Obviously, I disagree.
The US troops there take the odds of them being invaded by NK down from 0.3% to 0.1%, creates a special relationship with the US and injects a shitload of money into their economy. I can see why they like the arrangement. I don’t see how it benefits us.
It’s been something like 28 posts, and I haven’t gotten an answer to this question. Probably it just got missed mixed in with all the other posts.
Do you think Belgians are going to send in tanks to keep Lithuania free? I don’t. If I’m wrong, well, it would be good for Belgium to have some tanks, no? One of the major reasons every NATO member save the UK and France (who is a NATO member du jour) doesn’t have anything other than a lightweight military is precisely because they figure we’ll foot the bill.
When Russia was a credible threat, that was one thing. When we imagined our economy was an infinite money tree, that was another. Neither condition holds now. We are running out of money, and the defense budget has to be cut. Bringing troops home would save billions. We can leave some bases in Europe as staging points; hell we can leave a division’s worth of tanks there with staff to maintain them in readiness at a far lower cost than keeping their crews there.
The EU has three times the population of Russia and seven times their GDP; the idea that Germany needs our defense against them is bullshit.
Homer’s brain: Twenty dollars can buy many peanuts.
Homer: Explain how!
Homer’s brain: Money can be exchanged for goods and services.
Homer: Woo-hoo!
While those feelings are less strong in anyone under, say, 65, you are correct. I support the deployment of diplomats to facilitate discussion, soothe fears,
I do not support the continued bankrupting of the United States. If that means a few elderly filipinos get antsy about the Japanese invading, it’s a price that must be paid.
[quote=“Camus, post:73, topic:556391”]
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.
[QUOTE]
Do you think Belgians are going to send in tanks to keep Lithuania free? I don’t. If I’m wrong, well, it would be good for Belgium to have some tanks, no? One of the major reasons every NATO member save the UK and France (who is a NATO member du jour) doesn’t have anything other than a lightweight military is precisely because they figure we’ll foot the bill.
When Russia was a credible threat, that was one thing. When we imagined our economy was an infinite money tree, that was another. Neither condition holds now. We are running out of money, and the defense budget has to be cut. Bringing troops home would save billions. We can leave some bases in Europe as staging points; hell we can leave a division’s worth of tanks there with staff to maintain them in readiness at a far lower cost than keeping their crews there.
The EU has three times the population of Russia and seven times their GDP; the idea that Germany needs our defense against them is bullshit.
Homer’s brain: Twenty dollars can buy many peanuts.
Homer: Explain how!
Homer’s brain: Money can be exchanged for goods and services.
Homer: Woo-hoo!
While those feelings are less strong in anyone under, say, 65, you are correct. I support the deployment of diplomats to facilitate discussion, soothe fears,
I do not support the continued bankrupting of the United States. If that means a few elderly filipinos get antsy about the Japanese invading, it’s a price that must be paid.
0.1%? You can’t be serious.
I’d think the income from Korean goods exported would be the boatload of money injected into the Korean economy, what with those exports consisting of televisions, various other electronics, and automobiles, just to name a few.
Oh I know, I meant abandon in terms of military/monetary support of any kind. I suppose I wasn’t clear.
Would that include selling stuff to willing buyers (as in, the willing buyers we’re willing to do business with?) So let’s say we don’t give Israel any missile defense batteries the next time a big war is brewing, could we still sell them some if they ponied up the Shekalim beforehand?
Pax Americana approaches its end. The US can no longer afford to lord it over the rest of the world.
American might staved off World War 3. American might still staves off the sorts of conflicts that tore Europe asunder in the 19th Century.
Are the emerging powers of Asia, India, Brazil, Southeast Asia, etc. ready to play nice in the nuclear age? Are China and Russia ready to play fair with the rest of the world without the bloated US millitary looming? Are the EU and the UN ready to take over the responsibility of keeping the lid on?
The US can no longer answer these questions by itself. The US military budget is not a matter of debate, in my estimation. It is unsustainable, and unjustified.
I don’t believe that there is any “Pax Americana” in the first place. IMHO, to the extent that there are fewer wars of conquest these days, it’s because wars are no longer as profitable as they once were. Just look at America versus Iraq, the war we were told would pay for itself.
Actually, I’m pretty sure I would be considered an expert in the field of budgeting for our national security apparatus, and I ain’t so bad in the law of it, either. I can actually tell you quite a bit about how defense spending is accounted for. Do you have specific questions about the planning, programming, budgeting, and execution system that, among other things, generates the program objective memorandum and future years defense plan? Or are you more concerned about the viability of the various and sundry financial systems and their ability to meet the requirements of the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990?
The proposal is nonsense because it attempts to create a distinction between two types of armed forces when the difference is so trivial, that there is no reason to believe there could ever be an objective measure that would constrain government leaders on what is the “good” military and what is the “bad” military. To leaders, the “good” military is whatever they want it to be, and the “bad” military does not exist.
[QUOTE]
Eh, maybe 0.3%.
Countries only have one source of income at a time?
Post 79
Well, if we are going to go down the argument from authority route … Actually, no we are not.
Instead I humbly submit there is a clear distinction, not in the least trivial, between offensive action and defense. One that ordinary people appreciate every day, with no difficulty at all. There is no need to confuse what is well understood with a discussion of good and bad.
Perhaps the mere existence of large U.S. armed forces means that nations that are quite happily plodding along today without any aspirations to expand stay that way.
But without a nation with a big stick perhaps the Russians and the Chinese might start getting it into their heads that what have they to lose if they annex a few of their neighbours?
And even if they fail in the attempt it probably won’t cost them too dearly.
The state of the world today, good and bad, is largely as a result of the existing balance of power.
And a large part of that is down to the U.S.
If the U.S. bows out then it won’t be long before someone else decides to take advantage of the situation and they might not be so benevelont in outlook.
A quick aside when comparing cost you are not comparing like with like.
The cost of living in say China, (plus the standard of living) is significantly lower then that of Western nations, so that where an American worker gets paid ten times Y an hour to produce bullets a Chinese worker gets paid one Y an hour to do the same job.
So you have the choice of either buying your arms and ammunition from a potential enemy, or reducing the lifestyle (and cost of living ) of your own workers to that of a Chinese (or Outer Otherterrasian) worker to reduce your arms spending.
Or you accept the price you’re paying now.
Your analysis is flawed in that you are comparing 1:1, and you dont allow for any surprises.
Not if China, Russia, and India team up against us and deliver a surprise first strike that disables half of our navy. For example, if we had only fought Japan in WW2 (and not Italy, Germany, Finland, etc) and if there had never been a surprise attack on our battleships at Pearl Harbor, then things would not have looked so bleak in December 1941.
We have to always be much better than the combined strength of any potential grouping of axis enemy forces, esp after they deliver a very damaging first strike against us.
I’m curious, would you label these as offensive or defensive?
Israel bombs Osirak
Firebombing of Tokyo
Nuclear missile submarines
US base in Iraq takes mortar fire from nearby hill, conducts raid on hill that night
Navy delivers shipment of ammunition to Afghanistan
Navy sinks Somali pirate ship
1 - O
2 - D but not proportionate
3 - N/A not action
4 - O
5 - O
6 - need more facts
Amen to that.
Did that US radar facility in the Negev ever get built?
Post 79 didn’t answer my question, it just repeated the phrase that I didn’t understand the first time. Explain what that phrase means? Because, for all the years I’ve spent in school, I can’t figure out for the life of me what it’s trying so hard to say.