Which wars waged by the U.S. gov have actually ended?

[Anarchist420]

Guess the cost per this fiscal year due to the American state remaining in Japan... $40Bn to the American taxpayer due that occupation alone and the fact that it pisses the Japanese people off. It wasn't less than $30Bn last FY.

Add up the cost of all of the so-called protectorates we've had since WWII... then think about how much that has contributed to the debt... then think about how if every President since Eishenhower inclusive hadn't insanely overspent on "national defense", how the national debt would be close to half of what it currently is. Clinton spent about 2.5x what a quasi sane (a 100% sane level would be nothing, but we're dealing with governments here, so I'll be generous even though I shouldn't be) level would be on the military. Bush spent 5x above a quasi sane level. Reagan spent about 6x what was necessary. If military spending for the past 28 years had been, on average, 250Bn less (non inflation adjusted) than it actually was each year, then the national debt would be less than 55% of what it currently is.

Finally, it's worth noting that due to the costs and destruction from the warfare state, it's actually at least as anti-market than the gov just handing the money it stole by the threat of force to non-destructive people. Why? Because the warfare state has driven us into debt and enriched special interests far beyond what they would be without a warfare state and given destructive companies an advantage over productive companies.

I think the point stands that once a war is started by the U.S. gov, it never really ends. The Korean War never ended because the U.S. gov is still trying to protect SK from NK, the Gulf War started by Bush 41 has been going on non stop since 1990, and the Afghanistan War has been going on non-stop since 2001. Clinton's War in Kosovo has been going on since the early to mid 90s, the Cold war has been going on for more than half a century, and the War against Iran that's been going on for quite some time now is heating up even more.

 

[MovingTarget]

Whatever happened to that "peace dividend" that we were expecting after WWII or the end of the Cold War? We got bupkus. I would rather we scale back the size of our force considerably and focus on scientific research (space exploration, physics, engineering, energy development, medicine) so that we can improve our society and better fight the next war, should the world come to that. Maintaining such a large active force is economically draining, especially in official "peacetime".

 

[Orignal Earl]

The DOD is the world's largest employer.
I'm thinking nobody will slow down that machine until the civilian market picks up

 

[Anarchist420]

I'm thinking nobody will slow down that machine until the civilian market picks up

The civilian market can't pick up because military spending is too high.

 

[shortylickens]

This should be good.

 

[jhu]

None of them. We're still fighting back the British and their damn monarchy, we're still fighting the damn Mexicans over that western territory, we're still fighting the damn south over secession, etc.

 

[fskimospy]

It did not cost the US $40 billion to station troops in Japan last year. Not only does Japan pay for a considerable portion of the base upkeep there, but even if they didn't the cost would be nowhere close.

 

[unokitty]

For a minute, I thought that this was going to be about the war on poverty, or the war on drugs, ...

Oh, wait...

Uno

 

[Anarchist420]

It did not cost the US $40 billion to station troops in Japan last year. Not only does Japan pay for a considerable portion of the base upkeep there, but even if they didn't the cost would be nowhere close.

I heard that it did or that it will this coming fiscal year. How much did you hear that it costed? Just wondering

I'm also not sure why Japan would agree to pay for any of it since they don't want the U.S. gov there.

EDIT: I just read that Japan agreed to have us "protect" Japan in 1960, but I had thought they wanted the U.S. gov out of there.

Now, the $40 Bn/yr figure doesn't include a link to the source, and maybe Japan pays some of it. However, the amount of money the U.S. gov spends is ridiculous at least in my opinion.

 

[fskimospy]

I heard that it did or that it will this coming fiscal year. How much did you hear that it costed? Just wondering

I'm also not sure why Japan would agree to pay for any of it since they don't want the U.S. gov there.

Whatever source you got that from is off by an order of magnitude. My guess is that your source is trying to dishonestly count the payroll for all US troops stationed there as if we would just have a smaller military if we closed those bases. (we wouldn't.)

Secondly, Japan's government does want the US there, that's why they are paying for it.

 

[Anarchist420]

Secondly, Japan's government does want the US there, that's why they are paying for it.

You're right, I edited before right before you posted. I imagine that Japan's representatives must be divided nearly down the middle on it though unlike the U.S. Representatives, at least 90% of whom want to stay there.

My guess is that your source is trying to dishonestly count the payroll for all US troops stationed there as if we would just have a smaller military if we closed those bases.

It was, but I don't see how that was dishonest.

 

[fskimospy]

You're right, I edited before right before you posted. I imagine that Japan's representatives must be divided nearly down the middle on it though unlike the U.S. Representatives, at least 90% of whom want to stay there.It was, but I don't see how that was dishonest.

Because in order to count the troop salaries for those in Japan as costs associated with our bases there you would have to show at least a reasonable likelihood that the US would lower its troop levels without that commitment.

I see absolutely no reason to believe that, so counting them as costs related to Japan is dishonest.

 

[Anarchist420]

Because in order to count the troop salaries for those in Japan as costs associated with our bases there you would have to show at least a reasonable likelihood that the US would lower its troop levels without that commitment. I see absolutely no reason to believe that, so counting them as costs related to Japan is dishonest.

Thanks I agree that the govt probably would send them elsewhere which is a shitty pity that it would, as it's not good for the safety of America, the safety of the troops, or the mental health of the troops.

 

[Sonikku]

World War 2 didn't end, it's still going on. The only difference is Germany changed their tactics. Knowing that they could not win the conventional warfare or stand up to nukes, they instead deployed their new weapon against the world; Economics. The war gets fiercer by the year and soon they will reign supreme if they are not stopped. We need to invade with our troops and crush their socialism before it is too late.

 

[MovingTarget]

None of them. We're still fighting back the British and their damn monarchy, we're still fighting the damn Mexicans over that western territory, we're still fighting the damn south over secession, etc.

Heh, it certainly seems like there is an enemy anywhere we try to look. I don't know about us fighting the British anywhere outside a courtroom and I certainly know that any Southern talk of secession is hot air coming straight from our collective asses. Thats one road we've been down before and don't care to repeat. The Mexicans....could become an issue at some point due to the language divide, so who knows there.

 

[piasabird]

After World War II we let our military go to pot. Then we decided to fight the Korean War. The Russians rolled across the border with tanks that were better than anything we had and our bazookas could not even penetrate their armor. We came very close in losing that war to the Russian backed forces. After we defeated the Russian backed forces, the Chinese decided they would attack and we took another ass beating. Many of our forces had to be evacuated and we regrouped and started over.

This was all because we failed to maintain the military. We knew that at the end of WWII the the Russians and the Chinese developed good tank armor. However, we just ignored it. The Japanese had occupied korea prior to WWII and Japan took advantage of Korea by shopping all the trees down and overfished their waters and stole their resources. So korea was ripe for the taking. However, we made some bad deals after world war II and we hung Korea out to dry so our so-called Allies tried to take it over. If we had just left more troops there, we could have probably prevented anyone from getting any wise ideas. We wanted to quit fighting after World War II, but we did not want the communists to take over Korea so we were drawn into war again. History will repeat itself if we let it. This is why we should be careful how we conduct our affairs in the middle east if we do not want to be drawn into more wars.

We could have ended the Korean war simply by dropping a few nukes. We had the bomb and they did not. Instead we fought it out hand to hand. It might have been wiser to just nuke a few cities in China.

It seems like everyone has repeatedly try to take over Korea for the last 2,000 years or so.

 

[cubby1223]

For some odd reason I'm not sure why, I was expecting an initial commentary on how the Articles of Confederation does not authorize the U.S. to wage war...

 

[cubby1223]

Besides, defense spending is wealth redistribution, which is always good for a nation.

Right?

In difficult times we cannot afford to cut any government spending, right?

 

[piasabird]

In time of war you could argue that civilians companies make a lot of money supplying the military. Plus a lot of bad guys end up dead in the war that we dont have to kill later. Of course we could be manufacturing our own boogy-men. What I dont like about how we wage war, is that if some country is sending a bunch of militants toward the the USA, we should not try to fight some kindler gentler war like Bush tried to wage. The USA should not wage war unless the object is to kill our enemies without mercy or compassion. If not, maybe we should not be at war!

There are too many cry baby liberals who want to tell the government we need to do something whenever some people are being mistreated. There are also war-mongers in the government like McCain who never met a war he did not want someone else to fight. I am tired of these war-monger idiots that want the USA to invade every country on the face of the earth. I also think we should pull our forces out of Europe and Asia. The USA wastes too much money protecting Europe from Itself.

One could argue that it is a lot cheaper to move troops into an area if we have no forward bases in other countries. For instance we do an exercise every year and the airbase in Japan is used to support our airforce in the area of the south pacific and South Korea. However, if we were not fighting useless wars in the Middle East, maybe we would not need most of the forward bases like Germany.