or so and wanting to expand that. 

[Conway]

Err yea, I know about the wars, my assistant principal was KIA during the surge (he was a NG reservist).  The NG and Reserve troops actually going through the same basic and advanced training (depending on MOS) as active duty soldiers (albeit not as many trainings as they do after they get their stripes).  On deployments the paygrade is also the same as active duty, they dont differ from paygrade.  During the Iraq invasion, supporting all those active duty components required FOBs to be built continuously and maintained (building defenses, having soldiers occupy them, etc..) to maintain a presence around the country, along with a bunch of specialized logistical MOS's.  So you had over 140,000-150,000 troops in just Iraq at that time, along with ongoing operations in Afghanistan, WHILE maintaining numerous bases around the globe (which require active duty presence, or at that instance, reservists would be placed in their stead, in hotspots like Korea, Japan, Germany, Bosnia, Kuwait, etc..) 

Main point is: in today's modern age, even to invade and occupy a country like Iraq requires hundreds of thousands of troops, if the invasion wasnt a 'coalition', then the US would have had to double its numbers, again just for a country like Iraq.  So think of an Iran or North Korea, that would definitely require way more, and thats how they are justifying the 600,000 active duty or so and wanting to expand that.

Alright, fair enough. Given you'd know more on the topic then me I'll retract my earlier statement. I was thinking solely in terms of a military victory which, would require less ground troops and rely more on Air and Sea. But I didn't really think about any long term occupations so fair enough.

[Olafson]

Well yeah, but that just agrees with what I said earlier.

The Army is more of a reserve needed when doing large scale invasions or when defending the country on land (which will practically never happen anyway).

 You obviously do need the numbers when you start invading something, but my idea was that you would cease doing that, unless it is absolutely necessary.

[Riddlez]

Just to come back on the military-industrial complex providing for the country: this is true, though it's actually way less profitable for a country than you'd think. Say, a billion spent op military industry provides way less profit for the country (both in goods, services and provision of jobs), than that same billion would in public sectors as healthcare, education or construction.

[Duuring]

^This. Wars aren't economical.

[StevenChilton]

Just to come back on the military-industrial complex providing for the country: this is true, though it's actually way less profitable for a country than you'd think. Say, a billion spent op military industry provides way less profit for the country (both in goods, services and provision of jobs), than that same billion would in public sectors as healthcare, education or construction.

Not true, the US defence industry is one of the cornerstones of the American economy and is highly profitable-many of them rank highly on the Fortune 500. Plus you've got to think about the supply chains involved and how that benefits the wider economy.

[Duuring]

It's profitable for some, yes. But not for the country as a whole.

European countries will have to start investing more in their defensive capabilities, this is undoubtly true. Defence is important in the next General Election here, with pretty much everybody calling for more defence spending (Though the Socialists and Greens are sorta weird and ambigious about it, which even I, a Green member, have to admit) and some even calling for the re-activation of conscription.

[StevenChilton]

Greens are always weird. In the UK the Greens said it shouldn't be a crime to join ISIS at the last election.