Derek 2.0 Posted January 5, 2015 Report Share Posted January 5, 2015 or context, right Derek? Facts indicate that US defense spending amounts to over 36% of the world's total, while their economy only represents around 22%. The facts also show us that the Pentagon's budget is larger than the next 9 largest military budgets worldwide, making the British Empire's old two-power-standard look pretty lame! Sure, and facts also indicate the US Federal Government spends more on entitlements........so, whats your point? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 5, 2015 Report Share Posted January 5, 2015 Sure, and facts also indicate the US Federal Government spends more on entitlements........so, whats your point? Yep.....you should see how much we spend on NASA....Canadians love it ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted January 5, 2015 Report Share Posted January 5, 2015 The context relates to the referenced Atlantic hit piece.....U.S. defense spending is slated to shrink even more as a percentage of GDP because of budget cuts. Ike would be so proud....doing more...with less. Exactly, well ensuring US worldwide military dominance..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 5, 2015 Report Share Posted January 5, 2015 Exactly, well ensuring US worldwide military dominance..... Back in the good bad old days, President Reagan got us to a 600 ship navy....now 300 is the goal. More with less ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted January 5, 2015 Report Share Posted January 5, 2015 Back in the good bad old days, President Reagan got us to a 600 ship navy....now 300 is the goal. More with less ! More with less is a clear reflection of the advancements afforded by technology.......someone has to pay for its development. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 5, 2015 Report Share Posted January 5, 2015 Indeed....Canada will make do with only 48 to 65 F-35 strike fighters...and be more capable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted January 5, 2015 Report Share Posted January 5, 2015 Indeed....Canada will make do with only 48 to 65 F-35 strike fighters...and be more capable. Clearly and more so than just a natural progression in technology, but adding capabilities to our own armed forces (as is the same for most of the other partners) that we've either never had or lost. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted January 5, 2015 Author Report Share Posted January 5, 2015 Sure, and facts also indicate the US Federal Government spends more on entitlements........so, whats your point? More on entitlements than....? Once again, you've provided us with a fact without any intelligent analysis, comparison or context. I'm not sure if this sort of analysis is beyond you, or if you deliberately leave it out so your facts appear to support your point more than they actually do. US social spending lags behind virtually all of its developed peers, while its poverty rate and income gaps are head and shoulders above them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 5, 2015 Report Share Posted January 5, 2015 US social spending lags behind virtually all of its developed peers, while its poverty rate and income gaps are head and shoulders above them. Nice try....nobody from Canada should be bragging about poverty rates...given the very low defense spending as a percentage of GDP. So where is all that money going ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted January 5, 2015 Report Share Posted January 5, 2015 More on entitlements than....? Once again, you've provided us with a fact without any intelligent analysis, comparison or context. I'm not sure if this sort of analysis is beyond you, or if you deliberately leave it out so your facts appear to support your point more than they actually do. US social spending lags behind virtually all of its developed peers, while its poverty rate and income gaps are head and shoulders above them. More on entitlements then defense.......that is what we're talking about no? National defense is the responsibility of the US Federal Government, but as indicated in the graphic above, has been superseded by spending priorities that have been historically the purview of the States........clearly the spending priorities of the United States developed "peers" (of which there isn't any) are neither here nor there..............But to jump into your logic vacuum, said "peers" have benefited for decades, directly and indirectly, from US defense spending and the security afforded by it......... But I still fail to see your disjointed point.........is it that the United States doesn't spend enough on welfare and too much on military hardware? If so, a novice OODA loop will show one is worthless without the other......even with the "other" being provided by the United States. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted January 5, 2015 Author Report Share Posted January 5, 2015 More on entitlements then defense.......that is what we're talking about no? Obviously, but what does that actually tell us considering the same could be said about virtually any other wealthy nation? Nothing. But to jump into your logic vacuum, said "peers" have benefited for decades, directly and indirectly, from US defense spending and the security afforded by it... A good point, except for the lack of capable strategic rivals or practical conventional threat over the last 20+ years. This argument would be better if the US wasn't outspending all of its combined rivals/enemies by such a large margin. Overkill would be the term I'd use, but even that's probably an understatement. Nice try....nobody from Canada should be bragging about poverty rates...given the very low defense spending as a percentage of GDP. So where is all that money going ? It's not there in the first place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 5, 2015 Report Share Posted January 5, 2015 .... Overkill would be the term I'd use, but even that's probably an understatement. "Overkill" is exactly what the U.S. desires. A super power's job is never done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted January 5, 2015 Report Share Posted January 5, 2015 Obviously, but what does that actually tell us considering the same could be said about virtually any other wealthy nation? Nothing. So why did you bring up what the United States spends on defense? A good point, except for the lack of capable strategic rivals or practical conventional threat over the last 20+ years. This argument would be better if the US wasn't outspending all of its combined rivals/enemies by such a large margin. Overkill would be the term I'd use, but even that's probably an understatement. Have the Russians and Chinese gone somewhere? What about North Korea? What of instability within the Persian Gulf? The American defense mantra, for decades, has been to maintain a force structure capable of fighting two major wars, a policing action, well maintaining its worldwide security commitments simultaneously........hardly "overkill", and with recent force reductions, the current force structure could be considered understrength for such goals.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted January 5, 2015 Author Report Share Posted January 5, 2015 So why did you bring up what the United States spends on defense? I didn't. You and BC were discussing reductions in US defense spending and I commented on that with some comparisons and analysis. Unlike you, I didn't just say, "The US spends $640B/year on defense." and pretend that it was an argument-winning factoid. Have the Russians and Chinese gone somewhere? What about North Korea? What of instability within the Persian Gulf? Add them ALL up and they don't even spend half of what the US does, nor do they have meaningful blue-water or force-projection capabilities. The American defense mantra, for decades, has been to maintain a force structure capable of fighting two major wars, a policing action, well maintaining its worldwide security commitments simultaneously. As mentioned, it already outspends any potential/realistic combination of enemies by over 2:1. As for security commitments and policing, NATO allies outspend Russia by an erormous margin and the USA's Pacific allies have sharp teeth as well. the current force structure could be considered understrength for such goals.... maybe if you were planning on invading China and Russia simultaneously, otherwise no. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted January 5, 2015 Report Share Posted January 5, 2015 (edited) I didn't. You and BC were discussing reductions in US defense spending and I commented on that with some comparisons and analysis. Unlike you, I didn't just say, "The US spends $640B/year on defense." and pretend that it was an argument-winning factoid. Your first post with your logic vacuum: or context, right Derek? Facts indicate that US defense spending amounts to over 36% of the world's total, while their economy only represents around 22%. The facts also show us that the Pentagon's budget is larger than the next 9 largest military budgets worldwide, making the British Empire's old two-power-standard look pretty lame! Your provided "factoids"......where is the analysis? Add them ALL up and they don't even spend half of what the US does, nor do they have meaningful blue-water or force-projection capabilities. The Soviets/Russians had no requirement for a blue water force, but sea denial (force projection, for the Soviets, was handled by the army), likewise the Communist Chinese..........Presently, the Russians and Chinese have the ability to bring to bear a level of sea denial, likewise both have the ability to project regional force (as recently demonstrated by the Russians) with both of their armed forces.......... ......Hence the Americans still basing (and prepositioning) forces in Europe and Japan, likewise the Pacific pivot with expansion of forces on Guam and new basing rights in Western Australia. As mentioned, it already outspends any potential/realistic combination of enemies by over 2:1. As for security commitments and policing, NATO allies outspend Russia by an erormous margin and the USA's Pacific allies have sharp teeth as well. Yet NATO or the US Pacific allies, could not contend with Russia or China on their own........hence the before mentioned US force structure.......the Europeans required major US support to bomb Libya. maybe if you were planning on invading China and Russia simultaneously, otherwise no. The US would currently be hard pressed to fight two major, sustained wars, with North Korea and Iran, let alone Russia and China, with their present force structure. Edited January 6, 2015 by Derek 2.0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted January 6, 2015 Author Report Share Posted January 6, 2015 Your provided "factoids"......where is the analysis? That whole quote was an analysis Derek. Holy crap. The US would currently be hard pressed to fight two major, sustained wars, with North Korea and Iran, let alone Russia and China, with their present force structure. Neither war would be sustained. The US would roll over Iran much like they did in Iraq. North Korea, with it's woefully antiquated equipment and inadequate economy, would be even less equipped to fight a sustained war. They'd lose a conventional war against South Korea, let alone the United States. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted January 6, 2015 Report Share Posted January 6, 2015 (edited) That whole quote was an analysis Derek. Holy crap. What exactly did you analyze? You just dropped facts one could find from Google in 5 minutes..... Neither war would be sustained. The US would roll over Iran much like they did in Iraq. North Korea, with it's woefully antiquated equipment and inadequate economy, would be even less equipped to fight a sustained war. They'd lose a conventional war against South Korea, let alone the United States. Your claims are wholly unfounded and lacking in reality.........The after affects from the invasion of Iraq (To say nothing of a decade of counterinsurgency operations in Iraq and Afghanistan), and further compounded by sequestration cuts has rapidly put the United States military to lower readiness levels not seen since the Carter era, post-Vietnam doldrums..... As to South Korea.........The United States doesn't base a force comprised of Army, USAF, USN and USMC, larger then most nations armed forces, in South Korea proper and within the region (with prepositioned equipment and supplies in South Korea) because it is felt the South Koreans could beat the North on their own hook........ Edited January 6, 2015 by Derek 2.0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted January 6, 2015 Author Report Share Posted January 6, 2015 (edited) What exactly did you analyze? You just dropped facts one could find from Google in 5 minutes.... I don't need to do a research paper for some basic analysis, and what I provided still went miles further than your 'facts' regarding reductions in military spending. Your claims are wholly unfounded and lacking in reality. The after affects from the invasion of Iraq (To say nothing ofa decade of counterinsurgency operations in Iraq and Afghanistan), and further compounded by sequestration cuts has rapidly put the United States military to lower readiness levels not seen since the Carter era, post-Vietnam doldrums..... but still in much better shape than the rest of the world's armed forces, with funding levels dwarfing its closest rivals! http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2014/12/30/russia-has-to-slash-military-spending-to-balance-the-budget/ As to South Korea.........The United States doesn't base a force comprised of Army, USAF, USN and USMC, larger then most nations armed forces, in South Korea proper and within the region (with prepositioned equipment and supplies in South Korea) because it is felt the South Koreans could beat the North on their own hook........ No, it's because of: Edited January 6, 2015 by Moonbox Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted January 6, 2015 Report Share Posted January 6, 2015 I don't need to do a research paper for some basic analysis, and what I provided still went miles further than your 'facts' regarding reductions in military spending. Right, very in-depth posts....... but still in much better shape than the rest of the world's armed forces, with funding levels dwarfing its closest rivals! The "rest of the world" doesn't have an expectation to fight two wars and provide security throughout the World....... No, it's because of: The US maintains the 8th army, with units along the DMZ, likewise the 3rd Marine Div in Japan, with prepositioned equipment along the Southern coast of the Korean peninsula, likewise the 7th Air Force in hardened shelters in central Korea, because of the Chinese?????? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted January 6, 2015 Report Share Posted January 6, 2015 And here I thought the bomb truck crap was flogged to death. Aw but it does provide a good platform for feeble attempts at Canada baiting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted January 6, 2015 Author Report Share Posted January 6, 2015 Right, very in-depth posts....... It didn't need to be in-depth, but it was still a lot deeper than what you were peddling when I posted it! The "rest of the world" doesn't have an expectation to fight two wars and provide security throughout the World....... That's an expectation that the US placed on itself, with 'major' and 'war' seemingly being vaguely defined. The US maintains the 8th army, with units along the DMZ, likewise the 3rd Marine Div in Japan, with prepositioned equipment along the Southern coast of the Korean peninsula, likewise the 7th Air Force in hardened shelters in central Korea, because of the Chinese?????? It maintains such a large presence in the region to provide assurances to allies against expanding regional Chinese influence - containment if you will. As for North Korea, it simply doesn't have the hardware or the economy to wage a significant conventional war. You're an armchair general, so why don't you tell us how North Korea would beat South Korea with obsolete equipment that's already been proven helpless against the type of hardware South Korea fields. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 6, 2015 Report Share Posted January 6, 2015 The DPRK can inflict significant damage on South Korea's largest city with cheap and plentiful artillery and rockets already staged near the border. Geography makes Seoul a sitting duck. http://www.businessinsider.com/map-of-the-day-how-north-korea-could-destroy-seoul-in-two-hours-2010-5?op=1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted January 6, 2015 Report Share Posted January 6, 2015 It didn't need to be in-depth, but it was still a lot deeper than what you were peddling when I posted it! You mean my reply.......to another member? That's an expectation that the US placed on itself, with 'major' and 'war' seemingly being vaguely defined. How does one define the scale and scope of a war, fought against an unknown enemy, some time in the future? Vague enough? It maintains such a large presence in the region to provide assurances to allies against expanding regional Chinese influence - containment if you will. As for North Korea, it simply doesn't have the hardware or the economy to wage a significant conventional war. You're an armchair general, so why don't you tell us how North Korea would beat South Korea with obsolete equipment that's already been proven helpless against the type of hardware South Korea fields. From the USFK commander: USFK Vision Statement Lead trained and ready joint ROK-U.S. combined forces, and UNC Multinational Forces, capable of deterring external aggression and defending the Korean Peninsula, while strengthening the ROK-U.S. Alliance, maintaining the military Armistice in Korea, and seamlessly transitioning to a ROK-led combined defense. I assume you still feel said ROK-US force is (and has been since 1953) there to defend against Chinese "influence"......and not the nut in the North Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted January 6, 2015 Report Share Posted January 6, 2015 The DPRK can inflict significant damage on South Korea's largest city with cheap and plentiful artillery and rockets already staged near the border. Geography makes Seoul a sitting duck. http://www.businessinsider.com/map-of-the-day-how-north-korea-could-destroy-seoul-in-two-hours-2010-5?op=1 And is why all USFK members are at, and have been, at one of the highest states of continual readiness among US forces for generations........likewise, it is why the Seventh fleet now, combined with the JMSDF, maintain continual BMD patrols in the Sea of Japan.......not to defend against Godzilla, Rodan, the Chinese and Mothra........but the threat posed by the North Koreans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted January 6, 2015 Report Share Posted January 6, 2015 [quote name="Moonbox" post="1021596" Neither war would be sustained. The US would roll over Iran much like they did in Iraq. North Korea, with it's woefully antiquated equipment and inadequate economy, would be even less equipped to fight a sustained war. They'd lose a conventional war against South Korea, let alone the United States. Where are you getting all this confidence from? The US has barely won a war on its own since their War of Independence and even then it was the French navy that probably made all the difference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.