There were several good decisions. This is one of them.

That's a great decision for anyone who is looking to attack us in the future. But if we were ever attacked again, we would have to reinstate the draft and all those under 25 males would suddenly find themselves at risk of forced service.

That's more good decisions than Mark Rutte. So thanks.

Under 25 that registered ... LOL trollface

The army should be smaller if we're actually pulling out of two countries right now. If we aren't, leave it be. If we're going into Syria in a year, even if there's a remote chance, then keep our troops ready to mobilize. If not, reduce. Simple enough.

Defaulting to China in order to maintain an oversized military would also serve our enemies. Draugr.

I thought the amazing part of gun laws was that the US can never really be taken? Why would you need to reinstate all those under 25? And on a completely different note, aren't we beyond the point of only conscripting males? Does equality go out of the window if war arrives?

I think the US army would definitely remain more than capable enough. They could also become a bit more elite on average in the sense that they get to be more picky when recruiting.

We should be like Britain. Screw the army. Everything into Navy and the rest to the Air Force. Besides, if any full scale war happens, nuclear weapons will join in

Rum, sodomy and the lash

"That's a great decision for anyone who is looking to attack us in the future."

Do you mean an actual invasion of the US soil? Or do you also count stuff like not caving in to every strongarming done by the US? Because it will certainly hurt the latter.

@Steephie - Only males under 25 have to register for selective service.

@All - I'm not saying don't cut back. I'm saying pre-WWII levels are too low. The real expense of our military is in the tech anyhow, most of which is overkill. Stealth ships? Nee fighter designs that are "multi-role", expensive, and don't do their roles very well. Cut these programs. If you need to replace an old F-14 Tomcat, build another. The classics of the 70s and 80s could get new ones built with tech upgrades cheaper than designing inferior planes. Same with tanks and APCs and ships and helicopters.

Hahaha brilliant Putin! I love you and +1ed that post.

"Besides, if any full scale war happens, nuclear weapons will join in."

Not necessarily. It wasn't true in Korea or Vietnam.

"That's more good decisions than Mark Rutte. So thanks."

Mark Rutte doesn't really make decisions for the country since we are, well, a democracy, so it's not weird that he didn't make any good decisions for the country if he didn't make any decisions for the country.
We all decide here. You might want to give democracy a shot some day too :)

(The bias is on purpose. Don't take me too serious right now :P)

Interesting, Draugnar... So you'd want the army to get (relatively) outdated rather than smaller?

Assuming the US would win any war anyway, the main goal should be to reduce US casualties in such a potential war, right? Isn't superior tech the best way to reduce those casualties, as opposed to sending more men?
I might be wrong there.

cutting military spending is a terrible idea, you libtards.

Let me expand on that - military spending is a great source of public sector jobs, tech funding and patriotism. I don't see anything wrong with that.

"Not necessarily. It wasn't true in Korea or Vietnam."

Full-scale war means a war where the US soil is actually threatened. Which didn't happen in those wars by a long shot.

Of course, there's always this problem http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XyJh3qKjSMk

"if we're actually pulling out of two countries right now. If we aren't, leave it be. If we're going into Syria in a year, even if there's a remote chance,..."

It's like he almost gets it, but is in denial. IF IF IF IF IF.....yes, the **entire** construct of the military is built upon the concept of **IF**

IF the fucking Ukraine situation blows up into a war, and our allies in Europe get caught up in a fucking fire fight
IF the unrest down in South America...even Mexico...blow up in to some shit...
IF the Chinese decide to take a more aggresive stance regarding our allies
IF Iran decides it doesn't want to *just* park a ship off our shores, but decides to fling a few explosives...

Yeah, in the Age of American Decline, lots of people are riling shit up, and since we have Allies all over the world (those are people that you have signed agreements with - wherein if THEY get attacked, it is deemed an attack on YOU...and therefore you are obligated to fight back...) our decline actually makes it more likely we will find the need for conflict, not less.

The purpose of the largest, bad-ass-est military is so that you do NOT have to use it, because the (legitimate) threat of the use of force acts as a deterrent.

Now all the bleeding hearts will cry foul, blah blah blah...but they inherently recognize the Presidents, Athletes, Move Stars, etc all have *body guards* as a threat of force which diminishes the need for force....but somehow think the same principle doesn't apply elsewhere. (Because they're in a constant state of Libtard LIBNIAL...)

Steephie - Newer doesn't mean better. Case in point is the new multi-role fighters. They do it all but not very well. Focus on tech upgrades, not replacements.

"patriotism. I don't see anything wrong with that."

Gotta disagree with that part.

The tech funding and public sector jobs can also be gained by systematically helping 3rd world countries with the funds cut from military spending for example, which probably saves more lives. Also, if you would cut on all the not so optimal funds, getting a job wouldn't be such a neccessity in the US, meaning that problem would be solved too...
No? I am simplifying of course, but is that general thought so wrong?

And as far as registering for selective service in the US. If you have a drivers license and are of the registration age, you are registered. I'm at the BMV right now and the sign is posted on the wall that they automatically send your info to Selective Service.

Steephie - Don't try making us a socialist country. Keep that shit out of our borders. K?

@Draugnar: then we agree, but I misunderstood you. I thought you were talking about tech upgrades.
And with completely new concepts you're happy just to copy idea's as they arise? How do you assure that you're not the last to get your hands on the Terminators?

So what do you think about the tech funding when it comes to looking for potential game changers?

Also, what happens to all those soldiers suddenly dumped on the job market. Think we have high unemployment now...

@Style "Let me expand on that - military spending is a great source of public sector jobs, tech funding and patriotism. I don't see anything wrong with that."

That is also true of public works, NASA, and building pyramids. For that matter, giving people welfare also puts money into the economy. People making $400 per month on welfare tend to spend every cent every month thereby supporting jobs at mcdonalds and walmart.

But spending for its own sake in order to preserve jobs only goes so far as a justification.

There are other places where the advancements would happen in. The loader exoskeleton, for instance, posted here a couple of days ago. Or go ahead and replace an aging fighter with a new one, but target a purpose, not this jack of all trades and master of none bullshit.

@Draugnar: my point was that just tech funding and public sector jobs is a bad argument for the military IMO, because there are much better alternatives to creating those. If you invest any funds cut from the military directly into tech funding and public sector jobs for example, there definitely won't be a loss in tech funding and public sector jobs...

I used helping 3rd world countries as an example which is basically a proof that investing less in military means there has to be a lack of jobs; enough to do around the world, many people would be happy to supply to the demand of jobs if they got the chance.

I'm not suggesting it in a socialist way, I'm suggesting it as a more efficient and rewarding way than funding digging a huge hole in the desert and filling it up again for example, to create jobs.

that investing in military *doesn't* mean there has to be a lack of jobs

exoskeleton projects are boondoggles