Poll: Would you support a 80% reduction in the US military budget?

The point is to cut the military spending and man power just enough to defend the US homeland. That would mean a closing of all over seas bases.

Also, keep in mind much of the antagonism towards the US will very likely be lessened with its forces gone from all parts of the world so you may be even safer, especially if you also cut foreign aid.

No, our military is what keeps other countries somewhat in check, although being stuck in 2 wars has made Russia pretty ballsy.

No, government spending is part of GDP and an 80% reduction would be terrible for the economy.

No, government spending is part of GDP and an 80% reduction would be terrible for the economy.

Tannerr33

No, government spending is part of GDP and an 80% reduction would be terrible for the economy.

Tannerr33

[QUOTE="Tannerr33"]

No, government spending is part of GDP and an 80% reduction would be terrible for the economy.

D3nnyCrane

Oh I understand that, but the TC never said where the money would be going, so with the info that I am given I vote no.

im not American so its not my place to say but i will say 600 billion is a little to much to spend on any Military especially in these economically challenging times .

No, our military is what keeps other countries somewhat in check, although being stuck in 2 wars has made Russia pretty ballsy.

topgunmv

[QUOTE="Tannerr33"]

No, government spending is part of GDP and an 80% reduction would be terrible for the economy.

D3nnyCrane

[QUOTE="D3nnyCrane"][QUOTE="Tannerr33"]

No, government spending is part of GDP and an 80% reduction would be terrible for the economy.

Tannerr33

Oh I understand that, but the TC never said where the money would be going, so with the info that I am given I vote no.

[QUOTE="Tannerr33"]

No, government spending is part of GDP and an 80% reduction would be terrible for the economy.

D3nnyCrane

No I would not. A strong military is the best defense.LJS9502_basic

Well said. Military deterrence is where it's at. By the enemy or potential enemy knowing he cannot attack or invade without unacceptable casualties and losses, you have therefore have peace. I would maybe cut it enough so that the U.S. does not run into deficit spending so easily.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]No I would not. A strong military is the best defense.jetpower3

Well said. Military deterrence is where it's at. By the enemy knowing he cannot attack without unacceptable casualties and losses, you have therefore have peace.

[QUOTE="jetpower3"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]No I would not. A strong military is the best defense.jimmyjammer69

Well said. Military deterrence is where it's at. By the enemy knowing he cannot attack without unacceptable casualties and losses, you have therefore have peace.

I do not know enough about counter terrorism to say. Police I would imagine is one of them, but so is general stability, and intelligence monitoring. But remember terrorism is not the only means of warfare, and it's hardly the only threat of war left in the world. Even if none present themselves now, things can, have, and will change very quickly in political, economic, and social trends. Eventually, someone will come into power and view the lack of military deterrence as a weakness to be exploited.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]No I would not. A strong military is the best defense.jetpower3

Well said. Military deterrence is where it's at. By the enemy or potential enemy knowing he cannot attack or invade without unacceptable casualties and losses, you have therefore have peace. I would maybe cut it enough so that the U.S. does not run into deficit spending so easily.

I really dont think anyone would try to invade the US mainland because the risk of getting their country nuked.

[QUOTE="jetpower3"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]No I would not. A strong military is the best defense.majwill24

Well said. Military deterrence is where it's at. By the enemy or potential enemy knowing he cannot attack or invade without unacceptable casualties and losses, you have therefore have peace. I would maybe cut it enough so that the U.S. does not run into deficit spending so easily.

I really dont think anyone would try to invade the US mainland because the risk of getting their country nuked.

[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"][QUOTE="jetpower3"]

Well said. Military deterrence is where it's at. By the enemy knowing he cannot attack without unacceptable casualties and losses, you have therefore have peace.

jetpower3

I do not know enough about counter terrorism to say. Police I would imagine is one of them, but so is general stability, and intelligence monitoring. But remember terrorism is not the only means of warfare, and it's hardly the only threat of war left in the world. Even if none present themselves now, things can, have, and will change very quickly in political, economic, and social trends. Eventually, someone will come into power and view the lack of military deterrence as a weakness to be exploited.

If you remove US bases from Japan, North Korea will laugh their asses off...m45t3rch13f

[QUOTE="m45t3rch13f"]If you remove US bases from Japan, North Korea will laugh their asses off...snakes_codec

South Korea can also defeat the North as well. Much of the talk about how difficult a war with the North would be is on the assumption that the war would conducted by the South with US/western style tactics based on limited collateral damage. If war broke out, the south would suffer massive damage to their capital and put its people in a war of survival. It would turn into old school total war and the north would be annihilated

You'd destroy our economy. Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Sikorsky, Northrop Grumman, Hamilton Sunstrand, Pratt & Whitney, Electric Boat, Raytheon, Textron, and all of the smaller companies (and there are thousands of them) that supply those larger ones would go out of business.

[QUOTE="snakes_codec"]

[QUOTE="m45t3rch13f"]If you remove US bases from Japan, North Korea will laugh their asses off...majwill24

South Korea can also defeat the North as well. Much of the talk about how difficult a war with the North would be is on the assumption that the war would conducted by the South with US/western style tactics based on limited collateral damage. If war broke out, the south would suffer massive damage to their capital and put its people in a war of survival. It would turn into old school total war and the north would be annihilated

I wouldn't assume that the North would go down so easily.

North Korea has one of the largest armies in the world. The South and its allies have a huge technological advantage, but would still be hard pressed to hold off the millions of North Koreans who could pour across the border on short notice. All of the South's major cities are within a few days of the border, and several (including Seoul) are within artillery range.

Of course, it really doesn't matter which one is stronger. Neither China nor the US would allow their proxies to be defeated, and would inevitably be drawn into the conflict.

80% ?!? Nope.

80% Is abit overboard. I would be for cutting some military spending. Atleast 30%, if not more.

No I would not. A strong military is the best defense.LJS9502_basic

80% is insane. Maybe just end the war in Iraq to save all that money that is spent everyday but stay in afghanistan.Dr_Brocoli

The US military budget for 2010 is projected to be 880 billion dollars! Cutting it by 80% would still make the US the top military spender in the world.

How much armament an personnel does the US need:shock:

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]No I would not. A strong military is the best defense.lloveLamp

80% Is abit overboard. I would be for cutting some military spending. Atleast 30%, if not more.

Pixel-Pirate

Look at these numbers :o

Yes, I would. But, people who make weapons for the U.S. military would hate this idea.. oh, well. I could really care less if people who make weapons got any money at all.

No, because I'm not an idiot.

May I ask you a neutral question? Whats with you and the whole "TheUS is in the wrong" threads? :? Do you find something apalling about it?, or perhaps its envy?

and No. While I believe that the US doesnt need 20,000 nuclear weapons, I think the budget should be focused onadvance but affordable technology research.

No, I like being able to impose our will upon others.

May I ask you a neutral question? Whats with you and the whole "TheUS is in the wrong" threads? :? Do you find something apalling about it?, or perhaps its envy?

and No. While I believe that the US doesnt need 20,000 nuclear weapons, I think the budget should be focused onadvance but affordable technology research.

Kamekazi_69

I'll answer your question if you answer mines first.

Describe your political ideology. Ignore social issues, like religion, g ays, affirmative action etc