Military equipment from planes to rifles are an important trade item for us. We just sold more jets to Saudi Arabia.
I don’t know how much of our military equipment is outsourced. Some is though.
The US Air Force is the world’s largest air force. The US Navy is the world’s second largest air force. Our boats have more planes that any other country. That is a sign of bloat.
If you’re referring to Korea, I doubt very much the withdrawal of U.S. troops would increase by any degree the likelihood of the North overrunning the South.
I’m just wondering, is that pretty dang peaceful country paying for those soldiers, or am I? Because it’s awful nice of me to do it if I am, but frankly I can think of some things at home I could spend that money on. If that pretty dang peaceful country wants a military there, the least they can do is scrape up the tax dollars to pay for it.
Let’s face it: There is no country left on Earth that needs U.S. military protection any more. No, not even South Korea or Taiwan.
All soldiers have the same inherent value. They shoot guns (some better than worse, usually because of training). It only takes one bullet to kill a soldier. and at that point their fiduciary value (from the enemy’s standpoint) is whatever the bullet cost, plus training for the shooter.
It’s wicked, evil math that I don’t like to think of. I’d rather just say to read the intro to Johnny Got His Gun.
This shizzle is why actuaries exist.
Actually, the people that know better (military planners from both the US and the ROK) are fully aware that South Korea’s military currently does need assistance to defend the country against the DPRK.
Out of idle curiosity, how many US military members do you think are stationed in Taiwan?
Nah, not at all. And they wouldn’t even think about sinking any of South Korea’s ships. Oh, wait. They do that even with the US military presence. What makes you think that absent an effective defense force, the DPRK would not try to reunify the country militarily?
And what point do you think the DPRK was trying to make when they launched a missile well past Japan?
So what? We need the capability to defend ourselves while we gear up for offense, and that’s all we should be paying for.
I stand corrected. You’re right. There is absolutely no way that the United States could have defended itself against an Iraqi invasion.
The fact that SK has its own army and it could finish off NK’s malnourished, underequipped troops before breakfast, and the NKs know it too. They really have no strategic options which are both aggressive and non-suicidal. They could level Seoul with conventional artillery in half an hour, but that gives them no warmer a grave.
The point was, “PFWEEET!!! Hey! Over here! We still exist! We’re still Commies! We’re coming to get you! Unless you send some aid this way! Pay attention, dammit! Will you for Marx’ and Buddha’s sake put down that magazine?!”
You seem to think that South Korea’s military could vanquish North Korea’s military without assistance. The fact of the matter is that the US military, the US government, the South Korean military, and the South Korean government are convinced that is currently not the case. They are, however, working towards that goal.
Hey, better to have 12 carrier groups and not need 'em than to need 12 carrier groups and not have 'em.
And I think NK lacks the economic resources for a protracted war. And can you imagine the NKs trying to occupy a conquered SK with a hostile population? A population twice as large as NK’s? Worse, a population of people constantly tempted to laugh at them? Plus exposing their own troops and their own home population to what things are really like in the South. Do you think the NK regime could survive that for a month?
Are they really? Or is it simply a case of institutional inertia?
Well, since both forces are currently and actively attempting to get the South Korean military up to snuff, I’d have to say inertia isn’t the case.
By the way, you are aware that North Korea does have a financial benefactor, right?
But, since this is getting to focused on one issue, why not start a debate thread about the capabilities of the military forces of North and South Korea?
Since Monty has addressed the South Korea side of things, given the huge and overwhelming numerical and technical superiority of the People’s Republic of China’s forces (ships, subs, planes, troops, and missiles) facing Taiwan, what makes you think Taiwan can go it alone? The PRC has two main problems when it comes to invading Taiwan - logistics and keeping out US forces. Their growing navy and increasingly sophisticated missile force is aimed at the latter task.
Even in Japan, despite the controversy about airbases in Okinawa, both the government of Japan and the Japanese ground self-defense forces want a US military presence there. Not just to act as a reserve force in case of trouble in either Taiwan or South Korea, as is the case for the Marines in Okinawa, but also for defending Japan, Japanese ships, and the small contested Japanese-controlled islands. It was definitely noted in Japan when SecState Hillary Clinton said that the US-Japan security treaty which pledges US defense of Japan itself also included the Senkaku islands in the news recently.
Y’all can argue policy all you want, but I feel obliged to point out to the OP that the number of troops in the US military has been cut dramatically – slashed by a third between 1989 and 1999, and continuing to fall in the years that have followed.
Yet somehow our military spending has dropped only by 1% of GDP, and–I’ll note–that does not include the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, authorized as supplementary spending and not included in the military budget. Go figure.
Quoth Really Not All That Bright:
Well, that’s kind of the point, isn’t it? If we’re the good guys like we like to imagine that we are, then why the Hell are we fighting offensive wars in the first place? If we became less capable of waging offensive war, that’d be a good thing.
Quoth Giant Rat:
All soldiers do not have the same inherent value. A soldier commanded by a skilled command structure is going to be accomplishing more tactically and strategically valuable tasks. A better-trained soldier is more likely to actually work towards those commanded tasks, instead of wasting time looting, or cutting and running as soon as the battle starts. A soldier with better (or any) body armor is probably not killed by a single bullet. A soldier with better vehicles can deploy into and out of specific spots quicker, and a soldier with a better supply train can stay in those spots longer. And all of those are things which really ought to favor the US.
A major flaw in that argument is that it assumes that “having” those carrier groups doesn’t cause major problems in itself, and it does. It costs vast amounts of money, it tempts the government into military aggression, and that in turn costs money and lives for little to no return.
While true enough, I’m not sure that it wouldn’t be a bad idea for Canada to stick a carrier group or three in the Arctic as conditions allow. They could be subject to a Russian invasion over the water, and the argument over Arctic resources is heating up, approximately at the rate that the Arctic heats up. Circumstances differ, from country to country.