US military budget: How would you change it?

[Asher]

You're ****ing delusional, Alby. The logistics of invading Canada from Russia (in addition to their flimsy grasp on the nations much more practical to govern from Moscow) would never, ever work.

The Cold War was a "war" fought between escalating tension between the US and Russia. Without one or the other, there would be no cold war. Period.

The Americans tend to have this delusional image of themselves as the world's savior. How could the world function without the gloriously obese Americans?? Get over yourself.

[Al B. Sure!]

You're ****ing delusional, Alby. The logistics of invading Canada from Russia (in addition to their flimsy grasp on the nations much more practical to govern from Moscow) would never, ever work.

The Cold War was a "war" fought between escalating tension between the US and Russia. Without one or the other, there would be no cold war. Period.

The Americans tend to have this delusional image of themselves as the world's savior. How could the world function without the gloriously obese Americans?? Get over yourself.

Wow. The entire ideology of communism stressed the spread of the revolution throughout the world... China, North Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, Laos, Libya, Ethiopia, etc.

If the US wasn't there, you really don't think the Soviets would have dominated the world? Holy ****. What school did you go to?

You're right. There would be no cold war. Just ****ing communism everywhere.

[Asher]

If the US wasn't there, you really don't think the Soviets would have dominated the world? Holy ****. What school did you go to?

One sans propaganda and indoctrination, unlike yourself. Do you understand how silly you sound?

[Al B. Sure!]

1/3rd of the world's population lived under Communism.



How the **** do you think that happened?

Without the US, how much more would communism have spread?

[Al B. Sure!]

Millions follow this teaching which will live and develop along with the forward movement of the victorious fighting armies of the proletariat. In the struggle against the fascist barbarians, who cast a dark and bloody shadow over the world of culture, in the struggle against the falsifiers of Marxism, in the struggle against degenerate and treacherous social-democracy, the Communist International and its advance guard, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, the centre of Marxist thought and Marxist practice, leads the masses to the world dictatorship of the proletariat and the fraternal world Commune of classless humanity.

- Bukharin


This was their god damn ideology! Yes, Stalin, by necessity with the failure of the revolutions in other countries following the First World War, opted for 'socialism in one state' as a practical measure (though his conquests of Eastern Europe show his willingness to use Soviet might to spread communism under Soviet influence), but the spread of itself was the primary motivation of communist ideology.

[C0ckney]

USSR

global proletarian revolution

i can't help but wonder sometimes how different the world would be today if the german revolution in 1919 had succeeded.

[Asher]

1/3rd of the world's population lived under Communism.



How the **** do you think that happened?

Without the US, how much more would communism have spread?

Why do you assume the US is the only one who could repel communism?

It's demonstrable that even at the height of the USSR, they were stretched too thin. Did you ever consider that there are limits to how practical world domination is?

[David Floyd]

The Cold War existed primarily because of Joseph Stalin and Soviet land-grabbing at the end of WW2, although if you want to blame the United States for not just letting him continue to take, then I guess you have a point, albeit a misguided one.

With that said, my solution to military spending also goes back to the end of WW2. We should have established a precedent then and there that we wouldn't put up with Soviet land grabs and domination, by simply threatening to use, and if necessarily actually using our atomic monopoly and heavy bomber dominance to roll them back.

In other words, US foreign policy should have been that the Soviet Union gets to gain physical or political domination over absolutely 0 countries outside their 1941 borders, enforced by atomic weapons, delivered by the USAAF.

Had we set that precedent - and yes, we would have had to fight and win a war to set that precedent - then today, our foreign policy could read much like this:

"If it's a threat to us, it shouldn't exist. If it isn't a threat to us, we shouldn't be there."

That would serve to keep nation-states in line, and with that, the majority of the US Army could be eliminated or re-purposed. You don't need MBTs, for example, if there is no possibility of actually deploying them. The corollary to that is that there is no temptation to deploy something you don't have in the first place.

The US military in my example would maintain a Navy that could defeat every other navy in the world, combined, if it came to it - probably on the order of 12-15 CVNs, with a heavy focus on missile defense ships and SSNs. The USMC would be the primary ground striking force, purposed as a light, heavily mobile rapid reaction force capable of protecting US interests in the case where a nuclear response would not be reasonable. An example, in today's world, would be using the Marines to combat piracy off the coast of Somalia, and probably to conduct punitive raids on coastal areas in Somalia found to harbor pirates. The USMC would not maintain division sized formations - likely, nothing larger than Regiments would ever be deployed, and most could be handled with MAUs (upgraded battalions, essentially).

The Army would be very small, and rely heavily on tactical nuclear weapons in the event of actual combat, although it is hard to see where it would possibly be employed in large scale warfare. The Army would, however, focus heavily on special forces and irregular warfare, capable of running things like anti-insurgency campaigns, and snatch-and-grab operations against terrorists, pesky foreign leaders, etc.

The USAF would be the nations premier service, and would fold Space Command and NASA into it's operations. The USAF would maintain a modernized, supersonic, nuclear armed heavy bomber force, as well as a NORAD-type CONUS defense scheme, involving latest-generation fighters. The USAF's worldwide striking potential would be massive, and would include a large tanker support force, as well as an enforced open-skies policy over every country in the world. In other words, we WILL overfly your nation if we feel the need to, and there isn't a thing you can do about it due to our already-demonstrated capability to use nuclear weapons if threatened. Shoot down a US recce aircraft, and you'll probably eat a nuke.

As far as spaceflight goes, there would be no such thing as ABM or anti-militarization of space treaties - in fact, the opposite would be true. Both things would be highly sought after - although the US would both demand and enforce a space monopoly.

Budget-wise, it's hard to put numbers to it - however, given the vastly reduced size of the Army, and the VASTLY reduced combat operational ability/tempo of the entire military, I have to believe that it would be far smaller than today, even with additional expenditures in the USAF and space. Even with a larger USN, odds are that the USN's budget would actually be smaller or at least flat, due to avoiding boondoggles such as the LCS.

[David Floyd]

It's demonstrable that even at the height of the USSR, they were stretched too thin. Did you ever consider that there are limits to how practical world domination is

Yes, and the 3rd most powerful nation in the world at the time, the United Kingdom, didn't stand a snowball's chance in hell without the US against the "stretched too thin" USSR.

[Asher]

Yes, and the 3rd most powerful nation in the world at the time, the United Kingdom, didn't stand a snowball's chance in hell without the US against the "stretched too thin" USSR.

You guys are worse than evangelical Christians in your blind beliefs.

[Asher]

In other words, US foreign policy should have been that the Soviet Union gets to gain physical or political domination over absolutely 0 countries outside their 1941 borders, enforced by atomic weapons, delivered by the USAAF.

I wonder why so many people wish the USA ill will in this world with attitudes like that. It truly is a shocker.

[David Floyd]

I don't recall expressing a belief, other than the belief that the UK, on it's own, stood no chance against the USSR. Care to argue that one out?

It's also demonstrably true that the USSR DID seek to aggressively expand both communism and it's political reach at various times between 1945-1991. If you disagree, perhaps you should ask, I dunno, a Hungarian.

[David Floyd]

I wonder why so many people wish the USA ill will in this world with attitudes like that. It truly is a shocker.

The bigger shocker is, we didn't do this, and people hate us anyway. WTF would be the difference had we actually done it?

Well, aside from a much earlier collapse of world communism, that is.

[Asher]

I don't recall expressing a belief, other than the belief that the UK, on it's own, stood no chance against the USSR. Care to argue that one out?

No, because you're being disingenuous. Why would the UK be on its own? There apparently are other countries in this world aside from the UK, USSR, and USA.

[Asher]

The bigger shocker is, we didn't do this, and people hate us anyway.

This is shockingly awful logic.

The reason people hate you is because of things like that. You didn't use nukes, but that didn't stop you from propping up dictatorships around the world, slaughtering countless people in Vietnam, ****ing up Afghanistan, etc.

If you used nukes against other countries, you'd probably alienate yourself from the few reliable allies you actually have. Suddenly the USA becomes the obvious evil aggressor, nuking the poor Soviets.