Last U.S. combat troops leaving Iraq

[Guynemer]

Because then nobody wants to attack us. Militaries, ironically, keep peace by scaring away aggressors.

Yup. Thank God we scared away Al-Queda.



HC--it is no longer 1989. We are no longer fighting the Cold War. Our current military policy is a couple decades out of date. It's great for fencing in a supposed superpower, but utterly worthless when there is no other superpower, and instead our primary enemy is a tiny, multinational loosely (or not at all) associated group of religious whackadoos.

[Hauldren Collider]

That is a good point Guy, and I suppose you are right that we have less to worry about in terms of getting attacked by nations than we did during the Cold War. But it is still worthwhile to consider that for instance our garrisons in Japan, Taiwan and Korea are to prevent China from attacking Taiwan and North Korea from attacking Japan or South Korea, three extremely important trade partners. I think it is fair to say that if we were not there the situation wouldn't be as stable as it is.

[Guynemer]

And I think it is fair to say that Japan and South Korea, if given the task, would be more than capable of defending themselves. Likewise Germany and the rest of Western Europe from any hypothetical Russian aggression.

We're blowing hundreds of billions of dollars every year fighting a war that never happened, and appears highly unlikely that it ever will. It is criminal negligence of the highest degree.

[Hauldren Collider]

I don't know if you're right about South Korea. Consider that North Korea now has nukes. Having a US fleet homeported there gives us a lot more leverage over a country that is suspected of selling arms to terrorists and is also the largest counterfeiter of US currency.

[Guynemer]

SK has the cash, know-how, motivation, and material to make all the weapons it needs to defend itself.

If we gave them a timetable, they'd be more than ready to defend themselves.

We're (sorta-kinda-not really-but still) leaving Iraq after 10 years. It's been 65 since WWII, 60 since Korea. More than enough time.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

And I think it is fair to say that Japan and South Korea, if given the task, would be more than capable of defending themselves. Likewise Germany and the rest of Western Europe from any hypothetical Russian aggression.

We're blowing hundreds of billions of dollars every year fighting a war that never happened, and appears highly unlikely that it ever will. It is criminal negligence of the highest degree.

but don't you Americans like to fund the armed forces, if you like to do that, they need to do something even if it is only pretend "defence"... I am sure if you left Poland would invade Germany and it would be WWII all over again.

[DinoDoc]

Fiscal conservative doesn't mean "the government doesn't do more than it should", it means "the government doesn't spend more than it should".

Then I have no idea what calling your brother Big Government HC means in this context.

Also 2010 budget

677.95 billion – Social Security
$453 billion – Medicare
$290 billion – Medicaid
__________
~$1421 Billion

$663.7 billion – Department of Defense (including Overseas Contingency Operations)

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_States_federal_budget

[Kuciwalker]

Social security and medicare move money around, whereas we actually can end up in green with defense spending because people attacking us is a lot worse than having to spend money to prevent people from attacking us.

And a trillion dollars spent on health-care reform could actually end up in the green if it reduces costs.

Obamacare: the fiscally conservative option

[Kuciwalker]

You are not taking into account the opportunity cost of these. Defense research feeds back into the private sector (not optimally, but it does) with technologies developed and such. Medicare and Social Security have opportunity costs and other costs that you won't see on a budget that far exceed defense.

Dude, are you seriously trying to claim that military expenditures (on stuff whose only real purpose is to destroy other stuff, and that only occasionally have some incidental technological benefits) represents less destruction of wealth than simple transfer payments?

The military budget is almost entirely money spent paying people to perform labor of no value. When we hire a soldier, we are paying him not to engage in productive labor. When we buy a tank, we are paying people to produce worthless objects. By contrast, SS/medicare etc. are simple transfer payments that represent redistribution of goods.

There are occasional incidental technological benefits, and there is some deterrent value in that people are less likely to blow our stuff up, but there's no doubt the marginal returns on the latter are virtually zero at this point.

[Kuciwalker]

Then I have no idea what calling your brother Big Government HC means in this context.

Also 2010 budget

677.95 billion – Social Security
$453 billion – Medicare
$290 billion – Medicaid
__________
~$1421 Billion

$663.7 billion – Department of Defense (including Overseas Contingency Operations)

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_States_federal_budget

Thank you for reiterating my point that US defense expenditures are comparable in size to the transfer payments of our largest social programs

[Hauldren Collider]

there's no doubt the marginal returns on the latter are virtually zero at this point.

I don't buy that.

EDIT: Nevermind, I misread that.

I mean to say, I don't buy the idea that defense spending is not in fact providing us with great benefit. Increased defense spending is probably excessive however, as is our current defense spending.

[giblets]

I mean to say, I don't buy the idea that defense spending is not in fact providing us with great benefit. Increased defense spending is probably excessive however, as is our current defense spending.

No one is expressing that idea. They're arguing for significant cuts, not abolishing the military.

[Al B. Sure!]

(looks around for Oerdin and Lonestar)

Do we really even need an Army? I mean are we going to fight China or something? I say we just need a relatively small, combat-oriented, combined-arms quick strike force to fight small-scale conflicts and engage in anti-terrorism and peace-keeping... an organization with low over-head and quick deployment ability... perhaps specialists in vertical envelopment and amphibious landings

We don't really need an Air Force for that matter either. What does the Air Force provide that Marine F/A-18's and Harriers can't handle?

[Hauldren Collider]

Kuci is arguing with my assertion that having bases overseas is good or consistent with fiscal conservatism.

xpost

[giblets]

Define fiscal conservatism. Your definition seems to be "opposed to government spending, except when it seems like a good idea" which makes just about everyone a fiscal conservative.