New Force Posture

• 

  ossel Customizer last edited by
  
  

  @sgtwiltan:

  @Jermofoot:

  I think this is a good thing.

  We spend way too much on the military, and I find it unnecessary.  We need to lean on diplomacy and international, unified approaches to issues/crises more and breaking out the guns less.  Economic measures can be effective weapons as well.

  I’m a bit sad some people want to take the A-10 away, though.

  That’s what happened in WW2.
  If the allies had used force to keep Germany from growing there might have never been a WW2.
  “Peace in our time” didn’t work then and the US wasn’t even a player in those discussions since we felt that the Europe’s problems were not ours. And that doesn’t even take into account what was happening in China. We punished the Japanese by withholding metal scrap shipments.

  I sometimes get tired of people comparing WWII geopolitical affairs to current geopolitical affairs (or even Cold War geopolitical affairs for that matter).

  We exist in a completely different world than our parents and grandparents, a world of nuclear weapons and the memories of two world wars. We can’t go around saying that diplomatic efforts are a complete waste of time, because the alternative now is literally annihilation. The only wars that major (read: nuclear) powers can afford to get involved in now are local conflicts against non-aligned, non-nuclear powers.

  Coupled with the fact that the globalized economy gives us greater leverage than ever to hurt other nations economically, this is why massive military spending will (and should) go by the wayside.

  Opponents to this view should reference the fact that before both world wars, American military spending was borderline pathetic; the U.S. has always had the ability to quickly spin up and increase military readiness in the event of a larger conflict. Peace time military spending is a waste of resources.

  Reply Quote 0

  1 Reply Last reply

  ---

• 

  sgtwiltan Customizer last edited by
  
  

  You’re correct about the current world we live in. I went to war to help our economic trading partners whose economies affected our own. Kuwait’s occupation did not directly affect us and despite the peaceful embargo threats, Saddam continued to assert his claim of rightful conquest. It was also our military stance after the ceasefire that prevented Saddam’s expansion and the embargoes embittered the Iraqis against us when we finally decided to dethrone him. History does not only consist of WW2 as an example. the same thing has been happening for millenia. Tibet and Kosovo are polar opposites of bellicose decisions. Rome fell from internal dissension and civil war when those energies could have been better spent keeping the borders secure in offensive actions. The problems we face now have always plagued empires. We just happen to be lucky enough to be somewhat isolated an our economic empire is falling apart due to our society’s inability to adapt to the fact that the world is changing.
  We have to protect that empire and a soft and weak military will cause that economic empire to be taken advantage of. You can use post war Germany and Japan as examples of weak military and economic growth but remember that their economies were heavily subsidized by our military might protecting their trade from others who would take it from them. I’ll just mention the Ukraine for a contemporary example and you can research the history, both economically and politically and come to your own conclusion.

  Reply Quote 0

  1 Reply Last reply

  ---