eighthdwarf Checchinato

If I had a say, the military-industrial complex would be even more unhappy, because their business with the government regarding all things weapons and arms would drop to almost nonexistent within months.

The military budget I would sign would just cover

• treating the veterans and their families,
• bringing all military members and employees home from all over the world, and
• closing all own military facilities abroad (including detention camps), and
• debunking most of the ships, weapons, fighter jets, bombers, missiles, drones etc
• fines for stopping the contracts and stepping out of the NATO and other military pacts

Basically, in this fictional situation, the US would only be able to defend themselves, from within their own borders - but they would not be able to invade other countries or even help invade other countries, nor get involved in other countries' internal conflicts any time soon again.

__________________

Void

I'm not a fan of war (declared or otherwise), but I have to say, I'm rather glad you don't have a say.

__________________
- These eyes can do more than see

Ann Otoole

fuck war. end of line.

Void

Conflict is inherent at every scale disparate minds operate on, the only way to avoid it is through concession and agreement... neither of which are guaranteed. concession and agreement are favored by consensus, but not neccesarily by individuals. one of the sadder facts of existence.

Ann Otoole

honestly speaking the only people that want to discuss war are those that have never been through it.

Brenda Archer

I'm sure this is true. Being there must be something else.

There's got to be a better way.

eighthdwarf Checchinato

Sorry, Jahar and Void - but I don't see what's wrong with that idea.
What's wrong with focusing on home-bound defense rather than armies ready for invasions? What's wrong with retreating and sending everyone home rather than having military facilities all over the world like a fucking colonialist? What's wrong with being defensive rather than offensive, with being peaceful rather than aggressive?
What's wrong with being neutral rather than meddling with other countries' politics? What's the USA's business anyways whether or not a country abroad has a left-wing democracy, a capitalistic system, or a monarchy; whether there is all well or a revolution in that foreign country? What's wrong with unconditional humanitarian help and co-existence, without blackmailing threads like "Change your political system to what we tell you, or we'll boycott or attack you"?
What's wrong with focusing on civilian R&D rather than all this intimidating and unnecessary arms race? What's wrong with MAKING the industry focus primarly on civilian products, no matter if their profit margin at selling weapons is almost as high as the profit margin at selling drugs?

Sonja Aeghin

So naive. Question: If the United States had simply packed up and gone home after WWII, would have continental Europe demilitarized in the face of a potential Soviet invasion? Who knows, but let's get real here. The rest of NATO demilitarized because they relied on a guaranteed American response to anything untoward from the Russians. Period. That, and it took the devastaion of WWII to realize the pointlessness of centuries of on and off dick-wagging nationalism. Now there's no reason all for American troops to remain in Europe and barely any reason for NATO to exist at all now that the Soviet threat is long gone and Putin doesn't harbor any desire to expand that far west. He wants to exercise economic muscle through Gazprom, not his military one.

Much of the rest of the world poses no real threat and American meddling has done more harm than good, so the argument for American withdrawal from most of the rest of the world is valid. But until the United States can produce 100% of its oil needs from the Western hemisphere, there is still need for some American presence in the Middle East, if only to deter Iran from blocking the Strait of Hormuz. The Israelis can handle any threat otherwise posed by the Iranian military.

The only other reason for keeping American troops deployed overseas is the explicit promises made to Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea to help defend against the Chinese and North Koreans, who have two of the largest armies in the world. North Korea will eventually starve itself from within and collapse, so that leaves China. Chinese foreign policy doesn't extend to actual military conquest but instead focuses more on wielding its economic muscle. With Chinese ambitions in the South China Sea making the news, it's clear the Chinese want to exert influence beyond their own territory. The traditional way of doing so is by merely having but not necessarily using military capacity to show that you mean business. Hence the R&D into modernizing the PLAN and air force. They don't have to spend tons of money. Russian and Chinese defense contractors can build decent equipment for a fraction of the cost demanded by their American counterparts. Besides, who besides the US is dumb enough to fight a land war in Asia nowadays?

So let's withdraw entirely from Europe and Afghanistan and close up the bases. Keep the Fifth Fleet and a small force of Marines in the Gulf region until there's no more need for Mideast oil. Let's keep a modest force on the Korean peninsula until something is done about the North and keep the Seventh Fleet until the Chinese demonstrate with deeds that they will neither invade Taiwan if we leave nor assert supremacy of their own interests at the cost of others in the Western Pacific-Japan, Vietnam, the Phillipines, South Korea, etc.

For now.

Once American troops get back home, what's there to do? There isn't even justification for keeping troops in case of invasion! There has not been war between two different nations on the North American mainland since the Mexican-American War ended. In 1848. The Civil War obviously doesn't count and The US fought the Spanish-American War in the Caribbean and in the Pacific. With two oceans to protect us, an actual invasion of the North American mainland would require a herculean logistical capacity. Who has that capacity now? No one, not even the Russians and the Chinese. It's like the superstates of Orwell's 1984 in that the Russians have winter and all that land, we have two oceans and the Chinese have sheer numbers and industriousness. Superior logistics wins conventional wars, and in that department the US is still ahead. So what would the troops do besides patrol the Mexican border, at which you would scream bloody murder? Nothing at all. The Army Corps of Engineers would be handy for infrastructure projects, but that's about it. We'd be left with nothing but the National Guard, Coast Guard, and Air National Guard and a bunch of equipment you won't allow us to replace even with the same equipment for the sheer cost of it.

Now, then.

There's only one thing wrong with humanitarian foreign aid, and African countries demonstrate it time and time again. Perverse incentive, ever hear of it? Foreign aid is the perfect excuse for African governments to do nothing themselves to improve the lot of their own citizens. It's free money. Worse, as Jahar (I think) said in a different thread, it allows people to maintain a standard of living higher than the land can support. American companies can hardly exploit them for all the instability. Most of Africa between the Sahara and the borders of South Africa is a financial event horizon save for Ethiopia and Kenya. Why is it always demanded of the United States to do something about it? The region consists of former European colonies. So why won't the UK, France, Germany, Belgium, Portugal, and the Netherlands do more? They were the colonizers, after all. With its resources pooled together the EU is actually wealthier than the US. And the PIIGS notwithstanding it's more efficient at spending money where it's needed. American dollars tend to go to waste.

Siggy

So, one one hand we have unspecified billions in automatic defense spending..... I'm assuming that 'automatic' means recurring, and more than likely annually....

On the other hand we have an unspecified billions in termination fees and fines for breaking contract - this is a one-time payment.

I think that's the discussion they should be having about it, not a straight 'billions vs. billions' it's trying to be framed at.

Really - that's a no-brainer decision if the objective is to lower government spending.

Don't get me wrong, as a veteran I fully see the need for defense spending - but I'd also think that quality equipment and well managed funds spent where they SHOULD be spent would go a lot further than the private interest war-profiteering that's been going on for decades.

__________________
And as it was in the beginning, so too shall it be in the end. That bullshit is bullshit, it just goes by different names.

Void

short and sweet answer?

Nothing... IF you can make everyone do that (which ironically would take force), AND keep anyone from using force (again, with the irony).

honestly, you are preaching to the choir... I don't think most people want to go to war... and yet, if people feel abused enough, desperate enough, or just see it as a way to get what they want, that's exactly happens. And people realize that and wish to protect themselves from it best as they can. the scale may vary, but the results are often the same... the grass suffers.

Jenn Luke

Who is demanding?

Brenda Archer

The Cold War is over and the 20th century too.

I don't think we can go on playing world police forever, even if we wanted to. We need to have a structure in place that will replace that and that works. I'm not saying it has to be a UN style set up; it might involve devolving some defense responsibilities to trusted partners such as NATO.

We have deindustrialized and no longer have the wealth to play world police, and we also no longer have the level of effectiveness in our government agencies we once had. We really could topple ourselves with overreach.

Besides, let other people help pay the bills.

There's this underlying fear of any power sharing on defense, as if the other major democracies are somehow less ethical or reliable than we are. That attitude is an echo of points of view formed during WWII when many Americans felt betrayed by the actions of Germany, then during the Cold War when Americans got upset at France for not fully agreeing with our point of view. This attitude needs to be set aside.

Aliselia Aeon

If Romney gets in, I suspect the military-industrial complex will be extremely happy.

__________________
"Push 100cc of Social Skills, stat!" ~Casey Pelous

Amelia E

But, but, if we don't have a huge standing army, marching all over the world, settling other people's problems, and being the world's police, how are we supposed to let everyone know how fucking huge our collective national penis is?

eighthdwarf Checchinato

Would have that been so bad? And IF all of Europe had become socialistic, so what? No thread for the USA there.
The NATO demilitarized? Bullshit. The NATO is in effect just the string-puppets of the US-American Military-industrial complex. Let the US step out of the NATO, and you practically shut down the NATO altogether - which would be a good thing.
Wrong. Nationalism was considered obsolete by the masses even before WWI. The "Internationale" stems from mid-19th century, about 60y BEFOERE WW1.
True that. There never WAS a "Soviet threat" in the first place. That was nothing but a Cold War lie.


Actually afaik, the US has enough ressources on its own to both rely on its own in regards of fuel, and to develop less thirsty but more powerful vehicles. What about creating a real tightly-webbed public transportation system? car-sharing? Investing in the development of electro-cars, of hybrids? When VW introduced their Lupo with its 3 litres of fuel per 100 kilometres (78 miles per US gallon or 94 miles per Imperial gallon) and bragged about their 1L concept, an engineer who was interviewed about this low mileage laughed and said that there are prototypes existing of 100hp strong cars that only use an ounce per 100kilometers. And that basically it's the oil industry lobbyism which slows the development of low-consuming vehicles down.. Wrong. US-American military presence is needed nowhere in the world. it's only at the several places to demonstrate POWER. "Look, we are #1!"

Wrong. That's what the media tell you.
And how does this make the presence of US military there necessary?
That's what Fox/CNN tells you.
Other question: who besides the US is dumb enough to invade other countries, and fight proxy wars in other countries anyways? Even IF china were to exert influence beyond their own territory - it's not the business of the US, unless the US themselves are attacked.

And from everywhere else, including Panama, Kuba, etc. No. In the very unlikely case that some member of the US government sails the gulf then it could be considered that they're protected by a group of Marines - but there's no reason at all to keep military there. Let the companies protect their own property (like, ships and stuff) themselves.
What business do the USA have in Korea or the Philippines? After all, that's not US American colonies. The US military has no reason to be there except for demonstrating Power like a bully.

Exactly! Why even protect this border as if Mexico were a dangerous enemy? That's totally ridiculous in the first place. Just open this border as much as the border to Canada is open.
Would that be so wrong, if the Corps of Engineers would actually serve their country, by improving the infrastructure within the States? There's no necessity to have more. Not unless Canada or Mexico declares war on the States.

Simply because the aid has been done wrongly, in a way to increase the debts and dependance of the aided country. Instead of helping the population to build houses out of their own material, or grow their own native food or build their own independent wells, they send money, they send wheat and corn (which is mostly not even native there), build electric wells and stuff while making them even more dependant of others
They shouldn't EXPLOIT them at all!!! What do American companies have to do there anyways?
So what? Why would this be a hindrance to help the people there nonetheless?
Who demands? THe governments who fear to be voted away by actual democratic elections? Maybe because of the State's attitude of "We are #1, you have to obey us!"? Maybe because the USA are the Warmonger #1, and quite intimidating?
Actually they do - but not by "Hey look at us we're doing something good for a change!", and not in such a colonizer and invader ways the US do. Citation?

Void

xkcd: Money Chart

Chip Midnight

eighthdwarf Checchinato

somehow this chart is confusing.
There is "Military Spending" $703,030,000,000, plus the spending for all things CAUSED by the military (namely veteran spending $109,860,000,000)
- an unnecessary amount of money which is not only more than the entire healthcare budget (medicaid and medicare combined), or more than the entire Social Security budget, and more than the budget for income security. b asically it's way more than 1/4 of the entire Federal Budhet. But this "Military spending budget should, to my understanding, cover each and all costs: for vehicles, weapon and ammo, fuel, spare parts, salary, healthcare, burials etc. But then there is further:
ballistic misslie submarines ..........$451,360,000,000
these ballistic missiles themselves $136,690,000,000
costs for the wars: Iraq..............$784,000,000,000
and Afghanistan:.......................$321,000,000,00 0
secure borders .........................$ 90,000,000,000
war contracts:..........................$ 60,000,000,000
You see, it's way more than $703 billion. Do these spendings not count as military spendings?
All this exaggerated paramilitaristic stuff for the border patrol or police for example, those tanks etc, and all this exaggerated TSA nonsense - equally militaristic in nature. And all these operations led by the CIA - which again are also militaristic in nature and usually even lead to wars, effectively started by those guys in Langley following orders from either some Cold War idiots or some lobbyists - why don't these numbers appear as well?

Chop these numbers down to the absolute necessary - and no, the "war on terror" and the "war on drugs" don't count - they are lies to have an excuse to keep up the arms race, thus they are unnecesary. Cut these parts of the budget out like the cancer they are; also stop the tax cuts for the rich and the companies, and tax them according to the same raising tax percentage as the lower and middle class, stop the bailouts and the being ripped-off -- and spend the money for infrastructure, education, healthcare, social security, housing, etc.

Spend this money to serve the country, not to serve the bank accounts of some war profiteers and gamblers.

Amelia E

eighthdwarf Checchinato

The government should demand pricate industry to pay their taxes - and be it up to 70%! "Wait, you want x billion dollars for penalty fees? Pay us the x³ billion dollars on taxes first, then we pay you the penalty!"

And - sorry, a government that lets itself command around by companies is not a government I want to rule over ANY country (and yes, I do know that the German govt is equally corrupt). If the government tells a company their contracts are void, then they are void, period. It's not the companies who make a democracy, it's the people. It's not the companies the government should serve, it's the people. So yes, if the government tells a company it should do shit for free, then this company has to follow suit!

Void

the chart is a bit rough since many quoted sources strictly assume no changes in spending, and are only adjusted for inflation.... there's actually quite a lot of information in there... not just federal spending, or military budget.... and there's lots of surprises in there

Nibb Tardis

How many aircraft carriers does a country need? The USA has 20. The entire rest of the world combined has 11.

How many overseas military bases does a country need? How many foreign military bases are there on US soil? The military of the United States is deployed in more than 150 countries around the world, with 196,248 active-duty personnel stationed overseas.

Simply cut these numbers in half, and you will be saving several hundred billions every year.

bubblesort

The cuts are gonna hit silicon valley pretty hard, probably, because when they start looking at marginal benefits and costs the pentagon isn't about to give up boots on the ground hegemony in exchange for a little more tech when we are already the greatest tech superpower in the world.

I'm guessing that might effect some of the people on this forum in a few different ways, not the least of which being that LL probably gets some revenue from the DOD, and that revenue might be about to get cut. How much revenue involved here is debatable, but at the very least I know the military runs some sims and commissions work from content creators in SL. I have heard that military contracts can be a very lucrative sector in SL. Are they about to dry up?

On the other hand, the big tech boom of the late 90s happened right after the massive Clinton defense budget cuts closed many military bases when they started winding down after the cold war and before the war on nouns. Maybe silicon valley needs to be weaned off of DOD money before the nerds get off their asses and build marketable goods and services instead of building rubiks cube solving robots.

Ann Otoole

there is about to be yet another war in the middle east. no danger to the economy in sight,

Rosemaery Lorefield

The president doesn't have the authority to force private companies to waive fees.

I suppose he could just not pay them, but that would be pretty dishonest since the US government signed contracts and promised to pay those monies.