Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

The continuing budget-cutting of...

Posted Apr 4, '14 at 11:36am

09philj

09philj

2,585 posts

1. Because other countries also have heavy weaponry and the U.S. is determined to always one-up them. We're not about to toss our guns down in the interest of peace when Iran is working on splitting the atom and NK is testing missiles and both of them hate America.


So the international equivalent of schoolyard one-upmanship then.
 

Posted Apr 4, '14 at 12:20pm

Salvidian

Salvidian

4,299 posts

1. Because other countries also have heavy weaponry and the U.S. is determined to always one-up them. We're not about to toss our guns down in the interest of peace when Iran is working on splitting the atom and NK is testing missiles and both of them hate America.


Because NK and Iran are both comparably powerful oppositions to the US, right? They're really not. NK has an awful permanent military. As of right now, their nuclear weapons are pretty much a joke. Plus, NK is in no shape to wage conflict against the US in the first place. Hell, SK is stronger. Iran is a bit more powerful, but still pretty much a joke.

2. No, it doesn't, and we have plenty of them, but it's a lot easier to make more missiles than fix the economy.


Not my point. I intended to make the point that money could be taken out of the defense budget to be spent on fixing the economy. We'd still be fine.

3. No. George Washington was quoted saying that the U.S. needs to stay out of foreign affairs (I think. It was one of the founding fathers. Feel free to look it up).


Then why are you defending the need for a ginormous military?

4. In comparison to everything else, no, it really doesn't. We already have enough firepower to create Fallout 3. However, it is less spending, and we need to stop spending it somewhere. Granted, all of it and more is going to go into the new missile program.


So we should continue cutting spending! Yay!
 

Posted Apr 4, '14 at 12:21pm

nichodemus

nichodemus

13,646 posts

Knight

1. Because other countries also have heavy weaponry and the U.S. is determined to always one-up them. We're not about to toss our guns down in the interest of peace when Iran is working on splitting the atom and NK is testing missiles and both of them hate America.


Given that America is so far ahead of the curve, I have my doubts that cutting down the military budget will drastically reduce her defense capabilities. Far from it. I don't think anyone rational will want to completely tear down the military budget (not now anyway), but to see so much pumped into it whilst social problems abound is no doubt frustrating to many.
 

Posted Apr 4, '14 at 12:22pm

Salvidian

Salvidian

4,299 posts

I haven't adjusted to my new nationality.

By "we" I mean the US, not Spain/US or something. I can't get used to this.

 

Posted Apr 4, '14 at 2:29pm

FishPreferred

FishPreferred

2,091 posts

Well they can't leave them wherever they are because they're going to put the new missiles wherever that is. I don't know how many Tomahawk missiles the military goes through in a week, but I doubt that they're going to quickly run out at their current rate because the number is most likely very low. Tomahawk missiles are for killing tanks and whatnot, and we aren't going through any open tank/heavy armor firefights to the best of my knowledge, so I doubt they're being used at all.


Yeah, but that can only strengthen the rationale to cease production. If they continue making Tomahawks at a constant rate, they'll reach a point where all of the storage space is occupied by Tomahawks. Because the US does not go through thousands of missiles on a daily basis, making more of them is irrational. If production switches to a new model and continues at the same rate, they'll be no worse off. They still have more missiles than they could possibly find a use for, but at least some of them will be shiny new HARPOONs, or whatever they're called. If the nation is strapped for missile storage, the logical thing to do is suspend all missile production until they make enough room, which also translates to more savings.
 

Posted Apr 4, '14 at 3:06pm

MattEmAngel

MattEmAngel

7,577 posts

Because NK and Iran are both comparably powerful oppositions to the US, right? They're really not. NK has an awful permanent military. As of right now, their nuclear weapons are pretty much a joke. Plus, NK is in no shape to wage conflict against the US in the first place. Hell, SK is stronger. Iran is a bit more powerful, but still pretty much a joke.


I never said they were doing well. I said they were working on it. They both have a very clear objective, regardless of how long it takes them, and even if they never get around to finishing the project, America's government is based on the "better safe than sorry" mindset.

Not my point. I intended to make the point that money could be taken out of the defense budget to be spent on fixing the economy. We'd still be fine.


I'm aware. I was posting that argument as a lazy excuse for not fixing the economy because just about anything is easier than fixing the economy as far as the government is concerned, what with them not realizing that when you spend more money than you have, you end up more in debt.

Then why are you defending the need for a ginormous military?


I wasn't. If you read my post carefully, you'll notice that I never defended anything.

So we should continue cutting spending! Yay!


Not sure is sarcasm, but whatever. America needs to cut spending.

...the logical thing to do is suspend all missile production until they make enough room, which also translates to more savings.


You'd think that this would make sense, but apparently it doesn't, because look how shiny those NEW missiles are! It's like buying a new car to replace a perfectly good car when you have no room in the garage, so you leave it parked outside, taking up unnecessary space instead of just sticking with the one you had before. It's borderline impulse buying.
 

Posted Apr 4, '14 at 5:47pm

Salvidian

Salvidian

4,299 posts

I never said they were doing well. I said they were working on it. They both have a very clear objective, regardless of how long it takes them, and even if they never get around to finishing the project, America's government is based on the "better safe than sorry" mindset.


Aka the the "annihilate everyone who doesn't share our belief system" mindset. Or the "invade a country and **** it all up when in the end we find out they didn't even have weapons and now they hate us for it" mindset. Being "better safe than sorry" when weapons are involved is an awful strategy. That's like shooting your brother when he gets home at 3 am because he may have been a robber.

Stupid iPad. I can't quote more than once. :| Anyway,

@2
Then why did you are argue my point?

@3
You defended them by excusing their actions...

@4
It was not sarcasm. Cutting spending to the military is beneficial. I already established this.
 

Posted Apr 4, '14 at 6:35pm

MattEmAngel

MattEmAngel

7,577 posts

Uh. You can quote multiple times on an iPad. Just touch the Quote button, copy paste, Quote button again. I wrote my entire last post on my iPad.

 

Posted Apr 4, '14 at 7:47pm

Salvidian

Salvidian

4,299 posts

If I select the text box for posting the keyboard doesn't go away. :|

 

Posted Apr 5, '14 at 12:57am

nichodemus

nichodemus

13,646 posts

Knight

A ''safer than sorry'' mindset does not mean one has to have a grossly sized military budget.

 
Reply to The continuing budget-cutting of...

You must be logged in to post a reply!