Opinion Why US spends so much on the army?

Why not use fraction of that sum and have 1000's of maintained and ready nukes instead. And use rest of the money for whatever US needs?

Just curious.

<LikeReally5>

Nukes are only useful as a deterrent. Once you actually use them, you have already lost. By contrast, a large, well equipped and trained army can be used for any number of tasks.
 
<LikeReally5>

Nukes are only useful as a deterrent. Once you actually use them, you have already lost. By contrast, a large, well equipped and trained army can be used for any number of tasks.

How do you feel about the UK maintaining an arsenal? @danny23?

It's not merely a deterrent from other nuclear strikes - which is obvious mutual destruction anyway - it's a deterrent for any kind of hypothetical direct military action being taken on the UK by any states which, in either the present or future, possess greater conventional war capabilities simply for the potential consequences it presents.

You get what you pay for and it's as minimal as it is credible. If you're only going to pick one form of deterrent between sea-based SLBMs, land-launched ICBMs and/or tactical aircraft bomber capabilities, the SLBMs are definitely the way to go and nuclear-powered submarines are both the most reliable and least vulnerable to being taken out. The British Vanguard-class SSBNs are equivalent in quality to US kit.

Of course, the bilateral US-UK Mutual Defence Agreement for direct collaboration on the design, development, maintenance and exchange of materials for thermonuclear weapons is among the most significant and exclusive treaties in existence and firmly underscores the political, and economic ties between the two. It's actually written into US law and decennial renewal (due next in 2024) is not debated nor voted on in UK parliament.

It's also likely in contravention to the international Non-Proliferation Treaty, but who the fuck is going to do anything about it?
 
The two are so in bed with each other, it's not even funny.

The United Kingdom accounts for nearly 20% of all foreign direct investment in the United States, and nearly twice that of the next largest investor (Japan) in FDI. UK companies are responsible for the creation of over one million jobs stateside, the UK is the USA's second largest market for services exports behind only Canada and the US imports more services from the UK than any other country in the world.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/businessindu...ade/articles/whodoestheuktradewith/2017-02-21

Special Relationship with the US

The US is the country from which the UK earns the most through trade. Exports to the US in 2016 were worth £100 billion, more than twice as much as exports to any other country. With imports from the US totalling £66 billion, the UK ran a trade surplus with the US of £34 billion in 2016 (by far its highest globally). While the value of UK exports to the EU has fallen between 2011 and 2016 (from £243 billion to £236 billion), the UK is increasingly exporting to the US. Exports to the US rose by more than 26% over the same period.


Not to mention the shared culture, language, history and intellectual exchange. These two items have just taken place within the last year.

US-UK Science and Technology Agreement Paves Way For Closer Research Collaborations

US-UK Defence Teams Exchange Military Innovation Insights and Priorities
 
Because threatening nuclear war doesnt do much these days. Either a)the country in question has nukes of their own and isnt scared or b)they dont have nukes and dont think we will use ours so they might be scared but wont back down.

Boots on the ground win wars. The U.S. military spends so much money because we cover all aspects of war;land,sea and air and then project that force across the entire planet. Come at us bro.
 
Because somebody has to be the big dog that over extends ... New Rome INC

Like a DPS tank in video game terms.
 
Think about Mission Accomplished in Iraq.

Nukes are a scaled up version of American air superiority. Great for destroying but terrible for controlling what comes after the destruction.

Next think about American wars since WW2. America can not accept casualties on anything near the scale of who they are attacking. This is because they exclusively are the aggressor. The American population doesn't care who runs Iraq, Afghanistan, Korea, Vietnam if American blood is paying for it. To remain engaged America needs something like a 5to 1 kill ratio.

"When you surround an army, leave an outlet free. Do not press a desperate foe too hard."
 
I think that deep down, it's all about Americans closely tying their identity as a country and a group of people to strength and military victory. Victory against the English, victory over the Nazis, the world's watchdog in modern days.

Even if it's not pragmatic to have so much military and a lot of is just a huge moneysink and waste of resources, it wouldn't "feel right" to cut military expenditure.
 
It would actually be quite glorious to shift a few hundred billion out of the defense budget and towards health care, education and infrastructure among other things. Anyone who considers military power to be the main feature of American culture is pretty sorely uninformed about its achievements.
 
The United States is actually the longest running democracy on the planet. That is, the oldest existing nation with a constitutional government in which the people elect their own government and representatives. In many ways, it's the load-bearing wall of modern western civilization, not to mention the epicenter of humanity's scientific and technological advancement by a laughable distance (ask about it).

It restructured the world's post-war financial order, put Europe under its collective security blanket and ushered in the longest era of sustained peace in the continent's history while opening markets for it to export back to affluence during the rebuilding process. Global GDP has expanded by a factor of 10 in the time since. Please, take a glance at European history prior to the US putting it in check post-1945. It was constantly going to war and borderline cannibalizing itself.

Give me a fuckin break, and I don't even plan on staying.
 
It's the navy really

IMO sea control rivals space control at this current level of tech.

The water still houses a vale from the ink black eye

My views will change when they can start throwing the trash back at the planet... No tracker beams yet so we have some time.

I think Poseidon still runs the show.
 
It would actually be quite glorious to shift a few hundred billion out of the defense budget and towards health care, education and infrastructure among other things.

That's one of the most ignorant things I've ever heard.

We outspend every country but one in the world per capita or student on both of them.

Why in the world would you think we don't spend enough money on healthcare and education?
 
Last edited:
There are 435 Congressional districts. Having (and feeding, equipping, clothing, transporting, etc.)

There are roughly 500,000 men and women in the army.

Hosting, feeding, equipping, clothing, transporting, etc. 500,000 people within the 435 Congressional districts creates jobs.

Therefore, every two years, the Congressman/woman can go to their district and praise the fact that the Military Industrial Complex creates jobs for his/her district.

This keeps 'em in office.
 
I wonder what the % spent on all that and military compared to all the social services probably 1/5 th
 
It's a big world out there with territorial disputes, resource disputes, trade routes, etc. and the rest of the western world is too pacified to step up to the plate. So, the US has to do everything for them.

Without the US military, Europe and the rest of the western world would be blackmailed into submission or poverty by a million paper cuts. A "transit toll" on a trading route here, a withholding of a natural resource there because your media or a politician says or does something a country doesn't like........ The US protects you all from that to the point that you don't even realize that kind of thing happens all the time in the world.
 
That's one of the most ignorant things I've ever heard.

We outspend every country but one in the world per capita or student on both of them.

Why in the world would you think we don't spend enough money on healthcare and education?

It's actually behind Switzerland and Norway in terms of education and I didn't necessarily say the US doesn't spend enough but of course that isn't really the root of the problem, particularly in regards to having worse health outcomes than countries which spend far less (lack of regulation and intervention in medical pricing). I'm just tired of the country playing world police and blowing twice as much annually on shit like the OCO fund than what the NIH receives, particularly given the value generated from the latter - 'would' is also the operative word, because it isn't realistic at this juncture.
 
I think 2 tjings

1) Russia and US and everyone else with nukes lie about the nunber of missiles they have active and non actice in stockpile.

2) Probably only countries with a known amount or capabilties are North korea, pakistan, france and UK. The Chinese, Russiand etc lie for sure and decieve.

3) You probably have lot more nukes then you think in cruise missiles sitting on air craft carriers or other submarines. And in bases.


Pretty beast. You should be proud if your American. The Ohio class holds the most SLBM ever made of submarine. Its a huge sub.

The Russkies should build the Typhoons again


You are turning Chinese BTW
 
They're actually already up for replacement, a dozen new Columbia-class SSBN's will replace them and serve from 2030-2085. The principal nuclear armament will consist of "only" 16 x D5 but given how hydro-acoustic sensing and processing technologies are always advancing, the stealth upgrades will be worth it. These things scare the piss out of China.


Wow
 
Back
Top