WTF? Seoul isn’t an actual military target? Do you really not know anything at all about this particular country or its foe? And there really is quite a difference between the economic systems of the two Koreas. Not everyone in North Korea is starving. Care to guess who’s getting the majority of the food there?
Well I hear they let blacks in the military now and a while back they even made one a general but then he endorsed a black presidential candidate and everyone saw him for the racist that he was.
My gut reaction is, in order: Maybe, No, Yes, Yes, No.
The Maybe is for NATO, which, in 2010, is mostly pointless. Russia is no threat to invade Western Europe, and even if they were, Western Europe are big boys and can grow up and defend themselves. The countries that are threatened by a militant Russia are not going to be defended by anyone other than the US and maybe the UK. I’d keep NATO as a possibly useful tool, but I’d pull most of our troops out of Europe.
The Yeses are for Korea and Japan, independent nations that can defend themselves. I wouldn’t say “abandon” them, but I don’t think the world’s third-biggest economy is some fragile flower that can’t defend itself. Maintain alliances, yes, but they don’t need large numbers of troops.
I see no reason to buy that, given how we’ve behaved. We’ve cheerfully propped up incredibly nasty regimes - or imposed them, trained torturers for those regimes, attacked nations that were no threat to us, slaughtered huge numbers of people and devastated their homelands. Barring a new Nazi regime appearing somewhere I don’t see any nation out there with worse behavior towards others than we have demonstrated.
The Nato arrangement is why there are troops from all over Europe in Afghanistan. Y’know, going to the aid of a member who has been attacked? Some are more engaged than others, but it really looks like a bunch of ungrateful shit when someone posts guff like this.
If by ‘now’ you mean ‘since the republic was founded,’ sure. I’m guessing you don’t mean Benjamin Oliver Davis Sr. when referring to making one a general, FDR wasn’t black. There have been quite a few black generals since 1940. It might surprise you but the military was desegregatedbefore the country was.
Western Europe is not threatened militarily by Russia, but much of Eastern Europe is part of NATO too. The Baltic states, given their small size and population, are particularly vulnerable. NATO, as both an idea and a credible force, cannot exist without a military component. Since France, the UK, and the US are the only members of NATO who have the logistical equipment and support to transport more than a few thousand troops outside of their own borders, withdrawing all US troops from Europe would signal that the US is abandoning NATO.
Japan’s self-defense forces, despite being relatively well-funded and well equipped, are still pretty limited. They have one or two helicopter carriers, but they don’t have any aircraft carriers, air refueling tankers, dedicated bombers, the total number of fighters they have is less than 400 (compared to thousands for China and several hundred for North Korea), and their troop transport capability is also very limited. All of this means that if a conflict broke out on or near Okinawa - which besides it’s outlying islands is the closest Japanese territory to China - Japan would be hard-pressed to adequately respond with anything other than the forces already in Okinawa.
To change that situation, Japan would have to significantly boost its defense spending and enlarge its self-defense forces. Many Asian countries who were victims of Japanese occupation in WWII aren’t too keen to see that happen. For all its warts, they and a significant number of Japanese, prefer a US presence in Japan to that alternative.
China was a pretty poor and backwards country not long ago. Our military experts felt secure because we were so much richer and more powerful than our communist threat. Between Cuba and China, they could not muster up much of a danger. But our corporations saw a place to make a lot of money. The fact that they were making our mortal communist enemies rich and powerful did not matter. It was greed. But if we are at war with Communism. they are much more powerful now. We can thank our greedy money masters who made America much less safe ,so they themselves could get richer. Apparently patriotism is for the poor and foolish.
How could we do the Arsenal of Democracy thing ,that saved us in WW2? China could move easily to military industrial construction. It would take us a long time to respond.
How is it communism anymore if the capitalists have taken over?
I think you underestimate this nations warmongers. We produce enough bullets every year to kill every man woman and child in the WORLD twice. Year in and year out.
The Chinese would have to spend 15% of their GDP just to maintain the sort of military we have. If they wanted to match our Navy it would empty their coffers.
I seem to recall reading somewhere that it takes, on average, something in the neighborhood of a quarter million bullets fired to kill a single person. Are we presuming that Deadshot is the one firing these bullets in coming up with your figure?
Of course the proposal is not policy neutral. There is a strong argument that any US offense force budget should rest steadily at zero.
You are underestimating the power of law and accounting over government action. Currently defense is the only area of expense which is not properly accounted for and permitted to indulge in the very opposite - offense. It is no better and probably worse than using tax revenue for champagne, hookers, blow and the casino. I realize these dry arguments about accounting are not the stuff of exciting debate, but the anomaly of ‘defense’ is worth a comment.
“An offense force would not be excluded from defensive duties as well…” offense forces would take part in wars of defense.
“…and that would realize economies.” So, there are not 2 stand-alone militaries.
