defund the military

[Berzerker]

its just a cash cow for politicians and their donors and ALL we do with it is kill people in other countries

Keep the nukes, subs, and missiles and get rid of the rest of the navy and standing army

[Geronimo]

its just a cash cow for politicians and their donors and ALL we do with it is kill people in other countries

Keep the nukes, subs, and missiles and get rid of the rest of the navy and standing army

What would the US do if after following your advice a conventional attack was launched against it followed by invasion of traditional US allies? Launch nukes? Wait for the traditional allies to surrender and then act surprised when the US is next? Nukes are only useful for deterring other nukes

[Berzerker]

nukes are a deterrent period

and our allies have them too

[pchang]

Berz wants to live this: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087985..._flmg_t_41_act

[Jon Miller]

Currently 9 countries have nuclear weapons: the United States, Russia, France, China, the United Kingdom, Pakistan, India, Israel, and North Korea. China, Russia and North Korea can't be counted as US allies.

There are over 29 countries in NATO. There are additional countries in the North Atlantic region that depend on the US for security.

There are also the counties in Asia, Oceania and the Middle East that depend on the US for security.

The United States has bilateral relations with many countries in the Indo-Pacific. The U.S. also has treaty allies – Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Australia and Thailand. The U.S. works with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations – which includes 10 nations. There are trilateral groupings, quadrilateral groupings and more. "These are all additive and complementary to each other," the official said.

https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/3175237/us-seeks-to-build-network-of-like-minded-nations-in-indo-pacific/

https://2009-2017.state.gov/s/l/treaty/collectivedefense/

PARTIES: United States, Albania, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom
PARTIES: United States , Australia, New Zealand
PARTIES: United States, Philippines
PARTIES: United States , Australia, France, New Zealand, Philippines, Thailand, and the United Kingdom
PARTIES: United States, Japan
PARTIES: United States, Korea
PARTIES: United States, Argentina, Bahamas, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Trinidad & Tobago, Uruguay, Venezuela

That is a lot of countries that would be getting nuclear weapons if the US suddenly had decided to have no military. And ignores informal agreements like those with Saudia Arabia, Israel, Jordan, Taiwan and many others.

And I haven't even considered the interests of US citizens in Hawaii and Puerto Rico (and Alaska).

You are insane.

JM

[Jon Miller]

Nukes for everyone. That sounds like a perfect idea.

JM

[PLATO]

Nukes for everyone. That sounds like a perfect idea.

JM

It would get rid of those pesky Ukrainian Nazis though.

[Berzerker]

Currently 9 countries have nuclear weapons: the United States, Russia, France, China, the United Kingdom, Pakistan, India, Israel, and North Korea. China, Russia and North Korea can't be counted as US allies.

There are over 29 countries in NATO. There are additional countries in the North Atlantic region that depend on the US for security.

There are also the counties in Asia, Oceania and the Middle East that depend on the US for security.


That is a lot of countries that would be getting nuclear weapons if the US suddenly had decided to have no military. And ignores informal agreements like those with Saudia Arabia, Israel, Jordan, Taiwan and many others.

And I haven't even considered the interests of US citizens in Hawaii and Puerto Rico (and Alaska).

You are insane.

JM

Nato and the cold war were a Wall St/Washington scam to fleece the treasury and control resources, slaying dragons abroad is profitable. Those countries 'depended' on our security because of that cold war, but the ones with nukes dont depend on us. Nobody's gonna invade them other than refugees from all the wars caused by countries with nukes. Kind of ironic, we destroy a defenseless Middle East and Europe is flooded by our victims while Venezuelans are crossing our border because of the sanctions we have on their country.

So who's gonna invade the North Atlantic? The people of Hawaii got attacked because of their proximity to our navy. Military bases are targets, remove the bases and Hawaiians are no longer a target. The USA will not go to war with Russia or China over Lithuania or Taiwan, but we will use them as proxies. There are nukes in other countries, I'd say they're a proven deterrent to invasion. The "need" for nukes was created by bullies with large armies picking on weaker countries, the cold war and US foreign policy in general has driven nuclear proliferation.

[Geronimo]

So obviously we need to give Ukraine nukes for peace.

[Geronimo]

Berz, deficit spending is 44% of government spending. Military expenses (subtracting veterans benefits which is really just more government entitlement spending) is less than 12% of government spending. Apparently politicians have no need of any military spending at all to have a practically bottomless well of government expenditures to cement their power. It is absurd to imagine that increasing military expenses are the primary driver of foreign policy. Especially obvious when you consider that under all of the presidents military spending for the last 20+ years has continually trended downward as both a percentage of the budget and as a percentage of the US economy. If all these politicians are addicted to military spending why did they all keep letting it steadily drop?

[Berzerker]

So obviously we need to give Ukraine nukes for peace.

But that would end the war... we want the war. We get to kill Russians for a small % of the budget as Wall St and Washington get richer laundering money thru Ukraine. Thats why the 2 parties rejected an IG to oversee the $$$ trail, same reason Shokin was fired. Pouring money into corrupt countries is by design.

[Berzerker]

Berz, deficit spending is 44% of government spending. Military expenses (subtracting veterans benefits which is really just more government entitlement spending) is less than 12% of government spending. Apparently politicians have no need of any military spending at all to have a practically bottomless well of government expenditures to cement their power. It is absurd to imagine that increasing military expenses are the primary driver of foreign policy. Especially obvious when you consider that under all of the presidents military spending for the last 20+ years has continually trended downward as both a percentage of the budget and as a percentage of the US economy. If all these politicians are addicted to military spending why did they all keep letting it steadily drop?

"On March 9, 2023, the Biden-Harris Administration submitted to Congress a proposed Fiscal Year (FY) 2024 Budget request of $842 billion for the Department of Defense (DoD), an increase of $26 billion over FY 2023 levels and $100 billion more than FY 2022."

https://www.defense.gov/News/Release...an%20FY%202022.

That doesn't include all the black budgets but thats $100 billion in 2 years up from $742 billion (assuming Congress doesn't add to it lol, they will). Thats quite an increase, but haven't we sent about that much thru the Ukraine laundry machine? Not sure where they're accounting for the war in that budget, sure aint coming out of established bureaucracies/projects. What did Biden propose in '22 and did Congress increase that budget? I didn't say anything was the prime driver, people have different motives. Some want US hegemony, others profit from war. Military spending is one way to their goals, but that means we have to kill people.

[N35t0r]

But that would end the war... we want the war. We get to kill Russians for a small % of the budget as Wall St and Washington get richer laundering money thru Ukraine. Thats why the 2 parties rejected an IG to oversee the $$$ trail, same reason Shokin was fired. Pouring money into corrupt countries is by design.

It's probability being friends with France and Britain, those evil empires which clearly caused WWII when they declared war on Nazi Germany. At least most of France had the sense to sue for peace and stop the war, but those dastardly Brits refused to sue for peace because they wanted the war to continue.

[N35t0r]

Yeah, that's what you say.

I'm not surprised that you would have happily left all the population in continental Europe under Nazi rule to save them the horrors of war.

[Geronimo]

Nazis did not declare war on the Donbas. The "Nazis" in the Donbas were born and raised there. The Donbas "leaders" like Igor Girkin However, were born and raised in Moscow

[Berzerker]

I'm not the one who wants to arm Nazis... but I'm sure they're fine people

Azov gets recruits from all over, even the USA. People in the Donbas rejected the right wing coup and Nazis attacked them. If they ever get to vote again on the matter you wont find many people choosing Azov. I dont know where you're getting the idea the people there supported Kiev and Azov in 2014 following the coup.

[N35t0r]

Berz would see two older kids kicking a younger kid on the ground and refuse to stop them because it would mean more violence.

[Berzerker]

You'd be arming them with steel toes