Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

The US government has the resources necessary to fight any fight they want to.


sort by: page size:

Foreign attacks on the US are the jurisdiction of the trillion dollar military.

The US militia is the most well-equipped in the world, when measured in dollars.

The Department of Defense's budget is about Six Hundred and Fifty Billion Dollars. It appears too high for peace time. We have friendly relations with both neighboring states. We have huge natural defenses (oceans) to the east and west. We have the nuclear deterrent. We have a well armed population.

We don't need 355 deployable navy vessels. Improving education and health care of our citizens would do more to improve America's economic position than jostling for terrority in the Indian Ocean. Climate change is a bigger treat than terrorism.


The US Military is a logistics organization that happens to fight wars.

The tax-collecting power of the US federal government, backed by the world's largest military.

We have the US for that military thing.

And America has "just" the biggest invested army world wide. I guess you need more than money to win the fight sometimes.

Don't forget oil. The U.S. military isn't cheap.

The USA has nukes and employs military contractors.

I can think of 2 reasons:

1) For posturing. One reason others might not want to fight the US is the presence of a large and very well equipped force that apparently trains for just such an eventuality.

2) The military-industrial complex is how the US economy stays ahead and yet pretends to be capitalist and free-market. If you pump domestic technology companies with trillions of dollars of tax money in the name of defence, they might just produce something valuable (say like the internet).


I believe this is where I point out that the USA is not the only developed country in the world worth fighting for.

Not to mention our military.

I think the USA Military branch of the government does a very good job managing their resources.

Why would it be different in other branch?


The US has the strongest deterrence in the history of the world, and it's constantly at war.

In every major historical engagement the US has fought it went in woefully under-equipped, under-manned, and out-gunned. It prevailed because it can tool up quickly and out-produce.

You can't tell me that if the entire US fleet was sunk, every tank blown up, that the US couldn't rebuild in a year or two if the public was all-in on support.

Instead the US has this enormous force that, by virtue of merely existing, it feels compelled to use now and then.


The US military is a logistics organization that occasionally happens to project power.

A lot of our capabilities is simply being present (overseas bases) and being able to move to a theater of war (logistics).

We are unlikely to ever fight a meaningful war with either Canada or Mexico, at least there are no signs of that ever being a possibility in my lifetime. Our adversaries are pretty much all overseas, and I’m pretty sure the Coast Guard could single-handedly defend against the threat posed by a possible Cuban invasion.

So we have to spend on logistics and overseas bases and support infrastructure for those bases, in addition to our nuclear arsenal, satellites, the War against rust, communications technology, aircraft carriers, aircraft, submarines and artillery and all manner of other things which are intended to keep us in the lead in terms of capabilities, effectiveness and deadliness.


So what you’re saying is it’s backed by the US military.

The US spends $1 trillion on defense each year. A large component of that money is fuelling the military industrial complex, basically suppoort for the domestic industry. And it isn't just limited to the "classical" military companies. Look up how the CIA helped Oracle.
next

Legal | privacy