The military budget needs to be greatly reduced.
Agreed. Depending on what you mean by greatly. Cole suggested trimming over 50% of the budget I don't agree with that.
Of course it can be reduced. It can and NEEDS to be reduced.
Depends on what the definition of 'greatly' is. I could see a couple hundred billion. But no greater than 50% with our current technology. If we can develop something better, cheaper, and equally or more effective, then we'll talk.
Yeas but we have to smart about it. Often when congress makes cuts to defense, it affects the soldiers and their families much more than the military as an entity. I have first hand experience with this. My ex and I almost lost our home because of it
As rebel said the other day: "Cut it until it can actually be called defense spending."
Yeah, the only reason why I don't call it offense spending is because I doubt that most people would understand what I'm saying.
by a considerable amount; very much.
"I admire him greatly"
synonyms: very much, considerably, substantially, appreciably, significantly, markedly, sizably, seriously, materially, profoundly;
Copy and paste faily. But I think that's the def he's thinking of.
Lol. You know what I meant. Greatly is way too vague for me to say yes
Ugh. Auto-correct is not my friend today.
I didn't have a certain amount in mind. If you think that the budget should be reduced by a lot, say yes.
We could half our military budget and still have twice the budget that China (the #2 spender) has.
That doesn't necessarily mean we'd have a better military, just a more expensive one. Should we cut? There are areas we can? To what you're thinking? No, at least not in a few years
Bear in mind, China buys cheaper, crappier equipment and armament than we do, generally speaking.
I'm well aware, that doesn't mean their generals are on oar with their equipment. Or their strategy and tactics. Remember it's china they are huge have plenty of resources and unlike us not inky can afford to lose many men in a war, are willing to.
Well, I don't foresee the US needing to go to war with anybody in the near future, so we shouldn't be spending hundreds of billions on new stuff anyway.
Si vis pacem, para bellum
Actually, if you want peace, just don't piss anybody off.
And then be naive while they work behind your back. You need a balance between strength and diplomacy
If we still have the biggest budget in the world by a lot, I doubt that we would be considered weak by anyone.
Just because you spend more doesn't necessarily mean we are better. A debacle in Afghanistan. A debacle once Saddam fell in Iraq. Forgive me, but that isn't strength
If we have more than double the 2nd country's budget and we still don't have the strongest military in the world, that means that we need to increase the efficiency of our military, not the budget.
I agree, but halving the budget isn't the answer
Halving the defense budget would nearly eliminate our deficit. We are nearing a time of peace, and our military doesn't need $700B to function in a time of peace.
Rowe need to cut? Yes. Would having the budget do anything but hurt the military? At this point, also yes. If you want a military that can actually fight, we need long term reform, and cutting the budget is but a start. And halving it WILL hurt the military severely
And I'm sorry, but if you want peace you must prepare for war, you can't just isolate and pretend the world is ignoring you. Some cuts? Fine. Anywhere near 50% especially anytime soon? No. That's going to severely hurt the military, and right at the time we need to adjust to the future of warfare, you want to irresponsibly cut half the budget
If you read through my comments, you'll notice that I never said that I think that we should half the military budget. Extensive cuts need to be made, but the government shouldn't be halved anytime soon.
Sorry I must've looked at pinkys comment then. How much were you thinking though?
I'd have to do more research into how funds are allocated, but we need to get rid of all of our bases in places that are nowhere near combat zones like Germany, South Korea, etc. Then, we need to reduce the extent of things like the NSA,
the drone program, etc.
@Matt, I'm not suggesting that cutting it that drastically is a great idea. I'm saying that I think a 50% cut is about the most we could manage without suffering immediate and drastic negative consequences.
Ah ok. I think the number would be less, but now I see what you were meaning pinky