Superpower status, is it worth it?

[Urran Voh]

Please name 3 countries that spend a higher % of their budget on their military. OK, now name one that's not a tiny country ran by a warlord.

North Korea, China, and Iraq if you count Al-Qaida (sp?) as their military.

[Freenhult]

I am very good friends with the Chinese exchange student at my school. You know what she said one time? If China went to war with US...you would only win on US soil.

The Chinese don't need the newest Machine guns and technology. All they need is enough AK47 for each man. If they spammed a navy and an airforce...it wouldn't matter how much we spent. If we didn't run as high a military support as we did, would China wait to attack us? We are the absolutely most opposite and biggest threat to them. My Chinese friend thought America was just a big lazy county where we eat McDonalds everyday and are fat.

You can't fight that...but, by having the worlds largest military, we are checking China. We are prolly the only reason why Taiwan exist, why Japan existes as for much of Asia. Russia isn't what you would call important anymore overthere. We need our guns, or F-22, our Aircraft Carriers, and our tanks. We have never had problems funding our military up until now. I am having a hard time thinking of an army that is only funded for defensive purposes that has won a war... Prolly because the aggresor got there troop # and built more than them and killed them. Right now...Our army is a joke. If anything..we need more troops, tanks and planes. THE DRAFT IS NOT THE ANSWER!

Arthus: Iran...the Gov't hates us...the people hate us. So, in that case..bombing everything is the right idea. In Iraq: no. The people did nothing wrong. Hence, they are not suffering the effects of an "Open War"

[Urran Voh]

China's army is, what, 3 million men? Compare that to our 1.5 mil.

[Nuclear Raunch]

The other factors are what comprises the other 18.9% of our national debt. Obviously anything that gets cut helps, and believe me I'd like to see a few of those New Deal programs get axed. First the big stuff though.

The factories that are currently producing weapons could be taken out at once, if there was a large (and by large I mean 3/4 the world's militaries) contingent attacking us. However it's pretty easy to change production over. We can do it with food production using just a skeleton crew in a matter of weeks. That's built to last forever, with all the FDA inspections, and no hurry. Believe me, you can slap something together in no time if the need arose. Especially if your doing multiple lines, since you can just program a PLC for one line then download the exact same thing into all other PLC's. Many things require moldings which would have to be recycled or require a bit more time, but simple stuff could be mass produced in no time.

About carriers, they are well known for being vulnerable to attack, which is why they always have such a large task force protecting them at all times. Modern subs can detect ships 3 convergence zones away (over 100 miles) and can do it accurately enough to plot solutions. They also fire anti-ship missiles capable of traveling that distance. If a carrier gets hit by 1 torpedo it's pretty much screwed. Sitting duck, and believe me every sub commander in the world would like to get credit for that kind of tonnage.

Not saying 1 torpedo will sink it, the only way that would happen is if it hit it's fuel (assuming it's a non-nuclear carrier) or if it hits it's munitions. It will however slow it down enough to make it only a matter of time.

Definately gotta agree with you on the conventional war, I think we'd never have a single platoon on our soil, unless it was a spec ops force.

[Gen. Volkov]

But that's just it, I don't agree that military spending is what principly makes up our national debt. We could still have spent the same on military, but cut other programs, and voila!, no debt. So that's why I say that study is bogus, because you could just as easily point to another big program and say that makes up most of the debt.

As to the factory stuff, it takes time to retool for different production. I don't care how good your program is. You can't go from making cars to making tanks in a short time. We have about 100 total plants in the US that are producing weapons of war. That's not too hard to take out in one strike.

WW2 era carriers are well known for it. Not modern carriers. And a modern carrier is ALWAYS surrounded by it's battle group, who can detect the sub before it gets close enough for a shot at the carrier, and even if it does get through, it would get exactly one shot before it died. The carrier has subs protecting it as well. There's a reason modern carriers are called "Fortresses at Sea".

I think we agree now on the rest.

[Nuclear Raunch]

Freen: Do you think we are justified in killing anything that does not like us?

As far as a defensive army goes, we'll go with the U.S. in the Revolutionary War, U.S. in World War 1, and Vietnam in Vietnam War for the wars we have been involved in. Korean War was a virtual tie, but South Korea was a defensive army. If you'd like others just name a country and we'll do the research, more than likely we'll find at least one case.

Volkov: I forgot to mention your B-2 comment. I'm not debating whether or not bombers can reach us. In my original post the point I made was that only their bombers could reach us and bombers arn't exactly known for their dogfighting abilities. Our current fighters are more than capable of handling those.

I wasn't talking about making tanks overnight, those require moldings and mucho tweaking of robotic arms. Fortunately tanks arn't needed for defense

You think anyone can plan a coordinated strike that eradicates 100 different targets at once and doesn't require ICBMs? Remember, if an ICBM is launched we launch nukes, regardless of what kind of warhead is on them. And once nuclear war is started army size means absolutely (Profanity is a sign of Maturity). The only thing that helps at all is having plenty of SSGN's so we can make sure we have the last laugh in any nuclear conflict.

World War 2 carriers had battlegroups as well, and they still got hit. Particularly if the sub was holding it's ground and the carrier was moving. (read: on the defensive) Subs that arn't moving are devilishly hard to detect. MAD works reasonably well but requires a fair amount of luck to get in time.

Even if the sub gets killed right after scuttling a carrier, who cares? That's about as favorable trade as any. Usually if they have subs in their task force it's no more than 2, and they usually stay a ways away from the rest of the group so the groups noise doesn't interfere with their sonar. Don't forget that China's subs are nowhere near as capable as ours (Their latest is roughly equivalent to the old Victor III) and they don't have any carriers. And let's be honest, the only country we really have to fear is China.

[Gen. Volkov]

Depends on A) your definition of bomber, and B ) whose bombers they are. A coordinated strike package of fighter bombers, coming in low below radar, then splitting up once inside the country, could most likely take out at least 50% of the factories in one hit. And that's maybe 50 planes all up. If we were really at war, the strikes would come fast anf furious, there's no way a purely defensive army could stem the tide. It'd be Pearl Harbor all over again, except on a much larger scale.

What are you suggesting then? RPG's? Roadside bombs? I suppose those'll work, but that would require them to first be IN the country. YOu can't fight a war without modern equipment. Infantry just won't cut it. One cluster bomb and you just lost the whole regiment.

Now yes, once something goes nuclear 1) we win, hands down, and 2) everyone is screwed. We don't even have to launch our nukes to kill everyone on the planet. We could just detonate them HERE. Nuclear deterrence is no longer an option though, because if someone does launch an ICBM at us, the people doing it aren't likely to CARE what happens to them.

WW2 carriers and there battlegroups aren't even 1/8 as capable as modern ones. I'm not saying whoever might be facing would have the same as we do, but our carriers are the best defended ships ever put to see. Subs may be quiet, but you'd need a nuke to actually sink a carrier in one hit unless you got ridiculously lucky. And the sonar, and radar, and everything else that makes up a carrier BG means the only way a sub is gonna sneak up on one is to be completely motionless and already be on the path of the carrier. And I as I said, they get one shot. Unless it's a nuke, it prolly won't sink the carrier, and the sub is just flat out dead as soon as the torpedo is launched. Airpower can take out the carrier much more easily, with a sea skimming missile like the Harpoon. But that's why the carrier has it's own private airforce, part of that is detailed to defend against exactly that threat. Of course it's nowhere near as a effective with the F-14 gone. But the missiles would still have to get through the outer and inner CAP, the BG, and the carriers own defenses before it could hit, and even then, a carrier is BIG, so you'd need several missiles. I'm not saying it's impossible to take out a modern carrier, but it is very very very VERY hard to do. American ones at least.

And I agree, the only threat is China, and right now, they ain't much of one, but that does NOT give us the right to relax. We have the lead in every area of military technology, so let's take it and run with it as far as we can. Get so far ahead that no one will ever even THINK of challenging us. Make it so 60 planes IS all we need to defend the country, then maybe I'll agree with you about drastically cutting the budget.

[Arthus]

To what Freen said. Just because people don't like us does not give us the right to kill them all. If someone in my math class doesnt like me for such and such reason do I have the right to kill him? The answer is NO. Just because you hate someone does not mean you are going to do something to hurt them. So you can't say that you are killing them to save yourselves.

[Freenhult]

Freen: Do you think we are justified in killing anything that does not like us?

As far as a defensive army goes, we'll go with the U.S. in the Revolutionary War, U.S. in World War 1, and Vietnam in Vietnam War for the wars we have been involved in. Korean War was a virtual tie, but South Korea was a defensive army. If you'd like others just name a country and we'll do the research, more than likely we'll find at least one case.

Not one bit. I frown apon it greatly. But if my country is going into a war in which in people living there are going to fight back as hard as there regular army is...I'm gonna make sure that the boys I send inthere are gonna be safe. I am not advocating the killing of indiduous people...All I'm saying is that in an Iranian like situation...the best course of action if a war is near. Is the just lay out all the people that oppose us. If the N. Half supports us and wants independance, we wouldn't blow them up. If the south had a bunch of sympehtisers for us we wouldn't either. It is only a resort to use when we are entering into an incrediable hostel enviroment.

Korea was only a tie because our offensive army was there. N. Korea would have just waltz'd right over S. Korea and made it all Communist.

If we didn't have our little debt making army in any war that we have been directly or indirectly threaten...Not idealistic wars, We would be having this converstion in German. You cannot have a defensive army because they don't work! You have no power on a global scale. Right now, we are sending or National Guard to do a lot of the fighting. And they are our defensive army. And we are getttin pounded pretty well. Our military force is a defensive army and an offensive one. You can't complain about the size of the military as long as it gets the jobs done. War is what makes a bill...the army doesn't



Arthus...If you knew that a kid in your mathclass was going to kill you, and you had to go. You couldn't get away from not going...what would you do? I doubt that you'd really let him get you. You'd find a way to 1. Avoid it 2. Make the situation more towards your favor 3. eliminate him some way. Either by getting a teacher or forcebly removing him yourself. I'm not telling you to kill people!!! GAHHHHH.

[Nuclear Raunch]

Volkov: Have to be long range bombers, and of course China is our enemy so the obvious answer would be either TU-22 Backfires or TU-95 Bears, neither have any air to air capabilities so no real need for anything fancy in terms of fighters, one launch platform is just as good as another. (They all shoot the same missiles, the only advantages the F-22 would have is in dogfights which obviously won't occur without enemy fighters present) Also would like to mention that they don't even have 50 of those, and regardless of how many they're designed to launch nukes so we'd probably be launching nukes as soon as we saw them coming.

What I'm suggesting is a drastic reduction in surface ships, subs are the everliving (Profanity is a sign of Maturity) for modern naval warfare. Our biggest strength is the distance between us, as long as we have a good submarine force (we are way, and I mean way ahead of the rest of the world in that respect) we can be assured that any attempt to get anywhere near us is suicidal.

WW2 submarines arn't worth 1/18th of modern ones. Subs have improved so much more than carriers it's just ridiculous. Towed array sonars, missiles, improved torps, nuclear power (I know carriers have that too, but that just means they have to refuel less, for a sub it means they can stay underwater for years, a HUGE tactical advantage over the old diesel subs) improved rubber coating etc...

If a sub is on the defensive then it will be motionless and in the carriers path. Only need a single sub every 200 miles to be able to cover every square inch of the entire coast. And that's overkill when we can just look at satellite photos and be waiting for their carriers.. Also virtually all of our submarine force can be outfitted with Harpoon missiles, and we can fire a lot more than one at a time. Alternatively we can fit 154 Tomahawk cruise missiles which despite their slow speeds should be enough to take a carrier out. Again China doesn't have any carriers so it's irrelevant.

Freen: Why is no military power on a global scale such a difficult thing to imagine? And you say defensive armies don't work, do you think, for example, the Minutemen were an offensive army?

Lots of people in the world don't like our way of life, nor do they like our government. Last I checked most Iranians didn't mind their government, so how would you think they would react if we declared war on them? In particular if it's for doing something we ourselves do.

Now let's assume the obvious is true, and most Iranians don't approve of us invading them. What do you think we should do? Wipe out all that don't agree with us? Neither one of us would like to live under the Iranian government, but that does not mean everyone else feels the same. If they don't like it, then let them revolt. If enough people oppose their government a revolution will be successful without our influence.

It's not a crime for someone not to like us, or to think that democracy is the best government. If they're happy with the status quo then who are we to tell them they need to get rid of their government and go with something of our choosing? I personally feel that they have been fighting for thousands of years, nothing we say or do will change that mentality so just ignore them and let them continue on their merry way. It's kinda like a crack whore, you can set her up with a good job, nice car, nice house, nice clothes etc, and it don't matter, she's gonna go right back to turning tricks for another rock. You can't save them, and the only thing you're gonna do is waste a perfectly good house, car, clothes, and your time.

I know you don't like to see the crack whore, and you wonder how she can stand to live like that, and we can't fathom why she would voluntarily choose that lifestyle over a luxurious one that most would prefer, but the best thing you can do is to just ignore her and walk on buy. And for God's sake don't hire her.[/Freen]

One of the fundamental problems I see with our current arms race is we are going about it all wrong. First of all we will spend a billion dollars researching something then sell it to the Chinese for $50 million. Secondly we are the very reason why China had that $50 million in the first place.

We are as much as 30 years ahead of China in some areas, in the areas where they are closer it is because they bought the technology with money they got from us in the first place. How much sense does it make for us to spend all kinds of money on research to get 5 years farther ahead of China then supply them with money to buy our technology to make up for 10 years? None at all, but that's what we're doing.

Instead of going about it that way wouldn't it make so much more sense to have been satisfied with being 30 years ahead and worked on improving our manufacturing to cut down on our imports from China, thereby cutting their cash flow, and also stop selling them technology. Now they have less money to spend, and they don't get technology at rock bottom prices in a short amount of time, they now actually have to learn it for themselves. To me it's just the smarter way of going about it, not only is it more effective than our current system, it is also a much more diplomatic way of keeping them from rivaling us. Wise is he who can keep his enemies down without appearing to do so.

I would also like to say I thought we really screwed ourselves over when we quietly let China join the WTO a couple years ago. They have gotten soooo much cash to use against us from that, that they are now able to spend a ton of cash on their military now.

[The Beatles]

I found this debate when reading about Ruddertail leaving -- which he told me on AIM -- and had to comment.

Contrary to popular perception, an army's role is not merely to kill people. A modern army serves many useful social functions that, taken together, would be difficult to absorb into all the subfields it affects. Some examples are:
1. Power projection (obviously)
2. Deterrent / Diplomatic card (obviously)
3. Facilitate scientific research (few people realize)
4. Spur technical research and progress (DARPA anyone? -- you are typing this over the Internet)
5. Subsidize education for some
6. Train and discipline people / Usefully employ the unemployed
7. Facilitate global intelligence
8. Emergency management (natural disasters)
9. Guard the country's assets
10. Encourage industrialization

A large (or highly developed) army is not a sign of a power-hungry dictator, but is a natural, healthy, and integral component of an industrialized nation. This is doubly true for the USA, which is and has been for a long time in the world's spotlight, whether willingly or unwillingly so.

I don't believe the USA is following l'art pour l'art armament; it is a consequence of history and geography as much as anything -- and I don't think there's anything wrong with the scale at which it is conducted.

[Devari]

Intervention.

Why http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobo_Arb ... %82%C2%A1n , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Mossadegh , and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvador_Allende ?

All democratically elected.

[Devari]

Seeing a post a ways up.

Can't comment on Japan, but, yes, the United States is the sole reason Taiwan still exists. China was going to invade and finish off the "Nationalist" forces, but the US formed a protective naval barrier.

Although, one does have to remember that the United States was not, in fact, defending a democracy in that case.

[The Beatles]

Yes, I should clarify Point 2, Deterrent. Not necessarily as military deterrent against an invading force, but as a global deterrent against agendas the USA has historically disagreed with, such as Communism. Remember the Berlin Airlift, achieved by the military? The memory of that, and the Korean War, is probably the reason Taiwan still exists. If China tried anything like a blockade or invasion of say Taiwan, they would have a perfect historical example to know what's coming to them.

[Freenhult]

ZOMG!!! Get off the I want to conquer people thing!

Dude...Let me just brain spill here. This will be long.

I agree that the reason why China is such is threat is us, but I don't think that it is totally our fault either. After WWII and China was getting attacked by Japan, we gave them aid and such because they were our ally at the time. We gave them money, food, weapons, and such. We have not contributed enough to cause China to militarize. They did. They got their own ambitions and ran with them. They want to be first because they know that when they get there, they will have a lot of influence on the world.

The minutemen...Ok. Sure. Total defensive force. Not an army. Militia if I recall correctly. They don't count. We didn't fund them for squat and they just held of the British until our regulars arrived. The minutemen were more like the iraqi insurgency are now... except we see them as good cuz they were on our side.

I would go so far as to say...that most of the world doesn't even really need an offensive army, because they know that we are going to intervien. Not a bad strat...but we all know that most every government supports us. We are like the world police. WE need lots of young men and women to help maintain the peace. If we are to stay in iraq, we need to be prepared for emergency elsewhere, which we are not. we are spread too thin. This in now like a police action. We arrested Saddam and are now re-ordering the pieces of his country. We may not nessarily be needing to set up a democracy there...but atleast we are trying.

If we are to be one of the world most technilogical and overall leaders. We need to keep a strong, well equiped, fighting force. The types of technology that our military uses often ends up in our hands down the road.

The US sells our technology to Taiwan, Israel, and even a little to Afghanistan. Taiwan and Israel would have been conquered by now if it weren't for all the extra money we invest into our military. Our military spending is the one thing that is really keeping us going. Can you really say, that we are wasting all these big bucks on a military that is overpowered, overmanned. and to advanced? I've never heard anyone complain about being to advanced.

Historically, we see that every major world force that attempts to consolidate its power and become insular immediately falls. China, in the 17th century (?) became insular, avoiding european contact and stopping its expansion. It immediately fell to europe after vicious infighting. Look at Great Britain when it stopped expanding, or Rome. Each one became spread too thin because it got too lazy to support its army, and guess what? Those under its power revolted. Now they are nothing. Whats Great Britain, or Rome, or Spain..? Not the US. Spain might even be classified as a 2nd class country still, I cant remember. Burt they point is, they fell because they stopped expanding their army and thus lost control of their economy, which was based on foreign investments. The US has financial interests elsewhere, and if we screw it up, we could end up like them. Rapid inflation is not a good thing. We need our oil, for example. We can't give up on our stakes in the world, because our economy is based on them. Thats how we expanded. Now we can't stop. And if we are to continue expanding, we need a bigger army.

Our economy virtually requires all the money we are putting into it. Why hasnt our economy crashed as bad as everyone said it would? Cuz we're fighting a war. and we're winning, in the market sense. We are not going to lose any interests, and thats what the market wants to see. The military is the US's way of putting money into the economy, instead of subsidizing health care or education, it creates jobs so that health care can be taken care of by the market and high class education (of a higher caliber than anywhere else in the world) can be paid for by people, and at the same time, we get a large military out of it. So, Mr. Nuke, your original post was correct, we could be spending a lot more on education, etc, but that doesn't mean it would help. We would likely be in the same position we are now, or worse, without the money our government pumps into the economy. The only quibble I have with the system is that the trickle down effect needs to have rules for allowing more wealth to go to the people.