Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,415
- 14,303
- 136
The weakening of America continues. Pathetic.
You do know that America won in both WWI and WWII without having any kind of strong standing army before the onset of war, right?
The weakening of America continues. Pathetic.
You do know that America won in both WWI and WWII without having any kind of strong standing army before the onset of war, right?
We should be workingtoward a nuclear weapon-free world. The political structure I mentioned above is important for that.
The more nations that have nukes the more dangerous, but what right does a nation have to say it can have them and others can't, would you accept that?
We should be workingtoward a nuclear weapon-free world. The political structure I mentioned above is important for that.
The more nations that have nukes the more dangerous, but what right does a nation have to say it can have them and others can't, would you accept that?
We should be workingtoward a nuclear weapon-free world. The political structure I mentioned above is important for that.
The more nations that have nukes the more dangerous, but what right does a nation have to say it can have them and others can't, would you accept that?
And that is one of the reasons Japan thought they could get away with attacking us. Having a strong standing force is not a bad idea.
Yeah... how did that go for Japan BTW?
There are very few things the Founding Fathers agreed on, but being against a strong standing army is pretty much at the top of that list.
Did not go well for anyone. Probably would have cost much less blood and coin if the US has been better prepared. Most of WWII was spent ramping up production to fight the war.
Nonsense, Japan was stupid.
Did not go well for anyone. Probably would have cost much less blood and coin if the US has been better prepared. Most of WWII was spent ramping up production to fight the war.
It actually went pretty spectacularly well for us, at the end of the war we were a colossus the likes of which the world had never seen. It would always be great to have a huge army ready to fight a war, but that army has costs... BIG ones... and in peacetime you get nothing for it.
We spend a trillion dollars a year on defense, that's a lot more than is necessary.
The cost of WWII was quite high and it probably could have been significantly lessened if we had been more prepared.
And last time I checked the dod only gets about $500B a year.
Yeah... how did that go for Japan BTW?
There are very few things the Founding Fathers agreed on, but being against a strong standing army is pretty much at the top of that list.
They were idiots for thinking that. There I said it. America's gods and goddesses were wrong on something.
A strong standing army has worked wonders for the US.
We'll never really know. That's all a Monday morning quarterback thing really. It probably wouldn't have happened in the same way, if at all. (and it not happening could have in fact been a bad thing for us)
The DOD's budget is about 500-600 billion, but when you add up all other various and sundry defense expenditures like our nuclear forces (not part of the DoD), war funding, etc... etc. It comes out to about an even trillion.
Yeah, in the worst way. All the 'OMG big government' problems in this country stem from having to maintain a large standing army during peacetime. Standing armies are the enemy of liberty.
I would have to strongly disagree there. Just because you want to be peaceful, does not mean your neighbors want the same.
Your right we will never really know, but we can look back and know it took us several years to ramp up production. We started the war behind in technology, so we needed 10 shermans to destroy a single panzer. Our fighter aircraft were outclassed and we had no longer ranger bombers. We started very behind. Fortunatly we were protected by large oceans and were able to turn significant chunks of industry into producing war machines.
Not even close, but thanks for playing about the trillion for defense.
Your right we will never really know, but we can look back and know it took us several years to ramp up production. We started the war behind in technology, so we needed 10 shermans to destroy a single panzer. Our fighter aircraft were outclassed and we had no longer ranger bombers. We started very behind. Fortunatly we were protected by large oceans and were able to turn significant chunks of industry into producing war machines.
Not even close, but thanks for playing about the trillion for defense.
Just because we're not maintaining a strong standing army does not mean that we're not prepared for war. As my prior references to WWI and WWII made clear. It is not difficult for a strong peacetime economy to transform to a strong wartime economy when necessary. What is harder, as we have learned, is for a wartime economy to transform back to a peacetime economy when that wartime economy is not necessary.
I generally agree with what you are saying, but you also have to have forces large enough to keep to from being seen as an easy target. So the question is what size army is needed to prevent things like WWI and WWII from happening. Both were terribly expensive for the world.
The Germans' ideas for producing tanks were retarded, it's one of the biggest reasons why they lost. They chose to produce highly capable weapons that were extremely difficult to build, while their enemies made simple weapons that were effective enough.
As for the defense budget, you're simply wrong. It depends on what you decide to call defense related, but it's in the ballpark of a trillion no matter what way you cut it. How much of NASA's budget do you want to call 'defense', as they launch a lot of our military satellites? Our nuclear forces are under the department of energy's budget, but I think I would call nuclear warheads 'defense'. To label our defense spending each year as only the DoD's budget would require some serious reality distortion.
The Germans' ideas for producing tanks were retarded, it's one of the biggest reasons why they lost. They chose to produce highly capable weapons that were extremely difficult to build, while their enemies made simple weapons that were effective enough.
As for the defense budget, you're simply wrong. It depends on what you decide to call defense related, but it's in the ballpark of a trillion no matter what way you cut it. How much of NASA's budget do you want to call 'defense', as they launch a lot of our military satellites? Our nuclear forces are under the department of energy's budget, but I think I would call nuclear warheads 'defense'. To label our defense spending each year as only the DoD's budget would require some serious reality distortion.
As I already said, Japanese and German stupidity were terribly expensive for the world. One could argue that Germany had a logistical shot at ruling the world. Japan, not a chance. You see, location is everything. It's not that the Nepalese people are stupid that they don't rule the world.
That's right, we mass-produced the shit out of the Germans, and then gave all our excess production to our allies.
An irony here is the Charrison is supporting exactly the same kind of policies that got the Germans in trouble in the first place.