How big of a military does America need?!

2012-10-10 14:25:53

#76

Uzique The Lesser: Banned; +382|4267

Jay wrote:
venom6 wrote:
Use that money to pay that HUGE debt what you have. No need to have an army.
Out of curiosity, what did your country do when it had a genocide taking place along its southern border 15 years ago?

please. let's not get into this 'america is the moral superpower so we need a giant army' thing.

you installed dictators in southern america that committed ethnic cleansing of their own. you've supported many 'genocidists'.

you pick and choose. it's a folly to get down into that rabbithole. europe could care less if you have a giant military.

2012-10-10 14:27:40

#77

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5371|London, England

aynrandroolz wrote:
Jay wrote:
venom6 wrote:
Use that money to pay that HUGE debt what you have. No need to have an army.
Out of curiosity, what did your country do when it had a genocide taking place along its southern border 15 years ago?
please. let's not get into this 'america is the moral superpower so we need a giant army' thing.

you installed dictators in southern america that committed ethnic cleansing of their own. you've supported many 'genocidists'.

you pick and choose. it's a folly to get down into that rabbithole. europe could care less if you have a giant military.

I'm not advocating that we keep a large military, but it's undeniable that we have done some good with it.

Yes, the bad largely outweighs the good post-WWII.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2012-10-10 15:37:32

#78

Macbeth: Banned; +2,444|5598

Jay wrote:
venom6 wrote:
Use that money to pay that HUGE debt what you have. No need to have an army.
Out of curiosity, what did your country do when it had a genocide taking place along its southern border 15 years ago?

The fuck

Seriously?

2012-10-10 16:12:21

#79

Jaekus: I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose; +957|5191|Sydney

Jay wrote:
Here you go Ken, I put a nice vertical blue line on the year 2009.

The blue line you added should be across half a space; as you can see with the dotted lines and where the graph starts it's in the spaces, not the lines themselves. So the highest acceleration of spending started before Obama took office and whilst it has certainly been increasing a lot, it has been slowing reducing since 2009.

2012-10-10 16:22:51

#80

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5371|London, England

Jaekus wrote:
Jay wrote:
Here you go Ken, I put a nice vertical blue line on the year 2009.
The blue line you added should be across half a space; as you can see with the dotted lines and where the graph starts it's in the spaces, not the lines themselves. So the highest acceleration of spending started before Obama took office and whilst it has certainly been increasing a lot, it has been slowing reducing since 2009.

The origin is located at the intersection of the horizontal and vertical axises, your zero if you will. Since 1990 is the first datum, it is represented by the vertical axis and every hash mark after that along the x-axis represents one year. My line is correct.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2012-10-10 16:28:14

#81

Superior Mind: (not macbeth); +1,755|6705

To answer OP: at least 9 inches.

x

2012-10-10 17:49:14

#82

Jaekus: I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose; +957|5191|Sydney

Jay wrote:
Jaekus wrote:
Jay wrote:
Here you go Ken, I put a nice vertical blue line on the year 2009.
The blue line you added should be across half a space; as you can see with the dotted lines and where the graph starts it's in the spaces, not the lines themselves. So the highest acceleration of spending started before Obama took office and whilst it has certainly been increasing a lot, it has been slowing reducing since 2009.
The origin is located at the intersection of the horizontal and vertical axises, your zero if you will. Since 1990 is the first datum, it is represented by the vertical axis and every hash mark after that along the x-axis represents one year. My line is correct.

It's not. It should be to the right in between the hash mark. The rest of the graph is like this. Look where the graph begins and where the dotted lines intersect to mark the years.

2012-10-10 17:51:05

#83

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5371|London, England

Jaekus wrote:
Jay wrote:
Jaekus wrote:

The blue line you added should be across half a space; as you can see with the dotted lines and where the graph starts it's in the spaces, not the lines themselves. So the highest acceleration of spending started before Obama took office and whilst it has certainly been increasing a lot, it has been slowing reducing since 2009.
The origin is located at the intersection of the horizontal and vertical axises, your zero if you will. Since 1990 is the first datum, it is represented by the vertical axis and every hash mark after that along the x-axis represents one year. My line is correct.
It's not. It should be to the right in between the hash mark. The rest of the graph is like this. Look where the graph begins and where the dotted lines intersect to mark the years.

What a stupid fucking graph then. You're right, it's built wrong. Still doesn't really change anything though

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2012-10-10 17:56:19

#84

Jaekus: I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose; +957|5191|Sydney

Yeah agree the graph is poorly laid, especially considering the source.

2012-10-10 18:00:03

#85

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5371|London, England

Jaekus wrote:
Yeah agree the graph is poorly laid, especially considering the source.

Honestly, I counted the hash marks and double checked the positioning twice before I drew the line and posted it here. Knew that if I got it even marginally wrong people would give me shit for it. I didn't even notice the offset in the line Oh well

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2012-10-10 19:11:39

#86

-Sh1fty-: plundering yee booty; +510|5486|Ventura, California

Big enough to fight a war against two large nations at once. If there's every a conventional war against the US I would imagine it would involve several large countries. Maybe NK, Iran, etc. I'm going on a limb here.

And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.

2012-10-10 19:12:54

#87

Jaekus: I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose; +957|5191|Sydney

They're already fighting a few wars dude.

2012-10-10 19:15:29

#88

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|6729

-Sh1fty- wrote:
Big enough to fight a war against two large nations at once. If there's every a conventional war against the US I would imagine it would involve several large countries. Maybe NK, Iran, etc. I'm going on a limb here.

Afghanistan and Iraq is a large nation? wat.

https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png

2012-10-10 19:15:52

#89

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5371|London, England

-Sh1fty- wrote:
Big enough to fight a war against two large nations at once. If there's every a conventional war against the US I would imagine it would involve several large countries. Maybe NK, Iran, etc. I'm going on a limb here.

How would they get here?

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2012-10-10 19:18:08

#90

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|6729

Jay wrote:
-Sh1fty- wrote:
Big enough to fight a war against two large nations at once. If there's every a conventional war against the US I would imagine it would involve several large countries. Maybe NK, Iran, etc. I'm going on a limb here.
How would they get here?

you never saw red dawn? those pesky north koreans can have EMP's and paradrop in bum fuck colorado!

2012-10-10 19:38:13

#91

Pochsy: Artifice of Eternity; +702|5556|Toronto

-Sh1fty- wrote:
Big enough to fight a war against two large nations at once. If there's every a conventional war against the US I would imagine it would involve several large countries. Maybe NK, Iran, etc. I'm going on a limb here.

The notion that Bush's conception of an 'axis of evil' is even possible is laughable. Why would Iran, Iraq, or North Korea (the three he mentions to form such an axis) ever combine forces even if they could? Iran and Iraq fought a very costly war between each other and pretty much still hate each other, and North Korea is communist to the core and wouldn't want anything to do with theocracies.

Edit- oh, the point of this was to state that the US doesn't need as large a military as it seems to think, as the perceived threats are not really combining into one super threat. Sure, 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' plays a role, but I don't think anybody in the ME or NK is going to risk allying with enemies and jeopardize their home support even if they could.

Last edited by Pochsy (2012-10-10 19:43:10)

The shape of an eye in front of the ocean, digging for stones and throwing them against its window pane. Take it down dreamer, take it down deep. - Other Families

2012-10-10 20:59:43

#92

-Sh1fty-: plundering yee booty; +510|5486|Ventura, California

I said maybe and I mentioned a few. I didn't necessarily mean those two would be the ones. Nobody knows who it will be next countries to attack us or whatever. My point was just that this nation should be able to stand against more than one enemy. Iraq was defeated in no-time just like in the previous war and we should have pulled out a few months after getting Saddam, leave some guys there to train their military, and avoid the clusterfuck of IEDs and sniping that followed for the next 6 years. Not sure about Afghanistan. Thing is you can't kill all the terrorists, you have to set a fucking limit that won't last a decade. Both of those wars should have been done by 2006 at least. I'm no general and I don't know what I'm talking about but I wish they didn't last so long.

And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.

2012-10-10 21:02:58

#93

-Whiteroom-: Pineapplewhat; +572|6671|BC, Canada

Sigh

2012-10-10 21:06:02

#94

Macbeth: Banned; +2,444|5598

-Sh1fty- wrote:
I said maybe and I mentioned a few. I didn't necessarily mean those two would be the ones. Nobody knows who it will be next countries to attack us or whatever. My point was just that this nation should be able to stand against more than one enemy. Iraq was defeated in no-time just like in the previous war and we should have pulled out a few months after getting Saddam, leave some guys there to train their military, and avoid the clusterfuck of IEDs and sniping that followed for the next 6 years. Not sure about Afghanistan. Thing is you can't kill all the terrorists, you have to set a fucking limit that won't last a decade. Both of those wars should have been done by 2006 at least. I'm no general and I don't know what I'm talking about but I wish they didn't last so long.

highlighted relevant information.

2012-10-10 21:13:11

#95

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5371|London, England

-Sh1fty- wrote:
I said maybe and I mentioned a few. I didn't necessarily mean those two would be the ones. Nobody knows who it will be next countries to attack us or whatever. My point was just that this nation should be able to stand against more than one enemy. Iraq was defeated in no-time just like in the previous war and we should have pulled out a few months after getting Saddam, leave some guys there to train their military, and avoid the clusterfuck of IEDs and sniping that followed for the next 6 years. Not sure about Afghanistan. Thing is you can't kill all the terrorists, you have to set a fucking limit that won't last a decade. Both of those wars should have been done by 2006 at least. I'm no general and I don't know what I'm talking about but I wish they didn't last so long.

Right now we spend more than the 26 nations behind us in defense spending... combined.

Again, who is going to invade us?

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2012-10-10 21:16:41

#96

-Whiteroom-: Pineapplewhat; +572|6671|BC, Canada

The 27 nations behind you. Spend more now!

2012-10-10 21:21:40

#97

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5371|London, England

Not #1 by % of GDP, but close enough

Rank Country Spending ($)[3]    % of GDP Per capita ($)
81 Eritrea    469,000,000d 20.9%d
7 Saudi Arabia 46,219,000,000 10.1% 1,558
40 Oman    4,047,000,000 9.7%
16 United Arab Emirates 16,062,000,000k 6.9% 2,653
17 Israel    15,209,000,000 6.5% 1,882
99 Chad    242,000,000 6.2%
61 Jordan    1,363,000,000 6.1%
35 Iraq    4,663,000,000 5.4%
82 [4] Georgia 824,023,170 5.1%
1 United States 689,591,000,000 4.7% 2,141
39 Kuwait 4,411,000,000 4.4% 1,289
42 Angola 3,774,000,000 4.2%
84 Armenia 404,000,000 4.2%
58 Lebanon 1,564,000,000 4.1%
53 Syria    2,236,000,000 4.0%
3 Russia 64,123,000,000 3.9% 428
67 Yemen 1,222,000,000b 3.9%b
29 Algeria 5,586,000,000 3.8%
118 Mauritania 115,000,000j 3.8%
137 Burundi 46,900,000b 3.8%
23 Singapore 8,302,000,000 3.7% 1,593
74 Bahrain 731,000,000 3.7% 911
90 Namibia 329,000,000 3.7%
142 Djibouti 36,900,000b 3.7%b
20 Colombia 10,290,000,000 3.6% 198
109 Kyrgyzstan 167,000,000j 3.6%
65 Sri Lanka 1,280,000,000 3.5%
48 Morocco 3,256,000,000 3.4%
56 Sudan 1,991,000,000c 3.4%c
60 Azerbaijan 1,421,000,000 3.4%
26 Chile    7,392,000,000 3.2%
91 Brunei 327,000,000 3.1% 866
120 Swaziland 102,000,000 3.1%
87 Botswana 352,000,000 3.0%
46 Ukraine 3,442,000,000 2.9%
101 Turkmenistan 233,000,000e 2.9%e
33 Pakistan 5,160,000,000 2.8% 28
138 Lesotho 45,600,000j 2.8%j
8 India 44,282,000,000 2.7% 30
12 South Korea 28,280,000,000 2.7% 493
5 United Kingdom 57,875,000,000 2.6% 893
52 Vietnam 2,410,000,000 2.5%
15 Turkey 18,687,000,000 2.4% 244
140 Sierra Leone 42,900,000b 2.4%
4 France 58,244,000,000 2.3% 879
24 Greece 7,502,000,000 2.3% 1,230
72 Serbia 920,000,000 2.3%
89 Estonia 336,000,000 2.3%
— World total 1,546,529,200,000 2.2%
121 Guinea 99,900,000f 2.2%f
130 Tajikistan 55,400,000f 2.2%f
2 People's Republic of China 129,272,000,000 2.1% 74

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co … penditures

Last edited by Jay (2012-10-10 21:23:27)

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2012-10-10 21:27:01

#98

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5371|London, England

By comparison, our neighbors:

1 United States 689,591,000,000 4.7%
13 Canada 23,082,000,000 1.5%
34 Mexico 4,859,000,000 0.5%

Considering we have oceans separating us from everyone else...

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2012-10-10 21:58:59

#99

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6165|what

Cuban missile crisis.

2012-10-10 23:47:25

#100

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|6729

Jay wrote:
By comparison, our neighbors:

1 United States 689,591,000,000 4.7%
13 Canada 23,082,000,000 1.5%
34 Mexico 4,859,000,000 0.5%

Considering we have oceans separating us from everyone else...

Well I think Canada and Mexico are betting the US won't invade them anytime soon, and no one's going to invade them why have such a big military.

Shifty: you're looking at treating terrorism as a military matter - which you shouldn't, when treating it as a police matter - which you should, is a much more effective solution.

You should really read up the history of dealing with terrorism in SE Asia, it'll shed some light on the strategies and methods involved.

BF2S Forums How big of a military does America need?!

Jay wrote:

venom6 wrote:

aynrandroolz wrote:

Jay wrote:

venom6 wrote:

Jay wrote:

venom6 wrote:

Jay wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

Jay wrote:

Jay wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

Jay wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

Jay wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

-Sh1fty- wrote:

-Sh1fty- wrote:

Jay wrote:

-Sh1fty- wrote:

-Sh1fty- wrote:

-Sh1fty- wrote:

-Sh1fty- wrote:

Jay wrote:

Board footer