But this leads to some uncomfortable conclusions, at least its uncomfortable for some. The problem is our military is too stretched and too thin.

We have another 850,000 or so in the reserves. Our military budget was almost $700 billion in 2012, far more than any other country.

How many more soldiers do you think we need, and how much more do you think we need to spend?

We're not able to defend Europe from Russia: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4802346

Sure, we have NATO commitments. But why is it that we are usually expected to send in the vast majority of forces? It is because we have them. Fore example, we have ten huge nuclear aircraft carriers. Ten! France has one under commission. Nobody else in the whole world has any.

What I am saying is, we need to drastically reduce the number of our missions. If Europe is to be defended from Russia, then let Europe take the lead. We need to reduce the overall size of our military by at least half. The last thing we need to do is throw even more money and bodies at too many missions.

European countries don't want a unified army, or more funding and people for their militaries, and can't do it all alone. Mind you, I do think we can learn a lot from countries like Norway, Finland, Switzerland and such. I also think we need some sort of conscription system, but that would give most Americans a giant emotional fit..

Europe doesn't want to pay for their own defense. That is an option for them because we will take care of that for them. We are borrowing money from China to fund our bloated war budget. Now we're so deep in debt, a Democratic President keeps offering to cut Social Security. We just cut back on our food stamp program. Most Europeans have actual universal health care. We don't. We are being played as chumps.

No, I don't think we should defend Europe. We should help defend our NATO allies. We certainly should not play an overwhelmingly dominant role in this each and every time.

Most people who favor the draft are those who would not be subjected to it. You wouldn't be. I was drafted into the Army in 1969. I have never wished that tyranny on anybody else.

Last edited Mon Apr 14, 2014, 02:52 PM - Edit history (2)

Many nations in Europe are too small to really form adequate defenses against Russia, and need our help. That being said, they do need to hold their own and stop deferring so much to us. So I guess we're sort of in agreement. I'm all for budget cuts, but not disarmament.

Well okay, if you want to be isolationist, we won't have much agreement, I actually believe in NATO...

I'd never be for a draft that didn't include women. But maybe draft is a bad word. I mean some mandatory military service like Finland or Norway or what Germany had? A lot would agree with me there. I don't mean plucking people randomly to go die in Afghanistan. However, I do think some mandatory service would be good for society, even if your experience wasn't pleasant apparently (sorry about that).

That is what I said. My point is, our allies should do more to share in that responsibility. A lot more. That doesn't make me an isolationist.

Thankfully, most Americans remain opposed to the draft. If it were to resume today it would be for men only. About half the people think that if conscription were to resume it should include women. I agree with that sentiment, but I don't think that women would be drafted even in this enlightened age. Maybe at some point in your lifetime but not in mine.

No other way around that. Look at previous posts and threads.

Well Israel and Norway conscript women, and I'm not talking a Vietnam era style draft, I'm talking something like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_Finland http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_Germany

I think I should make a thread about this separately.

The US currently accounts for 75% of NATO defense spending. If NATO military presence is to be increased anywhere, it should be done by other member states, and certainly not by the USA. We are carrying far more than our share already.

As already stated elsewhere...

Why do you keep trying to tag America with the sole NATO responsibility?

I'm simply saying Europe is not up to snuff now. You can whine all you want about Europeans slacking off their duties to defend themselves, but that doesn't really do a lot in this current situation. We either get serious now or just let Russia steamroll them.

As I have said, we bankroll NATO to the tune of 75% of their total cost. That is a shitload of money. You never did answer the first question I put to you: How many more soldiers do you think we need, and how much more do you think we need to spend?

Would you please answer that question now? How much is too much if 75% is not already? Is there any limit to our responsibility while we wait on Europeans to voluntarily get "up to snuff"?

Unless you propose some sort of United States of Europe which would in turn have to build a large military, but yeah, good luck selling the Europeans on that...

Your question has been answered already, I gave a link on this in fact....

would be perfectly capable of defending themselves as a group if they cared to. With "some" US help? maybe? Think of all the $$$$ Rockwell, Boeing, Cheney, Blackwater, Lockheed et al could make...

Our obligation to another country cannot exceed it's own responsibility.

You are making a hell of an argument against NATO though, you are stating that Europe is by definition in breech, they wouldn't defend us from a damn thing and in fact cannot be prevailed upon to defend themselves to the point that your are arguing that being a member makes us have primary responsibility for each nation's security apparently because they don't want to even 5th the sacrifice of our own domestic needs.

Fuck that! You are talking crazy here. Possibly crazier than I've heard anyone else openly speak.

And if we're going to use parents as an analogy, would you let your kid die on the streets if they were too lazy to take care of themselves?

Are you going to join the service? My daughter served in Afghanistan, my Son in Iraq. I'm assuming this is part of your future goal, given you think "conscription" is a good idea.

What branch are you thinking of?

I don't support everyone having to go to Afghanistan or Iraq, wars I don't even support. All I said was a musing in fact. But I really should start a thread on this, since it's an interesting subject with a lot of confusion I think surrounding it.

but will only accept posting you believe are 'right?'

I am curious, how old are you, if you ant to say?
If not, that is fine.

I'm 19, ask me whatever you want. I've already revealed this on here anyway

Again, the conscription comment was more of a muse. I do think though if we had a real necessary war, we should have a draft.

but you refuse to go where you are told to go if you don't like it?

I won't take a combat MOS to kill people who aren't threatening the US, that's for sure.

You seem like a very nice person.
And you seem very thoughtful.
But may I say, I think you have a lot to learn about how the world works, how politics works, how society works, what reality is, and, interestingly enough, how the Army works.

Someone else mentioned that your ideas/opinions are 'all over the place.' I think this just comes from your naivete. But if you keep thinking and questioning, you surely will arrive at something.

I don't follow.

That's part of being naive.
And you must learn that lesson yourself, which I think you will.

I guess I just object to being called naive, especially since I don't see how I am acting naive...

Everything is.
A newborn baby is wrinkled and comes from.... An old man is wrinkled and goes back to...
In the beginning things are simple. Then they become more complex. Then they become simple again.
The more I learn, the more I realize I don't know.. So where does that lead? Am I getting somewhere? Or is there nowhere to get to?

And you are all over the place with your opinions it seems to me, that is more confusing. But start your thread-- it's sounds very interesting

And out of curiosity, which branch of the military are you thinking of joining?

And I plan to join the army actually, like my dad.

Army is good; are you planning on getting a degree first?

How is it good for society?

Interestingly, more than a few liberals agree with me, and not as much conservatives, judging by my google searches. And some of most liberal and progressive countries do it.

I should start a separate thread on this, it's an interesting topic.

You mean "Hey, lets all join the army together. Turrr.. rum tum tum, turr rum tum tum. "

power in numbers and all. ...I smell military/gov troll.

Why does Europe and other countries get those great social programs? Probably because they can count on us bailing them out militarily if the Red Menace decided to roll in.

We have adequate resources, but we are wasting them on the wrong things.

But yeah Europeans do expect us to bail them out, that's true.

It's a simple matter of priorities.

I doubt most Americans would favor us leaving NATO and isolating ourselves though. But just admit in the future you don't want us to protect Europe and participate in NATO.

What possible way could reading it enhance our perception of ourselves as sane rational liberals?

NASA has told us to prepare for the second Dark Ages. And all some people want to talk about is another arms race.

Of course "we" are "not able to defend Europe from Russia," and it's absurd to think such a thing is possible short of nuclear war (which is how the U.S. would have "defended" Europe from the Soviet Union all along). On the other hand, who are "we" and who decided that "our" job is to "defend Europe from Russia."

Luckily, it is an equally absurd idea that Russia today threatens "Europe" militarily.

Meanwhile, there are real problems in the world not being addressed thanks to the pulverization of wealth by all the military-industrial complexes planning for impossible scenarios. It's 70 years into the nuclear age: overdue time for all the boys to give up their toys.

What a silly thought.

Also silly me to think Russia invading other countries and threatening to do so again is threatening Europe. Also the fact that European leaders see this as a threat...silly them....

Oh please.

That was the reality of its actual "defense."

After World War II, the United States policy establishment, led by the economic royalists and anti-communist ideologues whom FDR had condemned, chose the course of Cold War and nuclear arms race over the opportunity to deescalate and disarm in coordination with its wartime ally, the Soviet Union, which had no interest in extending beyond the sphere of influence established at the end of the Nazi war. Your "defense of Europe" was therefore perceived as necessary. It was always a matter of nuclear terror (soon enough, mutual) and began with the nuclear strikes on Japan, as a demonstration to the Soviets of what the U.S. was willing to do.

NATO simply guarantees European security, that's all.

... we WASTED them fooling around in Iraq. Idiotic actions have consequences, and every asshole that was for going into Iraq can look in the mirror if they want to know why we are "stretched too thin".

It certainly isn't money, we spend an ASTOUNDING amount, more than we should on the military and what do we get?

Kind of cruel...

.. is going to attack us, that is idiotic. And there are mistakes, and then there are mistakes. Iraq was no "mistake" it was genocide promoted by our "leaders" while most of the population played nod, nod, wink, wink.

And once it was underway we have to listen to the military brass lie again and again about what they could accomplish and when. In the private sector, these guys would be selling used cars or washing dishes.


You may be over it but I am not.

If you think that we don't need a military to defend us, you're the one who's being idiotic.

The war in Iraq is not "genocide", you're just being hyperbolic and silly now.

.... that a military is needed to protect ourselves. Not the one we have now though, let someone else be the World Police.

And as a matter of FACT, if any country other that us did what we did in Iraq, it would be considered a war crime and we'd have our leaders in the Hague. There's nothing "silly" about that FACT.

We had ZERO right to go into Iraq, not ANY.

But I don't think you really care about that.

And first Iraq is genocide, now it's a war crime? Get your stuff straight.

Last edited Mon Apr 14, 2014, 09:23 AM - Edit history (1)

Though not entirely for this reason. And yes, I do think we need to expand in Europe to properly defend it (this doesn't mean expanding funding, this just means reorienting our military). There was a thread about it on here not too long ago. The military isn't the problem, it's what it's used for.

Also the military itself needs radical restructuring beyond budget cuts.

why can't Europe, which dwarfs Russia in population and economic power, defend itself?

is little short of absurd.

Germany alone (with nominal help from its allies Italy and Finland) nearly destroyed the Soviet Union during WWII. If the USSR had not had the assistance of the US, and the British Empire, the war would, most optimistically, have ended in stalemate between Germany and the USSR.

Together Germany, France, Italy, Great Britain, Benelux and newly enrolled members of NATO (Poland, Czech Republic, etc.) have far greater military potential than the Russian Federation, which, remember, is significantly LESS powerful militarily and economically than the old USSR.

Europe has a long tradition of military alliances that constitute a greater military machine than, say, Alabama or Utah. To suggest that Europe, particularly western Europe including Germany, is somehow incapable of developing sufficient military power to defend itself is historically dubious, to say the least.

In terms of nuclear weaponry, both France and the UK have sufficient nuclear weapons to provide a strong deterrent.

Should we be in NATO, and maintain a military presence in Europe as a tripwire? Absolutely. Should we be footing the vast majority of the bill to defend Europe? No.

I actually said European nations are like if the 50 states were on their own, they cannot defend themselves. I said the only way Europe could is if it became a United States like us. Do actually keep up with my arguments before responding.

you're not actually comparing European nations to the 50 US states?

Then why bring "the 50 states" into it at all?

Do actually try to keep up with your own half-baked analogies.

I didn't. I said Europe would have to adopt a US style approach to defend itself without NATO.

the United States as a federation of independent states with their own militias that would join together to fight off external threats. A standing Federal army was considered antithetical to democracy.

The Civil War and Lincoln changed all that.

Nowadays every state could not defend themselves.

And if the standing Federal army wasn't there? I believe the state militias would be much more substantial.

the individual state militias would have organically adapted with the times.

Prior to the Civil War people considered themselves primarily a citizen of their state, and referred to the country as "these" (as opposed to "the&quot United States. Without the dramatic centralization of power that followed the Civil War, each state would have developed more independently. We would have a situation that would be closer to the European Union - a federation of independent states.

The evolution of those states from 1865 - 2014 could easily have resulted in strengthened state militias. Consider what the individual states were able to muster for the Civil War.

Why? And how would a militia be structured exactly in your vision? I'm just curious

However, I believe that the government that works best is the government closest to the people. I could envision a United States in which each individual State would have much more sovereignty, and that could be a good thing.

One nice side effect would be that the U.S. would be less prone to Imperialist meddling in world affairs. With the federation's military strength dispersed among the State militias, it would be more difficult to engage in such folly as the Iraq invasion - the Oregon Militia, for example, would have leverage to refuse to participate. Rather than having a unitary Presidency able to deploy military forces on its whim, there would need to be much more consensus building before embarking on military adventures. This would have the effect of limiting American military activities across the globe, and help ensure that the militias would only be deployed in cases of actual danger to the Union (rather than imaginary danger, such as the ridiculous notion that tribes of third-world insurgents require a five-year campaign of drone murder).

But, again, that's not the situation we have currently. But I can imagine such a situation in an alternate universe.

I assumed every state basically being its own nation would mean utter chaos.

Also when you say militias, do you mean like the Swiss militia, where every citizen has to serve a few years and be a reserve member afterwards? I actually think that would be a better setup than we have now, honestly. And in such a context, you wouldn't mind the state militias actually deciding to go to war, if they felt it was right?

Governments are stable.

All economies are vulnerable to depression. You may have noticed we had one as well - would that make you describe the United States as "unstable?"