What do you think the US military budget should be?

[Free-Stater 101]

Korea is a place we will not leave, as we owe it to them, as well as they pay for us, to be here. You would let a country be invaded and millions klled because you want America to be an Isolasionist shit hole?

It's alright to be isolationist to a extent but it must be done out of pragmatism as in a ideal world we wouldn't have to deal with others problems, the problem is the world isn't ideal and dropping the ball all at once is a terrible idea.

The fact that the guy a above is saying NK isn't a threat despite the fact that they have repeatedly threatened to nuke a U.S. territory says a lot.

I agree that we should stop being the world policemen but that doesn't mean abandoning pre made commitments especially when abandoning those commitments makes us seem to like dirtbags but also shoots U.S. in the foot long term.

 

[Husky_Khan]

Honestly, I don't really care what kind of deal you get, or what the benefit is. I understand that you are in uniform and of course must obey your orders, but as a civilian, I don't have to agree that maintaining your force in Korea is somehow defending this country in any way, especially not from China. I do not believe it is a proper use of the money that is taken from me every year.

Here's a little intelligence on China for you. The Yin dynasty lasted 560 years, which is 316 years longer than the USA has existed and the Yin dynasty ruled China and Asia in general about 3500 years ago. That was right on the edge of the Bronze Age. There were no English, no Romans no recognizable western group at all.

Let me ask you this. How long must we maintain that Korean garrison in order to protect ourselves from China? Because China's been there for 3500 years to our 244. Are we going to have troops in Korea in order to keep China away in the year 5520? Because China will still be around then.

China has had its ups and downs, dynasty after dynasty and has been a nation all along, always existing as the premier of its surrounding nations. When the US first tried to speak with the Koreans, they referred our ambassadors to the Emperor of China as they were under his authority.

So the Republic of China has the same historical legeacy then? Good thing they're on our side. 🙃

Now here we are, with this minuscule garrison in South Korea, supposedly keeping China away. Containment was a policy formulated against the Stalinist plan of the 1920's and their attempts to militarily overrun all nations in order to impose the Marxist international and lead us all into the land of rainbows and gumdrops just as soon as all the bad people were shot and the universal earthly Communist paradise could be achieved by forced labor.

The only group that believes in Marxist Leninism anymore is in Seattle. China is nationalist to the core, just as Russia is and neither give a damn for helping other countries or ethnic groups. China doesn't like other nations. They don't want to be international except to grab oil. You don't see Muslims sneaking in to get jobs or open mosques. The first thing they would do if North Korea fell apart would be to block the border so that they wouldn't come pouring over looking for food. China is far more Fascist than it is Communist and they don't even pay lip service to the old Marxist Leninist line from the 20's.

Containment wasn't a policy formulated against the Stalinist plan of the 1920's.

Stalin didn't come into power in the Soviet Union until 1924. And he wasn't the head of the Soviet Union until like 1927 or so. And their attempts at militarily overrunning all nations in order to impose the "Marxist international blah blah blah" was ended several years before then. It was stopped in the fields of Poland, in military misadventures in Siberia and the blood stained snow of the Baltics and Finland or otherwise brutally shot down in the streets of Romania and Hungary and Germany etc. By 1924 when Stalin rose to power, the Soviet Union was largely focused on finishing its meal of swallowing up unrepentant Central Asian Republics, suppressing the Trotskyist Coalition arrayed against him and beginning his machinations against enemies of the state like those food hoarding kulaks. Outside of military misadventures that lasted for a few years in Siberia and the extreme North of Russia, the United States didn't have any policy of containment on the Soviet Union in the 1920's beyond Red Scaring itself.

There WAS a policy of containment in the 1940's against Stalinism, which is what I'm assuming your referring to. But your about two decades and a World War off base from your statement which leads me to wonder the veracity of everything else your saying.

In regards to Marxist-Leninism. Yes... that is no longer a threat. But then in your very next breath you mention that China isn't a worry because they're not classic communists, just fascists... like somehow... "Oh they're just nationalist fascists who want to expand their power and influence across the world, not Communists, so who cares?"

I'm glad that you're calmed by the fact our major geopolitical rivals are merely authoritarian fascists nowadays instead of Marxist-Leninists but I guess we have different priorities in that some of us don't want to see authoritarian fascism spread across the globes while we waste away in isolationism.

 

[Zachowon]

It's alright to be isolationist to a extent but it must be done out of pragmatism as in a ideal we wouldn't have to deal with others problems the problem is the world isnt ideal and dropping the ball all at bbn once is a terrible idea.

The fact that the guy a above is saying NK isnt a threat despite the fact that they have repeatedly threatened to nuke U.S. territory says alot.

I agree that we should stop being the world policemen but that doesn't mean abandoning pre made commitments especially when abandoning those commitments seems us seem to like dirtbags but also shoots U.S. in the foot.

He is saying we should let China take over the world

 

[Sixgun McGurk]

We are protecting a country that we saved from being wiped out. They asked and pay us to be here.

I dont care how you feel as the country you live in has made the descion to defend a country nearly completly wiped out in the war it was founded on.

You show the world that America no longer protects the world, Protects countries like South Korea, like Taiwan, Japan. You basically give a country which fought and escaped Communist wrath to China on a platter. You then have China becoming Imperial Japan but with Nukes, and Russia then pushes further out taking back Georgia, Ukraine. America withdraws and the world stops as trade slows because Pirates, which do exist and will grow, take shipping containers form country to country.

Korea is a place we will not leave, as we owe it to them, as well as they pay for us, to be here. You would let a country be invaded and millions klled because you want America to be an Isolasionist shit hole?

You also sem to want the world to Burn in Sino fire.

We owe it to them? Fuck that. Fuck that with a rototiller. America protected a broken postwar world from insane Communist hordes that had shown their willingness to attack Europe multiple times in the 1920s. Europe protected itself just fine before we came in and will protect itself just fine now, long after the wars are over, especially as those Communist hordes died of old age long ago. Korea was simply an emergency reaction that has not been resolved. We did not take these people to raise.

Burn in Sino fire? Sorry bub, but Mao is dead and even he never made a move in that direction. There is a reason that the People's Volunteer Army attacked UN forces in 1954, not the People's Liberation Army. China isn't going to attack anyone militarily and get put back into the isolation box. China knows that it can be destroyed if it makes too many enemies, just like any other country. Japan, Korea, India, all could put them in a world of hurt. As is always the case, the world has changed and the battlefield is no longer physical.

I don't accept your either/or argument. Korea's fate, like all countries is up to Korea. The South Korean Army is both strong and modern. The Norks are worm infested starvlings equipped with 1950's equipment and run by a committee the members of which can be executed for taking any initiative whatsoever or just because it's Tuesday. We are protecting a country that doesn't need our protection. You forget that South Korea has a powerful and modern economy and can defend itself. China will not invade a nuclear power. South Korea would pay a price, but their troops would smash an attack from the starvling north on their own. If they attacked, they would knock over a rotten structure.

We have become the holder of the status quo and its not doing anything but giving away time that makes the crazy dictator in the North more powerful. The way to attack him is to turn China against him, the way to turn China against him is to pull out our troops so that its not a matter of Chinese national pride to oppose us in their cultural backyard and then let the Chinese resistance embarrass Xi Jinping and his Communist party with comparisons to the insane despot Korean Kim dynasty.

I vote and will never vote for anyone that calls for these kind of deployments. Our army is to protect our country, and its not deployed to properly do so. All these deployments do in enrich the thieves in Congress.

I wish you well over there and hope that the crazed dictator never decides to test the mettle of the DMZ.

 

[Sixgun McGurk]

So the Republic of China has the same historical legeacy then? Good thing they're on our side. 🙃



Containment wasn't a policy formulated against the Stalinist plan of the 1920's.

Stalin didn't come into power in the Soviet Union until 1924. And he wasn't the head of the Soviet Union until like 1927 or so. And their attempts at militarily overrunning all nations in order to impose the "Marxist international blah blah blah" was ended several years before then. It was stopped in the fields of Poland, in military misadventures in Siberia and the blood stained snow of the Baltics and Finland or otherwise brutally shot down in the streets of Romania and Hungary and Germany etc. By 1924 when Stalin rose to power, the Soviet Union was largely focused on finishing its meal of swallowing up unrepentant Central Asian Republics, suppressing the Trotskyist Coalition arrayed against him and beginning his machinations against enemies of the state like those food hoarding kulaks. Outside of military misadventures that lasted for a few years in Siberia and the extreme North of Russia, the United States didn't have any policy of containment on the Soviet Union in the 1920's beyond Red Scaring itself.

There WAS a policy of containment in the 1940's against Stalinism, which is what I'm assuming your referring to. But your about two decades and a World War off base from your statement which leads me to wonder the veracity of everything else your saying.

In regards to Marxist-Leninism. Yes... that is no longer a threat. But then in your very next breath you mention that China isn't a worry because they're not classic communists, just fascists... like somehow... "Oh they're just nationalist fascists who want to expand their power and influence across the world, not Communists, so who cares?"

I'm glad that you're calmed by the fact our major geopolitical rivals are merely authoritarian fascists nowadays instead of Marxist-Leninists but I guess we have different priorities in that some of us don't want to see authoritarian fascism spread across the globes while we waste away in isolationism.

I haven't studied Communist history for quite some time and don't really care which one did what. They all end up murdering millions if given the chance and you can take the measure of the orthodoxy of a true Communist by the number of his own people that he has in a death camp and the measures that he takes to tear down his own civilization.

The danger of Communisim is its status as a secular religion, with true believers that land in the Teacher's Colleges and spred like crazy among the faux intellectuals and the power hungry agitator types. They are always pushing the general destruction and mayhem that we see in Seattle and Venezuela until it burns itself out.

Authoritarianisim does not spread like that and can be countered just as nations have always countered each other from the beginning. Communism is a cancer. China is another country that can be dealt with. Our presence in Korea is not impeding them in any way.

 

[Zachowon]

I haven't studied Communist history for quite some time and don't really care which one did what. They all end up murdering millions if given the chance and you can take the measure of the orthodoxy of a true Communist by the number of his own people that he has in a death camp and the measures that he takes to tear down his own civilization.

The danger of Communisim is its status as a secular religion, with true believers that land in the Teacher's Colleges and spred like crazy among the faux intellectuals and the power hungry agitator types. They are always pushing the general destruction and mayhem that we see in Seattle and Venezuela until it burns itself out.

Authoritarianisim does not spread like that and can be countered just as nations have always countered each other from the beginning. Communism is a cancer. China is another country that can be dealt with. Our presence in Korea is not impeding them in any way.

Except it is. They wont push Towards Taiwan, and ownt nudge North korea to attack the South if the US is there

 

[Yinko]

In response to the original question (not touching the minor war in this thread with a ten foot pole), it really depends on what our long term geo-political strategy is. If we want to ensure global hegemony, then we would probably need to increase our budget and try to turn NATO into a vassal swarm. It's currently at $721.5 billion, moving that to $1.25 trillion should be more than enough to accomplish that.

That being said, I do think that our military has a lot of fat it could cut. Not in poor programs or whatever, but just the way it runs. There are a lot of people doing jobs that probably shouldn't even exist, and promotions rely more on time-served than merit (in most branches there are few spots at the top, so it's a mix of the two actually, people get cut from the promotion cue for lots of little things, but it's still a your turn situation as I understand it). So for the same result, if we redesigned the military's infrastructure and bureaucracy we could probably achieve that same global hegemony for $1 trillion or even about the same budget we have now.

If your goal is accomplished then there is little reason to overpay. So my answer is a nuanced "more! unless we don't have to".

 

[Zachowon]

In response to the original question (not touching the minor war in this thread with a ten foot pole), it really depends on what our long term geo-political strategy is. If we want to ensure global hegemony, then we would probably need to increase our budget and try to turn NATO into a vassal swarm. It's currently at $721.5 billion, moving that to $1.25 trillion should be more than enough to accomplish that.

That being said, I do think that our military has a lot of fat it could cut. Not in poor programs or whatever, but just the way it runs. There are a lot of people doing jobs that probably shouldn't even exist, and promotions rely more on time-served than merit (in most branches there are few spots at the top, so it's a mix of the two actually, people get cut from the promotion cue for lots of little things, but it's still a your turn situation as I understand it). So for the same result, if we redesigned the military's infrastructure and bureaucracy we could probably achieve that same global hegemony for $1 trillion or even about the same budget we have now.

If your goal is accomplished then there is little reason to overpay. So my answer is a nuanced "more! unless we don't have to".

In the Army, you can get to E-4 by time alone, maybe even E-5. TO get to E-5 they generally favor the more proactive and wanting E-4s over more lazy E-4s. To get E-5 through E-6 one must go to a board of NCOs and they decide based on your perormance, which includes knowledge, professionalism, bearing, and Merit, they decide if you should became said rank. From any rank above, one has a packet of Merit basically sent to a board with a reason for why in there, and they decide based on that. For enlisted.

For officers afaik, you get to CPT with time alone, and from there it is Merit and the like.

For Warrant, one has to be recommended by a Warrant in thier unit, then it goes to a board to think if they should go to the training to become one, then one makes it through the traaining, then specilised training, then they get WO1. From there the promotion to CW2 is for time, but the rest is Merit based.

E-5 and up get NCO ERs, which show ones performance, and to many bad can get one out of the military.

Officers and Warrants have these as well.

This is current Army at least

 

[Sailor.X]

In the Army, you can get to E-4 by time alone, maybe even E-5. TO get to E-5 they generally favor the more proactive and wanting E-4s over more lazy E-4s. To get E-5 through E-6 one must go to a board of NCOs and they decide based on your perormance, which includes knowledge, professionalism, bearing, and Merit, they decide if you should became said rank. From any rank above, one has a packet of Merit basically sent to a board with a reason for why in there, and they decide based on that. For enlisted.

For officers afaik, you get to CPT with time alone, and from there it is Merit and the like.

For Warrant, one has to be recommended by a Warrant in thier unit, then it goes to a board to think if they should go to the training to become one, then one makes it through the traaining, then specilised training, then they get WO1. From there the promotion to CW2 is for time, but the rest is Merit based.

E-5 and up get NCO ERs, which show ones performance, and to many bad can get one out of the military.

Officers and Warrants have these as well.

This is current Army at least

In the Navy once you pass your rate specific test and complete all of your quals you can be promoted to E-4 (Petty Officer Third Class). You will go to Petty Officer indoctrination. In the Navy E-4s are Non Commissioned Officers. This is due to E-4s in the Navy having to take on more responsibilities than the E-3. In a Boat Unit for instance E-4s are doing the job that an E-5 would be doing on a Surface Ship. So the Navy needed to make the E-4 grade Non Commissioned Officer.

 

[Zachowon]

In the Navy once you pass your rate specific test and complete all of your quals you can be promoted to E-4 (Petty Officer Third Class). You will go to Petty Officer indoctrination. In the Navy E-4s are Non Commissioned Officers. This is due to E-4s in the Navy having to take on more responsibilities than the E-3. In a Boat Unit for instance E-4s are doing the job that an E-5 would be doing on a Surface Ship. So the Navy needed to make the E-4 grade Non Commissioned Officer.

Only Army has two E-4 ranks. One is a jnuior NCO, the other is Junior enlisted. So yeah.
Army is diffrent

 

[Sailor.X]

Only Army has two E-4 ranks. One is a jnuior NCO, the other is Junior enlisted. So yeah.
Army is diffrent

Weird..... Army needs to fix that.

 

[Zachowon]

Weird..... Army needs to fix that.

Nah, we dont need any more corporals.

At least our ranks are easy to understand. Yours are worse then the AF

 

[Sailor.X]

Nah, we dont need any more corporals.

At least our ranks are easy to understand. Yours are worse then the AF

"Raises and Eyebrow" At least our Rates are not Number Salad like your MOS. For instance Infantryman (long list of numbers). Naval Equavelant. (Gunners Mate) and that is it. No need for the numbers distinction. Once you say GM every damn person (Even the Jarheads) know what you do.

 

[Zachowon]

"Raises and Eyebrow" At least our Rates are not Number Salad like your MOS. For instance Infantryman (long list of numbers). Naval Equavelant. (Gunners Mate) and that is it. No need for the numbers distinction. Once you say GM every damn person (Even the Jarheads) know what you do.

11B also known as 11 Bang Bang. Infantry. Variations of Infantry such as Mortar, or Officer, have a diffrent letter.

Armor and cav share the same Numbers, just diffrent letter.

In the Army you just say "I am Infantry" if you are Infantry or your combat arms.

If you are MI like me you purposely use your number designation to make yourself sound like a Smart Ass.

Generally we say the Name, not the designation unless you wanna be a smart ass, or Infantry.

As a Drill Sergeant in my Basic told me, "I am not a damn recruiter tell me the title!"

 

[Aaron Fox]

In response to the original question (not touching the minor war in this thread with a ten foot pole), it really depends on what our long term geo-political strategy is. If we want to ensure global hegemony, then we would probably need to increase our budget and try to turn NATO into a vassal swarm. It's currently at $721.5 billion, moving that to $1.25 trillion should be more than enough to accomplish that.

That being said, I do think that our military has a lot of fat it could cut. Not in poor programs or whatever, but just the way it runs. There are a lot of people doing jobs that probably shouldn't even exist, and promotions rely more on time-served than merit (in most branches there are few spots at the top, so it's a mix of the two actually, people get cut from the promotion cue for lots of little things, but it's still a your turn situation as I understand it). So for the same result, if we redesigned the military's infrastructure and bureaucracy we could probably achieve that same global hegemony for $1 trillion or even about the same budget we have now.

If your goal is accomplished then there is little reason to overpay. So my answer is a nuanced "more! unless we don't have to".

The thing you'll have to understand that the world is as peaceful as it is because the US has enforced what is essentially a 'trade or else' geopolitical policy. If you don't want the world to start looking like Strangereal where there is a world war every fucking decade (mostly over resources because let's face it, international trade has been historically finicky to start with as the conditions for it are rather specific), you'll have to widely expand the military just to ensure that. Especially as Putin and Associates in Russia will want to see this policy to be destroyed so they can go back to the 'glory days of the USSR'.

If that geopolitical policy dies, then we'll have WW3... and WW4... and WW5... and oodles of regional conflicts.

So, in the grand scheme of things, we'll need more ships, more soldiers, more sailors, more marines, more pilots, more tanks, and oh so much more. That and well-funded intelligence services both foreign and domestic.

 

[Zachowon]

The thing you'll have to understand that the world is as peaceful as it is because the US has enforced what is essentially a 'trade or else' geopolitical policy. If you don't want the world to start looking like Strangereal where there is a world war every fucking decade (mostly over resources because let's face it, international trade has been historically finicky to start with as the conditions for it are rather specific), you'll have to widely expand the military just to ensure that. Especially as Putin and Associates in Russia will want to see this policy to be destroyed so they can go back to the 'glory days of the USSR'.

If that geopolitical policy dies, then we'll have WW3... and WW4... and WW5... and oodles of regional conflicts.

So, in the grand scheme of things, we'll need more ships, more soldiers, more sailors, more marines, more pilots, more tanks, and oh so much more. That and well-funded intelligence services both foreign and domestic.

We just need more up to date and not so much POS computers. At least here in Korea. We have the best IC in the world, China nor Russia are as good.

but yeah I fully agree!

 

[Erwin_Pommel]

Europe is well capable of defending itself now,

Are we? The Cold War has been crippling for other western militaries as they've become reliant -on- the US military to do the heavy lifting. Gone are the days of fields being filled with our men tooting their horns and banging the drums, what we have now are expendable buffer blobs that wait until the Americans come along. I mean, have you seen the state of some of our militaries? Some barely out-populate a single town, some literally don't have an armed forces and some are so underbudgeted that they use brooms, fucking brooms as compensation for the lack of missile-loaded helicopter pics they can take.

No.


As for the thread question... Hm... I'd probably say enough to patrol and secure the borders of their homeland and external territories while keeping a "No-Man's Land" in the budget in case things need to be ramped up as in theory it could provide some economic leeway before money from other governmental divisions needs to be redirected. To sum up, think of it like an extendable stick, it's extended out enough to be a potent whacker but can be stretched out more should you need more leverage.

 

[Free-Stater 101]

The thing you'll have to understand that the world is as peaceful as it is because the US has enforced what is essentially a 'trade or else' geopolitical policy.

Yes, it is but the thing you must realize is that it isn't just the U.S. enforces this Europe, South America and even many of the U.S. enemies help in this because war and lack of trade doesn't really benefit us alone.

If you don't want the world to start looking like Strangereal where there is a world war every fucking decade (mostly over resources because let's face it, international trade has been historically finicky to start with as the conditions for it are rather specific)

It's weird that you mention Strangereal because their lack of a single superpower is because all of the countries in that world are pretty equal in military tech, not due to a lack of any of them trying to be Superpowers. (Belka, Osea, Yuktobania.)
The U.S. can't be a single unchallenged superpower forever no matter how much we spend, we may maintain a small advantage here and their but the fact is that the days of the 90's were the U.S. was unchallenged as a Superpower is raidly changing and in it's place is a system of regional great powers that are rising with the U.S. only holding a slight advantage as the lead one as this gap closes.

you'll have to widely expand the military just to ensure that

A military's infantry size has nothing to due with a deterent's these days with the exception of deterring a direct neighbor with a similar tech base or sized army. For instance Russia isn't deterred by U.S. infantry in Poland rather their Nukes, Bombers and Fighters, they are more afraid of those types of things because NATO already has more than enough land personnel to stomp them into the dirt as well as a population to conscript from if needed.

Especially as Putin and Associates in Russia will want to see this policy to be destroyed so they can go back to the 'glory days of the USSR'.

Russia Is boxed in with no realistic target to grab other than Belarus as they won't risk invading Ukraine any further than they already have for fear of provoking a response and it' not like we weren't aware of Putin's ambitions before this.

If that geopolitical policy dies, then we'll have WW3... and WW4... and WW5... and oodles of regional conflicts.

Political policy and reality are two different thing's and the reality here is that the U.S. despite what anybody thinks isn't
regaining the overwhelming edge we had in the mid-90's over other countries, no matter the amount we spend. The world order is shifting as more great powers are rising and the gap between them and the U.S.'s superpower status narrow's so more regional wars are coming as a inevitability the only thing we can do is maintain what edge we can.

So, in the grand scheme of things, we'll need more ships, more soldiers, more sailors, more marines, more pilots, more tanks, and oh so much more. That and well-funded intelligence services both foreign and domestic.

I agree but like I said before unless you raise taxes you might as well hand Russia/China the key's because the biggest military in the world won't avail you if in a generation the U.S. dies from cancer.

Are we? The Cold War has been crippling for other western militaries as they've become reliant -on- the US military to do the heavy lifting

I am not advocatign a complete withdraw from NATO here only a withdraw of Land Forces. The Bomber's, ICBM umbrella and Naval forces stay and deter and the European land forces were designed to stall Russia until we arrive and that was before we had Eastern Europe.

Gone are the days of fields being filled with our men tooting their horns and banging the drums, what we have now are expendable buffer blobs that wait until the Americans come along.

I know this I am counting on it.

I mean, have you seen the state of some of our militaries? Some barely out-populate a single town,

Which are you referring to in particular?

some literally don't have an armed forces

Let's face it Andora, Vatican City, Monaco and Liechtenstein weren't going to be a major help military wise in any world, the same can be said of Iceland.

and some are so underbudgeted that they use brooms, fucking brooms as compensation for the lack of missile-loaded helicopter pics they can take.

To be fair that incident happened five years ago and between Trump's election and the Russian's alleged activites and involvement in almost every home in the world I am sure the German Military has somewhat shaped up in that time if only in regards to better logistical preparation the incident did humiliate them internationally after all.

As for the thread question... Hm... I'd probably say enough to patrol and secure the borders of their homeland and external territories while keeping a "No-Man's Land" in the budget in case things need to be ramped up as in theory it could provide some economic leeway before money from other governmental divisions needs to be redirected. To sum up, think of it like an extendable stick, it's extended out enough to be a potent whacker but can be stretched out more should you need more leverage.

I agree.

 

[LordSunhawk]

This discussion is starting to veer off topic badly from the original post and is risking CI. Please stop.

 

[Zachowon]

This discussion is starting to veer off topic badly from the original post and is risking CI. Please stop.

Affirmative Boot. All hail for the Boot has spoken!

Back to the topic is spending money, the US needs more funding ir at least restructuring to allow for better stuff for its various branches, such as the IC in the military needing better equipment